Hilchos Epistemology: Perek Aleph

ej writes:

"I fail to see why morality is subjective while your epistemic rules for acceptance of beliefs are objective. There are many possible epistemic rules as well as many ideas as to what we are aiming for when we try to understand the world using a definite set of epistemic rules. In recent decades there have been attempts to define epistemic rules as instantiating certain virtues or as a subset of moral obligations. Your view that everyone ‘must’ obey your badatz conception of hilchot epistemology seems eccentric at least to me, and runs up against the values of tolerance and pluralism."

My gut reaction - what a load of pomo nonsense. But I respect ej so I will attempt an answer:

True or False are objective (in theory). Yes, there are different definitions of "truth", but beyond philosophical speculation the reality is that the one definition that everyone really really truly holds of is the correspondence to reality theory. Even the philosophers know this.

Deep down, we all know what true means.

And when it comes down to it, biases and indoctrination aside, we all know what it takes for something to be true. That's why no fundies EVER really justify themselves with pure faith. It's always pure faith for a GOOD REASON. That's also how Beis Din and Halachah work.

But when it comes to morality, there is no true/false. There's only subjective reasoning. Even the fundies agree to this, they just think they happen to have God's POV on the matter. But without God's opinion, it's back to subjectivity.

So, unless someone can show me a reliable approach to truth which doesn't involve evidence and reason, that's the halachah for now.