Mr. E, nice video, hopefully I can get a few responses from you! First, you hold that humans want to cooperate, yet it seems you also believe that people in power (like governors) will abuse it, and also that in difficult times people are more likely to commit war - it seems here that morality is entirely circumstantial. Also, you don't make it entirely clear why war is bad, simply that some systems of governance will be less prone to war. Just some thoughts, looking forward to your response.
Curious question here but have you ever considered the possibility of people being inherently neutral in intent? If we are genetically programmed to survive via Darwinism then that could lead to good or bad choices depending on circumstance.
@Mvspanky223 People are driven by their need to survive. But they don't actively go out to hurt people. Experiences can lead to trauma, which in turn leads to psychologically unstable people, but this is not the same as suggesting that all people are "evil".
I often have conversations with people like this. "Reality is subjective, there is no right or wrong, no objective truths!" to which my answer is always, "No, reality is objective, it's our understanding of it that is subjective. We should be looking for the right answer, instead of pretending there isn't one".
@northernvoxmedia Today these ideas stem from the left. It used to be that human beings would strive to prove what is true. Now, thanks to junk philosophy, it's all about proving that we cannot prove anything. Go figure.
@RockingMrE I agree with l ot of what you say, but you tend to blame the left for a lot of things. The right is even shiter than the left, and even more irational in my opinion.
@brownie1982ad Well I talk about religion in this vid too. However, it has to be accepted that much of this relativist nonsense started with the left, or at least is endorsed by this group.
The ever increasing rise in Statism and it's indoctrination to future generations scares me big time. Here in the U.S. we're raising a new generation of kids who not only depend on the nanny State, they learn to love it. I fear this is swinging the barn doors open for something truly wicked, something we haven't seen yet and thus cannot label. This new evil will be worse than the Thrid Reich, The USSR, Khmer Rouge combined, but it will work very subtlety and have massive support.
Morality is a subjective concept, no amount of spin is going to change that. And saying that all humans are good people is pretty naive. Whether a person behaves in a benevolent or malevolent fashion is largely situational. Most people are just drones that let authority do the thinking for them when it comes to morality, people aren't going to suddenly wake up and start taking individual responsibility for their actions and make the world a better place based on quid pro quo.
@Shadowlit001 I think you'll find that no amount of spin is going to change the fact that nature creates leeway for morality when survival becomes easier. No amount of subjectivity is going to change that. When people struggle to survive they're going to do what they have to. Modernity not only bypasses this but makes it more advantageous to cooperate via mutually beneficial interaction like trade. If you disagree I have nothing more to say given that the evidence to prove this is all around us.
That's true but that isn't what I'm arguing, morality will always be an opinion no matter how you spin it. Instead of even saying "morality" or trying to claim an impossible moral high-ground why not simply advocate benevolent behavior over malevolent behavior? Modernity may have bypassed the intense struggle to survive for many but corruption is still rampant and the system rewards those with sociopathic tendencies with power and fortune. We still have a long way to go
@Shadowlit001 I agree with your point regarding corruption, but did I not address this with regards to the state in the video? My point is that nature will not actively eat itself, so peace is the result of survival being made easier. The problems with modernity come with the state itself. It is a hypocritical entity that has far too much authority, and thus people constantly try to make it work in their favour. Absolute power never works -history tells us this every time.
In a system where one gains power mostly through sociopathic behavior like ours yeah. But if I were an all powerful "The Arbiter of the World" and responsible for ensuring justice, preventing corruption etc. I'll boldly say I could do it without giving in to corruption. Though even if such a position existed no one virtuous could attain it under current the current system. Can a social, economic and political system that rewards benevolent behavior really be possible?
@Shadowlit001 Let's say you were right and you could avoid the corruption of absolute authority. What happens when you die or if you are overthrown? The solution to the issues of statism and power can only be solved through voluntarism and the end of absolute power in any sense. Statism is a very dangerous choice that mankind needs to move away from.
Maybe I'm just an egotist but I agree, I hate authority in any shape or form, I despise statism though I still maintain the idea that virtuous people such as us could make it work if we had absolute authority. Statism, anarchy or something in between must be a system that promotes benevolence and eliminates malevolence if any good is to come of it. If humans are truly capable of that why have sociopaths ruled since the dawn of human history?
@brownie1982ad Anarchic + Capitalist? I've had to think hard about what that would be. That could be somebody who is focused on the furthering of oneself, specifically so they will only interact with others on mutual terms, doing nothing deliberately evil or nothing deliberately good (outside mutual benefit). You know... that doesn't sound a million miles from satanism, which, ironically, may need to accept the presence of Christianity to offset them as "individual" from religion.
you know dude, looking back on the past year, i look at the information highway of the Internet and realize how youtube alone has changed my world views with its ability to provide me with not only information but peoples own personal experiences giving me the tools i need to choose for myself, its converted me from a die-hard Christian to atheism, and a neo-conservative to a libertarian, and made me a better person i feel in general, and I would like to thank you for being a part of it.
@jimmy134496 Wow, that's a great compliment. I think YT, and the internet in general, is a great place to come if you want to break away from the dogma of normal life. I'm very glad to be someone who has helped you grow as a person. Thanks for being a subscriber :-)
@RockingMrE I second that RME, it changed me from a liberal feminist to a proud MRA and libertarian. While I am a Christian I still view you as a smart and very insightful individual.
Near the beginning of your video, you say that "the underlying theme [of moral relativism] is clear: judging a standard of morality is largely IMPOSSIBLE due to culture and circumstances." I disagree with this analysis. It seems that relativists believe something closer to the idea that moral judgments are BASED ON culture and circumstances.
@tbrent123 I say this AFTER I state that moral relativism is often thought to be largely impossible due to culture and circumstance. The point is that moral relativists are apprehensive, and often refuse to accept, any form of predefined morality.
I'm not sure if Altruism is the proper term in this discussion. If performing an act results in equal or greater value (The back-scratching analogy) then this is more of an act of traders, not altruists. An act of altruism is to "...help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest." This practice I ultimately leads to self-destruction.
Following the "Golden Rule" is not a practice in altruism, because the follower expects value in return for their behavior.
@TheMrSeagull Technically I said "reciprocal altruism," which is the Darwinian tendency for animals to do good things so that they can build mutually beneficial interactions and bonds. Technically this isn't "pure" altruism, but if you check the link below you will see that it is a real Darwinian module that scientists talk about.
Humans aren't inherently good or evil. Humans are inherently monkeys ^_^ Morals are a reflection of culture mixed with base primate social behaviors. Whether or not an action is good or bad is dependent on the context of a scenario and the opinion of those involved. All moral systems are not however created equal and those that cause damage should be weeded out.
@PinkProgram So if that which causes damage should be weeded out shouldn't we make sure that no system exists that oppresses the individual for some collective cause that makes us expendable? Surely all should be able to live free of force and coercion, and only those who cause such acts waver their freedom?
@RockingMrE well sure... if there were only a couple hundred humans... unfortunately for your idea there are 7 billion of you ^_^ ergo you are not truly free ever ;p and humans are monkeys, if your behavior offends too many then you'll get lynched ;p
@PinkProgram Well saying that humans are monkeys isn't really considering two things: 1) that humans are able to comprehend reality at a level far greater than any other animal, and thus can see that it is irrational to live a life of conflct if you want to live fruitfully, and 2) that even monkeys can understand the needs for Darwinian altruism if they are to benefit from mutually beeficial interaction that helps all survive.
@RockingMrE but they still behave along the same social dynamics. It doesn't matter that humans can see it as irrational, they still behave irrationally given the right stimulus. Social monkeys act like social monkeys regardless of how intelligent they are. When I'm baffled by human behavior I think "What would a monkey do?" and then the behavior makes sense... well not always but more often than not ^_^
I do not believe that mankind is inherently good. If you take a nursery full of 2 year olds and leave them alone they will be at eachother's throats. Pulling hair, stealing toys from one another, stratching & biting eachother, screaming, etc. We don't have to teach them these things. Mankind is naturing self-seeking. We have to teach them to be good. BUT, what is good. Who set the standard for good. It was not man. And Darwin?... How can we even acknowledge that racist.
@RockingMrE 1) Please do not insinuate that there should be any concern or worry over my experiences with the observation of the natural selfish tendencies of man through children's actions. 2) Please do not create something of which there is not. This being your saying that my ONLY experiences with children are that they are at each others throats. Did I say that? NO. I did not. Of course children can be loving & sharing. You still did not give me any good rebuttal.
You only tried to turn things around by making an assumption about me & my life's experiences & tried to demonized me by saying that it worries you.3) How can you say that mankind is inherently good when the majority of your video arguments are about the corruptions, evils, & moral break down of governments, societies, corporations, etc.
@tribunation I apologise if you feel offended, but I don't agree that children are somehow inherently nasty. I outline in the vid WHY humanity can become corrupted. The state is a monolithic structure that binds everyone to its power forcefully. You have to learn to play along or you become ostracised, with nowhere to go because the whole world is cut into states. The more you play along, the more corrupt you become. That is why I am anti-state.
