John Locke's argument, from 1689, for Divine Morality -- it's strengths and weaknesses
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 фев 2020
- This is a lecture concerning John Locke's Two Treatises of Government, Book II, Chapter 2, Sections 4 & 6. Therein, Locke presents an argument that we have moral obligations not to kill, hurt, enslave, or steal from others. And the reason that we have those obligations, Locke claims, is that God created all human beings and therefore owns them. If people are the property of God, Locke argues, then it is wrong for us to damage his property. But even if this argument succeeds, even if it is valid and ultimately sound, this argument cannot be used to explain where all objective moral facts or laws come from, because the argument's construction presupposes the existence of just that kind of objective morality. This lecture is part of an introductory level philosophy course, Introduction to Ethics.
![DRAGON BALL: Sparking! ZERO - Fused Warriors Trailer [BUDOKAI TENKAICHI Series]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/84p4Lvyfyes/mqdefault.jpg)
you're the teacher I knew I never had, but I never knew I needed.
Thank you, thank you! This is key to open-minded arguments
Professor Kaplan, thank you so much for taking the effort to put these video lectures online; I have learned a lot from them. I thought of a question when I watched this one on Locke: would your conclusion as to the efficacy of this argument (and particularly the one restated by you at the end) change at all if you replaced the word “us” in premise #1 with the word “everything”?
This is a brilliant video. I'd like to add that the concept of ownership, following creation or other processes, is another moral assumption that must exist prior to Locke's argument. That something sounds logical, or corresponds to habit or tradition, doesn't elevate it to a moral absolute. :-)
To be aware of normative statements in what might at first glance appear to be sound logic, is a good takeaway from this video, in my opinion.
Thanks for great videos!!
"Logic" is often in the mind of the undisciplined beholder. This is why logic is a discipline that starts with basic mathematics. If we cannot prove that God exists, we must find another logical reason that we have a sense of morality. My long-considered conclusion is that it comes from nature, from instincts. Love and compassion are as much natural instincts as the instinct to survive. They are also found in higher non-human life, among mammals, at least. I think the soliloquy of Captain Ahab in Moby Dick about the fault in the concept of God's natural justice is brilliant.
@Deaddoc Really Deaddoc are love and compassion good because they feel good? Why would those things be called "good"? That's a value judgment. Are they objectively good or only a correlation to our feelings about them? Is that how you'd phrase it? The current consensus of feelings in society about a matter?
An excellent presentation.
Thank you!
@@jeffreykaplan1 Is it too much to ask how you do this? I mean is the editing a nightmare?
Yes, the editing is a nightmare!
I now need to consider what God wants me to do when I am alone and naked.
I don’t know what, but an angel did appear to me and said: “Hark! I bring a message from the lord. Lower and slower.”
Beautifully explained.
Kindness to all creatures.
So glad I found you.
And Delete Lawz sent me.
Thanks for another great lecture. I heard about John Locke, but never knew any of his view. Now I feel better about that, because it does not look like he has all the answers either. In fact, based on how humanity acts without government, the objective morality, if any, is definitely not to be super nice to each other. Human nature has very cruel aspects in it, not unlike the nature of wild animals. Many if not most morals are taught to us. At least that's what I believe.
Thanks for all these videos, mate. Clear and engaging presentation of some pretty dense stuff.
nice explanation. thank u
Seems like a combination of circular reasoning (A cannot harm B’s property rights because B belongs to C and A cannot harm C’s property rights), self contradictory reasoning (it is morally wrong for someone to own another because god owns you) and just nonsensical assumptions(a possession has a moral obligation to protect the welfare of another possession). Locke mainly seems to be relying on the fact that most of his readers would be agreeing with his list of objective morality to lend credence to his arguments.
If everything is god's property, what distinguishes harming a human from harming other animals, or plants, or even just damaging/changing things in this argument?
This is so amazing. Ten thumbs up
Subscribed…Delete LawZ sent me🙂
Agreed Deletelawz. Very informative!
I just saw you on David Nino Rodriguez. I am a Trump supporting America first patriot but I’ve always had hesitation with the complete backing of the blue. Like you I feel like they are part of this corrupt system the Trump supporters are generally excited about changing. Your interview knowledge and ideas were amazing. I believe I have over 30 arrests 11 misdemeanor convictions with zero Felonise and one fish bite. The rest were petty bullshit laws and I’ve been tortured for weeks on end. Shipped back-and-forth to court for five days straight with a broken knee never seeing the judge. Our system is horrible degrading and demeaning. And I am now suffering from PTSD. I am 6’6” 300 pound man And I walk around with my tail between my legs. Theve stolen my pride and SO much more. I’ve literally been tackled by cops and told it was because I stood up straight and arch my shoulders back and I was too big to take a chance with so 5 cups I had to tackle me and put their knee to the back of my neck. Keep in mind that day they had my brothers car roped off with police tape and I was approaching the crime scene to ask what happened. So Chilli I just want to thank you and pray for your cause. If you ever need somebody to give their testimony please feel free to contact me! You can look at my record and I am a case study for a life derailed unnecessarily! I tell people the only color the see is green, and Ive Noticed in the 11th amendment on the abolish slavery they mentioned indentured servitude would no longer be permitted unless of course you’re a criminal. So there is a motive for our government to be doing this!
Thanks again Chili
I shared your interview to all my conservative friends and family because you just make SO much SENSE and your coming from a place we can agree on and get behind!
These Jackboots need to be stopped!
Im sorry im just excited because Ive never heard anyone articulate so well and have done so much work to do something!!!
Please let me know if there’s ANYTHING I can do. 💪👍🇺🇸🙏
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Wait, I only have two thumbs or less. Are we going ‘collective’ here? Haha.
If you extend lockes argument to conclude objective mortality, that would basically be begging the question fallacy right?
I would say there are serious issues with the property version of it.
Consider a parent.
They are taking in materials that they own, to create another human being, their offspring.
Does that mean they own their offspring? That it is their property which they are free to do with as they please? Including potentially sell?
Also, if we are appealing to God's creations, animals and plants are also allegedly God's creations. So does that mean we shouldn't harm them? That we should simply let ourselves die from starvation? If we can harm other possessions of God to live, then why can't we harm other people to live?
to play christians’ advocate
1. they would claim that god’s sovereignty supersedes the ownership a parent would have on their children (i’ve had my mother tell me as much in reference to my daughter, claiming that god created her, not me).
2. they would also claim that god gave humans “dominion” over the rest of the planet, similar to the way a master gives their slave use of the master’s tools to perform work. according to their scripture, god gave no such dominion to humans over other humans (not counting the rule men have over women in genesis 3), so that’d be why we can use animals and plants as mere means but not other people.
@@TaeyxBlackThat then gets complicated based upon requiring a specific god and its specific commands.
If we are going with Christianity, well God quite explicitly gave us the right to treat other humans as property, such as Exodus 21:21 which quite clearly indicates a slave is the property of its master.
Similar to the command of wives submitting to their husbands, there are also commands for children to obey their parents in everything. (e.g. Colossians 3:20).
And close by it says to forgive as the lord forgave you; so does that mean if they don't repent I burn them with fire?
As for God giving dominion, that depends how you define "creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth". If that is taken to mean anything that walks on Earth, then that includes people. If it instead is taken as a more restricted insects, then we are only given dominion over fish in the sea, birds that fly, cattle and insects.
You also have verses like Genesis 27 where Jacob is blessed and given control over all nations, including being lord over his brothers.
