Видео

just because its hard it doesnt mean there isnt. (the whole point of science is this) orange juice, vs apple juice... hard apple juice vs bleach: easy house vs kitchen? hard, it depends on the context of which resource is most missing and harder to come by (usually a house) very well explained, goated video

science rules

The argument for moral relativism may be correct, but is it useful?

❤

What a terrible communistic quote devoid of all sober reality

Pojman makes an error. While evaluating moral relativism, he cannot avoid sneaking in moral evaluations - things that are intuitively "wrong" to him. In order to evaluate morals, you have to include the reason, the teleology why such rules are there. Teleology is by very definition arbitrary. You can choose to be tolerant - or you can choose not to be tolerant - depending on what you want to achieve. The hidden teleology that students have to be able to resolve a math equation is that they will need to apply those in their professional life. You don't want engineers that build bridges that cave in with the first breeze of wind. That's the hidden teleology of student having to have a math equation right. We can see this evolution in art. In the old days you had to have certain skills, because your main goal was to paint portraits of people. People won't accept a painter that will paint portraits that are unrecognizable. When photography was introduced, this skill was not required anymore, allowing for a more creative way of painting. In the end we got Jackson Pollock - and there was no more need to get the math equation right. Often, practices that were consider morally reprehensible have a similar "hidden teleology" - like killing old people or killing newborn baby girls. Sometimes the original teleology disappears while the moral rule remains, but that's how human culture works. As Hume so rightly asserts: "one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"". Another point, not addressed here, is that (as Stephen Toulmin states) "nature is amoral". For the love of God, we cannot find *ANY* moral rule in nature. That means it is - by very definition - a construction. A means to some arbitrary, mostly forgotten goal. Another interesting observation in that regard is those moral rules apply *mostly* to members of the same tribe. You may not kill a member of your tribe - but it is okay or even encouraged to kill members of other tribes. A great source of so called "objective morality" is the Bible. "Thou shall not kill" - unless you're a member of the Amalekites, Canaanites, Midianites or Moabites: "Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey". I've always wondered what the oxes, sheep, camels and donkeys had done wrong. So we can conclude that even the strictest moral system is *not* by definition "universal". Hence - there cannot be a consistent system of "moral objectivity" - not even a limited one - that can objectively be defended without exposition of the underlying teleology.

Health is not difficult to define: "The combined status of physical indicators that - without intervention - allow for the expected remaining lifespan appropriate for the age of the subject". Whatever is good or bad is much harder. There are plenty of examples in every textbook of philosophy.

Odd question but is there a symbol for objective morality?

I am a Philosophy student and I am really grateful to you because your lectures are helping me a lot not only for academic purpose, but also to understand life.

niceeee

Nice work Dr Berhow! best thoughts on utilitarianism ive been able to find!

Hey Prof, I'm a philosophy student from India and I want to thank you for this masterpiece.🙇‍♂🙇‍♂

Why Hemingway?

Very informative video much needed! I am a psychology student and I recently started my philosophy modules writing an exam soon thia really provided me with an indepth and concise understanding

Just plain dumb

Perception v Reality. If I light a fire and I forcibly take your hand and put it over, or into the fire and your hand is burned, is that your perception, or a reality? Is the fire real? Is your hand real? Is your hand burned? Are you in pain? So, there are in fact absolute truths that can't be denied. With regard to metaphysics, this is a true and undeniable fact. From this, other things can also be true and absolutely true.

I understand your blind man analogy. However, a blind man won't simply grab the tail of an elephant unless there is a limitation imposed. Whether it be external or internal.

In other words, sophists asked leading questions to elicit a reply or replies that could be countered, dismissed, discounted, or even politely ridiculed.

Michael how can I get in touch with you please?

