What if a group of people believed false things that impacted their ability to make correct decisions? 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 (something false). 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'.
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, then they would be hard pressed to live up to their human potential, and would 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. An adult male thinks that twelve year old girls are 'fair game' for his sexual activities but most others don't, especially dads with daughters. 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?
As far-fetched as the above examples might seem, the point of this article is to demonstrate that there is a 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 in the examples above. That core level belief or world view is called "relativism". 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."
There are two primary factors to the source of blindness and confusion. First, people denying that any universal standard regarding 'proper' human behavior exists - this could be known as "ethical", "moral" or "truth relativism". So, element one to the great blindness is the belief of "truth" or "ethical" relativism.
The second element is people being unable to use reason well in order to arrive at sound conclusions in any realm of knowledge, but particularly in the realm of human beliefs and behavior. Stated another way, people are turning away from reason being the primary means to sort out true from false claims in any domain of knowledge. Relativism plays a big part in this, but so does emotionalism - the belief that 'human knowing' is primarily an emotional endeavor instead of an endeavor of reason.
Let's start by not looking at the foundational belief or primary reason why people are losing their ability to know true from false, right from wrong - relativism - but rather at one of its 'children'.
Here is the popular belief:
'Each person has their own beliefs and those beliefs must be respected and not sought to be changed by another person'. Stated another way, 'since there are no absolute truths, it is intolerant and disrespectful to judge another person's beliefs as somehow deficient or wrong and thus needing changing or correction'.
Examining this popular belief:
The above statement contains essentially three premises:
Premise 1. Each person has their own beliefs;
Premise 2. There are no absolute beliefs, meaning there is no unchanging universal standard to judge beliefs as true or false, right or wrong;
Conclusion. Since 2 is true, it is intolerant and disrespectful to judge another person's beliefs as somehow deficient or wrong and thus needing changing or correction.
Premise one is self evidently true. (However, it is important to point out that two or more people can share the same beliefs and not have heard it from another person. It is also possible for two or more people to consider the beliefs that they share as the most important beliefs to them.)
Premise two is not necessarily true. We will examine this in the following paragraphs.
The Conclusion is not necessarily true. It is the key belief referred to in the beginning of this article.
It is important that the reader understand that the assumptive statement 'since there are no absolute truths' needs to be true in order for the conclusion of the popular belief to be true - and without 2 being true, the conclusion is clearly false. The 'no absolutes' belief is often not spelled out, stated or clearly identified in the popular belief, but is assumed since it serves as the foundation of the popular belief.
The conclusion of the popular belief statement includes this statement - 'it is intolerant and disrespectful to judge another person's beliefs'. So, not only is the conclusion not true if premise 2 is false, the conclusion itself includes a self-defeating statement even if permise 2 is true! A self-defeating statement is one that contradicts itself. For example, 'all red rocks are blue' (physical), or, 'kind people enjoy hurting others' (moral) are self-defeating statements since within the statement the single subject or point in the statement is contradicted within the statement. In the previous two examples, the single subject or point is the color of all red rocks, and the contradiction to that single point is that red rocks are blue. In the next example, the single subject or point is what kind people enjoy, and the contradiction to that single point is that kind people enjoy hurting others.
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 intolerant and 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"!
The above examples of arguments are proved false by using logic. Logic provides rules by which reasoning should operate. Logic is a sub component of reasoning. 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 statement, '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 the statement, 'It is wrong to say something is wrong'.
ThThis 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 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.
The popular belief also relies heavily on the concept of 'respect', for the popular belief says all people must 'respect' other people's beliefs. Thus, it is important that the term 'respect' be defined and properly understood.
