When the limbic system of any healthy person in a society reacts negatively to something happening to them or their loved ones, that something is considered "wrong". Many social species have the concept of "wrong".
Not in the same way we do. By in large, animals forget. They have flight or fight. It’s the reason they don’t get ulcers worrying too much(😂). We don’t have that same way of responding.
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon Of course it's not in the same way as humans, or in the same way as theistic transcendental morality. But this reaction to certain actions is atheistic morality. And what makes it somewhat objective is that the biology of the brain of a species makes it react in more or less the same way in all healthy individuals of that species.
We can judge the actions of others, such as those who advocate for slavery, by imagining ourselves in the shoes of the victims. When we ask ourselves whether we would want to endure what they endure, the answer is almost universally "no." This natural aversion to suffering and exploitation allows us to condemn these practices, not because of any objective moral standard that exists outside of us, but because of our innate desire for self-preservation. Morality, at its core, is subjective and rooted in the instinct to avoid harm-a fundamental trait shared by most living beings. This shared instinct for self-preservation leads to common moral understandings across cultures and societies. We don’t need an external, objective moral code to recognize that practices like slavery are wrong; we simply need to recognize that if we wouldn’t want to be victims of such practices, we can reasonably judge them as immoral. Edit: Additionally, it's important to consider that even if someone like Epstein engaged in reprehensible actions, it doesn't necessarily mean he believed those actions were morally right. People often act in ways that contradict their own moral beliefs due to various factors-whether it's rationalization, cognitive dissonance, or the pursuit of personal gain. Epstein, for example, may have known his actions were wrong according to his own standards but chose to act otherwise due to his desires, power, or the belief that he could escape consequences. Moral judgments and behaviors are not simply products of objective moral standards. They are deeply influenced by subjective experiences, personal motivations, and the circumstances in which individuals find themselves.
Atheists can have different ideas when it comes to morals. Some think it is subjective while others believe it can be objective. Anyway, I believe morals are subjective. They are decided upon by humans with similar interests. We are a social species and tend to form communities which appeal to similar morals. For example: If you don't want someone to steal from you and I don't want someone to steal from me then we can agree on that moral idea. We then can set up a system where other people who don't agree with us can either not join us or be punished. If a situation arises and there are two separate communities of humans who disagree upon a moral principle then what tends to happen is people fight with one another. That's how it's always been. Even if there was evidence to suggest morality was objective, doesn't mean that people are going to follow those morals. In my opinion, whether morals are subjective or objective doesn't solve the issue that people are always going to fight with one another.
Here’s thing thing, your answer was a good, philosophical one. But it’s so easy to have a good, philosophical answer when you speak in generalities. It becomes much harder when you talk specifics and how it actually applies to life. Hence why I brought up Epstein. According to your reply, he could be right and moral by some standard. How is that defensible?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon I appreciate the response. I'll do my best to answer your question a little more clear. Jeffrey lived within a society that did not agree with the choices that he made. That's because the society that he lived in were comprised of like-minded people who came together and decided that they wish to live in a society which removed/ hindered his desires. That's because it has been shown that humans do not want to be taken advantage of and thus want to live in a society where that does not take place. Justice in its simplicity. As for Jeff, I'm not really sure if he believed what he did was morally right or morally wrong. Regardless of how he felt about it, the society in which he lived clearly did not agree with his decisions. I was just trying to point out that even if morals are not subjective but are objective... it more than likely wouldn't have stopped him from doing what he did anyway.
It seems that argument is heavily based on conflict ie between competing groups or ideas, but what happens if the fighting stops does it switch to another topic with a different group.. it seems kind of weak to base this on conflict which hasn't been shown to be unending yet.. people are not as straight forward as that..?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon u cud also condemn his actions morally as they provide zero for everyone else and society.. he's concern is for himself he's not a surgeon who breaks rules to try a new technique which say kills 5 patients but saves 1,000. (not that I agree with such weighing!!) But u get my point: the Greek philosophers might have spoken of a greater good, which if was any defense morally is wholly absent here!!
2:53 Wholeheartedly and objectively are two different things. One deals with personal conviction to a position. The other deals with what the justification for that conviction might be.
1:58 "government is the same institution that said slavery is fine." This is what-about-ism plain and simple. Additionally, this does not address how some governments never allowed slavery, and tends to ignore how several god concepts allowed it. There is a lot of hypocrisy in this rebuttal.
Allow me a counterquestion: what is "a moral standard that exists outside of us"? Explain what that means, and consider what that would imply for reality.
A creator that wants us to evolve by love, not by interaction and earthly societal shifting morals. For example in the Roman empire it was normal and legal to sleep with children. Now its slowly getting more normal again. If we base our moral only on what we deem, it can change and does change from society to society and from time to time
@@mynameisnobody3931 Thank you for your response. So let me try to rephrase than in my own words: this "outside moral standard" is not what "we" (humans/individuals/societies) deem as morally good, but what _someone else / our "creator"_ deems as morally good. And it would be so, even if "we" deemed it morally evil. Is that correct? If not, please clarify. But there's a second, more important point that I was trying to have you explain: what would that imply for reality? How would it influence/shape reality, if such an "outside standard" existed?
@@Groffili yes exactly, since no humans are good. Noone. I hope we can agree on that. Everyone is corruptible and suspectible to influence and temptable.
