We are bound by our social constructs that define all else; the concepts of equality, morality and religion are derived from this point.
People/society as a whole will always be 'moral' (a fluid concept) as it is always in their best interests, to be a part of a society; derive too far from social constructs and one is outcast. Resulting in either increased valuelessness or the creation of another society with it's own concepts of equality, religion, morality etc.
Morals are not rules but only a system of weighing values... nothing more than a list of things to like or not and the rest is a naturally formed extension... I think you've just cut morality down to a axiom.
religions are so successful because one can ask themself what is morality, why is it here, what values should be defined as moral, and who should define it. With other questions religions provide simple answers, but are simple answers for the simple minded? throughout human history we have perceived there must always be foolproof answers, but as you solve 1 part of a mystery the amount of questions increase exponentially
religions give comfort to those who believe they are lost, not discovering
It seems to me that the only way your argument can hold is if humans invented God. If God really exists (the claim of theism), then morality is not a level playing field between theists and atheists. Atheists can modify their values (since they created them). Theists cannot, because they are God's values, not theirs. That's the whole point of the theists' argument. The implications are profound and totally ignored by you. Your argument implies humans create God's values. That's atheism.
@EvonyProfessor …duh! Of course, it’s human perception. God’s existence, culpability in a murder trial, plausibility of the theory of relativity – it’s all human perception. That doesn’t mean whatever I think is right. God's existence or non-existence are mutually exclusive realities. If he's merely fiction, it changes everything. You dismiss these questions as irrelevancies, but you haven’t argued that position, you’ve just assumed it – back to my previous post.
There are biological reasons to treat others with respect (people are generally happier in a peaceful community working together than warring against each other). However, if morality came from religion, does that mean all religions are correct? That's obviously not the case, so let's assume Christianity is correct and Hinduism is wrong. From where did South Asians derive their moral principles, which have just as much in common with today's moral principles as Christianity.
Obviously if Hindu Gods are fake and Hinduism is not something that came about from a supernatural being but instead made up by people, those people arrived at their moral philosophy through *secular* means. That said, religion was obviously a very useful tool to enforce moral principles and control people's behavior.
Morality has nothing to do with God or the bible. The question is not why be moral, the question is. Should I love my neighbor as myself. The bible's system of value is perfect, is not base on what you like or dislike. Believers are different, you are wrong. The believer has Christ inside, which brings about perfection, you only have what your senses tell you. God wins. You are right by saying that we are wired this way, but yet you don't realize that this is the problem.
Placing value on your own life and those you care about is not exclusive to religion. Placing value on everyones life regardless of what they have done, that is definitely religion. What you are saying is that if its in my interest to look out for everyone then that is self interest. Thats not right.
most morals are believed to be more universal, ingrained in the value of human life itself.
Philosophers one and all have with a straight laced seriousness that provokes laughter, demanded something much higher, more pretentious, more solemn of themselves as soon as the have concerned themselves with morality as a science: they wanted to furnish the "rational ground" of morality --and every philosopher hithero ha believed has has furnished this rational ground; morality itself however was taken as a given. How far from their clumsy pride....to not describe morality itself.
morals, like all biological phenomena, morals are selected darwinically from a pool of all possible morals (probably chosen in the aproximate era of tribal humans). those persons or tibes containing the right collection of morals will be at an advantage compared to those with morals that do not help propagate a tribes power.
for instance, the moral that its not ok to kill a group insider (family member/neighbor), but is ok to kill outsides, is very advantageous in times of war.
Part 1: That's quite a weighty comment. It's a question that deserved a lot of thought, and that is why I have done this before I respond.
In response to your first comment, I'd like additional information. Who or what is a philosopher, according to your definition? aren't you 'philosophizing(sic)' yourself at the moment? [cont]
Part 2: It would be entirely true that from the unique perspective(s) of one person (or persons) that self interest was in their own interpretation the highest form that morality can take, because of their own unique interpretation of the word morality, and their own mental construction of what this word actually means. Certain words have power. [cont]
Part 3: 'religion' is one of them, and so is 'morality'. The words hold different powers with different people, and just to say that it does not influence you personally, and therefore any content of the discussion that goes outside of self interest is automatically bunk, does not sound like skepticism to me. It sounds to me like a uniquely prejudiced viewpoint concerning one specific aspect (albeit minor, depending on your perspective) of the human experience.
