Not only is animal morality the origin of our morality, but as far as I know, animals don't commit genocide, or murder for absolutely no reason at all.
If human beings are special, it's only because we do those things, and wonder why shouldn't, animals do it perfectly fine on instinct.
These animals are not acting moral, all they're doing is letting their instincts take over. Human beings see their behavior as moral because mankind is a moral agent. Animals on the other had are not moral agents. It's through human eyes that it seems.
Even as an agnostic one might ponder the possibilites of either side of the issue presenting anything of veracity on either side of the arguement. I'll keep looking &hoping that something somewhere will show us yet another sign of why we ended up here in the 1st place. If god exists then logically we are a harvest by some celestial beings, otherwise we are a creature of chance with an oppurtunity to live the unexplainable. Enjoy life,luv thy neighbor &help save the world from islam
Natural morality? Tell that to the millions upon millions of people who died in the communist/athiest takeovers in the 20th century. Those takeovers were particularly bloody because of the lack of any empathy that comes from faith in Christ. When an army lacks belief, expect more brutality and killing because you have to rely on man's "natural morality."
@auroradamien Hitler's beliefs were chaotic, Wiki it. All of those other things that are measurable add up to maybe 2-4 million. Don't forget Mao Zadong. So in all around 100 million people died in communist revolutions. As long as you don't get caught, anything goes in athiesm. If you don't believe in God why not try to get away with whatever you can? As Pol Pot said to his victims, it doesn't matter if you live or die and he killed millions.
@economicsworld Hitler used religion to try to accomplish his goals of starting a new religion. Yes communism is pretty bad but to blame it on atheism is misguided. Believing in god does not make a person moral, We have laws in place to keep me from infringing on other peoples rights, everyone has the right to live, eat, have things etc I have enough respect for life not to mess with other peoples. If god is the only reason you're not killing people seek help.
@auroradamien Hitler's religious views were chaotic, he relied on brute force. Communism is actually a very socially conscious idea so the idea that it's responsible for millions of deaths is ridiculous. Practicing Christians commit few crimes, a result of the fundamental morality of Christianity. I'm glad we don't have to rely on your respect for a safe society. The end result of athiesm is an ends justifies the means mentality and is a large reason why we have a secular justice system.
@economicsworld Not really he believed in god, and thought the current churches were wrong. Hmm give me one example of communism succeeding. The fundamental morality of christianity? Lmao, stoning your wife, kids, and neighbors, raping virgins, rampant murder, slavery, and unequal rights are the morals of the bible. I have yet to read a more disgusting book than the bible.
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth!, was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily
grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom
today this poor people are plundered and exploited." -- Adolf Hitler, Practicing Christian Acting In Accordance With The Will Of Jesus As Demonstrated By The Bible, April 12, 1922.
I sure am glad he didn't commit any crimes as a result of his Christian morality.
@economicsworld I don't know how chaotic Hitlers beliefs were, he didn't like traditional Christianity because Christ was a Jew, so he made his own religion, Positive Christianity. Communist regimes are more akin to religion than atheism, just the deity becomes the head of state instead of some god. If you believe in an eternal afterlife then everything that happens in this lifetime is pointless, if you think that this is the one shot at existence you get, then life is FAR more precious.
Nature is pure war with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep the peace, so man is civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.
Religion and morality belongs to the realm of false causes. Religion and morality is a psychology of error.
"Morality" is rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
@SirWinstonChurchill nope. morality has function for communal species and these species are succesfull. that is only criteria if trait is good or bad. so morality seemes to be naturaly pooping up. religion on the other hand is unfortunate side effect of our tendency to make falce possitives and our ignorance of the natural world.
@antybu86 Craig argues about objective moral foundation, obligation, and the relativistic implications of naturalism; your video doesn't refute those.
With naturalism, an action is moral because it sustains a segment of life, which presumes that sustaining life is a "neutral" law of universal function, leaving an act ONLY immoral in that it's against such a reason.
With naturalism, one must wonder whether it a flaw of humanity to associate 'moral' with 'good' and any emotion, and not 'sound.'
@poprockssuck87 "With naturalism, an action is moral because it sustains a segment of life" - this is not at all true. There are *many* different ideas about naturalistic morality - various versions of consequentialism, some deontology, virtue ethics, etc. The sort of species-subjectivism you seem to be talking about is only one view (and not even a very popular view at that).
@antybu86 In naturalism and with those ethical theories, the underlying factor in determining the morality of an act by its consequence or duty, or the character of an agent, etc. is the perspective of evolving beings that inherently "favor" that which sustains life with respect to themselves on a number of social levels.
So yes, with naturalism, an action is ultimately moral because it sustains a segment of life (not on a moral case study basis, but with the foundation of the analysis itself.)
@poprockssuck87 Again, that's not at all true. Nobody argues that you should accept those ethical systems because they best sustains human life. For example, virtue ethicists usually say that certain virtues are simply inherently good - and if the entire human race should go extinct following a virtue, then that would still be the moral thing to do. Now, I think that particular ethical system is incorrect, but I think it shows how your point is flawed.
@antybu86 Your hypothetical of an extinction of the entire human race raises two issues:
Either the same point of sustaining life could be said of any beings--human or not--with whom the morality of an action was being considered, or a moral foundation exists in naturalism in which morality must be akin to the "laws of nature" or the existence of metaphysical concepts (Platonic forms, truths, numbers, etc.), meaning that there's no ultimate obligation and that it's still ultimately relativistic.
@antybu86 On the contrary, that's one of the premises of the moral argument for God; that objective morals do exist. The question however is if objective morals could exist in the absence of God.
And by objective, what is meant is that these morals would be true even if nobody believed them to be true. ie. Even if everyone thought rape was good, it would still be wrong. The fact that rape is wrong is absolute.
@d007ization Firstly, to say that contradictions could exist in what I feel to be the wrong/illogical assessment of reality is not impossible.
Secondly, naturalism is based on the "natural" (godless) forming of all things, human behavior and morality included. So in order for such a system to exist, it must be sustaining. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a fundamental mechanism keeping the whole thing going, but that it (falling dominoes) can't be a foundation for morality.
This doesn't even address the moral argument. For some reason atheists are not able to understand it. If you could take the time to focus for a moment, try to understand the argument.
If god does not exist then objective morality does not exist.
In other words a serial killer is just a "misunderstood" person? Not a psychotic murderer?
Is prison a punishment or rehabilitation? Is there a such thing as bad behavior? How can we blame anyone for their bad behavior?
@knowwaie Technically yes, a serial killer is a bad person from the perspectives of most normal human beings, but he isn't objectively bad. I mean who are you, or any person to talk about what is objectively good?
@knowwaie Actually it is creationists who are not able to understand, there is no such thing as objective morality, it is always arbitrary. The reason why serial killers are put into jail is, because we don't want them to be around us (we don't want them to kill us), not because your imaginary friend ordered us to lock them up.
Laws are necessary to outline the rules of society, so people don't have to live in constant fear. We don't need a god to know that causing harm is not a nice thing to do
No... you've actually just shown your misunderstanding of the issue. Granted 'creationists' don't understand the the difference in language, nor do most of the people today.
The word morality itself is one of your subjective words. Justice is the "objective morality". Is justice an imaginary idea?
No.. We don't lock up serial killers, we execute them. But you don't agree with this justice do you? Because they haven't really done anything 'unjust'. Or you might call 'immoral'.
Right, it does. It clearly states the misconception.
Morality itself is self justification. Look at the difference between these two words. Morality is a man made idea of personal values. What is moral is determined by my personal preferences. When you understand the difference between subjective and objective language it's clearly seen in the difference between the words Justice and morality. Justice is the object. Morality is our attitude toward the object. Does morality negate justice?
@knowwaie I'm sorry but that's so wrong. The things that do not exist are concepts like "good" and "evil" because there are reasons for our behaviour and we aren't at fault for our mental disorders or trauma.
But we still have to maintain society to continoue living. Laws that do that aren't obsolete but may still be questioned or improved.