@Groffili well im quite sure it does exist. Actually I'd say theres more proof it does exist than it doesn't. But that's another debate. None of us knows Gods plan entirely, but i say it must have to do with evolving somehow. And what it precisely mean for reality. I'm not sure i know what you mean here
@@mynameisnobody3931 I think I gave a direction in my second post... but allow me to reiterate it here: What does it _mean_ for you to say that something is "good" or "not good (or whatever opposite term you want to use)? We - humans - are here right now. We make judgements. These judgements might be made on what we "deem" to be good, or they might adhere to some "outside standard". So the "reality" is that, regardless of whether such an "outside standard" exists or not... people still do their own thing. That is our reality. So what do you think would be the difference if such an "outside standard" did not exist? (Oh, and I would very much like you to answer that other question: what does it mean to _you_ to say that something is "wrong"?)
if I understand it correctly, morality is something that enters us from the outside during life, we perceive it from the society around us. That's why life is not worth the same in all countries. It's a mixture, the history of the society we are born into, the situation of how well off we are and the level of empathy we feel individually. It has nothing to do with atheism or religion.
I'd argue the question is moot. Even if a god existed, their morality would still be subjective Why? Because this entity would still be a mind, and as such, what they'd think to be right and wrong would be subjective to the experience of that mind. I'd argue the only truly objective morality would be completely free of any mind, and would be true, even if a god thought it not to be. With that in mind, whether or not a god exists and has an opinion on morality becomes irrelevant.
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon It doesn't matter if it's like humans or animals(i consider the two the same). Whatever god might have, should he exist, is still something that processes input, forms thoughts and opinions, and in whatever way it does, experiences emotions. It is a mind. Even if his mind would be significantly less constrained than ours, there still would be constraints. These constraints would color his experience, making his opinion on anything, subjective to those constraints.
@@weeedster God is not a mind, but a mind is like God. God is truth, good, and being itself. These things are defined based off of him, not the other way around. God is the natural unfolding of the universe, not a mind set within the limits of it. God is something which cannot be named because it is outside the reality we experience. It would be like a human growing up in a cellar or a dark room their whole life trying to understand what is meant by a painting of a mountain. They would see only triangles and think "isn't it suspicious that all the things that you describe from your '3D world' are just as describable as the triangles in this painting? There is no proof it even exists, how could i ever believe it?" It is not something which can be proven by science because it is outside of the initial premise of science. Our subjective and cultural ideas of good and evil only do an okay job at getting at the true good and evil which are as real to the universe as the stars and the mountains. Just as we can only paint lower dimensional interpretations of the beauty of those things. But there is an absolute standard which we can appeal to, and it is as real as the fabric of space time. It is how we can go into another country and tell them that their cultural ideas of right and wrong aren't as good as ours, because there is always a higher standard to appeal to.
There is no objective standard of how you should live your life, therefore we allow as many ways of life as possible in hopes someone will get something right. This does not mean we allow all ways of life, we must still limit those that limit others (i.e., the way of life of a slave master limits the way of life of slaves, thus it is illegal). This same principal can be applied to Epstein. A part of Epstein's way of life was to be a rapist. A part of his victims' ways of life was not to be raped. Epstein forced his way of life onto others, reducing the aggregate of ways of life and with it, the likelihood that someone is doing something right. This is the foundational idea of tolerance and libertarianism, or in other words, rational atheist morality.
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon The whole point of the system I described is to leave the decision of what’s right to the individual. Therefore, the only purpose of the government is to allow people to decide for themselves (ie stopping one party from forcing their morality onto another) and as a result, make no moral advances.
It’s a combination of things. There’s empathy towards the victims, which is the psychological part (there probably other psychological mechanisms involved) and it’s probably the strongest element because it deals directly with our emotions. There is a cultural heritage that might differ depending on where you live. And about the last part we could really go deep into it because it’s pretty complex since there are a lot of elements that combine, like the need for stability and security in our society etc. There are many philosophers that have gone through this so i’d suggest you to read some of them if you’re really interested. That’s my explanation but it’s not things that i go through when i do my “moral evaluations” because they are radicated into my subconcious. Edit: don’t assume that all atheists don’t have objective morals
@@LivingSimplyWithLondonfor some philosophers like Kant there is an objective morality (the same and true for everyone) that is derived from within ourselves through “reason”. But i’m no expert on Kant so it’s better if you check him out directly. In practice for these people morals are like mathematical truth, wether there is a god or not.
We can say it’s wrong because it’s contrary to the optimal well-being of humans. Morality is the identification of what is for or against the optimal well-being of humans.
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon I said the optimal well being of humans. Why are you only considering the well-being of the slave owners? Do you think that slavery is the optimal way to achieve well being for all involved, slave owners and slaves?
@@ryana1787 Well optimal generally implies the majority. If the majority of people benefited from the ownership of another human (slaves being a minority population back then), doesn’t that, by your logic, make it correct?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon no. Optimal doesn’t imply majority. You can’t think of a way for everyone involved to be better off without slavery? For you, that’s the height of human well-being?
Most atheists are at least somewhat culturally Christian just because they stop believing in God doesn't mean they stop believing in all of the ideals of Christianity.
@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 The most rational areligious morality is one of tolerance and freedom. Because there is no objective way of life, the most logical thing to do as a secular society is to allow as many ways of life as possible and let others act as they wish, provided they do not prevent others from acting as they wish. This is a fundamental idea within Christianity. Doctrines like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “turn the other cheek” preach tolerance, the bedrock of rational atheist morality. So yes, Christians are morally atheists.
