Should you abandon the morality argument when talking to people who don't believe in objective morality? In this video, Frank shares a practical question that you can ask a person actively suppressing the reality of right and wrong.
???? ???????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek Mp3????????https://bit.ly/3LqhX6b and Mp4 ????????https://bit.ly/36JNSzn
???? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? (????????????-????????????????????????????????????????) ????
? Website: https://crossexamined.org/donate/
? PayPal: https://bit.ly/Support_CrossExamined_PayPal
???? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????? ????
? Facebook: https://facebook.com/CrossExamined.org
? Twitter: https://twitter.com/Frank_Turek
? Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drfrankturek/
? Pinterest: https://pin.it/JF9h0nA
????? ???????????????????????????????????? ?????
? Website: https://crossexamined.org
? Store: https://impactapologetics.com/
? Online Courses: https://www.onlinechristiancourses.com/
????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????? ?????
? iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast
? Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
? Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
? Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
#Relativism #Culture #christianity
Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱https://cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl
@Eternal-Lullaby Says:
Emotions do not decide facts. Murder is merely a term created by society to describe the unlawful killing of another human being. Killing is neither right nor wrong. Morals are relative. If there were no people in the world to care about morals, then morals would not exist. We're just like animals. The only difference is us humans tend to think of ourselves as "better" than animals merely because we're able to articulate our feelings into words. There is no 'better' or 'worse' or 'should' or 'shouldn't' in the realm of objectivity. Animals are just as sentient as humans are in that they can feel emotions and care for other animals and people. However, they still kill. The death of a human is no more tragic than the death of an animal. We merely consider it more tragic because of the bias that humans consider themselves as superior. Another thing we can look at is how we even call things artificial when we create them, as if we're not from nature ourselves. Technology comes from humans and humans come from nature, therefor technology is a product of nature. There is nothing unnatural about humans or their creations. We. Are. Animals. Things like morals, laws, justice, and all that other jazz? Entirely subjective. There is no universal moral that everyone can agree on. Even the golden rule of "treat others how you wish to be treated" can be thrown out the window when you take masochistic sadists into consideration. Surveys and statistics prove nothing. The majority can agree with anything but that will never turn opinions into facts. Value, love, hate, importance, etc. It's all in the eye of the beholder and there's nothing you can do to change that. Even assuming God exists, he's merely passing his subjective judgement onto humans and claiming it to be righteous merely because he considers himself superior due to having created the universe but creating the universe doesn't make your opinions objective. It just means you hold all the power. There is nothing here you can refute, try as you might. Morals are biased and relative to culture and empathy varies between individuals as well. Sure, I have my own morals too but I'm not going to get all egotistical and claim that I know what's truly right or wrong. My morals are just as subjective as anyone else's. No one and I mean NO ONE knows what's truly right or wrong. As far as objectivity is concerned, right and wrong are entirely fluid subjective constructs. If there really is a list of truly objective morals somewhere out there, we humans will never know if it's factual or not. EVER.
@TheEternalOuroboros Says:
Terrible argument.
@theboombody Says:
Proof that Moral Relativism is Contradictory
Axiom 1 If moral relativism is true then there are no absolute moral standards
Axiom 2 It's false that moral relativism being true leads to moral nihilism being true
Axiom 3 If an absolute moral requirement exists then there exists an absolute moral standard
Axiom 4 If obedience of local morals is not an absolute moral requirement then nothing is off limits locally
Axiom 5 If there are no absolute moral standards then nothing is off limits absolutely
Axiom 6 If nothing is off limits locally and nothing is off limits absolutely then moral nihilism is true
Proof
Line 1 Assume Moral Relativism is true
Line 2 Either obedience of local morals is an absolute moral requirement or it isn't
Line 3 If it is, we have an absolute moral requirement that exists
Line 4 This means we have an absolute moral standard
Line 5 But this contradicts axiom 1 where we assumed no moral standards exist
Line 6 So we'll assume now that obedience of local morals is not an absolute moral requirement. Axiom 4 implies that now nothing is off limits locally.
Line 7 Since we assumed Moral Relativism was true, we have no moral standards and by axiom 5 nothing is off limits absolutely
Line 8 Now we have nothing being off limits locally or absolutely. By axiom 6 this has led to moral nihilism being true.
Line 9 By lines 1, 6, 7, and 8, we moral relativism leading to moral nihilism. This contradicts Axiom 2.
Line 10 Therefore line 2 will always lead to a contradiction.
