If you wish to poke holes in my metaethical position I have made a summary of it that is publicly available on my Patreon: www.patreon.com/posts/64213249 . Help me improve my thoughts!
Our lives are participations in natural processes, processes that change and evolve. Because human moral behaviors are sociobiological, we need a better understanding of the evolution of our cognitive architecture, our abilities that give us agency, so as to better understand how we make our meanings and moral habits. "Moral realism" and "moral anti-realism" are metaphysical notions. They really ought to be set aside for investigations into our natures, into the evolution of our sociobiology. Read John Tooby for some fine work in this area. Richard Wrangham and others have some fascinating studies of human self-domestication, especially as the process relates to the reduction in human reactive aggression. Look up Patricia Churchland's nicely reasoned rejection of the moral realism vs. anti-realism debate. At min 27:00 you might use the pragmatist's reliance on what works, what tested experience shows to be warranted.
My challenge with the continued reference to the subconscious is not evidence-based or falsifiable. In practice, this is a substantial challenge to the notion of psychoanalysis.
I think you should look up "The point of view of the Universe" by Lazari-Radek and Singer. It is about the metaethics of act-utilitarianism and hedonism. I think it is BY FAR the best metaethical grounding of utilitarianism. "On what matters" by Parfit is also great and inspires the former, but it is way harder
I have read through The point of view of the universe and I much appreciate it! But in this debate, I was arguing for moral naturalism (a version that is highly inspired by Sidwick's though) as I currently think it grounds morality the best (metaethics is hard). Need to finish reading "On what matters" though.
@@Mon000 The debate was great. I do think that Parfit's and Singer's non-naturalism is an easier grounding than naturalism, but your alternative is really interesting, I am going to give it a thought!
How to construct universal moral realism attributed to a vague entity dubbed human beings who have a complex central nervous system adapted to exist within on or other environment? One way is to limit the universal to relative moral realism which is plausible from an in-group perspective. It could be even further limited to pair bonding for reproductive cooperation that is akin with evolutionary theory but not social evolution which seems anarchic rather than structural as in biological accounts through anatomical variation.
I'm being a year late to this conversation. Wonderful discussion. I too have an anti realist perspective. I understand the need to find some key to morals being objective or a close approximation of an objective good. It is a concern I've struggled with myself. In some sense I think we are almost speaking different versions of perceived truth. No human seems to grasp why this conversation is important to begin with. Why is no time spent arguing if a human can have a profession objectively? They wrote a contract with an employer, but isn't companies just a mass hallucination? Isn't the stock market keeping track of a mass hallucination as well? No one seems to have a debate about that. We haven't specified if countries are mass hallucinations but we sure give energy to ask if morals are a mass hallucination. Why not spread this dialogue to all things that aren't in the realm of this so called real?
If there are some deep moral principles in our cognitive architecture (which we don't know) and we redefine morality to mean alignment with those principles (which we needn't do) then we get a universal moral system. So what?
These types of metaphysical debates fly way over my head, but it always seemed to me that all realms of subjectivity (whether we're talking about morality, food, music, films, or architecture) are all deeply subject to universal and objective rules. A random bunch of sounds strung together without any rhyme and reason to it would not sound musical to any of our human ears and only sound like noise. To state that music "ought" to have some form of structure seems to be a tautology; it's embedded into our human definition of music. To state that an architect's design for a building "ought" to conform to the principles of structural engineering also appears to be a tautology of sorts, as the building would quickly collapse and cease to become a "building" otherwise. The "ought" should be replaced by a "must". Morality as a human concept designed for humans seems to function in a similar way. Any moral system "must", not "ought", observe universal principles about the nature of human beings as a social species with survival needs or else the very nature and definition of human morality collapses in on itself just as a building which is in violation of structural engineering principles.
@Jacob B Apologies, I'm a bit long-winded but the general point is that there's a structure to everything. There's no "anything goes" even in matters considered most subjective. There are observable trends and patterns (along with anomalies at the individual level). Do you disagree with this basic idea? Everything seems to want some semblance of structure amidst the chaos, like music wanting some sense of pattern (even to periodically deviate from it as a point of interest, but only in contrast to an established pattern). So I'm trying to make a case for patterns. My disagreement with moral antirealists is that they seem to even dismiss the pattern we all seek.
It seems like what you're saying is something along these lines: 1. Most people want for society as a whole to thrive. 2. Murder makes society as a whole thrive less. 3. If most people have the necessary cognitive abilities to acknowledge their wants, and the physical abilities necessary to bring them about, they will not commit murder. So what if I don't care about society at large?
