damn last time i was here on this channel it was around 700k. 2.1 million subs well deserved i remember when i first started watching back in high school around 20k subs congrats :D
Same, I remember in 2019 when I watched all of his videos in one sitting (there were only like 11 at the time) and thought this guy would just be a faceless Vsauce.
As a child of generations of farmers. 7:20 GMO canola is not resistant to disease, but resistant to a lethal dose of chemical. The other plants die and the gmo lives. Increasing yield. People should know where their food comes from. Glyphosate changed the world
GMO itself might not be bad thing, but the way its control by cooperation is the real threat. farmers used their former own previous year yeild to plant a new crop, but with GMO every year they most buy seeds from the cooperation, imagine in near future when most of natural seeds has been replaced GMO seeds and they cooperation reduce to sell their seed to particular group of people or country. just like your beloved american workup and place sanction on Iran, Sudan, china e.tc if they place those saction on seed export to e,g zimbabwe what will people from those country cultivate?
@@zikirillahiaminu9575 that's just the tip of the iceberg. Monsanto lost a huge lawsuit in EU. But in USA they can sue any farmer who had their GMO seedblown onto his field
I don't want a family and I don't want a house. I'm fine with my Solitude and I'd take a luxury apartment over a house any day, even if they are expensive now. Still less hassle than upkeep on a house, with all the things you need to live a comfortable life.
@@scarygamer7359@voidcheque7019 And I’m in the middle of you two!! I’d love to rent a luxury house on a farm or just in middle of nowhere with just my daughter and I 😂❤
The primary reason for GMO is to make them resistant to GLYPHOSATE. The assumption that we do this. To make stronger plants. What is GMO corn? It is corn resistant to glyphosate. That is the reality
To be fair we've been genetically modifying for millenia. Simply picking out the best seeds and choosing to plant those also modifies genetics down the line in plants
52:46 😂 he’s great! I love the story of him trolling Plato by walking into the lecture with a plucked chicken and declaring: “This is Plato’s man!” as it fit the definition. 😂😂😂
47:00 As a 16 y/o girl who was diagnosed (by a DOCTOR) with Clinical Depression, an anxiety disorder, and Bipolar disorder by the age of 13, I can say I’ve seen so many people fake it. I’ve been dealing with these mental health problems since I was young without even knowing and see people try to relate to me. That’s why I don’t talk about what mental illnesses are actually like, so people who want to fake it are easier to spot because they’re “mental illnesses” is purely based on what they see online. So I don’t talk about what I really go through until someone calls me out for “you just don’t get it”. No, YOU don’t get it.
Hey! I just wanted to tell you how much you amaze me!! You are truly one of the most intelligent humans out there!! Your videos are amazing!! YOU are amazing!! Hope you are proud of yourself 🙂
I watch and like most of Apertures' videos as well but its a business not a person. It is simply for monitary gain with mostly AI generated or reused content.
And the cool thing about humanity is that we can take coherent information and download it to our own perceptions and knowledge and become as familiar as the teacher in a fraction of the time it took them to study and discover these things. Learn something new everyday.
I believe that the person creating content for Aperture is an intelligent individual. The channel is their business and reflects their intentions. If it were solely AI-generated content, it wouldn't have as many dedicated viewers who see Aperture as distinct from other philosophical channels. Just a thought.
@@itsfnaliens9901 Its a team of people who work together to put ocntent together, most of the thumbnails and video content used is AI generated. Im just saying that the initial comment was wrong. I still like this content
I will die on this hill. 100% money can buy happiness. You have so much more time and opportunity than someone who’s still working for something 20 steps behind you. If you can’t acknowledge that then that’s on your ego
Maybe temporarily but as a being prone to decay and desire, your sense of satisfaction isn't immune. Depending on your source for said income, it comes with its own set of responsibilities and stresses. Happiness isn't solely quantifiable in material or chemical output it's a perspective kind of thing which is a brain kind of thing not really a currency kind of thing. But I don't know man, shits lit.
People say "Batman doesn't have any superpowers," but I once heard someone say that's incorrect--in a roundabout way. He has the power of time travel by virtue of having more money than a person could possibly accumulate or spend in a lifetime. In the time that others spend working just to meet their basic needs, if they can meet them this way at all, Wayne/Batman can do combat training, have gadgets made and tested, and prowl the city in search of crime to fight. If time is money, having a lot of money also means you have a lot of time. That said, Bruce Wayne/Batman is notoriously unhappy. This is explained by his parents having been killed and his endless quest for (what he sees as) justice always being out of reach. Studies have shown that money has diminishing returns at a certain point for buying happiness if you define it materially. Once your basic needs are met and you can provide for your family and set up a comfortable retirement, anything beyond that isn't going to bring much more satisfaction, and can even have a reverse effect. And of course money can't fully eliminate the pain of the loss of loved ones or seeing the injustices of the world if you have any empathy. But it can certainly make them more bearable.
literally very telling how no one with wealth depressed ever chooses to subject themselves to extreme poverty, but those in extreme poverty would swap in a heartbeat
By the psychological definition of a psychopath, Delphi is one of the - developing a moral profile by copying the reactions of others to subject matter. Has anyone noticed this?
hedonic adaptation can be avoided theoretically if you keep doing something different that you like and change to a different thing right when it gets stale, u'll continually be happy or drugs... also you can change back to a previously loved but stale thing since once you forget about it for a bit, you can get happy from it again (example, having. a pet around can get stale but you'll always find yourself one day to get happy from seeing a pet)
Evolution as the theory of our creation has all but been discredited and is no longer taught as the primary. It's still considered the "theory of evolution" not the facts.
@anaisnintuition that certain words are bad and shouldn't be said. That you shouldn't question the police or alphabet gangs. That you shouldn't murder, even if that person is a repeated pedophile or murderer.
I believe morality is subjective to one’s self. We “universally” (with exceptions) perceive certain things as immoral, the real question, is what makes those outlines believe their actions are moral, if it’s purely religious and personal belief, or just something instilled in your brain that is specific to you.
I don’t like this argument simply because it doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think morality is subjective the same way the sun isn’t subjective. I think that since we exist just like the sun does and everything else that everything in the universe is part of a code so to speak. The way computers are 1s and 0s I think there is a basic principle the underlys us and everything else. I think of morality like a train that you can be a passenger on. You don’t understand every part of the train and you don’t control where its goes but you can surely hop on board
I agree with you. The big problem with arguments against universals or "everything is subjective" can not be defended universally. "There are no absolutes and no truths" well, is that absolutely true?@tridentninja1244
@@tridentninja1244 Well, realistically. Most of what we perceive as moral are a mixture of evolutionary adaptations we've come to consider taboo because they serve the purpose of preserving ourselves and our tribe. Murder makes us weaker as a unit, incest leads to birth problems and infertility, theft of food (or tools) can reduce your chances of survival. Other, more complex moralities are developed over time as a result of the evolution of society and normalities. And almost always all of these moral normatives are driven by religion, which is a way to conform free thought.
GMOs have many great uses. Xantham gum is made from GMO corn. Xantham gum is used in many processed food products. Xantham gum is also use in baby wipes. Should humans be routinely consuming Xantham gum? How would doing so affect a consumer's body from remaining completely comfortable and fully functional?
The smelly air and breathing through flowers wasn't that far off of getting it right. Unsanitary areas usually smell and breathing through a filter of some kind is something we still do
we will always improve our technology and it will almost certainly lead to our extinction. This will become more and more apparent as our technology advances. In essence I fear we will soon return to fighting in the streets over a loaf of bread and then we will all know that morality is truly relative.
my guy, i'd left hook a dude over a loaf of bread now. bread's expensive you know? a carton of milk, too. i'd fight a group of people in a mcdonald's parking lot for a big mac and a milkshake, honestly. in the future, morality matters as much now as it will a hundred years from now; it'll never go away, because someone, somewhere, will think to themselves that they can talk their way out of a situation, or share their meal with someone else.
I think about this a good bit. The main thing I can justify it is that death doesn’t really matter. I also care about life though and know all being feel life, so tbh I just selfishly turn my cheek and eat my meat. Don’t forget plants are alive too, you just can’t heer them scream or see them run.
