Moral Relativism - Explained and Debated

[@PhilosophyVibe]

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe4 Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics & Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3

[@kryptoid2568]

what software do you use for animation?

[@philosophywithanirishaccen4849]

I love how you present these discussions as arguments/dialectics. Makes it even more engaging

[@spiritsplice]

it's very poorly done and very poorly read. the script is a covert attempt at marxism.

[@GageTheMageTCG]

What?@@spiritsplice

[@Alexmw777]

@@GageTheMageTCG maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain == marxism, apparently

[@EvansKibiwott-z1w]

But denying existence of morality as universal is like saying ethics doesn't exist

[@arniedamaniac6206]

It isn’t universal though. Only certain moral values that we have been given though evolution (or god) can be considered objective

[@2222cream]

Please keep these coming, the dialogue format is the best philosophy on youtube. The Greeks would be proud

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you :D and still a lot more to come!

[@kakooti1437]

I like how you have another person disagreeing and seeing the rules from another perspective. And he is very polite. 😊

[@PhilosophyVibe]

How all debates should be :D thanks for watching.

[@callmeJAF]

terrible point. “Yellow is the best colour!” “No! purple is the best!” they’re not “both correct”. There is no correct, it’s subjective

[@J33ber]

Exactly what I thought, personal preferences have nothing to do with moral truth.

[@Generatorman59]

@@J33berI would agree that personal preferences would have nothing to do with moral truth IF moral truth could be shown to exist. Can you demonstrate the existence of moral truth? If you can’t, then it must be based on opinion.

[@Ozscaro]

am i relativist if i belive that under particular circumstances and goals there is only one correct way/ moral? Or like "when in Rome act like romans." is still an obsolut morale, isn't?

[@redx11x]

​@@OzscaroYes, i think you would be considered a relativist because your opinion on what is morally right would be based purely on your subjective standards or that of a wider group.

[@redx11x]

​@@Generatorman59im pretty sure that choosing your favourite colours and fruits have nothing to do with the defined terms of morals and ethics. I think you have confused the terms/definitions being used here.

[@ottovmp]

Ethical subjectivism is like two people standing in the rain, and the other claiming that it's refreshing and the other claiming that it isn't. Or that's how I see it. Moral dilemmas don't hold some absolute truth in them, and are a fools errand to try and crack. There's no formula for ethics. :D

[@arpit.sharma]

Exactly. He gave the example of is it raining which proves nothing. One person says Rain is good, the other person is saying rain is bad, that's a moral dilemma

[@someonenotnoone]

Precisely. The contradiction is in believing there is an objectively true answer. The contradiction is not present when you understand that the "contradictory" views are opinions. I don't consider it contradictory if I say "I like peanut butter" and someone else says "I don't." It's completely reasonable for opinions to not match. There's no contradiction.

[@miguelmorales4633]

The answer is in Nature. Both persons in your example would have to agree that rain is necessary for the survival of Life in the planet. Consequently, any hypothetical action that would make all rain stop forever would be wrong. Animals display the rudiments of moral codes as well, it is a requirement for the survival and thriving of species, with the exception perhaps of insects or viruses. Life has a built-in moral code, though we may disregard it or be unaware of it.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

@@miguelmorales4633that only applies so far. the person in the video is claiming that there are absolute moral truths to everything not just certain situations that we have prebuilt moral code for.

[@DomskiOKKK]

@@arniedamaniac6206there is…

[@stevesmith4901]

In the case of rain, one of them has to be wrong because rain is objectively true. Nobody is questioning the objective truth of rain. However, the jury is still out on the objective truth of morality.

[@edathompson2]

Quantum physics says the rain exists based on who watches it.

[@stevesmith4901]

@@edathompson2 The timing of your comment is such a freaky coincidence. I just finished watching this new TV show called "Dark Matter" like a minute ago, which is about quantum physics; and here you are, talking about quantum physics on a comment I made five months ago. This is too freaky. I've got goosebumps.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

@@edathompson2applies only on micro not macro scale

[@beckst3r]

love this format, how the other guy politely presents the counterargument!! reminds me of a quote: "we don't need to disagree less, we need to disagree better."

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad you enjoyed :)

[@griddxi]

thats a fantastic frase

[@pavelurteaga5315]

subjective morality is the cheapest ticket to decadence and oblivion ...

[@timber2lease]

objective morality is the cheapest ticket to deception and control

[@arniedamaniac6206]

the consequences are irrelevant to its truth

[@BlueB-bx6nh]

😂😂😂😂😂 literally !

[@DomskiOKKK]

@@timber2leaseno it isnt😂

[@AdamWieherdt]

I think the way people use moral relativism and the way it is understood is missing the point. No one should live their life as a moral relativist, that's stupid. Moral Relativism is a tool to understand people who don't share the same beliefs as you. Why is that important? It's simple, you cannot have peace without understanding others. When you understand those different beliefs, the better chance you have at finding common ground. The truth is that every bit of morality is ultimately the same, it's simply built differently from one individual to another. Everyone wants the same thing, we all want to live. From the day we are born we start to create moral beliefs with every experience we have and since every person will interpret those experiences differently, we end up with diverse morals. The problem is we aren't raised to understand each other, we are raised with lines drawn in the sand and we compete with each other over who deserves to live or die. That is not inherent either, all behavior is learned. I think if more people used moral relativism as a tool to understand other people which is really one of the most important things to survival, the world would certainly be a better place. This is how peace comes about but once again, we choose to behave the way we do because fear is a tool being used to make sure that people don't learn how to deal with differences (there's too much profit in war). It almost feels like moral relativism is purposely looked at in the most stupid way possible. I am not 100% certain of anything but when it comes to this, it is the most certain I can be with leaving room for new information that could change my mind on this.

[@VIKASHKumar-xp7jj]

hey can you give insight on :_ Moral Relativism : There is no moral absolute

[@theonlinetroll6946]

So basically moral relitivism means that people have different goodness or badness in them right?

[@mikexhotmail]

" and we compete with each other over who deserves to live or die" ps. People tend to take this for grant (while their governments are roaming the world killing innocence people for their own benefit)

[@rpruneau68]

Moral Relativism is a Philosophy that merely states the Morality Compass of Individuals are calibrated by cultural, societal, geographical, generational and other proximal influences.

[@user-kk2pc7ik7t]

Thats a good argument, but how do you apply this to, say, homophobia in countries outside of the west? In many non- western countries a lot of people hold the view that homophobia is right.

[@ras3054]

Some things are relative, and some things are objective. I believe infanticide is objectively wrong..

[@alexrose9388]

Sounds like two robots pretending to be human discussing philosophy. Just reading off a script, clearly.

[@chuckinchina6926]

I would argue, rather, that there are certain goods and bads which are relativistic. But there is a fundamental morality which basically spans every culture.

[@JamesLee50]

There isnr such thing on individual levels

[@robertsertic4276]

the rain comparison is not a good argument. Whether or not it is raining is objective reality, whether or not something is moral is subjective perspective. We share an objective reality but we observe that reality through subjective perspective.

[@lefterismagkoutas4430]

I searched for philosophy tube and I found an *actual* philosophy channel. Thanks for this!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You’re welcome 😀glad you enjoyed.

[@marcpadilla1094]

Great example of dialectic. These two give us practical use of philosophy.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you! 😃

[@GuessWhoAsks]

The bible allowed slavery because the people at the time did not consider it to be immoral. How do you reconcile that with considering the bible to be a guide for morality?

[@analyticalmindset]

The counter argument assumes that a moral relativist does not have his own set of morals he abides by and judges other cultures actions on . So even though I can acknowledge some cultures in the past didn't think slavery was bad , my cultural beliefs now , as a moral relativist tells me "F that , and F them " lol

[@arniedamaniac6206]

you would still think it’s bad without the culture

[@francis_castiglion3]

I agree that moral relativism and moral objectivism overlap. At the same time, I don't think people should dismiss either or. So I stand in the overlap until one outweighs the other.

[@ronaldbuntrock9446]

Sorry, but objective morality is simply impossible. Let's consider an example. A husband is abusing his wife, while their young child looks on. The abuse begins verbally but gradually becomes more and more physical. And although the child attempts to intervene, all their efforts prove ineffective. The abuse is such that at some point the child fears for their mother's life, and so the child takes their father's gun from its hiding place and shoots and kills the father. Was this killing moral or immoral? If there's really such a thing as objective morality then there must be an objective point at which killing the father switches from being immoral to being moral. But what's that point, and how do we determine where it lies? The logical answer would seem to be that the threshold of morality lies at the point where the child is in fear for their mother's life. But that would make it subjective. It's completely dependent upon the opinion of the child. Someone else may have reached that threshold at a completely different point, if at all. Thus the threshold for morally killing the father lies within the subjective judgement of the observer. It's when they personally feel that it's morally justified. Objective morality is easy to define as long as you're vague enough, but when it comes down to specifics it's not objective at all, it's like pornography, you'll know it when you see it.

[@darcevader4146]

the problem I see with your analogy is that the objectively right answer can be determined should one be able to see the future if the child knows the father is going to kill the mother then it is objectively right to safe the mothers life if the child knows the father isn't going to kill the mother then it is objectively wrong for the child to kill the father the issue arises that how does the child know what is the right answer ? this wouldn't lead to the conclusion that there is no right answer this would be like me "it is going to rain here next Sunday" the statement is either objectively true or false but I can not know the answer until Sunday comes and even if I don't find out the answer that wouldn't make it subjective the problem with subjective moral is that if the father decided to kill the mother for fun, this would not be truly moral or immoral it would have the same moral weight as say "I prefer chocolate over vanilla" morality would just be reduced to personal preference

[@darcevader4146]

​@@landonstuyvesant3690 Yes certainly so I would believe that much like there is are physical laws of the universe that govern object in nature there are also a moral law that govern moral agents and tells them what to do though I believe we possess freewill so we can chose to go against the moral law this would require the rejection of materialism as something would be needed to transcend space,time,and matter yet be equally real so my main argument for this moral law would be from sense data we percieve certain actions as be moral or immoral we would never say “I prefer not to rape people but who am I to tell people otherwise” we would all perceive intuitively that rapping a 10 year old is not just a preference but something truly immoral and it would be absurd to suggest otherwise, much like how I perceive the external world through sense data although it could be the case that the external world doesn't exist and is just a product of my mind it wouldn't be the best explanation of reality to say the external world doesn't exist in the same way it is not the best explanation of reality to say moral truths don't exist of course one could say why are there moral differences across culture ? But I think this is a weak objection because sometime our sense play tricks on us we can have dreams that feel so real that we think they are real until we wake up . Yet we don't seem to think that reality is an illusion because of this, And it would be absurd to suggest otherwise. So much like we believe that the physical world exist to avoid the absurd,we also believe that moral truths exist to avoid the absurd and come up with the best explanation for reality that being that moral truth exist

[@ronaldbuntrock9446]

@@darcevader4146, but alas, the child has no way of knowing if the father would have actually killed the mother. And oddly enough, according to Christian doctrine, not even God knows whether the father would have killed the mother. So it would seem, that lacking the counterfactual, the only standard by which we can judge the morality of the child's action is by their intent. Did the child intend to save the mother's life? And would it have been immoral for the child not to kill the father? If morality is objective, then it must have been one or the other, they couldn't both be morally justifiable actions. This all raises an interesting moral dilemma, is it even morally justifiable to kill one person, simply to save another? History is full of morally justified killings, or at least the perpetrators would have us believe that they were.

