Sean McDowell: Is There Truth, A Moral Law We Can All Know? - Do The Right Thing

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 75

  • @gregoryrobertson2806
    @gregoryrobertson2806 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Beautifully done! I have never heard it better said!

  • @cleofewhite5551
    @cleofewhite5551 8 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Sean, I Praise and thank God for you. You did a very good job on this. Thank you Jesus...

  • @Venaloid
    @Venaloid 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    For all your talk about the correspondence theory of truth, you never actually showed that our moral claims correspond to anything objective out in the world: you've simply shown that most people talk *as if* our moral claims correspond to reality. How do you know they're right? What is the object to which our moral claims refer? How do you know this is not just a subjective opinion we all share? You don't: you just assert it on the grounds that, "Well, we all believe it, don't we?"
    As an analogy, if I poop in your salad, you would say that it's disgusting: not just that you don't like it, but as if there is some fact of the matter. Does this mean that our sense of taste is objective? No, it just means that we all agree on this subjective opinion.

  • @wynarasleziak6670
    @wynarasleziak6670 9 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    He is so good and right on!! We - as believers - aren't allowed to share what we believe as we are called all sorts of names -- but the unbelievers (who I say know the truth and choose to reject it) can say whatever they believe and we are not supposed to "judge" or disagree. So sad!!!!!

    • @Gnomefro
      @Gnomefro 9 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      +Wynara Sleziak
      _" We - as believers - aren't allowed to share what we believe as we are called all sorts of names"_
      Dear crazy person, please pick up a TV guide and count the number of religious shows. Then do the same for shows that argue that gods don't exist. The very idea that you aren't allowed to spread your ideas is completely bizarre. Religious propaganda is the most plentiful propaganda in the entire world.
      Of course, the reason non-theists might call you names if you approach them personally might be that they've heard it all before from 10 other people just that week.

  • @TheIronicRaven
    @TheIronicRaven ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I am a bit confused here, Sean says that morality is an objective matter, yet doesn't show how we would be able to derive any morality in the same way that we would derive any other objective statement. It seems to me that all he has said is that something is morally right/wrong as long as we all agree it is right/wrong. But that doesn't fit into the definition of an Objective Truth, thats a Subjective Truth. "we all know it" isn't an objective standard to use, thats completely subjective.
    So if morality is objective, exactly how does one determine if any given action is right or wrong?
    If we say we know it in our hearts, then why does anyone disagree on what is the correct path? We can't use our emotions, that's subjective. We can't use the outcomes, that's subjective. We can't use the decrees of a governing body, that's subjective. In fact, any decree by definiteion is subjective, including God's. Meaning if we follow what god says, then we are just following subjective morality.
    So what Objective standard is used to determine right/wrong?
    (Also: "if its human that what can be the justification [for killing it]?" uh, I don't know, how about it could kill the host mother? You know, one of the largest reasons people need to get an abortion? To save their life? Does Sean really believe that we should sacrifice one person just for the chance to save another without their consent? I mean jesus fucking christ Sean, use the two cells you have for a brain for like 2 seconds)

  • @tacticalfilmfightingacadem9200
    @tacticalfilmfightingacadem9200 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Something can be legal and still be wrong....

  • @211teitake
    @211teitake 8 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    One doesn't need objective morality to enforce rules or laws. All we need is a consensus of the society; it's called democracy.

    • @DarthBaby
      @DarthBaby 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      sooo If The Government Said Child Rape Was Ok You Would Be Fine?

    • @211teitake
      @211teitake 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      MoeTaWHO No. How is this relevant to the topic? Are you familiar with the modern constitutional democracy?

    • @DarthBaby
      @DarthBaby 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yes. But If They All Said That It Was Ok You Couldn't Say Squat About It Because You Cant Tell Me Why Its Wrong.

    • @211teitake
      @211teitake 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Moe, Who are these “They”?
      And assuming I have freedom of speech, I can say whatever I want. How does that have to do with if it is wrong or not? Do you evaluate every decision by right and wrong? You don’t have to oppose to a law based on moral. There are other approaches such as benefits to individual and societal well-being. Sexual violence is known to cause physical and psychological trauma to infants which increase the likelihood of emotional and social maladjustment in later life. Such individuals are not productive members of a society. Therefore, such law allowing rape to infants is not beneficial to society and should be repealed, not to mention that in most countries, it is unconstitutional. By the way, in a constitutional democracy, the legality of a legislation has nothing to do with how many citizens support it. What matters is if it is in line with the given constitution. I don’t think you understand how a constitutional democracy work.

    • @MsTEXASJO
      @MsTEXASJO 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      This has nothing to do with truth.

  • @bosco9291
    @bosco9291 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Some moral truths stay subjective and some can be proven objective. You have to argue the reason for either. Moral is not one thing, it's many different issues. You are arguing to further your beliefs, not to spread truth and knowledge... although large parts of the lecture are very valuable.

    • @komatarikinala66
      @komatarikinala66 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      How are some truths subjective?

    • @bosco9291
      @bosco9291 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@komatarikinala66 subjective truths are truthful in the sense that the individual experiencing these truths can be certain of them

    • @komatarikinala66
      @komatarikinala66 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Until they are proven wrong. A person can be certain but still be wrong.

    • @bosco9291
      @bosco9291 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@komatarikinala66 I didn't say the could be wrong

    • @bosco9291
      @bosco9291 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I meant : I didn't say the could not be wrong

  • @komatarikinala66
    @komatarikinala66 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    As I've listened to various atheist, deist, and theist arguments I've come to a simple conclusion. Facts are verifiable and therefore truth. Our understanding of reality evolves as well as our comprehension of truth/facts. We've confused opinions with truth.

