Dear One, you're exactly where you are because you are you. If you think need to get your sh*t together, how would you feel if you were old enough to be Alex's grandma? Be grateful you have the opportunity to witness their discussions. Oh how I'd love to one the climb up the hill of life with all the wonderful technology that brings everything right to you, instead of almost to the bottom. You're perfect where you are.
@@ibraheem6505 if you're very young, comparing yourself to other people is what you should be doing. Learning from the example of others is what young people should be doing.
One could argue that good moral is based on observation. Those things that observably lead to suffering "are" unmoral and those things that lead to well-being are deemed moral
Yes, but only if everyone agrees that avoidance of suffering and improvement of well-being should be the two criteria(both are subjective) of morality. History shows us not everyone will agree to that
@@prosperitynuggets Wellbeing & suffering are one major part of morals but not the only one. There are other values related to morality such as self respect, self disclipine, integrity, dignity.
@@Yameen200 Wouldn't you say that those are just subcategories to well-being and suffering? Self respect and self discipline leads to more well-being and to less suffering for instance.
@@prosperitynuggets Yes, totally. And having seen the mistakes of history, is it not reasonable to assume that some of us may draw our own conclusions from the rigid moral systems of the past ? What is the problem with morals being flexible? like Robert A Heinlein wrote supposedly said: “I am free no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
@@shivadizayin the point is that 5 fingers is not a social construct. r-pe is wrong because society said so.Animals commit "r-pe" in the wild, but it isn't considered r-pe.
@@joys8634 people (like CS) are very confused by the word “morality”. Even when they lost their god belief, they still can’t seem to get away from the thoroughly ridiculous idea that there is some kind of cosmic moral absolute that informs what we should do. That isn’t even coherent.
@@joys8634 Yes rape is wrong but I really don’t understand why a case of five fingers or 6 fingers is used in comparison to rape. It just makes no sense. How do biological limbs compare to rape?
@@shivadizayin the point was that r-pe is taught to be wrong. Four or 5 fingers is an automatic trait. Sympathy and morality are learned traits. Children dont know something is "wrong" until punished for it. Humans dont innately know its wrong
Well clearly if we had evolved in a way where we didn't feel suffering, then we wouldn't perceive causing suffering as being wrong. But given the premise that we do feel suffering, then rape being perceived as wrong is not arbitrary - because it causes suffering. I think this is what he means to say.
@@WaqasAli-ct7ly Not quite. Suppose someone has died, You can do whatever you like to their body. Desecrate it, destroy it, regardless theres no suffering involved but still moral value of human dignity & respect involved.
Rape causes suffering for one person, but pleasure for the other. The argument could be made (and has been made) that because it's pleasurable, it is good. Or because it causes procreation/passing of genes, it's good. I think that's part of what makes it an interesting/complicated topic when it comes to morality.
This is an interesting topic. Also "suffer" seems rather ambiguous. Is it physical or emotional? Or is there any other type? In other words, if we were to not suffer physically and/or emotionally, would we still have morals? If so, what would determine it? I think we could still have morals. There doesn't have to be a physical or emotional effects. (Now, emotional seems ambigous. This might need some description. See the next example.) Let's say someone stole some of my belongings. This won't cause any physical suffering. Emotional? Let's get rid of emotional effects/responses. What do I do/think? By having some of my belongins stolen, I will not be able to function as well as I was functioning before. This means that I'll have to work more than necessary to get back to my previous state. This is not practical. I'll be wasting time and effort to replace the stolen things. I'm at loss. Someone stealing my things puts me in a disadvantage. Why should that be the case? ... If I'm unresponsive to the situation I'm in, I'd say I'm not that bright, and the nature would get rid of me sooner than getting rid of someone that is responsive. What I'm trying to get to is that I think there's another thing to consider, and it's the logical side of things. It's not necessarily related to physical or emotional suffering, but it's there. PS: A second thought, in the end, it all comes down to 1) being productive (utilizing everyting) as much as one can be, 2) avoiding death. I guess the logical part is related to these two. Now, other things/layers (suffering, etc.) can be added on top of them.
Morality don't seem to be internal to us the same way that having five fingers is internal to us; "rape is wrong" seems more analogous to "gloves should have five fingers" than "humans have five fingers."
"Sympathy is only the social instinct"--Charles Darwin "All living things desire the death of all other living things". While only an aphorism, many in my experience would find the phrase substantively true. BUUTT... I can't stock the supermarket, pave the roads, manufacture clothes...in fact there must be in the millions (billions) of a percentile what I actually have my finger-prints on the provision of, that I use daily. I must "cooperate" sufficiently to be allowed access to those necessities. IT IS what Dawkins refers to as "The Selfish Gene" in his book of 45 years ago. It is ALSO what the Abrahamists refer to as "original sin". We don't say Hitler/Mao/Stalin/Manson "sinned". It is wholly separate from injuring the society; which criminal laws address. The FACT that all living things, including humans are "selfish" is indisputable; it's origin is the issue. SHOCKINGLY it's the "Dawkins" whom run around screeching that the unwashed imagine there to be some stain upon human character...refusing to take yes for an answer: "there is only venality". OF COURSE you can't be superior if you agree with the cast-off religiose... AND "SUPERIORITY" IS THE RAISON D'ETRE.....
@@WayneLynch69 "All living things desire the death of all other living things." That's obviously bullshit since the majority of humans aren't murderers and don't kill anyone for the entirety of their lives. When it comes to animals not a single one of them think like that even though yes they do kill other animals to eat them for the sake of survival but they don't desire the death of others. They only do it to survive.
I agree with Alex, I think a lot of people's personal moral intuition is a consequence of their temperament and on a grander scale, a consequence of evolution. For example, throughout human history, a woman's virginity has always been important. Always. Nobody ever cared about a man being a virgin. This is because a woman who has a child will always know that the child is hers, but men back then had really no way of knowing for sure that the child was theirs. It created an evolutionary "paternal panic." A way to remedy this panic, then, was to ensure that a woman was a virgin before marriage, and in this way, it became immoral in several societies for a woman to not be a virgin before marriage. That morality existed as a consequence of our evolution, in the same way I believe other morals do too. Now we have free, progressive societies as well as DNA testing, so there's no logical need for paternal panic, but our evolution hasn't caught up and there remains people in progressive societies who disagree with promiscuity.
If you’re able to track a woman’s sexual activity so closely so as to guarantee she is a virgin, then you would have been able to tell who the father is in almost all cases. The only real sticking point is if the woman sleeps with multiple different men in quick succession, such as one or two days apart. Given this, the moral transgression could have been “sleeping with more than one man per menstrual cycle” or something like that. The virginity requirement is completely arbitrary and much harsher than it needs to be. I suspect that the reason virginity as a virtue persisted for so long is that, in fact, you cannot track a woman’s sexual activity closely enough to guarantee anything at all. So instead, society decided to scare the woman into obedience by instituting a harsh punishment if her virginity was ever even slightly in question.
@@qwerty_and_azerty That makes sense! Some societies would also do tests on a woman's vagina to check she's a virgin before marriage or sew her vulva together (I think), really barbaric stuff.
Pain isn't always 'bad' in itself though. Exercise causes pain, sometimes immensely, but is objectively good and beneficial for you. Same with physical therapy to regain the ability to walk, for example. Breaking an addiction to drugs causes immense suffering as well. Working tough jobs can cause pain/suffering (for a lifetime for some people) yet there are important jobs that have to be done to save lives (doctors, cops, etc.).
@@_Booker_DeWitt yeah good point. Maybe I could clarify by saying suffering is sometimes necessary when it is used to prevent greater suffering or if it is used to create an amount of sustainable pleasure that outweighs the suffering. By sustainable pleasure I mean pleasure that doesn’t violate individual liberty as that erodes social order which increases suffering over all.
