Semester Ethics Course condensed (Part 2 of 2)

[@christopherkerr6307]

Love your videos! I’m a senior philosophy major and this is a great refresher.

[@bthomson]

Most fun my brain has had in ages!

[@shinom0ri]

I hope the development of the philosophy of ethics doesn't end here, because to me this all of these positions seems like Escher illusion.

[@shinom0ri]

@1x0x Could you elaborate please? Inuendo isn't really much of an argument. There is a high probability that I agree with what you are hinting at, but I'd like to see it written out so that I can be certain.

[@benmore2067]

Hume's self-contradictory "normative" principle reminds me of one of the main objections to postmodernism, namely that the postmodern rejection of all metanarratives is in itself a metanarrative.

[@gamefreak23788]

Right, there is a way to reword Hume's principle to a non-epistemic one: "By believing only in things that come from experience, one will have a greater chance at knowing what is true" Or even, "One cannot know what they have not experienced"

[@thestatusjoe9949]

@@gamefreak23788 True, but then there is nothing telling us that we should seek out or believe only what is true. What’s stopping me from knowingly believing falsehoods? What basis is there to say that being rational is better than being irrational?

[@thestatusjoe9949]

This is a bit of a reductive view on postmodern philosophy, I get that it’s the main summary that everyone uses but it’s pop philosophy at best. Postmodernism is a very broad and vague term used to describe a set of studies on and critiques of a variety of things, which have been artificially grouped together into the “postmodern condition”. Many philosophers that are considered postmodernists never discussed metanarratives at all. There are certainly plenty of problems with various strains of postmodernist thought, but rejecting all of them based on a thesis that was never agreed on by the philosophers themselves is foolish

[@HelicopterRidesForCommunists]

⁠@@gamefreak23788”one cannot know what one has not experience” - but thats not true. One can learn from another’s experience. One DOES learn from others’ experiences. Its a very common occurrence.

[@HelicopterRidesForCommunists]

@@thestatusjoe9949what basis is there to say that being rational is better than being irrational? Well, do an experiment. Try living your life “irrationally”. Do things that are “irrational” and see how that works out for you.

[@tuffwith2effs899]

Ending the course there sure does leave students wanting to dig deeper doesn't it

[@sakushey]

yesn't

[@sakushey]

or no'nt

[@sakushey]

that is the question'nt

[@gm2407]

I would counter the question of 'Are there objective morals?' with an enquiry as to what morals are and why do we have them. If you can find the purpose and nature of morals then such purpose becomes the object for which we must judge. What are Morals? (the differentiation between customs behaviours and laws) Why do we have Morals? When is morality to be considered, imparted and applied? Where are morals required? How do we decide on what is to be moral or amoral? What are the boundries that define morality and concepts within morality? Theory, to answer such questions we look back into the formation of social groups and how they work. The interplay between social pressure (informal mob), appeal to authority through law (temporal institution) or appeal to authority to religion (spiritual institution) is applied. Differentiating morals from customs, laws, group preferences, individual preferences, religious traditions, supersticious traditions ect will be a considerable task as there are cross overs. These may or may not cross over due to the concepts being universal whether they are objective or subjective. We would also ask ourselves whether a universally found moral standard would be considered objective or customary? What would the consequences be if we found an objective morality and could prove it? What would the consequences be if we could not find an objective morality and could prove that all existing morality have been proven subjective? Does a morality need to be objective for us to find morality to be a useful concept? Is morality only a social component and therefore an aspect of risk and reward within game theory where we should be searching for a way to reach Nash equilibrium?

[@J-YouTube324]

Morality is what we Want it to be (or Demand it to be) and thus define it.

[@mangos2888]

For the record, this totally could have been one, 90-min video

[@muwanguzireagan7599]

Used this guy's video's for jurisprudence. I Honestly did have much use for attending lectures the entire year while studying jurisprudence 1 and 2 .

[@johnmackay1961]

Nietzche was drawing a long bow implying that the 'real etymological significance' of güte, 'good' leads back to some lofty sense of 'soul of high order' or 'privileged soul'. PIE languages such as German, Old English, West Frisian, Dutch and Old Norse have meanings for 'good' synonymous with kindly, gracious, benign, benevolent.

[@thatjeff7550]

Came here because one of my friends is writing a work of fiction and introduced ethics as part of the backbone of the work. Nice to see this is from someone from my childhood town. This two-parter gave me some basic understanding but it didn't answer some of my core questions. I may have to see if you have other videos that talk about what I'm looking for.

[@deepdive1338]

I think a large part of the problem of philosophy relies on not defining certain words in a scientific manner. Expirience is one of them. In Hume's argument(you should only believe in things that you or someone else has experienced or that must exist to explain what you do experience) has this problem of not defining what expirience is. There's no objective experience of math for example, but math does make objective arguments that seem surely true. 1+1=2 does not seem like a simple in the mind subjective experience. When apple falls, and another falls, you find 2 apples. The apples are objective, real, but the numbers just seem to pop out. In that way one can suppose this sort of twoness is always experienced when you see 2 apples. In the same way, from what we do expirience, we may be able to derive some ideas, some calculus for what the ideal state is, perhaps a law like the most stable state(scientifically speaking) is the best.

[@isobelstuart528]

I am a high school student studying philosophy. I love your videos. You have helped me immensely.

[@mmolokekamogelo5694]

Good day Mr, thank you for the sessions. They are indeed very useful and resulted in me getting good results for Jurisprudence. All the love from South Africa.

[@bthomson]

This comment is nice to read.

[@AndrewBlucher]

​@@bthomson What is nice? Is it nice for its own sake, or because someone else says it's nice? I think we need a complete philosophy of niceness.

[@TheRealLachlan]

thats some top tier autism

[@danjixkrabix]

@@AndrewBlucher Perhaps it makes the reader feel good/nice, would cicero call the original poster an orator?

[@waggishsagacity7947]

What I find so fascinating in these lectures is that, in quite a few of them, tautology was used as though it were a legitimate tool in rational, persuasive argument (specifically by Hume and Locke). It's no more difficult to debunk than saying 'a rabbit is called a rabbit because it IS a rabbit." Thanks, Prof. Jeffrey Kaplan: You are a veritable Explainer of clarity of thought, among other virtues, such as being an outstanding communicator.

[@lirich0]

Example?

[@waggishsagacity7947]

@@lirich0 Example of what exactly?

[@rowematthew2667]

Philosophy is just abusing loopholes in language

[@waggishsagacity7947]

@@rowematthew2667 I can't decide whether you are being glib or humorous, but I'll answer you as if you are glib: 'Psychology is a way to fill holes in one's soul to make it look like it's okay to have patches all over the place.' I just made it up in 2 seconds.

[@J-YouTube324]

Individual Rights/liberties/freedoms: are what we demand and define them to be. We as societies must mutually agree on what rights we enshrine. Moral wrongs are infringements of any individual's rights. Otherwise we are free to do as we please. ---------------------------------------------------------- We do what we want. We want freedom.

[@JagGillarGifflar]

Finally, I've been waiting for this!

[@bthomson]

Even more amazing - I didn't know I was waiting for this!

[@kdhlkjhdlk]

There doesn't need to be an order of operations for moral facts. If you think they exist objectively (in the world somewhere) then they aren't being reasoned in a logical system from some starting set of axioms, they are being discovered. One doesn't ask if the way atoms work was chosen before momentum was chosen as a rule for the universe - they aren't ordered, just there to be discovered, and the order humans discover them is unimportant.

