fascinating how analytic ideas like this split perfectly across Lacan's concept of the Imaginary and the Symbolic. Imaginary being the propensity to project meaning onto things. He called it 'truthiness'.
When you mention colour (as you say "for want of a better example") you could mention things like disgust. When I see something rotting, I feel revulsion. It's how I feel about the rotting thing in front of me (and there's good reasons to keep away from it). But I don't say "I feel disgusted" when I see it. I say "that's disgusting" as if the object itself contains some special feature that has the power to cause a sense of revulsion and sickness in people just by us looking at it. However, that's just a projection of feeling into the object.
I jump on youtube for a bit of light procrastination, and what do I find but a video that is on my thesis topic. It'd be hilarious if next week's episode is on Habermas' theory of communicative action and discourse ethics.
What non-cognitivist attempts to claim objective moral facts? Without offering an example of someone who would make this claim, the ending contention of this video is just a strawman of the position. For clarity, here is a quote from the SEP article on Moral Anti-Realism: "Although I have here presented Blackburn’s quasi-realism as a potential avenue for the noncognitivist to pursue, it should be noted that Blackburn himself eschews the label “noncognitivism” to describe the position he defends (Blackburn 1996); his preferred term is “projectivism.”
I have a question when you say cognitivism in metaethics; does it imply the same meaning as Nativism and non-cognitivism as empiricism? Thank you in advance
By Cognitivism we mean the idea that moral language is subject to cognition, meaning moral statements are subject to truth and falsity. This video may help: ruclips.net/video/X8RPCFHC5jU/видео.html
A problem with quasi realism is that it in itself admits that a person cannot live consistent with it's conclusion, because to live with a genuine belief in our moral decisions or actions treats morality as objectively real, and if it is not objectively real, then this implies delusion by definition. If one is going to conclude that "quasi realism" is the true description of morality, then to live with genuine belief in "fake morals" is a delusion by definition. It is to live with a genuine belief and something that doesn't exist, and we know that we have genuine belief towards our moral actions or judgments through our acting on them or fighting to uphold them. When we conclude that we should live our lives this way and then actually carry that out, we are showing genuine belief in an idea we made up in our minds, which is the definition of a delusion if it is not objectively true. Therefore, to act on these delusions would not be rational, even if our emotions desire to follow after these "quasi" morals. Therefore, the rational conclusion would be to "break from the illusion" and live indifferent lives with no moral opinions whatsoever. To live life by the illusion would be a delusion and therefore irrational, and a person would make that decision willingly which would be intellectual suicide, and that would mean his position is not intellectually based, it is emotionally based while claiming to be intellectually based. However, I suspect that those who conclude "quasi realism" will not reject morality altogether but will consciously live through a delusion that they are consciously are aware is a delusion, which would not be rational, and therefore a person would live *contradictory to his own conclusion of "quasi realism", which undermines his position.* He points out his observation, but then cannot live as though it is true, even being consciously aware of it, but he makes the decision not to resist his emotions even though he is able to do so, just as a person who has money that he can blow on all of his desires is able to refrain and save his money. This means that if the person makes the decision to act on his emotions through his moral judgments, then he's making that decision willingly and is not being forced to live in the delusion but is choosing willingly to live in that delusion, and that would make him inconsistent *intellectually* with his own conclusion. This is why Objective Morality is the best explanation and the most consistent position a person can have. Objective morality *does not* mean subjective morality doesn't exist, because clearly people do at times disagree, and I don't not think anyone who claims that objective moral exists denies that people disagree, so to state that objective morality exists is not to say that subjective morality doesn't exist, and that means this is not an either/or issue. Instead, the conclusion would be that morality is *BOTH* Objective and Subjective. Logic is not either subjective or objective, logic is BOTH, because while there are objective facts that point to something being logical or illogical, not everyone agrees logically, so to conclude that logic is purely subjective simply because people disagree is incorrect. Also, as this channel pointed out in a different video, if a person can point to the disagreement and use that as evidence for subjective morality, then one can also point at times where people agree morally as evidence for objective morality. If human minds are not the source of morality because morality is objective, this also can explain why we disagree, because we are not the source of it and therefore do not have perfect knowledge. However, we do have certain intuitions that can recognize it at times even though it cannot be explained through language, just as the color green cannot be explained through language but through experience, as this channel has said in the past. Therefore, there is simply an intuition that people have that is innate although one does not have perfect knowledge, but are at times able to identify it. This best explains morality. As a result, this would imply a moral law exists beyond the human mind, implying a Moral Law Giver, God.
