Episode 20, Russ Shafer-Landau, on Moral Realism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ส.ค. 2024
- In this episode, Alex talks with Prof. Russ Shafer-Landau about his defence of moral realism in his book of the same name:
oxford.univers...
Follow if you like:
/ thoughtologytube
/ thoughtology
![[TH] VALORANT Champions Seoul - Semi-Final - SEN vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IewhVY9cAmQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Highly based
*Extremely based
Thanks as always for such great discussions.
Big fan of Prof. Shafer-Landau's book Moral Realism. Thanks for this wonderful discussion!
I can conclusively prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the good professor’s “family” name alone (what to speak of his metaethics) is OBJECTIVELY evil. ☝️
@@TheWorldTeacher Go ahead XD. Seriously, are you alright?
@@vaclavmiller8032, if I do, will you actually read it (since you have demonstrated that you have failed Chapter 12 of the most important book ever published)?
@@TheWorldTeacher Sure
@@TheWorldTeacher You first
Great video as always! Thanks (both Alex and Russ) for keeping it accessible for people like me who are interested in the topic/s but don't have much background in the literature and terminology.
I became unconvinced of moral realism in the last year or so but I don't think I'd call myself an antirealist, just that (1) I can't see how we could know if moral realism is true, (2) Even if it is true, I can't see how we would know that the moral rules we're coming up with are correct or not, and (3) Even if we discovered the real moral truths, I can't see why I should follow them unless there were additional reasons that aligned with my desires ie. for the benefit of myself and those I care about.
I have some thoughts and questions and would be interested in responses from anyone who cares to leave one;
1) Is there meant to be a relationship between moral truths and wellbeing? Much of the talk I've seen suggests that there isn't but its convenient that many moral truths 'happen' to align with promoting well being and I find it hard to believe that moral realists would be as motivated to promote their position if the results of following those truths were really independent from or antithetical to wellbeing.
2) What's the explanation for how we've come to 'know' the moral truths?
3) I'm not sure why the fairly certain fact that we're an evolved species doesn't throw shade on our truth detecting abilities, especially for detecting something like morality where we can easily imagine how a moral system could be useful for helping humans live and work together for the benefit of our survival and gene propagation all without moral realism being true.
On the other hand, it's much harder to imagine how the physical world could be non existent or vastly different and yet it still helps our survival to have the perceptions that it is real. Although, I think there's plenty of examples of aspects of our perceptions and intuitions don't accurate map onto the physical world but there's a plausible benefit to our survival.
In response
1) I think moral truths ultimately boil down to wellbeing. Note that pleasure/happiness and wellbeing are not the same thing. It could be argued that the maximisation of human wellbeing requires a supernatural dimension therefore moral truths could be non-natural even if they are based on wellbeing.
2) Most philosophers go with intuition but I would go with moral experience. I think that the morality of an action is not just an intuition but an experience which is integral to the action itself and is felt by the agents involve along with observers.
@@ryanhamilton8732 Thanks for the response.
Regarding point (2) what I was really asking is how do they explain how we got our intuitions of morality and why we would think that process was authoritative in accurately determining the truth
IM SO EXCITED TO LISTEN TO THIS!!! I love both of your works!
My guy! Love these, thanks for sharing with us.
I read this guy's Fundamentals to Ethics book for my intro to ethics class. Didn't shake me of my antirealism but I was glad he dedicated an entire section to metaethics, was pretty cool
What are YOUR metaethics?
Why would it? Your comment seems to imply that that was the intention, but it wasn't. If you want to seriously challenge your antirealism, read his defense of realism
@@gotterdammerung6088 He wrote that section in a preachy tone - kinda like "College students always start out as subjectivists or nihilists, but consider these 10 reasons for you not to be."
@Oners82
Reading the exchange, I think you misunderstood KoopaKing’s point. He/She was just saying that Shafer-Landau’s introductory book isn’t non-partisan in response to Götter dämmerung saying there’s no intention of swaying people’s opinion. I don’t think he/she is saying the tone of the book is the reason why the case for moral realism isn’t convincing.
@Oners82
I did and stand by what I said.
Interesting for Russ' two first points to be how "unsavorable" it is to reject realism (appeal to emotion), and the ignorance and irrationality of human beings, when realists like Huemer (phenomenal conservatism) and himself rely upon their own intuitions which would be subject to that same ignorance and irrationality. This is especially in light of lack of explanation for what a stance-independent moral fact actually _is_ or even _could be_ (and also in light of feasible alternatives).