[@darcevader4146]

@@ronaldbuntrock9446 I think your viewing objective morality as being a rule book and therefore lead to the conclusion that it is going to be a difficult rule if not an impossible rule to write down but if we view morality as being a set of principle,rights etc it is easy to write down 1. a person has a right to life,liberty,etc so long as they don't violate the rights of others then we can use situational ethic to apply them to certain circumstances like the one above, be unable to see the future would not change such a moral truth all it would mean is that it's just harder for someone to see the move that would lead to the right outcome finally you should research Christianity more the christian view is that God the father can see the end from the beginning

[@ronaldbuntrock9446]

@@darcevader4146 you seem to have reached the same conclusion that I have, that there's no such thing as objective morality...a definitive, black and white, always identifiable distinction between right and wrong. There's no such thing. Under general circumstances most people will probably agree with your definition, but when we get down to the specifics, as in the given example, that definition breaks down, and your black and white view of morality becomes extremely grey. There's simply no specific point at which killing the father becomes immoral, apart from the child's intent. It's the child's subjective judgment that determines the morality of the act. P.S. I believe that it's you who misunderstands Christianity. While it's true that the Christian God can see the end from the beginning, and He can even know all the things that COULD'VE happened, but in the case of free agents, God can't possibly know what WOULD'VE happened. God can't possibly know what the father would've done if the child hadn't killed him. Thus not even God can know if the father would've actually killed the mother, because the father never got the chance to make that choice. God can't know the outcome of a choice that a free agent never made. If He could, then free will would be an illusion.

[@rpruneau68]

The apathy argument is weak and a strong disagreement point for myself. There is a difference between identifying a Moral difference between societies based on culture, generation, or other influences; and accepting it as being a MORAL truth for yourself. Hence why it is a SUBJECTIVE TRUTH.

[@lunab4788]

I disagree with moral relativism for much the same reasons as John does at 8:55. My own conclusion was to embrace moral skepticism. The problem then becomes, if you reject morality what replaces it? So many of the concepts of our society are founded upon a moral basis. Replacing that in a way that does not invite instability can be difficult. A lot of moral skeptics I have found continue to make use of morality, whether by continuing to act as if morality were true or treating it as a useful fiction. The idea of blending of objective and relative morality is interesting to me and I do think provides a more stable grounding for how one might define even if not an objective morality, then at least a unified structure for how one might conceptualize human values. I personally can see practical problems in tying one's view to either of the two extremes. I know I'm a moral nihilist, so I'm one to talk on extremes :-) But in all honesty, I feel my position is in some ways a middle ground. -M

[@goranmilic442]

It's enough that we find one moral issue where we can be certain it's objectively true, so that we could conclude objective morality exists.

[@lunab4788]

​@@goranmilic442 I can find a number of values that are near universal among humans, many of which I agree with. But I personally don't think that universality implies objectivity. You do make an interesting point though, about only needing one. I agree. -M

[@VIKASHKumar-xp7jj]

hey can you give insight on :_ Moral Relativism : There is no moral absolute

[@lunab4788]

​@@VIKASHKumar-xp7jj What type of insight? I feel moral relativism is sort of a loosening of objective morality. You say well, there are things that are moral, but what things there are, based on context, kind of depends. Problem with this I have is that while it allows people the flexibility to define adaptive moral standards, which can aid in navigating situations, it often still leaves them with the moral justifications more characteristic of moral objectivity. So that is, people may say less of "what you're doing is wrong" but they may say more of "who are we to judge." These are both moral judgements, just structured in a different way. -M

[@veggyburger2844]

Thank you Luna

[@treylearns634]

These videos are amazing and easy to watch. Excellent work.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed.

[@wouldbfarmer2227]

The only absolute stand I take is that everything is absolutely gray.

[@lopinitupou4626]

We disagree because of sin.

[@Dandeeman26]

Fair points. I'm definitely in a moral absolutist camp. One that believes in a religion has to be. Though the moral choice on certain issues may be different in different circumstances.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

do u think every situation has an objectively moral answer?

[@willywonka6948]

10:45 I disagree with this counterpoint. To refresh, it's saying that if two people see something and disagree about whether it's moral or not, and if they are both right, there is a contradiction. However, if those same people are eating food and one of them says that it's good and the other says that it's bad, they are both right and there's no contradiction. I think it's very much possible that morality is similar. Personally, I'm new to the philosophy of ethics, but, I agree with moral relativism in a sense. I don't believe that there's an objective moral system. Like, most people would agree that cold-blooded murder is wrong. But, why? Can anybody back this argument up using only logic or objective criteria? I think morality is dependent on subjective feelings and empathy. Of course, if God exists, then there would be an objective sense of morality. But, if God doesn't exist, then how could any aspect of morality be objective?

[@dahir4389]

Thats why objective morality and God are tied together.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

@@dahir4389God doesn’t help objective morality. why should u follow god? because you’ll go to hell? why shouldn’t u go to hell? these questions are impossible to answer objectively and rely on subjective perception

[@arniedamaniac6206]

How can god help the argument

[@arniedamaniac6206]

if gods existence could explain objective morality and it is possible. then even without god this theoretical objective morality would still exist but be undisccoverable for now

[@wilurbean]

I really wish someone would address the natural commonalities between societies and cultures. Relativism will say, "look at all these cultures doing different things that are moral/immoral in other cultures!". For example my textbook said that Inuit people will kill off babies to survive the winter if resources are short. They put them out on an ice flow. Therefore they find infanticide moral. Comparing to the West where infanticide is reprehensible. However moral objectivists might respond that all cultures are finding different ways to preserve the most human life. Doing what it takes to sustain the most human life is pervasive in ALL cultures and peoples. Anyone who would disagree that life is valuable would not survive long. Surely putting an infant out on the ice is something acceptable if only as a last resort. Cannibalisms is an even better use of the flesh however it isn't practiced. Why? Because they know that its an act of desperation and last resort and are trying minimize the immorality of the act. There are at least some things like this, some moralities that *must* arise as a result of the human condition. I would love to here a rebuttal to this.

[@VIKASHKumar-xp7jj]

hey can you give insight on :_ Moral Relativism : There is no moral absolute

[@Onedimensional4141]

I agree with this. Are you familiar with moral foundations theory from The Righteous Mind? According to this theory the moralities that must arise are care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. Everyone has these six moral foundations but different groups of people fill them in differently. Conservatives tend to use all six foundations more or less equally and liberals rely primarily on care/harm and also some fairness/cheating but to a much lesser extent the other ones.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

@@VIKASHKumar-xp7jjwhat do u mean insight

[@mlester3001]

Morality and ethics depends on one's hierarchy of values within one's world view. Even cold blooded murder is not wrong in all culturally defined world views. For example, in Islam, to murder a non Islamic person is considered "good". So what is considered "moral" is simply whether is supports or undermines what is one's culturally or religiously defined world view and the value hierarchy it defines. That said, I personally believe that there is another and separate source of knowledge of right and wrong that originates not in one's culture but rather in one's DNA and genes that was put there by eons of time of development and evolution within the Earth's biosphere and this is the true source of morality and the sense of right and wrong. Because we all share this heritage, that is why there is so much similarity within our species despite coming from different cultures.

[@ETERNVLLVLLVBY]

Murder is merely a term created by society to describe the unlawful killing of another human being. Killing is neither right nor wrong. Morals are relative. If there were no people in the world to care about morals, then morals would not exist. We're just like animals. The only difference is us humans tend to think of ourselves as "better" than animals merely because we're able to articulate our feelings into words. There is no 'better' or 'worse' or 'should' or 'shouldn't' in the realm of objectivity. Animals are just as sentient as humans are in that they can feel emotions and care for other animals and people. However, they still kill. The death of a human is no more tragic than the death of an animal. We merely consider it more tragic because of the bias that humans consider themselves as superior. Another thing we can look at is how we even call things artificial when we create them, as if we're not from nature ourselves. Technology comes from humans and humans come from nature, therefor technology is a product of nature. There is nothing unnatural about humans or their creations. We. Are. Animals. Things like morals, laws, justice, and all that other jazz? Entirely subjective. There is no universal moral that everyone can agree on. Even the golden rule of "treat others how you wish to be treated" can be thrown out the window when you take masochistic sadists into consideration. Surveys and statistics prove nothing. The majority can agree with anything but that will never turn opinions into facts. Value, love, hate, importance, etc. It's all in the eye of the beholder and there's nothing you can do to change that. Even assuming God exists, he's merely passing his subjective judgement onto humans and claiming it to be righteous merely because he considers himself superior due to having created the universe but creating the universe doesn't make your opinions objective. It just means you hold all the power. There is nothing here you can refute, try as you might. Morals are biased and relative to culture and empathy varies between individuals as well. Sure, I have my own morals too but I'm not going to get all egotistical and claim that I know what's truly right or wrong. My morals are just as subjective as anyone else's. No one and I mean NO ONE knows what's truly right or wrong. As far as objectivity is concerned, right and wrong are entirely fluid subjective constructs. If there really is a list of truly objective morals somewhere out there, we humans will never know if it's factual or not. EVER.

[@francis_castiglion3]

We will never know? So you don't think moral relativism and moral objectivism overlap?

[@grantstratton2239]

As the video says, I think we can observe the results of most actions and conclude whether their results are favorable or unfavorable, and can talk about why that is. Pretending actions don't have consequences is a pretty anti-science take to life and moral reasoning. I think we can disagree on what our goals are, but as people have the experience of obtaining those goals, they can say whether or not the consequences associated with achieving them were worth the price that was paid. For example, when you poll people at the end of their lives what made their life most fulfilling, the answer tends to be overwhelmingly the quality of their relationships with their family and friends. Although one could base a moral system around the attainment of wealth or fame, for example, most people's experience says those are ultimately empty goals when viewed from the perspective of the end of life. (And polls about subjective happiness begin to plateau at all ages after attaining a middle class income). Moral reasoning is hard because we can't pass on the direct experience of having achieved goals having paid a certain cost, and all of us are attracted in some ways to things we ultimately decide are bad for us overall (it takes a lot of paying the price for many drug addicts to come to the conclusion it isn't worth it, for example). Also people's relative experience of pain or pleasure given the same stimuli can differ. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't say "these morals are better than those morals because they tend to create greater peace, happiness, and fulfillment in society than those set of morals, and we can back that up with data."

