How Do We Define What Is Good & Bad? | Cosmic Skeptic | Modern Wisdom Podcast 214
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2020
- Alex O'Connor is a philosopher & TH-camr.
Get ready for a mental workout today as Alex poses some of the most famous and most difficult questions in ethics.
What does it mean to say that something is good? Why SHOULD you do one thing instead of another thing? Why should we care about wellbeing? What is the definition of suffering? On whose authority is anything good or bad?
Sponsor:
Check out everything I use from The Protein Works at www.theproteinworks.com/moder... (35% off everything with the code MODERN35)
Extra Stuff:
Watch Alex on TH-cam - • Why It's Time To Go Ve...
Subscribe to Alex on Patreon - / cosmicskeptic
Get my free Ultimate Life Hacks List to 10x your daily productivity → chriswillx.com/lifehacks/
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / modernwisdom
#morality #ethics #cosmicskeptic
-
Listen to all episodes online. Search "Modern Wisdom" on any Podcast App or click here:
iTunes: apple.co/2MNqIgw
Spotify: spoti.fi/2LSimPn
Stitcher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/mode...
-
Get in touch in the comments below or head to...
Instagram: / chriswillx
Twitter: / chriswillx
Email: modernwisdompodcast@gmail.com
Listen to this episode in full by subscribing on Apple Podcasts or Spotify - link.chtbl.com/modernwisdom
Get my free Ultimate Life Hacks List to 10x your daily productivity → chriswillx.com/lifehacks
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
Just wanted to say, Alex is one of the best communicators of philosophy I've ever encountered. Leaving aside your argumentative abilities, Alex, which are also amazing (almost single-handedly turning me vegan, among other things), your capacity to communicate complex philosophical ideas and arguments, and do it with such genuine excitement and joy, is inspiring. Cheers for that.
This is so true. He's pretty much the sole reason i'm vegan lmao
he has garbage mathematical evaluation on veganism that is utter nonsense
I became vegan overnight with just 1 of his videos, after 40 years of heavy meat eating, more than the typical person because of decades of working out non-stop.
Just noticed that Alex is wearing the same shirt he wore in the last video you made together. If you collaborate in the future, tell him to wear it again to keep the tradition lol
Amazing 😂 Done
Modern Wisdom
The TRUTH is very difficult to accept, right, Slave?
Such a great, light-hearted interview. Thanks so much!
"Being the cause" ... So much there that needs to be unpacked.
“Grass-fed apple of my eye” hahaha awesome interview. Gave my brain a cramp 👌
Awesome chat. Thanks guys
Hey great content! Just found your videos through my suggested videos.
God I love this podcast and I'm only half an hour in. Just so up my alley, Alex is brilliant. The struggle to understand what "knowledge" means starting at 26:46 was so interesting.
Brilliant guest. Look forward to where he goes with his life.
noice
Fascinating and thought provoking discussion.
About your Gettier (sorry if I spelled it wrong) cases: it seems like what is causing the problem is the existential presupposition or the entailment of a sentence. For instance, you knew, “The girl was riding a horse”, which entails, “There exists a horse in the salient referential world”. But when the illusion is dispelled, the knowledge of this entailment becomes counterintuitive, as if the entailment can only be known in the context of the sentence which is the result of the illusion.
Another example is, say you see someone a little far away from you throwing something into a gutter or something, that looked like a cigarette. So you would think, “She just stopped smoking.” Not in the permanent sense of the usage, of course. The presupposition of this sentence is “A woman was smoking.” But you go closer and see that it was just a match. And, when you saw her thrown the match away, there WAS a woman just beside you who was smoking. So did you know “A woman was smoking”?
But, in the first sentence, another entailment could be, “The horse had a girl on its back.” And say the horse you saw after the illusion was broken actually had a girl on its back. But can you now say that you knew “The horse had a girl on his back”?
And in my example with a cigarette, another presupposition could be “She was smoking.” Now, after you noticed that there was actually a woman beside you when you saw the other woman throw away a match, can you say that you knew, “She was smoking”?
Notice that, in the reformulations of the entailment and the presupposition, I changed the indefinite description to a definite description and that’s why even thinking about whether you knew what we’re investigating whether you did seems strange. This shows, I think, that it’s a context issue and you might wanna think about philosophy of language here. I’m no philosopher, I’m a Linguistics major at UMass Amherst and I’m mostly interested in syntax and syntax-semantics. My semantic intuition tells me you might wanna think this way.
