If Good and Evil Exist then God Exists

[Linusthe2nd]

But that’s what the dictionary defines as instinctive = behavior or reactions not thought about, planned or developed by training.

But you see I did think about it. So it was not instinctive. And these incidents only happened about half a dozen times before I was taught what a sin against human sexuality was. So the source had to be my conscience. Our Lord said “…I will write my law in their hearts…”

That’s relativism. I’m pleased you agree Kreeft is a relativist.

Well, I said that incorrectly. I meant to say we , as a society, are told by many sources what we are to regard as " good " or " bad. " Much of this is pure propaganda, the world view of one power group or another. Some of these correspond to the dictates or our conscience and some do not. But we instinctively recognize what is reall good or bad, generally. This is not relativism.

All of us have a higher authority in our head, it’s called our conscience. Kreeft supplies no logic for why one person’s conscience is objective and another’s not.

I think the point is that there is enough agreement to establish that there is a higher authority that accounts for the general agreement. For example, do you of or can you imagine anyone who cheered over the massacure at Newtown? I’m sure some deranged souls somewhere did. But these were the exception. Generally, the opinion of the world was that this was an evil act or at least a bad act caused by a deranged young man. This proves Kreeft’s point about a higher authority which causes us to recognize good and evil.

I don’t remember Kreeft mentioning natural law, I don’t think that’s in his argument.

He didn’t, I did.

Anyway, natural law is just one of many systems of ethics, each of which give different answers. For instance, only the Thomas Aquinas version of natural law ethics says condoms are evil, I can think of no other system of ethics that does.

Natural law is not a system of ethics. It is the basis of all morality, since it is the instruction that Our Lord writes in the hearts of all - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc. It is written in the sense that we all have the same human nature and have the same ability to judge reality. Of course there are no end of Sophists who endlessly dispute that. But the judgment of history is against them. And Thomas Aquinas’ definition is correct.

Kreeft’s argument is about atheists. Do atheists read scripture?

I know some who claim they have.

Anyway, scripture more or less says slavery is moral, e.g. Deut. 20, but I don’t think it ever says slavery is immoral.

In the Old Testament God dealt with his people in a more direct way. Many things they did under his direction for his own purposes. Often, this was done to impress the enemies of Israel that their God was God indeed and there was no other. However these practices are not defended in the New Testament. And as the New Covenant unfolds the Church makes it clear that slavery is not approved. But I admit it was one of the common practices of man which was hardest to erradicate. Christians today at least recognize that in is immoral.

I must say, I am surprized that a Baptist would hold some of the views that you hold. Why that should surprize me I don’t know because I know plenty of Catholics who have strange views, views that no Catholic can legitimately hold.

 

[zro_x]

First of all, I agree that genetics has an important role in behavior (I once took a class in physiological psychology). But it is not enough to simply theorize that there can be a genetic impulse to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of society. What also has to be taken into account are other genetic impulses which provide conflicting signals, and examine the one that a person decides to act upon.

Consider the following genetic-based motivators of human behavior:

1. Self-preservation.
2. Desire to produce a survivable offspring.
3. If already possessing dependent children, the desire to survive in order to protect and provide for them.
4. Theory presented in your scenario: Self-sacrifice (or self-risk) for the benefit of society.

I think it is safe to say that these impulses are not equal in strength. Moreover, it seems natural to consider #4 as the least in this regard. Yet, as I mentioned in my earlier post, there are many people who risk their lives to save total strangers, and some do it on a regular basis (such as firefighters). The basic situation is that one person is in danger and another person is safe. The second person is in a position to help the first, but doing so exposes him to the same deadly risk. When deciding upon a choice of action, one or more of the first three genetic impulses I listed would probably be stronger than Impulse #4. But the conscience plays a role in providing an additional impulse, one that recognizes that the second person ought to try to rescue the person in need, even though the stronger impulse is to remain in a safe location. I don’t see how a genetics-only concept of morality can provide a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon. C.S. Lewis stated that this concept was one of the things that led him to recognize the existence of objective morality, as outlined in the first part of his book, Mere Christianity (given the time of this writing, he describes the impulse for risking oneself to save a stranger as “herd instinct” rather than a socially developed genetic attribute).

You make a good point. When hearing it, the Atheist usually claims that altruism is an “error”, so to speak, in the human mind.

But why would that necessarily be the case? Most of the time, when we are compelled by some instinct to do something, it is accompanied by an emotional desire. perhaps altruism has stronger compulsion, but it does not have a correspondingly high level of desire.

