Why You Can Never Convince Someone that Something is Immoral

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

So, if white men were to conquer other races through superior technology, organization, and other aspects of civilization, would that be a basis or saying that they are inherently superior? Considering that the best evidence is that the human species arose first in Africa, then one would presume that continent would forever have an advantage in civilization over the wanderers who left to go elsewhere. Yet white Europeans overcame their initial disadvantage. Why? Were there (are they) inherently superior, based on that evidence?

I obviously don't think so, but that question (why did Spain conquer the Incas, instead of the Incas conquering Spain) was posed by Trevor Diamond in "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

And a similar 'might makes right' logic - which, by the way, has been the basis for 'morals' for most human societies for most of history - would justify saying men are superior to women. It's not only rational, it's even moral, at least so they claimed, because those who are stronger are best able to protect the weak - but to do so they must make decisions with which all will abide, and so on.

They key is that one can find 'evidence' in all sorts of ways to justify a claim of rationality for things most people would consider 'immoral.' I've had a distressing amount of correspondence with those who claim homosexuality is 'moral' based on the overpopulation of the world (so sexual relations that cannot result in new life are 'better' than those which add to the problem).

In fact, I don't even agree that all men are created equal. Some are taller, some are stronger, some are smarter, some are more graceful. Why should the 'best' be limited to the resources provided to the least capable? (My answer is that I believe no one should be arbitrarily denied opportunity because of race or gender, but that is a value judgment, not provably rational.)

The basis for morality can be internal (which includes majority opinion) or external (such as those based on a documented religious doctrine like the Bible). I'll declare (as a point to discuss) that one can find a rationale for all moral codes, including cannibalism or incest or whatever. Only those based on an objective, external standard (like the Bible) offer the potential to endure and be stable.

The key is: Which standard do you choose to use to guide your decisions? Your own ("self-evident"), some fashionable majority opinion (remembering that in some societies, cannibalism was considered 'moral'), "logic" (which leads the homosexuals to claim morality based on factors such as overpopulation), the Qur'an, the Bible, something else? There are advocates of each - advocates who claim logic and rationality and all sorts of virtues.

So, if white men were to conquer other races through superior technology, organization, and other aspects of civilization, would that be a basis or saying that they are inherently superior?It could be. That was basically Hitler's, right? Regardless of whether you think they're right or wrong, they weren't inherently illogical. Nothing in them contradicted the other stuff.

Even if it could be rationally justified it wouldn't necessarily be right.

All I'm saying is, it's not inherently illogical to be a racist bastard. You have to rely on other criticisms to attack racism.

Only those based on an objective, external standard (like the Bible) offer the potential to endure and be stable.

What is so objective and external about a person's interpretation of the Bible?

Christians reading the same Bible disagree on all sorts of issues--homosexuality, abortion, gun control, divorce, etc. etc.

Would you credit these people with real morality, or do they have to make it according to "intelligent" decisions?

I credit people with morality, or lack thereof, based on their actions. Whether or not they've fully thought through the source of their morality isn't relevant.

Nor are these people always intellectually uncurious, that is simply your prejudice against morality showing.

Actually, I'm prejudiced in favor of objective morality that can be deduced and explained through reason. I'm prejudiced against make-it-up-as-we-go-along "self-evident" morality that has no basis in anything other than personal feelings. And, if a person cares not for understanding where their morality came from, he or she is by definition intellectually uncurious about their morality. They may be deeply curious about other areas, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

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

Now we're getting somewhere. I can agree that irrationality is a moral failing, at least in some cases. Whether being irrational is more a failure of intellect or morals can probably be debated, but I think it can be either or both, and in any case doesn't really bear on my argument.

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

They're irrational by virtue of objective reason. Functionality has nothing to do with it; Hitler got along very well in daily life, but I think we can agree he was certainly both irrational and immoral.

I base my judgement of humanity on individuals, not groups. To me it's apparent that a very few individuals in each culture created the technology and social systems that allowed some cultures and nations to succeed where others failed. This fact is most revealed to me in the individual ascension and decline of different cultures; while Greece and then Rome first dominated the ancient world, they declined, and Europe languished in the Dark Ages for centuries while the Middle East and Asia flourished. It wasn't until a relatively small number of thinkers began the Enlightenment, combined with the concurrent invention of the printing press that allowed ideas to be shared relatively cheaply far and wide, that Europe (and later America) became the preeminent world culture.

