Morality Can't Be Objective, Even If God Exists (Morality p.1)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2018
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: teespring.com/stores/cosmicsk...
To anybody who supports (or even considers supporting) my channel monetarily, thank you. I am naturally grateful for any engagement with my work, but it is specifically people like you that allow me to do what I do, and to do so whilst avoiding sponsorship.
-------------------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------------------
It's good to be back. Check out my previous livestream to catch up on where I've been. In the meantime, I've decided to lay out my moral philosophy. In this video, I discuss why I think morality can't be objective even if God exists. My next video will discuss why atheistic morality must be subjective too.
-------------------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------------------
William Lane Craig Clip: • Atheism and Nihilism
My discussion with Rationality Rules about morality: • My Problem With Sam Ha...
My latest livestream: • 🔴 LIVE: I’m back! Q an...
----------------------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
---------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex: says one sentence
My dumbass : *goes onto google dictionary for the 10th time*
lack of vocabulary ≠ lack of intelligence don’t worry!
@@swiftpig1229 that has no correlation, shut your mouth, please.
@Zachary Ham oh, that's right, I'm blind af, my most sincere apologies
Me too, Starting with "Objective".
That’s almost always a failure of the communicator, not the listener.
Thank the lord! God has provided us with a new CosmicSkeptic video
The irony.
Sceneable wow you got the joke
I love this comment.
Oxymorons. Oxymorons everywhere.
LOL😉
you've put into words what i've been thinking for a long time!!
btw, i love the way in which you express yourself
I discovered your channel a couple days ago while watching one of Lukas videos on his channel Deflate, in which you were discussing the problem of hiddenness. even as a christian I like and respect the way you do your content, its not vitriolic and/or hateful like some atheists (and unfortunately some professed christians) can be. I enjoy dialoging w3ith people such as yourself where we can disagree without being disagreeable
Quite fascinating. This reminded me of the Socratic version of this. "Do the gods call certain behavior good and that makes it good? or do the gods recognize that which is good and say so?" (This is a simplified paraphrased version)
@i love jesus
Well, as far as we know, that only applies to physical matter and energy. It doesn’t seem to apply to abstract objects and metaphysics like numbers. 2+2=4 it cannot be 4 and not 4 it’s just 4.
But I believe that God IS goodness itself. The issue with saying:
(“are things good because God commands it to be good or are things already good and that’s why God commands them?”)
^ the issue with saying that is because it’s an absurd statement, I believe. Replace “God” with “good”. Are things good because good commands it to be good? Or does good recognize good to be good and that’s why good commands it so?
It’s an absurd statement.
@i love jesus A cat can't be both alive and dead. The cat may be in a state which is a superposition of dead and alive, but that's not the same as being, at the same time, in two different states (dead and alive)
@i love jesus how about you shut up as this is not what Schroedinger meant when he used that Analogy this quote was meant to be a joke showing how ridiculous quantum theory is….no there is no wave particle duality as this is an inherent contradiction….a fraction of a photon has never been observed…particles cannot be measured in Hz….
@@TheLastOutlaw289 well-said .
@@klivebretznev2624 What Einstein did was he replace the light wave function of the ether with a particle…and changed the etheric medium into mediums of Math…then he allowed this mathematical medium to be acted upon ie “bent space time” another absurd idea is that you can bend space which is a “gap” and is not a thing at all to be bent.
‘Ought’ is a funny word. Kind of a suffix or root: sought, thought, bought. Very active. Good word.
Shit, there’s a gas leak in my house.
Ian did you die?
@@putinsgaytwin4272 he was a great man 😭
Rest in Peace - Ian
@@Boyd2342 In fact, the best man I have ever known.
@@isaaclai3523 Gone but never forgotten ;(
As a Catholic, I can say wholeheartedly this was very enlightening to hear. It’s very interesting how we can question everything and switch up our beliefs so quickly. I love how you’ve explained your points and I appreciate the new perspective on morality
Morality is still objective. But I liked the video
@@johnairhart769 eh, sorta, there's certain morals that if you use the commonly agreed logic are "objective" but at the same time, if we had a different perspective than this it wouldn't be. Killing for example is considered "objectively" bad and in my opinion, just like most people it is very bad. But some think otherwise and they do have logic for it. Some even have very compelling arguments. Case and point. There is no "objective" morality, only commonly agreed morality. Back in the day abusing women was considered "objectively" just fine morally because they were "inferior". And no, the women that disagreed with that norm doesn't make it not commonly agreed, like I said, a smaller percentage of people disagreeing doesn't make it not commonly agreed to be moral. Do we disagree with that with today's logic and morality? Yes. But back in the day things were different. In the future many things will change in terms of what is moral and what is not.
Implying that there's an "objective" moral system would be oversimplifing everything. There's no actual black and white. We aren't living in a fictional world with heroes and villains.
@@stmp4160 You are begging the question here; assuming the conclusion in your premise. You have not actually shown that there is no objective morality-- you have shown your belief that morality is a mere human construct, which would mean that true good and evil don't actually exist, nor does justice (which would follow); but you haven't proven it. This would mean that doing the right thing towards others is always ultimately for selfish reasons, because that's the only value one receives in doing them... the same value you would get in killing someone who is blackmailing you, or in cheating on your wife, if you are absolutely sure you can get away with it.
However, if these acts bother you, it's because you have a conscience-- a moral sensor that gives us a sense of guilt and shame when we do wrong. You also have a sense of justice, which, I would argue, both come from God. There truly is good and evil, and God is the standard; our built-in moral sensor which is the conscience bearing witness.
@@clayjo791 1. God isn't even close to the standard humans use as a moral compass, he commits multiple genocides regularly, encourages slavery in certain passages, killed 40 something children for making fun of a bald guy which was one of his prophets, I could go on. If God was judged by human morals he's evil as hell.
2. Yes you feel guilt, sympathy and compassion but that's just a normal reaction we have cause humans are social creatures. As social creatures we feel bad whenever someone experiences an experience that is painful or hurtful or we assume is painful or hurtful.
3. So how would I prove it in any other way than using logic to show it's a human construct? Please pray tell. There is no other way to disprove or prove a construct which does not exist in the physical world based around a certain logic without using logic itself. That's the only reason the idea of God can't be disproven cause he's the equivalent of the dream theory in theories, whatever logic or law of physics you throw at the theory of God it'll just bounce off with the ex-machina way he's presented.
4. Also yes there is no "good" or "evil", it's how one processes things that makes them out as such. For example, abortion, some find it evil and others don't. Is there a subjective answer? No, at one end you're stopping someone from having a future but at the other what if it's needed? Morality Is subjective. That doesn't take away from the fact that someone can have one
Also no, the fact that it's a construct does not make it selfish necessarily, on a spectrum everything is selfish, even if it is by a very little bit. Doing something that you feel is right to benefit someone else isn't selfish, a tiny bit yes because you feel good for doing "good" but even if it wasn't a social construct it'd still be the same so I don't see your point.
@@stmp4160 I don't have to vouch for God's righteousness or His existence-- my response is for your benefit that you may see your error and repent, that you may be saved from His justice. You are without excuse in God's sight because He's the one who created you. His mercy is great if you turn to Jesus for salvation, but if eternal separation from Him is what you want because you think that you can judge your maker, you will get what you have earned.
No need to respond... I'm just the messenger.
The moment you got onto your actual points I was completely shocked and it was like an enlightenment.
Alex defines morality as "the *intuition* that we ought to do that which is good and ought not to do that which is bad," and then, by further building arguments using this definition, concludes that morality is subjective. But the word "intuition" assumes the subjective nature of morality. So he has assumed his conclusion.
If we replace the word "intuition" with "notion," then we can avoid assuming our conclusion. Although then we run into another problem: let's say we design a robot, which can recognise good and bad, and is programmed to only do good. Would that robot be "moral?" According to this definition, yes.
Although, if we define morality as "the *notion* that we ought go do that which is good and ought not to do that which is bad, where there may be circumstances in which we might be able to do that which is bad," then this problem is solved. We need to assume that the *choice* to do both good as well as bad is a prerequisite for morality, which is not the case with the aforementioned robot. Morality cannot be defined for a being that has no potential to do that which is bad.
So is morality subjective or not?
@@JMStheKing it's subjective.
@@anitahyche1 I agree
Ok, clever, you replacing “intuition” with “notion”, but haven’t you ignored how the point of whether morality is objective or not, regardless of all other “notions” or “intuitions”?
At any given time in history, however, philosophers, theologians, and politicians will claim to have discovered the best way to evaluate human actions and establish the most righteous code of conduct.
But it's never that easy.
"Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like a universal morality or an absolutist ethics"
At best, we can only say that morality is normative, while acknowledging that our sense of right and wrong will change over time
0:00 "good morning everybody"
It's evening, you fool.
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS
But what does a 'good' morning constitues of? How can we know if the 'good' morning he refers to is what we subjectively call a 's***y' day? What if the morning he refers to is the apocalypse we all fear dawning upon us?
*Vsauce theme rolling*
Gandalf has entered the chat
@@astorvialaw4980 You live in a make believe world?
@@reda29100 Now I really need someone to edit Cosmic Skeptic's videos with Vsauce music.
@@reda29100 Gandalf?
I think empathy is the road to good morals.
That's your subjective view :)
@Athol Graham yeah yeah but the question is, do you agree with it? If not, then why not?
@@nothingisreal2671because all empathy is just “understanding” someone’s personal worldview/feelings. That doesn’t equate to objective “good” or “bad”.
The first response on this post was correct. It is your subjective view.
There is a huge problem with this argument, the fact that the existence of God is granted to the believers of object morality in religion means that the question 'why do we ought to do that which is good' a pointless one to ask. The whole point of the existence of God being granted, is to also grant the fact that God still has his Christian-defined qualities of being omniscient and omnipotent: hence meaning we can argue that God knows what is good, and that God has the power to create a heaven to reward us for our good. That means therefore, we ought to do which is good, not only as a sign of obedience and worship to the existing God in this case, but also to feel an unfathomable feeling of euphoria in heaven as a reward for doing so. We ought to do what is good, for out own benefit, and for the fact that the almost universally accepted morality of religion has worked for centuries leading up to this point in humanity and this is exhibited in the fact that the majority of laws are re-phrased verses from abrahamic religious teachings effectively. It is irrelevant to ask why we ought to do what is good when you've granted the existence of God in the equation because the existence of God inherently grants the existence of heaven and the omniscient nature of God who knows all about what is good and what isn't, and therefore to practice objective religious morality for this reason. I have provided a reason as to why an individual human ought to do what is good as a believer and why humanity as a whole ought to do good.
