I don’t agree that evolutionary morality implies subjective morality. Human morality IS objective, insofar as that we don’t make it up ourselves. Our moral intuitions have an origin, a reason, therefore they can’t really be “denied” or “debunked”. They just are. The fact that we sometimes don’t agree on what’s right or wrong is a product of our environments impact on our maleable minds and conplex human psychology.
14:10 "Do i really believe that immaterial things exist? no." A challenge to materialists: When we imagine things, we're creating a mental abstraction. The image that we're picturing isn't real, yet we can still see it as if it were. Where is this image in our brain, and how is it even possible? How could you explain the existence of non-physical mental abstraction within a purely materialistic framework. Even something as simple as the existence of rationality, Suppose a logical syllogism, "All humans are mortal. Aristotle is human. Aristotle is mortal." Does the truth of that statement exist in any greater capacity than the words that I'm saying or the letters that I'm typing? What physically observable law (That of the likes of a apple falling of a tree hitting the ground,) necessitates that if the two provided premises are true than the conclusion (that Aristotle is mortal) HAS to follow. The existence of reason presupposes the existence of something outside of the material. It's a completely different kind of truth, one that can't be physically observed but nonetheless intuited.
I get what you’re saying. This is high level shit and I’m not sure how to oppose it properly, though I am instinctively opposed. I guess I feel that logic and math and universal constants still in some way refer to the physical world, I’m both sure how to put this, but… hmm I don’t know actually I’ll think about it.
I’m curious how you respond to the idea of polygamy. Many religions are against this in modern culture, but from an evolutionary standpoint it would make sense for all the females to mate with the strongest male in whatever tribe they belonged to. Why has polygamy not been more normalized in the everyday culture. As well, how do we respond to there being a lack of morals in clearly destructive human patterns? Why is it that drugs, pornography, and alcohol consumption are supported by the vast majority of culture even though the science shows there is a clear downside to these indulgences.
Monogamy has a great benefit for women evolutionarily: the woman and her children are actually cared for by a father. Obviously there might also be a large cultural component to this, which can behave differently from "evolutionary logic".
The definition for the “strongest” changes base on the environment. Is it not the strongest that survives but the most adapted that does. Humans are evolved to free the prefrontal cortex from an genetic influences thus freeing us to be molded by our environment and in a way making us more adaptable to the environment. That is why morally is all ways changing based on the different perspectives and experiences. So naturally, the most adapted will pass on the gene. But luck also plays a role, as even the best of us can get unlucky, and the worst of us does get luck. Thus, the dynamics of the “strong” is always changing and improving. This whole evolution process seems like a force that marches towards something, improving to be something better than before. It seems like it might lead to a destination of some kind, a state of some kind, but idk. If there is a destination, goal, or a direction that we are naturally approaching to does that mean there is an objective morality? While I’m not fully sure what that object morality is, but based on evolutionary patterns it could mean that the goal is to maximize the the duration and the sustainability of life.
I actually looked into this a bit before the video but didn’t go into it here, but monogamy (with some adultery sprinkled in, however not mainly) is actually our most effective survival strategy. For starters, one man can’t protect a harem of women on his own. Then there is the social cohesion bit of having all the members of the tribe satisfied, and if one big alfa man was getting all the women then there would be conflict all the time. There are some more things that I don’t remember but yeah
Maybe. Martin Heidegger wrote about organisms in a way that organs are built from within the organism, because they are needed. It is described as if organs are teleologically created by the organism, not as an accidential byproduct that became important as a result of survivability and therefore caused a genetically reproduction of the features with best survivability, but created the genetical reproduction because of the necessity of specific functions. Maybe I just missunderstand what you wanted to say, but in my (just) opinion it is worth to think, if morality really is just a bybroduct or if it might be created because of the need of it. And when I talk about teleology (from greek word entelecheia/ἐντελέχεια) as it was understood by Anaxagoras -> ("->" = as teacher of) -> Socrates -> Plato -> Aristotle, I don't talk about an external telos, like as if a God created it, even this idea of an internal telos was understood like some kind of God creation, because "God" or "Nous" was understood absolutely different from how we understand it nowadays. I would say Heidegger stands in this tradition, when he talks about organisms and organs.
