At some point you discuss humanism, and claim that to call on empathy is useless; it is not IF we also understand that it is a preference. If I do prefer empatheic feelings over non-empathetic feelings to drive my choices, then it seems that recuiting and motivating people to act in an empathetic manner is fine. We can still understand that it is not *true*, while agreeing (for those who do) that it's a good choice on which to choose behaviours.
If I were to condense your arguments: morality is a construct of the human brain and not real in the same sense that say,as the existence of electromagnetism or gravity, What we think is right is actually a preference. Is this correct? If so, it seems that the distinction 'tween atheist and theist morality is superfluous, why make it?
Yes, atheism is ultimately nihilism, which is ultimately solipsism (if nothing exists outside of subjective reality, then I, as the only subject whose existence I can ever truly be aware of, am the only thing which exists. This was the conlusion of atheist philosophers such as Ayn Rand)
And anyone who thinks an atheistic/nihilistic/solipsistic society is sustainable for any length of time, has no understanding of nature, let alone human nature, let alone God.
I'm an atheist, and this is exactly why I am thinking of rejecting atheism. I simply cannot accept that there is no such thing as right and wrong, and "subjective morality" [personal preference] just doesn't cut it for me. Even though there is no evidence for theism (and plenty of evidence against it), it is still a better worldview overall because it accounts for objective moral values and duties.
Maybe Voltaire was right: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
@haven10709 Your a weak person. ALOT of atheists believe in an objective morality, Sam Harris, John- Rawls, Peter Singer, Richard Joyce Karl Popper etc the list goes on. WHY don't you read into ethics before you get taken in by such a simple argument which barely touches the subject. Check out youtube videos like Treatise on morality by theoreticalbullshit or The objective of morality by ZOMGitsCriss. Or you can turn to religion.. which justify slavery, rape, murder, genocide and homophobia.
If belief in god "accounts for objective moral values and duties." THEN explain how gods "subjective personal preferences" on his laws become "objective"? Ever heard of plato's euthyphro dilemma? If God commands murder is wrong, does this MAKE it Objectively wrong? What if god changes his mind and commands you to murder like when god commands Moses to kill all the Medianite people. Its completely obvious you have not studied ethics. Even if god did exist, it would still lead to Nihilism.
@haven10709 "I'm an atheist, and this is exactly why I am thinking of rejecting atheism. I simply cannot accept that there is no such thing as right and wrong, and "subjective morality" [personal preference] just doesn't cut it for me. "
Reject Nihilism not atheist. We do not need a god for morality and further more any moral code which is commanded (don't eat meat, don't wear white shirts etc) are subjective so "inventing a god" wont provide you or humanity an objective morality.
This guy is trying to use the fact that humanist morality is subjective in order to undermine humanism, but the reason he doesn’t want anyone to apply the same argument to religion is because he knows it undermines it just as much too.
I find the way he attempts to say that making this point is like talking about blueberry pancakes laughable when his tactic is so obvious, it’s so transparent it’s ridiculous he must take the viewer for idiots, if an argument is any good which in this case it may well be then you have to accept it applies to everything, for any argument like this to hold water it simply has to, you can’t start making exceptions.
The fact that he is so desperate for it not to be applied to religion speaks volumes as I think he knows he has also destroyed the very thing he is trying to defend, it’s a bit of a kamikaze argument, I think he thinks if he can make it sound intellectual enough he may be able to hoodwink the foolish. ALL morality is subjective including religious morality, that’s not fancy intellectualism it’s just fact, LOL what a character. I love how he sound so serious too.
So, with that out of the way, your claim is that no natural property would entail that "X is required not to be done" (a normative statement). This parallels the fact that water is h2o does not require any belief or value that water is h2o (it simply is). People can believe falsely, and do. So, I don't see that as a mark against realist metaethical naturalism anymore than I would evolution denialism as a mark against biological evolution.
@Khuno2 But the point about water and H20 does not parrallel the point I'm making. My point is that there's something prima facie absurd in the thought of a natural property issuing an instruction. Morality is prescriptive. It issues instructions and this seems to be an essential feature of the moral. But how can a natural property that has no consciousness, no desires, no aims, issue an instruction? No matter how you cut it, the idea is absurd - yet you're committed to it.
@Khuno2 To parrallel the water point - if someone told you that water issues instructions, you'd surely object 'but water can't issue instructions - it isn't an agent'. If they replied 'but water and H20 are one and the same stuff, yet one might say 'water' without realising that one was referring to H20' would you be impressed? No. For it remains the case that water - or H20 if you prefer - can't issue instructions becuase it isn't an agent. It is its non-agentiality that's the problem.
@Khuno2 Cont'd...to clarify further. For 'X is wrong' to be 'true' it would need to be the case that X is 'required not to be done'. And for that to be 'true' there would need to be a requirement issued not to do X. The only plausible issuer of that requirement - an issuer the recognition of which would not debunk the claim that 'X is wrong' is true - is God. Thus the only way a moral statement can be 'true' is if God exists.
So, morality and God, or no God and no morality - but not both.
Also, it's not clear that all moral predicates could be replaced in descriptions with physical descriptions. For example, no economist believes that supernatural forces are responsible for market behaviors, yet it's extremely doubtful that a particle physicist (in his capacity) could do as satisfactory a job explaining market behavior as an economist. Similarly, no one disputes that living cells are nothing "more than" atoms and subatomic particles, yet cellular biology isn't physics.
@Khuno2 Re economists etc. Yes, my claim was not that you can actually provide the translations. The point is that 'in principle' such translations exist. And that's enough to present the problem. in principle moral language could be done away with on your view. And that, to my mind, makes it no different to nihilism. Your world and the nihilists world is the same, and you have the same reasons to do things. There's no normative dimension.No real difference between you, just a label
So what I've described isn't relativism and isn't nihilism. I'm positing that the physicalist/materialist nihilist and relativist ontology is missing moral properties, which are completely physical. And they're vague properties, like every physical property. So badness may not be needless suffering (is of identity), but needless suffering is a component of badness (the actions that cause it are bad, too).
@Khuno2 I'm not sure I'm following your meaning. Are you saying that moral properties are identical with natural properties of some sort? Seems so. But then you are a nihilist in my view for in principle you could do away with moral terms and substitute them for their natural synonyms.
2nd problem: to believe that X is wrong is to believe that X is 'not to be done'. But how can a natural property issue instructions? Only an agent can do that. So I think your position is false.
If I could substitute moral terms with natural synonyms, how is that nihilism? Nihilists deny the existence of moral properties, whereas I do not, synonyms or not. To believe that X "not be done" has nothing to do with whether or not X is such that it "not be done". How can a natural property issue instructions? How does poison work? So no, an agent nee not do that.
@Khuno2 I'll just repeat one of my objections to your naturalism, becuase one of your responses involves just repeating it as if it were somehow a problem for me!
If you're a naturalist you identify moral properties with natural properties.
But to say 'X is wrong' is to say 'X is required not to be done'. A natural property cannot issue requirements. So 'wrong' is not identical with a natural property. Perhaps you think 'wrong' does not mean 'required not to be done'?
I identify ethical properties with physical properties. I agree that the predicate 'wrong' means do not do, as well. Metaethics seeks to provide the truth conditions of moral propositions (it is non-normative). This is what I'm restricting my naturalism. When someone says that,'X is wrong,' they're confining their utterance to normative ethics, which involves value. 'X is wrong' would be true if the state of affairs referenced contained the moral property.
@Khuno2 You're misunderstanding what a metaethical theory seeks to do. A metaethical theory is not normative in the sense that it does not seek to provide practical guidance. However, normativity is a feature of the moral landscape and it is a feature that a metaethical theory needs to accommodate. My point is that your type of view cannot accommodate that feature. You cannot respect the normativity of moral properties. Non-agential properties do not issue instructions. Agents do.
@Khuno2 To clarify, a normative moral theory is 'normative' in so far as it tells you what to do. A metaethical theory attempts to explain that normativity. So where the normative moral theory issues instructions, the metaethical theories tries to explain how morality could be instruction-giving.
IN my view there are two basic features of the moral landscape that need respecting. The objectivity of morality, and its normativity. Only my view can do this.
And that would matter how? So the truth of a metaethical naturalism depends on what a psychopath believes and does? It all hinges on whether or not I can convince a psychopath not to do bad things? How about a blind person and sight? If I could convince a blind person that he can see, he's no longer blind? That's just bad math, and I don't like it.
@Khuno2 you are saying that there is an "evil"/"good" as an inherent property of the universe and independent of the individual perceptions, right? Psychopaths are born "evil" but lack of free will is incompatible with objective morality.
How is the wrongness best understood as a sense of god disapproving of it than say a property of the behavior itself? At least one permits confirmation and behavior for its truth values, and not revelation and belief in supernaturalism, which doesn't skirt the problem of arbitrariness. A supervenient property of said behavior, even. And ethical relativism is a realist metaethic (though I am not a relativist), and differs from nihilism only semantically, not ontologically.
@Khuno2 I assume this was directed at me. When you talk of ethical relativism I'm not sure what you mean. but I agree that the difference between a subjectivist, naturalist, and nihilist is merely semantic. I take that to be damning of subjectivism and naturalism (for they're trying to vindicate morality, not nihilism).
I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'at least one permits confirmation'. What does that mean? How does divine command theory not permit 'confirmation'?
I think that DCT is a relativist metaethic. A relativist argument would be as follows: X says that behavior A is wrong. So, according to X, A is wrong. Therefore, A is wrong. This is patently invalid, for one can't go from "according to X, A is wrong," to "is wrong". Substitute X with god and it's still invalid. We have emergent and supervenient properties in biology, and supervenient properties in economics. I contend that the same exists in ethics for behavior.
@Khuno2 But DCT is not relative in that sense. I don't claim that Xing is wrong 'for God'. I claim that Xing is wrong and 'wrong' just describes the property of being commanded not to be done by God. It is an objective matter what God does or does not command.
God doesn't have any moral beliefs. God just approves and disapproves of things. He doesn't disapprove of them 'because' they're wrong.
Just like it's an objective matter what is and is not in the constitution. That says nothing about whether or not the laws themselves are right or wrong. I didn't say it was wrong "for" god. I said it was wrong according to god. And a relativist would say that 'wrong' just describes the property of "being commanded not be done" by X (where x could be you). And you can't go from the property of "being commanded not be done" to wrong, period. Ergo, DCT is relativism.
@Khuno2 But now you're begging the question by just insisting that this says nothing about whether something is right or wrong.
Unless you're a metaethical nihilist - and you've said you're not - then you must accept either that there is a property that can be described and that is synonymous with a moral property, or that moral properties are irreducible. The criticism you're making applies to all theories of the former kind, including your naturalism! So you're being inconsistent.
And you're countering with what amounts to asking me why subatomic particles need to be in relative "close" proximity for strong nuclear force's effects to be realized. Look, this open question argument applies to all empirical facts. You can conceive of water being xyz and not h2o...great...good imagination. It says nothing about the fact in question.
