Full podcast on my channel. Quite hard to condense this discussion into 60s, but the question is: if most epistemology is based on unprovable intuition, why can’t ethics be too?
Isn't that basically how we do ethics since the dawn of mankind? That's why ethics and morale shift with every generation and from culture to culture to some degree. We have a grasp on some very, very basic or highly specific concepts virtually all agree on - but besides that ethics seem to be a 'choose your own adventure' story since ever.
@@diversesynergy1098 there's a small problem with your argument. You say that people should be good to the neighbour. But people have material conditions to support "don't take everything your neighbour have" like law, police etc
@@diversesynergy1098 And, please, leave your political opinions about very different historical figures, outside of morality discussions. Stalin, Mao and Kim have in common only one thing- they aren't American
Excellent podcast, it’s so nice to have destiny talk to someone who is equipped to give proper pushback to some of his ideas and make him bite bullets he hasn’t had to before
if you ask the person that thinks he is a brain in a vat to recite lyrics from a famous song that he has memorized and then check the lyrics on the web if the lyrics match those recited then the other people their have proven that you must be more than a brain in a vat because you would need eyes to have read those lyrics before or ears to have heard them before
@@robinsssanother good “test” against the “brain in a vat” is explaining that if the person thinks they’re living in a world they have created, that mean they have personally written every single piece of music/literature/drama/film, the songs they love _and_ the songs they hate, and especially notice that they would have to have written all of it and forgotten that they’ve written it to be a able to experience it for the “first” time. It’s the most arrogant worldview imaginable.
Group three of them closely together and the fourth one a non equal distance around the circle away from the three. And that's just one of the multiple ways you could do it. Also ... you can square the circle. So it can be both.
By that logic, the required number of people to form a circle would be infinite. Any number lower than infinity would result in a polygon, e.g. an octagon or a hexagon
This is the EXACT point where Destiny should’ve conceded his point. Yes, we have to make some assumptions to agree on morality. But we ALSO have to make some assumptions to agree on literally ANYTHING!
@@samhangster The issue there is that assuming nothing is real would be the fewest assumptions, its better to find a set of reasonable assumptions made by most then work backwards to justify them.
@@samhangster But to assume everything is real is also a bad assumption, as it assumes that hallucinations are as real as the things they portray. Thus, you still need more than one assumption.
If Alex and Destiny both have trouble conceding the assumptions point, then they would both likely have a tough time with Sye, who is a presuppositionialist apologist that says we do/should assume God exists.
Alex is 100% right. The idea that you can reject knowledge because you can’t come by it empirically is contrary to a vast majority of the things that we think we know.
Not exactly. You need to start again with "knowledge" and work up from there - "empirically" is literally the only way to gain knowledge. Gaining knowledge empirically isn't the issue. This is the whole concept behind "epistemology" which is core to philosophy and logic
@@danielcrafter9349 Hey! Absolutely. You're right about epistemology, or at least that word means, but you're mistaken about knowledge acquired empirically. There are some schools within epistemology that might hold that view, but it's definitely not the broadly held position. Knowledge gained empirically is knowledge gained by means of the senses, but we can reason our way to other forms of knowledge. For example, the vast majority of the study of mathematics is non-empirical. You don't come to know that 2+2=4 because of any of your 5 senses. That information may be transmitted to you through your 5 senses by way of the written or spoken word, but someone who doesn't have language could still know the concepts of number and quantity non-empirically. There are a lot of things that we claim to know that have no basis is the senses. Probably a more obvious one than mathematics would be knowledge regarding abstractions, like ethics, justice, etc... Edit: The most obvious example of something we could consider to be universally known is the principal of non-contradiction (nothing can be be and not be at the same time and in the same respect). This is not nor could it be knowledge we come by empirically and yet it serves as the foundation of logic, by which we come to know a large number of other things that we also don't come to know empirically. Since none of those concepts are manifest in a sensible way, they by definition cannot be empirical.
@@stevenlester985 You can't even know math without experience of two things or a symbol for two. Nothing is intelligible without matter. You can reason your way up, but from somewhere, not nowhere.
@@bradspitt3896 Sorry but that's simply not true. Did you read about the principal of non contradiction? There's no experience of matter that's teaching you that. It's just a principal of logic. And not only that, you seem to be arguing that in order to know something you must experience it (that's the definition of empirical learning). But here's the thing, experiencing a symbol isn't experiencing a number. There's no way to experience a number because numbers don't exist as something you can experience except by abstraction, and abstraction isn't empirical learning. Or, to put it simply in your terms, numbers don't have matter. You could argue that we require at least one of the senses in order to abstract, but 1) You'd have to prove that and I don't think you have and 2) I don't think it's entirely clear that that's true. The only way to establish that empirically (which is what you'd have to do based on your claim) would be to find a significant enough sample size of people who were born without all sensation and establish definitively that they have no knowledge of any things, and that they could not acquire that knowledge. But, even if that were possible, which I would content that it's not, you'd still only have established that THOSE people didn't learn and can't, not that it's impossible. Edit: You'd also have to prove that there aren't other forms of knowledge that we can acquire without the senses that aren't abstractions. For example, fundamental principals of logic and reason don't rely on abstractions. I can't abstract the principal of non-contradiction. And there's no empirical data that will prove it. So you've got a pretty towering problem to solve if you want to establish that the only way we come by knowledge is empirically.
I think he's fairly consistent in how he behaves. The problem with his outlook is that his ethical system is designed to give himself a pass for bad behavior rather than an opportunity for genuine introspection.
I think the biggest flaw is that there is no real design behind his ethical system. It seems to just be a strong form of egoism resulting from a belief that "people only believe things to service themselves" to the extent that it struggles to justify anything that doesn't create a direct consequence for the individual, instead having to rely on the assumption that it creates some chain of events that come back to bite the individual. It's hard to create a value system based purely on self-interest when there are some things people would never do even despite them being in our self-interest, especially when Destiny seems to agree with some of these things as being "morally wrong" regardless of whether or not his ethics system can properly justify them.
@@avilude it’s seem like egoism+ because he’s constructed his egoism such that it self regulates to include the well being of others. It’s rule utilitarianism justified through egoism The only thing he can trust in any other hypothetical rational actor is that they will act self interestedly and that this self interested cooperation is more mutually beneficial than the alternative
I dont think its designed to give himself a pass, I think it's just an easy to make, genuine observation someone can make when thinking about not only *why* murder is wrong, but for why anything is right or wrong. What actually imbues it with wrongness? It seems we consider it wrong because we value life, and pleasure, but if I didn't value my life then it wouldn't matter if I die right? But why do I value my life? It's an ever shifting goalpost. There is no physical, experimental aspect to why something is morally right or wrong, it's entirely emotion-based. Doesn't mean it's *good* to do bad things, but what you consider good and bad is based on what you prefer to experience in life, but people almost unanimously prefer pleasure and love over pain and hatred
I feel like there’s a pretty obvious way three guys in a room could convince a forth guy who doesn’t believe murder is wrong that murder is wrong but I don’t like condoning violence so I’m not going to say it
They could ask him if it's immoral to murder him and if he says no, it IS moral to murder him. Treat others as they'd like to be treated. He apparently doesn't mind.
@@tarod3 if by "shouldnt" you mean "should not because it would violate objective moral standards" then yeah sure, but where is the issue? He could just say "oh no theyre trying to kill me and i really dont want that and will now try to get them to stop me from doing that either with communication or physical self defense"
We have to presuppose that he is real and has hair to even make that statement. Therefore, the observation is meaningless, and we should fight to determine who’s correct.
You can tho. You can notice inconsistencies between how different dimensions interact with each other that could happen. Like a 3d object in a 2d world.
@@KangMinseok Oh come on. That's just the term for the planets surrounding the sun. A system in the sense of a system of measurment is things like 'the universe' for physics or the system of mathematics. You might look for the 'incompletnes theorem' regarding mathematics. And for the universe - you can't measure it itself, because you can't have points of reference from outside. You can have points of reference outside the solar system to measure it for example.
even if you grant that not even a statement like "the earth is round" can be confirmed in an objective process, it doesn't mean that it's therefore no more answerable than "murder is bad". you can always say: "assuming that we define reality to be whatever we all perceiving) which is basically identical between different people), then in that reality, the earth is round". you can't do the same with moral questions.
Isn't that what Alex is saying though? That you can do that for our most basic moral intuition that we all have. If we grant the pleasure/pain or well-being view as our most basic "preference" which seems to be the same amongst the vast majority of humans,, then from that you could argue that you ought not murder.
@@irti_pk Actually, what I think he's getting at here is that everyone assumes that external reality exists, we assume that our senses map on to reality. We all have to make this assumption in order to begin doing science, in order to say objective statements like the earth is round. So if we're willing to bite the bullet for this why can't the same be done for morality, is what I think he's getting at here.
@@juanbonami2182 yes, I agree, he was testing destiny by asking what you just described. My comment was more in response to @toniokettner4821 saying we can't really have that same starting point for moral questions, when it seems both destiny and Alex more or less agreed that you can. Their discussion revolved more around why perhaps destiny holds our perception of physical reality in a different vein to moral intuitions.
Hard solipsism is a lazy cop out because regardless of everyone being a barin in a vat or even having a belief we are barins in vats we must still engage with the world and behave in accordance what our perception shows us and waht rules we can discover about the world we collectives SEEM to be engaging in
I agree with you that for all practical purposes, we should all probably continue to act as if the external world is real and that there are other conscious beings. However, that doesn't mean that solipsism is a lazy cop-out. It could be true. It's just an extreme form of skepticism that cannot be refuted.
@@bradspitt3896 its absolutely is a cop out at absolute best though normally its used as a special pleading argument to avoid legitimate points made using empiricism that the user doesnt like
Values are ultimately subjective, but there are few value systems in which cold-blooded murder cannot be easily condemned. Ultimately, society cannot function if people can kill each other for any or no reason. Regardless of whether it's based on altruism or self-interest, most people have a vested interest in minimizing the chance people are killed going about their day.
Cold-blooded murder can be "easily" condemned because the definition of murder specifically addresses the concept of "unjustified" killing. But what is "justified"? We've just kicked the can down the road. So it seems easy to condem because its definition avoids directly addressing the difficult question of morality - "what is justified?" If you don't include "unjustified" in your definition of murder, many people won't or can't easily condemn it. Lots of people think that killing is perfectly fine in certain situations.
@@violetfactorial6806 Morality is about how much personal preferences are fulfilled without hypocrisy. Perfect morality would involve all people having all preferences satisfied WITHOUT the hypocritical intention to forcefully mix negativity with those preferences, etc. Degrading someone's innocence would mean hypocritically mixing negativity with someone else's preferences for innocence to not be degraded as a motivation to want life to be more good. Hypocrisy would be the actual objective immorality.
If you want to a build a society, then murder is wrong. My point here is that when you want to do something, say build a taco shop, you ought to pay your workers and treat them real well so it can grow. For a constructive society, you ought to think murder is bad or else your society will fall. If you’re an anarchist, you ought to destroy all governing bodies. It’s whatever political spectrum you’re in, what framework you accept, etc.
That’s true lol, and the truth is this is exaxtly what all of us do. Muslims, christians, atheists regardless who gives silly speeches on muh objectivr morality they all end up just sort of going with the flow and using pragmatism to determine whats good and bad. For example, in Islam muhammad married Aisha at 6 and entered her womb when she was 9. The Qur’an says muhammad is an excellent pattern for us, and all muslim scholars agreed this is fine until child marriage became objectionable. Then suddenly muslims discarded their objective morality to go with secular trends. No one truly looks at a set of postulates or scripture to determine morality
wrong. morals often deal with population/resource problems that are pretty easy to model mathematically. of course youd probably have to know how to program a computer and not just stare at one.
Yes, physical things are easier to demonstrate than subjective ideas. However, if you can agree with someone as to a good grounding in your morality, such as the avoidance of conscious suffering or something similar, then you can definitely make judgements on right and wrong that can be backed up with evidence. However if you can’t agree on a grounding,l then yes you won’t be able to demonstrate subjective ideas.
