Sam Harris is Wrong About Morality (It Can't Be Objective)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ค. 2018
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: teespring.com/stores/cosmicsk...
To anybody who supports (or even considers supporting) my channel monetarily, thank you. I am naturally grateful for any engagement with my work, but it is specifically people like you that allow me to do what I do, and to do so whilst avoiding sponsorship.
-------------------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------------------
This is a discussion that necessarily involves confusion, conflicting definitions and misunderstanding. I'll be discussing this further with different people very soon, which should hopefully clarify things further.
To further emphasise: though I focus on Harris' argument here, the same logic can be applied to any attempt to define 'good' and 'bad' with reference to observable facts about the universe.
-------------------------------------------LINKS-------------------------------------------
My previous video: • Morality Can't Be Obje...
Sam Harris' Twitter thread: samharrisorg/stat...
William Lane Craig video: • Atheism and Nihilism
A previous conversation I had with Rationality Rules about this: • My Problem With Sam Ha...
--------------------------------------CONNECT--------------------------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
---------------------------------------CONTACT---------------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a shot every time I say 'objective'. By the way, to those criticising Sam Harris in the comments by pointing to masochists, that doesn't discount Harris' point, since their 'pain' is actually pleasure (i.e. it doesn't affect Harris' premise).
CosmicSkeptic if I followed your advice and took a shot every time I would probably be in The hospital with alcohol poisoning.... Great video, you really broke down the concepts and clarified a lot. I hadn't thought of how the transition between subjectivity and objectivity plays such a dynamic role in such a critical discussion. Nicely done. This will give me enough mental juggling to keep me up thinking for a few more hours.
Hmm, okay.
What about pain being an actual necessity to survive? I mean, you guys are aware, and certainly Sam Harris should be, that pain is an important message that allows for our existence. Without it, a minor cut can go unnoticed and fester, and endanger your life. It's such an absurd statement to say that pain is bad.
You could start arguing about 'unnecessary pain', but that's another can of worms you're opening and trying to set boundaries what is and what isn't necessary isn't objectively achievable.
I'm already buzzed....damn.
Would like to see your thoughts on jordan Peterson's veiws on this topic as opposed to Sam Harris .??
I pretend like I'm smart when I listen to these videos :)
same
same
You're not alone my friend
Lol...this actually gave me much comfort to think that I am not alone.
better be careful--you might learn something!
“Why is feeling good objectively good?”
Brave new world intensifes
Hot take: it’s better than 1984 (still love the latter tho)
@@willgriffin9793 It is.
Perhaps due to survival and why is that good? Well I hope we all subjectively think that survival and well being are good or else I'm screwed!
@@kevinharte3636 And that's the point, people do not always value survival, whether of themselves or others. And thus Sam Harris' rhetorical questions fail to prove anything when people give different answers.
Dex Boat I can’t say everyone, but I at least think most value their own survival or loved ones survival. Because they have to share a world with many others, it would seem to be in their best interest to not rape, murder, or steal. As they wouldn’t want it to be done to themselves.
What i really like about you alex is that the way you are speak doesnt put your interlocutor in defence position, which is a very important characteristic for a debator such as yourself.
This is why every "should" needs to be preceded by an "if" in order to be objectively true.
If you want to avoid pain, you should not touch the stove.
You are still making the implicit assumption that goals ought to inform behavior.
@@lenn939 Goals. If your goal is clearly defined, then you can make objective statements about it.
Still not there. If you want to avoid pain, and if you should do what you want, then you should not touch the stove.
what if a very short pain can lead to “pleasure” in the long run but we don’t know it yet? That action would be objectively good to the person’s subjective opinion. But unless we can foresee the future, no one knows if it really is good
@@MenchieExtrakt You'd have to first establish that pleasure is good, objectively. Then define what the heck is supposed to be a short pain.
I’m a big fan of Sam Harris and I like that you challenge him. You should try to get on his podcast, ”waking up”.
Coming back to this after Alex had a chat with Sam in person lol
Can't this argument be simplified down to the question "If there are no conscious beings in the universe does morality exist?" Is morality objective or subjective without consciousness?
Dib Siverak yes. Harris says objective, Alex says subjective
Nicholas Martinez I don’t think that’s quite right. I think Harris is saying that, given the existence of consciousness in humans, there are answers to moral questions based on a collective of preferences. I very much doubt that he would say that objective morality exists outside humanity, but through the lens of human experiences, objective morals are possible.
@@archiephillips1010 The "collection of preferences" that you're referring to is closer to Alex's position (his position being the one I consider more valid). As he said at 2:27, Harris claims to be objective but Alex believes it is rooted in subjectivity. Harris likens objective morality to scientific consensus by suggesting that brain scans and social studies inform us about moral reality in the same way that controlled experiments inform us about physical reality.
It's a strong point, but because science is conducted on and by conscious participants, there is a subjective element to those scientific interpretations. Harris does not acknowledge that, and he doesn't really need to in order to make his idea noteworthy; but Alex is concerned with the most fundamental truth of the premise, so he questions the assumption of objectivity.
Did I address your point properly?
Nicholas Martinez I understand what you are saying, and this is a question which I haven't yet made up my mind yet. I definitely agree that the scientific focus that Harris takes is somewhat weak, but even if we cannot achieve those scientific answers to moral questions in practice, in principle they could theoretically exist.
I suppose I was previously saying that even if you believe (as I do) that morality would not exist without conscious minds, you can still hold the position that moral questions have objective answers - what is broadly understood as moral objectivism. In response to the OP, I was contending his premise of what qualifies objectivity.
if there's no one to make an opinion clearly morality doens't exist.
I've always believed Morality (Good and Bad) is subjective and you really helped me understand it better on a philosophical level, too! :D
Thanks for being on youtube Alex!
This totally confirms what I thought already. Great to end with an upward note that even without an objective morality, we can come a long way with a shared subjective opinion and a willingness to be consistent.
If your goal is clearly defined, then you can make objective statements about it. But are your goals objectively true and moral or not? If they are not, why do you follow something not moral? If yes, then your statements objectively came from objective goals, there is nothing subjective about that.
@@goranmilic442 But your goals are your OWN. They are not anyone else's/humanity's goals.
So according to those other humans the objective goals may be subjective. I guess it is being described as general not for someone in particular.
@@goranmilic442 Goals are gonna be subjective though.
@@visionaryhera I agree with that now. Our goals, for example not being harmed and not suffer, are rational, reasonable and non-arbitrary, but always subjective. Based on our subjective goals, we can make objectively true statements how to protect those goals. I agree with all that. My question is - does the moral obligation to protect other people's goals (not ours) objectively exists? If answer is yes, then our moral system is objective, because it is based on objective moral obligations. If answer is no, then our moral system is not true, since it's not based on something that objectively exists.
Is the statement "wellbeing of all people is good foundation for morality" objectively true statement?
@@goranmilic442 If "wellbeing of all people is a good foundation for morality" is said within the frame of reference of a subjective goal of wanting to maximize wellbeing, than the statement is objective. Also, if "morality" is defined as things in the best self interest of creatures and "good" as things that maximize well being, than again the statement is a descriptive claim and objective. You see the problem?
The only reason this sort of wordplay works is because your abstracting the question of "is [action] good?", to "is [action] *beneficial* in relation to [a goal]". Everyone's basically a realist, even if they consider Relativism, so statements like these are falsifiable. That goal is always subjective though. There is always some part of this that will remain subjective, something that can only be asserted through opinion and personal interest.
Sam Harris' objective morality is not something that exists objectively, but instead it is a set of values derived from objective facts. Also, inner experience/ qualia is PART OF objective reality.
Yes. This.
Exactly.
i think its derived from the objective apriori fact that a thriving society seeks out the maximum well-being of the whole
The problem is that the facts Sam chooses to derive his values from are arbitrary
@@voidoflife7058 Did you even read my comment? Sam derives his values from subjective experience / qualia, which is PART OF objective reality. Us not being able to see the other side of the moon doesn't make it any less objective.
Simply admitting that reality itself is subjective seems to support the idea that morality must also be. It’s nice to finally see an argument that suggest that morality must be subjective, and that we can still socially construct useful moral ideologies without requiring moral objectivity. Thank you for putting this viewpoint out there. Keep up the great work.
agreed
Going on the premise that morality is subjective and we can still socially construct useful moral ideologies would you agree that this opens the door for sliding morality to justify things like killing mass groups of people? Also how do we divide the populous in terms of who the “We” is that defines the “socially agreed upon moral ideologies?” I.e. if a nation voted and decided that killing their homeless was morally justified would this argument defend their socially agreed upon moral code of killing the homeless?
@@philramos5827 Yes, that may be true. But why lie to ourselves about the nature of morality? Also, look how many have been killed in the name of religion and value systems that have objective moral standards. That fact hasn't stopped people from doing bad things,
@@philramos5827 It is dependent on the standard for your morality. If you use a pleasure/pain standard, you can derive our current morals.
the admittance of moral subjectivity has its own problems too
_"For something to be objectively true, it means that that truth is in no way influenced by human opinion. So if that truth is a human opinion, it can't be objective."_
What you're really trying to anser is the question "Is morality absolute?" rather than "Is morality objective?". The former question is akin to asking "What's outside the limits of the universe?" (provided there is a limit); it's a fundamentally flawed question that lacks an answer by definition. Morality, by its very definition, is inseparable from consciousness. Thus, it's not meaningful to talk about morality _without_ (or beyond) human influence, much the same way it's not meaningful to talk about what's outside the boundaries of everything that exists.
I was with until you limited morality and consciousness to humans. Many of species have morality and consciousness
Isn't the entire point of objective morality to show that whether something is "good" or "bad" does not depend on humans agreeing that it is that way? Stating that there is no morality without human influence is conceding to subjective morality.
Well if morality isnt objective it cant be absolute,also you argued using a diferent definition from that of the video,OR you assumed that its obvious to arrive at the very conclusion of his argument and thus its meaningfull,but the mere fact that people can argue that it is objective means its not obvious or self evident thus it is meaningfull to discuss it.
You also used a false analogy,the situation you portrayed isnt analogous to that of the video.
well if there was a limit to the universe would there be anything outside of it? unless its a timeless immaterial "thing" but then you would have to argue that our universe is infinite rather than finite but we have knowledge of the big bang, suggesting a beginning, therefore not infinite. and morality by definition is not inseparable from consciousness. because that would mean every single organism would have a conscious. morality is a distinction between right and wrong. you can either chose x or b. it is subjective to the being making the choice.
@@mydude4860 No. Objective means it is not biased. Rational morality is in fact objective morality.
I just remembered, the only time in my life that I begged for pain medication I had a severe case of gallstones so my gallbladder was completely infected and could have burst and killed me. Therefore I can objectively say that pain saved my life, and therefore pain is good.
In reality, pain is neither good nor bad, it is the consequence of good and bad and neutral phenomena. Sam Harris did what we loathe about religious preachers: an argument from emotion.
That fits within Harris's worldview
We are emotional creatures and emotion is central to human facts. Stop being foolish.
@@paddleed6176 You have something very twisted in your concepts. Yes, we emotional creatures, and I could talk a lot about how emotions are interpreted and misinterpreted, but the phrase "human facts" is so vague that it means nothing. Maybe I am foolish, but you are at least as foolish as I am if you think that "human fact" means something related to how we process information.
Hi,
I feel like i need to clarify something that you might have missinterpreted about the positions of Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty (yes it's another one of those comments).
What Sam and Matt seem to be proposing is a system of morality that is objective in that you can make objective assessments of actions with regards to morality.
HOWEVER and this is the important part. Both Sam and Matt have aknowledged that the foundation of this system is subjective.
We care about well being (subjective)
We can now develop a system on which to asses moral actions that is based on empirical facts with this foundation. And this system will be objective.
If I were to use your analogy of the colour blue then:
If we agree that we care about the "blueness" of things (subjective)
We can then objectively asses the coloring of peoples rooms and houses and determine if they are better or worse.
If we care about the blueness of things then a red room is objectively worse than a purple room.
Of course not all people agree that well being should be the foundation for morality, and some people don't even care about well being at all.
This is an entire different discussion and the foundation needs to be justified in order to convince someone.
I hope my take on this issue is of use..... Cheers!
Okay good. I was getting worried Sam didn't understand that he was speaking in circles after hearing him in a few debates I watched. But that's good. It is founded in subjectivity, which is totally what I agree with, then now the practical element can be implied through metaphorical truths as Bret Weinstein stated. Since we as humans do not have complete omniscience, then acting as though having everyone alive will help the majority subjective betterment of society will help in more ways then one. My main contention with him was that he didn't realize it was totally subjective.
