True For You But Not For Me?

103 8
"All religions, cultures, and lifestyles are equally valid.
" If you've ever had a discussion on a moral issue or religion, chances are you've heard that phrase, or any one of its close cousins.
The popular sentiment these days is that in the areas of morality, religion, and sometimes politics, everything is relative; there is no one point of view--or truth--that's true for everyone.
There is no universal Truth (with a capital "T").
Rather, each culture or individual has its own "truth" (small "t"), and all religions, cultures, and morals are equally valid.
The popular sentiment continues: one shouldn't say other religions or morals are in error, just as it would be odd for me to say your choice of broccoli over beans is wrong.
Sure, "my truth" can help me live a better life, but I shouldn't push it on others.
I should be tolerant of others' beliefs.
Like I've already said, this is a very common way to think.
Maybe you yourself believe this! What should we make of this point of view? First, even if someone says he believes this, his whole life contradicts it.
He might wax eloquent about how morality is relative, but the next moment he'll complain about someone cutting in line in front of him.
If you listen carefully, you'll find even the most ardent relativist make strident moral judgments every day as if they apply to more people than just him.
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.
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 morality?" "Yes.
" "Then that's true for you, but why are you pushing it on me?" You see? She says I shouldn't judge, but that very sentence is a judgment itself.
Why else would the word "should" pop up? Or: "There is no 'Truth' with a big 'T,' only 'little t' truths.
" "Is that 'Truth' with a 'big' T, or 'little t'?" She is in quite a pickle.
If she answers no, then you can ignore her--it's just her "belief.
" But if she answers yes, then her view commits suicide.
She can't escape it; some things are really true, others really false.
You know what? It's alright to point that out and say some are right and others are wrong, period.
You can't get around it.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time
You might also like on "Health & Medical"

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.