A Critique of Moral Relativism

Join us at: www.inspiringphilosophy.org
To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
Special thanks to Maximus Confesses for reviewing and helping with the content for this video. To follow Max, and a bunch of other Catholic writers, for their posts and dank memes, subscribe over on medium, and/or like their Facebook group:
/ the-liturgical
/ liturgicallegion
Sources:
www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
Metaethics: An Introduction - Andrew Fisher
No Deep Disagreement for New Relativists - Ragnar Francén
General Semantics - David Lewis
Moral Realism: A Defense - Russ Shafer-Landau
Moral Realism - Kevin DeLapp
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview - William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland
*If you are caught excessively commenting, being disrespectful, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
• For the Censorship Whi...
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

[@expiringphilosophy7605]

I just want to say that you're my favorite apologetics channel on KZbin. You aren't afraid to attack advanced philosophical concepts (like non-cognitivism) and you don't treat us like children. Keep doing what you're doing, man. God bless

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@SylkaChan]

moral relativism applies morals to individuals as well, and not to harm one person for the sake of saving everybody else

[@MsJohnnythunder]

exactly right

[@larrywaddell7332]

@@SylkaChan says who?

[@velveteencherrytart6335]

my brain is currently melting out of my ears i’m so confused and i have an essay due on this in two hours

[@tipeysegismundo]

Omg same

[@rangatempest]

Same, but I have plenty of time left...

[@shlokaeranezhath4177]

Same

[@Convexhull210]

What are you confused on?

[@velveteencherrytart6335]

@@Convexhull210 bestie ur like a year late 😍

[@BOMBI77766]

I'm a simple man, I see IP, I watch, I like.

[@daddyleon]

Does that mean you claim to have no agency in these situations? Let's ope IP does stay moral then :)

[@putinsgaytwin4272]

Egan Tearle *can also be read as I “I see, I pee, I watch, I like”*

[@sageseraphim6720]

Stopped playing Breath of The Wild on my Switch for this!

[@fatstrategist]

Yo, the sequels out now!

[@jakob.conrad]

Very systematic approach to deconstructing relativism, I love it! Certainly you're doing something right by defending these beliefs, other than just presenting them.

[@John-lf3xf]

Leahcim naerc shows you have knowledge but that comment is pretty pointless

[@marvalice3455]

@@leahcimnaerc9543 what part of reality bears witness to moral relativism exactly?

[@degenerate82]

Great arguments for moral objectivism. I wish everyone would watch this and grasp how important this is.

[@idenree8606]

Except it's not really. Moral objectivism is still an incomprehensible oxymoron.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

@@idenree8606 LOL. Says a moral relativist

[@paulnash6944]

@@idenree8606Could I inquire what about objective morality is hard for you to understand? Perhaps I could clarify a few things.

[@jeremyhansen9197]

Arguments against moral relativism are not arguments for moral objectivism.

[@elbretto6062]

@@idenree8606 I agree with you, but the discourse is still important: mainly so that it could be responded to in order to clear up basic confusions and fallacies moral objectivists have

[@AveChristusRex]

6 people found this video at best subjectively wrong. LOL.

[@Radioactive_Treehouse]

This is incredibly interesting, thank you for taking the time to post this. It's much appreciated.

[@jessicadavis8865]

This is a FANTASTIC video! Saving it to show others when this topic arises. Thanks for making this great content!!

[@ShardokUlfrikson]

Really late to this one. I always won arguments against moral relativism by pushing them into a corner where they have to agree that Hitler did nothing wrong. Often times they realize how silly it is before it even gets to that point.

[@TheFate23]

You didn't win any argument, more likely your opponents realized how dumb you are and simply abandoned the discussion.

[@doomgazer2487]

👍👍👍

[@kristianperez4108]

You can do the same thing in reverse by arguing that an obviously good act is evil in some other culture

[@ntz752]

@@kristianperez4108 What good act would be considered evil?

[@kristianperez4108]

@@ntz752 As an American the first thing that comes to mind would be freeing a slave in a country where owning them is considered normal. But I'm sure there are plenty of more examples.

[@jedibattlemasterkos]

NEW VIDEO! THANK YOU IP! :)

[@hugobowyer4840]

This is such an informative video that is helping so much. Thanks a lot dude

[@Radioactive_Treehouse]

Okay I have to write another comment. This video is beyond phenomenal. I can barely believe how incredible of a job you did on it. You've brought up ideas that I don't think that I would've ever thought about in my life.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@idenree8606]

@@InspiringPhilosophy you misrepresented moral relativism.

[@AlonzoFyfe]

An error regarding the section about responding to external reasons. There is a distinction between saying that our internal motivation can be influenced by interaction with our environment and that we are responding to external reasons. An individual whose motivation changes when he takes a blow to the head (such as one who survives having a tamping rod going through his skull) and changes their behavior is not responding to external reasons. Rather, the event changes the internal reasons. Correspondingly, the grumpy old man who learns to like his neighbors is also not responding to external reasons. Rather, environmental factors are changing the agent's internal reasons.

[@williambakos2716]

Love your videos. I enjoy the simplicity of the cinematography and the clear explanations of the subject matter. Thanks a bunch. My wife and I rely on KZbin for our tv (no cable here) and we try to balance out the mindless entertainment with christian subject matter.

