As an Objectivist (someone who ascribes to the philosophy of Ayn Rand) i disagree with Shermer and many other classical liberals that "humans have intrinsic value". Value is not intrinsic, value is objective. Value is not something inside an object apart from the consciousness of the subject. We can do an autopsy on a human corpse and you wont find "intrinsic value" inside them. Nor is value subjective, i.e. determined by the subject's consciousness irrespective of any facts apart from the subject. A diabetic might value a chocolate cake and choose to eat it on a whim, but he will soon discover that doing so is not good for his life. A value according to Ayn Rand is something that we go after and try to gain and/or keep because we have a particular purpose for it (which may be rational or irrational). For instance i pursue a education for the purposes of gaining knowledge and certain skills that i can utilise for my career. Or, i buy a VW Golf because i want transportation to get me to and from my place of work reliably. In these two cases i've chosen to pursue a value for some purpose that is based on facts. I could not have a successful career without knowledge and the ability to read and write. I could not maintain a job that requires me to travel without access to some kind of transport to get me there. There is no intrinsic value in a car, many people do not have one and do not need one based on their factual circumstances. And the education or the car is clearly not a subjective value. If i want a career as a physicist i cannot subjectively choose to study feminism. There is no intrinsic value in human beings. There are humans foraging in the Amazon jungle today who i don't know and don't care about and don't value. Unlike my girlfriend who i do value and care deeply about. or Unlike Kim Jung Un, the dictator of North Korea, who i would like to see killed - he has no intrinsic value - and those who make the argument that humans have intrinsic worth are in a contradiction because they would argue that a dictator like Kim Jung Un has to be killed, or a thief imprisoned, so they do not apply their approach consistently. Values are objective, that is there are an interrelationship between an object out there in reality apart from consciousness and a person's consciousness evaluating the object according to a rational standard (the long term successful survival of your life). I decide for me what is and isn't a value to me and pursue the values i think will enhance my life over the long term based on the facts of the matter. But whilst i evaluating different people as having different levels of value (or disvalue) to me as an individual, This is different from the perspective that the government must take. The government exists to protect all individuals. Governments are instituted to protect individual rights because a social system built on this principle allows all individuals to pursue the rational values needed for their own purposes without infringing on the ability of others to do so. As humans we need this freedom because we survive by our reason and by applying our reason to the task of production. The values our lives require to survive and thrive, like food, clothing, shelter, love, friendship etc have to be created, they are not automatically given to use in nature, and we require the freedom to think and act on our thoughts to create those values. Governments are instituted to enable us to achieve that. All individuals have the same universal requirements (food clothing shelter, reason, purpose, self-esteem) in order to live well so the government must protect every individuals freedom to achieve their own survival unless there is objective evidence that an individual is violating the rights of someone else (thereby hurting the life of this person) and step in to resolve the situation. But as private citizens we don't view all individuals as intrinsically valuable, many individuals are irrational and downright harmful to us, so we need to be objective, we need to judge the ideas and actions of others according to the facts and if we judge people to be a threat to us we disassociate ourselves from those relationships. That is different from saying that we afford all individuals with a minimal amount of respect (i.e. a respect for their rights) because it is advantageous to us to live in a rights-based society and we are free to disassociate with anyone we don't like.
I'm sorry, but a person desiring cake and then later getting sick from it is not a refutation of subjectivity. Subjective morality =/= desire. The subject may value health over positive experience (cake), but be unable to resist. The subject may simply value the positive experience of the cake over health (and many of us make this conscious choice all the time).
Having read through this, I actually think you are saying that morality is subjective, but the means by which we measure those values are objective, ie. if we want human flourishing (subjective), there is an objective way to achieve it.
@@QuiveringEye An adult that is unrestrained by his peers is capable of resisting a sweet treat. As individuals we have agency and self-control. Every day we choose to eat some foods and not others. Nobody is compelled by internal forces to eat something. Moreover, i never claimed that in reality some people, like a diabetic, may choose to eat the cake and risk ill health, i have close family members who are diabetics and one in particular suffered severe health consequences because she played Russian roulette with her food intake believing that she would be fine as long has she took her insulin not long after, and ended up hospitalised. Subjectivism in this context is the belief that what is good for the subject is whatever the subject chooses, irrespective of any other considerations other than his desire for the thing. Your example exemplifies this theory when you say that “the subject may value the positive experience of the cake over health” - that is precisely the mentality that is consistent with subjectivism in morality. The subject wants the cake, he believes that the cake is of greater value to him that the long term consequences of his health, for no other reason than he has the desire for it. But just because he desires something doesn’t mean that it is objectively good for him, as my diabetic family member found out and quickly regretted. Our values, to be objective, have to be rationally judged according to an objective fact-based moral standard, which for Objectivism is “man’s life” meaning that values need to be evaluated based on “the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan-in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice.” It ought to be clear that the diabetic who plays Russian roulette with their diet and health risks is not concerned about what is actually in his objective self-interest. He has not evaluated his actions according to any kind of fact based standard he is simply acting on whim. Over the long term he will develop a habit of doing so that puts his life and successful survival at risk.
