Truth: An Absolute or Just Relative?

I know I am deviating at the moment from the debate of equality/diversity and inequality.... but in almost any philosophical debate the question of truth arises.

Truth is definied as:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. 1. Reality; actuality.
   2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

For centuries truth was seen to be the underpinning of philosophy. Truth was an automtic assumption... It was only with the writings of Kant, Nietzsche, and Marx, among others that this belief has been challenged. Can we automatically assume that truth exists? Is there such a thing as abosulute truth?

If truth is relative does that mean that the debate over equality/diversity is reduced to the political and social arena? Or does it even matter? Do we need some idea of truth as the basis for everything else?

Say there is no such thing as truth. Truth is just a construct and it is all relative. Then what I believe to be true someone else may believe is false. Take the statement "There is inequality in the world today." Is that statement true or false? Depends on whether or not truth is an absolute or is relative. If it's relative then the validity of that statement depends on politics, society, even time. We assume that equality is the ideal but that inequality is unavoidable. Without some absolute standard the reverse could also be true.

Take the statement, "There is no such thing as truth." If you assume that a statement is either true or false then there are two conclusions. 1. It is true and there is no such thing as truth (which would actually make it an absolute truth) or 2. It is false and truth exists. Believers in absolute truth use theis example as a proof that truth is absolute. But... it is possible that this is the only absolute truth. Is there anything else that we can unequivocally say is true? Everything we believe to be true is based on our value system and our beliefs. Try and think of something that is absolutely true. Yes there are things we take for granted but that does not necessarily make them true. Most people that argue for the absoluteness of truth use it as a proof that God exists. But there is no way to prove the existence of God. God is about beliefs, faith, and a religious doctrine... and not about truth. But you likewise cannot disprove the existence of God with that logic.

If you strip away truth and determine that it is in fact relative then you are left with an undeniable fact. That morality is also relative. It is dependant on our own world view and our culture. Equality is a human construct and as such, it is up to the society to determine which is more important, the rights of the society or the rights of the individual.

Going back to the idea of truth, Nietzsche believed that truth was in the eye of the beholder. He argued that society has certain "values" which it calls truth. It is also how we establish the norm and establish right and wrong. "There is an old illusion, it's called good and evil."

Nietzsche is most famous for saying that "God is dead" comment that has sparked religious debates and outrage. But here is the actual quote:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"

Nietzsche's point was that in the hearts of modern (wo)men God is dead, having been killed by rationalism and science. Prior to his death, however, he defined cultural beliefs and our system of morality. If God is dead and we accept his death then our standards of morality go with it.

With moral relativism what is considered moral can change and there is no absolute standard of right/wrong. Take murder for example. We assume that it is an absolute and cannot fathom that it could ever be considered acceptable. Now we make exceptions to this rule: Self-Defense, Insanity, War, Martyrdom, Accidental deaths, etc. But even if you ignore that murder has been considered acceptable in certain cultures. At one point Eskimoes engaged in infanticide and would kill off elders since they were no longer able to contribute but were still consuming resources. Who are we to judge these societies?

Now back to the question of equality and diversity. If there is no absolute truth and no moral standard then how can I possibly judge something to be equal or even inequal? That's all assuming, of course, that truth is not absolute and therefore, neither is morality. If there are absolutes and this is what we are governed by then the notion of equality is fair and desirable.

Since the debate between absoulte truth and relativism is a heated debate and the topic of much discussion I am going to leave it alone and focus on the debate as to whether or not we should be aiming for equality.