Metaethics: An Introduction

Join us at: www.inspiringph...
To help support this ministry click here: / inspiringphilosophy
This is an introduction to metaethics and the various views within this branch of philosophy.
A 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:
Metaethics: An Introduction - Andrew Fisher
Moral Realism - Kevin DeLapp
www.iep.utm.edu...
Philosopher Poll: philpapers.org...
*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."

[@MsJohnnythunder]

Thank you so much for your work! I'm so grateful for intelligent and educated theists educating us on such topics as this one!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

My series in ethics: kzbin.info/aero/PL1mr9ZTZb3TX3tuBN--XNn4TQcLfVtqiq

[@ManForToday]

Please throw in an overlapping audio at random places of William Lane Craig shouting "Objective Moral Values!". Cant wait for this series.

[@DerMelodist]

I love these amazing topics that you bring up in your videos. There really is so much to learn, and I plan to add these books to my reading list for sometime soon. Thank you for helping with these seemingly "intellect-only" subjects, and turning them into digestible and enjoyable bites.

[@d_fendr6222]

This marks your 100th video. Congratulations!

[@jodycangrejo5701]

This is so informative! Thank you for sharing this video. It helped me a lot especially in understanding the 3 branches of ethics 😊

[@LuizHenrique-od4ko]

Finally the moral argument!!! YEAH!!

[@manne8575]

Wow! I'm so looking forward to this series. Keep it up!

[@luisr5577]

Wow, thanks IP! God bless you.

[@Gatorbeaux]

man I haven't seen most of these terms since college 25 years ago-- great synopsis!

[@CosmicFaust]

I know someone who would be great to debate with on this topic. On YT, his channel is called "I-Theist." His real name is, James Theodore Stillwell III. He used to be a Reformed Baptist Street Preacher and student of the Greek New Testament, presuppositional apologetics, Reformed Theology, and Evidential apologetics. He is a meta-ethicist and has written his own book defending his own version of moral nihilism which he calls "Power-Nihilism." He's had many years debating moral realists and so you might be interested, Mike.

[@PåGyngendeGrund]

Looking forward to your explorations. I myself have read Fisher's book and it is brilliant. I have made an extensive study on new intuitionism which I think has potential in the defense for moral realism. Blessings!

[@bencarraway3565]

Hey, I just watched your video on evolution and commented on it, but I'm sure it will be lost in the spew of non-logical people.I just wanted to make sure you got to see my comment anyway, heres what i posted. ----- Thank you so much. I am 17 and have been raised as a Christian my whole life. I have always believed, but recently started looking at evolution as a possibility. I know evolution is true, but was always finding it difficult to fit them together. this has helped me so much. Thank you for your work putting this information together in a coherent explanation.

[@Katherine.west1230]

Very well done! Concise, accurate, and meaty.

[@miguelloaysa2860]

Please make a video about Universalism vs Nominalism and what Christian should follow of them.

[@DarioHawkeye]

Follow Jesus :)

[@ALulzyApprentice]

Religion aside... This is a stellar video presentation. Props!

[@reasonforge9997]

Nice overview. Thank you.

[@ianhale3333]

Nice start to an inspiring subject

[@LunarHorizonProductions]

Awwwww yes... Inspiring Philosophy has uploaded a video. It is time to rejoice!

[@AndrewErwin73]

I would really love to hear you critique Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior.

[@lavajafari5744]

thank you for your work. It helps with uni. However do you have videos without the background music ... or ones where the music is not so loud. its hard to focus on what your saying with the music being so loud.

[@BOMBI77766]

Ahhhh and here I was thinking I wasn't going to have my mind blown in the foreseeable future, this is gonna be fun.

[@nathanlau7472]

Great work!

[@khrissxander]

If I could subscribe twice I would!

[@whatistruth8690]

Been awhile for me on utupe but I see ya IP I see ya, up in Metaethics now, this should be fun 8).