@@_Booker_DeWitt I think you've missed the point here. The reason these pains aren't bad is because they are tied to something that is necessary or good, but it could be better if there was none of that pain at all. I would rather no jobs resulted in physical pain for example. Although the suffering caused by pain is what's actually the bad part, small pain that you don't care about isn't really bad.
Why morals can't come from Brain or societies? _The material brain does not know if any of the human actions are good or bad, *because the brain is completely indifferent when it comes to morals, since it is made From the very same atoms of the earth* -As for the notion saying that societies could be the origin of morality... This idea is so peculiar because morals are subjective, And they concern man as a man, not the society as a society ... If any of this was true, and morals have been originated from society *Then the Nazi would have been right in disposing of all the others, since this is what the society would want* Hence, morals are separate from the society And both The good and the bad societies know what righteousness is a d what evildoing is. *Consequently, morals are far beyond the Brain And the society* . And athieism is Only offering "rejection" to the belief of God/Gods, it doesn't offers an standard of morality... That's why it's peculiar to say a certain act is wrong or right, with a baseless foundation.
Another one missing that humans are a social species that can not survice a indivuduals. So this: "This idea is so peculiar because morals are subjective, And they concern man as a man, not the society as a society ..." misses the mark by a mile... "The material brain does not know if any of the human actions are good or bad, because the brain is completely indifferent when it comes to morals, since it is made From the very same atoms of the earth " But the human concoiusness, with is an emergent propperty of the brainfunction, does. And this conciousness and the moral judgement it makes, are best explained by evolution as a social species. "Then the Nazi would have been right in disposing of all the others, since this is what the society would want" Good old argumentum ad hitlerum...lol. No, as it reduces overall wellbeeing... "And both The good and the bad societies know what righteousness is a d what evildoing is." Nope, 1st: these are 2 arbirtrary and fuzzy words.... 2nd: it will differ from society to society "And athieism is Only offering "rejection" to the belief of God/Gods, it doesn't offers an standard of morality... That's why it's peculiar to say a certain act is wrong or right, with a baseless foundation." Damn, man, you almost got it: Atheism makes no moral claim...and noone sane would claim it does... What people are advocating for is: Secular humanism. And that is based on the notion to see behaviour as immoral that causes demonstrable harm...period.
You come across as condescending when you said " i guess we ll let our listeners make of that what they will". Your question was pedantic and his first answer was quite sufficient. No offense.
I agree his answers are sufficient if you actually do the work to organize Dawkins' thoughts. I think Dawkins was somewhat disorganized throughout this interview and while I can get an idea where he stands it is easy to imagine someone getting lost when listening to him and I suppose that is why Alex was pressing for clarifications even when Dawkins' previous answers implicitly provide a decent response
I fully agree. Of course Dawkin's answer to the question is basically just "Yes, it is arbitrary. You can't get an ought from an is." And it is a perfectly fine and consistent position, held by many naturalists. He just added that the fact that it is not objective does not mean that it is fully arbitrary. All the rest, is really an undergraduate student of moral philosophy trying to cut the hair to get him in contradiction by making him uncomfortable by taking extreme examples of Richard's reasonable position.
Imagine how unfair/hilarious the reverse situation would be. If research scientists could bring philosophy students into a conversation about their work at the professional level, imagine how ignorant of the STEM fields the majority of these philosophers would look? I imagine some people would accuse the scientists of intentional character assassination, for needing to explain every stage of the chemistry before the discussion could be understood.
@@bobon123 "The fact that it is not objective does not mean it is fully arbitrary" You donut, if objective morality doesn't exist then it is arbitrary. The difference between objective and subjective morality doesn't exist on a spectrum. They are contradictions.
The basis of morality has always been well being I think. Any specific action deemed moral or immoral is a construct we've created in order to reach that well being, sometimes wrongly, sometimes rightly
It depends, imagine the classic desert island scenario, you are stranded, alone with a dying person. Before they die, they ask you to bury them facing downwards. You arbitrarily decide to bury them facing upwards. Or maybe you just decide to eat them.If you believe it was morally wrong to do so, then it seems to follow that there is more than just well being involved.
Patricia Churchland's book Conscience: The Origins if Moral Intuition addresses the "grounding" of morality well. Not completely relativist, but also not absolutist (she doesn't assume you get to some moral principles through reason alone).
I believe it isn't fair for Alex to have a discussion with Richard dawkins (too philosophical)... I respect Alex more... don't stop thinking Alex... May God guide you.
@Natural Beauty I think he's intelligent, full stop. He may not be as well versed in philosophy, he's better informed than most believers in the 'holy books' though, mostly christianity. But, the difference is, he doesn't claim authority in those fields. But he will give his opinion. I do see the effects of age and his stroke, though, too. But, his true authority is as a biologist. 👍💞✌😷🎃
This podcast is one of my favourite videos of yours, I really like listening to you always, but Richard Dawkins, man, listening to him is such a pleasure. And your interactions are really entertaining and absorbing. I was watching it with my partner and, let me tell you, the emotions we were going through, it was like we were watching a great movie.
I would say that both evolution and social change are part of the larger processes of the Earth as a whole, from geological transformation, the chemical complexification, to abiogenesis, to evolution, to social and technological development. It's all part of the one larger process of planetary change over time. Suffering has clearly helped intelligent animals to survive and reproduce. Sensitivity to pain brings caution. Caution is important in the wild because many an animal has won fights, only to die from infection; Even a small lesion can be fatal without medicine. I am not sure that our evolved capacity to feel extreme pain and suffering is helpful in human societies, but these responses have evolved for millions of years and "civilisation" is relatively new. So we can expect latency.
I don't think Dawkins understood the question, and it seems like you both got thrown off the track there. You should probably have tried posing the question again but phrased differently. Too bad.
Rape is wrong because it is one person imposing themselves on another without their permission, where on earth does he get arbitrary from. If I punched him in the face and caused him suffering how the hell is that arbitrary. The interviewer is trying to be too clever.
@@BenedictPye , indeed it is. It commits logical suicide. Premise: Morality is subjective. Retort: Do you mean that absolutely? If yes, then you have admitted the premise is incorrect. If no, then the premise is meaningless. QED
@@TheOnlyStonemason When people say that morality is subjective, they are generally only suggesting that the moral/normative claims we make are subjective. This specifically involves claims like 'Murder is bad' or 'People should not steal.' They are not necessarily claiming that descriptive meta-claims about how we use moral language are subjective. In other words, they aren't claiming that all claims are subjective, just that a specific class of them are. Thus, they can (at face value) make absolute claims about morality without denying its subjective nature.
Philosophy is not the ‘new’ atheist’s strong point (although I am an atheist I realize that the new atheists get clapped when trying to argue against Christian philosophers). They should leave the arguing against theist philosophers (Craig, Lennox etc.) to the atheist philosophers (Oppy, Martin, etc.). Instead, they should argue against Christian scientists, priests, Frank Turek etc.
A problem with learning from suffering, is humans by nature, have a tendency to block or overlay memories that are bad. Making it so if we don't learn from the experience and do some note taking and revisit the notes regularly enough. We'll chock up the event to not remembered( denial or repression( voluntary or involuntary)), or attribute it to something else. And possibly repeat the same things leading up to the same bad experience. I don't like getting assaulted by drunks from bars but keep going back to bars and chat up with strangers. I don't like waking up to missing or empty wallets, yet definitely do not go to bed with prostitutes. They're casual sex partners. My dad keeps telling me no to a football or basketball yet I keep refusing to join a local league. Why doesn't he see it's worth the investment.Rationalize the risks, the actual sequence of events, or healthfactors where no one's wearing masks. People will do many things wrong repeatedly many times. Becoming cyclic. People can be like that.
