The shift from hunter-gatherer society to complex agriculturalist society did indeed effect the social standing of woman. Men always dominated over women but male dominance became more pronounced in complex societies. I believe that liberal democracy is mostly responsible for the woman's movements. The feminist movement of the 60s and 70s was especially radical. These movements do not represent moral progress in the least. They represent moral decadence in more ways than one.
He's a very good speaker with many historical and demographic facts. However, he fails in the end to logically justify belief in relativism. For example, he concludes by talking about how relativism implies tolerance. Just the opposit actually. If it's all relative, who are you to judge my intolerant thoughts? Also, he committs the same ole ad populum fallacy. Finally, even if morality is based on emotions, it does not logically follow they are JUST based on emotion.
In utilitarism the good for the biggest number doesnt mean kill one for save 6, but; first u need to save one, than 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and u will have the hapiness for the biggest number.
@spColossus89 That is main argument of what the third to last questioner basically asked, to which the Professor gave a weak (if not, at least legacy) response. It's not that Relativism is committed to self-defeat, as much as it is unable to overcome a weak opposition in the face of authoritative absolutism, because there are no common ground rules for which to delineate solid values, due to differential experience.
@spColossus89 But on the other side of that argument Relativism is also the more pliable (adaptable), for its ability to remain free of subjective constraint and contradiction, and open to a wider degree of interpretation and gradual evolution of thought.
@crimsonsamuraiftw (cont..) In essence, what is it's weakness in the short term, is it's strength in the long term as associated in linear applications (such as morality, et al.) where there are no available fundamentally universal truths.
His whole argument is in itself flawed. He concludes, since people disagree about moral values universal moral values do not exist. But, in response, he posts a universal moral value system: Tolerate any moral system! What if a culture exists, which posits: "KILL ALL MORAL RELATIVISTS!". Would he tolerate it? NO!?. What is a "culture"? Why must it be tolerated? Are moral relativists a "culture"? If not, why should we tolerate them?
The fact that people argue and disagree about morality doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's the false conclusion he draws. He points to disputes about morality and concludes that since people don't agree, it doesn't exist. He is basically committing the naturalistic fallacy. In trying to determine universal morality he looks at the world as it is. Since he cannot find universals, they do not exist. Well well... "Is and ought"... I think this talk is a cheap shot!
2. We can think more clearly about the nature of moral truth and determine which patterns of thought and behavior we SHOULD follow in the name of “morality.”
3. We can convince people who are committed to silly and harmful patterns of thought and behavior in the name of “morality” to break these commitments and to live better lives.” Sam Harris
“there are at least three projects that we should not confuse:
1. We can explain why people tend to follow certain patterns of thought and behavior (many of them demonstrably silly and harmful) in the name of “morality.”
While visiting the United Arab Emirates, Alicia Gali was drugged and gang raped. In the West, she would be considered victim of the most evil crime. But since the crime happened in the United Arab Emirates, she was the one put in jail for eight months where she received brutal treatment.
After hearing prof Prinz, I understand how culturally insensitive I was thinking of her as a victim. In fact, maybe I could learn from this ancient wisdom that women are indeed inferior to men after all.
Doesn't moral relativism fall flat right out of the gate? If I claim your beliefs are relative That is still a claim. You are still making a judgment that. even though that judgment may be a neutral one. am I wrong?
@mutva Perhaps one should distinguish between factual and moral claims. A relativist may reject factual/cognitive relativism, but not moral relativism.
@socrates123456789101 I don't know how moral relativism works. I also don't know how anyone could know the difference between Factual claims and moral claims. sorry.
We should "take action" when others want to force their morality on others. What about people sent to prison? Isn't that an illegitimate use of force then? What about how we would hurt people to prevent them to force morality onto others because "it's against OUR morality?" Isn't that a contradiction?
Rights have always existed in the form of obligations. My right to live is your obligation not to hurt me or to help me live in certain situations.
O.k., I don't get. What else than his assertion that relativism is the only way to look at the variety of moral expression does he offer.?It's like saying: "oh, there are so many means of transportation, thus there cannot be an underlying model that would make it possible to weigh one against the other."
The taliban can be corrected? really? And if so, they can be corrected to the respect of what? Reality? Why? At this point you are no longer a moral relativist.
Objections to utilitarianism tend to refute themselves. E.g., the idea that it would be bad to harvest the organs of one healthy person to save six depends on the fact that this would be a horrifying world to live in, meaning it would DECREASE overall happiness and well-being. Well if that's the case then utilitarianism would be AGAINST such organ-harvesting.
