We Agree Now! | Rationality Rules & Cosmic Skeptic | Is Morality Objective?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 พ.ค. 2019
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/podcast/th...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/16wUbvD...
To support the podcast on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: teespring.com/stores/cosmicsk...
To anybody who supports (or even considers supporting) my channel monetarily, thank you. I am naturally grateful for any engagement with my work, but it is specifically people like you that allow me to do what I do, and to do so whilst avoiding sponsorship.
-------------------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------------------
After discussing morality for a number of years now, Steve and I have finally found our common ground. There are still subtle and important differences in our approaches, but substantively we now seem to agree about the objective/subjective status of morality.
-------------------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------------------
Rationality Rules: / @rationalityrules
Our previous moral discussions: • My Problem With Sam Ha...
• Sam Harris is Wrong Ab...
• My Views On Morality (...
• Rationality Rules - De...
• Cosmic Skeptic's Criti...
My free will video: • Why Free Will Doesn't ...
Steve's free will video: • Free Will - Debunked
'Objectivity': www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/
Hume -- is/ought problem: plato.stanford.edu/entries/hu...
Hume on induction: web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses...
Kant -- categorical and hypothetical imperatives: plato.stanford.edu/entries/ka...
Mill -- Utilitarianism: www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm
Peter Singer -- Practical Ethics: amzn.to/2LyNusl
Peter Singer -- The Expanding Circle: amzn.to/2JvLkH9
Richard Dawkins -- The Selfish Gene: amzn.to/2LuQ02M
----------------------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
---------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole discussion has been incredibly fruitful for me, and I want to once again say thank you Alex, for challenging and changing my views. It's been awesome, and I look forward to future discussions.
You were right when you said that the person with the anti-social impulse ought to act on it (from their subjective POV). However, ethics as I understand it is like a 3rd party observer looking at what actions provide the most good to the most people. Defining ethics like this allows us to hold ourselves and others accountable (via the law and societal shame) despite whatever anti-social impulses we have.
I do too
Hey, Rationality Rules,
Essence of Thought replied to your Transgender Athletics video and it's very interesting. Can you to review your views on it?
@@Jay-vz7og He announced 5 days ago that he's working on a clarification on that topic which I think many people are eagerly waiting for.. probably for very different reasons :)
I saw an unfortunate message that the ACA left on their discord about you. They said something to the effect they've rec'd backlash b/c of your views on transgenders and they're disappointed in themselves and will do a better job of vetting their guests in the future. I thought it seemed like a pretty big back-stab, since you seemingly just palled with them for a week or two in person. Figured you should know.
CosmicSkeptic: "We finally agree!"
Me: "Oh boy, I'm curious to know how they reconciled their views."
CS: *hour and a half video*
Me: @.@
Me: *adds to watch later*
Alexander Englebert I LITERALLY JUST DID THIS 😂
TLDR please, people.
@@ancbi TLDR Attempt: Free will does not exist as we are subconsciously forced to act on our desire, specifically our desire for pleasure, which is genetically and sociologically ingrained into us. Every action we make is therefore based on what we *think* will give us the most pleasure. But there is an objective answer to what action *will* give us the most pleasure, and, therefore, we have beliefs about which action we should take, which are 'right' or 'wrong' according to this version of morality.
I skipped the ending about whether or not it is necessary for free will to not exist for this to be valid, as I got a little lost. Also see Alex and Steven's videos on Free Will for clarification about the first claim and feel free to correct me if you find that I am misrepresenting the views in the video!
@@Max-jf5vu Us as in us as a group or that person individually? because you could say there is an objectively correct way to facillitate group well being, (such as not killing everyone), but how can you objectively tell a rapist that not raping people is for his own best good? what if he believes his lifes purpose is to rape? someone like this does not believe in group well being. Also associating morality with well being in of itself is an opinion, its not in the definition of morality
Rationality rules in the comments says thanks for changing my views.
I think it’s him
Every debate "should" end as beautifully as you two ended yours. "Here's how you changed my mind... Here's what you made me realize... Thanks."
Hope you didn't derive that "should" (read: ought) from an "is" 😂
3:38 what do we mean by ‘objective’ morality
21:37 impulse is that individual’s ‘should’, whatever it is
25:27 everything is ultimately broken down to pleasure, which is more useful than ‘wellbeing’
27:50 Stephen’s argument
Thanks for the time-stamps. I love your username lol.
@@sanmigueltv no probs, they were actually for my own reference
Thanks
I’d prefer to use the phrase “reduce suffering” and not “pleasure”. A person could crave food to avoid hunger and not desire any pleasure from the taste.
Listening now.
Pleasure eh....my intuition is that is insufficient
This is exactly how 2 allies should handle a disagreement.
How any two people should argue.
*The most intense crossover of the Century!*
have they determined if thanos is a moral objectivist?
I say this with love, but all this conversation is is an incredible game of echo-chamber chess ♟
You’ve clearly never watched anime
Truth
Ah, yes, the good ol' crossover between atheism and atheism, so risque!
