Posted on 03/06/2003 7:58:18 PM PST by politique
The Felons of Ivory Tower By Garin K. Hovannisian
At the start of the 17th century, a prominent astronomer declared that the universe did not revolve around the Earth. For this, Galileo Galilee faced a torrent of societal criticism and his claims were ridiculed. In 1633, he was forced to withdraw his theory. Soon thereafter, allowed by a progressively liberal civilization, Nicholas Copernicus made the same claim, corroborating his assertion with innovative astronomical observations. It is this Copernican model that today serves as the standard and the uncontested truth. The precept of scientific relativism is rooted in the notion that truth does not exist. The above-written anecdote has become the relativist idiom: Centuries ago scientists were confident that the earth was the center of the universe. Today, in equal certainty, we claim that the earth revolves around the sun. Which scenario is right? The answer is, neither. The logical process that leads to this conclusion accepts as its formula: in any matter of controversy, truth does not exist; and controversy exists in all matters. An identical method can be employed to prove that the capital of California is not Sacramento. According to a poll taken in Azerbaijan, for instance, the capital of California is Los Angeles. My World Book Encyclopedia announces a different verdict. Should we now decide that there is no ultimate truth? Those who do constitute the scientific relativism movement that pervades academe today. Gordon L. Ziniewicz, a John Dewey protégé and a relativist contends:
True scientists appreciate that science is a process, subject to constant revision. The final answers of today quickly become the dated prejudices of yesterday. Every finding in science is at the same time a mistake, a solution, and a clue to further investigation. Science is a field where a new better constantly supplants an old better, but where only the presumptuous would stake claim on a best or final theory. For that reason, a truly scientific attitude, like a genuinely democratic attitude, is characterized by engagement in open debate, free communication of ideas, willingness to learn, cooperative striving, respect for the facts, and reverence for continually changing process.
Beyond the eloquence of a composite argument lies an absurdity that is so typical of the movement under scrutiny. The constant revisions that characterize the advancement of scientific study are not submitted on the grounds of whim or caprice. The continuous, unrelenting modifications are all directed toward the attainment of truth. After all, what makes a revision a revision? The fact that one improves upon the other. Scientific alterations are by definition aimed toward the truth. And if they are, truth must exist. Suppose, for instance, that a certain physicist attempts to create a device that can actually float on water. This, he believes, will lead to a revolution in travel. The physicist soon discovers that wood is that device, but realizes subsequently that it sinks under the slightest pressure. So the scientist alters the shape of the wood, carving a tree in the shape of the modern-day boat. He then adds luxuries to the mechanism: paddles, a life-saver, several practical compartments. It all goes according to planned and within the year thousands of vessels go on sale. Each and every one of them works. The physicist in question did undoubtedly adhere to a process. He experimented and revised, and only then did he construct the ultimate floating device. In this regard, science is a processa process with an end result. But I have just presented an argument whose accuracy is matched only by its confusion. So I will cite the simple and illuminating words of Richard Dawkins: Show me a relativist at 30,000 feet, and Ill show you a hypocrite. The authors position is uncomplicatedthousands of scientists in hundreds of countries, and countless mathematical calculations, all had to be right for an airplane to achieve and sustain a certain elevation. Technology itself relies upon the existence of certain facts. Alec Mouhibian in The New Stupidity claims that the premises of academic intellectuals are rooted in the subtle, implicit denial of the simple equation, 1 + 1 = 2. In their denial, however, the scientific relativists of academe are clear and explicit.
***
Perhaps the most prevalent and certainly the most deliberated relativism is: moral relativism. Summed up by University of California at Santa Barbara history professor Jeffrey B. Russell, So there is no Good, no Truth, no Beauty. And this is the view held by manperhaps the majorityof professors, journalists, and other intellectuals. Moral relativism is, in essence, a denial of moral standards, ethics, and virtues. It is the set of principles that combats principles and the creed that repudiates the rational reasons for human action and humanity in general. It is the philosophy that functions more as an excuse than as a belief. It is difficult to argue with those who contradict reason as a form of argument. So in this regard, only a revelation of utmost hypocrisy can achieve an argumentative purpose. The logical and consistent moral relativist must both hold certain views and claim that they are not right. The reasoned moral relativist must hold an opinion against opinion, must argue in observance of the fact that he is wrong. You see, there is an inherent contradiction in the articulated contentions of moral relativists: they must claim that they know the truth and they must claim that truth does not exist. But Gilbert Harman of Princeton University digresses:
One obvious objection to the standard form of virtue ethics is to its account of the relation between what a person ought morally to do and what it is to be a virtuous person. The objectionable claim is that what one ought morally to do in a given situation is to do what a virtuous person would do in that situation. The objection is that this cannot cover all cases, because someone, a nonvirtuous person, will be in a situation that a virtuous person would never be in
thus making him non-virtuous! It is apparent, and inscribed in the standard form of virtue ethics that a virtuous and a non-virtuous person will end up in different places. Moral decision-making involves decision-making. And whether the criterion for such choices is whim or ethics or circumstance, the results will ultimately vary. Professor Harman is not making an argument against moral ethics; he is making an argument against the inherent inequalities of human beings, and the obvious resulting disparities that occur as a result of different approaches. The perplexity that Gilbert Harman endorses is meant to seem like a substantive argument. But in simplified terms, the above passage reads:
A non-virtuous person will not be in the same situation as a virtuous person. Therefore, the common argument that there exists an objective standard of ethics is wrong.
