I'm not sure how God is a solution to the question of an objective morality. The question is, did God have a choice when he created morality? Could he have done it differently? E.g., it is moral to lie. If yes, morality is subjective, created on whim, God could have done the one or the other. If no, God cannot choose, he too is bound by reality like the rest of us, i.e., objective morality is something outside of God.
agreed, only solution, which is a pathetic one, is that god doesn't make sense and god can bend the laws of logic to make it objective, like he does with having libertarian free will and omniscience
One possible theistic explanation which is similar to Leibniz’s conception of God would be that because God is transcendental, He creates moral truths in a way which perhaps creates the best possible outcome. Because God is this omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent being, his judgement is then objective in a sense
That view explicitly makes moral truths constitutively depend on Gods stance, so it’s still subjective, & His great-making properties don’t subvert that or the arbitrariness since whatever God affirms as im/moral just is im/moral. So He could affirm grape & torture to be moral & that would be true necessarily.
@@PROtoss987 poor argument too “Can God create a rock that he can’t” Yes but that mean the rock is now God, not him, your argument doesn’t work, because God is omnipotent until he makes something else greater than him, that thing becomes God now so why would he do that? How does that Debunk omnipotence?
1:00 P1: Untrue P2: Untrue C3: Untrue Now we can move on and live our lives using our subjective morality which, unsurprisingly for a social species, overlaps with the subjective morality of those with whom we interact directly or indirectly.
The problem with the moral argument is that it's complaining about the way the world is, while pretending that's _not_ the way the world is, and then pretending to have a solution that can't be had
This is a misrepresentation. It is *not* "pretending that's not the way the world is and pretending to have a solution that can't be had". It is knowing how the world is supposed to operate and yet knowing that it is impossible to achieve it by ourselves.
I was listening to your video while working and I noticed you made an error. You jumped from using the word morals to the word ethics without explanation, which can be very jarring to someone who does not understand the interplay between those words. A suggestion for future would be to give your list of definitions (and you may give time stamps for repeat viewers to jump over, if needed). If you don't want to spend type speaking what those terms mean, you could simply show them on screen and invite the viewer to pause the video and read at their leisure. The main objection to the moral argument that I have is that a term is never brought up which I believe needs to be. That term is arbitrary. I, personally, am of the opinion that a God would not give objective morals, but arbitrary morals. In fact, when you listed WLC's synergism, one underlying assumption he makes (but never states) is that arbitrary = objective.
Yeah I agree I should have been more clear in my definitions. I did a livestream where I responded to comments where I clarified some of the problems I have with this video, which included defining terms like “objective” although I didn’t define ethics and morals, which, in hindsight perhaps I should have.
I agree with the other person's comment. I think you should be showcased and interviewed by the bigger channels that share your observations and beliefs. Would you mind if I link your videos on the channels I am a member of, such as The Majority Report with Sam Seder and The Thinking Atheist?
Im a bit confused. In the slides where youre addressing the idea that objective morality could exist without a god you say that we could say something like “humans have objective rights u can't violate” and then we would kist these rights. My thing is, wouldn't this listing of rights be subjective to us and therefore still not objective? Surely not everyone would agree on every right listed.
Not necessarily. Deontologists would argue that these rights would be reasoned to, therefore, they are still objective so long as we agree on an initial set of “objective” premises which can lead to these rights. In my opinion though, you’re exactly right and that’s part of why I don’t think objective morality can exist
I would agree with you (and I see Ethan's response below). You would just be presupposing an 'ought' as good. For exampe: You 'ought' to treat each other with kindness and respect. We would all agree on this. But WHY should we agree on this? What can we ground this in to say it is truly good? That is the problem with moral subjectivism and why an external objective reference must exist.
I’m growingly dissatisfied with this video. I can and should have done better in approaching this argument in good faith. I will be revising this in a livestream on Monday the 8th of July at 1pm AEST
Everyone mentally and physically healthy has a conscience. We have awareness and the ability to control our thoughts. We know feelings of: lust, hatred, contempt, depression, anger, embarrassment, fear, frustration, laziness, inadequacy, helplessness, resentment, jealousy, envy, covetousness, deceitfulness, greed, pride, and enmity are wrong. We overcome them with virtues like: love, compassion, courage, honesty, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, generosity, and humility. We instinctively know God is the voice of our conscience. Now we can quiet our conscience. We can turn to wickedness, but the moral argument for God remains powerful. It's undisturbed by the narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy of rabble rousing demagogues like Trump -- who will be dealt with in this life or the next. Have no misunderstanding about this. Nobody scoffs at God and gets away with it.
First, I'd argue objective morality is an oxymoron under theism. Regardless whether god is this metaphysically mind maintaining a Hegelian idealist version of reality, or some being overlooking a physical universe in a classical sense, he is a subject. If he is the source, creator or standard of "good" and "evil", he is nonetheless a subject, and so morality is an extension of his subjectness. making morality subjective to him. Secondly, the term and particular obsession people have with objective morality is cripplingly silly. When we say it's "objectively true" that Mary is at home watching Netflix right now, what we're saying is that its negation is not true in reality. Meanwhile, when we say that it's objectively true that murder is wrong, what has been said? What does "wrong" mean? More specifically, what does it mean under a theistic model? That God dislikes it and will punish it? Or, removing the subjectivity of "dislike" from the equation, that he will punish it akin some cosmic equation of karmic retribution based on the rules inherent to his nature? Okay. Let's accept either version of that. What if a person doesn't care what god thinks, what his nature is, and doesn't care whether god will punish the behavior or not? Then he or she can, and will, clearly still engage in it. It's therefore completely uninteresting. What is interesting is what type of arguments, social pressures, and systems practically address or change behaviors we find undesirable, and by what metrics we judge behaviors as undesirable to begin with. Fundamentally, the question is whether the metric "my holy book/god said so"/"that's consistent with the nature of my god" is satisfying when deciding whether we place a restriction/punishment on a particular behavior. I would subject to any reasonable individual that it is not. There's a million of reasons why murder is undesirable that would be compelling to the vast majority of humanity between both the realm of subjectivity, and the realm of facts-all of them superior to appeals to god. If somebody stood in front of you with a gun pointed at the head of a family member, what is more likely to make him lower it: 1.) Telling him it's wrong to murder per the rules of the universe, or 2.) Appealing your shared humanity, the suffering that's being caused, the consequences in life to follow, or threatened him with punishment/retribution in this life? I think anyone who picks 1 here are lying. If not to me, then to themselves. The worry therefore that subjective morality is insufficient insofar its basically just a fancy and illusory distraction from Moral Nihilism and Expressivism wherein humans are left to bicker over preferences is therefore completely moot, insofar that's literally what we're already doing ALL THE TIME, and "objective morality", even if it existed, wouldn't change that fact.
@@ethanbenson Np. Not expecting any lengthy replies or anything. Might as well add the context though, if you find it interesting: I do consider myself both a Moral Nihilist, and an Expressivist, and I think ethics and "morality" are just language games we play in service of getting others to go along with our preferences/values, which are downstream from our biological predispositions as a species. There's a very interesting thought experiment that asks us to consider what would happen if we came across a sentient species of giant emerald wasps from space. The emerald wasp, if you're not familiar, has reproductive cycle that's predicated on paralyzing a victim from another species, planting its egg in it, and thereby killing it(much like the Xenomorph from Alien). Now, is it likely, even if we imagine these creatures were intelligent like us, that they'd develop similar ethics to us? Would they hold that "murder" is intrinsically wrong? Would they be conscientious about bodily autonomy? If our species could not co-exist due to their inherently predatory nature, would we be morally justified in destroying them? Would they be justified in enslaving us to their reproductive cycle? What would a conversation between us look like in trying to solve our mutually exclusive interests? I guess my point is that "morality" as an idea, and its associated systems of ethics would be entirely superfluous. Fundamentally, we would either have to hash it out in a conversation over subjective and pragmatic give and takes, or we'd have to duke it out until one side loses. And, incidentally, this is what all "moral" conflict looks like at the end of the day anyways. You don't have to look further than the end of the transpacific slave-trade. It didn't end because humanity stumbled on some new objective moral fact, or because some system of ethics won out in an intellectual debate. It ended because enough people found it disgusting and unbearable to the point they fought a war over it. In so many words, I think you have to live in a fairly privileged bubble to worry over what "losing objective morality" looks like, because it means you've never had to grapple with legitimate unreconcilable moral values, nor spent any serious time thinking about why people do the things they do(probably sidestepping such thoughts by just thinking of others as "evil"). People don't murder because they lack a belief in murder being wrong. They murder because of extraneous circumstances and conditioning that has impressed upon them a necessity for murder. I don't fear a Nihilist who doesn't believe murder is wrong but has no motivation to do so and several good reasons not to. I fear moralists and ideologues who think murder is necessary to bring about their ideal world or society. Moralists are several orders of magnitude scarier than Nihilists. Always have, and always will be. Behind every single atrocity committed in human history, you will find fanatics who think their behavior is fundamentally moral.
@@hian Do you know of the german philosopher Hans-George Moeller and his youtube channel Carefree Wandering? If not, I recommend checking him out. He seems right up your alley. Anyway, I have some thoughts and questions for you, if you would care to indulge me. How is subjective morals consistent with moral nihilism, and how is it not completely arbitrary in the end? Meaning: how could you, as a moral nihilist, in the end legitimately criticize a murder? How could a murderer with the same exact position as you, be wrong about murdering? Besides customs, which still must be arbitrary to a nihilist if he's consistent. (except that, in the history of mankind, murder seems to be apart of our preferred customs either way, whether you believe it to be right or not.) As I understand nihilism, you'd have to disregard the concept of morality completely, with all it entails, to be consistent as a moral nihilist. Of course, you'd then rightfully be regarded as a lunatic - and as such you seem to need, for example, the ad hoc explanation for subjective morals in the end to make it reasonable. Now, I'm not a nihilist, though I've read some of Nietzsche if that's worth anything, so I could of course be wrong in my understanding, or it could be just a question of semantics, that an ignoramus such as myself cannot wrap my head around. Either way, some type of modification seems to be needed to make nihilism of any sort, to work as a theory to base your life on. Moreover, let's say you're correct in your critique of systems based objective morals. Then I don't see how your position would be a preferred alternative, as it only works on the basis of the fact that the majority in a culture, more or less, intuitively or explicitly, believe in the morals of their culture, or at least act like they do, as if they were objective, even if they're not (If nothing else, this is a great concession that human beings are experts at make belief!) Western cultures, of which I think you're a part of (correct me if I'm wrong), are based in part on the idea that morals have an objective source, and as such it is a privilege to be able to hold onto a nihilistic position in such a culture, and completely disregard their history. I am merely trying to understand and reason with your position the best I can. Especially as there is some controversy around the concept of nihilism, of which I'm certain you're aware of. I have no problem with you calling yourself a moral nihilist, and just find it a reward in itself to get to have an exchange of thought with people of different beliefs (I hope you can accept that I use this word). And to be open with my own position, I profess myself to be a Christian, which is a belief that I've been grappling with for many years now, and only just recently have come to, and which it's not at all easy to reconcile with a modern worldview by the way. Finally, I'd like to point out a bit of flawed reasoning in this section: "If somebody stood in front of you with a gun pointed at the head of a family member, what is more likely to make him lower it: 1.) Telling him it's wrong to murder per the rules of the universe, or 2.) Appealing your shared humanity, the suffering that's being caused, the consequences in life to follow, or threatened him with punishment/retribution in this life? I think anyone who picks 1 here are lying. If not to me, then to themselves." To be and act as a believer in ultimate moral judgement, of the sort you refer to in 1), doesn't entail that it would be the thing, that is the belief in question, that you conjure up, as an act of defense in such a particularly loaded situation (no pun intended). I don't know of any moral system that would prescribe such a statement as a moral act in and of itself (maybe this, once again, is an admission of my own ignorance.) As such, it seems we are in agreement that 1) is a ridiculous option, but from my point of view it would be because this is not a likely action from any reasonable adherent to any system of morals, whether religious, objective, subjective, or none of that. 2) I reckon can only follow from your ad hoc acceptance of subjective morals, as a moral nihilist.