@@jeffreyblack666 no disagreement here. the book is chock full of lil contradictions like that. it’s part of the reason why things like divine morality/divine command theory don’t make sense to me. there are apologetics that try to address some of the things you mentioned, like how the verses in exodus are only supposed to last for a period of 6 years (they ignore leviticus 25 talking about owning foreigners as inheritable property for life though), or how ephesians 5:21 says “submit yourselves to one another” which supposedly means husbands are also supposed to submit to their wives (ignoring again the following verses where wives are specifically ordered to submit to their husbands, but husbands are only ordered to “love” their wives), but i find a lot of them to be ad hoc excuses or just downright mental gymnastics to try to maintain biblical authority in the modern era.
This reminds me of Hume's ought from an is. You can't create an ought from an is and it's very sneaky.
i always find it weird when apologists quote hume in this way. they’ll say “you can’t get an ought from an is” in one breath, then the next say “it is a fact god created the universe, so therefore it’s a given we ought to do what he says”. the is/ought gap seems very easy to cross with motivated reasoning
@@TaeyxBlack In that case I don't think they even understand what the quote means sadly
Watching again to really let it sink in. Fantastic video! I’m a John Locke for sure! God bless!!!!
Originally, when the population was less, people never bothered about environment! When there is threat of destroying environment affects badly for living beings, morality expand to the environment! So it is a developing concept throughout!
Even in older times, letting your cows shit in the drinking water of people downstream would have been an issue :-)
@@ruprecht9997 Even you own shit repels you, it has a biological meaning. Anyway consept of morality is an evolving thing, sometime in the future, we may say, it is immoral for things we feel ok now.
Humans live in groups, and like all social animals we've evolved a system of cooperation that makes group living possible. We call our system morality. Some moral rules, like the Ethic of Reciprocity and the prohibition of murder and theft, are necessary for a group's existence and have the appearance of, or may be said to be, objective morality.
"The group's existence" does not morally compel anyone to care about the group's existence. You have not answered where morality comes from but merely how groups tend to survive.
Sub-premise 1: Hume's is-ought problem is unsolved (unsolvable?) in philosophy.
Sub-premise 2: Amoralism is the only Atheism that is sufficiently rational to reject "ought".
Conclusion: Amoralism is the only rational atheism.
@@I12Db8Uhe did. A single evolutionary trait (social species) is the basis for all morals.
@@Nick-Nasti Chimpanzees are moral?
@@Nick-Nasti That would imply a sociopath is a moral person.
@@someonenotnoone A sociopath by definition is a broken brain. You might be conflating morals with a person behaving morally. Morals are set by society. The herd decides what is best for the herd (social instinct). If a person is aware of what society dictates, they are still free to go against it. If they do, they know there are consequences. I'll pause here until I can see that you understand the differences.
Thank you sir to teach me
In the second argument, doesn't the normative claim start in premise 1 ? You wrote « god created us, *knows what is best for us* ». Doesn't that assume a "best", and therefore a normative claim ?
That also seems to me a bigger problem because the « should » could be replaced by « it's in Y's best interest to follows Y's command », and then either that can be reused in the conclusion or a third premise can be added which'd read something like « if Y seeks to do what's best for itself, then Y should follow X's command », where « should » here only means as much as it would when talking about what one « should » do to win a game of chess or something.
Anyway, loved your video, very informative as always.
Locke’s audience was obviously people who already had these extra steps figured out to make his argument relevant to the question. This was not intended for a godless audience or one that doesn’t have the foundation of previous western knowledge going even back to the idea of the Logos in Greek philosophy. We are not equipped today to handle this as a sufficient position BECAUSE we are not classically educated. Our foundations are not built upon what our founding fathers or Locke knew or understood. I don’t see that as a detriment to the argument when it was for a specific audience.
Classical liberalism can only work in a Christian society.
24:30 What if we replace "should obey" with something like "obeying X is the most profitable/rational/logical outcome"?
That assumes that people have a moral obligation to care about profit, rationality and logic. So you're not contributing to an answer to the video's question, only creating a competitor to other platitudes.
Sub-premise 1: Hume's is-ought problem is unsolved (unsolvable?) in philosophy.
Sub-premise 2: Amoralism is the only Atheism that is sufficiently rational to reject "ought".
Conclusion: Amoralism is the only rational atheism.
Nice
If Locke was around today, with advances in scientific understanding, would he still hold the same premises that underpin his argument? Impossible to know for sure, but surely a relevant question.
The first part sure looks like the Golden Rule, and inspiration for the Declaration of Independence. You could say this on the basis of equality (which is never supported by societies) without the supposition of God. Based on the "property" idea, anyone can decide that the property is corrupted and destroy it, just like the holy people did so often. The equality idea is stronger.
Doesn’t he also go on to say that even without god that these rights are “self-evident” using Reason alone? Or was that just Jefferson?
26:28 in the top left corner still a little speckle is left
Please do Rousseau
Sir if we little change the first one as:
God created us, knows what is best for us and commands us to do what is best for you as he knows what is best for us.
(Everyone who creates something on back there is some purpose of Creation of that thing so we can say that God Created us knows what is best for us and He commands us to do what is better for us which is purpose of creater to, obey his order on creation )
(Then we can modify it for the answer what is required to us. Maybe my words are not as of Philosopher but I hope you will understand what I am saying Sir. )
And at last but it is first thing what I am thinking to say must is...
Thank You So Much Sir For such amazing lectures)
You're saying that it's morally correct for a creation to do as the creator orders? Why is that? What if the creator orders the creation to do something bad, like kill their son? How do we decide what "something bad" means? 🤔
@@serversurfer6169 You do what the Creator tells you to do on faith that the Creator (an all-knowing, holy, absolutely truthful, righteous and just Creator) does know what is right and wrong for you to do. What you see as evil, God means for good.
Heb 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
@@SillyCartoons > What you see as evil, God means for good. <
So our sense of morality doesn’t align with God’s? Where did ours come from? 🤔
@@serversurfer6169 Our sinful hearts. If our morality aligned with God's we would not need a savior.
@@Ryeberry And who supplied us with sinful hearts? 🤔
How does that marker and glass work? Is he writing backwards?
I’m pretty sure he flips the image. I’m pretty sure he’s actually right handed and writing normally, which would be flipped for us, so he flips it in post so the writing is right and he then appears left handed.
How does he write back to front on the glass screen?
Morality comes from our desire for physical and mental safety/health.
There is another way of looking at this that might skirt the issue you are making. The argument might go something like this:
God is all powerful.
God made men.
God gives men a choice, that being men can obey the house rules or not obey them.
Those that obey the house rules (are at least seek to do so and repent when they fail to do so) God invites to be part of his family and live with Him.
Those that do not agree to those house rules God says, OK, that is your choice but since you are not willing to comply with my house rules you shall not be part of my household.
So ought one to obey those rules? Well it seems only if one wants to be part of God's household. Otherwise one may opt to not obey them if one is OK with not being part of God's household.
So is this objective morality or some other type of morality?
Or said another way if the creator can create men can he also equally create the rules that should govern men. For say men create robots. Or to look at a more secular example, can men also create the rules that govern robots.
So in one say this is saying might makes right. But with God that right is indeed right. But it seems it is alosio right that God gives men the choice to decide if they buy into that right. And if not then the only consequence for doing so is that they are excluded form enjoying the benefits of being part of God's household.
But since all good comes from God such a decision is catastrophic for in making it if one chooses to be on their own and not part of God's household, but excluded from it, by their own choice which presumably they thought to be a good one else they would have not have made that choice.
