The political elite in Britain may have decided to implement a radical social engineering project in secret years ago, but once it was under way, it was inevitable that its effects would become known to the British public. In order to forestall any objections to the idea of a multicultural utopia, the political elite and their ideological enforcers, who are embedded in positions of influence throughout British society, have promoted the idea that there is no such thing as right and wrong because all morality is subjective and personal. According to this nihilistic world view, moral beliefs are nothing more than thoughts about morality that occur within someone's mind.
According to the relativists' theory, the source of an individual's beliefs about morality are not objective moral values, but whatever beliefs have been passed on to that individual by other members of their culture. But if an individual's beliefs about morality can only be what other people from their culture say they are and nothing else, then that is what they would inevitably be. In any given society, there would be no non-conformists.
In Germany, the National Socialists ruthlessly implemented a policy of Gleichschaltung, which meant bringing everyone under their control into line with Adolf Hitler's twisted beliefs. But even then, there were non-conformists. Hans Scholl served on the Eastern Front, and the reality he experienced there refuted what his culture claimed was true. His younger sister Sophie was a practising Christian, whose religious beliefs were entirely contrary to the values preached by the National Socialists. The Scholls formed a protest group called the White Rose, which peacefully released a series of pamphlets criticizing the National Socialist regime. The siblings were arrested and executed by the Nazis in February 1943.
The White Rose stands today for values that are superior to relativism, a theory with no moral foundation whatsoever, which cannot provide the means to either condemn the Nazis or to praise Sophie Scholl.
Anyone who has visited the Holocaust Exhibition at the Imperial War Museum in London understands that the moral term 'evil' is meaningful and it can be correctly applied to what the National Socialists did at Auschwitz. But if a relativist tries to condemn the Nazis and, in accordance with the principles of relativism, insists that his condemnation is an assertion based on nothing more than what he was taught to believe in by other members of his culture, then the problem he faces is that an SS guard stationed at Auschwitz would have had an entirely different system of beliefs about morality, based on what he was taught to believe by other members of his culture. And if the SS guard praised what the relativist now condemns, then the relativist cannot say that one view is better than the other.
The relativist may try to give the pronouncements of relativism more weight by resting them upon the claim that it is good to refuse to condemn other cultures and what is more, this is an ultimate good. But the relativist cannot base any assertion they make on objective moral values, because they deny the existence of any such values. The assertion that it is good to refuse to condemn the practices or beliefs of other cultures is nothing more than a cultural belief that has arisen in late 20th century Western Europe. Such a notion does not exist elsewhere in the world, and it certainly did not exist in Britain in the 1930s and 1940s when men like Winston Churchill condemned the Nazis and as a nation, we stood against them.
If the relativist cannot condemn the practices of other cultures, and that includes what the Nazis did, in a meaningful way, but instead, places himself on an equal moral footing with the beasts who attended the Wannsee Conference in 1942 and the SS guards who operated the death camps, then there is something badly wrong with his thinking.
Not only does the theory of relativism fail to provide the means to condemn what every morally sane person regards as evil, it is internally incoherent. Relativism claims that different people believe in different things about morality, and they are all equally true. However, the proposition 'The belief that an assertion is true is the same thing as the assertion being true' is not sensible.
If someone was to assert that everything a relativist believes is false, the relativist would have to say that the other person's assertion is true, therefore the proposition that made them say that: 'The belief that an assertion is true is the same thing as the assertion being true' is false. So relativism entails its own refutation.
What is more, if believing that an assertion is true is not the same thing as that assertion being true, then the relativist has no reason to even use the word because all he is saying is that different people believe different things, and there is no such thing as morality at all. This leads the relativism into the state of nature, where might is right, nothing is unjust, and life for the weak (and that includes the relativist) will be nasty, brutal and short.
The failings of the theory of relativism are clear for anyone to see. Nevertheless, this doctrine has been used to camouflage the actions of the political elite and hide the truth about what they have done from the people they were elected to represent.
Tags: relativism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!