Let me ask you this. Are prisons intended as punishment or rehabilitation?.. If we choose not to execute punishment for capital crimes then do we just keep piling prisoners into cells? Or should we just release them back into the world? Did you hear about all the sex offenders we've released already? That is ridiculous idea that you are supporting. You've just said yourself, rapists have a reason for their behavior. Which is now justified.
@knowwaie I dunno. We need to do what's best for society...
Demonizing people was wrong even before God became redundant in justice systems. Just because an action has reason doesen't justify it. It depends on the reason
Evolution is not actually that complex at heart. It basically is summed up by
'whatever survives best, reproduces best'
If that happens to be social behaviour (which can give an advantage.) then that is is selected for, and social animals develop.
I disagree that humans have an aversion to murder though. What humans have is a strong tendency towards hierarchy and thus obedience. If the authority tells not to murder, humans obey. If it says to murder humans obey that too.
Just look at the milgram experiment. Or history for that matter.
You don't kill your own guys, of your own tribe, country, group etc.. But people kill OTHERS very easily, provided whatever is in charge gives them permission to do so.
That's why there are all these wars.
If humans really hated murdering eachother wars would be very rare. But instead they are extremely common in human history as well as today.
Fact is by fundies perspectives we ARE immoral. Not because we don't have morals, but because we don't share THEIR morals/bigotry.
We can't win with fundies. My attitude towards them as such is 'fuck 'em.' Why try and be friends with them, their a bunch of backwards troglodytic bigots. If they stop being dicks, then I'll consider it. Till then, screw 'em all.
Of course, I don't expect a creationist to undestand this because we cant even agree on what environment we are in. It's not a big deal, the humans who alter their behavior due to false beliefs will not be as effective as those who make more accurate assumptions of reality and you all won't exist in a thousand years. Since that may take while, our job is to stop you from misbehaving and negatively effecting others: aka 9/11.
We are one team of 6.7 billion and some teammates dont know the game!
All of the beaded lizards that behaved with lethal violence were more likely to die than those who used nonlethal means of dispute.
Since we are humans beings we can reason it out and say "does this behavior make me more likely to fail?" The understanding of interdependence, balance, and harmony on an evolutionary scale lead to the deepest moral behaviors.
Oh come on! using just one brain cell you can see natural morality exists. Violent examples like that of lions exist yes but thats because the best biological form doesnt always arise, as in the case of the human eye and its retina. This video is to show how morality has naturally arisen and how we evolved intelligence and must now use it to find out what is moral behavior based on consensus definitions of what we are and what our environment is.
However regardless ... all animals show elements of activities 'WE' label 'moral' ... including as you pointed out the not so nice ones... the 'us and them' morality that is evoked when resources run low... whereas this is detrimental to the individual it is not detrimental to the group or species!
Morality is certainly not specifically 'good'... and there is no reason it would need to be... its a process... with no mind!
I'd even go so far as to state that the idea of 'immorality' is in fact an oxymoron... for we apply it to those who exercise 'morals' just not the ones we perceive as being 'good'... animals that were truly 'immoral' would have no morals... neither good or bad... the word 'immoral' should be deleted from the dictionary since the word 'morals' covers both!
I agree for the most part. However there must be a label. In the absence of a 'moral' capability (even if ts a mixture of other traits) communal animals would simply not survive long enough to reproduce.
The video needs only show a single example of non human morality to debunk the idea that other animals have NO morality. I agree it's a subjective term and like all traits we have created a label!
He didn't show the opposite that is true! but didn't need to!
@trekgeek1 Not sure I'd have the time to wait for that... they've been around a long time.... but I'd be pretty sure it has happened... after all whats the odds of one of them not falling onto a rock, being in a fight when a tree falls... etc...
The game however still seems to have the same rules.
I saw a recent PBS NOVA about Bonobos. Compared to Chimpanzees, violence is almost unknown in Bonobo society, and frequent "casual" sex is the norm. The funniest bit was when different troops meet -- Males initially square off and display at each other, while the females from *both* troops get together, share food and groom each other. Eventually the males get bored with it all and just join the females. Maybe we're more closely related to them than to chimps. :-)
Not sure about wild horses, deer, bears, tigers, etc. and how much they fight and under what circumstances. Do you have a book recommendation or documentary you can point to?
As for dogs, that's a bad example because the ones used in fighting are intentionally bred for violence and extremely inbred, at that.
Please familiarize yourself with the naturalistic fallacy, because that is precisely what you have committed. What exists in nature, is, just that, what exists in nature. Moral values can't be derived from nature. FatGermanBastard has been trying to illustrate this, though unsuccessfully, due to TheAtheistPaladin's inability to see that he (TheAtheistPaladin) is just begging the question with each one of his replies.
I don't see myself committing that fallacy - I'm not saying whatever is natural is also good, not at all. Rather, I'm simply showing how a basis for morality may be advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, so that our morals (to an extent) can be explained by evolution.
The fallacy does not entail one saying "whatever is natural is also is good." Rather, it would be one taking natural behavior, or behavior found in nature, as for some sort of foundation or source for morality, which is the premise of this video. There may be altruistic behavior found in nature, but it does not follow that the behavior is "moral." Taking much as so would be fallacious reasoning.
Ok there is a question I need to ask you. You know there is this clover that makes cows impotent when they eat it. The point of this is to make cows reproduce less. Less cows = Good times for clover. But of course the clover that is eaten does not benefit from it. You could say the clover sacrifices itself for the group.
Now my question: Would you say that clover has "morals" or "moral values" ? Or is "morality" just the wrong word here ?
(1/2) @FatGermanBastard Sounds like an interesting clover. But to answer your question...
The way people use the word 'moral' almost always has to do with an initiative or will. If somebody accidentally does something nice, then we probably wouldn't call that a moral action. So plants, which can't intend to do anything, we probably wouldn't call it "morality." But I think that's just a problem of language.
However, your example pretty much demonstrates the same thing that occurs in animals...
(2/2) ...where one organism can help the colony (and it's own offspring) by self-sacrifice - whether it be intentionally or unwittingly.
In animals, however, this sort of altruism is generally built in to the brain; we can either have an impulse to help a person or have an impulse to walk away. Although, we are generally unaware that these impulses are usually there to help our genes get passed along.
The basic claim is that "morals" have naturally evolved. And "evolved" in terms of the Theory of evolution through natural selection. And evolution benefits the SPECIES, not the individuals. So self-sacrificial "morality" is, too, "natural".
I don't know if I'm putting it clear enough... :-(
@antybu86 He's wrong, there's no fallacy here. If we as humans (who exist in and have been shaped by nature) have thought up concepts like morals and values, then these moral values must be derived from nature. Indeed, all examples of moral values have been created by humans evolving through nature.
Your morals, your code is a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. You're only as good as the world allows you to be... They'll show you, when the chips are down, these civilized people, they'll eat each other...
You see, I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve. You have all these rules and you think they'll save you. The only way sensible way to live in this world is without rules...
I already told you, I'm not here to save anybody... I'm an agent of chaos...
"What exists in nature, is, just that, what exists in nature. " well that's true... and humans certainly exist in nature!
Moral values are intrinsically linked to reproduction, gathering of food, communal activity in fact the more communal an organism is the more of these morals are observed!
Its pretty hard to be immoral on a desert island alone!
@brainpoIice2 morality comes from groups that have agreed to sertant prisiples. and there semes to be only natural world. so yeah. morality is natural.
What I don't understand is: How do you get from "cooperation is beneficial for the group" to "You should cooperate even if you don't give a shit about the group".
The answer is in the word itself - cooperation. When you cooperate with another person or group, they cooperate with you. There is mutual benefit there.
Ok but when a manufacturer of Zyclone B and the Nazis do business then they cooperate and there is a mutual benefit as well. I just don't see what morality has to do with this.
You're mixing up two moral propositions: (1) business cooperation and (2) genocide.
With the business co-operation, it is mutually beneficial (and you could even say "moral") for each party to deal with each other honestly. With genocide, killing off a whole portion of the population is clearly non-beneficial.
