I think that you have made the point that there is no absolute morality. There is a biological basis for morality, the adaptive value of altruistic behavior. Thanks for your opinions.
Al, could you please explain the following quote this video:
"Moral relativism in its extreme, stereotypical sense is a cop out. Saying something is either tolerable or intoleratable based on the what the local culture is or what the current century is is the just simple hypocracy."
My friend responded by saying:
"How is moral relativism a hypocrisy? What is backing this claim? It's just a denial of objective morality and it seems to be pretty consistent with that belief."
Why is it hypocritical to say something is either tolerable or intoleratable based on the what the local culture is or what the current century? Is that not what moral relativism is by definition?
The disbelief of God is not a believe system. i don't believe in Rambo. Is that a religion. It's like saying anything one knows or thinks is fiction is in it's self a belief system. Wow I have so many religions. It's so sad that some people cannot think around religion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So, Albert, there are no absolute absolutes! So if you go into a shop and purchase an item costing 60 cents, and give the shopkeeeper a dollar, and he gives you only 10 cents change, you could have no moral objection to that? After all, his belief that that there are 70 cents in the dollar is just as valid as your belief that there are 100 cents. Neither can be 'absolutely' correct!
Truth is absolute, regardless of what you or I or anyone else or even "critical reasoning" say it is!
life is full of circumstances death penalty is murder & war. murder is defined as to kill intentionally and with premeditation. when people go in2 war they know theyll kill people, they have stratiges they are trained to kill, euthanasia is the same as suicide a person decides to end their life it is premeditated, abortion:ending the life of fetus who has the right to say they can end a life, how would you define that! accidental murder is still murder. its not simpliflying to state the obvious.
You do have a belief because you believe there is no God! how do you think you were created. having a belief in a God does not mean we have 2 prove we are good people or that others are wrong and we are right! u said shouldnt believe that murder is worng do you believe that it is relative, i think murder is murder. life is full of absolutes, lying, stealing, murder and many others are wrong not because God says it but because it is wrong thats why we have a concious, and these thing hurt people.
walry008: But life is also full of circumstances that you have to take into consideration. Murder is wrong. But what about the following: self-defense, the death penalty, war, eating meat, euthanasia, putting pets to sleep, abortion, accidental murder, murder committed by children.
It is oversimplifying to put ALL these things in the same category, but this what people who say "morality is absolute" are often actually doing.
@Albert10110 The Christian bible says murder is wrong not that killing people is wrong. Murder is the illegal killing of innocents. You are welcome to criticize the bible, it's big enough to face criticism but if you are going to attack it, then please get simple facts right.
BTW, how do you know that we can't know anything absolutely? And do you know that absolutely? Atheist morality hinges on evolution which by definition cannot be absolute. That means you have no reason to correct theists.
@Canbuhay "atheist morality hinges on evolution" No, morals come from family, friends, the way we were raised, and among other things. "The bible says murder is wrong" Well,, but also says to kill homo's and atheists by stoning. Do not eat any sea food without scales and that it's ok to fuck your wife's sister. Oh and incest is the best way to go. Oh and if you rape a woman you can buy her. Don't forget it also tells us how much slaves are worth. What would we do without it!?
"One would need to know about the future and how each life pans out to make a truly utilitarian decision if utilitarianism is even the right way to go. Thus, I am a little hesitant of my stance against moral relativism.
Any thoughts?"
I think you cannot possibly make a moral decision in that scenario, and it most likely is not what is ment by 'moral relativism'.
gods are bible pulled crap to make you belive that you are weak and uncapable of making your own choice in life. its ironic cause thats exactly what most scientific belive. that they develop sience to make us better,stronger. the only thing they don't realize is the are giving an advantage to the enemy of mankind. ironic,lol.
Awesome video. And on a point that I have argued many times with many people - as have all atheists I am sure. I argue for the relativity of and the collaborative, collectivist nature of morality. Our morals are taught while young, imparted by parents and honed by society. In this manner, they are the concensus of our society on how members should act.
Your take is refreshing and nicely put and has caused me to press that yellow button in the description bar marked "Subscribe". Thanks! :)
such a saucy video! my names Ashley, kinda feelin bored if any1 wants to join me on cam or wana chat i will be signed on at __ FriendlyFlirts(.COM) __ my user ID there is Ashley_yppbrhd chat soon xx its FR33 to j0in! mwah
Great stuff. I've pointed this out to theists many times in the past. The theist's assertion that their morality is objective is simply a fiction.
All moral decisions are subjective, but the theist's are based on arbitrary dogma, while the rationalist's are based on reason and evidence. Which system is better? Which system is moral?
you started out talking about how atheists are moral, yet you somehow turned the response into a complete attack on religion... instead of outlining your own view of morality and ethics
I'm normally against moral relativism but here's a plausible scenario:
Say you have to make a choice between saving your wife/son and saving 5 young students.
I think it's tough - even given perfect information to make a reasonable choice.
One would need to know about the future and how each life pans out to make a truly utilitarian decision if utilitarianism is even the right way to go. Thus, I am a little hesitant of my stance against moral relativism.
The idea that theists get their morals and beliefs the same way everyone else does. The only different is that theists can then tout their religion as a source of validation, when really they are just choosing a set of morals they already believed in to an extent.
The lunacy is that they have to accept all that comes with that religion (6-day creation, world floods, etc.). Is sense of entitlement that many religions share warranted, if they go through the motions the way we all do?
whenever i think of something strongly, i purposely think the exact opposite, and im perfectly fine with being proved wrong.
moral example
women being fully covered and wearing veils all the time. hmm, that seems bad, but imagine they see us, here in america. "hit me baby one more time" oh geez....
I'm not really assuming. I have this debate many times and have yet to encounter a satisfactory explanation. If you think you have one, then by all means. Lets hear it.
This is a really great video, and I think that it eloguently points out a major flaw in the idea of absolute morality that not only the bible but many (or most. or maybe even all.) religions seem to tout. Again, great video, I really enjoyed it.
Jesus also abrogated a lot of the Levitical Laws of Moses such as the eye for an eye and to choose love and forgivness where at all possible. The law also teaches about taking Oaths and Swaring by things but Jesus says to not even do this but speak the truth always.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Atheist end up being short sighted by focusing soooooooo much on the mindless thinking behind belief in religon .Thinking that the only god people believe or the only spirituality they have is religious. that they miss out on the BIGGER picture.
I'm a big fan of your vids Albert, keep up the good work. Just a small point - the sound quality makes it hard to hear what you are saying. This is a new problem, whatever you did before was fine :-)
I stand corrected on one thing: there IS such a thing as "moral realism" and "moral fictionalism". But I also confirmed that you are indeed talking about moral relativism and moral absolutism. You borrowing terms from some article you just read is not going to change that (the differences between realism and absolutism are, as far as I could find out, subtle at best).
Hey, I just listen all your videos today, and I must say I am very impressed with them! Great job!! I will try to send people to you for atheist apoligestics!!
If you want to use logic then consider the following:
-What is the greater risk? Do you know what is after death? What if there is a God, then you will suffer the consequence for not believing. Otherwise if there isn't a God then nothing will happen but still you lived a life of good moral. However, God is real because Jesus and his miracles existed here on Earth. Research your history. Believe friend, there is no harm or risk in submitting to real love. Follow Jesus.
-What if there is a god different from the one you chose, then you will suffer the consequences for not believing AND for believing a false god.
If we accept moral order derives from gods, there is no guarantee that the moral order from false gods results in a "life of good moral". God belief is not sufficient to make moral choices.
Instead posit that "good morals" is something derivable from given conditions? God belief is not necessary to make moral choices.
Combine the fact that god belief is neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure moral behaviour and atrocities such as the crusades or Holocaust become clear: ideological belief exploited to bypass moral thought leading to immoral action. Do this wrong thing because God says it's a good thing.
Alternatively, a lapse of faith in the absence of a robust habit of making thoughtfully considered moral choices leads to the mistaken idea that, without a god, murder/rape/etc become acceptable acts.
-The first one is irrelevant because it can be applied to anything. If you believe this, what if you don't believe that etc. It applies to you even so I don't see your arguement because if you don't believe in God then you can be wrong vice versa. But for example there is one life, one planet, one sun. For sure there is only one God and it not only takes faith to beleive but strength, wisdom, and compassion. And I dont doubt Jesus because he was a real person who died and ressurrected.
Moral order doesn't derive from God because as humans living in this life we are given free will to do whatever we want. therefore it is by our own effort to believe and follow God. i believe this is the meaning of life, that life is a test in this way. and believing in God IS sufficient to make moral choices because you are doing something for a reason whether to obey, rejoice, praise, etc. So I don't know what you are trying to confuse again.
"and believing in God IS sufficient to make moral choices because you are doing something for a reason"
But the reasons may themselves be immoral, or the means to reach an end may be immoral. So no, believing in God is so obviously NOT sufficient to make moral choices. You are still going to follow the moral compass you have developed whether you believe in God or not. "I believe in God" does NOT give even the slightest hint on whether you will act morally or no.
and for your 3rd part to consider... how is believing in God not necessary? life is not permanent. what you do in this life effects and carries on after this life. ultimately morals do follow upon God's will as good moral or otherwise sin can follow on the opposite extreme. Good morals doesnt derive from given conditions because Ive come acrcoss many people who believe in God despite if they were poor or rich.
"Good morals doesnt derive from given conditions because Ive come acrcoss many people who believe in God despite if they were poor or rich."
So what if they are Christian? What has that got to do with whether they are moral or not? The KKK is Protestant, the Cosa Nostra is Catholic... a philantropist here is Christian, a thief and murderer there is Christian. "Christian" says absolutely nothing about a person's morals.
You mean pascals wager? Its bunk. Basically your projecting from a cultural centric paradigm and dis-including arbitrarily a plethora of other "Gods" and their rule sets, of which allow for people to be just good people and don't care about petty things like allegiance or "sides". In fact the rules vary greatly so much that your false dichotomy of the situation becomes laughable in the onslaught of new considerations 50/50 isn't even close to the truth sorry.
and since you are relying on faith/chance in this way don't you think it takes more faith and chance to believe that life just came about out of nothing? evolution is any process of formation or growth; development. but in order for evolution to process it had to have had a beginning, a source. evolution didn't come about by itself and for sure it hasn't existed forever. I believe God used evolution as a part of the creation process. it makes much sense than attacking religion instead. God Bless
I take it your replying to binary numbers guys, I would responded but I just got through with a long one to someone else and your questions are ever so trite, willfully ingnorant, and rarely take the entire picture of possibilities into consideration rather just the most self-appealing ones.
"don't you think it takes more faith and chance to believe that life just came about out of nothing?"
