THE PERNICIOUS INFLUENCE OF RELATIVISM IN EDUCATION

THE PERNICIOUS INFLUENCE OF RELATIVISM IN EDUCATION

BY BERNARD JAMES MAUSER, PH.D.

“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle (Metaphysics Book I)

               Aristotle’s remark points to the fact that it is in the nature of mankind that we desire knowledge. Our culture struggles with education due to the postmodern influence of relativism. On the one hand, the ‘enlightened’ say that there is nothing true or good and thus every immoral behavior is justified under the banner of tolerance. On the other hand, many in this same group increasingly recognize the importance of education. One problem they have yet to confront within their own worldview is that if there is no truth than education is meaningless (as opposite positions are equal). Even so, all people say education is important. Ancient slogans revolving around the subject of knowledge and education are known to many. We can find the truth in each one of these: “Knowledge is power.” “Only the educated are free.” “If you think education is expensive try ignorance.” 

               Some people disagree with Aristotle. My recollection is vivid about a conversation I had with a co-worker about this subject. She insisted that she really didn’t desire to know, had no real interest in learning, and disputed my contention. The question I asked was if there was anything that really fascinated her. She said she really enjoyed watching surgeries and how physicians did them. This person showed that even if she didn’t recognize it, her desire to learn came about in other ways outside of what may be considered to be ‘formal’ means of learning. For some, they may feed this desire by simply wanting to know the latest gossip. For others, they feel addicted to the news feed or what is happening on Facebook.

               So given that our desire to know is irrepressible, what is the best approach to satiate this appetite? The popular approach exemplified in most schools is failing in many ways. It is easy to make some generalizations simply because of the way the system is set up even if there are individual instances to the contrary. There will still be great teachers and great students no matter what system they are in (so the individual cases to the contrary don’t disprove the general criticisms). Here are some of the pitfalls that people on all sides recognize:

1.      It has a tendency to suppress the questioning inherent in human nature that should be part of the learning process due to a lack of flexibility about the questions students may ask. If students ask too many question there will be no time to cover the material required to do well on the standardized tests. Not only this, but many times questions are seen as threatening and disrespectful. Thus, questioning is suppressed and student must simply assimilate the required material. Education crosses over into indoctrination in this context pretty easily. 

2.      More advanced students are bored as the material provided caters to only the most elementary learners. 

3.      Most students never know in an educational context genuine greatness and achievement because of the lowering of the bar.  

4.      The students that can quickly memorize and regurgitate information are those that ‘succeed’ in this environment while others fail. 

5.      There is little emphasis given to comprehension of the material. 

6.      More time is devoted to ‘socialization’ than education.

7.      Great teachers and students are punished. Teachers in this setting are often not rewarded for finding creative ways for students to grasp the material. Students are not set free to fully develop and explore quality resources.

8.      Each subject is artificially divided. This keeps the student unaware of the relationships and influences that exist in reality between each subject.

Although more can be said, there is another approach that has reemerged in order to try to reverse these deficiencies. 

The rewards that are found in the classical, the great texts, and the great books approaches are innumerable. In this different pedagogy, students are trained how to think, ask questions, comprehend the material, parse out what is true and false in each reading and discussion, explore the implications of and relationships between different views, and synthesize what is learned with other areas. This approach also has the advantage of making students into life-long learners and they delve into research outside the classroom unlike their counterparts. Stronger students can deeply explore the greatest works ever written, and weaker students can elevate their minds with material far beyond the substandard texts that are commonly used. This is a tremendously valuable approach for everyone involved (parents, teachers, and students).

There are two common questions about this method of education. Who is it that gets to say which texts are great and which are not? Why assume that a ‘Eurocentric’ or ‘Western’ list of readings is superior to any other?  

The characteristic of a text that allows it to earn the designation of being called ‘great’ may seem ephemeral at first glance. Notwithstanding what seems to be the case, great texts are those that have come to lend mankind insight into the nature of reality and how to answer the most important existential questions with which we grapple. The main questions that plague mankind are: Who are we? What is our destiny? What is the meaning of life? What is our origin? What is good? Is anything transcendent? Consider the veritable words of the Church Father Lactantius: “There is no body of philosophers however wrong, no individual however stupid, who has not had at least a glimpse of the truth.” Sifting through the great works together and gleaning whatever truths about our questions we can find lends coherence to our search- revealing what is really real in the answers.  

With this in mind, an individual need not worry that there is an extremely biased small committee that sits down and votes which texts are great and which are not. It is simply the case that those texts that are not so great have not stood the test of time. People can recognize that by reading different works one can judge which are good and which are not. But, inevitably, those that are superior come to be recognized as such due to stylistic elements (perhaps they are very clear in how the truth is expressed) and what is revealed to us about reality. 

