None is righteous, no not one; no one understands: no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless: no one does good, not even one. Romans 3:10b-12. The Word of the Lord.
Cool. Happiness explains how the brain works lol. Our brains are goal based.
This `happiness` idea encapsulates all the societal pressure on our moral values, the aethetic pleasure from logical symmetry, etc, etc. KT45 you really deserve more views for your videos. The water cooler was a good schtick to get noticed. Its a great device. You should try it more with ideas like this.
You simply can't tell me that some people wouldn't be happy if they could get away with stealing, murder, rape etc. if they could. They may not be as happy as a person doesn't want to do those things, but it could simply mean they are inherently harder to please (hence the need for 'moral' transgressions).
I would expect 'immoral' people would be unhappy in a society of our current mores because they need to cover and feel guilty about their actions and drives.
So do you believe in a universal morality? Do you believe in a set of morals that can be compared and judged by others? Or do you believe in purely individual morality... you have to set your goals and define right and wrong as what will get you closer and further from those goals?
Aren't goals valued subjectively ? Even if we all agree on the value of a goal and even if it is necessary to value a goal for survival it still requires a subjective valuation. Yeah sure not having this subjective valuation may kill us but the valuation remains subjective. Subjective doesn't mean "Something that not everybody agrees with" or "something that one can and can not belief and still keep living" but it means "X is valuable only because we value it".
In premise 1 you state "The value of methods depends on the value of goals" I disagree with premise 1 since the method could show that your subj. value of a goal is based on false facts or poor analysis of the facts. Example, everyone thinks that beating their spouse brings happiness (goal). A psychologist gathers data and finds this to be false. Even though every agreed beating your spouse was valued, the method showed they were wrong (cont)
Since the results of the method are independent from the subj. opinions of others it is objective. Like science, the value of the method depends on how well it produces results that match reality. Many scientist bring many (subjective) hypothesis saying they are right but the method cuts through the subjective opinion. Similar to goal theory.
FGB, I have a question for you on subjectivity. You said "subjective = X is only valuable because we value it"
But what if you didn't know you valued X? I ask because before we can choose what we value we have to first discover what we value. For instance, as a child I thought I wouldn't like broccoli because it looked ugly and nasty. But when I tasted it I liked it. So regardless of what I thought, it is objectively true that KT45 like broccoli. (cont)
But it is also true subjectively good that broccoli is good. I think this illustrate a point Carrier mentions in his book. He states p336 "the fact that all values are 'subjective' in the sense of belonging to an individual does not entail that none of these values are 'objective'"
FGB, since there I things I value, that even I don't know I value, it follows that they these values exist outside my conscious thoughts and opinions (in some unexplored area of my physiology) and are thus objective
In case A the method is not valuable eventhough it objectively leads to the goal.
In case C the method is not valuable because it has no connection to the value of the goal.
The only case where the method is valuable is case B because in case B the method has a connection to the value of the goal. If the goal was not valuable neither would be the method (as in case A).
Therefore the value of the method depends on the value of the goal.
It is objective that buying ice cream is useful if you want to eat ice cream but it is a right action only if you do value ice cream. So the value of the action (whether it is right or wrong) depends on whether one values ice cream or not.
Based on your response, I agree with premise one. But in premise two you say "the value of goals is subjective" The counter to this premise Carrier gives is "the fact that all values are subjective in the sense of belonging to the individual does not entail none of these values are objective" Carrier argues that happiness is the value because it is the motivation for all human action. (conti)
"Subjective" simply means that it depends on human valuation in order to be valuable.
I do not see how happiness being the motivation for all human action makes happiness valuable independently from human appreciation. It may make happiness objectively life sustaining, objectively unavoidable or objectively useful. But as long as it is only our subjective appreciation of life, the unavoidable and usefulness the value of what objectively leads to these things is still subjective.
If you compare the two scenarios above you will see that A is valuable if and only if B is valuable. Now if B is valuable subjectively then that means A is objectively subjectively valuable or in other words: As a matter of objective fact A is subjectively valuable.
2. "As a matter of objective fact A is subjectively valuable"
Because 2 is all that follows. Now if happiness is the motivation for all human action but human action and life is only valuable because we value it then as a matter of objective fact happiness is subjectively valuable. Do you see the difference between this statement and "Happiness is objectively valuable" ?
As you said "subjective" simply means that it depends on human valuation in order to be valuable. Agreed.
Then you ask "I do not see how happiness being the motivation for all human action makes happiness valuable independently from human appreciation. It may make happiness....objectively unavoidable"
I'd like to focus on it being unavoidable. You are essentially forced to follow a stronger desire over a weaker desire. So regardless of what you think you have to value it. (cont)
Basically I know you are saying that happiness is subjective because it depends on human valuation in order to be valuable. But I'm arguing that happiness is also objective because humans are forced to value it no matter what they think (independent of what i think I have to value happiness). Basically the fact that you MUST have this value regardless of what you think makes it objective but since you can use valuation on it makes it subjective. (I'm enjoying this discussion btw. Thanks)
Please correct me if my reasoning is not valid. If something is truly unavoidable then it is true you must encounter it independent of what u think or want. Anything that is truly independent of human thought is objectively true. Therefore if something is truly unavoidable then it is objectively true. A value that humans must have is an unavoidable value. If a value exist that is unavoidable then the value is objectively true and therefore objectively valuable.
But is happiness valuable outside of human psychology ? I mean if you consider happiness isolated from human psychology...is it still valuable ?
No !
This remains true even if we all have no choice but to value happiness. Even if all of us are bound to value happiness and even if not valuing happiness kills us immediately the value of happiness still does not exist outside of our psychology.
Within human psychology, there is unconscious thought and conscious thought. Consciously we are not bound to value happiness, for instance I can think to myself "I do not value happiness". However unconsciously I am bound to follow my strongest desire regardless of my conscious thought. To be objective, something must be true outside of conscious thought. Happiness is an unavoidable value that my being possesses despite my consicous thought and it is therefore objective.
We are objectively bound to value happiness. But that does not make happiness objectively valuable.
It is an objective fact that we value something but this does not make the value an objective fact.
A preference remains a preference even if we are bound to have it. If we are bound to have a preference then as a matter of objective fact we are bound to have this preference but the preference remains a preference and the preference itself is not objective.
FGB, where do you get the idea that our interest in our own well-being and happiness needs to be "objectively valuable" for it to be of value to us? It is in fact human beings here that are having this conversation... we're the subjects involved... not another species or a deity. I don't get what you're point is.
I am not saying that something needs to be objectively valuable in order to be of value for us. Rather what I am trying to explain is that something needs to be objectively valuable in order for the term "morality" to apply. Something that is of value of us is certainly a good reason to act towards this goal but does not meet the definition of "morality" since we use the term morality to refer to the idea that we can rightfully demand behaviour from others.
Then this is a simple mistake as the term "morality" is not defined exclusively in a way that requires the source of it transcend human nature. The popular theistic slant on "morality" can be said 2, I'd agree, but not the definition of the word in general.
If you look up the word "morality" in the dictionary, you'll find at least some if not most of the definitions there do not require an "objective" source that transcends humanity (see for example the definitions on the Stanford university dictionary site.) So u really have to argue for that definition or else you'd begging the case.
All we really need is to define morality in a way that stand apart from individual opinion and goal theory does this. It thereby addresses the valid concern behind the Christian preoccupation with objective vs subjective morality. And it does this without requiring we go beyond humanity itself. It thereby does it on a bases - human nature - we all share rather than on a bases - a particular religion - that other religious & non-religious people do not share.
Human nature. Humans by their nature care about their happiness / self-interest. So we all have that goal in common. And since we each have that goal, and there are factors that for all of us effect our personal happiness, there are ways that we "should" and "should not" act so as to best serve our pursuit of that goal.
Why should we care about what best helps us pursue our happiness? This is not a question of why or having a reason that we "should" do this but a question of what we already do by our very nature. AKA: By our very nature we care about our happiness... before we even learn to think in words, we care about our experience... and how much or little well-being we experience during it. .
So this inherent human goal both precedes and transcends individual human awareness or opinion as do certain factors that come into play in determining what best serves our achieving this goal as fully as possible.
But I'm sure its obvoius to you that "doing the deed" is not enough to leave a man entirely fulfilled... any more than survival alone is enough to fully gratify our nature.
Just because a desire is strong and unconscious and not controllable doesn't mean it stops being a desire and turns into an objective reality. Whatever depends on our psychology in order for it's existence is not objective. It may be objective that our psychology makes us value X but there is no connection from "It is objective that X is valued" to "X is objectively valuable".
Not sure what you mean or what I said that gave you the idea that I thought something was "objectively valuable." I'd never say that given values are subjective by their very nature. In other words, values are subject to the one (or ones) doing the valuing. And values do not exist apart from a subject who does the valuing. But it can be said objectively that all human beings by their very nature care about their experience (the same can probably also be said for dolphins.)
The thing is this: You said "All we really need is to define morality in a way that stand apart from individual opinion"
But whatever is subjective is individual opinion. Even if I do not consciously decide on it. Like I do not consciously decide that I like chocolate ice cream. Still my preference of it is on the same level as an opinion.
Actually it seems irelevant how you define it because that is just a word game anyway. As a matter of fact we can not rightfully demand behaviour from others. Let's keep it there.
The thing is that some things are true for human beings independent of whether every individual human is aware of it or not. That we all care about the quality of our experience (how much fulfillment or suffering we experience) is true for all human beings by our very nature. That's square one.
Square two is that there are things (experiences / situations) that better serve that nature (as far as having a more positive experience than not - the goal we all share by our very nature) than others is also true. And this basic aspect of our nature that we share goes deeper than the level of tastes (like icecream.) Everyone likes pleasure but not everyone gets pleasure from eating chocolate icecream.
Its from this common ground that shared concerns regarding human behavior (or what we call morality) gets its footing. And as far as the experiences and conditions we want to maximize in society, we want and will continue to push for a society of laws and type of relationships that maximizes our experience in this way, whether some individuals think its wrong for people 2 demand certain behavior of others or not. For them, its tough luck... and get w/ the program.