Actually, YOU are the one who believes we came from "nothing", as that is what God made everything from. Personally, I do not believe "nothing" has ever existed. And I believe no "god" has ever existed. Except those pronounced by various cultures, such as the Romans and their emperors. But that's getting into semantics.
"What if there is a God, then you will suffer the consequence for not believing."
Only if disbelief is punished for some reason. What if there is a god, and he favours the scientific method? Then atheists go to heaven, and you, as a theist, are in deep trouble.
"However, God is real because Jesus and his miracles existed here on Earth."
So it says in your books. There are other books which say different things. The Bible is no more evidence of miracles than LOTR is for elves.
scientifically such content may be true but to replace God with any of it is deceiving you know why?
look it up even in the dictionary ===>
SCIENCE = STUDY OF THINGS (not the CREATION OF THINGS)
GOD IS THE UNIVERSAL ARCHITECT AND GOD PRECEEDS HUMAN CONCIOUSNESS B/C WHO CREATED THE BIG BANG? WHO CREATED THE THING BEFORE THE BIG BANG? ALL THINGS THAT ARE RELEVANT AND EXISTING TO HUMANS CAN NEVER COMPREHEND THE POWER OF GOD BECAUSE IT IS GOD WHO IS THE CREATOR OF ALL!
The inflationary stage of the early universe does not represent a moment of creation. It represents a shift in state. Since the state shift brought about things like the current behaviour of time as we understand it "before the big bang" is meaningless.
You might ask "What caused the state shift to inflationary expansion?" in which case you're asking a coherent question. Generically, higher-dimensional collisions provide the energy and motivation for the state shift.
DO YOU REALIZE THAT USING ALL CAPITALS DOES NOT ADD CREDIBILITY TO YOUR ARGUMENT BUT MERELY MAKES IT MORE UNREADABLE? I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS BELIEF BUT IF YOU DO NOT PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENT IN AN APPROACHABLE FORMAT, IT ONLY HIGHLIGHTS THAT PERHAPS IT IS YOUR EMOTIONAL FACULTY GETTING THE BEST OF YOUR LOGICAL FACULTY.
Certainly you can use capitals SOMETIMES for emphasis, but an entire paragraph makes it look like you don't know how to turn off the caps lock.
the way that I typed is really irrelevant to the topic at hand. what is being said matters man. but anyways it goes both ways... i may not be able to prove absolutely the existence of God but neither can you prove that God doesn't exist... what evidence do you have that supernatural God(s) don't exist? so in this point it brings you on faith/chance in believing either regardless which side you believe in.
and I understand you are passionate about philosophy and all but this subject of matter doesn't hold power over God and doesn't explain everything, you don't get anwers to everything. life has existed among humans for about half a million years still among all the philosophers and scientist who claim this and that have no comparable proof for the meaning of life in relation to Christianity which history proves Jesus existed as well as his death and ressurrection.
"history proves Jesus existed as well as his death and ressurrection."
No it doesn't, it really does not. There are sufficient written sources to assume that the existence of a fellow named Jesus really existed, but there is nothing to suggest the numerous claims surrounding this figure are remotely accurate.
Why is it so difficult to say we don't know? Life is not a series of absolutes, and that's ok. I'm agnostic. I don't believe in abortion but it's not my place to regulate everyone else. I believe that innocent people have received the death penalty. I believe there is good and bad in all people. There is no "god" as religions have defined him. There is nothing keeping the world from a major catastrophe but the Bible teaches this will not happen. We now know it's happened several times.
At least you are consistent: Focus on a fringe group and cut them to pieces. Why don't you take on the British Anglican Bishop who doubted the existence of Christ? Is religion a good or a bad in society? How can you tell? Can you define yourself in a context other than an anti-religious one?Atheism is a non-proactive term relative to theism. Define your own world, minus theists.
Haerton: Fringe group? The reason I created this video is because this "absolute morality" argument is the most frequent one I get from theists. But I'll try to answer your other questions.
Do you think it's fair to denounce me for not devoting time to make a video about some arbitrary and nameless bishop?
Religion as good/bad is complicated, I can't go into it in under 500 chars. This is why I mostly focus on the issue of, "Is religion true or not true?"
Maybe you just run into the wrong theists. I know the kind you talk of do exist but I still think they are on the fringe; I don't know many;I only know the relative kind. I don't really think I was denouncing you and I just cannot remember the guy's name. As regards true, why must it be either/or? Can it not be true but tell truths?
"I know the kind you talk of do exist but I still think they are on the fringe"
It is possible (and personally, I think likely) that the Pareto principle applies: 20% of the population accounts for 80% of the noise. Even if the group in question is a minority, however, they are not a fringe group, because their arguments are the ones heard the loudest. Not within a small circle of acquaintances, but in society in general.
Yes, but just because someone makes a lot of noise does not mean the person has to be taken seriously. As Albert grew up in Houston, I think, and lives in the US, he has the born-again fundamentalists in his face. Also, I did not mean just 'acquaintances'.
"Yes, but just because someone makes a lot of noise does not mean the person has to be taken seriously."
Actually, yes it does. Not in the sense that their opinion is more valid because it is loud, but in the sense that trivializing them would be a mistake. The fact that they appear so prominent precludes them from being a "fringe minority", no matter what their actual numbers are.
The sad thing is that almost no religious people will see this and have it affect their lives in any way, or even make them think about their own religious views. They just hear criticism of their way of life and say "Too bad that guy is going to hell."
I don't need god to tell me not to do bad deeds. I understand the golden rule that is "do NOt do onto others what you would not like to have done onto you".
I'm capable of feeling compasion symphathy and emphathy without being in a religious frame of mind.
I realize that taking pauses to think before acting is an effective way to get myself out of trouble or from causing other people trouble. And this is where my morality stems from. My own conscious understanding of things.
Hey, wait a minute! I'm an atheist, but I love my kids and my wife. Why is that? "God" didn't tell me to--in fact, the bible-god told me to leave them, give away all my stuff (which is most of what supports them) and follow him. But since I lack that kind of morality, I've stuck around and given my family love, attention, food, money, stuff, etc. You never know what an atheist is capable of, Al! BTW, if hell is real, I hope you go there--so I can keep watching your video's! ;^}
1) Theists don't view atheists as moral relativists, they view atheists as immoral or amoral. In order to be considered moral; subjectively, objectively, relatively or otherwise, the metaphysical skepticism (which is inherent to athiesm) must be rationalized first.
2) Theists dont regard themselves as absolutists, as much they regard themselves as moral 'realists'. They are forceful towards atheists, not because they want to convey that morality is fixed, but rather that it is true and real
"In order to be considered moral; subjectively, objectively, relatively or otherwise, the metaphysical skepticism (which is inherent to athiesm) must be rationalized first."
Why?
"not because they want to convey that morality is fixed, but rather that it is true and real"
1) Because there is as much evidence for morality as there is for god. When certain atheists claim they dont believe in god, but still prescribe to morality, they are being logically inconsistent. If you dont believe in god/devil as a matter of metaphysical skepticism, then you shouldnt believe in right/wrong by the same principle.
2) They arent saying that athiests morality sucks because its different from their own; it sucks because its based on absolutely nothing and atheists have no reason to believe in morality of any kind. So in arguing for atheists morality, youre not going to argue why morality is X, Y, or Z,, youre arguing why morality is 1 while god is 0. Once atheists prove that they can logically believe in morality (and not god), then they can argue whether morality is fixed or variable or whatever.
"it sucks because its based on absolutely nothing"
How do you figure? I base my morality on my culture, on MY perception of right and wrong, as has been taught to me over the years. Everybody does the exact same thing, whether they believe in God or not (if they believe in a god, they inevitably fashion him according to their opinion as to how God should be). The rest of your comment was barely intelligible.
"If you dont believe in god/devil as a matter of metaphysical skepticism, then you shouldnt believe in right/wrong by the same principle."
Why on earth not? Right and wrong are concepts, independent of any belieft in deities. It is in our nature to define "right" and "wrong", because these are vital concept to a functioning society. The same is seen in other social animals as well. I really don't see how "GOD" fits in anywhere, and even if there was one, I don't see why his opinion counts.
My comments were perfectly clear. Your morality is based on nothing, whether you recognize it or not. You get your 'morals' from society/culture, who get their morals from where?? the individuals who compose those societies/cultures; who inturn get their morals from where? Society/cultre, etc. an endless recession with no source of moral knowledge ever given.
Like you, my parents/culture/society try to tell me what is moral;; however they also tell me that god exists. Just because they say something is true, doesnt make it so. I expect proofs before I deem any such claims to be valid. Just because someone tells you that murder is wrong, or just because its helpful to society that we believe murder is wrong, doesnt mean that murder is wrong.
Believing that Santa Claus is watching you and believing in heaven/hell can also be helpful to society, but its not rational to believe in those things just because they are helpful.
For the sake of making this a very short arguement, let me just ask you 1 simple question and if you can answer this question validly, i'll concede the arguement. What quality does the notion of morality have, which the notion of god lacks, that affords it less skepticism? Million dollar question....
"What quality does the notion of morality have, which the notion of god lacks, that affords it less skepticism?"
'Does God exist?' is a question for which the answer is factual. Yes, God exists, or no, he doesn't, are statements concerning the tangible universe. Morality, however, is a concept, a label we have constructed to define 'correct' or 'incorrect' behaviour. What is or is not moral, however, is not a factual matter, but a subjective one, much like beauty.
"I expect proofs before I deem any such claims to be valid."
What has that got to do with morality? Morality is about MORAL truths, not cold FACTS. Moral truths are subjective. Facts are objective. There is no way you can have "proof" or even "evidence" to support a given set of morals.
And what makes murder wrong is precisely the fact that society denounces it. Nothing more. All notions of "right" or "wrong" are purely subjective. To wit: people have different morals.
"You get your 'morals' from society/culture, who get their morals from where??"
Society forms morals. Morals is not something tangible that you "find" someplace, but something that groups can't help but form. In a nutshell, morals evolve to accomodate the majority opinion (do you really think, for example, Christian morals today are the same as Christian morals 100 years ago?).
What youre describing is 'expressivism'; the position that moral statements hold no truth value and that they only reflect personal attitudes/preferences (like statements on beauty). As such, its not a 'realists' morality which you are prescribing to, its a purely fictionalized version, which has no basis in the real world and is exactly why theists/nihilists/moral skeptics are critical of moral atheists.
