Do you think we should return to objective morality? Let us know in the comments below! To watch the full debate, visit iai.tv/video/moral-facts-and-moral-fantasy?RUclips&+comment
I am sorry, but I think there was no answer whatsoever. Yes, it is interesting to notice the contrast between what we think the Rules should be and what we think people should Really Do. But that does not answer whether the expected outcome is really good or bad... Or is he trying to say that our morality is just a mix of paradoxical and nonsensical customs? Then how does he come up with his judgements of society? What is his moral background? What is the formula, the logic that tells him which social game is better or worse? That is the big question of objective morality, isn't it?
You'll find it, rather unsurprisingly, that a majority of philosophers reject moral relativism, according to the PhilPapers surveys. I think what hangs up laymen is the concept of cultural relativism. But absolute moral truths can exist and cultures can be wrong. In fact, cultures can be right but people can always engage in some kind of hypocrisy. The way they justify it is interesting, but nonetheless observable actions do not disprove the existence of an absolute moral truth. I mean I think throughout all cultures murder is wrong. And I don't think war or ritualistic sacrifice disprove moral objectivity of that fact. People are good at rationalizing exceptions (whether they are objectively true or not).
Ideology is very similar to religion in supporting the argument that human morality must be in the hands of the few. The idea (from the Sciences) that any confluence of both Instincts and Internally-generated drugs (neurotransmitters and hormones) carry the complete moral fundamentals for a human society is a direct challenge to both their theses. Ergo: If our 'package' prefers for the development of individual courage, resilience, personal achievement and sociability then an ungovernable, autonomy-seeking, freedom and vibrant citizenry and society would be the outcome. The society that works the most on how to produce more prototypically 'ideal' replacement adults will remain in the game. The Cosmos smirks.
Human nature is the problem. I religion and post religion ideologies like Enlightenment, liberalism Marxism and Marxist child ideologies facisim, communism and critical theory do not work.
Morality has its roots in our evolutionary origins. I take the Chomsky view that they are hard wired into us in the same way language is. That is, certain 'principles' are universal across cultures (sanctity of life, concept of property, honesty, selfless/selfishness) as they enable humans to function effectively as a society. But the 'parameters' are formed through experience and local conditions (e.g. every culture has slightly different views on property, or on what justifies killing, etc). So I would say morality is partly objective (the nature part) and partly relativistic (the nurture part).
problem is that you have to account for why we have those principles - either God or (debatably) as a product of evolution. Also, you simply have to find one example of any culture which, at any point in history, didn't/doesn't have one of those principles to make the whole argument collapse.
@@nmitchxll305 Not that I agree with the argument, but how would one example of a society that doesn't follow those principles collapse the whole argument? It's possible that the principle did originate from evolution but some people, due to competing desires or whatever, abandoned it. That doesn't prove that the principles didn't originate from evolution. Certainly wouldn't look great for the theory though.
I agree, but I think both parts are subjective. - At least for the sake of terminology. When people talk about objective morality, they are generally talking about a morality that exists outside of humanity; or that would exist regardless of us. Which is why it is usually tied up with God. - The problem is for anyone holds to that position is that it cannot be demonstrated in anyway, which is why it is a redundant concept.
@@versioncity1 I agree that one needs to define ones terms carefully when you get involved in these discussions. A lot of the disagreement on these topics stems from differences in definition rather than substance. I just wonder if the underlying question here is whether or not it is reasonable for the west to disapprove (and possibly intervene) in societies where we disagree with their moral code and treatment of certain groups (e.g. treatment of women in Iran/Afghanistan). I am inclined to think it is, if it will improve quality of live for society (and nature, and future generations, etc.. depending on the topic).
@@DANGJOS One counter example collapses the argument of morality being "hard wired," unless one's intention is to argue that those without morals are not human, as they lack this "hard wiring."
morality is subjective - full stop. it is on a spectrum that should be well argued to be at the objective end, but then - there's the rub - to be human and to argue for it well
It can be agued that given the goal of "human well-being" as well as the subject of a human being, morality can be objective in how we achieve that goal. However, why THAT goal rather than the goal of "human suffering" or some other is difficult to argue for.
