Moral Relativism and the Holocaust

What can the Holocaust teach us about morality and ethics? Does the Holocaust pose a challenge for moral relativism? Zygmunt Bauman argues yes.
In Modernity and the Holocaust, Bauman argues that the Holocaust proves that societal rules, norms and standards cannot be the only source of morality. Perpetrators often argued in court that they were only following the law of their country. How can we judge them if morals are the product of a relative social context?
Instead, Bauman argues, the source of morality is in a fundamental responsibility to another in proximity. And there’s plenty of evidence for this. A biological repulsion to killing, for example. Or the distancing and division of labor that was required to scale the genocide. If proximity and responsibility are at the heart of a kind of moral objectivity, what might the consequences of this be?
Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: patreon.com/user?u=3517018
Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Buy on Amazon through this link to support the channel:
amzn.to/2ykJe6L
Follow me on:
Facebook: thethenandnow
Instagram: / thethenandnow
Twitter: / lewlewwaller
Subscribe to the podcast:
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
open.spotify.com/show/1Khac2i...
Sources:
Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust
people.duke.edu/~jmoody77/The...
Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men
Douglas Huneke, A Study of Christians Who Rescued Jews During the Nazi Era
Roger S. Gottlieb, Some Implications of the Holocaust for Ethics and Social Philosophy
Janusz Reykowski, The Justice Motive and Altruistic Helping: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi-Occupied Europe
Kristen Renwick Monroe, Cracking the Code of Genocide: The Moral Psychology of Rescuers, Bystanders, and Nazis during the Holocaust
Credits:
Zygmunt Bauman image: re:publica from Germany, CC BY 2.0, creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons

[@carlomarx7412]

"I'll return to genocide in the future." -Then & Now, Feb 9, 2021

[@matildaborgenstierna9629]

This channel is absolutely amazing! As a new sociology student i find that it pretty difficult to get used to and decipher the complex ideas and language in the literature, and your videos provide a sort of starting point of understanding that makes that whole process a lot easier. What you're doing is truly democratising knowledge!

[@lsobrien]

This is fascinating, thanks. Would love to see more Bauman related vids.

[@TealiciousTea7]

'Society manipulates morality' is perhaps the keenest insight from Modernity and the Holocaust. Certainly the one that has stayed with me and haunted my thinking the most.

[@seungmin2977]

Was waiting for Bauman to pop up since the last video!! Appreciate these videos so much. Lots of love from Seoul.

[@alldavids4202]

Your channel is quickly becoming my favorite. Great work.

[@Air_Dan]

Thank you for making such amazing videos, as a graduate student all these videos help me understand text and philosophers/writers/sociologist etc. better especially during this period of online learning. I just became Patron on Patreon and I hope this community continues to grow and it will with such polished, digestible academic videos!

[@Skepticallady]

Your content is awesome! Looking forward for the Thomas Hobbes videos! Thank you and a big hug from Costa Rica 😄

[@cameronmclennan942]

Really great series, thanks so much for these videos. You mentioned your next series would be on human behaviour, mostly focusing on the social sciences, which I understand. However, I'd love at some point to see you incorporate the recent advances in understanding in the other sciences, which, for me, are excellently described by Robert Sapolsky's book: "Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" Also, you mentioned in the last video the theories of mob/crowd behaviour of Gustave Le Bon, which were also discussed in Tom Nicolas' video from a couple of days ago on Cancel Culture. If you haven't yet seen it, seems like you two countrymen would have some interesting conversations about these topics! Thanks again for your work

[@eorobinson3]

Well my day just got better.

[@humanbeing9079]

It's disturbing how many of the features of the holocaust are repeated throughout history. I'm particularly reminded of the "haircutting order" of Qing China, which mandated Han Chinese men to shave the front of their heads and have the rest as a braid, which serves as a policy the subjugate the majority Han population, along with restrictions in government positions Han people can hold, forced deportations, outlawing of mixed-race marriages, various massacres etc.

[@MorusAlba1975]

Camp inmates were shaved to stop the spread of tyfus carrying lice. Comparing that aspect of the Holocaust to braids in China is silly.

