A Critique of Error Theory

Join us at: www.inspiringph...
To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
Special thanks to Ben Watkins for contributing to this video. You can check out his podcast here: / @realatheology
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:
Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong - J. L. Mackie
Ethical Theory: The Question of Objectivity - James Rachels
Metaethics: An Introduction - Andrew Fisher
personal.victor...
Moral Realism: A Defense - Russ Shafer-Landau
Moral Realism - Kevin DeLapp
*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."

[@sebastianmelmoth685]

Mackie is not arguing that objective moral values would be outside of the natural world. He is arguing that if they existed, they would be extremely evident as they would clash with our subjective moral beliefs, thus making them APPEAR to be "other".

[@TheNightWatcher1385]

I’d argue an objective moral value that is observable is the taboo of homicide. This won’t exactly be scientific, just an idea I’ve thought about. Humans seem to instinctively know that ending a human life is wrong (And life in general to a degree). However, murder still happens everyday (I’m not including killing in self defense in this for the moment). When a person commits murder, their brain doesn’t allow them to carry out the act until the murderer can remove the perceived humanity of their victim before they strike. They have to alter their perception to see them as sub human (and more rarely, as something above human) before their mind will allow them to carry out the act. Committers of genocide, serial killers, soldiers have to justify to themselves that the people they kill are not on the same level as themselves, an “other”, at least in the moment the act is committed. The fact humans do this to “shield” their minds from being exposed to the trauma of knowing what they’re doing is wrong to me is evidence of at least one objective moral value.

[@sisyphus645]

@@TheNightWatcher1385 you’re not using the word objective here correctly, it seems. Objective means independent of human mind. Thus, even if all humans abhorred murder, nothing is added to the argument.

[@tadm123]

Excellent video.. I don't know what I enjoy more IP's videos or his interaction on the comment section refuting everyone, heh. Great work!

[@esauponce9759]

That moment when you notice IP uploaded a new video which is more than 15 minutes long.... _yeeeeah_ God bless you, man.

[@sly1417]

I feel like Mackie's arguments may have been strawmanned here. Just becuase Mackie doesn't believe that morality exists in an objective stance does not mean that he thinks that there isn't a reason to prefer a pleasurable life over a tragic one. On Page 26 of Inventing Right and Wrong, he says that comparitve judgements in particular will be capable of truth and falsehood. So the comparative evaluation of pleasurable and tragic life would be objective in that it could be defended. He does believe that moral judgements can be objective but only in relation to standards. He then moves on to discussing whether these standards these judgements are based on are objective. If people are still watching this video and think that I have missed something please let me know. I am just trying to learn more about the topic.

[@kingultimate7956]

if morality exists in world, in nature, in the universe. Why aren't people punished for being morally wrong? Either by nature or by universe

[@christopherrussell63]

@@kingultimate7956 for the same reason that if you write 2+2=5 math won't punish you

[@sillythewanderer4221]

@@christopherrussell63:) lol

[@dtphenom]

​@@kingultimate7956 Everyone will be judged according after their time on earth.

[@skulduggerypleasant8261]

This whole video is a heavy straw man.

[@ThenZya]

Great video! Really enjoying this series. Looking forward to more in the future.

[@kito-]

Thank you IP for brightening my day, God bless you

[@alphahuner1116]

When I heard Error Theory, I immediately thought it was erroneous. Intuition, I think.

[@evilsoap7835]

How about we say morality is objective in the sense every person has the cognitive capability to value, produce and believe moral statements, but the content of such moral beliefs may be subjective? We can say morality is truth apt in the first level, while at the level of content its significance may be arbitrary. Well idk im kinda a fictionalist

[@beenz07]

Further Moore's arguments are unraveled by Wittgenstein in "On Certainty." Wittgenstein's sidestep of Cartesian solipsism is more elegant, but does not detract from methodological naturalism's unique reliability.

[@christianvanslooten3761]

Any secondary sources or reads for Normative Anti-Realism?

[@Thethroneofsaintpeter]

hey ip you should do a series on why Jesus is the messiah from the OT while at the exact same time refuting the modern false Jewish objections about the Christ

[@superjam18]

Charles Howie Debunk the Talmud

[@muhammedshanushan3931]

Which Islamic extremist say women don’t have souls ? It seems lying about other religion is morally correct according to you Maybe lying is a tenant of Christianity

[@muhammedshanushan3931]

As of slavery Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.(A)

[@omarreza420]

Your only gonna confuse people with this shit.

[@omarreza420]

Wtf is naturalism

[@manne8575]

A 17+ minute long video by IP! How could this day get any better?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Mostly by me, I had help.

[@DARKXASSASINS]

Kind of unfortunate to see you critique Mackie's argument from relativity on the grounds that people may have similar underlying views and just disagree about the facts. Mackie explicitly addresses this critique in the same section he argues for the relativity of morals. He argues that differences in morals are not factual (and therefore not based on difference in evidence or facts) and gives the example of monogamy. This kind of blatant mistake seriously discredits much of the video given that you're essentially arguing against a strawman.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Monogamy stems from sexism and when the facts change for that person to not be sexist monogamy can go away.

