At first I was afraid it would be too difficult for me since English is my third language. You explained it really good. Thank you. God bless you and your family. Love and peace to all.
I loved how you pointed out that moral facts are not dependent on humans. We are not perfect and and are still working toward having a better understanding of the world and reality we live in. Though some I know would seriously deny this and state we know more than enough already.
The only question I have is: who decides what is morally objectively correct? In science we can observe what is correct through our senses and calculations, because the universe decided that this is how things are. But when we’re talking about morality, how can we tell who’s interpretation of what’s right and wrong is correct? We really can’t because that’s just unrealistic, unless of course you’re religious. Morality is a social construct and therefore there can’t be any set rules for what is right and wrong. That’s why I believe it is a subjective matter
@@sage1520 No one, and that's the point. Moral facts and duties exist independent of humans. Humans are just trying to use reason and logic to infer what might be morally right and wrong. Morality is a rational enterprise.
@@animalcart4128 Morality is based on value judgements. Value judgements are not rational by the definition of value judgements: these are assessments of something as good or bad in terms of one's standards or priorities - they operate in the subjective categories like right/wrong, good/bad outside of logic, outside the categories of real/fake, true/false. A thing being based on value judgements is not rational. Morality is a thing of that kind. Morality is not rational.
Man, this is a refreshing discussion, great work, really! This content is exactly what I need each week. Keep it coming. EVERYBODY! We need to support the content you wish to see! What's a 10 a mth? Help out you content creators. They need it,. money will drive content.
For all those people who are going to challenge theism by using the subject of this video: 1. This is not an argument for theism. 2. This is *not* an argument for theism. 3. This is *not* an *argument for theism.* 4. This is *not an argument for theism.* 5. *This is not an argument for theism.* Thank you.
"In this video IP is explaining morality not arguing for God." You're right! I never said otherwise. "You need to show us why objective morality doesn't exist, not just claim it." Um... I do? I just wanted to give my 2 cents on the video, but I guess I'm happy to oblige and talk about why I'm currently convinced of moral subjectivity. I suppose in a nutshell, I've been convinced by comparing morality to other subjective qualities (like beauty, love, meaning, etc), and I find that it has more traits in common with these than with objective qualities (like mathematical truths or empirical measurements).
+WittyNotes You didn't. Perhaps you are referring to my comment you replied to, but here you didn't show anything. Just because morality seems linked to those, that doesn't mean that they are one and the same.
I really liked this series of videos. I think it would have been helpful, for apologetics sake, to not only define realism, then moral realism but also morality.
Your videos are awesome, but I feel so stupid sometimes because I can't understand what you're trying to say sometimes even though you explain it in such simple terms. But God bless you because What you're doing is amazing.
If by quote you meant to say quote mine, then sure. But I'm joking. The thing is that quoting someone isn't the same as comprehending what they said. So using quotes as evidence that someone said something is fine, but its not itself evidence for the point being made.
Good video on moral realism. Some points to highlight in order to better the understanding of what we mean by "real" in context of "moral". Remember that "objective" can be understood in at least two senses (or at least it seems to my mind). Sense 1: Objective (universal): That is, X is real for all species or X is real for all members of the universe. E.g., X is objectively real for humanity and for any other species of the universe (it's real all over the universe). Sense 2: Objective (partial): That is, X is real for one species and it is not necessary real for any other members of the universe. E.g., X is objectively real for humanity but not necessarily for any other species of the universe (it's not real all over the universe). Sense 2 is also perfectly comfortable with situational ethics. Therefore, when we use "real" in context of "moral" we mean "real" for humankind (or partial objectivity). An example of capturing objective (partial) moral reality in context of naturalism is known as "the social contract theory". That is, rational creatures come to an agreement via a theoretical contract (by agreeing to be part of society) to limit their actions (e.g., to maximize wellbeing and to minimize illbeing "i.e., do help and don't harm" - see Sam Harris on this point) and submit to the contract (inline with "A Theory of Justice"). This form of moral reality is only true for humanity and it would be unfair to say that other non-human beings ought to be part of the contract. I also hope that no person confuses moral metaphysics (what makes morality real) with moral epistemology (how do we know what is moral). Both moral metaphysics and epistemology can be understood in context of partial objectivity. OK, now on one form of contact. Science is limited to the epistemology that is founded on. Therefore, science is not "objective" but it's based on levels of confidences. There are no scientific facts (scientific theories are based on high probability via their evidence). All in all good job. Doing us moral realists really proud.
Great video. At approximately 6:30 you suggest that moral facts could be like abstract objects (math or logic) that "govern" govern the real world. It seems that "describe" might be a more appropriate term given that abstract objects don't stand on causal relation with the real world. Thx for your videos. I like them all.
Here is the issue I’m having how can a atheist believe in moral realism.. who or what created morality ? What’s the moral standard ? Example burning someone to death cause pain. That’s the objective truth because pain receptors. But is it objectively wrong ? What is there foundation to their moral realism.
4:00 - "If the universe never existed, the laws of logic and causality would still be true." But the physical laws of the universe would not, obviously. Similarly, if there were no moral agents (sometimes mis-described as 'no humans'), there would be no morality. This shows that morality is dependent on subjects, not objects, suggesting that morality is subjective (not objective).
I didn't say physical laws, I said laws of logic. Second, that is confusing moral facts with the reflection of them. Just because morality is experienced between agents that doesn't mean it is dependent on agents. That simply doesn't follow as I explain in the video.
"Second, that is confusing moral facts with the reflection of them." Not at all: it is morality itself (not just the reflection of it) that cannot exist without agents. "Just because morality is experienced between agents that doesn't mean it is dependent on agents." If morality cannot be experienced without agents, then yes, that means it is dependent on agents.
And if the universe did not exist, the laws of logic wold still be true. The fact that morality happens between agents doesn't change if it is objectively true. Another example is something like the feeling of pain. The feeling can only exist if agents exist, but it is still objectively true agents feel pain. Just because it happen in agents doesn't make it subjective. Science is something that is also objective even though it is dependent on there being a physical universe. Just because science cannot exist without a universe doesn't make it subjective. So morality is still objective even though it is dependent on an agent or agents. Plus, I agree it is dependent on an agent, it has to be once to look at the ontology of it.
"The fact that morality happens between agents doesn't change if it is objectively true." But the fact that it cannot exist without agents does imply that it is subjective. (In other words, how can it be 'objective' if it cannot exist in a universe of objects?) "Another example is something like the feeling of pain. The feeling can only exist if agents exist, but it is still objectively true agents feel pain. Just because it happen in agents doesn't make it subjective." See, that's interesting, because I usually hear the experience of pain as an example of a clearly subjective truth (not an objective one). Suppose I find a particular joke incredibly funny, and experience intense humor when I hear it. Is it "objectively true" that I experience this? If so, does this mean that humor is objective? Probably not.
Moral realism seems to be a concept made out of set of terms and definitions, a whole discourse, while objective morality is just the description of the state of reality. It defines that there is something like "objective morality" - then here comes the question - how objective morality exist and can we know it? Here's the main root of the misunderstandings since there's a very long dispute around natural law and how objective morality is imprinted into the reality; also how we can know read it (know it).
A great description of reality is this: Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, does not go away. Therefore, if moral values and duties go away when we stop believing it, they aren't real. If morality isn't real, then moral nihilism is true and we are delusional in maintaining that they are real. If moral nihilism is true, all things are permitted and nothing is prohibited. Among the things permitted is the devising of our own utilitarian behavioral code. This behavioral code would not, by definition, be objective but rather subjective down to the person which is absurd.
I'm somewhat confused by the statement at 1:50 in relationship with some of your quantum videos. So what do you and other scientists mean by there being no objective world beyond our senses? Do you all mean there is no mind-independent reality? Am I misrepresenting your point?
@inspiring philosophy,can you do a video on confusing old testament verses like in Leviticus about slavery,I get a lot of questions on them and don't know what to say
The question is why is any type or form of morality part of our very being in the first place.... would our existence without any moral reasoning benefit us as a human race and if so what would that mean?
