A Need for a Revelation of Moral Truth, Part Three: The Failure of Rationalism

Philosophos: Agreed, then what of rationalism?

Nomodiphas: Well, since you shot down my argument about subjectivism, I would have to say that the type of truth that best serves as a foundation for good laws is found through the use of man’s reason.

Philosophos: And why do you say that?

Nomodiphas: I think truth can be divided into three categories. There is subjective truth. This type of truth is temporal and individualized. Because, as you say, people as a whole can reach collectively bad conclusions, it cannot serve as the basis for law. In contrast to subjective truth there is empirical truth. This type of truth, when applied to the natural world, is absolute and transcendent of all individuals—gravity is real no matter what one feels or thinks about it. But when applied to the actions and customs of men this truth becomes temporal and subject to change with time and environment. It cannot serve as a steady basis for laws. Besides it seems ill equipped to deal with laws. The last type of truth is rational truth. It is eternal and absolute. It is the field in which the truth of math exists. The fact that 2+2=4 is an eternal truth. It will not change with time or conditions. Further it is absolute and does not change from individual to individual. It is true no matter what one thinks. It seems that law should belong to this field of truth—unchanging and above the opinions of men.

Philosophos: I agree with you on that point. Law must be based on unchangeable and absolute truth. However I doubt that reason is the means by which this truth is conveyed. Why do you think that is?

Nomodiphas: I don’t know.

Philosophos: Why don’t you try an answer? In order to reason to a correct result what do you need?

Nomodiphas: Information or knowledge or some sort. For example, in mathematics in order to find the sum you need to know all the integers that are being added.

Philosophos: Correct if 2 and 2 are being added we can reason that the sum will be 4. But if we have 2+?=X. We cannot reason to the sum. We do not have enough information to come up with a concrete value for X. This is the fault I find in using rationalism as a base for discovering good laws. We do not have enough information and often we have wrong information from which we reason to incomplete or faulty conclusions.

For example I may believe that the gods require human sacrifice for the spring rains. If I believe this it is only rational to sacrifice children, even if it costs me my kids. It is the only way to appease the gods and ensure food for the community. Or to take a modern example, I may reason that I should treat others as I want to be treated. However how I may want to be treated is a personal preference and I may wrong others by assuming they share the same preferences as me. They may ask an opinion and want criticism (about, say, a new dress), while I in that situation may want flattery. When I give them flattery, I have reached a wrong conclusion as a consequence of my incorrect knowledge. What about the death penalty? I may reason that someone who commits murder forfeits their right to live in society, but I may also validly reason that one mistake should not cost someone their life. I may reason that everyone is entitled to a second chance.

In the realm of justice people come to different opinions all the time. Math is beyond mere opining and is an example of absolute truth that is discovered through the use of reason. However, in the moral realm people validly reason to different conclusions because no one has perfect or complete information from which to reason to perfect and complete conclusions. In the realm of morals rationalism leaves us with nothing but different opinions.

Nomodiphas: What are you saying then, that the truth that is to form the basis for laws is unknowable?

Philosophos: Not at all. I am saying that men, left to their own power and devices, cannot completely and fully discover moral truth. Man’s reason is too frail, influenced too much by his passions and the information he has is too little and often erroneous. Further, man is unable to discern when the information he has is true or false. Given all this man alone cannot discern the truth that is to form the foundation for laws. There must be One who has all information from which to come to infallible conclusions. This One must be all good so that negative passions do not corrupt His reasoning process. Only this Being would be able to know the type of truth that we seek after. Luckily this Being does exist: it is God. Not only does God have the necessary information and lack the corrupting traits to know the truth of how we ought to live, but God has chosen to reveal this information to mankind in His Holy Word.