Sam claims more than you say he is. He claims "science can determine moral values" without clearly stipulating any additional ought assumptions. This is evident in his denial of Hume's guillotine.
Thank you, I was searching for that in the comments. It is not such a difficult premise. I wonder why an intelligent guy like Alex didn’t get that.
Abdullah Moosa - Yes Harris claims that. And it makes sense if you define “good” as maximizing wellbeing. You can scientifically determine if an action increases or decreases wellbeing.
@@regeb000 to be fair, Sam Harris does pussyfoot around the issue quite a bit.
I recommend you read the moral landscape again. I feel you have missed the grounding of his argument (a nuance you will not find in a twitter thread). Harris argues that ONLY AFTER we accept that human well-being is the object of morality, can we make objective claims about morality.
If you disagree that human well-being is the object of morality (could it possibly be anything other?) then, yes, morality cannot be objective.
But once we accept that well-being is the object of morality, there are definite objective truths on which morality rests. We may not always be able to discern what these truths are (because our understanding of how human well-being is influenced is imperfect), but there will be an objectively correct answer to all moral questions.
You can't expect from an imperfect machine to give you moral perfection. We are subjective by nature to look out for reproduction and expansion and looking for power. We are beings that, a chemical in our bloodstream can change the way we think. We are not made to know, and we can't yet know how to shatter the barrier of our physical weaknesses. If human well being is the object of morality, we can't know if it's right or wrong because we are subjective beings. The fact that different people have different moralities, is proof that we face a difficult problem.
As soon there is any problem with "objective" truth or morality from Saris argumentation, there is already proof, that this is not objective not only to the core, but also to the principle. What Saris is confusing is individual well-being (to which we could agree) with collective well-being (which is subjective and possible to interpretations). As soon your well-being is decreasing by someone else, there is no objective (within Saris morality) ought, to not remove such person. Sam reduces morality to numbers that can be measured by science ASSUMING that science can measure it (and it is big assumption). Within his moral landscape, as long as you give drug to person, and remove all of its feelings, it would be morally neutral if you kill such person - as long as number (whole sum of whole pleasure - pain) is less than before anything goes.
It is not even moral landscape, it is moral wave, that can change at any point at any time, and it doesn't give any reference actually.
If reducing pain of conscious being is a goal, why not to nuke everyone? At the end number of experienced pain will be less.
The problem with this is you have to ignore (accept) the reality that we are subjective organisms. It seems akin to trying to ignore gravity and arguing we can float freely if we just accept it didn't exist.
The grounding of Harris' argument is addressed in the video in regards to this, mentioning that his argument is built on a false premise or the assumption we are objectively objective rather than subjectively objective. Not that it doesn't have any utility as it definitely does, but philosophically it's inconsistent.
@UCkcGdn9pK9yelEvnwdSEQmw you can't truly prove the dish is positively accepted by most and be objective about it until you prove that our senses are objective. Noone can prove that senses are objective because the only way to experience the objective is through our senses who can be faulty or not and we can't objectively know that they don't fool us every moment of our lives, if we have a life. Sam is a public figure, his morality if I understand you is a moral intuition, an intuitive awareness of right and wrong. It's not his morality it is the one of the world. The media informs us about the right and wrong, about the boundaries beyond which one should not venture and about the "evil" can assume. I am fine pretending I know what is right or wrong that way.
You nailed. Sam has a reference point, and that’s “human well-being”.
You lost me at “Hello, I’m Alex”
Lol
LOL...say what you may about CosmicSkeptic, he does make a coherent argument regarding Subjective Vs Objective morality.
You stopped listening to an argument because of 4 words? Why?
@@boopdeboop4342 its a joke
@@saikgamingproductions OK lol
This was a fun video to watch simply because I think this might be one of the rare moments where I actually think Alex is wrong.
As I understand it, Harris grounds all of his "objective morality" claims in the subjective basis of human well-being. There's nothing that can be independently, objectively said about the human condition because it is an entirely subjective domain. When he says we should do anything, he is saying this in accordance with the assumption that we are concerned with well-being. If we instead say that we are entirely unconcerned with well-being, then I think Harris would agree that we wouldn't have an objective morality (nor do we have any morality, because we are then essentially accepting nihilism). But, since morality is entirely concerned with the behaviour of humans, and because humans intrinsically want to maximize their own well-being, we can make objective assessments as to whether actions will increase or decrease well-being. Therefore, objective morality arises from a subjective goal of well-being.
So, it is subjective then? I'm sorry I am now confused as I ever was when diving in Philosophy of Morality and whether or not it can be objective or is it always subjective.
@@arkyudetoo9555 yes, subjective. Objective morality can't exist because morality wouldn't exist without subjective beings
I think Sam Harris’ perspective is far more compelling, especially for those of us coming out of religious backgrounds. It has been an incredible bridge for understanding morality with my family and a great starting point for the future of Humanism.
One function of religion has been to affect human behavior, which is what morality is related to. A common technique for doing that has been to use God as a sort of cudgel to scare people into a particular behavior. Currently conservative religions do that with homosexuality.
But if naturalistic morality asserts something is "objectively" true, it may also go after certain behaviors someone thinks are "objectively" wrong and use that "objective" truth as a cudgel as well.
Isn't it preferable to realize religious morality is humanistic in origin just as so called "naturalistic" morality is? Anytime the word "morality" is used, it invariably will relate to some behavior. Then one can debate the relative merits of that behavior.
That being said, parents are within their rights to manage the behavior of their children, that's their job. To the parent, it likely will be true that if their child is acting out in public, they will (and probably should) be reprimanded. Expanding the family to society at large, we create laws to serve as a stand-in for a phantom parent who can't be there in person to manage behavior. I doubt anyone would argue that the law was "objectively" true, just do it or suffer the consequences.
I thought too, that i needed objective morality, when i left my faith, because god had provided an objective moral authority, or so i thought. The key was not to try and find objective morality without god, but to realize, that religious morality wasn't objective either
to me its not about objective morality, there is objective things that negatively effect an organism irregardless of belief, the effect is real, and therefore objective. therefore murder is objectively wrong because it causes real results that are not subjective. if stabbed, anyone on earth will find it bad, because its an objective occurrence. or in this case an objective deterrence.
@@aliceslabit’s taking too far a leap to say that something is objectively wrong because it is universally negative. Sure we can all agree that stabbing is wrong but it would be going to far to say that it’s a fact that stabbing is wrong
I don’t really understand why you consider objective morality more compelling. You can still have a moral guideline, it’s only a difference in classification
You have been able to clearly articulate my intuitive discontent during reading the moral landscape. Much appreciated!
'The Moral Landscape' was truly laughable. No philosopher takes the book seriously.
Dex Boat The sad thing is, I’ve met a lot of what I would call Starbucks philosophers who think Sam Harris has redefined ethics and is being ignored because of politics. Sad state of philosophy right now when Harris is seemingly one of the stars of it in the public’s eye and the arguments he’s making are so thin and brittle to the touch.
Cuck philosophy really fucks this book up good, I just love seeing a guy who peddles stuff like the bell curve to be a proven idiot
Bruce Banner So do I. Honestly, I fucking love cuck philosophy. His videos are amazing.
@@coolvids841, I am a PhD candidate in Philosophy and I take Harris's arguments very seriously. Maybe you don't like him for one reason or another, but his arguments are not bad and are actually not new.
And since you like the Cuck Philosophy's hit piece video, please see my comment in full. (Strangely, no one responded.)
90% of the criticisms in this video can be turned against itself. “Philosopher P disagreed with Harris on issue m” is not a sufficient argumentation strategy. This is because “Philosopher Q agreed with Harris on issue n” is an available response. You can’t name drop the Is-Ought distinction, the Open Question argument, and Kant and simply say, “See?”
Harris’s argument is a species of naturalistic reductive realist moral theory in Metaethics and consequentialism in normative ethics. There are philosophers who argue similar combinations of positions, most notably Peter Railton (about whose views there is a chapter in Alexander Miller’s book referenced at the end), but there are also some who argue for these different points separately. It’s dishonest at best to represent Harris as someone who failed so miserably in the argument that it’s not even serious to discuss him.
Furthermore, the video (@) claims falsely that Harris does not mention by name philosophers who support his work. He does. The acknowledgements (p. 210) mention that early drafts and parts of the work were reviewed by Paul Churchland, Daniel Dennett, Owen Flanagan and Anthony Grayling. Flanagan is mentioned again, along with William Casebeer, in footnote 9 to Chapter 1 on page 211.
The point of the argument is in reducing everything we already value (descriptively) to the quality of experience. By this move the entire normative field is collapsed into the descriptive project of the sciences. Harris didn’t make a persuasive case for it, certainly, but that’s because the book targeted the general educated public and not professional philosophers. But that does not mean that the argument contained in it is outside of the purview of what metaethicists professionally discuss. At the very least, we have to acknowledge that there is some value in this extremely multifaceted conversation instead of dismissing it because Hume.
I may be completely misunderstanding Harris here, but I have a different interpretation of what he is saying.
To parallel my interpretation of Harris, consider the world "tree". That word refers to a perennial plant with an elongated stem, or trunk, supporting branches and leaves. It's objectively true that we use the word "tree" to refer to such real world referents - however, you could use a different word to refer to those referents, and the definition of "tree" itself might change, but at that point you are no longer referring to the same thing as before.
Or more analogously, the word "blue" refers to a particular set of wavelengths of light. Everyone puts the boundaries at different places, but if you said orange was "blue", you would still be objectively wrong, despite that fact being both entirely based on opinion on mutable.
So it is with morality. When you talk about "morality", people are talking about a real world referent - a set of action that promote what we happen to call "wellbeing". People may claim something else is the actual referent, or that there is no actual referent, but that doesn't change that when they start applying labels to actions, they end up mostly using the same referent all the same. Thus, if you say it is something else, you are still objectively wrong, even if it may one day be the case that that fact changes.
I don't completely agree with some of Harris' extrapolations here, since this isn't a standard way of referring to objectivity, but I do think that you can meaningfully say that "x is moral" is an statement with objective truth value just like "x is a tree" is. That said, I'm open to being convinced that A) my interpretation is wrong and/or B) that isn't a useful definition of objective or even that I have an even deeper misunderstanding. If someone could highlight the flaws in my thinking (either Cosmic or someone more familiar with Harris' work beyond The Moral Landscape) I would greatly appreciate it.
But isn't the color blue exactly an example why things are not objective? The classic example is the dress where people disagree on whether it is golden or blue:
www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/
Just today I had a long conversation about whether two things have the same color: I said no, she said yes. The problem, of course, is that objects with different surfaces are not just a single color. They are complex things, have shades, have subsurface scattering, varying roughness, reflections, etc. As such, they create different impressions in different minds.
And do we really perceive wavelength? The checker shadow illusion is a good example that shows that this is not the case.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Checker_shadow_illusion.svg
What we perceive is a correlate of the wavelength. And just because most people agree on something, it doesn't mean that it is an objective fact.
Take Mount Everest as an example: Everyone would agree that it is huge, but this doesn't mean that "huge" is an objective fact.
So while there are pretty salient examples like blue, green, orange, etc. on which we agree relatively fast, especially in a very controlled environment such as an RGB-filled computer screen, we rarely have such controlled environments in reality. How can we measure the equivalent of wavelength in the moral sense?
While there are pretty salient examples like murder or causing pain that we quickly agree on, as we have evolved to feel empathy to a certain degree, we quickly come into a space of extreme fuzziness where we do not agree at all. Once we move from abstractions to real-world examples, things get damn difficult.
The reality looks more like the following photo:
www.123rf.com/photo_38250047_natural-wood-color-pine-ply-wood-textured-background-.html
What's the color of this piece of wood?
Much like this piece of wood, our actions are not just a single color. Our actions are complex and embedded in subjectively perceive social context.
But the reality is even messier than this. Our actions are much more like the colors of our skin which depend on the color of the light that enters our skin, gets scattered, and is sent out again.
No one denies that morality is correlated with our genetic makeup.
If morality was objective, however, the question is why we even have to discuss it in the first place?
Why was religion even necessary to state the obvious?
Could it be, because we rarely live in abstract, artificial environments like RGB screens but in the real world which is so much fuzzier and more complex?
@@ZooDinghyI agree that morality is fuzzy in my areas and I appreciate the concrete examples and analogy you gave to color perception. However, when you suggest toward the end that if morality is objective, we wouldn’t have to discuss it: would you likewise say math is not objective as evidenced by thousands of years of discussion? Sure, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem asserts no mathematical system based on a set of axioms can be proven outside those axioms, much like human morality. But would you likewise imply that mathematics may not be objective if it requires such discussion? Curious if you likewise think math isn’t objective. I believe we would agree in essence about this issue as a whole.