                What of those that complain that the majority of those considered ‘great’ in the curriculum originate from the west? This complaint misses the point in a couple ways. First, insofar as the truths in the great texts are true, they are also universal. The truths apply everywhere and to everyone in the universe (universal means it even includes the east!). Second, it is actually undeniable that the principles found in these texts apply everywhere. I remember a friend in graduate school spoke as if there were one set of truths that operated in the east that differed from the west. However, he revealed what he really knew to be the case when he looked both ways before crossing the street. He could wax eloquently in the classroom about contradictions, but in reality he couldn’t live as if contradictions didn’t matter. In other words, if contradictions are both equal, then there really is no difference between two opposite things- like living and dying, eating or not eating, saying something is or is not the case. As soon as a person opens his mouth he assumes you know the difference between what he is saying and what he is not saying. As previously suggested, if this weren’t true then not only would education be meaningless, so would communication! Third, the complaint about the origin of the work actually commits an error of reason called the genetic fallacy. This fallacy simply points to the source of something as solely determining whether or not it is true. Fourth, as many of the other points indicate, there is not one reality that is true in the east and another that is true in the west. Reality, along with the principles that govern our reasoning about it, is everywhere the same. It is incumbent upon every human to make a quest to discover what is true about reality and how best to live with what we’ve found. 

               In 1941 there was a debate about the different approaches to education. On one side the proponent (the famous philosopher Bertrand Russell) denied there were universal principles of education. On the other side was the philosopher Mortimer Adler. He argued that there were these universal principles upon which education should be founded. Dr. Adler’s approach, detailed in his work The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto, explained how to alter a curriculum to motivate and inspire students as well as the great social benefits that would come from these changes. The great texts avoid subpar standards which have led to the destruction of many youth. Adler seems prophetic in regards to the consequences of a system that spurned the classics (compare what he writes with the condition which we find schools in today). In a visionary way he states, “The absence of intellectual stimulation and the failure to challenge students by expecting the most of them leads to boredom, delinquency, lawless violence, drug dependence, alcoholism, and other forms of undesirable conduct.”[i] Those that are committed to the superiority of a great texts or classical approach which recognizes universal principles of education have a distinct advantage.

There are basic and universal principles that education should be founded upon which are inherent in a classical great texts approach. These include studying the answers to the great questions, the virtues, logic, and the rules of grammar. The opposing position is unaffirmable as it must borrow principles from an approach that assumes universals to make its point, thus implicitly conceding our point (that some truths are universal and should be studied by all)! The following argument borrows and slightly revises Adler’s opening salvo from that famous debate on education. Any critic that denies universal truths presupposes that it is better to think as they do. This person must say that people should agree with them because there is some flaw in my reasoning. Yet, there remains the following assumptions in their argument that can only be the case if the universal principles a great text approach promotes:

1. It is better for people to develop their thinking in order to identify fallacies and attain intellectual virtue.

2. There is a universal human need to learn to think logically (unless they refuse to use reason, logic, rules of grammar, and deny the law of non-contradiction to refute my argument).

3. Short of saying nothing (which is no argument), the critic must utilize reason and logic to argue against training the students to use reason and logic.

All these point to the universal truths that we can build our educational foundation upon. At the very least critics must agree that men have the universal need to think rightly.[ii]

 

We can all recognize the value of the words of Solomon which echo through the ages: “Get wisdom! Get understanding!” May all people seek to find the source of knowledge and virtue together, while strengthening our ability to discern good and evil.

 

              

---

[i] Mortimer Adler, The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto, (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1982): 36.

[ii] Mortimer J. Adler, “Are there Absolute and Universal Principles,” in Reforming Education: The Opening of the American Mind, (New York: Collier Books, 1988): 64-65.

SHOULD WE ALLOW ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE?

SHOULD WE ALLOW ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE?

By Dr. Bernard James Mauser, Ph.D.

Forty-one years ago today the Supreme Court of the United States legalized abortion in America. In parallels reminiscent of the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court’s position was that the unborn human’s right to life was of less value than a woman’s freedom to choose whether to kill her unborn child. Some may protest the way that I’ve written that last sentence, but this is essentially the meaning communicated in allowing abortion as the law of the land. Dred Scott was not seen as a citizen worthy of protection under the law in the 1800s. Similarly, unborn infants are not seen as citizens worthy of protection under the current law. The most popular- and some would say most difficult circumstance to consider- is whether a woman that has been raped is justified in having an abortion. Before an analysis of whether the rape of a woman justifies abortion, we should set the stage a bit.  

Let’s recognize the obvious. First, this topic is an emotional issue for those on both sides of the discussion. On the one side, people feel as if pro-lifers are telling them what they can do with their bodies. On the other, people argue that it is the body of the unborn baby that is of more concern to them, and that abortion is not so much about what a woman does with her body as it is with the body of the child inside her. Of course, the stakes are extremely high with lives literally hanging in the balance when discussing this issue. 

Both sides also agree on some things and these must be brought to the forefront. It is important to identify common ground in order to begin the discussion. This also can serve as a foundation from which both sides can work and refer back to in order to try to gain mutual understanding and greater clarity as to what the proper position to take should be. Although many things can be mentioned, let me focus on two.

