America: From a Fallen Child Star to the Head of the University of the West

Chapter Ninety-Eight: Stop rambling.

(The content of the debate is purely my personal musings; the characters in the book do not represent my personal views. You may skip the next two chapters at your discretion, as the ending is quite obvious.)

Charlie Kirk sneered. "Who isn't a person? Mr. Pan! Tell us something we don't know!"

"I think you're a bit inhuman, interrupting me like that—" Sean cursed inwardly, but still maintained a composed demeanor.

“Kirk, this is my time! I want to say: I don’t need God to tell me it’s right to help a suffering person. I don’t need the Bible to teach me that compassion and mercy are virtues,” Sean said. “Mr. Kirk quoted Dostoevsky: ‘Everything is permitted without God.’ But interestingly, who said that in *The Brothers Karamazov*?”

Then he looked at Charlie Kirk.

"It was Ivan Karamazov, a nihilist. I think Dostoevsky had a madman say that precisely to criticize that view, not to endorse it."

His words caused Charlie Kirk's face to turn pale.

I don't know why, but this child star was so confident, while he seemed so insecure. Perhaps it's because he had only heard the quote but hadn't read the book.

What was the person who wrote the article for him thinking?

"In fact, Dostoevsky also wrote the famous Grand Inquisitor in the same book. In that allegory, Christ returns to earth but is imprisoned by the church. The Grand Inquisitor tells Christ: We no longer need you. We have established our own kingdom in your name."

"What does this show? It shows that even with God and the church, humanity will still sin, still do evil, and still do unholy things in the name of holiness."

"Mr. Kirk attributes the humanitarian catastrophe of the twentieth century to atheistic regimes. But he forgets to mention how many wars were waged in the name of God in the centuries before that? How many people were killed in the Crusades? How many heretics were burned at the stake by the Inquisition? How many deaths were caused by the conflict between Protestants and Catholics?"

"If we were to calculate this, religion probably has more blood on its hands than atheism."

He smiled slightly, his tone softening.

"Of course, I'm not attacking religion. I respect everyone's choice. Faith is a beautiful thing; it brings comfort, strength, and meaning to many people."

"But morality is not the same as religion. Morality is a consensus formed by humankind in the long process of evolution and social development; it is a set of rules we establish for our common survival. These rules do not need the endorsement of a god, because they are rooted in our shared humanity."

"Therefore, my answer is: Yes, atheists are perfectly capable of having objective moral standards. These standards do not come from heaven, but from ourselves: from our desire for fairness, our pursuit of justice, and our love for our fellow human beings."

"This is the true foundation of morality."

He nodded to the audience and then returned to his seat.

This time the applause was a bit more enthusiastic than before, but it was still mixed with some boos and whispers.

Sean scanned the numbers above their heads and noticed that many that were originally negative had now turned into zero or small positive numbers. Some numbers were fluctuating, as if they were hesitating or deep in thought.

Then, the free debate began.

After Catherine announced the rules, Charlie Kirk immediately launched his attack.

"Mr. Pan," he turned to Sean, "you just told a very moving story. But a story cannot replace an argument."

Let me ask you a direct question.

"Please speak."

"You say that morality is rooted in human nature, in our desire for fairness and justice. But the problem is that different people have different understandings of fairness and justice. You believe that equality is just, but another person may believe that a hierarchical system is just. You believe that killing innocent people is wrong, but another person may believe that a minority can be sacrificed for the greater good."

"What makes you think your understanding is more correct than his?"

-

Sean nodded. "That's a good question. But you've made a premise: there must be an objective standard to judge different moral views."

"Isn't that right?"

"Not necessarily," Sean said. "Let me use an analogy. We all assume science is objective, right?"

But scientific objectivity does not come from some supernatural authority, but from repeatable experiments and the accumulation of evidence.

"Morality is similar. Through repeated trial and error, through social experiments, and through observing the consequences, we gradually form certain consensuses. These consensuses are not absolute or eternal, but they are the best answers we have been able to find so far."

"So you admit that morality is relative?" Charlie Kirk seized on this point.

“No, no, no, I admit that morality evolves,” Sean corrected. “Relative doesn’t mean arbitrary. While different cultures have different moral customs, there are some fundamental principles that are common across cultures: these principles exist in almost all human societies because they are effective and they help society function.”

"But who decides what's effective?" Charlie pressed. "What if a dictator believes that killing all opponents is effective?"

"Then he will be judged by history." Sean paused for a moment, then replied.

"The judgment of history?" Charlie Kirk continued with a sneer. "That's a very dangerous statement. If only history can judge, then are we just supposed to endure all atrocities until history makes its verdict? Six million Jews were murdered, and we're just supposed to wait and see when the Nazis fall?"

“No,” Sean shook his head. “What I mean by historical judgment is not that we can only passively wait. On the contrary, each of us is a participant in history. When we see injustice happening, we have a responsibility to stand up and oppose it.”

