The Dangerous Logic of Moral Subjectivism

[@LordNifty]

From what I've seen, moral subjectivism is typically a concept asserted in order to avoid having to justify one's own beliefs, even when asserting those beliefs as moral and factual absolutes.

[@clyde9803]

Those who preach moral subjectivism the loudest are the quickest to force their view of morality onto everyone else or punish them for not complying.

[@SpaceCase132]

As far as I adopt it, I utilize more of a concept of moral relativism, understanding that another person might have a completely different moral view or opinion than my own, but that doesn’t mean that either of us is absolutely correct in our beliefs, and by discussing such views can give us better understandings of the world around us. True, there are instances where we reach an impasse and it can be argued that the better option is to approach the situation with a “live and let live” approach rather than potentially allowing the discussion to escalate inappropriately, but I would overall prefer to have my opinions or beliefs challenged and discussed with rationality rather than being constantly coddled as if I am unable to accept the idea that people with different experiences to my own come to different conclusions or have different perspectives that can have a new insight to a situation. There was a show called “Duckman” where the main character had a speech in one episode that defended “offensive” humor that had a similar conclusion, so it would be appropriate to use a quote from the episode: “Demand to be challenged, to be offended, to be treated like thinking, reasoning adults!”

[@ErinMagner82]

Morals are subjective, therefore you should do whatever we decide you should do without objection. It's about controlling consequences for the ruling class and removing agency from individuals that suffer without justification.

[@mustang607]

Morality isn’t just a current belief. It’s also about how does one deal with unbelievers.

[@Lysander_Spooner]

​@@ErinMagner82Unfortunately, the "useful idiots" are parroting the mantra of subjective morality en masse in defense of the ruling class.

[@billcynic1815]

Her: "I think morality is subjective." Him: "I disagree." Her: "You're a bad person."

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

What's the punchline supposed to be? Why can't she subjectively think you're a bad person? lol

[@HopefulRain]

@@Google_Censored_Commenter It’s because she has no stance to say that, although she can claim it there’s no basis for me to believe her

[@markdorn8873]

​@@Google_Censored_CommenterBy making the transition from "bad argument" to "bad person" it proves the necessity of agreement to an objective moral standard. Once you arrive at the "bad person" conclusion, you can excuse any act so long as it's against the "bad person."

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

@@HopefulRain You know I often hear subjectivists like myself have no stance or basis to say what we say. But it seems to me your basis is the same as mine. It's not a foregone conclusion that you end up believing it's objective, you could have ended up like me. Which means you had to *subjectively judge* that it's objective to you. So we're in the same boat. And what's it matter if it's subjective or not, if we think murder is wrong all the same, and whatever else we might agree on? And if we disagree, we're gonna use all the same arguments to try convince each other all the same as well.

[@uruk_bye1232]

@@Google_Censored_Commenter By what standard are you judging something subjectively? How did you arrive at that standard, and why is it not arbitrary?

[@sovietunion7643]

another big problem is that it seems like a lot of people who want to get rid of objective morality generally have a very hedonistic if not outright malicious intent for what they would do. a great line i've seen comment before about grey morality went something like "if you are doing good you don't need to murk your actions in 'grey morality', its only people doing selfish things that want 'objective morality' to be gone

[@nb4749]

It is called doing what is right in one's own eyes. It leads to anarchy.

[@sarico7827]

Yeah or don't want consequences for there actions especially from the public.

[@falseprophet1024]

Morality is philosophy. How can a philosophical idea be objectively true?

[@dogeboithedoomslayer]

@@falseprophet1024least obvious bait award🏆

[@falseprophet1024]

@@dogeboithedoomslayer Its not bait. I dont understand how saying "God said so," would make something that is subjective by nature become objective.

[@m.shields1270]

It’s like when foreign countries have laws that are morally bad but your told you need to accept it because it’s a different culture

[@mullerpotgieter]

Inferior. Inferior is different :D

[@n4ughty_knight]

It all boils down to context. In one place, it works. In another, it doesn't.

[@mullerpotgieter]

@@n4ughty_knight There's a gigantic gap between how your pension is handled by the state and child marriage

[@bludeuce3855]

or we cna say their culture is inferior and barbaric

[@timfunnydragon]

​@@n4ughty_knight you just made a "subjective morality" argument

[@theartshow1476]

Don’t kill Don’t cheat Don’t steal Be kind Work hard Give what you can

[@ExoplasmicDischarge]

That needs to be stated more. I'm sick of people saying "stop caring". You're part of the problem for letting it get this bad and I'm living through the consequences of others not caring.

[@n4ughty_knight]

Who are you? And why should anyone care? That's the real problem.

[@sinisterthoughts2896]

The term is "complicit", people hate that word, mostly because it stings.

[@sinisterthoughts2896]

​@@n4ughty_knight I'm not sure if you are trying to be cheeky, since the comment is rather contradictive. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and go with you meant to do that as a joke.

[@n4ughty_knight]

@@sinisterthoughts2896 My comments are practical. If we don't have unity, what's the point of anything? Nobody cares about one another.

[@gabrielc7861]

​@n4ughty_knight What's the point of anything? There isn't one. The universe wasn't made for us. We're just an accidental byproduct of a series of chance encounters.

[@gurugru5958]

Literally the same people who would have said vigilantism is wrong are falling head over heels for Luigi.

[@fooladoo1076]

Me when I lie

[@3eve0n]

what do the mario bros. gotta do with this?

[@nullpoint3346]

That's a lie. Some, sure, but sheep will follow the herd.

[@Kevin7557]

Almost like morality can have nuance. You oppose something in principle as it would be disastrous for civilization and shows to be in areas where it is allowed. Yet removing a man who killed hundreds of thousands of people is permissible. Where as trying to assassinate Trump is not. Remember same thing.

[@mspaint93]

No they aren't lmao

[@TopJazzCat]

Moral subjectivists are subjective until someone puts it into practice against them.

[@Ozymandias2x]

Like people who say "might makes right" until they run into someone stronger than them.

[@malcontender6319]

@@Ozymandias2x Acknowledging someone is stronger than you does *not* refute "might makes right".

[@Ozymandias2x]

@@malcontender6319 It's not about whether the philosophy is right or not, it's about whether they actually believe what they're saying, or if they're just saying it as a matter of convenience. They espouse it explicitly because they're the strongest so they're "entitled" to use that strength to force people to do things. And then someone stronger comes along and they suddenly DON'T think Might Makes Right anymore, so that stronger person shouldn't be using THEIR strength to force the original person to do things.

[@centuzezaim7471]

@@malcontender6319 "Might makes right" is refuted by the fact that it falls into the same moral fallacy as saying morality is subjective.

[@NoNameNoWhere]

Moral objectivists claim their morals are objective for no reason.

[@talongreenlee7704]

The one thing that makes me most uncomfortable about moral subjectivism is that you lose the ability to call things out as unquestionably morally wrong, but I have a feeling that’s exactly why the left embraces the idea. The second most disturbing part is that it’s impossible to get someone who believes in it to change their mind. If you try to present them with moral objectivism, they continue to believe in moral subjectivism and just accept moral objectivism as your subjective moral outlook. There’s enough space in their belief system to accept the existence of people who believe in moral objectivism without having to actually believe in it themselves. This is why when you talk to these people about objective morality, they accuse you of having a subjective morality that you’re trying to “impose onto others”.

[@fuckyougeorgebush]

All people that vote have embraced moral relativism.

[@paytonogallagher3284]

Have you tried "Morality is subjective" "Is that objective?"

[@talongreenlee7704]

@@paytonogallagher3284 nah. My go-to argument is that if every moral code is equally as valid as all other moral codes because they’re all subjective, then you have to accept that your moral code is just as valid as the Nazi’s. They don’t tend to like that one very much, but they can’t really argue around it.

[@n4ughty_knight]

I really think the "calling out" thing is mostly a product of consumer culture. People never had that power to begin with.

[@femsplainer]

Actually it's SUPER easy to turn a moral subjectivist into an objectivist. Just bring up the topic of Grape (remove the G) and ask them if Grape can EVER be moral? By definition it cannot be moral to Grape so they will have to accept that there are at least SOME moral absolutes, and once you've got them to admit that, then the rest is relatively simple deconstruction.

[@kosjeyr]

If I'm not watching the Freedom Toons videos I'm watching these. Have a safe a New Years Eve all.

[@nicholasyost8400]

Happy New Years everybody!

[@DontWalkRunProduct]

One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool. George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism"

[@a_channel2545]

Make sure to have a designated driver! Stay safe on the roads!

[@nicholasyost8400]

@@a_channel2545 Yes please and AMEN! Give glory to God in the highest! And may there be peace on earth!

[@fearthehoneybadger]

I'm more worried about lack of morality.

[@DonaldDeCicco]

Moral relativism is how you get there.

[@fearthehoneybadger]

@DonaldDeCicco Morality isn't relative.

