The Self-Evident Nature of Objective Moral Truths
I occasionally encounter someone who rejects the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths. For many people, all moral truth is merely perspectival; a matter of flexible, cultural convention.
Yet there appear to be a number of moral absolutes that transcend
culture and history. These objective truths beckon us to seek
justification when we attempt to circumvent their prescriptions. “Did
you steal the hammer from that man?” “Yes, dad, but he was going to hit
me with it!” We intuitively know that it’s never acceptable to steal
“for the fun of it." This action requires proper justification before
any of us would find it tolerable or morally appropriate. Still, some
folks are unconvinced that such a transcendent Law exists at all.
I’ve
talked to people who refuse to accept some of the transcendent moral
principles I’ve proposed. In one recent conversation, a female graduate
student said she could imagine a culture that might accept (as virtuous)
the moral principles I typically offer as transcendent moral taboos:
It’s never OK to steal “for the fun of it”
It’s never OK to lie “for the fun of it”
It’s never OK to kill “for the fun of it”
When
people seek to reject the transcendent nature of these claims, I take
the following approach. First, I ask them for an historical example.
While there are many cultures that have justified their actions with
rationalizations we might reject as insufficient, you’ll be hard-pressed
to find a culture that used “for the fun of it” as a justification.
Secondly, it’s sometimes important to “super-size” an issue to
illustrate the point. That’s why I occasionally ask the question, “Is it
ever OK to torture babies for fun?” If it isn’t, we’ve just identified a
transcendent moral principle we can agree on. You’d be surprised,
however, to discover how many people will still reject this “extreme”
moral truth claim. The aforementioned graduate student told me, “Well, I
would never so such a thing and I would never say it was OK, but I
don’t think there’s necessarily an objective truth about it.” Really? I
asked her, “So, are you saying there’s a scenario in which it might be
appropriate to torture a baby for fun?” She still hesitated. “So,
you’re saying that there could be a scenario in which it is morally
acceptable to torture babies merely for the fun of it? Do you see how
that sounds?”
When people still refuse to affirm something as
self-evident as, “It’s never OK to torture babies for fun,” it’s time to
offer them an additional piece of advice: “Get some help!” When your
intuitive ability to recognize self-evident truth is inoperative, it’s
time to get some counseling. Or, at least, start asking what it is that
is causing you to hesitate in the first place. As this graduate student
became more and more uncomfortable with her position, she began to
recognize the weight of the moral truth she was trying to deny. She
intuitively understood the need for proper justification because she
felt the gravity of the transcendent claim.
If there are such
transcendent truths, I think we owe it to ourselves to attribute them to
a proper and foundationally reasonable source. I’ll start that journey
later this week (I’m teaching at Hume Lake
for a few days). In the meantime, let’s help people think deeply and
clearly about the transcendent nature of moral truth claims.
[By the way, J. Warner’s book is on sale for less than $4.00 (Kindle and eBook) for a very limited time.]