 

[zro_x]

First of all, in order for Kreeft to be guilty of a straw man fallacy, he has to provide a refutation to an argument that atheists are not actually making. In the video Kreeft admits that there are a variety of sources that atheists consider to be the basis of morality, of which he has elected to address five. Therefore he admits that his presentation is not all-inclusive (and understandably so, seeing as the whole thing is less than six minutes long). In terms of the ones he chose to address, a few simple Google searches show that such discussions about morality do exist out there, and therefore there is no straw man fallacy being committed.

Both the evolution-only and the utilitarian-only theories of morality are addressed in the video. So if most of the atheists you’ve encountered resort to an evolution or utilitarian explanation of morality, and Kreeft addressed them both, then why do you believe that Kreeft “attacks a straw man”?

Kreeft does indeed address them both, but only from the perspective of the atheist who believes both in their system of morality and in objective morality. very few atheists, in my experience, adopt both of these conflicting views.

Moreover, I think it is important to point out that Kreeft does not actually prove that evolution and utilitarianism cannot provide a system for morality (nor does he promise to), but only demonstrates the ramifications of accepting such theories. In my opinion, Kreeft’s video is a “food for thought” presentation based on the modern common ground perception that certain things, such as slavery and the Nazi war crimes of WWII, are considered to be evil and never acceptable. The “food for thought” aspect is whether or not a person thinks that the ramifications of certain proposed theories of morality are truly in keeping with what seems to be an innate sense of morality shared by the vast majority of people. If someone wants to, as you say, “accept the full consequences of either approach” then Kreeft is pointing out that those full consequences includes not being able to call slavery and Nazi war crimes universally evil, despite the fact that the vast majority of people consider them evil, morally repugnant and never acceptable.

That may have been what the video did for you, and that is exactly what Kreeft did, but those were not Kreeft’s intentions.

The first words in the video spelled out exactly what Kreeft intended from the video: “I intend to argue for the existence of God, from the premise that moral good and evil truly exist.” His intentions were not to provide us with some “food for thought.”, though that’s all he did in the end. As we both agree, the video did not show that God exists from those premises. It only showed that the idea of an objective morality is inconsistent both with our intuitive sense of morality and the non-existence of a moral lawgiver. Most atheists I’ve heard of agree with this. Which is why most atheists say that there is no objective moral law. Since Kreeft is trying to show that God exists from good and evil, this must be his reasoning:

1. atheists believe in and have a sense of an objective moral law.
2. since everyone believes in an objective moral law, there must be a moral law.
3. since there is a moral law, there must be a source for this moral law,
4. none of the proposed physical sources for moral law can ultimately produce truly objective morality.
5. therefore, the source of objective moral law must be supernatural.

It seems clear that this proof is riddled with errors. The straw man fallacy occurs when he presents premise number 1. I think that so few atheists actually hold this position, that that number may as well be zero.

But how does an evolution-only or utilitarian-only theory of morality allow someone to believe that the possibility of slavery being considered moral in the future is “ridiculous”?

By “ridiculous” I meant extremely improbable. If humans evolved to the point where slavery was no longer considered immoral, or actually increased overall well-being, than slavery would be moral, despite how we feel about it now. However, I think everyone can agree that both of these two scenarios are very unlikely, and certainly hasn’t occurred yet.

One of the more unsettling things about our view of morality is that it seems to hold that everyone has the same innate sense of what is moral and what is not. Indeed, if there were an objective morality, we would consider this to be the case. If it is true, it is far from evident by looking at various world cultures. Some of the actions that Catholics consider wrong, and therefore wrong by a universal morality, are not seen as wrong in other cultures.

 

[zro_x]

@ eric filmer

I’ll reply to your last post later.

 

[PRmerger]

there is no double face, but there are two hands. when a movie gets two thumbs up, it means that one person gave it two thumbs up, not that two people each gave it one thumb up.

So my double face palm pic, in which there was…a double face…is correct nomenclature, then?

And your comment should actually have been, “It’s a single face, double palm picture”.

Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

I doubt it. I was a utilitarian at one point. This is exactly how I thought that all moral dilemmas should be approached. Even if it seems reprehensible, if it increases the general wellfare, it should be adopted. That’s why you have some utilitarians advocating anything from betiality to infanticide.

Well, now you’re changing your definition. In the above def a utilitarian would absolutely advocate for slavery, if 90% benefited from enslaving 10%.

But a moral utilitarian would never advocate that and would therefore reject his utilitarianism.

Hence, the utilitarian model cannot be the source of why he believes racial slavery to be immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

the atheist subscribes to a law of morality, sure. This law of morality is unchanging for him, because his genetics do not change over the course of his lifetime. But the atheist might very well accept that there would be a different, yet just as valid, standard of morality in the distant future.

So you are proposing that it’s possible for a moral atheist to say, “There may be some point in our society in which racial slavery may be moral”?