Please feel free to correct my reasoning if there is something I missed, but is Alex's point not a false equivalence fallacy? To say that one component of evolution being arbitrary means all evolutionary traits are arbitrary is a ridiculous notion (if you understand that evolution is not completely random). Number of digits is possibly arbitrary but as Dawkins insinuates, just because you don't know whether it gave an earlier ancestor an advantage or not, does not necessarily mean it didn't (and as a result might be "arbitrary" - I believe Dawkins conceded this point to let Alex finish his question). Then Dawkins outlines a reasonable and logical explanation for why humans may have "evolved" (as close to an) objective morality; as a result of suffering (wellbeing) which influenced chances of reproductive success. To also question the role of suffering in evolution seems ignorant from Alex? I like Alex's content and he frequently challenges my way of thinking, but I found this a painful watch. Please correct me.
That's the trap of consequentialism. If you genuinely follow consequentialism, then you reach horrifying conclusions that the very proponents of consequentialism would never dare defend.
@@RoninTF2011 Consequentialists are far too focused on harm, it's very short-sighted. Morality is about self-consistency, not about harm or wellbeing. But on both topics of consistency and harm, google what a Repugnant Conclusion is.
@@RoninTF2011 Consequentialism is ultimately self-refuting, and also the moral equivalent of codified psychopathy and hot garbage. Reject degeneracy, embrace deontology. Is that enough for you or do you need big colored letters?
In Islam one could have female slaves and those slaves had no right to reject their masters sexual needs. Basically that means in this context of Islam rape is good because it satisfy's the needs of the slavemaster. That also shows how morals change or are different in certain cultures.
May I see an Islamic source were it says it's allowed to forced slaves to satisfy their Master out of the marriage context...? Cause I'm pretty much sure you'd be a laughable case if you told that to an educated Muslim.... (In Islam, what you call slaves, they're actually war captives. and no, fornication or any sexual intercourse with "slaves" out of marriage is prohibited in Islam) that's 1. 2 (that's the only source Islam get "slaves", thought there are 10 other ways Which commands the Muslim to free any slave instead of getting... So 1 entrance, 10 ways of leaving slavery) Stop being an islamophobe and attack a stereotypical hateful image of Islam, instead of the real thing.... At least alex is more respectable and reasonable than you....
@@salahshinigamiamv9814 _"I'm pretty much sure you'd be a laughable case if you told that to an educated Muslim...."_ So what if I show you a well respected educated Islamic scholar who even explains this to you? The video link get's blocked by yt but if you check out Dr Shabir Ally on The Historical Roots of Female Slavery you will see him explaining this with sources. _"In Islam, what you call slaves, they're actually war captives."_ Yes indeed, those women are forced into slavery. As the Doc explains those women under Islam had no right to say no to their master because they were his private property which is called rape. No where does Islam forbid slavery even though other culture before Islam and after did that as non perfect systems. I don't mean this wrong but Stop being an ignoramus and attack people based on your shortcomings. And btw I am respectful. Where did I disrespect you?
@Skeptical Till i find Truth So what? That is still forcing someone into slavery. Plus they are still humans not property like cows. For many slave women killing them would be better instead of making them slaves and allow men to rape them. It's also bizarre that you think just because they marry this makes everything alright. If those women have slave status they are nothing more than a piece of private property that has no legal right to reject their masters desire which is pure rape. Let me tell you this. Even today in non perfect society's we don't let women become as low as slaves/property/toys for men legally by law. We don't see humans as property of other humans. As for looking into Islam. I am doing that and you see the quran and hadith admitting to all of this horrific stuff.
@@breakbeat9229(so what?) Shows your emotional bias and baseless claims when an knowledgeable non Muslim is found to be more accurate than you and showed you the truth of Islam and how it dominates other ideological views (especially secularism)... Killing them is better... Never thought taking someone whom tried to kill you in a war and feed them,and dress them and *protect them* from the agression of other nations is worse than killing... Check yourself mate, and I'm sure you don't get that from the glorious Quran and authentic Hadith, since (look at the link of a video in youtube that has been deleted by youtube)... I guess the truth is clear... You may keep rejecting, but open-minded rational people like "skeptical till i find Truth" will realize it sooner or later.
The faith of naturalism is amazing! 1) You either believe everything popped into existence from nothing or you believe matter is eternal when all matter that we know is derivative 2) you believe inorganic matter became organic 3) you believe it created information (DNA)
So instead magical cognition existing in the absence of physical brains, wished it all into existence out of nothing. Wished. The power of just wishing for it really hard, even without having a brain or body.
@Dennis Sparks @Dennis Sparks Creationists are quick to jump to the finish line without explaining a thing. The first stars formed after 200 million years of simple gases existing. Earth formed 10 billion years after the first stars, and single-celled life formed 3 billion years ago (multicellular life begins 500 million years ago). The narrative of the observable cosmos and biosphere favor extremely long periods of little change. It's the theists who believe matter 'popped' into existence via a metaphysical magician with anthropomorphic emotions. The second concern you raised is still unknown, and remains in the stage of hypothesis. We probably need a testable answer to the second point before we can determine the third.
@@ShaneyElderberry , I haven’t made any claims. Just critiques of committed naturalism. These are legitimate criticisms and no amount of time makes them less so. We know there was a Big Bang around 13.8B years ago when the universe began. Why is there something rather than nothing? Is matter eternal? How exactly does inorganic matter organize into organic matter? How does it create information (DNA)? It requires a lot of trust without any evidence.
@@TheOnlyStonemason i mean you could just leave it as mysteries to be solved. If I don’t know how the earth was formed for example, I’d probably see if science had an answer and if not I’d just say I didn’t know. I wouldn’t make an active claim like a God made Earth though.
Dawkins is trying to escape the question as many hard core atheist materialist do. I am not speaking of every atheist, but the Dawkins, Hutchins , Type ...such extreme rejection of religion/spirituality leaves one morally bankrupt.
@@DisProfundis yh but just by the assumption that this word was from god - it makes perfectly sense actually. You cant access to morality without that objective perspective from god and without really accepting one scripture as yous either.
@@Fanboy1222 It is still subjective since you're basing the existence of God on an assumption. While it's true you need an external influence, a being of higher status to impose his rules/teachings upon you- it could be a parent, a teacher, a God or some impostor posing as a God. However, it would all be impossible if people didn't possess their inherent sense of empathy and reason. It all depends on who you bow down to. And blindly following a book without knowing its history or having the self perspective on why you're choosing to follow it, is the death of the same reason that makes you a human. Then you're not bigger than a slave.
The rapist -if not a psychopath- lives in a society in which he is part of and thus cares about it for some degree, take this for example, why would a driver respect the red light and stops? Nothing prevents him from just breaking the red light, but actually he would cause himself to suffer either directly by having an accident or indirectly through other drivers doing the same and also hitting him. The point is the rapists shouldn't rape cause a) he is putting himself under the punishment of the law/ being shunned from the community and b) encouraging others to do the same with his female relatives.
That's a meaningless question, it doesn't have an answer. He doesn't care, that's the end of the story. Nothing you say will change that the rapist doesn't care.
@@slowmogolf9163 You have to understand what the word wrong means. He is not wrong in an objective sense, it's just our opinion that he's wrong. What we mean by that is we just don't like what he's doing. Right or wrong is always an opinion.
What a misleading clickbaiting title. "Cosmic Skeptic" asked the question, not Richard, and his reply was a resounding no and that he was getting too philosophical. As is typical, Cosmic Skeptic's arguments are usually slippery slopes that lead from and go nowhere.
Your being too philosophical is running away from the question. It's not the mistake of the interviewer that the question is philosophical in nature. The question was real and it was too illogical to give such an answer.
Am i the only one that feels a little embarrassed for Dawkins in this interview? I think Alex is a really intelligent thinker and this interview, this clip in particular, exposes not only how uneducated Dawkins is in moral philosophy, but how uninterested he is in it? Alex you did a great job interviewing and brought up some brilliant questions, and I’m sorry to say I really don’t feel Dawkins gave convincing responses to any of them
Dawkins himself has said that he doesn't do philosophy. He steers clear of sneaky use of language in philosophical arguments. It is something a lot of us could learn. It's interesting to question everything. But, don't get lost in it and be more confused than when you started !
