Rationality Rules - Debunked
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2018
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: teespring.com/stores/cosmicsk...
To anybody who supports (or even considers supporting) my channel monetarily, thank you. I am naturally grateful for any engagement with my work, but it is specifically people like you that allow me to do what I do, and to do so whilst avoiding sponsorship.
-------------------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------------------
I've enjoyed discussing morality with Stephen ever since our first video where we talked about Sam Harris' Moral Landscape (link below). Recently, Stephen produced a video summarising his overall views on morality, and this is my response.
-------------------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------------------
Stephen's video: • My Views On Morality (...
Moral Landscape discussion: • My Problem With Sam Ha...
Hume's is/ought problem: plato.stanford.edu/entries/hu...
Kant's hypothetical and categorical imperatives: plato.stanford.edu/entries/ka...
----------------------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
---------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 2 // PRX vs G2 | EDG vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T5j2XVcDFs0/mqdefault.jpg)
Diss track coming soon
better have a degrasse cameo or im disliking
Have Rachel Oates in the background doing gangsta hand movements. Maybe even let Aron Ra and Lord Dillahunty step in with their own diss
I look forward to it
What's your problem with Jordan Peterson?
🔥
Top 10 anime betrayals
How?
With a flair of character depth, too:
"Et tu Brute?"
"I had to. It's you, or REASON!"
"NANI?!"
I died 😂😂😂
Seen it coming since season 3 tbh
Ryuuga waga teki wo kureu!
(Hanzo)
That escalated reasonably.
You two are truly an inspiration for starting and continuing a dialogue without losing a good relationship.
thatd be hard considering atheism cannot account for reason
@@xxxmmm3812 How you defend that statement? I would imagine that appealing to an authority practices less reason than having to base morality on objective existence. All they have "faith" in is the need for self consistent arguments and a need for demonstratively true "facts".
@@xxxmmm3812 Because basing reason in a god no one has evidence for is an actual alternative? That would seem unreasonable to me.
Lmfao
bold of you to assume I want to survive
I can tell you for a fact that you seek pleasure.
@@nawpal896 Bold of you to assume that @Mother Nature finds pleasure in living
Username checks out
Pleasure to watch, my friend - great video. I'll do my best to respond within the month. Keep being awesome, Alexander!
I thought it's just Alex, not Alexander O.o
That comeback will be good. I'll be waiting
I personally believe he got you on this one buddy. Looking forward to your reply though.
Rationality Rules Round Earth - Debunked
hmmm - your "axiomatic ought" statements look awfully like religious arguments.. after all, most religious types believe their "facts" through "axiomatic ought" as thier basis
This is a fascinating and really valuable public dialogue. It's fantastic to watch both of you model a more substantive form of discourse.
-Cheers!
I second that. I am subscribed to both Cosmic Sceptic and Rationality Rules (and you, of course) and I find this specific topic absolutely fascinating. Even if nothing else comes of it, it is a welcome change to see two brilliant people argue if there actually _can_ be objective morals rather than see some theist just assert that they exist without any deeper thought going into it.
What I was thinking while watching this video was that it helps elevate the discourse enornously.
This kind of debate is what it's all about!
@Trolltician If you read carefully you might notice that I wrote that it is what I _see._ If they actually ever try to demonstrate the existence of objective morals beyond really shallow reasoning I have yet to find examples of that, but I can't claim to have seen _everything_ every apologist has ever done. My tolerance for mindless repetition has its limits, you know.
@Trolltician Another attempt at strawmanning so soon? You should really work on your repertoire, little troll. :D
My wife recently sent me to the supermarket...she said: " bring home one liter of milk...and if they have eggs..then bring 6!"...as a good husband I brought home 6 liters of milk!
You did everything right! Your wifey ought to be glad to have such a logical minded husband.
Chunky.... I should imagine you got a little treat that evening.
Are you a programmer?
@@domsjuk The fact that you spelled "wife" in such a way made your comment very cringey.
Lol 😂 Oh yes.
Damn we can all agree that Steven has oughtism
ThaLigua999 I appreciate this comment a lot.
@@Iigua
Your comment is in fact so good, I _ought_ to give it a like
Viktor the victor you can’t derive that ought from that is, smh
@@flightographist very oughtfortunate
Took me a while
An earnest discussion with logical arguments between intellectuals? Bah, do a rap battle!
Sad that almost nobody can do this anymore. Most people get "offended" when you u dont comply with commonly held beliefs... So strange.
intellectual? rationality rules? eh.... I mean his knowledge of the theory of evolution is shoddy. and that's coming from someone who only got the basics. been a long time since I've seen his vids, so. can't say what he did wrong. i'd have to look it up.
