Can Ethics be Objective? Destiny and CosmicSkeptic
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 พ.ค. 2023
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
This clip is taken from Within Reason episode 32 with Destiny, available in full here: • Destiny's Ethics Teste...
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
![LISA - ROCKSTAR (Official Music Video) REACTION [SHE'S BACK!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QBxE30vavMQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This clip is taken from Within Reason episode 32 with Destiny, available in full here: th-cam.com/video/3VhHtPJhhRM/w-d-xo.html
Hey Alex, would you have a discussion with Matt Dillahunty or TJump?
@@erenyeager9371 Dillahunty would be a great conversation. TJump tho? Ick.
@@madsquishypanda2916 TJump does seem to me to have very low sales-man or academic/P.C.-debater quality. Regardless, all morality boils down to attempting to achieve desired goals which depends on knowing the cause-and-effect relationships that we discover through science. This is true of BOTH utilitarianism and deontology (since you have to "discover" what deontological principles are good in the first place, you kind of have to utilitarianly test them first). Otherwise, everyone is just relying on subjective feelings alone.
Alex, you didn’t do very well here. You seem to be arguing the consequent. You don’t like subjective morality so, let’s just called it objective? Huh?
@@AsixA6 Morality is objectively based in well-being, bodily autonomy, and informed consent. We then build a set of ethics in respect to these goals. You can reject these fundamentals, as flat-earthers reject the fundamentals of science, but we will mock and exclude you from moral discussions, as scientists mock and exclude flat-earthers.
Flat-earthers still benefit greatly from scientific advancement. Amoral/immoral people will still benefit from moral progress.
I still can’t believe that we got a crossover like this
🤮Steven "Destiny" [Lastname-pending] is such a narcissistic personality-cult diva (like every live-streamer, I suppose) that it's rather hard to believe he actually had some calm good takes and nuanced criticisms, but he did, so good for him (other than his non-science "psych-critical" semi-psychopathological stuff about our delicious and nutritious animals not sensing "real" qualia of pain; I hope he just meant that humans are the only animals capable of adding suffering to pain which can make the pain worse).
I'm glad Alex "CosmicSkeptic" O'Conner has been able to improve his health by adding some meat-product into his diet like obligate-carnivore cats and other obligate-omnivores do. Too bad his body was not able to tolerate beans/meat-replacements like most choice-vegans can. It must have been psychologically hurtful to find out he happens to be one of those minority of humans that are obligate-omnivores rather than just the majority of people which are facultative-omnivores.
It’s like watching a WWE Wrestler beat up a disabled kid in a wheelchair.
😅
@@killgriffinnow wtf does it mean?
Humans are really good at dehumanizing people which causes me to be very concerned by a framework that only gives moral consideration to that which is considered human.
Yet science basically stops them from dehumanizing people by sheer definition. So, fear it or not, they can't dehumanize without appealing to various unpopular anti-sciences or unpopular pseudo-sciences. In that later case, science just has to out-science them like it always does. Sure, it requires a lot of sustained effort; but hey, so does everything else worth keeping.
This is the real lesson that religion teaches us. Let's agree to disagree.
I guess I’d argue that what’s morally right is also beneficial in all aspects of life. In the same way what’s beneficial to human flourishing in other facets of life such as health also connects to morality.
My point being that all these areas are interconnected and is just one part of observing the whole.
I think part of AI alignment should be making sure that a hyper intelligent AGI considers itself human. I think the definition of "human" will definitely expand in an optimistic future so that regular people, modified people/cyborgs, uplifted creatures, clones, and advanced artificial minds all count as human, or at least partially human, so that we all consider each other as part of the same thing.
And what stops the humans to label the other humans any other way to justify their cruelty towards other?
Dehumanization is as I see it a symptom rather than a cause of something
The reason we don't accept moral or ethical statements as easily as we accept the statement that external reality exists is because the ethical statements require belief in the existence of external reality to begin with and then make additional assumptions on top of that. And while as soon as you accept the external world as being real you can find mountains of empirical data to support that, you can never find solid empirical evidence that a particular ethical statement is correct or incorrect.
The only rule is that there are no rules. That's the truth. Morality and ethics are human constructs..we establish these concepts to create some degree of order amongst us, because we are so intelligent that we can make wild decisions that are not beneficial to the collective but are in fact harmful to us as a species. So we establish a framework of ethics and morality so that people behave themselves
I like your point. Another way one might look at the difference is that no one disputes ‘sense data’ just what sense data actually is. Whereas with morality there isn’t ‘moral data’ that we all agree is even there to dispute its ontological status.
I don't think that's quite it. It's more akin to this:
"Some people believe the universe is made from atoms, some people think the universe is made from stories".
The arguments about physical nature can be more robustly argued, without complications from individual biases.
The arguments about morals doesn't have a framework to argue, and will always be influenced by subjective bias.
The reason for this is, most likely we are intelligent enough to quantify intelligence (ie IQ test) but we are NOT wise enough to quantify Wisdom. If we were, then we could create a moral framework which is based on objectivity, and have a framework to argue inside, and not have to rely on subjectivity or be at it's mercy.
I think the difference is in the grounding. "The ocean exists" can be affirmed because we can establish the definition of what an ocean is or could be. "Murder is wrong" can't be affirmed without defining what "wrong" means. The only definitions that I can think of that are grounded coherently are intrasubjective: "what murder results in makes me feel bad", and intersubjective: "what murder results in makes me and the cohort of people who feel similarly to me about murder, feel bad". And this applies to every aspect of what a murder can result in. It makes friends and family of the murder bereaved at the loss of the presence of that person. It destroys the source of economic output of that person, which causes a lower level of unhappiness for those who relied on that output. Punishment wise, it makes the murderer feel bad if they are caught and punished. Even if there were (a) god(s) that punished your soul for once being attached to a body that decided to murder, in an afterlife, the badness would still be the loss of happiness experienced by the soul in the afterlife. So it is subjective no matter how you think about it.
@@TheRepublicOfUngeria on the topic of murder there are also circumstances where murder is acceptable by people. Like in terms of self defense. If you kill someone who's trying to kill you, that's considered Moral and Okay
I'm definitely with Destiny here. I don't think "the earth is flat" and "murder isn't wrong" are on the same level. Even if you believed that actually the world is a simulation or whatever, you could still say that "in this simulation, the earth is round". I don't think statements like 2+2=4 are really affected by whether reality is truly real. Even if this is a "pseudo-reality", we can still find rules that this "pseudo-reality" follows.
Morality is complex. Yes, I think most people would agree that murder is wrong. But there is nuance to this statement. I don't think people murder because they think that murder isn't wrong. They simply find a justification for murder. I think most people would be fine with murdering Hitler for example. So, is murder really wrong? I would say it depends. Generally yes, but there are exceptions. "Justified murder" does exist. But also, not everyone agrees with that justification. Like, someone might say that killing Hitler wouldn't be justified because we could also arrest him. Is one person more "objectively correct" in a complex situation like that?
Also, when it comes to questions like gay marriage, I don't think you can really prove that it's "morally right" by simply citing statistics. I personally think gay marriage would be right even if people in gay marriage weren't as happy as people in straight marriage. But someone else might say that there is something about traditional marriage that's sacred, and changing the definition of marriage is a slippery slope. Changing this tradition creates uncertainty and the feeling of "instability". We no longer know who's a man and who's a woman, and what it even means to be a man/woman. I don't think citing statistics about the happiness of gay people would change the mind of someone who thinks like that, because their opposition to gay marriage was never about the happiness of individual people. They don't think gay marriage is wrong because it creates unhappiness. They think gay marriage is wrong because it's an attack on tradition and creates instability.
All in all, I don't think morality is universal. Yes, there are certain basic things that basically everyone agrees with. But not everyone values the same things to the same degree. To some people, safety is a lot more important than individual freedom for example. To some people, tradition is really important. Why should we only value "well-being"? Also, there's the question about individualism vs collectivism - should we value the well-being of the individual or the well-being of the community as a whole? Maybe someone following their individual dreams actually doesn't lead to the greatest amount of well-being? Maybe we should not let people choose to follow their dreams, and instead we should tell them what's best for them?
"I don't think 'the earth is flat' and 'murder isn't wrong' are on the same level. Even if you believed that actually the world is a simulation or whatever, you could still say that 'in this simulation, the earth is round'." And if causing undo suffering to humans is wrong, than murder is objectively. They are on the same level. The same logic that allows me to assume that we don't live in a simulation is the same logic that allows me to assume that causing undo suffering is wrong, being that there isn't any. I just assume it. Even if causing undo suffereing isn't wrong, murder would still cause undo suffering, the same way that the earth would still be round in the percieved world even if it wasn't real.
I do agree that Alex's example of statistics for proving gay marrige is right is flawed. The real reason why it is objectively right is that it doesn't cause undo suffering. If it did cause undo suffering, as it would if a god that sent people to hell for being gay existed, for example, then it wouldn't be right.
Your other arguments mainly have to do with the fact that we are ignorant about many factors at play that would influence the validity of specific moral systems. For example, if you could objectively prove that collectivism would lead to more well being that individualism, than individualists would be wrong. But you cant prove that as each and every individual person and their experiences and every single decicision or discovery ever made as a result of the adoption of either system are all variables that would influence which one would actually maximize wellbeing and we simple can't account for all of them, though we can make our best guess.
Your other point about traditionalism also doesn't make much sense to me. People that value tradition do so because they think it's what's best(i.e. what will maximize well-being). If they didn't think that, they wouldn't value tradition.
@@caveholeperson4274 The problem I have with your response to OP is "undue suffering" smuggles assumptions and premises. They specifically give the example of Hitler or insert your own example where illegally killing someone would by your beliefs/fact cause sufficiently less "undue suffering" to justify illegally killing someone. All that matters is that it is possible to justifiably illegally kill someone and "murder is wrong" isn't an objective truth for all murders.
I get what you're going for but you should replace your use of the word murder with kill, because murder literally means unjustified killing.
@@ennuiii Who determines whether the killing has a valid justification, though?