[@yourfutureself3392]

Hello! Interesting vid. I have some objections. AGENT RELATIVISM: this was a misrepresentation. Agent relativism isn't the view that people's behaviour isn't motivated by something external to them at all. That would be psichology, not metaethics. Agent relativism is that an action is moral if the agent that carries out the action consideres it moral. The morality of actions is therefore relative to the agent. That has absolutely nothing to do with what motivates agents to act. The fact that a familiy was nice to an old man and that that motivated the old man to be nice to them has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the morality of an action is relative to the agent performing it. So no, your analogy doesn't narrow things down to either cultural relativism or moral realism because people being motivated by external factors is consistent with every theory of metaethics ever. Ad hocness: one can't intentionally make oneself believe whatever moral proposition one wants. You can't just wake up angry one day and decide that you believe that ruining other's lives is actually morally good. It's just not how humans act. Under agent relativism, in order for an action you make to be morally right, you need to truly believe it is a moral action. You don't end up truly believing something is moral by choosing it one day for no reason. If it were that simple to convince yourself that an action is morally great and then feel no moral guilt for having done it, then more people would use this psichological tool. What do you mean by relativism making morals "arbitrary"? Do you mean that they would be dependant on insignificant variables? Or do you mean that it doesn't accurately explain why the things that are good are good in a way that isn't arbitrary? If the former is correct, then it is based on your prior objection. However, human psichology doesn't work that way. This argument would only work if morality wasn't dependant on insignificant variables, but you didn't explain why it isn't. Even if it were the case that agent relativism lead to morality being deoendant on arbitrary choices people make. In order to claim that's wrong you should first be a moral realist and believe that it isn't deoendant on agents, proving your argument beggs the question. If the latter interpretation of what you mean is correct, then I agree that morals being grounded in agents is arbitrary and unjustified, but the same can be said for moral realism. I think it's very intuitive to claim that morals are grounded in moral agents and not in some external moral facts that exist timelessly and spacelessly. After all, morality without moral agents sounds weird. However, I still agree to this objection, if this is what you meant. However, this also applies to moral realism, as it doesn't explain why the moral facts are the ones they are and not others. SPEAKER RELATIVISM: even if there wasn't moral disagreement under speaker relativism, how would that be a problem? There would still be people with different moral values and they would still argue about their moral values. That's all we see. These arguments being disagreements about truth is just an analysis of these discussions caused by different moral values that only makes sence if moral realism is true. You're making a realist analysis of moral differences and then claiming speaker relativism is false because it doesn't fit with the conclusions of that realist analysis. This is begging the question. CULTURAL RELATIVISM: some objections were good, so I will only respond to some bits. Problem of moral reform: it is actually true that cultural relativism can't account for objective moral reform. However, this isn't a problem, as cultural relativists reject the concept of objective moral reform. This objection only works if one first adopts moral realism, wich would demmand for an explanation of moral reform. However, cultural relativists reject moral reform and realism, meaning the objection beggs the question. Morak convergence: the same way moral disagreements wouldn't even suggest cultural relativism, moral convergence doesn't even suggest moral realism. The other arguments against cultural relativism were good. I think you did a good job with cultural relativism, but not with the other two and specially not with speaker relativism.

[@missk1697]

+1

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

How is guilt related to agent relativism? I do many things I earnestly consider immoral but I don't feel guilt for all of them, while I know other people that have the opposite problem. It's not a challenge, just wanted this clarification since you seem well read on this topic

[@yourfutureself3392]

@@tafazzi-on-discord I guess that would depend on the specific agent relativist you're talking to. Agent relativists believe that an action is inmoral if the agent who performs the action disaproves of it. So, the question is: does someone who doesn't feel guilt for an action truly disaprove of it? Different agent relativists may have different responses to that, at least on principle.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@yourfutureself3392 Ok thanks

[@HansBezemer]

His version of Agent Relativism can only exist when you close your eyes and shut your ears at birth and never let any information disturb your perfect moral judgement. Any sane man would state this is utterly absurd.

[@ramoncorrea5716]

Fantastic video as always.

[@MsJohnnythunder]

Beautiful! may the truth always prevail!

[@FeckOffTeaCup]

Keep up the good work. Love your videos.

[@CRAFTE.D]

Daniel Harper “Commander! Commander Amarao!?

[@FeckOffTeaCup]

Yes.

[@MyWatchIsEnded]

Good stuff sir

[@YahwehServant247]

Best video of yours in a while :)

[@mechailreydon3784]

Simple yet professional

[@cz1545]

thank you so much! Incredible video!

[@jennykiss2235]

Amazing

[@understandingthenews8147]

great job and very good illustrations, nice to see :)

[@HodsBroo]

Spectacular video

[@Rostos1978]

If morality is subjective, then there is no right or wrong moral acts. Just desirable and undesirable acts.

[@jacob.tudragens]

Desirable or undesirable is still subjective.😐

[@ShaharIshog-lx7pi]

@@jacob.tudragensthat’s quite literally what he said. Since morality is subjective, that means “good and bad” are really just desirable and undesirable. Dependant on the subject.

[@jacob.tudragens]

@ShaharIshog-lx7pi The question is, how do you get objective morality?

[@ShaharIshog-lx7pi]

@@jacob.tudragens I guess there can only be Objective morality if God exists and creates moral laws independent from us.

[@jacob.tudragens]

@ShaharIshog-lx7pi Sounds about right to me!

[@johnmiller-jf3ez]

Can you imagine the chaos?

[@UnexpectedWonder]

Really good Video.

[@DarkWolf-407]

If everything is relative, then nothing is.