[@DontWalkRunProduct]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson

[@ThisisKyle]

​@@fearthehoneybadgerhe's saying moral relativism is how we get to a lack of morality

[@tjhoenecke]

Like it or not, you have to live in a world where not everyone's definition of morality is the same as yours. Learn to deal with it.

[@1manwalkingfreakshow]

College kid: “There are no absolutes.” Me: “Including that one.”

[@writerofthought8084]

O hi first portion of Mere Christianity 😂 Haven't read you in a while. Glad you came to visit.

[@KyrosQuickfist]

Society is in dire straits if we have to struggle to convince an exceedingly large amount of people that morality IS real.

[@mcarrowtime7095]

@@KyrosQuickfist subjective and nonreal are different

[@jeremyrm7]

If it was subjective we wouldn’t care about rape murder and theft

[@fuckyougeorgebush]

🎶War isn't murder...🎶

[@tuseroni6085]

that's not true, you may feel you don't want to be raped or murdered and so you will keep people from raping and murdering others so you are less likely to be raped or murdered.

[@ericremy2746]

Some people don't care. Often the perpetrators.

[@blacktemplar2323]

Murder ist by definition an unlawful/Immortal killing, there ist plenty of disagreement about when killing someone ist morally acceptable. Whether theft ist Always Immortal ist also a Matter of opinion, for example whether it's immoral to steal food If you are starving. In regards to rape there ist plenty of disagreement, there are a lot of conservative christians who believe a husband hast the right to have sex with his wife whenever he wants, while a lot of people believe that having Sex with a woman against her will ist immoral.

[@deckardcanine]

"Subjective" doesn't mean nugatory.

[@bgammax5842]

My introduction to moral relativism was seeing it used as a strawman in an Ace Attorney style flash game so watching people treat it as an actual philosophy has been pretty strange. A lot of people seem to not understand that the purpose of moral philosophy is to help guide people in their daily decisions, something even actual philosophers lose track of sometimes. Moral Relativism’s usefulness pretty much ends at the understanding that everyone has a reason to believe something, which we really shouldn’t have to state but unfortunately do

[@nicholashodges201]

Its useful for dealing with people on the macro level, but creates nothing but problems when applied personally. Also I think much of the group and Seamus have an issue differentiating between "moral subjectivism" (morality varies wildly from group to group & individual to individual, even within the same moral group) & "moral relativism" (all moralities are equal and valid in their context)

[@elliot6568]

No decision happens in a vacuum. Culture is behaviour based on assumed truths of the world. If we never test these assumptions, then we default to trusting a source of information that created the relationship for you. Through enough lies, you can create a cult if the folloers never develop critical thinking. That is currently the progressive left. With how much information we have at our fingertips, power is trying to seperate us from reality with lies and propaganda.

[@CdrRogdan]

@@nicholashodges201 They are indeed one and the same. For example, a society could deem child sacrifice to be moral (see abortion) and they would be horribly wrong. To say they are right because society deemed it to be so, is the same as saying that all moralities are equal and valid. Obviously if there is no objective truth, you can get to whatever notion you please as long as other people agree. This is the whole idea of moral relativism, and it is a very dangerous notion to hold. You must accept that there is some absolute truth out there, though you may disagree on how you get there, or society completely falls apart and literally destroys itself.

[@jakeheye4931]

What flash game are you talking about?

[@kotzpenner]

Are you by chance talking about that Socrates flash game? Where a philosopher noob tries to find the source of morality? It’s great.

[@caioaugusto1606]

People conflate people having different opinions and being stubborn about them as evidence of moral subjectivism.

[@bryanwoods3373]

That's the real problem. It's fine to agree to disagree when one or both sides refuse to engage. The irony is the people worst at it are the ones that expect others to listen to their arguments.

[@soulsborneclips4mefriends941]

Well the fact that those people's opinions about morality cannot be proven false is the real evidence, but yeah.

[@joshuawillingham6363]

​@@soulsborneclips4mefriends941 I would disagree. Morality is a set of rules, ultimately no different than any other physical law, because the purpose of acting on them is to get intended results. If your morality does not comsistently get the results you were expecting, then your understanding of the rules is objectively wrong.

[@debanydoombringer1385]

​​@@bryanwoods3373​ We should just agree to disagree with serial killers. They clearly have a different opinion than pretty much everyone else, but it's fine for them to have it. It's not a morality thing either. It's just a difference of opinion. PDF files? They just have a difference of opinion. It's not their fault. We should just agree to disagree with their views on children. It's just a difference of opinion, not a difference in morality. I throw in the last one because that's a real thing that's been pushed in the idea of morality is subjective.

[@debanydoombringer1385]

​@@soulsborneclips4mefriends941 I'm pretty sure I can prove that children can't consent and PDF files cause them harm thus are immoral. You're literally saying you can't prove human sacrifice is morally wrong.

[@TKDB13]

I have never encountered an actual moral relativist, neither in person nor the public sphere. Many have attempted to assert the position, but in practice they all act as if morality is something objective that can be addressed through reasoned debate and held against others who disagree.

[@n-grat9368]

And no, morality does not have to come from the Bearded Magic Man in the Sky

[@anteroalvesdossantos6352]

What... When did he say that?

[@cherubin7th]

In reality people don't accept morality as subjective anyway, even if they say so, they can't even tolerate someone agreeing to work below minimum wage or to not wanting to be friends with certain groups etc. People who say it is all just subjective just try to push their views below the radar.

[@mcarrowtime7095]

The same way you consider your culture (a creation that is inherently subject to the whims of the people who live in it) better than others, people consider their morality better than others

[@Spyder_King]

Wow, you are very wrong

[@vincenturquhart1370]

I don't think you know what subjective means

[@dogeboithedoomslayer]

@@vincenturquhart1370and by you don’t know what subjective means, you mean the commentor doesn’t use your tarded, goalpost-shifted definition of subjective?

[@soulsborneclips4mefriends941]

"People who think flavor is subjective will still refuse to eat food they don't like. How strange."-You

[@HannoversSoap]

The base line was the last sentence. If Morality is subjective there is no way to say that the Nazis or Stalin wre objectively worse than our current society

[@rolandswift4311]

And now we see why the Marxist communist left is so opposed to things like religion and tradition and the integral moral guidelines that come with them.

[@cadenwells7182]

Correct, in fact, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, FDR, or whoever else can't be evaluated under a moral objectively if you are a moral anti-realist. Does that mean you have to believe Hitler and Jesus are the same morally speaking if you are a moral anti-realist? No, it just means you have to say "there is no universal objective truth to judge people by"

[@cadenwells7182]

@@wrongthinker843 When did I try and justify being a douche? You shouldn’t be a douche.

[@wrongthinker843]

@@cadenwells7182 "My behavior is acceptable because there is no objective standard"

[@dougmasters4561]

​@@wrongthinker843i dont think you understood what he was sayin

[@DrHaz3]

I'm glad Seamus can agree with the objective truth that morality is subjective.

[@TheVigilantCritic]

Yes! I've been saying this for so long! Thank you, CSS!

[@RemotHuman]

ironically arguing for doing something with the reason being that it's pro-social is not the pursuit of truth.

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

Yet if we both agree something is true, even if we disagree about many other things, is that not an evidence a thing may more probably be true?

[@vincenturquhart1370]

​@@HolyKhaaaaan just loke how people believed the earth was the centre of the universe

[@bryanwoods3373]

Similarly, arguing to take action simply because it's doing something. And that usually is an action that's been debated and rejected before multiple times.

[@ryonalionthunder]

@@HolyKhaaaaanNo. that’s literally the logical fallacy of argument ad populum. Just because many or even all people believe something to be true does not mean it’s true. It may be true anyway, but it’s not how we know it’s true.

[@sandjgaez257]

The video is about why having a society agree that objective morality exists is importance if not essential for social stability, not a formal argument for the truth of objective morality. That’s an entirely separate religious and philosophical debate.

[@DontWalkRunProduct]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson

[@br.augustinejewell5005]

He would know.

[@HopefulRain]

This video speaks to my soul, more people need to hear this because this post-modernist view point is so stupid and dangerous

[@jankyplanes]

bot

[@HopefulRain]

@@jankyplanes I ain’t one, this video actually is such a relief to hear because I hate the “your truth” talking points I constantly hear

[@Raximus3000]

@@HopefulRain "your truth" = your viewpoint at best your dellussions at worst, further elaboration is required at every situation!

[@cadenwells7182]

This is a concept that dates as far back as Protagoras, Democritus, and the ancient greeks. Hume proposed the is-ought gap, this concept is contained to the post-modernists, who y'all love to hate for some reason (probably because a lot of them were Marxists and Marxists = evil in your brains). Regardless, how is it dangerous? Saying morality isn't an objective truth isn't the same as saying morals don't exist. Just the same as saying money isn't an objective truth isn't the same as saying money doesn't exist. People do bad things regardless of their ethical point of view. In fact, I've never read of an instance of mass murder be justified by "well morality isn't objective so who cares?" But I have read about tons of instances where they were justified by a dogmatic adherence to a purportedly real system of morals.