So you have to believe the world is real and the science and studies are indeed accurate. Like for an example of trauma would be a good way to show how some actions are indeed bad but if that person doesn't believe trauma exist then there's no way to prove that person wrong? Something like that or is that a bad example.
@@cngotham4111 So, I guess my point was that some people might base their morality on just avoiding the suffering of humans. Someone else might said their morality is based on avoiding the suffering of any life. Someone else might say it is about avoiding suffering but also trying to improve the life of humans. And so on. So different people might say there is a different ultimate goal when talking about morality. So I’m the end it is a subjective idea. However if you can agree with a definition of what your morality is based on, let’s say it is to do with the well-being of humans, then you can show that murdering a human decreases the wellbeing of humans and therefore is wrong for example.
The argument that the Earth is round doesn't need a qualifying statement. It's just a fact (obviously you must include Occam's Razor and accept that what we percieve is real). However, to say murder is morally wrong where there was no self defense involved, juat murder for murder sake, you need a qualifying statement. Something like "I want to maximize liberty," which is a moral axiom. That itself is still subjective and not grounded in facts, but you can use it to make a factual arguemnt for why non defensive murder is morally wrong.
When I say “murder is wrong” I am basically saying that our basic intuitions and assumptions are, generally, that murder is wrong. This set of basic assumptions and impulses surrounding “right” and “wrong” behavior is present in most humans, which is what morality is. In other words I’m kind of a moral subjectivist, but I think that evolution has caused the vast majority of humans to at least implicitly agree on certain basic moral axioms, and from there we should construct laws and moral systems that are consistent with those axioms
I don't know shit about philosophy, but this feels like it has problems. I'd say most people intuetively don't like a lot of things that are probably good/neutral. As a sex repulsed asexual I think sex is gross. I don't want to see it being done nor have it. Similar to how you might argue murder or torture is bad, because you don't like the thought of it. Should my moral system say sex is bad? Should a phsychopath be in favor of murder?
"Your naturalistic science can't prove that we aren't living in the Matrix." - Every radical, fundamentalist pastor that Aron Ra ever debated. Not sure you really want to be seen together with those, Alex. What can be postulated without evidence, can (must?) be dismissed without evidence, remember?
Matt Dilahunty gave a good response to why he trusts his brain. That he trusts his senses based on their continuous reliability of producing effective results. I might be paraphrasing but it's from a shorts video.
@@_okedata Matt's point is that he knows to which degree his senses are reliable ("based on their continuous reliability of producing effective results"). Seeing something in the corner of the room, in the pitch black of night, for example, has not demonstrated to be reliable, so shouldn't be trusted. And "reliable" doesn't mean perfectly perfect. Reliable means it works most or almost all of the time (not *all* the time), and you can rely on it. And knowing when it does and doesn't work doesn't make it less reliable, but more reliable, since this means you know when you can and can't rely on it.
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qpsolipsism is functionally worthless as a cognitive exercise. It makes no difference under the very predicates of solipsism whether you are or are not a brain in a jar being fed false sensory data to make you believe in a false reality. All that’s available to you is the false reality in that case and therefore this is your reality whether de facto or de jure beyond some unknowable set of consequences for behaving as if the false reality is real; perhaps an afterlife is predicated on the behaviors of the consciousness within the false reality. However, again this is not a feasible calculation because you have no way of knowing about these consequences and any actual knowledge of the set of rules would require being informed about the true nature of reality which by definition is not available to the conscious entity under this system. The other problem is it just kicks the can down the road of dealing with the question of reality. Let’s say you disentangle your vat brain from a false reality and awaken into the reality of the vat brain, then how do you go about resolving the question of solipsism for your new reality? Is it just an infinite regress of superimposed hyper realities?
I don't agree with most of his conclusions but I was surprised how thought out his reasoning was. Edit- nvm the last half hour he went off the rails lol
He’s not a philosopher at all… he has never been involved in philosophy… he’s into politics and sociology. That’s like saying “cosmicSkeptic is the high school drop outs biologist”
@@NyanSox Most people believe what is popular to believe. If you're too dumb to formulate your own inner perception of the world, which is most people, then it's better to just go with the societal flow. That's why societal progress is so... slow...
The best way to deal with an argument like that is simply to say that “any argument whose claims are impossible to verify are not worth considering”. Having watched the full conversation, though, im pretty sure this position wouldve heavily conflicted with some of destiny’s earlier statements
That’s generally how i approach theistic views, though. Its entirely possible that my brain is in a vat, or that god created the universe, or whatever else, but if those things are by definition impossible to verify, there really is no value in me subscribing to them
But Alex was pointing out how the round earth was “impossible to verify” unless you already accept the external world as real. The issue was that Destiny was allowing for an axiom in the first hypothetical but not in the second. You need to accept an axiom before accepting any further arguments.
@@connorgrynol9021 right, which is why i said that any axiom which is incapable of being verified is essentially moot, which would solve the contradiction that Alex pointed out
@@connorgrynol9021 in the case of the round earth, the claim that the external world doesn’t exist would lack foundation, whereas the claim that it does exist is verified by all beings capable of observation
@@zookboy5714 if you believe the external world is false, then all beings capable of observation are just figments of your imagination. They couldn’t be considered evidence since they don’t exist. You could be in a dream where everything seems like it’s observed. There are other problems like the 5 minute universe which posits that the universe was created 5 minutes ago with all the appearance of age. The simplest solution to all of these issues is not discarding all impossible to verify claims. The external world is impossible to verify. We need to presuppose that it’s real. The solution to this problem is Occam’s razor. If you assume that the external world is false, then you are necessarily making an additional assumption regarding the mechanism by which you apparently perceive reality. You make less assumptions by accepting reality than you do by rejecting it. By your model, you would need to reject both because each is unverifiable.
People keep saying that destiny is wrong or ignorant, but Alex hasn't proven him wrong. All he has shown is that destiny skepticism doesn't go down far enough. Destiny has made one leap of faith that the reality he exists in is real and true because he can personally feel it but isn't willing to do the same for different claims. This is fine and doesn't prove the existence of objective moral claims. Even alex in this video says he believes in a system that doesn't believe in objective moral claims besides saying how one feels. Honestly this is why destiny doesn't engage with this stuff generally because people act super high and mighty about stuff beyond testability and that doesn't have any real affects on the world. I love philosophy too but this stuffy attitude towards people who engage with philosophy on the surface just keeps people away.
@@cngotham4111Doesn't the simulated cake still exist? Just run your recontextualization subroutine. Before it's done parsing, you'll be right as rain.
Yes, we make fundamental assumptions about the existence of reality. That reality becomes the "object" of our study for physical truths. We can attack it from different directions and arrive at the same answers. What is the equivalent object of study for moral truths? Just because we assume a reality of physical objects exists doesn't mean we have to assume the same about morality.
the human system can not determine if water is wet, what you feel is the cold or heat of it not the wetness. So wetness is not real yet we all use it to make a point. So "real" is very subjective to the environment you grow up and the knowledge you have in regards to the subject matter..
This is a very common misunderstanding of global skeptic scenarios. I don’t think anyone would question whether you would feel pain if you were punched in the face. But this is probably being facetious lol
Four people in a room. 1 is a flat earther, 1 believes the election was stolen, 1 believes in pizzagate, and 1 believes in lizard people. After 5 minutes they would realize they were all incels.
I don't know what is wrong with the comments, it might seem like that here, but this conversation wasn't 2 hours of alex dunking on destiny, it was a productive good faith discussion with back and forth
The issue is that once we agree that our sense data is at least somewhat reliable, we gain access to the external world, which allows us to choose between competing knowledge claims. Yet, even if we agree that morality is objective, I don't see what we gain access to which allows us to do the same for competing moral claims.
If we make the leap of faith of ought to is with something as universal as our capacity to experience suffering and happiness, then it becomes similarly easy to choose between moral claims. And thats exactly what humans have done with law and order. Just look at societies across the world. Laws from country to country may differ slightly, but at a fundamental level they are all very much bound by a desire for wellbeing. Granted there’s other stuff mixed in there too like religion but most of it is grounded in something just as intuitive as our perception of the external world.
I don’t see why agreeing that the external world is real gives us anything more than it gives to those who would disagree. That’s precisely the point of the argument: the two scenarios are empirically equivalent.
@@veridicusmind3722 It's true that we can't know whether our sense data is accurate or whether the external world exists. But once we agree on an external world, we have what seem to be reliable methods to determine what is or isn't true (to some degree, at least). Even if I grant the moral realist the same assumptions, there just don't appear to be anything like moral facts. Take the proposition "the earth is flat," for example. Once we agree that our sense data is somewhat reliable, there appear to be a set of facts to which we can appeal to determine whether that proposition is true or false. Even granting a moral realist the same assumptions, there don't seem to be any facts which we could use to verify the statement "murder is wrong." Now, maybe your objection is that you don't see any reason to grant that sense data is reliable or that the external world exists. Fair enough. I'm only claiming there's a meaningful distinction after that point.
The internet needs more discussions like this. When people are actually discussing things instead of trying to become a TikTok clip where they can edit themselves with fucking Sigma music or some shit.
@@broken_abi6973 I watched the entire video before I commented. With the video as context, he still needs to either read Hume or work in his comprehension skills.
You can still test within the universe, the brain in a vat, is in. You can test to see if the universe is consistent. And yes, some claims are probably not falsifiable within that universe. Also, if we are brains in vats, the morals are still subjective.
The brain in a vat argument feels like a cop-out. Ethics just isn’t the same as science. If we can agree on a axiomatic goal, ex. maximized happiness, your ethics can build from there. With science, empirical evidence is necessarily fundamental. Science informs ethics, but no more than that.
How can you possibly quantify happiness though? I get the ideal of maximize human thriving, but to state that goal and then build a system that effectively maximizes it seem to be very different things, since you can't effectively measure the happiness value in most realistic moral quandries.
fundamentally it isnt a cop-out In the entire conversation, Alex is using an idea of consistent skepticism is that A- We pressuppose foundational intuitions of the real world aka Sense data being accurate, and so B- I am only doing the same for ethics. For Ethics a foundational value system is REQUIRED in the same way sense data is for science.
If three people said murders wrong and one person said it wasn't I think the solution to find an ethical rule is quite simple. Turn to the person that thinks murders okay and ask them if they want to be murdered right now and if they say no then they are going to agree with everyone else.
Exactly, the distortion of an individual perception can limit the consensus on the most observable affairs in reality. That is just something to keep in mind when exploring “facts” in the abstract realm of ethics/philosophy/etc. Cuz the limitations of the perception of the few shouldnt deny the possibility of reaching a factual consensus on an abstract problematic. This is me not knowing the full context of the conversation between the two though…
Cosmic skeptic is trying to demonstrate that both judgements are based on a subjective “rules” or “objectives” that the people agree upon. To argue for the Earth being round, you must first agree that reality exists outside of your own mind, which cannot be demonstrated. There is currently no way to prove that anything exists outside of your own perception, since we are limited to experiencing the world through the filter of our mind. However, once there’s an agreement that reality exists outside of ourselves, we can acquire objective facts based on the agreed rules or goal you want to achieve. If we agree that reality exists independent of our minds, we can use observations to determine that the Earth is an oblong spheroid. Similarly, if we agree that we want people to live as long as possible and endure as little suffering as possible, we can use observations to determine that murder would be counterproductive to our goals. Matt Dillahunty uses a great analogy of a chess game. If we want to make objectively good moves in order to win a game of chess, we first have to agree upon the subjective goal of winning, and the subjective rules created to play the game
Alex is pushing back on Destiny’s subjectivist view on morality, and Destiny is trying to come up with a reason against moral knowledge, namely that we can’t settle the matter on moral issues, but we can on empirical issues (like questions about the shape of the earth). But Alex pushes back on this by coming up with a counterexample to Destiny’s knowledge criterion, namely that there is at least one thing we can know but cannot empirically settle, i.e., that the external world is real.
No, same problem cuz Harris assumes that "good" is utilitarianism. An arbitrary goal is always required. Also, Destiny is already along the lines of being a utilitarian, though more on the egoist side.
