Why You Can Never Convince Someone that Something is Immoral

Family Reporter ^ | 4/27/04 | Editor, Family Reporter

[Vitamin A]

"If You Have to Ask . . .": Why You Can Never Convince Someone that Something is Immoral

By: Editor, Family Reporter

One day as a friend and I lunched on fish tacos, he told me about the latest developments in the Michael Jackson molestation case. My friend told me that the police had found a hidden passageway leading from Jacko's bedroom to another room lined with pictures of pre-teen and teenage boys. I facetiously asked my friend, "So what's wrong with that?" To which my quick-witted friend replied: "If you have to ask, you'll never understand."

On our way back to the office I realized how much wisdom was embedded in my friend's quick-witted comment. Truly, if you have to ask why certain things are wrong, you will probably never receive an explanation that satisfies you. There are certain things that we know with the deepest certainty--not because we've arrived at some reasoned conclusion in our minds--but because we instinctually sense them at our most basic, visceral level of human understanding. We need no explanation, no debate, no proof that these fundamentals are true. Rather, we see undeniable proofs of their truthfulness everywhere we look in the world around us, and sense them in every molecule of our bodies.

Let me give an example of what I'm talking about. Imagine if someone were to ask you what was wrong with incest. You would probably respond with several reasoned explanations, all of which would probably be true. For example, you might point out the dangers of allowing sexual unions that could create two-headed offspring. But of course, the questioner could point out that infertile incestuous couples don't present that risk, thereby eliminating any justification for denying those couples' their "right" to choose their sexual partners. If at that moment you were to closely re-examine the source of your position on the issue of incest, you would perceive that beneath your mind's superficial layer of reasoning, the very thought of incest provokes an intense, instinctual sense of revulsion deep within you. Without needing any explanation at all, and without even knowing how you know, you sense with an undeniable certainty that "incest is just wrong." That instinctual sense of revulsion is a moral perception as accurate and undeniable as your sense of sight, smell, taste, touch, or hearing. And just as you don't need a logical explanation to know that fertilizer smells bad, you need no logical explanation to convince you of the undeniable truth that incest is disgusting and wrong.

This "sixth sense" of morality is really no different than the Founders' concept of "self-evident" truths upon which they based the United States and its Constitutional rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," proclaimed the signers of the Declaration of Independence. The concept is a simple one: certain truths need no explanation or outside proof; they prove themselves. The rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," for example, are inherent in the nature of mankind and the universe, and any person can sense them. Just consider for a moment the absurdity of being challenged by someone to "prove" to him that mankind has an unalienable right to "Liberty." It is self-evident; the only proof of that truth's existence is the very existence of the truth that you are being challenged to prove!

The modern insistence on debating the un-debatable is a clash between the Founders' concept of self-evident truth with the hippie generation's concept of moral relativism. Whereas the Founders established this nation on the sound assumption that there are certain absolute truths in this universe that are self-evident, today's moral relativist says there are no absolute truths, and that what may be true for you is not necessarily true for me. Thus, moral relativism puts into dispute all truths that mankind has always considered beyond dispute. This includes, for example, the self-evident truths that it is wrong to kill an unborn child, or to engage in homosexual acts.

Some may challenge the idea of self-evident moral truths by arguing that not everyone is repulsed by, for example, bi-sexuality. Thus, the argument goes, the idea of self-evident truth is entirely subjective and therefore unreliable. However, exactly the same thing could be said about the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal." One might just as well cite the prevalence of so many totalitarian regimes throughout the world to disprove the Founders' declaration of mankind's equality. In short, the absence of unanimity on whether or not a self-evident truth exists demonstrates nothing.