So it seems the issue is does one agree with God in what is good or not good? Thus God's rules are objective but the underlying morality stems from God being all wise and wanting the best for men. Thus they are not compelled to agree with God but are compelled to suffer the consequences that come from any choice in that all decisions have their consequences. For (to paraphrase from memory what some theologian said, I can't remember who), the higher st honor God gives men is to hold them accountable for their actions.
Thus the absolute here is being held accountable for ones actions. But that is not a moral issue but one that gives dignity to men, else their actions would not matter.
And thus morality is not so much something that is compiled but rather something which one agrees with God as to what is good and what is evil, much the same as you or I or anyone might want someone to agree to the house rules before inviting them to live with you in your house, under your roof, and even more so if that stay were for life or even eternity. And if they did not agree to those house rules one might then be reticent to agree to have them come live with you, especially if they tasked up the place, beat you children, stole you money and such. For if they did one might law down the law and kick them out of ones house.
So the absolute here is what rules one needs to follow to be granted certain privileges. And if one disagreed that you had the right to kick them out one might then call the cops and have them forcibly removed.
Thus the absolute law here seems to be the law of consequences, that is certain actions have certain consequences, be they good ones or not so good ones. For a physical law there seems to be no choice. A rock can't decide to fall or not fall but is compeed to fall by gravity. But moral laws (especially if enforced by God) do have consequences and men have choices as to whether to comply with those moral laws or not. But like that rock they do not have the choice of escaping the consequences that come from those choices any more that that rock can choose not to fall.
But if one tries to separate of divorce morality from it consequences (and the ability to choose the course of actions that lead to those consequences but not the consequences that come from those choices) it seems that is when one runs into the all these problems concerning absolute vs relative morality and such.
But there is one other factor that might need mentioning here. That is given the above is correct (or mostly so) men can attempt to comply with God;s laws from two different reasons, servile fear (that is fear of punishment) or that they totally buy into those rules in that they see them as both good and reasonable. But compliance to those laws simply out of servile fear is not all that good, for that means the person is acting not from being in agreement with what God says is god but simply out of fear of the consequences that come from rejecting those laws.
But compliance for those reason is a shallow compliance in that the idea here is not merely to comply but to agree that these are worthy of being followed in that they are good. So if one agree to live say by your house rules but perhaps resents them or thinks them unfair or burdensome but is willing to comply just because they need a roof over their head and a meal ticket one still might have serious second thoughts before inviting them to live with you.
Thus compliance is not the issue here but agreement. For one agree with the house rules, even of they might form time to time not follow them by accident is one thing. But to follow them just out of fear of the consequences is quite another thing. Thus it is not so much compliance but agreement as to the soundness and goodness of the rules that might be the core issue here. And also it might take time to be fully persuaded that those laws are good, so this might be a process and not so much a singular choice but an ongoing one that has its own detours along the way but at the end one comes to that agreement as to the soundness and goodness of those laws, after perhaps having the benefit of hindsight to see what happens if one fails to do those things and sees those consequences that stem from so not doing, i.e learning the hard way.
This type of approach to morality has some precedent. Hobbes, for instance, thought that the only reason we should be moral was because it was in our own selfish interest (it would keep us out of the vicious state of nature of keep us alive). In this case, however, one has two problems, or potential problems, at least:
1. We might think that if one's only reason for obeying moral rules is that one happens to want something selfishly, then one is not acting morally. I don't really have a settled view about this, but it is clear why some are attracted to this line of thought.
2. The other problem is simply that I do not think this approach has skirted the issue that I raise in the video. Grant that the reason to obey God's commands is that one wants whatever benefits come from, as you say, following the house rules. Why should one do what will get one what one wants? It seems like simply a brute fact that one ought, in some sense, to do what will get one what one wants. But then that is some obligation, some ought, that applies to one independent of whatever God says.
@@jeffreykaplan1 I had to stop and think a while where I am trying to go with this. But I am thinking it is that when one agrees with God that the house rules are indeed good, not just for themselves but good for all what that is saying is that one sees these house rules as unifying all three of the normative (or whatever you call it) categories, the moral, the prudential, and the epistemic. That is to say those house rules led one to treat others rightly so as to benefit others, benefits one elf, and is something one ought to believe just as one ought to believe 2+ 2 = 4.
For example eating wholesome food versus junk food is helpful to oneself, but also to others in that one stays healthy and thus is not a n added burden to others for their care and enables one to serve others as well as one self and this seems to be something that is epistemic that one should take good care of oneself. Thus being sensible is not necessarily just being selfish, for good sense may also include the moral and not just the prudential and one might think having and exercising good sense is just another way of saying that good sense is believing in something that should be believed on because it is epistemic and that part of that epistemic thing to be believed is that one should act in accordance with one beliefs.
Thus say one tries to do good just for their strictly one's own benefit (just the prudential) but not because it is a true good (which also includes the prudential and the epistemic) might indeed be rightly said to be acting selfishly. That is what I was calling acting act of servile fear, that is acting not because one (epistemically) see the action as a true good) but rather just for their own (prudential) benefit. And since God is all knowing, God can know the secrets of the heart and thus know which is the case and just acting out of servile fear would not be accounted as a truly good act but merely a selfish act. Or one might say that the good ione deso form seville fear is an accidental good and not an essential good. Thus say, if there were no cops around one might run a red light if the only reason one obeys traffic laws is to avoid getting tickets and not because one agrees that they are good and necessary for safe travel on the roads.
And BTW (and interestingly enough) , I am only able to write this post because from what I learned watching your other videos where i am incorporating what I learned in them to write this. So I guess this might be an example of what goes around comes around.
And a corollary to this is that it seems that acting just out of servile fear to avoid some evil or obtain some good may ultimately not accomplish either. For doing the right the for the wrong reasons may produce some good but not a lasting good. Thus for something to be essentially good and not merely accidentally so seems to require both the act is good and the reason for the act to be good as well. And for reasons to be perfectly good they must also be based on truth. For it may be good to punish a wrongdoer but not if one punishes the wrong person.
So in short, your opinion is that morality is "the behavior that gets you into Heaven," defined as the subjective preferences of God. Also, fakers, fuk oof. 🤔
If god is infinitely wise, how are we supposed to presume what gods intentions are for us using our finite minds? To assume that god intends for us to only do "good" to his "property" may or may not be accurate. We are almost anthropomorphising god in assuming that god wants what we would want in relation to how we as humans would want our property to be treated. But what if god created us with the intention of some of us doing good and others doing evil, because in order for there to be good there would also need to be evil in contrast.
Not almost, but certainly IMO.
Although the Abrahamic religions avoid anthropomorphic accusations by saying man was created in God's image. People want fairness, justice, etc, because they're properties of God that were projected into divinely-touched, but imperfect humans. However, this thesis creates other issues, such as (real) moral issues due to sexism. Since the Abrahamic image of God is a male.
That was a great presentation. Curious as to where objective morality derived from in your opinion?
The Christian God has justice as an attribute which is synonymous with morality. Gods attributes are part of what makes, God who He is. Therefore we can pose an argument for objective morality based upon Gods existence because Gods existence is one and the same with morality.So as soon as Gods existence is placed in an argument for objective morality , it is safe to assume moral laws since God in essence is morality. Hope that made sense lol.
> justice as an attribute <
If the attribute is the _source_ of morality, then it is arbitrary and subjective, by definition. (i.e. "This is immoral _according to_ Justice.") If the Justice attribute simply aligns with what is objectively moral, then Justice and its host are irrelevant. That's the Euthyphro dilemma. 🤘
My question is, why would God give _everyone_ a sense of morality, then give _one guy_ a book intended to overrule it? 🤔
@@serversurfer6169 Divine attributes are an interesting topic because the traditional Christian understanding is that God is simple. That is to say He is His attributes. He is justice and wisdom and will and love. He is one and not made up of parts. That's why the Euthyphro doesn't apply, since God is goodness. Divine simplicity is, ironically enough, a rather complex topic with a long intellectual history. There is a lot to inquire about if you are interested.