[@phillwithskill1364]

Great video! Very good material and very helpful. You should also make videos refuting specific moral systems: •Hume’s Theory of Morality •Kant’s Theory of Morality •Utilitarianism •Alonzo Fyfe’s Desire Utilitarianism •(Social Contract Theory) etc. @InspiringPhilosophy

[@joja3258]

Social contract theory isn't about morality though. It's about how you give up some "rights" to protect others. For example you give up your "right" to kill to protect your right to not be killed.

[@phillwithskill1364]

Jo Ja maybe so but it’s related and often cited as a way to avoid Moral Realism based on God

[@joja3258]

phillwithskill 1 actually it's really more of a social principle than a morality principle. Anyone who uses it to try to refute moral realism doesn't know what they're talking about about and just need it to be explained to them. If they refuse to realize it then they aren't worth your time.

[@phillwithskill1364]

Jo Ja True. I do hope that InspiringPhilosophy would refute these other specific moral systems eventually though

[@joja3258]

phillwithskill 1 agreed, I may not agree with everything he says but he definitely has a fantastically methodical approach and makes sure to do his research.

[@benjaminjaton3597]

Thanks for the video, always great to hear different points of view! The quote from Ragnar Francen: "The problem is (...) that they therefore do not disagree in the intuitive sense when they are involved in moral disputes." -> Why is that a problem?

[@fotbollen2001]

You rock man!!! AMEN!

[@tonyb6485]

moral relativism is the last stage of human decay

[@mouwersor]

Why

[@ChristiFuturum]

Nah fam. Transhumanism is the end game. If the Anti-Christ had an ideology, that would be it.

[@parijatpra]

Man, your videos are good, I mean really good, please add more videos on ethics and morality.

[@UnratedAwesomeness]

Amazing! Will you dive into the moral realism- naturalism non-naturalism categories? I’m having struggles with this

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes

[@mikevallender]

Wow. Did you take breath 😃 Great stuff.

[@BillRussia]

I think there should be an intro that provides links to you previous videos on this topic

[@antidepressant11]

I think these labels just make a simple concept , complex.

[@reasonforge9997]

Good video.

[@LarryBonson]

So in short a moral relativism person really stands for nothing but would fall for anything.

[@robertvolek8360]

Not any moral relativist, only a retarded one... I am a moral relativist myself. I want to live in a society that strives to create, not just consume. I want to live in a society where children have parents, and men now that their children are really biologically theirs. Where people uphold promises. And so on. These are things I want, but some people disagree with most (or even all) of them. More importantly, there is no magical process through which these moral feelings will impose themselves. I need to team up with people who feel the same way and impose our moral standards on a geographic area. By conversion if possible, by force if neccesary.

[@eliasarches2575]

Really appreciate the content here! If you were able to provide downloadable transcripts of these videos I would happily contribute to the channel! Can you please let me know if you have anything like that? Or if there’s anything like that on the horizon?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

If you email me I can give you whatever you need.

[@Odruida123]

I just watched your video on moreal realism, I learned from your comments below that you are a moral realist yourself and just wanted to say, that's the first time I read/watched anything on moral realism and honestly I was quite emotional and touched by it. Because that's how I've always seen morality, the exact same characteristics described in the video, I had never seen morality any other way until a certain point in my life. Even though I'm a moral relativist, I still to this very day, deeply hope inside that morality works that way, hell my feelings and immediate thoughts about certain moral judgments and actions still go according to that view on morality I usually have to internally slap myself out of it. I can even share with you that I've tried in the past to find a way through mathematical reasoning and calculations to derive the truth or falsehood of certain moral actions, obviously I failed. As much as I'm deeply attached to that view, unfortunately there is no evidence for it.

[@JulioCaesarTM]

Yeah no evidence for Moral Relativism but he gave evidence for Moral Realism in that other video.

[@KevinWildes2024]

@@JulioCaesarTM Moral realism is a joke. Way worse than moral relativism.

[@cienciadecreacion2161]

@@KevinWildes2024 You can explain that please where are your citation to Say that

[@KevinWildes2024]

@@cienciadecreacion2161 my citations are at your mother's house 😂😂😆

[@sillythewanderer4221]

Interesting, I am a moral realist and find moral relativism to be lacking, I am aware that this comment is old, but I would like to know how you came to your relativistic views:-)

[@anglozombie2485]

I agree moral objectivity exist.

[@Ndo01]

Damn, good video

[@LukeLovesRose]

You can thank cultural marxists like Adorno or Marcuse for bringing relativism into our society

[@LukeLovesRose]

It's a perfect communist ploy to divide and conquer. It makes everyone think that any and all perspectives on life is the right way when only one perspective has actually worked for 2,000 years

[@illuminati-cat1833]

What I feel is right and wrong comes from intuition. And intuition is the sum total of what I know within the subconscious. It is pretty much an innate understanding of empathy. Nonretaliation. Compromise. Emotions play a key role. To help or to hurt. What is relatable is a more developed knowledge of relationships. How to treat others. To not disadvantage them for your benefit. In to opposite, To give to those who genuinely are disadvantaged. Knowing you have helped someone and knowing you have hurt someone unnecessarily. This morality is highly impacted by the personality as emotion. My brain developed seeing how people treat each other. I found that there was an innate nature to my moral character. genes and culture. My conflict was internal, inhibit negative actions, never go against my conscience. The brain knows what is happening, and it has a moral structure. The moral structure operates in every brain, People can decide to be immoral, just look at the brain. My brain is aware of its social relation to society and what actions it has given the moral president. I do the right thing. But some do not. Because of nature-nurture. Because of genes and culture. Because the brain is what it is.

