Over the last few hours, I have done nothing but watch these videos. These are truly eye opening. This is a whole new world of philosophy I am discovering
I'm a philosophy prof. this and a channel called Kane B are the first ones I've seen that actually are explaining the real debates, allowing viewers in as parties to them, rather than giving people the undergrad or made for TV versions. I've not watched their videos that carefully, but I've already seen enough to confirm these videos take a ton of effort and real expertise to produce. They say you can't get proper philosophical training on RUclips--and you can't, because who knows what you'll get, and student-teacher feedback/discourse is essential.--but these videos teach their topics VERY VERY well, PhD training level well.
Thanks for giving us your firm stance on the question of pineapple and pizza. Some things we must be justifiably intolerant of, and one of those things is indeed Pineapple on Pizza.
I think moral anti-realism is just more parsimonious. it seems like a theory that just says that moral intuitions are just a product of evolution +cultural influences just has more explanatory power than saying that these weird things "moral norms" exist somewhere in the aether. They just feel "extra" in our ontology. They just sit there in all their qu33rness
@@MajestyofReason I'm pretty sure Alex has something similar to a noncognitivist view- but he sees moral statements as commands (and therefore having no truth value) as opposed to the expressivist or emotivist.
@@Liam3729-n6w I'm not too deep in the literature but I think of myself as an error theorist + projectivist but I might be a shade of expressivist too. Gonna have to do that reading when I have time.
@@theoutsiderhumanist8159 I lean towards error theory myself. I am exploring constructivism; I think any full-blown moral realism is going to fall victim to Mackie's argument. I can't say the name of the argument because RUclips is removing comments that include the word that starts with a q.
@@Liam3729-n6w Please tell me you're kidding. RUclips's social justice bloopers continue I guess. Kane B has some really good videos on metaethics. There are pretty good answers to Mackie's arguments but I still find them pretty convincing as an aggregate.
Putting the more specific issue of moral disagreement aside, it seems to me that anti-realism has a clear explanatory advantage in that it can account for the relevant "moral data" with a simpler explanation than realism. For example if I see a person getting beat up on the street by a thief, I can explain my outrage and moral condemnation by appealing to a simple causal story about the negative emotional response I experience upon observing the event. The Moral Realist adds to his causal story further entities of intrinsic moral goodness and wrongness, and corresponding epistemic equipment that gives us access to them, and gains the burden of explaining how his account fits in with the "subjectivist" causal story (Is the emotional response in the example scetched above a necessary but not sufficient condition for the moral condemnation?) It is hard for me to see what is gained in explanatory power by the realist postulates.
@@whatsinaname691 And so what if it is just that? Would that change anything? It seems to me like even though we have moral intuitions strong enough such that we have the desire for everyone to share them, this phenomenon can still be accounted for if moral anti-realism is true. Plus, external evidence seems to be much better explained by moral anti-realism
@@jd2981 I mean, if you don’t think that Hitler was a monster, you can go ahead and turn yourself in to a mental hospital, but I’m just saying that no anti-realist theory is ever going to have enough explanatory power to make up for the gap between it and realism. Realism is just more intuitive and explains so much more that it seems silly to try to work around it.
@@whatsinaname691 You can think he was a moral monster according to your own and most people's moral systems as a moral anti-realist if our moral systems are a product of evolution, as it would be expected that most people at the very least have a very similar moral system. Even Hitler may have been a moral monster according to his own moral system (as it's possible to even violate your subjective morality if you lack self awareness). But even if he considered his actions morally permissible, it wouldn't change anything, as this wouldn't mean we ought to tolerate it. Exactly which phenomenon do you think moral realism has explanatory power over that anti-realism doesn't? Because if it's simply the strength of our moral intuitions, that seems easily accountable by it being a product of evolution that plays an essential role in the success of social species. If this were the case, we would expect moral intuitions so strong that we sort of just assume others share them at first glance, and therefore ought to do accordingly.
That was a nice video. I thought you would'nt make my favorite argument but you ended up making it, so it was very throughout. My favorite argument is the one that claims moral realism is self-evidently true at least for the laws of logic, since they are prescriptive and hence have moral content. To deny that there is any sort of objective moral value is furthermore to deny that even truth, objectivity and reason are objectively more valuable than falsehood, subjectivity and irrationality, which would make arguing for or against anything completely pointless. So only a more specialized version of anti-realism can scape being self-defeating, because if logical or self-evident metaphysical facts are included among the moral facts, or logical or epistemical values are included among the moral values, it is absurd to suggest these things are not objective.
Is logic prescriptive? I would say that modus ponens, for example, is descriptive, in that it accurately tracks truth values through inference, but it's unsurprising that someone says you should use it because they're assuming that your goal is to make valid inferences, and that's the way to do it. I think all logic is like this, but I'm interested in arguments to the contrary. I'll have to try to find what Joe says about it in the video.
The thing that has always puzzled me about moral realism goes back to something you mentioned at the very beginning of this video, specifically, the presumption that moral statements have a truth value. If that's so, what then grounds their truth? What makes statements like, "Theft is wrong", true? Consider propositions like, (1)"The Eiffel Tower is in Paris", or (2)"All squares are rectangles". we can see that the truth of propositions like (1) is grounded in empirical fact, while the truth of propositions like (2) are grounded in rules of logic and the language used to express them. But moral statements aren't empirical claims, nor is their truth certified by logical inference. So how then are we to make sense of the claim that moral statements are "true"?
Good question. I don't have much time to chat, but what makes them true are just moral facts. Just as empirical claims are made true by empirical facts and logical truths by logical facts, so too moral claims are made true by moral facts. (And to think the only facts that there are or could be are empirical and logical facts would, of course, require argumentation--and it seems to me to be a metaphysical prejudice of sorts! [Note: I'm not claiming you are guilty of assuming that these are the only two kinds of facts].) Note, ofc, that there are many further stories to tell about what moral facts consist in. Cf. plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/
@@MajestyofReason Having read the article, it's still a mystery to me in what way moral statements are "true". There are other theories of truth besides just the Coherence and Correspondence theories taught in every Philosophy 101 course, but none I've encountered so far really seems to account for moral truths. The Pragmatic theory of truth seems like the best candidate, but the mere fact that believing X to be true produces useful or positive results doesn't make X true; X may even be factually false or logically incoherent and still be useful or advantageous to believe. I'm also aware that various philosophers point out that even the Correspondence and Coherence theories of truth are problematic, so perhaps the very concept of "truth" falls apart under close inspection.
