Moral Skepticism - Error Theory (J.L Mackie)

[@PhilosophyVibe]

The script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy Vibe Metaethics eBook, available on amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe5 - The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics & Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3

[@speaketh]

@8:51 How I end all arguments with my wife.

[@philosophywithanirishaccen4849]

You made me laugh out loud in a cafe. Well done. Everyone's lookin at me weird now

[@teddyknighty7020]

Ohh thank god for you. I have an exam in Phil that want's me to know Mackies Theory, and I can't wrap my head around the reading. Listing to it makes it so much better, thank you so much!

[@kumisbekerdaulet1262]

Do you have your writings? If you are, could you share, please?

[@yourfutureself3392]

Great vid! Social order and cohesion can be justified without appealing to moral realism. It is a fact that you care about your well-being and social order and cohesion is a good way of maintaining it. P1: if you care about your well-being, you should try to live in a good society. P2: in order to live in a good society, one needs to make that society better. C1: if you care about you're well-being, you should make your society better. P3: you care about your well-being. C2: therefore, you should try to make society better. Notice that these oughts aren't moral oughts but practical ouths. These oughts can be derived from logic and empirical observations because it tells how to accomplish a goal, not why we shpuld have the goal itself.

[@gengviktor232]

"Notice that these oughts aren't moral oughts but practical ouths. These oughts can be derived from logic and empirical observations because it tells how to accomplish a goal, not why we shpuld have the goal itself." It is absolutely truth. But there is also problem: If I base my morals on my own well-being then my actions are moral accidentally. (For example If I were terminally ill then why shouldn't I take out a loan what I could'nt pay back?)

[@chrismeloni2046]

Isn't the trouble measuring or determining which value maximizes social cohesion or what empirically are we measuring?

[@dexboat1733]

"Notice that these oughts aren't moral oughts but practical ouths. These oughts can be derived from logic and empirical observations because it tells how to accomplish a goal, not why we shpuld have the goal itself." That's fine, but that's not morality, that's something else.

[@jmike2039]

What is well being? That just assumes some normative standard of well, which needs to be elucidated upon

[@iamjustaguy12345]

There's people who don't care about their well-being. There's people who hate society. There's people who perceive society as harmful to themselves. People have different ideas of well being, and different ideas of social order and cohesion

[@sebastianmelmoth685]

Mackie does not say that social cohesion is morally good. He argues that social cohesion induces survival, which is merely convenient.

[@aleks5717]

Well what is merely convenient, is that not something that's benefitial for us as a species. And isn't something that is benefital for us as a species, something that we all can agree is good, since this is what as you say induces our survival. So if we all can agree that we strive for the things that induce survival, then what is social cohesion, is that not a way in which we induce our survival? Therefore acting in cooperation with one another is clearly something that we strive for, so does this not make social cohesion morally good, as we are then acting in accoradance with our nature, our survival. Anyway, just wanted to rant, thanks.

[@sebastianmelmoth685]

@@aleks5717 Morally good if social cohesion happens to result in survival. There are many situations in which it might not, in which case... the term "morally good" would have to be adjusted, which would make the term "good" and "moral" very...flexible.

[@aleks5717]

@@sebastianmelmoth685 So the idea you are suggesting is that social cohesion cannot really be morally good because social cohesion is not always good? I wonder if the same could be said about the survival of our species, wouldn't the survival of our species be a frim foundation to base moral good, well perhaps rather the base of what is good. Since if the survival of our species is not deemed good, for our everybody's sake, what then could morality be based on, if not our own lives, thus our survival and continuation of our species.

[@sebastianmelmoth685]

@@aleks5717 So then (all verbiage removed) you mean what is morally good is relative to that which is deemed morally good by general society at a particular time and place? Wouldn't the survival of species be morally good depending on what that species regards as morally good, which might be - for all we know - the survival not of the species but of the creations of the species and the eradication of the actual creature? Culturally, this might be a possibility as time progresses and creeds and codes are altered and changed by time and circumstance. Again, survival might just be convenient until it is deemed not to be... Morally good? Which moral, where moral, when moral, and what circumstance, moral?

[@theonlinetroll6946]

@@sebastianmelmoth685 I guess treat everyone like u want to treat urself?idk

[@YusufPonders]

lol @2:46 how depressed the man with one wife looks and how absolutely buzzing the guy with two wives looks

[@Returntofitra]

Why am I not surprised to find u in this comment section brotha Yusuf😂

[@jameswilliamson2568]

cheers lads, I might have a shot at passing my exam now

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Pleasure, thank you for watching. Best of luck in the exam.