@@NVera-dz9zw it's definitely not. but seeing how he builds his conclusions on it, if he was an intellectual he would either avoid it or have proper knowledge. take his statement in this vid for example. the humans ought to live in accordance to their evolution. well, if we always did that, then we wouldn't have evolved to eat meat. so disproving his own argument with his own argument.
@@NVera-dz9zw no idea. this is what he used as an example of a moral absolute in this video.
@@theMRsome12 Sorry, but can you explain how your conclusion makes sense to you? Animals always live according to their evolution, because their evolution is what shapes them, and they still evolve and change even though they live according to their evolution.
Nice! A new rationality rules vid-
e-oh
That was exactly my reaction. Then I was like, "Wait a second! What kind of sorcery is this?"
Can't say I was disappointed though.
Same, lol
It's like after seeing the youtuber name after feeling that title sounds fishy, then I went like O_O, what sorcery is this?
Delwin James UWU
That's exactly what I thought as well.
"This is a confusing topic."
Literally the only thing I understood in this video.
P1: I ought to defend Rationality Rules.
P2: Cosmicskeptic has a point.
Therefore I ought to stand aside.
therefore rationality rules debunked even though I don't like it.
Fantastic that we, in this age of technology, have two such bright young men furthering this type of argumentation, in a way that only years ago would have never been possible. So proud of these two and very happy to watch their progression.
Alex you're a savage for this title lol
Quantum Skeptic *SAVAGERY INTENSIFYING
don't worry, Alex will get debunked
Not on this, he is absolutely correct, there is no such thing as objective morality.
Sir John Johns "Rationality Rules Debunked Debunked" :D
The Illuminati I'm a bit confused on this. Wouldn't you agree that empathy objectively exists, except for in psychopaths/sociopaths?
Wait... for a second I thought this was a Rationality Rules video lmao
Amateur Professional I would of if it wasn't for cosmic sceptic logo next to it.
I saw the logo and thought “Aaawwww shit!”
Same
You now have to watch him get picked apart
Same here
If you change one of the premise to “I hold the believe I ought to prevent my child from suffering “ the conclusion shouldn’t still be “I ought to vaccinate my child “ but rather “ If I want to uphold my beliefs I ought to vaccinate my child” . Minor difference but it seems a little more honest
I agree with your semantic argument.
Many scientific studies show that the best way to KEEP your child from suffering is to refuse to vaccinate them and live Vegan instead, however.
Colin Wright Don‘t forget the absolute scienific consensus about how feeding children under the age of 3 is a serious health risk and they should instead be left sleeping next to crystals of a structure corresponding to their zodiac sign so they can absorb the energies. This also offsets the aura deprivation from full moons!
Sure, but finding a certain universality in human evolution causing moral behavior and thought would be finding a common goal, and working to achieve that commonly held goal being the label "morality"
We can say "the evolutionary purpose of life is to survive long enough to reproduce" "humans are life" "therefore the evolutionary purpose of humans is to survive long enough to reproduce."
Skeptically stating "yes but maybe the 'ought' should be mass suicide and we are wrong to be informed about this" or you can give countless examples of why humans would want to stay alive if they couldnt reproduce, etc.
But the drive remains the same. I agree with RR on this topic simply because this argument presented is semantic at best.
@@BFSearle But why should the evolutionary purpose be the purpose we actively follow?
Actually there is a very slight gap there- the assumption that you ought to do what you want. The conclusion should instead be “in order to uphold my beliefs I must vaccinate my child” this subtle difference is necessary to achieve a deductive argument.
I've been studying Philosophy myself and doing Religious Studies at A-Level for 2 years now.
It's really exciting to be able to watch your videos now, almost a year later, and be able to explain really well and be able to think about both sides!!
I love Philosophy, please keep promoting it because it's amazing
I think that your repetition is necessary as I needed it myself to come to grips with what you are proposing. I agree with your argument - and I want us all to think more about this. Thanks for all you do Alex! And I know Stephen will be happy to respond as you two are great friends who are honest and always are seeking the truth!
I was on board halfway through the video, but still didn't mind the repetition. It actually made me appreciate how carefully he balances his scripts, as so to keep EVERYONE engaged.
That's Alexandria to you, Bitch.
This is the problem I sort of had when I watched the original video. You're points are really well said and fair, I love that you guys can have these logical debates in such a friendly manner. Very refreshing and a very compelling video!
You explain things so well. I really struggled with RRs video but then I came here and I think I've wrapped my head around it.
Many thanks from a lowly laborer.
Thanks, Alex. I for one needed the repetition. Looking forward to more.
It is self-evident that blue is not the best color.
Because purple is the best color.
Of course purple is the best color, the real debate lies within what exact shade of purple is the best?
Colors don't even exist outside the brain, so this argument is flawed..
What does that have to do with morality?