@@Egshsjsjsj morality and rationality are completely unrelated, they cannot coalesce. You should research the paradox of tolerance and freedom is such an abstract and vague term that it is practically meaningless in the sense you're using it.
I believe that morality is subjective, but that enough people agree that murder, theft and rape are wrong that we might as well call them objectively wrong. Morality comes partly from how we’re raised and what our society deems as right and wrong, and it’s partly an inherent trait of being a member of a social species. We observe in nature that apes have a sense of morality based on what’s good for their group and how they fit into it. This is perhaps an oversimplification, but I’m not enough of an expert on moral philosophy or biology to explain in better detail. I’d also like to point out that you can’t really call Christian doctrine an objective source of morality as there are literally thousands of denominations of the religion that don’t see eye to eye on many moral principles. Sure, they all agree that murder and theft are wrong, but they have very different ideas about things like homosexuality, abortion, women’s rights, dietary restrictions, etc.
Your logic doesn’t seem to hold up. Agreement on something doesn’t make something right or wrong. Does that mean when slavery was universal it was right? Also, I don’t believe in Christian doctrine. I know it changes.
2:48 "you can't know objectively that he was wrong" A moral system that uses a personal being, like a god, as the moral foundation is subjective by definition. An objective morak knowledge is based upon a what, not a who, which rules out theistic systems. So, clearly, knowing that what was done is objectively wrong does not and cannot come from theism. This is why the moral argument fails; god-based ethics are subjective, yet the arguments always complain about how subjective moral systems don't work. It is self-refuting.
If however, that being is outside of our dimensions, and are the source of spiritual and physical reality, couldn't they also be the source of moral ethicality? East Asian philosophy calls this the Tao, which is the underlying natural way for the universe. But in order to grasp such an idea, we humans tend to view it like another person, which is Theism. It is not the inventor of good morality, but good morality itself. It is not experienced through being, but it is 'being' itself. All of our limbic systems and subjective goods that we invent as cultures are just attempts at understanding our reality, just like how a painter can do their best to recreate a tree on paper, but they can never fully capture the reality of it. C.S. Lewis talks extensively about this idea in his essays in the book, The Abolition of Man, if you would like to understand it more.
@tatejohnson7542 being the source of morals and being an objective source of morals are two different things. A personal being can only ever be a subjective source of morals. Is the Tao a personal being? I am not convinced it is. Anthropomorphic representation is not the same thing as being a person. The god of theism is a personal being. That's part of the definition. If you wish to define God in a different way, that is fine, but it does change the concept this creator is talking about. Lewis is a Christian apologist. His concept of god is a personal being.
@@lhvinny Whether the Tao is a personal being is completely irrelevant. Because if it is, it would not at all be limited to subjective thought the way me and you are. Take einsteins theory of relativity: to us we see the planets moving around us in a way that lets us figure out their speeds relative to us. But we don't know the actual speed of our galaxy relative to the fabric of spacetime because there is no origin in the universe to base it off of. This is because we are limited by our 4 dimensional experience in space time. If however, you have a being, or the Tao, which is as the fabric of space time is to the milky way, as objective truth is to our limited subjective experience. A personal God need not be limited by time or emotion or subjective thought the way we think of them, though he can choose to reveal himself to us in a way that we understand, hence why the old testament authors always refer to God's rage through natural disasters or his love through times of peace. All that to say, if he is the fabric of which our world is based on, then his morals are built into our consiousness the same way gravity is built into our physical world, and they are the source of right and wrong, despite how much we choose one over the other.
@tatejohnson7542 It being a personal being or not is the crucial part. Far from irrelevant, it is essential. You misunderstand relativity. Motion relative to the underlying spacetime fabric would be a useful reference frame in some applications, but that does not make it any more or any less "objectively true" than any other reference frame. I could hard wire a being to be repulsed by the smell roses. It would make the statement "roses are repulsive" a true statement for them regardless of anyone else's opinion. That does not change the situation from being subjective.
@@lhvinny To go off of your analogy, if you were to hardwire a being to experience a rose as repulsive, then you are now the objective truth that that being's experience is based upon. You created the conditions, so their experience is based upon your creation. Your decisions are its underlying objective truth now. The same goes for humans. If the being who created the universe also created us and the human experience, then he is the objective truth of which our experience is based upon.
We can't say that what Epstein or Hitler or whoever did was objectively wrong. Not in the sense you are proposing. But as a society most of us share the common subjective morals that it was wrong. Your argument is literally based on your subjective morals. Why should they have value when you use them but not when atheists do?
If someone didn’t believe in gravity, it wouldn’t cease to exist. Just because atheists don’t have objective morals doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Epstein and Hitler are objectively wrong. Condoning them in any way by not saying they are objectively wrong is almost semi-twisted
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon I'm not sure you understood me properly. When you say "If you can't condemn a guy like Epstein or Hitler what world view have you subscribed to?" That implies that you think that what they did is bad and that people should consider it bad. But you very clearly base that on your subjective morals or emotions. What gives you the ground to say that a worldview which can't say that genocide or child rape is objectively worng is bad? Your personal morals.
2:10 saying that government is the source of one moral position does not require it to be the source for all of one's moral positions. Accepting that the government makes a good case for one thing does not require one to have to accept all things, past and present, that a government has allowed, especially since the views of that government have changed over time.