 

[inocente]

But you see I did think about it. So it was not instinctive. And these incidents only happened about half a dozen times before I was taught what a sin against human sexuality was. So the source had to be my conscience. Our Lord said “…I will write my law in their hearts…”

But you’ve not given an argument, the atheist would say that what’s written in your heart is evolved, your conscience is evolved, and you’ve given no counter argument.

Well, I said that incorrectly. I meant to say we , as a society, are told by many sources what we are to regard as " good " or " bad. " Much of this is pure propaganda, the world view of one power group or another. Some of these correspond to the dictates or our conscience and some do not. But we instinctively recognize what is reall good or bad, generally. This is not relativism.

You used the word instinctive, which means morality evolved, which is relativism.

I think the point is that there is enough agreement to establish that there is a higher authority that accounts for the general agreement. For example, do you of or can you imagine anyone who cheered over the massacure at Newtown? I’m sure some deranged souls somewhere did. But these were the exception. Generally, the opinion of the world was that this was an evil act or at least a bad act caused by a deranged young man. This proves Kreeft’s point about a higher authority which causes us to recognize good and evil.

You say it’s an opinion, and an opinion is not an objective logical argument, it’s relativism.

*He didn’t, I did. *

But the thread is about Kreeft’s argument, not yours.

Natural law is not a system of ethics. It is the basis of all morality, since it is the instruction that Our Lord writes in the hearts of all - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc. It is written in the sense that we all have the same human nature and have the same ability to judge reality. Of course there are no end of Sophists who endlessly dispute that. But the judgment of history is against them. And Thomas Aquinas’ definition is correct.

Some philosophers have proposed that natural law reflects a part of human nature, but there’s no agreement. In practice it’s an axiomatic system of ethics. You start by making what’s called the catalog of goods (things which in your opinion are good) and then use the system to answer moral questions. Thomas Aquinas decided to put “procreation” into his catalog of goods, which is why in his system condoms are evil. If he hadn’t put procreation into his catalog then his system would give a different answer.

I know some who claim they have.

Yes, I guess someone who became an atheist but read scripture when a theist.

I must say, I am surprized that a Baptist would hold some of the views that you hold. Why that should surprize me I don’t know because I know plenty of Catholics who have strange views, views that no Catholic can legitimately hold.

I don’t hold with accepting sloppy arguments like Kreeft’s just because they sound Christian, it makes us look irrational. I’m very surprised Catholics on this thread can’t see the difference between rational argument and subjective opinion.

 

[zro_x]

I don’t see how this adds up. Evolution represents an ever-changing environment, and therefore an evolution-only concept of morality does the same. Slavery was once considered morally acceptable at certain times and places in the past, and therefore with an evolution-only system of morality one has to admit that the conditions that allowed for this may be present again in the future. Therefore, one is not able to predict what future generations will consider to be happy or unhappy.

Perhaps I should have said, “immoral in all current civilizations and past civilizations.”

So how does a utilitarian-only basis for morality explain why past societies deemed slavery to be morally permissible? Obviously past slaves were not happy about it.

Those societies were not following a utilitarian morality, and probably were not following any particular morality at all. They were motivated by greed and increased economic value, not any particular morality. The same question could be asked of objective morality. If there is an objective morality, why don’t all cultures subscribe to this morality?

But does he really have to contemplate a “hypothetical universe”? After all, there are plenty of real-life past examples of societies which considered slavery to be morally permissible. So the question remains, as Kreeft brought up, how someone who believes in an ever changing system of morality (such as an evolution-only based one) can conclude that “slavery is always evil.”?

The only system of morality these societies had(at least to my knowledge) was “might makes right” or perhaps some sort of divine command theory of morality.

These people would have had the same conscience as we do. the 6,000 years since the dawn of human civilization would not be enough to make any sort of significant changes in our ingrained idea of morality. Thus, from the point of view of the person who subscribes to a evolved conscience source of morality, the conscience has not had sufficient time to evolve, and the acts of ancient civilizations were just as immoral then as they are today.

Well, I’m not sure this is the point of this thread. I think Kreeft is making an argument for the existence of objective morality which leads many to conclude that there is a divine Creator behind it. Once again, this is what happened to C.S. Lewis in the process of his conversion from atheism to Christianity. I don’t think this thread is really saying that other kinds of morality are impossible, only that such theories do not seem to square with what most humans embrace in terms of moral principles (such as the condemnation of slavery and Nazi war crimes).

Once again, I will repeat that Peter Kreeft did indeed intend to prove That God exists from the premise that moral good and evil truly exist. The name of this thread is “If moral good and evil exist, than God exists.” I think that states the point pretty clearly.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But you’ve not given an argument, the atheist would say that what’s written in your heart is evolved, your conscience is evolved, and you’ve given no counter argument.

