What is right for one culture, not necessarily right for another?
“All the time, we hear, ‘You must’, ‘You have to. ‘We’re seriously warning you, ‘Who are you anyway?’” These are the words of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, in addressing the West, in particular, the U.S., on October 5, 2023.
Let us consider the resemblance of Vladimir Putin’s words to other leaders’ actions in history.
During one of the court trials of Nazi leaders charged with crimes against humanity, the defense team argued like this: The Nazi leaders had followed orders and made decisions consistent with the society and their laws. Meaning an American or French, or African would not have the right to condemn the Nazi leaders because their culture and society were different from the Germans.
Now, if you agree with what postmodern relativism claims, “What is right for a culture is not necessarily right for another culture, ” then how can you convict the Nazi leaders for following what their society with their legal system valued at this time? What right does another culture have to condemn the actions of a different culture? Who are you to judge?, like they say. All of this sounds nice, right? But no, that could be a dangerous thought.
To listen to other episodes on this subject:
Now, before we go deeper, do you want to know how the Nazis’ trial ended? Well.. there was a U.S. chief of counsel named Robert Jackson who argued against the Nazis in these terms, “The only way to judge any culture was to appeal to a “Law above the law.” A “Law above the law” rises above cultures and is applied to both cultures on either side. What Law is above the Law? This is the universal and absolute standard of God’s Law. Moreover, this is the only law that allows us to put the actions of other cultures and civilizations in check for their wrong. So, yes! another culture can voice its opinions about what another culture does wrong.
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, followed the same kind of argument that the Nazi defense team used in his recent speech when addressing the West, or the U.S. in particular. For context, we are one year after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Putin said, “All the time, we hear, ‘You must’, ‘You have to,’ ‘We’re seriously warning you ‘Who are you anyway? What right do you have to warn anyone?’
As you may have noticed, Putin appeals here to postmodern relativism to justify his position and actions against Ukraine. Not to mention his multiple nuclear threats. Saying, “What right do you have to warn anyone.” It’s like saying, “Guys, leave me alone. Let me do whatever I want to do.” After all, “What is right for you as one culture is not necessarily right for me as another culture.”
But… let’s see if he’s correct in thinking like this.
Suppose that Americans or African people think that Putin is wrong; don’t you think they have the right to make this moral judgment about him? Even though they do not have the same culture and society as him. Or should the Russian president dismiss any judgment coming from other people from other cultures just because they’re not Russians? Suppose society A believes that marriage is wrong, and society B thinks that marriage is right. How can society A and society B accept that marriage is right or wrong for both of them at the same time?
To accept what is right or wrong for both of them, they must agree on one thing: that there is a Law above the law, meaning it is above their culture and their society, and specific laws. Society A and Society B must agree that the standard law for marriage is above them. So, whenever there is this kind of confusion, where A thinks she is right, and B thinks A is wrong, the alternative is to accept the definition of what the law above the law says about right or wrong.
Friends, in today’s society, postmodernism has led to relativism or Postmodern relativism. This is the idea that all truth is relative. Or what is right or true for one group is not necessarily right or true for everyone. Therefore, a moral relativist may not necessarily see the difference between the teachings of Jesus and those of Machiavelli because moral relativism claims that everyone, every culture, society, or individual, has to act according to his/her own society or individual code. Right and wrong are determined by the culture and society. Humm! Interesting! Again, these words sound nice to hear, but let’s look at what history says.
Hitler ordered the Jewish holocaust, and 6 million Jews were murdered. Trujillo, the late Dominican Republic president, ordered the River massacre, and 30,000 Haitians were murdered. How was that possible, you said? Before we answer, let’s remind you of something real quick, okay? If you agree with postmodern relativism, which says that right and wrong are determined by individuals, then how can Hitler and Trujillio be wrong? Because the evil they did looked right to them. How can you say they are wrong? You see! You put yourself in this dilemma when you say you are a modern, postmodern relativist because it is difficult for you to say that evil is wrong.
Now, for the postmodern relativism people who continue to endorse the postmodern relativism view, suppose that a thief who steals your $10.000 ATM card justifies his action by saying something like this: “I believe that stealing from others is right. And regardless of what people say or see stealing differently, I think stealing is right.” The thief says, “After all, who will you judge?”
What would you answer to this thief who stole your money? I guess you, and the vast majority of us, would strongly disagree with this thief by crying, “O No. that is baloney. We will not accept that stealing from others is something to to do. This thief may think whatever he wants! No. This is not right. Many of us may even think that this thief is delusional. And regardless of his strong conviction about stealing or of someone in power who also thinks like him that stealing is right, regardless of all of these positions, we would vehemently reply, “No. We can’t accept that stealing from others is right. This is wrong all the way, no matter how you put it. “
Now, going back to Trujillo and Hitler, how do you think they could do such evil against humanity? The answer is that they were able to commit such crimes against humanity because of a big false idea. (By the way, this is perhaps an opportunity for you now to evaluate all of your ideas because they have consequences—ideas lead to real actions.)
The big false idea was that the German culture of the 1930s embraced the idea that arresting and deporting, harassing, and persecuting the Jews was not something wrong to do. Still, it was even considered as something good. In the same vein, Hitler also promoted the idea that Germans, “the Aryan” white race, were superior and the Jews were considered as an inferior race.
