The Myth of Moral Neutrality
Is there such a thing as morally neutral ground? Can one find a place where he is completely impartial and makes no judgments on the actions of others, where no “forcing of personal views are allowed? Every person in this idealized state would take a neutral posture toward the moral convictions of others. This would be “tolerance” utopia.
Greg Koukl references a piece by Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood in which she argues for tolerance in moral issues and allowing all people the right to their own moral beliefs. One would think Wattleton may have reached that utopian position of tolerance, right? Not quite. She closes her piece with the following statement:
When others try to inflict their views on me, my daughter or anyone else, that’s not morality: It’s tyranny. It’s unfair, and it’s un-American.
So much for tolerating others’ moral viewpoints! Wattleton, rather than standing in that morally neutral position she so venerates, first argues how each of us should act. She then implies any other view than hers is immoral and tyrranical. She seeks to impose her absolute moral principles on others when she states that “fundamental respect for others is morality of the highest order.” Moral Neutrality? A myth! Even the statement that one ought not to be judgmental is a moral judgment!