@@tognah6918 For me and like minded people the moral grounding for morality is based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reprocity. We try to actualize a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon said values that is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'. Values are socially approved desires and goals that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness
Being on spectrum does entail subjectivity. Most objective notions involve a spectrum. Accounting for the whole of subjective experiences is an objective exercise by definition, and the reason why most philosophers reject the anti realism claim or moral "subjectivity"
Žižek is one of the last remnants of a pop-intellengentsia that tries to conceal it's depthlessness with the juggling of propositions and the desperate 'unearthing of contradictions and paradoxes' (as he himself likes to call it). He has no proper arguments against moral realism, or ethical naturalism or even Discourse Ethics (of the Hermeneutic tradition). How can somebody like this provide anything substantial to a debate on objective morality? There's no wonder that his heros are Lacan and Hegel. Most important contemporary philosophers recognized Lacan as an absolute charlatan. And Hegel is ofcourse infamous for his obscurantist style that he skillfully deployed to construct a social-reverence for his ideas rooted in conservatism (although his conceptual apparatus itself being quite important, as pointed out by Marx). Zizek doesn't even have anything substantially original to contribute. There's just humor and some kind of intellectual-masturbation to keep everyone engaged and actively confused.
Would you like some ice cream with that? One doesn’t need to be a fan of Žižek to recognize the importance of calling out paradoxes and inconsistencies. (Much like the official narrative of last few years of disease management has taught us.)
@@16sputnik7 lol whut. I didn't say that everything he says is unimportant. I was specifically talking about his ambivalence towards serious ontological discussions and his specifically banal discursive style. He is not at all a good candidate to speak on objective morality.
@@lokayatavishwam9594 If you’re going to criticize the court jester on his style alone, then I’m going to assume that you’re probably part of the establishment/problem. Ontologically speaking.
@@16sputnik7 You must remember what Žižek himself says about jokes and seemingly transgressive humor. They can also very well be used to keep things running smoothly. He is a nice distraction in that sense (relative to serious Marxist thinkers and activists). Maybe that's what you want/prefer.
@@lokayatavishwam9594 The only thing funnier than Žižek himself, are your convoluted and word-salady “thoughts” about him. I will forever defend his right to question and criticize the official narrative. (And I most certainly don’t identify with his POV.) Merry Christmas my friend. One or two scoops?
Do you think we should return to objective morality? Let us know in the comments below!
To watch the full debate, visit iai.tv/video/moral-facts-and-moral-fantasy?RUclips&+comment
I am sorry, but I think there was no answer whatsoever. Yes, it is interesting to notice the contrast between what we think the Rules should be and what we think people should Really Do. But that does not answer whether the expected outcome is really good or bad... Or is he trying to say that our morality is just a mix of paradoxical and nonsensical customs? Then how does he come up with his judgements of society? What is his moral background? What is the formula, the logic that tells him which social game is better or worse? That is the big question of objective morality, isn't it?
First time?
You'll find it, rather unsurprisingly, that a majority of philosophers reject moral relativism, according to the PhilPapers surveys.
I think what hangs up laymen is the concept of cultural relativism. But absolute moral truths can exist and cultures can be wrong. In fact, cultures can be right but people can always engage in some kind of hypocrisy. The way they justify it is interesting, but nonetheless observable actions do not disprove the existence of an absolute moral truth.
I mean I think throughout all cultures murder is wrong. And I don't think war or ritualistic sacrifice disprove moral objectivity of that fact. People are good at rationalizing exceptions (whether they are objectively true or not).
what about death penalty? what about abortions? What about the nazis killing jews?
@@henpines Those are cases of rationalizations.
Slovaj is a legend! I wonder if the people around him understand this!
Who is Slovaj?
Ideology is very similar to religion in supporting the argument that human morality must be in the hands of the few. The idea (from the Sciences) that any confluence of both Instincts and Internally-generated drugs (neurotransmitters and hormones) carry the complete moral fundamentals for a human society is a direct challenge to both their theses. Ergo: If our 'package' prefers for the development of individual courage, resilience, personal achievement and sociability then an ungovernable, autonomy-seeking, freedom and vibrant citizenry and society would be the outcome. The society that works the most on how to produce more prototypically 'ideal' replacement adults will remain in the game. The Cosmos smirks.
Human nature is the problem. I religion and post religion ideologies like Enlightenment, liberalism Marxism and Marxist child ideologies facisim, communism and critical theory do not work.
