A terrific piece. You argue clearly and cogently, never relying on cleverly masked special pleading. I've watched (listened actually) to about half a dozen episodes of your program and have thoroughly enjoyed each one. Thank you for your work, you've earned a subscriber and a fan.
I love the razor-sharp debunking here. It's easy to refute theistic arguments when it comes to stuff like history and science, but with philosophy, it's much easier for them to muddy the waters. Your precision cuts right through all that.
No, Epydemic2020, the appropriate commandment on killing does not say 'Thou shalt not kill just for personal enjoyment, or for self defence, or in a just war, or in self-defence, or when it might, on balance, be better to kill 1 person to save more lives, etc etc '. Morality, to rational non-believers, is a PROCESS, not a prescription. It requires evidence, thought, debate, empathy, willingness to change one's mind...not a slavish adherence to rules,
@shotinthedark90 There are objective, non-relativistic ways of maximizing well-being and promoting health and happiness. However there is no such thing as an objective obligation for us to value well-being over suffering. We just tend to do this on our own.
1:35 Morality is not about those two things containing oughts and/or shoulds and how to achieve those goals; those are moral conclusions. That would be like saying: Science is about combining H and O and making water. Morality is an emergent property of a social species and is a process which the group uses to get to a moral position on a issue.
You've been gone so long i forgot why i even subscribed to you in the first place.... but this... omg... this was both "worth the wait" and "GOD DAMN BRILLIANT".
@Slip819 Yes "Chaos" is just a term we use to explain events which we cannot calculate, until "truly random" events can be demonstrated then there is no good reason to believe everything is not deterministic. This being said this would also give us a deterministic will in which would have little need for gods free will. Just my two cents
6:44 I often thought that this isn't a contradiction at all. As impulsive beings, sometimes we impulsively value our own selfish interest over the interests of everybody else, and in this sense we NEVER act in ways contradictory to what we value. When I have hypothetical overwhelming drive kill, if I kill it is because I'm acting in favor of a selfish value over another empathic and kind value on human life. What's distressing is that we are able to change how much we value something and therefore change how we act about certain things, and this is actually necessary for forming any system of moral values in the first place.Everyone has to fight their selfish desires in order to achieve the more selfless values, and everyone has to fight to sustain the long term value and fight of the short term one.
Outstanding, you say it so elegantly what took me 13 years of Bible study to figure out. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and was pushed to study the Bible and when I raised questions with the Nuns and Priests they would simply say well John if you pray to God he will answer you.... You know he did, he said “I didn't write no damn book, man wrote that THING, I gave you ten laws and that was it.... Oh and John, you guys are on your own none of my ten laws said I was going to stick around.
So, according to Biblical doctrine, regardless of how repulsive we may personally find the actions God supposedly took in the OT, whether on having people killed or enslaved, He was always doing right by his children....
wow, I will have to rewatch this again.. Although some Xtians complained that you chose the "weakest" responder, I found that William Lane Craig even had weaker arguments when he defended the Euthyphro dilemma.. Great vid!
I would like to say that you and DasAmericanAtheist are two of my favorites from TH-cam. It's funny but you are very similar but in ways different. Both of you have an excellent grasp of logic.
Pretty damn good, particularly the section with the Euthyphro Dilemma and cutting between the horns. I've tried to point such a thing out many-a-time to individuals reciting Craig's standard line. Overall, I think your critique of objective values and the Christian contention of objective moral values in particular is good, though I have reservations about your overall moral stance. Hopefully I'll get around to posting a video about it sometime as these boxes are much too small. Best of luck.
That was a very long video....and I loved every second of it. Absolutely astounding job. It will be interesting (to say the least) to observe how Epydemic2020 will address this.
@eagleeye1975 Actually, I find him to be a really pleasant individual. Not condescending, calm, collected. (Not terribly charismatic, but nothing wrong with that). I don't think he deserves the flack he gets.
@AutodidacticPhd -- This is an interesting point, and a thought that I had as I was watching the exchange as well. Although RB's framework for morality does appear to account for sociopathic behavior, it seems to be at least worth mentioning that there are some genuine chemical differences at play which make comparison to "normal" behavior difficult.
@RoundSquareX Books I recommend on morality: Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology Robert Wright's The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil Also, there is a free on-line Harvard Course on Justice taught by Michael Sandel. It's very informative as well as entertaining.
I always have to watch these long ones twice to understand it all. I think if i had listened to you when i was still a Christian, my brain would have melted.
Nice arguments, Scott. I'd like to see you touch on Kant's Categorical Imperative. After all, when it comes to values and morals, shouldn't we do something simply because it is the right thing to do? Not because we were told to via some cosmic sugar daddy; not because we may be rewarded in an afterlife. I argue that the Xn morale is a childish one where motives are tainted. And what good are morals if they're impure, right?
In addition to the Thessalonians verse, another instance of God being immoral/deceptive/cruel to his creation is in Romans 9: 10-23..arbitrarily condemning a child to slavery before it is born. He then clearly states that he intentionally "hardens the heart" of many..guaranteeing they will never see the truth and face destruction and eternal torment. The Reason? Simply to make himself appear more glorious to the lucky few he decides to show mercy on.
@Truechire Hmmmm.... in football there used to be "intentional" or "blatant" facemasking, and "unintentional" facemasking. "Intentional" was a 15 yard penalty. "Unintentional" was a 5 yard penalty. He DID reference Hitler when he could have said I was guilty of "ad hominem" or "ad misericordiam". So I split the diff between the 15 yarder and the 5 yarder and gave him a 10 yard penalty.
@Zoetherat On the contrary. I mean the word illusion in the exact same sense. "all the evidence available to use" is merely that validity of our senses. We have just as much reason to accept our moral sense as being true.
Man you really put a lot of thought into this video. From where I am sitting you did as much listening as you did responding to your understanding of what you heard. Hats off to you for that. Semantic can be such a challenge. Punishment is a strategy intended to meet a need. It is not an end in and of itself. Needs are not values, they are not dependent upon a single person doing a particular thing... Semantics can be a pain. Awesome video imho. Cheers.
@RoundSquareX Not really, BUT! Coming in October will be Sam Harris' new book, "The Moral Landscape" and I think it will be an *amazing* account of the kind of morality I talk about here.
This reminds me of an article I read a few months ago, about a kind of "compassion circuit" composed of mirror neurons. Do you think it's possible we evolved with "hardwired" circuits to predispose us towards a preference for a happy, healthy, etc society? And indeed, would we be able to construct societies without a neurological basis for compassion?