Genocide is obviously non-beneficial to the group being killed, but it is also counter-productive to the society for not only getting rid of people who could benefit society, but also undermining the relationships of potential allies.
So, the point of this video, which you might be missing, is that these judgments, to an extent, are built-in features of our brains.
Yeah but it is beneficial to the group that wants to get rid of this portion of society. So by what standard do you decide who's interest are of higher priority ? And again why should the nazis bother ? Killing is built into the nazis' brains just as much...
That moral system is not consistent. Those being "outside" your group is an arbitrary distinction. Therefore for any moral system to be effective it must have an universal application to all individuals. To neglect such a thing is to only end up undermining society as a whole.
Well yes exactly. Those being outside your group - such as "the nazis" - is an arbitrary distinction. Thanks for refuting yourself. You just did the job for me !
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you are not really here to learn but rather to try to make a point. You asked what made the Nazi wrong, I told you. Nothing so far is inconsistent to what I have said nor undermines morality. The Nazi are wrong because of their arbitrary application(key word) of moral behavior. That does not allow for morality to be arbitrary. Again, the application must be universal.
Dude !! But when you say killing jews is wrong you are directly contradicting what you just wrote in this comment. Killing jews is not wrong from a nazi's perspective. You are discarding their perspective but you insist that it is not valid to discard other people's perspective. How can you not see the obvious contradiction ???
False, I never said such a thing. Why should perspectives be respected? And even if they should, then why am I wrong? The Nazis ignore other peoples perspectives a thousand time more than I ever could. My system would benefit everyone! The Nazis only benefit a narrowly defined arbitrary group. And yet... I AM WRONG?!? Absurd!
You must have been a dog your previous life because it seems you like chasing your tail. Again, it is about maximizing individual freedom balanced by benefit of all. What you proposed was a loss of freedom for many, and as well no actual benefit. Not forgetting the incredible lack of empathy that would need to take to do such a thing.
If you cannot recognize everyone else's right to live, then what basis do you have to say it morally wrong for others to do so to you? Anything that you do to others is equally applicable to you. There is no way to escape it.
On no basis. That's why I'm a moral nihilist. There is also no basis for everyone's "right" to live.
"Anything that you do to others is equally applicable to you."
(I am quoting you.)
Not so. I can show you a million reasons why this is not the case. But anyhow, you're beginning to conflate morality with pragmatism. "Everyone should not kill so they won't kill you." (I am not quoting you.)
Morality is not JUST being pragmatic, but it does have that quality to it. To ignore that is just stupid. If you don't recognize right to live, then go die! Don't waste my time.
How did you find out we have this right to live? You are not even addressing my argument, you just keep going on as if you've justified these things. You did the same thing to FatGermanBastard, lulz.
Nature disagrees with you.... and as we all know (with the exception of fundie xtians) there is no bucking the natural world... it wins out every time!
You are right at one level though... morals may in fact not exist at all... since several other words suffice.. pragmatism is in fact one!
Well, clearly it wasn't very beneficial for the Nazis (they lost the war and are internationally hated).
Your question "why SHOULD they" is perhaps the wrong question. The question I'm trying to address is "why DO they." Now, given out advanced frontal lobes, we have an advantage in the ethics department - namely, that we can come up with systems of ethics that are more rational than what we are instinctively pone to.
However, I hope you wont contest that the majority of people (continued)
(continued from above) are instinctively prone to certain behaviors (an aversion to murdering your family, would be an obvious example). The question is why are people like this? Is there an evolutionary explanation for this behavior? And the answer to that is a resounding, "yes."
The very fact for you to have to have society to allow you to have this very conversation, and the comfortable life you live. This at the very least means you implicitly accept society as a laudable goal. Without morality society would not exist and immediately collapse.
What if I find a way to exploit society in a way so that they will not notice and will still grant me all their benefits while not being aware of the fact that I am exploiting them. Let us also assume that I do not have any bad feelings about this and that the negative affect I have on society does not have enough of an impact to harm society in a way so that it would backfire at me. Think of an efficient strategy to evade taxes for example.
Ok...let's forget everything we just said and start all over:
What is your basis of morality ? What are the exact cirteria by which you determine if an action is morally right or wrong ? Please be specific. I.e. do not say "An action has to be useful" but tell me for whom it has to be useful and how conflicts of interests are resolved etc.
What do you mean start over? I never left square one. If you have nothing to object to what I just said, then there is nothing to discuss. Because all that you seek is a part what I just have given you.
What if... That doesn't matter the ability to get away with something does not negate the morality of the action. It just make you a clever cheater. Regardless, society and those you exploit will still suffer from your actions. This only places importance of improving the ability to catch cheaters. This does not negate morality or anything so far put forth.
lol, FGB keeps calling you out on your unjustified premises, i.e. your rhetoric (you just keep begging the question). Please tell me why alleviating suffering is moral? Or why not paying your taxes is immoral? What if the majority of the money you pay in taxes goes to the military where it is used to instigate fear and terror? Is it still immoral to not pay your taxes? And please don't conflate morality with pragmatism, or present a false dichotomy and obfuscate...
Your understanding is piss poor if you have to strawman and misquote what I said. FGB was accusing me of being inconsistent because I was "disrespecting" the Nazi own moral prerogatives. I was merely point out how absurd that was because it is the Nazi that are the ones excluding everyone else's moral prerogatives. I deny it because it does precisely that.
Imbecile, I did not quote you. Nor did I imply that I was, or say so explicitly. I was not strawmanning you.
Again, show me why it is "immoral" or "wrong" for the Nazis to kill jews.
Read some Hume, fucktard, and don't act like you know anything about logic. Your entire set of morals is predicated on a fallacy that should be elementary to most moral theorists. lulz.
"Go fuck yourself.. If you are not going to act civil then don't bother."
Don't you enjoy the self contradicting nature of this comment? lol. You are the one that started with name calling. How about you address my argument and stop begging the question.
I did say you shouldn't curse? No. I believe it was you that started the name calling. If this is going to devolve into nothing but a flame war, then forget it. I got better things to do.
'Again, show me why it is "immoral" or "wrong" for the Nazis to kill jews.'
It wasn't, it was perfectly okay at the time in the minds of those who both carried it out and those who profited
I once thought it was WRONG of me (when I was a teenager) to source instruments for my band and then SELL the excess at a profit to other band members I don't now think that is immoral!
Since I run a business now I no longer consider what I done immoral or wrong.
Maybe "immoral" is a vague word. But killing people either way is just wrong, everyone has a life, just put yourself in the perspective of the Jew, getting killed just because you're a Jew is definitely injustice. But humans are still unjust creatures because we kill other animals for our benefits, so it is impossible to be a perfect human being, but that's why we set limits with our conscience mind (this ability is what led humans to become the dominant species).
LOL, hardly. You understand what I am saying no better FGB did. He wasn't calling me out, he just kept asking the same questions because he did not understand the answer given to him. If he did, then he would deal directly with the answer rather than just to repeat a question.
The assumption that one question made, that is was logically possible to increase suffering and be moral. If you say that you weren't asserting anything with that question, then clearly it is non-nonsensical. Anything that reduces suffering is moral by definition. Now there maybe situations where this might conflict with something, but those scenarios are hardly what we will see in everyday life or even in your lifetime.
But what is killing jews based on? An arbitrary grouping of people. Something that I already pointed out. Not only is there a piratical reason to apply equally to everyone, there is also empathic reasons because you recognize thoughts and feelings of others as similar to your own, and also there has yet to be shown a method that is consistent and meaningful for making arbitrary groupings.
Asking why alleviating suffering is moral is like asking, "why must a rational argument contain no logical fallacies?" You cannot have a rational argument with logical fallacies anymore than you can a moral action that increases suffering.
Incongruent analogy and begging the question. I could easily say "causing suffering is moral." How would I be wrong? How did you find out that it is immoral to increase suffering?
No, you cannot. If so then rational arguments don't need worry about logical fallacies. It called a definition! That is the very goal of morality. If you don't agree with goal, then that is an other matter completely. But you rather conflate the two together.