Thank you so much for this. My study guide is so confusing 😔

Applied ethics

May I ask, does the existence of various theories presuppose that morality is subjective?

add a third track with no-one tied to it then divert the train

I taught mathematics and physics for a dozen years at a small community college. I was a very good teacher and delivered some beautifully crafted lectures. I know what a good lecture is. You have produced here a superlative lecture. Thank you. I am going to watch it again. I like your concept of ethical objectivism. However, it is not really objective in the sense that I would normally associate with the word objective. Consider the case of an interaction between a hungry polar bear and a human being. The polar bear will simply kill and eat the human being. Human beings are just warm meat to a polar bear. That is an objective fact. As far as I know, there is no observational evidence in the universe that there is anything special about human beings. If there were indeed a god or gods that had a preference for human beings and their well-being, then one would expect to observe them actively protecting us from viruses, poisons, polar bears, pain, and suffering. This is not the case. However, I would argue that virtually every human being regards themselves and at least some others as being more than just food for hungry predators. This general consensus among humans is also an objective fact. It seems reasonable to me that such a fact and other similar facts can provide at least part of a foundation for a moral system that is "objective."

13:50 This argument is besides the point. When it comes to physical facts as the video calls them someone can point at a fish and call it a tree and they would be wrong etc. etc. However, when it comes to morality nobody is right. There is no such thing as a moral fact as what is has no bearing on what ought to be, and therefore the mere idea of ethical diversity and ethical relativism implies a sort of objectivism which simply does not exist. So within this nonexistent objective moral system of course ethical diversity would not imply ethical relativism, someone may be right and someone may be wrong, but that is within this objective system and this system does not exist.

Thank you. This helps me understand the book more.

Thank you so much! It helped me understand it better! :)

20:35 What if you say “it is true to those who believe it”?

Very enlightening explanation. I find both arguments for moral objectivity problematic. The one of Sam Harris is just introducing a metric (health in his example, which can be quantified in some manner) to evaluate the outcome of an action. If my metric is staying healthy, then drinking apple juice is preferable to drinking drain cleaner. If my metric, however, is to end my life quickly then drinking drain cleaner becomes much more 'attractive'. The subjectivity remains it is just transferred to the choice of metric. An ethnic group might argue that an other group is threatening their survival, and choosing the metric of survival of their group, then genocide is the moral thing to do. Unfortunately, in history and even today this thinking is only too common. So I do not see that what Sam Harris proposes is a convincing argument for moral objectivity. Also the second argument is not really convincing to me. The fact that there might be no objective morality, that doesn't prevent us from defining the way we want to live together by agreement. In other words which metrics we define as desirable for our society, e.g. non-violence, fairness, mutual support in times of need, etc. by these metrics we can define moral (social) and immoral (asocial) behavior. Like in mathematics we can define moral axioms (statements which are true by definition). And like in mathematics, where true statements follow logically from the axioms (e.g. the proof of '2+2=4' requires some 11 axioms), we can assign truth value to moral statements, if they derive logically from the moral axioms. For those interested here the proof of 2+2=4 The axioms for the definition of '=' 1. x=x 2. if x=y then y=x 3. if x=y and y=z then x=z 4. if x belongs to M and x=y then y belongs to M The axioms defining the whole numbers (N) 5. 0 is an N 6. if x is an N then the successor of x, called S(x) is also an N 7. if x and y are N then if and only if x=y, then S(x)=(S(y) 8. there is no x of N such that S(x)=0 9. Recursive definition of the number symbols: 1=S(0), 2=S(1), 3=S(2), 4=S(3), 5=S(4),..... The axioms defining '+' 10. x+0=x 11. x+S(y)=S(x+y) here the proof 2+2=S(1)+2=S(1+2)=S(S(0)+2)=S(S(0+2))=S(S(2))=S(3)=4 Some times '2+2=4' is quoted as a 'self-evident' and therefore 'objective' truth. This objectivity, however, is only true within the 11 axioms (which are not objectively true, but true by choice or better definition).

Тhanks for the interesting content! Keep up the good work, I enjoy watching you. You have an excellent presentation of the material and a cool structuring of the topic. Thank you

Thanks a bunch

Waffle

5:57 I thought you said convincing. This is not convincing at all.