@@EatPieYes There's a lot to go through here, so I hope you'll excuse the length(I've had to split this up into parts). I'll say that I don't expect you to reply at a similar length, but given the fact that you typed out such a thoughtful response, I wished to treat your inquires with respect. I'll start with your question, "How is subjective morality consistent with moral nihilism and how is it not completely arbitrary in the end?" Moral subjectivism under my view is an incoherent idea. It's not "consistent with moral nihilism", rather it's a poor man's conceit reached for by people in a vain attempt to escape its uncomfortably stark outlook even though they, like the moral nihilist, are stuck in the exact same predicament-namely a rejection of moral truths. It's only equivalent in the sense that it's stranded with the exact same problems. The nihilist is just honest enough to face those problems rather than seek refuge in language-games. To illustrate though: If the argument of moral subjectivists is that "rights" and "wrongs" exist but are subject dependent, then you still need define a metric by which behaviors are right and wrong. And, if that metric varies from individual to individual, creature to creature, there's no meaningful distinction in this from saying morality is merely a word for any system of judgement of behavior according to preferences, which is what Expressivism is, and is congruent with moral nihilism as a position insofar moral nihilism is just another way of saying hard moral anti-realist. Moral nihilism cannot be a rejection of moral subjectivism, if by moral subjectivism all you're referring to are subjective behavioral preferences. Obviously, nobody can deny that when we all have them. However, any school of thought on the subjectivists anti-realist side don't get to use this as an argument against moral nihilism if and when they extrapolate beyond preferences, which many of them do. All I'm saying here, is that if all you mean by morality is some idea of humans working together as subjects based on shared preferences, then sure, "morality exists". However, not only is that not the idea of morality Nihilists reject. It's also not the definition used for morality outside of a very few schools of thought like Expressivism(hence why I consider myself an Expressivist Moral Nihilist). Secondly, "completely arbitrary" is a non-sequitur in relation both to subjective morality and models that explain conscientious human behavioral models. That humans have a preference not to murder is not "arbitrary" in any sense of the word. It's a feature of our biology without which we would go extinct. There are very good reasons for humans' pro-social, as well as anti-social, behaviors. There's nothing arbitrary about this. That does not imply however, these predispositions and preferences are "moral" in the classical sense of that word, since we can easily imagine creatures who, in evolving differently, have different predispositions and preferences. If you were to make a subjective moral argument that, for example, it's immoral for species A to murder because they have that preference, while it's moral for species B to murder because they have that preference, all you're doing is using "morality" as a synonym for "preferential behavior" like in Expressivism. That is still a denial of the basic project of literally all classical moral and meta-ethical frameworks, exactly the same as the moral nihilist. Describing "moral behavior" in that sense is not at all in tune with what moral philosophy was created to do. My position just further postulate that modern and post-modern moral models are vacuous as well, in this respect. They're poor attempts at fixing something that isn't fixable. They recognize that the old-world philosophers' conception of objective morality is incoherent, but instead of scrapping the idea altogether, they've created this contrived monstrosity in its place that is just as incoherent, though less obviously so. Your questions after that point, I think, demonstrate a failure to fully immerse yourself in the position of the moral nihilist. You ask how could I "legitimately criticize a murder"? But that's an incoherent question which reflects a blind-spot, an inability to truly take off your moral goggles to indulge the position of the nihilist fully. Under moral nihilism, there's no such thing as "legitimate criticism" of behavior in moral terms the way you asked that question. Rather all criticisms of all behaviors are equally legitimate in spirit, but only as functional as they make sense to the target of the criticism. Hence, it does not mean there aren't "legitimate reasons" of an amoral character to want someone to cease a behavior, and the only reason one would assume the opposite is if you're already presuming that all behavior is tied to moral judgements in the first place. Remember-the nihilist and hard anti-realists don't believe this, nor is there any reason to assume that. We humans have deep emotional preferences we desire to see respected and realized, and it makes complete sense for us to criticize or interfere with the actions of others when they come into conflict with said preferences. However, there simply is no reason to mask this with obtuse, and frankly speaking incoherent, moral language. Furthermore, it is not the case that they "must be arbitrary for the nihilist to be consistent". That, is pure nonsense. If I go to a restaurant and decline to eat one of the seafood dishes because I don't like salmon, or am allergic to lobster, those are "legitimate reasons", but they are not moral reasons. When I wake up and eat breakfast in the morning because I'm hungry, that too is a legitimate reason albeit not a moral one. I don't eat because it's "morally good" for me eat, nor do I abstain from eating food that's dangerous to me because it's "morally wrong" to do so. I just do because that's my preference. And, if I were to theorize why I have that preference, I'd say it's because of my evolved brain chemistry. Now, sometimes people's preferences come into conflict. Maybe someone wants to steal what I have, or wants to see me in pain because they hate my guts. If you're asking me how could I "legitimately ask them to abstain from doing either" in a moral sense, the answer is still, "that's an incoherent question whose answer would be irrelevant even if it weren't". If a person wants to murder me, then my preference not to be murdered by that person is reason enough to deny them, and, whatever reason would be necessary to dissuade them is going to be whatever reason it is relative to their preferences and fears etc. It could be an appeal to their empathy. It could be an appeal to practical consequences. It could be crushing their skull with a crowbar. Whichever it is though, it is unlikely to have anything to do with an ethical discussion about moral values. This should be made abundantly clear the moment you swap any transgressor on your preferences out for a unconscious or lower-sentience material threat like a Tsunami, bear or hedge-trimmer-wielding gardening robot. Non of these are ammendable to moral discourse, yet no-one would cede their life to any of them simply because non of them can be convinced to not murder you with a compelling moral argument.
Moving on: Yes, I do disregard morality, thinking it an incoherent concept. My only additional stipulation is that so do Moral Subjectivists-they just don't recognize it because they've settled for tortured terminology and reasoning in pursuit of what they consider the terrifying "implications" of Nihilism(likely due to struggling with the same questions you just asked me). Again, it's founded in the conceit that if you cannot feed behaviors into some sort of system and get neat moral judgements out on the other end, people will just start murdering each other indiscriminately for no other reason than, "well, it isn't wrong", which of course, completely ignores millions of years of human evolution in groups as a social ape, and the basic fact that people act for positive reasons, not in the absence of them. The idea that I'd be regarded as a lunatic for rejection the sheer idiocy of moral language, to me, speaks volumes more of the naive and childish mind of a person who'd say such a thing than it does about the Nihilist, and let's make it abundantly clear why: Moral statements are empty, the words "right" and "wrong", empty signifiers waiting to be filled by their speakers though they seldom if ever are when uttered. When I categorically reject the statement, "murder is wrong", I'm rejecting it because it's an incomplete statement, likely made in ignorance by a person whose metacognition is insufficient to recognize what the words coming out of their mouths are even supposed to mean, not because I don't have objections to murder. It's therefore the moral presuppositionalist who's acting like a lunatic here, not me, insofar they confuse my refusal to accept the statement, "murder is wrong," with "acceptance of murder," despite lacking the intelligence to recognize that the statement, "murder is wrong," doesn't actually mean anything. After all, what does "wrong" even mean? It means whatever the speaker's moral system decrees it to be, if the speaker even has one. Most of the time, it's just a feeling though, one resulting from a combination of evolutionary instincts and inherited social values. If you're talking to a Utilitarianist, he or she are using "wrong" to mean "unnecessary suffering". If you're talking to a Deontologist, they're using it to mean, "unvirtuous". If you're talking to a run of the mill Christian, they're using it to mean, "against the will of god". In all cases though, unequivocally, it expresses, "don't murder because I don't like it". Moreover, seeing as I think all those other meanings are either logically flawed or incoherent, it's the only genuine meaning of the term if it has one at all. Hence, when I reject the statement "murder is wrong", I am not rejecting things that can be said about murder which most people, myself included, don't like. Yes, murder causes suffering. Yes, murder is anti-social. Yes, if we generally permit murder, society will collapse. These are all true and good reasons to not murder. However, the statement, "murder is wrong," is still vacuous and impotent. Not only does it obfuscate the actual traits humans care about when it comes to behavior and judgements. You indulge that asinine use of language at your own and others' very real risk by propagating moralist culture, which again, is the number one factor in giving "moral lisencing" to human tragedies like war, discrimination, cruel punishments, child-abuse, and so forth. Suppose we were to say that, "wrong" refers the traits I just described, and that morality is about designating behaviors that embody those traits. Well, now you've just committed to a view in which being anti-social is somehow "wrong", wherein suffering is always "wrong", and wherein sociatal collapse is always "wrong". But, anti-social behahior is adapted for to allow individuals the faculties to fight the group oppressions that stem from the fiat of social cohesion. Suffering is a necessary condition for growth through adverse stimuli. And, presumably, we would want certain regressive and dangerous societies to collapse rather than threaten their neighbors. What I'm really getting at here is that morality and moralisms cannot be divorced from the burdens of "right" and "wrong", which are dysfunctional linguistic terms with respects to behavior in the sense with which they're applied. You can have the wrong key to a door. You can have the right answer to a question. You can have the wrong behavior for the purposes of making your parents happy. You can have the right behavior for the purposes of making your village prosper. You cannot, however, have right and wrong behavior in a moral sense- because the moral sense, is a conceit predicated on the human desire to elevate their preferences into something more than they are. The project of moral philosophy only exists in the first place because humans want their preferences to be respected yet lack confidence in their ability to make that happen on the individual merits of the preferences themselves. The word's "right/good" and "wrong/evil" are therefore purposefully and obtusely linked to a feeling moreso than their actual definitions inside any moral system. In reality, I contend, morality is inexplicably tied to the practice of, and desire for, efficiently and cheaply applying the labels "good" and "evil" to things, behaviors, and peoples. And, that the moral systems which try hard not do, either suffer in irrelevance for not providing that service, or run the risk of not being seen as moral systems at all. All of this becomes abundantly apparent the moment you demand a moralist justify why they've defined their terms the way they do. Ask the Utilitarian why it's wrong to murder, and he'll say because it causes unnecessary suffering. Ask him why unnecessary suffering is wrong though, how he determines what suffering is truly unnecessary, and insist you enjoy visiting suffering upon others - that it's necessary for your flourishing - and watch him have nowhere left to go in terms of argumentation. This is true for all moralists, regardless their system or school of thought. In face of reductive scrutiny, all they can say is, "well, that's just my definition, and by my definition, you're evil," and that takes me full circle back to my initial point: Firstly, that's a meaningless tautology, which betrays your need and desire for the terms instinctual power rather than actual meaning. And two, how is this distinct from living in a nihilist's reality. How is this any less arbitrary than an impartial Expressivist understanding of reality? *You* define. By *your* arbitration. By *your* preferences. So what? What if I don't agree? What if others don't agree? You're right back where you started, because it's all smoke and mirrors, and that's what it was all along-pretentious sophistry in pursuit of preferential hegemony through obfuscating language.
