The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 97 - Why Moral Relativism Is False

00:00:00.000 Now, yesterday I made the argument that there is no basis for objective morality without God.

00:00:07.400 As an atheist, you cannot logically assert any kind of objective moral code because you have denied God.

00:00:14.420 And I argued that the only thing left for an atheist is moral relativism.

00:00:19.780 That's really the only option that is logically open to them.

00:00:25.100 I'm not going to rehash that argument. You can go and listen to it or watch it if you like.

00:00:27.900 My main objective was just to knock down the idea that it's possible for objective morality to exist in a godless universe.

00:00:34.940 I spent 30 minutes trying to do that so you can go and look at that or listen to that.

00:00:39.580 Quite a lot of feedback to that discussion, much of it ranging from negative to extremely negative.

00:00:45.600 And now what I'd like to do is I'd like to engage what appeared to be the two most frequent criticisms of the position that I expressed yesterday.

00:00:55.800 Now, the first one I'm not going to spend a lot of time on. I did want to mention it, though.

00:01:00.040 There were a lot of people who insisted quite breathlessly that it is possible for an atheist to do good things and be a good person.

00:01:08.800 In fact, as I was told, just because atheists believe that there is no God doesn't mean that they're going to go off killing and raping, etc.

00:01:16.400 You don't need God to be a good person, I was told.

00:01:21.900 And to that argument, I say, yes.

00:01:26.360 Also, what are you responding to and who are you responding to?

00:01:31.180 Of course, atheists can be moral.

00:01:33.800 Of course, atheists can do good things.

00:01:36.080 I never argued to the contrary.

00:01:38.220 I've never heard any Christian argue to the contrary, honestly.

00:01:41.060 That's not an argument that really exists.

00:01:43.440 That certainly wasn't my argument.

00:01:44.780 I didn't argue that atheists can't be good people.

00:01:48.860 I said that atheism provides no rational basis for asserting goodness and badness as objective realities.

00:01:57.060 That was my argument.

00:02:00.160 I'm not sure why so many atheists struggle to understand this distinction.

00:02:03.480 And it's kind of funny to me that atheists like to impugn the intelligence of believers, 0.96

00:02:08.640 while at the same time, with the whole invisible sky daddy and all that kind of nonsense,

00:02:12.540 while at the same time, which again, there is no Christian above the age of five who actually believes that God is in the sky or that he's magical. 0.99

00:02:23.940 So, you know, it's another, you know, it's a kind of really stupid straw man that I see really that intelligent atheists will use. 0.98

00:02:34.160 And it's beneath them to get into that kind of stuff, but they do it. 0.98

00:02:40.220 And even here, there is, even among intelligent atheists, there appears to be this inability to understand a really basic distinction and nuance.

00:02:48.920 So, again, I'm not saying that atheists aren't good.

00:02:54.580 I'm saying that atheism itself, the belief system, provides no basis, no rational basis for asserting the objective nature of morality.

00:03:10.500 That's my point.

00:03:11.580 In fact, my argument is actually the opposite of what these critics seem to understand.

00:03:19.640 My whole point, and what I said many times in that episode, is that atheists do act morally, and they do recognize moral goodness,

00:03:28.020 and they do condemn moral evil, which proves that they do recognize the objective nature of morality, even if it contradicts their worldview.

00:03:36.000 That was my point, the point I made, is that, yes, there are plenty of good atheists who understand, in fact, all of them recognize moral goodness.

00:03:46.240 That was my point that I was trying to make.

00:03:50.760 Now, you notice that atheists will tend to have this confusion, actually, on the other side, too,

00:03:59.000 because many arguments with atheists, in my experience, will devolve into the atheists listing all of the alleged crimes and atrocities committed by religious people.

00:04:09.820 I cannot tell you how many times I've had a debate or an argument with an atheist about the existence of God or something along those lines,

00:04:17.420 and eventually they start talking about the Crusades and the Inquisition.

