Relativism is the doctrine said to follow from the Nietzschean "death of God." It is far from clear exactly how the living God managed to let us avoid relativism. As I've argued below, once God gave us free will, we became able to choose any way of life at all. God's preferences were among our possibilities, but others were there to be chosen as well. In this situation, what does it mean to say that "Absolutism," as opposed to "Relativism," holds sway?
Apart from that, however, it seems a dishonest move to go from we have choices to none are any better than any other. Enthusiasts of indigenous peoples and hut dwellers everywhere keep insisting that those peoples are not "primitive" or "uncivilized" in comparison to westerners because, they ask rhetorically, "Who is to say?" and "What makes us any better than they?"
Well, since the opinion in question is ours, I think the answer to the first question is "we." We are to say, and why not? Our response simply reflects our preferences, and most people in the west prefer to live like westerners and not like aboriginals. They do think that living that way is better. And it is not difficult to find what makes us better also.
I prefer a culture, using this term loosely, that has a written language; one that enjoys the rule of law, rather than the individual; one that has written laws; one whose religion is not animistic; one whose religion does not involve the sacrifice of living things; one that does not subordinate one sex to the other; one that does not accept slavery; one whose political process is democratic.
I could probably go on, preferring, for example, that the culture have a developed mathematics and technology, but this listing seems large enough to make the point.
Are my criteria "absolute"? Of course not. I don't know what such criteria would be like. What gives them their authority then? The only source available: that I prefer such a culture very strongly and would be willing to fight to preserve it.
No comments:
Post a Comment