Philosophical Foundations of Critical Race Theory (4)

   Ethics is a theoretical study of moral right and wrong. Morality is the practice of what a person believes is right or wrong. Ethics is based upon some sort of standard that one accepts as a starting place. It could be an absolute standard, meaning that it is the same for all persons in all places at all times. It could be relative to persons, places, or times. An absolute standard is unchanging, whereas a relative standard is changeable. Absolute and relative are opposites.

   A standard may also be either objective or subjective which are also opposites. An objective standard is not dependent on me but is outside me and for which I am accountable (responsible).  It would be said to be acting ethically if I lived in harmony with such a standard, and unethical if I did not. An example of this would be what is called “Cultural Relativism” where it is believed that “when in Rome do as the Romans do.” Presumably (per this view) I would be acting ethically if I did what the Romans do, and unethically if I did not (at least in harmony with this perspective). This would be an illustration of what some would call “Relative Objectivism.”  It would never be mistaken as an “Ethical Absolute,” for no one thinks that this is a standard for all people in all places at all times. On the other hand, “Relative Subjectivism” is strictly dependent on the individual subject. I would, in this case, be my own standard of ethical behavior. An example of this comes from the Bible in Judges 21:25, where it is stated: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” If there had been a king in Israel who had passed laws regulating moral behavior, then such laws would be an objective standard to which people in Israel would be personally accountable. At the same time, such a standard would only apply to people in Israel, therefore, it is a “Relative Objectivism.” But, since the absence of a king in Israel meant that everyone was his own individual standard, it is in reality a “Relative Subjectivism.” This is ethics based solely on the individual subject. 

   Since absolute and relative are opposites, and objective and subjective are opposites, this would yield four logical possibilities: (1) Absolute Objectivism; (2) Absolute Subjectivism; (3) Relative Objectivism; and (4) Relative Subjectivism. This might seem a little difficult at first, however, it applies directly to our discussion about CRT.

   I hold to an absolute objectivism in at least some cases, but this is not germane to our issue at this point. At best, CRT (Critical Race Theory) advocates could be “Relative Objectivists.” That is, they might assert that I am unethical, or morally wrong, because X number of people believe that I am a racist, even though they could not get a total consensus from any particular group as to my actual guilt in this matter. Failing this, they might change their view to a “Relative Subjectivism” by suggesting that I am morally guilty because they strongly feel that this is true about me. In neither case can they prove my actual moral guilt. Judging a person guilty without compelling evidence is the highest form of ethical abuse implying that the moral guilt perhaps belongs to the ones making the accusation!

   I oppose any and all efforts to divide people on the basis of segmenting them into groups.  It is easy to do, but very generally speaking there is only one race—the human race! There are cultural differences to be sure, and these inevitably show up when many different cultures are together as in America (the “Great Melting Pot”). Commenting on this question, one group of authors say: 

 . . . Every human being, from a tiny embryo to a full-size adult, has equal value and infinite worth (cf. Matthew 16:26). We—regardless of our ethnicity, melanin level, physique, background, or age—have worth only because we are image-bearers of God.

   There is a distinction to be made between ethnicity and culture, though these terms are often used interchangeably in popular vernacular. Culture includes beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral traits. Thus, we are biblically and morally bound to value some aspects of our cultures over others. Paul was not being racist when he quoted the popular observation, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12). He was observing that Cretan culture was saturated with sin—culturally, Cretans celebrated dishonesty, wickedness, laziness, and gluttony. Paul felt that many of the Christians in Crete, thankfully, had risen above their culture (cf. Titus 1:5-9). (Colley, et al. 16-17).

 From an ethical perspective, we can recognize cultural differences between Irish immigrants (as an example) and other cultures surrounding them, without being racist when recognizing such.  Most right-minded people will believe that such a culture may be far different from their own, but still recognize and accept the fact that the Irish are part of the human race, just as we Slovaks are. Though peculiarities associated with their culture, Irish people are image-bearers of God just as much as I am, and each of us is accountable to God in this respect, standing on equal footing as a result (cf. Galatians 3:28, for a Biblical perspective).

