Do [other] animals have needs? Are humans the only animals that have needs? Is "being human" marked by being more sentient than other animals, or is it intelligence wise?
i rather like this as an axiomatic system of morality. that said, i don't think your conclusion about abortion necessarily follows: you would need, i think, to first include some sort of statement that a person is a person at all stages of development, both before and after birth. or, alternatively, to extend your axiom about no person's needs coming above that of another to include fetuses. either way, though, i think they'd cease to be the self-evident statements you require of axioms.
So are you saying -objective morality based on the principle of treating everyone's pursuit of needs equally? So if any action/decision of yours compromise this principle should be treated as "immoral act"?
no, it just means that everyone has equal priority to purse what they desire, so, when what someone desires infringes on another's priority, that is an immoral act.
ok I got your thought. But now question is - Isn't it quite obvious that most of our actions especially "artistic freedom" have huge potential to infringe on other's priorities which in turn -->makes them immoral acts?
Opportunities blocked from potential fulfulment? Huh... that has some major problems.
What about capital punishment? What about imprisonment? Under this axiomatic framework.. .all punishment of crime (or any sort of punishment) becomes immoral.
I don't understand why common humanity necessarily carries with it equal priority of all needs.
Nor do I understand why you're reducing everything to the individual in a vacuum. Society is simply a large mass of individuals. And I think it *is* self-evident / axiomatic that the needs of a large mass of individuals trump needs of otherwise equal nature or priority on the individual level. Society is not formed to serve THE INDIVIDUAL, but rather ALL INDIVIDUALS within it (ideally).
The mother cannot fulfill a need at the expense of another.
That doesn't make the needs of the fetus more important. It just means that the needs of one cannot ever be morally fulfilled by the (permanent) expense of another.
My standard is not need. My standard is the seeking to fulfill need. So, I'd offer you the alternative word, "fulfillment," meaning: the pursuit of satisfying need. It is not need itself, see. My argument is that the "fulfillment" of any one person has no priority over any other.
On your other point, the mother could not morally kill the child to save her own life. That action would require a subjective statement of value saying, "more life is better than less life," or something like that.
I would concede that a fetus does not deliberate on how it's going to get sustenance, even if it could it wouldn't do much for it, however the fetus does have needs and its needs are being met on account of its own biology. It's true that it feeds off the mother to survive, but the mother does not make the fetus metabolize what it feeds the fetus. The fetus is satisfying its needs, in spite of its situation.
so now you are taking suffering lightly?? you back rational dawn and now this shit? You are treating philosophy like a game of chess only. What about the truth of suffering? What kind of suffering have you had? Any? When cancer starts eating you away your chess game cock comparison philosophy will be fucked along with your ego. Suffering is just a word for you to play with until it jumps your ass.
"This cannot be, since man preexists society, and since society was formed to serve the needs of the individual"
This is false. Man does not precede society. Unlike most animals that can survive as individuals humans cannot survive as discreet individuals. The default human condition has *always* been one of surviving within a community. This is anthropology 101.
This is why Libertarians are called gliberatians. You glibly ignore the most basic reality of man to further your own narcissism.
Society was not necessarily formed to suit the needs of the individual. It was formed to suit the "needs" of a group who share similar wants or desires. All an individual needs is water, food, and shelter. That's it. What a society provides is larger work force to allow for grander goals that are impossible for an individual. I mean, Franklyn Lloyd Wright could make fantastic designs but unless he has a workforce, his designs would never become a reality.
I know you will want to counter with something along the lines of "but without individuals, there could not be a society" which is equal to saying if there weren't any lions, there can;t be any prides but that is ontological, i.e. not really showing that a society necessarily suits the need of the individual.
For instance, capitalism, it might seem, is a coutner to this since it is an economic system based off of individual needs. However, the economic system is what keeps society at large functioning so it is a system developed for the continuing success of society, not necessarily the individuals especially since capitalism relies heavily on failure meaning that for this system to work, many individuals needs cannot be satisfied from it.
A subjective value statement like "No one person's needs is more important than another's" cannot be an axiom, that is the flaw! He can derive objective conclusions from that value statement, but he cannot call the system objective, because the root of it is subjective.
He can if he can demonstrate that it is, as he claims, a "self evident" axiom.
But to do so he must demonstrate that every person is aware of the axiom or at least recognizes it's 'truth' when it is pointed out to them. They cannot fail to recognize its truth if it is 'self evident'.
I see evidence that this is not the case and thus I reject it as a "self evident" axiom. And from there, the whole system falls apart.
It's not a question of beings "accepting" it. It is a question whether it is a "self evident. Whether it is the kind of thing that once pointed out to an individual they would reply "of course that is obviously true". This is how we discriminate the 'objective' from the 'subjective'. The simple fact that value statements always seem to be subjective, does not preclude the possibility that objective value statements exist.
But then, I've never heard one and this one doesn't qualify.
