If Good and Evil Exist then God Exists

[PRmerger]

IThat’s why you have some utilitarians advocating anything from betiality to infanticide.

Could you direct me to some utilitarian websites that advocate slavery?

 

[zro_x]

That would be an interesting way of looking into this further. In any event, the phenomenon of how the conscience works suggests something beyond genetic impulses, especially if the conscience urges someone to select a weaker impulse over a stronger one. There may be (and probably are) some people who have a very strong sense of altruism, so there is nothing unusual if they put the needs of others over themselves and act accordingly. But this would not be the case with what seems to be the majority of accounts given by people who risk their lives for strangers. Many people describe personal safety being the stronger impulse, but then they grapple with their conscience which directs them to ultimately choose to act upon the weaker altruistic impulse.

And that is exactly why I postulated that our impulse risk our lives to help people is actually stronger than our impulse for self-interest, though we do not feel the impulse.

Kreeft did more than just provide “food for thought.” After all, there is a contradiction between proposing a subjective-only system of morality while appealing to objective moral norms. Moreover, if someone decides to believe in an objective dimension of morality, and there is no natural explanation for it, then one should look for a supernatural explanation.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that this video is flawless. One of the limitations is that a viewer who supports a subjective-only system of morality can conclude (in a rational manner) that there is no universal dimension to morality, and is content to embrace the ramifications of such a belief. For example, he may commit to refraining from proposing objective moral standards, such as saying that slavery and Nazi war crimes are never morally acceptable. The video does not actually make a case against such a conclusion, but instead addresses those who would reject it in favor of the belief that such things as slavery and Nazi war crimes are to be universally condemned.

The point I’m trying to make is that Peter Kreeft must make a case against such a conclusion if he is going to accomplish his intent, which is to prove the existence of God. Though this video does seem to show that moral objectivity is incompatible with naturalism, it does not show that God exists. Of course, not making a case against this conclusion is just one of the reasons why the argument made in this video is unsound. let’s look at the five-point outline I provided in more detail.

1. Atheists believe in and have a sense of objective moral law.

Many people, atheists and otherwise, often adopt certain beliefs but without considering the full ramifications of them. Therefore, Kreeft is not committing a straw man. I agree that there are probably zero atheists who openly declare, “I accept the contrary view that morality is entirely subjective while at the same time having an objective dimension”. But there certainly may be many atheists who profess belief in subjective morality while acting as if some type of objective morality exists.

I suppose you’re right. I was only thinking of all the vocal atheists that I have personally encountered. I have never met met or heard from an atheist yet who supported the idea of an objective morality. Just look at the atheists on this thread who’ve commented on the subject. Both Regular Atheist and Trurl support subjective moralities. I can’t tell what Eleve believes, but she seems to be supporting universal morality rather than objective morality. (great distinction, BTW. ) but in any case, regardless of whether or not most atheists support objective morality, it is certainly true that not all atheists appeal to it, which means Kreeft’s very first premise is unsound.

1. Since everyone believes in an objective moral law, there must be an objective moral law.

even if everyone did believe in an objective moral law, in no way does that mean that there actually is one.

1. since there is a[n objective] moral law, there must be a source for this moral law.

Eleve covers this in post # 140.

1. none of the proposed physical sources for moral law can ultimately produce truly objective morality.

The biggest problem here is that Kreeft’s list of atheistic sources of morality is by no means exhaustive, and it needs to be if/since his intention is to prove that God exists.

1. therefore, the source of objective moral law must be supernatural.

This is also covered by Eleve in post # 140.

 

[zro_x]

But what if 90% of the people who benefit from slavery increase their happiness by 90% and the 10% who are enslaved decrease their happiness by 90%, then, by utilitarian standards slavery would be moral, yes?

yes, but I doubt that this has ever happened in the history of slavery, and is very unlikely to happen in the future.

 

[zro_x]

Could you direct me to some utilitarian websites that advocate slavery?

You probably won’t find any, because it is much more obvious that slavery detracts from the general welfare than infanticide or bestiality.

 

[PRmerger]

You probably won’t find any, because it is much more obvious that slavery detracts from the general welfare than infanticide or bestiality.

LOL!!

Exactly.

So a utilitarian form of morality cannot be the source for an atheist to say, “Racial slavery is wrong.”

 

[Regular_Atheist]

EXACTLY!!!