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

Brother I might have found an addition to the sets of logical arguments we can use in favor of the Trinity. Even though fundamentally it is the ability of being multi-personal that is superior to not having it, one might ask the question : *Why is God only 3 persons, why not 5 or 1000?* Because 3 is the minimum amount of persons needed to have all the perspectives of a relationship. If he was one person only the pronoun "I" would exist in eternity past. If he was 2 persons only the pronouns "I", "you", "us" and "he" would exist. To be all-loving is superior to just to be loving, so this is in fact an important question. If God was 3 persons, all the pronouns would exist in eternity past and thereby make God a being which is fundamentally loving. He would have love to give, but nothing to lose as he already has been loved forever. Christians, take note of what I just said and propagate it. Not enough churches realize that we have this card in our hands. That's what I think InspiringPhilosophy lacked on his explanation video, even though he did his best as we should all do. Muslims, you must recieve the Lord, there is no other way, this includes all unitarians. *1 John 4: 8* *He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.* Maybe you would like to refine it or something but I think it's pretty solid for now. I don't know if any Church fathers or modern theologians have thought about it but I certainly have.

[@reasonforge9997]

I am afraid this kind of argument is not going to be very convincing and do not find it solid at all. And I don't expect there to be a good a priori argument for why we would expect exactly three persons in God. But that is how reality is...not always what we expect. In the words of CS Lewis (in Miracles) when he contrasted Christianity to Pantheism: "Christian theology, and quantum physics, are both, by comparison with the first guess, hard, complex, dry and repellent. The first shock of the object’s real nature, breaking in on our spontaneous dreams of what that object ought to be, always has these characteristics. You must not expect Schrödinger to be as plausible as Democritus; he knows too much. You must not expect St Athanasius to be as plausible as Mr Bernard Shaw: he also knows too much."

[@VirginMostPowerfull]

Reason Forge I'm afraid I do not understand your objection. Are you saying it is impossible to know why God is 3 persons in eternity past just because he's God?

[@reasonforge9997]

No, that would be a rather reckless assumption to say that it was impossible to know why. I am saying it does not seem likely that there is a quick a priori way of determining it. And the specific explanation does not seem very convincing. It is really simply noticing a pattern about threes and is merely suggestive. But when we look at reality, such quick intuitive guesses are often wrong. As far as I know the pattern does have something to do with it...but as an argument to demonstrate why there are 3 it seems quite lacking. I will allow that its possible there may be an a priori way to determine why that I have not heard of and has not occurred to me, but my intuition suggests there likely isn't. But then I have recently become convinced that Descartes's ontological proof of God in his third meditation was valid. But Descartes is a genius and very careful mathematician, and to understand his proof I had to go over his meditation several times very carefully until I got what he was saying. But his argument gave no guidance as to why there would be exactly 3 persons in God.

[@sageseraphim6720]

Destynation Y You could easily make another pronoun to express specifically 4 persons. I think the actual reason for the Trinity is so that God can express different personalities without lying. It just so happens that 3 divine persons is sufficient.

[@discipleG3101]

The word Math comes from the Hebrew word MATH (Strong's 4962, 4968-4971, 7971, 7973) in Greek it is the word disciple (3100-3103) means to become a pupil, enroll as a scholar, instruct, teach, to learn in a WAY. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[@MyWatchIsEnded]

awesome video dude

[@LogosTheos]

IP I had a question. I saw that survey in was wondering in your experience how many atheists do you encounter on the internet who accept moral realism? If you could give s ratio what would it be? Thank you

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Not a lot, it appears.

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

Anjelus Geez and trying to explain this to them is a task.

[@BCtruth]

Ayn Rand would likely be considered as one who accepts and promotes Moral Realism and Naturalism. She was an atheist who said that there are moral facts, derived from nature, not from God. Many people who read and follow her work, including myself, subscribe to this model.

[@grantsmith6613]

Hey IP, I’ve watched your content for 9 years. I was wondering if you thought about making more content or would make more content on metaethics.

[@growingmusician]

In philosophy class, this is very helpful

[@brackonstudios]

Non-cognitivists have a really shoddy basis for their position. I mean, they must think everyone in the whole world is utterly ignorant of the rules of grammar when they say things like "You shouldn't do that!" or "Leave him alone!" I mean, why is everyone not just saying how they feel about the situation? We do that well enough already, for example: "You offended me!" Using language of cognitivists shows that we are in fact trying to make another person see that they aren't doing what they should be doing.

[@sgringo]

Are there university courses in metaethics? It certainly seems like there would be.

[@timhoward5624]

Just wanna say THANK YOU. I am coming to an end in my philosophy 215 class, and it helped me already understand what you already were stating in this video, but the whole thing is anti-God and everyone's attitude is "everything is subjective" for some reason I get a better kick out of this one video than my whole entire class this quarter haha.

[@mr.nobody2485]

Tim Howard how is it going now?