But that raises the question of why some people deny self-evident moral truths. And I actually think the answer is quite simple: people who deny self-evident moral truths actually know--either consciously or subconsciously--that those truths exist. In fact, the "shock value" that attracts people to certain immoral behaviors is actually a testament to the fact that those people sense those behaviors are wrong; those people have simply come to enjoy the thrill of shocking their conscience. For example, my criminal law professor--a Harvard-educated homosexual--told our class one day that his gay friends loved to drive across state lines to where sodomy was illegal to engage in homosexual acts just because of the added thrill they got from breaking the law. Not only did my gay professor's remark teach me that an Ivy League education means nothing these days, but it also taught me that some people will do anything for the thrill of doing something shocking. And the very fact that certain conduct shocks the conscience--even in a way that has become a pleasurable to an individual--proves that individual is violating a universal self-evident moral truth.

So what does this all mean for the "members of the choir" reading this article? First, understand that when someone challenges you to explain to him why something is morally wrong, he is inviting you to an un-winnable debate. Because when it comes to questions of morality, you either just "get it" or you don't. If someone has to ask what's immoral about something, then he's obviously either conditioned himself to ignore or doubt the conscience within him, or he is willfully denying it. The bottom line is, when it comes to moral matters, there is just no way you that can convince someone of a truth that their conscience should have already apprehended.

The other lesson that readers will hopefully take away is that there is nothing wrong with citing self-evident moral truth as the basis for one's convictions. You don't need a long-winded philosophical justification for your belief that homosexual marriage, abortion, or any of the other innumerable evils that are so prevalent in American society are immoral. The concept of self-evident truth is a well-established one, and it is the very idea upon which our Founders predicated our great nation's independence. And if you have to ask what's so great about that, you just wouldn't understand my response.

[Vitamin A]

"every knee shall bow"

Comforting isn't it. Looking forward to that day.

[FreedomFlynnie]

FreedomFlynnie, it's really no different than Jefferson elevating his "personal political opinions" to "absolute truths" in the Declaration of Independence.

Nah. When Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." he was most likely referring to the idea that the Founding Fathers all understood the moral basis of those truths, so expounding on that basis would be unnecessary for a concise Declaration of Independence. The other possibility is that he was a bad debater, but I think we can agree that's not true.

Maybe you folks who disagree with the article can explain why the idea of self-evident truth is acceptable in the Declaration of Independence on mixed political/moral issues (e.g., all men are created equal), but not on matters such as whether homosexuality is wrong.

Sure. You can't have a rational system of morality without the idea that all men are created equal (if you don't believe me, try to define one). Based on that truth, which isn't so much self-evident as it is the only possible conclusion of a logical moral system, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness naturally and rationally devolve. It's not that "self-evident" was the rational basis for those truths, it's just that Jefferson assumed readers of the Declaration would either understand or not care about the underlying logic, making a complete explanation unnecessary.

[xm177e2]

That thing called a conscience was put there by God to inform you of man.

Many conservatives accuse lesbians of being man-haters. If the root of lesbianism is indeed an inner revulsion towards men, does that mean God WANTS certain women to be lesbians?

What if someone grows up completely lacking revulsion for some or all of the things you've described (such as a sociopath)? Did God decide that person would be exempt from His moral laws (after all, if God wanted that person to follow His laws, he would have given the person a conscience!)

[Vitamin A]

Your deconstruction of Jefferson's language is no less pulled out of thin air and based on self-referential assumptions than those you accuse of falsely clinging to the idea of self-evident truth. I notice you didn't cite any sources, which is to say, the only source for your argument is yourself, and that it "just makes sense" to you. Hmmmm, that sounds familiar.

[Vitamin A]

xml, I don't know, why don't you ask God, assuming you believe in Him. He'll give you a better answer than I could.

[Gorjus]

I guess you have a real problem with Jefferson's reference to self-evident truth in the Declaration of Independence.

That they signed up to them with their names on the line (as well as the lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor)? Not a bit. It says 'We hold these truths to be self-evident,' and I respect them greatly for taking a stand.

But that doesn't make them right. Heinlein discusses that in 'Starship Troopers.' If you drop someone in the ocean, far from land, where is his right to life? Do we as a society hold it 'self-evident' that there is a 'right to life', with abortion-on-demand? And those who don't agree with abortion often accept the death penalty for serious crimes, as well as the concept of a 'just war,' all of which say there is no absolute 'right' to life. For that matter, when did we outlaw growing old?

