Hey, great video. I would be interested to hear more about what you think about the education thing you were saying. Also, do you know of Marshall Rosenbergs Nonviolent communication. I would like to hear what your thoughts are on that. Thanks.
If you're a very moral person by your own standards, wasn't Hitler a very moral person by his standards if subjective morality is true? I'm glad both you and Hitler are very moral people. =p
some nice points raised, to me all morals, ethics, and all that stuff are all subjective. in your eyes though i would not be a very moral person, i eat lots of meat, but i am very pacifistic (which could change if the situation was right)
It is amazing to me that you really believe all of this. I don't see why anyone should listen to your take on morality...I mean after all it is only YOUR morality and has no reflection of mine.
I believe that natural human rights to life, liberty, and justly-acquired property are objective—in other words, that ethics is objective. I am, like you, of the opinion that morality is subjective.
However, since I'm epistemologically a skeptic, I'd have to give a much longer answer if I'm to give you my full opinion accurately.
I've got no problem with people having morals - it's when they enforce them upon others that is wrong. You're a veagan and that's fine. Even if this makes you think that I, a meat earer, is a barbaric cave man, that's fine too. If you tried to lock me up in jail for eating meat, well that wouldn't be fine. Luckily, you're not wanting to do that so it's all good :)
Basic human rights aren't objective because the different people from different cultures/time-zones (periods in time) will have different views to what the basic rights of a person are. Just because the global society we live in doesn't believe having slaves is right and therefore being is a slave is against your basic human rights. This does not mean that people in the past or from other cultures think that being a slave is against the basic human rights.
To help with your question at the end: An excert from the future constitution of America: "Government exists to protect, the right to Life and Liberty; to Worship; to Free Speech; to Purchase and Use Property; to Purchase, Own, and Carry Individual Defensive Weapons including Firearms; to Protect the Innocent; to Corporally Punish his Children; to Due Process of Law; and to Fail. No person has a right to food, water, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, or education."
from my point of view .. there is probably a baseline of natural rules largely yet unknown to us. everything else is a world we construct. which concludes its purely subjective for the individual and can be enhanced by creating a mean from large amounts of individuals. but it will probably never be objective, and because of that may not need to be.
the funny thought is to trace back "creations" to their biological roots and realize how legitimate they are from this point of view, no matter how they subjectively seem to us.
The declaration of universal human rights are not objective because a soverign nation can choose to sign on or disregard it. There is no way of enforcing the rights even once signed on, other than the individual governments who would have likely done as such without signing on. It's lip service, but they are trying to make the UN more powerful, with the resistence of countries such as the US, Russia, China, Iran etc... (well since the US is on the security consiel they don't mind as much).
I think I am going to make another video on this. Please watch and tell me what you think or make a video about the subject(?). I respect your oppinion a lot, Thanks for watching!
The basic tenet is that morality by its very nature/definition IS OBJECTIVE, but also OPTIONAL. It is certainly NOT subjective, this is a common fallacy. Again, ethics/morality is OPTIONAL, but NOT subjective. People may or may not act ethically, but the point is that theories can be tested for internal (logical) & external (scientific) consistency. That's where 'Universally Preferable Behaviour' comes in. It's a framework for validating moral claims/theories
Ethical philosphical studies go based on that morals are objective. Subjective morality is one that goes too far and dismisive of human rights i.e. NAZI moral code, ted bundy moral code (he used the subjective defense) etc...
Just because some people use subjectivity to define crule morals doesn't mean that all subjective morals are crule. Veganism is a subjective moral that I try to make objective. Veganism isn't crule.
no of course not, but you most certainly can't have the blanket statement that morals are subjective period. I think it is relative to our situation i.e. being in a civilized society, but once place in a situation one can certainly define morals that are objectively both useful and vital for that given situation.
Hey, great video. I would be interested to hear more about what you think about the education thing you were saying. Also, do you know of Marshall Rosenbergs Nonviolent communication. I would like to hear what your thoughts are on that. Thanks.
topgun101tom 1 year ago
0:30;
If you're a very moral person by your own standards, wasn't Hitler a very moral person by his standards if subjective morality is true? I'm glad both you and Hitler are very moral people. =p
ogirv101 2 years ago
some nice points raised, to me all morals, ethics, and all that stuff are all subjective. in your eyes though i would not be a very moral person, i eat lots of meat, but i am very pacifistic (which could change if the situation was right)
bignastydragon 4 years ago
Watch this vid: watch?v=CueDiner6t0
The basic tenet is that morality by its very nature/definition IS OBJECTIVE, but also OPTIONAL.
lukeev 3 years ago
It is amazing to me that you really believe all of this. I don't see why anyone should listen to your take on morality...I mean after all it is only YOUR morality and has no reflection of mine.