Hey Joe, love your work, you are incredibly smart. Could you please recommend me all of the atheist books that you consider to be the best (the miracle of theism, etc). How would your list of these top atheist books look like? Ty!
It would be great if you can do a video about intuitionism or political autorithy with Michael Huemer. I have watched a lot of your videos. Thank you very much, you have served me well ;)
33:44 People disagree on many facts that are contrary to their intuitions and feelings and then act on those contrary intuitions and feelings. For example... finances, diet, exercise, their activities and interests being harmful or not to themselves or others, etc. Its why therapy, doctors, and debt collectors have so much work to do and are so frustrated by the folks they have to work with. Humans dont like aligning with reality. They prefer to align with intuition and feelings.
I think you are doing awesome videos Joe and I have been looking for som material on moral realism but I have had a hard time finding it even if I have found some. I was just wondering if you have any good places to start since you are quite knowledgeable?
Hi Joe! Thanks so much for the video! This may not be the right place to ask this but what the heck. I noticed that a majority of philosophers are moral realists and my leaning was towards an anti-realist approach (I am barely an armature though). I tried looking into it and still haven't found great resources as to reasons towards moral realism. I think what I may be missing is what "morality" even means in philosophy. What does it even mean that killing babies is "wrong?" Like what are our intuitions-which seem to have so much congruence- even tracking? Like when I think internally, I have a feeling/intuition that X is wrong but I can't even describe what I mean by "wrong". I hope you see what I'm struggling with. Thanks for the video!
Wow me and a friend were debating this tonight! I mentioned your channel as a good resource to learn more about philosophy in general. This is so well laid out, you are a great lecturer. As an aspiring scholar myself, know that becoming a good presenter is what separates good teachers from great teachers! Keep it up!
@@rebelresource Purdue, I'm currently a second year but I'm probably graduating upon completion of my third year. (I have many college credits from high school.)
@@rebelresource So, at some point in this video, I mentioned a few such arguments like Terrence Cuneo's, David Enoch's (elsewhere in his work), and also from self-evidence
The simplest and most effective method of defeating moral realism is to point out that the moral realist cannot close the is-ought gap. The best they can do is deflect and argue the anti-realist can't either, but that's not actually a defense of their position. The gap must be closed for moral realism to be true, yet it demonstrably cannot be without relying on a fundamental moral axiom.
It’s not a very scary gap. In fact, it’s hard to prove Hume took it very seriously himself since even Hume scholars say he broke it multiple times that paper. At most it gets rid of reductionist accounts of morality a la Sam Harris, but most moral realists can just accept it and move on and those who are teleologically-bent can literally just deny that it’s true because then is’s can entail an ought if they don’t match.
@@whatsinaname691 In that case, you would have to argue why it isn't scary, or a serious deterrent for the moral realist. Because I don't see it. If you're not a moral realist, I agree it isn't a big deal, but if you are, how does it not deflate all the justifications they have for their supposed factual oughts? Are you saying most moral realists, aren't actually realists and that's why it doesn't bother them? I don't see how you can be so dismissive.
@@whatsinaname691 Huh? How could it be an unproven postulate? They're logically and semantically incompatible. A tree either "is" or it isn't. To determine that is a matter of empiricism, or ontology if that tickles your fancy. We have an entire branch of philosophy called epistemology dedicated to it. There's terrible and there are great epistemologies. We've largely settled it now with Karl Popper's falsification demarcation criteria, but to then make the leap and say all of morality somehow can be solved empirically as well? That makes no sense to me, because the empirical part is pre-requisite to the ought discussion. You don't start talking about what ought to be done to the tree before you verify the tree's existence in some way. Even if you were to argue what ought to be done to the tree, is carved into the bark in latin, or somehow written in its cell's dna, whether we follow that ought or another one is an entirely different realm of philosophy. I am genuinely baffled you would say it's a mere "postulate" that the distinction exists.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter Aside from the fact that Poppers FC breaks down in like 99% of fields that people try to apply it to, this is just plain wrong. At the very least, this doesn’t address counterfactuals. Furthermore, “a tree exists” and “6 million Jews are being gassed or burnt alive or worked to death in the Holocaust” (assuming the past so we can keep the tenses the same for both) are quite different statements. The existence of the tree might not have many oughts that are entailed by it, but if you dare try to claim that the Holocaust was morally neutral I will end this conversation because you’re a danger to civil society.
1. Different early human populations held different moral views. 2. Populations whose morality favored procreation, longevity, and group cohesion survived longer than other populations. 3. Populations that survived longer passed on their moral beliefs to subsequent generations. 4. Morality is a product of natural selection.
Sort of tangential but regarding the alleged spookiness of rational intuition I'd highly recommend Laurence BonJour's _In Defense of Pure Reason_ if you aren't already familiar with it.
I think Steven is just giving a nod to Graham Priest, listen to Malpasses interview with Graham on thoughtology. The argument is just that there can be some special cases where some statement can violate the law of non-contradiction. It doesn't follow that everything can be a contradiction, maybe there is just this special case in the same way as 2 is a special case of the "law of primes are odd numbers".
@@Oskar1000 Well Steven's assertion was that "many of x kind of people are this way", which is obviously false. Certainly I agree though that there are diletheists who think there are true contradictions (I myself am friendly to this view)
It seems to me that one could go further than just disagreement, it seems to me that there are situations, where an objectively correct moral answer doesn't exist. I know that for now this is just a claim, but I think there is no correct way to answer the trolley problem for example, and I don't mean that we don't know the answer, I think it really doesn't exist. If that were the case, then it would be pretty weird that there are some situations with objective moral truths, while others don't have them.
1:04:49 Very interesting point, Joe. I hope you don't mind if I ask you a quick question regarding your brilliant thought experiment. In the court case, wouldn't there be agreement on the methods to solve the issue? Surely, everyone agrees that if you pass a liars test, the jury is more than warranted in believing your claims, though they don't have access to your memory. How does this strike you, brother?
Hey my dude!!! So, we have supposed that all the evidence is on the table (as it were). That includes a liar test. We can suppose that a truthful result on such a test is overpowered by the sheer extent of the evidence brought against you (video footage, DNA on the crime scene, etc.). We could also suppose that the result of the liar test was indeterminate (neither a truthful nor a lie as a result) due to, say, how nervous you became during the test or how the person asking you questions was pressuring you. (Say) All we need is a logically possible thought experiment in order to pose a counter-example to the principle under consideration
Do you know how hard this is to track when I have a 4 year old and an 8 year old screaming and trashing the place? Please re-record this to be trackable at 20% cognitive capacity. Please & Thank You! P.S. So happy for your channel, your guests and your voice in this space. Cheers!