The legal definition of murder has mostly to do with intent. If you kill someone by accident, it's a manslaughter. But if you planned to kill them, it's a murder (not counting self-defence). I like this definition, because it lacks the subjective element of whether it was "justified", and it makes a clear distinction between accidentally killing someone and intentionally killing them.
On the belief about whether the outside exists, I love a story I heard from Zen. I student comes to a master and says, "I've been studying philosophy and can prove you and the outside world don't exist." The master slapped him hard across the face and said,"I'm sure you can."
hahaha i dont condone hitting people but sometimes they need it😎👊
Such a perfect Zen story!
Outside of whom, the student? So, why prove it to master, if master is an illusion? 🤨
@@user-vs9sd9vj1o cause he figured it out!!!! not...
😂
this was so so so helpful for me. thanks guys
Big thumbs up for these two having exchanges
Fascinating exchange!
In the study of systems, there are systems that have simple rules applying to individual units that result in emergent properties.
In systems composed of human individuals, i.e. a society, the simple rules that started us off were safe guarding of one's interests, and the emergent properties are ethics and morality.
Over time, there has been a feedback loop where the emergent properties got fed back into the individual's rule sets, creating an ongoing evolution of emergent ethics+morality.
You need to start from "is murdering me wrong?" as the axiom (maybe break it down even more)
You cannot start from "is murder wrong" as the axiom. (I've really just described the golden rule of course)
alex’s argument breaks down if you can find a a subset of societies in history where his moral intuitions do not match their moral intuitions
I would suggest that answering the ethical question is more fundamental to human-relations than the high level scientific one. Believing in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is a lot more difficult than reaching fundamental agreements in regards to the value of human life.
I might be wrong, but here's how I see this situation:
In order to have any meaningful conversation, you're gonna need to make a set of epistemological assumptions (the world is real, our sensations are correct etc.). Without them you won't be able to have any meaningful conversation, whether it's about morality or about physical facts. So this is our Step 1.
After Step 1, in conversations about the physical world, you go straight to the evidence, tests etc. that prove or disprove physical facts. As for the moral conversations, you're gonna need to make a second set of assumptions, the Step 2 (murder, stealing, raping are wrong etc.). And this is exactly the difference that makes morality subjective and science objective: both need Step 1, but only the morality needs Step 2. Maybe I missed something tho, I've slept 3 hours...
I would agree with observation I just wouldn't say that it makes science objective and morality subjective - I look at it from the perspective of taking the necessary assumptions as true for me and leaving those unnecessary ones - while believing in external world and in my senses I perceive as crucial for survival the moral intuition (although it's the same as the other ones) doesn't seem that important in order to live.
Or, since you don’t know if anything is really real, instead of having meaningful conversation, you could just sing, dance, laugh and love. Except for the dreadful work you need to do to survive every day.
Good point there. But I think Destiny's stance here would be something like the step 2 assumptions you're making are actually quite different from the step 1 assumptions, particularly when the former can be rigorously tested against even having assumed that these are agreed assumptions. However, the step 2 ones here can't be rigorously tested against even if agreed upon, for that you can very easily interpose exceptions in certain scenarios that they are not, in fact or in ethics, wrong.
So ultimately this boils down to the on the balance of probability argument: assumptions about the physical world are far more likely to be tested and therefore a consensus is much easier to result. Assumptions about moral "facts" are much harder to have the same effect, hence moral objectivity (being an absolute term) is very hard to establish.
I think Hegel's response to scepticism still stands up. From the Introduction of the Phenomenology of Spirit (section 74):
"Meanwhile, if the fear of falling into error sets up a mistrust of Science [Science here means any form of systematic, rational study], which in the absence of such scruples gets on with the work itself, and actually cognises something, it is hard to see why we should not turn around and mistrurt this very mistrust. Should we not be concerned as to whether this fear of error is not just the error itself? Indeed, this fear takes something - a great deal in fact - for granted as truth, supporting its scrupples and inferences on what is itself in need of prior scrutiny to see if it is true. To be specific, it takes for granted certain ideas about cognition as an instrument and as a medium, and assumes that there is a difference between ourselves and this cognition. Above all, it presupposes that the Absolute [meaning the perfect Truth] stands on one side and cognition on the other, independent and separated from it, and yet it is something real; or in other words, it presupposes that cognition which, since it is exluded from the Absolute, is surely outside of truth as well, is nevertheless true, an assumption whereby qhat calls itself fear of error reveals itself rather as fear of the truth."
Interesting conversation. I wonder if the "sense" data for moral gut feeling is less concrete and harder to independently varify. People may think they feel that way, but how could we test that they do feel some way? How could we compare our feelings with each other? How could we know that the feeling comes from wrongness, since that is interpretation of the subject? In sense of data of some external reality, we could use specific tools, models and such to get more precise and independent data. While the subjective feeling of "wrongness" feels highly subjective and hard to test for.
On the other way i understand the idea of "smuggling" an assumption. Though I would simple think that, given that morality is much more discussed topic then the existance of reality, it's simple a convenient assumption not some contradiction. More like different degrees of how much you expect the common baseline of your subjective view of the objective world or morality is other people to hold.
There is no sense data for morality. Sense data exists to perceive objects in space. Morality isn't an object in space, it's an evaluative judgement about actions by humans based on expectations around standards of behavior.
This was really good. Destiny appeals to empiricism for justifying the objectivity of physical versus moral systems, Alex responds with sure, but our faith in the physical world is still grounded in the assumption that our sense data is accurate at all (That I’m not just some brain in a vat) so why not just extend that same somewhat arbitrary faith in the objectivity of physical systems to the objectivity of moral systems? We can doubt that the physical world exists (What if I’m a brain in a vat?), sure, but that doesn’t change the fact that we feel as though it does. Similarly, we can doubt the fact that objective morality exists, but that doesn’t change the fact that we feel strong intuition that it does. Basically Alex argues for a more pragmatic definition of objectivity-he doesn’t care if something “actually” exists independently of the mind, but just that something “practically” exists independent of the mind because our intuition informs us that it does. Destiny didn’t really have a response for it. Great debate!
Well we have no problem saying mathematics exist because we can agree on axioms, or we can change axioms if something is proven incorrect. But the system is essentially the agreement. Aside from something like the Ten Commandments, how can you define a an objective morality, how is it even finite? If we even agree on axioms but the elements it deals with are subjective senses and interpretations it just seems like an impossibility.
_"Similarly, we can doubt the fact that objective morality exists, but that doesn’t change the fact that we feel strong intuition that it does."_
Okay, but while someone may have a strong intuition about certain moral questions, this same intuition is not shared by everyone. I don't think everyone bases their morality on the exact same principles. Sure, well-being is one of them, but not the only one (or more like, well-being is a really broad concept, and there are different kinds of well-being). I don't think morality is universal. Sure, people do agree on certain really basic things like "murder is wrong" and "stealing is wrong". But that doesn't stop them from doing those things, because they'll find justifications for murder or stealing. In other words, some other moral belief overrides the "wrongness" of murder or stealing in those cases.
So, when is a murder justified? There will be a lot of different opinions on that topic, even if everyone accepts the idea that murder is generally wrong. Some people would argue that murder is always wrong - there is no situation where it's justified. Other people might argue that a lot of people would deserve to be murdered. And of course there are also psychopaths who don't even think murder is wrong. But we don't even have to talk about psychopaths - even if we talk about sane people, there are still going to be a lot of differing views on the topic.
I guess my point is, even if we could objectively say "murder is wrong", real life situations are always more complex than that. And it's in those more complex situations where people's morality actually starts to matter. That's when there will be a lot of different moral views on things. So, my point is, what's the actual value in saying that "murder is objectively wrong", when in real life basically every situation is going to be much more complex than that? Is there an objective answer to all of these issues? (Because I don't think there is - I think that depends on how much you value certain things. For example should we give murderers a second chance, or would it be justified to murder a murderer? I don't think that question has one objectively correct answer to it.)
Like sure, we may come up with an universal law that says that murder is wrong. But I think a more important thing is, what should be the consequence of murdering someone? That's when people's morality actually starts to matter. We can all agree that murder is wrong, but what should we do to murderers?
All in all, if everyone feels as if their own morality is somehow objective, but also people's moral views vary quite a lot, whose morality should we treat as the "objectively correct" one? Because people definitely don't have the same moral views. Just look at the abortion debate for example. Which side of the debate people are on depends on how much they value the mother's bodily autonomy vs the potential child's life.
My point is, moral questions are quite complex. They are usually a conflict of many different values, and your answer to the moral dilemma has to do with how much importance you put on each value. Let's take another example - the refugee debate. Those who are for stricter border control place more value on safety. Those who are more welcoming to refugees place more value on helping other people. No matter how much you talk about "open border policies" bringing more potential crime to the country, it won't change people's minds, because they still think it's more important to help those people, even if that leads to a bit higher crime rate, because otherwise a lot of innocent people are going to die. And similarly, no matter how much you talk about the importance of helping refugees, and how those people are going to die if you don't help them, it won't change people's minds, because they still think that their own safety is more important. So, what is the objective answer here? Is there a moral obligation to help refugees? Is there a limit to how many refugees should be accepted?
It's not that the side that's more concerned with safety doesn't care about innocent people's lives, or that the side that's more concerned with innocent people's lives doesn't care about safety. It's just what people see as more important. Some people think their own safety is more important. Other people think helping innocent people is more important. (I think nationality also plays a part in it. Some people think nationality is an important thing - if the question was about helping citizens of their own country, they would be a lot more open to it, but since the refugees aren't citizens yet, then it's really not their obligation to help those people, and they should look for help elsewhere. But other people think that nationality doesn't really matter - people should be helped regardless of where they come from. I just don't think there's an objective answer here - there are so many different factors at play, and it all depends on your values. Which values do you see as the most important ones? And that's where people differ. Even if they had basically the same values, they might still disagree on what the most important values are.)
@@MaggaraMarine The refugee problem is a little more complex than that. Pro-refugee advocates have never conceded that bringing in refugees increases crime rate, and I believe they cite good data for that point. At a core practical level it's more just a conflict of interest between the business classes who want more cheap labour, and a subset of the working class who get screwed over by that. Then on the periphery you have more higher order value conflicts, but none of it is so idealised as 'safety vs helping others'. Plenty of people just want closed borders because they're racist, and plenty of others only want open borders as a vanity position just to feel good about, because it makes no difference to their lives one way or the other.