@@biggieb8900 Hm unrelated but an interesting question. Yeah, cogito ergo sum is probably it. Maybe you could say that the basic rules of logic like the law of noncontradiction are impossible for a person to not assume.
@@joshuawalton3551 unless they don't care about being consistent, then non-contradiction isn't a problem. And it is related because the first half of Sam's book is explaining how morality is just a special case of every other area of knowledge, it rests upon ungrounded axioms. He makes frequent comparisons to the field of medicine in the book, I find it a lot more compelling than Hume or any other philosophical point of view on morality that I've ever heard.
@@biggieb8900 I haven't thought much about it but I might argue that there is some knowledge that's built into the human experience. Like, I don't think everyone agrees with cogito ergo sum because it's a sound logical argument, I think they just can't not believe in their own existence by the nature of their being. Anyway, the point of my original response was just to say that Harris' utilitarianism in no way solves Destiny's relativism issue, because it's just an arbitrary system like any other. Harris admits himself that it's arbitrary, he just thinks that it's good because all rational people would agree with him.
Again. It's about survival. If one guy says murder is ok and the others say it is not, then by letting that guy act on his beliefs you risk your own life. It's part of why the religions that tend to survive are the ones that convince their followers they are under existential threat if they don't act on the religious prerogatives and eliminate (either by conversion or by murder) ideological & resource competitors. "Absolute" morality means absolutely nothing in comparison to someone willing to kill the "morally correct" person. Most moral baselines we have on a biological level are specifically designs to keep our group protected. It's why we assign more value to people we know than to people we don't know. All morality, all empathy is a survival mechanism employed by social species to give them survival advantages.
This is the thing a lot of people just seem to hate by their own intuition mind you. Everything we know is inherently at the most base level based on subjective ideas. Because of this, even if we have objectivity within a system if someone just disagrees with the base premise there is nothing you can do to say they are wrong.
huh?? "four people in a circle. isn't that a square?" the answer to your question is in the first part of the sentence. simply put four people in the position to make a circle
Sure, we have to make assumptions to be able to comprehend anything, but people agreeing on something don't have to have made the same assumptions. We can agree that the sky is blue, but what if I'm a solipsist who believes to be a brain in a tank living in a simulated word? Well I would still want to live an enjoyable life in that simulated world, and therefore I would still communicate with what I believe to be NPCs as if they were real, because their reactions matter to me all the same. And I would still say, and fully believe, that "the sky is blue", it's just that what I actually mean with the words "sky" and "blue" is "that simulated background" and "that simulated colour".
Sure. But you could get the person who thinks their brain is in a vat to believe that the Earth is spherical within the simulation their brain is in, by the very fact that they understand what the Earth is at all.
If one of the people in the room doesn’t believe reality exists and the senses are right, there’s also nothing to be said about if murder is right or wrong, because what would murder even mean? I think destiny is right in the sense that factual stuff is strictly more proveable than moral stuff
I mean couldn't you say murder is wrong based on the affects of trauma? For an example if a girl is raped the affect would be depression,being unhealthy,suicidal and ect? Idk why trauma isn't a factor when considering if something is morally fact or not. Obviously this only takes in account to certain actions that people believe are morally wrong or right.
@@drschwandi3687 well the action of rape is fake but the trauma that the person feels is real is it not? If you don't know that the world is a simulation that what's the difference when getting raped and the rapist who knows the would is a simulation still knows he's affecting someone else well being. Now the question is would that person who is traumatized would still be traumatized if they woke up from that simulation. Id argue that would but maybe not I'm not that smart lol.
I feel like destiny is just a debate pervert, he’s good at argumentation in general and he’ll take any position that he thinks he can have an exciting debate over
I'm not sure you've watched any of his debates. He takes a relatively consistent position in most of them, in line with his views on policy and how people interact, but the way he approached arguments for them depend entirely on who he's debating with.
I think this maps to ethics as well. If a person does not believe that we can have a metric for determining right and wrong (such as the wellbeing of others) they're essentially in the same position as the person who believes they're in the matrix because we all in this circle experience a basic sense of ethics(presumably) just as we experience reality, so boiling these things down to "that's just your opinion against mine" means you cannot rationally be convinced otherwise. Ultimately I think it's a waste of time to try and convince someone who doesn't believe in objective reality or objective ethics(given we can agree on what ethics actually means)
Destiny has bashed Vaush so many times for his inconsistent moral view but he ends up aligning with Vaush when he asks to explain his own personal view.
The whole irony of this discussion with Destiny is that Alex is truly rebutting the views in his own world view and pinning it on Destiny. Alex doesn’t believe in Objective/Absolute morality and he’s thought about these problems within his own worldview and opinions on morality. This is the perfect opportunity to shoot holes through his own worldview and pin it on another guy and he knows this
@@bobbyboywonder12 Even if what you say is true it doesn't change the fact that didn't follow the same standards he use against other people. The moment he brings up his morals is whoever has more power to impose his morality on others. He completely ends up in the same camp as Vaush, and he is also wrong for the same reason he brings up against Vaush.
I feel there is a major difference between the 2 examples given. One being, objects and how we may consider them real or not. While the other is conscious actions being considered good or bad. Considering the brain in a vat scenario, you simply add another layer of semantics. This is the instrumentalist form of the claim. "In this world being projected to us while we are a brain in a vat, given the tests we can perform to understand said projection, the world appears as such." In this case there is no counter claim, "we can't trust said tests or perception in a world where I am a brain in a vat."
Yes but they still have senses to where we can come upon agreed upon terms. If we both see the color red but one of us sees it as a shade of green and the other sees it as a shade of blue, we could both come to agree that we will denote something as red if if our senses give us different perceptions.
When someone says the shape of the Earth is round(spherical), that is a shape. It can be drawn to show the shape. I want someone who claims the shape of the Earth is flat, to draw me that shape (flat).
Hard solipsism is both very fascinating and very pointless at the same time. Yeah sure, we can't prove that we're not a brain in a vat, but this brain in a vat sure seems to be able to simulate an entire world pretty well.
Yup in order to come to agreements with people you must have a starting place of understanding and agreement. Then you can build off that mutual understanding to more complex things
@@user-hp4gl8vx8e I actually am aware of he not using the term ‘vegan’ as a label, and his view of how animals should be treated is fully in line with how vegans view the world. I think vegans and vegan allies are generally really good at logic and deductive reasoning. Destiny doesn’t usually debate anyone as conscious as these types of people.
@@user-hp4gl8vx8e that's absolutely incorrect. vegans aren't a hive mind for one, you're acting like all vegans have the same outlook on society. maybe some of the more extreme vegans wouldn't agree, but most i know would just be glad that he's conscious about it and eats minimal meat. there's lots of people that live this way, and vegans have a whole hell of a lot more respect than people who have no respect for animal life. but regardless, he made the vegan argument here. destiny can't seem to handle the vegan argument.
The situations could be considered the same. Those 4 people have decided on some shared standard with which to examine reality, from there they can reach consensus on whether the earth is round. Similarly, the second set of 4 people would also need agreement on a standard for which to assess whether murder is good or bad.
Did you not watch the podcast? Destiny admitted that he doesn't actually have answers to some of these questions and he wanted Alex to elaborate. This isn't some game of pretending to be intelligent.
@@danielcrafter9349 The fact that you feel the need to turn this into an IQ-measuring session says way more about you then me explaining how this was an honest conversation. I would've though CosmicSkeptic's audience would be more interested in real discussion than grandstanding, so I'd imagine this is just the YT shorts brain taking over.
You can't run any significant test if you don't define and agree on the context and on the dependent axioms and starting values. You can run the same tests in the euclidian space and in non euclidian spaces and having very different results but all results are "Correct" in each pre defined context. On ethical "problems" the definition of the starting context depend also on an "etichal" point of view then you can't run any test to prove you opponent is "wrong".
The issue with ethics is that people try to rationalise objective truths separate from its context. When you say murder is wrong, what exactly do you mean? Wrong by what metric? It requires context. For example i do not wish to be murdered nor have those I care about be murdered therefore I should make an agreement with those around me to not murder. This is in my best interest as well as the people around me. Murder is not conducive to a functional society. If your priorities are to coexist with other human beings then murder is wrong as it is counter-productive towards your goals. Humans are a social species by our biology so murder being wrong is built into psychology, we have simply fleshed it out.
While Alex's point is correct, it is trivially correct. It is the case that all possible conversations about what is or isn't have the fundamental characteristic of agreement that the external World exists. Yes, if 3 people say the external world exist, and one disagrees there is no way to prove that one person wrong-but if they choose that position to start from, then no conversations can be had about anything, moral or not, subjective objective or otherwise.
Factual and believed thinking are 2 different things. Psychological conundrums are way harder if not impossible to evaluate, unlike problems who's sole problem lies within the material world we have been studying for millenias
This principle of philosophy is called "Humes Guillotine". It suggests there are two kinds of statements. "Is" statements and "Oughts". "Is" statements are related to the way the world is, the way the world was, or the way the world will or would be. ie facts about the nature of reality. "ought" statements (should, normative statements) are about the way should be. The way we want the world to be. An "ought" statement cannot be derived from an "is" statement without assuming another "ought" statement. TH-cam "robert miles" "orthogonality thesis".
I think that the question on how to provide "absolute" or "provable" reasons for morality is irrelevant to begin with. Morality and Ethics serve to help people function together as a society. So ultimately, whatever seems to benefit that goal, according to the members of the society, is what is moral. It is not about what is objectively correct, but about what is functionally best.
I frame morality as an evolutionary imperative for the survival of the species, not unlike Kant's categorical imperatives. That which is beneficial to the survival of the species is "good," and that which is detrimental to the species is "bad." Once the behavior is viewed through Kant's lens of, "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law," the difficulty of determining whether an act is "good" or "bad" is removed. This is not to say that an immoral act can be _justified_ in a particular set of circumstances (or vice-versa); however, justification speaks to the _reasonableness_ of the act.
Hilary Putnam's Head in Vat problem, is one I think about a lot. I know it's sad but it's a problem I would love to find a solution to. It's a tough one, that's for sure.
Everything rests upon ungrounded axioms. Absolutely everything. Morality resting upon ungrounded axioms is just a special case of every other area of knowledge. Sam Harris lays this out to perfection in his book, The Moral Landscape. Physics and chemistry and everything else rests upon axioms just like morality does, it's just more obvious in the case of morality for a few reasons. One is that the words "right" and "wrong" are very clearly vague and need definitions. In the case of the moon being round, the ungrounded axioms are less obvious, but cosmic skeptic pointed them out immediately. Solipsists are skeptics with regards to everything in the same way that destiny is with regards to morality. They don't believe anything unless it can be philosophically grounded, and the only thing that is is the cognito, I think therefore I am. But if we can accept the axiom that our sense data is accurate and some other things about epistemology like we should be seeking the truth, then we can build up and prove beyond all doubt that the moon is round. Morality works in the exact same way, if we establish axioms, we can make objective claims about right and wrong. Establishing the axioms of morality is more difficult, but that's the second half of Sam's book, which destiny desperately needs to read.
The problem with the argument about the flat earther is it is predicated on the axiom that the tests are reliable and fair. In a Sense, the flat earther could always argue that that test isn’t a fair metric. This is also exactly what they do in the “murder is wrong” example
Cosmic's point is so important. There's axiomatic stuff that we blindly accept behind every form of "knowledge". We assume that our senses are an accurate representation of "reality". Everything depends on that being "true".
I heard an amateur philosopher and atheist in a very old TH-cam video sum it up nicely. He said that all knowledge of an atheist worldview and the scientific collective knowledge relies on just 4 fundamental, basal assumptions. 1. The world exists outside of yourself 2. Our senses can perceive aspects of the real world 3. We can use these senses to create models of reality, and use data collected from measurements using our senses to model the world consistently with statistics 4. Fundamental universal laws exist in the universe and reality, and those laws and their mathematical relationships have always been consistent and will continue to be consistent for all of time. If you don't believe any one of these 4 basal assumptions, you will go insane. But every single person, theist or atheist must do so, whereas theists have about 500 more assumptions based on absolutely nothing.