So I would say, "genocide is evil," is true because of the needless suffering it causes on the displaced group of people it removes. Remember, asking why needless suffering is evil is akin to asking why is water h2o. These questions are meaningless. Now, what I've is proven that it's possible (at the very least) to be an atheist, a physicalist, and a moral realist. So we can say goodbye to the false claim that it's impossible made by atheists and theists alike.
Not by the criterion you're requiring me to prove it. I told you, I don't define things "in and of themselves". That is a religious and antiempirical standard. I'm not begging the question by defining evil as needless suffering. I'm offering an operational definition. Evidence for this would be the effects that needless suffering has on those who endure it (cancer patients, for example...who die).
@Khuno2 You are classically begging the question; assuming that your definition of evil is the correct one then using THAT as the basis for morality, which can be construed as a question of what is evil, is both begging the question and circular reasoning.
So once again, you've got far more in common with a typical theist than you probably realize (or will admit to).
@Khuno2 No, defining things by what they are is not antiempirical. Indeed it is quite the opposite.
What is wrong with needless suffering? You haven't answered that question. Sure it compells those who endure it to try to stop it, but that is merely a chemical response in their brains which has evolved. It is objectively no different from any other chemical reaction in the universe.
One doesn't beg the question by offering a definition. Question begging occurs in argument. Needless suffering is wrong simply because of its effects (that is why it is wrong). And you're right, it is a chemical reaction like any other (in that it is a chemical reaction). I'm not going to rely on a value, and none of its effects entail that you MUST or should believe it is wrong. But none of water's effects entail that you must believe that it's h2o.
@Khuno2 Yes, question begging occurs in argument. The argument "Needless suffering is wrong simply because of its effects (that is why it is wrong)." is self evidently begging the question.
The property of water can be verified using chemistry. Morality can not. Behavioural traits maybe can be verified using chemistry or physics, but that is obviously nihilistic.
Evolution by natural selection would be an explanation for life regardless of whether or not life existed to believe it. This is true in a possible lifeless universe because if life were to come into existence in such a place, it would evolve by natural selection. Are you denying that? Water is h2o even on planets where it doesn't exist. Moral facts exist even if humans did not exist.
And we're not the only apes who've evolved mirror neurons, which permit empathy and promote social cohesion and more efficient cooperation, but we're the most sophisticated. It seems that most people have an aversion to certain behaviors like rape. Others have stronger reactions to the phenomenon than yet others, just as some people are more athletic than others or better at math. It could be that this evolved aversion constitutes the perception of moral properties found within these acts.
LOL! Why is there "something" rather than "nothing", even. Questions like this are so meaningless that they don't immediately come across as meaningless...only certain philosophers would entertain them with a straight face.
Oh, and it's demonstrable that certain behaviors result in needless suffering, and prohibit living a life worth living. That seems pretty objective. There's no faith involved in that. I believe that torture, rape, murder, and belief system that sanction and promote genocide and needless suffering are evil. These aren't imagined "somethings". They are there, one just needs to properly classify them. This isn't faith and it isn't religion.
@Khuno2 Rape? Impregnating women and insuring your genetic legacy. Torture? Harming your enemies and insuring your own culture are the superior ones. Genocide? By definition removing those with radically different genetic structures from the gene pool.
All of these things are evolved behavioural responses. And there are advantages to them so they could easily be construed as being good.
Your arguments are basically either appeals to emotion, or based on faith in morality.
And? Let's assume that rape is an evolved tendency (I think the scholarship on that is sketchy, as I do most pop evolutionary psychology arguing within the confines of 10,000 years), and confers an evolutionary benefit on those who practice it. That says nothing about its moral status, or the objectivity of moral properties. The benefit may, and I'd argue is, be overshadowed by the cost (disruption of social cohesion and mutual cooperation, and, say, child abuse).
@Khuno2 So evolution, the process by which human beings came about, the thing that made humans all that we are, has no bearing on morality? Morality has a meaning outside of human life?
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Where is your evidence for this? It seems to me like you are denying evolution in order to prop up a belief in something you can't empirically identify. That's pretty religious if you ask me.
I didn't say that evolution has no bearing on moral behavior (I think it does). I said that evolution doesn't determine the moral status (and truth value of that status) of a given behavior, or whether or not moral properties exist. Behaviors and their consequences can be observed, and, therefore, so can moral properties on my view.
It's not, "what is the truth value of genocide". Instead, it would be, "what is the truth value of the proposition, 'genocide is bad.'" Evil, good, bad, etc, aren't a truth values. If you're asking me to define evil in and of itself, or whatever strange religious conceptions of things in themselves are, that is something I wouldn't do, because it's a meaningless question. No, we define by its observable effects, like we do every other physical phenomenon.
And even if one could find the silver lining in genocide, rape, and torture (and many try to), beliefs that something is good or bad have no bearing on whether or not such practices are, objectively, good or bad. That requires empirical investigation on not just the individual benefits, as we're not asking whether or not something is good for men, or good for women, or good for a species, or a subgroup (I'm not a relativist). We'd be asking what is good, full stop.
@Khuno2 What is good, full stop. Is the moon good? Is a supernova bad? How ethical are black holes? What about colbalt vs water? Which is more evil or good?
You are talking about things which depend on the very fact humans exist at all. There is absolutely no logic or empirical justification for concepts such as morality. You can believe them, as do I (an atheist), but that's what you have - faith in something.
It doesn't make us religious, it does make us just as "irrational" though.
Category mistakes abound. It's like asking what the flavor of 2 is. Wrenches and buildings depend on the very fact of human existence. Are you saying that they don't exist, or aren't objective? Nonsense.
@Khuno2 Wrenches and buildings are constructs which can be reduced to their component matter. Do wrenches exist? The element of iron, shaped into a particular form, absolutely exists. Whether it is called a "wrench" or called a "spanner" is irrelevant to its existence.
What about morality? If I see someone beating up a homeless person, and I call it good and you call it bad, is that irrelevant to the morality of the beating? No.
But divine command theory is a failure. Plato proved that over two thousand years ago. If god is the source of normativity, then it's arbitrary whim (and no basis upon which to establish ethics), if god isn't the source of normativity, then we've no need for god. If god were the source of normativity, and it's a part of god's nature, then that nature is meaningless placeholder apart from what god commands, and there's no difference between its nature and what it commands.
Yet others query where in a particular "evil act," that brings about needless suffering, is the badness instantiated. The response is no particular point, as moral properties are logically vague. But most properties are logically vague. It's like asking in which grain of sand does the pile of sand reside. In no particular grain of sand. We don't then conclude that piles of sand don't exist. Or in which particular point in clumsy behavior does clumsiness reside...
As to the reasons why one ought believe that goodness and badness are objectively existing moral properties, there are many reasons to believe it. One would be respect for truth, just as we believe that water is h2o (it's the correct way to believe). Another would be the objective criteria that permit the possibility of living a good life, and that enable flourishing (what is anathema to that like rape and torture). Badness exists in the actions themselves--is not over and above evil deeds.
@Khuno2 There is no objective criteria for living a good life. Good and bad are anthropocentric value assessments that cannot be deduced on any real level. In reality it can commonly be seen that one's perceived flourishing comes at the expense of another's perceived suffering.
Of course there is. And the more we start investigating it, the more we understand. For example, happiness and how to achieve happiness may be a part of a good life (sure seem to be). Are you saying that there's no criteria that would prevent happiness? That's ridiculous. All sorts of abuses can and do prevent happiness. Keeping women enslaved as the property of men (islam and many christian cults) isn't consistent with a good life.
@Khuno2 Ok, first off you are again begging the question. Why is achieving happiness good? No appeals to emotion, no circular reasoning. Justify it empirically.
What you basically have here is a pseudo-religious faith in morality. You believe in an intangeble "something" which you can't prove and can't demonstrate, but assert others should believe "because it's there". That's fine. That means that you should not criticise religious belief for lack of evidence, or you are a hypocrite.
I'm not assuming that happiness is good. I said it may be a criterion for leading a good life. But why is happiness good? That's very similar to asking why is good good, or why is suffering bad, or "why" is water h2o? Why is there nothing rather than something? Pseudo questions, really. But psychologists who study happiness, and what leads to it, have arrived at the remarkable conclusion that it is a component of an enjoyable life. Not necessary to what I've advanced.
@Khuno2 A "good life"? You are begging the question. Morality is the question of what concepts of good and bad actually are. All you are doing here is saying that morality exists because... well... that's a good thing. Circular reasoning isn't the same as demonstrating the chemical composition of water.
No, it isn't. What I'm doing is stating that moral properties, and the states of affairs that they are involved are no different, in kind, than any other physical property or state of affairs. These moral properties are not supernatural, and obtain in behaviors (and are nothing over and above those behaviors). They are vague, like most every other physical property. A "good" life would involve such moral properties, and, moreso, is an empirical question.
@Khuno2 But you are begging the question. You keep on using words like "good" and "moral" and "happiness" as values without citing any objective empirical evidence to indicate that they should be considered as such.
Water is H20 whether we believe it or not, because it can be proven.
Good isn't necessarily good unless we believe it is. If this is wrong, prove it. To the Nazis exterminating people with disabilities was "good" (aktion T4). Prove that this was "bad" and objectively wrong.
Well, I think I am citing objective empirical criteria for determining the meanings of good and bad. Behaviors and their effects. Needless suffering, say, exists whether or not you choose to believe it. And let's say that needless suffering is bad. And the same would apply to "good". So simply believing one way or another, or even moral disagreement, fails to address what I'm talking about.
@RPFS2008 Surely the real issue here is how best to capture the normativity of moral beliefs. TO believe that X is wrong, is to believe that X is 'not to be done'. It is this instructional aspect to morality that poses the difficulty for all views apart from Divine Command Theory. And the combination of Divine Command Theory and Atheism yields moral nihilism.
We've ceased talking about morality if that's the case.
It's much easier to sympathise with the person who says 'torturing a baby is wrong because it is damaging to that baby' than it is to sympathis with the person who says 'torturing a baby is wrong because God says so'. The first statement at least tries to deal with how behaviour affects others, unlike DCT which is just so arbitary
@RPFS2008 You're confusing the normative and the metaethical. I believe that torturing a baby is wrong because it would cause the baby pain. I believe it is wrong to cause people pain unecessarily, and so on. And the 'wrongness' that I sense 'causing people pain' to have, is best understood as a sense of God disapproving of it.
What's your rival meteathical view. Don't tell me your normative view- assume i agree with you on that. tell me your metaethical view.
@RPFS2008 He disapproves of things because he doesn't like them. Likes and dislikes can't be justified any more than tastes can (why don't you like Brussel Sprouts? I just don't. But why? I just don't).
So God disapproves of whatever it is he disapproves of - and this disapproval is sensed by us and we label those things we sense to be disapproved 'wrong'.
What 'doesn't work' on this view? Are you going to insist that God needs 'moral' reasons for what he approves of? Question begging
As an atheist and MR, I submit that goodness and badness are objectively existing moral properties, and that they are completely natural, and not supernatural. Are you, then, saying that if this were the case, that goodness and badness would not inform how we should behave? On what grounds? Is/ought does not apply. Water is h2o, but nothing about water being h2o specifies that one ought believe that water is h2o. I contend that the same exists for objectively existing moral properties.
