The understanding of moral subjectivism is entailed in its description; moral assessments are subjectively true, which is to say they are dependent on the attitudes of people. “Spinache tastes terrible” can be a correct assessment to an individual, but it may not necessarily be correct to another individual. Thus moral statements (under moral subjectivism) are true or false in regards to individuals, their personal tastes and their values. Argument: “Moral subjectivism can’t account for genuine moral disagreement”. Premise 1: If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no genuine moral disagreement Objection: What is the meaning of “genuine” here? A reasonable and non-question begging understanding would be that it’s a substitute for “objectively true”, which would leave us with: “Moral subjectivism can’t account for [objectively true] moral disagreement” which is a trivial observation since under the subjectivist view, there is no such thing as objectively true moral assessments over which to disagree. This is not a problem unless objectively true moral assessments can be demonstrated to be an actual thing and since they haven't been, premise 2 fails - there are no objectively true moral disagreements. Objection: If Person A thinks abortion is moral and Person B thinks abortion is immoral, then clearly they have come to conflicting conclusions on the act of abortion (disagreement) which is not magically erased because they both acknowledge the other thinks differently. The complaint here seems to be that they disagree but somehow don't disagree because they acknowledge the other disagrees - which seems to be a nonsensical argument. Argument: If moral subjectivism is true, it renders all our moral judgments infallible. Objection: Under moral subjectivism, there can be no moral infallibility other than failure to not know one's own thoughts. It will have to be explained how knowing one's own thoughts without error is in any way "presumptuous" - it rather seems to be an unavoidable fact. I would agree that infallibility is presumptuous in regards to objective facts, however it is not been demonstrated that moral assessments are objective facts and until that happens, the argument appears to widely miss the mark. Argument: Moral subjectivism is incoherent. Premise 1: If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be true contradictions. Objections: What is meant by "true" here? Objectively true? Under moral subjectivism, there would be no objectively true moral contradictions by definition. There couldn't be since moral assessments would all be subjective, meaning at best there could only be subjective contradictions, possibly by irrational persons, and since moral subjectivism does not argue that persons are always rational, any observation that they are not always rational does not in any way affect moral subjectivism. I find these objections to moral subjectivism do not stand up under scrutiny.
Thanks for your comments, madmax! I appreciate that you took the time to actually address the premises of the argument instead of hurl insults (like so many of the other commenters). Let's go through your objections. You say that "genuine" means objectively true moral disagreement. This is not what I had in mind. Rather what I had in mind was something like this: Assuming that A thinks B is telling the truth, A can coherently disagree with B's moral claims. On moral subjectivism this is impossible. As long as A thinks B is telling the truth, then A won't disagree with B's moral claim. I can't see a way out of this. You then point out the fact that moral disagreement obviously exists--and I agree with that! That's why (2) is true. But the point is that there is no genuine moral disagreement on moral subjectivism. This is, again, because moral claims reduce to descriptions of personal preference. The only disagreement that's possible on moral subjectivism is whether the description of each person's moral preference is accurate (e.g., if Joe says "abortion is wrong," the only way that Sally can disagree is if she thinks Joe is being a charlatan and really thinks abortion is right). Your next objection seems to bite the bullet and argue that it's okay to say that everyone is infallible about morality (in other words, to reject (5)). I think that's really the only thing the moral subjectivist can do. In my view, the intellectual price tag is too high. I am not prepared to accept that the Nazi's were infallibly correct when they decided to gas women and children. I am not prepared to accept I, personally, am literally infallible about morality. Your last objection is that there would be no objectively true moral contradictions on moral subjectivism. But this is false. Moral subjectivism is a cognitivist metaethical theory. That means that it holds that moral claims are objectively true or false. What's unique about it is that moral claims are true or false (objectively) based on someone's preference. So when Joe says "Abortion is wrong," this translates to: "Joe disapproves of abortion." On moral subjectivism, so long as Joe actually has that preference, this claim is objectively true. Similarly, it's objectively true that I, Cameron, prefer vanilla ice cream. That's all I have time for. Thanks again for actually engaging the arguments. I can't promise that I'll have time to interact beyond this, but it's been fun. Have a great day! Oh, and btw, Christianity is true. -Cam
Capturing Christianity is moral subjectivism the same as saying that morals are subjective? If so, premise 1 would only hold if you added the caveat “and nobody believed that they were objective” ( or indeed “everyone believed that they were subjective”). But this then doesn’t lead to the conclusion you have noted.
@@GameMaster-dt2ef objective truth does not prohibit people from making wrong judgements. I dont really see how your logic follows. If there is disagreement among kindergartners what 7×8 is does that then mean the answer is just a matter of opinion?
Forget moral subjectivism, you need to do a video on the distinction between subjective and objective. We need to start there, that is were the disconnect lies.
@@BlackMantisRed " if you believe morality is subjective then you don’t believe in morality." i can think that you're morally wrong on an issue and still except that's just my opinion. if i think murder is bad, the best way i can convince someone is trying to appeal to their intellect, sympathy and empathy. Thus i still believe in morality, i just think morality is something that is usually debated and agreed upon.
@@BlackMantisRed Subjective means it exists dependent upon thoughts, feelings and personal biases, and objective means it exists independent of all those. If you think it is wrong to use a table saw without proper training, it is because you value your fingers, and the fingers of others. You probably imagine the horror of slicing your fingers off and conclude... Bad!! This judgement cannot exist independent of mind, so it is a subjective value. And I'd be willing to bet that even though it's subjective almost every human on Earth is going to agree with you. So subjective vs objective is not some much that it is based on a whim as much as it is dependent upon an mind.
@@teamatfort444 however, even with murder, not everyone will agree its wrong. Thus its still subjective. Which is my point. I don't think objective morality exists.
@@BlackMantisRed every issue is someone's opinion. However there are laws with stealing, murder etc, to deter someone from going against those laws. But even laws and so forth is subjective.
I get barely a minute and a half in and you're already muddying the waters. The two examples you gave to tell the difference between an emotional response and a preferential response is just flat wrong. Preferences are reliant on emotions. "Abortion is wrong" is no different from "Abortion: Boo!". Not one bit. It still shows that you dislike abortion and you prefer people not get abortions. From my observation, it doesn't seem like you've really thought that point through. You may just be regurgitating what you might have heard from people that happen to kind of agree with your position. Argument 1: Saying "Abortion is right" isn't necessarily saying "I approve of abortion". It may actually be saying "I believe it is right to allow people to choose what they can and can't do with their bodies". Again, I'm not sure you've actually given thought to what you're trying to disprove here. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to get across here. Things aren't that black and white. I also don't understand how recognizing you disagree with someone goes against moral subjectivism? If anything, it further points out that morals are subjective because different people have differing opinions. In my opinion, your first argument fails completely. Argument 2: How is this a knock against moral subjectivism? Where does it say that if you accept moral subjectivism, you accept that your moral judgments are LITERALLY infallible? I'm not aware of anyone who says that aside from solipsists and religious people? This argument felt very incoherent and even more flawed than the first Argument 3: A better example of a contradiction would have been: "This sentence is false". Moral subjectivism, from what I understand, never makes the claim nor implies that everyone has rational beliefs or preferences. Where are you getting this? If you're arguing for moral objectivism, doesn't that suffer more from your three arguments? Moral objectivism states that there is only ONE infallible objective set of preferences that everyone shares and that is true all across reality. That can't be true because there are contradictions and we all recognize that people have different "moral preferences". I'm not sure what you're arguing in this video and I don't think you understand what you're arguing here.
The problem I find with your response to argument 1 is the fact that a developing child in a Mothers womb is the combination of two separate individuals neither belonging to one or the other, as both are required for the creation of new life. I argue that being pro-abortion is actually the opposite of "allowing people to choose what they can and cannot do with their bodies" as the developing child has no say whether it stays alive or is aborted. Just as the color grey does not belong solely to black or white but to both through combination. Therefore neither black or white can claim total ownership of grey as they need each other to create grey and cannot create grey without each other. The problem I find with your response to argument two is that by accepting moral relativism you accept the notion that morality is neither universally right or wrong as their is no moral objective standard defining that which is right or wrong. Because of this your morality is by default infallible, Infallible being defined as "Incapable of making mistakes or being wrong." If you state that ones personal morality is fallible then you are adhering to a moral authority. Argument 3. The statement made relating to moral subjectivism not claiming that everyone has rational beliefs or moral preferences is true, however this implies that there is a rational view of morality and preferences. In other words, a right or correct way of viewing morality. By accepting moral subjectivism you cannot pass judgement on other moral stances that you may consider wrong because the acceptance of subjective morality means there is no wrong apart from ones own subjective moral standard. You may consider someone to be wrong through your own subjective standard but may never claim that they are objectively wrong. Therefore ones own personal moral standard cannot be used to judge others. This means if someone steals something from you that is yours you may subjectively believe that you have been done wrong but cannot objectively state that you have been done wrong as that person may not adhere to your moral standard.
@Roger Mills The point of abortion is to kill the child, whether directly or indirectly that is the end result. They most certainly are two separate individual beings, the mother cannot have a baby within her womb without the combination of another persons DNA. By default this creates a new individual person which contains completely different genetic characteristics which are completely separate from the mother. She could not have had those characteristics on her own thus requiring another individual to make her pregnant. Did your mother have two heads when you were in her womb? In the case of rape victims, a new individual has still been created. To kill the innocent child for the wrong of the father is morally wrong just as rape is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Regardless, abortion is not the only option in those types of situations, they can give the child up for adoption. There have also been numerous accounts of women who have given birth to their child after being raped and still love their child as their own. Notice how you had to resort to incidents of rape victims as an attempt to justify abortion, if there is no moral objective standard of what is right or wrong there would be no justification necessary. Morality is not subjective. You may think so, but you are wrong. According to your own belief you cannot objectively tell me that I am morally wrong for saying that you are morally wrong. Furthermore, wouldn't being morally subjective be the morally right thing to do thus creating moral objectivity? Let me extrapolate, ifthen
@@beckc.5084 moral subjectivists only claim that there is no right and wrong when it comes to morals, but still acknowledge that there are objective truths in the world, just not in morals. So your argument is null and void.
@@kanyeeast4495 Nobody ever claim objective truths. There are only absolute truths according to some pre-agreed upon absolute assumptions. For example, if everything you see and feel through your senses is real as in they exists outside of your mind. Then there would be no objective morality, because everything is just matters working in a certain way. Why would you agreed upon the notion that "everything you see and feel through your senses is real", well, that's the only choice you have. If your senses is not real, then there's nothing you know is real by logic, because everything you experience goes through your senses.
Stating “I approve of abortion and agree that Sally disapproves of abortion” implicitly recognizes a disagreement. If one approves of what someone else disapproves of, there is moral disagreement and the stage is set for debate. Also, the statement “moral subjectivism is false” is incoherent. It isn’t true or false, it is simply a phenomenon that exists and has been observed and specified.
sandsmarc it isn't incoherent. Moral subjectivism here refers to the view that morality is not objective, only subjective, and that is a false claim - or at least, every moral realist would say that it is false.
Point of any debate is to see who's subjective opinion is closest to objective reality. If objective morality doesn't exist, then it's impossible to debate whether rape is good or bad.
@@goranmilic442 It's not impossible to debate. Is just a loss of time. The fact that is a loss of time to debate doesn't prove that there's an objetive answer to the question
@@jorgemachado5317 If somebody claims that rape is good or racism or murder or whatever, but he also says he's open to be convinced otherwise, how would you convince him those things are bad, if you're not convinced yourself those things are objectively bad? You think such debate is waste of time, to try to convince him rape is bad? Are all subjective moral codes a waste of time, since they're not objectively true? According to you, all subjective moral is wrong, non-existent, if you personally think rape is bad, according to you, it's just your illusion, rape is actually nor bad nor good.
@@goranmilic442 Basicly yes. Those justifications we create are just language games we play. I personally advocate for well being as a kind of standard for morals but that is just another way to stabblish a conection with other human beens. That doesn't mean i have the ultimate moral truth about the world
Is there ANYTHING more subjective than religious morality? "Obey my prophet! ... unless I send a lying spirit to trick him..." With instructions like that you can't even bake a cake
You've lost me on the first argument. You seem to be conflating the idea of "genuine disagreement" with the idea of "one of them thinks they are objectively correct", and that's not what genuine disagreement means. You're using the conclusion of objectivism to determine the definition of genuine, making the premise flawed. Under subjectivism, there can be genuine disagreement, and there is. If what you really mean is that there can not be objective disagreement, then you're right. And there isn't. The disagreement is subjective. Also worth noting that subjective morals is not an atheist position. Plenty of atheists who feel it's reasonable to conclude objective morals based on the natural world, though I think that's a bit of a stretch and you have to get a bit squirrely with the meaning of objective.
@@johncart07 Agreed , and that's the problem with the argument. It's saying that since there's no truth, they can't really disagree, but since they do really disagree, there must be truth. If subjectivism is true than it's reasonable to make the case that the disagreement doesn't "matter" in some objective sense, but so what? Things don't need to be objectively true for subjective creatures to care about them.
"Plenty of atheists" yes but those people who inconsistent beliefs. Believing in objective morality (because they feel strongly it's true) doesn't mean it's grounded logically in their worldview.
I, like many had previously noted, a a few issues with this video... 1) First minor quibble, as I don't like the title nor the argument wording as Moral Subjectivism can not be "true" or "false" as it isn't a proposition. One could use these arguments to argue moral subjectivism is not correct, I would not make it a truth apt proposition. 2) "genuine moral disagreement"...while one can legitimately be used to argue against moral subjectivism as "moral subjectivism" is special case with respect to the individual vs a culture or society, "genuine moral disagreement" is most often used to argue against moral relativism...but in either case it isn't some type of magical defeater to moral relativism nor moral subjectivism. It merely is asking, if we have genuine moral disagreement, then how do we decide what is morally permissible and not permissible. The moral subjectivist agrees there are moral facts, but would argue those facts are based upon personal preference, bias and not objective where something would be true without intersubjective agreement. 3) Simple subjectivism and emotivism are such that the subjectivist is merely reporting ones attitude towards a proposition. iIf I state "Stealing is wrong" would be me disapproving of stealing, and the moral noncogntivist position of emotivism would be more expressing an attitude towards stealing (Stealing...Boo!) but isn't actually reporting any attitude I actually have towards a the proposition as in emotivism "stealing is wrong" isn't a truth apt proposition. 4) The The Argument Against Moral Infallibility holds that subjectivism our moral judgment are always true assuming we are being honest, and thus in "Infallible", but we of course are fallible seemingly showing that moral subjectivism is not correct. (Note: emotivism does eliminate this seeming problem as moral statements are not T nor F and thus a person can not be "infallible" with respect to any specific moral proposition.). The way I think i would resolve this argument is to argue that our infallibility only extends to the belief that our moral judgment is true, in that it is true we believe "stealing is wrong" is true...not the the proposition is infallibly true or not. 5) There are "true contradictions" in dialetheism, but this seems to be arguing more against moral absolutism.
1:52 I have a problem with this statement. "If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no genuine moral disagreement" Isn't it the opposite? It should go "if moral OBJECTIVISM were true [...]" If something is objective, like for example, an objective true statement, it means that it will be true regardless of what people think about it. If a statement is subjectively true, then whether it's true or not depends on the person who perceives that statement. So logically, if morality is subjective, there would be an abundance of moral disagreements.
I think what he meant is that if something were objectively true and humans were trying to find out which side was true then there would be disagreement on what is true, because there is objective evidence to which is true or not. While some people might buy into a false truth, it will still crumble in the face of objective truth. The claim he was making on subjective truth, is that there would be no disagreement because there is no objective evidence to prove anything wrong OR right, meaning everyone will kind if just have to agree that everyone's opinions are right OR wrong. If morality depends on the person, then its a horrible way to go about writing laws, for example. And not only that, its just extremely condescending to hear someone say "yeah, yeah whatever, you can think that way because thats YOUR opinion" after you provide them with genuine facts and evidence (assuming you believe in objective truth)
@@justanothercasual5152 well he’s stupid. The belief isn’t that there are no objective facts in the world, it’s that there are no objective moral facts. Like yea 1 + 1 = 2 but people can still disagree on sides of something
Okay, if your next door neighbor has a barking dog that constantly bothers you but does not bother his other next door neighbor, then the neighbor who owns the dog can buy a second dog and should still be considered a courteous neighbor under subjectivism. But if he owns two dogs and puts a trampoline in his backyard, then he is on shaky ground unless his other neighbor is an emotivist. Then he is alright. But keep in mind that if the neighbor across the street is an advocate of prescriptivism, all bets are off.
@Jacksfavorite Down through the history of mankind there have been people who thought about abstract stuff. They were both smart and also apparently did not have to hold fulltime jobs. Some of these smart folks looked at morality and tried to figure out the differences between what someone believes to be a moral act compared to what someone else believes to be a moral act. And these smart guys even wondered about theoretical questions such as "what is the difference between a belief when compared to the notion of actual _knowing_ . Then if all that were not confusing enough, they decided to put confusing terms on these things. In the end it is like advanced calculous; you will almost assuredly never have a reason to know it.
LogosTheos yeah, he does. You just can’t affirm that. He has no standard outside of himself, and he just goes by his nature and bases it on something. Wether morality is based on what’s best for humanity, what’s best for god, or some third option, at the end of the day it’s his subjective choice what to base it on. And this is EXACTLY what theists say a secular morality is like.
Morality has always been a huge problem for religion. A religious person can be moral, but they have no way to explain, through faith, why any act is right or wrong. See how badly apologists fail on this. Or can any apologist manage it? All true morality is humanistic.
If morality was objective in this universe as we know it, it only applies to personal beings with a mind. We know that mankind did not always exist, then the universe always expected a personal being with a mind to exist. This implies the universe thinks and can see the future of its actions and its not random. Evidence for God.
@@souzajustin19d that's not incorrect. But if you look at the physical world and infer evidence of objective morality, why not skip the sillogism altogether and infer god directly? It really doesn't add anything, neither for the believer nor for the unbeliever
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet There is evidence for a prime mover or uncaused cause, so its not unreasonable to believe there is a God of some kind.
@@iamwhoyoucall2329 atheism lacks any central dogma, it isn't a worldview. It's nothing more than a lack of belief in God's. You will always have bad people doing bad things. To get a good person to do a bad thing - that takes religion.
@@benjaminschooley3108 Yeah. Forget about stalin and mark , they were atheist they don't count. Now let me tell you about all the religious wars that havent killed as many people as stalin!!
I find this to be a little dishonest. The arguments against moral subjectivity aren't being made because of an actual interest in a philosophical concept, but rather to "prove" something which cannot be proven, i.e. the existence of a god, and not just any god but a particular God. The problem lies in the point that none of these arguments mean anything unless that God is real. If it's not, then the arguments have neither meaning nor value. You believe your God is real, and therefore this argument has meaning, but to get back to the bottom line you have no evidence for the existence of your God (or any other), so you attempt to use the argument as evidence, which it is not. It's just an exercise in philosophy, nothing more. As such it gets you nowhere.
@EMERALD JOK3R If the moral disagreements are considered views on whats CLOSER to truth/objective fact then moral disagreements point more towards moral realism. If I say its good to feed the homeless and i subjectively believe this is good thing but B believes it is better to feed relatives only. We are expressing opinions towards whats BETTER or MORE true. If I say i like feeding homeless its a good hobby then im expressing my personal preference not a moral disagreement.
I really hate religious that they put God before humanity Tell me Moral standards of life Which one is more value? God or humanity And we already knows we are so divided by religious beliefs
@EMERALD JOK3R I would say moral disagreement disproves subjectivism because if you say morality is subjective and someone believes something abhorrent like it’s morally good to murder some ethnic group - on subjectivism, it’s morally good for that person to do that but not for another person. This is absurd because it is morally wrong to murder (but on subjectivism it is not for the person who thinks it’s ok). Oh and also, logic demands two contradictory propositions cannot both be correct.
The slew of people in the comments who have zero grasp on how to draw logical conclusions and philosophy attempting to debunk this argument is absolutely priceless. I just read a tangent by some guy who confuses moral relativism with moral subjectivism and ends his response with a mic drop as if he made a valid point. This is what we're up against with atheists; people who are so convinced they're smart, yet they can never actually win an argument
Morals are entirely subjective. No action is more justified than another. All actions are driven by desire which in turn are driven by factors outside of our control as if we had any to begin with. Even if libertarian magical free will did exist moral subjectivity still applies. It is inescapable unless you lie or make assumptions.
By assuming that the only relevant aspects of morality are things like desire or drive without acknowledging whether or not certain values are objectively grounded regardless of those things, your argument appears to result in circular reasoning by collecting evidence that already presupposes there is nothing beyond those boundaries, causing your argument to assume its conclusion from the start. However, a deeper issue with your argument arises because it inadvertently presupposes an objective value in the process of arguing against it, as your argument assumes the value: "We should pursue what is logical or true". This is based on a factual conclusion that if something is not logical or true, then it is not valid. Even if a person disagrees with this value and says "We ought *not* pursue what is logical or true", this statement is self-contradicting because not only is it a truth claim, but one must rely on logic in order for the statement to be made or exist in the first place. This shows that this value exists by logical necessity, meaning it is foundational for the ability to reason at all. Additionally, the existence of this objective value also implies the existence of objective morality and purpose, all of which point to the existence of God. This demonstrates that the opposite of your conclusion is true: It is inescapable to conclude that objective values exist, and that therefore God exists.
@@Bi0Dr01d No, my claim actually doesn't mean that you just misinterpreted it. There is no objective meaning anyone can assign to anything because there is no objective frame of reference. All perceptions of reality are subjective depending on the observer and so when I assign value and say people should be a certain way I am making a subjective claim from my own ideals that anyone else can also do. I am not claiming that I am objectively right, I am making a claim that people shouldn't do something. There is a pretty clear difference. The only time objectivity exists is within subjectively defined systems, such as science. It is because we first agree on assumptions necessary for further reasoning as a group to then base the rest of argumentation off of, such as the idea of logic. Why we agree on these ideas or premises is itself subjective because anyone can present an alternative system that is equally valid, there is no further reasoning that can be given to justify. It just is. Even your interpretation of my words is subjective, as you do not share my brain and cannot know exactly what I mean, and even if you did you have not lived the same experiences. There is no objectivity at a fundamental level of all things. And to say objectivity means that God exists is a massive non-sequitir that you have not explained. Why would objectivity mean God exists? Just because your idea of God requires an objective moral system doesn't mean that an objective moral system would be requiring of a God.
But moral subjectivist’s do disagree on what they think is moral or immoral. So it is not true that there can be no moral disagreement on ethical issues.
@@CapturingChristianity You are wrong about that. It is moral objectivism that is not true if they disagree. Maybe a Lutheran Christian has one view on objective morality and a Baptist has another view of objective morality, then neither can be objective because they disagree. If 2 people disagree on subjective morality, they both present their arguments and they may then agree on some compromise or not. Recently in our state, they made laws stating that a person can't talk on a cell phone while holding the phone and driving a car, except in emergencies. They can use a hands free system. What they did was have a debate in the state legislature and had people who had family members die because of distracted driving testify. Some people still voted for people to have the legal right to still make phone calls by holding the phone and drive a motor vehicle. More people voted to make it illegal to drive and talk on a cell phone while driving. How does that make subjective morals false? It is objective moral values that are false because of all the differences of what objective moral values are around the world.
Yeah he seems to not understand what moral subjectivism actually is he seems to think it means every moral is right when it actually means that no moral is wrong. The worst example by far of his poor ability to argue a point is on point 2 when he literally shows two people who have co flirting views and says they have no disagreement
You’re confusing the facts of what people’s opinions are with whether there’s any possible “truth” in morals Morals can neither be true nor false, because morals are values assigned to actions by agents. Just like prices can be neither true nor false, except that a particular store could lie about how much they charge for a product. The store could charge $1000000 for a spoon, but there’s not “truth” or “falsehood” about whether $1000000 is the “true” price of that spoon. If, however, the store charges $1000000 for that spoon but an employee of the store claims it costs $10 dollars, that person has lied because its true that the store values the spoon at $1000000. Not because the spoon has a “true” value of $1000000. Emotivism... I don’t think that fully matters, it’s sort of an appeal to emotion, and I try to avoid those. I don’t prefer actions that make me happy, and conversely I don’t oppose actions that make me sad. I oppose actions that do harm to agents or living entities. I’m hardwired by my biology to fight for the well-being of my closest fellows, whether I like it or not. If that weren’t true, humans wouldn’t have evolved to be the group we are. And I do understand religion had a hand in that, in that religion provided a sort of structure for societies use to build themselves. Religions typically developed before governments in human history. But when we recognize morality as a tool that can be adjusted and honed to make everyone’s lives better, and not as a divine doctrine, we can move to the next step in societal progress and begin to rid ourselves of the tribalism religion demands, which would be beautiful. So no, Christianity is not true. And morality can only progress and improve when Christians recognize this. And muslims and Hindus and Buddhists as well. Every religion has outlived its usefulness.
"morality can only progress " - how you reconcile this with "Morals can neither be true nor false"? This is obviously incoherent stance. Either there is no moral right or wrong and no moral progress, just change or there are transcendent moral values which allow to morally progress. So which way would you choose?
This analogy is bad. If the store charges "$1000000" for a spoon and an employee says it is "$10" the employee is lying because it is _objectively_ true that the store price of the spoon is "$1000000". A better analogy for moral subjectivism is choosing ice cream at a cafeteria. One person thinks chocolate is the best flavor and another person thinks strawberry is. There is no right or wrong choice. There are only preferences. The disagreement is over a preference not an actual. fact.