And this is probably a nitpick, but the closest thing to God giving one guy a book is the Ten Commandments. It says, God gave men the Ten Commandments because they did not read the law written on their hearts. So the law isn't intended to overrule the sense of morality, but to make clear what people would rather not know. (Because, seriously, who wants to know that there are rules they have to follow?)
@@petardraganov3716 Sorry, but “God is goodness” isn’t logically coherent. God is God, and goodness is goodness. Either God’s actions align with some prior standard of goodness, or they don’t. That’s the dilemma. 🤷♂️
Also, Moses commanded way more than ten things. They wrote whole books about it. You should check it out; it’s astonishing. 😜
@@serversurfer6169 I think the idea is that part of the definition of God is that God is good. That much is clearly stated in the Bible, and since this argument assumes that the Bible contains accurate information (Moses existed, God gave him some tablets, etc.) we can assume that "God is good" as a statement is a valid premise.
It's not so much that God's actions are supposed to align with a prior standard of goodness, but that God is what sets the standard in the first place.
I think that's what @petardraganov3716 was getting at, anyway.
@@samraedeke2943 In the first paragraph you explain that God is good, but in the second you state that good is God. 🤷♂️
If God is good, then he conforms to an external standard which defines it. If good is God, he sets the standard, whether by being or by decree. Most folks don’t desire to be enslaved, but God says it’s okay to buy them anyway. Does he say it’s okay because it is, or is it okay because he says so, or is his claim erroneous? 🤔
No matter what we are stuck presupposing morality just like we are stuck on the presupposition of math. Nothing wrong with presupposing as we presuppose many things throughout our day to day...if you pay attention you'll notice how naturally it occurs...almost like breathing...
Point ... if the concept of morality was born from the contemplation of our creation ... would that not make the source of morality God? Even if that is simply from a conceptual point of view?
Are you writing backwards?
Look at his shirt and jacket. The buttons are reversed. His wedding band is on his right hand. There would only be a 10% chance he'd be writing with his left hand. No, he's not writing backwards. The image is flipped.
So, he is writing backwards, because if the image is flipped and it appears he's writing forward then before the image became flipped he was writing backward.
@@treyverret Watch his video on how his videos are made, maybe he can explain it so you'll understand. He's not writing backwards.
What about(I don’t believe in all the premises but anyway):
*God knows what is best for every human being and gives commands that, if followed, will make so that the life of the follower is their happiest possible life.
*Every human being wants to be as happy as possible.
*Therefore, every human being should follow god’s commands (to be happy).
It’s kinda objective but not really at the same time?
I think this is where the idea of free will comes. God has only given us the free will to be happy. The argument goes that it is only us that can make us happy and if we aren't happy, god isn't happy. The branch of moral philosophy that deals with happiness is called utilitarianism. There are objections to utilitarianism that say it is not a universal system of objective morality that it says it is.
@@hungrycrab3297 Well yes, it assumes people should be happy, but only because they want to be happy. I can say "If you want to have ice cream, you should go buy some" or "if you want to not starve, you should eat", and those don't seem like candidates for hidden universal moral assertions like the ones in the video, so why should "if you want to be happy, you should (insert thing that would make one happy here)" count? I guess none of those really feel like moral statements including the last one wich ould mean that the conclusion of this argument is based only on selfish goals and would not qualify as morality... So i guess the argument is still wrong and this response is useless. GREAT.
Im conflicted, I want to LIKE the video, but its at 777. Ill check back in a week and see if its still @ 777. 5-28-2023
The religious argument is surely more like:
1. God created us, owns us, and states the path to paradise is to follow his law.
2. If x created y, owns y, and advises if y wants paradise, the only path there is to follow his law, then if y wants paradise, the sole route is to follow x's law.
3. Y's only option is to follow god's law if he wants to enter paradise.
I'd argue that the restriction from harming someone else's property is contained within the definition of property. Therefore the unstated axiom of Locke's argument is the nature and existence of property. Then as a Christian I'd argue that God created the universe and man such that property exists. To say we are God's property is true; but more importantly to Locke's philosophy its a way of stating one part of our relationship with God into terms more consistent with the rest of his thesis.
I haven't finished the video so apologies if you bring this argument up. But doesn't this argument assume it's conclusion in its proof? As it assumes property rights are a moral good. So doesn't this just say morality is real because to be immoral would be immoral to god?
Just subscribed Delete lawz sent me
First Law:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law:
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
With these 3 simply rules, a robot (AI) can resolve any situation. It can define a million specific sub-rules from them.
Social animals: do not harm the herd (comply with society). All morals can be derived from this.
@@Nick-Nasti
Almost all situations (A reference to the books. lol)
I would revise the second argument by replacing "should" with "if you want the best for yourself, you should obey God". My own definition of objective morality is the action which will have the best and most desirable result for you and this can only be known by God who is omniscient, thus he is the source of objective morality. If you don't want the best for yourself, you are crazy in my humble opinion!
The meaning of your definition depends a great deal on what is meant by best, and by desirable. It is clear that at least in some cases what is best either is subjective, or there is no "best" at all. Consider the question of which flavor of ice cream is best; I think anyone would accept that there is no objective answer to this question, either the answer is subjective and depends per person on their preferences, or there is no answer at all, that there are only preferences and no best, subjective or not. Is there an objective standard for what is best in some cases? If so, why would such a standard be unknowable except by God? Surely by what is best for a person you don't mean whatever they desire the most, because then it would not only be knowable by God but also by the person in question. Do you mean whatever will maximize pleasure and minimize pain for that person in a semi-utilitarian sense?
Also do you really believe that each person morally aught to do whatever produces the best result *for them* regardless of how it affects others? In other words a perfectly moral person must be perfectly selfish? That is how I read your statement but I may be misinterpreting.
@@dremoralorde5215 Actually I think it the answer to what is best for us is not that hard. Having more power means having more freedom and GOD is the only source of power (in monotheism which I believe in). Do what God wants from you and God will make you more like him, more powerful. God is our teacher and we imitate him by obeying the divine law, thus we become more knowledgeable, powerful, beautiful, merciful and etc. We humans can be God's successor on earth only if we listen to our great teacher!
@@dremoralorde5215 It is not really important whether you think this ice-cream is better than others or whether you like red more than blue. What matters is the power and freedom to have access to all types of ice-cream! This is not really possible if there is no God or if you dislike him like Satan.
@@siroossamangooee9688 My ice cream example was only to show that there cannot be an objective standard of best in all cases, by demonstrating that there is no universal answer to the question. It leaves open that there may be an objective standard in some cases. While I would certainly prefer access to a wide variety of flavors as opposed to being limited to just one, access to a wide variety of flavors is not itself a flavor, and so does not answer the question.
