Are There Such a Thing as Moral Facts? with Peter Boghossian

[@CordialCuriosity]

Check out the conversations Peter Boghossian had using my setup here: kzbin.info/aero/PL2hrUFtAPRXdZ5XqYAJYJLW2QIs74-B1_

[@DanHowardMtl]

What new book?

[@CordialCuriosity]

How to Have Impossible Conversations www.amazon.com/How-Have-Impossible-Conversations-Practical/dp/0738285323

[@leszeknowak9434]

Finally new book!

[@biologicalengineoflove6851]

Wow, Street Epistemology not with randoms on the street but with OG Street Epistemologists? Behold the unholy power of honest conversation!

[@devilsadvocate701]

Kinda sounds more drunk than usual. But that could just be me.

[@chopin65]

😒

[@leszeknowak9434]

Peter changed my life. Peter influenced me so damn much that I launched first Polish (and European) live call-in show where atheists talks with believers. I am so happy to watch this conversatio n on this channel. Good job, bro. :) You even have a separate playlist with Peter at your table? I am running to see this! :D Cheers from Poland

[@daddyleon]

Hmm...no. I would've loved to have this talk with him. He...didn't satisfy my concerns at all. He also did a bait-and-switch at 4:43 "The people that would argue against those things...would already know they'd be slave-owners or.." No, it's your job to argue for those things; you shouldn't say that people that argue against X have a different reason (besides what happened to the neutral place (you seemed to demand to be an option at 8:38). You should make your own case, not distract.

[@mindlander]

I honestly think this discussion was quite poorly executed..as are most without a rigorous definition of terms. Without nailing down the fundamentals, any argument is meaningless. I got nothing out of this, but still love the channel!

[@ObamaoZedong]

People today talk about human slavery in the past with egotism to put it bluntly. We forget a crucial sentiment, 'there but for the grace of god go I' meaning that had I been born in a different time, in a different setting, I might have thought it was morally justifiable to own slaves. The way we can determine how we would have viewed slavery if we were alive 200 years ago is to examine how we view animal rights today. Why do blacks deserve freedom? Because they are sentient beings who desire freedon from institutionalized suffering. The same is true of animals behind bars and in slaughterhouses.

[@pooounderscoreman]

Wohoo. So happy to see this here.

[@theonlyguiltymaninshawshan7909]

I had a professor like Peter during my college years. All guts, no give. Pure courage. It made all the difference.

[@Mrlimabean01]

I can't imagine walking by, overhearing some of this, and being invited to have a conversation with them. I'd be sitting down so fast! How are people saying no?

[@mind_onion]

I feel like this conversation needed a "what exactly do we mean by 'slavery'?"

[@Monotropism0]

HAHAHAHA

[@mind_onion]

​@@Monotropism0 I honestly didn't mean that as a joke. When I see someone define something so absolutely that they hold it above ostensibly empirical claims, I worry they might be working from vague terminology. Like a "murder is killing that is wrong" situation.

[@odomobo]

@@mind_onion I also find it funny, but honestly it's a good point

[@louienasad5228]

I think that capturing an enemy in war and holding him as a slave when you could have killed him is vastly different than the generational slavery model.

[@yermanoh]

we dont use the s word here, we call it involuntary unpaid labour without benefits

[@anthonypc1]

Hey I like that confidence METER better than the vertical scale. Another layout I've visualized is like the shape of a horse shoe, with all doubt on one end sliding down through 50% maybe true and up to full confidence on the other tip. I suppose the meter in the same but inverted, so if anything it's less biasing people to the extremes since they are at high points.

[@ncooty]

It would have been very useful to hear a definition of morality.

[@DefenderoftheCross]

So let's see if I have this correct: At around 7:30 of the video Peter Boghossian insists that moral facts can be created by reasoning, but that moral reasoning has to be evaluated by some moral standard? If I understand him correctly, it sounds like he's begging the question, or is confusing epistemology for ontology.

[@anthonypc1]

Lots of ripe bananas are colors other than yellow.

[@chillgamervids]

Thank you. Afaik Bananas have their highest level of sweetness when the outside is brown. Usually they are also a bit mushy and have some spots by then, but taste wise, brown bananas are the place to be. #bananalove

[@anthonypc1]

@@chillgamervids Thank you. I am a banana lover as well. Bananas are approx. 45% of my diet. And I think it's not just because sibling never could stomach them. All for me.