When I grew up I always thought that someone would discover a fantastic anomaly left by God and that he/she would get the Nobel price for proving Gods existance. Instead he has insured in every way that his existance or identity is not provable.
In a few debates with Christians, mainly creationists, I've accused God of narcissism through his need for constant praise and thanks. You're far more articulate than me at making these arguments, I was wandering what your views are on this.
@nephyrias Senses can be an illusion, but it is irrational to believe they are an illusion without reason. "Ghost limbs" and "hallucinations" are then reasons to doubt your senses at that moment.
I thoroughly enjoy your sound reasoning. I'm a new subscriber and curious if you have academic credentials. (Not that you necesssarily need them.) I only ask this because I would be delighted to learn of you teaching at a university or lecturing. Thank you for continual contributions to science and reason from a fellow atheist!
@Hexdoll Given your analogy, colorblind people do not disprove the validity of normal people's sight experience. To argue that there exists morally colorblind people would not disprove the validity of normal people's moral experience for example the same reason. I don't see any reason to believe morally colorblind people exist (this is where people usually bring up psychopaths, so I made a video on that), but this argument doesn't even work in principle.
@Epydemic2020 Thanks! Well, can you name one single distinguishable, tangible difference between the two? I can't. It's just the *idea*. The *claim*. It's just words.
I watched this exchange between TB and Epydemic and to me it's like watching a professional football team (TB) playing a high school football team (epydemic). Epydemic is so out matched that you know what the result is going to be long before the kickoff. You might think the high school team has some attributes that might put the professional team to work but at the end of the game you are there saying, yeah, yeah that's pretty much what I had expected. A total shut out, TB 42, Epydemic 3.
A secular morality is quite simple to derive. Consider the health of your teeth. In regards to having healthy teeth, can we derive "what we should and should not do with our teeth?" It is quite simple to understand: "You should brush your teeth, IF you want healthy teeth." Many people leave the "IF" part out of the phrase (perhaps on purpose, so that an external source can get the credit for the source of the "oughts"), and that is a mistake. The same goes for human interactions as it does for tooth health: You should not steal, IF you do not want to be stolen from. You should not do things to others that they do not want done to them, IF you yourself do not want your desires for your own body abused. If we leave the "IF" bit out, people say "then why should we not kill rape etc? what demands it?" It is the "If you want x" bit that demands it. It is a logical conclusion. Logic is the true source of our morality. You can also test this. Consider a person that lacks the ability to process logic, a baby, someone mentally retarded. DO YOU HOLD THEM MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for actions that would be considered wrong? Like destroying your property? Would you get mad at your baby for destroying your phone for example? If not, it is because they lack logical facilities. Thus logical ability is the source of moral responsibility.
+capoman1 Of course. And what you are talking about is what one values (not using the term as a synonym for morals). What one "values" in the sense of desires (I value/desire nice teeth) will dictate what they consider moral and immoral. And yes, people absolutely leave out the "IF". Thus they miss or intentionally scurry away from the reality that not all people value the same things. Its rather pointless to attempt to discern someone's moral code or "where it came from" without first recognizing what they value.
Noah Summerall Notice the statement "one ought to brush teeth, IF one wants healthy teeth..." Does not tell you that "you ought to value healthy teeth" or even that "you ought to brush your teeth..." It just says "for x to be true, y must occur." There is no subjectivity or dependency on values. The statement evaluates to true. ---- In a more general case "one ought not do things to people that go against others wishes, IF one has things he wishes to not have done to him." Every person has things he doesn't want done to him, it's impossible not to. Even a man that wants to be killed "doesn't want to be left alive." So every person has things he doesn't want done to him, and to maintain that he can dictate whether others are allowed to violate him, he must not violate others... Where do you see "one ought to value x" in any of these statements? And is the truth of the brushing teeth DEPENDENT on the values of an individual? Or is it just a logical statement that evaluates as true? So for example, for the guy that doesn't value nice teeth, does that mean that the if statement is no longer true? Does that mean that healthy teeth are generated by just desiring nice teeth, no brushing needed? ---- I challenge your statement that "values dictate the correctness of moral statements." I state that "logic" and the ability to process logic dictates the correctness. And your personal values don't change the truth value of "if statements."
+capoman1 If I understand you correctly then I believe I disagree. I am not certain we can always objectively say what one ought to value. "IF you value an early retirement, then you ought to invest in a retirement plan." Can we, without question, say that one ought to value early retirement? I don't think so. Values can be subjective. One person may value an early retirement while it may not be overly appealing for another. But I agree the quoted statement above is true regardless of the person's position an early retirement simply because of the "IF". Now, we can make objective determinations as to what supports or is consistent with the stated value. IF the person values early retirement then we can objectively say that investing in a retirement plan is a good thing. We cannot objectively say that early retirement is something you should value. We cannot say that you ought to invest in a retirement plan if you are not concerned with early retirement (unless you locate another value that would justify or suggest its the proper course - but that would be leaving the example) So.. in order for the statement "you ought to invest in a retirement account" to be correct in this context one must value an early retirement. Thus, whether or not the subject values early retirement (THE VALUE) dictates the correctness of "you ought to invest in a retirement plan" (the moral statement). I hope that explains the statement you challenged.
Noah Summerall "IF you value an early retirement, then you ought to invest in a retirement plan." You derived A CORRECT if statement, this if statement is true. Does that mean that "one ought to value retirement?" or in the other example that "one ought to value healthy teeth?" NO! The if statement does not DEMAND what you value, it demands WHAT YOU MUST (ought to) do IF YOU SEEK THE GOAL (caps only for emphasis). An if statement has the form: If P then Q. Alternatively, if P is true, then Q is true. Alternatively, for P to be true, Q must be true. So the IF P portion is not what "one ought" do. The "then Q" portion is what "one ought" to do (if the person insists that P be true). So can you achieve healthy teeth without brushing? NO! Does that mean YOU MUST desire healthy teeth? NO! It means YOU OUGHT to brush IF YOU INSIST on having healthy teeth. ---- We live in a world where a large percentage of people desire healthy teeth. And for all these people, we can say "what they ought to do, in light of their stated preference." ---- Now onto tougher examples, theft assault rape murder (TARM). This works for all actions not just TARM, but TARM are the reason that we ask the big moral question, these are the basic actions that we really think violate morality. IF YOU INSIST that you yourself should not be TARMed, then "you ought not TARM others." What does it mean if you violate this if statement? It means that "you are okay with being TARMed yourself." Just like not brushing your teeth means you are okay with bad teeth. Just like avoiding retirement investment means you are okay with not having a retirment, etc. So if you violate the logic of these if statements that evaluate to true, you are making a statement. And in the case of TARM (and all levels of "immoral behavior"), you are saying that "I am fine with being violated."