@Aprameya Bharadwaj ohno, of course not. However, the results are just radiation. The fact that our brain finds it usable to distinguish this radiation from radiation with other wavelengths to such a degree that it gets its own visual representation in something that we have come to call color, and in this case blue, is something completely different from the fact that radiation with different wavelengths exist.
Aprameya Bharadwaj blue is an inbred color. Are you from Alabama? If not, purple is superior in every way.
When you have notifications on for both channels and your initially confused who uploaded.
Thank you for this. After watching Steven's video I had felt there was a flaw in his argument but I was having difficulty explaining it myself.
This is brilliant! Both of your points are absolutely inspiring!
I've never made a TH-cam video before, but I just spent an hour writing out a comment, so I'm going to take some time to play with axiomatic oughts and organize my thoughts before I pump out a response video. I see this as fascinating mixture of kantian ethics and social contract theory.
Cant wait to develop this more.
Yea! A new Cosmic Skeptic video!
Having not watched Stephen's video, but being familiar with his channel I was shocked to see his argument here. So evidently flawed for precisely the reasons you pointed out that I'm genuinely amazed he went through the entire video making process without spotting it.
I love this ongoing dialogue between you two. It's both entertaining and informative. Keep it up!
Amazing to listen to, thank you so much for your thoughts. The depth was remarkable.
Cosmic Skeptic and Rationality Rules are both excellent channels. Always insightful and informative.
You know, I'm in my mid-forties and I must say that I am so impressed with this younger generation. My son, Stephen, Alex and of course Rachel Oates feel me with such optimism for the future. Keep up the good work you guys. And Alex, don't neglect your studies for this channel, as wonderful as it is, you possess a keen intellect and more study will serve you well. :-)
You guys are both amazing! I've been thinking a lot about morality and free will lately and it's great to observe other points of view. Thank you!
I very, very much love both of your channels. You are remarkably intelligent people and I love to see you arguing about these complicated subjects :)
I was just thinking of you! So glad you uploaded. :)
And I was thinking of you Emily. Isn't that cute ?
Kinda creepy, actually.
Samuel Zadiorzi Sanders Exactly, that proves my point, you can't have it both ways. Emily thinking of a guy on TH-cam is just as creepy as me thinking of her. We are all strangers to each other. If you claim otherwise, well then, that's what I call double standards.
Actually special paradise, I thought it was sweet that you wrote that you had been thinking of me, but now that I know you were just using me to make a point I feel sad and even slightly betrayed.
@@specialparadise
I think the difference is that she was probably interested to see what Alex posted next, yet why the interest in Emily? I could tell the point you were making, and I thought to myself that it doesn't seem like they know each other.
axiomatic is=there it is, see for yourself. axiomatic ought=because I said so, shut up
It was a very clear video Alex, well articulated and easy to understand.
I did somewhat have to reason myself into wanting to survive. Not entirely though, because it’s very hard, so luckily I got some of that life spirit back after puberty.
You're finally back! Great video as per usual. :)
Liked it just for the title.
Oh Alex... We can always trust on you to make already very confusing concepts even more confusing.
Keep up the great work, both of you.
I really enjoy both of your philosophical insights and it helps me think critically about complex issues.
That was an excellent video. Your arguments were clear and followed logically from one step to the next. I'm going to add this video to my list for future use when I'm trying to explain the importance of ensuring the soundness of premises before building more complex arguments on top of them.
The idea of "ought" or 'should' premises is interesting. I can imagine there being a handful of specifically constructed premise patterns where one could reasonably get from a 'should' premise to a 'should' conclusion, but in general 'should' premises just seem to beg for premises of their own to back them up.
I'm still not sure on what place on the scale I wish to perch but I appreciate your balanced and relaxed response to Steven. I'm a fan of you both. A world in which there are considerate people with varied, nuanced and informed opinions on interesting and sometimes painfully complex problems is the place for me.
This is a fairly 'oughtistic' discussion
I ought to give you a like, as that was smooth.
Some youtuber must learn from u.... How humble approach u take to criticise others... Fellow youtuber.... Think club.. Must learn.... From u
9:00 I know several people that had to reason their way into an "ought to survive". Not after a severe depression but really from the get go. There are people that have to reason themselves into wanting to survive.
So, a friend told me about your channel. I misread her recommendation as "ComicSkeptic," though. You definitely argued your points well. And, I also try to keep in mind the possibility that I'm wrong.
Anyway, subscribed.
Before hearing your rebuttals, I had similar objections to the points he made, in fact your objections were almost identical to the ones I had, which makes me feel justified in my own - YAY confirmation bias!
Nice video :3
Of course there isn't an objective morality.
Morality is a human (or at least mammal) concept, and objective reality exists outside the subjective experience of organisms.
If you want to live by a moral code, you have to decide on it subjectively.
