Video: If good and evil exist …

posted at 4:41 pm on December 11, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I’m a big fan of Prager University, the new effort by my colleague and friend Dennis Prager that does what Dennis does every day on his indispensable radio program, which is to discuss values, morals, and politics — and how they cannot be disengaged from each other.  But what is morality, anyway — and what is its source?  Prager U has a new video featuring Boston College’s Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy, explaining that morality cannot possibly come from nature, human or otherwise, or from evolution or politics.  Morality has an objective quality, which points to a higher source than nature or man:

There is a lot to unpack in this video for just five minutes, but it’s well worth the view.  Kreeft uses the two most notable evils of the last two centuries to make compelling points about how morality has to be objective, above nature, and above mankind, or it doesn’t exist at all in any rational form.  Agree or disagree, the argument is compelling.

Perhaps we can get Professor Kreeft to join us on The Ed Morrissey Show to discuss this further.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

G.K. Chesterton had something to say about this:

And so did I, writing about jurisprudence.

rdbrewer on December 11, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Symmetry. Now go away.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 7:17 PM

It’s all geometry man!

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 7:20 PM

It’s all geometry man!

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 7:20 PM

It’s physics. Now get up on that scaffold and paint the new leader or lose your desert privilege.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 7:23 PM

blink on December 11, 2012 at 7:21 PM

You funny.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 7:24 PM

It’s physics. Now get up on that scaffold and paint the new leader or lose your desert privilege.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 7:23 PM

It’s ridiculous. He really needs to watch that video and actually listen to what is being said.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 7:26 PM

blink on December 11, 2012 at 7:24 PM

It’s uniquely superior because it is real. Unlike the religious flavors rational thought exists.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 7:31 PM

…or lose your desert privilege.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Which desert?

The Gobi is pretty cold this time of year, so not there. Same with Utah.
Texas is warm, though.

Just don’t be messin’ with people’s dessert, though. OK?

Solaratov on December 11, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Ever hear of the golden rule? That’s a religious expression of the same principle that is discoverable without supernatural help.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 7:36 PM

blink on December 11, 2012 at 7:39 PM

IT IS A SELF-INTERESTED BASIS!

End of discussion. I am bored with you and of repeating myself.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 7:41 PM

It’s ridiculous. He really needs to watch that video and actually listen to what is being said.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 7:26 PM

There are holes in a person’s understanding of the reality around them; there have to be. The reality around them is pretty big. It’s just that some people, religious people (with or without God), have to have everything well and truly sorted out. They seem to be afraid that there’s some unknown out there that’s a cosmic gotcha, and they can’t handle it (a guess).

Sour, un-Christian Christians clutching a Bible with fingers that have gone white with the clutch and lips that have gone white with the press-together, and anti-theists refusing to accept that reason makes a place for God and are willing to twist it until it doesn’t — all while howling about the preeminence and immutability of reason.

But I’m just stating the obvious — and you know all this anyway, ’cause there’s your dried footprints from last time. And here’s “Axe” carved into this tree bark . . . there’s the watch . . . wondered where I lost that . . .

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Just don’t be messin’ with people’s dessert, though. OK?

Solaratov on December 11, 2012 at 7:34 PM

doh! :)

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Ever hear of the golden rule?

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 7:36 PM

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

So Genghis Khan would be a moral man who would treat others with the exact same brutality and merciless conduct that he would expect in return if he ever faltered. The strong survive and the weak are crushed ensuring that the best of men rule and weaklings are culled from society.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 7:47 PM

There are holes in a person’s understanding of the reality around them; there have to be. The reality around them is pretty big. It’s just that some people, religious people (with or without God), have to have everything well and truly sorted out. They seem to be afraid that there’s some unknown out there that’s a cosmic gotcha, and they can’t handle it (a guess).

It’s their absolute belief that they have the answers that evaded the ancients and those poor befuddled Church folks that annoys me. A little humility would be in order.

all while howling about the preeminence and immutability of reason.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Reason is a tool, and like any tool has its uses and limitations.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 7:52 PM

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 7:52 PM

So do tell us, what is your basis for morality (assuming you have one)?