@sammcalpine some people are either too stupid to understand what has just happened, or they are so attached to the way they would like it to be they just ignore it and will continue to do so no matter how many times you rub their nose in what has just happened.
These same people will claim their opinions are based on logic and reason, while at the same time being utterly illogical and completely unreasonable when it comes to ignoring scientific evidence that devastates their philosophical position.
I'm not certain whether this is a criticism directed at me or at somebody else. I like how you left it intentionally vague. Would you care to expand your comment to illustrate who is attached to what and what the scientific evidence is that devastates which philosophical position?
Value is by definition subjective. Without a mind to value something, value does not exist, and the value itself is only of the minds that are valueing things, thereby making it subjective in all cases.
Now you might assert that something could have inherent value, but in saying so you would have redefined value, and I can prove this by asking whether or not this thing you've said to have inherent value is still inherently valuable if I program a sentient robot to not value it.
I've heard similar arguments before, but I think this is an extreme and unreasonable view of subjectivity. There are objective facts about the world which depend on humans for their meaning but which nevertheless remain objectively (independent of private experience) true for all humans. For instance Antarctica is cold. Cold is a relative term but it remains objectively true for all humans that Antarctica is cold.
Cold is subjective. People in Florida might feel that 50 degrees is cold, but an Eskimo wouldn't. Now, even if all humans thought Antarctica was cold, it would still be subjective to each of those humans. Antarctica is not cold in of itself unless you redefine cold as being a certain degrees and below, just as something does not have value in of itself unless you redefine value as being a certain something.
It might be objectively true that Antarctica is cold for all humans, but it is not objectively true that Antarctica is cold, and just because the objective fact that Antarctica is cold for all humans depends on the experience of humans for its meaning, this does not change the definition of subjective. You're merely speaking of objective facts about subjective experience.
That is, if I understood what you were getting at.
"You're merely speaking of objective facts about subjective experience"
That you acknowledge that there can be such facts puts a crack in the objective/subjective divide.
Consider the following;
If it is an objective fact, that ALL humans believe that "X is valuable" then it is a fact that X is valuable since it is the set of humans which assign that value.
This is true at an even lower level but takes on a much more subjective light;
If it is an objective fact, that ALL Americans believe that "X is valuable" then it is a fact that X is valuable TO Americans since it is the set of Americans which assign that value.
Now, I'm not claiming that such "objective" values exist. But that is what the case for a "self evident" value implies.
There can be objective facts about what happens in the subjective mind without cracking the objective/subjective divide because the fact that a mind subjectively did something like value X is independent of that mind. If the mind which valued X disappeared, the fact that the mind did value X remains; the fact is independent of the mind, thus making it objective.
However, the value of X is not independent of the mind. When the mind which values X goes, so does the value of X, thus making that value subjective, and thus making all value subjective.
@Woootloops -- The way to think of this is that some values are observer relative and some are observer independent. We call values that are observer independent "objective". But none of these values are absolute. An alien invader may not value human life and exterminate us in which case all human values are nullified.
The way I'm understanding what you said, you're just calling a subjective value an observer relative value, and you're calling an objective value an observer independant value. But observer independant values do not exist; objective values do not exist. Values are dependant on minds; they are subjective.
@Woootloops -- Observer independent values exist because there is such a thing as collective intentionality. That this $20 bill is made of paper is epistemically objective. But it isn't up to me that it is valid currency, that is observer independent and therefore an objective fact. That I think the meal I bought with it was worth the 20 bucks is observer relative or what most people call subjective.
Cf. John Searle in "The Construction of Social Reality".
So an observer independent value is merely a value many people hold. That doesn't make it objective. It's still subjective to each individual.
It is up to each individual to decide whether or not a 20 dollar bill has value to them. Just because most Americans value a 20 dollar bill doesn't make it any less subjective.
Money and constitutions and cocktail parties are created by the collective intentionality of the people involved. They are epistemically subjective but ontologically objective. It isn't up to me what the legal currency of the US is. It is an institutional fact and therefore objective. All the same, if everyone loses faith in the money system it will collapse.
That a 20 dollar bill is a legal currency in the US is not a matter of value, it is a matter of fact. The value of the 20 dollar bills comes subjectively from each individual person, and it doesn't matter how many of them collectively value it, it's still subjective value.
@Woootloops -- You see, we actually agree, you just have this aversion to calling it objective because it's socially determined. If something exists outside of me and out of my control I say it's objective. And things can be subjective in one sense and objective in another.
Money is like that. So are morals. Money and morality are epistemically subjective. No humans, no money or morality. But both are ontologically objective because it isn't up to me that this paper is 20$ or rape is wrong.
The value of the money and the wrong of the rape never leave the mind of the people who value the money and believe rape is wrong, and so it is subjective. I don't get where you are getting the objective from. The value you give a 20 dollar bill isn't independent of you, what is independent of you is the fact that other people value 20 dollar bills, and the value those other people give 20 dollar bills is not independent of them either. So you're mixing up facts about value with value itself.