@@Jorge-xf9gs I wouldn't necessarily go that far since I think morality is subjective just like anything in the realm of preference. What I want to contest is the notion that it's arbitrary as a result. For example, with room temperature preferences, people are going to vary quite a bit in what they consider to be "too cold" or "too hot" as a result of numerous factors including their conditioning, the warmth or lack thereof of the clothes we choose to wear, etc. Yet there's still an underlying pattern rooted in the constants of human physiology that we all share in common. Keep dialing up or dialing down the temperature and we work towards a unanimous consensus of the room being too hot or too cold as we start to all burn or freeze, reaching and exceeding the universal human limits of what's tolerable without dying. So with something like killing innocent people in cold blood, I don't want to call such an act "right" or "wrong" in such critical metaethical discussions. Yet it is understandable to me given the constants of our nature as a social species that cooperative groups of human beings quickly find large-scale consensus towards finding it intolerable and outlawing it. I see it in the same sense that almost everyone will agree that a room that is -0.5 degrees C is too cold, since at that point we're working towards necrosis.
Please fix your mic. The papers shuffling on your desk were quite distracting and then the non-verbal noises you made with your mouth were quite annoying, perhaps increase the gain? Otherwise it was a great debate between you two. Thank you.
Perhaps the level of preciseness required to discuss metaethical views might give that impression but I genuinely think that Kane (and anti-realists in general) have defensible views. Metaethics is hard, mine is currently in flux and Kane was kind to talk with me given that I am not even formally an academic philosopher (plus he makes great philosophical videos).
@@McClain3000 I think my language was a bit off, to defend my view I probably could have done without appealing to "beliefs in oughts". Maybe simply saying that we are driven to accept the law of non-contradiction, or some other epistemic principle Kane would have agreed. Or maybe not, not sure.
@@McClain3000 What would you suggest I do -- just lie about my views? There were a few times where I was happy to concede points of disagreement, which hardly seems the behaviour of a "pedantic contrarian".
@@KaneB I apologize, I must have been in a bad mood when I wrote the comment. I’m have no formal philosophy background. I just can’t wrap my head around the objections or skepticism around the law of non contradiction. I should I have just said I misunderstood your points or found them unconvincing rather than being jerk.
To hold a philosophy that holds anti-realism at any part can be shown to be a mental illness or delusion. It holds as a principle for ethics that there are no such things as bad things, just a silent democracy vote that things are bad. This is so wrong that you either need to be an edge lord playing games or mentally unstable to hold that as a view. Morality is Objective. Life is the Standard. What harms life is bad, for life; the only time bad can exist is when it affects a life--bringing it closer to non-life. What improves life is good, for life; the only time good can exist is when it affects a life--bringing it closer to flourishing. What harms life? Objects that exist in reality which have a certain identity that damage the Object that exists in reality having the identity of a living being, e.g., poison damages the stomach of the living being that drank it, harming the being, therefore not being good for life but bad for life. Morality for who and for what? Your answer: ? My answer: Morality for objective living beings for the purpose of continuing to be an objective living being. How is morality objective? Because I exist as an object in reality with a certain identity which interactions with other objects in reality, and those interactions can extend my time as a living being or can reduce or end my time as a living being. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. Life exists at every biological of a living being as it is all a process of self-sustain and self-generated action, each cell, tissue, organ, organelle is alive in a living being (it can be removed from the body and can be kept alive and transported to other bodies) As a non-living being (a life that just ended) is the ceasing of that process. All the parts remain where they were a moment ago when they were alive, but the process as stopped. Life is the only type of object in the universe which can cease to be. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but a life can. Morality only makes sense for the only object that can cease to exist by making bad choices (the only object that can choose). Morality is a guide to life. Morality is as Objective as the Life it guides. ---- Your philosophy is materialism, which brings with it, a morality of death and brute force because all you can know is might makes right. You renounced your consciousness (which is not the brain, your neurons are not depressed or wired such that the result is depression) your mind cannot connect with reality and thus cannot evaluate justice, and this is the cause of your depression. You renounced your mind and your mind in turn renounced it's own worth, which is what you feel as depression. "As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter-the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit-the destruction of his mind." -John Galt, Atlas Shrugged.
@@utkarshsingh-rp2dq Wow that was like 5 seconds of effort and then you gave up. That's kinda sad. And morally reprehensible, do better for yourself and try.
If you wish to poke holes in my metaethical position I have made a summary of it that is publicly available on my Patreon: www.patreon.com/posts/64213249 . Help me improve my thoughts!
Our lives are participations in natural processes, processes that change and evolve. Because human moral behaviors are sociobiological, we need a better understanding of the evolution of our cognitive architecture, our abilities that give us agency, so as to better understand how we make our meanings and moral habits. "Moral realism" and "moral anti-realism" are metaphysical notions. They really ought to be set aside for investigations into our natures, into the evolution of our sociobiology. Read John Tooby for some fine work in this area. Richard Wrangham and others have some fascinating studies of human self-domestication, especially as the process relates to the reduction in human reactive aggression. Look up Patricia Churchland's nicely reasoned rejection of the moral realism vs. anti-realism debate.