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 7:58 PM

blink on December 11, 2012 at 7:50 PM

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

Yeah, no symmetry there. Only idiots who like to tell themselves they’re smart deny that morality is a strategy to advance one’s self interest.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:04 PM

So do tell us, what is your basis for morality (assuming you have one)?

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I don’t really have one. I don’t believe in God and therefore must face the fact that there really is no logical basis to believe in morality. I can also see what has taken place in societies where the belief in God has vanished and its murderous in far too many cases. So not wanting to be murdered, I will tag along with the Christians and put up with being interrupted at dinner time, and try to keep smiling as they ask me if I have been saved.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:04 PM

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:04 PM

So how do you govern yourself? IOW, would you steal if you thought you could get away with it? If not, why not?

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:08 PM

I see MJBrutus is here Team Building for the GOP again. Everyone feel more welocome now?

hawkdriver on December 11, 2012 at 8:13 PM

So how do you govern yourself? IOW, would you steal if you thought you could get away with it? If not, why not?

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:08 PM

I was raised in a Christian society and therefore I use their morality. It’s hypocrisy, but I have always thought hypocrisy has a bad reputation in modern society. I look at Islam, atheism, Buddhism and other moral systems and can see very clearly that Christianity acts as a superior basis for a very successful society. It’s utilitarian value is obvious.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:14 PM

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

Yeah, no symmetry there. Only idiots who like to tell themselves they’re smart deny that morality is a strategy to advance one’s self interest.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:04 PM

I just can’t let this go.

“Do unto others as you would have them others do unto you.”

That would be the symmetry you’re talking about. But that’s not the Golden Rule.

TouchingTophet on December 11, 2012 at 8:16 PM

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Slightly off topic, but atheism is not a moral system. It is a rejection of certain beliefs. It is up to the atheist to determine his own “moral system,” if he is to have one.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:17 PM

TouchingTophet on December 11, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Nope. I cannot control what others to unto me. I can only control what I do to others and act accordingly.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Slightly off topic, but atheism is not a moral system. It is a rejection of certain beliefs.

It amounts to the same thing when the rubber meets the road. Destroying the foundations of societies moral system has an extremely destructive effect and we have the masses of mounded corpses to prove that.

It is up to the atheist to determine his own “moral system,” if he is to have one.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:17 PM

And that is the problem. There is no basis for a society except that which is imposed from above by a strong man who can unify the competing moral claims of individuals and communities. Thus unified they are capable of anything because they have no external moral code to restrain them.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM

There is no basis for a society except that which is imposed from above by a strong man who can unify the competing moral claims of individuals and communities.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Symmetry, dude. Symmetry.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Symmetry, dude. Symmetry.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:25 PM

That’s your opinion.

Mine is that Germany must be cleansed of the Jewish taint and I even wrote a cool book about it, called Mein Kampf. The Jews betrayed Germany and are harming its people through their evil banking practices and we must act to stop them. It’s the only moral thing to do and its good for society.

What’s wrong with this?

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:34 PM

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:34 PM

A lack of symmetry is what’s wrong, of course.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

A lack of symmetry is what’s wrong, of course.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Why should moral symmetry be universal?

Why shouldn’t the weak be destroyed?

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Nope. I cannot control what others to unto me. I can only control what I do to others and act accordingly.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:19 PM

That’s exactly the point. Your ill-/undefined “symmetry” has nothing to do with the Golden Rule, and repeating the word “symmetry” over and over does not explain how your version of morality is better than someone else’s.

Another commentator brought up Genghis Khan. If I rape and pillage my whole life, the entire time expecting the stronger man to do exactly the same to me if he can, is that moral?

TouchingTophet on December 11, 2012 at 8:40 PM

TouchingTophet on December 11, 2012 at 8:40 PM

You would not want to be raped or pillaged, I presume. You cannot control what others do but you can refrain from raping and pillaging others. It is not a matter of expecting what others will do, it is a matter of conducting oneself in the manner that you would like others to as well.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I see MJBrutus is here Team Building for the GOP again. Everyone feel more welocome now?

hawkdriver on December 11, 2012 at 8:13 PM

As long as we settle all these things once and for all here in the comment section of HA — I’m good. :)

I’ll put on the coffee — you go wake up the Friars.

And we’ll need scribes . . .

