Holy crap! You just validated Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics! One of the best explanations outside of Ayn Rand that I have ever seen from a more scientific perspective! Well done!
It may not be a comforting truth but it's still a truth regardless, that the only reason we have morals is because we wanted to give ourselves a system of morals. You might ask "well then what stops you from raping and killing," the truth is that nothing stops you aside from your own choice not to. If you wanted to rape or kill you would and religion wouldn't stop you. But if you do it, even if there was no government, you'd still be reviled and hated as a murderer. There are consequences.
So what do we do with the evidence that our free will is non-existent? Surely we can have morality without it, so long as we value the well being of conscious creatures.
When atheists make up proportionally less of the prison population in America than the so-called "moral" Christians, then we must be doing something right or the Christians must be doing something wrong. Which is it, people?
ok so lemme ask u a question u say if u killed someone then u might suffer from retaliation or from the law finding you .... but what if u killed her where no one saw and on a world where there were no police or any form of government .... and u didnt face the chances of getting retaliated on ... then would it still be wrong ... what about rape or any other gross immoral act .. what if u didnt face any threat of retaliation .. then would it still be wrong by your own understanding it wouldnt
@yhwhizlife1 Like in Africa, where boys are made to carry guns, kill, rape, and torture people in the name of the local regime. For there, the government encourages this behavior. They do it because it's wrong, it degrades the population. Under game theory, with the motivation of self interest, this behavior is predictable.
Why should I even bother going out of my way to kill people when I can just sit at home and watch TV? Why does subjective morality all of a sudden mean we have to go out of our way just to hurt random people?
I must also ask if you actually watched this whole video? I address this exact point, Life! Read the sub-titles at 5:45. Cooperation and specialization are behaviors that serve self-interest.
"but what if u killed her where no one saw and on a world where there were no police or any form of government "
You should seriously ask yourself this same thing. By your own admission, YOU EAT MEAT. That makes you a willing participant in the willful slaughter of helpless creatures for your own tasty amusement. Are you seriously okay with this?
However, let me restate what I said earlier. Morality was made up by humans and OTHER SPECIES. Because I'm sure that other animals aside from us have moralities. It's just that ours are so much more complex
@tjtheplay so why am objectively wrong for thinking being mean and rude as much as i possibly can is okay . since all morals are subjective and subjective feelings vary from person to person
@yhwhizlife1 Because we survived by developing social behaviour to increase survival chances by making life in groups more efficient, and "being mean and rude as much as you possibly can" will make you dangerous for the group that will reject you in the better case, kill you in the worst.
Now tell me, do you really want to be as mean and rude as you possibly can ? Really ? Is there only religion to restrain you from killing and raping ?
@yhwhizlife1 I like the act utilitarian view, pick the action that brings pleasure the most. Killing for no reason when no one is looking will still reduce the pleasure of the one we killed, meanwhile will probably make us feel guilty. So that action should be rejected. Even if we get pleasure from killing, its outweighed by the negative pleasure of the guy we killed
and if my girlfriend wont give me a child . then i can rape her because ill gain something from it right ill get that child i desire .... gosh i guess almost every action is good to go in your veiw of morality as long as your getting something out of it ...... and i do kno what game theory is .. and lemme tell you it doesnt speak of having a morality like that my friend
"i guess almost every action is good to go in your veiw of morality as long as your getting something out of it"
The key phrase here is "As long as you get something out of it." What benefit does someone get out of raping random women? What risks do you think there are in such activities?
"and i do know what game theory is"
It is pretty obvious that you do not.
"and lemme tell you it doesn't speak of having a morality like that my friend"
@AntiCitizenX lol well u kno what buddy if u needed my help i wouldnt deny you assistance .. even if u called me a stupid dumbass christian after lol ... oh and i see but isnt that the prime example of how a coward acts .. he will call names when he knows nothing will happen to him ... but wont wen he feels like something might .... so i guess even cowardly childlike actions are justified by your understanding of morality .. and even hitler is justified after all he had dreams of a utopia
"even hitler is justified after all he had dreams of a utopia "
Except Hitler is dead, and so is everyone who shared his ideals. Natural selection therefore dictates that his concept of morality was not very self-interested.
@AntiCitizenX lol wow so the U.S army is natural selection ? thats more like artificial selection and no have u ever heard of the NAZI low riders or the arian nation or the skin heads or all the Hitler worshiping cults ? so your statement that everyone who shares his ideals is dead is simply wrong
"so your statement that everyone who shares his ideals is dead is simply wrong "
Seriously...? Okay, let me spell this out:
When I say "everyone," I obviously do not mean "every last human being on Earth." It is just a figure of speech. I am implying that the nationalistic infrastructure of the Nazi regime has been crushed and is no longer relevant. For Christ's sake, USE SOME COMMON FUCKING SENSE, DUDE!
@AntiCitizenX aye u said something untrue and i capitalized on it your statement at face value was wrong .. and how do i kno you were using a figure of speech for all i kno you could really believe that .. u should be more specific and not say things u dont mean with no further explanation and it would help people to understand you ... instead of just relying on them to ignore your words and just read your mind
"how do i kno you were using a figure of speech for all i kno you could really believe that "
Because NO NATIVE SPEAKER of the English language ever literally means "everyone" when they say "everyone!" It is very common to say such things in a broad, generalized sense without being specifically literal. For fuck's sake, do I have to spell out the obvious to you?
You know what? Screw this. If I have to explain this crap out to you, then you're too stupid to converse with.
@AntiCitizenX oh and it was very self interested lol al he cared about was his ideals his dreams and his people and anything that got in the way would die ... u could say thats very self centered lol and just cuz he died doesn't prove he was seeking his own selfish desire lol . what kinda logic is that .. so if im runing from a lion to save myself and then i die . everyone should come to the conclusion that i wasn't seeking my own self interest huh
"oh and it was very self interested lol al he cared about was his ideals his dreams and his people and anything that got in the way would die"
I seriously have no idea what you are trying to say here. Would it kill you to be just a little more coherent?
But seriously guy. Hitler is dead. His concept of morality got him killed. So obviously it was not a very good way to serve one's self interest. I fail to see how this can be any simpler.
@AntiCitizenX ok lemme help you Hitlers actions were very self centered because all he cared about were his ideals his dreams and his country and himself .. he cared for no one else and anyone who didnt share his ideals or dreams would die . he was a very self centered person so i can rationalize that he fit perfectly into your standards of morality ... because after all The highest ideal in moral behavior is simply the pursuit of one's own self-interest .....
DYING IS NOT IN YOUR OWN SELF-INTEREST, HIZLIFE. Hitler is therefore a great example of social behavior that does entirely AGAINST one's self-interest. I have already explained this to you TWICE. I am trying to be patient with you, but you just keep listening for only the things that you want to hear, rather than what is being said.
@AntiCitizenX i ment to say and just cuz he died doesn't prove he wasnt seeking his own selfish desire lol . what kinda logic is that sorry bout that typo ... i see this is hard for you to understand .. but u will in due time .... and u say u explained it twice . but u mist realize your explanations were ful of fallacious assertions straight up lies and strewed concepts ... and i like how u didnt answer my question ..
Life, there is a fundamental point that you missed from this video. Namely, there is NO SUCH THING as objective moral value. There are only specific social behaviors that win out over others. That is the only meaningful definition of an "objective" moral value. You also keep confusing selfishness with self-interest. THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Whatever Hitler believed was obviously NOT in his best interest because it got him killed.
"The idea of "moral law" coming from God is nonsense. The highest ideal in moral behavior is simply the pursuit of one's own self-interest"
so be as selfish as possible and then youll be a moral person in fact youll be up to par with the highest standard of atheistic morality ...... thank you for reminding me why im a Christian
Did you even read the rest of that statement? Or did you just stop at the part where it confirms your own bias? Because seriously, you just committed a classic quote-mine, which is very dishonest of you.
But then again, I can see that you seem to be a creationist, in which case I would expect nothing less. So I guess the ironic thing to say is "thanks for reminding me why I'm an atheist."
@AntiCitizenX yeah i read the rest you said The only reason I tend to be nice and cooperative with other people is because such activities can intrinsically serve a self-interested end. Hence, there is no need for God to dictate morality to us because virtue is indeed its own reward. i replaced we with I because thats how u think not we or us or me ... the rest of the statement collaborates with your first sentence lol so in kno way am i being bias lol
What you think is irrelevant. What you do is what matters. And cooperative behavior within a social group naturally serves an intrinsic self-interest. Whether you "think it" or not, this stuff is demonstrable and mathematically quantifiable in such fields as game theory and evolutionary biology. Virtue is indeed its own reward, and requires no external commandments.