I disagree. If you investigate the animal kingdom even casually you'll come across endless amounts of pointless and terrible violence and harm all creatures inflict on each other to survive, and sometimes just for fun. Farming is just the next evolutionary step any advanced species that has evolved in an environment where those who can adapt, survive. Unfortunately, humans evolved to require eating other animals. I think we're the next logical step of any predator, not anything unnatural. While modern production and science has discovered ways that we can reduce the amount of animals we need to consume to stay healthy, it's still very difficult to obtain the correct amount of nutrients we need to survive. Some people... simply do not have that luxury.
1 Co 7:31 Those who use the things in this world should do so but not depend on them. It is clear that this world in its present form is passing away. Eph 6:12 Col 3:6
For some people using marijuana is not enjoyable, rather necessary to remain healthy, safe, or even alive. For some people it is a life changing holistic treatment. It has saved lives; the reason why they changed the policy.
There's more than just equality in the workplace messing with birth rates. Rarely in life is there only one reason for anything. However in stating only one reason doesn't fit your level of objectivity. However it does lead into a rabbit hole So there's that ..
2:07 what came to mind (edited. Gen 1:26-28 so that t𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock ...And God blessed them, and God said unto them, B𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗳𝘂𝗹, and multiply, and 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵 the earth, and 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗱𝘂𝗲 it: 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻 over the fish of. Gen 6:5 He repented he made man .... 1 Co 7:31 and 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁. 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆.
5:22 Just because many are doing something, doesn't make that thing good. Many people would be happier if more options were available, not just by being in a different environment. Also, people must be mature with information to even be able to pick the option that best suits them. The modern fight for "rights" does not help with that, even though in the past it did
The economy of the 23rd century will occur on the same planet which supported the economy of the Neolithic, dark ages and the slaughterhouse of the 20th. We currently choose to allow the outlier beneficiaries to dictate how everyone must live. What is produced. How it is produced, and at what level of toxicity. Restoring Economics as a science is required before humanity may progress in real terms. Redistribution is not required if public value is never relinquished in the first place. It took over a generation to cleanse the last classical economists from history and recast economics into it's overwhelmingly immiserating dictatorship. Monoculture has almost nothing to do with human evolution. It's brand new.
Objective universal morality is not difficult, and it always begins with the self, not a group. In essence it is to do unto others what one would have done unto themselves, AND to NOT do unto others what one would NOT have done unto themselves. When speaking of universal objective morality, concepts such as culture, society, government, country and religion have no place in the discussion as they are neither universal, objective or moral.
Yeah this argument is really easily defeated. This system only functions when people agree what is moral. There are many people who think it is okay to steal, rape, or murder. And have no issue and even expect you to do those things to them in return, for in their worldview that is how the world functions. The strong come out ahead and the weak die.
So if we can't even decide individually if we agree that murder is wrong universally, from where do we divine (no pun intended) what is ultimately wrong. Where do we derive that morality? I see no method or tool to detect that, thus personally, I subscribe to the concept of a subjective morality, and doing my best to persuade others with reasonable argument why that moral system is better for everyone. Personally, my moral system stems primarily from having the freedom to pursue life the way you want to live it, so long as you do not harm others. Everything that follows that has to be a discussion.
I’m a gun rights activist that doesn’t like the constitution. (Figure that one out 😂), but I bring up the change in legal proceedings about marijuana often. It’s a good example of how seriously authority attacks something and then changes their mind about it. Were they wrong before for attacking or are they wrong now for standing down about it?
How much money did Mr beast make from his actions.... Don't get me wrong, but is money/likes/views ( no pun intended) the real reason? Is that ethical?
The cholera outbreak was a result of data visualization. No one could figure it out until they mapped out the sicknesses and they rejected the theory three times before finally shutting off the pump
By your rationale using fire is playing god. Planting food is playing god. Having children is playing god. Breathing air is playing god. Drinking water is playing god. Having a house is playing god. Being born is playing god. Writing a story is playing god. Speaking is playing god. Seeing hearing and feeling sensations is playing god. Washing yourself is playing god. Taking antibiotics is playing god. Walking is playing god. Fishing or eating any food is playing god. Dying is playing god. Your standards are playing god.
lab grown meat requires cattle to be produced. the growth medium is taken from animals. the animals could make more meat than in the lab. nutrient rich broth is the fluid which the animal embryo grows. also the energy required to maintain sanitized conditions are enormous. it will produce MORE green house gasses.
The technologies in it's infancy, and the meat is from an embryo. I'm sure you can get many samples out of an embryo. Right now it's some weird untested thing, but one day if it's ever perfected, people won't have to kill animals to live off meat
I'm all for lab grown meat. Less cruelty in industrial meat processing would be a nice effect. But, yeah, that is a fair point, until science can create that meat as efficiently as an animal converts plant matter to muscle fibres, it's gonna be a bit of a novelty to make PETA types feel better, not a replacement. Gotta start somewhere, though.
The biggest moral dilemma is creating a life/having kids. Most people will argue that having kids is the main purpose of life and no life goal should be without kids in it. Then most if not all of those same people will preach about not being selfish and to consider other's before making a decision that will directly involve another person. Yet, when unpacked it becomes apparent that by definition, brining a life into existence is once again by definition, one of the most selfish things a human can do. Ask someone WHY they have or want kids and 99.9% of the time their response will begin with "I want...". A person is quite literally gambling on another person's life (the life to be created) for something that THEY want. It is somewhat of a paradox to a create a life (which is for selfish reasons as mentioned above) juxtaposed with the required SELFLESSNESS to raise that child and to deal with any handicap it was born with due to the selfish act of creating life for ones own wants and desires.
By this logic if someone said they "want" to dedicate their life to helping others you would consider their acts of helping others to be strictly selfish. To this logic the only way one could be considered selfless would be to help others against their will. Basically you are only considering selflessness to be fufuling compelled obligations rather than any real kindness.
@@gizmogremlin1872 Yes, you are correct. What you’re referring to is altruism. But I don’t think altruism exists. We are ALL selfish. It is how we are able to stay alive. But there are degrees of selfishness. And that degree is dependent on how many victims and the type of victimization being done. In your example of “by using this logic” you claim that helping others because someone wants to is selfish, and you’d be correct. Like I said, everything we do is because we want to to some degree and in some fashion we benefit. But by helping others it’s a no lose type of “selfishness”. All parties involve benefit. No victims. Now let’s look at creating sentient life (humans). Existence comes with terrors, pain, sorrow, and at the end is death (usually unpleasant and painful). So you are creating victims and sentencing them to a lifetime of pain and misery. You can say, “yeah but what about all the good times?”. The good times are only good and are in proportion to the bad. You can’t have good without bad, but you can have bad without good. If you truly care about this subject and idea look into Antinatlism. Furthermore, a person is gambling when they bring life into existence. They don’t know the genetic diseases or abnormalities they are passing down. They don’t know the psychological state of the life they are creating. And they can’t control the world they are bringing them into. What makes it supremely selfish they are gambling on someone else’s life for their own “want”. And for what? So they can have a family? So they can love and be loved? Because they want a “mini me”? A legacy? There is no selfless reason to bring life into existence. Now, caring for and raising a life has many elements of a type of selfLESSnes. But creating life is only selfish. By definition. Make sense?
@@mjfraser04 Only really need to focus on one section of what you said here. "But you can have bad without good" If there is no good to compare the bad to then there wouldn't necessarily be any knowing of the bad. If you lived in near constant extreme pain for instance then any moments of less pain would be comparatively good and a relief. To this good and bad are generally quite relative but you saying that you can have bad without good is strictly subjective and frankly just a pessimistic veiw point. I for instance have many aches and pains, various sorrows and troubles and at times have gone through depression and have experienced much anger and hatred in my time but I basically can't complain about my overall life. I have met people who upon describing large portions of their life I would find their life to be far more stressful, painful, and so own than my own but have a better outlook on their own life than I seem to have on mine. I have likewise known people that seem to have a remarkably charmed life compared to mine but appear to be miserable. Yes in some ways what you said can make some sense in some ways but it's mostly still just illogical thinking. Doing something good for someone else might also make you feel good but that doesn't necessarily make it a selfish act, I for instance do at times do good things for others without that making me feel good, some times it's just a drive to do what...seems like the right thing to do. Yes any bad that happens in one's life could potentially be considered the fault of the parents but but for many life itself is a gift even if the majority of the experience in that life are arguably bad as even having a life to experience is a wonder in itself (not necessarily my veiw per say) In short you are generally focusing on the bad and putting more emphasis on that bad. The end result of life not procreating would be no life at all and on one hand you might conclude that would result in a more neutral position of no good or bad for most the idea of no life at all would be more of a negative (yes definitely a subjective thing mostly) but frankly without life to experience the good or bad of this universe...what's the darn point? And why would and endless void be in any way good with no one to be conscience of it?
