Thought Travels

The idea of "relative values" is complex (a culmination of serveral years of ponderance) that perhaps it cannot be easily elucidated in a single blog. I can perhaps try to do this in instalments in later posts.

Let me try to condense in a few crisp sentences, the general outline - I belive that there are some values that are absolute. "Everything" in the world cannot be "relative". If 'everything' is relative, then there can be never any logical discussion. In this scenario, any argument can be killed by saying "You are entitled to your views and i am entitled to mine, so lets just live with it. Your perceptions are different than mine." While that is a perfectly fair culmination to a wide variety of arguments (what music i like/what color i like), it is not valid for 'everything'.

I do not believe in relativism because it is defeated by the tenet of circular logic. Lets consider the statement "Every statement is relative". For it to be true, the very statement (Everything is relative) has to be an absolute statement. If EVEN THIS statement is relative then it falls prey to circular logic and there can be no truth. There have to be some absolute values somewhere.

There are some 'minimum ground rules' that humanity must have...if these ground rules dont exist, then humanity is nothing better than any other animal species. Living purely instinctually. If we as a species claim to have something more than technological prowess over other species (morality, culture, values, a civil society) we should agree to these basic ground rules which i call 'absolute'.

So what are some of these absolutes ? There cannot be too many of these absolutes...But will try to enumerate some of the ones that i think of :

Firstly, on a fundamental level, each member of the species has a equal right to life. This EQUAL right of life is fundamental barring extraordinary calaclysmic circumstances (like the prospect of annihilation of the species). I call this the 'right of survival'.

Secondly, every human being is free to hold an opinion. However, there are certain behavioural constraints in how an opinion is expressed. So long as, expressing an opinion does not infringe on the right to life of other members of the species, it should be allowed. No species-member has a right to impose one's opinions by the threat of annihilation to those who differ. Here, i mean not the right of life 'literally'. Harassment for holding an opinion should is not allowed either. Every member of the species should respect the 'free opinion' of other members of the species so long as their lives are not threated by the action of other members for holding that opinion.

Thirdly, species members have the right to act in self-defense. This is a logical conclusion of the first two postulates. If one's life is threatened by holding an opinion without first trying to impose one's opinion by force, one has an inalienable right of defending oneself. Species members are first advised to resolve their difference by examining non-violent means. There must be no effort spared here. However, if in the end one group resorts to violence, then the other group has every possible right to defend itself and it's point of view.

One very important postulate is that these ground-rules not only for individual members of species but even collectives thereof. These collectives can be nations, religions, races etc.

Let me take one example to illustrate my point. Though 'relativism' and 'tolerance' is a virtue, how do we deal with a group whose philosophy is "If you dont fall in line with my point of view, i will use force to bring you around. Either you agree with me or you will be killed". There are enough extremist fringes in any divisive-enough issue (abortion, clash-of-civilisation, homosexuality etc) who will kill and maim to get everybody around to their point of view. And this is not some abstract discussion. It unfolds as ugly reality on CNN every day of the week. We have to accept that there are people out there who will kill other 'species-members' if they do not believe with their point-of-view.

The point is this : Liberals assume that their believes of tolerance are shared by all of humanity. This is a deeply flawed assumption. Tolerance and relativism is a virtue which is not shared by all. This unsure moral dithering leads to psuedo questions like "Both the terrorist and the soilder are fighting for their beliefs, so who are we to say who is more righteous."
The terrorist is wrong 'absolutely' because he is willing to kill species members for not agreeing to his point of view (Absolute rule 2). The soldier is acting in self-defense (Absolute rule 3). Obviously, the world is not so simplistic, however it underscores the point.

Hence, "everything" is not relative. I for one, believe in some absolutes. More later.