[@gabrielleshull9106]

Given this definition of moral skepticism, I would call myself a moral agnostic. I do not believe that any moral claim is true or false. I recognize that I am inclined toward treating others with kindness because it makes me feel good. Lastly if my inclinations to certain moral values for individual actions come from a god, why would those moral value assignments be correct? For the purposes of this discussion, I define a god to be an omniscient, omnipotent, all good being. Note that I will not be convinced that such a god is perfectly honest unless you can somehow establish that it is morally wrong in all circumstances for a god to be dishonest.

[@andreas-panay]

what you're talking about is non-cognitivism. take a look at expressivism and emotivism

[@yeziu3475]

Gabrielle Shull to help yoy reach the truth I’ll give you a thought system that can help you and it help me a lot supposed you’re God and you decide what is moral and what is not can you justify it just because you are God and if yes suppose there are numbers of beings that disagree with your morality could it then be say that Gods morality is as subjective as the morality of others? If morality can be regard subjectively regardless of a supreme being then for what reason would it justify to be objective we can also then say that it is made up of a being either for his own self interest or for it to either create social order or social abomination to other beings which can then lead to me saying morality is arbitrary if a persons goal is to get to hell the being it is morally good for him to go to hell because that’s what he desires that then lead more destruction to even defend moral realism

[@mist273]

I'm a moral skeptic and I simply cannot understand moral realism. After listening to people like Sam Harris advocating for it I thought 'ok there might be something I'm not seeing here', so every now and then I give it another opportunity, but so far it continues to seem so unreasonable. Does anyone has been in a similar situation? Is there any good argument against the so called is-ought gap?

[@Bilboswaggins2077]

Moral realists like Harris and Peterson are charlatans in my eyes

[@dexboat1733]

@@Bilboswaggins2077 Well, neither of them are philosophers, I don't know of anyone actually interested in philosophy who goes to their books or lectures for guidance or good arguments on the subject.

[@bernkbestgirl]

8:28 - I doubt Mackie meant that it is an objective fact that social cohesion is a moral good. Wasn't he just stating his opinion? Moral Error Theory applies to statements about objective value, not any one person's opinions about what they like.

[@dignifiedDog]

that is a good point but that's all the time we have for now.

[@literallyjustmyname2353]

I think he also could have also meant that it was just generally desired (a fact about people's feelings) but not that it was desirable (an objective fact about value).

[@harrimoodith7852]

Im a PP student, and your vids really help to understand the readings. Cheers :)

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome, glad we can help.

[@simranraina6291]

Excellent explanation.....heart full of thanks for sharing knowledge. Philosophy vibe... Well done keep it up

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you very much :D

[@philosophywithanirishaccen4849]

The final point seems the most important to me. It seems very hard to believe that anyone could truly hold that every normative statement possible is false. They always seem to have something that they find desirable

[@hotboxhearse]

what does desire have to do with truth lmao

[@philosophywithanirishaccen4849]

@@hotboxhearse I'm not making a point about truth, but belief

[@hotboxhearse]

@@philosophywithanirishaccen4849 then what is so hard about believing that one can trust in the falsifiability of normative claims? especially since mackie himself clearly did

[@hyrocoaster]

Morality must be grounded in physical reality, otherwise there is no better or worse. Social reality is not separate from physical reality but an emergent property. Monogamy and polygamy can be both morally right depending on how much they contribute to people's well-being. The reason why people may see them as mutually exclusive is because they take moral imperatives as ends in themselves.

[@Soldatus_Crafts]

I believe moral properties exist because A) If there were to be two sides, then when it starts to rain, one side argues that rain does not exist and then the other side argues that it does exist. Now of course, we all know that raining occurs so which side is right? The one that argues that rain exists! So if you say that moral properties don’t exist, the same can go for raining. B) If one argues that 5 + 5 is 10 while another person argues it is say 14 or 50, therefore not 10. Again, we all know that 5 + 5 is 10, so therefore the person who argues that 5 + 5 is 10 is right. C) If we can use logic or critical thinking for a certain issues that can lead to the right conclusions which is shown in A and B, then moral properties do in fact exists!

[@dexboat1733]

Those examples simply give examples that prove that things exist in the world. If we follow your arguments, we can believe in anything, like god or ghosts or whatever else people 'feel' they can sense.

[@naxious6343]

Just because you want to pursue a better functioning society by searching the truth, doesn't necessarily mean that morals have anything to do with that decision.

[@dexboat1733]

Correct.

[@perryjohnson6461]

Why is having a better functioning society desirable?

[@elliotrook8118]

Thank you so much for this video. I have my exam which includes error theory and it confused me but this has really helped.

[@Pinkpea]

do you do pre u or a level?