I suppose that is not surprising given that he said "you are being too philosophical" Dawkins is a scientist not a moral philosopher and he does not as far as I know introduce himself as such. I think you are right that Dawkins is uninterested in deep moral discussions and frankly I can't blame him....I mean come on he is 78 now.
@@Sauromannen Yeah, that definitely played a part too. Unless you're exposed to such paths of intellection, it's very difficult to come up with a succinct response. Good point.
Dawkins tried to make evolutionary mating sound more acceptably anthropomorphic than it was, for the sake of humoring contemporary philosophy. How do you think Alex would fair in discussion about epigenetics with research scientists?
It's interesting though, because it is the de facto mode of reproduction for most animals, including humans, for most of our history. Only recently becoming prohibited and/or viewed as immoral. It's interesting to dissect how and why our moral landscape has changed.
@@goldenyak629, says who? You? Are you the final word on morality? It is evolutionary, therefore it is consistent with the materialistic worldview of Dawkins. You are a gene-replicating machine, and that machine does not care about the suffering of strangers.
@@goldenyak629, I'm pretty sure the Nuremberg trials caused suffering to many German soldiers. I guess it was wrong to want justice. Justice is wrong. Thanks for the clarification.
@@spurcalluth6300 That's what the word means. If you have another definition let's hear it, but you'll have to try pretty hard to come up with one that's more compelling to care about. I am, in fact, a gene-replicating machine that _does_ care about the suffering of others, because caring about the suffering of others is something that this particular gene-replicating machine is capable of doing. It benefits me and those others. That's consistent with a materialistic worldview too. As far as me being the final word on morality, well... you could do worse. You could get it from religion or something dumb like that.
@@goldenyak629, okay, justice is wrong because it causes criminals to suffer. And you are the final arbiter of right and wrong. Awesome. Have you been in contact with any governments to convince them to abandon their judicial systems? If not, please get busy with that as soon as possible. We need to get the word of the final arbiter of morality out as soon as we can.
Saint Luke 5:32 KJV I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Saint Luke 13:3 KJV I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Your moral values come from God / the faith that you either follow or from a society that bases it’s laws and moral values on that particular faith. . Biology doesn’t give you a moral framework. Some people are born serial killers, that’s their biology.. so one could say that their morality is to do what is in their biology... which is a very basic primal behavior so to speak or in comparison. For argument’s sake, say it were from biology... wouldn’t we require someone sort of reference point which would be the initial reference as to what good and bad is, and what is moral and immoral... If it were from evolution, how can you trust your beliefs as being moral? After all, wouldn’t morals keep changing with evolution? If so, one cannot claim that morals are evolutionary... because you have had nothing to base these morals on.. And if u did, they would change tmrw.. God is the reference point for our moral.. the 10 commandments...simple basic fundamentals which have provided western civilization and many others with the basis of faith and law. For eg
Your moral values do not come from God, they come from your upbringing. The religious texts were themselves written by humans who wrote what to avoid and what to acquire based on their experiences and acquired knowledge. However, human experiences change with time and therefore definition of morality has to keep changing, depending on what's good for society as a whole. Rules stuck in stone will only cause suffering in the new age.
@@DisProfundis no that’s not how moral values changed. society’s moral values are a product of their faith. Compare the moral values of the christian faith and Islam and look at societies where this has been implemented . But make sure to know what the faith actually teaches as opposed to what people claim the faith teaches etc. Communism in this century has nothing to do with religion but caused the most deaths then all of the other three centuries put together.. how has that “experience” been beneficial? And again.. if morals are a result of experience doesn’t that mean one’s morals are going to be constantly changing because experience is constantly changing… so again, how can anyone claim to say what’s good or bad if morals are based on experience. ..,
You complicate things because you're treating morality as a fact of nature. However, it's not. You have to add "I think" before "rape is wrong". It is exclusively an opinion. Now we can answer this easily. Why do you think it's wrong? Because you don't like it. You personally don't want it to happen. On the other hand (pun intended), you don't care that the number of fingers is 5.
Couldn't it be the case that we needed or it is useful enough to have 5 fingers functionally speaking. The same way we needed to view rape as wrong (within in the same group/tribe) because it also served a functional survival purpose. Like for instance decreasing the incident of unnecessary conflict among the group that may arise from one member assaulting someone's actual or potential mating partner.
@@lysetribute3213 You're just describing how it might have evolved, but I'm not. I'm describing what is going on in the moment, right now. I don't like rape, so I call it wrong to do. It is just my opinion, but obviously, my genetic tendency to not like rape can be explained through the natural processes. Every opinion can be, doesn't make it less of an opinion.
@@MarkoMood I see now. It's an opinion, specifically yours, from your point of view. I guess why I tried to illustrate here, is that you have some actual basis for considering it more than just an opinion. Because I believe throwing the word ''opinion'' haphazardly like that when considering the gravity of the word rape is ill-advised. Surely, people who view rape as not wrong, are not just people with a different opinion. They objectively suffer from a disorder of social interaction.
"You're being too philosophical." 😆😆
👍
For a scientist, yes.
He definitely is
@Eskil Hansson is cake better than bread? Some questions just don’t have a meaningful answer. That is what rd was implying.
@@roqsteady5290 dude tried to equate 6 fingers to r-pe lmao. embarrassing
Chatting with Richard Dawkins at roughly the age I am at - ghawd I need to get my shit together
Have u not heard God is his next guest
Compared to Alex we all should get our shit together
Dear One, you're exactly where you are because you are you. If you think need to get your sh*t together, how would you feel if you were old enough to be Alex's grandma? Be grateful you have the opportunity to witness their discussions. Oh how I'd love to one the climb up the hill of life with all the wonderful technology that brings everything right to you, instead of almost to the bottom. You're perfect where you are.
@@ibraheem6505 if you're very young, comparing yourself to other people is what you should be doing. Learning from the example of others is what young people should be doing.
@@leftbehind4030 i would honeslty not be surprised at this point 😂
One could argue that good moral is based on observation. Those things that observably lead to suffering "are" unmoral and those things that lead to well-being are deemed moral
If that's how we define it
Yes, but only if everyone agrees that avoidance of suffering and improvement of well-being should be the two criteria(both are subjective) of morality. History shows us not everyone will agree to that
@@prosperitynuggets Wellbeing & suffering are one major part of morals but not the only one. There are other values related to morality such as self respect, self disclipine, integrity, dignity.
@@Yameen200 Wouldn't you say that those are just subcategories to well-being and suffering? Self respect and self discipline leads to more well-being and to less suffering for instance.
@@prosperitynuggets Yes, totally. And having seen the mistakes of history, is it not reasonable to assume that some of us may draw our own conclusions from the rigid moral systems of the past ? What is the problem with morals being flexible? like Robert A Heinlein wrote supposedly said:
“I am free no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
I love that professor Dawkins only answers questions to the extent he knows what he’s talking about.
I’m confused about the connection of the 6 fingers and rape...and then someone threw “moral” in the middle.. now it’s just messy and awkward 🤣😂
@@shivadizayin the point is that 5 fingers is not a social construct. r-pe is wrong because society said so.Animals commit "r-pe" in the wild, but it isn't considered r-pe.
@@joys8634 people (like CS) are very confused by the word “morality”. Even when they lost their god belief, they still can’t seem to get away from the thoroughly ridiculous idea that there is some kind of cosmic moral absolute that informs what we should do. That isn’t even coherent.
@@joys8634 Yes rape is wrong but I really don’t understand why a case of five fingers or 6 fingers is used in comparison to rape. It just makes no sense. How do biological limbs compare to rape?
@@shivadizayin the point was that r-pe is taught to be wrong. Four or 5 fingers is an automatic trait. Sympathy and morality are learned traits. Children dont know something is "wrong" until punished for it. Humans dont innately know its wrong
Dawkings: "This is all hypothetical, isn't it Alex, all academic?"