Noah Summerall +Noah Summerall "Thus, whether or not the subject values early retirement (THE VALUE) dictates the correctness of "you ought to invest in a retirement plan" (the moral statement)." Now you've got it. VALUING the if portion DEMANDS (ought) a certain behavior. And all the examples we have examined only concern THE INDIVIDUAL, not behavior towards others. So now: "If I have things that I don't want done to me, then I ought not do things to others that they don't want." (golden rule). Now how can this one be arbitrary? In the teeth and retirement example, no other individuals came into question. Now when others are involved, I make a statement that "you can violate me" once I violate another. How many people actually do that? How many people actually ask to be violated? And isn't that even a contradiction of terms? Wanting to be violated? If you want it, it's not a violation. So violating others means that you forfeit your right to not be violated. In a less organized society, this individual would be killed or tortured. And the whole basis is "If P then Q." And people understand it intuitively. They understand that this person has violated this principle and has asked to be violated. And people will teach him that lesson. Even children do this, without deriving any of this. They understand at a gut level the principle of "If P then Q," and kid's reactions to violations is evidence of that. If one child violates another child, he wants to know "did you violate me on purpose?" And if he thinks you violated him on purpose, he wants an explanation. And he will begin to violate the violator. Because he knows the violator has violated the principle, the If P then Q found in the golden rule. So it is our ability to understand these if statements, to process logic; that allows us to perceive "immoral behavior," to perceive violations. ---- You can also tell that understanding logic is the basis for moral accountability. If a baby destroys your phone, are you mad at the baby? Do you seek justice against the baby? Do you ask the baby questions or look to break something of his in return? If a mentally retarded person breaks your phone, do you blame the individual? Seek justice? Break something of his in return? A dog breaks your phone, a bird, any animal, etc... I think it is safe to say that you only hold those with the ability to process logic, people mentally competent, morally accountable. This is an indicator that "the ability to understand or process logic" is the source of moral accountability, the source of morality.
@Buruc "Objective value" is a contradictio in terminis. Per *definition* a value is attributed - values are not inherent, not objective. As TBS explained, you need at least one valuer for something to be valuable to anybody. What's more, two subjects do not have to agree on the value of an object.
Good video. I'd quite like you to do more videos relating to genetics/environment/parenting/personality etc as I find your views on it very interesting and different to what is commonly taught.
Around 19:20 or so: Yes, I totally agree! And it's because we actually get our morality from the estimation of consequences (which considers any potential threats to our success, wellbeing and/or survival - and there is more than one kind of each of these) coupled with the ability to empathize that gives us a framework from which we being to articulate and, build into the fabric of our minds, what is morally best as opposed to what is morally problematic - either for ourselves and or an entire society or even the entire world. This is ESPECIALLY TRUE when there is a clearly defined moral objective or goal in mind, such as: "I want to do everything I can to prevent or minimize human, animal, and/or environmental suffering and to also promote (as much as possible) human, animal, and/or environmental wellbeing and happiness for all (including future generations)'. By the way, I so very much love your channel, I feel smarter just I listen to you. I know that this is not actually true of course, but please allow me this one simple, self-indulgent delusion. Lol ...Take care.
Everyone is using the word "objective" incorrectly. Something objective exists regardless of what anyone's opinion of it happens to be, or how many people agree or disagree with it. Something objective exists even if there is nobody around to see it. Therefore, there is no such thing as "objective morality". Even if a god dictates your morals they are still subjective to him, and to anyone and everyone else. Morals, opinions, and values are by their very nature subjective.
The point is that not everyone agrees about what "morality" refers to. For example, we all agree that the Eiffel tower is objective. It's a towering mass of very solid, very objective iron. Imagine if someone mistakenly thought the word "morality" was being used to refer to the Eiffel tower. For a person like that, it would be very strange to hear someone say that morality is subjective. How can 7000 tons of iron be subjective? Clearly we've got some subjective concept in mind for the word "morality". Perhaps morality is something like beauty and therefore it is in the eye of the beholder. We should bear in mind that when someone says that morality is objective, that person does not agree that the word "morality" means the same thing that we use that word to mean. They're not confused over what is objective versus what is subjective, they're not misusing the word "objective", then misusing the word "morality" by using it to refer to something objective. They're probably not referring to the Eiffel tower, but they're referring to something objective, and they'd be happy to clarify that "morality" exists regardless of what anyone's opinion of it happens to be.
@@Ansatz66 >> They are so misusing the word "objective". If no humans existed, would "morality" still exist? No. Therefore "morality" is subjective. It's true that everyone has their own moral code (which is subject to them), but that doesn't make "morality" objective."'Morality" is basically an opinion. Look up "objective" in the dictionary, please.
@@1derb0y "If no humans existed, would 'morality' still exist?" That depends on what we think the word "morality" refers to. What do you think morality refers to? "No. Therefore 'morality' is subjective." A thing doesn't have to be subjective just because it cannot exist without humans. Digital watches also wouldn't exist if humans did not exist, but that doesn't mean digital watches are subjective. "'Morality' is basically an opinion." The people who say that morality is objective have something very different in mind when they use the word "morality". They're not talking about an opinion. "Look up 'objective' in the dictionary, please." Clearly when someone says "objective morality" there is a problem due to those two ideas conflicting, but either one of those ideas could be the source of the problem. Why should we assume that the person who said that is getting the word "objective" wrong rather than getting the world "morality" wrong? The meaning of the word "morality" is a topic of great controversy. There is no controversy over the meaning of the word "objective".
@@Ansatz66 >> Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. It is basically an opinion. My moral code may be different from yours. If you're using "morality" another way to mean something else, you're using it wrong. Something objective exists regardless of opinion. Objective = object. Something real, tangible. Morality is subjective and anything else is merely word games and playing fast and loose with your definitions.
@@1derb0y "Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper." Not every differentiation is an opinion. For example, there's the differentiation of various densities of fluid within a centrifuge that allows us to separate dense fluids from light fluids. We can also differentiate various strengths of acid by titration. Before we decide whether morality is an opinion or something objective, we need to determine whether there is an objective basis for this differentiation. Can we differentiate proper actions from improper actions by something measurable? On what basis do we differentiate proper from improper? For example, maybe instead of just arbitrarily labelling things a proper or improper on a whim, it could be that morality is more about differentiating actions on the based of how much harm those actions cause, or how much those actions benefit people. Aren't harm and benefit objective and measurable?
Oh, no! Now I have to place yet another subscription on my list. Simply outstanding. Very well thought out. Truly analytical and uncompromising. I'm a simple armchair philosopher and this video appears to encapsulate everything needed to refute any of the arguments made for celestial objective standards of morality. This guy is a danger to nonsense and ignorance.