I love listening to you two talk and discuss. You are 2 of my favourite TH-camrs and Englishmen. There's a calm in the way you both talk, which is inviting to listen.
This conversation was amazing to listen to. I broke it up over a few sessions, but found it so eye-opening. Especially impressed with how elegantly you two found a way to wrap it all up. Bravo.
When you get a prager u morality from god video as the ad for this conversation
Omg are there ads like that that is horrible
Simon you should look at this in a positive way.
It's lost ad revenue :D
It's the transfer of money from Prager to CS via Google. Good. 💰😎
Ad Block is your friend.
@@Kevin-jv7mz sometimes sure
So no diss track after all?
Yeah, left me quite diss-appointed if I'm being honest
IMO Stephan would've destroyed Alex if they went to the dissing route!
@@gaunterodimm3569
Oh, you mean diss-troyed? 😉
At this point i think the limits of the English lanuage to Express thought is what limits theese two to communicate.
True. It's amazing and very fruitful discussion.
That is why I am creating my own language
Objective morality claims always make me chuckle. Morality is nothing more than a man made construct to create an environment where humans can live safely amongst one another. A contract of sorts between mammals that have a particularly large brain in comparison to their body size.
Attempting to create an objective morality from nothing is the classic ought from an is and will remain a fallacy in perpetuity. These two very smart people, able to dazzle us with their eloquence, will never change that fact.
Ken Hiett
I agree morality is subjective. As it seems does Alex. He does not say that morality is objective. He does say that all morality is rooted in subjectivity. Merely, Alex and Steven are trying to create a useful framework. Which they did. I don’t believe Stevens position on objective morality was cleared up, however, what is very clear is that Alex still remains a moral subjectivist.
@@antoinerockamora9813 You are correct about their positions and then I watch Alex use morality as a basis for his Veganism argument. Morality is a very poor basis for any argument imo.
The most beautiful dialect that I have ever seen. The passion shown by Alex and Stephen to find the truth was so evident throughout the conversation.
Thank you for keeping it civil and clean my 11 and 6 year old watch with me.
@Kwistenbiebel200 definitely, and they use very technical language. My kids ask me something different every time. What does that mean mom? So thumbs up for that
@evilknibbo you got me there for a moment 😋
Jonas Sandoy ...give examples, please.
@Jonas Sandoy Think it's incumbent on you to expand on why you believe that to be the case. Otherwise, you're guilty of doing the same, only worse being that you're just name-calling.
@Jonas Sandoy thank you for your concern about my kids. It has been noted. Any debate example you would recomend? I am always looking for clean debates that I dont have to censor while with my kids.
Alex: “I think it should be.”
Stephen: *laughs*
Me: “I understood that reference.”
What reference
Can u explain
Explain the fking reference man
Dyow Zhars don’t even remember at this point.
@@utkarshdixit5567 @Fahimus Alimus Alex had been talking about the concept of 'should' and 'ought' and at the end he did say the word 'should' in his own speech.
I remain in total awe of you both. Your conversation truly stretches my mind, a very good think for a not-so-bright 66 year-old. I plead ignorance on iTunes, but I'm anxious to get the Debunked card game...though I don't think I know two other people in my life intelligent enough to play it! But simply owning it would be enough for me. Again THANKS beyond words to you both!
Yes, I did get through the whole thing in one sitting. I also got a lot of housework done. Thank you both. I love you guys.
You guys are doing a great job here on TH-cam...Keep the good job!
I think you ment keep up the good work;) Although they probably have fun, so it is a good Job for them, but who are you to force them what they should do?
@@Feds_the_Freds keep all the good everything!
Feynman
Alex and steven.......this was really amazing. You changed my mind as well.
I'm really glad I have found this channel. It makes me want to answer questions I could have been to lazy to investigate in the past.
Just wanted to say this :) And thank you.
Not objective, never will be. But the fact that it is subjective doesnt mean we cant create frameworks that we agree to follow that are based on objective observations about our well being. And enforce them with the collective power of democracy
Agreed, but we might as well call it objective in the framework we have set for ourselves. Best example I can find on this is the analogy to chess. As long as we all agree on the rules/goals of chess we can make objective claims as to what is the best move in said game.
@RDE Lutherie Fair, but it seems to me that on the questions of morality we mostly agree on all topics.(ex. Murder, rape, stealing as a bad thing)
@RDE Lutherie I agree completely
It's an objective framework, which is ultimately subjective in the way that it's not set by fundamental rules of the universe, but objective in the sense that if we agree on what morality is, then we can objectively measure what and what does not act in our best interest as a species.
