The Essential Quality of Moral Self-evidence in our Labor for Progress

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all (people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

For nearly two centuries these words conveyed a summary of the social ethics of nearly all Americans. As Americans we knew that God had given humanity rights that no government should violate and we professed that any rational person could know this truth. Any rational person could know these truths because they are self-evident: their truth flows from the rational nature of human existence itself, regardless of the culture, religion, or station in life of particular individuals. Unfortunately, the idea of self-evident moral truths has fallen on hard times. For decades, a creeping moral and cultural relativism has undermined rational attempts to pass down a few irrefutable moral principles. In an effort to expose western minds to the voices of those previously oppressed by western minds (and the oppression was real), some have argued that all of morality is socially constructed and that all moral positions are equal. Furthermore, some have claimed that to argue that one ethics is superior to another is a form of cultural imperialism. Although I sympathize with oppressed minorities whose civilizations and personhood have been mocked and objectified, I find cultural relativism to be irrational. My argument may seem conservative, but I consider it to be very progressive. I will explain this later.

Multi-culturalism claims that all marginalized groups need to be heard. In order for the voices of the marginalized to be heard they need to be alive. It then seems that it is self-evident that human beings have the right to life. A culturally relative denial of this right is self-contradictory. It would amount to saying that non-western, female, and homosexual people have the right to freedom of expression but they do not have the right to life. You have no political freedom if you are dead.

That is not to claim that all moral principles are absolute or that western ethics are better than Buddhist ethics or other eastern ethical systems. Nevertheless, reason leads us to the conclusion that not all systems of thought contribute to progress. Communism's slaughter of nearly 100 million and Nazism's slaughter of 6 million proves this. Both Communism and Nazism denied the possibility of moral self-evidence. Both claimed that they were bringing about a brave new world that would leave the moral wisdom of the past behind.

Systems of thought that contribute to individual and collective progress abide by the self-evident moral principles articulated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and by the principles derived from these fundamental principles.

I would contend that the following moral principles are self-evident, absolute and universal:

Right to life
Right to free expression--includes right to critique government and other institutions
Right to freedom from cultural imperialism.
Right to religious freedom.
Right to family life (this includes rights for gays and lesbians)
The right to privacy.
Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.
The right to elect government representatives in a pluralistic, democratic system.
The right to freedom of assembly.


All moral systems can be called to grow according to these absolute principles.

To claim that there are absolute principles is not the same as claiming that there are a priori absolute answers to all moral situations. In living the good life we muddle through at times and make the best approximation. Nonethless the fundamental, self-evident moral principles are absolute.


We need to recognize that all moral systems can grow, but they cease to grow and actually regress when they ignore respect for life and human freedom. The American moral system grew when it recognized that women had the right to vote (I did not write that it gave women the right to vote because women have always had that right. We just used the law to deny that natural right). All moral and governmental systems need to be open to growth. As Karl Rahner has written, we are always systematizing but we never have a system.

The absolute principle of free expression leads westerners to critique non-western systems. To claim that non-western voices should be free of critique because of past victimization is to patronize non-western voices. It is to deny their intelligence. To claim that a westerner cannot critique a non-western system is to deny the humanity of both the westerner and the easterner.

The Arab Spring has brought us face to face with a living critique of Arab culture which westerners and easterners must encourage. It has also demonstrated that all human beings long for political arrangements that respect human life and human freedom. The Arab Spring has demonstrated that democracy is still superior to tyranny and oligarchy. The Arab Spring has proven that the founding principles of our nation--including moral self-evidence-- are universal.

This leads us to our next question: how do we respond to the claim that a good part of reality is socially constructed? We accept it and ask how do we know this. We know because, using reason, psychologists, sociologists, and other thinkers have proven this to be the case. Nevertheless, fundamental reason is not socially constructed. Under God's guidance, it evolved as a capacity of homo sapiens (the idea of divine guidance is not self-evident, but the rational evidence for the evolution of reason is irrefutable). Fundamental faith, hope and love are not constructed. They are gifts given by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not socially constructed. Images of the Spirit are socially constructed, but the Spirit herself is now, always has been, and always will be.

Other religions can also claim that although their images and words about God are socially constructed, God always has been. At this point, our study of comparative religiosity must stop for it goes beyond the focus of this specific essay. Our analysis concerns reason and moral self-evidence which apply to all moral systems regardless of religion.

In summary, we have proven that there are self-evident moral principles and that these principles are absolute. These principles can be known by reason. There are moral principles that are not self-evident. These are known through religious revelation and meditation. However, as Thomas Jefferson knew, the principle "Respect human life" and many other principles are universal, absolute, and self-evident.

Now this seems to be such a conservative argument coming from a progressive writer. I will respond that progress conserves and builds upon the moral successes of the past. The Declaration of Independence is a success! Moral self-evidence is a success, not some barnacle to be removed from the wisdom of humanity. Moreover, the principle "respect human life" supports many progressive arguments: to respect human life we have enacted OSHA regulations, we have sought to abolish the death penalty, we have sought to make health insurance universal, we spend money on aid to developing countries, especially those suffering from famine and starvation, and we have negotiated arms control agreements. The list could go on.

We are a good nation. When we build upon our self-evident moral principles, we are great.