@@siroossamangooee9688 I'm still a little unclear. It seems like by "what is best for us" you mean "what will give us the most power" with power meaning the same as freedom, put simply capacity to do stuff, and while obeying God is certainly not the only way to become more powerful, I could grant for the sake of argument that obeying god is the most effective way to gain power, as long as we suppose that those who better follow God's commands are rewarded with more power/freedom in an afterlife, since clearly the people who accrue the most power here on earth are not always those who do the best job obeying God's commands. But in your view, is being moral really only trying to become as powerful as possible? That doesn't seem like morality to me but selfishness. If you think morality and selfishness are the same, then you wouldn't be the first to think so, but it's not the sort of moral framework I would be attracted to, since it can result in cases where earnest and effective generosity can be morally wrong. In your framework; suppose Oscar chooses to disobey one of God's commands in order to ensure that Jennifer does obey one of God's commands. And we can suppose that whatever Oscar did wrong is quite a small thing, but the mistake Jennifer was going to make was a huge one, in God's eyes. Oscar makes a personal sacrifice for Jennifer's benefit, and what is lost is less than what is gained, yet Oscar is morally wrong to do it. To me, though, it seems like what Oscar has done is at least morally permissible, if not downright virtuous.
Interesting , have not heard of this argument but it is interesting. Personally have not read it but if your presentation of his arguments is true they could be a bit more thought out but it is good for 1689, and good try in the end but I think it could be better like this:
1. If creator X, creates Y with his own power and means he is truly only owner of Y, and all of Ys are equal in their hierarchy and purpose compared to each other.
2. God, creator of whole universe is Source of everything Good because out of Him nothing exists, everything He created with its specific purpose and so possesses everything He created.
3. Damaging of property outside of its planned purposeful use is willful and distraught damaging of someones property.
4. Damaging Gods property turns you against God.
5. In fight with God you always loose.
That is rather a bit of a morally defective way to see God
@@DavidS_Tan Define "morally deffective way" because it is quite rellative term that can mean basically anything. My point was to be more just to simple facts...but
And God is sourece of everithing ... including moral.....so....In toher words there is no moral outside of God.
I have a question though, if every human is God's chicken, aren't all living things? Or all things in general?
It seems like this stems from the religious reasoning that humans are inherently different from the rest in some magical way, I personally struggle to see a reason(that doesn't stem from humans being above the rest) why God would care more about you than he would a turkey or a rock.
Because God told us that he specificly created us in HIS image and that we have dominion over all the Earth. God did NOT say these things about any other living thing, not even the angels. 1 Corinthians 6:3 "Do you not know that we will judge angels?"
To consider objective morality is to consider the very nature of the human being. The 'tools of understanding' morality are imbedded in the very nature of personhood. So sane consideration of the perfections of God, i.e. 'His' Holiness or 'His' moral perfections, with His guidance, leads to objective moral law. The Trinity bridges that gap, as revealed by Him. Three perfect eternal beings demonstrating their perfection through holiness in their relationship with each other.
No…. It doesn’t.
My answer to the opening question: objective morality comes from religious people asserting that morals come from their God and that's why you have to do what they say
I seem to be missing something here. If the Law of God exists (i.e. universal moral truths) wouldn't they exist independently of the question about whether we "should" follow them or not. The "should" or "should not" does not bear on their ontology. That would be a separate issue or question.
any answer?
Not sure mate. If "God's laws" exist then "should" and "should not" would seem to be relative to a "consequences" frame of reference. Consequences toward self or society/others seems to be Locke's original concern.
If a supreme law giver exists then the results of our "free will" actions would actually be predetermined by such ontology (ie: absolute laws laid down by God), wouldn't they?
Sure, our actions (or our intent in such) wouldn't have any bearing on such laws, but those laws would regardless affect the consequences of said actions.
Correct. You can't get an "ought" from an "Is." 🤓
@@hungrycrab3297 And what is this other assumption? Exactly? Even if this next step exists that would not change the ontological and independent nature of God's commands.
@@hungrycrab3297 How about this: if you don't follow God's commands, or even the laws of a nation, certain consequences will follow. It is not a 'should' argument per se, but simply what follows logically. But the 'should' part of the argument is different from the ontological nature of universal moral truths. Murder is an objective moral evil, and remains so whether we accept that or not. The 'should' is directed to the will of the man, subjective, individual. Therefore, it seems, that one is dependent on man's will (or response) and the other is not and is immutable. They don't seem to be on the same ground. In any case even if there is a second 'should' step it would not negate the reality of other universal moral truths (if they exist).
DeleteLawz sent me! 😊😊😊
Seems like another mail in the coffin for the idea of an objective morality to me. What a great series. Will it end with a more compelling argument for an objective morality and blow my mind?!
Had to rewatch the part with Locke's original paragraph. It doesn't seem to me that he is making an argument for objective morality. He just states that there is natural law in the beginning, then states some examples of natural laws and then argues that those specific laws are explained by "We are property of God."
You could argue that the wording is ambiguous, or that it has historically been read as an argument for objective morality and that's plausible. Given my lack of context, I'd rather assume Locke was aware of the limitations of his argument.
@@mikeb5372 there are multiple clues in my post I’ve been thinking about it for more than 20 minutes. Maybe you should reflect on your own philosophy that would lead you to write in such an obnoxious tone? I recommend learning about Protagarus and Wittgenstein to start, maybe back that up with some of the Buddhist texts. Let me know if you need help.
@@mikeb5372 you’re not being honest, you’re being ignorant and arrogant. The word “another” Is enough for anyone with basic reading comprehension to know I’m not basing my opinion on twenty minutes of learning, as is the statement that I’ve seen a number of videos in this series alone. Maybe work on your reading comprehension before nominating yourself as the world’s philosophy teacher, you’re not helping.
@@elindauer Uhm, I regret that I have to admit that I made a very stupid mistake. I thought I was responding to a completely different comment made by someone else. I don't expect you to forgive my foolishness but I apologize
@@elindauer Also, my original response to you did have a bit of an obnoxious tone so I apologize for that as well
What about dualism. Did God give us a soul? If so, in death, the soul leaves the body. Do our remains still belong to God?
Harming another person comparison should be one of your chickens harming another of your chickens not you harming your neighbours chicken.
What does "where does it come from" mean, when applied to something that's always everywhere?
With arithmetic, you can axiomatize it, or you can set up a set-theoretic model of it, and then you can derive "2+2=4" from the axioms or the set-theoretic definitions. But it would be ridiculous to say that's where "2+2=4" came from. The axiomatization's representation of 2+2 has to evaluate to 4, or else the attempt at axiomatization is no good. Saying that the fact comes from the representation would be 180 degrees backward.
Analogously, you can put some theology or a state-of-nature story under "murder is bad", as a putative foundation. But that's not where "murder is bad" comes from. Murder just is bad. That doesn't need to come from anywhere. And if your attempt at theology, or your story, fails to say that murder is bad, then you throw away your putative foundations and try again.
Fresh markers hit differently
The other objective moral law that is assumed by the Locke argument is that ownership of property is a given. Even Jeffrey's reimagined version of this assumes a form of ownership implicit in the creation.
If we're all God's chickens, how about the pecking order?
In an argument against a conservative Christian this isn't some killing blow but assuming that the scripture may have been mistranslated or misinterpreted means that only the "don't harm others" law can be known for sure. This effectively cuts out religion and forces the opponent to justify why non cis-het identities harm other humans. This totally nullifies "the Bible says so so I'm right"
Good job five stars
Second argument from me: Surely pigs are just as much God's property as human beings, so did Locke not think that , for example, all animals should not be killed, enslaved, etc etc.
As a Christian, Locke would remember in Genesis 1:26 that God gave dominion over the animals.
didn't Plato's Socrates say that we can't kill ourselves because, he said, we are the property of the gods?
That, and also that if we are truly imprisoned in our bodies, it would be immoral to attempt to escape before our sentence runs out. 😜
@@serversurfer6169 thanks! I'd forgotten that he said that, but, if we were talking that assertion in a college course, I'd ask, "But what I was truly imprisoned, by the gods, in paranoid delusions, instead, wouldn't it be just as wrong to try to escape them, instead?