"clearly" 😂

thankyou this is very helpful

Well done

Very well done! Thank you for this. Writing a paper that discusses whether morality is objective by comparing Sam Harris and Charles Taylor, and this helped lots! Unfortunately in Germany we dont seem to have this "overview" seminars, we often discuss mainly one author in a class about moral philosophy.

I don't get why in ethical relativism we can't judge or act to change other culture values... What if nobody knows what is right and we just impose to others? Why would that be bad

Morality is objective and moral absolutism is truth. It is simply a matter of learning whether by instruction or experience. Morality is not about right and wrong as most suggest, it is relative to the definition and intrinsic value of the individual human being. In the case of Hitler vs Ghandi, the moral distinction lies in the two different definitions of the intrinsic value of the individual. Ghandi values all human life while Hitler, not so much. As human beings, we either honour each other or we dishonour each other. This determines the answer to the moral question of ought, or ought not and is the guiding principle to discern cases of moral conflict. To murder a person is to dishonor them. Therefore, it is morally wrong. That's easy. But, killing an attacker while defending your family is not as simple. Killing the attacker is not morally wrong due to the facts that, (a) the attacker has dishonored themselves (obviously by attacking), (b) you honour your family by defending them The moral question is this: do our actions uphold the honor and intrinsic value of others or is it a dishonor to that intrinsic value? The application of justice is morally right Defending the rights of others is also morally right Abusing a child a morally wrong, etc

19:46 the Sophists believed in relative truth though. So that truth to Relativists is not true for others. I think what they were actually trying to get at is something along the lines of Nietzsche's Perspectivism. Not "there is no truth" but "truth is perspective/relative". By other disagreeing is to prove that statement to be truth. Since all people do not agree then it is true. If everyone does believe that statement to be true then it is an objective perspective. Not an objective truth that corresponds to reality. Really we are corresponding to ourselves and that would make all of our knowledge self-referential and self-refuting. Which is why the Sophists say there is only persuasion or as Nietzsche would say there is only perspective. The Sophists would be okay with their paradoxes or the violating the law of non-contradiction. So to answer they would simply say 'Yes' and show the truth within paradox or 'It is true to me'.

So from my perspective, the only difference between the Sophists and Socrates is that the means were the same but the ends were different.

Interesting. When it comes to Gorgias argument for relativism. I've seen a perspective that mentioned that he didn't actually believe the argument he made but that he simply used an example of using logic where logic can be used to prove anything. And using that example he proves relativism by sort of making a mockery of logic. It has a "Is this your king?!" tone to it. He didn't use logic because he believed in it, but was just showing the logic can be used to prove anything (not necessarily truth) like rhetoric.

Hello. I wanted to know when the second part on consequentialism comes out?

I wished u were my prof :( this is super helpful!

The two examples quoted are of very dangerous consequences. People will justify their actions by quoting these examples. You should not form a concept based on isolated incidents. You can't robe A to distribute it to many. It is like asking don't save but share your savings with poor people. They save the hard earned money for their future . E

Did I miss the chapter on Egalitarianism or was this topic posted under another title?

"Hitler is as moral as Gandhi" is not necessarily an absurd consequence of believing morality. It may be a natural consequence of accepting the view that morals are subjective and relative. If you watched the video you have already seen the difficulty/impossibility of assessing whether serving at a soup kitchen or building a house for humanity is more or less moral. Hitler's and Gandhi's personal moralities are much further apart in their flavour but they both tried to justify them by referring to what they professed to be correct/right/good based on their own biases and imperfections. That is to say they were both expressing a morality. Surely the question 'who is the most moral' is a question of whose actions most closely aligned with their moral values? The Hitler Gandhi statement is only absurd if you take the view you are able to achieve clearer, less biased thinking, and are somehow able to assess correctly what is objectively right and wrong. Hitler's and Gandhi's moralities both seem absurd to me, but only to the extent that my own mental faculty and personal bias will allow. That is all I have to go on at the moment. Would very much appreciate help in widening my understanding on this topic.

Great work Sir.. Really learnt a lot from these lectures..