[myopius]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

(2)
But it can be demonstrated that at least 2 absolute truths exist.

a) You exist. The very fact that you are aware of your own existence is an absolute truth.

b) You can reason. The fact that you are capable of doubting your own existence, but come to a reasonable conclusion that you do exist ("I think therefore I am") is another absolute truth.

Without these two axioms, there can be no basis for logic to begin with.

What does it mean to be aware of your own existence? To experience perception? What is that? You assume that for experience to "occur" (I quote that since there's no word which exists which fully describes what I mean) then it (which you, by the way, fallaciously assume to be related to an experiencer, but that's another issue entirely) must exist, because to occur is to have a property and that which has properties must exist. However, you have not yet proven that that which has properties must exist. In other words, there is this phenomena which we call experience, which you have decided to use as the basis for your conclusion but which you have yet to fully justify. Also, you have yet to establish that contradictions cannot exist. I'm inclined to believe they can, because as one philosopher said, "Anything follows from a contradiction", which is more convenient for me since then I can renconcile that that which has properities must exist and that non-existence is a property (since it's describable).

More importantly, what is the difference between truth and absolute truth and relative truth? Is relative truth less true than truth which is less true than absolute truth? Is what's relatively true only part of the time actually true? But, what if all humans were to die--would that experience itself justify that a human (experiencer) exists still be true? However, in that case, it describes a hypothetical situation, not a concrete and immediately usable one. I confused myself, in any case.

On a more serious note, I don't understand why you should say that logic is justified by these two. Do you mean there's no purpose to it if there's no human to use it? Well, that's true. However, logic can exist just fine without humans. For instance, "Humans do not exist. That which reasons must exist. Therefore, humans cannot reason." (The word "justified" is beautiful and cool, but if you didn't mean by it "make true", then that is what confused me, because whenever I see it in a formal setting, I assume it means that.)

(3)
Since absolute truths do exist, it follows that Truth cannot be relative.

It then follows that there must exist an absolute, or rather, a universal set of morals that is true for all human beings, regardless of race, language or religion.

Aye, if morals exist, and in the way you assume them to. In other words, if I read your words correctly, you say that because truth isn't relative, the truth of morals must not be relative. However, morals are just ideas, so how do we conclude that they exist? Hmm, I bet this has been cause for a lot of confusion between people--the difference between ideas of morals and morals themselves.

By extension -- Light's actions, from the very beginning, cannot be considered moral.

We can easily rationalise why his actions, to create a world free of criminals, is justified. But at the same time, we cannot deny that our gut feelings tell us that what he is doing is wrong.

That "gut feeling" comes our perception of an absolute moral -- that it is simply wrong to deny someone else his most basic right to existence, whatever your reason for doing so.

Now, this perception has by no means been fully described by the best philosophers out there -- the jury is still out. But, from observation, because almost all civilisations espouse this belief, there is a very reasonable chance that "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral that is universal to all.

If killing were acceptable, what kind of civilizations would we have? And if evolution didn't provide us with the ability to socialize that it isn't, would the impact of that on social order have allowed us to dominate the planet as we have? Actually I haven't really thought about this until just now, but you can just consider that food for thought, if you want. Anyway, the real issue at hand is, what is human instinct's connection with an "absolute moral" (if I'm correct to assume that by that you mean a moral which is absolutely true--if you didn't mean it by that, then what is an absolute moral, can we relate it to absolute truth and if so how)?