He cautions against criticizing corporal punishment, genital mutilation, etc but in the next breath says one group can't impose its morality upon another. This leaves the child victims of these practices with no recourse, as he apparently assumes they are part of the same moral group.
I absolutely agree that emotions provide the foundation of morality, but unless there are exceptions to this, it would suggest that a principle of tolerance could only be adopted as a moral principle if it too rests on an emotional foundation. But then, why should my desire to tolerate people who practice X trump my moral objections to it (for sufficiently gruesome values of X)?
The assumption that seems to be made by the speaker is that because a belief is popular it must hold some value at least in-group. This assertion would imply that the belief itself gains some value based on the number of people who believe it or agree upon it. It was never true the the Sun revolved around the Earth no matter how many believed it. Even though we are driven by our emotions in moral questions it does not mean that there are no objectively right answers to those moral questions.
@N8y5000 The value is relative to the group, not inherent in the belief itself. The idea is not that the belief becomes true, but that the belief holds some value to the group. The sun revolving around the earth provided an explanation to a set of creatures whose minds required it, and therein alone can it's value be found.
You are attempting to refute, or discredit, relativism by pointing out how it doesn't conform to realism, which is irrelevant. Your first sentence was spot on.
@N8y5000 He speaks of moral beliefs, not facts, earth revolving around the sun can be proven and doesnt change anyones moral. Correct me if i'm wrong..
You're correct that the move from the relativism found in the variety of human experience does not imply a meta-ethical position; the disagreement might simply suggest that lots of people are wrong, and this obviously doesn't entail the non-existence of objective values. However, what's implicit in Prinz's argument is the 'queerness' (to use J.L. Mackie's terminology) of objective values: where do such entities reside? How can they 'bind us'? Answers on a postcard, please.
@N8y5000 You're correct to say that it's not necessarily true that because we are driven by emotion in moral questions then there are no objective moral answers. However, I believe that the speaker is saying that moral realism is false and that morality is a merely human phenomenon.
He attacks straw men of Kant and Mill. Kant misapplied his own theory when saying never to lie. The moral rule 'lie when it will prevent disaster' is perfectly universalizable. As for the example against Mill's utilitarianism, killing 1 person to provide organs to save 6 would not maximize overall happiness except in the most unrealistic cases. If doctor were to kill and take organs from a patient to save 6, people would stop trusting doctors and stop going to hospitals, which would be horrible.
" If doctor were to kill and take organs from a patient to save 6, people would stop trusting doctors and stop going to hospitals, which would be horrible." ~ JS
This simply shifts the goal away from overall happiness, for a reason outside of utilitarianism, prioritizing the individual over the group. As a purely pragmatic consideration, in both cases one person must die; the question is then posed as a choice between no additional deaths, and five. The disparity in suffering is then obvious.
The only thing we cannot tolerate is intolerance! Wait, what? We can only intervene to stop others from intervening! Excuse me? He's a relativist with teeth.
@jsoccerw87 It's funny isn't it? At one moment he even says 'we shouldn't...'
That's the thing, relativists aren't that relativist after all, they're the epitome of thinking you're completely right in your stance that people need to leave each other alone.
typical
Tallaias 1 month ago
The shift from hunter-gatherer society to complex agriculturalist society did indeed effect the social standing of woman. Men always dominated over women but male dominance became more pronounced in complex societies. I believe that liberal democracy is mostly responsible for the woman's movements. The feminist movement of the 60s and 70s was especially radical. These movements do not represent moral progress in the least. They represent moral decadence in more ways than one.
bxjam85 3 months ago
He's a very good speaker with many historical and demographic facts. However, he fails in the end to logically justify belief in relativism. For example, he concludes by talking about how relativism implies tolerance. Just the opposit actually. If it's all relative, who are you to judge my intolerant thoughts? Also, he committs the same ole ad populum fallacy. Finally, even if morality is based on emotions, it does not logically follow they are JUST based on emotion.
socrates123456789101 5 months ago
In utilitarism the good for the biggest number doesnt mean kill one for save 6, but; first u need to save one, than 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and u will have the hapiness for the biggest number.
xRSCx 9 months ago
"lie when it will prevent disaster"
1 exception opens the door for all exceptions
xRSCx 9 months ago
... isn't relativism self-defeating?
