If Good and Evil Exist then God Exists

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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

I agree that Kreeft may be taking certain things for granted. I think the idea is that we seem to have an intuitive grasp of morality that does not coincide with a subjective-only system of morality. But I admit that from a purely philosophical viewpoint this does not, in and of itself, proves objective morality. But the act of making appeals to objective moral law is such a prevalent aspect of human nature that it’s hard to ignore. Theories of subjective-only systems of morality simply address theoretically possible aspects of human behavior which don’t really seem to represent authentic human experience. For example, when people denounce Nazi war crimes, they usually hold Nazis accountable to a moral standard, declare the Nazis to be evil (even to the point of being demonic), and emphatically state that under no circumstances can such atrocities be considered morally acceptable. This is a far cry from a theory that proposes that morality is simply a matter of personal taste, and that when people denounce the Nazis what they really mean (as opposed to what they actually say) is, “I would personally never do what the Nazis did, but morality is only a matter of personal taste and opinion so the Nazis are not accountable to my ethical views.”

Eleve covers this in post # 140.

Eleve’s first point was to make a comparison with numbers and math but that does not really make a good case against the idea of moral law being made by a moral lawgiver. Unlike mathematics, moral law is designed to direct person-to-person behavior. That has to be designed by a person.

Eleve’s second point is that a supernatural being who provides moral law does not have to actually be divine, and therefore Kreeft does not prove that God is behind objective moral law. Although technically that is a valid criticism of the video, I do not fault Kreeft for making a short video that lots of people would see as opposed to a series of long video, addressing every possible nuance on the subject, that few people would take the time to listen to. I think it’s enough to get people to open to at least the possibility that a transcendent Lawgiver exists in the first place. After this, one can examine who this Lawgiver is among all the contending beliefs. This video is less than six minutes long; so one step at a time.

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.

Because the beliefs of atheists are so varied, I do not think that an exhaustive list is even possible. But Kreeft introduces a method of critical thinking which is applicable to any beliefs that were not mentioned. Once again, based on the Law of Non-Contradiction, a subjective-only system of morality cannot support appeals to objective morality.

This is also covered by Eleve in post # 140.

See my above comment on the same topic.

 

[Bradski]

I have hit an intellectual roadblock in the Euthyphro Dilemma.

I think the usual response is that God is goodness Himself so that whatever He decries is, ipso facto, good. But He is also variously described as angry, vengeful and jealous and by some of His acts would appear to be so. Notwithstanding the occasional genocide.

But then again, He does says ‘Thou shall not kill’, not ‘We shall not kill’.

 

[Eleve]

Why would there be anything wrong with that? Grades are not moral judgments, but assessments of your ability to answer questions.

It would be a problem if you think that an assessment which “judges the actions of others and allows for no exceptions” must purport to be an objective assessment.

Interesting. You have to be the first atheist (I hope I am not here being too presumptious again?) I’ve come across who has obviously given this some thought and yet still believes in an objective morality. I’d like to know your reasoning behind this view. could you explain it?

In the first place, because the arguments I’ve seen against moral realism just aren’t anything like decisive - not strong enough, at any rate, to defeat the intuitive plausibility which realism seems to have. (Admittedly, most of those arguments have been (a) Hume and other 1700s sentimentalists or (b) freshmen who’ve just run into logical positivism and think that science is going to solve philosophy. I’ve been meaning to get around to reading Mackie, but alas.) Perhaps their worst problem is that all the arguments against morality as a kind of reasoning also go just as well against instrumental or prudential reasoning - thus Hume’s famous claim that it isn’t irrational to prefer the destruction of the world to pricking one’s finger, and his view that, even if my strongest desire is to get into Harvard Law, it wouldn’t be irrational for me to not apply.

Second, there’s the question of how I think that morality is supposed to be possible - what its metaphysics are. On the one hand, part of me just thinks that, even if I can’t figure out how morality works, I still find it more plausible than the alternative. On the other hand, it’s nice to have a thought about what a possible answer to the question would be. I think the most promising route is the one taken by neo-Kantians like Christine Korsgaard. Her basic strategy is to argue that people must try to make decisions by reasoning about what they ought to do (if only for reasons of self-interest), and then argue that this reasoning involves implicit commitments which also commit us to acting morally. I’m also interested in Thomistic philosophy, and I think it has a fighting chance, but of course if I were to adapt that moral metaphysic I would likely no longer be an atheist.