Alex: "Of course Sir. It'll be our little secret."
😂😂😂😂
Holy shit that’s so good 😂
Well clearly if we had evolved in a way where we didn't feel suffering, then we wouldn't perceive causing suffering as being wrong. But given the premise that we do feel suffering, then rape being perceived as wrong is not arbitrary - because it causes suffering. I think this is what he means to say.
But the moment suffering is no longer something we feel, then morality doesnt exist either
@@WaqasAli-ct7ly well yeah .....but that's not the reality we live in
@@WaqasAli-ct7ly Not quite. Suppose someone has died, You can do whatever you like to their body. Desecrate it, destroy it, regardless theres no suffering involved but still moral value of human dignity & respect involved.
Rape causes suffering for one person, but pleasure for the other. The argument could be made (and has been made) that because it's pleasurable, it is good. Or because it causes procreation/passing of genes, it's good. I think that's part of what makes it an interesting/complicated topic when it comes to morality.
This is an interesting topic. Also "suffer" seems rather ambiguous. Is it physical or emotional? Or is there any other type? In other words, if we were to not suffer physically and/or emotionally, would we still have morals? If so, what would determine it?
I think we could still have morals. There doesn't have to be a physical or emotional effects. (Now, emotional seems ambigous. This might need some description. See the next example.)
Let's say someone stole some of my belongings. This won't cause any physical suffering. Emotional? Let's get rid of emotional effects/responses. What do I do/think? By having some of my belongins stolen, I will not be able to function as well as I was functioning before. This means that I'll have to work more than necessary to get back to my previous state. This is not practical. I'll be wasting time and effort to replace the stolen things. I'm at loss. Someone stealing my things puts me in a disadvantage. Why should that be the case? ... If I'm unresponsive to the situation I'm in, I'd say I'm not that bright, and the nature would get rid of me sooner than getting rid of someone that is responsive.
What I'm trying to get to is that I think there's another thing to consider, and it's the logical side of things. It's not necessarily related to physical or emotional suffering, but it's there.
PS: A second thought, in the end, it all comes down to 1) being productive (utilizing everyting) as much as one can be, 2) avoiding death. I guess the logical part is related to these two. Now, other things/layers (suffering, etc.) can be added on top of them.
Morality don't seem to be internal to us the same way that having five fingers is internal to us; "rape is wrong" seems more analogous to "gloves should have five fingers" than "humans have five fingers."
"Sympathy is only the social instinct"--Charles Darwin
"All living things desire the death of all other living things". While only an aphorism, many in my experience would find the phrase substantively true. BUUTT...
I can't stock the supermarket, pave the roads, manufacture clothes...in fact there
must be in the millions (billions) of a percentile what I actually have my finger-prints on the provision of, that I use daily. I must "cooperate" sufficiently to be allowed access to those necessities.
IT IS what Dawkins refers to as "The Selfish Gene" in his book of 45 years ago.
It is ALSO what the Abrahamists refer to as "original sin". We don't say Hitler/Mao/Stalin/Manson "sinned". It is wholly separate from injuring the society;
which criminal laws address. The FACT that all living things, including humans are
"selfish" is indisputable; it's origin is the issue. SHOCKINGLY it's the "Dawkins"
whom run around screeching that the unwashed imagine there to be some stain
upon human character...refusing to take yes for an answer: "there is only venality".
OF COURSE you can't be superior if you agree with the cast-off religiose...
AND "SUPERIORITY" IS THE RAISON D'ETRE.....
@@WayneLynch69 "All living things desire the death of all other living things." That's obviously bullshit since the majority of humans aren't murderers and don't kill anyone for the entirety of their lives. When it comes to animals not a single one of them think like that even though yes they do kill other animals to eat them for the sake of survival but they don't desire the death of others. They only do it to survive.
"Don't seem" is a good way to put it. Also who says gloves woth 5 fingers are the objectivly best gloves for a human hand? Its all subjective right?
Nicely explained .
but morals stop evolution from continuing
It's still suffering, whether it was an evolved response or whether an extra-dimensional superhero magic'd the response. Pain is pain is pain.
But it’s only meaningful in one of those worldviews.
@@Bewareofthewolves If you want to limit what you find meaningful to those two views, that's up to you.
I agree with Alex, I think a lot of people's personal moral intuition is a consequence of their temperament and on a grander scale, a consequence of evolution. For example, throughout human history, a woman's virginity has always been important. Always. Nobody ever cared about a man being a virgin. This is because a woman who has a child will always know that the child is hers, but men back then had really no way of knowing for sure that the child was theirs. It created an evolutionary "paternal panic." A way to remedy this panic, then, was to ensure that a woman was a virgin before marriage, and in this way, it became immoral in several societies for a woman to not be a virgin before marriage. That morality existed as a consequence of our evolution, in the same way I believe other morals do too. Now we have free, progressive societies as well as DNA testing, so there's no logical need for paternal panic, but our evolution hasn't caught up and there remains people in progressive societies who disagree with promiscuity.
If you’re able to track a woman’s sexual activity so closely so as to guarantee she is a virgin, then you would have been able to tell who the father is in almost all cases. The only real sticking point is if the woman sleeps with multiple different men in quick succession, such as one or two days apart. Given this, the moral transgression could have been “sleeping with more than one man per menstrual cycle” or something like that. The virginity requirement is completely arbitrary and much harsher than it needs to be. I suspect that the reason virginity as a virtue persisted for so long is that, in fact, you cannot track a woman’s sexual activity closely enough to guarantee anything at all. So instead, society decided to scare the woman into obedience by instituting a harsh punishment if her virginity was ever even slightly in question.
@@qwerty_and_azerty That makes sense! Some societies would also do tests on a woman's vagina to check she's a virgin before marriage or sew her vulva together (I think), really barbaric stuff.
I don’t think it matters where pain came from. It’s bad in itself as a fact of experience so should be minimised.
Pain isn't always 'bad' in itself though.
Exercise causes pain, sometimes immensely, but is objectively good and beneficial for you. Same with physical therapy to regain the ability to walk, for example.
Breaking an addiction to drugs causes immense suffering as well.
Working tough jobs can cause pain/suffering (for a lifetime for some people) yet there are important jobs that have to be done to save lives (doctors, cops, etc.).
@@_Booker_DeWitt yeah good point. Maybe I could clarify by saying suffering is sometimes necessary when it is used to prevent greater suffering or if it is used to create an amount of sustainable pleasure that outweighs the suffering.
By sustainable pleasure I mean pleasure that doesn’t violate individual liberty as that erodes social order which increases suffering over all.
@@_Booker_DeWitt I think you've missed the point here. The reason these pains aren't bad is because they are tied to something that is necessary or good, but it could be better if there was none of that pain at all. I would rather no jobs resulted in physical pain for example. Although the suffering caused by pain is what's actually the bad part, small pain that you don't care about isn't really bad.
Why morals can't come from Brain or societies?
_The material brain does not know if any of the human actions are good or bad, *because the brain is completely indifferent when it comes to morals, since it is made From the very same atoms of the earth*
-As for the notion saying that societies could be the origin of morality... This idea is so peculiar because morals are subjective, And they concern man as a man, not the society as a society ...
If any of this was true, and morals have been originated from society
*Then the Nazi would have been right in disposing of all the others, since this is what the society would want*
Hence, morals are separate from the society
And both The good and the bad societies know what righteousness is a d what evildoing is.
*Consequently, morals are far beyond the Brain And the society* .
And athieism is Only offering "rejection" to the belief of God/Gods, it doesn't offers an standard of morality... That's why it's peculiar to say a certain act is wrong or right, with a baseless foundation.
Another one missing that humans are a social species that can not survice a indivuduals.
So this: "This idea is so peculiar because morals are subjective, And they concern man as a man, not the society as a society ..." misses the mark by a mile...
