Relativism: What Difference Does it Make?
There are only two kinds of people in the world. There are the Relativists. And there are the Absolutists. The differing philosophical foundations in each group are important to consider, because what one believes has consequences, for good or ill.
Relativists believe everything is true. That is to say, truth is in the eye of the beholder. Moral relativism plays nicely into ideas about moral diversity. For example, sodomy is not right or wrong, it’s only a matter of taste or preference or orientation, so everyone should be tolerant, accepting, supportive. The central theme of moral relativists is all belief systems are equally valid.
So if all belief systems are equally valid, it follows that all systems have equal standing, that there is no basis for calling one system inferior or another, superior. This is how we derive our ideas about fairness, diversity, inclusivity and tolerance. This kind of thinking gives rise to interesting conclusions. Some relativists insist all religion is bad, equally, while others contend all religions are equally good. At the heart of the analysis: notions of fairness. It is determined unfair judging one system of thought superior to another. Such judgment is often called bigoted, and from there, it is a short hop to charges of racism at every intersection.
Therefore the cardinal sin in Relativism is making judgments between right and wrong, good and bad. These distinctions simply do not exist in the mind of the Relativist. It is therefore understandable the Relativist rejects belief in God (the ultimate Absolute). God is either non-existent, or irrelevant to the Relativist. God, being an Absolutist, doesn’t conform to the higher intellect, the politically correct, world peace, ‘Love your Mother’ mentality, and so, God is an illusion, or simply a judgmental control freak. Of course, man playing god resulted in 150 million murders by dictators last century, but, let’s not quibble over details.
Relativists tend to be their own gods, assuming a customized moral code of their own making, allowing for everything, and accepting most everything, arguing all rests in and derives from culture, custom, genetics and evolution. Murder is wrong of course, but not because God says so. Murder is wrong because it’s unfair, to both the victim and the perpetrator. A murderer must be understood, even pitied, seen as a victim of bad parenting or an abusive culture.
Consequently it is no violation of basic logic to argue Michael Brown was a gentle giant who never provoked anyone, and the officer who shot him was motivated by racism and simply wanted to kill a black man that day. Both are victims of institutionalized racism. But when the mob demands the head of the officer, the Relativist has a logic problem. How does one ignore Brown’s behavior, calling him good, and misrepresent the officer’s behavior, calling him bad?
Those are moral judgments, correct?
The problem for the relativist does not end there.
Recently, Hillary Clinton told shrinking crowds we must treat our enemies with respect and empathize with them. She says enlightened, smart power, demands we walk a mile in their sandals, even as they torture children, behead people, and slaughter civilians by the hundreds of thousands. The refusal to make moral judgments forces twisted thinking, allowing for horrendous outcomes, like Benghazi, and in places like Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran.
The Relativist will tell you illegal aliens (law breakers) are not criminals, standing by condemning border agents, while infected masses, terrorists and weapons float across the southern border, and as citizens are assaulted, robbed and killed. We are told by one prominent politician named Jeb Bush that these migrations are acts of love, that extending amnesty is rational, even required as an act of love.
The Relativist will tell you the Fort Hood shooter was not a terrorist, he was a freedom fighter as much victimized by workplace violence as the soldiers he killed, a Palestinian provoked by the crimes of the Jews and the Americans. The woman beheaded in Oklahoma by a jihadist was also a victim of workplace violence, not murdered by an ISIS-inspired domestic terrorist, according to Holder and Obama, two criminals in charge of law enforcement.
A false rape story carried by Rolling Stone is not bad journalism, rather, it was misplaced trust in a source by the reporter and the editor.
The Relativist insists Hamas is a charitable organization, abortion is healthcare, welfare is salvation, centralized power is democracy, the police are the enemy, Islam is a religion of peace, and Obama deserves the Nobel Prize and applause simply because he is black and his heart is in the Left place.
The ultimate trouble with Relativism is two-fold: facts leading to truth are ignored because, there is no Truth, so facts and truth are negotiable; and, Relativism always leads to mayhem because it encourages insanity, especially when accompanied by drug use, a plague on this land since the 50s.
One need only consider the ravings of the Sons of Stalin (Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers) to get the point, horrified by the realization their thinking dominates the Left and the Obama administration: America is the great Satan, Americans deserved to die on 9/11, classrooms should be experiments in revolution, a communist revolution is required, followed by the eradication of 25 million conservative Americans.
When it suits them, Relativists can be very specific, and judgmental, absolutely.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.