If you are going to nit pick this much on whether or not it is the goal of morality is to reduce suffering, then it obvious all you want to do is obfuscate the matter. Then again if you didn't it would become obvious why Nazis killing Jews is wrong. If you don't agree on reducing suffering or maintaining the overall health of society and individual rights, then I don't see much reason to continue the discussion. Until you answer, I cannot properly answer your questions.
"antybu86 oddly murdering your family does have a 'limit' many people have in fact murdered their family and not because they were mad. In history the wealthy were often poisoned by agents of their family for inheritance.
Essentially it 'depends' on the benefit achieved over the damage to the group. Nobody would kill off their father the 'king' if they knew they were poor at wars...when their father had proven he was a military genius! especially if the neighboring kingdom was sabre rattling!
lol... are you suggesting that German commanders who were born in 1885... were actually BORN nazi's ... and then ceased to be Nazi's after the war... does that not strike you as a little simplistic... and also incredulous... not to mention patently incorrect!
I think the point is...even human morals DO NOT always work for 'good or bad' they are just there... a common facility for a comunal creature to act in a comminit fashion.
After all didn't most american decide that the 'french' were simply wrong for claiming that Iraq 'might not' have WMD and that diplomacy was best!
To the point where America damaged its own trade with the EU... later it was found the french were right!
So the MORAL action taken by indiciduals in the US...was BAD not GOOD!
why would the muslims come for me? we have no problems between us. i just pointed out how much of a retarded ass you are by calling me a coward; simple. can you grasp that basic notion? or are you too much of an idiot? i also mentioned several comments ago why your premise is ridiculous, if i can't explain evolution to a creationist i lost? how dumb, creationists fail to understand on purpose, to piss us off. so go suck a dick
good video but have to disagree with you in regard to the lizards at least. The evolution of such complex 'morality', this behaviour can be more easily explained using game tactics and the evolution of a stable tactic. If one lizard bit or used the claws, there would be a high likely hood the opponent could do likewise before it died.
But subscribed due to the strength of the vids :-)
school teachers are the bravest people on earth then, idiot. why don't we send 10000 of them to irak they would wipe out all terrorists. HAHAHAHAHA YOU fail, buddy.
me trying to explain something to you would be automatic fail because you're retarded; you would win because i'd be talking to a brick wall basically. i do not intend to fail, no cowardice involved, no bravery comes out of an explanation anyway so you're a dipshit
coward? how so. if you wanted you could read a fucking book imbecile and educate yourself; it's not my job to do it. why would you want me to try to explain? so you can cover your ears and say LALALALALA i can't hear anything? i know what creationists are like, never have they had any intention to grab the knowledge that people offer to them
coward? hardly; what do you think i am afraid of? i just don't see the point of wasting my time; it would be like explaining general relativity to a moth
that was a great video, people these days are getting way to caught up in stupid things, they dont think for themselve, they like ppl to tell them wat to do, they always go by whats stated not by what you know has to be done. Religion plays a key role in everything, altho i do belong to the christian faith im not like others. i always do whats right, not whats stated. Dont just take things in, question them, ask y thats so, think for yourself, dont b a tool
Very good. This is a point that creationists get away with far too lightly most of the time, when they claim that the default behaviour of animals is to fight to the death leaving the 'fittest to survive'.
To believe this is to completely misunderstand the reality of life, as your video well explains.
you creationists should watch a video called "Logic Is Never The Answer" by username: h8uall66 to understand why your attempts at debate are simply worthless
Not only is animal morality the origin of our morality, but as far as I know, animals don't commit genocide, or murder for absolutely no reason at all.
If human beings are special, it's only because we do those things, and wonder why shouldn't, animals do it perfectly fine on instinct.
superhamzah85 6 months ago
These animals are not acting moral, all they're doing is letting their instincts take over. Human beings see their behavior as moral because mankind is a moral agent. Animals on the other had are not moral agents. It's through human eyes that it seems.
EndOfNumbers 7 months ago
thank you, antybu! these videos are very helpful and easy to understand. i appreciate them a lot.
WowThisWasntTaken 1 year ago
Even as an agnostic one might ponder the possibilites of either side of the issue presenting anything of veracity on either side of the arguement. I'll keep looking &hoping that something somewhere will show us yet another sign of why we ended up here in the 1st place. If god exists then logically we are a harvest by some celestial beings, otherwise we are a creature of chance with an oppurtunity to live the unexplainable. Enjoy life,luv thy neighbor &help save the world from islam
hombrelubinero 1 year ago
Take that you moronic Ayn Randians.
dLimboStick 1 year ago
god is unnatural an abomination everything is of natural beginnings i say
FreeeeS 1 year ago
I've always had this opinion, simply by watching humans but thanks for actually grounding my thesis.
LiBlub1 1 year ago
Great video and rather inspiring as well.
LJonYT 1 year ago
Brilliant!! Could not have said it better myself.
DelusionalJ 1 year ago
14 douches have seen this video ... so far
XD
aNdYmAtTeR 1 year ago
Natural morality? Tell that to the millions upon millions of people who died in the communist/athiest takeovers in the 20th century. Those takeovers were particularly bloody because of the lack of any empathy that comes from faith in Christ. When an army lacks belief, expect more brutality and killing because you have to rely on man's "natural morality."
economicsworld 1 year ago
@economicsworld You mean stalin and pol pot? That had to do with communism not atheism.
Now explain the crusades, witch hunts, inquisition, hitler and all the other attrocities carried out in the name of *insert god here*
auroradamien 1 year ago
@auroradamien Hitler's beliefs were chaotic, Wiki it. All of those other things that are measurable add up to maybe 2-4 million. Don't forget Mao Zadong. So in all around 100 million people died in communist revolutions. As long as you don't get caught, anything goes in athiesm. If you don't believe in God why not try to get away with whatever you can? As Pol Pot said to his victims, it doesn't matter if you live or die and he killed millions.
economicsworld 1 year ago
@economicsworld Hitler used religion to try to accomplish his goals of starting a new religion. Yes communism is pretty bad but to blame it on atheism is misguided. Believing in god does not make a person moral, We have laws in place to keep me from infringing on other peoples rights, everyone has the right to live, eat, have things etc I have enough respect for life not to mess with other peoples. If god is the only reason you're not killing people seek help.
auroradamien 1 year ago
@auroradamien Hitler's religious views were chaotic, he relied on brute force. Communism is actually a very socially conscious idea so the idea that it's responsible for millions of deaths is ridiculous. Practicing Christians commit few crimes, a result of the fundamental morality of Christianity. I'm glad we don't have to rely on your respect for a safe society. The end result of athiesm is an ends justifies the means mentality and is a large reason why we have a secular justice system.
economicsworld 1 year ago
@economicsworld Not really he believed in god, and thought the current churches were wrong. Hmm give me one example of communism succeeding. The fundamental morality of christianity? Lmao, stoning your wife, kids, and neighbors, raping virgins, rampant murder, slavery, and unequal rights are the morals of the bible. I have yet to read a more disgusting book than the bible.
auroradamien 1 year ago
@economicsworld
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth!, was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
rkyeun 1 year ago
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily
rkyeun 1 year ago
grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom
rkyeun 1 year ago
today this poor people are plundered and exploited." -- Adolf Hitler, Practicing Christian Acting In Accordance With The Will Of Jesus As Demonstrated By The Bible, April 12, 1922.
I sure am glad he didn't commit any crimes as a result of his Christian morality.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@economicsworld I don't know how chaotic Hitlers beliefs were, he didn't like traditional Christianity because Christ was a Jew, so he made his own religion, Positive Christianity. Communist regimes are more akin to religion than atheism, just the deity becomes the head of state instead of some god. If you believe in an eternal afterlife then everything that happens in this lifetime is pointless, if you think that this is the one shot at existence you get, then life is FAR more precious.
Pokarot 1 year ago
@economicsworld Your twisting of historical facts in order to fit your bigotry and prejudices is repugnant.
And, ironically, very far from moral.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
WHERE DO WE GET OUR MORALITY FROM?