@@user-pr2os3ky2r I doubt mathematics will help us here. A mathematical discussion is quite different from that of a discussion about morality.
Example: can we agree that eating animal meat is wrong? No. But what if we can produce artificial meat in the lab without animal suffering? Is it then morally wrong? And if yes, how similar must the artificial meat be to real meat that we can agree, that it is wrong to produce and eat animal meat? Where do we draw the line? Is saitan meat like enough? Or does it have to taste identical? Or is eating meat only OK when you have no alternative protein source such as lentils? There is no objective answer here.
@@ZooDinghy In what relevant way is my analogy inappropriate?
@@user-pr2os3ky2r In what way is it appropriate? How do you use math to derive objective morality? Mathematical discussions are quite different from discussions about morality. Unless a methodological error was made, people will say: Great, we didn't know, now we now. We didn't know that this type of search algorithm with such properties existed. Now we now. That's not a discussion of people who disagree.
I really like the way you set the non partial views in your videos. I prefer it on the grounds that it makes things much easier to learn and come to understand. This video has taught me a lot about why I find myself running in circles around the ideas of morality, and I am happy I now have an understanding. Thank you for the videos you make!
Thanks Alex for the thought provoking video. I need to look at this topic further. Have you any reading recommendations to start with?
You should actually watch one of Sam Harris's lectures on the topic. Alex did a terrible job at addressing the content of Sam's arguments.
bless the yt algorithm for actually working for once. psyched to find your channel
If every consciousness in existence agreed that blueberries taste great, then your differentiation between objective and subjective doesn’t make any sense, because ‘the taste of a blueberry’ doesn’t exist independently from consciousness.
Have raised this concern before in the comment section of one of your other vids on the subject. Would love to hear your response.
It would therefore be an objective fact that all humans experience blueberries as great. However, it would not be an objective fact that blueberries *are* objectively great. This is because the definition of objectivity is independence from human conviction. That is, a proposition's truth or falsity must be so independently of what humans think about it.
Hence, if it truly were an objective fact that blueberries were great, it would remain an objective fact even if everybody changed their minds and suddenly hated them. This obviously isn't the case, and so the proposition that blueberries are great is subjective, even if it's a subjective opinion everybody agrees with.
However you are right, in this case, it would be practically impossible to distinguish between objectivity and subjectivity, since the subjectivity at the heart of the proposition is not highlighted by disagreement (since nobody disagrees). This is why, though I do not subjectively disagree that pain is bad, I think it's important to distinguish between something that I and everyone else can agree is bad, and something that is objectively bad, which would require 'badness' independent of human opinion, which makes no sense.
hi, don't know if you pick up on these comments. But i'd like to hear your thoughts on what Harari calls 'intersubjective myths'. Things we 'all' take as objective.... but are fundamentally just ideals we put forward.
I think there is a great comparison between morality and fe. monetary systems. No one seems to claim the value of money (based on banks, investers,. stockmarkest) needs a god to objectively ground them in... Yet we all agree on the value of it (to some great extent). No-one will sell there house for one dollar.
But it goes pretty far: the value differs trough time and cultures ; it is linked to what we freely chose to value as people ; ...
Thanks for your response (running a channel of similar size myself I know the pain-points associated with engaging too much in the comment section 😅). In that spirit, this would be my closing statement: I think I've come around to your point of view that there is no "objective" morality in the strict sense (and no objective "bad" or "good" for that matter). I think even Harris would agree to this semantic framing. However, I think that this concession leaves Harris' end-game intact: there can be a science of morality, which studies objective *facts about* human well-being and allows us to make more informed decisions on questions of human governance, legal systems etc.
This is so bad Cosmic Skeptic. If all humans experienced blueberries as tasting great then it would be an objective fact that blueberries taste great to humans. If every human suddenly died it wouldn't change the fact that in a universe where humans can exist that blueberries taste great to humans.
Your definition of objective is off.
blamtasticful it would be an objective fact that blueberries CURRENTLY tasted great to humans. You can't guarantee that they would CONTINUE to taste great to future humans. Also, you can't really make such generalized statements. Consider humans that do not experience taste (the equivalent of blind people that wouldn't agree on the Blue being the best in CosmicSkeptic's example), how are blueberries great for them? And how can you be sure there are no humans that are allergic to blueberries?
I think I agree with your position. You don't like the term "objective" because it implies something could be "good" in the universe even without conscious mind to assign "goodness" to it. That doesn't make sense because nothing is good or bad outside of subjective experience. A term like "universally subjectively good" would be a better term. However, practically there's no difference between the two, at least as far as I can see. Unfortunately, because many philosophers take issue with the term "objective", I think the public dismisses Sam's position too quickly and misses out on the value of the message behind it.
brooo didnt think to find you here
also great point. imagine arguing about what is essentially semantics instead of making the world a better place. all hail god emperor sam harris
Well, would the "best" color of the wall not be dependant upon the function of the wall and wether or not the color assists in the function of the wall more conducively than any other color?
I think morality will always come down to some combination of empathy, which is biologically based, and evolutionary survival of our species.
Truth Matters why would we survive by killing each other? If there was no empathy, everyone would cause harm, suffering, and eventually death to each other. Now tell me how that would contribute to the survival of a species, especially one as social as we are
@@lizardperson780 Umm...
We do kill other tribes who are the same species as us all the time.
Omg so much hype!! You uploaded.
As far as I can tell, the only way morality is objective is if you are everyone and know everything.
Nathan Can it not be a Do you recognize mathematics and logic as objective?
Are you trying to infer that the Borg Collective makes morally objective decisions? 🤣
Only God is that
+Carlos Sanchez Actually, no. God is supposed to be omnipresent, but also leave your free will intact, be omnibenevolent, and without sin.
Ergo, God cannot sin or experience evil, since he's pure goodness by definition. Therefore, he cannot be you, a sinner, or be inside you and experience your sins and wickedness. This means he can't possibly know what it feels like to be a sinner, since he can't be in the presence of sin. Ergo, God cannot be fully omniscient if he is omnibenevolent and sinless.
And if he's not omniscient, he cannot be a source of objective morality, only a subjective one, based on his own, sinless perceptions of his universe. His incredible knowledge of the Universe itself is irrelevant in deciding what is good or isn't for humans on tiny Earth: it doesn't add any relevance to his subjective judgements. Moreover, his incapacity to experience sin and remain in the presence of sin, deprives him of valuable information regarding the issues he is supposed to judge.
Therefore, God is _less_ suited than human society to morally judge humans. Finally, since God needs to be timeless in order to be the Creator proposed by the religious, he's faced with two more issues:
• God cannot experience what it feels like to be a timely, mortal being, therefore cannot understand humans, period.
• Being timeless, God is also doomed to be unable to understand causality, as this concept is necessarily meaningless to a being which doesn't even experience time.
Ergo, God cannot understand causes and consequences, which is one of the necessary premises to understand sins and crimes in the first place. Ergo, God cannot sin, and cannot judge sinners either, since he doesn't even understand anything about timely beings.
Bonus: a timeless being couldn't create a timely universe in the first place, since he would have no way to invent and comprehend the concept in the first place, due to his eternity. Ergo, a timeless God cannot create a timely universe.
Ultimate conclusion: the God hypothesis destroys itself, inevitably. It cannot do anything or be used to conclude anything, because it doesn't make any lick of sense.
Luc Fauvarque Are you assuming that God must be in accordance with your understanding of logic?
I only started following your channel about a month ago and you already made me change so many of the convictions I've had for all of my life. Wow! :D Thanks!
First of all: I liked this video, because you had imho a beautiful scheme of thought. I agree with your last argument when you talk about finding shared points of opinion.
I am surprised that it can be called objective to say that pain is bad. I thought that objectivity ends where meanings starts. I am not a masochist at all, but I can welcome pain, because I tend to forget that I have wounds. Pain reminds me that I have to prioritize in another way. Pain has helped in evolution to survive. I think that it is objective to say that it is very useful for survival of the individual and hence the species. There is also the pain of learning new things. It can really exhaust to learn and one can feel pain in the process. That pain I normally like. It is similar to the pain one has when training. No pain, no gain. Pain has a lot of different aspects, but the meaning about or the response to it is hardly ever objective.
When Sam Harris writes about sucks, he is in the realm of opinions and meaning and has therefor left objectivity and pure awareness far behind him. That latter is my opinion of course. :-)
What about pains caused by injecting a sick person with appropriate vaccines? Should we call that kind of pain bad.
Sometimes pain is "good". A patient I was caring for needed heart bypass surgery. It hurt a lot. It was worth it. The pain itself wasn't "good" but sometimes going through the pain is the path to the best result. The patient is only 47 years old, he didn't take his diabetes serious enough. Not only is his health much better now, the pain he went through has motivated him to change his lifestyle dramatically. Without the pain, he probably wouldn't have changed his life. The pain probably has added 20 years or more years to his life. If he didn't take care of his diabetes he would have died far younger than he will taking care of himself.
I think we all want to minimize pain, but it's difficult to know how. How can you know the best way to minimize pain when you cannot fully know the consequences of your actions, or measure the different forms, intensities and durations of pain? I think the best solution is to trust your intuitions in order to avoid pain where possible while also accepting that pain is inevitable. It seems that for your patient, the "amount" of pain from sadness, regret etc of an early death was greater than the physical and mental pain from heart surgery. And I'm sure for others, they'd rather smoke cigarettes and eat junk food till the day they die!
No.
If you actually feel pain, you can in that moment not fail to avoid it. That's what it means.
All of your examples are either not pain or stuff you endure, because the alternative means more pain.
If you feel good during exercise, that's not pain, that's the opposite of pain.
Good video, thanks Alex.
I think you're missing an important link between subjectivity and objectivity and that's causing you to pick "either or" regarding morality.
There is no hard barrier between subjectivity and objectivity, they're are fluid and in constant contact with one another, each part of the stream of cause and effect.
Subjectivity is the felt sense of what we're like in the world. But all of our subjective states are also objective. We of course feel subjective pain with the hand on the hot stove. But all that subjective pain is also objective, the heat is objective heat, the hand is an objective hand, the brain taking those pain inputs (as raw subjective pain) is an objective brain. Each subjective fact about our experience rides on top of objective facts.
Interestingly, subjectivity feeds back into objectivity too. The subjective feeling of pain sends out objective signals that quickly move our objective hands away.
So they are inextricably linked, the two. I would reframe them not as distinct types, (both are objective since subjectivity is 100% built on objective facts) but as subjectivity being the experience of objectivity.
Let's say Cathy has a moral code. It's a subjective experience and you may be hard pressed to call her morals objective. But I claim her subjective morality is also an objective morality. The factors in the world that give rise to her feelings and moral stances are objective forces, her neural pathways that take inputs from the world and output a moral stance inside her head are also objective forces, the actions she takes motivated by her morals are objective actions.
There is no break in objectivity all the way through the subjective experience of having feelings and morals. Therefore our morals are both subjective and objective.
Cheers!
A process might have objective parts but that doesn't make it objective. It will ultimately be subjective according to definition of subjective and objective.
"the actions she takes motivated by her morals are objective actions."
if i have the opinion that realistic paintings are the definition of good art, and that belief motivates me to learn how to paint realism, and I claim my paintings are good, does that make them good? no, thats still a subjective opinion.
You can say that objectivley, my painting looks realistic, but you cant say that it looks objectivley good. Just because something has an objective quality to it, or a subjective belief inspired me to make choices which are inherently objective (because they happened/existed), it does not mean that the actions/object are objectivley *good*, just that they objectivley exist and exist a certain way.
you are confusing an opinion on goodness with the idea that things can happen for reasons. the act, and the fact that someone believed the act was objective are objective, but the actual belief behind it isn't (which is what morality is).
Good thing I watched part 1. Again brilliant video. Thanks.
The way i would say it can qualify as "objective" is that it uses external criteria to determine what is moral. Red is objective because it describes real properties in the world too so if things can be objectively 12 feet long, red, or 20 pounds then they can also be objectively "moral" if they meet the systematic criteria you define as morality
Red is a subjective term. The wavelengths of light that you perceive as and name 'red', can be perceived in an entirely different way by another creature. Something can be objectively reflecting specific wavelengths of light, but it cannot be objectively 'red'.
So, basically.... we can pick and choose anything that can exist objectively and claim that the object is objectively moral on the basis of our criteria of morality?