@@all-caps3927gods laws being the most basic shit ever doesnt really mean hes real, this entire thread was nothing but bibberbang, yes the laws are MOSTLY accepted, but that doesnt automatically mean his are objective, while some laws are objective imo, makinh it technically subjective, gods laws arent all agreed upon, making it subjective once again, convinience doesnt = correct, its called conformation bias
To me it's simple. If every sentient being disappears, will morality still exist? If the answer is no, then morality is subjective
But God and the angels can be considered sentient beings who exist that follow moral laws. Even if in the natural world every sentient being were to disappear it doesn't mean there would be no beings who can practice moral laws.
And I whouglt about a second thing that may be not as good or strong as the first but nevertheless I can express it: based on your premise, if sentient being never existed then morality never would've existed. And if sentient beings never existed then things like cars or power plants wouldn't exist either, but that doesn't mean cars and power plants can't exist in the universe, they just need the intervention of a sentient being. What I am trying to tell with this is that sentient beings are just the ones who practice morality and create cars, and if they were to disappear it wouldn't mean that morality or cars would fail to be a logical concept to exist in our universe. It would just mean that the means by which cars are made and morality is practiced is absent. If radios were to disappear, electromagnetic waves with potential meaningful messages would still be there.
No, because what makes it objective is the fact that we exist and that we can actually be right about things. What you’re saying is like saying a bubble must not objectively exist because it eventually pops.
@@Chriliman What does it mean that something is wrong/immoral? It's purely subjective
@@leishmania4116 it means you actually make someone feel a certain way by your moral actions. They either feel negative or positive and that feeling exists in objective reality.
@@leishmania4116gree, one person may steal food and believe it's immoral while the other may do it and think it's completely justified as he/she does it to survive so the action is not immoral. Everything in this regard depends on the broader context and on the subjective "moral compass" of a person judging
I love watching your videos- I’ll admit that I’m not very smart, but I love learning about these kinds of things (even though 50% of the time I have no clue what’s going on).
Same here 😁
Emma darling neither do the believers in a God
You're smart enough to watch CosmicSkeptic soooo... give yourself a little more credit.
The fact that you believe you don't know what is going on 50% of the time means that you're 50% closer to understanding than you thought. The Dunning-Kruger (spelling?) effect cuts both ways.
Stupid
Theists: Morality is Objective
Atheists: Morality is Subjective
Nihilists: There is nothing such as Morality!
Lol well summed up let me add
Agnostic - Morality can be objective but with subjective circumstances
Nihilism..
Not going to lie, sounds good.
nope, i'm atheist and i know that morality is objective.
also, not sure what your point is with this 1-dimensional comment. make a statement or shoo.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 How is morality objective on your view. What is its foundation
@@Yameen200 the golden rule.
I think you've provided an excellent analysis on a topic which I've grappled with for some time. One question I would like to ask is: Is it possible to establish objectivity in the absence of "standards"? Words like "ought" and "good" and so many other such words are, I believe, inherently subjective and their inclusion in the logical argument would be like including a variable in a mathematical equation that can only be estimated and expecting to obtain an accurate answer to the equation that contains it. Alternatively, can you present a logically consistent case where objectivity has been achieved from subjective premises?
I fw this comment heavy. This is exactly what I was thinking but you put it into words. Thanks
gotta say this is it.
Gosh, the internet is both a curse and blessing. I'm glad we have a platform for great thinkers around the world to collectively speak to everyone. Unlike those in the past... everything move exponentially.
That's also how I feel. Thanks to the internet, we've got an opportunity to interact with strangers and learn so much more than if we were restricted to the circle of people we have business with on a daily basis.
@@alittax the problem is that most people are easy to influence. I have discussions with people I know. I often ask them where they get the info they use against my arguments and they say "Google, of course". The amount of our personal knowledge is much more than ever before. The problem is that most of it is not true or unproven or confused. Does that mean it's better? Is it better to have a bunch of good info in our heads or way more Info, most of which is useless? I hope you get my point. The crap that people tell me is incredible. When I explain why they are wrong, they feel humiliated and can't figure out why they are so off track. Ok, so I straighten out many people who I talk to. But many of them just don't want to be enlightened. They are ok believing what they believe despite it being wrong. They don't want to accept that the source of their wisdom is not always wise.
@@perrypelican9476 bafflingly, people are much more willing to guzzle up what some stranger on the internet is peddling than to be persuaded by the actual people around them, who care about them
@@perrypelican9476 google is fine most of the time, it gives you a bunch of different sources to compare
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet well if these people belive a random sussy source thats false they would fall for your averege snake oil salesmen
I've grown up Christian my whole life, but I've always had questions that no one had answers to and doubts that were brushed off. I scoured the internet for hours and possibly days in total, compiling a list of arguments that Christianity makes versus what atheists have to say on the topic. Your videos were a common source within this list, and I can honestly say that part of what converted me to atheism, at least what helped me realize that I have been an atheist for much longer than I'd let myself believe, was definitely your channel. You opened my eyes to so many new views and topics that the Church is too afraid to touch on because they don't have answers yet. My parents don't know that I do not believe in god, so I still have to go to church every Sunday, but the more I go the more I realize how ludicrous it all is. Thank you for helping me figure out who I am.
Sophia Leo Benjamin Franklin invented the pros and cons method of showing information by taking the pros and cons and showing them next to each other
zempath Thank you! While I am very glad that I've figured it out early enough that it hasn't destroyed my world view entirely, I'm a little irked that I have a few years to go until I can finally stop going to church and such.
Donald McCarthy Thanks! I've never been compared to a lioness before but I'm glad someone thinks so
Sophia Leo I believe it's a play on your name.
Henry Ambrose I know, people constantly bring up Leo The Lion but nobody's ever said I have the "wisdom" of one. I may be a teenager but I understand things too 😂
I feel like a lonely christian in this comment section.Anyways I was just gonna thank you for broadening my views and thanks for explaining it clearly. Anyways I hope you all have a good day.
Edit: I havent even read everything. But I want to delete this message now lol
Bible classes by well studied teachers is a good source of knowledge that keeps one from feeling lonely. The more time one invests in learning about God & His truth, the more that one grows spiritually, & comes to "see" so much that non believers are blind to.
david77james yeah,not really. If want to stretch alot,I guess you could learn mythology,and some costumes of some ancient societies,by studing the bible. And even a "non believer" can do that. One does not need god at all in his life to enjoy it,or even to broaden horizons. Art,work,relationships, depeer thinking,all are actually much more pivotal to have than god. Take me for example. I do not believe in god,yet Im a very upbeat,cheerful and happy person. I can live without a god pretty easily actually
@@bernardocarneiro1982 I agree with you that you can be happy. I am glad that you are a living a great life.(I don't want to start a fight) I personally believe in God and belive that it is what I want to do and I am happy this way. Just wanted to say don't be fooled by all the bad "Christians" out there. Anywasy I wish you the best and if you want to learn about Christianity I recommend maybe going to a church. Anyways I have ranted I hope you keep being happy.
@@bernardocarneiro1982 - Hey Bernie babes. The majority chooses to stay away from knowing God intimately, so you're common.
15% of the world's most brilliant geniuses (past & present) took time to diligently seek absolutes of God, and they found many, same as about a third or less of humankind.
As such, you don't have to show your ignorance on the subject, by acting as though your rejection of truth, based on your never having sought it diligently, qualifies you as the final word on the subject, because rejection is what the majority choose.
I need not engage scoffers in conversation on the subjects they know nothing about, based on their choice to remain ignorant, so, I'll just advise you of this: You're wrong, and you're lying to yourself about God, but that's what you WANT, based on your perversions & personal agenda.
You think that you will have an easy go of it on your day of judgment, but you won't. God says that "they are without excuse" (speaking of those that "claim" they are non-believers), since every human of normal intellect KNOWS God IS, even liars that claim there is no god.
.
@@deztroit Right on brother 👍👍👍 for a cool,respectable Christian like you,I will always have respect
As a religious moral objectivist this video was highly interesting 🧐 thank you!
Same, its a really interesting conversation, I didn’t find his points convincing that objective truth isn’t real, but I did have to rethink my understanding of it.
If life and the continued evolution of life is an objective fact, or objective truth, then some morals are the product of objective truth (some morality is objective).
Nurture of offspring is an instinctive necessity in mammals and some other animals, that are non moral (pre-morality), and yet this same objective behaviour in humans is both subjective and objective.
Our subjective moral compass tells us that caring for our children is the right thing to do and at the same time our objective moral instincts tell us that caring for our children is the right thing to do.
Some of our morality is both objective and subjective.
@@minetime6881 what didn’t you find convincing? ( not trying to start arguments )
@@isaac1572 Evolution struggles to justify why i ought not to do it in the near future.
@@isaac1572 but i get your point
Love your work mate.
Morality is a social agreement brought about by reasoned discussion, laws, and sometimes having a bigger stick.
this one is priceless
@@egonwiesinger1195 right ??
Sam Harris: "Good's not dead"
The Brony Notion good was never alive
Good dammit now the Newsboys song is stuck in my head
The Brony Notion Oh my god you're alive
I haven't checked your channel since like 9 months ago holy crap
“It’s surely alive”
Brilliant Alex. Completely agree with your conclusions and the arguments supporting same.
I agree one hundred percent but it almost seems like I really always did think that though I don’t think I ever could of articulated the thought as well as you do. Great vid, keep on telling your truths.
Why is the ought necessary for morality though?
I struggled to find anyone that could remotely verbalize similar things I’ve felt and thought. I couldn’t agree more with everything you’ve said on this channel, thank you.
There is a huge problem with this argument, the fact that the existence of God is granted to the believers of object morality in religion means that the question 'why do we ought to do that which is good' a pointless one to ask. The whole point of the existence of God being granted, is to also grant the fact that God still has his Christian-defined qualities of being omniscient and omnipotent: hence meaning we can argue that God knows what is good, and that God has the power to create a heaven to reward us for our good. That means therefore, we ought to do which is good, not only as a sign of obedience and worship to the existing God in this case, but also to feel an unfathomable feeling of euphoria in heaven as a reward for doing so. We ought to do what is good, for out own benefit, and for the fact that the almost universally accepted morality of religion has worked for centuries leading up to this point in humanity and this is exhibited in the fact that the majority of laws are re-phrased verses from abrahamic religious teachings effectively. It is irrelevant to ask why we ought to do what is good when you've granted the existence of God in the equation because the existence of God inherently grants the existence of heaven and the omniscient nature of God who knows all about what is good and what isn't, and therefore to practice objective religious morality for this reason. I have provided a reason as to why an individual human ought to do what is good as a believer and why humanity as a whole ought to do good.
What if, because of their omniscience, God knows that there is no objective morality?
@@all-caps3927this is such a weird argument, its just “god real so me right”
I think including the words “good” and “bad” in your definition of morality is a mistake. I’ve learned to go with “benefit” and “harm” when having discussions about morality because the other two words tend to smuggle in far too much theistic baggage. That being said, I also think morality is subjective. Keep up the great work, CS.
