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.

[King Black Robe]

It is self-evident that two women cannot actually have sex with each other. I mean come on. But that doesn't stop them from purchasing a fake male strap-on body part, dressing up like a man, finding another female to do the same, and calling their activities "sex." The subjective part is just the human ability to live in denial of the truth.

[Countyline]

"That instinctual sense of revulsion is a moral perception as accurate and undeniable as your sense of sight, smell, taste, touch, or hearing."

It is a bit like going naked. We learn very early on that is is taboo to run around without clothes and there it is.It is a accepted part of our society and things that aren't, do not make the cut. Too bad. Just how it is.

We are told if we do not like the content of tv to turn it off. By that logic, if people where you are do not like your actions and you want them accepted go to where they are. Simple LOL!

[FreedomFlynnie]

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.

In that case, there are only a few possibilities. The person may reach the root of the rational argument for that moral principle, understand it, accept it, and (IMHO) be stronger for his understanding. He may reach that root and still reject it, or fail to reach the root at all, in which case his failing is more of intelligence than morality. Or he may discover that there is no fundamental principle of reason behind said moral rule, which may indicate that the rule isn't so moral after all (meaning it's amoral, or having no bearing on morality, rather than immoral). In any case, the person is never worse off for having thought critically about the principle.

And appealing to authority is a perfectly valid explanation.

Yes, if the reason is that the authority has information or perspective not otherwise available. If I were discussing physics, and a person with a Ph.D. in physics were to make a point based on his studies, I would reasonally have to accept the point. But that point is based on his knowledge, not his authority (i.e. if I were to make the identical point, it'd be no less correct just because I don't have the same degrees). That's not the same as the "because I said so" argument, which may be valid for an intransigent toddler but has no place in a debate among reasonable adults.

[MEGoody]

Ah, so that's it. The vast majority of America has had their morality sensing 'nerves' numbed.

[Jerrybob]

Good points.

I love it when people say "There is no right or wrong, good or bad."

That's the time to say "Fine. Next time you come across some roadkill, stop, scoop it up, take it home and put it in the middle of your dining room table -- and just leave it there for a month or two. Then call me."

[MEGoody]

"Every society that has lost its anchor to an enduring, documented system of morals has slid into immorality."

Correct. Perhaps that is how the 'morality sensing nerves' get numbed. Just a constant soft tap, tap, tap until the 'nerves' go dead.

[freeangel]

I was just discussing this point with a friend the other day. Thanks.

[NCPAC]

Yes, King, your example is certainly self evident. It is concrete. It is fact. However, I was commenting on what was initially a discussion of a more philosophical and ephemeral bent than one involving flesh and blood realities.

BTW, deciding what is and isn't "the truth" is also an exercise in subjectivity. Christians have their beliefs, Jews have their, Buddhists have theirs, Muslims, Atheists,..etc., etc. True believers of any of those various religions (or non-religion in the case of the atheist) will never be convinced they (sic) are wrong because subjectively choosing their respective faith - or having it subjectively chosen for them, has led each to believe their truth found in the given faith is self-evident.

Now, the real question: Are you saying two lesbians who do engage one another with a strap-on are self evidently wrong for partaking in such behavior? ;)

[kjvail]

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!)


Both of these are learned behaviors - man-haters and sociopaths are made not born so God doesn't have much to do with it. Families and societies exercising their free will
to turn away from God and his laws creates these individuals.

[King Black Robe]

Okay (yes, they are self-evidently wrong in the sense that they are contrary to nature). You are being specific and I am being general. The self-evident moral truths would align with the concepts all religions have in common (or did when this nation was founded...and beyond...until a few denominations were infiltrated by those seeking to destroy them from within).

But you are correct that there are very many areas of subjectivity. That's where we debate and let the majority decide these cultural truths for themselves. But the founders saw many self-evident truths. They spoke of the moral sense that all religions had in common. That's what I am talking about.

[xm177e2]

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?