I don’t really have one. I don’t believe in God and therefore must face the fact that there really is no logical basis to believe in morality. I can also see what has taken place in societies where the belief in God has vanished and its murderous in far too many cases. So not wanting to be murdered, I will tag along with the Christians and put up with being interrupted at dinner time, and try to keep smiling as they ask me if I have been saved.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:04 PM

It might not be hypocritical at all. The inability to resolve the relationship between two things that appear mutually exclusive (except that they obviously are not) — and acting accordingly — isn’t hypocrisy. Try this:

I don’t believe in God

– There is no reason to believe in morality.

I can see what has taken place in societies where the belief in God has vanished and its murderous in far too many cases.

– There is reason to believe in morality.

So not wanting to be murdered, I will tag along with the Christians and put up with being interrupted at dinner time, and try to keep smiling as they ask me if I have been saved.

– My best course of action until I figure this out.

It looks like that’s what you are doing, from a distance.

There’s really nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about it. The two things in the scale seem inconsistent, but that’s normal, sort of the frequent Schrödinger’s cat thing that’s real life. You’ll either ditch one one day (Guess which one, Sharrukin! :) or you’ll find the missing widget that makes them make sense — but I don’t think you are a hypocrite, Sharrukin.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:39 PM

As I explained, and you ignored previously, we all sacrifice a measure of our freedom to be governed. We all make the same sacrifice in a voluntary form of democracy and are thus all entitled to the same protections and benefits. Take government out of it and the same principles apply. When we choose to live in societies of other men we are obliged to cooperate.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:45 PM

When we choose to live in societies of other men we are obliged to cooperate *and we reap the benefits of cooperation*.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:45 PM

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:47 PM

As I explained, and you ignored previously, we all sacrifice a measure of our freedom to be governed.

Yes we do.

We all make the same sacrifice in a voluntary form of democracy and are thus all entitled to the same protections and benefits.

No.

Some make greater sacrifices and slaves, servants, peasants, and outsiders are not entitled to anything that the better men do not choose to grant them.

Take government out of it and the same principles apply. When we choose to live in societies of other men we are obliged to cooperate.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Yes, so you will be helping run the gas chambers because the first shipment of Jews is arriving tomorrow. Remember to be helpful and cooperative with your fellow guards.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:51 PM

You would not want to be raped or pillaged, I presume.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM

You’re dodging the question, so let’s try again.

I contemn the weak. If I find people I consider weak, I destroy them. I expect everyone to treat me in exactly this way; should they consider me weak, I prefer that they try to destroy me.

I am treating others in the way I want to be treated. Is this moral?

TouchingTophet on December 11, 2012 at 8:52 PM

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Fail. Those victims of the gas chambers were entitled to the same benefits (including safety and lawful treatment) as any other member of the society. Symmetry.

You’ve taught me a new form of boredom. Who would have thought that an obnoxious NAZI analogy could be so tedious.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I contemn the weak. If I find people I consider weak, I destroy them. I expect everyone to treat me in exactly this way; should they consider me weak, I prefer that they try to destroy me.

I am treating others in the way I want to be treated. Is this moral?

TouchingTophet on December 11, 2012 at 8:52 PM

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. :)

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 8:56 PM

TouchingTophet on December 11, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Asked and answered. Dismissed.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:56 PM

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. :)

The golden rule of symmetry…?

Asked and answered. Dismissed.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:56 PM

blink was smart to leave when he did; there really was nothing left to be said. Your reasoning is in a shambles.

TouchingTophet on December 11, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Asked and answered. Dismissed.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I can’t find your answer to this.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM

– My best course of action until I figure this out.

I think I have figured it out, it’s just that the implications scare the bejesus out of me. I am repulsed by that dark chasm that looms before me so I cheerfully choose hypocrisy.

but I don’t think you are a hypocrite, Sharrukin.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Hypocrisy isn’t that bad.

All men are created equal. Well they aren’t equal and as I don’t believe in God, they obviously aren’t created. A handsome A student athlete is in no way the equal of a low IQ fat, stupid and ugly nerd. It sounds cruel, but its a fact. In the absence of the spiritual element, there is no equality. There goes the foundation for voting, for civil rights and a whole host of other things. So lets just pretend instead. Lets believe the nice lie because its comforting and the night is dark out there.

