The Moral Confusion According to Sam Harris
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 дек 2023
- Watch the full video - • Jordan Peterson & Sam ...
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: bit.ly/3KrWbS8
// LINKS //
All socials: linktr.ee/drjordanbpeterson
Website: jordanbpeterson.com
Events: jordanbpeterson.com/events
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
Telegram: t.me/DrJordanPeterson
Newsletter: mailchi.mp/jordanbpeterson.co...
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyself.com
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus #philosophy #psychology #religion
Selective outrage in a nutshell
It’s not confusion it’s stupidity.
Being "highly educated" doesn't mean you're not incredibly stupid. It even seems like nowadays the chance of you being incredibly stupid increaces if you are "highly educated" 🤷♂️
They know deep down, but they don’t wanna stand up
Intellectuals who convince themselves out of rational thought. Seems like a problem to me.
Yup! Sam’s become what he claims to hate. A dogmatic atheist suffering from TDS!
That's a good description of Sam Harris.
He makes some well reasoned arguments, but then you hear him spout insane nonsense if you bring up his TDS, and he's too arrogant in his intelligence to see how stupid he is.
It's because they believe themselves superior. They give many in the world a pass because (while they wont say it) they legit consider them uneducated savages.
@@_theoriginalb4handles_GenflagMaybe the problem is assholes gaslighting people for stating the obvious problems with giving the presidency to an observably deranged, comically self-centered, and morally bankrupt person.
Yeah, you should like sheep.
Good and evil, judging between them, is a function of discernment. Discernment along with wisdom are in very short supply. We all will pay the price for this lack, much like the other examples of societies that also lacked discernment and wisdom. Italy, Germany, ect.
Are you kidding? The average Italian, indeed even the average undereducated Italian, is way wiser and more discerning than their American counterparts. Lol
... et cetera ... etc.
They're parroting what they've been told, it's not an independent thought that's popped into their heads. Thank the public school system for this way of thinking.
Well educated and smart are two distinct words. You can be educated in deception and manipulation or you can be smart and see through delusions that people use to prey on people. Lawyers are well educated but They can also be brainwashed or want to brainwash either people.
Does Sam realize that he is speaking about himself?
No, that's his greatest flaw, he has zero self awareness.
@@_theoriginalb4handles_Genflag You can't have self awareness if you believe that the Self is an illusion :D
@@0xmilanfunny he stole all this from religion
Apparently not. He has no self awareness.
He is definitely NOT talking about himself.
And yet Sam still thinks his rather insane statements about trump are valid. Amazin.
Only morons are still in the Trump cult
Maybe Sam knows more than we do. Not everything is shown on the internet.
What did he say?
lol, send more tears
@@Nythingelse Look man I’m just spitting out ideas. Everything we see on the internet isn’t what is always happening behind the scenes.
It could all just be a big performance.
There is a considerable amount of "moral confusion" for Sam too. As an atheist, he needs to provide a model for morality that does not ultimately reduce to fallacious appeals to force or number. And no, atheism is not merely a-theistic. Before it can be considered valid, it must be able to withstand logical scrutiny and that applies to any corollaries that ensue from the central premise. No amount of special pleading or distracting talk of "invisible supernatural Spaghetti Monster friends" avoids this logical necessity.
Atheism doesn’t seek to establish itself as an answer to anything the way religions do, so it doesn’t need to prove anything. The burden of proof isn’t on atheism. Most atheists merely say that the probability of the supernatural is too low to concern oneself with.
I would respectfully disagree. Peterson appears to essentially believe similarly to Sam, he himself not being a theistic believer, and I think he’s even suggested as much (though he’s tried to draw parallels between Sam’s secular framing and his own use of traditionally religious language and myth and metaphor). As opposed to beginning with a utilitarian-ish perspective as Sam does with his ‘moral landscape,’ Peterson seems to locate morality within the human psyche and traditional, being inscribed within our cultural consciousness over the course of out evolutionary history.