I tend to use the words "good" and "bad" when speaking to the layperson with no philosophic background. I instead dive into "ought-statements" otherwise. "Benefit" and "harm" would seem to indicate a utilitarian perspective, which may be your stance, but I tend to take a deontological perspective.
But again, why ought we avoid benefit and why ought we commit harm?
+Anthony Magnabosco I said the same thing about not caring for the definition being used in terms of "good" and "bad"...as Moore notes in his open argument question there is really no proper way to define "good" in moral conversations. But when you go with "benefit"/"harm" like Sam Harris does you are seemingly tacitly admitting an objective moral framework.
Anthony Magnabosco what if I view harm as good? What if I enjoy harming myself or others and find doing so to be moral? For me, harming others and myself is good. And you haven't made it clear whether "benefit" and "harm" apply to me or others as well. If I steal something, I benefit but it harms someone else. Is that moral? That's why he uses good and bad. Because you can't define good or bad. Otherwise it would just be a subjective definition of morality and I could disagree like I've just stated.
There is no objective morality? So Nazis did nothing wrong? So the rapist's claim is as valid as the victim's? So we have no reason to avoid war? There is a lot of consequences that we would have to assume if we defend this claim.
Brilliant! Thank you so much for sharing your point of view!
Do you believe there is no morality?
you are 100 percent correct, this channel is helping me stay sane, even though sanity is subjective as well if you ask me,
Why is an ought necessary for the definition of morality?
It is only necessary for those, who are Not inclined in following what is necessary. Necessary in light of the reasons for Action, with which morality is concerned. I myself am often confused where the difference is between 'should' and 'ought'. I Take both to refer to reasons for Action, meaning, that If Something would be good to do, one should do it. In fact, If one knows Something to be good, nothing is needed, Not even own thought, to direct ones Action towards it by oneself.
The answer to Alex's is therefore very simply, that 'good' and 'ought to do' are connected necessarily.
Does this Show you to your satisfaction, why it is necessary?
Hey there! Great videos, very thought-provoking. Continuing on the example of yellow. Yellow light does have an objective definition: electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of about 590-560 nm. Yellow appears to be only subjectively describable because we can't perceive its objective attributes directly. What if there also is an objective definition of good and bad, it's just that we cannot perceive it either?
Great? If you like the absurd things... If isn't objective, he mean that killing people for his skin is good for some people?
There is no possible way to have an objective definition of good and bad. "Good" and "bad" are ways for humans to categorise things as moral or immoral. That is the inherent issue: perception of morality is subjective. Morality has traits that make it inherently subjective. To follow you up on the yellow issue, what if someone decided that yellow is actually 660-710 nm? You couldn't disprove them, because the definition of yellow is just what humans think yellow **looks** like, so even if they picked the wavelength of green, then they would still be subjectively correct.
@@dg7455 the whole text is false. Good and bad are objective, in the Bible said that human thinks that are gods. It can't be good killing babies, and all humankind
@@dg7455 and is not the same colors and the values of good and bad. Is not the same kill and music.
Not to be mean, but you’re English is terrible and it’s difficult to understand exactly what you’re trying to say so you should probably just say out of the debate. Morality is subjective, our definition of what is good and what is bad is based entirely on our individual perception. Even if god exists there still can be no objective moral standard if you are going to claim that that moral standard is subject to gods will.דניס ביוקה
A lot to sort through here: fallacies of equivocation, question begging, strawman arguments, etc. I can just hit the highlights: (1) you claim to follow Moore in rejecting the naturalistic fallacy, but you conclude that, because "good" cannot be defined, we therefore must conclude that objective morality is impossible. Moore certainly didn't believe that, so you need to at least acknowledge that, on this point, you and Moore diverge.
(2) Your definition of morality as "an intuition of what is good and bad" already begs the question. If morality is only a personal sense, based upon intuition, then it naturally follows that it's subjective. You've assumed that which you set out to prove.
(3) You say that the only reason people would "choose" one religious morality as more ethically viable than another is because they feel it provides a better framework for moral truth, and that because this "choice" is subjective, religious morality must be subjective. But the impulses that compel a person to choose one religion over another are morally irrelevant. A person's choice has no bearing on whether the moral system is right or wrong. Defining morality as a collection of subjective individual choices is just another example of question-begging. Also, I'll just add that your notion that people "choose" their religion is contrary to your belief in the impossibility of free will.
(4) In claiming that we still need to demonstrate objectively that we "ought to do that which is good," you're attempting to create an "open question" fallacy. But "ought" is implicit in the notion of "good." So you're asking, in effect, if "we ought to do what we ought." That's not a particularly enlightening question. You claim that religious people go around in circles on this point, but really it's you whose argument is circular.
Random Koolzip excellent points
Great response.
Small thing though, even non-free actors can be said to make choices. "Electricity flowing through a circuit always chooses the path of least resistance" is a valid sentence, even though electrons obviously can't choose which wire they go through.
Wow, no response from Alex? Strange...
Answer this comment alex pls
How is he going to read 4k comments? Also do you think the bible is morally good for our times? Incest, rape, pedophilia? If you think it was morally right in old times then morality is subjective, if you think it is still right then morality is subjective because no other people think its right. Of you think it is right because god did it and nobody else can do it then morality is subjective
To quote Mike Tyson, everyone thinks morality is relative until they get punched in the face.
It would actually indicate that it is relative because the one getting punched would feel the act is wrong more vigorously than others
@@TheRudolfp Why should they feel the act is wrong AT ALL?
@@theboombody because they got punched in the face and didn’t like it
@@irrelevantcheese8623 Bingo.
@@irrelevantcheese8623 well, feelings can't justify morality either way.
Most theists don’t know or care what “objective” morality means. They are simply trying to express “my morality is more important than your morality”
I truly enjoy your videos and I wish RUclips existed when I was 14 and was questioning my faith.
Rawlings Ad hominem much. Calling him an imbecile doesn’t change the fact that you never answered his question.
Rawlings Nevertheless, I’ll ask a different question. Why doesn’t the bible ban slavery like it bans murder or theft?
HellRehab yes, I’m familiar with Exodus 21:20, why do you think I asked the question? A question that you once again haven’t responded to, and have taken the patronisation route. You’ve cited the scripture, congrats, but didn’t answer “why doesn’t the bible ban slavery like it bans murder or theft?”
HellRehab Shit sorry rehab, I thought you were the other guy.
Rawlings Did you just delete your comment? Well if it’s not ad hominem as you say... I’ll take the liberty of calling you a coward.
The proposition that we "ought to do that which is good" is a tautology, since, with respect to actions, "good"is defined as that which we ought to do.
This! When you say "this is good" you are literally saying "this is as it should be" or "this is as it ought to be".
@@MrDzoni955 Yes! So a robot with some objective function that it moves to maximize is doing 'good' and if it is trying to minimize something it is avoiding 'bad'.
I tend to define good as a nebulous positive concept which often promotes wellbeing. But yes, if I were to ask somebody why we ought to do what is good, I expect the argument is going to be circular. We can easily explain why we have the desire to do good, but it's circular to explain why we must fulfill these desires to do so.
@@wachyfanning I agree, the tautology is unavoidable. Good is just what we define it to be. Humans have an intuitive idea if good and bad, but isn't this just the product of evolution. Evolution doesn't have a will to maximize a objective function. It's accidental.
Watch this.
m.ruclips.net/video/b5a3MxIqZOs/видео.html
Brilliant video, am a new viewer. Let me say this, I ought to watch part 2 of this. 😉
I think you're most recent preachings should come and give this a listen
All my comments are based on your most recent contradiction
Our favourite altar boy is back!
Kev Anathra altar?
altar indeed
This explains it all :) ruclips.net/video/XGTYi4FpC_o/видео.html
oh my. It hadn't occured to me but he does rather look like the quintessential stereotype of "altarboy."
"A person can't possibly live a happy life assuming morality is subjective..." i mean, happiness seems pretty subjective. whatever gives you dopamine am i right?
Free Halla Well something tells me your comment is also subjective.
When dopamine is released you feel joy I think. Happiness is a bit broader and can be a result of other mental states or emotions such as contentment.
What Dr. Craig actually says there is that it's impossible to live *consistently* and happily within a morally relativistic worldview. If an atheist were to live _consistently_ within the tenets of moral relativism and follow them to the extent of their logical conclusions, he would find that it really does lead to existential nihilism. Life becomes absurd and meaningless at that point, so for the atheist to avoid this radically uncomfortable conclusion, he must construct a purpose for his life and choices that will allow him to escape this dreadfully bleak outlook. In this video, Alex attempts to ground his conclusion that "morality is subjective" within the (non-existent) objectivity of his own subjective experience. That's what I call *logical **_inconsistency._*
So, my advice would be: don't search for dopamine in life, my friend. Search for meaning. It lasts longer.
Also, you don't have to take my word for it. If you're interested, check out Dr. William Lane Craig's actual youtube channel, Reasonable Faith, where you can hear him out fully for yourself.
@@WatchBalloonshop give up dude. Don't go missionaring on a cosmic sceptic video.
@@lollerskatez1 The only time you need a flashlight is when you are in darkness.
That's all I'm trying to do here brother.
What would be the point of using one where light is already shining?
“If one lays absolute claim to, and boasts of virtue, surely this a sign that virtue is absent”
“The self righteous are the thieves of virtue”
I could list off many more quotes like this.
I may be seeing your argument improperly (do tell me how to see it better if so) but cosmic Skeptic is not boasting of virtue or making a claim that they are virtuous (or that they aren't) however asking
"why should one follow god's moral code?" or "why should one submit to god's standards of morality"
not a implication of that we shouldn't or we should but if we should or shouldn't, why so? (why if we should and why if we shouldn't)
Also on what basis do you claim that self-righteous people are "thieves" of "virtue"? (if such claim of moral virtuousness can exist even if one doesn't believe in an objective set code of morality)
of course i understand there is a issue with claiming having a "better grasp at morality/reality" by claiming that morality is subjective, still i want to understand why you make those statements
Since my childhood I'm so entrenched in nihilism, I can't help myself but understanding the term "objective morality" as anything other than an oxymoron.
Oxymorons don’t exist in nihilism. That’s an oxymoron for you to say that. It’s a contradiction to believe in nihilism because that makes a hierarchy of value and knowledge that nihilism is more accurate than other things. How does “nothing can be known or valued” fit into valuing and knowing nihilism?
@@adisonransley It's not a contradiction to believe in nihilism. If I observe the world and come to the conclusion that morality is an arbitrary concept, made up by people and therefore ultimately subjective, I'm taking the stance of a moral skeptic. In the category of moral skeptics there are moral subjectivists, absurdists and for example moral nihilists. They hold different positions which differ in nuance, but all of them state that there is no reason to believe that morality is objective.