This is essentially my position. I'd add that in regard to there being both objective and subjective morality, this is because not all moral claims seem to carry the same weight. An example of this would be like someone's position on murder vs their position on homosexuality. This would also explain why we don't necessarily outlaw everything that people might consider immoral, but there are things that literally every society outlaws, things that have been outlawed through all of history too. While the certain objective aspects of morality to point to the existence of a sort of God o creator, what accounts for the subjective aspects of morality is that this God is still fairly far removed from our understanding. But just because we don't fully understand it's nature, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
@@Tehz1359 I don't 100% agree with Your conclusions, I still like the way you're thinking in the reasoning that you used to reason to that conclusion. I love the fact that you noticed that there are degrees that whole different weight in moral issues, but not only are you noticing these things, *but you're implying that there is something innate within our moral intuitions that inform us of objective moral truths.* It's not just the outward behavior of treating certain things seriously and other things less seriously, it's that there's something innate within us that can sense the gravity of various types of moral issues. That is not to say that we have perfect knowledge, because you're also acknowledging that different societies at times have varying moral beliefs or laws. However, it is a type of acknowledgment that there is at some level something trustworthy in our moral intuitions that inform us that objective morals exist. However, I would disagree to conclude that God is far removed from this because if morals exist, then it implies that the way we are to live is supposed to reflect that God who created us, and it also implies that there is a purpose for our existence and that we have inherent innate value, and it also is consistent with the notion that we are made in God's image. Not only this, but because we have the ability to be intellectuals or use reason, and we also have the ability to make moral judgments and be moral creatures beyond any other creature that we know exists, Then our inherent innate value would be greater than that of other creatures, and these things imply that God is not far removed but values us. Also, objective morality can be demonstrated to exist very easily. For example, If one were to ask a moral/ethical question a person "Should we pursue truth", and a person answered "No, we should not pursue truth", This very answer contradicts itself because it is a truth claim, implying the answer is false. This means that it is true that we should pursue truth, and that any other disagreeing position contradicts itself, which implies that this moral value is an objective moral value and remains consistent regardless of human disagreement with it. Also, because it remains consistent regardless of human disagreement, then humans are not the source of this value, meaning the source is a Transcendent Source. You cannot have "values" without a mind, in the existence of transcendent values implies the existence of a Transcendent Mind, God. It all means that: - We have inherent value - There is an actual purpose to life beyond what we subjectively decide for ourselves, but this means that there is true meaning and a point to life in which life is not absurd. - We are created to reflect the nature of our Creator, implying to some degree that we were made in his image - However, we fall short of God's nature and purpose, implying we are in a fallen state - This is what leads to the perception that God is far away, because God being the source of goodness would not associate himself with sin, and this explains our perception that God is distant even though he values and cares for us - This also implies that we have a dualistic nature, not only that there's both good and evil in us, but that The good in our nature makes us more like God, and the evil in our nature is the fallen State, and both of these exist within our simultaneously. What religion does this sound like to you?...
you're sneaking in the presupposition that a quasi-realist supports realism, and then you think you've somehow defeated quasi-realism. talk about a strawman lol. not being a realist does not mean you have to completely abandon "morality", you can restructure it, the same way a quasi-realist does. if they do/don't do something because of their morality, you can't accuse them of secretly being "realists", since there is no standard for what they should do within anti-realism in the first place. if you want to talk about self-interest, try to prove the self exists in the first place.
@@_sarpa Restructuring morality still involves living with subjective beliefs, creating a potential delusion. Whether or not a quasi-realist adjusts his views does not work around this issue. If morality is purely subjective, why resist self-interest? Objective morality, both subjective and objective, best explains moral intuitions and implies a Moral Law Giver, God. My argument does not ultimately communicate the abandonment of morality, it communicates that Objective morality provides a more coherent framework, and to live according to fictionally constructed moral values leads to delusion, which is not rational. Therefore, The solution is not to abandon morality, the solution is to abandon quasi-realism that cannot live consistently unless it abandons morality. In this sense, because what you're saying does not consider the changing of worldviews as the solution, this is what makes your response to my point a false dilemma. In short, it is by not accepting my conclusion that would make your argument inherently logically flawed. Thus, to accept that objective morality exists is indeed the true solution.
@@Bi0Dr01d there is no inherent morality that comes from anti-realism. as I wrote, I don't even believe in the existence of the self, so what even is self-interest?
fascinating how analytic ideas like this split perfectly across Lacan's concept of the Imaginary and the Symbolic. Imaginary being the propensity to project meaning onto things. He called it 'truthiness'.
When you mention colour (as you say "for want of a better example") you could mention things like disgust. When I see something rotting, I feel revulsion. It's how I feel about the rotting thing in front of me (and there's good reasons to keep away from it). But I don't say "I feel disgusted" when I see it. I say "that's disgusting" as if the object itself contains some special feature that has the power to cause a sense of revulsion and sickness in people just by us looking at it. However, that's just a projection of feeling into the object.