I'm curious.. What renders science objective, when morality is apparently not objective? After all, it was humans that defined and posited a goal for each. How is our notion of science objective but not our notion of "good"? In my view, they're both subjective and objective in the same ways. They're ontologically subjective and epistemologically objective. All concepts--including planets, keyboards, science, water, fire, matter, etc.--are subjective. No arbiter exists deciding what any of the terms mean. Humans decided what each of those terms mean. And if it's not merely arbitrary/subjective for them to have done that, then why is it when they've chosen to define "good" in a specific way? It's not only our notion of morality that is subjective, but indeed our notion of everything, including what constitutes physical reality. How do you know you are looking at a building when you are standing before it? Because within your mind, there exists a perceptual structure organized into a hierarchy of values, reaching all the way down to the most axiomatic among them, that enables you to determine the nature of reality. And the same can be applied to morality. Within my mind exists a hierarchy of values, rooted in axioms, that enable me to determine what's right and what's wrong. Like with anything, I can be mistaken, but no more reliably than in my efforts to accurately perceive objective, or physical, reality. Maybe it's actually not wrong to murder people, just like maybe the thing I presume to be a building is really an optical illusion of some sort... but I have good reason to doubt both, and I'm generally no less confident in my moral convictions than I am any other convictions I hold. Contrary to popular belief, there exists no fundamental difference between our perceptions of morality and physical reality. The methodology underlying efforts to ascertain truths in both domains is essentially the same. It starts with axioms, and works upward from there. Reach down deep enough in attempting to figure out why it is you believe you know something, and you'll quickly realize that, at best, what you're left with is an axiom--something that can't be verified through reference to anything else, but that is instead simply self-evidently true. You can think of these most foundational of beliefs as the things that, in any effort to deny, you necessarily validate. And morality need not be any less grounded in axioms than our perception of physical reality. At some point, in both cases, you have to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," if you will. If you doubt this, then tell me what the thing you're most confident in of anything is, and I'll demonstrate to you as we dig deeper and deeper how that belief is no more justified than my strongest moral convictions, and likely actually less justified. This is because even our efforts to understand physical reality are ultimately underscored by moral convictions at the end of the day; it's just that many people fail to realize this. They fail to realize why it is they even attempt to understand anything. But there are moral implications at every step along the way, whether people realize it or not. Your moment-by-moment experience of the dynamics of pleasure and pain is motivating all that you consciously do. Evolution instituted pleasure and pain to serve as the catalysts for all conscious action, and this can be easily realized through a marriage of deep enough introspection with the relevant science. Pleasure is the motivating agent, and pain is the deterring agent, and these manifest in complicated arrangements over large spans of time to drive all that we consciously do. And what better way to conceive of what's "good" than literally the only thing that will ever motivate a conscious agent to do anything? Likewise, what better way to conceive of "bad" than literally the only thing that will ever deter a conscious agent from doing anything? I can hardly think of more self-evidently true propositions than those. That well-being is all that matters is such a basic truism that I'm frankly amazed anyone has ever attempted to deny it. Don't you recognize that the very fact that you're trying to deny it implies, at the very least, your subconscious recognition of it?? You're only trying to deny it because the dynamics of pleasure and pain coalesced into your desire to deny it. It reminds me of when people attempt to deny the existence of consciousness without realizing that their efforts to do so are only substantiating the very thing they're attempting to deny. That's what we mean by consciousness, you dopes!! We're talking about the very thing that's enabling you to do what you're attempting to do--quit getting bogged down by the semantics! Likewise, what anyone means--whether they realize it or not--when they're talking about "morality" is well-being; it's reducible to that. I've literally never encountered even a single case where I can't trace someone's moral objection to--or support for--something back to well-being. Again, words don't define themselves; we define them, and we've demonstrated--whether knowingly or not--that the very essence of morality is a system designed to preserve well-being. So again, I must ask--what exactly is less than entirely objective here? To me, this entire debate screams of semantic confusion and strange double standards in language usage.
It's just 15 min in and I am already blown away. Amazing discussion
Wonderful conversation. Thank you.
While listening to you talk, I had fun myself substituting 'Pleasure' & 'Pain' with 'Love' & 'Fear'. OK admittedly it opens up a totally different discussion about the many potential and differing definitions of 'Love' and 'Fear', but I'm not convinced that you have yet explored all the potential definitions and ways in which a human being can perceive and experience 'Pleasure' and 'Pain'.
Thank you, gentlemen. Wow! I’ve got a lot of content to re-digest. Great conversation though. I can’t wait to talk about it with others!
The title of this video brought me so much joy! I cannot begin to describe the feeling. I absolutely adore philosophy and I am so intrigued by theology, from a rational point of view. These two wonderful thinkers featured in the video have provided me with so many questions and answers throughout the years! You inspire me and drive me each day to reach my most critical thinking. Thank you for sharing the things in your unbelievable minds with us and enriching us all with your ideas.
!!!!n!!HJ++++h-j-+++((((-j+JJJ++JJJ
!!!!n!!HJ++++h-j-+++((((-j+JJJ++JJJ
That was AMAZING !
Thank you so much (from France)
that's what i like about you two', you are listening and trying to get the right answer together rather than just trying to "win" the debate, great conversation guys
Wow. I've just finished the hour and half of this, and it's utterly awe inspiring.
