A moral relativist going by the handle “Voluntary Exchange” recently put forth the horrific claim that “Raping children isn’t morally wrong.” He explains that, “Nothing is inherently “right” or “wrong”, this includes every possible action you can think of, no matter how bad you personally think it may be. Morality is opinion, and it isn’t possible to explain why raping children is wrong, without resorting to opinion.” It is the typical moral relativist statement, which is generally reduced to it is true that there is no truth, a contradiction.

While logical truths can be proved, can moral truths be proven using logic? In other words, is morality objective? The following is an exchange in which The Libertarian Catholic attempts to do just that while refuting the sensational relativist claim.

The Libertarian Catholic:
Is your statement that nothing is right or wrong… right? Or is it simply a contradiction?

Voluntary Exchange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

The Libertarian Catholic:
Morality is action in alignment with the truth. There is no equivocation in my question.

Voluntary Exchange:
Well it is true that some children have been raped( I don’t suppose you as a Catholic would know anything about that) so that must mean it is morally right.

The Libertarian Catholic:
Nice ad hominem VE. Just because something happens doesn’t mean it’s in alignment with the truth. Actions not in alignment with the truth are what we call immoral.

Ed Strand:
‘Truth’ is nothing more than consensus of opinion.

The Libertarian Catholic:
@Ed That’s somewhat true. Consensus generally points to the truth, but truth exists regardless of opinion.

Voluntary Exchange:
So in what way is truth involved?

The Libertarian Catholic:
Truth (non-contradiction) exists. Actions in alignment with that (non-contradictory actions) are moral.

Voluntary Exchange:
….and it is true that children have been raped.

The Libertarian Catholic:
I see the problem. Since we exist in time, contradictions can exist as self-destructive acts (suicide as individual contradiction, child rape as societal contradiction). Just like someone can say an untrue statement (“It’s right that there is no right”), people can do acts that contradict Truth. That doesn’t make them moral.

Voluntary Exchange:
and what does make something moral or immoral, if not actual facts and truth?

The Libertarian Catholic:
You’re saying “it’s true that someone told a lie.” Yes, that is true, but it doesn’t make the lie true.

Voluntary Exchange:
and what does taht have to do with rape?

The Libertarian Catholic:
@VE Let’s take an axiom (truth): people have the right to act as they will (liberty) as long as that doesn’t interfere with the same right of others. Rape is contrary to that truth, thus it is immoral.

Nicholas Tidemann:
The main point of VE is that the word “right” has several definitions, and that “in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct” and “in accordance with what is good, proper, or just”, are two completely different things.

The Libertarian Catholic:
@Nicholas, that’s the initial equivocation claim, but when you see that moral (good, proper) is based in truth (fact, correctness), there is no equivocation.

Ed Strand:
“Truth (non-contradiction) exists. Actions in alignment with that (non-contradictory actions) are moral.”

With physical truths, maybe. I thought we were talking about moral truth… In which case, I don’t see how you can say that there is an absolute moral truth. It’s an oxymoron. You hold an opinion in your mind, which you call the truth, that perhaps overlaps with others’, but rarely would completely match with another person. And even so, morality isn’t static. There are new questions asked every day in reference to morality. Absolute truth among all humans in reference to morality is impossible.

If you think that murder or rape is wrong, but a person who commits a murder or rape doesn’t agree with you, are they acting in accordance with their morals, against yours, or against an absolute moral code (truth) written somewhere that all humans adhere to that i don’t know about?

The Libertarian Catholic:
@Ed If moral truths are based in physical or logical truths, could they be seen as absolute in your book?

The interesting thing about your example of someone killing or raping is that almost every single time they know that it is immoral but do it anyway. The people that don’t understand that it’s wrong are called sociopaths (or presidents).

In conclusion:

1) Truth exists. To say otherwise (it’s true that nothing is true) is self-contradictory.

2) There are truths about human persons (life is good; liberty is good; a person has a right to both).

3) A free act that contradicts a truth is immoral (a free act that infringes on freedom and a life killing itself are contradictory).

I’d be interested if anyone has any additional perspective on this as it seems the original participants are finished with the conversation.