Moral Relativism and Multiculturalism

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?  Answer, four.
Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln


     Protagoras, c.490-421 B.C., a Greek philosopher. was one of the leading Sophists, and is most famous for the saying "Man is the measure of all things." He held that all truth is relative to the individual who holds it.  This implies that morality is relative as well.  His statement may be the earliest known one promoting moral relativism.*

   There is a type of moral relativism among leftists in the West who believe that all cultures are equal.  Two young women made the mistake of believing that and the consequences are discussed in the video below.


images/einstein_9m.gif (13564 bytes)                                    images/weber.gif (14717 bytes)

    After Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relativity people in the social sciences such as the German sociologist Max Weber, again applied the concept of relativity to concepts such as morality. Thus appeared the concept of moral relativism in which morality simply becomes what a particular society believes is moral. If we consider cannibalism immoral, the argument goes, than it is immoral for us to be cannibals but if another culture considers cannibalism a noble form of human sacrifice then it is moral for people from that culture to be cannibals. Albert Einstein would probably have been  horrified at this sort of reasoning but it has stuck. The prevalence of this sort of reasoning and some of its negative consequences have been discussed by Paul Eidelberg.

There is in my opinion no justification to assume that relativity applies to morality but if for a moment we are to assume that it does we should consider the theory of relativity more closely. The theory of relativity says that everything is a constant, the speed of light. The theory of relativity implies a universal constant. Applied to morality, one could argue that this implies that there is a universal morality, independent of the culture.

    Although I believe there is a universal morality, I do not believe that we necessarily know what that universal morality is. Although I believe we have an intrinsic knowledge of right or wrong, I also believe that we can be mistaken about it. Most of us have had times when we did what we thought was right and later realized that what we did was wrong.

    Free speech, is key to our being closest to an accurate perception of what is moral and what is not since it makes available to us all sides of an issue, and democracy is key in giving us the power to act in a moral way.   In a democracy the majority rules and although it is possible for the majority to be wrong it is more likely that an individual will be wrong. In addition it is more likely that the majority will be more concerned with their welfare than an individual will be concerned about their welfare.

One of the reasons Free Speech is important is that different opinions can be heard so that conclusions as to what is right and wrong will be as accurate as possible.

    Vladimir Putin, stifles free speech in Russia but he can say what he wants.  He had this to say about multiculturalism. 

"Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.”

   John Kekes gave a great speech in which he discussed the problems of moral relativism ( 4/2/04).   Here is an excerpt.

Suppose for the moment that relativism is right: all beliefs are cultural artifacts and they do not conform to objective facts; they merely reflect how a culture views the world, not how the world is. Two consequences follow, each devastating for relativists. First, if what relativists claim holds for all beliefs, then it holds for relativism as well. It too is a cultural artifact and it does not conform to objective facts. Relativism, then, tells us nothing about the truth; it tells us merely what relativists have been culturally conditioned to believe about the truth. People who believe that relativism is false because some beliefs do conform to objective facts are also culturally conditioned. In that case, however, there is no more reason to be a relativist than to be an anti-relativist, since neither is a matter of reason at all. Both depend on the cultural conditioning to which people have been subject. It would, then, be just as wrong for relativists to try to impose their views on defenders of “Western civ,” the canon, the classics, the objectivity of science, and the authority of teachers over students as relativists say it is wrong for anti-relativists to impose their views. If relativists attempt to defend their position by claiming that it is not culturally conditioned but actually true, then they cannot consistently maintain their central claim that the truth does not exist. It must exist if they have found it.

    One argument I have heard  for relativistic thinking is that if we judge others as less than us we are being racist.  Of course if those others are objectively evil and we aren't as evil as they are than by facing the truth about that we are not being racist we are just being realistic. 

    Advocates of illegal immigrants accuse opponents of being racist.  How dare anyone suggest that another culture (that of illegal immigrants) commits more crime.  Problem is they do.    Congressman Lamar Smith noted that although it has been estimated that illegal aliens account for about 3% of the U.S. population, they account for 30% of all murders -- making illegal aliens 10 times more likely to commit murder than anyone else

    Are all cultures equal?  The country of El Salvador is ruled by gangs.  Immigrants from there bring crime with them.  According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 42.4 percent of federal kidnapping convictions are of non-citizens. Non-citizens also account for 31.5 percent of federal drug convictions. Even though they’re only 8.4% of the population. 

    Karin McQuillan wrote how she learned that all cultures are not equal after she volunteered for the Peace Corps in Senegal.  Here is an excerpt:

Take something as basic as family.  Family was a few hundred people, extending out to second and third cousins.  All the men in one generation were called "father."  Senegalese are Muslim, with up to four wives.  Girls had their clitorises cut off at puberty.  (I witnessed this, at what I thought was going to be a nice coming-of-age ceremony, like a bat mitzvah or confirmation.)  Sex, I was told, did not include kissing.  Love and friendship in marriage were Western ideas.  Fidelity was not a thing.  Married women would have sex for a few cents to have cash for the market. What I did witness every day was that women were worked half to death.  Wives raised the food and fed their own children, did the heavy labor of walking miles to gather wood for the fire, drew water from the well or public faucet, pounded grain with heavy hand-held pestles, lived in their own huts, and had conjugal visits from their husbands on a rotating basis with their co-wives.  Their husbands lazed in the shade of the trees. Yet family was crucial to people there in a way Americans cannot comprehend. The Ten Commandments were not disobeyed – they were unknown.  The value system was the exact opposite.  You were supposed to steal everything you can to give to your own relatives.

