The world has changed dramatically each century, and the
changes of the 21st century are no less dramatic. One of the most significant changes is the
dominance of humanism and its selfish sympathy for groups deemed to be
marginalised or oppressed. Such is the starkest manifestation of humanism.
Humanism is the ideology that people are good, moral and
even righteous by nature. It assumes that whatever evils humans may commit, it
is not because of an inherently evil nature, but rather because of
environmental factors such as poverty, inequality or a lack of education. Environmental
factors, thus, must be taken into account to determine the moral culpability of
an act. The good deeds of a person must
also be taken into account to determine the moral culpability of an immoral act
of a person since moral culpability is not determined by the act per se, but determined according to the
person’s overall character. Therefore, if a person has stolen from others and
murdered others, but also has been involved in anti-violence campaigning, he or
she is still deemed to be a morally good person.
The media being almost silent, if
not completely silent about the anti-violence campaigner who ironically
committed murder of his girlfriend demonstrates this. Whenever a white
woman is being murdered, the media would spend days and perhaps weeks of
commentary engaging in discussion about the alleged mistreatment of women and
misogyny based on that single murder case alone. However, the media in this
case, while not explicitly praising the ‘anti-violence campaigner’ appears to
be doing so, by even revealing this about the murderer. It also seemed to
attribute the murder to depression rather than regard the case as an evil act,
by recommending people to call the hotline if they are feeling depressed. It is
not that the media does not know murder is an evil act in and of itself – it
does know as is evident in its aggressive condemnation of other murder cases.
Based on the assumption that humans are naturally good, it
follows that different acts of evil are to be judged in comparison to each
other, rather than being judged for the act of evil itself. If one does not
regard evil to be of the evil nature of human beings, not act committed by
human can be deemed evil in the absolute sense, but only as a product of the
environment. Therefore, an act is only evil where it causes harm that is sensed
by people, whether physical, emotional, or social harm.
Many in the modern pro-life movement, for example, deem
abortive women to be “deserving” of sympathy and compassion, and that anger
against them is wrong, but yet that only those who lie of them deserve to be
treated with anger. For one to say that one believes abortion as an act is wrong,
one must believe it to be wrong in and of itself. If one says it is right to be
angry at the act of abortion, and those who lie to others to encourage
abortion, one must accept that it is also right to be angry at those who seek
abortions. To say that one must be sympathetic towards ‘abortive’ women, but
yet that it is right to be angry at those who lie to them, is to be
inconsistent with one’s conviction that abortion is wrong at best, and
hypocritical at worst. It is to treat the morality of abortion as dependent on
how it affects people, rather than on the act itself. This logic is another
example of humanism operating in moral debates.
Humanism is really a means for people to decide what moral
values they want to follow, and what they do not want to follow or even exist.
Humanism provides no anchor for absolutes, and as a result of this, legitimises
moral relativism. Since there are no absolutes, moral standards can be twisted
to determine when such standards apply and when such standards do not. In
addition to this, moral standards are twisted to determine when justice should
be done, and when justice should not be sought.
Moral relativism justifies punishing a person for a
particular act, and dismissing the moral culpability of another person who
committed the exact same act or even excusing it by making up an excuse for
that person. This is most evident in family courts that favour giving child
custody to mothers, even to the ones who are clearly abusive, on the pretext
that women are less morally culpable of child abuse than men are, in the
pursuit of transforming the society into one that justified child abuse
committed by women.
Many argue that people of the 21st century are
morally good or perhaps superior to those of other centuries because they are
more sensitive and respectful of personal beliefs and sensitivities of others. Indeed,
it is true that that society of the 21st century is characterised by
the fear of offending people. This itself is a humanistic viewpoint, as it assumes
that one is morally good because has a fear of what others feel about what one
says. What people think personally determines right and wrong.
Since, morality
is determined according to the individual, therefore the reaction of an
individual towards others based on one’s own beliefs also determines what is
morally right and wrong. This reveals the proud, arrogant and selfish
philosophy of humanism, which deems offence to be determined according to
whether one has “hurt” another or annoyed another by disagreeing with another.
