วีดีโอ

I’m a naturalistic ethical realist. Hypothetical Imperative: If you want to drive your car, you ought to put gas in it. Descriptive Imperative: You do want to drive your car, so you will put gas in it. A healthy natural life form always try to achieve Eudaemonia (satisfaction, happiness, wellbeing,) for itself… morality is just expressing what you ought to do to achieve that. Moral Facts Naturally Exist.

Nice bruegel background

❤

Great interview! One suggestion: your audio is much lower than huemer’s. I was listening to this in my car and had to keep increasing and decreasing the volume every time the speaker changed. With huemer’s frequent coughing, this made the interview almost unlistenable. Your questions were very good though, which is why I didn’t switch it off!

Schmid, Huemer, and Oppy! Great starting line-up dude! Hope your channel grows accordingly :)

Huemer tiene el pajaro de la muerte detras mirandolo fijamente 😮😮😮

No se escribir ingles😢

Seco n to Co ment

First to comment.

Animals suffering for millions of years in an assumption. We don’t know how God could have operated during that period if deep time. You also have to account for the rebellion in heaven before the fall. We have miracles happening constantly, near death experiences, and a living breathing church

Jumpscare thumbnail.

I think the idea that, unlike a single god, posited naturalistic necessary entities contain bounds or specified finite values for some properties is interesting, but in the end doesn't pan out. The fact is, if you are positing that the present state of the universe is contingent on a necessary entity in the past, then you must content with the fact that universe is very non uniform. A naturalistic necessary entity would need to have properties such that it would bring about a universe with finite and bounded constants, a particular specified initial state, etc... ...but if you think about it for a moment, the same is true of any candidate God. You can argue that god has infinite quantities of goodness or knowledge or whatever, but its also true that we know that if theism is true, god has the property "has the disposition to bring about a universe in which fewer that exactly 103,972,176,375 humans would exist before one of them walks on the moon. God could have had a disposition such that the universe it created instead saw the births of 103,972,176,37**6** humans, but it didn't, and since that value is a contingent downstream feature of it's necessary properties, it has properties that seem arbitrary. Does the theist seriously think there is a way to derive that number from the quantities of infinite good and infinite knowledge alone? That's nonsensical. Even without allowing randomness, it's very simple to imagine a non-theistic, impersonal and amoral necessary object with a single infinite property such that it contingently follows that infinite universes with every possible mathematical structure and constants will come about. The idea that non-theists disproportionately posit necessary entities with specified values and bounds is absurd.

32:00 reproducible natural science is indeed important. how would we create things another way? regarding the topic of people agreeing on something that is the truth or that works.

Great video. This was such an interesting interview. Joe brings such enthusiasm to everything and Braylan had great questions

The fine-tuning argument comes out very strange especially when postulating an omniscient and all-powerful God. Why would such a creator have to fine-tune anything?

How can a guy like Bush make a living spewing such crap? Unbelievable... This is complete nonsense.

Religion: Ignorant men “making shit up,” based on an immoral, divisive, hypocritical, bullshit, theology; ripping-off billions of tax-free dollars from the simple-minded, w/o being accountable for one shred of verifiable, data or empirical, evidence of “magical sky fairies!”

Great iview TY both. Interesting new release see: Concise Overview of the Critique of Jesus of Nazareth - DCS

Great interview! Thank you for the top shelf content.

i'm always wondering what kind of headset does graham oppy use, hahahah. please if you know what it is, let me know.

just found your channel and I'm very much enjoying it, thank you.

Graham oppy with a Chinese house background is a force to be reckoned with 😂 Great interview.

good interview

Just seems to me like adding in a god is just one more unnecessary thing.

