I was watching the Third (or sixth, if you count chronologically) Star Wars movie tonight, when I was struck by a line. Actually it was a line which struck me when I first saw it as well, but I had since forgotten about it. When the movie came out many mentioned the apparently anti-Bush themes running through it, and even mentioned some of the specific lines which struck me. However, tonight it was not the anti-Bush nature of the line which stood out to me, but the sheer illogic of it.

The line is this: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." To which the logical response would be "Absolutes such as 'Only a Sith deals in absolutes'?"

Obviously, there is a problem here. And it is not just a problem with the fictional Jedi morality, but with many modern movements as well. As the Jedi's belief system (at least in the three most recent movies) is basically George Lucas' muddled version of modern fuzzy-headed ethical relativism, it is no wonder that it would share problems with modern ethical beliefs, but it is surprising that he would inadvertently write a line which so clearly points out the problem of those beliefs.

And the problem is simply this: One cannot establish a system of ethics on the concept of being non-judgmental.

Now, many will argue with me. They will say that America itself is founded on the very premise of not passing judgment on others. They will say that tolerance and acceptance are clearly possible in an ethical system. They will say that failing to denigrate others is a high ethical value.

And they are right. (With the exception of that last one.) But none of those are non-judgmental positions. The problem is, they are confusing the tolerance of other beliefs with the modern theory of ethical relativism, and the two are not the same. In fact, not only are they not the same, but, taken literally, ethical relativism has no place for tolerance.

Allow me to explain.

Modern relativism is not the same as tolerance, nor has it much to do with the historical religious toleration upon which America was founded. Our historical tolerance was based on the simple premise that every individual is entitled to believe what he wishes, as he may be right and others wrong. However, this belief, that a man can believe what he wants, is a very limited one. The government is constrained from telling any man what he must believe. That's it. No one else has to accept his beliefs, no one is forced to treat his beliefs with respect, no one is constrained from mocking or ridiculing him. He is simply free of government coercion in the realm of personal beliefs.

That is miles away from the modern belief of ethical relativism and the attendant doctrine of multicultural understanding which follows from it. The modern belief is that not only should we tolerate others' beliefs, but we cannot truly say that any belief is better or worse than another. Where in the past alternate beliefs were tolerate because one may prove true and another false, the modern doctrine says there is no true or false, that all beliefs are of equal value.

From this belief that nothing is true or false when it comes to cultural, ethical, or religious beliefs, the liberals have developed another doctrine,t he so-called multicultural approach, which argues that being free of government compulsion is not enough, that private compulsion can also stop one from expressing his beliefs, so we should not only tolerate others' beliefs, but should be prohibited form criticizing or mocking them.

Of course, the problem should be obvious to anyone. Just as with that quote above "Only a Sith deals in absolutes", the problem is that many cultures include beliefs that denigrate other cultures. So, if I come from a culture which believes I should oppress women or belittle homosexuals, the question arises whether I should forgo my cultural beliefs in order to make homosexuals and women feel good, or should homosexuals' and women's beliefs be subjugated to my culture's beliefs? We can see this clearly with the whole Mohammed cartoon issue. The rights of those who drew the cartoons were considered less important than the rights of the Moslems not to be offended.

And that is the end result of multiculturalism, not a tolerant, pluralist society, but pressure group warfare. The truly tolerant, accepting groups get nothing out of it. Instead, the groups which make the most extreme demands, those which seek exceptions for their cultural beliefs, get to control the debate and impose their will. In the end, the groups with the most extreme, intolerant beliefs can effectively impose their culture upon the majority.

And that is how multiculturalism differs from traditional tolerance. Tolerance, as the founders understood it, demanded only freedom from government oppression. No culture could impose its beliefs on another. Modern multiculturalism demands we not "offend" anyone, and that, in essence, means that cultures can impose on others their idea of what is offensive. And, as we have seen, the more extreme the culture, the more things they find offensive, the more control they have over society at large, until, in the end, the most easily offended end up setting the terms of the debate, and eventually come to control what is an is not acceptable in society as a whole.

And so, a belief system that supposedly promoted tolerance comes, in the end, to do exactly the opposite, subjugating everyone to whichever belief system proves the least tolerant and most oppressive.

POSTSCRIPT

It amuses me to think that in college I used to mock ethical relativism by saying "Making value judgments is wrong". What makes this amusing is that Lucas' line "only Sith deal in absolutes" is essentially the same type of contradictory argument, but played straight. Why could I see the logical error in that sentence when I was only 18, while George Lucas, clearly a clever fellow, can't quite see the problem in an absolute stand against absolutes?

Then again, the cultural and ethical relativists don't see the problem with judging people for being judgmental, so perhaps it is harder to see than I realize.

POSTSCRIPT II

Even without the insistence we not offend anyone, ethical relativism is destined to fail. Without a common system of ethics there is nothing to stop those espousing an essentially amoral system from exploiting those who are held to higher standards. Applied consistently, absolute ethical relativism is nothing but a call universal amorality. So with or without multicultural pseudo-tolerance, there is nothing good that can come of ethical relativism.