[@elliotrook8118]

A level (AQA syllabus)@@Pinkpea

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad this video helped :) Best of luck in the exams.

[@chandrabell4528]

One day while my 7 year old daughter and I were shopping and she took a candy bar and put it in her pocket. When I saw her do this I asked, "Are you going to pay for it she said, no I want it. I told her it was not hers and we had to pay for it, because stealing was wrong. She asked me "why?" I then asked her if she would like it if someone else took something that belonged to her, she said no she would not. I then told her that is why its wrong to steal, don't do things to others you wouldn't want them to do to you. She then asked if I would pay for the candy bar, I said yes sweetheart we can buy it.

[@yellowmellow9265]

So your morality is a deal. Do good have good ?

[@stanimirvelinov2472]

What if i want peaple to steal from me?

[@pan_cakekie4832]

@@stanimirvelinov2472 😳😂

[@wendycarballo9539]

@@stanimirvelinov2472 well it is more likely that the person you steal from disagrees with you

[@hellocutiekittyful]

I love you guys!!!! So happy I found your videos today as I have my A2 exam tomorrow. I'm understanding this so much more. Wish you had some videos on the philosophy of mind

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you, glad these videos are helping you. The Philosophy of Mind scripts have been written just taking time animating them. Good luck in the exam tomorrow.

[@hellocutiekittyful]

Thank you guys again!! The argument from queerness came up and I played back this whole video in my head and actually understood what I was talking about. I was completely lost on Metaethics before I watched your videos.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

It's a pleasure. Hope you ace the exam!

[@beenz07]

The answer to final question is a nod towards utilitarianism. If it was just a ploy to get comments, it worked. A hermit cannot be said to be doing something evil, per se. Therefore the utilitarian good is not objective. The fact that most of us desire the products of society is not something that we OUGHT to do, but rather is a function of being animals which desire pleasure.

[@joypuzzles_yt]

Have a full on midterm, Ван Дюфельдың балдары!

[@justingrove5190]

6:56 All truth is arrived at via intuition of the truth. 2+2=4. That is true. Prove it to someone who does not recognize it intuitively. If A then B; A therefore B. Prove B to someone who accepts A but does not intuit the validity of Modus Ponens and who does not intuit the validity of a truth table. You are left shouting: "Can't you see." And their answer can be nothing but "Not I can't".

[@shootmrme]

this really helped me fully grasp the concept!

[@jeevanthombare5343]

Thank you so much for this! Amazing job!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you very much, glad you found the video useful.

[@RubénGómez-k7v]

I believe that ethics is relative because there is no objectivity of good and evil, and each morality is different in each culture, custom. For example, let's say that violence is bad, it is not an objective fact, it is also good in dangerous situations. Violence is considered good and bad. Helping others is good, it is not an objective fact but it can also be bad because so much altruism can leave people with nothing. I am a moral relativist and I consider that ethics and morality are relative and not objective.

[@arsenbabasyan1646]

Pov: u have an exam in an hour

[@eferrari96]

Imho as long as we don’t know whether human kind will live forever or not with a certain morality, we do not know what is the right moral. But this also causes am dilemma which morale decisions that influence others are right, so we get stuck and not taking any action. So the easiest way to take action is to go with the given morale but you can only hope that the morale is right, so kinda like optimistic nihilism. Just my opinion, I am not an expert in this field just going through the web.

[@ngweimin9372]

And are usually governed by feelings and labels to the feelings

[@zabdi8112]

Such a good explanation!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you.

[@mechadana88]

Thank you so much for the video!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You’re welcome, thank you for watching.

[@scoogsy]

Moral relativism seems to imply there’s no such thing as a fact. Or even that “plausible” has a meaning. Ultimately it seems like it is an extension of radical scepticism. That is, when putting two moral claims against each other from different cultures, one cannot look outside to a higher claim to anchor whether something is moral. It appears to simply look at the two claims, compare them, and to claim that when you pit claim A against Claim B in a vacuum, how can you pick one over the other. This seems to make sense. However if you can find a higher set of claims to anchor your morality to, then you don’t pit two claims against one another alone. You measure all claims against the higher claim, or moral value. If we are to forget cultural claims of morality, and instead look to the state of things as they are, we are empowered to develop a universal moral frame work. For instance you could use a framework like utilitarianism, that transcends cultures. If you use this, moral relativism dissolves. One can justify a universal moral framework, if one can accept that things are the case as we consciously experience them. That is, we observe the environment, we assess cause and effect, use a framework like utilitarianism, and apply it. Moral relativism seems to be broken by effectively allowing an anything goes mentality. One culture allowed adultery, stoning of women, honour killings etc, while another finds those abhorrent. If an individual makes a brute fact claim for example that suffering is bad, and they wish to reduce it using utilitarianism, then they will trump moral relativism. What is a moral relativist to do when another culture relying on a higher universal morality system, encroaches on them? How can the moral relativist justify pushing back, when they have to accept that the cultures using utilitarianism is doing this as a result of their culture, and it’s justified on those grounds. It seems messy, and contradictory.