@@nayeemather1252 as long as you have some criteria. If someone just has a list of rules they were taught individually or a gut feeling theyve never analyzed then they arent being particularly objective
"Objective morality" is an oxymoron. Morality is a system of values, and values are dependent on a subject to exist, so morality is subjective by definition.
Crazy Jesse Firstly, belief is not a choice, it's an involuntary reaction to being presented with certain information. Also, your rebuttal failed to address my argument. "I will die if I don't eat" is an objective statement about reality, because my body will permenently shut down if I do not ingest nutrients, regardless of my subjective personal feelings about it. "Pain is bad" is not an objective statement about reality, because the "badness" of pain is completely dependent upon my subjective personal experience of pain.
If you are saying that "pian is bad" cannot be a moral pronouncement, you're wrong. It is an highly impractical standard for what is immoral, but it is still possible for someone to hold it as a standard. My original assertion was that morality is subjective, and that therefore the phrase "objective morality" is itself meaningless. I also made the tacit assertion that subjective and objective are mutually exclusive, but that should be self-evident.
Subjective things are dependent on a subject by definition; objective things exist independently of any subject by defintion. A thing's existence cannot be both dependent upon and independent of any subject, that's irrational.
@Crazy Jesse But what if the broken arm prevents you from being sent into war and die?
@Crazy Jesse I believe Senna might have been referring to this Chinese parable.
There is a Chinese story of a farmer who used an old horse to till his fields. One day, the horse escaped into the hills and when the farmer's neighbors sympathized with the old man over his bad luck, the farmer replied, "Bad luck? Good luck? Who knows?" A week later, the horse returned with a herd of horses from the hills and this time the neighbors congratulated the farmer on his good luck. His reply was, "Good luck? Bad luck? Who knows?"
Then, when the farmer's son was attempting to tame one of the wild horses, he fell off its back and broke his leg. Everyone thought this very bad luck. Not the farmer, whose only reaction was, "Bad luck? Good luck? Who knows?"
Some weeks later, the army marched into the village and conscripted every able-bodied youth they found there. When they saw the farmer's son with his broken leg, they let him off. Now was that good luck or bad luck?
Who knows?
@@smokingcrab2290 because pedophiles and murders are not evil by the measurements of logical coherency what I mean is that we as humans associate pleasurable things with good and unwanted things with bad but to me this is still a logical fallacy because it's your emotion that puts lables of "good" or "bad" on how it makes you feel This is logically incohorent
A murderer can't be bad because he made u feel sick inside, what if it didn't make another person sick inside would they then call that good or neutral... all on opinions..
.. subjective morality explains this in a sensible way because there are no resorts to emotion on its behalf
@4:27 You complete the thought experiment of placing one's hand on the stove and sum it up as an agreement that all persons "agree" this is bad for humans because they experience pain. Further, you say that simple agreement of a painful experience fails to justify it as a fact that it's "bad" because of the subjective pain felt. But, you need to look at the real-world damage that was done to the hand, i.e., blistering, tissue damage, the potential for infection, etc. This isn't a "subjective" situation as there are real-world consequences for placing one's hand on a red-hot stove.
It's not just the very subjective experience of pain we're talking about but the real-world, very agreeable situation where the pain is telling us that real damage is taking place. You go on to the blue room thought experiment to bolster your argument but it straw-mans your argument. The experience of color IS subjective while physical damage is objective.
You'd still run into the same problem though, that is you cannot *objectively* say injury equals "bad". Most people agree that it is bad, but that is their *subjective* truth, rendered quasi-universal by virtue of democratic consensus.
Consider this: gather a number of the world's body integrity dysphoriacs (not sure if that's the right term; had to google it), i.e. people whose disorder makes them want to damage to their own (healthy) bodies, in one room, and all of a sudden you've got a microcosm in which the generally accepted truth is that damage to the body is "good". Among these people, there might even be a perception that it is *objectively* "good", because the local general consensus between individuals with a *subjective* opinion is hard to distinguish from true objectivity (like the objective fact of physical damage).
Wow... Very nice point
Eniku Gabriel - No That is not a nice point. Harris doesn’t define good and bad as pleasure and pain. He defines it as well being vs suffering. Even if mentally ill people want to damage their bodies that does not mean that this will increase their well being. Even if they find it pleasurable. You could objectively say that their wellbeing will be increased by getting mentally stable. Human well-being is often not achieved by what people want in the short term.
Does this mean he is wrong about harris?
Boris Regenbogen
Yes, but how can he objectively prove that well being is good, and that suffering is bad?
If that proof was not needed, I could just create my philosophy that states you should gift me cars by defining good as what makes me gain more cars, and since all you could do to disagree with me would be disagreeing with my definition of good, all you can say to defend Harris’s philosophy is that you agree with his definition of good, which however, as Alex pointed out, is not enough to make it objective.
I like your video, Alex. You've put forward good arguments (many of which are still being made in the academy) and I like your philosophical honesty. But I think some things need to be clarified here:
Hedonism is not regarded as a subjective theory in the academy. In metaethics, subjectivism about reasons (i.e., about what we have most reason to do) defends that what we have most reason to do is what leads us to achieve our desires. It's that old humean idea that reasons are slaves of passions: reason is merely an instrument for us to achieve our goals, whatever they may be. On the other hand, hedonism defends that you have reasons to do something (what brings you pleasure, or, better still, what maximizes it) that are independent of what you desire. So, in that sense, we have external reasons to do what brings us pleasure, according to hedonism (it's an externalist theory). An argument given by Derek Parfit to defend externalism may illustrate it well: Imagine there's a man with a condition called "Future Tuesday Indifference". This means that he is indifferent to his feeling pleasure or pain on every future Tuesday. If he's given a choice between feeling a mild pain today (it's Friday now) or suffering intense agony next Tuesday, he will choose to suffer in constant agony next Tuesday, because he doesn't care about what he will feel like next Tuesday - but he cares about how he feels like today. The question is: did he act rationally? Notice he knew every relevant information, but he just didn't care about his future self on Tuesday, and he used reason as an instrumental tool. If you say that he was irrational because he wrongly considered that future Tuesdays are less important than any other day, you're already appealing to external reasons (that is, reasons that do not resonate with his desires). An external reason for not making the choice he made is that the present is of no more nor less importance than the future merely because it's happening now rather than in the future, or vice versa. A subjectivist can't accept that kind of reason, because it would be beyond what he presently desires or would desire.
That said, let’s analyse the example of the two guys deciding which colour to paint the room. In that case, had they chosen any other colour, according to subjectivism, they would also have made a rational choice, because they did what they desired to do at that moment. But suppose they chose blue and then painted it that way, but as soon as it got painted, they felt discomfort by the result. However, despite their discomfort, they still agreed that it was the best colour. The problem is, if they had chosen, say, red, they wouldn’t have felt such discomfort. Plus, even if they knew that they wouldn’t feel that if they had painted it red, they would still agree that it was the best colour (merely because they desire it to be painted that way). However, a hedonist can say that they chose the wrong colour. That is, they had external reasons not to choose blue. In that sense, by saying that we have most reason to do what maximizes pleasure, we can say that they chose the wrong colour, even though they had the desire (and kept the desire) to paint it blue.
As to the goodness of pleasure, I agree with Moore’s argument that “good” is not identical to pleasure, but it’s not question-begging to say that pleasure, merely thought as a feeling, is something good. Any being who experiences it, be it an animal, a human or deity, will intrinsically apprehend it as something good - otherwise he just won’t be experiencing pleasure. Notice that saying this is not the same as saying that good = pleasure, which was one of Moore’s concerns. So, we can say that pleasure, thought of merely as a feeling, is objectively good, even though we’re talking about subjective experiences. That is not to say that we ought to do what is objectively good, of course, but it might show that the goodness of pleasure is objective when thought of as a feeling.
Finally, regarding your thoughts on the use of reason in morality, it seems you trust on reason’s dictates, such as that of coherence and the idea that the good of one individual is of no more nor less importance than the good of any other, from the point of view of the universe (to use Sidgwick’s words). I also trust them, and that is because I think it can reveal to us objectively true things, such as the principle of non-contradiction, that 2+2=4. The idea that the good of one individual is of no more importance than the good of any other, unless more good is going to be promoted by favouring one rather than the other, seems to me one of those things. And that doesn’t mean that I think they’re indubitable and that we will infallibly discover true principles by reasoning. That only means that they’re probably objectively true, and that reason is an instrument to get to those truths. The fact that people from various backgrounds, reflecting independently and without interference of “passions”, can accept those principles, to me, is an evidence that they’re true. But that does not mean they’re true because people agree about them, and that’s where I differ from the position Sam Harris apparently defends, which is a naturalist one. So in addition to objectivity in ethics, I think non-naturalism gives us the right answer.
PS: I think there are many more relevant things to discuss, but this has already become too big. And I do hope you, and others, read it! hahah
You boiled this argument down so well! It can be a very confusing, complicated philosophical argument, and one that I often go back and forth on. I designated so well with how you have put it in this video 👍🏽
He did a terrible job, he didn't actually address the core of Harris's arguments. The analogies in this video were very weak and not convincing.
@@goaliedude32 the whole argument is just based on a presupposition and it's like saying that if something is partly real/factual then we can also presuppose that it's fully real just because it's partly real/factual
Take the example of a game if a game exists does that mean that the pixels who form the characters of the game would automatically come into existence just because that game exists in a form?
@@mohithegreat7912 I don't believe you have summarized it well at all here either. Nice try though
@@goaliedude32 I'm not at all knowledgeable in philosophy but can u please explain the mistakes that i have done here?
@@goaliedude32 because from what I see in this vdo the argument just claims that if we have evidence of humans feeling pain then we can also presuppose that them not liking the pain is also an objective fact.
It's like saying that
if we have evidence to claim that certain grup of humans likes wearing a shirt then we can also presuppose that them emotionally liking that particular shirt is also an objective fact.
Moral facts (goals) cannot be objective, but moral duties can be given a set of societal goals. This is the rub. Harris is talking about moral duties (what ought we do given our goals and the facts of science), and you are talking about the moral 'facts' (or goals) themselves.
Of course if you assume a set of goals you can derive the optimal set of actions to achieve those goals. I don't see why you would call it moral duties though. Also, it's kind of useless to define such a term, because people by definition always act in the way that they think maximizes their goals, i.e according to their "moral duties".
konseptgrokker yeah. We already have a word for what set of actions you’d need to accomplish in order to achieve your goals. “Ought”.
By your definition of ought, it means that you think everyone is by definition acting morally, and that such thing as an immoral person doesn't exist.
My definition of "ought" is whatever one thinks someone is obligated to do:
ought 1 (ôt)
aux.v.
1. Used to indicate obligation or duty: You ought to work harder than that.
By my definition, why do you think I ought to do actions that achieve my goals? You might think I ought to mow your lawn. Even if the "ought" is directed at oneself, a smoker might think he ought to stop smoking, yet his will to smoke is bigger than his will to stop, i.e his self-interest/goal at that moment is to keep smoking.
konseptgrokker Not by my definition of ought “I think everyone is acting morally”. You just replaced my definition of ought with your definition of ought. Probably by accident, so I won’t hold that against you.
By my definition of ought, some people ought to do the immoral thing and some people ought not do the moral thing.
Those people would probably be sociopaths or psychopaths, but the majority of people ought to do what I define moral to mean.
Wether you ought to do something is not logically connected to wether it is moral to do something, under my definitions.
To answer your question, I don’t know why anyone ought to do anything under your definition of “ought”, because your definition doesn’t give me any information. What does “moral” mean to you?
If a smokers goal to smoke is stronger than his or her goal to be healthy or get off of smoking, then by my definition, they ought to keep smoking.
And that's exactly what Harris does. He assumes that "everyone suffering as much as possible for as long as possible is 'bad'" (paraphrasing). He gives no justification as to why this is bad, but just takes it as a given. From there he claims that science can tell us how to act (moral duties) to achieve a reality that is 'less bad'. Those actions are informed by objective facts, which is what Harris is referring to.
I call them 'moral duties' because the topic is 'objective morality' and there needs to be a distinction between what is moral (goals) and what moral actions are (duties). It's just a term.
The only part I disagree with is limiting it to _human_ understanding.
There are plenty of non-human animals--and, who knows, someday we might be aliens--which display moral behavior.
Other than that, bravo.
True many animals are far more moral than humans.
Studies have shown that rats prefer to starve to death rather than shock other rats while humans will shock other humans just because someone told them to.
Well they thing is, BD, that if morality is subjective, even if we define it as "for humans", we can still call aliens using us like cattle evil whilst still having cattle we treat as cattle fine, BECAUSE IT IS A SUBJECTIVE CLAM. It is only if you take "from humans" and then label the result "objective moral standard" that there would be a problem with "cat morality" or "alien morality". Because "objective" doesn't allow for disagreement. Which is its biggest problem.