You used the word instinctive, which means morality evolved, which is relativism.

You say it’s an opinion, and an opinion is not an objective logical argument, it’s relativism.

But the thread is about Kreeft’s argument, not yours.

Some philosophers have proposed that natural law reflects a part of human nature, but there’s no agreement. In practice it’s an axiomatic system of ethics. You start by making what’s called the catalog of goods (things which in your opinion are good) and then use the system to answer moral questions. Thomas Aquinas decided to put “procreation” into his catalog of goods, which is why in his system condoms are evil. If he hadn’t put procreation into his catalog then his system would give a different answer.

Yes, I guess someone who became an atheist but read scripture when a theist.

I don’t hold with accepting sloppy arguments like Kreeft’s just because they sound Christian, it makes us look irrational. I’m very surprised Catholics on this thread can’t see the difference between rational argument and subjective opinion.

Speaking for myself, I found it quite rational. Of course it is not a new argument. I suppose we are conditioned quite a bit by our educatioal background. Mine was in traditional Scholastic Philosophy and I’m very wary of philosophical trends since the Age of Enlightenment ( except for the Scholastic Revival beginning at the end of the 19th century).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps I should have said, “immoral in all current civilizations and past civilizations.”

Those societies were not following a utilitarian morality, and probably were not following any particular morality at all. They were motivated by greed and increased economic value, not any particular morality. The same question could be asked of objective morality. If there is an objective morality, why don’t all cultures subscribe to this morality?

The only system of morality these societies had(at least to my knowledge) was “might makes right” or perhaps some sort of divine command theory of morality.

These people would have had the same conscience as we do. the 6,000 years since the dawn of human civilization would not be enough to make any sort of significant changes in our ingrained idea of morality. Thus, from the point of view of the person who subscribes to a evolved conscience source of morality, the conscience has not had sufficient time to evolve, and the acts of ancient civilizations were just as immoral then as they are today.

Once again, I will repeat that Peter Kreeft did indeed intend to prove That God exists from the premise that moral good and evil truly exist. The name of this thread is “If moral good and evil exist, than God exists.” I think that states the point pretty clearly.

You are doing fine.

 

[EricFilmer]

Yes, but please see my post #68 to Alberti - popular opinion is not a logical argument.

There is nothing unreasonable in Kreeft doing this. If there is an objective aspect to morality then it should have a universal quality to it. Hence, popular opinion plays a part in helping us see this.

By omitting any argument, Kreeft puts himself on shakier ground than the supposed atheists he talks of, who at least have arguments.

There are many people who proclaim belief in one of the five sources of morality mentioned in the video, but either act as if they believe in an objective reality (even if they verbally deny it) or haven’t considered the full ramifications of their beliefs. Kreeft’s video is modeled after the Socratic Method, showing the contradiction between what many people profess and what they actually believe. In light of this, there is no shaky ground.

I need to be firm on this, neither of us have more than an interpretation. Kreeft elected to make a video knowing that videos are watched once. If his argument is so subtle that I as a Christian can’t see it after watching twice then I think he has little chance of winning over non-Christians.

But we aren’t debating the efficacy of the video for the purpose of converting people. What we are debating is whether or not Kreeft resorts to fallacious reasoning. In light of this, I think that in addition to providing an interpretation one ought to also provide the quote upon which the interpretation is based. As I said before, this is how straw men are avoided.

Forced labor is moral? Yikes! To me it’s slavery without the inconvenient responsibilities that come with ownership.

globalresearch.ca/the-pentagon-and-slave-labor-in-u-s-prisons/25376

To me it’s about criminals owing, as we say, “a debt to society” and then working to pay that debt. Criminal behavior costs society a lot of money, and the taxpayers are the ones footing the bill.

On this and your other comments about Deuteronomy 20, I don’t believe we should make excuses. It doesn’t say combatants, it says all the people shall be subject to forced labor, which would include women, children, the infirm. It then goes on to say that for any city which refuses to surrender, all the men are to be massacred and then there is the very dark phrase “as for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves”. That is slavery or worse.

First of all, even if everyone was not an actual combatant they were certainly considered prisoners of war by ancient standards. Secondly, I’m not making excuses. I said earlier that I did not sugar-coat the situation and that what is mentioned in Deuteronomy would not be considered morally permissive by Christians. But I also stated the facts concerning the treatment of slaves according to Jewish law and according to what other ancient societies did. There is no proper equivalency. Other ancient civilizations also did everything that the Jews did but without granting slaves the protection and considerations of Jewish law. Therefore, how can you say that this was “slavery or worse”?

To me, you just said morality evolves.