Morality has its roots in our evolutionary origins. I take the Chomsky view that they are hard wired into us in the same way language is. That is, certain 'principles' are universal across cultures (sanctity of life, concept of property, honesty, selfless/selfishness) as they enable humans to function effectively as a society. But the 'parameters' are formed through experience and local conditions (e.g. every culture has slightly different views on property, or on what justifies killing, etc). So I would say morality is partly objective (the nature part) and partly relativistic (the nurture part).
problem is that you have to account for why we have those principles - either God or (debatably) as a product of evolution. Also, you simply have to find one example of any culture which, at any point in history, didn't/doesn't have one of those principles to make the whole argument collapse.
@@nmitchxll305 Not that I agree with the argument, but how would one example of a society that doesn't follow those principles collapse the whole argument? It's possible that the principle did originate from evolution but some people, due to competing desires or whatever, abandoned it. That doesn't prove that the principles didn't originate from evolution. Certainly wouldn't look great for the theory though.
I agree, but I think both parts are subjective. - At least for the sake of terminology. When people talk about objective morality, they are generally talking about a morality that exists outside of humanity; or that would exist regardless of us. Which is why it is usually tied up with God. - The problem is for anyone holds to that position is that it cannot be demonstrated in anyway, which is why it is a redundant concept.
@@versioncity1 I agree that one needs to define ones terms carefully when you get involved in these discussions. A lot of the disagreement on these topics stems from differences in definition rather than substance.
I just wonder if the underlying question here is whether or not it is reasonable for the west to disapprove (and possibly intervene) in societies where we disagree with their moral code and treatment of certain groups (e.g. treatment of women in Iran/Afghanistan). I am inclined to think it is, if it will improve quality of live for society (and nature, and future generations, etc.. depending on the topic).
@@DANGJOS One counter example collapses the argument of morality being "hard wired," unless one's intention is to argue that those without morals are not human, as they lack this "hard wiring."
morality is subjective - full stop.
it is on a spectrum that should be well argued to be at the objective end, but then - there's the rub -
to be human and to argue for it well
It can be agued that given the goal of "human well-being" as well as the subject of a human being, morality can be objective in how we achieve that goal. However, why THAT goal rather than the goal of "human suffering" or some other is difficult to argue for.
@@tognah6918
For me and like minded people the moral grounding for morality is based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reprocity. We try to actualize a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon said values that is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard.
One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'.
Values are socially approved desires and goals that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness
Being on spectrum does entail subjectivity. Most objective notions involve a spectrum. Accounting for the whole of subjective experiences is an objective exercise by definition, and the reason why most philosophers reject the anti realism claim or moral "subjectivity"
NATO morality
Žižek is one of the last remnants of a pop-intellengentsia that tries to conceal it's depthlessness with the juggling of propositions and the desperate 'unearthing of contradictions and paradoxes' (as he himself likes to call it). He has no proper arguments against moral realism, or ethical naturalism or even Discourse Ethics (of the Hermeneutic tradition). How can somebody like this provide anything substantial to a debate on objective morality?
There's no wonder that his heros are Lacan and Hegel. Most important contemporary philosophers recognized Lacan as an absolute charlatan. And Hegel is ofcourse infamous for his obscurantist style that he skillfully deployed to construct a social-reverence for his ideas rooted in conservatism (although his conceptual apparatus itself being quite important, as pointed out by Marx). Zizek doesn't even have anything substantially original to contribute. There's just humor and some kind of intellectual-masturbation to keep everyone engaged and actively confused.
Would you like some ice cream with that?
One doesn’t need to be a fan of Žižek to recognize the importance of calling out paradoxes and inconsistencies. (Much like the official narrative of last few years of disease management has taught us.)
@@16sputnik7 lol whut. I didn't say that everything he says is unimportant. I was specifically talking about his ambivalence towards serious ontological discussions and his specifically banal discursive style. He is not at all a good candidate to speak on objective morality.
@@lokayatavishwam9594 If you’re going to criticize the court jester on his style alone, then I’m going to assume that you’re probably part of the establishment/problem. Ontologically speaking.
@@16sputnik7 You must remember what Žižek himself says about jokes and seemingly transgressive humor. They can also very well be used to keep things running smoothly. He is a nice distraction in that sense (relative to serious Marxist thinkers and activists). Maybe that's what you want/prefer.
@@lokayatavishwam9594 The only thing funnier than Žižek himself, are your convoluted and word-salady “thoughts” about him. I will forever defend his right to question and criticize the official narrative. (And I most certainly don’t identify with his POV.) Merry Christmas my friend. One or two scoops?