@RockingMrE -- Marx figured out that the family that corrects it's children and teaches them right and wrong is God's structure,( i.e. God's secret, Feuerbach thesis #14) it is the way God communicates with us. Marx looked to the bible to find this structure. God uses a cannot, must not, thou shalt not language. It is a clear language, it does not waver. It warns, it protects. Satan uses the "oughta be, should be" language, i.e. well, I oughta be able to do it. Not, inherently, good!
@RockingMrE -- You realize that limited government and the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. constitution are founded on the biblical principle that all men are inherently evil.
@mn8aol Even if it ie it's irrelevant. The state is an out-of-date and draconian idea. There will come a time due to human progress that it will be completely and utterly unnecessary. The hope is however that the state hasn't turned us all into lab engineered citizens by then.
@RockingMrE -- What you're advocating is communism. Sovereignty (the sovereign state) is based on the "cannot, must not, thou shall language." Transformational language (transformational marxism) works to trespass borders and boundaries, i.e. talking people out of protecting themselves, their children their property. ( Marx/Engels summed up 10 planks communism as the abolition of private property) In other words, no borders for the individual period.
@RockingMrE -- The state is corrupted because of hegelian-dialectic infiltration of the state. The strength of a nation is found in it's morality. However, the modern state must promote immorality or it cannot grow. It is based on a technique Vladimir Lenin used. Promote immorality and you can control the people.
@RockingMrE - The argument is short sighted. Parents correct their children because through their own experience they know where a seemingly innocent behavior leads over time. They can see into the future. A child needs limits. If you put a blind man in a room with no walls he will go insane. You have to have a point of reference. If you put a chair in a dark room you can venture short distances from the chair and still return. Modern day deceivers are trying to remove the chair!
@mn8aol Children aren't fully developed. They lack the cognitive functions that come with a fully developed adult brain. If people would only stop abusing children into believing that they should follow authority absolutely the world would be a far better place. There is no relative justification for initiating force, and the state is no expection.
@RockingMrE -- Kurt Lewin Marxist: "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult. If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (i.e. if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." A Dynamic Theory of Personality, 1935 - In other words, remove the punishment you remove obedience to higher authority.
@RockingMrE -- Follow the logic through in representative government. In government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people are the authority. They are the parents. Government representatives are quickly declaring themselves the disobedient children and the parents are losing the right to rebuke them!
This video suffers from biting off too much in one go and also from you being unable to divorce your politics from honest philosophical inquiry. You can't claim moral absolutes without addressing Euthyphro's dilemma. You have to define "good" so that it is more than a statement of preference. You hint at a naturalistic help/harm definition but that just takes you to utilitarianism, which you reject.
You're pushing your conclusions without taking time to lay the groundwork for a good argument.
@Ermac514 I define moral absolutes as being based on moral realism and the non-aggression principle. In this video I focus more on moral realism because I have covered the non-aggression principle so many times on my channel and blog. See my non-aggression principle link below for more info.
There is a Difference between these very Distinct Things:
1. The Bible
2. Biblical Moral Values
3. Religions
4. Religious Authority Figures (Individuals)
5. The Varioius Interpretations of 1., 2. and . by Individuals
Jesus himself gave us another (Very Good in my Opinion) Interpretation of the 1. and 2.
Can you see the Problem? ... and the Obvious Conclusion: The Best Investment of your time would surely be in Reading and Understanding the (Original) Bible.
@PutaDeMigracionVAWA The 'original' Bible would have to be the Hebrew Bible. Professor Christine Hayes of Yale gives an excellent introduction, watch?v=Rmah-qoa_R4
There is no point attempting to understand what Jesus was up to without understanding his religious and philosophical inheritance, bearing in mind St Paul was a Roman who did not share that inheritance but changed it into something quite different.
Absolutely! "The 'original' Bible IS the Hebrew Bible."
I watched watch?v=Rmah-qoa_R4 However, and it is irrelevant to our discussion.
There is Definitley a point in understandind what the Bible is teaching us.
Most People - Christians, Jews etc. - don't bother to understand and Blindly Accept Dogmas (buzz-words) such as: "Claim you are a believer and Jesus will save you"
That's a load of crap. One must understand the Bible !
The General Population in the US has no Moral Basis. Everyone in the US is heavily influenced by TV and Hollywood. The majority of the population is not raised withTraditional Moral Values or Family Values. US Christian Denominations' beliefs are a Distorted version, Removed from the Original meaning of the Bible. Lack of Moral Basis means that the Opinion and Concept of Reality of US Population is easily manipulated by the Media, Public Figures, Celebrities and the Feminists.
@PutaDeMigracionVAWA The US is the MOST fanatically religious of ALL the advanced civilisations. So you cannot blame a lack of Christian influence for their present condition. However, it does seem that the idea of 'freedom of religion' has been exploited as being a fantastic tax-free business model that any fraud with the 'gift of the gab' can run with by making out he has a 'special' relationship with God. It's a tried and trusted scam, just like the promise of an 'afterlife'.
...cont... Even US Christian Denominations' beliefs are a Distorted version, Removed from the Original meaning of the Bible. Lack of Moral Basis means that the Opinion and Concept of Reality of US Population is easily manipulated by the Media, Public Figures, Celebrities and the Feminists.
Yes ! "The US is the MOST fanatically religious of ALL the advanced civilisations" ... but the main issue is that The General Population in America has no Moral Basis. Every person in this country is heavily influenced by TV and Hollywood. The majority of the population is not raised to believe in Traditional Moral Valeus or Family Values.
@PutaDeMigracionVAWA I'm afraid I am not an expert on US demographics. I am sure there is lots of data out there which gives a good indication of the general lifestyle and values of US citizens. It would be interesting to give a comparative analysis of other First World countries, but also the Islamic ones, given that they are so keen to tell us all that they know better. Trouble is, most of them don't allow research into 'sensitive' issues such as mutilation and domestic violence.
Karl Marx, evil yet brilliant, said that once you discover that the earthly family is the secret of the heavenly family the former must be destroyed through theory and practice. In other words once you discover that the traditional family that chastens is children is God's secret, destroy it and you create a generation that doesn't understand obedience and therefore cannot communicate with God. Accordingly, scripture says that the last days will as in the days of Noah, i.e. disobedient children!
@BAGADOOBLE -- Marx looked to the language of the devil to attack Christianity. In fact the dialectic is the same language that the serpent used on Eve in the Garden.
@BAGADOOBLE --Marxist Erick Fromm: “In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent—the symbol of wisdom and rebellion—promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself.” (Erick Fromm, You Shall Be As Gods)
@mn8aol The serpent granted wisdom to mankind and allowed man the potential to be more than God's plaything, to be a serf. My favourite character in the whole Bible is the serpent. In fact he qualifies as one of the most likeable characters in fiction for me.
I'm not sure what the point of your argument is. Are you against the dialectic?
The argument that everyone is inherently good is the marxist view, one that keeps the sinful man from ever acknowledging the need for a savior. The Christian can only come to Christ with the acknowledgment that there is a God of wrath and judgment and that all are sinful and fallen. Hence again, marxists removal of the idea of wrath or punishment, is directly linked to intentionally subverting scripture. It is the same language the serpent used on Eve in the Garden.
@mn8aol What Marx said and what he endorsed and upheld via his work are two different matters. If you watch my vidoes long enough you will see that I am a Libertarian, not a Marxist. We are opposite in almost all regards. I am vehemently opposed to Marxism and the philosophies it influenced. I find Marx's methods to achieve his aims deplorable.
@mn8aol You might as well be talkin gibberish for all the value this adds. God doesn't exist, if he does prove it. Make sure you have foundations before you try and build a tower, otherwise your tower is going to fall...
@BAGADOOBLE -- To posit that God does not exist is to claim the tower before it is built, i.e. that you are all knowing. You can jump out of an airplane at 20,000 feet and argue all you want that gravity doesn't exist either. Know Jesus or you are going to hell.
@mn8aol So do you believe in the Hindu Gods? I'm betting you don't, so then, why not? Why are you "claiming the tower before it is built"?
I'm not me claiming to be all knowing, it's you. You claim not only to know a God exists, but to know it's nature; to know it is the only God that exists; to know what it wants.
All I do is say "Prove there's a God and I will believe". Just as I expect proof before I start believing in Leprechauns and Fairies. Nobody's produced any yet so I don't.
@BAGADOOBLE -- To claim there is no God, you MUST be all knowing. I am not claiming the tower before it is built, I have a point of reference for my foundation, what's yours?
@BAGADOOBLE When I say "there is no God" I am making a probability Statement. I am saying, "upon the evidence I have received thus far, there is no good reason to conclude a high probability that this particular entity described exist, while it is still possible in theory, the probability in light of the evidence is so low as to be completely discountable".
