Kreeft seems to ignore the fact that morality is nothing more than a human construct, and is completely subjective.
There is no objective good or evil. If that were the case evils such as slavery wouldn't have persisted as long as they have. Because human beings, as flawed as we may be, aren't inclined to do things we consider 'evil'. That alone proves that morality is subjective. People were able to rationalize that slavery is necessary, and some even still defend the institution of slavery today.
His second mistake was making an emotional appeal to try to prove his point. He states that your morality is better than Himmler's. Then he goes on to claim that if morality is subjective, you can't say that Himmler is immoral. However, this simply isn't true. You can say that from a human rights perspective that Himmler's actions were immoral. Or you could say from the Jewish perspective they were immoral. You can't just ignore perspective. There's many view points from which morality can be derived. It doesn't have to be derived from one source, and I don't think anybody gets their morals from a single source. Even Christians aren't going around stoning people, despite their bible telling them to. From the perspective of Nazi Germany, perhaps Himmler wasn't immoral. But from other perspectives, Nazi Germany was immoral for their actions. This does not require (nor should it) objective morality.
From which perspective do we look? Well, most of the time it's our own perspective. The things that we value the most. A Christian may view lesbians in a loving relationship having sexual relations as 'immoral' because they value the bible. From my perspective, they aren't immoral because I don't think that two consensual adults in a loving relationship having sexual relations is remotely immoral. Are either of us right or wrong? Again, that depends on what perspective you're using, as well as what you value. Personally I don't value the bible at all. So if you're looking at a human rights perspective, then the Christian viewpoint is wrong. While looking at it from a biblical standpoint, the Christian Viewpoint is right. Of course even among Christians you have some who don't believe that their text applies to the modern world.
It's all a matter of perspective. There is no objective good and objective evil. One certainly can't base it around the Christian God, because the Christian God commanded people to worship him and only him as part of his morality--making other religions (from that viewpoint) evil. The Christian God also did nothing to forbid slavery. Instead people began seeing things from different viewpoints, and eventually came to the conclusion that slavery was, overall, wrong.
There is no objective good or evil. If that were the case evils such as slavery wouldn't have persisted as long as they have. Because human beings, as flawed as we may be, aren't inclined to do things we consider 'evil'. That alone proves that morality is subjective. People were able to rationalize that slavery is necessary, and some even still defend the institution of slavery today.
His second mistake was making an emotional appeal to try to prove his point. He states that your morality is better than Himmler's. Then he goes on to claim that if morality is subjective, you can't say that Himmler is immoral. However, this simply isn't true. You can say that from a human rights perspective that Himmler's actions were immoral. Or you could say from the Jewish perspective they were immoral. You can't just ignore perspective. There's many view points from which morality can be derived. It doesn't have to be derived from one source, and I don't think anybody gets their morals from a single source. Even Christians aren't going around stoning people, despite their bible telling them to. From the perspective of Nazi Germany, perhaps Himmler wasn't immoral. But from other perspectives, Nazi Germany was immoral for their actions. This does not require (nor should it) objective morality.
From which perspective do we look? Well, most of the time it's our own perspective. The things that we value the most. A Christian may view lesbians in a loving relationship having sexual relations as 'immoral' because they value the bible. From my perspective, they aren't immoral because I don't think that two consensual adults in a loving relationship having sexual relations is remotely immoral. Are either of us right or wrong? Again, that depends on what perspective you're using, as well as what you value. Personally I don't value the bible at all. So if you're looking at a human rights perspective, then the Christian viewpoint is wrong. While looking at it from a biblical standpoint, the Christian Viewpoint is right. Of course even among Christians you have some who don't believe that their text applies to the modern world.
It's all a matter of perspective. There is no objective good and objective evil. One certainly can't base it around the Christian God, because the Christian God commanded people to worship him and only him as part of his morality--making other religions (from that viewpoint) evil. The Christian God also did nothing to forbid slavery. Instead people began seeing things from different viewpoints, and eventually came to the conclusion that slavery was, overall, wrong.
The whole tone of Church teaching in regard to woman is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