Idan Zamir
It’s not RR’s assertion that there is a morality that necessarily applies external to us, or that applies to all things in the universe, in the way that a theist might argue. He is talking about a morality based on the facts of human conscious experience. If you haven’t watched his videos, please do. Hopefully he can elucidate this point.
@@michaelrch Then I think I've misunderstood his definition of morality, can you point me to a video of his about that?
Idan Zamir
Sure. It’s
th-cam.com/video/tJSLvTN7pys/w-d-xo.html
You might also want to look at Sam Harris talking about this. Stephen gets some of his ideas from Harris’ book The Moral Landscape.
@@michaelrch Now I watched a couple of his videos.
I strongly disagree with him.
I mean, the Nazi leadership felt that they "ought" to make their race strong and powerful, and it does have a very strong evolutionary explanation. no less then a mother feeling that she "ought" to reduce her child's suffering.
I think RR's view on morality is a bit naive (I hope we can discuss this)
In the end, I sort of feel like the very concept of "morality" is a bit absurd, I would try to elaborate but I can't quite put it into words (sorry about my English btw).
Idan we are in trouble because so few understand this basic fact.
Alex, I was lost at first but with the way you kept explaining your point, and also putting it in print, I was finally able to catch on to what you are saying. I love you and Stephen both. I found him thru your videos and follow you both 'religiously' (a little humor there). Both of you guys are far smarter than I am but most of the time you are able to explain things in such a way that I can understand your point. And every once in a while it's just lost on me, haha. But that's okay! I think you are our next Hitchens so I am sure you are going to have an amazing career and I look forward to watching, that career blossom. Take care my friend on the other side of the pond!
Thank goodness for your new video
I love you both!
2:27 I love that their eyes are at the same place after the cut
People tend to look into the lens of their camera whenever they’re speaking to it.
I think you explained your points beautifully in this video - really well done
I know this is unrelated to the video content, but I am very curious as to what kind of research/methods of learning + education have enabled you to become so articulated and concise in your expression of opinions and facts. I have started a chapter of the Secular Student Alliance at my high school which will be starting up soon, and through a combination of this and general life experience to come , I feel very unprepared in my ability to healthily debate and educate politely but frankly as you do. Thank you very much, and keep up the fantastic work!
Alright! Two people I like having a very intelligent discussion. I'm excited to open my mind up to whatever Steven's argument is.
Skeptic fight!!
It's a "fight" between a true open minded truth seaking skeptic (Alex) and a disingenuous agenda driven ideolog (Stephen)...as illustrated in this video. Stephen could learn a lot from Alex, but he won't, cause he's more interested in winning than learning.
This video is great, clear and concise. I've been exploring Hume's guillotine and this cleared up some misconceptions I had. Thank you
I dont think someone has yet impacted my Philosophy as strong as you do and i dont mean i just think you have good ideas in this Toipic it is more that you have sometimes actually provided a point of view on things i have thought about before that i have not seen before, especially in this Moral department, that i have been thinking about for years now, so I was very convinced on my believes. However you managed to shook my Conviction to the Core with your Videos regarding this Topic and made me rethink my point of view and for that I'm very thankful to you.
PS: I dont mean I agree with you, im quite not sure about that xD
I have to agree with you because there are suicidal people who believe they ought not to survive and there are anti-social parents who would rather increase suffering for their children than reduce it. And if everyone doesn't hold the same belief the belief also cannot be axiomatically true. Thus there is no objective belief that can lead to an objective morality
Yea, I was thinking the same thing, if there are people out there that think that killing people is fun and people who ought to suicide, that means that survival isn't an axiom and it isn't self evident after all, because there are other references that influence it, and axiomatic facts cannot be influenced by people's opinions and desires, so it cannot be axiomatic after all, unless everyone completely and blindly agrees that life is valuable and we should survive no matter what, then there can't be any axiomatic moral facts.
I'm not sure on my opinions on this topic but I would have to say "exceptions confirm the rule" to your examples.
They are clearly not the norm (and harmful to the species as a whole) so this divergence could show us that there is a norm which subjective beliefs may deviate from.
I just feel like subjective beliefs don't necessarily disprove the existence of an objective morality as they might simply be misguided.
@@josie955 I think the problem here is that morality is man made, and everything that is affected by human behavior cannot be objective, since it relies on how they behave and how they reason, and you can't be objective about something like that
and I get your point, you're saying that those people who assume that killing or torturing kids is a good thing are only a minority, and they deviated from the "objective" morality that most people believe in, but you need to provide some evidence for that, evidence that prove that morality is indeed objective, and only some few people deviated from it, I mean, it could be the other way around right?
+Josie the way you describe it dosent help your statement. Its been a while I have watched the video and I am forgotten a lot of the points made by Cosmic Skeptic, so I will just add in my points.
