| True For You, But Not For Me? |
| Written by Rich Bordner | |
| Tuesday, 28 July 2009 | |
|
"That's true for you, but not true for me."
"That's true for you, but not true for me." That view comes up often in discussions about religion and morality. It's quite popular. The notion is that there are no overarching truths or morals that applies for all across cultures. Truth is relative to cultures or individuals, and all points of view are true. 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. Chances are that either you've heard this many times before or you yourself think this way. Is this point of view a good way of looking at religion, morality, and politics? 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. Think about this: if you are at work and you over hear a white male co-worker call a black female co-worker derogatory racial slurs and sexual put downs (he calls her a derogatory part of the female anatomy starting with "c"), would he have done anything wrong? Not wrong "for you," but wrong, period. If the man is from another culture, does 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. Period. Next, the person who says "there is no universal truth, so you should be tolerant of others' beliefs" contradicts herself. At the end of the day, she says that it's wrong to say others are wrong! On the one hand, she says that truth and morality are relative, but on the other hand she offers that as if it is pure, unadulerated, obvious truth. She thinks this is something that applies to others, not just herself. Here's an example conversation that bears this out (that I again borrow from Greg Koukl): "What's true for you might not be true for me, so you shouldn't push your morals on others. Be tolerant!" "Do you believe that?" "For sure!" "If that's your morality, by all means, go with it, but don't judge me and push it on me." Do you see the problem? For the person who adopts the sentiment I've been examining, as soon as she opens her mouth and says something like "should" or "ought," she has defeated herself. Another example: "there are no universal truths." "Is that true?" She's on the horns of a dilemma. If she answers that it's true just for her, then she can be ignored--it's just her personal take. But if it's true period, then she has again contradicted herself. The fact of the matter is that some things are really true, some things are really false, and it's ok. It is ok to critique points of view and lifestyles. In fact, it's unaviodable. The Article Author: Rich Bordner has been writing on religion, ethics, politics, and philosophy for over eight years. He has degrees in both English and Philosophy, is currently working on an Master's degree in Philosophy, and is also a public school educator. If you have questions about politics, values, and religion, or just want to participate in lively discussion on current events, visit his blog. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