Seems really convenient to be able to pick and choose when an institution is allowed to be your moral code and isn’t. Morals are permanent. Don’t think this fits with that.
@LivingSimplyWithLondon Indeed. Picking and choosing is how it works. I'm sorry that how people deal with morality in reality is somehow concerning to you. "Morals are permanent." Are they? Personal standards of what behaviors and actions are acceptable and which are not never change? That's blatantly false.
1:44 There are plenty of worldviews without a god concept that would condemn such acts. The fact that there are multiple indicates that this question is flawed.
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon It's just the suffering of civilization/slavery. A domesticated dog kind of also has a soul? A wolf doesn't. Also, do you think a chimp has more of a soul than a snake? Or is it just ' humans are good and animals are bad' because of the soul thing across the board for you? I honestly don't really know what the 'soul' is in its entirety? Could you define it?
@@JohnBedaProductions I don’t think animals are bad. I love the horses and my dogs and such. Humans have a direct connection with the one who made us. We are created in his image. We can love and forgive and sacrifice ourselves. These are uncharacteristic actions for the majority of animals.
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon humans are soulless animals. They invented the stool because of consciousness. They feel an emptiness that they can't get rid of because they feel like this world isn't good enough.
Q: What would an atheist think? First thought: lets start with what any other animal would do in the wild instead of asking them For a challenge to what it seems safe to infer is your answer to the question, see Euthyphro. For a modern answer see Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape.
In my opinion, morals come from the environment that we live in. Everything that we face throughout our life forms certain beliefs. That is my opinion. Have a good day everyone.
@@Astro_retired The Bible is the first major document in the western world to say that all humans were created equal. Look it up. This is common American historical knowledge
0:45 "If there are no moral standards that exist outside of us" is not a requirement of atheism. Some atheists may have that view, but not all. You are talking about something other than atheism and addressing it to atheists. Why?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon No part of the definition of atheism nor agnosticism makes a claim that moral standards must be internal only. Your claim that it is definitionally prohibitive is simply false.
Morality requires minds. But _objective_ is defined as that which exists outside of minds. And Xian denominations disagree all the time on what is moral.
So atheists have no morals? I’m asking how an atheist can say they have morals when they have no external source. You can’t get permanent morals from inside yourself.
I am sure because I’ve watched animals kill their young, I’ve watched animals abandon one another, I’ve seen animals leave the weak behind. Animals don’t have morals
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon you know that you don't want to live like x or y. you learned how to stay out of trouble. You did not have that knowledge from before birth. You were not born with your karma. You were born into a karmic (causal) history. And that karmic history piece by piece formed your identity. And what feels wrong to you is that which you are not willing to identify with.
I completely agree that just because animals do something, and that it's natural doesn't mean it's ok for us humans with morals to do it. Are you vegan?
Those are good questions for thoughtful consideration. A great Christian book with deep questions about morality would be Ethics (3rd edition) by Harry Gensler.
Firstly, im with u on the objective aspect and agree with u on Epstein etc.. but im not sure about the animwl kingdom analogy.. eg Epstein 'mating' didnt seen to be governed by a need to reproduce, it seems more like a search for pleasure or hedonism.. in an animal sense more like bobobo chimpanzees who ive read experiment sexuelly but not just to reproduce.. then again i really dont know much about his motives.. and sone animels also mate for life.. so cud say even there Epstein's actions were less from animal kindgom..it's a blurred line maybe? (Oops apols over spelling my keypad being bit temperamental 😉)
When the limbic system of any healthy person in a society reacts negatively to something happening to them or their loved ones, that something is considered "wrong".
Many social species have the concept of "wrong".
Not in the same way we do. By in large, animals forget. They have flight or fight. It’s the reason they don’t get ulcers worrying too much(😂). We don’t have that same way of responding.
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon Of course it's not in the same way as humans, or in the same way as theistic transcendental morality.
But this reaction to certain actions is atheistic morality. And what makes it somewhat objective is that the biology of the brain of a species makes it react in more or less the same way in all healthy individuals of that species.
We can judge the actions of others, such as those who advocate for slavery, by imagining ourselves in the shoes of the victims. When we ask ourselves whether we would want to endure what they endure, the answer is almost universally "no." This natural aversion to suffering and exploitation allows us to condemn these practices, not because of any objective moral standard that exists outside of us, but because of our innate desire for self-preservation.
Morality, at its core, is subjective and rooted in the instinct to avoid harm-a fundamental trait shared by most living beings. This shared instinct for self-preservation leads to common moral understandings across cultures and societies. We don’t need an external, objective moral code to recognize that practices like slavery are wrong; we simply need to recognize that if we wouldn’t want to be victims of such practices, we can reasonably judge them as immoral.
Edit: Additionally, it's important to consider that even if someone like Epstein engaged in reprehensible actions, it doesn't necessarily mean he believed those actions were morally right. People often act in ways that contradict their own moral beliefs due to various factors-whether it's rationalization, cognitive dissonance, or the pursuit of personal gain. Epstein, for example, may have known his actions were wrong according to his own standards but chose to act otherwise due to his desires, power, or the belief that he could escape consequences.
Moral judgments and behaviors are not simply products of objective moral standards. They are deeply influenced by subjective experiences, personal motivations, and the circumstances in which individuals find themselves.