[@veridicusmind3722]

I've just started my Philosophy 124, and we are deep-diving into metaethics, which makes me excited. I have the impression that a lot of people in my class are subjectivists, but after taking some of them through Huemer's arguments for realism, a lot of them seem sympathetic to realism.

[@timhoward5624]

@@veridicusmind3722 Huemer is the way to go

[@middlegrounds109]

Great Video.

[@AveChristusRex]

Moral goodness = wellbeing Moral badness = pain (Sam Harris) Is absolutely and completely arbitrary? How is it meaningful beyond majority opinion (or worse, and in practical reality, might=right). In fact, isn't tying morality to emotion intrinsically, so that it depends on feeling of pain or wellbeing a particularly aggregious case of 'post hoc propter hoc' (I'm thinking of which fallacy I mean in fact)?

[@mastermousemice6940]

Wrote the entire video down into a document. My head hurts.

[@mastermousemice6940]

@@TheSkepticalApologist I've got quite a few, don't worry.

[@apham998]

Its like fact vs Opinion

[@LaChinaDominicanaenHongKong]

Great video, but the background music is a bit distracting 😢

[@melizaaugusto1449]

Very good video!

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality.

[@throwawayaccount9620]

+ InspiringPhilosophy love your videos and enjoy the effort you clearly put into your research. It shows in how well put together your arguments are. I do have a question, what are your thoughts on Soren Kirkegaard?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Not my favorite when it comes to apologetics, but his book, "Sickness until death: is great.

[@throwawayaccount9620]

InspiringPhilosophy yeah I don't agree with him on everything but enjoy the questions he brings up in his work.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

He has a terrible way to interpret Paul as well, it makes me cringe.

[@Archangel657]

I'd like to learn more about this guy.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Who, me?

[@Archangel657]

InspiringPhilosophy Yeah. Like your name, where you went to school, life story, etc.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I tend to keep that out, and just focus on the video content as what the channel should be about.

[@Archangel657]

***** I understand. But you don't have to make a video about yourself. You can tell me hear you want too. Or, if you would prefer, I'll tell you about myself first.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Well for my protection, I really only share that info with donors. Sorry about that, but as for now I keep that information private.

[@cafctom7763]

I thank you for being American and saying Football not soccer!

[@loudtrumpet194]

I hope you cover some theories and objections in this series. Here is a list of some: *- Morality can arise from evolution, as a way to help our species survive. - Animals exhibit social and moral behavior, so we can't be moral creatures - Not everyone has the same idea of right and wrong as us, so morality must be subjective - Michael Martin argues that naturalism may be an acceptable explanation and, even if a supernatural explanation is necessary, it does not have to be God*

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes, we will start in one week.

[@loudtrumpet194]

InspiringPhilosophy Sorry that I did seem rude when I made a claim on your Measurement Problem video. I should have been more professional.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

No, it is not seem rude.

[@yaamir7201]

This is such a good video!

[@TheHasazin]

Why was moral nihilism not covered? To be clear for those that are going to state that error theory covers moral nihilism, you are incorrect. Error theory could at best be something developed out of moral nihilism and not a base itself.

[@CaptCutler]

Great to see you again! Have you come across Jordan B Peterson yet? He's right up your alley, imo.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

He is great.

[@AlexCFaulkner]

okay so this video was great and educational and all but I would have loved an explanation of what are the implications of this.

[@jordanapodaca364]

Be patient.

[@adrianmancho6921]

wait why wouldn’t relativism fall into non-cognitivism?

[@iulianciubotaru2644]

In relativism, moral sentences are considered propositions that describe mental states, or in other words, the truth-maker of moral propositions is someone's mental states. In cognitivism, these kinds of sentences are considered direct expressions of one desire or emotions.

[@ilocanoshrek29]

thanks

[@PringlesOriginal445]

pleaseee tell me what music you used for this, my ADHD brain loves it!

[@quillinkhistory9539]

Hi IP! What is the name of the soundtrack you are using?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

audiojungle-15364015-upbeat-corporate-uplifting-motivational

[@user-le7ny8bq1l]

0:20 IP that is wrong there are four branches of ethics. You missed Moral ethics.

[@CRAFTE.D]

Hey, are you a divine command theorist?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Not really, I'll explain in August.

[@CRAFTE.D]

***** Sure.

[@panossketos1047]

these all are mental masturbation. the point is to be freed of thoughts and fantasy and sanctify them. not feed them.