@BAGADOOBLE To say something "does not exist" simply means its probability of existence far too low to be seriously considered and until new evidence comes along to raise that probability to a level worth considering it can more than likely be completely discounted.
I recommend you do a google search for "Dragon in my Garage", it's the first link that pops up, I can't link because Youtube thinks I'm spamming when I try to.
@mn8aol I think you must be seriously confused if you think Marx argued that everybody is inherently good. The whole point of Marxism is "not everybody is good, so we're going to force them to at least act as if they are".
Also your God of Wrath sounds pretty damn evil himself...
@BAGADOOBLE -- The whole point of Marx is one big ruse to talk the world out of their guns, their property and their children with the "promise" the dictator will whither away. He will, they promise. On the other hand, my God says if you don't know him you will meet his wrath, that's God's promise. It's really a matter of whose promise you want to believe.
@mn8aol God doesn't exist, so obviously I don't buy his supposed promise.
As far as Marx is concerned, I'm about as far from a Marxist as you can get....
You're creating a false dichotomy here, and honestly I don't know why. Do you seriously believe you are either a Marxist or a Christian? Because I'm neither, many people around the world are neither, and many people around the world are both.
@BAGADOOBLE -- No one gets out of the process. You are either cooked in the process or not. Or at least you aware that you have been cooked by the process and can turn it around. Those are the choices today. If you can tell me what the process is, then you have an argument.
@Eabranth I would agree with these statements. In fact the catholic church became so powerful and corrupt it spawned the many informational churches. The reason Christianity is so fractured is mostly tied back to catholic corruption and power mongering. I never said that the catholic church was a true representation of what Christianity should be, but this doesn't mean theism is bad. Blindly and ignorantly following the heads of a church though is both foolish and stupid, but also un-biblical.
@mn8aol If you can't arrive at any morally absoute conclusions you are a moral relativist, and yes, I am aware that moral nihilists don't like to be called that. Molyneux didn't invent the NAP.
@RockingMrE How can I be a moral relativist if I don't believe that morality exists? It's like atheism - I'm not saying that god exists and is subjectively experienced by individuals - I'm saying there is no such thing as god.
You didn't answer my question about the difference between a preference and a moral rule. Morality in your sense is used to mean something other than a label for certain preferences, which is why I don't believe it exists.
2:15 Seriously? The spiraling of the Soviet economy caused the Gulags? Where the fuck did you learn your history? First of all the gulags existed BEFORE the Bolsheviks and were used by the autocratic regime of the Czars to exile and punish dissenters, the Soviets inherited it and expanded it for their own use of maintaining their power. Also how do you explain that the Soviet economy fell apart in the last decade of the USSR's existence during a period of liberalization(Glasnost)? F-
@HeavyTrafficAhead And that excuses the fact that more people died in the USSR than any regime in history how? That's irrelvant to the point that countless (literally) people died in the USSR Gulags, far more than under the Tzar, in spite of the countless people that simply vanished, as well as the revisionist attempts. The Soviet economy was on its knees by the end because the state simply couldn't react quickly enough to the needs of the people. The USSR collapsing saved people's lives.
@RockingMrE (cont) I also didn't go into WHEN the Gulags started, only that the economy struggling to sustain itself was a major contributing factor to people being forced to work in them. This is how the economy of the USSR kept itself going for decades.
@RockingMrE My point was that your understanding of history stinks. That's the problem when you're too ideologically driven. The facts get exiled to the Siberian gulag. You're wrong that the economy was the driver of the creation of the gulag system and your apologetics for the insane cruelty of the autocratic regime are even creepier than your 'body count' ethics. Are you really saying that the average person was better off before? You'd be wrong. Not by much. But wrong still
@HeavyTrafficAhead Well thankfully WWII happened and killed 20 to 30 million Soviet Citizens. Without that, you death toll drops to the same as any other country; Even if you include famine, and executions (This is due to the fact that lifespan greatly increased with public health campaigns and acted as the compensating measure).
@RockingMrE The gulags where at their largest during the second world war. they subsequently declined over time, and in fact were net drains on economic growth (because the prisoners did the poorest kind of work, and often cost more to keep alive then they actually provided in work).
@Scientisticsoviet Well of course the prisoners weren't going to work as hard as people who were paid well, hence my point in the vid about needs before ability being a completely flawed idea. People need to be happy to work most productively, and the gulags were absolutely horrendous. When people can appreciate this fully we can leave behind any remnants of slavery through force, be it "democracy" or anything else which strips us of individual liberty.
@RockingMrE THE Tsar? You need to count the fact that most people in the Russian Empire weren't even counted as people, but chattle. So their deaths were not even recorded. I really find it creepy that you go with this 'virtue by body count' thing. But the main point is that do all those deaths have to do with 'collectivism' or the nature of the area you're talking about? Russia, and environs, isn't exactly known as the 'happy camp' of history
@HeavyTrafficAhead Well I don't agree with anything you just stated, and I can see that the speed with which you engage in ad homs is very telling of your ideological slant. It disturbs me to the core of my being that you are trying to suggest that the people of the USSR were better off. Your revisionist attempts at history also disturb me. This sort of behaviour is no better than Neo-Nazism. We'll leave it there.
@RockingMrE For some reason I got this comment. I guess you sent to me by mistake.
I will say the following though. By many measures the std. of living did decline and is in soem areas lower then it used to be before the collapse of the USSR. So for instance GDP/capita is lower in many areas, as well as the average lifespan (alcohol, aids, drugs, lack of sufficient healthcare availability). It's one of the reasons why the CPRF still gets many votes.
Superb video, great explanation, totally agree. But then you sign off with the horned devil hand sign of Satanism. Kind of spoiled the end for me, but the rest was good.
@ThereAreNoSides Sorry you don't like the sign. It's a rock n' roll thing, though I know some viewers don't like it. It's just a bit of fun - there is no hidden meaning :-P
@RockingMrE You mention morals being both "absolute" and "flexible." Could you give me an example of something you consider inherently wrong in all circumstances?
@WatcherAzrael Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. No one has the right to do this because all people are free sovereign individuals. This is absolutely non-negotiable. Check out my link in the info section under the Non-Aggression Principle. This explains what I mean well.
@RockingMrE I agree with you, but I don't necessarily think that that's an absolutist position. What you're saying, as I understand it, is that anything can be moral as long as all the participants consent to it? (ie, its immoral to beat some random person on the street, but perfectly moral to do the same actions as part of BDSM).
Now, if I could play the Devil's Advocate here, how is your idea of "absolute morality" fundamentally different from UJames' concept of "ethics?"
@WatcherAzrael Yes, that's what I'm saying. Do you think it's absolutely true that we're all born free given that no one belongs to anyone in the state of nature? This is the basis behind the absolute aspect of what makes us free. If anything should be absolute and non-negotiable then surely this is it?
I'm not familiar with Ujames' interpretation of ethics. What I can tell you is that Ujames regularly says one thing and endorses something quite different.
@RockingMrE Ok, well, UJames' ethics basically boil down to the idea that "good," "bad" and "greater good" must be done away with in favor of "harm" and "greater harm." And harm is defined not so much in terms of physical harm, but in terms of violating people's autonomy. So, the only acceptable uses of force are 1) when your using it against someone already using it, and 2) the person can't give informed consent because he/she doesn't understand the situation (ie children and
@WatcherAzrael Thanks for giving that breakdown, though I stand by what I said - Ujames says one thing and endorses another. I know you are good friends him him, but that is what I have noticed about him.
fantastic MrE. I have my own beliefs but do not follow religion ie the State churches yet I would say I am a christian. I actually believe in god and follow my own understanding of a moral code through my belief and made a few errors too lol. I cant help but agree with you in this video too regarding the role and influence of the church and or state control. We all know right from wrong regardless of laws, its hardwired in us.
Moral absolutism or ethics? I'm not sure if you're mixing the two, ethics trump morals every time, and Justice is the zenith of all ethics. So, what is Justice? I'm just pondering ;)
@HairyCookieMunster Morals and ethics go hand-in-hand. If there is some sort of major difference you see between the two I am keen for you to share it.
@RockingMrE it could be argued to be semantics, but in all i've been taught and learnt, and in academia, morals are related as being human-centric, where-as ethics are applicable to all nature, as natural law. Morals are relative, time and culture related, and humans constant anthropomorphising of concepts that are only relative to ourselves does not make those concepts 'universal laws' or absolutes. Semantics of defining 'moral absolutes' or 'ethics'? Maybe that's just my interpretation, cont.
@RockingMrE but i do agree there are some absolutes, i guess i'm being my usual pedantic self over the use of language rather than the relevance of your videos content, for that i apologise, philosophy brings out all the semantic pedants ;)
@HairyCookieMunster Lol, I don't mind you attempting to specify the variations in morals and ethics, though I feel as though they are largely the same thing, with a few exceptions that aren't necessarily worth going into in a video with so much info crammed into less than 9 mins. Cheers for your views though.
