THE HUMANIST HERITAGE
One has heard the refrain before. One grows up hearing it, if not having also uttered it. I remember my high school teacher arguing its merits and its veracity. I heard my friends and classmates mindlessly making the same point, as though they had just invented it: “ What may be right for one person may be wrong for another.” Welcome to the humanistic world of moral relativism, what might be one of the most socially destructive ideas ever to exist if people at some point didn’t grow up.
Now, what was being said — was this simply a factual statement, or a resignation to the idea that there can never, ever be a universal code of morality? Or, that there should not even be such a thing? I would prefer to believe it to be just a factual statement, something of the order like “We are all going to die”, rather than as an ideological statement. But I actually do believe that it is said as either a justification, excuse or lie for all the awful things we do. And even if the things we do are awful — well, they’re not awful to everyone.
Actually, the Humanist doctrine on morality that I learned defined morality as culturally dictated; it would be universal only within a particular society, but not across societies. That’s why the Aztecs were perfectly happy cutting the hearts out of young men, and why Cortez was just as happy wiping them out for doing it. Ok, the gold had something to do with it, also. But maybe I’m missing something here. Oh yes, we are to respect the cultural mores and norms of other societies. We call that cultural diversity. It’s all part of how no culture is superior to another and all are equal. So Cortez should not have wiped out the Aztecs out of respect for their ways, and no one should reproach Cortez for having wiped them out out of respect for his ways. Anyway, we all understand that these people lived in another epoch where wiping each other out was perfectly acceptable and politically correct, a Golden Age of sorts of non-humanist thinking. And who cares, anyway, what the Aztecs thought was right or wrong? But I’m getting ahead of myself.
So we are not to drop bombs on dictators who drop bombs on their own people, because that’s the way they do things over there. We are not to try to democratize societies that oppress their women, because their women really don’t mind it that much, and besides, they’re used to it; we are not to condemn countries that execute their criminals… well, maybe only rich, powerful countries, where everybody agrees these criminals certainly would deserve it if only there wasn’t the feeling that execution was somehow immoral. Anyway, you get the idea. We’re not supposed to do anything to upset the apple cart of other societies — the status quo, what!
And who says this? Well, you would have read the humanist holy book directly inspired by the humanist god… Humanoid. Actually, I made that up. It was a bunch of people who got together over lunch one day who came up with these ideas. People no better than you or me, I might add. I say that because I think, “Who are they to tell me what I should and should not do.” And this is where we come to the slippery slope. But, of course someone would come up with the idea that if morality is relative to societies, then why should it not be relative to individuals, also? So, we come back to the mantra I first heard in high school, “ What may be right for one person may be wrong for another.” And that takes us to Cortez, or for that matter, George W. Bush. How can one reproach anyone for anything if morality is simply a private matter, and we are all supposed to respect this? You see, morality isn’t simply about reproaching people we don’t like, no matter how therapeutic that may be in helping us to feel that we’re better than them. It’s about the rules of the game. It’s evident that if each one of us is playing by his own rules, there really can’t be a game. So we have war, instead.
The Humanists believe that they are in the best position to decide whose rules we should play by. I find this somewhat arrogant, but then again, they might find some claim purportedly by an ancient tribal god written in a book to be a bit much a stretch of the imagination, also. Still, there is an inherent flaw in their thinking, something they like to call a paradox. This is something along the lines of, “ Every statement made about a statement is excluded from whatever the statement is saying about whatever is being said about something or other…” You get the idea. So the statement, “There are no absolutes” seems to state an absolute, so must be excluded from itself. The rule stating that, “all rules are relative” is excluded, then, from that rule. That makes it absolute; or, maybe just untrue. Anyway, humanist hold these to be self-evident truths, which gives them the perfect right to tell us all what to do. Gee, I like these people!
So, merrily slipping down the slope we would have some six billion people now, potentially all thinking that no one has any right to tell them what is right or wrong. That multiplies the risk of conflict exponentially. Somehow, I prefer the old days when we had only a few religious people telling us what was right and wrong. That way, we could tranquilly fight our wars with the certainty that someone from out of the blue wasn’t going to go and attack us just because he decided that what we were doing was wrong for him. Now, that certainty is gone. Darn!
So the problem with all of this is that even if it were legitimate for us to decide for ourselves what was right and wrong, so what? Beating up your neighbor and stealing his car with a clear conscience doesn’t go far for making a livable society.