Anti-natalism is edgy and cringe. Ask people if they are glad to be alive, the vast majority will say yes. Life may be suffering, but existence is a gift. If you're worried about the welfare of a child, be an adult and properly care for it ffs.
Me too, friend. I suffer from severe keratoconus. At best, I can get a corneal transplant which make prevent my eyesight from getting any worse... for a couple of years. But who can afford that with our current healthcare system?
You're wrong, even if there were a God, morality would still be subjective. It's true, as an atheist/ moral non-cognitivist I cannot say what is objectively wrong (because it's not truth apt), but neither can a theist. Even if there is a God who dictates morality to us, it is still not stance independent, because a) God is a subject and B) there is no objective non-circular reason why we ought to follow his moral system. Theist use a more practical argument; "if you don't objectivise morality, then you have no basis on which to say one particular action is wrong and another one is right". And I agree to an extent, that you can't really make any argument for why one action is right, and one action is wrong. But that doesn't mean you can't make a judgment about the rightness or wrongness of particular actions. Because I believe moral judgemental are ultimately based in moral intuition, it's a non-rational intuition (I don't mean irrational, nor anti-rational, I mean it's something that is separate from reason). And ultimately if you're going convince somebody not to do something that you believe is wrong, you're going to need more than just an argument. Morality can be accounted for empirically. Accounting for it simply means explaining why it exists. You don’t want us to account for morality, you want us to justify morality. I don’t believe that there can be any ultimate, objective, non-circular justification for morality, even if there is a god who dictates that morality. Even if there is a god who gives us moral prescriptions, what is the objective reason we ought to follow them? Is it because God says to? That is pretty circular. Is it because of some principle that ultimately is not based in God? If there is such a principle, then there can be at least one moral principle which does not depend on a god. The empirical sciences can absolutely tell you it’s wrong by the way I define “wrong”. When I say something is wrong, I mean that I will behave in such a way to oppose it. You can empirically test this by observing my behaviour. I don’t say that anything “ought not exist.” I say slavery is wrong, by which I mean I cannot tolerate it, but I don’t think that saying it “ought not exist” has any objective meaning. Even if you believe that it ought not exist because God says so (which he doesn’t, by the way) that is still circular, because the answer to the question “why ought we do what God says” will in one way or another amount to “because God says so.” Evidence of a metaphysical or theological nature still can’t justify “ought” statements. Even if there is a god that makes prescriptions, it simply does not follow that anyone ought to obey them. This is not a logical inference. Also, if moral statements are contingent upon potential states of affairs, you can’t say that I “ought” to oppose gay marriage, for example, because my conscience won’t allow me to do that. Another argument that theists use in favour of objective morality, is that God created the universe, he laid down certain rules, therefore they are objective. Let's say that there is a god, and he did create the universe with specific rules. Why does that make them objective? If God created the universe, and put rules in that universe, why objectively ought we follow them? Then sometimes they'll say, "well, because if you don't follow them, he'll send you to hell". But then you have to ask, why objectively ought I be concerned with going to hell? Well, because you'll suffer for all of eternity, and I think that doesn't sound very nice, I don't like the idea of that, but why objectively ought I not like the idea of that? Why objectively ought I be concerned about my own suffering? Also, this does not really make morality objective, because what does objective mean? Something is objective if its existence is independent of conscious. Something is subjective if insofar as its existence is dependent on consciousness. Something is objective only insofar as it could continue to exist even if all consciousness in the universe were eliminated. Now if we think of God, as a conscious mind, then morality comes from that consciousness, which is subjective. Why ought we obey God’s commands? “Because one of Gods commands is to obey God’s commands = Because we ought to obey God’s commands!” Which is circular. Even if there were an objective morality, it is not body armour. It achieves nothing. That is just the brutal reality. Fundamentally, every person’s behaviour boils down to doing what they want or don't want to do in the light of consequences they expect to create from their actions, whether those consequences are physical; going to jail, psychological; guilt, spiritual; going to hell. This is a scary thing to realize. That everyone's around us is really just doing whatever they want. It's simply just good fortune that most of the people around us happen to want similar things. This realization does kind of feel like having the floor fall from under you, but that's just the reality of human behaviour. In practice, we are all forward-thinking hedonistic consequentialist. This may not be the right way for humans to behave, it may not be how we should behave, according to any particular moral framework. But this is the only way we can behave. This is just how people are, regardless of your beliefs or religion. This just leads you to Euthyphro's “Trilemma”; Does God command something because it is good or is something good because God commands it? If God, commands something because it is good. He is appealing to a higher standard, which would make the standard of morality external to him. If something is good because God commands it, morality is subject to God’s arbitrary preference, and would make morality subjective. Apologists answer the dilemma with a third option; goodness is God's nature. It's not something he creates or appeals to, it's something he is, therefore not external or subjective. It's not actually a third option at all. The basic Euthyphro problem arises again just in different terms; does God have control over his nature, or does God's nature have control over him? Could God alter his nature if he chose to, or is his nature unalterable? If we choose the first option, God decides his nature and in so doing, he's deciding what is good and what is not, making morality arbitrary and subjective. Based solely on the caprice of how God decides to choose his nature. If we choose the second option; that God has no control over his nature. Set aside the problem that this is problematic for the claim ‘God is Omnipotent’. If we choose that option, then something other than God, is dictating what God's nature is, ultimately making this external force independent from God, and the true ground of morality. God is just the unnecessary arbiter. This is ignoring the fact, that Yahweh committed/ commanded 7 genocides/ infanticide, condoned slavery, rape, homophobia, sexism and racism etc. Not to mention condemns people to eternal suffering for simply, not knowing he exists, despite the fact he knows what it would take to convince and save everyone, and decides not to. And ignoring, that free will is incoherent under any definition. As things are either determined by prior cause (cause and effect), or random (quantum indeterminacy)/ a mixture of both, in either way, we do not control. E.g., He knew everything about Satan and what that specific arrangement of particles (it doesn't matter he's nonmaterial, but whatever he is) called "Satan" would do before he created him, and still decided to make Satan the specific way he was which resulted in him doing exactly what he did. You cannot blame a car for being faulty, if an engineer beforehand purposely created a faulty car, knowing he could have done otherwise. Therefore, God knew and purposely designed Satan to rebel, everything is Gods fault, including evil. God could have altered him so he wouldn't rebel. He's omnipotent so he could have, and omnibenevolent so would have. But he didn't, therefore God wanted Satan to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all suffering and is malevolent. And if every variant of Satan was “freely” evil regardless of how you designed him, then God shouldn't have created Satan to begin with. There were angels like Michael Demiurges that knew and did not rebel that he could have replaced him with or just leave blank.
well damn, i did not think this video was going to invoke such feelings, oof! i need a second to collect myself before this well thought out comment that im not going to leave 😂😂 I'll probably drive myself crazy! But i will say this, please be kind to people, i know it can be hard to be nice all the time, but can we please be kind to each other ❤ love you world!!
If a person does nothing is that also playing God. These moral thought experiments have to cut both ways. I'll hop aboard the Batman quote train by saying it's not about what we want it's about what's fair.
Laws are to a consensus what morals are to opinions. It’s all arbitrarily decided. The point of life is the purpose we assign to it; morals are those points which we’ve decided for ourselves. You can’t objectify an abstract concept, and that is precisely what laws and religions attempt to do.