Your morality is not subjective; your attitudes/preferences are subjective and you are just using moral language to convey your preferences, in a dishonest manner. Instead of saying "X is beautiful", an honest person says who recognizes that beauty is not a real concept, will say "i like how X looks". Following this, instead of saying "Murder is wrong", the honest person will say "I dislike murder, however right/wrong are not real concepts in themselves"
And this all goes back to what I was saying before; this is not a debate between 'objective morality vs. subjective morality'; its a debate between 'realists morality vs. fictionalists morality'.
No one cares if atheists have objective, subjective, or whatever types of morality if they are meaningless statements about personal preference.
"its a debate between 'realists morality vs. fictionalists morality'."
Inventing terms does not make you look more intelligent. This IS a debate between objective vs. subjective morality (you are just trying to describe the exact same things using different names). Objective/subjective morality is not about how things SHOULD be, but about how things ARE.
"Instead of saying "X is beautiful", an honest person says who recognizes that beauty is not a real concept, will say "i like how X looks"."
And that is exactly what I am doing. You will never hear me say that "X is wrong, period". I will say that I DISAPPROVE of X, that *I* think X is wrong. Be so kind as to point out any dishonesty on my part.
How is it fictionalized? Beauty exists, beauty is real, but it is subjective. Moral exists, moral is real, but it is subjective. There is no objective set of morals to adhere to, even if there is a God - because then you have to justify why HIS opinion should carry weight. Is it because he has the power to punish us? Well, so does the state, and it doesn't make the morals any more objective.
1) I didnt invent those terms buddy. For homework, go look up 'moral realism', 'moral fictionalism', and 'moral skepticism'...and understand what you are debating first.
2) Saying "I think X is wrong" is dishonest for two reasons. First, because you dont actually think anything about X; what you are thinking about is yourself and your personal distate for X. The statement X thinks Y is Z, is dishonest when it actually means X thinks X dislikes Y. Two entirely different ideas...
To check this for yourself, write this logical equation down "she thinks cheating is wrong = she thinks cheating is wrong" and substitute 'X thinks Y is Z' on 1 side, and 'X thinks X dislikes Y' on the other side, and solve for Z(hint: impossible
Secondly the statement is dishonest in that it uses moral language to convey amoral preferences/ideas. If instead of saying "I dont like pepsi" I were to say "i think pepsi is morally wrong" it would be completely ridiculous and unwarranted to do so
Theres as much reason to believe that your attitudes towards murder reflect a valid source of morality, as there is to believe my tastes in soda reflects a valid source of morality.
3)'Fictionalism' doesnt imply that certain things are fake. It simply means that the statements made regarding those things are not truth apt,, or in your words, they dont reflect facts about the state of being. This differs from subjectivism, in that the thing observed may actually have objective properties...
...and we simply cant convey them with factual statements. Take for example the color of the sky. You might see the sky as blue, I might see the sky as green. Does this mean that the color of the sky is subjective? No. The color may objectively be blue or green or neon orange or it may be colorless, for all we know. The problem theists have with atheists morality is not that its subjective (like our perception of color) but rather that it fictionalizes something they believe is real.
Imagine if someone referred to something you considered real (like evolution) in a fictionalized manner. If someone said that people evolved from monkeys, and when you questioned them about it, it turns out they are not making a factual, truth apt statement about people,monkeys. They were just using scientific language in describing ascientific ideas they have that people are monkey-like. And then they try to justify their statements by saying evolution is subjective... thats fictionalism
"And then they try to justify their statements by saying evolution is subjective... thats fictionalism"
You really should use better examples (ie., with some root in reality). Evolution is not subjective. Evolutionary THEORY is subjective to a degree (as evidence needs to be interpreted, and all interpretation is by definition subjective), but evolution itself is not. And I sincerely do hope you don't believe that evolution says we come from MONKEYS.
"You might see the sky as blue, I might see the sky as green."
No, you may not. There is not sufficient yellow in order to make the sky appear green. Now, we may disagree about hues that are similar, and you may be colour-blind, so we may have different perceptions of that particular colour. However, colour can be objectively measured - morals cannot. Colour is perceived by our senses - morals are not. So there really is no basis for comparison.
"Theres as much reason to believe that your attitudes towards murder reflect a valid source of morality, as there is to believe my tastes in soda reflects a valid source of morality."
What rot. Morality has to do with what one ought or ought not do, whereas one's taste in soda bears no resemblance to this. Soda is unhealthy, and THIS may have moral implications, but the actual TASTE of the soda is irrelevant.
"This differs from subjectivism, in that the thing observed may actually have objective properties"
The objective properties of morality has to do with its purpose and origin, nothing more. These things are irrelevant to the discussion. The actual moral rules are purely subjective, hence they are SUBJECTIVE, not objective, morals. What you are doing is most amusing: you stubbornly say I am wrong, and provide an explanation that does not contradict me at all.
Your pitiful attempt at mathematics further makes no sense, because "thinks" and "is" are not mathematical symbols. Well, actually, "is" is the same as =. So what you just wrote is X Ø Y = Z = X Ø Y = Z, where Ø is an illegal symbol. What is "thinks", is it +, -, x, / ? In other words, you are spouting pure gibberish.
But you are using them to describe objective/subjective morals.
"Saying "I think X is wrong" is dishonest for two reasons."
The first reason doesn't make any sense. I simply fail to see the dishonesty there. The second reason is just being picky about semantics - you are reaching in order to find a reason to call me dishonest. Now, THAT is dishonest.
The whole concept of fictionalism went right over your head.
In the fictionalists view, if I say "the sky is made of cotton candy" i'm not wrong; because i'm not making a truth apt statement. The face value of statements like pepsi is evil, the sky is pink, humans evolved from monkeys, etc. are not to be judged on face value because they are not factual, truth apt statements. What is actually meant by "X thinks Y is Z" is that "X likes/dislikes the notion of Y";;
What is meant by "the sky is made of cotton candy" is that "I like fluffy clouds in the sky" That is what fictionalism is...get it? If the ideas exist, the words conveying those ideas dont matter, because all youre really saying is "i have an idea" period...
You happen to unknowingly prescribe to 'moral fictionalism' aka 'expressivism'; whereby you believe that moral statements hold no truth value and morals only exist as a matter of your own personal feelings/attitudes (aka personal preferences). When you make a declarative statement like 'i think murder is wrong' what you really mean is 'personally i'm not a fan of murder' thats all it means...
"You happen to unknowingly prescribe to 'moral fictionalism' aka 'expressivism';"
I think it is YOU who are using terms, being ignorant of their meaning. There is no such thing as "moral fictionalism". It's called moral RELATIVISM. And no one is saying morals don't hold TRUTH. But they do not hold FACTS. To quote Indiana Jones, "if it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
"When you make a declarative statement like 'i think murder is wrong' what you really mean is 'personally i'm not a fan of murder' thats all it means..."
Exactly. And this much is obvious to a child, so where do you get off calling me dishonest for the way I phrased myself?
This sort of moral fictionalism puts you at odds with moral realists, who actually believe 'i think murder is wrong' means 'i think murder is wrong' and its not some fictionalized wordplay. And it also puts you at odds with 'the universe of discource' (look it up) where logic dictates that you have to mean what you say. If there is a different context (ie, if 'murder is wrong', simply mean 'i dislike murder') it must be stipulated within said statement.
If a statement in is false at face value, then it is false period. Unless you explicitly say "I think murder is wrong... and by wrong I mean its not actually wrong or possess any real moral qualities, but rather I have a personal distaste for the act and am conveying it using moral language"...then you are being illogical or flat out dishonest.
Just because youve never heard of a term, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Do some research before you dig your hole even further. Relativism is not the same as fictionalism. Relativists may genuinely believe that what societies says morality is, is true and factual(realists);; Fictionalists know that what society, individuals say is not truth-apt or factual. Its just a useful artificial concept to them, like new years resolutions...
i'll make 1 last attempt to explain this arguement of realism vs. fictionalism using civil law. If you genuinely believe that the laws governing your state are legitimate; whether they come from a monarch, whether they come from demoncratic process or the 'general will', or whether they are based on some notion of an objective god....if you genuinely believe those laws are legit then you are a realist...
If you think those laws are purely artificial, BS constructs, but you still think its a good idea to have them and follow them for whatever reason (fuctionality) then you are a fictionalist. If you dont think theres adequate reason to think they are real or false, you are a skeptic. There ya go....i'm done. Game over man, game over
"If you think those laws are purely artificial, BS constructs, but you still think its a good idea to have them and follow them for whatever reason (fuctionality) then you are a fictionalist."
Preposterous rubbish. First of all, if you think laws are BS constructs, you are an anarchist. Secondly, a relativist sees all morals (and consequently, laws) as legitimate if they find favour in society. They are also artificial (though natural) constructs.
"Relativists may genuinely believe that what societies says morality is, is true and factual(realists)"
No no no no no. Moral ABSOLUTISTS believe that. Moral RELATIVISTS (hint: it's in the name) believe there is no such thing as objective morality; that all right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder. Absolutists often accuse relativists of nihilism, but this is a gross misinterpretation.
"then you are being illogical or flat out dishonest."
Utter nonsense. That's not how language works. "I think X is wrong" is simply a colloquialism for "I disapprove of X". It is not "think" as in "believe", but "think" as in "prefer". From the context, this is commonly understood.
"at odds with moral realists, who actually believe 'i think murder is wrong' means 'i think murder is wrong' and its not some fictionalized wordplay."
The problem here is that your fictional term "moral realists" (correct term: moral absolutists) do NOT think like that. If, for example, they believe X is right, and I believe X is wrong, they will interpret "I believe X is wrong" as "I disapprove of X" - but they will think me objectively wrong.
1) Anarchism refers to the rulers, not the rules. Regardless, I was purposely being broad in my analogy so that you could hopefully finally understand realism v. fictionalism.
2) Relativism only rejects universal truths, not necessarily relative truths (hint thats what relative refers to). You can believe that particular societies have real knowledge that others dont.
For ex. if someone from mexico says its hot today and someone from canada says its cold today; the relativist can accept that both these statements are true and factual. Extending this to morality, a relativist can believe that its not wrong for Abraham Lincoln to have said that the white man was superior, but if our president said that today a relativist could say he was wrong, and wouldnt excuse him on the basis that morality is through the 'eye of the beholder'...
..thats called relative absolutism and its actually what this video ^ is about.
3) There are customs that are recognized as being fictional BS but people still speak as though they are real, meaningful things because they are viewed as 'useful fiction'. For ex. we speak to kids about santa claus because it might entertain and get them to behave. We speak about new years resolutions as though its a real contract, hoping it might motivate us...
