True For You, But Not For Me?
“Sure, you think that’s true, but some people disagree. Who are you to judge?”
That view comes up often in discussions about religion and morality. It’s quite popular. The notion is that there are no overarching truths or morals that applies for all across cultures. Truth is relative to cultures or individuals, and all points of view are true.
Therefore, the conventional wisdom goes, one ought not judge other religions, lifestyles, or cultures as wrong or misguided. Doing so would make about as much sense as me judging your choice of one ice cream over another. It is okay if “my truth” gives me some personal benefit, but I shouldn’t be so naive to think that it applies to others. Tolerance is the buzz word of the day.
Chances are that either you’ve heard this many times before or you yourself think this way.
Is this point of view a good way of looking at religion, morality, and politics?
First, notice that it’s unlivable. If someone walked up to you and claimed to sincerely believe rape is ok, you wouldn’t reflect on that belief tolerantly–to paraphrase philosopher William Lane Craig, you would quickly usher them to the nearest mental health professional. It doesn’t matter which culture our rape fan comes from, he is simply mistaken.
Let’s conduct a little thought experiment. Say you are at work after hours, and you over hear an African-American female co-worker converse with a white male co-worker. As you spy in, the female looks hurt. Suddenly, the male co-worker shouts various racial slurs and calls her a derogatory part of the female anatomy. Has the male done anything wrong? Not just wrong “for you,” but wrong, end of story. If the male and female were both from, say, an Arabic or Asian culture, would that change things?
You know the answers: yes on the first and no on the latter. Labeling a woman with parts of her sexual anatomy, on top of calling her racial slurs, are wrong. Period.
Moreover, the notion expressed is contradictory. It commits logical suicide. It’s like saying, “I’m a vegetarian, pass the meat.” Really, the person is saying that it’s wrong to critique others’ views, but merely by uttering that, she critiques others. Out of one side of her mouth, she says that there are no truths that applies to others, but out of the other side of her mouth she gives a truth that is supposed to apply to others: that it’s wrong to critique others and that one should be tolerant.
She thinks this doesn’t only apply to her. Talk to her more, and you’ll find out she thinks you should agree with her. Here’s a conversation that demonstrates this (that I borrow from Greg Koukl):
“Morality is relative. People have different moral beliefs, so you shouldn’t judge them.”
“Is that your belief?”
“Yup.”
“Then that’s your belief, so believe it, but it’s not true for me, so I can ignore it I guess.”
Do you see the problem? For the person who adopts the sentiment I’ve been examining, as soon as she opens her mouth and says something like “should” or “ought,” she has defeated herself.
Or take this example:
“there are no universal truths.”
“Is that true for you, or just true period?”
She’s on the horns of a dilemma. If she answers that it’s true just for her, then she can be ignored–it’s just her personal take. But if it’s true period, then she has again contradicted herself. The fact of the matter is that some things are really true, some things are really false, and it’s ok. It is ok to critique points of view and lifestyles. In fact, it’s unaviodable.
Related posts: