Show

Cultural Tyranny! Humanism and Postmodernism’s False Tolerance

by TB Chamomile
Clash Daily Contributor

The foundation of 21st century Western culture is that of humanism, the doctrine that each individual is the agent who determines right and wrong, and what is good or evil because humans are capable of doing so for the social good. However, the question that arises is whether morality can stand as truth where it is defined by each individual. While it may seem to promise more freedom, it provides no coherent framework as to how people should behave to advance a civilisation owing to the individualisation of the concepts of love, tolerance and civility. Rather than fostering respect for others and taking responsibility for one’s actions, it encourages self-entitlement and individualism that is justified on the grounds that society must accommodate for the personal interests of the individual.

Humanism is only limited to a moral framework based on what is right or wrong according to society. Thus, humanistic morality expressed in the form of political correctness, which purports that anything is right as long as it does not “hurt” or “offend” anyone. The individual right of the person itself matters over what the belief is.

Where it is intuitive that one should protect another from danger but where this may “hurt” or “offend” the person, one would not only be inconsiderate, but morally wrong to do so. Such is the case where a person warns another person about a religious cult that practices child sacrifice or where a person warns a vulnerable mind against what he believes to be dangerous doctrines taught at university.

Those who hold views that oppose political correctness for its moral basis are excluded from the respect of political correctness. They are seen as inconsiderate, backwards or even immoral in the eyes of those who support political correctness, as it is only restricted to protecting morality where an individual thinks it is right by one’s own standards.

Humanism assumes that human beings are inherently good, and that evil does not come from within the human heart since there is no evil or good per se. Rather, evil and good is determined by the individual according to one’s own standards. Since morality is determined by tolerance, chaos and suffering can only be attributed to different belief systems and the lack of tolerance between them. As such, this leads to what humanism sees as hatred. This explains why humanists often criticise all religions to be intolerant, all while forgetting that they have their own worldview.

That which is universally “believed” to be immoral in and of itself, such as murder and rape, is merely deemed to be wrong, not because of absolute objective moral basis, but because humans being are moral enough to hate such evil. However, humanism, because it rejects any absolute objective moral basis is unable to justify why such acts are immoral or “unethical”, a term which humanists usually prefer to use to avoid talk about positive moral obligations.

Since loving people is to be tolerant, “respect” for the individual beliefs of people is required on the grounds that all people have their own right to have their own beliefs, irrespective of how abhorrent they may be to others. Although many humanists may deny this, they uphold the right of the individual to believe anything as one chooses, and are indifferent towards the evil which they claim to be so concerned about. It is not so much about what people believe in that matters, as much as how one treats others outwardly. Therefore, one has the absolute right to believe as one chooses irrespective of its evil. After all, the humanist has no moral basis upon which to justify one’s moral beliefs. This explains why humanists become very sceptical of those who analyse the doctrines of the beliefs of others, while criticising the “private beliefs” of others.

Civility that arises from tolerance, is concerned with only what is worthy of interest to the majority rather than that which is only of concern to a “minority” group as morality is determined by society as it sees fit. Since individual rights is determined by social values rather than inherent values, civility is determined not by how one is able to justify one’s worldview, but by the ability of one to gain social support for one’s worldview. Therefore, that which is open to the view of the majority, and is tolerant of others, is that which is civil. However, the question that arises is what being “open” to the view of the majority means.

In the humanist worldview, openness is to accept that which others say to be true for the individual and to respect it as “personal truth”. To merely accept that others ultimately believe what they believe, while staying firm to one’s beliefs is not openness, but dismissive, intolerant, and even bigoted. This stance, according to the humanistic worldview, warrants scepticism or even is seen as an oxymoron. Such is postmodernist tyranny.

Postmodernist tyranny uses criticism against alleged victim groups to reverse and shift the blame for their personal offence to that of others and alleged inequality and unfairness. As equality is only realised in the material realm, it can only be gained by “equal opportunity” to fulfil the same goals as other groups. Thus, the concept of “equal opportunity” fails to acknowledge cases where it would be inappropriate for a person to be owed the same obligation to receive an opportunity because it would be unreasonable to do so for things beyond the material realm. This leads to tyranny against those with marginalised beliefs.

The false assumption that individuals are capable of deciding a moral framework for society to suit each individual has lead to rampant individualism. The sympathy of humanism towards those alleging victimhood, in order to accommodate their interests, fosters the false notion that tolerance is love. Welcome to a world where love is hate and hate is love; tolerance is intolerance, tolerance is intolerance; respect is hate and hate is respect.

Image: http://juanmago.com/2008/01/24/el-problema-de-la-moral-o-su-negacion-determinismo-amoralismo-relativismo/

tb chaamomileThe Beautiful Chamomile is a university student from Australia. She blogs at http://fightingtheevilsofmammon.blogspot.com.au/. Her interests are in history, economics, law and philosophy. She loves God, family and community. TB Chamomile believes that only true wisdom comes from God and seeks to lead the way in getting rid of the “cloud of repression” formed by false doctrines of the modern world. She loves fighting the feminists and other false prophets.

image

Lower Image: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/542738

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.