[@arniedamaniac6206]

That doesn’t mean objectively morality can’t exists. it just means we need prerequisite assumptions that are themselves subjective. we can get objective from subjectivity

[@BlueB-bx6nh]

I had to stop midway reading your long post , and although I do agree with some of what you said you seem to make the point of wanting to reduce the human state to a complete animalistic state and hence no laws of decency or morality would make sense if we are just equating humans to animals in the wild . You need to understand that morality , however you wish to define is one of the few paradigms that truly separates us from wild animals . Animals in the wild are not absurdly wild as some might claim . They are bound by survivalist instincts and other laws that might even depict them as not completely unhinged. In simpler words, we are not entirely wild animals, and as I just wrote , even wild animals are governed by some laws . We most happen to also make our own laws and morality should be at the center of those laws . See, morality helps us not stray all the way down or up or sideways 😅to our pure animalistic instincts. Do we have the capacity to go there ? Absolutely!!! Please , be careful not to experiment with that 😅 If the open the zoo gate to the chimps , then the chimps will act as chimps . So please don’t do that unless it is Halloween 👻 Have a gooooood night ! Oh! Side note . I happen to find purple to be a morose color . I prefer happy colors 😊 ❤

[@marcpadilla1094]

Depends on how dangerous it is. The paradox between life,death,safety,and risk. Master and slave morality is a good example of moral objectivity and moral relativism as a whole. It only works in the pursuit of progress when it is wholly liberated from one another. One reinforces the other. Morality is a good thing as a safety net when too much of a good thing gets dangerous.

[@degenerate82]

Morality is a science, and it is 100% objective. If it were subjective, what could be right today could be wrong tomorrow. Whoever thinks that is possible is attempting to play God.

[@mlester3001]

I like the format and the content produced in this video. Very enlightening.

[@Mia_00089]

Probably something we can see in moral relativism like faith but others we cant

[@Azariy0]

8:17 As a moral relativist I disagree that those acts should have been or should be tolerated. In fact, this whole notion of tolerance is only half true to me. Of course, there are things that can't be tolerated. Just because there are no objective moral truths doesn't mean that I can't fight for my (subjective) moral truth. In short, the strongest person wins - that's always how morals changed in society. 8:42 Personally, I would choose the side according to my subjective morality. Both cultures are equally true, so it's just a matter of preference. 9:15 I agree with this argument. Instead of focusing solely on culture, I believe that culture is just one of the factors that goes into shaping one's morals. Every person's morals are different, so each person has their subjective truths. 10:37 This argument presents a wrong example that already assumes that there is an objective truth out there. A better example would be: "This salad is disgusting!" And "This salad is delicious!" 11:41 The problem I have with this argument is that these truths are not truly objective. They are just popular. So, basically, if I start killing people, I'm going to be "objectively" evil only because that's a very popular opinion. In my opinion, morals exist only because of our emotions and tendencies. Because that's how we evolved. We have no right to claim that the way we evolved is correct, that almost sounds like racism. (Joke) The fact is, morals cannot exist without emotions. A robot without emotions will never help a human, and we have no way to prove that the robot is wrong.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

True but certain actions are more than just preference and have objective more suffering to them

[@Azariy0]

@@arniedamaniac6206 Yes, but though it may be objective that some actions cause more suffering than others, the decision to do something about that suffering is subjective. There are a bunch of ways to deal with the existence of suffering - none of them objectively better than each other. Utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, even egoism or hedonism.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

@@Azariy0 yeah there’s no objective way to deal with suffering because even the perception of suffering is different to people. even if you had the perfect ethics theory to prevent the most suffering which is ultimately the goal. diferent people determine what is more sufferable. how can we dertemrnine what is the objectively more sufferable option. And even if we do why is one’s opinion of the most sufferable option less valid than the other. To me even if objective morality could exist it wouldn’t make sense how different perceptions of suffering could entail one being more valid and truthful of the suffering and one being less valid. they’re subjective opinions at the end of the day no matter how strong they are and we can’t treat them objectively. it’s like saying someone who thinks chocolate is bad has a less valid opinion than someone else just because they’re in the minority.

[@lordofthegremlins]

Objectivism is just a scapegoat term for being absolutist

[@lordofthegremlins]

@@totalwater9431 exactly 💯

[@arniedamaniac6206]

@@lordofthegremlinsbro agreed with his own point

[@memenchance1747]

I have this question in my head can somebody help? Good and Evil is just a construct, like it's not really concrete. So If say, there are living beings who enjoy getting hurt or they enjoy dying then I think their morality would favor pain and death? Then my conclusion is morality is subjective or relative? What do you guys think? I'm just confused help.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

Exactly you can’t say they are objectively wrong with what they desire because objectively they do desire it. If person A likes pizza you can say objectively they think it is enjoyable. But you can never say objectively pizza is desirable as the very concept of desire only has meaning in a subjective context. Going outside the realm of desire and deciphering what is objectively desirable is meaningless. Desire, morality and all subjective experience only has truth in the subjective realm. in the objective realm it’s not that it’s false it’s just that it’s meaningless.

[@guitarizard]

You shouldn't use murder as murder is a crime. It's bad in our culture. You should use the word killing instead. Because in war we often justify killing. We sacrifice others in our own self-interest you remember the draft?

[@jasoncorrrigan1920]

You guys and perspective philosophy are guiding me to understand as many views as I can and the benefits and downsides :) thanks again you guys deserve more recognition

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you very much, happy we could help you on your philosophical journey :)

[@Ferkiwi]

I'd argue that the "objective moral truths" mentioned in the video are still not objective, but relative to the group of "all human beings of sound mind in the Universe". Our morals are always relativistic, even the ones that seem "universal" are limited by race, specie or state of being. If you wanted to make a truly universal morality you'd have to also include on it all possible conscious creatures, even non-humans, and even from outside our planet. Possibly, even non-conscious actions/beings could be susceptible to have morality. And we are in no possition to understand what is "good" for non-living beings. We can only know whats "good" for us, and those similar to us. So we can only discuss in relative terms.

[@ruirodrigues1971]

Some of the arguments of the Moral objectivism are not moral dilemas, but scientific facts...I think is there a little confusion. Of course, we can make the hipotesis that some moral are intrinsic to human species and that moral is then comum to all the individuals, but if this is in our instinct then is not a conscientious choice. For example, a mother dog protecting is child... Is this in the realm of moral? The Dog is doing some type of action based in Moral? or is only instinct? I can't see any situation that we have absolute moral, we can find any little twist that put some "imoral" act in a "moral" act...

[@CosmoShidan]

I have to ponder what a moral relativist would make of Peter Kropotkin's arguments for Ethical Naturalism.

[@G.Bfit.93]

It'd be nonsense. Kropotkin was based. Democracy is based. Freedom is based. Communism is based. The aforementioned three are inseperable.

[@Koyasi78]

The argument "ancient societies thought it was morally acceptable to sacrifice babies" is disingenuous and an over simplification. Taking the Aztecs for example. The priest class and elites practiced ritual sacrifice but that in no way means every citizen agreed the practice was moral. So was the practice in fact moral? Or forced upon the citizenry from the ruling class. Unless a civilization could be found where every citizen engaged in their own ritual sacrifice of their own free choice, like citizens today could organize a private football party, then it's difficult to support the chain of child sacrifice being morally accepted by the entire civilization. For comparison, even America's founding fathers understood the immorality of slavery knowing full well it should and would end and if not managed properly would be the death of the country. So the argument that because a nation engages in a particular behavior means that people believe the behavior is moral is also very difficult to support.

[@bladerunner3314]

Philosophy, the escape route for smort people with no arguments and a lot of wishful thinking.

[@bryanutility9609]

There’s no objective evidence for equality so there’s no reason to insist one culture isn’t better than another. Doesn’t mean morality is objective. Why is tolerance good?

[@notagiantseaslug5523]

Shit you young kids are so much more lost than people even understand. These comments are wild.

[@spiritsplice]

Trying to make morality into a truth claim is where most people go wrong. Morality is a group survival strategy. Truth claims do not involve morality. They are different spheres entirely. This misunderstanding gives rise to the of the idea of moral progress (which is itself founded on the false idea of evolution and linear time). To claim there could be a universal moral truth would require that morality be a feature of the universe (it clearly is not and cannot be found outside of the human mind). Some will try and point to god (monotheists actually try to say this with a straight face while their god breaks his own moral rules and orders his people to do the same), but this is an untestable hypothesis. If it were the case, wouldn't every person know this set of rules? if you make this claim, you end sounding like someone claiming that gravity is part of every objective, but only some objects act in accordance with it. It is completely illogical as a position. If you say, "ah, but objects don't have choice, while people do" you are in no better of a position because the people who have a choice don't know what the "correct" one is. We can see the immediate consequences of ignoring the law of gravity. We see no such consequences when people exhibit moral choices, even at odds with one another. The clown on the right just keeps arguing by assertion, and provides no examples or evidence to support his positions. "I'm pretty sure that...." No you aren't. You're assuming it because you have no idea what you are talking about. Murder, rape and torture are the norm in Africa for example. Objectivity is not determined by similarity, but by its differences. The differences are ALWAYS what define any category. We don't group humans and fruits together because both contain water. We separate them because of their differences. One thing he does get right is that leftist moral relativists are hypocrites because they have no moral standing to condemn any other groups moral standards: slavery, racism, infidelity, violence precisely because morality is relative. They can say that it is immoral in their group, but to say it is wrong for everyone contradicts their own position. He then contradicts his own position again when he claims that people within a culture can't agree on moral standards. That just further shows that even in a shared culture, morality is not objective. He is also leaving out that until very recently, most cultures would NOT have largely divergent viewpoints on what is moral. That is a product of modernity and the cancer of forced diversity, and exactly why it is such a bad idea. The two people having opposing moral views of a certain situation is not a contradiction and comparing it to rain is a false analogy. Whether it is raining or not is a testable and verifiable question. Whether X action is moral is not in any way testable or verifiable. That is the whole issue here. If morality is objective, where is this object? Where is this standard by which we can test our own moral perceptions against? Moral objectivists, who are mostly christians, are really just moral cowards, looking to offload moral responsibility onto some authority figure. They are terrified of having to make a moral decision for themselves and having to take responsibility for that choice. This is where the cowardice of salvation is rooted. It is really about getting some authority figure (government, god, police) to tell you what is proper and grant you absolution for obeying that authority. At the end of the video the relativist cucks and starts babbling about marxist BS about happiness and liberty. Plenty of things that make people happy are things he would condemn as immoral (molesting kids, rape, theft). This "debate" is badly written, badly narrated, and just pushing ideological nonsense under the guise of critical thinking.

[@mito88]

2:44 in ancient times, genocide, slavery, and infanticide were completely acceptable by those benefiting from it. victims of genocide/infanticide would completely reject their fate, if they could.