@AntiCitizenX game theory haha r u serious gimme a break it doesnt even suggest that " THE HIGHEST IDEAL IN MORAL BEHAVIOR IS SELFISHNESS and Darwinian evil lution .. sorry its been bashed and critiqued to bad for my to believe in anything other than minor variation within an already existing species.. hey but anything to justify a selfish behavior that only cares for others and interacts nicely with others because he might get something out of it in the end right ?
There is a huge difference between selfishness and self-interest. Also, if you are a literal creationist who does not accept allele variation in reproductive populations, then I'm probably wasting my time talking with you at all. I mean, seriously dude, if you are really so dense that you can't even come to grips with basic principles in population genetics, then there is probably little hope in getting you to appreciate the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Yes, buddy, GAME THEORY is a legitimate field of mathematical study. The least you could do is LOOK IT UP before making yourself out to look like an ignorance dumb ass.
@AntiCitizenX lol is calling me a dumbass just you in pursuit of your own self-interest" aside from how it affects the person you are trying degenerate .... i guess u would say it is in your own self interest to call me a dumbass so that you can vent your anger and feel better about yourself and you know what you could even rationalize that act as the highest ideal of moral actions by your very own understanding of morality .. good job you win every time in your mind
Not necessarily. There might come a time when I will need your help, and you will have the opportunity to deny me assistance. Consequently, my sarcastic ramblings possess the potential to bite me in the rear at a future date. However, I have little reason to suspect that such an event will occur, and so I get to benefit from the vented frustrations of childish name-calling with little risk.
@AntiCitizenX you purposed your first premise The idea of "moral law" coming from God is nonsense. The highest ideal in moral behavior is simply the pursuit of one's own self-interest then u gave supporting reasons on why that is .... soo at face value your whole statement reeks of selfishness
"at face value your whole statement reeks of selfishness "
So? What is wrong with that? I am honest with my fellow man because it is in my own best interest to behave that way. I avoid stabbing people because such actions serve no beneficial goal and merely invite retaliation. I refrain from holding slaves because it is more productive to pay people to work voluntarily. I eat meat because it is tasty, nutritious, and chickens won't organize to fight back.
@AntiCitizenX Would u stab someone if u were homeless dieng and starving and needed there belongings to survive in a life death situation and they wouldn't give them up ? .. caring for your own self interest in that situation would definitely benefit you wouldn't it ? i also eat chicken :) it agree it is very tasty
"Would u stab someone if u were homeless dieng and starving and needed there belongings to survive in a life death situation and they wouldn't give them up ?"
Honestly, I probably would. I would even hazard to guess that 90% of the rest of the world would too. However, stabbing someone carries a huge risk of retaliation. It is a gambit that either wins a small, short-term gain or lands a massive long-term loss. It is therefore not something to attempt except as a last resort.
If I may ask you, where does your morality come from? What dictates your decision to pay for food rather than shoplift? Why do you refrain from raping women or randomly poking children in the eyes? What compels you to help your buddies move furniture?
@AntiCitizenX my morality comes from a deep desire to please others and show a genuine interest in the well being and interests of OTHER animals and humans . aside from what i want or what my own selfish interest is may be ... Hbu
"my morality comes from a deep desire to please others and show a genuine interest in the well being and interests of OTHER animals and humans . "
Why do you care about pleasing others? What do you care about their well-being? You obviously don't care about the well-being of chickens. So why are people different?
@AntiCitizenX "Why do you care about pleasing others? What do you care about their well-being? "
when i hear you say this it just leads me to imagine you are a very cold hearted person .. of course i dont know you but i cant help but be lead to that conclusion when i hear that kind of statement .. i care about pleasing others and care for there well being because they are living organisms like me and deserve that kind of treatment .
"i care about pleasing others and care for there well being because they are living organisms like me and deserve that kind of treatment . "
So? Why does this warrant the obligation to give up of yourself for their benefit? For example, if I asked you for 50 dollars, right now, with no strings attached, would you give it to me?
"when i hear you say this it just leads me to imagine you are a very cold hearted person "
I am not trying to say that you should not care. I am trying to get you to ask yourself why you care in the first place, and to realize that God is entirely unnecessary to the whole thing.
For me personally, I care because it helps to form bonds of friendship. Friends generate utility through their capacity to enjoy time together and aid you when you are in need.
And I apologize for being crass, but I need to know if you are a literal creationist or not because I will have little patience with you if you are. So please tell me, do you accept the principle that allele frequencies in biological populations are dynamic under reproductive generations? Do you accept that these changes drive speciation and variation in morphology? That natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift are the prime forces in driving this variance?
Just finished reading "More than Human", from Theodore Sturgeon, and I think I'll stick to the definition of morality from the book.
Long story short, it's about a group of kids, who together form a unique entity, a gestalt, with psychic powers. But they are so different from normal human that they can't understand morality, and treat them like human act with animals. So a man has to come with an definition of morality that they could understand. (See reply)
Morals: they're nothing but a coded survival instinct!
Aren't they? What about the societies in which it is immoral not to eat human flesh? What kind of survival is that?
Well, but those who adhere to morality survive within the group. If the group eats human flesh, you do too.
There must be a name for the code, the set of rules, by which an individual lives in such a way as to help his species - something over and above morals.
That's what Homo Gestalt needs: not morality, but an ethos. but shall I sit here, with my brains bubbling with fear, and devise a set of ethics for a superman?
Define:
Morals: Society's code for individual survival.
(That takes care of our righteous cannibal and the correctness of a naked man in a nudist group.)
Ethics: An individual's code for society's survival.
(And that's your ethical reformer: he frees his slaves, he won't eat humans, he 'turns the rascals out.')
The only thing I disagree with is confining morality to social choices. I consider right or wrong matters for one's self interest all alone on a deserted island just as much as morality questions as those in social contexts.
What sense does it make to have morality on a desert island? The only common theme to all "moral" choices is the impact it has on the lives of others.
@AntiCitizenX Perhaps it's a matter of definition. I don't see the effect on others as the primary in questions of morality. You state in the video that morality is rooted in selfish reasons, and I agree. To me it seems only a small step to take to consider the self as the ultimate goal of morality.
Granted in today's culture (and most of the past culture?) morality is used to denote how one should altruistically sacrifice himself to others. But I consider this as a flawed morality...
@NotThat3 ... It is still a morality in the sense that it attempts to guide a person's actions (teaching him what is good and bad). In this case, it considers the benefit to others as 'the good'. But the others are not the object of morality. Morality is that which answers you right or wrong on the big and small questions in your life. In this sense, you would need morality just the same if not a whole lot more on a deserted island.
@NotThat3 ... perhaps as a point worth considering, i would argue that it is the concept of rights (individual rights), not morality, that is meaningless on a deserted island. IMO rights pertain to the relationship of individuals within a society. Morality does not require a society to be valid.
The only real question here seems to be "what is morality?" Every definitive source I could find would always somehow tie morality in with social interactions. It makes no sense to feel guilty or remorseful over a choice or action that affected no one besides yourself. The only thing I'm really arguing in this video is that self-interest still exists in social interactions, and that "moral" social choices are intrinsically selfish.
@AntiCitizenX " It makes no sense to feel guilty or remorseful over a choice or action that affected no one besides yourself."
If you didn't invest any effort in school, and as a result ended up with a bad career that pays little and that you don't enjoy, would it not make sense to feel guilt and remose because of it?
So the argument from this video is approximately the same as in Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" - the idea that altruism evolved to benefit (or is a bi-product of) the survival of self-replicating social organisms.
morality from god is flawed as it teaches ingroup/outgroup behavior... that is my biggest quirk with religon is that instead of goodwill for the sake of good will it assigns conditions and parameters which must be met... it would seem the most pure good will would be that which is not done out of fear of punishment or for reward but out of true desire to help a fellow human or critter
idk if its just me but i have to disagree about the honesty because i know many people who lie for their own benefit and cant be trusted at all and these are people who arnt religious. people who are religious tend to be more honest. people will tell the truth if it doesn't really affect them but if it is a threat to them in some way people tend to lie?
Everybody lies. It's a fact of life because there is so much to gain from it. However, getting caught in a lie is a great way to piss off everyone around you. Lying therefore carries a risk. Lying only pays off as long as you are not caught. Or equivalently, as long as those you lie to fail to penalize your behavior. A better perspective is that lying only provides short-term payoffs, while honesty provides a net long-term payoff. Honesty thus wins without any need for God
the first point is true but i think since we already have an idea of what a good world is then we can compare what to a bad world. C.S. Lewis once said something along the lines of "how can you tell a line is crooked if you dont know what a straight line is." then your saying the aliens came up with our morals. also you dont do good thanks to score points with god. you dont gain salvation through your works. think of it more as a small thank you.