InspiringPhilosophy I guess that depends on each individual or as am thinking do we need a outside source of moral reasoning to know if our own reasoning can be true?
now i understand, pretty much trying to force "objectivity" in concepts that are not even define Even if you think you are acting in the best way possible, it is still totally subjective and thus unjustifiable
"Depends upon human beliefs and desires" is ambiguous. There are two ways for some judgement to be affected by our beliefs/desires. One way is that how we are determined, determines the manner of judgement in a way seperate from the object of judgement. The second way is by being the object of our judgement. In other words, objective judgements _about_ subjects, are certainly possible. Antirealists regularly confuse these two senses of "dependant". Finding murder to be wrong is not like finding chocolate to taste better than vanilla, not because it does not depend upon us in the first sense. It does indeed depend upon the fact of our nature as living beings engaged in a mutual effort to remain so, but since that fact itself (while being about our desires) is not subject to our desires, it is an objective fact about us, not a subjective one.
One of the points of moral realism in the video was: - Moral actions between humans are just manifestations of objective moral facts. I could compare it to this analogy: - Physical actions between particles are just manifestations of objective physical laws. Would this mean that physical laws would still be true if particles did not exist? Generally, what compelling reason is there to suppose that some physical or material body is more or less necessary than another? On account of my comparison, it seems that the moral realist might treat of moral facts similarly to physical laws (but perhaps may give different expression to moral facts compared to physical laws). Thoughts?
I know a year later, but I have only now seen the video and read a few of the comments. I think there is another layer of status that you bring up by mentioning *necessary* material bodies. The video talks about whether there are moral truths, and whether they are objective (true for everyone) or relative (true only from a particular perspective). Philosophy also has a category of necessary truths. I am not an expert philosopher, but for instance I believe the physical laws are, mainly, not necessary truths. We can imagine other universes with different physical laws. But we exist in this universe and it is the only one we know, so the physical laws are still objective truths, truths that are true for anyone in this universe. But they are not necessitated by logic, so they are considered "contingent truths". Math and logic have lots of examples of necessary truths (e.g. 1=1). I do believe that there is objective moral truth, but it is not so easily proven as physical laws. Science can use observation and math to prove the truths of the physical world. Moral truths must be reached by some other means.
So if I believe that morality is simply seeking to understand nature such that we better understand people (given people are a part of nature), and how to treat them given their nature, would I be a moral realist?
Hey IP, I cant watch some videos from your website in my country (New Zealand) because of copyright laws and what not. If I donate to you and send you some $$ on top of that for shipping, can you ship it out to me in DVD form?
DVD? What sort of primate device is that? How about I upload them to a google drive and you can directly download them? I don't have a computer anymore with a DVD burner. That is now a thing of the past.
I WANT A PRESENT IN THE MAIL DAMMIT! whats all this downloading crap LOL...Yes please upload the link to google drive and send me the link (Need all those 8 or so arguments for God videos. Specially looking for the digital physics argument as I think the simulation hypothesis is very interesting and persuasive) I will donate after I download them vids homie BTW don't count out DVDs or audiobooks...Could be a money maker. Just burn a bunch get a few pamphlets printed...stick em in there...find out when Ravi Zacharias is coming to your town for a conference....sit out in the book sale area and act like you part of RZIM...charge exorbitant prices for your homemade dvds...profit
Though I think you covered the nuance of murder to defend a loved one under your argument against moral universalism - I don’t believe the implication that the other side of that argument (murder for pleasure is wrong) is correct. I don’t murder because prison is not appealing. I value my personal freedom of choice above literally everything and that is taken away by imprisonment, therefore it’s contradictory to my own personal goals for me to murder. That has nothing to do with morality. I think that the fact that a contrary opinion can exist means that morality cannot have laws. We individually decide what is moral and immoral based on subjective reasoning and a lot of people agree that it is “Immoral” to murder for pleasure” but not everyone does in the same way that it can be said regardless of personal opinion that “mahogany tables are made of wood”
Moral realism is a thing as abstract and artificial as math. But the followers of moral realism say that unlike math, the thing that we thought up is *real*. Well, you constructed a system which is internally consistent (just like math), so you can reason within this system (like you can reason in math). But that's it, there is nothing more to that. The system of moral realism is not more and not less real than math is. Saying that you can discover moral facts is not different from saying that you can discover math facts. Well, you can, so what? Being true/false is applicable to a moral fact only within the axioms of the system of moral realism (which, unlike math, moral realism does not seem to specify explicitly, though I may be incorrect here).
@@InspiringPhilosophy We are applying math to our models of the world external to our conscious experiences (assuming that we believe such external world exists and causes some of those conscious experiences). Even more, significant parts of these models are expressed via math. If you are using "reality" to refer to this external world, then my answer is no: math is not applicable to it, but it is applicable to our models of it. P.S. I believe I heard somewhere arguments like "just as you should use the laws of logic, you should not do what is morally forbidden". But it's just a play of words, because the phrases like "one should ..." have no meaning unless the purpose is specified, e.g. "you should use the hyperbolic geometry in order to successfully reason about spacetime (which is a model described by using such a geometry)" has a meaning, while simply "you should use the hyperbolic geometry" or "you should not do what is morally forbidden" has no meaning.
I think its sad that you have to try to prevent people straw manning your position, like when you have to state you are using an analogy. Cause you know exactly what they are going to do.
This is where the idea of God comes in... to me as justification for Moral Realism, Jesus Christ claimed that he is The way, the *Truth* and the Life... So he is the literal incarnate of Truth, if I where to say that murder was wrong that would be my subjective opinion when the focus is of orgin - me the individual, but if God were to give a commandment where he were to say "murder is wrong" it would not be subjective, the creator of the universe, all knowing, all powerful would mean truth is telling you that murder is wrong and since truth is telling you that murder is wrong that would make it a Truth Statement and would take precedence over subjectivity and opinion. The conscience plays a big role in objective morality, some people can feel automatic regret or disparity over actions they've never been taught were wrong, and that would be your God given conscience telling you of that Objective Immorality. Ps: I'm taking admission for this, this is something I've recently thought of, I don't know if it's apart of the Moral Realist community, so pls let me know if there is any misconceptions in my thinking....
Is it always morally wrong to kill for personal pleasure? You argue that circumstances play a role in interpreting moral actions, but you also make it seem like some circumstances (like killing for personal pleasure) only have one moral interpretation (always objectively wrong). If this is the case, then your version of moral realism is a form of universalism. If not, you then have to make the claim that sometimes (even if extremely rare) killing for personal pleasure can be interpreted as being morally good and that this interpretation is also sometimes true.
The word Math comes from the Hebrew word MATH (Strong's 4962, 4968-4971, 7971, 7973) in Greek it is the word disciple (3100-3103) means to become a pupil, enroll as a scholar, instruct, teach, to learn in a WAY. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Laws v mind stuff Who is to say except the being who is conscious of both Either you know or you think you know. There is no way that, right/wrong goes beyond our own perspective = ALWAYS OBJECTIVE It's the only way
I guess if you believe in moral realism, I want to know why, more than I want to hear you respond to other positions. If moral claims have truth values, how do we access those, or know that we access them.
I wonder if you could further explain the difference between moral realism and moral universalism, because I don't understand it based on the example given. Circumstances only make a moral difference when given a broad question, like "is it always wrong to kill people?" Of course that is dependent on the circumstances. But what about "is it always wrong to rape? A child?" I can't see how that allows for much wiggle room given any circumstances.
iwillbelikeJesus I don't think he sees the bible as a myth per say. He's a self proclaimed Christian. He seems to speak in very metaphysical language. He understands this differently. For example he uses the idea of Chaos and order in a way beyond my comprehension
King David His analysis of the Bible is quite riveting. Someone, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think He's a Jungian Psycho- Analytical thinker with a Freudian bend. He's also a Christian. He views the Bible and all of the events of the Bible as a compilation of archetypal representations of certain philosophical, psychological, phenomenological and ethical observations concerning Human nature and Society. I don't necessarily argee with it, but it's certainly a very interesting view of Scripture.
Liam Dyer I agree. I respect how informed he is, but the man acts like a maniac! I also appreciate how logical he can be, but then get frustrated by how opinionated he acts! It appears that this man simply became famous because anti-SJWs found a champion for their cause.
