Jon Noyes speaks with a therapist who denies that right and wrong exist but also describes certain beliefs and behaviors as toxic, dangerous, and harmful. Using questions, Jon reveals why we can’t consistently treat morality as a matter of personal preference: People live as though morality is objective because God’s law is written on every human heart.
Transcript
Jon: What do you do for a living?
Protestor: I’m a therapist.
Jon: Are you? Seems like it.
Protestor: This framework is toxic. I talk about it all the time.
Jon: Yeah, that’s interesting.
Jon (commentary): There’s a lot going on in this conversation, and I want you to pay attention to a few things. First, I start this conversation by asking about things that we all can agree on—about freedom and caring for others. And the woman I’m talking with, she explains that humans care about others because they’re wired that way. But she doesn’t ever explain why that wiring exists or where it comes from.
If you’re taking notes, notice some of the tactics. Of course, question-asking. Columbo never fails. I ask the question “Why do you care about others?” And I’m trying, again, to dig below the surface to the underlying worldview foundations. I can’t get enough of that. We want to go deep. But as we go deep, notice the logical fallacies that are just popping out. There’s begging the question, circular reasoning, and the woman just assumes humans are wired for empathy without ever explaining that case. So, let’s watch the video and see what happens.
Jon: Everybody’s here, I think, because we value freedom, regardless of our worldview. Regardless of whether I agree with everybody here or not, we value freedom. We value democracy. How do we define freedom, and where do we get it from?
Protestor: I don’t know that I would say that the main reason that we’re here is for freedom. I don’t know. I feel like it’s a lot about caring about other people, which might actually infringe on personal freedoms.
Jon: Oh, interesting. Can you tell me more about that?
Protestor: Like be willing to pay taxes so that somebody else can have food is potentially infringing a little bit on my freedom. I think that’s a big part of why people are here today.
Jon: Why do you think that’s important? Why are other people important?
Protestor: I think we’re wired that way. I think, not universally, but humans are obsessed with each other. Of all the species on this planet, we’re by far the most social. I don’t think most of us can help it. We have strong empathy, and we care about other people.
Jon: Right on.
Protestor: I think we can, like, exercise that. We can practice that like a skill that you build, and you can also suppress it.
Jon: Where does that come from? Like, is it something…?
Protestor: Our brains.
Jon: So, if somebody doesn’t have that—if they’re not wired that way—is it wrong?
Protestor: No, I don’t believe in wrong or right, actually. I think it’s dangerous, though, if somebody is not empathetic.
Jon: See, I don’t get that, because, like, you said it’s dangerous, but that implies that something’s wrong, I would think.
Protestor: What would you define “wrong” by?
Jon: I would say “wrong” is something that goes against human flourishing or humanity in general. And, like, the way that we’re wired, I would say, is something that we’re given by God. Right? So, we’re created in the image of God, so people are valuable. In order to find value in somebody and treat them well, we have to have a grounding in that, and without that grounding, we’re just stardust and molecules bumping into each other.
Protestor: Stardust that is designed to care about other people.
Jon: But the word “design,” I think, betrays—like, it entails a designer.
Jon (commentary): Notice the power of asking “why?” I mean, my kids ask it all the time—“Why? Why? Why?” And we want them not to ask it, sometimes, but the reason why they ask it is because they’re curious, and there’s power behind that question if you want to find answers.
In my conversation here with this woman, she says that we care because we’re wired that way, but that’s not really an explanation. That’s just a description. Why are we wired that way? Why should empathy exist in a purely materialistic universe? And this is digging below or beneath the surface. You don’t have to refute the person you’re talking to all the time. When we dig below the surface, what we do is we just keep pressing for the explanation behind their instincts. Notice, I’m patient and just keep plowing ground. And ultimately, I’m pointing out that empathy only makes sense if there’s a designer who wired us that way. If humans are wired for empathy, you should ask who did the wiring.
Jon: What do you believe?
Protestor: In science and nature.
Jon: Yeah, okay. So, not God?
Protestor: No. That idea is very uncomfortable. It bums me out.
Jon: Why does that bum you out?
Protestor: I like to be part of something bigger, and any descriptions of deities that I’ve heard feel very small, and their framework seems stuck in the way that a human mind operates, which is understandable, because humans invent religion.
Jon: Well, I mean, do you think religion could be true?