@Woootloops -- The monetary value of $20 is very independent of me and therefore objective. I'd love to buy a new Lexus for 20 bucks but the collective intentionality of everyone else prevents that. Subjectively I may feel it's only worth $20 but the Federal Reserve says otherwise. Therefore the worth of a Lexus is objectively determined by the collective intentionality of all the potential buyers out there.
The monetary value of 20 dollars is not independent of you. You're merely regulating how much you subjectively value 20 dollars on the basis of how much everyone else subjectively values 20 dollars.
A Lexus only has worth subjectively in the minds of people. Just because you can't buy a Lexus for 20 dollars does not mean that a Lexus has an objective worth, it means that the person selling it subjectively thinks that it is worth more, while you subjectively do not.
But, I probably just didn't understand what you said, and if I didn't, then could you expand on what you mean by observer independant and relative values?
Hrm, first comment was kind of irrelevant as I missed that you said cold was relative. And I don't think I got what you were saying.
It is objectively true that for all humans Antarctica is cold, but their experience of cold is subjective. I don't get how this is viewing subjectivity differently. Antarctica is still not objectively cold, because its coldness only exists within the minds of the persons experiencing the cold; the cold is subjective to each person and not inherent of Antarctica.
Everything was good until you said that no one person's needs is more important than another's. That is not an axiom. Importance is a statement of value, and value is subjective.
If I value myself more than everyone else, then my needs are more important than everyone elses, etc.
From the statement that we are all equally human, it does not follow that no one person's needs are more important than another's. The reason for this is that the statement that we are all equally human is not a statement of value, and so we cannot derive a should from it.
You would have to change the statement to "We are all equally human, and all humans are equally valuable", but in doing so you would have made a subjective value statement, so no objective morality.
no. you just want me to make a statement of value so you can say, "ha! statement of value!"
I'm telling you that you needn't value anything to come to the conclusion that needs come from our being human.
In fact, o ye of much jumping and shouting x), to assert that any one DOES have priority over another is a statement of value, subjective, and flawed. Without statements of value, we cannot say any is above the rest.
Sorry for jumping and shouting, but this seems so obvious to me!
I agree that we don't need to value anything to come to the conclusion that our needs come from our being human, but from that conclusion we cannot conclude that no human's needs are more important than another's. Importance does not exist without value.
Without statements of value we cannot say that anything is above the rest or that anything isn't above the rest, so whether or not I act in accordance to my needs being above yours or equal to them is a matter of no consequence, because you have no values from which to derive a should to tell me whether or not I should act either way.
The point is that you can't say either way that anything is above or isn't above the rest, because in doing so you would be making a statement regarding the value of someone's needs, and since there is no value in your system, you cannot derive an objective statement on value from it; you can't make objective statements regarding importance, priority, etc.
Ok, in addition I would say that life cannot sustain itself qua itself. Some lifeforms can survive sunlight, or radiation, or volcanic vents but the rest of life must take from other life to survive.
One is tempted to say that all species value their own survival above all others but this is not quite true. Many exist in a symbiotic relationship with each other with each depending on the other for survival.
We humans depend on each other to survive. No man is an island.
The smallest unit for humans is not the individual but the tribal unit. If you break humans into individuals they will go extinct. Therefore in all tribes the survival of the community surpasses and exceeds that of the individual. Thus the social contract is grounded in absolute necessity.
I value humans because I am one. I value the social contract because it is necessary for my and our very survival. Those who threaten my survival must be opposed.
Abortion was a bad example, since it's debatable whether a fetus is to be considered a baby/human being. Something may have the potential to be another thing, but that does not mean it is.
But interesting perspective on the matter of morality. Not sure I agree; I'll have to think about it some more.
I dont get why to object to that parachute argument.
There are many real world scenarios where we do in fact have to judge where one person's need outweighs the need of another.
Organ transplants, charity, and unless your a hardline socialist, all issues relating to goverment funding, hard choices must be made, where we do put some people's needs above others.
Practice what you preach may be too large a leap for a philosopher to make.
I say it is axiomatic to the human condition that all matter in the human is created/perceived by knowledge/belief alone, and I base this opinion on the many quantum eraser type experiment performed in the past 8 years. Rather than refute those experiments with a counterexample, most objectivists prefer to just ignore them and carry on the way they did before these experiments happened. Dogma and denial are strange.
It is axiomatic to the human condition that human brains in human bodies arise IN that which we are, eternal awareness. Eventually even the dimmest bulb will catch on to this fact.
not "our" awareness, it is who we are, it is existence itself, and is absolute, universal and there is nothing that exists that doesn't...ahem..exist..duh,.