[@chillgamervids]

@@anthonypc1 so much truth in your post and all i intended was to point out that banana color is not a particularly good subject of "well that's surely a thing all of humanity can agree on by their own experience" ;) (aka an empistemological point)

[@anthonypc1]

@@chillgamervids Lol yes, that point as well. The cliche example people reach for is "it's as obvious as the sky in blue." Extra inapt since not only is color a subjective perception, it's also very frequently the case that the sky not blue! In some places it's more remarkable when it is blue! Anyway, we're preaching to the quire on this one.

[@adamkennedy3800]

@cordial curiosity, I love the concept of veil of ignorance! What are your thoughts on extending it to non human sentient beings? I.e. cows, pigs, chickens, etc. Would love to hear your thoughts! Thanks

[@chillgamervids]

Assuming you are trying to justify condemning eating of sentient non humans by humans through the suffering argument, I have an SE question for you: Over the lifetime of the universe, if we would put a number on the suffering of *all* sentient beings, how would it compare to the number put on suffering that humans inflict on non humans? Also: Are there differences when we compare human suffering to non-human suffering? For example, how does a human baby not getting food for 2 days compare to an elephant baby not getting food for 2 days?

[@adamkennedy3800]

@@chillgamervids A)The latter is a tiny fractional subset of the former. B)Yes, there are differences. A human baby not getting food for 2 days would have a different subjective experience than the elephant baby not. If I had to somehow place my mind in one of those experiences, I don't know which I would choose because I don't know which would be subjectively worse. I am happy to answer as many questions as you want! My only request is that you entertain my line of questioning also. 1) Do you currently support stabbing/slicing cows/pigs throats so that you can eat them?

[@chillgamervids]

​@@adamkennedy3800 Cool, I'm glad to get into a serious conversation about the topic! Ofc I will do my best to have some honest answers too. Thanks for your consideration so far. I am afraid I did a very non-SE move by asking 2 questions at a time, which is exclusively my fault. Thanks for answering them both. I don't want to do any weird shenanigans, so I'll pick #2 for further continuation (which i'll do after my answer) as #1 was a cheap shot for "the overall suffering is so big, how would it even matter what we humans do", which is ofc morally out of bounds. so regarding your question: considering my current actions (aka eating meat, though be it from local farmers i know how they raise their cattle exclusively ), my answer is yes. I also support the slicing of chicken throats as well as the crushing of worm and grasshopper bodies as I'm experimenting with alternative protein sources. My question back is: If we consider the loss of habitate a suffering (which is not 100% accurate for me to assume, but i have a hinge you might agree on that so i'll try), at which size of animal do we stop counting animal suffering as suffering, even if we humans *just* take away their natural habitate (aka industrialized farm land)? Thanks for offering a good discussion, I'm looking forward to your response!

[@chillgamervids]

@@adamkennedy3800 my YT is weird, so i hope this will not result in a double post. here we go: Cool, I'm glad to get into a serious conversation about the topic! Ofc I will do my best to have some honest answers too. Thanks for your consideration so far. I am afraid I did a very non-SE move by asking 2 questions at a time, which is exclusively my fault. Thanks for answering them both. I don't want to do any weird shenanigans, so I'll pick #2 for further continuation (which i'll do after my answer) as #1 was a cheap shot for "the overall suffering is so big, how would it even matter what we humans do", which is ofc morally out of bounds. so regarding your question: considering my current actions (aka eating meat, though be it from local farmers i know how they raise their cattle exclusively ), my answer is yes. I also support the slicing of chicken throats as well as the crushing of worm and grasshopper bodies as I'm experimenting with alternative protein sources. My question back is: If we consider the loss of habitate a suffering (which is not 100% accurate for me to assume, but i have a hinge you might agree on that so i'll try), at which size of animal do we stop counting animal suffering as suffering, even if we humans *just* take away their natural habitate (aka industrialized farm land)?