I jump on youtube for a bit of light procrastination, and what do I find but a video that is on my thesis topic. It'd be hilarious if next week's episode is on Habermas' theory of communicative action and discourse ethics.
It seems Metaethics is following you :) Good luck in the thesis.
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe Metaethics eBook, available on amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe5
This channel is underrated
Thank you, we're growing slowly but surely.
Fascinating, thank you
Pleasure, thank you for watching
Are emotions real? I mean, we can physically observe them in the brain - even if we experience and react to them differently.
So good i wish i was good at discussing as you guys
Thank you :)
well, this was a scripted discussion, not impromptu lol
1:57 .. 4:51
great video, you guys are gonna be huge
Thank you so much 😊
What non-cognitivist attempts to claim objective moral facts? Without offering an example of someone who would make this claim, the ending contention of this video is just a strawman of the position. For clarity, here is a quote from the SEP article on Moral Anti-Realism:
"Although I have here presented Blackburn’s quasi-realism as a potential avenue for the noncognitivist to pursue, it should be noted that Blackburn himself eschews the label “noncognitivism” to describe the position he defends (Blackburn 1996); his preferred term is “projectivism.”
thanks
Welcome
loved it!
Glad you loved it :)
omg needed this lol XD :P
I was just trying to find a video on making bread...yes, at 3am
I have a question when you say cognitivism in metaethics; does it imply the same meaning as Nativism and non-cognitivism as empiricism?
Thank you in advance
By Cognitivism we mean the idea that moral language is subject to cognition, meaning moral statements are subject to truth and falsity. This video may help: ruclips.net/video/X8RPCFHC5jU/видео.html
humans exist so emotions exist and so morals exist. why do things that arent strictly solid matter not exist?
6:24 moral subjectivism is cognitivist?
Indeed, Ethical Subjectivism treats moral statements as propositions, the truth or falsity of which is determined by the attitudes of people.
Great vid!!
Thank you!
A problem with quasi realism is that it in itself admits that a person cannot live consistent with it's conclusion, because to live with a genuine belief in our moral decisions or actions treats morality as objectively real, and if it is not objectively real, then this implies delusion by definition.
If one is going to conclude that "quasi realism" is the true description of morality, then to live with genuine belief in "fake morals" is a delusion by definition. It is to live with a genuine belief and something that doesn't exist, and we know that we have genuine belief towards our moral actions or judgments through our acting on them or fighting to uphold them. When we conclude that we should live our lives this way and then actually carry that out, we are showing genuine belief in an idea we made up in our minds, which is the definition of a delusion if it is not objectively true. Therefore, to act on these delusions would not be rational, even if our emotions desire to follow after these "quasi" morals.
Therefore, the rational conclusion would be to "break from the illusion" and live indifferent lives with no moral opinions whatsoever. To live life by the illusion would be a delusion and therefore irrational, and a person would make that decision willingly which would be intellectual suicide, and that would mean his position is not intellectually based, it is emotionally based while claiming to be intellectually based.
However, I suspect that those who conclude "quasi realism" will not reject morality altogether but will consciously live through a delusion that they are consciously are aware is a delusion, which would not be rational, and therefore a person would live *contradictory to his own conclusion of "quasi realism", which undermines his position.*
He points out his observation, but then cannot live as though it is true, even being consciously aware of it, but he makes the decision not to resist his emotions even though he is able to do so, just as a person who has money that he can blow on all of his desires is able to refrain and save his money. This means that if the person makes the decision to act on his emotions through his moral judgments, then he's making that decision willingly and is not being forced to live in the delusion but is choosing willingly to live in that delusion, and that would make him inconsistent *intellectually* with his own conclusion.
This is why Objective Morality is the best explanation and the most consistent position a person can have.
Objective morality *does not* mean subjective morality doesn't exist, because clearly people do at times disagree, and I don't not think anyone who claims that objective moral exists denies that people disagree, so to state that objective morality exists is not to say that subjective morality doesn't exist, and that means this is not an either/or issue. Instead, the conclusion would be that morality is *BOTH* Objective and Subjective.
Logic is not either subjective or objective, logic is BOTH, because while there are objective facts that point to something being logical or illogical, not everyone agrees logically, so to conclude that logic is purely subjective simply because people disagree is incorrect.
Also, as this channel pointed out in a different video, if a person can point to the disagreement and use that as evidence for subjective morality, then one can also point at times where people agree morally as evidence for objective morality.
If human minds are not the source of morality because morality is objective, this also can explain why we disagree, because we are not the source of it and therefore do not have perfect knowledge. However, we do have certain intuitions that can recognize it at times even though it cannot be explained through language, just as the color green cannot be explained through language but through experience, as this channel has said in the past.