doctor: a teacher, from Middle English (in the senses “learned person” and “Doctor of the Church”): via Old French, from the Latin “doctor” (“teacher”), from “docere” (“to teach”). Throughout the modern world, tertiary education institutions have been given the right to confer Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees by the government of their respective countries. This is a fundamentally-flawed arrangement for the following reasons: As has been proven beyond any semblance of doubt in Chapter 22 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, non-monarchical governments have absolutely no authority whatsoever over the populace of their countries or nations. And even if a nation was ruled by a LEGITIMATE government (that is, a holy and righteous king), it is not within the purview of a national ruler to adjudicate which educational institutions are qualified to confer scholastic awards to its citizens. The role of a national ruler is (above all) to protect the population and to ensure that the law (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) is enforced and promulgated. Furthermore, universities and colleges (especially in the Western world) have been increasingly promoting what is colloquially known as “leftism” (“adharma”, in Sanskrit), as well as bestowing post-graduate degrees upon those who would never have been able to even enter a university in previous centuries (not to mention a certain proportion of abject dunces, simply due to the fact that life in the West is relatively easy, and those dullards are able to spend several years of their lives in study, without needing to work for their livelihoods). Personally, I am extremely glad to not be counted amongst those imbeciles who have garnered a masters degree or a doctorate at a government-endorsed institute of “education”. As the current World Doctor Himself, I have witnessed that the calibre of the typical doctoral candidate is nowadays so appalling, that I would be loath to be the recipient of a PhD degree from any extant so-called “university/college”. Honestly, I would consider it to be a great DISHONOUR! Even the so-called “hard sciences”, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and engineering, have become increasingly adulterated by adharma. For example, in Western academia (and by the time you are reading this Scripture, most all the schools of higher-learning in the East too) it is, in practice, impossible for an academic to assert the scientific fact that intelligence has a biological (that is, a genetic) component, and even if one was permitted to posit such a truism, it would be frowned upon to stress the fact that a person’s genome is the predominating factor in determining one’s intellectual capacity (not to mention bringing racial differences into the picture!). P.S. Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Roman statesman and philosopher who first introduced the term “doctor” in his book, “De Oratore”, in 55 BC, used the word to describe and to denote a MORAL guide of the state. Cicero breaks down the term “docere” further, and summarizes that “to teach”, means to provide truth through rational argument and statements of fact. Therefore, according to this most authentic definition of the term, very few so-called “doctors” are, in fact, doctors, at least in the field of academic philosophy.

Shoot, I forgot what metaphysics mean.

I was murdered last century. God returned my soul into a foetus 50 years later. DNA is so complex that only a creative God could have designed it.

Very intelligent young man. He knows his philosophy very well, but he needs to work on his delivery and not speak as rapidly. His swaying and constant movement makes him seem like he’s on the spectrum, or that he’s a fast-talking politician (namely a current Republican).

He's so smart and educated. And then he goes and brings up the contingency argument.

This is excellent content, thank you for posting this.

I am totally baffled by Joe's argument against the strong PSR at 30:30. The first argument seems to boil down to "I strongly feel like there are contingent things, therefore there are contingent things." This isn't an argument, this is just a vibe! If you're interested in common sense, then call yourself a common sensicalist, not a philosopher. What other branch of knowledge produces only common sense knowledge? Is evolution common sensical? Are Laplace Transforms? Quantum mechanics? In what other field would we feel we gain credibility by basing our claims on intuition or common sense, apart perhaps from religion? The second claim, that the argument is based on contingency and then undermines it, is also confused. It's not based on contingency, it's based on the appearance of contingency. If we find that underlying all apparently contingent causes is a necessary cause, then all apparently contingent causes become necessary, and our concept of contingency was wrong to begin with. This shouldn't be surprising-we lacked knowledge about necessity, and once we've obtained it, the world looks different. This is what we ought to expect to have happen when we have gained knowledge.

LOVE Braylan as host, interviewer. Asks great questions and allows guest to answer without interruption . Am a fan of Joe's but he seemed very antsy today.

Great video!

Gave up after 22 mins. When you start talking about a "necessary being", without first explanaing why the insanely complex math that underpins the fluctuation in the quantum vacuum field hypnosis, is wrong and cannot be a plausible candidate for the non contingent thing that "caused" our observable universe, everything else becomes nothing more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy.

Seems like if it is an online video about philosophy of religion, Joe Schmid's mug is guaranteed to appear

I'm a fan of Dr Bush's work and you did a great job interviewing him. Thank you for this content

Dude got BTFO'd by Lance Bush. Moral realism is dumb.

Lance’s brain works on a different level. As complicated as these concepts are, he’s really good at explaining things that I can understand. It may seem like he’s all over the place if you’re not paying attention, but he’s really good at bringing everything together. I love his Phil-papers fallacy idea. Sometimes I feel like his expectations are set too high, but in a field where so many jump to conclusions, he’s an important voice in the philosophy and psychology fields. Highly recommend his Substack where he gets deep into the weeds on these things.

Dr Bush seems to be reducing the descriptive ("empirical") to stances people have. This seems like question begging (it's all merely stances). (Which [i.e. stance-dependent anti-realism] is a "stance" [recursivity-pun] he doesn't seem committed to [anymore]. But this seems somewhat unrelated to the argument.) Any help correcting my presumable misapprehension is appreciated!

Imagine a human without a rational nature (or something like that); now it’s okay to holocaust these beings to make steak and burgers with their dead corpse?

Just finished. Awesome video 😎

Ohh this is where the "maybe philosophy isn't your thing" line came from. What an awful response.

Really appreciate this content! Thanks

Of course it exists, it‘s a Fact of Reason 😉 (Kant)

It is staggering that people still believe in objective morality. If they do. I suspect that many people simply want to advertise their virtue. Indeed, that may be the whole purpose of consciousness.

sure it does. it's sitting right next to the number seven in your brain

Very cool. It follows up from your last video nicely.

One of my favourite pastimes is listening to so-called “academic philosophers” (that is, those men and women who have studied Western philosophical traditions at various tertiary “education” institutions, especially those without the Asian continent, and in particular those who have gained a master’s degree or a doctorate) explaining or debating their moral positions in the public arena, such as within social media on the Internet. Due to the fact that authentic dharma is virtually non-existent outside of Bhārata, those philosophers invariably are UTTERLY incompetent at formulating logical and cogent arguments for their often awfully-convoluted systems of ethics. If a person requires a doctorate in metaethics, in order to live a decent, harmless life, then it suggests that morality is an elitist topic, and the rest of humanity is doomed to rot in iniquity! Fortunately, this is not at all the case, as expertly demonstrated in what is undoubtedly the greatest work of non-fiction ever composed, this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Imagine approaching a simple construction worker in Africa and informing him that you are a moral realist who subscribes to a strictly deontological position in relation to metaethics. Assuming that he is a native English speaker, he will most probably stare at you, thinking that you were speaking a foreign tongue! On the other hand, if he was taught that it is immoral for a person to enact unjustified harm upon himself, other humans, as well as other living creatures, he could, simply by hearing that simple lesson, possibly live the rest of his life in a reasonably moral manner, without needing to research the topic for several years at a university or college! In Western academia, there are two major branches of ethics: moral realism and moral anti-realism. Moral anti-realism is the doctrine that there are no objective moral values or normative facts. It is usually contrasted with moral realism, which holds that there are objective moral values, and any moral claim is therefore either true or false. Within moral realism, there are a handful of major (supposedly) metaethical positions, including consequentialism (and its closely-related theory, utilitarianism), deontology, social justice and social contract theory, virtue theory, ethical egoism, rational egoism, hedonism, existentialism, Kantianism, contractualism, and religion (Divine command theory). However, perhaps apart from consequentialism, none of these moral theories address the most IMPORTANT question in regard to metaethics: “What exactly is ethics?”. If proponents of these ethical theories were to honestly address this question, they would be forced to agree with the author of this text, in conceding the undeniable fact that the notion of law/morality/ethics (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), is entirely concerned with any possible harm caused to humans, to human society as a whole, to non-human entities, and in rare instances, to inorganic matter, since this is to what the concepts of law/morality/ethics have always referred! See the “MORALITY FOR DUMMIES” addendum to this Chapter. In order to further clarify, on utilitarianism and consequentialism, which are popular viewpoints of Western (so-called) “ethicists”, it is asserted that whatever is most morally right, is to be measured by how much utility is derived from any particular volitional act. For example, if it was possible to save the lives of one thousand human beings, by intentionally destroying the life of a single human, one ought to kill that person! However, the fact that the concept of morality has always referred to the axiom “do no (undue) harm” seems to be taken out of the equation, and certainly, there is no reference to a supremely-wise arbiter of such deeds, who has the authority to adjudicate the proper course of action. So, in the aforementioned example, whilst utilitarians would declare that the most ethical course of action would be to murder one human in order to save a thousand humans, they are oblivious of the fact that the term “ethical” itself has its own unique meaning, and they fail to offer a definition of the word. Simply by stating, “This is the most ethical thing to do in such and such a case”, holds no real significance unless one is able to concurrently tender an authoritative definition of the term “ethical” (and likewise, the terms “moral” and “immoral”, as well as “law”). Therefore, in Kantian terms, there is but ONE categorical imperative (to avoid harm), plus a multitude of hypothetical imperatives (that is to say, to understand under what circumstances harm may be justified, such as the killing of an unborn human child, in the case of abortion).

A CASE STUDY OF A WESTERN ACADEMIC “ETHICIST”: Chapter 03 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” explains the reasons why the domain of law/morality/ethics (again, most appropriately referred to by the Sanskrit term, “dharma” - see that entry in the Glossary) is the exclusive province of (genuine) members of the MOST HOLY PRIESTHOOD (“brāhmaṇa”, in Sanskrit). It also provides examples of the moral failure of academic “philosophers” (both in their personal lives, and in their philosophical work), so I am loath to consume valuable space by offering further case studies of evil, deluded, so-called “ethicists”, in this present chapter. However, I cannot but resist providing at least one more exemplification of a Western academic: Sir Bernard Arthur Owen Williams, an Englishman who lived from 1929 to 2003, and who was a leader in his field during the second half of the twentieth century. Sir Bernard was educated in history and philosophy at the University of Oxford, and later lectured at the University of Cambridge, arguably the two most prestigious colleges in the history of the world, and was awarded honorary doctorates by the two most renowned American tertiary education institutions. Yet, such an illustrious inheritance MOMENTOUSLY failed to impart any veneer of accurate moral understanding upon Sir Bernard, judging by the quality of literature he composed. His assertion that “There cannot be any very interesting, tidy or self-contained theory of what morality is… nor… can there be an ethical theory, in the sense of a philosophical structure which, together with some degree of empirical fact, will yield a decision procedure for moral reasoning”, is not only blatantly false (as proven in this book) but downright laughable and presumptuous! In this statement, Williams displays an excessive degree of haughtiness, unbecoming of an academic of his lofty stature. In the Preface to his first book, Williams notes the charge against contemporary moral philosophy “that it is peculiarly empty and boring”. How apt, since this is precisely how I, the current World Teacher Himself, find Bernard’s incredibly laborious, humdrum writings on ethics/morality. In order to simplify my point, Professor Williams (like practically every person who has ever lived) was clearly unable to comprehend PROPER meta-ethics, and therefore, devoted decades of his working life composing copious amounts of tedious books and essay papers on the subject, yet, to no avail. Also, the mere fact that he was knighted by an illegitimate (so-called) monarch, proves beyond doubt that he was a shill of the corrupt state, since no decent human being would even dream of affirming the validity of a violent, evil, criminal organization. Williams served on several (so-called) “royal” commissions and government committees in the U.K.: the Public Schools Commission (1965-1970), drug abuse (1971), gambling (1976-1978), the Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship (1979), and the Commission on Social Justice (1993-1994). In a “The Times” newspaper interview not long before his death, Williams said, “I did all the major vices”. While on the gambling commission, one of his recommendations, fortuitously ignored at the time, was for a national lottery. He was also known as a staunch feminist. In summary, Bernie, like almost every other so-called “philosopher” in the Western tradition, was a wretched degenerate, even by his very own admission! Furthermore, near the conclusion of a lecture he gave late in life, at Princeton University, in the United States of America, Dr. Williams showed that he was not only an animal-abusing carnist (despite being acquainted with Dr. Peter Singer’s animal rights position, himself a professor at the same University), but he so very-insanely asserted that there is some evidence that we human beings are CARNIVORES, and a “great deal of evidence that we are a predatory species”!!! If this abject pervert had been born in ancient India, he would have been called a “caṇḍāla” (meaning, “dog-eater”) and not even included in mainstream society, but rejected as an outcast, due to consuming any species of animal. As more than adequately demonstrated in the final chapter of this Holiest Scripture, we humans are a fully HERBIVOROUS species, slaughtering animals due only to a lack of edible vegetation (in prehistoric times) and due to societal conditioning (in recent millennia). In my own case, I was raised as a meat-eater, but never enjoyed consuming putrefied animal parts, and always hoped to become a vegetarian, which I managed to finally achieve upon a change to my conditioning, when I joined a Hindu religious cult at age twenty-three, and thereafter, became a vegan. Incidentally, before speaking at the above university, Williams was introduced as “the finest moral philosopher of our time”, even though, by the time he had passed away, he never came to understand the most fundamental essence of morality/law/ethics. If only the reader could have heard how loudly I laughed upon hearing this silly assertion, as well as Bernard’s even sillier claims in regard to the dietary habits of we humans! Also, Sir Bernard claimed that humans are the only species of animal that possesses what he wrongly termed “moral consciousness”, even though there is overwhelming evidence that most (if not all) species of mammals embody varying degrees of instinctual moral behaviour. This may sound like a logical fallacy, but I am not sure if a FULL-TIME CRIMINAL (“pāpī” or “adharma vādin”, in Sanskrit), who condones the brutal, unjustified slaughter of both, innocent, defenceless human beings, and of non-human animals alike, who actively serves a wicked, evil, demonic, violent, criminal organization (namely, the illegitimate, so-called “government” of his nation), who advocates for gambling, and who subscribes to pernicious Marxist ideologies, such as socialism and feminism, ought to present himself as a doctor of morality and/or ethics! Apart from the aforementioned chapter (03), see also the Glossary entry “doctor”, for my candid view of doctors (of philosophy, in particular). A fellow contemporary British “philosopher” of Dr. Bernard Williams, Prof. Derek Antony Parfit, who specialised in personal identity, ethics and rationality, is widely considered to be one of the most important and influential moral philosophers of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. And like Williams, he too can easily be proven to have been an abject dunce* in all three of his specialties - a fact that will surely become evident to any person who thoroughly studies this chapter of “F.I.S.H” in a systematic fashion, and compares it to Parfit’s misologistic writings. *With all due apologies to the brilliant Mediaeval Theologian and priest, Fr. John Duns Scotus, from whose name the word “dunce” is derived.