A moral nihilist doesn't say that nothing exists. A moral nihilist takes the stance that there are no intrinsic or objective moral values. Just because there aren't any, has no bearing on whether or not people would come up with moral opinions. Evidently they do. I claim, that all moral opinions are merely pragmatically justifiable. That's why I'm a nihilist. Morality isn't epistemically justifiable, because it doesn't exist on its own. It's contingent on agents and their minds.
This is analogous to all values. They are made up subjectively. I believe that there is no intrinsic purpose to life. Every statement about value is ultimately subjective. Therefore, I'm a nihilist based on what I believe. Holding such a stance says nothing whatsoever about my own ability to come up with subjective values myself.
@@biedl86 Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. My point above still stands under that definition. Nihilism is a self-contradiction. Aight under your understanding nihilism can be true to you and false to me and both would be correct - and you can't attack anything any theist says! Because you know, every truth is subjective and two contradictory things can simultaneously be true apparently!
@@adisonransley _"Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. My point above still stands under that definition."_
Right, but your definition has nothing to do with moral Nihilism. And it is also not very accurate as a definition for philosophical Nihilism.
_"Nihilism is a self-contradiction."_
No, it is not. If I treated Nihilism as an epistemological framework it's pretty much the same as Nominalism. Nominalism states that there is no intrinsic meaning for anything and that abstract entities do not exist. Mereological Nihilism states something similar. The names we give certain entities are merely representations of patterns we observe. In reality, there is no actual distinction between a book on a table. It's all just matter and we are the ones, who make the distinction. We come up with arbitrary names and distinctions. This is nihilism, stating that these names and the meaning we are attributing to observations aren't actually real. It does not state, that things and meaning don't exist as moral opinions or value statements. Made up meaning and morality obviously exists, but those things are made up. It states that our descriptions are made up. Whether it's about distinctions between entities, about meaning, about morality, depending on the version of Nihilism, these things don't exist other than through us making the distinction.
To say that they actually aren't real is Idealism. Nihilism is not Idealism, is not Solipsism, isn't the denial of one's own existence. You are making this up.
_"Aight under your understanding nihilism can be true to you and false to me and both would be correct"_
No, this is not my understanding. That's your strawman of Nihilism. Or to be more charitable: It's your confusion about Nihilism.
_"Because you know, every truth is subjective and two contradictory things can simultaneously be true apparently!"_
Which is bogus.
L I literally copied and pasted the definition from a philosophy dictionary 😂 I think it’s pretty accurate broski
This is interesting. The assumption that God's command is innately moral is something I'm frequently met with in dialogue. You should come on Non Sequitor some time it's a great place to exercise and test your arguments.
Which strikes me as odd. Are God's commands not subject to His whims? It's just pushing the question back a step.
Yes Alex, go on the non sequitur show, I’m sure you’d be amazing on there.
So, either God doesn't have a choice then (He's not all-powerful) or they exist separate from Him (He's incidental)?
PongoXBongo Plato's euthyphro dilema essentially
I was responding purely to your statement. I am not so invested in this topic so as to start reading related writings (just passing the time on YT). ;)
Why would you say the robot doesn't have a "should"? You yourself argued against the idea of freewill. If humans have no freewill, how can you differentiate us from a programed robot? If I see "unfairness" but lack the free will, is this actually a "should"?
If we somehow programmed the robot to experience the feeling of moral 'ought' that we do, whether or not that's free, I think we could call it a moral agent, at least in the same sense that we would call a human a moral agent. (Though ultimately, of course, with no free will the concept of ought makes little sense.)
I don't think a robot _can_ have any idea of "should," nor any ideas whatsoever. The robot carries out tasks; it does not have a consciousness.
Oliver Moore Perhaps, but I think that it is included in the premise of a robot that it is not conscious.
Didn't you just state you are wrong?
Henry Ambrose but what if you made a perfect scan of the human brain and reassemble it to AI. If the AI believes itself to be still, well... Itself before the transfer, then why would you deny it consciousness?
And if you can have a selfconscious construct in silico, then you can assemble it from scratch in silico.
Alongside this video, I can think of 'The Sources of Normativity' (1996) by Christine Korsgaard as another great book on the foundation of morality. Basically, Korsgaard takes on the same fundamental questions -- namely: where does 'oughtness' come from, and (if it really exist,) how can it be proven & justified? Yet its conclusion (and a Kantian one indeed) is quite different. By the way, great job Alex.
Saying something is good or bad is a value judgment,
value judgment is subjective,
threfore saying something is good or bad is subjective.
We inherit our values from a past bigger than us rather than create them whole in the present.
If there are generalizable facts about this process, couldn't one of them be what is good?
I remain undecided about this issue. Good on you for putting forward your argument in a highly intelligent way. You are a very smart man, and I really enjoy your videos. Welcome back
I agree with everything you said.
I'm not good at organizing the ideas, but I believe I thought most of what you said.
It’s been a few years since I’ve seen this, it was worth the rewatch and it is a point I have made to theists and apologists even prior to seeing this. One novel point that wasn’t originally addressed that is perhaps worth consideration is that the very notion of objective morality is in contradiction with the notion of free will when one considers them more deeply. I’m not sold on the existence of free will myself, but it is a cornerstone of the Abrahamic faiths that generally also assert objective morality.
Thank you for this video, this has helped me enormously. Hi from 2022 by the way.
Now this may be confirmation bias but I feel this is as accurate as it gets, at the very least it's a much more thought out explanation of my thoughts
Murder is bad because it hurts societies. Had it given us 5% better economy for killing each not-that-much contributing individuals to societies, it would've been a TOTALLY different story. Trust me; I don't wanna be an apologist for theives, rapists and delusional corporations which consider societies as consumers rather than people with rights and dignity; but we keep forgetting the underline we base our judgements on: that every individual of us has practically infinite potential. Had it been not; if those individuals we seek their right bear a heavy load on our societies that it isn't worth it to bear them. Imagine a world where a single soul kept alive costs the whole group 30% less share of resources, how about barely living with that soul being alive. Would you/we like that situation to occur? Or prefer to let go of what is not worth it?
Lying on others is bad; but what if that would make our economy way superior to them than before? Clearer even: the lying badness is not even inherently bad; had telling lies saved someone's live and telling the truth led to his killing: would you like to tell the executioner where his Innocent wanted people are? Rape is bad; but have we considered the possibility that (hypothetically, I'm not invoking any historical memeory) people were segregated by religion/race/political opinions that they have no right to marriage, so much so that they go extinct. Would we consider rape is this narrow aspect (I obviously despise rape; but we humans are so arrogant to claim knowing the truth when in fact all we care about is our interests) a terrible act? Or merely a mean towards restoring demographical balance/equality?
I do feel bad for writing this stuff; but my opinion in myself is we as a species are filthy piece of shit that don't really know self-worth but are too arrogant and delusional to justify our acts in the name of 'humanity'!! We allegedly claim to care for conscious beings but at the same time we, me firstly, don't even think about, let alone give a FUCK about the thousand species that either intentionally or consequently go extinct. And no I'm not talking about global warming, I mean pouching. I mean did we ask ourselves the question: do we care about the universe after we go extinct? Assume another human-like form emerges after we go extinct. Do we feel any passion towards them now? Do we care about the resources we leave behind for, not our decendants, but another life-form, alien to us?
We like to feel good about ourselves by developing morality whilst avoiding the horrible truth: we are just a species that is simple idiot selfish piece of shit; and it's a fact! Why else did we allocate the human life over other animals' lives even when we, disgusting people, have attacked that very individual animal's tree/habitat? As if we are superior by intelligence to them; well, let the aliens invade our planet to treat us the same way we did those poor animals. Why else do you center our interest around the human life rather than conscious live that feel the same pain that we do?!
@@reda29100 Yea you raise a strong point and I have thought this to.
Unfortunately, I disagree with almost all of his points that follow from his false definition of morality itself. He conflagrates the desire to complete moral acts or immoral acts with morality itself. If your definition contains a subjective premise of what an individual OUGHT to do, everything from there will also be subjective. Another comment put it nicely, his definition is essentially "we ought to do what we ought to do".
His subjective desire to commit an evil or good act has no bearing on the morality of the act.
Curious Entity murder can be justified when the one you’re killing is someone who is actively harming multiple other people, thus his murder would be morally better than countless murders caused by that individual
At any given time in history, however, philosophers, theologians, and politicians will claim to have discovered the best way to evaluate human actions and establish the most righteous code of conduct.
But it's never that easy.
"Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like a universal morality or an absolutist ethics"
At best, we can only say that morality is normative, while acknowledging that our sense of right and wrong will change over time
my GOD I've waited so long
😂
I agree with your thinking and have this to add.. Isn’t everything(under a certain level of scrutiny) subjective? Facts are an agreement based on perceived truth in regards to our ability to interpret experience. That means our human constructed ideas of a particular objectivity can always change.
In a fundamental and technical perspective, this is true. At the same time, it seems pretty reasonable to consider facts that are consistent and independent of our existence which we can observe might be objectively true. For example, the speed of causality (light) within a specific gravitational area so far seems constant. Our subjectivity is entirely present in our definition of terms of how we measure and represent that speed, but the speed itself does not change based on our perspective. Someone can present a different speed finding, but the odds are much higher that they are either incorrect or lying than they truly found a different speed.
A second (time unit) is defined as the time it takes for cesium-133 to go through 9.192631770 x 10^9 cycles of radiation.
A meter is the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second.
The choice to use cesium to define a second, and to use that denominator to define a meter... that's all subjective choices, but the facts used are objective. And while our subjectivity is arbitrary, once we define those arbitrary terms sufficiently in observable facts, our conclusions are relatively objective, as defined by our arbitrary terms in order to make communication and analysis of those facts useful.
It's true, that underlying ALL of our reasoning is our subjectivity, but it is very possible to eliminate an extremely large amount of that subjectiveness and arrive at something that has a high degree of objectivity. Interestingly (IMO), I think this is also why you find most good (subjective) scientists couching their conclusions with terms of uncertainty. They are aware of the limitations of our ability to make objective conclusions, and so we can only arrive at a high degree of certainty, but not an absolute certainty.
Yeah that is the basis of ideas like perspectivism. "There are no facts only interpretations" or a basically all of Nietzsches work. But once you get deep enough into that hole you simply change the word objective with intersubjective. As in something that in its core may be subjective but basically nearly everyone agrees on
As always, love your reasonably skeptical content. Many thanks for keeping me open-minded and warding off the evil Assumption spirits (which definitely exist btw).
I tried to come up with about 4 or 5 different objections throughout the course of the video, but ultimately you've left me stumped by your comprehensive argument. I'd describe my initial stance as drifting in between... It seemed more likely that morality was subjective but I was open to the possibility that there is an objective morality. Not knowing whether or not that morality was discoverable, I assumed it an unfalsifiable claim.
However, you've officially changed my mind. Unless we subjectively create an axiom that says that the objective good (granted it exists) is something we ought to do, we're left with Hume's guillotine; you can't derive an ought from an is. Even if murder is wrong, why oughtn't we do it?
