Philosophical Foundations of Critical Race Theory (5)

When we set out to test the philosophical foundations of Critical Race Theory (CRT), we subjected the theory to a number of important tests. The purpose of such tests was to determine whether or not the theory is rational, and whether or not the theory could stand up to the tests. No matter how many people favor CRT, and no matter how many people have convinced others that they should accept CRT, the real test is whether the philosophical foundations of the theory are sound. We have discovered that they are not. Let us look at the results of our tests. But first, it would be useful to get our history straight on the origins of slavery, and just who is guilty, biased, and bigoted. For such history, I highly recommend an important five-minute video by Candace Owens. It is appropriately entitled, “A Short History of Racism,” and is found on Prager University’s website (Short History). In addition to this, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank head quartered in Washington, D.C. has published an important e-book entitled, “Critical Race Theory: Knowing It When You See It and Fighting It When You Can.” You can access this short e-book at https://secured.heritage.org/critical-race-theory-ebook-offer. You will  do yourself a favor by learning as much as you can about this false viewpoint, and the dangers posed by it for our families, and our society.  But now, let’s turn to the concluding comments in this series of studies.

First, CRT does not stand up to the test of logical reasoning.  There is no proposition that any CRT proponent will affirm that guarantees the conclusion: “Therefore, CRT is true.” Since we should draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence, CRT cannot pass the law of rationality test. Furthermore, CRT fails the test of logical reasoning, due to several well-known fallacies in reasoning committed by the theory. The most obvious fallacies include “hasty generalization” and “poisoning the well.” No possible conclusion can be drawn when such fallacies are committed. Moreover, CRT fails, not only the tests of deductive logical reasoning, but also the test of inductive logical reasoning. Inductive reasoning is involved in all weather prediction, many physician’s diagnoses done on the basis of symptoms experienced, and science investigations under laboratory conditions. CRT is not even likely or probable like we might find in weather prediction. No one says CRT is probably true. Instead, they say that the United States is guilty of “systemic racism” and we are all racially biased whether consciously or unconsciously. But, when we probe a little deeper, we discover that these concepts are merely subjective opinions. There is no real factual basis that stands up under serious scrutiny. The reason I say this is because no one is able to demonstrate objectively that CRT can be known and proven to be true. Greg Koukl reports a statement made by Sister Souljah, hip-hop artist of a couple of decades ago, who said: “You can’t call me or any black person anywhere in the world racist. We don’t have the power to do to white people what white people have done to us. And if we did, we don’t have that low-down dirty nature” (Relativism, 101).  It is not hard to discern the target in these silly remarks. The target is those “low-down dirty” natured “white people.” But, I have seen Americans of Asian descent who had grievances during the Vietnam era of the 1960’s. Their target was not just white people, but their fellow American citizens who often had strange ideas about others. This included both blacks and whites, and often others of Asian descent. The truth is that anyone can have their personal subjective opinions, but that does not make the opinions factual, or true, in a broader sense that includes whole groups. Remember our earlier discussions about stereotypes. Many people have them. But, we are not looking for subjective opinionizers. Instead, we are looking for objective truth. CRT fails the test of logical analysis. Unethical racial bigotry of the past cannot justify the reverse bigotry of the present. CRT fails this test because no conclusion can be drawn effecting an entire group based on various instances of such behavior among certain individuals, or even a relatively small group of radicals, today. One cannot condemn the actions of all persons in a class for the actions of a few. It does not matter who does it and whose agenda is being promoted. 

Second, CRT fails the test of truthful conduct. CRT appears to be based on modern notions of truth, particularly of the Pragmatic variety (truth is what works, has “cash value” or has personally acceptable consequences), or Postmodernist versions (truth is a “social construct,” invented by those who have similar views). However, one of the enduring philosophical theories of truth, that is ultimately accepted by all who are truly interested in truth, is the “correspondence theory.” In other words, truth is that which corresponds to reality. We are looking for an objective connection between what a person believes and what is really the case. For example, we ask, “Is it really true that all white people are inherently racist?” The answer to this question is a resounding NO. Some white people may be racists, as is the case also with some blacks, some Asians, and some Hispanics. This does not justify thinking that all persons of any of the classes just mentioned are really racists. A person may have such opinions about those of another class, but we are looking for reality, not merely opinions. Is it really true that all whites are systemic racists, or is it just an opinion that such is true of them? If I deny absolute and objective truth (as all of them evidently do), then I must ask them, “Is it really true that there is no absolute and objective truth?” If one makes themselves the exception, then the proverbial door is wide open to other objective truths, which means that the idea is not only self-contradictory, but it also commits the self-exception fallacy. In the final analysis, we discover that those who take these positions are simply trying to assert their rights over others! (Thoughts gleaned from Paul Copan, pp.26-31)