ThThe people who believe the popular belief define the term 'respect' as meaning, 'a person should not say anything negative about another person's beliefs nor state that they believe it is false'. The concept of 'respecting someone's rights' might seem akin to this, but is significantly different for the following reason. A 'right' is a legal concept and to respect someone's right to 'free speech' for example, means to agree they are allowed to express themselves - it does not address the content of the speech, but rather a person's 'freedom' to speak at all. The popular belief we are looking at has everything to do with the content or nature of a person's beliefs for we are told we must 'respect' other's beliefs. In other words, the popular belief is not defending some innate human 'right', but rather is attempting to shut a certain kind of people's expression down, namely those people who reject relativism and believe there are absolute ethical, moral and existential truths.
Here are some definitions of 'respect' (in the context it is used in the popular belief) from widely accepted dictionary sources in the United States.
"Admiration felt or shown for someone or something that you believe has good ideas or qualities."
"Esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: Example: 'I have great respect for her judgment'.
"Deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly."
"The condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect."
All these definitions assume there is a basis for one person respecting another. In other words, these definitions assume that the first person sees something worthy of respect in the other person or thing.
For example, if you have never met someone and during your first encounter with the person, the person is doing something you believe is wrong, you are unlikely to 'respect' that person. If during your first encounter with a person, that person is not doing anything but rather just sitting there, you also would be unlikely to say 'I respect that person'. If you did want to make that statement in those circumstances, then this author would suggest what you are really saying is, 'All human's deserve respect', which statement has a very different meaning than a personal respecting of a person due to their characteristics or behavior.
The attitude of 'respect' or state of 'respecting' is based upon the judgment of the person doing the respecting. Thus, to 'respect' someone means that the basis of that 'respect' is valued and thus sought to be emulated, adopted or mimicked by the person doing the respecting. This would hold true for behavior, traits or beliefs. Thus, if I 'respect' someone for their character trait of 'honesty', then I would like to be honest myself. Or, if I 'respect' someone for exercising each day and thus staying physically fit, I myself would like to have the discipline to be physically fit. Finally, if I 'respect' someone's belief that people with dark skin are humans just like people with light skin, then I too will share or adopt that belief.
In the popular statement above, 'respect' is re-defined to mean 'having no concern for truth or rightness'; or, 'not seeking to change another person's beliefs'. (A person's beliefs should be 'respected' e.g. not sought to be changed.) As we have just seen by the most common held definitions of respect, the popular belief re-defines (or uses a minority or uncommon definition) the term 'respect' to mean 'it is wrong to judge another person's beliefs as wrong'. This author believes the purpose of the re-definition is to bully the reader into adopting the popular belief since most people want to exhibit respect - or be respectful (an act of humility) - as properly defined above.
Furthermore, the proper understanding of the concept of 'respect' is in contrast to a philosophy which states that 'a person is free to believe whatever they like, for whatever they believe is right or true to them'. This philosophy is what the popular belief is actually advocating, and this philosophy seeks to remove all judgment of good and bad, right and wrong, true and false from the human experience, and thus it is both unreasonable and undeniably false. In other words, reason is removed as a guide to human thought or behavior in order to hold to this belief. It seems to have good intentions - to remove improper judgment of other people not guided by humility or compassion - but unfortunately it has a false basis. What the belief would do - if it is to be received at face value - is remove all ethical or moral judgment from the human experience as well as force people to reject certain undisputable facts about human nature and historical events. As we shall see, a person using reason and concerned about right and wrong ought to reject such a belief as VERY harmful to human relationships.
Let us first test the popular statement's basic premise using some example statements. Here is a re-statement of the popular belief that we are going to test:
'Each person has their own beliefs and those beliefs must be respected and not sought to be changed by another person'. Stated another way, 'since there are no absolute truths, it is intolerant and disrespectful to judge another person's beliefs as somehow deficient or wrong and thus needing changing or correction'.
'I believe that all people with a dark skin color are not as highly evolved as people with lighter skin, and thus they are less human and ought to be relegated to some type of servant status only, for this belief is true and right to me.'
'I believe that people who have different religious beliefs than I do are inferior to me, for this belief is true for me.'