spColossus89 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spColossus89 That is main argument of what the third to last questioner basically asked, to which the Professor gave a weak (if not, at least legacy) response. It's not that Relativism is committed to self-defeat, as much as it is unable to overcome a weak opposition in the face of authoritative absolutism, because there are no common ground rules for which to delineate solid values, due to differential experience.
crimsonsamuraiftw 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spColossus89 But on the other side of that argument Relativism is also the more pliable (adaptable), for its ability to remain free of subjective constraint and contradiction, and open to a wider degree of interpretation and gradual evolution of thought.
crimsonsamuraiftw 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crimsonsamuraiftw (cont..) In essence, what is it's weakness in the short term, is it's strength in the long term as associated in linear applications (such as morality, et al.) where there are no available fundamentally universal truths.
crimsonsamuraiftw 2 months ago
you should be intolerant when one group impose their values on another. what about when one person imposes their values on another?
CheekyVimto08 10 months ago
His whole argument is in itself flawed. He concludes, since people disagree about moral values universal moral values do not exist. But, in response, he posts a universal moral value system: Tolerate any moral system! What if a culture exists, which posits: "KILL ALL MORAL RELATIVISTS!". Would he tolerate it? NO!?. What is a "culture"? Why must it be tolerated? Are moral relativists a "culture"? If not, why should we tolerate them?
bhigr 11 months ago
The fact that people argue and disagree about morality doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's the false conclusion he draws. He points to disputes about morality and concludes that since people don't agree, it doesn't exist. He is basically committing the naturalistic fallacy. In trying to determine universal morality he looks at the world as it is. Since he cannot find universals, they do not exist. Well well... "Is and ought"... I think this talk is a cheap shot!
bhigr 11 months ago
2. We can think more clearly about the nature of moral truth and determine which patterns of thought and behavior we SHOULD follow in the name of “morality.”
3. We can convince people who are committed to silly and harmful patterns of thought and behavior in the name of “morality” to break these commitments and to live better lives.” Sam Harris
thinkahol 11 months ago
“there are at least three projects that we should not confuse:
1. We can explain why people tend to follow certain patterns of thought and behavior (many of them demonstrably silly and harmful) in the name of “morality.”
thinkahol 11 months ago
While visiting the United Arab Emirates, Alicia Gali was drugged and gang raped. In the West, she would be considered victim of the most evil crime. But since the crime happened in the United Arab Emirates, she was the one put in jail for eight months where she received brutal treatment.
After hearing prof Prinz, I understand how culturally insensitive I was thinking of her as a victim. In fact, maybe I could learn from this ancient wisdom that women are indeed inferior to men after all.
halneufmille 11 months ago
@halneufmille agreed. there are smart relativists but the thing is unlivable.
CheekyVimto08 10 months ago
Comment removed
halneufmille 11 months ago
Doesn't moral relativism fall flat right out of the gate? If I claim your beliefs are relative That is still a claim. You are still making a judgment that. even though that judgment may be a neutral one. am I wrong?
mutva 11 months ago
@mutva Perhaps one should distinguish between factual and moral claims. A relativist may reject factual/cognitive relativism, but not moral relativism.
socrates123456789101 5 months ago
@socrates123456789101 I don't know how moral relativism works. I also don't know how anyone could know the difference between Factual claims and moral claims. sorry.
mutva 5 months ago
We should "take action" when others want to force their morality on others. What about people sent to prison? Isn't that an illegitimate use of force then? What about how we would hurt people to prevent them to force morality onto others because "it's against OUR morality?" Isn't that a contradiction?
Rights have always existed in the form of obligations. My right to live is your obligation not to hurt me or to help me live in certain situations.
mageslime 11 months ago
O.k., I don't get. What else than his assertion that relativism is the only way to look at the variety of moral expression does he offer.?It's like saying: "oh, there are so many means of transportation, thus there cannot be an underlying model that would make it possible to weigh one against the other."
timeofwonder2009 11 months ago
The taliban can be corrected? really? And if so, they can be corrected to the respect of what? Reality? Why? At this point you are no longer a moral relativist.
brunodemoura 11 months ago
Since when is emotion the basis for morality? Who hasn't reacted emotionally only to wish later they hadn't been such a dipwad?
Who made up that tripe? I'll give you that emotions influence the implementation of morality, but it's not the basis.