00:04:21.180 Now, the fact that they reveal themselves to have very little understanding of those historical episodes is beside the point.

00:04:27.120 The real point is that the Crusades, the Inquisition, none of that has anything to do with anything.

00:04:33.780 The sins of religious people are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not God exists.

00:04:41.980 I was watching a debate with Christopher Hitchens recently, and he went on this whole tangent about the alleged wickedness of Mother Teresa.

00:04:51.320 Now, Hitchens was a brilliant guy, but this was an amazingly erroneous and pointless rant,

00:05:00.320 as it obviously has no bearing at all on the question of whether God exists or not.

00:05:07.680 It makes no difference.

00:05:09.760 You can say whatever you want about Mother Teresa.

00:05:11.960 It has nothing to do with anything.

00:05:13.540 So, it seems that some atheists tend to think that arguments about God are really a contest over who,

00:05:21.240 between atheists and religious people, are the best people.

00:05:24.280 But that is not the argument, and that is just not an argument that I've ever heard a Christian make.

00:05:31.320 Honestly, I've never, ever heard a Christian say that,

00:05:36.020 well, Christians are the best people in the world, and if you are a Christian, then it prevents you from doing bad things. 0.97

00:05:43.340 And if you're an atheist, then all you do is bad things, and you're out raping and killing. 0.98

00:05:47.540 I've never heard that argument. 0.99

00:05:48.780 I honestly have not once ever heard it expressed from a Christian.

00:05:52.860 So, we can put that to the side.

00:05:54.860 Second, this is where I want to spend the most time.

00:05:59.300 I heard from quite a few people who said, you know, who openly said that, well, morality is not objective.

00:06:10.580 You know, you're right.

00:06:12.120 Atheism provides no basis for objective morality, and that's because there is no objective morality.

00:06:17.620 There's only what we think is good or bad, which is a preference that depends on culture, evolution, personality, and so on.

00:06:23.780 So, this is moral relativism, which my, what I was doing yesterday is I didn't really, I was trying to demonstrate that as an atheist,

00:06:35.400 the only thing really open to you logically is moral relativism, although I didn't really get into trying to disprove moral relativism,

00:06:45.420 so that's what I'm going to try to do now.

00:06:46.520 So, I'd like to explain why I think that moral relativism is false, why I believe that morality is certainly objective.

00:06:56.680 And I guess before we do that, we have to get in, I guess we have to define our terms.

00:07:00.480 So, on one hand, you have moral relativism, which is the belief that there is no underlying moral truth.

00:07:06.840 There's no moral truth at all.

00:07:09.080 Morality is both subjective and relative in this view.

00:07:11.920 So, what is right and good depends on my own perspective, so that's subjective, and it depends on circumstance, so it's relative, and that's it.

00:07:20.860 On the other hand, objective morality is the belief that moral standards, moral truths, and moral responsibilities exist independent of my own preferences or opinions.

00:07:31.560 In other words, some actions are really good, and some are really bad, and they remain good or bad, even if I think otherwise.

00:07:38.120 Even if everyone in the world thinks otherwise, the moral truth remains.

00:07:41.920 So, maybe instead of objective morality, we could call it actual morality.

00:07:46.000 I don't know.

00:07:46.460 You know, maybe that's a better term.

00:07:48.000 But the point is that this belief holds that immoral actions are actually immoral.

00:07:53.160 That is, per se, immoral.

00:07:54.820 And moral actions are actually moral.

00:07:57.180 That is, per se, moral.

00:07:59.060 And just as we have actual moral obligations to do certain things and not do others.

00:08:04.440 And those obligations exist, whether or not we recognize them, or whether or not we choose to follow them, or whether or not we like them, right?

00:08:15.660 So, how do I prove this?

00:08:18.540 Well, I'm not going to make an exhaustive argument here, but I will mention two points for consideration.

00:08:25.540 One, I think we have to start with, you know, my first piece of evidence for objective morality that I would present is your own moral intuition.