[@DARKXASSASINS]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Why would you make the assumption (moral judgment) that monogamy stems from sexism? You're begging the question here by assuming that there is a fact of the matter and arguing that once people come to see this they'll just obviously change their minds. This hasn't been the case in most societies, though we have seen some "moral progress" in Western societies. Monogamy for example is actually quite common in most western societies and I don't really see how it makes sense to suppose people would just see that they were wrong if some specific fact changed. Mackie's whole argument from relativity is based on this view that the disagreements *aren't* factual, that no facts are missing that would change our minds one way or another. You have yet to explain why we should believe the contrary.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

So? Disagreements don't mean it is all relative just like how some people think the earth is 6000 years old and that doesn't mean science is relative.

[@DARKXASSASINS]

@@InspiringPhilosophy How exactly were you able to produce a video on this topic... It's as if you never read his writings on this. The *entire* point of the argument was to show the distinction between scientific disagreement and moral disagreement...

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Which is insufficient and obviously so, you are not doing a good job of defending the point being made.

[@CJ-xm5kz]

By your logic IP, if something is strongly self evident and intuitive to us then that makes it objectively true, so then that means that if I have a strong intuition or it's strongly self evident to me that eating vanilla ice cream is better than eating pistachio ice cream or that classical music is good and rock music is bad then that means that their are objective standards for these things and I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong

[@darcevader4146]

he is arguing for presupositionalism

[@FaithfulNation]

Your videos are generally very good. But I don't follow you on the belief that there isn't a difference in moral standards, but only in a false belief about the facts. For example, there are plenty of cultures who believe that fornication and adultery are good. It has nothing to do with a misunderstanding of facts and everything to do with WHO is determining right from wrong. Your belief lends credibility to the false belief that all men are generally good. They just need better intellectual knowledge of the facts. Yet the Bible teaches that men know the truth and willingly reject it because they love their sin more than they love the truth.

[@silenthero2795]

What IP is saying is that every moral standard has a bottom line where they meet. The problem is we tend to go our own way since it's more beneficial and convenient in the short term. The belief nowhere says that men are generally good. Far from it, it says men KNOW what is good but are inclined to do evil more since it grants instant gratification and would even try to deceive themselves in attaining it. If cultures that are into fornication and adultery know the ramification of such acts, they would never do those things in the first place. But instant gratification is a powerful force, and men would rather indulge now, using many excuses to justify their actions, than try to do what they naturally know is good.

[@FaithfulNation]

@@silenthero2795 Cultures know the ramifications of their sin. They just individually love their sin more than they love the ultimate goodness (blessing) of the culture. That's because man is totally depraved apart from Christ.

[@silenthero2795]

@@FaithfulNation I fully agree with what you said. All men know sin but they would rather delude themselves to justify what they're doing since it's more beneficial to them in the short term.

[@d_fendr6222]

This is off topic IP, but do you think you'll ever cover the "Singularity" some day? A few evidences that it will happen come from AI conversations (jokes about keeping humans in zoos, two AI's talking about how nice it would be if there were less humans, etc.) And the fact AI technology is increasing.

[@annoyingdude76]

lol that last line was perfect

[@Atreus21]

I don't understand nihilism, to say nothing of how I don't understand how much scholarship is devoted to it. It seems self refuting, or at least that it can have no honest adherents. If you truly believe in nothing, then you can't trust that your own reason has any grounding whatsoever in reality. In fact you really can't think in the first place. To paraphrase Chesterton, it's the most elementary act of faith to assume one's reason reflects anything about reality. Yet they must believe in it to devote so much to its defense, therefore they can't really believe it. I simply don't understand that. It's madness from start to finish.

[@amitb.e.5244]

Hi Atreus21, I think you may be mistaking nihilism and radical skepticism. Nihilism usually refers to moral nihilism, which is the belief that there is fundamentally no such thing as good or bad, or right and wrong. In the context of existentialism, nihilism could mean something a bit different, like "life ultimately has no purpose". What you describe sounds more like radical skepticism, which is basically the belief that everything you sense (see, hear, smell, touch, etc.) could be some sort of illusion. It's not exactly believing in nothing, because you can still think that YOU exist (Descartes' famous "I think, therefore I am" points out that the very fact that you are thinking right now proves that you exist in some manner). It's more like the belief that everything you think you know about reality could be wrong.

[@amitb.e.5244]

That being said though, I agree that it's basically impossible to be a radical skeptic (in the sense that you actually believe that everything you experience is an illusion) and continue to act normally. However, it's perfectly coherent to think something like: "I MIGHT be mistaken about everything I think I know about reality, but I really have no way of knowing if I'm mistaken or not, so I'll just go on acting as if there actually is a real world I'm living in and interacting with". I hope that makes sense.

[@leoankarloo1920]

Mackie is exclusively a moral nihilist, not an epistemological one.

[@MrDzoni955]

Correct me if I didn't understand this but Moorean shift doesn't seem to work at all in this case. Imagine if the scientists discovered the set of universal objective moral rules. One of those rules says it's ok to torture kids for fun, what does that mean for us? Nothing, we still wouldn't do it and would judge those that engage in such behavior. We know it's not immoral, quite the opposite actually, but we don't want to do it because it goes against our natural instincts. So just because the concept of torturing children for fun goes against our basic intuitions, it doesn't mean the error theory is wrong because the reason it goes against our intuitions never had anything to do with morality in the first place.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Or perhaps the scientist could be wrong. Plus, all that would show is our intuition on this wrong.