Eleve’s first point was to make a comparison with numbers and math but that does not really make a good case against the idea of moral law being made by a moral lawgiver. Unlike mathematics, moral law is designed to direct person-to-person behavior. That has to be designed by a person.

This simply begs the question. Nobody who denies that there is a moral lawgiver thinks that the moral law is designed.

 

[Agnostic_Batman]

I think much of morality is inherently relative. In some countries polygamy is frowned upon, in others it is not. In some countries, eating a dog is considered a scrumptious breakfast. In some countries, abortion is not considered immorally reprehensible, or, at the very least, the degrees of moral reprehensibility are different from nation to nation–which seems to imply some relativism. In some countries, women are still seen as secondary and subservient to men. In some countries, women are still stoned to death or imprisoned for not being virgins on the day of marriage. I don’t see any objective morality as to that.

I do agree that Western Civilization is moving to a more universal morality, I’m not quite sure I would call it completely objective. Murder is wrong, but sending silent bombs on another country that may kill civilians is not.

As to slavery, I don’t see how slavery fits into objective morality. Slavery was only banned in America after a bloody civil war in 1865. After slavery, there were Jim Crow laws, black codes, and segregation to, in effect, try to maintain slavery a lil bit by making blacks subservient. I agree that slavery is taboo now, but I don’t think that’s a result of God. Indeed, slave masters used the bible to justify slavery. 1st Timothy 6 (the new testament) says. “All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare[a] of their slaves.” Also in Exodus 20:21 it says" “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." This seems to support harsh treatment so long as the slave is able to get up a day or two later. So, the beating could be quite severe.

I know some may say that I’m taking these passages out of context, but I’m not sure what other context to put them in. If I were a slave owner, the Bible does not give me a reason not to have slaves. Indeed, I don’t think the Bible gives reason for women’s suffrage either. The bible purports a rather patriarchal society in which the woman is subservient.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

It would be a problem if you think that an assessment which “judges the actions of others and allows for no exceptions” must purport to be an objective assessment.

Again, grades are not moral positions, so this point is moot in the context of the discussion elsewhere in the thread.

While a grader must remain objective, it is so that the same grading standard, on the same assignment, is held to all students, not that the grade is an absolute grade and that there are no shady regions. But grades, particularly those on written essays, are always subject to the graders feeling on the matter, so it cannot be an objective assessment.

 

[EricFilmer]

It’s true that a moral judgment generally includes the view that other people should agree with and abide by it. But it doesn’t follow that the Humean has to think that other people should agree with her views because they are facts. She could just have a negative opinion of people who disagree with her moral opinions, in the same way that she has a negative opinion of people who perform certain actions or a negative opinion of certain kinds of music.

This is possible in some aspects of morality, but not all. When most people denounce the war crimes of the Nazis, they use terminology such as that the Nazis were evil (even to the point of being demonic) and that the actions of the Nazis are not morally acceptable under any conditions. This goes way beyond simply thinking that such war crimes are personally distasteful. People are holding the Nazis accountable to a moral standard and declaring them to be evil for having violated it. This is an aspect of objective morality.

If I say “I don’t like it when anyone sings Wagner ever,” am I committed to the view that people who like Wagner are failing to notice a fact about his music? If I say that someone has “poor taste”, am I committed to the view that there is an objectively correct taste that she would instead, if she were reasoning properly?

It could go either way. There is a subjective quality to music and an objective one. If I don’t happen to like Wagner simply as a matter of personal taste and preference, then that is a subjective opinion. Subjectivity means that perception is centered upon me as the one doing the perceiving and does not involve a standard independent of me. Let us say that I do not like Wagner but I like Irish folk music. That’s really as far as subjective perception can take it, because there is no rational basis for saying that Wagner’s music is somehow “wrong” for everyone and Irish folk music is somehow “right.” (As a personal side note, I happen to like both Wagner and Irish folk music, so my stated rejection of Wagner is simply for the sake of illustration)

However, there is also an objective quality to music, because music is a type of language and sets a standard. This standard is not a matter of personal, individual taste. If, when performing a piece written by Wagner, a musician hits a note other than the one Wagner wrote, it can be objectively stated that this individual’s performance was wrong. After all, a music critic can accurately and objectively state that he hit a “wrong note”.