@@QuiveringEye No, I’m just using subjective in a different way to you. I’m using it in a philosophic (primarily epistemological and ethical sense), where as you appear to be using it in a metaphysical sense. Human flourishing is an objective value for all individuals, by which i mean three things, first, that all individuals ought to value human flourishing (regardless of whether they do or not in reality), second, that certain principles enable human flourishing and are universal and apply to all humans at all times in all places and third, that these principles are based on the facts, they are not whatever the subject wants them to be, the subject may want communism or fascism to lead to human flourishing but those political philosophies do not. The principles are based on facts, they are based on the facts of reality and on human nature, which is why they are universal. But what that means is that each individual must discover these principles and apply them to their own life, in their own specific context. This does not make the principles “subjective”. If this is how you’re using the term then what you’re packaging together under the concept “subjective” is the man who makes decisions based on facts, and according to reason and logical evidence, as well as the man who lives by short-range whim and instant gratification i.e. primarily by his emotions, rather than reason. These are two fundamentally different modes of action that cannot be packaged under the term “subjective” which is why i don’t use that term. I say “personal” to emphasise that each person ought to pursue objective values, by applying objective principles in their own particular context, which is fact in and of itself.
@@louislemar796 A) There is an assumption of agency; we don't actually know if it is complete determinism. B) Your definition of subjectivism is atypical. Subjectivism is just subject-dependent morality; even subjectivists might violate their own sense of morality by doing something that is "bad" for them. You, in fact, are a subjectivist by choosing which values you find important. See your statement: "I decide for me what is and isn't a value to me and pursue the values i think will enhance my life over the long term." This is a subjective view; note that you start with the word "I". C) Here is another example of you asserting a subjective value: " values need to be evaluated based on “the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan-in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice.” This is you pushing this value over the positive experience of eating cake. Subjective. E) "It ought to be clear that the diabetic who plays Russian roulette with their diet and health risks is not concerned about what is actually in his objective self-interest" Correct; they've made a choice to eat cake instead. Once again, their subjective value is different towards yours. You can say it is wrong, though (you are another subject, after all, with your own set of values).
Given that humans were around for 300,000 years, I find the idea a bit silly that the most important moral teaching (according to Christians) was revealed by a god only about 2,000 years ago.
Did the Greek philosophers believe that all people were created equal? Was it self-evident to them? Would Plato agree with you that the slave and the aristocrat are equal? Prior to the Jesus revolution, where do you find these self-evident rights?
@@HiHoSilvey My comment has nothing to do with what Greek philosophers believed or not believed at the time. But to answer your question, the Stoics did believe in the fundamental equality of all humans and Stoicism predates Christianity by three centuries. They held that all people are equal by nature and share the same capacity for reason and virtue. I think "rights" and "values" are a human construct, not a divine revelation. The Code of Hammurabi dating back to 1750 BCE also emphasize justice and the protection of the weak and vulnerable, so the "rights" you attribute to the "Jesus revolution" isn't something that's unique to Christianity. I've answered your questions. Can you at least attempt to address my actual comment?
@@onionbelly_Really? The code of Hammurabi which specifically punishes the death of a nobleman by death, but a death of a woman is punished by compensation to her father? Most of the laws in the code are conditional statements, so I’m not sure where you’re getting your “universal” treatment from.
“as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.’” (Rom. 3:10-12 ESV)
@@alexreid4131 It is also written: "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not." (The Lorax by Dr Seuss)
@@davegaskell7680 many things “are written”. I didn’t say that Bible quote was written. The Bible in the New Testament quoted itself elsewhere and said “as it is written”. This is a discussion about whether one can be good without God. If the God of the Bible is to be believed then that God says no…one can’t. If you don’t believe the Bible or the God of that Bible then sure quote whatever you like. Makes no difference in that case either and/or all ways.
“Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless”, Russell Bertrand. I want to live in a world that has meaning, a universe that has a creator who cares. My teenage sons are hungry for purpose, they want to know that they matter. They need to hear about love, beauty, kindness, hope, faith. gratitude, humility. You don't get all that in a cold, mindless, indifferent world.
@@alanklette7369 God is such a loaded word, full of negative connotations in today's rational/materialistic world. Replace "God" with "Love" if that makes more sense to you. I serve "Love" means I care, I am committed, I sacrifice. "Love" is what binds us together. What is at the top of your hierarchy of values, if not Love?
@@forthePaternalRole Why is teaching your teenage sons about love, beauty, kindness and gratitude contingent on your wish of a cosmic creator that cares about you? Can't you just love your sons regardless?
@@onionbelly_ Good point. Let me reverse the question: Do you hope that there is no cosmic creator? With God you explain how we have 1. Something out of nothing 2. Order out of chaos 3. Life from non-life 4. Human mind and consciousness from mere apes Science cannot explain any of the above. What is so bad about having faith that there is a God who loves us and who cares? What attracts you to nihilism?
@@forthePaternalRole I'll be happy to address your questions and false assumptions about me if you actually answered my questions. Is saying "good point" a concession on your part and you just wanted to change topics?
The Biblical teachings have always been that God created human beings with an innate moral sense, a conscience, that harmful actions occur when people resist that moral sense, and that each person will be ultimately responsible for how they have acted in light of such basic morality. Societies can either support that moral sense or attempt to suborn that moral sense, depending on the designs of the rulers. From this perspective, morality is not a realm of abstract reasoning, it is practically living to one's human potential. In Biblical terms, living a moral life will bring many types of blessing.