[@jankyplanes]

@@HopefulRain my bad, theres just a lot of comments that sound like that from bots posted within the first 5 minutes of videos being out

[@codybill24]

I've typically been on the side of "live and let live" instead of trying to convince people of my views, mostly. I think letting people do their thing is important, and the main reason for me is (as my Opa taught me) you're pretty much never going to convince anyone to change their mind about important things just from one conversation, so it isn’t worth getting into a fight since many people won't just have a civil discussion. However, I do agree that it may be important to do so, at least sometimes, if only just to reaffirm that we're all searching for the objective truth and right/wrong. Even if we don't know collectively for certain what that is. That's a good frame of reference to keep in mind, and remind others of when having these discussions, particularly if they start to get out of hand.

[@TheBcoolGuy]

I'll watch this next year.

[@TheBcoolGuy]

Oh, I remember leaving this comment! I was so young and dumb!

[@LordCommissarLex]

TLDR violence is key and morality is only right depending on who the victor is. This is the type of belief that gets nothing done. I think this guy has to be working at the UN with how non-solutions he posts.

[@jakubjakubowski944]

There is a significant difference between claiming that there is no "one objective moral system" and claiming that morality is unimportant. When we break the argument down entirely, there is no objective reason behind rules like "do not kill." Yet this subjective rule is so important to me that I will wholeheartedly fight for its enforcement. Moreover, because the majority of the population shares this view, following it becomes objectively beneficial, even for those who do not personally feel its importance. Why are conversations essential? Because people often follow misguided interpretations of shared values-such as "do not kill"-that can be twisted into atrocious forms. In these cases, it is far better to address the root of the issue through discussion, realigning our perspectives with thoughtful dialogue, empathy, and critical thinking. This approach prevents distortions from escalating into significant social conflicts. However, this does not create an "objective" global moral system. Instead, it highlights how shared values, even if subjective, can form a practical framework for societal harmony.

[@rachit-sharma]

💯 I think morality doesn't exist in an objective sense, but natural selection made it such that almost all humans that exist now agree on some moral axiom like "we shouldn't do to others what we don't want done to ourselves". Those who didn't share the tribe's morality, found themselves separated from the tribe, and died off. I think it might have something to do with the genetics of humans that we happen to have a shared subjective morality, which a lot of people think is actually an objective morality. There might still be some mutations which cause there to be some people with a morality based in some axiom that doesn't align with the shared one, but whatever their reasons, if someone's actions end up being criminal according to laws based on the shared morality, then they are criminals, and should be treated as such.

[@user-tb7ml8kz7h]

Morality is objective. Morality is objectively extremely evil. Morality is objectively not absolute evil ONLY because it takes a bit of time before the "moral" people begin torturing others "for their own good", as they are "being at the right side of history" and "doing the right thing", all while "those ingrates" oppose and protest against "the greater good" they work so hard to bring about... As to "moral absolutes" like "do not kill", "do not steal", "don't lie under oath", and "do not procreate with the wife of your neighbor" - those are "the legs society stands on", since without them society WILL crumble - again: Morality need not apply.

[@bocket]

I believe objective morality has to exist. It's the basis of how we make all our decisions, by saying that certain actions are "better" than others. If we choose to believe that there is no objective morality, no right and wrong, we can't defend any decision we make (this is the point Seamus is making in the video). At the very least, we can judge actions by the effect they'll have on society. "Don't kill people" isn't morally good because people agree on it, it's good because having otherwise would lead to an anarchic society prone to collapse, which I feel like both of you pointed out. Where I disagree is that I would say that counts as a form of objective morality.

[@jakubjakubowski944]

@pixelz3040 "Good for society" is simply another arbitrary rule. No matter how thoroughly you systematize a moral framework, when you trace the reasoning back through a series of "why" questions, it will inevitably end at an assumption: "because X is good and Y is bad." This is not a critique of morality, nor does it diminish its value. Morality being arbitrary does not make it less valid, and I’m not advocating for moral anarchy. The issue here is with the phrasing and the meaning of the word "objective." There may be a morality that is most common, most beneficial to society, or even objectively the most beneficial for society. However, that does not equate to "objective morality" in the universal sense. And this distinction does not lessen the importance or validity of morality. Understanding this is crucial for more productive discussions about moral issues. When engaging with others, it’s important to establish common ground first and then build reasoning on top of it. Assuming "objective" morality can lead to presenting complex or controversial claims as indisputable facts, which is not an effective strategy for persuasion.

[@FlyingManga]

Just putting my thought here, if morality function solely to create societal harmony, then any form of norm, no matter how opresive, is good as long as it create or not disrupt harmony. There is absolutely nothing wrong with surrendering humanity's thought and free will to AI, after all, if human can't think for themselves, there won't ve any conflict, no one will yearn for a slight bit of freedom as long as they are safe and in a peaceful alignment with everyone. But from an outsider view, this dystopian reality is absolutely ammoral or outright wrong, because it lack freedom and conscience that define a human.

[@jeremybrummel3254]

The only neutral position I can think of that I have is the Israel/Palestine conflict. I feel they're both victims of circumstances.

[@k98killer]

Very utilitarian argument for why we should behave as if we all believe in an objective moral standard. No actual argument that one does exist

[@Princeofknowelege]

Many people in the Libertarian umbrella (the Randian Objectivist comes to mind) only have the utilitarian approach because they don't want to bring religion into it. If for example you are a Christian and you believe humans are made in the image of God and have rights, then you will have a moral framework for living (keep in mind that Christians as well as other religious people don't always behave as their religion dictates). If you are an atheist, the argument for an objective morality is rather difficult. I have yet to encounter a convincing one. Utilitarianism is all they can really come up with since they can't force you to adhere to any specific morality since science can't tell us what is or isn't moral. I am not trying to tell you what to believe BTW. Just my thoughts on the matter.

[@nuclearsynapse5319]

While it is utilitarian, and the only non-theistic argument one can come up with in defense of objective morality is utilitarian, one could argue that the definite utility of acting in accordance with the idea of an objective morality is evidence of its existence. Behaving in alignment with truth, even one that is poorly understood at best, tends to get better results. To give an example: The practice of surgeons washing hands is relatively recent, surgeons who were early adopters were laughed at. Citing higher patient survival rates would be merely a utilitarian argument, and not an argument in favor of germ theory, but not so very long later the existence of germs was proven. In much the same way those early adopters acted in accordance to a truth that they did not fully understand and saw better results before explicit proof of that truth was discovered.

[@vincenturquhart1370]

Also one entirely based on a bunch of assumptions about what moral relativists believe, clearly made without ever speaking to one

[@vincenturquhart1370]

Also if everyone just follows an objective moral standard for utilitarian reasons, different people will decide on different moral standards to consider objective, and there debates with each other will consist entirely of "I am objectively right I decided so you better change your mind or your objectively evil"

[@k98killer]

@@Princeofknowelege fwiw, the history of each religion is sufficient to disprove the notion that religions involve objective moral standards. A utilitarian approach can be perfectly reasonable, but I prefer to construct beliefs in accordance with truth, so I am compelled to reject the notion of objective morality. However, we can approximate something like objective morality using social consensus based upon the shared, normative, natural instincts of empathy, reciprocity, and altruism. Social consensus morality is practically already a de facto objective moral standard, but it is at the moment largely implicit rather than explicit. There is a project trying to sort out a consensus moral framework for the sake of AI alignment using graph theory, but I don't remember what it is called.

[@DG-mk7kd]

Conflict over morality only occurs when we all are forced to get along the greater the control over local conditions and the more homogenous the community the less conflict there is

[@CCS-RRSR-SM]

There is an objective moral standard in the sense that if stealing, murdering, and coercion are considered good, I can't see how anybody can cooperate and build a civilization that won't just destroy itself in the process, leaving nobody to question the problem of morality in the first place

[@derekeastman7771]

Between that and the idea that an objective morality exists, not that any person or group in particular has arrived at it is where most of the disagreement comes from.

[@CCS-RRSR-SM]

@@derekeastman7771 I think most of the moral problems we've today are centered around whether it's actually achievable. Like assisted suicide and abortion, we can just easily sit on a moral high horse and condemn those actions but still consistently fail. That's mostly because we're unable to resolve the true causes and damages that arise from these issue like treating or mitigating the symptoms of the incurable and intolerable illnesses or stopping rapes and supporting the victims and children that emerged from it. If the causes and damages are impossible to be addressed, we can only reach for a compromise and choose the option with the least amount of damage since people would still seek them out of necessity despite the risks and punishments involved

[@CCS-RRSR-SM]

@derekeastman7771 that's the thing, we're still figuring out what works and what doesn't, it's an ongoing process. If an idea is truly practical and achievable it's adopted, whereas the pretentious and idealistic ones either destroy society or get taken over by the more realistic ones

[@IcicleFerret]

Just to further the point: Moral relativity assumes that building societies is "good" in the first place, and asserts that individuals living wild and only thinking about their own and current needs are also morally correct. Thus, theft and murder would only be wrong for people who believe such things to be immoral, and if enough people think such things are moral, then there will be no structure to punish said transgressions. Taking what is there, or killing someone caught unawares, becomes the fault of the victim: they shouldn't have left their things unattended, or they should have defended themselves better. The predator becomes the morally superior person by either teaching the victim a lesson or removing competition for reaources.