NATURE.
billygundum 1 year ago
william lane craig needs to see this. it completely refutes his argument for morality.
HaveFaithInScience 1 year ago 15
@HaveFaithInScience William Lane Craig isn't concerned with having his arguments refuted.
antybu86 1 year ago 29
@antybu86 To be fair though, William Lane Craig isn't concerned with anything that anyone says, he's just that blind.
omegaheartless 1 year ago 3
@antybu86
Nature is pure war with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep the peace, so man is civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.
Religion and morality belongs to the realm of false causes. Religion and morality is a psychology of error.
"Morality" is rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill nope. morality has function for communal species and these species are succesfull. that is only criteria if trait is good or bad. so morality seemes to be naturaly pooping up. religion on the other hand is unfortunate side effect of our tendency to make falce possitives and our ignorance of the natural world.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
@gooddarkjedi
"Morality" is rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Nature has no morality. Nature does not need human permission. Nature does not care. Nature is the only eternal victor. Nature kills everything...
Religion and morality belongs to the realm of false causes. Religion and morality is a psychology of error.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@antybu86 Craig argues about objective moral foundation, obligation, and the relativistic implications of naturalism; your video doesn't refute those.
With naturalism, an action is moral because it sustains a segment of life, which presumes that sustaining life is a "neutral" law of universal function, leaving an act ONLY immoral in that it's against such a reason.
With naturalism, one must wonder whether it a flaw of humanity to associate 'moral' with 'good' and any emotion, and not 'sound.'
poprockssuck87 7 months ago
@poprockssuck87 "With naturalism, an action is moral because it sustains a segment of life" - this is not at all true. There are *many* different ideas about naturalistic morality - various versions of consequentialism, some deontology, virtue ethics, etc. The sort of species-subjectivism you seem to be talking about is only one view (and not even a very popular view at that).
antybu86 7 months ago
@antybu86 In naturalism and with those ethical theories, the underlying factor in determining the morality of an act by its consequence or duty, or the character of an agent, etc. is the perspective of evolving beings that inherently "favor" that which sustains life with respect to themselves on a number of social levels.
So yes, with naturalism, an action is ultimately moral because it sustains a segment of life (not on a moral case study basis, but with the foundation of the analysis itself.)
poprockssuck87 7 months ago
@poprockssuck87 Again, that's not at all true. Nobody argues that you should accept those ethical systems because they best sustains human life. For example, virtue ethicists usually say that certain virtues are simply inherently good - and if the entire human race should go extinct following a virtue, then that would still be the moral thing to do. Now, I think that particular ethical system is incorrect, but I think it shows how your point is flawed.
antybu86 7 months ago
@antybu86 Your hypothetical of an extinction of the entire human race raises two issues:
Either the same point of sustaining life could be said of any beings--human or not--with whom the morality of an action was being considered, or a moral foundation exists in naturalism in which morality must be akin to the "laws of nature" or the existence of metaphysical concepts (Platonic forms, truths, numbers, etc.), meaning that there's no ultimate obligation and that it's still ultimately relativistic.
poprockssuck87 7 months ago
@antybu86 On the contrary, that's one of the premises of the moral argument for God; that objective morals do exist. The question however is if objective morals could exist in the absence of God.
And by objective, what is meant is that these morals would be true even if nobody believed them to be true. ie. Even if everyone thought rape was good, it would still be wrong. The fact that rape is wrong is absolute.
Satarack 2 months ago
@poprockssuck87 Now this is just hillarious.
You say that naturalistic morality is relative and, in the same breath, say what its goal and standard(s) is.
I suggest you make up your mind.
d007ization 2 months ago
@d007ization Firstly, to say that contradictions could exist in what I feel to be the wrong/illogical assessment of reality is not impossible.
Secondly, naturalism is based on the "natural" (godless) forming of all things, human behavior and morality included. So in order for such a system to exist, it must be sustaining. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a fundamental mechanism keeping the whole thing going, but that it (falling dominoes) can't be a foundation for morality.
poprockssuck87 1 month ago
@poprockssuck87 You fail to demonstrate this.
d007ization 1 month ago
This doesn't even address the moral argument. For some reason atheists are not able to understand it. If you could take the time to focus for a moment, try to understand the argument.
If god does not exist then objective morality does not exist.
In other words a serial killer is just a "misunderstood" person? Not a psychotic murderer?
Is prison a punishment or rehabilitation? Is there a such thing as bad behavior? How can we blame anyone for their bad behavior?
Laws are obsolete to atheists
knowwaie 7 months ago
@knowwaie Technically yes, a serial killer is a bad person from the perspectives of most normal human beings, but he isn't objectively bad. I mean who are you, or any person to talk about what is objectively good?
shiya3 3 months ago
@knowwaie Actually it is creationists who are not able to understand, there is no such thing as objective morality, it is always arbitrary. The reason why serial killers are put into jail is, because we don't want them to be around us (we don't want them to kill us), not because your imaginary friend ordered us to lock them up.
Laws are necessary to outline the rules of society, so people don't have to live in constant fear. We don't need a god to know that causing harm is not a nice thing to do
lanthasmj 3 months ago
No... you've actually just shown your misunderstanding of the issue. Granted 'creationists' don't understand the the difference in language, nor do most of the people today.
The word morality itself is one of your subjective words. Justice is the "objective morality". Is justice an imaginary idea?
No.. We don't lock up serial killers, we execute them. But you don't agree with this justice do you? Because they haven't really done anything 'unjust'. Or you might call 'immoral'.
knowwaie 3 months ago
@knowwaie This video should make it a bit clearer:
/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
lanthasmj 3 months ago
Right, it does. It clearly states the misconception.
Morality itself is self justification. Look at the difference between these two words. Morality is a man made idea of personal values. What is moral is determined by my personal preferences. When you understand the difference between subjective and objective language it's clearly seen in the difference between the words Justice and morality. Justice is the object. Morality is our attitude toward the object. Does morality negate justice?
knowwaie 3 months ago
@knowwaie I'm sorry but that's so wrong. The things that do not exist are concepts like "good" and "evil" because there are reasons for our behaviour and we aren't at fault for our mental disorders or trauma.
But we still have to maintain society to continoue living. Laws that do that aren't obsolete but may still be questioned or improved.
d007ization 2 months ago
Exactly. "evil" or wrong behavior is justified..
Let me ask you this. Are prisons intended as punishment or rehabilitation?.. If we choose not to execute punishment for capital crimes then do we just keep piling prisoners into cells? Or should we just release them back into the world? Did you hear about all the sex offenders we've released already? That is ridiculous idea that you are supporting. You've just said yourself, rapists have a reason for their behavior. Which is now justified.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie I dunno. We need to do what's best for society...
Demonizing people was wrong even before God became redundant in justice systems. Just because an action has reason doesen't justify it. It depends on the reason
d007ization 1 month ago
@HaveFaithInScience William Lane Craig is intellectually dishonest. He's not remotely interested with logic and evidence.
petion2010 5 months ago 2
@petion2010 After shooting him a few questions via email from his website, I have since realized that
HaveFaithInScience 4 months ago
@petion2010 Oh he is. He preys on the unknown and uses (often untestable) arguments that support his claim.
d007ization 2 months ago
Dude, you're the man Anty. Fav'd
maverik713 1 year ago
Behold! The one Commandment! "Don't be a douche"
haloboz 1 year ago
lol @ animals being altruistic
i have no morals, and im a happy son of a bitch
dudemanamedud 1 year ago
Evolution is not actually that complex at heart. It basically is summed up by
'whatever survives best, reproduces best'
If that happens to be social behaviour (which can give an advantage.) then that is is selected for, and social animals develop.
I disagree that humans have an aversion to murder though. What humans have is a strong tendency towards hierarchy and thus obedience. If the authority tells not to murder, humans obey. If it says to murder humans obey that too.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
Just look at the milgram experiment. Or history for that matter.
You don't kill your own guys, of your own tribe, country, group etc.. But people kill OTHERS very easily, provided whatever is in charge gives them permission to do so.