In the video below Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks about how Islamic culture differs from western culture when it comes to women.  In the video a Western feminist says that women are abused everywhere.  By exaggerating the abuse in the west western feminists justify abandoning their Muslim sisters in the West who really are abused.  Of course there is abuse eveywhere but the abuse in the Muslim world dwarfs that by non-Muslims in the west by several orders of magnitude.


    Moral relativists in fact tend to judge us more harshly and others less harshly.   Thomas Sowell in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals wrote: "Multiculturalism has not meant warts and all portraits of different societies around the world.  For many, it has meant virtually a warts-only portrait of the West and a no-warts portrait of non-Western peoples.  More is involved than a simple bias, however.  The central doctrine of multiculturalism - the equality of cultures - cannot be sustained when that means equality of concrete achievements - educationally, economically, or otherwise.

    It is not only the West whose achievements must be brushed aside or glided over in silence.  Particularly dangerous to contemporary visions and agendas are achievements by groups that began in poverty and rose to prosperity, such as emigrants from Japan, Italy, China, or India who settled in various countries around the world.  It is not just their achievements, but the very concept of achievement, which is antithetical to the multicultural vision - and which is therefore often evaded or denied.  Much verbal ingenuity has been used circumventing the concept of achievements by calling them "advantages" or "privileges," even when this does violence to the meanings of words and the facts of history.  Often discussions of the supposedly impenetrable social barriers of poverty and skin-color prejudice pass over in utter silence the history of various emigrants from Asia whose economic levels have in fact often begun in poverty and later surpassed that of the white majorities in countries of the Western Hemisphere. 

    When visions and agendas suppress history, that not only distorts the achievements of groups, nations, or civilizations, it forfeits valuable knowledge as to the things that have led to past progress and can lead to progress for others who are still lagging today.  In short, it sacrifices the material interests of millions for the ideological or other parochial interests of a few.

Neomi Rao wrote an excellent article about multiculturalism at Yale when she was a senior there in 1994.  She wrote:

Today's multiculturalists are the self-appointed heirs of the civil rights movement, but their message is worlds apart:
divisiveness not togetherness. Rather than seeking to reconcile differences and focusing on the humanity common to
all people, multiculturalism fans the flames of minority resentment against everybody else, including other minorities...

Those who reject their assigned categories are called names: So-called conforming
blacks are called "oreos" by members of their own community, conservatives become "fascists." Preaching tolerance,
multiculturalists seldom practice it.

Here you will be defined by your race, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation even before you enroll in classes.

    Google did not like an essay by the Claremont Institute called Defend America—Defeat Multiculturalism.”  They refused to allow the Claremont Institute to advertise their campaign on Multiculturalism.  According to the essay multiculturalism seeks to divide and conquer Americans, making many groups out of one citizenry.   Identity politics is the coalitional strategy of multiculturalism and political correctness its enforcement arm.

Howard Rotberg in an interview with Frontpage Magazine said:

the West began to adopt a moral and cultural relativism, which meant we were encouraged (aided by the Critical Theorists in the universities) to critique every aspect of our own societies, but any critiques of other societies or cultures were damned as constituting "racism". The very concept of "racism" was re-defined so that it could only apply in the case of words or actions by more powerful groups against less powerful groups. The rise of "political correctness" meant that reasoned discourse was difficult in the face of a subversion of language and a "closing of the American mind". Any discourse on Israel was met with discussion-ending use of improper terms such as "cycle of violence", "occupation", "apartheid", and "peace process" (which of course was anything but).

A good video that shows the apartheid lie for what it is, is embedded below.


    One motivation to paint the other as no worse than we are maybe to avoid conflict with them.  I read about a father who murdered his daughter in Canada for not wearing the Hijab.  Those defending Islam said that it was just a case of domestic violence and had nothing to do with Islam.  Those who make this defense may be trying to prevent the murder from leading non-Muslims to act against Muslims.  Islamic cultures punish women severely for what they consider to be sexual transgressions.  Islam believes that women should be obedient to the man.

     Michael Ledeen in a Frontpage Symposium about the war on terror had some inciteful comments about multiculturalism.  He said:

So I want to leave you with a couple of thoughts. The first is that we have all bought into a theory of human nature which is anti-historical and philosophically false. And that is -- number one, all people are the same; and number two, all people are basically good. This is one of the core doctrines of multiculturalism. We believe it. By and large, all Western societies have bought into this. And we all know that it's false. Both of those statements are false. People are not the same, and people are not all good.

Machiavelli, to whom I devoted a book once -- line one, chapter one, is -- man is more inclined to do evil than to do good. Well, I don't know if it goes that far. But anyway, there's plenty of evil people. That we can certainly agree on.

And number two is that if you grant the existence of evil, and if you look at it and take seriously the things that their leaders are saying today, then you are obliged to act. And the actions you take are very painful...

War and the preparation for war is the normal condition of mankind. That's what human history is. Start with the Old Testament, and read forward, and you have the history of war. That's basically what it's all about -- too bad.

 One of the reasons that people like multiculturalism may be precisely because they don't want to have to make the sacrifices necessary to fight evil.

* There was an interesting dialog between Socrates and Protagoras about the concept of truth being relative.  The dialog is given below.

Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.

Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?

Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.

Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?

Protagoras: Indeed I do.

Socrates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.

Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.


 images/house2.gif (1340 bytes)                                 images/philButton.gif (5147 bytes) 

c o p y r i g h t   ( c )   1999 - 2004 Karl Ericson Enterprises.  All rights reserved

Table of Contents