The United States of America as a nation is having an internal crisis. This crisis has recognizable symptoms: domestic violence, feminist protests, gender vs. genderless rights, religious tensions, the “old gods” revival, intellectual blackmailing and “fake news.” Every night, the media—both television and YouTube—are contributing more fuel to the flames. The traditionalists and the progressives often bait each other into discussions that usually result in shouting contests or condescending quips. How is one supposed to discern accurately between these warring factions? Often, it appears that both have valid motives and valid points. The progressives’ argument emphasizes people while the traditionalists’ argument emphasizes principles. These two sorts of arguments muddy the waters. Both people and principles are extremely important. Principles lie in the realm of ideas; the metaphysical which are untouchable by physical hands. People exist in the physical that can be touched, seen and heard without any use of cognitive functions. Principles require effort to understand, while people can be relatable via similar experiences. These two types of understanding are often overlooked. In layman’s terms, they are called “book smart” and “street smart.” However, that is an inaccurate way of addressing these two understandings. Principles are the guidelines by which the individual interacts with other individuals and nature. People and principles are intimately connected.
The crisis in America is one of beliefs. The prevalent postmodern position has created a deceptive worldview that is a contradiction. The postmodern position states that all metanarratives/worldviews are equal while exempting itself from this rule. If the postmodern worldview is correct then it carries no more weight or validity than any other worldview. Therefore, it cannot be taken any more seriously than an alternative worldview. The issue with the postmodern position is that it contradicts itself while dismantling other worldviews. The purpose of bringing the postmodern worldview into this discussion is to address the underlying axioms behind it. Every worldview assumes a set of axioms or beliefs about the universe. To begin addressing the crisis of principles in America, one must begin by examining the axioms behind the worldview of postmodernism. One of the axioms held by postmodernism is that moral laws are derived from culture.
The damage done from assuming that morals are derived from culture is catastrophic. The Moral Law as a broad idea is an “ought” and “ought not” code. For example, one “ought” to help others in need; one “ought not” to steal. The postmodern worldview states that such a code was created by cultural preferences. However, the very existence of culture – which is a collection of particular “ought/ought not” codes – demands an explanation. If the Moral Law is derived from culture, then a culture without a moral code must exist. However, there is no such place. Cultures are a particular set of “ought/ought not” codes that differ from other cultures. Furthermore, there are universal codes within every cultural code. For example, killing innocent people is considered wrong-an “ought not.” Even deeper, every culture agrees an “ought/ought not” paradigm ought to exist.
The question then becomes, what “ought” we to believe? Which set of morals is correct? According to postmodernism, no set of morals is correct. There in lies the danger. If no morals are “good” but only “preference,” then morals are chosen by convenience instead of by rightness. Morals cease to be morals if they are codes of preferences rather than codes of rightness. If morals are completely arbitrary then truly, truly, it is a “dog eat dog” world and may the strongest, smartest individual win. However, we have words for such individuals: tyrants, bastards, criminals and dictators. The reality is: everyone accepts that some things are right and wrong; and acknowledges that a code of “ought/ought not” governs those rights and wrongs.
This is the discussion which I desire to have here: what morals are missing in the American life? Every moral choice has a cost. By choosing one moral code over another, you abandon one line of reasoning for another. For example, why “ought” I believe postmodernism and “ought not” believe Christianity? Even by choosing a worldview and set of moral codes one must use the Moral Law of “ought/ought not.” By choosing a worldview, one accepts the set of moral codes that follow logically. The secondary problem with postmodernism is that it can exist within a primary worldview. An individual can call oneself a Muslim, Christian or Atheist but proclaim that all worldviews are equal. Such an individual is a postmodernist and lives in constant contradiction. Postmodernism is an anti-worldview philosophy. It carries no principles itself but undermines all other principles. A Muslim that believes Atheism has the same validity as Islam causes himself/herself internal anguish. The two positions are incompatible. One cannot follow Islam properly if one believes Islam is simply arbitrary. Islam loses all its purpose and meaning if it is the product of whim. The resulting execution of belief is postmodernism. Picking and choosing which parts of Islam to follow and not follow since all codes are simply preference.
One final point about postmodernism. If all beliefs are arbitrary, why do postmodernists argue adamantly their worldview is correct? If all morals, beliefs, religions and codes are arbitrary through the product of culture then isn’t postmodernism an arbitrary product of culture and thus absolutely arbitrary and meaningless? By arguing that postmodernism is correct, postmodernists admit there are absolute “ought/ought not” codes that exist prior to their worldview. A postmodernist cannot argue the validity of postmodernism and relativism without adhering to the “ought/ought not” code and acknowledging absolute values.
At last, lets cast off the postmodernist assumptions, examine our surroundings and intellectually search for an infallible foundation. Truth is real. The sun is not a figment of imagination, emotions are more than chemical reactions and ideas effect the physical. The ability to reason has been undermined in American culture. Logic has been abandoned for immediate gratification and reasoning has been lost to feelings. The relativistic worldview and postmodern perspective has dismantled integrity at a personal level. It is time to examine ourselves and ask the hard questions. Who am I becoming? By what standards do I live? What do I believe? Do my beliefs coincide with external reality? Am I an individual that lives for rightness? To which morals do I cling? Do I accept existence as simply existence or a metaphysical abstraction?
These are tough questions and require an internal focus on our own character. The media, politics and society at large have decided that “my problems” were caused by someone else. That I am the “product of my environment.” That is determinism; Calvinism’s secular cousin in which freewill is utterly castaway. You have a choice. You can alter the world around you. It is a lie that an external sequence of events dictates your entire life. This victim and deterministic worldview is damaging; both to yourself, others and future generations. It is time we, as individuals, accept responsibility for our actions, stop pointing fingers and take a good, hard look in the mirror. What you see might be a hideous and hollow skull or a beautifully painted mask. Let us take off the mask and begin seeking Life.