One of the main arguments I will make in my next video is how seemingly "moral" behavior is nothing more than an emergent property of individuals pursuing their own self-interest, but also being forced to deal with each other. For example, honesty is a "virtue" because there is an intrinsically beneficial nature behind group cooperation, which requires trust. Without trust, we can't function as groups, and our collective well-being suffers accordingly.
Well, I should first emphasize that I wanted to stir up controversy. This is by no means a settled "truth" of morality, but I intend to make a solid argument for it in my next video.
The "philosophers" I am quoting are basically every professor of economics and game theory. This is not really "my philosophy," so much as an observation of human nature.
In a larger sense the idea that values are formed through human experience is ignoring the stance that the way we are wired as you put it is simply the way we are created by God
the religous stance is that no matter if you beleive or not all values originate from God
Most of our values originated from our ancestors and their learned behaviors. The tribes that helped each other and supported one another long outlasted those tribes who had infighting and chaos.
Animals have morals... although on a simpler scale. They know right from wrong.
That's precisely why when you come home to find Milo moping around with head down low... giving you those "I'm sorry man" eyes... you know he just peed on your favorite rug. AGAIN.
I think it's also worth noting that placing value on quality of human life is often rather unimportant in religion.
Religion supplants the significance of the individual with the directive to grovel beneath a higher power...trading suffering and sacrifice in this life for eternal "salvation."
It makes sense in my mind that when one considers this to be the ONLY life, that one's interest in its quality increases dramatically.
Certainly it does, but I'd like to know what answer you're referring to specifically. There are definitely different angles you can take, and I'd like to know what yours is.
the motivativion many religions give is fear. Do as god says, or be punished for it later. If this is true, then bad people would be less inclined to do bad things due to their fear. But does this make them any beter a person? Not realy, these people would perhaps be more inclined to do bad things if they thought they could get away with it (ie escape law on earth, if not afterlife).
Sure i would feel bad if i stole something, but u can reason through society. If i stole or caused bodily harm, than how would i feel if someone else stole from me or hurt me? I would feel bad. Therefore segments such as "do unto others as u would have them do unto you" like in the bible are far more relevant to forming morals. Far more relevant than "all those who sin go to hell for ever and burn burn burn".
Thankyou for your comments. I can appreciate your approach, but to be honest, I think that you have something relevant to gain here.
Perhaps it's only a case of not being able to communicate your ideas effectively, but I'm getting the idea that you don't yet grasp the philosophical position.
However, you do hint at an empathetic reasoning, and that is probably more important than the philosophy itself. If more people chose empathy, we wouldn't have the issues we do.
It's not that I think you don't understand the subject at all, rather that there is perhaps a deeper understanding you're currently ready for, but don't yet possess ^_^.
I could be wrong of course - it's certainly happened before - but if I'm not.. Maybe it's time for you to do some extensive thinking on the subject and connect a few more dots.
I know about evolutionary psychology, but the origin of morality is largely different from the mechanisms that it functions through. Morality isn't so much a thing as a process. As good as it is to understand the origins of the process, it's also important to understand the mechanisms, elements and influences that impact that process. Plus, there is MUCH more to morality than just altruism. All we're trying to do is tease out the nuances and factors that may not seem obvious at first.
I watched and understood all 4:33, I just also happen to disagree with the way Colin frames morality itself, but probably not as much as it may seem.
Yes, religion may help some people out. Hamas apparently gets young boys off drugs. My point is that like a placebo, religion is not the source of morals (or positive change). The source MUST be within the individual. We need to recognize that the substance of the religion is not sanctified by this effect.
I could just s easily find a 'good moral intuition' from stories like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or Jack and the Beanstalk. If I said "I can feel Luke Skywalker guiding my life and morality" or "Knowing that Gandalf slayed the Balrog gives my life meaning" you'd think I'm a loon.
Letting people go on with these false consolations and misguided perceptions is to do them a disservice. The same morality and consolation people find through religion is available without it. So why allow the lies?
Heh, fair enough. I don't mean to be preachy. I just enjoy hashing out theories and details about these things with apparently knowledgeable people. It gets tiresome discussing the basics with the ignorant, so being able to move on and exchanging some ideas about the more advanced details is a refreshing change.
well put. I'm working on a graduate synthesis on morality and world-views, dispositions and beliefs seem to keep emerging as important factors. Surprisingly, action is often considered less important than intent. It's easy to condemn the Nazis, inquisitioners, or jihadists as unhinged loons, but that's not right. Their actions are reasonable given their beliefs. Their intentions are/were noble, tainted by a lack of critical skepticism are they are/were. Better thinking = better morality.
