OBJECTIVE ~VS~ SUBJECTIVE TRUTH
“There are some things so dear, some things so precious, some things so eternally true, that they are worth dying for. And I submit to you that if a man has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.” ~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Speech in Detroit on June 23, 1963)
After 55 years, these incredible words of Dr. King still ring true to those who believe in objective truth. Why was he able to say these words? Because he himself believed in eternal Truth, with a capital "T", rather than the cultural relativism and subjective truth that grips much of our society today. He proved this sadly, by carrying through on his own beliefs, to the point of death.
Interestingly enough, one of the reasons that relativists give for their rejection of objective or "Eternal Truth", is that a clear agreement of what is right and wrong has never been universally reached by mankind. But why does it even matter if people are able to agree upon the distinctions of right and wrong or not? It certainly doesn't matter to God if men agree among themselves! "Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar... (Rom 3:4)".
To accept the notion that agreement is required among all or some of the inhabitants of the earth, as to what is right and wrong is to automatically concede that the relativist argument is correct. However, the entire world could be tragically wrong about a certain claim of truth, (i.e. holes in the ozone layer), except for one person, but if objective truth exists, then the error of the population or the level of disagreement or agreement is completely irrelevant.
For a subjectivist to proclaim that there is, “…no objective right or wrong, merely because people are never able to agree upon what is right and wrong”, is to claim absolute knowledge of all truth in the universe, which is itself an objective statement of truth. Cultural relativists are devoted to the notion that truth need only be relative in the cultures which produce them, and therefore we must be tolerant of all beliefs.
However, if an objectivist said to them, "No, I see no reason to be tolerant of their truth statements, because I don't believe them to be true.", they would of course insist that we ought to be tolerant to other truth statements, even if they are verifiably false. Nevertheless, when someone uses the terms, "ought to be, must, or should", they have crossed over from a subjective statement, into an objective statement; from the descriptive to the normative position of dictating what is right and what is wrong.
Ironically though, if you don’t believe in objective truth, there are few other alternatives, but to strive for tolerance among all beliefs, because if absolute truth doesn’t exist, then all other truths must be viewed as having equal validity. So, of course the relativist is necessarily more tolerant than the objectivist. The theory dictates that they be tolerant to all forms of philosophic thought and cultural sensibilities, and it has become a never-ending and deafening mantra that drowns out all else!
It is well documented that relativists, “…must remain committed to a doctrine of pure non-judgment. In this worldview, tolerance is what… they prize above all else, but nobody should embrace a pure form of tolerance. For one thing, it’s impossible. And for another, it’s intolerant. (Nichols)” Not only that, but requiring tolerance above all else implies that intolerance and all other truth statements are inferior to the truth of tolerance. This also is an absolute “Truth” statement that defeats their entire argument, because it demands that tolerance is "Right" and intolerance is "Wrong", "Absolutely"!
However, if an objectivist said to them, "No, I see no reason to be tolerant of their truth statements, because I don't believe them to be true.", they would of course insist that we ought to be tolerant to other truth statements, even if they are verifiably false. Nevertheless, when someone uses the terms, "ought to be, must, or should", they have crossed over from a subjective statement, into an objective statement; from the descriptive to the normative position of dictating what is right and what is wrong.
Ironically though, if you don’t believe in objective truth, there are few other alternatives, but to strive for tolerance among all beliefs, because if absolute truth doesn’t exist, then all other truths must be viewed as having equal validity. So, of course the relativist is necessarily more tolerant than the objectivist. The theory dictates that they be tolerant to all forms of philosophic thought and cultural sensibilities, and it has become a never-ending and deafening mantra that drowns out all else!
It is well documented that relativists, “…must remain committed to a doctrine of pure non-judgment. In this worldview, tolerance is what… they prize above all else, but nobody should embrace a pure form of tolerance. For one thing, it’s impossible. And for another, it’s intolerant. (Nichols)” Not only that, but requiring tolerance above all else implies that intolerance and all other truth statements are inferior to the truth of tolerance. This also is an absolute “Truth” statement that defeats their entire argument, because it demands that tolerance is "Right" and intolerance is "Wrong", "Absolutely"!
For example; while cultural relativists are quick to condemn traditionally western, Judeo-Christian values and cultural expressions of virtue, modesty and sexual purity, they are virtually and shamefully silent when it comes to issues like the abhorrent practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Cultural relativists continue to argue that, “…cultural behavior should be judged only though culturally specific, rather than universal, norms and values. (Mitchum 606)”, but of course they have painted themselves into this corner, with their insistence upon tolerance for all beliefs and practices.
I would respond to the cultural relativist's statements by pointing to the fact that in male dominated cultures where the practice: "…leads to the subordination of women, and causes health and human rights violations. …women and children …do not have a meaningful choice. They are faced with being socially ostracized or violating their own bodily integrity—neither of which are choices. Because of the lack of choice, FGM is a violation of women and young girls’ fundamental right to dignity, bodily integrity, and security of their person. (Mitchum 607)"
I would respond to the cultural relativist's statements by pointing to the fact that in male dominated cultures where the practice: "…leads to the subordination of women, and causes health and human rights violations. …women and children …do not have a meaningful choice. They are faced with being socially ostracized or violating their own bodily integrity—neither of which are choices. Because of the lack of choice, FGM is a violation of women and young girls’ fundamental right to dignity, bodily integrity, and security of their person. (Mitchum 607)"
All of this presumably because, relativists are unwilling to concede that their theory is fatally flawed, and that some things can be considered objectively "Right" and others, "Wrong". However, in the name of tolerance, and in their hypocritical fear of the pro-Islamic/Muslim backlash that would inevitably result, they are not likely to change their position anytime soon.
Regardless, objectivists may console themselves in the knowledge that, “There is no repose for the mind except in the absolute; for feeling except in the infinite; for the soul except in the divine. Nothing finite is true, is interesting, is worthy to fix my attention. (Amiel)”
By Pastor Glen Mustian
Amiel, Henri Frederic. The Journal Intime of Henri-Frédéric Amiel (1821-1881). Print. 1882.
Mitchum, Preston. Slapping the Hand of Cultural Relativism: Female Genital Mutilation, Male
Dominance, and Health as a Human Rights Framework, 19 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 585 (2013), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol19/iss3/4. Web Accessed 6/9/18.
Nichols, Alex. The Meaning of Tolerance. Current Affairs Magazine. 2017. Web Accessed 6/8/18.
