We are who to judge

DocBrain would like to blow up two notions: moral relativism and multiculturalism.



First, lets deal with moral relativism. This is the concept that there is no good and evil, no absolute right, only perspectives and values. It is often summed up as "one man's terrorist is the other man's freedom fighter." Many people accept this as a truth, an absolute fact, but there is just one problem: no one has proven moral relativism to be true. So, moral relativism is an assumption, a theory, with no data to back it up. The assumption is based on the fact that every moral code devised seems to have some flaws, either due to the code not being universally applicable or due to some aspects of human nature that run counter to the code. An example of the former are codes that prefer one religion over another (ie, you cannot be a good person unless you are a Muslim/Jew/Catholic/Christian/Hindu/etc). An example of the latter are codes that run against intrinsic human nature (ie, you cannot be a good person if you are gay/want to keep what you earn). The failure to clearly define an absolute code that would determine absolute good and evil is not proof that one does not exist. Instead, it is a call to thought, a duty to work to find the best possible definition of an absolute moral code.

This leads to the concept of multiculturalism. Should people be considered as equals, or as units of larger entities...cultures? If cultures are defined in narrow superficial terms, then multiculturalism is a good thing. Such superficialities could include: foods, clothes, dances, and other artistic expressions. When we try to add values to cultures, we run into core conflicts. As no individual culture can prove that its core values are above any other, the only way to enforce your values is to convert the unbelievers or to dominate them. Each person is a member of a culture, a "culture warrior" for his particular culture. This negates the belief in individualism as the goal. The goal becomes cultural supremacy or at least peaceful coexistence. If cultures can coexist peacefully, then there must be a superior level of values that makes this coexistence a good thing. That some cultures are not content with coexistence (ie, fundamental Islam) indicates that some do not accept a universal code of values. That fact does not prove that such a universal code is wrong, doesn't exist or that multiculturalism is good. Cultures that vie for supremacy of core values can not coexist. A culture that defines good in terms of its specific members will always be in conflict with other cultures. This includes those that elevate by race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or any characteristic (even wealth or poverty). So, the only good multiculturalism is the superficial. The deep ones that divide people lead to loss of individualism and to a fragmentation of humanity into groups. While some groupings are helpful and in fact needed, the ultimate goal is to eliminate deep divisions between groups, allowing each individual to strive for his own destiny.