A classmate in my multicultural education class suggested that while in our eyes the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center seemed diabolical, another culture might justify it as moral, and we should be open-minded toward such a moral judgment.
Because of the postmodern world we live in, moral relativism is the popular philosophy in the education system today, and so-called intellectuals have been shoving it down our throats until we have begun to believe it.
But moral relativism is self-refuting and inconsistent. It is an absolute moral viewpoint in itself, presupposing it is the correct viewpoint of morality, and that those who disagree are wrong.
According to moral relativism, there are no transcendent moral rules or truths that are true everywhere for everyone at every time.
Moral relativism holds that there are many diverse cultures with differing opinions and moral standards, and we shouldn’t judge one as more morally correct than another. Since truth and values are relative — not absolute — so we should accept all beliefs as equally valid.
I disagree. I believe in objective morality.
The postmodern ideas of relativism may sound nice in principle, but in practice, they do not make much sense.
By the nature of moral relativism, either the moral relativist must accept my concept of truth to be equally as valid as another, or I am wrong.
If all moral claims are equally valid, it follows that my claim that objective morality exists is valid.
My view negates moral relativism, yet moral relativism by its nature must accept my view to be true.
This is impossible. Opposing moral absolutes cannot coexist.
Since the various moral standards of different cultures are equally good according to moral relativism, moral relativists have no reason to condemn the Nazis for the Holocaust.
When faced with that dilemma in a debate with Frank Turek, President of American Atheists David Silverman replied, “The hard answer is you’re correct. It is an opinion. They thought they were doing objective good.”
There are certain fundamental principles we intuitively know are right and wrong. For example, we don’t need to rationally argue whether or not pedophilia is wrong.
If you’re unsure about that, I’m stopping now to find you psychiatric help.
A personal preference or majority vote in society does not mandate whether or not a moral premise is good or evil, be it pedophilia or genocide.
Morality is what one ought or ought not to do — not what one prefers.
Consider if I asked a young woman, “is rape ever okay?” and she answered, “Well, I wouldn’t want someone to rape me, but I think people should decide for themselves.”
She did not answer the question, but rather avoided it by giving her personal preference, instead of answering whether or not rape is ever justifiable.
In the past, tolerance meant respecting people’s rights to their personal opinions.
Tolerance today, however, means we must accept everyone’s beliefs as equally valid. This is dangerous to our First Amendment rights.
Every viewpoint excludes some other viewpoints, including relativism, which claims to be all-inclusive.
The flaw with relativism is the assumption that there is such thing as neutral ground. The only way for relativists to be consistent in their philosophy is to remain silent concerning ethical or philosophical discourse, because the moment they utter a moral judgment, they fail.
People claim relativism to appear tolerant, but no one truly lives out relativism because not everyone agrees on everything, and everyone makes objective moral judgments.
If relativism were true, you’d have no grounds to impose your morality on your potentially abusive neighbors, because your morality is no more valid than theirs.
Don’t tell me I’m wrong if you’re a relativist, or you will simply prove my point.
That is, unless you add, “But don’t mind me — that’s just my personal opinion.”
Christine Guttery is a 20-year-old English junior from Baton Rouge, Louisiana.