[@iosefka7774]

Utilitarianism can hardly be said to transcend culture. It grew from the Western ethical tradition, in the conditions of the Enlightenment. Additionally, moral relativism needn't be anything more than a meta-ethical theory. You can be a moral relativist and still choose to outlaw polygamy, for example, even if you know that your stance against polygamy is no more correct than a polygamist's morals.

[@scoogsy]

Jamien if we are to look at the origins of any philosophical theory, you are right. They all originate from a person or group, who is effected by the culture they reside within. The environment and institutions they are subject to in all likelihood helped in some significant way to push the theory in a direction that was built on or modified from theories that culture generated previously. That said cultures are complex and driven from a rich history often involving many cross cultural influences. Western culture for that matter covers a huge swath of influences from across the globe. Was it the Italian influence, or German influence? Or the English, Russian or Greek influence that made a theory what it is? Or was it all of them? Regardless when we talk about universality, we mean lifting it out and applying it across cultures. Putting cultures aside and seeing how fitting it is for the human race in general. Philosophical theories with deeply entrenched cultural influences (ie. do this because god says so) often fail the test of universality. For instance “throw gays off tall buildings”. How does that translate universally regardless of culture? Obviously not well if we apply a more universal value of reducing unnecessary suffering. Finally wouldn’t you say your last point regarding the polygamist vs monogamists (I assume you meant monogamist) argues for the position that when faced with two theories, you simply have to accept the other as valid even where it directly contradicts your own?

[@iosefka7774]

@@scoogsy In what way can homophobic morality not be applied cross-culturally? I don't even see what your defense is supposed to be. You apparently just assume that utilitarianism wins out only because it's more general. As for your last paragraph: I can't tell what you're saying. When did I mention theories and "accept[ing] the other" theory? I think you've misread my comment.

[@scoogsy]

Jamien because homophobia is derived from an underlying reason. In particular religious contexts it’s derived from a holy book, which says homophobia is bad and here are the ways in which it should be dealt with. That doesn’t scale in any culture who doesn’t follow that religion. And it’s not based on *credible* reasoning. It’s just “because god says so”. These cultural specific morals, based on the preferences of a culture, that can’t use reasoning or evidence to hold up their claims then require no reasoning or counter evidence to refute them. I’m using utilitarianism as an example as it’s a well understood and popular form of moral framework. We could use Kants categorical imperative if we like, or any other framework designed for universal application. The fact that a theory is universally applicable also does not make it good, so I apologise if I gave you the impression I was arguing for that. Would you say it is better to develop a moral frameworks that scale and can be applied regardless of ones cultural background if it is shown to enhance human well being?

[@iosefka7774]

@@scoogsy Modern (institutional) homophobia is based in a pseudo-scientific obsession with reproduction. i.e. homosexuals are immoral because they lower the birth rate. How is this any less universally applicable than the incredibly Western ideas of the quantification of suffering and a calculus-based ethics? Anyway it's irrelevant. When I say that utilitarianism is *Western*, I am not misspeaking or overstating myself. It formed from the ideas that unified the various intellectual cultures of Enlightenment-era Europe. The differences between Italian, French, German, etc. thought are only there in so far as these cultures of thought developed different additions to the Enlightenment fundamentals. Just as with your religion example: if you went to a hunter-gatherer person living on a remote island, and told them about utilitarianism or the categorical imperative or whatever, they would think it was the most bizarre idea they had ever heard. You would be unable to convince them that it made sense. --- I think moral frameworks are silly. We possess our morals and I trust they will refuse any attempt at systemisation.

[@pinklady6390]

Great video! Thank you so much! :D

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Pleasure, thank you for watching.

[@melaniedavenport]

Thank you for this video, we it was very informative and helped answer my question!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad it was helpful!

[@music4meh]

What can decide a claim is moral? Isn't morality our faculty, free of intellect, to value anything? A progress in morality being progress in our definition of progress? Most meta-ethic debates seem so antiquated while juvenile. I don't get it.

[@extinctionistrecordsblackm6380]

how exactly does error theory differ from non cognitivism?

[@Adiusa0874]

"All moral claims are false" is self refuting because it is a moral claim: "It is wrong to believe that we can distinguish between right and wrong".

[@brookbeast3886]

“All moral claims are false” isnt a moral claim.