That's why there are all these wars.
If humans really hated murdering eachother wars would be very rare. But instead they are extremely common in human history as well as today.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
Besides this whole morality question....
Fact is by fundies perspectives we ARE immoral. Not because we don't have morals, but because we don't share THEIR morals/bigotry.
We can't win with fundies. My attitude towards them as such is 'fuck 'em.' Why try and be friends with them, their a bunch of backwards troglodytic bigots. If they stop being dicks, then I'll consider it. Till then, screw 'em all.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
Of course, I don't expect a creationist to undestand this because we cant even agree on what environment we are in. It's not a big deal, the humans who alter their behavior due to false beliefs will not be as effective as those who make more accurate assumptions of reality and you all won't exist in a thousand years. Since that may take while, our job is to stop you from misbehaving and negatively effecting others: aka 9/11.
We are one team of 6.7 billion and some teammates dont know the game!
hafriken2 2 years ago
Look at this:
All of the beaded lizards that behaved with lethal violence were more likely to die than those who used nonlethal means of dispute.
Since we are humans beings we can reason it out and say "does this behavior make me more likely to fail?" The understanding of interdependence, balance, and harmony on an evolutionary scale lead to the deepest moral behaviors.
hafriken2 2 years ago
Oh come on! using just one brain cell you can see natural morality exists. Violent examples like that of lions exist yes but thats because the best biological form doesnt always arise, as in the case of the human eye and its retina. This video is to show how morality has naturally arisen and how we evolved intelligence and must now use it to find out what is moral behavior based on consensus definitions of what we are and what our environment is.
hafriken2 2 years ago
However regardless ... all animals show elements of activities 'WE' label 'moral' ... including as you pointed out the not so nice ones... the 'us and them' morality that is evoked when resources run low... whereas this is detrimental to the individual it is not detrimental to the group or species!
Morality is certainly not specifically 'good'... and there is no reason it would need to be... its a process... with no mind!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
I'd even go so far as to state that the idea of 'immorality' is in fact an oxymoron... for we apply it to those who exercise 'morals' just not the ones we perceive as being 'good'... animals that were truly 'immoral' would have no morals... neither good or bad... the word 'immoral' should be deleted from the dictionary since the word 'morals' covers both!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
I agree for the most part. However there must be a label. In the absence of a 'moral' capability (even if ts a mixture of other traits) communal animals would simply not survive long enough to reproduce.
The video needs only show a single example of non human morality to debunk the idea that other animals have NO morality. I agree it's a subjective term and like all traits we have created a label!
He didn't show the opposite that is true! but didn't need to!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@squirrelrides BTW...there needs only be ONE example to show morality is not a human only trait!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@squirrelrides Can you name animals which DON'T have morality... off you go... be my guest!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Just wait until one of those Mexican lizards accidentally bites and kills the other. There's a game changer, females and territory galore!
trekgeek1 2 years ago
@trekgeek1 Not sure I'd have the time to wait for that... they've been around a long time.... but I'd be pretty sure it has happened... after all whats the odds of one of them not falling onto a rock, being in a fight when a tree falls... etc...
The game however still seems to have the same rules.
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Agreed, the comment was made in jest.
trekgeek1 2 years ago
Are you sure the lizards were settling a dispute? It is quite obvious they were cuddling, antybu86! (not being serious)
TearsOfWar1 2 years ago
Let the Tigers all be TIGERS and the people all be PEOPLE ! Grrrrrrrrrrrowl purrrr purrrrr !
Tigression 2 years ago
awsome video! this shows how all animals have a sence of moraility and its not just "gods gift to humans"
conrad4ever 2 years ago
More people should view this video. This greatly discredits Creationalism and promotes Common Sense..
Ty for uploading this antybu86.
afterhumanity333 2 years ago
I saw a recent PBS NOVA about Bonobos. Compared to Chimpanzees, violence is almost unknown in Bonobo society, and frequent "casual" sex is the norm. The funniest bit was when different troops meet -- Males initially square off and display at each other, while the females from *both* troops get together, share food and groom each other. Eventually the males get bored with it all and just join the females. Maybe we're more closely related to them than to chimps. :-)
papafox 2 years ago
Not sure about wild horses, deer, bears, tigers, etc. and how much they fight and under what circumstances. Do you have a book recommendation or documentary you can point to?
As for dogs, that's a bad example because the ones used in fighting are intentionally bred for violence and extremely inbred, at that.
antybu86 2 years ago
antybu86,
Please familiarize yourself with the naturalistic fallacy, because that is precisely what you have committed. What exists in nature, is, just that, what exists in nature. Moral values can't be derived from nature. FatGermanBastard has been trying to illustrate this, though unsuccessfully, due to TheAtheistPaladin's inability to see that he (TheAtheistPaladin) is just begging the question with each one of his replies.
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
I don't see myself committing that fallacy - I'm not saying whatever is natural is also good, not at all. Rather, I'm simply showing how a basis for morality may be advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, so that our morals (to an extent) can be explained by evolution.
antybu86 2 years ago 9
The fallacy does not entail one saying "whatever is natural is also is good." Rather, it would be one taking natural behavior, or behavior found in nature, as for some sort of foundation or source for morality, which is the premise of this video. There may be altruistic behavior found in nature, but it does not follow that the behavior is "moral." Taking much as so would be fallacious reasoning.
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
Okay...please explain 'moral behavior'
The dictionary has it like this...
adjective
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
Seems you might have another definition there? are you willing to share it with the rest of us?
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@antybu86
Ok there is a question I need to ask you. You know there is this clover that makes cows impotent when they eat it. The point of this is to make cows reproduce less. Less cows = Good times for clover. But of course the clover that is eaten does not benefit from it. You could say the clover sacrifices itself for the group.
Now my question: Would you say that clover has "morals" or "moral values" ? Or is "morality" just the wrong word here ?
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
(1/2) @FatGermanBastard Sounds like an interesting clover. But to answer your question...
The way people use the word 'moral' almost always has to do with an initiative or will. If somebody accidentally does something nice, then we probably wouldn't call that a moral action. So plants, which can't intend to do anything, we probably wouldn't call it "morality." But I think that's just a problem of language.
However, your example pretty much demonstrates the same thing that occurs in animals...
antybu86 1 year ago 5
(2/2) ...where one organism can help the colony (and it's own offspring) by self-sacrifice - whether it be intentionally or unwittingly.
In animals, however, this sort of altruism is generally built in to the brain; we can either have an impulse to help a person or have an impulse to walk away. Although, we are generally unaware that these impulses are usually there to help our genes get passed along.
antybu86 1 year ago 4
@FatGermanBastard damn. thats an amazing defense mechanism. thanks for sharing.
youngice604 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard
The basic claim is that "morals" have naturally evolved. And "evolved" in terms of the Theory of evolution through natural selection. And evolution benefits the SPECIES, not the individuals. So self-sacrificial "morality" is, too, "natural".
I don't know if I'm putting it clear enough... :-(
grozde 9 months ago
@antybu86 He's wrong, there's no fallacy here. If we as humans (who exist in and have been shaped by nature) have thought up concepts like morals and values, then these moral values must be derived from nature. Indeed, all examples of moral values have been created by humans evolving through nature.
phocjame 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@antybu86
Your morals, your code is a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. You're only as good as the world allows you to be... They'll show you, when the chips are down, these civilized people, they'll eat each other...
You see, I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve. You have all these rules and you think they'll save you. The only way sensible way to live in this world is without rules...
I already told you, I'm not here to save anybody... I'm an agent of chaos...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
"What exists in nature, is, just that, what exists in nature. " well that's true... and humans certainly exist in nature!
Moral values are intrinsically linked to reproduction, gathering of food, communal activity in fact the more communal an organism is the more of these morals are observed!
Its pretty hard to be immoral on a desert island alone!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brainpoIice2 Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support any particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That explains a lot.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@brainpoIice2 morality comes from groups that have agreed to sertant prisiples. and there semes to be only natural world. so yeah. morality is natural.