It’s not evolution in the context of how that term is being treated in this discussion. Evolution-only based morality is not directed by an objective power towards an end, but Christian morality is. Christian morality develops over time building upon divine revelation and therefore what was once temporarily tolerated by people (who lacked the fullness of revelation) is not an option for Christians.

Here’s an example. Mathematics is taught in a gradual fashion. In early elementary school I was taught that one cannot subtract a greater number from a lesser one, such as 3 – 5. Later I was taught the mathematics of the integer line and negative numbers, and that one could, indeed, subtract a greater number from a lesser one. Because mathematical truths represent objective reality, and my knowledge of that reality had increased, I was not in a position to think that one day it would be ok for me to once more believe what I was taught in early elementary school about not subtracting greater numbers from lesser ones. It’s the same basic concept at work concerning the Christian outlook on slavery.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

But the non-Christian will say how do you know public revelation is ended, and where does Jesus say slavery is never acceptable (I’m not even sure if there’s anything at all in scripture that says slavery is never acceptable).

I don’t know a lot about Baptist theology, so I don’t know how Baptist theologians specifically respond to this (although I suspect that there is, indeed, a response). But coming from a Catholic perspective I simply point out that divine revelation is not confined to Scripture alone. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave ‘no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord’” (CCC #2414). As a side note, this is in reference to the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal” which is numbered as the 8th Commandment in Protestant versions of the Ten Commandments rather than the 7th.

The non-Christian can say the same.

I’m not sure who you are encompassing under the heading of “non-Christian.” The question is whether or not a person’s beliefs are grounded in the concept of objective morality. People who believe in objective morality and the concept of a developing (not evolving) system of morality can make the basic argument that I have presented from a Christian perspective. However, those believing in an evolution-only system of morality cannot, because such a system does not provide a rational basis for saying that slavery is never morally acceptable.

I’m not sure if there are people who believe evolution is the sole basis, but in any case Kreeft gives no argument for why they can’t say “Slavery is never acceptable” with just as much force as him.

Perhaps there are people who believe that evolution is, indeed, the sole basis of morality, and perhaps there are people who believe that it is one of a number of contributing factors. But in either case, the question at hand is whether or not a proposed system of morality recognizes an objective morality. If people say that there is no objective morality and also declares that slavery is never acceptable, then exactly what standard are they appealing to? A subjective system of morality does not realistically allow for such a universal condemnation.

I’m surprised it wasn’t clear. If slavery was moral for most of history, how do we know the ancients weren’t right? Kreeft’s only reason is we know better, he gives no reason other than we just do. That’s not philosophy, it’s playing to the gallery.

You seem to think that this video is meant to be an examination of the morality of slavery. It’s not. The modern-day universal condemnation of slavery only serves as a common-ground basis for a discussion on the concept of objective morality. This video is designed to show a contradiction between a professed belief in a subjective system of morality and the widespread belief that slavery is never acceptable.

Slavery was accepted in parts of the ancient world. Arguably perhaps, slavery is accepted in today’s world - e.g. see money.cnn.es/2011/09/21/smallbusiness/app_forced_labor/index.htm

You didn’t seem to give perspective #2, so I got a bit lost after that.

Actually, Perspective #2 was there, although I mentioned it in passing so it didn’t really stand out. As I stated in Post #56: “But, as I’ve stated before, Kreeft’s video is aimed at people who already do criticize slavery and share the common ground that slavery is never acceptable (which, incidentally, is perspective #2)” (bold emphasis added).

Although slavery is still practiced in today’s world, it is not considered morally permissible. After all, the people who practice it do so in secrecy, and when the cover is blown they come up with excuses, trying to deny that what they are really doing is slavery. So they don’t consider their own actions moral.

Well no, obviously we can’t impose our standards on other cultures. I don’t see why that stops us saying slavery is wrong.

Before we say that slavery is wrong, not only for us but universally, we have to explain the standard that we are appealing to. A universal condemnation of slavery by definition recognizes an objective morality.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

As I said, he’s preaching to a choir, he’s just reading back what we already believe, there’s no logical argument.

Yes, he’s reading back what most people, including atheists, already believe. Once again, this video is not an examination of the morality of slavery. The purpose is for people to see a contradiction between what they already believe and a professed belief in one of the five theoretical sources of morality the video covers.

What’s legal may not be moral. Abortion on demand may be legal but it doesn’t make it moral.

I agree, but I still don’t see how this is relevant to the discussion. Are you suggesting that the ancient cultures who practiced slavery considered it legal but immoral?

Correct or not, evolution of morality is a sophisticated argument based on evidence. Kreeft does nothing to dismiss it, e.g. see:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Then clearly explain how an evolution-only theory of morality allows someone to rationally conclude that slavery is never acceptable. After all, this is the only aspect of it that Kreeft actually dismissed.