Why is the ought necessary for the definition anyway? Intellectually honest people want to go to heaven so all we really need is the is.
@@tarikwalters854because if presented with a choice id rather go to heaven, because its what i want, i dont believe in god, but if there was a afterlife heaven sounds splendid
@@macvadda2318 Do you believe in right or wrong?
@@tarikwalters854 to me yes, i have my own right and wrong, but i can also acknowledge that some have different versions
@@macvadda2318 Then what does right and wrong mean “to you”?
Religious Morality:
God engages in and commands Israel to commit genocide - Good
Man engages in genocide on his own - Bad
God promotes and commands Israel to institute slavery - Good
Man institutes slavery on his own - Bad
God commands the ritual of blood sacrifices - Good
Man engages in blood sacrifices on his own - Bad
The list goes on and on.
I find it insulting and hypocritical when religious people choose to ignore the immoral acts contained within their own holy texts to criticize others. It's as if by deflection they can take the focus off the shortcomings of their own holy books.
You atheist will not just shut up about these part. Like God is all about war. Or that's all God is about. If you are genuine and if it's not your hate for God speaking you will read all scriptures and understand who God is and not just cut and paste where only God commands his people to war against a nation that has oppressed people
@@toyosioyejobi309 If you're talking about god in general then you're right there are gods that aren't trying to wipe out humanity. However, the Abrahamic god is a war god whether you like it or not. He is depicted as a tribalistic, genocidal, homicidal war lord both in the old and new testaments. Even those who are in a covenant with him aren't safe from his wrath. He is like an abusive husband.
People can talk about the love of the Abrahamic god all they want but that doesn't change the fact that it's religious influence is humanities greatest enemy.
Just to be clear, I think most of the stories in the Bible are fiction and folklore. I think much of it is hype. However, I do think the devotees of Elohim, YWHW, Jehovah, Jesus or Allah are quit capable of being destructive and violent in the name of their god.
@@joseph-thewatcher That's your bias speaking. I'm very sane and literate and I don't see it that way. Apart from the biases in your statement. I have felt the presence of God and I have seen and being a conduit of miracles.
Jesus is the full and perfected Revalation of God. He is the culmination of everything God was trying to teach the Jews who eventually failed to realize this all the way and eventually rejected and caused his death. Which was his destiny anyways.
These are spiritual things. The atheist is closed minded and he is restricted to what he can see or touch. I mean you compare God with warlords like gengis khan etc. It shows you don't know him. I'll implore you to have an open mind and read the scriptures. God will reveal himself to you.
@@toyosioyejobi309 You accuse atheists of being "closed minded" and "restricted to what he can see or touch". Yet you claim "I have felt the presence of god and I have seen and being a conduit of miracles."
It seems to me that your standard for believing in god is based on seeing and feeling. How hypocritical of you.
Your god experience is no different than claims of devotees of other religions.
Why do people like you think that you know the opposition better than they know themselves.
I was a commited Christian for more than 20 years and have read the Bible a lot and continue to read it. As a result of having an unfettered, unbiased, open mind I have come to my own conclusions. Conclusions that people like you take personal offense at.
You can believe in Jesus all you want, it's you right to do so, but stop pushing your religion upon others. I find your religion nonsense and it is rude of christians to suggest or insist that I or anyone else accept it on faith alone without making an honest inquiry into it's claims and doctrines.
@@joseph-thewatcher I have made inquiries too and all evidence seem to point at a resurrection but my faith in christ is eventually beyond that because I understand the person of the holy spirit. Who is the spirit of God that dwells in all who accept Jesus christ. So I have 2 ways.to affirm. Logical evidence and the experience of God and his spirit. If I had only logical evidence what's not to say just like you I say I have to see the physijesus first or somehow I have to be taken to the past to see the resurrection before I belief.
Nobody is shoving anything unto you. I didn't and neither has anyone I have seen here. I responded because you pasted a quite fallacious and misleading representation of The God of Israel which I felt compelled to correct. The fact that you say that shows there's something in you still struggling with the idea of God. I can "see" clearly that there has been a bit of hate towards God which led you to do some research get open to atheist ideas and eventually lose your faith if you had one. We can only share our faith it's up to you to chose or reject so quite frankly I'm shocked you decided to resort to that attack like every atheist does just attack and attack. At least you are a bit respectful I'll give you that.
In any case I can only hope and pray you find the real christ again that his spirit fills you up and convict you of faith that you will belief without any doubt. It is well with you
Your last Live Stream was awesome :)
Completely agree very well put, came to this realisation after a very intense mushroom trip, truth is all that matters and is the one true path, delusion is seclusion from oneself
Word salad from mushroom salad.
Exactly. Any god-given morality is subjective to that god's point of view. It's just like the theory of relativity... there is no absolute reference point.
There is no good without bad. God vs Lucifer. There is no color without colors. There must be a standard in order to have contrast.
Missed you Alex! Hope your schooling is going well :)
Alex, you should create a Discord server. Either that or one of us could make one and transfer ownership if he joins.
Magd Studios I’m pretty sure he does have one
As a Christian, I would like to give a response to the proposed question at 17:00. If the hypothetical scenario is that the God of the bible is objectively proven to exist (say through the resurrection of Jesus Christ), then the reason we “ought” to do what is good is simply because we should then listen to the commands of God. My response may appear to be simple and I am aware that you addressed this in the video. However, you did not address why we “ought” to obey Gods command. The reason we should is because God tells us that abiding in his word and obeying his commands leads to life. And failing to do what is good, or falling short of the glory of God, is sin and leads to death. So if the God of the Bible is proven true, we should take his word seriously, and whether my decision to obey a God who is true and defines what is true is subjective or not, I would be wiser to fear him and obey his commands which leads to life.
... and, subscribed. This seems very well considered to me.
I almost entirely concur, my one disagreement being that I'd define good as being "what you ought to do". I don't think there's any truly objective way to determine what is good, regardless of the presence or absence of gods, but my intuition is for "ought" to be part of the definition of "good".
I come from a very different background to cosmic a sceptic although I am an atheist as well.
I am very interested in and have researched quite a lot of early hominin (earliest ancestors of us - Homo sapiens) evolution.
From my understanding of our evolution, I suggest that morality could have evolved something like this.
All animals quickly learn that whatever causes pain or discomfort, is best avoided. So the beginnings of the concept of good v bad begin.
As early hominids (our earliest ancestors) we lacked sharp claws, fangs, venom or the ability to run very, very fast, so we banded together for protection out on the African plains.
Continued acceptance within the group required a level of empathy and the ability to work collectively together. Any wrong doing that caused pain, injury or death to other members of the group, would surely be frowned upon to some degree, even by the simplest of intellects.
So to avoid being shunned by the group, a code of do’s and don’ts develops.
With each progressive generation, those that can’t or won’t, stick to the dos and don’ts (the code if you want) get removed from the group.
They are far less likely to survive and reproduce, naked and alone, as they would be.
So with each generation there are more people that care for each other, protect each other and less people who don’t follow the “code”. Slowly this “code” gets hardwired in to us, as the percentage within the population gets higher and higher.
So a sort of proto morality slowly increases, generation after generation.
This would cause a type of proto morality to evolve. It is, I think intrinsically part of the intellectual growth of a social species.
To stay within the moral code becomes, over time instinctual.
Please let me know what you think of this hypothesis.
@Richdragon
Yes my wording is probably not correct there. I meant that it is an emergent property of living within societies, however simple those societies are.
Does that sound better?
@@budd2nd I read your comment and then your reply to Richdragon and out of nowhere the question popped in my mind: why does it matter? I'm not being provocative. I'm genuinely curious. What you wrote is an elaborate speculation that science will never be able to determine. What is the purpose of creating this hypothesis? What does it help you to achieve?
@@AnnaPrzebudzona
Thanks for the question Anna. I personally think it’s extremely interesting to contemplate our earliest ancestry.
@@AnnaPrzebudzona why do we do anything? What did you hope to achieve by writing this RUclips comment? Why did you watch this RUclips video? We do things all the time that seem pointless. For example, Philosophy as a whole is pointless. We can’t prove any of these things, but we enjoy talking about them anyways. Speculation and debate are fun things to do and they’re things that interest people’s brains. Let’s not judge people for hypotheses like this on a channel that is all about pondering
@@mingledingle1556 here if groups are successful through morality, we achieve our evolutionary goals - survival and reproduction
Wow! Alex I truly appreciate the way you express such complex and mind blowing ideas! You're one of the most intelligent people I've ever seen.
There is no circle when God gives a command. He is the ultimate authority, the final stop. All authority structures have an ultimate authority. God created us to perfectly reflect His image. This is why we are to be moral.
Some people in the comment section think that hell is the reason why you should listen to the morality god has given us
But that isn’t morality, it’s just a threat.
Threat is the way to enforce moral actions even from people with different moral values.
For example we usually don't kill other people because we believe it is bad and that we should not do it. But even if we did not believe that, the sentence we receive if we get caught by our justice system makes it rational to still avoid committing homicide. It can be seen as a unifying way to enforce objectively moral actions in a universe where people can have their own subjective opinions about it.
I really enjoy your videos. I have always been a moral subjectivist but never put much thought into it, because like you I assumed that just went along with atheism. You really helped me work through this, thanks!
From a Biblical viewpoint, I'm not sure it's possible to have objective morality and free will. We all have our own reasons for our actions, even those who do things we see as 'wrong'.
Morality must be subjective if we truly have free will.
My view on morality has come along in a similar in the sense my atheism is a ground point for it.
I fallow the path of
I do not believe in a god, therefore a god does not exist to give morality, therefore morality is man-made. That being said, numerous moral philosophies appear, creating subjectivity. To me, it seems morality must be subjective if every man can create a moral code by which he believes. However, there is a form of objectivity in morality when it comes a mass following. If an entire nation believes in one moral code, it may be originally subjective, but is a universal one that does not shift from person to person creating a sense of objectivity. This could be the case for every nation on the planet; a number of subjective moral codes finding themselves in disagreement. This disagreement is still justified even if we agree that subjectivity occurs. I think so many people that find morality subjective think they have to accept another person’s view of morality, but I believe it to be the opposite. Just because we can accept that morals are different, we do bot have to say that they should be considered moral on a grand scale. This is a societal dilemma, not one of who has the true god.
But aren't there certain objective moral truths. Like murder is bad. Rape is bad. Slavery is bad. Like these seem to be demonstrably moral truths if morality is defined as an innate desire to stop ourselves from doing things to others that we would not tolerate upon ourselves.
This can result in subjective moralities on the whole, but these subjective sets will have overlapping objective truths like I mentioned above.
Of course the caveat here is a moral person should also be a mental fit person n.