As for Sam’s (and for that matter, Peterson’s) atheism, it really does reduce to a-theism, a question of whether or not you believe any gods exist, which is an entirely different category from questions of morality, as has been demonstrated by ethical philosophical discussion taking place without appeal to gods both before and after the advent of modern religious systems. I still haven’t seen any genuinely compelling rebuttal of Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma and religious systems of morality do no better at solving Hume’s is-ought dilemma, and for the most part modern religious ideologies that purport reward and punishment in the afterlife for moral transgressions really only reduce to utilitarianism themselves (i.e., what compels us to act in accordance with supposed divine commands, if not for the sake of punishment or reward; in the same manner, utilitarian morality boils down to the exact same thing, we should follow such and such a moral system because of its outcomes or reducing suffering and increasing flourishing).
I personally would probably be a bit more sympathetic to Peterson’s view, because if anything morality, if it can be said to have any basis real or otherwise, seems to be ingrained within the human psyche-where else would it be otherwise?
@@jacobfrancis8310 It does appear that things which we consider moral, like compassion, are innate in people, even other animals to differing degrees.
@@ericanderson7346 certainly, while I prefer the term “ingrained,” I would still see the framing as “innate” being fair as well-because while I do tend to think of morality as something which becomes intrenched and develops over time in the human psyche, at the same time there is just something simply innate about it based on our natural constitution as humans. To draw an analogy, it’s almost like saying humans find eating ice cream delicious, but feces as disgusting. Even though there may not be any “objective” standard of deliciousness that we can appeal to (unless one would want to argue that there’s some kind of Platonic idea of deliciousness), and although there might be some very few outliers to this, just based on the constitution of our human tastebuds we would be safe to say that we have an innate sense of what is delicious and what is not (even if, ultimately, it is intersubjective nonetheless).
@@jacobfrancis8310 “I would respectfully disagree.”
-‘Not sure if the disagreement is with my post or one of the responses but you make a number of interesting points. I would suggest that JP’s only appears to believe similarly to Sam to the extent that most people have a shared view of wrong and right, ie.that it is morally wrong to murder or attack the defenceless or steal etc.
Personally, I suspect he does hold a theistic belief, as does his wife following bouts of ill health. However, he very cleverly dances around the subject and I can appreciate why he may do this.
I agree that he seems to “locate morality within the human psyche and traditional, being inscribed within our cultural consciousness” and I would suggest that he does to suggest that is where it finds its expression. The idea that it is so deeply rooted in our psyche may, itself, point to a higher origin. He of course, never goes that far explicitly as that would turn him away from the academic and move him towards the theological. His credibility lies in his academic underpinning of ideas.
“…a question of whether or not you believe any gods exist, which is an entirely different category from questions of morality,”
-I would challenge that assertion. It lies at the very heart of the theological basis for belief in the divine and a considerable challenge to atheism. If it is true that morality is indeed a common, shared aspect of the human condition across time and culture then atheism must find a means of expression for that which does not reduce to fallacious appeals to force or number.
“I still haven’t seen any genuinely compelling rebuttal of Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma…”
-The strongest I have seen is the rebuttal claiming it to be a false dilemma and instead shifting the focus to viewing not as a formal challenge but more of a proof. This rejects Russell’s view about “God is good” being meaningless because the main focus in that sentence is neither the noun nor the adjective but the verb. “Good” or virtue is a qualitative constituent aspect of the divine.
“…for the most part modern religious ideologies that purport reward and punishment in the afterlife for moral transgressions really only reduce to utilitarianism themselves…”
-With the greatest of respect, that view is often advanced by those who do not fully appreciate or understand the main Abrahamic faiths. Doing X in order for a favourable reward of Y is indeed tantamount to acting out of purely self-interest. Whereas in fact the main faiths align more closely to the idea that “virtue is its own reward”, “the last shell be first…” etc. This view is not available for the atheist who rejects the supernatural so a model is required that does not reduce to fallacious appeals to force or number.