Likewise, we can speak about morality in a real way, not because we believe theres anything valid about it, but just cause its a useful fictional idea. Instead of explaining to kids the complex moral arguements and letting them decide whether they have a preference for murder or rape or whatever; its easier if society as a whole just pretends that murder and rape are wrong, regardless of preference...
and thats what i'm accusing the moral atheists of doing. Pretending, to themselves and eachother, that the preference they have are real moral convictions, that are as meaningful as anyone else claiming to be moral. Thats why an atheist would identify themselves in first place right? If they recognized that their morality was just preference, then theres no need to declare to they are moral people, because its a meaningless statement; everyone has preference...
monkeys have a preference to throw feces, does that mean they are moral too???
4) Morality is only understood to mean preferences by fictionalists and meta-ethical scholars like myself :o) The vast, vast majority of people will take a moral statement at face value and honestly very few moral atheist will ever understand and admit that their morality merely ammounts to preferences.
If I ask an atheists cliaming to be moral point blank, if they just mean they have personal preference? No more valid then the preferences of murderer to murder, a rapist to rape, or monkey to throw crap... 99% of the time, they will not admit it; because they know the questions will only get worse from there...
"cant you change your preferences at any given moment? why is it meaningful to state your preferences outside of your head? If i killed you right now and i said i have a preference to do so, am i morally justified?" etc. etc.
5) Moral realism is distinctly different concept from absolutism. Realism means that if you say "X is wrong" you mean that "X itself is wrong" and not are not implying something else. Absolutism means that if "X is wrong" its always wrong under every circustamce. Its possible to believe X is always wrong (absolutism) and are simply saying that your preferences are always to dislike something, under any condition (ie, Will Smith movies are always wrong (and terrible)).
" 99% of the time, they will not admit it; because they know the questions will only get worse from there..."
Or because it's not true. I'm a Utilitarian. In short, I take my moral guidelines from the goal of maximizing benefit and minimizing suffering for the greatest number of people, basing such assessments as best I can on the information available to me. This doesn't always align with my personal preferences, but it's the closest system I've found to objective morality. No god required.
Let me ask you then, how do you know utilitarianism is the correct ethical system?? What proof is there that its not individualism, or collectivism, or hedonism, or objectivism, etc. etc. which is the correct system? Or how do you know that none of these systems is correct?? Because if you dont have adequate reasons, and you basically chose utilitarianism just because you like the idea more than others, you are doing so as a matter of personal preference; not justified belief.
At the risk of putting forth a tautology, utilitarianism is the only ethical system I've found that explicitly seeks to maximize benefit while minimizing harm on a system-wide scale. The other ethical frameworks you mention are certainly applicable in some circumstances, but run the risk of causing more harm overall than benefit. If that doesn't answer your question then I ask you how you define "good".
BTW, it isn't always my personal preference. When I have a full cart at the grocery store and am eager to get home, but the person behind me in the checkout line has only a few items, I let them go ahead of me because it's the most efficient course of action- the benefit they gain by not having to wait for me is greater than what I lose by waiting for them. It doesn't really center around "preference" as much as an informal cost/benefit calculation.
I understand that utilitarianism seeks to maximize pleasure, but that doesnt answer the question because you still need to explain why maximizing pleasure is morally correct?? How do you know that maximizing pain is not morally correct?? And how do you know that its neither moral or immoral to maximize pleasure/pain?? I dont know if you see where i'm going, but basically i'm 100% sure that you have no actual knowledge or reasons to believe in utilitarianism...
You just happen to prefer that society is nice to eachother, rather than being mean to eachother (like I prefer Pepsi over Sprite) and using a fictionalized philosphy to validate your ideas. Its like if I wrote a philosophy about Pepsi being morally good (Pepsi-tarianism) and used it to argue that I was being moral without God. It'd sound ridiculous wouldnt it? I'd get asked the same questions i've asked you; "what reasons to do you have to believe that Pepsitarianism is correct?" and so forth.
Theoretically, good is just the proper behavior of things. An example (in theory) is that a functioning heater is suppose to give heat. If a functioning heater gives cold air, then theres something incorrect about either the heater or its behavior. A moral implication is probably warranted in this hypothetical. However, when we switch from theory to practice, its nearly impossible to make any valid moral statements because of our limited knowledge...
If in practice, I were to say that a functioning heater is not behaving in the way that it ought to be, i'm prerequired to have absolute knowledge of the universe (which no human has). I must have knowledge of everything about physics and its anamolies of course. But I must also have knowledge of everything else in the universe and its behavior (even the metaphysical junk) in order to claim with any validity and honesty that the heater, or person, or whatever is no behaving as it should be...
In recognizing this limit to my knowledge I refrain from making any moral statements. I consider myself to be amoral, until such time that there is any valid reasons in support of morality; objective, subjective, utilitarian, or whatever kind.
And as far as your grocery store habits, you have a preference for efficiancy and being nice. You have no proofs that efficiancy and niceness are the way a human being ought to act, just the way that you'd like them to act. Thats a personal preference.
You claim 100% certainty about my knowledge (or lack thereof), and then claim to recognize the limits of your own knowledge? I smell hypocrisy.
Further, your entire argument seems to boil down to meaningless quibbling over definitions. You're right that we don't know everything, and are therefore subject to error, but one need not be omniscient to attempt to maximize benefit. This, by definition, is having "good intent."
Within the limits of my knowledge is a vast understanding of philosophy. I know meta-ethics like people know their ABCs. So yea, i'm pretty confident in saying that you dont have any valid moral knowledge/reasoning. I've debated this subject dozens of times and your position fits into 1 of the 2 standard moral atheist positions (the other being 'expressivism').
Its about more than just the meaning of a word. Its about honety, its about trust, its about justification vs. tyrrany. If someone who is supposedly a super moral person (ie, Gandhi, MLK, etc.) has is no more moral than someone who is supposedly incredibly immoral (hitler, bin laden), then its important that society recognizes this, and its important for individuals (especially atheists) to reconsider how they view the world and see how the world views them.
ps,, if youre going to make any more moral statements (maximizing benefits = good intenet) explain how you know that its correct.... and how you know the alternatives (minimizing benefits = good intent,, max/min. benefits is neither good nor bad intent)....thanks
Ah, so you're arrogant as well as hypocritical? I'm not impressed by your argument from authority. Being able to categorize my argument does not invalidate it.
Ultimately yes, you *can* boil everything down to "we don't really know anything about anything, and we could all be just watching moving pictures projected onto the wall of a cave." However, an infinite regress of "well how do you know?" is ultimately nihilistic and pointless.
I'm not arrogant, i'm confident. If you make a valid arguement for atheist morality on the basis of utilitarianism I promise I will make a video where I humbly retract all of my statements....
And its not an infinite regress. Its 1 simple question; which either you can answer or youre can't. You make it seem like an infinite regress when you dont actually answer the question i've asked and I have to restate it again.
I like your shirt
rroyer3 1 year ago
I think that you have made the point that there is no absolute morality. There is a biological basis for morality, the adaptive value of altruistic behavior. Thanks for your opinions.
gsco82 1 year ago
Al, could you please explain the following quote this video:
"Moral relativism in its extreme, stereotypical sense is a cop out. Saying something is either tolerable or intoleratable based on the what the local culture is or what the current century is is the just simple hypocracy."
My friend responded by saying:
"How is moral relativism a hypocrisy? What is backing this claim? It's just a denial of objective morality and it seems to be pretty consistent with that belief."
supravista 2 years ago
to rephrase the question posed to you
Why is it hypocritical to say something is either tolerable or intoleratable based on the what the local culture is or what the current century? Is that not what moral relativism is by definition?
supravista 2 years ago
Some of you are so stupid!
The disbelief of God is not a believe system. i don't believe in Rambo. Is that a religion. It's like saying anything one knows or thinks is fiction is in it's self a belief system. Wow I have so many religions. It's so sad that some people cannot think around religion.
jgammons007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So, Albert, there are no absolute absolutes! So if you go into a shop and purchase an item costing 60 cents, and give the shopkeeeper a dollar, and he gives you only 10 cents change, you could have no moral objection to that? After all, his belief that that there are 70 cents in the dollar is just as valid as your belief that there are 100 cents. Neither can be 'absolutely' correct!
Truth is absolute, regardless of what you or I or anyone else or even "critical reasoning" say it is!
BranchintheVine 2 years ago
You're a smart athiest. I respect your opinion. If you can speak to what your companions in disbelief do, would you answer my questions.
Why do athiest choose to tackle the dumbest creationist arguements from non scientific or philosophic opposition?
What is the point in lumping creationist philosophy with religious doctrine? Are you saying the two can not be mutually exclusive?
Why is it religion is the cause of malicious behaviour and not the imperfect evolving human condition?
Phantasmzero 2 years ago
life is full of circumstances death penalty is murder & war. murder is defined as to kill intentionally and with premeditation. when people go in2 war they know theyll kill people, they have stratiges they are trained to kill, euthanasia is the same as suicide a person decides to end their life it is premeditated, abortion:ending the life of fetus who has the right to say they can end a life, how would you define that! accidental murder is still murder. its not simpliflying to state the obvious.
walry008 2 years ago
You do have a belief because you believe there is no God! how do you think you were created. having a belief in a God does not mean we have 2 prove we are good people or that others are wrong and we are right! u said shouldnt believe that murder is worng do you believe that it is relative, i think murder is murder. life is full of absolutes, lying, stealing, murder and many others are wrong not because God says it but because it is wrong thats why we have a concious, and these thing hurt people.
walry008 2 years ago
walry008: But life is also full of circumstances that you have to take into consideration. Murder is wrong. But what about the following: self-defense, the death penalty, war, eating meat, euthanasia, putting pets to sleep, abortion, accidental murder, murder committed by children.
It is oversimplifying to put ALL these things in the same category, but this what people who say "morality is absolute" are often actually doing.
Albert10110 2 years ago
@Albert10110 The Christian bible says murder is wrong not that killing people is wrong. Murder is the illegal killing of innocents. You are welcome to criticize the bible, it's big enough to face criticism but if you are going to attack it, then please get simple facts right.
BTW, how do you know that we can't know anything absolutely? And do you know that absolutely? Atheist morality hinges on evolution which by definition cannot be absolute. That means you have no reason to correct theists.
Canbuhay 1 year ago
@Canbuhay "atheist morality hinges on evolution" No, morals come from family, friends, the way we were raised, and among other things. "The bible says murder is wrong" Well,, but also says to kill homo's and atheists by stoning. Do not eat any sea food without scales and that it's ok to fuck your wife's sister. Oh and incest is the best way to go. Oh and if you rape a woman you can buy her. Don't forget it also tells us how much slaves are worth. What would we do without it!?