What I do is directly dependent of what I think "good" means. The more I know, the closer my actions come to being good (defining knowledge as David Deutsch defines it). But this also means it's good to gather knowledge and now I just forced myself to educate me and learn about all the shit that's going on. And I must not forget to stay healthy while I do all that, because I will not be able to learn as much if I'm sick.
We define what is good or bad by defining what is good or bad.
Begging the question
For what concept is this not the case?
didn't watch this yet, but alex is one of the coolest dudes on youtube.
Great effin conversation!
Maybe Alex just wished the horse into existence.
Why flack? Bravo on the yoga! It shows your enlightenment. Yoga is valuable on so many levels! By the way, I loved you on Matt's show, mate! Cheers from a fellow free thinker in California
I often predict things in movies that I think are going to happen without knowledge but based on justified belief which often turn out true but not in the way I intended. So 100% not how we should define knowledge.
Knowledge is not "who can built the rocket". Knowledge is "If I can affect the world, then which of the infinite outcomes shall I wager this world to be in?". Or maybe that's Wisdom, since Knowledge is kin to the Book of Creation. Granted, Wisdom is based on perception. "If the Law told you that you must kill, then will you?"
For the temporary world, Wisdom is to move beyond what the dead have done. For the immortal Fate, Wisdom is to forget Wisdom, should one fall into insanity... Or at least, this is for me. "What is your desire?"
@@absolstoryoffiction6615absolute nonsense
@@davidspencer343
And your kin is the pinnacle of intelligence?... Amusing... How is the current era of Mankind? You know, given the wars that are here now.
Guys! I love you! For real! We need more people like you, running the world. That is the only way for us to progress into a beautiful world.
the guy has no analytic abillity and is logically incoherent
That end 🤣🤣🤣🤣 🧘🏻♂️
So good eyh
Freedom of association. Whether it is moral to tell someone you won't serve them because you don't like the color of their eyes or whatever, that doesn't mean there should be a law forcing you to serve others indiscriminately. The law forcing you to serve others without discrimination does more harm than good.
Let racists be racist. If it's their privately owned business, home, or property, they must be able to decide who partakes and who doesn't. I do not have a right to someone else's services or goods.
And anyway, most folks who are racist still favor green over any other color. And racism is also really bad for business, let them punish themselves by giving themselves a bad name.
well said
‘Bloody hell, Peter’ 😂
Good = words, thoughts and deeds that minimize harm to others and to yourself. Bad = words, thoughts and deeds that harm others or yourself.
And that's when you realize going vegan is the only choice
@@camilacarnevale2152
By that logic, "become the servitor to Mankind for the sake of the world."... I hope this "Good" does not come to pass.
@Claire Khaw
It depends... Corruption shall come.
More than two millennia of philosophy in the trash can, where it belongs. Life is so simple, why complicate?
@@camilacarnevale2152 how do you figure? what if you then ook like a cuc- soyboy like this guy, get low energy, makes tens of thousands of less per year as a result of it, meaning in the alternative universe where you didnt go vegan, you had tens of thousands more and could use that to save hundreds of human lives at the expense of eating 3 cows a year?
25:11 negative utilitarianism is also an option here (he was talking about criticism to classic utilitarianism and and started talking about deontology)
Just ensure that corruption does not take hold. As it always does for all things.
my ethics professor is a religious fundamentalist :> any advice?
the module he gave us has bible verses and says that we should do moral acts so that we don't get to suffer in the afterlife.
I AM DYINGGGGG
My paternal grandfather was a very good person who was respected by my maternal religious side of the family and they find it difficult to reconcile the fact that he wasn't religious, but he was the best person out of all of us.
Maybe ask him about a good atheist, a good Christian, a bad Christian and a bad atheist, and where they go when they die?
thats selfishness not morality
Morality is within you. It’s individual responsibility, it’s not hard. I’d stop the boulder. It’s about you and what you decide and what you can live with. I was saving two lives in an ambulance, why wouldn’t I try to save another?