Religion is unethical. You are simultaneously saying "I don't believe in scientific facts." And "I rather live in a fantasy world than face my own mortality." Religion has only brought pain and suffering to the world. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant or lying. Nearly every major war throughout history has been caused by religious leaders exploiting the masses. My favorite quote is one my father said to me when I was a teenager. He said, "Surely your religion is the right one because if you were born in India, you would still be a Christian." He was implying the concept of proximity. Had a Christian been born in India, they would be just as certain of their faith in Hindu. Thus, your religious beliefs are just a product of where you are born. Christianity,Buddhism,Islamic faiths, and all the other religions are just competing companies trying to recruit you for their own gain.
Only brought pain and suffering.... no mention of the sense of community and purpose there.... how do you expect people to take you seriously??? I have a lot to say about religion but to claim they only brought pain and suffering is pure insanity to me.
What will the farmers do ? get a different job, people lose their jobs all the time. It's not gonna be easy obviously, but that's what happened with most factory workers too.
I reject your premise that there is a god, so... yeah, I guess that's where I'd start. ⚛️♥️♾️ "To live is to suffer. To survive is to find some meaning in the suffering." -Friedrich Nietzsche
Haha if the average person in society does not stop the cycle of exploitation of each other does this really matter haha..... Societal exploitation....person to person does not end we see it will end temporarily when there is nothing for the average person in society has nothing to exploit
Subjective, or objective morality? From where I'm standing, the gazelle is not a beneficiary of any innate understanding of morality that the lion has, only those lions with whom socialize with each other. Tribal morality.
The stretching of social services is a purely political and economic choice. We choose to increase the wealth of a tiny number of people, at the expense of everyone else; it is not a natural law.
No matter who you are, there is only one thing to consider. When you're about to cross beyond the void veil... Reflect carefully. "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." --Diamond Dragons (Armageddon's Ballad) 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
The very reson why things happen is because they are allowd to happen. That includes outlandish accusations, FreeWill and "I" told you sos. Human beings do not need any help learnig the hard way, taking reponsibility, selfdeception or wanting to rule the world and one another.
Criticizing NASA’s tiny budget is such a pathetic take lmfao there’s PLENTY of other areas national budget is used for that is infinitely worse than scientific knowledge lol
There is so such things as playing god. We don’t even know if there is even a god. It shouldn’t even be called playing god. It is our responsibility as humans to create better living conditions for ourselves which is why we have the ability to do these things for ourselves. That’s why we are able to do these things. The things we we want to do and are able to do, we do them to the best we can. But there are some things that we will never be able be able to Do and we won’t be able to do. And thats it.
We aren't playing God. God gifted us with a brain to learn. Deciding we are "better" than using God's gift is an insult to ourselves, and I would imagine it's an insult to God too. Astaghfirullah. HARAM
And if you're interested in Nihilism, then I invite you to look into Existentialism and then I invite you to look into Absurdism. I know it's a lot of looking into things. Nihilism may be the bottom but it is NOT the end.
We can talk about world dilemmas without eliciting God ? It’s crazy to me because there is no God! we can discuss the moral ramifications. Why are we acting as if there was a God he would be anyone to judge morality
"If God exists, I want him to tell me himself. I don't want to hear it from anybody else - and in case you're wondering, that includes you." - Pat Condell -
That’s not how it works. Seek and ye shall find. It’s a gift, known as grace. You have to receive it. Start by learning about how Jesus lived. If you truly want to know him. Unfortunately humans have distorted Christianity mainly Christians. It’s a relationship between you and him. We come to know God through him. If we want to. It’s free-will. But if you don’t care to know the truth, and put in the work. He rarely reveals himself to a non believer.
@jayslice76 How does that make sense ?? If you don’t believe wouldn’t that give him more incentive to show you and help you?? I never understood that I was always taught that god was love and compassion so regardless of what people said he loved them all the same but if someone is in darkness and asking for a light why wouldn’t he tell them he’s there ?
Seems this is the NEW TO DO. Be a Motivating Positive Helping Person...for $$$ real Motivating Positive Helping, people have been doing it for years, only one who got it right at the start was Jesus...but money grubbers ruined him too for a buck....shit they tortured his ass... World is a giant manipulation game I'm starting to feel and if you don't play well....🤔
Hmm... The defintion from oxford dictionary says other wise... eth·ic noun a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct. "the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic" adjectiveRARE relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. "the ethic question is of wider import" So... Yeah... It ethics are morals. What you going on about?
To be more semantic, tou cant have morals without having an ethic, to even attempt to have a moral without an ethic. Would be using an ethic.... Etymology may help you in the future
@@SelfPoisonBand Ethics are created by a group or a society, based on shared moral principles. Individuals may follow them or not. Moral principles are personal. They belong to the individual and are not necessarily shared by a group or society. That’s what I’m going on about.
@@auntiethetical And your point runs a full circle when you are running on a cognitive distortion, that is somehow making a "group or society" not personal? Sure, the hypothesis of ethics is nice and dandy on paper. In reality it can't be applied without people, so at the root of all ethics must contain personal morals. There is no separation (beyond the cognitive distortion of detachment and separation from the personal and ideals), morals and ethics are in fact interchangeable, and your moral subset view vs. my moral subset view, is causing us to explain different means through our own ethics. Yet I am aware of the cognitive distortion, and am having my own trying to explain it to you. I can see the paradox. Can you?
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
damn last time i was here on this channel it was around 700k.
2.1 million subs well deserved i remember when i first started watching back in high school around 20k subs congrats :D
legit same, watching him grow is like watching my son win xD😂🎉
Same, I remember in 2019 when I watched all of his videos in one sitting (there were only like 11 at the time) and thought this guy would just be a faceless Vsauce.
Thanks!
As a child of generations of farmers. 7:20 GMO canola is not resistant to disease, but resistant to a lethal dose of chemical. The other plants die and the gmo lives. Increasing yield. People should know where their food comes from. Glyphosate changed the world
What a strange predicament we have gotten ourselves into
GMO itself might not be bad thing, but the way its control by cooperation is the real threat. farmers used their former own previous year yeild to plant a new crop, but with GMO every year they most buy seeds from the cooperation, imagine in near future when most of natural seeds has been replaced GMO seeds and they cooperation reduce to sell their seed to particular group of people or country. just like your beloved american workup and place sanction on Iran, Sudan, china e.tc if they place those saction on seed export to e,g zimbabwe what will people from those country cultivate?
@@zikirillahiaminu9575and
@@zikirillahiaminu9575 that's just the tip of the iceberg. Monsanto lost a huge lawsuit in EU. But in USA they can sue any farmer who had their GMO seedblown onto his field
this is exactly what I’ve been saying every concept you discussed. Oh my gosh finally
I believe whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you...stranger.
Life will kill you. Good luck.
@@SourcepowaOkay, but the saying still stands?
@@rivman2756people just talk just to talk nowadays. They don't care if they have a positive impact or not.
Microplastics, red 40, and artificial sugars give me strength
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻 stand a little taller⛰️🗻😣
I was thinking, as he says average age expentancy was 29 yo in the 1800s, and now at that age most of us still don’t have our own house/family
I don't want a family and I don't want a house. I'm fine with my Solitude and I'd take a luxury apartment over a house any day, even if they are expensive now. Still less hassle than upkeep on a house, with all the things you need to live a comfortable life.
@voidcheque7019 it's wild, to me, that sounds like hell. I'd take a small house that I own (preferably on a farm/ranch) over renting my entire life.
@@scarygamer7359@voidcheque7019
And I’m in the middle of you two!! I’d love to rent a luxury house on a farm or just in middle of nowhere with just my daughter and I 😂❤
It's because of infant mortality bringing averages down, people lived a long then as well.
Diogenes was a vibe. He had that crackhead energy.
Who
@@datastructure59 Google his name. He was a very interesting fellow.
The primary reason for GMO is to make them resistant to GLYPHOSATE. The assumption that we do this. To make stronger plants. What is GMO corn? It is corn resistant to glyphosate. That is the reality
buttt GMO can be used to make bad plants. Genetically modifying food open's a door that we have barely peaked through
To be fair we've been genetically modifying for millenia. Simply picking out the best seeds and choosing to plant those also modifies genetics down the line in plants
The reality is we are dumping large quantities into our living environment to push out the plants we want and help keep the plants we do want.
Idiots poison their future hoping they will have a solution for the problems they cause today, but they never do.