One thing studies show people find is part of the difference that makes a difference in how fulfilled they are with hteir lives is whether or not their making a difference in the lives of others. Gratifying this aspect of your human nature is much more likely to take you down hero... if only ordinary "hero"... terrain ;P
@KT45 Your video is directly parallel to Mill's fallacious "Proof "of the Principle of Utility that the proof for happiness being worthy of desire is the fact that everyone desires it. But this is still a naturalistic fallacy. Even if everyone desires their happiness, this does not entail that everyone ought to desire their happiness as the sole end of all their conduct, even if every end of their conduct happens to contain happiness as a part, or common denominator, of willed ends.
@KT45 ...That is, in Kant's words, no argument from hypothetical imperatives alone can adequately support the judgment that we have a moral duty to do something, or refrain from doing something. Unfortunately, this argument is left stuck in the lurch of instrumental reasoning, and it is still far from proving the "Goal Theory of Morality" as the supreme action guiding principle of conduct.
@mypolicy9 the pursuit of happiness is a goal we are bound to follow. We will are forced follow our strongest desires regardless of our conscious thought due to the physical laws of the universe. But unlike Kant's examples of hypothetical imperatives the Goal theory is a hypotheical imperative grounded on this normative fact.
@KT45 "the pursuit of happiness is a goal we are bound to follow. "
--"Bound" as in morally obligated? Or "bound" as in necessitated by the laws of nature to actually achieve happiness? Either way, the first claim is a naturalistic fallacy, even if everyone in fact seeks their happiness does not entail they ought to pursue their happiness as the only end of all their conduct. And the second claim is just plain false. Clearly, many people don't ever achieve lasting happiness.
Happiness being the key motivator of human action makes sense because "any contrary desire won't generate a neural signal strong enought to override the powerful signal your strongest desire is already pushing on your brain" We also can't help our human physiology so what makes us happy can and many times is contrary to our conscious thoughts. We also have methods for finding out what hinders happiness and what helps us achieve happiness including psychology and neuroscience.
If morality is objectively based on what ultimately makes a person happy, how can one determine what creates happiness by nature? Abiding contentment that makes life worth living? By what measure is it determined that something makes life worth living? How is it also measurable that suffering is bad? Here, I think, is the underlying issue: in all these ideas and theories is still the inescapable theme that one way of living is better than another.
The question I have is this: by what standard is this sense of "better" and "worse" measured? Why is it better to live than to die? Why is it better to be in comfort rather than pain? What quantifiable source makes one thing better than another? It seems that the claim proposed here is that morality is based on happiness which is determined by personal preferences which vary from person to person. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
Words like better or worse only apply in response to a specific goal. For instance, if the goal is to shoot a basketball into a hoop I can point out the person who missed and say you did worse than the person who made the shot. It is only better to live than to die if your goal is to live as long as possible.
There are many things that are good that I personally as well as many others would prefer not to do. There are also many things that are bad that I personally would prefer to do.
The life lived by Mother Theresa was selfless. I would say she lived her life for moral good. But I personally would prefer not to live my life that way, having other ambitions and plans I would rather do.
To live a sensuous life is selfish. I would say that to live like this is morally bad. But I desire to live that way. I would prefer it to being selfish.
Why do I call good what I would rather not do and call bad what I would rather do if morality is based on happiness, i.e. my personal preference?
It seems to me that there is a standard of good that is unachievable. Where did this idea for perfection come from if no one has ever been perfect?
"Why do I call good what I would rather not do and call bad what I would rather do if morality is based on happiness, i.e. my personal preference?"
Once again we are back to personal preference. In my video I explain this with the farming analogy. In farming, each farmer can have his "personal preference" for how they farm, but regardless of his personal preference, there are better ways and worse ways to farm. Watch my video at 2:22
"it seems that the claim proposed here is that morality is based on happiness which is determined by personal preferences which vary from person to person"
Yes this is correct. Just like farming there are many different preferences for how one should grow crops but we can determine what method is better or worse by the results they give. Based on these results we can tell the farmer what he ought not to do or what he ought to do in order to be successful.
The goal theory of morality proposes the same thing. Everyone can have their own personal subjective opinion but the results are not depenedent on the person making it objective. Lets think about it. If you want to live happily for as long as you can would playing russian roulette be good or bad? While it may make you happy in the moment it is incredibly risky behavior that has a 1/6 chance of you living to be happy about it. This game you ought not to do.
One thing you say here is that happiness is based on personal preference. But this can't be completely true. Has something ever happened to you that you thought would not make you happy but you found that it did? Or did you think something would make you happy but it did not? It seems more likely that what makes you happy, especially long term, is not always what you prefer. Happiness therefore is more than your personal preference.
The analogy breaks down because there are multiple ways to farm, though one may be more or less successful than another. Morality, on the other hand, does not work that way. You are either morally right or morally wrong, and it is not a determination based on results.
Actually it is a lot like farming. You don't think that there are better ways to live that will achieve happiness and worse ways regardless of personal opinion?
Lets look at the farming example again. You said morality is doesn't work the same way as farming because you are either morally right or morally wrong. But isn't their a wrong way to farm and a right way. The farmer that doesn't water his plants and doesn't use fertile soil is clearly farming wrong. With morality we are looking at how people think they ought to live. The one that is best at securing happiness is the one that is right and the one that constantly fails is wrong.
Do you understand my confusion? How can morality be dependent on our personal preference if our personal preference does not achieve the desired results?
Some cultures love their neighbors. Other cultures prefer, rather, to eat them. We would both agree that this is morally wrong. How can we call wrong what they prefer if morality is based on preference?
It almost seems as though you have proposed two separate ideas of morality. Personal morality and universal morality.
The moral framework in my video is NOT dependant upon subjective opinion. It is objective like science because the truth of the claim is not dependant on the individual but instead on the results. Lets take the cultures you describe. the ones that love their neighbors, and the ones that eat them. The ones that love their neighbors will have be building allies the others will be making enemies coming under constant theat of retaliation, they will be less happy.
So you're saying that people's opinions of morality may be different, but morality exists apart from peoples opinion of it? I think I'm struggling with what you're saying about objectivity. I personally believe morality is 100% objective, but if it's based on peoples personal preference it cannot be objective at all.
Okay I'll try to put this differently. Everyone has different ideas of what is right and what is wrong. For instance some people think that the best way to achieve lasting happiness is to drink mass quantities of alcohol. However we know that this is wrong because this can lead to depression, agression, sickness and death which is the opposite of a lasting happiness. Regardless of the personal opinion about drinking mass amounts of alcohol the fact is that it is the wrong for achieving happiness
Basically people have many different ideas about what is right and wrong but in order to verify these ideas are correct we need to test them. This can be done numerous ways by using neuroscience, psychology, studying history, personal experience etc. Basically people have many different HYPOTHESIS about what is right and wrong but only through rigerous test and study can we find out what is factually right and wrong.
Nice discussion. I might add, concerning the dilemma you raise alan, that with the farming theory, while a farmer - who like other farmers wants to be successful & make good money with his farm - might prefer on a daily basis to take it easy & do as little work as possible. Now while he might prefer this daily, in the long run it will be detrimental to his happiness to do so. AKA: What is preferable in the short-term does not define what brings abiding well-being / happiness in the long run.
I think its fair to say that, universally most people prefer lasting happiness over momentary bliss, though you might not know it by how we/people live at times. This only goes to show that what is rationally best for one's lasting happiness is not necessarily what comes most natural for us. While religious people may call this "sin," for those who are not it can simply be an aspect of human nature we have to deal w/ to pursue happiness & can do so w/ the help of our natural ability to reason.
Ok, so happiness is not based on personal preference. That part now makes a lot more sense to me. Why then do we as humans always prefer what does not bring us long term happiness? It seems completely contrary to our nature to pursue lasting happiness, as you mentioned.
It's a great question alain. My crack at it would be, for a very long time, for our survival, it was the moment by moment decisions defined by current circumstances that were key for our survival, but then thousands of years ago as the benefits of society began to emerge slowly, we began being able to and even having to think about longterm considerations (such as not to overeat w/ food being more readily available w/ agriculture and then more trade developing for example.)
Now at this point we have different desires at war within us. The desire for the short-term vs to consider of the long-term. Cooperative instincts vs competitive instincts that w/ the development of society / social order became less necessary but not entirely unnecessary (w/ healthy outlets for such instincts like sports now a value.) The motivation to get moving based on imminent threat & survival (adrenaline) vs staying ahead of the game (the struggle against procrastination.)
Farmers determine how to best grow crops by the laws of nature. The way the universe naturally functions teaches him the correct way to live his life. With morality, however, we discover, by the natural properties of the universe, that our natural tendency is for destruction. Why must we strive so hard against nature in order to achieve what should come naturally?
And other new challenges, even more recent, such as our natural bent towards "sweets" that use to attract us largely 2 things our body needed like fruit now where as w/ artificially created sweets (ex. baked goods), it attracts us - as the sweetest - 2 things that give our bodies a bunch of junk to deal w/.
Stepping back, as all these tensions/conflicts w/ in our nature 1st began 2 emerge, they were interpreted through an ancient superstition lens in relation 2 gods as evil/"sin"/etc.
"Why must we strive so hard against nature in order to achieve what should come naturally?" Farmers do have to have an understanding of the laws of nature, but they are also struggling against it. If farmers just let nature take its course by letting plants get watered only when it rain for example, their plants would die. Instead they take the info they have and find the best possible solution to reach their goal. With happiness as a goal, we know destruction will lead us away from it.
"Stepping back, as all these tensions/conflicts w/ in our nature 1st began 2 emerge, they were interpreted through an ancient superstition lens in relation 2 gods as evil/"sin"/etc."
That's assuming way too much for this discussion.
Farmers don't struggle against the laws of nature when they gather water to feed their crops. They may struggle against the current weather conditions of the time, but that is not struggling against the laws of nature.
When I say the laws of nature, I'm talking about how the universe works, i.e. gravity, the law of non-contradiction, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Why are we so bent on destruction? I can think of no other creature on earth so bent towards destructions as a human. Animals and plants alike may struggle for survival, but not one of them fights against their own nature in order to achieve happiness. Personally, I doubt if they have a concept of happiness. Morality seems solely a problem of ours.