  • @uberd00b
    @uberd00b 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Just the standard misconceptions that moral realists have about subjective morality. For example that moral subjectivity means no moral standard when it (obviously?!) means many.

    • @andrewrozario2476
      @andrewrozario2476 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      No misconceptions here. He only meant that there is no difference between the moral values of Hitler and Gandhi on a subjective morality.

  • @bonniemock3110
    @bonniemock3110 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Phenominal!

  • @211teitake
    @211teitake 8 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    He presumed that the objective, absolute morality and truth are one and the same thing. It may be true that objective, absolute morality does not exist.

    • @paulratliff2832
      @paulratliff2832 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Absolute morality is what is perfectly right thus true for all always everywhere. If God does not indeed exist then nothing is in reality, but the fizzing of the chemicals in your brain. You are nothing but a moving sack of exotic chemicals in reaction to the input-out take of the environment. Your statements then are ultimately worthless because all you are is a different form of the so-called premordial soup!

    • @andrewrozario2476
      @andrewrozario2476 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      What he said was that truth is the necessary condition for objective moral values. In symbolic logic, OM ---> T.
      This is different from OM=T.

    • @iain5615
      @iain5615 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      History has shown it is objective. Find out which people a society has deemed as innocent and you will find that throughout history every society has had the same moral principles that they have applied to these innocent people.

  • @ibanezman
    @ibanezman 12 ปีที่แล้ว

    This is a great video. Mr. McDowell is a great speaker and made some great points and overall his entire speech held a great message. However, as awful as it is, morality by definition cannot be objective. No matter if every person on the planet believes in gravity or not, they will fall to their deaths after jumping off a tall roof. However, unfortunately, not everyone on earth agrees on a standard of morality. Just like not everyone on earth agrees on what the best ice cream flavor is.

    • @davidjohnston458
      @davidjohnston458 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      ibanezman his point is not that everyone agrees.. his point is that there IS a moral standard that exists independent of how you feel or what you believe.

  • @DPtheOG
    @DPtheOG 11 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    My objective truth matches his about morality.
    My subjective truth says his haircut is ridiculous.

    • @komatarikinala66
      @komatarikinala66 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      You are confusing subjective truth with opinion. The only thing subjective about truth is a person's understanding of a truth.

  • @AbbyinSammamish
    @AbbyinSammamish 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Morality is not like ice cream. Since when does that mean we don’t have the right to disapprove when we think someone behaves badly? Don’t be fooled by this guy’s linguistic acrobatics! Not believing in objective morality does NOT mean lacking morality. The far fetched straw man arguments he uses to “prove” his point can only impress on young people who identify with him, lack in analytical competence, and are taken in by his confident stage act.

    • @Niko-pd5yh
      @Niko-pd5yh 10 ปีที่แล้ว

      You say Morality is not like ice cream. Therefore it is not subjective. Therefore it IS objective.
      Ok Good we have established one thing: Morality is objective (or absolute/unchangeable/cannot be changed by a subjective truth or opinion.)
      Then you said: Since when does that mean we don't have the right to disapprove when we think someone behaves badly? Therefore. We have the right to disagree when we think someone misbehaves.
      Ok,but by what standard are they misbehaving the Objective truth standard or by a Subjective truth standard. The answer is your Subjective truth. But wait what happens when your Subjective Truth is opposed to the Objective Truth? Then your Subjective truth is wrong.
      Next: Not believing in objective morality does NOT mean lacking morality. or Believing in a Subjective morality does not mean you are lacking morality (Which you earlier said was objective.)
      So wait a minute: Belief in a Subjective morality does not take away an objective morality. But what about when the Subjective and the Objective are opposed? Then the Subjective morality is immoral.
      So you can have your Subjective moralities and still be moral EXCEPT when they are opposed to the Objective morality (Which you previously said exists) Then if your Subjective moralities are opposed to the Objective morality then your Subject morality is immoral.
      So you said Morality is Objective, but you can still believe in a Subjective morality and still be moral. Which is true EXCEPT for when your Subjective morality is wrong. It is trying to put an opinion as a fact.
      There are somethings that can be subjectively true like: wood floors are the best kind of floor; and there are somethings that are objectively true like eating a lot of arsenic will kill you. You can believe eating arsenic is good for you all you want, but it will still kill you in the end.

    • @AbbyinSammamish
      @AbbyinSammamish 10 ปีที่แล้ว

      Carll Filler I did not say morality is objective. You did. I said it is not like ice cream. You fell for McDowell’s rhetorical trick, while I didn’t, or else you think it’s OK to use straw man arguments to assert your beliefs.
      Naturally, we disapprove when someone behaves badly; that is, contrary to our subjective moral standards. It’s a tautology. Still, there is no evidence for moral objectivity.

    • @Niko-pd5yh
      @Niko-pd5yh 10 ปีที่แล้ว

      You said morality was not like ice cream therefore it was not subjective (as ice cream represented subject morality/truth). The only option left remaining is that it is objective. I was simply finding the faults in your argument.

    • @AbbyinSammamish
      @AbbyinSammamish 10 ปีที่แล้ว

      Carll Filler Morality is subjective. Morality is not like ice cream. These two statements are not contradictory. Your conclusion of these premises is false.

    • @Niko-pd5yh
      @Niko-pd5yh 10 ปีที่แล้ว

      In the case of when he said, "_______ is like ice cream." Ice cream represented a subjective statement. Now if you said morality is not like insulin this would be a different discussion. Or Morality is not objective (as you have now stated.) Your argument would be perfectly acceptable.