Brilliantly stated
The obvious evidence for the source of morality, is the belief that a community can grant the rights to procreate to two of their own.
If just one of the couple doesn’t grasp the concept, this union is on shaky ground.
This is the most important belief for the sustenance of the community and mankind. A viable religious community can’t possibly find longevity where morality is based on the rants of single men, living in self imposed isolation, feeling victimized by life and society, who never have and never will offer lineage because they lack the emotional capacity to ever give love to a woman, or receive it.
Well said.
I have a 52 yo brother who’s gay. I’m no psychiatrist so this is only my opinion of what I have observed being around him. My brother is very resentful, & angry at life. He’s lost all faith in any religious beliefs. I think at the root of his issue is that he feels betrayed by the morality that our culture is built on. Through no fault of his own, he will never have a legacy to pass on to his offspring or as a religious term, to pass through his generations. His legacy/generation dies with him. That’s a tough pill to swallow, & I can definitely see why he’s become so bitter in life.
I don’t know if this is true, but because of the love I have for my brother I have also questioned, why would nature need this, is it bug or a feature? What if during the pregnancy process, the DNA monitoring system detects a problem that’s not critical for survival, but should not be passed on. Is it possible that evolution created a way to solve that problem?
@@michaelhagen2712 It's just a bug that occurs in small enough numbers that the process of evolution is unconcerned with it, like it is unconcerned with most things. If there were decisions being made before the individual ever got to get out into the real world and try to survive and mate, that would completely destroy the point of evolution to begin with
@@sunkintree Can u clarify what u mean when u say that, “If there were decisions being made b4 the individual ever got out into the real world and try to survive and mate, that would completely destroy the point of evolution to begin with.” ?
I’m not saying u’r wrong, but I don’t understand what u mean by that statement. For example, when a woman becomes pregnant and something happens during the development that’s critical to the survival of the individual, it seems like evolution has built several mechanisms in place. I think the process of miscarriage that the female body uses, is a decision. Is it not?
@@michaelhagen2712 you're talking about two different things. First you were talking about a mechanism during pregnancy that identifies a problem and then just makes a person...attracted to the same sex...Im telling you that is not happening. Nothing is there to indicate that anything cares...There are so many people born with huge genetic issues that can still reproduce and have straight sex drives.
But now you're trying to talk about a mechanism that abandons pregnancy when there is a catastrophic issue. Just because a plane knows how to crash into the ground when there's a catastrophic failure doesn't mean the plane has some system in place to deal with catastrophic failure...it just falls and crashes into the ground. It's not a system, it's literal unavoidable failure
Are you talking about Catholic priests?
When the heart can not believe what the eyes can see
That's willful blindness.
I call it, sacrificing value over opportunity. Its a way to preserve yourself in terms of opportunity but at the cost of value.
Its a self-negotiation/reflection issue. Not doing that, It's the surest way to feel like you don't belong.
@@msc8382but the collective can only be preserved by its highest value, anything else is egocentrism, be it on individual or ethnic level. If u see an opportunity in killing my son which goes against my highest value, there’s war
I’ve note met these people. The most educated people I know are the ones that know her name and praise her for standing up against tyranny and religious terrorism.
I would posit they only ever had 1 value, "They care". This explains everything they claim to believe in the US, both good and bad. But its not a value its an emotional reaction. And emotional reactions can lead to some crazy contradictions.
Sam is so sad
He is begging to find the answer in some humanistic rationalism. Even Nietzsche knew this was the wrong approach. It only leads to despair.
@@theargonauts8490Look what people do when they only rely on emotion.
"Give 'em hell"
- Peterstein, the warmonger who bawls from mean comments.
👍👍
Indeed, their morality is as a stagnant pond, and what you find in such a foul water is dead fish, the modern, woke, person is morally dead.
How do people get objective morals (again) after not having them for so long?