"Why are we so bent on destruction? I can think of no other creature on earth so bent towards destruction as a human?" When an animal struggles for survival all it has to do is kill the other animal. Humans however have to fight against things like ideas which exist in the minds of many people. This is why terrorist attack many people and monuments in order to fight the ideas and ideals of the government they feel is evil or oppressive. The problem is that hatred just breeds more hatred.
That brings up a few more questions and didn't really answer mine. Some terrorists would argue that they are doing what is morally right according to their beliefs (religious or otherwise). In our pluralistic society, we foist this idea that everything is right as long as you believe it with all your heart. What do you think about that?
Well the second statment is obviously false. A child can believe in santa with all their heart but it doesn't make their belief right. The terrorist can believe what ever they want, the problem is that if their belief does not correspond with the facts then it is false by definition.
Well all terrorist don't believe the same things so your question is difficult to answer. The only way to see if their beliefs are right is to see if their premises and argument is sound. Your second question I thought was answered well by the user myintellectualjourny. Basically most humans will do what brings them immediate pleasure without considering the long term affects of their actions.
That was what I meant by it didn't really answer my question. That's just restating the fact that I questioned. Why do humans do only what brings them immediate pleasure? Why are we naturally evil? Why do momentary pleasures not bring longterm happiness?
To the first question, humans don't ONLY do what brings them immediate pleasure. Some people act in the moment and others think before they act. 2nd we are not naturally evil, most humans do not go around being malicious to others. 3rd a momentary pleasures like using drugs or being promiscious feels good in the moment but these lifestyles have consequences like addiction, depression, disease and even death. Every action has a immedate and future consequence and both must be taken into account
alainnmusic, if you would like to continue this discussion without the 500 word text limit, add me as a friend on your channel. I tried to email u on youtube but your account only allows friends to discuss.
The Wiccans are closest to a useful form of Morals and Ethics - "An it hurt none, do as thou wilst." I would rephrase this slightly as "Hurt no one, maximize survival, promote happiness." Oh, and if you find someone who does not want to be happy, then not being "happy" is what... makes them happy. Thus, the Plarinum Rule, "Do unto others as *THEY* would have you do unto *THEM*. Including leaving them alone.".
There are still better ways to be happy than to lie, cheat and steal. These can be shown scientifically and empirically. Since the results are not dependent upon a person, regardless of their subjective opinion, it is objective.
By saying there are "better ways to be happy" is to then try and argue over degrees. So if someone doesn't want to accept your scientifically concluded ways in which they can be happy and is perfectly content along the degrees in which they are happy, such as telling a lie or stealing. Whose to say otherwise?
Well, similarly if a farmer doesn't want to accept scientifically concluded ways in which they ought to farm to produce crops and is perfectly content with producing crops that do poorly then he is free to do so. But in doing so he is following a procedure that will not produce the best results objectively. Reality in turn tells the farmer that this is the wrong way to farm. Likewise with the person who doesn't want to follow the best method to be happy.
listen tim, it is an analogy. Philosophy is filled with them. If you don't like this particular analogy fine. But all it is saying is that if the results are independent of our subjective opinion then they are objective.
There is no my science and your science. There is no my objectivity and your objectivity. Science produces results that are independent of how somehow thinks reality works. Objectivity is means something is right regardless of independent subjective reasoning.
Yet, Hume, Aristotle and Socrates all had different type's of logic. Finally, individual's or group's can challenge logic by being subjective instead. Whose to say which is right? How can anyone say with absolute certainty that logic is absolutely true? Nobody can say this.
What type of logic did they have JCDBenjamin? I believe they all used deductive and inductive arguments.
"individuals can challenge logic by being subjective. Whose to say which is right?" The great thing about the goal theory of morality is that it cuts through subjectivity by finding objective truths empirically and scientifically. Science produces and tests results that are independent of how someone thinks reality works. Since it is not based on subjective opinion it is objective
JCD I don't think you understand. They all used the type of logic know as inductive and deductive logic. They applied this logic to different areas of life like knowledge, morality and language. It is kinda like how science has different areas like cosmology, biology, and phsyics.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that. But they still ended up with "different" moral views. Also you don't know if logic is absolute. That's a reason not to listen right off the bat.
"you never answered how can you with absolute certainty say logic is absolutely true?"
Yeah I didn't answer that question mostly because my vid doesn't argue for that. In this vid I didn't make the claim "this is logical therefore it is true." My argument is in the description box if you don't want to watch the vid.
That is the problem with all logic and all scientific processes in which they are used to tell people what to do. If you can't show absolute's then people can justify whatever they want no matter what you may say.
I found the book "Our Inner Ape" to have fascinating insights on morality--that morality not only predates religion, but predates humanity by millions of years. (My video response, "The Pre-Religion, and Pre-Human, Roots of Morality" has the details.)
Thanks Todd! Thanks for telling me about the book "Our Inner Ape". It going on the "to be read pile" very soon. If you ever get the chance I'd check out Carrier's book. You may not agree with all of it but it is useful since so few books outline an entire worldview. I just approved you vid and will check it out. Thanks again
> Thanks for telling me about the book "Our Inner Ape". It going on the "to be read pile" very soon.
I borrowed the CD version of it from the library and listened to it while driving—but when I was done I knew I had to buy the book. That book was one of the reasons I felt I had to revise my 2006 version of "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer": I felt it was suddenly lacking in dimension without including this book's insights.
(If you look in my book's index under the author's name - "Waal, Frans De" - you'll find that I have a lot of great quotes from him throughout my book, albeit mostly in the endnotes.)
Many people who just start stealing don't get caught and they do start to have fun doing it. The problem is does this lead to happiness as defined in my vid "abiding contentment". The answer is no. This is risky behavior. And worse it is addictive. And the more you do it the probability that you get caught increases. Most people who get caught stealing don't think they will get caught. The theifs lifestyle does not lead to abiding happiness.If you want lasting contentment you ought not to do it.
Surely, throughout the history of humanity there has been at least one thief who was never brought to justice.
You say stealing cannot bring happiness because it is risky and addictive. Stealing can be just as risky and just as addictive as. . .
-rock climbing
-sky diving
-Nascar racing
-skateboarding
-skiing
-etc.
By your definition of happiness, all of those things I've listed and much more fun things cannot bring you happiness. Seems like a pretty useless definition to me.
I'm sure many have gotten away with much worse than stealing but we need to consider psychological effects as well. Living a life where you are constantly looking over ones shoulder for fear of being caught is not a happy life to lead. We can also look at studies of Kleptomaniacs in psychologoy and see if these people are truely happy.
about the other actions you listed ,when I think risky I think rock climbing without a cords, sky diving without a backup parachute etc. (cont)
just like Russian Roulette, or driving drunk, it maybe incredibly exciting and fun but the risks are just too high.
For clarity I'll reference my video. Remember when I talked about people farming corn. There may be many ways to do it but there are decent ways and best ways. Morality is the similar. If you want you can follow the risky lifestyle of stealing that has a low chance of getting you happiness or a life a compassion and intergrity for enduring happiness.
If there is a thief who loves stealing, is not addicted to stealing, will not get in trouble, and is not worried about getting in trouble, why should that thief not steal?
You can't answer, "That thief doesn't exist." because all that matters is that this thief existing is well within the realm of possibility.
I wouldn't answer "that thief doesn't exist" because these people do exist, especially if they are in positions of authority. Lets go back to psychology. People naturally hate those who steal, lie, cheat etc since such people threaten our chance of survival. We even hate characters that embody these traits. But from this we reach a psychological dilemma. When we act like those we hate we begin to hate ourselves. I can cite numerous psychological studies that show evidence of this if you want...
So your answer is that the thief shouldn't steal because he would end up hating himself.
I'm sure that this is true for many cases, but for your argument to be sound, it would have to be impossible to be a thief and not end up hating yourself for stealing stuff.
Are you willing to say that every single thief will end up hating himself for stealing? If yes, I think your just plain wrong. If no, then you need to think of another answer.
I think we are getting away from the point here. We are busy looking at your single super thief who doesn't get caught and seems to have no conscious. The morality in this vid is not saying every wrong doer will get punished or feel bad. The vid is saying that morality is a technology for enduring contentment. What moral lifestyle is best for securing happiness on an empirical basis. The moral framework that secures happiness the best is the one you should follow if you want enduring happiness
Lets compare the moral framework of a thief and a non thief. As I've already stated (and can back up with data) is that a thief has a high chance of getting caught, could suffer depression at the thought of getting caught and have self-debasing attitude. The non-thief on the other hand has less of a chance of getting this depressing lifestyle by avoiding it. On a probablisitic basis and empirically, what is better? science can show us that the latter is the best framework to take.
I understand what your saying and I agree with some parts of your video.
The fact is you failed to give me a single solid reason why my "super thief" should not steal. That is because logically the "super thief" should steal if he wants to achieve enduring happiness.
Unless you can give me a solid reason why the thief should not steal, The Goal Theory of Morality fails.
Firstly, your super thief is like a pyschopathic robot. From your description he never gets caught, if he did he doesn't care, and he does not seem to have a feeling of guilt which means he has no conscious. A theistic view of eternal salvation/punishment wouldn't bother him either since by definition he wouldn't get caught. Lastly the Goal theory wouldn't fail because that same thief would still have moral theories that work better at achieving human happiness. You ought to follow the best one
You're right. The Goal Theory does not fail. Sorry, I didn't know enough about it.
I'm an atheist btw, and I agree, under both with a theistic morality and an atheistic morality, there is no logical reason why the super thief shouldn't steal.
The thief is well within the realm of possibility. He can feel guilt, just not from stealing. He does not want to get caught, but since he is so confident that he won't he doesn't worry about it. He's like Jimmy Conway. Wait, Conway got caught.(Face palm)
It's easy to prove a moral theory by changing definitions like you did with happiness.
I don't see why an action can't make someone happy just because it's risky or addictive. If an action is risky or addictive then that only means it is a stupid thing to do. You said that it does not offer prolonged happiness. Well, it doesn't have to. Stealing can give people happiness, prolonged or not prolonged.
We don't have to use the word happiness if you wish. Its just semantics. Lets just say enduring contentment.