Our evolved and continued existence depends on us being able to trust our senses otherwise we would not survive to propagate our species. I would suggest that lends weight to the idea that 'our senses are an accurate representation of reality'.
@@LittleMAC78 The first paragraph you wrote depends on your senses, just like any other statement. Therefore, it can't be used as proof or as something that adds validity to the axioms that it depends on.
@@G.r.e.g.g.l.e.sI agree with you. I think the last part about theists is an over-generalization though. I think some smart theists what they do is they try to put a name of that set of axioms that we accept and then they speculate on the nature of that set of axioms etc. But yes, a lot of atheists decide to consciously accept a lot more axioms that necessary, although I would argue that the things that "we say we believe" are very different than the things we actually believe deep down, and so, a lot of fundamentalist religious people claim to believe things that when push comes to shove it would be evident that they don't really, and so on. Also, bottom line is that everything we know depends on acceptance of given axioms that can't be proven or disproven and I think this is an important fact that people should be more aware of, not from a religious point of view, but just from a philosophical point of view.
Regardless of the 'circular logic' dismissal, we exist as an evolved species which would not have happened if we lacked the ability to detect predators or environmental dangers. If we are not capable of detecting reality then our predators must also have the same inadequacy otherwise a threat that we cannot perceive would have wiped us out long ago. Ergo, our senses perceive what they need to in order for us to survive and that's our reality. Even if an argument could be theoretically made that it is a subjective reality rather than objective, it is as much reality as we currently need to be aware of in order to continue surviving.
The idea that you cant find an agreement between someone who believes reality is an illusion and one that's not is completely wrong. Descartes said "I think therefore I am" about this very problem, you can still discuss thought & break down the silliness of simulation-theory LIKE WE DO IN THE REAL WORLD. You're too much exposed to bad-faith actors. You can still talk philosophy even if one thinks the world is fake.
@@ThiagoGlady well if someone is in a simulation but believes they are not. And another person believes they are in a simulation and rapes the other person wouldn't that trauma still affect that person even after they realize the world is a simulation?
@@cngotham4111 Of course it would, but thats not the point, the point is about discussion. If you ask the same question to someone who does not believe in reality, it would just say "nop, cause that person does not exist, only me"
Wouldn’t Alex’s example negate the question? If one person thinks the external world doesn’t exist, then that person wouldn’t care if the world was round or flat because it doesn’t even exist. The initial question would be meaningless to them.
When we base epistemology on some basic assumptions such as an external world and the general (not absolute, just general) reliability of the senses, we get a system with predictive powers. When we use moral intuition, we acquire zero predictive power compared to just using motivational inclinations with psychology and economics (which is NOT about _money_ but about _value_ ). There Alex, drew the line for you.
If you establish a standard for what you consider "wrong" then you can make objective assessments with respect to that standard. For example, if one of the people that says murder is wrong thinks so because it impedes on the well being of the victim, then well-being becomes your barometer for what is or isn't wrong.
Yeah it's kind of hard to come to an agreement about something subjective. That's why religions nowadays do their best to create unfalsifiable proofs so that belief comes down to a subjective experience rather than an objective observation of the world that may be explained by something other than their belief. If something is subjective, there is no universally correct answer, therefore there may always be some disagreement. If something is objective then there is a correct answer even if there are some who refuse to acknowledge it.
Well-being. Just.. well-being. However you wanna define that - that's another concersation, and an interesting one. But if we can agree well-being is fundamental to morality, we can have objectively better and worse actions towards reaching the goal of being maximally well (whether we attain it or not - we can keep improving)
alex's counter merely alters Destiny's position slightly. Of course no one can answer that objection or the idea we live in a matrix. Its impossible. There has to be some fundamental assumption made, and then you go from there. This is true for every philosophy. That said, outside of a set of very fundamental assumptions needed to exist in reality, there is no reason or purpose to assume an objective morality or basis on which to argue for moral realism, which is totally unlike the existence of objects in the real world which multiple people can individually attest to and notice with their sense perception.
Subjective morality states there is nothing objectively right or wrong morally. So if a man commits a murder, he is not objectively wrong. If he is not objectively wrong, he is innocent. As true as 2+2=4 is how innocent he is objectively according to your view. This is why subjective morality isn’t reasonable or true.
It's a moot point anyway. If it's measurable and we can all consistently share the same measurements using objects that do not involve consciousness or perspective we can conclude that thing being measured is an objective reality. Whether or not we are in a simulation doesn't change that we can still make objective judgements about the universe we find ourselves in.
morality is about how much personal preferences are fulfilled without hypocrisy. Perfect morality would involve all people having all preferences satisfied WITHOUT the hypocritical intention to forcefully mix negativity with those preferences, etc. Degrading someone's innocence would mean hypocritically mixing negativity with someone else's preferences for innocence to not be degraded as a motivation to want life to be more good. Hypocrisy would be the actual objective immorality.
I feel like the answer to this is very simple. These are abstractions, take for example, Math. Assuming the rules are followed two people will always come to the same answer. However if you decided not to follow those rules 1 + 1 can be 3. Ethics are also an abstraction, since they are the rules that we use to make decisions that affect other people but are hypothetical until applied in some manner. As they are an abstraction one could decide not to follow those rules which would result in someone believing something like murder is ok.
That’s why I would strongly argue that there is a higher standard, something bigger than us, that is a transcendent moral standard. Even if we don’t all grasp it perfectly at the same time, there is indeed one that we all can understand, either less so in part or more so, depending. The assumption that morality is all cultural or contextual doesn’t hold up when we have a near universally abysmal, horrified reaction to atrocities like the holocaust. Something like the Nuremberg trials can only happen on the assumption that we have a higher standard to hold even governments and other cultures to. And I believe as we go further down that issue, that moral standard starts looking more and more transcendent and divine, but that’s a longer conversation.
I haven't seen the full conversation, but within the context of this clip I have to say that Cosmic's answer doesn't really address Destiny's point. The validity of sensory data is not contingent upon any metaphysical position. What science does is describe the behaviour of the phenomenal world, and it does so regardless of what we believe the true nature of these phenomena to be. What the phenomena are and whether or not the external world exists are metaphysical questions that really have nothing to do with science. We don't know what the ultimate nature of reality is, but we do know that if we conduct certain experiments under certain conditions that we will get certain results, and that these results are consistently the same each and every time. This remains true even if you believe yourself to be a "brain in a vat": science works regardless of your metaphysical beliefs. IMO Destiny is absolutely right that morality lacks such a reliable foundation.
4 people in a circle. 3 say murder is wrong. 1 says it’s not wrong. “Ok cool, here’s a gun, I’m going to shoot you now, unless of course you have a problem with that.” There’s your test.
Honestly i feel like this is a great conversation. Love both of these guys (agree and disagree with a lot of their points, but still a fan of both). Alex seems to either be diverting the point or question or too into the specifics however. Obviously destiny is talking about 4 people with the same thought processes coming to different conclusions. While alex has a more real take, destiny is also arguably more realistic. 1/4 people believe the earth is flat 1/4 people believe they’re in a brain jar There’s a conflict between people coming to a conclusion and how those people think.
Full podcast on my channel. Quite hard to condense this discussion into 60s, but the question is: if most epistemology is based on unprovable intuition, why can’t ethics be too?
It can be but then there'll be differences between each person's ethics.
Isn't that basically how we do ethics since the dawn of mankind? That's why ethics and morale shift with every generation and from culture to culture to some degree.
We have a grasp on some very, very basic or highly specific concepts virtually all agree on - but besides that ethics seem to be a 'choose your own adventure' story since ever.
For some reason those unproven intuitions don't seem obviously equivalent to me
@@diversesynergy1098 there's a small problem with your argument. You say that people should be good to the neighbour. But people have material conditions to support "don't take everything your neighbour have" like law, police etc
@@diversesynergy1098 And, please, leave your political opinions about very different historical figures, outside of morality discussions. Stalin, Mao and Kim have in common only one thing- they aren't American
Excellent podcast, it’s so nice to have destiny talk to someone who is equipped to give proper pushback to some of his ideas and make him bite bullets he hasn’t had to before
He’s bitten those bullets before. Just spread out. I agree, though. Great to see it in one focused discussion.
you're just racist to blue-haired
What? This “pushback” in this clip makes zero logical sense.
if you ask the person that thinks he is a brain in a vat to recite lyrics from a famous song that he has memorized and then check the lyrics on the web
if the lyrics match those recited then the other people their have proven that
you must be more than a brain in a vat because you would need eyes to have read those lyrics before or ears to have heard them before
@@robinsssanother good “test” against the “brain in a vat” is explaining that if the person thinks they’re living in a world they have created, that mean they have personally written every single piece of music/literature/drama/film, the songs they love _and_ the songs they hate, and especially notice that they would have to have written all of it and forgotten that they’ve written it to be a able to experience it for the “first” time. It’s the most arrogant worldview imaginable.
It took me half an hour to figure out Destiny is the name of the guy and not the matter discussed…
😂😂😂😂😂
It’s Mr Borelli, get it right please.
Whaaaaat…
I regret to inform you but you might be re- slow.
Me trying to figure out how 4 people can stand in a circle without it beeing a square...
Draw a circle on the ground and make them stand in it
Make them hold hands and outstretch their arms to the fullest and boom a circle
Isn't that like a hexagon
Group three of them closely together and the fourth one a non equal distance around the circle away from the three. And that's just one of the multiple ways you could do it.
Also ... you can square the circle. So it can be both.
By that logic, the required number of people to form a circle would be infinite. Any number lower than infinity would result in a polygon, e.g. an octagon or a hexagon
This is the EXACT point where Destiny should’ve conceded his point.
Yes, we have to make some assumptions to agree on morality.
But we ALSO have to make some assumptions to agree on literally ANYTHING!
Therefore we should try to assume the least number of things right?
@@samhangster The issue there is that assuming nothing is real would be the fewest assumptions, its better to find a set of reasonable assumptions made by most then work backwards to justify them.
@@flazzorb not necessarily. Assuming nothing is real makes 1 assumption. As does assuming 1 thing is real.
@@samhangster But to assume everything is real is also a bad assumption, as it assumes that hallucinations are as real as the things they portray. Thus, you still need more than one assumption.
If Alex and Destiny both have trouble conceding the assumptions point, then they would both likely have a tough time with Sye, who is a presuppositionialist apologist that says we do/should assume God exists.
"The most important aspect of an opinion is the situation in which you would realise it to be incorrect"
-some smart guy, probably
That’s close to a Robert Greene quote. Guy talked about the destructive nature of arrogance a lot in 2 of his books.
Sounds like Popper
We clearly need Some smart guy, probably to help guide our lives
@@ten2ten7 no, you need an open mind. Be a human. We are all wrong most of the time
It was me
I'm not trying to be a dick but these shorts from long conversations are funny: each guy uploads only their little wins in the conversation
This one is not a win by Alex. To the contrary, if you listen to Destiny actually said, both points can be proven, easily.
they're not having "wins", this is a friendly convo more than a debate
@@YashaHarari so prove it
@@YashaHarari Oh that's nice, so please do! It won't even cost you much time and effort, because it can be done "easily".
@@YashaHarari
Oh really? So tell me, how can you prove that you’re a brain in a vat?
This should be good.
Alex is 100% right. The idea that you can reject knowledge because you can’t come by it empirically is contrary to a vast majority of the things that we think we know.
Not exactly.
You need to start again with "knowledge" and work up from there - "empirically" is literally the only way to gain knowledge. Gaining knowledge empirically isn't the issue.
This is the whole concept behind "epistemology" which is core to philosophy and logic
@@danielcrafter9349 Hey! Absolutely. You're right about epistemology, or at least that word means, but you're mistaken about knowledge acquired empirically. There are some schools within epistemology that might hold that view, but it's definitely not the broadly held position.
Knowledge gained empirically is knowledge gained by means of the senses, but we can reason our way to other forms of knowledge. For example, the vast majority of the study of mathematics is non-empirical. You don't come to know that 2+2=4 because of any of your 5 senses. That information may be transmitted to you through your 5 senses by way of the written or spoken word, but someone who doesn't have language could still know the concepts of number and quantity non-empirically. There are a lot of things that we claim to know that have no basis is the senses. Probably a more obvious one than mathematics would be knowledge regarding abstractions, like ethics, justice, etc...