[@HansBezemer]

It's true that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - but that goes for the tooth fairy as well. On the other hand: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Furthermore, yes, there are many similarities between cultures - but often these rules *apply only to their own tribe.* They do not apply to members *outside* their tribe. E.g. killing a tribe member is forbidden, but killing a member of another tribe is ok - or even encouraged! See the Bible for some nice examples. And yes, "presentism" is a logical fallacy. And tell me: what is the moral foundation for forcing a Jew to refrain from eating kosher meat because it is considered bad to the environment and animal cruelty? Such act can only be performed if one claims moral superiority - which is pretty arrogant to begin with. Then we jump to a "false dichotomy" fallacy. Moral judgments are neither right nor wrong - in as much as it can rain just a bit, not just being dry and raining cats and dogs. There is a clear gradient - otherwise everybody would either be found innocent or get life when tried. We have a solution for this dilemma, though. It's called "contractual ethics" aka "the law".

[@majidsheikh1509]

I disagree with your rain example @10:56, you are comparing here a fact with an abstract concept (morality)..

[@darcevader4146]

would natural laws like F=MA be an abstract concepts and if not then couldn't "killing innocents babies for fun= evil" also be just as real and true ?

[@goranmilic442]

@@darcevader4146 Yeah, if math is real, so can morality be true.

[@goranmilic442]

In a world A objective morality doesn't exist, it's just a useful illusion, in world B it does exists. In A we developed moral systems, in B we discovered it. Wouldn't both worlds look the same? Therefore, we cannot know.

[@darcevader4146]

@@goranmilic442 yes I would agree there is some degree of faith involved. but that should lead us to the conclusion that it doesn't exist, I'll use the matrix as an example, in a world A reality is a clever illusion to convince it's subject that it real but really everyone is just dreaming and hooked up to machine, world B reality is just objective and real wouldn't both of these world also look the same ? most philosopher would say reality is objective and real because it is a properly basic belief In philosophy a properly basic belief is a belief that is viewed as justified on the basis of experience or intuition or both. Such a belief is deemed properly basic and has no external, empirical justification. These beliefs cannot be proven, they are necessary in any world view and the existence of the external world is the best explanation of reality, and likewise objective moral can't be proved but it is the best explanation of reality also subjective morality seems to require some objective foundation to it too. because if morality is subjective then everything is morally permissible or as a famous satanist once said "do what thou wilt shall be the only law of the universe" the problem is these are objective statements about moral, and they are universal claims, both require some thing beyond materialism to explain there is also a pragmatic perspective if objective morality doesn't exist why follow it ? if there is nothing truly immoral about torturing babies for fun, then why not engage in such behavior, it would be impossible to live in any society without assuming the objective morality is real, meaning you end up following absurdism, and for what reason ? why would we assume that reality isn't objective ? same what evidence do you have that morality isn't objective ? I would argue based on all of this that the burden of proof would be on the skeptic to show that objective morality is false and not the other way around

[@goranmilic442]

@@darcevader4146 Agreed. Even those who claim objective morality isn't real, live their lives like it was real.

[@lopinitupou4626]

Then where did morality come from? If we and our cultures can love as we define love, where did we get that from?

[@CjqNslXUcM]

I think you failed to defend your (somewhat arbitrary, even for evolutionary ethics) axioms. Why should anyone subscribe to them?

[@77XTINA]

To believe there are absolute truths would imply that morals exist independently from humans, as we have not always been the same humans. Evolution has changed our species to the extent that we cannot say our early ancestors and modern humans are the same type of animal. So, if morals exist independently from humans, are these basic morals of, life, happiness, and freedom, universal laws that apply to all types of life? You may be inclined to say yes, but then you get into the nitty-gritty of 'context'; if killing or stealing is done in the name of survival, is it immoral?

[@91722854]

however, morals are still fundamentally subjective, what good or impact does insignificant human life, freedom and happiness, pain and suffering have on the cosmos? to the cosmos it's apathetic to all these humanly things, the universe care not if we trap another human being in a cage and torture them for their entire life, if the universe is of such significance to us humans for being the precedence of our human existence, then we are dependent on the universe for our species survival, and so morals are only applied to us humans but not across the cosmos, Saturn need no abide to our moral codes and morality has limited significance in the cosmos and so it's subjective by limitation

[@quakers200]

But can we even put any moral claim into practice let's look at something simple suffering. We are obligated tjo decrease rather than increase suffering. I will assume that this is true and that were not talking about spending every waking moment doing that but just when we make a choice of one thing over another that we chose the one that reduces or at least does not increase suffering. You see a child suffering from hunger. You are morally responsible to stop that suffering. Do you feed the child? What if the child has a food allergy that might kill it. Perhaps it is just the appearance of hunger but something else like immediate need of medial attention. Are you also morally obligated to find out how the child came to be hungry and to provide a long term solution to the hunger? What if hunger is just one of a host of things that will cause the child to suffer learning disabilities, poverty, racism. Is simply telling the next person you see that you just saw a child that tooks very hungry. We are morally obligated to tell the truth. Your neighbors are in a nasty divorce with a custody battle and you must testify now you know that it is nte children's best interest that the father gets custody. The mother cares not at all about the children. The whole neighborhood knows it but you did see the father strike his son one time in flustration . So do you tell the truth knowing the harm it will cause or lie, that. Causing less harm than telling the truth? Either way you are not following the moral thing to do. In other words when we try to put moral principals into action and two actions collided what does do. Are we obligated to give up summer vacations to feed the poor? If we don't know if what we try To do to help someone will make things better or worse are we still obligated to try?

[@johncollins211]

Is killing someone for absolutely no reason at all not even for the killers pleasure not a universal moral. Like even a hedonist would be confused as he didnt even do it for pleasure. So shouldnt it be wrong? Im sure theres individuals who would say its not immoral for whatever reason but theres no "culture" that would be ok with killing someone just because not even hedonist if it wasnt for pleasure.

[@williammcenaney1331]

What about the genetic fallacy, the idea that the true or falseness of a belief depends on how someone came to believe it?

[@thebelligerentbull]

We live in a dualistic reality so there cannot exist 1 absolute truth about anything. All truths are but half truths. The last argument presented is not about what is right or wrong but rather what is conducive to survival which is not relevant to the subject matter.

[@xBROVERTUREx]

Great content, but I find the concept of this one dude tryna voice two different made up characters is weird, bros not a voice actor 😂😂

[@Victor-oy8bj]

yes, bc galileo was deemed wrong but he was "right" in the end. ppl can believe what they want, and it may be true even tho it seems false to everyone else

[@aapovirtanen9599]

Individual moral relativism certainly makes more sense than cultural moral relativism imo

[@JohnThomas]

Great video and great that you link to the script too. This is a deep subject, and there's a lot of territory left to cover when it comes to the metaethics, but as an overview and a summary of some key arguments, this is first rate! Well done!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you!

[@GSpotter63]

“But what gives God the right to judge me?” Objective and Subjective moral standards and God? Let me propose a more refined definition of Objective and Subjective standards. Something is Subjective if its existence is dependent on consciousness because without consciousness nothing can be Subjective. Something is Objective if its existence is independent of consciousness and only in so far as it could continue even if all consciousness in the universe were eliminated. AKA 1 plus 1 would still equal two regardless if there is anybody around to know it. Now if we think of God as consciousness, as most definitions of God do. Then the morality that comes from that consciousness, according to the definition that I have just set out, would also be just as Subjective as any morality that any man could construct. If this is correct, the question we must now ask is. Does God not have the right to impose his moral standards on his own creation? And if so, does that not make those standards Objective rather than Subjective in that creation? If those Subjective morals are built into this creation, then would not that in itself, make those Subjective morals Objective in and to all that are part of this universe? To explain farther, let’s use a video game as a parallel. A programmer can build into his game world any morality he chooses. The NPCs (non player character) in the game (AKA you and me) are locked into its built-in moral system as well as the consequences for breaking that system. Because the NPC’s are part of the game world itself they also are subject to the rules of that game world including any morals built into it. As a programmer do you not have the right to make the rules (morals) for your own game? Are you then not allowed to impose your rules (morals) on the NPC’s in your game? If you give the NPC’s randomized adaptable IA (free will) and they refuse to accept and live by your rules while in your game do you not have the right and responsibility then to force them to do so (change their code) or remove them from your game (delete them) especially if they are doing things that could crash the game? The fact that this is God's universe (game), one that he made and owns justifies his absolute, universal morality here. It must be pointed out that we are his creation, we live in and are part of his universe (game) itself, therefore we are then subject to his rules (morals) while in his universe (game). If one does not like God’s rules (morals) and refuse to live by them, they should not be surprised by their difficulties when they find themselves bumping into those built in morals and realities that they refuse to accept. That said, God did give us free will to do as we please while in his universe. Sure God gave us instruction on how this universe works best. What set of rules (morals) to follow that would reduce pain and suffering to a minimum. But one can chose to ignore those instructions and do things his/her own way if that is what one insist. And we all get to suffer the consequences of each other's chosen actions wile in this universe. This, of course all rests on whether or not God exists. But that is a question for another time. P.S. Some try to postulate that because the morals of God are subjective rather than objective that he then does not exist, or that because mankind can make a set of his own Subjective morals that God and his morals then do not exist. These arguments of course would both be a very big and obvious non sequitur. Having the ability to construct your own morals simply has nothing to do with whether or not God and his morals exist.

[@cadewoolf4380]

I like what you are saying- I would actually hypothesize that God Himself has to abide by natural law as well. What you proposed basically agrees with moral relativism at a universal level and the objectivity comes from God deciding what’s the rules of the game are. I would suggest that there are natural laws that transcend our universe. God knows these laws and He teaches us what they are because He knows they will make us happy and better. That is my theory at least. God didn’t male His own special rules for us. I don’t think God would or even could create a universe in which murder is justified and morally upstanding. Idk I feel like I’m an idiot trying to explain this lol but your comment was so interesting I wanted to chip in

[@GSpotter63]

@@cadewoolf4380 I agree that there are certain laws that even God has to follow... They are mostly logical inconsistency... Like God can't make a married bachelor or a square circle or a rocks so big he can't lift it... As for the physical laws here in this universe they are not of the same type... Like a cheat code in a game the programmer (God) is not bound by the rules he made, he can change them anytime he wants. We the NPC's cannot. Sorry for the bad grammar, doing this on my phone...

[@VIKASHKumar-xp7jj]

hey can you give insight on :_ Moral Relativism : There is no moral absolute

[@patfar392]

He’s confusing agreeing with facts with facts

[@MC-yp7zi]

Are whole society is based on relative morality and that’s why everyone is being divided and conquered

[@realtimeprivacy5085]

What are the absolute bare minimum requirements for a species (primarily humans) to thrive mentally and physically independently yet collectively? Morality. Got some?