"I don't see why an action can't make someone happy because it is risky"
Lets take Russian Roulette. Playing this risky game can make you happy in the moment, but the amount of time you will stay that way is not as secure as someone who doesn't. What humans want is to happy and to stay that way which is why risky behavior should be avoided. cont
For example when european colonials slaughtered 90% of the natives of north america and stole their land they became incredibly content. Or when the Hebrews slaughtered their neighbors took their wives and children and land for their own they were content. Happiness is the goal of all behavior even if it isn't moral behavior. Morality can be skewed to justify doing things that make you happy.
Yes happiness is the key motivation for all action. About morality being skewed to justify doing things to make you happy, this may be true, but it can be shown scientifically some methods of finding an enduring happiness are better than others. Is it better live life continuing to make more and more enemies for your benefit or to make allies? The one that has the best probability of being effective is the one you ought to do if you want enduring happiness.
I'm sorry but the main problem I have with psychology (which you seem to be basing a lot of this argument on) is the fact that it is so subjective. First, these psychological studies are dealing with individuals who do believe in a god (most likely) and believe morals come from god. Thus if someone is content, because they are honest. Well that contentment is based on their belief that honesty is a virtue and most likely based on belief. Psychology is a weak science.
While you can define morality as what you ought to do to be happy, I think that is a pretty bad definition because it morality is how you interact with other people, if you were alone on the planet there would be no moral right or wrong. Happiness and contentment is a purely self centered idea, as well as subjective, no matter what think can be proven with those sciences. . . .
Morality isn't always about interactions with other people. Some moral issues do concern matters such as sucicide or lying to ones self. As for subjectiveness, Goal theory of morality is objective in that the results are not dependent on our subjective opinion. As far as self centered, I would have to argue that compassion and intergrity are the values that logically follow from happiness at the core value. But that would take another video. Compassion for others rejects selfishness
How does compassion and integrity follow from happiness, and wouldn't it be the other way around? Happiness in this model is the end goal. Happiness is selfish as in, it is an emotional state, happiness is completely internal. Compassion, is an act. It requires a subject. Personally I don't consider suicide a moral issue, and lying to oneself is usually done to make yourself happy and content so in this model that would be good.
Intergrity is easy. Basically you ought to stick to the code that produces the best enduring happiness.Deviating will be like sneaking a smoke, it just hurts you in the long run. I think that the prisoner dilemma demonstated that caring for others was beneficial. In this experiment the ones with the tit for tat strategy helped out people initially and continued to help those who helped them. There were other models like backstabbers etc but this model of helping others was best.
Lying to oneself might produce some initial happiness but in the long run it will not. I think that history has shown is that the more facts you know about the world, the more you can help yourself. Lying to yourself just produces a placebo effect but doesn't alleviate the problem. Not lying to oneself can put you on the path to solve the problem.
It's an assumption to say they're telling a lie to themselves. Because they could say I know the truth, I'm just telling a lie to you, not to me. Whose to say otherwise?
timcp1, Uhlbelk postulated that lying to oneself could make one happy. I rebutted that lying might produce some initial happiness but in the long run it would fail since it only produces a placebo effect. In any case someone who is lying to themselves or lying about lying to themselves is still a liar.
They don't talk to themselves in a mirror or something. They talk to others, so if they know the truth, then they are telling a lie to you, not to themselves.
you have to look at my discussion with Uhlbelk in context because in the way he put it, the person is basically lying to themselves in a mirror. Uhlbelk said "morality is how you interact with poeple, if you were alone on a planet there would be no right and wrong." I objected saying "morality is not always about other people. Some moral issues do concern matters such as...lying to onesself" So in Ulbelk's example it is like the person is lying to themself in a mirror
It is wrong because there are better ways to secure enduring happiness that are independent of his subjective method of happiness. This can be shown scientifically.
For you maybe. Tell that to the Italian and Irish mafia among others. They are doing pretty well for themselves using their own modes of thought. Since you can't say that it is absolutely true, then you can't be absolutely certain that your logic is certain.
I don't have to just assert to the Italian mafia etc. I'm not using my authority to say you are wrong. Instead we all can find objective values using scientific and empirical studies that give us results despite our subjective opinion. Since the results don't come from us they are objective.
I think I already told you that I'm not using pure logic to determine if something is true. The method I've described is mostly scientific. You know how science showed that gravity is absolutely true despite anyone's subjective opinion, the goal theory of morality says science can show the best method of producing enduring happiness.
Gravity is not morality. They're up to quantum gravity, but even it is not complete. And therefore not absolute. But none of these thing's is morality.
Lol anyone who doesn't believe gravity is absolutely true should test their claim by jumping off out of a plane without a parachute. The whole point of my vid is to say morality can be scientifically verified.
"We all can" is your opinion. If they don't want to they don't have to. Their results are shown regardless of objectivity, therefore they can choose however they want to live. So you're left with the inability to tell society how to behave.
Well I wouldn't be telling society how to live. Like science shows you tells you that to push something you need to exert a force greater than the objects mass times its acceleration, it can also show you the best method of achieving enduring happiness. If people don't want to listen they have the free will to do so.
Science isn't morality though. Nor can it justify right and wrong within it. It's an assumption to think logic is absolutely true. And then to talk about which to use pure or not, is to argue over degrees. So you're back to anybody using logic however they want to, because nobody can be absolutely certain, logic is absolute truth.
the morality described in my video argues that science can be used to determine it. If you disagree then that is fine. Of course logic can show absolutes. Logic would tell us that it is absolutely true that there are no square circles on a 2 dimensional plane.
What you get with this way of determining moral code is a moral code distribution, but it says nothing about if the moral code is correct or not. Then you have to say, well, the one code that benefits everyone the most is the right one, but that still doesn't work because morality is more subjective (more absolute) then the objective determinism that this process would permit. Sorry I have a hard time describing this, it would be easier to use examples.
Carrier's argument, at best, establishes an EPISTEMOLOGICAL framework for morality. But the problem is that the moral argument appeals to the necessary metaphysical framework of morality. Further, appealing to people's goals doesn't quite reduces normative facts to descriptive facts. At best, Carrier's retort reduces a vast collection of normative facts to a single normative fact, which could not exist on naturalism
Clear, concise, excellent
JusticeIsWhere 4 months ago
Damn someone beat me to it.
Kan2209 1 year ago
None is righteous, no not one; no one understands: no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless: no one does good, not even one. Romans 3:10b-12. The Word of the Lord.
padreallenp 1 year ago
i disagree that happiness is the goal. there are many varied goals for people to choose for themselves
shnosmas 1 year ago
Its annoying that these videos are not easily accessible on your channel. Seriously, love your vids.
truevoiceofsanity 1 year ago
Cool. Happiness explains how the brain works lol. Our brains are goal based.
This `happiness` idea encapsulates all the societal pressure on our moral values, the aethetic pleasure from logical symmetry, etc, etc. KT45 you really deserve more views for your videos. The water cooler was a good schtick to get noticed. Its a great device. You should try it more with ideas like this.
truevoiceofsanity 1 year ago
You simply can't tell me that some people wouldn't be happy if they could get away with stealing, murder, rape etc. if they could. They may not be as happy as a person doesn't want to do those things, but it could simply mean they are inherently harder to please (hence the need for 'moral' transgressions).
I would expect 'immoral' people would be unhappy in a society of our current mores because they need to cover and feel guilty about their actions and drives.
Grayto 1 year ago
So do you believe in a universal morality? Do you believe in a set of morals that can be compared and judged by others? Or do you believe in purely individual morality... you have to set your goals and define right and wrong as what will get you closer and further from those goals?
jacobfourteen 1 year ago
Comment removed
jacobfourteen 1 year ago
Aren't goals valued subjectively ? Even if we all agree on the value of a goal and even if it is necessary to value a goal for survival it still requires a subjective valuation. Yeah sure not having this subjective valuation may kill us but the valuation remains subjective. Subjective doesn't mean "Something that not everybody agrees with" or "something that one can and can not belief and still keep living" but it means "X is valuable only because we value it".
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
Because if goals are subjectively valuable this leads me to the following argument:
The value of methods depends on the value of goals.
The value of goals is subjective.
if A requires B and B requires C then A requires C.
The value of methods requires the value of goals and the value of goals requires a subjective valuation.
Therefore the value of methods requires a subjective valuation (that of the goal).
Therefore the value of methods is subjective. Not objective.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
In premise 1 you state "The value of methods depends on the value of goals" I disagree with premise 1 since the method could show that your subj. value of a goal is based on false facts or poor analysis of the facts. Example, everyone thinks that beating their spouse brings happiness (goal). A psychologist gathers data and finds this to be false. Even though every agreed beating your spouse was valued, the method showed they were wrong (cont)
KT45 1 year ago
Since the results of the method are independent from the subj. opinions of others it is objective. Like science, the value of the method depends on how well it produces results that match reality. Many scientist bring many (subjective) hypothesis saying they are right but the method cuts through the subjective opinion. Similar to goal theory.
KT45 1 year ago
FGB, I have a question for you on subjectivity. You said "subjective = X is only valuable because we value it"
But what if you didn't know you valued X? I ask because before we can choose what we value we have to first discover what we value. For instance, as a child I thought I wouldn't like broccoli because it looked ugly and nasty. But when I tasted it I liked it. So regardless of what I thought, it is objectively true that KT45 like broccoli. (cont)
KT45 1 year ago
But it is also true subjectively good that broccoli is good. I think this illustrate a point Carrier mentions in his book. He states p336 "the fact that all values are 'subjective' in the sense of belonging to an individual does not entail that none of these values are 'objective'"
FGB, since there I things I value, that even I don't know I value, it follows that they these values exist outside my conscious thoughts and opinions (in some unexplored area of my physiology) and are thus objective
KT45 1 year ago
Part 1:
Whether a method leads to a desired goal is objective. I agree on that.
But the value of the method is still derived from the value of the goal. Consider these four scenarios:
A) The method leads to the desired goal but the goal is not valuable.
B) The method leads to the desired goal and the goal is valuable.
C) The method does not lead to the desired goal and the goal is valuable.
D) The method does not lead to the desired goal and the goal is not valuable.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
Part 2)
In case A the method is not valuable eventhough it objectively leads to the goal.