So if it’s simply a preference, as you are saying, it’s ABSURD for anyone who espouses your paradigm to be able to argue that the Nazis were wrong.

As I said, it is an impotent type of rationale. Anyone espousing your paradigm will never be able to argue against the Nazi atrocities, for the other will simply say, “You believe brides should wear white. I believe brides should wear red. We need to just tolerate each other’s opinions.”

Well, they could say that. Or we could have an actual discussion using our own predetermined standards of morality rather than dodging the question. I don’t think things are wrong simply because they are wrong, but I have standards by which I judge things.

I also can’t help but feel this argument is an example of circular reasoning. You seem to be arguing this:

Objective morality exists. Therefore, God is real

However, objective morality needs a source. In this case it would be God, so you’re basically arguing this:

God gives us morality, so objective morality exists. Objective morality exists, so God exists.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s quite clear that morality only exists within our own mind. Even if a god did exist, I fail to see how their concept of morality would in anyway be more important than my own.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, they could say that. Or we could have an actual discussion using our own predetermined standards of morality rather than dodging the question. I don’t think things are wrong simply because they are wrong, but I have standards by which I judge things.

So what is this standard?

Is it, for example, based on “it’s wrong if it hurts someone”?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So what is this standard?

Is it, for example, based on “it’s wrong if it hurts someone”?

To a certain extent, I suppose. It depends on what I’m judging. I’ll often compare the positive affects of an action to the negative. I’ll make use of the golden rule, too. You’ll probably scorn that, but there are compelling reasons to treat someone well. We cannot function as a society without being able to cooperate and socialise with other human beings, and as a social creature I have to live with other people for my own well-being. While that would be the logical reason to treat others nicely, that’s not the main reason I do so. I have the ability to feel human empathy which stops me doing bad things, and I feel emotional pain if I feel I’ve wronged someone.

Anyway, the standard that most people work by would be the positive/negative actions one, though most people are also able to feel empathy for other human beings.

 

[PRmerger]

To a certain extent, I suppose. It depends on what I’m judging. I’ll often compare the positive affects of an action to the negative. I’ll make use of the golden rule, too. You’ll probably scorn that, but there are compelling reasons to treat someone well. We cannot function as a society without being able to cooperate and socialise with other human beings, and as a social creature I have to live with other people for my own well-being. While that would be the logical reason to treat others nicely, that’s not the main reason I do so. I have the ability to feel human empathy which stops me doing bad things, and I feel emotional pain if I feel I’ve wronged someone.

Anyway, the standard that most people work by would be the positive/negative actions one, though most people are also able to feel empathy for other human beings.

So by what standard to you judge, say, adultery to be immoral (if you do)?

 

[Bradski]

So by what standard to you judge, say, adultery to be immoral (if you do)?

Oh no. We’re heading for the ‘back scratching’, aren’t we…

Adultery is breaking a promise: Forsaking all others all long as ye both shall live.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh no. We’re heading for the ‘back scratching’, aren’t we…

Adultery is breaking a promise: Forsaking all others all long as ye both shall live.

But so what? Who is hurt by breaking a promise if no one ever knows?

Why is that so different than cheating on an exam, where no one gets hurt? You said that you would not consider it immoral to cheat on an exam, if no one else was harmed by your cheating.

I don’t understand the difference.

 

[Bradski]

But so what? Who is hurt by breaking a promise if no one ever knows? Why is that so different than cheating on an exam, where no one gets hurt? You said that you would not consider it immoral to cheat on an exam, if no one else was harmed by your cheating.

From memory, I believe the earlier discussion was me giving examples of wrong doing or acting immorally, which harmed no-one. The example was playing golf by yourself when you move your own ball to a better lie. You cheat, but no-one is harmed. So cheating is immoral but there is not necessarily any harm done (if you cheat in an exam, there are presumably others taking the exam so others would be harmed).

Similarly, if you commit adultery, then you are acting immorally, but if your partner doesn’t find out, and you don’t suffer any guilty conscience, then no harm is done.

In some particular cases, breaking a promise could be justified (whether harm is done or not), but I don’t think that anyone could argue that it would be generally permissible. I think that that is how most people reach a decision on whether an action is morally acceptable or not. And if you put yourself in the position of being the recipient of the potentially immoral act, then it’s relatively straightforward to decide whether it is indeed immoral.