TheFightingRebel 10 months ago
@walry008 Why do you spell like shit? why? Why can't your god make you spell properly?
kingbooforums 1 month ago
Do one on humanism...5*s
xXxtaytoxXx 2 years ago
do you believe in a supernatural power of evil?
thebestwillow 2 years ago
ok, totally irelevant but some things have to be said anyway!
i like ur shirt in this vid, and hope you have been told already by people that ur cute.
thebestwillow 2 years ago
"are you trying to test my convictions?
there's one part of me who would like it. and the other part would just like to hit you on the eyes with cold paintball bullets."
You kinda lost me on what you're saying there,
but in case you got me all wrong, I was being
incredibly sarcastic in my comment about the
kittens.
I do not actually shoot eyes out of kittens,
or any other benign creature for that matter.
So.. I would shoot them out of people
shooting them out of kittens, catch my drift ?
godverdegodverdomme 3 years ago
"One would need to know about the future and how each life pans out to make a truly utilitarian decision if utilitarianism is even the right way to go. Thus, I am a little hesitant of my stance against moral relativism.
Any thoughts?"
I think you cannot possibly make a moral decision in that scenario, and it most likely is not what is ment by 'moral relativism'.
I'm thinking along the lines of someone
doing 'evil' whilst believing it is an act
of good.
godverdegodverdomme 3 years ago
holy crap cow. listen very carefully.
gods are bible pulled crap to make you belive that you are weak and uncapable of making your own choice in life. its ironic cause thats exactly what most scientific belive. that they develop sience to make us better,stronger. the only thing they don't realize is the are giving an advantage to the enemy of mankind. ironic,lol.
monsterrun 3 years ago
i take offense to that, "I" eat babies!
melvann 3 years ago
Hmmmm... sounds like you've got it all figured out.
Used2bBlue 3 years ago
Wow love your shirt!
And amazing video as well
LEmusic145 3 years ago
"But I love stabbing kittens..."
Shooting their eyes out with an airgun
is more fun, you should try it !
godverdegodverdomme 3 years ago
are you trying to test my convictions?
there's one part of me who would like it. and the other part would just like to hit you on the eyes with cold paintball bullets.
but for those things. i don't even have to do it. i see it in my head.lol
i can even imagine a bulldog being sandwiched by 2 car doing a frontal colision. in attemp to save the dog life.
everybody dies. thats horrible.
that dog is a hellhound lol.
monsterrun 3 years ago
Awesome video. And on a point that I have argued many times with many people - as have all atheists I am sure. I argue for the relativity of and the collaborative, collectivist nature of morality. Our morals are taught while young, imparted by parents and honed by society. In this manner, they are the concensus of our society on how members should act.
Your take is refreshing and nicely put and has caused me to press that yellow button in the description bar marked "Subscribe". Thanks! :)
AzmodanKijur 3 years ago 3
But I love stabbing kittens...
shookings 3 years ago 2
It is not a sin (or wrong) to not believe in God.
It is not wrong to believe in God and religion.
I want to make humans and God radically independent to each other.
Israe5l 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
such a saucy video! my names Ashley, kinda feelin bored if any1 wants to join me on cam or wana chat i will be signed on at __ FriendlyFlirts(.COM) __ my user ID there is Ashley_yppbrhd chat soon xx its FR33 to j0in! mwah
muqeem 3 years ago
fived/subscribed
Great stuff. I've pointed this out to theists many times in the past. The theist's assertion that their morality is objective is simply a fiction.
All moral decisions are subjective, but the theist's are based on arbitrary dogma, while the rationalist's are based on reason and evidence. Which system is better? Which system is moral?
UnBeguiled 3 years ago
you started out talking about how atheists are moral, yet you somehow turned the response into a complete attack on religion... instead of outlining your own view of morality and ethics
sciencefailsoften 3 years ago
sciencefailsoften: Yes, I criticize religion's claim to an absolute morality that is asserts itself as beyond testable and true on faith.
I'm open to any counterargument you can present against anything I said in this video.
Albert10110 3 years ago
Atheist here:
I'm normally against moral relativism but here's a plausible scenario:
Say you have to make a choice between saving your wife/son and saving 5 young students.
I think it's tough - even given perfect information to make a reasonable choice.
One would need to know about the future and how each life pans out to make a truly utilitarian decision if utilitarianism is even the right way to go. Thus, I am a little hesitant of my stance against moral relativism.
Any thoughts?
rahdisas 3 years ago
The idea that theists get their morals and beliefs the same way everyone else does. The only different is that theists can then tout their religion as a source of validation, when really they are just choosing a set of morals they already believed in to an extent.
The lunacy is that they have to accept all that comes with that religion (6-day creation, world floods, etc.). Is sense of entitlement that many religions share warranted, if they go through the motions the way we all do?
InsanityManifest 3 years ago
whenever i think of something strongly, i purposely think the exact opposite, and im perfectly fine with being proved wrong.
moral example
women being fully covered and wearing veils all the time. hmm, that seems bad, but imagine they see us, here in america. "hit me baby one more time" oh geez....
grendelee 3 years ago
"It's either okay, horrible, or barbeque"
Hahahahahahaha. Hahaha. Hehe.
Flyborg 3 years ago
I'm not really assuming. I have this debate many times and have yet to encounter a satisfactory explanation. If you think you have one, then by all means. Lets hear it.
borntokill 3 years ago
Dude, Al, the sound is pretty jank so far... How far are you sitting from the mic?
HPDDJ 3 years ago
This is a really great video, and I think that it eloguently points out a major flaw in the idea of absolute morality that not only the bible but many (or most. or maybe even all.) religions seem to tout. Again, great video, I really enjoyed it.
thethinkler 3 years ago
Another good video, thanks Al.
DominoFalls 3 years ago
Jesus also abrogated a lot of the Levitical Laws of Moses such as the eye for an eye and to choose love and forgivness where at all possible. The law also teaches about taking Oaths and Swaring by things but Jesus says to not even do this but speak the truth always.
james48890743 3 years ago
Morality, is doing right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right! (Mencken)
danielnz1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Atheist end up being short sighted by focusing soooooooo much on the mindless thinking behind belief in religon .Thinking that the only god people believe or the only spirituality they have is religious. that they miss out on the BIGGER picture.
cheytown41187 3 years ago
cheytown41187: Could you explain what you mean by "the BIGGER picture", specifically?
Albert10110 3 years ago
Luv the content, great delivery! Keep it coming.:-)
Gymer52 3 years ago
I'm a big fan of your vids Albert, keep up the good work. Just a small point - the sound quality makes it hard to hear what you are saying. This is a new problem, whatever you did before was fine :-)
SAHBfan 3 years ago
I stand corrected on one thing: there IS such a thing as "moral realism" and "moral fictionalism". But I also confirmed that you are indeed talking about moral relativism and moral absolutism. You borrowing terms from some article you just read is not going to change that (the differences between realism and absolutism are, as far as I could find out, subtle at best).
Gilmaris 3 years ago
Hey, I just listen all your videos today, and I must say I am very impressed with them! Great job!! I will try to send people to you for atheist apoligestics!!
abaddon667 3 years ago
hey al nice to see ya making videos again, keep up the good work
wanderingsociologist 3 years ago
Al, You're my hero man. You pick all the right words and say them faster than I ever could.
BobbyFromNJ 3 years ago
If you want to use logic then consider the following:
-What is the greater risk? Do you know what is after death? What if there is a God, then you will suffer the consequence for not believing. Otherwise if there isn't a God then nothing will happen but still you lived a life of good moral. However, God is real because Jesus and his miracles existed here on Earth. Research your history. Believe friend, there is no harm or risk in submitting to real love. Follow Jesus.
GOD BLESS
Beez827 3 years ago
Consider the following:
-What if there is a god different from the one you chose, then you will suffer the consequences for not believing AND for believing a false god.
If we accept moral order derives from gods, there is no guarantee that the moral order from false gods results in a "life of good moral". God belief is not sufficient to make moral choices.
Instead posit that "good morals" is something derivable from given conditions? God belief is not necessary to make moral choices.
IOIOOIIOIO 3 years ago
Combine the fact that god belief is neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure moral behaviour and atrocities such as the crusades or Holocaust become clear: ideological belief exploited to bypass moral thought leading to immoral action. Do this wrong thing because God says it's a good thing.
Alternatively, a lapse of faith in the absence of a robust habit of making thoughtfully considered moral choices leads to the mistaken idea that, without a god, murder/rape/etc become acceptable acts.
IOIOOIIOIO 3 years ago
-The first one is irrelevant because it can be applied to anything. If you believe this, what if you don't believe that etc. It applies to you even so I don't see your arguement because if you don't believe in God then you can be wrong vice versa. But for example there is one life, one planet, one sun. For sure there is only one God and it not only takes faith to beleive but strength, wisdom, and compassion. And I dont doubt Jesus because he was a real person who died and ressurrected.
Beez827 3 years ago
Moral order doesn't derive from God because as humans living in this life we are given free will to do whatever we want. therefore it is by our own effort to believe and follow God. i believe this is the meaning of life, that life is a test in this way. and believing in God IS sufficient to make moral choices because you are doing something for a reason whether to obey, rejoice, praise, etc. So I don't know what you are trying to confuse again.
Beez827 3 years ago
"and believing in God IS sufficient to make moral choices because you are doing something for a reason"
But the reasons may themselves be immoral, or the means to reach an end may be immoral. So no, believing in God is so obviously NOT sufficient to make moral choices. You are still going to follow the moral compass you have developed whether you believe in God or not. "I believe in God" does NOT give even the slightest hint on whether you will act morally or no.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
and for your 3rd part to consider... how is believing in God not necessary? life is not permanent. what you do in this life effects and carries on after this life. ultimately morals do follow upon God's will as good moral or otherwise sin can follow on the opposite extreme. Good morals doesnt derive from given conditions because Ive come acrcoss many people who believe in God despite if they were poor or rich.
Beez827 3 years ago
"how is believing in God not necessary?"
How IS it necessary? I need only to refer you to the observable fact that atheists are no less moral than theists.
"what you do in this life effects and carries on after this life"
So you say. But there is no reason to believe there is such a thing as an afterlife.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"Good morals doesnt derive from given conditions because Ive come acrcoss many people who believe in God despite if they were poor or rich."
So what if they are Christian? What has that got to do with whether they are moral or not? The KKK is Protestant, the Cosa Nostra is Catholic... a philantropist here is Christian, a thief and murderer there is Christian. "Christian" says absolutely nothing about a person's morals.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
You mean pascals wager? Its bunk. Basically your projecting from a cultural centric paradigm and dis-including arbitrarily a plethora of other "Gods" and their rule sets, of which allow for people to be just good people and don't care about petty things like allegiance or "sides". In fact the rules vary greatly so much that your false dichotomy of the situation becomes laughable in the onslaught of new considerations 50/50 isn't even close to the truth sorry.