[@adamkennedy3800]

@@chillgamervids I re-typed up my reply. Feel free to email me your reply or message me on discord, since YT is so finicky.. [e-mail] or Adam&Eevee on Anthony's SE discord. I wouldn’t consider the loss of habitat, in of itself, suffering. I will concede that destroying a habitat will likely entail suffering of the animals within that habitat, but add that not destroying the habitat also entails suffering of the animals. I am honestly not sure which is higher and which I have a preference towards occurring. “At which size of animal do we stop counting animal suffering as suffering..” I wouldn’t stop “counting” their suffering at any size. If they can still suffer, then it would count as suffering, by definition. I will admit that I find I value animals that have less cognitive capacity a lesser amount. I think that was the intent of your question. Put me on a desert island I would value my survival over that of other animals and thus kill other animals to survive, with a preference going towards killing the ones that I think are likely to have less ability to suffer and feel joy, etc. Thanks for answering my question. Now picture a possible world in which there is an average human. Now picture another possible world in which there is a human with a cows tail. Then a human with a cows tail and cow hooves. Then a human + tail + hooves + leathery skin + size of cow. Then human + tail + hooves + leathery skin + size of cow + a reduced mental capacity.. Etc. Eventually if we keep swapping out the human traits for cow traits, we would just have a cow. I assume you agree with this. I can put it in a more rigorous logical format if you wish, which would show that denying this entails a contradiction. Now I am also going to assume that if we were to swap out those local cows (that you are currently fine with paying someone to cut their throats) with humans, that you would not find it morally acceptable, on your view, to pay someone to raise the humans and eventually cut their throats and slice them up for you. I think this is a safe assumption. Finally, my follow-up question is this. What trait (or set of traits) is true of the cows, that if true of the humans, would make it morally acceptable, on your view, to raise the humans and eventually cut their throats and slice them up for you?

[@ncooty]

I found PB's views surprisingly unstructured, and he seemed to suggest a lack of awareness about some basic issues in the approach he's recommending. E.g., does Rawls's veil of ignorance rely on moral intuitions or, more importantly, consistency of moral intuitions between people? (Reid raised this, but PB's answer wasn't very precise.) Relatedly, can moral intuitions be wrong? (E.g., it seems disgust aberrates our sense of morality.) If so, what are the implications for moral thought experiments, such as Rawls's veil of ignorance? (Maybe Rawls was just offering a poor man's litmus test.) What is the basis for bridging the is-ought gap in a rational approach to morality? E.g., if he's arguing for utilitarianism or consequentialism, he still needs to state and justify the criterion--or, more problematically, criteria--and then to address the criticisms of teleology. PB's views just weren't as structured, developed, or sophisticated as I'd hoped. That wasn't Reid's fault at all, though it seemed maybe Reid wasn't sure which interviewing style to use.

[@enj1772]

Is there a prequel that explains this chatter? I keep waiting for white tshirt guy to SAY something. Anything. Black tshirt guy is very patient. I cannot wait anymore.

[@sebastiansirvas1530]

Rawls veil of ignorance isnt basically just the metaethical position of the ideal observer? Also how does this deal with expected value and how is the degree of risk aversion of this ideal observer deduced (instead of it just having an arbritrary value assigned?

[@alexandermcgillavry409]

Please add subtitles

[@privettoli]

Isn't imprisonment some sort of slavery? How do you know that most bananas are yellow? Aren't they all green before they become yellow?

[@blusheep2]

He did say he was less confident in the color of bananas then he was on the issue of slavery. Still, I take your point. He is trying to justify moral ethics in an objective way outside of God and doing so through a conversation on slavery without acknowledging the fact that slavery was accepted rationally for far more years then the years spent rejecting it.

[@yousifucv]

Peter man-spreading on Reed hard at the beginning there.

[@notatheist]

I need floating subtitles! It may be a form of ticks similar to mine, but you move your head and make faces that appear to be reactions to what Peter is saying. People often misinterpret my faces and movements as sarcasm, mocking, or disinterest.

[@caseycowley4686]

A Theory of Justice was a book that I believe bridged the divide. I feel compelled by the maximin principal.

[@krzyszwojciech]

What if someone believes in determinism or fate and thus can dismiss the objection that "you don't know the chances behind the veil of ignorance"?

[@astrorad2000]

That was excellent. Thank you.

[@carlose5751]

Bananas may be Yellow Green Pink Orange Green with black Brown.

[@johncalebkwawoo1678]

facts

[@carlose5751]

@@johncalebkwawoo1678 I lived in a banana republic :)

[@NathanTran888]

If you "don't know the chances behind the veil of ignorance" and therefore cannot rationally derive the position that slavery is permissible, then wouldn't you also need to "know the chances" and odds to rationally derive that slavery is not permissible? Why does it only work one way?