The Inevitability of Absolutism
But some countries have decided to remain backwards for the sake of maintaining a livable society, and resisting the idea that morality is relative. We’ve all seen their women on TV covered head to toe in black robes; we’ve seen their bearded men herding goats along rocky desert trails, their women following two steps behind; we’ve seen their many butts in their places of worship — which seem to be just about anywhere — where there are never any women in sight. There is nothing comparable in the Western world except, perhaps, a similar religious fervor in the United States, and then this is only partially true. Even there the prophets and priests of moral relativism and secular humanism have made deep inroads. It is pretty rare in European societies, where the battle has been largely won by the humanists. If those societies haven’t yet degenerated down the slippery slope into moral and social chaos, it is largely due to the accompanying development of thought police, where they’ll fine you or send you to jail — or worse, mock you on TV — should you say, or even think to say, things that are not politically correct. The humanists are an insecure lot, and don’t tolerate much deviation from what they hold true and dear. It’s reassuring in a way to see that they are not much different from most of the rest of us. However you look at it, moral relativism, even if it were true, is just not for human beings. One way or another, everyone knows deep down that morality has to be for everyone; that it is social in nature, not private; universal, not personal.
So humanists, knowing they had a serious credibility problem, and aware of the inconsistencies of their doctrine, came up with a very clever strategy: let the mob decide. This is why they are such passionate defenders of demonstrators….uh, democracy, believing that if people have the right to vote, then naturally they are going to vote with humanist values at heart. Humanists are a naïve bunch. Their enemy, of course, would be all these absolutist philosophies and deities and the religions created around them, and the billions upon billions of deluded people following them. These would have to be persuaded —usually by annoyingly pious and self-righteous sermons — to either tow the humanist line and bow down to Humanoid, or be made fun of on TV and forever suffer irritating, whiny humanist sermons. Hell would be preferable. Of course, the Absolutists, having no use for moral relativism, enjoy a huge advantage over the poor, besotted humanists. They can kill humanists or anybody who disagrees with them, and not lose any sleep over it. So the humanist bring out their second most formidable weapon, the one after whining: the paradox…again. “The only absolute is that there is no absolute.” With this mighty doctrine all these absolutist religions and philosophies are, thus, banished to the outer darkness. The moral of this tale: absolutism is unavoidable.
Neo-Humanism: The New Universal Religion
So, for the good of mankind, what must be done? We have seen that all religious and moral systems are inevitably absolutist in nature. We see that they compete with each other, which is a source of strife and conflict. We understand that in order to have one world at peace, it is necessary that all agree on the ground rules. And it would be preferable not to have to fight wars over this. The humanists call this consensus. That is where only ten percent of whoever decides these things needs to agree for it to become absolute.
I would propose, then, that thoughtful people get together and make use of what has worked so well in the past: indoctrination, propaganda, intolerance, punishment, social pressure, deception, etc. to bring about a new absolutist paradigm, like in France. They need only invent some sort of universal religion with their self-evident truths like humanists have done — but without the moral relativism — and with idols this time to satisfy the spiritual longings of people; then lie to the masses and tell them it comes from extraordinarily intelligent, superior beings like politicians, actors, pop stars and talk show hosts who, because of their status, have the right to tell us what to believe. All mention of a mythical Supreme Being will be abolished because, as anyone who has been to college can tell you, no educated person could believe in such a thing. The doctrine of moral relativism, even if true, would have to be sacrificed, also, on the altar of this new absolutism in the interest of social order and harmony. The masses must be made to understand that this is for their own good and they have no choice; it has all been scientifically proven; they must accept, or else be made fun of on TV.
The advantage of this system is that it would be able to change with the times, morality being absolute and universal at any given moment in time, but not for all time. And it will be those demonstrators and extremists that are the most vocal, loudest, and annoying who, through a democratic, conglomerate-owned, media-driven process, will determine what is right and wrong for all of us.
One has heard the refrain before. One grows up hearing it, if not having also uttered it. I remember my high school teacher arguing its merits and its veracity. I heard my friends and classmates mindlessly making the same point, as though they had just invented it: “ What may be right for one person may be wrong for another.” Welcome to the humanistic world of moral relativism, what might be one of the most socially destructive ideas ever to exist if people at some point didn’t grow up.