Imagine meeting you here!
I was a sucker for the "objective morality" claims, as you might guess, and read Harris, but I think Harris' schema fails the bill. He rests it on poorly defined concepts ("well-being," "sentient beings," sentience itself, etc.) and hopes to smuggle in the conventional understandings of these terms without having to define them. Is the USA a being? Is the USA sentient? If not, why not? It's composed of human beings with brains who are sentient... Then again, is an individual human brain sentient? It's composed of individual neurons that are not - in and of themselves - generally though to be sentient. If you let him smuggle in the conventional meaning without examining the terms he _almost_ makes sense, but that's a big "if."
He sees rationality as the basis of an objective moral standard, and pretty much leaves nature out of the picture. I've argued for objective morality, but base it on the patterns of nature (which is/are objective) rather than on the thoughts of (hopefully rational) people....
Animals actions are more based on instincts, but for any humans who developed enough self-awareness, morality is selfishly just a "convenience" there is no objective or subjective to its purpose. Humans just follow slave morality or master morality, or neither both however it suits them.
David Sun
_Calling Dr. Nietzsche, Calling Dr. Nietzsche..._ Lol! 😜
Animals have instincts. Humans are animals. Ergo, Humans have "instincts," too.
Humans are animals. Humans have self-awareness. Ergo, animals have "self-awareness," too.
Human animals have moralities... (I'll let you complete the syllogism as you please)
Objective morality is demonstrably wrong, because morality only exists in relation to subjective experience of pleasure or pain. It is that subjective experience that makes anything 'good' or 'bad'. Without pleasure or pain, there is nothing to have any morals about. Thus in one simple argument one can prove that the notion of any external, objective, morality is nonsense.
This video misses the point in a way that is obvious. To specify, Sam Harris defined morality in a manner that enables operations in the real world. Cosmic is taking Harris's operational definition and scaling it to test how it philosophically holds up in principle, and of course it doesn't because Harris didn't utter these statements for this purpose.
An apt metaphor would be pi, the constant derived from dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter. You will find pi in many equations from Algebra beyond. To use mathematics appropriately it is necessary to operate with pi but pi is irrational. It goes on indefinitely. You can't operate with infinity but we operate with pi all the time because it is necessary to settle for a value of pi. Likewise with morality we settle at a value or definition that allows us to use it in everyday life. Making morality "objective" in Harris's case just defines it a bit further past the decimal point. Still it is true but meaningless to say pi cannot be defined.
Technically pi cannot be fully defined, because it is irrational. It wouldn't be possible to find the infinite number of digits after the decimal place, so any value of pi that we use is rounded to a certain finite number of decimal places, and is therefore an approximation. The more numbers after the decimal place, the more accurate the answer will be. Of course, it can be determined when a certain value of pi, with a certain number of digits after the decimal place is sufficient to give the accuracy required for whatever pi is being used for.
That's all fine, just don't call it objective. That's just what Alex is saying.
@@luis_sa78 Yeah. I think I changed my mind. Calling it objective is probably retarded.
Clicked as soon as it notified me
Its crazy to think that somewhere in a bazillion years there's an alien eagerly waiting Cosmic Skeptic's next video
The only thing you haven't touched on directly that I feel is a factor, (though I believe you still covered its outcome) is the part played by fear. I think people often confuse Fear Of Consequence with Moral Integrity. There is almost always a scare factor associated with a moral code and we can see most times that where that fear factor is absent, the fanaticism of upholding certain "moral truths" is much more relaxed. I would really like to see you do a video outlining this concept, rather you agree or not.
So whar's the difference?
@@Grounded4 the difference is the intention of the person. When you do something just because you think it is the right thing to do, you're exercising your moral philosophy. It shows that you've internalized the values you espouse. When you're only following a moral code because you fear what will happen if you don't, then it's not something you really believe in. It's the difference between a pacifist, and someone who won't fight because they don't want to get arrested.
The right thing to do is inexoerably linked to the cosequences. Fear of potential consequences is morally the first element of deciding when the imaginary benefits motivating actions are morally justified. @@stevenhart6595
Subbed, what a well thought out video.
Why is empirical evidence not a valid basis on which to make statements about reality? Everybody who is of sound mind with a properly functioning nervous system recognises a hot stove as a threat and both consciously and instinctively acts to prevent harm. (Unless they wilfully choose to burn themselves.) Since everybody reacts to that stimulus the same way, that's about as objective as we can get until we have a full understanding of how the brain works.
The very reason we can say that "the best colour" is subjective is that evidence shows that people react _differently_ to that stimulus.
If you discount evidence from experience and observation, you can never say anything past "I think therefore I am." Maybe the whole world is an untrustworthy simulation.
Lugh Summerson Empirical evidence can be used to determine reality. It just can't give us anything we can call objective. We can adopt a moral theory if we want, but we can never call it objective.
And "I think therefore I am", when extrapolated empirically to "we think, therefore we are", is a valid subjective moral theory. But it is still subjective.
+TheEsotericZebra
'Why "ought" people choose to be happy? Because it makes them happy? that's not an argument, that's just circular logic.'
"I like being happy," is not any more circular than stating "I think therefore I am". (If you don't like it, then how can you call it happiness?)
Sometimes, I think, we need to be reminded of these fundamental defining truths before we try too hard to rationalise them out of existence.
"I like being happy."
"I don't like being unhappy."
Okay, so we have some grounding in what it means to have agency.
So, next, we can agree that we live in a world where I am an independent agent, and I need to function in a world with other independent agents. How do I negotiate this world? Do I unilaterally decide it's "morally good" to burn other peoples' hands on stoves? I can try, but as a rational person I should expect it to cause problems in my fundamental desire for happiness.
It is a sound basis, it's just not objective.
By that logic Kevin nothing is objective. You can only experience reality through yourself therefore it's subjective. Therefore semantically the term objective means something different than what has been asserted.
By the way people need to get over Hume. If you want food than you ought to get something to eat. Otherwise you don't really want to get something to eat. Ought from an is.
Lugh Summerson Your argument is sound in so far as it relates to well-being. The problem is that we have no reason, whatsoever, to believe that any Universally Objective Morality is preoccupied with the well-being of humans or any other life form.
It’s much like humans deciding that the sun must revolve around us..why should our well-being be at the center of morality? Why would this be so? And more importantly, how could you prove this?? Harris does not.
Objectivity only works when the defintion is agreed upon.
And agreement is subjective. Game over.
Best and most concise argument I have seen on the matter.
Except when that agreement is universal, like the preference to life.
@@robertmills413 Well, yes - then it "might as well" be objective.
@@JMUDoc I just cant understand why it is not simply objective. We can assume that our environment won't produce life that wants to die before reproducing. We can say that a preference to life is a universal fact of life.
@@robertmills413 It is objective THAT almost all living things have a preference for life.
But basing morality on that preference is still subjective - what if you base it on something else?
Would be good to get an update on this topic from you @CosmicSkeptic. You've been looking into this for a while now and have likely refined you views and thoughts on this.
Great couple of videos Alex!
The example that immediately came to mind when thinking about the concept of "pain is bad" was childbirth. We all (or mostly) agree pain is undesirable. This doesn't make pain equivalent to objectively "bad" or "should always be avoided". Humanity would not exist if everyone avoided the pain of having children.
An argument can be made that the pain in your example is still objectively bad (hence pain blockers used during delivery) and that the good of the child being born is separate from the bad of the pain - the two aren’t synonymous just because their events are simultaneously occurring.
One could say that from a utilitarian standpoint the birth of the child outweighs the pain of the mother in terms of “good” outweighing the “bad” (especially if the mother wants the child to be born).
You could also say that the mother consented to the possible suffering for what they believed to be a greater outcome. That ultimately we can discuss exceptional experiences to include them in our moral dialogue
You think it's good that childbirth is painful?
@MrCmon113 having done it, I'd much rather it was painless...
@@philramos5827I like utilitarianism, but I treat it as a model for understanding people and their behavior as opposed to a type of command.
The pressing problem when discussing this topic is what we mean by *'objective'* and *'subjective‘* given that the only thing I can be sure of is that something exists as I am conscious. But now what makes the moon more objective than my thoughts, feelings or my and other peoples morality? As far as I have thought through this, we can only be pragmatic and acknowledge that their is no such thing as pure objective truth but that we can only create models which work more or less regardless of what the actual truth is. Maybe we all live in a simulation and we will never know.
Is there any other color than blue?
Also, to modify Harris example: If I put your hand on the stove, this might, depending on the circumstances, be a satisfying experience (for me), so it is good now?
Morality can't be objective, but it can be universal. Objective morality is an oxymoron. Evaluation of morality needs a conscious agent.
Morality isn't absolute. This is what people like WLC really mean when they say "objective". Not objective, but absolute. Apologists use this nebulous framing of calling it "objective" in order to put a smoke screen before the obvious dishonesty they're committing.
What people like Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty mean when they use the word "objective" in relation to morality is whether or not you act against someones well being (=morality) by for example putting them on fire after pouring gas over them. The effects of doing this are objectively in conflict with that persons well being (suffering = opposite of well being). Ergo putting someone on fire is objectively immoral by that definition. Do not confuse this with being an absolute. There might be exceptions (although I can't really come up with one in this case, as even if they want to die to end their suffering, there's always better ways than burning to death). But exceptions do not invalidate the objective effects of an action forced on someone in a specific case. Those are not subjective. They happen and affect the person put on fire irrespective of someone else's perspective on the situation (=subjectivity). The fire will melt their skin and put them in agony before they die. This is objectively true and can be objectively measured.
Objective morality is _not_ "the observation of an absolute, objective property of actions/behaviours, that we call moral". That is the ancient religious definition.
What Sam and Matt talk about is "the study of the way that certain actions/behaviours, in practice or intention, produce objectively observable results that fit an objectively observable criteria we call moral".
Easy, right? Not sure how you still don't get this or simply refuse to grant it. Or perhaps you're also one of those who confuse objectivity with absolute? Or you like semantics so much that you always get stuck arguing over meaning of words instead of focusing on the concept. I just don't see how this is so hard.
As much as I'm in agreement with you on the majority of issues, the way you frame Harris' case of objective morality just seems dishonest to me. Or you're really just confusing words.
I also don't see how your definition of "what we ought to do" morality is useful in any way. Let aside morality and take anything else - We ought to do nothing in and of itself.
If we don't care about well-being and how to improve it best with a set of rules that are always open for revision, then morality is entirely arbitrary and as useless of a word as playing the "opinion card" in an argument. But if the standard of morality is defined in well being (which seems entirely reasonable to care for within a society), then we (generally, unless it for some reason doesn't cause more suffering than what is already the case) ought not to put people on fire. Moral is then what's pro-social and immoral what is anti-social. That's it. No absolutes. Everything is always up to debate if a reasonable case can be made. But it stays objective within that definition, which increases the well being within a society.
If you disagree with this because there's a presupposition (which you have to make, but you should do your best to chose the most reasonable one), then objectivity doesn't exist anywhere for you and you're no different from a solipsist when it comes to morality.
by objective it is mean as a concept that can exist outside rational agents.
You can measure the damage that was done but that doesn’t make it objectively morally bad. That is separate from one’s own morals. Even then, it doesn’t really make sense, what if someone punched you, but the punch didn’t leave any blood or didn’t hurt. Since it can’t be measured is it still objectively morally wrong? Also “acting against someone’s well being” is subjective also suffering(5:08) explains it well.
You've equated Harris's "hot stove" example to the "room painting" analogy, which I don't think it works.
In the first case, we don't speak about subjectivity and consensus when it comes to manifesting pain and suffering as a result of touching a hot stove. It's a natural, biological reaction to outer stimulae, which inflicts a certain degree of physical and psychological suffering. Whether we agree rationally on the level of suffering or its desirability or not, it makes little difference. The suffering is there just as the consequences, both biological and psychological.
The "room painting" analogy you've used lies entirely on subjectivity and consensus. I "feel" as if blue is the perfect color, but this degree of "feel" is nothing like the "feel" in the first case. The physical repercussions and the mental torment of putting your hand on a hot stove are detectable in an objective way. Your preferences regarding a particular color are part of the subjective spectrum, which is how subjectivity works.
What we have, then, is the objective truth - Putting your hand on a hot stove will cause suffering and your natural inclination towards avoiding it is where the "ought" lies. You "ought" to avoid hot stoves not because you choose to, but because you have no choice. Because, if you don't, it would violate your very nature. It would be objectively bad not to avoid it.