Im curious what your thoughts are on this. Its rather appealing to me as a person who likes to live a chaotic life. I'm a sadist likely moderate on the scale of anti social personality disorder. If I devote my life to charity and helping the poor, starving, and war torn in forge nations to witness their suffering while not hurting anyone, and in fact helping them. Is this still evil if the reason you are doing it is tied to malicious intent
Just a month ago you had Stefan Molyneux on the show. Please get him back on to tackle these questions about the "meta-ethics". He can give substantial answers to these questions, in a clear and simple way. The book is already written : "Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics (UPB)"
Alex sounds intelligent and well read. unfortunately in this conversation, he is beating around the bush for 1.5 hours getting nowhere.
I love your engagement as an interviewer. I would really like to hear you get Molyneux to tackle this. It could be a truly great show. He needs good heartcentred interviewers to get the message across to normal people. Unfortunally he himself is a bit of an a.. , but the logic in his philosophy is where it is at!
And he brings real solutions to the table to these topics.
Molyneaux seemed to get wrecked by rationality rules have you watched that series of events?
Stefan Molyneux is nothing more than a liar and scammer. and I am sure he will disagree on any debate where he is not in full control as to where he can ban his opponent anytime.
Stefan cannot win in a fail debate he can only talk with idiots and brag about his greatness.
That dude has to be a troll. He literally makes no sense
My answer to the doctor dilemma is dependent on the patient’s desire for their health. It’s risk and reward versus stability, and would then be a question of individual values. About the gang rape scenario, with each additional person who is receiving pleasure from that sin you are adding n-degrees more suffering so you would never be able to create an equation where the pleasure of the criminals would never be greater than the suffering of the victim
1:05:00 the difference between pushing the fat man and killing the one person on the rails is that the one person is already in the situation. When you choose to push the fat man you‘re pulling him into the situation although at first he had nothing to do with it. The person already on the rails is already in direct danger.
Simply put it... "I didn't bring Extinction. You all brought Annihilation upon yourselves."
How does that change the situation?
But in reality, the basic principle is that you make a choice between whose side you are taking here
by doing nothing you can also remain neutral by taking the active action you clearly define your side.
I‘m not remembering the situation of the thought experiment exactly. Is it that in the first version (1 worker or 5 workers) the train is already going towards the 5 workers? Because then it‘s the same situation as with the fat man.
But if the situation is that the train‘s direction is not already set towards either one of the groups then it‘s not the same situation.
@@lendrestapas2505
There are many possible situations but the whole idea that you have to make a choice so you should not try to evade the question by looking for loopholes.
The main idea is that in the end, you chose who will live and who will die and it is just an excuse that "Train was already going that way. I did nothing" You can just flip a coin with the same result and make it decide whom you will live who will die or ask for someone else to make that choice to evade responsibility. The train is just a factor of random chance.
deltaxcd i think one can argue that in the situation where the train is not going towards any of the groups but you have to decide which it will go can say they choose the one person because then he is not actively killing but rather choosing the best option.
In the other instance where the train is already headed towards the group of five workers the single worker is not in direct danger but by using the switch you put him in that danger and therefore murdering the one worker to save the five. In the first situation where the direction is not already decided you are making the best out of the situation, it‘s not the same as pulling the single worker into the situation because he in the "neutral" situation he and the other five are already both in danger. I‘m sorry if this is confusing it‘s hard to explain over text without gestures and pictures.
On a completely consequentialist view, yes, both situations are the same and we‘d always save the five workers, regardless of wether not we need to use the switch or the fat man. In a deontological framework however the two situations are not equivalent.
I have been waiting for a convincing argument for Veganism, but still can't find one. Feel free to help.
Read the first chapter (about 22 pages) of Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation
Veganism, is about compassion, as your compassion and empathy for living beings develop you are drawn to veganism. Maybe you could suggest to the people who find veganism hard to practice to practice compassion towards living beings and so they remain on a path which finally leads to veganism. I ve been a vegetarian for 34 years
th-cam.com/video/foaRpYeywek/w-d-xo.html
Do not stop the ambulance to save one man, and hit the boulder to continue the journey. you have accepted the duty of care to your passengers and that tips the scales in thier favour
The video ending after 10 minutes of meat shaming made it kinda funny
❤️❤️❤️
I've never heard this thing about it being illegal not to serve people. Is it a UK thing? I don't think we have it where I live, in Romania. Sounds like a stupid law, however, even if it isn't removed, in the case of prostitutes, a special law or emergency ordnance could be created, specifying that sex workers can freely refuse clients with no consequences.