Hmmm. I see what you’re saying, and sorry for not responding earlier. I think you could be right. I think morality exists because it is necessary, rather than it being simply a “byproduct” of our evolution. I should definitely read Heidegger hehe
damn i finally found someone that believes the same thing i do tf but like i think the reason that evolutionary morality isnt that popular (at least from my experience) is because it threatens existing morals and values in society, so naturally it does not survive as well compared to other models also the important thing is that like if we believe that this model is the truth, where do you go from here? for me, i think that we should make our own ultimate outcome, because we as humans need some sort of end goal or guide in life in order to be fufilled like for example most people still follows moral codes even if they believe this model, for example, you. You say it the description thing Nonetheless, BE A GOOD PERSON. But isnt that like a contradiction because this model shows that there is no universal good or bad? this shows in my opinion how people still unconciously hold moral codes even if it contradicts beliefs because we need some sorth of structure in life, and theres nothing wrong with that. its just like religion, many religious people believe in many contradictory beliefs to religion like LGBTQ but they just make up some stupid reason like "oh well the bible isnt literal" or wtver even though it is clear that throughout history, the more scientific discoveries there are that contradicts a religion the more and more people say oh well the bible isnt literal or some random excuse ok idk im just yapping but FINALLY someone that thinks like me godam
"You say it the description thing Nonetheless, BE A GOOD PERSON. But isn't that like a contradiction because this model shows that there is no universal good or bad?" Maybe its more-so a sort of pascallian wager in that although he might give more credence to an evolutionary explanation of morality there remains no active harm in acting as if these moral virtues exist, whereas if there does exist some kind of objective morality, even if he might think the probability of something like that actually existing is low, then there becomes a demonstrable BENEFIT in acting out these moral virtues. So it's like a decision theory model: no objective morality (high probability) = 0 Harm in acting as if morality exists objective morality (low probability) = demonstrable benefit in acting as if morality exists So if I were to quantify the probability of objective morality being true as long as there is a non-zero probability that it is true it would still be more logical to act as if it exists.
@@evolius5178precisely, it’s beneficial to believe I think. And even though I say these things, I don’t “instinctively”, “subconsciously” believe them, if you get what I mean.
I did a lot of thinking on the meaning of life in a godless world, and what I came to is that the goal/meaning of life is, simply, to live a good life. Every single thing you do is a means towards a percieved “good life”. You will bever do anything to intentionally make your life worse. A good life consists of GENUINE happiness, fulfillment and a type of tranquility (peace of mind, calmness). The means to achieve these things is up to the individual, but I don’t think doing immoral things can get you there. Because deep down we all have a conscience, so you can’t have that calm if you act immorally. Something like that. That’s how I ground it I guess.
@@NilsLindstrand i mean like genuine happiness is achieved differently for every person though cuz i believe that "conscience" is 70% nurture and 30% nature, not that i think that its a good thing or a bad thing, it just is so then if the ultimate goal of life is happiness, and we feel happy when we align with our conscience, then go for it but it really varies for every person, there's no universal conscience, and some people feel terrible by adhering to morals that are generally accepted so i think that just do whatever makes you genuinely happy, even if it goes against general morals
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Evolutionary morality still implies subjective morality and morality can't be subjective otherwise it still breaks down
Why can't morality be subjective? If everyone subjectively agrees that murder is bad, we won't do it.
Why cant it be subjective because it breaks down
I don’t agree that evolutionary morality implies subjective morality. Human morality IS objective, insofar as that we don’t make it up ourselves. Our moral intuitions have an origin, a reason, therefore they can’t really be “denied” or “debunked”. They just are. The fact that we sometimes don’t agree on what’s right or wrong is a product of our environments impact on our maleable minds and conplex human psychology.