Edit: The most obvious example of something we could consider to be universally known is the principal of non-contradiction (nothing can be be and not be at the same time and in the same respect). This is not nor could it be knowledge we come by empirically and yet it serves as the foundation of logic, by which we come to know a large number of other things that we also don't come to know empirically.
Since none of those concepts are manifest in a sensible way, they by definition cannot be empirical.
@@stevenlester985nice
@@stevenlester985 You can't even know math without experience of two things or a symbol for two. Nothing is intelligible without matter. You can reason your way up, but from somewhere, not nowhere.
@@bradspitt3896 Sorry but that's simply not true. Did you read about the principal of non contradiction? There's no experience of matter that's teaching you that. It's just a principal of logic. And not only that, you seem to be arguing that in order to know something you must experience it (that's the definition of empirical learning). But here's the thing, experiencing a symbol isn't experiencing a number. There's no way to experience a number because numbers don't exist as something you can experience except by abstraction, and abstraction isn't empirical learning. Or, to put it simply in your terms, numbers don't have matter. You could argue that we require at least one of the senses in order to abstract, but 1) You'd have to prove that and I don't think you have and 2) I don't think it's entirely clear that that's true. The only way to establish that empirically (which is what you'd have to do based on your claim) would be to find a significant enough sample size of people who were born without all sensation and establish definitively that they have no knowledge of any things, and that they could not acquire that knowledge. But, even if that were possible, which I would content that it's not, you'd still only have established that THOSE people didn't learn and can't, not that it's impossible.
Edit: You'd also have to prove that there aren't other forms of knowledge that we can acquire without the senses that aren't abstractions. For example, fundamental principals of logic and reason don't rely on abstractions. I can't abstract the principal of non-contradiction. And there's no empirical data that will prove it. So you've got a pretty towering problem to solve if you want to establish that the only way we come by knowledge is empirically.
I think he's fairly consistent in how he behaves. The problem with his outlook is that his ethical system is designed to give himself a pass for bad behavior rather than an opportunity for genuine introspection.
Idk that his ethical behavior does that i think he just is inconsistent in applying it
that doesn’t sound exactly right
I think the biggest flaw is that there is no real design behind his ethical system. It seems to just be a strong form of egoism resulting from a belief that "people only believe things to service themselves" to the extent that it struggles to justify anything that doesn't create a direct consequence for the individual, instead having to rely on the assumption that it creates some chain of events that come back to bite the individual.
It's hard to create a value system based purely on self-interest when there are some things people would never do even despite them being in our self-interest, especially when Destiny seems to agree with some of these things as being "morally wrong" regardless of whether or not his ethics system can properly justify them.
@@avilude it’s seem like egoism+ because he’s constructed his egoism such that it self regulates to include the well being of others. It’s rule utilitarianism justified through egoism
The only thing he can trust in any other hypothetical rational actor is that they will act self interestedly and that this self interested cooperation is more mutually beneficial than the alternative
I dont think its designed to give himself a pass, I think it's just an easy to make, genuine observation someone can make when thinking about not only *why* murder is wrong, but for why anything is right or wrong. What actually imbues it with wrongness? It seems we consider it wrong because we value life, and pleasure, but if I didn't value my life then it wouldn't matter if I die right? But why do I value my life? It's an ever shifting goalpost. There is no physical, experimental aspect to why something is morally right or wrong, it's entirely emotion-based. Doesn't mean it's *good* to do bad things, but what you consider good and bad is based on what you prefer to experience in life, but people almost unanimously prefer pleasure and love over pain and hatred
I feel like there’s a pretty obvious way three guys in a room could convince a forth guy who doesn’t believe murder is wrong that murder is wrong but I don’t like condoning violence so I’m not going to say it
They could ask him if it's immoral to murder him and if he says no, it IS moral to murder him. Treat others as they'd like to be treated. He apparently doesn't mind.
He could still think murder isnt wrong even though he doesnt want people to kill him. Where is the disconnect?
@@Greyz174 he can’t say that they ‘shouldn’t’ kill him, though.
@@tarod3 if by "shouldnt" you mean "should not because it would violate objective moral standards" then yeah sure, but where is the issue?
He could just say "oh no theyre trying to kill me and i really dont want that and will now try to get them to stop me from doing that either with communication or physical self defense"
@@Greyz174 3 vs 1. I’d wish him luck by he’s a sociopath.
I’ve run a battery of observational tests, and I’ve determined that this dude has blue hair.
I noticed that too, however I didn't run the tests yet
No he doesn't.
He has black hair and is applying an IRL blue light filter.
We have to presuppose that he is real and has hair to even make that statement. Therefore, the observation is meaningless, and we should fight to determine who’s correct.
Turns out he's an image crrated by an ai that used a shade of red your eyes interpret as blue.
But is it naturally blue.🤔
Ah... the classic, you can't measure the system, while in the system problem....
You can tho. You can notice inconsistencies between how different dimensions interact with each other that could happen. Like a 3d object in a 2d world.
@@luck3yp0rk93 That is not an argument on how it is measurable, and if it is id like you to apply it to the brain in a jar example
Looked it up. Such does not exist. You made it up
We are part of the solar system, yet we constantly measure it...
@@KangMinseok Oh come on. That's just the term for the planets surrounding the sun. A system in the sense of a system of measurment is things like 'the universe' for physics or the system of mathematics.
You might look for the 'incompletnes theorem' regarding mathematics.
And for the universe - you can't measure it itself, because you can't have points of reference from outside.
You can have points of reference outside the solar system to measure it for example.
even if you grant that not even a statement like "the earth is round" can be confirmed in an objective process, it doesn't mean that it's therefore no more answerable than "murder is bad". you can always say: "assuming that we define reality to be whatever we all perceiving) which is basically identical between different people), then in that reality, the earth is round". you can't do the same with moral questions.
Isn't that what Alex is saying though? That you can do that for our most basic moral intuition that we all have. If we grant the pleasure/pain or well-being view as our most basic "preference" which seems to be the same amongst the vast majority of humans,, then from that you could argue that you ought not murder.
@@irti_pk Actually, what I think he's getting at here is that everyone assumes that external reality exists, we assume that our senses map on to reality. We all have to make this assumption in order to begin doing science, in order to say objective statements like the earth is round. So if we're willing to bite the bullet for this why can't the same be done for morality, is what I think he's getting at here.
@@juanbonami2182 yes, I agree, he was testing destiny by asking what you just described. My comment was more in response to @toniokettner4821 saying we can't really have that same starting point for moral questions, when it seems both destiny and Alex more or less agreed that you can. Their discussion revolved more around why perhaps destiny holds our perception of physical reality in a different vein to moral intuitions.
@@irti_pk Thanks for calling that out I meant to reply to @toniokettner4821
@@wendydarling8730 can you not see how my assumption is basically necessary to use language at all, while your assumption is completely arbitrary?
Hard solipsism is a lazy cop out because regardless of everyone being a barin in a vat or even having a belief we are barins in vats we must still engage with the world and behave in accordance what our perception shows us and waht rules we can discover about the world we collectives SEEM to be engaging in
I am the Baron of my own vat
@@BiggyJimbo ah no you are making a positive claim so now prove you are a brain in a vat lol
It's not a cop out, it should humble anyone from imposing their so called empiricism on anyone else.
Or anyone from saying "I am the science."
I agree with you that for all practical purposes, we should all probably continue to act as if the external world is real and that there are other conscious beings. However, that doesn't mean that solipsism is a lazy cop-out. It could be true. It's just an extreme form of skepticism that cannot be refuted.
@@bradspitt3896 its absolutely is a cop out at absolute best though normally its used as a special pleading argument to avoid legitimate points made using empiricism that the user doesnt like
Values are ultimately subjective, but there are few value systems in which cold-blooded murder cannot be easily condemned.
Ultimately, society cannot function if people can kill each other for any or no reason. Regardless of whether it's based on altruism or self-interest, most people have a vested interest in minimizing the chance people are killed going about their day.
Cold-blooded murder can be "easily" condemned because the definition of murder specifically addresses the concept of "unjustified" killing. But what is "justified"? We've just kicked the can down the road.
So it seems easy to condem because its definition avoids directly addressing the difficult question of morality - "what is justified?"
If you don't include "unjustified" in your definition of murder, many people won't or can't easily condemn it. Lots of people think that killing is perfectly fine in certain situations.
@@violetfactorial6806 Morality is about how much personal preferences are fulfilled without hypocrisy. Perfect morality would involve all people having all preferences satisfied WITHOUT the hypocritical intention to forcefully mix negativity with those preferences, etc. Degrading someone's innocence would mean hypocritically mixing negativity with someone else's preferences for innocence to not be degraded as a motivation to want life to be more good. Hypocrisy would be the actual objective immorality.
If you want to a build a society, then murder is wrong. My point here is that when you want to do something, say build a taco shop, you ought to pay your workers and treat them real well so it can grow.
For a constructive society, you ought to think murder is bad or else your society will fall.
If you’re an anarchist, you ought to destroy all governing bodies.
It’s whatever political spectrum you’re in, what framework you accept, etc.
@@violetfactorial6806from a utilitarian perspective, a justified killing could be euthanasia or self defense
@@violetfactorial6806but in a deontological perspective, no killing is justified - Kantian Ethics
All moral systems end up In absurdity. You simply have to do what you opine to be the best and hope others feel that way too. That’s about it.
That’s true lol, and the truth is this is exaxtly what all of us do. Muslims, christians, atheists regardless who gives silly speeches on muh objectivr morality they all end up just sort of going with the flow and using pragmatism to determine whats good and bad.
For example, in Islam muhammad married Aisha at 6 and entered her womb when she was 9. The Qur’an says muhammad is an excellent pattern for us, and all muslim scholars agreed this is fine until child marriage became objectionable. Then suddenly muslims discarded their objective morality to go with secular trends.
No one truly looks at a set of postulates or scripture to determine morality
That's Destiny's argument
@@Victor-gz8ml yep, objective morality doesn’t exist
wrong. morals often deal with population/resource problems that are pretty easy to model mathematically. of course youd probably have to know how to program a computer and not just stare at one.
@@tigerstallion usually if you say “wrong” you follow up demonstrating that my claim was wrong. You didn’t even attempt to demonstrate how so
Yes, physical things are easier to demonstrate than subjective ideas. However, if you can agree with someone as to a good grounding in your morality, such as the avoidance of conscious suffering or something similar, then you can definitely make judgements on right and wrong that can be backed up with evidence. However if you can’t agree on a grounding,l then yes you won’t be able to demonstrate subjective ideas.
So you have to believe the world is real and the science and studies are indeed accurate. Like for an example of trauma would be a good way to show how some actions are indeed bad but if that person doesn't believe trauma exist then there's no way to prove that person wrong? Something like that or is that a bad example.
@@cngotham4111 So, I guess my point was that some people might base their morality on just avoiding the suffering of humans. Someone else might said their morality is based on avoiding the suffering of any life. Someone else might say it is about avoiding suffering but also trying to improve the life of humans. And so on. So different people might say there is a different ultimate goal when talking about morality. So I’m the end it is a subjective idea. However if you can agree with a definition of what your morality is based on, let’s say it is to do with the well-being of humans, then you can show that murdering a human decreases the wellbeing of humans and therefore is wrong for example.
@@lotsofstuff9645- morality itself isn't a "subjective" idea, tho... ethics is
@@danielcrafter9349 How so? Are you saying morality is objective? If so, what is it based on?
The argument that the Earth is round doesn't need a qualifying statement. It's just a fact (obviously you must include Occam's Razor and accept that what we percieve is real). However, to say murder is morally wrong where there was no self defense involved, juat murder for murder sake, you need a qualifying statement. Something like "I want to maximize liberty," which is a moral axiom. That itself is still subjective and not grounded in facts, but you can use it to make a factual arguemnt for why non defensive murder is morally wrong.
