truth is not arbitrary

You stated that I '[go] against (sic) the what philosophers have commonly called truth. eg morality etc.' This is not only false but it actually further asserts that by assuming morality has a place within truth, you are absolutely confusing truth with moral relativism.Why Pro is a Moral Relativist and Doesn't Know ItI would like to correct you on this point; it is actually quite rare for philosophers to equate truth with morality. The only time this type of amalgamation is done is based upon believed religious truths stemming from external events and thus justified to confirm a belief in moral doctrine. Once again, you are mixing up moral relativism with truth. In order for you to better understand your own position, I will define moral relativism for you since you seem to keep making this common mistake.Moral Relativism is the view that moral truths depend on the individual or group who hold them. There are no moral absolutes, no objective ethical right and wrong. Morals are subjective, like ice cream preferences.http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... Truth is something that is not subjective, but rather, something that is arbitrary. The difference between the two is crucial. Subjective : Relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself Relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience Arbitrary: A matter under the direction and discretion of an arbiter: a person empowered to decide matters at issue. It is important to notice the difference between these two. While both refer to a decision produced by an individual, the former is personalized while the latter is publicized. Therefore, for example, whether or not abortion is wrong is subjective and varies from person to person. Whether the fetus is a living entity is a fact, because it falls within the parameters of what scientists in the field have dubbed as necessary characteristics for a living entity. If, for example, scientists were to change the classifications of what constitutes a living entity by stating that the entity in question must be self-sustaining in order to be considered alive, than the fetus would therefore become excluded, and the standard of truth changes. That does bit, however, mean that the subjective opinion of whether abortion is right or wrong has changed, however. They are two very separate things.No, Philosophers Don't Make Your Morality/Truth ErrorThe following are, for the sake of simplicity and and efficiency, boiled down to one sentence. While the theories are much more complex, all of these philosophers, in one way or another, still subscribed to a definition of truth which was separate from morality.Aristotle - In order to determine truth, he utilized and crafted a scientific method which is still used today.John Locke - The tabla rasa theory that we know nothing until we learn itBishop George Berkeley - If we cannot experience it with our senses, it does not exist.David Hume - There is no such thing as absolute certainty.Rene Descartes - Some things are universally true whether we ever encounter them or not. Immanuel Kant - Truth is governed by experience, which is governed by universal truths such as space, time, mathematics, etc.Bertrand Russell - Truth consists of that which is believed not to be false and is confirmed by external elements. ConclusionThe above are only a few of the major names in philosophy, but philosophers have not made your crucial error in mistaking moral relativism for truth. Because truths are based on external events, the paradigms in our current knowledge are necessary to experience those truths. Those paradigms are determined by arbiters who make advancements to the current knowledge, and thus alter the experience of truth.