1:18:35 I just spent a year transitioning. Slowly cutting out things and trying random vegan food. Educating myself.
You are going to transition to eating different food in your life anyway just by chance. Just learn a little cooking and experiment a little
Always a pleasure listening Alex. He's not only intelligent but he is a good example of having a moral (ethical) life being atheist...I'm saying this because many people think that as atheist you can't be moral. Still I don't agree with some of his points 😜
How do you know he's moral?😉
@Claire Khaw
Well...many of the points I don't agree with are not necessarily related to this video.
Regarding this clip, I don't see why should we mirror the act of helping a child at risk of drowning in a lake with the act of helping a child suffering from malaria?
I agree that the action taken by a person to help both kids is morally congruent, but I've always thought when I've been given these examples, that behind the "kid with malaria" it is actually hiding a call for my engagement to save the world. And truly I can't feel I'm immoral not saving the world but only a kid that is in danger of drowning.
@@jayadenuja3796
I don't have knowledge about his entire life but I know for instance that he is aiming to produce less suffering around him which makes him to live a life without the pleasure of eating meat, for example. That's living like he preaches.
@@zenozeno8655 that's actually a very good objection. A possible counter-point would be that if you personalize both cases of this example and consider an actual individual, singular child for each then it does hold. If you were somehow given the chance to either save 'Jacob' from asphyxiation or 'David' from prolonged lethal seazures this would probably be a hard choice to make, which indicates similar ethical considerations. This is basically the predicament of both children in the thought experiment, drowing and death by severe malaria complications. Truth is that even if David lives far away from you and there also live Moses, James and Francis who are struck by the same affliction, your obligation to him has not changed if he can indeed be helped. A new problem does arise between which of the three kids to help or at least help first but this is a separate issue it seems to me.
@@joaofarias6473
Exactly. There's the same moral obligation in both cases. Doesn't matter the distance between you and the person in need. My concern is that "David" could be changed into "the entire world pain". Am I morally responsible for the problems of the world? Should I fell guilty because I don't agree to pay £30 monthly to save one "David"? I could ask why one "David" per month? Why £30 and not £60? Why not £93.4 or 50% of my income?
1cosidering argument 14:00 didi you forget that ANY one false term can be used to prove ANY other false term? so the idea of looking tor the places where you agree on something that is pretty obviously false automatically leads to wrong conclusions in the discussions. This is why it is absolutely vital to never agree on any such terms.
So given Alex's views regarding truth and acting accordingly, is it safe to say that he see credible flaws in Effective Altruism and the implications in the lifestyle change, outside of the vegan imperative? Seems like he certainly is well aware of the movement, but to the best of my knowledge hasn't mentioned it before on his platform, has made any sort of pledge himself, etc?
Surely the key is theory of mind. I can't prove but belive that anyone reading this is also inside his or her head reading this! This then opens the door to the golden rule without the delusion that anyone wants little Stephen for a sunbeam?
In the trolley problem I wouldn't divert the trolley. People are responsible for seeing to their own safety and the five have apparently done a very poor job of it. It wouldn't be fair to sacrifice someone who's not in danger to save them. I'd save them only if no one else had to die.
I'd pull it and never feel bad. Did the best I could.
nah because the people on the trolley were probably kidnapped or something
@@S.D.323 Maybe, but they did a poor job of seeing to their own safety if they allowed themselves to get kidnapped.
@chuckgaydos5387 that has to be the weakest moral position I've ever heard.
Fred walks down a dark street,
a man approaches him and asks him a question about ethics, is the answer A or is it B?
Fred stabs the man in the heart and walks off muttering to himself "Occam's razor".
"the simplest explanation is most likely the right one",which is say "there is no dilemma, there is always a one more option".
Fred walks 20 feet behind a large bush and finds 8 corpses. Life is short do not over think it.
At about time: 1:12:00, you bring up the ethics of charity. At the risk of being the thirtieth person to bring this up, I want to point out that the difference between refusing to help someone in front of you and refusing to help someone around the world is twofold.
On the one hand, you have a bureaucracy managing the thirty pounds you give them to save as many as can be saved with that money (after overhead expenses are subtracted out). That money is now in the hands of others, who are responsible to save that child, not you. You are just the patron, at that point.