When I say “murder is wrong” I am basically saying that our basic intuitions and assumptions are, generally, that murder is wrong. This set of basic assumptions and impulses surrounding “right” and “wrong” behavior is present in most humans, which is what morality is. In other words I’m kind of a moral subjectivist, but I think that evolution has caused the vast majority of humans to at least implicitly agree on certain basic moral axioms, and from there we should construct laws and moral systems that are consistent with those axioms
Define murder.
I am with the Necromancer.... not all killings are murder. Not all accidental deaths are killings.
I don't know shit about philosophy, but this feels like it has problems. I'd say most people intuetively don't like a lot of things that are probably good/neutral. As a sex repulsed asexual I think sex is gross. I don't want to see it being done nor have it. Similar to how you might argue murder or torture is bad, because you don't like the thought of it. Should my moral system say sex is bad? Should a phsychopath be in favor of murder?
It's called we are born with a God given conscience, work a basic understanding of right and wrong.
"Your naturalistic science can't prove that we aren't living in the Matrix." - Every radical, fundamentalist pastor that Aron Ra ever debated.
Not sure you really want to be seen together with those, Alex.
What can be postulated without evidence, can (must?) be dismissed without evidence, remember?
Matt Dilahunty gave a good response to why he trusts his brain. That he trusts his senses based on their continuous reliability of producing effective results. I might be paraphrasing but it's from a shorts video.
th-cam.com/users/shortspQtaE6lF_oo?feature=share
so hes never made a mistake? heard something that wasnt there? seen an optical illusion?
@@_okedatabut essentially everything he does is reacting to his senses and in the end they seem more true than not
@@_okedata Matt's point is that he knows to which degree his senses are reliable ("based on their continuous reliability of producing effective results"). Seeing something in the corner of the room, in the pitch black of night, for example, has not demonstrated to be reliable, so shouldn't be trusted.
And "reliable" doesn't mean perfectly perfect. Reliable means it works most or almost all of the time (not *all* the time), and you can rely on it.
And knowing when it does and doesn't work doesn't make it less reliable, but more reliable, since this means you know when you can and can't rely on it.
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qpsolipsism is functionally worthless as a cognitive exercise. It makes no difference under the very predicates of solipsism whether you are or are not a brain in a jar being fed false sensory data to make you believe in a false reality. All that’s available to you is the false reality in that case and therefore this is your reality whether de facto or de jure beyond some unknowable set of consequences for behaving as if the false reality is real; perhaps an afterlife is predicated on the behaviors of the consciousness within the false reality. However, again this is not a feasible calculation because you have no way of knowing about these consequences and any actual knowledge of the set of rules would require being informed about the true nature of reality which by definition is not available to the conscious entity under this system.
The other problem is it just kicks the can down the road of dealing with the question of reality. Let’s say you disentangle your vat brain from a false reality and awaken into the reality of the vat brain, then how do you go about resolving the question of solipsism for your new reality? Is it just an infinite regress of superimposed hyper realities?
destiny is the high school dropouts philosopher…
Totally true, and yet he's still more coherent than the majority of humans.
@@mikeypoop true, most people don't even put any thought into their moral principles.
I don't agree with most of his conclusions but I was surprised how thought out his reasoning was.
Edit- nvm the last half hour he went off the rails lol
He’s not a philosopher at all… he has never been involved in philosophy… he’s into politics and sociology. That’s like saying “cosmicSkeptic is the high school drop outs biologist”
@@NyanSox Most people believe what is popular to believe. If you're too dumb to formulate your own inner perception of the world, which is most people, then it's better to just go with the societal flow. That's why societal progress is so... slow...
The best way to deal with an argument like that is simply to say that “any argument whose claims are impossible to verify are not worth considering”. Having watched the full conversation, though, im pretty sure this position wouldve heavily conflicted with some of destiny’s earlier statements
That’s generally how i approach theistic views, though. Its entirely possible that my brain is in a vat, or that god created the universe, or whatever else, but if those things are by definition impossible to verify, there really is no value in me subscribing to them
But Alex was pointing out how the round earth was “impossible to verify” unless you already accept the external world as real. The issue was that Destiny was allowing for an axiom in the first hypothetical but not in the second. You need to accept an axiom before accepting any further arguments.
@@connorgrynol9021 right, which is why i said that any axiom which is incapable of being verified is essentially moot, which would solve the contradiction that Alex pointed out
@@connorgrynol9021 in the case of the round earth, the claim that the external world doesn’t exist would lack foundation, whereas the claim that it does exist is verified by all beings capable of observation
@@zookboy5714 if you believe the external world is false, then all beings capable of observation are just figments of your imagination. They couldn’t be considered evidence since they don’t exist. You could be in a dream where everything seems like it’s observed.
There are other problems like the 5 minute universe which posits that the universe was created 5 minutes ago with all the appearance of age.
The simplest solution to all of these issues is not discarding all impossible to verify claims. The external world is impossible to verify. We need to presuppose that it’s real.
The solution to this problem is Occam’s razor. If you assume that the external world is false, then you are necessarily making an additional assumption regarding the mechanism by which you apparently perceive reality. You make less assumptions by accepting reality than you do by rejecting it. By your model, you would need to reject both because each is unverifiable.
Well, isn't it just great to ponder upon hard solipsism before I go to sleep 🗿
The thumbnail made it seem like Destiny was saying that murder is ok😭😂
People keep saying that destiny is wrong or ignorant, but Alex hasn't proven him wrong. All he has shown is that destiny skepticism doesn't go down far enough. Destiny has made one leap of faith that the reality he exists in is real and true because he can personally feel it but isn't willing to do the same for different claims. This is fine and doesn't prove the existence of objective moral claims. Even alex in this video says he believes in a system that doesn't believe in objective moral claims besides saying how one feels. Honestly this is why destiny doesn't engage with this stuff generally because people act super high and mighty about stuff beyond testability and that doesn't have any real affects on the world. I love philosophy too but this stuffy attitude towards people who engage with philosophy on the surface just keeps people away.
Nihilism 😂😂😂
No. He wants to have the cake and eat it.
Why does cake exist?
No I don't believe theirs a cake it goes against my world view. We are in a simulation and you cant prove me wrong. That was basically this Convo lol
How?
@@cngotham4111Doesn't the simulated cake still exist? Just run your recontextualization subroutine. Before it's done parsing, you'll be right as rain.
@@stevencurtis7157 it exist in a fake world so therefore in reality it doesn't exist same with rain. Don't worry you'll wake up from the matrix.
Yes, we make fundamental assumptions about the existence of reality. That reality becomes the "object" of our study for physical truths. We can attack it from different directions and arrive at the same answers.
What is the equivalent object of study for moral truths?
Just because we assume a reality of physical objects exists doesn't mean we have to assume the same about morality.
If anyone grounds their argument with "nothing is real" just punch them in the face and ask them if that felt real.
the human system can not determine if water is wet, what you feel is the cold or heat of it not the wetness. So wetness is not real yet we all use it to make a point. So "real" is very subjective to the environment you grow up and the knowledge you have in regards to the subject matter..
Pretty dumb take. They could just say "What I'm experiencing is an illusion." And you can't prove them wrong.
This is a very common misunderstanding of global skeptic scenarios. I don’t think anyone would question whether you would feel pain if you were punched in the face. But this is probably being facetious lol
Four people in a room. 1 is a flat earther, 1 believes the election was stolen, 1 believes in pizzagate, and 1 believes in lizard people. After 5 minutes they would realize they were all incels.
You had a great setup for a joke and you botched it. Going the incel route is plain lazy.
@@MinosML All right. Give me a better punch line.
@@Anuchan Republicans duh!
When it comes to the arguement of whether murder is wrong, it comes down to whether people believe it is wrong. Majority consensus of morality.
Wow cool idea bro.
I don't know what is wrong with the comments, it might seem like that here, but this conversation wasn't 2 hours of alex dunking on destiny, it was a productive good faith discussion with back and forth
I thought this was about free will vs determinism. who is destiny?
Just a streamer dude who plays games, talks politics and hot button issues/events, and touches on philosophy, in that order.
The issue is that once we agree that our sense data is at least somewhat reliable, we gain access to the external world, which allows us to choose between competing knowledge claims.
Yet, even if we agree that morality is objective, I don't see what we gain access to which allows us to do the same for competing moral claims.
If we make the leap of faith of ought to is with something as universal as our capacity to experience suffering and happiness, then it becomes similarly easy to choose between moral claims. And thats exactly what humans have done with law and order. Just look at societies across the world. Laws from country to country may differ slightly, but at a fundamental level they are all very much bound by a desire for wellbeing. Granted there’s other stuff mixed in there too like religion but most of it is grounded in something just as intuitive as our perception of the external world.
I don’t see why agreeing that the external world is real gives us anything more than it gives to those who would disagree. That’s precisely the point of the argument: the two scenarios are empirically equivalent.
@@veridicusmind3722 It's true that we can't know whether our sense data is accurate or whether the external world exists. But once we agree on an external world, we have what seem to be reliable methods to determine what is or isn't true (to some degree, at least).
Even if I grant the moral realist the same assumptions, there just don't appear to be anything like moral facts.
Take the proposition "the earth is flat," for example. Once we agree that our sense data is somewhat reliable, there appear to be a set of facts to which we can appeal to determine whether that proposition is true or false.
Even granting a moral realist the same assumptions, there don't seem to be any facts which we could use to verify the statement "murder is wrong."
Now, maybe your objection is that you don't see any reason to grant that sense data is reliable or that the external world exists. Fair enough. I'm only claiming there's a meaningful distinction after that point.
The internet needs more discussions like this. When people are actually discussing things instead of trying to become a TikTok clip where they can edit themselves with fucking Sigma music or some shit.
Cringe beta male
Destiny basically said the fourth guy can think what he wants and the other three will ignore him.
Someone needs to read Hume. 😂
Yes!
And Kant, and Hegel, and Nietzsche, and Husserl, and Wittgenstein.
So many people have disproved any sort of foundationalism.
They both did, i believe
He read Hume. I think this clip simplifies too much his point.
@@broken_abi6973
I watched the entire video before I commented.
With the video as context, he still needs to either read Hume or work in his comprehension skills.
You can still test within the universe, the brain in a vat, is in. You can test to see if the universe is consistent. And yes, some claims are probably not falsifiable within that universe.
Also, if we are brains in vats, the morals are still subjective.
The brain in a vat argument feels like a cop-out. Ethics just isn’t the same as science. If we can agree on a axiomatic goal, ex. maximized happiness, your ethics can build from there. With science, empirical evidence is necessarily fundamental. Science informs ethics, but no more than that.
Pretty much!
How can you possibly quantify happiness though? I get the ideal of maximize human thriving, but to state that goal and then build a system that effectively maximizes it seem to be very different things, since you can't effectively measure the happiness value in most realistic moral quandries.
fundamentally it isnt a cop-out In the entire conversation, Alex is using an idea of consistent skepticism is that A- We pressuppose foundational intuitions of the real world aka Sense data being accurate, and so B- I am only doing the same for ethics. For Ethics a foundational value system is REQUIRED in the same way sense data is for science.
Empirical evidence relies on an axiom as well though. We have to agree that our sense data is accurate first in order to value that evidence.
Yes thats correct. Technically speaking, objecticity does not objectively exist. But most of us simply treat it as it does
If three people said murders wrong and one person said it wasn't I think the solution to find an ethical rule is quite simple. Turn to the person that thinks murders okay and ask them if they want to be murdered right now and if they say no then they are going to agree with everyone else.
Unless it's shorthand for saying murder of others is okay. Then it's back to square 1
They will say "kill me and you'll prove my point"
Exactly, the distortion of an individual perception can limit the consensus on the most observable affairs in reality.
That is just something to keep in mind when exploring “facts” in the abstract realm of ethics/philosophy/etc.
Cuz the limitations of the perception of the few shouldnt deny the possibility of reaching a factual consensus on an abstract problematic.
This is me not knowing the full context of the conversation between the two though…
I think you did not include enough context in this short, I cannot understand the point that is being made here at all.
