“That’s true for you, but not true for me.”
Have you ever heard that? It is a very popular view espoused in discussions about religion, morality, and sometimes politics. The view is that there are no absolute truths or objective morals that are true for all people and cultures; rather, truth is relative. All roads lead to Rome, and all religions lead to God, as they say.
Therefore, the conventional wisdom goes, one ought not judge other religions, lifestyles, or cultures as wrong or misguided. Doing so would make about as much sense as me judging your choice of one ice cream over another. It is okay if “my truth” gives me some personal benefit, but I shouldn’t be so naive to think that it applies to others. Tolerance is the buzz word of the day.
If you haven’t run into this line of thinking in your conversations or reading, chances are, you yourself believe it!
What should we think about this?
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.
Think about this: if you are at work and you over hear a white male co-worker call a black female co-worker derogatory racial slurs and sexual put downs (he calls her a derogatory part of the female anatomy starting with “c”), would he have done anything wrong? Not wrong “for you,” but wrong, period. If the man is from another culture, does that change things?
The answer is not complicated. The man in the situation is wrong, not just “for you,” but really wrong. It does not make a difference what culture he comes from.
Second, the “there is no universal truth, so one ought not judge others” is completely contradictory. The person who says it saws off the branch she’s sitting on. The person says, in essence, that it’s wrong to say others are wrong! As author Greg Koukl notes, it is tantamount to saying “there are no moral rules, but here’s one.” In other words, the person says that there are no truths or morals that applies to others, but then she turns around and offers something that she thinks applies to others: that one ought not judge or say others are wrong.
She thinks this doesn’t only apply to her. Talk to her more, and you’ll find out she thinks you should agree with her. Here’s a conversation that demonstrates this (that I borrow from Greg Koukl):
“What’s true for you might not be true for me, so you shouldn’t push your morals on others. Be tolerant!”
“Is that your belief?”
“For sure!”
“Then that’s true for you, but why are you pushing it on me?”
You see? She says I shouldn’t judge, but that very sentence is a judgment itself. Why else would the word “should” pop up?
Another example:
“There is no objective truth.”
“Is that ‘Truth’ with a ‘big’ T, or ‘little t’?”
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.