It’s worth noting that Christianity has a retribution model for morality: If someone does something wrong, they deserve to be punished. Moreover, it’s only Christians who are exempt because they believe a specific thing and are part of a specific group. They are on God’s side and expect to see privileged benefits from that belief through devotion and prayer. That’s worth considering especially at 51:26. I find it’s more useful to adopt a social contract view of morality. We recognize that things are wrong because there are unspoken rules in place. When someone breaks them, we want them to stop that behaviour. Retribution is just one way of discouraging it, but there are many other ways of doing that which don’t require condemnation. Once you recognize that, the Christian concept of God seems contrived.
Its self evident that no one has rights over me. Its this truth that inalienable rights stem from. Example - you don't have the right to take my life therefore I have the right to life. The violation of this right is a crime and because its a crime the one who commits this crime will have to face cosmic justice who is God.
If there is a "God", it assumes that power is the greatest law to alot of these theological constructions. By serving a power just because it created you, you just worship power.
Shermer at ~ 11:25, *"and most of the opponents of abolitionism that is pro-slavery proponents were Christians."* He is claiming this as fact. What data does he rely upon? I'm no evidentiary expert, but wouldn't the making of that claim depend on comparing 1) the opponents of abolitionism that is pro-slavery proponents were Christians and 2) the opponents of abolitionism that is pro-slavery proponents were *NOT* Christians Does such data exist? Has Shermer accessed it or is he just making this up?
They both make these assumptions and it’s impossible to know who is being dishonest without more information. It’s important to note that that argument from popularity is a fallacy. It’s common for Christians to simply assert that they have the best moral framework. I think Shermer has fallen for this bait, as if it has anything to do with moral epistemology. The Bible itself is far more conclusive than any statistic. Leviticus 25:44-46.
Am I wrong in thinking what started the enlightenment was not christian values being revealed but criticism from native North American tribes pointing out flaws in Western society, for example crictisms from Kandiaronk.
@aasalata cool, My source was a book I've been reading called The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow, where it talks about Christian missionaries going into North American tribes where in these communities had a egalitarian society that was based around equality such as women having rights over there bodies or the community taking on the punishment for crimes for the individual or how they spread wealth equally in their community. It is argued that these ideas were brought back from missionaries to Europe, which led to discussions on equality and human rights. There is also some native american criticisms of late 1600 to early 1700 European society pointing out the wealth inequality, them not being able to feed the poor, the corruption of the financial system, the placing of rulers such as kings above other people and arguments against Christianity.
Equal rights for women in native American tribes back in the 1600's? Hilarious. The idea that the native Americans were any less brutal, power hungry, cruel and warlike than the British or Europeans is a lie. I doubt they had any more influence on the British/European way of thinking with regard to religion and morality than the colonists did on the native Americans.
@@Voxis_23456 read the Bible. You'll find it's quite good for stating Christian values. Also if you don't understand what you're reading at first, commentaries are a great tool.
@benisbrave5290 If the values were already there in Europe, why did the enlightenment happen just as those missionaries (jesuates) brought back native american ideals?
"and most of the opponents of abolitionism that is pro-slavery proponents were Christians." Virtually all slaveholders in the Americas were Christians. Furthermore the Bible condones and promotes slavery, except between Israelite males where it is forbidden.
This entire issue is confusing. From both the religious and atheist point of view, which gives rise to the arguments on both sides. As children, we seem to have a "deep sense" of required fairness. But as soon as we become aware of the Universe around us, we soon realize that almost everything around us is UNFAIR. This often starts out with young children appreciating and loving the taste of dead animals. This is also immensely confusing because those animals must suffer so we can enjoy tasting them. (We don't actually need to eat animals to survive, but it takes effort.) Even if God exists, we are entitled to be confused. And if God does not exist, we are also entitled to be confused by a shockingly uncaring Universe. There does appear to be a corpus of science that requires very, very fine tuning for animals to exist. This is also very confusing. Both sides seem dogmatic about their explanations and answers. Maybe the most honest view is simply to say that: "We do not know." We may find out after we die. Maybe not. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Sherman doesnt understand the question. He probably never asked it with any level of seriousness. What is the basis of good? What is the ultimate ought?
@@seanpierce9386 Yes, that's what I call God, the absolute beginning and end of all things material or immaterial. Turns out that this definition matches the Christian story while being greatly expanded and clarified in it.
@@aasalata So you believe that we ought to obey God. Let’s say that someone tells you they spoke to God. 1. How do you tell whether they’re correct? 2. Assuming they’re right, why should you do what God commands? Please answer these questions first. Then, as a working example, let’s use Leviticus 25:44-46.
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 Jesus is not a mythical character. All historians agree he existed. Even Tim o Neil an atheist on his website history for atheists says that atheists need to stop saying he did not exist. It’s a bad argument and he gives good evidence why. Stop using this argument. It’s a bad one and it shows atheists being intellectually dishonest.
@@connerdozier6689 Who cares what a guy says? Not all historians agree he was historical, many historians are also mythicists . Unless you can prove he was a real person, we have no reason to favour historicity over myth. I can actually show that the Romans had every reason to create a Jeesus character with all the characteristics that the bible paints him with
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 The Romans despised Christianity as a weak religion of women and slaves. They also saw it as atheism because Christians rejected the pantheon of gods. Claudius expelled Christians from Rome. The idea that Romans would create such a figure as Jesus is nonsense. There were several sources outside of the Bible that mentioned Jesus as a historical figure including Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius. These historians were not sympathetic.