[@MajorasTime]

illuminati - Cat Intuition leads to an infinite regression which is an homunculus fallacy.

[@illuminati-cat1833]

If Intuition = Infinite regress. Then Intuition should not exist at all. What you are saying is Intuition does not exist at all. Are you saying Intuition does not exist?

[@jacobpilavin7056]

How can the a culture misinterpret moral facts without giving us a away to objectively decide this fact

[@atmanbrahman1872]

Perfect.

[@nativegerry335]

Maya Angelou said something along the lines of "it's not what you say or do it's how you make others feel" Is that an example of moral relativism

[@cmejerk]

Nicely made. So sad, that the "either-or" fallacy is so prominent. It is possible to be an individual, grown up in a culture, read books, get new ideas, meet other people/cultures etc. This is an AND- AND understanding, which cancels many of the arguments. You can think that your ideas are good, but you need to negotiate with others to make our common world. Even if you argue for absolute moral values, (like "thou shall not kill") I guess you make exceptions for soldiers, the death penalty. Arguing that other cultures are "wrong" is a very ethnocentric position.

[@It9LpBFS37]

Longing for love is one of the basic human needs defined by maslow. This could explain why the grandpa became kind to his neighbours. In them he saw means to fulfill his needs and decided that being kind to them is in that sense profitable for him. After all, we are all just animals, acting in particular ways to satisfy our basic needs, just in a more complex manner.

[@jameswoodard4304]

If it's a basic human need (i.e. a driving factor common to humans as a rule), then it vitiates against concepts of relativism.

[@sageseraphim6720]

Hey IP! How are you? I was wondering if you could answer some questions I have about the Modal Ontological Argument. 1) What defines greatness? Greatness can be seen in a Moral/Aesthetic way. Godel warns against this approach. He says it is closer platonic ideals (but not abstract objects). I can't find a good objective basis to place these ideals. It can't be God because I'm wondering why God has certain ideals. It seems much easier to define good here in a purely moral way. (My approach has been greatest utilitarian good without violating the categorical imperative while also being personal so it can objectively ought to be a certain way-ought implies can, but I admit this last part definitely has problems) 2. Why is there a sort of asymmetry in the argument? I'm referring to why is the greatest possible thing necessary rather than the worst possible thing necessary. They would contradict if they were both necessary. So which one? You may respond using the end of your first video answering objections to the Modal Ontological Argument. Again without first understanding greatness why must the best or worst possible thing be personal? Couldn't it be just as bad if it was not conscious. It would still terrorize just as much. If you solve the first question this question I think becomes easier. If necessity is an ideal then the worst possible thing would not have it. It would be a contingent thing. Thanks man. Your ministry has truly helped me in my faith! God bless!

[@joja3258]

Sage Seraphim if I may I believe that I may have an answer although you should keep in mind that I am an agnostic and may not quite know how this would really work in theism. As I see it greatness (as well as goodness) would be whatever fulfills the most potential. For example abortion is wrong ( in the majority of cases) because you are actively preventing something from realizing the potential it has. Killing is wrong because you are depriving others of their potential. A God would also create beings with free will because we have the potential to become like him, having free will to choose between good and evil and choosing good(or maximum potential). If that makes sense.

[@sageseraphim6720]

Jo Ja I would not hold your view simply because it seems it could go both ways. Suppose there is a great deal of potential in science with normally thought evil testing on human subjects. This potential would not fit what we normally think of when we think of good. Not to mention any justification for it.

[@paulnash6944]

When people tell me, “Morality is relative,” or, “Truth is relative,” I always ask them, “Is that a relative statement?” If they answer, “Yes,” we can easily dismiss them, and tell them that our own morality or truth is just as good as theirs by their own standards. If they answer, “No,” then morality or truth can’t be subjective, because you are making a statement as if it is a central tenant of belief. So either way, the moral relativists are digging their own graves here.

[@jeremyhansen9197]

Taste is relative, and no that statement is not relative. it's an objectively true statement. No contradiction there. Everyone is a subjectivist in one regard or another.

[@bbb1081703]

Truth is not decided on different levels. It is not decided at all. It is or it is not

[@ApexArtistX]

In India we should drive the left lane. So if I visit European countries what should I do. Because right lane is wrong for me

[@tadm123]

Moral relativism is incoherent and a dangerous ideology, great video.

[@KevinWildes2024]

you're wrong.

[@KevinWildes2024]

@@crazyalarmstudios2012 Your mother 😂😂

[@KevinWildes2024]

@@crazyalarmstudios2012 Keep crying 😂😂 you are so triggered 😂

[@KevinWildes2024]

Oh nothing? 😆 Thought so 😁😁

[@KevinWildes2024]

@@crazyalarmstudios2012 The crazy maniac is back 😆😆

[@ghostmidas7411]

Bro what if i think lying is good then i think it is good because im the one doing the lying it isnt that confusing

[@dipakshinde7802]

Mind blown

[@andreagaines5820]

And that is why I prefer Pyhrronian Moral Skepticism

[@iamactuallygirlbean]

whats the difference between moral realism and moral relativism?