14:10
"Do i really believe that immaterial things exist? no."
A challenge to materialists:
When we imagine things, we're creating a mental abstraction. The image that we're picturing isn't real, yet we can still see it as if it were. Where is this image in our brain, and how is it even possible? How could you explain the existence of non-physical mental abstraction within a purely materialistic framework.
Even something as simple as the existence of rationality, Suppose a logical syllogism, "All humans are mortal. Aristotle is human. Aristotle is mortal." Does the truth of that statement exist in any greater capacity than the words that I'm saying or the letters that I'm typing? What physically observable law (That of the likes of a apple falling of a tree hitting the ground,) necessitates that if the two provided premises are true than the conclusion (that Aristotle is mortal) HAS to follow. The existence of reason presupposes the existence of something outside of the material. It's a completely different kind of truth, one that can't be physically observed but nonetheless intuited.
I get what you’re saying. This is high level shit and I’m not sure how to oppose it properly, though I am instinctively opposed. I guess I feel that logic and math and universal constants still in some way refer to the physical world, I’m both sure how to put this, but… hmm I don’t know actually I’ll think about it.
I’m curious how you respond to the idea of polygamy. Many religions are against this in modern culture, but from an evolutionary standpoint it would make sense for all the females to mate with the strongest male in whatever tribe they belonged to. Why has polygamy not been more normalized in the everyday culture.
As well, how do we respond to there being a lack of morals in clearly destructive human patterns? Why is it that drugs, pornography, and alcohol consumption are supported by the vast majority of culture even though the science shows there is a clear downside to these indulgences.
Monogamy has a great benefit for women evolutionarily: the woman and her children are actually cared for by a father. Obviously there might also be a large cultural component to this, which can behave differently from "evolutionary logic".
@@RenphOfficial Polygamy might very well have benefits too, but it also has downsides.
The definition for the “strongest” changes base on the environment. Is it not the strongest that survives but the most adapted that does. Humans are evolved to free the prefrontal cortex from an genetic influences thus freeing us to be molded by our environment and in a way making us more adaptable to the environment. That is why morally is all ways changing based on the different perspectives and experiences. So naturally, the most adapted will pass on the gene. But luck also plays a role, as even the best of us can get unlucky, and the worst of us does get luck. Thus, the dynamics of the “strong” is always changing and improving. This whole evolution process seems like a force that marches towards something, improving to be something better than before. It seems like it might lead to a destination of some kind, a state of some kind, but idk. If there is a destination, goal, or a direction that we are naturally approaching to does that mean there is an objective morality? While I’m not fully sure what that object morality is, but based on evolutionary patterns it could mean that the goal is to maximize the the duration and the sustainability of life.
Bro im pretty sure porn and drugs arent supported by the mass majority of cultures
I actually looked into this a bit before the video but didn’t go into it here, but monogamy (with some adultery sprinkled in, however not mainly) is actually our most effective survival strategy. For starters, one man can’t protect a harem of women on his own. Then there is the social cohesion bit of having all the members of the tribe satisfied, and if one big alfa man was getting all the women then there would be conflict all the time. There are some more things that I don’t remember but yeah
Maybe. Martin Heidegger wrote about organisms in a way that organs are built from within the organism, because they are needed. It is described as if organs are teleologically created by the organism, not as an accidential byproduct that became important as a result of survivability and therefore caused a genetically reproduction of the features with best survivability, but created the genetical reproduction because of the necessity of specific functions. Maybe I just missunderstand what you wanted to say, but in my (just) opinion it is worth to think, if morality really is just a bybroduct or if it might be created because of the need of it.