@@IsmaelLovecraft Sorry, but I couldn't really follow your question. 😅
That’s quite rich coming from Socrates 😄
@@claudiamanta1943 why? why "coming from Socrates"?
Couldn't your argument be saved by changing "Y should obey" to "obeying all X's commands would be beneficial to Y"? because then living a moral life becomes the only secure way to happiness, therefore something everyone should seek and stick to. So you must be moral to secure happiness.
Fulfillment. Not happiness.
But, yes. I agree
"Would" implies "should", if it doesn't then "would(maybe)" isn't absolutely true all the time in all instances used. Recognizing "should" should be changed to a "would" is the issue pointed out oin the video. Or how do you now get from a "would" to a "should"( a maybe or if to a must or should)?
@@Ignirium I think 'would' implies cause-and-effect, whereas 'should' can be a moral imperative, regardless of cause-and-effect.
For example:
'If you were to hug a cactus, it would hurt.' Is simply a cause-and-effect statement, but:
'You should not hug a cactus.' Is an imperative, even though it can contain the extra explanation '+because it would hurt.'
In the first, it is simply a descriptive statement of what the result of the hugging would be, whereas the second is a normative statement of what you ought to do.
@@samraedeke2943 This definition is why i decided to remove the word "should" from my vocabulary when talking to people except for cases that are serious and facts are more important than someones beliefs or feelings on the matter.
JK, you left us with a
cliff-hanger.
“Where does morality come from?” Was NOT answered.
Same bat-time,
same bat-channel.
Suppose that god knows the best decisions for each person. Suppose he abstracts all of these decisions and comes up with a code of conduct that will lead to the best possible outcomes for the greatest number of people given that only some will follow the maxims, precisely who he knows well.
What makes a decision best? Possibly it is self actualization or development of the spirit or intellect; it could also be attainment of happiness, which may be a sign that the previous event has occurred. It could also be that the decisions would make the person more likable to god, which would be infinitely valuable because god would probably shower many benefits on the person throughout eternity.
Suppose that god commands the people who follow him to obey the maxims under penalty of punishment but also as an expression of love for him.
Then would not the objective moral obligations be the specific decisions that the general maxims point toward? They are there because of god, but they are actually somewhat independent of god. Of course, god created the universe, so he also created the conditions leading to the decisions. Nevertheless, the moral obligations are the making of correct decisions at important junctures. The maxims could also be a moral obligation given that the person has no other guide concerning how they are to behave to achieve the best outcome for the human race, or for themselves.
As an example of how this would work, consider that a person may feel that he should not steal from another person. But possibly everything would work out better for you and overall if you stole from a certain person. For example, assume George is in love with his banker, and he would like any excuse to see her. Now John steals $10,000 from George leaving him $8,000 short of meeting his payroll. George doesn't have insurance for the loss and must go to his banker and spend an hour or more with her. Turns out they hit it off, finally, and get married. Best thing that could have happened to him. And John was able to pay off his student loan and buy a house. Of course, god knew this and is quite happy that everything turned out appropriately. Furthermore, god noted that the responsibility of a house taught John to not procrastinate and taught him an appreciation for nature given that he planted his own garden in the backyard. While George's banker wife whipped him right into shape.
Delete Lawz recommend I check out this video.
Creating another party does not confer ownership over that party. In fact, quite the opposite; it entails your potential liability _to them_ if you've made them dependant in some way or otherwise imposed some condition upon them. After all, parents create children, but that doesn't make the child their property; it makes the parent responsible for the child.
Basically, rights are applications of the Principle of Reciprocity to the motive character of individuals, meaning that one necessarily has rights insofar as they're willing to respect the lives and liberties of others. This same principle applies to even supposed deities, meaning they have no right to unilaterally claim ownership over others _(i.e. enslave)_ just by dint of creating them.
yea that was the first issue i noticed with locke’s argument. the mere fact of creating something (especially a conscious being) does not give you complete and total control over that entity. that’s a general rule we have as people, but it does not logically and inherently follow.
@@TaeyxBlack
Well, if the creation is an object with no prior claim on it, then the creator _does_ start with a default claim, through their first use and investment of labor _(i.e. the Homesteading Principle)._ That said, one cannot 'homestead' another party because one necessarily has rightful self-ownership by default.
What confers ownership is up to others, we can't own things by nothing but our own accord.
Person A says person B owns X. Person B can homestead all they want but if Person A doesn't think that matters, Person A won't say Person B owns X.
@@someonenotnoone
Someone violating another's rightful claim doesn't negate their ownership; it just makes that violator a criminal.
If someone takes your car against your will, it doesn't become theirs; they just become a thief.
If someone sexually forces theirself on another, the act doesn't negate the other party's claim over their own body; it's just rape.
Ownership is simply the _right_ to possess something to the exclusion of other parties; it's not the _act_ of possession itself.
@@Kimani_White rights are when other people say you don't need permission to do something. They're not qualities you possess independently of others.
Claims you make to yourself don't necessarily matter to others.
I mean if we're assuming that god exists and is omnipotent, shouldn't the mere fact that god _says_ he's the source of objective morality be enough to demonstrate that he is? Unless omnipotent beings can lie (which would make their omnipotence pretty useless to us), and assuming that he has actually said that (in other words, assuming that the bible is the word of god).
Like:
P1. Omnipotent beings know everything, and everything they say is true. (tautologically true unless they can lie)
P2. God is an omnipotent being.
P3. God has said he is the source of objective morality (assuming that the bible is the word of god)
Therefor, God is the source of objective morality.
23:05 the problem is there are WAY to many humans up in arms about what God wants when its just what the fear chef is cookin up
Sub-premise 1: Hume's is-ought problem is unsolved (unsolvable?) in philosophy.
Sub-premise 2: Amoralism is the only Atheism that is sufficiently rational to reject "ought".
Conclusion: Amoralism is the only rational atheism.
There is no enslaving another unless it’s god then he gets to have humans as his property 😅 Locke
If you create automatons, know what is best for them, and want what is best for them, then they are your property. Therefore, it would be wrong for one of these creatures to enslave another, because they are stealing from you, their owner.
@@jimijenkins2548 if god wants us to truly be free then not even god owns us and we are free to enslave each each other but if we enslave then we are not free so enslaving is a moral wrong as it violates gods will for us to be free.
@@GrumpyCat-mw5xl God does not want us to be free. That is a misconception. He wants us to be his. We are never truly free, as we are always beholden to God and his will. It is fortunate, then, that God's will is what is best for us.
@@jimijenkins2548 so we are back to lockes enslaving each other is stealing from god
@@GrumpyCat-mw5xl Yes.
Humans have to provide the input, not some supernatural power.
1. God created the world and, therefore, created man.
2. Man is a creature with rational faculties, capable of reason and foresight
3. With his reason and powers of contemplation, man contains within him a spark of the divine (he can transcend nature and connect-or perhaps intuit that he is connecting with-the transcendent good, i.e, truth, beauty, love, virtue, etc.).
4. This consciousness and conscience gives man a sense (though perhaps an imperfect understanding) of what is good and what is evil
5. Man has a will and, to at least to some extent, can direct his will towards what he desires
6. God created the world to be good, and thus prefers-indeed, commands-that man do good rather than evil
7. Therefore, as God’s creation, man should not enslave, steal, murder, etc. because man is morally bound to pursue good rather than evil (he must abide by the will of his creator)-this is the premise one must presuppose, similar to the “it is bad to harm property,” to accept the entire argument).