In case C the method is not valuable because it has no connection to the value of the goal.
The only case where the method is valuable is case B because in case B the method has a connection to the value of the goal. If the goal was not valuable neither would be the method (as in case A).
Therefore the value of the method depends on the value of the goal.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
Part 3)
Let's say I value chocolate ice cream but you hate it.
In this case it is an objective fact that buying ice cream leads to my goal of eating ice cream.
It is also an objective fact that buying ice cream does not lead to your goal of avoiding ice cream.
Eventhough the relationship between the method and the goal is objective the value of the method depends on what one values.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
Part 4)
It is objective that buying ice cream is useful if you want to eat ice cream but it is a right action only if you do value ice cream. So the value of the action (whether it is right or wrong) depends on whether one values ice cream or not.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
Based on your response, I agree with premise one. But in premise two you say "the value of goals is subjective" The counter to this premise Carrier gives is "the fact that all values are subjective in the sense of belonging to the individual does not entail none of these values are objective" Carrier argues that happiness is the value because it is the motivation for all human action. (conti)
KT45 1 year ago
"Subjective" simply means that it depends on human valuation in order to be valuable.
I do not see how happiness being the motivation for all human action makes happiness valuable independently from human appreciation. It may make happiness objectively life sustaining, objectively unavoidable or objectively useful. But as long as it is only our subjective appreciation of life, the unavoidable and usefulness the value of what objectively leads to these things is still subjective.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
Part 2:
Scenario 1:
1. I subjectively value B
2. A objectively leads to B
=> A is valuable.
Scenario 2:
1. I don't subjectively value B
2. A objectively leads to B
=> A is not valuable
If you compare the two scenarios above you will see that A is valuable if and only if B is valuable. Now if B is valuable subjectively then that means A is objectively subjectively valuable or in other words: As a matter of objective fact A is subjectively valuable.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
Part 3:
Do you see the difference between:
1. "A is objectively valuable"
and
2. "As a matter of objective fact A is subjectively valuable"
Because 2 is all that follows. Now if happiness is the motivation for all human action but human action and life is only valuable because we value it then as a matter of objective fact happiness is subjectively valuable. Do you see the difference between this statement and "Happiness is objectively valuable" ?
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
As you said "subjective" simply means that it depends on human valuation in order to be valuable. Agreed.
Then you ask "I do not see how happiness being the motivation for all human action makes happiness valuable independently from human appreciation. It may make happiness....objectively unavoidable"
I'd like to focus on it being unavoidable. You are essentially forced to follow a stronger desire over a weaker desire. So regardless of what you think you have to value it. (cont)
KT45 1 year ago
Basically I know you are saying that happiness is subjective because it depends on human valuation in order to be valuable. But I'm arguing that happiness is also objective because humans are forced to value it no matter what they think (independent of what i think I have to value happiness). Basically the fact that you MUST have this value regardless of what you think makes it objective but since you can use valuation on it makes it subjective. (I'm enjoying this discussion btw. Thanks)
KT45 1 year ago
How do you get from "objectively unavoidable" to "objectively valuable" ?
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
Please correct me if my reasoning is not valid. If something is truly unavoidable then it is true you must encounter it independent of what u think or want. Anything that is truly independent of human thought is objectively true. Therefore if something is truly unavoidable then it is objectively true. A value that humans must have is an unavoidable value. If a value exist that is unavoidable then the value is objectively true and therefore objectively valuable.
KT45 1 year ago
But is happiness valuable outside of human psychology ? I mean if you consider happiness isolated from human psychology...is it still valuable ?
No !
This remains true even if we all have no choice but to value happiness. Even if all of us are bound to value happiness and even if not valuing happiness kills us immediately the value of happiness still does not exist outside of our psychology.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
Within human psychology, there is unconscious thought and conscious thought. Consciously we are not bound to value happiness, for instance I can think to myself "I do not value happiness". However unconsciously I am bound to follow my strongest desire regardless of my conscious thought. To be objective, something must be true outside of conscious thought. Happiness is an unavoidable value that my being possesses despite my consicous thought and it is therefore objective.
KT45 1 year ago
@KT45
We are objectively bound to value happiness. But that does not make happiness objectively valuable.
It is an objective fact that we value something but this does not make the value an objective fact.
A preference remains a preference even if we are bound to have it. If we are bound to have a preference then as a matter of objective fact we are bound to have this preference but the preference remains a preference and the preference itself is not objective.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
FGB, where do you get the idea that our interest in our own well-being and happiness needs to be "objectively valuable" for it to be of value to us? It is in fact human beings here that are having this conversation... we're the subjects involved... not another species or a deity. I don't get what you're point is.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
I am not saying that something needs to be objectively valuable in order to be of value for us. Rather what I am trying to explain is that something needs to be objectively valuable in order for the term "morality" to apply. Something that is of value of us is certainly a good reason to act towards this goal but does not meet the definition of "morality" since we use the term morality to refer to the idea that we can rightfully demand behaviour from others.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard
Then this is a simple mistake as the term "morality" is not defined exclusively in a way that requires the source of it transcend human nature. The popular theistic slant on "morality" can be said 2, I'd agree, but not the definition of the word in general.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard
(cont'd)
If you look up the word "morality" in the dictionary, you'll find at least some if not most of the definitions there do not require an "objective" source that transcends humanity (see for example the definitions on the Stanford university dictionary site.) So u really have to argue for that definition or else you'd begging the case.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard
(cont'd 2)
All we really need is to define morality in a way that stand apart from individual opinion and goal theory does this. It thereby addresses the valid concern behind the Christian preoccupation with objective vs subjective morality. And it does this without requiring we go beyond humanity itself. It thereby does it on a bases - human nature - we all share rather than on a bases - a particular religion - that other religious & non-religious people do not share.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
Independently from individual opinion where do you get a goal from ?
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard
Human nature. Humans by their nature care about their happiness / self-interest. So we all have that goal in common. And since we each have that goal, and there are factors that for all of us effect our personal happiness, there are ways that we "should" and "should not" act so as to best serve our pursuit of that goal.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard (cont'd)
Why should we care about what best helps us pursue our happiness? This is not a question of why or having a reason that we "should" do this but a question of what we already do by our very nature. AKA: By our very nature we care about our happiness... before we even learn to think in words, we care about our experience... and how much or little well-being we experience during it. .
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard (cont'd 2)
So this inherent human goal both precedes and transcends individual human awareness or opinion as do certain factors that come into play in determining what best serves our achieving this goal as fully as possible.
Does that make sense?
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
My need to jack off precedes and transcends my awareness too. So am I a hero for masturbating ?
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard
Haha... no... just a man ;)
But I'm sure its obvoius to you that "doing the deed" is not enough to leave a man entirely fulfilled... any more than survival alone is enough to fully gratify our nature.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
Just because a desire is strong and unconscious and not controllable doesn't mean it stops being a desire and turns into an objective reality. Whatever depends on our psychology in order for it's existence is not objective. It may be objective that our psychology makes us value X but there is no connection from "It is objective that X is valued" to "X is objectively valuable".
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard
Not sure what you mean or what I said that gave you the idea that I thought something was "objectively valuable." I'd never say that given values are subjective by their very nature. In other words, values are subject to the one (or ones) doing the valuing. And values do not exist apart from a subject who does the valuing. But it can be said objectively that all human beings by their very nature care about their experience (the same can probably also be said for dolphins.)
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
The thing is this: You said "All we really need is to define morality in a way that stand apart from individual opinion"
But whatever is subjective is individual opinion. Even if I do not consciously decide on it. Like I do not consciously decide that I like chocolate ice cream. Still my preference of it is on the same level as an opinion.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
Actually it seems irelevant how you define it because that is just a word game anyway. As a matter of fact we can not rightfully demand behaviour from others. Let's keep it there.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard
The thing is that some things are true for human beings independent of whether every individual human is aware of it or not. That we all care about the quality of our experience (how much fulfillment or suffering we experience) is true for all human beings by our very nature. That's square one.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard (cont'd)
Square two is that there are things (experiences / situations) that better serve that nature (as far as having a more positive experience than not - the goal we all share by our very nature) than others is also true. And this basic aspect of our nature that we share goes deeper than the level of tastes (like icecream.) Everyone likes pleasure but not everyone gets pleasure from eating chocolate icecream.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard (cont'd 2)
Its from this common ground that shared concerns regarding human behavior (or what we call morality) gets its footing. And as far as the experiences and conditions we want to maximize in society, we want and will continue to push for a society of laws and type of relationships that maximizes our experience in this way, whether some individuals think its wrong for people 2 demand certain behavior of others or not. For them, its tough luck... and get w/ the program.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard (cont'd)
One thing studies show people find is part of the difference that makes a difference in how fulfilled they are with hteir lives is whether or not their making a difference in the lives of others. Gratifying this aspect of your human nature is much more likely to take you down hero... if only ordinary "hero"... terrain ;P
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard yes you are :-) Spank that monkey so you will make those fundies freaked out lol
mythicalhell 1 year ago
@KT45 Your video is directly parallel to Mill's fallacious "Proof "of the Principle of Utility that the proof for happiness being worthy of desire is the fact that everyone desires it. But this is still a naturalistic fallacy. Even if everyone desires their happiness, this does not entail that everyone ought to desire their happiness as the sole end of all their conduct, even if every end of their conduct happens to contain happiness as a part, or common denominator, of willed ends.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@KT45 ...That is, in Kant's words, no argument from hypothetical imperatives alone can adequately support the judgment that we have a moral duty to do something, or refrain from doing something. Unfortunately, this argument is left stuck in the lurch of instrumental reasoning, and it is still far from proving the "Goal Theory of Morality" as the supreme action guiding principle of conduct.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 the pursuit of happiness is a goal we are bound to follow. We will are forced follow our strongest desires regardless of our conscious thought due to the physical laws of the universe. But unlike Kant's examples of hypothetical imperatives the Goal theory is a hypotheical imperative grounded on this normative fact.
