MORAL RELATIVISM AND THE DEATH OF CULTURE AND COUNTRY

Moral relativism (MR) has silenced talk of any objective principles of justice, truth, or the good and the bad. Paul Eidelberg, American-Israeli political scientist and president of The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, has written that MR is a nation-killer:

·       …according to International Law, terrorist organizations are supposed to be punished, not rewarded!  But as everyone has learned from the half-educated graduates of academia, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” It’s all a matter of taste, like art and pornography.  One must be “open-minded.”

According to Eidelberg, there are no longer objective standards, just tastes and personal preferences. Consequently, our standards of excellence and even of justice are merely social conventions created to be discarded once our tastes change:

·       Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education (Free Press, 1991), a study of “multiculturalism” on university campuses, provides case studies...Multicultural relativism, he sees, entails a dilemma to any multi-ethnic democracy. The question is: Whose standards are to be used for designing college curriculums? According to one modest academic, “There is no knowledge, no standard, no choice that is objective.”

What then should govern the choices of the university and the nation? Simply what happens to conform to the fashions of the day. The conclusions of science, reason, and wisdom are therefore discarded or simply neglected in favor of the fashions and pressures of political correctness:

·       Relativism cannot but undermine the established beliefs of the community.  This doctrine permeated England’s “intelligentsia” in the 1930s.  Leftwing intellectuals advocated appeasement of Nazi Germany. England would have surrendered in 1940 were it not for Churchill and America. 

And why not surrender. One government or religion is just as good as another. One American was complaining at the sight of hundreds of Muslims who were blocking traffic with their prayers on their fold-out rugs. However, the local Parisians felt it necessary to explain, “There is nothing the matter with what they are doing. That’s their religion.”

But honor killing, female circumcision, the rape of infidels, and the imposition of Sharia law is also part of their religion. However, that’s all protected by the dogma of multicultural and religious pluralism which claim that other religions and cultures cannot be judged because there is no objective standard by which to judge them. So who can judge! Doesn’t the Jihadist have a right to practice their religion also?

Of course, this is madness. Their religion and their practices preclude the religion of the West and its values of democracy, justice, and the protection of the innocent. If values are merely relative, then there are no values better than others and none worth preserving. However, talking reasonably about such subjects is also precluded and silenced by charges of “racism,” “hate speech,” or “Islamophobia.”

Who’s to decide if everything is relative? Only those who are willing to use brute force, threat, intimidation, and violence! Reason has no seat at the table in such a new age.