'I believe that it is good for adult men to sexualize young girls, for this belief (and desired subsequent behavior) is true for me.'
'I believe that christians are all untrustworthy aggressive people who ought to be defeated and subjugated to non-christian people, for this belief (and desired consequence) is true for me'.
'I believe that people who say they believe God exists ought to have their foolish God beliefs removed from their minds in order to be enlightened by those who have had true reality revealed to them, for this belief is true for me'.
'I believe that it is good and right to protect myself (which protection includes harming them) from other people who frighten me due to their differences from me, for this belief is true for me.'
'I believe that it is good and right to distrust people who are different from me, and to allow that distrust to become fear and hatred, for this belief is true for me'.
'I believe that those who have less material things should forcibly take material resources from those who have more and who will not willingly share, for this belief and behavior is true for me.'
'I believe that 'non-normal people' (handicapped, retarded, disabled, etc.) are a drain on society and thus ought to be 'eliminated', for this belief is true to me and ought to be true for everyone'.
Given the statements above, how does the 'each person has their own beliefs and those beliefs must be respected and not sought to be changed by another person' philosophy hold up to your reasoning? The philosophy sounds good at first glance, but it does not lead to human freedom and true respecting of one another. Rather, it can be (and is) used to justify 'evil' (the unjust harming of people) and opens the door wide for the strong or aggressive to take advantage of those who are weak or vulnerable. For if I believe I can take from others without their consent, and I am stronger than my targets, what will happen?
What in fact does happen millions of times each day?
Some would seek to qualify the philosophy of 'a person is free to believe in whatever way they like, for whatever they believe is right or true to them' with the premise 'as long as what a person believes does not cause harm to others'. The 'harm clause' does not fix the fundamental flaw with the belief which flaw is that it begs the question regarding what standard of human behavior is used in the first place. The harm clause cannot overcome the same problem - what standard is used to determine 'harm to others'? In other words, who or what is the standard a person turns to in order to know what causes harm to others?
Let us look at some examples to illustrate the fatal flaw in the 'harm clause' proposition.
Is it harmful for people to serve or sell food or consumptive items that are known to be harmful to people?
'I believe that it is good that I can profit off of selling food (or tobacco) that is proved to contain harmful elements to other people, for this belief is true for me'.
Is it harmful for a woman who 'willingly' performs sexual acts in front of a camera in order to make money 'harmful' to anyone? What standard do you use to make that judgment?
'I believe that it is good for women to believe and be trained that they are primarily an object to be used for sexual pleasure by men, and to earn income for such a belief and associated activities, for this belief is true for me'.
Is it harmful for children to be allowed or led by their parents to play act or enjoy violence?
'I believe that it is fine for parents to allow their children to play video games that involve explicit, unjustified, personal and gratuitous violence, for this belief is true for me'.
Or, 'I believe that it is good for children to learn to enjoy perpetrating violence by partaking in virtual violence and thus training their minds as such, for this belief is true for me'.
Is it harmful for people to believe and thus practice that using a powerful narcotic is a good way to worship god?
'I believe that it is good for me to use LSD (or whatever the latest drug is) in order to connect with my god, for this belief is true for me'.
Is it harmful for one group of people to raid a neighboring group, and to take their women and children for slaves for their own group?
'I believe that un-contacted tribes in the Amazon basin have a right to be free of all outside influence due to evolutionary principles and relativism which lead me to believe that all their behavior is right for them (which tribes do in fact forcibly take women and children from neighboring tribes to be used as slaves), for this belief is right for me.'
Is it harmful for one person to see another person being harmed, and yet do nothing about it?
'I believe that I should have done nothing today when I saw the old man in the trench coat reveal himself to the little girl in the park, because this belief is right for me.'; or, 'I am free to believe that I did not have to do anything to help the person lying on the street bleeding today - I don't owe them anything - because this belief is right for me'.