KT45 1 year ago
@KT45 "the pursuit of happiness is a goal we are bound to follow. "
--"Bound" as in morally obligated? Or "bound" as in necessitated by the laws of nature to actually achieve happiness? Either way, the first claim is a naturalistic fallacy, even if everyone in fact seeks their happiness does not entail they ought to pursue their happiness as the only end of all their conduct. And the second claim is just plain false. Clearly, many people don't ever achieve lasting happiness.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Happiness being the key motivator of human action makes sense because "any contrary desire won't generate a neural signal strong enought to override the powerful signal your strongest desire is already pushing on your brain" We also can't help our human physiology so what makes us happy can and many times is contrary to our conscious thoughts. We also have methods for finding out what hinders happiness and what helps us achieve happiness including psychology and neuroscience.
KT45 1 year ago
Great video. Subbed.
Key2daUnderground 1 year ago
If morality is objectively based on what ultimately makes a person happy, how can one determine what creates happiness by nature? Abiding contentment that makes life worth living? By what measure is it determined that something makes life worth living? How is it also measurable that suffering is bad? Here, I think, is the underlying issue: in all these ideas and theories is still the inescapable theme that one way of living is better than another.
alainnmusic 2 years ago
The question I have is this: by what standard is this sense of "better" and "worse" measured? Why is it better to live than to die? Why is it better to be in comfort rather than pain? What quantifiable source makes one thing better than another? It seems that the claim proposed here is that morality is based on happiness which is determined by personal preferences which vary from person to person. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
alainnmusic 2 years ago
Words like better or worse only apply in response to a specific goal. For instance, if the goal is to shoot a basketball into a hoop I can point out the person who missed and say you did worse than the person who made the shot. It is only better to live than to die if your goal is to live as long as possible.
KT45 2 years ago
There are many things that are good that I personally as well as many others would prefer not to do. There are also many things that are bad that I personally would prefer to do.
alainnmusic 2 years ago
The life lived by Mother Theresa was selfless. I would say she lived her life for moral good. But I personally would prefer not to live my life that way, having other ambitions and plans I would rather do.
alainnmusic 2 years ago
To live a sensuous life is selfish. I would say that to live like this is morally bad. But I desire to live that way. I would prefer it to being selfish.
Why do I call good what I would rather not do and call bad what I would rather do if morality is based on happiness, i.e. my personal preference?
It seems to me that there is a standard of good that is unachievable. Where did this idea for perfection come from if no one has ever been perfect?
alainnmusic 2 years ago
typographical error: 1st ¶, last word: selfless, not selfish....
alainnmusic 2 years ago
"Why do I call good what I would rather not do and call bad what I would rather do if morality is based on happiness, i.e. my personal preference?"
Once again we are back to personal preference. In my video I explain this with the farming analogy. In farming, each farmer can have his "personal preference" for how they farm, but regardless of his personal preference, there are better ways and worse ways to farm. Watch my video at 2:22
KT45 2 years ago
"it seems that the claim proposed here is that morality is based on happiness which is determined by personal preferences which vary from person to person"
Yes this is correct. Just like farming there are many different preferences for how one should grow crops but we can determine what method is better or worse by the results they give. Based on these results we can tell the farmer what he ought not to do or what he ought to do in order to be successful.
KT45 2 years ago
The goal theory of morality proposes the same thing. Everyone can have their own personal subjective opinion but the results are not depenedent on the person making it objective. Lets think about it. If you want to live happily for as long as you can would playing russian roulette be good or bad? While it may make you happy in the moment it is incredibly risky behavior that has a 1/6 chance of you living to be happy about it. This game you ought not to do.
KT45 2 years ago
Yes I understand that, but it seems from what you said that what you offer with one hand you take back with the other.
Morality is based on happiness.
Happiness is based on personal preference.
If my personal preference offers an undesirable result, my preference was wrong.
So it's not, therefore based on preference but the results.
alainnmusic 2 years ago
One thing you say here is that happiness is based on personal preference. But this can't be completely true. Has something ever happened to you that you thought would not make you happy but you found that it did? Or did you think something would make you happy but it did not? It seems more likely that what makes you happy, especially long term, is not always what you prefer. Happiness therefore is more than your personal preference.
KT45 2 years ago
The analogy breaks down because there are multiple ways to farm, though one may be more or less successful than another. Morality, on the other hand, does not work that way. You are either morally right or morally wrong, and it is not a determination based on results.
alainnmusic 2 years ago
Actually it is a lot like farming. You don't think that there are better ways to live that will achieve happiness and worse ways regardless of personal opinion?
KT45 2 years ago
Lets look at the farming example again. You said morality is doesn't work the same way as farming because you are either morally right or morally wrong. But isn't their a wrong way to farm and a right way. The farmer that doesn't water his plants and doesn't use fertile soil is clearly farming wrong. With morality we are looking at how people think they ought to live. The one that is best at securing happiness is the one that is right and the one that constantly fails is wrong.
KT45 2 years ago
Do you understand my confusion? How can morality be dependent on our personal preference if our personal preference does not achieve the desired results?
Some cultures love their neighbors. Other cultures prefer, rather, to eat them. We would both agree that this is morally wrong. How can we call wrong what they prefer if morality is based on preference?
It almost seems as though you have proposed two separate ideas of morality. Personal morality and universal morality.
alainnmusic 2 years ago
The moral framework in my video is NOT dependant upon subjective opinion. It is objective like science because the truth of the claim is not dependant on the individual but instead on the results. Lets take the cultures you describe. the ones that love their neighbors, and the ones that eat them. The ones that love their neighbors will have be building allies the others will be making enemies coming under constant theat of retaliation, they will be less happy.
KT45 2 years ago
So you're saying that people's opinions of morality may be different, but morality exists apart from peoples opinion of it? I think I'm struggling with what you're saying about objectivity. I personally believe morality is 100% objective, but if it's based on peoples personal preference it cannot be objective at all.
alainnmusic 2 years ago
Okay I'll try to put this differently. Everyone has different ideas of what is right and what is wrong. For instance some people think that the best way to achieve lasting happiness is to drink mass quantities of alcohol. However we know that this is wrong because this can lead to depression, agression, sickness and death which is the opposite of a lasting happiness. Regardless of the personal opinion about drinking mass amounts of alcohol the fact is that it is the wrong for achieving happiness
KT45 2 years ago
Basically people have many different ideas about what is right and wrong but in order to verify these ideas are correct we need to test them. This can be done numerous ways by using neuroscience, psychology, studying history, personal experience etc. Basically people have many different HYPOTHESIS about what is right and wrong but only through rigerous test and study can we find out what is factually right and wrong.
KT45 2 years ago
Nice discussion. I might add, concerning the dilemma you raise alan, that with the farming theory, while a farmer - who like other farmers wants to be successful & make good money with his farm - might prefer on a daily basis to take it easy & do as little work as possible. Now while he might prefer this daily, in the long run it will be detrimental to his happiness to do so. AKA: What is preferable in the short-term does not define what brings abiding well-being / happiness in the long run.
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
Thanks for the explaination myintellectualjourny. What you immediately prefer has no bearing on what will bring you long term happiness
KT45 2 years ago
I think its fair to say that, universally most people prefer lasting happiness over momentary bliss, though you might not know it by how we/people live at times. This only goes to show that what is rationally best for one's lasting happiness is not necessarily what comes most natural for us. While religious people may call this "sin," for those who are not it can simply be an aspect of human nature we have to deal w/ to pursue happiness & can do so w/ the help of our natural ability to reason.
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
Ok, so happiness is not based on personal preference. That part now makes a lot more sense to me. Why then do we as humans always prefer what does not bring us long term happiness? It seems completely contrary to our nature to pursue lasting happiness, as you mentioned.
alainnmusic 2 years ago
It's a great question alain. My crack at it would be, for a very long time, for our survival, it was the moment by moment decisions defined by current circumstances that were key for our survival, but then thousands of years ago as the benefits of society began to emerge slowly, we began being able to and even having to think about longterm considerations (such as not to overeat w/ food being more readily available w/ agriculture and then more trade developing for example.)
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
(cont'd)
Now at this point we have different desires at war within us. The desire for the short-term vs to consider of the long-term. Cooperative instincts vs competitive instincts that w/ the development of society / social order became less necessary but not entirely unnecessary (w/ healthy outlets for such instincts like sports now a value.) The motivation to get moving based on imminent threat & survival (adrenaline) vs staying ahead of the game (the struggle against procrastination.)
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
Farmers determine how to best grow crops by the laws of nature. The way the universe naturally functions teaches him the correct way to live his life. With morality, however, we discover, by the natural properties of the universe, that our natural tendency is for destruction. Why must we strive so hard against nature in order to achieve what should come naturally?
alainnmusic 2 years ago
(cont'd)
And other new challenges, even more recent, such as our natural bent towards "sweets" that use to attract us largely 2 things our body needed like fruit now where as w/ artificially created sweets (ex. baked goods), it attracts us - as the sweetest - 2 things that give our bodies a bunch of junk to deal w/.
Stepping back, as all these tensions/conflicts w/ in our nature 1st began 2 emerge, they were interpreted through an ancient superstition lens in relation 2 gods as evil/"sin"/etc.
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
"Why must we strive so hard against nature in order to achieve what should come naturally?" Farmers do have to have an understanding of the laws of nature, but they are also struggling against it. If farmers just let nature take its course by letting plants get watered only when it rain for example, their plants would die. Instead they take the info they have and find the best possible solution to reach their goal. With happiness as a goal, we know destruction will lead us away from it.
KT45 2 years ago
"Stepping back, as all these tensions/conflicts w/ in our nature 1st began 2 emerge, they were interpreted through an ancient superstition lens in relation 2 gods as evil/"sin"/etc."
That's assuming way too much for this discussion.
Farmers don't struggle against the laws of nature when they gather water to feed their crops. They may struggle against the current weather conditions of the time, but that is not struggling against the laws of nature.
alainnmusic 2 years ago
When I say the laws of nature, I'm talking about how the universe works, i.e. gravity, the law of non-contradiction, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Why are we so bent on destruction? I can think of no other creature on earth so bent towards destructions as a human. Animals and plants alike may struggle for survival, but not one of them fights against their own nature in order to achieve happiness. Personally, I doubt if they have a concept of happiness. Morality seems solely a problem of ours.
alainnmusic 2 years ago
"Why are we so bent on destruction? I can think of no other creature on earth so bent towards destruction as a human?" When an animal struggles for survival all it has to do is kill the other animal. Humans however have to fight against things like ideas which exist in the minds of many people. This is why terrorist attack many people and monuments in order to fight the ideas and ideals of the government they feel is evil or oppressive. The problem is that hatred just breeds more hatred.