"Without God, everything is permitted" It's worth pointing out that Paul, in 1 Cor, twice says: "All things are lawful unto me" (6:12, 10:23) So, if God exists, all things are lawful, though all things are not expedient, which even an atheist could agree to.
@@KasperKatje Paul was generally talking to the lowest class of people who wouldn't have much opportunity to own people or get away with much so it was easy for him to make big promises about the hereafter which never materializes.
Morality is an evolutionary trait to enhance our survival (part of survival of the fittest, the best adapted). Since we are social animals it is in the best interest of the individual and the group to act moral. Because of our large brain we have an advantage over other animals: we are able to reason and come up with a moral framework. Most of us base this on wellbeing, empathy, human rights and flourishing. But it is, unfortunately, focused on your own group which led and can lead to tribalism. The framework isn't 100% proof/sound but it's the best we have. Slowly we are trying to make it global and as objective as possible, like with the universal human rights. I wish it was objective but it isn't. Morality is relative and that's shown by the fact it differs from society to society and throughout history. Even the bible shows it: god condoned and ordered sl4very, m1s0gyny, st0ning g4ys, gen0c1de and gr4ping virgin girls. If morality was objective/absolute (and god would be the standard), those laws and acts should still be moral.
I think it’s also interesting to consider that animals have ethics of sorts. Think about chickens having a pecking order or pack animals which have some kind of social order. This further implies a naturalistic formation of morality as we see simplistic forms of moral decision making in these animals
@@ethanbenson I think the formulation is a bit confused, but what he's probably getting at is that ideas like murder being wrong predate the invention of the Abrahamic faiths, which begs the question how those peoples came upon their conclusions without god's revelation. Yahweh does not exist in the historical record prior to some 800 years BCE. Yet, the Canaanites had laws forbidding murder and theft. Hence, while it could still be the case that "god is the author of moral facts", it cannot be the fact that god is necessary for humans to recognize them, which then further begs the question: If humans can recognize moral facts without awareness of god's decrees, then by what metric do we do so, and, if such a metric exists, then why does god need to exist in the first place? The moral argument cannot just account for God's necessity for moral facts, it must do so in a way that satisfies human moral behavioral predispositions in his absence given humans have been acting "morally" before any of them knew he even existed, much less having heard his moral demands.
I mean, it depends on the specific transcendental argument, but broadly I don’t think the premise that God is necessary for any particular phenomena is stronger than a naturalistic or pragmatic explanation simply because it seems to me to be an extra unnecessary proposition. I’m not familiar with Dyer’s way of arguing it, I’d need to look into him further to have an opinion
@@ethanbenson from what I understand, he argues that in order to have grounding for logic, knowledge, free will, morality, meaning, language, etc., that we need to presuppose God bc these are transcendental categories and God would be the ultimate foundation and the only version of God that can ground those things is supposedly the Christian version and in his case, I don't know how he arrives at that, the Orthodox conception. Bc in atheism, especially if you are consistent with your skepticism, there is no meaning, no free will, morality is just your emotions, language has no meaning and then you arrive at solipsism. And he says that it's not a problem that the argument is circular bc ar the foundation, you need to have circularity. E.g., you use words to explain words, numbers to explain numbers, etc.
@@bilal535the argument is horrendously bad on pretty much every level. For starters, appealing to God doesn’t actually solve the problem it purports to be addressing, it simply pushes the epistemic problem (if it even IS a problem) back a step. But even if we grant everything that they say, at best that only ends up being an argument against metaphysical naturalism/materialism. It doesn’t get you anywhere NEAR any specific religion.
3.29. I wonder how we can establish hedonistic utilitarianism as the right approach to begin with, given that in naturalistic worldview, we are just a combination of particles that move solely in accordance to the law of physics.
What if someone just doesn't believe in the moral priors of someone making this argument. Is one person disobeying enough to change their mind on morality? What if it were a million people? Not sure how this argument is taken seriously.
I did make a follow up video which is a better critique, although I do stand by this video, despite its flaws. I think those flaws have more to do with presentation of the ideas than the ideas themselves. Anyway, what specifically do you have a problem with and why is it "really bad"?
@@ethanbenson I didn’t get very far into it because of how off base you were. You suggested that a system like utilitarianism gets you objective morality, which is absurd. You need to account for things like categorical imperatives if you’re going to even attempt to ground objective morality. Utilitarianism is subjective* and it’s relative, and it’s speculative, it gives hypothetical imperatives not categorical imperatives, it can’t ground objective values, or purpose… do you think the rest of your video gets better or worse?
I mean, Peter Singer would beg to differ with you on that one. He goes into detail in Practical Ethics on why he thinks that utilitarianism is not subjective. In fact, this was the whole project of Derek Parfit, who convinced Singer that morality is objective. It is kind of besides the ultimate point though. I go on in the video to claim ethics is subjective, so it isn't that crucial to my point that you agree that utilitarianism can be objective. I would say though, that this video is actually more of a vehicle for my own views than a critique of the moral argument. My other video on it is directly a critique of it. As a sidenote, it's pretty disingenuous to claim the video is bad without actually watching the whole thing, or even most of it.
@@ethanbenson I didn’t say I watched it all, and I asked you if it gets better to hear whether or not you think the rest is better or not, because even you should understand that bringing up man made moral systems doesn’t mean morality itself is objective. Humans creating logical systems doesn’t equal logic existing, any moral than theological systems means that God exists. You should know this. It’s difficult to finish something that begins this poorly. Do you want me to critique the rest? Oh and Peter Singer thinking utilitarianism is objective doesn’t mean morality is objective, that’s an appeal to authority, and I assure you he’s wrong, and clearly YOU also think he’s wrong since you’re a non cognitivist.
@skepticalstrom6247 you saying the video is really bad implies you’ve actually watched it. I don’t have time to respond to all of this, and I feel I have elsewhere anyway, but my comment regarding Singer isn’t an appeal to authority. What a braindead thing to say. My point is that most contemporary utilitarian philosophers argue that utilitarianism is compatible with morality being objective, even though I disagree with them.
This isnt a refutation this is end stage cringe bad. Ethan makes so many silly mistakes that wouldn't even pass philosophy 101. Nothing to see here except reddit level "skepticism"
Well, I think I probably should have been more charitable in this video towards the argument, however, I do stand by my position 100% Simultaneously, I’m always interested in what others think because maybe they’ve thought of something I haven’t and I can learn from them.
@@toni4729 I find it a tough balance between being forceful and giving the opposing argument a fair shake. It seems that if I simply take something like the idea that ethics come from God and say this is obviously false that people will latch onto that and deride me for it to no end as shown in the comments section to this video
@@ethanbenson OK, I'm definitely on the side of "There is no god and there is no devil' but I get the feeling from some of the things you said that you're not so sure. I got a nervous feeling from you. Perhaps you didn't want to offend people.
If you find objective morality without god, you find god. Technically you also need objective truth, but you can't get to the first without the latter.
Nope, since there is no objective/absolute morality and the bible shows this. Didn't you read the OT? God condoned owning people and gr@p3... If morality would be absolute/objective, those things should still be moral but are not.
You didn't really destroy the moral argument u just waffled about and gave us a history and ethics lesson not to be rude tbh but you dint actually give any serious pushback to any of the premises Nice slides tho .
You know, I’m inclined to agree. As noted in the pinned comment, on reflection, I’m pretty dissatisfied with this video as I know I could have and should have done a better job.
Here's the problem. God, as described in the bible, is a spirit. And not a physical thing. His spirit is a representation of all good things desired by humanity. Chief among these things is goodness, freedom, liberty, hope, and most importantly, love. Without something to hope for, even you have to agree that all is lost. You want to propose that we simply exist as a random accident, we have no purpose, we have no reason for existing, and we have no future. For some people who have lost everything and have nothing left to hope for in life, such a concept is too much for them to bear. And then you are told about this spirit, this abstract entity who may, or may not exist that promises he will not leave you or forsake you and gives you hope in there being a better tomorrow despite all the horrible things you've endured. And it's the last hope you have. Then you have others around you constantly telling you that you shouldn't put your faith in something that doesn’t exist. And with great fervor, their logical minds who can't even comprehend a reason why you would want continue to believe despite all the evidence to the contrary try to justify thier reasons with essays, documentaries, and debate. The faithful will not be convinced. And you have to simply live with that.
There’s a lot here, I’ll try to break my response down so it roughly is separated out by each point you brought up. 1. One must question why we should not take all of the horrible wars he encourages and the endorsement of slavery into account and wonder if God actually does only represent goodness. 2. We don’t need God to have something to hope for. 3. I didn’t propose anything as to how or why we exist 4. The lack of a God does not mean we cannot exist for a purpose we define for ourselves. 5. Of course there can be reason to continue existing without God. We exist to experience the world, to love, to be loved, to help others, to learn. 6. Even if the concept of us not existing for a reason is difficult for some, that has no relation to the validity of the claim (which again, I didn’t make here) 7. Of course I can see why you would want to believe. If their belief is purely a banal, personal comfort, then I have no problem. When it evolves into an organised religion which tells people how to live their life and that they must enforce this way of living onto others, then I have a problem. 8. People change their minds all the time. I myself was once a catholic and then later changed my mind. Give the religious some credit, they aren’t stupid people.
@@ethanbenson Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you. So I apologize in advance if any of my words upset you. I really hope you believe me when I say that. But you have given me some wonderful talking points here. "One must question why we should not take all of the horrible wars he encourages and the endorsement of slavery into account and wonder if God actually does only represent goodness." Yes. God is everything good and just in the universe. He represents they way, the truth, and the life, everything we do that is truly good, and just, is a reflection of god. God didn't cause the holocaust. God didn't beat slaves to death or refer to them as lower life forms. We did that by failing to live up to his glory. And that is the evil in us. "we don't need God to have something to hope for." Without that hope in a higher power than ourselves, we are stuck with our own power. and I don't know if you've looked around lately, but our own power is corrupt, and incapable of saving us. We are on the brink of nuclear destruction. coral reefs are dying. there's microplastics in our food. the ocean stinks. The ice caps are melting. famine, pestilence, and countless other problems, no human being, nor government has the ability to stop. "I didn’t propose anything as to how or why we exist" You do by denying the existence of god. it appears to be the keystone of your existential identity. (This is an assumption and I'm perfectly fine with being wrong about this) To deny the existence of God is to deny the existence of our purpose. it says in the Bible that god has a purpose for all of us, and fulfilling that purpose is the one, and only thing that will satisfy us. "The lack of a God does not mean we cannot exist for a purpose we define for ourselves." The holy spirit is the one true thing in reality. everything else is temporary, and will fade with time. The purpose we define for ourselves has no lasting meaning. Going wherever the wind may carry it. "Of course there can be reason to continue existing without God. We exist to experience the world, to love, to be loved, to help others, to learn." You are proving my point here by saying this. God wants this. This is the essence of the Holy spirit. God has always wanted this, and he wants us to see who gave us these desires. "Even if the concept of us not existing for a reason is difficult for some, that has no relation to the validity of the claim (which again, I didn’t make here)" The concept of not existing is difficult for every single person who has ever lived. You can't tell me you've never thought about it yourself. and again, you do claim it simply by denying the existence of God. "Of course I can see why you would want to believe. If their belief is purely a banal, personal comfort, then I have no problem. When it evolves into an organized religion which tells people how to live their life and that they must enforce this way of living onto others, then I have a problem." I agree on this. Organized religion has been the source of some of the greatest human-caused atrocities the world has ever seen. But you shouldn't blame god for the evil acts of his creation, we have only ourselves to blame for these atrocities. And I hope I'm not trying to enforce my beliefs onto you, that is far from my intention. However, I felt like sharing my beliefs because you have given me a platform here to do so. "People change their minds all the time. I myself was once a catholic and then later changed my mind. Give the religious some credit, they aren’t stupid people." And here is where I saw the issue. You were once Catholic. Catholicism isn't Christianity. It is one of the most powerful brainwashing cults in the entire world, and I'm glad you escaped it. They have their own bible. they venerate, and worship the creation, and not the creator. The saints (humans raised and put up on pedestals) They are idolatrous (large figures of the Virgin Mary, depictions of Jesus on the cross, candles with images of the saints) They disobey Jesus's teachings by engaging in repetitive, meaningless prayers. They commit blasphemy, which as you may or may not know is the act of taking the duties of God. (the confessionals) and put a human man on a throne and fall at his feet to worship him as god on earth (the pope). And I know you didn't ask for this. But I believe in God because I must. I can't live in a world without hope. And God has given me the only hope I have left. I would be suffering from crippling depression, Loneliness, and endless misery if it weren't for my faith. I seek all that is Holy, beautiful, just, and pure. and I am a sinner who falls short, incapable of even getting up to go to work every morning if it weren't for the hope God has given me. I am not looking to change your mind. In fact I don't know what I'm doing. But I would like to thank you for your reply, and I hope that I gave you a little more insight into the mind of someone who believes in God.