@Hexdoll I have not argued that everyones moral knowledge is equivalent to mine. I argued that human's share a realm of innate knowledge about morality. Nothing about that definitions excludes different cultures from behaving in different ways. In fact, I have gone into great length explaining variation of morality between cultures and I am quite sure you have even commented on those videos.
TBS, I think there are a few objective values for conscious beings that come about during the course of their lives. One example is self-consistency-- Stimulus during a being's existence causes them to value certain things over others. Lets attempt to assume that they do not value self-consistency. However, maximizing any value is improved by some consistent effort. Therefore, self-consistency is something they will be compelled to value.
@AtheistTower I am not sure what Stephen Hawking's personal position regarding the existence of a deity has to do with statements about heaven and hell. You stated that atheist's make the claim that there is no heaven or hell, and I would disagree. They merely reject theistic claims that there is one. We have no evidence for such locations and therefore no reason to believe they exist. Oh, and Stephen Hawking just recently called heaven a fairytale, since he is the measure of logic, I guess.
+Altorin It was important for TB to pick an example that had both an immoral act, and an immoral intention. You could at least pretend god was lying to Abraham for the greater good. Not so with the 2 Thess example.
Colter Hawkstetler you can't say that God is Honest when the whole tradition behind the major Monotheistic religions is based on an act of dishonesty. That was my point.
Law is about preserving order and w.e authoritative hierarchy that culture happens to rely on. It overlaps with the ethical tendencies of that society, but the two are not indistinguishable. Law could be preserved even if a society was entirely nihilistic.
But of course, for moral subjectivism to be useful, it hinges on people being similar enough to enable voluntary compromises(Which again is an objective fact), which seems to be very easy to achieve for humans. So even subjective morality has objective constraints related to how it can play out in a given system of agents.
@RuinSonic Occam's razor can point to a wrong conclusion. However, we should apply Occam's razor to this issue because 1) it's the most useful methodology available to determine what we believe is true, and 2) because consistency demands it since we apply Occam's razor to everything else, and have no logical justification to make an exception for this issue.
I'm interested if we follow the Argument further past the "Does god determine what's good", and let's assume he's referencing some standard of good outside himself. Is that source not itself arbitrary?
taking life might have some basis as a correct thing to do, if you can restore life or give life back. i think thats logical. but you cant really un-ring the bell in so many occasions. having regrets simply doesnt make anything right.
@nephyrias I am not arguing that value his hardwired into our minds, that is a strawman of my position. I am arguing that we are hardwired to recognize objective value exists. Similarly, we use our senses to recognize that reality exists. The senses themselves are subjective, but the things we sense are objective.
@Epydemic2020 i think the analogy holds, as a color blind person would not hold that something is objective X color as it is meaningless to them, hence making color a subjective reality as it is contingent on the sight of the subject.
Love your vids man. Sorry to just be stumbling upon them for the first time today. This is the third one I've watched and with the 'rona virus out there roaming around, I reckon I'll have the rest of them watched in a week. I just gotta offer one pedantic critique: eu-thy-phro. 3 syllables :) All the best to ya mate!
@25:15 I suspect he's going to respond by saying neither of those options are true & that God both values human life & is still acting morally. I questioned Epy on his judge analogy, & unless I misunderstood, he justifies all actions God does by saying that when God kills or lies, he does it with a higher knowledge than we have & was ultimately for the greater good even if we can't see that result. Regardless I think the answer is a cop out, & even if true would be the work of a VERY flawed God
what i think becomes evident when watching these videos is that we all have different morals (no two Christians even have identical morals) but we develop our morals (ie. they change over time) in the same way. the main difference is that after developing those morals the religious like to validate and give them precedence/authority by declaring that they are divinely mandated (ie. they shoe-horn a god into their morals).
If "maximizing health, happiness and well-being" is the metric for moral behavior, then building cities or living in them (and thereby contributing to their perpetuation) is immoral, because it has been shown that people living in small towns are happier than those living in cities. Here intent is a crucial factor: if I do not *intend* to harm others by living in a city, or shopping at Walmart, is it still immoral? What if the rapist's intent is to punish women he feels deserve it?
@JEJMDTD I am not talking about the "soul" I am talking about conscience. "Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. ... In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human does things that go against his/her moral values..." I also have not mentioned Hitler. You used a fallacy and the name of that fallacy is "Reductio ad Hitlerum". Technically this is the name.
A terrific piece. You argue clearly and cogently, never relying on cleverly masked special pleading. I've watched (listened actually) to about half a dozen episodes of your program and have thoroughly enjoyed each one. Thank you for your work, you've earned a subscriber and a fan.
Epidemic2020?
Mind blown.
I love the razor-sharp debunking here. It's easy to refute theistic arguments when it comes to stuff like history and science, but with philosophy, it's much easier for them to muddy the waters. Your precision cuts right through all that.
No, Epydemic2020, the appropriate commandment on killing does not say 'Thou shalt not kill just for personal enjoyment, or for self defence, or in a just war, or in self-defence, or when it might, on balance, be better to kill 1 person to save more lives, etc etc '. Morality, to rational non-believers, is a PROCESS, not a prescription. It requires evidence, thought, debate, empathy, willingness to change one's mind...not a slavish adherence to rules,
This guy needs to become an actual philosopher he would be fantastic at it
Instead of being a character in The Bold and The Beautiful.
The most coherent argument on morality, I'm stunned. You got a new sub, keep up the content!
Epidemic 2020? C'mon!
There’s been an epidemic every year, you just don’t hear about the ones contained.
Cool, done.
0:41 I heard epidemic 2020 🤯
Quite eerie to hear about a guy called Epydemic2020 from 2010. Not sure what of make of it.
@shotinthedark90 There are objective, non-relativistic ways of maximizing well-being and promoting health and happiness. However there is no such thing as an objective obligation for us to value well-being over suffering. We just tend to do this on our own.
1:35 Morality is not about those two things containing oughts and/or shoulds and how to achieve those goals; those are moral conclusions. That would be like saying: Science is about combining H and O and making water. Morality is an emergent property of a social species and is a process which the group uses to get to a moral position on a issue.
What? Epydemic 2020? What?
You've been gone so long i forgot why i even subscribed to you in the first place.... but this... omg... this was both "worth the wait" and "GOD DAMN BRILLIANT".
@Slip819
Yes "Chaos" is just a term we use to explain events which we cannot calculate, until "truly random" events can be demonstrated then there is no good reason to believe everything is not deterministic. This being said this would also give us a deterministic will in which would have little need for gods free will.