@@iamdanyboy1 Not really. Those only seem like moral truths based on the culture you grew up in. Slavery was normalized for millennia, and even seen as a good thing by many ancient cultures like the Sumerians. The concept of rape, as you conceive it here, didn't really exist until fairly recently, especially the rape of women since they have been regarded as property throughout most of humanity. "Murder" also just means "any immoral killing," so it's incredibly subjective; some people think abortion and meat-eating are murder, whereas others do not. Absolutist pacifists think even killing in self-defense is murder.
While you can find overlap between pretty much any two moral philosophies, if you take all moral systems into account then there is no middle ground that they all agree on. Even if there were, what you have is an Argumentum ad Populum or at best an argument from definition, which are fallacies.
I can find you a moral system that justifies or even demands any universal evil that you can come up with, I guarantee it. If morality was objective, then we would not have war.
@@AbandonedVoid lol. Sure. But these are moral systems that had to be invented or created to accommodate these acts. My contention is if you are a primitive civilisation, with no higher concept of morality , you will still know that when someone kills someone else , it's bad. When someone forces a lady , if you are another lady at least you will know it's bad. You will know it's bad when you see someone being violently forced to do labour in return for no renumeration and treated as less than human despite being the same as you.
Yes we justify every bad thing that happens to our enemies as moral or necessary actions.
But keeping everything else constant, ever since out birth humans are hardwired to find certain acts detestable. It's really not morality but a sense of disgust , so as to say.
@@iamdanyboy1 All moral systems were invented or created to accommodate the acts contained within them, that's kind of the point of morality.
As to murder and rape being known as bad "intuitively," I'm going to disagree with you there. In cultures where rape is normalized, even "another lady" will defend it, as strange as that might sound to you. The same is true of killing. The human conscience is based mostly on conformity, and guilt and empathy are not consistently felt in the same ways for the same reasons among even the mentally healthy. Again, however, even if it was, you would have nothing more than an argumentum ad populum or maybe an argument from nature, both of which are still logical fallacies.
At any given time in history, however, philosophers, theologians, and politicians will claim to have discovered the best way to evaluate human actions and establish the most righteous code of conduct.
But it's never that easy.
"Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like a universal morality or an absolutist ethics"
At best, we can only say that morality is normative, while acknowledging that our sense of right and wrong will change over time
Welcome back 🎉🎉🎉
Before I rejected Christianity, I would have argued that you ought to do what is commanded by God because then he will protect you and will keep the devil from harming you. So, obeying God was self-preservation. Also, the whole heaven and hell thing. :).
What everyone seems to miss about the concept of subjectivity is that it simply means that something is specific to the intention, or situation. Objectively speaking, the words "good", "Bad", "right"and "wrong" are by definition judgement statements. A judgement statement is always a dependent concept requiring a "for" statement, whether this statement is assumed, or stated. Further, by nature of its very definition, a judgement statement is ALWAYS a comparison statement. This is true whether one is deciding what shoes to wear, or what life to preserve. The reason we can all agree that what shoes to wear is not a moral decision, while what life to preserve is a moral one, is that empathy is at the root of the later decision. This is the only discernible difference between the two decisions. What the religious have done to the moral question is simply to attempt to remove empathy from the equation by replacing it with a higher authority. This is why random things, such as left handedness, clothing choice, etc. have been placed squarely under the heading of morality in religious text, when everyone knows that these are not morally based judgements. I submit that they are contrived to sever the mental connection between morality and empathy when instinctively we know that the difference between a morally based judgement and any other, is that morality is simply the equal application of empathy and reason.
"Objectively speaking, the words good, bad, right, and wrong are by definition judgement statements."
Words get their definitions from the people who use them, and people very commonly use these words to refer to objective facts, not mere judgements. For example, health and prosperity are good. There's not good _for_ anything; they are simply objectively good. This is just the way the word gets used, for whatever reason.
"The reason we can all agree that what shoes to wear is not a moral decision, while what life to preserve is a moral one, is that empathy is at the root of the later decision."
Morality is not about empathy. Morality is about what is good and bad, and it so happens that usually wearing a particular pair of shoes is neither good nor bad. Further, we shouldn't use empathy to decide what life to preserve; that would be a blatantly emotional basis for making very important decision, and important decisions deserve clear and careful thought.
I disagree. When people use a judgement statement such as "good" as an absolute, they are simply assuming the "for" statement to be obvious and universal. It is intellectual laziness. It is just taking a two dimensional view of a three dimensional subject. Empathy is not emotion. It is the tool we use to understand any issue with social/societal implications. It is an important aspect of "clear and careful thought".
"When people use a judgement statement such as 'good' as an absolute, they are simply assuming the 'for' statement to be obvious and universal."
What is the obvious and universal 'for' statement that is being left unspoken?
The "for" statement depends upon the situation and angle of perception. The saving of human lives, for instance, can be seen as a universal good only when a multitude of perspectives are selected for over other perspectives, each inherent to specific situational parameters. It depends upon whether you are the lion, soldier, or doctor. If you want to live as a happy participator in a harmonious society, then certain things are "good" for achieving that. This is why a "moral " decision made without empathy is made in ignorance.
"The reason why the former is not a moral decision whereas the latter is, is cultural."
That doesn't seem fair. It's true in a sense that the whole concept of morality is ultimately a social construct and therefore a product of culture, but it only came from culture in the ancient past when the concept of morality was first forming. Ever since then we've had an established concept of morality that is entirely cross-cultural. Morality doesn't vary from culture to culture.
Each culture and religion may inspire its own distinctive ideas about morality, but those are just opinions. Actual morality does not vary. Just because a religion says that it's bad to work on certain days doesn't make it actually bad; that's a mistake that the religion is making, probably based on the false belief that their scripture is a perfect moral guide.
"If what shoes you chose to wear impinged upon your individual or cultural standards or ideals with respect to a foundational moral sentiment (such as deference or respect to familial, societal, or spiritual authority, for example), then we would agree that it is a moral question."
There's a big difference between us agreeing that something is a moral question, and that question _actually_ being a moral question. We can make mistakes.
I came here wondering if this was a real philosophy channel. Then he said "First I have to define morality" and I was like "yeah, alright, this is definetely the type of stuff I remember from high school"
this is everything i feel about morality, all wrapped up in one great video
Let’s liken subjective morality to a football game. If I’m watching a football game that has no rules (subjective morality) and I say one team has 2 touchdowns, they actually don’t. I can say they do but that would be delusional. Reality is there is no score, no progress-it’s just a free for all. So even if I make judgments about it, they aren’t in accord with reality, so why should I believe them and impose them on others? Or want to punish others for my delusion? And where did I get the idea of scoring or not scoring if there isn’t scoring?
morality can be objective with god because if you are a god you can do anythng so a god could make morality objective if the god wanted to
@@williamethegod5013That’s not true. For it to be objective it would have to be unchanging. If it could change, we’d be stuck with subjective morality. Becaise morality is objective, the source of this morality is unchanging. This source is God
your not understanding what i'm saying my definition of god is a being who can do what ever he wants and if that being wants morality to be objective it will be objective yeah morality could be unchanging you didn't establish anywhere in your argument that morality has to change so why are you assuming it has to change
@@williamethegod5013 I find you funny, assume we could objectively prove god didn't exist you would say the exact same "god can do anything so therefore he exists". very sad ngl, allows you to not have to even understand any of the points made
Counter: Morality is objective, but you don’t need religion or belief in a god to conclude this. Simply, take the harm principle. If it harms someone in any conceivable way it is morally wrong. Now, at first this may seem like a gross oversimplification of morality that won’t account for a great deal of nuances that occur in the real world. But I implore you to think it all the way through. Inject any scenario into this premise & examine it to the last most specific detail, & you’ll find that the harm principle solves it all. On top of this, I am of the position that in real life sometimes things that are morally wrong have to happen. Necessary evils if you will, like going to war for example, or situations where people are forced by circumstance. But whether something occurs out of necessity or not is irrelevant to how wrong it is.
The "harm principle" is just a social contract, evolved over time by animals to increase their chances of survival and the passing down of their genetics. This exact thinking can be used to justify things like murder and rape, so it's not to be taken seriously. What most people are missing is that every animal is driven to do one thing: pass down their genetics. Literally every action every alive being has is related to this. Every single one. I believe morality is objective, but this line of thinking doesn't make sense.
Ok, this resonates with what I had in my head, but thanks for making it clear.
You have some interesting ideas here, but there are some flaws. The one that particularly caught my attention is around 17:00 you make the pre-supposition that God is real for the sake of argument and that his morality is 'objectively true', due to his existing. But you go on to say that even then, morality can't be objective because we can't explain why we *ought* to do good instead of bad.
My beef with this is that the concept that we ought to do good things is very possibly baked into the concept or morality itself. Morally good choices are by definition things we ought to do. If we're assuming morality is objective, then you're also assuming, that we ought to do it, because that's moral, and morality is objective. If someone has no ought to do good, then they aren't being moral.
Now if it sounds like I'm misrepresenting the definition of morality, it's only because by your own admission you've made your definition in this thesis very nebulous and poorly defined. I don't think the definition I've used is any more or less meaningful than the one you've provided. Furthermore, you've failed to define key terms like 'intuition' and 'ought'. You said you don't think you need to do this... well.. I definitely disagree. You do.
This is especially important for the usage of the word 'intuition'. This is a bit of a loaded word when discussing things of an objective nature. Intuitions are by definition subjective.
Definition of intuition: "A thing that one knows or considers likely from *instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning* ."
By using the word intuition and then failing to better define it, you've essentially concluded in your definitions and premises that morality is a feeling and not a part of reasoning or absolute truth. That's a problem. If morality is proven to be objective, than it would be untrue to state that objective morality is an intuition that we ought to do good.. it would be more accurate at that point to say that morality *is* doing that which *is* good, as codified by the objective moral standard of God.
xI2ei I think you misunderstood the scenario he presented. He suggested if God were true. That’s it. He didn’t include His morality being objectively true in the scenario.
Also I think his definition of Morality was fair. There’s no need for intuition. The definition has the basics of what the topic is (Good, Bad, Ought, Ought Not) Can’t simplify it more then that. Mind you I disagree with his conclusion. I just think we should be fair in representing him in our comments and critiques. Cool?
I think you're pushing the question. If by definition we ought to make morally good choices, how do we define them? By what standart is a choice morally good?
He's basically pointing to Hume's "is - ought" problem. It is impossible to prove "ought" from "is".
@kabal
And there you have entered into free will. A good law and a good judge are objective - A is good, B is bad. You an I have freedom to submit ourselves to the law or rebel against it. Our choice doesn't change nor impact the law only our measurement and consequence against it. It is very reasonable for the law to be objective but our choices subjective.
@Kabal
Save, that people didn't design morality (in the root start of morality, many have designed their own morality). You do have the subjective choice to pic your own moral code and abide by it.
You stray a bit to far when making all inclusive statements like their is no object meaning to good. While their may be subjective interpretations of good, the objective definition is "to my benefit".