I’ve listened through a number of times, read through the transcript, and have a few thoughts in response. Would love some feedback. In Argument 1, I perceive some ambiguity in the concept of “genuine moral disagreement” (GMD) between P1 and P2. If GMD in P1 revolves around the truth making properties (as you defined IMS) of a speaker relative or agent relative moral statement, then I agree that moral disagreement is unlikely if each party understands each other. On the other hand, I believe your example of an abortion debate to support P2 does not fall into this category of “disagreement” as P1 uses is, which leads me to believe P2 equivocates on the definition of GMD, and P3 would not follow. Moral debate usually revolves around notions of “should” and “aught”, and I interpret these words through the concept of hypothetical or descriptive aughts. An abortion debate would likely involve two sides trying to persuade each other to adopt their respective position, ideally providing reasons for their position that would be built on some common shared ground or interest in order to persuade the other side, possibly utilizing a descriptive aught. This attempt at persuasion would not qualify for GMD if we are using it consistently as P1 uses it. I suspect P2 assumes something (objective morality?) that would fall outside of an internal critique of IMS. In Argument 2, given your definition of IMS, I do agree with P4 that our moral statements are likely infallible. This seems trivially true, because we are simply reporting on our cognitive disposition towards a given action. I say “likely infallible” because I honestly do not know what it would mean to be mistaken about such a thing, something like “self deception”. Given the truth making properties of moral statements as you have defined IMS, and the nature of honest self reporting on our cognitive state, I see no support for P5. I suspect that when you say “an entire area of discourse”, you are inserting something that is not the territory of IMS as you defined it. The area of discourse is simply someone’s personal preferences in relation to a speaker or agent relative statement about the preferences. As narrow of a field as that is, I don’t see any reason for us to be mistaken or wrong about our physiological state, including the religious person. It does not follow that the religious person’s beliefs about the ontological grounding for their moral desires actually exists and is true, just that they are correct in reporting an accurate account of their belief if they are honest. In Argument 3, I admit I am having difficulty sorting through it. I am skeptical that someone can consciously experience two directly contradictory preferences at the same time. I think this is what would be required for someone to affirm two contradictory moral statements under IMS at the same time. I understand we can have competing desires, but I presume we are talking about the level of desire that motivates action. In your meat eating example, I am having a difficult time envisioning someone experiencing the desire to never eat meat, and simultaneously having the desire to eat meat. If this is the case, my other thought is to shake out the meat eating moral claim in relation to time - “At T1, Frank does not desire to eat meat in the future, but at T2, Frank does desire to eat meat”. This rendering seems charitable to Frank’s moral preferences regarding meat if he is experiencing them at different times. If they are simultaneous preferences that both equally motivate Frank to act, then I would need more information to identify with such an experience. As it is, I see no support for P7, and therefore I don’t believe P9 is supported, but I acknowledge I may be missing something.
Friend, you have nailed the philosophical argument on morality and reason regarding emotivism and moral subjectivism. I really appreciate your work on this. Very precise and succinct. Well thought out and certainly timely. As both a minister of the Gospel and fellow human, Thank you. Good thought: Christianity is a thinking man’s faith. Cf., Romans 12:1-2
Comedy gold!!!! Badly define subjectivism and then make bad arguments against something you just made up. Anyhoo No, 4 was really good. "If moral subjectivism were true, then all our moral judgements would be infallible." ROFLMAO!!!!! This is exactly the opposite of what it means, objective morality would be infallible, yet christians disagree on morality. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? If god wrote it on your heart how can you disagree? Overall a good video showing how flawed moral objectivism is.
Assuming Christianity is true, good and bad would be eternally defined by god and morality would be objective. Christians disagree on what is moral because their biblical interpretations differ. The conclusions that ignorant 'Christians' reach are flawed, but real, intelligent Christians interpret the bible with accuracy and follow God's morality with a reasonable margin of error because we can't read God's mind. This nuance is even excusable because the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. 'If god wrote it on your heart'; our design is much more complex than this statement suggests so I'm not defending it.
Wait? In the first premise of "if moral subjectivism were true, them there would be no genuine moral disagreement" how does that make sense? Surely subjective morality will always have disagreements
@@thecarlitosshow7687 actually, moral subjectivists would probably tell you that both parties are wrong, because there are no objective oughts and by extension nothing to be right about. Moral relativists would probably tell you that both parties are right because they're moral realists.
@@yourfutureself3392 well bro a moral subjective/ relativists contradicts themselves. You contradicted yourself so much in what u said. “A moral subjectivist would tell you that both parties are wrong. There no objective oughts. And by extension nothing to be right about.” First of all, according to a moral subjectivist in his own position he can’t tell anyone there wrong. A subjectivist is only right or wrong in his/ her own impulse or opinion. There’s no value judgment outside of a subjectivist. The question that should stop and make a subjectivist think is it objectively true/ correct that there no objective oughts and by extensions nothing to be right about? But is that statement itself objectively right to everyone? You’re making an objective true statement. The reasoning to them goes like this: “it’s objectively true that nothing is objectively true.” That statement has to be true in itself and also it’s a tautology. Also to ur last part, I think it’s partially right because a moral relativist is a moral realist to an extent. Moral realist believe there are moral facts in the world. A fact is a truth that stands on its own. For example, it’s a fact that rape is wrong everywhere, every-time and no matter what a person thinks. Therefore, no disagreements that rape of a woman is wrong or evil. But the relativist says “well a culture defines right and wrong. In USA the law says rape is wrong and u will be put in prison if one does it. But the Relativist would have to admit (by their own reasoning) that Nazi Germany was correct in what they did (raping, genocide, torture etc) since relativism let’s each person, or culture defines right and wrong. Basically, there are no absolutes or universals standards to a subjectivist and relativist. Let me know what you think. I could be wrong about any of this too!
@@yourfutureself3392 well bro a moral subjective/ relativists contradicts themselves. You contradicted yourself so much in what u said. “A moral subjectivist would tell you that both parties are wrong. There no objective oughts. And by extension nothing to be right about.” First of all, according to a moral subjectivist in his own position he can’t tell anyone there wrong. A subjectivist is only right or wrong in his/ her own impulse or opinion. There’s no value judgment outside of a subjectivist. The question that should stop and make a subjectivist think is it objectively true/ correct that there no objective oughts and by extensions nothing to be right about? But is that statement itself objectively right to everyone? You’re making an objective true statement. The reasoning to them goes like this: “it’s objectively true that nothing is objectively true.” That statement has to be true in itself and also it’s a tautology. Also to ur last part, I think it’s partially right because a moral relativist is a moral realist to an extent. Moral realist believe there are moral facts in the world. A fact is a truth that stands on its own. For example, it’s a fact that rape is wrong everywhere, every-time and no matter what a person thinks. Therefore, no disagreements that rape of a woman is wrong or evil. But the relativist says “well a culture defines right and wrong. In USA the law says rape is wrong and u will be put in prison if one does it. But the Relativist would have to admit (by their own reasoning) that Nazi Germany was correct in what they did (raping, genocide, torture etc) since relativism let’s each person, or culture defines right and wrong. Basically, there are no absolutes or universals standards to a subjectivist and relativist. Let me know what you think. I could be wrong about any of this too!
@@thecarlitosshow7687 hello! Moral subjectivism doesn't claim that there's no objective truth or that everything is dependant on the subject. Moral subjectivism is just the view that oughts don't exist objectively (just oughts) and that they are opinions/preferences of the subject. One can still accept objective truth but deny that oughts are part of that objective truth. You probably don't think that one taste can be objectively better than another and that a certain taste being better than another is dependant on the subject but that doesn't mean you deny all objective truth or that you assert that everything is dependant on the subject. Many moral subjectivists accept objective truth, like (probably) most of the moral subjectivist atheists CC mentions in the vid. So, to clarify my original point, moral subjectivists don't accept that ANY moral statements are true. "You have a moral obligation to kill" is false. "You have a moral obligation not to kill" is also false. "You don't have a moral obligation to kill" is true, as moral obligations don't exist. There is no contradiction because if one subject believes abortion is morally right and another subject believes abortion is morally wrong then abortion wouldn't be both right and wrong under moral subjectivism. You simply wouldn't have an obligation to do it or to not do it. You're not morally obliged to do anything, the same way two people subjectively believing different colours are the best colour doesn't mean that both colours are objectively the best colour, merely that no colour is objectively the best colour
Argument number #1 Moral subjectivism can't account for genuine moral disagreement. My rebuttal: Moral subjectivism does not need to account for what you call "genuine moral disagreement." When debating morality, all you need to do is show your opponent that their conclusion of "X is right" or "X is wrong" is in conflict with axiomatic truth that they hold, and that they need to reevaluate their conclusion. Argument number #2 Moral subjectivism would render all of our (honest) moral judgement infallible. My rebuttal: I agree, I can't show that you are "wrong", but I can show that your actions do not line up with your belief. For example, if you said “I dislike chocolate ice cream” but every time you have an ice cream you willingly decide to get chocolate ice cream and refuse to have vanilla ice cream, then I would say “I disagree that you dislike chocolate ice cream” Of course, the ice cream example is an oversimplification. When it comes to moral claims it becomes more complex but hopefully you get my point. Atheist do not need to admit that all religious moral views are infallible, all we need to do is show is that there is internal contradiction in their moral systems. That is enough to show fallibility Argument number #3 Moral subjectivism is incoherent. My rebuttal: 6:02 “So long as those descriptions are accurate then the moral claim must be true” When frank said, “it is always wrong to eat meat” it was NOT accurate because sometimes he would eat if his life depended on it. A more accurate description would be “Frank believes eating meat is wrong as long as no one’s life depends on it. When someone’s life depends on it, it is morally permissible to eat meat (not necessarily morally right)” I agree that people have contradictory preferences, that’s what moral debates are for from a moral subjectivist point of view, to discover those contradictions and reduce them as much as possible.
*_"Moral subjectivism does not need to account for what you call "genuine moral disagreement." When debating morality, all you need to do is show your opponent that their conclusion of "X is right" or "X is wrong" is in conflict with axiomatic truth that they hold, and that they need to reevaluate their conclusion."_* So, you haven't countered the first argument, but instead diverge from the serious issue plaguing this meta-ethical theory by appealing to conflicting axioms. This response of yours is moot, and as a consequent, you have not been able to resolve this problem.. Onto your next point. *_"I agree, I can't show that you are "wrong", but I can show that your actions do not line up with your belief. For example, if you said “I dislike chocolate ice cream” but every time you have an ice cream you willingly decide to get chocolate ice cream and refuse to have vanilla ice cream, then I would say “I disagree that you dislike chocolate ice cream”"_* *_"Of course, the ice cream example is an oversimplification. When it comes to moral claims it becomes more complex but hopefully you get my point"_* *_"Atheist do not need to admit that all religious moral views are infallible, all we need to do is show is that there is internal contradiction in their moral systems. That is enough to show fallibility"_* You've just conceded that everyone would indeed be morally infallible, whilst simultaneously contradicting yourself by saying that we can show "enough" fallibility. You're not refuting anything here. The interlocutor can simply override any concern by approving of his action, and insofar as this goes, he's absolutely correct under subjectivism. This simply repeats the *_exact issue, again._* With respect to #3 I will respond to it later, I need to go over the video once more to see what he says. However, so far you have not rebuked anything on the table, you've only made things worse.
Showing your opponent that their moral conclusions conflict without axiomatic truths that lie outside the realm of mental properties? Sounds like objective morality to me.
@@LogosTheos That's not what I meant, I meant axiomatic truths that they hold as individuals. It's still subjective, but due to similarities between humans, there will be a lot of overlap that will lead to moral agreement.
@@TheAster3 #1 Two problems The first problem is that he never defined what "genuine moral disagreement" is. So that opens the gate for individual interpretation and misunderstandings. The second problem is that his premise "if moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no genuine moral disagreement" has a hidden premise His hidden premise: "Moral subjectivism NEEDS to account for genuine moral disagreement". I do not need to refute his conclusion because it is based on a hidden premise I do not accept. That's what I was trying to show with my rebuttal. If anyone could show me why moral subjectivism needs to account for genuine moral disagreement then I would concede that his conclusion has to be true. #2 I think you're confusing "wrong" with "fallible". They are two different things: Wrong: Untrue. fallible: Capable of making mistakes
@@metaphoricalparadox5138 What similarities between humans? You seem to be talking about shared moral intuition which is actually an argument against moral subjectivism.
@@JP-rf8rr The problem is that promise one doesn't make any sense. If everyone had there own subjective opinions on what is right and wrong then of course they are going to disagree. You assume that people will respect other peoples opinions but that too is a moral value that is subjective.
@@nathanjasper512 We never said that having debates does not mean there will not be disagreements and there's no such thing as good and evil. They're just words meant to describe an idea or action which is the nature of language. Good and Evil have no physical existence and representation nor do they have a metaphysical state as well.
How do you get around moral subjectivism in the bible? God states murder is objectively wrong, then instructs the Israelites to murder thousands. He also strikes people down himself, therefore breaking his own objective morality? Murder is objectively wrong except when it isn't?
Listen, I'm sorry I am posting again, but this sort of thinking bothers me. First, don't write me off thinking I'm an atheist; I'm not. However, I wish both sides of the great debate would actually study philosophy. You are presenting a valid argument. Those watching on, those who actually know logic, should be shrugging thinking "So what? Next." The thing is, it's not just that one could debate your terms and meanings and point out the question-begging in premise (2). However, those are high on any thinker's list here. But the simplest oversight is the most insidious. Advice for folks into debating. Having a valid argument means absolutely nothing. That's because they have nothing to do with truth and unless their premises are actually true, there's no telling whether their conclusions are true or false. Truth as a term that deals with "statements that are so" is completely outside of logic; logic doesn't entail or even care about "that" statements, i.e. "it is true that ..." For technical folks, valid arguments can have false premises and a true conclusion, false premises and a false conclusion, or true premises and a true conclusion. So, how on Earth are we to tell from this that a valid argument is actually making a proper conclusion? We can't! These all have the same valid, deductive form (AAA-1): (false premise, true conclusion) All cats are dogs. All poodles are cats. All poodles are dogs. (false premise, false conclusion) All cats are mice. All dogs are cats. All dogs are mice. (true premise, true conclusion) All dogs are animals. All poodles are dogs. All poodles are animals. This is exactly why Dennett calmly responds to Craig's arguments with "Well, isn't that all just very nice." (paraphrased)
Steven Hoyt and? What's your point? If you have good reasons to believe the premises are *true*, then it is rational to accept the conclusion. Cameron never rests his case on the mere logical validity of his arguments, he tries to show that they are *sound*. Craig, too, and the Dennett example seems bizarre: Craig has never argued that we can conclude God exists because his arguments are valid. He claims we can conclude God exists because his arguments are valid *AND* sound. The form is valid and the premises are plausible.
Steven Hoyt Craig says his arguments are valid because they have to be valid in order to be sound. That's not a big deal. But he never rests his case on saying they are valid; those who think so are simply unfamiliar with Craig's work or are frankly a bit naïve - no big professional philosopher (like Craig) would go around giving valid arguments without at least attempting to justify the premises. Craig insists his arguments are valid AND sound, and he argues for all of his premises. For instance, in his standard presentations of the Kalam argument he gives a total of 7 supportive arguments/reasons to justify belief that each premise is true. (In case you're wondering, here's the breakdown: 3 supportive reasons for the first premise - the causal principle; including an appeal to intuition, and inference to the best explanation, and inductive support -, 4 supportive reasons for the second premise - that the universe began to exist; these are two philosophical arguments for temporal finitism, and two scientific reasons for temporal finitism). Whether or not anyone thinks the arguments are ultimately successful, it's downright ridiculous to suggest Craig doesn't argue for the soundness of his arguments. He gives reasons to accept the premises; whether one ultimately thinks they are good reasons is another story (I do).
@@mordec1016 which is not what i was suggesting, and then that your needle is improperly stuck there rather than considering the details of 95% of the rest of my commentary ... would be ridiculous, it seems to me. cheers.
I think mass murder is wrong [immoral]. 85 years ago a man called Hitler thought mass murder was right. [moral] There you go, subjective morality. Welcome to the real world!
"If you think that you can coherently have moral debates with other people, then you have to agree that there does exist genuine moral disagreement." This. And as you said...from these premises it follows that morality is not subjective. Moral Realism FTW.
Sully Sullivan you're missing the point. Hint: in moral subjectivism, moral claims reduce to personal preferences, and "I prefer X" is not contradictory to *your* claim that "I prefer ~X". With that in mind, think of how we actually deal with moral disagreement in debates and so on. Not like a moral subjectivist would.
@@iruleandyoudont9 I think you need to re-read everything I already said, and look up some of the terms. You are not following the core idea of my statement at all. Hint*, Key words...Coherently...and Genuine. If you wish to understand other views/arguments, you need to spend the time to truly understand them. So far all you have done is reveal how you don't understand the actual point and assert disagreement. Slow down, dig in, and try to learn something new. Or let pride get in the way..
@@iruleandyoudont9 Again...you are just proving my point that you do not understand the terms or the point that is being made to you. I am not trying to be condescending at all, I am trying to encourage you to sincerely look more into what is being said to you and to think more critically about it. Unless/until you desire to do so, me explaining it will do no good. I've provided plenty of information for you to seek out an understanding of the point being made here, you may choose to learn or not.
Sully Sullivan for a moral subjectivist, "stealing is always wrong" would be a statement of preference. A subjective statement which corresponds to someone's particular preference, hence subjectivism. Given moral subjectivism, when someone positively asserts that "stealing is always wrong", you could (indeed, should) replace that with "I personally think people should never steal, etc" which is not in contradiction with someone else saying "I personally think (negation)". This is the whole point of subjectivism; the reason you resist the analysis, ironically enough, is that you are (like me) convinced that there is such a thing as genuine moral disagreement, instead of mere differences of preferences. Our speech acts, debating and reasoning practices about morality are inconsistent with moral subjectivism.
Sometimes I think Christians intentionally "misunderstand" moral subjectivism. It's not as confusing a topic as they make it out to be. If morality is a concept each individual creates, it's not surprising that we have differing ideas about morality. And since it's subjective to each individual, then there can't be an "ultimate truth" on the subject just as there can't be ultimate truth that the color purple is the best color even though I might think it is. For another thing, if Christianity is true, them morality is still subjective because it's a concept created by God which he wrote on our hearts. That, by definition, is subjective.
@@CJ-lr4uq I'm not sure how to explain it other than that is how a "god" is defined. It is responsible for everything that exists and everything that happens. All things are from god and thus subject to his will. I'm pretty sure this isn't controversial at all.
@@tatern3923 That doesn't make any sense. God's nature is unchanging and he transcends time, space, and human will. So He is the source of objectivity, while mankind can only have subjectivity outside of God. And no, God is not responsible for everything that happens. Human beings have freewill.
@@CJ-lr4uq "Objectivity" doesn't mean "reality", it means "having reality independent of a mind". If all of reality itself is dependent on a mind, then reality is not objective, it is subjective. You believe in a subjective reality (a reality dependent on god's mind) not an objective reality (a reality not dependent on a mind).
@@CJ-lr4uq If God creates morality then it is subjective, since it is what he chooses it to be, and since he is all-powerful he could have chosen any morality he wanted. Hence, subjective. If morality is absolute then God is also subject to it and did not create it. Hence, God is not all-powerful.
Really nice discussion, thank you for your video. I came here trying to challenge my own views, so I am grateful to you for this platform. Overall, nice try - but if your objective is to convince people who didn't already agree with you, it wouldn't do the trick. Refuting argument #1: The fact that two disagreeing factions believe that it's about morality and not about preferences, doesn't make it so. Therefore, it is still possible that there is no "genuine moral disagreement" - opposing factions can still believe it's about morals, when in-fact it's about preferences. In a way, what you did there - was assuming your conclusion all along. Refuting argument #2: Again, your doing the same mistake - even speaking about morals in terms of fallibility/infallibility already assumes moral objectivism. Infallibility is a term from the realm of logic, which may still be objective. So even for a person who doesn't believe in objective morality may still find fallacies in claims. "But what fallacies can there be when honest people share there preferences?" you would ask - and I would say "None!", the fallacies are not with the preferences themselves - but with using the preferences as justification for imposing your will upon others. There is a difference between just saying "I think that Vanilla is the best ice-cream flavor" and adding "therefore it would be better for society if all other ice-cream flavors would be illegal". In the addition there was a claim that is not a preference, and therefore can still be fallible; it is a different addition than: "therefore, I would have preferred it if all other ice-cream flavors would be illegal". So what subjectivists are not willing to accept is not your preferences, but the intentions that are derived from them. "This means that any honest moral claim that anyone makes is literally true" - let's distinguish between "honest" and "self aware" You can honestly believe that abortions are wrong - it doesn't automatically make it true, because you are not self aware. According to subjective morality - If you were self aware - you would have said "I disapprove of abortions" instead, and only then it would have been true. So honesty is NOT enough - self awareness is also required - self aware people wouldn't bother claiming anything about morals in the first place, and it's the lack of self awareness that leads one to even think in terms of morality rather than preferences in the first place. Refuting argument #3: First of all, Where did premise 7 and 8 came from? How is that being implied by subjective morality? Secondly, lol. The very same argument can be made for objective morality. "It is always wrong to kill". "It is ok to kill in order to protect yourself". This example demonstrates how easy it is to make up two contradictory "moral" statements - does that make objective morality incoherent? So what then you'll say is - "it is a matter of how you define this in the first place". E.g. if you'll say: "It is always wrong to kill unless it's in order to protect yourself". That would have resolved it. Well, yeah, but you can do just the same for subjective claims - refining how you phrase your "preferences" so they would still be fully expressed but without the contradictions. Coherency of how one describes their preferences is merely a question of one's abilities - I.e. their self awareness, logic, attention to detail and how good they are with words. I bet that software engineers and lawyers would have a knack for that.
Yeh, it sounded odd but I couldn't formulate it. I am still here learning from both positions, of morality being either objective or subjective, but I don't get to a conclusion...
*Argument Nr. 1* I disagree with Premise (1). For two reasons. First, of course I can acknowledge and accept that your opinion on abortion might differ significantly from mine. It is (probably) true that you disapprove of abortion. However, I can still ask: _“Why do you disapprove of it?“_ and then we would be having a conversation about the morality of abortion. Secondly, I believe we both agree that flavour is inherently subjective. You might prefer vanilla ice cream while I prefer chocolate. And there could be “genuine“ disagreement about the tastiness of these two sorts of ice cream. Yet this does not presuppose that one of these ice cream flavors is indeed “objectively“ better than the other one. It's just a matter of opinion.
That would be just inquiring information, which does not bring P1 into question. Secondly. "and then we would be having a conversation about the morality of abortion." this implies moral disagreement, what, as I can see, was his point. "And there could be “genuine“ disagreement about the tastiness of these two sorts of ice cream." Like?
@@Wlof25 In a moral debate, _“inquiring information“_ is the whole point of the conversation. The debaters will usually ask why the other person opposes a particular behaviour *X* and then they'll try to convince them that their reasons are not really a good basis for the rejection of behaviour *X* I don't see why such a conversation would be logically impossible under the assumption that ethical subjectivism is true. Have you never experienced ,,genuine disagreement“ about the tastiness of a certain kind of food?
@@ignostic7694 That still does not bring P1 into question. They still would tell you what they prefer and what they believe in. How does that bring P1 into question? Obviously not. Enlighten me, please.
@@Wlof25 Ok, I'm going to reframe his argument.. _,,If our claims about the tastiness of a certain kind of food are just descriptions of our preferences, then there can't be any disagreement about the tastiness of food (in general). So for example: Joe says spinach is disgusting and Sally says spinach is tasty. Let's translate these claims: Joe says he dislikes spinach and Sally says she likes spinach. But does Joe actually disagree with Sally? Actually, no! He would reason like this: I dislike spinach and I agree that Sally likes spinach. So in this view, as long as everybody is telling the truth, there can't be any disagreement about the tastiness of food. But this is really strange, right? If you are pro-spinach and you debate an anti-spinach person, you are not going into this debate with the assumption that the two of you agree.“_ Well of course! Because we simply agree that we disagree. A debate about the tastiness or ,,goodness“ of spinach would certainly involve its colour, its consistency, taste sensation and so on.. values and measures that are ultimately subjective and completely arbitrary in nature. Just like moral arguments that are usually brought forward to condemn/defend abortion.
@@ignostic7694 I dont see how this answers on any of my points. How does that exactly bring P1 in question? What is “genuine“ disagreement about the tastiness of two sorts of ice cream?
I'm not sure I understand argument 1. I hate the movie Twilight. My friends love it to death. Liking a movie is SUBJECTIVE. Yet we vehemently DISAGREE about whether the movie is good or not. Conclusion: We CAN DISAGREE about things that are SUBJECTIVE.
@@justinhenry5772 Perhaps because without objective moral basis one cannot distinguish "genuine" moral disagreement from "non-genuine" moral disagreement.
@ShinRaPresident By that definition, genuine disagreement does not conflict with relative morals, so the argument becomes completely empty. Not to mention that if all disagreements are "genuine", then the word is unnecessary and we could simply say if we disagree on something. Of course that makes the silliness of the argument (even more) plain to see: 1. If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no moral disagreement. 2. There is moral disagreement. 3. Moral subjectivism is not true.
@ShinRaPresident Thanks for replying. "by that definition" is YOUR definition! ```If we disagree on something, then by definition it is genuine.``` For context, we need to refer back to the arguments that CC was making. He is trying to establish the existence of objective morals, and disprove the validity of "moral subjectivism" (his terms). The latter, in my estimation is roughly synonymous with "relative morality". Substitute back in CC's terminology if you like. The reason moral subjectivism is invalid, according to the argument, is due to the existence of "genuine moral disagreement". This has to be contrasted with some other kind of moral disagreement, i.e. the "non-genuine" kind, or else the argument makes no sense. Disagreement about moral questions is expected in either case, so unless we have a way to tell whether a disagreement is "genuine" or not, the second premise is meaningless. If all disagreements are by definition "genuine", the second premise is also meaningless. Except the only way to make that distinction is by reference to a moral absolute. And there is where the question is being begged.