@@Hankblue Okay, but basically all of this is irrelevant to my main point. It was just a random example and an oversimplification of the issue, I know. My main point was that there isn't one objective answer to questions like this. Even if it was as simple as safety vs helping others, some people would place more value on safety, whereas others would place more value on helping others. Which one is the "morally correct" answer?
But in reality, it's even more complex than that. There aren't just two different positions - there are a lot of many different things that affect decisions like that. It's a lot more complex than "murder is objectively wrong" (that was the example given in the video). That's my point.
U can argue with that same argument for God's existence since it is intuitive. So the question would be, then are all our intuitive beliefs true or supposed to be considered as axioms? And if not, how do we differentiate which is one are objective or true, what would be the standard to choose based on? If they are all objective or can be considered as axioms, then God's existence is as objective as objective morality.
18:00 actually what destiny posited was very fair. our ability to run tests over and over and gets the same result is so much more reliable and satisfying than almost anything we can do for morals. morals seems like hope while for the physical existence feels testable.
we could be living in a similation true, but to me that's a huge cop out.
Completely agree. I just discovered this guy, have watched a number of his videos out of curiosity, and the more I watch, the more tiresome and pointless and full of crap he becomes, because his whole thing is endlessly, fruitlessly, meaninglessly, taking every topic under the sun and holding it to implicitly impossible logical/philosophical standards, talking in circles around even himself, and NEVER saying anything of any substance about anything, because he is so interminably obsessed with looking at all questions through this, ultimately incredibly silly, absolutist philosophical lens that cannot every see the forest for the trees and just have an actual conversation about any topic. It is maddening to me, and I can't believe he just does this same song and dance, interminably, and is able to find what he is doing and saying a worthwhile exercise that should be continued, or that he has a large audience who can listen to these "arguments" repeatedly, and never get an actual real discussion about anything, when he insists on boiling everything down to this level.
When we run tests and get the same result over and over, we’ve reached a conclusion and the thing being tested demonstrated it’s reliability.
Why can’t we do the same with morality? Test and probe at it until we have a set of morals that exists in non-contradiction to all observers within the set? A universal morality that never demonstrates that its unreliable; but when it does we change something about it, our universal RELATION to it, to understand the universal idea of Good more, to include what was excluded, so it can once again demonstrate its reliability.
@@jedgrahek1426
Calm down.
@@swerzye4472 I think the problem is that everybody even people who think morality is objective - interpret the actual moral claims differently.
Like ok you say "murder is wrong" but you have no problem bombing children if you are on war with them. You simply redefine what murder is and there you go. Some would never do that and think all killing is wrong even ins self-defense. Some define abortion as murder some don't. Would you kill Hitler in 1942 if you had the chance - would that be good or bad? Most would say it is not bad.
OK but what in 1935 before he actually had done anyhing "really wrong". I mean he will do but he did not yet.
Lying is wrong. Ok. But lying to a murderer regarding the whereabouts of your family he wants fo kill is not. Almost everybody would agree with that.
But is lying to the police OK who want to find your brother who was dealing weed. Would it be wrong if he had hurt somebody or it was not weed but heroine.
If he was indeed a murder.
If you sit 100 people into a room I guarantee you if you ask questions long enough you will have 100 different sets of answers.
Destiny may have been better served by approaching this debate from a slightly anthropological position. Although on first appearance, it seems like humanity has a very defined and shared set of moral beliefs about certain behaviours that transcend all cultures (e.g., murder or theft), defining both in the realm of actual social practice can be slightly trickier. There are many instances whereby taking someone's property or killing them will be seen as unethical by many people, but not by others. In fact, entire cultures have been built around behaviours other societies consider abhorrent. Of course, this still presupposes some idea of shared morality that is debatable regardless of what is at stake, but it serves to muddy the waters considerably if we are to take a pragmatic view on how we arrive at the premise of this video
True. But on the flip side of that, the vast majority of countries on earth outlaw slavery, where once it was ubiquitous.
Even where you have major disagreements, it's not that we don't generally share the same values. We tend to just disagree a about degree.
It seems to me that a personal experience that generates an ethical/moral reaction is more like a personal reaction to art rather than your sense experience that generates an empirical "truth" like the earth orbits the sun. So I might "feel" that murder is wrong (like I love Turner's paintings) whereas you might say that murder has no moral value (you are uncaring about Turner's paintings) and someone else might say murder is moral (they hate Turner's paintings). Whereas we might all agree that the scientific (sense) data we have seen indicates that the Earth orbits the sun (to first order). There seems to be a difference between these 2 approaches.
You kinda missed Alex's point. Of course we migh all agree that scientific data indicates that the Earth orbits around the sun. So long of course as we all *assume* that our data is reliable, that our senses correctly interpret the physical world, that the physical world exists, that rules of logic are true and so on. Most of these assumptions rely precisely on our intuition (eg. something can't simultaneously be and not be) and so our morals rely on our intuition.
@@Exchromer but no most don’t rely on intuition most rely on precise repeatable results that can be tested. It’s why things like ocams razor and neutons flaming laser sword exist
@@Dizzy-4 Science has changed over time, just like our ideas of morality. I could point to human rights as evidence of it's utility. FYI, I have a science background and believe the scientific method is the best sensor we have for exploring the natural world. However, I also acknowledge that when you boil science down, and as Alex alludes, you arrive at a point where you're pulling yourself up by your own hair (Münchhausen trilemma).
@@Exchromerof course, but that sort of solipsism is useless. It makes for pretty arguments when trying to compare the real material universe to objective morality but it's not really worth considering
Oh damn there is more!
I've seen Alex's argument presented in a much simpler way by Matt Dillahunty.
In simple terms, it is definitely true that there is no way to prove or disprove the fundamental ideas of right & wrong. It is always a subjective framework.
You can, however, come to an agreement on a subjective GOAL for morality and then make objective observations in relation to that goal.
If we come to an agreement that morality/ethics should be to provide a system where as many humans (or whatever overall group you want to focus on) can have the highest level of happiness, health and freedom while experiencing the least amount of harm, oppression etc etc
Now within that system, we can make objective statements based on what helps to further that goal the most.
Murder causes extreme harm in that it literally kills someone, affects their families/friends, etc etc. At the same time it provides no direct benefit that outweighs the harm.
I am explaining it poorly as I unfortunately don't remember the exact wording he used and what specific podcast he said it on. Hopefully I got the idea across though.
You did Matt's tap dance perfectly. Neither you nor Matt can say murder is wrong objectively. Sad.
This gives me hope that one day we can get a Steve Bonnell v Trent Horn debate
That would be crazy.
I assume you saw it right?
@@thetrib1 I did indeed. Sometimes dreams really do come true
@@michaelroy6630 nice lol
I don't know... I feel like it all ultimately depends on how you define objective and subjective. People often claim that objective means that something is undeniable. But I don't think that is the meaning at all, that is a consequence of what it means to be objective.
An objective property is a property that exists within the object, that can be found within it by any independent observer, as long as they have the proper tools and understanding of how to extract that information. This is stuff like mass, material, electric charge and so on.
A subjective property however is a property that doesn't exist within the object itself, but exist within the mind of the people thinking about the object. There is no beautifulness within a flower or tastiness within an apple, it is only beautiful and tasty in the head of people thinking about those objects. One is about the object, the other one is about the subjects analysing the objects.
And so even if you are a brain in a vat, and you are experiencing the world through code or whatever. The code is still an object that can be examined and determine their objective properties. Even if the moon is made out of code, or if it stopped existing tomorrow, the code of the moon has properties like its mass at a given time. But if you think it is pretty, that is not something found within the moon, but found within your brain. On how your brain reacts when it sees the moon. The moon is only pretty when someone thinks it is pretty.
So following this definitions... I think it is pretty clear that morality cannot possibly be objective, because there is no rightness or wrongness that can be discovered and studied within actions. A murder has objective properties, like the weapon, the time of death, things that can be discovered and independently verified by observers. But the "wrong" part, is something that exists only within the brains of people analysing said murder. A murder is just wrong when someone is there to think it is wrong. It is certainly possible that a different species with different chemical make up than ours, simply cannot see why murder would be wrong. Certainly some animals don't appear to believe it. They are only right or wrong when there is somewhere there to think about them in those terms. Otherwise that property cannot be ever found within those objects.
Even if you give it to ethics and say that we should just assume pleasure is good and suffering is bad, it doesn't get us very far if we wanna make a conclusive theory and not just live our lives in a way that we expect is morally okay-ish. It gives us nothing about their relation or any other possible goods and bads, like living in general, consciousness, etc. And just pleasure and suffering don't seem enough to reason up from. And then I have to give it to Steven. As far as I can think of, there doesn't seem to be tests or experiments you can do that really give you conclusive answers. You might ask a billion people that all agree, but you might just have asked the chinese population about eating dogs or what have you.
That's where tjumps moral theory comes in I think. Morality has little to do with pain or pleasure. It has everything to do with consent. The theory predicts simulations of multible AI systems with disparate values will converge on a morality based upon the consent of sentient wills. It also predicts if there are alien civilizations they will converge on a consent based morality. And lastly it predicts in the future something as simple as a rock naturally falling that hits someone unwillingly will be considered immoral.
The problem thers no objective truth in ethics or morals.
We have multiple things that is ethically wrong for no reason in the west. Then europe have difrent ethics and China have difrent ethics etc
@@inteallsviktigt The theory basically says objective morality is what collective morality is approaching. In the same way Newton looked at the movement of the planets to discover the principle of gravity. We can look at the movement of moral evolution and discover the principle of morality.
"Even if you give it to ethics and say that we should just assume pleasure is good and suffering is bad-"
That word-soup has nothing in common with ethics, or reasoning. Subjectivity does not allow for absolute definitions like that. There are good kinds of suffering, and there are bad kinds of pleasure.
In fact, I don't even know what are you trying to say, if anything at all.