However, if one chooses a world view where this is no "law giver", then any and all choices in any and all situations is valid and "good". As I have no direct authority over any other, we each can make any choice and impose on anyone to any degree - a.k.a the survival of the fittest.
Only when there is an independent superior which establishes objective law do we inherent a responsibility to abide by such law and thereby definition of good/evil.
You are exceptionally intelligent, and I think intellectually honest. Based on your other videos I think your intentions were not atheistic, you genuinelly wanted to find God and goog in the world. You are searching for the truth. You are one of the greatest thinkers of our time (of youtube at least) and you are still pretty young.
I'm starting to think that morality is a learned/evolved selfish instinct governed by localized norms, immediate desires, long term rewards, and short term shame/punishment. I have a feeling that even the most benign moral judgement comes from a self serving perspective whether known or unknown. It is easy to say killing is bad as an example, but we also have the death penalty, war, self defense, euthanasia and so on. Even if killing is defined as bad, society creates selfish justifications for it. Additionally, it is hard for something to be objectively good or bad if all of the implications/variables of the moral judgement are not known and how could they ever be. This was a very thought provoking video. Keep up the great work.
Ok I'm intrigued, but I'll wait for part 2. If it's still interesting, I say we just set up a debate between you and Steve to see if it holds up.
Ok. It will take me a long time to think through all your points. But I am skeptical. Above all, I don't see how an agent has to be conscious in order to be moral. If we take it to be true that we have no free will then the ability to experience "moral choices" doesn't seem to have any importance at all. *thinking in progress*
...thinking in progress...
I imagine a 'loading' wheel in your eyes with a blank stare. Are you a robot? Ha ha
I absolutely agree with you
Lil Phag 😳 ‘Human behaviour is determined by the laws of physics’ ? If so, how do you explain why in a situation X one person behaves negatively but a second person behaves to the contrary. For example, A and B approach C. A then attacks C but B intervenes to protect C. Why? Are your ‘laws of physics’ capable of discriminating between individuals? How? What about D who phones police but E who does nothing? Be very careful when you abandon free will, as you then open the door to extreme individualism with each person deciding, arbitrarily, how to behave. That negates any agreement to the concept of justice and punishment. All that A needs to offer in his defence is ‘physics made me do it, Officer!’ Is that what you believe?
You miss the point. There is a difference between free will as something external untouched by reality and free will in a deterministic world governed by natural laws, the laws of physics. Of course we all think we have a choice. But if we could reset time and let you make this choice again you would always make the exact same one. Simply because our choice is already made doesn't mean it does not exist. And of course different people with different agendas make different choices.
Sir Meow The Library Cat Well, people are different. Our programming is different. But our programming is also subject to the laws of physics. The reason why persons A, B, and C might act differently in identical situations is the fact that persons A, B, and C are not identical, but their actions are still governed by physics because physics governs both their external and internal environments.
If persons A, B, and C were identical, then barring any randomness, we would expect them to act identically in identical situations. And we can't control randomness, so the existence of random events does nothing to help the notion of free will in the sense that you can freely choose from multiple options how you will act in any given situation.
my interpretation of objective good is anything that feels good whilst causing no harm to others (and by harm I mean damage that doesn't lead to a beneficial things,so getting a shot from a doctor to save your life isn't evil because the purpose of it was not to negatively affect your life it was to do the opposite, and assuming it does work,then it was good,whereas being stabbed is not to your benefit but to your detriment). but then again as far as we know everything is a social construct and objectivity if that's the case is then ironically subjective
I don't know why people think that morality being subjective means that suddenly the Holocaust could be right. Art is subjective and that doesn't mean that I can make a ball with recently used toilet paper and say that it has artistic value. Well, maybe I can but no one would agree with me, probably not even myself.
Comfortably Nihilistic here and I gotta say there is an infinetely easier/shorter way to explain this
1)Good/bad are subjective concepts
2)morality is based on what is good and bad
3) therefore morality can only be subjective
But thank you for going long into it definetely helps others understand
People frequently use good and bad to refer to hard objective reality. For example, poverty and illness are bad. This is a matter of fact of how these words are used in real life. We can also solidly say that health, prosperity, friendship, and security are good. It doesn't really matter what anyone feels about these things; they are simply objectively good. If someone told us that a plan was good while knowing that the plan would lead to injury and suffering, then we would have been lied to, because there are certain objective standards that good things must meet.
On the other hand, if good and bad were subjective concepts, then what sort of subjective would they be? For example, there are sensations. There are memories and beliefs. There are emotions. Where in the range of subjective experiences would good and bad live?
This stance doesn't seem metaphysically pragmatic, in the sense that it's not a concept that easily interacts with other concepts, but merely excludes a large variety of difficult ones. To me, it's kind of like assuming you can divide by 0. You can go ahead and assume that, but if you do, the logical consequences are that all numbers are equivalent to 0. If you're cool with that, then go right ahead, but the concept of having a large variety of numbers that interact in interesting ways is much more useful.
Ansatz66 people are frequently wrong just because we all mostly agree that poverty and illness is bad doesnt mean its objective. There are no objective standards for what is good and bad only subjective ones you cannot count feelings and you cannot measure opinions. For your terrible example of a "plan" injury could very easily refer to a surgery and suffering can just as easily refer to temporary pain due to said surgery. So even the words you claim were "objectively" negative can be used to represent a "postive thing" thus *subjective.*
For another example thats a bit on the darker side Thanos snaps his fingers but instead of "all life" just all advanced life dies IE for earths purposes just humans with half of humanity dead the polution levels practically free fall obviously the current pollutants are still there but the earths recovery is mightly advanced since the polution rate isnt nearly as high... Good for the earth but we would find it "morally" reprehensible(bad) because that would be a massive genocide and we agree thats bad
Good and bad are opinionated concepts. Opinions lie in the subjective camp
"People are frequently wrong just because we all mostly agree that poverty and illness is bad doesn't mean its objective."
The general public can easily be wrong about objective facts (and they frequently are) but they cannot be wrong about the meanings of words, because words get their meanings from the people who use them. If people choose to use words like good and bad as if they were objective, then they become objective.
"For your terrible example of a 'plan' injury could very easily refer to a surgery and suffering can just as easily refer to temporary pain due to said surgery. So even the words you claim were 'objectively' negative can be used to represent a 'positive thing' thus subjective."
No one claimed that good and bad were simple things. They take many forms. These words have naturally evolved with human language, so they weren't designed by any person to be easy to comprehend. As it happens, successful surgery that cures a problem is good, even if it does cause some temporary pain and some scars.
"Good for the earth but we would find it morally reprehensible (bad) because that would be a massive genocide and we agree that's bad."
People being murdered in mass numbers is objectively bad without any doubt. The fact that it might be good for the environment is an instrumental good, not a moral good, because it is good _for_ something, not outright good. The biggest reason people want to protect the environment is to protect people from environmental disasters like droughts, floods, and storms. Murdering vast numbers of people to protect the environment would be morally ridiculous.
"Good and bad are opinionated concepts. Opinions lie in the subjective camp."
Plenty of objective things are opinionated. Global warming. The existence of gods. The evolution of species. These are straight-forward ideas about our world that are either true or false, and clearly objective, yet people cannot ever seem to agree. It's true that morality is opinionated, but that tells us nothing about whether it is objective.
Ansatz66 ah I see your problem you dont know what the words objective and subjective mean
Objective
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Subjective
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
In other words *feelings* are not objective by definition. What is good and bad are *opinions based on perspective*
Facts dont care about your feelings. Feelings might care about the facts but thats meaningless in a conversation about morals. Morals are value statements to live by for example "killing human beings is bad" now we can all agree on this statement and I do but that doesnt make it objective. If my life is in danger and the easiest way to save my own life is to kill a human in front of me then ya imma kill that person. Its good for me because I get to live ill feel like shit because I had to do that but that doesnt make any part of that interaction *objectively bad or good* by my perpective its good by his its bad there is no universal good or universal bad to *assume* such is to believe in inherit value... so in that sense your barking up the wrong tree
In my humble opinion, your last point is actually you as a subject being variable. It is not about the object(objective morality) we discusse here objective or subjective.
Have a good one!
Great video! But I guess the problem here is that people are often associating the "objectivity" of moral actions to empathy, which makes it subjective. I think people have forgotten how Immanuel Kant has treated morality; that it is an a priori truth; similar to the laws of logic that IF everyone followed it, then the conclusion will be a better society. Regardless if religion existed or not, it remains a logical fact - people killing each other cancels out the possibility of existence.
Morality should be grounded in REASON, not in EMPATHY, no matter how empathy might be much more intuitive to rely on than reason for many. Only then people will see the "objectivity" of moral values when people start to see it like a logical derivative rather than a subjective preference or a primitive response of our paleomammalian brain.
While I would agree that there are subjective moral values (those fall with different laws in different countries we have), there ARE objective moral values as well, independent of human experience. Subjective and objective moral values co-exist. Imagine if everyone killing each other - it will cancel out life and progress (objective), likewise, marijuana is okay to some countries but in our country, not yet (subjective).
Morality is a rational enterprise - with or without the existence of religious notions, and Darwinian naturalism. It remains like a logical law that will bring positive results if and only IF ALL people were able to follow it.
Sources to explore: Kant's CPR (and other Kant's moral philosophy), Against Empathy by Paul Bloom
I think you may be onto something. You said that positive results will be seen given that EVERYONE comply. In the world we live in, there is quite clearly a difference in opinion regarding many things morality included and that would then explain why we have so many huge global problems.
I can see a practical need for rules in any organization, and especially simple rules in the largest ones given that some people might have difficulty comprehending and remembering any exceptions. Any standard is better than no standard, but the lack of nuance in Kant's CI hardly seems capable of navigating the nuanced complexities of life, even in a society where no one lied, no one stealed, no one killed, and so forth.
@@Livo-ph9fj Just because not EVERYONE is following it, doesn't mean it's not objective. Kant proposed that morality is a logical enterprise. People can believe 1+1=3 but the answer remains it's 2. Same thing with morality. Now if you think morality is not objective, then tell that to rape victims, or people who are in the concentration camps.
@@darkengine5931 Of course, that's why utilitarian morality was born, as opposed to Kantianism. But what the OP is saying is not about the nuances that CI can't propose, but rather it's about how morality is objective regardless if people obey it or not. That's what makes us as humans - having free will to disobey objective moral values. But Kant has shown us that there are objective moral values, even if we disobey it, it remains objectively sound and logical.
@@robertdinire6133 I still see what appears to be an embedded/implied hypothetical in even CI itself which depends on subjective interests. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law [if you wish to be a good person, or wish to contribute to making up a more harmonious society]."