SIP100 3 years ago
and since you are relying on faith/chance in this way don't you think it takes more faith and chance to believe that life just came about out of nothing? evolution is any process of formation or growth; development. but in order for evolution to process it had to have had a beginning, a source. evolution didn't come about by itself and for sure it hasn't existed forever. I believe God used evolution as a part of the creation process. it makes much sense than attacking religion instead. God Bless
Beez827 3 years ago
I take it your replying to binary numbers guys, I would responded but I just got through with a long one to someone else and your questions are ever so trite, willfully ingnorant, and rarely take the entire picture of possibilities into consideration rather just the most self-appealing ones.
SIP100 3 years ago
"don't you think it takes more faith and chance to believe that life just came about out of nothing?"
Actually, YOU are the one who believes we came from "nothing", as that is what God made everything from. Personally, I do not believe "nothing" has ever existed. And I believe no "god" has ever existed. Except those pronounced by various cultures, such as the Romans and their emperors. But that's getting into semantics.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"What if there is a God, then you will suffer the consequence for not believing."
Only if disbelief is punished for some reason. What if there is a god, and he favours the scientific method? Then atheists go to heaven, and you, as a theist, are in deep trouble.
"However, God is real because Jesus and his miracles existed here on Earth."
So it says in your books. There are other books which say different things. The Bible is no more evidence of miracles than LOTR is for elves.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
scientifically such content may be true but to replace God with any of it is deceiving you know why?
look it up even in the dictionary ===>
SCIENCE = STUDY OF THINGS (not the CREATION OF THINGS)
GOD IS THE UNIVERSAL ARCHITECT AND GOD PRECEEDS HUMAN CONCIOUSNESS B/C WHO CREATED THE BIG BANG? WHO CREATED THE THING BEFORE THE BIG BANG? ALL THINGS THAT ARE RELEVANT AND EXISTING TO HUMANS CAN NEVER COMPREHEND THE POWER OF GOD BECAUSE IT IS GOD WHO IS THE CREATOR OF ALL!
Beez827 3 years ago
The inflationary stage of the early universe does not represent a moment of creation. It represents a shift in state. Since the state shift brought about things like the current behaviour of time as we understand it "before the big bang" is meaningless.
You might ask "What caused the state shift to inflationary expansion?" in which case you're asking a coherent question. Generically, higher-dimensional collisions provide the energy and motivation for the state shift.
IOIOOIIOIO 3 years ago
DO YOU REALIZE THAT USING ALL CAPITALS DOES NOT ADD CREDIBILITY TO YOUR ARGUMENT BUT MERELY MAKES IT MORE UNREADABLE? I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS BELIEF BUT IF YOU DO NOT PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENT IN AN APPROACHABLE FORMAT, IT ONLY HIGHLIGHTS THAT PERHAPS IT IS YOUR EMOTIONAL FACULTY GETTING THE BEST OF YOUR LOGICAL FACULTY.
Certainly you can use capitals SOMETIMES for emphasis, but an entire paragraph makes it look like you don't know how to turn off the caps lock.
Albert10110 3 years ago
the way that I typed is really irrelevant to the topic at hand. what is being said matters man. but anyways it goes both ways... i may not be able to prove absolutely the existence of God but neither can you prove that God doesn't exist... what evidence do you have that supernatural God(s) don't exist? so in this point it brings you on faith/chance in believing either regardless which side you believe in.
Beez827 3 years ago
We can't prove Pink Unicorns and leprechauns don't exist either. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.
livardo 3 years ago
and I understand you are passionate about philosophy and all but this subject of matter doesn't hold power over God and doesn't explain everything, you don't get anwers to everything. life has existed among humans for about half a million years still among all the philosophers and scientist who claim this and that have no comparable proof for the meaning of life in relation to Christianity which history proves Jesus existed as well as his death and ressurrection.
Beez827 3 years ago
"history proves Jesus existed as well as his death and ressurrection."
No it doesn't, it really does not. There are sufficient written sources to assume that the existence of a fellow named Jesus really existed, but there is nothing to suggest the numerous claims surrounding this figure are remotely accurate.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
3:54... yeah. what i said. yes.
Beez827 3 years ago
you over analyze things to the extent where you contradict different statements and confuse the real message and content. honestly.
Beez827 3 years ago
Why is it so difficult to say we don't know? Life is not a series of absolutes, and that's ok. I'm agnostic. I don't believe in abortion but it's not my place to regulate everyone else. I believe that innocent people have received the death penalty. I believe there is good and bad in all people. There is no "god" as religions have defined him. There is nothing keeping the world from a major catastrophe but the Bible teaches this will not happen. We now know it's happened several times.
darkstar2k2003 3 years ago
At least you are consistent: Focus on a fringe group and cut them to pieces. Why don't you take on the British Anglican Bishop who doubted the existence of Christ? Is religion a good or a bad in society? How can you tell? Can you define yourself in a context other than an anti-religious one?Atheism is a non-proactive term relative to theism. Define your own world, minus theists.
Haerton 3 years ago
Haerton: Fringe group? The reason I created this video is because this "absolute morality" argument is the most frequent one I get from theists. But I'll try to answer your other questions.
Do you think it's fair to denounce me for not devoting time to make a video about some arbitrary and nameless bishop?
Religion as good/bad is complicated, I can't go into it in under 500 chars. This is why I mostly focus on the issue of, "Is religion true or not true?"
Albert10110 3 years ago
Maybe you just run into the wrong theists. I know the kind you talk of do exist but I still think they are on the fringe; I don't know many;I only know the relative kind. I don't really think I was denouncing you and I just cannot remember the guy's name. As regards true, why must it be either/or? Can it not be true but tell truths?
Haerton 3 years ago
"I know the kind you talk of do exist but I still think they are on the fringe"
It is possible (and personally, I think likely) that the Pareto principle applies: 20% of the population accounts for 80% of the noise. Even if the group in question is a minority, however, they are not a fringe group, because their arguments are the ones heard the loudest. Not within a small circle of acquaintances, but in society in general.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
Yes, but just because someone makes a lot of noise does not mean the person has to be taken seriously. As Albert grew up in Houston, I think, and lives in the US, he has the born-again fundamentalists in his face. Also, I did not mean just 'acquaintances'.
Haerton 3 years ago
"Yes, but just because someone makes a lot of noise does not mean the person has to be taken seriously."
Actually, yes it does. Not in the sense that their opinion is more valid because it is loud, but in the sense that trivializing them would be a mistake. The fact that they appear so prominent precludes them from being a "fringe minority", no matter what their actual numbers are.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
Nothing intelligent to add, but god, I want to. You're awesome!
gulsbyjag 3 years ago
Wow! You have me mesmerized!
Kaimosae 3 years ago
I want to have your baby... too bad I'm a man...
You need to do more videos more often!
SpanishBassist 3 years ago
<3 Love for Albert.
ReiDavidson 3 years ago
The sad thing is that almost no religious people will see this and have it affect their lives in any way, or even make them think about their own religious views. They just hear criticism of their way of life and say "Too bad that guy is going to hell."
therob91 3 years ago
Good to see you back sir.
Abestar123 3 years ago
I don't need god to tell me not to do bad deeds. I understand the golden rule that is "do NOt do onto others what you would not like to have done onto you".
I'm capable of feeling compasion symphathy and emphathy without being in a religious frame of mind.
I realize that taking pauses to think before acting is an effective way to get myself out of trouble or from causing other people trouble. And this is where my morality stems from. My own conscious understanding of things.
snipboy 3 years ago 2
I've also been looking forward to when you'd make another video. Whats keeping you from making more? Busy, lazy, writer's bock?
fliggahj 3 years ago
glad to see another video from you. It's been a while
scpotts101 3 years ago
Good job, Al. By the way, that shirt is friggin' sweet.
jarret45 3 years ago
Dude is rock n roll.
RAHJMASON 3 years ago
Hey, wait a minute! I'm an atheist, but I love my kids and my wife. Why is that? "God" didn't tell me to--in fact, the bible-god told me to leave them, give away all my stuff (which is most of what supports them) and follow him. But since I lack that kind of morality, I've stuck around and given my family love, attention, food, money, stuff, etc. You never know what an atheist is capable of, Al! BTW, if hell is real, I hope you go there--so I can keep watching your video's! ;^}
juliuschas 3 years ago 2
You MUST make more videos. It is your duty.
motile 3 years ago
He has returned!
JDirvin5592 3 years ago
1) Theists don't view atheists as moral relativists, they view atheists as immoral or amoral. In order to be considered moral; subjectively, objectively, relatively or otherwise, the metaphysical skepticism (which is inherent to athiesm) must be rationalized first.
2) Theists dont regard themselves as absolutists, as much they regard themselves as moral 'realists'. They are forceful towards atheists, not because they want to convey that morality is fixed, but rather that it is true and real
borntokill 3 years ago
"In order to be considered moral; subjectively, objectively, relatively or otherwise, the metaphysical skepticism (which is inherent to athiesm) must be rationalized first."
Why?
"not because they want to convey that morality is fixed, but rather that it is true and real"
What difference is there between the two?
Gilmaris 3 years ago
1) Because there is as much evidence for morality as there is for god. When certain atheists claim they dont believe in god, but still prescribe to morality, they are being logically inconsistent. If you dont believe in god/devil as a matter of metaphysical skepticism, then you shouldnt believe in right/wrong by the same principle.
borntokill 3 years ago
2) They arent saying that athiests morality sucks because its different from their own; it sucks because its based on absolutely nothing and atheists have no reason to believe in morality of any kind. So in arguing for atheists morality, youre not going to argue why morality is X, Y, or Z,, youre arguing why morality is 1 while god is 0. Once atheists prove that they can logically believe in morality (and not god), then they can argue whether morality is fixed or variable or whatever.
borntokill 3 years ago
"it sucks because its based on absolutely nothing"
How do you figure? I base my morality on my culture, on MY perception of right and wrong, as has been taught to me over the years. Everybody does the exact same thing, whether they believe in God or not (if they believe in a god, they inevitably fashion him according to their opinion as to how God should be). The rest of your comment was barely intelligible.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"If you dont believe in god/devil as a matter of metaphysical skepticism, then you shouldnt believe in right/wrong by the same principle."