First of all: Morality cannot be objective because its a man made concept. Yes, It had come to human race through evolution but that does not mean, we dont have the power to manipulate our thoughts and thus manipulate our sense of morality. If a child is taught from a very young age, that killing animals is wrong, then to that child, thats a moral he or she is going to grow up with. However if a child is not taught that and eats a omnivorous diet, then to that child, it is a confusing subject. To that child it becomes unclear whether killing animals is good or not. In fact some of them might even grow up with the moral that humans are superior to animals and so we must kill them for food.
If morality was objective, either both these kids would know that it is immoral to kill animals from birth, or would know it is moral to kill animals for our own good.
I think you can only prove objective morality if and only if its in man's innate nature, and is withing everyone.
The definition of objectivity is basically to explain something that isnt affected by humans but affect all humans.
It would be an objective fact that all humans have blood. However you cannot say it is objective that all humans have sight. ( because there are people who are born without sight) and even though there is a veryyyy small minority of people who are born blind, it does not mean that they "deviate from objectivity" because objectivity does not depend upon majority or minority, it applies to all.
And now, ad for my previous examples, even though you may argue that abusive parents or depressed people are a "deviation from objectivity" it simply cannot be true, because objective concepts does not depend on majority or minority and affects all. And so these people, with different brains, have a different sense of morality, or even may not have a sense of morality in some cases. Thus, objective morality cannot be proved
The exceptions that prove the rule.
Good analysis. I still think Stephen's model is a useful way of navigating morality, even if the "axiomatic oughts" are just universal beliefs. Though goals like human survival/flourishing and prevention of suffering aren't objective "fact," they are about as close you can get with moral statements, and can practically be treated as fact since they are and will always be universally agreed upon regardless of culture, genetics, etc.
"since they are and will always be universally agreed upon regardless of culture, genetics, etc."
I strongly disagree. There were times at the ancient greeks, when young boys ought to find old men to have a relationship. Today not only young boys shouldn't ought to have relationships with old men, but it is against the law and will get the old men in heavy trouble if doing so.
But in fact almost everyone will agree today it is an "axiomatic ought" not to have relationships between young boys and old men. It is still not an objective thruth.
I love the back and forths you two have on this. About to watch RR's response video. The only thing is that I don't think people "believe they ought to do x" I think it's not a belief but a want/will/desire. It's just "I want to survive" and "I don't want to suffer" just like it is "I want to eat that chocolate" and not "I believe I ought to eat that chocolate". I don't believe I ought to. I just want to.
Either way, it's still an is rather than an ought. But just a difference in terms of desire vs belief.
This thought also kind of ties in to the video you made on free will, for me. I just will what I will. I'm not free to will something else. I currently will to survive.
Brilliant deduction of Moral reasoning. I agree with all your points.
I did get lost a few times, but you managed to explain questions I had, a few minutes later. Well done
Some times it feels unfair that one is only allowed to give one "like" , this discussion deserves houndreds.
I'm honestly not sure why this debate matters or what it would change in actuality (instead of just in theory where everybody would agree on objective morality, for example - which I doubt very much would happen as we don't live among wholly rational peers).
This is/ought thing seems like an objection that could just be bypassed by agreeing on a goal, basing decisions on objective morality and going from there (a la Dillahunty).
I do appreciate the discussion, though.
It's almost as if these two are friends and respect each other. The video was as usual clear, well pointed, and quality. Not much to say as you normally present in the same high standard. Did not disappoint.
This is truly what it means to be a skeptic. You guys are awesome, so much respect.
What did Ken ever do to you?
@@anikdey with public money no less!
You don't want to know.
The HadoKen!
Look, nobody’s saying we should hang Dane Cook. I’m just saying you can’t prove that we shouldn’t hang Dane Cook.
Imagine a sociopath giving you this lecture as they're carving you up lol
Psychopath
A sociopath is a psychopath
A psychopath carves ppl up
A sociopath carves ppl up
@@Diamondraw4Real A sociopath CAN be a psychopath but a Psychopath can never be Sociopath. Anyone is capable of doing such things, however a psychopath is more likely to commit such things, no?
Your profile picture is disturbing.
@@TheOneLiliad mine? You some kind of coward? Afraid of people that don't meet your standards of what a man or a woman are? That would be really creepy of you, I hope you're talking about someone else's picture
I'm starting to think I'll never see the day where you say something I don't fully agree with. It's great to have an entire channel of videos that pretty much perfectly put into words your own way of thinking
I am truly enjoying this discourse the two of you are engaging in.
NOICE
Morals have been established to be subjective, but I would like to present my argument for the opposition to be desirable, and share my personal philosophy.
Premise1 - Morals are subjective.
Premise2 - One's morals will contradict with morals of others.
Premise3 - One cares most about one's own morals.
Premise4 - One can negotiate moral contracts with others.
Conclusion: One should negotiate contracts that most comprehensively let one be true to one's morals.
