.::.Easy Mind Reading.::.

"Sure, you think that's true, but some people disagree. Who are you to judge?"

That view comes up often in discussions about religion and morality. It's quite popular. The notion is that there are no overarching truths or morals that applies for all across cultures. Truth is relative to cultures or individuals, and all points of view are true.

Therefore, so the popular argument goes, you shouldn't push your morality or truth on others. That's kind of like you judging another because he chose peanut butter ice cream over your personal favorite vanilla. It is fine if your "truth" makes you happy, but you should be tolerant of others' beliefs. Saying others are wrong is intolerant, so the saying goes.

Chances are that either you've heard this many times before or you yourself think this way.

What should we make of this point of view?

First, notice that it's unlivable. If someone walked up to you and claimed to sincerely believe rape is ok, you wouldn't reflect on that belief tolerantly--to paraphrase philosopher William Lane Craig, you would quickly usher them to the nearest mental health professional. It doesn't matter which culture our rape fan comes from, he is simply mistaken.

Let's say you are at work, and you witness two co-workers arguing. The first, a white male, calls a black female co-worker some pretty hefty racial slurs, as well as some very explicit words for various female genitalia. The anger in his voice shows his intent. The female looks very hurt. Has he done anything wrong? Not wrong "for you," but just wrong. Does it change things if he is from another culture or country?

The answer, of course, is yes on the first question, and no on the second. Racism and misogyny are wrong, no matter who you are or where you are from. Period.

Moreover, the notion expressed is contradictory. It commits logical suicide. It's like saying, "I'm a vegetarian, pass the meat." Really, the person is saying that it's wrong to critique others' views, but merely by uttering that, she critiques others. Out of one side of her mouth, she says that there are no truths that applies to others, but out of the other side of her mouth she gives a truth that is supposed to apply to others: that it's wrong to critique others and that one should be tolerant.

This isn't something she thinks just applies to her; she thinks you should follow that rule as well. Here's how you can tease this out in a conversation (that I again borrow from Koukl):

"Morality is relative. People have different moral beliefs, so you shouldn't judge them."

"Do you believe that?"

"Yes."

"Then that's your belief, so believe it, but it's not true for me, so I can ignore it I guess."

You see? She says I shouldn't judge, but that very sentence is a judgment itself. Why else would the word "should" pop up?

Or take this example:

"There is no 'Truth' with a big 'T,' only 'little t' truths."

"Is that true?"

She is in quite a pickle. If she answers no, then you can ignore her--it's just her "belief." But if she answers yes, then she her view commits suicide. She can't escape it; some things are really true, others really false. You know what? It's allright to point that out and say some are right and others are wrong, period. You can't get around it.