"The material brain does not know if any of the human actions are good or bad, because the brain is completely indifferent when it comes to morals, since it is made From the very same atoms of the earth "
But the human concoiusness, with is an emergent propperty of the brainfunction, does. And this conciousness and the moral judgement it makes, are best explained by evolution as a social species.
"Then the Nazi would have been right in disposing of all the others, since this is what the society would want"
Good old argumentum ad hitlerum...lol.
No, as it reduces overall wellbeeing...
"And both The good and the bad societies know what righteousness is a d what evildoing is."
Nope, 1st: these are 2 arbirtrary and fuzzy words....
2nd: it will differ from society to society
"And athieism is Only offering "rejection" to the belief of God/Gods, it doesn't offers an standard of morality... That's why it's peculiar to say a certain act is wrong or right, with a baseless foundation."
Damn, man, you almost got it: Atheism makes no moral claim...and noone sane would claim it does...
What people are advocating for is: Secular humanism. And that is based on the notion to see behaviour as immoral that causes demonstrable harm...period.
You come across as condescending when you said " i guess we ll let our listeners make of that what they will". Your question was pedantic and his first answer was quite sufficient. No offense.
You noticed that eh? I'm a big fan of Alex, but his recent clips from his Dawkins interview have come across as carefully selected gotcha moments.
I agree his answers are sufficient if you actually do the work to organize Dawkins' thoughts. I think Dawkins was somewhat disorganized throughout this interview and while I can get an idea where he stands it is easy to imagine someone getting lost when listening to him and I suppose that is why Alex was pressing for clarifications even when Dawkins' previous answers implicitly provide a decent response
I fully agree. Of course Dawkin's answer to the question is basically just "Yes, it is arbitrary. You can't get an ought from an is." And it is a perfectly fine and consistent position, held by many naturalists. He just added that the fact that it is not objective does not mean that it is fully arbitrary.
All the rest, is really an undergraduate student of moral philosophy trying to cut the hair to get him in contradiction by making him uncomfortable by taking extreme examples of Richard's reasonable position.
Imagine how unfair/hilarious the reverse situation would be. If research scientists could bring philosophy students into a conversation about their work at the professional level, imagine how ignorant of the STEM fields the majority of these philosophers would look? I imagine some people would accuse the scientists of intentional character assassination, for needing to explain every stage of the chemistry before the discussion could be understood.
@@bobon123
"The fact that it is not objective does not mean it is fully arbitrary"
You donut, if objective morality doesn't exist then it is arbitrary. The difference between objective and subjective morality doesn't exist on a spectrum. They are contradictions.
The basis of morality has always been well being I think. Any specific action deemed moral or immoral is a construct we've created in order to reach that well being, sometimes wrongly, sometimes rightly
Not quite. Wellbeing is a major part of the picture but not the only aspect.
@@Yameen200 I'm ready to hear your point
@@ps5622 Well in short theres other aspects such as integrity, self disclipine, human dignity etc even in cases where the person cant suffer.
It depends, imagine the classic desert island scenario, you are stranded, alone with a dying person. Before they die, they ask you to bury them facing downwards. You arbitrarily decide to bury them facing upwards. Or maybe you just decide to eat them.If you believe it was morally wrong to do so, then it seems to follow that there is more than just well being involved.
@@Yameen200 well those are technical concepts we've invented in order to improve long term well being so the core value is still well being
You are an absolute joy to listen to
Patricia Churchland's book Conscience: The Origins if Moral Intuition addresses the "grounding" of morality well. Not completely relativist, but also not absolutist (she doesn't assume you get to some moral principles through reason alone).
Richard looks very well here: was this done a few years ago before his stroke?
Yes, it was actually.
I believe it isn't fair for Alex to have a discussion with Richard dawkins (too philosophical)... I respect Alex more... don't stop thinking Alex...
May God guide you.
Nice title
Also first hahah
@@godassasin8097 Damn you! >:3
Not exactly sure what else he could have called it, "Is rape moral", or "Is rape prevention immoral" sounds worse
I think morality with Richard Dawkins would have been alright. He tries too hard this bloke but i appreciate his defense of animals.
Morality is and will always be objective
Just to enjoy brilliant minds trying to cage their thoughts into mundane words. 👍💞✌😷🎃
@Natural Beauty I think he's intelligent, full stop. He may not be as well versed in philosophy, he's better informed than most believers in the 'holy books' though, mostly christianity. But, the difference is, he doesn't claim authority in those fields. But he will give his opinion. I do see the effects of age and his stroke, though, too. But, his true authority is as a biologist. 👍💞✌😷🎃
How can you orient yourself in the world and interpret it without being able to define what is good? No fact is more valuable than the other.
This podcast is one of my favourite videos of yours, I really like listening to you always, but Richard Dawkins, man, listening to him is such a pleasure. And your interactions are really entertaining and absorbing. I was watching it with my partner and, let me tell you, the emotions we were going through, it was like we were watching a great movie.
My morality class discussed if incest is nonsensically immoral given safe sex... Oh boyyy
Why dawkins can't say that he doesn't know when he doesn't know ? why he want to seem like the all knowing ?
his ego couldn't take it
I would say that both evolution and social change are part of the larger processes of the Earth as a whole, from geological transformation, the chemical complexification, to abiogenesis, to evolution, to social and technological development. It's all part of the one larger process of planetary change over time.
Suffering has clearly helped intelligent animals to survive and reproduce. Sensitivity to pain brings caution. Caution is important in the wild because many an animal has won fights, only to die from infection; Even a small lesion can be fatal without medicine. I am not sure that our evolved capacity to feel extreme pain and suffering is helpful in human societies, but these responses have evolved for millions of years and "civilisation" is relatively new. So we can expect latency.
I don't think Dawkins understood the question, and it seems like you both got thrown off the track there. You should probably have tried posing the question again but phrased differently. Too bad.
Which book are you referring to in the video
The god delusion by Richard dawkins
Why is suffering morally wrong ?
Rape is wrong because it is one person imposing themselves on another without their permission, where on earth does he get arbitrary from. If I punched him in the face and caused him suffering how the hell is that arbitrary. The interviewer is trying to be too clever.
Subjective morality is one of the Achilles heels of naturalism...among many others!
is it?
@@BenedictPye , indeed it is. It commits logical suicide. Premise: Morality is subjective. Retort: Do you mean that absolutely? If yes, then you have admitted the premise is incorrect. If no, then the premise is meaningless. QED
@@TheOnlyStonemason Subjective =/= relative
@@araknus7863 , equivocation fallacy
@@TheOnlyStonemason
When people say that morality is subjective, they are generally only suggesting that the moral/normative claims we make are subjective. This specifically involves claims like 'Murder is bad' or 'People should not steal.' They are not necessarily claiming that descriptive meta-claims about how we use moral language are subjective. In other words, they aren't claiming that all claims are subjective, just that a specific class of them are. Thus, they can (at face value) make absolute claims about morality without denying its subjective nature.
Yes. Yes it is. Completely arbitrary.
Dawkins is being very polite in attempting to answer these nonsensical questions.
Love
Philosophy is not the ‘new’ atheist’s strong point (although I am an atheist I realize that the new atheists get clapped when trying to argue against Christian philosophers). They should leave the arguing against theist philosophers (Craig, Lennox etc.) to the atheist philosophers (Oppy, Martin, etc.). Instead, they should argue against Christian scientists, priests, Frank Turek etc.
A problem with learning from suffering, is humans by nature, have a tendency to block or overlay memories that are bad. Making it so if we don't learn from the experience and do some note taking and revisit the notes regularly enough. We'll chock up the event to not remembered( denial or repression( voluntary or involuntary)), or attribute it to something else. And possibly repeat the same things leading up to the same bad experience.
I don't like getting assaulted by drunks from bars but keep going back to bars and chat up with strangers.
I don't like waking up to missing or empty wallets, yet definitely do not go to bed with prostitutes. They're casual sex partners.
My dad keeps telling me no to a football or basketball yet I keep refusing to join a local league. Why doesn't he see it's worth the investment.Rationalize the risks, the actual sequence of events, or healthfactors where no one's wearing masks.