That humanism makes people kinder is a real myth. It is
amazing how people can see the hypocrisy of others, and yet not realise their
own, making one even more hypocritical. Humanists often accuse people of being
intolerant for not being moral relativists, but yet through being tolerant for
all beliefs, because intolerant. The humanistic framework accepts all
frameworks that allow people to believe in whatever they choose and
conditionally choose when to follow it. Thus, it is diametrically opposed to
one which requires absolute loyalty to a moral framework which, when not
complied with, is to oppose that framework.
The humanist sees such frameworks as intolerant, oppressive
and bigoted as it is unable to allow a person to think freely. The humanist
believes that to allow people to think and act freely is to be kind to others,
as long as they do not cause perceived harm to others. Thus, the humanist sees
people of moral absolutist frameworks which demand absolute compliance to them
for one to be deemed consistent in one’s beliefs to not merely be tools of
unkindness, but unkindness itself. This is because the humanist thinks that
right is determined according to an individual’s own desires, aspirations and
visions. Right and wrong is subjective is the central humanist tenet, one that
is absolute itself.
Morality is that which determines that which is right or
wrong for an act, deed or thought to be carried out. Since it is concerned with
whether an act, deed or thought is right or wrong itself, morality, by its very
definition is absolute. Moral relativism is not morality. Rather, moral
relativism, the most central tenet of humanism, is an irony as it purports that
morality need not be concerned with right or wrong. Moral relativism by its
nature is self-contradictory. Owing to this self-contradictory nature, moral
relativism enables people to determine individual “moral” standards, and can
only do so.
This is not “tolerance” or “respect” for the views of those
who hold a minority moral position in anyway. Rather, it provides a means for
tyranny by the majority – control of the minority by the majority is
legitimised by the oxymoronic term ‘moral relativism’. ‘Moral relativism’ would be more rightly
called rejection of morality, or immorality.
Morality and immorality are diametrically opposed to each
other. Morality upholds not merely “respect”, term that is always abused in the
immoral modern world, but does not respect persons. Rather, it concerned uphold
whether an act, deed or thought is of legitimate authority. It also rejects any
prospect of gain in judging whether an act, deed or thought is right or wrong.
Immorality, on the other hand, has no regard for the rightness or wrongness of
acts, deeds or thoughts, and cared only for one’s own self-interests. As such,
it is often hypocritical as demonstrated by the many non-government
organisations. Many non-government organisations call themselves “charities”,
but only seek to advance the self-interests of certain groups. The classic examples
are the varied ranges of “rights” groups.
What is moral cannot be mixed with that which is immoral, or
else that which is moral is corrupted and becomes immoral. That which is moral
must be absolute, and which moral value is consistent in all cases. To be
inconsistent in apply moral standards would be to allow unfairness and
injustice. Therefore, there is no such thing as respect for the moral view of
others, as immoral people claim in the name of tolerance. Respecting the views
of others is to agree and accept it a one that is legitimate. The immoral
person, a so-called moral relativist, does not agree and accept moral
standards.
The immoral person is inevitably always a self-seeking and
self-centred person by virtue of the inability to accept and agree with moral
standards. Rather, he or she dismisses morality as a “social construct” or
non-existent. This is in one’s selfishness that one dismisses morality which
requires one to not be self-seeking or self-centred. Thus, the immoral person
cannot truly care for others. The immoral person, who is the typical person of
the 21st century, cannot be truly concerned with the needs of
others. He or she may be concerned with the needs of others, but only on
conditions of how one is benefited.
Such is the root of humanism which is the ideology and
spirit behind all political, social, economic or cultural ideologies. One
cannot blame any individual or group for all the evil and suffering in the
world. Rather, those who are self-centred and self-seeking, which not every
single person is, can only blame themselves for their contribution to all the
evil and suffering in the world. Humanism legitimises the idea that one is
entitled to do as one chooses and blame evil and suffering on others, and yet
also that humans are good.
Humanism degrades morality, and mocks it by taking the
benefits of such moral standards and then twisting it for the pursuit of one’s
gain. Yet, it takes credit for the good
it creates, which “good” is a perversion of morality, and attacks the moral
standard for its “repression” when those standards supposedly fail society.
Humanism is evil, wicked, and an abominable ideology. It is
the ideology of perversion, proud and arrogant. It legitimises hatred in the
name of love and tolerance, and immorality in the name of kindness. Humanism is a disease of the human heart which
must be eradicated.
Comments
Post a Comment