Moral Skepticism and Moral Objectivism

I am writing a book! If you want to know when it is ready (and maybe win a free copy), submit your email on my website: www.jeffreykaplan.org/
I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.
This is a video lecture about chapter 1 of Russ Shafer-Landau's book "Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?" The lecture includes discussion some terminoligical points about moral skepticism and moral objectivism, but it also includes the three reasons why Shafer-Landau thinks that moral skepticism, which he understands to be the denial that there is one universal set of moral laws that apply to everyone's actions everywhere, is increasing in popularity at the moment. There is also a criticism of moral skepticism, based on the fact that all, or virtually all, people who subscribe to it also seem to hold commited, non-relative moral opinions. Shafer-Landau calls this moral schizophrenia. I also explain the distinction between ethics and metaethics. This lecture is part of an introductory-level philosophy course, Introduction to Ethics.

[@lugardo]

I CAN'T WAIT to binge watch the crap outta you. Exceptional speaker: enthusiasm, explanations, personality, etc. what a gold mine

[@88GTA]

He makes me feel smarter by being so good at explaining these topics 😂 I’m more mathy myself but this was great

[@SpeedyBozar]

The last 26 seconds of this video are very satisfying. I think it sums up all the philosophical debates about morality beautifully. Since if there is no objective morality, then it might not be objectively moral to deny objective morality but it definitely saves time.

[@lancetschirhart7676]

I graduated with a phil degree about ten years ago, and this high level overview from a few videos (so far) is the first time I've really revisited the content. I think Jeffrey does a great job, and I hope he is a lecturer at a university. Euthyphro overview recommended. Philosophy struggles to discover new things compared to the efficiency of science, or to tell us just what to think at all, but it's very effective as a tool to make sure our beliefs are consistent. Just a random observation that comes to mind now as I listen to this lecture. For fans of this channel, I highly recommend Kagan's Philosophy of Death course from Yale, available here on YT. He is a brilliant philosopher and riveting professor, and you simply can't do better when it comes to an undergrad level deep dive into Death from many angles.

[@adamproductions4529]

Is science not considered it's a branch of philosophy?

[@lancetschirhart7676]

No, science is not a branch of philosophy. It’s more of an applied system of sound epistemical principles. It has separated itself from philosophy with its strict methodology. The Philosophy of Science is one though, and that’s where ideas like Bayesianism, falsification, paradigm shifts, etc., are found, but those are published in philosophical journals, not scientific ones. I think the largest branches are metaphysics, ethics, epistemology and logic or symbolic logic, but there are others like the philosophy of science as I mentioned, of mind, and of language, and many others that I’m unaware of I’m sure.@@adamproductions4529

[@farzad1021]

​@@adamproductions4529 Maybe but Science has separated from Philosophy and that's why today people doesn't consider Science a branch of Philosophy.

[@williammcmahon4454]

Kaplan, I love the style and energy in these lectures. Stumbled on the Russell's paradox one last night and then plowed through a handful of others and thank you for putting these on KZbin for the general public! I was tossed out of school and got my GED at 17 and did some tech school stuff and my life ended up with me owning an IT contracting company. I still hunger for knowledge, especially in mathematics (blame my mom who was a TA at NDSU in statistics) and philosophy so it's really fulfilling coming across stuff like this. Thank you!

[@sempressfi]

Hey, we have a lot in common lol got my GED at 17, too. I'm in my early 30s trying to figure out what I want to be when I grow up now that health issues that plagued my 20s are under control and IT/cyber security + philosophy have been my main courses in folding the hunger for knowledge lately lol Kaplan's vids are awesome, welcome to the viewing club 😊

[@KaarinaKimdaly]

@@sempressfi You, too, may become a spellbound voyeur.

[@littleantukins4415]

Same thing bro

[@MatheusOliveira-qu3xq]

Simple and beautiful presentation like Michael Smith's ''Moral Problem''. Congrats!

[@lo5983]

good video. i just have one question: is he writing backwards?!

[@siddharthpavan5412]

LOL. had same question. but i think he flips the entire video horizontally.

[@lo5983]

@@siddharthpavan5412 I may be completely stupid, but wouldn’t he be writing from right to left then??

[@joansparky4439]

@@lo5983 it's filmed THROUGH the glass with him writing normal left to right (from his perspective) and for the camera looking at him right to left. Then it gets mirrored horizontally and sides change.. so for the camera it becomes left to right, just as we see it in the video.

[@walterott8228]

Look closely. In the video, it looks like he is wearing his wedding ring on his right hand. Since you’re going to wear a wedding ring, normally on your left hand, the video is flipped, or inverted in someway.

[@leerocka]

Yup

[@peter.tjeerdsma]

Thank you for this series, Jeffrey! Best rabbit hole I've been down since Robert Sopolsky's behavioral biology lectures. So. A question: even as a kid I wondered about the words "morals" and "ethics," given how vaguely they were defined separately, and how often they appeared together in circular definitions. No teacher ever offered a satisfying contrast. Then, finally, I encountered Theodore Sturgeon's elegantly dovetailed delineation in his masterwork "More Than Human", and as an appropriately Socratic dialog in "The Wages of Synergy": _________________________ “An act can be both moral and ethical. But under some circumstances a moral act can be counter to ethics, and an ethical act can be immoral.” “I’m with you so far,” he said. “Morals and ethics are survival urges, both of them. But look: an individual must survive within his group. The problems of survival within the group are morals.” “Gotcha. And ethics?” “Well, the group itself must survive, as a unit. The patterns of an individual within the group, toward the end of group survival, are ethics.” Cautiously, he said, “You’d better go on a bit.” “You’ll see it in a minute. Now, morals can dictate a pattern to a man such that he survives within the group, but the group itself may have no survival value. For example, in some societies it is immoral not to eat human flesh. But to refrain from it would be ethical, because that would be toward group survival. See?” __________________________ To me, this squares the vicious circle of moral schizophrenia, and skepticism vs. objectivism arguments in general. It points to the deeper question: "What kind of society do you actually live in, and what does it really need in order to survive?"

[@Ignirium]

@@fancynancylucille A bit weird, but yeah

[@KaarinaKimdaly]

Parfait, bebe? Some people who square circles, so to speak, to their own satisfaction, are psychopaths; like the late, lauded Hugh Hefner, or like the late Dr. Wilson, who founded the famous, but also defunct, Constance Bultman Wilson Center, in Faribault, Minnesota.

[@anthonypape6862]

I really like this guy. What a great professor. The philosophy videos are great but also the tips on how to be a good student I wish I had. I have been certain to have my son watch them before he goes off to school. Everytime Jeffrey cleans that glass though I keep thinking he's missing a spot but it's my tv. I always have to wipe my tv down first to ensure there are no finger prints on his glass.