I also question the utopian nature of it. Suppose we were all perfectly rational, benevolent beings, treating each other solely as an ends and never a means, and only acting in accordance with that which we wish to be universal law while working hard and never being lazy. I could certainly see better societies emerging than our present one if only because everyone is now benevolent, but there still exists finite resources and scarcities which will often force us to prioritize the needs of one person over another's. That's also a problem I find with utilitarian frameworks in spite of their hypothetical objectivity (should we arrive at a perfect and consistent way to measure utility).
Morality is nothing more than a framework for justifying and rationalizing action
And nothing less!
After watching the whole video I think you have definitely shifted my thinking on some of these issues. I think you are absolutely correct. There is no proof that we “ought” to do something one way or another. Even if you could objectively prove God exists, the still lies the subjective opinion of whether or not you personally want to come under his authority. I think that if any God were proven to exist that would PERSONALLY be persuasive to me that I would want to live under his authority. However, it’s not an objective reason for everyone to do so. I think this is the basis of the idea of free will.
What if that god was Kim Jong-un?
@@ThomasintheMind what if you had a point?
@@breasonable4343 you're cruel 😂
@@pythondrink 😆
Alex: morality can't be objective
Ayn Rand: *am I a joke to you?*
Yes, because Ayn Rand should be a joke to everybody.
@@owlcowl Have you read some of her books? Have you? Oh, then shhh
yeschad.jpg
I hope you are doing well, friends 🥰. I invite you to worship our creator and to see the evidence of his existence.
In his book, the holy Quran, more than 1400 years ago:
scientific miracles (expansion of the universe, the chemical composition of humans, the front of the head function, the mountains functions as pegs, factor determines Gender, and etc.….), historical miracles, metaphysical miracles, numerical miracles, linguistic miracles, arrangement miracles, the unmet challenge of bringing something like it, the preservation miracle, and others.
The prophet of Islam, Muhammed (may blessing and mercy of God be upon him) miracles:
the prophecies of his advent in the Bible and the Torah, the historical miracles performed by him that we knew by narrators, the scientific miracles In his sayings, the metaphysical miracles and knowing some things in the future by the knowledge of the creator, and others.
Logical proofs:
Religious comparisons, Issues in the religions except Islam, The superiority of Islam over other religions to guarantee rights and the survival of life, the innate of worshiping a god (mentioned in the Quran), the illiteracy of the prophet of Islam and the Benefits of saying that this Qur’an is from him, the perfection of our creation (mentioned in the Quran), and others.
for further information, don’t hesitate to ask me. Watch these two videos prospectively, please.
ruclips.net/video/VwZwczHLAL4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/BOoMxN8Qbm0/видео.html
this is the most essential website for illustrating the evidence.
www.islamreligion.com/en/articles
thanks...
@@davee91889ayn rand was literally a facist
Great video Alex. Ultimately isn’t this just a restatement of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem?
I would like to try and create Polish subtitles for this. But is it impossible to add them because the author didn't request them?
Before I started watching your videos I held a belief that morality was mostly subjective with some ultimate objective rules that are objective no matter what. However, after thinking through things and considering the points presented in your videos, my belief has progressively shifted to the belief that all morality is subjective no matter what.
Craig seems to define "good" as "that which is in accordance with a god's nature." While people often accept that "we ought to do what is good," if we unpack that statement and reveal it to mean "we ought to do that which is in accordance with a god's nature," that seems far less obvious. That's a statement that is not clearly true.
There's also a debate between Matt Slick and Scott Clifton in which Slick absurdly claims that a command can, in fact, have a truth value.
TMM I like your comment here very much, so I'm just asking a question. (perhaps one with an obvious answer) "That's a statement that is not clearly true." Are you saying this because it's not clear what the nature of god is? If so, I agree. I'm only assuming that god exists, for the purpose of this discussion. But if god exist, it's not clear what his/her nature is, otherwise there would only be one religion.
Jeff Stewart Satan?
What's wrong with saying that a command can have a truth value? I don't quite get your objection.
"Are you saying this because it's not clear what the nature of god is?"
No, I'm saying that even if a god's nature is clear, it is not clear that we ought to act in accordance with it.
"What's wrong with saying that a command can have a truth value?"
A command doesn't make a claim. Only claims can be true or false.
The framing is clever, though I find the question, “why ought we to do what is good?” and the sequence of questions that stem from it to be similar to repeatedly asking someone “why is that?” It is something like the Socratic method. I’m not exactly sure how repeatedly asking “why ought we to do ____?” proves religious morality to be subjective because you can always ask the question again. Is the suggestion that objectivity starts where your questions stop? How does that follow?
Of course, the Socratic method’s primary function is to get people thinking, which you no doubt have done. Love the channel.
And by way of logic, Alex shows most folk that reality and especially morality is a product of our subjectivity and desire for an end to the argument of morality.
5:39 "Morality: the intuition that we ought to do that which is good, and ought not do that which is bad."
That's a terrible definition because all that intuition indicates is that a person understands the meanings of the words _ought, good,_ and _bad._ It's nothing but a tautology to say that we ought to do that which is good. The very reason why we ought to do it is because it is good; the question gives the answer away. Good is by definition that which we ought to do, and by definition if we ought to do something then it is good.
Saying that we ought to do that which is good is much like saying that bachelors are unmarried. Having the intuition that bachelors are unmarried indicates nothing more than a grasp of the words _bachelor_ and _unmarried._ It's just two ways saying exactly the same thing. Using this technique to define morality renders morality practically meaningless.
It's no surprise that everyone seems to agree that we ought to do what is good, since anyone who is capable of correctly using those words must therefore agree.
A better definition of morality would be: the classification of things, events, or actions into good and bad.
6:53 "The reason morality can't be objective is precisely because good and bad and ought can't be defined."
Good, bad, and ought can be defined. Especially ought can be defined if we can define good and bad, and in the same way we can define good and bad if we can define ought, since the meanings of these words depend upon each other.
Words get their meanings from the people who use them. To determine the meanings of these words, we must study how they are used in practice. What are people trying to convey when they say that something is good, or (equivalently) when they say we ought to do something?
To say that these words can't be defined is effectively to say that we mean nothing by them, that they are totally vacuous and useless.
On the contrary, good can be defined. The only issue is that it's a complicated word with many meanings in various situations. The word was never designed to have a clear and precise meaning; it evolved over vast amounts of time through the influence of social forces, and so its meaning is fuzzy and probably impossible to fairly summarize in a single sentence.
Despite the difficulties, there are a few solid things we can say about the definition of good. For example, good is health. Good is prosperity and friendship. Good is security and fun. Good is the things which cause good things. All of this is quite clear from the way people use the word. We could go on and on about what exactly good means based on how it is used.
By the way, yellow is a property of light within a particular range of frequencies, a property of objects which produce such light, and a sensation which is usually produced by such light.
17:06 "Why ought we do that which is good?"
That question is completely pointless because it contains the answer within the question. Once we've determined that a thing is good, what more reason could we need for doing it? We ought to do that which is good _because it is good._ The only challenge of such a question would be for people who are uncertain of how these words are properly used. It's like asking "Are bachelors always unmarried?"
The real challenge for religious people here is how do you prove the word of God is good, or similarly, what makes God good? How do we know that if we follow God's commands we will find those things which people universally expect from goodness, like health, prosperity, friendship, and so on. If following God's commands actually ends up leading the disease, suffering, pain and hardship, then we'll have fairly established that it wasn't good. So prove that following God's commands is actually good.
17:23 "Let's say that good really was defined by God."
That's an interesting assumption, but ultimately it doesn't affect anything. That means that instead of good being defined by humans and evolving with our language as it was shaped by social forces, the word and its meaning were simply dictated to us. That wouldn't change the meaning of the word, or its relationship with the word _ought._ We still ought to do what is good, just because that's the definition of _ought._ It's no different from supposing that God defined the word _bachelor._ The origins of these words is irrelevant to how they are used.
I think this was a good response.
If your going to argue the definitions of good and bad are subjective, then you may as well start off with the premise that no one has to believe you.
@@agentleman777 Similarly if you are going to start with the definition that God is good and the bible is true, then you can not possibly condemn slavery, rape, murder, incest, blood sacrifice etc.
This is an excellent response.
I am a devout Catholic, and have been watching a few of Cosmic’s videos and found his arguments quite wanting, for reasons you have stated quite well. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated a much firmer grasp on philosophy and would be someone I would like to engage with, as you have taken the time to really think this through, instead of trying to quickly dunk on the religious to prove your superiority. I appreciate this.
Is argument that we know objective good to be “health”, “prosperity”, and fun” based in an argument from evolutionary psychology or something like that? In addition, it seems to derive an objective good from qualities that at least some of these qualities seem to be subjective in and of themselves. If Timmy finds bullying fun, doesn’t that mean it is good? With others, it is at least a source of debate as to whether or not they are inherently “good.” Prosperity has been argued to be a good thing by many but a bad thing (ie a source of greed) by others. This is all relevant because you claim we can develop an objective true understanding of “good” based on people’s use of it, which seems to be heavily problematic, perhaps in part for the reasons expressed by CS in the video.
If religious morality was objective, then I think less people would leave their respective religions.
*fewer
Henry Ambrose Yeah, I deserved that. Karma at work.
Mandy J Karma isn't real :)
I don't see why that would be the case. If morality is grounded in a god of a particular religion, then people would leave their respective religions to go to that true religion (according to your logic).
But, in Christianity one of the biggest ideas is that people don't meet the moral standards, and are wretched. Then, I could see why some lukewarm "Christians" would want to leave. They don't want to face the facts that they are far less then perfect.
Matthew L.
Your god's standards are hardly perfect and who says there is a "true" religion. No one, except delusional narcissists, might claim that they are perfect so I don't know where you are getting the idea that the majority of people can't accept the fact they are less THAN perfect.
I loved watching your video
Love this.
Any notion of morality is inherently subjective, as it exists within the conscious perception of a SENTIENT PERSPECTIVE, ONLY.
Waiting for that promised part 3.
I find your videos facinating.
Reminder: morality is not subjective.
he says garbage.
he does not even work on the concepts before starting the argument
Great analysis. My intuition is that your point about where the oughts come from is teleology. All "You ought to"s I think must have a teleological "If you wish to". For example, "If you wish to become smarter, you ought to read more philosophy." Oughts can only be connected to will. So, then where does will come from? That answers where oughts come from. If we can identify a source of the will, we identify the source of ought.
The out for the theist is that will is an unchanging property of an eternal God, who grants us our own free will. In this way, there is an ultimate will from which ultimate oughts come from, but there is also a personal will from which personal oughts come from. That personal will, being a portion of ultimate will, has inherent ultimate oughts; but in experiencing a personal free will, divorced from the experience of ultimate will, it develops its own subjective oughts.
Oughts must come from will, which must be experienced in a mind, which must itself have an ultimate source. It becomes, as usual, a question of paradigm: do I believe that the mind can come from matter? or rather must the mind itself be external from the material world, only interacting with it through some sort of interface?