Hey Dr. Malpass, could you please have Dr. James Anderson on your show to talk about Divine Conceptualism? That would be so interesting. I would even pay you to make it happen
It's another loaded framing to say "it's _mature_ to be ok with there being other kinds of things out there, and to get over the inclination to reduce one thing to another." There is a distinction between "being ok" with the idea that there _could be_ other kinds of things out there, and accepting that non-naturalist normativity is convincing and well explained.
I am going to coom. I love this eminent ethicist.
I appears a limited and forced framing to say that someone can choose to do other than that which they "most" want. How do they actually know it's what they "most" want? They've assigned the quantifier "most" to this desire, yet, as Russ points out, people are notoriously ignorant and irrational. It's a weak position to appeal to these kinds of conflicting self-reports of desire, especially when negating the ability of people's ability to understand things in other breaths.
Is it "most" in that moment of reflection? Is it "most" with respect to average of feelings? Is it most in a performative way due to a feeling of post-action guilt or regret?
None of the arguments for moral realism are worth taking seriously. They are usually some form of an argument from consequences or ‘ad populum’, both logical fallacies.
A bit questionable to start this with the framing that it's cliche for uneducated people, or undergrads who have merely read Nietzsche, to think that morality is simply a social construction.
21:05
It’s apparent to me that contemporary philosophy carried out as a professional activity is increasingly useless and unsatisfying to both the community itself and society at large. There is an increasing consensus that the pursuit of knockdown arguments is futile and a doubling down on personal intuition and individual theoretical preferences. This is a shame as wider society today needs the tools of the philosopher more than ever - our collective ontology needs updating as technology races ahead at a dizzying pace, science needs the metaphysician to help interpret and unify what it discovers, people need tools to help differentiate truth from falsity and judge the level of certainty that can be placed on any given claim, people need tools to help disentangle the debates and disagreements that arise when different cultures communicate... l could go on... the ground is ripe for revolution in philosophy. Hope it comes sooner rather than later.
I agree. The all too common appeal to intuition especially when analytical options exist is perplexing. As for the rest, welcome to the post modern age...
I can tell you from personal experience that most scientists don't give a rip about what metaphysicians might think. It is true that there are very rarely knock-down arguments against anything in philosophy (any positon against which there is a knock-down argument won't be defended for very long), but we have no reason to expect things to be easy. Intuition is just as important in philosophy as it is in everyday life.
@@Dan_1348 Intuition is obviously inferiour. There are concrete examples recently of intuition leading to absurdity.
@@danglingondivineladders3994 Logical arguments can also lead to absurdity - they're called paradoxes.
@@Dan_1348 so therefore logical argument is the equal of intuition then? now that's absurd.
don't get me stated on philosophical intuition and so called paradoxes. (I have seen what they say about grundlagen and trust me, the intuitions are simply dead wrong)
ooohhh shit here we go again.
Meaning? 🙄
Uh... did you want to tell usWHO THE OTHER GUY IS!!??? Who'd the bald guy!??
We have an intuition that torturing people for fun is bad? Clearly not familiar with the BDSM community.
based
@Oners82 then the issue isn't torture, its consent and he added torture just to prime your emotions and dull your logic. I wouldn't accuse him of the same underhanded maneuver that you have.
@Oners82 it depends on what you mean by "okay" and why they are asking you to do it. If they are of sound mind, it is moral to burn their eyes out if they ask you to.
@Oners82 by most moral theories. What is your preference? No, obviously it would be immoral to blind someone if they didn't want you to. Everything is context dependent. If you come to my shop an steal, you've done something immoral. But if I say you can take something, or if you give me the requisite money, you haven't. These are the easy moral questions lol
@Oners82 I have, extensively. Not going to answer my question? I wonder why...
🐟 12. LAW, MORALITY, & ETHICS:
The three terms - law, morality, and ethics - are fundamentally synonymous, since “breaking the law” implies the execution of an act which is both immoral and unethical. First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between 'laws' and 'rules'. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL laws, which are based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of murder and adultery). Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons are able to differentiate the inextricable laws of morality, from the mundane rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed legislators.
Therefore, this chapter of “F.I.S.H” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, as opposed to the various laws of physics.
Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, metaethics essentially remain constant within all human societies throughout time.