I suppose I was confused about moral realism or objective morality a bit. Because I also felt like if morals were objective then there would be an objective standard that is true regardless of my opinion. So in a sense I do think murder or cold blooded unjust murder is always wrong. But I suppose someone could imagine some scenario in which its less moral like you have to kill or murder this person to save a million ppl.....for the greater good kinda thing. My response was that justifying one evil with another evil is still evil but sometimes some evils are justified but they are never morally good. That's how I reasoned it. Basically, I see it as killing animals for meat and food for humanity is evil because it causes them pain but it's a natural evil and its justified but never the less its still evil. In my view I see that as part of the fallen world into sin but maybe this is in error because it makes the genesis account seem young earth and I am against young earth. Uhhh....help what do you think InspiringPhilosophy care to weigh in and help me see what part of my train of thought is wrong?
So is there a shared belief by universalists with realists on some morals such as rape? Wouldn't that always be wrong no matter the circumstance or no ? Isn't rape a moral absolute wrong in any circumstance?
If morality is so self evident. Why are there like 500 different moralities? If morality is so innate and natural. Why does it need to be taught? Also why does liberal transgenderism think its morality is THE morality?
It has not been all that clear how "Moral Realism" has been defined: only that what most poke have to say about it have been misrepresenting, or misinterpreting it--but what IS it. In the beginning, there were a few definitions offered, but they seem a bit counter-intuitive. If there are moral laws that exist seperate from human belief, where would they come from, and what then does it mean to say "people make moral judgments?" In what way do moral truths exist? How are they understood? What is there nature? Just curious :)
InspiringPhilosophy What I mean is: if Morality is objective, and comes from a source beyond human subjectivity, what kind of a thing is it? You were saying that your defence of it will be that (paraphrasing here) it exists similarly to mathematics; but in what way does Math exist? I guess these questions are entering a "Meta" realm, which is fine by me, haha. Thank you for your response.
InspiriingPhilosophy Thanks for helping me understand the argument better but I am confused about something. Is it wrong or am I saying it wrong that I believe in objective morality. That I believe murder is objectively wrong as a true statement and not a matter of my opinion. That it's universally true. Also, that what we do whether right or wrong matters....truly matters.
Although I would, by default assume an ethical reality, I cannot see how moral realism is not dependent on human beings. I do not understand why there cannot be a human moral reality. Other social animals more self evidently have their own moral codes that are a reality for their species. Could it make sense to condemn drone bees as feckless, useless, fee-loading layabouts?. I do not think so. Bees exercise their own apine morality; when a worker bee misbehaves by laying eggs in the hive, other bees turn on her and kill her. This is part of apine morality, but totally outside human morality. To be an ethical realist, I do not think that you have to posit a value system that encompasses bees and humans.
What makes the laws of logic truly real, or mind independent? The fact that they are just a definition, correct? Which is why you can’t think of a circular triangle. So you have a definition, but what is universally true or false about it? It is just a description in itself. Humans jump to “does it represent reality?” So you compare it to reality, such as putting two things together, or adding, will give you those two things as a total such as 2+2 = 4, and not five. Now consider killing babies. You can define the term evil as killing babies. Now we have a description of evil and we can do the same thing as with math/logic and go into the world and see people killing babies. We bring out our definition: evil=killing babies, and see the baby killers and say they are doing evil. OK but we defined it, so with us defining evil, it it’s nothing but circular, and not mind-independent. I would use this to argue that logic and math are not mind-independent either. Perhaps nothing is.
If the Near Death Experience shows us that The Mind is Eternal, that a mental existence is to be found outside biological reality, a. moral foundation will be a conclusion. If this mental existence was a objective projection of the observers spiritual state, then we would be trapped in our own bells and darkness or heavens. If the minds environment is projected outward as the environment then morality would be essential.
Hello IP, someone asking about the unfairness of woman in Leviticus 12, being unclean for 7 days if she bears a boy but if she bears a girl she will be uncleaned for 14 days
This is not a definition but already a defense of moral realism. As any scientific statement it must be falsifiable, i.e. one must answer the question in what way the world be different if moral realism was false and moral relativism is right. Moral relativism is what we observe (i.e. moral believes change through history and for different societies and even individuals and for the same individual depending on the cricumstances) so what is the observation of our world which requires moral realism to be true? If there is no such observation then the proposition of moral realism is just unscientific. As the proposition that earth is packed with invisible unicorns which are impossible to detect by any means. This proposition can neither be proven nor disproven and is unscientific and useless. To quote Wolfgang Pauli "It is not even wrong."
Right, so moral realism is simply at odds with God actually (I don't think He did) COMMANDING human sacrifice to Yahweh (herem), or abortion, or infanticide, or genocide, or cannibalism as a punishment, etc. If you hold to Divine Command Theory, then when someone asks if these things are objectively wrong, you just may have to cross your fingers behind your back if you tell them "yes".
How would it still be wrong to murder the mentally handicapped? Don't you need to establish that as a moral fact first? To be clear I'm not making a case for any position, I just fail to see how it is supposed to be a moral fact.
Whoa, whoa, did you just try to show the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate as competing "scientific theories"! Ken Ham does not have a scientific theories, he has a religious theories with some quote mines for credibility. He did not use the scientific method to come up with it and it is nowhere close to the standard of being published in a scientific journal.
The ending was pretty weak on this. Killing is not a morally objective action one way or another. Murder is objectively wrong. We have a word for killing for personal gain, which distinguishes itself from tolerable killing. We do not have a word for 'justifiable homicide', so let's use that. Murder is objectively evil and wrong. Justifiable homicide is objectively good and right. Trying to saying killing can be both good and bad is disingenuous to moral objectivists who clearly define their terms.
"Trying to saying killing can be both good and bad is disingenuous to moral objectivists who clearly define their terms.'" a problem to moral absolutists, not moral objectivists.
This video is trying to make rationalization some sort of Moral Position, it isn't. Reality is a human experience. The wolf has no idea what is going on. He has no fallen nature which has drawn awareness to him. There is no separation from the Creator for all but Man. That fact is central to every issue we face. There is no other issue but this separation. It is the entire reason for Biblical Teachings.
Suppose God can taste food and decides that chicken parmesan tastes better than a strawberry smoothie. Does that mean that food realism is true? What if I prefer the strawberry smoothie? The point is that moral values are subjective with or without a God.
There is no reason to believe that there is an objective scale of tastes between foods. There is however great reason to believe that there is an objective scale of moral acceptibility of deliberate human decisions. God's preference is not in response to its creation, it's the source of the creation itself: If there were a reason God would create this universe with an objective scale of tastes, chicken parmesan (whatever that is...?) would be inherently more tasty and since it is an evolutionary advantage to figure out truth, we would probably figure that out. Bad point.
Moral realisim is what we perceive to be right from a human being perspective. Let's take an example ( slaughtering a chicken to feed our desires is seen as morally right by most humans ). We would have to look at moral realism from a universal point of view.
@@InspiringPhilosophy our whole program is built round survival. Even morality, belief and so on ... are part of that program, I also think our soul has a purpose to this universe, it's all connected for some reason, which I think has a role in keeping the universe itself alive, just like what inside of us that keeps us alive. I have no doubt in GOD'S existence. Thanks to my NDE
I would like to answer that question later. Survival hinges round 2 things ( fear and love ). Without fear we couldn't survive and without love ( attraction ) we wouldn't reproduce. I personally believe that our evolution ( not the Darwinian, but the physical and spiritual ones ) and adaptations are due to our thoughts and beliefs being encoded in our genes and DNA which are then passed over to our siblings and so on... Rape is a form of aggression that in turn creats fear in its victim, and anything that threatens our survival is seen as morally wrong by many. Would a rapist see it this way?
Rape doesn't threaten our survival, though. What you just said doesn't follow. We don't need to love everyone to survive. In fact, most ancient cultures thrived on paying armies off with plunder and raping the cities they sacked. Yet that is evil, why? Why is that wrong even though it was a very benefical policy for the Egyptians, Romans, or Hittites?
My only real hold up on moral realism is that I cant quite get my head around adopting a theory that posits a real existence of something we cant readily point to. It seems we tap into it through a moral radar we cant quite identify or explain, but this feels like appealing to almost a faith claim. How would we overcome that problem?
I have to conclude that moral realism is a product of our emotions and feelings. It is also the attachment that we have to certain beliefs that in turns determines moral realism. However true morality exists, only in the eye of the beholder ( GOD ).
You have to remember that belief is part of our program, and is there for a reason. I didn't believe in GOD, but now do. Thanks to my NDE and my other personal experiences. I can't convince you on GOD'S existence, it's something you have to seek yourself. Just like I did. Please note that I am not referring to GOD as from a religious perspective, but I can assure you one thing, that one day you will have that experience.