[@CCS-RRSR-SM]

@@IcicleFerret It's not assuming, it's a necessity. Every species on earth need to have some form of a moral system in place otherwise they wouldn't even exist. Study has shown that a higher a species intelligence the more developed their moral system is with some elephants, primates, and birds even hold some type of funeral for the deceased

[@trumpbellend6717]

Moral laws are agreed upon not "given"

[@dylanbuchanan6511]

What bothers me is how liverals treat morality. If there's no such thing as objective morality, whats the point of desegregation, charity or curtailing human rights abuses? But it goes further than that. If there’s no such thing as objective morality then why are they so willing to fire people over offensive jokes and racist beliefs? Why be so against petty cultural squabbles if nothing is objectively good or evil?

[@DudeTheMighty]

"If it's not objective, then what's the point?" I sincerely doubt that you apply that standard consistently.

[@dylanbuchanan6511]

@@DudeTheMighty i doubt you even care about morality

[@nullpoint3346]

​@@DudeTheMighty Humans are anything but consistent.

[@luigimrlgaming9484]

Cognitive dissonance, this is why, and everyone has been guilty of it at some point. But Liberals literally have it ingrained in their belief system, which is why they’re like this.

[@lachlanmc2335]

@@dylanbuchanan6511 because just because it's not objective doesn't mean you can't treat it like it is

[@emanym]

I agree. Ethical discussions are a search for truth 😊

[@garygenerous8982]

My feelings are this “how can I grow as a person if my beliefs and knowledge aren’t challenged?” An open, honest and civil discussion or debate is the only way to learn, grow, and come to know the universe.

[@bigfootapologetics]

The secular world is, unsurprisingly, getting pretty ugly.

[@trumpbellend6717]

You do know that there have been many studies to assess the religiosity of societies in comparison with their number of murders, "S.A", abortion, illicit substance use, single parents, even wealth and health don't you ? America dispite being one of the most christian countries in the world has the HIGHEST prison population rate per capita anywhere in the world. It also has amongst the worst results in many of the above categories. Yet those we regard as the most atheistic secular ( the Scandinavian, Sweden ect) score much much better and are amongst the best in those same categories. For example one of many ........ *"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"*

[@EnlightenedByKnowledge]

Sorry. Not convincing. In order for your argument to be convincing, you must first show that objective morality not only exists, but that we can reliably access it. You never do this once in your video. Is it perhaps because you can't or won't? Either way, that’s not a problem, because objective morality isn’t necessary to explain morality as it exists within human culture and society as a whole. Look it up in any reliable dictionary and you’ll see that “morality” isn't defined with the word “objective.” Another problem with your argument is that it's based on a misunderstanding of what subjective morality entails. Advocating for mutual respect does not require belief in an objective moral definition, however you think it manifests. It can arise from practical considerations, such as the desire for coexistence, social harmony, and mutual benefit. This is no different from a group of people agreeing on traffic laws for the sake of order and safety, even though the choice of driving on the right or left side of the road is arbitrary. Your argument also grossly oversimplifies human interaction. Preferences for ice cream are arbitrary and inconsequential, while moral judgments arise from considerations of harm, fairness, and well-being-issues that are all deeply significant and often tied to shared values. While people may subjectively value different moral principles (e.g., autonomy vs. community), these principles are not chosen arbitrarily like ice cream flavors. They emerge from lived experiences, cultural evolution, and rational deliberation. You say morality is real? Okay. By all means, point out one molecule or atom of morality to me. Morality exists because we NEED it to exist; not because it's an inherent property of the universe, but because doing so gives life meaning and structure. And yet you act as if there is some ultimate guardrail in the world, as if there is some some morality in the universe by which our actions may be judged. You’re absolutely right that shared moral standards are crucial for peaceful coexistence and meaningful dialogue. But those standards don’t need to be objectively absolute to serve this purpose. Instead, they can emerge from our shared humanity, rooted in empathy, reason, and collaboration. This doesn’t diminish the seriousness of moral inquiry-it simply reframes it as an ongoing conversation rather than a quest for certainty. Morality, whether subjective or inter-subjective, can still inspire us to be better and to resist harmful impulses-not because it’s imposed from without, but because it’s cultivated from within. And that'll never happen if we believe that our only options are talking or complete isolation or violence, as your argument seems to make.

[@Shade7x]

"Instead, they can emerge from our shared humanity, rooted in empathy, reason, and collaboration" isn't this implying that empathy, reason and collaboration are objectively good things? Why should we not arrange our societies based on mutual cruelty, indifference and selfishness if there is no objective right or wrong?

[@EnlightenedByKnowledge]

@@Shade7x When people dump a belief system which claims an objective source of morality, and then (thinking they have no moral or ethical obligations) go out and engage in destructive behaviors like the kind you described, it's a sign that they never developed their own set of values. It's a sign they had been living on borrowed standards, that the fences of their beliefs have been the only things keeping them in bounds. Social contracts and common sense should inform us that unless we want to risk societal collapse, we don't resort to mutual cruelty, indifference, and destructive selfishness (as opposed to general selfishness -- for example, I don't consider looking after your overall well-being to be selfish). And even if morality were derived from an objective source, it wouldn't change the fact that the moral answer isn't always the same given different contexts. That alone undermines any claim to an objective source of morality.

[@Shade7x]

@@EnlightenedByKnowledge so why is it a good thing that we steer away from behaviors that would lead to societal collapse? Why should any state of affairs be preferable to any other without some universally agreed upon set of what is good? If it's culturally rooted, why do the people who grow up in places we might call "bad" largely want to move to places we might call "good"? Maybe they actually just are good and bad places and it's not subjective at all.

[@EnlightenedByKnowledge]

@@Shade7x Your argument precludes the possibility that this "universally agreed upon set of what is good" is incidental to rather than a primary force behind societal consensus and lived experience. Again, objective morality isn’t necessary to explain morality as it exists within human culture and society as a whole. Look it up in any reliable dictionary and you’ll see that “morality” isn't defined with the word “objective.”

[@Shade7x]

@ so you might say it's objectively good that we work together towards common goals and uphold our agreements instead of stabbing each other in the back? Kind of like every established moral system in the world, regardless of culture, tends to agree on? I don't think it matters whether it's something handed down from God, some intangible law of the universe, something innate to human nature, or something that spontaneously arises as a necessity of a society's survival. It's pretty much universal (and thus, pretty much objective). People who say "it's all subjective" usually know they're trying to get you to agree to something people wouldn't naturally accept.

[@anthonyfelix2972]

I think the biggest issue is that more people are averse to conflict. Thinking no good can come from it.

[@alfredosaint-jean9660]

May explain why art appreciators are so savage with each other.

[@jacquelineking5783]

The problem is it depends on one's community and since many communities are rubbing onto each other it is going ro cause conflict.

[@strafe155]

There is such a thing as objective good and evil, and I pray that more people realize that simple fact sooner rather than later.

[@Jaegerrants]

unforrtunately even that is dependant on ones culture and world view. Especially since there are people making apologies and excuses for horrible crimes. Yet if you insist the dangerous animals be removed to prevent future victims you are spoken to as if a monster. Or called racist if the perpetrator is of different ethnicity.

[@fuckyougeorgebush]

@@Jaegerrants Nope, not at all. If someone does something to you that you don't like, you feel an emotional response, and that is your body/mind telling you not to tolerate evil. Everyone has an innate sense of right and wrong, unless they're a psychopath.

[@spartanonxy]

@@Jaegerrants Not really. To explain most objective evils can be from first principles reasoned out. Murder and slavery for example can be reasoned as objective evils from the concept of self ownership which is an assumption that must be made less you create logical paradoxes such as some being more equal then others.

[@dakoderii4221]

The only objective view of good and evil is that good is evil and evil is good. See calling evil as it is offends the wicked. You must be lukewarm and go along to get along. Don't defend yourself either. You may harm your attacker. They have the RIGHT to attack you(or else you're a ray cist). What's yo problem?! Yo wounds will heal up. You can be robbed because you gonna get some mo money, n*gga sh*t! ^Dumb sh*t that people with a DEGREE told me directly or justified it. Please tell me how to get back to the dimension I was born in. There was a little common sense there. This place here is beyond insane. At least only women could get pregnant and we knew what a woman is.

[@dakoderii4221]

@@Jaegerrants I've noticed people can identify evil when it's directed at them. When directed at others they clap along and say how wonderful! YAY! sCiEnCe!

[@nickrondinelli1402]

This fails to factor in that our actions have consequences so that people don't just do anything they want to do so long as they are aware that their actions have result in unfavorable consequences.

