The issue its omission: it speaks of “truth” without specifying its source. Once truth is framed as “as one sees it,” it is no longer something objective and binding, but something internal and variable.
At that point, the statement quietly shifts from protecting conscience to legitimising relativism-while still trying to retain a universal moral claim (“no one has a right to coerce others”).
That tension is unresolved. Either truth is objective and can adjudicate between views, or it is subjective and cannot ground any universal principle at all.
Comments
Deepak Gupta
sábado, 18 de abril de 2026 at 12:15This maxim sits on a dangerous precipice.
The issue its omission: it speaks of “truth” without specifying its source. Once truth is framed as “as one sees it,” it is no longer something objective and binding, but something internal and variable.
At that point, the statement quietly shifts from protecting conscience to legitimising relativism-while still trying to retain a universal moral claim (“no one has a right to coerce others”).
That tension is unresolved. Either truth is objective and can adjudicate between views, or it is subjective and cannot ground any universal principle at all.