But Professor Harman makes a brilliant argument that I had even overlooked: that by claiming that differences in results are ammunition for debate, moral relativism denies the very code of human nature. Hence, non-judgmentalismsince objective moral standards do not exist, no single person has the right to judge another. There is no difference between right and wrong, good and evil. It is this philosophy that assumes the second stage of moral relativism and issues yet another empty slogan: Dont judge! But, interposes your narrator, judgments are part of everyday life. In common circumstances, in common considerations, judgments constitute the main ingredient of that forgotten concept called free will.
Implications
The implications of relativism and non-judgmentalism are considerable and important. It therefore behooves us to examine these implications and the consequences of their application.
Collectivism
War and catastrophe are the trademarks of leftists. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolinipeople associated with humanitarian tragedies, racism, and genocides. Unfortunately, they are not the exceptions to an almost impeccable liberal rule, they are the rule. Collectivism in Russia has led to terror. Statism in Germany has yielded mass murder. The list is short of endless, and amounts to a damning indictment of leftism in all of its forms. But the destruction of leftism brings along with it the demolition of a pervasive philosophy that is sponsored by nine out of every ten academics. Its revelation signifies the devastation of an entire population of educational indoctrinators. So, naturally, rationalization is inevitable. Non-judgmentalism is convenient for two reasons: a) it excuses the calamity at hand, and b) it juxtaposes the successes of its opposite creed with the failures of its own.
Hedonism
One would normally display disgust toward a whimsical murderer. But that is not the case with Monsieur Mersault, the hedonistic protagonist of the novella The Stranger, by Albert Camus. Hedonism is the philosophy, or anti-philosophy, that maintains that what is right is what makes one happy, whatever brings the most pleasure at a given moment, happiness or convenience as the only principle of action. So when Monsieur Mersault kills an Arab passer-by because the knife of the latter reflected the suns unpleasant beams into the eyes of the former, no injustice was done. In fact, adds my English Literature teacher, he is authentic. He, after all exhibits a total and healthy disregard for societys customs. Mersault is not bothered by what others think of him. He does things because he feels like doing them. Camus views Mersault as the existentialist hero, and hedonism as dignified. This is a direct result of moral relativismthe claim that virtue does not exist and, by extension, that whim should constitute the standard of decision-making.
The Law
In regard to justice, relativism means that the law is subjectified and converted into a collection of unpredictable, irrational, and inconsistent dicta. Justice William Brennan once said, For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs. But Justice Brennan is mistaken. The genius of the Constitution rather rests in the very fact that it is universal: its power lies in its objectivity, its relevance in its coherency, and its brilliance in the timeless importance of inalienable rights and their espousal. Murder was wrong yesterday, it is wrong today, and it will be wrong tomorrow. Mans rights are inalienable in every era, in every county, in every culture. The basis of the Constitution is the literal opposite of Justice Brennans interpretation: it is the idea that the timeless truth of freedoms philosophy is morally unchangeable. The afore-quoted mode of thought has led to the advent judicial activism and loose construction, both of which have contributed to the deterioration of our Constitution. The right to bear to arms, for instance, is a fundamental item on the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers were unguarded defenders of this right, and their interpretation of the Constitution (one would think) would be that to which we adhere. Judicial activism, nevertheless, as prompted by relativism, has allowed the progression of doubt upon an otherwise incontrovertible fact. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 typifies the application of relativism. It grants the government unprecedented powers of regulation and attaches no conditions to the rulings that enforce them. Ayn Rand, in her Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal best elucidates the absurdity of this law:
Under the antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does For instance, if he charges prices that some bureaucrats deem too high, he can be prosecuted for a monopoly, or, rather, for a successful attempt to monopolize; if he charges prices lower than his competitors, he can be prosecuted for unfair competition or restraint of trade; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for collusion or conspiracy.