Hey! Good question. I'm not sure if they're metaphysically possible, although they're certainly epistemically possible. If I had to bet on whether they're metaphysically possible [b/n yes and no], I would bet yes. [Mainly because I can easily conceive of them, and I see no principled reason as to why they would be impossible]
@@MajestyofReason Also, I think You talked about Aron lucas objections to the FTA before? I was wondering if other universes had different laws that made life there more probable how would that have any effect on the improbability of life in universes with laws like ours?
@@Alex-ir5vz Check out this paper for an informative exploration of issues pertaining to your question :) infidels.org/library/modern/aron_lucas/flies.html
there are plenty of poor people (or at least working class people) who believe in libertarianism and rich people who believe in socialism . For example, Fredrich Engels had a wealthy industrialist father
What is the realism in moral realism supposed to refer to? You should have talked more about that. The issue seems to be that there is very little resembling the concept we call 'objectivity' and 'realism' in the domain of ethics, versus the domain of science. When you disagree with the interpretation of gravity, theres still the effects of gravity to tackle with. Not only that, but you can even disbelieve in gravity, yet still be subject to its effects. Not to mention you talked very little about why ones self interest can interfer with morality in the first place, what is self interest? In what domain is it situated? Self interest, and pragmatism are two diffrent approaches one could have tackled here.
Hey, Joe. What is the best book to dismantle Edward Feser's arguments from his book Five proofs for the existence of God? He says that atheists are not part of the real debate because they are unreasonable. Where can I find his arguments challenged by an intelligent atheist like you? Thanks man! PS: What's your favorite book on atheism?
Hy my man! Thanks for your comment :) I have a number of papers under review ranging over a number of his five proofs. Papers take many months to undergo peer review, but hopefully many of these papers are accepted within the upcoming months. I also have a special project (I can't say more than that) on *all* of Feser's arguments in that book. Although I'm an agnostic, I do think there is good scholarship arguing in defense of atheism -- if you want to see my book recommendations in that regard, check out the end of my video on why I'm agnostic :)
@@MajestyofReason Wow!! Thanks for the review! I am looking forward to the papers and the PROJECT!! If you could challenge all 5 proofs of Feser, that would be astonishing. Also, I have a suggestion for your next videos. There was a debate between Andrew T. Loke and Graham Oppy. Andrew T. Loke claims to have developed a novel cosmological argument which has no premises that can be challenged. If you could review his opening statement at least in a next video, that would be amazing! Thanks for everything, Joe. You are amazing!!! PS: YOUR BOOK ROCKS!!!!! INCREDIBLY HELPFUL.
@@MajestyofReason Great to hear. Also, I can tell from now that you're going to be one of the leading philosophers of the 21st century :) Imagine being so young and so brilliant. Damn! I could only wish. Also, I will support you on patreon! Love your stuff.
@@d.f.4489 Thank you for your support! That really means a lot to me. I treat my patrons to some very special gifts and benefits, so I can't wait for you to enjoy those :)
@18:36 I believe you created a hybrid of two idioms with the same meaning this generating a holy Trinity of idioms. "Get your feet wet" & "Dip your toe in the water" hybridized to "Get your toes wet". Which, oddly, does sound gross. Ick! See? Ick does resolve to T.
Oh, maybe you meant his *very* recent video (like within the last few days). I haven't responded to that one. That was his response to my response. I experienced a lot of suffering making the first response video, so I don't know if I'll respond in turn. We shall see
@@ObsidianTeen Hey, I'm interested in viewing this as well, but I'm not familiar with the channel "Thomistic" which you reference. Could you please state the exact channel name or provide a link? Thank you.
@@anonymouscat6207 Thomistic Disputations The day will come when Human is freed from sadistic minds like Feser who want people to suffer eternally because they randomly ("freely") crapped out a bad choice rather than a good one.
Max Stirner disapproves heavily. Morality is a spook! On a more serious manner, what is your ethical view(virtue ethics, consequentialism, deontology)? I'm a consequentialist, more specifically, the somewhat edgy negative utilitarian which wants to painlessly eliminate all sentient life. Apologies if you mentioned your view already in some other video or this one, I skipped through some parts.
Much love! I haven't studied normative ethics enough to have a deeply considered view. With that said, I am very tentatively some mixture between deontology and virtue ethics. (I think deontology is too rigid in itself, while virtue ethics faces the problem of giving actual guidance in moral behavior. A combo of them seems most plausible to me lol.) But I stress that I haven't researched normative ethics much.
I tend to support something like a three way syncretism between deontology, virtue ethics, and consequentialism. I am a metaethical naturalist and a Marxist-Leninist. Whatever your opinions on the USSR, there is much interesting and little studied philosophical literature that came out of it.
I understand the intent behind your video but i think none of the arguments actually adress a deeper problem with moral realism, that arises from disagreement. I am not too versed on moral philosphy, but i believe moral propositions are supposed to guide how we ought to act. When we say "murder is wrong" we are not merely stating a true or false propositions, but a guide on how to act(or how to not act). I.E Murder is wrong implies that "One Should not commit Murder" and its by that reason why we decide to arrest Murderers. But, Knowing that, how can we find a good criteria on how to act in situations where moral disagreement arises? You mention some moral disagreements that are not in virtue of moral reasons, like murdering Elders for better conditions in afterlife (A metaphysical reason). But we, as westerners, disagree heavily with that, and even if the disagreement is not is not because of a moral reason, it's still immoral to us, and we would at least seek to show to that person that doing this is wrong. One way of doing this would be to make arguments to refute their metaphysical instance, but here we would just move the disagreement to another sphere, as they may be just as much justified in believing in these afterlife conditions than we are in not believing it. We then find ourselves in a kind of disagreement that it's absurd for both parties to believe they are wrong. In one side we are murdering an innocent person, an immoral act, in the other we are condemning an innocent person to hell (if they assume they need to kill their elders for they to not perish in afterlife), also an immoral act. But moral realism holds that one of them is wrong, and, looking at this problem pratically, in our judicial system, the person that holds this belief would be arrested by murder. Looking at a least extreme example, abortion. In that case, some people disagree in virtue of scientific classifications (What is and what is not a human) but some argue in virtue of purely moral propositions. There are defenses of abortion even granted that the fetus is a human, but that killing this human would be morally defensible, as, for example, Killing in self defense is morally defensible. But its evident that we find major disagreements in abortion, but since moral realism holds that one of the views is wrong, how we can justify any act towards that? How a mother would act knowing she could be doing something immoral, if she decides to abort? Or how we as a society would act knowing we could be punishing an innocent person, by denying her of bodily rights? Abortion seems to me to be a reasonable example of an unsolvable moral disagreement, and it looks tempting to Reject moral realism, and instead of believing that we are doing something absurdily unjust in both sides, that we actually are all wrong and our prescriptions are based on other reasons. Like, for example, we ban Murder to prevent additional conflicts and so forth. My two cents, i don't know how strong is that case really.