[@vincent8943]

8:50 morality changing does not invalidate moral objectivity

[@KatyWantsToGo]

There is a hole in every model of thinking... The only absolute I can think of relativism... For better or worse

[@tompalmer5986]

The mighty galleons of moral principles often flounder on the rocks of expediency and necessity during times of war. For example, in a movie about Alan Turing, the man who broke the purportedly unbreakable enigma codes of the Nazis during World War II, they had just broken the enigma codes, and they deciphered messages that told them that German U-boats were staging an attack on the largest convoy from America to England to date. They could have sent urgent messages to the convoy telling them what was going on, but the defensive measures they would have to take would have tipped the Nazis off that their code was broken. So they didn't radio the convoy.

[@tompalmer5986]

I forgot to mention in the previous message, that in an interesting case of moral realism after the war, they tried to "cure" Turing's homosexuality by forcing him to take hormones that were supposed to remove that desire. Turing found this so humiliating and odious that he committed suicide. What a way to treat a man whose works had saved the lives of millions and shortened the war by years. I've seen two different movies about Turing and the enigma codes, one titled "the imitation game", and the other titled "enigma". The movies, thought they are about exactly the same thing, give such different accounts of what happened during the effort to break the Nazi codes, that they are unrecognizable when compared to each other. One is very sympathetic to Turing, and one is very unsympathetic. I think that is the result of the culture wars going on right now. They say that the truth is the first casualty of war, so I wouldn't put it past both sides to lie about the matter. I've read more sources sympathetic to Turing than I have unsympathetic, so that is the side I tend to believe. The unsympathetic side did sound very authoritative, though.

[@jorgelandell5179]

He gives an interesting point way outside moral normism

[@jacobpilavin7056]

10.55 I would say the main culture they inhabit others say differently their is no object way to decide

[@googletranslatereborn5569]

Please can you do a vid on how moral realism doesn’t come out from evolutionary mechanisms? This argument is common stock of atheists and I struggle to articulate a retort they can understand. I know that it can’t because it would imply that it would be an enterprise that comes out of us rather than something we come to know. Like the reality of logic?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I'll be doing a video on that in February.

[@mustafamalimi]

Thumbs up and a sub for a valid, logically sound epistemology!!

[@jamesgrey13]

I'm going 50/50 on moral relativism and moral realism! I can't completely reject it, because I'd have to deny the fact that people do crazy shit for love!

[@creepypuppetspresents5605]

"Person A ought to do x" has only ever been demonstrated to be evaluable as true if 1) A has some goal Z; and 2) x is a necessary condition for z. G(A,z) ^ (Z -> x). Likewise, "Person A ought not to do x" is true when A has some goal Z, yet x is sufficient for ~z, G(A,z)^(x -> ~z). These truth conditions could be generalized with predicate calculus to "All people ought to do x..." etc. Now what happens if, for just 1 person A, ~G(A,z)? Personal egoism (which is distinct from personal relativism, which is about beliefs rather that goals) is the only moral theory that doesn't immediately end in a contradiction.

[@DoctressZ]

Nice

[@hunjuli5245]

How would it be on practice?

[@MidiwaveProductions]

Moral relativism = The natural outcome of the dissociation from Truth

[@KevinWildes2024]

Nope.

[@logans.butler285]

Does this video debunk Moral Relativism or just points out the issues it has?

[@davidclark9143]

Why not both inward/outward? Not either or but both/and?

[@risafey]

Your videos should be in classrooms, wow...

[@wesleyedwards2111]

careful, he might get thrown out of class rooms by all of the heart broken nihilists

[@christ5672]

Risa Fey yea ok sure, as long as other pseudologic is as well.

[@freethoughtgreg6424]

What about all the hindus, muslims, buddhists, mormons, etc. That wouldnt like christian propaganda in school? Religious freedom is not the same as freedom of religious oppression.

[@TheShangryLlamas]

it is very naive to say that this is christian propaganda.

[@NinaR478]

@@freethoughtgreg6424 ok freethoughtgreg 🥸

[@aspwasp]

I can’t make sense of this at all idk why

[@micahelen4481]

1st video watched on this channel. 5 mins in, he said "Infer" when he meant "Imply" and now I can no longer trust anything. I don't know how one can study philosophy and not know what 'infer and imply' means.

[@7johnz]

What about the trolley dilemma?

[@TRUTHISABSOLUTE777]

I have always believed that every time we end a sentence with anything other than a question mark, we admit that absolute Truth exists, it is knowable, and what we said corresponds to it.

[@totalwater3053]

That's a rather pointless observation as, absolute logical statements about the nature of something do not make the nature of that thing absolute. ie. - 'Morality is relative', is an absolute logical statement about the nature of morality just as 'beauty is subjective' is an absolute logical statement about the nature of beauty. - The fact the statement ABOUT THE NATURE is absolute does not imply that THE NATURE ITSELF is absolute.

[@TRUTHISABSOLUTE777]

@@totalwater3053 absolutely.

[@TRUTHISABSOLUTE777]

@@totalwater3053 Total Water. Haha. Dig it.

