When did the importance of facts or evidence give way to a consensus formed by communities that frequently echo shared beliefs or emotions? Is this shift why we see verifiable truth being overshadowed by imagination? Are we in a time when truth-seeking is being sidelined by groupthink?
Back in the 1980s, when everyday people were asked for their opinions on various topics—from the beginning of life to military strategies—I couldn’t help but think, “This isn’t going to end well.”
What happens to society if personal beliefs are regarded as more important than established truths? It raises some serious questions, doesn’t it?
Over the last four decades or so, subjective notions have been mistakenly treated as facts, gaining more credibility than what can actually be verified. It’s as if human emotions are dictating truth, which they absolutely should not.
Sure, everyone has their opinions; that’s part of being human. In America, we still enjoy the right to express our views. That said, the situation seems to be changing. Fictional ideas and unfounded claims are increasingly accepted as truths, often because they are echoed by large, vocal groups.
This cultural shift has led to a kind of delusion where definitions can be manipulated to defend beliefs, and what is deemed true or false is often dictated by political identities.
This tendency to shape our own realities makes meaningful debate almost impossible. What’s seen as right becomes muddled by a consensus formed around feelings instead of credible evidence.
We see this distortion of truth glaringly in the discussions around gender identity and the definitions of human life.
Progressive thinkers frequently amplify subjectivity, personal identity, and opinion over established facts. Left-leaning groups seem so invested in redefining the world that moral and political discussions have devolved into a barrage of accusations and the glorification of outlandish beliefs.
One thing lacking from this relativistic approach is a sound understanding of logic.
From a logical standpoint, labeling something “my truth” suggests that what one believes is merely personal and not universally recognized as absolute. This fallacy becomes particularly contentious regarding issues like the sanctity of life in the womb, gender identity, and the accountability of individuals when an “oppressed” woman commits a crime.
We can certainly see where this leads—promoting personal opinions over established moral, biological, historical, legal, and philosophical facts.
Such a dynamic is especially evident in the pro-life and pro-choice debate. One side aligns with an overwhelming majority of biologists who assert that human life begins at fertilization. Yet some continue to argue that a woman’s choice outweighs established scientific truth.
The real danger is that if moral relativism gains further ground, the notions of right and wrong could dissolve, giving way to the dominance of opinion. And opinions, as we know, can change, potentially rendering lives at any stage justifiable targets.
What occurs in a society where personal belief takes precedence over established truths?
Recently, we’ve observed those entrenched in moral relativism, so convinced their opinions are correct, that they celebrate the exposure of what they deem as evil, sometimes even justifying violent actions.
This societal relativism has reached alarming levels, endangering innocent people who become targets of those reacting to widely accepted sentiments.
Imagine a conservative figure facing public condemnation or even violence, where some align with the belief that his views justify such actions. These are the same individuals who pride themselves on being champions of kindness?
In contemporary discussions, we’ve seen a devoted family man like Charlie Kirk criticized, while a woman who ended the lives of her children finds support from activists who have rationalized their view that children are expendable.
Political divides let these individuals vilify Kirk’s grieving widow solely because she shares her husband’s conservative values.
Some have gone so far as to demand harsh punishment for Patrick Clancy based on personal sentiments and fabricated narratives concocted in a swirl of dangerous emotions.
This delusional reality — particularly in political dialogues — has escalated to a point where it seems the insane are trusted to label others as such.
If taken to its extreme, this collective mindset can result in mob rule, which some might misleadingly call “democracy.” In such a scenario, there exists a threat of innocent people being sacrificed simply because the collective deems them deserving.
Today, evidence-based truth is often dismissed simply on the basis of its source. Yet, the objective truth remains untarnished regardless of belief; our perception cannot redefine reality.
As Flannery O’Connor wisely noted, “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally.” This classic observation rings true even today, underscoring the ongoing tension between self-deception and moral reality.