Since the world is not made out of propositions, that kind of moral realism cannot possibly be true. [ah, you could have moral realism in a "book-world", although i'm not sure what that would look like]
Hey my dude! This kind of realism doesn't require the world to be made out of propositions. All it needs is that there are truths of morality, and they re true in virtue of things/facts that are independent of human opinions, beliefs, etc.
@@MajestyofReason Thanks for the answer, didn't expect to get one. In your epistemology, do you think truths/facts (about the world, etc) are always propositions? Because that's the "vibe" I got from the video -- although it might be hard to talk about/simplify it in any other way.
I think you didn't give enough credit to the final objection to the argument from tolerance. If the conclusion is true, moral realism is false and all propositions with evaluative predicates are false(or lack a truth value). If that's the case then premise the "we ought not be intolerant" is false (or lacks a truth value). Thus one cannot rationally affirm both these propositions and thus no argument containing both of them can be successful.
I disagree :) The anti-realist can simply re-express the premise as "if realism is true, we ought not be intolerant". Then, the conclusion would be: if moral realism is true, then moral realism is false. And this shows that moral realism is internally inconsistent: its very own truth would entail its falsehood. Thus, I still stand by what I said in my video. :)
@@MajestyofReason I agree that this restatement is better but was just pointing out that the argument as presented in the video did fall to that criticism. That said you would also have to add "if moral realism is true" to premise 1 and 3. I think that leaves premise 4 in a tough spot, you may have to make it a reductio. I'm not the best at logic so I might be getting some of this wrong but I get the sense there's still something fishy going on with the validity :)
@@MajestyofReason On a more serious note: In my opinion you produce really informative and well-argued content (including your book). I hope you keep up this good work and your open and unbiased attitude towards the issues you discuss. I am not a trained philosopher and so I have to research these things in my free time (or what my three little children leave of it 😉). I would consider myself a classical Christian theist and an agnostic towards Protestantism and Catholicism. So it seems to me we are at least in some respect in the same boat 😊
@@MajestyofReason You´re welcome :) Oh, and I forgot to mention that I would really like to see the video "if abortion, then infanticide" because I am currently writing a paper on this issue. In it I argue, inter alia, that all justifications of abortion I know of (even including the standard bodily rights argument in some circumstances) collapse into infanticide or they necessitate the attribution of "basic human rights" to many animals (like cows, pigs and chicken). I also explain why I think that the arguments of e.g. Boonin or DeGrazia to allow abortion but to exclude the permissibility of infanticide fail. So it would be very interesting to hear your evaluation of this issue :)
As an emergency medicine pharmacist, I would say the most charitable way to classify homeopathy would be to call it "treatment", not medicine. Not that it has anything to do with the presentation. But if not for being pedantic, then why does the comment section exist at all?
Agreed. Pineapples on pizzas are so incredibly beautiful, they in fact prove the existence of God. The fact that Joe denies this is evidence just shows he is denying the truth he already knows. [all of this said in jest of course in case this is not clear :) ]
@Plantinga's Bulldog Right on!! Next he’ll be trying to run one of his ridiculous “internal critiques “ of pineapple pizzaism, even though he obviously can’t do that because his worldview entails that he doesn’t believe in pineapple on pizza. Sad!!!
@@hunterweaver6013 I know! And like, the Problem of Pizzevil? Joe can't even ground Pizzevil on his worldview. The problem of pizza topping disagreement? Easily explained by evil pizza spirits and pizza spirit warfare. "Your conscience is on my side. You all know that [Pineapple on pizza] exists [and is amazing]." -- Sy Ten Bruggencate (I think) Come on Joe, stop repressing the truth about pizza in unrighteousness.
@Plantinga's Bulldog Lolol, I gotta stop now, I’m laughing too hard. Still, the obvious conclusion is that pineapple pizzaism is true, Joe knows it, and he’s suppressing that truth in unrighteousness. Perhaps Joe’s disagreement can be explained by the fact that he doesn’t want to admit that only a filthy sinner would deny that pineapple pizzaism is true. Thus, his disagreement doesn’t undermine moral realism. Thanks for the laugh my dude.
I wasn’t arguing for realism; I was merely defending realism against a common argument. So, that you remained an anti-realist is neither here nor there, since my aim was never to get someone to go from anti-realist to realist.😁
Over the last few hours, I have done nothing but watch these videos. These are truly eye opening. This is a whole new world of philosophy I am discovering
Namaste and love from a Hindu from India! I really love your videos and I hope you and your channel continue to prosper!🙏☮️☮️🇮🇳
Much love
I'm a philosophy prof. this and a channel called Kane B are the first ones I've seen that actually are explaining the real debates, allowing viewers in as parties to them, rather than giving people the undergrad or made for TV versions. I've not watched their videos that carefully, but I've already seen enough to confirm these videos take a ton of effort and real expertise to produce. They say you can't get proper philosophical training on RUclips--and you can't, because who knows what you'll get, and student-teacher feedback/discourse is essential.--but these videos teach their topics VERY VERY well, PhD training level well.
Much love❤
Thanks for giving us your firm stance on the question of pineapple and pizza. Some things we must be justifiably intolerant of, and one of those things is indeed Pineapple on Pizza.
"as evinced by memes", "pineapples on pizza," Man you really are bringing out the heavy weaponry here. Can't refute that evidence
lolol
Thank you for these videos, you're great at this 👌
This topic fascinates me. Can’t wait to watch!
I think moral anti-realism is just more parsimonious. it seems like a theory that just says that moral intuitions are just a product of evolution +cultural influences just has more explanatory power than saying that these weird things "moral norms" exist somewhere in the aether. They just feel "extra" in our ontology. They just sit there in all their qu33rness
lol I see what you did there with the 33
@@MajestyofReason the YT algorithm may be smart, but it's still dumber than me!
As always, you’re giving me a lot to think about. Thanks Joe.
Much love
Here again! This was a lovely surprise to see, Joe! As always, amazing. Also, I'm wondering if you've seen CosmicSkeptic's view on this?
THANK YOU!!!
@@MajestyofReason I'm pretty sure Alex has something similar to a noncognitivist view- but he sees moral statements as commands (and therefore having no truth value) as opposed to the expressivist or emotivist.