Is anybody saying the taliban didn’t mistreat malala? Seriously
I see sam and im reminded that it doesn't matter how smart a person is they could still be clueless.
What's the clue you got he didn't?
?
@@tacitozetticci9308Hunter laptop v Trump
Tell us the clue! Seems you have it figured out!
Those people are just spoiled and self centered.
1st world problems. Satisfy certain basics, and people pick and choose the advanced options.
But establishing a foundation over those basics often gets muddied as a result.
Like, as a teacher, as a foundational principal, I do my best not to bring my business into a classroom. But other teachers do, trying to be buddies or friends with their students, just teal people with real problems. Instead, I believe students have a whole host of their own problems, and don't need my issues as well. Also, too, the central focus of class is the subject, not students, not even me. Safety is more than just violence, it's peace.
Students talked, and warned each other that detentions were very real in my class, and the work was very real (but, you know, kind of fun). But at the end of one year the students called in a category for me at the teacher awards: "The teacher we feel safest with." Got to admit, that meant a lot.
Those people are a goldmine to therapists.
An increase of information......is NOT WISDOM.
Unmoored implies there is a moor. Is objective morality Sam’s new stance?
Sam knows that there IS a moor... he just denies why.
Why...?? Because he's a narcissistic fool who hates God's morality... God isn't a liberal, and therefore is evil in Sam's eyes, and therefore doesn't exist in Sam's eyes.
He's a blind fool criticizing other blind fools.
His book "The Moral Landscape" shows that morality is a scientific subject that is objective. It's not his new stance, it's been his stance for a long time.
@digital_underground ... Morality IS objective BECAUSE there is a transcendent standard and a transcendent Moral Arbiter. Otherwise, all of your sciencing wouldn't matter.
@@smashleyscott8272 "Burgers ARE objective BECAUSE there is a transcendent standard and a transcendent Burger Arbiter. Otherwise, all of your sciencing wouldn't matter."
That's how much sense you just made.
@digital_underground ... except, well, I said nothing about burgers. A burger is an object within reality, morals are CONCEPTS applied to reality. The object that is called a burger IS that object, regardless of what we call it... the standard for what is qualified as a a burger has OBJECTIVE criteria rooted IN physical reality = ground cow meat. Morality, being conceptual, NEEDS an objective standard beyond the physical reality to have any meaning. Morality in application is behavior, therefore, determining the ought or ought not of a moral claim or behavior, there needs to be a standard upon which to judge that isn't subject to whim or preference.
You KNOW that morality is objective, THEREFORE, there IS a transcendent standard and Arbiter.
You're philosophy is trash.
Sam harris🤮
Seems like they get "tongue tied" because they are too busy trying to come up with an answer that wont conflict with their beliefs and/or come up with an answer that wont turn friends into enemies.
Or they are brain washed idiots refusing to accept reality.
I feel so bad for him. Hopefully he sees the light.
Sam Harris, correct on this like a broken clock. Otherwise he is an elitist jackass.
I will never respect Sam
So he wants people to share his moral viewpoint without there being any basis for having a moral viewpoint. Good thinking there Sam.
Moral confusion is simply the natural byproduct of moral relativism.
This is what happens to humans when life is too good, too much creature comforts and not enough struggle.
Ain't none of this going on in the ghettos/trailer parks
Because their words and actions are not based in morality. They don't really understand what morality means. They are imitating what they believe morality looks like according to popular conception. It's not coming from their own hearts.
Morality isn't a basis.... why?? Because morals aren't foundational, morals are founded. Any and all moral claims or appeals are rooted in something... and ALL people make moral claims and appeals... the difference is WHAT the morality is rooted in. The subjective and arbitrary, or the objectuve and eternal nature of the Lawgiver.
The three untruths from the Coddling of the American Mind: 1. What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker, 2. Always trust your feelings, 3. Life is a battle between good and evil. This is how we end up in the situation Sam is describing.
Unmoored. lol. Isn’t that exactly what Jordan has been telling him for years?