MohawkMangopit 11 months ago
The questioner at 1:15 is a badass. I clapped for him in my hotel room.
afkmofo 11 months ago
Objections to utilitarianism tend to refute themselves. E.g., the idea that it would be bad to harvest the organs of one healthy person to save six depends on the fact that this would be a horrifying world to live in, meaning it would DECREASE overall happiness and well-being. Well if that's the case then utilitarianism would be AGAINST such organ-harvesting.
sam51092 11 months ago 2
He cautions against criticizing corporal punishment, genital mutilation, etc but in the next breath says one group can't impose its morality upon another. This leaves the child victims of these practices with no recourse, as he apparently assumes they are part of the same moral group.
hammertime419 11 months ago 3
Comment removed
BaileysBeads 11 months ago
Isn't he proposing to study morality...ie science...for insights and improvements???
RayThaw 11 months ago
I absolutely agree that emotions provide the foundation of morality, but unless there are exceptions to this, it would suggest that a principle of tolerance could only be adopted as a moral principle if it too rests on an emotional foundation. But then, why should my desire to tolerate people who practice X trump my moral objections to it (for sufficiently gruesome values of X)?
cavalrycome 11 months ago
The assumption that seems to be made by the speaker is that because a belief is popular it must hold some value at least in-group. This assertion would imply that the belief itself gains some value based on the number of people who believe it or agree upon it. It was never true the the Sun revolved around the Earth no matter how many believed it. Even though we are driven by our emotions in moral questions it does not mean that there are no objectively right answers to those moral questions.
N8y5000 11 months ago 31
@N8y5000 Spot on!
Madz1987 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@N8y5000 Yep. It's called an argumentum ad populum.
MarsyasX1 11 months ago
@N8y5000 The value is relative to the group, not inherent in the belief itself. The idea is not that the belief becomes true, but that the belief holds some value to the group. The sun revolving around the earth provided an explanation to a set of creatures whose minds required it, and therein alone can it's value be found.
You are attempting to refute, or discredit, relativism by pointing out how it doesn't conform to realism, which is irrelevant. Your first sentence was spot on.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago
@N8y5000 He speaks of moral beliefs, not facts, earth revolving around the sun can be proven and doesnt change anyones moral. Correct me if i'm wrong..
alonderis 11 months ago
@N8y5000
You're correct that the move from the relativism found in the variety of human experience does not imply a meta-ethical position; the disagreement might simply suggest that lots of people are wrong, and this obviously doesn't entail the non-existence of objective values. However, what's implicit in Prinz's argument is the 'queerness' (to use J.L. Mackie's terminology) of objective values: where do such entities reside? How can they 'bind us'? Answers on a postcard, please.
ethicalape 10 months ago
@N8y5000
It seems that you're assuming that value=truth
ohlordbabyjesus 9 months ago
@N8y5000 You're correct to say that it's not necessarily true that because we are driven by emotion in moral questions then there are no objective moral answers. However, I believe that the speaker is saying that moral realism is false and that morality is a merely human phenomenon.
bxjam85 4 months ago
He attacks straw men of Kant and Mill. Kant misapplied his own theory when saying never to lie. The moral rule 'lie when it will prevent disaster' is perfectly universalizable. As for the example against Mill's utilitarianism, killing 1 person to provide organs to save 6 would not maximize overall happiness except in the most unrealistic cases. If doctor were to kill and take organs from a patient to save 6, people would stop trusting doctors and stop going to hospitals, which would be horrible.
jsoccerw87 11 months ago 19
" If doctor were to kill and take organs from a patient to save 6, people would stop trusting doctors and stop going to hospitals, which would be horrible." ~ JS
This simply shifts the goal away from overall happiness, for a reason outside of utilitarianism, prioritizing the individual over the group. As a purely pragmatic consideration, in both cases one person must die; the question is then posed as a choice between no additional deaths, and five. The disparity in suffering is then obvious.
Reerrpad5515 11 months ago 2
@jsoccerw87 so by that reasoning would it be morally acceptable for doctors to do that as long as no one finds out?
ioFilip 4 months ago
The only thing we cannot tolerate is intolerance! Wait, what? We can only intervene to stop others from intervening! Excuse me? He's a relativist with teeth.
jsoccerw87 11 months ago 2
@jsoccerw87 It's funny isn't it? At one moment he even says 'we shouldn't...'
That's the thing, relativists aren't that relativist after all, they're the epitome of thinking you're completely right in your stance that people need to leave each other alone.
BaileysBeads 11 months ago 4
This is the first time I have heard Jesse Prinz speak and so far I love his insight.
TheFreemandogkuf 11 months ago