And a similar 'might makes right' logic - which, by the way, has been the basis for 'morals' for most human societies for most of history - would justify saying men are superior to women.

My logic is just the opposite of "might makes right." I believe in an objective rationality that defines morality for those who are able to have morals and rights (i.e. humans). One can violate those rights and act immorally, but one can't make them not exist.

In fact, I don't even agree that all men are created equal.

Men are not created with equal ability, but according to objective standards of morality they all have equal rights by virtue of their sentience. That's what Jefferson was talking about; he obviously didn't believe that everyone was just as smart or strong as everyone else.

The key is: Which standard do you choose to use to guide your decisions?

I use the standard of objective reason. It's not based on popular opinion, personal feelings, or a religious source; it's based on rationality and logic, and while errors or failings in the moral code are open to debate, new facts or premises must be introduced (e.g. if you were to declare that minorities were somehow less than human and therefore not subject to a moral code based on reason, the burden to introduce evidence to that effect would be on you).

An interesting point is that the basic moral absolutes are virtually the same in every monotheistic religion, and even quite a few that aren't (such as Buddhism). So there is nothing sectarain about the basics such as no murder, no stealing, no lying, no homosexual or other illicit sexual acts, and so on. One could also include the do's - honoring parents, elders, telling the truth, honesty, and so on.

These moral absolutes are what separate humans from animals. Those who reject moral absolutes really want to destroy human civilization. Without these basic restraints and guides for social behavior, humans become WORSE than ordinary animals. We can see it happening already.

What the world needs is for people to re-awaken their dormant relationship with God, even if it means a "different" religion that one you or I prefer or consider the one true religion. [Let's leave Islam out of this for now!!!] Who would you rather meet in a dark alley - some Buddhists, or regular gang members? Some Mormons or some Hindus, or a group of leather-clad homosexual bikers just out of the bath house after being jacked up on meth for 3 days?

According to my understanding, God in the heart of everyone is telling us what is right and what is wrong. But those who don't want to hear that "still, small voice" do everything they can to drown it out. Therefore the yelling, the parades, the irrational and aggressive propaganda, judicial activism, and so on. They think that if they can eradicate all external evidence that they are on the wrong path they will be happy and peaceful. They will never be happy and peaceful. Their hearts won't let them.

Conscience is there in the heart of everyone. But some attempt to dull and silence it, some with pretty good success. The more we WANT to hear, the more we can. That's why if sincere people read scripture, they can understand and appreciate the meaning, because they can simulaneously experience within that "this is true". So it's revealed from the inside and the outside.

What is so objective and external about a person's interpretation of the Bible?

Is it perfectly objective? No. It's written in human language, and whether Hebrew, Greek, or any English translation, that leaves room for interpretation.

However, the basic doctrine is stable and the key tenets are objective and clear. There can be arguments at the margin, but the margin stays in the same place. You don't get a continual drift where what once was marginal becomes mainstream and what once was clearly immoral becomes marginal, and so on. And for most arguments - such as in your examples on homosexuality or divorce - there is sufficient clarity that a fair-minded reader familiar with the basic language can find guidance. Hypocrites can misinterpret anything, but if you read something as clear as, "[H]omosexuals . . . will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven" your choice is either to ignore the doctrine - which is to say, reject that external standard - or accept that homosexuality is immoral. You can't honestly claim homosexuality is moral by that standard. The same applies to abortion. The guidance on use of personal defense weapons is actually quite clear and does not support gun control. (It does provide guidance on when you should use deadly force, but it also indicates that it can be a good thing to go armed.) Your examples are not in what I would consider the 'gray' area, but there certainly are some other issues of 'disputable matters.' On those the Bible explicitly disclaims providing direction, and if you are saying that the Bible can be considered stable but incomplete, you have a logical point. But to prove it we would need to identify such matters and also agree that their resolution was required in order to claim a moral basis for behavior.

You (generically, meaning, 'anyone') can reject that guidance. I just maintain that a moral code based on a stable external standard is the only way to avoid decadence - since the history of mankind shows an unblemished record of moral degradation when only 'logic' or 'self-evident' rules guide a society. And I believe (offered without proof) that the best, most fulfilling for humans, external standard ever developed is the Bible.

