How do I respond to that?

[Needtostop]

I am debating with someone using John Martinnoni’s apologetic tactic. The tactic is to explain that if there is no God, than there is no objective reason that we have value, and therefore if there is no God than there is no objective reason killing anyone is wrong. That if there is no God than any reason not to kill people is only opinion, and if it is only opinion than then someone else could disagree with that opinion that killing is wrong and not be wrong.
I debating talking specifically about the holocaust.
So this person said, “why do morals have to be objective? i think morals come from what will help society grow so i think all morals are subjective so why should i have to give an objective reason for my morals? i dont believe its wrong to kill someone if by doing it you are saving many peoples lives.”

So I said “Because if morals are subjective, then anyone can decide that anything is OK. If morals are subjective, then you cannot tell as a fact that what hitler did to the Jews was wrong. Only if morals are objective can you state as fact that what he did to the Jews was wrong.”

Then he said “that doesnt prove morals must be objective. morals are a human invention, not something that nature created. the concept of morals, like the concept of a right and wrong existing, can be applied to nature but were nt created by it.you cannot state as a fact anything is immoral but you can state as a fact that most people think murder and stealing are immoral.”

How do I respond to that last statement he made?

 

[AdamP88]

you cannot state as a fact anything is immoral but you can state as a fact that most people think murder and stealing are immoral.

This, being a total contradiction, is a good place to start. If you cannot state that anything is immoral then why is it a fact that murder and robbery are inherently immoral?

Who or where does this come from?

People who argue for subjective morality often don’t realise that the morals that shape modern western culture are Judeo-Christian.

If you quiz them on their own moral code or why they believe certain things are right or wrong you will soon reach a point where they touch on things which are Christian in origin.

Hope this helps.

God Bless

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If he is invoking nature (natural law) then you need to establish reason (understanding) and will (intelligence). And look at intentions as the end and choice as the means.

So you first need to establish the Identity of Moral.

What is moral and where does it come from? But it looks like he wants to first Identify Natural Law.

My suggestion would be to check on Aquinas’ work in Summa.

Always first establish the Identity of what you are discussing and don’t jump around.

Good Luck!

 

[Kay_Cee]

Then he said “that doesnt prove morals must be objective. morals are a human invention, not something that nature created. the concept of morals, like the concept of a right and wrong existing, can be applied to nature but were nt created by it.you cannot state as a fact anything is immoral but you can state as a fact that most people think murder and stealing are immoral.”

How do I respond to that last statement he made?

If morals are a human invention, humans can change them at will.

Ask him to find for you a society (just one will do) in which cowardice is rewarded and life-saving surgeons punished. Ask him to find you one in which fairness and honesty are evil.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Here’s something else you can do too:

Tell your friend that since humans invent morals, you have invented a new moral system. In your system, people who have your first name always win arguments against people with his first name. That is your new morality, and nothing he can do or say will win the argument for him. No matter what he does, tell him that under your system, he’s lost the debate.

It shouldn’t take long before he objects that your system isn’t fair. That’s when you say, “Fair? What is this ‘fair’ you speak of? How dare you expect me not only to know a universal standard of behavior but demand that I adhere to it?”

Frankly, I’ve never known anyone who absolutely sticks to moral relativity when it is detrimental to himself.

You also might want to read the following by Peter Kreeft who buries moral relativism: peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm

 

[sw85]

The problem is that we don’t have to choose between “God & objective morality” on the one hand or “atheism & relativism” on the other. Catholic ethics are natural law-based, meaning they do not require appeal to God. It is possible to have objective atheist ethics (though they will necessarily be deficient). This is something atheists themselves get wrong whenever they say they have no reason to believe homosexuality is wrong because they don’t believe in the Bible (or whatever). Our response is, of course you do. It’s objectively wrong. You don’t need the Bible to get to that conclusion.

Reason is ordered toward the seeking-out of truth. What is true is also good. Natural law defines what is good. So to be reasonable just is to be moral. Notice God doesn’t come into this at any point. When we introduce God to the equation we get a fuller understanding of our duties, but natural law itself doesn’t really change. We just add divine positive law on top of it.

 

[mark_a]

like the concept of a right and wrong existing, can be applied to nature but were nt created by it.you cannot state as a fact anything is immoral but you can state as a fact that most people think murder and stealing are immoral."

How do I respond to that last statement he made?

Simply tell him you vote pro-life. Period.

 

[fred_conty]

@Needtostop

“you cannot state as a fact anything is immoral but you can state as a fact that most people think murder and stealing are immoral.”

---

“When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts . . .” (Rom. 2:14-15a).

The fact that most people think murder and theft are immoral, thereby state that the natural law is written on their hearts. Some may refuse subjectively to acknowledge this law but they cannot ignore the individual and social consequences, which demonstrates the objective immorality of these acts.

In a question such as the above, all that is needed is a viable explaination, not proof.
The Holy Spirit has to convince.

Just a thought.