[@ugenbhutia5526]

Never read zygmunt bauman but now going to. Excellent video loved it. Eagerly waiting for the video on human nature.

[@huesophie299]

This is such an important video! Everybody needs to hear this

[@melanyahamasyan6005]

Enjoyed the video, thank you. Would be interesting to also cover moral relativism and the contemporary press - an overall equalizing stance which can be described as moral relativism.

[@adamalbazy4924]

Wonderful video. Hats off to you sir.

[@marqpsmythe228]

Brilliant and thoughtful as always... Reminds me of Nietzsche, THE WILL TO POWER, 716 through 719. And Pink Floyd “Be careful with those axes of evil Eugene.”

[@creepycrawlything]

The speaker in this video offers, amongst the many things said, two notions. Firstly, and crucially, a notion of how morality can emerge and have effect, where "distance" is less present in a social than it is on a societal plane. Secondly, the notion that morality (extant?) can or tends to be manipulated by societal dynamics. These two notions (three if we count "distance" as central to the thesis offered in the video) are perfectly valid. What might then come to mind for some, is: that more might have to be said about the social; and more might have to be said about any "morality" emerging from or having its epigenesis in the social. Foucault and Nietzche and many others then offer a conception of the social and what can emerge from its dynamics, that perhaps suggests (far?) greater complexity than the thesis of this video allows for. My own sense then is, that for some individuals, and they dramatically represented by Foucault and Nietzche, feral truth seeking and testing takes such priority, that recourse to thinking about ethics and morality is secondary (more attaching to the phenomena of otherness rather than self), if at all taken up. My further sense is, that while approaching the Shoah Holcaust in terms of ethics and morality is valid and relevant, it may miss the crucial point that the likes of Foucault and Nietzche and many others, inquired existentially into the same matrix of being from which Nazism and the insanity of antiSemitism emerged, and opposed that perverse outcome on the ground from which it emerged.

[@Ting3624]

Nice analogy with the two person encounter

[@mattirealm]

Morality is both. I believe there is situational morality and an overall sense of morality. Encounters with other people are only a test of our morality, not necessarily the determining factor of morality. The most famous mountaineer of all time (Messner/age 78) stated in an interview (paraphrasing): "Morality is innate to me. I know what to do on a mountain and if I can help a wounded climber, there is no other choice but to help the climber." Seems pretty clear to me. Our overall sense of morality DOES inform our situational morality. If someone asks me for some money for food (homeless person), if I can, I give them a few bucks. Society might manipulate morality, but it doesn't for me. I have a sense of who I am and what my moral code is...for me. I don't push it on anyone and I try to follow it even when things are so fucking bleak and dark that the brightest light cannot shine through that evil cloud. In this life, sadly, I have found very few that have that serious sense of morality; more often they have a self-centered view of themselves and society. Thanks for the video.

[@nelsonphillips]

Some people wouldn't say the things they say online in the real world. I don't do that, apparently I am difficult to get along with.

[@e.j.d.1991]

"tie with moral parent" --- Lacan triggers

[@daniel-zh4qc]

Comment to help you out..... Axel Honneth or the Hegelian tradition of intersubjectivity for a parallel development

[@Khemadhammo]

@Then and Now, did Bauman already make the connection with the modern world, distance and its effects on our morality?

[@TheLacedaemonian300]

Thank you for doing these videos on the Holocaust. They have been incredibly informative and important in helping understand the banality of evil. The idea of proximity and morality is fascinating!

[@MourningTalkShow]

This is really good.

[@ivan55599]

These questions may also affect to/by a question of "human nature" (whether there is or not).

[@PackinForSuperbowl]

I think it's been fairly demonstrated (at least in my quite humble opinion) that the concept of human nature is too slippery and nebulous a concept to be of any meaningful use in moral discussions. I'm open to alternative ideas though.

[@peggyharris3815]

Have you read "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil" by Philip Zimbardo? (No...its got nothing to do with the devil or religion) but it's VERY interesting.

[@paddleed6176]

It didn't have knowledge about personality traits like honesty-humility. Those people were never good, they were deceptive.

[@nic9356]

Great content.