People will do many things wrong repeatedly many times.
Becoming cyclic.
People can be like that.
The title got me but , there are perhaps less ugly questions to come about the same points on ethics / morality.
Please feel free to correct my reasoning if there is something I missed, but is Alex's point not a false equivalence fallacy? To say that one component of evolution being arbitrary means all evolutionary traits are arbitrary is a ridiculous notion (if you understand that evolution is not completely random).
Number of digits is possibly arbitrary but as Dawkins insinuates, just because you don't know whether it gave an earlier ancestor an advantage or not, does not necessarily mean it didn't (and as a result might be "arbitrary" - I believe Dawkins conceded this point to let Alex finish his question).
Then Dawkins outlines a reasonable and logical explanation for why humans may have "evolved" (as close to an) objective morality; as a result of suffering (wellbeing) which influenced chances of reproductive success. To also question the role of suffering in evolution seems ignorant from Alex?
I like Alex's content and he frequently challenges my way of thinking, but I found this a painful watch. Please correct me.
can u plz elaborate as it went over my head
can suffering not be a consequence if evolution had a different trajectory ?
It's precious how these clowns need to scramble for ethical legitimacy
That's the trap of consequentialism. If you genuinely follow consequentialism, then you reach horrifying conclusions that the very proponents of consequentialism would never dare defend.
@@LegionHimself Simple question you need to ask when you consider morality: does your action cause demostrable harm? What if everybody does it? ....
@@RoninTF2011 Consequentialists are far too focused on harm, it's very short-sighted. Morality is about self-consistency, not about harm or wellbeing. But on both topics of consistency and harm, google what a Repugnant Conclusion is.
@@LegionHimself YOur point if you have any?
@@RoninTF2011 Consequentialism is ultimately self-refuting, and also the moral equivalent of codified psychopathy and hot garbage. Reject degeneracy, embrace deontology.
Is that enough for you or do you need big colored letters?
In Islam one could have female slaves and those slaves had no right to reject their masters sexual needs. Basically that means in this context of Islam rape is good because it satisfy's the needs of the slavemaster. That also shows how morals change or are different in certain cultures.
May I see an Islamic source were it says it's allowed to forced slaves to satisfy their Master out of the marriage context...? Cause I'm pretty much sure you'd be a laughable case if you told that to an educated Muslim.... (In Islam, what you call slaves, they're actually war captives. and no, fornication or any sexual intercourse with "slaves" out of marriage is prohibited in Islam) that's 1.
2 (that's the only source Islam get "slaves", thought there are 10 other ways Which commands the Muslim to free any slave instead of getting...
So 1 entrance, 10 ways of leaving slavery)
Stop being an islamophobe and attack a stereotypical hateful image of Islam, instead of the real thing....
At least alex is more respectable and reasonable than you....
@@salahshinigamiamv9814 _"I'm pretty much sure you'd be a laughable case if you told that to an educated Muslim...."_
So what if I show you a well respected educated Islamic scholar who even explains this to you?
The video link get's blocked by yt but if you check out Dr Shabir Ally on The Historical Roots of Female Slavery you will see him explaining this with sources.
_"In Islam, what you call slaves, they're actually war captives."_
Yes indeed, those women are forced into slavery.
As the Doc explains those women under Islam had no right to say no to their master because they were his private property which is called rape.
No where does Islam forbid slavery even though other culture before Islam and after did that as non perfect systems.
I don't mean this wrong but Stop being an ignoramus and attack people based on your shortcomings.
And btw I am respectful. Where did I disrespect you?
@Skeptical Till i find Truth So what? That is still forcing someone into slavery. Plus they are still humans not property like cows. For many slave women killing them would be better instead of making them slaves and allow men to rape them.
It's also bizarre that you think just because they marry this makes everything alright. If those women have slave status they are nothing more than a piece of private property that has no legal right to reject their masters desire which is pure rape.
Let me tell you this. Even today in non perfect society's we don't let women become as low as slaves/property/toys for men legally by law. We don't see humans as property of other humans.
As for looking into Islam.
I am doing that and you see the quran and hadith admitting to all of this horrific stuff.
@@breakbeat9229(so what?) Shows your emotional bias and baseless claims when an knowledgeable non Muslim is found to be more accurate than you and showed you the truth of Islam and how it dominates other ideological views (especially secularism)...
Killing them is better... Never thought taking someone whom tried to kill you in a war and feed them,and dress them and *protect them* from the agression of other nations is worse than killing...
Check yourself mate, and I'm sure you don't get that from the glorious Quran and authentic Hadith, since (look at the link of a video in youtube that has been deleted by youtube)...
I guess the truth is clear... You may keep rejecting, but open-minded rational people like "skeptical till i find Truth" will realize it sooner or later.
@UCM5yGmdoSrReEqOZ0B60rsg it's okay mate..take your time...
Let's not waste our time with people like him...
May god guide you my friend
The faith of naturalism is amazing! 1) You either believe everything popped into existence from nothing or you believe matter is eternal when all matter that we know is derivative 2) you believe inorganic matter became organic 3) you believe it created information (DNA)
So instead magical cognition existing in the absence of physical brains, wished it all into existence out of nothing. Wished. The power of just wishing for it really hard, even without having a brain or body.
@@rumraket38 , your statement is incoherent.
@Dennis Sparks @Dennis Sparks Creationists are quick to jump to the finish line without explaining a thing. The first stars formed after 200 million years of simple gases existing. Earth formed 10 billion years after the first stars, and single-celled life formed 3 billion years ago (multicellular life begins 500 million years ago). The narrative of the observable cosmos and biosphere favor extremely long periods of little change. It's the theists who believe matter 'popped' into existence via a metaphysical magician with anthropomorphic emotions. The second concern you raised is still unknown, and remains in the stage of hypothesis. We probably need a testable answer to the second point before we can determine the third.
@@ShaneyElderberry , I haven’t made any claims. Just critiques of committed naturalism. These are legitimate criticisms and no amount of time makes them less so. We know there was a Big Bang around 13.8B years ago when the universe began. Why is there something rather than nothing? Is matter eternal? How exactly does inorganic matter organize into organic matter? How does it create information (DNA)? It requires a lot of trust without any evidence.
@@TheOnlyStonemason i mean you could just leave it as mysteries to be solved. If I don’t know how the earth was formed for example, I’d probably see if science had an answer and if not I’d just say I didn’t know. I wouldn’t make an active claim like a God made Earth though.
1:21 We need 5 fingers to grip objects firmly and we can't do grip things firmly with 4 fingers and 6 fingers unnecessary
i swear Alex is basically arguing for God
True but that's kind of the point. Playing devil's advocate.
Dawkins is trying to escape the question as many hard core atheist materialist do. I am not speaking of every atheist, but the Dawkins, Hutchins , Type ...such extreme rejection of religion/spirituality leaves one morally bankrupt.
You're defining morality based on a religion. How does that make sense?
@@DisProfundisit does make sense as its based on the words of god - who knows whats best for mankind, doesnt he
@@Fanboy1222 Someone can make any bs up then and start calling it the words of God that is to followed without questioning.
@@DisProfundis yh but just by the assumption that this word was from god - it makes perfectly sense actually. You cant access to morality without that objective perspective from god and without really accepting one scripture as yous either.
@@Fanboy1222 It is still subjective since you're basing the existence of God on an assumption. While it's true you need an external influence, a being of higher status to impose his rules/teachings upon you- it could be a parent, a teacher, a God or some impostor posing as a God. However, it would all be impossible if people didn't possess their inherent sense of empathy and reason. It all depends on who you bow down to. And blindly following a book without knowing its history or having the self perspective on why you're choosing to follow it, is the death of the same reason that makes you a human. Then you're not bigger than a slave.