@@TheKrensada I'm an agnosticist and I've been through depression and hopelesness as well. I also look for what is beautiful and bright in life, and I do all this without a god. For a lot of us, god -or believing in one, isn't strictly wrong, it's just redundant. We don't need to believe clownfish can actually speak for realsies and that the Finding Nemo movie is a true story to 1. get the message and 2. agree with it.
@@ethanbenson 1. This lame atheist talking point has been addressed ad nauseum. 2. Yes we do. 3. How convenient. 4. In a materialist world view like yours you have no free will since you are merely the result of chemical processes that have no meaning. 5. None of these things have actual meaning in the materialist world view. 6. Of course you did not make claims to this effect because you can't since there is no meaning in a materialist world view. 7. So you and your half baked philosophy should tell us how to live? So if you are not telling us how we ought to live then your opinions are meaningless and should be discarded. Are you an anarchist? 8. You turned your back on god and gave in to the passions that will consume you.
@@TheKrensada Whoa. Your zeal is just too much. So much so, that you feel like you're the arbiter of the definition of what God is, even in the face of contradiction. God himself even contradicts what you are so adamantly saying about him. Surely you're aware of what God's blessings are for the Israelites in heaven. Slaves, fieldworkers, concubines, handmaids, nannies to breastfeed the Israelite's children, etc.. God gives slaves as gifts. You say God is ONLY good, yet the bible clearly shows that he is a wrathful God as well, who by his own words, does in fact, "hate." You critiqued this individual's statements based on your own personal skewed version of what you think God is (which dare I say, seems narcissistic), and he then replied to your critiques with respectful, genuine, concise clarifications, and with intellectual honesty/integrity, and he showed exactly how you misunderstood and/or misrepresented his words. You TOTALLY IGNORED the content of his reply, which rightly contained an illuminated undertone of where your comprehension, epistemological framework, and discernment had haphazardly led you, and your response to him overwhelmingly showed just how much you didn't care to listen. He also wasn't, "insulted," and gave no signs to suggest such, he was just letting you know where you were going wrong. Not realizing this, you then decided to double down by responding with even more in-depth critiques, to the degree that makes you look as if you are just trying to pick him apart by ANY means, for your own personal reasons. If I were him, I would just copy and paste my first reply, and post it as a reply to your reply. His first reply answers all of the problems in your first AND second replies. You could have saved yourself some time from writing that second one if you would have just showed the same courtesy as he did by actually reading, understanding, and simply replying to him accordingly. In a nutshell, your second reply just made you look like a prick who doesn't care enough to listen to other people, and you're only here to have other people listen to you, and agree with whatever it is that YOU say. You might want to work on your listening skills, as to not give off that appearance. I'm sure you're not really that person. Much love.
"God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?" Friedrich Nietzsche. People instinctively need something spiritual. Without it, all that is left is nilism and ultimately death.
@@jim-es8qk another quote from Nietzsche: “I have a terrible fear that one day I shall be pronounced holy. You will guess why I publish this book before; it shall prevent people from doing mischief with me. I do not want to be a saint, rather even a buffoon. Perhaps I am a buffoon.” I do not think his initial point in Thus Spoke Zarathustra is at all that people need something spiritual. It is that people need some sort of meaning to their life, and through killing traditional religion, we can transcend it and create new values which allow us to go beyond what faith has created. But then, as alluded to in my initial quote, perhaps Nietzsche is just wrong. Just quoting the man does not provide proof of the validity of his claims.
@@ethanbenson Evidence? Look at early 20th century Europe. War, mass purges and ge*ocide. It didn't happen in England, religion is incorporated in to the state.
@@ethanbensonMost people live very short lives. They simply don't have the time to create an entire new value structure from scratch. It's nonsense. Modern lifestyles are lonely depressing and often pointless. Why is that? They are lost because they listen to people like you. The bible is perfect for wisdom and at providing general direction for a person's life. Which is what people are missing. It's historically the most popular book in the world for a reason.
Do you need a god for morality? Probably. Without a higher being to which to answer, too, you believe you are god. So, for morality to work, you need to believe you are answerable to something higher than yourself. If you act immoral, their will be a consequence for your actions.
Eeehm, your statement doesn't make sense. Even if you try to claim you need god when you are god yourself, you don't need a higher being since you are that highest being. Next to that: didn't you read the OT in which god condoned owning people and gr4p3? So according to your reasoning that's (still) moral. Sorry, but not in my book.
@@KasperKatjeYou're not, though. Ultimately, if you f**k up, act imorally, or stray from the metaphorical path, something will pull you back into line. And that is what god is.
@jim-es8qk yet bad people are able to get ahead in the world. People who wage war, exploit children, utilise sweatshop labour are able to be successful and enjoy a seemingly pleasant life. I mean, even people who unknowingly benefit from things like sweatshops and child labour (i.e. a large portion of the western world) live perfectly happy lives.
These arguments fall apart under any degree of scrutiny. Total reddit tier stuff here. Any knowlegable theist could rip these horrible arguments to shreds
The theistic position provides a coherent basis for objective morality, atheistic systems of morality rely purely on human taste preference with nothing to appeal to to reach good and evil. What basis do you have to believe in value judgements of any kind? Atheism in its most coherent form leads to pure solipsism, any atheist system that grants itself induction or the ability to make value judgements is unjustified in doing so. These are the kinds of questions that were raised by David Hume (a skeptic) and are absolutely destructive to positions like yours where you grant yourself access to logic and reason arbitrarily. You claim here that ethics is subjective and yet can still be universalized. On what possible basis can you make universal claims as a finite human?
I think it’s a mistake to conceive of objective moral systems that don’t rely on God as relying purely on taste. As I mentioned in the video, we can have objective measures like pain and pleasure to assess a decision. I don’t think atheism does lead to solipsism at all. Atheism is simply the claim there are no Gods. It doesn’t entail anything beyond this. I think perhaps you’re conflating atheism and materialism, however, there are atheist philosophers who are idealists, or who think abstract entities can exist. You can base your logic and reason phenomenologically in your experience of these principles working and being internally consistent. Are the laws of logic or mathematics ontologically real? I don’t know. But they don’t need to be for us to practically use them. When I say universal, I mean simply that ethics is able to be applied to all people, not that subjective ethics produce an ontologically real set of moral truths. My view of ethics is better thought of as intersubjective rather than purely subjective, whereby as a result of ethical inquiry and discussion, people come to a sort of consensus as to the sort of values and rights we think people should have and the standards we all ought to live by. This view accounts for both the seeming commonality between ethical views, the progress made in ethics throughout time, and the difference in ethics between cultures.
It is subjective, yes, hedonistic utilitarianism relies on it being roughly quantifiable though. I never said my approach to metaethics is novel. It’s constructivism. You’re very focused on the need for things to be objective, however, I don’t see why this is important so long as we can still apply ethical principles universally, which is able to happen in most constructivist views (although not all certainly. The major criticism of constructivism is that it can fall into relativism in some cases). You rightly point out that people act unethically, but this is still the case under any ethical system. I struggle to see why that is a criticism of my position when you have the same problem as a theist with plenty of religious people acting ways that are unethical under their own system
@@jimsmith8359 I think it’s important to note that I’m not talking about laws, I’m talking about how ethical principles form. I’m not so sure your reasoning is sound there. There’s so many reasons why crime happens, many economic and social. Regardless though, I don’t think the 1950s was some crime free utopia
Here is my new, updated video on the moral argument: ruclips.net/video/ZwIOZ6FcM2g/видео.html
I'm not sure how God is a solution to the question of an objective morality. The question is, did God have a choice when he created morality? Could he have done it differently? E.g., it is moral to lie. If yes, morality is subjective, created on whim, God could have done the one or the other. If no, God cannot choose, he too is bound by reality like the rest of us, i.e., objective morality is something outside of God.
agreed, only solution, which is a pathetic one, is that god doesn't make sense and god can bend the laws of logic to make it objective, like he does with having libertarian free will and omniscience
One possible theistic explanation which is similar to Leibniz’s conception of God would be that because God is transcendental, He creates moral truths in a way which perhaps creates the best possible outcome. Because God is this omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent being, his judgement is then objective in a sense
That view explicitly makes moral truths constitutively depend on Gods stance, so it’s still subjective, & His great-making properties don’t subvert that or the arbitrariness since whatever God affirms as im/moral just is im/moral. So He could affirm grape & torture to be moral & that would be true necessarily.
like with God being unable to create a rock he cannot lift, if his omnipotence is limited by logical laws it makes them greater than himself
@@PROtoss987 poor argument too
“Can God create a rock that he can’t”
Yes but that mean the rock is now God, not him, your argument doesn’t work, because God is omnipotent until he makes something else greater than him, that thing becomes God now
so why would he do that? How does that Debunk omnipotence?
i love your channel. you have the most concise, logical, straightforward videos and you are the most underrated youtuber ive ever seen
Thank you so much! That means a lot!
1:00
P1: Untrue
P2: Untrue
C3: Untrue
Now we can move on and live our lives using our subjective morality which, unsurprisingly for a social species, overlaps with the subjective morality of those with whom we interact directly or indirectly.
Yeah. This must be one of the worst arguments for God.
Especially if you remind theists there is Euthyphro-problem they still fail to answer.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 that's been answered already.
@@whitevortex8323
Please enlighten me.
Thank you for watching! Let me know what you think! Make sure to like the video if you enjoyed it and subscribe for more philosophy videos!
The problem with the moral argument is that it's complaining about the way the world is, while pretending that's _not_ the way the world is, and then pretending to have a solution that can't be had
This is a misrepresentation. It is *not* "pretending that's not the way the world is and pretending to have a solution that can't be had". It is knowing how the world is supposed to operate and yet knowing that it is impossible to achieve it by ourselves.
I was listening to your video while working and I noticed you made an error. You jumped from using the word morals to the word ethics without explanation, which can be very jarring to someone who does not understand the interplay between those words.