So using those criteria, adultery (and slavery) would be immoral.

And incidentally, our concept of morality changes constantly. Generally for the better. What was acceptable in biblical times or in the 19th century or even a few years ago, is now deemed to be unacceptable. So it’s a given that what we generally find acceptable now will not be so in a hundred years or so.

 

[PRmerger]

From memory, I believe the earlier discussion was me giving examples of wrong doing or acting immorally, which harmed no-one. The example was playing golf by yourself when you move your own ball to a better lie. You cheat, but no-one is harmed. So cheating is immoral but there is not necessarily any harm done (if you cheat in an exam, there are presumably others taking the exam so others would be harmed).

Your golf discussion must have been with another poster.

We were discussing whether you thought cheating on a test was wrong, if no one was harmed,

And you said it was not wrong. Or, at least, that you’d allow your son to do so, which, I presume means you don’t believe cheating is immoral if no one is harmed.

Similarly, if you commit adultery, then you are acting immorally, but if your partner doesn’t find out, and you don’t suffer any guilty conscience, then no harm is done.

So what, then? Why not do something immoral, like adultery, if no harm is done, like cheating on a test?

 

[PRmerger]

So using those criteria, adultery (and slavery) would be immoral.

Indeed. And what you have explicated is nothing more than an objective morality. It’s wrong, even if no one is harmed.

And incidentally, our concept of morality changes constantly. Generally for the better. What was acceptable in biblical times or in the 19th century or even a few years ago, is now deemed to be unacceptable. So it’s a given that what we generally find acceptable now will not be so in a hundred years or so.

I don’t think you’ve ever found a society that says that taking another man’s wife is permissible. Or a society that will say that in the future.

I don’t think you’ve ever found a society that says that injustice is good. Or that cowardice is good. Nor will any society way that in the future.

So, pretty much I can state that your premise above is wrong.

 

[zro_x]

LOL!!

Exactly.

So a utilitarian form of morality cannot be the source for an atheist to say, “Racial slavery is wrong.”

sorry, I don’t follow how what I said could be exactly right, but utilitarianism can’t be a legitimate source of morality for atheists

 

[Linusthe2nd]

QUOTE=inocente;10164817]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.

Can’t help that. That is their problem, not mine. If people insist on being stubborn or obtuse I can’t help it. But enough people see the point.

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

Not in the least. I’m sorry your dictionary doesn’t consider philosophical facts which are self evident or that perhaps it limits itself to " scientific " paradigms. St. Thomas points out that we are created with an understanding of the Principle Laws of morality. These are very basic " do good and avoid evil " and a few obvious Secondary Principles. So I mistakenly used the word " instinctive, " my " proof reader " was taking a break. Pardon.

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

Don’t you think opinions can be correct - ever? If good people we respect have an opinion on a the goodness or badness of a particular act and give a good reason for their opinion that is not relativism. Of course I just used this as an example. The Principle involved is that slaying the innocent is an evil act. It’s evil is based on the fact that everyone has a right to his/her life. If not, then life would not be worth living and we would be living in constant chaos. Most reasonable people would give a similar reason if pressed to explain their opinion. But moral people make the judgment as a mental reflex judgment without having to think about it. Let’s face it, most people don’t take morality seriously enough to do much reflecting. But that is exactly what we have to do. So my argument is not relativism at all.

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

I don’t think Kreeft would mind. He probably wanted to say a lot of things but was limited by time.

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.

Ah, I see now. However St. Thomas lived in the 13th century, so you can’t blame him.
St. Thomas did not write the natural law ! God did. He not only " wrote " into our nature, he wrote it on stone because people were too obtuse and corrupt. And oh yes, there is plenty of agreement. The Jews of the O.T. and the Catholic Church from then to now and a lot of other religions recognize it as being true.

Of course, since the Age of Enlightenment and the Reformation there has been less agreement. Although, the bright spot is that just because people don’t obey it, doesn’t mean they don’t recognize it as true. Not sure I agree with you calling it an " axiomatic system of ethics " because I am not sure what you mean by that. It is not automatic if that is what you mean. And it has to be supplemented and perfected by all the rest of Revelation and Church teaching. But all that is beside the point which is that there is Good and Evil and that means God exists.

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

Oh, come on. An unworthy remark.

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.