[@jordanapodaca364]

The point of what?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Basically, he expects us to be stupid and not honor God with our minds. He has blind faith, not reasonable faith.

[@kylealandercivilianname2954]

What about the theistic naturalist? Can't there be a third option in between naturalism and non-naturalism that is that Morals come from God but God himself is nature and existence?

[@EvilFuzzy9]

Kyle Alander CivilianName295 Do you mean God being nature as unconscious and not a personality? That is, do you mean a God that is something like a mindless life force? Or do you mean that God is nature but also a personality? An impersonal pantheistic god is essentially the same as materialistic nature. A personal God who pervades nature or exists within nature would, for the purposes of this discussion (at least as far as I understand the matter), be the same as a supernatural God who exists as a creator or observer or sovereign distinct from nature.

[@kylealandercivilianname2954]

EvilFuzzy9 Well it would work with a palimite (weak) panetheistic God since under that view Gods essence is separate from the universe but the universe would emerge from the divine energies of God. This viewpoint works with theistic idealism and so under idealism God would simulate the universe in his mind but nature would be part of God and the universe. So God would be the ultimate scientific law that all other laws emerge from. God would be conscious and have a mind but he would also be Gods mind would be the only thing that exist and if Gods mind is natural then naturalism would be true but God would also exist thus theistic naturalism would be true.

[@thescapegoatmechanism8704]

Kyle Alander CivilianName295 The Stoics would fall under that description. Although for Epictetus there seemed to be more of a personal dimension in the language he used for his theology than, say, Marcus Aurelius or Seneca.

[@AveChristusRex]

When will atheists own up to the fact that 'that's just the way it is' when cornered about a moral claim is not honest, and not an answer to anything.

[@megathai]

Ave Christus Rex What are you talking about? Are you trying to plea objective morality?

[@AveChristusRex]

+megathai No, recognizing the need to account for things (here morality) in a _rational_ way, as opposed to an _irrational_ way ('just cuz feelz'), just like we boast about _everything else_, is not 'pleaing'. It's the recognition of the need for things to be explained, as in accounted for, using logic and reason, and not otherwise. Not suspension of those-'just cuz feelz' being the explanation of why a pedophile raping a young child is evil, wrong, depraved, heinous.

[@Tooinsecuretousemyrealname]

My brain feels large now

[@nonchantereo]

the background music makes it unwatchable to me

[@jon250]

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA [Guitar Solo]

[@LawlessNate]

Most of the views in cognitivism seem, at least to me, to still be based on opinion.

[@thesirevn334]

i think this was a good introduction. I am surprised you don't hold to a modified divine command theory. It's weird there exist Christian Non- cognitivist.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is strange.

[@martinbaker6853]

SYNTERESIS SYNEIDESIS APHRONIA

[@Rufan2012]

Kinda random question but,InspiringPhilosophy,what Christian Denomination are you?Or atleast the denomination your beliefs are based?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

My beliefs are all over the place.

[@Rufan2012]

By all over the place you mean,what you state in your videos?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I agree with protestants, catholics, and the orthodox church on different things. I don't entirely agree with one group.

[@Rufan2012]

I see,thank you for the answer.God bless you!

[@duckymomo7935]

InspiringPhilosophy are you Calvinist or reformed? :)

[@MrBradFu]

Hey I, great vid! I was wondering if you would be willing to respond to a video made by an atheist regarding the existence of God. Some real good educational tips in it.

[@d_fendr6222]

He posts responses on his website, you can go there from his channel under "Where I Post Responses". What video was it?

[@MrBradFu]

D_fend R It was a video by Dr. Shaym where he accepts the disprove the existence of God challenge. It has a number of fallacies and misunderstanding of scripture of course and I wanna see what IP does with it.

[@thenopasslook]

How long did it take you to get this good at editing? I would like to try but idk where to even start haha

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

To be honest, probably a couple of years, but I started by watching a lot of tutorial on places like youtube and videocopilot.net

[@thenopasslook]

***** Good investment.

[@JH-jh8ms]

How do you make all the animations?

[@thenopasslook]

Joshua Holloway An answer to that question would take too long to type haha

[@JH-jh8ms]

Well I guess the more important question is: "what program does he use?"

[@SllLVIIUS]

How about deontology? And the categorative imperative

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

When we get to normative ethics, we will cover that.

[@SllLVIIUS]

InspiringPhilosophy okay thank yo u

[@deanray35]

Love your thoughts but could not stand the background.... maybe another time when I can stand it.

