As an atheist I want to say this is a great video and you sound like you have really been thinking about this topic a lot, keep making these videos. But as a darn atheist I want to point out that even with a god, this doesn't make objective morals real, this is kinda the point of the Euthyphro dilemma. And subjective morals can be just as effective. The moral argument for god is circular reasoning, because you need a god to have objective morals but you are using the objective morals to show that god is real. Those are my two cents, and I hope you don't think these are attacks cause I understand that TH-cam comments can seem super arrogant (I have done it before). I just really enjoy these conversations. Thank you
Morality without reason leads to chaos. Just as removing morality from reason takes us to dark places, removing reason means we fail to learn from past mistakes and avoid the path to hell being paved with good intentions. One does not need to supersede the other. Instead, reason and morality are best working in collaboration. As equals. That said, I see no reason for morality to be objective to hold such a key aspect of our decision-making. We do not need to understand the ontology of morality to say if we see something as good or evil. Moral ontology is important when trying to justify moral/immoral behaviours, not when we are appealing to moral behaviours. When talking about subjective morality, I think a lot of people categorise an individual's subjective morality as a social construct, not realising that the term typically refers to an idea that is created and accepted by people in a society. With the lack of a better term for what they are trying to describe, it is understandable why. I was guilty of it in the past. Often what people are trying to describe is something that an individual constructs from social interaction and for social interaction and is unique for them. Therefore, consensus is irrelevant. There are sound reasons to understand morality as unique to every person. When we appreciate that morality is a construction of principles and values it becomes more obvious how morals are paradoxically so similar and also so varied among humans. Moral principles are likely scientifically objective deriving from biological drivers and logical inference. Moral values, on the other hand, are subject to an individual’s socialisation. The following example should be useful to explain how the construction works: The moral principle to not unfairly wound another in the group is arguably universal among humans but also numerous mammalian species. However, who is considered part of the group is highly variable. For people influenced more by ideas promoting inclusiveness, the group could include all humans and even many animals. For people exposed to the promotion of more exclusive ideas, their group may consist of only a small selection of people. Putting aside your odd phrasing of "rejecting atheism". Morality does not require embracing a god belief. Perhaps the adoption of a morality that perceives behaviours with intrinsic moral credit requires a god, but more subjective understandings of morality do not require a god. Whether someone prefers the notion of theistic morality is irrelevant to whether it accurately represents reality.
I’ll try to respond to some of this, I’m a bit under the weather at the moment, so I may try and give you a better response when I’m feeling well. I don’t think reason should be disregarded, it should be used in service of morality, but I don’t think it should or even can operate on the same level as morality, because morality acts as a standard for all else to be compared to. To me, I don’t think morality can be subjective because then that leaves morality to be socially constructed or defined by consensus. For example, some ancient societies regarded child sacrifice as a perfectly upright and acceptable thing to do, which I think everyone would agree is wrong. The reason I used the phrase “rejecting atheism” is because I don’t think you can believe a meaningful universe or objective morality if you don’t believe in a transcendent good of some kind, which is more or less the same as a God belief. Without some element of faith in transcendent good of some kind, the universe is only defined by absurdity, and morality and real value cannot exist within a universe that exists only out of absurdity. I hope that makes sense and clarified some of my points. May come back to this later when I’m feeling well. Thanks for the comment! It was very well articulated!
And as for the question of morality and meaning without an objective source, I think that we create meaning value and morality. To me this seems pretty evident in the subjectivity of these things. If we can disagree about value, meaning and morality, then we at least have them subjectively. I’d also say that these things being subjective, doesn’t make them any less important or impactful upon me.
It's hard to come along with you unless there's first a viable definition of what "morality" constitutes and how and when it conflicts with "reason." If a conflict arises and you make a behavioral choice, you've likely engaged an epistemology or thought process to make that determination. Isn't that a form of reasoning? It also seems to ential that we simply know what is right and wrong intuitively without requirements for justification, and that seems wrong to me.
You’re right I should have articulated myself better about that, it’s not so much that reason itself contradicts morality, it’s that reason can be placed above morality, which as I said in the video, should be a no no. If you are in a conflict of some sort and you use reason to try and find what is the right thing to do, then you are using reason to serve morality, which you absolutely should do. And we generally do intuitively know what is right and wrong, the moral conscience is a very very real thing, some studies have suggested that we start making moral decisions at the age of two. Now of course, the conscience can be tainted and shifted by our environment and possessed by ideology, but that doesn’t negate the fact that we do have a conscience to begin with. There’s something else I didn’t really articulate about this that I should have as well, is that you can tell when you are placing reason above morality because you will notice pride developing. The prideful intellect is what happens when reason is placed above morality, there’s a reason Satan himself is characterized as the prideful intellect. I’ll try and give you an example of what I mean by placing reason above morality. I think carbon taxes are absolutely horrid because the people they affect most are the poor, who are barely hanging on by a thread. The reasoning behind these carbon taxes is that we need to reduce our carbon footprint in order to avoid a hypothetical climate apocalypse that would leave humanity in a tattered and destroyed state, so we are willing to starve a few hundred thousand poor people in order to avoid this hypothetical catastrophe. So we are sacrificing the poor today to possibly save people in the future? That demonstrates a complete lack of faith in humanity’s ability to adapt and overcome, and demonstrates what it looks like to place reason above morality. This isn’t a perfect example but it was the best thing I could come up with right now, I’m quite under the weather at the moment. May come back to this if I come up with something better. Thanks for the comment!