@ShinRaPresident I'm sorry, but you seem to be stuck on these definitions, and I am merely critiquing CC's argument in the video. It is not I who chose the word or made up the argument. If HIS point is that moral ~~relativism~~ subjectivism does not allow for "genuine" disagreement, HE has something in mind for the usage of the term and it is not up to me to speculate. If it is not clear to you what is being critiqued, I'm afraid I can't help you any more.
It's not an assumption, it's the only logical conclusion you can come to once you put the beer down, stop scoffing like an idiot and use critical thinking skills.
Regardless of what one believes , I hope no one takes this video seriously. I didn't even get through his first argument and my head was hurting. The amount of assertion built into each premise is nuts. If anything this video makes believe not that morals are subjective.
Kizombeiro I totally agree and I suspect that lot of moral subjectivists come out of the closet about their moral realism when it’s their freedom, autonomy and life that’s at stake.
If someone was to say eating meat is wrong full stop but then say he would eat meat in a situation where it was needed for survival, it morphs the first statement into “It is wrong to eat meat, unless you need it to survive.” Not two seperate coexisting beliefs that logically contradict eachother, but more of a scattered rule book.
A lot of people in the comments are saying the fact that there is moral disagreement is how you know morality is subjective. I think that's false. If two people disagree about what is morally right then they are assuming objective morality. If they were assuming subjective morality then there would be no point in arguing because they are both 100% right. It would be like an arguement where one person is saying chocolate is my favorite flavor and another person saying no, vanilla is my favorite flavor. It wouldn't make sense. Another way to put it would be to say, on moral subjectivism, rape is both morally right and morally wrong and there is no contradiction at all in that statement.
No, you are conflating objective morality with objective truth. Subjective morality makes claims about what is objectively true, but does not establish anything as objectively moral. Therefore it is not contradictory to say that moral relativism is objectively true.
Nope. You can defend your preferences👀. They just have no "objective" normative weight but you can argue for them subjectively all you want. Saying "morality is subjective" is simply noting the nature/ontology of morality and is not the same as saying "these subjective morals are objective".
Perhaps in late to this party but I feel obligated to share my thoughts here. Genuine moral disagreement may exist under moral subjectivism. In the example you provided, Joe and Sally state the truth about what they believe regarding abortion. Acknowledging that they both have made true statements about what they believe does not imply that they therefore agree with each other - they still disagree about the issue at hand, which is whether or not abortion is acceptable. The genuine moral disagreement comes by comparing the conclusion of one's rationale. The fact that Sally and Joe have different conclusions about the topic IS the genuine disagreement about a moral subject. You are conflating moral agreement with the acknowledgement of honesty, which are two separate beasts.
Well, they disagree about whether or not to approve of abortion, but according to moral subjectivism, they do not disagree in terms of morality. This is specifically because moral subjectivism is claiming that moral statements are really just saying whether the subject approves or disapproves of the action. It seems to me you are sneaking in objective morality and calling it moral subjectivism.
@@Qhaon Well, I think what you just said verifies what _I_ commented. Let me explain: You claim that moral statements are statements regarding whether an individual approves or disapproves of some action X. Therefore, morality itself would be the individual evaluations of X. So, if two individuals hold different moral evaluations of some action X, they would have moral disagreement with each other, even if they don't have _moral statement_ disagreement with each other.
@@thesuitablecommand I still think you’re smuggling in objectivity. The very fact that it is subjectivism means they have no basis from which to disagree. They do not disagree if abortion is moral or immoral. They simply affirm abortion is moral to me, or abortion is immoral to me. By definition, they could not then agree or disagree because morality is subjective on this view.
@@thesuitablecommand At least as I understand it, the consistent moral subjectivist, when asked if abortion is wrong, would for example say, “Abortion is wrong to me, but because there are no objective moral standards, I cannot say if it is wrong absolutely or if others should think it is right or wrong.”
@@Qhaon I agree that moral subjectivist have no grounds upon which they could base morality, since they view it as subjective in nature. The most they could ground it in is their emotions or intuitions. But what I am trying to convey is that you can have moral disagreement in that view, because, say, you believe X is immoral and I believe X is moral. So if a third party were to ask us, "is X moral?" I would say "I think so" and you would say "I think not." Thus, we disagree on the morality of X and have moral disagreement. The fact that I also say "you believe X is immoral" does not then mean that I agree with the truth of your belief. And to be clear, the truth I am referencing is not the truth of "I believe X is Y" but the truth of "X is Y." Let's replace morality with another subjective thing, say taste preference, for a less touchy point of discussion. Take some food Z (whose flavor you find pleasant). If you say, "Z tastes good," and I were to say, "Z tastes bad," and I was speaking truthfully, would we have taste preference disagreement? I think the answer is yes, since we don't agree on whether Z tastes good or bad. But according to your argument, you would say no here. So if we do not have taste preference disagreement over Z, what _is_ our disagreement over?
the first two arguments are wrong because they dont make the distinction between metaethical agreement & a normative one, the third one seems to argue against absolutism, which is not subjectivism.
What's the distinction then? It's not arguing against absolutist. If the subjectivist holds that we do express propositions that do indeed genuinely contradict our interlocutor's beliefs, and as such both can be true, then the problem of contradiction arises nonetheless. The point is that two contradictory propositions (i.e. killing animals is okay/not okay) cannot be both true, but under subjectivism it is believed that they can, and that's false.
@@TheAster3 sorry didnt get a notification. the distinction is that normative judgments are based on values, metaethical positions arent. i see your point, he might not argue against absolutism, but he said "as long as those discriptions are accurate then the moral claim must be true", contradictory preferences cant be accurate discriptions tho.
You're just saying you don't like how ethical subjectivism works, not that it's "false". Also, you can still discuss the value of actions as they are interpreted as propositions by individuals, in relation to true facts about the world. And you made a flawed example for the last point. The proposition isn't held to be true if it's contradictory, but the contradiction you created just represents how a flaw can occur in perspective. People can be mistaken.
Nice claims. Would like to see you actually argue for them. I think that the truth is you just don't like that moral subjectivism doesn't 'work' and you fear the alternative... (Romans 2:14-15, John 3:19-20) _Could your subjective view be mistaken? If it is subjective, it couldn't actually be correct, could it?_
@@jessebryant9233 "Would like to see you actually argue for them" *Cites scripture* Huh...funny Anyway, what exactly would you like me to argue for? I just pointed out how his arguments were not sufficient, by explaining that *he* didn't have sound arguments. Then I explained what he seemed to be missing. Would you like me to walk you through that more? I thought I was pretty clear.
@@cloudoftime "Funny" is neither a rebuttal nor an argument. As for what I would like to see you argue for, well, pick any of the claims you made. You claimed his arguments were not sufficient, you did not demonstrate that or argue for it.
@@jessebryant9233 Why does every single word need to be an argument? I never said, nor implied that "funny" is an argument, however it does make a point; it expresses how I find your offering to be funny, and the reason is because it is ironic, but maybe you missed that. You seem to not understand how this works. Let's say you merely claim that Bigfoot exists, and I point out that you haven't given sufficient evidence for that. What you are saying is that I haven't demonstrated that you haven't given sufficient evidence. How do I demonstrate that you haven't given sufficient evidence, when you simply clearly haven't? What else can I provide to demonstrate that your evidence is lacking, when you have not provided any?
@@jessebryant9233 My comment also contains my specific points addressing the problems with what he said, so for you to act like I haven't made any arguments here is just silly. To use your ridiculous approach, I could now bring it back to you and say "demonstrate that I haven't demonstrated anything. You haven't demonstrated or made any arguments for how I haven't demonstrated or made any arguments." Stupid.
Your first premise is absurd, what do you mean by moral subjectivism ? There are genuine moral disagreement in the realm of moral subjectivism in so far as the definition is intact -- since there are no moral truth about what is right and wrong -- they aren't applicable cross culturally, historically, and contextually -- then our moral standards are predicated on the effects on the agent and contextual adjudication. If you're talking about how an individual respond to moral action, how is it not a genuine moral disagreement?
You appear to have the presupposition that morality is objective. Your points fail because they assume objectivity on some level. #1 You haven't made a good case that genuine moral disagreement exists. Subjectivism says that each individual determines their own subjective preference. I can agree that you believe the opposite to me and still believe that you're wrong for doing so. Therefore each individual has no disagreement within their own beliefs. They hold their belief to be true and while they accept that the other person holds their belief genuinely, that they have arrived at the wrong conclusion. Ex: the death penalty. Two people can agree that a crime should be punished but disagree on death as a penalty. Alternatively they can agree death is acceptable but disagree on the method of death for reasons like humane treatment. The nature of the answer being subjective means that each person can decide how they act based on the information available. I think this is exactly what we would expect if morality was subjective. #2 true to the individual but not objectively true. To your abortion example, yes you cannot be wrong about your belief that something is immoral. However you cannot use the truth of your belief to then impose that people ought to follow your belief. Hume's is/ought problem. Just because something is true doesn't mean that we ought to do anything because of it. Any attempt to can be dismissed with a simple "why ought we?" #3 a true description of a preference is not an objectively true moral claim. Moral subjectivism isn't saying that someone both approves and disapproves of eating meat. Rather they have a true preference against eating meat and a true preference against dying. The preference against dying might be a stronger preference which means that they will compromise on the preference to not eat meat if they are in a situation where only the eating of meat would let them survive. Hume's is/ought problem comes up again here. Just because something is true it doesn't mean that we necessarily ought to do something. Neither are all moral preferences given the same weight. Since moral preferences are subjective they need not be considered to be equally moral. Eating meat to survive is less immoral than eating meat that was produced via factory farming.
1 People do disagree but that doesn't mean there's no objective morality or truth. People don't agree about whether climate change is real but either it is or it isn't. ''Two people can agree that a crime should be punished'' should? Should implies there is objective morality. 2 If something is true then people should believe it is true. Nobody should need to force them isnce they should do it willingly.
Complaining Qoheleth 1. You're comparing debate about facts and debate about morality. You can prove a fact. Please prove an objective moral standard. 2. Doesn't actually make sense to me. Just because something is true there is no reason that anyone should do anything. My cat is black. There is no "should" that you can deduce from that information.
@@EuropeanQoheleth 1. To clarify my position. Your example presupposes an objective morality to prove that morality is objective. If you can first prove morality is held to an objective standard then i would agree with your point. No one has yet to prove an objective moral standard to which moral decisions are held however and so your comparison is moot.
@@gsp3428 "its true until someone robs you at gunpoint and says give me all your money" This. Moral subjectivism is just a gateway to nihilism. It's the way of cowardice.
Interesting video! I think there’s a few conflations happening here. All three of these arguments are conflating the truthiness of belief propositions with the truthiness of the belief itself. Consider argument 1. When we say two people have a disagreement over a subjective preference, we’re not saying that they disagree about the truth of the preferential claim of the other person, but that they disagree over the preference itself. If person A claims they believe killing is wrong and person B claims that they believe killing is not wrong, they can both be correct in the affirmation of their belief without the claim “killing is wrong” having any objective truth value. Same line of thought works against argument 2 and 3 as well. There’s no logical contradiction in saying that I believe X and I believe not X. Both of these statement can be true since they are merely statements about my beliefs. It just means that my beliefs contain contradictions. There’s a difference between saying X is true and not X is true (this is a logical contradiction) versus I believe X and I believe not X. In regard to all of these argument, think about it this way. In general, most of us agree that some claims or beliefs are subjective. Moral subjectivists simply add moral beliefs to the list of subjective beliefs. As a result, we can substitute the words “Moral Subjectivism” in any of these arguments with any number of agreed upon subjective beliefs and, if the arguments are valid, they should still hold true. Let’s define “Food subjectivism” as the belief that all food preferences claims are subjective. With that in mind, consider the following three premises: “Food subjectivism can’t account for genuine disagreement” “If food subjectivism were true, then all of our food judgements would be infallible.” “If food subjectivism were true, then there would be true contradictions.” It’s a bit goofy, but I think it illustrates the point. I think we can all agree that subjective food preferences do exist, and their existence doesn’t commit any real logical contradictions.
I just watched the first argument, and it seems to me that the scope there has been shifted. When Mary says that she believes that abortion is wrong, and Peter says that he believes that abortion is right, then Peter does in this instance not disagree with Mary having that opinion. However, Peter disagrees with Marys evaluation or conclusion of the subject. As such there is disagreement in subjective morality, and that argument in the video falls flat. It's basically the same thing with the second argument. Yes, opinions can't be wrong. However, they can be based on a wrong assessment of a situation. For example: Morts opinion is that the death penalty is a great thing. So that is his honest opinion, and as such it can't be false. However, when his main reason to have that opinion is because he believes that the death penalty saves a lot of money as he believes it to be cheaper than lifelong prison, then his opinion is a conclusion based on incorrect information. The guy in the video seems to leave that out for some reason... And the third argument here is just bogus. When Frank says that it's always wrong to eat meat and sometimes it's not wrong to eat meat, then that is a simple contradiction. It simply makes no sense to say that. Either Frank does not understand basic logic, or he is dishonest. That has nothing to do with subjective or objective morality. So... I find none of these arguments convincing. If I missed something here, let me know. Especially as English is not my first language, I might have missed out some nuances.
Two things: 1. The notion that there is some strong distinction between emotion and reason is a fiction. Lisa Feldman-Barrett's book How Emotions Are Made does a good job anchoring that assertion in a good deal of research. The point being, separating out preferences from emotion/affect isn't something real humans can do in the first place. 2. Don't get thrown by the technical language, premise 1 is confused. Any one preferences exists within a goal directed network of other preferences. Even if finite creatures have the same long term goal, they can disagree about how to best realize that goal. There's your "genuine moral disagreement."
TheJimtanker, in what way? God’s nature is a necessary and unchanging objective standard for behaviour, which is then expressed to God’s creation through the Ten Commandments. None of this is subjective or relative.
It seems to me that all three of these arguments can be dismissed by simply applying them to other subjective evaluations. If I say my wife is beautiful, but my enemy says she's ugly, we are in "genuine disagreement", even if aesthetic beauty is as subjective evaluation. If I say "This movie is funny", but then after some thought, decide "That movie wasn't funny after all", I've shown my earlier claim to be fallible, even though I was only reporting on my personal preference. If I say "I like all cookies", only to be presented with a burnt cookie that I don't like, this isn't a "true contradiction" (even though my taste in cookies is subjective, and my first report was honest).
@Adam Cosper As a wise man once said, when you argue on the Internet, even if you win, you lose. Because you're arguing on the Internet. I don't see any way to respond to your comment without inciting an argument, so I'm going to leave it at that. Have a nice day, sir.
Adam Cosper Subjectivism was actually refuted by C.S. Lewis back in the 1940s in his seminal book (The Abolition of Man). Nevertheless, its pretty obvious to ordinary people that if one withholds judgment on whether an act is wrong because you assume it is impossible to prove that an objective morality exists, one might well act as if it is not wrong. Equally, it seems strange to claim you can act on one’s moral opinion that an act is wrong, while insisting that the act is not really wrong as a matter of objective truth. It really is common sense that subjectivism is just circular logic at best. In the real world of life and death situations moral subjectivists often come out of the closet as moral objectivists especially when it is their freedom, autonomy and life that is at stake. Similarly, Cosmic Sceptic in one recorded debate insisted that genocide or torturing children for fun is not objectively wrong. He simply considers it a “harsh reality” and in the name of logic, science and “Truth” he promotes the idea that nothing can be said to be objectively right or wrong as everything is subjective?. Is Cosmic Sceptic really blind to the elephant in the room here or is he hiding behind the cloak of scientific authority, logic and philosophical proofs to promote a “moral perspective” in which you can’t even condemn genocide or the torture of children, and then hand waving away any concerns by casually referring to a “harsh reality,” This should have alarm bells ringing for any normal person that something is very much wrong with his moral perspective. The irony is that Cosmic sceptics ideas are embraced on RUclips with so little scepticism and he’s not even out of university yet. Equally, why does this kind of naivety, hubris and harmful propaganda still continue to exist after the warning from history in the form of the Nazis, eugenics and the Holocaust. History and propaganda appears to be repeating itself as we have a group of well organised, narcissistic and privileged people who will side with those who want to say morality is subjective simply because they have been trained to believe so, even though they do not remember the source from whence this belief came. “Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead, that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life - on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state - must be cast in the language of human rights”
If I was to snap my finger and all human beings including myself exploded, would that be evil? No! There would be no humans to judge it as evil which proves that evil in itself is a human judgment and not part of the objective world.
But what you just said is true! the fact that you would snap your finger to murder everyone including yourself (I’m using murder because there’s intention and motive) would be evil. Therefore, what you said is true and evil even if no human says it! You’re making a value judgment about evil and that action is evil because murder is wrong and evil. You’re playing God with that statement my guy
@@thecarlitosshow7687 ever since I posted that my stance has changed a little. I definitely believe in evil but I do not know why that would point to a Transcendent God
@@teamatfort444 Oh! that's simple, communism, Nazis, sjws, Jeffry Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Gacy, bags of chips that when opened are half full and the people who make those chips
This presumes much, starting with the idea there's something ontological about verity. That's why we are reminded that moral propositions are still true or false. However, the thing to note in both cases is the question is begged. What does it mean to say something is true or false any more than to say something is moral, amoral, or immoral? Note should be taken too that the statement "Abortion is wrong" may yet be a description of personal preferences, yet may be an objective statement nonetheless. It happens that being human leads us to having generally the same natural sentiments about how to act in a group. That's a consequence of evolution. Second, human beings all think in the same patterns of intuitions and inferences; this is why logic exists (it too is a formal description of how folks think). Putting this all into perspective, and then drawing on the long-standing admission that our thoughts and feelings are contingent to circumstance, and there you have a natural basis for objective morality. Objective in an epistemological sense; garnering justification for intersubjective agreement on one's right to assert or act in one way versus others. There is no sense in which ontological objectivity (absolute, mind-independent, universal, etc.) aids in any way in our judgments about morality or truth. One may, for instance, pick San Diego as a destination. This is rather arbitrary. However, if we all agree that's where we want to go, then everyone's behaviors can be judged as helping us get there or not. This is not a mind-independent affair. There is no need to discuss "moral facts", or anything else for that matter. Is abortion wrong? Well, as often as one may want to disagree with what I've just said, the fact is, in order to assert "Abortion is wrong!", you must provide justification and then realize you aren't appealing to some fact of the matter. You must realize you're now in a game of persuasion and nothing else. There is no inherent truth to propositions nor morality to any sentence either. "Moral" is a term denoting what society will let you get away with; no different than the use of the term "True". As for the attempts at deductive syllogism, maybe understand that taking any of your key premises as true doesn't entail the truth of the conclusion. Your argument may be valid, but that's irrelevant to truth. One may genuinely disagree over abortion and be expressing their opinions; your enthymeme is that either disagreements are "genuine" or "not" and this entails no middle. I see no reason to accept any premise you've put forward as being true. All the best.
Do you assert that morals are but a description of sentiments? And that they are only "objective" in the sense that they describe our collective proclivity to feel in a certain way?
morals are not only relative from person to person but also from circumstance to circumstance, since people are transcendental its actually impossible to be morally objective because that would mean you need to be completely stagnant mentally and physically
in the context of religion, the only completely stagnant individual would be God with His objective moral values, therefore making humanity tasked to follow them. objective moral values in religion exist in the hand of God as the perfectly stagnant being, and they are then communicated to His people. this is why the idea of grace and mercy is so prevalent in Christianity and Islam.
3:41 No, it implies that only that any moral claim that we make is our preference👀. "True" in an objective sense would not apply to morality here. It would be neither true not false (objectively speaking).
*Religions clearly have different and often contradicting moral values. *these values are subject to the religion for which these moral values are held. *therefore subjective moralist must be true.
I think i am able to answer that: *it is our flawed human understanding of morality and the world around us that causes conflict.* Example: ISIS is not doing their evil actions out of malice. They genuinely believe they're doing the right thing. Behind their evil actions are normal humans with favorite foods, music, maybe even a love for animals. So what makes us "better" than ISIS? Well, if morality and/or ethics really are subjective, nothing does. We're both fighting over completely arbitrary notions of right and wrong, so what's the point in fighting them? The only way we can fight them is if they are breaking some kind of universal law of morality that overarchs every single culture. To fight them for ay other reason is without purpose. We fight them because they misunderstood the natural law of morality, try to impose that misunderstanding of morality onto the rest of the world and as a result are committing very evil and heinous actions.
Charr "The only way we can fight them is if they are breaking some kind of universal law of morality that overarchs every single culture." Um... No? Their current actions aren't beneficial to the continued existence or happiness of the social/cultural group to which I belong; that's more than enough reason to pull the trigger. "To fight them for ay other reason is without purpose." The *purpose* of the fight is to stop them; hopefully in the _ultimate_ sense. I don't need some cosmic 'rightness' field to form a damn opinion, or to hold it strongly.
Your actual argument is like this 1- if the subjective morality is true, then there will no be an objective morality. 2- there is an objective morality 3- therefore subjective morality is not true Begging the question
First argument is confused usage of language. Moral subjectivist can easily describe moral disagreement as the fact that both subjects give different answers to the same moral question so premise 1 does not follow. Second is begging the question, under moral subjectivism term "our moral judgements are infallible" is just incoherent. For moral subjectivist it doesn't make sense to render moral claims as true/false without reference to subject which you try to do repeatedly. So this argument frames antirealist position in terms of realism which is nonsensical thing to do. Third argument fails again for the same reason as second, it treats antirealist position as a realist position. The statements that would be true are: 1. Frank thinks eating meat is never appropriate 2. Frank thinks eating meat is sometimes appropriate Their negations would be 1) Frank does not think eating meat is never appropriate and 2) Franks does not think eating meat is sometimes appropriate. Both negations are false in this scenario and do not posit any contradiction. The only thing that you could establish in this scenario is that Frank has inconsistent beliefs.
I'm not sure I agree with you about your critique of the third argument. I would say that competing preferences are apparent contradictions (or at the very least I can't rule out that possibility) and that apparent contradictions do not entail actual contradictions. Take Frank as a counterexample. Perhaps his competing preferences are indicative of some unrealized values and upon reflection he'll find out that this whole time he's been (unknowingly) living out of accord with his actual values. I would add that it might help to think about the food analogy. We can have competing food preferences yet we're not inclined to think that pizza being good for me and pizza being bad for you is an incoherent position..
"3 Strong Arguments Against Moral Subjectivism" Instead of spending time presenting arguments against subjective morality, why don't you instead present evidence for objective morality?
If morality exist, morality is objective. Because if morality was subjective that would mean that it would depend on peoples opinions. And because everybody have different opinions, then morality would mean anything. Right could be wrong and wrong could be right, depending on the person, and there would be no distinctions. Which would be contrary to the definition; " Distinguishing right from wrong ". Therefore, to believe in morality being subjective is to think that morality doesn't exist.
@@wingsoffreedom3589 Usually, moral subjectivists think that morality is as arbitrary as one's personal preferences. An opinion like your favorite color (not just some level of biases which is inevitable I agree). When people say morality is objective, they mean it can be measured by the scientific method. (The scientific method is also biased but is or best tool yet to understand reality). Which is the actual disagreement. Moral relativists don't agree morality (right and wrong) can be determined by science or logic. Which is both incorrect. If that's not your case good we don't disagree. So yeah everything perceived is subjective and a social construct as perception itself infers biases but also right is scientifically distinguishable from wrong. So by the technical definition your right. But by the colloquial sense of the therm I'm right. And because the debate is based on the colloquial sense or the therm. I'm right.
@@knowledgeablebro6970 science can measure the probability that you will manifest morality but that is not universal and equal since psychopaths and neurodivergents exist. Hence the bias it's a genetic predisposition to favor things like the life of yourself and the well-being of your loved ones that's the only objective element but that doesn't mean your biases are correct some people are predisposed to violence which doesn't make it morally correct. Philosophical Morality must manifest from conscious bias, not unconscious predisposition I'd argue a psychopath who wishes to harm but who chooses to not to harm is more moral than the person who simply lacks the desire.
Well two issues. First of all many theists in philosophical groups promote moral subjectivism as an intrinsic feature of our moral judgement. So its not exclusive for the atheistic position. Secondly Moral Subjectivism is a Descriptive label of how people trend to hold different moral values based on different principles. eg.Theistic Morality can not be objective because it is affected by the different moral values of each religious dogma. Secular Morality on the other hand , is the only moral system that can justify an objective method on moral evaluations guided by a single objective principle "the well being of the individual and the society". Btw morality includes all members of society so our principles must be objective...by definition.
"many theists" evidence? "the well being of the individual and the society" why is this an objective principle? Just saying it is doesn't make it true.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 Easy!Sign up in MeWe.com, join any philosophical group, go to their chat rooms and write something about "morality " and objectivity and watch how many theists are going to attack your position. Your demand for "evidence" should be also directed to the owner of the channel, after all he presents the same claim for atheists in his description. Did you show the same skepticism for his claim too? Now about your question. Well being of all members of the society is an objective principle, because this is what morality is all about....the evaluation of our behavior in relation to other peoples' well being. If you have a different opinion on the instrumental value of moral behavior, I would be very interested to hear about it.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Did you see what you did there? Because I see what you did there. Look: "Well being of all members of the society is an objective principle" The emphasis here is "all members of society" "..the evaluation of our behavior in relation to other peoples' well being" Emphasis on "other people" Here's a question, if the objective principle is the well-being of "all-members of a particular society" what happens when we discuss the well-being of those in a different society? Is it still an objective principle, or does the principle vary from society to society, in which case, it wouldn't be objective in regard to "all other people."
@@wilsonw.t.6878 1.Evidence ? Enroll in a Philosophical Mooc and chat with theists. Christians HAVE to accept as moral seriously unethical divine orders like slavery, genocide, gender and class discrimination, eternal damnation for finite crimes and many other problematic ideas promoted by the bible. They, by definition, demonstrate the subjective nature of moral judgment. 2. Because this is why we, humans and many animals, have evolved this need to evaluate the behavior of the members in a a society. We judge a behavior or an act as moral or immoral in relation to the impact it has on society\s, our self and the individual's well being. eg. not using my glasses in a date (to look smart) is not a moral or immoral behavior. NOT using my glasses while driving is an act with moral implications. Behavior that promotes our well being as a society and as individuals is at the Core of Secular Morality. Can you define different principles behind this human need to evaluate behavior????