Good video, but I have a question regarding moral universalism. I agree that killing can be morally right at times, but would not the sentence "it is wrong to kill for personal pleasure" apply universally and so be both moral realism and moral universalism?
The relativism totally ignores the the fact that once we are in a common ground then we will have the same morality.. keeping reminding us the fact that we are in different situations actually worsens the situation
No, your senses can NOT discover the real world. You can only know what your mind present to you... which is a derivative of the real world. The real world can never be known
PreMo i know that i don’t know... good old Socrates. Knowing what you don’t lnow is the beginning of knowledge. Your conscience must come from something, but since you only have the mental representation based on sensedata, you only have the photocopy and is blind to what it is based on
Wait... philosophy _is_ science. It is a social science. Models are made, and tested if they are logically consistent or not. Just because something doesn't count atoms, doesn't mean it isn't science.
I don't think so. If naturalism were true, that doesn't mean the laws of logic are dependent on physical objects. Similarly, if idealism were true, that doesn't mean the laws of logic are dependent on observers either. At least that's how I see it. :)
That depends, does the mind that created logic by observing natural phenomena, and basing that linear thought of determinism, an emergent property of a physical brain?
I keep watching these moral realism videos hoping for some evidence that it's not another kind of hopeful, religious superstition. So far no luck. (Good vids tho.)
what evidence would you expect? If it is true that objective morality exists, and it is based on God and that God is willing to share that knowlege with us, you should listen to the religion that has the most convincing evidence that God spoke through that religion's prophets: the only evidence that is reasonable is miracles. Miracles factually undeniably happened and happen, basically only in ancient judaism and in christianity ever since it existed. Therefore, if you get convinced miracles are real you should become christian right?
Not sure I agree with the phrasing “There is a real world BEYOND our senses,” because as far as I’m aware, the only reality we experience is with our senses. How could we detect something without or beyond our senses?
So moral Realism is like religion. It claims objective moral facts even without humans, thuse asserting it's truth even when someone holds another set of ideas/beliefs through the lens of "Oh it simply beyond you" or in religious terms "god work in mysterious ways". What a lovely dead end you have created. Note the question of "Why" is always the key.
yuo explained nothing, if humans or any similarly cognitivly evolved creature, were not there to begin with, then actions couldn't be right or wrong, since they are not affecting anyones will, causality exists contigent upon time, so without a universe causality wouldn't make sense logic is a concept in our minds just like maths, that come from an interpretation of the real world, without our minds or similar logic and maths, could be said to not exist moral realism is not moral universalism, but it means under the same circumstance, the moral thing to do would be the same
Your examples are confusing. The action you use is killing. Killing may be moral or immoral depending on the context. It is not “objectively wrong” or “objectively right” to kill. And perhaps there is a better alternative to killing a man holding a gun to an innocent child, so that action is not always the correct one in a given situation, meaning it is not “objectively right” in all circumstances. It seems like you’re defending situational ethics here.
Joshua Kuderik if it's assumed that morality is dependent on some agent, I agree. But what about circumstances where there is an agent, but no actions with moral implications, such as an inability to take action?
I was hoping that my question contained the assumption that an observer is present, but for whatever reason unable to act, preventing a moral implication from being drawn from an action that hadn't taken place.
You lost me when you started talking about moral universalism. I got confused here because it seems as though you are making a case that 2+2=4 (pretending that is a moral law) is always 4 and independent of humans and thier interpretations. Then you say well if someone was getting raped by the number 4 - humans could suddenly interpret (in their subject and contextual view) that in that circumstance 2+2 does not equal 4. So you make this comparison to science about facts carved in stone regardless of interpretation and then say subjectively in certain circumstances these things actually aren’t carved in stone.. and we can use our subjective interpretation to conclude the right thing to do. You say “a moral realist would say it depends on the circumstances” circumstances defined by who? Seems like the same slippery slope a relativist would go down. Surely they would claim that in thier set of circumstances it’s the morally right thing to do to enact eugenics like policies because “classic moral case for eugenics..” it just seems to me like this is always going to happen unless you assume an absolute science like factual, objective stance of morality out side any circumstances/contexts etc please correct me where I’m going wrong but this is how I’m reading it. Amazing videos though!
I think the thing is this: it is not true that an action's morality is independent of the context. For example: firing a gun is not inherently evil, but firing it at a random person is. Universalism claims that there is no difference between murder and killing, but there is, a murder is killing within a certain context (killing of a human being that does not pose a threat to the safety of anybody you have responsibility over). Christianity claims that it is objectively wrong to sin, but the definition of sin implies deliberate and knowing choice to take action in that respect.
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - อ้ายกินดอง น้องลาบงัว ft. สแน็ก อัจฉรีย์ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-OK--KaSPcI/mqdefault.jpg)
Your channel is a gem. This was 6 years ago?! How come I only came across it now?? God bless you.
At first I was afraid it would be too difficult for me since English is my third language. You explained it really good. Thank you. God bless you and your family. Love and peace to all.
Thank you!
There is no God.
Bad bait
Well I mean you could just be out of copium
But it’s probably just bad bait
There is no @@saggypantsandsquats460
I loved how you pointed out that moral facts are not dependent on humans. We are not perfect and and are still working toward having a better understanding of the world and reality we live in. Though some I know would seriously deny this and state we know more than enough already.
The only question I have is: who decides what is morally objectively correct? In science we can observe what is correct through our senses and calculations, because the universe decided that this is how things are. But when we’re talking about morality, how can we tell who’s interpretation of what’s right and wrong is correct? We really can’t because that’s just unrealistic, unless of course you’re religious. Morality is a social construct and therefore there can’t be any set rules for what is right and wrong. That’s why I believe it is a subjective matter
@@sage1520 No one, and that's the point. Moral facts and duties exist independent of humans. Humans are just trying to use reason and logic to infer what might be morally right and wrong. Morality is a rational enterprise.
@@animalcart4128
Morality is based on value judgements. Value judgements are not rational by the definition of value judgements: these are assessments of something as good or bad in terms of one's standards or priorities - they operate in the subjective categories like right/wrong, good/bad outside of logic, outside the categories of real/fake, true/false. A thing being based on value judgements is not rational. Morality is a thing of that kind. Morality is not rational.
@@niketashermeides6013 💀
@@niketashermeides6013 Value judgments are not rational? What?
Man, this is a refreshing discussion, great work, really!
This content is exactly what I need each week. Keep it coming. EVERYBODY! We need to support the content you wish to see! What's a 10 a mth? Help out you content creators. They need it,. money will drive content.
Sooo many people don't even know they are moral realists. Thanks for the great vid
Love your work!!! God bless.
For all those people who are going to challenge theism by using the subject of this video:
1. This is not an argument for theism.
2. This is *not* an argument for theism.
3. This is *not* an *argument for theism.*
4. This is *not an argument for theism.*
5. *This is not an argument for theism.*
Thank you.
Kay Lynn In the end it will even if not directly.
It's a small part of the cumulative case for Christ.
Yeah, but it's (a) still wrong and (b) a direct support for the second premise of the popular 'Moral Argument for the existence of God'.
"In this video IP is explaining morality not arguing for God."
You're right! I never said otherwise.
"You need to show us why objective morality doesn't exist, not just claim it."
Um... I do? I just wanted to give my 2 cents on the video, but I guess I'm happy to oblige and talk about why I'm currently convinced of moral subjectivity.
I suppose in a nutshell, I've been convinced by comparing morality to other subjective qualities (like beauty, love, meaning, etc), and I find that it has more traits in common with these than with objective qualities (like mathematical truths or empirical measurements).
+WittyNotes You didn't. Perhaps you are referring to my comment you replied to, but here you didn't show anything.
Just because morality seems linked to those, that doesn't mean that they are one and the same.
Interesting! A lot of thought went into this video. Looking forward to see how the rest of this series develops.
I have rlly taken the time to check out your channel and I’m impressed. You should make a video on your testimony I am intrigued
Really enjoyed the video. Thank you very much!
I really liked this series of videos. I think it would have been helpful, for apologetics sake, to not only define realism, then moral realism but also morality.
Your videos are awesome, but I feel so stupid sometimes because I can't understand what you're trying to say sometimes even though you explain it in such simple terms.
But God bless you because What you're doing is amazing.
Don't worry. Actual theologians, philosophers, ethicists, and scientists don't know what he's saying either.