[@yeiltrasreality1627]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I believe objectivity is actually the one that encourages a lack of conversation and debate fundamentally. Nobody has anything to base an "objective" morality on. Basing such a cornerstone of humanity on religion or current conceptions of justice is fundamentally flawed. People fail to realize that subjectivity is not mere allowance of everything - that is a strawman. I'd argue the intent of moral subjectivity is openness to moral quandaries and debates. This is the pure opposite of what he proposes. People don't actually believe things like murder is wrong- movies like Joker and John Wick show that people sympathize with others so long as there's a reason. The objective thing is to say murder is wrong, the subjective thing is to say it depends on the circumstance. It's why manslaughter is different legally. An objective morality states that all murder is the same regardless of circumstance. Subjectivity breaks the objective concept into smaller pieces subject to circumstance. Objective morality doesn't actually exist the way most people argue it does. It's actually a form of subjective morality that allows society to function. It's why in America you're given a trial by your peers. The point is that just because it's not codified into law doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered or made into law. Objective morality states "I have all the laws and justice I need with my current understanding of the world, therefore I do not need to consider external views." Think of how society functions under functional theocracies and dictatorships. The religion or dictator is the objective moral truth and actual justice or morality is now conscript to one person's idea of how the world should be. Contrast that with democracy and republics. The ideas of many people culminate in a collective understanding and enforcement of justice and morality. It is fundamentally subjective, since nothing stops poor or bad ideas from entering into the system, but subjectivity allows for combatting those ideas with a simple statement "your belief is not necessarily reality, it is simply your belief". It is in finding common ground between beliefs that people understand morality and justice, not basing it off of one "objective" belief. Before people complain, yes, people will take advantage of it, and yes, laziness is the enemy of logic and progress. Neither of those are unique to subjectivity. A lazy objectivist can simply not enforce laws, just as a puritan can condemn unreasonable things under the guise of objectivity. TLDR: This video is a big strawman argument on subjectivity and objectivity. EDIT: added the fact I don't disagree with conversation, I disagree with where he's saying the disagreement stems from and added a few more lines to explain the through line of my thoughts.

[@Seority]

"People don't actually believe things like murder is wrong-" I'mma stop you right there.

[@Leonard_Wolf_2056]

Only God is authorized to say what is right and wrong. We cannot make our own rules due to our nature. We are driven to do wrong. Just look at every atheist nation. All of them only got worse with time.

[@wrongthinker843]

@@Seority I mean, if anyone would argue that people lack morals, it's a moral relativist. But it's really just an admission.

[@mcarrowtime7095]

@@Seority some people believe killing in self defense to be murder, others say it’s not. “Murder” is a bad word to start from, as it is defined as immoral and illegal. It would be better to use the word homicide, which simply means to kill a person. I don’t even know if you tried to understand his point before using a linguistic misstep to try and ignore his argument

[@yeiltrasreality1627]

​@Seority Allow me to simplify- do you believe murder in revenge is incorrect? What about war? Is war not murder? What about in an extreme scenario, where a sacrifice is made? Is that functionally murder? You bind yourself to a simple concept - murder=human killing in cold blood=bad. Would murdering a dictator Stalin at the height of his power be incorrect? Many argue one over the other. You stop at the word murder, which shows your inherit belief, and also thoroughly shows that you refuse to acknowledge or converse with the other side. Functionally, you prove both my and the video's points -a refusal to converse regarding moral views is the ultimate enemy. You arguably prove my point more with your clear jab at subjectivity.

[@charleshill1906]

Morality is subjective, the key thing is that over the centuries we've come to understand that a general set of ideas works more often than not (don't kill people, don't steal, don't lie, etc.), so it's subjective but with a basis in statistical reality and trends.

[@stevenwolfe591]

Third! Edit: Important idea, and one many must implicitly agree with, even there consciously believe the contradiction. Though as a majority, we follow a common morality in our culture, one major supporting pillar is legislation. A lot of people won't physically attack others, due to personal feelings, not because they're good, but because they are cowardly (afraid of being punished).

[@WoundedPride]

>If right and wrond are things outside of ourselves So there is no point in any discussion. This undermines your argument that viewing morality as something objective paves the way for open discussion.

[@LogicBob]

Morality being subjective doesn't necessarily mean we "agree to disagree". That's a fallacy. Let's pretend I could prove it WAS subjective... you guys who believe it's not wouldn't stop trying to reason with those who believe it was, would you?

[@_PannieCake_]

Agreeing on the base of the debate is the first step toward understanding where each side comes from.

[@serak3403]

Morality is an inescapable concept. It is not whether, but which.

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

What is good seems intrinsically linked to what is.

[@evilspongebobballoon]

this should be heard by more people i think

[@boris001000]

Ah yes. The idea behind dictators justifying their actions.

[@mowgli2071]

Morality is not subjective. Nor can we convince each other.

[@magicmanticore3536]

I don’t think you really can change peoples moral viewpoints. They can occasionally change them on their own, but it is extremely rare. Thus force really is the only way to enforce a moral orthodoxy.

[@dhenderson1810]

Most morals are based on one's own convenience and benefit.

[@Carpirinha]

I'm probably going to get canceled for this, but moral subjectivism doesn't really help when written laws conflict with religious laws.

[@TickedOffPriest]

If morality is subjective, we can do anything that we want. If morality is objective, there is a standard by which we must operate.

[@shirothefish9688]

If morality is subjective, each person has their own internal guidelines of the standards of acceptable behavior. It is not a 'do whatever you want' thing. Subjectivity is not an absence of morals.

[@TickedOffPriest]

@shirothefish9688 Was antebellum slavery morally wrong?

[@shirothefish9688]

@@TickedOffPriest according to my morals, and the morals of most people, slavery is wrong. I'm not familiar with the specific antebellum variant you're referring to. But majority consensus does not make something objective. It makes it codifiable into ethics.

[@Seority]

@@shirothefish9688 Not inherently, but it does allow for it to be. Rather have some agreement on what is wrong to do then the allowance of one saying, "Nah, I can do whatever I want."

[@shirothefish9688]

@@Seority everyone can do whatever they want regardless of objective morality. Something that goes against your morals is something that you will not *want* to do. People don't do whatever they want because we have moral agreements codified I to society by way of ethics. Ethics are the rules we as a collective agree to follow in order to ensure prosperity. Morals are the lines we draw in the sand as an individual.

[@kennethdawson7774]

Megamind: MM: "Say I looked different. Would you think about me differently?" Roxanne: "Of course not. You dont judge people on their appearance." MM: "Well that's a relief." Roxanne: "You judge them on their actions." MM: " ..... "Well that seems kind of petty."

[@soulsborneclips4mefriends941]

Saying that morality being objective is convenient does not make it true. This is just an appeal to consequences fallacy.

[@lukedornon7799]

Isn't that how we prove that literally anything is true though? You have to start with some unprovable assumptions such as the sensory data arriving in your brain is a reasonably accurate reflection of reality to be able to reach the conclusion that a single thing outside your own consciousness is real or true.

[@ericb9804]

@@lukedornon7799 No, "objectivity" is NOT how we "prove that literally anything is true." We don't believe as we do BECAUSE those things are "objective," but rather we call the things we believe "objective" AFTER we come to believe them for the reasons we find compelling. Yes, it sure seems like the "sensory data arriving in your brain is a reasonably accurate reflection of reality," but so what? Whether it is or not, we will still keep do what we are already doing for the same reasons we do now. So simply "assuming" that to be the case for the sake of "objectivity" leads us to the same conclusions as completely ignoring the assumption all together. Which is why its not so much that "objectivity isn't true," as much as the realization that the whole notion of "objectivity" is irrelevant to what we are dong.

[@lukedornon7799]

@@ericb9804 I think you misunderstood me, I didn't say objectivity is how we prove things but the reverse: that we have to assume unprovable things to be able to know anything that can be considered objective. You seem to be contradicting yourself by arguing that we believe 'objective' things based on 'compelling reasons' right before you state again that objectivity is unverifiable and irrelevant, perhaps you could clarify what you mean?

[@ericb9804]

@@lukedornon7799 Yes, in order to have a notion of "objective," then we have to "assume unprovable things." However, the notion of "objective" doesn't actually DO anything for us, so its unclear why we should bother "assuming unprovable things." i.e. We don't actually USE the notion of "objectivity" in our epistemology, but rather, traditionally, we call the results of our epistemology "objective," even though doing so doesn't accomplish anything further beyond putting a point on what we have already concluded. So "Objectivity" is irrelevant in the sense that we will continue to believe whatever it is that we do for the same reasons we do now, regardless of if we call those beliefs "objective" or not.

[@lukedornon7799]

@@ericb9804 I can't disagree more strongly on the relevance of objective truth. Without it the entirety of existence becomes meaningless nihilism.

[@kyze8284]

Morality in my eyes is personal rules and boundaries. My morals reflect my personal rules. Many people think things like torture aren't moral, but I'm sure that twists for most people if they are allowed to do such a thing to someone that skinned their entire family and walked around with a cape made from the flesh

[@SilverCyric]

It’s the “We can do anything we want as long as we aren’t harming another” mindset that has led us here, while adopting different standards for what is harmful to them versus harmful to another. It becomes so loose and subjective, it can’t be applied to anything.