[@CRAFTE.D]

InspiringPhilisophy, so I have a question, can a timeless person act?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Yes, but all their actions are actualized in a moment from their perspective.

[@CRAFTE.D]

***** so, what would be the definition of timelessness?

[@CRAFTE.D]

Oh yes, I needed help with something else. So your thought experiment from Kant (regarding causes and effects existing simultaneously) was challenged recently in a debate I had. Although I modified the experiment with heat being the cause of say steam being created in a pot, and both the cause and effect exist simultaneously, essentially he argues that the cause doesn't exist with it's effect because the effect is actually brought forth by numerous "micro-causes" Here are his direct statements. "Imagine a guy hits a golf ball, and the ball sails through the air and shatters a window. The cause is the guy hitting the ball, and the effect is the shattered window (there are actually many micro effects along this path, but this works for the sake of simplicity). YOU are saying that the guy still exists at the same time as the shattered window, therefore causes exist simultaneously with their effects. This where the flaw is in your understanding. The guy, in general, isn't the cause; the SPECIFIC energy the guy used to hit that SPECIFIC ball, in that SPECIFIC process path, was the cause. The energy was transferred through him, to the club, to the ball, to the window. He could be there all day hitting balls, but those instances are not the cause of that window shattering. His potential to hit more balls, is not the cause of that specific effect. Those are new instances of causes. This is the same process as the heat to steam."

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

With your example, yes. Which is why the pillow and impression example is better.

[@panossketos1047]

lol you are trying to grasp God with your puny human mind? dude the devil muts be laughing his ass off right now. please get to the essense of things. repentance, prayer, love

[@AncientApparatus]

It's amazing to me the intellectual gymnastics mankind will go through to denigrate the Christian God of the Bible & justify abhorrent human behavior.

[@nonchantereo]

Is more amazing how naive people like you accept justification of abhorrent actions on the name on a god. Since its gone humanity prospered much more. More gymnastics and perhaps this world would be rid of stupid religions. Know that religions will disappear soon, and no priest no god can do anything to bring them back.

[@chrisarmon1002]

Is there a source to moral realism! If God does not exist

[@NinjaTrickVideos]

What would you say to the argument that morality is just an observation on what is beneficial for a society? That people feel obliged to carry out morality as an evolutionary result? It seems to coincide with the same ideas of sin, but I find the argument annoying because it seems a logical defense.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is a question of normative ethics. One can be a moral realist and still think that.

[@John-lf3xf]

Sam Harris's view is Utilitarian Naturalistic Moral Realism. Why didnt you specify that?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I said at the end of the video, "There are many other forms and subforms of metaethics we have not discussed but this is a general overview of most of the views in metaethics." Also, Utilitarianism is a form of normative ethics, not meta-ethics.

[@John-lf3xf]

InspiringPhilosophy I just thought it was worth specifically pointing out so people would really know what their dealing with. It also shows that Sam Harris didn’t invent something totally new and totally neutral. It IS another Dogma

[@dmx7329]

@@John-lf3xf why does it matter if he invented something new????

[@John-lf3xf]

@@dmx7329 Because all these new atheists act like they are these iconoclastic heroes with original ideas that religion has never seen before and can never deal with. Its pathetic, the philosophical ineptitude.

[@John-lf3xf]

@@dmx7329 anyway its not important. new athiests are dumb

[@wmint2115]