Now I want to hear your argument for moral realism. And I'd also be interested in a video on abortion.
I'd like to hear an argument from him for moral realism too. I'm a pretty staunch moral skeptic, but I know he'd bring a damn good game.
@@theoutsiderhumanist8159 What type of moral anti-realist are you?
@@Liam3729-n6w I'm not too deep in the literature but I think of myself as an error theorist + projectivist but I might be a shade of expressivist too. Gonna have to do that reading when I have time.
@@theoutsiderhumanist8159 I lean towards error theory myself. I am exploring constructivism; I think any full-blown moral realism is going to fall victim to Mackie's argument. I can't say the name of the argument because RUclips is removing comments that include the word that starts with a q.
@@Liam3729-n6w Please tell me you're kidding. RUclips's social justice bloopers continue I guess. Kane B has some really good videos on metaethics. There are pretty good answers to Mackie's arguments but I still find them pretty convincing as an aggregate.
Putting the more specific issue of moral disagreement aside, it seems to me that anti-realism has a clear explanatory advantage in that it can account for the relevant "moral data" with a simpler explanation than realism. For example if I see a person getting beat up on the street by a thief, I can explain my outrage and moral condemnation by appealing to a simple causal story about the negative emotional response I experience upon observing the event. The Moral Realist adds to his causal story further entities of intrinsic moral goodness and wrongness, and corresponding epistemic equipment that gives us access to them, and gains the burden of explaining how his account fits in with the "subjectivist" causal story (Is the emotional response in the example scetched above a necessary but not sufficient condition for the moral condemnation?)
It is hard for me to see what is gained in explanatory power by the realist postulates.
Getting able to say that Hitler being a monster is more than a personal taste?
@@whatsinaname691 And so what if it is just that? Would that change anything? It seems to me like even though we have moral intuitions strong enough such that we have the desire for everyone to share them, this phenomenon can still be accounted for if moral anti-realism is true. Plus, external evidence seems to be much better explained by moral anti-realism
@@jd2981 I mean, if you don’t think that Hitler was a monster, you can go ahead and turn yourself in to a mental hospital, but I’m just saying that no anti-realist theory is ever going to have enough explanatory power to make up for the gap between it and realism. Realism is just more intuitive and explains so much more that it seems silly to try to work around it.
@@whatsinaname691 You can think he was a moral monster according to your own and most people's moral systems as a moral anti-realist if our moral systems are a product of evolution, as it would be expected that most people at the very least have a very similar moral system.
Even Hitler may have been a moral monster according to his own moral system (as it's possible to even violate your subjective morality if you lack self awareness). But even if he considered his actions morally permissible, it wouldn't change anything, as this wouldn't mean we ought to tolerate it.
Exactly which phenomenon do you think moral realism has explanatory power over that anti-realism doesn't? Because if it's simply the strength of our moral intuitions, that seems easily accountable by it being a product of evolution that plays an essential role in the success of social species. If this were the case, we would expect moral intuitions so strong that we sort of just assume others share them at first glance, and therefore ought to do accordingly.
That was a nice video. I thought you would'nt make my favorite argument but you ended up making it, so it was very throughout.
My favorite argument is the one that claims moral realism is self-evidently true at least for the laws of logic, since they are prescriptive and hence have moral content. To deny that there is any sort of objective moral value is furthermore to deny that even truth, objectivity and reason are objectively more valuable than falsehood, subjectivity and irrationality, which would make arguing for or against anything completely pointless. So only a more specialized version of anti-realism can scape being self-defeating, because if logical or self-evident metaphysical facts are included among the moral facts, or logical or epistemical values are included among the moral values, it is absurd to suggest these things are not objective.
Much love
Is logic prescriptive? I would say that modus ponens, for example, is descriptive, in that it accurately tracks truth values through inference, but it's unsurprising that someone says you should use it because they're assuming that your goal is to make valid inferences, and that's the way to do it. I think all logic is like this, but I'm interested in arguments to the contrary. I'll have to try to find what Joe says about it in the video.
The thing that has always puzzled me about moral realism goes back to something you mentioned at the very beginning of this video, specifically, the presumption that moral statements have a truth value. If that's so, what then grounds their truth? What makes statements like, "Theft is wrong", true? Consider propositions like, (1)"The Eiffel Tower is in Paris", or (2)"All squares are rectangles".
we can see that the truth of propositions like (1) is grounded in empirical fact, while the truth of propositions like (2) are grounded in rules of logic and the language used to express them. But moral statements aren't empirical claims, nor is their truth certified by logical inference. So how then are we to make sense of the claim that moral statements are "true"?
Good question. I don't have much time to chat, but what makes them true are just moral facts. Just as empirical claims are made true by empirical facts and logical truths by logical facts, so too moral claims are made true by moral facts. (And to think the only facts that there are or could be are empirical and logical facts would, of course, require argumentation--and it seems to me to be a metaphysical prejudice of sorts! [Note: I'm not claiming you are guilty of assuming that these are the only two kinds of facts].) Note, ofc, that there are many further stories to tell about what moral facts consist in. Cf. plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/
@@MajestyofReason Having read the article, it's still a mystery to me in what way moral statements are "true". There are other theories of truth besides just the Coherence and Correspondence theories taught in every Philosophy 101 course, but none I've encountered so far really seems to account for moral truths. The Pragmatic theory of truth seems like the best candidate, but the mere fact that believing X to be true produces useful or positive results doesn't make X true; X may even be factually false or logically incoherent and still be useful or advantageous to believe. I'm also aware that various philosophers point out that even the Correspondence and Coherence theories of truth are problematic, so perhaps the very concept of "truth" falls apart under close inspection.
Hey Joe, love your work, you are incredibly smart.
Could you please recommend me all of the atheist books that you consider to be the best (the miracle of theism, etc).
How would your list of these top atheist books look like?
Ty!
Hey my dude!!! Thanks for your lovely comment. I give such a list at the end of my video on why I am agnostic. Check that out! :)
@@MajestyofReason Oh cool, I'm gonna check that out. Thank you VeNeRaGe for askign and Joe for replying.
It would be great if you can do a video about intuitionism or political autorithy with Michael Huemer. I have watched a lot of your videos. Thank you very much, you have served me well ;)
33:44 People disagree on many facts that are contrary to their intuitions and feelings and then act on those contrary intuitions and feelings.
For example... finances, diet, exercise, their activities and interests being harmful or not to themselves or others, etc.
Its why therapy, doctors, and debt collectors have so much work to do and are so frustrated by the folks they have to work with.
Humans dont like aligning with reality. They prefer to align with intuition and feelings.