At min 27:00 you might use the pragmatist's reliance on what works, what tested experience shows to be warranted.
My challenge with the continued reference to the subconscious is not evidence-based or falsifiable. In practice, this is a substantial challenge to the notion of psychoanalysis.
Subscribed! Nice conversation.
Really enjoyed this!!
I think you should look up "The point of view of the Universe" by Lazari-Radek and Singer. It is about the metaethics of act-utilitarianism and hedonism. I think it is BY FAR the best metaethical grounding of utilitarianism. "On what matters" by Parfit is also great and inspires the former, but it is way harder
I have read through The point of view of the universe and I much appreciate it! But in this debate, I was arguing for moral naturalism (a version that is highly inspired by Sidwick's though) as I currently think it grounds morality the best (metaethics is hard). Need to finish reading "On what matters" though.
@@Mon000 The debate was great. I do think that Parfit's and Singer's non-naturalism is an easier grounding than naturalism, but your alternative is really interesting, I am going to give it a thought!
How to construct universal moral realism attributed to a vague entity dubbed human beings who have a complex central nervous system adapted to exist within on or other environment? One way is to limit the universal to relative moral realism which is plausible from an in-group perspective. It could be even further limited to pair bonding for reproductive cooperation that is akin with evolutionary theory but not social evolution which seems anarchic rather than structural as in biological accounts through anatomical variation.
I'm being a year late to this conversation. Wonderful discussion. I too have an anti realist perspective. I understand the need to find some key to morals being objective or a close approximation of an objective good. It is a concern I've struggled with myself. In some sense I think we are almost speaking different versions of perceived truth. No human seems to grasp why this conversation is important to begin with. Why is no time spent arguing if a human can have a profession objectively? They wrote a contract with an employer, but isn't companies just a mass hallucination? Isn't the stock market keeping track of a mass hallucination as well? No one seems to have a debate about that. We haven't specified if countries are mass hallucinations but we sure give energy to ask if morals are a mass hallucination. Why not spread this dialogue to all things that aren't in the realm of this so called real?
I too am a moral naturalist. I would like to talk to you to exchange ideas. Are you active on your discord?
If there are some deep moral principles in our cognitive architecture (which we don't know) and we redefine morality to mean alignment with those principles (which we needn't do) then we get a universal moral system. So what?
I don’t believe that, then proceeds to say that he does. He is consistent he doesn’t believe in following the law of non-contradiction.
These types of metaphysical debates fly way over my head, but it always seemed to me that all realms of subjectivity (whether we're talking about morality, food, music, films, or architecture) are all deeply subject to universal and objective rules.
A random bunch of sounds strung together without any rhyme and reason to it would not sound musical to any of our human ears and only sound like noise. To state that music "ought" to have some form of structure seems to be a tautology; it's embedded into our human definition of music.
To state that an architect's design for a building "ought" to conform to the principles of structural engineering also appears to be a tautology of sorts, as the building would quickly collapse and cease to become a "building" otherwise. The "ought" should be replaced by a "must".
Morality as a human concept designed for humans seems to function in a similar way. Any moral system "must", not "ought", observe universal principles about the nature of human beings as a social species with survival needs or else the very nature and definition of human morality collapses in on itself just as a building which is in violation of structural engineering principles.
@Jacob B Apologies, I'm a bit long-winded but the general point is that there's a structure to everything. There's no "anything goes" even in matters considered most subjective. There are observable trends and patterns (along with anomalies at the individual level). Do you disagree with this basic idea?
Everything seems to want some semblance of structure amidst the chaos, like music wanting some sense of pattern (even to periodically deviate from it as a point of interest, but only in contrast to an established pattern).
So I'm trying to make a case for patterns. My disagreement with moral antirealists is that they seem to even dismiss the pattern we all seek.
It seems like what you're saying is something along these lines:
1. Most people want for society as a whole to thrive.
2. Murder makes society as a whole thrive less.
3. If most people have the necessary cognitive abilities to acknowledge their wants, and the physical abilities necessary to bring them about, they will not commit murder.
So what if I don't care about society at large?
@@Jorge-xf9gs I wouldn't necessarily go that far since I think morality is subjective just like anything in the realm of preference. What I want to contest is the notion that it's arbitrary as a result.
For example, with room temperature preferences, people are going to vary quite a bit in what they consider to be "too cold" or "too hot" as a result of numerous factors including their conditioning, the warmth or lack thereof of the clothes we choose to wear, etc.
Yet there's still an underlying pattern rooted in the constants of human physiology that we all share in common. Keep dialing up or dialing down the temperature and we work towards a unanimous consensus of the room being too hot or too cold as we start to all burn or freeze, reaching and exceeding the universal human limits of what's tolerable without dying.
