Why You Can Never Convince Someone that Something is Immoral

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

[UnklGene]

Good post. Thanks.

[tioga]

interesting point......I will use this line of reasoning soon for the imbeciles I encounter, I am sure...

[Gorjus]

Good post.

Sorry, but I disagree - not that it shouldn't be posted, which is fine, but that the content is worth much.

This is all self-referential. "I know what's right, and if you don't believe me, just ask me." If a "self-evident" truth is not evident to (essentially) everyone, then what makes it "self-evident?" Why, it's self-evident if it's obvious to me, alone. That's all it takes.

I'm not convinced. More than that, it's not an argument that will convince anyone who wasn't already drinking the same bathwater, so why bother? And there is a great risk that if you buy into the "self-evident" - which is to say, "self-referential" - definition of morals you justify those who have their own view of what is moral. After all, it's 'evident' to them that they're right, and if you can't see it . . .

Every society that has lost its anchor to an enduring, documented system of morals has slid into immorality. Even now, millions of Americans think divorce is no big deal, yet a few years ago it was "self-evident" that a promise to "Love, Honor, and Obey until Death do you part" meant just that. But now it's "self-evident" that people who aren't happy together should break their vows and move on, at least, it's "self-evident" to a majority of the population.

I personally believe the best, enduring, documented basis for moral decisions is the Bible. Making that case is another argument, but I will maintain that without some written basis for morals, decay into licentiousness is inevitable. (And, no, I am not saying that all written codes are acceptable, just the opposite, but all unwritten - which is to say, "self-evident" - codes are demonstrably unable to prevent decadence.)

[ModelBreaker]

Nice post. Paul made as similar point eloquently in Romans. I also saw something similar in a Florence King essay some years ago. She argued that Southern men drove liberals crazy because, when pressed about why he thinks something is wrong, the southern man will often reply "I don't know. It's just wrong."

[Doctor Stochastic]

The essence of PostModern thinking. The author not only claims morality is what he feels it to be, but he also asserts that he cannot explain why. When two such people meet, it's fun to watch (from a distance.)

[FreedomFlynnie]

Elevate personal squeamishness to the level of a moral absolute? No thanks. If one can't adequately explain why a given act is wrong (which one can, for incest), either one is a poor debator or should consider whether that act is wrong in the first place.

[Vitamin A]

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

And isn't your professed adherence to only written law based on your self-referential determination that only written law is stable?

You're kicking against the pricks. All belief ultimately comes down to self-reference, because you only agree with an external written source of morality, like the Bible, because your conscience tells you it's correct.

[watchin]

Interesting post.

I've always thought it interesting that the same people who deny an absolute morality when talking about modern social/sexual issues have no problem with absolute morality when it comes to environmental issues.

IOW, my views on abortion and homosexuality are merely opinion, but their views on saving the whales and the ozone layer are universal, undeniable truths.

[NCPAC]

An individual who needs rely on so-called "self evident truths" to buttress his/her argument is an individual who either does not have, or does not care to employ, logic and/or reasoning. What one deems to be "self evident" IS, indeed, subjective.

"Self evidence" is the lazy man's way to self-righteousness.

[trebb]

In Jeremiah, God said He would, under a new covenant, "write My laws in your mind and on your heart". I read that as saying that believers in Him would have a conscience and instinctively know right from wrong...

[Vitamin A]

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

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.

[Vitamin A]

NCPAC, looks like we have another Jefferson-hater in here.

[Vitamin A]

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

If these bashers of self-evident truth are correct, it takes a Ph.D. in philosophy and expertise in debate to know right from wrong, which doesn't bode well for 99.999999999% of the world's population both presently and historically.

[Vitamin A]

Sorry, that last post was meant to agree with trebb's response to modelbreaker.

Trebb is right. Your conscience is God's law inscribed in your mind and heart. God's law is also written in the Bible, but people had God's law in their heart and mind before the Bible was cannonized. Otherwise, how could some of the Gentiles, as Paul explained, unwittingly obey the law without having God's written law?

[Jaysun]

Good points. What you say is true. I recently had an argument with someone over Clinton's immoral behavior while in office. To me, the fact that he kept whipping it out every 30 seconds like it was the only lighter in a crack house was evidence enough. The other person made the point that you mentioned. Namely, who says that's immoral?

I didn't know where to go from there so I responded in the usual fashion. That is, I delivered a lightning fast jab to his stomach and then asked him if he considered what I'd just done to be "wrong."

[Vitamin A]

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?

[hopespringseternal]

Elevate personal squeamishness to the level of a moral absolute?

Not at all what is being discussed, but you know that. I have a big personal squeamishness about eating live scorpions, but I know good and well there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

In most cases, conversion changes behavior with little prompting. 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.

[watchin]

The Bible tells us that "men are without excuse" because "what may be known about God has been made plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."

It also tells us only one thing about atheism ... "the fool has said in his heart 'there is no God'"

As I said above, those who would argue against absolute, self-evident truth in an area that condemns them are quick to assume such "truth" for their pet causes.

One day, like it or not, "every knee shall bow ..."

[Vitamin A]

Couldn't have said it better myself, hope.

As they say, denial is not just a river in Egypt.