[@DroppinJewels31]

This is an amazing channel

[@88GTA]

This was a really interesting video, glad I stumbled by

[@charlieh2081]

That's one hell of a cold open

[@cumulus1869]

"Pick Your Favorite Evil Practice" I go into public restrooms and turn around the toilet paper so it's facing the other way. MUAHAHAHAHAHA

[@josefopeda]

Isn’t the primary thesis of moral skepticism that ethicists are jumping Hume’s fact-value gap when trying to uncover moral facts about reality? There is no epistemic method to derive objective moral facts from reality the way we can gain facts through scientific inquiry. That’s why there is still a divide among ethicists about which moral theory, eg Kantianism, utilitarianism, or virtue ethics, is ultimately true. And I think what Schafer-Landau is missing in his seeming caricature of moral skepticism is that you don’t have to be amoral to be skeptical of how we derive moral facts about reality. You can still believe in justified moral beliefs by virtue of their correspondence to some independent moral reality that might exist even if you are skeptical of how moral truths can be uncovered in reality. Skepticism isn’t necessarily nihilism or moral relativity.

[@jeffreykaplan1]

I don't think Shafer-Landau is using the term "Moral Skepticism" in the same way you are. Anyone who thinks that one can have "justified moral beliefs by virtue of their correspondence to some independent moral reality" is not a moral skeptic in his sense. Of course, we could decide to use the label "moral skepticism" however we like. But that is not how he is using it.

[@josefopeda]

Jeffrey Kaplan thank you for that response. I have only read about moral skepticism from the likes of Mackie and Ayers. Do you have any recommendations on further reading for and against Schafer-Landau’s version of moral skepticism, including works by him as well?

[@_VISION.]

@@jeffreykaplan1 then I'd have to disagree with his definition. Is he not aware of the different kinds of skeptics throughout history? Especially the ancients. Or is this a modern-contemporary understanding with Descartes as the source?

[@mathieucharbonneau2710]

That is an argument made against the Naturalists (which are moral realists) in their claim that we can reduce "ought" facts to "is" facts through observation of nature. Essentially, they posit that morality can be understood _a posteriori._

[@Volmire1]

@@_VISION. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems to outline the kind of Moral Skepticism Shafer-Landau is speaking of: "...yet another form of moral skepticism: Skepticism about moral truth is the claim that no substantive moral belief is true. This claim is usually based on one of three more specific claims: Skepticism about moral truth-aptness is the claim that no substantive moral belief is the kind of thing that could be either true or false. Skepticism about moral truth-value is the claim that no substantive moral belief is either true or false (although some moral beliefs are the kind of thing that could be true or false). Skepticism with moral falsehood is the claim that every substantive moral belief is false." It is true Moral Skepticism is a rather vague umbrella term, which can refer to several definitions.

[@evelcustom9864]

How do you compare and contrast moral skepticism versus moral relativism?

[@thestoiclion5459]

very well explained!

[@mikim.h7731]

that intro was crazy 😭

[@emmettobrian1874]

This is an old video I see, but i do see one objective in morality. As far as I've ever heard, ownership underpins all moral claims. Don't kill? That person owns their life. Don't covet? Another person owns that stuff. Don't rape? That person owns bodily autonomy. There is one interesting caviat, a higher authority, government, God, what have you, owns the right to say you can't own a thing anymore. Often, ownership is considered provisional, stemming from the authority of that power. In a sense, the higher authority owns the thing you claim to own and are provisionally extending their ownership to you. It's my friendly supposition, if you read that and said "No way! What about X" I'm interested in hearing it.

[@richardpeach3046]

What’s the deal with why I can feel the video is flipped?

[@marcusgrubius5514]

Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin helped make me a moral skeptic. It's the world THEY helped to create we're living in now, not Hitler's.

[@TheDragonStratagem]

Ethic is morality that we vote on. Morality is not a democracy but since democracy is morale then ethics overrules morality.

[@olivergroning6421]

All of these reasons of Schafer-Landau are not really dealing with objectivity. Let me reformulate the reasons a bit to make their contradictions clear: Reason 1: 'Objective' moral truths need to be told to us by 'subjects' with authority. Reason 2: These 'subjects with authority' seem to have different 'objective views' in different cultures. Reason 3: People doubt moral objectivity, because believing it too strongly can go horribly wrong. As a scientist in my book something 'objective' means: I can formulate a method by which everyone who applies this method correctly can determine, regardless of his believes, a certain parameter (the height of a table) or whether something is true or not e.g. 2+2=4. Sometimes the latter example is taken as the existence of an 'objective truth', however what makes 2+2=4 objectively true is the mathematical method to prove it and that relies on mathematical axioms. I.e. statements which are true by choice or definition and therefore are subjective. Here below is what is needed to prove 2+2=4: Axioms of equality, i.e what means "=" 1: x=x 2: If x=y then y=x 3: If x=y and y=z then x=z 4. If x belongs to M and x=y then y belongs to M Axioms defining Numbers (N) 5: 0 is a N 6: If x is a N then the successor of x (called S(x)) is also a N 7: There is no x of N such that S(x)=0 8: If x and y are N and x=y then, and only then S(x)=S(y) 9: S(0)=1, S(1)=2, S(3)=4, S(4)=5,... recursive definition of the number symbols Axioms defining addition "+" 10: If x is a N then x+0=x 11: If x and y are N then S(x)+y=S(x+y) And now the proof: 2+2=S(1)+2=S(1+2)=S(S(0)+2)=S(S(0+2))=S(S(2))=S(3)=4 -> 2+2=4 The axioms are not objectively 'true' or 'false', but the statements following from then are 'objectively' true or false, but only within the system of these axioms E.g. I could change the axioms and define S(3)=5 and S(5)=4, in this system 2+2=5 is true and 2+2=4 is false. So if you want to make morality 'objective' (which many people seem to be determined to do) then you should be able to formulate a method of proof, but then you end up like mathematics that you see that you must define some axioms and there subjectivity enters back.

[@joansparky4439]

Love this. Schafer-Landau&Co sit within a social bubble (obviously without noticing).. but human life can exist outside of such a bubble, without morals / ethics (=wilderness). It's just not as comfortable due to work sharing / specialization being impossible, which means efficiency is low and life is harsh. This is also where SL's gut feeling comes from that there MUST be objective morality, because societies have them as pre-requisite to exist while SL does not appear to think outside of that bubble, i.e. there are no societies without ethics/morals. And especially work sharing societies require common rules about how we deal with each other when this is supposed to work. This all is based on very simple logic / root cause analysis and looking at what individual life is and does and where social sciences take over from biology (just like biology takes over from chemistry and that in turn from physics). *Has anyone (philosopher, economist, socilogist, etc.) argued this way yet?*

[@joansparky4439]

@dfasht define "psychopath" for individual living beings in wilderness / nature please. _"You either believe in an eternal, morally perfect creator of the universe, or you don't."_ You want to state that "objective" morality is bound to an omnipotent creator of the universe? Are you sure you're still talking philosophy here and not religion?

[@joansparky4439]

@dfasht _"Objective morality can only come from a morally perfect being."_ belief =/= science Good luck in your cute lil' bubble pal (and with your perfect god taking care of everything).

[@Ignirium]

@@dfasht1304 "Objective morality can only come from a morally perfect being." Does that mean a human being can never perform a morally perfect action even if they copy the action exactly? Can we not learn to get things right? Also does "Objective morality can only come from a morally perfect being" mean "Facts can only come from a being that is perfect?" because that's not true

[@Ignirium]

@@dfasht1304 Then a human being can perform a morally perfect action, which means objective morality does not have to come from a perfect being. And an imperfect being can teach factual things; we don't need a perfect being to come first, we can do it ourselves.