That is only because what you call "I" is a thought arising in awareness with which you as awareness are currently mistakenly identified. Brains are not what collapses potentiality. Potentiality is collapsed by knowability by and awareness that precedes that brain in order to collapse the brain and body into atomic and molecular form. It is possible to shift identity back to that which knows whether or not which path info will be knowable or not, and collapses matter, or NOT.
People are not willing to face the truth because it makes them uncomfortable. They want to think that what they were conditioned to believe in is true. There's no shame in this. Just be aware that instead of stating specifically why the truth is not the truth and backing it up, someone who is uncomfortable either becomes condescending or throws around words like false, wrong or pseudo, while not having the ability to back up such a claim. As u wish.
Great video, as always. BUT, it is time for QUIBBLING!
How do we judge between two person's needs when the fulfilment of one person's needs *necessarily* excludes the fulfilment of the other person's?
Time for contrived hypotheticals. Two people are in a burning building, a fireball rushes down the corridor at them. A small alcove will save them, but it's large enough for only one. They look at each other, both needing, wanting to live. Who, *morally speaking*, gets the alcove?
Oh yeah, I guess I should mention that *both of them* would be very happy indeed to be indebted to the other for use of the alcove, but of course *both* can't come out of this situation indebted. One would be indebted, the would be dead.
Anyway, awesome videos, sorry if I've badly misunderstood anything.
Hume also said that you can't make the leap from the "is" of a descriptive statement to the "ought" of a normative statement. The one objection to this might be is goal-centered reason: I ought to do x in order to achieve y. However, you reason from the bottom up through axioms, not from the top down through ends.
I think you're using the term "self-evident" in a very liberal way...
Also, other organisms have needs, which they act upon. Why shouldn't we regard animals as equal moral beings?
Does this apply to more than mere humans? Do the cow's needs have equal priority as the human who needs to eat?
With abortion, does the mere "potential" of a human have equal needs as an already "actualized" human? Is it considered a "human" 45 days after conception or when?
Does this apply to the needs of all life? Such as the needs of various plants?
Do the needs of plants and animals count? Is it immoral to consume LIFE? Humans only? Is this the guilt of "original sin"?
@theprodigy2186 Right I dont think his 'axiom' helps us as far as abortion; each of us is a developing human being. the question still is when does a cell or group of cells become a human and a person and deserve rights? There may be unresolvable ambiguity, and thats difficult to deal with.
Do [other] animals have needs? Are humans the only animals that have needs? Is "being human" marked by being more sentient than other animals, or is it intelligence wise?
Riyuzakisan 1 year ago
i rather like this as an axiomatic system of morality. that said, i don't think your conclusion about abortion necessarily follows: you would need, i think, to first include some sort of statement that a person is a person at all stages of development, both before and after birth. or, alternatively, to extend your axiom about no person's needs coming above that of another to include fetuses. either way, though, i think they'd cease to be the self-evident statements you require of axioms.
kokorochris 1 year ago
So are you saying -objective morality based on the principle of treating everyone's pursuit of needs equally? So if any action/decision of yours compromise this principle should be treated as "immoral act"?
Luckychap1 2 years ago
no, it just means that everyone has equal priority to purse what they desire, so, when what someone desires infringes on another's priority, that is an immoral act.
jericomovie 2 years ago
ok I got your thought. But now question is - Isn't it quite obvious that most of our actions especially "artistic freedom" have huge potential to infringe on other's priorities which in turn -->makes them immoral acts?
Luckychap1 2 years ago
Opportunities blocked from potential fulfulment? Huh... that has some major problems.
What about capital punishment? What about imprisonment? Under this axiomatic framework.. .all punishment of crime (or any sort of punishment) becomes immoral.
Do you hold to that?
stefanlittle 2 years ago
there would need to be reconciliation. justice is served when the imbalance is reconciled. punishment in excess of that, I deplore.
jericomovie 2 years ago
I don't understand why common humanity necessarily carries with it equal priority of all needs.
Nor do I understand why you're reducing everything to the individual in a vacuum. Society is simply a large mass of individuals. And I think it *is* self-evident / axiomatic that the needs of a large mass of individuals trump needs of otherwise equal nature or priority on the individual level. Society is not formed to serve THE INDIVIDUAL, but rather ALL INDIVIDUALS within it (ideally).
Vic92084 2 years ago
...k
jericomovie 2 years ago
Immorality can only be deliberate. remember I'm arguing that immorality results from an action informed by a false conclusion.
jericomovie 2 years ago
The mother cannot fulfill a need at the expense of another.
That doesn't make the needs of the fetus more important. It just means that the needs of one cannot ever be morally fulfilled by the (permanent) expense of another.
jericomovie 2 years ago
My standard is not need. My standard is the seeking to fulfill need. So, I'd offer you the alternative word, "fulfillment," meaning: the pursuit of satisfying need. It is not need itself, see. My argument is that the "fulfillment" of any one person has no priority over any other.