KT45 2 years ago
That brings up a few more questions and didn't really answer mine. Some terrorists would argue that they are doing what is morally right according to their beliefs (religious or otherwise). In our pluralistic society, we foist this idea that everything is right as long as you believe it with all your heart. What do you think about that?
alainnmusic 2 years ago
Well the second statment is obviously false. A child can believe in santa with all their heart but it doesn't make their belief right. The terrorist can believe what ever they want, the problem is that if their belief does not correspond with the facts then it is false by definition.
KT45 2 years ago
It's good to know we're on the same page there. I'm so hard pressed to find anyone that believes in absolute truth anymore.
Now about the beliefs of terrorists, to which facts are their beliefs not corresponding?
I still have this question: Why is it so unnatural for humans to do "good"?
alainnmusic 2 years ago
Well all terrorist don't believe the same things so your question is difficult to answer. The only way to see if their beliefs are right is to see if their premises and argument is sound. Your second question I thought was answered well by the user myintellectualjourny. Basically most humans will do what brings them immediate pleasure without considering the long term affects of their actions.
KT45 2 years ago
Ah ok, so it was a generalization of sorts.
That was what I meant by it didn't really answer my question. That's just restating the fact that I questioned. Why do humans do only what brings them immediate pleasure? Why are we naturally evil? Why do momentary pleasures not bring longterm happiness?
alainnmusic 2 years ago
To the first question, humans don't ONLY do what brings them immediate pleasure. Some people act in the moment and others think before they act. 2nd we are not naturally evil, most humans do not go around being malicious to others. 3rd a momentary pleasures like using drugs or being promiscious feels good in the moment but these lifestyles have consequences like addiction, depression, disease and even death. Every action has a immedate and future consequence and both must be taken into account
KT45 2 years ago
alainnmusic, if you would like to continue this discussion without the 500 word text limit, add me as a friend on your channel. I tried to email u on youtube but your account only allows friends to discuss.
KT45 2 years ago
This is fantastic! This put into words where my own view has "evolved" to and specifically in response to the Is-Ought issue.
Great job! You hit on all the keys points and refute the main objections ;)
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
The Wiccans are closest to a useful form of Morals and Ethics - "An it hurt none, do as thou wilst." I would rephrase this slightly as "Hurt no one, maximize survival, promote happiness." Oh, and if you find someone who does not want to be happy, then not being "happy" is what... makes them happy. Thus, the Plarinum Rule, "Do unto others as *THEY* would have you do unto *THEM*. Including leaving them alone.".
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
People say they are happy telling a lie, cheating or stealing all the time. Who is anyone to take that away from them?
timcp1 2 years ago
There are still better ways to be happy than to lie, cheat and steal. These can be shown scientifically and empirically. Since the results are not dependent upon a person, regardless of their subjective opinion, it is objective.
KT45 2 years ago
By saying there are "better ways to be happy" is to then try and argue over degrees. So if someone doesn't want to accept your scientifically concluded ways in which they can be happy and is perfectly content along the degrees in which they are happy, such as telling a lie or stealing. Whose to say otherwise?
timcp1 2 years ago
Well, similarly if a farmer doesn't want to accept scientifically concluded ways in which they ought to farm to produce crops and is perfectly content with producing crops that do poorly then he is free to do so. But in doing so he is following a procedure that will not produce the best results objectively. Reality in turn tells the farmer that this is the wrong way to farm. Likewise with the person who doesn't want to follow the best method to be happy.
KT45 2 years ago
I've never read in any book's about Philosophy in which the planting of crops was seen as apart of morality.
timcp1 2 years ago
have you read any philosophy books that have analogies in them?
KT45 2 years ago
Comment removed
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
None that use crop production to say it has anything to do with logic.
timcp1 2 years ago
listen tim, it is an analogy. Philosophy is filled with them. If you don't like this particular analogy fine. But all it is saying is that if the results are independent of our subjective opinion then they are objective.
KT45 2 years ago
Then anyone can justify what they want regardless of your science and objectivity.
timcp1 2 years ago
Yes timpcp1, the people still have free will. They can try to justify doing whatever they want but they would be wrong objectively.
KT45 2 years ago
"regardless of your science and objectivity"
There is no my science and your science. There is no my objectivity and your objectivity. Science produces results that are independent of how somehow thinks reality works. Objectivity is means something is right regardless of independent subjective reasoning.
KT45 2 years ago
Yet, Hume, Aristotle and Socrates all had different type's of logic. Finally, individual's or group's can challenge logic by being subjective instead. Whose to say which is right? How can anyone say with absolute certainty that logic is absolutely true? Nobody can say this.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
What type of logic did they have JCDBenjamin? I believe they all used deductive and inductive arguments.
"individuals can challenge logic by being subjective. Whose to say which is right?" The great thing about the goal theory of morality is that it cuts through subjectivity by finding objective truths empirically and scientifically. Science produces and tests results that are independent of how someone thinks reality works. Since it is not based on subjective opinion it is objective
KT45 2 years ago
College courses of Philosophy teach:
David Hume: Was either Utilitarian, or provided foundations for it.
Aristotle: Classification of knowledge according to objects of that knowledge. These Greeks were concerned with certainty.
Socrates: Along the lines of Plato and at odds with Athenians.
There you go. You also never answered how can you with absolute certainty, say that logic is absolutely true?
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
Hume, Aristotle and Socrates all used inductive and deductive logic to get those modes of thought.
KT45 2 years ago
They still had different "modes" of thought. And therefore so can anyone else. You're left with the inability to tell a society how to behave.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
Ummm.....Aristotle dealt with epistemology and Hume dealt with morality. Socrates just was skeptical. They all used the same type of logic.
KT45 2 years ago
Yeah, that's the whole point. They came to different modes of thought even though they used logic. Therefore anybody else can as well.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
JCD I don't think you understand. They all used the type of logic know as inductive and deductive logic. They applied this logic to different areas of life like knowledge, morality and language. It is kinda like how science has different areas like cosmology, biology, and phsyics.
KT45 2 years ago
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that. But they still ended up with "different" moral views. Also you don't know if logic is absolute. That's a reason not to listen right off the bat.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
"you never answered how can you with absolute certainty say logic is absolutely true?"
Yeah I didn't answer that question mostly because my vid doesn't argue for that. In this vid I didn't make the claim "this is logical therefore it is true." My argument is in the description box if you don't want to watch the vid.
KT45 2 years ago
That is the problem with all logic and all scientific processes in which they are used to tell people what to do. If you can't show absolute's then people can justify whatever they want no matter what you may say.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
Which is why my argument looks for objective values despite people's subjective opinion
KT45 2 years ago
what about hitler was he happy?
vegatarianism it doesn't make you more or less happy?
good vid though even if i don't agree with some of it.
superchang847 2 years ago
Informative and entertaining--well done!
I found the book "Our Inner Ape" to have fascinating insights on morality--that morality not only predates religion, but predates humanity by millions of years. (My video response, "The Pre-Religion, and Pre-Human, Roots of Morality" has the details.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Thanks Todd! Thanks for telling me about the book "Our Inner Ape". It going on the "to be read pile" very soon. If you ever get the chance I'd check out Carrier's book. You may not agree with all of it but it is useful since so few books outline an entire worldview. I just approved you vid and will check it out. Thanks again
KT45 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> Thanks for telling me about the book "Our Inner Ape". It going on the "to be read pile" very soon.
I borrowed the CD version of it from the library and listened to it while driving—but when I was done I knew I had to buy the book. That book was one of the reasons I felt I had to revise my 2006 version of "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer": I felt it was suddenly lacking in dimension without including this book's insights.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
(If you look in my book's index under the author's name - "Waal, Frans De" - you'll find that I have a lot of great quotes from him throughout my book, albeit mostly in the endnotes.)
> check out Carrier's book
It's now on my own "to be read pile"!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
If a thief loves stealing and is able to steal without getting in trouble, why should that thief not steal?
theendofconfusion 2 years ago
Many people who just start stealing don't get caught and they do start to have fun doing it. The problem is does this lead to happiness as defined in my vid "abiding contentment". The answer is no. This is risky behavior. And worse it is addictive. And the more you do it the probability that you get caught increases. Most people who get caught stealing don't think they will get caught. The theifs lifestyle does not lead to abiding happiness.If you want lasting contentment you ought not to do it.
KT45 2 years ago
Surely, throughout the history of humanity there has been at least one thief who was never brought to justice.
You say stealing cannot bring happiness because it is risky and addictive. Stealing can be just as risky and just as addictive as. . .
-rock climbing
-sky diving
-Nascar racing
-skateboarding
-skiing
-etc.
By your definition of happiness, all of those things I've listed and much more fun things cannot bring you happiness. Seems like a pretty useless definition to me.
theendofconfusion 2 years ago
I'm sure many have gotten away with much worse than stealing but we need to consider psychological effects as well. Living a life where you are constantly looking over ones shoulder for fear of being caught is not a happy life to lead. We can also look at studies of Kleptomaniacs in psychologoy and see if these people are truely happy.
about the other actions you listed ,when I think risky I think rock climbing without a cords, sky diving without a backup parachute etc. (cont)
KT45 2 years ago
just like Russian Roulette, or driving drunk, it maybe incredibly exciting and fun but the risks are just too high.
For clarity I'll reference my video. Remember when I talked about people farming corn. There may be many ways to do it but there are decent ways and best ways. Morality is the similar. If you want you can follow the risky lifestyle of stealing that has a low chance of getting you happiness or a life a compassion and intergrity for enduring happiness.
KT45 2 years ago
Let me make my original argument more specific.
If there is a thief who loves stealing, is not addicted to stealing, will not get in trouble, and is not worried about getting in trouble, why should that thief not steal?