[@memitim171]

If I think Unicorns objectively exist (in the world somewhere), that changes nothing. Until I show you one, it's still just my (subjective) opinion. The same is true of objective morality.

[@hamdaniyusuf_dani]

I think the failure to reach a consensus on ethics among philosophers stems from the failure to distinguish between objective morality and universal morality. The word objective means independent from observer or evaluator. For example, objective reality means the reality as it is, independent from the existence of observer. It implies that the moon is still there even when no one is looking at it. On the other hand, morality is about good and bad by the definition, which in turn depends on the terminal goal of the subject. Something is good if it helps the achievement of the terminal goal, and vice versa. No goal can exist independently from a conscious entity. If there's no conscious being in the universe, there would be no goal, and consequently, there would be no morality either.

[@hamdaniyusuf_dani]

Although morality can't be objective by definition, it's still possible for it to be universal. It means that the universal morality must be free from unnecessary restrictions beyond the requirements to achieve the universal terminal goal. We can start from the simplest form of morality, which is individual or personal morality. Then expand the scope of moral subject to tribal morality, national, species, life form, and finally to universal morality. Current humans show various levels of morality. Most little kids embrace personal morality, which is the simplest one. It's understandable due to their limited thinking capacity. Modernity brought some people to higher levels of morality, such as national and species morality, or even beyond that. Although the reasons why they expanded their morality are not very convincing (yet), like why should we include other apes in our ethical protection programs? Only few people that I aware of has expressed the embrace of universal morality. Unfortunately, we can see people with lower level of morality such as tribal and racial morality are rising in number, at least in some locations.

[@rowematthew2667]

If there was an objective universal morality then it would have to apply to all life in the universe and if there are aliens, which there almost certainly are somewhere, they would have to operate under that code as much as we do. However, sentient clouds of gas, plasma beings or silicoln life or whatever are hardly likely to have the same needs, wants, and systems of belief that we do. All speculation at this point but interesting. Same with AI. When AI becomes general will it have to operate by an objective moral code? If so then we don't really need to worry about it wiping us out

[@geechan4744]

Approximately 500bc to 200 bc, hundreds of philosophers played out their thoughts in China. The the first Emperor (of Qin) united the warring states under a system of laws (rigid or not depending on your point of view). His dynasty fell and ascended the Han, which ironically used pretty much the same system. Then a statesman pushed Confucianism (130 bc )to a Han Emperor. Thus a feudal hierarchical system of order, virtues, and ethics was employed in order to rule the masses. At times successful. But…..

[@podcastfarm]

Amazing video. How do you write backwards like that?!

[@AndrewBlucher]

Do he really write backwards?

[@henrik6739]

I think he mirrors the video...

[@howielisnoff]

I spent several semesters taking philosophy courses at my alma mater. I’ve learned more from you in this short time than in all of those courses. Should I demand my money back?

[@aos8695]

I find myself completing sentences with “or whatever” these days 😂. Thank you professor

[@z400racer37]

@Jeffrey Kaplan You forgot Ayn Rand’s Objectivist Ethics, sir.

[@MikiiColella]

I like the passionate way you explained all this 😊 thanks

[@PsymonHawkeye]

Wait, we can't use Locke's argument 11:21 because Euthyphro gave the wrong answer to Socrates? 13:44 You cannot revoke the right of the Creator to create morality and call it a good argument.

[@tjf2939]

11:58 the real problem with thius argument is that 1) is not true / not provable. You can‘t use something that‘s not provable as an axiom.

[@richardgreen7225]

[1] Do no harm. [2] Try to do some good. [3] Be wary of proposes trading harm for good. Our legal systems define 'harm'. Aesthetics tend to indicate what might be 'some good' - improvements. "The good of the many justifies harm to a few." is an example that proposes trading harm for good.

[@J-YouTube324]

I like it. Harm/'wrongs' are infringements of human rights. Pro-freedom, pro-humanity.

[@lrwerewolf]

Needs more Joyce, Blackburn, and Ayers.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.

[@santiagoramon1493]

🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 📚 The lecture continues from part one, exploring Friedrich Nietzsche's views on morality. 📜 Nietzsche challenges conventional morality, describing it as a "slave revolt" stemming from powerless groups rebranding their traits as virtuous. 🎭 Conventional morality is contrasted with the concept of true objective moral facts, with Nietzsche critiquing the societal moral code of his time. 👥 Nietzsche believes that societal moral beliefs, which promote traits like humility, are a construct of the powerless to combat the strong, aggressive traits of the powerful. 🧠 David Hume's stance is introduced, arguing against objective moral facts using principles centered around empirical experience. ✋ Hume's thoughts prompt the question: if objective moral facts aren't needed to explain experiences, are they irrational to believe in? 🙏 John Locke's argument links morality to divine creation, suggesting moral obligations stem from being God's property-a notion critiqued for assuming prior moral facts. 🔄 The lecture challenges Hume's principle, indicating it paradoxically dismisses both moral facts and itself as a normative claim. Made with HARPA AI

[@pukaman2000]

"I Failed!" without comment. Gotta love it. Nietzsche would do the same.

[@chrisw4562]

I am amazed by the great summary of ethics. My opinion is that there really aren't many, mabye no objective morals. I think they are mostly learned behavior. Not long ago slavery was accepted by certain groups, treating women and children like property was common, rape and plunder used to be accepted practice in wartimes not that long ago either. Murder is still justified under certain circumstaces, such as wartimes. Lying appears to be acceptable in modern politics. I could go on and on. So which morals actually are objective?

[@J-YouTube324]

Don't infringe upon other's rights.

[@jessiferxoxo]

@@J-KZbin324 why not?

[@rayoflight62]

When we say that beliefs are simpler and stronger than knowledge, because a belief didn't require the burden of proofs. While at the basis of all religions, when beliefs are "piloted" by higher interests, they have been the cause of some major upsets in history. Religion can be good if it is not mixed with politics or economics. But this is not always the case in human history...

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Well, Slave, we all have our own particular BELIEFS, but ultimately, there exists objective truth, which is not subject to our misconceptions and misunderstandings. One who has transcended mundane relative truth is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. 😇

[@subtletube123]

Are there any philosophers who essentially say "Do whatever you think is best for the survival and advancement of the human species"? Is this just pragmatism or is there a more precise terminology for this belief?

[@mackennakelly4413]

Could you possibly do a video on Roe v. Wade and the decision that overturned it? What place does morality have when deciding a case like Roe?

[@Krunch2020]

None. Another paradox emerges when saving a fetus results in an unwanted child. No one cares about poor unwanted children. This is morally reprehensible. If a person or state saves a fetus then they are obligated to care for and nurture the unwanted child.

[@bthomson]

Maybe the most dividing question in the pantion! Many almost ready to KILL over it! 😑

[@bthomson]

That's "pantheon" 😒

[@mangos2888]

Um no

[@waggishsagacity7947]

MacKenna Kelly: This is neither a course about ethics and morality [do this; don't do that] nor about the correctness or incorrectness of legal cases. That said, I am convinced that overturning Roe vs. Wade was a complete error based on the morals of the majority of SCOTUS' justices

[@KitagumaIgen]

"Socrates walked around a lot" - now that's a summary!