On your other point, the mother could not morally kill the child to save her own life. That action would require a subjective statement of value saying, "more life is better than less life," or something like that.
jericomovie 2 years ago
I would concede that a fetus does not deliberate on how it's going to get sustenance, even if it could it wouldn't do much for it, however the fetus does have needs and its needs are being met on account of its own biology. It's true that it feeds off the mother to survive, but the mother does not make the fetus metabolize what it feeds the fetus. The fetus is satisfying its needs, in spite of its situation.
jericomovie 2 years ago
rights are understood in the context of politics, so to approach it from the angle of justifying its, "right to life" is not what I'm doing here.
jericomovie 2 years ago
I believe it is a person.
jericomovie 2 years ago
I really like your take on morality. Is there any reading I can do on those of a similar opinion?
AnotherMasterMind 2 years ago
I wouldn't know, sorry.
jericomovie 2 years ago
Axioms in Conflict; Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice!
SaxPortal 2 years ago
Very few Christians actually argue that morality exists "because God said so".
Do you have any thoughts on intuitionism?
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
you mean the moral code is written on the heart of man?
jericomovie 2 years ago
jericomovie
Yes. At least that is the poetic way to put it. I would say that over the course of evolution, certain beliefs have been hardwired into our head.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
I think it is a dangerous idea.
jericomovie 2 years ago
I don't see how it is dangerous, but even if it was dangerous that wouldn't make it false.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
so now you are taking suffering lightly?? you back rational dawn and now this shit? You are treating philosophy like a game of chess only. What about the truth of suffering? What kind of suffering have you had? Any? When cancer starts eating you away your chess game cock comparison philosophy will be fucked along with your ego. Suffering is just a word for you to play with until it jumps your ass.
KobeLakers1000 2 years ago
"This cannot be, since man preexists society, and since society was formed to serve the needs of the individual"
This is false. Man does not precede society. Unlike most animals that can survive as individuals humans cannot survive as discreet individuals. The default human condition has *always* been one of surviving within a community. This is anthropology 101.
This is why Libertarians are called gliberatians. You glibly ignore the most basic reality of man to further your own narcissism.
1noen1 2 years ago
Society was not necessarily formed to suit the needs of the individual. It was formed to suit the "needs" of a group who share similar wants or desires. All an individual needs is water, food, and shelter. That's it. What a society provides is larger work force to allow for grander goals that are impossible for an individual. I mean, Franklyn Lloyd Wright could make fantastic designs but unless he has a workforce, his designs would never become a reality.
Dogschach 2 years ago
I know you will want to counter with something along the lines of "but without individuals, there could not be a society" which is equal to saying if there weren't any lions, there can;t be any prides but that is ontological, i.e. not really showing that a society necessarily suits the need of the individual.
Dogschach 2 years ago
For instance, capitalism, it might seem, is a coutner to this since it is an economic system based off of individual needs. However, the economic system is what keeps society at large functioning so it is a system developed for the continuing success of society, not necessarily the individuals especially since capitalism relies heavily on failure meaning that for this system to work, many individuals needs cannot be satisfied from it.
Dogschach 2 years ago
Comment removed
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Comment removed
sammcalpine 2 years ago
A subjective value statement like "No one person's needs is more important than another's" cannot be an axiom, that is the flaw! He can derive objective conclusions from that value statement, but he cannot call the system objective, because the root of it is subjective.
Woootloops 2 years ago 2
He can if he can demonstrate that it is, as he claims, a "self evident" axiom.
But to do so he must demonstrate that every person is aware of the axiom or at least recognizes it's 'truth' when it is pointed out to them. They cannot fail to recognize its truth if it is 'self evident'.
I see evidence that this is not the case and thus I reject it as a "self evident" axiom. And from there, the whole system falls apart.
sammcalpine 2 years ago 2
No, it cannot be an axiom, because value is subjective. I doesn't matter if every being in existence accpeted it.
Woootloops 2 years ago 2
It's not a question of beings "accepting" it. It is a question whether it is a "self evident. Whether it is the kind of thing that once pointed out to an individual they would reply "of course that is obviously true". This is how we discriminate the 'objective' from the 'subjective'. The simple fact that value statements always seem to be subjective, does not preclude the possibility that objective value statements exist.
But then, I've never heard one and this one doesn't qualify.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
@sammcalpine some people are either too stupid to understand what has just happened, or they are so attached to the way they would like it to be they just ignore it and will continue to do so no matter how many times you rub their nose in what has just happened.
Cashify 2 years ago
These same people will claim their opinions are based on logic and reason, while at the same time being utterly illogical and completely unreasonable when it comes to ignoring scientific evidence that devastates their philosophical position.
Cashify 2 years ago
acknowledging
Cashify 2 years ago
Cashify,
I'm not certain whether this is a criticism directed at me or at somebody else. I like how you left it intentionally vague. Would you care to expand your comment to illustrate who is attached to what and what the scientific evidence is that devastates which philosophical position?
