If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: Prager University

Is there such a thing as objective morality? If there is, does that suggest a moral law giver? Peter Kreeft, distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, takes on these critical questions and offers some challenging answers.

• Category

  Education

[EPICsliceOFcake]

He makes some decent points, but the video boils down to nothing because he makes the assumption that morality is objective, which common sense would tell you is false.

[rutger5000]

First Conclussion: "Moral objectivity is supernatrual and therefore proof of the supernatrual." Agreed!

But why does proof of the supernatrual equals proof of God?

Second statement: "Moral command suggest a moral commander" Agreed, but it does not demands one. It could also be fundamental and just be.

Third statement: "Moral laws must come from a moral law giver." Why? (see second statement). Also causality is a flaud argument for the existance of a God, for it also requires a God creator.

[rutger5000]

Fifth counter argument: "According to utilitarianism slavery could be acceptable". A reasonable statement. Not one I personally agree with, for I personally believe you always know deep down what's right and what's wrong and doing what's wrong makes you feel unhappy. So utilitarianism would lead to moral behaviour, if you accept that believe. However I can't expect everyone to agree with me on that.

[rutger5000]

Third counter argument: "You can't say your conscience is wrong while Himmlers was wrong" Agreed. However that doesn't mean that you can't lie to yourself and others. People that do wrong while claiming to do right are simply lying often also to themselves. There's nothing wrong with their conscience, they're just not listening to it.

4th. "In fact human nature is the reason we need morality". That's one f*cked up way to look at humanity, and not necessary at all. See "The great dictator speech"

[rutger5000]

First assumption Moral objectivity exist. Agreed!

First counter argument: "Moral objectivity can't change and therefore can't be the product of evolution". Agreed!

Second counter argument: "Reason can't be the source of morality" Not really an argument, but I'll agree with it nonetheless. However to which behaviour leads to is determined by your starting assumptions. If you start with the moral truth that you should treat people equally, then risking your own live for that of others is reason.

[Walt Duncan]

I like this video, and I would agree with it if I accepted the premises, but I don't. I see no reason that morality is not subjective. Theists don't seem to care that they cannot account for how objective morality exists or how a god could have it. It seems to me that if it is dependent on the fiat of any mind, even God's, then it is just another subjective morality. And if it exists independent of God, then the theist's theory has no value, because it does not explain from where morality comes.

[FiverBeyond]

This entire video is an exercise in logical fallacies.

"Where do good and evil come from?" commits the reification fallacy: morality is not like physical objects that "come from" somewhere.

The idea that if all presented options for morality is unlikely, then God must be the only answer left over, commits the false dichotomy.

But most importantly, the arguments against a reasonable or subjective morality are simply weak. Just because bad people reason doesn't mean morality is sans reason.