In a like matter, some aspects of morality are, indeed, subjective (as I have stated earlier in this thread), but there are also aspects of morality which are objective, and therefore a subjective-only system of morality, by definition, cannot fully explain morality. One must either redefine the system of morality to be at least partial-subjective (as opposed to subjective-only) or demonstrate that objective morality does not truly exist. In terms of the latter, I have yet to see that happen in this thread, which is now in its 30th day and 15th page. At least people have made use of the human imagination to consider systems of morality whose existence are possible but fall short in one way or another of explaining what morality actually is according to the common human experience.

Actually, I do believe in objective morals. I’m making the distinction for the sake of clarity, and because I think that Eric’s argument is unsound because it denies this distinction. But, at the end of the day, I think the Humeans are wrong - just for reasons different from the ones that Eric gives.

Like zro x, I am also interested in your perspective on objective morals, but my argument is not unsound. I have been appealing to the Law of Non-Contradiction. As I have repeatedly stated in this thread, a subjective-only system of morality cannot realistically support appeals to objective morality. Your definition of universal morality is still a subjective one.

This simply begs the question. Nobody who denies that there is a moral lawgiver thinks that the moral law is designed.

No, this does not beg the question, because it is not enough that certain people do not think that moral law is designed. They have to come up with a rational explanation as to how a law which is created for the express purpose of guiding person-to-person human behavior does not originate with a person.

I think that it is also worth mentioning in this thread that I do not believe that there is actual proof of the existence of God, philosophical or otherwise, because I believe that this is how God set things up (to allow for love to stem from faith, belief and trust rather than rational certainty). Kreeft’s video seems to be promising proof of God’s existence, so I do not support this aspect of the video. In terms of defending Kreeft in this thread, my stance is that he did not resort to any fallacious reasoning in the examples he cites, and that even if the promise of his video is far-reaching, it teaches a valid method of critical thinking (which can be used beyond the examples cited in the presentation) and therefore it has merit.

However, in terms of belief we can base things developed on layers of certitude, as opposed to certainty. By this I mean examining what is the most feasible among suggested hypotheses based on what we know and experience. So even if someone, using the vast powers of human imagination, can formulate a scenario where an objective moral law have its origins in a non-person, I will use such things as Ockham’s Razor to examine the feasibility of such a scenario against the theory that proposes the existence of a person as the law-giver.

 

[zro_x]

Well, of course. Immoral acts never increase well being. But that’s the Christian ethos, not the utilitarian one.

The primary utilitarian ethos is to increase well-being. It’s what utilitarianism is. For moral objectivists, on the other hand, increased well-being is not the determining factor for whether an act is good or bad. Increased well-being is more like a beneficial side effect.

Then they are appealing to a different standard for morality than utilitarianism.

That isn’t the case because, as I’ve shown, practical slavery is condemnable from a purely utilitarian standpoint.

Frankly, I am astonished that anyone could argue with the fact that 90% of society enslaving 10% of society would, by utilitarian standards, be moral.

Again, that isn’t what a pure utilitarian would believe. One must remember that utilitarians are not just counting numbers of happy people, but are also considering how happy each person is. So if the increase in unhappiness among the enslaved outweighs the increase in happiness among the free, then slavery is still immoral by utilitarian standards, even if there is a 90/10 split. If there actually were a net increase in happiness because of slavery, then a utilitarian would call it moral, but I think that almost every utilitarian can agree that this never happens in the real word and never has. The rational utilitarian would concede that some bizarre circumstance may arise where slavery actually does increase overall well-being, but, like you and me, would calculate the odds of such a circumstance occuring as extremely low. The moral objectivist says that slavery is immoral, and that immoral actions do not increase well-being. The utilitarian says that slavery is immoral because it does not increase well-being. At least on the issue of slavery, their outlooks entirely overlap.

 

[zro_x]

When most people describe placing themselves in danger, they usually describe three impulses…

You’re right. I was considering only two basic impulses, and supposing that the one that felt weaker was actually the stronger of the two. I had forgotten about the third impulse. I have no more defenses for an evolved conscience, but there is still room left for a personally developed conscience, such as Freud’s superego.

Kreeft is showing that if our physical reality is not responsible for the Moral Law then we need to look for a Lawgiver who transcends or physical reality. I admit that his video is far-reaching in what it promises, but it presents a method in critical thinking that does allow people to continue this philosophical examination on their own and reach the same conclusions he makes. Just because his video is far-reaching does not make it unsound.