In english:
Morals are subjective, in conflict with morals of others, individual's morals are of most importance to oneself, and they can be negotiated of with other parties.
In conclusion all morals of all people cannot be in effect at the same time, but individuals should strive to negotiate contracts allowing their own way of life to the maximum.
This is why I advocate for the least bureacracy, smaller bodies and areas of governance and the most individual freedom a society can handle while remaining stable and prosperous.
Alex, I'm absolutely loving your arguments regarding morality. You mentioned a few videos ago that you'd be discussing whether or not the lack of objective morality means we should be nihilists. I hope you're still planning on doing that video. Keep up the great work.
thanks Alex. As one of the people who did need you to repeat your argument a few times, in different ways, I was happy. Got there in the end.
Thank you for finally verbalizing what I was trying to describe to myself. I knew when I was watching Rationality Rules do this, he kept referring to how he felt, and I know that when you refer to how you feel it can't be objective. Thank you for finally describing it in a way that I can now use to describe to somebody else. What say you Mr. Woodward? Will there be a retraction video? Dun Dun Dun.
I dont get why this is such a contentious issue. If you and another person were stuck on an island and wanted to figure out how to navigate the world together and what the best way is if you value your life and away from suffering THEN you can see which actions lead to that objectively and which dont hence what we call morality. Simple. Now multiply that by 8 billion.. I dont agree with him here
Right. The key words there are "if you value life." once you set a goal then there are objective moves you can make to reach that goal, however, the goal itself, well being, is subjective. Well-being is only important to us be cause that's how we feel, but that does not mean that well-being is objectively important in the universe.
Imagine a game of chess. Once you set up the goal of capturing the king then there are objective moves towards that goal. But the game and the goal of the game of self are only important if we say it's important. The goal of the game is still an arbitrary thing.
@@devonlevy718 well yeah that's what everyone is already saying. I don't see anyone saying values or goals are objective by themselves. that. makes no coherent sense they are by definition a subjective idea but have objective ways at achieving that goal or value. I also don't think anyone said well being is objectively important to the universe. It is objectively important to most humans and even to those to whom it isn't, they die and dont pass off genes. A genocidal individual still thinks his system is moral which is based on well being even if it doesn't lead to that goal.
Maybe I'm having trouble understanding your objection then. Yes it seems obvious that when two people are on an island that they would look out for their well-being rather than discuss the implications of the morality of their actions. And generally speaking I don't think people care too much or discuss it too often. But for those who do and are interested if only for entertainment value, then there is a lovely discussion to be had. I don't think it's quite contentious. We generally use that when we describe something that will be lead into a heated argument as opposed to a civilized discussion. But that's just an opinion.
I cannot see morality being objective; the reason for this is always that I pull myself away from the "human" side of what we "want and need"
for example, someone feels they ought to survive, but what does that matter to an alien species that needs that person not to survive in order to protect themselves? Which is truly moral? They feel they ought to survive and prosper, where as the human feels the same, even though their "oughts" are in conflict. Therefore they can't be axiomatic, as they are not undeniable, nor facts, because they are contradicted by one another.
yes exactly.. i alwasy think about this..
*Therefore they can't be axiomatic, as they are not undeniable, nor facts, because they are contradicted by one another.*
Even if they didn't contradict they wouldn't be facts. The "alien species" example you brought up is a good rhetorical point, but not much more than that; someone could always say that for some """objective""" reason human needs are more important. It wouldn't be "illogical", it's just that very few people would say so, so you can win an argument this way.
Kody A. Maybe that’s why we can only have human morals. And maybe our morals are inherently selfish.
@daw kot That's not an objective reason if the reason can be disputed. It's a subjective reason. You better fuckin' believe that a member of the alien species would call that bullshit out instantly, if someone said for some reason their life was less important than some other species' life whom they have no connection to.
Well said. We can see something similar in smaller scale even today without aliens. How important to us are survival oughts of tropical rainforest animals?
What if our organisms produces some enzyme which can be used to cure aliens from some disease that decimate them or something like that?
Can't believe you've made it to 200k. Well done man
Great video loved it.
How to prove that morality is objective:
1. Claim some oughts are axiomatic
2. Realise that axiomatic basically means objective
3. Ta-da
nothing is that simple, it does not appear to me to be objectively morally wrong to abort a fetus up to a few months of gestation, but to others it is, this is why philosophy is dumb, humans are chaotic and irrational, and philosophy tries to pretend otherwise
If you want to build a stable bridge, then there are objectively right ways to do so, based on our understanding of natural laws. If you want wellbeing and prosperity in our society, then there are objectively right answers to that question. Once you specify your parameters, the only limit is your knowledge.
This conversation is stuck on WHY should we want wellbeing and prosperity. WHY should we build skyscrapers that won't fall? It's a dead end argument. Once you have a goal then the answer is objective NOT subjective.