@@eroszakos9042 In order to construct your question you need to insert the phrase "particular society"! I never played favorites among particular societies. Human morality includes all populations under a global human society. Human societies are connected and have been for many years. IN 1939 the economic decisions and crash of the American market affected the whole world. The political events in Germany at that era affected the whole world. The choices of a government on its energetic and pollution footprint affects the whole world. The refuges from Syria and the ice cap melting affects the whole world. Poverty and the imperialistic practices of international companies affect the whole world. You get the point? The well being of the individual affects the well being of the local society which in turn it affects the well being of the global human society (and any other sentient being). Sentient beings only have the capability to seek pleasure, avoid pain and procreate (well being).
I disagree with the first premise. I think there isn't really disagreement if it is just a disagreement in ones preferences. Let's say I like cheese pizza, but you don't, different tastes, but when you look at when we argue morality it's usually because those beliefs are put into action in the world where we interact and it cam impact us. So now it's not just us having opposing views on pizza, it's we are ordering a pizza to share. And from there you construct arguments on which pizza to get, what moral actions to take.
^^ This, and moral arguments among groups generally take on a shape like, "Anyone who likes cheese pizza must be a serial killer." There's usually an accompanying set of truth claims/beliefs that can be scientifically tested used to justify ethical claims. If we falsify the accompanying claim, then the ethical claim (the prescriptive statement) is also falsified.
@@AnonyMous-og3ct If you believe morality is subjective, your view is illusory: When it comes to subjective morality, you may disagree with someone else’s subjective opinion, like if they said racism is right for instance. But remember, It has to exist as true for them because if it couldn’t, your subjective opinion couldn’t exist as true for you. But then you’d have to admit, it can be true that racism can be right. If you say no, my point is, how is your belief that it’s wrong any more valid than theirs? If their reality is just as valid as yours, you are not denying the statement “racism can be right.” You can’t deny it, otherwise your own opinion would cease to be valid. Therefore, your own view is illusory. If it’s illusory, why do you believe it?
Your first argument is fallacies. (1) subjectivist means people have diffrent notion of what is right and what is wrong. Your first point just helps to prove that there is no objective morality. Objective morality is only possible if there is an objective end-goal (e.g. pleasure or well-being) but since both these are subjective feelings you wont be able to base an objective theory on them. (4) if you believe in determinism, this isnt an issue. it would mean you have no other choice but to act on your subjective feelings lastley it is extremly persumptuous that you think that there can only be one objective moral truth which you probaply think is on your side and that you know how to act in accordance with. subjective morality means that morality itself is nothing grand, it makes morality a hollow concept. thats why you probaply have trouble accepting it. here are some good news though, if we can all agree that our goal is the least amount of human suffering we can determine how to get there and work on a semi-objective moral path to follow. but if there is someone saying he disregards human life you wont be able to say that he is not following his own moral code (which really just means best way to reach his desires)
and one more thing (7) if frank is truly holding two diffrent belives at a time which arent reconcilable , like lets say there is an infinitly powefull good being in heavan, which also cares about you, personally, gave you all your charackter traits and then lets you suffer for an eternity because you acted on given charackter traits. that would mean frank didnt think his believes through or has schizophrenia. in both cases it would not mean moral subjectivism isnt true
To untangle your morality confusion we must first distinguish between essential morality and non-essential morality or aesthetics (preferences if you prefer). Essential Morality is Intersubjectivity, akin to the Golden Rule, meaning morality that is seeking conditions to be as ideal for others as you would like for yourself. That would mean basic , essential rights, Life , Liberty, safety from attack and theft. When it comes to non-essentials, then it is all about personal preferences. They are not right or wrong objectively, just according to different individuals and communities. It seems to me that this vid conflates a lot of that.
You are assuming the golden rule is a moral fact and then trying to reason subjectively from this starting point. But on subjectivism there are no moral facts to begin with. So one can start with what they think is ideal for themselves and not others like stealing, raping or murder which has been done throughout human history and still today in crime ridden parts of the world.
@@LogosTheos 1. I did not endorse the Golden Rule per se, but I said it and Inter-Subjective Morality were akin. 2. All sane human adults understand Intersubjectivity. It is based on the obvious common sense insight that other humans are in the same basic category as one's self. Thus there is a Mutuality that exists, a shared awareness of our human self-awareness. Any one that denies this inner reality suffers from solipsism and is yet to go beyond infantile narcissism. 3. I used the word subjective but I was not defending what has been described as Subjectivism. Inter-Subjectivity is the nexus where subjectivity and objectivity meet.
@@thenowchurch6419 2. Is question begging and therefore can be rejected. What you are trying to get at is moral intuition. Moral intuition is evidence against moral subjectivism. Moral intuition is reflective of an outer reality not an inner reality as you say. If it was an inner reality it would just be Berkeley's radical idealism which is in the same zip code as solipsism. The moral intuition that objective moral facts exist is similar to the intuition that an outer reality exists outside our sense experience.
@@LogosTheos Yes , I agree with Moral Intuition as a term for what I termed Intersubjective morality. I never endorsed subjectivism as a basis for morality. Moral Intuition is the subjective self observing and recognizing itself in the outer. I never said I was married to some exclusively inner reality. Peace.
As far as I'm concerned this is almost always a foolish pride driven argument for atheist and Christians a like. The *fact* of the matter is it's *human* nature to employ "black and white" thinking while ignoring the inescapable grey areas. The "lesser of two evils" often works out the most good. *Everybody is responsible for their own actions* Regardless of whether or not there is a God to judge them. "Love your neighbor as yourself." Or Act like a responsible caring adult and overlook the mistakes of others making an effort. Not that complicated.
Except if there is no God, there is no objective moral standard, thus there is no *actual* reason why someone *should* "love their neighbor as themselves". Sure they can choose to because they prefer it and it makes them feel good, but it is neither right nor wrong. This is not a hard concept to grasp, yet you atheists just can't seem to get it.
@@CJ-lr4uq I *really* don't care what you want to slap in front of the word "morality" Freedom or prison. That's reality. I think it's a pointless thing to argue over. So I really don't know why you would think I'd give a damn about your opinion on it. If you were paying attention in the first place that would have been obvious. Go find somebody else that *wants* to argue over it, thanks.
You make a lot of assertions. How do you account for moral responsibility on moral subjectivism? Also does that include the assumption that freewill is true? Because one cannot be truly be morally responsible for an action that is determined.
@@LogosTheos That's your own personal problem. One I have no obligation to, nor find it nessary to care about. What made you think arguing with a person of the opinion it's a pointless thing to argue over in the first place was a good idea? 😐 My only intention was to express an opinion and move on. Your trolling yourself. There's nothing inappropriate in expressing that opinion in a colloquial manner. Just *really* inconvenient to be outside a strict frame work for someone asking leading questions peppered with extremely flexible vocabulary. 😝 Care to guess what my confidence level is in the probably of you being anything other than disingenuous? (Rhetorical)
There are some fallacies here: 1st argument: Moral disagreement exists bc people THINK their claims are based upon an Objective Morality, therefore they need to prove they are right and that the other side is following a "False" morality. 2nd argument: Moral subjectivity doesn't assume that MY belief (or morality) is true upon other truths. This is what Moral Objectivity does. And upon what argument "Our moral judgments are not infallible"? 3rd argument: Being your morality subjective (therefore you can adjust it through time), it is adaptive to any situation, bc every situation is different and you are also different in the course of time. Based upon the premise that "moral subjectivism is false bc there are no true contradictions", the Bible is also false bc is full of contradictions. But I appreciate your work, nice video :)
1st: You have proven there is genuine moral disagreement. You have proven the premise. 2nd: If morality is based on the subject, then the subject would have to be infallible about its choice on morality. Because morality is based on the subject....its in the word Subjective... 3rd: The Bible has nothing to do with the topic, and you accept moral subjectivism would have to be false for the logical rule of noncontradiction. Good attempt.
Conflation of opinion and morality isn't a sound argument by anyone. You either appeal to an established code of morals or observed positive outcomes of well-being. Your feelings are irrelevant to making either so long as either moral/outcome is sufficiently defined. Moral judgment can be seen as opinion until a razor is applied, the razor being a moral code or code of well-being, and either is is subject to interpretation as much as any data or literature.
Wow, this is one of the worst rebuttals of moral subjectivism I have seen but then again, most are almost on the same level of bad since the subjectivist position is almost trivially true.
The title of the video is nonsensical. Only a proposition can be false or true. Nouns cannot be false. It's not even grammatical. "Moral subjectivism" cannot be false for the same reason that "a bottle of ginger ale" cannot be false. But it can be delicious. Maybe that is what he means. "Moral subjectivism is not delicious."
try to focus on the content of the argument rather than inconsequential syntax. also the title is perfectly fine, you can say “an argument exists against” a noun; it’s different from saying it’s true or false
Your very first point made No sense, and was backwards. “if moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no genuine moral disagreement” Actually, quite the contrary, this proves the opposite. The fact that there IS moral disagreement proves that it IS subjective. If NO moral disagreement ever took place, this would be proof of moral objectivism, as people would have nothing to disagree about because morality is already objective and therefore universal. This was a bad attempt, and I was expecting better.
The arguments he used here are literally word for word what atheist moral philosopher Michael Huemer argues in "Ethical Intuitionism". So you must also think Huemer has no idea what he is talking about
@@RavenClaw143 So an atheist "moral philosopher" at some back-of-beyond American university gets something wrong and that means ... what, exactly? Have you checked that Huemer means what you think he means? Have you looked for rebuttals? But seriously, I haven't read the book. However, if a he agrees with our host here, but he remains an atheist, that suggests that our host's association of these moral positions with belief in the Christian God is utterly beside the point.
@@cnault3244 I am sorry not to have replied to this sooner. I did not receive any kind of notification. Better people than I have no doubt dealt with this question - you could try Cosmic Skeptic or Rationality Rules or Matt Dillahunty; I expect they have videos of interest. Nonetheless, I will try to explain it to you in my way. Morality, at heart, = knowing what is right from what is wrong. Each healthily-functioning individual will have her/his notions of right and wrong, partly derived from parents, partly worked out through experience and reflection, largely driven by the need to survive and flourish in his/her social group. If this individual ends up on an island, all alone, his "moral" word is law; he is answerable only to him/herself and s/he alone stands to gain or lose by his/her "moral" choices. But "no man is an island". So, think of your local golf club. It has a set of rules or conventions, established and modified over the years, by which its members agree to abide. Each member may have her own views on specific issues, she may contribute to the formulation of the rules, but in order to get by, in order to cooperate and remain a flourishing member of the club, she accepts and abides by the rules and conventions dictating what is "right" and what is "wrong" in the context of her membership of that club. The "morality" of the individual member is measured against the objective list of laws and conventions of the club or society of which s/he is a member. So it is with being a member of a human society and, indeed, an intelligent species on a planet of species. Our set of rules is derived at the fundamental level from evolutionary history, from what has led to the better flourishing and survival of our species. And, as we have evolved, so our understanding of what is right and what is wrong has evolved. What may have been considered morally acceptable or unacceptable in our past, may no longer be so considered. And the subjective morality of the individual has contributed to and been subsumed into the collective morality. I hope this helps.
First- there is no such thing as moral subjectivism. It is subjective morality. Moral claims in and of themselves cannot be true or false as they are opinion. Supporting positions for the claim can be said to be true or false as to their support of that opinion. Argument 1 is fallacious from the start due to the use of the word 'Genuine' which infers you have a definition that others may not agree with. See the "No true Scotsman" argument". Argument 2 premise 5 Is a statement of opinion not fact. And remember opinions are subjective. Argument 3 premise 8 is the same statement of opinion as #5. Even your final thought "christianity is true" is an incomplete assertion. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. For a proper presentation debunking your position that morals can't be subjective I refer you to - ruclips.net/video/6tcquI2ylNM/видео.html
"There is no such thing as moral subjectivism?" plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/ Moral claims are not merely opinions, but statements which have true or false value due to some statements being consistent with reality and others not. This video made a very good presentation as to why Subjective Morality depends on conditionals that are not consistent with reality. Such as premise 5 of argument 2 that you criticized. I'll give you this alternative argument: 1.) If moral values are subjective, then no moral statement is false. 2.) If no moral statement is false, then the statement "suffering is intrinsically good" is false. 3.) But the statement "Suffering is intrinsically good" IS false 4.) Therefore, subjective morality is incoherent. My justification for premise 3 is that you are not able to provide for me a counter example to which suffering is intrinsically good in it of itself, since suffering -by its definition- is bad for an individual. Suffering can indeed be good for other outcomes; such as the initial pain of an anesthetic to avoid further pain, but you notice that the permission of this suffering was to AVOID greater suffering, therefore, the counter example upholds that suffering is intrinsically bad. "Suffering is intrinsically bad" Is a statement that has truth value, it is not an opinion, since its conditional lies on logical necessity (the statement has not been demonstrated to be false) "Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
@@RadicOmega "Suffering is intrinsically good" is false because it's a false tautology (violates the law of non-contradiction). "Suffering (feeling bad) is bad" is just a tautology. Tautologies (bad is bad, good is good) doesn't inform you on anything else (morality is objective, morality is subjective) Bad is bad, or good is good, therefore morality is subjective/objective is not valid. Morality is necessarily subjective, because it's based on values, which are necessarily subjective. Even if a god exists, morality is subjective, because it's subjective to god. If God exists, everything is subjective (to god).
@@tatern3923 "'Suffering is intrinsically good' is false because it's a false tautology (violates the law of non-contradiction)" Precisely! The fact that suffering is not an intrinsically good thing, means that anyone who says "its good to make people suffer excessively and unnecessarily" Is making a false statement, since suffering, necessarily, is intrinsically bad. Thats how you can deduce objective morality (meaning moral values exist as a necessary true outside of opinion) due to the fact that some actions are always bad, even if someone disagrees (they are simply wrong, just like saying 2+2=5)
@@RadicOmega But "suffering is bad" is not always true. Since there are instances where suffering is good (causing pain in order to survive). The "cut with a knife" is bad vs "doctor performing painful surgery" is good dilemma. I also feel you are not understanding "objective" vs "subjective". "Objective" does not mean "ultimate" or "always true" ala "X is always the case". It means "real (always the case) independent of a mind". Values are dependent on a mind. If a God exists, everything would be subjective, and objectivity would have no meaning.
@@RadicOmega This is much easier then people make it. Values don't exist in rocks. They are a product of a mind. If you think a mind is responsible for "everything" then "everything" would be subjective (to that mind), and objectivity (reality independent of a mind) becomes incoherent.
You're semantically misunderstanding the position of moral subjectivism in Argument #2. "All moral propositions are true (you said infallibly correct, I will just say 'true')" is taken from the assumptions that 1) moral statements are describing the beliefs of the proponent, and 2) proponents will not lie about their own beliefs. Under these assumptions, all moral statements are INDEED true. Even things like "murder is wrong," and "murder is good," which under moral objectivism would be incompatible. The reason these two statements can BOTH be true under subjectivism and NEVER be true under objectivism is because, to put it simply, subjectivism = moral statements are statements of belief, and objectivism = moral statements are statements of absolute traits/qualities of the action/thing being described. The problem with this type of subjectivism is that it doesn't solve the "ought" problem because it gives no directives for individuals/societies. One possible solution would be to adopt ethical fictionalism, the principle that we should treat moral qualities as if they do exist, but we would have to all agree upon what these qualities are. The problem with objectivism is that the belief in absolute moral traits needs to be justified, which some would argue is an impossible task.
Capturing Christianity ... tangent, you may find it interesting: 🧠: moral roots of liberals & conservatives: 📺 ruclips.net/video/8SOQduoLgRw/видео.html 19 minute video w/ Jonathan Haidt
Christianity is true. Islam is true. Would this not be a true contradiction? The arguement put forward is that morality by its nature is a subject that can be rationalized and manipulated relative to the mind utilizing it. Imo, this video missed the mark.
Let's start with my stance. Morality is opinion-based. Opinions are subjective. Therefore, morality is subjective. Argument #1: People have disagreements about opinions all the time. Although they may agree that the opposition disagrees with them, they still disagree with them. For example, the classic cereal and milk argument. Some people think that it's okay to pour milk into the bowl before cereal. Others pour the milk onto the cereal. This is not objective, there is no right or wrong way to eat breakfast, however, people still argue against one another. Morality is similar to this, except the consequence may be a death or something more severe. Argument #2: Morality is neither true nor false, that's what subjectivity is. If I take another opinion, like Christian Music is awesome, that doesn't make it infallible. It just means that that's my opinion. However, my mind could change should I be given more information, like listening to a few songs in the genre. Opinions change all the time, and that's what debates hope to achieve. Argument #3: I don't think that your argument here is a strong one. You clearly misinterpreted Frank's morality claim. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mistake and not an intentional strawman. If Frank believes that it's wrong to eat meat, but also believes that it's okay to eat meat for survival, then his claim would be that it's wrong to eat meat unless in survival situations. Similarly, it's wrong to murder, but okay if it's for self-defense. Also, it's not that there are true contradictions, it's people acting immorally from their initial set of beliefs and then amending them to justify their actions in an effort to avoid guilt. Hypocrisy is another example of people breaking their own set of beliefs without recognizing that they are. For example, somebody may say that stealing is morally wrong, yet pirate a song to make a cd without connecting their behavior with their moral code.
Very good! I remember being in my morality and ethics class and to my surprise moral subjectivism was actually preferred by most students. I always found it to be philosophically poor and that many atheists end up at emotivism. Philosopher AJ Ayer had some interesting things to say about that.
If you, and only you, can divert a runaway train because you are near the track switch and there are 4 people on the left track and one on the right one, which way do you let the train go? Now what if that one person was your daughter or someone vital to world peace, and the others were old men? Are you getting subjective yet?
Yes, morality can be a puzzle, I don't see how any religion could solve this dilemma, however I don't agree with the fact that morality should be considered as a matter of personal preference. I don't see any usefulness in that and I don't care about your personal preferences. We might go near a solution if we choose a goal like the human well-being, and try to make the decision that causes less damage, but our evaluation can still be hard. For instance I don't know anything about the other 4 people, therefore I can't even analyse what their death might cause in terms of well-being for others. If they are 4 old people I might choose to save my young relative, if they are 4 children I might choose to save them. I might choose to save my relative because it's my personal preference, but I could have objectively caused more harm, in that case I would have done something wrong. Anyway if you think morality is only a matter of personal preference, we are not talking about the same thing.
Martin Clarke that does not establish moral subjectivism. Moral realism is the view that there are objective moral truths, even if we may have difficulty finding out what would be the (objectively correct) moral thing to do in certain situations. Compare: scientific realism is the idea that the entities described by science really do exist, but that does not mean it is easy for us to discover those entities. It could be that the objectively moral thing to do is to save the most people; but if one of the possible victims was your daughter, it could be that you are morally required to value and protect your daughter over and above other people. Thing is, dilemmas don't show that moral realism is false. There can be objective moral truths even if they are difficult to discover in some cases. If anything, dilemmas are puzzling precisely because we expect there to be a *correct* answer to them, otherwise we could just choose to not bother. "It's just my opinion, so whatever!"
If you believe morality is subjective, your view is illusory: When it comes to subjective morality, you may disagree with someone else’s subjective opinion, like if they said racism is right for instance. But remember, It has to exist as true for them because if it couldn’t, your subjective opinion couldn’t exist as true for you. But then you’d have to admit, it can be true that racism can be right. If you say no, my point is, how is your belief that it’s wrong any more valid than theirs? If their reality is just as valid as yours, you are not denying the statement “racism can be right.” You can’t deny it, otherwise your own opinion would cease to be valid. Therefore, your own view is illusory. If it’s illusory, why do you believe it?
@@lovespeaks777 Morality cannot be objective. Morality is an idea. And only subjects can have ideas, find and evaluate anything as good or bad, etc. To believe that morality is objective is the illusion here.
@@lovespeaks777 You can pretend that morality is not an idea all you like, it doesn't really matter. But morality is an idea and a subjects creation, only a subject can find and evaluate anything as good or bad. To claim the opposite is nonsense.
All morality is subjective in the largest sense. Morality is nothing more than the social contract between members of a society, usually expressed in law, culture and custom. This is why what is considered moral varies between cultures and within cultures over time. An example would be slavery in the United States. At one time it was a widespread practice that carried no social stigma and was supported by law. Now, not so much. Saying that morality is objective assumes an objective standard, which always boils down to someone imposing their subjective standards on others.
It's so funny to me how every religious argument is so obviously silly. I wish I could get in the head of a Christian just long enough to understand how they view the world.
*RELATIVISM:* (Denies the existence of "all" absolutes") 1- "All things are relative" 2- "Thus, nothing is absolute" 3- "But then... the statement that _all things are relative_ (which is an absolute) cannot be" And there you go... Relativism self-contradicts itself, and proves itself to be a fallacious philosophy.
That contradiction only applies to the most extreme kinds of epistemological relativism. Someone can easily accept moral relativism without claiming that no objective truths exists.
![Why Moral Relativism Is Dangerous [And Disproves Itself!]](/img/1.gif)
The understanding of moral subjectivism is entailed in its description; moral assessments are subjectively true, which is to say they are dependent on the attitudes of people. “Spinache tastes terrible” can be a correct assessment to an individual, but it may not necessarily be correct to another individual. Thus moral statements (under moral subjectivism) are true or false in regards to individuals, their personal tastes and their values.
Argument: “Moral subjectivism can’t account for genuine moral disagreement”.
Premise 1: If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no genuine moral disagreement
Objection: What is the meaning of “genuine” here? A reasonable and non-question begging understanding would be that it’s a substitute for “objectively true”, which would leave us with: “Moral subjectivism can’t account for [objectively true] moral disagreement” which is a trivial observation since under the subjectivist view, there is no such thing as objectively true moral assessments over which to disagree. This is not a problem unless objectively true moral assessments can be demonstrated to be an actual thing and since they haven't been, premise 2 fails - there are no objectively true moral disagreements.
Objection: If Person A thinks abortion is moral and Person B thinks abortion is immoral, then clearly they have come to conflicting conclusions on the act of abortion (disagreement) which is not magically erased because they both acknowledge the other thinks differently. The complaint here seems to be that they disagree but somehow don't disagree because they acknowledge the other disagrees - which seems to be a nonsensical argument.
Argument: If moral subjectivism is true, it renders all our moral judgments infallible.
Objection: Under moral subjectivism, there can be no moral infallibility other than failure to not know one's own thoughts. It will have to be explained how knowing one's own thoughts without error is in any way "presumptuous" - it rather seems to be an unavoidable fact. I would agree that infallibility is presumptuous in regards to objective facts, however it is not been demonstrated that moral assessments are objective facts and until that happens, the argument appears to widely miss the mark.
Argument: Moral subjectivism is incoherent.
Premise 1: If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be true contradictions.
Objections: What is meant by "true" here? Objectively true? Under moral subjectivism, there would be no objectively true moral contradictions by definition. There couldn't be since moral assessments would all be subjective, meaning at best there could only be subjective contradictions, possibly by irrational persons, and since moral subjectivism does not argue that persons are always rational, any observation that they are not always rational does not in any way affect moral subjectivism.
I find these objections to moral subjectivism do not stand up under scrutiny.
Thanks for your comments, madmax! I appreciate that you took the time to actually address the premises of the argument instead of hurl insults (like so many of the other commenters). Let's go through your objections.
You say that "genuine" means objectively true moral disagreement. This is not what I had in mind. Rather what I had in mind was something like this: Assuming that A thinks B is telling the truth, A can coherently disagree with B's moral claims. On moral subjectivism this is impossible. As long as A thinks B is telling the truth, then A won't disagree with B's moral claim. I can't see a way out of this.
You then point out the fact that moral disagreement obviously exists--and I agree with that! That's why (2) is true. But the point is that there is no genuine moral disagreement on moral subjectivism. This is, again, because moral claims reduce to descriptions of personal preference. The only disagreement that's possible on moral subjectivism is whether the description of each person's moral preference is accurate (e.g., if Joe says "abortion is wrong," the only way that Sally can disagree is if she thinks Joe is being a charlatan and really thinks abortion is right).
Your next objection seems to bite the bullet and argue that it's okay to say that everyone is infallible about morality (in other words, to reject (5)). I think that's really the only thing the moral subjectivist can do. In my view, the intellectual price tag is too high. I am not prepared to accept that the Nazi's were infallibly correct when they decided to gas women and children. I am not prepared to accept I, personally, am literally infallible about morality.
Your last objection is that there would be no objectively true moral contradictions on moral subjectivism. But this is false. Moral subjectivism is a cognitivist metaethical theory. That means that it holds that moral claims are objectively true or false. What's unique about it is that moral claims are true or false (objectively) based on someone's preference. So when Joe says "Abortion is wrong," this translates to: "Joe disapproves of abortion." On moral subjectivism, so long as Joe actually has that preference, this claim is objectively true. Similarly, it's objectively true that I, Cameron, prefer vanilla ice cream.
That's all I have time for. Thanks again for actually engaging the arguments. I can't promise that I'll have time to interact beyond this, but it's been fun. Have a great day! Oh, and btw, Christianity is true.
-Cam
Capturing Christianity is moral subjectivism the same as saying that morals are subjective?
If so, premise 1 would only hold if you added the caveat “and nobody believed that they were objective” ( or indeed “everyone believed that they were subjective”). But this then doesn’t lead to the conclusion you have noted.
People always disagree on things, that's why it's subjective, because if it would be objective, there would be no disagreement.
@@GameMaster-dt2ef objective truth does not prohibit people from making wrong judgements. I dont really see how your logic follows. If there is disagreement among kindergartners what 7×8 is does that then mean the answer is just a matter of opinion?
@Jacob Leaver What does it mean to say that Objective Morality exists, but no one _actually_ knows it?