My other issue with it is that you establish a bad precedent, when you require charity on the global scale (helping someone in front of you is charity on a local scale). You might be asked to spend all the thirty pounds for all the children, or some tax might be levied (just to make it fair) on everyone for the same purpose.
Ah, Charity... I know it helps, I've seen the Evils, and no matter what kind of Charity it is. The part of me which relishes in the Extinction of Mankind, will always be amused by the reality of "Charity", more so than the ideal. Because the ideal of Charity does not exist beyond the confines of the act, and the reality of Charity is... "Oh, I'm sure the Government truly cares about its people."... Such is the truth of Charity when the mask comes off.
LOL that was just an example, but if you want it can be pushed even further, like what if you get on the journey to Africa and find starving children in the village?
You have to either take them with yourself or leave them there to die.
@@deltaxcd
The strong defend themselves, the stronger defends others... Who told the government of that nation to fail? Ha ha ha ha. Well, Time is the Reaper.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615
Speaking about the later, I wonder how does it count if you help someone and by doing so you actually make their problems worse in the long run then brag about them being ungrateful and not appreciating your help.
@@deltaxcd
"Just because you saved a few lives, doesn't mean you taught them how to live.", more often than not. People claim to save anything, but they fail to improve it. What they save, will inevitably revert back to what it was before they saved it. All because they assume those who they saved are similar to them or will understand their way of life. It's the very reason why "Power Vacuums" arrive whenever a Powerful Leader passes because no one has learned what it means to live.
Defining knowledge as 'justified true belief' doesn't make that a 'formula' expressing a law of the universe. All three elements can be contested in any proposition that something is 'knowledge'. But as to the horse which was actually in a hidden space that Alex mistakenly assumed to contain a horse is at best a 'justified true ASSUMPTION' Alex could never have 'justified' horse-belief without a look behind the hedge. And people are right for the wrong reasons all the time.
Egoism solves everything ethically. Basically, game theory for achieving one's values/goals/interests. Anyone got counter examples? Egoism explains all our ethical thinking.
I've yet to find a compelling normative argument for egoism.
@@CourtneyRichards3000 utilitarianism is already by default the natural, obvious true "system"
What is knowing? Knowing is doing; knowledge is the result of experience. Hence the common idiom "been there, done that, got the T-shirt".
Isn't that Wisdom? Because Knowledge can also mean the Mantle of Creation.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Wisdom, for me, is more like knowing not-knowing; it is the ability to competently traverse the unknown; wisdom is basically seeing around corners. Knowledge of creation comes from doing creative things. Knowledge of destruction comes from doing destructive things. Wisdom is appreciating when and why we should do such doings; it is seeing what to do next; knowing what to do with knowledge. Knowledge is data gained from experience and wisdom is the relative use of that data. I'd say both wisdom and knowledge are perceptively distinct from mental phenomena such as insight, intelligence, profundity, and wit, but that's another story.
Wisdom is like a collection of knowledge in that knowledge in itself is the result of experience and testing that in which it turns to be true...
It is wise to give somebody relationship advice but is that based on a fact or is it just based on an opinion? With some isn't entirely rooted into knowledge but more shares in between knowledge and opinion.
I have sort of solution to problem of knowledge (and many other philosophical problems), but it's kind of a... I can't find proper word for it, but somebody could call it somewhat cheaty, but I'm serious here.
Problem is not that we can't define words like "knowledge" (or "good") properly, problem is that we have our natural language, which was developed long ago, way before common established science or thousands of years of linguistic experience. Thus I find it in vain to try to define a concept that was very vague to start with, which we do grasp intuitively _somewhat_ but which was defined so long ago, without people thinking rigorously of precise meanings or anything like that.
To me, what we try to refer to as knowledge is something in the other end of continuous spectrum of probability. You know, from "can't really say" to "maybe more of X than Y" to "probably X" to "I'd wager my life on X" -- and yet the latest thing could still be silly thing to bet. And it's not even that simple to be honest; at one hand we have our claim of certainty which could be quantified accurately, and the other thing is reality, how things _actually_ are, but as anybody knows it could be very hard to prove how things actually are. Many think it's impossible even, and that we can only show evidence to contrary to falsify things.