52:46 😂 he’s great! I love the story of him trolling Plato by walking into the lecture with a plucked chicken and declaring: “This is Plato’s man!” as it fit the definition. 😂😂😂
good
Ha! Jokes on you, I don’t have morals 😀
47:00 As a 16 y/o girl who was diagnosed (by a DOCTOR) with Clinical Depression, an anxiety disorder, and Bipolar disorder by the age of 13, I can say I’ve seen so many people fake it. I’ve been dealing with these mental health problems since I was young without even knowing and see
people try to relate to me. That’s why I don’t talk about what mental illnesses are actually like, so people who want to fake it are easier to spot because they’re “mental illnesses” is purely based on what they see online. So I don’t talk about what I really go through until someone calls me out for “you just don’t get it”.
No, YOU don’t get it.
Hey! I just wanted to tell you how much you amaze me!! You are truly one of the most intelligent humans out there!! Your videos are amazing!! YOU are amazing!! Hope you are proud of yourself 🙂
I watch and like most of Apertures' videos as well but its a business not a person. It is simply for monitary gain with mostly AI generated or reused content.
@@RyNite Isn't it just one person..? With AI driven imagery.
And the cool thing about humanity is that we can take coherent information and download it to our own perceptions and knowledge and become as familiar as the teacher in a fraction of the time it took them to study and discover these things. Learn something new everyday.
I believe that the person creating content for Aperture is an intelligent individual. The channel is their business and reflects their intentions. If it were solely AI-generated content, it wouldn't have as many dedicated viewers who see Aperture as distinct from other philosophical channels. Just a thought.
@@itsfnaliens9901 Its a team of people who work together to put ocntent together, most of the thumbnails and video content used is AI generated. Im just saying that the initial comment was wrong. I still like this content
I will die on this hill. 100% money can buy happiness. You have so much more time and opportunity than someone who’s still working for something 20 steps behind you. If you can’t acknowledge that then that’s on your ego
Maybe temporarily but as a being prone to decay and desire, your sense of satisfaction isn't immune. Depending on your source for said income, it comes with its own set of responsibilities and stresses. Happiness isn't solely quantifiable in material or chemical output it's a perspective kind of thing which is a brain kind of thing not really a currency kind of thing. But I don't know man, shits lit.
People say "Batman doesn't have any superpowers," but I once heard someone say that's incorrect--in a roundabout way. He has the power of time travel by virtue of having more money than a person could possibly accumulate or spend in a lifetime. In the time that others spend working just to meet their basic needs, if they can meet them this way at all, Wayne/Batman can do combat training, have gadgets made and tested, and prowl the city in search of crime to fight. If time is money, having a lot of money also means you have a lot of time.
That said, Bruce Wayne/Batman is notoriously unhappy. This is explained by his parents having been killed and his endless quest for (what he sees as) justice always being out of reach. Studies have shown that money has diminishing returns at a certain point for buying happiness if you define it materially. Once your basic needs are met and you can provide for your family and set up a comfortable retirement, anything beyond that isn't going to bring much more satisfaction, and can even have a reverse effect. And of course money can't fully eliminate the pain of the loss of loved ones or seeing the injustices of the world if you have any empathy. But it can certainly make them more bearable.
It can, just not for everyone.
literally very telling how no one with wealth depressed ever chooses to subject themselves to extreme poverty, but those in extreme poverty would swap in a heartbeat
Yup money can indeed buy things like security, safety, better Healthcare, and opportunities. All that tends to bring happiness.❤
By the psychological definition of a psychopath, Delphi is one of the - developing a moral profile by copying the reactions of others to subject matter. Has anyone noticed this?
I watch your videos because your voice is so monotone it helps me sleep at night
Aperture stop trying to turn me into a philosopher in my sleep, i will never be one of those dorks
hedonic adaptation can be avoided
theoretically if you keep doing something different that you like and change to a different thing right when it gets stale, u'll continually be happy
or drugs...
also you can change back to a previously loved but stale thing since once you forget about it for a bit, you can get happy from it again (example, having. a pet around can get stale but you'll always find yourself one day to get happy from seeing a pet)
How can i find a crispr doctor??
Become a scientist 🥼
UK!
Be rich.
We're all just lucky to be here. If an Astroid hadn't slammed into the Yucatan penacal,we wouldn't exist. It's called Evolution!
Evolution doesn’t exist
Hand of God
Evolution as the theory of our creation has all but been discredited and is no longer taught as the primary.
It's still considered the "theory of evolution" not the facts.
The earth is flat. We live on the plane of inertia also know as planet earth
@@billismagillisget off the drugs it’s not doing u any good
Morals= your personal belief system based on experience...ethics=societies laws and belief. Often based on propaganda from the elite. Big difference.
What ethics are propaganda
@anaisnintuition that certain words are bad and shouldn't be said. That you shouldn't question the police or alphabet gangs. That you shouldn't murder, even if that person is a repeated pedophile or murderer.
Ah yes, Dr. John Snow ...he didn't want to he the one who helped discover Germ Theory...but this precisely why we needed him.
I believe morality is subjective to one’s self. We “universally” (with exceptions) perceive certain things as immoral, the real question, is what makes those outlines believe their actions are moral, if it’s purely religious and personal belief, or just something instilled in your brain that is specific to you.
Both and on different levels for each person.
I don’t like this argument simply because it doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think morality is subjective the same way the sun isn’t subjective. I think that since we exist just like the sun does and everything else that everything in the universe is part of a code so to speak. The way computers are 1s and 0s I think there is a basic principle the underlys us and everything else. I think of morality like a train that you can be a passenger on. You don’t understand every part of the train and you don’t control where its goes but you can surely hop on board
I agree with you. The big problem with arguments against universals or "everything is subjective" can not be defended universally. "There are no absolutes and no truths" well, is that absolutely true?@tridentninja1244
@@tridentninja1244 Well, realistically. Most of what we perceive as moral are a mixture of evolutionary adaptations we've come to consider taboo because they serve the purpose of preserving ourselves and our tribe. Murder makes us weaker as a unit, incest leads to birth problems and infertility, theft of food (or tools) can reduce your chances of survival. Other, more complex moralities are developed over time as a result of the evolution of society and normalities. And almost always all of these moral normatives are driven by religion, which is a way to conform free thought.
GMOs have many great uses. Xantham gum is made from GMO corn. Xantham gum is used in many processed food products. Xantham gum is also use in baby wipes. Should humans be routinely consuming Xantham gum? How would doing so affect a consumer's body from remaining completely comfortable and fully functional?
The smelly air and breathing through flowers wasn't that far off of getting it right. Unsanitary areas usually smell and breathing through a filter of some kind is something we still do
we will always improve our technology and it will almost certainly lead to our extinction. This will become more and more apparent as our technology advances. In essence I fear we will soon return to fighting in the streets over a loaf of bread and then we will all know that morality is truly relative.
my guy, i'd left hook a dude over a loaf of bread now. bread's expensive you know? a carton of milk, too. i'd fight a group of people in a mcdonald's parking lot for a big mac and a milkshake, honestly. in the future, morality matters as much now as it will a hundred years from now; it'll never go away, because someone, somewhere, will think to themselves that they can talk their way out of a situation, or share their meal with someone else.
Nothing represents more humans trying to play God than what we do to animals by farming them.
I think about this a good bit. The main thing I can justify it is that death doesn’t really matter. I also care about life though and know all being feel life, so tbh I just selfishly turn my cheek and eat my meat. Don’t forget plants are alive too, you just can’t heer them scream or see them run.
I disagree. If you investigate the animal kingdom even casually you'll come across endless amounts of pointless and terrible violence and harm all creatures inflict on each other to survive, and sometimes just for fun. Farming is just the next evolutionary step any advanced species that has evolved in an environment where those who can adapt, survive. Unfortunately, humans evolved to require eating other animals. I think we're the next logical step of any predator, not anything unnatural. While modern production and science has discovered ways that we can reduce the amount of animals we need to consume to stay healthy, it's still very difficult to obtain the correct amount of nutrients we need to survive. Some people... simply do not have that luxury.
Can't have moral dilemmas when you're morally bankrupt.🎉
1 Co 7:31 Those who use the things in this world should do so but not depend on them. It is clear that this world in its present form is passing away. Eph 6:12 Col 3:6
So glad I found this channel
YOUR CORRECT...So is that 10X Conference with Cardone watch out for that one made for people who have an extra $10,000.