@@inteallsviktigt ....therfore given the predictions come true. The consent view of morality is objectively true in the same way gravity is objectively true.
To be fair to Mr Destiny, we don't wanna lose arguments, and a meta look at experience is very tricky.
Beautfull discussion and a topic I wished to discussed by you for a very looooong time!
I have a problem with objective morality and the reason is, I don't see it as fundamental and it is in conflict with my sensory intuition that the world exist! As all I learned about the physical world, there are fundamental forces that are very stable, because they existed for billions of years. Now morality, as seen through evolution did develop as a result of the physical world. So how can it be fundamental?
And there are sciences showing that certain sensory intuition are in conflict with anotjher and the results if doing the experiments differ from our expectation.
Andso I rather sacrifice objective morality and the objectivity of my experiences than to sacrifice the objective external world.
Michael Huemer's book "Ethical Intuitionism" is the best defence of objective morality that I've seen.
Isn't the only thing that is "objective" is the causes-and-effects that only the scientific methods can clearly show and prove for us? I'm confused with the fetish for the word "objective" in terms of human desires and ethics and morals and politics and musical preferences and taste preferences and beauty preferences.
@@letsomethingshine There are instances of objective morality, if merely by definition alone. The only ones claiming that morality is objective as a whole, are confused theists.
@@letsomethingshine Not according to moral realists, no.
Isn't trying to prove ethics through science a massive naturalist fallacy
I've always thought morals/ethics are real and their function is to hold communities together. Now does that mean I believe in objective morality? I don't know, I will say i think morality is not for trees or Tigers maybe chimps, dogs or lions have them but what I'm leading towards is that I think morals are a social phenomenon...
I feel like when it goes this fundamental the difference between subjective and objective blurs out so much that you can argue anything as being objective. And it's exactly what Alex started doing while trying to make your internal feelings - moral intuitions - objective. The same thing can be said about any feeling.
its really just his vehicle to push veganism.
In everything one has to start with at least a few basic axioms. Even in mathematics, as Kurt Gödel proved, there are things we can KNOW are true but cannot prove...and so in all the sciences we start with the axiom that we can trust our senses (accounting, of course, for their limits in terms of sensitivity and such). It is true in ethics as well, one needs to start from at least one or two basic axioms. This is why Ben Franklin convinced Thomas Jefferson to change his original "sacred and undeniable" in the Declaration of Independence to "self evident." One has to start somewhere.
I think the clear advantage of starting with self evident axioms for ethics, rather than starting from a deity or deities, is that the self evident axiom is consistent, whereas deities are "persons" and thus whatever morality one gets from a deity or deities will be not just subjective but completely arbitrary.
Yes belief is an objective external world and ethical beliefs require some basic assumptions. One difference is with beliefs about the external world can be falsified in a way that ethical beliefs can not. It can not be proved the external world physical world is a consistent but assuming that it is and by using objective facts we have been able to create very useful descriptions of how the world is. Ethics on the other hand is full of dilemmas and problems with many possible answers and no clear method to determine which answer is best. I think that is because moral systems are not internally consistent because we make them up from the most subjective of stuff, our own wants and desires which often conflict, can change on a whim and are what we value most.
18:51 the concept of “right” and “wrong” is just a human construct. i believe, in a more metaphysical sense, there is no “good” and “bad”, there just “is”.
Absolutely 💯
Alex I am impressed by your presentation, but had not realised that you have leanings towards moral (as well as material) realism. I do too; although I use your approach, more fundamentally material realism implies a determinist perspective within which it is hard to fine a coherent space for ethical relativism.
I think ethical relativism makes it hard to account for value judgements that we know are more or less as certain as a heliocentric solar system. examples I have discussed with my classes is the proposition that rape is wrong, but also that JS Bach is one of a handful of the greatest composers. At first sight many might assert the latter (but rarely the former) is just a matter of subjective taste, but in reality I do not think we can genuinely conceive of a future world in which it is thought that Bach was not much good at all and there is incredulity that at one time he was rated so highly by practicing musicians.
Alex is an emotivist, not a moral realist or utilitarian. Emotivism treats moral statements as expressions of personal emotions and not objective/true properties.
_"I do not think we can genuinely conceive of a future world in which it is thought that Bach was not much good at all"_
Maybe not, but it might be that at one point people just don't care about his music at all (they won't say it's bad music, but they may not see it as "important" music, if that makes sense). There are a lot of great composers that people have forgotten about - and also there are a lot of composers that are unknown to the Western audience. It's not that people think these composers weren't good. It's just that people aren't familiar enough with their music or their style sounds too "foreign" to people's ears. (BTW, I doubt Bach's music "speaks" to people who aren't familiar with the sound of Western classical music, at least to the same degree as to people from "the West".)
Bach wasn't even the top German composer of his time. Telemann was. But nobody really knows Telemann these days. I mean, they may have heard the name, but how many Telemann's pieces are people familiar with?
I do think there's a possible alternative timeline where Bach is just one composer among the others. Bach owes a lot of his modern popularity to Mendelssohn who started performing his pieces 80 years after his death. It would definitely be possible that Bach would be one of those forgotten baroque composers that people don't talk that much about.
Also if we imagine a world where Western music no longer has the same value as it does today, I'm pretty sure people wouldn't be able to appreciate Bach's music to the same degree. A lot of it has to do with familiarity. For example even when it comes to Western music, when you start listening to music that was written before the baroque period, it just sounds kind of foreign to our ears. Like take Machaut - one of the most famous medieval composers. He was definitely a skilled composer, but his music just sounds weird to the modern ear, because it sounds so different. Bach on the other hand sounds quite "normal" - it's not too different from modern music.
So, let's assume that the music of the future just sounds totally different from contemporary music. At one point, it older music will simply sound so archaic that people will have a difficult time with "getting" it, similarly as Machaut's music just sounds a bit strange, and it's difficult to rate his music on the same scale as Bach or Beethoven.
There's no denying the fact that Bach was a highly skilled composer. There's definitely a reason behind his popularity that's more than just "subjective taste" alone. But also, I don't think people from other cultures would appreciate his music to the same degree, similarly as people from the West aren't that interested in great artists from other cultures. And if you saw or heard two artists' work from a culture you aren't familiar with, would you instantly be able to assess whose art was more highly regarded? My point is, appreciation of art requires familiarity with the style. You only start to truly understand "quality" once you have familiarized yourself with the style. This applies even when it comes to styles you are more unfamiliar with within the same culture. You first need to get familiar with the basic "language" of the art style in order to actually understand all of the nuances of that style, and recognize greatness in that style. Someone not familiar with baroque music might listen to Bach, Handel and Vivaldi and not hear much difference between them. But once they get more familiar with the baroque style, they'll start hearing more nuances, and suddenly Vivaldi sounds way different from Bach.
@@MaggaraMarine Thank you for your long reply. The possibility that a genre could ultimately become inaccessible, although unknowable could be plausible. The example of Machaut is well chosen, though I think it could be used to support either side. The fact that a genre has become inaccessible does not have to affect its intrinsic quality.
Another issue that can be used to support both sides is that some artistic figures succeed in creating the paradigm in which they inevitably appear to be centrally significant. The example I am thinking of is Shakespeare, whose created language has become so imbedded in aspects of the language that subsequent writers (and critics) use, and is so part of the literary landscape that the status of Shakespeare becomes self-perpetuating.
I think you can assess morality objectively by simply looking at the outcomes of any moral action or belief. This can be done through sense data as well.
The problem is you are presupposing which actions would be considered moral and immoral.
@@moe3645well said
@@moe3645 Even more fundamentally, they're presupposing a utilitarian outlook where the 'best outcome' is the ultimate measure of good.
@@Hankbluecouldn't have said better
Sure the basis of ethics is subjective, but we say it's objective relative to the goal that we invented for our selves which is human well-being something that developed in us through evolution. Murder is objectively wrong the same way it's wrong to use contraceptives if you want to concieve a child , it doesn't work to achieve the intended goal
If the basis is subjective then the whole thing is.
@@21stcenturyrambo16 Chess as in the game is not objective, it does not exists in the real world is just a game, there are chess boards, chess matches but in the wild chess doesn't exist, is just a game that we invented and changed the rules, if we have the goal of winning the chess match or even not losing the game, then there are objectively right and wrong choices that would allow us to get to that goal
@@21stcenturyrambo16yes, but IF, and only if, you can get people to commit to the same goals, then you can objectively evaluate actions with respect to those goals
Not exactly perfect, because people will evaluate things differently, and people won’t ever all agree on goals, but it’s a starting point considering most humans DO tend to generally converge on the simplest goals (lack of pain, seeking happiness, freedom, health etc)
@@anonymouszebra1239 What wouldnt be objective by that definition? If we all just agreed that Islam, Christianity, Buddhism is true is that also objective? And who cares what humans tend to gravitate towards? People tend to also gravitate towards a lot of bad stuff.
@@21stcenturyrambo16 Category error. This isn't about agreement or deeming the most popular idea objective. Ethics is about real effects of harm done to sentient beings. It's not about abstract ideas of imaginary sky daddy.
And yes, objectivity and subjectivity are based on perspective and method in order to arrive at a conclusion. You're correct that everything can be seen through an objective or subjective lens. This is not extraordinary nor absurd. This is very base level.
All morality (and all "good/true" beliefs really) boils down to attempting to achieve desired goals (including "mapping our beliefs" as close to reality as possible) which always depends on knowing the TOTAL UNIVERSAL cause-and-effect relationships that we discover well, and that is best ONLY through science. The fact that ALL useful philosophy/ethics/morals rely on science is true also of BOTH utilitarianism and deontology (since you have to "discover" what deontological principles are good in the first place, you kind of have to utilitarianly test them first). Otherwise, everyone is just relying on subjective feelings alone.
So if subjective morality is true and a person believes it’s good to be a racist, it’s good?
It's interesting to note that the topic of moral objectivity one such question polled by philosophers (of all fields) through the philpapers, and a vast majority align with moral objectivity. Now, is not to say the argument must be correct, but it does hint that there must be some strong theoretical grounds for their consensus. I'm interested in reading what that is, in case it clarifies a lot of the concerns brought up in this video.