This is the nature of antitrust laws; this is the perverted nature of judicial relativism.
Immunity
Needless to say, such hapless remedial legislation usually fails. The war on poverty has increased poverty. Sex education classes have had no effect on promiscuity. Antitrust laws have demolished the economy. Extra-constitutional legislation, in general, has proven an unparalleled fiasco. But whom to blame for these misfortunes? Surely, they could not be the result of those who enacted them. It is for this reason that a system of culpability needs to take form. And the underlying premise of that system is non-judgmentalismone does not have the moral right to judge the actions of others. They had good intentions and, furthermore, they had to make a decision for society. Who asked them to? the forlorn voice of your narrator chimes as he raises his hand in government class. The arbiters of law and society have assumed an outrageously powerful position limited only by their own sense of morality. Chief Justices Bazalon, Warren, and an anthology of others have made it their business to decide what is best for society as a whole, even if their premises are constitutionally dubious. Spearheaded by John Stuart Mill, a movement of immunity from criticism has evolved. Judges can judge as they please and concurrently hold immunity of the same from others. Non-judgmentalism ensures that reality of outcomes succumbs to the goodness of intentions.
In the Gates of Academe
According to a poll conducted for the National Association of Scholars, 75% of college seniors report that their professors teach them that what is right and wrong depends on differences in individual values and cultural diversity. Yes, the same students who will tomorrow be the governors of the world are being taught that truth does not exist. The same people who will become tomorrows scientists are being taught that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. The moral fiber of tomorrow is being constructed by those who reject morality. And the same people who tomorrow will be choosing whether to cut the blue wire or the red wire to save the world from nuclear terror, are being trained to see no difference between them. Moral relativism is razing America on its home front. It is thus no wonder that, according to the same poll, college students prioritize recruiting a diverse workforce in which women and minorities are advanced and promoted over providing clear and accurate business statements to stockholders and creditors. (Paradoxically, these same people are the first to blame Enron and WorldCom scandals on capitalists, not on the likes of themselves.) Harvard University now has a course called Anthropology, Relativism, and Human rights, William and Mary College has one entitled Relativism, and countless others also are consistent with these universities in giving explicit lessons in relativism, and disguised brainwashing of the same.
Values Clarification
The introductory stages of moral relativism and its heir, non-judgmentalism, in primary and secondary schools come to us in the form of courses labeled values clarification. Such courses attempt to discern the psychology of children within circles of seemingly similar peers and to refine their method of thinking by peer pressure and teachers initiative. In so doing, they alter the entire psychological function of human thought and indoctrinate the children whose values they aver to clarify. These psychological-conditioning programs alter the childrens upper faculties and, by imposing flirtations with non-judgmentalism, impair their capability to ascertain truth. This makes future classroom brainwashing more effective and natural. All this, of course, is not done openly. The goal of the class is professed to be, The achievement of common ground among different students and the illumination of the differing values that they have. But the actual result, whether realized advertently or inadvertently, amounts to a module of programming. Correlation does not imply causation. But, historically, when criticism of these courses and public education has been voiced, the number of values clarification courses has increased. No, there is no standard, written teaching manual for these classes and interpretation is liberal. The difference between two programs can vary greatly, but the general sentiments and outlooks are shared. Mary-Ruth Marshall, a coordinator of an international values project, writes:
Values clarification assumes that there are three levels of learning facts, concepts and values. The factual level deals with the question, What is it?, while the conceptual level deals with, What does it mean? Values clarification is one way of personalizing education, or exploring the values level, by asking the question, What does it mean to me?
And personalize it does. Values clarification subtly shifts a students critical eye from skeptical to accepting, not considering the truth behind a given matter. In other words, the course shifts the analytical function of the brain from an objective to a subjective frame. The question that the child asks is no longer Is murder bad?; it is rather Why did he kill? The grammar school student is forced to say Murder might be bad to me, but it doesnt mean it is bad to you. And the same student in high school, The definition of murder, its necessity, and its morality or immorality, all depend on the different cultures and eras in which they were committed. And in college, In evaluating the ethical underpinnings of murder, or lack thereof, a consideration of epochal circumstances and personal orders that might otherwise be ignored is imperative. By the end of college, relativism and its ideological comrades are deeply entangled with the psychology of the student. Exorcism is now unfeasible. Brainwashing, interestingly, is not denied. Thomas Lickona writes:
Such values affirm our human dignity, promote the good of the individual and the common good, and protect our human rights. They meet the classic ethical tests of reversibility (would you want to be treated this way?) and universalizability (would you want to be treated this way in a similar situation?). They define our responsibilities in a democracy, and they are recognized by all civilized people and taught by all enlightened creeds. Not to teach children these core ethical values is a grave moral failure.