A suggestion for future would be to give your list of definitions (and you may give time stamps for repeat viewers to jump over, if needed). If you don't want to spend type speaking what those terms mean, you could simply show them on screen and invite the viewer to pause the video and read at their leisure.
The main objection to the moral argument that I have is that a term is never brought up which I believe needs to be. That term is arbitrary. I, personally, am of the opinion that a God would not give objective morals, but arbitrary morals. In fact, when you listed WLC's synergism, one underlying assumption he makes (but never states) is that arbitrary = objective.
Yeah I agree I should have been more clear in my definitions. I did a livestream where I responded to comments where I clarified some of the problems I have with this video, which included defining terms like “objective” although I didn’t define ethics and morals, which, in hindsight perhaps I should have.
I agree with the other person's comment. I think you should be showcased and interviewed by the bigger channels that share your observations and beliefs.
Would you mind if I link your videos on the channels I am a member of, such as The Majority Report with Sam Seder and The Thinking Atheist?
Go for it! Happy to talk with anyone even if I don’t share their views
I appreciate the support!
Im a bit confused. In the slides where youre addressing the idea that objective morality could exist without a god you say that we could say something like “humans have objective rights u can't violate” and then we would kist these rights. My thing is, wouldn't this listing of rights be subjective to us and therefore still not objective? Surely not everyone would agree on every right listed.
Not necessarily. Deontologists would argue that these rights would be reasoned to, therefore, they are still objective so long as we agree on an initial set of “objective” premises which can lead to these rights.
In my opinion though, you’re exactly right and that’s part of why I don’t think objective morality can exist
@@ethanbenson Ahh I see, thanks! One question though, what are your thoughts on Euthyphro's dilemma?
I would agree with you (and I see Ethan's response below). You would just be presupposing an 'ought' as good. For exampe: You 'ought' to treat each other with kindness and respect. We would all agree on this. But WHY should we agree on this? What can we ground this in to say it is truly good? That is the problem with moral subjectivism and why an external objective reference must exist.
I’m growingly dissatisfied with this video. I can and should have done better in approaching this argument in good faith.
I will be revising this in a livestream on Monday the 8th of July at 1pm AEST
You should debate someone some time I bet youd be good
Definitely would be interested in that
How late will your livestream go for? I get off of work at 1:30 on monday and would be happy to debate you on these topics
I’d say for a couple of hours. I’d be happy to have you on
@@ethanbenson
Don’t be so hard on yourself just keep fine tuning 👍(no pun intended )
Everyone mentally and physically healthy has a conscience. We have awareness and the ability to control our thoughts. We know feelings of: lust, hatred, contempt, depression, anger, embarrassment, fear, frustration, laziness, inadequacy, helplessness, resentment, jealousy, envy, covetousness, deceitfulness, greed, pride, and enmity are wrong. We overcome them with virtues like: love, compassion, courage, honesty, chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, generosity, and humility. We instinctively know God is the voice of our conscience. Now we can quiet our conscience. We can turn to wickedness, but the moral argument for God remains powerful. It's undisturbed by the narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy of rabble rousing demagogues like Trump -- who will be dealt with in this life or the next. Have no misunderstanding about this. Nobody scoffs at God and gets away with it.
First, I'd argue objective morality is an oxymoron under theism. Regardless whether god is this metaphysically mind maintaining a Hegelian idealist version of reality, or some being overlooking a physical universe in a classical sense, he is a subject.
If he is the source, creator or standard of "good" and "evil", he is nonetheless a subject, and so morality is an extension of his subjectness. making morality subjective to him.
Secondly, the term and particular obsession people have with objective morality is cripplingly silly.
When we say it's "objectively true" that Mary is at home watching Netflix right now, what we're saying is that its negation is not true in reality.
Meanwhile, when we say that it's objectively true that murder is wrong, what has been said?
What does "wrong" mean? More specifically, what does it mean under a theistic model?
That God dislikes it and will punish it? Or, removing the subjectivity of "dislike" from the equation, that he will punish it akin some cosmic equation of karmic retribution based on the rules inherent to his nature?
Okay. Let's accept either version of that. What if a person doesn't care what god thinks, what his nature is, and doesn't care whether god will punish the behavior or not? Then he or she can, and will, clearly still engage in it.
It's therefore completely uninteresting.
What is interesting is what type of arguments, social pressures, and systems practically address or change behaviors we find undesirable, and by what metrics we judge behaviors as undesirable to begin with.
Fundamentally, the question is whether the metric "my holy book/god said so"/"that's consistent with the nature of my god" is satisfying when deciding whether we place a restriction/punishment on a particular behavior.
I would subject to any reasonable individual that it is not.
There's a million of reasons why murder is undesirable that would be compelling to the vast majority of humanity between both the realm of subjectivity, and the realm of facts-all of them superior to appeals to god.
If somebody stood in front of you with a gun pointed at the head of a family member, what is more likely to make him lower it:
1.) Telling him it's wrong to murder per the rules of the universe, or
2.) Appealing your shared humanity, the suffering that's being caused, the consequences in life to follow, or threatened him with punishment/retribution in this life?
I think anyone who picks 1 here are lying. If not to me, then to themselves.
The worry therefore that subjective morality is insufficient insofar its basically just a fancy and illusory distraction from Moral Nihilism and Expressivism wherein humans are left to bicker over preferences is therefore completely moot, insofar that's literally what we're already doing ALL THE TIME, and "objective morality", even if it existed, wouldn't change that fact.
@@hian this is a really interesting comment. I’ll have to think on it further. Massively appreciate you taking the time to post it!
@@ethanbenson
Np. Not expecting any lengthy replies or anything.
Might as well add the context though, if you find it interesting:
I do consider myself both a Moral Nihilist, and an Expressivist, and I think ethics and "morality" are just language games we play in service of getting others to go along with our preferences/values, which are downstream from our biological predispositions as a species.
There's a very interesting thought experiment that asks us to consider what would happen if we came across a sentient species of giant emerald wasps from space. The emerald wasp, if you're not familiar, has reproductive cycle that's predicated on paralyzing a victim from another species, planting its egg in it, and thereby killing it(much like the Xenomorph from Alien).
Now, is it likely, even if we imagine these creatures were intelligent like us, that they'd develop similar ethics to us? Would they hold that "murder" is intrinsically wrong? Would they be conscientious about bodily autonomy?
If our species could not co-exist due to their inherently predatory nature, would we be morally justified in destroying them? Would they be justified in enslaving us to their reproductive cycle? What would a conversation between us look like in trying to solve our mutually exclusive interests?
I guess my point is that "morality" as an idea, and its associated systems of ethics would be entirely superfluous.
Fundamentally, we would either have to hash it out in a conversation over subjective and pragmatic give and takes, or we'd have to duke it out until one side loses. And, incidentally, this is what all "moral" conflict looks like at the end of the day anyways. You don't have to look further than the end of the transpacific slave-trade. It didn't end because humanity stumbled on some new objective moral fact, or because some system of ethics won out in an intellectual debate. It ended because enough people found it disgusting and unbearable to the point they fought a war over it.
In so many words, I think you have to live in a fairly privileged bubble to worry over what "losing objective morality" looks like, because it means you've never had to grapple with legitimate unreconcilable moral values, nor spent any serious time thinking about why people do the things they do(probably sidestepping such thoughts by just thinking of others as "evil").
People don't murder because they lack a belief in murder being wrong. They murder because of extraneous circumstances and conditioning that has impressed upon them a necessity for murder.
I don't fear a Nihilist who doesn't believe murder is wrong but has no motivation to do so and several good reasons not to. I fear moralists and ideologues who think murder is necessary to bring about their ideal world or society.
Moralists are several orders of magnitude scarier than Nihilists. Always have, and always will be. Behind every single atrocity committed in human history, you will find fanatics who think their behavior is fundamentally moral.
@@hian Do you know of the german philosopher Hans-George Moeller and his youtube channel Carefree Wandering? If not, I recommend checking him out. He seems right up your alley.
Anyway, I have some thoughts and questions for you, if you would care to indulge me.
How is subjective morals consistent with moral nihilism, and how is it not completely arbitrary in the end? Meaning: how could you, as a moral nihilist, in the end legitimately criticize a murder? How could a murderer with the same exact position as you, be wrong about murdering? Besides customs, which still must be arbitrary to a nihilist if he's consistent. (except that, in the history of mankind, murder seems to be apart of our preferred customs either way, whether you believe it to be right or not.)
As I understand nihilism, you'd have to disregard the concept of morality completely, with all it entails, to be consistent as a moral nihilist. Of course, you'd then rightfully be regarded as a lunatic - and as such you seem to need, for example, the ad hoc explanation for subjective morals in the end to make it reasonable.
Now, I'm not a nihilist, though I've read some of Nietzsche if that's worth anything, so I could of course be wrong in my understanding, or it could be just a question of semantics, that an ignoramus such as myself cannot wrap my head around. Either way, some type of modification seems to be needed to make nihilism of any sort, to work as a theory to base your life on.
Moreover, let's say you're correct in your critique of systems based objective morals. Then I don't see how your position would be a preferred alternative, as it only works on the basis of the fact that the majority in a culture, more or less, intuitively or explicitly, believe in the morals of their culture, or at least act like they do, as if they were objective, even if they're not (If nothing else, this is a great concession that human beings are experts at make belief!)
Western cultures, of which I think you're a part of (correct me if I'm wrong), are based in part on the idea that morals have an objective source, and as such it is a privilege to be able to hold onto a nihilistic position in such a culture, and completely disregard their history.
I am merely trying to understand and reason with your position the best I can. Especially as there is some controversy around the concept of nihilism, of which I'm certain you're aware of. I have no problem with you calling yourself a moral nihilist, and just find it a reward in itself to get to have an exchange of thought with people of different beliefs (I hope you can accept that I use this word). And to be open with my own position, I profess myself to be a Christian, which is a belief that I've been grappling with for many years now, and only just recently have come to, and which it's not at all easy to reconcile with a modern worldview by the way.
Finally, I'd like to point out a bit of flawed reasoning in this section:
"If somebody stood in front of you with a gun pointed at the head of a family member, what is more likely to make him lower it:
1.) Telling him it's wrong to murder per the rules of the universe, or
2.) Appealing your shared humanity, the suffering that's being caused, the consequences in life to follow, or threatened him with punishment/retribution in this life?
I think anyone who picks 1 here are lying. If not to me, then to themselves."
To be and act as a believer in ultimate moral judgement, of the sort you refer to in 1), doesn't entail that it would be the thing, that is the belief in question, that you conjure up, as an act of defense in such a particularly loaded situation (no pun intended). I don't know of any moral system that would prescribe such a statement as a moral act in and of itself (maybe this, once again, is an admission of my own ignorance.) As such, it seems we are in agreement that 1) is a ridiculous option, but from my point of view it would be because this is not a likely action from any reasonable adherent to any system of morals, whether religious, objective, subjective, or none of that.
2) I reckon can only follow from your ad hoc acceptance of subjective morals, as a moral nihilist.
@@EatPieYes
There's a lot to go through here, so I hope you'll excuse the length(I've had to split this up into parts). I'll say that I don't expect you to reply at a similar length, but given the fact that you typed out such a thoughtful response, I wished to treat your inquires with respect.
I'll start with your question, "How is subjective morality consistent with moral nihilism and how is it not completely arbitrary in the end?"
Moral subjectivism under my view is an incoherent idea. It's not "consistent with moral nihilism", rather it's a poor man's conceit reached for by people in a vain attempt to escape its uncomfortably stark outlook even though they, like the moral nihilist, are stuck in the exact same predicament-namely a rejection of moral truths.
