Shapiro Destroys

I watches the moment when Ben Shapiro “destroys” a communist student, and I think a kind of malpractice is happening. The communist student’s views seldom change. Why? The student knows that audience already agrees with Shapiro. The criticisms Shapiro makes have already been considered and rejected by the communist student. More than likely, that student believes Shapiro has not addressed the real issue.

The real issue is not what economic system we prefer. At issue is the basis for the communist student’s moral critique. Now, quite frankly, we could jump right to the truth: without God, there are no objective moral values and duties, and could win the debate because of my opponent's inability to provide an adequate moral framework for his criticism. But my goal in apologetics is not winning a debate. It is to give an answer for the hope that we have.

That said, while I don’t think the communist student is correct, I do think their claims against worker exploitation and the accumulation of wealth are valuable—not in the way they may think, but for different reasons. Their claims are valuable because they are making a deeply held moral statement. This person is in connection with something fundamental to all human flourishing: a deep sense of right and wrong. Defeating them because they prefer one system over another is not the point of Christian dialogue. The point is helping them connect to that fundamental sense of morality in the right way and for the right reasons.

Here’s where Shapiro’s approach falters. His goal seems to be rhetorical victory, but the performative nature of these debates often fails to persuade. The critiques Shapiro levels don’t address the deeper moral convictions of his opponent. That’s why the student remains unmoved. Engaging with the moral critique behind their argument is the only way to have a meaningful conversation. For example, if free people wish to associate and live under a communist system, what care have I? The problem with communism, generally, is that you can only keep people in that system via the threat of death.

So here’s the real challenge, where the real dialogue must begin: the basis of their moral critique. We should ask, why is it wrong for the rich to exploit the poor? Why is it wrong—this is different than what makes it wrong—if people accumulate more wealth than they will ever spend? Why does this evoke such passion or resentment within you? And why frame the relationship between workers and owners as exploitation?

The conversation must turn to these questions because, without its moral foundation, the communist critique loses its power. How can I say that? Imagine if Elon Musk were successful in creating fleets of driverless semi-trucks—so many that it put every semi-truck driver out of business. Now, I think that would be a terrible thing, but as a thought experiment: what does that do to the worker-owner relationship? It ends it.

Automation ends argumentation about exploitation. See McDonald’s. See Rubio’s in California. If automation ends the debate, then resentment about worker exploitation also ends. Imagine if most jobs in America were automated. What would happen to the chief engine of communism—its moral critique? It would dissipate into the ether.

But even as the critique dissipates, the moral questions remain. Why do we instinctively feel that exploitation is wrong? Why does inequality bother us? And why do these questions haunt us, regardless of the economic system we live under? These are the questions I would focus on because they point to something deeper—a longing for justice, fairness, and dignity that can only be truly understood when grounded in the character of God.