So with something like killing innocent people in cold blood, I don't want to call such an act "right" or "wrong" in such critical metaethical discussions. Yet it is understandable to me given the constants of our nature as a social species that cooperative groups of human beings quickly find large-scale consensus towards finding it intolerable and outlawing it. I see it in the same sense that almost everyone will agree that a room that is -0.5 degrees C is too cold, since at that point we're working towards necrosis.
Two ships passing in the night. I understand Kane's position and do not get what this other guy is not getting about it.
Please fix your mic. The papers shuffling on your desk were quite distracting and then the non-verbal noises you made with your mouth were quite annoying, perhaps increase the gain? Otherwise it was a great debate between you two. Thank you.
Why would gain improve that? 😂 Move the mic or mute when you're not talking.
Увлекательно
Your mouth noises were really annoying me throughout this discussion- good discussion though!
I know, my mic did not record so I had to go with the computer mic that is terrible :(
@@Mon000I was only teasing, it’s alright
I really like your videos. However I do think the person you are talking to, while well-meaning, is quite the pedantic contrarian.
Perhaps the level of preciseness required to discuss metaethical views might give that impression but I genuinely think that Kane (and anti-realists in general) have defensible views. Metaethics is hard, mine is currently in flux and Kane was kind to talk with me given that I am not even formally an academic philosopher (plus he makes great philosophical videos).
@@Mon000 True, It's mainly this law of non-contradiction skepticism that I find so odd. Maybe I will have to read up on it.
@@McClain3000 I think my language was a bit off, to defend my view I probably could have done without appealing to "beliefs in oughts". Maybe simply saying that we are driven to accept the law of non-contradiction, or some other epistemic principle Kane would have agreed. Or maybe not, not sure.
@@McClain3000 What would you suggest I do -- just lie about my views? There were a few times where I was happy to concede points of disagreement, which hardly seems the behaviour of a "pedantic contrarian".
@@KaneB I apologize, I must have been in a bad mood when I wrote the comment.
I’m have no formal philosophy background. I just can’t wrap my head around the objections or skepticism around the law of non contradiction.
I should I have just said I misunderstood your points or found them unconvincing rather than being jerk.
To hold a philosophy that holds anti-realism at any part can be shown to be a mental illness or delusion. It holds as a principle for ethics that there are no such things as bad things, just a silent democracy vote that things are bad. This is so wrong that you either need to be an edge lord playing games or mentally unstable to hold that as a view.
Morality is Objective.
Life is the Standard. What harms life is bad, for life; the only time bad can exist is when it affects a life--bringing it closer to non-life. What improves life is good, for life; the only time good can exist is when it affects a life--bringing it closer to flourishing.
What harms life? Objects that exist in reality which have a certain identity that damage the Object that exists in reality having the identity of a living being, e.g., poison damages the stomach of the living being that drank it, harming the being, therefore not being good for life but bad for life.
Morality for who and for what?
Your answer: ?
My answer: Morality for objective living beings for the purpose of continuing to be an objective living being.
How is morality objective?
Because I exist as an object in reality with a certain identity which interactions with other objects in reality, and those interactions can extend my time as a living being or can reduce or end my time as a living being.
Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. Life exists at every biological of a living being as it is all a process of self-sustain and self-generated action, each cell, tissue, organ, organelle is alive in a living being (it can be removed from the body and can be kept alive and transported to other bodies)
As a non-living being (a life that just ended) is the ceasing of that process. All the parts remain where they were a moment ago when they were alive, but the process as stopped. Life is the only type of object in the universe which can cease to be. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but a life can. Morality only makes sense for the only object that can cease to exist by making bad choices (the only object that can choose). Morality is a guide to life. Morality is as Objective as the Life it guides.
----
Your philosophy is materialism, which brings with it, a morality of death and brute force because all you can know is might makes right. You renounced your consciousness (which is not the brain, your neurons are not depressed or wired such that the result is depression) your mind cannot connect with reality and thus cannot evaluate justice, and this is the cause of your depression. You renounced your mind and your mind in turn renounced it's own worth, which is what you feel as depression.
"As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter-the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit-the destruction of his mind."
-John Galt, Atlas Shrugged.
Could you explain it better?
@@utkarshsingh-rp2dq Yes, anything in particular or should I just write an essay on the topic?
@ExistenceUniversity no Do not bother yourself. I don't really care about morality anymore. Thank you
@@utkarshsingh-rp2dq Wow that was like 5 seconds of effort and then you gave up. That's kinda sad.
And morally reprehensible, do better for yourself and try.
@@utkarshsingh-rp2dq Wow that was like 5 seconds of trying. Please do better than that.
I'll explain whatever you need explained. Happy to do it.
Normative skeptics are so annoying. 🤣
Thank God for pragmatism.
its academic philosophy wtf do you expect