[@charlesonderi8226]

Good....agreed

[@dogsdomain8458]

but the skeptic's ability to act in accordance with or be consistent with his moral claims doesnt really make his/her argument true or false. Just like I can act like free will exists while knowing determinism is true.

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Yes, I agree. Perhaps, then, the most charitable way to interpret the moral schizophrenia point is something like this: what moral skeptics don't realize is that to be consistent in their moral skepticism they will have to give up a massive number of very fundamental beliefs and attitudes that they have, and doing so is much more rational than they probably realized.

[@_VISION.]

@@jeffreykaplan1 I don't think that is true. Especially not for me. A moral skeptic can have beliefs. However it is hypothetical and provisional. They also wouldn't be dogmatic or dogmatize their beliefs in an absolute sense. Just because someone doesn't believe that there is an objective or absolute morality. Doesn't mean they can't design their own system of morals.

[@RyanApplegatePhD]

@@jeffreykaplan1 Moral skeptics can also have beliefs that they think are not moral claims at all. "Killing is wrong because it reduces the number of actors in a free market economy and thus production" could easily be stated by an economist." I haven't yet found a good discussion of - What happens when moral theories reduce to other theories and make no "new predictions"? Theory 1: X = 1, Theory 2: X = 1 - surely one of those theories is unnecessary.

[@jcavs9847]

​@@RyanApplegatePhDthe "is wrong" requires further elaboration. What does "is wrong" mean?

[@RyanApplegatePhD]

@@jcavs9847 It means, "you shouldn't do this". I agree moral skeptics should abandon all claims about moral correctness, but they can still make claims about what is in their best interest, evalute truth of mathematical claims etc. So for someone like me, a moral nihilist, I just act in ways that I think will result in the best outcome for myself. In the case of "killing is wrong", that can only come to be known after much observation of societies, people living in them, acting in various ways, and determining "the society where humans have the most children, and our species the longest chance to exit on earth, will be one where killing is not done generally". If you then ask why we should maximize our time on earth as a race, that's what all animals do, and we are certainly an animal.

[@collins-image8759]

He's right.

[@remidall5271]

I think Stalin and Mao deserve to be categorised as fanatic too from the last century.

[@chillbro1010]

The idea of moral skeptic schitzophrenia severely ignores the lohic of motal skepticism. If morality was hunger it would say this : "moral skeptics don't believe that every human is currently feeling hunger, but later when their stomach is empty they state they feel hunger! You either must always feel hunger or never feel hunger, if you feel hunger sometimes and sated other times it is schizophrenia!" Moral skeptics can express morals and even have them assuming that they admit they would have different morals in different cultures.

[@remidall5271]

There is another reason to be a moral skeptic. Because hypocrisis is an hommage that vice is doing to virtue....And Virtue would not go very far if vanity and self interest were not very far behind to help carry the weight of culpabilities. But.. Such is human nature...Most of the time when it speaks of Morals

[@darkreflectionsstudio4506]

Hmm. My first observation is that most people behave as if Morals are both objective and subjective depending on context and circumstance, rather than the meta ethics they believe in. Most people will at times say something is categorical or absolutely moral or immoral, including moral skeptics, while the same majority of people at other times will try to justify that something is moral or immoral based on appeals to common sense, shared values or subjective feelings. My second observation is that people not acting in line with their expressed or acknowledged meta ethics is not surprising, considering most people already do not act in line with their expressed or acknowledged normative ethics. Feelings and emotions, but also the sheer volume of differing moral demands that can contradict each other on any given action even if the people had one coherent moral code, make it impossible to be morally consistent. The way people learn morals also leads to a patchwork of morals. Even if someone later in their life decides on a certain meta ethic and to clean up the ingrained patchwork of morals they live by, the sheer amount of behavioral therapy it would take to do so 100% makes it practically impossible. At least currently, future civilizations might have the tech or lifespans to make it possible.

[@silviowiliamsilvaconceicao6802]

Palestra muito legal

[@dirk-ltd.888]

05:34; I wonder in how far the findings of Kit Yates ( 7 Mathematical Principles That Shape Our Lives ) could add to the idea of Moral Objectivism. 🤔

[@FAAMS1]

Lets see if one can simplify the topic so much that it will seam super complex... I am a Moral Realist. My axiom for Moral Realism is Existence. I don't believe in Free Will, thus I don't believe in choice, and still I claim that everything that exits is NECESSARILY Good precisely because it exits! There is no bigger criteria for what is Good then the ORDER of THINGS is my very simple rational! I call this the all inclusive Theory of Good! If it looks like awfully similar to Moral Relativism is because it is...the nuance is that Moral Relativism ascertains that things are neither good or bad while I ascertain that all things that exist are NECESSARILY Good!

[@g.b.-garcia1876]

Pride and ignorance Pride is ignorance boasting. ignorance is life’s greatest adversary and denial is ignorance’s strongest ally. An opinion is a deep seeded selfish desire to express one’s own ignorance. A desire so selfish that even ignorance wants to be alone. ignorance miss uses the power of persuasion by transforming little knowledge into as if it were a greater knowing. Pressing one’s nescience point of view by oneself over another person. A willful disregard for the limitation of one’s own reference, and ignoring the evidence to the contrary. Pride is ignorance boasting. G. B.- Garcia (cc)2019 ◦

[@Sin_Alder]