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
What I don't understand is: How do you get from "cooperation is beneficial for the group" to "You should cooperate even if you don't give a shit about the group".
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
The answer is in the word itself - cooperation. When you cooperate with another person or group, they cooperate with you. There is mutual benefit there.
antybu86 2 years ago
Ok but when a manufacturer of Zyclone B and the Nazis do business then they cooperate and there is a mutual benefit as well. I just don't see what morality has to do with this.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
You're mixing up two moral propositions: (1) business cooperation and (2) genocide.
With the business co-operation, it is mutually beneficial (and you could even say "moral") for each party to deal with each other honestly. With genocide, killing off a whole portion of the population is clearly non-beneficial.
antybu86 2 years ago
Non beneficial to whom ? By what standard ? And why would the Nazis care about that ?
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Genocide is obviously non-beneficial to the group being killed, but it is also counter-productive to the society for not only getting rid of people who could benefit society, but also undermining the relationships of potential allies.
So, the point of this video, which you might be missing, is that these judgments, to an extent, are built-in features of our brains.
antybu86 2 years ago
Yeah but it is beneficial to the group that wants to get rid of this portion of society. So by what standard do you decide who's interest are of higher priority ? And again why should the nazis bother ? Killing is built into the nazis' brains just as much...
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
That moral system is not consistent. Those being "outside" your group is an arbitrary distinction. Therefore for any moral system to be effective it must have an universal application to all individuals. To neglect such a thing is to only end up undermining society as a whole.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Well yes exactly. Those being outside your group - such as "the nazis" - is an arbitrary distinction. Thanks for refuting yourself. You just did the job for me !
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you are not really here to learn but rather to try to make a point. You asked what made the Nazi wrong, I told you. Nothing so far is inconsistent to what I have said nor undermines morality. The Nazi are wrong because of their arbitrary application(key word) of moral behavior. That does not allow for morality to be arbitrary. Again, the application must be universal.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Dude !! But when you say killing jews is wrong you are directly contradicting what you just wrote in this comment. Killing jews is not wrong from a nazi's perspective. You are discarding their perspective but you insist that it is not valid to discard other people's perspective. How can you not see the obvious contradiction ???
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
False, I never said such a thing. Why should perspectives be respected? And even if they should, then why am I wrong? The Nazis ignore other peoples perspectives a thousand time more than I ever could. My system would benefit everyone! The Nazis only benefit a narrowly defined arbitrary group. And yet... I AM WRONG?!? Absurd!
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
But what is the standard by which you tell that a group's/the majority's interests are more important than that of a group ?
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
You must have been a dog your previous life because it seems you like chasing your tail. Again, it is about maximizing individual freedom balanced by benefit of all. What you proposed was a loss of freedom for many, and as well no actual benefit. Not forgetting the incredible lack of empathy that would need to take to do such a thing.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"ut what is the standard by which you tell that a group's/the majority's interests are more important than that of a group ? "
You are doing just that 'right now' ... you have an US and THEM mentality on this issue...
So although you have such...you are arguing you don't ... wow!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Could you please explain how this moral proposition is inconsistent?
"All jews should be killed."
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
If you cannot recognize everyone else's right to live, then what basis do you have to say it morally wrong for others to do so to you? Anything that you do to others is equally applicable to you. There is no way to escape it.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
On no basis. That's why I'm a moral nihilist. There is also no basis for everyone's "right" to live.
"Anything that you do to others is equally applicable to you."
(I am quoting you.)
Not so. I can show you a million reasons why this is not the case. But anyhow, you're beginning to conflate morality with pragmatism. "Everyone should not kill so they won't kill you." (I am not quoting you.)
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
Morality is not JUST being pragmatic, but it does have that quality to it. To ignore that is just stupid. If you don't recognize right to live, then go die! Don't waste my time.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
How did you find out we have this right to live? You are not even addressing my argument, you just keep going on as if you've justified these things. You did the same thing to FatGermanBastard, lulz.
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
Nature disagrees with you.... and as we all know (with the exception of fundie xtians) there is no bucking the natural world... it wins out every time!
You are right at one level though... morals may in fact not exist at all... since several other words suffice.. pragmatism is in fact one!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Well, clearly it wasn't very beneficial for the Nazis (they lost the war and are internationally hated).
Your question "why SHOULD they" is perhaps the wrong question. The question I'm trying to address is "why DO they." Now, given out advanced frontal lobes, we have an advantage in the ethics department - namely, that we can come up with systems of ethics that are more rational than what we are instinctively pone to.
However, I hope you wont contest that the majority of people (continued)
antybu86 2 years ago
(continued from above) are instinctively prone to certain behaviors (an aversion to murdering your family, would be an obvious example). The question is why are people like this? Is there an evolutionary explanation for this behavior? And the answer to that is a resounding, "yes."
antybu86 2 years ago
No ! What I don't get is how do you get from "FGB has an aversion to someone murdering his family" to -> "Murdering FGB's family is wrong" ?
I mean I would understand if you got to: "Murdering FGB's family is against FGB's interests"
"Murdering FGB's family may have negative legal consequences"
"Murdering FGB's family may have a negative impact on society"
But I don't see how you get from these conditional IS statements to the unconditional ought statement "Murdering FGB's family is wrong".
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
The very fact for you to have to have society to allow you to have this very conversation, and the comfortable life you live. This at the very least means you implicitly accept society as a laudable goal. Without morality society would not exist and immediately collapse.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
What if I find a way to exploit society in a way so that they will not notice and will still grant me all their benefits while not being aware of the fact that I am exploiting them. Let us also assume that I do not have any bad feelings about this and that the negative affect I have on society does not have enough of an impact to harm society in a way so that it would backfire at me. Think of an efficient strategy to evade taxes for example.
By what standard would that be morally wrong ?
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Hint: Again, it is about maximizing individual freedom balanced by benefit of all.
That is what makes morally wrong! When are you going to get this point?
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Ok...let's forget everything we just said and start all over:
What is your basis of morality ? What are the exact cirteria by which you determine if an action is morally right or wrong ? Please be specific. I.e. do not say "An action has to be useful" but tell me for whom it has to be useful and how conflicts of interests are resolved etc.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
What do you mean start over? I never left square one. If you have nothing to object to what I just said, then there is nothing to discuss. Because all that you seek is a part what I just have given you.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
What if... That doesn't matter the ability to get away with something does not negate the morality of the action. It just make you a clever cheater. Regardless, society and those you exploit will still suffer from your actions. This only places importance of improving the ability to catch cheaters. This does not negate morality or anything so far put forth.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
lol, FGB keeps calling you out on your unjustified premises, i.e. your rhetoric (you just keep begging the question). Please tell me why alleviating suffering is moral? Or why not paying your taxes is immoral? What if the majority of the money you pay in taxes goes to the military where it is used to instigate fear and terror? Is it still immoral to not pay your taxes? And please don't conflate morality with pragmatism, or present a false dichotomy and obfuscate...
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
Presenting a false "moral dichotomy":
"Well if you are saying it's not bad to kill people, you must be saying it's good! That's absurd!"
If something is not "bad", it does not follow that it must necsessarilly be "good."
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
Your understanding is piss poor if you have to strawman and misquote what I said. FGB was accusing me of being inconsistent because I was "disrespecting" the Nazi own moral prerogatives. I was merely point out how absurd that was because it is the Nazi that are the ones excluding everyone else's moral prerogatives. I deny it because it does precisely that.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Imbecile, I did not quote you. Nor did I imply that I was, or say so explicitly. I was not strawmanning you.
Again, show me why it is "immoral" or "wrong" for the Nazis to kill jews.
Read some Hume, fucktard, and don't act like you know anything about logic. Your entire set of morals is predicated on a fallacy that should be elementary to most moral theorists. lulz.
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
Go fuck yourself and the intellectual high horse you rode in on. If you are not going to act civil, then don't bother.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
"Go fuck yourself.. If you are not going to act civil then don't bother."
Don't you enjoy the self contradicting nature of this comment? lol. You are the one that started with name calling. How about you address my argument and stop begging the question.