[@koibubbles3302]

Uh, no. Language does not have a solid meaning, that is, if I said the word dog, I might be referring to my dog, or your dog, or the concept of a dog, or my friend (like “what up, dog!”) or something completely different depending on the context. Statements don’t have any inherent truth to them. Even if I said “two plus two is four,” that’s not inherently true, because any of those words could mean something different. And even if you extend this to refer to the words’ meanings instead of the words themselves, words are not equivalent to real things, they’re equivalent to concepts. So again if I said “two plus two is four,” I’m referring to the concept of two and the concept of addition and how when I perform the action of “adding two” on two, that would give us the concept of four. At no point am I referring to the real, actual number two, primarily because it doesn’t exist, but the same is true for concepts referring to very real things. “My little brother” isn’t actually my little brother, it’s a concept of my little brother which I have in my head and you now have in your head. This is true because when I refer to my little brother, a very clear picture of my brother does not pop into your head. Language cannot transfer truth or meaning, it allows you to convert your meaning to an agreed upon “code system” which you share with the other person in the hopes that their meaning lines up as well as possible with your own. You will never speak to anyone who understands exactly what you mean when you say anything, therefore, there is no truth to any statement, because to every person reading it the statement means something completely different.

[@TheWayofFairness]

Just as truth is absolute so is morality. All morals might be reducible to one law. do not violate absolute truth.

[@geekmonkey895]

The issue i see between moral relativism and moral realism is that they seem to be talking passed each other. Realists seem to think that a morality is objective because we can measure the outcome by a set measurement. Relativists understand that a moral standard can be objectively measured but the morals themselves are still subjective/ relative because they require a mind. I had a conversation the other day involving this issue. A good analogy i heard is a teacher creating her school curriculum. Once it's done the curriculum becomes an objective standard but it's still subjective in origin as it was set forth by the teacher. I'm a moral relativist because i believe morals are subjective. I still live by my personal objective moral standards for which i have ways to measure their effectiveness. I think relativists and realists are in the same boat but looking at the problem from opposing sides.

[@lash163]

I am pretty sure relativism doesn't say there is no external thing motivating us. In every cognitive moral theory, actions influence moral choice. Moral choice however, is still dictated by will/desire, all motivation is subjective, therefore this doesn't validate realism, there is a distinction between fact and value.

[@benjamink2398]

Right, which is why I think his later critique, that of semantic meaning, has far more weight. The semantic meaning critique of agent (or speaker) relativism is devastating.

[@joseephkhoury9420]

What do you mean by "all motivation is subjective?".. like the old man example? In what sense the motivation was subjective? Or when you help someone being attacked, what subjective motivation that motivates you except the fact that you know what you are looking at is something wrong. I think you have to clarify the subjective motivation.

[@lawnmower69]

What about a nihilist relativist ? I feel like i think that way

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

Thank you for this video...the making fun of the virtue signal "coexist" bumper sticker made my day. Would you make a video on moral sc(k)epticism?... specifically the moral s(c)kepticism that claims we can't know moral truths? (Example from my co-worker...."So you believe in objective morality huh?...Tell me all the universal rights and wrongs! I dont think you can ever know if there is "objective" right and wrong. And even if we theoretically could know objective morality is real...we couldn't know how to find it")

[@duckymomo7935]

Can you address Euthryphos dilemma? Is something good because God assigned it or is it that God assigned something intrinsically good?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I did here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eaGcf59shLp4gJI

[@duckymomo7935]

InspiringPhilosophy oh okay I must forgotten haha

[@KnickiLedger]

My interpretation of moral relativism is that it is: Relative to the individual to act in a manner they choose given any moment. To choose whether they adopt any cultural norms at any point. They could act more like their family at work and more professional around their family. The point is, it gives the freedom of a case by case basis. You dont need to treat everyone as a human if you personally deem that human as garbage or you do that is the point.

[@johnmiller-jf3ez]

All is mind. The principle of mentalism...

[@johnellis7614]

ABSOLUTE MIORALITY --- OBJECTIVE --- FACTUAL --- ACTUAL "No one shall enrich themselves upon the misery of others."

[@silokkolis1121]

The grumpy old man found neighbours happy because, he is pragmatic. They brought him more benefits than losses so he is happy. Hadn't they been nice to him he would have hated them as before. So his ideology is that his neighbours should be nice to him to be worth appretiation. And this idea is indeed influenced by the outer factor (neighbours bring benefits) but the eventual conclusion is made by inner factor (old man's mind in which he redifined his morals after unexpected phenomena from outer factors). So old man's morals are still concluded by his own consciousness.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is confusing epistemology with ontology. Subjectively deciding about something does not show all the reasons are internal. How one came to decide is not the ontological status of the factors in the situation.

[@HansBezemer]

@@InspiringPhilosophy None of that is evidently ontological. Neither is it epistemological. There is very little knowledge involved in this decision - and even less deduction or induction. You, on the other hand, have ontologically misrepresented Agent Relativism by posing the most absurd definition I've seen in along time. BTW, the scenario that the grumpy old man is just a misanthrope and never changes his way is not out of the realm of possibilities. By your definition that would be a "more pure" case of agent relativism, because the old man wasn't influenced by external influences. Which is ridiculous.

[@FGuilt]

Hmmm...I think the definition of moral relativism needs work. "moral JUDGMENT are only 'true or false' from a specific standpoint." also "no standpoint is said to be better than another." I think the problem here is wedding hard definitions of true and false with opinion. OF COURSE you will never be able to say one is better than another under this definition! Judgments or opinion CANNOT ever be said to be "true or false". You can compare judgments to a fact or finding of fact and see how close to true or false that judgement is, but you can't define a judgement of opinion as true or false. I think a better relativism is: "a moral judgment can be considered better or worse than another judgement given the particular circumstances of the situation in question. Better or worse is relative to the individual affected most by the situation and the judgement can only be made more correct if the judge is applying the consequences of the situation to themselves in making the judgment." All things are relative. Name me one example of a judgment or value that isn't relative. There is no value in a vacuum. The concept of value is the very concept of relativity.