Now, what was being said — was this simply a factual statement, or a resignation to the idea that there can never, ever be a universal code of morality? Or, that there should not even be such a thing? I would prefer to believe it to be just a factual statement, something of the order like “We are all going to die”, rather than as an ideological statement. But I actually do believe that it is said as either a justification, excuse or lie for all the awful things we do. And even if the things we do are awful — well, they’re not awful to everyone.
Actually, the Humanist doctrine on morality that I learned defined morality as culturally dictated; it would be universal only within a particular society, but not across societies. That’s why the Aztecs were perfectly happy cutting the hearts out of young men, and why Cortez was just as happy wiping them out for doing it. Ok, the gold had something to do with it, also. But maybe I’m missing something here. Oh yes, we are to respect the cultural mores and norms of other societies. We call that cultural diversity. It’s all part of how no culture is superior to another and all are equal. So Cortez should not have wiped out the Aztecs out of respect for their ways, and no one should reproach Cortez for having wiped them out out of respect for his ways. Anyway, we all understand that these people lived in another epoch where wiping each other out was perfectly acceptable and politically correct, a Golden Age of sorts of non-humanist thinking. And who cares, anyway, what the Aztecs thought was right or wrong? But I’m getting ahead of myself.
So we are not to drop bombs on dictators who drop bombs on their own people, because that’s the way they do things over there. We are not to try to democratize societies that oppress their women, because their women really don’t mind it that much, and besides, they’re used to it; we are not to condemn countries that execute their criminals… well, maybe only rich, powerful countries, where everybody agrees these criminals certainly would deserve it if only there wasn’t the feeling that execution was somehow immoral. Anyway, you get the idea. We’re not supposed to do anything to upset the apple cart of other societies — the status quo, what!
And who says this? Well, you would have read the humanist holy book directly inspired by the humanist god… Humanoid. Actually, I made that up. It was a bunch of people who got together over lunch one day who came up with these ideas. People no better than you or me, I might add. I say that because I think, “Who are they to tell me what I should and should not do.” And this is where we come to the slippery slope. But, of course someone would come up with the idea that if morality is relative to societies, then why should it not be relative to individuals, also? So, we come back to the mantra I first heard in high school, “ What may be right for one person may be wrong for another.” And that takes us to Cortez, or for that matter, George W. Bush. How can one reproach anyone for anything if morality is simply a private matter, and we are all supposed to respect this? You see, morality isn’t simply about reproaching people we don’t like, no matter how therapeutic that may be in helping us to feel that we’re better than them. It’s about the rules of the game. It’s evident that if each one of us is playing by his own rules, there really can’t be a game. So we have war, instead.
The Humanists believe that they are in the best position to decide whose rules we should play by. I find this somewhat arrogant, but then again, they might find some claim purportedly by an ancient tribal god written in a book to be a bit much a stretch of the imagination, also. Still, there is an inherent flaw in their thinking, something they like to call a paradox. This is something along the lines of, “ Every statement made about a statement is excluded from whatever the statement is saying about whatever is being said about something or other…” You get the idea. So the statement, “There are no absolutes” seems to state an absolute, so must be excluded from itself. The rule stating that, “all rules are relative” is excluded, then, from that rule. That makes it absolute; or, maybe just untrue. Anyway, humanist hold these to be self-evident truths, which gives them the perfect right to tell us all what to do. Gee, I like these people!
So, merrily slipping down the slope we would have some six billion people now, potentially all thinking that no one has any right to tell them what is right or wrong. That multiplies the risk of conflict exponentially. Somehow, I prefer the old days when we had only a few religious people telling us what was right and wrong. That way, we could tranquilly fight our wars with the certainty that someone from out of the blue wasn’t going to go and attack us just because he decided that what we were doing was wrong for him. Now, that certainty is gone. Darn!
So the problem with all of this is that even if it were legitimate for us to decide for ourselves what was right and wrong, so what? Beating up your neighbor and stealing his car with a clear conscience doesn’t go far for making a livable society.