Hmm.. Action less important than intent? it's definitely a common perception. The whole "it's the thought that counts" philosophy.
To be honest, I'm not so sure I know where I sit with that, as there is a qualitative difference between someone who has enough foresight and insight to actually behave in such a way that they are not screwing other people up, and someone who simply holds onto a single idea, and cares not about the harm that may come to others as they pursue that goal.
And it's not even that I think such a person "doesn't care" about another person(s)- rather that the possible far-reaching effects of their actions do not actually enter their calculations. In this way, it is the person with the greatest wisdom who is more able to act 'morally', but perhaps the restriction on morality due to a lack of personal wisdom is the very thing that makes religion useful, as a guide for the ill informed to judge their own behaviour by?
Granted, we can only attempt to predict so much of the total consequence of our actions. That's why 'Do the best you can given what you know' seems to be a common rule of thumb.
I have a hard time, however, believing that religion serves a beneficial service in this regard. It undermines what we know, promotes poor thinking, and has no mechanism for distinguishing good verses from bad ones. Why don't we stone non virgins or back-talking children or own slaves? Not because the of the Bible.
To be honest, I'd be very happy if religion was removed from the equation entirely. I think that we're much better off sticking to moral relativity :)
However, that being said - I need to consider all the religious folk out there who actually DO take a semblance of morality from their religion, and are better people as a result. Though I loathe to admit it, religion can really help some people out.
Morality, be it through theism or atheism, is the same thing. An atheist will tag 'morals' as something out of respect (learnt through time). Those believing in a god, will tag 'morals' as something dictated by god.
'at all times, people will act according to what they think is most valuable?'
I understand what you are saying and generally this is true, but i also think that a person's situation plays a role in the final decider. You use 'stealing' as an example. A situation can at times override ones values. This is when we lose the 'right from wrong' perception, because afer all, we are human and to err is commonplace. If not to err, then how do we know if something is right or wrong?
Well, I would say that our values can change dynamically.
I don't consider this so much an error as rather a situation in which you changed your priorities, if even temporarily. Hence, how could it be an error? Your actions reflect your values. Screwing up, is just rearranging your values temporarily. Obviously we don't want that, but that's what it is. There's something to be said for consistent values, but the truth is that any of us at any time could change our perception of value.
Even if the starting postulate were true, it's an easily answerable question.
To put it simply, there is no reason to treat everyone equally and with respect...until you realize something. There will always be someone above you. Then someone above them. Although it may not be in your best interest to treat someone below you with respect, it is in your best interest for the people above you to treat you with respect. Since people have different abilities, we'd just be in chaos.
That was excellent! Both the reasoning and the music.
I think I'd say that theism offers no clear answer to the question, either. It too provides no reasons to act against one's own best interests if true, it merely changes the equation as to where your self interest lies, to procure divine rewards or avoid punishment.
It is morality itself that provides the reason: When we state that something is right or wrong, we imply that we are imbuing it with a status that supercedes the functional.
The argument then becomes what basis does the non-theist have to be moral in the first place: But the same question can be asked of the theist. Even if he believes right and wrong are what god tells him they are, he still must first make an independent moral decision to accept god's righteousness - and he has no more basis for that, than the non-theist has for any of his moral decisions.
In short, theistic and non-theistic morality are both ultimately underpinned by the moral agency of man.
Once you accept man as a sentient being with a capacity to distinguish right from wrong, I think it's pretty easy to see how we are all equal. If morality supercedes the practical needs of the moment, then our nature as moral beings supercedes our superficial differences.
Well, it seems to me that likes and dislikes can be either constant OR dynamic. if even just for a moment, someone re-arranges their priorities, they are temporarily creating a system of values, even though it IS temporary. They will act in accordance with this system, and therefore it's difficult to actually reconcile what it could possibly mean to act immorally. is it even possible?
When people are accused of acting immorally, who's code of morality have they broken? we either have to buy subjective morality, or objective morality.
If morality is subjective, they are not being immoral, but how the hell can morality be objective? different people and different cultures have different values.
I think it's possible for morality to be objective, and for that objective standard to give rise to a lot of disagreement. Hurting other people is usually "bad", but letting crimes go unpished can seem "bad", too. Is there any single right way to handle that conflict? I think there's room for diverging opinions.