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Value is by definition subjective. Without a mind to value something, value does not exist, and the value itself is only of the minds that are valueing things, thereby making it subjective in all cases.
Now you might assert that something could have inherent value, but in saying so you would have redefined value, and I can prove this by asking whether or not this thing you've said to have inherent value is still inherently valuable if I program a sentient robot to not value it.
Woootloops 2 years ago
I've heard similar arguments before, but I think this is an extreme and unreasonable view of subjectivity. There are objective facts about the world which depend on humans for their meaning but which nevertheless remain objectively (independent of private experience) true for all humans. For instance Antarctica is cold. Cold is a relative term but it remains objectively true for all humans that Antarctica is cold.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
Cold is subjective. People in Florida might feel that 50 degrees is cold, but an Eskimo wouldn't. Now, even if all humans thought Antarctica was cold, it would still be subjective to each of those humans. Antarctica is not cold in of itself unless you redefine cold as being a certain degrees and below, just as something does not have value in of itself unless you redefine value as being a certain something.
Woootloops 2 years ago
It might be objectively true that Antarctica is cold for all humans, but it is not objectively true that Antarctica is cold, and just because the objective fact that Antarctica is cold for all humans depends on the experience of humans for its meaning, this does not change the definition of subjective. You're merely speaking of objective facts about subjective experience.
That is, if I understood what you were getting at.
Woootloops 2 years ago
"You're merely speaking of objective facts about subjective experience"
That you acknowledge that there can be such facts puts a crack in the objective/subjective divide.
Consider the following;
If it is an objective fact, that ALL humans believe that "X is valuable" then it is a fact that X is valuable since it is the set of humans which assign that value.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
This is true at an even lower level but takes on a much more subjective light;
If it is an objective fact, that ALL Americans believe that "X is valuable" then it is a fact that X is valuable TO Americans since it is the set of Americans which assign that value.
Now, I'm not claiming that such "objective" values exist. But that is what the case for a "self evident" value implies.
sammcalpine 2 years ago
There can be objective facts about what happens in the subjective mind without cracking the objective/subjective divide because the fact that a mind subjectively did something like value X is independent of that mind. If the mind which valued X disappeared, the fact that the mind did value X remains; the fact is independent of the mind, thus making it objective.
Woootloops 2 years ago
However, the value of X is not independent of the mind. When the mind which values X goes, so does the value of X, thus making that value subjective, and thus making all value subjective.
Woootloops 2 years ago
@Woootloops -- The way to think of this is that some values are observer relative and some are observer independent. We call values that are observer independent "objective". But none of these values are absolute. An alien invader may not value human life and exterminate us in which case all human values are nullified.
1noen1 2 years ago
The way I'm understanding what you said, you're just calling a subjective value an observer relative value, and you're calling an objective value an observer independant value. But observer independant values do not exist; objective values do not exist. Values are dependant on minds; they are subjective.
Woootloops 2 years ago
@Woootloops -- Observer independent values exist because there is such a thing as collective intentionality. That this $20 bill is made of paper is epistemically objective. But it isn't up to me that it is valid currency, that is observer independent and therefore an objective fact. That I think the meal I bought with it was worth the 20 bucks is observer relative or what most people call subjective.
Cf. John Searle in "The Construction of Social Reality".
1noen1 2 years ago
So an observer independent value is merely a value many people hold. That doesn't make it objective. It's still subjective to each individual.
It is up to each individual to decide whether or not a 20 dollar bill has value to them. Just because most Americans value a 20 dollar bill doesn't make it any less subjective.
Woootloops 2 years ago
Please send all your unvalued $20 bills to me.
Money and constitutions and cocktail parties are created by the collective intentionality of the people involved. They are epistemically subjective but ontologically objective. It isn't up to me what the legal currency of the US is. It is an institutional fact and therefore objective. All the same, if everyone loses faith in the money system it will collapse.
1noen1 2 years ago
That a 20 dollar bill is a legal currency in the US is not a matter of value, it is a matter of fact. The value of the 20 dollar bills comes subjectively from each individual person, and it doesn't matter how many of them collectively value it, it's still subjective value.
Woootloops 2 years ago
@Woootloops -- You see, we actually agree, you just have this aversion to calling it objective because it's socially determined. If something exists outside of me and out of my control I say it's objective. And things can be subjective in one sense and objective in another.
Money is like that. So are morals. Money and morality are epistemically subjective. No humans, no money or morality. But both are ontologically objective because it isn't up to me that this paper is 20$ or rape is wrong.
1noen1 2 years ago
The value of the money and the wrong of the rape never leave the mind of the people who value the money and believe rape is wrong, and so it is subjective. I don't get where you are getting the objective from. The value you give a 20 dollar bill isn't independent of you, what is independent of you is the fact that other people value 20 dollar bills, and the value those other people give 20 dollar bills is not independent of them either. So you're mixing up facts about value with value itself.