[@dmitriikliukin5773]

Amazing series of video. Very helpful. Thanks!

[@YashArya01]

That's it? That's how a college course on ethics ends? So there are no valid arguments for or against objective morality?

[@Reality-Distortion]

I think he might do part 3? His playlist of ethics had many materials on metaethics and here he didn't go into even some of the most basics concepts among them.

[@dionysianapollomarx]

"condensed" so there might be more. There's more content in some journal articles than two 25-minute videos.

[@TheHAALLLO]

I mean, if there were such arguments, one would just learn the arguments and be done with it. But that's clearly not what's philosophy usual course is. I would have been surprised if philosophy had defnitiv answers so such questions

[@YashArya01]

@@Reality-Distortion LOL. Okay, hope so. He was hoping to make one part, now there are two parts, and the second ended abruptly.

[@YashArya01]

@@TheHAALLLO I actually agree that mainstream philosophy doesn't have good answers to questions of ethics, because they don't even have good answers to questions of metaphysics and epistemology. Ayn Rand does.

[@BlueWolfCAST]

phenomenal I’ve always said, believe doesn’t exist in my world. It’s only the knowing.

[@Jonas-sw8mj]

Thanks for the great content. You're a good teacher.

[@siliconvalleyceo1059]

The only thing on internet that is worth opening my bag of Doritos. Was eagerly waiting for this to happen.

[@baltzarbonbeck3559]

Hume states that experience is the ultimate way to determine what is real. What about all the problems of experience, if you are delusional your experiences are not real, hallunications are not real, or they are, but subjectively. What about the notion of cogntivie bias, that we look for what we already know or think and seek to confirm it. What bout the fact that you haven't ever experienced all of something, and the part you have is surely giving you a skewed look. Absolute sentences like his are naive and badly put.

[@User24x]

For those wanting an ending: Morality is objective in the sense that human brains have values, and there are effective & efficient ways to go about achieving them given that other humans exist too. These values we have are values the majority of humans have because of evolution. "Objectively subjective," where our subjective experience is objectively determined by the brain that evolution developed.

[@chibiraptor]

It is objectively true that humans evolved to generally have certain preferences, but that's a completely separate question to whether those preferences are objectively good. It is objectively true that humans have an innate preference for in groups, but that doesn't mean it is objectively good to be racist. You haven't contended with the question of "is anything morally good from an objective sense." You've just shown that it is objectively true that humans agree on some things. But we know its possible for humans to agree on things that are wrong: for example, newton's theory of universal gravitation is objectively wrong, but a lot of people naturally find it to make sense.

[@User24x]

@@chibiraptor Racism has overt negative consequences compared to being not racism. You can't get an ought from an is. There's no objective morals to begin with. Only subjective values that the majority of humans have from evolution & how to best "objectively" achieve those values relative to one's other values.

[@anumsum]

Please upload video on preference utilitarianism with examples

[@smartdean8910]

🤣🤣😂😅 "the negative 300". That's sound really funny 😄. Cool video 📹 😎 by the way.

[@NihongoWakannai]

Why is the audio moving between left and right ear? It's very uncomfortable to listen to on headphones

[@Danielfaust0]

Could Bertrand Russell's arguments about intuitive knowledge solve Hume's contradiction? I'm very curious about what you think. Thanks for a fantastic set of videos!

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

🐟 12. LAW, MORALITY, & ETHICS: The three terms - law, morality, and ethics - are fundamentally synonymous, since “breaking the law” implies the execution of an act which is both immoral and unethical. First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between “laws” and “rules”. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL laws, which are based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of murder and adultery). Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons are able to differentiate the inextricable laws of morality, from the mundane rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed legislators. Therefore, this chapter of “F.I.S.H” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, as opposed to the various laws of physics. Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, metaethics essentially remain constant within all human societies throughout time. When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the ENTIRE universe. Therefore, even when a seemingly-innocuous act occurs (such as disposing of plastic products in a rubbish dump, thereby breaking the natural law), the universe is degraded to a certain degree. When a person is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all people need to be more vigilant. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally degraded, just as a single cancerous cell degrades one's entire body, even if to a minuscule extent. MORALITY is concerned with how any particular act conforms to or contradicts the law. Moral acts are beneficial to oneself, to others and/or beneficial to the ecosystem, amoral actions (for the purpose of this teaching) are actions which are neither against the law nor directly benefit society (in other words, neutral acts), whilst immoral deeds are in defiance of the law (that is, premeditated actions which are intended to cause harm to individuals [including oneself], to society as a whole, or to the environment, the latter of which includes other living creatures). “Act” may include “acts” of omission. If one has the ability and the opportunity of assisting a fellow human in dire need, one ought to do so. There is but one problem regarding normative ethics, and that is, discerning which person or persons are competent to judge whether any particular act is beneficial, neutral or harmful, and if it is deemed to be harmful, what should be the penalty for the unethical/immoral act, if any. Objectively speaking, every human deed, without exception, belongs to one of the above three categories, yet who is to judge it so? Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural, and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one may PASS judgement solely on those over whom one has direct or indirect authority. One should avoid passing judgement on those over whom one has no authority, but remain silent, even if that judgment is objectively true, because it is not the place of a subordinate to judge the actions of his or her superiors. So, for example, a businessman should judge the actions of his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives, his children, employees, and any younger kin (such as nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, etc.). None of that businessman's subordinates has the right to adjudicate his actions - that is the role of his own masters (that is, his father, grandfather, elder brothers, uncles, priest/guru/imam/rabbi, etc). Judging/misjudging one's superiors is one of the most common sins in this wicked world - just think of the time when you last MISJUDGED one of your superiors! The ULTIMATE arbiter of any action is the current World Teacher or an Avatar. At any given time, there is one particular man, belonging to the Holy Priesthood, who has attained the highest-possible level of wisdom and understanding of life, and therefore, has the greatest moral authority on earth. The current World Teacher is the author of this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Obviously, it is not practical for the World Teacher or a Divine Incarnation (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit) to adjudicate each and every criminal case in the world. Fortunately, there is established a natural system of justice to perform this function, as explained elsewhere in this chapter. As concisely explained in the previous chapter, humans do not possess individual free-will. However, that does not necessarily imply that there is no optimal way of living. There is, in fact, an ideal way for humans to behave in every situation, even if it was ordained that we each behave according to destiny, and therefore, imperfectly. Morality is indeed OBJECTIVE, that is to say, independent of the subjective whims or opinions of any particular person. In order for even the smallest society to function smoothly, a moral benchmark must be chosen and adhered to. Having understood that the basis of law/morality/ethics is the concept of non-harm (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), it is obvious that there is no need to invoke any religious or supernatural belief system in order to establish law in society. There are examples of secular societies which have survived relatively peacefully over many centuries, without the imposition of a monotheistic system of law/morality/ethics.If an act is harmful to any person, animal or plant (or even inorganic matter, in the case of environmental degradation), then it is immoral, and contravenes the one and only law of the universe. In other words, it is against YOUR law, since you are, fundamentally, All There Is (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to learn the true nature of Reality, and how you are that Absolute Reality (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). It can be argued that even miscreants want to live a perfectly blameless life. “No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness.” Immoral/criminal acts are entirely due to a false understanding of oneself and a misunderstanding of what constitutes true peace/happiness. A fully-enlightened saint will never DELIBERATELY cause harm to himself or to others because he knows that his continuing peace of mind depends on him choosing the most beneficial course of action. He will not commit such a detestable action as rape, because he understands that it will disturb his blissful state of existence and hurt another human being, as well as the victim’s loved-ones. It will also harm society, because if he commits sexual assault, every woman in his community will need to take precautions against possible attack. So, THEORETICALLY, homosexuals themselves fully agree that homosexual offenders ought to be put to death for their crime, because, if not, their perverse behaviour will contribute to the destruction of society, which is built on the family unit, which in turn is based on sexual complementarity (i.e. heterosexuality). Like every person who ever lived, homosexuals desire, more than anything, genuine peace and happiness, which can never be achieved by unnatural sexual acts and attachments. Some (if not most) persons would counter thus: “But there will always be heterosexual couples who will reproduce, so why not leave homosexuals be?”. That is similar to stating “But if only twenty per cent of the population is murdered, there will still be eighty per cent of society remaining”. Crime left unpunished is the beginning of the end of civilization, as can be very clearly seen in the present age, particularly in those nations governed by non-monarchical (so-called) “leaders”. So, in summary, you do not want to transgress your OWN laws, knowing that if you do so, you may become afflicted with guilt, and individuals or society will be harmed. Unfortunately, many persons (demons) are unconcerned about how their actions affect others, or even themselves. It’s not unheard of for a murderer, for instance, to recognize his deed to be unjust, and to concede that he ought to be hanged to death for his crime, or even commit suicide in order to avoid the need for a hangman. Primatologists have observed simple moral behaviour in great apes. There are some otherwise highly-enlightened spiritual teachers who erroneously believe that the solution to discerning proper morality and living a completely ethical life, is for each individual person to raise themselves to the teacher's own high-level of consciousness, so that they will AUTOMATICALLY behave in a loving manner in each situation, without the requirement of a moral code. E.g. “Love, and do what you will”. Obviously, no two persons who ever lived could possibly agree on EVERY moral infraction and what should be the exact form of punishment (if any) for each and every moral transgression. Not even the two most holy and righteous persons on earth at any given time would fully agree on what constitutes a criminal/unethical act, and even if they were to agree, they may not agree on what ought to be the penalty for each and every crime. And even if they do agree on all those details, what of the billions of miscreants who are far below their exalted level? Should a government freely allow its citizens to behave according to their whims, in the vain hope that they will one day reach spiritual perfection? That is akin to anarchy. This alone should demonstrate that subjective moral systems are impractical, unfair and unwise, as they are capricious. Cont...

