What if a group of people believed false things about reality? How would the individuals of that group do at functioning in the world with other people? For example, let's say that a certain group of people believed that the results of mathematical equations would result in random answers (a false view of reality). Thus, if one of their children asked, 'what is the sum of 2 plus 2 daddy', the parent would say, 'well, we are not really sure, maybe 6, maybe 3, or possibly 4'; or, 'well, whatever you want it to be'.
How well would their buying, selling or trading work?
How would their architects and engineers design things to build?
If a group of people denied the principles that mathematics operates on, not only would they be hard pressed to live up to their human potential, they would likely be in chaos.
Here is another example: What if a group of people believed that each person must decide what a particular noun means (that the meanings of the nouns in that culture's dictionary are incorrect). In other words, they agreed on a basic vocabulary in terms of the word's existence, spelling and pronunciation, but left the definition of the words up to the individual. How well could that group communicate? If a group of people turned away from a common standard for knowing the meaning of nouns, then would not confusion and chaos result? Imagine this grocery store scene, 'Excuse me sir, could you please tell me where the apples are?' the worker answers, 'well, what do you mean by 'sir' and 'apples'?'
As another example, what if a group of people could not agree on what was right behavior and what was wrong behavior? So, for example, one parent believes that it is OK when their son takes vegetables from their neighbor's garden without asking but others don't. Another parent thinks it is OK if their son bullies and forces his will upon others but others don't. Another parent thinks it is fine for their 16 year old son to 'sow-his-oats' with 15 year old girls, whereas the parents of the 16 year-old girls do not think it is fine. If that group of people could not agree on what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior, how would that group do? Would there be harmony and peace, or would there be discord and conflict?
Or, how about this one. What if people believe that the color of one's skin determines your value or your moral choices. In other words, your character is irrelevant or subservient to your skin color. So, for example, a red person sees a blue person and determines by the color of their skin, that the blue person is a nasty racist who hates people of red skin color and needs to be punished somehow.
Not too long ago, these examples would be considered far-fetched, but not today in 2022. The point of this article is to demonstrate that there is an increasingly widely held belief by the people in the United States (and in other nations as well) that is serving as the foundation for - and enabling - people to in fact enter into the kind of destructive confusion and chaos in the examples above. That core level belief or world view is called "relativism".
Here is relativism's fundamental error and the relativists key statment: "There is no truth". Please think about that for a moment. The question is, is THAT statement true?
Here are some dictionary definitions of "relativism":
Google: "the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute."
Cambridge Dictionary: "the belief that truth and right and wrong can only be judged in relation to other things and that nothing can be true or right in all situations"
Wiki: "The term 'relativism' often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture."
To prove the non-far-fetchedness nature of the problem, consider this example. Neighbor A has a daughter who thinks she is a male/son and her parents support her delusional views. This girl who thinks she is a boy wants to date neighbor B's daughter. Neighbor B holds to a rational view of sex identity and thus believes that young males are boys and young females are girls. How is that going to work out when neighbor A's daughter asks to date neighbor B's daughter?
The previous examples about racism and gender-confusion are currently gripping the U.S. and is marking the point where what is talked about in this article is happening...that people are abandoning reason for madness and abandoning rightness for wrongness.
This is where relativism and emotionalism - and the associated rejection of reason and logic - are taking people.
There are two primary factors to the source of blindness and confusion. The first is relativism. There are two levels of relativism. Truth relativism and moral relativism. Someone who is a truth relativist claims there is no truth - that EVERYTHING is relative to an individual's perception, or, stated another way, that everything is subjective and nothing is objective - all truth is defined by my subjective feelings and experiences. This level of relativism is relevant to the whole transgender issue. Maleness or femaleness is not a moral issue, it is an existential (relating to existence) issue. Again, the key statement of relativists for this level of relativism is this:
There is no truth.
This is a self-defeating statement and thus the statement or assertion is false. Just ask the person who makes the statement, "Is your statement true?"
The second level of relativism is moral relativism.
Moral relativism is people denying that any morally objective or universal standard regarding right and wrong - or proper and improper human behavior - exists. The key statement of relativist for this level of relativism is this:
It is morally wrong to tell someone they are morally wrong.
This is a self-contradictory statement and thus the statement or assertion is false. The person making the statement contradicts themselves, for they are doing the opposite of what they are asserting. In other words, they telling another person they are wrong and at the same time, telling them that telling other people they are wrong, is wrong.
So, the first cause of the great blindness that people are entering into is the belief of relativism. Truth relativism leads to people to deny that objective truth exists and leads them to not be able to, for example, define what a woman is. Moral relativism leads people to deny that there is objectively right or wrong behavior, so, for example, they can be given facts about some destructive aspects of the homosexual life-style (like higher depression and disease rates) and they will vigorously deny such facts and start calling the person citing the facts as a morally bad person (which of course contradicts their stated view).
If human nature was essentially good, having no coherent moral standard would not be much of a problem. But if human nature is essentially bad (Like the real, historical Joshua of Nazareth says and like the evidence provided by human behavior in this world ), then having a moral standard is critically important for it informs people when they cross boundaries.