Woootloops 2 years ago
@Woootloops -- The monetary value of $20 is very independent of me and therefore objective. I'd love to buy a new Lexus for 20 bucks but the collective intentionality of everyone else prevents that. Subjectively I may feel it's only worth $20 but the Federal Reserve says otherwise. Therefore the worth of a Lexus is objectively determined by the collective intentionality of all the potential buyers out there.
1noen1 2 years ago
The monetary value of 20 dollars is not independent of you. You're merely regulating how much you subjectively value 20 dollars on the basis of how much everyone else subjectively values 20 dollars.
A Lexus only has worth subjectively in the minds of people. Just because you can't buy a Lexus for 20 dollars does not mean that a Lexus has an objective worth, it means that the person selling it subjectively thinks that it is worth more, while you subjectively do not.
Woootloops 2 years ago
But, I probably just didn't understand what you said, and if I didn't, then could you expand on what you mean by observer independant and relative values?
Woootloops 2 years ago
Hrm, first comment was kind of irrelevant as I missed that you said cold was relative. And I don't think I got what you were saying.
It is objectively true that for all humans Antarctica is cold, but their experience of cold is subjective. I don't get how this is viewing subjectivity differently. Antarctica is still not objectively cold, because its coldness only exists within the minds of the persons experiencing the cold; the cold is subjective to each person and not inherent of Antarctica.
Woootloops 2 years ago
Everything was good until you said that no one person's needs is more important than another's. That is not an axiom. Importance is a statement of value, and value is subjective.
If I value myself more than everyone else, then my needs are more important than everyone elses, etc.
Woootloops 2 years ago 5
@Woootloops
yup.
withoutleaders 2 years ago
you might have missed the sidebar
jericomovie 2 years ago
Oh, I did miss it.
From the statement that we are all equally human, it does not follow that no one person's needs are more important than another's. The reason for this is that the statement that we are all equally human is not a statement of value, and so we cannot derive a should from it.
You would have to change the statement to "We are all equally human, and all humans are equally valuable", but in doing so you would have made a subjective value statement, so no objective morality.
Woootloops 2 years ago
no. you just want me to make a statement of value so you can say, "ha! statement of value!"
I'm telling you that you needn't value anything to come to the conclusion that needs come from our being human.
In fact, o ye of much jumping and shouting x), to assert that any one DOES have priority over another is a statement of value, subjective, and flawed. Without statements of value, we cannot say any is above the rest.
jericomovie 2 years ago
Sorry for jumping and shouting, but this seems so obvious to me!
I agree that we don't need to value anything to come to the conclusion that our needs come from our being human, but from that conclusion we cannot conclude that no human's needs are more important than another's. Importance does not exist without value.
Woootloops 2 years ago
Without statements of value we cannot say that anything is above the rest or that anything isn't above the rest, so whether or not I act in accordance to my needs being above yours or equal to them is a matter of no consequence, because you have no values from which to derive a should to tell me whether or not I should act either way.
Woootloops 2 years ago
I'm not making the argument that anyone's needs are more important than any other.
I am the one saying that nothing is above the rest. We are on the same side, buddy. Snap out of it.
jericomovie 2 years ago
The point is that you can't say either way that anything is above or isn't above the rest, because in doing so you would be making a statement regarding the value of someone's needs, and since there is no value in your system, you cannot derive an objective statement on value from it; you can't make objective statements regarding importance, priority, etc.
Woootloops 2 years ago
Importance, priority, etc. do not exist without value, and so me violating someone's needs or not doing so is a matter of no consequence.
Woootloops 2 years ago
@jericomovie -- "you needn't value anything to come to the conclusion that needs come from our being human."
Yes you do. You need to value being human. Not everyone does and not everyone values *your* needs.
1noen1 2 years ago
value being human?
You misunderstand.
The human being cannot sustain itself, it has to take from the outside world. That's what I mean by "needs coming from our being human."
jericomovie 2 years ago
Ok, in addition I would say that life cannot sustain itself qua itself. Some lifeforms can survive sunlight, or radiation, or volcanic vents but the rest of life must take from other life to survive.
One is tempted to say that all species value their own survival above all others but this is not quite true. Many exist in a symbiotic relationship with each other with each depending on the other for survival.
We humans depend on each other to survive. No man is an island.
1noen1 2 years ago
The smallest unit for humans is not the individual but the tribal unit. If you break humans into individuals they will go extinct. Therefore in all tribes the survival of the community surpasses and exceeds that of the individual. Thus the social contract is grounded in absolute necessity.
I value humans because I am one. I value the social contract because it is necessary for my and our very survival. Those who threaten my survival must be opposed.
1noen1 2 years ago
Abortion was a bad example, since it's debatable whether a fetus is to be considered a baby/human being. Something may have the potential to be another thing, but that does not mean it is.
