What Is Morality Other Than Harm? 

Great conversation, very good points made.

Very interesting, but difficult to understand. Skip to 14:50 for the most compelling and easy-to-follow argument!

"All justice is judgmental."

These talks are amazing! That purpose idea just blew me away. Are these conversations part of larger events?

I love this

The unborn child seems to “look like a person” Tim Keller 7.28 minutes - unborn babies are human beings they are just smaller and in a different location Let’s agree with scripture ps139

How can such an homogeneous group opine on what is good for everyone? The principles/concepts invoked (e.g., purpose, “human flourishing”) seem prone to subjective biases and the analogies made (e.g., Hitler) only seem to further highlight an intolerance/inability to understand other human experiences (e.g., homosexuality), of which they have the luxury of being dismissive.

Wow.

They are a little naive. Pornography also often hurts those exploited in the making, esp. trafficked minors and adults, a huge industry. They are also wrong because the majority of people esp churches seldom condemn adultery or even divorce which are in the Bible but are obsessed with condemning homosexually, which reminds me that they use their judgement of others to deflect from their own actions.

Smoking?,by same token same for cakes,coca cola, non exercising humans ,etc

Uh, it seems Tim is conflating moral good and evil, right and wrong with human flourishing. They are not the same thing.

I don't get it. If the pornography is actually doing some harm - even if someone says otherwise or we don't all recognise the harm being done and claim "No, No, it's fine. It's not hurting anyone" that doesn't suggest to me that the basis of the "harm=wrong" idea is empty - it only suggests to me that we aren't always going to be able to spot whether it's wrong or not in those terms. The harm is still being done (or not if it turns out there is none!), so the wrong by that definition is still adequately defined - it's just not necessarily easy to recognise and agree upon. Which, and this comes as little surprise, is exactly the same problem we face when someone tells us something is wrong because it's evil or against God's will/nature! Is it wrong to kill unbelievers or not? How can we possibly tell when the claims about God's nature are contradictory? Because of the harm done?! And I don't need to know the purpose of the watch to compare its relative effectiveness at hammering in a nail as compared to an alternative. Should I want it to tell me the time, if that is a function it has that is useful to me, then I don't call it a bad watch because it broke when I used it as a hammer. I call it a bad hammer! A rock might make a fairly good hammer. A flower would make a pretty bad hammer. The "purpose" for which the rock or the flower were "created" or exist doesn't make any difference to that judgement. Good rock, bad flower - for my particular purpose. So, if it is useful to me for people not to harm me and it serves our collective interests to live and work and cooperate with each other (arguable perhaps, but not obviously beyond the realms of possibility) then I call people "bad" if I don't think well being is served by their actions. Difficult to judge sometimes perhaps, but it seems far from rendered meaningless by Keller's argument and example.

I strongly believe Lack of proper healthcare and the harmful consequences of poverty on society are far greater than the suggested harm of same sex relationships and porn. Yet in most discussion among believers in Christianity when motility is considered, Same sex relationships and Porn jumps to the front of the conversation. Gives us an idea what really matters for Christians! Straight MALE!