And if there was a 'right to liberty', then the tree of liberty would not so often have to be watered with the blood of patriots. Liberty is earned - the hard way (though licentiousness comes easy to decadent societies).

My basic point is that in the absence of an agreed-upon, stable, enduring standard of morality, all societies degrade into behaviors that would be considered unthinkably immoral to prior generations (perhaps several stages prior). That standard may be the teachings of Buddha, or of Confucious, or of Moses, or of Jesus and His Apostles. It may not rely on any faith in a supernatural being at all. But if each generation can decide for itself what is moral, then the unwavering verdict of history is that morality declines by the standards of prior generations of that society. The trend is as one-directional as gravity.

Until a collapse of some sort, which often leads to a rebirth with a new standard of morality. If the moral standard itself is enduring (as in, written down), social morality might even endure.

I happen to prefer - as a value judgment - that standard of morality laid out in the Bible. But I maintain - as a logical argument of history - that in the absence of a stable standard, decadence is inevitable.

Of course, if someone makes you absolute ruler of all mankind - or the Editor of that essay - you can have a stable standard of morality. If there is only one "self" for the self-referential determination of what is "self-evident" then there's no problem.

At least, not for the life of the dictator.

[FreedomFlynnie]

I have a big personal squeamishness about eating live scorpions, but I know good and well there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

Exactly. That was my point: being disgusted by a certain act has no bearing on its moral value.

People know pretty well what is really right and wrong, and at some point either decide to accept that or rationalize on some points. Anyone who treats morality as some great mystery or demands a logical deconstruction of every moral law is someone who has willfully rejected what they know to be right. They aren't confused, they are rebellious.

Just because someone wants to understand the rational basis for morals doesn't define them as a rebel. I'm no more likely to go and steal from someone just because I understand the rational reason for its wrongness; in fact, I'd say I'm less likely to not do something when I understand why I shouldn't do it than if my only explanation is "Mommy (or God) said so."

If rational, thinking people sometimes make the wrong moral choice, the response should be to educate them as to why their choice was wrong, rather than to berate them because they didn't "feel" the right thing.

[Vitamin A]

If a person is born without legs, does that exception to the rule mean that being legless is nature's intended design for the human species?

Exceptions don't make rules.

[FreedomFlynnie]

Your deconstruction of Jefferson's language is no less pulled out of thin air and based on self-referential assumptions than those you accuse of falsely clinging to the idea of self-evident truth. I notice you didn't cite any sources, which is to say, the only source for your argument is yourself, and that it "just makes sense" to you. Hmmmm, that sounds familiar.

1) I didn't deconstruct Jefferson's language. I offered two possibilities for why he chose to use the words "self-evident".

2) I don't need to cite sources to use a couple simple applications of logic. If you disagree with the logic, or can't follow it, you're entitled to try and refute it. Or just curl up in a ball and keep telling yourself that you're right because you feel right, and therefore everyone else must be wrong.

[Jaysun]

That's a great response. I bet the moral ambiguity of the situation gave him "paralysis by over-analysis." Was he French? Did he surrender?

I think that he may have been at least 60% French. He didn't surrender, but that may have been because he was too busy jerking around on the floor and desperately gasping for air as if someone had just shoved a turkey leg down his windpipe.

[xm177e2]

You can't have a rational system of morality without the idea that all men are created equal (if you don't believe me, try to define one)

Okay:

• All white men were created equal
• with white women below them
• And nonwhites below that
• Whites do not have to respect the rights of non-whites
• White Men do not have to respect the rights of women (Of course, if a man disrespects the rights of a woman without permission of the man who owns her, he has committed a crime against that man, his equal.)

That set of rules, notwithstanding however BAD they might be, are not fundamentally irrational, are they?

[spodefly]

BTTT

[xm177e2]

Exceptions don't make rules.