For me it would be the Golden Rule, which appeared in various forms in many cultures, coupled with the modern understanding that there are no “races” and all humans are equal, as UDHR Article 1 puts it:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

This is an appeal to objective morality. The fact that this belief contradicts what has been historically practiced in human society shows that the standard it is based upon transcends human behavior.

No I wasn’t implying that . I’m just uneasy that we’ve probably spent longer discussing the video than Kreeft took to make it. It’s just one of billions of videos, is it really worth all this analysis?

I don’t see why there even has to be all this analysis in the first place. You and others have accused Kreeft of fallacious reasoning, and I believe that have examined these criticisms fairly and objectively, and have shown that, so far, they have no merit. If you or anyone else had simply labeled a single logical fallacy that Kreeft is guilty of committing, while properly demonstrating this by plugging his actual quotes into that fallacy’s formula, then I would have simply said, “Well, I’m a fan of Kreeft, but he obviously dropped the ball on this one.”

Both, depending on who you asked.

If morality is based on who I asked then a utilitarian-only system of morality does not allow me to declare that slavery is never acceptable. Hence, if I profess that the source of morality is based on utilitarianism while believing that slavery is never acceptable then there is a contradiction between what I profess and what I believe.

That’s a more extreme form of moral relativism than that espoused by Kreeft. I don’t believe Christians are immune - don’t Catholics have the term “cafeteria Catholic”?

Christians are certainly not immune from moral relativism, which is why we should put our views to the test as well. But exactly why do you say my example was “extreme”?

A matter of opinion.

Sure, but do you propose an alternate opinion? Can you give a better description of what it means to “crash and burn” in a philosophical debate?

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

As per the dictionary:

good = morally right
evil = morally bad, cruel, or very unpleasant

This aspect of our discussion stems from you saying (presumably) that the terms “good” & “evil” are understood by atheists in a manner different from theists. You said in Post #45, “As an ex-atheist myself, atheists …don’t necessarily view good and evil as anything more than words.” So I pointed out that words still have meanings, and asked you what such atheists mean by the terms “good” & “evil.” Now you have responded with not only a dictionary definition, but one that is based in the concept of morality, which is exactly how theists understand the terms. Therefore, it seems that there is no real distinction between an atheistic definition and the common definition of “good” and “evil”, despite what you stated.

1. A moral person. As to the difference, I think that would depend on the particular atheist and Christian.

This still doesn’t tell me much, if anything, about how certain atheists perceive the term “good” in a manner different from the common understanding. You had no problem before making blanket statements about atheism, such as that some “don’t necessarily view good and evil as anything more than words.” So once again I ask you, how do atheists who ascribe to such a notion differentiate between what they mean by a “good person” and what everyone else means by a “good person”?

1. It’s not an atheist argument, the problem of evil is a theological problem as old as theology - “why is there so much suffering if God is love?” (theologeans have lots of different views).

It most certainly is an atheist argument, even if it is also discussed in other avenues. See for yourself:
Atheism 101: The Problem of Evil. So I ask you again: Based on your prior experience as an atheist, what do they mean by the term “evil” when they bring up this problem, and how do they differentiate between what others mean by the same term.

1. You’d have to ask Wilfred, how would I know?

Kindly stop dodging. Wilfred is a fictional person used to present a hypothetical situation, formulated to put to the test something that you, yourself, brought up. Once again, you stated that there are some atheists who “don’t necessarily view good and evil as anything more than words.” I’m trying to see if there is any real merit behind such a stance. Therefore, seeing as you profess to speak on their behalf, kindly answer the questions I posed concerning Wilfred.

If any atheist posts that he/she was converted by the video then you might have a better case for saying his argument is perfect and flawless.

First of all, I neither claim nor believe that Kreeft’s argument is perfect and flawless. I have my own issues with the video.

Secondly, I am not arguing as to whether or not the video is an effective tool in converting anyone, so any reported conversions have no bearing on my discussion with you.

Thirdly, you didn’t actually address my challenge. I simply want to see whether or not you can back up the sort of statements you’ve been making in this thread. So, once again, here is the challenge from Post #58: So even if you don’t have the “time or inclination to deconstruct a video word by word”, note that I am not asking you to do so. Keep in mind that you said that you have watched the video twice, and that, in your opinion, Kreeft committed “every fallacy in the book” (Post #18). If you’ve watched the video and have already identified a bunch of fallacies then it should be no trouble for you to simply demonstrate Kreeft committing one. Therefore, all I’m asking you to do is back up what you said, and all I’m looking for is one, and only one, example. Clearly demonstrate in this forum that Kreeft committed just one logical fallacy (while naming the exact fallacy involved and giving him the courtesy of illustrating this with actual quotes he made) and I will concede the point. And more than that, I will agree with you that Kreeft “crashed and burned” and that his video is a “flop.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Have a Blessed Christmas everyone. I still think Peter Kreeft makes a valid argument. Of course in a couple of minutes you can’t expect him to flesh out the entire impact. Many or our great saints held the same opinion. Of course sanctity does not guarantee flawless logic. Nevertheless, they should make us listen most attentively. And perhaps only the choir is paying close attention but is that bad, surely they need all the reinforcement they can get.