[@oatesi]

Despite your points about there being moral truths e.g. murder, rape etc, those are still just your opinion on the general attitude modern people have towards said things. Additionally you countered this exact point multiple times throughout the video when you mentioned cultural and historical moral frame works. You could have pointed to darwinism and how our natural instincts are the foundation of what direction our morals develop in, you could even point to maslow's pyramid of needs and some developmental psychology to flush it out. However and this is a big one, everything is causality all thoughts actions, feelings ect are predetermined and a result of prior happenstance.

[@AndyAlegria]

Determinism is an entirely separate topic and does not affect the existence or lack of objective moral truth.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

@@AndyAlegrianot necessarily. if the universe is deterministic morality objective or not is simply meaningless

[@AndyAlegria]

@@arniedamaniac6206 If morality exists, objective or subjective, morality would be part of the deterministic formula, so it is not meaningless.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

@@AndyAlegria If we don’t judge clinically insane people for their actions the same way we do normal people then if no one has control of their actions or consequences then surely that would mean that we have no control of commotion moral/immoral actions. it’s beyond our control (assuming free will is false and that’s an assertion only if determinism is true)

[@AndyAlegria]

@@arniedamaniac6206 I could be wrong but a believe morality is a judgement of intent and/or outcome. Whether or not you have control over your actions (determinism) doesn't change the judgement of whether your intent or the outcome are negative. If I had no choice to but to kill my neighbor for no good reason, especially if my intent was to NOT kill my neighbor, then it might be determined that my intent was moral but the outcome of my action was still immoral. If I announce that I WANT to kill my neighbor but determinism prevents me from doing it, my intent is still judged immoral. It is incredibly difficult to prove intent unless I've documented it somewhere in writing, video, etc. but the outcome is easy to prove. And even if someone controlled my mind and made me kill my neighbor, the outcome is still considered immoral, despite my lack of intent to do it. If a tree randomly collapses on a person and they had no way to avoid it, that's essentially determinism, but their death is still considered a wrong. Right?

[@AndarilhoMarco]

I know the video is 3 years long but I had to say there is evidence of objective moral truths in legal codes.

[@eggheadusa]

What would they be?

[@mikealley5902]

You forgot to talk about subjective moral, which is not relative or objective, it’s just based on your egotistical point of view, the bigger ego, the more right you have against other people.

[@kingsleyking525]

Great video as always! I really enjoyed seeing both sides of this topic. Thanks guys :) QUESTION regarding the last part of the video: obviously, I agree that the preservation of human life and elimination of pain and suffering are good. BUT these are objectively good... according to who? Why are they objectively good? What objective standard outside of humanity is there to say that something is objectively good or bad? Because if there's no standard outside of humanity, then it's still only OUR opinion that preservation of human life is good. If a man like Stalin has the power to harm others and take their stuff for himself, why is he wrong? "Oh, because that's not good for the survival of the human race as a whole." BUT why should he care about the survival of human race?? It's just our opinion versus his opinion... UNLESS, the survival of human race is not just our opinion, but it's objectively good. If is it objectively good, then what objective basis is there to explain this fact? Evolution? Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. Evolution only describes what survives, NOT what ought to survive. In naturalistic evolution without any intelligence and design, there is no literally no objective purpose and intention for the survival of human race. The survival of human race is purely an accidental by-product of the blind forces of nature. Since there's no objective purpose for the survival of the human race, it would be JUST our opinion now when we say that the human race ought to survive. If that were the case, then we can't say Stalin or Hitler were objectively wrong. It's just our society's/culture's subjective opinion against their subjective opinion. HOWEVER, honest in your heart, you KNOW what Stalin did or what happened in the Holocaust is objectively wrong (for all people at all times). Therefore, there must be a source of morality beyond humanity, beyond just our opinion. What could this source be? I SINCERELY want to hear YOUR thoughts (Philosophy Vibe guys or anyone else). Thanks! Much love. - Kings

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Hello Kingsley, glad you liked the video, and you have raised some excellent points. I understand what you mean about objectivity outside of humanity. If there is no God in the equation this gets very difficult to explain. As always this can be a very in-depth debate. From my perspective Quasi Realism best addresses our "objective morality", something is "objectively" good for humanity, is only true for humanity and not on a grander scale. It functions like a fake truth in way. So if we bring this back to the is-ought problem, "if you want humanity to survive and be happy then you ought not to kill and torture you fellow man".

[@VIKASHKumar-xp7jj]

hey can you give insight on :_ Moral Relativism : There is no moral absolute

[@owlobsidian6965]

I agree. From a purely materialistic and scientific point of view all things are without meaning and accidental. In my opinion only the concept of God, gods, or spirituality can give any objective meaning to morality. But then that raises the problem that such concepts can not be proven in an empirical way. I see it almost as a sliding scale. The more empirical you get, the less meaning you can ascribe to the world. The more meaning, the less empirical evidence. I feel we only have a choice between nihilism and faith. ""if you want humanity to survive and be happy then you ought not to kill and torture you fellow man"." I have always found this type of argument to be rather weak. Given an abundant population one could destroy and harm numerous individuals without causing harm to the human species as a whole. This is proven by the fact that historically there have been times of great violence and yet humanity survives. Also, it makes the assumption that we must care for all of humanity, that we must see it as a homogenous whole. What stops us from behaving morally towards those of our own group, but not to those outside of it?

[@HansBezemer]

Hume once stated "That one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is" - which IMHO killed every hope of ever finding a objective morality. Second, Stephen Toulmin observed that nature is "amoral" (which is quite different from the concept "immoral"). If such is the case, there is no objective morality to be found in nature. As you stated: "Evolution only describes what survives, *NOT* what ought to survive". On the other hand, we find some form of morality within different groups of social mammals (although those morals differ as well). One might conclude it is an emergent quality of these groups, which in itself seems to be in some way, shape or form beneficial to these species. And I'm afraid it ends right there.

[@Mxda14]

Hey guys great video I liked the arguments proposed here! I would like to ask a question/ propose an argument to which anyone can reply, to what is said at 12:15 regarding Cold blooded murder as being wrong. Couldn't one who believes that life is suffering say that murder is infact justifiable and true elimination of pain? And in addition to that who is to say that the promotion of life and elimination of pain is the ultimate goal of humanity?

[@scoogsy]

Very good analysis. I would say two things in response: - very controversial to say life is defined as suffering. Heavy burden of proof - cold blooded murder typically impacts more than the person being murdered (family/friends/those they provided care for etc.) Those would be my arguments against cold blooded murder being justified.

[@VIKASHKumar-xp7jj]

hey can you give insight on :_ Moral Relativism : There is no moral absolute

[@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714]

I suggest reading Doestievsky as I think it's very relevant to the issue you raised.

[@reflecta2000]

It wouldn’t be cold blooded murder then, since the murderer would be killing for empathetic reasons.

[@reflecta2000]

The second question is very interesting, and you will find some answers on pain and suffering reading Nietzsche, who argued that society has been continuously making mankind suffer by sacrificing individuality.

[@scoogsy]

Another great video. Love the format. Thank you!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're very welcome, glad you enjoyed.

[@joestar6194]

Doaism figured this out thousands of years ago and much more.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

This video highlights a common false dichotomy people use in discussing either objective morality, or subjective morality (relativism). However, before I make my point about objective morality or subjective of morality (relativism), I also want to point out a flaw in the conclusion of this video. The problem with the conclusion of this video is that while it's correct in saying that there's a blend between objective and subjective morality, it's incorrect In pointing to suffering or well-being to justify that conclusion. Why? Because our observations of the world, whether it is suffering or well-being, only tells us what is, *not what ought to be.* Therefore, this video is committing the Is-Ought fallacy. You cannot point to suffering or well-being to conclude it is an objective moral fact, and that means you would have to go by something beyond what can be physically observed, *pointing to God.* ________ With that said, I would also like to give my thoughts concerning the false dichotomy the video is explaining between subjective and objective morality. That is incorrect. The claim that objective morality exists is *not* the claim that subject and reality *doesn't* exist. Why? Because it doesn't deny that people have disagreements. When one says an objective morality exists, they're saying that there's an objective level to morality even though subjective morality *also exists.* This means pointing to the disagreement amongst people does not strengthen the conclusion that ONLY subjective morality exists. It does not follow. What also can explain that people disagree is *because* objective morality exists, because that would imply humans are not the source, and that would also explain why people disagree at times. It would mean people have imperfect knowledge of something they are not the direct source of. If one were to argue that if objective morality were to exist, everyone would be in agreement, that claim would have to be demonstrated. Why? Because logic itself *objectively* exists, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees logically. So is logic objective or subjective? The answer is, *IT'S BOTH,* not one or the other. This best explains why we imply the existence of objective morality through our moral judgments and don't always agree due to not being the source of that morality, and this implies our genuine belief in ethics which must first assume value come a purpose, meaning, right and wrong, etc, and to show genuine belief in something is to treat something as objectively real or true. Otherwise, it is a delusion by definition to have genuine belief in a non-existent thing or concept. Therefore, our behavior points to objective morality, and therefore objective morality best explains the world we live in. As a result of objective morality, this implies a Transcendent Moral Law Exists, and this implies a Transcendent Moral Law Giver, God. Therefore, God exists.

[@trick7039]