Whose wellbeing?
*Once you have a goal then the answer is objective NOT subjective.*
The problem is that people do and will always disagree about goals, and that you have asshats who won't put up with people for (relatively) minor ethical disagreements.
*Once you specify your parameters, the only limit is your knowledge.*
It's more complicated than that, right? Human behaviour, for example, is too complex to just "know" what's the best way to achieve your goal. You have to take a risk because you can be wrong, pretty much always.
But is the goal moral? What are the effects of building skyscrapers? Are there moral goals?
@@dawkot6955 there is a reason we call asshats asshats and psychopaths psychopaths. The argument then becomes ' morality is objective until people with disorders known for fucking with one's morality come along.' Why take into account the by definition fucked up morality of psychopaths. That's like saying it's subjectivd that humans have eyes because there are rare anomalies and birth defects.
are you saying there is just one right way to build a bridge??^^ yeah there are laws that will determine if the thing will hold but i dont think there is only one solution you can call the right one... there will be more and less stable ones...more practical and less practical ones...and beautiful to watch and not so beautiful to watch ones...... are you the one who says wich ones are right?^^ if there is the possibillity for an odd from an odd you agreeing to the one right way and no alternatives...i dont think this is something good to argue for^^
You Sir have a very big future in front of you ! An absolute pleasure to listen to you talk !
This will be a very short response video by Stephen. Something along the lines of... "Damn, you're right."
You two are awesome. Seriously. Watching you build arguments, letting them bounce back and fourth between you is perhaps the most perfect representation of philosophy in action on TH-cam.
Thank you.
Spot on Alex. An unusual lapse in logic from Stephen. Still, we all make mistakes in our desperate need to make morality mathematically feasible-not gonna happen. At the end of the day, there is no good and bad, just happy and sad. It's totally subjective, but that's Okay, just as long as enough of our whims and desires coincide. Enlogicment awaits.
What's the difference between mathematic axioms and moral axioms then?
1 + 1 = 2 everytime, but your good maybe my bad. Morals can never be axiomatic-they are merely tribal conventions. That said, if we share the same subjective views about what is good and bad, then maybe we should hang out some time. Enlogicment awaits.
@@stephenberry3769 2+2=4 only because everyone agrees about that (well, most agree at least). To find moral axioms we only have to find on what almost all people agree, so we can construct moral system just as we construct mathematic of physics systems
Ted Archer see but there’s a basis of mathematics and physics there is no basis of morality other than human emotion/psychology which by definition is not objective
@@swordstrafe mathematics and physics is based on human understanding which is also not objective.
Steven doesn't understand axioms. The phrase "self-evident" is idiotic: an axiom is not meant to be some truth that is so obvious that it can't be questioned. Rather, it is a formal statement of an _assumption,_ often together with a definition. I assume that there exist objects called "points" and "lines" and I _assume_ they satisfy the axioms of plane geometry. This is not because those axioms are self-evident (indeed they don't work for geometry in curved spaces), but because I want to make progress and understand what follows from what.
Well put.
+ GoreQuill NachoVidal
*rape to spread our seed*
Probably doesn't work too well anyway judging by how few rapes there are (judging by victimization surveys). If they worked, more men would feel like it because it would be "in their genes".
+daw kot Rape works very well to spread seed. Having few rapes does not nullify my statement. There are so few rapes not because it does or does not produce pregnancy in females. There are so few rapes because we 1) have a moral system that says we should not do it 2) Have laws that make it illegal.
Go look at the crusades at what happened when the muslims conquered a territory....SPOILER ALERT...It got very rapey, like Bill Cosby with super Quaaludes.
You should learn to argue before disagreeing with me.
*Having few rapes does not nullify my statement.*
If rape was more effective than the alternative, males who were genetically predisposed to rape would spread their genes more effectively than the other males, so it would make sense to expect a super-majority of men today to have such predispositions.
*There are so few rapes because we 1) have a moral system that says we should not do it 2) Have laws that make it illegal.*
Where did these come from? Women didn't impose it on men. It didn't fall from the sky.
isodoublet Philosophers use a different definition of an axiom than mathematicians. And it is the meaning that historically preceded the mathematical definition of an axiom. For example, back in Euclid's time, the axioms and postulates were indeed 'self evident truths'. That is even the etymology of the word axiom.
Fantastic rebuttals. 100% agree with you...again.
I also like the candid and non-emotional presentation of your argument. It makes me want to think on it more as a plausibly true counter to steven's. Unlike recent events in his life where emotional outbursts created a deep wound in our community. Thank you.
I'm not a philosopher, but I think any old person can find reasons that would over ride Stephan's examples.
The "I ought to survive" is known to be over ridden by those who commit suicide.