Says you. There are dozens of Christian denominations who will argue that you are damning yourself to eternal hell with that attitude. Grace without works is empty.
This video address the underlying reason for morality to exist, but I doubt that anybody actually practices morality for these reasons. Just as we have a natural sex drive that applies regardless of whether or not we can have children, humans have a natural moral sense that gives us the urge to act in a moral manner without having to think of why. The simple explanation for both of these is evolution. Humans are social animals.
(cont.) All social animals have a moral sense. Humans have developed and evolved the most complex society known to date, so it would make sense that we would also develop and evolve the most complex moral code. It's really as simple as that. To extrapolate meaning from it does little more than explain why we have evolved this trait, but like anything else in evolution "goals" are merely an explanatory tool, nothing more.
If God put a "conscience" in our mind, why are we born non believers? Parts of the brain that are responsible for "conscience" or moral behaviour have been identified by science. Humans are social and cooperative by nature and will create rules that will benefit them. Which is wrong? Killing your brother to stop a day care from exploding or letting a day care explode to save your brother?
I would say that a moral code can be accurately defined as the collective social values of individuals in a given society. Everyone agrees that murder is a bad thing, and it becomes a bad thing.
Some would agree with you, but I think that's rather short-sighted. What about a whistleblower working for a large polluter, or someone who speaks out about the oppression of women in certain Islamic countries? Would you call them immoral?
No, but when you bring up those examples, you are appealing to my sense of western morality. They would consider that person immoral for contradicting islam. Case in point the couple that got arrested recently in a muslim country for kissing. I am not saying that morality is obsolete or that humans should not make moral judgements, but there is no over archng referee when it comes to morality.
No, but when you bring up those examples, you are appealing to my sense of western morality the muslims would say yes. Case in point, the couple that got arrested recently in a muslim country for kissing. I am not saying that morality is obsolete or that humans should not make moral judgements, but there is no over archng referee when it comes to morality.
No, but when you bring up those examples, you are appealing to my sense of western morality the muslims would say yes. Case in point, the couple that got arrested recently in a muslim country for kissing. I am not saying that morality is obsolete or that humans should not make moral judgements, but there is no over archng referee when it comes to morality.
No, but when you bring up those examples, you are appealing to my sense of western morality the muslims would say yes. Case in point, the couple that got arrested recently in a muslim country for kissing. I am not saying that morality is obsolete or that humans should not make moral judgements, but there is no over archng referee when it comes to morality.
Upon reflection, there's something that seems self-contradictory in this vid. In the beginning, you conclude that if God were removed and a person were to suddenly go into an antisocial frenzy, then they had no morality to begin with because their own morality is based on self interest in avoiding hell. Here, we agree. Next, you go on to site self-interest as a perfectly valid source for morality without God.
However, for the same reason, wouldn't this mean they have none to begin with?
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that morality as we understand it does not require God. That's the whole point of the Argument from Morality. They argue that our intrinsic sense of "morality" is proof of God. I argue that apparently "moral" behavior is just a by-product of self-interested motives, and that morality is subjective.
I think you made a good case that morality does not require a God. You also made a good case that there are many situations in which the more moral choice lines up with self-interest. However, you've employed a fairly common false dichotomy if you say "therefore, morality is subjective." There is an entire branch of philosophy called "normative ethics" and normative moral frameworks, including those of Kant and many others who propose that morality is not subjective even without God.
Okay, how about if I rephrase myself to simply say "morality is not proof of God." Does that work better?
However, I have seen bits and pieces from such philosophies, and I find many of their arguments un-compelling. They tend to start with the fundamental assumption that people are supposed to help each other, when really we have no such obligations. So I would argue that morality is still subjective, but I am at least willing to hear more.
Actually, hedonism alone does not account for determining morality. For example, if you could benefit from harming another person without the possibility of being caught or noticed by anyone, it would still be immoral.
[For example, if you could benefit from harming another person without the possibility of being caught or noticed by anyone, it would still be immoral.]
It would absolutely be moral, and it happens all the time. The mere act of refusal to give money to a starving African nation is exactly what you describe. Your restraint is their starvation. You directly benefit by spending money on morning coffee instead of grain for Rwanda, and people die as a consequence.
I am talking about active harm, not simply preventing a situation that would have occurred without my involvement. This is an important distinction.
If I discover an untraceable poison with symptoms no different than a heart attack, and use it only once to collect my overweight grandpa's inheritance. That is immoral if without extreme circumstances. Hedonism does not always line up with empathy, or self-consistency. Moral clarity requires assessing these things independently.
There is no guarantee that your use of such a poison will go undetected. If there were, it would happen all the time.
Furthermore, you cannot make a distinction between direct actions that cause harm, and direct in-actions that cause harm. Both lead to preventable harm that is your fault.
I was talking about a hypothetical situation. You don't get to change it by saying "Nah-ah". There are dozens of other scenarios I could easily come up with. Try me. Hedonism only works as a moral source when you potentially benefit in some way.
Have you ever heard of the "trolly problem"? If not, wiki it. Direct action versus inaction is one of the many important factors to be considered in weighing what is moral. This IS an important distinction.
The trolly problem is actually a very interesting one, since it shows how people are far more willing to allow harm through inaction than through action. Yet from every practical viewpoint, the situations are identical. The whole point of it all is that there is no "objective" moral sense in us. Most morality people experience is just a hodge podge of practical experience, natural instinct, and a general desire to stay on the good side of our peers.
I will agree that most people do derive their moral compass from the hodge-podge you describe. However, there are also several working models of so-called "normative morality" that can be used to determine if one society is more moral than another. One example is slavery versus emancipation. The freed society would be able to objectively make a better case that their society is the more moral.
This is actually a topic I've been thinking about making a video on.
The only reason slavery is considered "immoral" is because slave-banning nations out-competed the slave-holding. Slavery, by its very nature, is an inefficient and non-innovative system. Before industrialization, emancipation was the rough equivalent to vegitarianism today. It seemed nice in principle, but practically had little value. After industrialization, slavery became a hindrance to the nation.
Whether or not slavery is more competitive is not a moral argument, nor have I ever heard it provided as if it were one. It's an argument from practicality. However, arguments of practicality can be made in favor of slavery too. For instance, if your tribe defeats an enemy tribe and they don't have the resources to imprison them, but don't want to slaughter them all. However, this still would not make slavery the most moral choice, just possibly the most moral choice available.
As for genuine moral arguments against slavery-- several are logically derived by a recognition of the simple premise that one group of humans is not born superior to another. Several others are derived from empathy regarding limiting another conscious being's potential or other aspects of enslavement.
Of course, I'm sure you know this already so I probably shouldn't even bother mentioning it.
[that one group of humans is not born superior to another]
With all due respect to Thomas Jefferson, this just isn't how history treats the issue. Nations compete for scare resources and cultures clash. Whether we like it or not, this competition will lead to some cultures dominating over others. The ability to survive and flourish may be easily regarded as "superiority" in any objective sense, since it is the only one that matters.
Right, well, if one fails to recognize that premise, then they will fail to find what follows from it persuasive. However, the state of human beings at birth and mere happenstance of origin hardly seem defensible as a justification for superiority. Even among primitive cultures, royalty amounted to little without tales of great deeds or the illusion of Divine right as compliment.
I am not talking about individual superiority over another. I am talking about the power of a specific culture or nation to survive and grow. Slavery is no more immoral than eating meat or swearing. The only real difference is that slaver is a detriment to the very culture that practices. Then along come the non-slave cultures to dominate over time. Meat-eating has no effects like this, and so is regarded as perfectly acceptable.
... If true,I guess you would be equally motivated to react with disdain to either statement. Sure,you might call the police on whichever one happens to be illegal or more unpopular at the time. Perhaps you could say to the slaver,"You know,it would be more practical if you just hired somebody to cook and clean for you instead,plus our society would be more competitive." and call that a moral argument.
Am I somehow strawmaning here, or is this what you are calling a valid moral framework?
[Perhaps you could say to the slaver,"You know,it would be more practical if you just hired somebody to cook and clean for you instead,plus our society would be more competitive." and call that a moral argument.]
In a nutshell, yes. Do you need a better reason to give up slavery?
Sorry, I mis-read your comment and responded with a non-sequiter. Lemmie try this again...
[If you're being sincere, and these two things weigh equal by a gauge you call 'morality', then I really think we are not discussing the same thing...]
What I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as objective morality. The only real measure of morality is pretty much long-term self-interest. So maybe slavery may be considered "worse" because it leads to cultural self-destruction.