Sure. All I need to do is prove rationally that White Men are "better" or "more deserving" than all women and whites are better than nonwhites. If I had scientific evidence or philosophical reasons for that, I could justify that set of rules.

I don't currently have that evidence, (or any reason to even think it's true), but if such evidence could be produced, such a set of rules could be rationally justified.

I assume your original question was abstract enough to allow for such a counterfactual.

[hopespringseternal]

He may reach that root and still reject it, or fail to reach the root at all, in which case his failing is more of intelligence than morality.

Wrongola. History is full of extremely intelligent people with disastrous morals. Intelligence, in fact, has pretty much zero bearing on morality. There are moral idiots and immoral geniuses with every combination inbetween.

That is where your thesis crumbles to dust, because you equate morality with knowledge. That is demonstrably not true. Anyone can honestly name people they know who lead immoral lives and openly acknowledge it. Lack of knowledge is not their problem.

[TalBlack]

God infuses Man with understanding. Some men get a thrill by replacing God with themselves. The more they outrage the more God-like they feel. These are usually called "Liberals" To me it comes down to whether or not you believe in God or, if you do, whether accept His authority.

One thing is sure, and it is to me as close to "proof" of God's existence as one can get: You are in the battle between right and wrong, no on opts out. It's not possible.

[FreedomFlynnie]

I don't currently have that evidence, (or any reason to even think it's true), but if such evidence could be produced, such a set of rules could be rationally justified.

Exactly. I'm dealing with reality here. I agree that if some such evidence were produced, you could rationally justify your rules. But in reality, no such evidence exists and thus your rules are not justifiable.

If I had evidence that showed I could create matter from nothing, then I could rationally refute the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and others would either have to refute my evidence or alter that law. But since no such evidence is known to exist, I can't just claim that I could rationally refute that law, if only reality weren't what it is.

[FreedomFlynnie]

My point wasn't that intelligence and morality are equal. It was that if a person chooses to examine the rational basis of his morals, and either is incapable of fully examining them or is capable but rejects his own logical conclusion, what he needs more of is intellect, not morals. Of course there are unintelligent moral people; by virtue of their lack of intellectual curiosity they are willing to accept the "self-evident" claims of others without a need to examine them. The immoral geniuses similarly accept "self-evidence": their narrowly defined self-interest overrides their rational faculties and lets them believe that their own personal goals are "self-evident truth". This is a failure of morality, and not of intellect, and it stems directly from the fallacy of "self-evident truths" that cannot be rationally explained or deduced.

That is where your thesis crumbles to dust, because you equate morality with knowledge.

I assume it's hyperbole when you take a single line from my post, misquote it (I said intelligence, not knowledge), and claim that my thesis "crumbles" because you missed my point. But to respond to your statement: someone who claims they live an immoral life according to their own understanding of morals is, by definition, irrational. As I said above, knowledge isn't relevant here, but I do consider irrationality an intellectual failure.

[Gorjus]

I agree there are 'self-evident' values (or morals, if you prefer). It's just that I don't agree there is any reason to believe they are shared by anyone else, except in the pragmatic sense that you can count noses and see. On the other hand, 'truth' in an absolute sense is founded on facts - which are objective evidence of the point in contention. It doesn't matter whether the roundness of the earth is 'self-evident' or not, because it can be externally verified with objective evidence.

I don't require 'proof' of morals. I base my morals on faith in God as revealed in the Bible, and I make no apology for basing my life on faith.

I think a problem we have as humans is that we confuse wishful thinking with 'truth' as it can be established objectively. The writer of this essay really, really wants there to be morals he can count on that are not dependent on the Bible (or other written standard) because he knows he can't get everyone (nor even a majority) to agree to abide by the Bible. So what does he do? Give up? Or hope - to the point of faith - that there is something that can guide people. He discounts those with whom he feels no common ground at all ("If you have to ask, you just don't get it.") in the hope that the majority are still pretty close to what his own 'self' perceives as moral. But in the absence of an external code that allows objective evaluation - a shared one that all parties will accept as a yardstick - the only way they will be close to his own self-perception of morality is if there is some sort of moral 'sense' that transcends any written code. And so he assumes there is one, that at least most of the people share. But in the absence of an objective yardstick, everyone can make that assumption about their own self-defined "self-evident" truths. It can be cynically self-justifying, it can be psychotically destructive, but there's no logical way to choose among them except by voting or something. And over time, history shows that majority-based morals degrade.