No matter haw smart one talk or dresses the face will always resemble that weak disingenuous hypocritical heart inside of every human being, and a reasonable genuine heart will able to see right through it
Things near to us always appear bigger than things far away.
LOL Moral Norms. How laughably subjective.
Good points, a higher level thought would have been faster delivery. Unless he’s working out the concept in his head as he’s discussing it. 🎉
Finely calibrated? Hmm. The list of finely calibrated moral distinctions Sam claims highly intelligent people have come up with, leads me to question their intelligence and their understanding of morality.
Trippin on our own opinion…confusing or losing the complexities of morality and using the few to condemn the many isn’t it my boy…
Virtual signalling while never solving any problems.Or big upping themselves.
When people allow extreme morality to guide their actions, the distinction between good and evil can become unclear. An example from fictional literature is the city of Istar in the Dragonlance series. Priests and priestesses following the god of goodness and light began rounding up and slaughtering all the evil, or even just undesirable races. Their actions were so evil, and such an affront to the three gods: good, neutral, and evil that together they used their power to send Istar and its denizens to the bottom of the ocean (the abyss) in a devastating cataclysmic event.
I realize that it’s just a fictional fantasy novel, but I always found that lesson extremely thought provoking: what is the difference between good and evil when your actions are evil in the name of good? Would people even recognize when they’ve gone over the tipping point? Objectivity in the form of constantly checking your own thoughts about the truth behind what you’re thinking is a great way to remain on the even keel, I think. Ask God for perspective, and he will ask you to go outside your tent and look up at the stars in the night sky. Maybe that sky will, instead, be a documentary on the holocaust, or the testimony of a young woman who escaped north Korea. Here is how evil begins … it sometimes masks itself as extreme morality. You might have wrong thinking rooted in judgement of a different kind.
That is why God asks us not to judge others, only their sin. He does not want our actions to separate Him from His flock. He gifted us with judgement so we can know right from wrong-so we can declare what is sin, not so we can behave morally superior to others.
So, he's speaking from the conservative Christian perspective now? This guy doesn't know who he is.
These are HIS people.
So well groomed in reflexive acceptance of the perversities which the Abrahamic call "morals" that you call them "objective".
And using the word "well educated" instead of "well indoctrinated in modern Abrahamic thought" is just weird.
Okay. Have fun, try not to cut yourself with all that edge
@@MrPlainsflyer you dont have to post your mirror pep talk bro
@sunkintree thanks for the advice, didn't know it was mirror prep talk.
Finely calibrated moral scruples = hyper sensitivities? Isn't Emotional management also considered to an intelligence? Having balance?
Wouldn't that exclude them from being the smartest people?...
Peterson doesn’t seem impressed, I don’t blame him.
Good formulation. We are deep into an iteration of The Great Antediluvian Gravitation; the Serpent was motivated to obscure from us it's characteristics. By his authority, only by faith with rigor can we break through to the Light.
Well done Sam- you’ve identified the problem you’ve been contributing to
Wow he said something actually smart!
Objective morality of a human, especially an atheist, is an oxymoron. Morality conjured up by human intellect is simply borrowing from the Divine truth imprinted on one's soul, corrupted by self-interest. Only the One Who is transcendent over materialism can produce truly objective morality. Hence, the tongue-tied confusion in which our world languishes today.
Can the rhetoric of the woke left defined as a cacophony of confusing hypocritical illogical contradictions?
Sam really has no right to talk shit about anyone given his SEVERE case of TDS
Hes true all these things are Anathema 🙏❤️🙏❤️🙏❤️
They are turned over to a debased mindset! They have forsaken God, and Jesus says “I am the way, the truth and the life…”, so that when they forsake Him they have forsaken Truth! Only submission to the Lordship of Jesus reestablishes the proper domain of order in our lives and grounds is to the Truth!
Academic ability is not wisdom. Letting a bunch of teenagers with undeveloped brains dictate the direction of social discourse is dumb, frankly.