I am the promised seed. God told me to do better, so I did. My initial sacrifice wasn't good enough since you can't love plants the same way you can love a animal. An animal can be considered a member of the family, a pet. What did I love that I could sacrifice? I loved my brother. And it was a sacrifice that God accepted. Like the christians I was granted protection from death because of my brothers sacrifice. And like the Jews I was cursed with being a wanderer and a fugitive for being the one who sacrificed my brother. You see? Cain was playing both the role of the Jew and christian. Did you know that Moses was also a wanderer and fugitive? This is because Moses is Cain. And Jesus is Abel. The first time Moses came down the mountain he broke the tablets, foreshadowing his failure to keep the law which kept him from inheriting the promised land. But the second time he came down the mountain he kept the law and his face shown like the sun. This foreshadows the return of Moses in the end times when he will successfully obtain godhood just as his brother has. I just needed Jesus to do it first so I can follow his lead. It's kind of funny but it was always predestined to go this way. The hint is in our names. Abel being able where Cain is someone who stumbles, who can't walk straight without assistance. Genesis says that her seed will bruise the head of Satan's seed and he will strike my heel. This is the book of revelation, this will be my last day on earth and three and half days later I will ascend and he will recover from his head wound. You see? I am the promised seed. And three and half years later I will return with Jesus and my wife who is the other witness and a lot of reinforcements, and we'll finish the job I started.
@keith86ify Cain was of the evil one,he murdered his own brother. The moral of the story is that God put a mark of protection that no one would take revenge or mob mentality.vengence is mine saith the lord' l will repay.
@@frederickanderson1860 guess that means every other evil person gets protection from death as well right? Except they don't. I feel like I live in a world full of mannequins. I explain things clearly and you guys just thoughtlessly disagree and make your own baseless assumptions. Bible calls Cain a killer, not a murderer. You guys see what you want to see. I can't wait to see the look on your face when you find out who's your judge.
@@ivanasimic2072 wonderful, I'm glad your book says not to do that but unfortunately the predominant practice amongst religious majorities is to do exactly that. If you don't believe that to be true than answer for me why it is christians who are the largest group of people trying to strip away people's rights and attempting to roll back civil protections for minority groups?
Glen Scrivener seems like a nice guy, but he is not well read in moral theory or intellectual history. Glen is out of his depth with a highly trained historian like Michael Shermer. This program works only as light conversation. You wouldn't ask Michael to "debate" Glen on Episcopalian theology. Glen reminds me of Jordan Peterson, whose contribution to such a discussion is served best with a cocktail in hand. Debate is a competitive sport with rules and a decision, and two equally educated opponents.
Nice guy?....doubt it. Apologism is the means for talentless con artists to make a living out of screwing the gullible and the emotionally weak. Many undistinguished authors eventually head down the apologist route in order to find a ready made market with eager buyers willing to snap up anything that strengthens and reaffirms their faith Religion is also a convenient haven for bigots, mysogynists, racists to hide under the cloak of "faith in the divine". So much so, its major proponents and henchmen (priests and pastors) use it to obscure their pee-dough file activities from the public
The historian Tom Holland would shred Shermer's insistence on self-evident rights. Even though Holland is not a Christian, he recognizes the profound influence of the Jesus Revolution on the West. To deny that influence is foolish. As Holland puts it, we are goldfish swimming in the water of Christianity whether you believe it's truth claims or not. Watch Holland's debate with atheist philosopher AC Grayling. It's a good introduction to his premise.
Jesus Christ drowned millions of babies in Noah's flood. He's a mass-murderer. And that's why Christians have a reputation for mass killings and genocide, wiping whole tribes and cultures off the planet
@@HiHoSilvey Glen, Michael, Tom and AC appear to me to be very smart gentlemen, with much to contribute to those willing to listen carefully. I don't know any of them personally, but doubt that they would be interested in "shredding," one another or being perceived as trying to do so. I gather they enjoy expressing their educated opinions and in learning from their interlocutors. I'm sure their disagreements will lead observers to find one or another more compelling. My modest objection with Premier Unbelievable? is with the term "debate" and the arbitrary matching of professional opponents. An historian, philosopher, theologian and scientist all bring different perspectives to a conversation, but are not equivalent opponents or debaters.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/1.gif)
As an Objectivist (someone who ascribes to the philosophy of Ayn Rand) i disagree with Shermer and many other classical liberals that "humans have intrinsic value". Value is not intrinsic, value is objective. Value is not something inside an object apart from the consciousness of the subject. We can do an autopsy on a human corpse and you wont find "intrinsic value" inside them. Nor is value subjective, i.e. determined by the subject's consciousness irrespective of any facts apart from the subject. A diabetic might value a chocolate cake and choose to eat it on a whim, but he will soon discover that doing so is not good for his life. A value according to Ayn Rand is something that we go after and try to gain and/or keep because we have a particular purpose for it (which may be rational or irrational). For instance i pursue a education for the purposes of gaining knowledge and certain skills that i can utilise for my career. Or, i buy a VW Golf because i want transportation to get me to and from my place of work reliably. In these two cases i've chosen to pursue a value for some purpose that is based on facts. I could not have a successful career without knowledge and the ability to read and write. I could not maintain a job that requires me to travel without access to some kind of transport to get me there. There is no intrinsic value in a car, many people do not have one and do not need one based on their factual circumstances. And the education or the car is clearly not a subjective value. If i want a career as a physicist i cannot subjectively choose to study feminism.