Slavery may be considered worse because of some practical repercussion, but that is independent of whether or not it is moral-- though they often coincide. I disagree with both moral objectivism and moral relativism, it's fuzzier than that-- but I don't want to threadjack.
I'd like to answer your question about eating meat. It would be more moral if we could just consume inorganic matter. Barring that, it is more moral to minimize the suffering of what we must eat.
The fundamental problem I have with the claim that "slavery is immoral" is simply to look at human history 2000 years ago. Back then, slavery was practically cool (unless, perhaps, you happened to be the poor slave). I would argue that the mere fact that things have changed is simply evidence of the subjectivity of moral preferences. No one has any true obligations to "minimize suffering," because we obviously don't seem to care about starving Africans that much.
Regarding the issue of slavery, there are a multitude of factors that go into accounting for how morality works. In the case of slavery, people were able to project empathy onto the slaves being tormented and think "how would I like it if that happened to me?". It is in this way that the abolitionist movement was able to succeed.
Humans are very good at projecting empathy onto others and seeing things from their perspective, it is a tool that has made us successful as a species.
Fortunately, a keen sense of moral justice and equality is a demonstrably potent tool in cultural domination. Specifically, I believe, this is because such traits foster innovation, which is by far the greatest asset for cultural survival.
"why bother working... when you can just kill your neighbor and steal his stuff." that was the most hilarious line i've heard all day. Where did u get that?
for there to be an ad hominem it would have to be a substitute for his argument... which as has been said, is easy enough to look up, and is entirely correct. Leviticus 25:44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you"
note that it does not say, "if you choose to have slaves...." it commands you to make slaves of your neighbours
[Where do your morals come from, if not from God?]
I could ask you the same thing. Surely, you believe that slavery and genocide are immoral, yet these actions are regularly endorsed in the Old Testament. Wherever you get your moral from, it apparently is NOT from God.
You may feel you have your own personal sense of right and wrong, but I guarantee you that your nearest neighbor has a compass that is different from yours. If there were such a thing as an "absolute" moral compass, then everyone could be expected to converge on it independently. Yet this does not occur among the various religious sects. For example, the Amish refuse to kill under any conditions whatsoever. Surely, you would kill a man in self-defense?
Great video Citizen, huge fan of your work (which I only recently discovered). However, I had just one issue with this particular video: how do you explain altruism? And not the simple "I do this for person X, it will benefit me in Y number of ways (social standing, etc.), but the kind of altruism where someone gives his/her life for someone else. Presumably, it is difficult to argue that they are doing it for self-gain (as they will be dead), but instead are appealing to a chosen ideal, no?
The short answer is, altruism is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. It may periodically appear in bits an pieces, but it will never come to dominate in a population. By its very nature, altruism cannot thrive because free-riders will immediately descend on it to take advantage. All "practical" forms altruism therefore only exist when it mutually benefits the individuals.
Ask yourself, how often do people REALLY give up their lives for total strangers?
Sorry I lost your original comment asking me whether I believe morals are a product of the natural world.
I don't *know*, and it's a new area of research, but it seems quite likely. Social primates have similar societies to ours in many ways such as in-group altruism and out-group hostility, complex social relationships etc. and we see that in several places in nature.
Of course, as self-aware creatures we can make more informed decisions about why we do things than animals can, which is in itself a product of our superior intelligence.
Delinexwow HAS cited the evidence. Really, as a christian, if you're having to ask the atheist to find the scripture for you which states that slavery was condoned (and yes, maybe condoned doesn't mean obliged but even the fact it was permitted is awful) then that's quite telling.
I did, and I refuse to do any more homework for you. It is very very clear you are wrong if you do google search. I've shown proof for this, and I have even cited the evidence...A GOOGLE SEARCH...you refuse to look at the evidence. grow up kid.
obviously you dont understand burden of proof. Ive shown you exactly how to find the evidence for my claim, meaning I've provided ample evidence. Just because you don't want to go look at the evidence does not mean I am lacking any evidence. It simply means you are lazy and unwilling to learn or even consider evidence at all..typical christian
wrong, proof is there. ONE google search of jesus condoned slavery shows it. my proof is VERY easily obtained, if you are too lazy to look it up not my issue. Others Im sure will, and will see just how little you know about the bible, claiming things are not there period when they are. Showing youve done NO research at all, you just want to 'believe' what is in the bible and what isn't, however have put no real effort in what is truly there.
i have no reason to give evidence to such an easy problem. if you weren't dismissing everything i said already as 'out of context' when it very clearly isn't i would. however this is a very well known, easily found issue, if you are too lazy to read your own bible or even do a google search, i have no use for you, you will simply claim out of context again when its not. learn your own religion before you try debating it.
as a christian, you should own slaves, jesus said it was ok. you are "simply" incorrect and cherry picking what god commanded....you are a baddddd badddd boy.
18:22 is not out of context, it commands the death of homosexuality. none of the others are out of context either.
YOU are no more authority on scripture than i.
I simpy stated what YOUR GOD says to do...*I* didn't say it your god did, and its not in any way out of context, if you have issues with that take it up with your god, hes the one commanding it.
bottom line, your god commands you to kill just as he commands you to love, do not tell me you have to ONLY listen when god says love and utterly ignore him when he says kill.
Just like you said - we all know what's right and wrong inherently. However, some of it comes from society also and that's undeniable (such as in the example of being racist outlined by Delinexwow just now).
funny part being, when i thought racism was ok, and hating gays was right...i was religious...it was only when i stopped listening to what "god" had to say i quit being an immoral prick. such as lev 18:22.
Well you weren't *really* a christian, because god has a lot to say about owning slaves, forcibly marrying women, genocide of those neighbours who are unbelievers etc. So unless you were doing all of these, you weren't using god's "moral compass" :)
this is just wrong on a massive scale. each and everyone one learns whats right and wrong through both brain, and history. for instance i was raised as a christian, also with racism, and hating gays...the last two are simply wrong, period. HOWEVER i thought it was right when i was younger. no one has ever, or will ever, have an absolute moral compass..morality changes for EVERYONE, therefor is not absolute. NO one knows for sure what is right and wrong for all circumstances on all issues.
So how is that any different from how I derive my own morals? From my perspective god doesn't exist so each person inherently knows what's right and wrong, and also society plays a role in things too (e.g. 100 years ago there were black slaves but we wouldn't do that now). From your perspective god created you and me, instilling those morals within us. I follow my "inner morals" which to you come from god - so how am I less moral?
What I mean is, when you say "absolute" how are you defining that? I mean, I feel as though I "know" what's right and wrong, but others may feel the same way yet have morals that differ from mine. E.g. in the grey areas such as killing, my morals may differ from someone else's but I personally have strong feelings about whether it's ever right or wrong to kill (e.g. in war, self defence etc).
Holy crap! You just validated Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics! One of the best explanations outside of Ayn Rand that I have ever seen from a more scientific perspective! Well done!
cbl2988 3 months ago
It may not be a comforting truth but it's still a truth regardless, that the only reason we have morals is because we wanted to give ourselves a system of morals. You might ask "well then what stops you from raping and killing," the truth is that nothing stops you aside from your own choice not to. If you wanted to rape or kill you would and religion wouldn't stop you. But if you do it, even if there was no government, you'd still be reviled and hated as a murderer. There are consequences.
WerewolfOfTheWater 4 months ago
So what do we do with the evidence that our free will is non-existent? Surely we can have morality without it, so long as we value the well being of conscious creatures.
ursowrng 7 months ago
soo... "morality" and everything associated with it is more or less an evolved trait? good enough for me.
LordHines420 10 months ago
@LordHines420
Yep. Pretty much.
AntiCitizenX 10 months ago
When atheists make up proportionally less of the prison population in America than the so-called "moral" Christians, then we must be doing something right or the Christians must be doing something wrong. Which is it, people?
MunkyDrag0n 10 months ago
If anything, believing in God makes you even less moral...war, terrorism, sexism, homophobia, racism.....
choongd 11 months ago
ok so when i say what humans that are living have beating heart and some one says everyone .. i better remember your type of logic
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
ok so lemme ask u a question u say if u killed someone then u might suffer from retaliation or from the law finding you .... but what if u killed her where no one saw and on a world where there were no police or any form of government .... and u didnt face the chances of getting retaliated on ... then would it still be wrong ... what about rape or any other gross immoral act .. what if u didnt face any threat of retaliation .. then would it still be wrong by your own understanding it wouldnt
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1 Like in Africa, where boys are made to carry guns, kill, rape, and torture people in the name of the local regime. For there, the government encourages this behavior. They do it because it's wrong, it degrades the population. Under game theory, with the motivation of self interest, this behavior is predictable.
charkopolis 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"but what if u killed her where no one saw"
Why should I even bother going out of my way to kill people when I can just sit at home and watch TV? Why does subjective morality all of a sudden mean we have to go out of our way just to hurt random people?