I think your appraisal is wrong. If we worried about what atheists thought about us we would never say anything. Your closing remark is highly subjective itself or didn’t you notice.

I will admit one thing. Kreeft’s choice of slavery as an example was a poor one. A mass slaying like the one in Connecticuit or Columbine would have been better.

The point remains. There is good and evil, we can recognize it, God exists.

 

[Bradski]

Your golf discussion must have been with another poster. We were discussing whether you thought cheating on a test was wrong, if no one was harmed,

And you said it was not wrong. Or, at least, that you’d allow your son to do so, which, I presume means you don’t believe cheating is immoral if no one is harmed.

In the example which you brought up earlier, you asked me originally if something was immoral if it affected no-one, such as an exam in which you cheated but no-one was hurt. Now cheating in exams is, in my view, immoral because it has the potential to hurt someone. But cheating in an exam in which there is no possibility of anyone being hurt is, as far as I was concerned at the time, amoral. Cheating on yourself by looking up the answers in not comparable to doing the same in a situation where the test in meaningful to people other than yourself.

In that situation you’d first have to ask yourself if cheating should be generally acceptable. Obviously not as that would render the meaning of any exam redundant. And you would have to ask yourself if you would find it acceptable if someone cheated and you lost out. There are other considerations, but let’s go with those two obvious ones.

Using those in the case of adultery, one wouldn’t want it to become generally acceptable otherwise the concept of fidelity would be made redundant. And one wouldn’t want to be the cheated partner either. So on both counts it becomes unacceptable. Just because no harm comes from it on that particular occasion doesn’t make it morally acceptable.

So what, then? Why not do something immoral, like adultery, if no harm is done, like cheating on a test?

Lots of people do. Because they are pretty certain that they won’t get found out and no harm will accrue. But neither of us would agree with the person’s actions and would both class it as immoral.

Indeed. And what you have explicated is nothing more than an objective morality. It’s wrong, even if no one is harmed.

Reading through most of the posts in the thread earlier I noticed that someone mentioned the idea of a ‘Universal Morality’ as opposed to an objective one. I think that just because all rational people would agree that something is immoral doesn’t make it objective in itself.

I don’t think you’ve ever found a society that says that taking another man’s wife is permissible. Or a society that will say that in the future. I don’t think you’ve ever found a society that says that injustice is good. Or that cowardice is good. Nor will any society way that in the future.

So, pretty much I can state that your premise above is wrong.

Well, those concepts haven’t changed. But our attitudes to race and gender has changed considerably. Our perception of morality as it relates to other species and our environment has changed dramatically. Our ideas about how we treat children have changed. You can’t seriously claim that we have remained static in how we perceive morals over time, surely.

 

[EricFilmer]

What I meant was that I would never find them acceptable - I never once even implied that they were never acceptable through some kind of universal truth.

I suppose I’d be appealing to my own standard of what is right or wrong, but I am well aware that other people have different views on the world. However, I would never consider it to be morally correct, no exceptions. As I already said, I would not be arguing that by some kind of universal standard it would be immoral.

Thanks for the clarification. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that you believe in a subjective-only system of morality and refrain from making appeals to an objective standard of morality. As I have said elsewhere, this (in and of itself) does not amount to a contradictory position. But your stance does not seem to reflect that of the vast majority of people who say that the war crimes of the Nazis are never morally acceptable. After all, the most common expression is that the Nazis were evil. Such condemnation is in the context of people making a moral judgement against them and holding them accountable to a moral standard. It goes way beyond simply thinking, “Well, personally I would never do what the Nazis did.”

Well, yeah. Likewise, Sir Arthur Harris was not guilty of war crimes as the Allies believed that the actions the RAF took were acceptable.

I’m not familiar with the case involving Sir Arthur Harris so you’ll need to expand upon that a bit more. But in terms of the Nazis what I was getting at is that their actions were not considered morally neutral until a judge at Nuremberg, relying on nothing more than his personal opinion, declared them to be criminal. The actions perpetrated were consider evil from the start; the purpose of the trials was to determine who was guilty of doing them.

Not at all. That doesn’t make it moral or immoral. If murder became legal, I’d still say it was immoral.

But you would only declare it to be immoral as your own personal opinion, and you would not impose your standard on someone else, correct? And someone’s personal opinion which is contrary to yours would be just as valid as yours. But humans are social creatures and we recognize a social dimension of morality which necessitates a moral standard among different and competing personal opinions. How can such a standard be drawn from a system of morality which is, as you said earlier, “personal opinion - nothing more”?

