Psalm 32:9 “Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding.”

“The opening scene was done beautifully, but immediately made me uncomfortable.” That was the reaction of Cameron Bertuzzi, founder and host of ‘Capturing Christianity,’ on the movie ‘The Sound of Freedom,’ in his recent interview with Tyler McNabb, Associate Professor of Philosophy at St. Francis University.

If you’ve seen the movie, with it’s focus on rescuing little children from child sex trafficking, you know exactly what Cameron means. The intense feeling of moral indignation – that you are watching profound evil – is overwhelming. Using this movie, Professor McNabb explains how we all recognize morally wrong actions by explaining the difference in philosophy between ‘moral realism’ versus ‘moral anti-realism.’

“In ethics, there are two opposing sides in philosophy. One side is the ‘moral realist,’ who argues there is such a thing as objective morality. Moral values and duties exist that do not depend on our opinions about them. For example, ‘The Sound of Freedom’ shows it is morally wrong to sex traffic children. It is also morally right to help old ladies across the street. These moral facts are true regardless of our opinions.

‘Moral anti-realists’ think either there is no objective truth to what is right or wrong, or they might say that morality is a purely sociological or biological construct that does not align with reality. If we had evolved under different circumstances, like wolves for example, we would believe different things about morality. So, our view of right versus wrong is not objective. You don’t have objective duties that are binding upon you to behave in any sort of objective way. It’s just an illusion from biology and sociology.”

Professor McNabb goes on: “I would like to see what my moral anti-realist friends have to say about ‘The Sound of Freedom.’ It seems so clear that it is objectively wrong to sex-traffic children. When you watch the movie, we are all provoked to such righteous indignation. This is a great movie that leads us to conclude that moral realism is binding upon us. Again, it really is objectively wrong to traffic children.

I want to look at my philosophy friends as they are watching ‘Sound of Freedom’ and ask them ‘So, this is not objectively wrong?’ You can give some socio-biological, evolutionary explanation for objective morality, but watch the movie and convince me that morality is just sociology and biology. I will say ‘No, what we are watching is still objectively wrong in spite of any kind of debunking story you can come up with.”

Cameron: “You base your position on objective morality on intuitions – how you feel about what you are watching. It is true that almost everyone who watches this movie has those same intuitions, but one could say that intuitions are fallible. We also have a strong emotional reaction that child sex trafficking is disgustingly wrong. How can we know our intuitions and our emotions are not wrong in this situation?”

Professor McNabb: “I think our cognitive faculties can inform us on our views about reality. Our emotional responses to something evil and our objective values and duties on what is evil are connected. Whether people argue this connection is from God or evolution, when we see these images on ‘Sounf of Freedom’ that disgust us, these in fact strengthen our intuition that this is objectively wrong. Why not think this ‘disgust factor’ works together with our intuitions to give us a reliable understanding of objective morality?

In philosophy, one view for how we know if something is true is ‘proper functionalism,’ which says we have these cognitive, mental processes that function to allow us to get at what is true. As long as our minds are functioning properly and aimed at discerning truth, we can know what is true in reality. So, if this ‘disgust faculty’ is functioning properly and is working in unison with our other faculties to produce this belief, we can know what is true. So, we trust that what we are watching in ‘Sound of Freedom’ is objectively wrong.

There is also something known as ‘justification’ in philosophy, which assesses if you are in your rights to believe something is true. If something seems to you to be true, you are justified for believing it, such as it is objectively evil to sex traffic children. Unless someone presents a clear defeater (good evidence for why you are wrong), holding to your belief that child sex trafficking is objectively wrong is a sound position.

I think the really uncomfortable position to take is that the child sex trafficking you are watching in ‘Sound of Freedom’ is not objectively wrong but instead only the product of evolution or some other effect.”

How does moral realism provide strong evidence for Christianity? Professor McNabb explains next week.
“The Evidence of Faith’s Substance” _ Article #565