Now, on the topic of the lack of sense data for moral statements, I'd argue that is incorrect. An empiricist would, of course, claim that it is possible to reduce all subjective thoughts, feelings, and experiences as a set of physical observables that map onto these things. I'd agree. And in that case, one's guilt, feelings, and "gut instinct" when it comes to something like murder reveal that there must be some kind of physiological cause. In this case, we are in a way the instruments for "measuring" moral truths- quite unreliable instruments of course because we can still commit evil while and justify it somehow as well as conflate intrinsic moral truths for culturally derived ethical traditions. But one can imagine a scenario, where if we could scientifically quantify emotional states and experiences as a set of physiological responses then one can map the measure of moral truths to these responses.
Edit: On the topic on being unable to imagine solving any sort of moral question but imagining the possible solving of dark matter, I'd like to bring attention to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. In fact, there are plenty of mathematical statements that have no truth or false value for some sufficiently complex formal systems. So the discomfort towards the discussion of morals is not new. But if one can overcome the equivalent hurdle as presented in maths, what's to say one can not overcome it here?
And the reason we cannot live in a world that proves "induction is true" or "we do not live in a simulation" is because these are statements with no truth/false value.
Funnily enough, the consistency of a formal system is one such example of a statement with no truth/false value. And systems that CAN prove their own consistency cannot be consistent.
Two brilliant minds! Well done!
Destiny a brilliant?
@@ShaharIshog-lx7pi yes. check your bias and it's easy to see lol. you don't have to like him to admit he's intelligent
Brilliant? Fucking brilliant? LMAO@@thetrib1
@@wdyrm yes brilliant
@@thetrib1 He's intelligent. More intelligent than most most people. "Brilliant" carries a gravitas that I don't think applies to him.
Moral systems are all about drawing a line in the sand and following it, the only way one can do it wrong is by contradicting oneself, and most people do
Moral intuition is nested within existential intuition. So it's an assumption that relies on another assumption. Therefore it can't be just as justified an assumption.
The way you ask the question can often matter more than the question you ask. In the case of abortion asking _When_ is abortion acceptable will net you more allies than asking the broader question. Sidenote: the abortion question is asked in an ambigous way to divide us.
When it comes to the question: is it okay to murder people? even if you get a positive outcome from an individual (either immediately or through debate) that stance may be conditional and only apply to the person they had the debate with, that person may decide that other people are okay to commit murder against just not you.
I'm glad we have decided as human beings to choose governence. But I am glad only because I have been groomed to appreciate governance and because it allowed me to live.
When it comes to ethical disagreements between governments I would like to say I critisize my own government even to my own detriment and I reject the excuses made for the "crimes" my government commited and instead search for the "truth." I also think it's unethical to continue to make the same choices that led to those crimes to begin with and that every government that chooses to make those choices rightfully deserves a revolution or a reform in which the opposing party is cast out, or reformed. Those same people I would cast out or reform today call me a traitor for wanting my government to be better.
Nuance and context matters, I agree. And truth often comes with personal costs.
If someone thinks murder is ok, you could end that discussion by killing him. He won’t mind. It’s all ok.
So you think that murder is ok as long as the other party doesn't mind?
Well, I kinda agree with you.
Saying objective morals don’t exist doesn’t mean murder is ok. You can still argue against it. It’s just that on a scientific level it’s not objectively wrong (but it’s not right either)
@@linkalot7415 thanks pal, I was being flippant and disrespectful not making a serious argument.
I think the sense data for morality is a little something called empathy. There is some interesting evolutionary neurobiology pointing towards some of the innate responses in the brain to perceiving the pain of other animals (yes, even non-humans). Another clear evidence here is that most of us have already agreed upon many moral intuitions, like murder and rape are wrong, and demonstrate prosocial behaviours. The way our societies organize and work together relies on our inherent prosocial behaviour. Even with some of the awful things that humans do we are one of the most successful species on the planet due to our cooperativity- our brains mean very little without that fundamental ability to work together.
“Consider that the love of divine charity is so closely joined in the soul with perfect patience, that neither can leave the soul without the other. For this reason (if the soul elect to love Me) she should elect to endure pains for Me in whatever mode or circumstance I may send them to her. Patience cannot be proved in any other way than by suffering, and patience is united with love as has been said. Therefore bear yourselves with manly courage, for, unless you do so, you will not prove yourselves to be spouses of My Truth, and faithful children, nor of the company of those who relish the taste of My honor, and the salvation of souls.”
-St. Catherine Of Siena, p. 10
giving in that ethics exist doesnt mean killing is bad it just means that there are good and bad things you still need to prove that something is bad or good
the objective subjective distinction is taken for granted, and not specified in its nuance or shortcomings, which often leads to this kind of disagreement.
Alex is surely right here when he makes the case that truth is ultimately always underpinned by a fundamental axiom which we take to be practically objective, whether it be in relation to the physical qualities of the universe e.g. the physical universe we perceive and interact with actually exists and therefore we can make truth claims about the physical nature of the universe, or in relation to morality e.g. what we inherently pursue as human beings is pleasure/well-being therefore we can make truth claims about what is conducive to pleasure/well-being. And we DO have sense-data for both - consider the hunger games and imagine that has become the reality. We can say with confidence that we have decreased the amount of well-being in the world because that is just the reality of what is experienced, so we can say we are objectively wrong in our decision to act in such a way because our belief that this would maximise well-being is incorrect. Granted, that sense-data (reduced sense of well-being) is likely much harder to measure and evaluate, but that is a limitation of our current knowledge and understanding, that doesn't make it less true.
Not sure what Alex’s point here is.
Yes at a fundamental level there is nothing that is truly objective, because even the concept of objectivity is a choice to believe in. Humans subjectively choose to believe in objectivity
The difference between this and moral truth, is that almost all humans believe in a similar concept of objectivity that can be appealed to. Most people do not have similar ethical systems
So here’s a question/counterargument for Induction: If for example i say, “When i eat bread i feel nourished and therefore bread nourishes me” and the counter argument is, “Well, just because the bread you’ve eaten in the past nourishes you doesn’t mean the next will.” This is basically saying i shouldn’t judge anything and make no assumptions and have no expectations because i could be wrong, right? So in response, i think that one of the qualifiers for something to be bread is that it nourishes me. So now for it to be bread, to me, it must nourish me. Is this a valid counterargument?
I don't know if it's because I'm anal or what. but your example doesn't seem like this to me: "This is basically saying i shouldn’t judge anything and make no assumptions and have no expectations because i could be wrong, right?" to me that is saying just because you assume and have expectations, you should be cautious and understand that you could be wrong. essentially tread lightly.
any induction argument is going to end up being a tread lightly conclusion imo.
Even if we trust our sense data, we are epistemically obliged to synthesize all that data into the most parsimonious theory possible. That is, when we see or feel two different things, we should try and come up with a common explanation for both of them, instead of assuming they are each a fundamental kind of truth. And so, we should assume that moral facts are reducible to physical facts, and our moral perceptions have a physical explanation, if that is at all plausible (and it seems awfully plausible to me).
This is moral naturalism right?
Nothing is objective except that logic is relationships that always replicate and is indistinguishable from objective.
I would argue the reason u can separate ethics from that logic is not lack of sense data but more so the fact that morality has has been selected by evolution to which is completely relative to our biological species meaning if we were another organism where things like murder would be to our evolutionary benefit then we would not find them immoral or not even comprehend it at all if the species brain is not as developed but it is all subjective to the organism
I really can’t support platforming Destiny or engaging in any decent conversation with them considering what they’ve said regarding s. assault. Truly one of most disgusting people I’ve ever had the displeasure of knowing about.
Would you mind sharing what he's said about sexual assault (that you deem to be bad) with receipts?
@@cogitoergosum9069 sure, I can’t post links because youtube autodeletes messages with links, but the title of a reddit post of the statements in question (I believe what are now deleted because Destiny deletes almost all of their tweets) is titled “omni liberal apologizes on twitter :>”. Destiny blamed a victim of stealth-removing a condom during intercourse. Truly some of the most vile things I’ve heard online from such a large figure.
I should clarify, Destiny blamed, insulted, and belittled an assault victim for not being able to “say no” to being assaulted
@@darthfastball1150 His point was actually sound there, this is just vibes you're talking about. If you realise someone is stealthing and you literally don't pull away or say anything whatsoever, that should definitely be highlighted as a bad thing to do. You don't have to say it in the most insulting way possible like Destiny did, but that is what gets the most engagement on Twitter.
@@darthfastball1150 of you had actually listened to the arguments he made rather than a quote tweet for engagement, you'd probably agree with his take 🤣
I think the distinction is this:
You won't have any trouble convincing most people to accept the assumption that "sense data is accurate" before a discussion. When all parties have agreed you can call that objectively true.
On the other hand, you'll most likely have a lot of trouble convincing people your proposed set of moral rules are objectively true before a discussion.
I aspire to come up with or find a system of ethics that aligns as close as possible with my own personal sense of right of wrong. I would not call this objective though, except if it was agreed to be so for the purpose of a discussion.
Morals are subjective. They don’t exist in grounded fact.
I guess my first question would be to define ethics. By ethics do they mean consequentialist ethical principles ?
What they mean, is calling something good, or bad.
@@avoidedmonster4117 OK. Like a good steak dinner or a bad one?
The last point of the discussing was interesting, destiny made the comment regarding the notion that we all universally agree on a subjective observation of empirical sense data (1+1=2), how ever there are major axial differences on the subjective ethical observations (killing is bad, or I think in his example he used abortion).
I don’t know if I’m convinced with Alex’s response that a small minority don’t hold the same subjective intuitions on empirical sense data, and that they are ignored by the scientific world. I think every human on earth agrees 1+1=2, while you have some psychopaths that subjectively don’t believe killing is bad
Morality and ethics are inter subjective. But, the best way we can reach an "objective" ethical code is by "putting ourselves in others shoes". When we do this, we REALLY think and understand the pain or happiness someone feels. Ofcourse some people don't care about others, but, that exists in all situations - you never find all 7 billion of us agreeing on anything. In cases where there is a threat to us, to mitigate the threat, causing harm I think is justified - self interest (to a certain extent) always comes first. Again, I believe that ethics are inter subjective, but, for a more coherent society, we need a set of conduct to be established.
