Do We Need God For Morality?

Thank you so much for watching! If you're new to this channel please consider subscribing and hitting the like button.
In this video, I talk about how objective morality isn't actually objective but that we just THINK it is objective since a lot of people share the same fundamental moral stances on things. I talk about the purpose and evolutionary benefit of morality for our species. Also, delves into why divine command theory fails as an ethical framework and can actually be quite problematic in certain cases. Ethics and morality is a very complex topic so I do apologize if I was not able to clearly communicate all my ideas in this video. Please consider reading my article on medium.com, to better understand my views on morality and ethics.
Alex O'Connor's Video:
• Morality Can't Be Obje...
Mindshift's video on 20 commands:
• The Inconsistency Of C...
• Doubling Down On Chris...
Medium Article:
/ god-or-evolution-the-i...
Thank you so much for watching!!!!
Background music:
Music by Pumpupthemind from Pixabay

[@SharedPhilosophy]

Sam Harris on Morality: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpucoHVqr9V7rdksi=cAPR7BlQAdDwkSOV

[@ethankoch7706]

4:49 this is a good example but it actually points towards objective morality. this is because for example the roman’s thought slavery was wrong but they had an exception to the rule wich was any non roman

[@SharedPhilosophy]

I'm not sure this is the common interpretation of objective morality. Because religious objective morality is preached as universal and applying to everyone, if it is truly universal it should be making the Romans feel bad about enslaving the non-Romans too. It shows that this morality is subjective when a select group of people twist and justify the enslavement of people whom they don't have empathy for but don't enslave their fellow citizens and neighbors because they have empathy for them. Thanks for the comment!

[@ethankoch7706]

3:16 where have we seen morality evolve over time? and if we se the same morality everywhere then can we assume that the is a universal moral law?

[@SharedPhilosophy]

Yes, that would be assumed if there weren't other tribes of humans with differing senses of right and wrong. However, there were, and because those values were not beneficial to the species they ended up dying and perished. The morality that we experience and believe is shared by all humans throughout history is the end product of memetic natural selection jackbalkin.yale.edu/3-memetic-evolution It is only shared by everyone because it is the moral system that survived the narrow process of memetic selection which eliminated the other views on morality which were problematic to the survival of the human species. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution Here is an example of natural selection. If we looked at the moths now after they have undergone natural selection and said that the color black must be the one universal color of moths because they are the only one we observe now, but that would be incorrect because there were white moths before the process of natural selection took place. Same thing with morality and memetic selection, if we were to say this morality is that everyone shares now is what has always been that would be incorrect. Thanks for commenting!

[@aarondeimund6898]

Morality is the thing that brought me to religion. I wanted a framework for raising my kids. What would you say to someone in the position I was in 20 years ago, starting a new family and working two jobs to make ends meet? I don't know if there was a secular alternative to what religion offers in the way of structured morality. I've just started studying philosophy, but so far it's been pretty thin on the out-of-the-box type rules for marriage and child-rearing that religion offers. Was I just being lazy?

[@SharedPhilosophy]

No, I don't believe you were being lazy. I do think religions have some aspects that are good for society such as offering a digestible sense of morality which is easy to adopt by an individual or family. What I'm trying to argue is that we can have the good parts of religion without the baggage of the ancient beliefs that only weigh us down in the modern age. I also want people to see that morality is something natural to human beings when nurtured correctly, it's not something that religion has a monopoly on. Speaking from my personal experience, I didn't grow up with a heavy amount of religious teaching in my household. I was 6-10 years old when my family was in the process of immigrating from Iran to the US and in those 4 years, we had to stay in Turkey to be approved to enter the US. At that time, both my parents worked full-time jobs and they rarely got to interact with me throughout the day. Nevertheless, they did their best to teach me about empathy and doing what is right without the use of any religious teaching. By simply guiding me through my ethical choices I was to gain a good understanding of what it meant to be moral without the baggage of being told that I'll go to hell if I don't obey something. Also, secular humanism is still a very new way of thinking and looking at morality compared to that of religious belief, so of course there may not be as comprehensive ways to implement this way of morality into a family structure, but that's not because the framework is illogical or doesn't work but simply that it hasn't had enough time to have people explore how it can be implemented into the family structure. Helpful Video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKWllaWbodSjr8Usi=PZONWXzMC1SqFTKe

[@aarondeimund6898]

@@SharedPhilosophy Thanks for the link! I'm glad we live in a time when this stuff is more accessible. When I started searching in the early 2000s KZbin was not even a thing and internet connections were still very slow. I did read a lot of books, but even getting recommendations was a bit difficult. I remember basically going to the bookstore's religion section and just looking for anything non-Christian to try and round out my knowledge of other religions. Thanks for adding to the conversation and presenting your viewpoints and making this accessable.

[@trumpbellend6717]

Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. The recognition and evaluation of the consequences our choices have with regards to ourselves and others. My NOT believing in a mythological god in no way impedes the ability of forming such moral assessments. We are self aware conscious pain and emotion feeling individuals capable of love or hate, incredible acts of altruism or depravity. It's how we navigate through life and these potential extremes that define us, not our belief ( or lack of ) in anyones specific subjective invisible "God" The last place one should look to for moral guidance are the ancient "scriptures"

[@aarondeimund6898]

@@trumpbellend6717 Thanks for your thoughts on this. I don't think you are impeded in making moral assessments based on a lack of belief in God, and I don't think I ever even implied that. I'm in the Midwest US in what we call the "Bible Belt", so the cultural norm is to look to God and scripture first for these kinds of answers, that's all. It is changing, but 20 years ago we didn't have easy exposure to other viewpoints. I am curious as to what sort of things you look to for guidance, or if you just sort of work on intuition? Do you have any favorite authors or books that you find particularly inspiring?

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@aarondeimund6898 I think "right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless. My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'. Values are socially approved desires that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness *What is your "goal" and why 'OUGHT' one do what your subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