@Khuno2 We can prove that water is a molecule consists of 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atom. So yes, one ought to believe that fact.
Please show us morality on the periodic table, please demonstrate a justice atom, could you please refer us to an experiment with some ethical energy?
Ergo you have submitted a hypothesis (goodness and badness objectively exist) without ANY proof at all.
Of course we can prove it. It's a fact. But there's nothing in that fact that says we OUGHT believe it (that water is h2o is completely neutral with respect to "ought"). Also, there's nothing in verifying that fact that implies that we ought believe it. Just because we can prove something is a fact, doesn't mean we should believe it (two different things). So, proving a fact does not imply (strictly speaking) that we OUGHT believe it, let alone that we MUST believe it.
@Khuno2 Yes there is. One ought to believe fact simply because they are fact, and to not believe them simply makes one wrong,
Here is the defining difference; water is the same regardless of what we believe, regardless of any life even exists. Water is something which can be independently verified as fact and can be shown to exist.
No, that's simply not true. There is nothing in the proposition, "water is h2o," or any empirical fact, that implies "one ought believe x because it's true". What do we believe, what should we believe, and facts are separate. Evolution is a fact, and yet a healthy percentage of the population refuses to acknowledge it. The same would arise if a favored holy book stated that water is something other than h2o. And facts are indifferent to beliefs, and so are moral facts.
@Khuno2 One has to believe "water is H20" in order to be correct. If one wants to be correct one has to logically believe it.
What we should believe isn't the same as fact as you rightly say as it flows from values, but if your value is to be correct logic dictates you believe it.
You can provide absolutely no fact concerning morals. Not one tiny little shred of fact.
That's not the point. Of course one needs to believe that water is h2o IF one WANTS to be correct. That's separate from believing that water is h2o, whether one OUGHT believe that water is h2o, or whether water is h2o. Some people may not desire to believe that, and it wouldn't matter to the fact, and says nothing about what one ought believe with respect to that fact.
This sort of absolutist thinking was done away with by Kurt Godel in his incompleteness theorem. All logical systems, and hence all theories of mathematics, science, ethics, etc, are based upon axioms which cannot be proven to be true by the theories that employ them. What logic could demonstrate the validity of logic? What evidence could demonstrate the importance of evidence? Moral relativists have no greater claim to intellectual honesty, only to intellectual defeatism.
The fact of the matter is that we only derive ought's from is's, as an ought is merely a prescription for a desired circumstance. Ought's only arise when it is the case that some thing is desired. I ought to change the oil in my car if it is the case that I want my car to continue functioning and it is the case that changing its oil will allow it to continue functioning. Can there be no objective automotive maintenance?
These criticisms can be applied with the same leveling effect to every other field of academia. Take medicine for example, the science of medicine is about improving the health of people. But why should we value health over illness? According to this video's logic their can be no objective science of medicine because it, along with all other sciences, is derived from a set of core values. Physics only works if you value accurate descriptions of physical phenomenon.
I submit that the argument applies to theists as well; that is, the inconsistency of moral realism arises irrespective of belief or disbelief in god. Of course, if god existed this would merely be another fact, with no bearing on how we ought to behave.
@RobTheMonk8 If the god promoted in the major monotheistic religions existed, than he would be the only objective thing in existence. Everything else in the universe would be subjective to him, but not to us. He could create a morality that was as factual to us as the trees and the sky. Such a morality would be subjective only to him just like the rest of reality, but it would be objective to us just like the rest of reality. We could choose to ignore said morality, but it would exist.
If something is subjective to one mind, then how could it be objective to other minds? That's like saying that mandating that strawberry ice cream tastes good, and that people should consume it, renders it "objective" to those whom the mandate applies. Nope, still mind dependent and subjective. The act of command from preference does not negate the fact that it's just a mere preference. Simply saying that something is good or bad does not entail that it is.
I do not value most things and people because I know by fact they are valueless. But for the things I do find value is because I prefer these things in order to sustain myself and my nature rather than believing these things and people ought to be worth sustaining myself.
I think the video maker is right, but they don't recognise that this undermines their atheism.
For consider the statement 'raping an innocent is wrong'. That statement is true. Or at least, it certainly seems true to most of us. When a claim seems true, the burden of proof is on the person who denies it to provide an argument. Their argument will only work if it is valid and has premises ALL of which are more plausible than the claim they are trying to overturn.
@Clear404 "I think the video maker is right, but they don't recognise that this undermines their atheism."
Why would it? There's nothing about the opposite of atheism that makes the statement "raping an innocent is wrong" true. Not only does the god of the biggest religion on the planet, Christianity, explicitly order this very act in Numbers 31(In addition to slaughtering the families of these innocents) , but introducing a god just introduces another agent with an opinion.
@Gnomefro You say "there's nothing about [belief in God] that makes the statement 'raping an innocent is wrong' true". Well, that's where we disagree. You have effectively just stipulated that Divine Command Theory is false. I think it is true. I think I can show that it is true - or at least, more resaonable than any alternative attempt to conceptualise the moral landscape.
Then you wheel in Christianity. Not sure why. I'm not a christian or anything else. I just believe in god.
@Clear404 The way I view 'raping an innocent is wrong' is not as statement that can be true or false independently of context. It assumes all sorts of things, such as you valuing the values of said "innocent". In wars, this often is not the case, which is why rape is common in warzones. Performed by perfectly normal young men put in a situation where their priorities change.
@Gnomefro The statement 'raping an innocent is wrong' is truth apt. It is capable of being true or false. That's what a 'statement' is. If you think it is 'true' in some contexts and not others, then yes, I agree. If the lives of a thousand people depended upon X raping Y, then it may well be right for X to rape Y. The point is that if any moral sttaement is going to be 'true', God needs to exist.
@Clear404 Sadly, your view of what morality is fits very badly with reality. Every war ever fought has had moral demagogues on each side trying to incite outrage of the actions of the other side - and succeeding. If this is not conclusive evidence that what we call morality has to do with agreements within groups for the purpose of promoting the group's existence, then I don't know what could be.
@Clear404 You regard the statement as true because you have strong presuppositions about valuing the values of other people. Most humans have this about their in-group, and it is necessary for any kind of cooperative society to be stable. However, it should be rephrased as "Raping an innocent is wrong - if I care about the person and I care about possible reprisals and destroying social bonds" or something like that, to make it clear that it is a value judgment.
@Gnomefro In your latest reply you give me your pet theory about the causes of our moral judgements. That's irrelevant. Divine Command Theory is a metaethical theory about the truth conditions of moral statements. It is not a theory about the actual causes of our moral judgements. I haven't said anything about the 'causes' of our moral judgements and beliefs. I'm talking about what our moral beliefs are beliefs 'about'.
@Gnomefro You then go on to say that I should say 'raping an innocent is wrong if I care about the person etc'. No. When we judge that an act is wrong, we judge that it is wrong independent of our feelings about it. We can tell this because we often wonder whether an act is right or wrong (abortion say). We're not wondering whether we feel approval of it or not - for there's no need to wonder about such things, just wait and see what feelings it arouses in you.
Nihilism in itself is logically contradictory. Nihilism is the dettachment from all things which require faith to be followed, but logic itself has paradoxes and falcies meaning to follow IT you must have faith to some extent, meaning that from a nihilistic point of view we must assume nothing exists as it is impossible to know anything through the use of logic including our own existence. There can be no questions of ethics as there are no existent things to be the subject.
@kisamehoshigaki09 The video-maker is talking about a specific form of nihilism - metaethical nihilism. This is the view that nothing is right or wrong - that 'value' does not exist. I think it is psychologically impossible to hold such a view - or at least, for reflective beings to hold such a view. But there's nothing incoherent about it plus I think atheism does indeed entail metaethical nihilism. It is grossly counter-intuitive of course, but that's why it provides a good argument for God
Doesn't this video conflate the terms "Atheism" and "Irreligiousness?" It is possible for a person to believe in objective morality, tied to some supernatural or metaphysical good or evil, even without the concept of a deity. In this way, couldn't an Atheist have beliefs about objective morality without being internally inconsistent?
@ReggaeRican Frankly, I don't think theists have solved the issue as well. The maker of this video states some of the things that atheists base moral belief upon (evolutionary psychology, humanism/empathy, categorical imperative) and then posits that we justify those things. I've said this before - for anyone making a case for objective morality, we can always push a justification upon a justification, and the regression would have eventually terminate at an axiom.
@kenn714 You can not arbitrarily terminate at an axiom then claim to hold logical beliefs.
"That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - When someone dismisses your morality you have no intellectually honest buttal.
In other words, it is basically theistic morality without the god aspect. And as such criticism of general non-specific theism pr deism on the basis of lack of proof is hypocritical.
@Gorzakk A lot of science terminates at axioms and build up from there. For instance, physical sciences assumes that empiricism is a valid epistemological method, and that an external, material world exists independent of our minds.
In any case, morality and moral value must be defined at a point, otherwise you're simply pushing those terms beyond definition and hence beyond coherent meaning.
@kenn714 No they don't. Physical sciences terminate at empiricism because that is their function - science by definition requires a testable hypothesis. If you don't have that it isn't science anymore.
The axiom you chose to stop at has to make some kind of sense. How do you derive the value of empathy? Show some evidence.
@kenn714 "Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: ..... [goodness]"
The God Delusion, P 77. So speaketh Professor Dawkins.
Subsitute god for morality and you have your nihilism. There is no *objective empirical* reason to assume empathy is better than selfishness.
@Gorzakk This video attempts to simply define objective morality as objective "oughiness", but this notion needs to be specified - objective oughtness from what perspective?
@Gorzakk Let me propose an instance where oughtness CAN be derived from a goal and there is a correct answer to what one ought to do.
For example, let's say that you are trying to travel to another city that is 2000 miles away, and your goal was to get there as quickly as possible. There are two possible ways as to how you get there - you can take a car, or you can take a plane. What ought one do to accomplish one's goal?
Well, it can be demonstrated that planes are faster than cars -
@kenn714 It can also be demonstrated that planes are more environmentally poluting, or that the person taking the journey hates flying. So is getting there fast, personal comfort, or environmental considerations more important? Subjective preferences.
Also, a goal isn't a fact. If you ought to do something because that something has moral value. that is different from doing something out necessity (eating vs being kind).
Therefore, the correct answer to what one ought to do in that case is to take a plane - in that instance, travel by plane is more valuable because it accomplishes a goal more efficiently.
Likewise, the oughtness of morality MUST be defined as to fulfilling a goal, otherwise oughtness without a goal is without any grounding.
If you admit that different actions can have different effects on accomplishing one's goals, then you've admitted the existence of value at least with respect to a goal.
@ReggaeRican The things that the maker of the video brings up can be turned around and asked to theists - if God is the source of morality, why ought I obey him? If a theist says that he will punish me for disobedience, why ought I avoid punishment? What reason is there to think that my comfort is an objective oughtness?
@kenn714 No it can't. Theists say they get their moral code from their deity, deities, spirits, religious teachings, and whatever. They see that as being correct through faith and belief.
