Truth is Relative

2 + 2 = 1 (modulo 3). There are just a finite number of rational numbers if you are considering a finite field. Two parallel lines: 1) never meet; 2) always meet; 3) don't exist depending on what geometry you are considering. At one time, each of these mathematical statements was considered to be absolutely untrue and even to be absurd until a more advanced (more general) mathematical structure was discovered (or invented, depending on your beliefs). So, even if there was total agreement that some statement were absolutely true, might that just be a temporary consensus awaiting discovery of a larger but more tenuous truth?Would the statement "There are no absolute statements, except for this one." solve the conundrum of the self-contradictory statements discussed in previous posts? Or, is this issue just a distraction from the intent of the OP?Some logicians attempt to bypass the problems of the self-referential statement but still create the innately contradictory situation through use of set theory: Define "S" to be the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as an element. Does S contain itself as an element? I actually don't see the difference or that anything has been achieved in this way.

What we seem to see in actual practice is a distinction between "local" and "global" morality. The god of the bible commands: "Thou shalt not kill", but goes on to direct the Israelites to kill Canaanites, and dozens of other cultures. Apparently, what god really meant (it is obvious from the bible and our literalist friends that he is not too adroit with words) that the Israelites should not kill members of their own group. Almost all cultures seem to interpret their moral codes in this way. Psychological studies have found that most people will react with stronger emotional involvement to the death of one person in their community than to the death of thousands of people in distant lands. 'Charity begins at home' appears to be just a corollary of 'morality begins (and often ends) at home'.