Or perhaps it all depends on what is meant by “unsound”. To me, “unsound” means that Kreeft utilized fallacious reasoning, and/or the video has no real merit (which is what my long debate with inocente examined). But if by “unsound” you mean that Kreeft’s video does not, in and of itself, make a clear philosophical case for the Judeo-Christian concept of God then I would have to agree. But I think the video has merit all the same.

Kreeft is trying to prove that God exists, plain and simple. His first sentence in the video states this objective. This is the reasoning he uses to prove it:

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.

You yourself agreed that there are some problems with this reasoning. Kreeft’s reasoning is fallacious and therefore, the argument is unsound. If Kreeft were arguing that a real morality with a source outside of the physical world has a supernatural source, than his argument is at least more plausible, and may be sound. but this is not what Kreeft is trying to prove. He is trying to prove that God exists. It is an incredibly far-reaching proof, but an incredibly far reaching proof must still have valid arguments if it is to be sound. A far reaching argument entails greater demands, and Kreeft fails to meet these demands.

Maybe not all atheists actually appeal to it, but I would say many and probably most do in their daily lives, whether they realize it or not.

This aspect of our conversation has brought my attention to the fact that it is extremely difficult to tell what code of morality other people subscribe to, because there is so much overlap. I will elaborate on this later in this reply.

As a side note, in terms of the distinction between a universal morality and objective morality, the manner by which universal morality has been defined in this thread shows that it is still a subjective-only system of morality. Therefore, it cannot be realistically used to make appeals to objective morality.

Right. But remember, I’m not trying to show that a universal morality shows that there is an objective morality. I’m trying to show that a universal morality is another plausible source of morality instead of an objective morality.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[Trunicate09]

Yes. According to the Bible, God is the author of both good and evil

 

[PRmerger]

The primary utilitarian ethos is to increase well-being. It’s what utilitarianism is. For moral objectivists, on the other hand, increased well-being is not the determining factor for whether an act is good or bad. Increased well-being is more like a beneficial side effect.

Yup. We are agreed here.

That isn’t the case because, as I’ve shown, practical slavery is condemnable from a purely utilitarian standpoint.

*Practical *slavery?

Again, that isn’t what a pure utilitarian would believe. One must remember that utilitarians are not just counting numbers of happy people, but are also considering how happy each person is. So if the increase in unhappiness among the enslaved outweighs the increase in happiness among the free, then slavery is still immoral by utilitarian standards, even if there is a 90/10 split

This is the most inutile of positions, zro. It speaks as if there were some way to quantify “how happy each person is” and how this “increase in unhappiness” could be measured.

It cannot.

Rather, by simple utilitarian ideals slavery ought to be moral.

 

[zro_x]

(Continued…)

I agree that Kreeft may be taking certain things for granted. I think the idea is that we seem to have an intuitive grasp of morality that does not coincide with a subjective-only system of morality. But I admit that from a purely philosophical viewpoint this does not, in and of itself, proves objective morality. But the act of making appeals to objective moral law is such a prevalent aspect of human nature that it’s hard to ignore.

although it is difficult to tell what form of morality any particular person subscribes to by their actions, it does seem as if the default, intuitive stance for a person to take is objective moralism, which is why I think that you’ll see many people who are moral objectivists. Among those who have put some philosophical thought into the nature and source of morality, however, I think you will find a much smaller percentage of objective moralists than the percentage of objective moralists in society at large.

You raise another good question. Why is it that our intuitive position is that of objective morality? The obvious answer, of course, is that there actually is an objective morality, but there are other possible solutions to this problem. One of these possible solutions is that human beings simply have a genetic propensity towards believing in an objective morality. objective moralists may be more evoutionarily fit, because they seem to be more decisive in their actions. I know that when I was a moral objectivist, and right and wrong seemed black and white, I was much quicker to take action and had more confidence in the way I behaved than during my stint as a utilitarian. During my time as a utilitarian, moral issues became much more complex and perplexing. I was hesitant to commit to any action at all for fear of making mistakes. I had to carefully weigh every possibility in each situation before making any moral judgement. But early man could not afford to ponder ethical dilemmas. He could not question the ethics of war, because it might make him hesitate in the heat of battle. If we were evolved to have an ingrained propensity to believe in an objective morality, we might expect to see differences in what people say is objectively moral and objectively immoral. For example, some might claim that abortion is not objectively immoral, while others may claim that a particular economic system or any type of luxury is objectively immoral. indeed, this is exactly what we see. Of course, an objective morality is still possible even with these conflicting notions on what that morality actually consists of, but a subjective form of morality is certainly no less possible than an objective one.