Just my two cents
Brilliant video! at about minute 17:40, you totally destroyed the theist's arguments; in fact that was the KO moment right there.
6:44 I often thought that this isn't a contradiction at all. As impulsive beings, sometimes we impulsively value our own selfish interest over the interests of everybody else, and in this sense we NEVER act in ways contradictory to what we value. When I have hypothetical overwhelming drive kill, if I kill it is because I'm acting in favor of a selfish value over another empathic and kind value on human life. What's distressing is that we are able to change how much we value something and therefore change how we act about certain things, and this is actually necessary for forming any system of moral values in the first place.Everyone has to fight their selfish desires in order to achieve the more selfless values, and everyone has to fight to sustain the long term value and fight of the short term one.
Damn that kid got destroyed.
This guy prepares his videos carefully, to everything well though out, it's a form of respect trying to be as smooth, precise and clear as possible.
the dark tone of the wind blowing at the end really put it all together
@Terrayeah No problem! The beauty of civil discourse is, you can always just ask "what do you mean by that?"
Outstanding, you say it so elegantly what took me 13 years of Bible study to figure out. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and was pushed to study the Bible and when I raised questions with the Nuns and Priests they would simply say well John if you pray to God he will answer you.... You know he did, he said
“I didn't write no damn book, man wrote that THING, I gave you ten laws and that was it.... Oh and John, you guys are on your own none of my ten laws said I was going to stick around.
So, according to Biblical doctrine, regardless of how repulsive we may personally find the actions God supposedly took in the OT, whether on having people killed or enslaved, He was always doing right by his children....
Because, after all, He is the perfect Judge... Right?
wow, I will have to rewatch this again..
Although some Xtians complained that you chose the "weakest" responder, I found that William Lane Craig even had weaker arguments when he defended the Euthyphro dilemma..
Great vid!
I would like to say that you and DasAmericanAtheist are two of my favorites from TH-cam. It's funny but you are very similar but in ways different. Both of you have an excellent grasp of logic.
11 years ago and while behind on his knowledge of the moral argument, Epydemic2020 was ahead of his time in choosing a username (albeit with a y)
seeing you for the first time. Very interesting. We need more debating like this. Good to see someone exercising their Intellect.
Epydemic2020 must be a prophet! There is an epidemic in 2020!
Pretty damn good, particularly the section with the Euthyphro Dilemma and cutting between the horns. I've tried to point such a thing out many-a-time to individuals reciting Craig's standard line. Overall, I think your critique of objective values and the Christian contention of objective moral values in particular is good, though I have reservations about your overall moral stance. Hopefully I'll get around to posting a video about it sometime as these boxes are much too small. Best of luck.
That was a very long video....and I loved every second of it. Absolutely astounding job. It will be interesting (to say the least) to observe how Epydemic2020 will address this.
I really like your longer videos. It helps you clarify your arguments better.
@eagleeye1975 Actually, I find him to be a really pleasant individual. Not condescending, calm, collected. (Not terribly charismatic, but nothing wrong with that). I don't think he deserves the flack he gets.
@AutodidacticPhd -- This is an interesting point, and a thought that I had as I was watching the exchange as well. Although RB's framework for morality does appear to account for sociopathic behavior, it seems to be at least worth mentioning that there are some genuine chemical differences at play which make comparison to "normal" behavior difficult.
@RoundSquareX Books I recommend on morality:
Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology
Robert Wright's The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are
Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil
Also, there is a free on-line Harvard Course on Justice taught by Michael Sandel. It's very informative as well as entertaining.
I always have to watch these long ones twice to understand it all. I think if i had listened to you when i was still a Christian, my brain would have melted.
Nice arguments, Scott.
I'd like to see you touch on Kant's Categorical Imperative. After all, when it comes to values and morals, shouldn't we do something simply because it is the right thing to do? Not because we were told to via some cosmic sugar daddy; not because we may be rewarded in an afterlife.
I argue that the Xn morale is a childish one where motives are tainted. And what good are morals if they're impure, right?
Epi demic 2020??? Now that it's 2020, there IS an epidemic!!! Is that person really Nostradamus?
In addition to the Thessalonians verse, another instance of God being immoral/deceptive/cruel to his creation is in Romans 9: 10-23..arbitrarily condemning a child to slavery before it is born. He then clearly states that he intentionally "hardens the heart" of many..guaranteeing they will never see the truth and face destruction and eternal torment. The Reason? Simply to make himself appear more glorious to the lucky few he decides to show mercy on.
@Truechire Hmmmm.... in football there used to be "intentional" or "blatant" facemasking, and "unintentional" facemasking. "Intentional" was a 15 yard penalty. "Unintentional" was a 5 yard penalty.
He DID reference Hitler when he could have said I was guilty of "ad hominem" or "ad misericordiam".
So I split the diff between the 15 yarder and the 5 yarder and gave him a 10 yard penalty.
*Epidemic 2020* at 0:36.....what the fuck!?? This video is 10 years old.
@Zoetherat
On the contrary. I mean the word illusion in the exact same sense.
"all the evidence available to use" is merely that validity of our senses.
We have just as much reason to accept our moral sense as being true.
Man you really put a lot of thought into this video. From where I am sitting you did as much listening as you did responding to your understanding of what you heard. Hats off to you for that. Semantic can be such a challenge. Punishment is a strategy intended to meet a need. It is not an end in and of itself. Needs are not values, they are not dependent upon a single person doing a particular thing... Semantics can be a pain. Awesome video imho. Cheers.
@RoundSquareX Not really, BUT! Coming in October will be Sam Harris' new book, "The Moral Landscape" and I think it will be an *amazing* account of the kind of morality I talk about here.
This reminds me of an article I read a few months ago, about a kind of "compassion circuit" composed of mirror neurons. Do you think it's possible we evolved with "hardwired" circuits to predispose us towards a preference for a happy, healthy, etc society? And indeed, would we be able to construct societies without a neurological basis for compassion?
When I grew up I always thought that someone would discover a fantastic anomaly left by God and that he/she would get the Nobel price for proving Gods existance.
Instead he has insured in every way that his existance or identity is not provable.
In a few debates with Christians, mainly creationists, I've accused God of narcissism through his need for constant praise and thanks. You're far more articulate than me at making these arguments, I was wandering what your views are on this.
@nephyrias
Senses can be an illusion, but it is irrational to believe they are an illusion without reason. "Ghost limbs" and "hallucinations" are then reasons to doubt your senses at that moment.