I'm not used to your characterisation of reason. Reason is just a tool. If I become a great carpenter and become prideful, I shouldn't blame my hammer for that. Moreover, I find reason is often very humbling because it leads me away from my deeply held false beliefs.
@@theabdominalsnowman12 You may be speaking symbolically rather than literally, so I might be misunderstanding you. For me, if someone were to accuse a carpenter of putting their screwdriver set over giving to the poor, I would suggest to them that they are not getting to the heart of the matter. There is nothing about screwdriver sets or being rational that prevents people giving to the poor. So, if I we accuse people of putting them above moral duty, we are placing blame on something that is a symbol of a problem, not the problem itself.
Your previous post maintained that the bible is inerrant. I think someone's coping with this post. I am glad you realized how naive your take was. I hope you will always check with real scholars, they will help you. I know a few, too.
Heya, I’m an ethical vegan. I have the deep moral intuition that animal farming is wrong. I imagine this is a moral perspective you would not share. If our moral perspectives can be different like this, surely our moral intuitions are subjective, whether there is an objective morality beyond that or not. If so, I get the impression that you’re putting your own subjectively intuited morality above everything, not the objective morality that you claim.
Well you’re right, that’s not something I agree with, that’s because I believe that animals don’t share the same inherent value as humans. But just because we disagree does not mean that morality is subjective. The point, or one of the points I made in this video was that morality cannot exist in a meaningless/Godless world. If you accept the notion that God exists, along with that comes the fact that humanity’s moral value is placed above all other earthly creatures. If you do not accept that God exists, then your claim that animal farming is wrong is perfectly valid to you, however has no validity to anyone or anything else. There is no value to your moral claim, because it is simply subjective. The point is subjective morality = no morality in the grand scheme of things. Thanks for the comment!
As an atheist I want to say this is a great video and you sound like you have really been thinking about this topic a lot, keep making these videos.
But as a darn atheist I want to point out that even with a god, this doesn't make objective morals real, this is kinda the point of the Euthyphro dilemma. And subjective morals can be just as effective.
The moral argument for god is circular reasoning, because you need a god to have objective morals but you are using the objective morals to show that god is real.
Those are my two cents, and I hope you don't think these are attacks cause I understand that TH-cam comments can seem super arrogant (I have done it before). I just really enjoy these conversations.
Thank you
Morality without reason leads to chaos. Just as removing morality from reason takes us to dark places, removing reason means we fail to learn from past mistakes and avoid the path to hell being paved with good intentions. One does not need to supersede the other. Instead, reason and morality are best working in collaboration. As equals. That said, I see no reason for morality to be objective to hold such a key aspect of our decision-making. We do not need to understand the ontology of morality to say if we see something as good or evil. Moral ontology is important when trying to justify moral/immoral behaviours, not when we are appealing to moral behaviours.
When talking about subjective morality, I think a lot of people categorise an individual's subjective morality as a social construct, not realising that the term typically refers to an idea that is created and accepted by people in a society. With the lack of a better term for what they are trying to describe, it is understandable why. I was guilty of it in the past. Often what people are trying to describe is something that an individual constructs from social interaction and for social interaction and is unique for them. Therefore, consensus is irrelevant.
There are sound reasons to understand morality as unique to every person. When we appreciate that morality is a construction of principles and values it becomes more obvious how morals are paradoxically so similar and also so varied among humans. Moral principles are likely scientifically objective deriving from biological drivers and logical inference. Moral values, on the other hand, are subject to an individual’s socialisation. The following example should be useful to explain how the construction works: The moral principle to not unfairly wound another in the group is arguably universal among humans but also numerous mammalian species. However, who is considered part of the group is highly variable. For people influenced more by ideas promoting inclusiveness, the group could include all humans and even many animals. For people exposed to the promotion of more exclusive ideas, their group may consist of only a small selection of people.
Putting aside your odd phrasing of "rejecting atheism". Morality does not require embracing a god belief. Perhaps the adoption of a morality that perceives behaviours with intrinsic moral credit requires a god, but more subjective understandings of morality do not require a god. Whether someone prefers the notion of theistic morality is irrelevant to whether it accurately represents reality.