Protestor: No.
Jon: Do you believe in truth?
Protestor: What does that mean?
Jon: “Truth” is that which is factually correct. It’s not false.
Protestor: I mean, I think that we could agree on things. I think we could say that a lot of humans seem to think that this grass is green, or we decide on definitions to describe things.
Jon: But if I said the grass is not green, I’d be wrong.
Protestor: I don’t know.
Jon: Really?
Protestor: Yeah.
Jon: So, how do we have a conversation? Like, because the words I’m saying to you actually mean something, right?
Protestor: Yeah, language is really tricky, and I think the words that we use actually keep us stuck in certain frameworks.
Jon: Well, I think being stuck in a framework isn’t necessarily bad. It’s how we communicate.
Protestor: It can be incredibly toxic.
Jon: Well, if it’s used wrongly.
Protestor: I don’t believe in wrong.
Jon: Right. So, wait a second. That’s so weird. So, like, okay. So, you don’t believe in wrong?
Protestor: No. Your definition of wrong is very interesting. I would rather use that definition than a pat, like, Disney definition.
Jon: So, like, the things that people are protesting here, whatever it might be—the defunding of education, defunding of libraries, I’ve seen all this stuff—you can’t say that’s wrong.
Protestor: I can’t say protesting is wrong or defunding people is wrong. I think we’re all here because we want to live in a world where more people are taken care of.
Jon: But why?
Protestor: Because we naturally care. Because we’re empathetic.
Jon: Yeah, but, like, why is that good, though?
Protestor: It’s not good. It’s just empathy. It is what it is.
Jon: Yeah, I think you’re betraying yourself here. I think that you know it’s good because it’s been built into us, and that’s why you’re here. If you didn’t believe that, you wouldn’t be here.
Protestor: I care about people.
Jon: But why?
Protestor: Because I care about…. You’re asking, like….
Jon: No. Because I think that there’s something behind it.
Protestor: The question is like “I have a nose. Why? I have a nose.”
Jon: Well, because it has a purpose, right? There’s a telos. There’s a telos.
Protestor: It very much has a purpose. We are able to coordinate and collaborate.
Jon: But when empathy isn’t expressed, you don’t think it’s wrong. So, like, being empathetic or not, it doesn’t matter.
Protestor: No, it matters very much. I have a preference. It’s just not wrong or right.
Jon (commentary): We have, I think, maybe one of the clearest examples of what happens when moral relativism meets real life. In this instance, in this conversation, the person I’m talking with, she denies right and wrong outright. But then she can’t live consistently with that view. She uses words like “dangerous” and “toxic,” which are moral judgments, and as I gently press, she tries to say that these are simply preferences, but in real life, we don’t respond to racism or murder like we respond to bad food or music. That’s the internal contradiction of relativism. People say morality is subjective, but then they live like morality is objective. You can’t have it both ways. If right and wrong don’t exist, then injustice is just a matter of taste, but no one lives that out.
Protestor: I think most people have a strong preference towards empathy.
Jon: That’s where I think it’s more than a preference. I think that when we see somebody, this is why we cry out for justice in the face of injustice. Right? When we see George Floyd—
Protestor: Because we care.
Jon: But we don’t stand at the gates of Auschwitz and go, like, “Oh, you know what? This is kind of….” It’s not the same thing as “I don’t like Brussels sprouts.” We’re saying something bigger when we say, “What happened here was evil.”
Protestor: It’s a scale, though.
Jon: It’s just the scale? So, Donald Trump is—
Protestor: I hate racism. I don’t think it’s wrong.
Jon: You don’t think racism is wrong?
Protestor: I don’t think anything is wrong.
Jon: Wow. I appreciate you trying to be consistent. I don’t know if you’d live that out, though.
Protestor: I do. I do this for a living.
Jon: What do you do for a living?
Protestor: I’m a therapist.
Jon: Are you? Seems like it.
Protestor: I can tell you that this framework is toxic. I talk about it all the time.
Jon: Yeah. That’s interesting. So, what framework is toxic, and why is that bad?
Protestor: Putting a pat judgment on something that is nuanced.
Jon: And is that wrong?
Protestor: I don’t believe it’s wrong.
Jon: So, what’s the point of it?
Protestor: It’s harmful.
Jon: But who cares?