And when I talk about teleology (from greek word entelecheia/ἐντελέχεια) as it was understood by Anaxagoras -> ("->" = as teacher of) -> Socrates -> Plato -> Aristotle, I don't talk about an external telos, like as if a God created it, even this idea of an internal telos was understood like some kind of God creation, because "God" or "Nous" was understood absolutely different from how we understand it nowadays. I would say Heidegger stands in this tradition, when he talks about organisms and organs.
But byproduct and created because of a need for it is basically the same thing rettiga
@@niksdirtywings2806 Maybe my understanding is wrong. I understand "byproduct" as some kind of epiphenomenon and not as goal of a development.
@@pakabe8774 theres no goal in evolution, if there is there must be a creator and i don’t believe in a creator retigga 😁
Hmmm. I see what you’re saying, and sorry for not responding earlier. I think you could be right. I think morality exists because it is necessary, rather than it being simply a “byproduct” of our evolution. I should definitely read Heidegger hehe
Do more please
damn i finally found someone that believes the same thing i do tf
but like i think the reason that evolutionary morality isnt that popular (at least from my experience) is because it threatens existing morals and values in society, so naturally it does not survive as well compared to other models
also the important thing is that like if we believe that this model is the truth, where do you go from here? for me, i think that we should make our own ultimate outcome, because we as humans need some sort of end goal or guide in life in order to be fufilled
like for example most people still follows moral codes even if they believe this model, for example, you. You say it the description thing Nonetheless, BE A GOOD PERSON. But isnt that like a contradiction because this model shows that there is no universal good or bad? this shows in my opinion how people still unconciously hold moral codes even if it contradicts beliefs because we need some sorth of structure in life, and theres nothing wrong with that. its just like religion, many religious people believe in many contradictory beliefs to religion like LGBTQ but they just make up some stupid reason like "oh well the bible isnt literal" or wtver even though it is clear that throughout history, the more scientific discoveries there are that contradicts a religion the more and more people say oh well the bible isnt literal or some random excuse
ok idk im just yapping but FINALLY someone that thinks like me godam
"You say it the description thing Nonetheless, BE A GOOD PERSON. But isn't that like a contradiction because this model shows that there is no universal good or bad?"
Maybe its more-so a sort of pascallian wager in that although he might give more credence to an evolutionary explanation of morality there remains no active harm in acting as if these moral virtues exist, whereas if there does exist some kind of objective morality, even if he might think the probability of something like that actually existing is low, then there becomes a demonstrable BENEFIT in acting out these moral virtues.
So it's like a decision theory model:
no objective morality (high probability) = 0 Harm in acting as if morality exists
objective morality (low probability) = demonstrable benefit in acting as if morality exists
So if I were to quantify the probability of objective morality being true as long as there is a non-zero probability that it is true it would still be more logical to act as if it exists.
Thats kinda what i said i later in my comment ig but i think its more of an unconscious decision
@@evolius5178precisely, it’s beneficial to believe I think. And even though I say these things, I don’t “instinctively”, “subconsciously” believe them, if you get what I mean.
I did a lot of thinking on the meaning of life in a godless world, and what I came to is that the goal/meaning of life is, simply, to live a good life. Every single thing you do is a means towards a percieved “good life”. You will bever do anything to intentionally make your life worse. A good life consists of GENUINE happiness, fulfillment and a type of tranquility (peace of mind, calmness). The means to achieve these things is up to the individual, but I don’t think doing immoral things can get you there. Because deep down we all have a conscience, so you can’t have that calm if you act immorally. Something like that. That’s how I ground it I guess.
@@NilsLindstrand i mean like genuine happiness is achieved differently for every person though
cuz i believe that "conscience" is 70% nurture and 30% nature, not that i think that its a good thing or a bad thing, it just is
so then if the ultimate goal of life is happiness, and we feel happy when we align with our conscience, then go for it
but it really varies for every person, there's no universal conscience, and some people feel terrible by adhering to morals that are generally accepted
so i think that just do whatever makes you genuinely happy, even if it goes against general morals