[@garthballantine193]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas I can't believe you took the time to write this nonsense

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

@@garthballantine193, do you have any ACTUAL arguments to counter my perfect and pure pronouncements/teachings, or do you intend to simply make nonsensical assertions, or even more inane, make “ad hominem” attacks, Silly Sinful Slave? 🙄

[@fxm5715]

@@garthballantine193 "Therefore, this chapter of “F.I.S.H” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, as opposed to the various laws of physics." That is in the first paragraph. He copy/pasted it. I cant believe you took the time to write this without reading the thing you are commenting on. :)

[@Ego.monster]

This is my major issue with ethics. “Objective moral facts” this set of terms gets used frequently in conversation about ethics. To define this phrase is to negate this phrase. “Objective” means “not influenced by emotion or opinions”. “Moral” meaning “a principal of right and wrong”. “Facts” meaning “a thing known to be true”. So this entire phrase can be disassembled into a non-emotional yet emotional thing that is provably true. Except, morals are emotionally based responses and moral facts are not provable except through the Lense of emotions. Therefore the moral fact is not objective. Hence the entire phrase is void.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@Ego.monster]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas I would agree right and wrong are relative to the group experiencing them. They are not objective or fact. I am not vegan because I am a human.

[@GeekProdigyGuy]

How do you know morals are based upon emotions, rather than the other way around? One could just as easily claim that there do exist some form of objective morals, and our emotions regarding morality are actually just subjective experience of such, the same way that our sensory perception is merely a subjective experience of an objective physical reality.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

@@Ego.monster, did you know that in ancient Bhārata (India), a person who consumed ANY type of animal was known as a “Chandāla” (dog-eater) and was not even included in mainstream society, but was an outcast?🥩 So, do you ADMIT that you are an animal-abusing criminal, Mr. Dog-eater? 😬🙄😬

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

@@GeekProdigyGuy, Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@blueedits8015]

(Happy that there's a part two :D) Thank youuu

[@user-kv4mg9ug9w]

Good summary. But was this moral? Is this moral?

[@valentinipuche3128]

Is that contradictory from Hume though? Don't you need to follow that epistemic principles to explain what you experience?

[@dionysianapollomarx]

This one missed out on Derek Parfit and Bernard Williams though maybe they’re not that unique enough.

[@majorserg]

What are you using to write on? Are you writing backwaeds?

[@J-YouTube324]

He is. He made a video about it!🎉

[@pinecone421]

I know a lot of people like the companions in guilt argument, but it seems like the moral anti-realist can just as easily deny epistemic normativity as much as moral normativity.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