Like, I've been here and seen both of you guys evolving opinions about morality with time, and so was mine swinging with every argument each one of you make to refute the others'. I almost took me for a biased, because of how ever hard it's for me to resist adopting them.
So I just am exhilarated to see this "We Agree" :)
P.s. Please, keep us all updated on every single change in both of y'all views. I'd love to hear 'em!
Much love,
I saw Alex and Stephen in the same video and I clicked it.
Keep doing this wonderful job.
Jonas Sandoy hooboy, here we go...
Misunderstanding of what?
@Jonas Sandoy
evolution comes from living things finding the best way to survive and keep their population surviving. How does that relate to them having the best morality?
wow, what an honestly wonderful conversation. two brilliant people trying to come to a genuine understanding rather than loudly arguing over each other from a presupposed standpoint? this is so refreshing to listen to
If the sun rises for a billion years everyday in the past, we can know it rises tomorrow. This guy said that’s not true. That’s bs.
@@marvinwilliams7938We can *predict* it will rise tomorrow, but we cannot know, because that makes several assumptions that you literally cannot prove.
Intuitively, I agree with you - we can know it rises tomorrow. Why? Because it rose yesterday, and 4b years ago, and so on. But in that answer, you take a load of assumptions for granted.
@@Adam-tp8py Barring aside humanities scientific knowledge of space and revolutions of planets, where do you draw the line between 'predict' and 'know'?
I think predict is also too soft, if you really had to use the word predict, you would say "predict with extremely extremely extremely strong certainty".
If you want to be mathematical about it, the if the sun revolved around everyday for 4billion years, then the chance that tomorrow it does not is 1 divide by 4billion. So really, there's a 99.9999999999% chance it does rise tomorrow. To me, that is a "know".
@@marvinwilliams7938 On a pragmatic level, I don’t disagree. In day to day life we don’t make that distinction, but this is that space where we aren’t talking in day to day terms, but with more semantic adeptness. What you described, semantically, isn’t knowing. It’s, as you said, predict with an extreme level of certainty.
@@Adam-tp8py Again, barring aside our scientific knowledge of how the planets revolve, interested to know what would make you go from "predict with an extreme level of certainty (in this case 99.999+% certainty given it has everytime in the past 4b years)" of the sun rising tomorrow to "knowing" the sun will rise tomorrow? Would it have to include the scientific knowledge of how planets revolve?
Nevertheless, the guy said no flat out, which is quite a far-fetched statement
My husband and I differ philosophically and these discussions between the two of you have been really helpful. The last part that Stephen shares, where he says that some truths will be uncomfortable. I find that the most interesting and heartening part of it all. That we must understand and anticipate that. Thank you both so much. I will keep listening.
That was amazing. Thank you for the good content!
There is no such thing as an objective morality. Alex got it right at the start. There is no external imperative for any individual to survive or have pleasure or wellbeing. This is for the very reason that there are no external imperatives. We are subjects, our imperatives are subjective and personal, even if we share them on mass, it still formulates and exists within us each individually.
I agree, i always found the notion that there was really absurd.
a personal expression of morality is subjective the observation of that expression is objective.
@@nyborg6425 Elaborate.
@@Trickey2413 In the same way I guess gravity is expressed by the density of an object, and the expression is subjective to the density of object, but the observed phenomenon we call gravity is objective.
It is that we are taking about that object in particular that makes its density subjective to it, not that density is subjective in any other sense.
@@nyborg6425 I see what you are saying, but the problem is simply that imperatives aren't part of the physical universe the way gravity is. Our "oughts" aren't like gravity, because gravity acts with or without the presence of our conscienceness, our oughts do not. Morality suffers in that respects a similar issue to mathematics, and languages, in that it doesn't exist "out there", it is a product of our minds, if human beings had never existed, there would be none of it, because it exists in our conceptualisation of the world and nowhere else.
I guess somebody just said, "Oh get a room you two"
HahahaahhhaaaXD
I am speechless, this is surely the best video on yt. Your take on morality is almost identical to mine, but I have never been so systematic in "building it up". Thank you, Alex and Stephen.
You are our hope... thank you both of you for doing this and we are getting better humans.
Oh how I wish I could have been present with you two for this conversation. I've touched on many of the nuances of this conversation for years but only in my own mind. I only just watched the first discussion you two had on this topic yesterday, then this just dropped into my feed this morning, but not before crunching on my own time and arriving to he exact same questions and conclusions you guys did, which were derived from a combination of my thoughts over the years and your original video helping to really get me to give this more intentional thought. It was fun to watch this in amazement as many points you two hit is where I landed literally an hour or three before I found this video. Good stuff. High five.
Same here... I just keep having these kinda deep debates in my mind since there's no one I know who is interested or even understands such topics.... Honestly I think there should be an online group of like minded people who can converse with each other!!!..
I have no choice but to love this video because doing so brings me a pleasure experience
This was a great discussion, gentlemen! Excellent!