[@toobalkain]

Irene Zisblatt, the author of the famous Five Diamonds, brought 5 diamonds to Auschwitz in case she needed money to buy food, and because they were frisked daily, for 4 years she'd eat, defecate and eat those diamonds again, sometimes without as much as washing them since water was scarce, or she'd clean them with a bit of soup after the trip to the latrine. She managed to survive the whole thing and keep the diamonds in her possession, I guess she didn't need to buy food after all, then waited for 30+ years telling no one about her amazing feat, and then wrote the book that made her a star, entered the lucrative holo lecture circuit and became a professional holocaust survivor doing quite well for herself. A TV show seems to be in the works to make sure we never forget.

[@NewtNuke]

Gesture game getting strong

[@ziggyai]

I think Habermas echoes in his theory of Communicative Action.

[@radioactivedetective6876]

"recognition of need" of another is empathy. So, does this suggest that the source of morality, in this context at least, is empathy? But is not empathy itself something we learn? If the thought "if I do not do something someone would die" is the basis of moral responsibility, then is that too not something human beings learn? It is what children are taught in the very basic and simplified moral lessons of childhood - do not be cruel , do not hit the dog with stones, if someone shows signs of being ill call the doctor - along with other more institutional societal norms like obey your parents, etc. As there is no data about a pre-societal state of nature and how a child growning up in a deserted island would behave upon seeing another human being, the hypothesis that empathy is biological is essentially unverifiable.

[@KeithMakank3]

"I was just watching what the algorithm told me to"

[@colonelweird]

The emphasis on lack of proximity as the moral foundation of genocide is surely mistaken. Mass killings happened long before the rise of bureaucracy and modern technology, despite the proximity of the killers to their victims. That was also the case in the Rwandan genocide. The argument in this video, which seems to be largely taken from Bauman, would have benefited from a more critical approach. Human beings display a remarkable ability to adapt the killing impulse to whatever social and technological situation they find themselves in. Bauman argues that morality arises in the encounter between two people, which creates a feeling of responsibility for the other. That's well and good, but what happens when a third person appears? Then you have the makings of envy, jealousy, divided loyalties, secrets, lies, resentments, and rage -- and that leads to killing, even if you retain proximity to all involved. In that situation, it's proximity itself which creates the conditions for murder. Finally, calling this a video about "moral relativism" when you only vaguely allude to the concept, without naming it in the video, is quite misleading, and I imagine it's part of the reason there are so many really awful comments. The argument in this video pushes back against the most naive form of moral relativism, but does not really engage the issues in a serious way.

[@PackinForSuperbowl]

I would never equivocate the suffering of the Jewish people (and others) tortured and killed during this madness to probably anything else in human history but a thought experiment I've run has plagued my mind for a long time. While we as a society said to the Nazi soldiers that they alone were responsible for the evil they did and being ordered to do so didn't absolve them of responsibility, we painted it (insubordination) out to be easier to do than it likely was. What we needed to be asking is how much suffering should we have expected them to endure in order to not follow those orders, right? There clearly has to be some line where we would be forced to agree that the suffering they would incur for not following orders absolved them legally from being responsible for what they did when following those orders. For example, if one's decision to disobey orders resulted in their entire family being killed, is that a high enough price for them to pay for not following orders? What is the exact price we expect someone to pay for being held responsible to do that right thing? What crimes would you commit to save your child's life? What would you do that is considered morally wrong to save your toenails from being ripped out?

[@tor4523]

Well, that's the hell of a food for thought you got there.

[@mariemaguire8386]