There is no intrinsic value in human beings. There are humans foraging in the Amazon jungle today who i don't know and don't care about and don't value. Unlike my girlfriend who i do value and care deeply about. or Unlike Kim Jung Un, the dictator of North Korea, who i would like to see killed - he has no intrinsic value - and those who make the argument that humans have intrinsic worth are in a contradiction because they would argue that a dictator like Kim Jung Un has to be killed, or a thief imprisoned, so they do not apply their approach consistently.
Values are objective, that is there are an interrelationship between an object out there in reality apart from consciousness and a person's consciousness evaluating the object according to a rational standard (the long term successful survival of your life). I decide for me what is and isn't a value to me and pursue the values i think will enhance my life over the long term based on the facts of the matter. But whilst i evaluating different people as having different levels of value (or disvalue) to me as an individual, This is different from the perspective that the government must take. The government exists to protect all individuals. Governments are instituted to protect individual rights because a social system built on this principle allows all individuals to pursue the rational values needed for their own purposes without infringing on the ability of others to do so. As humans we need this freedom because we survive by our reason and by applying our reason to the task of production. The values our lives require to survive and thrive, like food, clothing, shelter, love, friendship etc have to be created, they are not automatically given to use in nature, and we require the freedom to think and act on our thoughts to create those values. Governments are instituted to enable us to achieve that. All individuals have the same universal requirements (food clothing shelter, reason, purpose, self-esteem) in order to live well so the government must protect every individuals freedom to achieve their own survival unless there is objective evidence that an individual is violating the rights of someone else (thereby hurting the life of this person) and step in to resolve the situation. But as private citizens we don't view all individuals as intrinsically valuable, many individuals are irrational and downright harmful to us, so we need to be objective, we need to judge the ideas and actions of others according to the facts and if we judge people to be a threat to us we disassociate ourselves from those relationships. That is different from saying that we afford all individuals with a minimal amount of respect (i.e. a respect for their rights) because it is advantageous to us to live in a rights-based society and we are free to disassociate with anyone we don't like.
I'm sorry, but a person desiring cake and then later getting sick from it is not a refutation of subjectivity. Subjective morality =/= desire. The subject may value health over positive experience (cake), but be unable to resist. The subject may simply value the positive experience of the cake over health (and many of us make this conscious choice all the time).
Having read through this, I actually think you are saying that morality is subjective, but the means by which we measure those values are objective, ie. if we want human flourishing (subjective), there is an objective way to achieve it.
@@QuiveringEye An adult that is unrestrained by his peers is capable of resisting a sweet treat. As individuals we have agency and self-control. Every day we choose to eat some foods and not others. Nobody is compelled by internal forces to eat something. Moreover, i never claimed that in reality some people, like a diabetic, may choose to eat the cake and risk ill health, i have close family members who are diabetics and one in particular suffered severe health consequences because she played Russian roulette with her food intake believing that she would be fine as long has she took her insulin not long after, and ended up hospitalised.
Subjectivism in this context is the belief that what is good for the subject is whatever the subject chooses, irrespective of any other considerations other than his desire for the thing. Your example exemplifies this theory when you say that “the subject may value the positive experience of the cake over health” - that is precisely the mentality that is consistent with subjectivism in morality. The subject wants the cake, he believes that the cake is of greater value to him that the long term consequences of his health, for no other reason than he has the desire for it. But just because he desires something doesn’t mean that it is objectively good for him, as my diabetic family member found out and quickly regretted. Our values, to be objective, have to be rationally judged according to an objective fact-based moral standard, which for Objectivism is “man’s life” meaning that values need to be evaluated based on “the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan-in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice.”
It ought to be clear that the diabetic who plays Russian roulette with their diet and health risks is not concerned about what is actually in his objective self-interest. He has not evaluated his actions according to any kind of fact based standard he is simply acting on whim. Over the long term he will develop a habit of doing so that puts his life and successful survival at risk.
@@QuiveringEye No, I’m just using subjective in a different way to you. I’m using it in a philosophic (primarily epistemological and ethical sense), where as you appear to be using it in a metaphysical sense. Human flourishing is an objective value for all individuals, by which i mean three things, first, that all individuals ought to value human flourishing (regardless of whether they do or not in reality), second, that certain principles enable human flourishing and are universal and apply to all humans at all times in all places and third, that these principles are based on the facts, they are not whatever the subject wants them to be, the subject may want communism or fascism to lead to human flourishing but those political philosophies do not. The principles are based on facts, they are based on the facts of reality and on human nature, which is why they are universal. But what that means is that each individual must discover these principles and apply them to their own life, in their own specific context. This does not make the principles “subjective”. If this is how you’re using the term then what you’re packaging together under the concept “subjective” is the man who makes decisions based on facts, and according to reason and logical evidence, as well as the man who lives by short-range whim and instant gratification i.e. primarily by his emotions, rather than reason. These are two fundamentally different modes of action that cannot be packaged under the term “subjective” which is why i don’t use that term. I say “personal” to emphasise that each person ought to pursue objective values, by applying objective principles in their own particular context, which is fact in and of itself.
@@louislemar796
A) There is an assumption of agency; we don't actually know if it is complete determinism.