[@Adiusa0874]

@@brookbeast3886 Clarification: "all moral claims are false" is a claim based on *perceptions* , not necessarily a "moral claim" - I was in a hurry :) Morality comes from our perceptions and you claim to not trust them, but your claim is also based on perceptions. "All moral claims are false" is self refuting because it is *based on your perceptions* as our morality is. Basically you say "don't trust the perceptions that gives us a sense of morality but DO trust the perception that *all moral claims are false* ".

[@anteodedi8937]

You completely missed the point!

[@Adiusa0874]

@@anteodedi8937 The point about "all moral claims are false" - based on ones perception being self refuting?🧐

[@anteodedi8937]

@@Adiusa0874 No no, it is not about how morality is, it is about moral claims (what you ought to do and what you ought not to do). Those claims are false and do not contain objective truth but are based in subjective emotions and feelings. "All moral claims are false" does not mean that all claims about "how morality is", are false (aka self refuting) but all claims about "how things ought to be or ought not to be" are false (categorical imperative). It is about the difference between factual claims (is) and moral claims (ought).

[@FactitionalistNetwork]

1:49 it seems that Mackie or perhaps the Moral Realists he was responding to were making some leaps of logic. The motivations, the intentions, the circumstances, all the extraneous factors are points of fact that shape the truth of any specific action. They cannot be ignored in our philosophical calculus. To say that any specific action is always good in all circumstances ignores the facts of all those circumstances. It's not logical to presume that there is nothing that interacts with and alters the morality of an action. Therefore it does not follow that just because morality is circumstantial that it is also fictitious

[@chairwood]

Actually he takes into account any extraneous factors. The point is, after all calculations have happened is there an "objective" moral answer we can verify? The answer depends on ones system of morality and their values.

[@gustavdagamer]

Great explanation!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you 😀

[@godlessheathen100]

Moral claims are not objectively false...neither are they objectively true. They are subjective value judgements, even those which are universally held within a species. Ubiquity is not objectivity. A resolution of the epistemological problem might be able to put the notion of moral facts to rest.

[@SmileyEmoji42]

Does moral objectivism not intersect with the problems of Divine Command Theory in that, if morality were a truly objective property and we somehow discovered that "Eating babies is good" was a true moral statement, then we would be obliged to eat babies and consider it good (just as if God said it in Divine Command Theory)?

[@AndyAlegria]

If we want to only do good and eating babies is good then what's the problem?

[@minhalazim4749]

This helped so much, thank you!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

A pleasure. Happy it helped.

[@smoshbooz]

Moral Intuition seems to me to be just an evolutionary survival instinct. But because as a society we grew so fast and large that there are now a billion unnatural situations that require a moral decision from a natural instinct that we cant always keep up and have to calculate way too many factors in it so that it's very likely for people to not have the 100% same moral opinion. Are there theories that support my thinking?

[@christie_exist]

I have similar thinking.

[@iosefka7774]

The intuitionst might similarly argue that we should doubt the existence of space and time since our brains evolved these concepts to survive. We have to start from somewhere.

[@dexboat1733]

Moral intuitions are mislabeled.

[@dexboat1733]

@@iosefka7774 Morality doesn't appear to be anything like our 5 senses, however. Even with the senses, they don't give us an accurate portrayal of the world around us. Even sight only captures a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. So if you see only the colors of the rainbow, you might doubt the existence of x rays or gamma rays, for example. Same as our supposedly 'moral intuitions', what we perceive in terms of our 5 senses is molded and selected based on what was useful to us. So that's not really a particularly strong argument either to cast doubt on a moral skeptic's argument.

[@plantseedsstaywoke9550]

I love your videos. You need more views and subscribers. Only 2.7? You deserve way more... Hmmm... Your videos need to be full screen. Maybe you can take advantage of music and more sounds to emphasise certain moments and moods. Maybe give you characters names and personalities and get your audience to love your characters. Just throwing ideas. I love the knowledge and wisdom though. Thanks for the upload.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you for the feedback, really appreciate it. Regarding the full screen, the videos are uploaded as mp4 format, they come out with the boarder however after a few days KZbin gives the option to improve the video and we can edit them to remove the boarder. So eventually all the videos come out as full screen. I love the idea of giving the characters personalities, we have named them George and John although we do not stress this in the video. I think the plan will be to finish covering the academic subjects of Philosophy, once we have covered a large enough ground we will look to expand the debates into current social and political events, this way we can really give the characters a personality, their own thoughts and opinions and listen to them debate. Once again thank you for the suggestions, this is exactly what we need!