It's only equivalent in the sense that it's stranded with the exact same problems. The nihilist is just honest enough to face those problems rather than seek refuge in language-games.
To illustrate though:
If the argument of moral subjectivists is that "rights" and "wrongs" exist but are subject dependent, then you still need define a metric by which behaviors are right and wrong. And, if that metric varies from individual to individual, creature to creature, there's no meaningful distinction in this from saying morality is merely a word for any system of judgement of behavior according to preferences, which is what Expressivism is, and is congruent with moral nihilism as a position insofar moral nihilism is just another way of saying hard moral anti-realist.
Moral nihilism cannot be a rejection of moral subjectivism, if by moral subjectivism all you're referring to are subjective behavioral preferences. Obviously, nobody can deny that when we all have them. However, any school of thought on the subjectivists anti-realist side don't get to use this as an argument against moral nihilism if and when they extrapolate beyond preferences, which many of them do.
All I'm saying here, is that if all you mean by morality is some idea of humans working together as subjects based on shared preferences, then sure, "morality exists". However, not only is that not the idea of morality Nihilists reject. It's also not the definition used for morality outside of a very few schools of thought like Expressivism(hence why I consider myself an Expressivist Moral Nihilist).
Secondly, "completely arbitrary" is a non-sequitur in relation both to subjective morality and models that explain conscientious human behavioral models.
That humans have a preference not to murder is not "arbitrary" in any sense of the word. It's a feature of our biology without which we would go extinct. There are very good reasons for humans' pro-social, as well as anti-social, behaviors. There's nothing arbitrary about this.
That does not imply however, these predispositions and preferences are "moral" in the classical sense of that word, since we can easily imagine creatures who, in evolving differently, have different predispositions and preferences. If you were to make a subjective moral argument that, for example, it's immoral for species A to murder because they have that preference, while it's moral for species B to murder because they have that preference, all you're doing is using "morality" as a synonym for "preferential behavior" like in Expressivism. That is still a denial of the basic project of literally all classical moral and meta-ethical frameworks, exactly the same as the moral nihilist. Describing "moral behavior" in that sense is not at all in tune with what moral philosophy was created to do.
My position just further postulate that modern and post-modern moral models are vacuous as well, in this respect. They're poor attempts at fixing something that isn't fixable. They recognize that the old-world philosophers' conception of objective morality is incoherent, but instead of scrapping the idea altogether, they've created this contrived monstrosity in its place that is just as incoherent, though less obviously so.
Your questions after that point, I think, demonstrate a failure to fully immerse yourself in the position of the moral nihilist. You ask how could I "legitimately criticize a murder"? But that's an incoherent question which reflects a blind-spot, an inability to truly take off your moral goggles to indulge the position of the nihilist fully.
Under moral nihilism, there's no such thing as "legitimate criticism" of behavior in moral terms the way you asked that question. Rather all criticisms of all behaviors are equally legitimate in spirit, but only as functional as they make sense to the target of the criticism. Hence, it does not mean there aren't "legitimate reasons" of an amoral character to want someone to cease a behavior, and the only reason one would assume the opposite is if you're already presuming that all behavior is tied to moral judgements in the first place.
Remember-the nihilist and hard anti-realists don't believe this, nor is there any reason to assume that.
We humans have deep emotional preferences we desire to see respected and realized, and it makes complete sense for us to criticize or interfere with the actions of others when they come into conflict with said preferences. However, there simply is no reason to mask this with obtuse, and frankly speaking incoherent, moral language.
Furthermore, it is not the case that they "must be arbitrary for the nihilist to be consistent". That, is pure nonsense.
If I go to a restaurant and decline to eat one of the seafood dishes because I don't like salmon, or am allergic to lobster, those are "legitimate reasons", but they are not moral reasons. When I wake up and eat breakfast in the morning because I'm hungry, that too is a legitimate reason albeit not a moral one.
I don't eat because it's "morally good" for me eat, nor do I abstain from eating food that's dangerous to me because it's "morally wrong" to do so. I just do because that's my preference. And, if I were to theorize why I have that preference, I'd say it's because of my evolved brain chemistry.
Now, sometimes people's preferences come into conflict. Maybe someone wants to steal what I have, or wants to see me in pain because they hate my guts. If you're asking me how could I "legitimately ask them to abstain from doing either" in a moral sense, the answer is still, "that's an incoherent question whose answer would be irrelevant even if it weren't".
If a person wants to murder me, then my preference not to be murdered by that person is reason enough to deny them, and, whatever reason would be necessary to dissuade them is going to be whatever reason it is relative to their preferences and fears etc. It could be an appeal to their empathy. It could be an appeal to practical consequences. It could be crushing their skull with a crowbar. Whichever it is though, it is unlikely to have anything to do with an ethical discussion about moral values.
This should be made abundantly clear the moment you swap any transgressor on your preferences out for a unconscious or lower-sentience material threat like a Tsunami, bear or hedge-trimmer-wielding gardening robot. Non of these are ammendable to moral discourse, yet no-one would cede their life to any of them simply because non of them can be convinced to not murder you with a compelling moral argument.
Moving on:
Yes, I do disregard morality, thinking it an incoherent concept. My only additional stipulation is that so do Moral Subjectivists-they just don't recognize it because they've settled for tortured terminology and reasoning in pursuit of what they consider the terrifying "implications" of Nihilism(likely due to struggling with the same questions you just asked me).
Again, it's founded in the conceit that if you cannot feed behaviors into some sort of system and get neat moral judgements out on the other end, people will just start murdering each other indiscriminately for no other reason than, "well, it isn't wrong", which of course, completely ignores millions of years of human evolution in groups as a social ape, and the basic fact that people act for positive reasons, not in the absence of them.
The idea that I'd be regarded as a lunatic for rejection the sheer idiocy of moral language, to me, speaks volumes more of the naive and childish mind of a person who'd say such a thing than it does about the Nihilist, and let's make it abundantly clear why:
Moral statements are empty, the words "right" and "wrong", empty signifiers waiting to be filled by their speakers though they seldom if ever are when uttered.
When I categorically reject the statement, "murder is wrong", I'm rejecting it because it's an incomplete statement, likely made in ignorance by a person whose metacognition is insufficient to recognize what the words coming out of their mouths are even supposed to mean, not because I don't have objections to murder. It's therefore the moral presuppositionalist who's acting like a lunatic here, not me, insofar they confuse my refusal to accept the statement, "murder is wrong," with "acceptance of murder," despite lacking the intelligence to recognize that the statement, "murder is wrong," doesn't actually mean anything.
After all, what does "wrong" even mean?
It means whatever the speaker's moral system decrees it to be, if the speaker even has one. Most of the time, it's just a feeling though, one resulting from a combination of evolutionary instincts and inherited social values.
If you're talking to a Utilitarianist, he or she are using "wrong" to mean "unnecessary suffering". If you're talking to a Deontologist, they're using it to mean, "unvirtuous". If you're talking to a run of the mill Christian, they're using it to mean, "against the will of god".
In all cases though, unequivocally, it expresses, "don't murder because I don't like it". Moreover, seeing as I think all those other meanings are either logically flawed or incoherent, it's the only genuine meaning of the term if it has one at all.
Hence, when I reject the statement "murder is wrong", I am not rejecting things that can be said about murder which most people, myself included, don't like.
Yes, murder causes suffering. Yes, murder is anti-social. Yes, if we generally permit murder, society will collapse. These are all true and good reasons to not murder.
However, the statement, "murder is wrong," is still vacuous and impotent. Not only does it obfuscate the actual traits humans care about when it comes to behavior and judgements. You indulge that asinine use of language at your own and others' very real risk by propagating moralist culture, which again, is the number one factor in giving "moral lisencing" to human tragedies like war, discrimination, cruel punishments, child-abuse, and so forth.
Suppose we were to say that, "wrong" refers the traits I just described, and that morality is about designating behaviors that embody those traits. Well, now you've just committed to a view in which being anti-social is somehow "wrong", wherein suffering is always "wrong", and wherein sociatal collapse is always "wrong". But, anti-social behahior is adapted for to allow individuals the faculties to fight the group oppressions that stem from the fiat of social cohesion. Suffering is a necessary condition for growth through adverse stimuli. And, presumably, we would want certain regressive and dangerous societies to collapse rather than threaten their neighbors.
What I'm really getting at here is that morality and moralisms cannot be divorced from the burdens of "right" and "wrong", which are dysfunctional linguistic terms with respects to behavior in the sense with which they're applied.
You can have the wrong key to a door. You can have the right answer to a question. You can have the wrong behavior for the purposes of making your parents happy. You can have the right behavior for the purposes of making your village prosper.
You cannot, however, have right and wrong behavior in a moral sense- because the moral sense, is a conceit predicated on the human desire to elevate their preferences into something more than they are.
The project of moral philosophy only exists in the first place because humans want their preferences to be respected yet lack confidence in their ability to make that happen on the individual merits of the preferences themselves. The word's "right/good" and "wrong/evil" are therefore purposefully and obtusely linked to a feeling moreso than their actual definitions inside any moral system. In reality, I contend, morality is inexplicably tied to the practice of, and desire for, efficiently and cheaply applying the labels "good" and "evil" to things, behaviors, and peoples. And, that the moral systems which try hard not do, either suffer in irrelevance for not providing that service, or run the risk of not being seen as moral systems at all.
All of this becomes abundantly apparent the moment you demand a moralist justify why they've defined their terms the way they do.
Ask the Utilitarian why it's wrong to murder, and he'll say because it causes unnecessary suffering. Ask him why unnecessary suffering is wrong though, how he determines what suffering is truly unnecessary, and insist you enjoy visiting suffering upon others - that it's necessary for your flourishing - and watch him have nowhere left to go in terms of argumentation. This is true for all moralists, regardless their system or school of thought.
In face of reductive scrutiny, all they can say is, "well, that's just my definition, and by my definition, you're evil," and that takes me full circle back to my initial point:
Firstly, that's a meaningless tautology, which betrays your need and desire for the terms instinctual power rather than actual meaning. And two, how is this distinct from living in a nihilist's reality. How is this any less arbitrary than an impartial Expressivist understanding of reality?
*You* define. By *your* arbitration. By *your* preferences. So what? What if I don't agree? What if others don't agree?
You're right back where you started, because it's all smoke and mirrors, and that's what it was all along-pretentious sophistry in pursuit of preferential hegemony through obfuscating language.
"Without God, everything is permitted"
It's worth pointing out that Paul, in 1 Cor, twice says:
"All things are lawful unto me" (6:12, 10:23)
So, if God exists, all things are lawful, though all things are not expedient, which even an atheist could agree to.
So owning people and gr4p3 are lawful??? Please explain.
@@KasperKatje Paul was generally talking to the lowest class of people who wouldn't have much opportunity to own people or get away with much so it was easy for him to make big promises about the hereafter which never materializes.
@@11kravitzn thanks for clearing that up.
Yeah, but if it IS beneficial for a non-believer, even though it's detrimental to those around a non-believer, then what?
Morality is an evolutionary trait to enhance our survival (part of survival of the fittest, the best adapted).
Since we are social animals it is in the best interest of the individual and the group to act moral.
Because of our large brain we have an advantage over other animals: we are able to reason and come up with a moral framework.
Most of us base this on wellbeing, empathy, human rights and flourishing.
But it is, unfortunately, focused on your own group which led and can lead to tribalism.
