Theist Has Question on Morality | Jonathan - Arizona | Atheist Experience 22.48

The Atheist Experience 22.48 December 2, 2018 with Matt Dillahunty & Geoff Blackwell.
Geoff Blackwell is an attorney for American Atheists: www.atheists.o...
Call the show on Sundays 4:00-6:00pm CT: 1-512-686-0279
Don't like commercials? Become a Patron and enjoy ad-free content: / theatheistexperience
Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.blogtalkrad...
We welcome your comments on the open blog thread for this show.
► freethoughtblog...
-------
The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting atheist-experie...
You can read more about this show on the Atheist Experience blog:
► freethoughtblog...
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
► www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
► www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
► www.atheist-exp...
DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
► www.atheist-com...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 1996 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.

[@SweatyWalrus]

I like when Matt’s in a good mood.

[@Ometecuhtli]

Caller was listening, that was a nice break.

[@Dunning.Kruger]

Prob just hit the bong

[@scrobag1]

I do not. I like it when he is fired up.

[@distiking]

until someone calls

[@messianicagejudaism]

kissing up his ass LOL

[@CausalityLoop]

God is to morality like pool floaties are to swimming. You can keep your head above the water by wearing inflatable floaties, but it's a lot better and healthier to understand how to swim.

[@maow9240]

Gotta have someone to show you how to swim properly or you will think you are swimming the right way when you have actually been doing it wrong all along.

[@maow9240]

@@sugartoothYT ok so how do you know that those parents or the society is right?

[@maow9240]

@@sugartoothYT you said "well first of all hopefully they'll let you question them and they'll provide reasonable explanations." - great i see you and i can possibly come to some kind of understandings especially in dealing with conversations such as the current one we seem to be embarking on so lets ask some questions about your "number2" you said "2. How do you know that god is right? Extra note: if your god is supposed to be the "origin of morality and all that is good", then you ESPECIALLY first deal with number 1." - so lets look at "number 1" you said "1. Prove your god exists." - in order to understand such a thing can you explain how to describe color to someone who has been blind their entire life? (by the way this isn't a dodge this is simply a comprehension situation which anything that is ever considered as "evidence" is solely based on the comprehension of those examining the item/subject in question to decide if something is evidence to the individual so what we are left with is how can a blind person examine color? basically)

[@maow9240]

@@sugartoothYT you said "simple response would be that of course no one can truly describe color, but if enough non-blind people are able to make a distinction between the alleged colors, then the blind person would have no reason but to take their word for it, which would probably be harmless either way." - does this stop "color" from existing?

[@maow9240]

@@sugartoothYT evidence for color is irrelevant to a blind man wouldnt you say? How can someone show evidence of color to a blind man? If someone isn't seeing something because they are missing the key to seeing it how are they going to know what the evidence if if they don't know what they are looking for because they can't see it. Basically I'm calling you the blind man here you are asking for evidence but i can assume i can guarantee you would deny evidence given because you don't know what to look for so you can't see it but that's just am assumption. Not trying to talk crap about you just making an educated based on all the other conversations with atheist(or agnostic or whatever I'm not really sure what your views are) and my own experiences when i was an atheist. I copy and paste so the person I talk with knows exactly what I'm referencing. You be surprised how many conversation on KZbin that you get back into because someone responded to an old post and this conversations can get long

[@danielusa998]

I gratefully appreciate you Matt for what you do ,I think different now because of this show ,Thank you Matt and all of you .

[@cyansloth1763]

Same. They also give me the information and skills to be able to defend what I don't believe 😁

[@sherrib4168]

@@cyansloth1763 why do you need information and skills to be able to defend what you don't believe, can't your beliefs or nonbeliefs stand on their own??

[@sherrib4168]

@@MsLemon42 well it's kinda hard to type a response back to someone who is typing in a foreign language that resembles shorthand. I don't read shorthand.

[@ericscaillet2232]

Welcome to third year lectures...

[@allpraisetogodmylordandsav5255]

Research online Scientifically Proven as Our Lord Jesus blood type discovered in the Holy Eucharist as part of the Catholic Faith it's so amazing plus many more great Miracles in the Catholic Faith God Bless 😌👏☘🕊

[@Palmieres]

Positive moral behaviour is observed in some animals, like examples of empathy and a sense of justice. Yet animals are obviously not God worshipers, nor did they receive a set of rules written on a tablet. Not surprisingly it's the social animals that more commonly exhibit these behaviours, so it very much looks like "being a good person" (or beast) is a biological advantage in a group. No God required, just knowing that what's good for the group is good for the individual who's part of the group.

[@bryanmiller476]

palmieres exactly just imagine a world that started with just one man and one woman but neither cared about the well being of the other The man would likely kill and eat the woman for survival, then the man would die due to age and human extinction would be due to no more woman Or imagine a world with many many of both men and women but everyone was selfish and only cared for themselves They would eventually just kill each other and also not care to group together to take down pray that’s too large for a single person, So eventually humans were forced to group together just simply to survive to take down large pray like buffalo or whatever existed back then and thus started the necessities of grouping and caring for one another to survive

[@oldtimer5111]

Even insects will sacrifice themselves by the thousand for the good of their society, altruism is more common than you think.

[@dougcasey6117]

Palmieres My favorite example of this is the Raven, that be because birds are my favorite creatures

[@dougcasey6117]

@David Anewman Yeah they are if you read and are not incredulous, did all humanity ever have a company meeting?... You really don't understand your self contradicting argument?

[@dougcasey6117]

@David Anewman Well to me be it done by or for whatever reasoning, doesn't alter the nature of the action Altruism isn't reliant on reason am I wrong?... So it stands as defined> Also I don't have a preference between choice or instinct and a lot of things seem hardwired into the human mind as well.

[@mochynddu723]

Really good explanation of the complexities of morality. I doff my cap to you, Sir.

[@tpu55]

the patient, compassionate Matt is enjoyable to watch, too! ; ) checkmate, theists!

[@BigHeretic]

*tpu55* The problem is that theists are playing chess with imaginary pieces.