I use the standard of objective reason. It's not based on . . .

It's a nice claim, but I don't buy it. Mostly because it's the exact claim used throughout history by every self-justifying despot and hypocrite. That's not to say you are a hypocrite, only that you cannot always logically choose between your claims for what is moral and another's claims for what is moral. 'Reason' and 'logic' have been used to justify the most immoral tyrannies in history. In fact, you can just about tell how immoral a society is by how loudly they trumpet their 'reason' and 'logic.' Logic is only a means for deriving conclusions that are as valid as the input premises - but if the input premises (such as, 'might makes right') are wrong, logic won't fix the problem.

The bottom line is that your claim does not pass the test of history. If reason and logic were sufficient to guide morality, we wouldn't see civilizations decay into practices clearly considered immoral by previous generations until they collapse. That's not a 'reasonable' thing to do, but it happens too often throughout history to deny, and therefore I don't see any justification for saying there is a moral truth that can be objectively determined. (Obviously, some self-declared moral systems are unjustifiable by any logical/reasonable standard, but the issue is selecting among standards that all claim a logical basis - and whether a moral code not anchored in an external standard can be stable.)

In the end, you put your faith in your own opinions - claiming as justification for those opinions that they are based on superior reasoning (if you want yours chosen over someone else's, then yours must be superior). But, for example, there's no 'reason' to prefer your sense of what is moral over the guidance of the God of the universe - unless you don't happen to believe (a faith statement) in that God. You're welcome to your faith. I put mine in something higher than human reason - but I don't insist that you agree.

What the world needs is for people to re-awaken their dormant relationship with God, even if it means a "different" religion that one you or I prefer...

I have tried to be careful to allow for just what you say. I clearly believe that the Bible is the best basis for a moral code, but that is a distinct question from whether a stable moral system can exist without an external standard. There are written doctrines that do not preclude murder, rape, and mayhem of all kinds, so just writing it out doesn't solve the problem, but if you have a code that meets what most people would consider the key tenets of 'moral behavior', as in your examples of respecting life, property, family, etc., you can certainly make a case that practioners are less risk than those who disdain any external standard.

However, there is a second tier of constraint in moral codes that still demonstrate that the consensus 'moral absolutes' you talk about are insufficient by themselves. You can get near-universal agreement against murder and perjury, but not against homosexuality or divorce or extra-marital sex. Yet I maintain that it is this second tier of constraints - the ones that require a true 'moral' choice and not just an appeal to logic - that determine if a society can endure. It is in these areas that the written standard is most important, because without that standard more and more people will find themselves rationalizing and accepting the hedonistic option.

Another advantage of a well-documented moral code is that the true complexity of life can be addressed. Is all killing wrong, or just murder? If the family is the 'moral' basis for society, what happens to widows and orphans? Simplistic statements of the sort that are 'self-evident' lend themselves to misuse - or else fail the test of utility when real-world complexity stands up.

IMHO, the key word in the DoI is “We.” This is the colonies “we” telling the Throne (implied “You”) that what follows is our list of values and truths. It’s assumed that the Throne doesn’t hold the same truths to be self-evident, given some unnamed grievances that make the actual putting a list of truths to paper necessary in the first place.

Moreover, we’re prepared to kill “you” if you do not allow us to practice these truths - or if “you” do not stop violating our rights as described.

Looking at one particularly divisive issue today where people on both sides claim some level of self-evidence in their positions, abortion:

The power in the DoI’s self-evidence argument is that the DoI is the wronged speaking directly to the wronger. Babies in wombs lack the ability to defend themselves in such a way, and the argument loses its punch when the victim’s only voice is a bunch of 3rd-party advocates.

The best analogy for abortion is to slavery, and vice-versa. Most slaves also lacked the ability to construct arguments on their behalf - one reason no doubt why folks back then were so much against allowing black people to become educated - and the whole issue required bitter, bloody a war and a stubborn leader who was willing to go to questionable (legally) lengths on their behalf in order to make slavery illegal, while simulatenously accomplishing some other goals he also deemed worthy, such as keeping the States united - such as it is.

Lincoln’s reasoning for making slavery illegal? Again, an appeal to self-evidence...”If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.