🐟 12. LAW, MORALITY, & ETHICS: The three terms - law, morality, and ethics - are fundamentally synonymous, since “breaking the law” implies the execution of an act which is both immoral and unethical. First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between “laws” and “rules”. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL laws, which are based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of murder and adultery). Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons are able to differentiate the inextricable laws of morality, from the mundane rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed legislators. Therefore, this chapter of “F.I.S.H” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, as opposed to the various laws of physics. Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, metaethics essentially remain constant within all human societies throughout time. When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the ENTIRE universe. Therefore, even when a seemingly-innocuous act occurs (such as disposing of plastic products in a rubbish dump, thereby breaking the natural law), the universe is degraded to a certain degree. When a person is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all people need to be more vigilant. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally degraded, just as a single cancerous cell degrades one's entire body, even if to a minuscule extent. MORALITY is concerned with how any particular act conforms to or contradicts the law. Moral acts are beneficial to oneself, to others and/or beneficial to the ecosystem, amoral actions (for the purpose of this teaching) are actions which are neither against the law nor directly benefit society (in other words, neutral acts), whilst immoral deeds are in defiance of the law (that is, premeditated actions which are intended to cause harm to individuals [including oneself], to society as a whole, or to the environment, the latter of which includes other living creatures). “Act” may include “acts” of omission. If one has the ability and the opportunity of assisting a fellow human in dire need, one ought to do so. There is but one problem regarding normative ethics, and that is, discerning which person or persons are competent to judge whether any particular act is beneficial, neutral or harmful, and if it is deemed to be harmful, what should be the penalty for the unethical/immoral act, if any. Objectively speaking, every human deed, without exception, belongs to one of the above three categories, yet who is to judge it so? Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural, and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one may PASS judgement solely on those over whom one has direct or indirect authority. One should avoid passing judgement on those over whom one has no authority, but remain silent, even if that judgment is objectively true, because it is not the place of a subordinate to judge the actions of his or her superiors. So, for example, a businessman should judge the actions of his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives, his children, employees, and any younger kin (such as nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, etc.). None of that businessman's subordinates has the right to adjudicate his actions - that is the role of his own masters (that is, his father, grandfather, elder brothers, uncles, priest/guru/imam/rabbi, etc). Judging/misjudging one's superiors is one of the most common sins in this wicked world - just think of the time when you last MISJUDGED one of your superiors! The ULTIMATE arbiter of any action is the current World Teacher or an Avatar. At any given time, there is one particular man, belonging to the Holy Priesthood, who has attained the highest-possible level of wisdom and understanding of life, and therefore, has the greatest moral authority on earth. The current World Teacher is the author of this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Obviously, it is not practical for the World Teacher or a Divine Incarnation (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit) to adjudicate each and every criminal case in the world. Fortunately, there is established a natural system of justice to perform this function, as explained elsewhere in this chapter. As concisely explained in the previous chapter, humans do not possess individual free-will. However, that does not necessarily imply that there is no optimal way of living. There is, in fact, an ideal way for humans to behave in every situation, even if it was ordained that we each behave according to destiny, and therefore, imperfectly. Morality is indeed OBJECTIVE, that is to say, independent of the subjective whims or opinions of any particular person. In order for even the smallest society to function smoothly, a moral benchmark must be chosen and adhered to. Having understood that the basis of law/morality/ethics is the concept of non-harm (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), it is obvious that there is no need to invoke any religious or supernatural belief system in order to establish law in society. There are examples of secular societies which have survived relatively peacefully over many centuries, without the imposition of a monotheistic system of law/morality/ethics.If an act is harmful to any person, animal or plant (or even inorganic matter, in the case of environmental degradation), then it is immoral, and contravenes the one and only law of the universe. In other words, it is against YOUR law, since you are, fundamentally, All There Is (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to learn the true nature of Reality, and how you are that Absolute Reality (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). It can be argued that even miscreants want to live a perfectly blameless life. “No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness.” Immoral/criminal acts are entirely due to a false understanding of oneself and a misunderstanding of what constitutes true peace/happiness. A fully-enlightened saint will never DELIBERATELY cause harm to himself or to others because he knows that his continuing peace of mind depends on him choosing the most beneficial course of action. He will not commit such a detestable action as rape, because he understands that it will disturb his blissful state of existence and hurt another human being, as well as the victim’s loved-ones. It will also harm society, because if he commits sexual assault, every woman in his community will need to take precautions against possible attack. So, THEORETICALLY, homosexuals themselves fully agree that homosexual offenders ought to be put to death for their crime, because, if not, their perverse behaviour will contribute to the destruction of society, which is built on the family unit, which in turn is based on sexual complementarity (i.e. heterosexuality). Like every person who ever lived, homosexuals desire, more than anything, genuine peace and happiness, which can never be achieved by unnatural sexual acts and attachments. Some (if not most) persons would counter thus: “But there will always be heterosexual couples who will reproduce, so why not leave homosexuals be?”. That is similar to stating “But if only twenty per cent of the population is murdered, there will still be eighty per cent of society remaining”. Crime left unpunished is the beginning of the end of civilization, as can be very clearly seen in the present age, particularly in those nations governed by non-monarchical (so-called) “leaders”. So, in summary, you do not want to transgress your OWN laws, knowing that if you do so, you may become afflicted with guilt, and individuals or society will be harmed. Unfortunately, many persons (demons) are unconcerned about how their actions affect others, or even themselves. It’s not unheard of for a murderer, for instance, to recognize his deed to be unjust, and to concede that he ought to be hanged to death for his crime, or even commit suicide in order to avoid the need for a hangman. Primatologists have observed simple moral behaviour in great apes. There are some otherwise highly-enlightened spiritual teachers who erroneously believe that the solution to discerning proper morality and living a completely ethical life, is for each individual person to raise themselves to the teacher's own high-level of consciousness, so that they will AUTOMATICALLY behave in a loving manner in each situation, without the requirement of a moral code. E.g. “Love, and do what you will”. Obviously, no two persons who ever lived could possibly agree on EVERY moral infraction and what should be the exact form of punishment (if any) for each and every moral transgression. Not even the two most holy and righteous persons on earth at any given time would fully agree on what constitutes a criminal/unethical act, and even if they were to agree, they may not agree on what ought to be the penalty for each and every crime. And even if they do agree on all those details, what of the billions of miscreants who are far below their exalted level? Should a government freely allow its citizens to behave according to their whims, in the vain hope that they will one day reach spiritual perfection? That is akin to anarchy. This alone should demonstrate that subjective moral systems are impractical, unfair and unwise, as they are capricious. Cont...

[@Hyacinth_Rose]

We also ought to remember when Nietszche ran to hug a horse and went crazy. Objective morallity hit him aw.

[@The_Viscount]

I realize this is psychology and not philosophy, but are you familiar with Dabroski's theory of Positive Disintegration? It has some interesting implications for ethics and morality. I'd be interested to get your thoughts on it.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