[@allpraisetogodmylordandsav5255]

Research online Scientifically Proven as Our Lord Jesus blood type discovered in the Holy Eucharist as part of the Catholic Faith it's so amazing plus many more great Miracles in the Catholic Faith God Bless 😌👏☘🕊

[@ARoll925]

@@allpraisetogodmylordandsav5255 like getting away with child rape? Your religion is corrupt to the core and you should be ashamed for believing and defending such an organization

[@theresawilliams4296]

@@allpraisetogodmylordandsav5255 Yeah I don't think so, I'm all good thanks.

[@michellebrown4903]

@@allpraisetogodmylordandsav5255 jayzus... you are almost as bad as the Evangelical types. Who , by the way, believe you are not a Christian at all . What do you say to that ? You are all crazy . You're particular heavens are going to be sparsely populated .

[@killerbing11]

Matt is a genius teacher.

[@allpraisetogodmylordandsav5255]

Research online Scientifically Proven as Our Lord Jesus blood type discovered in the Holy Eucharist as part of the Catholic Faith it's so amazing plus many more great Miracles in the Catholic Faith God Bless 😌👏☘🕊

[@andreahughes1155]

@@allpraisetogodmylordandsav5255except,no. Reported for spam.

[@theresawilliams4296]

@@allpraisetogodmylordandsav5255 It's all lies. You know how I know it's lies, because it's on a christian website.

[@cannablissdreams]

GENIUS!!! absolutely!!! his memory is beyond compare and his knowledge base is VAST

[@cannablissdreams]

@@andreahughes1155 and.. here we are.. TWO YEARS LATER.. and youtube kept their stupid comment up.. 🙄

[@donaldcook2484]

Matt's the man!! So fuckinggggg intelligent and straight forward with honesty and facts!!

[@PantherGX]

“You can get to altruism by purely selfish means”. This always reminds me of the scene from Guardians of the Galaxy: “Why would you want to save the galaxy?” “Because I’m one of the idiots who lives in it!”

[@geezzerboy]

What can, "you can get to altruism by purely selfish means.", possibly mean? It is utter nonsense, a totally meaningless pile of words. It sounds like Ayn Rand's total insanity.

[@DDdreamer90]

@@geezzerboy It means that altruism is a good way to go about things because it benefits you in the end. Even if you're a selfish prick you're still gonna have an easier time on this planet if you have people around you who like you, rather than hate you for being an asshole.

[@Blazingbiskit]

@@geezzerboy its a pretty straight forward sentence, what part confuses you?

[@geezzerboy]

@@Blazingbiskit Altruism and selfishness are diametrically opposite concepts.

[@Blazingbiskit]

@@geezzerboy And?

[@AlbertoApuCRC]

And we will be here to listen to you Matt, we all love you

[@miguenzo]

If I only care about my family and myself and I steal from my neighbors to feed my family, then those neighbors can go after me and potentially kill me or send me to jail, causing my family great harm. So as long as we're here together on this earth, we affect each other whether we like it or not.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

Why wouldn't you just ask your neighbor for food? Lol

[@mism847]

@@Джонатан-р8д It's just an example.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

@@mism847 This was entirely pointless to say lmao

[@mism847]

@@Джонатан-р8д Hmm... if you say so. I thought it was a perfectly reasonable answer to your question.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

@@mism847 ....it didn't answer my question though 😅😅😅

[@ohjonash]

“Morality is subjective based on the individual or consensus or something” yes. That’s why you find what is right and wrong changes across cultures and across the world.

[@Lyomama22]

Love you matt!!! Keep up the good work

[@juanesoto1392]

I love that Matt and Sam Harris defend the same front on morality, it’s just so intellectually beautiful to see people come together just by truly reasoning.

[@maow9240]

Yes because arguments based around emotions is the most rational way to set up your seasonings. 😔

[@radishpineapple74]

@@maow9240 Doing things because God says so is also based on emotions. Either the emotion of fear that you will be punished by God, or the emotion of satisfaction thinking you're doing something God wants.

[@ProgrammerGamer1]

I love you Matt Dillahunty, you do the dirty job I couldn't do if I tried. And you do it well!

[@gruelichkulsheim9445]

one of the best discussions and explanation of morality

[@paulagwhyte1720]

This guy calls in under different names and asks the SAME question. Three times that I know of, and he still doesn't get morality?!

[@mism847]

Let's not be like the theists and assume things without evidence.

[@paulagwhyte1720]

@@mism847 Bahahahahahhaha!! That was lame and uh....wrong. Because we do NOT assume things, we are atheists. Get that?!

[@JasonVlogs85265]

I’ve never called in under a different name.

[@Multi1628]

~ In almost March of 2019: Yes, Matt, religion is indeed just nonsense, harmful for centuries nonsense. Thanks to you and Geoff for years of intelligent conversations and thought. Within the framework of religion or not, sexual morality between consenting adults is no one's business to discuss or debate except between those adults. Period. Theists of all stripes: Stay out of other people's business and bedrooms and mind your own business and stop trying to legislate your own hangups! Cheers, DAVEDJ

[@BigHeretic]

*DAVID WOLF* Well said. For too long people have been bulldozed by religion and deprived of intelligent conversation and thought in the name of someone or other's god.

[@maow9240]

@@BigHeretic how do you determine that thoughts of man are right?

[@BigHeretic]

@@maow9240 Like anything else things are determined to be true or not by comparing them to reality. How do you determine that our thoughts are right?

[@maow9240]

@@BigHeretic reality to a schizophrenic is voices in their head and hallucinations so how do you know that your reality is the right reality?

[@BigHeretic]

@@maow9240 Perhaps a schizophrenic can't properly determine what is real or not that doesn't mean that no one can. What's your point, how do _you_ determine that your reality is the right reality? There's no answer to hard solipsism, we can only do what we can do.

[@JerryInGeorgia]

I'm adding this vid to my saved list. It's even better than the other responses to the morality question. It's the best one yet. I think with this response you could even blow William Lane Craig's obsession with this question and his argument out of the water. ( William Lane Craig gets on my nerves…)

[@allpraisetogodmylordandsav5255]

Research online Scientifically Proven as Our Lord Jesus blood type discovered in the Holy Eucharist as part of the Catholic Faith it's so amazing plus many more great Miracles in the Catholic Faith God Bless 😌👏☘🕊

[@JerryInGeorgia]

@@allpraisetogodmylordandsav5255 I was raised Roman Catholic. I'm trying to keep an open mind. I am absolutely certain that I dislike the label "Catholic Faith." I've never heard anybody call the Protestant denominations the "Protestant Faith." But... I could very well be wrong. And I definitely could be being pedantic. But never mind all that. I do hope you honestly and sincerely care whether or not it is actually true. I, for one, do. I'm sure you are aware of some of the problems with the Roman Catholic Church. And I'm sure that I'm aware of some of them too. Peace be with you, A.P. Jerry

[@JerryInGeorgia]

@@allpraisetogodmylordandsav5255 Okay... like... what scientific proof? Can you provide references to back up this claim or are you just making baseless assertions? Thank you in advance for your reply.

[@ichsehsanders]

2 Months later and he still doesn't provide the sources for his science.... Guess that's not to bad since Christians believe for roughly 2000 years without any good evidence.... It's all about Faith!

[@responsestability8376]

Had to reply how much i agree with you about WLC LOL

[@kelleren4840]

This call was one of my all time favorites.

[@davydtaylor4151]

Well done Geoff, solid point about why we should care about everyone’s well-being and not just our own. Short and distinct answer.... Niceeeee!

[@ahh_yes_mr_bax]

Strange how one can live in a literal society and ask the question, “why should i not just care about my own well being and that of my family’s?” You dont live in a vacuum.

[@graveseeker]

Wish you had gone to the 10 Commandments 'Thou shalt not steal' and asked how that would be moral in the defibrilator theft example. God's moral pronouncements are not always morally correct.

[@ralfhaggstrom9862]

SELDOM .............

[@guytheincognito4186]

@@ralfhaggstrom9862 You're choice of grammar makes no difference to his point.

[@ralfhaggstrom9862]

@@guytheincognito4186 I do not understand,----- but then again, english is only my 4th lingo. Please answer me in Your 4th lingo ......................

[@guytheincognito4186]

@@ralfhaggstrom9862 Dude, i didn't attack you and I didn't say you were wrong. I said it made no difference because your "correcting" a correct sentence structure with another correct sentence structure. Your correction is only going to make it a tad "fancier". Furthermore English is the most spoken language in the world, no one in the modern world should find it rational to only learn it as their third or even fourth language. Eitherway that's your mistake and your problem. Final point, the number of language you have studied is in no way an indicator of high iq.

[@ralfhaggstrom9862]

It is only an indicator of what I`m interested in ........................@@guytheincognito4186

[@tedgrant2]

Definition of prayer:- complaining to the manufacturer.

[@gazza595]

Not really, you are asking for special consideration from an all powerful, all knowing deity with a supposed plan for everything except you know better and want a change to the plan for your own reasons.

[@tedgrant2]

@@gazza595 Which is exactly the same.

[@AndrewBackhouse1]

As an avid chess fan, I love the analogy.

[@mikezinn7212]

Wonderfully succinct Matt. When are you coming to Sydney Australia again?

[@toomuch8507]

I have no interest in the subjects discussed on The Atheist Experience, however, I love to listen to Matt's logical arguments.

[@DanAlvesoficial]

What a great episode 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[@TheMitchmills]

Matt, you're the bestest.

[@ajniecithya5849]

That humans have altruistic behaviour proves that it is benefitial for us, otherwise we would not have evolved that way. That is also true for other animal species.

[@MrStringybark]

We only devolve into chaos when large sections of a group keep disagreeing with each other about what is moral or not.

[@AliceSpeltRight]

One of the best callers

[@19luX92]

Everything ends up in THINKING. There's no (always) black-white situations so we must analyze informations we have. Another example of god being a handbrake of thinking and reasoning.

[@SusiPineapple]

A good listen :-)

[@FourDeuce01]

The theist, like most theists, should be asking questions on basic logic rather than on morality.

[@Hypergangnam]

Magnus Carlsen won the lightning rounds, because he is exeptionally good at coming up with the "correct answers" quickly. Faster than his opponent. Where as, when both had plenty of time, both could reason themselves into "more correct answers".

[@TheMitchmills]

Four player chess is the shit, I'm totally addicted and I just can't quit.

[@puppyofpurgatory9041]

Agape Matt, we got agape for you big time.

[@danielsnyder2288]

They need to get these people to define morality. Per one dictionary its a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. Morality is NOT values and principles of a God or gods

[@Blackieswain]

When I hear people say "you need God/religion, to be a morale person" I just cringe because what it sounds like is them saying they need someone telling them what's right and wrong.

[@jackkraken3888]

ok who is that guy in the pink shirt and can we keep him.🤗 He could teach Matt Dillahunty a thing or 2 about taking to callers. 😂

[@MendicantBias1]

Morality is practically impossible without a material reality to express those actions, ideas, and feelings. The rules are defined by conversation, experience, and a material existence that is often indifferent to our personal bias, beliefs, and desires. The moral landscape is bounded by a material world and the nature of interaction between biological minds competing for social standing, resources, and survival. The best moral code and ethical systems take into account the complexity of our social interaction, material limitations, and both short and long term consequences for known behavior patterns.

[@Pyladin]

@kim Dierichsen But if I expect, because of my culture, to be hit, if I said: "You are an asshole" to another person. Should I then hit, if another person says that to me? "Treat others as they want to be treated." seems better. Less "me me me", more empathy. But still that raises questions. So more explanation needed.

[@Palmieres]

Agreed. It's almost impossible to have a philosophical or hypothetical discussion about anything in abstract terms exactly because the human mind works in a material context. Even the highest thought exercises can only be examined from the pov of the human experience. Infants have no sense of morality and very little empathy, it only develops after they interact with other humans. We're biologically wired to become empathic but we wouldn't if we grew up alone in a sealed room. That's why solitary confinement can drive people insane.

[@johnmcclure40]

"Do not treat others as you do not want to be treated."

[@adamtzsch]

Mendicant Bias You’re saying that morality cannot exist in a vacuum?

[@Thanquol180]

Arguing with Matt Dillahunty is as futile as arguing with God

[@billyquaide1902]

Morality is a social construct that's combined with innate tendencies of fairness to achieve the best quality of life.

[@James-ye7rp]

I find it interesting that Matt is actually making an argument for the value of religions as a method of strengthening the group. He suggests that the benefit of an individual is tied to the health and welfare of the group, loosely speaking. So, given that an unreasonable request of an individual to demonstrate compliance with the group is found to be useful for the linking of the group, it follows that some demonstration of "group supernatural belief" might well be demanded to be part of the group. This group strengthening concept is found in gang rituals, or military initiations, or university initiations. While it is irrational to "believe" the required trope it, being a requirement to be part of the group, is something people will do so as not to be an outcast. This crazy system actually strengthens the group, and outcasts the "out group". Matt has pointed out before the religions are great, for those in that religion.

[@teektalon3310]

Don't know when exactly he started but around 25:00 a few seconds/moments later... BAM!!! Bravo Mat💚

[@stevebarrett2106]

However, we know that 'morality' takes on a whole new meaning when people have a religion and faith. They will find it very difficult to separate it from the tenets of their own personal beliefs.

[@tedgrant2]

Is it wrong to steal grapes from your neighbour's vineyard ? Hmmm, that's a tricky one. "When thou comest into the neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure, but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel" said God. (Deuteronomy chapter 23)

[@Джонатан-р8д]

Damn grape thieves

[@wayneanddonita3857]

Do you have a USCF rating, Matt? Do you play on Lichess, or any online site?

[@Huemunkynde]

Question: If there was only one person alive in the universe - would there be morality? I maintain there would not. Even though there may be things that that person could do that would NOT be in his/her best interest - those actions would not be moral or immoral... Morality requires a second person who is affected by the actions of the first person...

[@tedgrant2]

According to Matthew 5:44 we must love our enemies. According to Luke 14:26 we must hate our families. Confused ? Don't worry, it's only a theory.

[@tedgrant2]

Some time in the future, life on this small rock will be extinguished. Given the behaviour of men, I find great consolation in this fact.

[@_-AB-_]

lol, true. But there is stuff and there are people I absolutely adore, so, I find the idea a bit distasteful as well.

[@Nikolai18A]

@@_-AB-_ Impertinence is the foundation of value. I agree that to lose those who matter to us for one reason or another would be less than ideal, but it is the fact that they can be lost that lends so much gravitas to their impact.

[@bluedragonfly8139]

Uh, good for you, I guess?

[@tedgrant2]

@@_-AB-_ Don't worry, you won't be here to witness the end times !

[@_-AB-_]

@@tedgrant2 I know that I won't live for couple of billion years. That's how long it would take to sun engulf the planet. I bet the religious lot would want to burn it sooner.

[@Gratefulapostate]

The question is simple. What sort of society do I want to live in, and what is my responsibility to help achieve it?

[@ringo666]

Re: the defibrillator analogy -- there's a cross section of our society that would wholly condemn it, as in "so you saved your friend's life, so what? It's still a crime, thus you're a criminal, and by being your friend, so is the guy you saved." GOPigs.

[@k10ud9]

The vocal inflections will become normal with time. I appreciate what you do for society. I don't care about my self-interest. There is only the good of my children.

[@barkYdarkATFB]

Good of YOUR children is, in a way, self interest.

[@bluedragonfly8139]

Propagating your genes and making sure they can prepare theirs is still self interest.

[@wunnell]

Theists generally don't like the idea of morality not being objective and they generally believe that a god means morality is objective and no god means that it's not. None of that is, in any way, evidence that a god exists. Even if we accept that morality is objective if and only if a god exists, they still need to show that morality is objective in order to use that as evidence that a god exists. The best they can ever do is simply assert that morality is objective. Worst of all, they tend to assert that we atheists know that morality is objective, despite our stating outright that we don't think it is and why. Even William Lane Craig, who many consider to be the preeminent Christian apologist, can only manage "deep down we all know morality is objective" as his best argument in that regard. I would agree that, deep down, we generally feel like morality is objective to some degree. I know I do. Those of us who can and do think about this to any degree realise that that is simply because we all feel strongly about what we consider to be right and wrong. When we feel strongly about something, we tend to feel that it just is, but that simply doesn't follow.

[@drg8687]

wunnell theists don’t even use the word objectively correctly. When they say objective morality what they really mean is divine authority since god condones murder in one instance and then condemns it in the next.

[@wunnell]

@@drg8687 , I agree. To say that objective morality requires god is to basically contradict yourself because, if morality is subject to god, morality is subjective. If it's objective then it exists independent of god so it exists whether god exists or not. They can claim that morality is a product of god's nature but that doesn't really help. I have a nature too so we could use that as the basis for morality just as much as we could use god's nature. Any argument they make is purely arbitrary.

[@tedgrant2]

Morals can easily be explained by well known sayings... People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.

[@gousc2622]

The question of why not just worry about my well-being and my family's well-being is very simple to answer. Humans are social animals and living within human society requires that people accept certain restrictions to behavior for the well-being of the society . Simply pose this question: Would you prefer to live in a community where people obey laws or in a community of people who do not? Anyone who answers this question honestly should see the fallacy of believing that a god must have imprinted morals on people or they would go around breaking laws. The majority of people want to feel safe and have order. This was true in prehistoric man and is true with modern humans. People understand that to live in a place where they feel safe and have order, they must reciprocate and live within societal parameters. Those who live outside of their societal parameters would be forced out of that community or live as outcasts within that community. Human morals has nothing to do with a god or even evolution. Human morals is simply a million years of our ancestors living as social animals with the ability to communicate.

[@RafeShankar]

Really appreciate you going over that. If you don't mind, could I then ask if the concept of morality within a community extends to nations? Would the same reasons apply to inter state moral decisions?

[@josephharrison8354]

@@RafeShankar In many ways, yes. That's why organisations such as the UN have been formed, to foster cooperation for mutual benefit. This is the most peaceful period in history; economic growth is explosive, and our sphere of knowledge is expanding more quickly than ever before. It's obvious that when countries work together, they prosper together.

[@df0512]

This was always my explanation for morality. We are social creatures thus morals. I also see them as remnants of survival instincts. But because we survive in groups we have a sort of shared survival instinct.

[@gousc2622]

Rafe, all you need do is alter the posed question to address states, countries or just about any grouping. Question: Would you prefer to live in a red state or a blue state? Question: Would you prefer to live in a country where Christianity or Muslim is the dominant religion? For this religious question, your answer need be based on the customs and accepted social norms of those countries, and not based on your own religion. So an atheist in America would probably pick a Christian country, not because of the religion but because of laws and societal norms. I would say freedom of speech would be one social norm that would sway most atheists. Question: Would you prefer to live in a democratic country or a dictatorship? Once you answer the question honestly, you see that your choices to the questions are based on societal norms in each state or country, thus your answer shows moral preferences that are not prescribed by a deity. If morals were "written on your heart" by a god, all countries/states/communities would have the same morals. If communities/states/countries differ in morality they have different morals than you, they don't have the same morals but reject them.

[@pdpgb]

Lets be honest for a minute. Most people do care only about their own well being and the well being of people in their immediate circle or at the very least the care about it MORE than the well being of random people. Ask anybody if there was a burning house would they save their own family member/friend or 2 random people and pretty much everyone will pick the person they know and care about. Of course you'll get similar responses if it was their own life or 2 random people. Humans are simply programmed to prioritize theirs and their families well being over strangers because that's what was beneficial for survival during our evolutionary history. Now of course there are laws and social contract but the second those come into conflict with your own well being, those go out the window and the base value (your own well being) takes priority. Btw robbing a bank and getting away with it will almost certainly benefit you way more than whatever the negative consequences of the bank being robbed will hurt you personally. Unless you singlehandedly cause the currency to crash in which case you could just exchange it or buy gold or something.

[@jlsc4125]

I have a very easy explanation for morality without god. Stop lights. They aren't discussed in the bible, but somehow man decided, on a universal basis, that stop lights were the best solution to a problem so that it benefited all of us. The very same guiding principles of what is best for all can be used to determine "moral" guidelines in the absence of a deity.

[@asagoldsmith3328]

And even then stoplights are just the most common method of traffic control, there are constant other proposed systems and road structures that people argue over and experiment with. It's likely we will never find an objectively perfect method to minimize congestion just because there are so many factors in traffic flow, like well being.

[@jlsc4125]

@@asagoldsmith3328 You understand this is not about traffic lights or congestion, it's about moral decisions in the absence of an immoral diety.

[@asagoldsmith3328]

@@jlsc4125 yes, I was just pointing out how in both cases there's a system that most humans have come to agree on, but that system isn't guaranteed to be the most reliable in every situation, and there will always be dissent about that. And I suppose some of those dissenters in the stoplight case would claim that they have a traffic direction system that is infallible and can never back up, but instead of proving this they state that you have to 'close your eyes and have faith that no other cars will hit you.'

[@jlsc4125]

@@asagoldsmith3328 There is no system that is going to make everyone happy, but we strive to do the best we can to support the majority, and since stop signs work when people obey them, then it's not a bad system. Same for moral laws, as long as people act good to each other, it works, don't need a bible to tell us that.

[@asagoldsmith3328]

@@jlsc4125 We are in agreement.

[@sandorski56]

re: Morality = Making more Money - It seems that many do believe this.

[@brucebaker810]

Or there's one of those weird bank shots. X (supposedly) pleases God. If I please God, He will bless me with Y (a cookie; eternal bliss; earthly success; whatever). Indirect result.

[@sandorski56]

@@brucebaker810 Definitely.

[@brucebaker810]

Oops. I forgot the vital disclaimer. If it's in His Plan anyway. Or, if it's not QUITE within His Plan, but it's not too far out of His Way... Or if it pleases Him. Or other suitable whinge.

[@jeremyhart557]

1. The definition of objective am going to use here is 'independent of the perceptions and conceptions of human beings'. If objective morality exists, it is therefore true in all places and at all times. It is suggested that objective moral absolutes, of which objective morality comprises, should be falsifiable and verifiable. This is not inconsistent with the definition, and such absolutes could be confirmed either scientifically, by observation, measurement and induction, or by mathematical or logical deduction. If logical deduction is used, the premises should be true and the logic valid, providing a sound argument. 2. There are three aspects to the moral act. a. the object (the act itself) b. the intention c. the circumstances It is the object that must be moral (good), but for a perfectly good moral act all three aspects must be good. So donating to a charitable cause is a moral act, but if the intention is not good (promoting one's own reputation) or the circumstances are not good (donating because you have been coerced into doing it) it is not a perfectly good moral act. Intent and circumstances can increase or decrease the moral culpability of an individual but cannot make a good moral act evil or vice versa. The consequences of an action should not be taken into account when judging if an act is moral or not, because they are often not under the control of the moral actor. 3. There are three aspects to the consideration of objective morality. a. Does it exist? b. What does it contain? c. Why does it exist/where does it originate? If just one moral absolute can be confirmed, a. follows. Here are three suggestions, based on the premise that all human beings should be treated with fairness and equality. I would suggest that that premise is self-evident. i slavery is immoral ii rape is immoral iii murder is immoral (the killing of innocent people). I would suggest that all three of those acts are bad in themselves and it is therefore unnecessary to consider whether they could be done for a good intention. Therefore I would suggest that a. is confirmed. For b. these three form a starting point. As to what else might be included, science, particularly potential developments in neuroscience, may prove useful, as well as logical deduction. c. If morality is objective, it needs to originate independently of human opinion, and that includes human conclusions drawn from scientific theories. If it exists without reference to time and place, it must come from a non-physical source. Non-physical sources may be either abstract concepts or a non-human mind. Abstract concepts cannot generate objective morality. Therefore objective morality must come from a non-human mind which we call a god. 4.The moral argument for the existence of a god is as follows. P1 If a god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist P2 Objective moral values do exist C Therefore a god exists Note that this is not any particular god at this stage of the argument but .

[@seanhillery1231]

1. If the rules of chess exist and you cheat by breaking the rules, then you have acted immorally. If the rules are arbitrary and given no meaning, morality is removed from the equation and there is no difference between following the rules and cheating, devolving into chaos. 2. When given the choice between instructing someone to shoot 5 people, 2 people, or choosing neither, the only difference between the different options are the amount of people you chose to have killed. Choosing none is the moral choice. 3. According to Matt, morality is objective or absolute, because he states that contributing to the well-being of others is a major determinant in moral decision making. What makes that true and objective? if I said the pain and suffering of others determines morality then what makes me wrong? Like the caller said, these are opinions. 4. Is stealing objectively wrong? If so then regardless of the circumstances, it is defined as being objective, regardless of how many people die. If it is subjectively wrong, then who cares? My subjective choice is then correct because I say so, end of discussion. If my actions lead to other people’s deaths indirectly, then what is my moral obligation? If I killed people consciously, and it is objectively wrong to kill someone, then obviously I have done something immoral. Matt is correct, in that it is much simpler than people make it. Unfortunately he muddies the water by asking the caller to define morality, concocts situations like the chess game and calls the rules arbitrary, thus leaving morality undefined, and then goes on to determine that morality is objectively defined as actions that benefit society and immorality is objectively defined by making a bunch of money. This is painful to watch and the caller didn’t take them to task on this nonsense. Which is it? Is morality objective or subjective? If it’s subjective, then nothing is immoral. If it’s objective then determining the objective authority of morality is of paramount importance.

[@vincentsolis5149]

Matt could open a book with this as the intro

[@Onganana]

Matt at his best 👏👏👏👍👍👍

[@mrs.marple2268]

Changing your natural inflection pattern isn't easy is it :)

[@barkYdarkATFB]

Practice practice practice.

[@privatejoker5062]

That was 100% awful and I genuinely laughed. If Matt ran for Head Honcho, I would vote for him.

[@trulucy]

Good conversation, cogent explanations, and staying on topic for more than 26 minutes (unlike TH) is awesome. On the caller’s morality scenario I think in some situations morality can be both moral and immoral at the same time. Maybe something we could call Schrodinger’s morality (my made up term) where the perception of doing something or not doing something is simultaneously moral/immoral. For example, killing someone is usually immoral but killing the guy that rapes one’s daughter might also be moral, from the parent’s perspective, or at least understandable or justified. Another example I’m thinking of is a memorable scene in the second season (I think) of AMC’s The Walking Dead when Shane purposely shoots Otis in his knee sacrificing him to the zombies enabling Shane to safely get away with lifesaving medication for the injured and the dying Carl whom Otis accidentally shot. It was a dick move for sure (that’s Shane) but if he hadn’t made Otis the zombie’s injured bait they both would have died and Carl wouldn’t have gotten the medication and would have also died. So, an immoral act for a selfish but greater good.

[@TheMijoAaron]

Skeleton Minecraft sound 25:02

[@richardmooney383]

If God doesn't exist morality is an expression of human opinion. If He does exist morality is an expression of His opinion. In either case it is subjective.

[@linkinsmommy7908]

Since God doesn't exist.. its subjective and is situational.

[@linkinsmommy7908]

@Tab yes it does. Some people have high thresholds for pain and would say no. Pain is nothing more than a signal in the brain.

[@Pyladin]

@Tab I believe you have made a flaw and unwillingly misrepresented the written. "We" are not talking about if you feel something or not. If you feel, then you feel. That is objective, I agree. We are talking about if you are inflicted damage, what feelings will that give in you. That reaction will be subjective, the feelings will be subjective, although everyone was hit the same place. Same with morals. We all have feelings about what is right and wrong, that is an objective fact, but it is still subjective what people think is right and wrong. See the difference?

[@exiledfrommyself]

@Tab We're talking morality, not pain.

[@jsmall10671]

If a creator makes a universe with a specific morality inherent in it, then it's not objective within that universe. It's a set of rules that you can't change. However, you may disagree with this morality, but you'll pay the price.

[@dogearflopper7011]

Enlightened self-interest, bay-beeeee 🎉🎉🎉

[@janecrashley2129]

So we can say that cannibalism is an immoral action. However in the case of the football team who crashed in the Andes then their choice to eat meat from the dead bodies challenged that moral action. It became an imperative for their survival. Hence morals cannot be absolute. Although if they had chosen to kill a person in order to eat them then this would have challenged the morality of their actions.

[@theresawilliams4296]

They seem to have a lot of questions, but they never seem to have any answers when they are asked to back up their religious claims.

[@tedgrant2]

Morality is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of reality. When a rabbit runs away from a fox, it is a matter of life or death, not opinion.

[@33roses]

Processing speed

[@n0w3lly90]

I find Christian inquiries on morality, from the point of view of Christianity, as being generally absurd and asinine considering that the Bible is crammed full of immoral atrocities I would not remotely want to map my mode of living to! And that is both the old and new testaments!

[@question-question]

Narcissistic Altruism..kurzgesagt cartoon on KZbin. .Brilliant

[@ericscaillet2232]

maybe just ask for food...somoene will give.

[@benjaminmarker]

16:39 well, welcome to Scandinavia.

[@dukeemzworth3005]

Matt is making it unnecessarily complicated. The answer to stealing food from another poor family to keep yours alive is very simple : "How would you feel about it if the situation was reversed?" Confucius, Chinese philosopher (500 BC) said : "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you."

[@gousc2622]

I've never been satisfied with the answers provided to callers on the subject of why should I care about the well-being of anyone but my family and friends. Telling someone that well, if you don't then everyone suffers is very weak and the answer if VERY SIMPLE. Just need to ask a simple question. Would you prefer to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives by the rules or a neighborhood where the crime rate is high and walking down the street is dangerous? Most people will understand that the consequences of caring only about themselves is obvious in real life and neighborhoods around them. And even if a person lives in a better neighborhood but does not respect his/her neighbors, eventually that person's life will be negatively affected by the neighbors that he disrespects.

[@barkYdarkATFB]

But the basic argument is, what prompts the making of the rules, and why. And what makes “respect of neighbors” a better way of living than not, and exactly what is meant by respecting the neighbors.

[@gousc2622]

@@barkYdarkATFB As has been stated by Matt time and again, well being is the basis for "respect of neighbors". Treating others as you wished to be treated. Since humans are social animals, humans live in groups so laws/rules are created once a human group exceeds twenty-five or so people (stated in sociology research). Fairness now an important criteria for well being in that society. A society with fair and just rules/laws in place has a stable base for its members to feel safe and secure. This allows that society to prosper and multiply in numbers. If a subgroup (neighborhood) within that society has a high percentage of people who don't live by the rules, the entire neighborhood/subgroup suffers but the society itself can remain healthy. If too many people in the society/city/country decides they do not want to live by the rules then the society as a whole becomes unstable and may eventually destroy itself. One or several individuals acting outside of the laws/rules does not destroy a society but as the number of those people grows, the society becomes more unstable. Once a critical number of people live outside of the rules/laws, that society will become unstable and eventually be unable to function, the majority of people in that society will not feel safe and well being will be jeopardized.

[@barkYdarkATFB]

@GoUSC I appreciate you giving an overview of what constitutes a society, but that actually brings more questions than answers. Morality is so subjective, that there can be different applications for different groups of people. Starting with a big picture, like the nation as a whole. Some may say it’s immoral to take their hard earned money, via taxation, and give it to poor people, that they may see as lazy or undeserving. Some may say it’s immoral not to give to those in need. In a state, some may say it’s immoral to allow a fetus to be destroyed, for any reason. Some may say it’s immoral to assert control over a woman’s body. Today, cities are having moral arguments regarding how people of certain colors are being killed and harassed by law enforcement, others see police as doing what they need to do to keep the city free of crime. Even as small of a group as a neighborhood, one may see yelling curse words across the streets, playing loud music, or keeping trash cans in front of the house as absolutely unacceptable because it brings the dollar value of their property down, and might make them feel unsafe. Others may feel like hunting down and shooting someone that robbed your mom’s house as the moral thing to do. Individually, one may view sex other than married sex as immoral, for many reasons. Another individual may see it as a freedom , and a fulfilling part of their lives. Besides, even Matt has said, it’s not “treat others as you want to be treated”, but it’s best to “treat others as THEY want to be treated”. But that’s more along the lines of “getting along” in society rather than deciding what might be a moral standard. “Morality” is one of those words that can mean different things to different people. It’s also so subjective that the standards change as you look at other countries, and as time goes by, in your own. I’m not really arguing that there are not, or should not be “moral standards” for society, but that it’s so subjective that it’s fluid. My biggest argument would be, that no matter what, no religion’s dogma should be an absolute standard for all. Again, not so much arguing, as “thinking out loud”.

[@gousc2622]

@@barkYdarkATFB Having difficulty understanding your point. First you asked "what prompts the making of the rules, and why"? so I explained how society ends up with rules and laws. Next you went on about specific items in a moral doctrine which, in a free and open society, would be discussed and probably voted upon before being adopted. Morality was never part of my post. My original point was that I have never been happy with the replies given on the Atheist Experience when people who question the need about caring about others and obeying laws in a non-theist society. They just need to answer the question: would you prefer to live in a neighborhood where people obey the law or one where people do not obey the law? The theist point is that if they don't have to worry about hell then they don't have to obey rules/laws. The point of my original post was to give a better answer to theist by personalizing the question to them specifically. They now have to confront their own claims honestly. If you answer that you would prefer to live in a fair and just society where most people obey the law then you are admitting that it benefits you to obey the laws and rules of your society and that you should not steal and rape and murder. Now some bonehead might say that well, if I'm the only one who doesn't care about others in this society then I can do what I want and the society remains solid but that's just idiotic, in ANY society, including highly religious ones, that same statement can be made so religion in their society is proven moot by their own argument. If you want to learn or think out loud about morality and religion and moral absolutes, Matt's answers are pretty good and I have no problem with his replies. I say again, my problem was with the answers given on the Atheist Experience about why would anyone need to follow the law if there is no god and hell?

[@barkYdarkATFB]

@GoUSC I used the word morality, because this particular video used it around 50 times. I’ve heard the argument “without god giving humans commands to follow certain moral absolutes, then without that god, where would our moral restraints come from?” AExp may reply, “we consider the well-being of ourselves and others, and the consequences of our actions” Which is a reasonable response, for reasonable people. But, like you say, there’s a second part to a theists question, “what makes thinking of others needs more moral than putting my needs first?” (without the direction of a deity saying it is) This is where I feel it gets somewhat sticky in a response. You say the question is “would you prefer to live in a fair and just society where most people obey the law?” and my response is, again, what you may think is fair or just, another may think is extremely unfair and unjust. And while I do not support a moral authority to dictate what might be best for the well-being of humanity, I find that any other decision making process that is utilized in creating rules for well-being can easily be proven to be highly subjective and situational, and arbitrary at times. Which means, really good solid answers to those questions, are difficult.

[@hockeyinalabama]

Personal well-being exclusively vs also everyone else's just seems like a Adam Smith vs John Nash sort of argument, right?

[@tedgrant2]

Every rule invented by humans has two interesting characteristics. There must be a fair chance that it will be broken and a fair chance it will be obeyed. Shops often display the sign "Dogs not allowed", but I've never seen "Tigers not allowed". And there is no point in "You must spend all your money in this shop".

[@Nissenov]

If I go to a shop with a sign that say tigers not alowed, I would think, what the hell happened here...

[@tedgrant2]

@@Nissenov I think you are being resilly. "Resilly" is a word I accidentally invented this morning. I haven't yet decided what it means, if anything. I hope it catches on.

[@Fraterchaoraterchaos]

somebody needs to ask Jonathan how a belief in a Bod and a God's morals, would change the situation where he steals bread from a starving family to feed his own starving family. I do not see how a God makes the question any different.

[@godless1014]

Imagine if we woke up every single morning and decided whether or not we would be moral with a flip of the coin? Heads: we're a loving, caring, generous, friendly, loyal individual. Tails: we're a homicidal maniac bent on the absolute destruction and torture of all mankind. While the decision to be either moral or immoral would be completely random, it's effects upon our individual lives and well-being would be anything but random, and if it is difficult for you to imagine which of the two scenarios would be objectively more preferable and beneficial to our well-being I have to assume you are either lying or are incredibly stupid. When religious people say they don't understand why anyone would be moral without god I suspect they are almost always lying. They know better. Of course they do. They could not survive in society otherwise. To believe that morality could only exist if a supernatural sky fairy somehow infected us with his goodness and that being good has no practical value is a monumental exercise in mental gymnastics. It is so much easier, simpler, and correct if you just be honest and admit the obvious . . . you don't need a god to be moral. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality. Just be honest.

[@tedgrant2]

It's great being an Atheist. No rules !

[@_-AB-_]

There are rules, it just gets rid of redundant and at times repulsive rules and ideas.

[@j.r.arnolli7494]

tedgrant2 / rule one; learn what it means, being/called a-theist. Rule two; try to listen/think first. The only life You have is here and now, make the best of it. Be nice and honest to Your fellow humans, act humanly, we'll need each other, we rely on each other. You see, this a start, so Your 'claim'; 'no rules' is based on Your own way of thinking, try again, use an open mind, be moral/human.

[@tedgrant2]

@@j.r.arnolli7494 It was a joke. Theists often claim that if we don't believe in a god, then we will run around raping and killing. Jesus, with a little help from his angels, will throw sinners in a furnace of fire (Matthew 13:50). The fear of the fire is thought to be enough to keep people under control.

[@robinvan1983]

Is this person a sociopath? Because everything you do has an effect on other people that you don't know intimately

[@Nocturnalux]

It is very obvious that just caring about yourself and your kids' wellbeing will eventually be to yours and theirs detriment. If everyone did such a thing then no one would ever rescue a child that was not their own so of the caller's son was ever to fall into the river not a single person would bother to rescue him. There is a social contract, flawed and often cracking under duress and with all sorts of pitfalls, but it does imply that you and yours will be in need of others. Others will be in need of you as well. Unless he prefers a world in which strangers will not jump into the water to rescue his son then his question is entirely moot. If we extend his reasoning to the whole of society, we immediately see that it would lead to collapse. Why bother having- or paying for- emergency servives that won't be useful to you? Live in a landlocked state and don't intend to travel? Don't pay for the coast guard. By the same token, those people who live along the coast won't pay for anti-tornado safeguards so when your kiddies get swept away in one, you cannot possibly find fault with the system that failed to detect the disaster on time.

[@JarlGrimmToys]

Nocturnalux you only have to look at history. Doesn’t matter if its modern day countries, medieval kingdoms, or pre-historic tribes. They always had to rely on each other. A small family unit 2000 years ago couldn’t produce enough food, shelter, or protection enough for their family to thrive. BUT the baker could produce enough food for the entire community. In exchange for cheese and beef from the cattle farmer, nails from blacksmith, protection from neighbouring tribes. The warriors would defend the settlement, in exchange for weapons from the blacksmith, food from the baker and farmer etc. Even further back a small family in the Ice Age couldn’t hunt a mammoth. You need a group of hunters, and the meat was enough for a small tribe for weeks.

[@BigHeretic]

*Nocturnalux* Your reasoning contradicts your argument. You say that looking out for yourself is ultimately self defeating but saving someone else's child IS looking out for yourself because it is understood that reciprocally others will attempt to save YOUR child.

[@VestigialHead]

@@BigHeretic He means Only looking after yourself. So it is not contradictory. Looking after ONLY yourself would be contradictory with the saving someone else's child is looking out for yourself.

[@BigHeretic]

@@VestigialHead Yes, I don't know what I was thinking? Please ignore my first comment.

[@VestigialHead]

@@BigHeretic No probs. Easy mistake to make. Props to you for admitting your mistake. Rare on KZbin.

[@tedgrant2]

How do you know that it is wrong to heal the blind on Saturday ?

[@Chorkaloopa]

I have 2 words for you as an example of christian morality - Kermit Gosnell ...

[@Kazuma-des]

If morality is subjective? What about the sense of morality of psychopaths?

[@ichsehsanders]

.

[@tedgrant2]

Is it wrong to stick an advert at the beginning, middle or end of a video ? I didn't choose to see the advert. I chose to see the video. It's taking up my time, without my consent. It's killing me slowly.

[@janinecarson8380]

Sorry, I guess YT isn't the place for you. It's the price we pay for the platform, aggravating though it is. You consent when you click. 😕

[@daduneverhad7527]

Or just... use adblockers...

[@ricardovonkrypton8908]

It's what enables us to access and discuss millions of videos from all over the world... at no cost. A few ads (at far lower rate than TV) seems a good trade.

[@jasontv9849]

During colonial America, it was morally justified to own slaves. This view was held all the way until the Civil War when the "better" morality of "the evil of slavery" won out. Imagine that, it took a bloody war where Americans had to kill each other for one set of morality to win out. The prevalent morality is what serves the majority at any moment in time. Given that the slaves were enriching the slave owners with their free human hard labor, slavery was moral. Even the clergy in the South espoused the morality of slavery using the Bible as their basis.

[@tedgrant2]

The first son of God, Adam, had no human parents. The second son of God, Jesus, had one human parent. The third son of God, Eric, had two human parents. Progress !

[@ericscaillet2232]

exactly....I strongly concur.

[@GIRLSMAKE12334]

Awesome chess reference! Love chess!!!

[@leezhao]

Not caring about one's best interest is even a contradiction in terms. "Interest" is precisely what you care about.

[@conradpaulson8343]

Great point! I had to think about that but I think I agree, any action one takes at any given time is in their best interest in said given time

[@adamtzsch]

Lee Z “even”?

[@ricardovonkrypton8908]

@@adamtzsch Yes. He's continuing from the relevant discussion in the video.

[@wuestion9473]

I care about the well-being of animals too, as far as morality goes. I think that makes the idea of treating others well because it benefits society as a whole more complicated. Ignoring climate change, treating animals well needs doesn’t fit with that explanation, though I argue it’s immoral not to treat animals well.

[@tedgrant2]

There is nothing in the Bible about treating animals well. "And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD and shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head and kill the bullock before the LORD and the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood and sprinkle it seven times on his chips".

[@logicreason2736]

Property rights = morality.

[@petereuk52]

Is it moral to own any kind of property? If yes then when does having more property than anyone could use in thousands of lifetimes when other on the planet are dying of starvation. become immoral? To put it another way. When does too much wealth become immoral? Would a personal wealth tax be a good idea to benefit the rest of society? Should we be able to pass on our wealth to the next or subsequent generations or should a death tax be higher?

[@cynicthehedgehog385]

If you harm someone who is in the same place as you (both poor or whatever) then that is immoral. It’s kinda like that idea of comedians punching upwards only.

[@Toocoolforunclesam]

Buckle up, its time to PRAISE JEBUS