But interesting perspective on the matter of morality. Not sure I agree; I'll have to think about it some more.
seraphinapandora 2 years ago
I dont get why to object to that parachute argument.
There are many real world scenarios where we do in fact have to judge where one person's need outweighs the need of another.
Organ transplants, charity, and unless your a hardline socialist, all issues relating to goverment funding, hard choices must be made, where we do put some people's needs above others.
gusb232 2 years ago
Are you a vegetarian? I ask because your argument against abortion would seem to apply just as much to other animals.
silversoul7 2 years ago 2
Practice what you preach may be too large a leap for a philosopher to make.
I say it is axiomatic to the human condition that all matter in the human is created/perceived by knowledge/belief alone, and I base this opinion on the many quantum eraser type experiment performed in the past 8 years. Rather than refute those experiments with a counterexample, most objectivists prefer to just ignore them and carry on the way they did before these experiments happened. Dogma and denial are strange.
Cashify 2 years ago
It is axiomatic to the human condition that human brains in human bodies arise IN that which we are, eternal awareness. Eventually even the dimmest bulb will catch on to this fact.
Cashify 2 years ago
@Cashify Our 'eternal awareness' is an axiomtic fact.?
Please.
gusb232 2 years ago
not "our" awareness, it is who we are, it is existence itself, and is absolute, universal and there is nothing that exists that doesn't...ahem..exist..duh,.
Cashify 2 years ago
Well there are plently of things that exist that are not aware, so so calling awareness existance itself, seems flawed.
Plus you said 'eternal awareness' Yet somehow I am not aware that I have always been aware.
gusb232 2 years ago
That is only because what you call "I" is a thought arising in awareness with which you as awareness are currently mistakenly identified. Brains are not what collapses potentiality. Potentiality is collapsed by knowability by and awareness that precedes that brain in order to collapse the brain and body into atomic and molecular form. It is possible to shift identity back to that which knows whether or not which path info will be knowable or not, and collapses matter, or NOT.
Cashify 2 years ago
'It is possible to shift identity back to that which knows whether or not which path info will be knowable or not, and collapses matter, or NOT'
OR NOT
I highly doubt you understand this psudeo-quantum double-speak.
Check yo self , Deepak!
gusb232 2 years ago
Gus there is no reason to condescend.
People are not willing to face the truth because it makes them uncomfortable. They want to think that what they were conditioned to believe in is true. There's no shame in this. Just be aware that instead of stating specifically why the truth is not the truth and backing it up, someone who is uncomfortable either becomes condescending or throws around words like false, wrong or pseudo, while not having the ability to back up such a claim. As u wish.
Cashify 2 years ago
While I don't think that your moral theory stands on a very solid foundation, it does remind me of a similar one I know of.
It's called "Desire Utilitarianism"
If you're not familiar with it, you should look it up.
(though I think it has severe flaws too)
majinrevan666 2 years ago
Great video, as always. BUT, it is time for QUIBBLING!
How do we judge between two person's needs when the fulfilment of one person's needs *necessarily* excludes the fulfilment of the other person's?
Time for contrived hypotheticals. Two people are in a burning building, a fireball rushes down the corridor at them. A small alcove will save them, but it's large enough for only one. They look at each other, both needing, wanting to live. Who, *morally speaking*, gets the alcove?
Renno45 2 years ago
Oh yeah, I guess I should mention that *both of them* would be very happy indeed to be indebted to the other for use of the alcove, but of course *both* can't come out of this situation indebted. One would be indebted, the would be dead.
Anyway, awesome videos, sorry if I've badly misunderstood anything.
Renno45 2 years ago
Hume also said that you can't make the leap from the "is" of a descriptive statement to the "ought" of a normative statement. The one objection to this might be is goal-centered reason: I ought to do x in order to achieve y. However, you reason from the bottom up through axioms, not from the top down through ends.
I think you're using the term "self-evident" in a very liberal way...
Also, other organisms have needs, which they act upon. Why shouldn't we regard animals as equal moral beings?
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
"Why shouldn't we regard animals as equal moral beings?"
Perhaps we "ought"?...
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
Questions arise:
Does this apply to more than mere humans? Do the cow's needs have equal priority as the human who needs to eat?
With abortion, does the mere "potential" of a human have equal needs as an already "actualized" human? Is it considered a "human" 45 days after conception or when?
Does this apply to the needs of all life? Such as the needs of various plants?
Do the needs of plants and animals count? Is it immoral to consume LIFE? Humans only? Is this the guilt of "original sin"?
theprodigy2186 2 years ago
@theprodigy2186 Right I dont think his 'axiom' helps us as far as abortion; each of us is a developing human being. the question still is when does a cell or group of cells become a human and a person and deserve rights? There may be unresolvable ambiguity, and thats difficult to deal with.
gusb232 2 years ago
Thanks. I imagine someone will jump up and down about it. I appreciate your witnessing, though.
jericomovie 2 years ago