The analogy you've used is subjective because, unlike the suffering as a characteristic of touching a hot stove (which is objective), the color's perfection is not objective, is subjective. It only emerges from opinion and consensus. It's subjective by definition.
I think you're analogy doesn't hold.
So if a person exists that willingly touches hot stoves for pleasure would that debunk your rebuttal? If they legitimately believe that the psychological reward that they experience from touching a hot stoves is greater than the reprucssions faced physically by doing so wouldn't that yet again make it a subjective thought that touching hot stoves is bad/immoral?
We do not objectively hold suffering to be bad, it is objective that most of us hold the belief that suffering is bad. this line of logic falls under humes guillotine
I think Sam's appeal to the hot stove is invalid because touching a hot stove isn't necessarily moral or immoral, it hurts yes - because we are not protected to heat very well - but that doesn't imply an objective morality because the morality of an act is ALWAYS subject to the situation in which it is performed - ie subjective.
Note that this is almost a debate on semantics, because one could image a subjective piece of information which appears in all tests to be objectively true yet is subjective, that is there is no objective truth at play yet this subjective opinion is such a good one that it essentially becomes objective - perhaps this should be called quasi-objective or pseudo-objective - which is a state of being arbitrarily close to objectivity in spite of being fundamentally subjective.
That's just the ramblings from my brain I haven't really given this whole discussion enough thought to say if I agree with myself but hey
@@spongebobsquarepants7388 It is objectively wrong to put your own hand on a hot stove because it will reduce your own well-being. If a person for some reason takes great phycological pleasure from the pain of touching the stove that it supersedes the physical suffering , than it actually increases his well-being.
If you extend the argument to actually forcing others to touch the hot stove, than you are even more moralily wrong. Because you are reducing the well-being of not only yourself, but others as well.
As long as we agree that the goal of moralily is to increase the well-being of conscious beings, you can make reasonable arguments for what we ought to do and ought not to do from a moral standpoint.
@@gustafouvrier2993 But it isnt objective though because it depends on circumstance. If, hypothetically, not putting your hand on the stove would lead to the death of one or more people then this otherwise immoral action would become the moral one. It isn't objective because it's open to interpretation.
You can make claims about quasi-objectivity which we could define as "objective for almost all intents and purposes" but you cannot say an action is necessarily immoral regardless of the situation.
@@spongebobsquarepants7388 as long as you disagree of what the goal of moralily, yes. But as soon as you define moralily you can make an objective argument.
1+1 is not equal to 2 objectively on its own. It is objective because we agree upon what the numbers and the operation mean.
If pain is objectively bad then having kids in unethical
For an objective morality to be true, wouldn’t it have to be true even if there was no life?
Yes
That is the problem. I think the most moral universe would be one with no suffering. Which would mean a universe with no life. And because even a universe that doesn't currently have life could still develop it later, the only objectively most moral universe would be... a universe that doesn't exist. Or one after it's big rip. If the big crunch occurs instead, then bad luck.
Morality doesn't require biological life, it requires beings capable of making moral decisions. Whether these beings are alive, digital, fictional, spiritual, or any other state of being. If they do in fact 'be' then they are valid moral agents
“There can’t be an objectively best color” is, ironically, a subjective statement of opinion.
It’s possible that the places wherein we agree on something, like universally bad experiences, we agree on them because of something objective about human nature, or perhaps the nature of reality itself. Everyone agreeing on something does not make it any more true, objectively, but it also does not make it any _less_ true, objectively.
I agree with your assessment of Sam Harris’ arguments, because I feel the same way, but they don’t prove that there is no such thing as an objective good, or a natural good, only that Sam’s conception of morality is subjective.
Alexander Stojanovski
And you’re sure the claim you’re making here is itself objectively true?
Alexander Stojanovski
You can certainly make objective _claims_ about the nature of subjective opinion, but that doesn’t make those claims true.
Claiming that there’s no objective good *because* morality is based off of subjective opinion is just begging the question. You haven’t proven that morality is based only off of subjective opinion, you’ve only claimed it.
Alexander Stojanovski
Hmmm.. Morals are “principles and values that are _inseparable_ from consciousness”? That’s interesting, I could get behind that definition.
So tell me, if consciousness really exists, and morality is inseparable from it or can be shown to be an inevitable outgrowth from it, then wouldn’t that be an objective grounding?
If a consciousness capable of reason and abstract thought would come to similar conclusions regarding basic morality as us, even if that consciousness originated from a being wholly alien to us in form and culture, wouldn’t that indicate that those moral concepts have some truth independent of us?
Alexander Stojanovski
“Every being in the whole universe can agree that blue is the best color, and that won’t make it objectively true.”
and
“There is no objectively best color”
Are two entirely separate statements. They can be true or untrue independent of each other.
There’s no causal connection between _consensus_ and objectivity, but we DO have to rely on _observation_ in order to determine objectivity.
Alexander Stojanovski
I didn’t mean that aliens that come to the same conclusions as us *prove* that those conclusions are objective, only that if any conscious being _would, necessarily_ come to the same or similar conclusions, regardless of physiological differences, then wouldn’t that give us some indication that “these concepts have some moral truth independent of us”? Not proof, just some indication. This is of course entirely hypothetical.
I think the difference between the two things (color and morality) is that by all of our observations, one “best” color is no better or worse than another “best” color, while morality does not follow the same mould. We can recognize that “blue is the worst color” and “blue is the best color” are both equally valid positions, however, we _cannot_ claim that “raping children is good” and “raping children is bad” are both equally valid claims.
Thinking about it from a different angle, we can conceive of other colors being better, but we can’t invent new colors. The preference of the colors may be subjective, but the colors themselves objectively exist. Likewise, we can’t invent a new morality. When you get down to it, the base moral concepts are the same across every single moral system. We all recognize the same ideas, but some moral systems place more emphasis on one tenet (one color you could say) than the others, but it’s still the same tenets.
As to the question of HOW morality could be objective, it could be an inescapable result of self-aware consciousness, in the same way that one physical process causes another. If there are traits of consciousness that will always give rise to the same moral ideas because of how our reality works, then those ideas are outgrowths of the objective traits of consciousness and reality. Of course, this requires that you believe consciousness objectively exists.
I so appreciate your non-condescending manner and gracious approach. I have a question about the idea of being morally inconsistent. Why would that matter? Why would it be bad or wrong to behave or believe in a morally inconsistent manner?
Alex. Your approach is excellent..., I think your greatest skill is in your analogies.... I think that terms like moral objectivity leaves this millennial digital consumer world aloof.. the way you can bring it down out of intellectualism to the everyday.... well done on this skill.. I think orating is a difficult skill to master but you are well on the ladder
“Good can’t be explained to someone who has never experienced it”
This is quite a confusing subject- if you'll excuse the pun, and it all hinges on the application of the appropriate definition of objectivity and subjectivity.
But I would argue, without irony or sarcasm that it's
objectively true that
football is indeed coming home.
IT'S COMING HOME LADS
ben green
England should not be in the championship at all is objectively true, at least in Sweden.
Norman Neskio-
I hope that Croatia will be just as honourable in defeat in a few hours ;)
Yeah, hope so too. Cheers, friend!
dammit Norman- I really thought we had that one.
well, it would be pretty hypocritical if I started complaining about the ref, so good luck Croatia.
cheers mate.
My favorite color is actually purple; not bruise-purple or a dark shade like that but lighter shades of purple like flower-purple or a late sky cloud-purple. Think sunsets or dusk clouds. The pale-purple cloud color that blemds in with other nearby colors is beautiful to me.
You should have repeated your definition of morality at the top of this video. Don't assume your audience finds these things in the order you make them.
Its not hard to understand what's his definition
He literally told everyone about the context needed and linked the video in the description that provides the context.
First of all, I love your sessions for two reasons: I'm also student of academic philosophy and do have the same brain-wiring.
Now on the object-subject dichotomy, I see both pros and cons:
1. Idealistically, you are right to say there is no objectivity in any claim
2. Materially (scientifically), but it's objective even if just two subjects agree upon - the very fact that there is an agreement outside one subject (with another subject) it means objectivity - therefore there is a different level of objectivity
Therefore, though I love to agree with you, there is a problem of perspective: idealism vs materialism and the level of objectivity we wanted to achieve by this.
Even after years of philosophical and scientific quest, I couldn't fix one perspective or the level of objectivity, still confused and stand very close to your point😞😃
I don't understand the point about "the fact that there is an agreement outside one subject (with another subject) it means objectivity".
It reminds me the example about agreeing upon the colour blue being the best colour. Although we agree colour blue is the best, I say so because I have the subjective belief that blue is a relaxing colour, and you do so because you have the subjective belief that blue walls go well with beige furniture.
Since the methods of our justifications are subjective, surely "blue is the best colour" counts as a subjective statement, yes?
You could respond by saying, "What if my justification for choosing blue is because blue is objectively the best colour?"
But then we have this circularity, you're choosing blue because it is the best colour, but it is the best colour because we all chose it... Maybe I just didn't get the example, and I realise this is already 2 years old, but I'd love to understand, so anyone reading this, please feel free to respond.
@@ilke3192 I think what they're trying to say is that scientifically we try to estimate truth values through empirical evidence because that is our only method of achieving the truth. With more evidence, we become more certain that a certain fact is objectively true even though we're never 100% sure. While two people saying that blue is the best color might not make us certain that it truly is the best color if everyone said blue is the best color, it wouldn't be a terrible assumption to make that perhaps it is objectively true for reasons we don't understand. We might even be more sure that this is true if dissenting opinions revealed some inner truth about blue being the best color for example, people who liked yellow turned out to be unhappier, and unfulfilled, or they started to feel an inner tension with their own conscious.
It's like we have 3 levels
1st Level: Subjective
2nd Level: Objective (scientifically/empirically)
3rd Level: Absolute (universally 100% true) - a level that we humans can't access yet
Alex, I might be wrong, but I have to heavily disagree with a lot of what you say in this video.
At 8:54 - “[you can] assert that “good” is simply defined in accordance with the objectively measurable states of our minds, which is the very thing you’re trying to prove, which is circular.”
I would say this is as circular as saying “no bachelors are married”, and when you ask for justification, I say “bachelors are _defined_ as unmarried men”. If you were to say that’s circular, you’d be wrong. That’s simply definitionally true.
Your earlier objection (though I still don’t know what the justification for it is) was expressed at 7:36. I would say that proponents of Sam Harris’s view are not redefining “good” but are proposing a useful definition of “good” that has been used for a long time. It seems to me that the definition of “good” you’re claiming is unhelpful is a consequentialist definition of “good”, and those are not new. Therefore I don’t think there is any “redefining” going on. And I don’t know why you seem to think consequentialist definitions of “good” are unhelpful. I think they’re extremely useful.
I’m curious about your take at 9:22. You claim to not disagree that we all experience pain as “bad” (I’m assuming that by “bad”, you mean “undesirable”), but then you say that you don’t think this warrants us defining “bad” as “that which causes pain”. Why not? What’s the counterweight to doing so? What do we lose from using the word “bad” in such a way? I don’t think you have answered this question satisfactorily.
Now about “oughts”, I’ll just say this (since Harris’s position doesn’t seem clear to me either, on the subject of oughts), I think you _can_ objectively prove that some ought to do something _if_ they subjectively value something.
If I want to win a race, and in order to maximize my chances I have to work out, eat healthily, and practice, then *_objectively_* speaking, I _ought_ to work out, eat healthily, and practice.
Now if Sam’s definition of “ought” doesn’t refer to some value or desires that inform that we ought to avoid pain and suffering, then I too disagree with Sam’s position. But if that is an implicit premise of Harris’s that those of us who see pain and suffering as undesirable (which you seem to agree is practically everyone), then even though I would fault Harris for not making his position more clear, we obviously _can_ prove that practically everyone ought to avoid pain and suffering.
11:49 - I don’t think Moore was right. I think he got this wrong. If we defined “good” as “that which is desirable”, then there’s your synonym; desirable. Everyone has experienced desire so it can be explained. If we define “good” as “that which causes wellbeing and diminishes suffering”, then there’s your way of explaining it (unlike the color yellow). Nothing circular. Just different potential uses for that word.
12:32 - “but what makes X “good””? Definition. You might as well be asking “but what makes unmarried men “bachelors”? This doesn’t seem like a problematic question _at all_ . The more interesting question is “why have you accepted this definition of “good” and not another?” To that I say; I find it useful for communicating with my fellow consequentialists. And if anyone is confused about my definition, I’ll explain it. Just like if I’m confused by a religious persons use of moral language, I’d afford them a chance to explain their definitions (if they’ve even thought about how they’re using their terms).