Ps - "certain extent" can also be attained using the "putting ourselves in others shoes" principle.
In this case, what are your stances on abortion?
I think abortion can be justified coz we're acting on self interest - ofcourse, if you can raise and provide for a child, you are obligated to do so; in other situations, I think it's reasonable to do so.
In this case, does that mean that all interviewers are morally obliged to provide employment to everyone and anyone? No, this is a logical fallacy. Situations also require to analyse other factors - in this problem, we should take into consideration the goals of the business, wheather the candidate is suitable, etc. So, no, "putting ourselves in others shoes" is not the only concept that need to be evaluated.
I think similarly to Destiny. I liked hearing an intelligent rebuttal to moral relativism. I'll need to consider the distinction between moral facts and scientific facts.
Human beings have flexible definitions of what is considered 'self' and what is considered 'other'. Some people are incapable of any empathy whatsoever. Others feel empathy for all human beings and all living things. A bacterial 'culture' (keyword) can hijack the signals of their neighbors to essentially form an sympathetic network in which each individual no longer understands the boundary of their own internal systems. Signals (let's say emotions) are shared as if they are occurring internally. This is the Christian ethical model, and also how complex organisms come into being from simple origins.
But we have the ability to build our sympathetic networks more deliberately. Through religion and/or philosophy we can even learn to include the natural environment in our homeostatic boundary (although this is not easily done). Really understanding the interconnectedness of systems can push against our narrow definitions of self vs. other. This pushes our morality outward so that we evaluate good and bad in terms of homeostasis within increasingly expanding networks. Sadhguru seems to have a good mastery of this philosophy.
The counterargument to the concept of universal oneness and a grand morality is probably summed up by Michael Levin. An organism composed of a great many individual parts will maximize homeostasis at a large scale, which subordinates the wellbeing of individual parts toward the greater good. In other words, the loss of a few skin cells is hardly worth crying over after a great day of rock climbing. Unless you're a skin cell, or part of the epidermis worker's union.
There is no morality that can maximize homeostasis at all levels, not while consciousness is split into tightly individualized units. It's also probably a true statement to say that individuals appreciate both a sense of individuality and a sense of community, and neither to the exclusion of the other. So we are doomed to wrestle with balancing morality across scales.
Most people that I’ve seen who are moral skeptics seem to be whirling in existential crisis/ dread. I don’t know if that indicates anything
“If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”
His listeners knew what the cross meant: a death in utter agony, nakedness, and humiliation. They didn’t think of the cross automatically in religious terms, as we do. They knew it in all of its awful power. Unless you crucify your ego, you cannot be my follower, Jesus says. This move-this terrible move-has to be the foundation of the spiritual life.
Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (05/27/23)"
After you choose life as a primary ethics, there are only two choices left.
#1 Going against your primary choice of life - establishing a self-contradictory set of ideas.
#2 Follow the primary choice, values and ethics in all your choices in life - objective ethics.
Self-contradictions are irrelevant for a rational discussion on ethics.
The dead ones are irrelevant for a rational discussion on ethics.
Only one alternative remaisn for we the living:
Follow the primary choice, values and ethics in all your choices in life - objective ethics.
Semantics plays a major problem with ethics.. I think morality can be objective or subjective depending on the exact definition or perception of what it is.
You're right.
One way of looking at it, is to say let's judge a female and how pretty she is. That's pretty subjective, right? Yep. But let's say this girl is 28 years old, and we got all the girls aged between 18-38 and put them in a line. Let's say that's exactly 1.5 Billion people. Then we got every male in the world aged 18-38 years old, also exactly 1.5 Billion. And every male had a preference and scored the females from least attractive to most attractive. Now if you do the maths, that's a very large figure, BUT it is a finite amount. What that means is that based on complete chance, chaos and randomness, you would actually deduce who is narrowly the most attractive female in the population. AND due to seeing patterns in nature, if you were able to run the experiment, you would actually get strong tendencies, so it won't actually be a huge probability figure. It would be a bell curve, but there would be a decent handful of girls who scored nearly perfectly, and one of them would have narrowly edged out the rest.
What does this mean?
The significance is that we can solve for subjective opinions and deduce an objective answer. You could do that for which candy tastes best, perfume smells the nicest, which blanket feels best to the touch, or melody sounds the most charming.
Okay, but what does this have to do with Morality?
Well, morality is a deeply subjective topic. But based on the above thought exercise, it is theoretically possible (but practically difficult), to deduce the Objective Facts out of the Subjective Opinions. So if we crunched the numbers long and hard enough, we would be able to derive some answers, things we see repeating naturally, or converging, as to an objective consensus on morality. So while it might be impossible to have Divine Morality, or Absolute Morality, we could at least derive Objective Morality. We already have the intelligence to quantify intelligence (IQ test), we just don't have the collective wisdom to quantify Wisdom itself..... yet.
@@ekinteko "What that means is that based on complete chance, chaos and randomness, you would actually deduce who is narrowly the most attractive female in the population." by a percentage. it's just like MVP for the NBA. someone gets picked the MVP every year. but are they actually the most valuable player? the answer essentially unknown. the reality is humans are imperfect. so day in and day out the value of a player will fluctuate. same with most attractive girl. is it with makeup? without makeup? with clothes on without clothes on? how funny she is or isn't? like...there are so many factors and almost every factor can be tweaked to the point that you get a different result. so there being an objective truth with imperfect beings doesn't work imo. it will still be percentages. meaning it will still depend on who you ask.
@@thetrib1 Wrong.
You failed to comprehend the fabric of the idea.
Your analogy to the MVP is flawed because that is merely guessed by people making guesses. My thought experiment showed that it is actually possible, in a real-world sense, to determine who is the most attractive female out there. We do this by having one male rate 1.5 Billion females from least to most desirable. Then we do this with the second male, then third male, until we have all 1.5 Billion males do their ratings. Then you collate the data, and come up with which person had the highest preference. It is a very large figure, but it is finite.
So, while it's true we will never be able to conduct such an experiment. At least not with current technological limitations. But it is theoretically possible to conclude objective facts from subjective opinions.
It won't depend on who you ask, it is an objective answer. The most attractive female in the world is #597,432 as an example. Sure YOU personally might not find her the most attractive, because that is your individual opinion, but you would find her attractive nonetheless. And most males will do so as well, with a good portion of them nominating her as their top preference.
Does the concept make sense now?
Murder is subjectively defined, so how can it be objectively wrong? It can only be subjectively wrong, and that's OK, we make subjective judgments all the time.
No definition isn't subjectively defined, because it requires a human to define them. Humans are necessarily dependent on their own senses, which makes everything a human can think, feel or do subjective. This is the anti-realist perspective that sometimes even leads to solipsism.
If your goal is to fly to the moon, is it objectively better to use a rocket to do it or a bycicle?
Conversely, if your goal is not to harm people, is it objectively better to give somebody with an infection antibiotics or waterboard them?
Just because ethics are conditional doesn't mean they're not objective.
In order to be consistent in the approach that you're espousing, you'd have to scratch objectivity from your vocabulary, because even science can be reduced to core values and intuition.
Objectivity and subjectivity are just two different lenses we can view different scenarios through. Ethics can be both more or less objective or subjective depending on the argument and what you offer to support it. Just like anything else.
How can you say murder is objectively wrong, but individual boycott of such thing is not a moral imperative?
Ok you all need to see Why Reality, Space & Time Is An Illusion on Tom Bilyeu. The implications reach into this discussion and it's just mind blowing in any case.
The problem of induction wouldn't even be solvable if there existed any gods and we could prove that they did exist, because even after that, you couldn't prove that they would never stop existing, you would simply have to infer it.
In summary of another comment I posted: For the brain in the vat, we are only asking it is true or false we are a brain in a vat, while for morality, we have to ask whether it is true or false that the statement "abortion is wrong" has some level of truth or falsehood. But of course it is just an assumption as well that there is truth or falsehood to whether or not we are a brain in a vat.
I find the fact funny that the argument that Alex uses is exactly the one that drives Aron Ra so nuts- it's the classic "Your science can't prove that we're not all living in the Matrix" argument that radical apologists use to discredit science in many of his debates - in absence of any good evidence to the contrary, the base assumption must be that reality is real... not sure whether we should even grant being allowed to call that "subjetive intuition"
Morality is objective.
There are three fundamental laws of existence: Order, Chaos, and sustainability. These laws are objective and, in a physical universe, would exist whether or not an observer were around to observe. All living things abide by these three laws whether or not they are aware of it. Existence can only be if these three laws are adhered to. Does that mean God is also bound to these laws? If so, then can God be omnipotent?
Abiding by these three laws, one can find the objective answer to all morality questions. The “trolley problem” is easily solvable objectively. The “lifeboat case” can just as easily be solved objectively.
The reason why these problems seem so unsolvable to seemingly everyone is that they don’t seem take into account the psychological impacts/ramifications extended to the edge/end of the ripple, only to the first few rings. They also view the scenarios very subjectively without a solid objective basis.
The problem then becomes of a subjective nature. But, in a physical universe, objective morality exists whether or not subjects do.
Edit: There is definitely “sense data” (empirical evidence) for morality. 😉
What are the 3 laws through?
@@LevantWasTaken Keep in mind that the “3 laws” are a subjects designations of an observable truth of existence. That even without the subjective label of “3 laws” the objective motions of the “3 laws” would still be.
Atoms are the answer. Atoms form the basis of existence within a physical universe. Atoms are inanimate and therefore non-subjects. Atoms exist in a state of chaos and where sustainability of two or more atom bonds are successful, order comes about. With that sustainability and order, emerges physical existence as we know it.
If one pays attention to human actions, on a fundamental level, it mimics the actions of atoms: individually, humans would exist in what can be considered a chaotic state. Once they start coming together and finding sustainability, order is produced.
Chaos generates order and order generates chaos. It is a never ending cycle of physical existence. Ultimate sustainability is the answer to all moral questions. These 3 laws are fundamental within a physical universe. This is observable/knowable.