00:08:39.380 I mean, your own understanding and my understanding, which is the same.

00:08:43.500 And this is a weird argument, I realize, because on one hand, it's very weak, in that I can't provide tangible proof of it, because I'm telling you what's going on in your own head, which I can't prove, and of course, comes off extremely presumptuous.

00:09:00.900 Well, on the other hand, it's a strong argument, because as you listen to it, you know that what I'm saying is true.

00:09:07.380 So, here's the point.

00:09:08.620 So, each person who says that morality is not objective, in fact, I'll personalize this.

00:09:16.420 You, who are listening to this right now, if you as an individual, if you believe that morality is relative, if that's what you claim to believe anyway, then I'll talk to you.

00:09:28.600 So, you say that morality, maybe you laugh at the idea of objective morality.

00:09:32.060 You know, we all have our own morality.

00:09:35.060 My morality is not your morality, so on and so forth.

00:09:36.980 Yet, you say that, yet I know that you know that rape is wrong.

00:09:45.400 You know that murder is wrong.

00:09:47.660 You know that it's wrong to tell a lie.

00:09:50.940 Now, maybe you've told lies in the past, but you knew it was wrong when you did it.

00:09:54.940 And so, you felt guilty for it afterwards. 0.98

00:09:57.980 And there are plenty of people out there, unfortunately, who have murdered and raped. 0.94

00:10:02.420 But unless they were insane, they knew it was wrong when they did it.

00:10:06.980 Which is why we can justify putting them in prison.

00:10:12.260 Because they knew it was wrong, and they did it.

00:10:15.260 If they didn't know it was wrong, and they did it, then they go to an insane asylum.

00:10:19.400 So, you know it.

00:10:20.860 And when I say you know it, I mean you know it.

00:10:24.660 Not that you've decided it, or that it's your preference, but that it's a thing.

00:10:29.320 It's a reality that you know, and that you recognize.

00:10:34.220 Okay?

00:10:35.340 So, how do I know that you know it?

00:10:37.300 Well, because if I murdered someone, or if I stole from someone, you would not say,

00:10:42.680 well, that's your opinion, that's your morality.

00:10:46.760 I mean, you know, that's what you thought was right, and so I'm not going to judge you.

00:10:51.940 No, you wouldn't do that, would you?

00:10:54.400 You would condemn my actions, and you would condemn them with force and intensity,

00:10:59.060 because I broke a code that you think I ought to have followed.

00:11:04.000 Which means that you innately recognize the code, and you believe that I recognize it,

00:11:08.720 which means that you believe it to be objective.

00:11:11.720 That is, not subject to opinion.

00:11:14.580 Another example.

00:11:15.180 So, you condemn the Nazi, even though you're a moral relativist, you still condemn the Nazi

00:11:20.080 Holocaust. 0.77

00:11:21.740 And, if I launched a serious argument, where I said that the Nazis, well, you know, the 0.67

00:11:26.060 Nazis, they thought that what they were doing was okay, and I mean, they had their reasons

00:11:30.220 for it, and hey, let's not foist our morality on them.

00:11:34.700 If I made that argument, you would react rightly with disgust and derision.

00:11:38.880 You would mock me.

00:11:40.280 You would spit at me for making that argument.

00:11:42.240 Because, again, you recognize that the Nazis broke a universal code, and that I, in justifying 0.96

00:11:49.720 their behavior, am denying that code, which in this context, you see correctly as a plainly

00:11:55.320 absurd thing to do.

00:11:56.680 So, even though you claim to be a moral relativist, if I made a consistent morally relativistic argument

00:12:03.180 in relation to the Nazi Holocaust or rape, you would laugh at me.

00:12:07.320 You would laugh at your own position if it was made to you in reference to one of these things.

00:12:14.820 So, that is my first argument.

00:12:16.700 I know that morality is objective, because I can see that it is, and you can see that it is,

00:12:22.380 and everyone can see that it is.