Therefore, there is simply an intuition that people have that is innate although one does not have perfect knowledge, but are at times able to identify it.
This best explains morality.
As a result, this would imply a moral law exists beyond the human mind, implying a Moral Law Giver, God.
This is essentially my position. I'd add that in regard to there being both objective and subjective morality, this is because not all moral claims seem to carry the same weight. An example of this would be like someone's position on murder vs their position on homosexuality. This would also explain why we don't necessarily outlaw everything that people might consider immoral, but there are things that literally every society outlaws, things that have been outlawed through all of history too. While the certain objective aspects of morality to point to the existence of a sort of God o creator, what accounts for the subjective aspects of morality is that this God is still fairly far removed from our understanding. But just because we don't fully understand it's nature, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
@@Tehz1359 I don't 100% agree with Your conclusions, I still like the way you're thinking in the reasoning that you used to reason to that conclusion.
I love the fact that you noticed that there are degrees that whole different weight in moral issues, but not only are you noticing these things, *but you're implying that there is something innate within our moral intuitions that inform us of objective moral truths.* It's not just the outward behavior of treating certain things seriously and other things less seriously, it's that there's something innate within us that can sense the gravity of various types of moral issues. That is not to say that we have perfect knowledge, because you're also acknowledging that different societies at times have varying moral beliefs or laws. However, it is a type of acknowledgment that there is at some level something trustworthy in our moral intuitions that inform us that objective morals exist.
However, I would disagree to conclude that God is far removed from this because if morals exist, then it implies that the way we are to live is supposed to reflect that God who created us, and it also implies that there is a purpose for our existence and that we have inherent innate value, and it also is consistent with the notion that we are made in God's image. Not only this, but because we have the ability to be intellectuals or use reason, and we also have the ability to make moral judgments and be moral creatures beyond any other creature that we know exists, Then our inherent innate value would be greater than that of other creatures, and these things imply that God is not far removed but values us.
Also, objective morality can be demonstrated to exist very easily. For example, If one were to ask a moral/ethical question a person "Should we pursue truth", and a person answered "No, we should not pursue truth", This very answer contradicts itself because it is a truth claim, implying the answer is false. This means that it is true that we should pursue truth, and that any other disagreeing position contradicts itself, which implies that this moral value is an objective moral value and remains consistent regardless of human disagreement with it.
Also, because it remains consistent regardless of human disagreement, then humans are not the source of this value, meaning the source is a Transcendent Source. You cannot have "values" without a mind, in the existence of transcendent values implies the existence of a Transcendent Mind, God.
It all means that:
- We have inherent value
- There is an actual purpose to life beyond what we subjectively decide for ourselves, but this means that there is true meaning and a point to life in which life is not absurd.
- We are created to reflect the nature of our Creator, implying to some degree that we were made in his image
- However, we fall short of God's nature and purpose, implying we are in a fallen state
- This is what leads to the perception that God is far away, because God being the source of goodness would not associate himself with sin, and this explains our perception that God is distant even though he values and cares for us
- This also implies that we have a dualistic nature, not only that there's both good and evil in us, but that The good in our nature makes us more like God, and the evil in our nature is the fallen State, and both of these exist within our simultaneously.
What religion does this sound like to you?...
you're sneaking in the presupposition that a quasi-realist supports realism, and then you think you've somehow defeated quasi-realism. talk about a strawman lol. not being a realist does not mean you have to completely abandon "morality", you can restructure it, the same way a quasi-realist does. if they do/don't do something because of their morality, you can't accuse them of secretly being "realists", since there is no standard for what they should do within anti-realism in the first place. if you want to talk about self-interest, try to prove the self exists in the first place.
@@_sarpa Restructuring morality still involves living with subjective beliefs, creating a potential delusion. Whether or not a quasi-realist adjusts his views does not work around this issue. If morality is purely subjective, why resist self-interest? Objective morality, both subjective and objective, best explains moral intuitions and implies a Moral Law Giver, God.
My argument does not ultimately communicate the abandonment of morality, it communicates that Objective morality provides a more coherent framework, and to live according to fictionally constructed moral values leads to delusion, which is not rational. Therefore, The solution is not to abandon morality, the solution is to abandon quasi-realism that cannot live consistently unless it abandons morality. In this sense, because what you're saying does not consider the changing of worldviews as the solution, this is what makes your response to my point a false dilemma.
In short, it is by not accepting my conclusion that would make your argument inherently logically flawed. Thus, to accept that objective morality exists is indeed the true solution.
@@Bi0Dr01d there is no inherent morality that comes from anti-realism. as I wrote, I don't even believe in the existence of the self, so what even is self-interest?
Jesus Christ talk about emotionless passionless robots!!!!! You need to speak with conviction man!!! CONVICTION!!!!