[@Elrog3]

There are scenarios where no matter the odds, the choice would be fairly clear. Such as, you are a slave and in your current situation, there is no chance of escape. You can choose either to keep things how they are, or you can choose to change things up. If you change things up, you will either get beat 1% harder or be set free. You don't know the odds of each outcome if you choose to change things up. Regardless of the odds, I bet a large portion of people would choose to have even a tiny chance at being free. Changing the odds wouldn't influence the choice. In scenarios where changing the odds would influence the choice, if you are ignorant of the odds, there isn't a rational choice. If you take a chance, it could go badly for you. If you don't you could be missing out on something. Peter described a scenario which he implied was this 2nd type of scenario where the odds would have an influence (because he brought up the factor of odds). But then he concluded you should avoid taking the risk. That isn't rational. If you want to use Rawls style hypotheticals and argue about slavery and reach that conclusion, then what you should be aiming to do is convince your interlocutor that the scenario is like the first one where the odds don't matter.

[@ncooty]

PB seems to misuse "phenomenon" as plural (e.g., @10:50). Odd.

[@shaktikolan]

I would like to see Reid using SE on one of Peter's beliefs. Maybe too bold to master the creator.

[@soesan801]

Purple or brown banana are common in south east Asia.

[@sascha...]

12:59 who exactly went crazy in Peter's perspective? I see a bais there and I think he lumps in wokism with who every he is so emotionally against.

[@rationalinquirer3341]

Is the damage we've done to ourselves as a species not part of the natural Order of Things. Could we have chosen an actual other path?

[@HardKore5250]

Zoltan Istvan said you should have morphological freedom to do what you want with your body as long as it does not hurt somebody.

[@PaintingwithGeorge]

The banana thing is so easily solvable Red bananas are out there

[@jacobkottmeier636]

Great conversation! I've never heard the proposition that you can't rationally make a bet without knowing the odds. That gives me a lot to think about.

[@Elrog3]

Too bad he says that and then proceeded to make a bet anyway.

[@racewiththefalcons1]

Before they ripen, bananas are green.

[@benedmundson]

love you two.

[@cheecheneg]

Fact: there are blue bananas. No, really! Look it up!

[@DefenderoftheCross]

Though I do not subscribe to Bogohossian's worldview, I appreciate his opposition to cancel culture.

[@ashleyjohnston6225]

Probabilities are subjective. Mathemathical probability models are something different.

[@darfcrow]

He's being completely disingenuous about people going crazy on Barri Weiss because she didn't know the definition of Toady. That's not true. I had a big problem with it not because she couldn't remember the name of the word but because of the CONTEXT she used it. Barri, who writes for The Wall Street Journal, called Tulsi Gabbard, who was then running for president an "Assad toady" with ZERO evidence. (If y'all wanna get into that i can) implying Gabbard was working for/with Syria's leader Bashar al-Assad. So yeah, like Tulsi or not, if your reputation is being smeared while you are running for office by someone working at the New York Times who should fucking know better than to smear a candidate like that, or at least understand what she is saying, I got a problem.

[@AlexanderLayko]

"There are no moral facts. Only interpretations. Everything is relative bro. Obey no one. Question everything." "Except for racial segregation, transphobia, homophobia, anti-democracy, closed borders, banning pornography, and telling women they can't have sex or get tattoos. Those are non-negotiable universal evils!" Why are normies like this?

[@indisa099]

Wow, finally you found somebody reasonable.

[@ryannafe9252]

Umm, Peter is a Philosophy professor and now fairly well-known guy. 😆

[@PabloAlvestegui]

We have pink bananas in Bolivia.

[@johncalebkwawoo1678]

wow interesting

[@HardKore5250]

Bananas are green too.

[@johncalebkwawoo1678]

From this discussion, I don't think Peter was able to properly demonstrate how moral facts are rationally derivable. I believe this whole discussion is reduceable to David Hume's is-ought problem. You cant have a moral position(ought) supported directly by objective truths (is) for eg. it is true that slavery, rape, murder, etc increases human suffering but it doesn't necessarily follow that we shouldn't practice them even though it is the case that humans suffer more whenever these acts are practiced. The only way I see moral truths at the very least "existing" is after a preference has been established. Thus if you prefer a certain outcome then from there we can find objectively "good" and "bad" ways to achieve that outcome. Say we want to improve wellbeing for humans then it is objectively true that destroying a whole city of people for fun is a bad way to achieve the desired outcome. what I would have loved to get out of this discussion is a framework that could show how rationally derivable moral truths are.

[@enzowilson345]

Have you read Sam Harris's 'the moral landscape'? Interesting take.

[@PsychoWedge]

well, read Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, the big opposite model to utilitarianism in classical enlightenment philosophy. it's not as if nobody has ever thought about this.