The wisest man I’ve ever met was a 50 year old taxi driver.
Wow Sam finally said something that I agree with.
According to Sam “objective moral values” don’t exists. The only way they exist is a moral law giver above mankind (God). Without God all morality is merely opinion.
Even with god it is still subjective.
Wow, he aged so fast when his brain broke.
Objective moral values. Define the source of these or your conversation doesn't begin.
Morality is subjective. Sam wants to use rationalism to ground it and Jordan wants to rely on religion and historical traditions. Both are exercises in futility.
@@ericanderson7346 Either it comes from a transcendent source or there is none. Subjective? Such opinions are rationalizations.
@@wilburkowitz7344 If there is no transcendent source, and there is no good evidence for one, we are indeed left with subjectivity. When I say that both Sam and Jordan are wrong, I mean that there is no objective and solid grounding for morality. That’s not to say that we don’t absolutely need it. But we should understand where it comes from and not try to invent some mystical, fictional force as a means of creating a stamp of approval. That’s delusional. Our morality comes from a combination of rationalizations and their real world applications over thousands of years. Recognizing that morality is a human creation and a work in progress, and something that often varies from one culture to next is critical. And when one claims that their morality comes from the creator of the universe, what does that say about the morality of other cultures? That’s incredibly egocentric.
I would disagree that those people are well educated. The goal of education is to teach people to think and not to agree with the prevailing ideology
Doctor Peterson! I can safely assume most reasons why Academics would rebuff running for a political position...But why isnt it, more political figures don't have academic figures, such as yourself,well versed in the issues that currently plague the public they claim to serve, on staff or as "right hand" men? I get that it does not monetarily serve them in the immediate sense, but it would certainly lend a more credible persona, thus gaining them a better tract record overall? Nes pas? P.S. LOVE YOU! Cheers to your New Year!
Guys, I don’t know if you see but Sam’s souls have left the earth
Sam is a joke on every issue but Muslims mistreating people
Not Everyone
The irony of SH speaking of others being untethered from objective morality. And then there’s that ultimate expectation of the eventual supernova of the Sun, and. . .
What's the story with the earbuds?
sam is amazing !! always so clear and on point
For Sam Harris to admit this is wild
Yup future father's of the most powerful country earth has even seen...that's those guys
So we need to apply common sense to objective moral values... we're screwed.
Are they the smartest? I’d like to see some objective data on that claim.
Yeah, because people like Sam have convinced them there is no Most High God, thereby stripping away any logical need for objective moral standards.
Even if there is a god, that wouldn’t mean it was the one you worship, or that he would fit your moral framework. The Greek gods certainly would not. And if it is your god, why does that make your morality any more objective? The god of the Bible did some things that most people would consider very immoral, if the book is to be believed.
@@ericanderson7346 immoral from who’s perspective? A human’s?
@@ericanderson7346 only one holy book has no errors, has correct prophecies, is backed by scientific, archaeological, and historical evidence. So it’s pretty easy once you actually study the religions
@@bobtwista Immoral from the Bible itself. That book preaches against things like murder and theft yet it has God commanding the Israelites to commit these atrocities. God himself is wrathful, capricious, petty, and murderous in the Bible.
@@bobtwista The Bible is filled with errors, and its prophecies are so vague they could apply to any number of historical events. Yet the biggest prophecy, that “this generation shall not pass until all these things have been fulfilled,” has still, nearly 2,000 years later, never happened. Don’t know a whole lot of people who have lived that long.
Programming people's minds is real..
A broken clock...
Education does not equal wisdom
Their moral balance point has become a fulcrum weapon of leverage.
Its the opposing beliefs of universalism and cultural relativism. Universalism will likely win out as a result of an increasingly globalized world, its just a matter of time.
Objective moral values in relation to day-to-day social interactions and an event that stand out in a history.