Forget moral subjectivism, you need to do a video on the distinction between subjective and objective. We need to start there, that is were the disconnect lies.
@@BlackMantisRed " if you believe morality is subjective then you don’t believe in morality." i can think that you're morally wrong on an issue and still except that's just my opinion. if i think murder is bad, the best way i can convince someone is trying to appeal to their intellect, sympathy and empathy. Thus i still believe in morality, i just think morality is something that is usually debated and agreed upon.
edgar santiago murder by definition is both unlawful and a human invention
@@BlackMantisRed Subjective means it exists dependent upon thoughts, feelings and personal biases, and objective means it exists independent of all those. If you think it is wrong to use a table saw without proper training, it is because you value your fingers, and the fingers of others. You probably imagine the horror of slicing your fingers off and conclude... Bad!! This judgement cannot exist independent of mind, so it is a subjective value. And I'd be willing to bet that even though it's subjective almost every human on Earth is going to agree with you. So subjective vs objective is not some much that it is based on a whim as much as it is dependent upon an mind.
@@teamatfort444 however, even with murder, not everyone will agree its wrong. Thus its still subjective. Which is my point. I don't think objective morality exists.
@@BlackMantisRed every issue is someone's opinion. However there are laws with stealing, murder etc, to deter someone from going against those laws. But even laws and so forth is subjective.
I get barely a minute and a half in and you're already muddying the waters. The two examples you gave to tell the difference between an emotional response and a preferential response is just flat wrong. Preferences are reliant on emotions. "Abortion is wrong" is no different from "Abortion: Boo!". Not one bit. It still shows that you dislike abortion and you prefer people not get abortions. From my observation, it doesn't seem like you've really thought that point through. You may just be regurgitating what you might have heard from people that happen to kind of agree with your position.
Argument 1: Saying "Abortion is right" isn't necessarily saying "I approve of abortion". It may actually be saying "I believe it is right to allow people to choose what they can and can't do with their bodies". Again, I'm not sure you've actually given thought to what you're trying to disprove here. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you're trying to get across here. Things aren't that black and white. I also don't understand how recognizing you disagree with someone goes against moral subjectivism? If anything, it further points out that morals are subjective because different people have differing opinions. In my opinion, your first argument fails completely.
Argument 2: How is this a knock against moral subjectivism? Where does it say that if you accept moral subjectivism, you accept that your moral judgments are LITERALLY infallible? I'm not aware of anyone who says that aside from solipsists and religious people? This argument felt very incoherent and even more flawed than the first
Argument 3: A better example of a contradiction would have been: "This sentence is false". Moral subjectivism, from what I understand, never makes the claim nor implies that everyone has rational beliefs or preferences. Where are you getting this? If you're arguing for moral objectivism, doesn't that suffer more from your three arguments? Moral objectivism states that there is only ONE infallible objective set of preferences that everyone shares and that is true all across reality. That can't be true because there are contradictions and we all recognize that people have different "moral preferences". I'm not sure what you're arguing in this video and I don't think you understand what you're arguing here.
Lolll
@@jt19933 What do you think of Cameron's take on morality here?
Right on, Carlton.
The problem I find with your response to argument 1 is the fact that a developing child in a Mothers womb is the combination of two separate individuals neither belonging to one or the other, as both are required for the creation of new life. I argue that being pro-abortion is actually the opposite of "allowing people to choose what they can and cannot do with their bodies" as the developing child has no say whether it stays alive or is aborted. Just as the color grey does not belong solely to black or white but to both through combination. Therefore neither black or white can claim total ownership of grey as they need each other to create grey and cannot create grey without each other.
The problem I find with your response to argument two is that by accepting moral relativism you accept the notion that morality is neither universally right or wrong as their is no moral objective standard defining that which is right or wrong. Because of this your morality is by default infallible, Infallible being defined as "Incapable of making mistakes or being wrong." If you state that ones personal morality is fallible then you are adhering to a moral authority.
Argument 3. The statement made relating to moral subjectivism not claiming that everyone has rational beliefs or moral preferences is true, however this implies that there is a rational view of morality and preferences. In other words, a right or correct way of viewing morality. By accepting moral subjectivism you cannot pass judgement on other moral stances that you may consider wrong because the acceptance of subjective morality means there is no wrong apart from ones own subjective moral standard. You may consider someone to be wrong through your own subjective standard but may never claim that they are objectively wrong. Therefore ones own personal moral standard cannot be used to judge others. This means if someone steals something from you that is yours you may subjectively believe that you have been done wrong but cannot objectively state that you have been done wrong as that person may not adhere to your moral standard.
@Roger Mills The point of abortion is to kill the child, whether directly or indirectly that is the end result. They most certainly are two separate individual beings, the mother cannot have a baby within her womb without the combination of another persons DNA. By default this creates a new individual person which contains completely different genetic characteristics which are completely separate from the mother. She could not have had those characteristics on her own thus requiring another individual to make her pregnant. Did your mother have two heads when you were in her womb?
In the case of rape victims, a new individual has still been created. To kill the innocent child for the wrong of the father is morally wrong just as rape is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Regardless, abortion is not the only option in those types of situations, they can give the child up for adoption. There have also been numerous accounts of women who have given birth to their child after being raped and still love their child as their own. Notice how you had to resort to incidents of rape victims as an attempt to justify abortion, if there is no moral objective standard of what is right or wrong there would be no justification necessary.
Morality is not subjective. You may think so, but you are wrong. According to your own belief you cannot objectively tell me that I am morally wrong for saying that you are morally wrong. Furthermore, wouldn't being morally subjective be the morally right thing to do thus creating moral objectivity? Let me extrapolate, ifthen
You're talking as if " right " , " True and " wrong ", " false " is definite and absolute.
It is, in terms of morality
@@beckc.5084 plz you're misplaced.
@@beckc.5084 moral subjectivists only claim that there is no right and wrong when it comes to morals, but still acknowledge that there are objective truths in the world, just not in morals. So your argument is null and void.
@@beckc.5084 sorry I though that OP meant moral absolutes not absolutes in general.
@@kanyeeast4495 Nobody ever claim objective truths.
There are only absolute truths according to some pre-agreed upon absolute assumptions.
For example, if everything you see and feel through your senses is real as in they exists outside of your mind. Then there would be no objective morality, because everything is just matters working in a certain way.
Why would you agreed upon the notion that "everything you see and feel through your senses is real", well, that's the only choice you have.
If your senses is not real, then there's nothing you know is real by logic, because everything you experience goes through your senses.
Stating “I approve of abortion and agree that Sally disapproves of abortion” implicitly recognizes a disagreement. If one approves of what someone else disapproves of, there is moral disagreement and the stage is set for debate. Also, the statement “moral subjectivism is false” is incoherent. It isn’t true or false, it is simply a phenomenon that exists and has been observed and specified.
sandsmarc it isn't incoherent. Moral subjectivism here refers to the view that morality is not objective, only subjective, and that is a false claim - or at least, every moral realist would say that it is false.
Point of any debate is to see who's subjective opinion is closest to objective reality. If objective morality doesn't exist, then it's impossible to debate whether rape is good or bad.
@@goranmilic442 It's not impossible to debate. Is just a loss of time. The fact that is a loss of time to debate doesn't prove that there's an objetive answer to the question
@@jorgemachado5317 If somebody claims that rape is good or racism or murder or whatever, but he also says he's open to be convinced otherwise, how would you convince him those things are bad, if you're not convinced yourself those things are objectively bad? You think such debate is waste of time, to try to convince him rape is bad? Are all subjective moral codes a waste of time, since they're not objectively true? According to you, all subjective moral is wrong, non-existent, if you personally think rape is bad, according to you, it's just your illusion, rape is actually nor bad nor good.
@@goranmilic442 Basicly yes. Those justifications we create are just language games we play. I personally advocate for well being as a kind of standard for morals but that is just another way to stabblish a conection with other human beens. That doesn't mean i have the ultimate moral truth about the world
Is there ANYTHING more subjective than religious morality?
"Obey my prophet! ... unless I send a lying spirit to trick him..."
With instructions like that you can't even bake a cake
what are you referencing exactly? lol
@@MzSoulll guess the bible. Quran got alot of these aswell
That's divine command theory, what about natural law or eternal law?
@@wishyouthebest9222 Yes, I know, but I was hoping for an "exact" referencing. lol i'd hope there is one.
@@MzSoulll Put some theologians in a locked room and don't let them out until they agree on som moral issue... i don't no, anything really.
You've lost me on the first argument. You seem to be conflating the idea of "genuine disagreement" with the idea of "one of them thinks they are objectively correct", and that's not what genuine disagreement means. You're using the conclusion of objectivism to determine the definition of genuine, making the premise flawed.
Under subjectivism, there can be genuine disagreement, and there is. If what you really mean is that there can not be objective disagreement, then you're right. And there isn't. The disagreement is subjective.
Also worth noting that subjective morals is not an atheist position. Plenty of atheists who feel it's reasonable to conclude objective morals based on the natural world, though I think that's a bit of a stretch and you have to get a bit squirrely with the meaning of objective.
You can disagree, but there is no truth outside of personal opinion.
@@johncart07 Agreed , and that's the problem with the argument. It's saying that since there's no truth, they can't really disagree, but since they do really disagree, there must be truth.
If subjectivism is true than it's reasonable to make the case that the disagreement doesn't "matter" in some objective sense, but so what? Things don't need to be objectively true for subjective creatures to care about them.
@@DavidWMiller The terms right and wrong can't have any independent meaning. They don't exist "out there" if they are only internally determined.
@@johncart07 I agree...
"Plenty of atheists" yes but those people who inconsistent beliefs. Believing in objective morality (because they feel strongly it's true) doesn't mean it's grounded logically in their worldview.
I, like many had previously noted, a a few issues with this video...
1) First minor quibble, as I don't like the title nor the argument wording as Moral Subjectivism can not be "true" or "false" as it isn't a proposition. One could use these arguments to argue moral subjectivism is not correct, I would not make it a truth apt proposition.
2) "genuine moral disagreement"...while one can legitimately be used to argue against moral subjectivism as "moral subjectivism" is special case with respect to the individual vs a culture or society, "genuine moral disagreement" is most often used to argue against moral relativism...but in either case it isn't some type of magical defeater to moral relativism nor moral subjectivism. It merely is asking, if we have genuine moral disagreement, then how do we decide what is morally permissible and not permissible. The moral subjectivist agrees there are moral facts, but would argue those facts are based upon personal preference, bias and not objective where something would be true without intersubjective agreement.
3) Simple subjectivism and emotivism are such that the subjectivist is merely reporting ones attitude towards a proposition. iIf I state "Stealing is wrong" would be me disapproving of stealing, and the moral noncogntivist position of emotivism would be more expressing an attitude towards stealing (Stealing...Boo!) but isn't actually reporting any attitude I actually have towards a the proposition as in emotivism "stealing is wrong" isn't a truth apt proposition.
4) The The Argument Against Moral Infallibility holds that subjectivism our moral judgment are always true assuming we are being honest, and thus in "Infallible", but we of course are fallible seemingly showing that moral subjectivism is not correct. (Note: emotivism does eliminate this seeming problem as moral statements are not T nor F and thus a person can not be "infallible" with respect to any specific moral proposition.). The way I think i would resolve this argument is to argue that our infallibility only extends to the belief that our moral judgment is true, in that it is true we believe "stealing is wrong" is true...not the the proposition is infallibly true or not.
5) There are "true contradictions" in dialetheism, but this seems to be arguing more against moral absolutism.
1:52 I have a problem with this statement. "If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no genuine moral disagreement"
Isn't it the opposite? It should go "if moral OBJECTIVISM were true [...]"
If something is objective, like for example, an objective true statement, it means that it will be true regardless of what people think about it.
If a statement is subjectively true, then whether it's true or not depends on the person who perceives that statement.
So logically, if morality is subjective, there would be an abundance of moral disagreements.
I think what he meant is that if something were objectively true and humans were trying to find out which side was true then there would be disagreement on what is true, because there is objective evidence to which is true or not. While some people might buy into a false truth, it will still crumble in the face of objective truth. The claim he was making on subjective truth, is that there would be no disagreement because there is no objective evidence to prove anything wrong OR right, meaning everyone will kind if just have to agree that everyone's opinions are right OR wrong. If morality depends on the person, then its a horrible way to go about writing laws, for example. And not only that, its just extremely condescending to hear someone say "yeah, yeah whatever, you can think that way because thats YOUR opinion" after you provide them with genuine facts and evidence (assuming you believe in objective truth)
@@justanothercasual5152 well he’s stupid. The belief isn’t that there are no objective facts in the world, it’s that there are no objective moral facts. Like yea 1 + 1 = 2 but people can still disagree on sides of something
I have no clue what any of that pertains to.
Okay, if your next door neighbor has a barking dog that constantly bothers you but does not bother his other next door neighbor, then the neighbor who owns the dog can buy a second dog and should still be considered a courteous neighbor under subjectivism. But if he owns two dogs and puts a trampoline in his backyard, then he is on shaky ground unless his other neighbor is an emotivist. Then he is alright. But keep in mind that if the neighbor across the street is an advocate of prescriptivism, all bets are off.
@Brad James The whole thing gets even dumber if you include your last comment.
To:Tim Jansen LOL Well I am glad you provided illustrations. I'm not sure they help.
@Jacksfavorite Down through the history of mankind there have been people who thought about abstract stuff. They were both smart and also apparently did not have to hold fulltime jobs. Some of these smart folks looked at morality and tried to figure out the differences between what someone believes to be a moral act compared to what someone else believes to be a moral act. And these smart guys even wondered about theoretical questions such as "what is the difference between a belief when compared to the notion of actual _knowing_ . Then if all that were not confusing enough, they decided to put confusing terms on these things. In the end it is like advanced calculous; you will almost assuredly never have a reason to know it.
+Tim Jansen Well, between your first comment and your last, that pretty much sums it all up. Kudos.
The problem is from Gods perspective he literally has “Individualist Moral Subjectivism”. But ok.
No
@@LogosTheos
So objective morality exists independently from God? Interesting.
@@mattsmith1440 No I never said that Matt Strawman.
@@LogosTheos
I'm not asserting you did, hence the question mark.
LogosTheos yeah, he does. You just can’t affirm that.
He has no standard outside of himself, and he just goes by his nature and bases it on something. Wether morality is based on what’s best for humanity, what’s best for god, or some third option, at the end of the day it’s his subjective choice what to base it on.
And this is EXACTLY what theists say a secular morality is like.
A very rudimentary take on morals.
Morality has always been a huge problem for religion. A religious person can be moral, but they have no way to explain, through faith, why any act is right or wrong. See how badly apologists fail on this. Or can any apologist manage it? All true morality is humanistic.
If morality was objective in this universe as we know it, it only applies to personal beings with a mind. We know that mankind did not always exist, then the universe always expected a personal being with a mind to exist. This implies the universe thinks and can see the future of its actions and its not random. Evidence for God.
@@souzajustin19d your whole sillogism relies on the existence of objective morality, which is what there's no evidence for
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet There is evidence, what you mean to say its not convincing to you.
@@souzajustin19d that's not incorrect. But if you look at the physical world and infer evidence of objective morality, why not skip the sillogism altogether and infer god directly? It really doesn't add anything, neither for the believer nor for the unbeliever
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet There is evidence for a prime mover or uncaused cause, so its not unreasonable to believe there is a God of some kind.
And this ladies and gentlemen is the kind of logical reasoning that was applied to dunking women in water to determine if they were witches or not..
And this ladies and gentleman is the atheist who used to burn preachers alive in Soviet Russia
@@iamwhoyoucall2329 lol what?
@@benjaminschooley3108
Ever heard of "communism"?
Yeah. It was invented by "critical" and "open minded" atheists like you
@@iamwhoyoucall2329 atheism lacks any central dogma, it isn't a worldview. It's nothing more than a lack of belief in God's. You will always have bad people doing bad things. To get a good person to do a bad thing - that takes religion.
@@benjaminschooley3108
Yeah.
Forget about stalin and mark , they were atheist they don't count.
Now let me tell you about all the religious wars that havent killed as many people as stalin!!
I find this to be a little dishonest. The arguments against moral subjectivity aren't being made because of an actual interest in a philosophical concept, but rather to "prove" something which cannot be proven, i.e. the existence of a god, and not just any god but a particular God. The problem lies in the point that none of these arguments mean anything unless that God is real. If it's not, then the arguments have neither meaning nor value. You believe your God is real, and therefore this argument has meaning, but to get back to the bottom line you have no evidence for the existence of your God (or any other), so you attempt to use the argument as evidence, which it is not. It's just an exercise in philosophy, nothing more. As such it gets you nowhere.
Hey Cameron, what were your sources on this subject? I want to look into this area a little further.
🧠: moral roots of liberals & conservatives:
📺 ruclips.net/video/8SOQduoLgRw/видео.html
19 minute video w/ Jonathan Haidt
@EMERALD JOK3R If the moral disagreements are considered views on whats CLOSER to truth/objective fact then moral disagreements point more towards moral realism. If I say its good to feed the homeless and i subjectively believe this is good thing but B believes it is better to feed relatives only. We are expressing opinions towards whats BETTER or MORE true.
If I say i like feeding homeless its a good hobby then im expressing my personal preference not a moral disagreement.
@@Yameen200 more true as envisioned by a subjective arguer...
I really hate religious that they put God before humanity
Tell me
Moral standards of life
Which one is more value?
God or humanity
And we already knows we are so divided by religious beliefs
@EMERALD JOK3R I would say moral disagreement disproves subjectivism because if you say morality is subjective and someone believes something abhorrent like it’s morally good to murder some ethnic group - on subjectivism, it’s morally good for that person to do that but not for another person. This is absurd because it is morally wrong to murder (but on subjectivism it is not for the person who thinks it’s ok). Oh and also, logic demands two contradictory propositions cannot both be correct.
The slew of people in the comments who have zero grasp on how to draw logical conclusions and philosophy attempting to debunk this argument is absolutely priceless. I just read a tangent by some guy who confuses moral relativism with moral subjectivism and ends his response with a mic drop as if he made a valid point. This is what we're up against with atheists; people who are so convinced they're smart, yet they can never actually win an argument
Morals are entirely subjective. No action is more justified than another. All actions are driven by desire which in turn are driven by factors outside of our control as if we had any to begin with. Even if libertarian magical free will did exist moral subjectivity still applies. It is inescapable unless you lie or make assumptions.
By assuming that the only relevant aspects of morality are things like desire or drive without acknowledging whether or not certain values are objectively grounded regardless of those things, your argument appears to result in circular reasoning by collecting evidence that already presupposes there is nothing beyond those boundaries, causing your argument to assume its conclusion from the start. However, a deeper issue with your argument arises because it inadvertently presupposes an objective value in the process of arguing against it, as your argument assumes the value: "We should pursue what is logical or true". This is based on a factual conclusion that if something is not logical or true, then it is not valid. Even if a person disagrees with this value and says "We ought *not* pursue what is logical or true", this statement is self-contradicting because not only is it a truth claim, but one must rely on logic in order for the statement to be made or exist in the first place.
This shows that this value exists by logical necessity, meaning it is foundational for the ability to reason at all. Additionally, the existence of this objective value also implies the existence of objective morality and purpose, all of which point to the existence of God.
This demonstrates that the opposite of your conclusion is true: It is inescapable to conclude that objective values exist, and that therefore God exists.
@@Bi0Dr01d No, my claim actually doesn't mean that you just misinterpreted it. There is no objective meaning anyone can assign to anything because there is no objective frame of reference. All perceptions of reality are subjective depending on the observer and so when I assign value and say people should be a certain way I am making a subjective claim from my own ideals that anyone else can also do. I am not claiming that I am objectively right, I am making a claim that people shouldn't do something. There is a pretty clear difference. The only time objectivity exists is within subjectively defined systems, such as science. It is because we first agree on assumptions necessary for further reasoning as a group to then base the rest of argumentation off of, such as the idea of logic. Why we agree on these ideas or premises is itself subjective because anyone can present an alternative system that is equally valid, there is no further reasoning that can be given to justify. It just is. Even your interpretation of my words is subjective, as you do not share my brain and cannot know exactly what I mean, and even if you did you have not lived the same experiences. There is no objectivity at a fundamental level of all things. And to say objectivity means that God exists is a massive non-sequitir that you have not explained. Why would objectivity mean God exists? Just because your idea of God requires an objective moral system doesn't mean that an objective moral system would be requiring of a God.
"If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no genuine moral disagreement" Great point!
Can you imagine if everyone thought that we all agreed about morality? What a different world that would be!
But moral subjectivist’s do disagree on what they think is moral or immoral. So it is not true that there can be no moral disagreement on ethical issues.
Philosophy Guy If they actually disagree then moral subjectivism is false.
@@CapturingChristianity objective morals is the only Truth. It's standard is God's Word!!! 🙌🙌🙌🤗😊
@@CapturingChristianity You are wrong about that. It is moral objectivism that is not true if they disagree. Maybe a Lutheran Christian has one view on objective morality and a Baptist has another view of objective morality, then neither can be objective because they disagree.
If 2 people disagree on subjective morality, they both present their arguments and they may then agree on some compromise or not. Recently in our state, they made laws stating that a person can't talk on a cell phone while holding the phone and driving a car, except in emergencies. They can use a hands free system. What they did was have a debate in the state legislature and had people who had family members die because of distracted driving testify. Some people still voted for people to have the legal right to still make phone calls by holding the phone and drive a motor vehicle. More people voted to make it illegal to drive and talk on a cell phone while driving.
How does that make subjective morals false? It is objective moral values that are false because of all the differences of what objective moral values are around the world.
Nice strawman, Cameron. Maybe try next time to argue against real moral subjectivism?
Whats is real moral subjectivism? You mean made up definitions by godless engineer?
Yeah he seems to not understand what moral subjectivism actually is he seems to think it means every moral is right when it actually means that no moral is wrong. The worst example by far of his poor ability to argue a point is on point 2 when he literally shows two people who have co flirting views and says they have no disagreement
@@plugshirt1684 I feel like is objectively true that if you don't like to be harmed in Cold blood, it's not good to harm others in cold blood
Is it morally wrong to strawman?
Y’all always say “strawman” but can never follow up by telling what you’re actually saying.
You’re confusing the facts of what people’s opinions are with whether there’s any possible “truth” in morals
Morals can neither be true nor false, because morals are values assigned to actions by agents. Just like prices can be neither true nor false, except that a particular store could lie about how much they charge for a product. The store could charge $1000000 for a spoon, but there’s not “truth” or “falsehood” about whether $1000000 is the “true” price of that spoon. If, however, the store charges $1000000 for that spoon but an employee of the store claims it costs $10 dollars, that person has lied because its true that the store values the spoon at $1000000. Not because the spoon has a “true” value of $1000000.
Emotivism... I don’t think that fully matters, it’s sort of an appeal to emotion, and I try to avoid those. I don’t prefer actions that make me happy, and conversely I don’t oppose actions that make me sad. I oppose actions that do harm to agents or living entities. I’m hardwired by my biology to fight for the well-being of my closest fellows, whether I like it or not. If that weren’t true, humans wouldn’t have evolved to be the group we are. And I do understand religion had a hand in that, in that religion provided a sort of structure for societies use to build themselves. Religions typically developed before governments in human history. But when we recognize morality as a tool that can be adjusted and honed to make everyone’s lives better, and not as a divine doctrine, we can move to the next step in societal progress and begin to rid ourselves of the tribalism religion demands, which would be beautiful. So no, Christianity is not true. And morality can only progress and improve when Christians recognize this. And muslims and Hindus and Buddhists as well. Every religion has outlived its usefulness.
"morality can only progress " - how you reconcile this with "Morals can neither be true nor false"? This is obviously incoherent stance. Either there is no moral right or wrong and no moral progress, just change or there are transcendent moral values which allow to morally progress. So which way would you choose?
This analogy is bad. If the store charges "$1000000" for a spoon and an employee says it is "$10" the employee is lying because it is _objectively_ true that the store price of the spoon is "$1000000". A better analogy for moral subjectivism is choosing ice cream at a cafeteria. One person thinks chocolate is the best flavor and another person thinks strawberry is. There is no right or wrong choice. There are only preferences. The disagreement is over a preference not an actual. fact.
I’ve listened through a number of times, read through the transcript, and have a few thoughts in response. Would love some feedback.
In Argument 1, I perceive some ambiguity in the concept of “genuine moral disagreement” (GMD) between P1 and P2. If GMD in P1 revolves around the truth making properties (as you defined IMS) of a speaker relative or agent relative moral statement, then I agree that moral disagreement is unlikely if each party understands each other. On the other hand, I believe your example of an abortion debate to support P2 does not fall into this category of “disagreement” as P1 uses is, which leads me to believe P2 equivocates on the definition of GMD, and P3 would not follow. Moral debate usually revolves around notions of “should” and “aught”, and I interpret these words through the concept of hypothetical or descriptive aughts. An abortion debate would likely involve two sides trying to persuade each other to adopt their respective position, ideally providing reasons for their position that would be built on some common shared ground or interest in order to persuade the other side, possibly utilizing a descriptive aught. This attempt at persuasion would not qualify for GMD if we are using it consistently as P1 uses it. I suspect P2 assumes something (objective morality?) that would fall outside of an internal critique of IMS.
In Argument 2, given your definition of IMS, I do agree with P4 that our moral statements are likely infallible. This seems trivially true, because we are simply reporting on our cognitive disposition towards a given action. I say “likely infallible” because I honestly do not know what it would mean to be mistaken about such a thing, something like “self deception”. Given the truth making properties of moral statements as you have defined IMS, and the nature of honest self reporting on our cognitive state, I see no support for P5. I suspect that when you say “an entire area of discourse”, you are inserting something that is not the territory of IMS as you defined it. The area of discourse is simply someone’s personal preferences in relation to a speaker or agent relative statement about the preferences. As narrow of a field as that is, I don’t see any reason for us to be mistaken or wrong about our physiological state, including the religious person. It does not follow that the religious person’s beliefs about the ontological grounding for their moral desires actually exists and is true, just that they are correct in reporting an accurate account of their belief if they are honest.