For some people using marijuana is not enjoyable, rather necessary to remain healthy, safe, or even alive. For some people it is a life changing holistic treatment. It has saved lives; the reason why they changed the policy.
Started off so good... then suddenly it turned into a investment and business building video.
There's more than just equality in the workplace messing with birth rates. Rarely in life is there only one reason for anything. However in stating only one reason doesn't fit your level of objectivity. However it does lead into a rabbit hole So there's that ..
I blame Religion, Ignorance, Capitalism, Culture and Pride for all our problems really as this totally have ruined our collective moral as a species.
how has capitalism and religion ruined our collective moral? (asking for a friend)
2:07 what came to mind (edited. Gen 1:26-28 so that t𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock ...And God blessed them, and God said unto them, B𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗳𝘂𝗹, and multiply, and 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵 the earth, and 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗱𝘂𝗲 it: 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻 over the fish of. Gen 6:5 He repented he made man .... 1 Co 7:31 and 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁. 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆.
5:22 Just because many are doing something, doesn't make that thing good. Many people would be happier if more options were available, not just by being in a different environment. Also, people must be mature with information to even be able to pick the option that best suits them.
The modern fight for "rights" does not help with that, even though in the past it did
The economy of the 23rd century will occur on the same planet which supported the economy of the Neolithic, dark ages and the slaughterhouse of the 20th. We currently choose to allow the outlier beneficiaries to dictate how everyone must live. What is produced. How it is produced, and at what level of toxicity.
Restoring Economics as a science is required before humanity may progress in real terms. Redistribution is not required if public value is never relinquished in the first place. It took over a generation to cleanse the last classical economists from history and recast economics into it's overwhelmingly immiserating dictatorship.
Monoculture has almost nothing to do with human evolution. It's brand new.
Great information, thank you
Objective universal morality is not difficult, and it always begins with the self, not a group. In essence it is to do unto others what one would have done unto themselves, AND to NOT do unto others what one would NOT have done unto themselves. When speaking of universal objective morality, concepts such as culture, society, government, country and religion have no place in the discussion as they are neither universal, objective or moral.
so murder suicide is ok, is what you're saying?
@@dagirlwid Great point. I was just going to bring up my addiction to masachism but yours is better.
Yeah this argument is really easily defeated. This system only functions when people agree what is moral. There are many people who think it is okay to steal, rape, or murder. And have no issue and even expect you to do those things to them in return, for in their worldview that is how the world functions. The strong come out ahead and the weak die.
So if we can't even decide individually if we agree that murder is wrong universally, from where do we divine (no pun intended) what is ultimately wrong. Where do we derive that morality? I see no method or tool to detect that, thus personally, I subscribe to the concept of a subjective morality, and doing my best to persuade others with reasonable argument why that moral system is better for everyone. Personally, my moral system stems primarily from having the freedom to pursue life the way you want to live it, so long as you do not harm others. Everything that follows that has to be a discussion.
I’m a gun rights activist that doesn’t like the constitution. (Figure that one out 😂), but I bring up the change in legal proceedings about marijuana often. It’s a good example of how seriously authority attacks something and then changes their mind about it. Were they wrong before for attacking or are they wrong now for standing down about it?
That’s a rhetorical question because I know they were always wrong.
How much money did Mr beast make from his actions.... Don't get me wrong, but is money/likes/views ( no pun intended) the real reason?
Is that ethical?
Ethical but not altruistic.
Industrialized farming is completely different than regenerative farming.
The cholera outbreak was a result of data visualization. No one could figure it out until they mapped out the sicknesses and they rejected the theory three times before finally shutting off the pump
15!28 cheating on a test is a crime?
Perhaps if you consider doing your taxes a test
By your rationale using fire is playing god. Planting food is playing god. Having children is playing god. Breathing air is playing god. Drinking water is playing god. Having a house is playing god. Being born is playing god. Writing a story is playing god. Speaking is playing god. Seeing hearing and feeling sensations is playing god. Washing yourself is playing god. Taking antibiotics is playing god. Walking is playing god. Fishing or eating any food is playing god. Dying is playing god.
Your standards are playing god.
lab grown meat requires cattle to be produced. the growth medium is taken from animals. the animals could make more meat than in the lab. nutrient rich broth is the fluid which the animal embryo grows. also the energy required to maintain sanitized conditions are enormous. it will produce MORE green house gasses.
The technologies in it's infancy, and the meat is from an embryo. I'm sure you can get many samples out of an embryo. Right now it's some weird untested thing, but one day if it's ever perfected, people won't have to kill animals to live off meat
I'm all for lab grown meat. Less cruelty in industrial meat processing would be a nice effect. But, yeah, that is a fair point, until science can create that meat as efficiently as an animal converts plant matter to muscle fibres, it's gonna be a bit of a novelty to make PETA types feel better, not a replacement. Gotta start somewhere, though.
My brain ist already broken but nice try :D
Aperture your voice ist Like Candy i swear
The biggest moral dilemma is creating a life/having kids. Most people will argue that having kids is the main purpose of life and no life goal should be without kids in it. Then most if not all of those same people will preach about not being selfish and to consider other's before making a decision that will directly involve another person. Yet, when unpacked it becomes apparent that by definition, brining a life into existence is once again by definition, one of the most selfish things a human can do. Ask someone WHY they have or want kids and 99.9% of the time their response will begin with "I want...". A person is quite literally gambling on another person's life (the life to be created) for something that THEY want. It is somewhat of a paradox to a create a life (which is for selfish reasons as mentioned above) juxtaposed with the required SELFLESSNESS to raise that child and to deal with any handicap it was born with due to the selfish act of creating life for ones own wants and desires.
What? This don’t make no sense. What was the point of evolving to reproduction if it was a selfish act?
By this logic if someone said they "want" to dedicate their life to helping others you would consider their acts of helping others to be strictly selfish.
To this logic the only way one could be considered selfless would be to help others against their will.
Basically you are only considering selflessness to be fufuling compelled obligations rather than any real kindness.
@@gizmogremlin1872 Yes, you are correct. What you’re referring to is altruism. But I don’t think altruism exists. We are ALL selfish. It is how we are able to stay alive.
But there are degrees of selfishness. And that degree is dependent on how many victims and the type of victimization being done. In your example of “by using this logic” you claim that helping others because someone wants to is selfish, and you’d be correct. Like I said, everything we do is because we want to to some degree and in some fashion we benefit. But by helping others it’s a no lose type of “selfishness”. All parties involve benefit. No victims.
Now let’s look at creating sentient life (humans). Existence comes with terrors, pain, sorrow, and at the end is death (usually unpleasant and painful). So you are creating victims and sentencing them to a lifetime of pain and misery. You can say, “yeah but what about all the good times?”. The good times are only good and are in proportion to the bad. You can’t have good without bad, but you can have bad without good. If you truly care about this subject and idea look into Antinatlism.
Furthermore, a person is gambling when they bring life into existence. They don’t know the genetic diseases or abnormalities they are passing down. They don’t know the psychological state of the life they are creating. And they can’t control the world they are bringing them into. What makes it supremely selfish they are gambling on someone else’s life for their own “want”. And for what? So they can have a family? So they can love and be loved? Because they want a “mini me”? A legacy? There is no selfless reason to bring life into existence. Now, caring for and raising a life has many elements of a type of selfLESSnes. But creating life is only selfish. By definition.
Make sense?
@@mjfraser04
Only really need to focus on one section of what you said here.
"But you can have bad without good"
If there is no good to compare the bad to then there wouldn't necessarily be any knowing of the bad.
If you lived in near constant extreme pain for instance then any moments of less pain would be comparatively good and a relief.
To this good and bad are generally quite relative but you saying that you can have bad without good is strictly subjective and frankly just a pessimistic veiw point.
I for instance have many aches and pains, various sorrows and troubles and at times have gone through depression and have experienced much anger and hatred in my time but I basically can't complain about my overall life.
I have met people who upon describing large portions of their life I would find their life to be far more stressful, painful, and so own than my own but have a better outlook on their own life than I seem to have on mine. I have likewise known people that seem to have a remarkably charmed life compared to mine but appear to be miserable.