Some people act immorally because they violate their own standards. Often out of desperation or because of temptation - they usually know they've done wrong and feel guilt.
Other people act immorally because their standards are wrong: either by my standards or what I believe to be universal standards. There's no guarantee I'm correct, but I make the assertion and hope others agree.
It would be similar to telling a madman that something he thinks he's seeing is not there: I may be the one who's mistaken, but I trust the evidence of my senses in order to function.
Hmm.. wasn't the 'immoral' act just a temporary re-arrangement of someone's priorities?
Sure they feel guilt, but what was going on at the time of the act? surely they were acting in accordance with what they felt most vasluable at that particular moment?
I think there can be different kinds of value that impact our decisions. I may feel a weak moral compulsion to go recycle some newspapers, but fail to do so because I'm lazy. Taking a nap instead has no moral value, it's just comfort.
Right, but don't we place a certain value on comfort? Some more or less than others.
When trying to make a decision whether or not to take a nap, or to go and do some chores - isn't it going to reflect the value we place on comfort versus the value we place on those things affecting our decision?(hygiene, work ethic etc.)
Right.. the problem of course is that different people have different likes and dislikes, which of course leads to different values, which of course leads to different ideas of morality.
This of course, is why we developed the social contract (though we have Hume to thank for that mostly)
Failing this, we would have another system in place anyway - it's only logical.
Pomen's question also assumes theism promotes equality?
Sapote91 9 months ago
We are bound by our social constructs that define all else; the concepts of equality, morality and religion are derived from this point.
People/society as a whole will always be 'moral' (a fluid concept) as it is always in their best interests, to be a part of a society; derive too far from social constructs and one is outcast. Resulting in either increased valuelessness or the creation of another society with it's own concepts of equality, religion, morality etc.
Sapote91 9 months ago
Awesome video! Informational and easy to watch :D
syncatron 11 months ago
Awesome video! Informational and easy to watch :D
syncatron 11 months ago
I think philosophy should be replaced by game theory and evolution theory.
thankqwerty 1 year ago
@thankqwerty game theory and evolution theory are both part of philosophy. Logic of Decision and Evolutionary philosophy, respectively.
kungfucolin 11 months ago
@thankqwerty
lol evidently you don't understand what philosophy is.
moyga 6 months ago
@moyga
Well perhaps not replacing all philosophy, but morality for sure.
thankqwerty 6 months ago
cole clark!!
ObamaSoundsLikeOsama 1 year ago
Morals are not rules but only a system of weighing values... nothing more than a list of things to like or not and the rest is a naturally formed extension... I think you've just cut morality down to a axiom.
+ Like +Favorite +Subscribed
Philosification 1 year ago
@Philosification Thankyou very much :)
kungfucolin 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go to your address bar, after the word YOU and before the word TUBE, type in "win" then press enter
SiniRIPMisko 1 year ago
religions are so successful because one can ask themself what is morality, why is it here, what values should be defined as moral, and who should define it. With other questions religions provide simple answers, but are simple answers for the simple minded? throughout human history we have perceived there must always be foolproof answers, but as you solve 1 part of a mystery the amount of questions increase exponentially
religions give comfort to those who believe they are lost, not discovering
XepicmeauX 1 year ago
It seems to me that the only way your argument can hold is if humans invented God. If God really exists (the claim of theism), then morality is not a level playing field between theists and atheists. Atheists can modify their values (since they created them). Theists cannot, because they are God's values, not theirs. That's the whole point of the theists' argument. The implications are profound and totally ignored by you. Your argument implies humans create God's values. That's atheism.
xtian21c 1 year ago
@xtian21c err its Human perception of Gods values even if God really existed.
1 says, "This is what i want, so its what i'll do'.
The other, "This is what i think someone else wants (God) so it's what i'll do."
God having existed or not, or being created by humans or not, doesn't change that at all.