You say that these two ideas made mention of by Shafer-Landau are opposite, which, as I haven't read the book myself, I'm unsure of being your take on his ideas, or his ideas verbatim. However, these are blatantly not opposites, and not mutually exclusive, at least as they're presented. If moral objectivity (something I personally believe in) is the idea that there is some objective truth about what is or isn't moral, then "moral skepticism," commonly referred to as moral subjectivity today (again, based on how it's presented), would be the idea that there is no objective truth regarding what is or isn't moral. However, it's presented as different people having different perceptions of reality, which is very different. Moral skepticism is something that objectively exists. As in, there are, objectively, verifiably, and beyond a shadow of a doubt, people who interpret morality differently from one another. For example, my interpretation of morality is that taking the life of a human being who has retained their right to life by not attempting to violate another persons right to life is morally wrong, so I believe that, under those rules, abortion in all forms (unless we're dealing with a zombie apocalypse where someone's pregnant with a zombie baby trying to fight its way out, I guess) is evil, and no different than murder. However, my neighbor believes that a woman should have the right to take the life of another innocent person, so long as that person is inside her body. It's not something I agree with, and, based on what I believe to be morally right, I consider it evil, but I don't think it's arguable that we do, in fact, have different perceptions of morality. However, simply because humans, and I do mean all humans, practice moral subjectivity in some capacity, whether they're aware of it or will admit to it, that doesn't mean that they don't believe moral objectivity exists, nor does it have any relation to whether or not objective morality exists independently of human opinions on the matter. I also would argue that those turning away from authority figures aren't necessarily inherently turning away from objective morality either, but rather acknowledging that those in power aren't inherently the wisest, most virtuous, and most aware of what is objectively good. Given that we've lived on this planet for thousands of years, examples of those holding authority being capable of great perceived evils are vast, and the ease of making the observation that "power corrupts" without ever hearing or seeing the words anywhere before is, itself, a good argument for distrust of those in authority, at least as far as I'm able to tell. To do otherwise is to trust those that stand to gain the most by doing evil, those who also typically must commit acts that they believe to be evil in order to gain their position of authority, with informing you of what is right and wrong, and denying what you personally believe in order to serve their will. That seems to also be something Shafer-Landau seems to be equating to moral objectivity which, as far as I can see, couldn't be further from the truth. To reference your video on Euthyphro, what makes the most sense to me, though I could be wrong, is that I would agree with the concept of morality, that which is good, is good inherently, not because a god, or pantheon of gods, deemed it to be such. That if, for the example you gave in that video, God came to you in the night, and influenced you in such a way that you know, without a doubt, this truly is God, and he ordered you to do something evil, him believing an evil act to be good would not make it good. Evil is evil, because it inherently is, and regardless of human perception, including my own, it will always be evil. Similarly, good will always be good, no matter whether a god or series of gods chose to acknowledge it as such. So, by extension, if an authority figure, one of mere humankind might I add, were to dictate morality, he or she would be no more capable of influencing what is truly good or truly evil than a drugged out schizophrenic homeless man in the gutter. Regardless of whether or not the priest, the president, the teacher, or a child who knows little of the world around it says something is moral or immoral, that won't make a difference in what is objectively true. So, therefor, trusting these authority figures to decide what is and isn't moral is deciding that their subjective, or as he might put it, skeptic, view on morality is objective, which is inherently contradictory. To assert that subjectivity decides objectivity, to reference your video on Euthyphro again, is asserting that the grass is green because we say it is green, rather than that grass is green independently of what we say about it. I've never been particularly good at expressing my thoughts, but I hope that my ramblings are understandable and coherent, and thank you for your video, and anyone that takes the time to read this. I've never been particularly good at closing out walls of text, so I don't really know how to end this. Anyway, I hope this can constructively add to the conversation in some way, and maybe does a decent job of exploring the implications made by the ideas as they have been expressed in the video.

[@AdamRabczuk]

I would argue that moral skepticism is extremely rare view if not non-existent. The reason being, the moral schizophrenia. No one actually thinks, that holocaust was just one among many others, equally valid moral standings. Also, Hitler is an example of someone who had exercised moral scepticism. Objective morality doesn't bend to humans will or judgment. But Hitler believed that his will and judgement is what's moral. Which is in essence moral skepticism - believe that there isn't objective morality, but only temporary and subjective will and judgment.

[@Yippiyaya1]

Hey, came from reddit a couple of days ago, and I've been enjoying the series a lot so far! I'm somewhat confused here though. My view is essentially that I follow a moral framework (rule utilitarianism to be exact) to figure out what is right and wrong, and I believe this to be universal. That is, I consider actions that go counter to rule utilitarianism to be wrong, no matter who performs it, in which society or at what time they live. My essential worry though, is that I cannot prove that rule utilitarianism is the "correct" framework. If someone prefers biting the bullet on Kant's axe instead of on sacrificing their mothers' life for 2 strangers', I can't argue them out of that intuition. If that's what they prefer we just look at the world differently (I love my mom, don't get me wrong), and I don't think I can ever reason them into another position. I thought this made me a moral skeptic, but I don't see how the schizophrenia would apply to my position. I don't think I could be a moral objectivist though, because I would never state my moral convictions as fact, and I don't think anyone can do so convincingly. Surely the moral objectivist would have to be able to prove how at the very least one moral "fact" is indisputable in order to be confident in their position, no? Has anyone presented an example of such a fact? So I guess my question is, am I a moral skeptic, or have I misunderstood something here? I'm a 3rd year computer engineering student who has never taken a philosophy course in their life, so I'm sorry if I'm just horrendously wrong here..

[@jeffreykaplan1]

You are a moral objectivist, just one who believes that the truth of your particular moral theory (rule utilitarianism) cannot be demonstrated. The key thing here is the distinction between a theory and the argument in favor of that theory. You believe that a theory is correct (i.e., that there is one moral code that applies to everyone everywhere), but you don't have an argument for that theory. That's fine. And it also sounds like you think that no one could ever have an argument for that theory. Fine. But whether or not you can argue for your theory, the theory is the theory that it is. And the terms "moral skeptic" and "moral objectivist" apply to the theory, not the argument for the theory. So you are a moral objectivist, just one who thinks that you lack a demonstration that moral objectivism is true. At least, that's how it seems to me.

[@theanarchoatheist4951]

@@jeffreykaplan1 if we lack a reason to believe that moral objectivism is true like in the example given by this chap, no possible way to demonstrate its truth ect. Then shouldn’t we ought not posit that belief and remain skeptical. do you have any strong arguments for moral objectivism? i have been looking and the ones I am finding have been at least to me not that convincing.

[@joansparky4439]

@@jeffreykaplan1 if he doesn't have a argument or test for his thesis then it is not a theory though, is it?

[@joansparky4439]

@@theanarchoatheist4951 moral objectivists are in a information silo (social bubble) and somehow can't understand that humans can exist outside of such a construct.. without morals / ethics.. but that very thing is called wilderness and humans (well, maybe not modern humans) can very well exist in such a state of affairs. It's just that life is pretty harsh and inefficient due to work sharing / specialization not being really possible, which means low comfort levels. Moral skeptics just look much further out and include this option (maybe even unconsciousnessly / intuitively) and thus appear to be shizophrenic, while in reality the objectivists are the close-minded by ignoring the big picture.

[@seasidescott]

@@joansparky4439 - I think you are totally right about a theory requiring a test or overwhelming argument in lieu of that (example: string theory in physics). In the 'hard sciences' that's the case. I'm just wondering why we are ignoring actual research about DNA and humans being social animals as far as evidence for an objective theory here? There is such evidence of what it takes to make humans functional, healthy, and happy and that includes sharing and caring and connection with others. Whether or not it is the design of a selfish gene, Dawkins and many others have outright proven that.

[@SooJay]

What are the moral facts that Shafer Landau proposes?

[@SlimThrull]

Shafer-Landau's case is based on a faulty premise. One can be outraged by slavery while still being a moral skeptic. Those aren't mutually exclusive ideas. To say, "I think slavery is evil" is shorthand for, "My moral code says that slavery is evil." It is NOT shorthand for, "Everyone's moral code says that slavery is evil." Shafer-Landau conflates these ideas. In doing so, his reasoning becomes fallacious.

[@teejaybee0852]

Well unfortunately people don’t distinguish when they are making a subjective statement and an objective statement during standard conversation. For example the phrase “I think” is commonly used by people when making a subjective and objective argument, and often people to not make it clear whether their statement is subjective or objective. Due to this lack of clarity, if he is going off of them making an objective statement he isn’t wrong, but if he is on a subjective metric he isz

[@AlexDestroyerOfEarth]

The point is that the moral skeptic, not believing that morals are based on objective truths, holds arbitrary opinions about the nature of morality, and thus has no proper way to attack objectively immoral actions, or if they do they are seen as hypocritical or on a poor logical foundation.