You can't answer, "That thief doesn't exist." because all that matters is that this thief existing is well within the realm of possibility.
theendofconfusion 2 years ago
I wouldn't answer "that thief doesn't exist" because these people do exist, especially if they are in positions of authority. Lets go back to psychology. People naturally hate those who steal, lie, cheat etc since such people threaten our chance of survival. We even hate characters that embody these traits. But from this we reach a psychological dilemma. When we act like those we hate we begin to hate ourselves. I can cite numerous psychological studies that show evidence of this if you want...
KT45 2 years ago
So your answer is that the thief shouldn't steal because he would end up hating himself.
I'm sure that this is true for many cases, but for your argument to be sound, it would have to be impossible to be a thief and not end up hating yourself for stealing stuff.
Are you willing to say that every single thief will end up hating himself for stealing? If yes, I think your just plain wrong. If no, then you need to think of another answer.
theendofconfusion 2 years ago
I think we are getting away from the point here. We are busy looking at your single super thief who doesn't get caught and seems to have no conscious. The morality in this vid is not saying every wrong doer will get punished or feel bad. The vid is saying that morality is a technology for enduring contentment. What moral lifestyle is best for securing happiness on an empirical basis. The moral framework that secures happiness the best is the one you should follow if you want enduring happiness
KT45 2 years ago
Lets compare the moral framework of a thief and a non thief. As I've already stated (and can back up with data) is that a thief has a high chance of getting caught, could suffer depression at the thought of getting caught and have self-debasing attitude. The non-thief on the other hand has less of a chance of getting this depressing lifestyle by avoiding it. On a probablisitic basis and empirically, what is better? science can show us that the latter is the best framework to take.
KT45 2 years ago
I understand what your saying and I agree with some parts of your video.
The fact is you failed to give me a single solid reason why my "super thief" should not steal. That is because logically the "super thief" should steal if he wants to achieve enduring happiness.
Unless you can give me a solid reason why the thief should not steal, The Goal Theory of Morality fails.
theendofconfusion 2 years ago
Firstly, your super thief is like a pyschopathic robot. From your description he never gets caught, if he did he doesn't care, and he does not seem to have a feeling of guilt which means he has no conscious. A theistic view of eternal salvation/punishment wouldn't bother him either since by definition he wouldn't get caught. Lastly the Goal theory wouldn't fail because that same thief would still have moral theories that work better at achieving human happiness. You ought to follow the best one
KT45 2 years ago
You're right. The Goal Theory does not fail. Sorry, I didn't know enough about it.
I'm an atheist btw, and I agree, under both with a theistic morality and an atheistic morality, there is no logical reason why the super thief shouldn't steal.
The thief is well within the realm of possibility. He can feel guilt, just not from stealing. He does not want to get caught, but since he is so confident that he won't he doesn't worry about it. He's like Jimmy Conway. Wait, Conway got caught.(Face palm)
theendofconfusion 2 years ago
It's easy to prove a moral theory by changing definitions like you did with happiness.
I don't see why an action can't make someone happy just because it's risky or addictive. If an action is risky or addictive then that only means it is a stupid thing to do. You said that it does not offer prolonged happiness. Well, it doesn't have to. Stealing can give people happiness, prolonged or not prolonged.
I'm not thief btw luls
theendofconfusion 2 years ago
We don't have to use the word happiness if you wish. Its just semantics. Lets just say enduring contentment.
"I don't see why an action can't make someone happy because it is risky"
Lets take Russian Roulette. Playing this risky game can make you happy in the moment, but the amount of time you will stay that way is not as secure as someone who doesn't. What humans want is to happy and to stay that way which is why risky behavior should be avoided. cont
KT45 2 years ago
For example when european colonials slaughtered 90% of the natives of north america and stole their land they became incredibly content. Or when the Hebrews slaughtered their neighbors took their wives and children and land for their own they were content. Happiness is the goal of all behavior even if it isn't moral behavior. Morality can be skewed to justify doing things that make you happy.
ratholin 2 years ago
Yes happiness is the key motivation for all action. About morality being skewed to justify doing things to make you happy, this may be true, but it can be shown scientifically some methods of finding an enduring happiness are better than others. Is it better live life continuing to make more and more enemies for your benefit or to make allies? The one that has the best probability of being effective is the one you ought to do if you want enduring happiness.
KT45 2 years ago
I'm sorry but the main problem I have with psychology (which you seem to be basing a lot of this argument on) is the fact that it is so subjective. First, these psychological studies are dealing with individuals who do believe in a god (most likely) and believe morals come from god. Thus if someone is content, because they are honest. Well that contentment is based on their belief that honesty is a virtue and most likely based on belief. Psychology is a weak science.
Uhlbelk 2 years ago
You shouldn't use psychology by itself. Combining sociology, psychology and neuroscience can provide an empirical study on morality.
KT45 2 years ago
While you can define morality as what you ought to do to be happy, I think that is a pretty bad definition because it morality is how you interact with other people, if you were alone on the planet there would be no moral right or wrong. Happiness and contentment is a purely self centered idea, as well as subjective, no matter what think can be proven with those sciences. . . .
Uhlbelk 2 years ago
Morality isn't always about interactions with other people. Some moral issues do concern matters such as sucicide or lying to ones self. As for subjectiveness, Goal theory of morality is objective in that the results are not dependent on our subjective opinion. As far as self centered, I would have to argue that compassion and intergrity are the values that logically follow from happiness at the core value. But that would take another video. Compassion for others rejects selfishness
KT45 2 years ago
How does compassion and integrity follow from happiness, and wouldn't it be the other way around? Happiness in this model is the end goal. Happiness is selfish as in, it is an emotional state, happiness is completely internal. Compassion, is an act. It requires a subject. Personally I don't consider suicide a moral issue, and lying to oneself is usually done to make yourself happy and content so in this model that would be good.
Uhlbelk 2 years ago
Intergrity is easy. Basically you ought to stick to the code that produces the best enduring happiness.Deviating will be like sneaking a smoke, it just hurts you in the long run. I think that the prisoner dilemma demonstated that caring for others was beneficial. In this experiment the ones with the tit for tat strategy helped out people initially and continued to help those who helped them. There were other models like backstabbers etc but this model of helping others was best.
KT45 2 years ago
Lying to oneself might produce some initial happiness but in the long run it will not. I think that history has shown is that the more facts you know about the world, the more you can help yourself. Lying to yourself just produces a placebo effect but doesn't alleviate the problem. Not lying to oneself can put you on the path to solve the problem.
KT45 2 years ago
It's an assumption to say they're telling a lie to themselves. Because they could say I know the truth, I'm just telling a lie to you, not to me. Whose to say otherwise?
timcp1 2 years ago
timcp1, Uhlbelk postulated that lying to oneself could make one happy. I rebutted that lying might produce some initial happiness but in the long run it would fail since it only produces a placebo effect. In any case someone who is lying to themselves or lying about lying to themselves is still a liar.
KT45 2 years ago
They don't talk to themselves in a mirror or something. They talk to others, so if they know the truth, then they are telling a lie to you, not to themselves.
timcp1 2 years ago
you have to look at my discussion with Uhlbelk in context because in the way he put it, the person is basically lying to themselves in a mirror. Uhlbelk said "morality is how you interact with poeple, if you were alone on a planet there would be no right and wrong." I objected saying "morality is not always about other people. Some moral issues do concern matters such as...lying to onesself" So in Ulbelk's example it is like the person is lying to themself in a mirror
KT45 2 years ago
Comment removed
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
I realize this. I'm asking you what is wrong with someone telling a lie to others, even though they know the truth themselves?
timcp1 2 years ago
It is wrong because there are better ways to secure enduring happiness that are independent of his subjective method of happiness. This can be shown scientifically.
KT45 2 years ago
For you maybe. Tell that to the Italian and Irish mafia among others. They are doing pretty well for themselves using their own modes of thought. Since you can't say that it is absolutely true, then you can't be absolutely certain that your logic is certain.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
I don't have to just assert to the Italian mafia etc. I'm not using my authority to say you are wrong. Instead we all can find objective values using scientific and empirical studies that give us results despite our subjective opinion. Since the results don't come from us they are objective.
KT45 2 years ago
You're assuming objective is true. And you can't say with absolute certainty that logic is absolutely true.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
I think I already told you that I'm not using pure logic to determine if something is true. The method I've described is mostly scientific. You know how science showed that gravity is absolutely true despite anyone's subjective opinion, the goal theory of morality says science can show the best method of producing enduring happiness.
KT45 2 years ago
Gravity is not morality. They're up to quantum gravity, but even it is not complete. And therefore not absolute. But none of these thing's is morality.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
Lol anyone who doesn't believe gravity is absolutely true should test their claim by jumping off out of a plane without a parachute. The whole point of my vid is to say morality can be scientifically verified.
KT45 2 years ago
"We all can" is your opinion. If they don't want to they don't have to. Their results are shown regardless of objectivity, therefore they can choose however they want to live. So you're left with the inability to tell society how to behave.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
Well I wouldn't be telling society how to live. Like science shows you tells you that to push something you need to exert a force greater than the objects mass times its acceleration, it can also show you the best method of achieving enduring happiness. If people don't want to listen they have the free will to do so.
KT45 2 years ago
Science isn't morality though. Nor can it justify right and wrong within it. It's an assumption to think logic is absolutely true. And then to talk about which to use pure or not, is to argue over degrees. So you're back to anybody using logic however they want to, because nobody can be absolutely certain, logic is absolute truth.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
the morality described in my video argues that science can be used to determine it. If you disagree then that is fine. Of course logic can show absolutes. Logic would tell us that it is absolutely true that there are no square circles on a 2 dimensional plane.
KT45 2 years ago
What you get with this way of determining moral code is a moral code distribution, but it says nothing about if the moral code is correct or not. Then you have to say, well, the one code that benefits everyone the most is the right one, but that still doesn't work because morality is more subjective (more absolute) then the objective determinism that this process would permit. Sorry I have a hard time describing this, it would be easier to use examples.
Uhlbelk 2 years ago
Carrier's argument, at best, establishes an EPISTEMOLOGICAL framework for morality. But the problem is that the moral argument appeals to the necessary metaphysical framework of morality. Further, appealing to people's goals doesn't quite reduces normative facts to descriptive facts. At best, Carrier's retort reduces a vast collection of normative facts to a single normative fact, which could not exist on naturalism
migkillertwo 2 years ago