Eleve’s first point was to make a comparison with numbers and math but that does not really make a good case against the idea of moral law being made by a moral lawgiver. Unlike mathematics, moral law is designed to direct person-to-person behavior. That has to be designed by a person.

This is actually a very good point, but I don’t completely buy it. From the naturalistic perspective, persons arise from inanimate matter. Couldn’t an objective law concerning persons also arise from inanimate matter?

Eleve’s second point is that a supernatural being who provides moral law does not have to actually be divine, and therefore Kreeft does not prove that God is behind objective moral law. Although technically that is a valid criticism of the video, I do not fault Kreeft for making a short video that lots of people would see as opposed to a series of long video, addressing every possible nuance on the subject, that few people would take the time to listen to. I think it’s enough to get people to open to at least the possibility that a transcendent Lawgiver exists in the first place. After this, one can examine who this Lawgiver is among all the contending beliefs. This video is less than six minutes long; so one step at a time.

I think therefore that there is merit in Kreeft designing a short video to address the many people who make appeals to objective morality (whether they realize it or not, or whether they want to admit it or not).

As to the merit of the video, I agree that a few atheists who view this might call into question their own view of morality and consider the implications of an objective morality. However, I think it may do more harm than good. When atheists hear several “proofs” for God’s existence that fall short of being conclusive, they often begin to make inferences about all proofs for God’s existence. I think that if we have any hope of getting through to atheists, than we have to purge ourselves of the arguments that just don’t work. They just make us look desperate to rationalize our religion. In the case of this video and many other arguments, it would probably just be easiest and best to relabel them as food for thought, rather than a conclusive proof for the existence of God.

 

[PRmerger]

In the case of this video and many other arguments, it would probably just be easiest and best to relabel them as food for thought, rather than a conclusive proof for the existence of God.

Heh.

I think most Believers are smart enough to never say *any *religious argument as “conclusive proof for the existence of God.” However, Believers can provide rational, cogent, reasoned arguments for God existence. Proofs, even. But not “conclusive” proofs.

In fact, Kreeft says this: “We have no desire to make exaggerated claims for these demonstrations, or to confuse “good reason” “with scientific proof.” But we believe that there are many who want and need the kind of help these proofs offer more than they might at first be willing to admit.”

 

[jimmy]

“Evil” does not exist, it is a lack of good just as dark is a lack of light and cold is a lack of heat, as science has shown us. Good exists, and it exists because God exists.

This is actually a good analogy, but perhaps not in the way that Pauline meant.

Cold and hot are relative terms as are dark and light (as opposed to temperature and brightness which have fixed, albeit arbitrary, values). Something can be described as hot only in relation to something else. And there is no fixed dividing line between a ‘hot’ object and a ‘cold’ one. There’s effectively an infinite gradient in temperature between the two.

I think that is a good point for reasons you might not have meant. All the modifiers people apply to God are simply human words. People call God good, just, and etc. Those words have meaning only from the perspective of the speaker. They are terms applied from outside, and they don’t really speak of the object they are applied to but more of the speaker. The concepts of justice and goodness are human concepts that relate humanity to the divine.

 

[Bradski]

People call God good, just, and etc. Those words have meaning only from the perspective of the speaker.

So you would describe them as relative terms, not absolute terms.

 

[jimmy]

So you would describe them as relative terms, not absolute terms.

Yes, I would. They are relative to humanity. Without someone to declare God to be just or good, it is meaningless to call God just.

That said, I do think that in an absolute sense some things are good, and some are evil, but I tend to think it isn’t necessarily according to the lines of some moralists. They establish that God is good in their own image, and everyone else is evil because they don’t fit the image they have created.

 

[Bradski]

Yes, I would. They are relative to humanity. Without someone to declare God to be just or good, it is meaningless to call God just.

That said, I do think that in an absolute sense some things are good, and some are evil.

But isn’t there a contradiction here?

If justice and goodness are meaningless without us being here to give them meaning, then they don’t exist in an absolute sense. If no-one exists to be evil then evil does not exist. If there is no-one to be afraid, then fear does not exist. Love cannot exist unless there is someone to love and someone to be loved. So these are human constructs.