Cosmic skeptic is trying to demonstrate that both judgements are based on a subjective “rules” or “objectives” that the people agree upon. To argue for the Earth being round, you must first agree that reality exists outside of your own mind, which cannot be demonstrated. There is currently no way to prove that anything exists outside of your own perception, since we are limited to experiencing the world through the filter of our mind.
However, once there’s an agreement that reality exists outside of ourselves, we can acquire objective facts based on the agreed rules or goal you want to achieve.
If we agree that reality exists independent of our minds, we can use observations to determine that the Earth is an oblong spheroid.
Similarly, if we agree that we want people to live as long as possible and endure as little suffering as possible, we can use observations to determine that murder would be counterproductive to our goals.
Matt Dillahunty uses a great analogy of a chess game. If we want to make objectively good moves in order to win a game of chess, we first have to agree upon the subjective goal of winning, and the subjective rules created to play the game
I think that’s a you problem
@@Dizzy-4
Nope, without context this really doesn't mean anything.
Alex is pushing back on Destiny’s subjectivist view on morality, and Destiny is trying to come up with a reason against moral knowledge, namely that we can’t settle the matter on moral issues, but we can on empirical issues (like questions about the shape of the earth). But Alex pushes back on this by coming up with a counterexample to Destiny’s knowledge criterion, namely that there is at least one thing we can know but cannot empirically settle, i.e., that the external world is real.
@@veridicusmind3722 I thought Alex *was* a moral subjectivist? He's stated so multiple times.
The three people slowly turn to the 4th and murder him.
The fourth guy is good with the choice and the other 3 no longer have to talk about it.
I feel there is a chance the 1 may change their mind during the process.
@@davecovell622Might as well finish the job.
He should read The Moral Landscape, it's a good antidote to this kind of relativism
No, same problem cuz Harris assumes that "good" is utilitarianism. An arbitrary goal is always required. Also, Destiny is already along the lines of being a utilitarian, though more on the egoist side.
@@joshuawalton3551 name one area of knowledge that doesn't rely on an axiom, besides I think therefore I am
@@biggieb8900 Hm unrelated but an interesting question. Yeah, cogito ergo sum is probably it. Maybe you could say that the basic rules of logic like the law of noncontradiction are impossible for a person to not assume.
@@joshuawalton3551 unless they don't care about being consistent, then non-contradiction isn't a problem. And it is related because the first half of Sam's book is explaining how morality is just a special case of every other area of knowledge, it rests upon ungrounded axioms. He makes frequent comparisons to the field of medicine in the book, I find it a lot more compelling than Hume or any other philosophical point of view on morality that I've ever heard.
@@biggieb8900 I haven't thought much about it but I might argue that there is some knowledge that's built into the human experience. Like, I don't think everyone agrees with cogito ergo sum because it's a sound logical argument, I think they just can't not believe in their own existence by the nature of their being.
Anyway, the point of my original response was just to say that Harris' utilitarianism in no way solves Destiny's relativism issue, because it's just an arbitrary system like any other. Harris admits himself that it's arbitrary, he just thinks that it's good because all rational people would agree with him.
Again. It's about survival. If one guy says murder is ok and the others say it is not, then by letting that guy act on his beliefs you risk your own life. It's part of why the religions that tend to survive are the ones that convince their followers they are under existential threat if they don't act on the religious prerogatives and eliminate (either by conversion or by murder) ideological & resource competitors.
"Absolute" morality means absolutely nothing in comparison to someone willing to kill the "morally correct" person. Most moral baselines we have on a biological level are specifically designs to keep our group protected. It's why we assign more value to people we know than to people we don't know.
All morality, all empathy is a survival mechanism employed by social species to give them survival advantages.
If you look at History the most moral 😇 people are *always* the most dangerous ones, because they are not chained by sense.
"I don't know how you would do it"
G-d
This is the thing a lot of people just seem to hate by their own intuition mind you. Everything we know is inherently at the most base level based on subjective ideas. Because of this, even if we have objectivity within a system if someone just disagrees with the base premise there is nothing you can do to say they are wrong.
Sorry my mind ignored everything else and all i could think about was: 4 people in a circle.. isnt it a square?
No. Draw a circle on the ground. 4 people get in it. It doesnt suddenlty turn into a square :)
huh?? "four people in a circle. isn't that a square?" the answer to your question is in the first part of the sentence. simply put four people in the position to make a circle
Sure, we have to make assumptions to be able to comprehend anything, but people agreeing on something don't have to have made the same assumptions. We can agree that the sky is blue, but what if I'm a solipsist who believes to be a brain in a tank living in a simulated word? Well I would still want to live an enjoyable life in that simulated world, and therefore I would still communicate with what I believe to be NPCs as if they were real, because their reactions matter to me all the same. And I would still say, and fully believe, that "the sky is blue", it's just that what I actually mean with the words "sky" and "blue" is "that simulated background" and "that simulated colour".
If there are four people standing in a circle, and one of them has blue hair…
Sure. But you could get the person who thinks their brain is in a vat to believe that the Earth is spherical within the simulation their brain is in, by the very fact that they understand what the Earth is at all.
If one of the people in the room doesn’t believe reality exists and the senses are right, there’s also nothing to be said about if murder is right or wrong, because what would murder even mean?
I think destiny is right in the sense that factual stuff is strictly more proveable than moral stuff
I mean couldn't you say murder is wrong based on the affects of trauma? For an example if a girl is raped the affect would be depression,being unhealthy,suicidal and ect? Idk why trauma isn't a factor when considering if something is morally fact or not. Obviously this only takes in account to certain actions that people believe are morally wrong or right.
@@cngotham4111 Yes but that trauma does not exist if reality does not exist no?
@@drschwandi3687 well the action of rape is fake but the trauma that the person feels is real is it not? If you don't know that the world is a simulation that what's the difference when getting raped and the rapist who knows the would is a simulation still knows he's affecting someone else well being. Now the question is would that person who is traumatized would still be traumatized if they woke up from that simulation. Id argue that would but maybe not I'm not that smart lol.
OP - you second part is correct, but not the way you think it is. The first part is totally wrong because of that.
@@danielcrafter9349 feel free to elaborate?
If 4 people are standing in a circle. Melina is probably in the middle on her knees.
- Destiny
I feel like destiny is just a debate pervert, he’s good at argumentation in general and he’ll take any position that he thinks he can have an exciting debate over
I'm not sure you've watched any of his debates. He takes a relatively consistent position in most of them, in line with his views on policy and how people interact, but the way he approached arguments for them depend entirely on who he's debating with.
Arguing and debating aren't the same.
But that’s obviously not true.
I think this maps to ethics as well. If a person does not believe that we can have a metric for determining right and wrong (such as the wellbeing of others) they're essentially in the same position as the person who believes they're in the matrix because we all in this circle experience a basic sense of ethics(presumably) just as we experience reality, so boiling these things down to "that's just your opinion against mine" means you cannot rationally be convinced otherwise.
Ultimately I think it's a waste of time to try and convince someone who doesn't believe in objective reality or objective ethics(given we can agree on what ethics actually means)
Destiny pretends to argue philosophy but hasnt even read Kant 😅
I had more edication as a 16 year old, what has this clown been doing all this time?
Destiny has bashed Vaush so many times for his inconsistent moral view but he ends up aligning with Vaush when he asks to explain his own personal view.
The whole irony of this discussion with Destiny is that Alex is truly rebutting the views in his own world view and pinning it on Destiny. Alex doesn’t believe in Objective/Absolute morality and he’s thought about these problems within his own worldview and opinions on morality. This is the perfect opportunity to shoot holes through his own worldview and pin it on another guy and he knows this
@@bobbyboywonder12 Even if what you say is true it doesn't change the fact that didn't follow the same standards he use against other people.
The moment he brings up his morals is whoever has more power to impose his morality on others. He completely ends up in the same camp as Vaush, and he is also wrong for the same reason he brings up against Vaush.
Only between incompatible moral views, so when diplomacy is impossible. Vaush sets the line where he wants that day
@@illithidhunter6177 very possible. Never seen it. I don’t believe in any kind of objective morality. Just things that we prefer
They sound the same in this clip. It’s quite ironic.
I feel there is a major difference between the 2 examples given. One being, objects and how we may consider them real or not. While the other is conscious actions being considered good or bad. Considering the brain in a vat scenario, you simply add another layer of semantics. This is the instrumentalist form of the claim. "In this world being projected to us while we are a brain in a vat, given the tests we can perform to understand said projection, the world appears as such." In this case there is no counter claim, "we can't trust said tests or perception in a world where I am a brain in a vat."
You should have Vaush on next 😃
Yes but they still have senses to where we can come upon agreed upon terms. If we both see the color red but one of us sees it as a shade of green and the other sees it as a shade of blue, we could both come to agree that we will denote something as red if if our senses give us different perceptions.
NEVER listen to anyone with blue hair.
When someone says the shape of the Earth is round(spherical), that is a shape. It can be drawn to show the shape. I want someone who claims the shape of the Earth is flat, to draw me that shape (flat).
Lol what
It would usually be a circle but there are some... diagrams you can look up. They're wrong, not stupid.
A rare destiny L
Semi common philosophy destiny L
@@rosesmitty1206 actually true
Hard solipsism is both very fascinating and very pointless at the same time.
Yeah sure, we can't prove that we're not a brain in a vat, but this brain in a vat sure seems to be able to simulate an entire world pretty well.
@@TheAwkwardGuy You only think that way because you haven't suffered. When the reality of cycles hits you, so will the importance of meaning.
Admitting he doesn't know something = taking an L I guess? No wonder he hates philosophers Lol
Yup in order to come to agreements with people you must have a starting place of understanding and agreement. Then you can build off that mutual understanding to more complex things
Destiny only ever loses debates to vegans lol
Yep, and in this case, cosmicskeptic is philosphically vegan
But Alex isn’t vegan
@@user-hp4gl8vx8e I actually am aware of he not using the term ‘vegan’ as a label, and his view of how animals should be treated is fully in line with how vegans view the world. I think vegans and vegan allies are generally really good at logic and deductive reasoning. Destiny doesn’t usually debate anyone as conscious as these types of people.
@@jjmah7 No it’s not, vegans would never agree with someone eating animal products
@@user-hp4gl8vx8e that's absolutely incorrect. vegans aren't a hive mind for one, you're acting like all vegans have the same outlook on society. maybe some of the more extreme vegans wouldn't agree, but most i know would just be glad that he's conscious about it and eats minimal meat. there's lots of people that live this way, and vegans have a whole hell of a lot more respect than people who have no respect for animal life. but regardless, he made the vegan argument here. destiny can't seem to handle the vegan argument.
The situations could be considered the same.
Those 4 people have decided on some shared standard with which to examine reality, from there they can reach consensus on whether the earth is round.
Similarly, the second set of 4 people would also need agreement on a standard for which to assess whether murder is good or bad.
My head hurts just thinking about this
If you put the barrel between that 4th guys eyes i bet he could give you a million reasons why murder is wrong.
This is dangerously asking all the people who do not want to be wrong to believe they are a brain in a vat.... new level of creep unlocked.
I think people are beginning to notice that talking fast has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge or intelligence …
Did you not watch the podcast? Destiny admitted that he doesn't actually have answers to some of these questions and he wanted Alex to elaborate. This isn't some game of pretending to be intelligent.
I dunno - too many people follow Ben Shapiro unquestioning for that to be true 😂😂
@@avilude- the fact you felt the need to defend Destiny there says a lot... 😂
@@danielcrafter9349 The fact that you feel the need to turn this into an IQ-measuring session says way more about you then me explaining how this was an honest conversation.
I would've though CosmicSkeptic's audience would be more interested in real discussion than grandstanding, so I'd imagine this is just the YT shorts brain taking over.
You would hope...but Destiny stans are truly relentless.
You can't run any significant test if you don't define and agree on the context and on the dependent axioms and starting values.
You can run the same tests in the euclidian space and in non euclidian spaces and having very different results but all results are "Correct" in each pre defined context.
On ethical "problems" the definition of the starting context depend also on an "etichal" point of view then you can't run any test to prove you opponent is "wrong".