Atheists can have different ideas when it comes to morals. Some think it is subjective while others believe it can be objective.
Anyway, I believe morals are subjective. They are decided upon by humans with similar interests. We are a social species and tend to form communities which appeal to similar morals.
For example: If you don't want someone to steal from you and I don't want someone to steal from me then we can agree on that moral idea. We then can set up a system where other people who don't agree with us can either not join us or be punished.
If a situation arises and there are two separate communities of humans who disagree upon a moral principle then what tends to happen is people fight with one another. That's how it's always been.
Even if there was evidence to suggest morality was objective, doesn't mean that people are going to follow those morals.
In my opinion, whether morals are subjective or objective doesn't solve the issue that people are always going to fight with one another.
Here’s thing thing, your answer was a good, philosophical one. But it’s so easy to have a good, philosophical answer when you speak in generalities. It becomes much harder when you talk specifics and how it actually applies to life.
Hence why I brought up Epstein. According to your reply, he could be right and moral by some standard. How is that defensible?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon I appreciate the response.
I'll do my best to answer your question a little more clear.
Jeffrey lived within a society that did not agree with the choices that he made. That's because the society that he lived in were comprised of like-minded people who came together and decided that they wish to live in a society which removed/ hindered his desires.
That's because it has been shown that humans do not want to be taken advantage of and thus want to live in a society where that does not take place. Justice in its simplicity.
As for Jeff, I'm not really sure if he believed what he did was morally right or morally wrong. Regardless of how he felt about it, the society in which he lived clearly did not agree with his decisions.
I was just trying to point out that even if morals are not subjective but are objective... it more than likely wouldn't have stopped him from doing what he did anyway.
It seems that argument is heavily based on conflict ie between competing groups or ideas, but what happens if the fighting stops does it switch to another topic with a different group.. it seems kind of weak to base this on conflict which hasn't been shown to be unending yet.. people are not as straight forward as that..?
@@neilmurphy966 I'm only pointing out that this is what reality demonstrates when it comes to people who disagree on moral principles.
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon u cud also condemn his actions morally as they provide zero for everyone else and society.. he's concern is for himself he's not a surgeon who breaks rules to try a new technique which say kills 5 patients but saves 1,000. (not that I agree with such weighing!!) But u get my point: the Greek philosophers might have spoken of a greater good, which if was any defense morally is wholly absent here!!
2:53 Wholeheartedly and objectively are two different things. One deals with personal conviction to a position. The other deals with what the justification for that conviction might be.
And i think they both apply to the trafficking and rape of children
It's wrong because it harms other people. Plain and simple.
But some things harm one person and help another. What then?
1:58 "government is the same institution that said slavery is fine." This is what-about-ism plain and simple.
Additionally, this does not address how some governments never allowed slavery, and tends to ignore how several god concepts allowed it. There is a lot of hypocrisy in this rebuttal.
Allow me a counterquestion: what is "a moral standard that exists outside of us"? Explain what that means, and consider what that would imply for reality.
A creator that wants us to evolve by love, not by interaction and earthly societal shifting morals. For example in the Roman empire it was normal and legal to sleep with children. Now its slowly getting more normal again. If we base our moral only on what we deem, it can change and does change from society to society and from time to time
@@mynameisnobody3931 Thank you for your response.
So let me try to rephrase than in my own words: this "outside moral standard" is not what "we" (humans/individuals/societies) deem as morally good, but what _someone else / our "creator"_ deems as morally good. And it would be so, even if "we" deemed it morally evil.
Is that correct? If not, please clarify.
But there's a second, more important point that I was trying to have you explain: what would that imply for reality? How would it influence/shape reality, if such an "outside standard" existed?
@@Groffili yes exactly, since no humans are good. Noone. I hope we can agree on that. Everyone is corruptible and suspectible to influence and temptable.
@Groffili well im quite sure it does exist. Actually I'd say theres more proof it does exist than it doesn't. But that's another debate.
None of us knows Gods plan entirely, but i say it must have to do with evolving somehow.
And what it precisely mean for reality. I'm not sure i know what you mean here
@@mynameisnobody3931 I think I gave a direction in my second post... but allow me to reiterate it here:
What does it _mean_ for you to say that something is "good" or "not good (or whatever opposite term you want to use)?
We - humans - are here right now. We make judgements. These judgements might be made on what we "deem" to be good, or they might adhere to some "outside standard".
So the "reality" is that, regardless of whether such an "outside standard" exists or not... people still do their own thing.
That is our reality. So what do you think would be the difference if such an "outside standard" did not exist?
(Oh, and I would very much like you to answer that other question: what does it mean to _you_ to say that something is "wrong"?)
i understand your argument but you’re confusing morals with modern day societal standards that humans have created, not any type of religion
I’m not talking about religion. I’m talking about how a non-permanent view of morals allows for slavery and the rape of children
if I understand it correctly, morality is something that enters us from the outside during life, we perceive it from the society around us. That's why life is not worth the same in all countries. It's a mixture, the history of the society we are born into, the situation of how well off we are and the level of empathy we feel individually. It has nothing to do with atheism or religion.
But what happens when a group decides things like slavery are morally right and helpful?
I'd argue the question is moot.
Even if a god existed, their morality would still be subjective
Why? Because this entity would still be a mind, and as such, what they'd think to be right and wrong would be subjective to the experience of that mind.
