I've been reading a book about the Aztecs. They were among the most
sophisticated of the mesoamerican tribes. Some aspects of their culture
even rivaled that of Europe. And yet, despite this highly advanced society it was
a culture of death that revolved around human sacrifice. Their temples
were slaughterhouses where human beings were ritually scarified on a daily basis in the most barbaric way possible. Their still-beating hearts were
literally ripped from their chests. It wasn't just men who were
sacrificed but women, children, and babies too. In one particular
ritual they cut the throats of infants. The human skins of their victims were routinely worn like
garments. To give you an idea of the magnitude of these human sacrifices,
the Aztecs ritually sacrificed 50,000 people per year in a population
area of four to five million. That equates to sacrificing one percent of
their total population annually. In modern terms it would be considered
a genocide. In one particular event, during the coronation of a new
temple, an estimated 20,000
to 80,000 people were sacrificed over a four-day period. To the Aztecs
killing was as natural as breathing. And it wasn't just human sacrifices
but they also feasted on human flesh. They had large outdoor markets where you could
buy anything, including human limbs. It was a very debased occultic
society.
The reason I bring this up is because it made me think of the notion of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another. The Aztecs didn't think of human sacrifice as bad or evil. To them it was just a part of their religion, it was how they pleased their gods. They didn't do it out of malice. To them killing was natural, even necessary.
If we took the cultural relativist view we couldn't judge the Aztecs for what today would be considered atrocities, crimes against humanity. But if we took the cultural relativist view how could we judge anyone? How could we even distinguish between right and wrong? It becomes impossible to base morality on social norms and public consensus because they are forever changing. And what is right for one person may be wrong for another, and vice versa. With that criteria we couldn't judge anyone. We certainly couldn't judge someone like Hitler for the Holocaust. That is why morality must be based on a higher authority (ie. God). A moral standard that is unchanging, and set apart from human opinion. Only then can you have true justice and prosperity for all.
The Aztecs did not think it evil to commit human sacrifice, and yet an evil done out of ignorance is still evil. Those who commit evil acts rarely ever believe they are doing evil. Hitler did not think it was evil to murder six million Jews. He blamed them for the Treaty of Versailles, for their economic situation, and a variety of other things. Hitler believed he was doing Germany a favor by getting rid of the Jews. However, his beliefs did not make him any less of a monster. No, all cultures are not created equal. Some cultures are decisively better than others. A culture that values life is far better for everyone than one that doesn't. Cultural relativism is nothing more than cowardice in calling something evil, evil.
The reason I bring this up is because it made me think of the notion of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another. The Aztecs didn't think of human sacrifice as bad or evil. To them it was just a part of their religion, it was how they pleased their gods. They didn't do it out of malice. To them killing was natural, even necessary.
If we took the cultural relativist view we couldn't judge the Aztecs for what today would be considered atrocities, crimes against humanity. But if we took the cultural relativist view how could we judge anyone? How could we even distinguish between right and wrong? It becomes impossible to base morality on social norms and public consensus because they are forever changing. And what is right for one person may be wrong for another, and vice versa. With that criteria we couldn't judge anyone. We certainly couldn't judge someone like Hitler for the Holocaust. That is why morality must be based on a higher authority (ie. God). A moral standard that is unchanging, and set apart from human opinion. Only then can you have true justice and prosperity for all.
The Aztecs did not think it evil to commit human sacrifice, and yet an evil done out of ignorance is still evil. Those who commit evil acts rarely ever believe they are doing evil. Hitler did not think it was evil to murder six million Jews. He blamed them for the Treaty of Versailles, for their economic situation, and a variety of other things. Hitler believed he was doing Germany a favor by getting rid of the Jews. However, his beliefs did not make him any less of a monster. No, all cultures are not created equal. Some cultures are decisively better than others. A culture that values life is far better for everyone than one that doesn't. Cultural relativism is nothing more than cowardice in calling something evil, evil.