But then you suggest that you can have good and evil in an absolute sense. So they must exist independently and cannot be human constructs.

Personally, I go with the former.

 

[jimmy]

But isn’t there a contradiction here?

If justice and goodness are meaningless without us being here to give them meaning, then they don’t exist in an absolute sense. If no-one exists to be evil then evil does not exist. If there is no-one to be afraid, then fear does not exist. Love cannot exist unless there is someone to love and someone to be loved. So these are human constructs.

But then you suggest that you can have good and evil in an absolute sense. So they must exist independently and cannot be human constructs.

Personally, I go with the former.

Let me step back a second. When I said I believe in good in an absolute sense I misspoke. It isn’t absolute, but it is universal to all of humanity, and it is in relation to the good of humanity. Maybe we can say that reflects divine nature, but it is the good of humanity that we are speaking of.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Let me step back a second. When I said I believe in good in an absolute sense I misspoke. It isn’t absolute, but it is universal to all of humanity, and it is in relation to the good of humanity. Maybe we can say that reflects divine nature, but it is the good of humanity that we are speaking of.

He who hesitates is lost. Again I point out Kreeft is saying there is Good and Evil ( He is thinking of a moral standard). And because it exists there ultimately has to be an Eternal Law Giver, and this we can identify as the God of Christianity.

Obviously he can’t do much more than state the fact in a few minutes. But it is a universal fact ( in all but the insane) that we are obliged to do the moral good and avoid moral evil. That is the Primary principle all recognize, as Thomas Aquinas points out. But certain Secondary Principles are also recoginzed as morally binding ( to follow them is good, to ignore them or act against them is evil. The Ten Commandments are such principles.

However not all of these and their derivitives are universally recognized. But some of them are, at least in a general way. And this is good enough to prove the validity of Kreeft’s assertion. Everyone would recognize that is good for a Mother to care most diligently for her children. This is a moral good recognized by all and it is one example Thomas gives. It is scant but sufficient to establish that there is a Natural Moral Law. Therefore God Exists. There is a moral good, by tending more and more toward it we approach the Ultimate Good Itself - God.

Of course to fill in the blanks requires the use of Right Reason. This is the methodolgy. We all have the same human nature and it requires the use of our common intellect and reason and will to arrive at and observe the details of the Moral Law that is an established fact.

Of course non-believers will object, one expects nothing more. Still we must not hesitate or surrender what we know to be true.

 

[EricFilmer]

I’m sorry for the delay in responding to your most recent posts, zro x. I’m not able to spend as much time with this thread as I did last month.

Kreeft is trying to prove that God exists, plain and simple. His first sentence in the video states this objective.

Well, not quite. Kreeft says, “I’m going to argue for the existence of God from the premise that moral good and evil really exist.” This is not the same thing as saying that he is proving God’s existence, but rather making a case for it. I really don’t see him making the sort of emphatic claims that you are attributing to him.

When Kreeft uses the term “proves” it’s at the end of the video. Here is how he concludes his presentation: “The very existence of morality proves the existence of something beyond nature and beyond man. Just as a design suggests a designer, moral commands suggest a moral commander. Moral laws must come from a moral law-giver. Well, that sounds pretty much like what we know as God. So the consequence of this argument is that whenever you appeal to morality, you are appealing to God whether you know it or not. You’re talking about something religious even if you think you’re an atheist.”

So Kreeft is saying that his argument proves “something beyond nature and beyond man” and that this “suggests” a law-giver who “sounds like” God. Hence, this is not really a claim that his material has “proven God’s existence.”

You yourself agreed that there are some problems with this reasoning.

Just to be clear, I said that he may be taking certain things for granted, but this does not indicate that his reasoning was unsound.

Kreeft’s reasoning is fallacious and therefore, the argument is unsound. If Kreeft were arguing that a real morality with a source outside of the physical world has a supernatural source, than his argument is at least more plausible, and may be sound. but this is not what Kreeft is trying to prove. He is trying to prove that God exists. It is an incredibly far-reaching proof, but an incredibly far reaching proof must still have valid arguments if it is to be sound. A far reaching argument entails greater demands, and Kreeft fails to meet these demands.

Once again, he does not say that this is such a proof. Before I stated that this was designed to be a “food for thought” video. Having reviewed it once again from start to finish, I believe that this is an accurate assessment of what Kreeft intended and what he accomplished. Once again I point to the exact wording he used in the video’s conclusion.