@RockingMrE there is indeed much info in your video, all good stuff, and i forgot to say thank you! Typically preoccupied with the mechanics of it lol :)
Morality can never be universally true as morals are subjective and contingent on individual tastes and preferences. For you to insist there is a universal morality is reminiscent of colonialists and "empire builders" who believed their sense of morality was equitable and, thus, entitled them to impose it on everyone else.
@godeau12 Is that right? By having no basis for morals you are opening yourself up for exploitation. You do not combat flawed absolute morals with subjective morals - that is utter rubbish for the intellectually deluded. I have no intention to build empires, but I have no intention to control people by making them believe that their "needs" are subjective - the typcial angle of the totalitarian.
@RockingMrE So, what if we discovered aliens on planet X2435 and, they practice a morality we find objectionable? We judge them to be abhorrent and repugnant because we are, after-all, The Master Race, with writ in granite moral certainties! To believe peoples' needs are objective is dictatorial to a point where even Stalin would be embarrassed.
@godeau12 Watch the vid again and see that all I care about is respect of individual sovereignty. I don't care about tastes, and I don't care what you do, as long as you don't try to harm others. To initiate the illegitimate use of force on the individual for any reason is the most abhorent act - this is non-negotiable, and this is what is absolute. I don't care what culture has to say about this, you can never sacrifice individual sovereignty for a cause - it is wrong.
@godeau12 Wow, usually moral relativists will never accept any moral absolutes. Glad we can agree on the basis I outlined for morally absolute though. If there's anything that should be absolute, it's individual sovereignty.
There is absolutely no reason to take one set of morals over another in pan-ultimate meta-ethical sense. I can be perfectly logically consistent if for instance I do not take hedonistic utilitarianism as my starting moral axiom. I can be equally so if I do not take the non-aggression principle.
@Scientisticsoviet How you arrive at the conclusion is not as important as the conclusion you arrive at. Do you believe that there is ever a time you can use force on another without having been coerced first?
@RockingMrE coerced is not very well defined here. is a heroin addict suffering withdraws being coerced? if so, than i believe that all people must be coerced before they use force on another. if not, than i wonder why one thing can be said to create coercion while another cannot. desperate circumstances lead to desperate measures. and intention or lack of intention does not ease suffering in and of itself.
@greycloud24 The reason why i didn't go into more detail regarding "what" defines coercion is because I've discussed this many times before on blogs and vids, which I state in the vid. If I keep repeating things I never discuss anything new. Check out my Non-Aggression Principle video if you want detail in this regard though.
@RockingMrE Indeed I can a few scenarios. 1. A stranger is being attacked in an alley. I am not coerced in anyway by the one attacking the other. Yet I think using force against him is desirable if he cannot be persuaded peacefully. 2. A boat is sinking and two fat men happen to get the only life boats first, which they both take up fully. I think pushing them out to let 3 other people/boat survive is desirable.
@RockingMrE 3. Everyone purchases fossil fuel electricity given they each individually gain a net surplus in the transaction. But pollution affects every other person. I think it is desirable to tax the sale/production of pollutant generating electricity by use of implied coercion (jail).
@Scientisticsoviet What you are doing is using abstract examples, and you could do this far more than three times. Your first example is explained in the NAP vid below. Once someone uses force on another illegitimately they waver their right to live without force, at least in the respect of stopping them. This should be done without using excessive force. like killing someone for repeatedly slapping you. It is never justifiable to tax - it is stealing. If people don't like (cont)
@RockingMrE pollution they should live in a place free of pollution, like the country. If you live near pollution then you know what to expect. Your lifeboat example is very unclear, and is far too obtuse to dignify an answer, To be honest it alarms me that you would go to this extent to justify harming another. I feel I have made my point, though I doubt you have. If you feel the need to make more arguments like this I will bow out. Anyone readng this feel free to take over.
@RockingMrE In the case of pollution everyone is willing to accept the pollution associated with their own transaction; The problem is that it spreads to others as well. And so, pollution is produce to the point where people can be at a net loss.
Lifeboat example is simple. The fat men happen to get to the boats first. Other people cannot. In my view, sacrificing one fat man to save 3 people is justified.
about there being more violence as life becomes more difficult, the converse is true. As nations increase in wealth and, therefore, the state has more tax livestock, outbreaks of war occur more often and are more bloody. I'd in general, yes, violence decreases with wealth, but an anti-social institution like the state with interests separate from the well-being of individuals will use the productivity of its subjects for its own purposes in the only way it can. that is through violence.
@intercourseman69 Good points, which tie in with mine about the state being a mechanism for corruption. it is for this reason that we should be mindful of this idea that the state restricts corruption. It is ludicrous to suggest that giving absolute power to anything will achieve this objective. More often than not it does the opposite if we look back through history.
Mr. E, nice video, hopefully I can get a few responses from you! First, you hold that humans want to cooperate, yet it seems you also believe that people in power (like governors) will abuse it, and also that in difficult times people are more likely to commit war - it seems here that morality is entirely circumstantial. Also, you don't make it entirely clear why war is bad, simply that some systems of governance will be less prone to war. Just some thoughts, looking forward to your response.
MortiCarthago 8 hours ago
Curious question here but have you ever considered the possibility of people being inherently neutral in intent? If we are genetically programmed to survive via Darwinism then that could lead to good or bad choices depending on circumstance.
Mvspanky223 2 weeks ago
@Mvspanky223 People are driven by their need to survive. But they don't actively go out to hurt people. Experiences can lead to trauma, which in turn leads to psychologically unstable people, but this is not the same as suggesting that all people are "evil".
RockingMrE 1 week ago
Thanks for accepting my response!
InvincibleNumanist 2 weeks ago
@InvincibleNumanist Welcome
RockingMrE 2 weeks ago
YEAH BITCH, BATMAN SHIRT!!!
lovingsingleton 2 weeks ago
smart
katrastrophy 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This is brilliant.
4andronicus 1 month ago
morality is the highest form of logic
patriciacarrasco 1 month ago
@patriciacarrasco Good point.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
I often have conversations with people like this. "Reality is subjective, there is no right or wrong, no objective truths!" to which my answer is always, "No, reality is objective, it's our understanding of it that is subjective. We should be looking for the right answer, instead of pretending there isn't one".
northernvoxmedia 1 month ago
@northernvoxmedia Today these ideas stem from the left. It used to be that human beings would strive to prove what is true. Now, thanks to junk philosophy, it's all about proving that we cannot prove anything. Go figure.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE I agree with l ot of what you say, but you tend to blame the left for a lot of things. The right is even shiter than the left, and even more irational in my opinion.
brownie1982ad 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@brownie1982ad Well I talk about religion in this vid too. However, it has to be accepted that much of this relativist nonsense started with the left, or at least is endorsed by this group.
RockingMrE 4 weeks ago
Nice video, explains why left wingers are "doves" while right wingers are "hawks"
yankydoodle83 1 month ago in playlist Deconstructing Leftist Philosophy
Sometimes answers are found in middle ground: value pluralism. It is not always one or the other.Thanks for sharing.
TheWendingRoad 1 month ago in playlist Deconstructing Leftist Philosophy
The ever increasing rise in Statism and it's indoctrination to future generations scares me big time. Here in the U.S. we're raising a new generation of kids who not only depend on the nanny State, they learn to love it. I fear this is swinging the barn doors open for something truly wicked, something we haven't seen yet and thus cannot label. This new evil will be worse than the Thrid Reich, The USSR, Khmer Rouge combined, but it will work very subtlety and have massive support.
LovelesOne 1 month ago in playlist Deconstructing Leftist Philosophy
Morality is a subjective concept, no amount of spin is going to change that. And saying that all humans are good people is pretty naive. Whether a person behaves in a benevolent or malevolent fashion is largely situational. Most people are just drones that let authority do the thinking for them when it comes to morality, people aren't going to suddenly wake up and start taking individual responsibility for their actions and make the world a better place based on quid pro quo.
Shadowlit001 1 month ago in playlist Deconstructing Leftist Philosophy
@Shadowlit001 I think you'll find that no amount of spin is going to change the fact that nature creates leeway for morality when survival becomes easier. No amount of subjectivity is going to change that. When people struggle to survive they're going to do what they have to. Modernity not only bypasses this but makes it more advantageous to cooperate via mutually beneficial interaction like trade. If you disagree I have nothing more to say given that the evidence to prove this is all around us.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE
That's true but that isn't what I'm arguing, morality will always be an opinion no matter how you spin it. Instead of even saying "morality" or trying to claim an impossible moral high-ground why not simply advocate benevolent behavior over malevolent behavior? Modernity may have bypassed the intense struggle to survive for many but corruption is still rampant and the system rewards those with sociopathic tendencies with power and fortune. We still have a long way to go
Shadowlit001 1 month ago
@Shadowlit001 I agree with your point regarding corruption, but did I not address this with regards to the state in the video? My point is that nature will not actively eat itself, so peace is the result of survival being made easier. The problems with modernity come with the state itself. It is a hypocritical entity that has far too much authority, and thus people constantly try to make it work in their favour. Absolute power never works -history tells us this every time.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE
In a system where one gains power mostly through sociopathic behavior like ours yeah. But if I were an all powerful "The Arbiter of the World" and responsible for ensuring justice, preventing corruption etc. I'll boldly say I could do it without giving in to corruption. Though even if such a position existed no one virtuous could attain it under current the current system. Can a social, economic and political system that rewards benevolent behavior really be possible?