I must also ask if you actually watched this whole video? I address this exact point, Life! Read the sub-titles at 5:45. Cooperation and specialization are behaviors that serve self-interest.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"but what if u killed her where no one saw and on a world where there were no police or any form of government "
You should seriously ask yourself this same thing. By your own admission, YOU EAT MEAT. That makes you a willing participant in the willful slaughter of helpless creatures for your own tasty amusement. Are you seriously okay with this?
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1 Morality was made up by humans.
tjtheplay 9 months ago
@tjtheplay ok . well if u believe it was made up by humans then im assuming that u believe all morals are subjective ?
yhwhizlife1 9 months ago
@yhwhizlife1 Yes.
However, let me restate what I said earlier. Morality was made up by humans and OTHER SPECIES. Because I'm sure that other animals aside from us have moralities. It's just that ours are so much more complex
tjtheplay 9 months ago
@tjtheplay so why am objectively wrong for thinking being mean and rude as much as i possibly can is okay . since all morals are subjective and subjective feelings vary from person to person
yhwhizlife1 9 months ago
@yhwhizlife1 Manners is what we invented ourselves.
We developed morals because I can imagine it's key for human survival.
I think that what you said was wrong. Just because I said that morality was made up by humans doesn't mean that I have my own morals.
tjtheplay 9 months ago
Comment removed
Acrimonator 7 months ago
@yhwhizlife1 Because we survived by developing social behaviour to increase survival chances by making life in groups more efficient, and "being mean and rude as much as you possibly can" will make you dangerous for the group that will reject you in the better case, kill you in the worst.
Now tell me, do you really want to be as mean and rude as you possibly can ? Really ? Is there only religion to restrain you from killing and raping ?
Acrimonator 7 months ago
@yhwhizlife1 I like the act utilitarian view, pick the action that brings pleasure the most. Killing for no reason when no one is looking will still reduce the pleasure of the one we killed, meanwhile will probably make us feel guilty. So that action should be rejected. Even if we get pleasure from killing, its outweighed by the negative pleasure of the guy we killed
kittyloaf 7 months ago
and if my girlfriend wont give me a child . then i can rape her because ill gain something from it right ill get that child i desire .... gosh i guess almost every action is good to go in your veiw of morality as long as your getting something out of it ...... and i do kno what game theory is .. and lemme tell you it doesnt speak of having a morality like that my friend
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"i guess almost every action is good to go in your veiw of morality as long as your getting something out of it"
The key phrase here is "As long as you get something out of it." What benefit does someone get out of raping random women? What risks do you think there are in such activities?
"and i do know what game theory is"
It is pretty obvious that you do not.
"and lemme tell you it doesn't speak of having a morality like that my friend"
The entire field speaks of this.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX lol well u kno what buddy if u needed my help i wouldnt deny you assistance .. even if u called me a stupid dumbass christian after lol ... oh and i see but isnt that the prime example of how a coward acts .. he will call names when he knows nothing will happen to him ... but wont wen he feels like something might .... so i guess even cowardly childlike actions are justified by your understanding of morality .. and even hitler is justified after all he had dreams of a utopia
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"even hitler is justified after all he had dreams of a utopia "
Except Hitler is dead, and so is everyone who shared his ideals. Natural selection therefore dictates that his concept of morality was not very self-interested.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX lol wow so the U.S army is natural selection ? thats more like artificial selection and no have u ever heard of the NAZI low riders or the arian nation or the skin heads or all the Hitler worshiping cults ? so your statement that everyone who shares his ideals is dead is simply wrong
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"so your statement that everyone who shares his ideals is dead is simply wrong "
Seriously...? Okay, let me spell this out:
When I say "everyone," I obviously do not mean "every last human being on Earth." It is just a figure of speech. I am implying that the nationalistic infrastructure of the Nazi regime has been crushed and is no longer relevant. For Christ's sake, USE SOME COMMON FUCKING SENSE, DUDE!
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX aye u said something untrue and i capitalized on it your statement at face value was wrong .. and how do i kno you were using a figure of speech for all i kno you could really believe that .. u should be more specific and not say things u dont mean with no further explanation and it would help people to understand you ... instead of just relying on them to ignore your words and just read your mind
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"how do i kno you were using a figure of speech for all i kno you could really believe that "
Because NO NATIVE SPEAKER of the English language ever literally means "everyone" when they say "everyone!" It is very common to say such things in a broad, generalized sense without being specifically literal. For fuck's sake, do I have to spell out the obvious to you?
You know what? Screw this. If I have to explain this crap out to you, then you're too stupid to converse with.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX oh and it was very self interested lol al he cared about was his ideals his dreams and his people and anything that got in the way would die ... u could say thats very self centered lol and just cuz he died doesn't prove he was seeking his own selfish desire lol . what kinda logic is that .. so if im runing from a lion to save myself and then i die . everyone should come to the conclusion that i wasn't seeking my own self interest huh
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"oh and it was very self interested lol al he cared about was his ideals his dreams and his people and anything that got in the way would die"
I seriously have no idea what you are trying to say here. Would it kill you to be just a little more coherent?
But seriously guy. Hitler is dead. His concept of morality got him killed. So obviously it was not a very good way to serve one's self interest. I fail to see how this can be any simpler.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX ok lemme help you Hitlers actions were very self centered because all he cared about were his ideals his dreams and his country and himself .. he cared for no one else and anyone who didnt share his ideals or dreams would die . he was a very self centered person so i can rationalize that he fit perfectly into your standards of morality ... because after all The highest ideal in moral behavior is simply the pursuit of one's own self-interest .....
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
DYING IS NOT IN YOUR OWN SELF-INTEREST, HIZLIFE. Hitler is therefore a great example of social behavior that does entirely AGAINST one's self-interest. I have already explained this to you TWICE. I am trying to be patient with you, but you just keep listening for only the things that you want to hear, rather than what is being said.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX i ment to say and just cuz he died doesn't prove he wasnt seeking his own selfish desire lol . what kinda logic is that sorry bout that typo ... i see this is hard for you to understand .. but u will in due time .... and u say u explained it twice . but u mist realize your explanations were ful of fallacious assertions straight up lies and strewed concepts ... and i like how u didnt answer my question ..
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
Life, there is a fundamental point that you missed from this video. Namely, there is NO SUCH THING as objective moral value. There are only specific social behaviors that win out over others. That is the only meaningful definition of an "objective" moral value. You also keep confusing selfishness with self-interest. THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Whatever Hitler believed was obviously NOT in his best interest because it got him killed.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX i ment askewed not strewed
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX i meant to say how many living humans have beating heart
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
"The idea of "moral law" coming from God is nonsense. The highest ideal in moral behavior is simply the pursuit of one's own self-interest"
so be as selfish as possible and then youll be a moral person in fact youll be up to par with the highest standard of atheistic morality ...... thank you for reminding me why im a Christian
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
Did you even read the rest of that statement? Or did you just stop at the part where it confirms your own bias? Because seriously, you just committed a classic quote-mine, which is very dishonest of you.
But then again, I can see that you seem to be a creationist, in which case I would expect nothing less. So I guess the ironic thing to say is "thanks for reminding me why I'm an atheist."
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX yeah i read the rest you said The only reason I tend to be nice and cooperative with other people is because such activities can intrinsically serve a self-interested end. Hence, there is no need for God to dictate morality to us because virtue is indeed its own reward. i replaced we with I because thats how u think not we or us or me ... the rest of the statement collaborates with your first sentence lol so in kno way am i being bias lol
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"thats how u think not we or us or me "
What you think is irrelevant. What you do is what matters. And cooperative behavior within a social group naturally serves an intrinsic self-interest. Whether you "think it" or not, this stuff is demonstrable and mathematically quantifiable in such fields as game theory and evolutionary biology. Virtue is indeed its own reward, and requires no external commandments.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX game theory haha r u serious gimme a break it doesnt even suggest that " THE HIGHEST IDEAL IN MORAL BEHAVIOR IS SELFISHNESS and Darwinian evil lution .. sorry its been bashed and critiqued to bad for my to believe in anything other than minor variation within an already existing species.. hey but anything to justify a selfish behavior that only cares for others and interacts nicely with others because he might get something out of it in the end right ?
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
There is a huge difference between selfishness and self-interest. Also, if you are a literal creationist who does not accept allele variation in reproductive populations, then I'm probably wasting my time talking with you at all. I mean, seriously dude, if you are really so dense that you can't even come to grips with basic principles in population genetics, then there is probably little hope in getting you to appreciate the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
Yes, buddy, GAME THEORY is a legitimate field of mathematical study. The least you could do is LOOK IT UP before making yourself out to look like an ignorance dumb ass.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX lol is calling me a dumbass just you in pursuit of your own self-interest" aside from how it affects the person you are trying degenerate .... i guess u would say it is in your own self interest to call me a dumbass so that you can vent your anger and feel better about yourself and you know what you could even rationalize that act as the highest ideal of moral actions by your very own understanding of morality .. good job you win every time in your mind
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"good job you win every time in your mind "
Not necessarily. There might come a time when I will need your help, and you will have the opportunity to deny me assistance. Consequently, my sarcastic ramblings possess the potential to bite me in the rear at a future date. However, I have little reason to suspect that such an event will occur, and so I get to benefit from the vented frustrations of childish name-calling with little risk.
See? It explains everything!
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX you purposed your first premise The idea of "moral law" coming from God is nonsense. The highest ideal in moral behavior is simply the pursuit of one's own self-interest then u gave supporting reasons on why that is .... soo at face value your whole statement reeks of selfishness
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"at face value your whole statement reeks of selfishness "
So? What is wrong with that? I am honest with my fellow man because it is in my own best interest to behave that way. I avoid stabbing people because such actions serve no beneficial goal and merely invite retaliation. I refrain from holding slaves because it is more productive to pay people to work voluntarily. I eat meat because it is tasty, nutritious, and chickens won't organize to fight back.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX Would u stab someone if u were homeless dieng and starving and needed there belongings to survive in a life death situation and they wouldn't give them up ? .. caring for your own self interest in that situation would definitely benefit you wouldn't it ? i also eat chicken :) it agree it is very tasty
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"Would u stab someone if u were homeless dieng and starving and needed there belongings to survive in a life death situation and they wouldn't give them up ?"
Honestly, I probably would. I would even hazard to guess that 90% of the rest of the world would too. However, stabbing someone carries a huge risk of retaliation. It is a gambit that either wins a small, short-term gain or lands a massive long-term loss. It is therefore not something to attempt except as a last resort.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
If I may ask you, where does your morality come from? What dictates your decision to pay for food rather than shoplift? Why do you refrain from raping women or randomly poking children in the eyes? What compels you to help your buddies move furniture?
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX my morality comes from a deep desire to please others and show a genuine interest in the well being and interests of OTHER animals and humans . aside from what i want or what my own selfish interest is may be ... Hbu
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"my morality comes from a deep desire to please others and show a genuine interest in the well being and interests of OTHER animals and humans . "
Why do you care about pleasing others? What do you care about their well-being? You obviously don't care about the well-being of chickens. So why are people different?
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@AntiCitizenX "Why do you care about pleasing others? What do you care about their well-being? "
when i hear you say this it just leads me to imagine you are a very cold hearted person .. of course i dont know you but i cant help but be lead to that conclusion when i hear that kind of statement .. i care about pleasing others and care for there well being because they are living organisms like me and deserve that kind of treatment .
yhwhizlife1 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"i care about pleasing others and care for there well being because they are living organisms like me and deserve that kind of treatment . "
So? Why does this warrant the obligation to give up of yourself for their benefit? For example, if I asked you for 50 dollars, right now, with no strings attached, would you give it to me?
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
"when i hear you say this it just leads me to imagine you are a very cold hearted person "
I am not trying to say that you should not care. I am trying to get you to ask yourself why you care in the first place, and to realize that God is entirely unnecessary to the whole thing.
For me personally, I care because it helps to form bonds of friendship. Friends generate utility through their capacity to enjoy time together and aid you when you are in need.
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
@yhwhizlife1
And I apologize for being crass, but I need to know if you are a literal creationist or not because I will have little patience with you if you are. So please tell me, do you accept the principle that allele frequencies in biological populations are dynamic under reproductive generations? Do you accept that these changes drive speciation and variation in morphology? That natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift are the prime forces in driving this variance?
AntiCitizenX 11 months ago
Just finished reading "More than Human", from Theodore Sturgeon, and I think I'll stick to the definition of morality from the book.
Long story short, it's about a group of kids, who together form a unique entity, a gestalt, with psychic powers. But they are so different from normal human that they can't understand morality, and treat them like human act with animals. So a man has to come with an definition of morality that they could understand. (See reply)
Sanglyon 1 year ago
From the book:
Morals: they're nothing but a coded survival instinct!
Aren't they? What about the societies in which it is immoral not to eat human flesh? What kind of survival is that?
Well, but those who adhere to morality survive within the group. If the group eats human flesh, you do too.
There must be a name for the code, the set of rules, by which an individual lives in such a way as to help his species - something over and above morals.
Let's define that as the ethos.
(see reply)
Sanglyon 1 year ago
@Sanglyon
That's what Homo Gestalt needs: not morality, but an ethos. but shall I sit here, with my brains bubbling with fear, and devise a set of ethics for a superman?
Define:
Morals: Society's code for individual survival.
(That takes care of our righteous cannibal and the correctness of a naked man in a nudist group.)
Ethics: An individual's code for society's survival.
(And that's your ethical reformer: he frees his slaves, he won't eat humans, he 'turns the rascals out.')
Sanglyon 1 year ago
The only thing I disagree with is confining morality to social choices. I consider right or wrong matters for one's self interest all alone on a deserted island just as much as morality questions as those in social contexts.
NotThat3 1 year ago
@NotThat3
What sense does it make to have morality on a desert island? The only common theme to all "moral" choices is the impact it has on the lives of others.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Perhaps it's a matter of definition. I don't see the effect on others as the primary in questions of morality. You state in the video that morality is rooted in selfish reasons, and I agree. To me it seems only a small step to take to consider the self as the ultimate goal of morality.
Granted in today's culture (and most of the past culture?) morality is used to denote how one should altruistically sacrifice himself to others. But I consider this as a flawed morality...
NotThat3 1 year ago
@NotThat3 ... It is still a morality in the sense that it attempts to guide a person's actions (teaching him what is good and bad). In this case, it considers the benefit to others as 'the good'. But the others are not the object of morality. Morality is that which answers you right or wrong on the big and small questions in your life. In this sense, you would need morality just the same if not a whole lot more on a deserted island.
NotThat3 1 year ago
@NotThat3 ... perhaps as a point worth considering, i would argue that it is the concept of rights (individual rights), not morality, that is meaningless on a deserted island. IMO rights pertain to the relationship of individuals within a society. Morality does not require a society to be valid.
NotThat3 1 year ago
@NotThat3
The only real question here seems to be "what is morality?" Every definitive source I could find would always somehow tie morality in with social interactions. It makes no sense to feel guilty or remorseful over a choice or action that affected no one besides yourself. The only thing I'm really arguing in this video is that self-interest still exists in social interactions, and that "moral" social choices are intrinsically selfish.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX " It makes no sense to feel guilty or remorseful over a choice or action that affected no one besides yourself."
If you didn't invest any effort in school, and as a result ended up with a bad career that pays little and that you don't enjoy, would it not make sense to feel guilt and remose because of it?
NotThat3 1 year ago
So the argument from this video is approximately the same as in Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" - the idea that altruism evolved to benefit (or is a bi-product of) the survival of self-replicating social organisms.
jazzx251 1 year ago
That was very good.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
thumbs up for serenity
MOONDOGGIESWTF 1 year ago
morality from god is flawed as it teaches ingroup/outgroup behavior... that is my biggest quirk with religon is that instead of goodwill for the sake of good will it assigns conditions and parameters which must be met... it would seem the most pure good will would be that which is not done out of fear of punishment or for reward but out of true desire to help a fellow human or critter
FrettiYeti 1 year ago
actually in the bible it says you cant gain salvation through your works only through jesus. titus 3:5 , romans 6:23.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
idk if its just me but i have to disagree about the honesty because i know many people who lie for their own benefit and cant be trusted at all and these are people who arnt religious. people who are religious tend to be more honest. people will tell the truth if it doesn't really affect them but if it is a threat to them in some way people tend to lie?
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
Everybody lies. It's a fact of life because there is so much to gain from it. However, getting caught in a lie is a great way to piss off everyone around you. Lying therefore carries a risk. Lying only pays off as long as you are not caught. Or equivalently, as long as those you lie to fail to penalize your behavior. A better perspective is that lying only provides short-term payoffs, while honesty provides a net long-term payoff. Honesty thus wins without any need for God
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
the first point is true but i think since we already have an idea of what a good world is then we can compare what to a bad world. C.S. Lewis once said something along the lines of "how can you tell a line is crooked if you dont know what a straight line is." then your saying the aliens came up with our morals. also you dont do good thanks to score points with god. you dont gain salvation through your works. think of it more as a small thank you.
goodbyebrov 1 year ago
@goodbyebrov
"you dont gain salvation through your works."
Says you. There are dozens of Christian denominations who will argue that you are damning yourself to eternal hell with that attitude. Grace without works is empty.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
Its nice to see an sg1 fan, and someoe who understands "Doing well by doing good." Ben franklin
kokofan50 1 year ago
This video address the underlying reason for morality to exist, but I doubt that anybody actually practices morality for these reasons. Just as we have a natural sex drive that applies regardless of whether or not we can have children, humans have a natural moral sense that gives us the urge to act in a moral manner without having to think of why. The simple explanation for both of these is evolution. Humans are social animals.
burchdc 1 year ago
(cont.) All social animals have a moral sense. Humans have developed and evolved the most complex society known to date, so it would make sense that we would also develop and evolve the most complex moral code. It's really as simple as that. To extrapolate meaning from it does little more than explain why we have evolved this trait, but like anything else in evolution "goals" are merely an explanatory tool, nothing more.
burchdc 1 year ago
If God put a "conscience" in our mind, why are we born non believers? Parts of the brain that are responsible for "conscience" or moral behaviour have been identified by science. Humans are social and cooperative by nature and will create rules that will benefit them. Which is wrong? Killing your brother to stop a day care from exploding or letting a day care explode to save your brother?
HybridD91 1 year ago
anotherwords its a numbers game anything goes if there is enough consensus
40something100 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow. This is a terrible video -- a horrible misrepresentation of the argument from morality.
It's also a horrible, question-begging attempt at moral philosophy. Bad, ignorant, and circular.
DetectiveTackett 1 year ago
@DetectiveTackett
Please explain.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
What's the movie showed in the video?
gsoldi 1 year ago
@gsoldi
Which part?
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
You totally nail it at 2:25. Brilliant.
bjjolley 1 year ago 6
Fascinating Video! Dammmnnn man, your on fire!! Keep it up! :D
philhunter2005 1 year ago
I would say that a moral code can be accurately defined as the collective social values of individuals in a given society. Everyone agrees that murder is a bad thing, and it becomes a bad thing.
Raptor302 1 year ago
@Raptor302
Some would agree with you, but I think that's rather short-sighted. What about a whistleblower working for a large polluter, or someone who speaks out about the oppression of women in certain Islamic countries? Would you call them immoral?
hugesinker 1 year ago
No, but when you bring up those examples, you are appealing to my sense of western morality. They would consider that person immoral for contradicting islam. Case in point the couple that got arrested recently in a muslim country for kissing. I am not saying that morality is obsolete or that humans should not make moral judgements, but there is no over archng referee when it comes to morality.
Raptor302 1 year ago
No, but when you bring up those examples, you are appealing to my sense of western morality the muslims would say yes. Case in point, the couple that got arrested recently in a muslim country for kissing. I am not saying that morality is obsolete or that humans should not make moral judgements, but there is no over archng referee when it comes to morality.
Raptor302 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, but when you bring up those examples, you are appealing to my sense of western morality the muslims would say yes. Case in point, the couple that got arrested recently in a muslim country for kissing. I am not saying that morality is obsolete or that humans should not make moral judgements, but there is no over archng referee when it comes to morality.
Raptor302 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, but when you bring up those examples, you are appealing to my sense of western morality the muslims would say yes. Case in point, the couple that got arrested recently in a muslim country for kissing. I am not saying that morality is obsolete or that humans should not make moral judgements, but there is no over archng referee when it comes to morality.
Raptor302 1 year ago
Upon reflection, there's something that seems self-contradictory in this vid. In the beginning, you conclude that if God were removed and a person were to suddenly go into an antisocial frenzy, then they had no morality to begin with because their own morality is based on self interest in avoiding hell. Here, we agree. Next, you go on to site self-interest as a perfectly valid source for morality without God.
However, for the same reason, wouldn't this mean they have none to begin with?
hugesinker 2 years ago
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that morality as we understand it does not require God. That's the whole point of the Argument from Morality. They argue that our intrinsic sense of "morality" is proof of God. I argue that apparently "moral" behavior is just a by-product of self-interested motives, and that morality is subjective.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
I think you made a good case that morality does not require a God. You also made a good case that there are many situations in which the more moral choice lines up with self-interest. However, you've employed a fairly common false dichotomy if you say "therefore, morality is subjective." There is an entire branch of philosophy called "normative ethics" and normative moral frameworks, including those of Kant and many others who propose that morality is not subjective even without God.
hugesinker 2 years ago
@hugesinker
Okay, how about if I rephrase myself to simply say "morality is not proof of God." Does that work better?
However, I have seen bits and pieces from such philosophies, and I find many of their arguments un-compelling. They tend to start with the fundamental assumption that people are supposed to help each other, when really we have no such obligations. So I would argue that morality is still subjective, but I am at least willing to hear more.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Actually, hedonism alone does not account for determining morality. For example, if you could benefit from harming another person without the possibility of being caught or noticed by anyone, it would still be immoral.
hugesinker 2 years ago
@hugesinker
[For example, if you could benefit from harming another person without the possibility of being caught or noticed by anyone, it would still be immoral.]
It would absolutely be moral, and it happens all the time. The mere act of refusal to give money to a starving African nation is exactly what you describe. Your restraint is their starvation. You directly benefit by spending money on morning coffee instead of grain for Rwanda, and people die as a consequence.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
I am talking about active harm, not simply preventing a situation that would have occurred without my involvement. This is an important distinction.
If I discover an untraceable poison with symptoms no different than a heart attack, and use it only once to collect my overweight grandpa's inheritance. That is immoral if without extreme circumstances. Hedonism does not always line up with empathy, or self-consistency. Moral clarity requires assessing these things independently.
hugesinker 2 years ago
@hugesinker
There is no guarantee that your use of such a poison will go undetected. If there were, it would happen all the time.
Furthermore, you cannot make a distinction between direct actions that cause harm, and direct in-actions that cause harm. Both lead to preventable harm that is your fault.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Hey X :-).
I was talking about a hypothetical situation. You don't get to change it by saying "Nah-ah". There are dozens of other scenarios I could easily come up with. Try me. Hedonism only works as a moral source when you potentially benefit in some way.
Have you ever heard of the "trolly problem"? If not, wiki it. Direct action versus inaction is one of the many important factors to be considered in weighing what is moral. This IS an important distinction.
hugesinker 2 years ago
WRT the Trolley problem, I mean to point out the important differences between the original version and the "fat man" version of the problem.
hugesinker 2 years ago
@hugesinker
The trolly problem is actually a very interesting one, since it shows how people are far more willing to allow harm through inaction than through action. Yet from every practical viewpoint, the situations are identical. The whole point of it all is that there is no "objective" moral sense in us. Most morality people experience is just a hodge podge of practical experience, natural instinct, and a general desire to stay on the good side of our peers.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
I will agree that most people do derive their moral compass from the hodge-podge you describe. However, there are also several working models of so-called "normative morality" that can be used to determine if one society is more moral than another. One example is slavery versus emancipation. The freed society would be able to objectively make a better case that their society is the more moral.
hugesinker 2 years ago
@hugesinker
This is actually a topic I've been thinking about making a video on.
The only reason slavery is considered "immoral" is because slave-banning nations out-competed the slave-holding. Slavery, by its very nature, is an inefficient and non-innovative system. Before industrialization, emancipation was the rough equivalent to vegitarianism today. It seemed nice in principle, but practically had little value. After industrialization, slavery became a hindrance to the nation.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
@hugesinker
This is why slavery was the norm for all of human history worldwide prior to 150 years ago.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Whether or not slavery is more competitive is not a moral argument, nor have I ever heard it provided as if it were one. It's an argument from practicality. However, arguments of practicality can be made in favor of slavery too. For instance, if your tribe defeats an enemy tribe and they don't have the resources to imprison them, but don't want to slaughter them all. However, this still would not make slavery the most moral choice, just possibly the most moral choice available.
hugesinker 2 years ago
As for genuine moral arguments against slavery-- several are logically derived by a recognition of the simple premise that one group of humans is not born superior to another. Several others are derived from empathy regarding limiting another conscious being's potential or other aspects of enslavement.