[@AlexDestroyerOfEarth]

Am example would be being outraged at slavery in the Americas and their treatment of said slaves, but having no outrage at current slave practices in the Middle East or Africa. If you have no objective framework and have arbitrary subjective views on morality, how can you discuss the topic with authority when your outrage is selective or slipshod?

[@SlimThrull]

@@AlexDestroyerOfEarth The problem is that, as far as I can tell, there are no objectively immoral positions. Now, if you feel that there are, please present a couple. I'm sure I can show them not to be objective. (As I have done many, many times in the past.)

[@AlexDestroyerOfEarth]

@@SlimThrull murder. Specifically the act of unjust killing. Rape, in specificity the act of breaching someone else's autonomy over their body. Unnecessary betrayal of trust/breach of contract, which may include things like theft. You can come up with possible exceptions to these, but I do not believe the exceptions will disprove the rule.

[@walterott8228]

Unless he is wearing his wedding ring on his right hand, then he’s not writing backwards and the image is being inverted.

[@richardrodriguez8164]

No he is not writing backwards. It's similar to when your teacher or professor would write on a overhead projector.

[@chrisw4562]

Good catch! We are looking at the mirror image of what is going on. One could think he is left handed, and wearing his watch on the right, but the jacket tells the truth. The buttons are on the wrong side. Cool!

[@jessewilley531]

My favorite moral evil to commit... going to Taco Bell eating a bunch of burritos and then getting on a really crowded bus and ripping a good one without saying 'Excuse me'.

[@SciFiDucky]

If I'm understanding correctly, I think Shafer-Landau is assuming moral skepticism is some kind of affirmative action and is itself meta-ethical and presents some kind of inconsistency...but moral skepticism needn't be that. I don't have to say "I believe that there are no objective morals", I can merely just not posit any. Regarding specific claims that people who are not moral objectivists make, why can't those just be contextual. When people who Shafer-Landau would describe as moral schizophrenics say that slavery is wrong, they usually don't mean at all times in all places, and most of them would probably not have a problem with locking up and forcing on labor dangerous criminals. This can be a pitfall when dealing with abstractions, but I suspect that you could make a moral skeptic into a moral objectivist by merely taking things on a case-by-case basis. Then, the problem merely becomes that the moral objectivist is simply painting with too broad a brush.

[@RahxephonXtra]

Amazing video. I am hooked and will continue. But wanna put this out there (Even though this might be examined later on). I am a moral skeptic and the reason I do/cannot believe in Moral objectivism, is because the fundamental shift in humanity ove the course of ages. There is always another side. Sometimes the other side does not meet the requirements to overrule an action, but it is in fact the very reason why you cannot have an objective moral. A blanket statement 'it is bad to kill' is not an objective moral as we know of situations where it is the best and moral act.

[@igoretski]

I cleaned my computer screen, while you wiped your board. Did you feel the teamwork?

[@iainmacvicar3728]

Have you heard of Universally preferable behaviour; a rational proof of secular ethics

[@jcavs9847]

That's sounds like just kant

[@gastonsaintpaul5590]

I like the examples you use to clarify your points. Thanks

[@yodanivada007]

Perhaps a moral sceptic can have a moral claim, whilst still acknowledging that morality may vary from individual to individual

[@MyContext]

If a criteria were presented for this objective standard being claimed, that might give the idea some merit.

[@aggelospapademetriou2958]

its not the first time we re hearing this. Kant tried to objectify ethics too.

[@fluxnfiction5559]

Dank

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Thank you!

[@LesliePappas]

@@jeffreykaplan1 ⁷

[@TheJohmac]

There is an objective moral code; however it's complexity rivals that of the the material universe. One way to think about this is to start with something simple. Value. There are many things, ideas, people, groups of people, etc., that a person might value, or view as important to them. But to arrange the peuoritization of these values to the extent necessary to derive an objective morality, one would necessarily know absolutely everything. Everything has some value, whether positive or negative or virtually neutral, though, I don't think anything can have a completely neutral value, but that's a whole other conversation. But more than just knowing everything, you would also have to arrange everything in a hierarchical structure of value priority to make decisions in an objectively moral way. Many people have committed great and horrible atrocities due to a psychotic arrogance of grandizing their own arrangement of values, which makes the skeptical morality seem more rational. The problem is that the same sociopathic tendencies are even more pronounced with someone with that same arrogance about their existentialist interpretation of value.

[@rogergalindo7318]

could you please explain yourself a little more? to me, what you said is just an affirmation without an argument backing it

[@TheJohmac]

@@rogergalindo7318 Look at the big picture, as big as you can, and if you don't realize that picture is only a glimmer of the total reality, you are arrogant in your perception of reality. Because the full picture is so vast, so infinite so far beyond the reach of human perception, to assume that I can arrange the little I know in such a way as to develop from that a workable structure, a practical knowledge, a sufficient foundation for any kind of rational value structure, much less a set of moral standards is ridiculous. Now, that said, there are some simple principles that generally make up most value systems. Love, truth, peace, freedom, altruism, wisdom, etc; however, these ideas themselves become increasingly complex as you look at them more closely. Love is often conflate with an emotional response, an error that results in all manner of suffering and the infliction of suffering. If you want to see what the life of pure rationality leads, look at the life of Ayn Rand. Brilliant writer who lived a life that descended into tremendous suffering. And on the other side those who pursue emotional bliss are equally deluded. There is a truth and there is a feeling, but there is also so much more. Spirituality is not the belief in some existential supernatural sky daddy. It is a submission to the full picture, to the whole truth, and a willingness to accept that whatever that is has an intelligence, a mind, and a willingness to help.

[@kevinshirley9344]

Writing backwards so easily

[@namgyaldorjee8049]

The bigger question is are you right-handed or left-handed and even bigger question is are you writing on the glass backwards?

[@WalterStanley-zf6lo]

I constantly argue with people who claim that we can't judge the ethics of other times by our current standards. So, slavery of blacks and genocide of Native Americans in the nineteenth century were moral for their time. So, Charles Manson was not an evil man, as what he did was acceptable in his subculture.

[@fehmeh6292]

As an old man, values and not rules will put you where you want to be. Requires less situational on the spot work with self honesty, and you rolling the dice each time you skip that part.

[@barnabycat7002]

- intense ethical intuition flashbacks -

[@tayzk5929]

I'm a moral skepticist

[@hatersgotohell627]

When u say moral objectivism and talk about facts.. are u saying that all moral claims are facts or some are where as others are just objectively true. Like for example when we talk about truth the obvious truths that 100% certainly true we call facts but we also have opinions that we believe are true but yet even it they are true we would never call those facts since they're opinions. So truth both can contain facts or opinions not just facts alone.

[@mahammadoutunkara6430]

The videos always feel like they got cutoff 😂

[@MCLJN85]

I just realized that he is writing backwards fluently

[@brokenrecord3523]

Every philosopher is looking for that one, true, universal rule that accurately and without exception describes human behavior. Philosophers need to be more schizophrenic. All that black and white has got to be boring. The world has colors.