All in all, this is why I prefer expressing my subjective certainty over something, rather than saying I know, and never go to 100%. I don't feel like I lose anything there, because "being sufficiently convinced" often results in us trusting our lives on things, literally, without being certain. Refusing to be 100% certain leaves room to learn about false beliefs, and as such I take more Socratean position and not just claim to not know anything, but that I find the whole word too vague a concept that should be thrown away and replaced with something else -- though it'd probably be better to recreate whole spoken language to be something more precise and unambiguous. Lojban maybe?
Chris how is it going? Are you officially in the vegan squad yet haha
Higher chance of some random person surviving rather than risking them for two heavily injured people in the back of an ambulance.
"Sacrifice the adult for children who will die in the next day.", how amusing.
The point of a scenario like this is that you always have 100% chance of everything happening that the one who proposes it sais will. It is supposed ro give you a conclusion about ethics, not what you'd do if you were in the situation bc in reality you never have 100% of sth happening and killing someone will put you in jail.
@@lars3603
The irony about saving lives is that not all lives can be saved... Extinction is the ultimatum for Mankind.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 no its not
@@wasdwasdedsf
You will attempt to save a mortal of whom the Grim shall claim. To save a world of which it's inevitable destruction is at hand. Forsake the delusion of hope when even self preservation stalls your own end. Such is the fate of mankind, but unlike the other life forms on Earth, who are bound to a simple way of life, ignorant to the chaotic flow from which this variation of the cosmos was birthed in. Even if the world and its people wither into dust. It was your choice to linger here, and it is your free will to defy the matrix design of Fate. So mortal, which shall it be? You may stay in your illusion for a peaceful end. Or, you may challenge the primordial existence which created everything here, including your own body. But know that such a challenge will not be as merciful as humanity can be. For even their flesh is a design no different to the life forms on Earth; let alone, the stars. Machines who have no resolve in the end.
It is so good to live vegan!
Lendwithcare is what I’d do to charity
For anyone that cares, this is why the first debate with Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris I saw was so unproductive.
As they did not have the same definition of Truth they were stuck at the beginning of their conversation. And that was because if they do not agree on the rules of Truth, you will not be having the same argument as each other.
@Claire Khaw yeah, hence that debate I am referencing never moved on past defining what is true
@Claire Khaw what constitutes the truth
Simple solution, commandment 6, thou shall not murder, solves most conundrum.
If only people followed the 6th Commandment...
You know that word "Murder" by itself is biased because its meaning is to kill someone ILLEGALLY.
The same can be said about other commandments as they rely on the idea of the law rather than morality.
So all of that can be reduced "You should not make a crime" or "you should obey the law" and it solves nothing at all.
@@deltaxcd
Humans kill humans for pointless reasons. How about mankind learn to be better people or they can all simply die upon Extinction. After all, another can always replace this worthless species.
19:18
I think Alex made a mistake to talk about this in the past tense. After he acts, past actions are always necessary actions, so it is impossible for his actions to be different from what they were. By "ought implies can," it must be the case that past actions are permissible (in a trivial sense) since we cannot change the past.
However, before he acts, the action (from a consequentialist perspective) is wrong because repeating this experiment, on average he would create less well-being than if he had always chosen option B. Presumably the doctor does not have secret knowledge about the true efficacy of option A, so he should not expect it to yield better results on average.
if i kill someone with a knife in his heart ... did i really kill him or just cut the thing that keeps him alive ?
I don't really think ethics has much of a physical hold rather than a mental hold.... Because if you would argue to a judge that then he would think you're crazy.
Ethics to me just seems like an excuse to not have a definitive answer, cuz no one ethics can actually reach some kind of conclusion.
You did the first by doing the latter
@@Dragonk116 judges and legal systems of countries have baked in philosophical presuppositions that just aren't examined. that doesn't make those presuppositions valid.
the easiest counterexample is different legal systems having different assumptions. which judge is right then?
The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is in the future, but the future doesn't exist. All good is if. If what? Exactly.
Everything is on a clock. Try to not meet the end so soon. Not that it matters. We will be here again, in a different flesh. Although, I'll always be here... For the Nothingness is what I am, and my name is Fate.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 Exactly. Go with the flow. Reality favours those who do.
I think anti discrimination laws should be repealed anyways.