When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the ENTIRE universe. Therefore, even when a seemingly-innocuous act occurs (such as disposing of plastic products in a rubbish dump, thereby breaking the natural law), the universe is degraded to a certain degree. When a person is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all people need to be more vigilant. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally degraded, just as a single cancerous cell degrades one's entire body, even if to a minuscule extent.
MORALITY is concerned with how any particular act conforms to or contradicts the law. Moral acts are beneficial to oneself, to others and/or beneficial to the ecosystem, amoral actions (for the purpose of this teaching) are actions which are neither against the law nor directly benefit society (in other words, neutral acts), whilst immoral deeds are in defiance of the law (that is, premeditated actions which are intended to cause harm to individuals [including oneself], to society as a whole, or to the environment, the latter of which includes other living creatures). “Act” may include “acts” of omission. If one has the ability and the opportunity of assisting a fellow human in dire need, one ought to do so.
There is but one problem regarding moral law, and that is, discerning which person or persons are competent to judge whether a particular act is beneficial, neutral or harmful, and if it is deemed to be harmful, what should be the penalty for the unethical/unlawful/immoral act, if any.
Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural, and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one should PASS judgement solely solely on those over over whom one has direct or indirect authority. One should avoid passing judgement on those over whom one has no authority, but remain silent, even if that judgment is objectively true, because it is not the place of a subordinate to judge the actions of his or her superiors.
So, for example, a businessman should judge the actions of his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives, his children, employees, and any younger kin (such as nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, etc.). None of that businessman’s subordinates has the right to adjudicate his actions - that is the role of his own masters (that is, his father, grandfather, elder brothers, uncles, priest/guru/imam/rabbi, etc). Judging/misjudging one's superiors is one of the most common sins in this wicked world - just think of the time when you last MISJUDGED one of your superiors!
The ULTIMATE arbiter of any action is the current World Teacher or an Avatar. At any given time, there is one particular man, belonging to the Holy Priesthood, who has attained the highest-possible level of wisdom and understanding of life, and therefore, has the greatest moral authority on earth. The current World Teacher is the author of this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”.
Obviously, it is not practical for the World Teacher or a Divine Incarnation (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit) to adjudicate each and every criminal case in the world. Fortunately, there is established a natural system of justice to perform this function, as explained elsewhere in this chapter.
As concisely explained in the previous chapter, humans do not possess individual free-will. However, that does not necessarily imply that there is no optimal way of living. There is, in fact, an ideal way for humans to behave in every situation, even if it was ordained that we each behave according to destiny, and therefore, imperfectly. Morality is indeed OBJECTIVE, that is to say, independent of the subjective whims or opinions of any particular person. In order for even the smallest society to function smoothly, a moral benchmark must be chosen and adhered to.
Having understood that the basis of law/morality/ethics is the concept of non-harm (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), it is obvious that there is no need to invoke any religious or supernatural belief system in order to establish law in society. There are examples of secular societies which have survived relatively peacefully over many centuries, without the imposition of a monotheistic system of law/morality/ethics.
If an act is harmful to any person, animal or plant (or even inorganic matter, in the case of environmental degradation), then it is immoral, and contravenes the one and only law of the universe. In other words, it is against YOUR law, since you are All There Is (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to learn the true nature of Reality, and how you are that Absolute Reality (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
It can be argued that even miscreants want to live a perfectly blameless life. “No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness.” Immoral/criminal acts are entirely due to a false understanding of oneself and a misunderstanding of what constitutes true peace/happiness. A fully-enlightened saint will never DELIBERATELY cause harm to himself or to others because he knows that his continuing peace of mind depends on him choosing the most beneficial course of action. He will not commit such a detestable action as rape, because he understands that it will disturb his blissful state of existence and hurt another human being, as well as the victim’s loved-ones. It will also harm society, because if he commits sexual assault, every woman in his community will need to take precautions against possible attack.
So, THEORETICALLY, homosexuals themselves fully agree that homosexual offenders ought to be put to death for their crime, because, if not, their perverse behaviour will contribute to the destruction of society, which is built on the family unit, which in turn is based on sexual complementarity (i.e. heterosexuality). Like every person who ever lived, homosexuals desire, more than anything, true peace and happiness, which can never be achieved by unnatural sexual acts and attachments. Some (if not most) persons would counter thus: “But there will always be heterosexual couples who will reproduce, so why not leave homosexuals be?”. That is similar to stating “But if only twenty per cent of the population is murdered, there will still be eighty per cent of society remaining”. Crime left unpunished is the beginning of the end of civilization, as can be very clearly seen in the present age, particularly in those nations governed by non-monarchical (so-called) “leaders”.