I'd argue the only truly objective morality would be completely free of any mind, and would be true, even if a god thought it not to be.
With that in mind, whether or not a god exists and has an opinion on morality becomes irrelevant.
You’re thinking of god in an anamorphic form. God doesn’t have a mind. Not like humans or animals do
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon It doesn't matter if it's like humans or animals(i consider the two the same).
Whatever god might have, should he exist, is still something that processes input, forms thoughts and opinions, and in whatever way it does, experiences emotions. It is a mind.
Even if his mind would be significantly less constrained than ours, there still would be constraints. These constraints would color his experience, making his opinion on anything, subjective to those constraints.
But you’re using words like “mind” and “think” and “thoughts.” God is made up of adjectives, not nouns.
@@weeedster God is not a mind, but a mind is like God. God is truth, good, and being itself. These things are defined based off of him, not the other way around. God is the natural unfolding of the universe, not a mind set within the limits of it. God is something which cannot be named because it is outside the reality we experience.
It would be like a human growing up in a cellar or a dark room their whole life trying to understand what is meant by a painting of a mountain. They would see only triangles and think "isn't it suspicious that all the things that you describe from your '3D world' are just as describable as the triangles in this painting? There is no proof it even exists, how could i ever believe it?" It is not something which can be proven by science because it is outside of the initial premise of science.
Our subjective and cultural ideas of good and evil only do an okay job at getting at the true good and evil which are as real to the universe as the stars and the mountains. Just as we can only paint lower dimensional interpretations of the beauty of those things. But there is an absolute standard which we can appeal to, and it is as real as the fabric of space time. It is how we can go into another country and tell them that their cultural ideas of right and wrong aren't as good as ours, because there is always a higher standard to appeal to.
There is no objective standard of how you should live your life, therefore we allow as many ways of life as possible in hopes someone will get something right. This does not mean we allow all ways of life, we must still limit those that limit others (i.e., the way of life of a slave master limits the way of life of slaves, thus it is illegal). This same principal can be applied to Epstein. A part of Epstein's way of life was to be a rapist. A part of his victims' ways of life was not to be raped. Epstein forced his way of life onto others, reducing the aggregate of ways of life and with it, the likelihood that someone is doing something right. This is the foundational idea of tolerance and libertarianism, or in other words, rational atheist morality.
How can us deciding what’s right work, though? At one point most of the US decided slavery was okay. Does that mean it was?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon The whole point of the system I described is to leave the decision of what’s right to the individual. Therefore, the only purpose of the government is to allow people to decide for themselves (ie stopping one party from forcing their morality onto another) and as a result, make no moral advances.
It’s a combination of things. There’s empathy towards the victims, which is the psychological part (there probably other psychological mechanisms involved) and it’s probably the strongest element because it deals directly with our emotions. There is a cultural heritage that might differ depending on where you live. And about the last part we could really go deep into it because it’s pretty complex since there are a lot of elements that combine, like the need for stability and security in our society etc. There are many philosophers that have gone through this so i’d suggest you to read some of them if you’re really interested.
That’s my explanation but it’s not things that i go through when i do my “moral evaluations” because they are radicated into my subconcious.
Edit: don’t assume that all atheists don’t have objective morals
But where do their objective morals come from? Objectivity can’t come from within yourself.
@@LivingSimplyWithLondonfor some philosophers like Kant there is an objective morality (the same and true for everyone) that is derived from within ourselves through “reason”. But i’m no expert on Kant so it’s better if you check him out directly.
In practice for these people morals are like mathematical truth, wether there is a god or not.
We can say it’s wrong because it’s contrary to the optimal well-being of humans. Morality is the identification of what is for or against the optimal well-being of humans.
But well being is subjective. It may have been for the well being of slave owner families to have a slave but does that make it right?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon I said the optimal well being of humans. Why are you only considering the well-being of the slave owners? Do you think that slavery is the optimal way to achieve well being for all involved, slave owners and slaves?
@@ryana1787 Well optimal generally implies the majority. If the majority of people benefited from the ownership of another human (slaves being a minority population back then), doesn’t that, by your logic, make it correct?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon no. Optimal doesn’t imply majority. You can’t think of a way for everyone involved to be better off without slavery? For you, that’s the height of human well-being?
Most atheists are at least somewhat culturally Christian just because they stop believing in God doesn't mean they stop believing in all of the ideals of Christianity.
what if christians are just culturally or morally atheist?
@@Egshsjsjsj it couldn't be there's nothing holding atheists together morally speaking across the board.
@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 The most rational areligious morality is one of tolerance and freedom. Because there is no objective way of life, the most logical thing to do as a secular society is to allow as many ways of life as possible and let others act as they wish, provided they do not prevent others from acting as they wish. This is a fundamental idea within Christianity. Doctrines like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “turn the other cheek” preach tolerance, the bedrock of rational atheist morality. So yes, Christians are morally atheists.
@@Egshsjsjsj morality and rationality are completely unrelated, they cannot coalesce. You should research the paradox of tolerance and freedom is such an abstract and vague term that it is practically meaningless in the sense you're using it.
@@Egshsjsjsj You're creating a caricature of the dishonest Sam Harris type. It's scoffs at Christianity yet lives by its principles
I believe that morality is subjective, but that enough people agree that murder, theft and rape are wrong that we might as well call them objectively wrong. Morality comes partly from how we’re raised and what our society deems as right and wrong, and it’s partly an inherent trait of being a member of a social species. We observe in nature that apes have a sense of morality based on what’s good for their group and how they fit into it. This is perhaps an oversimplification, but I’m not enough of an expert on moral philosophy or biology to explain in better detail.