Glad my philosophy remains consistent. 😆
@Claire Khaw ok...
Anti Discrimination Laws = "You don't need to discriminate in order to discriminate."
No wonder the claim of higher education (presumably including ethics ed) in a society increases suicide. "Did I really kill myself, or merely improve the quailty of potential enjoyment of others at the Alumni gatherings?" Those remaining discuss how taxes are like the example of rape counter balanced with enjoyment of others. Hint: you might choose a Libertarian as discussion leader....
I side with Extinction, or at least, it is merely a means to my end. I hope mankind does not prove to be worthless to me. For my sake, I rather not have to wait another eternity to be proven wrong, but it has been longer than multiple eternities for me.
I don't think objective good boils down to maximize pleasure and minimizing suffering. Because suffering can lead to good. But again, in order to have truly objective morality we have to ground good and bad, right and wrong on something that doesn't change. Perhaps a personal, eternal being who is all knowing, all just and all loving? Jesus Christ, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The way the truth and the life.
Iz virtue not a social construct?😂
back when alex was based
Forget ethics.
Accept : N I H I L I S M
Even Nihilism can be corrupted for the intent of Malice. For anyone to fall into Nihilism, then I recommend you only stay for a while. Because few make it out alive, and very few make it out with a new purpose in life. But of course, may the Nothingness bring forth the Void upon this temporary dimension. "Send your soul to dust, or prove to me of your resolve."
Really bro ?? XDDDD
@@skeptic1907 what so funny? Convince me why nihilism is not a viable option. Infact I'd argue in moral philosophy there's no escape from moral nihilism in a Godless world.
How are you defining nihilism?
moral relativism is an abhorrent abomination of "meta-ethics"
conventional ethics: "don't kill him!"
meta -ethics: "why....?"
all it truly is is divining the future of causation, yet simultaneously, curiously ignoring objective outcomes.
"Sacrifice billions in order to save trillions.", sometimes the hard choices requires the most burdensome action to take. Even if the world will forget what has been done.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 the modern, progressive millennial mind cannot think without referencing, harry potter, comic books, video games or anime.
@@tribalwarfair3221
For me... It's the wager of entire existences rather than some temporary book. Although, it's fun to see humanity waste time on nothing. After all, their life will only last so long.
There is no objective morality. That doesn't mean ethics and morality doesn't exist. If anything they are measures of a person's values and credibility.
The concepts of ethics and morality are best understood when you understand their origins. It is clear, and there’s reams of evidence throughout multiple branches of biological science, how ‘Social Behavior’ in wide numbers of higher species is to a greater or lesser extent an evolutionary adaptation that helps the survival of the group, and thus the individuals. Acts of clear altruism, where demonstration of care for others, cooperation, pack behavior, generosity, self-sacrifice, and even forward-thinking, demonstrate values that seem innate to the majority within that species.
From this reality it can be determined how our tendency towards moral behavior is an inherited evolutionary adaptation that we’ve discovered improves our chances for survival. On top of this is our rational analysis of how a structured and regulated society allows us to function better than a society built on chaotic anarchy would provide.
Ethics and morality are evolutionary acquired tendencies in our behavior... Tendencies aren't objective, and are subject to social conditioning, and to a degree also are learned behaviors.
This doesn’t mean there aren’t many among us who try to push the limits of moral and ethical behavior for their own benefit. Some of this anti-social behavior can be attributed to poor environmental influences, and various degrees of mental illness, such as psychotic behavior. People have free will to choose their behavior.
Love other as you love yourself and loving God is the same. No Jew, Gentile, black or white.
@Claire Khaw Well said, thank you.
God... That old man should prepare for my arrival, but as for loving myself in a way to treat others... It would presume this world had a chance to stay alive in the end. But like Grim Reaper, I'll await the end of this entire world. I hope things will turn out differently for this era of creation.
Granted, I'm no faithful to God, but the Old Man knows who I am... May Heaven and Hell still stand once I arrive.
@Claire Khaw
Mankind to me is like a rock entering the sun. I hope humanity is not as burnable as the rock.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 I can't say. Thank you
@@Exodus26.13Pi
You know what's funny... Why is it that people believe in something? But when I try to connect with the things they believe in. It doesn't connect to me. Be it God or the reality of this world. All of it... Disconnected from me.