B) Your definition of subjectivism is atypical. Subjectivism is just subject-dependent morality; even subjectivists might violate their own sense of morality by doing something that is "bad" for them. You, in fact, are a subjectivist by choosing which values you find important. See your statement: "I decide for me what is and isn't a value to me and pursue the values i think will enhance my life over the long term." This is a subjective view; note that you start with the word "I".
C) Here is another example of you asserting a subjective value: " values need to be evaluated based on “the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan-in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice.” This is you pushing this value over the positive experience of eating cake. Subjective.
E) "It ought to be clear that the diabetic who plays Russian roulette with their diet and health risks is not concerned about what is actually in his objective self-interest" Correct; they've made a choice to eat cake instead. Once again, their subjective value is different towards yours. You can say it is wrong, though (you are another subject, after all, with your own set of values).
This is just book salesmen "arguing" to sell more books.
Given that humans were around for 300,000 years, I find the idea a bit silly that the most important moral teaching (according to Christians) was revealed by a god only about 2,000 years ago.
World is only 6000 years old silly
@@svingvejv3593no, it’s not, but even if it was that’s 2/thirds of the earths history.
Did the Greek philosophers believe that all people were created equal? Was it self-evident to them? Would Plato agree with you that the slave and the aristocrat are equal?
Prior to the Jesus revolution, where do you find these self-evident rights?
@@HiHoSilvey My comment has nothing to do with what Greek philosophers believed or not believed at the time. But to answer your question, the Stoics did believe in the fundamental equality of all humans and Stoicism predates Christianity by three centuries. They held that all people are equal by nature and share the same capacity for reason and virtue.
I think "rights" and "values" are a human construct, not a divine revelation. The Code of Hammurabi dating back to 1750 BCE also emphasize justice and the protection of the weak and vulnerable, so the "rights" you attribute to the "Jesus revolution" isn't something that's unique to Christianity.
I've answered your questions. Can you at least attempt to address my actual comment?
@@onionbelly_Really? The code of Hammurabi which specifically punishes the death of a nobleman by death, but a death of a woman is punished by compensation to her father? Most of the laws in the code are conditional statements, so I’m not sure where you’re getting your “universal” treatment from.
“as it is written:
‘None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.’”
(Rom. 3:10-12 ESV)
@@alexreid4131 It is also written:
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not."
(The Lorax by Dr Seuss)
@@davegaskell7680 many things “are written”. I didn’t say that Bible quote was written. The Bible in the New Testament quoted itself elsewhere and said “as it is written”. This is a discussion about whether one can be good without God. If the God of the Bible is to be believed then that God says no…one can’t. If you don’t believe the Bible or the God of that Bible then sure quote whatever you like. Makes no difference in that case either and/or all ways.
It is also written that the bible is a huge pile of dung
“Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless”, Russell Bertrand. I want to live in a world that has meaning, a universe that has a creator who cares. My teenage sons are hungry for purpose, they want to know that they matter. They need to hear about love, beauty, kindness, hope, faith. gratitude, humility. You don't get all that in a cold, mindless, indifferent world.
Funny though how everyone who says that is only talking about their own god, not anybody else's.
@@alanklette7369 God is such a loaded word, full of negative connotations in today's rational/materialistic world. Replace "God" with "Love" if that makes more sense to you. I serve "Love" means I care, I am committed, I sacrifice. "Love" is what binds us together. What is at the top of your hierarchy of values, if not Love?
@@forthePaternalRole Why is teaching your teenage sons about love, beauty, kindness and gratitude contingent on your wish of a cosmic creator that cares about you? Can't you just love your sons regardless?
@@onionbelly_ Good point. Let me reverse the question: Do you hope that there is no cosmic creator?
With God you explain how we have
1. Something out of nothing
2. Order out of chaos
3. Life from non-life
4. Human mind and consciousness from mere apes
Science cannot explain any of the above.
What is so bad about having faith that there is a God who loves us and who cares? What attracts you to nihilism?
@@forthePaternalRole I'll be happy to address your questions and false assumptions about me if you actually answered my questions. Is saying "good point" a concession on your part and you just wanted to change topics?
The Biblical teachings have always been that God created human beings with an innate moral sense, a conscience, that harmful actions occur when people resist that moral sense, and that each person will be ultimately responsible for how they have acted in light of such basic morality. Societies can either support that moral sense or attempt to suborn that moral sense, depending on the designs of the rulers.
From this perspective, morality is not a realm of abstract reasoning, it is practically living to one's human potential. In Biblical terms, living a moral life will bring many types of blessing.
Rejection of God is rejection of rightousness since God is righteousness. You cant be good while simultaneously rejected the source of goodness.
If there is a God out there, I have no interest in rejecting it. My Christian deconstruction was wrapped in ceaseless prayer.
It’s worth noting that Christianity has a retribution model for morality: If someone does something wrong, they deserve to be punished. Moreover, it’s only Christians who are exempt because they believe a specific thing and are part of a specific group. They are on God’s side and expect to see privileged benefits from that belief through devotion and prayer. That’s worth considering especially at 51:26.
I find it’s more useful to adopt a social contract view of morality. We recognize that things are wrong because there are unspoken rules in place. When someone breaks them, we want them to stop that behaviour. Retribution is just one way of discouraging it, but there are many other ways of doing that which don’t require condemnation. Once you recognize that, the Christian concept of God seems contrived.