[@MrDzoni955]

@@InspiringPhilosophy It's a hypothetical situation in which the scientist is correct. The reason Moorean shift is supposed to work is because of out intuitions on these things, right? But if the intuition has nothing to do with this supposed morality but has everything to do with biology (as would become obvious if the scientist did discover a rule like that), the Moorean shift doesn't do it here

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Are you not assuming it has to do with biology and not intuitions and reason? kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaapYWSaq82SnsU

[@DManCAWMaster]

As a Nihilist I do find this video to be very informative and gives me a lot to think about.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I thought you were a theist.

[@DManCAWMaster]

InspiringPhilosophy I am. I'm a Deist. Nihilism doesn't actually require Atheism from as far as I can tell

[@DManCAWMaster]

InspiringPhilosophy Also it's awesome you remember me given you know so many people

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Have you seen my resurrection videos?

[@end_musix1636]

are you really a nihilist if you call yourself one?

[@MaverickChristian]

13:42 - A major problem is that the error theorist can agree with (F) and (G) without contravening his position on error theory at all. The error theorist can grant that there are reasons to prefer a life filled with happy experiences than a life of unrelenting agony (the reason being that one cares about one's own well-being) and that an argument is valid and has true premises gives us reason to accept the argument's conclusion (the reason being one cares about getting to the truth). None of that is even slightly inconsistent with error theory. Note also that all these reasons (for happy experiences and accepting the conclusions of sound arguments) are predicated upon the goals one wants to achieve (one's well-being, accepting true beliefs); we have reason for them because they help accomplish one's goals. Yes, there can be _these_ sorts of reasons, but the existence of such reasons does not at all imply that there are objective moral truths about what one should and shouldn't do, in part because objective truths of that nature would be reasons for behavior that are _independent_ of what one's goals are; e.g. you should not torture infants just for fun, even if refraining from that action doesn't help any of your own personal goals. While I believe (H) and (I) are true, they do not logically follow from (F) and (G). I do agree with the approach of a Moorean shift though. Any argument against the claim, _There is something morally wrong with torturing infants just for fun_ is going to be less obvious than the truth of _There is something morally wrong with torturing infants just for fun._

[@shadowlink26]

Maverick Christian you’ve misunderstood my argument. I am using the term ‘reason’ in its unconditional, categorical, or external sense. This is clear from my qualifiers ‘for its own sake’ and ‘objective’ normative truths. When you object that an error theorist could maintain their view by adopting a conditional, hypothetical, or internal reason, then you are now talking about something not in my argument- you are talking about something as a means or something merely subjective. The error theorist must deny that there is no unconditional, categorical, external reason to prefer a happy life to an agonizing one or to accept the conclusions of sound arguments. I even explicitly clarify this when I say that I mean the label ‘normative anti-realism’ to refer to all forms of subjectivism or internalism about reasons, normative nihilism, and non-cognitivism.

[@saizer8056]

You should've clarified your argument better, and earlier, as I think many people, even supporters have interpreted your argument in a way that you would not approve. Furthermore, this "unconditional, categorical, external reason to prefer a happy life to an agonizing one or to accept the conclusions of sound arguments" seems to be identical to a moral realist assumption, so to just say that it is plausible, and to leave it at that does not resolve anything.

[@DanielCastro-kh5ix]

I loved the video. It is really explanatory and makes argumentes respecting an order. However, these "error theorists" aren't the one's you should we arguing with. Hindi and Buddhist monks know better how "good" and "bad" does not exist: in a multidimenensional realm, what is beneficial or harmful to a person varies in many ways. They tend to say that happiness comes from being integrating with other people, but they do not, in any case, adscribe "good" to actions that make people come closer. They simply state that: you will be happier as you relate close to people, but you can (and will) make mistakes in doing that. "Error theory", in this scenario, has better arguments than the ones you've explained. Nevertheless, I repeat, you've had donea well job with this video. Congratulations.

[@elzoog]

This is low hanging fruit. An example of a fact which is independent of me, yet gives me a motivation to act, would be that it's -30 degrees outside. That gives me motivation to put my coat on before I go outside.

[@psiphisapiens]

That’s not for it’s own sake

[@bon12121]

I saw how a professor of philosophy switch from non cognitivism to error theory. Isn't that weird. There is a similarity. one says the statements are meaningless. the other says they're all false.

[@UnratedAwesomeness]

This is going over my head a little. The way I’ve come to understand morality is basically in the method of virtue ethics. This would ground ethics in something real (completeness and happiness which all humans seek) and all things we consider “good” and “evil” seem to fit in there.

[@galek75]

Naturalism isn't assumed based on faith. Naturalism refers to a view that the natural world is all we have substantiated reason to believe exists, and there is no substantiated reason to believe that anything else, including deities, exists or may act in ways that are independent of the natural order. It's all just god-of-the-gaps at this point.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is a fallacious reasoning: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q2LLimala6xmbcU

[@gabrielteo3636]

Don't all the counter arguments IP gave against Error Theory beg the question for moral facts?

[@VeganFootsoldier]

I had about 50 objections to this video so won't bother with a TLDR comment, a dislike will have to do.

[@bernkbestgirl]

Same lol, I was only able to post about 6 minutes of objections before I ran out of steam.