It sounds like you are using non-cognitivism as a cop-out for characterization, while avoiding real intent. Similar to preemptively describing someone as being PC, when you are not aware of the reasoning and appeals behind their critique. For example, the statement that "killing is wrong" may be expressed with emotion, with an appeal to emotion, while not getting into the reasoning behind that conclusion. However it's only expressing a conclusion, which may have developed for any number of reasons, including well thought-out analysis. It's a lazy-minded tactic to ascribe such a term to someone else, without their reasoning on the subject being previously expressed explicitly. Otherwise it's a self-served way of avoiding dealing with the actual reasons for said emoted conclusion. You're clearly using the term "true" as a buzzword. It's important to recognize that we are talking about the degree of accuracy in representing existence with concepts when we use the term "truth." It's not about a state of affairs alone, but how well our concepts, and in turn statements, represent a state of affairs. "Truth" is not always about the purely conceptual absolute accuracy, because as long as it is being applied to represent existence(and not another concept), absolute accuracy can not be expected. It may be true to say "This grain of salt contains 10.x quadrillion atoms." However "atom" sets a scope that could be widened to "subatomic particles", and other factors beyond quantity could be addressed for greater accuracy(leading to a truer concept and in turn statement). "Moral values are real and independent of nature" We don't have an example of anything that is independent of "nature." Non-natural things are emergent from the natural. "Non-naturalism says that moral properties cannot be reduced to non-ethical parts" You would find that for example Sam Harris, would not disagree. This statement is true because of the relationship between statements, concepts, and their ability to represent existence accurately. But when it comes to ethical considerations, arguably the most important, why would we reduce it to its parts? Do you expect some kind of easy list of check boxes for determining right from wrong? We don't need to reduce or separate moral properties to their natural causes to learn about said relationships. However your take on non-naturalism from the religious worldview is very disturbing. Morality becomes entirely relative to your own mentality and self-constructed, co-opted authorities(Yahweh and the religion). The believer's concept of god gets sculpted throughout their life, like clay applied to a wireframe(which is the Yahweh character taught to them initially), by misattributing various natural phenomena and experiences to the god character throughout their life. Believers sculpt a god concept into one that is believable to them. For example, a violent person inclined towards murder may have developed a god concept that will forgive their actions, or agrees with the absurd justifications for their actions. Bolstering confidence in it, and negating introspection. Co-opting the unquestionable authority of the god character to support a line of reasoning that would otherwise be reconsidered. The belief that "I am blessed" leads to the individual's opinions becoming seen as God's will. "Good cannot be redefined to be something like : Pleasant" Of course not, who exactly is redefining "good", lacking an understanding for the term? I suggest studying some Wittgenstein if you are interested in the blatant errors here. How do you think the first expression of the concept of good/bad emerged within humanity? Relative to the speaker. Of course we have to agree that "good" infers "pleasant to you" or vice versa within a scenario, but never is it redefined. The best advice I can give you at this point is to grow up, mentally. You're spending your life in philosophy circling a tiny pond. The arguments you present on this channel are so easily demystified by anyone studying informal logic and the psychology of religion, that it's really not interesting. I enjoyed analyzing lines of reasoning like those presented here maybe 10-15 years ago, as nice lessons in informal logic. But now it's just boring kids stuff. Early steps on a path long since trodden.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

First off, you do realize I am not making any arguments in the video, right? This is just an introduction to the various views in meta-ethics. That should have been obvious. Second, I am only explaining the various non-cognitive views. I am not critiquing them. I'll do a video in the future showing the problems with non-cognitive views, like the Frege-Geach problem. Third, "we don't have an example of anything that is independent of "nature" is an induction fallacy. That doesn't demonstrate only the natural exists. In fact, we have good evidence to suggest non-natural moral facts and duties exist, among other things. By your logic, all of theoretical physics should be forgotten because they have to posit substances beyond space-time like brane cosmology. These would not be natural because they are beyond space-time. Again, I don't think you understand the point of the video. I am not defending or attacking natural moral realism here. So I have no clue why you are trying to defend it. Next, you are assuming naturalism and that God is created by men, which is assuming your conclusion. One can argue theism is true and not man-made. Furthermore, that is independent of non-natural moral realism, as I can argue for moral realism without invoking God at all. You are confusing meta-ethics with metaphysics.

[@wmint2115]