I’ll try to respond to some of this, I’m a bit under the weather at the moment, so I may try and give you a better response when I’m feeling well. I don’t think reason should be disregarded, it should be used in service of morality, but I don’t think it should or even can operate on the same level as morality, because morality acts as a standard for all else to be compared to. To me, I don’t think morality can be subjective because then that leaves morality to be socially constructed or defined by consensus. For example, some ancient societies regarded child sacrifice as a perfectly upright and acceptable thing to do, which I think everyone would agree is wrong. The reason I used the phrase “rejecting atheism” is because I don’t think you can believe a meaningful universe or objective morality if you don’t believe in a transcendent good of some kind, which is more or less the same as a God belief. Without some element of faith in transcendent good of some kind, the universe is only defined by absurdity, and morality and real value cannot exist within a universe that exists only out of absurdity. I hope that makes sense and clarified some of my points.
May come back to this later when I’m feeling well. Thanks for the comment! It was very well articulated!
And as for the question of morality and meaning without an objective source, I think that we create meaning value and morality. To me this seems pretty evident in the subjectivity of these things. If we can disagree about value, meaning and morality, then we at least have them subjectively. I’d also say that these things being subjective, doesn’t make them any less important or impactful upon me.
It's hard to come along with you unless there's first a viable definition of what "morality" constitutes and how and when it conflicts with "reason." If a conflict arises and you make a behavioral choice, you've likely engaged an epistemology or thought process to make that determination. Isn't that a form of reasoning? It also seems to ential that we simply know what is right and wrong intuitively without requirements for justification, and that seems wrong to me.
You’re right I should have articulated myself better about that, it’s not so much that reason itself contradicts morality, it’s that reason can be placed above morality, which as I said in the video, should be a no no. If you are in a conflict of some sort and you use reason to try and find what is the right thing to do, then you are using reason to serve morality, which you absolutely should do. And we generally do intuitively know what is right and wrong, the moral conscience is a very very real thing, some studies have suggested that we start making moral decisions at the age of two. Now of course, the conscience can be tainted and shifted by our environment and possessed by ideology, but that doesn’t negate the fact that we do have a conscience to begin with. There’s something else I didn’t really articulate about this that I should have as well, is that you can tell when you are placing reason above morality because you will notice pride developing. The prideful intellect is what happens when reason is placed above morality, there’s a reason Satan himself is characterized as the prideful intellect. I’ll try and give you an example of what I mean by placing reason above morality. I think carbon taxes are absolutely horrid because the people they affect most are the poor, who are barely hanging on by a thread. The reasoning behind these carbon taxes is that we need to reduce our carbon footprint in order to avoid a hypothetical climate apocalypse that would leave humanity in a tattered and destroyed state, so we are willing to starve a few hundred thousand poor people in order to avoid this hypothetical catastrophe. So we are sacrificing the poor today to possibly save people in the future? That demonstrates a complete lack of faith in humanity’s ability to adapt and overcome, and demonstrates what it looks like to place reason above morality. This isn’t a perfect example but it was the best thing I could come up with right now, I’m quite under the weather at the moment. May come back to this if I come up with something better. Thanks for the comment!
I'm not used to your characterisation of reason. Reason is just a tool. If I become a great carpenter and become prideful, I shouldn't blame my hammer for that.
Moreover, I find reason is often very humbling because it leads me away from my deeply held false beliefs.
Right, reason should be just a tool, but you shouldn’t place it above morality, that’s my point.
@@theabdominalsnowman12 You may be speaking symbolically rather than literally, so I might be misunderstanding you.
For me, if someone were to accuse a carpenter of putting their screwdriver set over giving to the poor, I would suggest to them that they are not getting to the heart of the matter.
There is nothing about screwdriver sets or being rational that prevents people giving to the poor. So, if I we accuse people of putting them above moral duty, we are placing blame on something that is a symbol of a problem, not the problem itself.
Your previous post maintained that the bible is inerrant. I think someone's coping with this post. I am glad you realized how naive your take was. I hope you will always check with real scholars, they will help you. I know a few, too.
Apparently you didn’t watch my previous video. My take did not change
Heya, I’m an ethical vegan. I have the deep moral intuition that animal farming is wrong. I imagine this is a moral perspective you would not share. If our moral perspectives can be different like this, surely our moral intuitions are subjective, whether there is an objective morality beyond that or not. If so, I get the impression that you’re putting your own subjectively intuited morality above everything, not the objective morality that you claim.
Well you’re right, that’s not something I agree with, that’s because I believe that animals don’t share the same inherent value as humans. But just because we disagree does not mean that morality is subjective. The point, or one of the points I made in this video was that morality cannot exist in a meaningless/Godless world. If you accept the notion that God exists, along with that comes the fact that humanity’s moral value is placed above all other earthly creatures. If you do not accept that God exists, then your claim that animal farming is wrong is perfectly valid to you, however has no validity to anyone or anything else. There is no value to your moral claim, because it is simply subjective. The point is subjective morality = no morality in the grand scheme of things. Thanks for the comment!