EvonyProfessor 7 months ago
@EvonyProfessor …duh! Of course, it’s human perception. God’s existence, culpability in a murder trial, plausibility of the theory of relativity – it’s all human perception. That doesn’t mean whatever I think is right. God's existence or non-existence are mutually exclusive realities. If he's merely fiction, it changes everything. You dismiss these questions as irrelevancies, but you haven’t argued that position, you’ve just assumed it – back to my previous post.
xtian21c 7 months ago
Comment removed
xtian21c 1 year ago
There are biological reasons to treat others with respect (people are generally happier in a peaceful community working together than warring against each other). However, if morality came from religion, does that mean all religions are correct? That's obviously not the case, so let's assume Christianity is correct and Hinduism is wrong. From where did South Asians derive their moral principles, which have just as much in common with today's moral principles as Christianity.
stinky472 1 year ago
Obviously if Hindu Gods are fake and Hinduism is not something that came about from a supernatural being but instead made up by people, those people arrived at their moral philosophy through *secular* means. That said, religion was obviously a very useful tool to enforce moral principles and control people's behavior.
stinky472 1 year ago
Morality has nothing to do with God or the bible. The question is not why be moral, the question is. Should I love my neighbor as myself. The bible's system of value is perfect, is not base on what you like or dislike. Believers are different, you are wrong. The believer has Christ inside, which brings about perfection, you only have what your senses tell you. God wins. You are right by saying that we are wired this way, but yet you don't realize that this is the problem.
onetocome 1 year ago
woman farts loud!!! so freakin funny and why is it in my reccomended lists?
ScarFace9797 2 years ago
yeah!! thats what i thought! lol
ivor1977 2 years ago
Placing value on your own life and those you care about is not exclusive to religion. Placing value on everyones life regardless of what they have done, that is definitely religion. What you are saying is that if its in my interest to look out for everyone then that is self interest. Thats not right.
most morals are believed to be more universal, ingrained in the value of human life itself.
taxzby 2 years ago
Philosophers one and all have with a straight laced seriousness that provokes laughter, demanded something much higher, more pretentious, more solemn of themselves as soon as the have concerned themselves with morality as a science: they wanted to furnish the "rational ground" of morality --and every philosopher hithero ha believed has has furnished this rational ground; morality itself however was taken as a given. How far from their clumsy pride....to not describe morality itself.
tonybonez 2 years ago
These are my favorite kind of videos from you.
iVi477o 3 years ago
Thankyou. that is very kind of you to say :)
kungfucolin 3 years ago
Mate, i have no idea what your talkin about but it sounds pretty confusin lol
anyway you kick ass in your metallica covers, keep rocking mate and good luck in uni!
MetallicaUK 3 years ago
in my opinion:
morals, like all biological phenomena, morals are selected darwinically from a pool of all possible morals (probably chosen in the aproximate era of tribal humans). those persons or tibes containing the right collection of morals will be at an advantage compared to those with morals that do not help propagate a tribes power.
for instance, the moral that its not ok to kill a group insider (family member/neighbor), but is ok to kill outsides, is very advantageous in times of war.
M4N1F3570R 3 years ago
Philosophers miss the ball by a mile.
Self-interest is the highest morality, because it is the ONLY morality.
AntiCitizenX 3 years ago
Part 1: That's quite a weighty comment. It's a question that deserved a lot of thought, and that is why I have done this before I respond.
In response to your first comment, I'd like additional information. Who or what is a philosopher, according to your definition? aren't you 'philosophizing(sic)' yourself at the moment? [cont]
kungfucolin 3 years ago
Part 2: It would be entirely true that from the unique perspective(s) of one person (or persons) that self interest was in their own interpretation the highest form that morality can take, because of their own unique interpretation of the word morality, and their own mental construction of what this word actually means. Certain words have power. [cont]
kungfucolin 3 years ago
Part 3: 'religion' is one of them, and so is 'morality'. The words hold different powers with different people, and just to say that it does not influence you personally, and therefore any content of the discussion that goes outside of self interest is automatically bunk, does not sound like skepticism to me. It sounds to me like a uniquely prejudiced viewpoint concerning one specific aspect (albeit minor, depending on your perspective) of the human experience.
btw, I subscribed to your channel
kungfucolin 3 years ago
One of the main arguments I will make in my next video is how seemingly "moral" behavior is nothing more than an emergent property of individuals pursuing their own self-interest, but also being forced to deal with each other. For example, honesty is a "virtue" because there is an intrinsically beneficial nature behind group cooperation, which requires trust. Without trust, we can't function as groups, and our collective well-being suffers accordingly.
AntiCitizenX 3 years ago
Well, I should first emphasize that I wanted to stir up controversy. This is by no means a settled "truth" of morality, but I intend to make a solid argument for it in my next video.
The "philosophers" I am quoting are basically every professor of economics and game theory. This is not really "my philosophy," so much as an observation of human nature.