I wouldn’t quite agree there. Fine, I’d agree that most cultures would agree that murder is wrong, for example, but only because there needs to be a certain standard that is set for societies to function properly. It’s not that murder is universally immoral, but that having murder be legal is extremely impractical.

As far as Stalin was concerned, murder was legal (at least for the Soviet Party) and it was very practical, but that did not make the mass executions he ordered moral. So the question of the morality of murder goes beyond a simple matter of practicality. The question of practicality is, after all, a subjective thing. For example, murder was practical for Stalin and the Soviet leaders but not practical for those who got executed.

It’s also somewhat important for our survival for us to live together. Most people have the ability to feel empathy for other humans, for example. We may be drawn to behave in a way that we would consider ‘moral’ to a certain degree, but there is certainly no universal or objective standard.

The concept of murder is usually defined as the intentional killing of an innocent human. No one of the planet thinks that the intentional killing an innocent human is a good thing. When people commit such murders, they try to find ways to excuse their actions. The Nazis said that the Jews were sub-human, and the Conquistadors said that native Americans were not truly human because they had no souls. Terrorists who resort to indiscriminate killing claim that infidels are automatically guilty (and therefore there are no innocent victims). Even serial killers admit that killing innocent people is not a good thing, but that they were compelled to kill by forces beyond their control. In light of all this, the condemnation of the intentional killing of an innocent person is, indeed, an example of objective morality because no one ever claimed such killing to be a morally good action.

I have no idea. So they have a better way to further their own morality? Because people would like to believe there is an objective standard? So the world looks less scary?

And here’s another theory: People feel compelled to appeal to an objective standard because it exists, and therefore such a compulsion is a result of human reason and not an action contrary to it.

That’s a very loaded question you’ve got there. I don’t think anyone could properly answer it.

I’m not sure what you mean by “loaded question”. I certainly think it is a deep question, and an honest one. And I agree that it is not a question which can be properly answered (in the sense that there is no answer which everyone would agree with).

Whatever the answer, I’d imagine different people would have different motives for wanting there to be an objective standard.

And I would also say that people have different motives for wanting there to be a subjective standard. But let me point out that when I claim that an objective standard exists, it is not only a matter of religious faith, but it is also something that I see evidence of. Consider, for example, my above statements concerning murder, as well as the items I posed to Trurl in Post #24. Going back to your initial question in Post #154, I do not see my belief in a higher power a bizarre assertion but rather a very reasonable proposition.

 

[PRmerger]

sorry, I don’t follow how what I said could be exactly right, but utilitarianism can’t be a legitimate source of morality for atheists

Utilitarianism can’t be a legitimate source of morality for atheists because NO (moral) atheist is going to advocate slavery which benefits 90% of society while enslaving 10% of that society.

Even given this generalized benefit to society, you will never see any moral person, atheist or believer, advocating that type of utilitarian reasoning.

And that is why you’ll never see any utilitarian website advocating slavery. Because all moral people see the absurdity in this type of utilitarian thinking.

 

[PRmerger]

In the example which you brought up earlier, you asked me originally if something was immoral if it affected no-one, such as an exam in which you cheated but no-one was hurt. Now cheating in exams is, in my view, immoral because it has the potential to hurt someone. But cheating in an exam in which there is no possibility of anyone being hurt is, as far as I was concerned at the time, amoral. Cheating on yourself by looking up the answers in not comparable to doing the same in a situation where the test in meaningful to people other than yourself.

Cheating, then, can be amoral if no one is harmed?

So then I don’t understand your reasoning that adultery, which is, essentially, just another form of cheating, would be wrong if no one is harmed.

In that situation you’d first have to ask yourself if cheating should be generally acceptable. Obviously not as that would render the meaning of any exam redundant. And you would have to ask yourself if you would find it acceptable if someone cheated and you lost out. There are other considerations, but let’s go with those two obvious ones

I happen to believe that cheating is inherently wrong, even if no one is harmed.

That’s cheating whether it’s on a test (where you betray your professor, even if only you benefit and your professor never knows), or with a spouse (where you betray your spouse, even if only you benefit and your spouse never knows.)

They both are wrong.

And my position is consistent.

Yours, however, is not consistent.