[@skepticalthinker4898]

Bernjamin Blake Watkins makes the critical error of not maintaining the scope of subjective reasons for objective reasons. His criticism of error thoery falls apart on this basis. Simply because there is no objective reason for preferring a life free of abject, unnecessary suffering to a life with abject, ununnecessary suffering does not mean that one cannot or will not have a subjective preference for the latter over the former, of for groups of individuals forming societies with collectively held preferences. Given the fact that there are natural explanations for individually and collectively, generally held preferences, and these correlate with our intuitive moral judgments, it is not reasonable to suppose the necessity of a greater explanation for general moral agreement and individual moral disagreement, and the lack of direct evidence supporting either the existence or necessity of such an additional explanation or any argument he sets forth against moral anti-realism, there is no justification for accepting his argument or criticism. His argument fails.

[@dakotacarpenter7702]

given all that we have unlearned throughout history as the result of science and naturalism, I think it's reasonable to assume that an argument being intuitive ought to count against it. The Moorean shift is simply an appeal to intuition, a closing of the mind, and really brings no philosophical substance to the discourse. this is the first video I've seen of this channel and it seems to be well informed and interesting. I rented the book you reference in the video and am happy to be brought back to it. edit: i think it seems arbitrary to accept cognitivism and reject realism because we are talking about metaethics in isolation. but like you stated earlier, the argument for nihilism is only as strong as the argument for naturalism. assuming the naturalist worldview, then, it makes perfect sense to accept cognitivism because it's metaphysically possible for observers to imagine things like right and wrong, while it isn't metaphysically possible for these things to exist outside of the imagination.

[@BJ-zd2or]

I've watched your video and I do think error theory concerns on naturalism, as u said on your other video naturalism faces problems on producing the best possible as ulitarrainism but repeats itself like promting a course to move forward. Error theory accepts cognativism, but denies naturalism, I think that on your other video that could be the reason why. As error theory accepts the moral values of cognativism. I think it's when it gose into the natural world, the practices that is natural u see contraditions and pain being involved, as pain is bad, but to stick too principles that is what's impotent, but denies the person or persons for the best many as possible. As naturalism is efficient and utility and robust, error theory could just be skeptic with that. Error theory and naturalism both are different but they both spin in contradition, even if naturalism is efficient, it dose only want to get too the goal, beside other opinion.

[@BJ-zd2or]

Error theory just might well be (as it is nihilism to its conclusion and skepticism.) Not liking practices it sees as it doesn't non-cognetativism. Natural may be minor but error theory gets the compatition side being a brittle one at times. It's what moves forward. Error theory just stands still before moving, like The Thinker: I think therefore I'm dangerous. That's just a saying though.

[@flyingmonkey3822]

If morals were objective, and not just inter-preferential (like golden rule) then it would mean that certain behaviors adhered more closely to the ideal than even the preferred behaviors. This ideal would exist in the same way that all other thoughts exist; you experience it mentally. You can rationally define it, you can witness it, but you aren’t sure that it is the best version bc you don’t have the mental capacity or experience to hold all possibilities and their full effects and compare them all to each other. That would be a god-like capacity, most would agree. Transhumanists agree that in theory we could experience this kind of increased cognition. Now theoretically if you had all factual evidence E and the capacity to compare it to all other evidence, and you had only two agents or parties of agents and in all multi-verses full of all actions each party “outexisted” the other 50/50 then you would have the ability to know which party was the preferred party to “outexist” the other. AND STILL NOT THINK THE IDEAL OUTCOME CAME ABOUT bc there were instances of non-preferred behavior as each agent in the multi-verse is not also capable of determining which is “the best” and the other party existed at all which is an example of how the ideal is not based on physicalist basises, but rather constrained by it. Having the perfect relationship with another agent would require them to both be perfect and any and all parties thereafter. When you think about every choice adhering to a perfect ideal, then you would think of a single course and series of “bests” that is highly constrained as well as the choice and desire to follow this best. It seems like even transhuman super-cognitivists wouldn’t be capable of both determining the best and choosing to follow it into a physical eternity (bc ending is less good than continuing) bc of the heat death of the universe. So, even transhumanism doesn’t allow for the accomplishment of the performance of this ideal. So, what is this ideal as best we know? I’d say that it’s virtue ethics bc we know what it looks like. We know admirable traits across people, we know vile traits across people, and we know that average people should aspire more to the admirable things like bravery, love, selflessness, and that these things also have a requirement to them bc if you do not perform them… then you do not hold these characterizations. It may be outside our ability to describe or perform the virtues perfectly… but we already explored what perfection requires. Most importantly we can use this to make moral progress, and to judge other cultures by. We couldn’t hold the Nuremberg trials for instance unless we knew that it was callous and inhumane to “other” and exterminate people on racial basises.

[@flyingmonkey3822]

Written laws are good bc it establishes minimums of moral behavior, and provides at least interpreferentially determined desert to moral failings and ideally should hold the judge and the judged to the same standard. Liberalism and free exercise of religion is important bc you can’t reach the ideal by just constraining all behaviors by raising the minimums and punishing those who fail to adhere to it. People need to be at peace with the fact that knowing the moral law perfectly is beyond them, they aren’t God. Just act out what you believe is right.

[@thesirevn334]

If all ethical propositions are false, doesn't that entail that the negation of that propositions would have the opposite value then it's negation. But if all ethical propositions were false then it would lead to contradictions. I don't know if that argument works but I'd like to hear someone's thoughts about it.