Third, CRT fails the ethical test. Let me explain. Ethical standards may be objective or subjective. They can also be either absolute or relative. An absolute standard is one that is true for all persons, in all places, in all times, and in all circumstances. The opposite of an absolute is a relative standard, which means that such standards are not true for all persons in all places, or at all times and circumstances. Objective standards are not the same as absolutes. Neither are subjective standards the same as relative standards. An objective standard is one that is outside of me to which I am accountable, as, for instance, standardized weights and measures. In the United States, one foot is made up of 12 inches, and we, in this country, are all accountable to that standard. A subjective standard is one that is strictly up to the individual. It pertains only to the individual subject. In other words, I am my own subjective standard, if I hold this position. This yields four logical possibilities: (1 An Absolute-Objective standard; (2) An Absolute-Subjective standard; (3) an Relative-Objective standard; and (4) a Relative-Subjective standard. In (1), there are ethical standards that are true for all persons, in all places, and at all times, for which I am also accountable. In (2), this appears to be an empty class with no members unless I am actually God. In (3), such standards may be like the weights and measures mentioned a moment ago. In the U. S., we use inches, feet, and yards. But, in most other countries, they use the metric system. If I travel to such countries, I would be bound by their weights and measures while there, as would persons from such countries when they come to the United States. The standard is objective, because it does not depend on me but is actually outside of me. At the same time, the standard is relative, because it differs from place to place (or in this case, country to country). In (4), the standard is completely relative to persons, places, and times, and is also completely individual. Briefly put, I would be my own ethical standard, but only my own (see Judges 21:25, for instance). 

Putting all of this to the test, I hold that it is always wrong, for all persons, in all places, and at all times to torture innocent children purely for one’s own amusement. You may say, but people have actually done such things throughout history. Granted, but you do not learn of ethical standards by such violations. Instead, you learn of the truth of such behaviors by way of negativity. That is, if you want to know what people think about such behaviors, just insert your own child in the equation. If you want to know what others think about ethics, just try stealing from them, lying about them, killing one of their family members, or the like. You will quickly learn about ethical absolutes in this way. Now, violations of an ethical standard that is absolute and objective means that the violator is actually guilty of wrong, and is therefore, accountable.  A guilty person would then be subject to whatever consequences are justified in such cases. 

Let me try to make this as simple as I can. We must prove that persons I take to be guilty, and thus, responsible moral agents, are actually guilty of wrong doing. I simply cannot operate on the ethical basis of (4) and hold others to (1), thereby believing them to be really guilty and therefore responsible for such violations to me. Similarly, I cannot be thought to be guilty, and judged in that capacity, for decisions that I personally have never made, do not make presently, and likely will never make in the future. I need to be held accountable for wrongs committed that I have actually done, NOT for those that some suppose I have done because I belong to a certain class of people whom some take to be oppressors. If they assume that I have violated an absolute objective standard rather than one which is relative, then I ask them to clearly state the evidence that proves that contention to be true. However, CRT advocates will never be able to do this.  Consequently, CRT fails the ethical test, just like it has failed the logical test, and also like it has failed the truth test.

I have recently acquired a book authored by four of my preaching brethren, two of whom are black and two of whom are white. The book purports to give biblical answers to 37 questions that people are asking about racial tension in the church. One of these questions is:  “How should Christians view ‘Critical Race Theory’ in pursuing improved race relations?” They offer five reasons why they all reject CRT, and support each point with biblical passages. I will simply list those five for you without further comment as this essay is concluded. First, Christians must understand that right and wrong are not fluid, abstract ideas determined by a so-called privileged class of people. Second, Christians must not assume there is treachery or malicious intent behind every law. Third, Christians recognize that it is possible to be impartial, and we must strive for this. Fourth, Christians know that truth is not relative to any particular people group. Fifth, Christians known that CRT or any other social justice model can only change temporal policies (Colley, Geiselbach, Kemp, and Otey 47-49).

Another consideration that I want to share with our readers is from a powerful essay by Abigail Shrier, entitled “Gender Ideology Run Amok.” She is writing about gender issues which are part of the woke cultural revolution currently taking place. This cancel culture mentality shows up in several different areas, but there are interesting connections.  Shrier comments:

   The gender ideology behind these lies is a sibling of critical race theory. While critical race activists are teaching kids that they are largely defined by their skin color, gender activists are teaching kids that there are a great many genders, and that only they know their true gender. And just as families who object to racial indoctrination in schools are told that their denials of racism are proof of racism, young women who object to biological males participating in girls’ sports are told that their objections are proof of transphobic bigotry.  (5-6)

Of course neither position is proof of anything remotely resembling what these advocates claim.  All this just shows us how widespread cancel culture is and how wrong these issues actually turn out to be when carefully examined. Remember, we are testing the philosophical foundations of such theories to see whether or not they stand up to the demand for solid evidence that really proves the case.

Since CRT so clearly fails the tests of rationality I have outlined in these short essays, and since CRT is just as clearly rooted in selective subjective opinions, and since our society needs to be brought together, not driven apart, and since CRT fails in every way except to inflame passionate responses from people who truly need to learn to love and respect one another, I  reject this theory and urge all responsible educators to cease and desist attempting to gain compliance and agreement from targeted groups by shaming them, attempting to force them to comply, or in any other way trying to gain support for this false theory.

WORKS CITED

Beckwith, Francis J., and Koukl, Gregory. Ethical Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air.Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. 

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

Copan, Paul. True for You but Not for Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith. 1998. Rev. ed. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009.

James, Kay C. “Critical Race Theory: Knowing It When You See It and Fighting It When You Can.”  https://secured.heritage.org/critical-race-theory-ebook-offer/

Owens, Candace. “A Short History of Slavery.” PragerUniversity.com; Browse 5-minute videos to locate hers.

Shrier, Abigail. “Gender Ideology Run Amok.” Imprimis. 50:6/7 (June/July 2021).