I’d also like to point out that you can’t really call Christian doctrine an objective source of morality as there are literally thousands of denominations of the religion that don’t see eye to eye on many moral principles. Sure, they all agree that murder and theft are wrong, but they have very different ideas about things like homosexuality, abortion, women’s rights, dietary restrictions, etc.
Your logic doesn’t seem to hold up. Agreement on something doesn’t make something right or wrong. Does that mean when slavery was universal it was right?
Also, I don’t believe in Christian doctrine. I know it changes.
2:48 "you can't know objectively that he was wrong"
A moral system that uses a personal being, like a god, as the moral foundation is subjective by definition. An objective morak knowledge is based upon a what, not a who, which rules out theistic systems.
So, clearly, knowing that what was done is objectively wrong does not and cannot come from theism.
This is why the moral argument fails; god-based ethics are subjective, yet the arguments always complain about how subjective moral systems don't work. It is self-refuting.
If however, that being is outside of our dimensions, and are the source of spiritual and physical reality, couldn't they also be the source of moral ethicality? East Asian philosophy calls this the Tao, which is the underlying natural way for the universe. But in order to grasp such an idea, we humans tend to view it like another person, which is Theism. It is not the inventor of good morality, but good morality itself. It is not experienced through being, but it is 'being' itself. All of our limbic systems and subjective goods that we invent as cultures are just attempts at understanding our reality, just like how a painter can do their best to recreate a tree on paper, but they can never fully capture the reality of it.
C.S. Lewis talks extensively about this idea in his essays in the book, The Abolition of Man, if you would like to understand it more.
@tatejohnson7542 being the source of morals and being an objective source of morals are two different things. A personal being can only ever be a subjective source of morals.
Is the Tao a personal being? I am not convinced it is.
Anthropomorphic representation is not the same thing as being a person. The god of theism is a personal being. That's part of the definition. If you wish to define God in a different way, that is fine, but it does change the concept this creator is talking about.
Lewis is a Christian apologist. His concept of god is a personal being.
@@lhvinny Whether the Tao is a personal being is completely irrelevant. Because if it is, it would not at all be limited to subjective thought the way me and you are.
Take einsteins theory of relativity: to us we see the planets moving around us in a way that lets us figure out their speeds relative to us. But we don't know the actual speed of our galaxy relative to the fabric of spacetime because there is no origin in the universe to base it off of. This is because we are limited by our 4 dimensional experience in space time. If however, you have a being, or the Tao, which is as the fabric of space time is to the milky way, as objective truth is to our limited subjective experience.
A personal God need not be limited by time or emotion or subjective thought the way we think of them, though he can choose to reveal himself to us in a way that we understand, hence why the old testament authors always refer to God's rage through natural disasters or his love through times of peace.
All that to say, if he is the fabric of which our world is based on, then his morals are built into our consiousness the same way gravity is built into our physical world, and they are the source of right and wrong, despite how much we choose one over the other.
@tatejohnson7542 It being a personal being or not is the crucial part. Far from irrelevant, it is essential.
You misunderstand relativity. Motion relative to the underlying spacetime fabric would be a useful reference frame in some applications, but that does not make it any more or any less "objectively true" than any other reference frame.
I could hard wire a being to be repulsed by the smell roses. It would make the statement "roses are repulsive" a true statement for them regardless of anyone else's opinion. That does not change the situation from being subjective.
@@lhvinny To go off of your analogy, if you were to hardwire a being to experience a rose as repulsive, then you are now the objective truth that that being's experience is based upon. You created the conditions, so their experience is based upon your creation. Your decisions are its underlying objective truth now. The same goes for humans. If the being who created the universe also created us and the human experience, then he is the objective truth of which our experience is based upon.
We can't say that what Epstein or Hitler or whoever did was objectively wrong. Not in the sense you are proposing. But as a society most of us share the common subjective morals that it was wrong. Your argument is literally based on your subjective morals. Why should they have value when you use them but not when atheists do?
If someone didn’t believe in gravity, it wouldn’t cease to exist. Just because atheists don’t have objective morals doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Epstein and Hitler are objectively wrong. Condoning them in any way by not saying they are objectively wrong is almost semi-twisted
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon I'm not sure you understood me properly. When you say "If you can't condemn a guy like Epstein or Hitler what world view have you subscribed to?" That implies that you think that what they did is bad and that people should consider it bad. But you very clearly base that on your subjective morals or emotions. What gives you the ground to say that a worldview which can't say that genocide or child rape is objectively worng is bad? Your personal morals.
2:10 saying that government is the source of one moral position does not require it to be the source for all of one's moral positions.
Accepting that the government makes a good case for one thing does not require one to have to accept all things, past and present, that a government has allowed, especially since the views of that government have changed over time.
Seems really convenient to be able to pick and choose when an institution is allowed to be your moral code and isn’t. Morals are permanent. Don’t think this fits with that.
@LivingSimplyWithLondon Indeed. Picking and choosing is how it works. I'm sorry that how people deal with morality in reality is somehow concerning to you.
"Morals are permanent." Are they? Personal standards of what behaviors and actions are acceptable and which are not never change? That's blatantly false.