[@RustyShacklefordistheman]

Thesirevn It's not their negation which are false, but rather the quality of moral wrongness and correctness. P - It is wrong to stab a baby for fun. The negation of this is, Not P - It is not wrong to stab a baby for fun. Not, 'It is morally correct to stab a baby for fun' To look at a counter example, suppose I were to say "Mars is in retrograde, it means I will have good luck". Assuming that we are both error theorists on astrology, we would say that such a statement is false. However, just because it is false does not entail that "Mars is in retrograde, it means I will have bad luck". It just means that, "Mars is in retrograde, it means I will not have good luck or bad luck".

[@inukithesavage828]

This is "Why Atheism Creates Evil" The book. They discard morality, almost instantly, as a consequence of their ideology.

[@ruinofthegods4107]

This is demonstrably false. The atheist that IP collaborates with in this video doesn't seem to reject morality, and neither do I.

[@FR-yr2lo]

Well the Koran says that women have souls AND that they have inferior rights.

[@tobijadoll1641]

Almost first xD

[@mathieucharbonneau2710]

That last slide was such a diss haha loved it

[@paynedv]

Trinity video next ☺

[@paynedv]

cherice davis, Need another in depth one.

[@axeonvonshadow539]

If you watch Dragon Ball Bridge, teamfourstar did a Christmas-themed abridged movie short thing redoubling a non Christmas-themed Dragonball movie. And in it the character Piccolo commented how he is like the Son of God and the nail is like saying how does that make me the Holy Spirit, and it actually is a nice metaphor since piccolo was the son of Kami(japanese for God) but they introduced more stuff and ecpanded on that.

[@LawlessNate]

Just got to the part where the description of Error Theory ended and the explanation of why it's wrong is about to being. I'm going to post as many things I can see wrong with the theory just to see if I can name as many errors in Error Theory as are listed in the video. 1: Challenge from relativity and morality somehow suppose to be agreed upon in order to be objective. Where did the condition "Everyone has to agree on something or it's not objective." come from? Whether or not different groups of people agree on something have nothing to do with whether or not something is objective or true. Morality can both be objective and not be universally agreed upon. That's just the nature of something being objective rather than it being subjective. 2: Queerness. Unsurprisingly, this guy seems to be going at the topic with a naturalistic bias. That being said, he goes even further than that by suggesting that morality cannot be objective not only because isn't spacial/material, but even if it were spacial/material it still couldn't be objective simply because it couldn't be studied empirically. Whether or not we can understand something through empirical study has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is objective or true. Were the laws of physics somehow subjective before we were able to study them? Our perception has no bearing on whether or not something is objective; to be objective means something is the way it is regardless of whatever our perception is on the matter. 3: Queerness again. Let's roll with his suggestion that morality would have to be independent of our beliefs but also give us reason to act; even if this is unlike anything else that wouldn't be grounds to suggest that therefore this is not the case. What is this fallacy called? "All X observed so far are Y, therefore all Xs must have Y"? 4: Queerness again. Things either give us a reason to act *or* are independent of us? Logic is entirely objective and yet that gives people reason to act all the time. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this "give us reason to act" and is suppose to be an "ought" description. Then again, if "give us reason to act" is an "ought" description of human behavior then nothing, not even thirst or hunger, would fit into this category on a naturalistic worldview. 5: Epistemology. It can't be perceived by the 5 senses and therefore does not or almost certainly does not exist? Naturalism rears its ugly head again. It's amazing how many people have this bias despite the notion being so obviously self-defeating.

[@TheApsodist]

LawlessNate nice

[@mothernature1755]

Are there other versions of moral nihilism other than error theory?

[@CosmoShidan]

Now this is quality!

[@leandrosanchez1212]

showing naturalism to be true is not something you should do in ethics. Ethics builds off on your metaphysics and epistemology. If you disagree on the truth of naturalism then we shouldn't even be talking about ethics before having dealt w this metaphysical difference.

[@iosefka7774]

Your argument that moral difference is due to misguided application is great. As an error theorist, it's not enough to convince me, but it's a respectful argument. Your critique of the argument from queerness is dirty, however. The queerness of objective moral facts is, as Mackie puts it, in their "to-be-pursedness". The issue taken is not that objective moral facts are "just" unnatural.

[@stayinawesum]

im going to do my first ug degree (ba in philosophy), and can someone tell me about whats exactly an MA in Christian apologetics will teach me, i have no idea, and can i do one if i do ba in philosophy (i donno much about what im going​to do in my life or how college courses actually works specially after a ug degree)

[@jpolygon2098]

IP, have you ever responded to atheists who attempted to debunk the Resurrection? I found a video by this KZbinr called Viced Rhino where he attempts to debunk the Resurrection.

[@MsJohnnythunder]

thank you again for your work!!!

[@HenryBee]

Where and how does utilitarianism fit into metaethics? Would appreciate a video on it.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

It doesn't, it is a theory of normative ethics.

[@shadowlink26]

Henry Bee Utilitarianism is a normative theory and not a meta-ethical theory. Utilitarianism can take both realist and anti-realist forms. For example, a hedonistic utilitarian is a realist. They believe that everyone ought to act in ways that would make things go impartially best. However, a preference utilitarian would make no such claim. They would instead claim that we ought to act in ways that would maximize people’s preferences. On the hedonistic view, what is best or what we have most reason to do is fixed. It does not depend on the attitudes or responses of subjects. But that is not the case on the preference view. If everyone would prefer to torture cats, then we ought to torture cats. What we had most reason to do would depend on the attitudes or responses of subjects. Inspiring Philosophy and I are both realists about morality. We believe that if there are any moral truths, then they do not depend on facts about subjects such as their attitudes or responses.

[@HenryBee]

shadowlink26 InspiringPhilosophy thanks for the quick reply. I see the different branches now. Is there any conflict between moral realism and utilitarianism?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

no

[@shadowlink26]

Henry Bee: Most utilitarians are moral realists, because most utilitarians are hedonistic (or classical) utilitarians. The divide among utilitarians is not so much realism vs anti-realism but more act consequentialism vs rule consequentialism.

[@yokofox5885]

E moore

[@christopherjohnson1873]

1st?

[@christopherjohnson1873]

Yes!

[@axeonvonshadow539]

Actually IP was first because of editing.

[@logosul-]

Learning the alphabet 🎉🎉🎉

[@avontaywilliams]

How is error theory considered cognitivist if they believe that “no objective moral facts and duties exist in the real world”? Wouldn’t that by details make them non-cognitivist?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

They believe when we make moral claims they have truth-apt status, not a non-cognitivist status of not being right or wrong.

[@jedibattlemasterkos]

WHEN WILL YOU FINALLY DESTROY THE FLATTARDS? I WANT THAT VID RIGHT NOW MORE THAN ANY OTHER SUBJECT LOL :P

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

There are a lot of good videos which already do that online: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJO5noBvrtKdrqM

[@karl5722]

Do you believe that Cosmic skeptic jas put the debate with Inspiring philosophy? Wow this guy did not made valid arguments.

[@korona3103]

An interesting argument for an idealist! The last part of the argument is the most elegant but I think you underestimate the force of subjectivism, at least as I understand it. The subjectivist doesn't say moral claims have /no/ basis it's just that they don't have /objective/ basis. Morality being subjective doesn't mean I can act and do as I please. It's that moral claims are inherently linked to my nature as a subjective individual. I think this makes sense on even a naive level. Speaking objectively there's nothing morally wrong with making object A move through object B and so on. It's wrong when it hurts a sentient person. It's the subjective effects of the actions that make it moral or immoral, not the objective facts of the events. Put another way, if there were no subjects to experience the world then nothing would be moral or immoral. Morality only makes sense when there are people to experience it. If you want to convince someone to act in a different way you don't make an objective description, you talk about subjective effects of their actions both on themselves and others. You appeal to empathy and their feelings.

[@cienciadecreacion2161]

no my friend you certainly wrong for example the objective fact of bestialism is bad because produce desease where are the subjective feelings or likes beside the concept of subjectivism is what the pleasure and likes of the people define what is good and bad if that is true i can say hey the bestialism is good act because make me feel pleasure that is subjectivism but the moral realism says what the objective moral cant be define by pleasures or likes or subjective beliefs in that case like the last comment say the bestialism is good because that make me feel plasure if we see the comment we can find a subjective thing that is the pleasure what depends of the subject if moral realism is true then that subjective feel like the pleasure cant define objectively if the bestialism is a good act and in can show a example about that for example in africa the people beliefs subjectively what the bestialismo is goog because their beliefs says that and then in the same country 15 teens practiced bestialism because their beliefs say that (their beliefs says if someone practice bestialism with a female donkey they go to obtain a more big pennis) and results what they before that bad act they obtained a desease called rage what produce a progressive inflamation of the brain and inflamation of spinal marrow if moral realism is true then obviously that go to happen because the BELIEFS,PLEASURES and COSTUMES cant define the objective moral and that is another reason by which the moral realism is true if the subjectivism is true then we need to be wizards for make a modification of the reality and the objective moral but lamentably we are not wizards my friend

[@beenz07]

9:29 "The fact that medicine would give me many more years of happy life gives me reason to take it." This elegantly captures a consequentialist point of view, but notably, that's not a theory that supposes the existence of prescriptive facts. It first looks to descriptions about our desires and makes prescriptions accordingly. It is not the facts themselves that give us a goal, but that we have goals of our own, irrespective of their potential moral value. This is putting the cart before the horse. By this reasoning, serial killers have moral reasons to kill. 12:30 (E) Would be better stated if it ended with "... to accept this argument's conclusion, other than a preference for truth and consistency." The preference comes first. This applies to (G) as well. 12:46 (F) What reasons do we have beyond our preferences to avoid suffering? Are these fairly called "moral reasons" at all, since they stem from our desires? Watkins arguments are subject to the objections to intuitionism, a subject that you may have covered, but have not linked to.

[@hamooozmugharbel]

7:47 as well i dont think the reverse argument works. "torturing children for fun is morally wrong" isn't meant to be understood as a moral fact in and of itself 10:47 the dude is effectively just strawmanning and confusing the anti realist stance. All the things he mentioned are reason giving they're just not Independant from our own internal normative reasons.