@@tor4523 @Polygamist_Bachelor Not quite the video I was expecting given the title. I'm grateful for the exposition on Baumann's work, however, the dimension I was expecting being missing is disappointing. It is clear historical fact that whether by numbers, or inhumanity or even scope of evil ambition the German National Socialists were neither pioneers in the 20th Century nor the worst perpetrators. Yet despite this all these moral metrics have been relativised in relation to the Holocaust such that people can say 'it is unique', or, 'the worst crime in history', when there are no objective grounds for either claim and further the only ground that it can be - that of the subjective perspective of Jews - has been asserted as universally 'unique' & 'worst' even over people like the Armenians or the Ukrainians (in regards to the Holodomor) & others completely bestialised, (Pitesti, Nazino), and erased, (Yaghan, Tasmanian Aboriginals), before and after the mid century German regime. There are also the absurd moral & legal relativisms across jurisdictions of 'minimalisation' and 'denial' vilifications and punishments, (including unofficial outlawing through reputation demolition, legal imprisonment, tacitly permitted targeting by violent terrorist groups), for failing to affirm historical fact-opinions that have themselves been enshrined against those established at the Nuremburg trials, the most respected Jewish historian of the topic, &/or the latest consensus of mainstream historical revision.

[@mariemaguire8386]

A brief video with some examples: GULAGS kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHbKaH6mnMl4hrM

[@pinklemonadeschannel]

the line is located at a suffering quantity of 13

[@Andi_andI]

Antisemitism never really went away. As a Jewish individual I want you to know how much it means to me personally to see people openly discussing the history surrounding it. Too often in the UK it feels like a topic people would rather pretend doesn't exist. Thank you.

[@travisspace7786]

I'll give you some knowledge on some reasons of the Anti-Semitisms. We first have to start with a huge lie about the Nazis and its that Fascism is a far right Ideology. Its not in the slightest. The definition is twisted to fit a narrative. Do your own research it will take you an hour. You will find that Hard core socialist/ communists a far left ideolog gave birth to fascism and were the ones to use it. Look up the definition by those who created it and then the modern definition. Then look up who first referred it to a far right ideolog. Those who shared the same racist and socialist values (in the US and UK) were the ones who supported Hitler philosophically up till the Axis powers started invading people then they had to cover there ass' by labeling those that they supported as the complete opposite of what they actual were. This was how Fascism got be known as "far right" when in truth it's Far left. Sadly we might see it unfold here in the US and not to far in the future. Now onto topic at hand Anti-Semitism one and easy one almost all Muslims hate Jews and they really have immigrated into Western society in the millions. So that I one reason of all the violence towards Jews. To those who read this, Yes! I know not all Muslims are violent. But currently most of the hate crimes committed on Jews are from Muslims then street thugs and then White supremist. Now something else that has been on the rise that gets labeled as White Supremist that actually isn't is the Anti-Globalist crowd. The Anti-Globalist crowd is huge and very diverse so once in a while a White supremist will come along and want to hang out and normal people have to kick their ass out. As we know White supremacist's are very ignorant, manipulated, and stupid so they are kind of the really bad apple in the group that was never invited to be part of the group in the first place. The reason why they show up is because some of the Globalists are Jews or at least identify as Jewish. George Soros is one of these men, he is of Jewish decent, identifies as Jewish but doesn't believe in God. There's the religion and then the ethnicity. People blend the two in actuality there are the descendants of Israelites and then those who converted to Judaism who are Jewish but not ethnically descendant of Israel. Its a big mess. Another reason some don't like Jews was because of the involvement of a lot of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution, lots of Jews were pro communism. Including in Germany and helped push socialism, contributing to their own demise. So in truth the Jews were straying from God in the new movement they were losing faith in God due to Evolution theory being taught in the collages that infected everyone not just Jews. Evolution theory leads people to be more communistic/socialistic. At the time those who believed in Evolution believed that if Evolution is true there is no God which makes Man the closest thing. Also, that if we evolved then one "race" of man must be further along and we must get rid of the inferiors races so we don't go backwards by "diluting the master race" This was their thinking and it lead to the eugenics movement and the mass murder of the Jews. Hitler hated the Jews so they were obviously in his mind the inferior race and its never yourself so it had to be them. He hated the Jews because they were doing better economically than ethnic Germans. Which would make them better not worse but he was engulfed in hatred of them so he was blinded by his hatred. Much like the leftist in our time, they have a lot in common with Hitler. Idk some reasons for you I wasn't very articulate with it sorry. Oh one more thing back to the Globalists. If you want a glimpse of what the Globalists are trying to do. Go watch Demolition Man and pay attention to the little things. Its very close to their plan, they have been planning it for a long time. Its also very Satanic and part of the Biblical prophecy in the New Testament Revelations. I know you are Jewish and probably haven't read it but you should give it a read. Peace and Love Brother stay safe out there. Also, further your knowledge in why people hate God Christians and Jews to better defend yourself against them and hopefully turn them away from their ways.