So when more than half of all Americans believe it is proper to allow same-sex couples to marry, that will make it right?

[Vitamin A]

It's comical that you bashers of self-evident truth don't realize that your own "logical" and "rational" arguments about this topic are all based upon inescapable ASSUMPTIONS, (i.e., things you consider self-evident), without which debate itself would not be possible.

For example, you continually invoke the need to appeal to "logic" and "reason" and "common sense" instead of self-evident truth. But don't you see that you are ultimately relying on your internal definition of "logical" or "rational," which is based upon your own apprehensions of self-evident truths about what the nature of logic and reason is?

[Vitamin A]

That was my final word on this topic, folks.

Thanks for the great discussion, y'all, even those of you who disagree with my comments.

Gotta work!

[hopespringseternal]

If rational, thinking people sometimes make the wrong moral choice, the response should be to educate them as to why their choice was wrong, rather than to berate them because they didn't "feel" the right thing.

Generally speaking though, we are talking about two different things. There are times when people don't understand the moral issue behind something they are doing. In those cases, certainly an explanation is in order. But in those cases, as soon as the moral issue is presented, the person will get in line.

But for many cases, no explanation you give will ever be adequate. That person demands an explanation for a basic moral principle, then starts deconstructing it.

And appealing to authority is a perfectly valid explanation. People who don't have children, for example, usually don't think of sex as being so big an issue compared to those who realize making a baby with the wrong person is a serious, life-altering no-no. They may know it is wrong, but they don't have a visceral understanding of what it might do to their lives, not to mention the childrens'.

[caprock]

They aren't confused, they are rebellious.

AMEN!

Self evident truths existed long before Thomas Jefferson referenced them in The Declaration of Independence, and they will continue to exist because they are TRUE (what a concept).

All amoral "truths" / rules / guidelines/ suggestions/ imperatives / (whatever) that moral relativists espouse will only last for their BRIEF lifetimes, and real TRUTH will endure as it always has.

[FreedomFlynnie]

That set of rules, notwithstanding however BAD they might be, are not fundamentally irrational, are they?

You defined a set of rules, but didn't provide the rational moral basis for them. In your example, what is the reason that women and nonwhites are considered less equal? Can you define a fundamental, rational difference between whites and nonwhites, or between men and women, from which it leads that the groups should not have the same rights?

[King Black Robe]

You make some very valid points, though I think the author does as well. I think there are self-evident truths even in the moral realm. I also think there is such a thing as denial. When one gets really good at it, one can come to believe anything and lose one's sense of conscience.

In short, I believe in perceptual and functional relativity and absolute truth. Now, the perceptual relativity seemingly denies the idea of self-evident truths. I suppose it depends on how far you take it. But for the most part, I think mankind instinctively knows right from wrong. It was called the moral sense by our founders. It can be abused, lost and led astray. Just like, as the author pointed out, the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. It is self-evident, but individuals can choose to deny it for any number of selfish reasons.

One more try at an example: The earth is round. A person can perceive that it is flat. He will then function as though it was flat. For him, it might as well be flat. But it is not flat in truth. It is round. It is self-evident because it can be nothing less. Now that is not a perfect example because it does not rely on an inborn moral sense. But that's an example of how perspective can alter how we see real truths. We can make it reality for us, even though it is not reality at all.

[FreedomFlynnie]

You're mistaking rebuttable presumptions for your idea of self-evident truths. If I make a certain presumption (say, that all men are created equal), I'm open to have that point rebutted via a logical argument. If you declare a self-evident truth, then by definition you have closed yourself off to debate or discussion about the topic. If you have a logical or rational argument that would counter a point I made, you can convince me that I was wrong. But you haven't done that. You've just claimed that your feelings are equal to my rational discussions, and thereby closed off any means of debate. For example, you claimed that my internal definitions of "logic" and "reason" aren't applicable, but you haven't made any effort to debate those reasons. If you can't convince me with logic, and I can't convince you because you define your own feelings as superior to logic, there's no point to discussion.