The issue with ethics is that people try to rationalise objective truths separate from its context. When you say murder is wrong, what exactly do you mean? Wrong by what metric? It requires context. For example i do not wish to be murdered nor have those I care about be murdered therefore I should make an agreement with those around me to not murder. This is in my best interest as well as the people around me. Murder is not conducive to a functional society. If your priorities are to coexist with other human beings then murder is wrong as it is counter-productive towards your goals.
Humans are a social species by our biology so murder being wrong is built into psychology, we have simply fleshed it out.
While Alex's point is correct, it is trivially correct. It is the case that all possible conversations about what is or isn't have the fundamental characteristic of agreement that the external World exists. Yes, if 3 people say the external world exist, and one disagrees there is no way to prove that one person wrong-but if they choose that position to start from, then no conversations can be had about anything, moral or not, subjective objective or otherwise.
Yes that is correct. Though notice that we are talking about philosophical problems
Factual and believed thinking are 2 different things. Psychological conundrums are way harder if not impossible to evaluate, unlike problems who's sole problem lies within the material world we have been studying for millenias
Nothing quite like hard solipsism to turn any conversation into nonsense. If reality isn’t real are you even reading this comment?
This principle of philosophy is called "Humes Guillotine". It suggests there are two kinds of statements. "Is" statements and "Oughts". "Is" statements are related to the way the world is, the way the world was, or the way the world will or would be. ie facts about the nature of reality. "ought" statements (should, normative statements) are about the way should be. The way we want the world to be. An "ought" statement cannot be derived from an "is" statement without assuming another "ought" statement. TH-cam "robert miles" "orthogonality thesis".
I think that the question on how to provide "absolute" or "provable" reasons for morality is irrelevant to begin with. Morality and Ethics serve to help people function together as a society. So ultimately, whatever seems to benefit that goal, according to the members of the society, is what is moral. It is not about what is objectively correct, but about what is functionally best.
I frame morality as an evolutionary imperative for the survival of the species, not unlike Kant's categorical imperatives. That which is beneficial to the survival of the species is "good," and that which is detrimental to the species is "bad." Once the behavior is viewed through Kant's lens of, "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law," the difficulty of determining whether an act is "good" or "bad" is removed. This is not to say that an immoral act can be _justified_ in a particular set of circumstances (or vice-versa); however, justification speaks to the _reasonableness_ of the act.
Hilary Putnam's Head in Vat problem, is one I think about a lot. I know it's sad but it's a problem I would love to find a solution to. It's a tough one, that's for sure.
Did you read Putnam’s solution as well? ;)
Everything rests upon ungrounded axioms. Absolutely everything. Morality resting upon ungrounded axioms is just a special case of every other area of knowledge. Sam Harris lays this out to perfection in his book, The Moral Landscape. Physics and chemistry and everything else rests upon axioms just like morality does, it's just more obvious in the case of morality for a few reasons. One is that the words "right" and "wrong" are very clearly vague and need definitions. In the case of the moon being round, the ungrounded axioms are less obvious, but cosmic skeptic pointed them out immediately. Solipsists are skeptics with regards to everything in the same way that destiny is with regards to morality. They don't believe anything unless it can be philosophically grounded, and the only thing that is is the cognito, I think therefore I am. But if we can accept the axiom that our sense data is accurate and some other things about epistemology like we should be seeking the truth, then we can build up and prove beyond all doubt that the moon is round. Morality works in the exact same way, if we establish axioms, we can make objective claims about right and wrong. Establishing the axioms of morality is more difficult, but that's the second half of Sam's book, which destiny desperately needs to read.
The problem with the argument about the flat earther is it is predicated on the axiom that the tests are reliable and fair. In a Sense, the flat earther could always argue that that test isn’t a fair metric. This is also exactly what they do in the “murder is wrong” example
Cosmic's point is so important. There's axiomatic stuff that we blindly accept behind every form of "knowledge". We assume that our senses are an accurate representation of "reality". Everything depends on that being "true".
I heard an amateur philosopher and atheist in a very old TH-cam video sum it up nicely. He said that all knowledge of an atheist worldview and the scientific collective knowledge relies on just 4 fundamental, basal assumptions.
1. The world exists outside of yourself
2. Our senses can perceive aspects of the real world
3. We can use these senses to create models of reality, and use data collected from measurements using our senses to model the world consistently with statistics
4. Fundamental universal laws exist in the universe and reality, and those laws and their mathematical relationships have always been consistent and will continue to be consistent for all of time.
If you don't believe any one of these 4 basal assumptions, you will go insane. But every single person, theist or atheist must do so, whereas theists have about 500 more assumptions based on absolutely nothing.
Our evolved and continued existence depends on us being able to trust our senses otherwise we would not survive to propagate our species.
I would suggest that lends weight to the idea that 'our senses are an accurate representation of reality'.
@@LittleMAC78 The first paragraph you wrote depends on your senses, just like any other statement. Therefore, it can't be used as proof or as something that adds validity to the axioms that it depends on.
@@G.r.e.g.g.l.e.sI agree with you. I think the last part about theists is an over-generalization though. I think some smart theists what they do is they try to put a name of that set of axioms that we accept and then they speculate on the nature of that set of axioms etc. But yes, a lot of atheists decide to consciously accept a lot more axioms that necessary, although I would argue that the things that "we say we believe" are very different than the things we actually believe deep down, and so, a lot of fundamentalist religious people claim to believe things that when push comes to shove it would be evident that they don't really, and so on. Also, bottom line is that everything we know depends on acceptance of given axioms that can't be proven or disproven and I think this is an important fact that people should be more aware of, not from a religious point of view, but just from a philosophical point of view.
Regardless of the 'circular logic' dismissal, we exist as an evolved species which would not have happened if we lacked the ability to detect predators or environmental dangers.
If we are not capable of detecting reality then our predators must also have the same inadequacy otherwise a threat that we cannot perceive would have wiped us out long ago.
Ergo, our senses perceive what they need to in order for us to survive and that's our reality.
Even if an argument could be theoretically made that it is a subjective reality rather than objective, it is as much reality as we currently need to be aware of in order to continue surviving.
The idea that you cant find an agreement between someone who believes reality is an illusion and one that's not is completely wrong.
Descartes said "I think therefore I am" about this very problem, you can still discuss thought & break down the silliness of simulation-theory LIKE WE DO IN THE REAL WORLD.
You're too much exposed to bad-faith actors. You can still talk philosophy even if one thinks the world is fake.
How can you debate aspects of reality with someome who don't believe in reality? I did not get your point hete.
@@ThiagoGlady it's not reality you are discussing, but reason.
@@ThiagoGlady well if someone is in a simulation but believes they are not. And another person believes they are in a simulation and rapes the other person wouldn't that trauma still affect that person even after they realize the world is a simulation?
@@Roftastic
The person on the video specifcly used a example of persons discussing reality (planet being flat or round)
@@cngotham4111
Of course it would, but thats not the point, the point is about discussion. If you ask the same question to someone who does not believe in reality, it would just say "nop, cause that person does not exist, only me"
Wouldn’t Alex’s example negate the question? If one person thinks the external world doesn’t exist, then that person wouldn’t care if the world was round or flat because it doesn’t even exist. The initial question would be meaningless to them.
When we base epistemology on some basic assumptions such as an external world and the general (not absolute, just general) reliability of the senses, we get a system with predictive powers.
When we use moral intuition, we acquire zero predictive power compared to just using motivational inclinations with psychology and economics (which is NOT about _money_ but about _value_ ).
There Alex, drew the line for you.
If you establish a standard for what you consider "wrong" then you can make objective assessments with respect to that standard. For example, if one of the people that says murder is wrong thinks so because it impedes on the well being of the victim, then well-being becomes your barometer for what is or isn't wrong.
Yeah it's kind of hard to come to an agreement about something subjective. That's why religions nowadays do their best to create unfalsifiable proofs so that belief comes down to a subjective experience rather than an objective observation of the world that may be explained by something other than their belief. If something is subjective, there is no universally correct answer, therefore there may always be some disagreement. If something is objective then there is a correct answer even if there are some who refuse to acknowledge it.
Well-being. Just.. well-being. However you wanna define that - that's another concersation, and an interesting one.
But if we can agree well-being is fundamental to morality, we can have objectively better and worse actions towards reaching the goal of being maximally well (whether we attain it or not - we can keep improving)
It will all depend on what you mean by "killing is good", it's all about agreeing with what the words mean before the debate
alex's counter merely alters Destiny's position slightly. Of course no one can answer that objection or the idea we live in a matrix. Its impossible. There has to be some fundamental assumption made, and then you go from there. This is true for every philosophy.
That said, outside of a set of very fundamental assumptions needed to exist in reality, there is no reason or purpose to assume an objective morality or basis on which to argue for moral realism, which is totally unlike the existence of objects in the real world which multiple people can individually attest to and notice with their sense perception.
Subjective morality states there is nothing objectively right or wrong morally.
So if a man commits a murder, he is not objectively wrong.
If he is not objectively wrong, he is innocent.
As true as 2+2=4 is how innocent he is objectively according to your view.
This is why subjective morality isn’t reasonable or true.
It's a moot point anyway. If it's measurable and we can all consistently share the same measurements using objects that do not involve consciousness or perspective we can conclude that thing being measured is an objective reality. Whether or not we are in a simulation doesn't change that we can still make objective judgements about the universe we find ourselves in.
morality is about how much personal preferences are fulfilled without hypocrisy. Perfect morality would involve all people having all preferences satisfied WITHOUT the hypocritical intention to forcefully mix negativity with those preferences, etc. Degrading someone's innocence would mean hypocritically mixing negativity with someone else's preferences for innocence to not be degraded as a motivation to want life to be more good. Hypocrisy would be the actual objective immorality.
With the guy that thinks murder is ok is very easy to resolve. If you know what I mean. Some problems just solve themselves
I feel like the answer to this is very simple. These are abstractions, take for example, Math. Assuming the rules are followed two people will always come to the same answer. However if you decided not to follow those rules 1 + 1 can be 3. Ethics are also an abstraction, since they are the rules that we use to make decisions that affect other people but are hypothetical until applied in some manner. As they are an abstraction one could decide not to follow those rules which would result in someone believing something like murder is ok.
That’s why I would strongly argue that there is a higher standard, something bigger than us, that is a transcendent moral standard. Even if we don’t all grasp it perfectly at the same time, there is indeed one that we all can understand, either less so in part or more so, depending. The assumption that morality is all cultural or contextual doesn’t hold up when we have a near universally abysmal, horrified reaction to atrocities like the holocaust. Something like the Nuremberg trials can only happen on the assumption that we have a higher standard to hold even governments and other cultures to. And I believe as we go further down that issue, that moral standard starts looking more and more transcendent and divine, but that’s a longer conversation.
no nuremberg trials for iraq invasion
no nuremberg trials for hiroshima bombing
I haven't seen the full conversation, but within the context of this clip I have to say that Cosmic's answer doesn't really address Destiny's point.
The validity of sensory data is not contingent upon any metaphysical position. What science does is describe the behaviour of the phenomenal world, and it does so regardless of what we believe the true nature of these phenomena to be. What the phenomena are and whether or not the external world exists are metaphysical questions that really have nothing to do with science. We don't know what the ultimate nature of reality is, but we do know that if we conduct certain experiments under certain conditions that we will get certain results, and that these results are consistently the same each and every time. This remains true even if you believe yourself to be a "brain in a vat": science works regardless of your metaphysical beliefs. IMO Destiny is absolutely right that morality lacks such a reliable foundation.
4 people in a circle. 3 say murder is wrong. 1 says it’s not wrong.
“Ok cool, here’s a gun, I’m going to shoot you now, unless of course you have a problem with that.”
There’s your test.
Honestly i feel like this is a great conversation. Love both of these guys (agree and disagree with a lot of their points, but still a fan of both).
Alex seems to either be diverting the point or question or too into the specifics however.
Obviously destiny is talking about 4 people with the same thought processes coming to different conclusions. While alex has a more real take, destiny is also arguably more realistic.
1/4 people believe the earth is flat
1/4 people believe they’re in a brain jar
There’s a conflict between people coming to a conclusion and how those people think.