Why on earth not? Right and wrong are concepts, independent of any belieft in deities. It is in our nature to define "right" and "wrong", because these are vital concept to a functioning society. The same is seen in other social animals as well. I really don't see how "GOD" fits in anywhere, and even if there was one, I don't see why his opinion counts.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
My comments were perfectly clear. Your morality is based on nothing, whether you recognize it or not. You get your 'morals' from society/culture, who get their morals from where?? the individuals who compose those societies/cultures; who inturn get their morals from where? Society/cultre, etc. an endless recession with no source of moral knowledge ever given.
borntokill 3 years ago
Like you, my parents/culture/society try to tell me what is moral;; however they also tell me that god exists. Just because they say something is true, doesnt make it so. I expect proofs before I deem any such claims to be valid. Just because someone tells you that murder is wrong, or just because its helpful to society that we believe murder is wrong, doesnt mean that murder is wrong.
borntokill 3 years ago
Believing that Santa Claus is watching you and believing in heaven/hell can also be helpful to society, but its not rational to believe in those things just because they are helpful.
borntokill 3 years ago
For the sake of making this a very short arguement, let me just ask you 1 simple question and if you can answer this question validly, i'll concede the arguement. What quality does the notion of morality have, which the notion of god lacks, that affords it less skepticism? Million dollar question....
borntokill 3 years ago
"What quality does the notion of morality have, which the notion of god lacks, that affords it less skepticism?"
'Does God exist?' is a question for which the answer is factual. Yes, God exists, or no, he doesn't, are statements concerning the tangible universe. Morality, however, is a concept, a label we have constructed to define 'correct' or 'incorrect' behaviour. What is or is not moral, however, is not a factual matter, but a subjective one, much like beauty.
Gilmaris 3 years ago 2
"I expect proofs before I deem any such claims to be valid."
What has that got to do with morality? Morality is about MORAL truths, not cold FACTS. Moral truths are subjective. Facts are objective. There is no way you can have "proof" or even "evidence" to support a given set of morals.
And what makes murder wrong is precisely the fact that society denounces it. Nothing more. All notions of "right" or "wrong" are purely subjective. To wit: people have different morals.
Gilmaris 3 years ago 2
"You get your 'morals' from society/culture, who get their morals from where??"
Society forms morals. Morals is not something tangible that you "find" someplace, but something that groups can't help but form. In a nutshell, morals evolve to accomodate the majority opinion (do you really think, for example, Christian morals today are the same as Christian morals 100 years ago?).
Gilmaris 3 years ago
What youre describing is 'expressivism'; the position that moral statements hold no truth value and that they only reflect personal attitudes/preferences (like statements on beauty). As such, its not a 'realists' morality which you are prescribing to, its a purely fictionalized version, which has no basis in the real world and is exactly why theists/nihilists/moral skeptics are critical of moral atheists.
borntokill 3 years ago
Your morality is not subjective; your attitudes/preferences are subjective and you are just using moral language to convey your preferences, in a dishonest manner. Instead of saying "X is beautiful", an honest person says who recognizes that beauty is not a real concept, will say "i like how X looks". Following this, instead of saying "Murder is wrong", the honest person will say "I dislike murder, however right/wrong are not real concepts in themselves"
borntokill 3 years ago
And this all goes back to what I was saying before; this is not a debate between 'objective morality vs. subjective morality'; its a debate between 'realists morality vs. fictionalists morality'.
No one cares if atheists have objective, subjective, or whatever types of morality if they are meaningless statements about personal preference.
borntokill 3 years ago
"its a debate between 'realists morality vs. fictionalists morality'."
Inventing terms does not make you look more intelligent. This IS a debate between objective vs. subjective morality (you are just trying to describe the exact same things using different names). Objective/subjective morality is not about how things SHOULD be, but about how things ARE.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"Instead of saying "X is beautiful", an honest person says who recognizes that beauty is not a real concept, will say "i like how X looks"."
And that is exactly what I am doing. You will never hear me say that "X is wrong, period". I will say that I DISAPPROVE of X, that *I* think X is wrong. Be so kind as to point out any dishonesty on my part.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"its a purely fictionalized version"
How is it fictionalized? Beauty exists, beauty is real, but it is subjective. Moral exists, moral is real, but it is subjective. There is no objective set of morals to adhere to, even if there is a God - because then you have to justify why HIS opinion should carry weight. Is it because he has the power to punish us? Well, so does the state, and it doesn't make the morals any more objective.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
1) I didnt invent those terms buddy. For homework, go look up 'moral realism', 'moral fictionalism', and 'moral skepticism'...and understand what you are debating first.
2) Saying "I think X is wrong" is dishonest for two reasons. First, because you dont actually think anything about X; what you are thinking about is yourself and your personal distate for X. The statement X thinks Y is Z, is dishonest when it actually means X thinks X dislikes Y. Two entirely different ideas...
borntokill 3 years ago
To check this for yourself, write this logical equation down "she thinks cheating is wrong = she thinks cheating is wrong" and substitute 'X thinks Y is Z' on 1 side, and 'X thinks X dislikes Y' on the other side, and solve for Z(hint: impossible
Secondly the statement is dishonest in that it uses moral language to convey amoral preferences/ideas. If instead of saying "I dont like pepsi" I were to say "i think pepsi is morally wrong" it would be completely ridiculous and unwarranted to do so
borntokill 3 years ago
Theres as much reason to believe that your attitudes towards murder reflect a valid source of morality, as there is to believe my tastes in soda reflects a valid source of morality.
3)'Fictionalism' doesnt imply that certain things are fake. It simply means that the statements made regarding those things are not truth apt,, or in your words, they dont reflect facts about the state of being. This differs from subjectivism, in that the thing observed may actually have objective properties...
borntokill 3 years ago
...and we simply cant convey them with factual statements. Take for example the color of the sky. You might see the sky as blue, I might see the sky as green. Does this mean that the color of the sky is subjective? No. The color may objectively be blue or green or neon orange or it may be colorless, for all we know. The problem theists have with atheists morality is not that its subjective (like our perception of color) but rather that it fictionalizes something they believe is real.
borntokill 3 years ago
Imagine if someone referred to something you considered real (like evolution) in a fictionalized manner. If someone said that people evolved from monkeys, and when you questioned them about it, it turns out they are not making a factual, truth apt statement about people,monkeys. They were just using scientific language in describing ascientific ideas they have that people are monkey-like. And then they try to justify their statements by saying evolution is subjective... thats fictionalism
borntokill 3 years ago
"And then they try to justify their statements by saying evolution is subjective... thats fictionalism"
You really should use better examples (ie., with some root in reality). Evolution is not subjective. Evolutionary THEORY is subjective to a degree (as evidence needs to be interpreted, and all interpretation is by definition subjective), but evolution itself is not. And I sincerely do hope you don't believe that evolution says we come from MONKEYS.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"You might see the sky as blue, I might see the sky as green."
No, you may not. There is not sufficient yellow in order to make the sky appear green. Now, we may disagree about hues that are similar, and you may be colour-blind, so we may have different perceptions of that particular colour. However, colour can be objectively measured - morals cannot. Colour is perceived by our senses - morals are not. So there really is no basis for comparison.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"Theres as much reason to believe that your attitudes towards murder reflect a valid source of morality, as there is to believe my tastes in soda reflects a valid source of morality."
What rot. Morality has to do with what one ought or ought not do, whereas one's taste in soda bears no resemblance to this. Soda is unhealthy, and THIS may have moral implications, but the actual TASTE of the soda is irrelevant.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"This differs from subjectivism, in that the thing observed may actually have objective properties"
The objective properties of morality has to do with its purpose and origin, nothing more. These things are irrelevant to the discussion. The actual moral rules are purely subjective, hence they are SUBJECTIVE, not objective, morals. What you are doing is most amusing: you stubbornly say I am wrong, and provide an explanation that does not contradict me at all.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
Your pitiful attempt at mathematics further makes no sense, because "thinks" and "is" are not mathematical symbols. Well, actually, "is" is the same as =. So what you just wrote is X Ø Y = Z = X Ø Y = Z, where Ø is an illegal symbol. What is "thinks", is it +, -, x, / ? In other words, you are spouting pure gibberish.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"1) I didnt invent those terms buddy."
But you are using them to describe objective/subjective morals.
"Saying "I think X is wrong" is dishonest for two reasons."
The first reason doesn't make any sense. I simply fail to see the dishonesty there. The second reason is just being picky about semantics - you are reaching in order to find a reason to call me dishonest. Now, THAT is dishonest.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
The whole concept of fictionalism went right over your head.
In the fictionalists view, if I say "the sky is made of cotton candy" i'm not wrong; because i'm not making a truth apt statement. The face value of statements like pepsi is evil, the sky is pink, humans evolved from monkeys, etc. are not to be judged on face value because they are not factual, truth apt statements. What is actually meant by "X thinks Y is Z" is that "X likes/dislikes the notion of Y";;
borntokill 3 years ago
What is meant by "the sky is made of cotton candy" is that "I like fluffy clouds in the sky" That is what fictionalism is...get it? If the ideas exist, the words conveying those ideas dont matter, because all youre really saying is "i have an idea" period...
borntokill 3 years ago
You happen to unknowingly prescribe to 'moral fictionalism' aka 'expressivism'; whereby you believe that moral statements hold no truth value and morals only exist as a matter of your own personal feelings/attitudes (aka personal preferences). When you make a declarative statement like 'i think murder is wrong' what you really mean is 'personally i'm not a fan of murder' thats all it means...
borntokill 3 years ago
"You happen to unknowingly prescribe to 'moral fictionalism' aka 'expressivism';"
I think it is YOU who are using terms, being ignorant of their meaning. There is no such thing as "moral fictionalism". It's called moral RELATIVISM. And no one is saying morals don't hold TRUTH. But they do not hold FACTS. To quote Indiana Jones, "if it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"When you make a declarative statement like 'i think murder is wrong' what you really mean is 'personally i'm not a fan of murder' thats all it means..."
Exactly. And this much is obvious to a child, so where do you get off calling me dishonest for the way I phrased myself?
Gilmaris 3 years ago
This sort of moral fictionalism puts you at odds with moral realists, who actually believe 'i think murder is wrong' means 'i think murder is wrong' and its not some fictionalized wordplay. And it also puts you at odds with 'the universe of discource' (look it up) where logic dictates that you have to mean what you say. If there is a different context (ie, if 'murder is wrong', simply mean 'i dislike murder') it must be stipulated within said statement.
borntokill 3 years ago
If a statement in is false at face value, then it is false period. Unless you explicitly say "I think murder is wrong... and by wrong I mean its not actually wrong or possess any real moral qualities, but rather I have a personal distaste for the act and am conveying it using moral language"...then you are being illogical or flat out dishonest.
borntokill 3 years ago
Just because youve never heard of a term, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Do some research before you dig your hole even further. Relativism is not the same as fictionalism. Relativists may genuinely believe that what societies says morality is, is true and factual(realists);; Fictionalists know that what society, individuals say is not truth-apt or factual. Its just a useful artificial concept to them, like new years resolutions...
borntokill 3 years ago
i'll make 1 last attempt to explain this arguement of realism vs. fictionalism using civil law. If you genuinely believe that the laws governing your state are legitimate; whether they come from a monarch, whether they come from demoncratic process or the 'general will', or whether they are based on some notion of an objective god....if you genuinely believe those laws are legit then you are a realist...
borntokill 3 years ago
If you think those laws are purely artificial, BS constructs, but you still think its a good idea to have them and follow them for whatever reason (fuctionality) then you are a fictionalist. If you dont think theres adequate reason to think they are real or false, you are a skeptic. There ya go....i'm done. Game over man, game over
borntokill 3 years ago
"If you think those laws are purely artificial, BS constructs, but you still think its a good idea to have them and follow them for whatever reason (fuctionality) then you are a fictionalist."