🐟 12. LAW, MORALITY, & ETHICS: The three terms - law, morality, and ethics - are fundamentally synonymous, since “breaking the law” implies the execution of an act which is both immoral and unethical. First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between “laws” and “rules”. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL laws, which are based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of murder and adultery). Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons are able to differentiate the inextricable laws of morality, from the mundane rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed legislators. Therefore, this chapter of “F.I.S.H” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, as opposed to the various laws of physics. Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, metaethics essentially remain constant within all human societies throughout time. When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the ENTIRE universe. Therefore, even when a seemingly-innocuous act occurs (such as disposing of plastic products in a rubbish dump, thereby breaking the natural law), the universe is degraded to a certain degree. When a person is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all people need to be more vigilant. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally degraded, just as a single cancerous cell degrades one's entire body, even if to a minuscule extent. MORALITY is concerned with how any particular act conforms to or contradicts the law. Moral acts are beneficial to oneself, to others and/or beneficial to the ecosystem, amoral actions (for the purpose of this teaching) are actions which are neither against the law nor directly benefit society (in other words, neutral acts), whilst immoral deeds are in defiance of the law (that is, premeditated actions which are intended to cause harm to individuals [including oneself], to society as a whole, or to the environment, the latter of which includes other living creatures). “Act” may include “acts” of omission. If one has the ability and the opportunity of assisting a fellow human in dire need, one ought to do so. There is but one problem regarding normative ethics, and that is, discerning which person or persons are competent to judge whether any particular act is beneficial, neutral or harmful, and if it is deemed to be harmful, what should be the penalty for the unethical/immoral act, if any. Objectively speaking, every human deed, without exception, belongs to one of the above three categories, yet who is to judge it so? Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural, and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one may PASS judgement solely on those over whom one has direct or indirect authority. One should avoid passing judgement on those over whom one has no authority, but remain silent, even if that judgment is objectively true, because it is not the place of a subordinate to judge the actions of his or her superiors. So, for example, a businessman should judge the actions of his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives, his children, employees, and any younger kin (such as nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, etc.). None of that businessman's subordinates has the right to adjudicate his actions - that is the role of his own masters (that is, his father, grandfather, elder brothers, uncles, priest/guru/imam/rabbi, etc). Judging/misjudging one's superiors is one of the most common sins in this wicked world - just think of the time when you last MISJUDGED one of your superiors! The ULTIMATE arbiter of any action is the current World Teacher or an Avatar. At any given time, there is one particular man, belonging to the Holy Priesthood, who has attained the highest-possible level of wisdom and understanding of life, and therefore, has the greatest moral authority on earth. The current World Teacher is the author of this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Obviously, it is not practical for the World Teacher or a Divine Incarnation (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit) to adjudicate each and every criminal case in the world. Fortunately, there is established a natural system of justice to perform this function, as explained elsewhere in this chapter. As concisely explained in the previous chapter, humans do not possess individual free-will. However, that does not necessarily imply that there is no optimal way of living. There is, in fact, an ideal way for humans to behave in every situation, even if it was ordained that we each behave according to destiny, and therefore, imperfectly. Morality is indeed OBJECTIVE, that is to say, independent of the subjective whims or opinions of any particular person. In order for even the smallest society to function smoothly, a moral benchmark must be chosen and adhered to. Having understood that the basis of law/morality/ethics is the concept of non-harm (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), it is obvious that there is no need to invoke any religious or supernatural belief system in order to establish law in society. There are examples of secular societies which have survived relatively peacefully over many centuries, without the imposition of a monotheistic system of law/morality/ethics.If an act is harmful to any person, animal or plant (or even inorganic matter, in the case of environmental degradation), then it is immoral, and contravenes the one and only law of the universe. In other words, it is against YOUR law, since you are, fundamentally, All There Is (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to learn the true nature of Reality, and how you are that Absolute Reality (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). It can be argued that even miscreants want to live a perfectly blameless life. “No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness.” Immoral/criminal acts are entirely due to a false understanding of oneself and a misunderstanding of what constitutes true peace/happiness. A fully-enlightened saint will never DELIBERATELY cause harm to himself or to others because he knows that his continuing peace of mind depends on him choosing the most beneficial course of action. He will not commit such a detestable action as rape, because he understands that it will disturb his blissful state of existence and hurt another human being, as well as the victim’s loved-ones. It will also harm society, because if he commits sexual assault, every woman in his community will need to take precautions against possible attack. So, THEORETICALLY, homosexuals themselves fully agree that homosexual offenders ought to be put to death for their crime, because, if not, their perverse behaviour will contribute to the destruction of society, which is built on the family unit, which in turn is based on sexual complementarity (i.e. heterosexuality). Like every person who ever lived, homosexuals desire, more than anything, genuine peace and happiness, which can never be achieved by unnatural sexual acts and attachments. Some (if not most) persons would counter thus: “But there will always be heterosexual couples who will reproduce, so why not leave homosexuals be?”. That is similar to stating “But if only twenty per cent of the population is murdered, there will still be eighty per cent of society remaining”. Crime left unpunished is the beginning of the end of civilization, as can be very clearly seen in the present age, particularly in those nations governed by non-monarchical (so-called) “leaders”. So, in summary, you do not want to transgress your OWN laws, knowing that if you do so, you may become afflicted with guilt, and individuals or society will be harmed. Unfortunately, many persons (demons) are unconcerned about how their actions affect others, or even themselves. It’s not unheard of for a murderer, for instance, to recognize his deed to be unjust, and to concede that he ought to be hanged to death for his crime, or even commit suicide in order to avoid the need for a hangman. Primatologists have observed simple moral behaviour in great apes. There are some otherwise highly-enlightened spiritual teachers who erroneously believe that the solution to discerning proper morality and living a completely ethical life, is for each individual person to raise themselves to the teacher's own high-level of consciousness, so that they will AUTOMATICALLY behave in a loving manner in each situation, without the requirement of a moral code. E.g. “Love, and do what you will”. Obviously, no two persons who ever lived could possibly agree on EVERY moral infraction and what should be the exact form of punishment (if any) for each and every moral transgression. Not even the two most holy and righteous persons on earth at any given time would fully agree on what constitutes a criminal/unethical act, and even if they were to agree, they may not agree on what ought to be the penalty for each and every crime. And even if they do agree on all those details, what of the billions of miscreants who are far below their exalted level? Should a government freely allow its citizens to behave according to their whims, in the vain hope that they will one day reach spiritual perfection? That is akin to anarchy. This alone should demonstrate that subjective moral systems are impractical, unfair and unwise, as they are capricious. Cont...

[@LNVACVAC]

This is not psychology at all.

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 😎 Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals" criticizes conventional morality, arguing that it originates from a "slave revolt" against powerful people. 02:31 📜 Nietzsche challenges the dominant moral view that promotes humility, kindness, fairness, and democracy, suggesting it's a result of societal influences and should be questioned. 06:46 🤔 David Hume's argument questions the existence of objective moral facts, stating that beliefs should be based only on experienced or observable things. 09:52 🤔 Locke's argument for moral facts coming from God is criticized because it presupposes the existence of objective moral facts, which the argument should be explaining. 16:02 🔄 Hume's principle, if applied consistently, would also rule out the existence of epistemic normative facts (rational beliefs), including the principle itself, making it self-defeating. Made with HARPA AI

[@SuperDudethatscrazy]

better than my prof keep up the good work

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@maxtrannn]

I love that Kendrick humble pop up lmao

[@bthomson]

Which came first the chicken or the philosopher?

[@jimbo2227]

I sense a part 3

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Your intuition seems to have FAILED in this regard.

[@spring-hm7gp]

I used to believe in unicorns but not anymore.

[@ltariku]

so the year ends with a mindfuck?

[@EsinaViwn9]

good videos, both of them, thanks!

[@moatazseghyar8554]

Good work, keep it up brother

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@dd.oliver]

The big question is not about how things “should” or “must” but it is “if” things be… if Locke’s premisse principle of a creator is correct, utmost the premisse of the must is precise.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@KhelderB]

Is there a name for the way you decide to behave compared to what morality you believe in? Conduct maybe? You could agree with a principle as being a good way to behave without believing it to be objectively true.

[@lettherebedots]

If you replace experience with detect in Humes statement his entire line of logic will fall apart.

[@bobbuilder-pe2hj]

I think morality is really just common sense. we experience nature and its boundaries direct or indirect and we have a common sense about how we move in nature. Nietzsche basically is seeing that. But he just sums it up by saying, I noticed this, and he can choose how he feels about it. The fact that he notices, is already the conviction point no one escapes. It don't matter how he feels about doing a crime or what excuse you have or not, because the conviction is happening already, being brought about by the natural laws itself God established. You live any amount of time, you eventually get a sense how life functions and works. If you brake laws, things dont stay normal. like any cycle in nature, remove water, and it wont work as example. The moral question and some of his examples, is more provocative than informative. But ppl drift away from what is moral. we move in nature and nature is stating what moral is. its easy to brake something its harder to build or create sometime. people cant create. people can destroy. People inhabit this space between something they cant do , they cant create nature, and moving in that nature, without messing up. start walking in nature you start having to plot a course or path through laws God's nature sets. and people compelled by that nature, start to point and their noticing, not just themselves but things you do. And they collectivly say hey i would not want that done to me, this is wrong. im sure at least one writer you presented can be used, to help explain that.

[@DylanMatthewTurner]

I feel like Nietzsche is just wrong about the origin of words for "good." It doesn't come from "nobility" or anything similar in English nor other Germanic languages (including his own). In Proto-Germanic it was something like "*gōda-" which meant "fitting" or "suitable" and comes from PIE "*ghedh-" which means "to unite" or "to be suitable." While that could have societal implications of "fitting in to society," it's far from "being noble" or "being in power." Like, that's a clear stretch.

