In talk at the University of California, Koukl talks about the impacts of a belief system founded on moral relativism. He says anyone who espouses moral relativism is actually, by definition, impotent to object to the action of any other being. Koukl talks about what he deems the myth of moral neutrality and the myth tolerance which moral relativism likes to set a double standard for. He also provides a series of fatal flaws of relativism which includes:
- A moral relativist can never say that someone did something wrong.
- A moral relativist can never say that there is evil in any capacity.
- A moral relativist can never demand tolerance.
- A moral relativist can never actually live out their beliefs.
- A moral relativist is a type of passive-aggressive.
» To get the audio for the talk visit the Veritas Forum. The notes to follow along with this talk can be downloaded here. «
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Jeremy,
I found your blog after seeing some of your youtube videos, which I have found to be well-done. Urbanelf is one of my favorite youtubers, and it's great to see the two of you engage each other's arguments. I hope that you'll keep it up.
As for this video you posted of Greg Koukl, I had a few thoughts. I have to admit that I didn't have time to watch the 1-hour video, so I read over the notes you included. Hopefully, my comments accurately represent Koukl's position.
It appears that Koukl makes a common conflation between two types of moral relativism: moral skepticism and normative relativism. The first is a rejection of the reality of objective moral facts. The second is the position that we ought to be tolerant of all moral positions as none can be objectively correct.
I do not hold to normative relativism, but I understand that many moral skeptics do. I share Koukl's view that, at least for some understanding of "ought", these two positions are incompatible. I completely agree that "You ought not push your morals on other people" is an obviously self-contradictory statement.
However, for Koukl to defend moral realism, which is his ultimate goal, he must show that moral skepticism is untenable. The way he attempts to do this is by implicitly claiming that normative relativism is a necessary implication of moral skepticism. This is his fatal flaw. In truth, it is possible to be a moral skeptic and not be tolerant of other people's ethical perspectives. If I am incorrect, and you think that normative relativism necessary follows from moral skepticism, please show me how.
Koukl claims that unless I embrace moral realism, I can't say someone did something wrong. Hogwash. When I say that someone has done something morally bad, I am not claiming that they have broken an objective moral law, because clearly I don't think that such things exist. Instead, I am saying that the action they performed violates my evaluation of what is a morally good action. My moral evaluations are formed by applying sound logic to the objective facts of the situation, along with my subjective values.
While having a subjective grounding for morality likely makes me a little more humble in my judgment of others, it by no means requires me to yield to the moral sense of others. My subjectively-ground moral position on rape is that it is wrong. I feel that rape is wrong whether the rapist thinks it is wrong or not. I would continue to think that it is morally wrong even if everyone else on the planet thought it was right. I know of nothing that compels me to alter my moral positions based on the positions of the person performing the action or of the community at large.
And so, moral skepticism is a tenable position, and as a result, the moral argument for a god's existence cannot be defended with this line of reasoning.
I'm sorry that my comments are so verbose, but I wanted to preempt common objections, so we could focus on the truly controversial and interesting parts of the debate. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Take care.
Post a Comment