There are a lot of assumptions, undefined concepts and intuitive leaps here. Number three alone is a mess. How do we get from reason and contemplation to a spark of the divine, whatever that means?
And why should we respect God's property rights? Because He is more powerful (infinitely more powerful) than us? That's a very bad reason. Because He is righteous and good? That needs to be proven. Ask that of Abraham on the night God told him to sacrifice his son.
(The image of God as a loving parent provokes such questions a lot less than the image of God as a sort of super powerful plantation owner. But even the respect we feel for parents has its limits.)
"If X creates Y then Y is X's property".... Which makes me more plausibly a shared possession of my parents with my mother having the controlling share (she did most of the work: Dad just provided part of the blueprint). They're dead now. I wonder who they left me to.
Is he using the Judeo/Christian God? This doesn't seem to jive with rules/examples of the Bible.
So don't enslave anyone unless you're God in which case you own everyone.
Or a Jew or Roman or are currently a slave. Like the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery it allows it even in the New Testament
Is God a slave owner? You don’t have free will?
You are a slave to sin. Moral living will help break free of enslavement.
Plato. Moral laws come from Plato. 😊
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." - Jesus Christ (Matt. 22:37-40)
Is it really possible that the controversies relating to the image of the Christ are true, of course several have attempted to over run the earth to control it. have the people who Benefit from this text been examined, because Esau are the ones who believe that is -ra-el are the gods , and the rest of us whom are not of Jewish decent are beasts of the field ? Is it possible that the Roman empire still exists today in the form of the holly roman empire
Boo
Well, I’m convinced.
Man John Locks kids must have hated him.
it’s in the bible man. Leviticus 19:13-18
You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him.
So, at the end, how about using the word "must", instead of "should"? Would that solve the Objective Morality dilemma? If X makes Y, then Y must follow all of X's rules.
I think the problem is that it implies that Y cannot disobey X's rules. However, it would be possible therefore Y should follow them.
No, because both are normative statements, not logical. Only when "must" is explained to follow exclusively from the premise, is it not normative. Blending normative premises into otherwise valid logic, invalidates the argument.
Okhams razor. God concept is superfluous and clumsy. Do to others as you would have them do to you is a simple and efficient description of the source of morality. Our complex minds may struggle with philosophical digressions but It seems my dog knows morality, I dont think he has an obligation to god thing.
You fully misunderstand. "Do unto others..." is one possible definition of morality if and only if objective morality really exists. Otherwise it's just an opinion-based suggestion. Kim Jong Yun disagrees with "do unto others...". Why is he wrong?
@@I12Db8U you digress. A rock has no sense of morality. a rock has no subjective reality. morality is a tactic used by many organisms. Kim is irrelevant to this discussion.
Did John not read the Bible?
17:34 - 19:30
Who knows the power of Your anger? Your wrath matches the fear You are due. - Psalms 90:11
The first one is the objective morality. Thr fourth is a subsequent contract based on 1. as the predication.
But they appear similar (match) in human thought as they both represent moral starting points.
Either I'm too dense or you didn't explain it very well or your mistaken in your understanding. I'm thinking the latter.
Oh or maybe you are making an irrelevant point.
I am confused
I’m pretty convinced objective morality is written into human beings DNA. There is outliers that don’t have it in them but most people do. Most human behaviors considered taboo are for a reason not just based on closed mindedness. These types of behaviors have serious consequences to the health and life of the individuals and also can tear at the social order. Human beings need each other to survive so behaviors that tear apart the social fabric would have decreased survival rates during evolution.
But there's actually nothing wrong with going against your DNA and not caring about social order. Unless, there's a fundamental reason we *"should"* care.
Sub-premise 1: Hume's is-ought problem is unsolved (unsolvable?) in philosophy.
Sub-premise 2: Amoralism is the only Atheism that is sufficiently rational to reject "ought".
Conclusion: Amoralism is the only rational atheism.
@@I12Db8U if we look to the animal kingdom for some guidance we see that for every, by human standards, moral animal behavior is an amoral behavior to balance it out. So these behaviors are really not moral or amoral but just survival mechanisms that evolved over millions of years. For example a form of murder. lions don’t usually kill each other but if a male lion takes the pride from the old lion he will kill the other lions babies and impregnate the females with his own babies. Some birds pair bond and raise their chicks but under certain certain circumstances the female bird will cheat with a different male bird it’s called “sneaky copulation” so we have cheating. There are many other examples. It seems that for every moral behavior written into the DNA there is a counterbalance written into it. For humans one of the strongest guides to morality written into the DNA is the ability to feel empathy. Humans that can’t feel empathy are going to feel different about morality then those that do. When you take something like the “ David Humes” tests that finds the moral wrongness not in the actual act itself but In how we feel about it must take an ability to feel empathy to feel that moral wrongness.
It seems like, unless we voluntarily contractually consent, this still fails.
God isn't the "objective good." It's simply a dictatorial monster.
Please let me know if I am wrong in my understanding.
If X creating Y with raw material that they have makes Y X's property then I could just as well say the same thing about a child that I can create with the sperm I own. Who's property is it then, mine, God's, both? In addition, aside the fact that calling your child a property sounds sickening in the first place, that state should be permanent. There's nothing within the thesis that would suggest an expiration date on being a property, it's origins will be exactly the same when it's grown up.
Also it's ironic how Locke sees the one true paragon of morality who gives us no liberty, as the source of principle to respect liberty.
Expiration of someones property rights ends with his death, as long God cannot die it is about infinity which again is nothing bad, or by selling rights to someone else but again there is no one He could sell them even if He wishes....which is again not terrible to think about.
It is not true that in Loecke argument there is no liberty but it could be a bit better argumented that it is in this video, of course we havent seen or read original text so we can only assume what is here presented it is so, what I think there are a bit to much of "musts" and "shoulds" to be great argument but again it is 1689. God gave everyone free will and liberty in our limited existence which we can observe in our daily life, but it is not intention of Loecke to speak about it but to give more atheistic view or argument for objective morality with more reasoning or common sense than to just take religious sources for argument. If something we hear we do like it does not necessarily means ti is by default wrong or not true.
Like author of this video this is my rework of argument:
1. If creator X, creates Y with his own power and means he is truly only owner of Y, and all of Ys are equal in their hierarchy and purpose compared to each other.
2. God, creator of whole universe is Source of everything Good because out of Him nothing exists, everything He created with its specific purpose and so possesses everything He created.
3. Damaging of property outside of its planned purposeful use is willful and distraught damaging of someones property.
4. Damaging Gods property turns you against God.
5. In fight with God you always loose.
@@mariomanzimm8678 I have no idea what it the point you're trying to make in first paragraph. So I can comment only on property rights ending with death - how exactly? Those religions give you the idea of an afterlife where your soul goes. It's not like God cares only about your flesh.
Unfortunately I don't remember which part I referred to with the last sentence of that comment.
Your rework doesn't answer my main question though. If human's are God's property, then are children their parents' property? And even if we arbitrarily (which is a whole another problem) put some expiration date, say 18 yo, there's still the issue of children being property of both parents and God. Because your whole point one still applies to children.
Furthermore, your point 3 relies on a conjecture that our purpose given by God can't be to hurt others or be hurt. How would you prove that?
@@Reality-Distortion If you read it more carefully you can found answers on your questions in your comment.
What is exactly the difference between you and your children??? Answer is simple. None. All childran are Gods children, as all of us, given to you, or someone else, as temporary caretaker, they do not belong to you or anyone....only if they chose to.
And again where is afterlife and religion mentioned ever in whole argument and/or video?? I have not saw it and it was not point or intention of philosopher to speak about them.