But if you are a materialist atheist who holds that faith and belief are the product of a weak mind, or are pernicious, then this reason for claiming to have ethical values (or indeed any values) is denied to you if you wish to maintain consistency in your views.
@Gorzakk Again, I don't see how following a dictated "oughtness" by a deity or religion gives that oughtness objective grounding. Unless you've simply defined morality as "following what is dictated by the god/religion", then yes, following a set of rules is the best way to follow a set of rules.
@kenn714 Because the theist is following a prescripted set of codified instructions which to a large extent exist outside his own personal preferences. There is no doubt that he is picking and choosing to a large extent, but he is at least consistent in his beliefs.
Remember this isn't a criticism of atheism but of hardline skepticism which deems theists lacking intellectual faculty for having beliefs.
I personally think that evolutionary psychology has the best case for describing morality. It explains WHY we have such values.
And those values are hardwired into our consciousness by biology.
An evolutionary psychologist would say that we have no choice but to value survival and well-being. From that, right and wrong answers of morality can be deduced.
@kenn714 No, it doesn't tell us that those are morality, just evolved behaviour. It doesn't say that we *should* behave in such a way.
A man can see a hot woman and decide to mate with her to produce good offspring, whether or not she allows it. This is an evolved behaviour, does that mean it is morally acceptable? By the definition you have offered, it is.
@Gorzakk Rape can still be overridden by empathy, because most men realize that forced sex causes tremendous psychological torment to a woman.
Behavior is controlled by a wide variety of instincts and sentiments hardwired into us by biology, because we have evolved to become social animals. Evolutionary psychology still explains WHY what we call morality/moral impulse is triggered when we consider something like rape.
The case can still be made that this moral impulse is hardwired into us.
@kenn714 You've said that empathy can override rape, which is true. But this does beg the question why should it? They are both evolved responses, *why* should we favour one over the other?
I don't disagree with your very salient posts, and I don't see any contradiction in your statements, but I don't see any contradiction between those and the video either. The evolved response idea of the origin of morals is very nihilistic. It doesn't address the *why* argument of behaviour at all.
@Gorzakk A rapist that has empathy will feel some guilt or shame by the act. My argument is that because a large portion of our moral intuitions arise from the empathic instinct, our morality is based on what our inner empathy tells us.
I'm not sure if you personally believe in objective morality or not, but if you try to justify objective morality, it seems that I can ask the same question to you. Why is that justification the justification for objective morality?
@kenn714 I justify morality by what I'll call "complete hypocrisy". Although I am an atheist, I think there is a set of morals one ought to adhere to simply on the basis of belief.
In acknowledging this is simply a belief and not a fact, it puts my own atheism in a whole new light for me, and thus I treat theists with far more respect than my fellow atheists as I can't claim to base everything I believe on fact.
@Gorzakk The "why" regression would have to terminate at an axiom.
The axiom that I am proposing is that our moral intuitions of what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior is caused by empathy - the care for the well-being of conscious creatures. From this, right and wrong answers of behavior (morality) can be deduced.
@kenn714 Empathy is just another pattern of behavioural evolution. There is no *objective* basis for favouring empathy over, for example, racial purity or eugenics. You have no empirical data to say that one ought to protect the sick, not terminate them and use their organs to sustain those who are stronger.
There is no scientific basis for terminating at the axiom of empathy. That again is just a subjective preference.
@kenn714 Part of the reason “forced sex causes tremendous psychological torment to a woman” is because Western society has made it so taboo and attached so many stigmas to it, not because it’s inherently bad nor because it can be proven that life is supposed to be a happy experience.
@kenn714 Raping women, exploiting the masses, slavery, nationalism etc. were the social norms of the mass majority of people for the mass majority of history; many liberation theorists (from anarchists to radical feminists) would argue they still are. Indeed, rape is just another subjective, anthropocentric construct dependent on equally vague fictions like consent, free will, and human rights.
@Gorzakk The instance you cited describes a sentiment (lust) and an action that would follow from that sentiment (desire for sex).
Why is morality different?
After all, we have sentiments that trigger morality (moral approval, moral repulsion) then actions that follow or refrained by that sentiment (altruism promoted, harm to others inhibited).
@kenn714 So if its hardwired into us, than it isn't morality, its just a chemical reaction in our heads. Thus no one can really have right or wrong choices because thats just a reaction they had. Who are we to say someone's head thinks better on this subject than someone else, it is all just chemicals right? If ethics is just a chemical reaction, than it is a relative topic. Hitler and the nazis were different than ours, so it wasn't wrong from your view, but just different.
@snowmanbob101 I said empathy is hardwired into the consciousness, and it is that sentiment that causes us to find things morally repugnant and morally good.
Here's an analogy to human health. Medical science uncovers facts about the human body, and uncovers facts that that we ought to take to achieve the end of having a well-functioning body.
My point about morality is that it is to achieve the end of the well-being of conscious creatures. There are right ways to go about this.
@kenn714 Medical science can provide facts concerning what is needed to live the longest amount of time, but it can prove that anyone should value living a long time.
Well-being is a vague concept based of subjective perceptions of value. Things that are considered morally repugnant in modern western societies were the widely excepted social norms for the mast majority of people throughout history. How can that be if all humans are born with the same perceptions of right and wrong?
@KiddoBeastPro You've said a lot of things to my posts, and I want to respond to all of them, but the youtube comment box is way too limited for me to do so.
But, I will say that the fact that our moral intuitions have changed is not a threat to view that I am proposing - it could be that our moral intuitions change because we recognize that there are better ways to live an interact with others. It might be empirical and self-correcting rather than an arbitrary product of invention.
@kenn714 By that logic anyone who lays down their life for another is committing the ultimate immoral act. If the wellbeing and survival of ones consciousness is the actual moral imperitive at hand, that is what it is.
If it is about a more collective approach, if one man is healthy and 5 men sick each needing a different set of organs, we should take the organs from the healthy man (killing him) to allow the 5 to survive.
And ultimately - do you have any empirical evidence for this?
@kenn714 I understand that in your view, it is apart of our consciousness. Here is the problem with this view, what if the nazi's conscience was evolving. Now I don't think what they did is right nor am I advocating it in anyway. I'm just stating that if it was just some random way things came out, why should we follow it or even use it. Again, who are we to say one conscience is better than another if there is no real absolute standard of ethics?
@kenn714 Empathy is not a basis for moral realism. Humans have not evolved to empathize with all humans equally. Pro-social behaviors are in no way the equivalent to morality. Indeed, pro-social behaviors are the basis for many of the historical facts that Western society often describes as immoral. Racism, sexism, classism etc. can all be attributed to placing people into social roles as is dictated by human nature.
@kenn714 Cosmopolitism, liberalism, sex equality, egalitarianism etc. (moral realism) are in turn completely contrary to our nature, and are almost completely Eurocentric. The only reason these concepts exhibit any ubiquity at all is because of the relative global dominance of Western European (and its cultural descendants) civilization. Ironically, that dominance was achieved using methods completely opposite to the values that were (and are) being made global.
@kenn714 I would argue that universalism, as it appears in Western moral and political rhetoric, is nothing more than propaganda invented for the sake of the European global agenda, and not because it was a value that was ever consistent with reality.
@kenn714 Nothing undermines secular moral realism more than evolutionary psychology. Partly because it completely undermines the concept of free will. It shows there are no logical human biases, just evolved perceptions that we consciously construct arbitrary rules around. Assigning value to reality is an aspect of human nature, but what values we assign changes depending on knowledge and circumstance. The most evolutionary psychology shows is that it’s human nature to construct social fictions
@kenn714 Not once in this video is it said that one should value intellectual honesty. It just states that moral nihilism is the only view logically consistent with atheism. A person can subjectively chose to value whatever.
Really the only thing that is real is what works for a society and what doesn't. That's what moral principles were invented for and history has shown that they are very flexible when it comes to doing some nasty shit to others. I love life. I don't believe morals are objective but I do believe they can be useful to us.
At some point you discuss humanism, and claim that to call on empathy is useless; it is not IF we also understand that it is a preference. If I do prefer empatheic feelings over non-empathetic feelings to drive my choices, then it seems that recuiting and motivating people to act in an empathetic manner is fine. We can still understand that it is not *true*, while agreeing (for those who do) that it's a good choice on which to choose behaviours.
ZephZhang 22 hours ago
@ZephZhang Gah, I should have let you finish your sentence :)
ZephZhang 22 hours ago
If I were to condense your arguments: morality is a construct of the human brain and not real in the same sense that say,as the existence of electromagnetism or gravity, What we think is right is actually a preference. Is this correct? If so, it seems that the distinction 'tween atheist and theist morality is superfluous, why make it?
ZephZhang 23 hours ago
Okay, I'm honest. Though a God-believer .... >.< I only came here because I saw a cute girl....
TheAkatsuki10 3 days ago
you son of a bitch. i want titties!
autobot69000 4 days ago
Yes, atheism is ultimately nihilism, which is ultimately solipsism (if nothing exists outside of subjective reality, then I, as the only subject whose existence I can ever truly be aware of, am the only thing which exists. This was the conlusion of atheist philosophers such as Ayn Rand)
And anyone who thinks an atheistic/nihilistic/solipsistic society is sustainable for any length of time, has no understanding of nature, let alone human nature, let alone God.
eleutheromaniac 5 days ago
Fact: All humans desire well-being.
Value: We ought to act in ways that will provide us with the most well-being.
Why is it illogical to apply a value to that? It's the only thing we could rationally value.
dobsonthe3rd 5 days ago
I'm an atheist, and this is exactly why I am thinking of rejecting atheism. I simply cannot accept that there is no such thing as right and wrong, and "subjective morality" [personal preference] just doesn't cut it for me. Even though there is no evidence for theism (and plenty of evidence against it), it is still a better worldview overall because it accounts for objective moral values and duties.
Maybe Voltaire was right: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
haven10709 5 days ago
@haven10709 Your a weak person. ALOT of atheists believe in an objective morality, Sam Harris, John- Rawls, Peter Singer, Richard Joyce Karl Popper etc the list goes on. WHY don't you read into ethics before you get taken in by such a simple argument which barely touches the subject. Check out youtube videos like Treatise on morality by theoreticalbullshit or The objective of morality by ZOMGitsCriss. Or you can turn to religion.. which justify slavery, rape, murder, genocide and homophobia.
AtheistBulldozer 5 days ago
If belief in god "accounts for objective moral values and duties." THEN explain how gods "subjective personal preferences" on his laws become "objective"? Ever heard of plato's euthyphro dilemma? If God commands murder is wrong, does this MAKE it Objectively wrong? What if god changes his mind and commands you to murder like when god commands Moses to kill all the Medianite people. Its completely obvious you have not studied ethics. Even if god did exist, it would still lead to Nihilism.
AtheistBulldozer 5 days ago
@haven10709 "I'm an atheist, and this is exactly why I am thinking of rejecting atheism. I simply cannot accept that there is no such thing as right and wrong, and "subjective morality" [personal preference] just doesn't cut it for me. "
Reject Nihilism not atheist. We do not need a god for morality and further more any moral code which is commanded (don't eat meat, don't wear white shirts etc) are subjective so "inventing a god" wont provide you or humanity an objective morality.