Veritas48 4 years ago
Post 1:
"The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray N. Rothbard. I've yet to read it, but I think it's something you'd be very interested in reading.
allixpeeke 4 years ago
Post 2:
I believe that natural human rights to life, liberty, and justly-acquired property are objective—in other words, that ethics is objective. I am, like you, of the opinion that morality is subjective.
However, since I'm epistemologically a skeptic, I'd have to give a much longer answer if I'm to give you my full opinion accurately.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
allixpeeke 4 years ago
I've got no problem with people having morals - it's when they enforce them upon others that is wrong. You're a veagan and that's fine. Even if this makes you think that I, a meat earer, is a barbaric cave man, that's fine too. If you tried to lock me up in jail for eating meat, well that wouldn't be fine. Luckily, you're not wanting to do that so it's all good :)
darkstar1one 5 years ago
Basic human rights aren't objective because the different people from different cultures/time-zones (periods in time) will have different views to what the basic rights of a person are. Just because the global society we live in doesn't believe having slaves is right and therefore being is a slave is against your basic human rights. This does not mean that people in the past or from other cultures think that being a slave is against the basic human rights.
Cahuix 5 years ago
Woah: In the third minute you say "Eating babies could be morally right" Hope you don't become a mother.
petmark81 5 years ago
To help with your question at the end: An excert from the future constitution of America: "Government exists to protect, the right to Life and Liberty; to Worship; to Free Speech; to Purchase and Use Property; to Purchase, Own, and Carry Individual Defensive Weapons including Firearms; to Protect the Innocent; to Corporally Punish his Children; to Due Process of Law; and to Fail. No person has a right to food, water, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, or education."
petmark81 5 years ago
from my point of view .. there is probably a baseline of natural rules largely yet unknown to us. everything else is a world we construct. which concludes its purely subjective for the individual and can be enhanced by creating a mean from large amounts of individuals. but it will probably never be objective, and because of that may not need to be.
tejayce 5 years ago
the funny thought is to trace back "creations" to their biological roots and realize how legitimate they are from this point of view, no matter how they subjectively seem to us.
tejayce 5 years ago
The declaration of universal human rights are not objective because a soverign nation can choose to sign on or disregard it. There is no way of enforcing the rights even once signed on, other than the individual governments who would have likely done as such without signing on. It's lip service, but they are trying to make the UN more powerful, with the resistence of countries such as the US, Russia, China, Iran etc... (well since the US is on the security consiel they don't mind as much).
joekarim87 5 years ago
I think I am going to make another video on this. Please watch and tell me what you think or make a video about the subject(?). I respect your oppinion a lot, Thanks for watching!
spots1327 5 years ago
Watch this vid: watch?v=CueDiner6t0
The basic tenet is that morality by its very nature/definition IS OBJECTIVE, but also OPTIONAL. It is certainly NOT subjective, this is a common fallacy. Again, ethics/morality is OPTIONAL, but NOT subjective. People may or may not act ethically, but the point is that theories can be tested for internal (logical) & external (scientific) consistency. That's where 'Universally Preferable Behaviour' comes in. It's a framework for validating moral claims/theories
lukeev 3 years ago
@spots1327
99minerkc 2 months ago
@99minerkc Don't fret as one can "never" be too moral.
99minerkc 2 months ago
Ethical philosphical studies go based on that morals are objective. Subjective morality is one that goes too far and dismisive of human rights i.e. NAZI moral code, ted bundy moral code (he used the subjective defense) etc...
joekarim87 5 years ago
Just because some people use subjectivity to define crule morals doesn't mean that all subjective morals are crule. Veganism is a subjective moral that I try to make objective. Veganism isn't crule.
spots1327 5 years ago
no of course not, but you most certainly can't have the blanket statement that morals are subjective period. I think it is relative to our situation i.e. being in a civilized society, but once place in a situation one can certainly define morals that are objectively both useful and vital for that given situation.
joekarim87 5 years ago
Eek! I need a new camera!
spots1327 5 years ago