[@bernkbestgirl]

3:30 - People can believe that the shape of the earth is flat, but the difference is that they can be demonstrated to be wrong independently of human belief. 3:52 - You can find examples where people have a moral belief due to incorrect factual beliefs, but that isn't necessarily true for every case where a difference in moral belief exists. 4:38 & 4:49 - People can't simply be ignorant of moral facts, because as Mackie describes, the nature of a moral fact would mean every single human being would have to have motivation to follow it. 5:00 - Mackie's argument is not merely that cultures believing different things shows moral claims are false, that's only the first part of what he said. It goes like this: given that different cultures believe different things, and objective values would require that everyone has a reason to believe them, we know they cannot exist. 5:17 - If they are "unlike anything else" in the way Mackie described, then it WOULD mean they cannot exist. He is not merely saying "objective values are weird lol", he means the nature of morality is such that it would require properties that make objective values impossible. 5:34-6:08 - If someone said "a square can't be a circle", would you accuse them of appealing to nature? Mackie is pointing out a logical error, not appealing to nature. There are more problems with this video but I have other things to do.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

1. Ok then take different interpretation of quantum mechanics, where all scientists are using the same data. 2. Such as? 3. Motivation is psychological, that doesn't follow. Flat-earthers don't have the motivation to study reality, does that mean science is subjective? 4. The same could be said about scientific facts, so it doesn't follow. 5. Why? That is assuming the conclusion you want, as explained in the video. 6. It is not a logical error.

[@bernkbestgirl]

​@@InspiringPhilosophy 1. There are some things we can't explain, but that doesn't contradict the basic assumption that the universe operates on natural laws independently of what humans believe. In fact if we don't have that assumption, then the flat earth people wouldn't necessarily be wrong, and it would undermine your own position on morality. 2. Monogamy. I'll state Mackie's point on monogamy as a question: "Why would you assume that people participate in monogamy because they approve that way of life rather than that they approve of monogamy because they participate in that way of life?" That is, variations in moral codes can be explained by the hypothesis that they reflect ways of life, and not necessarily by your hypothesis that they reflect factual beliefs. 3 & 4 & 5. The observations of science do not require that people are motivated to believe them. Science just attempts to come up with testable explanations of the universe that give predictable results. Moral claims, on the other hand, have an obligatory "thou shalt", and being objective, the obligation would have to exist regardless of what you believe. It's what Mackie called "objective prescriptivity", or "to-be-pursuedness". In other words, every objective moral claim must also have a reasons claim. Since people don't necessarily share reasons, all moral claims are false. 6. The above being the case, it would mean objective values are logically erroneous, not an appeal to nature.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

1. Am I not just using science as analogy to explain why human disagreements is a meaningless argument against moral realism? 2. Or because there is a right thing we ought to conform to. Some ways of life are bad and some are objectively good. 3. Yes they would exist that way, so what? Again, they are not contingent on people.

[@noahtipton7302]

These arguments are pretty weak.

[@spectre8533]

Yes, i also found error theory very weak

[@noahtipton7302]

@@spectre8533 and....? Bad arguments agaisnt bad arguments aren't good arguments.

[@noahtipton7302]

Take the bit about reversing the argument. 1.) Torturing children is wrong. 2.)if error theory is correct, then torturing children is not wrong. 3.) Error theory cannot be correct. But it completely ignores the obvious 1.) Torturing children not morally permissible. 2.) If error theory is correct, then the belief that torturing children is morally permissible is wrong. 3.) Error theory is not wrong. Premise 1 is already mess. It makes an objective moral assumption but that assumption has no justification.

[@spectre8533]

@@noahtipton7302 your second argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[@noahtipton7302]

@@spectre8533 that's because it's a dumb argument

[@JulioCaesarTM]

That last line, LoL

[@JulioCaesarTM]

Got a love from inspiring philosophy 👍, God Bless Man.

[@JonGreen91]

It is very annoying that, in economics, normative means something else.

[@benjaminprzybocki7391]

Jonathan It means the same thing in philosophy, namely pertaining to what ought to be rather than what is.

[@sargred1412]

Im not impressed. You only gave a somewhat normal counter argument against the 1st premise and you showed that 2nd premise is false (because it takes empiricism and naturalism as the absolute truth while rejecting metaphysics all together) and the 3rd premise just goes together with the 2nd one. Error theory is only false in case that God exists together with objective moral truths but if we presuppose (for the sake of the argument) that there is no God and if we reject metaphysics all together Error theory seems completely legit. Benjamins opinion was completely unnecessary he just made the whole thing look more complicated than it actually is.

[@LogosTheos]

Not true. Even if God doesn't exist error theory can be false. There are atheist philosophers who hold to ethical naturalism or ethical non-naturalism. Both are secular moral realist theories that share common ground with divine command and natural law theory in saying morals are objective.

[@sargred1412]

LogosTheos So what that doesnt make it true. Sam Harris for example is an atheist who believe in objective morality and i find it stupid and illogical. What does he base his moral objectivity on-science. Ridiculous.

[@LogosTheos]

@@sargred1412 Sam Harris is a poor example of an atheist who believes in objective morality. Most atheist philosophers reject his outdated and poorly articulated utilitarianism. Harris also isn't a real philosopher and makes numerous errors. You have to look at ethical naturalism or ethical non-naturalism which are the academic and hardcore secular objective moral theories. Popular proponents are philosophers like Erik Wielenberg, Russ Shafer-Landau, Kevin DeLapp, David Enoch, David Brink, etc.

[@sargred1412]

LogosTheos I wanted to give you a name of a youtuber that deals with this issue but OP blocked his name because it contradicts his opinion, what an idiot...

[@bornjusticerule5764]

"So many things wrong with error theory that it seems like an error." #PERFECT please do a video on how Judaism, Islam and Christianity all worship the same God; the God of Abraham.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

We don't

[@colinpurssey9875]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Could you succinctly address the reason for the succinct reply to "Born Justice Rule" ? Thanks .