MrKingatheist 4 days ago
What do you think about metaphysical nihilism though? That is, that no whole concrete objects exist, or "parts" either.
KingJazzaD12 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is trying to use the fact that humanist morality is subjective in order to undermine humanism, but the reason he doesn’t want anyone to apply the same argument to religion is because he knows it undermines it just as much too.
themanwithnoname24 2 weeks ago
I find the way he attempts to say that making this point is like talking about blueberry pancakes laughable when his tactic is so obvious, it’s so transparent it’s ridiculous he must take the viewer for idiots, if an argument is any good which in this case it may well be then you have to accept it applies to everything, for any argument like this to hold water it simply has to, you can’t start making exceptions.
themanwithnoname24 2 weeks ago
The fact that he is so desperate for it not to be applied to religion speaks volumes as I think he knows he has also destroyed the very thing he is trying to defend, it’s a bit of a kamikaze argument, I think he thinks if he can make it sound intellectual enough he may be able to hoodwink the foolish. ALL morality is subjective including religious morality, that’s not fancy intellectualism it’s just fact, LOL what a character. I love how he sound so serious too.
themanwithnoname24 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
themanwithnoname24 2 weeks ago
So, with that out of the way, your claim is that no natural property would entail that "X is required not to be done" (a normative statement). This parallels the fact that water is h2o does not require any belief or value that water is h2o (it simply is). People can believe falsely, and do. So, I don't see that as a mark against realist metaethical naturalism anymore than I would evolution denialism as a mark against biological evolution.
Khuno2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 But the point about water and H20 does not parrallel the point I'm making. My point is that there's something prima facie absurd in the thought of a natural property issuing an instruction. Morality is prescriptive. It issues instructions and this seems to be an essential feature of the moral. But how can a natural property that has no consciousness, no desires, no aims, issue an instruction? No matter how you cut it, the idea is absurd - yet you're committed to it.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 To parrallel the water point - if someone told you that water issues instructions, you'd surely object 'but water can't issue instructions - it isn't an agent'. If they replied 'but water and H20 are one and the same stuff, yet one might say 'water' without realising that one was referring to H20' would you be impressed? No. For it remains the case that water - or H20 if you prefer - can't issue instructions becuase it isn't an agent. It is its non-agentiality that's the problem.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 Cont'd...to clarify further. For 'X is wrong' to be 'true' it would need to be the case that X is 'required not to be done'. And for that to be 'true' there would need to be a requirement issued not to do X. The only plausible issuer of that requirement - an issuer the recognition of which would not debunk the claim that 'X is wrong' is true - is God. Thus the only way a moral statement can be 'true' is if God exists.
So, morality and God, or no God and no morality - but not both.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
Also, it's not clear that all moral predicates could be replaced in descriptions with physical descriptions. For example, no economist believes that supernatural forces are responsible for market behaviors, yet it's extremely doubtful that a particle physicist (in his capacity) could do as satisfactory a job explaining market behavior as an economist. Similarly, no one disputes that living cells are nothing "more than" atoms and subatomic particles, yet cellular biology isn't physics.
Khuno2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 Re economists etc. Yes, my claim was not that you can actually provide the translations. The point is that 'in principle' such translations exist. And that's enough to present the problem. in principle moral language could be done away with on your view. And that, to my mind, makes it no different to nihilism. Your world and the nihilists world is the same, and you have the same reasons to do things. There's no normative dimension.No real difference between you, just a label
Clear404 2 weeks ago
So what I've described isn't relativism and isn't nihilism. I'm positing that the physicalist/materialist nihilist and relativist ontology is missing moral properties, which are completely physical. And they're vague properties, like every physical property. So badness may not be needless suffering (is of identity), but needless suffering is a component of badness (the actions that cause it are bad, too).
Khuno2 2 weeks ago
@Khuno2 I'm not sure I'm following your meaning. Are you saying that moral properties are identical with natural properties of some sort? Seems so. But then you are a nihilist in my view for in principle you could do away with moral terms and substitute them for their natural synonyms.
2nd problem: to believe that X is wrong is to believe that X is 'not to be done'. But how can a natural property issue instructions? Only an agent can do that. So I think your position is false.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@Clear404
If I could substitute moral terms with natural synonyms, how is that nihilism? Nihilists deny the existence of moral properties, whereas I do not, synonyms or not. To believe that X "not be done" has nothing to do with whether or not X is such that it "not be done". How can a natural property issue instructions? How does poison work? So no, an agent nee not do that.
Khuno2 2 weeks ago
@Khuno2 I'll just repeat one of my objections to your naturalism, becuase one of your responses involves just repeating it as if it were somehow a problem for me!
If you're a naturalist you identify moral properties with natural properties.
But to say 'X is wrong' is to say 'X is required not to be done'. A natural property cannot issue requirements. So 'wrong' is not identical with a natural property. Perhaps you think 'wrong' does not mean 'required not to be done'?
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@Clear404
I identify ethical properties with physical properties. I agree that the predicate 'wrong' means do not do, as well. Metaethics seeks to provide the truth conditions of moral propositions (it is non-normative). This is what I'm restricting my naturalism. When someone says that,'X is wrong,' they're confining their utterance to normative ethics, which involves value. 'X is wrong' would be true if the state of affairs referenced contained the moral property.
Khuno2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 You're misunderstanding what a metaethical theory seeks to do. A metaethical theory is not normative in the sense that it does not seek to provide practical guidance. However, normativity is a feature of the moral landscape and it is a feature that a metaethical theory needs to accommodate. My point is that your type of view cannot accommodate that feature. You cannot respect the normativity of moral properties. Non-agential properties do not issue instructions. Agents do.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 To clarify, a normative moral theory is 'normative' in so far as it tells you what to do. A metaethical theory attempts to explain that normativity. So where the normative moral theory issues instructions, the metaethical theories tries to explain how morality could be instruction-giving.
IN my view there are two basic features of the moral landscape that need respecting. The objectivity of morality, and its normativity. Only my view can do this.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@Khuno2 and then you meet a psychopath and changes your mind
colecionar 2 weeks ago
@colecionar
And that would matter how? So the truth of a metaethical naturalism depends on what a psychopath believes and does? It all hinges on whether or not I can convince a psychopath not to do bad things? How about a blind person and sight? If I could convince a blind person that he can see, he's no longer blind? That's just bad math, and I don't like it.
Khuno2 1 week ago
Comment removed
colecionar 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 you are saying that there is an "evil"/"good" as an inherent property of the universe and independent of the individual perceptions, right? Psychopaths are born "evil" but lack of free will is incompatible with objective morality.
colecionar 1 week ago
Comment removed
colecionar 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 "How about a blind person and sight?"
like someone who is blind because he/she can not see the world in a logical way and without the erratic emotion of empathy?
colecionar 1 week ago
How is the wrongness best understood as a sense of god disapproving of it than say a property of the behavior itself? At least one permits confirmation and behavior for its truth values, and not revelation and belief in supernaturalism, which doesn't skirt the problem of arbitrariness. A supervenient property of said behavior, even. And ethical relativism is a realist metaethic (though I am not a relativist), and differs from nihilism only semantically, not ontologically.
Khuno2 2 weeks ago
@Khuno2 I assume this was directed at me. When you talk of ethical relativism I'm not sure what you mean. but I agree that the difference between a subjectivist, naturalist, and nihilist is merely semantic. I take that to be damning of subjectivism and naturalism (for they're trying to vindicate morality, not nihilism).
I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'at least one permits confirmation'. What does that mean? How does divine command theory not permit 'confirmation'?
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@Clear404
I think that DCT is a relativist metaethic. A relativist argument would be as follows: X says that behavior A is wrong. So, according to X, A is wrong. Therefore, A is wrong. This is patently invalid, for one can't go from "according to X, A is wrong," to "is wrong". Substitute X with god and it's still invalid. We have emergent and supervenient properties in biology, and supervenient properties in economics. I contend that the same exists in ethics for behavior.
Khuno2 2 weeks ago
@Khuno2 But DCT is not relative in that sense. I don't claim that Xing is wrong 'for God'. I claim that Xing is wrong and 'wrong' just describes the property of being commanded not to be done by God. It is an objective matter what God does or does not command.
God doesn't have any moral beliefs. God just approves and disapproves of things. He doesn't disapprove of them 'because' they're wrong.
So you're mischaracterising DCT.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
@Clear404
Just like it's an objective matter what is and is not in the constitution. That says nothing about whether or not the laws themselves are right or wrong. I didn't say it was wrong "for" god. I said it was wrong according to god. And a relativist would say that 'wrong' just describes the property of "being commanded not be done" by X (where x could be you). And you can't go from the property of "being commanded not be done" to wrong, period. Ergo, DCT is relativism.
Khuno2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 But now you're begging the question by just insisting that this says nothing about whether something is right or wrong.
Unless you're a metaethical nihilist - and you've said you're not - then you must accept either that there is a property that can be described and that is synonymous with a moral property, or that moral properties are irreducible. The criticism you're making applies to all theories of the former kind, including your naturalism! So you're being inconsistent.
Clear404 2 weeks ago
And you're countering with what amounts to asking me why subatomic particles need to be in relative "close" proximity for strong nuclear force's effects to be realized. Look, this open question argument applies to all empirical facts. You can conceive of water being xyz and not h2o...great...good imagination. It says nothing about the fact in question.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
So I would say, "genocide is evil," is true because of the needless suffering it causes on the displaced group of people it removes. Remember, asking why needless suffering is evil is akin to asking why is water h2o. These questions are meaningless. Now, what I've is proven that it's possible (at the very least) to be an atheist, a physicalist, and a moral realist. So we can say goodbye to the false claim that it's impossible made by atheists and theists alike.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 Begging the question. Whether "needless suffering" is evil or not is itself a moral question, one which you haven't proven.
"Remember, asking why needless suffering is evil is akin to asking why is water h2o."
It isn't at all. That is the basis of a moral question. All you've proven is that you either don't understand morality or you don't understand logic.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
Not by the criterion you're requiring me to prove it. I told you, I don't define things "in and of themselves". That is a religious and antiempirical standard. I'm not begging the question by defining evil as needless suffering. I'm offering an operational definition. Evidence for this would be the effects that needless suffering has on those who endure it (cancer patients, for example...who die).
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 You are classically begging the question; assuming that your definition of evil is the correct one then using THAT as the basis for morality, which can be construed as a question of what is evil, is both begging the question and circular reasoning.
So once again, you've got far more in common with a typical theist than you probably realize (or will admit to).
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 No, defining things by what they are is not antiempirical. Indeed it is quite the opposite.
What is wrong with needless suffering? You haven't answered that question. Sure it compells those who endure it to try to stop it, but that is merely a chemical response in their brains which has evolved. It is objectively no different from any other chemical reaction in the universe.
You are still question begging.
Gorzakk 2 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
One doesn't beg the question by offering a definition. Question begging occurs in argument. Needless suffering is wrong simply because of its effects (that is why it is wrong). And you're right, it is a chemical reaction like any other (in that it is a chemical reaction). I'm not going to rely on a value, and none of its effects entail that you MUST or should believe it is wrong. But none of water's effects entail that you must believe that it's h2o.