QED
@erwingunther2569 Says:
00:36 But this is what kills absolute relativism. We all have preferences and thus nothing is morally good by a random standard or by many valid standards but by a fixed inner standard and that is feeling. It’s fixed, so it’s not just one standards of many but the one standard within oneself. Buuut we could also abandon this feeling as valid cognitively. What then ? We would still all want some values, for example freedom from (in general) and freedom from pain. Some say that some people could prefer pain but just imagine somebody burning with a human body - this pain would be so overwhelming that he wants to get rid of it, if he had a button to press to get out of this situation then he would press it at a certain point no matter the premeditations. Some people just don’t want to grant freedom from pain and freedom from because they are cruel sadists which is why these values are not universal but with a slight change in definition they become universal at the receiving end. So in a sense there are universal values, if we split the definition, but in most ways values are relative because if we reject the way we feel and select values without our self then we are lost because then every value we chose for ourselves is just randomness and it doesn’t really matter which one we chose as long as certain things are not done to us.
@jayku9524 Says:
Atheists/Agnostics always resort to this fallacy. It’s quiet annoying
@twistedtales99 Says:
Right and wrong is defined by whoever has the power to dictate terms, to punish the "wrong" done to them, as it is contra to their imperative to survive. The United States and other "righteous" entities have as much blood on their hands as anyone. But their power is unquestioned, and no one has the power to punish them for it. Murder and killing are defined by whoever makes the laws, owns the jails, and writes the press releases. "The strong can do as they please," and his argument makes little sense.
@lawrencekallal6640 Says:
I think everyone knows the basics of the moral law given by God.
@gonzalot.605 Says:
Everybody is a moral relativist, until someone says the n word with a hard "R".
@bobbobertbobberton1073 Says:
I'm a Christian but I believe in moral relativism. Jesus came and morality changed from the old testament to the new testament. Also God created evolution, our morals will evolve. If morality didn't change then what was the need for the new testament?
@Hudoi-1 Says:
For such a strong title that's such a weak and shallow argument. 😮💨
@criticalthinker-ys7vt Says:
killing millions of animals to get meat is right but killing humans is wrong? its not, its all human made concepts to protect the weak from the strong. Sad that animals cant make morals to protect themselves from us.
@ingridsantos7815 Says:
He doesn't know geopolitics to think "when States take by invasion oil pipelines, use coercitive labour, politicians and CEOs will be punished". But we know the avarage person don't care, if not admire them. There are horrible things happening everywhere. Reaction: Comfortable, avarage humans are living their routine. "Feelings and thoughts change the world: Objective morality"
@tedgrant2 Says:
Every person is different, which is very difficult to explain theologically.
Not everybody likes to wear frilly French knickers.
@jackkraken3888 Says:
Hold up. I would argue Christians themselves are moral relativists! Let me explain. You see on 'big ticket' stuff like murder most Christians and non Christians would agree. But if we go into greyer territory like stealing and dishonesty such you will see a range of beliefs from all walks of life. It's because while we may know something is 'wrong' we also give them a weighting and even betwee Christians themselves you will see different actions for the same issue! Don't tell me all corrupt people are atheists and non Christians, please you're not fooling anyone. The reality is most people are not just relativists for many aspects of life they can actually have different behaviour in the same circumstances of you tweak even a few variables. Steal from a stranger? Bad! Steal from a horrible boss who doesn't pay you well and he will never find out? Not that bad? Right?
@betsalprince Says:
If the flaw in moral relativism is so evident to you, listen to yourself rationalizing biblical atrocities next time.
@TheActualForRealJesus Says:
this one time I killed a child born out of adultery because I am the source of objective morals.
@onionbelly_ Says:
It was okay for some people to buy slaves from other nations, own them as property, beat them as long as they don't die, and bequeath them to their children as family inheritance. Supposedly, the Christian God is not okay with that anymore because we live in a different time under a new covenant. If that's not moral relativism I don't know what is.
@MathewSteeleAtheology Says:
You don't need an actual moral authority, only belief in a moral authority.
@war13death Says:
You kick them in the shin and take their iPhone and they in return kill you and take it back with the justification of "they should not have done that to me".
@bobvadney7240 Says:
Hey try a little Rom 1:21,22 bc of Jn.1:9....
@kennyrogers3602 Says:
I can't believe you people are still falling for this charlatanry. This dude will tell you the Truth, and it will only cost you a 10% tithe. The thing that bugs me the most about this dude is he's laughing in your face all the way to the bank.
@toomanyhobbies2011 Says:
People have killed for many reasons throughout history. Most of them claim killing to be moral; Nazi's, Marxists, Muslims, Samurai's, ...
@mickqQ Says:
If you accept God exists
Then you are not in a position to judge anything good or bad.
You are morally blind
@cygnusustus Says:
Christians have no morality.
They act out of fear of punishment and the promise of reward. They may do good things, they may do bad things, but none of their actions qualify as moral choices.
