Why You Can Never Convince Someone that Something is Immoral

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

[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.