[@DRAMATICUS0815]

I wonder if things get confused here. When thinking about the reasons Schafer-Landau mentions that he deems responsible for the rise of Moral Skepticism, they all pretty much apply to me. As in they are part of the thought process that builds my own understanding of what is right or wrong. Being german born in the late 70's to a catholic environment, I can tell you I thought about the fanatics a lot. For example: I do think that moral codes and the way they are enforced throughout society are "made up". They change over time together with society, we see different cultures handling things differently without destroying themselves. All in all many (not all, and that´s an important point here) rules of what is right or wrong that are imposed onto the individual by society seem to reflect personal preferences more than some sort of objective morality or virtue. A good example for this would be the rules surrounding sexuality, relations between genders or the rules surrounding death and deceased people. However, I do not see myself as a Moral Skeptic as it is defined here, because I do think that there are actions that are objectively good or bad. I am skeptic when it comes to power. When in a discussion about this topic, I would take on a position that is morally schizophrenic to question a certain power structure. Is it really about good or bad or is it to uphold a certain hierarchy or status quo that is not necessarily good in itself? Is it a privileged position from where judgement is dished out?

[@dr_ill]

The moral schizophrenia argument is extremely underwhelming and seems extremely easy to me to counter. Just recognize the statement of "x is morally wrong" coming from someone who is a moral skeptic with "in my personal moral view, which I would prefer to be a moral view that everyone adopted, x is morally wrong". And then the entire objection falls dead.

[@zaikkhalil4439]

But if this "personal moral view" was shared with everyone then we will all agree that this moral act is objectively true or false, to say there are no objective truths means nothing is true or false, everything is basically just a "point of view" which will differ from one another, and if that's true then why do we punish rapists or serial killers, that's just how they view things it can't be ultimately wrong or false since there's no objective truth to such acts

[@dr_ill]

@@zaikkhalil4439 Because we want our personal moral systems to be implemented because we believe them to be preferable to the moral systems that others have (e.g. my personal moral system is based around negative utilitarianism and the minimization of suffering, and I would prefer my moral system to be implemented universally because I would prefer a society that would focus on minimizing suffering).

[@zaikkhalil4439]

@@dr_ill i don’t think landau was talking about those kinds of moral views, in his book he gives examples about slavery and misogyny as mentioned in this video which means the moral skepticism he was referring to is regarding moral acts such as murder,abortion..etc but i think there’s still an objective truth regarding moral views like utilitarianism, so even if there are disagreements about such views it doesn’t mean there’s no truth to them, you for one might think that the best way to live is for us to follow this moral view which means that to you this is the objective moral truth

[@dr_ill]

@@zaikkhalil4439 My point is that while I can say my personal moral system is negative utilitarianism, I cannot say that negative utilitarianism is objectively morally correct. I can say that "if you accept my subjectively chosen moral system, we can come to objective moral conclusions (specifically and exclusively within the framework of a subjectively chosen system)", and I can provide arguments to try to convince others to adopt my preferred subjectively chosen moral system. I cannot, however, say that my subjectively chosen moral system is objectively superior to other moral systems

[@zaikkhalil4439]

@@dr_ill i just don’t think that having a personal moral system is different from thinking it is the objectively true moral system, and if you hope for everyone to adopt said system then you’re implying that it is superior than any other moral system , also if you think of moral systems like those adopted by hitler for example is wrong then some moral systems have an objective truth, if my moral system was for everyone to kill, or stealing is only wrong when you steal from poor ppl for example then people have no right to tell me it is wrong bc moral systems are subjective and there are no moral objective truths, and in my opinion if we live by that, and people have the freedom to adopt any kind of moral system that fits their believes with no limits then life would be very very chaotic

[@dificulttocure]

The very fact that two people can disagree in their definition of morality already makes subjective.

[@SirFlanery]

Can two people not disagree about the definition of something that is objective?

[@SylviusTheMad]

Moral skepticism is, I think, a recognition that the entire field of Ethics has some unsolved epistemological problems. If Ethics asks, "How can we be good?", and Metaethics asks, "What is good?", Epistemology demands, "How do you know?" Until that question is answered for Ethics, there is a very strong justification for withholding moral judgment. Many moral realists would, of course, disagree. I had a moral perfectionist professor with whom I butted heads because I could not adequately phrase my question.

[@GMiller75]

I think I would have used the term immoral justification for the moral skeptics.

[@ClavisRa]

Inherent fallacy in his sense of being "morally schizophrenic", which is just a reformulation of his intuition favoring moral absolutism (which is really the more accurate term for his true perspective), and that is that moral outrage (as he couched it, but more properly, in general, moral judgement) cannot be valid coexisting with moral doubt. That's an absurd position, because we know from math that quality IS quantity. What we think of as the quality of something is often just the degree (never mind appropriateness and timeliness) of its expression: medicine vs. poison is a perfect example, and so is literally every "deadly sin". There is no conflict at all between decrying the injustice of war and recognizing the necessity of war in differing circumstances. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that moral judgement depends entirely on the scale of an act relative to its environment, rendering moral objectivism fundamentally absurd.

[@fieldrequired283]

I agree completely. Emotional outrage is an emotional response. The idea that you can't both know that emotions are subjective, and feel them anyway, is patently asinine.

[@simonrobson9579]

Professor. I am happy about your lecture. And i am constantly .. occasionally unhappy about your attitude. I sense a air of disrespect around things you say. About Greek gods.. about plants... . Please use that sharpness you poses to look inward.

[@joefromzohra]

There is no universal, objective moral law - there is no evidence of that. Like art, morality is an invention of the human mind. And just like art, it is REAL. The first question is: who decides what are the moral laws in a given society? The people? A political party? A single individual (dictator)? The second question is: how do we deal when different societies have different moral laws that clash with each other? Those are the fundamental questions we must grapple with, not the useless debate between moral skepticism and moral objectivism.

[@artlessons1]

Interesting! Rather than Hitler, my first thought ( this being philosophy) was Nietzsche (then I realized he was a century before, though it is contained in Hitler's thoughts). I would put him in the category of moral Skizafrenia. My first thought upon hearing of skepticism was Rene Descartes. From him, I feel that modern skeptics are on the rise. Ego-based rather than moral Again, a cross between Nietzsche and Descartes.

[@theanarchoatheist4951]

I don’t think they are evil objectively I just don’t like them, just like I don’t like the taste of stink bugs.

[@tayzk5929]

Same reason i'm a fascist

[@davidwilkie9551]

Belligerent ignorance, the absence of positive acceptance of another POV does not qualify as legitimate scepticism towards a Theoretical position, unless it's purely an undefined "cultural politics" state of affairs. Like it or not, if you think someone or something is wrong, you, as a representative of everyone (democratically) has as much responsibility as you are capable of to make a moral contribution, a circumstantially balanced assessment. If you _believe Evil self-defines as the taking of life or life-giving support, what action is possible that does not become "fighting fire with fire" and reciprocal warfare? Ie the version provided for moral scepticism is not constructive criticism or critique that can prevent warfare, it only advocates competition for resources, which is the obvious intention for Warmongering Arms Manufacturing militaristic crony Capitalism, or so we're told. "Objectivism", the tendency to approach a political posturing positioning (?), is a complex abstraction of poorly defined philosophical terminology, usually. We don't notice until someone outside the culture points it out...