AntiCitizenX 3 years ago
And i guess saying that people are "wired that way" is somehow meaningful
but if you want meaningfulness, philosophy is truly the wrong use of your time.
jessee331 3 years ago
In a larger sense the idea that values are formed through human experience is ignoring the stance that the way we are wired as you put it is simply the way we are created by God
the religous stance is that no matter if you beleive or not all values originate from God
and your experience simply changes them
jessee331 3 years ago
Believing in Dogma is one thing.. preaching it is entirely another.
Why not actually go and learn some Deistic theology if you propose to espouse it?
Say something meaningful.
kungfucolin 3 years ago
Most of our values originated from our ancestors and their learned behaviors. The tribes that helped each other and supported one another long outlasted those tribes who had infighting and chaos.
Animals have morals... although on a simpler scale. They know right from wrong.
That's precisely why when you come home to find Milo moping around with head down low... giving you those "I'm sorry man" eyes... you know he just peed on your favorite rug. AGAIN.
He knew he was wrong in this case.
Krumbz2003 3 years ago
Excellent build-up to a very conclusive ending.
I think it's also worth noting that placing value on quality of human life is often rather unimportant in religion.
Religion supplants the significance of the individual with the directive to grovel beneath a higher power...trading suffering and sacrifice in this life for eternal "salvation."
It makes sense in my mind that when one considers this to be the ONLY life, that one's interest in its quality increases dramatically.
sbgalt 3 years ago
True story. Religion could possibly be the greatest threat humanity faces.
kungfucolin 3 years ago
Your being pruned to be a great preacher one day.... I see it.
1dice 3 years ago
Teacher rather than Preacher hopefully!! But thankyou very much :D
colingames 3 years ago
Fo'sho.
eddsson 3 years ago
logic gives the answer why be moral when its not in ur best interest.
Lachy101 3 years ago
Certainly it does, but I'd like to know what answer you're referring to specifically. There are definitely different angles you can take, and I'd like to know what yours is.
colingames 3 years ago
the motivativion many religions give is fear. Do as god says, or be punished for it later. If this is true, then bad people would be less inclined to do bad things due to their fear. But does this make them any beter a person? Not realy, these people would perhaps be more inclined to do bad things if they thought they could get away with it (ie escape law on earth, if not afterlife).
Lachy101 3 years ago
The logic, rather than fear, you can use to give life meaning steams from famous quotes such as "and eye for and eye..." etc. We live in a society.
Lachy101 3 years ago
Unless we are prepared to live in solitude, than we must accept that if we do something, other people may also do it thinking it is justified.
Lachy101 3 years ago
Sure i would feel bad if i stole something, but u can reason through society. If i stole or caused bodily harm, than how would i feel if someone else stole from me or hurt me? I would feel bad. Therefore segments such as "do unto others as u would have them do unto you" like in the bible are far more relevant to forming morals. Far more relevant than "all those who sin go to hell for ever and burn burn burn".
Lachy101 3 years ago
Thankyou for your comments. I can appreciate your approach, but to be honest, I think that you have something relevant to gain here.
Perhaps it's only a case of not being able to communicate your ideas effectively, but I'm getting the idea that you don't yet grasp the philosophical position.
However, you do hint at an empathetic reasoning, and that is probably more important than the philosophy itself. If more people chose empathy, we wouldn't have the issues we do.
[cont]
colingames 3 years ago
It's not that I think you don't understand the subject at all, rather that there is perhaps a deeper understanding you're currently ready for, but don't yet possess ^_^.
I could be wrong of course - it's certainly happened before - but if I'm not.. Maybe it's time for you to do some extensive thinking on the subject and connect a few more dots.
colingames 3 years ago
For the record, I'm glad you're able to sort through the crud in the bible and realise that some of the stuff is relevant, and other stuff is not. :)
colingames 3 years ago
Spot on! (=
eddsson 3 years ago
straight up.
colingames 3 years ago
Right on!
eddsson 3 years ago
True dat.
colingames 3 years ago
Great Video. I liked the guitar and you have a cool acent ;)
Onlyhestands 3 years ago
Hehe, I appreciate that :)
colingames 3 years ago
u dont want to think, u want to know.. learn little bit about evolutionary psychology fellas.. all the question altruism is well answer rationally..
foecunditatis 3 years ago
I know about evolutionary psychology, but the origin of morality is largely different from the mechanisms that it functions through. Morality isn't so much a thing as a process. As good as it is to understand the origins of the process, it's also important to understand the mechanisms, elements and influences that impact that process. Plus, there is MUCH more to morality than just altruism. All we're trying to do is tease out the nuances and factors that may not seem obvious at first.
analubalitious 3 years ago
For some reason, after reading this comment, I'm not convinced you watched and understood the whole video..
colingames 3 years ago
I watched and understood all 4:33, I just also happen to disagree with the way Colin frames morality itself, but probably not as much as it may seem.