[@plantseedsstaywoke9550]

oh yea its full screen now my bad. You guys can also do live debate type of things or partner up with other youtubers for videos for the extra views and subscribers. Oh what will really get your channel views is if you respond to other youtubers. You can do counter arguments or even supportive arguments. Of course I like your material now as well. It seems like you guys have it figured out. I'm looking forward to your later works. All your videos leave me with more questions than answers. Sometimes I'm seeking for an answer haha. I know you do this to keep it neutral. I'll give more ideas and feedback as I think of them as you make new videos. Be safe.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thanks again for the pointers. Yes the idea is to give a balanced video and let the viewers reach their own conclusions. But of course the debates can go on forever so we can only cram in a few of the major arguments.

[@plantseedsstaywoke9550]

Oh yeah one more thing, keep in mind the youtube algorithm favors longer videos so don't be afraid of making longer videos. The longer it is, the more retention time, the more advertisements, etc...

[@avontaywilliams]

After re-watching this video a year later, I would like to raise one point. The point raised at the end seems like a non-sequitur - it does not follow from acknowledging that social cohesion is desirable to the claim that a well-functioning society is therefore morally good. A lot of things are desirable that are 'amoral'. For instance, suppose I desire to count blades of grass (see Rawls), whether or not I count blades of grass is not something that is within the moral realm. I would not be admitting/committed to saying that a world in which I count blades of grass is therefore morally good/better than one in which I didn't - it simply doesn't follow. Mackie's argument is metaphysical and meta-ethical. Attempting to derive this normative claim does not follow from his metaphysical and meta-ethical views. George and John, thoughts?

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Hi Avontay, this is an excellent point and definitely a response that would be worth mentioning. I think this will ultimately rely on whether you consider a statement around the functioning of society a moral statement? As you have correctly pointed out the desire to count blades of grass is amoral. Is a desire to see a happier population a moral statement, or shall we say, a moral desire? If it is, and it is something that most people will strive for, then does this become a sort of moral truth. "A well functioning, happy society is morally good" becomes a true statement.

[@Destroianus]

0:47 If all moral claims are false, how can we know them in the first place? The idea of knowing something that is false seems incoherent

[@AndyAlegria]

If you were to say that an absolute truth were false, that would be incoherent, but knowledge is a different story. I know that Brazil is playing Germany today. I turn on the tv, watch Brazil beat Germany, and I know that Brazil won this year. In reality, I was watching a rerun of last year's game and Brazil lost to Germany in THIS year's game. What I know is false. Your response is probably, "you really didn't KNOW that Brazil won." My response is to ask you to research all the different philosophical definitions of "knowledge" and the weaknesses that each one has. When people practically say they know something, that is different from knowing absolute truth, and many philosophers claim we can never know absolute truth, so practical knowledge is the best we've got. How many things have societies, not just individual people, "known" that turned out to be false?

[@YamiAi]

Kant would like to have a word with Mackie.

[@Blandy0487]

Perhaps the aforementioned innate sense of morality comes from our evolution as social animals, what is good for the group is good for me etc

[@katrinussumfuss]

A level philosophy tomorrow?

[@justingrove5190]

5:00 assessing a system of thought based on the way you would describe a situation to a 5 year old hardly seems like a legitimate procedure to me.

[@avontaywilliams]

Great video, as always! I would love if the point raised at the end of the video could be examined in more depth. I don’t think moral facts exist, and even if they did, would they be tangible or could we verify them empirically? If they do exist, I think it would be necessary for a God to exist, but I do not believe in God(s)😂Sam Harris attempts to show that an objective morality exists without a God in the Moral Landscape, but i wasn’t convinced by it.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you! And yes I think the final point can be expanded on in more depth. Essentially Mackie's argument for acting in a "moral" way - if morality does not really exist - was for the cooperation of society. John argues that a peaceful society then becomes a desired goal, and so in a way becomes a moral goal. So moral law might not cover specific universal behaviors (i.e do not kill, do not steal etc) but it will cover any behavior that leads to a peaceful functioning society. If you donating money to charity leads to less poverty and improves your society then this becomes a morally good act. Of course this needs a lot of work and probably a dedicated video. As you said this cannot really be verified empirically, it could fall under the Quasi Realist umbrella, however even that ultimately renders morality non cognitive. Also it leads to even more problems of defining a peaceful society and how to balance different ideologies on how a society should run.

[@plantseedsstaywoke9550]

I noticed you mentioned peace. Peace without justice is tyranny. If you want to know what morality is, look up the word Justice. It's the perfect word to describe what morality is. Morality is fairness. Sure life is not fair, but we can work a step closer. justice n. The quality of being just; fairness. n. The principle of moral rightness; equity. n. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

This is an interesting point. I think a video debating justice will be worthwhile.