So, in summary, you do not want to transgress your OWN laws, knowing that if you do so, you may become afflicted with guilt, and individuals or society will be harmed. Unfortunately, many persons (demons) are unconcerned about how their actions affect others, or even themselves.
It’s not unheard of for a murderer, for instance, to recognize his deed to be unjust, and to concede that he ought to be hanged to death for his crime, or even commit suicide in order to avoid the need for a hangman. Primatologists have observed minimal moral behaviour in great apes.
There are some otherwise highly-enlightened spiritual teachers who erroneously believe that the solution to discerning proper morality and living a completely ethical life, is for each individual person to raise themselves to the teacher's own high-level of consciousness, so that they will AUTOMATICALLY behave in a loving manner in each situation, without the requirement of a moral code. E.g. “Love and do what you will”.
Obviously, no two persons who ever lived could possibly agree on EVERY moral infraction and what should be the exact form of punishment (if any) for each and every moral transgression. Not even the two most holy and righteous persons on earth at any given time would fully agree on what constitutes a criminal/unethical act, and even if they were to agree, they may not agree on what ought to be the penalty for each and every crime. And even if they do agree on all those details, what of the billions of miscreants who are far below their exalted level? Should a government freely allow its citizens to behave according to their whims, in the vain hope that they will one day reach spiritual perfection? That's akin to anarchy. This alone should demonstrate that subjective moral systems are impractical, unfair and unwise, as they are capricious.
Cont...
For most of human history, there were no POLICE to enforce the law, because, until rather recently, most persons resided in rural areas, where crime was relatively scarce, and because ancient societies were self-policing. If a child committed a crime, rather than being carted-off to Children’s Court by a member of the local police department, his or her mother would administer any necessary punishment. If the mother had broken the law, then the master of the house would discipline her. If the husband were to commit an offensive act, his father or employer would take punitive measures, and so on. Just see how much infrastructure modern societies require in order to perform the duties previously performed by all its collective citizenry! A massive police force would be practically superfluous in even a decent monarchy, what to mention under a holy and righteous king. When a nation is established on righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), the requirement of even a small police force would be highly-questionable, because it would be ensured that every single citizen received proper training in dharma/dhamma.
Even though morality is objective, and law-breakers ought to be punished by their respective superiors, there are instances where a court of law may be necessary to judge COMPLEX cases. For example, a wife may have murdered her master after several decades of regular marital abuse, so it requires an unusually wise man to judge her particular case. The most qualified person to be that judge is a member of the Holy Priesthood, especially if the priest is a Prophet or Avatar (a World Teacher or an incarnation of Divinity in human form). Obviously, a large proportion of society would oppose the idea of a holy man judging accused criminals, but as mentioned elsewhere in this Holy Scripture, it is irrelevant what the ignorant masses desire. A good ruler executes the will of God (or more accurately, the True Self, which is the Universal Good), not the subjective sentiments of his citizenry. Personally, if I were taken to court to be judged by a third-party, I would hope that he was an unusually wise, holy and intelligent person, rather than a corrupt servant of the state. What say ye? Wouldn’t you agree?
Apart from the moral laws, there are also ETHICAL rules which can be modified or broken depending on the circumstances involved. The term “ethics” is normally given to actions or policies which are not overtly harmful to society or the ecosystem, yet pose a certain moral dilemma.
For instance, the use of stem cells or of genetic manipulation has the capability to enhance human reproductive outcomes, yet conversely, may cause the human race to gradually evolve into a species which possesses artificial traits, unable to withstand various attacks from nature.
It is beyond the purview of this Holy Scripture to list EVERY possible immoral act and its appropriate punishment, but because this treatise was composed during a particularly dark period in human history (“Kali Yuga”, in Vedic terminology), it is pertinent to mention a few, because some of these crimes are considered not to be immoral at all in the estimation of a huge percentage of the population. The term “criminal” is synonymous with “immoral”, “sinful”, and “unlawful”, that is, any act which causes undue harm to oneself, other beings, or the environment.