And to the question “why ought we do what is “good” by my definition and not someone else’s?” You already agreed that practically everyone values wellbeing and diminishing suffering, so _those_ people *_objectively_* ought to do what I’ve defined “good” to mean.
Like I said; I might be wrong. I don’t think I am, but I’d love to find out if I am. I hope to get a response or clarification, especially since I think you’re very thoughtful in your positions regardless of wether I agree with them or not.
Thanks for the time spent reading this if you did.
Exactly. He's basically saying a definition is circular...
"I think you can objectively prove that some ought to do something if they subjectively value something. If I want to win a race, and in order to maximize my chances I have to work out, eat healthily, and practice, then objectively speaking, I ought to work out, eat healthily, and practice."
That is conflating moral ought with instrumental ought. Clearly if you want to win a race then you ought to do those things, but that's not a question of morality. Moral oughts are not for any particular purpose. They are just the things that are morally good to do, and therefore we ought to do them without needing any subjective value.
Morally, we ought to do what is good, and what is good to do is what we ought to do. It's just two ways of saying the same thing.
Ansatz66 perhaps you’re right. I did conflate those two. My bad.
My criticism instead, then, would be that Cosmic Skeptic missed a good opportunity to highlight that moral oughts are undefinable gibberish that don’t convey any meaning.
Other than that, I suppose it suffices to point out that no one can prove that they ought to do something independently of any prerequisite values.
"Cosmic Skeptic missed a good opportunity to highlight that moral oughts are undefinable gibberish that don’t convey any meaning."
Consequentialists can define oughts. Deontologists can define oughts. Moral oughts convey meaning under these philosophies and others. It all depends on what sort of thing we think that morality is.
Ansatz66 could you link me to the consequentialist and deontologists definitions of moral oughts?
I’d be interested to see that.
No I don't think it's circular reason on Haris' reasoning. I think it's part of his end-analysis when looking at how he philosophically sees answers to some specific questions he's been presented with.
How many times the word objective has mentioned?
Hi, Alex. Great video and very helpful. As a neuroscientist, Harris should know that there are rare individuals who will not subjectively feel pain when touching a hot stove and for them, not feeling pain is what sucks as they will often die prematurely because they lack this survival advantage of recognizing reflexively what is physically harmful. More generally, I think the resolution of the subjective/objective conflict is to speak in terms of features that are universal to the human condition, such as empathy and compassion. On the one hand, features like these go way beyond the mere culture-specific "feeling" that Craig speaks of, yet on the other, are still subjective, because their value is in enhancing the social cooperation that is essential to our survival and nothing else. We all know that what is objectively true is the asteroid that may be heading our way (put there by God, if you are religious), ready to put an end to all our oughts and thoughts.
Empathy and compassion are not universal to humans either. I'm struggling to think of what truly is. Maybe, desiring what benefits theirself.
Science is about reality (objective)
Ethics is about norms (intersubjective)
Aesthetics is about preferences (subjective)
Really enjoyed part 1.
As I am ‘new’ to philosophy, perhaps I’m missing some not discussed point.
Can subjects avoid subjectivity?
To my understanding, philosophically: subject (and other extensions of the root word) necessarily relies upon the existence or effort etcetera of beings, subjects, things, minds etcetera.
After hearing/learning of this, I wonder is objectivity attainable or real? Real in the sense that if Myself and all other subjects nullify, end, stop existing. What else is there? Can there even be anything else?
My understanding of Nihilism (which aside from near negligible mentions otherwise, I totally gleaned from CosmicSkeptic’s ~2 hour discussion of it)
I as a subject cannot ‘escape’ subjectivity.
All that constitutes everything, for me, the subject, is subjective stuff. How can objectivity exist?
Someone thought of it, (I didn’t, I heard it from someone else) but if it is something I can experience or fathom, how is it not subjective?
Perhaps I’m just missing something or not understanding it correctly. My thinking is this, I a subject, by definition cannot be objective. Hence my confusion with Alex’s attachment to objectivity. [Side note I am currently reading The Moral Landscape from the recommendations of Alex and Stephen (Steven?) I to recommend it, albeit without the attachment to non-subjects/objectivity/(why-aren’t-we-making-a-new-word-for-this?)
What makes you think that the Nazi wouldn't convince you?
At least I finally found a word to describe my basic view-point on morality.
I'm super interested to know if you have changed your position on this in any way over the last few years..
And would love more examples of why it doesn't matter if morality is subjective, especially in reference as to how we can improve wellbeing.
It's still subjective, sorry.
Good lecture on this. Thank you!
For a long time, I struggled with my conscience considering morality as objective. I had many unanswered question, ex: rape vs eating meat vs cannibalism etc. Your first video on subjective morality made so much sense to me that it basically answered all my questions. I still struggled due to different reasons, since morality was my go-to place, but I have made my peace with it! I do have a few different questions, I will ask them when I have phrased them well.. thank you for the change you brought in my perspective!
I am the best philosopher. AMA
"Good" is an survival instinct (feeling) caused through and by evolution.
@Oz gun, you put It so simple I don't know how CS didn't see your point before! Object morality is derived at the most basic level by natural selection!
@@thegreatgilmax But that is not objective morality.
@@nandhakishor103 why not @Nandhakishor? It does not depend to what anyone thinks is true. In other words, it's biologically based not psicologically.
@@thegreatgilmax But that's not an indicator of objective morality. Murderers are not violating the rules of nature as they are decreasing the number in our specie. Murdering does have a meaning for the nature. This morality is purely man made.
@@nandhakishor103 Yes, I agree with you that nature is moralless. But I believe Sam Harris moral framework does hold true. "We should maximize the well being of sentient cretures" or "Minimize the suffering of such creatures". And that does correlate with natural biology. All living creature should avoid suffering and pain as those tend to lead to death and in the end leads to low fitness and no chance of passing their genes forward. That's sounds to me as objective morality as it does not depend on any individual ideia, it simply is the case for all living creatures obeying the laws of natural selection.
But what color is the stove?
I didn't find the example of preferring blue to other colours an especially compelling analogy for moral truth. Colour preference is an aesthetic consideration. There really isn't any criteria for arguing for the preference of one colour over another. Any decision for colour preference is ultimately arbitrary even if everyone agreed on one specific colour. That doesn't seem to be case with moral issues. Most people seem to innately differentiate between moral and immoral actions like murder or genocide or abusing vulnerable people. We certainly act as if morality has an objective dimension in a way that is completely distinct from aesthetic preference.
That’s what he was saying at the end. He was saying that if everyone (or almost everyone) agrees on one thing, we can act as though that thing is objectively good or bad, even if philosophically you can not say it’s either. You are still tending to the idea that what humans may naturally feel is what is objectively good, but this is still based on subjective feelings, and also ignores outlying opinions, which may differ from these supposed “moral objectivities”.
In order for you to say something is “objectively true” in the sense of morality, you must preface it with a clarifiying if: if you want others to have a greater wellbeing, you should not torture others. This is an objective statement based on a subjective moral opinion. This does not mean it is objectively morally good to not torture others, however it must act is if it is in order to achieve the former if.
I believe our goals are subjective, but if we define our goals, we can establish objectives to reach the goal.
What? Stop pretending to be smart lmao
Lol what are you talking about? “Objective truths” and “Objectives” mean different things dummy.
I have felt that everything in human experience is subjective since I was in my mid twenties. Claiming objectivity I believe to be a way to comfort ourselves emotionally. After a particularly intense mushroom trip I realized, "reality is just the most persistent illusion". The mushroom trip is far more intense than daily reality, but reality is a lot more persistent. Additionally, no matter how we try each individual has a small perspective. If there is objectivity, none of us can get a good look at it. It is beyond us. If objectivity exists and we can get a glimpse of it, our individual perceptions of the objective are subjective understandings of the objective. That is why there is value in us working together and finding consensus instead arrogantly believing that our ideas are miraculously the correct understanding of objective.
Wouldn’t you agree that it’s an objective fact of human experience that you will die if you jump out a sufficiently high window? Or that you will suffer terrible pain and tissue damage if you keep your hand on a hot stove? I don’t see how everything about human experience can be subjective.
@jezza669 What we call reality is an incredibly persistent illusion. We certainly have to navigate biological reality in the experiential now with the greatest deal of respect and care. If we mess up our experiential lives, no amount of thinking will undo the damage.
The lesson of altered states of consciousness is that reality is far more malleable and subjective than we think. We are able to change our perspectives in ways that optimize our experience of reality.
Being aware of the remarkable persistence of daily reality, behaving in the wisest ways to manage our physical and social realities is of primary importance.
When daily reality is optimized, exploring deeper levels of consciousness deepens the meaning of life. Wisdom and exploration can lead to profoundly authentic realizations. These realizations make our path in ordinary reality increasingly clear.
@@davidrichardson7466 Thank you David, I appreciate your response. How do you explore deeper levels of consciousness?
What if someone has a gun to your childs head and says: ‘Put your hand on the hot stove and that pain will save your childs life.’
You do it and he does as he promised.
So, was that pain good or bad?
Your argument, I think may be as valid as any other I've heard in showing the subjective nature of trying to define good
Objective Morality
Starting from the possible start - creation/ the big bang/ the start of life.
*note that the use of consciousness in #6 refers to reaction to the surroundings cognitively. As matter simply interacts, there is no emergent metaphysical consciousness. Therefore, consciousness simply means complex neurological processes.
1. The universe exists.
2. Existence provides progress/utility/understanding/base for life, non-existence does not (non existence/void/death/annialation/no particulars separate from the whole).
3. Existence Is conducive to life.
4. Life emerges (movement, respiration, growth, responsiveness to environmental stimuli and reproduction)
5. Life is conducive to the emergence of an objective morality (detailed below).
6. Life wishes to exist/procreate/develop/expand (awareness exists/basic cognition/pure cognitive consciousness).
7. The existence of optimal life is conducive to development, growth, and diversity.
8. The guidelines of optimal life for all life forms and all life emerges (an objective guide for morality).
9. Consciousness emerges (the colloquial term here).
10. Life that can sustain and develop itself and other life is conducive to life developing as a whole.
11. A hierarchy of life emerges.
In conclusion, existence is conducive to an objective morality. Therefore existence is objectively Good.
Pain is a good thing. It alerts us of possible dangers and helps us avoid in the future. touching a hot stove is painful but it is better than to have your hand burned and destroyed because you were not paying attention, unless our hands became easily replaceable, pain is a very important defense and survival mechanism
Correct.
True, there are some people born without the ability to feel pain, they tend to die young.
This mind fuck trashes morality.
What? No Frank it does not.
Nizar El-Zarif Necessary pain is a good thing. Pain that helps us survive is good. However, unnecessarily tying somebody and torturing them is not a good thing and it doesn't help them survive. Nor does putting your hand unecessarily on a hot, burning stove.