"But what makes you object?" Charlie pressed. "If morality is merely a product of evolution, simply a social consensus, then Nazi morality was also their social consensus. What makes you claim your consensus is superior to theirs?"

"Because consensus isn't everything," Sean's voice became firm, "there's also empathy."

Empathy?

What is he saying?

"Yes. When I see another person suffering, I can feel their pain. This feeling doesn't need any theory to support it, or any dogma to prove it. It's just there, in my heart, in the heart of every normal person." For the first time, Sean felt a chill run down his spine from his probing questions. He felt that what he had just said reminded him of the essays by Mencius that argued for the inherent goodness of human nature that he had read in school.

"—The Nazis were able to commit those atrocities precisely because they systematically suppressed empathy. This was not because they did not have God, but because they chose to ignore the voice within themselves."

"Then how do you explain the participation of devout Christians in the Holocaust?" Charlie retorted. "Germany was a Christian country. Most Nazi Party members claimed to be Christians. If God alone can guarantee morality, why would these people do such things?"

"What... what does this mean?" Sean was a little confused. Wasn't Charlie Kirk a Christian too? Was he shooting himself in the foot?

"That's exactly what I wanted to say," he continued, seizing the opportunity. "Faith is not the same as morality. One person can believe in God and still do evil. Another person can not believe in God and still do good. What determines our moral behavior is not what we believe, but how we treat those around us."

"You're using a fallacy," Charlie frowned. "What I'm actually saying is: those so-called Christians who participated in the Holocaust were not true Christians!"

"True Christians should keep God's commandments and love their neighbors as themselves. They do evil precisely because they have turned away from God's teachings."

"Ah—" Sean forced a smile.

"That's interesting. You just said that without God, morality has no objective standard. But now you say that those who nominally believe in God but do evil are not true believers. Then I ask you, who decides who is a true believer?"

Charlie Kirk paused for a moment.

"The teachings of the Bible are clear—"

"Really?" Sean interrupted him. "The Bible says slaves should obey their masters. Do you agree? The Bible..."

The Bible says that women who disobey their husbands should be put to death. Do you agree? The Bible says that eating shellfish is abominable. Do you eat shrimp?

A low chuckle rippled through the audience.

Charlie Kirk's expression changed. "You're taking things out of context."

“No, I’m just pointing out a fact,” Sean said calmly. “The Bible is not a moral code; it’s a compilation of literature, history, and theology. It contains many different voices, some noble, some barbaric by today’s standards.”

"True believers will accept the parts that are compatible with modern values ​​and ignore the parts that are incompatible. What does this show? It shows that even Christians' moral judgments do not come entirely from the Bible, but from their own conscience and reason."

"Without this inner moral compass, they simply cannot distinguish which teachings in the Bible should be followed and which should be abandoned."

The debate room was silent for a few seconds.

Sean scanned the audience and noticed that many people's numbers were quietly rising. Even those who had initially been hostile towards him now seemed thoughtful.

Charlie Kirk clearly noticed the shift in atmosphere. He adjusted his strategy accordingly.

“Okay, let’s look at it from another angle,” he said. “Let’s assume you’re right, that morality can exist independently of God. But that doesn’t answer another question: why should we have morality?”

"What do you mean?"

"What I mean is, if there is no heaven and hell, no final judgment, no eternal reward or punishment, then why should people do good deeds? If death is the end, and everything returns to nothingness, then what is the meaning of morality?"

"Ah, this question." Sean nodded. "It's a very old question; Plato discussed it in 'The Republic'."

"He told a story called Gages' Ring. A man received a ring that made him invisible. He could do anything without being detected. The question was: should he do bad things?"

"If a person only does good deeds when someone is watching, and only obeys the law when they are afraid of punishment, is he truly a moral person?"

In fact, in the far East, a man named Confucius also proposed the concept of "a gentleman being cautious when alone".

Sean continued, "In my opinion, true morality should be unconditional. I do good deeds not because I'm afraid of going to hell, nor to go to heaven. I do good deeds because it's the right thing to do, because it makes me who I want to be."

Yes, although he didn't consider himself a particularly benevolent person, he still respected idealists. For now, however, let's just call him a somewhat hypocritical one.

“It sounds noble,” Charlie Kirk said, “but it’s just your personal choice. Another person could choose a different path. And without God, what makes you think your choice is better than his?”

"I won't say," Sean laughed. "I don't need to prove my choices are better than others'. I just need to make my choices and take responsibility for them."

"If this makes you feel insecure or unstable, I understand. Some people do need a definite answer, a standard that won't change. But for me, freedom lies precisely in the absence of a standard answer, in my ability to think for myself..."

Make your own judgment and bear the consequences yourself.

, 7

"This is both humanity's curse and humanity's glory!"