[@aprioriontoast704]

Yeah Sam Harris isn't regarded as your best reference towards objective morality, and he mixes up descriptive/prescriptives. Try Derek Parfit "what matters" , Rawls "a theory of justice" but look up his "veil of ignorance " to learn about theories of fairness I'd also recommend Jurgen Habermas's. Discourse Ethic but he is really tough to read . Most respectful philosophers base objective morality as a methodological or epistemological fact that raises from the ashes of inter-subjective interactions with reality, so something that reflects all sentient agents. So like money is a intersubjective phenomenon and how we spend money and think of money's quazi-"behaviour" is based on more mathematical ideas. Logic isn't a floaty thing. "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" - Socrates

[@godlessheathen100]

The morality of god(s) is still subjective. As for "morality for society's sake..." No thanks. Group selectionist hypotheses have it exactly backward.

[@nguyenucthanh7529]

how did you do it can you share with me , thank you

[@tigger2581]

Great

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you!

[@dr.pushpanjaliraja3353]

Please available it in hindi too

[@hyun1539]

My textbook sucks thanks for this

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad we could help.

[@sharpenedge]

4:44 Stealing is antithetical to the project of life and is therefore unsustainable as a modus operandi. That is the definition of wrong.

[@iosefka7774]

Would it be moral for a sentient robot to harm another sentient robot? Neither are alive. If you found yourself as an disembodied entity, a kind of spirit, would it be moral for you to harm other entities like yourself? None of you are alive. How do you know what the project of life is? One can observe that living things *want* to survive and to reproduce, but one can also observe that a broken clock doesn't tell the time.

[@AnonyMous-og3ct]

Moral claims are opinions/judgments from my POV, but opinions can still be "true or false", or "more accurate vs. less accurate". Take treating nausea. Different health practitioners will provide different "opinions" on how to treat a patient, and this can vary wildly between cultures/time periods. Some might suggest an ancient herbal remedy. Others might be of the opinion that acupuncture is the best treatment for this patient. Some might suggest a shamanistic ritual. A modern doctor might suggest antibiotics. A second opinion from a different doctor might suggest invasive surgery. These are all "opinions" that are being offered on how to treat the patient, not "facts", but they can differ in varying levels of successfully treating the patient's nausea with minimal side effects. Same thing with whether cultures arrive at monogamy or polygamy as I see it. Health has a "queerness" about it as well similar to what Mackie observed about morality. Some people might really want to gorge themselves on junk food but discipline themselves to refrain in favor of what they perceive to be a healthier choice. The difference here is prioritizing a longer-term interest by resisting a short-term temptation/desire/impulse.

[@plantseedsstaywoke9550]

Cold Blooded Murder and Stealing is wrong because I wouldn't want it to happen to me, because of empathy, because it causes suffering. Now if a person wants to die and you can kill them without causing pain, then I wouldn't consider that wrong. It's like assisted suicide or volunteer death sentence. Nothing wrong with the death sentence if the prisoner wants it. Better they kill themselves than harm others.

[@coolstuff7772]

Plant Seeds Stay Woke Are you saying murder and stealing is wrong because you don't want to be murdered and have our things stolen? That's like the "golden rule" treat others the way you want to be treated. Also are saying morality should tied to pleasure and pain or just pain?

[@plantseedsstaywoke9550]

Yea the golden rule is good. Also being the change you want to see in the world. Pleasure should definitely be considered when it comes to morality. Pleasure is a good thing as long as there's no suffering or it outweighs the suffering. and no rights are being violated.

[@coolstuff7772]

Plant Seeds Stay Woke Interesting. The "Golden Rule" is the morally right action. Treat others the way you want to be treated. I think the golden rule can be a good moral code for dealing with issues of justice. But my concern is how can "Golden Rule" establish and define political rights and how to govern? Also how would we define pleasure/good and pain?

[@Spider58x]

"Cold Blooded Murder and Stealing is wrong because I wouldn't want it to happen to me, because of empathy, because it causes suffering." This statement falls victim to David Hume is/ought problem and is logical fallacy of a non-sequitur. You can not logical get an ought (x action is wrong) from a is (i wouldn't want that to happen to me). Your conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise.

[@IPlayWithFire135]

That's a great opinion. Doesn't make it objective or a moral fact of any kind. Doesn't even make it personally consistent, unless you're willing to embrace veganism.

[@ngweimin9372]

Moral statements to me are false

[@evilsoap7835]

7:41 mmmm fictionalism??

