Exactly. However one defines “universal” or “objective” truth, there are certain behaviors clearly producing a result that comes as close as we are able to “here and now” to encompassing it “for all practical purposes”.
What I then do is to shift the discussion to a context that revolves around, say, waterboarding. Is it “objectively” or “universally” moral or immoral to practice this technique when interrogating an enemy combatant? Given that drowning and killing him/her is one possible outcome if you go too far.
oh it’s a phenomenal ass. the two give-aways are; in every video she’s wearing skin tight britches. never something baggier. not even once. and two, she mounts the motorcycle cam behind her so we see her ass as she rides. her channel should be called ‘TWAAA’ (two wheels and an ass) instead of to wheels and a ponytail.
and how did a young girl in her late twenties get enough money to have a place like that, and what, five motorcycles? i dunno maybe i’m wrong. maybe she’s got some character and some work ethic and has actually earned those things. i’m just going with my gut feeling in the first impression. i wanna say daddy or husband or insurance settlement or inheritance and not a legitimate job. but hey, for all i know she might be a frickin orthodontist.
There is what we call “objective reality.” Reality and truth have been confounded for centuries. See Hegel on this matter. I know there are people here who think this does not matter. I know they think I’m just playing language games. I also know that there are a lot of people here who can’t think their way out of a paper bag, because they believe that technique is not required for philosophy.
You can have all the feeling in the world for music, but if you don’t know how to make a C major chord, please don’t pick up a guitar.
“Objective reality” is in most senses redundant. But it’s useful when we are describing reality “outside” ourselves. Of course, we are in any case inside each other’s reality. In the end, there is what we call reality. Except we differ on what exactly that is.
As I have stated, “truth” does not sensibly apply to oxygen, but only to statements.
I admit understanding objective truth [universal truth] in a social context is a lot harder objectively than measuring gravity or oxygen but I would also argue that it still is objectively possible. Certainly concerning social contexts there is much up to debate because not all human beings think alike, it is that differentiation of human thoughts or minds that makes articulating objective truth within the social context extremely difficult.
But there is still the part where you bring this down out of the technical clouds and take them out into the world in order to discuss them more substantively given a particular context.
In other words, how is the language actually used to describe a specific set of circumstances? How is it used to judge the descriptions of others? How is it determined which words make the most rational sense in regard to these descriptions and judgments?
Here the technical components can become more or less complex. And the gap between what we think the words mean and what others think they mean instead gets more or less convoluted given the extent to which the language needs to bridge the gap between the either/or and the is/ought world.
But eventually we will need an actual “situation” if we wish to address these conflicts more substantially.