A person being a relativist is like being lost at sea without a compass or sun or stars to guide your efforts to find your way home. For many, it means denying there is a home to begin with. People cannot function without having, or believing they have, some sense or orientation in the world, so those who hold to truth relativism make up or create their own compass, sun or stars. Those who do this are delusional but very sure that their self-made existential views are correct even though those views often DO NOT pass the test of logic. For an understanding of inferior ethical frameworks, please see Subjective and Cultural Relativism: Bankrupt Moral Frameworks.
What Is the Fundamental Cause of People Abandoning Objective Views of Reality?
As people abandon the belief that a Creator exists who both programmed us (our conscience) as well as sent us an objective and ultimate source of ethics (Joshua of Nazareth or other God-source), they turn to their own feelings or imaginations to determine what is right and wrong. And when those people have natures that are bound by fear, self-pride and selfishness, we should not expect good results in terms of human behavior, and that is exactly what we see in this world if we view it from an objective way and against the Standard that Joshua of Nazareth gave.
The second primary factor to the blindness and confusion is people being unable or unwilling to use reason well in order to arrive at sound conclusions in any realm of knowledge but rather trying to use their emotions to do so, particularly in the realm of human beliefs and moral behavior. Stated another way, people are turning away from reason and logic as being the primary means to sort out true from false and right and wrong claims in many domains of knowledge and experience, and are instead turning to their "feelings". Relativism plays a big part in this, but so does emotionalism - the belief that 'human knowing' is primarily an emotional endeavor (entirely subjective) instead of an endeavor of observation and reason (primarily objective).
Emotionalists or those heading that way, make the statement, "I feel that is wrong" or "I feel that is right" when commenting on human behavior with moral implications. These are those who are lost and fishing around for a moral principle that will generally justify their own behavior.
Objective moralists make the statement, "I believe that is wrong for the following reason(s)" when commenting on human behavior with moral implications. These are those who rely on some objective ethical standard and reason to believe what moral principles are best.
Emotionalism is a fruit or consequence of both abandoning any objective source for what is morally right or wrong, but also of laziness and selfishness. These folks generally don't want to bother to think things through, they would rather just seek and justify what they want.
The relativism philosophy states there are no absolute truths (or standards) that exist to judge anything (of course 'anything' would include human beliefs or behavior). See the above definitions for "relativism". The two versions of moral relativism say that that the individual person's beliefs (subjective relativism), or the majority of the culture one find's oneself it (cultural relativism), are what determine the ethical view that is that person's ultimate reality or complete truth regarding ethics.
Furthermore, relativism is supported by materialism which is the belief that there is no reality (metaphysical or otherwise) beyond the physical reality that can be measured by our senses and 'science'. The thinking goes that since atoms and energy are all that exist, then surely the subjective human 'brain' is the source of all moral beliefs - there are no objective, universal principles.
Those who hold to relativism state that there are no objective, universal or absolute truths that exist - that all beliefs and behaviors are only real or meaningful or relevant to the person (subjective relativism) or persons (cultural relativism) who hold them and no one else. Stated yet another way, there is nothing outside of the human brain (really the mind, but materialists irrationally deny the existence of the mind, or they irrationally deny the distinction between the mind and the brain) by which human's behavior or beliefs can be governed or judged as right or wrong.
Obviously relativism is a true belief for many lesser aspects of the human experience, like wealth accumulation, for example. Who defines what 'materially wealthy' is? Obviously each society or group of people will have different standards regarding 'who is wealthy'. The people in a village in Bangladesh will have a different standard than the people of the city of Tokyo, and thus a person's material wealth will be relative to others they encounter in their normal sphere of living.
While relativism is valid for many MATERIAL aspects of the human experience, it fails as the highest governing belief of the human experience (existential) and it fails in trying to sort out human ethics.
When you apply reason to moral or existential relativism, it is shown to be self-defeating. Let us review this important truth again. The statement from the consistent relativist is:
The Key Relativist Assertion: 'There are no universal existential or moral truths that can be known or applied among all human beings'.
But when you ask the relativist who uttered that statement, 'does your statement convey a universal truth that applies to all people?' - they have only two reasonable answers - yes or no.
If they answer 'yes', then there is at least one universal truth, and thus their statement is false.
If they answer 'no', then they admit that relativism is false since there are objective or universal or absolute truths that exist. The logic is sound.
Therefore, other objective or universal truths might also exist, so perhaps it would be wise to seek out from where objective, universal or absolute truth originates.
Please read the above argument again, slowly and carefully, for it proves (using logic) that moral or existential or truth relativism is a false belief, and thus if you hold it, you ought to abandon it. Furthermore it proves that the reality in which we find ourselves has universal truths, including moral ones.
Let us take a look at another statement that clearly demonstrates the self-defeating nature, and thus the falsehood, of moral relativism. Please consider the following statement:'You are wrong to say that I am wrong'; or 'You are morally wrong to say I am morally wrong'.