Good thing he directly quotes from them, so I guess all of those professionals don't know what they themselves are saying.
nunya bisnass Kick rocks troll.
If by quote you meant to say quote mine, then sure. But I'm joking. The thing is that quoting someone isn't the same as comprehending what they said. So using quotes as evidence that someone said something is fine, but its not itself evidence for the point being made.
So it's only you who comprehend what they really said. Great. Now how about you enlighten us on the true interpretation of these philosophers' words?
Great video!
Brilliant video! God bless.
Good video on moral realism. Some points to highlight in order to better the understanding of what we mean by "real" in context of "moral".
Remember that "objective" can be understood in at least two senses (or at least it seems to my mind).
Sense 1: Objective (universal): That is, X is real for all species or X is real for all members of the universe. E.g., X is objectively real for humanity and for any other species of the universe (it's real all over the universe).
Sense 2: Objective (partial): That is, X is real for one species and it is not necessary real for any other members of the universe. E.g., X is objectively real for humanity but not necessarily for any other species of the universe (it's not real all over the universe). Sense 2 is also perfectly comfortable with situational ethics.
Therefore, when we use "real" in context of "moral" we mean "real" for humankind (or partial objectivity). An example of capturing objective (partial) moral reality in context of naturalism is known as "the social contract theory". That is, rational creatures come to an agreement via a theoretical contract (by agreeing to be part of society) to limit their actions (e.g., to maximize wellbeing and to minimize illbeing "i.e., do help and don't harm" - see Sam Harris on this point) and submit to the contract (inline with "A Theory of Justice"). This form of moral reality is only true for humanity and it would be unfair to say that other non-human beings ought to be part of the contract.
I also hope that no person confuses moral metaphysics (what makes morality real) with moral epistemology (how do we know what is moral). Both moral metaphysics and epistemology can be understood in context of partial objectivity.
OK, now on one form of contact.
Science is limited to the epistemology that is founded on. Therefore, science is not "objective" but it's based on levels of confidences. There are no scientific facts (scientific theories are based on high probability via their evidence).
All in all good job. Doing us moral realists really proud.
What program do you use to edit your videos? And does it cost money?
Final cut and yes it costs money.
Great video. At approximately 6:30 you suggest that moral facts could be like abstract objects (math or logic) that "govern" govern the real world. It seems that "describe" might be a more appropriate term given that abstract objects don't stand on causal relation with the real world. Thx for your videos. I like them all.
Here is the issue I’m having how can a atheist believe in moral realism.. who or what created morality ? What’s the moral standard ?
Example burning someone to death cause pain. That’s the objective truth because pain receptors. But is it objectively wrong ?
What is there foundation to their moral realism.
Hey IP. I was wondering briefly what your thoughts were on the metaphysical interpretation of the Bible and if you have or will make a vid on this?
4:00 - "If the universe never existed, the laws of logic and causality would still be true."
But the physical laws of the universe would not, obviously. Similarly, if there were no moral agents (sometimes mis-described as 'no humans'), there would be no morality.
This shows that morality is dependent on subjects, not objects, suggesting that morality is subjective (not objective).
I didn't say physical laws, I said laws of logic.
Second, that is confusing moral facts with the reflection of them. Just because morality is experienced between agents that doesn't mean it is dependent on agents. That simply doesn't follow as I explain in the video.
"Second, that is confusing moral facts with the reflection of them."
Not at all: it is morality itself (not just the reflection of it) that cannot exist without agents.
"Just because morality is experienced between agents that doesn't mean it is dependent on agents."
If morality cannot be experienced without agents, then yes, that means it is dependent on agents.
And if the universe did not exist, the laws of logic wold still be true. The fact that morality happens between agents doesn't change if it is objectively true. Another example is something like the feeling of pain. The feeling can only exist if agents exist, but it is still objectively true agents feel pain. Just because it happen in agents doesn't make it subjective. Science is something that is also objective even though it is dependent on there being a physical universe. Just because science cannot exist without a universe doesn't make it subjective. So morality is still objective even though it is dependent on an agent or agents. Plus, I agree it is dependent on an agent, it has to be once to look at the ontology of it.
"The fact that morality happens between agents doesn't change if it is objectively true."
But the fact that it cannot exist without agents does imply that it is subjective. (In other words, how can it be 'objective' if it cannot exist in a universe of objects?)
"Another example is something like the feeling of pain. The feeling can only exist if agents exist, but it is still objectively true agents feel pain. Just because it happen in agents doesn't make it subjective."
See, that's interesting, because I usually hear the experience of pain as an example of a clearly subjective truth (not an objective one).
Suppose I find a particular joke incredibly funny, and experience intense humor when I hear it. Is it "objectively true" that I experience this? If so, does this mean that humor is objective? Probably not.
Is it objectively true that if you heat water it will boil? How can that be objectively true if it depends on water and heat existing?
Wouldn't say Ken Ham has a scientific theory
Is there a difference between the terms Moral Realism and objective Morality? Or does it mean the same?
Manne
Yeah, Moral Realism implies objective morality
David Navarrete Okay, thank you
Moral realism seems to be a concept made out of set of terms and definitions, a whole discourse, while objective morality is just the description of the state of reality. It defines that there is something like "objective morality" - then here comes the question - how objective morality exist and can we know it? Here's the main root of the misunderstandings since there's a very long dispute around natural law and how objective morality is imprinted into the reality; also how we can know read it (know it).
Objection morality is the object one believes in, moral realism is the belief in it.
A great description of reality is this:
Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, does not go away.
Therefore, if moral values and duties go away when we stop believing it, they aren't real. If morality isn't real, then moral nihilism is true and we are delusional in maintaining that they are real. If moral nihilism is true, all things are permitted and nothing is prohibited.
Among the things permitted is the devising of our own utilitarian behavioral code. This behavioral code would not, by definition, be objective but rather subjective down to the person which is absurd.
I'm somewhat confused by the statement at 1:50 in relationship with some of your quantum videos. So what do you and other scientists mean by there being no objective world beyond our senses? Do you all mean there is no mind-independent reality? Am I misrepresenting your point?
@inspiring philosophy,can you do a video on confusing old testament verses like in Leviticus about slavery,I get a lot of questions on them and don't know what to say
Yes, I plan to.
Another home run, my friend.
The question is why is any type or form of morality part of our very being in the first place.... would our existence without any moral reasoning benefit us as a human race and if so what would that mean?
what is useful is not necessarily true.
InspiringPhilosophy I guess that depends on each individual or as am thinking do we need a outside source of moral reasoning to know if our own reasoning can be true?
now i understand, pretty much trying to force "objectivity" in concepts that are not even define
Even if you think you are acting in the best way possible, it is still totally subjective and thus unjustifiable
Amazing
"Depends upon human beliefs and desires" is ambiguous. There are two ways for some judgement to be affected by our beliefs/desires. One way is that how we are determined, determines the manner of judgement in a way seperate from the object of judgement. The second way is by being the object of our judgement.
In other words, objective judgements _about_ subjects, are certainly possible. Antirealists regularly confuse these two senses of "dependant".
Finding murder to be wrong is not like finding chocolate to taste better than vanilla, not because it does not depend upon us in the first sense.
It does indeed depend upon the fact of our nature as living beings engaged in a mutual effort to remain so, but since that fact itself (while being about our desires) is not subject to our desires, it is an objective fact about us, not a subjective one.
How do you cross the is ought gap? I dont understand how we derive whats moral/good from a set of facts.
Causality is a relationship between two things. How could that relationship exist if the underlying things do not exist?
I guess the point is we can still discuss a relationship between hypothetical objects, even if those objects don't exist in the actual world.
One of the points of moral realism in the video was:
- Moral actions between humans are just manifestations of objective moral facts.
I could compare it to this analogy:
- Physical actions between particles are just manifestations of objective physical laws.
Would this mean that physical laws would still be true if particles did not exist? Generally, what compelling reason is there to suppose that some physical or material body is more or less necessary than another? On account of my comparison, it seems that the moral realist might treat of moral facts similarly to physical laws (but perhaps may give different expression to moral facts compared to physical laws).
Thoughts?