Shadowlit001 1 month ago
@Shadowlit001 Let's say you were right and you could avoid the corruption of absolute authority. What happens when you die or if you are overthrown? The solution to the issues of statism and power can only be solved through voluntarism and the end of absolute power in any sense. Statism is a very dangerous choice that mankind needs to move away from.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE
Maybe I'm just an egotist but I agree, I hate authority in any shape or form, I despise statism though I still maintain the idea that virtuous people such as us could make it work if we had absolute authority. Statism, anarchy or something in between must be a system that promotes benevolence and eliminates malevolence if any good is to come of it. If humans are truly capable of that why have sociopaths ruled since the dawn of human history?
Shadowlit001 1 month ago
@RockingMrE Are you an anarcho capitalist?
brownie1982ad 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@RockingMrE Are you an anarcho capitalist?
brownie1982ad 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@brownie1982ad Anarchic + Capitalist? I've had to think hard about what that would be. That could be somebody who is focused on the furthering of oneself, specifically so they will only interact with others on mutual terms, doing nothing deliberately evil or nothing deliberately good (outside mutual benefit). You know... that doesn't sound a million miles from satanism, which, ironically, may need to accept the presence of Christianity to offset them as "individual" from religion.
TableWolfMusic 1 week ago
I watched this video expecting to see Rick, Mick and Vyvyen but only got Neal.
iglwy 1 month ago in playlist Deconstructing Leftist Philosophy
Thanks MrE, great vlog. :)
stoptherot1 1 month ago
@stoptherot1 No problem :-)
RockingMrE 1 month ago
I think your take on religion and morality is narrow and heavily influenced by Catholicism.
SexDrugsFinance 1 month ago
Moral/Cultural relativism in practice:
The stoning of women in the Islamic world. The moral relativists say "it's RACIST to oppose their cultural practices"
(Western) man hitting back woman. The moral relativist responce "OH BURN! WHAT A BIGOT!"
DanishGreatDane 1 month ago
I meant to correct the word of
mike61524334251 1 month ago
MrE, have you ever heard if private contractors that involves the military industrial complex?
mike61524334251 1 month ago
@mike61524334251 Yes I have.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
you know dude, looking back on the past year, i look at the information highway of the Internet and realize how youtube alone has changed my world views with its ability to provide me with not only information but peoples own personal experiences giving me the tools i need to choose for myself, its converted me from a die-hard Christian to atheism, and a neo-conservative to a libertarian, and made me a better person i feel in general, and I would like to thank you for being a part of it.
jimmy134496 1 month ago
@jimmy134496 Wow, that's a great compliment. I think YT, and the internet in general, is a great place to come if you want to break away from the dogma of normal life. I'm very glad to be someone who has helped you grow as a person. Thanks for being a subscriber :-)
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE no problem, thanks for helping get information out to the people.
jimmy134496 1 month ago
@RockingMrE I second that RME, it changed me from a liberal feminist to a proud MRA and libertarian. While I am a Christian I still view you as a smart and very insightful individual.
snakebitgoat 1 month ago
Near the beginning of your video, you say that "the underlying theme [of moral relativism] is clear: judging a standard of morality is largely IMPOSSIBLE due to culture and circumstances." I disagree with this analysis. It seems that relativists believe something closer to the idea that moral judgments are BASED ON culture and circumstances.
tbrent123 1 month ago
@tbrent123 I say this AFTER I state that moral relativism is often thought to be largely impossible due to culture and circumstance. The point is that moral relativists are apprehensive, and often refuse to accept, any form of predefined morality.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
I'm not sure if Altruism is the proper term in this discussion. If performing an act results in equal or greater value (The back-scratching analogy) then this is more of an act of traders, not altruists. An act of altruism is to "...help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest." This practice I ultimately leads to self-destruction.
Following the "Golden Rule" is not a practice in altruism, because the follower expects value in return for their behavior.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull Technically I said "reciprocal altruism," which is the Darwinian tendency for animals to do good things so that they can build mutually beneficial interactions and bonds. Technically this isn't "pure" altruism, but if you check the link below you will see that it is a real Darwinian module that scientists talk about.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
And especially those that want to make their lives into other people's lives when it's not necessary.
mike61524334251 1 month ago
Humans aren't inherently good or evil. Humans are inherently monkeys ^_^ Morals are a reflection of culture mixed with base primate social behaviors. Whether or not an action is good or bad is dependent on the context of a scenario and the opinion of those involved. All moral systems are not however created equal and those that cause damage should be weeded out.
PinkProgram 1 month ago
@PinkProgram So if that which causes damage should be weeded out shouldn't we make sure that no system exists that oppresses the individual for some collective cause that makes us expendable? Surely all should be able to live free of force and coercion, and only those who cause such acts waver their freedom?
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE well sure... if there were only a couple hundred humans... unfortunately for your idea there are 7 billion of you ^_^ ergo you are not truly free ever ;p and humans are monkeys, if your behavior offends too many then you'll get lynched ;p
PinkProgram 1 month ago
@PinkProgram Well saying that humans are monkeys isn't really considering two things: 1) that humans are able to comprehend reality at a level far greater than any other animal, and thus can see that it is irrational to live a life of conflct if you want to live fruitfully, and 2) that even monkeys can understand the needs for Darwinian altruism if they are to benefit from mutually beeficial interaction that helps all survive.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE but they still behave along the same social dynamics. It doesn't matter that humans can see it as irrational, they still behave irrationally given the right stimulus. Social monkeys act like social monkeys regardless of how intelligent they are. When I'm baffled by human behavior I think "What would a monkey do?" and then the behavior makes sense... well not always but more often than not ^_^
PinkProgram 1 month ago
I do not believe that mankind is inherently good. If you take a nursery full of 2 year olds and leave them alone they will be at eachother's throats. Pulling hair, stealing toys from one another, stratching & biting eachother, screaming, etc. We don't have to teach them these things. Mankind is naturing self-seeking. We have to teach them to be good. BUT, what is good. Who set the standard for good. It was not man. And Darwin?... How can we even acknowledge that racist.
tribunation 1 month ago
@tribunation I find it a little worrying that your only experiences with children are that they are at each other's throats if they are left alone.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE 1) Please do not insinuate that there should be any concern or worry over my experiences with the observation of the natural selfish tendencies of man through children's actions. 2) Please do not create something of which there is not. This being your saying that my ONLY experiences with children are that they are at each others throats. Did I say that? NO. I did not. Of course children can be loving & sharing. You still did not give me any good rebuttal.
tribunation 1 month ago
@tribunation Children have underdeveloped brains. That is why they aren't treated like adults.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
You only tried to turn things around by making an assumption about me & my life's experiences & tried to demonized me by saying that it worries you.3) How can you say that mankind is inherently good when the majority of your video arguments are about the corruptions, evils, & moral break down of governments, societies, corporations, etc.
Man is not inherently good.
tribunation 1 month ago
@tribunation I apologise if you feel offended, but I don't agree that children are somehow inherently nasty. I outline in the vid WHY humanity can become corrupted. The state is a monolithic structure that binds everyone to its power forcefully. You have to learn to play along or you become ostracised, with nowhere to go because the whole world is cut into states. The more you play along, the more corrupt you become. That is why I am anti-state.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE -- Marx figured out that the family that corrects it's children and teaches them right and wrong is God's structure,( i.e. God's secret, Feuerbach thesis #14) it is the way God communicates with us. Marx looked to the bible to find this structure. God uses a cannot, must not, thou shalt not language. It is a clear language, it does not waver. It warns, it protects. Satan uses the "oughta be, should be" language, i.e. well, I oughta be able to do it. Not, inherently, good!
mn8aol 1 month ago
@RockingMrE -- You realize that limited government and the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. constitution are founded on the biblical principle that all men are inherently evil.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@mn8aol Even if it ie it's irrelevant. The state is an out-of-date and draconian idea. There will come a time due to human progress that it will be completely and utterly unnecessary. The hope is however that the state hasn't turned us all into lab engineered citizens by then.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE -- What you're advocating is communism. Sovereignty (the sovereign state) is based on the "cannot, must not, thou shall language." Transformational language (transformational marxism) works to trespass borders and boundaries, i.e. talking people out of protecting themselves, their children their property. ( Marx/Engels summed up 10 planks communism as the abolition of private property) In other words, no borders for the individual period.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@RockingMrE -- The state is corrupted because of hegelian-dialectic infiltration of the state. The strength of a nation is found in it's morality. However, the modern state must promote immorality or it cannot grow. It is based on a technique Vladimir Lenin used. Promote immorality and you can control the people.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@RockingMrE - The argument is short sighted. Parents correct their children because through their own experience they know where a seemingly innocent behavior leads over time. They can see into the future. A child needs limits. If you put a blind man in a room with no walls he will go insane. You have to have a point of reference. If you put a chair in a dark room you can venture short distances from the chair and still return. Modern day deceivers are trying to remove the chair!