I think you are doing awesome videos Joe and I have been looking for som material on moral realism but I have had a hard time finding it even if I have found some. I was just wondering if you have any good places to start since you are quite knowledgeable?
Thank you-- much love
@@MajestyofReason Thank you so much for the resources and keep up all the great content
Hi Joe! Thanks so much for the video! This may not be the right place to ask this but what the heck. I noticed that a majority of philosophers are moral realists and my leaning was towards an anti-realist approach (I am barely an armature though). I tried looking into it and still haven't found great resources as to reasons towards moral realism. I think what I may be missing is what "morality" even means in philosophy. What does it even mean that killing babies is "wrong?" Like what are our intuitions-which seem to have so much congruence- even tracking? Like when I think internally, I have a feeling/intuition that X is wrong but I can't even describe what I mean by "wrong". I hope you see what I'm struggling with. Thanks for the video!
Much love
@@MajestyofReason Thank you so much! I'll hopefully look at one of those over some kiwi pizza!
@@eytanscher8674 ahahaha
Wow me and a friend were debating this tonight! I mentioned your channel as a good resource to learn more about philosophy in general. This is so well laid out, you are a great lecturer. As an aspiring scholar myself, know that becoming a good presenter is what separates good teachers from great teachers! Keep it up!
Thank you for the lovely comment! Much love
@@MajestyofReason you in undergrad? where at? what year?
@@MajestyofReason Also, what is the best argument FOR Moral Realism instead of just the potential defeaters?
@@rebelresource Purdue, I'm currently a second year but I'm probably graduating upon completion of my third year. (I have many college credits from high school.)
@@rebelresource So, at some point in this video, I mentioned a few such arguments like Terrence Cuneo's, David Enoch's (elsewhere in his work), and also from self-evidence
amazing but i am just curious isn't disagreement on morality presuppose that there are facts on morals
Excellent question! I actually discuss this very question near the end of the video. :)
The simplest and most effective method of defeating moral realism is to point out that the moral realist cannot close the is-ought gap.
The best they can do is deflect and argue the anti-realist can't either, but that's not actually a defense of their position. The gap must be closed for moral realism to be true, yet it demonstrably cannot be without relying on a fundamental moral axiom.
It’s not a very scary gap. In fact, it’s hard to prove Hume took it very seriously himself since even Hume scholars say he broke it multiple times that paper. At most it gets rid of reductionist accounts of morality a la Sam Harris, but most moral realists can just accept it and move on and those who are teleologically-bent can literally just deny that it’s true because then is’s can entail an ought if they don’t match.
@@whatsinaname691 In that case, you would have to argue why it isn't scary, or a serious deterrent for the moral realist. Because I don't see it. If you're not a moral realist, I agree it isn't a big deal, but if you are, how does it not deflate all the justifications they have for their supposed factual oughts? Are you saying most moral realists, aren't actually realists and that's why it doesn't bother them? I don't see how you can be so dismissive.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter Because it’s an unproven postulate that begs the question.
@@whatsinaname691 Huh? How could it be an unproven postulate? They're logically and semantically incompatible. A tree either "is" or it isn't. To determine that is a matter of empiricism, or ontology if that tickles your fancy. We have an entire branch of philosophy called epistemology dedicated to it. There's terrible and there are great epistemologies. We've largely settled it now with Karl Popper's falsification demarcation criteria, but to then make the leap and say all of morality somehow can be solved empirically as well? That makes no sense to me, because the empirical part is pre-requisite to the ought discussion. You don't start talking about what ought to be done to the tree before you verify the tree's existence in some way. Even if you were to argue what ought to be done to the tree, is carved into the bark in latin, or somehow written in its cell's dna, whether we follow that ought or another one is an entirely different realm of philosophy. I am genuinely baffled you would say it's a mere "postulate" that the distinction exists.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter Aside from the fact that Poppers FC breaks down in like 99% of fields that people try to apply it to, this is just plain wrong. At the very least, this doesn’t address counterfactuals. Furthermore, “a tree exists” and “6 million Jews are being gassed or burnt alive or worked to death in the Holocaust” (assuming the past so we can keep the tenses the same for both) are quite different statements. The existence of the tree might not have many oughts that are entailed by it, but if you dare try to claim that the Holocaust was morally neutral I will end this conversation because you’re a danger to civil society.
1. Different early human populations held different moral views.
2. Populations whose morality favored procreation, longevity, and group cohesion survived longer than other populations.
3. Populations that survived longer passed on their moral beliefs to subsequent generations.
4. Morality is a product of natural selection.
Sort of tangential but regarding the alleged spookiness of rational intuition I'd highly recommend Laurence BonJour's _In Defense of Pure Reason_ if you aren't already familiar with it.
Thank you!!!
Doubting Non-Contradiction? Not all forms of Modus Ponens are valid?
I think by "some philosophers" you just mean Stephen Woodford :D
lolol
I think Steven is just giving a nod to Graham Priest, listen to Malpasses interview with Graham on thoughtology. The argument is just that there can be some special cases where some statement can violate the law of non-contradiction. It doesn't follow that everything can be a contradiction, maybe there is just this special case in the same way as 2 is a special case of the "law of primes are odd numbers".
@@Oskar1000 Well Steven's assertion was that "many of x kind of people are this way", which is obviously false. Certainly I agree though that there are diletheists who think there are true contradictions (I myself am friendly to this view)
@@plantingasbulldog2009 Ah, I understand. Don't remember Stevens assertion but if it is what you say it seems a bit hyperbolic.
@@Oskar1000 Well yes haha I was making a joke that was intended to be hyperbolic :)
13:06
Never have I heard such wise words come from any other man.
You’re amazing, Joe!
Except, pineapple belongs on pizza😂
It seems to me that one could go further than just disagreement, it seems to me that there are situations, where an objectively correct moral answer doesn't exist. I know that for now this is just a claim, but I think there is no correct way to answer the trolley problem for example, and I don't mean that we don't know the answer, I think it really doesn't exist. If that were the case, then it would be pretty weird that there are some situations with objective moral truths, while others don't have them.
1:04:49
Very interesting point, Joe. I hope you don't mind if I ask you a quick question regarding your brilliant thought experiment.
In the court case, wouldn't there be agreement on the methods to solve the issue? Surely, everyone agrees that if you pass a liars test, the jury is more than warranted in believing your claims, though they don't have access to your memory.
How does this strike you, brother?
Hey my dude!!!