I really like how you worded all of this. But your conclusion is unsubstantiated and doesnt follow from your premises. I'd consider myself a moral relativist but I do see some moral positions as being objectively true across all cultures; for example murder. I would argue that objective morality can be deduced by multiple means. For one, objective morality does work side by side with relative morality, as you described perfectly. So by creating a consensus of relative morality, we can create an objective standard for which all humans agree. And for two, it is objectively true that, let's say murdering someone reduces the ability for society to function as intended. So it would be an evolutionarily selected position to hold. Those that desire to harm others would be exiled from participating in society because they harm the general flow of how they want to live. This would result in the only people that are left to participate in society and reproduce with other individuals as people with like-minded moral opinions. Third, you can obviously appeal to God as a moral law giver. But this is an unfalsifiable claim. It's unsubstantiated especially when you see there are alternatives to objective truths. So sure, it could be true as well as the other two options together. But we have no reason to assume that this God exists. We can only say it's a possibility while the other two examples of objective morality are observable phenomenon that work in tandem. Hope that made sense.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@trick7039 By arguing for a consensus in creating an objective standard to achieve that relative moral goal, this would be an equivocation fallacy. It's still ultimately implies that only subjective morality exists but that once a subjective moral is established, there are objective means of obtaining that subjective goal. This is not objective morality, this is only an objective means of obtaining a subject of goal. It's an equivocation of the term "objective". It is true that objectively speaking, murdering reduces the ability for society to function as intended, but if morality is ultimately subjective, the direct opposite of the conclusion that society should/ought to function is equally valid, and therefore there is no basis to make the conclusion, even if one can point to objective consequences. Therefore, it would seem to also be an appeal to consequences logical fallacy. People being exiled from society because of their crimes is also an appeal to consequences, as well as an appeal to force. When you're saying that God is a moral law giver is an unsubstantiated claim, it seems that you might be assuming that God is being presupposed. However, that is not how moral arguments for God are established. The argument first establishes that objective morality exists, and then from this conclusion has implications that lead back to God, and that means that if there are implications of objective morality, then this immediately follows that there are implications that God exists. Regarding logic, there are three laws of logic called The law of excluded middle, the law of identity, and the law of non-contradiction. To use the law of non-contradition for example, the way this law is established to exist is that while it is true that a person can theoretically or verbally deny it's existence, they are still implying it's existence practically, and because the law of non contradiction cannot be denied practically, it therefore justifies and establishes the law of non-contradiction. Likewise, a person with a moral position can verbally deny the existence of objective morality, but holding and then enforcing, sacrificing for, investing in these moral positions implies a contradiction to the denial of objective morality. This requires an explanation of its own, so I'll try to put that information in a second post to explain.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@trick7039 There's another thing to point out regarding moral beliefs. There's a difference between one's theoretical beliefs and one's practical beliefs. A person's theoretical belief is what one states verbally what he believes. A person's practical beliefs is what one lives out. Whatever a person lives out is what one truly believes, even if one claims not to believe in it. For example, if two people stood at the edge of a cliff and one person said that there is no cliff in front of them, the other person would then ask him to take a few steps forward if he believes this. If the one claiming this to be his belief begins to respond by saying "I have nothing to prove", or "I don't feel like it/I don't want to", then the behaviors will imply a contradictory belief to what is claimed to be believed. The question is, can a person believe that he believes something that he may not believe practically? It would seem so. There is also such a thing as subconscious beliefs where a person may claim a certain belief but live out an alternative and yet not realize they do hold such a belief For example, a person may claim that he believes in subjective morality and not objective morality. If one sacrifices or invests himself in a moral cause, to cry out for justice, protest for a cause, build shelters for battered women, fight for human rights, go to war for the freedom of others or sacrifice ones life for the preservation of another's, then he is expressing genuine belief in these moral positions as if what is considered to only be moral concepts exists as an objective fact or truth rather than only inventions of the human mind, and this practical belief implies objective morality exists. Another example to make the point more clear, if one believes that a person does not have any innate or intrinsic value but his value is only a concept of the human mind, and yet one is willing to lay down his life for another who also does not have any objective value (beyond the human mind), then one is willing to die based off of an idea that he knowingly made in his mind, but if a person is going to die based on that value anyway, then there's a genuine belief being expressed in what is claim to only be invented in the human mind, and this behavior is contradictory to the claim that the value is only subjective. This also applies to moral positions. If perhaps a Muslim might crash a plane into the twin towers based on his belief, the fact that he's willing to die for it implies that his belief in it is genuine. Likewise, to die for someone based on the idea that they are valuable expresses genuine belief that the value that the person has objectively exists. One may not have to verbally admit it, the action implies it. This is largely how humans behave no matter what belief one holds, so even if one expresses a theoretical belief in only subjective value, practically speaking, one believes in the existence of objective value, even if one does not verbally claim or acknowledge it. This is why it doesn't really seem to make sense to try to prove the existence of something a person already believes exists. One simply needs to acknowledge that belief he already has.

[@trick7039]

​@@Bi0Dr01d Let's take a step back and define terms before we begin again. When I say objective, what I mean is something is right or wrong in all places, at all times. Is this also your definition of objective or do you use it differently? When I said coming to the conclusion of God from your first post was unsubstantiated, it was an appeal to the moral argument for the existence of God as a whole. However, the easiest way to represent this is with the actual morality argument for God in step by step premises. If this is not the grounding on which your argument is based, I need you to explain it in more detail and why this argument is not adequate to represent yours. I am attempting to steelman this as best as I can. 1) People recognize that *some* universal morals exist (The distinction between right and wrong actions). 2) Every time that we recognize this fact, we appeal to a higher standard or law that transcends us. 3) If this moral law transcends us and all people recognize these morals, it is objective. 4) Every law requires a lawmaker. 5) So if objective morality exists, it requires an objective moral lawmaker 6) That objective moral lawmaker has to transcend people. 7) God transcends people. 8) Therefore, objective moral laws came from God and God exists. I'd also like if you could answer this question. By what standard does God create objective morals? If God is the grounding for the objectivity, then morals are based off of a subjective opinion, simply of a higher deity, thereby being subjective in nature. To be objective, they would have to transcend God himself; which would indicate that God is subservient to something higher than himself. So is this the case? Onto the actual response now: I don't think you used the equivocation fallacy correctly here. When I used the term objective, I used it to mean something is right or wrong in all places, at all times. But does this mean that objective moral values transcend time itself and are correct at all times forever? Or does it simply begin at the point of inception? At what point does something begin to be objectively moral/immoral? What I was attempting to represent is that I believe that objective morality has a starting point in either scenario, whether nature selected for it, God created it, or man did it. So I see nothing wrong with the idea that objectivity logically follows from subjectivity. Without the ability of the lawmaker to have subjective opinions, there could never be a time where the lawmaker produces an objective law. And in terms of natural selection, before social species existed, the concept of subjective or objective morality was simply was not applicable. So the instant that social species began working together, they then had a subjective point of reference to base how they treat one another. In order to continue as a social species, it is objectively true that they have to work together. Any individual that fails to fulfill that obligation, holds back the progress of the social species. So by the species only supporting those in the pack that work toward the subjective goal of wanting higher well-being, those that work against that would not have the opportunity to reproduce. This indicates an objective standard from subjective selection. If the social species supported unsustainable actions such as murder and abuse, they wouldn't be capable of surviving as a species. Therefore, it is objectively the case that supporting only individuals in the population that work toward the goal of increasing well-being is sustainable and can be used as a position of objective morality because without that standard, it is unsustainable. When you use the appeal to consequences fallacy, I interpret it as something that must be true or acceptable because if it were not true or acceptable there would be negative consequences. When you use the appeal to force fallacy, I interpret it as a rhetorical fallacy that relies on force or intimidation (scare tactics) to persuade an audience to accept a proposition or take a particular course of action. As for your point about the appeal to consequences fallacy, it also does not apply to how you are using it in this scenario. Murder is objectively harmful to a social species as it prevents them from functioning as a social species. It is not objectively the case that the social species ought to live. They have the subjective desire to live and not to die. Nature does not care if they live or die. So to them, being killed is objectively wrong because it prevents them from accomplishing their goal of wanting to live. But because it is not objectively the case that the species ought to live, this is a subjective opinion. But because murder is objectively harmful to the social species and the species subjectively desires to live, that is an objective standard, from nature, by which that species ought to follow in order fulfill their desires. It also cannot be an appeal to force fallacy because this standard is not used to scare individuals into being moral. It transcends them and nature selects for it. This is the case regardless if they are aware of it or not. (You did a great job explaining theoretical beliefs in your 2nd response. So I don't think I should have to explain that. Just know this goes hand in hand with your explanation.) However, using a God as the foundation for objective morals with the punishment for violating those morals being eternal torment in hell, that is an appeal to force fallacy. It is the fear of eternal torment that is supposed to prevent you from committing immoral acts based on the objective standard given by God. As for your comment about God being unsubstantiated, we'll discuss this further after you respond to my moral argument for God and whether or not its adequate. In your 2nd response, I agreed with everything up until your 3rd and 4th paragraph. If a person were to sacrifice themself for a moral cause, that only implies that they truly believed in that moral cause. It is not an indication of objective morality, even if they are not aware of their beliefs. By dying for someone with the genuine belief that that person they died for has value, it is only an indication that they subjectively believed that person had value. It is not objectively the case that the person had value. There is no objective standard to apply that to. If that were the case, the Muslim would be objectively moral by crashing the plane into the Twin Towers just as much as a Kamikaze pilot from WW2 was by crashing his plane into a battleship in Pearl Harbor. By someone giving their life for a belief it only makes them a martyr. It does not indicate objective morality. And if that were the case, murder for your subjective belief would be objectively moral. But we know that's not how this works. Btw thank you actually being an intelligent human being. This topic is so important and fascinating and it's infuriating trying to have conversations like this with people who think they know what they're talking about but misrepresent everything. Huge props to you for understanding these tough concepts. I look forward to your response! :D