Yes in some ways what you said can make some sense in some ways but it's mostly still just illogical thinking. Doing something good for someone else might also make you feel good but that doesn't necessarily make it a selfish act, I for instance do at times do good things for others without that making me feel good, some times it's just a drive to do what...seems like the right thing to do.
Yes any bad that happens in one's life could potentially be considered the fault of the parents but but for many life itself is a gift even if the majority of the experience in that life are arguably bad as even having a life to experience is a wonder in itself (not necessarily my veiw per say)
In short you are generally focusing on the bad and putting more emphasis on that bad. The end result of life not procreating would be no life at all and on one hand you might conclude that would result in a more neutral position of no good or bad for most the idea of no life at all would be more of a negative (yes definitely a subjective thing mostly) but frankly without life to experience the good or bad of this universe...what's the darn point? And why would and endless void be in any way good with no one to be conscience of it?
Anti-natalism is edgy and cringe. Ask people if they are glad to be alive, the vast majority will say yes. Life may be suffering, but existence is a gift. If you're worried about the welfare of a child, be an adult and properly care for it ffs.
As a guy going blind rn from a condition with no cure, the start of this video, I felt dat 🪦.
Me too, friend. I suffer from severe keratoconus. At best, I can get a corneal transplant which make prevent my eyesight from getting any worse... for a couple of years. But who can afford that with our current healthcare system?
You're wrong, even if there were a God, morality would still be subjective. It's true, as an atheist/ moral non-cognitivist I cannot say what is objectively wrong (because it's not truth apt), but neither can a theist. Even if there is a God who dictates morality to us, it is still not stance independent, because a) God is a subject and B) there is no objective non-circular reason why we ought to follow his moral system.
Theist use a more practical argument; "if you don't objectivise morality, then you have no basis on which to say one particular action is wrong and another one is right". And I agree to an extent, that you can't really make any argument for why one action is right, and one action is wrong. But that doesn't mean you can't make a judgment about the rightness or wrongness of particular actions. Because I believe moral judgemental are ultimately based in moral intuition, it's a non-rational intuition (I don't mean irrational, nor anti-rational, I mean it's something that is separate from reason). And ultimately if you're going convince somebody not to do something that you believe is wrong, you're going to need more than just an argument.
Morality can be accounted for empirically. Accounting for it simply means explaining why it exists. You don’t want us to account for morality, you want us to justify morality. I don’t believe that there can be any ultimate, objective, non-circular justification for morality, even if there is a god who dictates that morality. Even if there is a god who gives us moral prescriptions, what is the objective reason we ought to follow them? Is it because God says to? That is pretty circular. Is it because of some principle that ultimately is not based in God? If there is such a principle, then there can be at least one moral principle which does not depend on a god.
The empirical sciences can absolutely tell you it’s wrong by the way I define “wrong”. When I say something is wrong, I mean that I will behave in such a way to oppose it. You can empirically test this by observing my behaviour. I don’t say that anything “ought not exist.” I say slavery is wrong, by which I mean I cannot tolerate it, but I don’t think that saying it “ought not exist” has any objective meaning. Even if you believe that it ought not exist because God says so (which he doesn’t, by the way) that is still circular, because the answer to the question “why ought we do what God says” will in one way or another amount to “because God says so.” Evidence of a metaphysical or theological nature still can’t justify “ought” statements. Even if there is a god that makes prescriptions, it simply does not follow that anyone ought to obey them. This is not a logical inference. Also, if moral statements are contingent upon potential states of affairs, you can’t say that I “ought” to oppose gay marriage, for example, because my conscience won’t allow me to do that.
Another argument that theists use in favour of objective morality, is that God created the universe, he laid down certain rules, therefore they are objective. Let's say that there is a god, and he did create the universe with specific rules. Why does that make them objective? If God created the universe, and put rules in that universe, why objectively ought we follow them? Then sometimes they'll say, "well, because if you don't follow them, he'll send you to hell". But then you have to ask, why objectively ought I be concerned with going to hell? Well, because you'll suffer for all of eternity, and I think that doesn't sound very nice, I don't like the idea of that, but why objectively ought I not like the idea of that? Why objectively ought I be concerned about my own suffering? Also, this does not really make morality objective, because what does objective mean? Something is objective if its existence is independent of conscious. Something is subjective if insofar as its existence is dependent on consciousness. Something is objective only insofar as it could continue to exist even if all consciousness in the universe were eliminated.
Now if we think of God, as a conscious mind, then morality comes from that consciousness, which is subjective.
Why ought we obey God’s commands?
“Because one of Gods commands is to obey God’s commands = Because we ought to obey God’s commands!” Which is circular.
Even if there were an objective morality, it is not body armour. It achieves nothing.
That is just the brutal reality. Fundamentally, every person’s behaviour boils down to doing what they want or don't want to do in the light of consequences they expect to create from their actions, whether those consequences are physical; going to jail, psychological; guilt, spiritual; going to hell. This is a scary thing to realize. That everyone's around us is really just doing whatever they want. It's simply just good fortune that most of the people around us happen to want similar things. This realization does kind of feel like having the floor fall from under you, but that's just the reality of human behaviour. In practice, we are all forward-thinking hedonistic consequentialist. This may not be the right way for humans to behave, it may not be how we should behave, according to any particular moral framework. But this is the only way we can behave. This is just how people are, regardless of your beliefs or religion.
This just leads you to Euthyphro's “Trilemma”; Does God command something because it is good or is something good because God commands it?
If God, commands something because it is good. He is appealing to a higher standard, which would make the standard of morality external to him.
If something is good because God commands it, morality is subject to God’s arbitrary preference, and would make morality subjective.
Apologists answer the dilemma with a third option; goodness is God's nature. It's not something he creates or appeals to, it's something he is, therefore not external or subjective.
It's not actually a third option at all. The basic Euthyphro problem arises again just in different terms; does God have control over his nature, or does God's nature have control over him? Could God alter his nature if he chose to, or is his nature unalterable? If we choose the first option, God decides his nature and in so doing, he's deciding what is good and what is not, making morality arbitrary and subjective. Based solely on the caprice of how God decides to choose his nature.
If we choose the second option; that God has no control over his nature. Set aside the problem that this is problematic for the claim ‘God is Omnipotent’. If we choose that option, then something other than God, is dictating what God's nature is, ultimately making this external force independent from God, and the true ground of morality. God is just the unnecessary arbiter.
This is ignoring the fact, that Yahweh committed/ commanded 7 genocides/ infanticide, condoned slavery, rape, homophobia, sexism and racism etc. Not to mention condemns people to eternal suffering for simply, not knowing he exists, despite the fact he knows what it would take to convince and save everyone, and decides not to.
And ignoring, that free will is incoherent under any definition. As things are either determined by prior cause (cause and effect), or random (quantum indeterminacy)/ a mixture of both, in either way, we do not control.
E.g., He knew everything about Satan and what that specific arrangement of particles (it doesn't matter he's nonmaterial, but whatever he is) called "Satan" would do before he created him, and still decided to make Satan the specific way he was which resulted in him doing exactly what he did. You cannot blame a car for being faulty, if an engineer beforehand purposely created a faulty car, knowing he could have done otherwise. Therefore, God knew and purposely designed Satan to rebel, everything is Gods fault, including evil. God could have altered him so he wouldn't rebel. He's omnipotent so he could have, and omnibenevolent so would have. But he didn't, therefore God wanted Satan to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all suffering and is malevolent. And if every variant of Satan was “freely” evil regardless of how you designed him, then God shouldn't have created Satan to begin with. There were angels like Michael Demiurges that knew and did not rebel that he could have replaced him with or just leave blank.
well damn, i did not think this video was going to invoke such feelings, oof!
i need a second to collect myself before this well thought out comment that im not going to leave 😂😂 I'll probably drive myself crazy!
But i will say this, please be kind to people, i know it can be hard to be nice all the time, but can we please be kind to each other ❤ love you world!!
we love you aperture but it’s time to increase your mixing quality
If a person does nothing is that also playing God. These moral thought experiments have to cut both ways.
I'll hop aboard the Batman quote train by saying it's not about what we want it's about what's fair.