So, we have supposed that all the evidence is on the table (as it were). That includes a liar test. We can suppose that a truthful result on such a test is overpowered by the sheer extent of the evidence brought against you (video footage, DNA on the crime scene, etc.). We could also suppose that the result of the liar test was indeterminate (neither a truthful nor a lie as a result) due to, say, how nervous you became during the test or how the person asking you questions was pressuring you. (Say) All we need is a logically possible thought experiment in order to pose a counter-example to the principle under consideration
@@MajestyofReason that's brilliant. Thanks!
Do you know how hard this is to track when I have a 4 year old and an 8 year old screaming and trashing the place? Please re-record this to be trackable at 20% cognitive capacity.
Please & Thank You!
P.S. So happy for your channel, your guests and your voice in this space. Cheers!
Much, much love❤️❤️❤️
Woohoo!! Let's do this!
Hi! This has nothing to do with the video but I was wondering if it’s possible that there are other universes with different laws of physics?
Hey! Good question. I'm not sure if they're metaphysically possible, although they're certainly epistemically possible. If I had to bet on whether they're metaphysically possible [b/n yes and no], I would bet yes. [Mainly because I can easily conceive of them, and I see no principled reason as to why they would be impossible]
@@MajestyofReason thanks
@@MajestyofReason Also, I think You talked about Aron lucas objections to the FTA before? I was wondering if other universes had different laws that made life there more probable how would that have any effect on the improbability of life in universes with laws like ours?
@@Alex-ir5vz Check out this paper for an informative exploration of issues pertaining to your question :) infidels.org/library/modern/aron_lucas/flies.html
@@MajestyofReason thanks again
there are plenty of poor people (or at least working class people) who believe in libertarianism and rich people who believe in socialism . For example, Fredrich Engels had a wealthy industrialist father
I never denied that. Enoch, in the quote you're referencing, was talking about *general tendencies* of the influence of interest on moral beliefs.
@@MajestyofReason ah okay
*Ryan Mullins sigh*
What is the realism in moral realism supposed to refer to? You should have talked more about that.
The issue seems to be that there is very little resembling the concept we call 'objectivity' and 'realism' in the domain of ethics, versus the domain of science.
When you disagree with the interpretation of gravity, theres still the effects of gravity to tackle with.
Not only that, but you can even disbelieve in gravity, yet still be subject to its effects.
Not to mention you talked very little about why ones self interest can interfer with morality in the first place, what is self interest? In what domain is it situated?
Self interest, and pragmatism are two diffrent approaches one could have tackled here.
Hey, Joe. What is the best book to dismantle Edward Feser's arguments from his book Five proofs for the existence of God? He says that atheists are not part of the real debate because they are unreasonable. Where can I find his arguments challenged by an intelligent atheist like you? Thanks man!
PS: What's your favorite book on atheism?
Hy my man! Thanks for your comment :)
I have a number of papers under review ranging over a number of his five proofs. Papers take many months to undergo peer review, but hopefully many of these papers are accepted within the upcoming months. I also have a special project (I can't say more than that) on *all* of Feser's arguments in that book.
Although I'm an agnostic, I do think there is good scholarship arguing in defense of atheism -- if you want to see my book recommendations in that regard, check out the end of my video on why I'm agnostic :)
@@MajestyofReason Wow!! Thanks for the review! I am looking forward to the papers and the PROJECT!! If you could challenge all 5 proofs of Feser, that would be astonishing. Also, I have a suggestion for your next videos. There was a debate between Andrew T. Loke and Graham Oppy. Andrew T. Loke claims to have developed a novel cosmological argument which has no premises that can be challenged. If you could review his opening statement at least in a next video, that would be amazing! Thanks for everything, Joe. You are amazing!!! PS: YOUR BOOK ROCKS!!!!! INCREDIBLY HELPFUL.
@@d.f.4489 Thank you -- your comment means so much to me
@@MajestyofReason Great to hear. Also, I can tell from now that you're going to be one of the leading philosophers of the 21st century :) Imagine being so young and so brilliant. Damn! I could only wish.
Also, I will support you on patreon! Love your stuff.
@@d.f.4489 Thank you for your support! That really means a lot to me. I treat my patrons to some very special gifts and benefits, so I can't wait for you to enjoy those :)
@18:36 I believe you created a hybrid of two idioms with the same meaning this generating a holy Trinity of idioms. "Get your feet wet" & "Dip your toe in the water" hybridized to "Get your toes wet". Which, oddly, does sound gross. Ick! See? Ick does resolve to T.
Hey Joe S., (when) are you going to respond to Thomistic?
I already have. It's in an unlisted video. Check out the description of his video for a link
Oh, maybe you meant his *very* recent video (like within the last few days). I haven't responded to that one. That was his response to my response. I experienced a lot of suffering making the first response video, so I don't know if I'll respond in turn. We shall see
@@MajestyofReason I meant the first one and found it. Thanks.
@@ObsidianTeen Hey, I'm interested in viewing this as well, but I'm not familiar with the channel "Thomistic" which you reference. Could you please state the exact channel name or provide a link? Thank you.
@@anonymouscat6207 Thomistic Disputations
The day will come when Human is freed from sadistic minds like Feser who want people to suffer eternally because they randomly ("freely") crapped out a bad choice rather than a good one.
Max Stirner disapproves heavily. Morality is a spook! On a more serious manner, what is your ethical view(virtue ethics, consequentialism, deontology)? I'm a consequentialist, more specifically, the somewhat edgy negative utilitarian which wants to painlessly eliminate all sentient life. Apologies if you mentioned your view already in some other video or this one, I skipped through some parts.
Much love!
I haven't studied normative ethics enough to have a deeply considered view. With that said, I am very tentatively some mixture between deontology and virtue ethics. (I think deontology is too rigid in itself, while virtue ethics faces the problem of giving actual guidance in moral behavior. A combo of them seems most plausible to me lol.) But I stress that I haven't researched normative ethics much.
I tend to support something like a three way syncretism between deontology, virtue ethics, and consequentialism. I am a metaethical naturalist and a Marxist-Leninist. Whatever your opinions on the USSR, there is much interesting and little studied philosophical literature that came out of it.
You should debate maverick Christian on moral realism😉
I understand the intent behind your video but i think none of the arguments actually adress a deeper problem with moral realism, that arises from disagreement. I am not too versed on moral philosphy, but i believe moral propositions are supposed to guide how we ought to act. When we say "murder is wrong" we are not merely stating a true or false propositions, but a guide on how to act(or how to not act). I.E Murder is wrong implies that "One Should not commit Murder" and its by that reason why we decide to arrest Murderers.