[@deathwarmedup73]

Pretty sure that Darwin originally located the source of morality in us being social beings, but his observation was ovelooked for many decades.

[@richardmcgowan6383]

Interesting and well-argued. But not much discussion of moral relativism as such. The video seems to argue that (most?) people are innately moral to some extent (combat soldiers find it difficult to kill their enemies in battle, and so on). Social structures and technology break down and subvert those insticts. Is that process moral relativism? In that it allows the concept of "good" to become fluid? It seems coiunter-intuitive to describe nazism as relativist. But I'm not sure what relativism really means here.

[@user-td3ut4tg3v]

Weird enough to some people nazi are moral universalist

[@robertgould1345]

I don't think the video is saying the Nazis were moral relativists. What the video is is an attack on moral relativism. The sociologist Emile Durkheim is given as one example of a moral relativist. With moral relativism, there is no way to judge whether or not the holocaust was bad. This is the subject of one of the works by Bauman. He suggests that 1. there is a basis of non-relativist morality, 2. This morality is partly based on proximity to others. 3. Societies manipulate this morality, often through spatial and mental distancing. 4. The holocaust was possible because the Nazis both mentally distanced Jews in the minds of other Germans, through propaganda, and they spatially distanced the Jewish victims from many of the perpetrators through bureaucracy, etc.

[@andrewenrique5503]

Content about Infinite Jest and DFW when possible, please

[@hews251]

morality come from the fundamental nucleus of all society, family. those unspoken rules that spur from the relations of roles in the family, and ultimately what can potentially ruin the family is considered wrong. as niietzche put it the will to power . all beings inately will not go against itself unless it propels ist offsprings,

[@aaron2709]

It boils down to empathy, otherwise known as 'the golden rule.'

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

No it doesn't. The Golden Rule, for all its fame, has never been the moral compass of any society nor even individual people. It's a fundamentally tolerance-based morality, and we've never been willing to live with the full meaning of that. People just like quoting it cos it sounds wise while also being quippy. Then they come up with examples that conveniently align with what they already like, like treating others with respect so as to be respected in turn. But the Golden Rule is a cold and uncaring guiding principle. For instance, as per the Rule, you're free to murder as long as you don't mind being killed in turn. You're free to insult as long as you're okay with being insulted. You're free to traipse in with muddy shoes as long as you don't care if others do the same. People have never been okay with that kind of excuse or justification, which shows they don't accept the Golden Rule.

[@aaron2709]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn This is a straw man argument as no sane person thinks what you propose in these ridiculous examples. Empathy is my moral compass. You need only imagine what it's like to be the other person.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@aaron2709 I simply followed the Golden Rule's own inherent logic. If you're bringing your own added ideas of what 'sane people do' or what your empathetic senses tell you or anything else, then you're not simply following the Golden Rule. You're 'over-ruling' it with your own ideas and instincts, while continuing to pretend you're living according to the Golden Rule cos it's famous. You aren't. The Golden Rule is a simple principle, easy to simulate. It's practically math. And I merely executed the algorithm. If you're going above and beyond that, so be it. But don't pretend you're following it then.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@aaron2709 Indeed I don't think any sane people live that way. That was my point. Everyone loves celebrating the Golden Rule, but no one actually lives by it. It has the appearance of wisdom, yet being utterly impractical. It just sounds nice.

[@aaron2709]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn Did you notice I put 'the golden rule' in quotes? It's just a poetic phrase to capture the idea of empathy. Are you angry about empathy (the same thing) too? Your complaint is manipulative accounting, disingenuous arm-chair logic. Empirical evidence shows me empathy works.

[@Smartcoughdrop]

Like my Dad likes to say, "Legality is not cause for morality"

[@testianer]

What's "moral knowledge"?