Edit: If one observes the very basic/universal laws of civilized/sustainable societies, they all adhere to the law of sustainability. Is this true?
Hume lives on. We can't prove cause and effect, but we still love to play pool.
Three things
1.We have great portions of the world that have let go of fundamental intuition like linear time or free will for whatever reason ,so why cant we let go of the intuition of moral objectivity.destiny could have done the reverse question.but he was to caught up in trivialities.
2.The maim reason why the intuition of the external world is stronger than that of morality is because moral objectivity requires the existence of the external world,and there are no logical problems presented with believing in a external ,except for the quiestion of if its not the case ,which is not a counter to the believe. If there is no logical problem presented in a belief ,then there is no problem in believing it.
3.The problem with objective morality is that when you ask your self certain question ,you realize there is no way to map it.
Why is murder objectively wrong? Most would respond with :
1It is just wrong; why does it have to be that case ,pschopaths do not see murder as necasarily a wrong thing ,what makes you right and him wrong,objectively and irrespevtive of context ,nothing, the only difference is that most see murder as wrong.
2.Because it is against our wellbeing(The ultilitarian and moral egoist stance) yes against what you consider as your wellbeing ,but that is just again is a collective(humans) , but something being considered bad by a collective does not mean it is objectively bad ,for example the end of slave trade was probably considered a bad thing for the slave masters.
3.Bad and good always require a context and is dependant on the person. When we say something is bad or good we always use it in a context based on what we want , what we consider the desired or what is consider closer or farther from a ideal(whether we want that ideal is another thing),and what we desire is a subjective thing that is at most shared by others,but that does not make it objective and gives no basis of saying it is objective.
For me, the most notable difference between the two is that I can much more easily conceive of a world where objective morality doesn't exist and humans developed a sense of right and wrong because it was beneficial to society (and in some societies, the morality that was landed on was different from other societies), whereas the world I perceive not being real seems much less likely. It's funny to notice how many assumptions my framework for comparing the two relies on.
I guess, as others have pointed out, it seems like morality requires all of the first set of assumptions, and then even *within* that set of assumptions, there's comprehendible versions of the world where objective morality doesn't exist.
Well 1 + 1 can equal one whole if we're talking about physical things and putting both together
The presupposition on which we base conclusions about ethics aren't nearly as fundamental as the ones we make for observable scientific truths. To objeciltively conclude that the moon exist you only need to have faith in the very most core, fundamental ideas. These assumtions, like that you're not just a brain in a jar, don't allow you to observe morality. The only way to determine if your own morality, or anyone elses morality is just is through the lense of your own moral intuition. This is why no one is the villain of their story. And there's no common assumption all of humanity lives by that could form a framework that would allow us to treat ethics like a science.
Moral behavior only matters to social creatures in the same way language / signaling has utility to social creatures. Neither are thing creatures cope with like a rock or sunshine. Arguing over objective morals is like arguing over which word order is “real”. Seems more like a categorical mistake.
Perfect.
Imagine that we all are brains in a vat and that humans for hundreds of thousands years never contemplated that possibility until 1999 with the movie Matrix.
Did it ever occur to anti-realists that they (the observer/thinker) might also not exist?
Yes, I think therefore I am, but the self of one person might be just as much of an illusion as the self of others. Eventually, it is a question of probability. Even if no-one really exists, can one realistically take the risk to assume that one's actions have no real consequences, that they do not harm others? That one's choices do not take away someone other's choices?
I would say it is unreasonable to take that risk.
Great discussion and I think Alex made good pushbacks. Yet, I can't help but feel like Destiny's overall claim that we have very different presuppositions for ethics that make it harder top come to objective truth seems right.
"I was half concerned it was going to be the n word or something" 😂
If you accept that we can make objective statements about subjective ideas; then, yes, ethics can be objective.
I can make the objective observation that the subjective belief of a flat earth exists - why would that make ethics objective lol
@@KangMinseok "I think coke tastes better than pepsi"
Do you accept this is an objective statement? If not, why?
@@swagikuro It has been observed that the reward reactions of brains in humans are different despite the foods they consume being the same/unchanged. Ergo it is objectively verifiable that taste is subjective (as in, difference between human subjects exists despite being provided with the same stimulation). As to whether the statement "I think coke tastes better than pepsi" is true, as in whether we can objectively determine whether the person actually feels this way or is lying, I do not think we have the technological capabilities to say so yet (lie detectors are notoriously unreliable).
Lol that’s still subjective
Morality is objective and I’ll prove it now with 2 scenarios:
Scenario 1
You take your friend out to eat and say, “get what you want, it’s on me.”
You get a chicken sandwich and your friend gets a pulled pork sandwich. You think pulled pork is disgusting, but you don’t feel bad or get mad at your friend for eating it because you know it’s his subjective decision to eat what he wants.
Scenario 2
You’re sitting in the park enjoying time with your 5-year-old niece. Randomly, some guy comes up and punches her in the face harder than you’ve ever seen anyone get hit. You get furious. Why is your reaction tremendous anger when you tell me and others, “you can’t prove something is objectively right or wrong morally?”
See the point?
And how do you have compassion and empathy for others? Let’s say your family or friends hypothetically lose a sibling that was raped, beaten, tortured, and killed. Then you say to them, “at least the person or people that did this weren’t objectively wrong for doing it.”
If your actions don’t reflect what you say you believe, you don’t actually believe what you say.
I am of the opinion that morality is objective and, perhaps less commonly, that it is based on the survival of the species. Something that is objectively good helps keep the species alive and reverse for bad.
So, you're a theist then? And by that merit, are you sure you are speaking of your opinion, and not of indoctrinating dogmatic views?
It’s almost as if we are just made in the image and likeness of the primary ethical standard we experience before choice kicks in.
I would say a sense of morality naturally follows when you have a social animal with a high level of intelligence..
This primary ethical standard might just be a logical consequence of what chaos currently resembles. Due to the chaos we experience in our lives and the state that it currently is in, ethics might be just a logical consequence of how the chaos we call existence and the universe currently looks like. No need for a primary ethics blueprint
Reality is chaos but the human mind needs order, so we create culture and all sorts of value systems, including ethics, to be able to deal with the chaos we can't bare otherwise. We have Gödels incompleteness theorem and epistemology telling us that there are certain things that we will never be able to prove and, therefore, can not know for a fact. Although there might still be an objective truth, we might not be able to ever know it.
Personally I don't necessarily grant that my intuition is objectively true. I live as if the external world is real and inhabited by other minds for a few reasons but I don't claim to know this 100% objectively as I don't think I CAN know it.
From a moral standpoint, I have my own intuitions that I generally follow but I will go against some of that intuition if it contradicts with several other intuitions or goes against popular consensus enough.
However I notice in both modern day and throughout history, morality has been far more varied that worldviews have been, at least at a fundamental level. Most cultures have had some kind of worldview based on the existence of an external world and the existence of other conscious beings.
Morally however, the fundementals have varied a lot more. People have based their morality on their own pleasure, the pleasure of their king, the pleasure of a god figure, the wellbeing of their group, the wellbeing of other groups, etc.
This gives me more pause to grant morality with the same level of belief as I do an external world. Obviously this conclusion assumes some kind of accuracy of historical data, but if we are going to throw that out for the sake of total honesty, we couldn't have a conversation at all (universal skepticism)
I guess my main issue is it seems like my intuitions about the external world are far more consistent with other people intuitions compared to my moral intuitions.
It seems to me that moral ideology is socially spread a lot more than it is intuited. Morality itself really only works if we say there is an external world anyway as without it, there would be no victims of our actions, just the equivalent of NPCs which we don't typically extend our empathy to.
As a Christian, this right here, "what does wrongness look like?" is a really good question.
morality not being objective shouldn't affect the conviction one has to hold & enforce those moral beliefs. destiny acts like the moral landscape we act within is some unmanueverable, unworkable void due to its lack of objectivity, but really it's more like an empty canvas that we can paint whatever we'd like on through our will
I agree with the first sentence, but you lost me as soon as you mentioned "destiny".
They're talking about the man called Destiny in the video, if that's where the confusion lies.
Not about literal destiny.
Fascinating discussion. Here is my 2 cents.
Intuition in regards to continuity over time is not the same as intuition in regards to ethics.
If Continuity over Time were to suddenly not be the case, everything would be in perpetual flux. You cannot have a physical reality (as we know it) at that point, because at least our reality requires both change and continuity. So my intuition is so far proven correct by the fact that I am still breathing. It is based on an "is" or "is not".
Ethics on the other hand is the attempt to establish an "ought." I challenge you to try to produce an "ought" using the scientific method.
The only consequence of me not believing in your "ought" is to be an evil person. Evil itself is a value judgement, and I can simply not believe or care for your value judgements or those of the society I live in. Me doing this has not caused reality itself to cease to function. I'm just an anti-social asshole at that point.
Why is an ought necessary for ethics, the is is convincing enough.
@@tarikwalters854 Sure, let me clarify.
So "ought" in regards to ethics refers to a behavior that is advisable or in some cases a perceived obligation.
If a friend asks me a question, I "ought" to answer truthfully. But it is perfectly within my capability to lie to them.
"Is" would indicate I MUST answer truthfully, in the same way a ball on earth that I throw up in the air must eventually come back down due to gravity. In this case I am referring to an "is" because I cannot simply decide for gravity to stop working. But I can decide to be a liar.
Hope that explains the difference.
@@coup-de-grace And ethics is in regards to what’s good, and you don’t need obligation for that, the only reason good seems like obligation is because it’s a common goal.
Except we know a person like a psychopath can easily lack these moral intuitions - they're a result of brain hardware. It would be weird to imagine the analogous form of a psychopath when it comes to the external world - someone just born without the intuition than an external world exists. To me it seems pretty clear that moral intuitions are conveniences of our evolution whereas we have the intuition of an external reality because it's actually there, even if that is unprovable.
Can somebody please explain to me, why was Cosmical Sceptic talking to this guy?
What is murder anyway?
From what perspective? Wich beings? In wich context?