 

[inocente]

There is nothing unreasonable in Kreeft doing this. If there is an objective aspect to morality then it should have a universal quality to it. Hence, popular opinion plays a part in helping us see this.

Unfortunately you keep making the same logic errors as the video! The fallacies in the slavery section include:

• argumentum ad populam – supposing an objective truth is affected by popular opinion
• circular argument – arguing slavery is objectively immoral because it’s unacceptable, and unacceptable because it’s objectively immoral :whacky:
• hasty generalization – supposing no one today accepts slavery, when most buy clothing and electronics made on slave wages (plus you said that states like Georgia sponsor forced labor a.k.a. slavery)
• bandwagon – supposing that contemporary mass opinion is more objective than past opinion
• false dichotomy – asserting that the only moral choices are slavery is objectively or not objectively acceptable when it could be subjective.

In addition, although I know it’s not your intention, I feel like you’re attempting a proof by verbosity (an argument too verbose for me to reasonably deal with in full), as you typed over 12,000 characters in this group of four posts. If I miss points, it’s only to avoid death by exhaustion.

There are many people who proclaim belief in one of the five sources of morality mentioned in the video, but either act as if they believe in an objective reality (even if they verbally deny it) or haven’t considered the full ramifications of their beliefs. Kreeft’s video is modeled after the Socratic Method, showing the contradiction between what many people profess and what they actually believe. In light of this, there is no shaky ground.

But he ignores the plank in his eye by criticizing another’s argument while ignoring the faults in his own.

To me it’s about criminals owing, as we say, “a debt to society” and then working to pay that debt. Criminal behavior costs society a lot of money, and the taxpayers are the ones footing the bill.

Special pleading fallacy, forced labor is slavery by a different name.

CCC 2414 It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. Change the term from “forced labor” to “forced sex” and you’ll see that the violence implied by “forced” is slavery.

Other ancient civilizations also did everything that the Jews did but without granting slaves the protection and considerations of Jewish law. Therefore, how can you say that this was “slavery or worse”?

You’re special pleading. Read the verse – “as for the women, the children, … you may take these as plunder for yourselves”. To plunder means to steal things violently, the women and children are treated not as persons but as things to be violently stolen and used.

It’s not evolution in the context of how that term is being treated in this discussion. Evolution-only based morality is not directed by an objective power towards an end, but Christian morality is. Christian morality develops over time building upon divine revelation and therefore what was once temporarily tolerated by people (who lacked the fullness of revelation) is not an option for Christians.

How precisely does God reveal love by ordering ethnic cleansing and slavery? I’ve never heard this “gradual moral revelation” theory before. It sounds irrational - please use it to justify 1 Samuel 15, where it’s an evil sin even to leave one infant alive.

Why ignore the obvious, that the author is misusing the name of God to justify crimes against humanity?

 

[inocente]

I don’t know a lot about Baptist theology, so I don’t know how Baptist theologians specifically respond to this (although I suspect that there is, indeed, a response).

A Baptist principle is that we are all competent before God to make our own moral, spiritual and religious decisions, so there is no single authorized theology.

But coming from a Catholic perspective I simply point out that divine revelation is not confined to Scripture alone.

Oh! So CCC 65 & 66 are wrong to say Christ is the “MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION” and “God has said everything in his Word” and “There will be no further Revelation”?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave ‘no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord’” (CCC #2414).

You’ll see the problem then. Jesus said nothing about it and the commandment doesn’t even mention slavery.

I’m not sure who you are encompassing under the heading of “non-Christian.” The question is whether or not a person’s beliefs are grounded in the concept of objective morality. People who believe in objective morality and the concept of a developing (not evolving) system of morality can make the basic argument that I have presented from a Christian perspective. However, those believing in an evolution-only system of morality cannot, because such a system does not provide a rational basis for saying that slavery is never morally acceptable.

As I said, false dilemma, and also there’s no evidential way to distinguish between a developing and an evolving morality.

Perhaps there are people who believe that evolution is, indeed, the sole basis of morality, and perhaps there are people who believe that it is one of a number of contributing factors. But in either case, the question at hand is whether or not a proposed system of morality recognizes an objective morality. If people say that there is no objective morality and also declares that slavery is never acceptable, then exactly what standard are they appealing to? A subjective system of morality does not realistically allow for such a universal condemnation.