Khuno2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 Yes, question begging occurs in argument. The argument "Needless suffering is wrong simply because of its effects (that is why it is wrong)." is self evidently begging the question.
The property of water can be verified using chemistry. Morality can not. Behavioural traits maybe can be verified using chemistry or physics, but that is obviously nihilistic.
Gorzakk 2 weeks ago
Evolution by natural selection would be an explanation for life regardless of whether or not life existed to believe it. This is true in a possible lifeless universe because if life were to come into existence in such a place, it would evolve by natural selection. Are you denying that? Water is h2o even on planets where it doesn't exist. Moral facts exist even if humans did not exist.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
And we're not the only apes who've evolved mirror neurons, which permit empathy and promote social cohesion and more efficient cooperation, but we're the most sophisticated. It seems that most people have an aversion to certain behaviors like rape. Others have stronger reactions to the phenomenon than yet others, just as some people are more athletic than others or better at math. It could be that this evolved aversion constitutes the perception of moral properties found within these acts.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
LOL! Why is there "something" rather than "nothing", even. Questions like this are so meaningless that they don't immediately come across as meaningless...only certain philosophers would entertain them with a straight face.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
Oh, and it's demonstrable that certain behaviors result in needless suffering, and prohibit living a life worth living. That seems pretty objective. There's no faith involved in that. I believe that torture, rape, murder, and belief system that sanction and promote genocide and needless suffering are evil. These aren't imagined "somethings". They are there, one just needs to properly classify them. This isn't faith and it isn't religion.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 Rape? Impregnating women and insuring your genetic legacy. Torture? Harming your enemies and insuring your own culture are the superior ones. Genocide? By definition removing those with radically different genetic structures from the gene pool.
All of these things are evolved behavioural responses. And there are advantages to them so they could easily be construed as being good.
Your arguments are basically either appeals to emotion, or based on faith in morality.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
And? Let's assume that rape is an evolved tendency (I think the scholarship on that is sketchy, as I do most pop evolutionary psychology arguing within the confines of 10,000 years), and confers an evolutionary benefit on those who practice it. That says nothing about its moral status, or the objectivity of moral properties. The benefit may, and I'd argue is, be overshadowed by the cost (disruption of social cohesion and mutual cooperation, and, say, child abuse).
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 So evolution, the process by which human beings came about, the thing that made humans all that we are, has no bearing on morality? Morality has a meaning outside of human life?
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Where is your evidence for this? It seems to me like you are denying evolution in order to prop up a belief in something you can't empirically identify. That's pretty religious if you ask me.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
I didn't say that evolution has no bearing on moral behavior (I think it does). I said that evolution doesn't determine the moral status (and truth value of that status) of a given behavior, or whether or not moral properties exist. Behaviors and their consequences can be observed, and, therefore, so can moral properties on my view.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 Ok, so what is the truth value of genocide? I am going to asume you will say evil.
Where is your evidence that it is evil? Remember; that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
It's not, "what is the truth value of genocide". Instead, it would be, "what is the truth value of the proposition, 'genocide is bad.'" Evil, good, bad, etc, aren't a truth values. If you're asking me to define evil in and of itself, or whatever strange religious conceptions of things in themselves are, that is something I wouldn't do, because it's a meaningless question. No, we define by its observable effects, like we do every other physical phenomenon.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gorzakk
And even if one could find the silver lining in genocide, rape, and torture (and many try to), beliefs that something is good or bad have no bearing on whether or not such practices are, objectively, good or bad. That requires empirical investigation on not just the individual benefits, as we're not asking whether or not something is good for men, or good for women, or good for a species, or a subgroup (I'm not a relativist). We'd be asking what is good, full stop.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 What is good, full stop. Is the moon good? Is a supernova bad? How ethical are black holes? What about colbalt vs water? Which is more evil or good?
You are talking about things which depend on the very fact humans exist at all. There is absolutely no logic or empirical justification for concepts such as morality. You can believe them, as do I (an atheist), but that's what you have - faith in something.
It doesn't make us religious, it does make us just as "irrational" though.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
Category mistakes abound. It's like asking what the flavor of 2 is. Wrenches and buildings depend on the very fact of human existence. Are you saying that they don't exist, or aren't objective? Nonsense.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khuno2 Wrenches and buildings are constructs which can be reduced to their component matter. Do wrenches exist? The element of iron, shaped into a particular form, absolutely exists. Whether it is called a "wrench" or called a "spanner" is irrelevant to its existence.
What about morality? If I see someone beating up a homeless person, and I call it good and you call it bad, is that irrelevant to the morality of the beating? No.
The category mistake is yours.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
But divine command theory is a failure. Plato proved that over two thousand years ago. If god is the source of normativity, then it's arbitrary whim (and no basis upon which to establish ethics), if god isn't the source of normativity, then we've no need for god. If god were the source of normativity, and it's a part of god's nature, then that nature is meaningless placeholder apart from what god commands, and there's no difference between its nature and what it commands.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
Yet others query where in a particular "evil act," that brings about needless suffering, is the badness instantiated. The response is no particular point, as moral properties are logically vague. But most properties are logically vague. It's like asking in which grain of sand does the pile of sand reside. In no particular grain of sand. We don't then conclude that piles of sand don't exist. Or in which particular point in clumsy behavior does clumsiness reside...
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
As to the reasons why one ought believe that goodness and badness are objectively existing moral properties, there are many reasons to believe it. One would be respect for truth, just as we believe that water is h2o (it's the correct way to believe). Another would be the objective criteria that permit the possibility of living a good life, and that enable flourishing (what is anathema to that like rape and torture). Badness exists in the actions themselves--is not over and above evil deeds.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 There is no objective criteria for living a good life. Good and bad are anthropocentric value assessments that cannot be deduced on any real level. In reality it can commonly be seen that one's perceived flourishing comes at the expense of another's perceived suffering.
KiddoBeastPro 3 weeks ago
@KiddoBeastPro
Of course there is. And the more we start investigating it, the more we understand. For example, happiness and how to achieve happiness may be a part of a good life (sure seem to be). Are you saying that there's no criteria that would prevent happiness? That's ridiculous. All sorts of abuses can and do prevent happiness. Keeping women enslaved as the property of men (islam and many christian cults) isn't consistent with a good life.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 Ok, first off you are again begging the question. Why is achieving happiness good? No appeals to emotion, no circular reasoning. Justify it empirically.
What you basically have here is a pseudo-religious faith in morality. You believe in an intangeble "something" which you can't prove and can't demonstrate, but assert others should believe "because it's there". That's fine. That means that you should not criticise religious belief for lack of evidence, or you are a hypocrite.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
I'm not assuming that happiness is good. I said it may be a criterion for leading a good life. But why is happiness good? That's very similar to asking why is good good, or why is suffering bad, or "why" is water h2o? Why is there nothing rather than something? Pseudo questions, really. But psychologists who study happiness, and what leads to it, have arrived at the remarkable conclusion that it is a component of an enjoyable life. Not necessary to what I've advanced.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 A "good life"? You are begging the question. Morality is the question of what concepts of good and bad actually are. All you are doing here is saying that morality exists because... well... that's a good thing. Circular reasoning isn't the same as demonstrating the chemical composition of water.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
No, it isn't. What I'm doing is stating that moral properties, and the states of affairs that they are involved are no different, in kind, than any other physical property or state of affairs. These moral properties are not supernatural, and obtain in behaviors (and are nothing over and above those behaviors). They are vague, like most every other physical property. A "good" life would involve such moral properties, and, moreso, is an empirical question.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 But you are begging the question. You keep on using words like "good" and "moral" and "happiness" as values without citing any objective empirical evidence to indicate that they should be considered as such.
Water is H20 whether we believe it or not, because it can be proven.
Good isn't necessarily good unless we believe it is. If this is wrong, prove it. To the Nazis exterminating people with disabilities was "good" (aktion T4). Prove that this was "bad" and objectively wrong.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
Well, I think I am citing objective empirical criteria for determining the meanings of good and bad. Behaviors and their effects. Needless suffering, say, exists whether or not you choose to believe it. And let's say that needless suffering is bad. And the same would apply to "good". So simply believing one way or another, or even moral disagreement, fails to address what I'm talking about.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
Why ought we behave in accordance with God's commands/nature?
The is/ought problem still applies to you with your deity.
RPFS2008 3 weeks ago
@RPFS2008 Surely the real issue here is how best to capture the normativity of moral beliefs. TO believe that X is wrong, is to believe that X is 'not to be done'. It is this instructional aspect to morality that poses the difficulty for all views apart from Divine Command Theory. And the combination of Divine Command Theory and Atheism yields moral nihilism.
Clear404 3 weeks ago
@Clear404
Why tho, within DCT, is X wrong/not to be done?
Because a powerful being says so?
We've ceased talking about morality if that's the case.
It's much easier to sympathise with the person who says 'torturing a baby is wrong because it is damaging to that baby' than it is to sympathis with the person who says 'torturing a baby is wrong because God says so'. The first statement at least tries to deal with how behaviour affects others, unlike DCT which is just so arbitary
RPFS2008 3 weeks ago
@RPFS2008 You're confusing the normative and the metaethical. I believe that torturing a baby is wrong because it would cause the baby pain. I believe it is wrong to cause people pain unecessarily, and so on. And the 'wrongness' that I sense 'causing people pain' to have, is best understood as a sense of God disapproving of it.
What's your rival meteathical view. Don't tell me your normative view- assume i agree with you on that. tell me your metaethical view.
Clear404 3 weeks ago
@Clear404
Why does God disapprove of it?
I don't need to bring up a rival view if what it is that I'm supposed to be rivaling doesn't work.
RPFS2008 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RPFS2008 He disapproves of things because he doesn't like them. Likes and dislikes can't be justified any more than tastes can (why don't you like Brussel Sprouts? I just don't. But why? I just don't).
So God disapproves of whatever it is he disapproves of - and this disapproval is sensed by us and we label those things we sense to be disapproved 'wrong'.
What 'doesn't work' on this view? Are you going to insist that God needs 'moral' reasons for what he approves of? Question begging
Clear404 2 weeks ago
As an atheist and MR, I submit that goodness and badness are objectively existing moral properties, and that they are completely natural, and not supernatural. Are you, then, saying that if this were the case, that goodness and badness would not inform how we should behave? On what grounds? Is/ought does not apply. Water is h2o, but nothing about water being h2o specifies that one ought believe that water is h2o. I contend that the same exists for objectively existing moral properties.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 We can prove that water is a molecule consists of 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atom. So yes, one ought to believe that fact.
Please show us morality on the periodic table, please demonstrate a justice atom, could you please refer us to an experiment with some ethical energy?