Yes, religion may help some people out. Hamas apparently gets young boys off drugs. My point is that like a placebo, religion is not the source of morals (or positive change). The source MUST be within the individual. We need to recognize that the substance of the religion is not sanctified by this effect.
analubalitious 3 years ago
I could just s easily find a 'good moral intuition' from stories like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or Jack and the Beanstalk. If I said "I can feel Luke Skywalker guiding my life and morality" or "Knowing that Gandalf slayed the Balrog gives my life meaning" you'd think I'm a loon.
Letting people go on with these false consolations and misguided perceptions is to do them a disservice. The same morality and consolation people find through religion is available without it. So why allow the lies?
analubalitious 3 years ago
To be honest, you're preaching to the converted :)
colingames 3 years ago
Heh, fair enough. I don't mean to be preachy. I just enjoy hashing out theories and details about these things with apparently knowledgeable people. It gets tiresome discussing the basics with the ignorant, so being able to move on and exchanging some ideas about the more advanced details is a refreshing change.
analubalitious 3 years ago
well put. I'm working on a graduate synthesis on morality and world-views, dispositions and beliefs seem to keep emerging as important factors. Surprisingly, action is often considered less important than intent. It's easy to condemn the Nazis, inquisitioners, or jihadists as unhinged loons, but that's not right. Their actions are reasonable given their beliefs. Their intentions are/were noble, tainted by a lack of critical skepticism are they are/were. Better thinking = better morality.
analubalitious 3 years ago
Hmm.. Action less important than intent? it's definitely a common perception. The whole "it's the thought that counts" philosophy.
To be honest, I'm not so sure I know where I sit with that, as there is a qualitative difference between someone who has enough foresight and insight to actually behave in such a way that they are not screwing other people up, and someone who simply holds onto a single idea, and cares not about the harm that may come to others as they pursue that goal.
colingames 3 years ago
And it's not even that I think such a person "doesn't care" about another person(s)- rather that the possible far-reaching effects of their actions do not actually enter their calculations. In this way, it is the person with the greatest wisdom who is more able to act 'morally', but perhaps the restriction on morality due to a lack of personal wisdom is the very thing that makes religion useful, as a guide for the ill informed to judge their own behaviour by?
colingames 3 years ago
Granted, we can only attempt to predict so much of the total consequence of our actions. That's why 'Do the best you can given what you know' seems to be a common rule of thumb.
I have a hard time, however, believing that religion serves a beneficial service in this regard. It undermines what we know, promotes poor thinking, and has no mechanism for distinguishing good verses from bad ones. Why don't we stone non virgins or back-talking children or own slaves? Not because the of the Bible.
analubalitious 3 years ago
To be honest, I'd be very happy if religion was removed from the equation entirely. I think that we're much better off sticking to moral relativity :)
However, that being said - I need to consider all the religious folk out there who actually DO take a semblance of morality from their religion, and are better people as a result. Though I loathe to admit it, religion can really help some people out.
colingames 3 years ago
I'd like more of these conversations in day to day life.
I appreciated and morally value the video and ensuing discussion. GJ guys. :)
hugefuckingnutz 3 years ago
Well, I suppose I'm lucky in that way - my friends and I often talk about philosophy :)
colingames 3 years ago
forgot to add to last comment that .. the action of being moral in essence is the same. Only the foundation differs between theism or atheism
ProfessionalVirgins 3 years ago
Morality, be it through theism or atheism, is the same thing. An atheist will tag 'morals' as something out of respect (learnt through time). Those believing in a god, will tag 'morals' as something dictated by god.
ProfessionalVirgins 3 years ago
'at all times, people will act according to what they think is most valuable?'
I understand what you are saying and generally this is true, but i also think that a person's situation plays a role in the final decider. You use 'stealing' as an example. A situation can at times override ones values. This is when we lose the 'right from wrong' perception, because afer all, we are human and to err is commonplace. If not to err, then how do we know if something is right or wrong?
ProfessionalVirgins 3 years ago
Well, I would say that our values can change dynamically.
