Chapter One

There existed in Persia and Syria in the 12th century the much-feared Order of Assassins. It is commonly thought that this order was ensconced in an impregnable fortress whose leader, known as the Old Man of the Mountain, sent out his obedient minions throughout the world (primarily in Islamic countries) to assassinate opponents. The order flourished for a century before being swept away by the Mongols, but many of its doctrines still hold sway in that area of the world.

New recruits were attracted to the order with hashish (hence the word "assassin"), a particularly strong form of marijuana. They progressed through various degrees of revealed knowledge after demonstrating their absolute obedience to the Order's ritual and to the commands of the Old Man until they reached the hallowed Inner Circle, the so-called 32nd Degree of Ultimate Knowledge, at which time the One True Secret of the Universe was revealed. It was - "all things are permitted."

"All things are permitted" - alas, the postmodern world is embracing that view with increasing fervor. Ever since the eighteenth century, philosophers and laymen alike have come to believe that there are no objective standards of good and evil. All ethical standards are increasingly regarded as matters of personal opinion only. It is thought that the individual, not reason, is the ultimate arbiter of correct ethics, and therefore it is not possible to prove any ethical standard to be true. Socio-cultural dysfunctions are the inevitable result, as symbolized by the end-of-century massacre at Columbine High School.[1]

The basic cause of these socio-cultural dysfunctions is the ethical theory asserting that all things are permitted. This postmodern ethical relativism is quite prevalent among the Western intelligentsia today although most unusual in the world's history and even throughout the world. As the Wall Street Journal has asserted, "Welcome to morality in late 20th century America, where what's right and what's wrong is anyone's guess on any given day."[2]

We ought not to base ethics upon religion, if only because there are many conflicting religious beliefs and none are susceptible to empirical proof. As will later be pointed out at some length, religion is not the correct determinant of prescriptive truth any more than it is the correct determinant of descriptive truth. The proof of ethical standards is no more a religious issue than is the proof of evolution. Nor, as we will see, can culture provide an ethical proof.

Follow the Truth wherever it may lead. Accept nothing that cannot be proven. But ignore at your peril and society's peril any ethical principle that can be proven.

If individuals are regarded as the ethical judge of their own behavior, then violence can be justified. No matter how much some ethical relativists might oppose violence, can't their subjectivist ethical philosophy justify it? If there are no provable limits to personal behavior, contradictory ethics can be justified (which by itself constitutes a disproof of ethical relativism). For instance, even apathy, an opposite of violence, can be justified, for if right or wrong are matters of personal opinion only, then why strive? Democracy becomes no more justifiable than despotism. Thieves can defend their stealing if they think it right. If we each live in our own ethical universe, there is no way to reason morally with one another and passion replaces persuasion and might determines right.

In our own time, do we not see a high level of violence, apathy, despotism, crime and alienation? Our philosophies are not unhooked from our actions; we should not be surprised that cultural collapse follows the increasingly ethical relativism of our time. If nothing can be proven true, then we will have moral chaos.

We may deplore the results of ethical relativism and admit that it has been the cause of our current social malaise, of the generation gap, of aimlessness in art and music, of our seemingly intractable economic problems, and so forth.[3] But if it is correct, then we have no choice but to put up with its bad social effects. If that's the way life is, we have no rational alternative. We must face the facts and treat things as they are, not as we might like them to be.

If this book is to go beyond the many fine books on cultural collapse, then it must present a proof that ethical relativism is false and that some particular ethical standard is true. Otherwise, it will have nothing new or valid to say and there would remain no reasonable alternative to ethical relativism, bad as its consequences might be. If you are so completely welded to postmodern ethical preconceptions that you cannot consider an attempt at an ethical proof, you can't expect to get anything out of this book; don't ask for dry water. I hope, dear reader, you don't suffer from neo-ideo-phobia (fear of new ideas).

But what ethical standard can be proven true? At this late date in history, we are not likely to come up with anything ethically true or valid that has never been thought of before. This book will attempt to prove the truth of the venerable ethical standard that as an end in itself, individuals have a right to their own life, liberty and property, limited only by the equal rights of others. We will relate this standard to a provably true (though at this point unstated) ethical statement. You probably already choose, dear reader, to live by the equal-rights standard, but if it is only a personal opinion, it will not withstand the might-makes-right or die-for-your-religious-belief standards and will eventually be overcome. An airtight proof of its truth can prevent that, but you can search the philosophical literature for such a proof to no avail. This book will be of little use to you if it fails to prove the equal-rights doctrine to be true. Aren't you comforted to read a proof of the equal rights which you probably already believe in? Or do your prefer to don a moral hairshirt?