00:12:24.960 And if something was truly subjective, then there is simply no way that we would all have

00:12:28.900 exactly the same sense of it.

00:12:30.860 That's the funny thing, you know, that all of these moral relativists out there, yet none

00:12:36.600 of them speak up to offer their morally relativistic defenses of rape, holocaust, pedophilia.

00:12:43.640 Well, very few of them do, anyway.

00:12:46.740 As I said yesterday, Richard Dawkins did offer a bit of a defense of pedophilia.

00:12:50.780 But even then, it was a half-hearted defense, and he's certainly in the minority among relativists.

00:12:57.700 And that's interesting, isn't it?

00:13:01.740 Number two, and I think it's a valid point.

00:13:06.200 If I'm trying to disprove moral relativism, the fact that even moral relativists don't believe in it,

00:13:12.980 I think that's a relevant point, you know?

00:13:15.780 Number two, I think the objective nature of morality can be seen and proven historically and anthropologically.

00:13:24.960 If morality were subjective, if it were decided by individuals and societies,

00:13:30.540 and if it did not have a source outside of ourselves,

00:13:33.340 then the moral systems of every separate society should be like their clothing choices or, you know, their fashion.

00:13:43.680 That is, it should be wildly different from place to place and from era to era.

00:13:47.920 But that is not what you find.

00:13:50.900 In fact, if morality is subjective, then I think I should be able to find two things.

00:13:56.840 When I'm, if I'm looking around the world, I'm looking through history of different civilizations.

00:14:00.220 I should be able to find civilizations that have no moral code whatsoever.

00:14:04.800 I should be able to find civilizations where nothing is considered right or wrong.

00:14:08.480 Um, and number two, I should be able to find civilizations that have something close to the opposite of our own moral code.

00:14:16.160 So, civilizations where it's considered absolutely right to lie, murder, steal.

00:14:22.680 I should find civilizations where cowardice is celebrated, integrity is derided.

00:14:27.560 Um, given the number of civilizations that have existed, given how separate they have often been, especially in the past,

00:14:33.660 I think it's reasonable that an entirely subjective thing should manifest itself in extremely different ways, opposite ways.

00:14:41.360 That's what I, uh, uh, that is what we find with truly subjective things like fashion.

00:14:47.380 Okay, so you can find societies where men wear pants, societies where they wear skirts,

00:14:52.160 societies where people wear almost nothing, societies where women wear burkas, societies where they wear bikinis. 0.98

00:14:57.120 If morality is subjective, then I should find a situation as diverse and contradictory as this, but I don't.

00:15:04.780 What I find as I look at civilizations across the world in history is that there is a unanimous agreement in principle on a number of moral points.

00:15:15.700 Like it's wrong to lie, it's wrong to steal, to murder, it's good to be honest, to be humble, to be courageous.

00:15:22.240 I find basically the same sort of person admired and the same sort of person despised everywhere.

00:15:30.720 Now, it's true that you find civilizations where terrible evils are accepted in commonplace, obviously Nazi Germany, 0.95

00:15:39.260 uh, every slave holding society is another example.

00:15:41.900 But you notice that even in cases where terrible, monstrous evils were accepted,

00:15:49.780 they were still rationalized and justified according to the same moral code.

00:15:55.760 So, murder was illegal under the Nazis, but they just claimed that exterminating the Jews was not murder.

00:16:01.900 Now, that claim was ridiculous, obviously, but the fact remains that even they felt the need to pay homage to this moral code

00:16:10.800 and to pretend that they were following it.

00:16:14.080 Why?

00:16:16.660 What was the point of that?

00:16:19.260 And it's because, in fact, we expected them to follow it, to have followed it.

00:16:24.380 It's because we rejected the idea that societies and individuals invent their own morality that we could justify putting the Nazi war criminals on trial and then hanging them. 0.71

00:16:33.560 If morality were really subjective, we would have no basis for condemning them because that was their morality.