I thoroughly enjoy your sound reasoning. I'm a new subscriber and curious if you have academic credentials. (Not that you necesssarily need them.) I only ask this because I would be delighted to learn of you teaching at a university or lecturing. Thank you for continual contributions to science and reason from a fellow atheist!
Scott, Absolutely OUTSTANDING argument, dude. I feel like I got smarter just for watching this video. Rock on, brother.
@Hexdoll
Given your analogy, colorblind people do not disprove the validity of normal people's sight experience.
To argue that there exists morally colorblind people would not disprove the validity of normal people's moral experience for example the same reason.
I don't see any reason to believe morally colorblind people exist (this is where people usually bring up psychopaths, so I made a video on that), but this argument doesn't even work in principle.
@Slip819 "Chaotic system"? Isn't that sort of like "jumbo shrimp"? Or maybe "military intelligence?"
@Epydemic2020 Thanks! Well, can you name one single distinguishable, tangible difference between the two? I can't. It's just the *idea*. The *claim*. It's just words.
I watched this exchange between TB and Epydemic and to me it's like watching a professional football team (TB) playing a high school football team (epydemic). Epydemic is so out matched that you know what the result is going to be long before the kickoff. You might think the high school team has some attributes that might put the professional team to work but at the end of the game you are there saying, yeah, yeah that's pretty much what I had expected. A total shut out, TB 42, Epydemic 3.
A secular morality is quite simple to derive.
Consider the health of your teeth. In regards to having healthy teeth, can we derive "what we should and should not do with our teeth?" It is quite simple to understand: "You should brush your teeth, IF you want healthy teeth."
Many people leave the "IF" part out of the phrase (perhaps on purpose, so that an external source can get the credit for the source of the "oughts"), and that is a mistake.
The same goes for human interactions as it does for tooth health: You should not steal, IF you do not want to be stolen from. You should not do things to others that they do not want done to them, IF you yourself do not want your desires for your own body abused.
If we leave the "IF" bit out, people say "then why should we not kill rape etc? what demands it?"
It is the "If you want x" bit that demands it. It is a logical conclusion. Logic is the true source of our morality.
You can also test this. Consider a person that lacks the ability to process logic, a baby, someone mentally retarded. DO YOU HOLD THEM MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for actions that would be considered wrong? Like destroying your property? Would you get mad at your baby for destroying your phone for example?
If not, it is because they lack logical facilities. Thus logical ability is the source of moral responsibility.
+capoman1 Of course. And what you are talking about is what one values (not using the term as a synonym for morals). What one "values" in the sense of desires (I value/desire nice teeth) will dictate what they consider moral and immoral.
And yes, people absolutely leave out the "IF". Thus they miss or intentionally scurry away from the reality that not all people value the same things. Its rather pointless to attempt to discern someone's moral code or "where it came from" without first recognizing what they value.
Noah Summerall Notice the statement "one ought to brush teeth, IF one wants healthy teeth..."
Does not tell you that "you ought to value healthy teeth" or even that "you ought to brush your teeth..."
It just says "for x to be true, y must occur."
There is no subjectivity or dependency on values. The statement evaluates to true.
----
In a more general case "one ought not do things to people that go against others wishes, IF one has things he wishes to not have done to him."
Every person has things he doesn't want done to him, it's impossible not to. Even a man that wants to be killed "doesn't want to be left alive." So every person has things he doesn't want done to him, and to maintain that he can dictate whether others are allowed to violate him, he must not violate others...
Where do you see "one ought to value x" in any of these statements?
And is the truth of the brushing teeth DEPENDENT on the values of an individual? Or is it just a logical statement that evaluates as true?
So for example, for the guy that doesn't value nice teeth, does that mean that the if statement is no longer true? Does that mean that healthy teeth are generated by just desiring nice teeth, no brushing needed?
----
I challenge your statement that "values dictate the correctness of moral statements."
I state that "logic" and the ability to process logic dictates the correctness. And your personal values don't change the truth value of "if statements."
+capoman1 If I understand you correctly then I believe I disagree. I am not certain we can always objectively say what one ought to value.
"IF you value an early retirement, then you ought to invest in a retirement plan." Can we, without question, say that one ought to value early retirement? I don't think so.
Values can be subjective. One person may value an early retirement while it may not be overly appealing for another. But I agree the quoted statement above is true regardless of the person's position an early retirement simply because of the "IF".
Now, we can make objective determinations as to what supports or is consistent with the stated value. IF the person values early retirement then we can objectively say that investing in a retirement plan is a good thing.
We cannot objectively say that early retirement is something you should value.
We cannot say that you ought to invest in a retirement plan if you are not concerned with early retirement (unless you locate another value that would justify or suggest its the proper course - but that would be leaving the example)
So.. in order for the statement "you ought to invest in a retirement account" to be correct in this context one must value an early retirement.
Thus, whether or not the subject values early retirement (THE VALUE) dictates the correctness of "you ought to invest in a retirement plan" (the moral statement).
I hope that explains the statement you challenged.
Noah Summerall "IF you value an early retirement, then you ought to invest in a retirement plan."
You derived A CORRECT if statement, this if statement is true.
Does that mean that "one ought to value retirement?" or in the other example that "one ought to value healthy teeth?" NO!
The if statement does not DEMAND what you value, it demands WHAT YOU MUST (ought to) do IF YOU SEEK THE GOAL (caps only for emphasis).
An if statement has the form: If P then Q. Alternatively, if P is true, then Q is true. Alternatively, for P to be true, Q must be true.
So the IF P portion is not what "one ought" do. The "then Q" portion is what "one ought" to do (if the person insists that P be true).
So can you achieve healthy teeth without brushing? NO! Does that mean YOU MUST desire healthy teeth? NO! It means YOU OUGHT to brush IF YOU INSIST on having healthy teeth.
----
We live in a world where a large percentage of people desire healthy teeth. And for all these people, we can say "what they ought to do, in light of their stated preference."
----
Now onto tougher examples, theft assault rape murder (TARM). This works for all actions not just TARM, but TARM are the reason that we ask the big moral question, these are the basic actions that we really think violate morality.
IF YOU INSIST that you yourself should not be TARMed, then "you ought not TARM others."
What does it mean if you violate this if statement? It means that "you are okay with being TARMed yourself." Just like not brushing your teeth means you are okay with bad teeth. Just like avoiding retirement investment means you are okay with not having a retirment, etc.
So if you violate the logic of these if statements that evaluate to true, you are making a statement. And in the case of TARM (and all levels of "immoral behavior"), you are saying that "I am fine with being violated."
Noah Summerall +Noah Summerall "Thus, whether or not the subject values early retirement (THE VALUE) dictates the correctness of "you ought to invest in a retirement plan" (the moral statement)."