I know a year later, but I have only now seen the video and read a few of the comments. I think there is another layer of status that you bring up by mentioning *necessary* material bodies. The video talks about whether there are moral truths, and whether they are objective (true for everyone) or relative (true only from a particular perspective). Philosophy also has a category of necessary truths. I am not an expert philosopher, but for instance I believe the physical laws are, mainly, not necessary truths. We can imagine other universes with different physical laws. But we exist in this universe and it is the only one we know, so the physical laws are still objective truths, truths that are true for anyone in this universe. But they are not necessitated by logic, so they are considered "contingent truths". Math and logic have lots of examples of necessary truths (e.g. 1=1). I do believe that there is objective moral truth, but it is not so easily proven as physical laws. Science can use observation and math to prove the truths of the physical world. Moral truths must be reached by some other means.
Solid video. My only suggestion is to not include background music. It detracts from the message of the video.
So if I believe that morality is simply seeking to understand nature such that we better understand people (given people are a part of nature), and how to treat them given their nature, would I be a moral realist?
Hello Everyone!
you need a pop filter on your mic.
Hey IP, I cant watch some videos from your website in my country (New Zealand) because of copyright laws and what not.
If I donate to you and send you some $$ on top of that for shipping, can you ship it out to me in DVD form?
DVD? What sort of primate device is that? How about I upload them to a google drive and you can directly download them? I don't have a computer anymore with a DVD burner. That is now a thing of the past.
I WANT A PRESENT IN THE MAIL DAMMIT! whats all this downloading crap
LOL...Yes please upload the link to google drive and send me the link
(Need all those 8 or so arguments for God videos. Specially looking for the digital physics argument as I think the simulation hypothesis is very interesting and persuasive)
I will donate after I download them vids homie
BTW don't count out DVDs or audiobooks...Could be a money maker. Just burn a bunch get a few pamphlets printed...stick em in there...find out when Ravi Zacharias is coming to your town for a conference....sit out in the book sale area and act like you part of RZIM...charge exorbitant prices for your homemade dvds...profit
Ok, i am traveling out of the country right now and have slow internet. Please remind me on Monday and I'll start that.
Though I think you covered the nuance of murder to defend a loved one under your argument against moral universalism - I don’t believe the implication that the other side of that argument (murder for pleasure is wrong) is correct.
I don’t murder because prison is not appealing. I value my personal freedom of choice above literally everything and that is taken away by imprisonment, therefore it’s contradictory to my own personal goals for me to murder.
That has nothing to do with morality. I think that the fact that a contrary opinion can exist means that morality cannot have laws. We individually decide what is moral and immoral based on subjective reasoning and a lot of people agree that it is “Immoral” to murder for pleasure” but not everyone does in the same way that it can be said regardless of personal opinion that “mahogany tables are made of wood”
I've been noticing that your making new videos more often.
I say bring it on!
I've got more donations, which allow me to.
Moral realism is a thing as abstract and artificial as math. But the followers of moral realism say that unlike math, the thing that we thought up is *real*. Well, you constructed a system which is internally consistent (just like math), so you can reason within this system (like you can reason in math). But that's it, there is nothing more to that. The system of moral realism is not more and not less real than math is.
Saying that you can discover moral facts is not different from saying that you can discover math facts. Well, you can, so what? Being true/false is applicable to a moral fact only within the axioms of the system of moral realism (which, unlike math, moral realism does not seem to specify explicitly, though I may be incorrect here).
You don't think math applies to reality?
@@InspiringPhilosophy We are applying math to our models of the world external to our conscious experiences (assuming that we believe such external world exists and causes some of those conscious experiences). Even more, significant parts of these models are expressed via math. If you are using "reality" to refer to this external world, then my answer is no: math is not applicable to it, but it is applicable to our models of it.
P.S. I believe I heard somewhere arguments like "just as you should use the laws of logic, you should not do what is morally forbidden". But it's just a play of words, because the phrases like "one should ..." have no meaning unless the purpose is specified, e.g. "you should use the hyperbolic geometry in order to successfully reason about spacetime (which is a model described by using such a geometry)" has a meaning, while simply "you should use the hyperbolic geometry" or "you should not do what is morally forbidden" has no meaning.
I think its sad that you have to try to prevent people straw manning your position, like when you have to state you are using an analogy. Cause you know exactly what they are going to do.
Dudeeee. I’ve never seen a video which talks about what i’ve always believed. I always use these examples. Wtf
This is where the idea of God comes in... to me as justification for Moral Realism, Jesus Christ claimed that he is The way, the *Truth* and the Life...
So he is the literal incarnate of Truth, if I where to say that murder was wrong that would be my subjective opinion when the focus is of orgin - me the individual, but if God were to give a commandment where he were to say "murder is wrong" it would not be subjective, the creator of the universe, all knowing, all powerful would mean truth is telling you that murder is wrong and since truth is telling you that murder is wrong that would make it a Truth Statement and would take precedence over subjectivity and opinion.
The conscience plays a big role in objective morality, some people can feel automatic regret or disparity over actions they've never been taught were wrong, and that would be your God given conscience telling you of that Objective Immorality.
Ps: I'm taking admission for this, this is something I've recently thought of, I don't know if it's apart of the Moral Realist community, so pls let me know if there is any misconceptions in my thinking....
The problem is, murder is justified if it doesn't accord with God's truth.
www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/murder-in-the-bible/
Is it always morally wrong to kill for personal pleasure? You argue that circumstances play a role in interpreting moral actions, but you also make it seem like some circumstances (like killing for personal pleasure) only have one moral interpretation (always objectively wrong). If this is the case, then your version of moral realism is a form of universalism. If not, you then have to make the claim that sometimes (even if extremely rare) killing for personal pleasure can be interpreted as being morally good and that this interpretation is also sometimes true.
The word Math comes from the Hebrew word MATH (Strong's 4962, 4968-4971, 7971, 7973) in Greek it is the word disciple (3100-3103) means to become a pupil, enroll as a scholar, instruct, teach, to learn in a WAY. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Laws v mind stuff
Who is to say except the being who is conscious of both
Either you know or you think you know.
There is no way that, right/wrong goes beyond our own perspective = ALWAYS OBJECTIVE
It's the only way
So is everything that isn't realism on that chart anti realism or no?
I guess if you believe in moral realism, I want to know why, more than I want to hear you respond to other positions. If moral claims have truth values, how do we access those, or know that we access them.
I wonder if you could further explain the difference between moral realism and moral universalism, because I don't understand it based on the example given.
Circumstances only make a moral difference when given a broad question, like "is it always wrong to kill people?" Of course that is dependent on the circumstances. But what about "is it always wrong to rape? A child?"
I can't see how that allows for much wiggle room given any circumstances.
I don't think things like that would allow for wiggle room.
InspiringPhilosophy but I still don't understand the difference between moral realism and universalism.
moral universalism would be the idea set laws are unbreakable regardless of circumstances.
what do you think about jordan peterson? :D
Are you watching his bible lectures? Although he takes the Biblical data as mythology, he is strengthening my faith!
iwillbelikeJesus I don't think he sees the bible as a myth per say. He's a self proclaimed Christian. He seems to speak in very metaphysical language. He understands this differently. For example he uses the idea of Chaos and order in a way beyond my comprehension
King David His analysis of the Bible is quite riveting. Someone, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think He's a Jungian Psycho- Analytical thinker with a Freudian bend. He's also a Christian. He views the Bible and all of the events of the Bible as a compilation of archetypal representations of certain philosophical, psychological, phenomenological and ethical observations concerning Human nature and Society. I don't necessarily argee with it, but it's certainly a very interesting view of
Scripture.
King David he's not as great as people believe him to be.
Liam Dyer I agree. I respect how informed he is, but the man acts like a maniac! I also appreciate how logical he can be, but then get frustrated by how opinionated he acts!
It appears that this man simply became famous because anti-SJWs found a champion for their cause.
I suppose I was confused about moral realism or objective morality a bit. Because I also felt like if morals were objective then there would be an objective standard that is true regardless of my opinion. So in a sense I do think murder or cold blooded unjust murder is always wrong. But I suppose someone could imagine some scenario in which its less moral like you have to kill or murder this person to save a million ppl.....for the greater good kinda thing. My response was that justifying one evil with another evil is still evil but sometimes some evils are justified but they are never morally good. That's how I reasoned it.
Basically, I see it as killing animals for meat and food for humanity is evil because it causes them pain but it's a natural evil and its justified but never the less its still evil. In my view I see that as part of the fallen world into sin but maybe this is in error because it makes the genesis account seem young earth and I am against young earth. Uhhh....help what do you think InspiringPhilosophy care to weigh in and help me see what part of my train of thought is wrong?
