Relativism vs. The Battlefield of Ideas

This is kind of a continuation of my post from last week, “The Founding Documents and Racism.” Relativism (cultural relativism) claims that all cultures are equally valid. This, by my understanding, in turn implies that all ideas are equally valid because all ideas originate in equally valid cultures.

Compare this to “The Battlefield of Ideas.”

I believe it was George Washington who coined the phrase, “The Battlefield of Ideas.” The phrase is meant to describe the process by which new ideas are tested, analyzed, and eventually adopted after a vigorous intellectual debate which winnows the wheat from the chaff and rejects the less-worthy ideas in the process.

I believe the best way to discuss these concepts and measure their relative worth is to look at their logical consequences. Let’s look at relativism first.

The Logical Consequences of Relativism

According to relativism, no idea can be better than any other. Hence, relativism implies that the claim “White people are inherently genetically superior to black people,” (or vice versa) is as equally valid as “Neither white people nor black people are genetically superior to the other.” Do you agree with that? I don’t.

How about the claim “Murder is fun,” is as valid as “Murder is wrong?” Agree? I disagree. You probably do, too.

Or the claim “Thieves should have their hands cut off,” is as equally valid as “Thieves simply should be imprisoned for a few years.” Agree?

The claim “All adulterers should be stoned to death,” is as equally valid as “Although adultery is wrong, it is not in the purview of the government; it is a private affair.” Agree? I don’t.

You probably got the point by now. Although relativism, at first, seems promising, it hints at promoting a profound new understanding of equality, it ultimately falls apart upon reflection and serious inspection.

The Logical Consequences of The Battlefield of Ideas

Now let’s look at The Battlefield of Ideas. It is consistent with The Battlefield of Ideas to claim that the claim “Neither white people nor black people are genetically superior to the other,” is a superior idea compared to “White people are inherently genetically superior to black people,” (or vice versa).

Likewise, The Battlefield of Ideas permits one to claim that the claim “Murder is wrong,” is superior to the claim “Murder is fun.”

And, the claim “Thieves simply should be imprisoned for a few years,” is a superior claim to “Thieves should have their hands cut off.”

Finally, The Battlefield of Ideas also allows one to claim that the claim “Although adultery is wrong, it is not in the purview of the government; it is a private affair,” is superior to the claim “All adulterers should be stoned to death.”

The Advantages of The Battlefield of Ideas

As you can see, The Battlefield of Ideas allows you to judge ideas and discriminate between them based on their individual merit. Relativism really does not.

Maybe in the first comparison above, you can argue that relativism supports the claim “Neither white people nor black people are genetically superior to the other,” is somehow a better idea compared to “White people are inherently genetically superior to black people, “ (or vice versa) because relativism supports the idea that “The ideas of black people are as equally valid as white people.”

Unfortunately, that confuses the distinction between ideas with genetic composition. With respect to ideas, the color of the skin is irrelevant. Whether the holder of an idea is black or white has absolutely nothing to do with the merit of the idea itself.

With respect to genetic composition, there may be some minor distinctions between the “races”  – I really don’t know, I’m not a geneticist – but I suspect there is loads of scientific evidence saying that, for the most part, the genetic composition of each “race” is basically the same as the other. Regardless, I doubt ideas have any connection to genetics.

The Final Analysis

What can we conclude from this?

As The Battlefield of Ideas is intrinsic to the Founding of the United States, I would argue that the ideas upon which The United States is founded are superior to the corresponding ideas of most, and maybe even all other countries on the planet.

That is not to say that the American people are inherently better than people who come from another country, they are not.  We just got lucky because we were born in a country that had such visionary Founders who bequeathed to us such a tremendous inheritance.

Conclusion

Put simply, it just comes back to The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, and The Constitution. Say what you will, but “Freedom of speech,” “The right to bear arms,” and “Checks and Balances,” all make a difference. A big difference. A positive difference. One we should strive to support and fight for.

The Founding Documents and Racism

The Replacement Theory Insight

Last week I wrote a post on “Replacement Theory” towards the end of which I had a kind of epiphany. I wriggled through my argument until I came to the point where I said, “If you want to reject the ‘American Founding Principles’ and declare them as racist (which, I think, many in the Left actually do – and that totally makes my above argument futile…), be my guest.”