mn8aol 1 month ago
@mn8aol Children aren't fully developed. They lack the cognitive functions that come with a fully developed adult brain. If people would only stop abusing children into believing that they should follow authority absolutely the world would be a far better place. There is no relative justification for initiating force, and the state is no expection.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE -- Kurt Lewin Marxist: "The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult. If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (i.e. if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." A Dynamic Theory of Personality, 1935 - In other words, remove the punishment you remove obedience to higher authority.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@RockingMrE -- Follow the logic through in representative government. In government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people are the authority. They are the parents. Government representatives are quickly declaring themselves the disobedient children and the parents are losing the right to rebuke them!
mn8aol 1 month ago
This video suffers from biting off too much in one go and also from you being unable to divorce your politics from honest philosophical inquiry. You can't claim moral absolutes without addressing Euthyphro's dilemma. You have to define "good" so that it is more than a statement of preference. You hint at a naturalistic help/harm definition but that just takes you to utilitarianism, which you reject.
You're pushing your conclusions without taking time to lay the groundwork for a good argument.
Ermac514 1 month ago
@Ermac514 .
Euthyphro's dilemma is somthing that existed before the Bible became the Default for Defining Moral Values for the Civilized Society.
Actually, Understanding Biblical Moral Values makes Euthyphro's dilemma a False, Irelevant Nonsense:
watch?v=wBvi_auKkaI
Also, What do you thing of this:
watch?v=/AS4BLG5K_OY
watch?v=_sj4pmyog60
PutaDeMigracionVAWA 1 month ago
@Ermac514 I define moral absolutes as being based on moral realism and the non-aggression principle. In this video I focus more on moral realism because I have covered the non-aggression principle so many times on my channel and blog. See my non-aggression principle link below for more info.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE :
Nature Made Animals - Including the Homo-Sapien Animal.
...Oh, But I heard Man is Better that Animal !!! ???
Yes, Man is Better because Man can Learn something that Makes Man Better !
What is that thing that Man can Learn to be Better than Animals ???
It's Called MORAL VALUES !
So, where do Moral Values come from ? When did (Some) Men Stop being Animals and became Better ?
When did that Happen ? (Read Exodus 20)
PutaDeMigracionVAWA 1 month ago
@RockingMrE :
There is a Difference between these very Distinct Things:
1. The Bible
2. Biblical Moral Values
3. Religions
4. Religious Authority Figures (Individuals)
5. The Varioius Interpretations of 1., 2. and . by Individuals
Jesus himself gave us another (Very Good in my Opinion) Interpretation of the 1. and 2.
Can you see the Problem? ... and the Obvious Conclusion: The Best Investment of your time would surely be in Reading and Understanding the (Original) Bible.
PutaDeMigracionVAWA 1 month ago
@PutaDeMigracionVAWA The 'original' Bible would have to be the Hebrew Bible. Professor Christine Hayes of Yale gives an excellent introduction, watch?v=Rmah-qoa_R4
There is no point attempting to understand what Jesus was up to without understanding his religious and philosophical inheritance, bearing in mind St Paul was a Roman who did not share that inheritance but changed it into something quite different.
ritchloui 1 month ago
@ritchloui .
Absolutely! "The 'original' Bible IS the Hebrew Bible."
I watched watch?v=Rmah-qoa_R4 However, and it is irrelevant to our discussion.
There is Definitley a point in understandind what the Bible is teaching us.
Most People - Christians, Jews etc. - don't bother to understand and Blindly Accept Dogmas (buzz-words) such as: "Claim you are a believer and Jesus will save you"
That's a load of crap. One must understand the Bible !
watch?v=_sj4pmyog60
PutaDeMigracionVAWA 1 month ago
@RockingMrE :
The General Population in the US has no Moral Basis. Everyone in the US is heavily influenced by TV and Hollywood. The majority of the population is not raised withTraditional Moral Values or Family Values. US Christian Denominations' beliefs are a Distorted version, Removed from the Original meaning of the Bible. Lack of Moral Basis means that the Opinion and Concept of Reality of US Population is easily manipulated by the Media, Public Figures, Celebrities and the Feminists.
PutaDeMigracionVAWA 1 month ago
@PutaDeMigracionVAWA The US is the MOST fanatically religious of ALL the advanced civilisations. So you cannot blame a lack of Christian influence for their present condition. However, it does seem that the idea of 'freedom of religion' has been exploited as being a fantastic tax-free business model that any fraud with the 'gift of the gab' can run with by making out he has a 'special' relationship with God. It's a tried and trusted scam, just like the promise of an 'afterlife'.
ritchloui 1 month ago
@ritchloui .
...cont... Even US Christian Denominations' beliefs are a Distorted version, Removed from the Original meaning of the Bible. Lack of Moral Basis means that the Opinion and Concept of Reality of US Population is easily manipulated by the Media, Public Figures, Celebrities and the Feminists.
watch?v=_sj4pmyog60
PutaDeMigracionVAWA 1 month ago
@ritchloui .
Yes ! "The US is the MOST fanatically religious of ALL the advanced civilisations" ... but the main issue is that The General Population in America has no Moral Basis. Every person in this country is heavily influenced by TV and Hollywood. The majority of the population is not raised to believe in Traditional Moral Valeus or Family Values.
...cont...
PutaDeMigracionVAWA 1 month ago
@PutaDeMigracionVAWA I'm afraid I am not an expert on US demographics. I am sure there is lots of data out there which gives a good indication of the general lifestyle and values of US citizens. It would be interesting to give a comparative analysis of other First World countries, but also the Islamic ones, given that they are so keen to tell us all that they know better. Trouble is, most of them don't allow research into 'sensitive' issues such as mutilation and domestic violence.
ritchloui 1 month ago
Karl Marx, evil yet brilliant, said that once you discover that the earthly family is the secret of the heavenly family the former must be destroyed through theory and practice. In other words once you discover that the traditional family that chastens is children is God's secret, destroy it and you create a generation that doesn't understand obedience and therefore cannot communicate with God. Accordingly, scripture says that the last days will as in the days of Noah, i.e. disobedient children!
mn8aol 1 month ago
@mn8aol I can't agree that Karl Marx was evil.
Hypocritical? Yes. Responsible for the development of a political philosophy which killed hundreds of millions? Absolutely.
But evil? No. Just misguided.
BAGADOOBLE 1 month ago
@BAGADOOBLE -- Marx looked to the language of the devil to attack Christianity. In fact the dialectic is the same language that the serpent used on Eve in the Garden.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@mn8aol And?
BAGADOOBLE 1 month ago
@BAGADOOBLE - Marx intentionally prevented millions of people from ever knowing God, that is evil.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@mn8aol God's non-existence prevented them from knowing God.
BAGADOOBLE 1 month ago
@BAGADOOBLE --Marxist Erick Fromm: “In the process of history man gives birth to himself. He becomes what he potentially is, and he attains what the serpent—the symbol of wisdom and rebellion—promised, and what the patriarchal, jealous God of Adam did not wish: that man would become like God himself.” (Erick Fromm, You Shall Be As Gods)
mn8aol 1 month ago
@BAGADOOBLE -- You cannot have the dialectic without the serpent.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@mn8aol The serpent granted wisdom to mankind and allowed man the potential to be more than God's plaything, to be a serf. My favourite character in the whole Bible is the serpent. In fact he qualifies as one of the most likeable characters in fiction for me.
I'm not sure what the point of your argument is. Are you against the dialectic?
BAGADOOBLE 1 month ago
The argument that everyone is inherently good is the marxist view, one that keeps the sinful man from ever acknowledging the need for a savior. The Christian can only come to Christ with the acknowledgment that there is a God of wrath and judgment and that all are sinful and fallen. Hence again, marxists removal of the idea of wrath or punishment, is directly linked to intentionally subverting scripture. It is the same language the serpent used on Eve in the Garden.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@mn8aol What Marx said and what he endorsed and upheld via his work are two different matters. If you watch my vidoes long enough you will see that I am a Libertarian, not a Marxist. We are opposite in almost all regards. I am vehemently opposed to Marxism and the philosophies it influenced. I find Marx's methods to achieve his aims deplorable.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@mn8aol You might as well be talkin gibberish for all the value this adds. God doesn't exist, if he does prove it. Make sure you have foundations before you try and build a tower, otherwise your tower is going to fall...
