Facts are exclusive; recently I entered a
conversation of a persuasive nature. The back and forth was going splendidly
when an imperfection in the argumentation surfaced. The opposition claimed Hitler as a Christian.
I brought apposing evidenced that Hitler talked about Christianity because of
the countries heritage, but later and privately an abundance of proof makes
obvious his atheistic allegiance. Clearly a fact can only have one solution, the
outcome of the debate rested on the evidence. So what is the significance of
exclusive solutions? Exclusivisity is critical to life.
Understanding
the components of an argument is the first step to identifying the major parts.
Every argument is made up of premises. For example 2+3=5 in an argument would
be; 2 is a premise and 3 is a premise using logic it equals 5 which is the
solution. A premise is any sort of evidence, when you string together premises
with logic you reach a conclusion. Does
the conclusion of 5 change if instead of a three, there is a four? The answer
is of course yes. The premises cannot be
relative, because it changes the solution. The same applies to nonchalant
terminology or beguiling facts. Essentially definitions must be set in place
and stood by.
Are
laws and morals relative then? From the evidence above it is clear that to hold
an argument relative terms cannot be used. Singularity is an aspect of a
balanced conveyed point. A prevailing philosophy which many people have bought
into is the idea that actions are relative to society which is moral relativism.
Recently a CNN TV show host made the
claim that laws do not come from God which essentially revokes their absoluteness.
Maybe this seems irrelevant to a daily life. Would your life be different if
you didn't understand 2+3=5? Absolutely and that is just a simple math fact.
When your epistemology is missing the mark at the foundation it leads down a dark
road void of morality. The technical
term is a slippery slope which means once accepting one truth the next must be accepted
and so on. If laws do not come from God, then there is no absolute law giver,
if there is no absolute law giver, then there are no absolute laws, if there is
no absolute laws, then there is no reason to not shoot anyone who annoys me, and
there is no reason to kill people who are under my authority and pose a threat
to me. That is how mass genocide is justified. Therefore two million people
died under Pol Pot's reign. Obviously a horrid event.
Assessing
a quality argument laid the ground work for analyzing personal views on
absolutes. Consider this, taking an uncompromisable position may seem rash, but
it is the only position worth taking. If
you are not willing to die for a belief it is not a belief worth having.