"First off, you do realize I am not making any arguments in the video, right?" Sounding like Fox News, claiming to be fair and balanced. It's clear from your presentation that it's contrived to fit your desired conclusion. For example, neglecting to mention Moore's following position on divine-command as a basis for said ethical properties. "we don't have an example of anything that is independent of "nature" is an induction fallacy" It would be a fallacy if no examples existing was used to infer that no examples could exist. Which it was not. It is to point out the deficit of supporting samples in your field. The development of the concept "nature", and in turn "non-natural" are no mystery. We created those terms, based on a need to distinguish between a state of affairs that can be attributed to our agent predictive capability and in turn our actions, and those that can not. "In fact, we have good evidence to suggest non-natural moral facts and duties exist, among other things." No, but we have evidence to the contrary. Non-natural things that we do have examples of have all come from the natural. That is to say, humans developed through natural means, and then we categorized out actions as "non-natural." If you want to inject another agency that would lead to other "non-natural" states of affairs, like the Yahweh character, you're fighting against a whole new slew of contradictory evidence. As far as characters like Yahweh of the Abrahamic faiths, one need not go beyond the relational and secondary attributes that he's described with to realize that he can't even exist as described. Like how "omniscience" is a state of a mind that is self-contradictory. Because it implies the ability to claim knowing all. But if another greater being created Yahweh and kept him entirely in the dark about it, Yahweh would still only know things within what he is aware of. Disallowing him from being able to justifiably claim, under any circumstance, to know everything. But you don't have to get into that to see evidence against Yahweh's existence. Just the term "god" implies a claim of agency. And based on all evidence we do have, agency is an emergent property of a brain organ, which has developed in an organism over millions of iterations in a particular stable environment. Most god claims assert agency without a developmental phase, in fact the claims themselves rule out that phase which all evidence shows is a requirement for the calculating structures that allow for agency. That's a lot of evidence against all such detached agencies, including Yahweh, with nothing on the field to support. "By your logic, all of theoretical physics should be forgotten because they have to posit substances beyond space-time like brane cosmology. These would not be natural because they are beyond space-time." There are a millions concepts that we can come up with for each that accurately describes some aspect of existence. As far as divine intervention, we have no evidence of causation. Of course we must probe towards better understanding reality, but the theistic top-down approach is far from that. "Again, I don't think you understand the point of the video." I understand it alright. You must be used to viewers who know too little about the subject to notice the weave. "Next, you are assuming naturalism and that God is created by men, which is assuming your conclusion." Well let's look at what we have for Yahweh: A description of a character. You can bring that character to life in your own mind all you want, but it doesn't generate evidence of causation in the real world. Which gets into the structure of the believer's worldview(explanation for the world). The deeply theistic worldview can be seen as an upside down pyramid teetering on its point. With the god claim being the bottom most point, almost entirely depended upon. It has little flexibility for change, and the central point(Yahweh's existence), is very uncomfortable to question. Effort needs to continuously go into re-balancing the structure, from church once a week and other apologetics, to praying multiples times a day. I would argue that a more healthy, scientific worldview could be seen as tree's root system branching downwards. Where the individual's understanding of the world does not all come down to a focal point(one claim being true). But rather a wide variety of sources. Which leaves each source for an explanation much more comfortable to self-correct and change with consideration for new information. Weight can be shifted to other sources when a root is found incapable. This capacity for self-correct has been a major factor in the progress that our understanding of morality has had over the past thousand years. However this unquestioned traditionalism of the Abrahamic religions in particular, along with the co-opted, self-served, ultimate authority of the deity, has left many struggling behind in the name of God.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

The basis of ethics is not a meta-ethics, it is metaphysics, so of course, I would not mention Moore's following position on divine-command theory. "Sounding like Fox News, claiming to be fair and balanced. " - Speak for yourself. At least I realize there is no such thing as an unbiased source. " It is to point out the deficit of supporting samples in your field." - That still is meaningless in terms of whether the non-natural exists. "Non-natural things that we do have examples of have all come from the natural. That is to say, humans developed through natural means, and then we categorized out actions as "non-natural." - Again, you are just assuming your conclusion. I have given plenty of evidence on my channel the non-natural exists and is not a product of the natural. The natural is created by the non-natural: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M "But if another greater being created Yahweh and kept him entirely in the dark about it, Yahweh would still only know things within what he is aware of. Disallowing him from being able to justifiably claim, under any circumstance, to know everything." - Then YHWH would not be God, but the being that created Him. You cannot be God and be created. So it would not matter if YHWH was omniscient since it would only matter if the Maximally great being was omniscient. That doesn't even show omniscience is a paradox because in your example you just define YHWH as not being all-knowing, so you refute yourself. "And based on all evidence we do have, agency is an emergent property of a brain organ," - No, it is not. We have plenty of evidence consciousness is not created by the brain: kzbin.info/www/bejne/anSYoaRtjJqsiK8 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pXPWepKXrp1-bZI "As far as divine intervention, we have no evidence of causation. Of course we must probe towards better understanding reality, but the theistic top-down approach is far from that." - Yes you so: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2HMdYGCrdKKjK8 And that still doesn't address my point. It is perfectly reasonable to infer to beyond the natural to explain the natural. Most of your points have nothing to do with the video, and I addressed these ideas elsewhere. If you can't stay on topic and would rather discuss metaphysics look at them. Otherwise, your attack on the video is a red herring since you keep confusing meta-ethics with metaphysics.