[@KevinWildes2024]

@Jacob J479 wrong.

[@berndpodhradsky9484]

​@Jacob J479 This is like saying "Cancer cannot be true, because it's bad". The question is whether there is something like an objective or absolute standard for morality. If we cannot find such a standard (and thus morality is subjective) then it might lead to a situation where - even if we find someone else is wrong (such as leftists) - we cannot once and for all objectively proof that they are wrong; because they're only wrong according to our (subjective) moral framework. If one wants to claim that there is such thing as an objective moral standard (and we should adhere to said standard and punish people for not doing so) then there needs to be proof that such a standard exists. What also seems to be mistaken (in the video as well) is the question whether there is objective morality and the question how to deal with people breaking our moral laws. I for myself do not believe that there is such a thing as objective morality (unless proven!) but I still think that groups of people can create their own moral system and punish people for not following that system. Subjective morality does not necessarily mean that I have a morality that's based on nothing external; it's shaped by my upbringing, culture, experience, rational thinking etc; and if we (let's say as a society) share a common set of moral rules, we can have guidelines/laws/rules that we enforce. The core message of my statement is: we do not need objective morality to condemn leftists for what they do, because if a large enough group of people have different moral views, we can prevent them from enforcing their view of the world (or at least punish them when they're trying). The fact that I think morality is subjective just means that I a leftists was to ask me why I am right in what I do, at the very core I can only say "because I believe so".

[@benjamink2398]

Interestingly enough, I agree with Moral Realism, and for many of the same reasons you point out, but am an atheist. I find it a non-sequitur to go from Moral Realism to what one might call "Moral Platonism" - that there is, in a sense, a perfect "Form" of "the good" that exists somewhere outside reality. This is a non-sequitur that I see a lot in religious circles with the Moral Argument for God. Objective moral truths don't require some Platonic Form of those truths (i.e. God), just like saying that chairs are indeed things that exist doesn't require the Platonic Form of a chair to exist in a realm of Forms. What would your response to this be?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I would not consider myself a moral platonist. I explained in my video on the moral argument why the existence of moral facts and duties lead to theism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eaGcf59shLp4gJI

[@andrewbenner6349]

Christian apologetic stance before Marxism, Post modernists, French deconstructionist, Freud. Good and prescient videos ideas.

[@romanski5811]

Marxism is decidedly not postmodern and not relativistic.

[@slavicemperor8279]

I'm communist and I fucking hate moral relativism and modernism/post modernism.

[@marvalice3455]

@@anahata3478 lol

[@marvalice3455]

@@romanski5811 that's like saying the window has nothing to do with the foundation.

[@romanski5811]

@@marvalice3455 I don't understand your critique. Marxism is all about grand narratives that explain all human history, and postmodernism rejects any kind of grand narrative. That's what postmodernism is all about. Postmodernism came after Marx. Sadly, Jordan Peterson has spread a lot of misinformation about postmodernism and what he calls "cultural marxism". CCK Philosophy summarizes this quite well in his video _"Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism"._ He also breaks down the main book that Peterson got his wrong ideas about postmodernism from called _" A Critique of Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism" "._

[@thomasgraben123]

It is possible for someone sitting in a chair , just thinking, with no external information present at all , to change their moral viewpoint ( although whether there was, or could have been prior external information is impossible to say ). This negates the basic premise of this video`s argument, doesn`t it ? He did say "arguably " .

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🤔 Moral relativism views moral judgments as true or false relative to specific standpoints, suggesting that there are no privileged or universally valid moral views. 00:42 🔄 Moral relativism faces challenges when it comes to explaining whether moral motivations are purely internal or can be influenced by external factors. 02:22 🤔 External normative reasons can challenge agent relativism, indicating that morality might not be solely defined by the individual's internal motives. 04:16 🔄 Agent relativism may lead to moral ad-hocness, where individuals can arbitrarily change their moral views without any objective basis. 05:11 🤔 Speaker relativism raises the issue of shared meaning and disagreement, making it challenging for speakers with different moral frameworks to engage in meaningful discussions. 08:03 🔄 Cultural relativism posits that morality is defined by cultures, but this overlooks the possibility of objective moral facts and duties that may exist independently of cultural variations. 08:56 🤔 Cultural differences in morality don't necessarily indicate moral relativism, as they might stem from factual errors rather than actual value differences. 10:20 🔄 Cultural relativism struggles to define cultures and determine which moral framework applies when cultures intersect, suggesting the need for external governing principles. 11:17 🤔 The "Reformers dilemma" challenges cultural relativism, making it difficult to justify moral reformers or virtuous individuals who go against cultural norms. 13:23 🤔 The call for tolerance by many moral relativists creates an objective standard that contradicts pure relativism and implies a universal obligation, leading to logical difficulties for relativism. Made with HARPA AI

[@hatersgotohell627]

With that first example of it being wrong I'm confused why experiences on the outside Changing someone's mood or outlook to the world can show that moral relativism is flawed. What does that have to do with morals though if anything doesn't that just say experiences in life guide our thinking.