[@TheOicyu812]

I think this Boghossian guy is really going to go places in the S.E. community.

[@anthonypc1]

Woah. Celebrity interview ;)

[@BarefootBeekeeper]

"Are there such a thing?" Seriously?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i'm a semi-huge admirer of mr B but his inflection makes him sound like he's drunk.

[@adamcorum9926]

You are sitting on the wrong side of the table!

[@drdaverob]

Dude you didn't say anything

[@spaghettimonstersjudgingyo504]

Good topic for debate. Often debate topics are to broad or poorly construed. Is it just me or did we not even have the why of slavery. A question like is slavery ok requires more than just ethical considerations. You might be against slavery for nearly every reason but if you had good evidence it was the only way to save the human race I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people who would get on board. It's no different than the more common moral questions over things like nuns on a bus heading for a bunch of kids. The why is fundamental. It always is when society hinders freedom.

[@asdfgfjl2502]

nice

[@ketodiet5766]

Morality is based on survival of a specie. We don’t go around chopping peoples heads of head until we have good reasons otherwise. I.e and invading army coming to take our lands. All forms of morality is dictated by this first principle.

[@mr.c2485]

Slavery would be acceptable if the owner started paying for their services. That type of slavery is prevalent today. The only difference between the two is the freedom to leave the owners business if one so chooses.

[@ObamaoZedong]

How then do we define a slave wage?

[@remsmint]

Then it’s not slavery anymore.

[@ObamaoZedong]

@@remsmint If sweatshop workers were free, why would they work at a sweatshop?

[@ratgr]

@@ObamaoZedong Being free doesn't immediately mean better conditions, It doesn't magically give you better prospects, it also depends on the environment, however being free allows you the choice, start a food stall, save some money up and move to a city, keep working at a sweatshop until you find out what to do; And most importantly, the ability to, even if you can't, give better alternatives to your kids. This is the big difference with slavery.

[@ObamaoZedong]

@@ratgr Slaves were given food and shelter, that's technically a form of payment. If the options are either work in a slaving job or not eat, do you really have a choice? Have you ever read The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck?

[@veritopian1823]

If there were no moral facts, then the common-law contract could not exist. It defines what is a moral vs immoral exchange. It defines the rules of cooperation. Coercion is immoral, cooperation is moral. Those are facts. Are they not?

[@Elrog3]

That's all wrong. All you need for common-law contracts is for certain views to be common. Not for them to be correct.

[@veritopian1823]

@@Elrog3 In order for a view to be common to 100% of people, it has to also be correct. Contract (+all CL) is based on the Golden-Rule... Nature contains 2 principles, not just one: Competition, and Cooperation. "Might is Right" = Law of competition. "Do unto others.." = Law of cooperation. Morality is the latter.

[@Elrog3]

@@veritopian1823 That's just false. For one, there isn't anything that 100% of people would agree to. And 99% of people agreeing to something doesn't make it correct either. Everyone used to think the sun orbited around the earth. And everyone used to think Newtons laws were fundamental. And there have been cultures in the past that did work off of might is right. It was not separate from their morality. Also, you didn't say anything about the amount of people required for that to apply. Going by your rule, if there was only 1 person left, whatever they think is be definition 100% correct. That is absurd. What is the amount of people required for your rule to apply? Its completely arbitrary.

[@veritopian1823]

@@Elrog3 The entire basis of common-law is unanimity. It requires >1 person for a moral situation to emerge, because morality is the Law of Cooperation.

[@veritopian1823]

@@Elrog3 I bet you can't find anyone with a valid objection to contract law. Except perhaps for those who advocate adding to it. The purpose of contract is to ensure both parties have given their consent freely. Thus it is enforcing cooperation - and preventing coercion - i.e. morality. It's impeccable. You can't fault it. Therefore morality is absolute - based on respect of free-will. The Law of Cooperation. Right?

[@pointdot094]

Lol this is comical. He is pretty much saying come up with your subjective idea of morality and believe it to be true.

[@spaghettimonstersjudgingyo504]

What's the problem with that? Are you afraid everyone's going to start chopping people up with machetes or is it more likely the vast majority of us hold similar ideas of what is and isn't ok? I think it would be pretty hard to argue against the fact that every moral system is built on subjectivity.

[@Thabo616]

Hanzala that’s not at all what I understood from this. What I got was that we should use reason to arrive at moral conclusions