The self-defeating nature of the statements is obvious. The person saying "you are wrong to say that I am wrong" is contradicting themselves in that simple statement. They are accusing the other person of being wrong for saying they are wrong, even while they say the other person is wrong! The same is true of the following sister statement which includes the word "moral".Again, these statements demonstrate that human beings exist in a reality which has objective and universal truths, both existential and moral. In other words, our reality to demonstrates and affirms that truth - existential or ethical - is not relative to human perspective but rather represents a universal and objective standard that exists.
Truth and moral relativism says that there are no universal, objective or absolute truths that apply to collective humanity. If relativists were consistent and applied that belief reasonably, they should not declare a foul by stating a person 'ought to' or 'ought not' believe or behave in a certain manner. A consistent relativist contradicts themselves when they say to another person, 'you should not believe that' or, 'you ought not to do that'. And if asked by the person who is receiving the relativist's correction, 'why not?', a relativist who answers with anything other than, 'because I say so' (and thus identify themselves as a subjective relativist) or 'because the majority says so' (and thus identify themselves as a cultural relativist), will contradict themselves.
Please consider this statement, 'it is wrong to judge'. Is that a self-defeating statement? Yes, it is for a judgment is made in the statement which statement says it is wrong to judge!
The statement 'it is wrong to judge' is merely a simplified version of, 'it is disrespectful to judge another person's beliefs'. If a person believes and expresses that 'It is acceptable to judge another person's beliefs', then that person is JUDGED as intolerant and disrespectful by the person who believes, 'it is intolerant and disrespectful to judge another person's beliefs'. Do you see the contradiction? When the person who says, 'It is intolerant and disrespectful to judge another person's beliefs' judges another person's beliefs as wrong, then by their own principle, they are "intolerant and disrespectful"! Thus, the belief is self-defeating and thus false.
The above examples of relativists arguments are proved false by using logic. Logic provides rules by which reasoning should operate. We reason when we try to understand or analyze our physical existence and experiences in our lives. Here is a good illustration of the difference between reason and logic. If we want to play football (or soccer), we must find a suitable place for the pitch or field. It must be large enough and be free of trees or rocks and have a suitable surface like short grass. We use our senses and reason to evaluate possibilities in placing the pitch/field. Once we find the best place for the pitch/field, we then use logic to make the rules of the game and how we are to play it.
One of the laws of logic says that if two things/concepts/ideas/beliefs contradict one another when addressing the same subject - and both claim to be true - then at least one is false. This is the case for the statements, 'all red rocks are blue' or 'it is wrong to judge'. In the latter, the subject, 'judgment', is said to be wrong or is judged to be wrong. Thus, the statement is false as it contradicts itself.
Let us look at the main issue again from a slightly different perspective to help the reader grasp this important point.
Consider again the statement, 'It is wrong to say something is wrong'.
This statement uses a synonym for 'judge', namely a type of judgment, 'wrong-ness', in order to make clearer the false nature of the statement. The statement claims that it is wrong to say something is wrong - a clear contradiction. It is the same nature of statement of something like, 'It is bad to say (or judge) something is bad'. Judgment is the declaration or assertion of something as right or wrong, good or bad, true or false. The nature of the term 'wrong' is undeniably an essential aspect of human judgment and an integral part of human's ability to reason. A person cannot utter a coherent, non-definitional statement containing the word 'wrong' (and its associated concept) without making a judgment.
Therefore, the statement, 'It is wrong to judge' is a false statement as the statement contradicts itself...for the person uttering, 'it is wrong to judge' is himself making a proclamation of judgment, and thus is doing what he says is wrong.
When people say things that are false - self-defeating or contradictory - those statements ought to be rejected, and reason and logic should be appealed to in order to find the truth of the matter.
Sadly, relativism in regard to moral and existential beliefs is probably the most widely held belief among the 'educated' people of the earth at this time. The opposing belief has traditionally been called 'moral objectivism'. This belief states that there are objective, universal or absolute truths that don't change due to a person's perception or human culture or time - and those truths exist not only in the physical realm, but in the realm of human beliefs (metaphysical or spiritual) as well.
Relativism is most popular among the educated elite in materially wealthy nations. Thus, the U.S. educational system and the teachers that make it up essentially teach only from the perspective of a relativistic paradigm. This is very unfortunate and is the leading cause of 'blindness' and 'madness' (believing and proclaiming things that are contradictory and false) in individuals in the U.S. at this junction in history. The reader should also wonder about two things in this regard. First, why do the 'educated' prefer an inferior view of reality? Second, why don't the public schools in the U.S. teach reason and logic - arguably the most important skill or ability we have as human beings?
Continuing, moral objectivism has far fewer problems with logic, represents reality better, and thus should be adopted by people who want to understand and understand their lives and experiences using reason.
'All things are relative.' Is that statement absolutely true? THINK ABOUT IT.
Take the next step. Seek past the materialist life you have been trained to accept. Reject false things and love that which is true. Reject moral and existential relativism for it is false, and begin the journey to find that which is ultimately true.
If you are a person who can see the destruction taking place and who want to help in trying to stop it, please, find the One who says, "I am the truth", place your faith in him and enter into his Life and come, join the Peaceful Revolution!