Some crimes which deserve CAPITAL punishment in most (if not all) cases are: adultery, fornication (unless the couple were both virgins beforehand, and decide to marry as soon as practical), persecuting and/or grossly-offending a member of the two higher-classes of society (that is a member of the priesthood or a monarch), premeditated murder (which includes deaths as a result of war waged by illegitimate governments), grievous assault, high treason, homosexual acts (except within polygamous marriage), and rape (including bestiality).
Crimes which warrant CORPORAL punishment (which is normally limited to imprisonment, revocation of certain privileges, or a penitential activity such as writing lines or performing chores, since physical lashing is rarely necessary) include: theft, kidnapping, false imprisonment, deception, blackmail, extortion, bribery, fraud, forgery, false accusation, insubordination (disobeying or insulting a superior), gambling, assault (including sexual molestation), vandalism, neglect of one's duties, entrapment, sabotage, obstruction of human rights, obscenities such as wilful public exposure and pornography, reckless operation of a motorized vehicle, animal cruelty (unless the defendant is literally starving and needs to eat an animal to stay alive) and, of course, killing another human (Euthanasia and suicide can be legitimate in certain cases. Abortion is legitimate in the case of rape, or if the health of the mother would be endangered to a serious degree if the pregnancy were to continue).
Of course, when a law-breaker (i.e. criminal/sinner/miscreant) is punished, related persons may also be harmed in some way. For example, the life of a human being is destroyed when a raped woman chooses to abort her child, but the suffering endured by the raped woman may be so great that an abortion is justified. If she is forced to give birth to the baby, she may hold deep-seated resentment towards her offspring and neglect or abuse the child, which would cause serious emotional and/or bodily distress to him or her. Therefore, it is imperative that complex cases be ADJUDICATED by an appropriate authority, as previously explained. N.B. Only persons over the age of reason can be morally-culpable.
This chapter of “F.I.S.H” is a tour de force of sheer truth and logic, and the truth shall always conquer (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit)!
“Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality.”
Michael Ellner,
American Author.
“Should one find a man who points out faults and who reproves, let him follow such a wise and sagacious person as one would a guide to hidden treasure. It is always better, and never worse, to cultivate such an association.”
Siddhārtha Gautama (AKA Lord Śri Buddha),
Dhammapada 76.
I wish I had the patience to read this
@@solomonherskowitz, have you NEVER read a book?
My comments fill only TWO PAGES of A-4 sized paper (9-point type).
@@TheWorldTeacher never really read physical books but I did read some audiobooks
@@solomonherskowitz 🤔
Well there is no such thing as morality. Prof. Russ is still getting paid as a philosophy professor is a mystery for me. Out of all the arguments for moral objectivity Prof. Russ's is the weakest one, in fact it isn't a philosophical arguments at all.
His whole argument is like shouting loudly "there are objective moral facts, there are objective moral facts × n times" and expecting that shouting somehow makes an argument.
Well, I very well stomach the implications of moral subjectivity. Implications aren't any arguments.
Morality is important in a society, in fact very important, but it is a social construct, not an objective one.
I mean seriously? Prof. Russ's whole argument for objective morality is that the implications for the opposite case are bad. Lol, seriously ?
He has been saying same thing his whole carrier. Lol
He is almost begging to accept his argument, but he doesn't have an argument at all. He whole argument is kind of accepting blindly that objective moral facts exist. Hahahahaha.....
The David Hume's argument against moral objectivity is final. So is his argument against free will. So is his argument against metaphysical claims.
I guess David Hume used to have dozens of likes of Prof. Russ's for breakfast. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.......
Such a waste of university funding.
"Patent wrongness of torture" ,lol hahahahahaha....
His arguments are drowned in fallacies. Lollllllllllalalalalalalalalal
I have never heard a more incompetent philosopher in my whole life. Even religions have better arguments that his. He is a comedian by now. Hahahahahaahahahahahahaha...........
"What we think that data are claims, which SPECIALISTS in that domain have strong reasons to belive in" LOLOLOLOLOL. So, people who don't agree with him are just NON-SPECIALISTS, thus wrong. What fallacy is that? Appeal to authority I guess?????
Cope and seethe
I find it bizarre when moral anti-realists get so worked up. Why do you even care? There's no good or bad to worry about. So chill out.
"Morality is important in a society, in fact very important, but it is a social construct, not an objective one."
Huh? How can it be important if moral realism is false. There is no important, there is no good, there is no bad. You don't make any sense.
Moral realism truly is the butt of all jokes in philosophy.
Why?