I have to say I had not understood the non-historical relationship between the Romans and the Jews/slaves. A psychological trick to win his German people over. Very interesting. This reminds me that Dostoievski uses something similar in Crime and Punishment.
Ken Gemes is just Awesome! But I have a most important REQUEST! It is now a matter of utmost importance that Mr Gemes (and you) talk about Tom Holland's DOMINION, which traces the ascendence and dominance of Christian value judgements. THAT would help complete to make a wonderful conversation... thank you for this!
Objective values are mind-independent values. This means they are values that can be evaluated or judged independently from what people think of them. For example, if murder is wrong because you think it’s wrong, then values are subjective. If murder is wrong, regardless of your belief, then murder is objectively wrong. Lots of ethicists believe that morality is similar to math and logic in the sense that if someone thinks 2+2 is 5, they are simply incorrect. They would say this person has a false belief, as would be the case if he thinks that murder is permissible. In terms of suffering, in order to believe that morality is objective, you would need to believe that suffering is intrinsically bad - that is, it isn’t wrong because it leads to something else. It’s just bad in itself. Does that help?
Nietzsche would say that suffering is everywhere, but it’s not necessarily bad in itself. In other words, suffering can be a good thing, according to him. So, just because suffering can be bad (or can be good), that doesn’t mean it’s intrinsically bad, since suffering isn’t necessarily bad, according to Nietzsche. People who believe in objective morality believe that suffering is intrinsically bad. It’s bad for the person who suffers because they don’t want to suffer.
@@dylanaames250 The issue is, mathematics and logic have a universal reality to them; 2+2=4 is applicable everywhere and every time. p=q is universal (by its v definition). Murder is wrong is not universal. We could happen upon a society of intelligent, advanced, sentient beings who evolved where murder is a natural part of their society. Are you to say, at first contact (or shortly there after) we are to tell them the way they have always been is wrong and they should change? What about a more earthly example. Is murder wrong in defense of self or a 3rd party? What about a soldier who murders another soldier in war? Wht about mercy killing? What about abortion? I am not against abortion but billions of religious ppl believe abortion is murder. All morality is subjective as the universe is amoral. As mathematics and logic have proofs and aims to minimize presuppositions and axioms, morality would need something to show the universality of its claims to objectivity/universal application other than the use of language (aka "bc I said so")
Professor Gemes has done a great job in describing Nietzsche's philosophy. Excellent conversation. Thank you both.
Good interview. Microphone too small
I have to say I had not understood the non-historical relationship between the Romans and the Jews/slaves. A psychological trick to win his German people over. Very interesting. This reminds me that Dostoievski uses something similar in Crime and Punishment.
Ken Gemes is just Awesome!
But I have a most important REQUEST! It is now a matter of utmost importance that Mr Gemes (and you) talk about Tom Holland's DOMINION, which traces the ascendence and dominance of Christian value judgements. THAT would help complete to make a wonderful conversation... thank you for this!
Great discussion. Question what are objective values? On what ontological/material level does "suffering" and "bad" be expressed?
Objective values are mind-independent values. This means they are values that can be evaluated or judged independently from what people think of them. For example, if murder is wrong because you think it’s wrong, then values are subjective. If murder is wrong, regardless of your belief, then murder is objectively wrong. Lots of ethicists believe that morality is similar to math and logic in the sense that if someone thinks 2+2 is 5, they are simply incorrect. They would say this person has a false belief, as would be the case if he thinks that murder is permissible. In terms of suffering, in order to believe that morality is objective, you would need to believe that suffering is intrinsically bad - that is, it isn’t wrong because it leads to something else. It’s just bad in itself. Does that help?
Nietzsche would say that suffering is everywhere, but it’s not necessarily bad in itself. In other words, suffering can be a good thing, according to him. So, just because suffering can be bad (or can be good), that doesn’t mean it’s intrinsically bad, since suffering isn’t necessarily bad, according to Nietzsche. People who believe in objective morality believe that suffering is intrinsically bad. It’s bad for the person who suffers because they don’t want to suffer.
@@dylanaames250 The issue is, mathematics and logic have a universal reality to them; 2+2=4 is applicable everywhere and every time. p=q is universal (by its v definition). Murder is wrong is not universal. We could happen upon a society of intelligent, advanced, sentient beings who evolved where murder is a natural part of their society. Are you to say, at first contact (or shortly there after) we are to tell them the way they have always been is wrong and they should change? What about a more earthly example. Is murder wrong in defense of self or a 3rd party? What about a soldier who murders another soldier in war? Wht about mercy killing? What about abortion? I am not against abortion but billions of religious ppl believe abortion is murder.
All morality is subjective as the universe is amoral. As mathematics and logic have proofs and aims to minimize presuppositions and axioms, morality would need something to show the universality of its claims to objectivity/universal application other than the use of language (aka "bc I said so")
What ? Nietzsche is your friend?