Laws are to a consensus what morals are to opinions. It’s all arbitrarily decided. The point of life is the purpose we assign to it; morals are those points which we’ve decided for ourselves.
You can’t objectify an abstract concept, and that is precisely what laws and religions attempt to do.
When he said life isn’t supposed to feel like rollercoaster
Me: Nuh uh
IT'S not Dilemma...IT'S DILEMNA
Religion is unethical. You are simultaneously saying
"I don't believe in scientific facts."
And
"I rather live in a fantasy world than face my own mortality."
Religion has only brought pain and suffering to the world. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant or lying. Nearly every major war throughout history has been caused by religious leaders exploiting the masses. My favorite quote is one my father said to me when I was a teenager. He said, "Surely your religion is the right one because if you were born in India, you would still be a Christian." He was implying the concept of proximity. Had a Christian been born in India, they would be just as certain of their faith in Hindu. Thus, your religious beliefs are just a product of where you are born. Christianity,Buddhism,Islamic faiths, and all the other religions are just competing companies trying to recruit you for their own gain.
I think exactly the same. The fact that most wars happened because of religious communities is nuts.
Only brought pain and suffering.... no mention of the sense of community and purpose there.... how do you expect people to take you seriously??? I have a lot to say about religion but to claim they only brought pain and suffering is pure insanity to me.
preach brother, praise be
What will the farmers do ? get a different job, people lose their jobs all the time. It's not gonna be easy obviously, but that's what happened with most factory workers too.
I reject your premise that there is a god, so... yeah, I guess that's where I'd start.
⚛️♥️♾️
"To live is to suffer. To survive is to find some meaning in the suffering."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Wait… when is cheating on a test a crime??? Am I missing something obvious?
Haha if the average person in society does not stop the cycle of exploitation of each other does this really matter haha..... Societal exploitation....person to person does not end we see it will end temporarily when there is nothing for the average person in society has nothing to exploit
Actually all forms of life have an innate understanding of morality.
Subjective, or objective morality? From where I'm standing, the gazelle is not a beneficiary of any innate understanding of morality that the lion has, only those lions with whom socialize with each other. Tribal morality.
What if the "meat farmer" of the future works in a lab?
Most "farmers" work at factory farms already
Bill has farm land
ruclips.net/video/_c4mUH-p2Fg/видео.htmlsi=c8cZGbMTFm7VBkT0
We could eat him or her
Arrested for "playing god"?
That is the most vague charge.
I don't see the difference between natural evolution and science evolution.
The stretching of social services is a purely political and economic choice. We choose to increase the wealth of a tiny number of people, at the expense of everyone else; it is not a natural law.
We have been eating this for some time 😅 years ❤
A miracle or a mistake well that is beholden to us is it not ?
No matter who you are, there is only one thing to consider. When you're about to cross beyond the void veil... Reflect carefully.
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." --Diamond Dragons (Armageddon's Ballad)
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
I’m no one I’m going to start a podcast…I would love to interview you and pick your mind…rs
You could ask me what´s right and follow undoubting, I don´t mind.
The very reson why things happen is because they are allowd to happen. That includes outlandish accusations, FreeWill and "I" told you sos. Human beings do not need any help learnig the hard way, taking reponsibility, selfdeception or wanting to rule the world and one another.
lairs,gmo dont taste better,herloom does
You broke the first rule of fight club
These are more like ethical dilemmas rather than moral ones...
Listen only if it comes to torture should you not keep a open mind
Defending the one percent in late capitalism is such a bad take
Criticizing NASA’s tiny budget is such a pathetic take lmfao there’s PLENTY of other areas national budget is used for that is infinitely worse than scientific knowledge lol
Polite feedback. Sound quality issues for me, sounds highly compressed
Bro don’t miss
There is so such things as playing god. We don’t even know if there is even a god. It shouldn’t even be called playing god. It is our responsibility as humans to create better living conditions for ourselves which is why we have the ability to do these things for ourselves. That’s why we are able to do these things. The things we we want to do and are able to do, we do them to the best we can. But there are some things that we will never be able be able to
Do and we won’t be able to do. And thats it.
God is a concept and has always been. Playing God aka trying to control creation and existence is quite literally “playing God”.
We aren't playing God. God gifted us with a brain to learn. Deciding we are "better" than using God's gift is an insult to ourselves, and I would imagine it's an insult to God too. Astaghfirullah. HARAM
Psalm
A song. A melody of Aʹsaph.+
83 O God, do not be silent;+
Do not keep quiet* or still, O Divine One.
2
People use 2 breath threw potpourri but it was mainly cause the streets were full of horse sh.t and stank 2 high heaven
amen Richard Carte
Morals are like E=mc²
Wow so much real stuff
And if you're interested in Nihilism, then I invite you to look into Existentialism and then I invite you to look into Absurdism. I know it's a lot of looking into things. Nihilism may be the bottom but it is NOT the end.
Anyone else notice alot of Naval wisdom here
Good wisdom is wisdom
We can talk about world dilemmas without eliciting God ? It’s crazy to me because there is no God! we can discuss the moral ramifications. Why are we acting as if there was a God he would be anyone to judge morality
Do what you gotta do for you.
hmmp, pretty good content this time.
Lab Grown Meat 💀💀💀
The term just sounds WRONG
"If God exists, I want him to tell me himself. I don't want to hear it from anybody else - and in case you're wondering, that includes you."
- Pat Condell -
Love it.
That’s not how it works. Seek and ye shall find. It’s a gift, known as grace. You have to receive it. Start by learning about how Jesus lived. If you truly want to know him. Unfortunately humans have distorted Christianity mainly Christians. It’s a relationship between you and him. We come to know God through him. If we want to. It’s free-will. But if you don’t care to know the truth, and put in the work. He rarely reveals himself to a non believer.
@jayslice76 How does that make sense ?? If you don’t believe wouldn’t that give him more incentive to show you and help you?? I never understood that I was always taught that god was love and compassion so regardless of what people said he loved them all the same but if someone is in darkness and asking for a light why wouldn’t he tell them he’s there ?
@@k00ki3izkrazy “Those who believe in lies will lie for those beliefs.”
- Aron Ra -
@@tommyvictorbuch6960 honestly yeah
There’s no such thing as god so, play away
Why did you start yapping about rich people being sad. Bye
Bro this video is too long 😭 we have work and sturdy to do
Then watch when you got the time when you're interested bro clearly he put effort making a video an hour long
Hahaha 😂🤣😂 nice one
Prioritize. And playback speed. We can in fact do it ALL…on 1.5 playback speed!😂
video Very meaningful. - My philosophy
Seems this is the NEW TO DO. Be a Motivating Positive Helping Person...for $$$ real Motivating Positive Helping, people have been doing it for years, only one who got it right at the start was Jesus...but money grubbers ruined him too for a buck....shit they tortured his ass... World is a giant manipulation game I'm starting to feel and if you don't play well....🤔
Am I crazy or is this thumbnail clickbait???
🤪 😜 🤪 crazy❤❤❤
youre crazy bro
Am I crazy or did this guy even watch the video???
nop we are different 😊
I think your definition of morals is, in fact, the definition of ethics. They are not the same thing.
True
Hmm... The defintion from oxford dictionary says other wise...
eth·ic
noun
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"
adjectiveRARE
relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
"the ethic question is of wider import"
So... Yeah... It ethics are morals. What you going on about?
To be more semantic, tou cant have morals without having an ethic, to even attempt to have a moral without an ethic. Would be using an ethic.... Etymology may help you in the future
@@SelfPoisonBand Ethics are created by a group or a society, based on shared moral principles. Individuals may follow them or not. Moral principles are personal. They belong to the individual and are not necessarily shared by a group or society.
That’s what I’m going on about.
@@auntiethetical And your point runs a full circle when you are running on a cognitive distortion, that is somehow making a "group or society" not personal? Sure, the hypothesis of ethics is nice and dandy on paper. In reality it can't be applied without people, so at the root of all ethics must contain personal morals. There is no separation (beyond the cognitive distortion of detachment and separation from the personal and ideals), morals and ethics are in fact interchangeable, and your moral subset view vs. my moral subset view, is causing us to explain different means through our own ethics. Yet I am aware of the cognitive distortion, and am having my own trying to explain it to you. I can see the paradox. Can you?