Ergo you have submitted a hypothesis (goodness and badness objectively exist) without ANY proof at all.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
Of course we can prove it. It's a fact. But there's nothing in that fact that says we OUGHT believe it (that water is h2o is completely neutral with respect to "ought"). Also, there's nothing in verifying that fact that implies that we ought believe it. Just because we can prove something is a fact, doesn't mean we should believe it (two different things). So, proving a fact does not imply (strictly speaking) that we OUGHT believe it, let alone that we MUST believe it.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 Yes there is. One ought to believe fact simply because they are fact, and to not believe them simply makes one wrong,
Here is the defining difference; water is the same regardless of what we believe, regardless of any life even exists. Water is something which can be independently verified as fact and can be shown to exist.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
No, that's simply not true. There is nothing in the proposition, "water is h2o," or any empirical fact, that implies "one ought believe x because it's true". What do we believe, what should we believe, and facts are separate. Evolution is a fact, and yet a healthy percentage of the population refuses to acknowledge it. The same would arise if a favored holy book stated that water is something other than h2o. And facts are indifferent to beliefs, and so are moral facts.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
@Khuno2 One has to believe "water is H20" in order to be correct. If one wants to be correct one has to logically believe it.
What we should believe isn't the same as fact as you rightly say as it flows from values, but if your value is to be correct logic dictates you believe it.
You can provide absolutely no fact concerning morals. Not one tiny little shred of fact.
Gorzakk 3 weeks ago
@Gorzakk
That's not the point. Of course one needs to believe that water is h2o IF one WANTS to be correct. That's separate from believing that water is h2o, whether one OUGHT believe that water is h2o, or whether water is h2o. Some people may not desire to believe that, and it wouldn't matter to the fact, and says nothing about what one ought believe with respect to that fact.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
This sort of absolutist thinking was done away with by Kurt Godel in his incompleteness theorem. All logical systems, and hence all theories of mathematics, science, ethics, etc, are based upon axioms which cannot be proven to be true by the theories that employ them. What logic could demonstrate the validity of logic? What evidence could demonstrate the importance of evidence? Moral relativists have no greater claim to intellectual honesty, only to intellectual defeatism.
ElectricSpline 3 weeks ago
The fact of the matter is that we only derive ought's from is's, as an ought is merely a prescription for a desired circumstance. Ought's only arise when it is the case that some thing is desired. I ought to change the oil in my car if it is the case that I want my car to continue functioning and it is the case that changing its oil will allow it to continue functioning. Can there be no objective automotive maintenance?
ElectricSpline 3 weeks ago
These criticisms can be applied with the same leveling effect to every other field of academia. Take medicine for example, the science of medicine is about improving the health of people. But why should we value health over illness? According to this video's logic their can be no objective science of medicine because it, along with all other sciences, is derived from a set of core values. Physics only works if you value accurate descriptions of physical phenomenon.
ElectricSpline 3 weeks ago
I submit that the argument applies to theists as well; that is, the inconsistency of moral realism arises irrespective of belief or disbelief in god. Of course, if god existed this would merely be another fact, with no bearing on how we ought to behave.
RobTheMonk8 3 weeks ago 8
@RobTheMonk8 If the god promoted in the major monotheistic religions existed, than he would be the only objective thing in existence. Everything else in the universe would be subjective to him, but not to us. He could create a morality that was as factual to us as the trees and the sky. Such a morality would be subjective only to him just like the rest of reality, but it would be objective to us just like the rest of reality. We could choose to ignore said morality, but it would exist.
KiddoBeastPro 3 weeks ago
@KiddoBeastPro
If something is subjective to one mind, then how could it be objective to other minds? That's like saying that mandating that strawberry ice cream tastes good, and that people should consume it, renders it "objective" to those whom the mandate applies. Nope, still mind dependent and subjective. The act of command from preference does not negate the fact that it's just a mere preference. Simply saying that something is good or bad does not entail that it is.
Khuno2 3 weeks ago
blah nihilism doesnt make much sence to me
JesusManPowerKick 3 weeks ago
LaVeyan/Nihilist
I value myself, for it's in my nature.
I do not value most things and people because I know by fact they are valueless. But for the things I do find value is because I prefer these things in order to sustain myself and my nature rather than believing these things and people ought to be worth sustaining myself.
TomahawkTerror 3 weeks ago 2
I think the video maker is right, but they don't recognise that this undermines their atheism.
For consider the statement 'raping an innocent is wrong'. That statement is true. Or at least, it certainly seems true to most of us. When a claim seems true, the burden of proof is on the person who denies it to provide an argument. Their argument will only work if it is valid and has premises ALL of which are more plausible than the claim they are trying to overturn.
That condition isn't met
Clear404 3 weeks ago
@Clear404 "I think the video maker is right, but they don't recognise that this undermines their atheism."
Why would it? There's nothing about the opposite of atheism that makes the statement "raping an innocent is wrong" true. Not only does the god of the biggest religion on the planet, Christianity, explicitly order this very act in Numbers 31(In addition to slaughtering the families of these innocents) , but introducing a god just introduces another agent with an opinion.
Gnomefro 3 weeks ago
@Gnomefro You say "there's nothing about [belief in God] that makes the statement 'raping an innocent is wrong' true". Well, that's where we disagree. You have effectively just stipulated that Divine Command Theory is false. I think it is true. I think I can show that it is true - or at least, more resaonable than any alternative attempt to conceptualise the moral landscape.
Then you wheel in Christianity. Not sure why. I'm not a christian or anything else. I just believe in god.
Clear404 3 weeks ago
@Clear404 The way I view 'raping an innocent is wrong' is not as statement that can be true or false independently of context. It assumes all sorts of things, such as you valuing the values of said "innocent". In wars, this often is not the case, which is why rape is common in warzones. Performed by perfectly normal young men put in a situation where their priorities change.
Gnomefro 3 weeks ago
@Gnomefro The statement 'raping an innocent is wrong' is truth apt. It is capable of being true or false. That's what a 'statement' is. If you think it is 'true' in some contexts and not others, then yes, I agree. If the lives of a thousand people depended upon X raping Y, then it may well be right for X to rape Y. The point is that if any moral sttaement is going to be 'true', God needs to exist.
Clear404 3 weeks ago
@Clear404 Sadly, your view of what morality is fits very badly with reality. Every war ever fought has had moral demagogues on each side trying to incite outrage of the actions of the other side - and succeeding. If this is not conclusive evidence that what we call morality has to do with agreements within groups for the purpose of promoting the group's existence, then I don't know what could be.
Gnomefro 3 weeks ago
@Clear404 You regard the statement as true because you have strong presuppositions about valuing the values of other people. Most humans have this about their in-group, and it is necessary for any kind of cooperative society to be stable. However, it should be rephrased as "Raping an innocent is wrong - if I care about the person and I care about possible reprisals and destroying social bonds" or something like that, to make it clear that it is a value judgment.
Gnomefro 3 weeks ago
@Gnomefro In your latest reply you give me your pet theory about the causes of our moral judgements. That's irrelevant. Divine Command Theory is a metaethical theory about the truth conditions of moral statements. It is not a theory about the actual causes of our moral judgements. I haven't said anything about the 'causes' of our moral judgements and beliefs. I'm talking about what our moral beliefs are beliefs 'about'.
Clear404 3 weeks ago
@Gnomefro You then go on to say that I should say 'raping an innocent is wrong if I care about the person etc'. No. When we judge that an act is wrong, we judge that it is wrong independent of our feelings about it. We can tell this because we often wonder whether an act is right or wrong (abortion say). We're not wondering whether we feel approval of it or not - for there's no need to wonder about such things, just wait and see what feelings it arouses in you.
Clear404 3 weeks ago
Nihilism in itself is logically contradictory. Nihilism is the dettachment from all things which require faith to be followed, but logic itself has paradoxes and falcies meaning to follow IT you must have faith to some extent, meaning that from a nihilistic point of view we must assume nothing exists as it is impossible to know anything through the use of logic including our own existence. There can be no questions of ethics as there are no existent things to be the subject.
kisamehoshigaki09 4 weeks ago
@kisamehoshigaki09 The video-maker is talking about a specific form of nihilism - metaethical nihilism. This is the view that nothing is right or wrong - that 'value' does not exist. I think it is psychologically impossible to hold such a view - or at least, for reflective beings to hold such a view. But there's nothing incoherent about it plus I think atheism does indeed entail metaethical nihilism. It is grossly counter-intuitive of course, but that's why it provides a good argument for God
Clear404 4 weeks ago
@Clear404 Thank you for explaining this to me. Im more used to metaphysical nihilism as I've studied metaphysics more than anything else.
kisamehoshigaki09 3 weeks ago
Doesn't this video conflate the terms "Atheism" and "Irreligiousness?" It is possible for a person to believe in objective morality, tied to some supernatural or metaphysical good or evil, even without the concept of a deity. In this way, couldn't an Atheist have beliefs about objective morality without being internally inconsistent?
ReggaeRican 4 weeks ago
@ReggaeRican Frankly, I don't think theists have solved the issue as well. The maker of this video states some of the things that atheists base moral belief upon (evolutionary psychology, humanism/empathy, categorical imperative) and then posits that we justify those things. I've said this before - for anyone making a case for objective morality, we can always push a justification upon a justification, and the regression would have eventually terminate at an axiom.
kenn714 4 weeks ago
@kenn714 You can not arbitrarily terminate at an axiom then claim to hold logical beliefs.
"That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - When someone dismisses your morality you have no intellectually honest buttal.
In other words, it is basically theistic morality without the god aspect. And as such criticism of general non-specific theism pr deism on the basis of lack of proof is hypocritical.
Gorzakk 4 weeks ago
@Gorzakk A lot of science terminates at axioms and build up from there. For instance, physical sciences assumes that empiricism is a valid epistemological method, and that an external, material world exists independent of our minds.
In any case, morality and moral value must be defined at a point, otherwise you're simply pushing those terms beyond definition and hence beyond coherent meaning.
kenn714 4 weeks ago
@kenn714 No they don't. Physical sciences terminate at empiricism because that is their function - science by definition requires a testable hypothesis. If you don't have that it isn't science anymore.
The axiom you chose to stop at has to make some kind of sense. How do you derive the value of empathy? Show some evidence.
Gorzakk 4 weeks ago
@kenn714 "Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: ..... [goodness]"
The God Delusion, P 77. So speaketh Professor Dawkins.
Subsitute god for morality and you have your nihilism. There is no *objective empirical* reason to assume empathy is better than selfishness.
Gorzakk 4 weeks ago
@Gorzakk This video attempts to simply define objective morality as objective "oughiness", but this notion needs to be specified - objective oughtness from what perspective?
kenn714 4 weeks ago
@kenn714 That is what morality is; a mode of behaviour which one ought to adhere to from the perspective of the self.
Gorzakk 4 weeks ago
@Gorzakk Let me propose an instance where oughtness CAN be derived from a goal and there is a correct answer to what one ought to do.
For example, let's say that you are trying to travel to another city that is 2000 miles away, and your goal was to get there as quickly as possible. There are two possible ways as to how you get there - you can take a car, or you can take a plane. What ought one do to accomplish one's goal?
Well, it can be demonstrated that planes are faster than cars -
kenn714 4 weeks ago
@kenn714 It can also be demonstrated that planes are more environmentally poluting, or that the person taking the journey hates flying. So is getting there fast, personal comfort, or environmental considerations more important? Subjective preferences.