The framework isn't 100% proof/sound but it's the best we have. Slowly we are trying to make it global and as objective as possible, like with the universal human rights.
I wish it was objective but it isn't. Morality is relative and that's shown by the fact it differs from society to society and throughout history.
Even the bible shows it: god condoned and ordered sl4very, m1s0gyny, st0ning g4ys, gen0c1de and gr4ping virgin girls.
If morality was objective/absolute (and god would be the standard), those laws and acts should still be moral.
I think it’s also interesting to consider that animals have ethics of sorts. Think about chickens having a pecking order or pack animals which have some kind of social order. This further implies a naturalistic formation of morality as we see simplistic forms of moral decision making in these animals
@@ethanbenson yup, chimps rarely k1ll one of their own group but have no problem picking up sticks and stones to k1ll members of other groups.
I'm a simple man I see Ethan Benson I updoot 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
The simple way: Name one moral that comes from god that didn't exist thousands of years before the god did.
The problem with this argument is that theists will claim God always existed
The point he’s making is about logical priority not temporal priority.
I’m not sure that is the point he was making, but if that is the case then I agree
@@ethanbenson
I think the formulation is a bit confused, but what he's probably getting at is that ideas like murder being wrong predate the invention of the Abrahamic faiths, which begs the question how those peoples came upon their conclusions without god's revelation.
Yahweh does not exist in the historical record prior to some 800 years BCE. Yet, the Canaanites had laws forbidding murder and theft.
Hence, while it could still be the case that "god is the author of moral facts", it cannot be the fact that god is necessary for humans to recognize them, which then further begs the question:
If humans can recognize moral facts without awareness of god's decrees, then by what metric do we do so, and, if such a metric exists, then why does god need to exist in the first place?
The moral argument cannot just account for God's necessity for moral facts, it must do so in a way that satisfies human moral behavioral predispositions in his absence given humans have been acting "morally" before any of them knew he even existed, much less having heard his moral demands.
@@hian this was my initial reading, and I generally agree that this is a strong objection
Yes, the moral argument sucks as it just relies on feelings.
I’m not sure that it entirely relies on feelings, but certainly relies on assumptions that aren’t sound in my opinion
Morals aren't JUST based on feelings.
@@-----GOD----- How do you see morals?
@@someonesomeone25
Is this a riddle, or just a dumb question?
@@-----GOD-----it’s a reasonable question
Hi, what do you think about transcendental argument? It's a pressup argument. I don't know if you are familiar with Jay Dyer.
I mean, it depends on the specific transcendental argument, but broadly I don’t think the premise that God is necessary for any particular phenomena is stronger than a naturalistic or pragmatic explanation simply because it seems to me to be an extra unnecessary proposition. I’m not familiar with Dyer’s way of arguing it, I’d need to look into him further to have an opinion
@@ethanbenson from what I understand, he argues that in order to have grounding for logic, knowledge, free will, morality, meaning, language, etc., that we need to presuppose God bc these are transcendental categories and God would be the ultimate foundation and the only version of God that can ground those things is supposedly the Christian version and in his case, I don't know how he arrives at that, the Orthodox conception. Bc in atheism, especially if you are consistent with your skepticism, there is no meaning, no free will, morality is just your emotions, language has no meaning and then you arrive at solipsism. And he says that it's not a problem that the argument is circular bc ar the foundation, you need to have circularity. E.g., you use words to explain words, numbers to explain numbers, etc.
@@bilal535the argument is horrendously bad on pretty much every level. For starters, appealing to God doesn’t actually solve the problem it purports to be addressing, it simply pushes the epistemic problem (if it even IS a problem) back a step. But even if we grant everything that they say, at best that only ends up being an argument against metaphysical naturalism/materialism. It doesn’t get you anywhere NEAR any specific religion.
It’s a garbage circular argument. And Dyer is a dishonest creep
@@bilal535absolutely dishonest, straw man garbage. Where do you get this junk? Lies and slander. Shame on you
3.29. I wonder how we can establish hedonistic utilitarianism as the right approach to begin with, given that in naturalistic worldview, we are just a combination of particles that move solely in accordance to the law of physics.
This is why I ground my metaethics in intersubjectivity rather than in some sort of ontological realism
What do you think of non dualism?
It’s definitely interesting and has some merit, I’ll perhaps talk about it in a video
What if someone just doesn't believe in the moral priors of someone making this argument. Is one person disobeying enough to change their mind on morality? What if it were a million people? Not sure how this argument is taken seriously.
Good vid. Keep it up 👌
Thanks!
bless you. good video bro
Cheers mate!
You’re studying philosophy and this is your critique? This is really bad. You need to study this more, let me know if you want to talk
I did make a follow up video which is a better critique, although I do stand by this video, despite its flaws. I think those flaws have more to do with presentation of the ideas than the ideas themselves. Anyway, what specifically do you have a problem with and why is it "really bad"?
@@ethanbenson I didn’t get very far into it because of how off base you were. You suggested that a system like utilitarianism gets you objective morality, which is absurd. You need to account for things like categorical imperatives if you’re going to even attempt to ground objective morality. Utilitarianism is subjective* and it’s relative, and it’s speculative, it gives hypothetical imperatives not categorical imperatives, it can’t ground objective values, or purpose… do you think the rest of your video gets better or worse?
I mean, Peter Singer would beg to differ with you on that one. He goes into detail in Practical Ethics on why he thinks that utilitarianism is not subjective. In fact, this was the whole project of Derek Parfit, who convinced Singer that morality is objective.
It is kind of besides the ultimate point though. I go on in the video to claim ethics is subjective, so it isn't that crucial to my point that you agree that utilitarianism can be objective. I would say though, that this video is actually more of a vehicle for my own views than a critique of the moral argument. My other video on it is directly a critique of it.
As a sidenote, it's pretty disingenuous to claim the video is bad without actually watching the whole thing, or even most of it.
@@ethanbenson I didn’t say I watched it all, and I asked you if it gets better to hear whether or not you think the rest is better or not, because even you should understand that bringing up man made moral systems doesn’t mean morality itself is objective. Humans creating logical systems doesn’t equal logic existing, any moral than theological systems means that God exists. You should know this. It’s difficult to finish something that begins this poorly. Do you want me to critique the rest?
Oh and Peter Singer thinking utilitarianism is objective doesn’t mean morality is objective, that’s an appeal to authority, and I assure you he’s wrong, and clearly YOU also think he’s wrong since you’re a non cognitivist.
@skepticalstrom6247 you saying the video is really bad implies you’ve actually watched it.
I don’t have time to respond to all of this, and I feel I have elsewhere anyway, but my comment regarding Singer isn’t an appeal to authority. What a braindead thing to say. My point is that most contemporary utilitarian philosophers argue that utilitarianism is compatible with morality being objective, even though I disagree with them.
this topic only should be 1 minit if you really understand it. 5000 years still human can't figure it out
How so?
@@ethanbenson nvm just do you, i just complaining
This isnt a refutation this is end stage cringe bad. Ethan makes so many silly mistakes that wouldn't even pass philosophy 101. Nothing to see here except reddit level "skepticism"
Any feedback in particular? Your critique itself is scarce of any detail considering you’re calling my criticism bad
What’s your critique?
@@ethanbenson You should respond to Christian philosophers directly like Aquinas and Augustine
@@MizterMoonshine I like this idea. I might do that in future
Subscribed
Thanks!
Do you actually believe what you're saying or are you asking us, the audience? YOU don't seem sure of what you're saying at all.
Well, I think I probably should have been more charitable in this video towards the argument, however, I do stand by my position 100%
Simultaneously, I’m always interested in what others think because maybe they’ve thought of something I haven’t and I can learn from them.
@@ethanbenson OK, be a bit more forceful. I'm trying to be kind because I've been an atheist for all my seventy two years. I was born one.
@@toni4729 I find it a tough balance between being forceful and giving the opposing argument a fair shake. It seems that if I simply take something like the idea that ethics come from God and say this is obviously false that people will latch onto that and deride me for it to no end as shown in the comments section to this video
@@ethanbenson OK, I'm definitely on the side of "There is no god and there is no devil' but I get the feeling from some of the things you said that you're not so sure. I got a nervous feeling from you. Perhaps you didn't want to offend people.
> I was born one. <
No need to brag; we all were. 😜
Debate Jay Dyer
Sure, I’d be happy to
Nice Malenia pfp
What for? He’s a dishonest creep
If you find objective morality without god, you find god.
Technically you also need objective truth, but you can't get to the first without the latter.
Nope, since there is no objective/absolute morality and the bible shows this.
Didn't you read the OT? God condoned owning people and gr@p3...
If morality would be absolute/objective, those things should still be moral but are not.
@KasperKatje holly damn, you are tarded. What kind of "god allowed it because people were sinful" didn't you understand?
@@lloydgush yes, I heard that lame 4ss excuse before...after the same people claiming we are all sinners...🤡
@KasperKatje but you are. Morality is infrastructure, like all intellectual structure.
You didn't really destroy the moral argument u just waffled about and gave us a history and ethics lesson not to be rude tbh but you dint actually give any serious pushback to any of the premises Nice slides tho .
You know, I’m inclined to agree. As noted in the pinned comment, on reflection, I’m pretty dissatisfied with this video as I know I could have and should have done a better job.
Here's the problem. God, as described in the bible, is a spirit. And not a physical thing. His spirit is a representation of all good things desired by humanity. Chief among these things is goodness, freedom, liberty, hope, and most importantly, love. Without something to hope for, even you have to agree that all is lost. You want to propose that we simply exist as a random accident, we have no purpose, we have no reason for existing, and we have no future. For some people who have lost everything and have nothing left to hope for in life, such a concept is too much for them to bear. And then you are told about this spirit, this abstract entity who may, or may not exist that promises he will not leave you or forsake you and gives you hope in there being a better tomorrow despite all the horrible things you've endured. And it's the last hope you have. Then you have others around you constantly telling you that you shouldn't put your faith in something that doesn’t exist. And with great fervor, their logical minds who can't even comprehend a reason why you would want continue to believe despite all the evidence to the contrary try to justify thier reasons with essays, documentaries, and debate. The faithful will not be convinced. And you have to simply live with that.
There’s a lot here, I’ll try to break my response down so it roughly is separated out by each point you brought up.
1. One must question why we should not take all of the horrible wars he encourages and the endorsement of slavery into account and wonder if God actually does only represent goodness.
2. We don’t need God to have something to hope for.
3. I didn’t propose anything as to how or why we exist
4. The lack of a God does not mean we cannot exist for a purpose we define for ourselves.
5. Of course there can be reason to continue existing without God. We exist to experience the world, to love, to be loved, to help others, to learn.
6. Even if the concept of us not existing for a reason is difficult for some, that has no relation to the validity of the claim (which again, I didn’t make here)
7. Of course I can see why you would want to believe. If their belief is purely a banal, personal comfort, then I have no problem. When it evolves into an organised religion which tells people how to live their life and that they must enforce this way of living onto others, then I have a problem.
8. People change their minds all the time. I myself was once a catholic and then later changed my mind. Give the religious some credit, they aren’t stupid people.
@@ethanbenson
Please understand that I'm not trying to insult you. So I apologize in advance if any of my words upset you. I really hope you believe me when I say that. But you have given me some wonderful talking points here.
"One must question why we should not take all of the horrible wars he encourages and the endorsement of slavery into account and wonder if God actually does only represent goodness." Yes. God is everything good and just in the universe. He represents they way, the truth, and the life, everything we do that is truly good, and just, is a reflection of god. God didn't cause the holocaust. God didn't beat slaves to death or refer to them as lower life forms. We did that by failing to live up to his glory. And that is the evil in us.