Now you've got it. VALUING the if portion DEMANDS (ought) a certain behavior.
And all the examples we have examined only concern THE INDIVIDUAL, not behavior towards others.
So now: "If I have things that I don't want done to me, then I ought not do things to others that they don't want." (golden rule).
Now how can this one be arbitrary? In the teeth and retirement example, no other individuals came into question. Now when others are involved, I make a statement that "you can violate me" once I violate another.
How many people actually do that? How many people actually ask to be violated? And isn't that even a contradiction of terms? Wanting to be violated? If you want it, it's not a violation.
So violating others means that you forfeit your right to not be violated. In a less organized society, this individual would be killed or tortured. And the whole basis is "If P then Q." And people understand it intuitively. They understand that this person has violated this principle and has asked to be violated. And people will teach him that lesson. Even children do this, without deriving any of this. They understand at a gut level the principle of "If P then Q," and kid's reactions to violations is evidence of that.
If one child violates another child, he wants to know "did you violate me on purpose?" And if he thinks you violated him on purpose, he wants an explanation. And he will begin to violate the violator. Because he knows the violator has violated the principle, the If P then Q found in the golden rule.
So it is our ability to understand these if statements, to process logic; that allows us to perceive "immoral behavior," to perceive violations.
----
You can also tell that understanding logic is the basis for moral accountability. If a baby destroys your phone, are you mad at the baby? Do you seek justice against the baby? Do you ask the baby questions or look to break something of his in return?
If a mentally retarded person breaks your phone, do you blame the individual? Seek justice? Break something of his in return?
A dog breaks your phone, a bird, any animal, etc...
I think it is safe to say that you only hold those with the ability to process logic, people mentally competent, morally accountable.
This is an indicator that "the ability to understand or process logic" is the source of moral accountability, the source of morality.
This is the only person on youtube for whom I will dedicate a watch, as long as it has their name on it.
Particularly nice response... I'm probably going to write my next humanities paper on this now.
@Buruc
"Objective value" is a contradictio in terminis. Per *definition* a value is attributed - values are not inherent, not objective. As TBS explained, you need at least one valuer for something to be valuable to anybody. What's more, two subjects do not have to agree on the value of an object.
I didn't think that I would actually sit through the whole 25 minutes, but it was worth it.
wow! great debate. thanks for sharing.
Ok, you cleared up all the questions I had from the previous video, Bravo sir, this was an epic!
Very powerful response. You combine a certain charasmatic showmanship with some excellent philosophical points. Hope to see more.
Well-spoken and intelligent, you didn't stoop low and attack anything except what he said, and you utterly annihilated his argument. Subbed.
Good video. I'd quite like you to do more videos relating to genetics/environment/parenting/personality etc as I find your views on it very interesting and different to what is commonly taught.
Around 19:20 or so:
Yes, I totally agree! And it's because we actually get our morality from the estimation of consequences (which considers any potential threats to our success, wellbeing and/or survival - and there is more than one kind of each of these) coupled with the ability to empathize that gives us a framework from which we being to articulate and, build into the fabric of our minds, what is morally best as opposed to what is morally problematic - either for ourselves and or an entire society or even the entire world. This is ESPECIALLY TRUE when there is a clearly defined moral objective or goal in mind, such as: "I want to do everything I can to prevent or minimize human, animal, and/or environmental suffering and to also promote (as much as possible) human, animal, and/or environmental wellbeing and happiness for all (including future generations)'.
By the way, I so very much love your channel, I feel smarter just I listen to you. I know that this is not actually true of course, but please allow me this one simple, self-indulgent delusion. Lol ...Take care.
Everyone is using the word "objective" incorrectly. Something objective exists regardless of what anyone's opinion of it happens to be, or how many people agree or disagree with it. Something objective exists even if there is nobody around to see it. Therefore, there is no such thing as "objective morality". Even if a god dictates your morals they are still subjective to him, and to anyone and everyone else. Morals, opinions, and values are by their very nature subjective.
The point is that not everyone agrees about what "morality" refers to. For example, we all agree that the Eiffel tower is objective. It's a towering mass of very solid, very objective iron. Imagine if someone mistakenly thought the word "morality" was being used to refer to the Eiffel tower. For a person like that, it would be very strange to hear someone say that morality is subjective. How can 7000 tons of iron be subjective?
Clearly we've got some subjective concept in mind for the word "morality". Perhaps morality is something like beauty and therefore it is in the eye of the beholder. We should bear in mind that when someone says that morality is objective, that person does not agree that the word "morality" means the same thing that we use that word to mean. They're not confused over what is objective versus what is subjective, they're not misusing the word "objective", then misusing the word "morality" by using it to refer to something objective. They're probably not referring to the Eiffel tower, but they're referring to something objective, and they'd be happy to clarify that "morality" exists regardless of what anyone's opinion of it happens to be.
@@Ansatz66 >> They are so misusing the word "objective".
If no humans existed, would "morality" still exist?
No. Therefore "morality" is subjective.
It's true that everyone has their own moral code (which is subject to them), but that doesn't make "morality" objective."'Morality" is basically an opinion.
Look up "objective" in the dictionary, please.
@@1derb0y "If no humans existed, would 'morality' still exist?"
That depends on what we think the word "morality" refers to. What do you think morality refers to?
"No. Therefore 'morality' is subjective."
A thing doesn't have to be subjective just because it cannot exist without humans. Digital watches also wouldn't exist if humans did not exist, but that doesn't mean digital watches are subjective.
"'Morality' is basically an opinion."
The people who say that morality is objective have something very different in mind when they use the word "morality". They're not talking about an opinion.
"Look up 'objective' in the dictionary, please."
Clearly when someone says "objective morality" there is a problem due to those two ideas conflicting, but either one of those ideas could be the source of the problem. Why should we assume that the person who said that is getting the word "objective" wrong rather than getting the world "morality" wrong? The meaning of the word "morality" is a topic of great controversy. There is no controversy over the meaning of the word "objective".
@@Ansatz66 >> Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. It is basically an opinion. My moral code may be different from yours. If you're using "morality" another way to mean something else, you're using it wrong.
Something objective exists regardless of opinion. Objective = object. Something real, tangible.
Morality is subjective and anything else is merely word games and playing fast and loose with your definitions.
@@1derb0y "Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper."
Not every differentiation is an opinion. For example, there's the differentiation of various densities of fluid within a centrifuge that allows us to separate dense fluids from light fluids. We can also differentiate various strengths of acid by titration. Before we decide whether morality is an opinion or something objective, we need to determine whether there is an objective basis for this differentiation. Can we differentiate proper actions from improper actions by something measurable? On what basis do we differentiate proper from improper?
