Democracy undervalued – countering cultural relativism

The ignorance amongst the youth as to the value of democracy (which, while not comparable with a limited republic that protects individual rights, is vastly preferable to other forms of government) is a grave threat to entrepreneurs. Who will oppose progressively more draconian anti-business legislation in the future if political freedom is seen by most of the population as irrelevant? A campaign to educate young people and their teachers on the importance of individual rights is desperately required.

Here’s an article (partly extracted below) by Caroline Milburn in the Sydney Morning Herald describing the civics program the Howard government implemented. Note the IPA’s James Patterson’s explanation as to why this has failed, namely cultural relativism.

One of the roots of cultural relativism (the view that the beliefs of no culture are superior to those of another) is the claim that moral values are outside the realm of rational judgement: that it’s impossible to derive an “ought” from an “is”. 

This centuries-old belief has been refuted by the philosopher Ayn Rand, who shows us in her essay “The Objectivist Ethics” that there is an objective standard of moral value applicable to all human beings. You can read here a clear discussion of  Rand’s essay, and the source of individual rights, by Craig Biddle, author of Loving Life and editor of The Objective Standard. Here’s an extract:

Ayn Rand’s Observation-Based Morality

Our purpose here is not to flesh out Rand’s entire moral theory, which would require a book, but rather to examine certain aspects of her ethics that are essential to understanding her theory of rights. Thus, I want to stress that the following streamlined survey is no substitute for a thorough study of her ethics.

Morality or ethics, observed Rand, “is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.” And the first step toward understanding a code of values, she reasoned, is to understand the nature of values. Thus, Rand’s approach to morality began not with the question: Which of the existing codes should I accept?—but rather with the questions: “What are values? Why does man need them?” These questions directed her thinking away from the established views and toward the facts of reality.

Looking at reality, Rand observed that a “value” is “that which one acts to gain and/or keep.” We can see the truth of this all around us: People act to gain and keep money; they value money. Students act to gain and keep good grades; they value good grades. Churchgoers act to gain or keep a relationship with “God”; they value that relationship. People act to develop fulfilling careers, to establish and maintain romantic relationships, to gain and keep freedom, and so on. The things one acts to gain or keep are one’s values. And the key word here is: acts. Values are objects of actions. (Please take special note of this, as it is a crucial aspect of Rand’s derivation of moral principles—including the principle of rights. We will observe the relationship of actions and values repeatedly and with mounting significance throughout the remainder of this essay.)

Looking at reality, Rand further saw that this phenomenon involves not only human beings but all living things—and only living things. We can see this: Trees, tigers, and people take actions toward goals. Rocks, rivers, and hammers do not. Trees, for example, extend their roots into the ground and their branches and leaves toward the sky; they value minerals, water, and sunlight. Tigers hunt antelope and nap under trees; they value meat and shade. This pattern continues throughout the plant and animal kingdom: All living things take self-generated, goal-directed action.

Read more here.

More illumination can be found in “Morality’s Roots in Life” in Viable Values by Tara Smith, professor of philosophy at The University of Texas. You can also read on-line Ayn Rand’s ground-breaking writings on individual rights and the nature of a proper government.

Finally here’s the extract from Caroline Milburn’s article in the SMH:

Australian schools were given curriculum materials on civics in 1997, when the former Howard government introduced its national program on civics education, Discovering Democracy.
The $17.5 million program was aimed at helping students in years 4-10 understand the way Australia is governed and to become active citizens.
It covers the history and operation of Australia’s political and legal systems and institutions, and of the principles that underpin Australian democracy. Schools choose whether to use the program and include it in their existing courses.
Professor Zifcak says the findings from the Lowy poll reveal the optional civics program in schools has failed to reach its goals. Even many of his students starting their study of constitutional law at the Australian Catholic University lack a basic understanding of the nation’s government and democracy.
“The civics program in schools clearly hasn’t worked for my students or the young people surveyed in the poll,” Professor Zifcak says.

.

James Paterson, director of communications for the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, says the survey results reveal a weakness in the way civics is taught, with too many teachers presenting a cultural relativism view of the world, in which no system of government is better than the other.
“The prevailing orthodoxy among most teachers is that everything is relative, that to make a judgment to say that democracy is better than other systems of government is a form of intolerance or cultural imperialism.
“It means young people in Australia have lost sight of the importance and value of the institutions that we’ve inherited through Western civilisation.”