Stephen Colbert and Philosophy - Aaron Allen Schiller [7]
In addition, if we are individual moral relativists, we can’t ever say that someone has made moral progress. If those who see female genital mutilation as justified finally see the light and abolish the practice, we can’t say they are acting morally better than they were. Before, “Female genital mutilation is morally acceptable” was true for them; so they weren’t doing anything wrong. Now, “Female genital mutilation isn’t morally acceptable” is true for them; so they still aren’t doing anything wrong. Since, in both cases, they were not acting wrongly, they have not made any moral progress (they have not gone from acting wrongly to acting properly). But again, that doesn’t seem correct. If female genital mutilators stop the practice, they have made a moral improvement! They have gone from wrong to right!
The truth is, individual moral relativism is often motivated by issues where the truth is hard to find. And it’s true, there are such issues. We may never all agree on the morality of abortion, euthanasia or whether the no-goodniks no-godniks are right (I Am America, p. 61). But the fact that the truth is hard—even impossible—to find does not mean that the truth is not there. That something can exist, even when you can’t see it, is something that we should have all learned around the time we started walking.
So what have we learned so far? As I tell my students: “If you ever use the phrase ‘it is true for me’ in class or in a paper, I will fail you. You are either mistaking this phrase for ‘I believe it,’ or you are espousing the clearly false doctrine of individual relativism. Either way, I am warranted in making your repeat the course.” I am sure you can find a way to translate this into a useful threat to use on your friend.
Moving on.
Justifying from the Gut
… like our Founding Fathers, I hold my Truths to be self-evident, which is why I did absolutely no research. I didn’t need to. The only research I needed was a long hard look in the mirror.
—Stephen Colbert, from the introduction to I Am America (And So Can You!)
[They] cannot be mistaken in what they feel. [This is how] they support themselves and are sure reason hath nothing to do with what they see and feel in themselves: what they have a sensible experience of admits no doubt, needs no probation… . It is its own proof and can have no other.
—John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Another way Colbert thinks from the gut is by being an intuitionist . Intuitionists are like relativists. Their intuitive reaction to something is all the evidence they need. But unlike the relativists, they believe in universal truth. Their gut gives them the Truth, and anyone who disagrees with them, and thus their gut, must be wrong.
Don’t confuse this with philosophers who refer to their own intuition in the course of an argument. Philosophers will, sometimes, point out that a certain position, when taken to its logical conclusion, conflicts with intuition. In doing so, they are not thinking from the gut. They are merely pointing out that accepting a certain position will force one to abandon a commonly accepted belief. In addition, sometimes philosophers will construct arguments to defend intuitions they have. But in these cases, the intuition is the beginning of inquiry, not the end. They will reject their intuition if proven wrong. The intuitionist, on the other hand, ends his inquiry with his intuition. “My gut tells me it’s true so I don’t need an argument; my gut is all the evidence I need.”9
Locke (1632-1704) called these kinds of thinkers merely “enthusiastic.” It is such thinkers he’s talking about in the above passage when he says: “This is the way of talking of these men: they are sure because they are sure, and their persuasions are right only because they are strong in them.”10 He is actually concerned about people who profess something with certainly simply based on the feeling that