[@discoveringthegardenofeden7882]

Macky could have considered that the formulations of moral truths are themselves derived from intergenerationally accumulated wisdom, which maps moral reality. This 'error theory' is quite baseless. Sometimes we no longer understand the wisdom in our own moral traditions, i.e. restricting sex to married couples, marriage also being an economic safety net for men, women and children, because pregnancies are deadly and sex is potentially deadly (and this was an obvious truth until the advent of post mid-20th century medicine, and its false promise of being more able to separate sex from consequences, though usually spectacularly failing at it. Now it has become a truth that only appears during pandemics of sexually transmittable diseases).

[@TheFate23]

Just because some behavior was useful to overcome certain problems doesn't mean that it was/is right. Knowldege from wisdom can, at best, be useful, but not right or wrong. Imagine the follow scenario: tomorrow the wisdom tells us that we need to kill you because you are an economic burden to society. Would you consider it right? Or wrong? Is it a moral truth that we have to kill you?

[@discoveringthegardenofeden7882]

@@TheFate23 If the moral truths are defined as intergenerationally accrued wisdom then my killing should have a grounds known to a long standing tradition. Your example instead suggests a failure of acting with long standing wisdom (acting wisely) which would involve not getting society in a position where killing humans is seen as a solution to alleviate an economic issue which could have been prevented by not introducing unthoughtful policies. Hence, it is not only morally wrong, it is evil in the modern and in the religious sense of the word. A problem that could have been solved with wisdom, doing the necessary, instead was solved with an immoral deed which became inevitable. A truth that is failed against is that lack of foresight (providence) or omission to act when necessary can leads to reactionary damage control (which can lead to even worse outcomes). Wisdom, which involves informing oneself on history and past experience and how older generations prevented problems (i.e. Bible advices to build granaries with a 7 year supply in case of the quite frequent multi-season droughts reported on by successive generations), could have lead to the necessary insight preventing this. These kinds of proposals normally are suggested by dictators, ideologues omitting to examine and apply the logic behind old wisdom, mono-variable analysis, or introducing policies condemned by old and gray experts, i.e. a simple example regarding green policies: expensive energy can cause farmers to simply stop buying fertilizer resulting in a 30% drop in food production + a larger immediate production shock due to farmers going out of business. The result in an interdependent world could be almost universal worldwide hunger one to two seasons later. All this could be the result of green policies resulting in hindrances to the production, sale and transport of energy types currently in wide use. Or more bluntly: if you want a better car, don't sell your car before you have the new one in your possession.

[@djrn1621]

There is an objective moral truth to the world- any other claim is false

[@IPlayWithFire135]

And you base that on...what?

[@carpyet9507]

This sounds like Utilitarianism with extra steps.

[@J22-k5s]

One thing to consider is that the whole of society is built upon the individual. The individual is the building block in which “society” arises. Society is a mental concept it’s not a concrete thing. If one acts “morally good”, it translates into an environment that fosters growth and progress for everyone. This is much different from say enacting laws or making moral decision as *society* as the target. Like I said, society isn’t concrete. Whatever laws that are enacted or whatever decisions made on a moral level should be directed at each individual as the sole focus. Utilitarianism attempts to establish morals on the number of people the decision effects or in other words, what benefits “society” the most. As long as 51 million people are happy, it’s ok for 50 million to perish, according to Utilitarianism. The philosophy in this video is much different, as it attempts to base morality on the individual level, and as a result of morally good actions of the participants, society as a consequence flourishes without “society” as the focus.

[@outofoblivionproductions4015]

Classic Post-Modern existential crisis: there is no objective truth so nothing I say is true. Mute me.

[@iosefka7774]

Postmodernists don't reject the idea of objective truth, they just wish us to be more careful with what we call "objective truth."

[@outofoblivionproductions4015]

@@iosefka7774 Wrong.

[@iosefka7774]

@@outofoblivionproductions4015 Why is it wrong? You don't get to deny something without reason - unless you think your feelings are more important than the facts.

[@outofoblivionproductions4015]

@@iosefka7774 It is true they believe in one objective truth (which is wrong)- that there is no objective truth, only different perspectives, and this contradicts their sole position :(

[@iosefka7774]

@@outofoblivionproductions4015 Plenty of post-modernist authors, and laypeople who agree with them, accept that there is objective truth; I am one of them. Postmodern philosophy is about critiquing/examining naive culturally-constructed narratives which purport to objectively explain the world. e.g. postmodernists criticise the Marxist story of societal progression and its inevitability.

[@lewiswis8680]

I love your channel, the information is spot on and super digestible. However, I really hate your cursed animations, please change the format!

[@PokemonDestructorr]

[@sharpenedge]

People don't agree... Therefore no one is right? Bullshit.

[@Rossell-t9b]

MORALITY IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT TO FACILITATE COOPERATION IN SOCIETIES. FULL STOP