But, Knowing that, how can we find a good criteria on how to act in situations where moral disagreement arises? You mention some moral disagreements that are not in virtue of moral reasons, like murdering Elders for better conditions in afterlife (A metaphysical reason). But we, as westerners, disagree heavily with that, and even if the disagreement is not is not because of a moral reason, it's still immoral to us, and we would at least seek to show to that person that doing this is wrong. One way of doing this would be to make arguments to refute their metaphysical instance, but here we would just move the disagreement to another sphere, as they may be just as much justified in believing in these afterlife conditions than we are in not believing it.
We then find ourselves in a kind of disagreement that it's absurd for both parties to believe they are wrong. In one side we are murdering an innocent person, an immoral act, in the other we are condemning an innocent person to hell (if they assume they need to kill their elders for they to not perish in afterlife), also an immoral act. But moral realism holds that one of them is wrong, and, looking at this problem pratically, in our judicial system, the person that holds this belief would be arrested by murder.
Looking at a least extreme example, abortion. In that case, some people disagree in virtue of scientific classifications (What is and what is not a human) but some argue in virtue of purely moral propositions. There are defenses of abortion even granted that the fetus is a human, but that killing this human would be morally defensible, as, for example, Killing in self defense is morally defensible. But its evident that we find major disagreements in abortion, but since moral realism holds that one of the views is wrong, how we can justify any act towards that? How a mother would act knowing she could be doing something immoral, if she decides to abort? Or how we as a society would act knowing we could be punishing an innocent person, by denying her of bodily rights?
Abortion seems to me to be a reasonable example of an unsolvable moral disagreement, and it looks tempting to Reject moral realism, and instead of believing that we are doing something absurdily unjust in both sides, that we actually are all wrong and our prescriptions are based on other reasons. Like, for example, we ban Murder to prevent additional conflicts and so forth.
My two cents, i don't know how strong is that case really.
Kiwi on...pppppp...pizza?!? *Munch'sscreamemoji*
Since the world is not made out of propositions, that kind of moral realism cannot possibly be true. [ah, you could have moral realism in a "book-world", although i'm not sure what that would look like]
Hey my dude! This kind of realism doesn't require the world to be made out of propositions. All it needs is that there are truths of morality, and they re true in virtue of things/facts that are independent of human opinions, beliefs, etc.
@@MajestyofReason Thanks for the answer, didn't expect to get one. In your epistemology, do you think truths/facts (about the world, etc) are always propositions? Because that's the "vibe" I got from the video -- although it might be hard to talk about/simplify it in any other way.
I think you didn't give enough credit to the final objection to the argument from tolerance. If the conclusion is true, moral realism is false and all propositions with evaluative predicates are false(or lack a truth value). If that's the case then premise the "we ought not be intolerant" is false (or lacks a truth value). Thus one cannot rationally affirm both these propositions and thus no argument containing both of them can be successful.
I disagree :)
The anti-realist can simply re-express the premise as "if realism is true, we ought not be intolerant". Then, the conclusion would be: if moral realism is true, then moral realism is false.
And this shows that moral realism is internally inconsistent: its very own truth would entail its falsehood. Thus, I still stand by what I said in my video. :)
@@MajestyofReason I agree that this restatement is better but was just pointing out that the argument as presented in the video did fall to that criticism. That said you would also have to add "if moral realism is true" to premise 1 and 3. I think that leaves premise 4 in a tough spot, you may have to make it a reductio. I'm not the best at logic so I might be getting some of this wrong but I get the sense there's still something fishy going on with the validity :)
@@Punibaba1 Much love
This is strange... It seems to me there is an increase in elephant representations in the videos I am recently watching... 😉
:)
@@MajestyofReason On a more serious note: In my opinion you produce really informative and well-argued content (including your book). I hope you keep up this good work and your open and unbiased attitude towards the issues you discuss. I am not a trained philosopher and so I have to research these things in my free time (or what my three little children leave of it 😉). I would consider myself a classical Christian theist and an agnostic towards Protestantism and Catholicism. So it seems to me we are at least in some respect in the same boat 😊
@@jogo5660 That really means a lot to me my man. *Thank you*.
@@MajestyofReason You´re welcome :) Oh, and I forgot to mention that I would really like to see the video "if abortion, then infanticide" because I am currently writing a paper on this issue. In it I argue, inter alia, that all justifications of abortion I know of (even including the standard bodily rights argument in some circumstances) collapse into infanticide or they necessitate the attribution of "basic human rights" to many animals (like cows, pigs and chicken). I also explain why I think that the arguments of e.g. Boonin or DeGrazia to allow abortion but to exclude the permissibility of infanticide fail. So it would be very interesting to hear your evaluation of this issue :)
@@jogo5660 I'd be interested in reading your paper. Is it available online?
antebulum south
As an emergency medicine pharmacist, I would say the most charitable way to classify homeopathy would be to call it "treatment", not medicine. Not that it has anything to do with the presentation. But if not for being pedantic, then why does the comment section exist at all?
ahaha thank you :)
13:06 unsubscribed. This is unacceptable.
Lol jk.
Agreed. Pineapples on pizzas are so incredibly beautiful, they in fact prove the existence of God. The fact that Joe denies this is evidence just shows he is denying the truth he already knows.
[all of this said in jest of course in case this is not clear :) ]
@Plantinga's Bulldog
Right on!! Next he’ll be trying to run one of his ridiculous “internal critiques “ of pineapple pizzaism, even though he obviously can’t do that because his worldview entails that he doesn’t believe in pineapple on pizza. Sad!!!
@@hunterweaver6013 I know! And like, the Problem of Pizzevil? Joe can't even ground Pizzevil on his worldview. The problem of pizza topping disagreement? Easily explained by evil pizza spirits and pizza spirit warfare.
"Your conscience is on my side. You all know that [Pineapple on pizza] exists [and is amazing]." -- Sy Ten Bruggencate (I think)
Come on Joe, stop repressing the truth about pizza in unrighteousness.
@Plantinga's Bulldog
Lolol, I gotta stop now, I’m laughing too hard. Still, the obvious conclusion is that pineapple pizzaism is true, Joe knows it, and he’s suppressing that truth in unrighteousness. Perhaps Joe’s disagreement can be explained by the fact that he doesn’t want to admit that only a filthy sinner would deny that pineapple pizzaism is true. Thus, his disagreement doesn’t undermine moral realism.
Thanks for the laugh my dude.
Still a moral anti-realist. Thanks for trying, Joe.
I wasn’t arguing for realism; I was merely defending realism against a common argument. So, that you remained an anti-realist is neither here nor there, since my aim was never to get someone to go from anti-realist to realist.😁