Note: This was a response i left last video and i think its one to be read ( probably)
So there is many problems with this argument and yes I believe morality is objective and I'll say why. Alex asserts I think, that morality is predicated on that which we perceive to be "good" and that which we perceive to be good is not definable and therefore that which is "good" is subject to situation, person and culture however as alluring as this trap is to fall into it assumes a lot. It assumes that we cannot definitely say what is good and why we have to adhere to these values and that morality is predicated solely on that which is good and therefore if anything in that hierarchy of values does not entail values which we associate with "good" then it cannot be objective and also human anecdotal notion of a moral truth is true and therefore if many people have differing notion of their moral truth then morality is subjective again this is predicated on if that anecdotal moral truth falls under that which is "good". ( note alot of evolutionary biology and psychology will be in this argument of mine). Now to start with the aforementioned assumptions, morality and good values is definable and is not subjective, morality is the module and system of innate human ethcial behaviour and values that structure how we act in the social landscape and "good" are the values that are derived from this module which promotes benevolent, healthy ( important word ) relationships in this interaction with our social landscape based on a implicit human mechanism of adaptation to prevent pernicious conflict among us which may lead to extinction of a population which is also based on an innate system of survival and bad values are the ones which do no sustain the aforesaid. Now under this innate system of morality pre eminent "good" values emerge which are certain and values emerge which are ephemeral and what would be considered "evil" or morally reprehensible or can be good based on our interaction with the social landscape, e.g we know that murder is OBJECTIVELY morally wrong, now this is a value that is innate to us as humans maybe due to sometime in our evolutionary past we adapted this value and one can see why when we're so shackled to systems that will promote our optimal survival but murder is still a part of our innate psyche( it isnt otherworldly of us as to why we have this latent trait in our genome I point you to characteristics of barbaric tribalism as evidence) if presented a situation where we have to defend ourselves from danger murder may occur and you may be tempted to say well if you murdered then murder being innately morally reprehensible cannot be objective or true however this is a misunderstanding as the mechanism to defend ones self in the presence of danger is innate ( for survival) and the "value" of not wanting to kill someone is overidden BECAUSE as we are subject to primitive innate systems ( listen closely here) which MAY and does show case them selves when there is an extreme environment that triggers such. Extreme Situations cause objective innate adaptative values to be overidden such as your defense mechanism to ensure your survival. Now back to what constitutes ethical good as we navigate the social landscape and this is probably where there is the misunderstanding of what it means to be good as I have defined above, good does not necessary contrary to popular belief denotes that which makes people's temporary emotions feel good but is I'd rather as aforementioned that which promotes healthy ethical development and social behaviour of individuals in the social landscape for instance if I told a obese person they need to workout or fatal diseases may follow that advice is OBJECTIVELY sound however if I said that in front of a group of neo marxist postmodernist that inherit society today I maybe called some derogatory name and that I have my morals all wrong wrong however it does not negate the validity of what I just told that obese person. So what I mean is different people have their opinions or ethical culture of a moral truth that they may structure their life with and then there is the actual moral truth. So they're pre eminent values which are good for society and bad for society and they are those whose culture creates subjectivity of those values. Being a thief is morally wrong and this is backed up by implicit socio cognitive research and evolutionary biology but there is also research that show that being a thief may be innate because as humans we are constantly looking of how to promote survival and thiefing is a mode of value which may induce that to occur so again when presented with a situation other innate modes of behaviour threaten to rear their heads. So what I'm saying is morality as a system of values to structure our behaviour through the social landscape is objective however they are preeminent values under this system which are objecticely good and objectively bad( being a theif, murder) and there values which are ephemeral and are subject to change with change in the social landscape,and misguided psychosocial behaviour and culture creates subjectivity of objective values and certain objective values may have emerged to be objective over spans of adaptative evolutionary mechanism as they were inherently good for the survival of a healthy social landscape and that bad implicit values may emerge when a culture that has the necessary maladaptive traits triggered it as it assumes this would be the necessary route to take. Sigh( still don't know if i put it over well enough) . Now onto the religious claims of them being curators of objective morality( not gonna take me more than 2 sentences to debunk this fatuous claim). First of all this is predicated on the basis of divine authorship which they have not and cannot prove 2 that what is written in their religious text has shown to be objective and on both accounts they have failed. If God existed and wrote objective morality then he would have written that definitively and the bible and other religious text would have not been filled to the brim with contradictory metaphorical moral bs and it would have not been filled to the brim with endorsing muder, genocide, slavery, ethnic cleansing must i contine etc So we definitively know religious apologists and God do not hold any ground on objective morality however I again beg you to see that religion ( as much as I detest it) shows the innate need of an ethical structure of values to navigate through the social landscape ( morality). I just thought as a determinst and a sound philosopher cosmic skeptic would have seen this and with research into biology, neuroscience and psychology. One other thing you that whole part about " think about why we ought to do good" is just circular reasoning its it's like saying think about why we have to wake up.
Quantum Skeptic the very definition of morality shows that it is subjective.
What you're explaining are moral values, and yes, they still are subjective since many people don't have the same values as each other. Can you name anything that is universally good or bad? Please answer
BegunGorilla375 Some Moral values are subjective,( you need to make the distinction between morality and values) morality is the innate ethical module and system that we operate under in the social landscape and where moral values are derived. For e.g think of morality and values as a tray of eggs where morality is the tray and eggs are the values ie there can be good and bad eggs or values however the tray which they're in are independent of them and emerges in a variety of different cultures as we have an innate tendency to set a system(purely objective) of values( some subjective some objective) to structure our behaviour through the social landscape however values that are derived from that interaction with your social landscape can be ephemeral and subjective and also culture can affect but that does not devalue that values like murder that are objectively immoral. I know it's alot to read but go back to my comment where you see me talk about this exact principle clearly and why an objective moral truth can come under subjectivity based on a cultural or ones pyschosocial interpretation.
Clear and concise.
If you can't answer "why should everyone do this?" then you cannot show that NOT doing it is immoral. And if doing X or not doing X are equally valid and morally acceptable (otherwise you would have answered the why), then X has nothing to do with morality."
Quantum Skeptic yeah, that's what I said
at 8:50 you say good defined in accordance with the objectively measurable states of our minds which you go on to say is circular. if good or bad is objective how can it be defined in accordance with our mind even if its objectively measured?
This is exactly what I've been thinking when I hear Matt Dillahunty discuss this issue--thanks for thinking about this and expressing it so precisely!
I LOVE this video! I remember watching Sam harris explain the moral landscape with his enchanting sedative voice and I was sold! I was swept into the new atheist current for about a year until I encountered real philosophers. This is a community of respectful and credentialed thinkers that genuinely contend with ideas! ❤
Sam's stance on morality is quite accurate and congruent with modern Psychology (neuroscience). Understanding morality, which is based on brain function, is a scientific problem, not so much a philosophical one.
@@pillsareyummy
Ok, but such an answer is simply not sufficient for either religious people or philosophers, as they will want to know why (as opposed to how) brains came to be that way as opposed to another - say, a reality in which NO lifeforms worked in conjunction with each other at all. So... back to philosophy. And it is also true that there may not be an answer of the kind one or both groups are seeking/would accept/desire.
@@wet-read You don't need to know 'why' only 'how'. For example, if you want to understand how an engine works, so you can repair/maintain one you own, you don't need to know why it was built. The why becomes a strawman in these types of discussions. Also, the question of 'why' is a loaded term.
@@pillsareyummy
Sure, but that doesn't keep people from trying and seeking for such explanations, even if they don't exist or are simply unavailable to us. Which I admitted to above. I myself happen to think existence of some kind is a brute fact, and the properties therein are what science (mostly), and philosophy and theology (somewhat? Not at all?) shed light on.
@@pillsareyummy
Take the concept of the "thing-in-itself". It may or may not be viable. I don't know. I think there are interesting and compelling arguments on both sides.
If survival of living organisms is taken objectively for good, then we must acknowledge the fact that we evolved to feel pain for a reason(survival); if pain is indicating that something is bad for our survival then the thing that is causing pain for that organism is bad for its survival and is objectively bad.
Thats what I think Sam's reasoning here. Not just because we feel pain and subjectively don't like it.
Pain is natural and not bad
@@juliuscox94 yup pretty much summed it up
Did the definition or the purpose of the Meter come first ?
You are right to point out that 'good' has no naturalistic synonyms but this is not a problem for defenders of moral realism. Moore's point was that 'good' cannot be synonymous with any given natural property, such as 'pleasure' _as a matter of definition_ . This is important because he demonstrated that a statement such as 'good = pleasure' is not _analytically_ true. But of course, many identities are not analytically true, and instead, we come to know them _a posteriori_ ; consider those given to us by our best scientific theories. For example, before the 1800s people were very familiar with water, but only until chemists discovered that 'water = H2O' in the 1800s did this identity become not only commonplace but widely accepted.
I think "Can morality be objective?" is actually the wrong question to ask.
I don't believe a moral system can be wholly objective, but neither can it be wholly subjective. By the way, the same is true for any way in which humans think about things- and morality is a way of thinking about things. As soon as you bring in human thoughts, you're dealing with subjectivity. But if it's wholly disconnected from any notion of there being actual facts and consequences that occur independently of our perception of them, it becomes solipsism and moral thinking really doesn't make any sense at all in such a context.
The axioms within a logical system are subjectively selected, what comes out as a result of syllogisms is objectively true within the system (so just assuming the axioms are true).
No need to make it anymore complex by calling things "both subjective and objective".
Anyway, morality is just feelings and moral systems are based on the assumption that it's not. No need to think to much about it.
daw kot Morality isn't 'just feelings', although feelings do play an important role. If it were just feelings there could be no rational debates on moral topics.
+Paul Beaulieu
I do believe there can be no rational debates on moral axioms. Obviously, you can judge actions in the context of whatever axioms you want because then you're moving from prescriptions into descriptions which are truth-apt.
Also, that's just argumentum ad consequentiam.
daw kot One certainly can debate on what moral axioms are appropriate, what role they should play, etc, to the extent that there is a shared understanding on how to assess those things. To the extent that there is not, you are correct in saying that there can be no debate. The fact that people do engage in reasoning and rational debate about such things indicates to me that it is not merely a matter of a person's feelings, although those feelings do in many cases limit the scope of useful debate. If someone's values are so fundamentally different from mine that we can find no common basis for evaluating moral claims, there can be no rational debate between us about those claims.
It is true that an argument in the form of "If x, the consequences are unacceptable, therefore not x" is invalid. On the other hand, if the consequence of x being true would be something that we know is not actually the case, it follows that x is false.
The problem starts with the assumption that all pain is bad, no matter what. The only thing you can say objectively about pain is that it is a mechanism to make you aware of damage to your body or mental wellbeing. You can't say anything about if every experience of pain is good or bad.
Simple example is muscle pain. Lifting weights can result in muscle pain. Some people consider that a problem, others find it acceptable in the context of a more important goal (muscle growth). It's not pleasure, yet acceptable.
So this whole discussion already starts with the wrong assumption. But I think that is the whole problem with phylosophy. For any phylosophical discussion to have any chance of being a discussion, you have to start with a wrong or impossible assumption. An assumption can't be objective to begin with.
This is why science became a field on its own.
But back to morality... Can morality be objective? I think it can be. But then you can't use the experience of pain as a starting point. Or any experience for that matter because experience is subjective by nature.
Then you have to recognize that morality isn't a set of experiences, but rather just a word that tries to describe what is benificial or at least not damaging, to another living being.
You think it can be, therefor it isn't. If there was something truly oblective you already would have known.
Unless that human being is trying to harm you, then it is perfectly moral to stop him even if it causes him harm, morality is entirely subjective.
The Illuminati In that case morality has nothing to do with it. It's self defence. You're trying to give this a phylosophical twitch.....
Phylosophy is such a waste if time.
Peter Faber Harris extends it further to well-being and suffering. Suffering and pain are different.
2x Pills They are still experiences.
So, morality is a human social construction based on the idea that we dislike discomfort and are instinctively emotionally-driven, socially reciprocal animals.
So happy to have found your channel! I want to absorb as much intelligent conversation as I can from those believing and and those not believing in objective morality.
What do you believe in ?
I think i may have some take on it that would be useful to learn
@@Yameen200 I personally believe in objective morality
@@me4162 So you believe in objective morality but you are atheist
Gonna have to disagree with you here. Harris has said that goals and values are subjective but that once you HAVE those goals then there are objective ways to go about this. i.e consequences. Its the same as Matt Dillahunty's. its an objective fact that pain and suffering are neurological facts that people avoid for good reasons. If you dont then you will receive burn damage and potentially die. So yes you have to first value life and well being to even talk about morality which is what sam Harris has said beyond a tweet.
With your blue room example, I can say best is defined by well being and thus blue is best because it objectively decreases anxiousness and gives you a better sleep at night. ( if that was true biologically)
Harris's syllogism is basically that morality is about well being and there are objective facts about well being (i.e suffering and pain is not pleasing and bad for health and life) and some objectively achieve the goal of well being. If you are gonna ask "well why should i care about well being"? Then I can only appeal to YOUR goals and values. This is something Sam Harris has said
I suggest you speak to Matt Dillahunty about this as well since he agrees with sam.
Lil Phag yes I just said that. As does Harris. First you have to agree or care about well being. Once you do then you can construct objective facts that lead to those goals which is "good" and those actions that dont lead to it or achieve those goals are "bad" or immoral. you can define morality to be about peanut butter if you want. That's how words work but at that point I have no clue what you're talking about. So first step is to care about your life which everyone alive today does and benefits from. If you dont care about any of that then we aren't discussing morality at all.
@Lil Phag
Let's say that there are beings for whom the only goal is to inflict pain on others. Purely carnivorous animals for example, who have no choice but to maul and eat other animals. The prey cannot prove the snake ought to care about its goals, the prey's only option is to fight. The fact is if you're stuck on an island with a stronger person and he happens to be a bad person, you're fucked. Thankfully, we're not stuck on an island - we are on a planet with billions of people and semi-functioning society.
So you're agreeing with him. At the very fundamental level, it's still subjective.
Mario mario The goals and values are subjective so morality is going to differ from person to person. Everyone will have their own objective facts based on their own personal values and goals. I don't know why anyone would want to call that objective morality.
getasimbe uh no. The. "Subjective" part is values. NOT the consequence of your actions