Imagine being vegan
Could never be me
I know, I just love betting on dog fights too much.
fair enough I love dairy too much to be vegan
Do plants feel? If so,being a vegan could b immoral😂
"The vegan joke gets on my nerves" that's why it keeps being funny
2 Timothy 3:16
Romans 2:15
Focused entirely on consequentialist views. Why nothing on deontological views?
in Germany prostitution is legalized. no problem at all
Frankly, he comes across to me as another fool who ran into a difficult problem (veganism) and didn't properly evaluate it at the proper level and thus came to an erroneous conclusion. Then, he built the rest of his ethics around justifying his answer.
It doesn't help that he is *extremely* good at hiding logical fallacies. I lean towards he isn't aware of that tendency of his.
I'll give him props for sticking to his ethics even when it is inconvenient.
Frankly, you come across as another fool who dislikes the the point someone is making, so rather than engaging with it, instead disparages the person making the point to make yourself feel better.
But I won’t commit myself to that belief, because, unlike you, it seems, I require some kind of evidence beyond an initial gut reaction before condemning someone as an intellectually dishonest “fool”.
Anyone can make these kind of unfounded ad hominem attacks, mate. They don’t help with anything.
I’d encourage you to check out some more of Alex’s content, and think about his actual arguments :)
@@tomwatson9178 Yknow what would be good? If you didn't accuse me of what you are doing.
Literally, everything you said applies more to you than to me.
The extent of "evidence" for your claims is certainly worse than mine, and you failed to back any of yours up, instead you chose to believe you could read my mind.
Try again, but this time, don't project.
@@SirSpence99 hahaha dude that was my intent exactly, I tried to base my reply off your initial comment... sorry that wasn’t clearer.
But well said! You’ve said exactly what I was trying to convey to you, but much better than I did.
@@tomwatson9178 I figured, except you completely failed because I actually had a point and explained it.
@@SirSpence99 Oh okay, that’s all good then
He always seems to be upside down
the ethics of prostitution part is just SO poorly done. normally really like ComicSkeptic, but he is just so off the mark here, and I'm sure if he gave it more then 5 minutes of thought he would see why. I think in the future he will look back and cringe when he sees this part of this interview.
god that guy has such crazy eyes.
Alex does not live in the real world...
Haven't watched the video yet - but do you care to explain why you say that?
@@danieltodasca1489 he lives in a very analytical world, where everything takes quite a few steps to arrive at a point which I would jump to immediately. He seems to presume everyone thinks like him. But of course it makes interesting discussion if you like such convoluted narrative...
Claire Khaw agreed and I guess that is his speciality, but when I listen all I hear is a mathematical theory in word form. I don't find him easy listening and I got to his channel via all the other media intellectuals who are generally easier to follow. My view only obviously.
@@sylviaking6796 Yeah, that's a fair point. I understand your explanation, but I don't think this is something bad (and I know you haven't said it is bad). I personally think this is the reason he is interesting
@@sylviaking6796 well his math and analysis on veganism is pure nonsense
In 5 years time hell create a word salad to explain why he now has to be a vegetarian.... Simply put , Heath issues!
See below 👇
@Unknown Unknown If he became vegetarian after 5 years due to intractable health issues this would actually not contradict his moral case for veganism at all, as he lays out in the Tel Aviv speach linked in the description. Besides, I myself have eaten a 100% plant based diet for the last 5 years and thankfully have become much healthier since. I guess its just hard for most people to fight confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance when it comes to something as personal as their diet. Still it is clear that for the overwhelming majority of the population a plant-based diet would not only be a sustainable choice but actually turn out to be a much healthier alternative.
@Unknown Unknown STFU
@Unknown Unknown "It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes"
Here is a position paper by the largest group of nutrition scientists and dietitians in the world, the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpro%20files/practice/position%20and%20practice%20papers/position%20papers/vegetarian-diet.ashx
@Unknown Unknown From the same study:
"After adjusting for sociodemographic and lifestyle confounders, fish eaters and vegetarians had 13% (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 0.99) and 22% (0.78, 0.70 to 0.87) lower rates of ischaemic heart disease than meat eaters, respectively (P
Who cares what a kid thinks?
Many people do, especially when the kid has an extraordinary high IQ. 🙂
jesus thats a bit elitist some kids are geniuses y'know also alex is an adult