One question to ask an atheist is, why should the rapist care about suffering
The rapist -if not a psychopath- lives in a society in which he is part of and thus cares about it for some degree, take this for example, why would a driver respect the red light and stops? Nothing prevents him from just breaking the red light, but actually he would cause himself to suffer either directly by having an accident or indirectly through other drivers doing the same and also hitting him.
The point is the rapists shouldn't rape cause a) he is putting himself under the punishment of the law/ being shunned from the community and b) encouraging others to do the same with his female relatives.
That's a meaningless question, it doesn't have an answer. He doesn't care, that's the end of the story. Nothing you say will change that the rapist doesn't care.
@@MarkoMood so how can he be wrong
@@slowmogolf9163 You have to understand what the word wrong means. He is not wrong in an objective sense, it's just our opinion that he's wrong. What we mean by that is we just don't like what he's doing. Right or wrong is always an opinion.
@@MarkoMood if morality is just an opinion, that makes morality meaningless. Do you believe in God?
هداكم الله
What a misleading clickbaiting title. "Cosmic Skeptic" asked the question, not Richard, and his reply was a resounding no and that he was getting too philosophical. As is typical, Cosmic Skeptic's arguments are usually slippery slopes that lead from and go nowhere.
Bring Subboor Ahmad here!
Your being too philosophical is running away from the question. It's not the mistake of the interviewer that the question is philosophical in nature. The question was real and it was too illogical to give such an answer.
Am i the only one that feels a little embarrassed for Dawkins in this interview? I think Alex is a really intelligent thinker and this interview, this clip in particular, exposes not only how uneducated Dawkins is in moral philosophy, but how uninterested he is in it? Alex you did a great job interviewing and brought up some brilliant questions, and I’m sorry to say I really don’t feel Dawkins gave convincing responses to any of them
Dawkins himself has said that he doesn't do philosophy. He steers clear of sneaky use of language in philosophical arguments.
It is something a lot of us could learn. It's interesting to question everything. But, don't get lost in it and be more confused than when you started !
I suppose that Alex was more prepared on his own questions while Dr Dawkins had to respond spontaneously.
I suppose that is not surprising given that he said "you are being too philosophical"
Dawkins is a scientist not a moral philosopher and he does not as far as I know introduce himself as such. I think you are right that Dawkins is uninterested in deep moral discussions and frankly I can't blame him....I mean come on he is 78 now.
@@Sauromannen Yeah, that definitely played a part too. Unless you're exposed to such paths of intellection, it's very difficult to come up with a succinct response. Good point.
Dawkins tried to make evolutionary mating sound more acceptably anthropomorphic than it was, for the sake of humoring contemporary philosophy. How do you think Alex would fair in discussion about epigenetics with research scientists?
Morality is still subjective nonetheless, even in the case of rape. Some might still say it is right
A steam boat?
Dangerous subject lol
It's interesting though, because it is the de facto mode of reproduction for most animals, including humans, for most of our history. Only recently becoming prohibited and/or viewed as immoral. It's interesting to dissect how and why our moral landscape has changed.
Day 12 of asking Alex what the J stands for in his name
Dawkins cant follow you. I dont think he really took the time to understand the philosophical issues
"Rape causes suffering". Remind me, is Dawkins not an evolutionist? Suffering is the foundation of evolution.
It's still wrong, when what 'wrong' means is 'causes suffering.'
@@goldenyak629, says who? You? Are you the final word on morality? It is evolutionary, therefore it is consistent with the materialistic worldview of Dawkins. You are a gene-replicating machine, and that machine does not care about the suffering of strangers.
@@goldenyak629, I'm pretty sure the Nuremberg trials caused suffering to many German soldiers. I guess it was wrong to want justice. Justice is wrong. Thanks for the clarification.
@@spurcalluth6300 That's what the word means. If you have another definition let's hear it, but you'll have to try pretty hard to come up with one that's more compelling to care about.
I am, in fact, a gene-replicating machine that _does_ care about the suffering of others, because caring about the suffering of others is something that this particular gene-replicating machine is capable of doing. It benefits me and those others. That's consistent with a materialistic worldview too.
As far as me being the final word on morality, well... you could do worse. You could get it from religion or something dumb like that.
@@goldenyak629, okay, justice is wrong because it causes criminals to suffer. And you are the final arbiter of right and wrong. Awesome. Have you been in contact with any governments to convince them to abandon their judicial systems? If not, please get busy with that as soon as possible. We need to get the word of the final arbiter of morality out as soon as we can.
Turn to Jesus Christ!
Saint Luke 5:32 KJV I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Saint Luke 13:3 KJV I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
@@Lawrence-Joseph-Norse Any evidence this that is true?
@@RoninTF2011 i have read the 3 little pigs and boy let me tell u i got so much evidence of how very bad the wolf was
@@ShowMeYoBoob Yes, thats about the same level as the bibel stuff...
Your moral values come from God / the faith that you either follow or from a society that bases it’s laws and moral values on that particular faith.
.
Biology doesn’t give you a moral framework.
Some people are born serial killers, that’s their biology.. so one could say that their morality is to do what is in their biology... which is a very basic primal behavior so to speak or in comparison.
For argument’s sake, say it were from biology... wouldn’t we require someone sort of reference point which would be the initial reference as to what good and bad is, and what is moral and immoral...
If it were from evolution, how can you trust your beliefs as being moral? After all, wouldn’t morals keep changing with evolution?
If so, one cannot claim that morals are evolutionary... because you have had nothing to base these morals on..
And if u did, they would change tmrw..
God is the reference point for our moral.. the 10 commandments...simple basic fundamentals which have provided western civilization and many others with the basis of faith and law. For eg
Your moral values do not come from God, they come from your upbringing. The religious texts were themselves written by humans who wrote what to avoid and what to acquire based on their experiences and acquired knowledge. However, human experiences change with time and therefore definition of morality has to keep changing, depending on what's good for society as a whole. Rules stuck in stone will only cause suffering in the new age.
@@DisProfundis no that’s not how moral values changed. society’s moral values are a product of their faith. Compare the moral values of the christian faith and Islam and look at societies where this has been implemented . But make sure to know what the faith actually teaches as opposed to what people claim the faith teaches etc.
Communism in this century has nothing to do with religion but caused the most deaths then all of the other three centuries put together.. how has that “experience” been beneficial?
And again.. if morals are a result of experience doesn’t that mean one’s morals are going to be constantly changing because experience is constantly changing… so again, how can anyone claim to say what’s good or bad if morals are based on experience. ..,
You complicate things because you're treating morality as a fact of nature. However, it's not. You have to add "I think" before "rape is wrong". It is exclusively an opinion. Now we can answer this easily. Why do you think it's wrong? Because you don't like it. You personally don't want it to happen. On the other hand (pun intended), you don't care that the number of fingers is 5.
Couldn't it be the case that we needed or it is useful enough to have 5 fingers functionally speaking. The same way we needed to view rape as wrong (within in the same group/tribe) because it also served a functional survival purpose. Like for instance decreasing the incident of unnecessary conflict among the group that may arise from one member assaulting someone's actual or potential mating partner.
@@lysetribute3213 Yeah, that might be the case. Why are you saying this tho?
@@MarkoMood The opinion might actually be more than just an opinion, it might be a fact of survival. I thought this was already clear in my comment.
@@lysetribute3213 You're just describing how it might have evolved, but I'm not. I'm describing what is going on in the moment, right now. I don't like rape, so I call it wrong to do. It is just my opinion, but obviously, my genetic tendency to not like rape can be explained through the natural processes. Every opinion can be, doesn't make it less of an opinion.
@@MarkoMood I see now. It's an opinion, specifically yours, from your point of view. I guess why I tried to illustrate here, is that you have some actual basis for considering it more than just an opinion. Because I believe throwing the word ''opinion'' haphazardly like that when considering the gravity of the word rape is ill-advised. Surely, people who view rape as not wrong, are not just people with a different opinion. They objectively suffer from a disorder of social interaction.
No , rape causes pleasure , who cares about the weak victim?