[@nicuhosu]

I am not completely convinced by this video. There are numerous premodern examples of extreme murderous violence where "proximity" was also not absent. Ancient Roman massacres come to mind, from Carthage to Jerusalem. Of course, targeted, organised, bureaucratic exterminations of specific peoples are a modern phenomenon. "Proximity" is eliminated in a similar way to how we buy our food, sometimes even forgetting that a piece of pre-packaged meat used to be an animal. But coming back to massacres by the sword, it is hard to deny that "proximity" is viscerally present there. Why do people still react so cruelly when they are likely staring their helpless victim in the face? Does "proximity" only apply when people know each other, speak the same language or wear similar dress? Is "proximity" then just code for an in-group and out-group dynamic? And if people are more likely to act morally when meeting people from their in-group, doesn't that open to door to moral relativism again?

[@robertgould1345]

When looking at premodern massacres, consider how the societies, such as ancient Rome, distanced Roman soldiers from those they massacred. Remember, distancing isn't just about spatial distance. As for premodern massacres bringing back moral relativism, I don't see how that is so. Bauman suggests that basic morality emerges with the social and that it is societies which manipulate it. The in-group/out-group is one such way in which a society manipulates morality.

[@gonzalowaszczuk638]

Does morality really exist only in proximity to other humans? If in that desert island you lived alone, but with a bunch of animals, would it be okay for you to do anything you like to those animals, since there are no other humans around?

[@eorobinson3]

morality is a negotiation with the life you find around you that allows you and that other life to live in harmony, or not.

[@eorobinson3]

You clearly miss his point and are addressing an entirely different question 🙄

[@gonzalowaszczuk638]

@@eorobinson3 If there is no life, is there no morality?

[@eorobinson3]

This video breathes new and dangerous (dehumanizing) life into the popularized term, “social distancing.” 😳

[@eunoiaeudaimonia6829]

The whole COVID thing is meant to break down solidarity and impose the Hegelian dialect of the jealous, vengeful, so called leaders on the populace. Once we all reach a consensus of how to live as individuals but still devoted to a life of harmony with others, none will still need nor want their so called ‘governments’

[@wp6007]

I think an issue you have in your intro is that you are judging all of those events by the morals of your society, therefore it doesn't show an example countering that viewpoint.

[@jessicagreer7847]

You’re literally making his point. Morality is the absolutism within our human nature, and to manipulate that instinct that lives in all people no matter their society/culture is the slippery slope of moral relativism. Morality isn’t a social construct, the social construction or changes in morality is the corruption.

[@lolkiaha3765]

o Bauman nasz polski, niestety go nie lubią u nas

[@eorobinson3]

This can easily be applied to social media: for example when a Twitter mob comes to cancel an individual-the clear lack of proximity or rather anonymous detachment from the person they seek to bring low (to the point of social and personal destruction) renders ones rationalization of that individuals ruin, an easily swallowed task of the mind (that applies to right and left leaning mobs).

[@squatch545]

There is no such thing as a "pre-societal world".

[@robertgould1345]

It's an abstract concept used as a thought experiment.

[@squatch545]

@@robertgould1345 So?

[@robertgould1345]

@@squatch545 So, philosophers use thought experiments to examine concepts. I responding to your original comment because it looked like you didn't understand this.

[@squatch545]

@@robertgould1345 I understand it, I just don't know what the fuck it has to do with this video. My original comment stands. There is no such thing as a "pre-societal world". Two people encountering each other in a "state of nature" is not a thought experiment that has any meaning. Each person would already have grown up in a society, either the same society or different societies -- but a society nevertheless. They would have already been brought up with the morals of their society. So what would a pre-societal world even mean in this thought experiment?

[@robertgould1345]

@@squatch545 the state of nature Imagines a pre-social world (key word: imagines). Like most thought experiments, it doesn't have to have happened. When Einstein used the idea of a man going near the speed of light in an elevator, and a beam of light being shone across the elevator, it didn't matter, for Einstein's purposes, whether such a thing had happened or was possible (spoiler, lifts don't go at such speeds). The idea of state of nature is "imagine a world where people are not in a society and have yet to be in a society". It's a way of examining social theories by isolating different factors, in this case socialisation. Thought experiments are useful in social theory and philosophy because you can't often do experiments like in physics.