The Inevitability of Absolutism
But some countries have decided to remain backwards for the sake of maintaining a livable society, and resisting the idea that morality is relative. We’ve all seen their women on TV covered head to toe in black robes; we’ve seen their bearded men herding goats along rocky desert trails, their women following two steps behind; we’ve seen their many butts in their places of worship — which seem to be just about anywhere — where there are never any women in sight. There is nothing comparable in the Western world except, perhaps, a similar religious fervor in the United States, and then this is only partially true. Even there the prophets and priests of moral relativism and secular humanism have made deep inroads. It is pretty rare in European societies, where the battle has been largely won by the humanists. If those societies haven’t yet degenerated down the slippery slope into moral and social chaos, it is largely due to the accompanying development of thought police, where they’ll fine you or send you to jail — or worse, mock you on TV — should you say, or even think to say, things that are not politically correct. The humanists are an insecure lot, and don’t tolerate much deviation from what they hold true and dear. It’s reassuring in a way to see that they are not much different from most of the rest of us. However you look at it, moral relativism, even if it were true, is just not for human beings. One way or another, everyone knows deep down that morality has to be for everyone; that it is social in nature, not private; universal, not personal.
So humanists, knowing they had a serious credibility problem, and aware of the inconsistencies of their doctrine, came up with a very clever strategy: let the mob decide. This is why they are such passionate defenders of demonstrators….uh, democracy, believing that if people have the right to vote, then naturally they are going to vote with humanist values at heart. Humanists are a naïve bunch. Their enemy, of course, would be all these absolutist philosophies and deities and the religions created around them, and the billions upon billions of deluded people following them. These would have to be persuaded —usually by annoyingly pious and self-righteous sermons — to either tow the humanist line and bow down to Humanoid, or be made fun of on TV and forever suffer irritating, whiny humanist sermons. Hell would be preferable. Of course, the Absolutists, having no use for moral relativism, enjoy a huge advantage over the poor, besotted humanists. They can kill humanists or anybody who disagrees with them, and not lose any sleep over it. So the humanist bring out their second most formidable weapon, the one after whining: the paradox…again. “The only absolute is that there is no absolute.” With this mighty doctrine all these absolutist religions and philosophies are, thus, banished to the outer darkness. The moral of this tale: absolutism is unavoidable.
Neo-Humanism: The New Universal Religion
So, for the good of mankind, what must be done? We have seen that all religious and moral systems are inevitably absolutist in nature. We see that they compete with each other, which is a source of strife and conflict. We understand that in order to have one world at peace, it is necessary that all agree on the ground rules. And it would be preferable not to have to fight wars over this. The humanists call this consensus. That is where only ten percent of whoever decides these things needs to agree for it to become absolute.
I would propose, then, that thoughtful people get together and make use of what has worked so well in the past: indoctrination, propaganda, intolerance, punishment, social pressure, deception, etc. to bring about a new absolutist paradigm, like in France. They need only invent some sort of universal religion with their self-evident truths like humanists have done — but without the moral relativism — and with idols this time to satisfy the spiritual longings of people; then lie to the masses and tell them it comes from extraordinarily intelligent, superior beings like politicians, actors, pop stars and talk show hosts who, because of their status, have the right to tell us what to believe. All mention of a mythical Supreme Being will be abolished because, as anyone who has been to college can tell you, no educated person could believe in such a thing. The doctrine of moral relativism, even if true, would have to be sacrificed, also, on the altar of this new absolutism in the interest of social order and harmony. The masses must be made to understand that this is for their own good and they have no choice; it has all been scientifically proven; they must accept, or else be made fun of on TV.
The advantage of this system is that it would be able to change with the times, morality being absolute and universal at any given moment in time, but not for all time. And it will be those demonstrators and extremists that are the most vocal, loudest, and annoying who, through a democratic, conglomerate-owned, media-driven process, will determine what is right and wrong for all of us.
posted by A Voice in the Wilderness at 2:02 PM
2 Comments:
The "humanistic doctrine on morality I learned" you "learned" or were taught wrongly...."Moral relativism" has nothing to do with "humanism"; you conflate two entirely different things.
To alvarodecampos,
Read the original Humanist Manifesto as well as its updated versions. While "moral relativism" is not explicitly formulated, there is much there to suggest that this doctrine is certainly complementary to this philosophical position or can be derived from it. Read for yourself article 3 in question taken from the Humanist Manifesto II.
THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest....etc.
Yes, it was "situational ethics" that I had learned in school, but there is no way this can exist as a concept without implying moral relativism, also, since it would be situations that make morality relative. As a youngster, I had merely inferred moral relativism quite naturally from situational ethics. They do go hand in hand.
Post a Comment
<< Home