This is such a good conversation.
There should be a follow up video discussing "pleasure". I think that is what makes the matter complicated. How do we quantify the pleasure? What is meant by maximizing pleasure practically and with reference to philosophy? How to objectively tell one act is more conducive to pleasure than other? Are we looking at the quality of pleasure or the quantity? Are there different kinds of pleasure? If yes, how should we go about it? How to derive morality from pleasure? There can be several acts that all give pleasure but how to choose from them? And, so.on. There should be a discussion on these and similar points.
I would specifically like to see the "how to o jectibly tell one act is more conductive to pleasure than another" because I understand Steven's case but to me, pleasure is subjective. I like chocolate, yoy like vanilla. I have X music taste you have Y. I agree there is a right and wrong way to go about maximizing your own pleasure but my problem is that pleasure is inherently subjective.
@@kaimcgregor7615 and we should include actual neuroscientists and psychologists in the debate
I thought as well.
I still can't believe my all-time favorite TH-camr went through with his own logic and ended up being a vegan. This is the best. You are awesome
And now he’s not LOL
This was a fascinating conversation!
Listening this conversation has given me a great deal of pleasure.
34:26 I think they nailed it here Ought defined is "That's what I would do in that situation" seems pretty spot on.
You 2 keep showing us how to properly disagree. It keeps us focus on the issues not the debater Fabulous
njAutonomy aaaaahaaaaallhh
I would know nothing of moral philosophy without these two gentlemen. Thank you so much for doing the work you do!
This was a great conversation to have while doing documentation.
This combined moral framework/deterministic framework is really useful. There's just one question that I found to be not answered.
How does anyone change their mind? Can anyone choose their beliefs? If everyone is always seeking to maximize their pleasure, and one's beliefs lead people to choose certain methods of maximizing their pleasure, then moral questions come down to "Are people responsible for choosing what they believe?"
There's several major possible ways to approach morality based on how you answer this question. If logic is "forceful" in itself, or rather if human reason is sufficient for any person to latch onto the truth when they hear it, then debate and discourse are the best tools for creating a more moral society. If, however, human psychology is such that no amount of debate can rectify erroneous ideas, then indoctrination is the best tool for creating a moral populace. If people are not predetermined in their beliefs, but can instead freely choose what to believe regardless of facts, then a combination of rational argument and shame may bring people around to moral thinking.
How this question is answered has major implications for reformative justice, education, and child-rearing. If everyone has but one key desire, and cannot do anything other than act upon that desire, then *belief* is the sole determiner of action once circumstance is accounted for, making epistemology and psychology the two greatest arenas for ethical debate.
57:02 "what would be an example"
i felt that 🥴
My brain exploded in a pleasurable way. Great discussion guys.
All we have is conversation. What an excellent discussion!
2007: The Four Horsemen
2019: The Dynamic Duo
Both are porn for reasoners
Akil Bryan aaaaaiiiiiiii
their name is yonko. not four horseman shit
@@BigBaibars one piece eh!
26:26 - "That's people's problem." The challenge with this kind of higher level philosophical debate made available to the public summed up in three words.
my mind has been blown. Iv never even thought of any of this before. Iv subbed to the both of u.
I just love it when debates go like this. Can’t wait until you fellas start writing the next great books.
I thought I was good at understanding philosophical reasoning before I watched this video. Nevermind...
it's probably just that you lost brain cells
@@efenty6235 Maybe I am a lost brain cell
(๑•﹏•)
My objection to objective reality is subjective
That was awesome, thank you both very much.
Stephen, I truly hope you find the satisfaction you're looking for in this amazing journey of yours.
Anti-watchers of these channels think discussions, sound logic and reasoning cause oughtism.
(I can't help but think my pun is hilarious)
You are not alone
therealpepeu It is a good one.
You ought to.
Get ought
lol you got me 11 months later, good one
No way! I was deathly scared of both these dudes a few months back while I was still a fundamentalist. Glad to see them together.
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result:
Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word',
which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than theist-channel.
So i think we should all self-reflect here.
Amazing stuff, guys. You make me think!
Amazing discussion guys! Congratulations
As a student of philosophy, I draw a hard definitional line between morality (as a doctrinal imperative) and ethics (a socioeconomic imperative). Basically, morality, by this definition, is religious or tribal, and there more subjective and prone to change, whereas ethics comprises what is best for the continuation of species and society as a whole, apart from relative doctrine.
Wanting what's best for the species could be seen as a moral position.
nowhereboy - It could but, philosophically, they differ. That’s why university philosophy departments have Ethics courses, not Morality courses. Morality is based on dogma where the few decide what’s best for all. Ethics is neutral and unconcerned with dogma. I’m not using common vernacular here. Just as the non-scientists often misuse the word “theory”’, the average person blurs the line between ethics and morality.