Its self evident that no one has rights over me. Its this truth that inalienable rights stem from. Example - you don't have the right to take my life therefore I have the right to life. The violation of this right is a crime and because its a crime the one who commits this crime will have to face cosmic justice who is God.
If there is a "God", it assumes that power is the greatest law to alot of these theological constructions.
By serving a power just because it created you, you just worship power.
Shermer at ~ 11:25, *"and most of the opponents of abolitionism that is pro-slavery proponents were Christians."*
He is claiming this as fact. What data does he rely upon? I'm no evidentiary expert, but wouldn't the making of that claim depend on comparing 1) the opponents of abolitionism that is pro-slavery proponents were Christians and 2) the opponents of abolitionism that is pro-slavery proponents were *NOT* Christians
Does such data exist? Has Shermer accessed it or is he just making this up?
They both make these assumptions and it’s impossible to know who is being dishonest without more information. It’s important to note that that argument from popularity is a fallacy. It’s common for Christians to simply assert that they have the best moral framework. I think Shermer has fallen for this bait, as if it has anything to do with moral epistemology.
The Bible itself is far more conclusive than any statistic. Leviticus 25:44-46.
Since humans can be extremely evil WITH God; there is no reason to believe we can't be good without him.
Totally agree! God belief isn’t the difference making the difference. Empathy applied thoughtfully is.
Who decides what is empathising thoughtfully as opposed to empathising without the appropriate level of thoughtfulness?
Am I wrong in thinking what started the enlightenment was not christian values being revealed but criticism from native North American tribes pointing out flaws in Western society, for example crictisms from Kandiaronk.
Yeah brother you would be pretty wrong to be honest
@aasalata cool, My source was a book I've been reading called The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow, where it talks about Christian missionaries going into North American tribes where in these communities had a egalitarian society that was based around equality such as women having rights over there bodies or the community taking on the punishment for crimes for the individual or how they spread wealth equally in their community. It is argued that these ideas were brought back from missionaries to Europe, which led to discussions on equality and human rights. There is also some native american criticisms of late 1600 to early 1700 European society pointing out the wealth inequality, them not being able to feed the poor, the corruption of the financial system, the placing of rulers such as kings above other people and arguments against Christianity.
Equal rights for women in native American tribes back in the 1600's?
Hilarious. The idea that the native Americans were any less brutal, power hungry, cruel and warlike than the British or Europeans is a lie.
I doubt they had any more influence on the British/European way of thinking with regard to religion and morality than the colonists did on the native Americans.
@@Voxis_23456 read the Bible. You'll find it's quite good for stating Christian values. Also if you don't understand what you're reading at first, commentaries are a great tool.
@benisbrave5290 If the values were already there in Europe, why did the enlightenment happen just as those missionaries (jesuates) brought back native american ideals?
"and most of the opponents of abolitionism that is pro-slavery proponents were Christians."
Virtually all slaveholders in the Americas were Christians. Furthermore the Bible condones and promotes slavery, except between Israelite males where it is forbidden.
I reject all these “morals” that Shermer & Christians share. Let’s talk about the reality of slavery.
More slavery today than ever before… it certainly isn’t the Bible’s fault
@@alanklette7369 nothing about morality is”universally good or bad” it’s always personal & the fact is greatness comes at the expense of the mundane.
@@bryanutility9609 If it's always personal why should a slave owner - getting great profits off of it - care about what you have to say?
@ only because they fear slave revolt
This entire issue is confusing. From both the religious and atheist point of view, which gives rise to the arguments on both sides. As children, we seem to have a "deep sense" of required fairness. But as soon as we become aware of the Universe around us, we soon realize that almost everything around us is UNFAIR. This often starts out with young children appreciating and loving the taste of dead animals. This is also immensely confusing because those animals must suffer so we can enjoy tasting them. (We don't actually need to eat animals to survive, but it takes effort.)
Even if God exists, we are entitled to be confused. And if God does not exist, we are also entitled to be confused by a shockingly uncaring Universe. There does appear to be a corpus of science that requires very, very fine tuning for animals to exist. This is also very confusing. Both sides seem dogmatic about their explanations and answers.
Maybe the most honest view is simply to say that: "We do not know." We may find out after we die. Maybe not.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Sherman doesnt understand the question. He probably never asked it with any level of seriousness.
What is the basis of good?
What is the ultimate ought?
Can you answer those questions yourself?
@@seanpierce9386 Yes, that's what I call God, the absolute beginning and end of all things material or immaterial. Turns out that this definition matches the Christian story while being greatly expanded and clarified in it.
@@aasalata So you believe that we ought to obey God. Let’s say that someone tells you they spoke to God.
1. How do you tell whether they’re correct?
2. Assuming they’re right, why should you do what God commands?
Please answer these questions first. Then, as a working example, let’s use Leviticus 25:44-46.
@@seanpierce9386 RUclips is failing to post my comments for some reason. Would you give me an email/discord/whatever to send it to you?
I go with Jesus
Following a mythical character has its drawbacks
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 Jesus is not a mythical character. All historians agree he existed. Even Tim o Neil an atheist on his website history for atheists says that atheists need to stop saying he did not exist. It’s a bad argument and he gives good evidence why. Stop using this argument. It’s a bad one and it shows atheists being intellectually dishonest.
@@connerdozier6689 Who cares what a guy says? Not all historians agree he was historical, many historians are also mythicists . Unless you can prove he was a real person, we have no reason to favour historicity over myth.