[@michaeldavidson124]

The objection to David Hume's argument in the end...doesn't that get ignored because of the self reference paradox? Also like you said, his statement is not a moral statement. It could be that we should or should not do what he says but that doesn't prove or disprove anything about what we ought to do morally. so basically there are still no moral facts. Hume is right. Utilitarianism is dumb af

[@goon8000]

Thanks. Love N.

[@johnruck]

well now a days the moral code is or culture is told to us by the powerful few and people think it is a 50/50 split but what is moral is the problem today we all are arguing what is

[@advocacynetworkafrica2141]

Thanks so much!

[@archinsoni1254]

Love from India.

[@dosto_viski8292]

1:14 istiklal caddesi asın bayrakları

[@markmajkowski9545]

I don’t want to be killed. Hence killing is bad. Seems quite a bit easier. PS The Sheriff seems the real culprit if law and order operates like that in terms of killers getting away with it, he not knowing, and his population thinking their intervention necessary. Isn’t the Sheriffs only “ethical” choice to say he did it and be killed to placate the crowd? (Given your evaluation that is.) PPS these seem like bad episodes of Would You Rather - the questions have what I think is fundamentally an unethical predicate.

[@joansparky4439]

Assume no morals / ethics.. wilderness. Your survival depends on being able to kill someone else and vise-versa. Now what? Yo still don't want to be killed, it's a given.. that's what surviving is about, what life is about. But the same is true for your competition over the resources you need to survive. The only way out of this is to find a cooperative modus operandi that lets you compete peacefully and maybe even increase your efficiency by division of labor / specialization to make it possible for both of you to survive at the same time.. that's what morals / ethics is about. Most philosophers seem to sit in a information silo (social bubble) and somehow ignore that humans can very well exist without morals /ethics.. not as comfortably, sure.. but exist they can and did. That's why this objective morality debate is relatively hilarious.. if you do not step out of that societal bubble (wilderness) you always need morals / ethics to make it work, thus it appears as if there is an objective morality there.

[@markmajkowski9545]

@@joansparky4439 - Thoughtful commentary!! I like calling what passes for ethics/philosophy as “Thermodynamism” which must work for humans on this planet in this universe. And “cooperation” as you say, I think implies/requires a competency based hierarchy not one of strictly power. IF you watch any ethics courses with say the trolley problem you will see the instructor morph his evaluation criteria. I think you have created a gladiatorial contest predicate where only one can survive or both die. To be plain, these seem the false predicates of a game like would you rather. Your premise is essentially unethical - or you define your situation where killing is required. Ethics is really nothing more than evaluating a hierarchy of choice - and IF the only one that is relevant is POWER rather than multiple of competency where cooperation is valuable then it devolves to kill as the demonstration of the “answer” you require. In a battle with a human (say acting like a bear) where you offer unlimited food in an hour or to be eaten. There ARE situations where you die. And you have defined your circumstance as such. My predicate is humans live on earth bound by the laws of physics which while an approximation of “truth” they are so close that no human would ever experience a meaningful contradiction - like the law of thermodynamics - where energy flows downhill and seemingly best to not waste it or use that energy for say making things a human might prefer to death or disease. An Oxford grad posed an ethics problem to me saying I had an orchard with apples, then proceeded to develop how a hungry person might have a right to them without my consent - to which I remarked - “You started with the apples being mine.” I think your predicate is an unethical one or one that presupposes and answer. As was Springer - I think - which presumed the excess would be adequate to feed the hungry in perpetuity - and left “excess” above which resources would go to famine a loaded term. HILARIOUS a good term. NOTE the professor determines the EVALUATION CRITERIA and the right to modify ex post the circumstance - to get you to say - oh I see - when an ethical student would reply - was it “ethical” for you to secret the entirety of the circumstances. What is MORE unethical than intelligentsia developing rules for circumstances they have never endured for others to apply when faced with a “Would You Rather” Sophie’s Choice type “choice”. And then say - not to choose is to choose!

[@joansparky4439]

@@markmajkowski9545 as far as I understand it I argue in the metaethic.. ethics/morals is a requirement to have when you want to use cooperation to take the "unethical" choice of survival "by any means" off the table when it comes to living beings who have a metabolism that requires them to seek out resources (that other living beings might represent or posses or want to acquire as well). The incentive to use peaceful cooperation instead of violent confrontation is that it allows you to specialize / work share which increases efficiency and thus comfort and it also reduces the risk of being killed. But there are still unethical individuals out there who will be able to ignore ethics / morals due to their mental / genetic setup and try to benefit at others expense and survival. To be able to punish such opportunists among the populace societies violently enforce ethical / moral rules against individual rule breakers, but this has one caveat - this process is man made and thus opportunist individuals have the option to use it for their benefit at the cost of the rest. Morals / ethics do not exist in wilderness. Survival of the fittest individual by any means available is the modus operandi there. I do not need to make that up, just watch ANY nature documentation (or walk around in it and observe) and you will see it for yourself. Societies are "superior" to this because of the higher comfort which is based on efficiency that stems from division of labor / specialization.. which require rules (morals / ethics) to make it work, as otherwise the amoral / unethical opportunists will take advantage for their own benefit. TL;DR: morals / ethics only make sense within the context of societies and stem from the requirement to have rules that give cooperative specialists an evolutionary advantage over opportunistic generalists that follow the survival by any means principle. PS: that an individual can state that an orchard is his is based on societal rules allowing individuals to own property and protecting it for them against others. The problem that you ignore, which is even more basic than who owns the orchard (apples) and can withheld them from starving other individuals is this - what constellation of rules lead to a situation where there is starving people which the economy couldn't provide for? And we are where I am - amoral/unethical individuals influencing the rules (morals, ethics) being enforced within a society for their own benefit at the cost of the rest. PPS: _"What is MORE unethical than intelligentsia developing rules for circumstances they have never endured"_ I tell you what is - selfish ruthless greedy individuals creating those very circumstances by influencing the rules that govern a society. It doesn't get any closer to wilderness than that.. and even surpasses it a bit as in wilderness such individuals can at best gather/control the resources of a few other individuals they overpower/outsmart.. but with the control of the rule enforcing mechanism of a society of millions of individuals?! This is a kind of leverage that simply is impossible in wilderness.

[@Kusagrass]

Locke seems to have the most flawed views but we based our entire financial system on his beliefs. No wonder we have problems.

[@quillelo3848]

what a speed-think review! just like speed-reading!... the ruach of intelligence

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Don't believe everything you THINK. 🧠 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@maximilyen]

Very nice

[@emilbonaduce387]

If there are no objective moral facts, then trying to regulate generative AI is going to become a colossal bust

[@blissbouwerij4033]

Yeah Nietzche is fine for a little brother. Rebel outside but conformist at heart

[@johntheamazing9337]

You need that tenant of what to believe in in order to understand why we believe in atoms and why we don’t believe in unicorns. We experience sensations which add to whatever we as individuals class as ‘atoms’ and we experience a collection of sensations which we associate with the absolute absence of unicorns. Just as there are a flurry of sensations in a hug, there are those in the others. If a hug is real, an atom as we know it is real and unicorns are not, to understand why we we experience these experiences, the tenant which explains sensations is required, making the tenant itself believable by its own logic. If you interpret it as not telling what TO believe in, but as what you DO believe in, your rejections of the argument do not make logical sense. It posits that objective moral facts are irrational and thats because they are. Come with an absolute definition of what ‘objective morality’ is and then believing in such a thing will be rational. When you do, this concrete idea will not be the loose coalition of possibilities which ‘absolute morality’ is. You are trying to explain nothing. It is like positing that a 6 foot monkey exists in front of you and then speculating why it is such a size and suggesting that because your explanation of ‘the monkey isn’t real’ predicates on the idea that what you believe can be considered real and you believe the monkey is real.