Protestor: I do.
Jon: But I don’t.
Protestor: Then I would say that you’re kind of a dangerous person.
Jon: But that doesn’t matter, because you don’t care. Right and wrong don’t matter.
Protestor: Right and wrong is very different than empathy or care.
Jon: But you said you don’t believe in right and wrong.
Protestor: I don’t. I believe that I care.
Jon: But you’re saying it’s dangerous or wrong for me not to care.
Protestor: I’m not saying it’s wrong.
Jon: You’re saying it’s dangerous? But who cares?
Protestor: I do.
Jon: So, we just bump into each other, and that’s that.
Protestor: No, I would walk away from you if I found you—
Jon: Got you. So, you would just walk away?
Protestor: If you started to attack somebody else, I would help. I would intervene.
Jon: But why?
Protestor: Because I care. It’s the starting point. Do you remember how we started?
Jon: Yeah, I understand how we started. Absolutely.
Protestor: Do you know what empathy is?
Jon: I know what empathy is. Yeah. I care greatly about people because I think they’re special and unique. Every single person is beautiful. They’re worthy of dignity and respect and my time, and I love them. They don’t have to earn my love. It’s freely given, because they’re made in the image of God. And when we get away from that image, I think we do this circle thing where you’re saying there’s no such thing as right and wrong. Right? There’s no such thing as right and wrong.
Protestor: Where’s the circle?
Jon: Because you want to say there’s no such thing as right and wrong.
Protestor: I’m saying that. I’m not wanting to.
Jon: But we don’t live in a world where that is actual fact.
Protestor: What do you mean?
Jon: When somebody is being beaten because of their race, you step in because you know it’s wrong.
Protestor: No. I step in because I care.
Jon: I think they’re the same thing.
Protestor: I don’t. That’s okay. You can think that. I don’t. That is the essential distinction that I’m making.
Jon: I think maybe we’re saying the same thing, just using different words, then.
Protestor: I would rather describe it the most accurately. I don’t like putting a pat little category on something that is nuanced. Your definition where you said what is wrong is something that harms a lot of people, there are sometimes things that any option you’re going to choose is going to harm somebody. I would rather look at the complexity of it than get stuck up in a knot.
Jon: But then there are some things that we just inherently know are wrong, like racism.
Protestor: But lots of people don’t know that that’s wrong. How are racists in existence?
Jon: Because I think we’re fallen and broken.
Protestor: Then, where’s your God?
Jon: Well, our God is the one who convicts us and lays the standards.
Protestor: Why did he break us, then?
Jon: Well, he didn’t break us. We broke ourselves in the garden.
Protestor: See, that feels like a circle of knotted logic.
Jon (commentary): So, this is the problem of evil in real time. If God exists, then why is there racism? This is what this woman just quickly mentioned. And notice that I explained that the existence of evil doesn’t disprove God. It actually points to him. Why? Well, because to call something evil, you need an objective standard of good. And the Christian worldview uniquely explains both. It explains why people have dignity—because they’re made in the image of God, remember—and why people do evil things—because while they’re made in the image of God, they’re fallen and broken. And this is where I think a lot of secular frameworks fail. They can’t explain why we’re both beautiful and broken. You see, the existence of evil isn’t evidence against God. It’s actually evidence that we need God.
My conversation partner here, she is a therapist. Seems like a really nice lady, by the way. We had a great conversation, and I thank her for that. But she’s claiming that she doesn’t believe in objective right and wrong. According to her, morality is simply relative. But within moments in the conversation, she describes certain views as toxic, certain behaviors as dangerous, and even says, at one point, that I could possibly be a dangerous person for not caring the way that she wants me to care.
That’s the inconsistency. You can’t say right and wrong don’t exist and then morally condemn someone. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t work that way. That’s not preference. That’s judgment. And I press her. Notice in the video, I press her gently using the Columbo tactic. Why does it matter? Why is that dangerous? Why do you care? And she can’t avoid the moral language. Why? Well, because God’s law is written on every human heart, even on those who deny the existence of God. Romans 2 tells us that the conscience bears witness, accusing or defending us, and we can suppress the truth, but we can’t escape it. And that’s why relativism always collapses when pushed to its logical ends. People live like morality is real because it is. You can deny right and wrong with your words, but your conscience will always betray you because truth is inescapable.