[@jumanian7346]

But what makes something an objective moral truth?

[@SilverCyric]

@ Your words are enough, define them… Truth, so that eliminates anything not real, or made up. There is only one truth, objective means you’re taking the view absent yourself. Being objective just means you’re viewing it from the whole, not a personal opinion or how it only affects you. Lastly, moral, that which is good, true, and right. As with almost anything, practice will lead to perfection ✌️

[@jumanian7346]

@ but what is true, good and right? What defines that?

[@SilverCyric]

@ Reality. The trick is to align your perception with reality and they key to that is reason. Faith blinds it and passion overrules it. Once you overcome what you want to be true or afraid is, you can begin to eliminate the impossible and the remaining, not matter how improbable, is the truth. Understanding the dangers of pure logic and applying deductive reasoning places you in a position where you can’t be questioned. It’s not your choice, or just a perception, it’s reality. 👍

[@gabrielc7861]

It's true morals are subjective, but you will doom yourself and others if you think they are subjective and don't force your morals on others. Truly a great paradox.

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

If a certain POV has physically real consequences, doesn't it have some real power? If a moral belief leads to the death or destruction of its believers or its tribes, is that a sign it is not true, at least not practically so?

[@realnamehidden1314]

@@HolyKhaaaaan The presupposes that the death and destruction is objectively morally bad. An undesirable outcome does not make said outcome objectively bad.

[@realnamehidden1314]

Morally isn’t subjective, it’s intersubjective. We needn’t doom ourselves just because moral truths don’t exist or, at the very least, can’t be demonstrated to exist.

[@ThisisKyle]

Morality is objective and I'm tired of pretending it's not.

[@konstancemakjaveli]

@@ThisisKyle thats a subjective take

[@mattheww.6232]

@@konstancemakjaveli Until we get to the real world and have to live next to each other.

[@fooladoo1076]

Me when I lie

[@lachlanmc2335]

@@ThisisKyle which one

[@Furienna]

It is not objective at all. If it was, there would be no difference between different cultures or even between different time periods.

[@salacca2297]

I saw the thumbnail and thought someone ripped Freedom Toons animation style until I saw the Seamus the Catman

[@Jeff-su8tc]

Your description of objective morality sounds the same as everyone having subjective morality that choose to come together and agree on a standard. Although that standard does not necessarily mean 100% of one or the other's view. I fail to see how this is any different than having objective morality with subjective laws based on what people can come to agree to and objective morality with subjective laws based on what people can come to agree to.

[@alldayagain]

Me and a friend of mine will go on these really deep, physophical discussion of stuff (sometimes series, sometimes dumb) It usually comes to both of us discussing it until we hit a root core on the position (usually the moral center) But it's never to the purpose of trying to convince the other, but moreso (i think) of trying to nail down our own position on it using the other as an ideological springboard, and at the end of the day, we both respect the the journey to knowledge Tl;dr - we have fun physophical discussions 😅

[@MathiasYmagnus]

As I and others have said, you don't want to regret not having said/done anything. I.E. Ten or twenty years from now if you regret where the culutre has gone did you do or say anything to prevent things from getting so bad? Another way to look at it is people stating they hate street preachers, but they don't say or do anything to witness.

[@adrianwoodruff1885]

He says as things are about to ugly for Florida Man.

[@Noble98]

Theres been a pervasion of philosophy into social ideals by the midwits. This is why most revolutionary philosophers wanted to keep their knowledge away from the general populace.

[@omarclunis2466]

Relativism is the consequence of the enlightenment philosophers (Kant, Hume, etc) and we are feeling the consequences of their system in our world

[@derekeastman7771]

⁠@@Noble98Nietzsche has always read as an asshole looking for an excuse, to me.

[@Aristocles22]

TL;DW: Subjective morality and a lack of attempting to convince the other side through dialogue increases the chance of violence, since talking isn't an option. It's like when negotiations between countries stop, war is more likely.

[@ericb9804]

no, "subjective morality" is nothing but talk. However, sometimes talk fails and in those cases there is choice between violence and tolerance. Moreover, this is no different than "objective morality," which is why pretending there is a difference is just silly.

[@DeoFayte]

The entire concept of morality is meaningless if it's not objective.

[@nicholasrandall3507]

No, it does not need to be objective, it needs a consistent perspective, including context. Actions between soldiers belonging to different nations at war with each other should not be held to the same standard as actions between civilians of the same nation.

[@pablito-e]

@@nicholasrandall3507 Still objective

[@nicholasrandall3507]

@@pablito-e Alright, is eating cattle acceptable or evil?

[@pablito-e]

@@nicholasrandall3507 Acceptable

[@cadenwells7182]

No, morality can be viewed as a product of society rather than an absolute truth of the world. Understanding someone else's morality, where it comes from, how they view your system of morality, etc, can help to resolve disagreements when they arise. A moral realist has a dogmatic obligation to follow their own morality, making disagreements much harder to resolve. Moral anti-realism is not moral nihilism.

[@trivialgravitas9581]

Yes, thank you I've been saying this for years.

[@DrCoeloCephalo]

TLDW "MoRaLiTy Is SuBjEcTiVe!" *Pulls out gun "Suddenly, I believe in morals."

[@chinoto1]

Subjective morals that involve not getting shot 😛

[@DrCoeloCephalo]

@chinoto1 _"Killing others is immoral and wrong!"_ _"Idk, man. Sounds pretty subjective to me."_

[@shirothefish9688]

Killing isn't even illegal, ​@@DrCoeloCephalo Murder is.

[@chinoto1]

@@DrCoeloCephalo Just because it's a nearly universally held belief doesn't make it objective. What about the morality of killing someone who is about to kill another person?

[@DrCoeloCephalo]

@@chinoto1 Yes it does. Luigi is a criminal. A vigilante of a criminal but a criminal nonetheless.

[@mamadragonful]

Well stated. I'd also like to disambiguate between two concepts that are often confused. Moral relativism means that there isn't any objective moral standards, it's simply a matter of taste. Situational ethics means that the right or wrong ACTION in any given moment depends entirely on what the options are at the time. Stealing a car for joyriding is generally not morally good. Stealing a car to evacuate people from a disaster is widely considered to be morally good. The actions are the same, but the moral judgement placed on them are different because of the different context. Part of this comes down to the difference between morals and ethics. Morals are the internal concepts of right and wrong, they're how you define yourself as a good person. Ethics are codes of behavior, a series of rules to follow. The two don't always line up.

[@mariuszgaaj2814]

It reminds me first chapters of "Mere Christianity" by C.S Lewis.

[@flux_inverter4500]

Philosophy 350: Moral Philosophy - 3 Credit Hours - in 3 minutes.

[@errorcringyname4044]

While morality is subjective at the most individual level an objective framework is neccesarry for a society to function properly. Communication and shared standards are the most basic building blocks for society.

[@kaimanthelizardwizard1248]

A shared standard is not necessarily objective and will differ between societies and time periods

[@Seority]

That's the whole point of discovering morality. It is necessary for the society as well as the individual. While some concepts are too specified for all to agree upon naturally, there are broad ones which most of us *do* agree to, which means that there is *objective* morality. (Don't kill, steal, cheat, lie, etc.) We have all of eternity to find out the details, but to deny it all simply due to lack of focus is a farce.

[@wrongthinker843]

Incorrect. Not understanding gravity doesn't make it subjective.

[@mcarrowtime7095]

@@Seority just because (most) everyone agrees with something doesn’t make it objective, it makes it popular.

[@hecticfunentertainment9373]

​@@mcarrowtime7095Techinally that is how some scientific laws are made. the majority looks at the facts and come with the conclusion

[@dominicmanester8125]

Murder and child rape being wrong becomes a matter of opinion.

[@ericb9804]

So? Just because they are "opinions" doesn't mean we have to allow them, right?

[@LittleMissRequiem]

“Not everything is black and white, but how dark must a shade of grey be before we say ‘no more’?” - a random quote from an online RPG I took part in once

[@tatjanawasp5775]

The Jim halpert look at the end was perfect

[@electroAM]

Wouldn’t it be the other way around? If I believed that my morals are objectively right then what reason would I have to entertain other’s thoughts?

[@harmlessspider3693]

I think you misconstrued his argument. Believing that there is moral truth or moral objectivity, does not mean you have to believe that what you consider to be moral truths are in fact the moral truths 100% with no room for discussion. It’s just saying that there is a right answer, not that your answer is right.

[@electroAM]

​@@harmlessspider3693 I suppose that you could assume for the sake of discussion that there are objective morals, but that doesn't mean that objective morality *actually* exists.

[@ryonalionthunder]

Yeah you nailed it. Find me an objective morality guy who doesn’t also happen to think they have access to THE TRUTH already.

[@joshuawillingham6363]

​@@ryonalionthunderAs the other commenter said, you're twisting the argument. The point of the video is that in order to have a productive discussion about morality we have to agree that there is an objective morality in the first place. It's like scientists debating about how a physical law works. They first have to accept that the universe works on rules that are consistent, because otherwise the pursuit of figuring out what those rules are is pointless. Of course a productive exploration of rules also requires the humility to be willing to accept your understanding of the rules could be wrong, or least incomplete, but that is a requirement for a productive discussion about anything.