It is similar to how the Dominican Republic society pushed the anti-Haitian narrative or antihaitianismo through their political leaders, media, books, and news. In fact, the anti-Haitian narrative is often used to promote Dominican nationalism. Intellectuals like Manuel Pena, a Dominican who worked for Trrujillo. Pena portrayed Haitians as racially inferior to Dominican people. Another intellectual also offered his service to Trujillo, named Balaguer. He was like the intellectual backbone of Trujillo, and he became president of the Dominican Republic on six occasions; his book called “la Isla al Reves,” or “The Upside Island,” became a bestseller. The book highlights the perspective of a lot of Dominican people when it comes to their history and their view of Haitians as an inferior race.
Sadly, the Dominican history narrative continues to portray Haitians as the eternal enemies of the Dominican people. Unfortunately, this is what most Dominican children learn at school.
Now, what do Hitler and Trujillio, and even Putin, have in common?
All of them think that they can define what is right. They all embraced the lies of postmodern relativism: “What is right for a culture or an individual is not necessarily right for another culture or an individual.” They all think their society or the person in power can define right and wrong. But we have just seen that their action was nothing but evil. That is, the only law that allows us to determine that their laws and action are evil is the Law above the law –the Law of God. The Law of God is above Putin, Trujillo, and Hitler’s definition of right. The Law of the law is above every country, society, and culture’s laws.
If you understand this, you will agree with Dr. Martin L. King’s statement that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” We may not have the same culture, society, or civilization, but we can recognize what is right from what is wrong, regardless of how Trujillo, Hitler, or Putin define their evil as right.
Philosophical consideration
The inclination to do what is good is a virtue that people are born with, and they seem to know it as something valid. Prudence is also a core principle that people seem to know as valid, for knowing what to seek and what to avoid helps one grow in virtue by becoming part of his/her character, as Aristotle argues. However, different options of possible moral standards are presented to pursue these virtues. Moreland and Muehlhoff, in The God Conversation, give us four kinds of views that are united with their respective kinds of morals.
First, The powerful decide what is right (one in power determines what is morally right). Second, Morals are determined by culture (a sort of social contract or common agreement that individuals of a particular culture agree on following the rules, values, and norms that the consensus of the society defines as wrong and right). Third, Morals are determined by the individual (that view gives the individual the right to decide and define what is right and wrong for him and to abide by). Fourth, Morals are determined by a good God (God determines what is right and wrong. This morality is rooted in God’s unchangeable character).
The first three views do not maintain the validity of the core moral principles taken as examples in the first paragraph. Letting the most powerful one determine what is good for us will likely create monsters over which we lose control. Most narcissists and dictators, Machiavelli-type, love this principle. For example, [trujillo, Hitler] Papa Doc, the late Haitian Dictator, used this first principle by saying to his opponents, “Haiti is me; opposing me is opposing the good for the people.”
The second and third principles also fail the test because they exclude the possibility of a moral interexchange between cultures. If every culture or individual in power defines what is good for their society or for them, then by what standard would they agree on what is good for both of these cultures or both individuals? We are left with the fourth view, which states that a good God determines morals. This principle resolves the quandary of the second and third views regarding morality. Because God is good, the inclination toward the good and prudence can only be found in His morals. In order to be of good morals, one must not only know and desire the good, but one must also pursue the good. God is good, and He invites us to pursue good. As Dr. Moreland states, the moral law is intrinsically right, not because it lives up to a standard independently but because it is based on an intrinsic standard of God.
One way to define moral absolute and objective moral is to ask, for instance, “Can something be a moral absolute and an objective moral at the same time?” The answer is yes. Nevertheless, there is a difference between the two. “Do not kill” is a moral absolute. It is regarded as universally valid without relation to any other cultural variants. It is a true moral principle whether anyone believes it or not. “Killing for pleasure is wrong” is a moral objective it is based on an external standard -the object.
Which leads us to what Philosophers called an objection to the Euthyphro dilemma. By definition, the Euthyphro dilemma refers to Plato’s question concerning the nature of goodness and asks whether a thing is good because God says it is good, or does God say it’s good because it is good. This unfolds two other questions. Could God say things like rape and evil as good and they become good. Second, if God simply observes and tells something is good, then this goodness seems to escape God’s standard for goodness. It would seem that this goodness is outside of His character. Both explanations do not portray the character of a good God. This is the Euthyphro dilemma.
But God is Sovereign and Good, and the standard of goodness could not exist outside or above His Character. That is, His nature is the Standard of goodness. When God says that something is good, this is not an arbitrary declaration. This thing’s goodness is rooted in God’s very good, unchangeable character. He is the determiner or designer of goodness. That also means that He created things with purpose.
Lying, murdering, mass incarceration, the holocaust, belittling a race, or massacre river is evil because that is not what and how God made humans to live, this is neither the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide and nullify the life of God’s image bearer that are human beings.
THEREFORE
As Dr. Moreland argues, it is very useful to know that “The moral law comes from God’s unchangeable good character.” This statement echoes the Davidic verses, “Your commandments are my eternal possession; they are the joy of my heart” (Psalms 119: 111), and “Righteous are you, O LORD and your laws are right. The statutes you have laid down are righteous; they are fully trustworthy” (v. 137-138). That’s why we should obey God’s laws. These moral laws do not come from arbitrary, random, cultural, individual, or independent persons in power -like the arbitrary orders given by Trujillo, Hitler, or Putin to massacre other people.