In Argument 3, I admit I am having difficulty sorting through it. I am skeptical that someone can consciously experience two directly contradictory preferences at the same time. I think this is what would be required for someone to affirm two contradictory moral statements under IMS at the same time. I understand we can have competing desires, but I presume we are talking about the level of desire that motivates action. In your meat eating example, I am having a difficult time envisioning someone experiencing the desire to never eat meat, and simultaneously having the desire to eat meat. If this is the case, my other thought is to shake out the meat eating moral claim in relation to time - “At T1, Frank does not desire to eat meat in the future, but at T2, Frank does desire to eat meat”. This rendering seems charitable to Frank’s moral preferences regarding meat if he is experiencing them at different times. If they are simultaneous preferences that both equally motivate Frank to act, then I would need more information to identify with such an experience. As it is, I see no support for P7, and therefore I don’t believe P9 is supported, but I acknowledge I may be missing something.
Friend, you have nailed the philosophical argument on morality and reason regarding emotivism and moral subjectivism.
I really appreciate your work on this. Very precise and succinct. Well thought out and certainly timely.
As both a minister of the Gospel and fellow human, Thank you.
Good thought: Christianity is a thinking man’s faith. Cf., Romans 12:1-2
Comedy gold!!!! Badly define subjectivism and then make bad arguments against something you just made up. Anyhoo No, 4 was really good.
"If moral subjectivism were true, then all our moral judgements would be infallible." ROFLMAO!!!!!
This is exactly the opposite of what it means, objective morality would be infallible, yet christians disagree on morality. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? If god wrote it on your heart how can you disagree?
Overall a good video showing how flawed moral objectivism is.
🧠: moral roots of liberals & conservatives:
📺 ruclips.net/video/8SOQduoLgRw/видео.html
19 minute video w/ Jonathan Haidt
Assuming Christianity is true, good and bad would be eternally defined by god and morality would be objective. Christians disagree on what is moral because their biblical interpretations differ. The conclusions that ignorant 'Christians' reach are flawed, but real, intelligent Christians interpret the bible with accuracy and follow God's morality with a reasonable margin of error because we can't read God's mind. This nuance is even excusable because the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. 'If god wrote it on your heart'; our design is much more complex than this statement suggests so I'm not defending it.
Wait? In the first premise of "if moral subjectivism were true, them there would be no genuine moral disagreement" how does that make sense? Surely subjective morality will always have disagreements
There would be no genuine disagreement because the moral subjectivist thinks they both parties that disagree are right.
@@thecarlitosshow7687 actually, moral subjectivists would probably tell you that both parties are wrong, because there are no objective oughts and by extension nothing to be right about. Moral relativists would probably tell you that both parties are right because they're moral realists.
@@yourfutureself3392 well bro a moral subjective/ relativists contradicts themselves. You contradicted yourself so much in what u said.
“A moral subjectivist would tell you that both parties are wrong. There no objective oughts. And by extension nothing to be right about.”
First of all, according to a moral subjectivist in his own position he can’t tell anyone there wrong. A subjectivist is only right or wrong in his/ her own impulse or opinion. There’s no value judgment outside of a subjectivist. The question that should stop and make a subjectivist think is it objectively true/ correct that there no objective oughts and by extensions nothing to be right about? But is that statement itself objectively right to everyone? You’re making an objective true statement.
The reasoning to them goes like this: “it’s objectively true that nothing is objectively true.” That statement has to be true in itself and also it’s a tautology.
Also to ur last part, I think it’s partially right because a moral relativist is a moral realist to an extent. Moral realist believe there are moral facts in the world. A fact is a truth that stands on its own. For example, it’s a fact that rape is wrong everywhere, every-time and no matter what a person thinks. Therefore, no disagreements that rape of a woman is wrong or evil. But the relativist says “well a culture defines right and wrong. In USA the law says rape is wrong and u will be put in prison if one does it. But the Relativist would have to admit (by their own reasoning) that Nazi Germany was correct in what they did (raping, genocide, torture etc) since relativism let’s each person, or culture defines right and wrong. Basically, there are no absolutes or universals standards to a subjectivist and relativist.
Let me know what you think. I could be wrong about any of this too!
@@yourfutureself3392 well bro a moral subjective/ relativists contradicts themselves. You contradicted yourself so much in what u said.
“A moral subjectivist would tell you that both parties are wrong. There no objective oughts. And by extension nothing to be right about.”
First of all, according to a moral subjectivist in his own position he can’t tell anyone there wrong. A subjectivist is only right or wrong in his/ her own impulse or opinion. There’s no value judgment outside of a subjectivist. The question that should stop and make a subjectivist think is it objectively true/ correct that there no objective oughts and by extensions nothing to be right about? But is that statement itself objectively right to everyone? You’re making an objective true statement.
The reasoning to them goes like this: “it’s objectively true that nothing is objectively true.” That statement has to be true in itself and also it’s a tautology.
Also to ur last part, I think it’s partially right because a moral relativist is a moral realist to an extent. Moral realist believe there are moral facts in the world. A fact is a truth that stands on its own. For example, it’s a fact that rape is wrong everywhere, every-time and no matter what a person thinks. Therefore, no disagreements that rape of a woman is wrong or evil. But the relativist says “well a culture defines right and wrong. In USA the law says rape is wrong and u will be put in prison if one does it. But the Relativist would have to admit (by their own reasoning) that Nazi Germany was correct in what they did (raping, genocide, torture etc) since relativism let’s each person, or culture defines right and wrong. Basically, there are no absolutes or universals standards to a subjectivist and relativist.
Let me know what you think. I could be wrong about any of this too!
@@thecarlitosshow7687 hello! Moral subjectivism doesn't claim that there's no objective truth or that everything is dependant on the subject. Moral subjectivism is just the view that oughts don't exist objectively (just oughts) and that they are opinions/preferences of the subject. One can still accept objective truth but deny that oughts are part of that objective truth. You probably don't think that one taste can be objectively better than another and that a certain taste being better than another is dependant on the subject but that doesn't mean you deny all objective truth or that you assert that everything is dependant on the subject. Many moral subjectivists accept objective truth, like (probably) most of the moral subjectivist atheists CC mentions in the vid.
So, to clarify my original point, moral subjectivists don't accept that ANY moral statements are true. "You have a moral obligation to kill" is false. "You have a moral obligation not to kill" is also false. "You don't have a moral obligation to kill" is true, as moral obligations don't exist. There is no contradiction because if one subject believes abortion is morally right and another subject believes abortion is morally wrong then abortion wouldn't be both right and wrong under moral subjectivism. You simply wouldn't have an obligation to do it or to not do it. You're not morally obliged to do anything, the same way two people subjectively believing different colours are the best colour doesn't mean that both colours are objectively the best colour, merely that no colour is objectively the best colour
Argument number #1
Moral subjectivism can't account for genuine moral disagreement.
My rebuttal:
Moral subjectivism does not need to account for what you call "genuine moral disagreement." When debating morality, all you need to do is show your opponent that their conclusion of "X is right" or "X is wrong" is in conflict with axiomatic truth that they hold, and that they need to reevaluate their conclusion.
Argument number #2
Moral subjectivism would render all of our (honest) moral judgement infallible.
My rebuttal:
I agree, I can't show that you are "wrong", but I can show that your actions do not line up with your belief. For example, if you said “I dislike chocolate ice cream” but every time you have an ice cream you willingly decide to get chocolate ice cream and refuse to have vanilla ice cream, then I would say “I disagree that you dislike chocolate ice cream”
Of course, the ice cream example is an oversimplification. When it comes to moral claims it becomes more complex but hopefully you get my point.
Atheist do not need to admit that all religious moral views are infallible, all we need to do is show is that there is internal contradiction in their moral systems. That is enough to show fallibility
Argument number #3
Moral subjectivism is incoherent.
My rebuttal:
6:02 “So long as those descriptions are accurate then the moral claim must be true”
When frank said, “it is always wrong to eat meat” it was NOT accurate because sometimes he would eat if his life depended on it.
A more accurate description would be “Frank believes eating meat is wrong as long as no one’s life depends on it. When someone’s life depends on it, it is morally permissible to eat meat (not necessarily morally right)”
I agree that people have contradictory preferences, that’s what moral debates are for from a moral subjectivist point of view, to discover those contradictions and reduce them as much as possible.
*_"Moral subjectivism does not need to account for what you call "genuine moral disagreement." When debating morality, all you need to do is show your opponent that their conclusion of "X is right" or "X is wrong" is in conflict with axiomatic truth that they hold, and that they need to reevaluate their conclusion."_*
So, you haven't countered the first argument, but instead diverge from the serious issue plaguing this meta-ethical theory by appealing to conflicting axioms.
This response of yours is moot, and as a consequent, you have not been able to resolve this problem.. Onto your next point.
*_"I agree, I can't show that you are "wrong", but I can show that your actions do not line up with your belief. For example, if you said “I dislike chocolate ice cream” but every time you have an ice cream you willingly decide to get chocolate ice cream and refuse to have vanilla ice cream, then I would say “I disagree that you dislike chocolate ice cream”"_*
*_"Of course, the ice cream example is an oversimplification. When it comes to moral claims it becomes more complex but hopefully you get my point"_*
*_"Atheist do not need to admit that all religious moral views are infallible, all we need to do is show is that there is internal contradiction in their moral systems. That is enough to show fallibility"_*
You've just conceded that everyone would indeed be morally infallible, whilst simultaneously contradicting yourself by saying that we can show "enough" fallibility.
You're not refuting anything here. The interlocutor can simply override any concern by approving of his action, and insofar as this goes, he's absolutely correct under subjectivism. This simply repeats the *_exact issue, again._*
With respect to #3 I will respond to it later, I need to go over the video once more to see what he says. However, so far you have not rebuked anything on the table, you've only made things worse.
Showing your opponent that their moral conclusions conflict without axiomatic truths that lie outside the realm of mental properties? Sounds like objective morality to me.
@@LogosTheos That's not what I meant, I meant axiomatic truths that they hold as individuals. It's still subjective, but due to similarities between humans, there will be a lot of overlap that will lead to moral agreement.
@@TheAster3 #1 Two problems
The first problem is that he never defined what "genuine moral disagreement" is. So that opens the gate for individual interpretation and misunderstandings.
The second problem is that his premise "if moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no genuine moral disagreement" has a hidden premise
His hidden premise: "Moral subjectivism NEEDS to account for genuine moral disagreement".
I do not need to refute his conclusion because it is based on a hidden premise I do not accept. That's what I was trying to show with my rebuttal. If anyone could show me why moral subjectivism needs to account for genuine moral disagreement then I would concede that his conclusion has to be true.
#2
I think you're confusing "wrong" with "fallible". They are two different things:
Wrong: Untrue.
fallible: Capable of making mistakes
@@metaphoricalparadox5138 What similarities between humans? You seem to be talking about shared moral intuition which is actually an argument against moral subjectivism.
Moral debate assumes moral disagreement.
Not a valid argument against subjective moralism.
But subjective moralism is impossible. Moralism holds that that certain things are wrong while relativism doesn't.
It's to support the second premise at 2:00
@@JP-rf8rr The problem is that promise one doesn't make any sense. If everyone had there own subjective opinions on what is right and wrong then of course they are going to disagree. You assume that people will respect other peoples opinions but that too is a moral value that is subjective.
@@EuropeanQoheleth not what the word moralism means but nice try. Subjective is not the same thing as non existant.
@@nathanjasper512 We never said that having debates does not mean there will not be disagreements and there's no such thing as good and evil. They're just words meant to describe an idea or action which is the nature of language. Good and Evil have no physical existence and representation nor do they have a metaphysical state as well.
How do you get around moral subjectivism in the bible? God states murder is objectively wrong, then instructs the Israelites to murder thousands. He also strikes people down himself, therefore breaking his own objective morality? Murder is objectively wrong except when it isn't?
Murder is unjustified killing. Killing when the punishment meets the crime is perfectly fine.
Listen, I'm sorry I am posting again, but this sort of thinking bothers me. First, don't write me off thinking I'm an atheist; I'm not. However, I wish both sides of the great debate would actually study philosophy.
You are presenting a valid argument. Those watching on, those who actually know logic, should be shrugging thinking "So what? Next." The thing is, it's not just that one could debate your terms and meanings and point out the question-begging in premise (2). However, those are high on any thinker's list here. But the simplest oversight is the most insidious.
Advice for folks into debating.
Having a valid argument means absolutely nothing.
That's because they have nothing to do with truth and unless their premises are actually true, there's no telling whether their conclusions are true or false.
Truth as a term that deals with "statements that are so" is completely outside of logic; logic doesn't entail or even care about "that" statements, i.e. "it is true that ..."
For technical folks, valid arguments can have false premises and a true conclusion, false premises and a false conclusion, or true premises and a true conclusion. So, how on Earth are we to tell from this that a valid argument is actually making a proper conclusion?
We can't!
These all have the same valid, deductive form (AAA-1):
(false premise, true conclusion)
All cats are dogs.
All poodles are cats.
All poodles are dogs.
(false premise, false conclusion)
All cats are mice.
All dogs are cats.
All dogs are mice.
(true premise, true conclusion)
All dogs are animals.
All poodles are dogs.
All poodles are animals.
This is exactly why Dennett calmly responds to Craig's arguments with "Well, isn't that all just very nice." (paraphrased)
If you have good reason to defend the premises and good evidence for the premises, then it is rational to believe the premise is true.
Steven Hoyt and? What's your point? If you have good reasons to believe the premises are *true*, then it is rational to accept the conclusion. Cameron never rests his case on the mere logical validity of his arguments, he tries to show that they are *sound*. Craig, too, and the Dennett example seems bizarre: Craig has never argued that we can conclude God exists because his arguments are valid. He claims we can conclude God exists because his arguments are valid *AND* sound. The form is valid and the premises are plausible.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 ... i wish any were given.
Steven Hoyt Craig says his arguments are valid because they have to be valid in order to be sound. That's not a big deal. But he never rests his case on saying they are valid; those who think so are simply unfamiliar with Craig's work or are frankly a bit naïve - no big professional philosopher (like Craig) would go around giving valid arguments without at least attempting to justify the premises. Craig insists his arguments are valid AND sound, and he argues for all of his premises. For instance, in his standard presentations of the Kalam argument he gives a total of 7 supportive arguments/reasons to justify belief that each premise is true. (In case you're wondering, here's the breakdown: 3 supportive reasons for the first premise - the causal principle; including an appeal to intuition, and inference to the best explanation, and inductive support -, 4 supportive reasons for the second premise - that the universe began to exist; these are two philosophical arguments for temporal finitism, and two scientific reasons for temporal finitism). Whether or not anyone thinks the arguments are ultimately successful, it's downright ridiculous to suggest Craig doesn't argue for the soundness of his arguments. He gives reasons to accept the premises; whether one ultimately thinks they are good reasons is another story (I do).
@@mordec1016 which is not what i was suggesting, and then that your needle is improperly stuck there rather than considering the details of 95% of the rest of my commentary ... would be ridiculous, it seems to me.
cheers.
I think mass murder is wrong [immoral]. 85 years ago a man called Hitler thought mass murder was right. [moral]
There you go, subjective morality.
Welcome to the real world!
"If you think that you can coherently have moral debates with other people, then you have to agree that there does exist genuine moral disagreement."
This. And as you said...from these premises it follows that morality is not subjective. Moral Realism FTW.
Sully Sullivan you're missing the point. Hint: in moral subjectivism, moral claims reduce to personal preferences, and "I prefer X" is not contradictory to *your* claim that "I prefer ~X". With that in mind, think of how we actually deal with moral disagreement in debates and so on. Not like a moral subjectivist would.
@@iruleandyoudont9 I think you need to re-read everything I already said, and look up some of the terms. You are not following the core idea of my statement at all. Hint*, Key words...Coherently...and Genuine. If you wish to understand other views/arguments, you need to spend the time to truly understand them. So far all you have done is reveal how you don't understand the actual point and assert disagreement. Slow down, dig in, and try to learn something new. Or let pride get in the way..
@@iruleandyoudont9 yeah let us debate which are the best flavors of ice cream
@@iruleandyoudont9 Again...you are just proving my point that you do not understand the terms or the point that is being made to you. I am not trying to be condescending at all, I am trying to encourage you to sincerely look more into what is being said to you and to think more critically about it. Unless/until you desire to do so, me explaining it will do no good. I've provided plenty of information for you to seek out an understanding of the point being made here, you may choose to learn or not.
Sully Sullivan for a moral subjectivist, "stealing is always wrong" would be a statement of preference. A subjective statement which corresponds to someone's particular preference, hence subjectivism. Given moral subjectivism, when someone positively asserts that "stealing is always wrong", you could (indeed, should) replace that with "I personally think people should never steal, etc" which is not in contradiction with someone else saying "I personally think (negation)". This is the whole point of subjectivism; the reason you resist the analysis, ironically enough, is that you are (like me) convinced that there is such a thing as genuine moral disagreement, instead of mere differences of preferences. Our speech acts, debating and reasoning practices about morality are inconsistent with moral subjectivism.
Sometimes I think Christians intentionally "misunderstand" moral subjectivism. It's not as confusing a topic as they make it out to be. If morality is a concept each individual creates, it's not surprising that we have differing ideas about morality. And since it's subjective to each individual, then there can't be an "ultimate truth" on the subject just as there can't be ultimate truth that the color purple is the best color even though I might think it is.
For another thing, if Christianity is true, them morality is still subjective because it's a concept created by God which he wrote on our hearts. That, by definition, is subjective.
I've never understood the concept of objectivity under a god model. Isn't everything subjective to god? How does objectivity fit in at all?
Explain how everything is "subjective" to God, because in the Christian worldview, that is not the case.
@@CJ-lr4uq I'm not sure how to explain it other than that is how a "god" is defined. It is responsible for everything that exists and everything that happens. All things are from god and thus subject to his will. I'm pretty sure this isn't controversial at all.
@@tatern3923 That doesn't make any sense. God's nature is unchanging and he transcends time, space, and human will. So He is the source of objectivity, while mankind can only have subjectivity outside of God.
And no, God is not responsible for everything that happens. Human beings have freewill.
@@CJ-lr4uq "Objectivity" doesn't mean "reality", it means "having reality independent of a mind". If all of reality itself is dependent on a mind, then reality is not objective, it is subjective. You believe in a subjective reality (a reality dependent on god's mind) not an objective reality (a reality not dependent on a mind).
@@CJ-lr4uq If God creates morality then it is subjective, since it is what he chooses it to be, and since he is all-powerful he could have chosen any morality he wanted. Hence, subjective. If morality is absolute then God is also subject to it and did not create it. Hence, God is not all-powerful.
Really nice discussion, thank you for your video.
I came here trying to challenge my own views, so I am grateful to you for this platform.
Overall, nice try - but if your objective is to convince people who didn't already agree with you, it wouldn't do the trick.
Refuting argument #1:
The fact that two disagreeing factions believe that it's about morality and not about preferences, doesn't make it so.
Therefore, it is still possible that there is no "genuine moral disagreement" - opposing factions can still believe it's about morals, when in-fact it's about preferences.
In a way, what you did there - was assuming your conclusion all along.
Refuting argument #2:
Again, your doing the same mistake - even speaking about morals in terms of fallibility/infallibility already assumes moral objectivism.
Infallibility is a term from the realm of logic, which may still be objective. So even for a person who doesn't believe in objective morality may still find fallacies in claims. "But what fallacies can there be when honest people share there preferences?" you would ask - and I would say "None!", the fallacies are not with the preferences themselves - but with using the preferences as justification for imposing your will upon others.
There is a difference between just saying "I think that Vanilla is the best ice-cream flavor" and adding "therefore it would be better for society if all other ice-cream flavors would be illegal". In the addition there was a claim that is not a preference, and therefore can still be fallible; it is a different addition than: "therefore, I would have preferred it if all other ice-cream flavors would be illegal".
So what subjectivists are not willing to accept is not your preferences, but the intentions that are derived from them.
"This means that any honest moral claim that anyone makes is literally true" - let's distinguish between "honest" and "self aware"
You can honestly believe that abortions are wrong - it doesn't automatically make it true, because you are not self aware.
According to subjective morality - If you were self aware - you would have said "I disapprove of abortions" instead, and only then it would have been true.
So honesty is NOT enough - self awareness is also required - self aware people wouldn't bother claiming anything about morals in the first place, and it's the lack of self awareness that leads one to even think in terms of morality rather than preferences in the first place.
Refuting argument #3:
First of all,
Where did premise 7 and 8 came from? How is that being implied by subjective morality?
Secondly, lol. The very same argument can be made for objective morality.
"It is always wrong to kill".
"It is ok to kill in order to protect yourself".
This example demonstrates how easy it is to make up two contradictory "moral" statements - does that make objective morality incoherent?
So what then you'll say is - "it is a matter of how you define this in the first place".
E.g. if you'll say:
"It is always wrong to kill unless it's in order to protect yourself".
That would have resolved it.
Well, yeah, but you can do just the same for subjective claims - refining how you phrase your "preferences" so they would still be fully expressed but without the contradictions.
Coherency of how one describes their preferences is merely a question of one's abilities - I.e. their self awareness, logic, attention to detail and how good they are with words. I bet that software engineers and lawyers would have a knack for that.
thanks a lot for writing that so i dont have to. I agree with all of your arguments
Yeh, it sounded odd but I couldn't formulate it. I am still here learning from both positions, of morality being either objective or subjective, but I don't get to a conclusion...
Good stuff
*Argument Nr. 1*
I disagree with Premise (1). For two reasons. First, of course I can acknowledge and accept that your opinion on abortion might differ significantly from mine. It is (probably) true that you disapprove of abortion. However, I can still ask: _“Why do you disapprove of it?“_ and then we would be having a conversation about the morality of abortion.
Secondly, I believe we both agree that flavour is inherently subjective. You might prefer vanilla ice cream while I prefer chocolate. And there could be “genuine“ disagreement about the tastiness of these two sorts of ice cream. Yet this does not presuppose that one of these ice cream flavors is indeed “objectively“ better than the other one. It's just a matter of opinion.
That would be just inquiring information, which does not bring P1 into question.
Secondly. "and then we would be having a conversation about the morality of abortion." this implies moral disagreement, what, as I can see, was his point.
"And there could be “genuine“ disagreement about the tastiness of these two sorts of ice cream."
Like?
@@Wlof25 In a moral debate, _“inquiring information“_ is the whole point of the conversation. The debaters will usually ask why the other person opposes a particular behaviour *X* and then they'll try to convince them that their reasons are not really a good basis for the rejection of behaviour *X*
I don't see why such a conversation would be logically impossible under the assumption that ethical subjectivism is true.
Have you never experienced ,,genuine disagreement“ about the tastiness of a certain kind of food?
@@ignostic7694
That still does not bring P1 into question. They still would tell you what they prefer and what they believe in.
How does that bring P1 into question?
Obviously not. Enlighten me, please.
@@Wlof25 Ok, I'm going to reframe his argument..
_,,If our claims about the tastiness of a certain kind of food are just descriptions of our preferences, then there can't be any disagreement about the tastiness of food (in general). So for example: Joe says spinach is disgusting and Sally says spinach is tasty. Let's translate these claims: Joe says he dislikes spinach and Sally says she likes spinach. But does Joe actually disagree with Sally? Actually, no! He would reason like this: I dislike spinach and I agree that Sally likes spinach. So in this view, as long as everybody is telling the truth, there can't be any disagreement about the tastiness of food. But this is really strange, right? If you are pro-spinach and you debate an anti-spinach person, you are not going into this debate with the assumption that the two of you agree.“_
Well of course! Because we simply agree that we disagree. A debate about the tastiness or ,,goodness“ of spinach would certainly involve its colour, its consistency, taste sensation and so on.. values and measures that are ultimately subjective and completely arbitrary in nature. Just like moral arguments that are usually brought forward to condemn/defend abortion.
@@ignostic7694
I dont see how this answers on any of my points.
How does that exactly bring P1 in question?
What is “genuine“ disagreement about the tastiness of two sorts of ice cream?
I'm not sure I understand argument 1. I hate the movie Twilight. My friends love it to death. Liking a movie is SUBJECTIVE. Yet we vehemently DISAGREE about whether the movie is good or not. Conclusion: We CAN DISAGREE about things that are SUBJECTIVE.
Doesn’t premise 2 in argument #1 beg the question? It assumes moral subjectivism is false-which makes the conclusion equivalent to the 2nd premise.
Philosophy Guy - How might premise (2) in the argument beg the question?
@@justinhenry5772 Perhaps because without objective moral basis one cannot distinguish "genuine" moral disagreement from "non-genuine" moral disagreement.
@ShinRaPresident By that definition, genuine disagreement does not conflict with relative morals, so the argument becomes completely empty.
Not to mention that if all disagreements are "genuine", then the word is unnecessary and we could simply say if we disagree on something. Of course that makes the silliness of the argument (even more) plain to see:
1. If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no moral disagreement.
2. There is moral disagreement.
3. Moral subjectivism is not true.
@ShinRaPresident Thanks for replying.
"by that definition" is YOUR definition!
```If we disagree on something, then by definition it is genuine.```
For context, we need to refer back to the arguments that CC was making.
He is trying to establish the existence of objective morals, and disprove the validity of "moral subjectivism" (his terms). The latter, in my estimation is roughly synonymous with "relative morality". Substitute back in CC's terminology if you like.
The reason moral subjectivism is invalid, according to the argument, is due to the existence of "genuine moral disagreement". This has to be contrasted with some other kind of moral disagreement, i.e. the "non-genuine" kind, or else the argument makes no sense.
Disagreement about moral questions is expected in either case, so unless we have a way to tell whether a disagreement is "genuine" or not, the second premise is meaningless.
If all disagreements are by definition "genuine", the second premise is also meaningless.
Except the only way to make that distinction is by reference to a moral absolute.
And there is where the question is being begged.