@@cheeseofultimatedoom thats no such thing as best for species...either way we evolved such that adaptive genes are generally propagated, that could just as easily be morality
David Williams - Ethics is concerned with the benefit of society, not necessarily species. We discourage murder and theft because if these behaviours were left unchecked, society could no longer function. Morality places values of “right and wrong” or “good and evil” on various actions, often with an explanation of “because god said so.” Ethics and morality often do overlap in what behaviours are encouraged or discouraged, but they are not the same. Each religion has its own moral code, but Ethics is concerned with none of them. As a Pagan, I care nothing for the “right and wrong” of Christianity, for example, but I do care about the wellbeing of those around me and the continued functioning of society. As such, ethics drive my conscience, not religious moral imperatives.
@@hollyhartwick3832 do you agree is misguided to speak of objective, scientific morality or ethics?
I wish I had friends like you two to hang out and have discussions with. The only thing is the whole discussion would be you talking and me saying,, " uh-huh... uh-huh, yeah"
Uh huh, transphobia, uh huh
We need men like you in this world. Discussing important ideas.
Brilliant, Alex! I think you have constructed a new, interesting foundation for ethical belief, through a very clever synthesis of ideas about free will and motivation. Rigorous thinking there mate!
There are some interesting developments in neuroscience that are relevant to this topic. Kent Berridge and colleagues ( th-cam.com/video/aIYGWrc3jWo/w-d-xo.html ) have shown that wanting and liking are different systems in the brain. For example, if you stimulate a rat's "wanting system" while it gets electrocuted, the rat will subsequently want to get electrocuted even though it dislikes it. The researchers think this is what's behind tragic addictions in humans. We can learn to want that which we dislike. Likewise, the researchers have found that if you stimulate a rat's "wanting system" while it receives a small pleasure (sugar) and you don't do it while it receives a bigger pleasure (opioids) the rat will subsequently want the smaller pleasure more. I think this strongly disproves Alex's point that "the only thing you can actually desire is the maximization of pleasure". We don't. Our systems can and do sometimes go haywire.
My desire to watch this video was driven by pleasure and the will to watch it was not free and I am okay with that. Thanks to you both awesome people. I am awed.
I liked that the two of you worked to remove distractions from the discussion. Like: it wasn't outside; it was only the two of you; the sound was good etc. Hell Alex, you even lowered the laptop screen (I'm guessing) in order to concentrate better. So all this moved the conversation on better, good! I even think it helped that the two of you started out by admitting that the other had changed your mind (less chance of ending up in the ego-ditch). Usually all that is not necessary, but this subject is just so much more demanding than most subjects so... Good! :)
Thanks for this contribution.
Great podcast guys! I'd suggest the topic of framing when discussing whether morality is objective/subjective. The well-being deduction of morality is measurable within the frame of sentient beings but beyond that it is arbitrary and subjective. Morality doesn't exist in physics but does so in biology.
Also why is the free-will discussion always black and white? Isn't there a case for how we are both conscious and subconscious beings and therefore semi-aware. We are evolving toward more free-will but are currently predominantly controlled by our subconscious.
Are pleasure and pain objective or subjective phenomena in your view? If they're objective, then how is morality any less objective than them? Both only exist in relation to conscious subjects. In my view, morality--as well as concepts like pleasure and pain--are ontologically subjective, but epistemologically objective. Hell, even thoughts themselves are entirely subjective, ontologically speaking. This doesn't make them any less real. I can't help but feel some of what you said is mired in the same sort of semantic confusion so much of the rest of this discussion seems to be. Am I missing something?
As a follow-up to my previous post, I'd like to note that some semantic confusion also seems to have spilled over into your thinking on free will. The argument against free will is not an argument against conscious agency. Conscious entities are conscious systems influenced by all manner of phenomena, including the conversation of others, and act differently depending on the influences they're exposed to. But susceptibility to influence does not grant something any more true freedom than something within an entire closed system, where nothing could possibly influence it. Think of it like this: the artificial intelligence within video games was previously programmed with far fewer degrees of freedom than the artificial intelligence within most modern video games. This has resulted in NPC behavior that is far more advanced and sophisticated than what was previously possible. So in some sense, yes--it is now operating in a freer manner. Fundamentally, however, it is no freer than it ever was; its behaviors have merely become more wide-ranging and unpredictable. It's still being entirely dictated by its programming, however. This is analogous to the human situation. Humans are susceptible to a far wider variety of influences than other animals, but they're still fundamentally no more free. They've simply generated a greater illusion of freedom. The idea of free will can be thoroughly demolished in a variety of ways, but perhaps the most succinct way to do it is to simply point out that anything anyone ever thinks or does is entirely the consequence of his neurophysiology in that moment, which he didn't create. And whatever neurophysiology he does contribute to has been determined by the neurophysiology present at the moment he decided to contribute to it in some way. As such, it ultimately reduces to something out of the person's control. Looking for any true freedom reveals only an endless concatenation of prior causes, each of which necessarily produced the next. In each moment, you are forced to act out your strongest desire, and your strongest desire in that moment is entirely determined by the state of your neurophysiology in that moment. Sure, your desires are constrained by innumerable factors. For instance, if you determine something to be unhealthy for you, there's some probability that that will result in your no longer desiring to indulge in it. But again, having your desires constrained is not for you to have any real control over them, as whatever control you attempt to exercise over them will itself be the product of a desire to do so. A sort of infinite regress of desires develops where the freedom you're looking for is never found. Let me know if you're confused about any of this, and I'll try my best to clarify. Be careful to remember, however, that none of this renders anything you do any less meaningful. Good and bad consequences of behavior will always exist regardless of what ultimately drove the behavior, and people, including you, in acknowledgement of this, should seek to maximize the good consequences and minimize the bad ones.