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@trick7039 Thanks for enjoying my posts. Let's think through some of your objections together and see the alternatives. You were saying that creating a consensus of relative morality, we can create an objective standard for which all humans agree. Also, you mentioned that there are objective consequences to the benefit or detriment of society. The issue is, neither of these connect to the term "objective" in the sense that something is right or wrong in all places, at all times in which there is a moral standard that transcends the human mind, for the fact that the consensus was the basis for the action implies that the human mind is the source. It points to subjective morality with objective means of achieving those subjective moral goals, and that is what a consensus of relative morality and "objective" ways of obtaining those goals means. It would be an equivocation, but we can set that aside and make the starting point that things are right and wrong in our places, at all times. I appreciate the steel man. To be more accurate, in number 7, this seems to have the connotation that God is presupposed as existing. A better way of putting it is that because moral laws are abstract and conceptual in it's nature and are statements or principles or values that require a mind ("this is good", "this is bad", etc), they both imply a Mind with creative power to make things objectively good, and also implies The Mind is Transcendent to the human mind, also implying that this is a Mind with authority, and that's how one comes to the conclusion that God exists. Your question about God creating based on his own opinions makes it subjective would be a miscategorization by assuming that The Mind of God is equivalent to human minds which are not able to create from abstracts. The existence of objective morality implies both that a prior Mind was behind it and that this prior Mind has also caused it to result in objective reality, so even if we granted your point that it originally could have come from a subjective viewpoint, The Mind of God would be able to *make it* objectively real. However, if we are forming an argument from a religious viewpoint such as Christianity, for example, goodness would be part of the nature of God and therefore is not arbitrary, and the very nature or essence of God seems to have literal properties of some sort to them which from our perspective is only abstract, but from God's perspective has an objective existence within his being, or essence. God would then be able to extend his own nature into physical reality, hence why there would be certain biblical passages that would say "and God saw that it was good", as in to say, God saw his own nature being reflected back. This is how morality can still come from the Mind or person of God and yet still be objective. Another problem with the argument to say that objective morality itself would have to transcend God himself is that one cannot ultimately dismiss God as the source, because even when one attempts to do this, we're still left with the existence of objective morality which holds an abstract conceptual nature of statements of commands, values, or principles in how things ought to be done, and because these are conceptual in nature, it implies a Mind anyway, leading us right back to God, so in trying to deny God as a source, all it does is brings us in a circle to lead back to God anyway. This is why in order to deny God as the source, one cannot argue against God being the source, one must argue against objective morality itself. Otherwise, it inevitably leads back to God. By saying that you see nothing wrong with the idea that objectivity follows from subjectivity, that is a change of context which uses the same terms with a different meaning, which is an equivocation, but it's using that comparison with the idea of God conceptualizing something good and then creating it from abstracts, and these two things are not the same, and that also makes it a false equivalence. Under this context of objective coming from subjective, this can only be true with The Mind of God, but it is not true with the mind of man that does not have creative power to make a moral claim objectively true. Saying that if social species committed acts of murder and abuse, they wouldn't be capable of surviving as a species, this is an appeal to consequences. A moral claim does not become objectively true because the implications of suffering or well-being is desirable or undesirable, and people committing crimes to harm others and being imprisoned or cast out of society does not make society's reinforced moral positions right or wrong objectively, it is only to say that the criminal would be forced to conform to those subjective positions, and that is an appeal to force. It does not make the moral claim true or false. Murder is objectively harmful to a social species, but it does not follow from this as an objective fact that people should or should not be harmed but only that people do not like it, but not liking something in itself doesn't make something right or wrong. Nature can drive many factors, including the drive to murder, rape, irrationality, etc, and even in the good traits such as empathy, these can be in different contexts which leads to tribalism or war. Nature resulting in behaviors does not make something right or wrong factually true, and therefore an appeal to nature does not cause an opinion of what is right or wrong to be an objective moral fact. Nature cannot create concepts, humans do, and even if humans are the byproduct of nature, this does not make the human mind's desires or opinions objectively morally true. You were sharing the explanation that nature doesn't care whether we live or die, but we care, and so morality becomes "objective to us", but because it is not actually objective, it would be an equivocation by using the same term, but attributing a different meaning. It does not mean that things are good or bad at all times, it only means that certain things matter "to us", and that would be a subjective reference. The disagreement that you have with my second or third paragraph to sacrifice oneself for a moral cause only implies genuine belief but does not indicate objective morality, that would only be part of the point, but I will set the other point aside for now. The reason why it would point to objective morality is because this is by similar means how we conclude the law of non-contradiction, because it's true that verbally we can deny the law of non-contradiction, but we practically speaking are appealing to it. Likewise, this is how people are treating objective morality, and because this is similarly how we conclude the law of non-contradiction, it is by that same basis that objective morality is concluded. Also, genuine belief and acting on that genuine belief which treats morality and value as ultimately objective contradicts the claim one makes that morality is subjective, so even if hypothetically a person would adopt the argument that you're making in response, if that person holds a moral position, he will inevitably contradict his own argument, and thus no response would seem to be needed to answer that argument, because the individual will contradict it himself. Also, if the value is not objectively real by which a person lays his life down for another, then it would seem to follow from this that laying one's life down for another is delusional by definition. That is not meant in a derogatory way, but to lay down one's life for someone based on their value is to show genuine belief that the value is an objectively true existing thing, but if it is defined as only a subjective opinion but it's treated as objectively real, then this is a fixed belief in something that doesn't truly exist, which is the very definition of a delusion. Therefore, a person denying the existence of objective value would seem to have to admit to delusion, but even if one admits this, if he would still be willing to lay down his life for another, he would be contradicting his own admission which points to objective morality anyway. If a person does not admit this, then he's implying that the value truly is existent, implying objective morality. Either way, it points to objective morality. It's true that people can have disagreeing values and opinions, and as a result, I'm not saying that subjective values or opinions do not exist, I'm saying that both objective and subjective exist simultaneously, and so when we point to Muslims flying planes into the twin towers and saying that this does not mean the Muslims beliefs or values are true but only that he is a martyr, there are many different moral positions as well that disagree and cannot all be true, but what is implied with every single moral position universally is that some type of "right/value" exists, even if one does not have perfect knowledge of it, and therefore objective morality is still implied even if we are not always accurate.

[@jennifersangma8766]

?This leads to difference among us😢

[@meeeeoooww]

i'm y'all's biggest fan thank u

[@kevinromero352]

No, I’m the biggest fan

[@Kayla-pg9tr]

@@kevinromero352 no I am

[@ZacharyBittner]

@@Kayla-pg9tr no, I am!

[@atasmaly]

The way I see it truth is truth if it's true in one country it's absolutely true in the other there's no such thing as two truths. If you get hit by a bus in one country it's absolutely the same if you get hit by a bus in a different country. You still get hit by a bus.

[@mikexhotmail]

One country may think it is morally right to hang that guy who drive that bus some country may think it is immoral to take life for life.

[@justanotherhomosapian5101]

11:40 Would we still have mortality if we did not have the capacity to feel pain and suffer?

[@mikexhotmail]

Perhaps. Since we still have "emotion"? For example, getting your belongings taken away make us agree that "Stealing" is immoral?

[@arniedamaniac6206]

@@mikexhotmailIf you couldn’t suffer you wouldn’t be able to comprehend how it’s bad without the suffering sensation. even emotions can be distinguished as suffering and pleasure. just put yourself in the mind of a emotions less robot

[@mikexhotmail]

@@arniedamaniac6206 Perhaps

[@jennifersangma8766]

So your moral is based on your preference

[@joelbellJB]

9:43 because it’s subjective! Lmao

[@Matt1nWangas]

I think this confused the metaphysical with the physical. One cannot argue that it is raining if it is not raining.

[@someonenotnoone]

You obviously do not mean "cannot", because performing contradictory arguments is clearly something many people are capable of. Did you mean "should not?"

[@daviddivad777]

i never understood moral relativism, since there can never be a fact of the matter when expressing a moral proposition on that position, which seems counterintuitive.

[@josephparsons7896]

Makes a hell a lot more sense than moral objectivism

[@CosmoShidan]

@@josephparsons7896 Which version of moral realism?

[@josephparsons7896]

@@CosmoShidan anything that claims the existence of moral facts/truths

[@CosmoShidan]

@@josephparsons7896 Could you be more specific? Are we talking moral absolutism? Or ethical naturalism? Or Divine Command Theory? Or Ethical Non-naturalism? Or Moral Intuitionism? Or Moral Pluralism? Or Moral Universalism?

[@thecarlitosshow7687]

@@josephparsons7896 is it a matter of fact that rape of a woman is morally wrong anywhere, on a micro and macro level, and in the past, Present and future?

[@goaheadmakemyday7126]

Great video! But I might add: At 11:03, it’s not really that with moral subjectivism everyone has their own personal belief of what’s morally true or false. The point is that ethics can’t be understood in terms of “true” or “false” in the first place. If one person says pizza is yummy and another person says pizza is gross, both people are expressing personal opinion/ taste, not fact. The same applies to morality. Disagreement doesn’t lead to contradiction, it’s just two people with different opinions.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

we can still derive objectivity from subjectivity

[@goaheadmakemyday7126]

@@arniedamaniac6206 With respect, I don’t see how that would be possible by definition

[@arniedamaniac6206]

@@goaheadmakemyday7126 yeah i used to think the same thing here’s what i mean. Person A likes pizza. That is in the realm of subjectivism however the statement “Person A likes pizza” (assuming they’re not lying) is objectively true. So i can say murder objectively causes pain and suffering and is objectively bad for the majority of humanity. However the fundamental assumption all moral values rely on is suffering is bad and pleasure is good. These are completely subjective and impossible to describe objectively. However when we accept these beliefs like every human already has only then can we derive objectivivity. So although fundamentally and philosophicaly the idea of objective morality doesn’t exist as it’s ultimately based on subjective reasoning. After assuming this subjective reasoning then we can derive objectivism. Even in the pizza example the pizza is objectively liked subjectively. But the concept of tasting good is subjective. hope that clarified what i’m saying

[@stanimirvelinov2472]

Wath about the masocist?

[@stephaneehouman192]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. You can't say there is no truth because you haven't found it yet.

[@arniedamaniac6206]

It’s not about finding it it’s about determining if whether it is logically possible for it to exist. would u ahree

[@jennifersangma8766]

I am no different than you are

[@matthiasmuller7677]

This "philosophy" is so logically flawed from beginning to end

[@johncaze757]

What makes say that exactly?

[@matthiasmuller7677]

@@johncaze757 to say that there is no moral truth is itself a moral truth claim. It is self refuting on a fundamental level.

[@onlyechadtherebellious2467]

@@matthiasmuller7677 THANK YOU! Seriously, people just want to demonize anything that don’t benefit them.

[@matthiasmuller7677]

@Skeggjaður Dreki hm no thats just a truth claim about the existence of a particular animals species that could be veryfied by combing through all the magic forests in the world. Morality is a different category. It is the question "how should we live?". To say that there is no morality (or moral truth) is not to claim that the question doesn't exist but to claim that it doesnt matter how we live and that is a claim on morality, a moral truth claim. So maybe its not so much self refuting but rather just impossible. Every claim about morality has to stay within the concept of morality because its existence is contingent on human consciousnness.

[@eyadsy6208]

@@matthiasmuller7677 Well What makes you think your definition of morality is objectively right across all places and times and cultures? Even words themselves like right/wrong can have multiple meanings since people are the one that give words their meanings. I think the question abour morality should revolve around the question: "Why should I do this and shouldn't do that?" Or maybe: "what is the common ground across all humans that we can use to motivate and make them act a certain way?" Even if you base your morality on empathy, not everyone hold the same level of empathy for others in order to be motivated to act a certain way. For example How would you convince me not to be a hitman? You might say: Because it hurts others and ruin families. Well so what, what if I don't care about that? Nothing about what you said motivates me to act differently, since I lack empathy.

[@elpeonbigoton8022]

Amazing video. Greetings from México

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you :D

[@465painkiller465]

Learned more from this than my 3h class on the topic

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad we could help :)

[@darcevader4146]

I see problems with your blending of morality at the end 11:31 first you appeal to certain moral truth that we all seem to hold which is fine but then you ground these moral truths in evolution and cultural selection making this ultimately social Darwinism which there are huge problems with this what authority does evolution have to produce virtue ? natural selection selects for only One thing survival and reproduction meaning this moral system would break down into what is morally good is what allows us to survive hence enslaving another group people would be Good provided it helps us survive and reproduce this CAN'T be what is truly morally Good as there are many circumstances where what is good for ourselves is truly immoral in it's nature

[@CosmoShidan]

How would you describe Peter Kropotkin's view of ethical naturalism? In his book Mutual Aid: A Fact of Evolution, Kropotkin puts forward an argument that non-human animals will band together to provide free exchange of food, safety and breeding grounds, while all are motivated by self-preservation. For instance, there's one story where you have a Brazilian eagle that attempts to steal fish from a sparrow, but then a kite and swallow come to the aid of their cousin to fend off the eagle. In another case, a group of Zebras will migrate to grassland where food is more plentiful due to dry summer heat in an African savannah, all motivated by hunger, but acting in unision. Meanwhile, one Zebra separates from the group, but then a group of hyaenas takes down the zebra by the same motive individually, but acting in unision. In Kropotkin's view, the group survives while the solitary dies. As such, he claims that mutual aid is a law of nature. The case of the eagle is one in which Kropotkin calls the "robber" non-human animal, which he regards as a bully, and that the group should stand up to one in solidarity. BTW, this is Kropotkin's answer and refutation of social darwinism.