For example, maybe instead of just arbitrarily labelling things a proper or improper on a whim, it could be that morality is more about differentiating actions on the based of how much harm those actions cause, or how much those actions benefit people. Aren't harm and benefit objective and measurable?
That quote you used at the end could have been enough without the first 24 minutes of the video. Still fun to watch though.
Equivocations upon equivocations, on both sides. Both sides seem to be talking past each other, misunderstanding what is meant by "standard".
@nephyrias
*Are our sensory halucinations always about real objects in reality?
I love this. You drive on the idea that mankind has the ability to be 'good' and 'moral' without god and it's articulated well.
Oh, no! Now I have to place yet another subscription on my list. Simply outstanding. Very well thought out. Truly analytical and uncompromising. I'm a simple armchair philosopher and this video appears to encapsulate everything needed to refute any of the arguments made for celestial objective standards of morality. This guy is a danger to nonsense and ignorance.
@Hexdoll
I have not argued that everyones moral knowledge is equivalent to mine. I argued that human's share a realm of innate knowledge about morality.
Nothing about that definitions excludes different cultures from behaving in different ways. In fact, I have gone into great length explaining variation of morality between cultures and I am quite sure you have even commented on those videos.
TBS, I think there are a few objective values for conscious beings that come about during the course of their lives. One example is self-consistency--
Stimulus during a being's existence causes them to value certain things over others.
Lets attempt to assume that they do not value self-consistency.
However, maximizing any value is improved by some consistent effort.
Therefore, self-consistency is something they will be compelled to value.
Great moral philosophy with presentation to match! Where has this channel been hiding? :D
Subbed.
@AtheistTower I am not sure what Stephen Hawking's personal position regarding the existence of a deity has to do with statements about heaven and hell. You stated that atheist's make the claim that there is no heaven or hell, and I would disagree. They merely reject theistic claims that there is one. We have no evidence for such locations and therefore no reason to believe they exist. Oh, and Stephen Hawking just recently called heaven a fairytale, since he is the measure of logic, I guess.
@othellopiano Yes, I'm actually planning on doing another follow-up to that. So if you wanted to wait, I wouldn't blame you.
the whole abrahamic tradition is based on god lying to abraham.
attributing "honesty" to god as a key attribute is just laughable.
+Altorin It was important for TB to pick an example that had both an immoral act, and an immoral intention. You could at least pretend god was lying to Abraham for the greater good. Not so with the 2 Thess example.
Colter Hawkstetler
you can't say that God is Honest when the whole tradition behind the major Monotheistic religions is based on an act of dishonesty. That was my point.
Law is about preserving order and w.e authoritative hierarchy that culture happens to rely on. It overlaps with the ethical tendencies of that society, but the two are not indistinguishable. Law could be preserved even if a society was entirely nihilistic.
But of course, for moral subjectivism to be useful, it hinges on people being similar enough to enable voluntary compromises(Which again is an objective fact), which seems to be very easy to achieve for humans. So even subjective morality has objective constraints related to how it can play out in a given system of agents.
EPIDEMIC 2020?!?!?! ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS
I was thinking the same shit. What the hell is going on here
@RuinSonic
Occam's razor can point to a wrong conclusion. However, we should apply Occam's razor to this issue because 1) it's the most useful methodology available to determine what we believe is true, and 2) because consistency demands it since we apply Occam's razor to everything else, and have no logical justification to make an exception for this issue.
I'm interested if we follow the Argument further past the "Does god determine what's good", and let's assume he's referencing some standard of good outside himself.
Is that source not itself arbitrary?
@GrudgyDiablo Did you intend to say "thorough?"
taking life might have some basis as a correct thing to do, if you can restore
life or give life back. i think thats logical. but you cant really un-ring the bell in
so many occasions. having regrets simply doesnt make anything right.
@FatLingon true, but why aim artillery at sparrows?
@darkxblue13 his real name is Scott Clifton. Hes in the series "The bold and the beautiful":
@nephyrias
I am not arguing that value his hardwired into our minds, that is a strawman of my position.
I am arguing that we are hardwired to recognize objective value exists.
Similarly, we use our senses to recognize that reality exists.
The senses themselves are subjective, but the things we sense are objective.
@Epydemic2020
i think the analogy holds, as a color blind person would not hold that something is objective X color as it is meaningless to them, hence making color a subjective reality as it is contingent on the sight of the subject.
@shotinthedark90 But as I explained in the video, God does *not* account for those values.
woot first post :P love the videos man keep it up
The end of your videos are always fantastic.
Can you recommend a book that discusses everything you are talking about in this video?
Love your vids man. Sorry to just be stumbling upon them for the first time today. This is the third one I've watched and with the 'rona virus out there roaming around, I reckon I'll have the rest of them watched in a week. I just gotta offer one pedantic critique: eu-thy-phro. 3 syllables :) All the best to ya mate!
Amazing series so far :D
@25:15 I suspect he's going to respond by saying neither of those options are true & that God both values human life & is still acting morally. I questioned Epy on his judge analogy, & unless I misunderstood, he justifies all actions God does by saying that when God kills or lies, he does it with a higher knowledge than we have & was ultimately for the greater good even if we can't see that result. Regardless I think the answer is a cop out, & even if true would be the work of a VERY flawed God
what i think becomes evident when watching these videos is that we all have different morals (no two Christians even have identical morals) but we develop our morals (ie. they change over time) in the same way.
the main difference is that after developing those morals the religious like to validate and give them precedence/authority by declaring that they are divinely mandated (ie. they shoe-horn a god into their morals).
Theoretical Bullshit is smart and I love it
0:36 Wtf their username was epidemic2020. Talk about foreshadowing 😂
If "maximizing health, happiness and well-being" is the metric for moral behavior, then building cities or living in them (and thereby contributing to their perpetuation) is immoral, because it has been shown that people living in small towns are happier than those living in cities. Here intent is a crucial factor: if I do not *intend* to harm others by living in a city, or shopping at Walmart, is it still immoral? What if the rapist's intent is to punish women he feels deserve it?
6:28, I brought up the same objection to Epydemic2020 in his comment section over that line.
glad I'm not alone.
Wow man, flawless! :D
So young and at the same level as Sam Harris and Stephen Fry.
Thx for upload and keep up the good work.
Greetzz
@JEJMDTD I am not talking about the "soul" I am talking about conscience.
"Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. ... In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human does things that go against his/her moral values..."
I also have not mentioned Hitler. You used a fallacy and the name of that fallacy is "Reductio ad Hitlerum". Technically this is the name.