00:16:39.120 But we rejected that and said there's only one, you broke it, you know you broke it, and now you face the consequences.

00:16:46.000 In slave-holding countries, like our own prior to the 1860s, slavery was justified on the basis that slaves weren't fully people.

00:17:00.040 What does that mean?

00:17:02.060 It means that even slaveholders recognized that you shouldn't treat people like that.

00:17:08.420 But they rationalized that, well, these aren't people.

00:17:11.580 A bad rationalization, but the fact that they made it at all is kind of instructive, isn't it?

00:17:20.640 Okay.

00:17:21.760 But you might say that, well, all of these societies I've talked about so far, they all interacted with each other.

00:17:31.320 They came from the same human pool, as it were.

00:17:34.100 So their agreement on moral points is not very surprising, because of this interaction.

00:17:43.960 So fair enough.

00:17:46.140 Okay.

00:17:47.360 Let's look at an example that should absolutely prove moral relativism, if moral relativism is true.

00:17:56.800 Let's look at the meeting of Indian civilizations and Europeans.

00:18:01.940 So here we have people that are entirely separated, living in isolation from one another, who had never come in contact, never been exposed to each other, never exercised the slightest influence on one another prior to their meeting.

00:18:17.860 So here we have a chance for relativistic morality to really show itself.

00:18:24.420 If morality is really relative, and you've got these two sides of the world, not come in contact with each other, and you have this completely relative thing called morality, I mean, it should manifest itself in wildly different ways.

00:18:41.540 But that's not what you find.

00:18:44.900 Incredibly, although the Indians and the Europeans were extremely different in many ways, they still had the same fundamental ideas about morality.

00:18:56.660 So to prove my point, I'll take the most challenging example for my position.

00:19:02.240 We can look at the Aztecs and the Spanish.

00:19:04.840 Now, here we have two very, very different sets of people, and the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice on a massive scale, yet even they had basically the same kinds of rules and laws and moral ideas as the Spanish.

00:19:20.260 Homicide, rape, perjury, theft, robbery, sedition, incest, public drunkenness, etc., they were all condemned both as legal and moral infractions.

00:19:29.420 Now, yeah, they ripped the hearts out of their human sacrifices, but they didn't consider that murder.

00:19:34.840 So, again, which doesn't make it okay, obviously.

00:19:39.200 Now, if you're a moral relativist, that does make it okay.

00:19:43.200 That's the whole point of moral relativism.

00:19:44.740 They didn't consider it to be bad, which means it wasn't.

00:19:47.960 As someone who believes in objective morality, I say that that's not an excuse.

00:19:51.340 It was still bad.

00:19:52.020 But the point is, again, you see this thing, this invisible moral code, which appears to be the same everywhere, and which even the most evil civilizations felt the need to work around.

00:20:09.100 So, that's why I think moral relativism is false, because I see no evidence for it at all.

00:20:21.760 All I see, when I look inside myself, and when I look outwardly to human societies, our own, other societies, civilization, when I look through history, all I see is evidence that morality is objective.

00:20:38.680 It is a thing that you, it's not something you invent or come up with, it's a thing that you recognize, which is why all of these civilizations came to the same recognition.

00:20:51.940 Although they all failed to follow it in various different ways, and some to worse degrees than others, but they all saw basically the same thing.

00:21:06.960 A really relative thing, a really subjective thing, should be various, it should be contradictory, especially when you see that it's, especially in cases where it's developed, where you have two systems that have developed.

00:21:21.940 Isolated from one another, isolated from one another, but that's not the case with morality, which tells me that it is not, in fact, relative.

00:21:31.500 It is objective.

00:21:33.960 It is simply a truth that we all see, and we choose to follow or not.

00:21:45.440 All right, I'll leave it there.

00:21:48.180 Godspeed, everyone.

00:21:49.120 Thanks for listening.

00:21:50.680 See you tomorrow.

The Matt Walsh Show - September 05, 2018

Ep. 97 - Why Moral Relativism Is False

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript