The reality is that there is no such a thing as "evil", unless you want to define evil as the action carried out as bad intention against another. Two possible offenses exist in this world: Physical and financial, there is also emotional but that's based on ignorance and irrationality. The problem is that all we have is the legal system and this only convicts people and punishes them, it never properly corrects them (no profit in that) so yes, defense/protection is justification.
Objective morality is not like saying "murder is always wrong in every situation". It is just saying that a in a moral situation (with the exact same circumstances) has a right or wrong answer. Killing for fun is not the same as killing for self defense.
Take this example for instance,
"Torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong" would be a better example of an objective truth.
B. What if somebody has a good justification for said torture--but they happen to enjoy doing it?
C. How wrong is it? Is it worse than murder? Than adultery? Than treason? Than betraying your parents? Or is it objectively wrong, but HOW wrong it is is somehow subjective?
Yes, murder is a sub-scope of killing. By killing, I suppose you mean willful and unwillful participation or involvement in termination of another human being, stopping forever the mind and it's processes of manifestation. Now since there is a large amount of sub-scopes within the scope of killing, i think that it would be hard if not impossible to make a distinction by providing simple rules. Simple rules (that do function) provide to small murder scope.
Meaning that in order to show that something perceived as non-murder is actually a murder you have to take specifically defined case and with the rules you suggest present us with the conclusion that it is a murder. Leaving us to attack the logic and the rules, as you could be right you also could be wrong.
Justified=Non-murder , Unjustified=murder.
I don't know, just shifts the dispute on the definition of "Justified". Still the scope of murder is too small.
The ability of some minds, to willfully deny the murder, even when they know that it is, combined with satisfaction (possibly interests) that those minds gain from such murders, is forcing opposition to present an in depth logic for the controversial scope of (non-murders that ARE).
Please more precisely define the scope you talk about. It can't be generally solved.
"Please more precisely define the scope you talk about."
Defining what is justified was not even close to the scope of this video (fast forward to the last line of the video). My purpose was simply to point out that once you label something as "murder", you've already judged it to be wrong.
Great vid Cousino...however, I can hear the religious now: What do you mean by "justified" and/or "unjustified" killing? Your justification is subjective!!!!
Like you, most nonbelievers are intelligent and can use logic! Ask religious people to tell you why it would be wrong for them to kill you and take your money. Tell them they cannot use any religious reference for their reasoning. No Jesus, God, or Bible, just their own REASONING. (Only tried this on Christians.)
I've done this twice to two unrelated adults, 48 and 70 y/o, and neither could give me an answer. This scares me, and helps confirm my suspicion that religious people are insane.
Interesting video although I've long since given up referring to anything as moral or immoral. What I say as a substitute depends on the situation. Good video and you're so close to 1000 subs, I'll be sure to congratulate you when you pass the benchmark.
I've been flipping back and forth between 999 and 1000 the last couple days. But it's rather artificial anyway. I have at least 16 closed or suspended accounts subscribed to me (and because of a YT glitch, I can't get them off my roster just yet) and half the subscribers I do have don't ever watch my videos. :-/
The question is whether murder exists as a matter of fact. Murder, as is defined commonly, implies the validity of morality, for defining something as unjustified killing is kinda arbitrary and merely conventional in nature. And defining something as immoral killing is really begging the question whether that is not a floating abstraction. Of course we can define wrong as "as such as to thwart the desires of others" and then identify what those things are and label them immoral, but that
seems to me rests on our very strong and widely disseminated aversion to certain things like pain, and our desires for its opposites, and these dispositions/preferences/desires are so coincidental because we are genetically very very similar (99% similar actually). Still, abilities such as empathy are very flexible and are easily shapable via desensitization and traumatic experiences. Ultimately we're talking about a shared fiction that is probably the best way for the most of us to get their
I loved the subliminal aspect in the fact that you introduced the fallacy of the tautological murder argument with the Earth rotating counter clockwise. But to emphasis the validity of your argument, you had the Earth rotating, as it should, clockwise when you introduced your argument...
The rather disconcerting and uncomfortable consequence of that definition is though, that what the Nazi's did was not 'immoral' as it was entirely legal by their standards.
I think rape is objectively immoral even if it were legal (and in some cultures it is entirely acceptable within marriage). I think torture is objectively immoral even if (as it is in many countries, and as the previous US administration tried to make it) it is legal. What say you?
"what the Nazi's did was not 'immoral' as it was entirely legal by their standards."
It was clearly not immoral from the Nazi perspective since "purifying the race" was a "noble goal". But the rest of the world disagreed (in fact, there was disagreement within, but many went along to save their own asses), which is why those people were tried and convicted in Neurenburg for crimes against humanity.
yeah - you really gotta watch who you buy your negative space from thewse days - the economy is tough and people are just out to get a buck anyway they can -- like charging people for negative space that spins the wrong way :(
I think ShayeSaintJohn might know a good dealer if you are itnerested! I saw him swimming in some in watch?v=EXZ6sHflaQM and he said he picked it up at a taco stand or something
exactly cousinO. This is why the law makes distinctions between degrees of homicide (intentional, reckless, negligent etc) and whether it is a justifiable homicide (as in self-defense, or war); so we can decide whether to give the killer a medal, or the electric chair, or something in between.
I don't think I agree on your definition of subjectivity. You can logical define morality but I would say We don't really live in a environment build for morality.
Right I did a video where I addressed this a long time ago. Most moral relativist don't necessarily believe that morality should be subjective, but that it IS subjective.
The point being that there is no universal moral standard and there isn't. It's just stating a fact.
Some theists are under this ridiculous notion that something isn't wrong unless someone really powerful (like God) says so and the consequences of said moral issue is secondary.
"Thats why they get in such a mess over it, they dont even know their own 10 commandments "
That's definately true. While I definitely think the Bible is nonesense, I wonder if the actual Hebrew text refers to killing or to murder. If it says murder, than add another error to the many 1000s of errors in the Bible.
Well of course, someone has to lay claim to being 'right'. I believe there are actually 14.
I really should wake up before i start typing. It should read 'don't know' rather than 'don't don't'. Of course you realised that, though do two don'ts make a do? :P
There are SO many of these sort of things that are subjective. Killing is just one of them. Obviously you were limiting your discussion--I simply bring it up because these sorts of things fascinate me.
Since I'm not longer a christian and am able to thinking for myself what is right and wrong, I'm finding an insaciable hunger for these discussions!
If I wanted to play devil's advocate here, I could certainly argue that "right and wrong" are useless religious concepts (just like "God" and "free will"), and you're only 1/3 atheist if you merely abandon "God".
The reality is that there is no such a thing as "evil", unless you want to define evil as the action carried out as bad intention against another. Two possible offenses exist in this world: Physical and financial, there is also emotional but that's based on ignorance and irrationality. The problem is that all we have is the legal system and this only convicts people and punishes them, it never properly corrects them (no profit in that) so yes, defense/protection is justification.
InsanityComplex1 6 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
Killing is always immoral but life is not a series of choices only between right and wrong, but sometimes right and right or wrong and wrong.
If killing can be moral then all it needs is the proper justification and this to me seems very sociopathic and anything is permissible.
Hexdoll 1 year ago
of course murder is always immoral; it's basically defined as killing when killing is wrong.
killing however is not always wrong.
gguilford72 2 years ago
Murder has a strict "Mens Rea" Guilty mind, to fit the "Actus Reus" Guilty actions.
MarxIzalias 2 years ago
your gay
fryer22 2 years ago
Objective morality is not like saying "murder is always wrong in every situation". It is just saying that a in a moral situation (with the exact same circumstances) has a right or wrong answer. Killing for fun is not the same as killing for self defense.
Take this example for instance,
"Torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong" would be a better example of an objective truth.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
A. No two situations are ever exactly alike!
B. What if somebody has a good justification for said torture--but they happen to enjoy doing it?
C. How wrong is it? Is it worse than murder? Than adultery? Than treason? Than betraying your parents? Or is it objectively wrong, but HOW wrong it is is somehow subjective?
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
A. Perhaps not but they are close enough. The alternative would be a numerous individual examples of objective right or wrong.
B. You changed the circumstances.
C. Equal in the sense of disobeying God, Varying in relation to negative societal impact.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
A. "Close enough" is a subjective evaluation.
B. Fair enough; but how can you ever know for sure what somebody's motives are?
C. I don't believe in your g0d, so this defense is meaningless to me.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
very insightful!
maman666 2 years ago
Thanks!
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
One time a Theist asked me "What is your definition of morals"
I said "A moral is a subjective value that masquerades as an objective value"
For example "X makes me uncomfortable. Therefore X is immoral. Ergo X will bring down the fury of an invisible man in the sky on all of us."
AlmightyAtheismo 2 years ago
try me...
Lanark8 2 years ago
Yes, murder is a sub-scope of killing. By killing, I suppose you mean willful and unwillful participation or involvement in termination of another human being, stopping forever the mind and it's processes of manifestation. Now since there is a large amount of sub-scopes within the scope of killing, i think that it would be hard if not impossible to make a distinction by providing simple rules. Simple rules (that do function) provide to small murder scope.
bezvezeceda 2 years ago
Meaning that in order to show that something perceived as non-murder is actually a murder you have to take specifically defined case and with the rules you suggest present us with the conclusion that it is a murder. Leaving us to attack the logic and the rules, as you could be right you also could be wrong.
Justified=Non-murder , Unjustified=murder.
I don't know, just shifts the dispute on the definition of "Justified". Still the scope of murder is too small.
bezvezeceda 2 years ago
The ability of some minds, to willfully deny the murder, even when they know that it is, combined with satisfaction (possibly interests) that those minds gain from such murders, is forcing opposition to present an in depth logic for the controversial scope of (non-murders that ARE).
Please more precisely define the scope you talk about. It can't be generally solved.
bezvezeceda 2 years ago
"Please more precisely define the scope you talk about."
Defining what is justified was not even close to the scope of this video (fast forward to the last line of the video). My purpose was simply to point out that once you label something as "murder", you've already judged it to be wrong.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
I supposed, that you had some background dispute which forced you to point out that murder is wrong just by itself. I guess i supposed it wrong.
But if you have some specific case please do post it, I like your reasoning.
bezvezeceda 2 years ago
Great vid Cousino...however, I can hear the religious now: What do you mean by "justified" and/or "unjustified" killing? Your justification is subjective!!!!
djosephallen 2 years ago
Like you, most nonbelievers are intelligent and can use logic! Ask religious people to tell you why it would be wrong for them to kill you and take your money. Tell them they cannot use any religious reference for their reasoning. No Jesus, God, or Bible, just their own REASONING. (Only tried this on Christians.)
I've done this twice to two unrelated adults, 48 and 70 y/o, and neither could give me an answer. This scares me, and helps confirm my suspicion that religious people are insane.
pmarie2003 2 years ago
Very well presented - thanks
wjkaiser65 2 years ago
brilliant
Cristofer7 2 years ago
fucking brilliant..
I have never heard a more perfect response to this question...
absolutely fantastic!
KingHeathen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i like your videos.
tomfrankly 2 years ago
Wow... that makes complete sense.
IngeniousMaybe 2 years ago
Good point.
Of course, there's also much disagreement over what constitutes "wrong" and if people should even employ that term/concept.
D4Shawn 2 years ago
i could murder a stella does that count.
popebenadict16 2 years ago
Interesting video although I've long since given up referring to anything as moral or immoral. What I say as a substitute depends on the situation. Good video and you're so close to 1000 subs, I'll be sure to congratulate you when you pass the benchmark.
Orygyn 2 years ago
I've been flipping back and forth between 999 and 1000 the last couple days. But it's rather artificial anyway. I have at least 16 closed or suspended accounts subscribed to me (and because of a YT glitch, I can't get them off my roster just yet) and half the subscribers I do have don't ever watch my videos. :-/
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Ah. Well it's an interesting landmark nonetheless.
Orygyn 2 years ago
The question is whether murder exists as a matter of fact. Murder, as is defined commonly, implies the validity of morality, for defining something as unjustified killing is kinda arbitrary and merely conventional in nature. And defining something as immoral killing is really begging the question whether that is not a floating abstraction. Of course we can define wrong as "as such as to thwart the desires of others" and then identify what those things are and label them immoral, but that
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
seems to me rests on our very strong and widely disseminated aversion to certain things like pain, and our desires for its opposites, and these dispositions/preferences/desires are so coincidental because we are genetically very very similar (99% similar actually). Still, abilities such as empathy are very flexible and are easily shapable via desensitization and traumatic experiences. Ultimately we're talking about a shared fiction that is probably the best way for the most of us to get their
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
needs met.
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
I certainly hope this does not occur, but if you were murdered, you wouldn't be saying, "Murder is immoral".
:p
premed2 2 years ago
"if you were murdered, you wouldn't be saying ..."
In that case, there wouldn't be any "me" to say anything. ;-)
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
I tell this to people all the time.Its so simple,yet few get it.
worldlystone 2 years ago
I loved the subliminal aspect in the fact that you introduced the fallacy of the tautological murder argument with the Earth rotating counter clockwise. But to emphasis the validity of your argument, you had the Earth rotating, as it should, clockwise when you introduced your argument...
Nice one!
It would be worthy of 5*s for that alone!
2bsirius 2 years ago
:-) That's actually one meaning I hadn't anticipated with my current intro and coda. I like it though.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
OMG it wasn't INTENTIONAL?
2bsirius 2 years ago
The rather disconcerting and uncomfortable consequence of that definition is though, that what the Nazi's did was not 'immoral' as it was entirely legal by their standards.
I think rape is objectively immoral even if it were legal (and in some cultures it is entirely acceptable within marriage). I think torture is objectively immoral even if (as it is in many countries, and as the previous US administration tried to make it) it is legal. What say you?
Peace
ballyboneman 2 years ago
"what the Nazi's did was not 'immoral' as it was entirely legal by their standards."
It was clearly not immoral from the Nazi perspective since "purifying the race" was a "noble goal". But the rest of the world disagreed (in fact, there was disagreement within, but many went along to save their own asses), which is why those people were tried and convicted in Neurenburg for crimes against humanity.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Another great video ;)
itsbizbuz 2 years ago
Thanks.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
What moral system do you work by if any?
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
I should make some videos about that.
I believe morality is based on interpersonal relationships including--but not limited to--those between community/society and the individual.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Please do I'd love to discuss it. morals are my thing at the moment
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
You mean you might get over them in the future?
Gehn5 2 years ago
Another great video. I love definitions haha.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Thanks.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Murder is wrong by definition! Thanks for the vid
mtanti87 2 years ago
You're welcome.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
fucking brilliant.
I never thought about it that way.
5/5
RabidApe 2 years ago
Thanks!
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
The real question is: "Why do people love the Hannibal Lecter character?"
Barklord 2 years ago
Because he is intriguing,
people love the 'dark' more than they dare admit, people enjoy the thought of danger,
and a whole lot more I can't think of right now.
Loreleila 2 years ago
He's delicious.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
And - great to see you on a roll making vids.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Yeah, I just had a "mini-rampage" of video making. :-)
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
That's exactly why I reject the whole objective/subjective dichotomy. It leads to polarised views that bear no relation to reality.
Great vid.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
your pitch blackness rotates the wrong way
bubonicnate 2 years ago
Damn! I was hoping nobody would notice.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
yeah - you really gotta watch who you buy your negative space from thewse days - the economy is tough and people are just out to get a buck anyway they can -- like charging people for negative space that spins the wrong way :(
I think ShayeSaintJohn might know a good dealer if you are itnerested! I saw him swimming in some in watch?v=EXZ6sHflaQM and he said he picked it up at a taco stand or something
bubonicnate 2 years ago
LOL
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
exactly cousinO. This is why the law makes distinctions between degrees of homicide (intentional, reckless, negligent etc) and whether it is a justifiable homicide (as in self-defense, or war); so we can decide whether to give the killer a medal, or the electric chair, or something in between.
windham666 2 years ago
Show me a square circle.. Face palm lol
I don't think I agree on your definition of subjectivity. You can logical define morality but I would say We don't really live in a environment build for morality.
CivilHuman 2 years ago
I love your stuff, I wish you made a video a day. You don't need these high standards!
pyrrho314 2 years ago
:-)
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Right I did a video where I addressed this a long time ago. Most moral relativist don't necessarily believe that morality should be subjective, but that it IS subjective.
The point being that there is no universal moral standard and there isn't. It's just stating a fact.
Some theists are under this ridiculous notion that something isn't wrong unless someone really powerful (like God) says so and the consequences of said moral issue is secondary.
smpunditz 2 years ago
"Most moral relativist don't necessarily believe that morality should be subjective, but that it IS subjective."
Exactly, and when someone denies that which IS, then what follows is precarious at best.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Which is why most Christians get the most famous of commandments wrong
it's not "thou shalt not murder"
it's "thou shalt not kill unlawfullyy"
Thats why they get in such a mess over it, they dont even know their own 10 commandments
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
"it's not 'thou shalt not murder'"
"Thats why they get in such a mess over it, they dont even know their own 10 commandments "
That's definately true. While I definitely think the Bible is nonesense, I wonder if the actual Hebrew text refers to killing or to murder. If it says murder, than add another error to the many 1000s of errors in the Bible.
sumadartsan 2 years ago
And there weren't even 10, though most of them don't don't that either.
Loreleila 2 years ago
Loreleila: And the Catholic 10 is diferent from the Protestant 10; well in the way they are laid out anyway.
ballyboneman 2 years ago
Well of course, someone has to lay claim to being 'right'. I believe there are actually 14.
I really should wake up before i start typing. It should read 'don't know' rather than 'don't don't'. Of course you realised that, though do two don'ts make a do? :P
Loreleila 2 years ago
Yes actually there were 6'000
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
There are SO many of these sort of things that are subjective. Killing is just one of them. Obviously you were limiting your discussion--I simply bring it up because these sorts of things fascinate me.
Since I'm not longer a christian and am able to thinking for myself what is right and wrong, I'm finding an insaciable hunger for these discussions!
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
If I wanted to play devil's advocate here, I could certainly argue that "right and wrong" are useless religious concepts (just like "God" and "free will"), and you're only 1/3 atheist if you merely abandon "God".
D4Shawn 2 years ago