Replies

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.)

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.

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.

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?