[@theword7268]

I love pizza. I believe everyone in the world should love pizza because pizza (to me) is awesome. This is a subjective truth. Others may feel differently. I can also believe that (emphasis on the word believe) that certain things are evil and feel a certain way about them w/o declaring them objective truths b/c ultimately how do you figure out what an objective truth is. I think the categorical imperative is trash btw b/c you need to create an entire other universe just to make it work in this one. I find the word 'sxhizopherenic' in describing that view to be incorrect by the philosopher who said that.

[@TimLeandro]

"Moral objectivity." A clear definition of this would be useful. Many, if not most, civilisations throughout history have not subscribed to our moral framework. So, are we right, and they wrong? If so, why? And if future civilisations develop their own new moralities, are we therefore, wrong?

[@davesmith5656]

If one knows that an act is wrong, one should not do it. There is no complication of writings and teachings, of laws, orders, justifications of greater goods.

[@fundef]

Is lying always wrong, no matter the circumstances? How do you know that an act in inherently wrong? Where do this 'wrongness' comes from? What to do when the exact same act feels right for some people and wrong for others? How do we determine who is 'truly' correct?

[@davesmith5656]

@@fundef ---- Have you ever done anything wrong? Have you ever done anything good? You do see the difference, yes? If you get too "macro" about the nature of good and evil, it is not hard to get lost. The problem is not, "How do I make up for something good I did?" The problem is, "How do I make up for a wrong I did?" I'd refer you to Aristotle's Ethics. There he brings up something I would express this way: one guy can get accidentally bumped at a supermarket, and chuckle; another may take offense. The good is responsibility..

[@michaelchangaris1632]

Interesting as moral objectivism became more central there has been a global and growing commitment to fascism. Skepticism is a process not a fact.

[@SM_zzz]

So, isn't a moral schizophrenic simply a hypocrite?

[@joansparky4439]

no, the moral skeptic just looks at the bigger picture and sees the context on which morals are being defined. Try to see right or wrong in how living beings behave in wilderness for example.. murder? stealing? slavery? The difference between societies and wilderness is division of labor (or looked at it from the other side specialization), which means the individual becomes dependent on others to exchange the resources with for their personal survival, reproduction and fun having - and it is more efficient and thus comfortable to boot. Without ethics / morals you can't have this.. Schafer-Landau essentially is sitting in his little societal world-view bubble where ethics/morals are pre-requisites and can't understand how people who think beyond that bubble have a more flexible approach to this 'moral' concept. TL;DR: Life functions without morals / ethics.. it's just not as comfortable.

[@joansparky4439]

@dfasht _" Your TL;DR is an understatement; it's actually miserable."_ It's what reality is, what wilderness/nature are.. Your subjective / biased point of view is based on being brought up within a society formed by humans (individual living beings) to EXACTLY not have to endure that normal "miserable" existence that would prevail without work sharing / specialization - which are processes that REQUIRE moral / ethical rules to function, so that individuals can cooperate, in spite of their nature. Which naturally means that this 'omnipotent perfect creator' of yours is not existing.. it's pretty clear who has the bigger picture in mind and who is closing off his bubble to 'unpleasant realities' and rather sticks to a limited 'make-believe' tale. ;-)

[@joansparky4439]

@dfasht _"None of it even addressed my comment, let alone disputed it."_ What level do I have to break it down to for you to be able to grasp it? First grade? Kindergarden? Kindergrippe? _"[..] keep seeking, and one day you'll get it"_ I seek logic and reason, not tales that fit my pre-made world view that assumes a perfect creator. And yes, I don't believe in a creator, perfect or otherwise. But suit yourself, this planet luckily is big enough for both of us. So long.

[@marcm2277]

I find the arguments presented particularly unconvincing and assertive. Moral skeptics can still have personal interests and preferences. For example I don't need to believe murder is wrong to believe genocide is wrong or objectionable, I just need to have a vested interest in not being murdered or involved in a genocide. For example if I had relatives and friends who would become victims if murder and genocide were acceptable, then I have enough reason to be against murder and genocide, even to support law and order. Moral skepticism is not a rejection of personal values and interests, it makes the whole argument seem like a straw man to insist otherwise. The problem with moral objectivism is that it demands justification where none is needed...why should I justify that I prefer my loved ones not be murdered, or that I prefer to keep my belongings and kin to be unmolested by others? Morality and right and wrong are not relevant, what is relevant is that I have a preference, and that preference does not need to justify itself before some almighty moral authority. The only reason I would ever have to justify these things in practice is if some powerful authority threatened me to justify my existence and rights, or else. What's weird is how it feels like moral objectivists are the ones demanding a reason to not murder and steal, when they are the ones that believe in definite morals. Justification is needed to enforce morals, not to doubt authoritarian notions of obligatory behavior.

[@Tysto]

Recognizing that morality is a loose (and shifting) consensus of unwritten rules that are not universally shared by other societies is not "schizophrenic". That's ridiculous.

[@Paraselene_Tao]

Wow. Shafer-Landau is very contemporary. It might be too early to make an opinion on him?

[@_VISION.]

8:20 We never say shit like that lol

[@yodanivada007]

Would it be fair to say that morality is a populist concept? The fact that a different individual has the ability to think different on what is considered moral by itself shows that the concept of what is moral can be perceived differently. Therefore, certain absolute moral codes such as 'slavery is wrong', is just a reflection of that particular time period and an almost consensus between all of us individuals. We as a society deem someone who breaks a particular moral rule as worthy of punishment, and remove them from society. That would still not go against the idea that morality is relative...

[@theanarchoatheist4951]

No I say if you value freedom then don’t subjugate women. i don’t say it’s just wrong

[@tayzk5929]

I only value freedom when it benefits me

[@theanarchoatheist4951]

Hume was way more convincing.

[@johnmanno2052]

Thank you. Funny how people tend not to mention Hume, isn't it? Almost like they're afraid of him or something. I've yet to read anyone (Kant included) who's successfully refuted his arguments in my eyes

[@bubbaliburtee8657]

Stalin was worse tho

[@theanarchoatheist4951]

Bro started listing out the 2 reasons and you already make me want to be more of a moral skeptic because the reasons that guy gave makes him sound like some kind of religious nationalist bozo

[@jimmyjimmy7240]

This is like Sesame Street for philosophy, or philosophy on a budget. I've watched a couple videos now and I'm "skeptical" that you've taught moral philosophy. Some of the analogies are so bad, and seems like the understanding of platonic messages are just wrong.

[@Harrier_DuBois]

You need to learn how to write the letter "f".

[@clorofilaazul]

Of course Shafer-Landau is wrong.

[@shuheihisagi6689]

Im a student and I am a moral objectivist, not because Im religious or anything like that. But because I believe that there is moral truths that can't be subjective, I also subscribe to the idea of humans having a certain amount of Free Will. And Free Will along with moral objectivity, allows us to be morally responsible for our actions. Otherwise, the act of placing people responsible for their actions is wrong or at the very least subjectively good which is not real moral truth. Deontology is the closest, I think, we humans got to getting to the a logical bases for morality.

