Peter Kreeft: "If good and evil exist, then God exists"...

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,483
55,182
Woods
✟4,582,836.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Dr. Peter Kreeft of the philosophy department of Boston College, speaks on the issue of “If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists” in new video for Prager University, an outgrowth of talk show host Dennis Prager’s effort to make some of the finest, most original thinkers accessible to everyone.
It’s five minutes long and absolutely worth watching:

Peter Kreeft: "If good and evil exist, then God exists"...
 

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟15,379.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
He didn't address moral nihilism. His argument assumes objective morality. The nihilist doesn't believe in morality; they believe humans personally makeup their own and whatever the popular one is the "objective" one.

It's a great argument if the person isn't willing to give up objective morality, but you'd be surprised how quickly people, especially philosophers, will drop it in favor of their preferences. Also, I'd like to see a utilitarian response to the slavery position.

It's also interesting to see a new approach for the proof of God's existence, even if it doesn't hold much philosophical water.
 
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,483
55,182
Woods
✟4,582,836.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,483
55,182
Woods
✟4,582,836.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
He didn't address moral nihilism. His argument assumes objective morality. The nihilist doesn't believe in morality; they believe humans personally makeup their own and whatever the popular one is the "objective" one.

It's a great argument if the person isn't willing to give up objective morality, but you'd be surprised how quickly people, especially philosophers, will drop it in favor of their preferences. Also, I'd like to see a utilitarian response to the slavery position.

It's also interesting to see a new approach for the proof of God's existence, even if it doesn't hold much philosophical water.


I find people will argue that there is no objective morality, but in general they don't walk the walk so to speak.

That is probably less true of philosophers, but in general most people have things they consider to be basically morally reprehensible. They thing moral relativism sounds nice but they haven't really thought out the implications.
 
Upvote 0

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟15,379.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What constitutes "walking the walk" when it comes to not believing in objective morality?:confused:

Subjective morality means you can never criticize any group or person for what they do and view as right. According to subjective morality, everyone is on equal moral and ethical footing; there is no way to ever delcare something wrong as you have no authority to or any claim to back it up other than personal preference.
 
Upvote 0

Genersis

Person of Disinterest
Sep 26, 2011
6,073
751
32
London
✟38,690.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
Subjective morality means you can never criticize any group or person for what they do and view as right. According to subjective morality, everyone is on equal moral and ethical footing; there is no way to ever delcare something wrong as you have no authority to or any claim to back it up other than personal preference.

Lacking a belief in objective morality really doesn't mean much beyond believing there is no source of inerrant morals.

It doesn't mean you can't criticise others for what you personally think/feel is immoral, nor try and convince them why you think that way.

I think a bit of nihilism is being mixed in here...
 
Upvote 0

Chany

Uncertain Absurdist
Nov 29, 2011
6,428
228
In bed
✟15,379.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Lacking a belief in objective morality really doesn't mean much beyond believing there is no source of inerrant morals.

It doesn't mean you can't criticise others for what you personally think/feel is immoral, nor try and convince them why you think that way.

I think a bit of nihilism is being mixed in here...

On what grounds can a person criticize another's morals besides through personal feelings?
 
Upvote 0

Genersis

Person of Disinterest
Sep 26, 2011
6,073
751
32
London
✟38,690.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
On what grounds can a person criticize another's morals besides through personal feelings?

Morals aren't just based on feelings.
They can be based on things like capacity of an action to harm, fairness, equality, and empathy generally.
I understand most of those things are subjective to a degree.
You can criticise someone's morals for not considering such factors.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ccalhoun

Newbie
Feb 6, 2013
2
0
✟7,612.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
He didn't address moral nihilism. His argument assumes objective morality. The nihilist doesn't believe in morality; they believe humans personally makeup their own and whatever the popular one is the "objective" one.

It's a great argument if the person isn't willing to give up objective morality, but you'd be surprised how quickly people, especially philosophers, will drop it in favor of their preferences. Also, I'd like to see a utilitarian response to the slavery position.

It's also interesting to see a new approach for the proof of God's existence, even if it doesn't hold much philosophical water.

If you're truly a nihilist, then you're not going to argue about it. Why would you? Because belief in morality is wrong and nihilism is right? REALLY wrong and REALLY right? If so, then there is a REAL wrong and a REAL right (objective), lol...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ccalhoun

Newbie
Feb 6, 2013
2
0
✟7,612.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Morals aren't just based on feelings.
They can be based on things like capacity of an action to harm, fairness, equality, and empathy generally.
I understand most of those things are subjective to a degree.
You can criticise someone's morals for not considering such factors.

"Fairness?" "Equality?". People often wonder how they can be truly free if they are not free to create their own values. Say to the person who demands the right to be free to create his own values that you too demand that right ("Fairness" "Equality"). And that the value system that you choose to create is one in which his opinions have no value at all. Or, a system in which you are God, and rightly demand total obedience from everyone else. --He will quickly protest in the name of truth and justice, thus showing that he really does believe in these two objective values after all.

If he does not do this, if he protests merely in the name of his alternative value system (which he has created), then his protest against your selfishness and megalomania is no better than your protest against his justice and truth. And then the argument can only come down to brute force. --And that is hardly a situation that guarantees freedom, isn't it?
 
Upvote 0