So is there a shared belief by universalists with realists on some morals such as rape? Wouldn't that always be wrong no matter the circumstance or no ? Isn't rape a moral absolute wrong in any circumstance?
If morality is so self evident. Why are there like 500 different moralities? If morality is so innate and natural. Why does it need to be taught? Also why does liberal transgenderism think its morality is THE morality?
It has not been all that clear how "Moral Realism" has been defined: only that what most poke have to say about it have been misrepresenting, or misinterpreting it--but what IS it. In the beginning, there were a few definitions offered, but they seem a bit counter-intuitive. If there are moral laws that exist seperate from human belief, where would they come from, and what then does it mean to say "people make moral judgments?"
In what way do moral truths exist? How are they understood? What is there nature?
Just curious :)
Defining what moral realism is doesn't include where it comes from. We will go over that question in August.
InspiringPhilosophy What I mean is: if Morality is objective, and comes from a source beyond human subjectivity, what kind of a thing is it? You were saying that your defence of it will be that (paraphrasing here) it exists similarly to mathematics; but in what way does Math exist?
I guess these questions are entering a "Meta" realm, which is fine by me, haha.
Thank you for your response.
6:03 could you show us the whole chart ?
it should be whole at the end.
thanks, i found this on your another video :)
InspiriingPhilosophy
Thanks for helping me understand the argument better but I am confused about something.
Is it wrong or am I saying it wrong that I believe in objective morality. That I believe murder is objectively wrong as a true statement and not a matter of my opinion. That it's universally true.
Also, that what we do whether right or wrong matters....truly matters.
No it is not wrong, why would it be? Murder and killing are not the same thing.
Thanks I just wanted to make sure I wasn't saying it wrong compared to your video.
What, but why would moral facts be objective.
Morality isn't made up by humans, where do they come from?
@@PajamaManor it is made by humans.
@@tesali9554 exactly.
Airy Nothing no it’s certainly not made by human
@@DrBased Morality isn’t true via consensus, morality just isn’t true
the way i disagree so strongly
Although I would, by default assume an ethical reality, I cannot see how moral realism is not dependent on human beings. I do not understand why there cannot be a human moral reality.
Other social animals more self evidently have their own moral codes that are a reality for their species. Could it make sense to condemn drone bees as feckless, useless, fee-loading layabouts?. I do not think so. Bees exercise their own apine morality; when a worker bee misbehaves by laying eggs in the hive, other bees turn on her and kill her. This is part of apine morality, but totally outside human morality. To be an ethical realist, I do not think that you have to posit a value system that encompasses bees and humans.
What makes the laws of logic truly real, or mind independent? The fact that they are just a definition, correct? Which is why you can’t think of a circular triangle. So you have a definition, but what is universally true or false about it? It is just a description in itself. Humans jump to “does it represent reality?” So you compare it to reality, such as putting two things together, or adding, will give you those two things as a total such as 2+2 = 4, and not five.
Now consider killing babies. You can define the term evil as killing babies. Now we have a description of evil and we can do the same thing as with math/logic and go into the world and see people killing babies. We bring out our definition: evil=killing babies, and see the baby killers and say they are doing evil. OK but we defined it, so with us defining evil, it it’s nothing but circular, and not mind-independent. I would use this to argue that logic and math are not mind-independent either. Perhaps nothing is.
If the Near Death Experience shows us that The Mind is Eternal, that a mental existence is to be found outside biological reality, a. moral foundation will be a conclusion. If this mental existence was a objective projection of the observers spiritual state, then we would be trapped in our own bells and darkness or heavens. If the minds environment is projected outward as the environment then morality would be essential.
Hello IP, someone asking about the unfairness of woman in Leviticus 12, being unclean for 7 days if she bears a boy but if she bears a girl she will be uncleaned for 14 days
CaptainGamr
Look up the Hebrew word Tuma for clarification.
This is not a definition but already a defense of moral realism. As any scientific statement it must be falsifiable, i.e. one must answer the question in what way the world be different if moral realism was false and moral relativism is right. Moral relativism is what we observe (i.e. moral believes change through history and for different societies and even individuals and for the same individual depending on the cricumstances) so what is the observation of our world which requires moral realism to be true? If there is no such observation then the proposition of moral realism is just unscientific. As the proposition that earth is packed with invisible unicorns which are impossible to detect by any means. This proposition can neither be proven nor disproven and is unscientific and useless. To quote Wolfgang Pauli "It is not even wrong."
I agree
Amazing video, you should be an apologist!
Thanks. I am an apologist, just not full time because I don't have enough financial support.
+InspiringPhilosophy oh ok well I could see you up there with rzim etc. When I can I wouldn't mind helping a brother out
That would be great, thanks so much for considering helping, God bless.
Right, so moral realism is simply at odds with God actually (I don't think He did)
COMMANDING human sacrifice to Yahweh (herem), or abortion, or infanticide, or genocide, or cannibalism as a punishment, etc.
If you hold to Divine Command Theory, then when someone asks if these things are objectively wrong, you just may have to cross your fingers behind your back if you tell them "yes".
Wat
How would it still be wrong to murder the mentally handicapped? Don't you need to establish that as a moral fact first? To be clear I'm not making a case for any position, I just fail to see how it is supposed to be a moral fact.
Whoa, whoa, did you just try to show the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate as competing "scientific theories"! Ken Ham does not have a scientific theories, he has a religious theories with some quote mines for credibility. He did not use the scientific method to come up with it and it is nowhere close to the standard of being published in a scientific journal.
I agree. I was more talking about how people disagree about the age of the earth and how that doesn't show science is subjective.
Morality, principles, ethics, compassion, and common sense, are quickly disappearing in this 21st Century timeline.
too good to be true
The ending was pretty weak on this. Killing is not a morally objective action one way or another. Murder is objectively wrong. We have a word for killing for personal gain, which distinguishes itself from tolerable killing. We do not have a word for 'justifiable homicide', so let's use that. Murder is objectively evil and wrong. Justifiable homicide is objectively good and right. Trying to saying killing can be both good and bad is disingenuous to moral objectivists who clearly define their terms.
"Trying to saying killing can be both good and bad is disingenuous to moral objectivists who clearly define their terms.'"
a problem to moral absolutists, not moral objectivists.
This video is trying to make rationalization some sort of Moral Position, it isn't. Reality is a human experience. The wolf has no idea what is going on. He has no fallen nature which has drawn awareness to him. There is no separation from the Creator for all but Man. That fact is central to every issue we face. There is no other issue but this separation. It is the entire reason for Biblical Teachings.
Suppose God can taste food and decides that chicken parmesan tastes better than a strawberry smoothie. Does that mean that food realism is true? What if I prefer the strawberry smoothie? The point is that moral values are subjective with or without a God.
There is no reason to believe that there is an objective scale of tastes between foods. There is however great reason to believe that there is an objective scale of moral acceptibility of deliberate human decisions. God's preference is not in response to its creation, it's the source of the creation itself: If there were a reason God would create this universe with an objective scale of tastes, chicken parmesan (whatever that is...?) would be inherently more tasty and since it is an evolutionary advantage to figure out truth, we would probably figure that out.
Bad point.
As an atheist realist, I think this is a very good video.
>Logic is true
>Causality is true
Dropped
So can't we just call it "being Curious"?
Moral realisim is what we perceive to be right from a human being perspective. Let's take an example ( slaughtering a chicken to feed our desires is seen as morally right by most humans ). We would have to look at moral realism from a universal point of view.
I think you are assuming that is wrong for some reason.
@@InspiringPhilosophy our whole program is built round survival. Even morality, belief and so on ... are part of that program, I also think our soul has a purpose to this universe, it's all connected for some reason, which I think has a role in keeping the universe itself alive, just like what inside of us that keeps us alive. I have no doubt in GOD'S existence. Thanks to my NDE
If everything is built around survival why is it wrong to rape? How does that help my survival? In fact, it would beneficial for reproductive reasons.
I would like to answer that question later. Survival hinges round 2 things ( fear and love ). Without fear we couldn't survive and without love ( attraction ) we wouldn't reproduce. I personally believe that our evolution ( not the Darwinian, but the physical and spiritual ones ) and adaptations are due to our thoughts and beliefs being encoded in our genes and DNA which are then passed over to our siblings and so on... Rape is a form of aggression that in turn creats fear in its victim, and anything that threatens our survival is seen as morally wrong by many. Would a rapist see it this way?