Basically what has been said is that modern college kids aren't capable of processing historical example, aren't capable of taking in the significance of historical event as if it has happened in the present. Meaning college students aren't capable of individual judgement, and what is seem to be as individual judgement at present isn't judgment at all, because if they could have judge present why would they be tongue bound about historical event.
Few words to defend college kids, you see, to make an "objective moral" experiment valid, present event has to be given as if it already took place and is finite, so that booth sides would answer the same question "what would have happened differently if..."
I think we are running a test to see what happens if we abandon all moorings hammered into the river of ethics by religion and we adopt the sort of secular ethical system Sam has advocated for. And look it breaks down immediately and people who agree with Sam are scrambling to cling to the life boat of religion.
In my mind, Sam is one of the leading figures of the generation of such minds. Whether he agrees with them or not, this is the "Landscape" of atheistic attempts at objective morality. You are only left with claims others brought you, and have no basis by which to insist upon those claims. You have a hermeneutic you insist upon because you enjoy the consistency of reason, but deny Openness its otherwise rightful place behind the wheel of societal norms. He doesn't seem sorry enough.
I never liked his take on objective morality either.
I have never had a problem with morality being subjective. That still doesn't mean it's arbitrary. Our moral sense has been subjected to thousands of years of evolution, and is regulated strongly by our emotions, like compassion and empathy.
As we developed higher reasoning faculties, we've codified and formalized this into a set of distilled rules. And we enforce those rules as a society, with broad consensus, under threat of direct punishment or social ostracization. Like all other social animals do, except with more sophistication.
I don't need much more explanation than that.
Trying to figure out the "true nature of good and evil" is just pointless navel gazing to me.
There's no such thing as objective morality
You saying "morality derives from god" is just you picking a subject (god) that your morality derives from. It's not objective.
Happy to help.
@@sunkintree You using a quote that isn't from me tells me you aren't a serious thinker. Don't try to summarize my argument with points I didn't make. Happy to help
@@chrism3790 @chrism3790 I respect your position! I understand that you think it is pointless, but it will be continually revealed to you that those who don't care for the order that you think is a reault of millions of years of evolution isn't so admirable to your counterparts who will take the subjectivity of morality as a license for liberal notions of reordering morality. And what are you going to say? You'll tell them that their actions aren't permissible because they happen to have a different take on values than you do? You'll try to ostracize them until they ostracize you, and then you will learn that the will to disorder (openness) in man is just as strong as that for order (conscientiousness), and that without an additional ethic, man would tear himself apart. Yet you will have only the argument that time used to be on your side to defend your sense of moral judgment, because at that point, time will be on their side. The problem is, atheists don't agree on what the ethic is. They have different aims and different hermeneutics, and they have no common goal, such that no one atheist can tell another that he or she is going about this morality thing the wrong way. A moral system that was derived naturally has too little stability to outlast man's freedom.
Perhaps that is just how things are bound to become, evolutionarily speaking. Perhaps we have only subjective moral inclinations, but then we are bound to disintegration. My guess is at some point along the way you will doubt your own hypothesis in favor of those qualities in life you find too beautiful to do away with, when the majority of atheists demand you do away with them for their more arbitrary whims.
@@benjaminkelble4021
Men have been tearing each other apart and rebuilding themselves anew for hundreds of thousands of years, and that is precisely the eternal dance that has shaped us and our predecesors since ancient times. Social animals are in constant conflict between the selfish instincts that help the individual survive, and the selfless behavior that help the whole. Whatever compromise works best is then slowly burned into our DNA over thousands of years, and then enforced socially. A smart primate might even come along and wonder how it all works, and attribute it all to some divine design.
But a deity isn't necessary in this process. Nature can slowly select the "desirable" and discard the "undesirable" by itself, pruning away trillions of failed experiments, and the rest just happens with enough time.
What I don't understand is your suggestion that understanding this process would somehow mean mean that we're unshackled and we get to ignore the rules. They are still binding and we're still subject to them, or nature will prune our little experiment, too.