The above examples demonstrate the erroneous nature of the 'as long as it causes no harm to others' clause. If each person determines what is 'true and right' for them, and their definition of 'harm to others' if different than another persons (which is a reasonable assumption), then some people will be viewed by others as harming other people. What then? What happens when one person is viewed by others as harming another person? Which side will the referee take?
What is the referee's standard to make such judgements for that matter?
What is the right action to take? Without any standard of right and wrong beliefs and behavior, who is to say what is right and wrong? Truly, if you follow this philosophy consistently, it has and will lead to destructive human conflict within any given human group (or among groups). This philosophy will lead to the physically stronger dominating and using the weaker persons as their slaves - in other words, human history.
Thus, we have reached the fundamental error with the widely held belief called 'Relativism'. See the above definitions for "relativism". 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). Stated another way, this belief says that the individual person's perspective on any topic or event is that person's ultimate reality or complete truth which no other person is bound by.
Furthermore, relativism is girded by physicalism ' which is the belief that there is no reality (metaphysical or otherwise) beyond the physical reality that can be measured by 'science'. It states that there are no absolute truths that people can hold to, 'that all beliefs and behaviors are only real or meaningful or relevant to the person or persons who hold them and no one else (unless other people happen to hold to those same beliefs and behaviors). Stated yet another way, there is nothing outside of the human brain (which brain 'science' does not understand!) 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. 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 aspects of the human experience, it fails as the highest governing belief of the human experience.
As with its child philosophy 'The Popular Belief', when you apply reason to moral or existential relativism, it is shown to be self-defeating. The statement from the consistent relativist is, 'there are no universal or absolute moral or existential truths that can be known or applied among all humans'. But when you ask the relativist who uttered that statement, 'does your statement convey an absolute 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 universal or absolute truths that exist. Therefore, other absolute truths might also exist, so perhaps it would be wise to seek out from where absolute truth originates. Please read this paragraph 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 that which is false.
'Each person has their own beliefs and those beliefs must be respected and not sought to be changed by another person. Stated another way, since there are no absolute truths, it is intolerant and disrespectful to judge another person's beliefs as somehow deficient or wrong and thus needing changing or correction.'
As you can see, the popular belief is merely a slightly different wording for expressing relativism. The popular belief goes a step further than just stating relativism, however, and seeks to defend relativism by stating the 'ought nots'.
As we have seen this is a self-defeating exercise since relativism states there are no 'oughts' (no universal moral standard by which to judge right and wrong for human beliefs or behavior), how can there be 'ought nots'?
The Popular Belief piggy-backs quite closely with relativism since it promotes the following idea - that a person should not be pressured to hold a different moral or existential belief or adopt a behavior that they did not hold before the person desiring to use reason to examine their belief approached them, since there are no universal truths that apply to all human beings. In this article, this author has used reasoned arguments to demonstrate that this belief is false - it is self-defeating or self-contradictory.
To recap, since relativism as a guiding belief applied to human morality, ethics or existentialism (and by extension its derived popular belief) says that there are no absolute truths that apply to collective humanity, then to declare a foul by stating a person 'ought not' believe or behave in a certain manner is to state a contradiction according to the law of logic. 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 The Standard) will contradict themselves.
From a slightly different perspective, any statement of the nature of a judgment such as 'that is wrong' by a person who claims to hold or believe the popular belief (or its parent, moral or existential relativism) is a self-defeating statement and thus is false. Since this is true, people who hold to false beliefs ought to abandom those beliefs in favor of that which is true.
The concept of tolerance is very popular and is very similar to the popular belief already looked at. Below are three versions or definitions for a 'tolerant person':
'To be a tolerant person, you must accept all other people's beliefs or behaviors, and if you cannot accept something, you must not express disapproval towards the person(s) who hold the belief or engage in the behavior.'