BAGADOOBLE 1 month ago
@BAGADOOBLE -- To posit that God does not exist is to claim the tower before it is built, i.e. that you are all knowing. You can jump out of an airplane at 20,000 feet and argue all you want that gravity doesn't exist either. Know Jesus or you are going to hell.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@mn8aol So do you believe in the Hindu Gods? I'm betting you don't, so then, why not? Why are you "claiming the tower before it is built"?
I'm not me claiming to be all knowing, it's you. You claim not only to know a God exists, but to know it's nature; to know it is the only God that exists; to know what it wants.
All I do is say "Prove there's a God and I will believe". Just as I expect proof before I start believing in Leprechauns and Fairies. Nobody's produced any yet so I don't.
BAGADOOBLE 1 month ago
@BAGADOOBLE -- To claim there is no God, you MUST be all knowing. I am not claiming the tower before it is built, I have a point of reference for my foundation, what's yours?
mn8aol 1 month ago
@mn8aol To claim there are no Leprechauns, Unicorns, Vishnu, Thor, Saturn, Mithras you MUST be all knowing. (By your logic).
Do you affirm the existence of these entities, if not, why not?
(Coninued in reply to this comment...)
BAGADOOBLE 1 month ago
@BAGADOOBLE When I say "there is no God" I am making a probability Statement. I am saying, "upon the evidence I have received thus far, there is no good reason to conclude a high probability that this particular entity described exist, while it is still possible in theory, the probability in light of the evidence is so low as to be completely discountable".
(Continued in reply to this comment...)
BAGADOOBLE 1 month ago
@BAGADOOBLE To say something "does not exist" simply means its probability of existence far too low to be seriously considered and until new evidence comes along to raise that probability to a level worth considering it can more than likely be completely discounted.
I recommend you do a google search for "Dragon in my Garage", it's the first link that pops up, I can't link because Youtube thinks I'm spamming when I try to.
BAGADOOBLE 1 month ago
@BAGADOOBLE -- If are you making the claim that they exist, then you have an argument.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@mn8aol I think you must be seriously confused if you think Marx argued that everybody is inherently good. The whole point of Marxism is "not everybody is good, so we're going to force them to at least act as if they are".
Also your God of Wrath sounds pretty damn evil himself...
BAGADOOBLE 1 month ago
@BAGADOOBLE -- The whole point of Marx is one big ruse to talk the world out of their guns, their property and their children with the "promise" the dictator will whither away. He will, they promise. On the other hand, my God says if you don't know him you will meet his wrath, that's God's promise. It's really a matter of whose promise you want to believe.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@mn8aol God doesn't exist, so obviously I don't buy his supposed promise.
As far as Marx is concerned, I'm about as far from a Marxist as you can get....
You're creating a false dichotomy here, and honestly I don't know why. Do you seriously believe you are either a Marxist or a Christian? Because I'm neither, many people around the world are neither, and many people around the world are both.
BAGADOOBLE 1 month ago
@BAGADOOBLE -- No one gets out of the process. You are either cooked in the process or not. Or at least you aware that you have been cooked by the process and can turn it around. Those are the choices today. If you can tell me what the process is, then you have an argument.
mn8aol 1 month ago
@Eabranth I would agree with these statements. In fact the catholic church became so powerful and corrupt it spawned the many informational churches. The reason Christianity is so fractured is mostly tied back to catholic corruption and power mongering. I never said that the catholic church was a true representation of what Christianity should be, but this doesn't mean theism is bad. Blindly and ignorantly following the heads of a church though is both foolish and stupid, but also un-biblical.
Psychodegu 1 month ago
BRAVO RockingMrE ! VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC ! check also this out : Allan Bloom : The Closing of the American Mind ....very inspiring
archive org/details/AllanBloomTheClosingOfTheAmericanMind
okowrygo 1 month ago
Sorry man, disagree. I'm not a moral relativist, but a moral nihilist. What's the difference between morality and preference?
Let me guess; you got this from Molyneux?
chitchcott 1 month ago
@mn8aol If you can't arrive at any morally absoute conclusions you are a moral relativist, and yes, I am aware that moral nihilists don't like to be called that. Molyneux didn't invent the NAP.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE How can I be a moral relativist if I don't believe that morality exists? It's like atheism - I'm not saying that god exists and is subjectively experienced by individuals - I'm saying there is no such thing as god.
You didn't answer my question about the difference between a preference and a moral rule. Morality in your sense is used to mean something other than a label for certain preferences, which is why I don't believe it exists.
Not claiming Molyneux invented the NAP.
chitchcott 1 month ago
2:15 Seriously? The spiraling of the Soviet economy caused the Gulags? Where the fuck did you learn your history? First of all the gulags existed BEFORE the Bolsheviks and were used by the autocratic regime of the Czars to exile and punish dissenters, the Soviets inherited it and expanded it for their own use of maintaining their power. Also how do you explain that the Soviet economy fell apart in the last decade of the USSR's existence during a period of liberalization(Glasnost)? F-
HeavyTrafficAhead 1 month ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead And that excuses the fact that more people died in the USSR than any regime in history how? That's irrelvant to the point that countless (literally) people died in the USSR Gulags, far more than under the Tzar, in spite of the countless people that simply vanished, as well as the revisionist attempts. The Soviet economy was on its knees by the end because the state simply couldn't react quickly enough to the needs of the people. The USSR collapsing saved people's lives.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE (cont) I also didn't go into WHEN the Gulags started, only that the economy struggling to sustain itself was a major contributing factor to people being forced to work in them. This is how the economy of the USSR kept itself going for decades.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE My point was that your understanding of history stinks. That's the problem when you're too ideologically driven. The facts get exiled to the Siberian gulag. You're wrong that the economy was the driver of the creation of the gulag system and your apologetics for the insane cruelty of the autocratic regime are even creepier than your 'body count' ethics. Are you really saying that the average person was better off before? You'd be wrong. Not by much. But wrong still
HeavyTrafficAhead 1 month ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead Well thankfully WWII happened and killed 20 to 30 million Soviet Citizens. Without that, you death toll drops to the same as any other country; Even if you include famine, and executions (This is due to the fact that lifespan greatly increased with public health campaigns and acted as the compensating measure).
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@RockingMrE The gulags where at their largest during the second world war. they subsequently declined over time, and in fact were net drains on economic growth (because the prisoners did the poorest kind of work, and often cost more to keep alive then they actually provided in work).
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet Well of course the prisoners weren't going to work as hard as people who were paid well, hence my point in the vid about needs before ability being a completely flawed idea. People need to be happy to work most productively, and the gulags were absolutely horrendous. When people can appreciate this fully we can leave behind any remnants of slavery through force, be it "democracy" or anything else which strips us of individual liberty.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE THE Tsar? You need to count the fact that most people in the Russian Empire weren't even counted as people, but chattle. So their deaths were not even recorded. I really find it creepy that you go with this 'virtue by body count' thing. But the main point is that do all those deaths have to do with 'collectivism' or the nature of the area you're talking about? Russia, and environs, isn't exactly known as the 'happy camp' of history
HeavyTrafficAhead 1 month ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead Well I don't agree with anything you just stated, and I can see that the speed with which you engage in ad homs is very telling of your ideological slant. It disturbs me to the core of my being that you are trying to suggest that the people of the USSR were better off. Your revisionist attempts at history also disturb me. This sort of behaviour is no better than Neo-Nazism. We'll leave it there.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE For some reason I got this comment. I guess you sent to me by mistake.
I will say the following though. By many measures the std. of living did decline and is in soem areas lower then it used to be before the collapse of the USSR. So for instance GDP/capita is lower in many areas, as well as the average lifespan (alcohol, aids, drugs, lack of sufficient healthcare availability). It's one of the reasons why the CPRF still gets many votes.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
I'm basically learning philosophy through your videos. You're a pretty awesome teacher.
TheLordmep 1 month ago
@TheLordmep Thanks man - I appreciate the encouragement :-)
RockingMrE 1 month ago
Superb video, great explanation, totally agree. But then you sign off with the horned devil hand sign of Satanism. Kind of spoiled the end for me, but the rest was good.
ThereAreNoSides 1 month ago
@ThereAreNoSides Sorry you don't like the sign. It's a rock n' roll thing, though I know some viewers don't like it. It's just a bit of fun - there is no hidden meaning :-P
Glad you liked the video :-)
RockingMrE 1 month ago
I think you could stand to be a bit more specific with this.
WatcherAzrael 1 month ago
@WatcherAzrael I'd be happy to elaborate if you could tell me how specifically you feel I should do this.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE You mention morals being both "absolute" and "flexible." Could you give me an example of something you consider inherently wrong in all circumstances?
WatcherAzrael 1 month ago
@WatcherAzrael Forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. No one has the right to do this because all people are free sovereign individuals. This is absolutely non-negotiable. Check out my link in the info section under the Non-Aggression Principle. This explains what I mean well.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE I agree with you, but I don't necessarily think that that's an absolutist position. What you're saying, as I understand it, is that anything can be moral as long as all the participants consent to it? (ie, its immoral to beat some random person on the street, but perfectly moral to do the same actions as part of BDSM).