Preposterous rubbish. First of all, if you think laws are BS constructs, you are an anarchist. Secondly, a relativist sees all morals (and consequently, laws) as legitimate if they find favour in society. They are also artificial (though natural) constructs.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"Relativists may genuinely believe that what societies says morality is, is true and factual(realists)"
No no no no no. Moral ABSOLUTISTS believe that. Moral RELATIVISTS (hint: it's in the name) believe there is no such thing as objective morality; that all right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder. Absolutists often accuse relativists of nihilism, but this is a gross misinterpretation.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"Its just a useful artificial concept to them, like new years resolutions..."
I'd like you to further elaborate on this one. I think I see where you are going with it, and I vehemently disagree.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"then you are being illogical or flat out dishonest."
Utter nonsense. That's not how language works. "I think X is wrong" is simply a colloquialism for "I disapprove of X". It is not "think" as in "believe", but "think" as in "prefer". From the context, this is commonly understood.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
"at odds with moral realists, who actually believe 'i think murder is wrong' means 'i think murder is wrong' and its not some fictionalized wordplay."
The problem here is that your fictional term "moral realists" (correct term: moral absolutists) do NOT think like that. If, for example, they believe X is right, and I believe X is wrong, they will interpret "I believe X is wrong" as "I disapprove of X" - but they will think me objectively wrong.
Gilmaris 3 years ago
1) Anarchism refers to the rulers, not the rules. Regardless, I was purposely being broad in my analogy so that you could hopefully finally understand realism v. fictionalism.
2) Relativism only rejects universal truths, not necessarily relative truths (hint thats what relative refers to). You can believe that particular societies have real knowledge that others dont.
borntokill 3 years ago
For ex. if someone from mexico says its hot today and someone from canada says its cold today; the relativist can accept that both these statements are true and factual. Extending this to morality, a relativist can believe that its not wrong for Abraham Lincoln to have said that the white man was superior, but if our president said that today a relativist could say he was wrong, and wouldnt excuse him on the basis that morality is through the 'eye of the beholder'...
borntokill 3 years ago
..thats called relative absolutism and its actually what this video ^ is about.
3) There are customs that are recognized as being fictional BS but people still speak as though they are real, meaningful things because they are viewed as 'useful fiction'. For ex. we speak to kids about santa claus because it might entertain and get them to behave. We speak about new years resolutions as though its a real contract, hoping it might motivate us...
borntokill 3 years ago
Likewise, we can speak about morality in a real way, not because we believe theres anything valid about it, but just cause its a useful fictional idea. Instead of explaining to kids the complex moral arguements and letting them decide whether they have a preference for murder or rape or whatever; its easier if society as a whole just pretends that murder and rape are wrong, regardless of preference...
borntokill 3 years ago
and thats what i'm accusing the moral atheists of doing. Pretending, to themselves and eachother, that the preference they have are real moral convictions, that are as meaningful as anyone else claiming to be moral. Thats why an atheist would identify themselves in first place right? If they recognized that their morality was just preference, then theres no need to declare to they are moral people, because its a meaningless statement; everyone has preference...
borntokill 3 years ago
monkeys have a preference to throw feces, does that mean they are moral too???
4) Morality is only understood to mean preferences by fictionalists and meta-ethical scholars like myself :o) The vast, vast majority of people will take a moral statement at face value and honestly very few moral atheist will ever understand and admit that their morality merely ammounts to preferences.
borntokill 3 years ago
If I ask an atheists cliaming to be moral point blank, if they just mean they have personal preference? No more valid then the preferences of murderer to murder, a rapist to rape, or monkey to throw crap... 99% of the time, they will not admit it; because they know the questions will only get worse from there...
borntokill 3 years ago
"cant you change your preferences at any given moment? why is it meaningful to state your preferences outside of your head? If i killed you right now and i said i have a preference to do so, am i morally justified?" etc. etc.
borntokill 3 years ago
5) Moral realism is distinctly different concept from absolutism. Realism means that if you say "X is wrong" you mean that "X itself is wrong" and not are not implying something else. Absolutism means that if "X is wrong" its always wrong under every circustamce. Its possible to believe X is always wrong (absolutism) and are simply saying that your preferences are always to dislike something, under any condition (ie, Will Smith movies are always wrong (and terrible)).
borntokill 3 years ago
" 99% of the time, they will not admit it; because they know the questions will only get worse from there..."
Or because it's not true. I'm a Utilitarian. In short, I take my moral guidelines from the goal of maximizing benefit and minimizing suffering for the greatest number of people, basing such assessments as best I can on the information available to me. This doesn't always align with my personal preferences, but it's the closest system I've found to objective morality. No god required.
Datan0de 3 years ago
Let me ask you then, how do you know utilitarianism is the correct ethical system?? What proof is there that its not individualism, or collectivism, or hedonism, or objectivism, etc. etc. which is the correct system? Or how do you know that none of these systems is correct?? Because if you dont have adequate reasons, and you basically chose utilitarianism just because you like the idea more than others, you are doing so as a matter of personal preference; not justified belief.
borntokill 3 years ago
At the risk of putting forth a tautology, utilitarianism is the only ethical system I've found that explicitly seeks to maximize benefit while minimizing harm on a system-wide scale. The other ethical frameworks you mention are certainly applicable in some circumstances, but run the risk of causing more harm overall than benefit. If that doesn't answer your question then I ask you how you define "good".
Datan0de 3 years ago
BTW, it isn't always my personal preference. When I have a full cart at the grocery store and am eager to get home, but the person behind me in the checkout line has only a few items, I let them go ahead of me because it's the most efficient course of action- the benefit they gain by not having to wait for me is greater than what I lose by waiting for them. It doesn't really center around "preference" as much as an informal cost/benefit calculation.
Datan0de 3 years ago
I understand that utilitarianism seeks to maximize pleasure, but that doesnt answer the question because you still need to explain why maximizing pleasure is morally correct?? How do you know that maximizing pain is not morally correct?? And how do you know that its neither moral or immoral to maximize pleasure/pain?? I dont know if you see where i'm going, but basically i'm 100% sure that you have no actual knowledge or reasons to believe in utilitarianism...
borntokill 3 years ago
You just happen to prefer that society is nice to eachother, rather than being mean to eachother (like I prefer Pepsi over Sprite) and using a fictionalized philosphy to validate your ideas. Its like if I wrote a philosophy about Pepsi being morally good (Pepsi-tarianism) and used it to argue that I was being moral without God. It'd sound ridiculous wouldnt it? I'd get asked the same questions i've asked you; "what reasons to do you have to believe that Pepsitarianism is correct?" and so forth.
borntokill 3 years ago
"how do you define good?"
Theoretically, good is just the proper behavior of things. An example (in theory) is that a functioning heater is suppose to give heat. If a functioning heater gives cold air, then theres something incorrect about either the heater or its behavior. A moral implication is probably warranted in this hypothetical. However, when we switch from theory to practice, its nearly impossible to make any valid moral statements because of our limited knowledge...
borntokill 3 years ago
If in practice, I were to say that a functioning heater is not behaving in the way that it ought to be, i'm prerequired to have absolute knowledge of the universe (which no human has). I must have knowledge of everything about physics and its anamolies of course. But I must also have knowledge of everything else in the universe and its behavior (even the metaphysical junk) in order to claim with any validity and honesty that the heater, or person, or whatever is no behaving as it should be...
borntokill 3 years ago
In recognizing this limit to my knowledge I refrain from making any moral statements. I consider myself to be amoral, until such time that there is any valid reasons in support of morality; objective, subjective, utilitarian, or whatever kind.
And as far as your grocery store habits, you have a preference for efficiancy and being nice. You have no proofs that efficiancy and niceness are the way a human being ought to act, just the way that you'd like them to act. Thats a personal preference.
borntokill 3 years ago
You claim 100% certainty about my knowledge (or lack thereof), and then claim to recognize the limits of your own knowledge? I smell hypocrisy.
Further, your entire argument seems to boil down to meaningless quibbling over definitions. You're right that we don't know everything, and are therefore subject to error, but one need not be omniscient to attempt to maximize benefit. This, by definition, is having "good intent."
Datan0de 3 years ago
Within the limits of my knowledge is a vast understanding of philosophy. I know meta-ethics like people know their ABCs. So yea, i'm pretty confident in saying that you dont have any valid moral knowledge/reasoning. I've debated this subject dozens of times and your position fits into 1 of the 2 standard moral atheist positions (the other being 'expressivism').
borntokill 3 years ago
Its about more than just the meaning of a word. Its about honety, its about trust, its about justification vs. tyrrany. If someone who is supposedly a super moral person (ie, Gandhi, MLK, etc.) has is no more moral than someone who is supposedly incredibly immoral (hitler, bin laden), then its important that society recognizes this, and its important for individuals (especially atheists) to reconsider how they view the world and see how the world views them.
borntokill 3 years ago
ps,, if youre going to make any more moral statements (maximizing benefits = good intenet) explain how you know that its correct.... and how you know the alternatives (minimizing benefits = good intent,, max/min. benefits is neither good nor bad intent)....thanks
borntokill 3 years ago
Ah, so you're arrogant as well as hypocritical? I'm not impressed by your argument from authority. Being able to categorize my argument does not invalidate it.
Ultimately yes, you *can* boil everything down to "we don't really know anything about anything, and we could all be just watching moving pictures projected onto the wall of a cave." However, an infinite regress of "well how do you know?" is ultimately nihilistic and pointless.
Datan0de 3 years ago
I'm not arrogant, i'm confident. If you make a valid arguement for atheist morality on the basis of utilitarianism I promise I will make a video where I humbly retract all of my statements....
And its not an infinite regress. Its 1 simple question; which either you can answer or youre can't. You make it seem like an infinite regress when you dont actually answer the question i've asked and I have to restate it again.
borntokill 3 years ago