A belief that includes 'must accept all other people's beliefs or behaviors' is a false, self defeating statement. The person who holds to that belief and encounters a person who 'believes they should not accept all other people's beliefs or behaviors', will break their own belief by rejecting that person's belief and judging it as wrong - they have not accepted the other person's belief and in so doing are in contradiction to their own stated belief. Since this belief fails the test of logic and is unreasonable, it should be abandoned.
'To be a tolerant person, you must accept your culture's majority views/beliefs of acceptable human beliefs or behaviors, and if you cannot accept it, you must not express disapproval towards the person(s) who hold the belief or engage in the behavior.'
This statement is better than the first self-contradicting and thus false statement just examined, but it still contains two serious flaws. First, who decides what the 'majority' views/beliefs are, and by what standard do you judge them as right or wrong? For example, let's say most people in a society believe that American people are generally evil. Is the majority of people in that society 'tolerant' of American people? According to the above belief, only if they do not express disapproval of American people. However, the truth is that human belief drives human behavior, thus exposing the second flaw. If a group of people believe that American people are generally evil, then they will very likely manifest behavior that aligns with that belief. It is unreasonable to believe that people who hold a brlief like, 'those people are evil' will not somehow manifest that belief with consistent behavior when opportunities arise. These two flaws are serious flaws and thus this belief also should be abandoned.
'To be a tolerant person, you ought to cause no harm to others no matter how different they are (regarding things not controlled by their will) or no matter how much you disagree with their beliefs or their differences. The truly tolerant person will be careful or sensitive in the way they seek to have a discussion with the person they disagree with, and they will seek to listen carefully and thus try to understand the other person's point of view before making judgements.'
This statement is not false and does not contain the significant flaws of the prior statements, thus is should be adopted as a valid definition of a 'tolerant' person. Yet, it is not. Instead, most people hold to some version of the first two definitions of 'a tolerant person' above.
At the most basic level, the popular concept of 'tolerance' is false. If a 'tolerant' person judges another person as 'intolerant', then their belief is self-defeating'meaning they contradict themselves. The moment a person proclaiming to be 'tolerant' claims or castigates another as 'intolerant', they have no reasonable basis to proclaim or believe that they themselves are tolerant! It has the same fatal fallacy that we saw with the popular belief.
What those who proclaim 'tolerance' are really saying is that they have a belief/view or behavior they think is right and good and want others to accept it - oftentimes a popular or a 'politically correct' viewpoint or behavior that they believe other people ought to hold. Those who disagree with that viewpoint are labeled as 'intolerant' - as we have seen, a logically false practice. This is an extremely important truth I hope people readers will be able to understand.
For example, some homosexuals seem to be a person-type that are eager to proclaim the 'tolerance' belief - they want others to tolerate their beliefs and behavior. They say that it is intolerant for a person to say (or believe) that homosexual beliefs or behavior is wrong or harmful. They say that their beliefs and/or behavior ought to be viewed as good, right and acceptable human behavior and those that say or even believe otherwise are intolerant, disrespectful people. It seems to this author that many outspoken homosexuals seem to be unable to refrain from more severe judgments against people who disagree with their beliefs or behavior, and use terms like 'hateful', 'bigots', 'homophobic' and the like to label those who disagree with them. Do you see the problem? Even if a person is a kind and caring person - would never think of harming someone - and essentially is perfect in gently and kindly expressing their view that homosexual behavior is wrong and harmful, they are judged as 'intolerant' and 'hateful' by people who hold to the belief - or practice it - and who want others to believe the same way.
What is the homosexual's standard to justify their beliefs and behavior? They have none other than where relativism leaves people - 'because what I believe is right and true for me'; or 'because this group of people believe it is acceptable'; or 'because this expert says so'. Unfortunately it also makes the homosexuals who promote the 'tolerance' belief, just as hypocritical as the religious people they seem to hate. As can be seen in the behavior and words of many outspoken homosexuals, they do not practice what they preach - they are among the most intolerant people (by any definition) towards others who believe their beliefs and practices are wrong.
