A note on moderation and the Law...

Before continuing the threads here a note on moderation!

On one extreme of truth is the Universalist, who believes in universal truths which apply in all times and places. Our job is to identify these unquestionable universal truths.

One might naively counter the idea of universal laws by suggesting that there are no universal laws, that we are each free to interpret the world as we like, and to live as we like. This might be the Particularist. There job would be to break with laws and demonstrate the individuality and freedom of things.

A note on Law. Law is the notion that there are principles which are obeyed. In Natural Laws we see the regular motion of objects which seem to obey fixed rules which have been investigated in depth in science. In Social Laws there are the customs which we obey usually quite naturally and the legal rules that sometimes require administering by authorities. In all cases that idea that there are fixed patterns to life is that of Law.

A moderate path between the Universality and Particularist is the Relativist. They might state that all truth is only relevant in its context and so there are no context independent truths with universal relevance. Their job then is to understand the relationship between contexts and the beliefs relevant to those contexts.

The relativist walks on shakey soil however because if they adopt such a stance as a Law then they are becoming Universalist, suggesting that All Truth Must be viewed in terms of its context.

Obviously one might ask what context makes such a relativistic attitude relevant?

I don't wish to determine a Law here restricting people to Universal, Particularist or Relativistic attitudes. Only to warn that I do not intend to eliminate any of them with future arguments.