Believing that equal rights cannot be proven true is dangerously dysfunctional (let alone wrong). When people believe that, they are in essence telling others to do whatever they want sans limit. Socio-cultural dysfunctions will inevitably follow.

Let us proceed as follows: First, we'll carefully document the rise of ethical relativism over the centuries. Then, we'll carefully document the rise of cultural dysfunctions (crime, hard-drug use, illegitimacy, school decline, etc.) and show how these dysfunctions are caused by ethical relativism. Then, a proof of the equal-rights doctrine will be presented.

What is required of you, dear reader, is to face the facts, to treat things as they are, to be rigorously objective, and to hold this book up to the very highest standards of rational proof. You must be willing to discard ethical relativism, however deeply held, if it is disproved. Anything less on your part and you will be wasting your time in proceeding further. This book will have nothing to offer you.

John W. Gardner: "An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society that scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."

We ought not to take equal rights for granted: History is writ in blood, in the twentieth century especially. More than two-fifths of current humanity lives under dictatorship; the concept of individual rights is tenuously held by most Americans; for instance, the New Jersey legislature recently rejected the equal-rights philosophy on the grounds that it was anti-black, anti-women and too pro-God;[4] property-rights-destroying taxation is growing everywhere.[5] Whenever we meet people who persist in believing that everyone accepts equal rights, we can be sure we have met people for whom logic and evidence are irrelevant.

Will a proof actually dispel cultural deterioration? It will help, but no doubt there are other relevant factors; the future is not for us to see. While the actual moral applications of ethical principle are important, we here are primarily interested in how to apply those correct ethical principles to those particular circumstances of reality, not in the moral applications themselves.

This book makes a clear distinction between "ethical" and "moral." Both words refer to how we should behave (not necessarily sexually) but "moral" usually refers to how people think they should behave, or to the application of ethical principle to actual circumstances in reality, while "ethics," with which we are more concerned, refers to how people should behave.[6] Absolutely no one disputes that members of each culture and religion think they're right, but we want to find out what is rationally right. Even if everyone agreed on that, only popularity and not rightness would be established. Let us distinguish between morality and ethics.

Now we need a clear definition of ethical relativism. It is the belief that ethical principles are matters of personal subjective opinion only and cannot be proved true. By this standard, many people today are ethical relativists, no matter how strongly they hold to their ethical principles. Ethical relativists contradictorily accept the provability of mathematical principles, such as a² +b² = c² for flat right triangles, but they don't accept the provability of ethical principles (even though both mathematical and ethical principles are rational and therefore subject to proof).

Ethical relativism is often incorrectly merged with equal rights, but the two concepts are entirely distinct. The equal rights doctrine is provable and claims there are correct limits to individual behavior; ethical relativism is unprovable and claims the individual is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. We should therefore separate these two concepts.

If a genuine rational proof of an ethical standard can be found, then this book has performed an important service. If it falls short of this elevated goal, then it is worthless, ready for the dung heap, merely one more encomium to equal rights - more eloquent ones abound. The socio/cultural dysfunctions of our time will continue to go unexplained.

This book is written for the lay reader. It is free of sociological and philosophical jargon. But if it has anything new and true to say, then professionals can greatly benefit from it.

A word about endnotes: Let's take them seriously. Whenever a questionable fact or quotation is given, the source has generally been noted so that we can have sufficient information to judge the alleged fact's validity. Generally, the source of each endnote (the socalled double endnote) is also given. In the few cases where full information did not exist, the sources are generally in the author's possession and are available to readers at $10 per copy (as of the year 2001). For cultural history, popular magazines can be original sources of information and so have often been used; it is reassuring to know that many of them employ many competent researchers and fact-checkers.[7] As we enter a new millennium, technological wonders as yet undreamed-of abound, but if ethical standards are unproven, disaster awaits. We must answer the compelling question: What are the correct limits (if any) on our freedom?

Now you, dear reader, are ready to read this book. Remember to apply to it the most rigorous standards of validation and proof.

Chapter One: Looking Forward