Right. But remember, I’m not trying to show that a universal morality shows that there is an objective morality. I’m trying to show that a universal morality is another plausible source of morality instead of an objective morality.

All the types of subjective-only morality that the video examines are plausible, but universal morality has the same limitations as the rest. Some elements of morality are subjective, and therefore universal morality can address them. But there are clear cases in the human experience where people make claims beyond what can be explained by universal morality, and I think I have sufficiently addressed that in this thread (for example, consider my various comments in Post #224).

 

[EricFilmer]

although it is difficult to tell what form of morality any particular person subscribes to by their actions, it does seem as if the default, intuitive stance for a person to take is objective moralism, which is why I think that you’ll see many people who are moral objectivists. Among those who have put some philosophical thought into the nature and source of morality, however, I think you will find a much smaller percentage of objective moralists than the percentage of objective moralists in society at large.

I think that there would be a smaller percentage of people who claim not to be objective moralists, but as I have repeatedly stated in this thread, there is often a difference between what some people claim and how they act. Also, many people make certain claims without sincerely putting them to the test. When I encounter people who profess to believe in a subjective-only type of morality, and I try to get them to examine the ramifications of their beliefs in concrete examples (rather than examining the merits of their beliefs solely in theoretical terms), what happens is what specifically happened in this thread with the other people I debated with. Some dodge my questions while others formulate answers that are so far beyond authentic human experience that we might as well be talking about Martians.

You raise another good question. Why is it that our intuitive position is that of objective morality? The obvious answer, of course, is that there actually is an objective morality, but there are other possible solutions to this problem. One of these possible solutions is that human beings simply have a genetic propensity towards believing in an objective morality.

First of all, let me cut & paste a statement here that I made to Eleve in Post #224:
“I think that it is also worth mentioning in this thread that I do not believe that there is actual proof of the existence of God, philosophical or otherwise, because I believe that this is how God set things up (to allow for love to stem from faith, belief and trust rather than rational certainty). …However, in terms of belief we can base things developed on layers of certitude, as opposed to certainty. By this I mean examining what is the most feasible among suggested hypotheses based on what we know and experience. So even if someone, using the vast powers of human imagination, can formulate a scenario where an objective moral law has its origins in a non-person, I will use such things as Ockham’s Razor to examine the feasibility of such a scenario against the theory that proposes the existence of a person as the law-giver.”

A genetic propensity towards believing in an objective morality would be something that arose from human reason. Therefore, if this theory is correct then human reason would be compelling humans to believe in something that did not actually exist, which seems to me to be a compulsion which is contrary to reason. So why does the human reason create a system compelling so many people to act in an unreasonable manner? Such a theory lacks feasibility.

Also, a system of morality which rises from human nature (such as an evolving genetic influence on morality) would share the same kind of diversity found in all other aspects of human nature. We have different eye color, skin color, behavioral preferences, language skills, etc. So one would not expect objective morality to arise, but a series of different concepts of morality (different from culture to culture, race to race, etc.).

objective moralists may be more evoutionarily fit, because they seem to be more decisive in their actions…

This still does not explain how people across the planet seemed to come up with the same system of morality (excepting a degree of slight variation). This theory proposes the benefit of being decisive, but how do so many people have the same beliefs on exactly what sort of things to be decisive about?

For example, some might claim that abortion is not objectively immoral, while others may claim that a particular economic system or any type of luxury is objectively immoral. indeed, this is exactly what we see. Of course, an objective morality is still possible even with these conflicting notions on what that morality actually consists of, but a subjective form of morality is certainly no less possible than an objective one.

Some aspects of morality are, indeed, subjective and there is some distinction between different cultural norms. Public nudity is a good example. But these distinctions are slight. Consider the issue of abortion which you brought up. It actually has elements of objective morality, because everyone believes that, in and of itself, it is not good to kill human babies. The debate over the morality of abortion stems from people debating over what is being aborted. Pro-Abortion advocates agree that one must not kill human babies, but they state that what is being aborted is not actually a baby. Pro-Life advocates say that what is in the womb is, indeed, a baby. Other people who intentionally kill human babies try to find ways to justify the action (such as a racist claim that the babies being killed were somehow sub-human) or have to qualify the statement in other ways. But nobody claims that killing a human baby, in and of itself, is a good thing.

(Continued in my next post)