Also, a goal isn't a fact. If you ought to do something because that something has moral value. that is different from doing something out necessity (eating vs being kind).
Gorzakk 4 weeks ago
Therefore, the correct answer to what one ought to do in that case is to take a plane - in that instance, travel by plane is more valuable because it accomplishes a goal more efficiently.
Likewise, the oughtness of morality MUST be defined as to fulfilling a goal, otherwise oughtness without a goal is without any grounding.
If you admit that different actions can have different effects on accomplishing one's goals, then you've admitted the existence of value at least with respect to a goal.
kenn714 4 weeks ago
@ReggaeRican The things that the maker of the video brings up can be turned around and asked to theists - if God is the source of morality, why ought I obey him? If a theist says that he will punish me for disobedience, why ought I avoid punishment? What reason is there to think that my comfort is an objective oughtness?
kenn714 4 weeks ago
@kenn714 No it can't. Theists say they get their moral code from their deity, deities, spirits, religious teachings, and whatever. They see that as being correct through faith and belief.
But if you are a materialist atheist who holds that faith and belief are the product of a weak mind, or are pernicious, then this reason for claiming to have ethical values (or indeed any values) is denied to you if you wish to maintain consistency in your views.
Gorzakk 4 weeks ago
@Gorzakk Again, I don't see how following a dictated "oughtness" by a deity or religion gives that oughtness objective grounding. Unless you've simply defined morality as "following what is dictated by the god/religion", then yes, following a set of rules is the best way to follow a set of rules.
kenn714 4 weeks ago
@kenn714 Because the theist is following a prescripted set of codified instructions which to a large extent exist outside his own personal preferences. There is no doubt that he is picking and choosing to a large extent, but he is at least consistent in his beliefs.
Remember this isn't a criticism of atheism but of hardline skepticism which deems theists lacking intellectual faculty for having beliefs.
Gorzakk 4 weeks ago
Yeah, no shit? But nihilism is so depressing. I prefer absurdism.
ahauc730 4 weeks ago
get owned atheists
EhsaunOwns 4 weeks ago
You are also presuming that being empathic is a choice. It isn't. Empathic controls kick and regulate our feelings WITHOUT conscious control.
kenn714 1 month ago
@kenn714 See, you’ve said it yourself, we have no choice, thus it’s not morality.
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago
I personally think that evolutionary psychology has the best case for describing morality. It explains WHY we have such values.
And those values are hardwired into our consciousness by biology.
An evolutionary psychologist would say that we have no choice but to value survival and well-being. From that, right and wrong answers of morality can be deduced.
kenn714 1 month ago
@kenn714 No, it doesn't tell us that those are morality, just evolved behaviour. It doesn't say that we *should* behave in such a way.
A man can see a hot woman and decide to mate with her to produce good offspring, whether or not she allows it. This is an evolved behaviour, does that mean it is morally acceptable? By the definition you have offered, it is.
Gorzakk 1 month ago
@Gorzakk Rape can still be overridden by empathy, because most men realize that forced sex causes tremendous psychological torment to a woman.
Behavior is controlled by a wide variety of instincts and sentiments hardwired into us by biology, because we have evolved to become social animals. Evolutionary psychology still explains WHY what we call morality/moral impulse is triggered when we consider something like rape.
The case can still be made that this moral impulse is hardwired into us.
kenn714 1 month ago
@kenn714 You've said that empathy can override rape, which is true. But this does beg the question why should it? They are both evolved responses, *why* should we favour one over the other?
I don't disagree with your very salient posts, and I don't see any contradiction in your statements, but I don't see any contradiction between those and the video either. The evolved response idea of the origin of morals is very nihilistic. It doesn't address the *why* argument of behaviour at all.
Gorzakk 1 month ago
@Gorzakk A rapist that has empathy will feel some guilt or shame by the act. My argument is that because a large portion of our moral intuitions arise from the empathic instinct, our morality is based on what our inner empathy tells us.
I'm not sure if you personally believe in objective morality or not, but if you try to justify objective morality, it seems that I can ask the same question to you. Why is that justification the justification for objective morality?
The "why" regression(cont)
kenn714 1 month ago
@kenn714 I justify morality by what I'll call "complete hypocrisy". Although I am an atheist, I think there is a set of morals one ought to adhere to simply on the basis of belief.
In acknowledging this is simply a belief and not a fact, it puts my own atheism in a whole new light for me, and thus I treat theists with far more respect than my fellow atheists as I can't claim to base everything I believe on fact.
So it's a win-win situation.
Gorzakk 1 month ago
@Gorzakk The "why" regression would have to terminate at an axiom.
The axiom that I am proposing is that our moral intuitions of what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior is caused by empathy - the care for the well-being of conscious creatures. From this, right and wrong answers of behavior (morality) can be deduced.
kenn714 1 month ago
@kenn714 Empathy is just another pattern of behavioural evolution. There is no *objective* basis for favouring empathy over, for example, racial purity or eugenics. You have no empirical data to say that one ought to protect the sick, not terminate them and use their organs to sustain those who are stronger.
There is no scientific basis for terminating at the axiom of empathy. That again is just a subjective preference.
Gorzakk 1 month ago
@kenn714 Part of the reason “forced sex causes tremendous psychological torment to a woman” is because Western society has made it so taboo and attached so many stigmas to it, not because it’s inherently bad nor because it can be proven that life is supposed to be a happy experience.
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago
@kenn714 Raping women, exploiting the masses, slavery, nationalism etc. were the social norms of the mass majority of people for the mass majority of history; many liberation theorists (from anarchists to radical feminists) would argue they still are. Indeed, rape is just another subjective, anthropocentric construct dependent on equally vague fictions like consent, free will, and human rights.
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago
@Gorzakk The instance you cited describes a sentiment (lust) and an action that would follow from that sentiment (desire for sex).
Why is morality different?
After all, we have sentiments that trigger morality (moral approval, moral repulsion) then actions that follow or refrained by that sentiment (altruism promoted, harm to others inhibited).
kenn714 1 month ago
@kenn714 So if its just hardwired into us, why should we follow it? Its just chemical reactions right? Nothing actually wrong right?
snowmanbob101 1 month ago
@snowmanbob101 I said empathy is hardwired into us. Because this instinct is hardwired into us, we have no choice but to feel it.
Just like sexual desire. We are hardwired with a desire to reproduce, and therefore we have no choice but to follow our desire.
Same thing with moral empathy.
kenn714 1 month ago
@kenn714 So if its hardwired into us, than it isn't morality, its just a chemical reaction in our heads. Thus no one can really have right or wrong choices because thats just a reaction they had. Who are we to say someone's head thinks better on this subject than someone else, it is all just chemicals right? If ethics is just a chemical reaction, than it is a relative topic. Hitler and the nazis were different than ours, so it wasn't wrong from your view, but just different.
snowmanbob101 4 weeks ago
@snowmanbob101 I said empathy is hardwired into the consciousness, and it is that sentiment that causes us to find things morally repugnant and morally good.
Here's an analogy to human health. Medical science uncovers facts about the human body, and uncovers facts that that we ought to take to achieve the end of having a well-functioning body.
My point about morality is that it is to achieve the end of the well-being of conscious creatures. There are right ways to go about this.
kenn714 4 weeks ago
@kenn714 Medical science can provide facts concerning what is needed to live the longest amount of time, but it can prove that anyone should value living a long time.
Well-being is a vague concept based of subjective perceptions of value. Things that are considered morally repugnant in modern western societies were the widely excepted social norms for the mast majority of people throughout history. How can that be if all humans are born with the same perceptions of right and wrong?
KiddoBeastPro 4 weeks ago
@KiddoBeastPro Oops, I mean't "CAN'T prove that anyone should value living a long time".
KiddoBeastPro 4 weeks ago
@KiddoBeastPro You've said a lot of things to my posts, and I want to respond to all of them, but the youtube comment box is way too limited for me to do so.
But, I will say that the fact that our moral intuitions have changed is not a threat to view that I am proposing - it could be that our moral intuitions change because we recognize that there are better ways to live an interact with others. It might be empirical and self-correcting rather than an arbitrary product of invention.
kenn714 4 weeks ago
@kenn714 By that logic anyone who lays down their life for another is committing the ultimate immoral act. If the wellbeing and survival of ones consciousness is the actual moral imperitive at hand, that is what it is.
If it is about a more collective approach, if one man is healthy and 5 men sick each needing a different set of organs, we should take the organs from the healthy man (killing him) to allow the 5 to survive.
And ultimately - do you have any empirical evidence for this?
Gorzakk 4 weeks ago
@kenn714 I understand that in your view, it is apart of our consciousness. Here is the problem with this view, what if the nazi's conscience was evolving. Now I don't think what they did is right nor am I advocating it in anyway. I'm just stating that if it was just some random way things came out, why should we follow it or even use it. Again, who are we to say one conscience is better than another if there is no real absolute standard of ethics?
snowmanbob101 4 weeks ago
@kenn714 Empathy is not a basis for moral realism. Humans have not evolved to empathize with all humans equally. Pro-social behaviors are in no way the equivalent to morality. Indeed, pro-social behaviors are the basis for many of the historical facts that Western society often describes as immoral. Racism, sexism, classism etc. can all be attributed to placing people into social roles as is dictated by human nature.
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago
@kenn714 Cosmopolitism, liberalism, sex equality, egalitarianism etc. (moral realism) are in turn completely contrary to our nature, and are almost completely Eurocentric. The only reason these concepts exhibit any ubiquity at all is because of the relative global dominance of Western European (and its cultural descendants) civilization. Ironically, that dominance was achieved using methods completely opposite to the values that were (and are) being made global.
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago
@kenn714 I would argue that universalism, as it appears in Western moral and political rhetoric, is nothing more than propaganda invented for the sake of the European global agenda, and not because it was a value that was ever consistent with reality.
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago
@kenn714 Nothing undermines secular moral realism more than evolutionary psychology. Partly because it completely undermines the concept of free will. It shows there are no logical human biases, just evolved perceptions that we consciously construct arbitrary rules around. Assigning value to reality is an aspect of human nature, but what values we assign changes depending on knowledge and circumstance. The most evolutionary psychology shows is that it’s human nature to construct social fictions
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago
Your title is self-refuting.
It implies that an intellectually honest atheist takes up the position of nihilism.
But then, I would HAVE to value intellectual honesty to take up nihilism, which is contrary to nihilism itself.
kenn714 1 month ago
@kenn714 It isn't contrary to Nihilism at all, considering Nietzsche founded it and based his ideas off of it.
snowmanbob101 1 month ago
@kenn714 Not once in this video is it said that one should value intellectual honesty. It just states that moral nihilism is the only view logically consistent with atheism. A person can subjectively chose to value whatever.
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago
William Provine is one example of an honest atheist.
benthemiester 1 month ago
Really the only thing that is real is what works for a society and what doesn't. That's what moral principles were invented for and history has shown that they are very flexible when it comes to doing some nasty shit to others. I love life. I don't believe morals are objective but I do believe they can be useful to us.
MrGuy1332 1 month ago