[@ryonalionthunder]

@ and that point is stupid. You only need to agree on a goal and then you can debate on how best to get there. There isn’t an objective moral floating around in space divorced of a goal. You subjectively pick a goal then find objectively better strategies to achieving it. The problem seems to be people keep confusing that for objective morality and then rag on subjectivity when they rely on it to set that initial goal.

[@ornu01]

Enlightened Self-Interest for the win!

[@lachlanmc2335]

@@ornu01 egoist?

[@KnightofChaosDeck]

1:30 "My morality says religion is evil." "No it isn't. We should debate." "Why should we debate? I'm right. Debating is just a concession to evil. Either abandon religion or I'll make you." How's that moral absolutism workin' out for ya?

[@lachlanmc2335]

exactly morality needs to be subjective or debating is useless

[@KnightofChaosDeck]

@@lachlanmc2335 Thing is- there's no easy answer. Say Morality is Subjective: Then that means any and all acts can be consider allowed since it can be chalked up to differing morality. This is how you get people decreeing that pedophilia is okay because from the pedophile's point of view, they're not doing anything. But say Morality is Objective: Well...why would you debate someone who disagrees? They're wrong and evil. You wouldn't debate a known murderer on the ethics of murder right? The issue is that stating Morality is Objective/Subjective leads to the same problem: it leads to conflict with human nature. Objectivity ignores human's subjective view and how we can never truly know what someone else sees by the very way we perceive reality. Subjectivity ignores that same subjectivity in how a structured set of morals is needed for a society to function and for people to know how to interact with others. It's a case by case basis, where you need to think about the action, context and greater situation to make a judgement. Ironically, objectivity and subjectivity in morality are absolutes that will always cause issues.

[@lachlanmc2335]

@KnightofChaosDeck so you need to subjectively decide if it's subjective. Lol

[@derekeastman7771]

“Either abandon your religion or I’ll make you.” “No.” You’ve arrived at violence. Is it wrong for the person decrying all religion to force the other person? Is it wrong for them to fight back? Why?

[@ryonalionthunder]

@@derekeastman7771and just like that. You proved his point. Two sides believing they hold objective morality can only lead to violence since debate is impossible. This negating the entire video.

[@L337M4573RK]

Folks used to understand this through the concept of mutual respect. The extreme tribalism today exists because society no longer recognizes common sense, mutual respect, and because the Moderates on both sides of the political aisle have been systematically pushed out.

[@lachlanmc2335]

@@L337M4573RK is society no longer recognizes common sense is it common sense no longer?

[@Commondumb64]

About the whole manipulating people into our beliefs is basically what we already do though. We have a bit of a frame work but we literally have to teach kids morality, and usually the morality almost always has some sort of compromising factor towards it.

[@WoundedPride]

If morality really restrained destructive impulses, then neither courts nor psychiatric clinics would be needed. Judging by the fact that these institutions exist practically everywhere, it simply cannot cope with the tasks assigned to it.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

I miss when these skits weren't lectures, but insightful political commentary. So many strawmen of moral subjectivism. 1. It's not just a "live and let live" attitude, that's moral relativism. 2. telling everyone to respect everyone's worldview is again, moral relativism, not something most moral subjectivists believe. 3. No, you can't just "act however you want" simply because morality is subjective. Murder, rape and theft don't magically become subjectively good things to do under moral subjectivism. Nor do moral disagreements magically disappear under an objective one, since people have different ideas about what the objective standard should be / is. 4. "The less reason they have to resist their impulses" implies a moral judgement that resisting impulses is good, which is not universally agreed upon, at all. Some impulses are good, others are not. 5. Your subjective moral system can tell you that you can't go around hurting people just because they disagree with you. In fact, you're infinitely more likely to not be violent with a subjective moral system, since apparently, if someone disagrees with you morally, and you have the objectively correct moral view, well then there's no room for disagreement or debate, is there? The debate is settled, you have the objectively correct view, all there's left is violence to ensure conformity. 6. The idea that we can only persuade each other about a subject if we agree it is metaphysically real, is ludicrous. Literary texts and art notoriously have no objective meanings, not even if you count the author's intent as the "true meaning". And yet this has not prevented us from having debates, convincing each other and coming to a consensus on various interpretations. If this was impossible, various fairy tales would never have gotten mainstream and become a part of our culture. Fictional fairy tales with moral lessons, mind you. How could fictional stories impart any moral lessons if it was objective? Have all authors of various time periods and faiths somehow grasped onto the objective moral fabric of the universe? I'll let you chew on that one. Fact is, we debate all kinds of topics which are subjective, all the time. As long as we share the same vague subjective standards, agreement can be reached, easily. 7. "If don't agree that there's an objective moral standard, things can get pretty ugly". Yeah, they can WITH the objective moral standards too. They're called holy wars. Where one submits to religious dogma and believes their moral framework is the objectively correct one, because it comes from God, THAT is when things get ugly. It gives one the authority to do unspeakable things to other human beings. Such travesties simply cannot occur if one has a humble, subjective moral worldview where you don't assert with certainty your subjective opinion is a fact or "the truth".

[@zekehatcher2196]

Under Objective Moralism, you're accepting there is an Objective moral framework that exists, not that YOUR specific morals are objective. The whole point is your trying to discover the best morals using logic, reason, and if need be religiois authority. You can still conversate and compromise with Objective Morals, as your personal morals and ethics are still and always developing. Point is, you're actually trying to develop better morals, compared to a moral subjectivist who might cling onto their morals for personal reasons. Also, yes, under subjective morals, you can justify murder and other acts against humanity. Whether it be individual relativism or cultural relativism, it's flawed. If you accept objective morals, then you accept the rightfull dogma of a higher framework above you, not that YOU or I personally have it all figured out.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

@@zekehatcher2196 The keyword there being "if you accept". So you aren't getting around it all hinging back to you, your preferences for what's reasonable to accept, your preferences, your values, your judging capability. As for improving one's morals. It's not as though moral subjectivists can't do that. No one is a perfect human being. We have our personal standards we fail to live up to sometimes, and beyond that, we see that other people have their own standards, which we can use as role models, such as superheroes displaying superhuman levels of empathy, altruism, charity, and whatever other virtues your ethical system might contain. How they all balance out is up for subjective judgement and continuous refinement, so you're just wrong on that as well, I'm afraid. Read my original comment more thoroughly. Oh, and I don't subscribe to relativism of any kind. I subscribe to "my subjective morality is the only correct one, for everyone." whatever the name for that is.

[@zekehatcher2196]

@@Google_Censored_Commenter You subscribe to something that is illogical. What gives you the absolute authority over morals? If it is by person to person, then you're essentially saying things can be true and false at the same time, which is illogical. Under Objective Moralism, you can believe you are following the correct morals, but you accept that they're correct out of higher authority, not yourself. It is like discovering math, something that you don't invent, you discover. In other words, you can be mistaken under Objective Moralism. Under subjective moralism, you can't be mistaken, you can just change your mind. It's not fair to your past self (Who has just as much authority as you under subjective moralism) for you to say your past self was wrong just because you think a different moral is better than an old moral you followed.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

@@zekehatcher2196 I am not saying it is person by person. I am saying there is only one person, me, the one who you're asking moral advice from. You're free to not to take it. You're free to choose any other morality, subjective or objective. But the further it strides from mine, the more wrong it will be, that's my stance. Nothing contradictory about that. As for me telling my past self I was wrong, why is my past self special, exactly? It sounds like you're treating past me and current me as two separate persons, but they're not. There aren't two persons making two contradictory moral statements. There's just one. Under my framework, good and bad literally has no meaning outside of what I deem it to be in the present. So if in the past I deemed it so and so, but I don't in the present, tough luck for my past self, I must have been doing bad stuff. Better do better in the future I guess. Not a huge issue to me. And even if I were to treat my past self as a separate person like a buddhist would, I have every right to call other persons in the past wrong, don't I? So problem solved on that end too. Past me is dead, they have no say over present me with present circumstances and most up-to-date morally relevant knowledge. Now, you seem to think it's "not fair" for me to tell my past self to go fuck themselves, but guess who has the authority on what fair is? That's right, current me. So that's a non-issue as well. Moving on. Finally, I'm sorry to break it to you. But math is invented just like morality. Yeah, yeah I know, it sucks being lied to. That the intuitive answer isn't always the right one. But you'll get over it, should you want to get over it. Some people psychologically want to cling to it with dear life, let's hope you're not one of them. It would be so convenient if it was discovered, but philosophers have long since settled that debate. Ever since Wittgenstein, Gödel and the continuum hypothesis we've known this. But I don't expect you to know the long history of boring philosophy of language and mathematics. I haven't given an argument for why it's invented, I'd rather you "discover" it for yourself (got it?). So you don't even have to take my word for it, google those names, come back wiser and prove me wrong, but please, don't do it hastily or I won't take you seriously. Let me give you a hint, it's about axioms and language.

[@zekehatcher2196]

@@Google_Censored_Commenter Once again, it is illogical for you to be the authority of morals. What is so special about you? What aspect that is apart of you grants you that authority. If you decided murder was okay, would that make murder okay? Additionally, your past self IS you. You saying yourself is wrong when you're right is contradictory. If your authority stems from what is inside of you, then your past self is just as correct as you are, meaning your both correct, meaning your contradicting logic. If your authority stems from outside influences, then you are ultimately NOT the authority over your own morals, and thus you subscribe to foreign morals, and are somewhere in the mix between individual relativism or cultural relativism. Regarding Math, if Humans didn't exist, would 1+1=2? Not the language we're speaking, not the symbols we're typing, the meaning behind two 1's being combined together to create the meaning of 2. If not, then 2 stars, can't be 2 stars, 1 universe, cannot be 1 universe. The idea of things being things and being able to *account* for such things, or in other words, numbers and mathematical logic, exists outside of Humanity. It is a foreign discovery. The idea of 0 existed before we discovered it. It is a piece of universal logic that has existed since the creation of the Universe. Even if I am wrong on the matter of Math being a discovery rather than invention, that doesn't make you right, as you're still a contradictory, which leaves Objective Moralism to still be the best answer to morals, given Cultural and Individual relativism, as well your whole weird subjective objective moralism, are contraditory.

[@paanjaan]

you can "live and let live" ... but there are many people in this world that would never do that

[@jkellyid]

There is no universal truth, is a universal truth claim.

[@jumanian7346]

The problem is you’re saying it’s a universal truth when for others it’s a guiding principle not an unchangeable truth. This is a problem with you taking epistemology to mean ontology. Also this is a fallacy fallacy at play here. Meaning that you’re pointing out something that seems paradoxical but that does not necessarily invalidate the claim.

[@agm5424]

I recommend Mark Passio's presentation on natural law to have a more in-depth analysis on this topic.

[@AstraeaJustitia]

Natural law is a product of the debate of Enlightenment scholars over a few centuries with the crowning achievement being the US Constitution

[@damascusraven]

Charlie Kirk shut down the ridiculous argument of moral subjectivism with 1 question. He asked "If morality is subjective and there's no absolute morality, is it possible that gRape can be morally good?" Other guy couldn't answer.

[@mcarrowtime7095]

Because to the questioners morality rape is so horrific that accepting it in any way shut down their brain. There are religions where it is considered immoral to deny your partner sex, while others would consider that to be rape. This is a case where there are two different moral views on rape, hence subjectivity. I don’t have to believe there is ever a case for rape to be morally allowed for it to be subjective, because there could be others that do

[@WoundedPride]

For some sociopath - quite possible. I don't see anything in this question that could put an end to this discussion. It seems that this is just an overt play on emotions, rather than a balanced and reasonable dialogue.

[@ryonalionthunder]

Not 80 years ago martial ‘grape’ was perfectly normal in America. Those people sure thought it was. We disagree.

[@terrnoisrp8894]

Great video. Truth and morality is not subjective.

[@storba3860]

Okay but if all morality is objective then how can it be debated?

[@rockweirdo8147]

You get that people debate objective things all the time, right? Just because something is objectively true, doesn't mean someone else will deny truth.

[@That_OneGuy46]

Because when you enter a debate assuming objective morality it means that both parties understand that either one of them will be right, or both of them will be wrong, which means they can debate for the goal of figuring out which side is the correct one.

[@DevilSlayr]

​@@rockweirdo8147 And by what standard are you getting this morality? What is it that makes say Murder objectively bad? Is it because we have a natural revulsion to murder? Because then that would make it subjective since its us that made it so and what about people that dont think murder is bad disregarding psychopaths and sociopaths what about when people consider a persons murder justified? Just look at that Ceos murder a couple weeks back, there are plenty of people who said his murder was justified. How can that be so if murder is objectively bad? Is murder bad because its a natural law of existence? That can't be true because death and entropy are a natural part of existence.

[@mcarrowtime7095]

@@That_OneGuy46 how would one figure out which one is wrong, since unlike with physical concepts there’s no way to “test” for morality

[@haydenlinkel3258]

The Bible

[@gdprsn]

Happy New Year 🎊

[@theduke7539]

we dont have to agree what the truth is, we just have to agree that a truth exists somewhere. We could both be dead wrong, but so long as we agree that a truth does exist, then we can work together, either in the search for it, or recognition of mutual ignorance

[@iiisaac1312]

"We don't have to agree that 2+2=4, we just have to agree that 2+2 equals something. Then we can work to discover what 2+2 equals (which I earlier said we don't have to agree on what the conclusion is.)" 🙄🙄🙄

[@theduke7539]

@iiisaac1312 reductive and a strawman at best. The fact we disagree isn't the problem. The problem is we need to feel comfortable discussing our disagreements. For starters, I dont believe I have the right to force you to agree with me and I dont believe you have the right to force me to agree with you on anything. The only agreement we require is to agree that we can discuss our differences peacefully. Newtonian physics breaks down on subatomic levels, and it fails on scales larger than the solar system. yet we default to newtonian physics when describing things on earth. Sure, we can sit here and argue over whether 2+2 equals 4. it does because thats the rules of mathematics. But we agreed to those rules. I can jump over to binary and suddenly 2 and 4 are constructs that don't exist. And your attempt to debunk my statement on philosophy by using mathematics as an imperial base ultimately shows that we disagree philosophically and that you believe your logic is more sound than mine. Whats important is peaceful debate

[@iiisaac1312]

@@theduke7539 Bro wrote a book to defend "we dont have to agree what the truth is".

[@theduke7539]

@iiisaac1312 Okay and? I didn't insult you or make any claims other than what backs my philosophy and argument. Thats how debates work. If you want to argue in bad faith then you missed the entire point of both my comment and the above video.

[@iiisaac1312]

@@theduke7539 Peaceful debate is not a reliable process to reach the truth. Debate is a performance in order to sway an audience, and whatever is correct is determined by who is most skilled at debate, not by who is actually objectively correct. One can have the objectively correct position but lose the debate because the opponent is much more skilled in debating and convincing the audience. This is why people like Vaush and Destiny have massive audience who all think they are correct. If we state that morality is objective, then this would mean all moral truths are universally reproducible. Anyone should be able to logically conclude exactly these moral truths on their own, just like how anyone can solve the equation of 2+2 on their own. Since debates are essentially social negotiations and don't reliably produce the same results, they are not a valid means of reproducing the moral truths.

[@ItsTrinton]

If you take a swing at Florida man, you better not miss.

[@itspikachutime5624]

It’s also worth noting if we want to run on the idea that morality is subjective we have to concede that some of most heinous things done aren’t actually morally wrong and it’s all just opinions. You can’t call what happens in say North Korea or China evil, can’t say Hitler did anything evil, it’s just a matter of opinion. The whole idea that things like this can just be opinion and not objective evil is sick and pretty clearly wrong.

[@mcarrowtime7095]

You forgot to add a word after opinion; evil. They’re still considered evil, and there is still a logic and reasoning to why they’re considered evil, it just isn’t drawn from some self sustaining “truth”

[@dee5298]

On the other hand, we do not have to concede anything.

[@UndertakerU2ber]

A wolf hunts and kills a rabbit in the forest. Many will conclude that the wolf was “evil” for doing so, but others will defend the wolf saying it’s trying to feed itself. Conversely, a well-fed house cat will hunt and kill birds, mice, and rabbits for fun and leave their remains lying there. Many would say the cat was just playing and not consider its actions “evil”, but how would this be any different than gangs murdering bystanders for fun? Morality is certainly 100% subjective amongst people. They’ll reach conclusions based on stereotypes and appearances, they’ll excuse the crimes their friends or colleagues have committed, and they’ll cry, stomp their feet, and scream over the most trivial of “issues.” It’s all emotion driven, and while some issues are easy to rationalize, people will still _feel_ that certain exceptions apply due to nepotism and conflicts of interest.

[@lachlanmc2335]

well good then evil is such a useless term that's overused anyway, maybe then people will sue actual descriptors like "caused decreased standard of living" or "was inefficient at managing the economy" instead

[@derekeastman7771]

⁠@@lachlanmc2335Hitler “decreased the standard of living” and “mismanaged the German economy” doesn’t quite have the same punch, does it?

[@k.constantine]

It's objectively moral for me to support my in-group above any other group.

[@tepafray]

tldr: "It doesn't matter if morality really is objective or not. Act like it is, the consequences for everyone are far worse if you don't"

[@DudeTheMighty]

www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Consequences

[@Fernybun]

​@@DudeTheMighty appeal to fallacy fallacy

[@eno2870]

It's more like, act like it is because I think it is and I'll get violent if you disagree with me. Which.. honestly, really tells you all you need to know about how qualified they are to be speaking about morality.

[@ryonalionthunder]

@@DudeTheMightythey really make it too easy sometimes, don’t they?