The "Parents ought to prevent their children from suffering" is quite modern, but is still over ridden any time a punishment is handed out. Granted, willow switches are no longer used but mental anguish still occurs when the child's cell phone / playstation are confiscated. As a parent, there are many occasions when a child ought to suffer in order learn how to become a functioning member of society.
I would say that the "I ought to survive" is secondary to "I ought to reproduce". Individuals of quite a few species sacrifice their own lives in order to reproduce.
I'd also suggest that all creatures have the 'will to survive', even viruses that are exclusive and fatal to humans ...
P1: All creatures that have a innate fact-of-science will to survive ought to be allowed live out their natural life cycle
P2: viruses and bacteria that are 100% fatal to humans are creatures
- C: Viruses and bacteria that are 100% fatal to humans ought to be allowed to live out their natural life cycle of killing humans.
Placing the survival of humans about other creatures may be really convenient for humans, but a moral truth? Maybe by killing these bacteria will are committing a genocide of a much superior species of creature that may develop a billion years from now ... maybe a species so superior that it figures out a way to save all life on earth, including humans, from the inevitable death of the sun.
All Stephen is doing is saying his morals inform him on his morals ... that's fine, but it's still just deriving 'ought from an ought'.
@that guy because of the outcome of the opposite. No human life = all philosophical and moral concepts become 'zero'. You can't have an objectively or subjectively good chess move if no boards and pieces exist.
+David Landry
Why are you giving equal weighting to all beings, bacteria included? Do you think bacteria gets sad/hungry/depressed when it lacks nutrients? No? Do you think humans get sad/hungry/depressed when it lacks nutrients? Yes! Okay, therefor starving humans is more immoral than starving bacteria. The subjective experience of dying I imagine is also wildy different. Okay now dogs. Do you think dogs get depressed when they dont have the right to vote? What about Humans? Okay, so denying voting rights to humans is more bad than doing so to dogs.
David Howells Ight then “not every one has children”
Mate, have you heard of Kent Hovind? There are quite a lot of videos of him ""debunking"" evolution and atheism using nothing but strawmen-filled arguments, arguments from personal incredulity, ignorance, authority, and just overall fallacious generalizations. He's your typical Christian apologist and I'm not sure if you've done a video on him yet -- but if not, do consider checking him out. It's rather *interesting* to say the least.
When I first started watching you, when you were a mere fledgling TH-camr, I could follow your discourses fairly easily. Now I find I must concentrate much more, and constantly refer back to what you say to keep up with you. Also, the smoke coming out of my ears is slightly worrying.
They do say mental gymnastics like this scare the hell out of Alzheimers, so it should be worth it.
Great video!
Go as in depth as you want. The deeper the better......
It’s afternoon actually.
In your country
I mean it’s night where Alex lives, sooo
TheBaconBuizel I have social anxiety
Morality is subjective. Sad but true. Slavery was not immoral, but it is now. Why? Because humans became more empathetic and began to realize these other people aren't too different from me. The Universe is not ethical or concerned with morality. Humanity, in the interests of working together, are quite concerned with these things, and constantly change the parameters to improve our quality of life. That's it.
More of this. Follow you both, no idea what you are talking about usually but a great explanation for us plebs.
Awesome, thanks. You changed my views on the matter.
Never clicked on a video so fast.
ok so?
Fantastic that we, in this age of technology, have two such bright young men furthering this type of argumentation, in a way that only years ago would have never been possible. So proud of these two and very happy to watch their progression
some of your stuff is epic.sometimes i think you may may want to say the same words some one says but then changes them while using the same words then just then change the words just to the meaning the word but then have a belief about that word but then have a word.
You are very well spoken. I wish I spoke like you, especially when having a constructive debate with others.
Amazing videos by both people.
But simply in life, don't be a jerk and follow science and you're all set
I agree with Cosmic Skeptic morality is ultimately subjective. The best and the most accurate moral theory according to me would be a mix between Subjectivism and parts of Emotivism which both combined fit under the category of subjective morality. Objective morality can only exist if there is a God if not then morality must by necessity be subjective, all evidence show that.
Objective morality doesn't exist even with a god. The morality coming from the god would be its preference. The god is the subject. You can't have morality without a subject.
exiledfrommyself Of course you can. Sandardize Apologetics made a video "Response to Cosmic Skeptic" go check it out. Besides that subjective according to humans and subjective according to god doesnt mean the same thing, its a form of an equivocation fallacy.
Even if there was a god, morals would still be subjective, as they would be his subjective reasonings.
@@kingnevermore25 Nonsense. Morality is inherently subjective. It can not be independent of a mind. Even with a god there is a hierarchy of values and things the god would value and things the god wouldn't value just like with every other mind. It's all preferences.
I think Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics by Stefan Molyneux makes the best case/argument for objective morality.
Very well put and easy to understand.
I'm grabbing the popcorn! Can't wait for Stephen's rejoinder