[@wmint2115]

"Speak for yourself. At least I realize there is no such thing as an unbiased source. " Just don't pretend like you are taking actions towards objectivity. This presentation is contrived towards your goals, not accuracy. Also, you're implying an oversimplification and false equivalency, as "bias" refers to gradients of accuracy. Within science we take action to reduce confounding factors. Within informal logic and analytic philosophy we develop tools for identifying and counteracting biases within our analyses. You have a long history of lacking this priority, so equivocating degrees of bias is convenient for you. "That still is meaningless in terms of whether the non-natural exists." Very wishful thinking. It's like tossing a coin into a fountain over and over, asking for a particular miracle. Yet nothing happens, and now the fountain is stacked to the brim with coins. You've done every test that you could to invoke your desired non-natural cause. Yet it has never occurred. This is far from meaningless in an examination of your proposed "non-natural" cause. It shows a long history of failure, up against everything that is known about existence. The state of the scales call for desperation, in-turn your channel. "Then YHWH would not be God, but the being that created Him. You cannot be God and be created." Then no matter what, such a being couldn't exist and claim to be God. As said being would know that they could never rule out unknown-unknowns(created and kept in the dark about it). You don't see how you are making my point for me? "That doesn't even show omniscience is a paradox because in your example you just define YHWH as not being all-knowing, so you refute yourself. " Maybe you should read it again. ;) My conclusion is that no "super-being" would claim to be omniscient, because said being would be aware of possible unknown-unknowns. The fact that Yahweh is described as claiming to be omniscient is just a sign of poor writing. "No, it is not. We have plenty of evidence consciousness is not created by the brain" You're first video on Quantum mechanics does nothing to place the basis for our mental processing outside of the brain's structure. That whole video looks like a desperate attempt to tie up tentative threads for your own desires. Easy, lazy, and only convincing to those inside your bubble. As for your "Case for the Soul." This video is also hilarious contrived. Deficits in, for example, our understanding of Neural Binding, therefor "soul"? The number of directions you stretch to end up making no actual case for a detached agency(soul), is quite impressive. Just how poorly thought-out do you expect your viewers to be? We have an unending supply of evidence for our mental processes relying on the brain's structure. But when a new question arises... "SOUL!!" Hilarious. You must already have an extreme bias towards the concept of a "soul", as such a detached agency has no causal basis within the real world. There are innumerable causes and explanations for our deficits in neurology, with more evidence than your "soul" proposition. Extreme wishful thinking and an internal dependency on it for afterlife, propping up the idea of a "soul" as more than the absurd detached agency that it resides as. You honestly can't see that? "Yes you so" You have no contemporary account of Jesus to begin with. Yet you point to that as "evidence of causation"? Sorry, but all you have are story that have developed over hundreds of generations of desirous believers. All of which have had the severe psychological dependencies I've previously mentioned and more. What do you expect? "Most of your points have nothing to do with the video, and I addressed these ideas elsewhere." Well, I'll take that as an incapacity to address them. The points I've made previously are deeply relevant to the psychology of religion and in-turn ethics. If you can't deal with the real consequences of your positions, that cop-out does make sense.

[@readysetcomedypodcast1341]

@@InspiringPhilosophy you are just making a bunch of assertions with no actual evidence to back them. You are basically arguing "because I said so." I saw you say you like Jordan Peterson. I'm not surprised because you both say a bunch of nonsese that to the unknowing ear, sounds compelling. It's bullshit.

[@51064]

What a bunch of hokey nonsense. Philosophy… Please. Just read your Bibles people. Our morals come from our Creator our Commandments teach us how to live. Or salvation rest with the work of Christ on the cross. Have a nice day

[@Gatorbeaux]

Philosophy helps move non-believers over to the Good side through reason and valid arguments-- its a Very important tool in the mission......

[@sageseraphim6720]

You're doing philosophy right now. Would you rather have heretics, atheists, and pagans be more rational than the people who really follow the truth or have the followers of Christ be rational and be able to defend our faith? 1 Peter 3:15 Isaiah 1:18

[@51064]

Bad Gator wrong. The wisdom of man is fallen. God's word moves people to come to the truth and not the other way around.

[@51064]

Sage Seraphim it's impossible for heretics atheist and pagans to be more rational… that circular reasoning we don't need our philosophy to guide ourselves to the truth it all goes back to reading the word of God.

[@badgator7363]

Mr 12345 you have to get them to the word first- someone like me needed more than a book to become a Christian- I need science and history and know why the Bible was the truth- Philosophy was a great tool in my journey(and most everyone who searched out Christianity--)