Rape doesn't threaten our survival, though. What you just said doesn't follow. We don't need to love everyone to survive. In fact, most ancient cultures thrived on paying armies off with plunder and raping the cities they sacked. Yet that is evil, why? Why is that wrong even though it was a very benefical policy for the Egyptians, Romans, or Hittites?
It’s still an impossibility to have a science without subjectivity
Why wouldn't it?
hey man do u have twitter?
Yes
@@InspiringPhilosophy can i send some questions there ? whats your @ ? tks!
Email is better: Inspiringphilosophy.org
How does moral realism relate to Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundation Theory as expressed in "The Righteous Mind"?
How did you determine the existence of objective moral facts and duties in the first place? How do you tie that to the laws of logic?
My only real hold up on moral realism is that I cant quite get my head around adopting a theory that posits a real existence of something we cant readily point to. It seems we tap into it through a moral radar we cant quite identify or explain, but this feels like appealing to almost a faith claim. How would we overcome that problem?
We use reason and logic to infer what the morally right and wrong things are. Morality is a rational enterprise.
@@animalcart4128 Aka we made it up in our heads. That's what all morals are, just our opinions we come up with.
@@Grissol69 But valid nonetheless
I have to conclude that moral realism is a product of our emotions and feelings. It is also the attachment that we have to certain beliefs that in turns determines moral realism. However true morality exists, only in the eye of the beholder ( GOD ).
You have to remember that belief is part of our program, and is there for a reason. I didn't believe in GOD, but now do. Thanks to my NDE and my other personal experiences. I can't convince you on GOD'S existence, it's something you have to seek yourself. Just like I did. Please note that I am not referring to GOD as from a religious perspective, but I can assure you one thing, that one day you will have that experience.
Good video, but I have a question regarding moral universalism. I agree that killing can be morally right at times, but would not the sentence "it is wrong to kill for personal pleasure" apply universally and so be both moral realism and moral universalism?
The relativism totally ignores the the fact that once we are in a common ground then we will have the same morality.. keeping reminding us the fact that we are in different situations actually worsens the situation
No, your senses can NOT discover the real world. You can only know what your mind present to you... which is a derivative of the real world. The real world can never be known
How do you know it true the real world can never be known if you can never know?
InspiringPhilosophy Because reality is your mind but your brain is in that which the mind is based upon 😊
How do you know that?
PreMo i know that i don’t know... good old Socrates. Knowing what you don’t lnow is the beginning of knowledge. Your conscience must come from something, but since you only have the mental representation based on sensedata, you only have the photocopy and is blind to what it is based on
Mandibil You seem to be making so many knowledge statements yet you started this with "you can't know anything".
Wait... philosophy _is_ science. It is a social science. Models are made, and tested if they are logically consistent or not.
Just because something doesn't count atoms, doesn't mean it isn't science.
Philosophy is not a social science, not even in the slightest...
not a science, rather a piece of statuary to be studied and discussed
If idealism is true then wouldn't the laws of logic etc depend on observers? Just a thought. Nice video though!
Well maybe not, I guess you could say that there is an ultimate observer or something.
I don't think so. If naturalism were true, that doesn't mean the laws of logic are dependent on physical objects. Similarly, if idealism were true, that doesn't mean the laws of logic are dependent on observers either.
At least that's how I see it. :)
That depends, does the mind that created logic by observing natural phenomena, and basing that linear thought of determinism, an emergent property of a physical brain?
Ah
Lol, I don't know.
still havent goten a reply from you
on what?
I keep watching these moral realism videos hoping for some evidence that it's not another kind of hopeful, religious superstition. So far no luck. (Good vids tho.)
what evidence would you expect? If it is true that objective morality exists, and it is based on God and that God is willing to share that knowlege with us, you should listen to the religion that has the most convincing evidence that God spoke through that religion's prophets: the only evidence that is reasonable is miracles. Miracles factually undeniably happened and happen, basically only in ancient judaism and in christianity ever since it existed. Therefore, if you get convinced miracles are real you should become christian right?
Hello any Kantian out there?
David Navarrete I'm a form of a utilitarian.
David Navarrete Mulanist here.
Not sure I agree with the phrasing “There is a real world BEYOND our senses,” because as far as I’m aware, the only reality we experience is with our senses. How could we detect something without or beyond our senses?
So moral Realism is like religion. It claims objective moral facts even without humans, thuse asserting it's truth even when someone holds another set of ideas/beliefs through the lens of "Oh it simply beyond you" or in religious terms "god work in mysterious ways". What a lovely dead end you have created.
Note the question of "Why" is always the key.
yuo explained nothing, if humans or any similarly cognitivly evolved creature, were not there to begin with, then actions couldn't be right or wrong, since they are not affecting anyones will,
causality exists contigent upon time, so without a universe causality wouldn't make sense
logic is a concept in our minds just like maths, that come from an interpretation of the real world, without our minds or similar logic and maths, could be said to not exist
moral realism is not moral universalism, but it means under the same circumstance, the moral thing to do would be the same
Your examples are confusing. The action you use is killing. Killing may be moral or immoral depending on the context. It is not “objectively wrong” or “objectively right” to kill. And perhaps there is a better alternative to killing a man holding a gun to an innocent child, so that action is not always the correct one in a given situation, meaning it is not “objectively right” in all circumstances. It seems like you’re defending situational ethics here.
I know hypocrites. What kind of moral realism do they have? How can they find something important and judge you for also finding it important?
Prepare for a lot of stupid claims that morality doesn't exist and stuff like that...
Lol after that he will claim that religion is the cause for the immoral and evil people in the world.
After that they'll say that if religion disappears, there will be no more wars.
because it's the most obvious thing
blah blah can't judge reality, blah but what I think is sacrosanct and so must you erm berp derp
Wow, all of your comments couldn't be anymore true...
D_fend R You know what else is true? Empathy. That's the answer to all these moral issues.
So is it the act of observing a parent murdering their child that makes infanticide immoral? Or is it still immoral if no one is watching?
Oh the irony of it all.
Not sure what the point of this question is.
nunya bisnass only if you assume that there's a state of affairs in which no observer is present.
Joshua Kuderik if it's assumed that morality is dependent on some agent, I agree. But what about circumstances where there is an agent, but no actions with moral implications, such as an inability to take action?
I was hoping that my question contained the assumption that an observer is present, but for whatever reason unable to act, preventing a moral implication from being drawn from an action that hadn't taken place.
Is religion based on morality or obedience? Christianity is based on obedience isn't it? If so, why claim it is based on morality?
No: th-cam.com/video/9--lTQh7dUs/w-d-xo.html
InspiringPhilosophy
You linked something to do with salvation. The topic is, is morality based on morality or on following orders?
You asked if Christianity is based on obedience and i did a video on it arguing it is based on morality.
translate this to spanish please.
You lost me when you started talking about moral universalism. I got confused here because it seems as though you are making a case that 2+2=4 (pretending that is a moral law) is always 4 and independent of humans and thier interpretations. Then you say well if someone was getting raped by the number 4 - humans could suddenly interpret (in their subject and contextual view) that in that circumstance 2+2 does not equal 4. So you make this comparison to science about facts carved in stone regardless of interpretation and then say subjectively in certain circumstances these things actually aren’t carved in stone.. and we can use our subjective interpretation to conclude the right thing to do. You say “a moral realist would say it depends on the circumstances” circumstances defined by who? Seems like the same slippery slope a relativist would go down. Surely they would claim that in thier set of circumstances it’s the morally right thing to do to enact eugenics like policies because “classic moral case for eugenics..” it just seems to me like this is always going to happen unless you assume an absolute science like factual, objective stance of morality out side any circumstances/contexts etc please correct me where I’m going wrong but this is how I’m reading it. Amazing videos though!
I think the thing is this: it is not true that an action's morality is independent of the context. For example: firing a gun is not inherently evil, but firing it at a random person is. Universalism claims that there is no difference between murder and killing, but there is, a murder is killing within a certain context (killing of a human being that does not pose a threat to the safety of anybody you have responsibility over). Christianity claims that it is objectively wrong to sin, but the definition of sin implies deliberate and knowing choice to take action in that respect.