I am sentimental about these things. I know that there are others who are not and they will easily see the darker implications of these things. Lacking my sentimentality they will do what I never would. I was raised in a Christian society and that is never going away. Someone raised in the absence of that same Christian moral code will lack those stop lines that are part of who I am.

Those are the ones that scare me.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM

When we choose to live in societies of other men we are obliged to cooperate.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Tell that to the union thugs in Michigan.

Mimzey on December 11, 2012 at 9:06 PM

The golden rule of symmetry…?

TouchingTophet on December 11, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Maybe. I’m just learning about Symmetry now. :) But you just reminded me of another internally consistent, utilitarian moral code I heard once.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Asked and answered. Dismissed.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:56 PM

I can’t find your answer to this.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM

He already said Symmetry, man. What more could you possibly ask?

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM

You would not want to be raped or pillaged, I presume. You cannot control what others do but you can refrain from raping and pillaging others. It is not a matter of expecting what others will do, it is a matter of conducting oneself in the manner that you would like others to as well.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 8:42 PM

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 9:10 PM

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Sounds like moral relativism. Does moral relativism play any part in your world view?

Mimzey on December 11, 2012 at 9:17 PM

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Ah, thanks. :)

But — he/she was trying to neutralize the lack of symmetry by saying that he/she didn’t mind being raped, pillaged, that kind of thing. The idea was, I think, that if you truly believed something like, only the strong should survive, and you truly took it as seriously as you gave it — would your commensurate actions be moral?

I am trying to understand your point of view. Some of your answers seem to suggest you believe in a morality that’s more persistent than the utility of a particular society. But that is partial agreement with Kreeft.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Some of your answers seem to suggest you believe in a morality that’s more persistent than the utility of a particular society. But that is partial agreement with Kreeft.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 9:17 PM

I agree with Jefferson’s sentiment too when he declared that all men are created equal, but I do not agree that a “creator” was involved. Only that we are in fact equal before the law and in our obligations to each other and the benefits we derive from our mutual cooperation.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 9:23 PM

I agree with Jefferson’s sentiment too when he declared that all men are created equal, but I do not agree that a “creator” was involved.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Jefferson said that?
Don’t know…just asking.

Mimzey on December 11, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I agree with Jefferson’s sentiment too when he declared that all men are created equal, but I do not agree that a “creator” was involved.

Then in what possible way are they equal that laws, obligations and benefits should be equally apportioned?

They are not physically equal, nor financially equal, not mentally equal, so what do you mean when you say they are equal?

If they are not equal before God, then in what sense are they equal?

Only that we are in fact equal before the law and in our obligations to each other and the benefits we derive from our mutual cooperation.

MJBrutus on December 11, 2012 at 9:23 PM

You claim a fantasy of equality, and then claim that fantasy as the basis for this equal treatment. It’s based on nothing.

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 9:29 PM

sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Your universe freaks me out. :)

So strange. A loving God, as a beautiful lie. And preferable!

No one is going to accuse you of phoning life in, anyway. :)

Man, what a workout. I’ll pray for you. Again. And I’m going to go make a peanut butter sandwich and try to replace some of the ATPs I’ve burned, and then try to find a thread about cute puppies in hats.

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 9:36 PM

A much better case for, and presentation of, this subject is from Dr. William Lane Craig.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-smith-debate-2003

elihu on December 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM

awesome. But I’m pretty sure Dennis Prager says “Eh ? What’s the big deal” for same sex marriage / homosexual relationships.

williampeck1958 on December 11, 2012 at 10:15 PM

elihu on December 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM

OK, this is the very first state of the universe, time t0 and the horizontal lines are lines of the simultaneous events. So these numbers stand for events. And these dots mean this goes indefinitely or infinitely long off to the left in space. And these dots mean this line of events goes off indefinitely or infinitely off to the right in space. So at the very first time the universe began, there is this simultaneous line of events where there was simultaneous causation. So event -2 instantaneously caused event -1. And that also simultaneously caused event 0. And 0 simultaneously caused event 1. And that simultaneously caused 2 and so on, for an indefinite or infinite number of events going off in that direction.