I will also agree that there are biological imperatives that can be used to guide social morality (for example, the importance of a stable family structure), but they're dependent on - not drivers of - the environment. I think you can make a strong case that the traditional morality (which is derived from the Bible) of the US through most of its history is biologically sound. Most hedonistic 'moral' codes are not. But if your society gets to the point where survival of the species is not at risk, then biology surrenders to hedonism. Homosexuality, as the obvious example, is not biologically sound for the species, but I have had correspondence with those who say it is moral precisely because it does not lead to more population (since we're overpopulated). I think it is critically important that the social acceptance of homosexuality followed the breakdown of the family structure, where out-of-wedlock births, single parents, and divorce are common. The decay happens incrementally, not all at once, and the first steps become acceptable to the majority before the next minority surfaces publicly.

So, in the end, history shows that morals based on no more than what the majority considers to be fashionable decay - which demonstrates there isn't any enduring common sense of what is "self-evidently" moral. Morals based on biological imperatives change based on the environmental constraints. Only morals anchored in an objective, external standard offer the potential for a stable, yet fulfilling (not a tyranny where one small group 'defines' morals for all) society.

At least, that's my contention. One can feel that is hopelessly pessimistic, or one can take comfort from faith and believe that good (as one perceives it) will triumph in the end. Personally, I'm an optimist. I don't need for there to be some innate 'moral sense' of what is 'self-evidently' right. I think there is a guiding hand that helps us see what is true, and He has provided us an objective, external standard where truth is revealed.

But I don't require others to share my faith. I just hope (and pray) that they do.

[Trinity_Tx]

The author starts off ok, saying that there are "certain" moral truths that we "just know" without having to analyze the "why".

OK... I think we can all agree that "certain things," like murder and stealing and lying, etc, are wrong. (tho one could describe them as "wrong" because they are malfunctional to humanity, rather than because they are "sinful".)

But then he talks in very general terms, i.e., "matters of morality," and he says that if someone doesn't "get" why it's immoral, they are in denial or rebellious:

"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."

My question is, what qualifies as a moral matter to him? There are many things that you or I might say are amoral, while others would consider it a moral matter with a Self-Evident Truth.

And if not all moral matters are self-evident, who decides which ones are self-evident and which are not?

And until this is hashed out, then what is the point?

[hopespringseternal]

Of course there are unintelligent moral people; by virtue of their lack of intellectual curiosity they are willing to accept the "self-evident" claims of others without a need to examine them.

Would you credit these people with real morality, or do they have to make it according to "intelligent" decisions? Nor are these people always intellectually uncurious, that is simply your prejudice against morality showing.

The immoral geniuses similarly accept "self-evidence": their narrowly defined self-interest overrides their rational faculties and lets them believe that their own personal goals are "self-evident truth".

But their intelligence precludes their immorality being a "failure of intelligence."

But to respond to your statement: someone who claims they live an immoral life according to their own understanding of morals is, by definition, irrational.

Only by your own definition are they irrational. By any standard society uses to judge them, they are entirely functional.

[MHGinTN]

I'm afraid Askel5's conversion of my semi-choice stance is a refutation of this author's premise. But the writing wasn't that bad ...

[gitmo]

CS Lewis used this argument as evidence of God. He said that children instinctively know when something "isn't fair". If one toddler takes something that belongs to the other, the victim will cry that "that's not fair". There is an innate knowledge of right and wrong in every man. Societies that have no commonality share definitions of right and wrong. Those few societies that accept wrong behavior as right are immediately recognized as being aberrant.