As follows, the ethical terror of indoctrination is not only revealed but also justified. Nevertheless, a critical question has not yet been addressed, Who will teach? The teaching of ethics means that ethics does exist and furthermore that it can be defined and taught. Here, the elitist backdrop of relativism is divulged. The above passage is based on the presupposition that a considerably small amount of people should give moral lessons to the population. Several prominent writers have been caught disparaging the masses for their idiocy, but the truth remains that knowledge and wisdom can more readily be found in the conglomeration of millions of experiences, opinions, and habits, than in the pompous contentions of a self-proclaimed elite. But these pomposities pass the test of the public under several guises and soon translate into a chilling transitionthe transfer of the child from the parents to the state. Writes Dr. Brock Chisholm, former head of the World Health Organization:
We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents.... The results are frustration, inferiority, neurosis and inability to... make the world fit to live in...It has long been generally accepted that parents have a perfect right to impose any points of view, any lies or fears, superstitions, prejudices, hates, or faith on their defenseless children.... [People with] guilts, fears, inferiorities, are certain to project their hates on to others.... Such reaction now becomes a dangerous threat to the whole world....
But are public education and values clarification the answer? Relativists answer in the affirmative. Techniques are common and obscure, the most common being games. In these games, students are compelled to step into the worldview of others and, in so doing, validate their actions and their views. Mary-Ruth Marshall agrees:
In simulation games, reality is most often simulated in one of two ways when: players play themselves in unfamiliar situation; players play the role of someone else in a familiar situation Games help us try out new or different behaviors, to experiment or take risks, attempts new solutions or ways of acting.
The existence of this subjectivity is even palpable here, in the real world. How many times has a defense attorney uttered, Now pretend that your were Charlie Macabre on the night of April 8. Your friends offered you a drink and you really couldnt refuse. So you drank some, and then some more. And then you killed your girlfriend accidentally, not knowing what youd done? In all probability, Charlie Macabre will be acquitted and a multi-million-dollar lawsuit brought against the alcohol industry. The students learn from a very early age that everyones actions are justified and all that is needed is some empathy.
Consequences
First is the barefaced violation of parenthood. Public schools have become public jailhouses, centers of indoctrination, where through programs of values education (like sex-education) therapeutic measures generate moral confusion and transfer loyalty in parents into loyalty in peers. In school, the child learns that the moral guidance of parents is often skewed, if not evil. Students are encouraged to seek administrative advice and to talk to teachers about their parents. Parents no longer have authority over the offspring. Child-rearing is legally hampered and child-raising is legally hampered. Parents can neither discipline nor teach their children. There are legal obstacles in the way. One concerned parent writes, Its psychological examination of the students without parental consent. There is no opt-out form and no written permission slip for parents to sign. And should a child reveal that he has been fed by parents with poisonous certainties, who knows? Anonymous calls are enough for a childs removal from the family. All in the name of moral relativism, and all in opposition to freedom and privacy.
***
Not only do moral relativism and non-judgmentalism undermine family and moral standards but they instill in the students a dangerous psychological codea code that causes more commotion than clarification, that states that good doesnt exist, that denies the facts of our world. It instills in them a frame of mind that censures opinion and ignores truth. When a reporter who spent several months in a Los Angeles high school asked the smartest student in the class of a group of seniors what he had learned, the student answered, I learned that the Vietnam War, North and South Korea fought against each other, and then there was a truce at the 38th parallel, and that Eisenhower has something to do with it. The reporter interjected: Would it bother you to know that the things you learned were wrong? He answered: Not really. Because what we really learned from Miss Silver was that we were worth listening to, that we could express ourselves and that an adult would listen, even if we were wrong. Thats why Miss Silver will always be our favorite teacher. She made us feel like we mattered, like we were important.
It is this logic that leads one to compare the morality of Hitler with that of Mother Theresa; to declare that a justice system is meaningless since judgments should not be passes; to advance the cause of evil by denying the good. It is this logic that is being driven into our youth in understated yet effective methods. It is the logic that contends that truth, evil, morality, and facts do not exist. And this dogma of relativism is declared as an absolute, and it is justified by objective standardsabsolutes and objectivity that are allowed only to justify the views of the privileged elite who deny their existence.
I shall, at this time, like to make a revision to the words of Richard Dawkinsand I hope Ill be quoted: Show me a relativist
and Ill show you a hypocrite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.