[@darcevader4146]

​@@CosmoShidan I would argue that ethical naturalism fall into the same problems as social Darwinism because they are descriptive statement not prescriptive ones it may describe and put forth a theory as to why we feel morality is true but it would do nothing to explain whether morality is actually true in the same way many have try to produce evolutionary theory's of how religion came to be by saying people coming together and believing in a God would allow them to survive better but no amount of these theory's would tell us whether we should or shouldn't believe in God as evolution selects for survival not true or virtue so the same evolutionary processes that drive animals into pact and care for one and other are the same as the processes that drive a Cat to torture it's prey to help train it's ability to hunt so evolution may speculate as to why we feel murder is wrong but why should we act on our natural desires ? It feels right for the cat to torture the mouse it feels right for me to not kill people for fun one could say since the group survive and the solitary dies we should be kind to others to avoid isolation, but this roots morality ultimately in selfish survival of one self and there offspring if we decided to take black people a put them back in chains suppose I was able to prove that our tribe would greatly benefit by doing this you would have no Good reason to object to such as idea you would need to appeal to something else that transcends survive and human opinion to say it is truly immoral in it's nature are you familiar with Kant's view of the categorical imperative vs a hypothetical imperative ? a hypothetical imperative is that: if you want X then you should do Y A categorical imperative say that: you should do Y because of the nature of So if you want to survive (X) then you should be kind (Y) to people but if you want to die(X) then you should mean(Y) to people ethical naturalism ultimately breaks down into subjective morality which lends to moral skepticism for moral to be objective you need a categorical imperative hence you should what is Good because it is Good not because it selfishly serves you but because it is right by it's nature

[@CosmoShidan]

@@darcevader4146 I may not be a biologist, but there are some things I need to clear up here. One flaw with Darwin's natural selection is that, it's based around Thomas Malthus' ideology of overpopulation, which has since been discarded because we have genetically modified foods (gmfs), and that foraging, pastoral and horticultural societies have plenty of food to go around. This is especially since agrarian peoples have had gmfs for 7000 years and the latter cultures migrate when food is scarce due to climate conditions. The same goes for non-human animals as they migrate when the food is scarce due to climate conditions. I won't elaborate on the climate conditions as I gave an example earlier. To answer your question, it's simply because human beings, especially certain non-human animals, are bounded together by sociality or mutual aid. It has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, or else it would be all-against-all as in the Hobbesian State of Nature, or else a species may go extinct. So it is of mutual benefit for a species to cooperate rather than compete. And as in the story of the eagle vs the 3 smaller bird subspecies over a fish case, harming someone just for fun would be going against your self-preservation because you are going to receive a penalty in retaliation. Kropotkin is conveying that inter-species competition is non-existent in nature. It's really just the one robber or bully that acts out of line who gets recourse for their actions. Heck, Kropotkin could be arguing using Rousseau's Stag Hunt in explaining the hunt for the dear is much more realistic rather than to compete for the rabbit because both players would die out if they competed. I won't touch upon religion here, because that is theology and this is really getting long enough already. As for your second paragraph, read what I said earlier. Otherwise your explanation of evolution is very hyper-individualist and based on social darwinism. I won't go over it again. Yes I am familiar with Kant's Categorical Imperative. However, it's major flaw is that it is too narrow and lacks empathy. Kropotkin would agree with Kant actually, in terms that we have a duty unto others and oneself, and is compatible with mutual aid or sociality. Yet he would disagree with Kant that reason is the sole mechanism for a foundation in morality, given how it is inflexible in that one can't simply just override the rules of one's conduct since they are absolute. E.g. say if X had to take their child to the doctor because their kid was sick at school, while having to miss a day at work which would be upsetting to one's co-workers. Should one show duty unto child or duty unto co-workers? Anyhow, Kropotkin would also disagree with Kant as his appeal to reason is very elitist, as he assumes that women cannot reason, which makes him sexist, and would be against the interest of the group as well as each individual if solely men were in charge. BTW, here is Kropotkin's classic: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution

[@darcevader4146]

@@CosmoShidan I think you missing my point my point was not to challenge your scientific views (though I do see problems with this) or to turn this into a religious debate rather to point out that both social-Darwinism and ethical naturalism fall into an is-ought problem proposed by David Hume that one can not look at the natural world and derive an “ought” from an “is” science can tell us stabbing someone in the neck will kill them hence the “is” but science can't tell us whether we should kill this person hence the “ought”

[@CosmoShidan]

@@darcevader4146 But Kropotkin's scientific theory was designed to take down social darwinism in biology and sociology though. And since his views are virtue ethics, it can be argued that his views inform his ethical stance. That is, he points out the problems with capitalism is and suggests how society without capitalism should be.

[@Orlandismos]

I know... late comment. I just came across this video accidentally. Really impressed by the fact that the points you brought up are generally the ones present in the literature on moral relativism. Congrats, great stuff! I label myself as a moral relativism and part of the motivation for being a moral relativism is what you rightly called "descriptive relativism". The way you characterise the view was that there are "fierce" moral disagreements; usually it's called "persistent", "fundamental" and sometimes "deep" disagreements, not "fierce", but I'll assume your using the adjective in the same sense. However, the way you then went on to describe the view was pointing that there are moral disagreements. The issue is not just that agents disagree about moral matters, but that those persist even when the parties disagreeing agree on all the non-moral facts relevant to the disagreement. Also, your characterisation of moral relativism is lacking important features. Relativist hold not just that moral truths are not truth simpliciter (or absolute), but that the truth of moral judgments varies relative to moral standards and that there is no privileged standard from which a moral judgment is assessed. Here's the distinction exemplified: I can say that a moral judgment is true relative to historical periods, but that for each historical period there is a privileged moral standard. This would imply e.g. that when during the Roman Empire someone states that slavery is wrong is making a false statement, while during the modern era someone stating the same thing would be making a true statement. But each statement is absolutely false/true-hence, no moral relativism here. Now, to the objectivist arguments. Firstly, the burden is on the objectivist to explain why moral disagreements persist. One way to go, which you pointed out, is either saying that moral truths are hard to find and another is that they are unknowable (moral skepticism). The latter view has its own problems and, arguably, leaves the objectivist in a worse position than the relativist. The former option still needs to say something about what makes moral truths so hard to find. And here you cannot just say that other truths are also hard to discover. Sure, truths about the fundamental reality, the origin of the universe are hard to discover, but at the very least it seems we're making some scientific progress when inquirying about them and arguably if we haven't discovered more that has to do with technological limitations; can we say the same about moral truths? I would say no. So, what's so special about morality that makes it so mysterious? Secondly, someone else has already pointed this out in another comment, but the reply that there are many moral similarities across cultures and diverse groups is the wrong reply to the motivation for relativism from moral diversity. Here's the challenge for the objectivist: moral diversity is a fact, can the objectivist account for it? The wrong way to go would be to say "well... there's many more moral similarities". That's dodging the challenge. Unless, you can show that moral diversity is really scarce, then the challenge can be reinstated: given the diversity that exists, how does the objectivist account for it? Thirdly, the "it is raining" example is begging the question. The objectivist is already assuming that moral facts are objective. Fourthly, the whole point of relativism is that when A states that S is wrong and B disagrees they aren't contradicting each other. What A is saying is true relative to A's moral standards while what B is saying is true relative to B's moral standards. They are both right in the sense that according to each standard none of the two is asserting something false. But A is not right according to B's moral standards. And, hence, we can make perfect sense of this. Finally, a remark on the solution presented at the end of the video. The objectivist is the one making the strong claim that all moral truths are objective, many relativist views hold that only some truths are relative (in the relevant sense-i.e. in the sense that their truth varies according to moral standards).

[@VIKASHKumar-xp7jj]

hey can you gi ve insight on :_ Moral Relativism : There is no moral absolute

[@evilsoap7835]

I mean, you can still value your culture or your moral beliefs above if you abandon the truth apt pretention of moral discourse. It is utimately a political problem.

[@AndyAlegria]

Your sentence doesn't make sense to me. Can you rephrase?

[@evilsoap7835]

​ @Andy Alegria Sorry wrong syntax. I think I'm saying you value something without setting criteria for truth, basically noncognitivism.

[@AndyAlegria]

​@@evilsoap7835 I think you cannot value something without setting criteria for truth unless you are purely instinctual and give no thought to future outcomes. The moment you consider the implications of your values, you start defining truth. E.g., I value my property (most generally defined as "thing I have, use, and want to keep"). Why do I value it? It makes me happy or it keeps me alive or whatever. That is a truth criterion for you. It is also a truth criterion that others will take my property if I do not take steps to retain/protect it. E.g., we don't want our property taken willy nilly so "Thou shall not steal" becomes objective or relative moral truth.

[@pedrozeni992]

Amazing video!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you!

[@Grounded4]

So no answers?

[@snoringsheep3166]

If you are Jewish yes

[@randylittlefield2962]

I'm just jotting thoughts down, don't read unless interested. ------ Objectivism only exists if we believe and adhere to its concordance but life is not as clear cut and simple as a rulebook. Naturally, humanity will gravitate towards placing subjectivity (discretion) on before deciding which objective choice one should make - an interpretation of the law. Think of it as a judge judging a hard case and weighing what is the morally right option. Is it better to lie to save your family from a killer? Or tell the truth and let your family be killed? There's no such scenario in which a human (with exception I suppose) would tell the truth here but when weighing whether to be immaculately morally right or wrong, humanity will almost always choose a greater good, path of least resistance, or ends justifies the means behavior. We have a moral obligation (a greater good) to lie (ends justifies the means) to achieve safety for loved ones (path of least resistance).

[@micalronan9014]

There should be such things as universal moral code, when comes to stealing killing and bribery....

[@KittyBoyPurr]

There is, the Categorical Imperative proves this.

[@HansBezemer]

@@KittyBoyPurr Hardly - there are examples where the categorical imperative fails (aka being counter intuitive). There is *NO* moral school of thought that is infallible.

[@Onedimensional4141]

Excellent video! Very thought provoking. I’ll add one thing that convinced me of moral relativism (or something similar to the hybrid relativism mentioned at the end) that wasn’t mentioned in this video which was reading The Righteous Mind and learning how morals evolved to strengthen groups. The evolutionary purpose of morality is to bind us to a group and blind us to the morals of other groups.

[@SATheKulture]

I just had a deep critical thinking session about this and I could've just came here and get schooled and not waste my time. I ended up writing this down. God could just be the main FORCE FIELD, so if God exists, he is a neutral being meaning to him there's no good and there's no bad, he doesn't prefer any religion either. So I imagine that thieves also pray, people of all religions pray, atheist pray (I'm referring to the law of attraction) so all of these acts are ways of projecting our wants through waves to the main force field & that's what we refer to as God, this would kinda explain why Criminals pray too when they're about to do a crime, this would kinda explain why we still have a lot religions. We are feezing to the force field, it feezes back! God (the Main Force Field) doesn't recognize Morality, but we do, we've created it and we keep on modifying it. And if you think my theory has errors, please present them, I'm open to criticism.