That is why I stand by my original statement that the realization about the origin or objectivity of morality is largely moot. What is important is that we never forget the pragmatic implications of ignoring our own nature.
Lol Sam if something is inherently random there can be no morality found in it. He’s so smart and yet so stupid.
What are you saying is inherently random according to him?
@@mad-eyemax1389 morality cannot be subjective. It is either right or wrong otherwise it violates the law of non contradiction. It cannot be derived from culture since what is moral in one culture is different than another. Ultimately morality is derived from Gods nature. People have a hard time accepting this because of the problem of evil. If the universe is random (which there’s no evidence of) the chances are simply mathematically impossible. There’s a 1 in 10^400 chance that it’s random. If you found an iPhone laying on the street you would assume that it was dropped from someone’s pocket not zapped into existence by lightning. So the idea that we came from the Big Bang which only states that there is a start to the universe not how it started. And from there derived life which we can’t explain and that life evolved into now us is scientifically nonsense. So he like all atheists believe it is random then there can be no morality. If I chop off someone’s arm for the hell of it, I can’t be to blame because that was merely a random act. There’s no difference between good and bad except from the random opinion of the individual at that time. So everything is good and everything is bad. That’s just bad logic.
I have a team of experts working around the clock trying to decipher your gobbledegook
I genuinely like Sam Harris and some of his work!!
Acck.. but objective morality requires that there be a God.
The old one-eyed JP supporters are out in full force 😂
I like JP, but seriously, his cult following is embarassing. Sometimes you have to form your own opinions and agree with people you dislike, and disagree with people you like.
Obviously this comment doesnt apply to everyone, calm down kids 😂
Most of us are waiting for this the blow over man.
If we lose somesort of religious underpinning we are lost from the past. Control the womens mind with a frame and they will control the men.
CGJ
Also don't use the word smartest they're the most educated people that doesn't mean they are smart
hes talking about jp
I thougt he gona end a sentence without bashing any Muslims, but No .Never disapont me!
He's right... but he is also apart of the problem. The fact is modern society (not postmodern) directly got that moral compass from Christianity. That's how we got here. And he refuses to believe that and thinks an atheist framework can do without it.
Edit. It looks like I'm not the only one in the comments that think this.
We also received some terrible things from Christian morality, and many of the useful things were developed independently in other cultures as well. People can also easily convince themselves that awful things they do and say are justified by whatever their faith is, so it’s usefulness is a bit overstated.
@@ericanderson7346 wrong! People have always done bad things to each other. Slavery not invented by Christians. Murder not invented by Christians. Christianity is 2,000 years old and dependent on the teachings of Christ. And he never enslaved anyone or killed anyone. All he did was heal people. The fact that Christians did bad things is not a result of Christianity it's despite it and because of the circumstance and time in which they lived. And to not see that makes you blind to how that happened. Look at any societies today and you find all the progress was made by the Christian Philosophy. The ten commandments, love thy nabors, turn the other cheek. This can't be said about Islam. Mohammed hated Jews, Mohammed was a war monger, Mohammed married a 6 year old. And his words are irrefutable to Muslims and his life should be emulated. That will explain to you why every Muslim country is a despotic hell hole that is intolerant of any other religion. We could talk about hindu or Buddhist teachings but they are not as common as Christians or Muslims. So their impact on the state of the world is not as evident. But I would say because of that they are generally peaceful. Though they have had their conflicts. The problem I'm talking about is the Islamic problem child. And the only way to defeat that poison is with Christianity. And the New Atheist have weakened that. Believe me I'm no Christian but I understand that was where all the good ideas come from.
The sad state of affairs.
They are just woke.
Well-educate .... no common sense/courtesy.
Is Sam still relevant?
Tool him 30 minutes to say a few words 😅
Sam Harris, who once said if he had a magic wand and could choose to get rid of rape or religion he'd get rid of religion. And he's lecturing us about morality.😅