"we don't need God to have something to hope for." Without that hope in a higher power than ourselves, we are stuck with our own power. and I don't know if you've looked around lately, but our own power is corrupt, and incapable of saving us. We are on the brink of nuclear destruction. coral reefs are dying. there's microplastics in our food. the ocean stinks. The ice caps are melting. famine, pestilence, and countless other problems, no human being, nor government has the ability to stop.
"I didn’t propose anything as to how or why we exist" You do by denying the existence of god. it appears to be the keystone of your existential identity. (This is an assumption and I'm perfectly fine with being wrong about this) To deny the existence of God is to deny the existence of our purpose. it says in the Bible that god has a purpose for all of us, and fulfilling that purpose is the one, and only thing that will satisfy us.
"The lack of a God does not mean we cannot exist for a purpose we define for ourselves." The holy spirit is the one true thing in reality. everything else is temporary, and will fade with time. The purpose we define for ourselves has no lasting meaning. Going wherever the wind may carry it.
"Of course there can be reason to continue existing without God. We exist to experience the world, to love, to be loved, to help others, to learn." You are proving my point here by saying this. God wants this. This is the essence of the Holy spirit. God has always wanted this, and he wants us to see who gave us these desires.
"Even if the concept of us not existing for a reason is difficult for some, that has no relation to the validity of the claim (which again, I didn’t make here)" The concept of not existing is difficult for every single person who has ever lived. You can't tell me you've never thought about it yourself. and again, you do claim it simply by denying the existence of God.
"Of course I can see why you would want to believe. If their belief is purely a banal, personal comfort, then I have no problem. When it evolves into an organized religion which tells people how to live their life and that they must enforce this way of living onto others, then I have a problem." I agree on this. Organized religion has been the source of some of the greatest human-caused atrocities the world has ever seen. But you shouldn't blame god for the evil acts of his creation, we have only ourselves to blame for these atrocities. And I hope I'm not trying to enforce my beliefs onto you, that is far from my intention. However, I felt like sharing my beliefs because you have given me a platform here to do so.
"People change their minds all the time. I myself was once a catholic and then later changed my mind. Give the religious some credit, they aren’t stupid people." And here is where I saw the issue. You were once Catholic. Catholicism isn't Christianity. It is one of the most powerful brainwashing cults in the entire world, and I'm glad you escaped it. They have their own bible. they venerate, and worship the creation, and not the creator. The saints (humans raised and put up on pedestals) They are idolatrous (large figures of the Virgin Mary, depictions of Jesus on the cross, candles with images of the saints) They disobey Jesus's teachings by engaging in repetitive, meaningless prayers. They commit blasphemy, which as you may or may not know is the act of taking the duties of God. (the confessionals) and put a human man on a throne and fall at his feet to worship him as god on earth (the pope).
And I know you didn't ask for this. But I believe in God because I must. I can't live in a world without hope. And God has given me the only hope I have left. I would be suffering from crippling depression, Loneliness, and endless misery if it weren't for my faith. I seek all that is Holy, beautiful, just, and pure. and I am a sinner who falls short, incapable of even getting up to go to work every morning if it weren't for the hope God has given me. I am not looking to change your mind. In fact I don't know what I'm doing. But I would like to thank you for your reply, and I hope that I gave you a little more insight into the mind of someone who believes in God.
@@TheKrensada I'm an agnosticist and I've been through depression and hopelesness as well. I also look for what is beautiful and bright in life, and I do all this without a god.
For a lot of us, god -or believing in one, isn't strictly wrong, it's just redundant. We don't need to believe clownfish can actually speak for realsies and that the Finding Nemo movie is a true story to 1. get the message and 2. agree with it.
@@ethanbenson
1. This lame atheist talking point has been addressed ad nauseum.
2. Yes we do.
3. How convenient.
4. In a materialist world view like yours you have no free will since you are merely the result of chemical processes that have no meaning.
5. None of these things have actual meaning in the materialist world view.
6. Of course you did not make claims to this effect because you can't since there is no meaning in a materialist world view.
7. So you and your half baked philosophy should tell us how to live? So if you are not telling us how we ought to live then your opinions are meaningless and should be discarded. Are you an anarchist?
8. You turned your back on god and gave in to the passions that will consume you.
@@TheKrensada Whoa. Your zeal is just too much. So much so, that you feel like you're the arbiter of the definition of what God is, even in the face of contradiction. God himself even contradicts what you are so adamantly saying about him.
Surely you're aware of what God's blessings are for the Israelites in heaven. Slaves, fieldworkers, concubines, handmaids, nannies to breastfeed the Israelite's children, etc.. God gives slaves as gifts. You say God is ONLY good, yet the bible clearly shows that he is a wrathful God as well, who by his own words, does in fact, "hate."
You critiqued this individual's statements based on your own personal skewed version of what you think God is (which dare I say, seems narcissistic), and he then replied to your critiques with respectful, genuine, concise clarifications, and with intellectual honesty/integrity, and he showed exactly how you misunderstood and/or misrepresented his words. You TOTALLY IGNORED the content of his reply, which rightly contained an illuminated undertone of where your comprehension, epistemological framework, and discernment had haphazardly led you, and your response to him overwhelmingly showed just how much you didn't care to listen. He also wasn't, "insulted," and gave no signs to suggest such, he was just letting you know where you were going wrong. Not realizing this, you then decided to double down by responding with even more in-depth critiques, to the degree that makes you look as if you are just trying to pick him apart by ANY means, for your own personal reasons.
If I were him, I would just copy and paste my first reply, and post it as a reply to your reply. His first reply answers all of the problems in your first AND second replies. You could have saved yourself some time from writing that second one if you would have just showed the same courtesy as he did by actually reading, understanding, and simply replying to him accordingly.
In a nutshell, your second reply just made you look like a prick who doesn't care enough to listen to other people, and you're only here to have other people listen to you, and agree with whatever it is that YOU say. You might want to work on your listening skills, as to not give off that appearance. I'm sure you're not really that person.
Much love.
"God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?" Friedrich Nietzsche. People instinctively need something spiritual. Without it, all that is left is nilism and ultimately death.
@@jim-es8qk another quote from Nietzsche: “I have a terrible fear that one day I shall be pronounced holy. You will guess why I publish this book before; it shall prevent people from doing mischief with me. I do not want to be a saint, rather even a buffoon. Perhaps I am a buffoon.”
I do not think his initial point in Thus Spoke Zarathustra is at all that people need something spiritual. It is that people need some sort of meaning to their life, and through killing traditional religion, we can transcend it and create new values which allow us to go beyond what faith has created.
But then, as alluded to in my initial quote, perhaps Nietzsche is just wrong. Just quoting the man does not provide proof of the validity of his claims.
@@ethanbenson Evidence? Look at early 20th century Europe. War, mass purges and ge*ocide. It didn't happen in England, religion is incorporated in to the state.
@@ethanbensonMost people live very short lives. They simply don't have the time to create an entire new value structure from scratch. It's nonsense. Modern lifestyles are lonely depressing and often pointless. Why is that? They are lost because they listen to people like you. The bible is perfect for wisdom and at providing general direction for a person's life. Which is what people are missing. It's historically the most popular book in the world for a reason.
If this is your position, why quote Nietzsche who holds a completely opposing view then?
@@ethanbensonEvidence? Early 20th century Europe.
Do you need a god for morality? Probably. Without a higher being to which to answer, too, you believe you are god. So, for morality to work, you need to believe you are answerable to something higher than yourself. If you act immoral, their will be a consequence for your actions.
Eeehm, your statement doesn't make sense.
Even if you try to claim you need god when you are god yourself, you don't need a higher being since you are that highest being.
Next to that: didn't you read the OT in which god condoned owning people and gr4p3?
So according to your reasoning that's (still) moral. Sorry, but not in my book.
@@KasperKatjeYou're not, though. Ultimately, if you f**k up, act imorally, or stray from the metaphorical path, something will pull you back into line. And that is what god is.
@jim-es8qk yet bad people are able to get ahead in the world. People who wage war, exploit children, utilise sweatshop labour are able to be successful and enjoy a seemingly pleasant life. I mean, even people who unknowingly benefit from things like sweatshops and child labour (i.e. a large portion of the western world) live perfectly happy lives.
@@ethanbensonI'd argue bad people don't get ahead. Karma (Or god) bites them eventually. No one ever gets away with anything!!
Karma is for suckers. Make justice happen. 🤘
These arguments fall apart under any degree of scrutiny. Total reddit tier stuff here. Any knowlegable theist could rip these horrible arguments to shreds
Destroy it then lmao? If it was so easy, then you would have destroyed it already
You don’t think calling these “reddit atheists points” is itself a lazy, hack response?
@@ethanbenson No. This remark is completely warranted.
How so? Do you have any specific critiques?
well obviously you aren't a very knowledgeable theist since you're being All Bark No Bite
The theistic position provides a coherent basis for objective morality, atheistic systems of morality rely purely on human taste preference with nothing to appeal to to reach good and evil. What basis do you have to believe in value judgements of any kind? Atheism in its most coherent form leads to pure solipsism, any atheist system that grants itself induction or the ability to make value judgements is unjustified in doing so. These are the kinds of questions that were raised by David Hume (a skeptic) and are absolutely destructive to positions like yours where you grant yourself access to logic and reason arbitrarily. You claim here that ethics is subjective and yet can still be universalized. On what possible basis can you make universal claims as a finite human?
Shouldn't they rely on our preferences as we seem to be the only species capable of morality?
I think it’s a mistake to conceive of objective moral systems that don’t rely on God as relying purely on taste. As I mentioned in the video, we can have objective measures like pain and pleasure to assess a decision.
I don’t think atheism does lead to solipsism at all. Atheism is simply the claim there are no Gods. It doesn’t entail anything beyond this. I think perhaps you’re conflating atheism and materialism, however, there are atheist philosophers who are idealists, or who think abstract entities can exist.
You can base your logic and reason phenomenologically in your experience of these principles working and being internally consistent. Are the laws of logic or mathematics ontologically real? I don’t know. But they don’t need to be for us to practically use them.
When I say universal, I mean simply that ethics is able to be applied to all people, not that subjective ethics produce an ontologically real set of moral truths. My view of ethics is better thought of as intersubjective rather than purely subjective, whereby as a result of ethical inquiry and discussion, people come to a sort of consensus as to the sort of values and rights we think people should have and the standards we all ought to live by. This view accounts for both the seeming commonality between ethical views, the progress made in ethics throughout time, and the difference in ethics between cultures.
It is subjective, yes, hedonistic utilitarianism relies on it being roughly quantifiable though.
I never said my approach to metaethics is novel. It’s constructivism.
You’re very focused on the need for things to be objective, however, I don’t see why this is important so long as we can still apply ethical principles universally, which is able to happen in most constructivist views (although not all certainly. The major criticism of constructivism is that it can fall into relativism in some cases).
You rightly point out that people act unethically, but this is still the case under any ethical system. I struggle to see why that is a criticism of my position when you have the same problem as a theist with plenty of religious people acting ways that are unethical under their own system
@@jimsmith8359 I think it’s important to note that I’m not talking about laws, I’m talking about how ethical principles form. I’m not so sure your reasoning is sound there. There’s so many reasons why crime happens, many economic and social. Regardless though, I don’t think the 1950s was some crime free utopia
@jimsmith8359 what? No it doesn’t