You are SEVERELY mistaken as to what 'objectivity' actually means. Many objective moral theories posit different actions in the face of different circumstances. This does not make them 'subjective'. Their objectivity is derived from the objective *principles* that govern the various actions of the participants, not from a supposed set of objective *actions*. Kantianism (Neo-Kantianism, best outlined by Christine Korsgaard's book "Sources of Normativity") is a clear example of this.
> You are SEVERELY mistaken as to what 'objectivity' actually means.
The issue of what "objective morality" means (especially among non-theists) is certainly a worthy topic, but the only topic in this video is a brief description/example of the Socratic Method. Okay, I used the word "objective" during my example, but I used it in the casual everyday sense of the word: kind of like the way laypeople use the word "theory" as a synonym for "hunch."
> I always cringe when I hear the term 'absolute morality'. You give a very good example why the concept is flawed.
I talk about that a bit more in response to the Christian YouTuber Epydemic2020 and his videos on the notion that there *is* "objective morality" and how this proves the existence of god (my video is called "How the naturalistic explanation provides a fairly sturdy foundation for morality.")
> Couple that with the idea of the "lesser of two evils" concept.
Agreed ... but using the Socratic Method, it would be best if that realization came from the other person--the idea that a certain behavior is "always right" falls apart when one is forced to make unpleasant choices. When this realization comes from the other person, there's less of a pride issue of being told that they're wrong.
You are SEVERELY mistaken as to what 'objectivity' actually means. Many objective moral theories posit different actions in the face of different circumstances. This does not make them 'subjective'. Their objectivity is derived from the objective *principles* that govern the various actions of the participants, not from a supposed set of objective *actions*. Kantianism (Neo-Kantianism, best outlined by Christine Korsgaard's book "Sources of Normativity") is a clear example of this.
barifkin31 1 year ago
@barifkin31
> You are SEVERELY mistaken as to what 'objectivity' actually means.
The issue of what "objective morality" means (especially among non-theists) is certainly a worthy topic, but the only topic in this video is a brief description/example of the Socratic Method. Okay, I used the word "objective" during my example, but I used it in the casual everyday sense of the word: kind of like the way laypeople use the word "theory" as a synonym for "hunch."
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Beyond the scope of this video, but I always cringe when I hear the term 'absolute morality'. You give a very good example why the concept is flawed.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte
> I always cringe when I hear the term 'absolute morality'. You give a very good example why the concept is flawed.
I talk about that a bit more in response to the Christian YouTuber Epydemic2020 and his videos on the notion that there *is* "objective morality" and how this proves the existence of god (my video is called "How the naturalistic explanation provides a fairly sturdy foundation for morality.")
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Couple that with the idea of the "lesser of two evils" concept.
billygundum 1 year ago
@billygundum
> Couple that with the idea of the "lesser of two evils" concept.
Agreed ... but using the Socratic Method, it would be best if that realization came from the other person--the idea that a certain behavior is "always right" falls apart when one is forced to make unpleasant choices. When this realization comes from the other person, there's less of a pride issue of being told that they're wrong.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago