วีดีโอ

About the evil god deceiving us asymmetry I don't see why we would asume a good God is (way) more plausible. Maybe it is better for the evil God to let us know the reality because knowing reality causes more suffering, or maybe it is better for a good god to deceive us on somethings for greater goods.

What a great conversation! Some things the guest said are very true and important and honestly I think Alex does not fully grasp them as of now

why don't you let your guest explain his point of view, and instead ask suggestive questions? that's sophistry, not phillosophy.

"suffering" as "that which is not wanted when experienced," perfect.

The interviewer seems to think that pain is evil! Is it? I am not sure, it is certainly unpleasant. However, moral evil - stealing, lying for self- gain, do not inflict physical pain,m but they are immoral. So an evil god will rejoice in the pain that moral evil inflicts - which is different from merely rejoicing inflicting unpleasant physical sensations.

1 hour 18 minutes in, is not the interviewer describing the hell that many theists believe the good god is going to inflict on people?

Is the interviewer here a theist apologist - he keeps asking the same question in different ways, hoping to get the answer he wants, while ignoring the answer he is given.

Excellent video, this is very helpful!

5 mins. into this interview but all Stephen Law did so far was to poison the well instead of explaining what the evil god challenge is. This is so painful to watch. Maybe I should just read his paper on this and start watching Oppy and other reputable atheist academics instead.

As someone who believes that morals are or can be objective, that was a horrible opening argument. Very disappointing representation of the argument for a thinker.

I always thought it was foolish to argue that nothing is sacred. It's a BIG TIME double-edged sword, because it can definitely be used against you.

It seems to me that atheists who argue for an objective morality are generally guilty of playing with the definition of ‘objective’ and/or arguing that objectivity at a level above an absolute grounding is still legitimately classified as ‘objective’.

Incredible how strong that Bubble can be.

Morality is objective! Why? Because I can’t imagine it any other way. Smh

Stephen laws response to the self defeat argument against sensory skepticism can be actually responded to like this. An evil God wants to maximize evil and actually deceiving people doesn’t do that. In cases where an evil doer knows that they are going to, know that they are and know that they did something evil is way worse than someone who merely is deceived in doing an evil. So, knowledge makes certain situations morally worse. And even in some cases where a person with a delusion performs an evil and after coming down from that delusion realized they performed and evil action makes things much worse for the people involved and the knower. So knowledge is expected in the evil God hypothesis because knowledge of evil makes things much worse

Ayn Rand had the right approach in her essay Objectivist Ethics. Her key insight is to ask "what is value" and "why does man need morality". Value is what a living thing acts to gain or keep. It's objective if you can show that performing that action keeps the organism alive. Unlike inanimate matter, living things face the alternative of life or death. So, the concept of value originates in the fact that living things must act to continue to be a living thing. As for needing morality, she notes that most organisms have built-in processes for gaining food and avoiding dangers. Man does not. You will feel hunger and thirst, but you will not know what is poisonous or what is healthy. To learn about the world, man uses reason. For Rand, reasoning is the act of non-contradictory identification. The primary virtue is Rationality. We know this is objective, because we can see that the proper use of Reason results in living and flourishing humans.

I find it hilarious that Roger simply replaced the word “objective” with the word “fact” in his definition, but then refused to define “fact” on the grounds that it would take too long 😂😂😂

Why didn't he even comb his hair? lol. Geez.

Why not the hypothesis that God is both good and evil? All secret societies and ancient religions taught that. Including Neoplatonism, Kabbalah, Hinduism, etc. Even the Bible in Isaiah says that the Lord is both good and evil. And Carl Jung said that evil is the shadow side of God.

moral anti-realist to moral realist - 'give us your best argument' moral realist - 'all human suffering is bad' random animal - 'human suffering can lead to human death, which is good for me' so much for moral objectivity morality is subjective, value principles lie on a spectrum. however, it is one's moral duty to argue they lay at the most objective end of the spectrum as possible.

Surely morality evolves, it seems to stem from pleasure and pain response in our animal evolution. It extends out into the world when we develop empathy which is a consequent of mirror neurones and enlightened self interest which develops from reciprocal behaviour. "Moral behaviours" are consequences of social interaction. Ethics are about how we think other people should behave. Most people are made moral by evolution and social conformity and morality goes out the window survival is at stake. The avoidance of suffering is literally hardwired biology. God is not necessary and the concept of god being "good". " Why "good"? why not indifferent? Also the straight line argument seems flawed. Straight lines are simple at the extreme end of minimally crooked lines. All lines are crooked.

"Objective Morality" is an oxymoron. Morality is an abstract concept and all abstract concepts are subjective. There's no objective morality the same way there is no objective luck or objective controversy. "You can't have luck without an objective luck giver". See how stupid it sounds when you replace one abstract idea with another?

Alex is so impressive in how he steers this conversation in most important directions.

I feel like one way to meet his challenge is that God has another attribute: he judges. A Good God judges us based on whether we worship him and follow his laws; if we do, we get paradise; if we don't, we get hell. the Evil God, however, how he is judging us? If we do evil, do we get hell for doing evil so he can make us suffer? or do we get paradise; but, if we get paradise, that means he is not making us suffer. This means that God loses his decision making ability and thus forces him to throw us into hell. a contradiciton

Objective morality argument: Phenomena that happen in reality are objective and can be logically and objectively analyzed to arrive at truth Thoughts and feelings about morality are phenomena that happen in reality Therefore, thoughts and feelings about morality are objective and can be logically and objectively analyzed to arrive at truth Examples: Cruelty can’t happen if all parties involved like the action Compassion can’t happen if all parties involved dislike the action

Again. All I here from atheist philosophers Is that morals are simply brute facts. Okay but according to who?

so, we are betting on the axioms of existence to support all the moral codes standing on top of these axioms, however, one can still commit suicide and/ or torture oneself, does that indicate there can be no lower limit to the causal of the suffering, especially when it's self-inflicted? and does this mean there really isn't any solid foundation for any moral claims and it's all subjective?

however, we can also imagine a scenario not based on external drawn situations, such as the suffering of being engulfed by white blood cells as a bacteria, surely no human has yet to experience such fear and suffering, and so this imagined experience is entirely subjective, so how do we equate one's subjective suffering with another person's subjective suffering? and if equated, does that make that objective among the two of them?

It seems to me that the religious understanding of morality is that it must be rooted in the will of an enforcer, and as God is the most powerful entity in existence and has the ability to enforce whatever He wants, the concepts of 'good' and 'bad' simply refer to actions which are either in accordance or conflict with the will of God. Any irreligious approach to ethics will automatically be dismissed by most religious people because they will argue that, without an all-powerful enforcer, there can be no binding moral obligations.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Objective opinion is an oxymoron.

I dont think the questioner has had an experience of an evil event, so their only viewpoint is from a Good God viewpoint, its exactly the same as where a Good God causes evil to a Child with cancer, an evil God could grant the child life and character whereby at the end of their life tourturing their soul for eternity. The Expression Stephen was saying was that Child who grows up getting good events and character development feels evil to a higher degree after they have died.

So ..."I think so" is the answer?

The moral landscape is what got me on the objective morality. I'm also an externalist so... Yeah.

promo sm

Subjectivism is dead and Thomas Nagel killed it

That it’s intrinsic to life, makes it objective. If it was a conscious decision it would be at risk of being called subjective.

There might be objective morality. Meanwhile, we will have to put up with what we've got.

A brute fact of life is that is tries to survive and reproduce. Does every organism so this? Well if it doesn’t then we won’t be seeing it for long. If life does try to survive and reproduce then these are facts we can say are objectively true.

Morality is by definition something subjective, its made up by humans. There is a reason morality is (sometimes very) different in different parts of the world,its because its subjective.

OMG, so infantile and empty. No philosophy involved here, that much is certain.

13:02 I might be wrong, but it seems like when Alex attempts to steel man Naturalistic moral realism/objectivism, he always ends up giving a definition for a sort of moral hedonism/Epicureanism. I’m a naturalistic moral realist, and I utterly denounce these philosophies. The notion that what what is good is what makes us feel pleasure is antithetical to every piece of western wisdom. No great thing in human history has happened without suffering, so how can suffering be so objectively wrong? Can someone enlighten me?

Morality's subjective view, is the basis of an individual. Collective and or communal morality is a combination of many subjective morality views and by that nature, it's objective. It's the difference between a single page in a book and the entire book.Why this is even a problem is beyond me.

Wonder what Alex would do if he was presented with an actual objective morality framework. One which has good defined in clear objective form. Thoughts?

Not all suffering is wrong. Kids that go through painful practice, homework, etc, they are growing through their suffering. Hardship builds character. Therefore, you would need a definition of "unnecessary" suffering or "undue suffering".

Why do you need or want to prove “objective morals”? Lol. You want to be seen as good that badly? .. aren’t you eventually going to force a selfish opinion anyway eventually? Regardless if you wish for sweet kindness or harsh tyranny.. isn’t it always selfish?

This guy is so empty man. So sad to see this is the best that academia can pump out... Well, I guess I'll figure it out myself.

How is objective defined? I did not hear that clearly developed. If it is the typical "mind independent" definition, I don't see how moral can be objective. Morality is grounded in a value, such as avoiding suffering is important to do because our experience of suffering is bad and we value avoiding suffering. This valuing is only a function of a subjective experience of a mind. Thus, morality is not at all mind independent. Am I missing something?

Morality can be no more objective than beauty or humor. A sunset can not be objectively beautiful nor a joke objectively funny, in the same way an intent, action, or consequence can not be objectively moral. Morality, humor, and beauty are constructs of the human mind and are all therefore dependent on the subject.. the human, making them definitionally subjective.

Look its Cosmic Skeptic.

Objective morality cannot exist as long as people aren't exactly identical. We have different innate values from biology to experience and that cannot ever be reconciled. Nor should it be. What we need is a framework that allows for a mutually prosperous existence and everything beyond that is and should remain more local.