   One writer mused on the “good old days” before our current 24-7 cable coverage of every event on a global scale. Families could sit down to “The Evening News,” usually a half-hour program devoted to giving the news in a reasonably neutral way. This was quite different from today’s prominent “talking heads” who are more agenda-driven as commentators rather than more responsible journalists. He noted the shift that has occurred:

    In March, I noted that human lives will be ruled by one of two fundamental forces:  either truth or power. When our first parents exchanged the external rule of God and the objective truth of this world “out there” for the internal rule of their own desires “in here”—the inside/outside exchange at the heart of all forms relativism—they plunged humanity into a treacherous struggle between, on the one hand, the truth that brings liberty and, on the other, the powerful forces intent on extinguishing both truth and liberty.  (Koukl 1)

 We only have to observe the changes which have taken place in churches across the land. The shift from an “outward focus” to an “inward focus” on programs, and activities is obvious and has diminished evangelistic efforts as a result. As long as one can see a swelling of the numbers of attendance, the shift seems to remain somewhat unnoticed.  Koukl continued:

    Finally, in July, I alerted you to one instance the truth/power struggle. I compared two ways the injustice of racism has been addressed in this country—the truth-centered Civil Rights Movement of the ‘60s . . . and the more “progressive” power-centered approach known as critical race theory (CRT). I concluded that the intolerable evil of racism can only be resolved through truth, not power—the truth of the intrinsic value of each human being made in God’s image and the truth of the moral virtues God intended man to live by. (2)

 In a work I cited from earlier in this article, a question that is pertinent to this discussion was posed: “What is the difference between cultural preference and racism?” The answer, I am convinced, should occasion thoughtful consideration from both sides of this very divisive issue.  Part of their answer is the following: 

 Every individual is socialized in the norms of some culture. The word culture refers to a mostly intangible web of various aspects of group life, including customs, traditions, values, behaviors, beliefs, languages, and social forms. These things are shared among members of a particular group, passed along from generation to generation, and distinguish their way of life from others. Cultural differences are inevitable because groups of people live in different environs, have different resources, have different experiences, and so forth. Moreover, a person naturally would be more familiar and comfortable with the norms of his or her own culture, including things like its cuisine, rituals, and social expectations.  .  .  .

   Even in Christ where the bonds that unify Christians should be stronger than any cultural preference, there is nothing inherently wrong with acknowledging cultural differences and having greater affinity for various aspects of one culture over another. Racism, however, is obviously a wholly different matter. As we typically define racism in the context of American culture, the idea has more to do with skin complexion or ethnicity than it does with culture. Racism involves a belief in the superiority of one race over another along with the attendant prejudices and discriminations that flow from that belief. This is not a proper or necessary consequence of having certain cultural preferences. (Colley, et al. 24-26)

 This seems almost too obvious to need a comment, but in today’s emotionally hysterical climate, it needs to be said. Since I am discussing ethical issues in this particular essay, I have some pointed questions for our CRT advocates. Is it in accordance with ethical principles to assign blame and, therefore guilt, to those who have never made the decisions that you find troubling, do not make such decisions presently, and who, in all likelihood will not make such decisions in the future? Are you occupying a higher moral ground on which to stand when you condemn those who you style as your “oppressors?” Is it even possible that you could be mistaken in this matter? In fact, to make it even more blunt, is it even possible that you might be the one who is unethical and, therefore, guilty of the very behavior you condemn in others?

   I am not interested in how many are totally invested in supporting or in opposing CRT. I do not care if a political group supports or opposes it. I feel great sorrow for any who think that they have been harmed by these highly emotional issues, whether they are for or against CRT. I am interested in what is true, what follows the evidence wherever it leads, and what can be calmly, but rationally, discussed in order to find the common ground on which we all can stand!

 WORKS CITED

Colley, Glenn, Ben Giselbach, Hiram Kemp, and Melvin L. Otey. It’s There in Black and White: Scriptural Answers to 37 Questions People are Asking about Racial Tension in the Church. Cleveland:  PlainSimpleFaith, 2020.

 Koukl, Gregory. “The Evening News.” Solid Ground. (September/October, 2021): 1-4.