This is the sort of statement a moral relativist must accept, which is to say that many so-called progressives (whose foundations are based in relativistic principles) are unable to reject such a claim insofar as they subscribe to the postmodern philosophy.
This unbelievably simplistic ideology that emerged from 1950s Marxism has permeated the humanities, literature and worst of all, the legal system - and has managed to indoctrinate a great deal of young people into believing that life is meaningless – a somewhat reasonable conclusion under this framework.
What’s certain is that the postmodern ‘ethic’ lays the groundwork for nihilism, going as far as to attack the very existence of objective reality - which brings to light its own incoherence and meaninglessness by virtue of its own critical framework.
One of the primary tenets of this vacuous school of thought is moral relativism. The premise of moral relativism is that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective or universal moral truths, but are instead claims relative to social, cultural or personal circumstances. Therefore, since there are many disagreements on what is moral and immoral, one cannot truly distinguish between good and bad practices.
This is a profound non-sequitur, as it does not follow that mere disagreement also implies that there are no truths to be known about a matter. With this reasoning, nobody can be objectively right or wrong, which somehow leads to the idea that we ought to tolerate the behaviour of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
At this point, it should already be clear that this whole paradigm has contradicted itself, in part because it uses the Marxist method of deconstruction through the tools of reason which it dismantles, rendering it illogical at a fundamental level. However, let’s entertain the implications as if this were not the case.
As one can imagine, moral relativism creates a few problems, as generally held beliefs are made entirely subjective instead of objective, rendering common, admirable principles devoid of meaning and therefore pointless. For example: rape and torture are wrong; genocide is evil; parents should look after their children – such statements must be rejected by moral relativists.
While this sounds dramatic, it is simply the logical conclusion of subscribing to this philosophy, while maintaining some semblance of consistency. In other words, moral relativism inherently means that one is no longer able to say that the behaviours and customs of other cultures are morally wrong (e.g. the Holocaust, genital mutilation, child marriages, covering up women, etc). According to this framework, since there is no basis in the nature of things to ever say that ‘A’ is ethically preferable to ‘B’, then one must inadvertently accept that Hitler did nothing wrong.
Understandably, this is not an easy position to hold, but the premise with which one arrives to such a conclusion is a pervasive idea nonetheless – one that is perhaps not immediately obvious. This method of thinking lends itself to discussions surrounding supposedly sensitive topics such as religious customs and traditions, whereby criticism of certain cultural practices is avoided by the all-too-familiar phrase “but it’s their culture” – with an implied (if not overt) appeal to tolerance.
The truth is that postmodernism is a sword without a handle, once you pick it up you’ve already cut off your own fingers
This arguably nonsensical claim is at least in part a testament to how widespread postmodern ‘ethics’ really is. Indeed, the very idea that one should pretend to be non-judgemental about other practices one disagrees with fits perfectly into the postmodern ‘ethic’.
As one should note, the truly strange and contradictory thing here is the appeal to a universal principle of tolerance, while simultaneously claiming that everything is relative. Indeed, how is it that one can make such a claim without realising the obvious contradiction? One cannot state that morality is ‘relative’, and then proceed to make value judgements without confessing one’s total departure from clear thinking.
It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to arrive to such a level of mind-numbing hypocrisy – one that is totally devoid of self-criticism yet so often filled with ignorant, self-righteous indignation.
In addition, this last virtue left to western society by progressives is one that requires other virtues in order to assess it, in that it can only be measured vis-a-vis humility, generosity, reciprocity etc... So, even from a progressive standpoint, this virtue has fallen into its own trap.
The truth is that postmodernism is a sword without a handle, once you pick it up you’ve already cut off your own fingers. However, such criticism is relatively inconsequential compared to the destructive significance that ‘anything goes’. So, if everything is relative, then the Islamic patriarchy can’t be called wrong. If everything is relative, rape culture is just a different kind of culture.
This brings one to the realisation that such a philosophy utterly fails to provide satisfactory reasons for a society to endeavour for moral progress, as it asserts that there are no criteria in nature to create a reasonable argument that ‘A’ is better than ‘B’. Consequently, such a vacuous view precludes criticism of not only other cultures, but supposedly also of one’s own – and in so doing makes any grounded ethical or value judgement null and void.
To further stress the significance of this framework, consider the 15th century Inca culture. Based in Cusco (now known as Peru) the Inca tribe practised rituals of child sacrifice, whereby children would be given intoxicating drinks or strangled up to the point of severe loss in consciousness, after which they would be left in extreme low-oxygen and freezing conditions on a mountain top to eventually die of hypothermia.
The rationale behind this sacrificial ritual was to ensure that only humanity’s best were sent to join the heavenly deities. A moral relativist would not be able to condemn such traditions, as merely acknowledging this inherently entails a value judgement which is not possible under such a framework.
In truth, one could reasonably say that moral relativism enables a twisted and warped way of thinking that inevitably leads to the phrase “but it’s their culture” – a false, hypocritical and slippery statement used by cowards who pretend to be non-judgemental about regressive practices like those committed in the name of Islam. And indeed, it follows that the postmodern philosophy that wields this gibberish is basically verbal diarrhoea that masquerades as profundity, but means nothing.
What is truly disconcerting is the idea that people in the west must arrogantly maintain this facade of being non-judgemental about practices they know to be wrong - and all for the sake of sticking to the principle of tolerance which does not even pass the most basic scrutiny when seen under a postmodernist lens. This leads one to posit that the problem goes much deeper, in that there exists a ‘force’ that diverts criticism away from immoral acts under the guise of tolerance – political correctness being the prime suspect. In the west, it would seem like tolerating the intolerant supersedes any rational criticism of that which one knows is bad.
Moral relativism does not stand up to scrutiny, as it makes even the simple act of disagreement an incoherent position, rendering the progressive viewpoint entirely meaningless. Therefore, that which may be intuitively clear can now be objectively asserted, which is to say that not every culture or philosophical position has an opinion worth considering when it comes to morality. Neuroscientist and philosopher, Sam Harris posits a theory of moral realism in his book The Moral Landscape, whereby he attempts to ground morality in human well-being by bridging the gap between facts and values.
If powerful, reasonable arguments from both the left and right ideological spectrum can align on something as fundamental as moral realism, which is to say that right and wrong answers exist, then it makes no sense to place one’s ‘faith’ in what is essentially an eternal abyss of nothingness.
Christopher Attard is a staunch advocate for free and open inquiry.