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
I did say you shouldn't curse? No. I believe it was you that started the name calling. If this is going to devolve into nothing but a flame war, then forget it. I got better things to do.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
'Again, show me why it is "immoral" or "wrong" for the Nazis to kill jews.'
It wasn't, it was perfectly okay at the time in the minds of those who both carried it out and those who profited
I once thought it was WRONG of me (when I was a teenager) to source instruments for my band and then SELL the excess at a profit to other band members I don't now think that is immoral!
Since I run a business now I no longer consider what I done immoral or wrong.
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@MumblingMickey
Maybe "immoral" is a vague word. But killing people either way is just wrong, everyone has a life, just put yourself in the perspective of the Jew, getting killed just because you're a Jew is definitely injustice. But humans are still unjust creatures because we kill other animals for our benefits, so it is impossible to be a perfect human being, but that's why we set limits with our conscience mind (this ability is what led humans to become the dominant species).
princetrunks06 2 years ago
LOL, hardly. You understand what I am saying no better FGB did. He wasn't calling me out, he just kept asking the same questions because he did not understand the answer given to him. If he did, then he would deal directly with the answer rather than just to repeat a question.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
No, he kept asking questions because you just kept begging them, lol.
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
No, you fail. Now repeating an assertion doesn't make it true.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
I am not repeating assertions. I am asking questions, LMAO!
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
Questions that make their own asserts. Which is ironic because it you that keep accusing me of begging the question. Project much?
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Questions inquire. They don't assert. Do you know what an assertion is? Do you know why it warrants a question?
Begging the question? Show one of my questions loaded with a positive premise. No, you are the only person projecting here.
You have yet to demonstrate how the moral prescription, "All jews should be killed," is illogical or inconsistent.
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
The assumption that one question made, that is was logically possible to increase suffering and be moral. If you say that you weren't asserting anything with that question, then clearly it is non-nonsensical. Anything that reduces suffering is moral by definition. Now there maybe situations where this might conflict with something, but those scenarios are hardly what we will see in everyday life or even in your lifetime.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
But what is killing jews based on? An arbitrary grouping of people. Something that I already pointed out. Not only is there a piratical reason to apply equally to everyone, there is also empathic reasons because you recognize thoughts and feelings of others as similar to your own, and also there has yet to be shown a method that is consistent and meaningful for making arbitrary groupings.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Asking why alleviating suffering is moral is like asking, "why must a rational argument contain no logical fallacies?" You cannot have a rational argument with logical fallacies anymore than you can a moral action that increases suffering.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Incongruent analogy and begging the question. I could easily say "causing suffering is moral." How would I be wrong? How did you find out that it is immoral to increase suffering?
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
No, you cannot. If so then rational arguments don't need worry about logical fallacies. It called a definition! That is the very goal of morality. If you don't agree with goal, then that is an other matter completely. But you rather conflate the two together.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
Where did you find out that this is the definition of morality?
Comparing values (morals) to permutations (logic) is not analogous at all.
Address my argument. Stop saying "poopie butt."
brainpoIice2 2 years ago
If you are going to nit pick this much on whether or not it is the goal of morality is to reduce suffering, then it obvious all you want to do is obfuscate the matter. Then again if you didn't it would become obvious why Nazis killing Jews is wrong. If you don't agree on reducing suffering or maintaining the overall health of society and individual rights, then I don't see much reason to continue the discussion. Until you answer, I cannot properly answer your questions.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
"antybu86 oddly murdering your family does have a 'limit' many people have in fact murdered their family and not because they were mad. In history the wealthy were often poisoned by agents of their family for inheritance.
Essentially it 'depends' on the benefit achieved over the damage to the group. Nobody would kill off their father the 'king' if they knew they were poor at wars...when their father had proven he was a military genius! especially if the neighboring kingdom was sabre rattling!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
lol... are you suggesting that German commanders who were born in 1885... were actually BORN nazi's ... and then ceased to be Nazi's after the war... does that not strike you as a little simplistic... and also incredulous... not to mention patently incorrect!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
I think the point is...even human morals DO NOT always work for 'good or bad' they are just there... a common facility for a comunal creature to act in a comminit fashion.
After all didn't most american decide that the 'french' were simply wrong for claiming that Iraq 'might not' have WMD and that diplomacy was best!
To the point where America damaged its own trade with the EU... later it was found the french were right!
So the MORAL action taken by indiciduals in the US...was BAD not GOOD!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Mutual aid FTW!
PoisonToothG 2 years ago
Very cool video!
XorGate0110 2 years ago
Spartan eugenics also benefited the Spartan militaristic society to use your logic.
leostomicek 2 years ago
Fantastic work! Thanks for sharing this ;)
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
Thanks for the great examples and lead to 'In Cold Blood'. I'll get it on Netflix. Thanks again.
ogrimdoombringer 2 years ago
@Fable3isshit
why would the muslims come for me? we have no problems between us. i just pointed out how much of a retarded ass you are by calling me a coward; simple. can you grasp that basic notion? or are you too much of an idiot? i also mentioned several comments ago why your premise is ridiculous, if i can't explain evolution to a creationist i lost? how dumb, creationists fail to understand on purpose, to piss us off. so go suck a dick
mazdaplz 2 years ago
Very good points and very good video. I was right to subscribe to you. I didn't know those things about animals, so there's another plus.
PluralOfEverything 2 years ago
Very well done - 5 stars & fav'd.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
hi anty,
good video but have to disagree with you in regard to the lizards at least. The evolution of such complex 'morality', this behaviour can be more easily explained using game tactics and the evolution of a stable tactic. If one lizard bit or used the claws, there would be a high likely hood the opponent could do likewise before it died.
But subscribed due to the strength of the vids :-)
Cade57 2 years ago
@Fable3isshit
school teachers are the bravest people on earth then, idiot. why don't we send 10000 of them to irak they would wipe out all terrorists. HAHAHAHAHA YOU fail, buddy.
mazdaplz 2 years ago
@Fable3isshit
me trying to explain something to you would be automatic fail because you're retarded; you would win because i'd be talking to a brick wall basically. i do not intend to fail, no cowardice involved, no bravery comes out of an explanation anyway so you're a dipshit
mazdaplz 2 years ago
@Fable3isshit
coward? how so. if you wanted you could read a fucking book imbecile and educate yourself; it's not my job to do it. why would you want me to try to explain? so you can cover your ears and say LALALALALA i can't hear anything? i know what creationists are like, never have they had any intention to grab the knowledge that people offer to them
mazdaplz 2 years ago
coward? hardly; what do you think i am afraid of? i just don't see the point of wasting my time; it would be like explaining general relativity to a moth
mazdaplz 2 years ago
Great video found this guy from
C0ct0pus Prime definitly worth it and not only did I rate this vid 5 star I subscribed great job keep up the good work.
kamidmen08 2 years ago
Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (Princeton Science Library)
ISBN-10: 0691141290
AtheistCitizen 2 years ago
Yes. Yes you DO.
johnnyphoenix74 2 years ago
this is a really good video, thx i favorite it. Good job and research man, i totally agree
skinnywhop87 2 years ago
that was a great video, people these days are getting way to caught up in stupid things, they dont think for themselve, they like ppl to tell them wat to do, they always go by whats stated not by what you know has to be done. Religion plays a key role in everything, altho i do belong to the christian faith im not like others. i always do whats right, not whats stated. Dont just take things in, question them, ask y thats so, think for yourself, dont b a tool
sprx25 2 years ago
Very good. This is a point that creationists get away with far too lightly most of the time, when they claim that the default behaviour of animals is to fight to the death leaving the 'fittest to survive'.
To believe this is to completely misunderstand the reality of life, as your video well explains.
cartbeforehorse 2 years ago
Your example with FPSs hit the nail right on the head
MachonyLeeoun 2 years ago
I can explain evolution to you, if you want...
johnnyphoenix74 2 years ago
you creationists should watch a video called "Logic Is Never The Answer" by username: h8uall66 to understand why your attempts at debate are simply worthless
mazdaplz 2 years ago