Murder is almost by definition wrongly killing someone. “When is killing someone murder?” is indeed the better question.
Destiny seemed so below the paygrade in this conversation. Great talk Alex!
As they say,
Destiny got destroyed in this debate
;)
As a fan of both of these content creators, I really didn’t see that. Maybe it’s cuz I watched the whole convo?
Did he? I watched the whole conversation and I am still not convinced objective morality exists.
@@hellodumzo I watched the whole convo, and I saw destiny as an idiot, but it IS destiny we're talking about.
@@baishihua Objective morality exists by necessity if you define objectivity as conceptual, not refering to some solid object. And it also exists if you don't define it as absolute, fundamental axiom.
The objectivity Destiny refers to is a category error, because by his logic absolutely nothing can ever be objective, including science (it's built up from fundamental values and experiences by subjective entities by necessity).
Which he obviously wont admit to because well... let's just say openly identifying as anti-realist is kind of removing yourself from any serious ethics conversation before it even started.
A good analogy would be the game of chess. The rules of chess are man made. They're subject to human interpretation. But once you accept the rules, there are objectively better ways to get to the goal of checkmate.
Would you define chess as subjective, because you first have to accept the rules of chess which are entirely arbitrary? If that were the case, then you should be able to beat Magnus Carlson or stockfish at about a 50% rate.
Morality functions pretty much like that (except there are many more pieces and more rules). The rules of morality might be arbitrary if you disconnect them entirely from the sentient experience, but once you accept that sentience exists and that it matters you're already in the realm of outcomes that are demonstrably better at achieving the goal of a better life or harm reduction.
And removing sentience from morality is like removing all hydrogen molecules from water and still calling it water, because the term water is arbitrary and a man made concept. It's intellectually dishonest at best.
One difference between an objective morality and an objective physics or math is the question would it still be true if people and animals did not exist. This might be a halting area for me where my intuitions tell me something does not make sense. If we do not exist then murder doesn’t either and I couldn’t say it is a truth regardless of us existing.
I would have to say that this truth is dependent on us existing which other truths are not dependent on. I don’t know how to resolve this other than accepting that some truths do not exist without us existing, which again feels intuitively weird.
Edit: nvm cosmic skeptic has broke me after thinking for a while lol. I would have to question reality itself as a fundamental truth. I have no idea why the two are treated differently.
A guess would be that evolution favors belief in physics reality because a rock will always fall, leading us to think it is objective. Whereas it may be beneficial from time to time to bend morality, leading us to think it is not objective. Murder is wrong unless I need something for my survival type idea.
Heres whats happening, there are axioms in the scientific realm that everyone needs to agree on to be able to support claims. Alex is saying that there can also be axioms in the moral realm that everyone needs to agree on to be able to support moral claims and they are no different. Destiny is confusing the "axioms" from the "claims", he is saying that in the scientific realm we can do some tests to arrive at the "claims" but then expects us to be able to do some tests to arrive at the moral "axioms", which is unfair.
When your mind tells you you're taking an action, how do you know you are actually taking the action? So then what does it mean to "take an action as if something is true".
Another question. If all this is an illusion, why does the reality illusion have constraints whereas the dream illusion is unconstrained? Why is the waking imagination unconstrained? Why isn't reality illusion also unconstrained?
Begging the question then. Where do the reality illusion constraints come from?
I think there might actually be some pretty interesting answers for the problem of induction when it comes to quantum mechanics. The higgs field, for instance, and the higgs boson as well, essentially determine the masses and properties of other fundamental particles. As a short summary, the higgs boson exists in a potential. At the beginning of the universe, when everything was hot and dense, the higgs boson was in a very excited state, at a higher energy level. As the universe cooled, it moved to a lower energy state at the bottom of its potential, and is now at a stable energy state (technically metastable, i might get into that in a bit). The energy state that it resides at essentially determines how other fundamental particles interact with the higgs field, which in turn determines those particles' properties. We can see, through this, that there is a concrete mechanism behind the trends and behaviors of the universe; they aren't just an assortment of properties that we've observed a million times. I wouldn't call it an "answer to the problem of induction", but it surely provides some pushback
Quantum mechanics is interesting, but I have to ask…how is what you described any different than running a “battery of tests” as destiny describes it? The problem of induction really just points out that there is ultimately no non circular way to prove inferences. And pertaining to your examples. Unless I misunderstood what you’re saying, the examples you gave still rely on inference.
How would you differentiate between “concrete properties” and observations we’ve made a million times?”
@@Hreodrich Maybe I framed it a little too optimistically lol. I would view it more like the argument that Destiny mentioned against mathematical anti-realists, that "math has an uncanny ability to manifest in reality". Neither my example of the higgs field, nor mathematics, "proves" that reality is as it is. In a way, yes, the higgs field is just another observation. I think it's more just about the broader fact that it seems as though the universe is constructed in such a way that relies on these "truths" of reality. You can ignore this next part if you want, but I find it very interesting and it might help the illustration a bit. I briefly mentioned that the higgs boson is metastable. What this means is that there is actually a lower energy state that the higgs boson would prefer to exist at, but there is some hurdle in the potential that prevents it from shifting. If it were to shift to that other energy state, though, the masses of all fundamental particles would shift instantaneously. Such a shift would essentially rip the universe apart, breaking the bonds that hold atoms together. And so from this we can see that the reality we view is dependent on things being the way they are. All of this is still inductive reasoning, of course, but it feels to me as though this gives our observations a little more credence. Would love to hear your thoughts
Piers Morgan, take note of how an argument should be carried out
Why repost
I think the key to answering Alex is this: Alex says that our intuition is that our sense data (like sight) is “accurate” (meaning comporting with reality). He gives no equivalent justifiable relationship with his “moral sense data”. This is the entire problem with moral “fact” statements. When someone says, “Murder is wrong,” they’re not saying, “I have an intuition that my moral sense data is accurate” (comporting with reality) because there is no “reality of moral wrongness” that could be possible, in the same way that a “reality of physicality” is possible. Morality ultimately deals with mental subjective events. Physical reality ultimately does not (as defined). So, we can’t equate intuitions about the “truth” of our sight with the “truth” of our moral convictions because moral convictions cannot be “true”, they can only occur. Morality sense data is reacting to internal subjective events (desires). Sight sense data is reacting to external objective events (anything capable of being seen). Only objective events can be true or false. That is the problem with “moral facts”.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I imagine Alex would respond by reiterating that any intuition regarding sense data we deem as accurate is simply that-an intuition. In that same vein moral convictions are also intuition, which we would likely all agree on. Though I imagine he would also say that even if we grant this distinction between moral events-not truths-and physical truths, this argument in itself doesn’t lend enough strength for the observable physical “accuracies” of the external world to beat the hurdle of subjective intuition. For example, do you think it is conceivable that just as you have observed that no reality of moral wrongness is possible in the way that a reality of physicality is possible, someone could observe the same set of facts about the external world and conclude the opposite?
That’s my best guess as to where he would take the argument anyway
@@MilliardBeats Is it an intuition about something that is objectively real, or do we make it appear as if it is objectively real (or true) by having such strong, innate convictions/feelings for or against a particular behavior or action? I am inclined towards it being the latter. Therefore, I wouldn't call it an intuition towards a particular reality being true, but rather a confusion of lazy, short-hand language being used to convey a deep-seated emotion, that when reflected upon the short-hand (declarative) language used, we are fooled into thinking that such a statement must mean we are talking about an ontological proposition, rather than just a really really strong opinion that we have no control over.
When someone says, "Brussel sprouts are gross," linguistically it sounds like they're making a statement with a truth-value -- something that is either true or false, but we understand that what they're lazily saying is rather, "I don't prefer the taste of brussel sprouts." But if someone says, "Rape is bad," it sounds again like they're making a factual statement, but it's not -- it's the same exact class of statement about brussel sprouts, but it's coming from a much more powerful and deep emotional core, and the subject matter is a much more grave threat to happiness and human flourishing. What they're actually saying is, "I don't like being raped, and I don't think other people do either, so we should discourage it from happening." It's still a mere opinion, albeit one that the vast majority of people hold. That's why we treat morality differently than taste, but I truly think they're just higher and lower degrees on the same subjective scale.
Alex believes that good and bad is based on intuition. This can't be - the germans believed (or had the intuition) that the holocaust was a good phenomenon. Does that make it ACTUALLY good or true? No, infact, we laugh at that very notion. So this begs the question - How CAN we set up a system when said system can be looked upon as "good" by some and "bad" by the remaining?
In my opinion morality is subjective, but nearly everyone follows the same morality however some people attempt to apply it consistently as much as possible and some people do not. In certain circumstances people will not acknowledge morals and choose an immoral decision when it conveniences them, for example basically everyone disagrees with animal abuse however most people partake in it every time they go to the supermarket and purchase the flesh of once sentient beings, I think most meat eaters have the same morals as vegans however will make excuses and try to squirm they way of acknowledging their actions being immoral which stops them from noticing a contradiction so they can continue in their hedonism.
Hypocracy and delusion, is what you are aiming at. Everyone agrees that animal abuse is bad, but not everyone can agree to what consitutes as animal abuse. Looking at the islamic festival of Eid, in which they slice the throats of horses and cows, for them to bleed out on the streets, is not what they consider as animal abuse.
It's just a cultural festival that requires tolerance and acceptance and such. The yulin festival in china is another example. And somewhere between this scope of extremes, most meat eaters can readily diminish personal involvement or responsibility, for good reason. They don't go out of their way to harm animals, and see value in the diminishing of such suffering. There is a degree of ethics in that.
@@MrYelly If they're actively purchasing products that for most people aren't nowhere near essential, which increases animal abuse, then they do go out of their way to harm animals
@@MrYelly I don't get the hyper-focus on Eid, from a vegan perspective it's obviously wrong since you're killing animals, but how is it any worse than factory farming? If anything, it's a much more preferable.
You must have not interacted much with any hyper-religious person to say that, religious people will justify the most disgusting stuff by citing divine authority.
I would agree with this. Most people tend to have shared core values from which they derive their morals, but due to ignorance, dogma, cognitive dissonance, and tribalism, they end up acting against their own morals and values.