First, both sides agree that we legislate morality. In other words, we all try to get laws passed that reflect our position about what we find to be morally good. Despite what some that lack the education say, both the pro-abortionist (or pro-choicer[i]) and the pro-lifer are trying to get their moral views enshrined in law. This is the purpose of law. If you think rape or murder is morally bad, you pass laws against them. This is not to say that there are no bad laws, but even bad laws are passed because they are supposed to be grounded in someone’s moral view as to what is perceived to be morally right (however mistaken they are). 

Second, both sides agree that human life begins at conception. It makes no sense to say you were a sperm, and it makes no sense to say you were an egg. However, when the two are put together an individual is made containing all the genetic information that person possesses her entire life. The person also has all the biological characteristics indicating life. As the person’s growth, metabolism, and movement continue, you can observe various changes of the baby in the mother’s womb. The person’s DNA, blood type, and various other parts make them uniquely identifiable as a different entity from the mother. This is why we don’t say that a woman has a penis when the technician giving the ultrasound detects that the baby is a boy. Thus, there is no question that there is a different individual that we are discussing as the primary subject that is affected from abortion. The abortionist may try to sterilize the term in advertising their service as ‘pregnancy termination’, but make no mistake that the subject of ‘termination’ is being killed. Everyone also recognizes that the woman that has to endure having the child killed in her womb also suffers in many ways (having increased chances of cancer, depression, etc.).

What about allowing abortion in cases of rape? I once had a student challenge me with this question and here was how our discussion proceeded:

Student: What if my sister was raped- would you force her to have the baby?

Me: Let me ask you a question.

Student: Ok.

Me: Suppose your dad raped someone today. Would we be justified in killing you? 

Student: No.

Me: Why not?

Student: Because it was my dad that raped someone. I didn’t do anything wrong.

Me: This is great. You’ve recognized that because you’ve done nothing wrong you shouldn’t be punished for what your dad did. You should also see that the unborn baby is also innocent in the fictional case regarding your sister. Another thing you’ve ignored is that your sister already has the baby. The only question left now is what to do with the baby already inside her.

So, from my conversation with my student we can glean a couple of things. First, we don’t think it is justice to punish a child for something their parent did. Abortion punishes a child for something their parent did. Therefore, abortion is unjust EVEN in the case of rape. Second, we can all recognize that the unborn child that is the result of a rape is still in her mother’s womb and can be protected. It is not a question as to whether the woman ‘has’ the baby. From conception a woman has a baby until it leaves the womb. The real question is whether we should protect the baby or not. Before looking at this consider a slightly different question.

Should the law require the labor of someone’s body on behalf of another person? In other words, is the law justified in demanding that we do certain things for other people even if we don’t want to do them? I think that if you understand how much of family law operates this way you’ll have the answer. Our law both expects and requires some people in society to do this very thing. Fathers that abandon their families are often required (against their will many times) to pay child-support. The law requires that the fruit of one’s labor be shared with offspring for the child’s well-being. 

 

Consider another example that is relatively uncontroversial. If a mother, father, or both  neglected their offspring, say a three year old boy, and that boy died due to neglect, the state would find those responsible guilty of murder. How much more would it be the case if the parent or parents actively killed that three year old boy by chopping his body into little parts?  In these cases, there is an unspoken assumption that 1) children have a right to be protected and also 2) children have a right to the bodies and labor of their parents. This would certainly include the minimum things that the child requires- like providing basic things to keep the child alive.

Armed with these principles, turn back to the example of a child conceived due to rape. Inasmuch as the law requires parents to care for children after they are born, and that we recognize in our laws that children have a right to the body of their parents, the unborn also have that right. Thus, even the innocent unborn child conceived as a result of a terrible act has a right to her mother’s body. The mother may certainly pass the responsibility to another person by offering the child up for adoption. But, inasmuch as we would never allow the mother to kill that child if she decides she no longer wants the child burdening her body, so too we should never allow an abortion if she makes this decision while the child is in the womb.

The Planned Parenthood website encourages the mindset that “every child a wanted child.” This mentality has an anchor in our society that we must remove through straight facts and clear reasoning. Every human being from the moment of conception is a valuable human being- regardless of whether they are wanted or not.

---

[i] I prefer to use the term pro-abortionist as opposed to pro-choicer as it seems more accurate. One can ask the one insistent on calling themselves ‘pro-choice’ what choice they want to have. They may say to do whatever they want with their own body. We all recognize that the law doesn’t allow us to do ANYTHING we want with our body as we are often restricted when we want to use our body to harm another. Thus, the pro-choicer would agree that raping someone with your body is not something that should be done. However, what they do want the choice to do is to have an abortion. Thus, the ‘pro-choice’ label is given to try to soften the act that they are really behind- which is abortion. I will call it what it is and if the term is deemed ugly it doesn’t begin to compare to the various forms that are abortion.