[@kevconn441]

Very difficult issue for me. I can't imagine how morals can be objective, if so where are they? The arguments of relativism are well known. My biggest objection is the problem of the subjectivity of the person entrusted to declare what those morals are, eg. priests or politicians. Complete objectivity is impossible, Thomas Nagel's "view from nowhere". But the objections to relativism are so compelling. The feeling that some things are just wrong, obviously wrong, objectively wrong is hard to ignore.

[@wrightmaiorquezico8909]

Certain things do not need "arguments". The world is not your college seminar.

[@babycherie5874]

Everyone knows meat eating is wrong. But some people are just evil.

[@Anarcath]

I think there’s a difference between morality and ethics. The former is a monologue: it establishes absolute rules about what is good and what is bad. It brings discourse to a standstill and puts an end to the play of language. In this sense, morality is immoral. On the other hand ethics is the study of good and evil: it questions the goodness about good and the evil about bad. Why is good, good? Why is bad, bad? Thus, ethics is a discourse; it’s productive; it pushes us forward in our understanding about our actions. It questions, while morality answers and answers in silence. It drowns the human voice. It chokes the spirit. It is dictatorial, fascistic, in other words religious. Morality is evil that has hijacked decency.

[@testianer]

This is the first of your videos that I didn't like. The title is misleading - the video doesn't cover moral relativism in any way; and there's a conflation between biological and moral facts. Proximity to violence leading to disgust is a biological, not a moral fact.

[@aaronstately]

His videos are good.. but this one sucks.. so far off understanding Morality its.. bizarre he even made this video. Thats not how morality works.. please dont pretend to be a expert or that your insightful.

[@himanshutahiliani1235]

First

[@adass75]

Nonsense. There are brothers who have lived all their lives with each other who yet end up at each others throats! You are taking a sliver of human behaviour that favours your theory and beliefs, zooming into its mechanics and then using that to justify morality at such a larger scale! You speak intelligently, but lack the wisdom to understand your limitations!

[@guardofinsanity8415]

Ethics don't come from social interaction. They're a result of (1) embodied traits per evolution and (2) architecture of choice.

[@OjoRojo40]

WTF. no

[@anneallison6402]

@@OjoRojo40 yes

[@guardofinsanity8415]

@@OjoRojo40 Gigerenzer G., 2007. Simon H., 1983.

[@OjoRojo40]

@@anneallison6402 no

[@creepycrawlything]

What has evolved, what we as humans have evolved to be, cannot be neglected in any explanation of human process. What has so evolved, circumscribes what is possible, and how what is possible plays out. "The architecture of choice": sounds interesting as an explanatory resource, but is going to be a complex idea; so more explication of the idea would be needed. The notion that ethics are the outcome of evolved capacity working through a nexus of choice; seems an explanatory beginning that could fly. To what end, would be the question.

[@adamtabl]

I have some questions about this....horrible things were done through out history long before "modernity". Also, history is also full of people massacring those in the next village, neighbors etc...not only those who are "distanced"

[@davrocket5304]

God is the objective morality. Men has only subjective morality and that's why it's evil. Subjective morality is so wrong!!!

[@johnny196775]

Define "morality" in such a way that you make a prediction of the future based on your 'moral theory' that can be tested and describe the experiment, along with the results that have demonstrated scientifically that 'morality' exists. Then I will start listening to you moralize. This isn't a documentary - this is you preaching.

[@itsmarsh6]

Morality comes from god 🙏 😇

[@miguelatkinson]

Umm where is your evidence for that

[@relly793]

No

[@itsmarsh6]

@@miguelatkinson because theres Gotta be something beyond you and me to define what's good and bad.. bcs relative morality breakdown in daily basis...

[@organiseduser7216]

​​@@itsmarsh6 but wouldn't that be quite arbitrary? I mean god could have decided himself what's "good" and "bad", but how? If there wasn't any morality before, he must have decided randomly.

[@MorusAlba1975]

One should not jump to discussing the morality of it all without first discussing the issues of communism, international finance and orthodox Jewish identity (separatism).