[@aquiladorada]

Excellent!!!

[@dn-dk2ei]

Also, the way property is defined in that is problematic, because where does that definition come from? If I make something I own it? So if I make a human being (have a kid), I own 50% of it? If someone pays me 50 bucks to make something for them, I own the thing that I made? I don't think so.

[@joansparky4439]

property of things is only needed in work sharing environments where individuals compete over that thing (resource) peacefully. Without work sharing there is no "need" to recognize property as the violent competition will decide who gets to have it (life functions by that for billions of years at this point). The difference of all this philosophical brimbamborium boils down to for me into if humans exist without rules (wilderness, generalists) or with rules (societies, specialists) and that the latter obviously can't work without morals / ethics, but is much more efficient / comfortable, which is why we engage in it.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

​@@joansparky4439, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@jqpublic9777]

Loved the topic and the presentation. I was very interested in philosophy in college but soon realized it's a dry hole. The field is littered with the smoking remains of attempt after attempt to grasp even the smallest beachhead from which forward progress can be made, at least when it comes to this question. Every failure points to the fundamental truth that there is no meaning without God.

[@AluminiumT6]

Enlightenment "philosophy" in the anti-realist tradition = Mental-illness induced, useless garbage.

[@J-YouTube324]

The evidence only continues to mount...

[@jolyonsage8616]

Could David Hume not argue that u could experience the effects of Objective Moral Facts and hence you should do them ie ...Don't burn people houses down for no reason.And we observe that all thes things do not occur and we can use that to say buy real estate. See for no reason as situations can arise ie war when both sides are following Humes rules correctly as both sides are doing what there experience and trustworthy advise is...ie "protecting" there country. From 2 perspectives yes object moral facts can existence but inside a closed system hence there is no "true"Objective Moral Fact where by it would be moral correct in every situation. In conclusion morals are subjective by definition and "objective moral facts" are created by society and cannot exist outside of that society.

[@bami322]

Ur good thanks ❤

[@Max_Le_Groom]

We learned more from Hitler than Nietzsche.

[@chrisw4562]

Great video! I am not sure that I get the final conclusion, thought. Hume's claim appears to me like a rule how to make a an objective scientific assessment. The "should" in there means that there needs to be scientific proof that there are morals, not someone just voicing their opinion of belief, as Locke did. That has nothing to do with the "should" in morals, which provide a norm of behavior that we are trying to understand. Science is not a behavior, it is a guideline to determine facts and causes. I am not saying that I necessarily agree with Hume, but I don't see that his claim has the problem that was stated.

[@granitfog]

The trouble with philosophy courses is that it is about who thinks what, and that what is akin to different people describing different parts of an elephant to a blind person. But I guess that is the necessary evil of any course, so that there are facts about which the audience can be tested on the degree the information was absorbed. But is this necessary for course where there are no tests. IMHO moral codes are like money, an agreed upon value for the time and place. The Polish zloty has no value in the USA, but does in Poland. The morality of contemporary Westerners probably has little or no value in 9'th century Vikings or 4'th century Huns, and vice versa. IMHO morality should be the same as a hike, leave no trace or leave a trace that results in a path that is closer to its nature. The nature of Humans (and life) is to manifest self-determination to the degree that is does not conflit with the same manifestation of other. Where that conflict occurs, a hierarchy of values determines how that conflict must be resolved. Each person and each society determines what that hierarchy is. IMHO, happiness is better than misery, health is better than illness, construction is better than destruction, liberty is better than servitude, et cetera. This is all subjective and will always be subjective until humans learn how to perceive without the influence of their egos.

[@YashArya01]

7:30 Hume's epistemology would be consistent with a belief in electrons? No.

[@VanKrumm]

Why can’t objective moral facts exist it our own mind?

[@memitim171]

Well for one, because I can't read your mind. But probably more importantly, because that is the literal definition of subjective...

[@iBlue0riginal]

The ch in schlecht is pronounced is a voiceless velar fricative. You are pronouncing it as a voiceless uvular fricative.

[@spionasribbson5541]

Objective moral truths are often referred to as "negative rights". And the burden of proof is always on the ones that claims there are objective moral truths, but how are you supposed to prove a negative? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the ones that claim negative rights/objective moral facts does not exist?

[@rowanmales3430]

...You answered your own question lol. "But how are you supposed to prove a negative?" Of course you can't. Which is precisely why the one who "asserts" something is true has the burden of proving it. If you are correct, then you are not trying to "prove a negative" but trying to "prove a positive". Whereas having the burden of proof on the denier is ridiculous because, as you say, it is impossible to prove something does not exist, and they are not the one asserting it does in fact exist.

[@jqpublic9777]

I'd like to point out that Christian beliefs would have led Euthyphro to answer, "Acts are virtuous because God loves them." Virtue is following God's commandments.

[@contemplatingwithamaster]

Conclusion: Freewill is a thing. So ❤ Because: we reap what we sow 😊. And that’s an awesome ethic. 😅

[@memitim171]

It doesn't look good for freewill, which rather makes the whole thing moot...should probably have started there. 🤣

[@thephilosopherwhojoked4249]

7:49

[@vincenzomellozzi2148]

This is so dumbed down

[@Hyacinth_Rose]

True morality if proven it is the best prove for God pretty much.

[@TomRauhe]

Hume makes zero sense. That's like saying "a falling tree makes no sound when there is no ear, so murder isn't immoral if there's no human to perceive it". Of course there is immorality even if there is no human present. You need a human with its senses to perceive it, but that doesn't mean it is not there. I won't even go into Locke, that's just bonkers.

[@homelessengineer5498]

"Murder isn't immoral if there no human to perceive it" isn't Hume's point. What he's getting at is that a lot of things we take for granted only exist through consensus. Like countries, the value of money, or hide-and-seek. These things would lose their essence to point of ceasing to exist if humans vanished; or more interestingly, if we simply dropped them. Our morals are precisely as objective as the rules of chess. They may be well established to the point that we're tempted to call them objective. But it does not change the fact that they only exist through consensus

[@martincotterill823]

6:24 is Nietzsche a Republican?

[@joansparky4439]

more like a narcissists/psychopath.. while the Venn diagram of R's and psychoparth will have overlap, not all R's are psychoopaths, especially when you consider that a two party political system is rather limited in mirroring the complexity of a society.

[@LNVACVAC]

​Singer's position is just a sequence of appeals to morality and emotion. It leads to infinite regress. The existence of human suffering and human morality are not enough to demonstrate the products and prescriptions of human morality and prescriptive ethics as being fact-apt. He doesn't solve the absence of evidence sustaining Error Theory. And Singer's teleology also doesn't solve noncognitivism and non-objectivism, consequently Singer's Teleology is subject unto non-consilient paradigmatic competition, including competition with Pragmatic-Deontology. Singer's System could be right and still anyone could substitute his personal teleological prescription for "partaking from the body of The Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Having as Much Sex as Possible". Singer's position has as much evidence and consistency behind it as any Theist stating "The Bible Said So, It is God's Word".