Now, if I could play the Devil's Advocate here, how is your idea of "absolute morality" fundamentally different from UJames' concept of "ethics?"
WatcherAzrael 1 month ago
@WatcherAzrael Yes, that's what I'm saying. Do you think it's absolutely true that we're all born free given that no one belongs to anyone in the state of nature? This is the basis behind the absolute aspect of what makes us free. If anything should be absolute and non-negotiable then surely this is it?
I'm not familiar with Ujames' interpretation of ethics. What I can tell you is that Ujames regularly says one thing and endorses something quite different.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE Ok, well, UJames' ethics basically boil down to the idea that "good," "bad" and "greater good" must be done away with in favor of "harm" and "greater harm." And harm is defined not so much in terms of physical harm, but in terms of violating people's autonomy. So, the only acceptable uses of force are 1) when your using it against someone already using it, and 2) the person can't give informed consent because he/she doesn't understand the situation (ie children and
WatcherAzrael 1 month ago
@RockingMrE (cont) the mentally ill)
WatcherAzrael 1 month ago
@WatcherAzrael Thanks for giving that breakdown, though I stand by what I said - Ujames says one thing and endorses another. I know you are good friends him him, but that is what I have noticed about him.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE Ah, ok.
WatcherAzrael 1 month ago
@WatcherAzrael there's nothing....... wow
calzagheisthebest 1 month ago
fantastic MrE. I have my own beliefs but do not follow religion ie the State churches yet I would say I am a christian. I actually believe in god and follow my own understanding of a moral code through my belief and made a few errors too lol. I cant help but agree with you in this video too regarding the role and influence of the church and or state control. We all know right from wrong regardless of laws, its hardwired in us.
tatiebogle 1 month ago
@tatiebogle "We all know right from wrong regardless of laws, its hardwired in us."
My sentiments exactly :-)
RockingMrE 1 month ago
You need to dress up as Snape from Harry Potter for Halloween.
freesk8 1 month ago
Moral absolutism or ethics? I'm not sure if you're mixing the two, ethics trump morals every time, and Justice is the zenith of all ethics. So, what is Justice? I'm just pondering ;)
HairyCookieMunster 1 month ago
@HairyCookieMunster Morals and ethics go hand-in-hand. If there is some sort of major difference you see between the two I am keen for you to share it.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE it could be argued to be semantics, but in all i've been taught and learnt, and in academia, morals are related as being human-centric, where-as ethics are applicable to all nature, as natural law. Morals are relative, time and culture related, and humans constant anthropomorphising of concepts that are only relative to ourselves does not make those concepts 'universal laws' or absolutes. Semantics of defining 'moral absolutes' or 'ethics'? Maybe that's just my interpretation, cont.
HairyCookieMunster 1 month ago
@RockingMrE but i do agree there are some absolutes, i guess i'm being my usual pedantic self over the use of language rather than the relevance of your videos content, for that i apologise, philosophy brings out all the semantic pedants ;)
HairyCookieMunster 1 month ago
@HairyCookieMunster Lol, I don't mind you attempting to specify the variations in morals and ethics, though I feel as though they are largely the same thing, with a few exceptions that aren't necessarily worth going into in a video with so much info crammed into less than 9 mins. Cheers for your views though.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE there is indeed much info in your video, all good stuff, and i forgot to say thank you! Typically preoccupied with the mechanics of it lol :)
Thank you, i appreciate your videos! :)
In Lak'ech
HairyCookieMunster 1 month ago
@HairyCookieMunster Always happy to have an appreciative viewer :-)
RockingMrE 1 month ago
Morality can never be universally true as morals are subjective and contingent on individual tastes and preferences. For you to insist there is a universal morality is reminiscent of colonialists and "empire builders" who believed their sense of morality was equitable and, thus, entitled them to impose it on everyone else.
godeau12 1 month ago
@godeau12 Is that right? By having no basis for morals you are opening yourself up for exploitation. You do not combat flawed absolute morals with subjective morals - that is utter rubbish for the intellectually deluded. I have no intention to build empires, but I have no intention to control people by making them believe that their "needs" are subjective - the typcial angle of the totalitarian.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE So, what if we discovered aliens on planet X2435 and, they practice a morality we find objectionable? We judge them to be abhorrent and repugnant because we are, after-all, The Master Race, with writ in granite moral certainties! To believe peoples' needs are objective is dictatorial to a point where even Stalin would be embarrassed.
godeau12 1 month ago
@godeau12 Watch the vid again and see that all I care about is respect of individual sovereignty. I don't care about tastes, and I don't care what you do, as long as you don't try to harm others. To initiate the illegitimate use of force on the individual for any reason is the most abhorent act - this is non-negotiable, and this is what is absolute. I don't care what culture has to say about this, you can never sacrifice individual sovereignty for a cause - it is wrong.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE I agree
godeau12 1 month ago
@godeau12 Wow, usually moral relativists will never accept any moral absolutes. Glad we can agree on the basis I outlined for morally absolute though. If there's anything that should be absolute, it's individual sovereignty.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number = The Best for Everyone.
What is best for everyone can only be determined by each individual.
steve0281 1 month ago
@steve0281 Exactly :-)
RockingMrE 1 month ago
Is there anything the left won't fuck up or get wrong?
Zac6230 1 month ago
There is absolutely no reason to take one set of morals over another in pan-ultimate meta-ethical sense. I can be perfectly logically consistent if for instance I do not take hedonistic utilitarianism as my starting moral axiom. I can be equally so if I do not take the non-aggression principle.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet How you arrive at the conclusion is not as important as the conclusion you arrive at. Do you believe that there is ever a time you can use force on another without having been coerced first?
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE coerced is not very well defined here. is a heroin addict suffering withdraws being coerced? if so, than i believe that all people must be coerced before they use force on another. if not, than i wonder why one thing can be said to create coercion while another cannot. desperate circumstances lead to desperate measures. and intention or lack of intention does not ease suffering in and of itself.
greycloud24 1 month ago
@greycloud24 The reason why i didn't go into more detail regarding "what" defines coercion is because I've discussed this many times before on blogs and vids, which I state in the vid. If I keep repeating things I never discuss anything new. Check out my Non-Aggression Principle video if you want detail in this regard though.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE Indeed I can a few scenarios. 1. A stranger is being attacked in an alley. I am not coerced in anyway by the one attacking the other. Yet I think using force against him is desirable if he cannot be persuaded peacefully. 2. A boat is sinking and two fat men happen to get the only life boats first, which they both take up fully. I think pushing them out to let 3 other people/boat survive is desirable.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@RockingMrE 3. Everyone purchases fossil fuel electricity given they each individually gain a net surplus in the transaction. But pollution affects every other person. I think it is desirable to tax the sale/production of pollutant generating electricity by use of implied coercion (jail).
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet What you are doing is using abstract examples, and you could do this far more than three times. Your first example is explained in the NAP vid below. Once someone uses force on another illegitimately they waver their right to live without force, at least in the respect of stopping them. This should be done without using excessive force. like killing someone for repeatedly slapping you. It is never justifiable to tax - it is stealing. If people don't like (cont)
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE pollution they should live in a place free of pollution, like the country. If you live near pollution then you know what to expect. Your lifeboat example is very unclear, and is far too obtuse to dignify an answer, To be honest it alarms me that you would go to this extent to justify harming another. I feel I have made my point, though I doubt you have. If you feel the need to make more arguments like this I will bow out. Anyone readng this feel free to take over.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE In the case of pollution everyone is willing to accept the pollution associated with their own transaction; The problem is that it spreads to others as well. And so, pollution is produce to the point where people can be at a net loss.
Lifeboat example is simple. The fat men happen to get to the boats first. Other people cannot. In my view, sacrificing one fat man to save 3 people is justified.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@Scientisticsoviet *cannot fit in
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
@RockingMrE @RockingMrE The whole idea is that I do not take the NAP. I prefer a utilitarian approach; Ie. Cost Benefit analysis.
Again, it's a completely different moral standard. And don't see why I am inconsistent it using it. Or in not taking the NAP.
Scientisticsoviet 1 month ago
Wow, the intro is utterly true. Relativism is nothing more than a reactionary viewpoint from the left
great video
snakebitgoat 1 month ago
about there being more violence as life becomes more difficult, the converse is true. As nations increase in wealth and, therefore, the state has more tax livestock, outbreaks of war occur more often and are more bloody. I'd in general, yes, violence decreases with wealth, but an anti-social institution like the state with interests separate from the well-being of individuals will use the productivity of its subjects for its own purposes in the only way it can. that is through violence.
intercourseman69 1 month ago
@intercourseman69 Good points, which tie in with mine about the state being a mechanism for corruption. it is for this reason that we should be mindful of this idea that the state restricts corruption. It is ludicrous to suggest that giving absolute power to anything will achieve this objective. More often than not it does the opposite if we look back through history.
RockingMrE 1 month ago