(Lest you think the author to be biased against homosexuals, I would also say that most religious people do not practice what they preach and also seem to have great difficulty avoiding hypocrisy. In fact, this author would say that we all as humans have difficultly avoiding hypocrisy to some degree. This author believes that a life well lived has two components: First, having the right beliefs or principles to guide one's life, and second, consistently practicing or living out those beliefs and principles.)
In regard to avoiding hypocrisy, it is extremely important to make the distinction between a person's failures to live out what they say they believe in contrast to a person saying the standard they believe needs to be changed to accommodate their behavior. For example, I can say ('preach') that I believe that all high fat food is unhealthy. My standard could be a medical or scientific report or data that demonstrate that indeed high fat food is bad for human health. If, however, you catch me eating a high fat food, my response will be telling. If I say, 'Oh, well, the evidence that high fat foods are bad for human health is suspect', then I am justifying my behavior and attacking the standard to do so. This is wrong and hypocritical behavior.
If, however, I said, 'well, yes, high fat food is bad and I should never eat it but I fail and occasionally eat it', my response is not attacking the standard and thus my response is more objective and humble. Unfortunately, we as humans seem to lack clarity when it comes to seeing our own faults and we would rather defend ourselves and attack the standard rather than been seen as wrong. What exactly accounts for that? : ) See Self-Pride, Fear and Selfishness.
Here are some additional cases to show the erroneous nature of the popular 'tolerant' and 'must respect others beliefs' beliefs.
And adult person believes that it is good to have sexual relations with a child. The adult's belief is, 'It is good and right for me to have sexual relations with children'.
According to the popular beliefs in review, it would be intolerant and/or disrespectful to attempt to change or correct that adult's belief.
A person believes that the earth's core is made up of water.
That person's belief ought to be 'respected' and their belief 'tolerated', and thus to try to convince them otherwise would be intolerant and disrespectful.
A person believes that dumping a small amount of toxic waste into the large river will not harm anything since the river is so large. Should a person be tolerant of that belief?
Adult person A believes that God exists and has given mankind a moral standard both by which to live, and by which they can flourish and be happy, and to which they will be held accountable, including that the only acceptable expressions of human sexuality are between and husband and his wife.
Is the case D belief 'tolerated' and 'respected' by the majority of people who currently live in the US?
For example, person B, a person who proclaims the 'tolerance' doctrine, yells at person A (as person A states his Case D belief publicly in a calm and appropriate manner) and accuses person A of 'proclaiming hate speech'.
Does the reader get the point? Will the reader use reason to conclude what is evidently true? What is evident is that reason or truth do not play a part in Person B's reaction to Person A, and it is also evident that Person B is contradicting his own stated 'tolerance' belief and thus is acting hypocritically. As such, Person B should be ignored and his statements should be dismissed until such time as he/she can refrain from personally attacking others and instead use reason to prove his/her point.
What happens in reality? Person B's words get published and the 'objective press' which publishes them puts Person B's words in a favorable light and context while subtly supporting Person B's contention that Person A is 'full of hate'.
The popular beliefs of 'respecting others beliefs' as well as the 'tolerance', while sounding good, are built on the faulty foundation of moral or existential relativism. This article has demonstrated the errors of those popular beliefs by showing people who utter them contradict themselves and pronounce self defeating statements. When people say things that are false - self-defeating or contradictory - those statements ought to be rejected, and reason should be appealed to in order to find the truth of the matter.
Ironically, 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 'absolutism'. This belief states that there are 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) as well.
Relativism is most popular amongst 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 indivdiuals in the U.S. at his junction in history.
Absolutism has far fewer problems with logic, represents reality better, and thus should be adopted by people who want to understand and sort out their lives and experiences using reason.
'All things are relative.' Is that statement absolutely true?
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!