1:44 There are plenty of worldviews without a god concept that would condemn such acts. The fact that there are multiple indicates that this question is flawed.
Such as?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon Secular humanism would condemn such behavior. That is a "such as."
@@LivingSimplyWithLondonYou think you're so smart and thought imma bury Atheism and here you are getting roasted by actual intelligent people 😂
Funny, how he stands in nature whilst condemning it... Look any wild animal in the eyes and realize your morals are wrong.
Humans have souls. Animals don’t 🤷🏻♂️
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon It's just the suffering of civilization/slavery. A domesticated dog kind of also has a soul? A wolf doesn't. Also, do you think a chimp has more of a soul than a snake?
Or is it just ' humans are good and animals are bad' because of the soul thing across the board for you?
I honestly don't really know what the 'soul' is in its entirety? Could you define it?
@@JohnBedaProductions I don’t think animals are bad. I love the horses and my dogs and such. Humans have a direct connection with the one who made us. We are created in his image. We can love and forgive and sacrifice ourselves. These are uncharacteristic actions for the majority of animals.
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon humans are soulless animals. They invented the stool because of consciousness. They feel an emptiness that they can't get rid of because they feel like this world isn't good enough.
Q: What would an atheist think?
First thought: lets start with what any other animal would do in the wild instead of asking them
For a challenge to what it seems safe to infer is your answer to the question, see Euthyphro.
For a modern answer see Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape.
I can’t say I agree but I really appreciate you sharing
In my opinion, morals come from the environment that we live in. Everything that we face throughout our life forms certain beliefs. That is my opinion. Have a good day everyone.
So if everyone says slavery is right then it’s chill?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon
Well, that's how it was for a very long time. And religion for some reason didn't help much to get rid of slavery.
@@Astro_retired The Bible is the only reason we had abolition
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon no :) Research before answering
@@Astro_retired The Bible is the first major document in the western world to say that all humans were created equal. Look it up. This is common American historical knowledge
there is no objective moral basis, but humans feel. i FEEL that epstein was wrong and a majority of people agree.
So if a majority of people say slavery is right, it’s right?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondonyes
@@Upholstered_ I pray you’re joking. Slavery is not okay. Just making sure we all know that
@LivingSimplyWithLondon well that's the atheist pov. Some also just deny objective morality as a whole.
0:45 "If there are no moral standards that exist outside of us" is not a requirement of atheism.
Some atheists may have that view, but not all. You are talking about something other than atheism and addressing it to atheists.
Why?
If an atheist claims there are external morals and truth then by definition they are at least agnostic. They can’t be atheistic
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon No part of the definition of atheism nor agnosticism makes a claim that moral standards must be internal only.
Your claim that it is definitionally prohibitive is simply false.
Then if they can be external, where are they from?
@LivingSimplyWithLondon It can be multiple sources, and as long as none of those sources are a god, it is consistent with atheism.
@@lhvinny But what is an example?
Morality requires minds. But _objective_ is defined as that which exists outside of minds. And Xian denominations disagree all the time on what is moral.
I’m confused. Maybe re-elaborate
Love the confidence kid
But you seem to be mixing up objective and subjective
Not much more of an explanation is needed, just research those 2 things
🙏🏼
Atheism doesn’t have anything to do with morals buddy
So atheists have no morals? I’m asking how an atheist can say they have morals when they have no external source. You can’t get permanent morals from inside yourself.
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon who says you’re not born with morals? Who says we’re all not born good? You’re making quite a few assumptions here
@@zmadani341 We’re animals. Animals aren’t born with morals. They have to come from somewhere
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon You seem pretty sure about that. Do a basic google search and come back to me kid
I am sure because I’ve watched animals kill their young, I’ve watched animals abandon one another, I’ve seen animals leave the weak behind. Animals don’t have morals
Definition of god: That which you blame.
Is Eppstein god that he deserves that i blame him?
But some things are always seen as intrinsically wrong: murder, rape, etc. How do we justify that?
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon
you know that you don't want to live like x or y.
you learned how to stay out of trouble. You did not have that knowledge from before birth.
You were not born with your karma. You were born into a karmic (causal) history.
And that karmic history piece by piece formed your identity.
And what feels wrong to you is that which you are not willing to identify with.
I don’t think anyone should identify with slavery or pedophilia
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon
The word _should_ is the most atheistic word.
How?😂
I completely agree that just because animals do something, and that it's natural doesn't mean it's ok for us humans with morals to do it. Are you vegan?
I’m not vegan. I respect the lifestyle but it’s not for me.
Those are good questions for thoughtful consideration. A great Christian book with deep questions about morality would be Ethics (3rd edition) by Harry Gensler.
I’ll have to check that out!
Firstly, im with u on the objective aspect and agree with u on Epstein etc.. but im not sure about the animwl kingdom analogy.. eg Epstein 'mating' didnt seen to be governed by a need to reproduce, it seems more like a search for pleasure or hedonism.. in an animal sense more like bobobo chimpanzees who ive read experiment sexuelly but not just to reproduce.. then again i really dont know much about his motives.. and sone animels also mate for life.. so cud say even there Epstein's actions were less from animal kindgom..it's a blurred line maybe? (Oops apols over spelling my keypad being bit temperamental 😉)
I get what you’re saying 🙏🏼
@@LivingSimplyWithLondon u have certainly stirred a good debate with all the comments on this topic 😆😊