@ShinRaPresident I'm sorry, but you seem to be stuck on these definitions, and I am merely critiquing CC's argument in the video. It is not I who chose the word or made up the argument. If HIS point is that moral ~~relativism~~ subjectivism does not allow for "genuine" disagreement, HE has something in mind for the usage of the term and it is not up to me to speculate. If it is not clear to you what is being critiqued, I'm afraid I can't help you any more.
A lot of religious people assume that they get their morals from a god
It's not an assumption, it's the only logical conclusion you can come to once you put the beer down, stop scoffing like an idiot and use critical thinking skills.
@@CJ-lr4uq I apologize for my ignorance (and beer addiction). Can I ask you a question? Which god are we talking about?
@death of a strawberry That's the argument of ignorance.
Regardless of what one believes , I hope no one takes this video seriously.
I didn't even get through his first argument and my head was hurting.
The amount of assertion built into each premise is nuts. If anything this video makes believe not that morals are subjective.
...until someone crosses you, then morality suddenly becomes objective again.
Kizombeiro
I totally agree and I suspect that lot of moral subjectivists come out of the closet about their moral realism when it’s their freedom, autonomy and life that’s at stake.
If someone was to say eating meat is wrong full stop but then say he would eat meat in a situation where it was needed for survival, it morphs the first statement into “It is wrong to eat meat, unless you need it to survive.” Not two seperate coexisting beliefs that logically contradict eachother, but more of a scattered rule book.
A lot of people in the comments are saying the fact that there is moral disagreement is how you know morality is subjective. I think that's false.
If two people disagree about what is morally right then they are assuming objective morality. If they were assuming subjective morality then there would be no point in arguing because they are both 100% right. It would be like an arguement where one person is saying chocolate is my favorite flavor and another person saying no, vanilla is my favorite flavor. It wouldn't make sense.
Another way to put it would be to say, on moral subjectivism, rape is both morally right and morally wrong and there is no contradiction at all in that statement.
You can’t defend Subjective morality as the “right way” it implies that subjective morality is a type of objective morality
No, you are conflating objective morality with objective truth. Subjective morality makes claims about what is objectively true, but does not establish anything as objectively moral. Therefore it is not contradictory to say that moral relativism is objectively true.
Nope. You can defend your preferences👀. They just have no "objective" normative weight but you can argue for them subjectively all you want.
Saying "morality is subjective" is simply noting the nature/ontology of morality and is not the same as saying "these subjective morals are objective".
Perhaps in late to this party but I feel obligated to share my thoughts here.
Genuine moral disagreement may exist under moral subjectivism. In the example you provided, Joe and Sally state the truth about what they believe regarding abortion. Acknowledging that they both have made true statements about what they believe does not imply that they therefore agree with each other - they still disagree about the issue at hand, which is whether or not abortion is acceptable. The genuine moral disagreement comes by comparing the conclusion of one's rationale. The fact that Sally and Joe have different conclusions about the topic IS the genuine disagreement about a moral subject. You are conflating moral agreement with the acknowledgement of honesty, which are two separate beasts.
Well, they disagree about whether or not to approve of abortion, but according to moral subjectivism, they do not disagree in terms of morality. This is specifically because moral subjectivism is claiming that moral statements are really just saying whether the subject approves or disapproves of the action. It seems to me you are sneaking in objective morality and calling it moral subjectivism.
@@Qhaon Well, I think what you just said verifies what _I_ commented. Let me explain:
You claim that moral statements are statements regarding whether an individual approves or disapproves of some action X. Therefore, morality itself would be the individual evaluations of X. So, if two individuals hold different moral evaluations of some action X, they would have moral disagreement with each other, even if they don't have _moral statement_ disagreement with each other.
@@thesuitablecommand I still think you’re smuggling in objectivity. The very fact that it is subjectivism means they have no basis from which to disagree. They do not disagree if abortion is moral or immoral. They simply affirm abortion is moral to me, or abortion is immoral to me. By definition, they could not then agree or disagree because morality is subjective on this view.
@@thesuitablecommand At least as I understand it, the consistent moral subjectivist, when asked if abortion is wrong, would for example say, “Abortion is wrong to me, but because there are no objective moral standards, I cannot say if it is wrong absolutely or if others should think it is right or wrong.”
@@Qhaon I agree that moral subjectivist have no grounds upon which they could base morality, since they view it as subjective in nature. The most they could ground it in is their emotions or intuitions. But what I am trying to convey is that you can have moral disagreement in that view, because, say, you believe X is immoral and I believe X is moral. So if a third party were to ask us, "is X moral?" I would say "I think so" and you would say "I think not." Thus, we disagree on the morality of X and have moral disagreement. The fact that I also say "you believe X is immoral" does not then mean that I agree with the truth of your belief. And to be clear, the truth I am referencing is not the truth of "I believe X is Y" but the truth of "X is Y."
Let's replace morality with another subjective thing, say taste preference, for a less touchy point of discussion. Take some food Z (whose flavor you find pleasant). If you say, "Z tastes good," and I were to say, "Z tastes bad," and I was speaking truthfully, would we have taste preference disagreement? I think the answer is yes, since we don't agree on whether Z tastes good or bad. But according to your argument, you would say no here. So if we do not have taste preference disagreement over Z, what _is_ our disagreement over?
the first two arguments are wrong because they dont make the distinction between metaethical agreement & a normative one, the third one seems to argue against absolutism, which is not subjectivism.
What's the distinction then?
It's not arguing against absolutist. If the subjectivist holds that we do express propositions that do indeed genuinely contradict our interlocutor's beliefs, and as such both can be true, then the problem of contradiction arises nonetheless.
The point is that two contradictory propositions (i.e. killing animals is okay/not okay) cannot be both true, but under subjectivism it is believed that they can, and that's false.
@@TheAster3 sorry didnt get a notification.
the distinction is that normative judgments are based on values, metaethical positions arent.
i see your point, he might not argue against absolutism, but he said "as long as those discriptions are accurate then the moral claim must be true", contradictory preferences cant be accurate discriptions tho.
You're just saying you don't like how ethical subjectivism works, not that it's "false". Also, you can still discuss the value of actions as they are interpreted as propositions by individuals, in relation to true facts about the world.
And you made a flawed example for the last point. The proposition isn't held to be true if it's contradictory, but the contradiction you created just represents how a flaw can occur in perspective. People can be mistaken.
Nice claims. Would like to see you actually argue for them. I think that the truth is you just don't like that moral subjectivism doesn't 'work' and you fear the alternative... (Romans 2:14-15, John 3:19-20) _Could your subjective view be mistaken? If it is subjective, it couldn't actually be correct, could it?_
@@jessebryant9233 "Would like to see you actually argue for them"
*Cites scripture*
Huh...funny
Anyway, what exactly would you like me to argue for? I just pointed out how his arguments were not sufficient, by explaining that *he* didn't have sound arguments. Then I explained what he seemed to be missing. Would you like me to walk you through that more? I thought I was pretty clear.
@@cloudoftime
"Funny" is neither a rebuttal nor an argument. As for what I would like to see you argue for, well, pick any of the claims you made. You claimed his arguments were not sufficient, you did not demonstrate that or argue for it.
@@jessebryant9233 Why does every single word need to be an argument? I never said, nor implied that "funny" is an argument, however it does make a point; it expresses how I find your offering to be funny, and the reason is because it is ironic, but maybe you missed that.
You seem to not understand how this works. Let's say you merely claim that Bigfoot exists, and I point out that you haven't given sufficient evidence for that. What you are saying is that I haven't demonstrated that you haven't given sufficient evidence. How do I demonstrate that you haven't given sufficient evidence, when you simply clearly haven't? What else can I provide to demonstrate that your evidence is lacking, when you have not provided any?
@@jessebryant9233 My comment also contains my specific points addressing the problems with what he said, so for you to act like I haven't made any arguments here is just silly. To use your ridiculous approach, I could now bring it back to you and say "demonstrate that I haven't demonstrated anything. You haven't demonstrated or made any arguments for how I haven't demonstrated or made any arguments." Stupid.
Your first premise is absurd, what do you mean by moral subjectivism ? There are genuine moral disagreement in the realm of moral subjectivism in so far as the definition is intact -- since there are no moral truth about what is right and wrong -- they aren't applicable cross culturally, historically, and contextually -- then our moral standards are predicated on the effects on the agent and contextual adjudication.
If you're talking about how an individual respond to moral action, how is it not a genuine moral disagreement?
You appear to have the presupposition that morality is objective. Your points fail because they assume objectivity on some level.
#1 You haven't made a good case that genuine moral disagreement exists. Subjectivism says that each individual determines their own subjective preference. I can agree that you believe the opposite to me and still believe that you're wrong for doing so. Therefore each individual has no disagreement within their own beliefs. They hold their belief to be true and while they accept that the other person holds their belief genuinely, that they have arrived at the wrong conclusion. Ex: the death penalty. Two people can agree that a crime should be punished but disagree on death as a penalty. Alternatively they can agree death is acceptable but disagree on the method of death for reasons like humane treatment. The nature of the answer being subjective means that each person can decide how they act based on the information available. I think this is exactly what we would expect if morality was subjective.
#2 true to the individual but not objectively true. To your abortion example, yes you cannot be wrong about your belief that something is immoral. However you cannot use the truth of your belief to then impose that people ought to follow your belief. Hume's is/ought problem. Just because something is true doesn't mean that we ought to do anything because of it. Any attempt to can be dismissed with a simple "why ought we?"
#3 a true description of a preference is not an objectively true moral claim. Moral subjectivism isn't saying that someone both approves and disapproves of eating meat. Rather they have a true preference against eating meat and a true preference against dying. The preference against dying might be a stronger preference which means that they will compromise on the preference to not eat meat if they are in a situation where only the eating of meat would let them survive. Hume's is/ought problem comes up again here. Just because something is true it doesn't mean that we necessarily ought to do something. Neither are all moral preferences given the same weight. Since moral preferences are subjective they need not be considered to be equally moral. Eating meat to survive is less immoral than eating meat that was produced via factory farming.
1 People do disagree but that doesn't mean there's no objective morality or truth. People don't agree about whether climate change is real but either it is or it isn't. ''Two people can agree that a crime should be punished'' should? Should implies there is objective morality.
2 If something is true then people should believe it is true. Nobody should need to force them isnce they should do it willingly.
Complaining Qoheleth 1. You're comparing debate about facts and debate about morality. You can prove a fact. Please prove an objective moral standard.
2. Doesn't actually make sense to me. Just because something is true there is no reason that anyone should do anything. My cat is black. There is no "should" that you can deduce from that information.
@@EuropeanQoheleth 1. To clarify my position. Your example presupposes an objective morality to prove that morality is objective. If you can first prove morality is held to an objective standard then i would agree with your point. No one has yet to prove an objective moral standard to which moral decisions are held however and so your comparison is moot.
6:47 what about Jesus?
And yet, moral subjectism is still true
Nah, not really. Just to you because it’s your opinion 😉
its true until someone robs you at gunpoint and says give me all your money
@@gsp3428 lmao real and true
@@gsp3428
"its true until someone robs you at gunpoint and says give me all your money"
This.
Moral subjectivism is just a gateway to nihilism. It's the way of cowardice.
Yep still true.
Interesting video! I think there’s a few conflations happening here. All three of these arguments are conflating the truthiness of belief propositions with the truthiness of the belief itself.
Consider argument 1. When we say two people have a disagreement over a subjective preference, we’re not saying that they disagree about the truth of the preferential claim of the other person, but that they disagree over the preference itself. If person A claims they believe killing is wrong and person B claims that they believe killing is not wrong, they can both be correct in the affirmation of their belief without the claim “killing is wrong” having any objective truth value.
Same line of thought works against argument 2 and 3 as well. There’s no logical contradiction in saying that I believe X and I believe not X. Both of these statement can be true since they are merely statements about my beliefs. It just means that my beliefs contain contradictions. There’s a difference between saying X is true and not X is true (this is a logical contradiction) versus I believe X and I believe not X.
In regard to all of these argument, think about it this way. In general, most of us agree that some claims or beliefs are subjective. Moral subjectivists simply add moral beliefs to the list of subjective beliefs. As a result, we can substitute the words “Moral Subjectivism” in any of these arguments with any number of agreed upon subjective beliefs and, if the arguments are valid, they should still hold true. Let’s define “Food subjectivism” as the belief that all food preferences claims are subjective. With that in mind, consider the following three premises:
“Food subjectivism can’t account for genuine disagreement”
“If food subjectivism were true, then all of our food judgements would be infallible.”
“If food subjectivism were true, then there would be true contradictions.”
It’s a bit goofy, but I think it illustrates the point. I think we can all agree that subjective food preferences do exist, and their existence doesn’t commit any real logical contradictions.
I just watched the first argument, and it seems to me that the scope there has been shifted. When Mary says that she believes that abortion is wrong, and Peter says that he believes that abortion is right, then Peter does in this instance not disagree with Mary having that opinion. However, Peter disagrees with Marys evaluation or conclusion of the subject. As such there is disagreement in subjective morality, and that argument in the video falls flat.
It's basically the same thing with the second argument. Yes, opinions can't be wrong. However, they can be based on a wrong assessment of a situation. For example: Morts opinion is that the death penalty is a great thing. So that is his honest opinion, and as such it can't be false. However, when his main reason to have that opinion is because he believes that the death penalty saves a lot of money as he believes it to be cheaper than lifelong prison, then his opinion is a conclusion based on incorrect information. The guy in the video seems to leave that out for some reason...
And the third argument here is just bogus. When Frank says that it's always wrong to eat meat and sometimes it's not wrong to eat meat, then that is a simple contradiction. It simply makes no sense to say that. Either Frank does not understand basic logic, or he is dishonest. That has nothing to do with subjective or objective morality.
So... I find none of these arguments convincing. If I missed something here, let me know. Especially as English is not my first language, I might have missed out some nuances.
Two things: 1. The notion that there is some strong distinction between emotion and reason is a fiction. Lisa Feldman-Barrett's book How Emotions Are Made does a good job anchoring that assertion in a good deal of research. The point being, separating out preferences from emotion/affect isn't something real humans can do in the first place. 2. Don't get thrown by the technical language, premise 1 is confused. Any one preferences exists within a goal directed network of other preferences. Even if finite creatures have the same long term goal, they can disagree about how to best realize that goal. There's your "genuine moral disagreement."
By the Christian worldview morality is, by definition, subjective.
TheJimtanker, in what way? God’s nature is a necessary and unchanging objective standard for behaviour, which is then expressed to God’s creation through the Ten Commandments. None of this is subjective or relative.
@@Voivode.of.Hirsir Do you know what the definition of subjective is?
TheJimtanker Yes 😐
@@Voivode.of.Hirsir Please enlighten us.
@@TheJimtanker you don't know? Why are you engaged in this conversation if you don't know?
3:30
Actually, that doesn't account for internal moral contradictions.
A self contradictory system of preference isn't a valid one.
I don't see how morality is objective whether god exist or not
I wholeheartedly agree.
It seems to me that all three of these arguments can be dismissed by simply applying them to other subjective evaluations.
If I say my wife is beautiful, but my enemy says she's ugly, we are in "genuine disagreement", even if aesthetic beauty is as subjective evaluation.
If I say "This movie is funny", but then after some thought, decide "That movie wasn't funny after all", I've shown my earlier claim to be fallible, even though I was only reporting on my personal preference.
If I say "I like all cookies", only to be presented with a burnt cookie that I don't like, this isn't a "true contradiction" (even though my taste in cookies is subjective, and my first report was honest).
I really enjoy the easily watchable length of your videos as well as your accessible breakdown of these arguments. Keep it up!
@Adam Cosper As a wise man once said, when you argue on the Internet, even if you win, you lose. Because you're arguing on the Internet.
I don't see any way to respond to your comment without inciting an argument, so I'm going to leave it at that. Have a nice day, sir.
Adam Cosper
Subjectivism was actually refuted by C.S. Lewis back in the 1940s in his seminal book (The Abolition of Man). Nevertheless, its pretty obvious to ordinary people that if one withholds judgment on whether an act is wrong because you assume it is impossible to prove that an objective morality exists, one might well act as if it is not wrong.
Equally, it seems strange to claim you can act on one’s moral opinion that an act is wrong, while insisting that the act is not really wrong as a matter of objective truth. It really is common sense that subjectivism is just circular logic at best.
In the real world of life and death situations moral subjectivists often come out of the closet as moral objectivists especially when it is their freedom, autonomy and life that is at stake. Similarly, Cosmic Sceptic in one recorded debate insisted that genocide or torturing children for fun is not objectively wrong. He simply considers it a “harsh reality” and in the name of logic, science and “Truth” he promotes the idea that nothing can be said to be objectively right or wrong as everything is subjective?.
Is Cosmic Sceptic really blind to the elephant in the room here or is he hiding behind the cloak of scientific authority, logic and philosophical proofs to promote a “moral perspective” in which you can’t even condemn genocide or the torture of children, and then hand waving away any concerns by casually referring to a “harsh reality,” This should have alarm bells ringing for any normal person that something is very much wrong with his moral perspective. The irony is that Cosmic sceptics ideas are embraced on RUclips with so little scepticism and he’s not even out of university yet. Equally, why does this kind of naivety, hubris and harmful propaganda still continue to exist after the warning from history in the form of the Nazis, eugenics and the Holocaust.
History and propaganda appears to be repeating itself as we have a group of well organised, narcissistic and privileged people who will side with those who want to say morality is subjective simply because they have been trained to believe so, even though they do not remember the source from whence this belief came.
“Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead, that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life - on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state - must be cast in the language of human rights”
If I was to snap my finger and all human beings including myself exploded, would that be evil? No! There would be no humans to judge it as evil which proves that evil in itself is a human judgment and not part of the objective world.
But what you just said is true! the fact that you would snap your finger to murder everyone including yourself (I’m using murder because there’s intention and motive) would be evil. Therefore, what you said is true and evil even if no human says it! You’re making a value judgment about evil and that action is evil because murder is wrong and evil. You’re playing God with that statement my guy
@@thecarlitosshow7687 ever since I posted that my stance has changed a little. I definitely believe in evil but I do not know why that would point to a Transcendent God
@@DiannaRose66 what convinced you of there being a objective evil
@@teamatfort444 Oh! that's simple, communism, Nazis, sjws, Jeffry Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Gacy, bags of chips that when opened are half full and the people who make those chips
This presumes much, starting with the idea there's something ontological about verity. That's why we are reminded that moral propositions are still true or false. However, the thing to note in both cases is the question is begged. What does it mean to say something is true or false any more than to say something is moral, amoral, or immoral? Note should be taken too that the statement "Abortion is wrong" may yet be a description of personal preferences, yet may be an objective statement nonetheless.
It happens that being human leads us to having generally the same natural sentiments about how to act in a group. That's a consequence of evolution. Second, human beings all think in the same patterns of intuitions and inferences; this is why logic exists (it too is a formal description of how folks think). Putting this all into perspective, and then drawing on the long-standing admission that our thoughts and feelings are contingent to circumstance, and there you have a natural basis for objective morality. Objective in an epistemological sense; garnering justification for intersubjective agreement on one's right to assert or act in one way versus others. There is no sense in which ontological objectivity (absolute, mind-independent, universal, etc.) aids in any way in our judgments about morality or truth.
One may, for instance, pick San Diego as a destination. This is rather arbitrary. However, if we all agree that's where we want to go, then everyone's behaviors can be judged as helping us get there or not. This is not a mind-independent affair. There is no need to discuss "moral facts", or anything else for that matter.
Is abortion wrong?
Well, as often as one may want to disagree with what I've just said, the fact is, in order to assert "Abortion is wrong!", you must provide justification and then realize you aren't appealing to some fact of the matter. You must realize you're now in a game of persuasion and nothing else. There is no inherent truth to propositions nor morality to any sentence either.
"Moral" is a term denoting what society will let you get away with; no different than the use of the term "True".
As for the attempts at deductive syllogism, maybe understand that taking any of your key premises as true doesn't entail the truth of the conclusion. Your argument may be valid, but that's irrelevant to truth. One may genuinely disagree over abortion and be expressing their opinions; your enthymeme is that either disagreements are "genuine" or "not" and this entails no middle. I see no reason to accept any premise you've put forward as being true.
All the best.
Do you assert that morals are but a description of sentiments? And that they are only "objective" in the sense that they describe our collective proclivity to feel in a certain way?
@@SensusDivinitatis7 no
morals are not only relative from person to person but also from circumstance to circumstance, since people are transcendental its actually impossible to be morally objective because that would mean you need to be completely stagnant mentally and physically
in the context of religion, the only completely stagnant individual would be God with His objective moral values, therefore making humanity tasked to follow them. objective moral values in religion exist in the hand of God as the perfectly stagnant being, and they are then communicated to His people. this is why the idea of grace and mercy is so prevalent in Christianity and Islam.
Moral claims are still true or false.
Please prove this claim.
when you cant refute the argument, attack the syntax and logic of the argument, no better example of bad faith in practice.
That's just what subjectivism holds...you know this is a video that is refuting subjectivism, so has to actually represent it.
3:41
No, it implies that only that any moral claim that we make is our preference👀. "True" in an objective sense would not apply to morality here. It would be neither true not false (objectively speaking).
*Religions clearly have different and often contradicting moral values.
*these values are subject to the religion for which these moral values are held.
*therefore subjective moralist must be true.
I think i am able to answer that:
*it is our flawed human understanding of morality and the world around us that causes conflict.*
Example:
ISIS is not doing their evil actions out of malice. They genuinely believe they're doing the right thing. Behind their evil actions are normal humans with favorite foods, music, maybe even a love for animals.
So what makes us "better" than ISIS?
Well, if morality and/or ethics really are subjective, nothing does. We're both fighting over completely arbitrary notions of right and wrong, so what's the point in fighting them? The only way we can fight them is if they are breaking some kind of universal law of morality that overarchs every single culture. To fight them for ay other reason is without purpose.
We fight them because they misunderstood the natural law of morality, try to impose that misunderstanding of morality onto the rest of the world and as a result are committing very evil and heinous actions.
In other words morals are subjective. Thanks for proving the point
Charr "The only way we can fight them is if they are breaking some kind of universal law of morality that overarchs every single culture." Um... No? Their current actions aren't beneficial to the continued existence or happiness of the social/cultural group to which I belong; that's more than enough reason to pull the trigger.
"To fight them for ay other reason is without purpose." The *purpose* of the fight is to stop them; hopefully in the _ultimate_ sense.
I don't need some cosmic 'rightness' field to form a damn opinion, or to hold it strongly.
🧠: moral roots of liberals & conservatives:
📺 ruclips.net/video/8SOQduoLgRw/видео.html
19 minute video w/ Jonathan Haidt
Your actual argument is like this
1- if the subjective morality is true, then there will no be an objective morality.
2- there is an objective morality
3- therefore subjective morality is not true
Begging the question
That Joe and Sally example felt like you were missing the point on purpose.
First argument is confused usage of language. Moral subjectivist can easily describe moral disagreement as the fact that both subjects give different answers to the same moral question so premise 1 does not follow.
Second is begging the question, under moral subjectivism term "our moral judgements are infallible" is just incoherent. For moral subjectivist it doesn't make sense to render moral claims as true/false without reference to subject which you try to do repeatedly. So this argument frames antirealist position in terms of realism which is nonsensical thing to do.
Third argument fails again for the same reason as second, it treats antirealist position as a realist position. The statements that would be true are:
1. Frank thinks eating meat is never appropriate
2. Frank thinks eating meat is sometimes appropriate
Their negations would be 1) Frank does not think eating meat is never appropriate and 2) Franks does not think eating meat is sometimes appropriate. Both negations are false in this scenario and do not posit any contradiction. The only thing that you could establish in this scenario is that Frank has inconsistent beliefs.
I'm not sure I agree with you about your critique of the third argument. I would say that competing preferences are apparent contradictions (or at the very least I can't rule out that possibility) and that apparent contradictions do not entail actual contradictions. Take Frank as a counterexample. Perhaps his competing preferences are indicative of some unrealized values and upon reflection he'll find out that this whole time he's been (unknowingly) living out of accord with his actual values.
I would add that it might help to think about the food analogy. We can have competing food preferences yet we're not inclined to think that pizza being good for me and pizza being bad for you is an incoherent position..
Do you have to try hard to make such bad arguments or do they just come naturally?
How do you not see that your 3rd point disproves your 2nd point?
"3 Strong Arguments Against Moral Subjectivism"
Instead of spending time presenting arguments against subjective morality, why don't you instead present evidence for objective morality?
🧠: moral roots of liberals & conservatives:
📺 ruclips.net/video/8SOQduoLgRw/видео.html
19 minute video w/ Jonathan Haidt
If it is not subjective then it must be objective.
If morality exist, morality is objective. Because if morality was subjective that would mean that it would depend on peoples opinions. And because everybody have different opinions, then morality would mean anything. Right could be wrong and wrong could be right, depending on the person, and there would be no distinctions. Which would be contrary to the definition; " Distinguishing right from wrong ". Therefore, to believe in morality being subjective is to think that morality doesn't exist.
not at all that's like saying because my preference in ice cream flavor is subjective my preference doesn't exist.
@@wingsoffreedom3589 it's more like saying: if you think facts are subjective, then you can't simultaneously believe there existence. 👍
@@knowledgeablebro6970 morality isn't a fact it's a bias.
@@wingsoffreedom3589 Usually, moral subjectivists think that morality is as arbitrary as one's personal preferences. An opinion like your favorite color (not just some level of biases which is inevitable I agree). When people say morality is objective, they mean it can be measured by the scientific method. (The scientific method is also biased but is or best tool yet to understand reality). Which is the actual disagreement. Moral relativists don't agree morality (right and wrong) can be determined by science or logic. Which is both incorrect. If that's not your case good we don't disagree.
So yeah everything perceived is subjective and a social construct as perception itself infers biases but also right is scientifically distinguishable from wrong.
So by the technical definition your right. But by the colloquial sense of the therm I'm right. And because the debate is based on the colloquial sense or the therm. I'm right.