23:30 The reasons come from stances. They are owed to stances (ought=owed). You care about satisfying your hunger. You have concerns about surviving. You have cares & concerns about the kid and his family. 26:00 is exactly right. 27:00 Well-formed moral propositions are indeed descriptive. You turn them normative by depersonalizing them either by omitting their stance-drivers (turning "justify" into "is justified," "permit" into "is permissible/permitted," "obligate" into "is obligatory/obligated," etc.) and/or reifying them as object properties (e.g., "The durian is delicious for its own sake"). Normativity is just "description, truncated of its stances, and now flying above the mundane." 29:00 We have a storm of desires to which we're "indebted." But they are often in conflict, hence we have reasons to do this, reasons to do that, and so forth. "For these purposes/motivations" does indeed fall out of "what's the reason you did that?" 30:00 Truth-aspiration is a stance; it isn't absolute, e.g., where some hard truth would ruin a life. "You shouldn't stab" is a stance; it isn't absolute, e.g., in a time of war. 35:46 The steelman is not that irrealists are always calling it "weird faculty." Moral realism postures as mere stance-independence but it requires a controversial premise of moral accessibility. Intuitions and plausible-sounding-ness can vary, and vary wildly, across similarly intelligent & aware people. 37:45 The so-called supervenience of murder and wrongness is lexical; murder is defined as some form of "wrong killing" that carries normative connotations (which just shifts the argument about what sense of wrongness we mean, e.g., vs. "utility," vs. some stance X, vs. God's laws, vs. state law, etc.). The strict supervenience is unsurprising on irrealism and does not promote realism in the least. 41:53 When we say "you should reject stance-independence" we are appealing to stances like truth-aspirance and coherence-aspirance. Some irrealists are actually ambivalent about evangelizing it because they see the power of moral realist truncations as something overall useful for society! In any case, using "shoulds" under irrealism isn't inconsistent, you're just forgetting about where our reasons come from -- stances -- when they aren't explicitly mentioned. And, really, that's the crux of the issue, isn't it? 46:00 Those aren't stance-independent goals. There's a regress of stance-dependency that we opt to sever.