You can’t even say “I think therefore I am.” Strictly speaking you can say “There is thought.”
I think it would me accurate to say: There is awareness of thought
Awareness comes before the thought I would assume
stop, what the hell are you talking about?
Alex details the conversation at around the 35 minute mark by introducing an idea of “shoulda that is not the salient factor in anyone’s usage of the word. In his example, the driving force behind our saying “should” is the underlying premise that they want to get where they’re going as efficiently as possible.
I agree, fits well in my understanding and worldview.
I feel that the word you guys are thinking is "pleasure" is closer to the economic term "utility"
Zeal Raphaeaeael Yes well in utilitarianism, utility is defined with pleasure
@@JM-us3fr beneficial is a much better word then pleasure.
@@JM-us3fr beneficial is a much better word then pleasure.
"we agree" So no Jerry Springer-like shenanigans?
One more thing: I would have loved to have been there discussing all of this with you guys!!
Switch words from pleasure to reward and i agree with you. And about acting differently dont forget about emotional states, person can agree with you and be so invested in the act that he cannot stop. Reason alone is not only factor that contribute to decision making.
OMG and so it is proved again that human communication is so flawed that one of the most brilliant minds on the planet take almost 2 hours to transfer only a small state of mind correctly to each other! (Granted, while getting their own state of mind clear in the process.) I'm very glad you guys gained consensus though!
I'd have brought up a video of Prophet of Zod about this subject. He asked whether rocket science is objective. This opened my eyes.
I’d love to see an animation of Beavis and Butt-head, voiced by Mike Judge, having this exact convo.
It's fascinating how two brilliant minds can join forces to make an otherwise boring topic engaging 👍
This is so fresh. Thanks.
"Can you predict the future from the past"
Loading...
Them: Maybe
Lol I can't believe they take that seriously
I see how the lack of free will plays into the argument here, but I don’t see How you can judge the Axiomatic Goal to maximize pleasure to be correct or incorrect. (For reference, I am referring to the lack of free will argument as Will)
1. It is the case that we are born with the axiomatic goal to maximize pleasure.
2. It is also the case that we are forced by Will to act in accordance with the most pleasurable action.
3. We can be correct or incorrect in our beliefs about the most pleasurable action.
4. Presented and convinced of the correct beliefs, we will be forced by Will to act in accordance with the most pleasurable action.
5. Morality is the desire of the most pleasurable action?
I know these premises are based on objective facts rather than oughts, I just want to know how you can get past premise 4.
a. How can you judge the level of pleasure that certain actions give certain individuals?
b. How can you know that the beliefs held are correct or incorrect?
c. How does that have any context on morality?
So for sanity’s sake, let’s reverse the shoplifting example. The man is working a minimum wage job and is struggling to support his family. You walk up to him and propose that he shoplifts to feed his family. Given the circumstances, it could be instrumental in helping him achieve his goal, ie feeding his family, ie maximizing his pleasure. That is a fact presented to him that would allow him to correct his beliefs and if convinced, would force him to act on his Will. How does this showcase what is and isn’t moral?
More please, this is so good
I’m only just catching up to this bizarre conversation. I loved it. 5 stars ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Interesting discussion! Thanks for the insights. However, I cannot help but wonder: what would be the practical implications of this? The ethical base line outlined in the video "your only true desire is pleasure, you cannot act against that desire because there is no free will, so I need to convince you that immoral acts are not the logical way to maximize your pleasure". But is that always possible? For instance: person X hates person Y and wants to kill him to take his possessions, among which a lot of cash that would significantly increase his happiness. Person X doens't have much scrupules so he won't lose a night's rest over the murder, and he has found a way to get away with it without being caught. As far as I can tell, there is hardly any logic in arguing that refraining from killing Y in that case would be the best way to increase X's personal happiness?
That even ignores juridical issues, because you could argue to the shoplifter that he shouldn't shoplift because time in prison is worse, but why should we have those laws in the first place? What maximisation of pleasure argument could we give a bunch of white slave owners in the seventeenth century to pass laws outlawing black slavery, i.e. to adopt the legal framework to make owning a slaves postfactum a bad idea because it would result in imprisonment (i.e. unhappiness for the perpetrator)?