The Key Question

I realized that the issue of racism in the Founding Documents of the U.S. was the crux of the matter in the “Replacement Theory” debate. In light of that, I want to examine the question: “Are the American Founding Documents racist?” Perhaps I am not truly qualified to give the answer to this question … but that’s never stopped me before. 😊

Racism, Relativism, and American Exceptionalism

I think the basis of the racist charge is rooted in relativism, specifically cultural relativism. The central tenet of cultural relativism is that all cultures are equally valid. Therefore, any notion that a particular culture can be superior than another is inherently flawed.

Now, take the notion of “American Exceptionalism,” a notion embraced by many people on the Right of the political spectrum. The central tenet of American Exceptionalism is that the American (The United States) culture and society are inherently superior to that of the other nations of the world.

What Part of America is Superior?

Obviously, there is something of a difficulty with claiming American “culture and society” are somehow superior while at the same time complaining of “cultural rot” throughout American society. And that’s precisely what many on the Right do.

Okay, let’s see if we can shore this up a little. Maybe we are confusing similar, but different, concepts.

American Government and its Founding Principles

Are we talking about American culture, American society, or, perhaps American government? Of the three, I think American government sounds promising. But, again, are we talking about the actual existent government or the founding principles of said government?

I think the “founding principles” is key. Our culture, and then our society, may rot like an apple on a sickly tree; our government can become bloated, tyrannical, and self-serving; the founding principles may be forgotten in the mists of obscurity; but, as long as the founding principles remain recorded on paper and written in the human heart, they are not lost. (Okay, I couldn’t resist waxing poetic).

We still have those principles recorded in our Founding Documents. So, as long as those documents remain, the principles they enshrine and the philosophy they embody can be restored.

Can Any Government Be Superior to Another?

So, is it more accurate to say that American Exceptionalism proposes that American culture is superior to other cultures or is it more accurate to say it proposes that The Founding Principles and Philosophy of the American Government (or perhaps the relationship between the American Government and its corresponding society) are superior to other governments and their relationships with their societies? I think it is the latter of those two.

But is it actually true? Or, better yet, is it even possible for it to be true? Is it possible for one government and its foundations to be superior to another government and its foundations? I would say yes. And here’s why:

The Founders versus the Tyrant

Consider that there were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. This was, in turn, followed by the Articles of the Confederation and then The Constitution both of which were adopted only after a long, strenuous debate between dozens and dozens of men – who either were about to fight a war or who had just fought a war – over weeks and months.

Compare that to the government of a despotic country in which a single tyrannical man writes the Constitution of his country without discussion or argument in a few scant hours. Which one do you instinctively suspect will be better grounded, better thought out, and more even-handed?

I’m inclined to think that in those two situations, the U.S. government’s origin is more likely to be healthier, fairer, and superior to the other. I mean, one man versus 56 and then some? It’s just a matter of numbers. More people working together in good faith are more likely to do a better job than a single man acting alone – even if that single man is acting in good faith as well.

The U.S. Founding and the Modern Globe

Ultimately, I think that example shows that it is possible for a government’s founding principles and philosophy to be superior to another government’s founding principles and philosophy. However, there are 195 different countries in the world today. I don’t know how any of them, other than The United States, were founded.

Do any of them have Constitutions written by despotic dictators? I honestly don’t know. I do know that some nations are run by kings, others by a single-party system, and still others by solitary autocratic rulers. But that’s the extant government. What about each nation’s founding principles and philosophy?

I have to bow out there as I just don’t have sufficient knowledge.

That said, I don’t see how one could come up with a government origin story that is significantly superior to that of the U.S. I mean, what are you going to do? Develop your government system according to the advice of a Super AI machine (that wouldn’t necessarily be better anyway)?

A Few High Points from the U.S. Founding

Honestly, the United States founding gave us the Bill of Rights, Checks and Balances, Separation of Powers, and Democratic Representation – and I’m sure many other things that I am unaware of. I don’t think any of those things should be sneezed at.

And if it is a choice between a government that respects none of those things and violates them all, and the United States, I’m siding with the U.S. And it’s got nothing to do with race.v

And if it is a choice between a government that respects none of those things and violates them all, and the United States, I’m siding with the U.S. And it’s got nothing to do with race.