You claimed "Also it's ironic how Locke sees the one true paragon of morality who gives us no liberty, as the source of principle to respect liberty." And I responded to give you a clue on what that false statement is based upon, or precisely based on nothing.
Good one about point 3 but it is not my point that relies on that conjecture but yours. Again you se things that were not mentioned and assume something on points no one mentioned. At least that is how it looks so far.
@@mariomanzimm8678 Well but I created those children in question. So according to your thesis they should still be my property. God didn't create them, he supposedly only created the world, that let me be born and create my own child. Farmer doesn't own bread that is made from his grain. So how would you prove that the child I made belongs to God but not me AND make it consistent with Locke's proposition of "X owns Y if X created Y".
YOU mentioned it. Because you suggested death would be the expiration date for God owning a human. Which makes no sense.
That doesn't change the fact that he tries to compromise the whole respect towards liberty on God's behalf, while trying to call humans his property. Had I still been a theist, I would still say that saying both are true is absurd and one should be given up upon. That being the property thesis.
_3. Damaging of property outside of its planned purposeful use is willful and distraught damaging of someones property._
So this sentence right here isn't based on a conjecture? Oh, I'm dying to see you prove that. And again, it was mentioned - by you. You seem way more deadset on defending Locke/the video than your own words.
@@whatsinaname5499 Somewhat? I don't really know where are you trying to go with this so can't tell for sure if it does or doesn't. Machines and farm animals generally are considered property. In case of humans it's a very controversial statement to hold.
It's also not very analogous because even if you agreed that you are or at least used to be your parents property, you sure wouldn't agree you belong to your grandparents as well.
Isn’t morality innate?
To sin, or to miss the mark, is not uplifting. To lie, cheat, harm, steal, or do that thing in private- you already know during or after that it was wrong. You just might accept the consequences/gain as a counterweight to the depravity.
4. I very much can. What is moral from the Christian perspective is what God says... Why do you need an extra step to to that? Objective morality is then all that is in line with the will of God. Assuming the premise that God is real any moral statement in line with God is automatically valid. Morals existed before humans did. Anything that is not in line with God and thus distance us from him is sin. If the premises are true then all the conclusion is true. God's opinion if you will, is objective moral law since he is the source. Objective morality is God's will. God's will is determined by his being, his nature. In a sense God is morality. There is no need for an extra step. There is only one question you need to ask to determine if the reasoning is accurate. That is this: Is God real? I would argue that morality itself is a hint at it. It's not just an instinct but rather what chooses between instincts as what one ought to do. But where does the ought to come from? There are not many options. You either have to define a valid source or reject objective morality all together. In the philosophical style of Nitsczhe and Hume you then head down a dangerous ideological path. For more I recommend books by professor CS Lewis. (and Professor of mathematics at Oxford J Lennox while you are at it) very interesting topic.
I own a copy of the book Wayne La Pierre published on John Locke's political philosophy. There is your source of the problem. Locke was arguing against the monarchal right to divine rule, asserting that no man has the right to rule over another because that's God's chair. In this way, our Founders saw Locke as a proponent of republican over dynastic rule. This is also a reflection of the protestant theosophical idea of direct access to God, which the Vatican opposed. In this lies the flaw that philosophical argumentation finds; this is a closed circuit that relies on the circular argument that God is the only MASTER. So how can a free humanity be free if they are subjects to a supreme master?
The "God knows what is good for you so obey him is patriarchal in form - a religious replication of the father figure for humanity stuck forever in infancy.
I see nature as the "divine", not of a single authoritarian "God." Here are but a few contradictions in this presentation of Locke; not explored in this video; Locke says that God created human beings and they are naturally free, and cannot be slaves, but they are God's slaves. Slavery is understood to be soul-killing and a contradiction of freedom. God gives life, and its condition cannot be self-canceled (suicide) on pain of eternal punishment, but if babies die, they go to heaven. So what is the purpose of living except to possibly fault it into failure and condemn it to eternal damnation? (The early church added suicide to the list of sins because early Christians were committing mass suicide by rushing Roman garrisons, while others found ways to die because they figured out the quickest path to heaven. This is why martyrdom was sought by believers (although later Christian writers such as Eusebius exaggerated it)). Animals exhibit the condition of freedom and only lack rights to that according to the limits of their individual ability to enforce it. Humans are demonstrably no different. Additionally, we have many examples that prove that animals have emotions, feel love, and have an instinct for self-sacrifice. I have long concluded that Camus was right and that we find the meaning of life in nature and its study. And science is the method for investigating it. Religion tells you not to look or question. That is spiritual death. If all you do is aimed at guaranteeing your afterlife in heaven, you are robbed of your life in the present. And that is what religion does, especially the Abrahamic religions.
Men have the balls create morality but seldom willing to admit it.
To say morality stems from property rights may be the most liberal thing I've ever heard.
No, property rights follow morality. Not the other way around.
"...come FROM evolution..." -- WHERE is this 'evolution'? Is it a theory? An idea? Where did 'the THEORY of EVOLUTION" come from...? from the observations/assumptions of humans? What is "nature"? The world upon which Nature LIVES? Living nature itself? Which part? The grass? Fungii? Saying morals come from nature is kind of like saying that milk comes from walmart. it doesn't trace it back...
The problem is not only it being objective. The problem it seems to me is putting it in the hands of individuals. We as humans are flawed. Perfect in our imperfections. Trying to set up rules or laws higher than ourselves. Then expecting those same four individuals to reinforce them. Or in some instances live up to them. The whole leading by example thing. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Because there is no such thing as a perfect individual. Everything has its pros and cons whether that's to the point of hyperbole I cannot say. Also I noticed you used the word if. That can be just as bad as the whole should, would, or could. Depending on the context. Just a thought. I've been a little more vocal in some videos. Not just yours. That get me thinking. Perhaps that is a symptom or cause, of going back to school after 20 some odd years?
His argument for totalitarianism.
One thing to consider is if God is not a seperate entity. We are not the property of God we are God itself. Our bodies and everything we see and touch and experience is the actual body of the 1 god. Its like a fractal pattern and the fractal is God and you can zoom in and out infinitely and see everything. If you zoom out far enough to see all the galaxies together and zoom to see all the universes as one and then you might zoom out to see God the old man with a robe eating a chicken wing. and then zoom back in and see me and you standing next to eachother.
So if im God and you are the same God as me we are the same person and not seperate property. So then can I harm you? Im just harming myself really. If i am God can I unalive myself , since I am my own property?
And one problem with the arguement from the video is that an animal can kill and eat another animal and have 0 moral responsibilty. A cat can catch a mouse and brutalize it just for play and have 0 moral responsibilty. Its an animal though without knowledge of good and evil.
We are the same animal and we have the knowledge of good and evil but we can kill animals and eat them the same way animals do so where is the difference?
I think morality is an invented concept. A good and necessary one, but invented. The problem with it is people that want to play God and decide what morality is, usually to their benefit, and do harm with it.
'there arent problems with this'
except the double standard on slavery.
'point 4 cant describe the premise of objective morality'
that isnt a problem. and a set of all sets does contain itself.
the real problem is that you cant be god's property transitively. god cant be a slaver and good and for slavery to be an intrinsic evil.
tautologies work, nonsequiturs and contradictions dont.
"you should try to keep everyone else alive"
but, how do you know it's not 'god's will' that you'd be interfering with?
If "God's will" is INFINITELY powerful, and cannot be overpowered or escaped... then EVERYTHING that is going on is "God's will", no? Again the hyperbole has stopped where it feels comfortable, instead of where it can go