[@ignipotent7276]

you should read Alvin Platingas books on Christianity

[@Pengochan]

He is already misleading by choosing to term that "moral objectivism", because his argument has nothing to do with objectivity. Similar the term "moral sceptic" is wrong, because it's scepticism about the existence of some universal morality. That term is about as dumb as labelling someone "climate denier", as if those people were denying the existence of a climate. His argument is also bogus. It implies that anyone who doubts the existence of some universal morals has no morals at all.

[@thesnowybanana2971]

Shafer-Landau SUCKS SO HARD had to use one of his books where he outlines different ethical outlooks in my Ethics class, and his partisanship towards objective morality bled through in every single section. I do not like it when textbooks or teachers/professors make moral or political statements as if they are fact, especially when they don't back it up with anything and just take it for granted that what they're saying is true or that those that are reading/listening will and ought agree. Especially since, in the setting of a school, college, or university, it's coming from a figure of authority, and in such a way or setting in which counters to their statements would not be welcomed and would instead be seen as interrupting, either in actuality or in the minds of the students that would otherwise provide said counters due to the aforementioned method or setting.

[@jf8138]

Moral Skeptic is a far more logical position. It does not take loss of faith in authority, to know what you believe in your head. Point 1. He thinks the young are too stupid and ignorant to be wise. Somehow the Authority figures are endowed, mystically with wisdom, which provides ultimate knowledge. Very crappy point. 2. Increased exposure to ANYTHING will alter a persons way of functioning. Religious, or not. This point is rather obvious. 3. This is a good point. Fear of people participating in psychotic behavior, which we have seen leads to death and destruction, is very healthy. It seems that Russ Shafer-Landau is a coward and was digging in the dumpster to find reasons to defend his religion. I feel bad for him, because these points are really, REALLY weak.

[@pipMcDohl]

1- loss of faith in traditional authority figures 2- increased exposure to other cultures 3- cautionary tale of our century's fanatics when i saw this three arguments written on the board, alarm sirens were ringing in my head. So much that i felt the need to go check immediately who jeffrey Kaplan and Shafer-Landau were because these 3 arguments are exactly the kind of bullshit display i would expect from an apologist who make a straw man to demolish it later. lets look into it 1- the first argument is: leaders have lost credibility so people are now thinking "if the leaders don't know true moral facts then true moral facts do not exist" this is an invalid reasoning. absence of proof is not proof of absence. 2- this argument is irrelevant because instead of checking moral truth one by one it just make a general statement that different culture can exist and work. This is not an argument, it's just a piece of context. The existence of objective moral truth is one that need to survive the scrutiny of the details. a vague statement like this second argument doesn't do anything to prove or disprove it. it's a weak statement. it's nonspecific and as such i don't see how it is relevant. 3- the third argument is not about debunking moral objectivism. it picture that people are afraid of something and as a result are taking position against it without thinking deeply into it. all those three arguments depict people as mere sheep that follow their instincts. At no point the validity of moral objectivism is questioned by those 3 arguments. Those are all indirect reason why people would deny moral objectivism and the choice of word highlight their stupidity and isn't neutral. it sound like 'people walked away from moral objectivism for bad reasons'. that's totally what an apologist would do. pretending to describe arguments where in reality it describes the opposition as stupid. then the apologist later come up with real arguments and weight them against the fake argument presented against it and show those fakes do no have any weight. this is so fucked up. while those three arguments have context into it and will certainly have on impact on statistic of 'how many believe what'. Context being important after all. The way it's done is preoccupying. The second part of the video is not better. it describes moral skeptics as having anger management issues, being schizophrenic. it do not look into moral objectivist to see if they also feels outraged at moments and reserved in other circumstances. this is once again aimed to make us look down on moral skepticism. this is more propaganda than arguments. Outrage and reservation can also be found in people who believe that god is the source of moral truth. They can be outraged at time, like when some are blaming the Shoa on atheists, and they can be more reserved when talking about god committing genocide himself or in tales where followers of god, blessed by him, were massacring entire kingdoms. 'oh but the people massacred had to be beyond saving, probably, i don't know.' is what i sometimes get. what about the babies? where they as well beyond saving? no answers. or 'but god love them anyway' The problem with 'moral schizophrenia' is that, once again, we have a very vague and nonspecific argument and there is no effort to weight the value or contradict this arguments or try to apply to the rest of the population to see if it's really specific to moral skeptics or not. its only visible purpose seems to present moral skeptics as fools.

[@rickwyant]

Sounds like you have issues. I don't think the lecture defended either skepticism or objectivism. He merely presented their arguments. Don't jump so quick to comment.

[@pipMcDohl]

@@rickwyant sure Jeffrey Kaplan is only presenting another person's arguments. I'm fine with him doing that. it's all fine. you are right, i should have cool down before writing. i found the arguments presented so poor and wrong, i was shocked

[@Shin-Chara]

An ad hominem attack and an emotional appeal. Easily dismissed.

[@MarcDufresneosorusrex]

Isn't it funny when people follow the same political rules; tyranny follows. Maybe trust goverment bureaucrats less next time; Your mental health depends on it; dare I say your mental health is more important than your physical health? I'd like to think so but can't offer anyone a shred of evidence; at least not on the Internet.

[@jf8138]

These philosophical greats of the past, really, truly did not know logical thinking. Russ Shafer-Landau has presented one of the weakest arguments here. He is saying simply, we cannot feel bad about things, because his god isn't telling us to? He is saying there is no way to derive morals, from something, rather than nothing. He wants them to come from nothing, this is nonsense and makes his entire point virtually hypocritical. I am god, we are all our own god. We make our morals. Moral skeptics are simply allowing logic to rule instead of going off the wire, like Russ Shafer-Landau. Saying you cannot have it both ways, while trying to have it both ways, he is a fool.

[@shuheihisagi6689]

Moral skeptics can't be mad at Hitler, if you have no way of attributing moral value to his actions than you can't make a determination on whether he is "evil" or not. So either the moral skeptic has to act like they are "enraged" to fit in with their society who judges Hitler to be evil or they have to be inconsistent with their own world view. I am glad I figured this out in my first philosophy class. I don't claim to know all the answers of morality nor do I want to enforce my beliefs onto others. But I am certain Moral Objectivism is correct.

[@antimatter2380]

If you claim to not know all the answers of morality, then you are only left with skepticism because you are unable to decifer ALL possible reasons. Objectivism means 100%, and no one knows anything wholly , even though we may read a situation with 99.9999.... certainty, skepticism leaves the door open for that fractional situation you can't think of.

[@theboombody]

Yeah, moral objectivism isn't going to go mainstream anytime soon. So yeah, they need to pretend to be enraged or just allow others to be enraged at them for their lack of empathy.

[@tayzk5929]

Well they can be mad at Hitler, they just can't make any objective moral judgements and be consistent with their views you're right there. It's very normal for people to act like they believe certain things are right or wrong just to fit in with society, even so much that they actually start believing it many of them. It's part of the human animal to conform.