So at the very first state of the universe, there are an infinite number of events, but every single event is fully caused and it’s fully caused by another event and each of these causes are part of the universe. So we can see already why we don’t need a God to create the first state of the universe. And to say that it creates itself just means that this causes that, that causes that and that causes that and so on. Now these events also cause this arrow here, these arrows mean simultaneous causation.

Seen this.

I would rather listen to Brutus than watch someone draw a number line and say, “Obviously, therefore, the universe caused itself.”

Axe on December 11, 2012 at 10:24 PM

No? Well, then, if there’s an inherent moral value unrelated to God’s choices, then it would have such a value even if there were no God.

Steven Den Beste on December 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Good and evil aren’t about God’s choices. God does not choose to be good. God does not choose to define what’s good. So God cannot define something to be good one day and evil the next.

“Good” is a characteristic of God. We recognize righteousness because it is part of God’s character and is therefore reflected in his creation. We recognize evil as evil because it runs contrary to God’s character and is destructive to God’s creation.

Think of it this way. Jesus is God, and he said, “I am the truth.” He didn’t say “I choose to define what’s true.”

The Rogue Tomato on December 11, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Good and evil aren’t about God’s choices. God does not choose to be good. God does not choose to define what’s good. So God cannot define something to be good one day and evil the next.

“Good” is a characteristic of God. We recognize righteousness because it is part of God’s character and is therefore reflected in his creation. We recognize evil as evil because it runs contrary to God’s character and is destructive to God’s creation.

Think of it this way. Jesus is God, and he said, “I am the truth.” He didn’t say “I choose to define what’s true.”

The Rogue Tomato on December 11, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Perhaps you are speaking with too much certainty in areas you cannot or do not fully comprehend. You should probably preface your statement with something like, ‘the way I see it.’ Speaking of Jesus Christ, Isaiah 7:15 says,

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

NeverLiberal on December 12, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Perhaps you are speaking with too much certainty in areas you cannot or do not fully comprehend. You should probably preface your statement with something like, ‘the way I see it.’ Speaking of Jesus Christ, Isaiah 7:15 says,

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

NeverLiberal on December 12, 2012 at 12:33 AM

So good and evil existed already, and he chose between them.

Axe on December 12, 2012 at 3:38 AM

Actually, what Isaiah says is that the coming Messiah would be able to identify right from wrong by the time he began weaning from his mother’s milk (“eating curd and honey”, not that special foods would give this insight. And this is Isaiah’s prediction about the Messiah, not a biographical writing.

q2600 on December 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM

One can decide to live in societies of other men in order to exploit their civility without ANY obligation to cooperate.
It’s unbelievable that you aren’t humiliated writing such nonsense.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 10:00 PM

And one would soon be dead or in prison.

It’s unbelievable that you aren’t humiliated writing such nonsense.

Akzed on December 12, 2012 at 9:08 AM

And one would soon be dead or in prison.

It’s unbelievable that you aren’t humiliated writing such nonsense.

Akzed on December 12, 2012 at 9:08 AM

It’s an argument about what is possible, not what someone should do.

sharrukin on December 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM

It’s an argument about what is possible, not what someone should do. sharrukin on December 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM

It’s not an argument it’s a bald assertion of foolishness.

Akzed on December 12, 2012 at 9:15 AM

If life is the standard of value, morality has to based on ones own rational self interest. defiantly not some enumerated list of dogmatic absolutes. Why? no context. I can think of several cases where lying, killing or stealing would be perfectly moral.

We are conceptual contextual beings after all. trouble with that is that it creates a loophole at that level that allows one to drop the context or evade the concept for anything that contradicts their viewpoint..

Try it on a perceptual level for a while and see where it gets you. try and arbitrarily survive by eating stones. We don’t choose bread over stones as a matter of convenience.

jomondo44 on December 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Good to see Dr. Kreeft here. I would dearly love to hear him on Mr. Morrissey’s show.

Scott H on December 12, 2012 at 4:22 PM

jomondo: Out of curiosity, can you give a reason why life should be the standard of value?

Scott H on December 12, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Akzed: I might point out that ‘soon being dead or in prison’ is not an _ethical_ argument against what blink said unless you ascribe to the ethical system of ‘might makes right’.

Scott H on December 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2