I don't consider this so much an error as rather a situation in which you changed your priorities, if even temporarily. Hence, how could it be an error? Your actions reflect your values. Screwing up, is just rearranging your values temporarily. Obviously we don't want that, but that's what it is. There's something to be said for consistent values, but the truth is that any of us at any time could change our perception of value.
colingames 3 years ago
very true!
well said.
ProfessionalVirgins 3 years ago
Even if the starting postulate were true, it's an easily answerable question.
To put it simply, there is no reason to treat everyone equally and with respect...until you realize something. There will always be someone above you. Then someone above them. Although it may not be in your best interest to treat someone below you with respect, it is in your best interest for the people above you to treat you with respect. Since people have different abilities, we'd just be in chaos.
therealjap88 3 years ago
Thanks for the comment :) It's certainly a different angle than I approached the question from, but it's a position that definitely holds some merit.
colingames 3 years ago
***** and you earned every one
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
I appreciate it!!!
colingames 3 years ago
That was excellent! Both the reasoning and the music.
I think I'd say that theism offers no clear answer to the question, either. It too provides no reasons to act against one's own best interests if true, it merely changes the equation as to where your self interest lies, to procure divine rewards or avoid punishment.
It is morality itself that provides the reason: When we state that something is right or wrong, we imply that we are imbuing it with a status that supercedes the functional.
CameraManly 3 years ago
Great perspective. Obviously, I agree ^^
colingames 3 years ago
The argument then becomes what basis does the non-theist have to be moral in the first place: But the same question can be asked of the theist. Even if he believes right and wrong are what god tells him they are, he still must first make an independent moral decision to accept god's righteousness - and he has no more basis for that, than the non-theist has for any of his moral decisions.
In short, theistic and non-theistic morality are both ultimately underpinned by the moral agency of man.
CameraManly 3 years ago
Once you accept man as a sentient being with a capacity to distinguish right from wrong, I think it's pretty easy to see how we are all equal. If morality supercedes the practical needs of the moment, then our nature as moral beings supercedes our superficial differences.
That's what I think, anyway!
CameraManly 3 years ago
Well, it seems to me that likes and dislikes can be either constant OR dynamic. if even just for a moment, someone re-arranges their priorities, they are temporarily creating a system of values, even though it IS temporary. They will act in accordance with this system, and therefore it's difficult to actually reconcile what it could possibly mean to act immorally. is it even possible?
colingames 3 years ago
When people are accused of acting immorally, who's code of morality have they broken? we either have to buy subjective morality, or objective morality.
If morality is subjective, they are not being immoral, but how the hell can morality be objective? different people and different cultures have different values.
colingames 3 years ago
I think it's possible for morality to be objective, and for that objective standard to give rise to a lot of disagreement. Hurting other people is usually "bad", but letting crimes go unpished can seem "bad", too. Is there any single right way to handle that conflict? I think there's room for diverging opinions.
Some people act immorally because they violate their own standards. Often out of desperation or because of temptation - they usually know they've done wrong and feel guilt.
CameraManly 3 years ago
Other people act immorally because their standards are wrong: either by my standards or what I believe to be universal standards. There's no guarantee I'm correct, but I make the assertion and hope others agree.
It would be similar to telling a madman that something he thinks he's seeing is not there: I may be the one who's mistaken, but I trust the evidence of my senses in order to function.
Obviously, humility is pretty important here.
CameraManly 3 years ago
Hmm.. wasn't the 'immoral' act just a temporary re-arrangement of someone's priorities?
Sure they feel guilt, but what was going on at the time of the act? surely they were acting in accordance with what they felt most vasluable at that particular moment?
colingames 3 years ago
I think there can be different kinds of value that impact our decisions. I may feel a weak moral compulsion to go recycle some newspapers, but fail to do so because I'm lazy. Taking a nap instead has no moral value, it's just comfort.
CameraManly 3 years ago
Right, but don't we place a certain value on comfort? Some more or less than others.
When trying to make a decision whether or not to take a nap, or to go and do some chores - isn't it going to reflect the value we place on comfort versus the value we place on those things affecting our decision?(hygiene, work ethic etc.)
colingames 3 years ago
I absolutely agree.
CameraManly 3 years ago
Right.. the problem of course is that different people have different likes and dislikes, which of course leads to different values, which of course leads to different ideas of morality.
This of course, is why we developed the social contract (though we have Hume to thank for that mostly)
Failing this, we would have another system in place anyway - it's only logical.
colingames 3 years ago
So I guess this means that you support my argument :)
colingames 3 years ago