Forgive me if I missed something in your discussion that undermines this, but as far as I can tell, this redefines morality as "it is rational to" (which isn't really morality but rather the study of logic, which I get because you want to bypass Hume, but is it still morality then?)
Well put.
But yes, I find that Steven is inconsistent model. Because on one hand in other podcasts as saying nature.by itself is amoral.
So he is arguing as if he is not within nature, whilst using evolutionary psychology, to assume the ought.
I find it fall flat, and o Connor so far seems to me to be more consistent than Steven.
You should release a statement on RR getting denounced by the Austin guys.
I think I'm gonna have to listen to this video AND "the Good delusion" a couple more times.
CS might be onto something here, although he has some gaps to fill. Hoping to see more videos from Alex on this topic! :D
I found this a very nice conversation and helps me to settle my personal morals in a even more grounded sense. I need to remember to think more about the argument against free will. To me our wants and desires are us that that is what makes us, us and because of that the absence of free will is like saying you don’t have the ability to not be who you are. I need to do further processing later
No moral system can be truly objective, but we can easily delude ourselves into thinking it is.
Jonas Sandoy Since when has the universe had any opinions on anything?
What do you even mean by "truly objective". And how did you know that a moral system couldn't be truly objective? It the fact 1+1=2 objective? or is it subjective because they are just made up symbols? Are you saying morality can't be objective in the way math is objective?
Well, we set the bar of objectivity-- which is the best known possible subjective morality, according to science.
Jonas Sandoy Evolution is a blind force, it doesn’t have opinions.
Jonas Sandoy Also, the universe and evolution are two different things. -_-
One important disagreement i have with both Stephen and Alex, and i think most would agree with if they understood my perspective, is on the point "murder is not wrong but for someone to murder is almost always wrong". I think that distinction is a bad way of looking at it because the purpose of a principle is to be able to apply it where the consequences of the case is not apparent. For example, you walk down an extremely crowded street of new york and see someone coughing, and you realize that the cough could be a mere cold, in which case there is no major problem, but there is a, however small, risk that a new deadly disease has developed and that person is carrying. Now in this case, it could be moral to murder that person to save everyone on this crowded street from dying and in a worse case scenario end human life on earth, but since there is no apparent way of knowing whether this is the case or not, the principle of "murder is wrong" is in most cases a good way to look at things. I think most people can agree that someone coughing should not validate ending their life, but in some rare case it could actually be the moral thing to do. In cases like these, where the consequences of one's actions are not apparent, the principles of "murder is wrong" "stealing is wrong" etc. are useful and will in most cases be correct.
Truly an amazing discussion of which i thoroughly enjoyed, keep up the great work!
"risk that a new deadly disease has developed and that person is carrying"
Murdering the individual in question doesn't necessarily eliminate the chance of the disease spreading though.
Quarentine would be a better option for all involved as it would maximise the pleasure of all involved.
To take another case: A man says he's going to shoot fifteen people. Do you shoot him first?
To which I'd say you could still quarentine the danger until such is mitigated.
It’s kind of absurd when they bring up murder, because murder is a human made law and is literally defined as “unlawful”
@@AvatarOfBhaal This is a pointless objection. I agree that my example was flawed but the point still stands just as strong. There are definitely cases where you cannot midigate a disaster without committing an act that would in less extreme cases be regarded as immoral.
I can listen to this podcast a hundred times and still not get bored
This is what a civilized discussion sounds like. A rare and beautiful thing indeed.
"Is or will be" is objective reality. "Ought" is subjective reality, meaning some "movement" towards or away from a someplace or something. Survival is about merging the impossiblities of "ought" and "is". I'm not convinced "ought" is fully understood. It's more of a wish based on nothing but maximizing pleasure. Just like language can be nonsensical; not everything spoken has an "objective reality".
Interesting discussion. Though I still maintain that morality is subjective, and I don't think I will ever change my mind on it. I do agree that we are born with certain predispositions and that everything we do is necessarily in the pursuit of happiness. I have two videos on objective morality on my channel if you want my views explained in more detail.
I certainly agree with Alex that, in my experience, "If you understood the facts as I currently do, you would take x action," is far and away the most common use of both the words, should and ought.
What a beautiful conversation, Aumann would be proud. Not even Sam Harris' podcast often provides debates of this caliber. I feel both Alex and Stephen have come quite a ways since their first dialogue on the topic, both in terms of fleshing out their beliefs and articulating them clearly. If only politics worked this way, oh how much more we could have achieved already.
I am Christian who has fallen in love with listening to people who disagree with me!!!
🙏✝️
Jonah Kane be careful! I was too, now I don’t consider myself a Christian 😉
Ben McCurry I was very non religious at a time but I couldn’t continue to ignore the massive amount of evidence for Christianity.
@@jonahkane7027 I'm sorry, what evidence for christianity? I am genuinely curious.
Gijs Brans How do you define evidence? What would it look like?
@@jonahkane7027 it doesn't matter what it looks like, it just has to prove enough Christian beliefs to validate christianity.