I can actually show that the Romans had every reason to create a Jeesus character with all the characteristics that the bible paints him with
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 The Romans despised Christianity as a weak religion of women and slaves. They also saw it as atheism because Christians rejected the pantheon of gods. Claudius expelled Christians from Rome. The idea that Romans would create such a figure as Jesus is nonsense.
There were several sources outside of the Bible that mentioned Jesus as a historical figure including Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius. These historians were not sympathetic.
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 How can you prove to me that Julius Caesar existed? I dare say, even Napoleon? How do you know?
Explain Cain the first born whom eve thought was the promised seed. He was first murderer of his own brother explain how come,
I am the promised seed. God told me to do better, so I did. My initial sacrifice wasn't good enough since you can't love plants the same way you can love a animal. An animal can be considered a member of the family, a pet. What did I love that I could sacrifice? I loved my brother. And it was a sacrifice that God accepted. Like the christians I was granted protection from death because of my brothers sacrifice. And like the Jews I was cursed with being a wanderer and a fugitive for being the one who sacrificed my brother. You see? Cain was playing both the role of the Jew and christian.
Did you know that Moses was also a wanderer and fugitive? This is because Moses is Cain. And Jesus is Abel.
The first time Moses came down the mountain he broke the tablets, foreshadowing his failure to keep the law which kept him from inheriting the promised land. But the second time he came down the mountain he kept the law and his face shown like the sun. This foreshadows the return of Moses in the end times when he will successfully obtain godhood just as his brother has. I just needed Jesus to do it first so I can follow his lead. It's kind of funny but it was always predestined to go this way. The hint is in our names. Abel being able where Cain is someone who stumbles, who can't walk straight without assistance.
Genesis says that her seed will bruise the head of Satan's seed and he will strike my heel. This is the book of revelation, this will be my last day on earth and three and half days later I will ascend and he will recover from his head wound. You see? I am the promised seed. And three and half years later I will return with Jesus and my wife who is the other witness and a lot of reinforcements, and we'll finish the job I started.
@keith86ify Cain was of the evil one,he murdered his own brother. The moral of the story is that God put a mark of protection that no one would take revenge or mob mentality.vengence is mine saith the lord' l will repay.
@@frederickanderson1860 oh right, God protected me from death because I'm evil. Lol
@keith86ify no God is the judge not anyone else.
@@frederickanderson1860 guess that means every other evil person gets protection from death as well right? Except they don't.
I feel like I live in a world full of mannequins. I explain things clearly and you guys just thoughtlessly disagree and make your own baseless assumptions. Bible calls Cain a killer, not a murderer. You guys see what you want to see. I can't wait to see the look on your face when you find out who's your judge.
Adam Smith determined capitalism to be extortion and it is the role of scripture to provide divine authority to subscribing extortionists.
BS, that is not biblical at all
@@ivanasimic2072 It is factual, at which scriptures are a fail, as with morals.
@@ivanasimic2072 wonderful, I'm glad your book says not to do that but unfortunately the predominant practice amongst religious majorities is to do exactly that. If you don't believe that to be true than answer for me why it is christians who are the largest group of people trying to strip away people's rights and attempting to roll back civil protections for minority groups?
Glen Scrivener seems like a nice guy, but he is not well read in moral theory or intellectual history. Glen is out of his depth with a highly trained historian like Michael Shermer. This program works only as light conversation. You wouldn't ask Michael to "debate" Glen on Episcopalian theology. Glen reminds me of Jordan Peterson, whose contribution to such a discussion is served best with a cocktail in hand. Debate is a competitive sport with rules and a decision, and two equally educated opponents.
Nice guy?....doubt it. Apologism is the means for talentless con artists to make a living out of screwing the gullible and the emotionally weak. Many undistinguished authors eventually head down the apologist route in order to find a ready made market with eager buyers willing to snap up anything that strengthens and reaffirms their faith
Religion is also a convenient haven for bigots, mysogynists, racists to hide under the cloak of "faith in the divine". So much so, its major proponents and henchmen (priests and pastors) use it to obscure their pee-dough file activities from the public
The historian Tom Holland would shred Shermer's insistence on self-evident rights. Even though Holland is not a Christian, he recognizes the profound influence of the Jesus Revolution on the West. To deny that influence is foolish. As Holland puts it, we are goldfish swimming in the water of Christianity whether you believe it's truth claims or not.
Watch Holland's debate with atheist philosopher AC Grayling. It's a good introduction to his premise.
Jesus Christ drowned millions of babies in Noah's flood. He's a mass-murderer. And that's why Christians have a reputation for mass killings and genocide, wiping whole tribes and cultures off the planet
@@HiHoSilvey Glen, Michael, Tom and AC appear to me to be very smart gentlemen, with much to contribute to those willing to listen carefully. I don't know any of them personally, but doubt that they would be interested in "shredding," one another or being perceived as trying to do so. I gather they enjoy expressing their educated opinions and in learning from their interlocutors. I'm sure their disagreements will lead observers to find one or another more compelling. My modest objection with Premier Unbelievable? is with the term "debate" and the arbitrary matching of professional opponents. An historian, philosopher, theologian and scientist all bring different perspectives to a conversation, but are not equivalent opponents or debaters.
FREE WILL FIRST OF ALL AND CALL FOR ACCOUNTABILITY