False dilemma. What’s important is fighting injustice, not ivory tower debates about whether some hypothetical future generation will care about our opinions on what is objective. Your state thinks slavery is moral and your Church doesn’t; get them to argue it out.

You seem to think that this video is meant to be an examination of the morality of slavery. It’s not. The modern-day universal condemnation of slavery only serves as a common-ground basis for a discussion on the concept of objective morality. This video is designed to show a contradiction between a professed belief in a subjective system of morality and the widespread belief that slavery is never acceptable.

But it’s not universally condemned, your own state proves that!

*Although slavery is still practiced in today’s world, it is not considered morally permissible. After all, the people who practice it do so in secrecy, and when the cover is blown they come up with excuses, trying to deny that what they are really doing is slavery. So they don’t consider their own actions moral.
*

So it’s OK to buy cheap clothes and electronics knowing they were made on slave wages, because the companies behind the brand names don’t ask their suppliers too many questions?

Before we say that slavery is wrong, not only for us but universally, we have to explain the standard that we are appealing to. A universal condemnation of slavery by definition recognizes an objective morality.

Nope. The UDHR doesn’t. Again, false dilemma.

 

[inocente]

(Continued…)

At this point I’m running out of steam!

Yes, he’s reading back what most people, including atheists, already believe. Once again, this video is not an examination of the morality of slavery. The purpose is for people to see a contradiction between what they already believe and a professed belief in one of the five theoretical sources of morality the video covers.

Please cite where Kreeft says that’s the purpose of the video.

I agree, but I still don’t see how this is relevant to the discussion. Are you suggesting that the ancient cultures who practiced slavery considered it legal but immoral?

John 8 and casting the first stone - but never mind.

Then clearly explain how an evolution-only theory of morality allows someone to rationally conclude that slavery is never acceptable. After all, this is the only aspect of it that Kreeft actually dismissed.

I already did - the Golden Rule.

This is an appeal to objective morality. The fact that this belief contradicts what has been historically practiced in human society shows that the standard it is based upon transcends human behavior.

I don’t see why there even has to be all this analysis in the first place. You and others have accused Kreeft of fallacious reasoning, and I believe that have examined these criticisms fairly and objectively, and have shown that, so far, they have no merit.

No, you’ve shown that fans have a cognitive bias.

If you or anyone else had simply labeled a single logical fallacy that Kreeft is guilty of committing, while properly demonstrating this by plugging his actual quotes into that fallacy’s formula, then I would have simply said, “Well, I’m a fan of Kreeft, but he obviously dropped the ball on this one.”

I’ve labelled the main fallacies now, but have said before I’m happy to quote from a transcript but don’t have the time to write one. You’re the one who wants it, why don’t you email Kreef and ask - his contact details are public, just google.

 

[inocente]

(Continued…)

Definitely run out of steam now.

This aspect of our discussion stems from you saying (presumably) that the terms “good” & “evil” are understood by atheists in a manner different from theists. You said in Post #45, “As an ex-atheist myself, atheists …don’t necessarily view good and evil as anything more than words.” So I pointed out that words still have meanings, and asked you what such atheists mean by the terms “good” & “evil.” Now you have responded with not only a dictionary definition, but one that is based in the concept of morality, which is exactly how theists understand the terms. Therefore, it seems that there is no real distinction between an atheistic definition and the common definition of “good” and “evil”, despite what you stated.

You missed my point. Evil is just a word but Kreeft wants us to commits a reification fallacy – a belief that evil exists as some kind of entity or substance.

Kindly stop dodging. Wilfred is a fictional person used to present a hypothetical situation, formulated to put to the test something that you, yourself, brought up. Once again, you stated that there are some atheists who “don’t necessarily view good and evil as anything more than words.” I’m trying to see if there is any real merit behind such a stance. Therefore, seeing as you profess to speak on their behalf, kindly answer the questions I posed concerning Wilfred.

Accusing me of dodging is uncalled for. It should be plain obvious that most people regard good and evil as abstracts and don’t make the mistake of reifying them. I remember someone jumping it at that point to agree with me.

Why are you asking me to hypothesize about what hypothetical atheists think about hypothetical situations? Surely you have enough empathy to work it out for yourself?

Clearly demonstrate in this forum that Kreeft committed just one logical fallacy (while naming the exact fallacy involved and giving him the courtesy of illustrating this with actual quotes he made) and I will concede the point. And more than that, I will agree with you that Kreeft “crashed and burned” and that his video is a “flop.”

This is called the Nirvana fallacy: a refusal to accept an argument unless it meets an idealized standard.