[@Odruida123]

Okay just came to share this, I stand on moral relativism but not because I believe it or claim to know is true, I simply state that reality presents itself in that way to us. Although I do not stand on the viewpoint of agent relativism, motivation is honestly meaningless to me regarding the main idea here. Basically as I see it all moral structures are based on belief systems and have no truth value, if they had, morality wouldn't be a branch of philosophy anymore, that means that any sort of moral structure or conduct you might abide by is as valid as any other because they're all based on beliefs. There is no right and wrong, you might go and defend that all bears should be killed because you don't like them or whatever nonsense you want, it's as valid as any other rule of conduct because there are no true propositions to which you can justify and conclude that one point of view is superior to another, thus making all discussion meaningless. The final point I want to make is that I absolutely detest this, I stand by it because as far as we know that's how morality works, I'm not defending that this is without a doubt the nature of morality, I'm saying that this is the point at which we've reached with the current knowledge we have and it might change eventually or not. An easy way to see why this is, is to ask any given person "why" regarding the things they find to be right or wrong, it will ALWAYS lead to a primary foundation of belief/faith that usually has its roots on what that specific person feels/desires/wants, there is no objective true justification for it, only subjective meaning.

[@lopendepaddo]

4:30 People change their morality on the fly all the time depending on mood. eg. morally correct behavior would be to be polite to people, but if you have a very bad day and mood you may be rude to people. 7:34 when one says there CAN be a common meaning it doesn't mean it is so in all cases. 9:00 Science is not subjective but scientists are prone to subjective points of view, they are human after all 10:37 The lines dividing cultural morality don't exist, Morality in any system with a culture changes gradually and on the spectrum of moral values a society would not sit at a single point but cover a range of said spectrum. So societies may overlap with values and morals or be completely disconnected. As with anything there will be outliers in the distribution range. 11:28 I would say that many moral attributes are indeed not consciously decided by humans, they are a logical conjunction of the types of behavior needed to survive the biological evolutionary process. 12:15 I disagree wholly with Emrys Westacott. Moral relativism means that with new knowledge new moral outlooks can be adopted, If morality would be a static entity which is predetermined than for all we know we are all wrong and eg. we SHOULD stone people to death for cheating on their spouses. If morality was not relative we would still have to adhere to the first person who determined morality somewhere between 8000 and 50000 years ago. 12:29 Correct, and people can have access to that. If everybody had the same morality, an objective one THAN people couldn't come along and change moral values of a society. 12:47 You can acknowledge that morality is subjective and still value your own moral viewpoint. 13:46 No you are promoting something that you think will have the best outcome for everyone. The reason behind an individual wanting or aspiring to something like tolerance may vary. Not to mention that anybody who speaks of tolerance will have some caveats. 14:08 yeah thanks for making your opponents a straw man by calling them laymen. Socrates would be proud.

[@marvalice3455]

politeness is not morality. that is absurd. "You can acknowledge that morality is subjective and still value your own moral viewpoint." but you cannot justify doing so, because by holding that morality is subjective, you surrender your authority. moral relativism is only useful if we all agree to play along.

[@lopendepaddo]

@@marvalice3455 In a society we all Do agree to play along. That's why morals within one society are reasonable homogeneous, while morals between societies may differ on some parts or completely. If morality was not subjective, it would not change. People would still be married at 13 years old, Dueling for honor would still be acceptable, the death penalty would still exist in Europe (see divergent morality right there) etc.

[@marvalice3455]

@@lopendepaddo "if morality weren't subjective we would all agree" That's stupid. People are wrong about morality all the time. Thinking slavery is morally right is not just a different point of view, it's _false_. The entire world was wrong about this moral idea for centuries. Now a person's view on morality is variable, but so is people's trust in science. That doesn't mean that they are right to see the world that way.

[@marvalice3455]

@@lopendepaddo I honestly don't understand how you you can insist that slavery, genocide and murder are not immoral just because people might vote for it. That's such a weak spirited way to think.

[@lopendepaddo]

@@marvalice3455 As a matter of fact I DO believe slavery, genocide and murder are immoral. What i don't believe is that my morality is universally true. Those people that were for slavery believed slavery was moral. I disagree strongly with them but have to acknowledge that morality is not static. And that's a good thing, because if it was static we would still be burning witches and torturing people inquisition style. (Like the cia does...) A glance at history shows clearly that morality is subjective. And as far as religion is concerned, the difference between the old and new testament also shows a shift in morality, so even god changes it's mind on morals.

[@lawnmower69]

What if the morality that is defined by the individual is relative to his mood or whatever

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmHVgYJvaMp8hZY

[@leodegario1]

I understand your example using Ghandi and Dr King to explain why it cultural relativisim is illogical. But what's the alternative? Cultural absolutism? Couldn't one use the same example that a cultural absolute thought is invalid when one says that seperate but equal is justice?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJybaaaQrJmMnq8 kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJvOmHdqrJ6qZ80

[@user-ih6tv4cz4k]

MORAL INTUITIONS CAN BE CONTRADICTORY DEPENDING ON WHO CONSIDERS THE ISSUES. FOR INSTANCE, DOES ISRAEL HAVE A RIGHT TO IGNORE COLLATERAL DAMAGE TO GET HAMAS IN GAZA? WHAT ABOUT THE TROLLEY PROBLEM? THE MOST YOU CAN HOPE FOR IS FOR SOCIETIES TO EXPRESS A CONSENSUS ABOUT SOME MORAL ISSUES LIKE :SLAVERY IS ALWAYS WRONG.

[@KrwawyKocur]

13:37 Nearly everyone is trying to install their own moral views on everyone else. It's natural as life is constant war in the moral sense.