Only atheists can be moral.
@SuperEdge67 Says:
Of all the poor arguments for god…….objective morality is the most ridiculous.
@trucututrucutu6071 Says:
TO KILL IN SELF DEFENSE IS RIGHT... THAT'S MORAL RELATIVISM
@drumrnva Says:
"God is the standard"? What does that mean? God is said to be an independent agent with a will-- in other words, a person. A person can observe a standard, choose whether to live by it, etc. But how can a person BE a standard??
@Theo_Skeptomai Says:
Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality.
@dustyk103 Says:
The saying, “Might makes right,” is Leftism. The belief that might is used for right is righteousness.
@dylanw6303 Says:
Legendary thumbnail, truly 💀
@lifestylemedicinals8692 Says:
Holiness= Wholeness
Belief in God, prayer, meditation and moral practice leads to thriving in a personal and collective way.
Evolutionary processes shouldn't care about optimizing outcomes tied to a transcendent moral law.
Why would thriving be the result of believing in something "imaginary" and implementing religious practices tied it?
And why is it that unrighteousness and hedonism leads to decay, destruction and people becoming pure evil out of pleasure? How is that a logical evolutionary outcome? Based on what?
It just shows you the moral law is written on our hearts, but those who are aware of the Law Giver walk in a greater discipline and depth of it.
Everyone knows cheating on their partner is wrong instinctually, right?
Christ takes it a step further and says even looking with lustful eyes is adultery. He even says that being wrongfully angry is equivalent to murder.
This next level of thinking, self denial and holiness unlocks the BEST of our humanity. Going with the flow of God's will and design is why we thrive "evolutionarily" or environmentally.
The more we deepen in our obedience, the more heaven will manifest on Earth and we'll thrive like the Garden of Eden.
@cfitzgduke Says:
Nothing wrong with murder, but you bow down to your God that murdered millions. God can do all kinds of horrible things, but he is the standard of rightness. Have you read your bible?
@RangerRyke Says:
And yet the morals laid out in the Bible change and are dependent on circumstance. The definition of relative.
@JamesRichardWiley Says:
Wikipedia:
"Moral relativism is used to describe differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures. Moral relativism has been debated for thousands of years across a variety of contexts during the history of civilization."
@The-F.R.E.E.-J. Says:
The origin of all relativism is, as w/ all other big issues, from the beginning, in the garden, when the enemy of God & man suggested that we can add to the number of God. That is the root of all evil therefore, the Trinity is the beginning & ending of all relativism.
@lalolaloslas Says:
It's a little bit sad because Frank says: "are you talking with sociopaths?", but when I said the moral argument to a friend of mine she said "well, it really doesn't matter; the other person may have been affected, or I got affected, but the other person got a benefit", and I was like: "are you really saying that?!" 😠
@expsterm1 Says:
Morality really is self evident
@ruaraidh74 Says:
What the heck is the thumbnail 😂
@jamesw4250 Says:
Except morals are not and never has been objective. Always has been SUBJECTIVE not relative. Stop this bait and switch tactic with definitions. It's dishonest franky boy.
@lepaselalepogore9087 Says:
Was there a theology of justification by faith alone before Luther? (I mean the period from the Apostle Paul to Luther)
@katamas832 Says:
The problem with objective morality: noone can show morality to be objective.
@Thundawich Says:
How are you getting from the subjective emotional reaction of someone to objective morality though?
@bonnie43uk Says:
If God is the standard of what is right and wrong, why are a lot of Christians in favor of a womans right to choose what happens to her body if she finds herself pregnant against her wishes, and taking a pill would solve that problem, esp if she's been raped.
@EdwardRomanOficial Says:
Morality is very much talked about in this channel from what I can see; and well, what I’m gonna say is that I don’t regret my position, in fact I’d wish that for *everyone*. Although sadly not everyone will take this position (not many actually); but I dare say that it has done such good to me, that I plan on and I will endure in this path ‘till the end.
@144_The_Sheep Says:
Karma at the corner : 😊
@adamfleder2175 Says:
So when the Ancient Israelites were murdering the Canaanites, why didn’t they know it was wrong? Joshua 8.
@Redeemer_80 Says:
Important not to kick people in the shins and steal their phone if they don’t believe murder is wrong. Very important indeed…
@isaacsimon8069 Says:
This would have been better if the question was asked by an actual moral relativist, because then he wouldn't have made a straw man argument.
@MG-ot2yr Says:
No such thing as objective morality, there's not even one example. Its all a social construct that changes as society evolves and is different across different cultures. There's countless examples. You don't own slaves any more!
LATEST COMMENTS