[@beenz07]

I like that you pointed out that the intutionist objection to the queerness argument might be considered begging the question. Kudos for honesty.

[@almostatheist]

As crazy as this may sound, the earth is flat...

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

media.giphy.com/media/jeXiz1RAvzX44/giphy.gif

[@almostatheist]

InspiringPhilosophy I'm not even joking

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Still doesn't make it any less crazy.

[@almostatheist]

InspiringPhilosophy That's the issue, people don't even question it, I suggest you in your free time watch the documentary "the principle"

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I have and it is nonsense: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJO5noBvrtKdrqM kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHzMemihYsScl7c Don't be sucked in by things easily debunked.

[@beenz07]

I think if J.L. Mackie were interested in presenting a deductive argument for moral skepticism in the syllogistic style you have, he would have done so. Deductive arguments only make explicit what their premises already require to be true, and in a real sense are necessarily circular. Deductive arguments are true, but trivial explorations of facts and their logical consequences. The conclusion adds nothing of substance to its premises, except perhaps clarity. It is not necessary for rationalism to be false in order for us to conclude that naturalism has, thus far, been the only theoretical model to prove useful. If that's the case, one can make the probabilistic case that it is unlikely we will discover prescriptive facts, if we are proper inductive theoreticians. Should rationalism become a useful avenue of discovery and understanding, we may have to reverse course.

[@axeonvonshadow539]

Woah!!! An athiest working WITH a Christian?!?!

[@shadowlink26]

Well, I like to think it was one philosopher working with another philosopher. We just happen to disagree on some questions. It’s somewhat of a scandal in philosophy that we don’t openly admit to enjoying agreeing with one another too.

[@CosmoShidan]

Both sides do agree with moral realism, even if their views are different. It's something we don't see enough on youtube with all these atheist ranters around.

[@merongrace2067]

You are the best

[@gjoerulv]

Really good vid!

[@Susanmugen]

If we applied this logic to other things we'd discover our favorite flavor of ice cream is false, because it does not correspond to anything objective.

[@sisyphus645]

Not really. We can measure how responsive your brain is to different flavors of ice cream and consequently “magically predict” what your favorite ice cream flavor is.

[@CRAFTE.D]

Are you going to do a critique on divine command theory.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Not anytime soon.

[@CRAFTE.D]

InspiringPhilosophy 😔

[@eammonful]

Are you going to cover the Frege-Geach problem?

[@manne8575]

He already covered that

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmHVgYJvaMp8hZY

[@lizicadumitru9683]

Special faculty = intitution?

[@shadowlink26]

Lizica Dumitru There is no special faculty. We know basic mathematical, logical, modal, and normative truths by rational intuition.

[@beenz07]

To answer Mr. Watkins final question, these things aren't true self-evidently, but are instead impulses given to us by evolution.

[@duckymomo7935]

Does Mackie also deny psychology?

[@CosmoShidan]

No Mackie was a huge science enthusiast. For example, he once thought memetics could explain morality.

[@shadowlink26]

Mi Les No, he tries to reduce morality to facts about psychology.

[@sisyphus645]

@@shadowlink26 why would you call it a reduction, though?

[@beenz07]

I might be a non-cognitivist and error theorist hybrid. Weird.

[@hamooozmugharbel]

7:47 as well i dont think the reverse argument works. "torturing children for fun is morally wrong" isn't meant to be understood as a moral fact in and of itself 10:47 the dude is effectively just strawmanning and confusing the anti realist stance. All the things he mentioned are reason giving they're just not Independant from our own internal normative reasons.

[@MidiwaveProductions]

"We think we have true moral beliefs, but we really don´t, because objective moral facts and duties do not exist in the real world." --- J.L Mackie Translation: Since I believe "the real world" is the way the prequantum worldviews of materialism/physicalism/naturalism describes it, there are no objective moral facts and duties." ----- Nothing is more convincing than arguments based on dead worldviews ;)

[@ronm6349]

Mackie is insane

[@shadowlink26]

He was an Oxford professor, so I doubt he was insane.

[@ronm6349]

99% of people are insane, so what's your point?

[@shadowlink26]

If 99% of people are insane, then it is not a unique criticism. Additionally, if only 1% of people are not insane, then those at the top of academia (especially at Oxford) stand the best chance of not being insane. That makes your criticism even less relevant since it is least likely to apply to Mackie. We need to do more. We need to actually pose these questions to ourselves and try to answer them. It is a live epistemic possibility that nothing matters morally. That's not a belief merely limited to the insane. There are many intellectuals whom I have a lot of respect for who also believe there are no robustly objective moral truths. Examples include Mackie, Bernard Williams (Oxford), Christine Korsegaard (Harvard), Sharon Street (NYU), and Simon Blackburn (Oxford).

[@ronm6349]

God would disagree with you. Mans wisdom is foolishness to God, and being wise they became fools. How many professors believe we live on a spinning ball, LOL need I say more. No moral truth , LOL again , God will differ.

[@DamnYouRabbit]

At 7:53 you say, “Since we know it is morally wrong to do things like torture children...” That sure seems like an assumption that was just made. You might feel horrible and not want to torture children, but that does not automatically mean it is morally wrong. Assumptions such as this take away from the credibility of the video in that it is presenting us with subjectivity and bad reasoning.

[@pendejo6466]

I would love to see you take on Nietzsche.