@@knowledgeablebro6970 science can measure the probability that you will manifest morality but that is not universal and equal since psychopaths and neurodivergents exist. Hence the bias it's a genetic predisposition to favor things like the life of yourself and the well-being of your loved ones that's the only objective element but that doesn't mean your biases are correct some people are predisposed to violence which doesn't make it morally correct. Philosophical Morality must manifest from conscious bias, not unconscious predisposition I'd argue a psychopath who wishes to harm but who chooses to not to harm is more moral than the person who simply lacks the desire.
Well two issues. First of all many theists in philosophical groups promote moral subjectivism as an intrinsic feature of our moral judgement. So its not exclusive for the atheistic position.
Secondly Moral Subjectivism is a Descriptive label of how people trend to hold different moral values based on different principles.
eg.Theistic Morality can not be objective because it is affected by the different moral values of each religious dogma.
Secular Morality on the other hand , is the only moral system that can justify an objective method on moral evaluations guided by a single objective principle "the well being of the individual and the society".
Btw morality includes all members of society so our principles must be objective...by definition.
"many theists" evidence?
"the well being of the individual and the society" why is this an objective principle? Just saying it is doesn't make it true.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 Easy!Sign up in MeWe.com, join any philosophical group, go to their chat rooms and write something about "morality " and objectivity and watch how many theists are going to attack your position.
Your demand for "evidence" should be also directed to the owner of the channel, after all he presents the same claim for atheists in his description. Did you show the same skepticism for his claim too?
Now about your question. Well being of all members of the society is an objective principle, because this is what morality is all about....the evaluation of our behavior in relation to other peoples' well being. If you have a different opinion on the instrumental value of moral behavior, I would be very interested to hear about it.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Did you see what you did there? Because I see what you did there.
Look:
"Well being of all members of the society is an objective principle" The emphasis here is "all members of society"
"..the evaluation of our behavior in relation to other peoples' well being" Emphasis on "other people"
Here's a question, if the objective principle is the well-being of "all-members of a particular society" what happens when we discuss the well-being of those in a different society? Is it still an objective principle, or does the principle vary from society to society, in which case, it wouldn't be objective in regard to "all other people."
@@wilsonw.t.6878
1.Evidence ? Enroll in a Philosophical Mooc and chat with theists. Christians HAVE to accept as moral seriously unethical divine orders like slavery, genocide, gender and class discrimination, eternal damnation for finite crimes and many other problematic ideas promoted by the bible. They, by definition, demonstrate the subjective nature of moral judgment.
2. Because this is why we, humans and many animals, have evolved this need to evaluate the behavior of the members in a a society.
We judge a behavior or an act as moral or immoral in relation to the impact it has on society\s, our self and the individual's well being.
eg. not using my glasses in a date (to look smart) is not a moral or immoral behavior. NOT using my glasses while driving is an act with moral implications.
Behavior that promotes our well being as a society and as individuals is at the Core of Secular Morality.
Can you define different principles behind this human need to evaluate behavior????
@@eroszakos9042 In order to construct your question you need to insert the phrase "particular society"! I never played favorites among particular societies. Human morality includes all populations under a global human society.
Human societies are connected and have been for many years. IN 1939 the economic decisions and crash of the American market affected the whole world. The political events in Germany at that era affected the whole world. The choices of a government on its energetic and pollution footprint affects the whole world. The refuges from Syria and the ice cap melting affects the whole world. Poverty and the imperialistic practices of international companies affect the whole world. You get the point?
The well being of the individual affects the well being of the local society which in turn it affects the well being of the global human society (and any other sentient being).
Sentient beings only have the capability to seek pleasure, avoid pain and procreate (well being).
I disagree with the first premise. I think there isn't really disagreement if it is just a disagreement in ones preferences. Let's say I like cheese pizza, but you don't, different tastes, but when you look at when we argue morality it's usually because those beliefs are put into action in the world where we interact and it cam impact us. So now it's not just us having opposing views on pizza, it's we are ordering a pizza to share. And from there you construct arguments on which pizza to get, what moral actions to take.
^^ This, and moral arguments among groups generally take on a shape like, "Anyone who likes cheese pizza must be a serial killer." There's usually an accompanying set of truth claims/beliefs that can be scientifically tested used to justify ethical claims. If we falsify the accompanying claim, then the ethical claim (the prescriptive statement) is also falsified.
@@AnonyMous-og3ct If you believe morality is subjective, your view is illusory:
When it comes to subjective morality, you may disagree with someone else’s subjective opinion, like if they said racism is right for instance. But remember, It has to exist as true for them because if it couldn’t, your subjective opinion couldn’t exist as true for you. But then you’d have to admit, it can be true that racism can be right. If you say no, my point is, how is your belief that it’s wrong any more valid than theirs?
If their reality is just as valid as yours, you are not denying the statement “racism can be right.” You can’t deny it, otherwise your own opinion would cease to be valid. Therefore, your own view is illusory. If it’s illusory, why do you believe it?
Your first argument is fallacies. (1) subjectivist means people have diffrent notion of what is right and what is wrong.
Your first point just helps to prove that there is no objective morality. Objective morality is only possible if there is an objective end-goal (e.g. pleasure or well-being) but since both these are subjective feelings you wont be able to base an objective theory on them.
(4) if you believe in determinism, this isnt an issue. it would mean you have no other choice but to act on your subjective feelings
lastley it is extremly persumptuous that you think that there can only be one objective moral truth which you probaply think is on your side and that you know how to act in accordance with. subjective morality means that morality itself is nothing grand, it makes morality a hollow concept. thats why you probaply have trouble accepting it.
here are some good news though, if we can all agree that our goal is the least amount of human suffering we can determine how to get there and work on a semi-objective moral path to follow. but if there is someone saying he disregards human life you wont be able to say that he is not following his own moral code (which really just means best way to reach his desires)
and one more thing (7) if frank is truly holding two diffrent belives at a time which arent reconcilable , like lets say there is an infinitly powefull good being in heavan, which also cares about you, personally, gave you all your charackter traits and then lets you suffer for an eternity because you acted on given charackter traits. that would mean frank didnt think his believes through or has schizophrenia. in both cases it would not mean moral subjectivism isnt true
just exchange subjectivism with objectivism in the slide at 2:00 and this debate is over.
can genuine moral disagrreement exist between people who don't agree on what morality is?
@@justchilling704 ???
@@justchilling704 I might be
@@justchilling704 "it’s not about then agreeing in it it’s about them knowing what morality." I don't know what this means
can you rephrase it?
To untangle your morality confusion we must first distinguish between essential morality and
non-essential morality or aesthetics (preferences if you prefer).
Essential Morality is Intersubjectivity, akin to the Golden Rule, meaning morality that is seeking conditions to be as ideal for others as you would like for yourself.
That would mean basic , essential rights, Life , Liberty, safety from attack and theft.
When it comes to non-essentials, then it is all about personal preferences.
They are not right or wrong objectively, just according to different individuals and communities.
It seems to me that this vid conflates a lot of that.
You are assuming the golden rule is a moral fact and then trying to reason subjectively from this starting point. But on subjectivism there are no moral facts to begin with. So one can start with what they think is ideal for themselves and not others like stealing, raping or murder which has been done throughout human history and still today in crime ridden parts of the world.
@@LogosTheos
1. I did not endorse the Golden Rule per se, but I said it and Inter-Subjective Morality were akin.
2. All sane human adults understand Intersubjectivity.
It is based on the obvious common sense insight that other humans are in the same basic category as one's self.
Thus there is a Mutuality that exists, a shared awareness of our human self-awareness.
Any one that denies this inner reality suffers from solipsism and is yet to go beyond infantile narcissism.
3. I used the word subjective but I was not defending what has been described as Subjectivism.
Inter-Subjectivity is the nexus where subjectivity and objectivity meet.
@@thenowchurch6419 2. Is question begging and therefore can be rejected. What you are trying to get at is moral intuition. Moral intuition is evidence against moral subjectivism. Moral intuition is reflective of an outer reality not an inner reality as you say. If it was an inner reality it would just be Berkeley's radical idealism which is in the same zip code as solipsism. The moral intuition that objective moral facts exist is similar to the intuition that an outer reality exists outside our sense experience.
@@LogosTheos
Yes , I agree with Moral Intuition as a term for what I termed Intersubjective morality.
I never endorsed subjectivism as a basis for morality.
Moral Intuition is the subjective self observing and recognizing itself in the outer.
I never said I was married to some exclusively inner reality.
Peace.
As far as I'm concerned this is almost always a foolish pride driven argument for atheist and Christians a like.
The *fact* of the matter is it's *human* nature to employ "black and white" thinking while ignoring the inescapable grey areas.
The "lesser of two evils" often works out the most good.
*Everybody is responsible for their own actions*
Regardless of whether or not there is a God to judge them.
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
Or
Act like a responsible caring adult and overlook the mistakes of others making an effort.
Not that complicated.
Except if there is no God, there is no objective moral standard, thus there is no *actual* reason why someone *should* "love their neighbor as themselves". Sure they can choose to because they prefer it and it makes them feel good, but it is neither right nor wrong. This is not a hard concept to grasp, yet you atheists just can't seem to get it.
@@CJ-lr4uq I *really* don't care what you want to slap in front of the word "morality"
Freedom or prison.
That's reality.
I think it's a pointless thing to argue over.
So I really don't know why you would think I'd give a damn about your opinion on it.
If you were paying attention in the first place that would have been obvious.
Go find somebody else that *wants* to argue over it, thanks.
You make a lot of assertions. How do you account for moral responsibility on moral subjectivism? Also does that include the assumption that freewill is true? Because one cannot be truly be morally responsible for an action that is determined.
@@LogosTheos That's your own personal problem. One I have no obligation to, nor find it nessary to care about.
What made you think arguing with a person of the opinion it's a pointless thing to argue over in the first place was a good idea? 😐
My only intention was to express an opinion and move on.
Your trolling yourself.
There's nothing inappropriate in expressing that opinion in a colloquial manner.
Just *really* inconvenient to be outside a strict frame work for someone asking leading questions peppered with extremely flexible vocabulary. 😝
Care to guess what my confidence level is in the probably of you being anything other than disingenuous? (Rhetorical)
What's wrong with foolish pride? [wink]
There are some fallacies here:
1st argument: Moral disagreement exists bc people THINK their claims are based upon an Objective Morality, therefore they need to prove they are right and that the other side is following a "False" morality.
2nd argument: Moral subjectivity doesn't assume that MY belief (or morality) is true upon other truths. This is what Moral Objectivity does. And upon what argument "Our moral judgments are not infallible"?
3rd argument: Being your morality subjective (therefore you can adjust it through time), it is adaptive to any situation, bc every situation is different and you are also different in the course of time. Based upon the premise that "moral subjectivism is false bc there are no true contradictions", the Bible is also false bc is full of contradictions.
But I appreciate your work, nice video :)
1st: You have proven there is genuine moral disagreement. You have proven the premise.
2nd: If morality is based on the subject, then the subject would have to be infallible about its choice on morality. Because morality is based on the subject....its in the word Subjective...
3rd: The Bible has nothing to do with the topic, and you accept moral subjectivism would have to be false for the logical rule of noncontradiction.
Good attempt.
Conflation of opinion and morality isn't a sound argument by anyone. You either appeal to an established code of morals or observed positive outcomes of well-being. Your feelings are irrelevant to making either so long as either moral/outcome is sufficiently defined. Moral judgment can be seen as opinion until a razor is applied, the razor being a moral code or code of well-being, and either is is subject to interpretation as much as any data or literature.
Wow, this is one of the worst rebuttals of moral subjectivism I have seen but then again, most are almost on the same level of bad since the subjectivist position is almost trivially true.
So are you for or against moral subjectivism?
@@trustthetruth2779
For it but in the colloquial sense here where it basically just means mind dependent.
The title of the video is nonsensical. Only a proposition can be false or true. Nouns cannot be false. It's not even grammatical. "Moral subjectivism" cannot be false for the same reason that "a bottle of ginger ale" cannot be false. But it can be delicious. Maybe that is what he means. "Moral subjectivism is not delicious."
try to focus on the content of the argument rather than inconsequential syntax. also the title is perfectly fine, you can say “an argument exists against” a noun; it’s different from saying it’s true or false
Your very first point made No sense, and was backwards.
“if moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no genuine moral disagreement”
Actually, quite the contrary, this proves the opposite. The fact that there IS moral disagreement proves that it IS subjective.
If NO moral disagreement ever took place, this would be proof of moral objectivism, as people would have nothing to disagree about because morality is already objective and therefore universal.
This was a bad attempt, and I was expecting better.
Wow another video showing that this guy has no clue what he is talking about.
And what did he get wrong?
The arguments he used here are literally word for word what atheist moral philosopher Michael Huemer argues in "Ethical Intuitionism". So you must also think Huemer has no idea what he is talking about
@@RavenClaw143 So an atheist "moral philosopher" at some back-of-beyond American university gets something wrong and that means ... what, exactly? Have you checked that Huemer means what you think he means? Have you looked for rebuttals?
But seriously, I haven't read the book. However, if a he agrees with our host here, but he remains an atheist, that suggests that our host's association of these moral positions with belief in the Christian God is utterly beside the point.
@@Nai61a If a person does not get their morality from themselves ( making it subjective morality) then where do they get their morality?
@@cnault3244 I am sorry not to have replied to this sooner. I did not receive any kind of notification.
Better people than I have no doubt dealt with this question - you could try Cosmic Skeptic or Rationality Rules or Matt Dillahunty; I expect they have videos of interest.
Nonetheless, I will try to explain it to you in my way. Morality, at heart, = knowing what is right from what is wrong. Each healthily-functioning individual will have her/his notions of right and wrong, partly derived from parents, partly worked out through experience and reflection, largely driven by the need to survive and flourish in his/her social group. If this individual ends up on an island, all alone, his "moral" word is law; he is answerable only to him/herself and s/he alone stands to gain or lose by his/her "moral" choices. But "no man is an island".
So, think of your local golf club. It has a set of rules or conventions, established and modified over the years, by which its members agree to abide. Each member may have her own views on specific issues, she may contribute to the formulation of the rules, but in order to get by, in order to cooperate and remain a flourishing member of the club, she accepts and abides by the rules and conventions dictating what is "right" and what is "wrong" in the context of her membership of that club. The "morality" of the individual member is measured against the objective list of laws and conventions of the club or society of which s/he is a member. So it is with being a member of a human society and, indeed, an intelligent species on a planet of species. Our set of rules is derived at the fundamental level from evolutionary history, from what has led to the better flourishing and survival of our species. And, as we have evolved, so our understanding of what is right and what is wrong has evolved. What may have been considered morally acceptable or unacceptable in our past, may no longer be so considered. And the subjective morality of the individual has contributed to and been subsumed into the collective morality.
I hope this helps.
So what's the alternative?
He’s wrong watch this: m.ruclips.net/video/xzEUdO6Tg1g/видео.html
First- there is no such thing as moral subjectivism. It is subjective morality.
Moral claims in and of themselves cannot be true or false as they are opinion.
Supporting positions for the claim can be said to be true or false as to their
support of that opinion.
Argument 1 is fallacious from the start due to the use of the word 'Genuine' which
infers you have a definition that others may not agree with.
See the "No true Scotsman" argument".
Argument 2 premise 5 Is a statement of opinion not fact.
And remember opinions are subjective.
Argument 3 premise 8 is the same statement of opinion as #5.
Even your final thought "christianity is true" is an incomplete assertion.
Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
For a proper presentation debunking your position that morals can't be subjective
I refer you to - ruclips.net/video/6tcquI2ylNM/видео.html
"There is no such thing as moral subjectivism?" plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/ Moral claims are not merely opinions, but statements which have true or false value due to some statements being consistent with reality and others not. This video made a very good presentation as to why Subjective Morality depends on conditionals that are not consistent with reality. Such as premise 5 of argument 2 that you criticized.
I'll give you this alternative argument: 1.) If moral values are subjective, then no moral statement is false. 2.) If no moral statement is false, then the statement "suffering is intrinsically good" is false. 3.) But the statement "Suffering is intrinsically good" IS false 4.) Therefore, subjective morality is incoherent. My justification for premise 3 is that you are not able to provide for me a counter example to which suffering is intrinsically good in it of itself, since suffering -by its definition- is bad for an individual. Suffering can indeed be good for other outcomes; such as the initial pain of an anesthetic to avoid further pain, but you notice that the permission of this suffering was to AVOID greater suffering, therefore, the counter example upholds that suffering is intrinsically bad. "Suffering is intrinsically bad" Is a statement that has truth value, it is not an opinion, since its conditional lies on logical necessity (the statement has not been demonstrated to be false)
"Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
@@RadicOmega "Suffering is intrinsically good" is false because it's a false tautology (violates the law of non-contradiction). "Suffering (feeling bad) is bad" is just a tautology. Tautologies (bad is bad, good is good) doesn't inform you on anything else (morality is objective, morality is subjective)
Bad is bad, or good is good,
therefore morality is subjective/objective
is not valid.
Morality is necessarily subjective, because it's based on values, which are necessarily subjective. Even if a god exists, morality is subjective, because it's subjective to god. If God exists, everything is subjective (to god).
@@tatern3923 "'Suffering is intrinsically good' is false because it's a false tautology (violates the law of non-contradiction)" Precisely! The fact that suffering is not an intrinsically good thing, means that anyone who says "its good to make people suffer excessively and unnecessarily" Is making a false statement, since suffering, necessarily, is intrinsically bad. Thats how you can deduce objective morality (meaning moral values exist as a necessary true outside of opinion) due to the fact that some actions are always bad, even if someone disagrees (they are simply wrong, just like saying 2+2=5)
@@RadicOmega But "suffering is bad" is not always true. Since there are instances where suffering is good (causing pain in order to survive). The "cut with a knife" is bad vs "doctor performing painful surgery" is good dilemma.
I also feel you are not understanding "objective" vs "subjective". "Objective" does not mean "ultimate" or "always true" ala "X is always the case". It means "real (always the case) independent of a mind". Values are dependent on a mind. If a God exists, everything would be subjective, and objectivity would have no meaning.
@@RadicOmega This is much easier then people make it. Values don't exist in rocks. They are a product of a mind. If you think a mind is responsible for "everything" then "everything" would be subjective (to that mind), and objectivity (reality independent of a mind) becomes incoherent.
You're semantically misunderstanding the position of moral subjectivism in Argument #2. "All moral propositions are true (you said infallibly correct, I will just say 'true')" is taken from the assumptions that 1) moral statements are describing the beliefs of the proponent, and 2) proponents will not lie about their own beliefs. Under these assumptions, all moral statements are INDEED true. Even things like "murder is wrong," and "murder is good," which under moral objectivism would be incompatible. The reason these two statements can BOTH be true under subjectivism and NEVER be true under objectivism is because, to put it simply, subjectivism = moral statements are statements of belief, and objectivism = moral statements are statements of absolute traits/qualities of the action/thing being described.
The problem with this type of subjectivism is that it doesn't solve the "ought" problem because it gives no directives for individuals/societies. One possible solution would be to adopt ethical fictionalism, the principle that we should treat moral qualities as if they do exist, but we would have to all agree upon what these qualities are.
The problem with objectivism is that the belief in absolute moral traits needs to be justified, which some would argue is an impossible task.
I would really like to see you make the case for moral realism.
C a t a l y s t I think IP’s video defending Moral Realism is really good.
Capturing Christianity ... tangent, you may find it interesting:
🧠: moral roots of liberals & conservatives:
📺 ruclips.net/video/8SOQduoLgRw/видео.html
19 minute video w/ Jonathan Haidt
Christianity is true.
Islam is true.
Would this not be a true contradiction?
The arguement put forward is that morality by its nature is a subject that can be rationalized and manipulated relative to the mind utilizing it.
Imo, this video missed the mark.
Boy. Atheism denies that ANY God exist. Asking which one is a red herring.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 I agree, however I think that statement is just another true contridiction. Each statement is true with respect to who makes it.
I'm digging this snazzy new intro! Lol. Loved the vid Cameron. Thanks for this. God Bless.
Thanks! Trying to do more stuff with each new vid.
Let's start with my stance. Morality is opinion-based. Opinions are subjective. Therefore, morality is subjective.
Argument #1: People have disagreements about opinions all the time. Although they may agree that the opposition disagrees with them, they still disagree with them. For example, the classic cereal and milk argument. Some people think that it's okay to pour milk into the bowl before cereal. Others pour the milk onto the cereal. This is not objective, there is no right or wrong way to eat breakfast, however, people still argue against one another. Morality is similar to this, except the consequence may be a death or something more severe.
Argument #2: Morality is neither true nor false, that's what subjectivity is. If I take another opinion, like Christian Music is awesome, that doesn't make it infallible. It just means that that's my opinion. However, my mind could change should I be given more information, like listening to a few songs in the genre. Opinions change all the time, and that's what debates hope to achieve.
Argument #3: I don't think that your argument here is a strong one. You clearly misinterpreted Frank's morality claim. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mistake and not an intentional strawman. If Frank believes that it's wrong to eat meat, but also believes that it's okay to eat meat for survival, then his claim would be that it's wrong to eat meat unless in survival situations. Similarly, it's wrong to murder, but okay if it's for self-defense. Also, it's not that there are true contradictions, it's people acting immorally from their initial set of beliefs and then amending them to justify their actions in an effort to avoid guilt. Hypocrisy is another example of people breaking their own set of beliefs without recognizing that they are. For example, somebody may say that stealing is morally wrong, yet pirate a song to make a cd without connecting their behavior with their moral code.
Very good! I remember being in my morality and ethics class and to my surprise moral subjectivism was actually preferred by most students. I always found it to be philosophically poor and that many atheists end up at emotivism. Philosopher AJ Ayer had some interesting things to say about that.
If you, and only you, can divert a runaway train because you are near the track switch
and there are 4 people on the left track and one on the right one, which way do you let the train go?
Now what if that one person was your daughter or someone vital to world peace, and the others were old men?
Are you getting subjective yet?
Yes, morality can be a puzzle, I don't see how any religion could solve this dilemma, however I don't agree with the fact that morality should be considered as a matter of personal preference. I don't see any usefulness in that and I don't care about your personal preferences. We might go near a solution if we choose a goal like the human well-being, and try to make the decision that causes less damage, but our evaluation can still be hard. For instance I don't know anything about the other 4 people, therefore I can't even analyse what their death might cause in terms of well-being for others. If they are 4 old people I might choose to save my young relative, if they are 4 children I might choose to save them. I might choose to save my relative because it's my personal preference, but I could have objectively caused more harm, in that case I would have done something wrong. Anyway if you think morality is only a matter of personal preference, we are not talking about the same thing.
Martin Clarke that does not establish moral subjectivism. Moral realism is the view that there are objective moral truths, even if we may have difficulty finding out what would be the (objectively correct) moral thing to do in certain situations. Compare: scientific realism is the idea that the entities described by science really do exist, but that does not mean it is easy for us to discover those entities. It could be that the objectively moral thing to do is to save the most people; but if one of the possible victims was your daughter, it could be that you are morally required to value and protect your daughter over and above other people.
Thing is, dilemmas don't show that moral realism is false. There can be objective moral truths even if they are difficult to discover in some cases. If anything, dilemmas are puzzling precisely because we expect there to be a *correct* answer to them, otherwise we could just choose to not bother. "It's just my opinion, so whatever!"
It was helpful spelling out what moral subjectivism is and also listing out the premises and conclusion for each argument. Thanks for that!
When multiple opinions or claims differ, there is disagreement.
These premises are interesting. Genuine moral disagreement actually demonstrates moral subjectivism.
It doesn’t. It represents free will
@@OrthodoxJoker Free will is an assumption.
Only a subject can find something good or bad
I agree. And I'll go a step further and say that only a subject can find anything as anything.
If you believe morality is subjective, your view is illusory:
When it comes to subjective morality, you may disagree with someone else’s subjective opinion, like if they said racism is right for instance. But remember, It has to exist as true for them because if it couldn’t, your subjective opinion couldn’t exist as true for you. But then you’d have to admit, it can be true that racism can be right. If you say no, my point is, how is your belief that it’s wrong any more valid than theirs?
If their reality is just as valid as yours, you are not denying the statement “racism can be right.” You can’t deny it, otherwise your own opinion would cease to be valid. Therefore, your own view is illusory. If it’s illusory, why do you believe it?
@@lovespeaks777
Morality cannot be objective. Morality is an idea.
And only subjects can have ideas, find and evaluate anything as good or bad, etc.
To believe that morality is objective is the illusion here.
Instead of saying you are right and I’m wrong, give me arguments. Debunk my argument. Why isn’t it right? What parts were faulty?
@@lovespeaks777
You can pretend that morality is not an idea all you like, it doesn't really matter.
But morality is an idea and a subjects creation, only a subject can find and evaluate anything as good or bad.
To claim the opposite is nonsense.
Capturing Christianity? More like Capsizing Christianity.
@J w c’mon, it was a joke have some fun in your life will ya
All morality is subjective in the largest sense.
Morality is nothing more than the social contract between members of a society, usually expressed in law, culture and custom.
This is why what is considered moral varies between cultures and within cultures over time.
An example would be slavery in the United States. At one time it was a widespread practice that carried no social stigma and was supported by law.
Now, not so much.
Saying that morality is objective assumes an objective standard, which always boils down to someone imposing their subjective standards on others.
It's so funny to me how every religious argument is so obviously silly. I wish I could get in the head of a Christian just long enough to understand how they view the world.
comment what you want, try to debunk his arguments
*RELATIVISM:*
(Denies the existence of "all" absolutes")
1- "All things are relative"
2- "Thus, nothing is absolute"
3- "But then... the statement that _all things are relative_ (which is an absolute) cannot be"
And there you go...
Relativism self-contradicts itself, and proves itself to be a fallacious philosophy.
That contradiction only applies to the most extreme kinds of epistemological relativism. Someone can easily accept moral relativism without claiming that no objective truths exists.