Of course, I'm sure you know this already so I probably shouldn't even bother mentioning it.
hugesinker 2 years ago
@hugesinker
[that one group of humans is not born superior to another]
With all due respect to Thomas Jefferson, this just isn't how history treats the issue. Nations compete for scare resources and cultures clash. Whether we like it or not, this competition will lead to some cultures dominating over others. The ability to survive and flourish may be easily regarded as "superiority" in any objective sense, since it is the only one that matters.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Right, well, if one fails to recognize that premise, then they will fail to find what follows from it persuasive. However, the state of human beings at birth and mere happenstance of origin hardly seem defensible as a justification for superiority. Even among primitive cultures, royalty amounted to little without tales of great deeds or the illusion of Divine right as compliment.
hugesinker 2 years ago
@hugesinker
I am not talking about individual superiority over another. I am talking about the power of a specific culture or nation to survive and grow. Slavery is no more immoral than eating meat or swearing. The only real difference is that slaver is a detriment to the very culture that practices. Then along come the non-slave cultures to dominate over time. Meat-eating has no effects like this, and so is regarded as perfectly acceptable.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
X: "...slavery is no more immoral than eating meat or swearing."
"Holy shit! This is the juiciest fucking burger I've had all week!"
and
"Gee Whiz! The girl I keep locked in my basement just made me a delightful bowl of lintel soup!"
If you're being sincere, and these two things weigh equal by a gauge you call 'morality', then I really think we are not discussing the same thing...
hugesinker 2 years ago
... If true,I guess you would be equally motivated to react with disdain to either statement. Sure,you might call the police on whichever one happens to be illegal or more unpopular at the time. Perhaps you could say to the slaver,"You know,it would be more practical if you just hired somebody to cook and clean for you instead,plus our society would be more competitive." and call that a moral argument.
Am I somehow strawmaning here, or is this what you are calling a valid moral framework?
hugesinker 2 years ago
[Perhaps you could say to the slaver,"You know,it would be more practical if you just hired somebody to cook and clean for you instead,plus our society would be more competitive." and call that a moral argument.]
In a nutshell, yes. Do you need a better reason to give up slavery?
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Sorry, I mis-read your comment and responded with a non-sequiter. Lemmie try this again...
[If you're being sincere, and these two things weigh equal by a gauge you call 'morality', then I really think we are not discussing the same thing...]
What I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as objective morality. The only real measure of morality is pretty much long-term self-interest. So maybe slavery may be considered "worse" because it leads to cultural self-destruction.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Slavery may be considered worse because of some practical repercussion, but that is independent of whether or not it is moral-- though they often coincide. I disagree with both moral objectivism and moral relativism, it's fuzzier than that-- but I don't want to threadjack.
I'd like to answer your question about eating meat. It would be more moral if we could just consume inorganic matter. Barring that, it is more moral to minimize the suffering of what we must eat.
hugesinker 2 years ago
@hugesinker
The fundamental problem I have with the claim that "slavery is immoral" is simply to look at human history 2000 years ago. Back then, slavery was practically cool (unless, perhaps, you happened to be the poor slave). I would argue that the mere fact that things have changed is simply evidence of the subjectivity of moral preferences. No one has any true obligations to "minimize suffering," because we obviously don't seem to care about starving Africans that much.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Regarding the issue of slavery, there are a multitude of factors that go into accounting for how morality works. In the case of slavery, people were able to project empathy onto the slaves being tormented and think "how would I like it if that happened to me?". It is in this way that the abolitionist movement was able to succeed.
Humans are very good at projecting empathy onto others and seeing things from their perspective, it is a tool that has made us successful as a species.
Raptor302 1 year ago
@hugesinker
Fortunately, a keen sense of moral justice and equality is a demonstrably potent tool in cultural domination. Specifically, I believe, this is because such traits foster innovation, which is by far the greatest asset for cultural survival.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
"why bother working... when you can just kill your neighbor and steal his stuff." that was the most hilarious line i've heard all day. Where did u get that?
TheHomelessCripple 2 years ago
@TheHomelessCripple
I think that line might actually be a rare AntiCitizen original.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
genius
TheHomelessCripple 2 years ago
for there to be an ad hominem it would have to be a substitute for his argument... which as has been said, is easy enough to look up, and is entirely correct. Leviticus 25:44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you"
note that it does not say, "if you choose to have slaves...." it commands you to make slaves of your neighbours
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
I loved the video clips you used ~ Firefly, Chicken Run, etc.
Five stars!
busterpiggle 2 years ago
[Where do your morals come from, if not from God?]
I could ask you the same thing. Surely, you believe that slavery and genocide are immoral, yet these actions are regularly endorsed in the Old Testament. Wherever you get your moral from, it apparently is NOT from God.
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
You may feel you have your own personal sense of right and wrong, but I guarantee you that your nearest neighbor has a compass that is different from yours. If there were such a thing as an "absolute" moral compass, then everyone could be expected to converge on it independently. Yet this does not occur among the various religious sects. For example, the Amish refuse to kill under any conditions whatsoever. Surely, you would kill a man in self-defense?
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Great video Citizen, huge fan of your work (which I only recently discovered). However, I had just one issue with this particular video: how do you explain altruism? And not the simple "I do this for person X, it will benefit me in Y number of ways (social standing, etc.), but the kind of altruism where someone gives his/her life for someone else. Presumably, it is difficult to argue that they are doing it for self-gain (as they will be dead), but instead are appealing to a chosen ideal, no?
ChristopherConnors 2 years ago
@ChristopherConnors
The short answer is, altruism is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. It may periodically appear in bits an pieces, but it will never come to dominate in a population. By its very nature, altruism cannot thrive because free-riders will immediately descend on it to take advantage. All "practical" forms altruism therefore only exist when it mutually benefits the individuals.
Ask yourself, how often do people REALLY give up their lives for total strangers?
AntiCitizenX 2 years ago
Interesting topic - watch Richard Dawkins' "Nice Guys Finish First", as that's a fascinating insight into the origins of altruism.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
Uh...where exactly did i ad hominem...do you understand the definition of that either?
Delinexwow 2 years ago
You don't understand the meaning of the term "ad hominem".
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
Sorry I lost your original comment asking me whether I believe morals are a product of the natural world.
I don't *know*, and it's a new area of research, but it seems quite likely. Social primates have similar societies to ours in many ways such as in-group altruism and out-group hostility, complex social relationships etc. and we see that in several places in nature.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
Of course, as self-aware creatures we can make more informed decisions about why we do things than animals can, which is in itself a product of our superior intelligence.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
ZOMG Brit you must cite all evidences! and stop ad homineming him =x
Delinexwow 2 years ago
Delinexwow HAS cited the evidence. Really, as a christian, if you're having to ask the atheist to find the scripture for you which states that slavery was condoned (and yes, maybe condoned doesn't mean obliged but even the fact it was permitted is awful) then that's quite telling.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
I'm just letting him bury himself brit ;)
Delinexwow 2 years ago
I did, and I refuse to do any more homework for you. It is very very clear you are wrong if you do google search. I've shown proof for this, and I have even cited the evidence...A GOOGLE SEARCH...you refuse to look at the evidence. grow up kid.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
Ive shown my proof, look it up kid. burden has been finished.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
obviously you dont understand burden of proof. Ive shown you exactly how to find the evidence for my claim, meaning I've provided ample evidence. Just because you don't want to go look at the evidence does not mean I am lacking any evidence. It simply means you are lazy and unwilling to learn or even consider evidence at all..typical christian
Delinexwow 2 years ago
wrong, proof is there. ONE google search of jesus condoned slavery shows it. my proof is VERY easily obtained, if you are too lazy to look it up not my issue. Others Im sure will, and will see just how little you know about the bible, claiming things are not there period when they are. Showing youve done NO research at all, you just want to 'believe' what is in the bible and what isn't, however have put no real effort in what is truly there.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
i have no reason to give evidence to such an easy problem. if you weren't dismissing everything i said already as 'out of context' when it very clearly isn't i would. however this is a very well known, easily found issue, if you are too lazy to read your own bible or even do a google search, i have no use for you, you will simply claim out of context again when its not. learn your own religion before you try debating it.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
yes, jesus did condone slavery, read your bible. sad an atheist knows more about it than a christian.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
as a christian, you should own slaves, jesus said it was ok. you are "simply" incorrect and cherry picking what god commanded....you are a baddddd badddd boy.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
jesus also condoned slavery. if no old testament rules apply, then 10 commandments are also useless. dont cherry pick, you will lose horridly.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
18:22 is not out of context, it commands the death of homosexuality. none of the others are out of context either.
YOU are no more authority on scripture than i.
I simpy stated what YOUR GOD says to do...*I* didn't say it your god did, and its not in any way out of context, if you have issues with that take it up with your god, hes the one commanding it.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
bottom line, your god commands you to kill just as he commands you to love, do not tell me you have to ONLY listen when god says love and utterly ignore him when he says kill.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
how about kill homosexuals
stone disobedient children
smash babies heads against rocks
all these are also your gods words.
one can be delusional, or accept these verses are real.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
uh...homosexuality is an abomination is neither out of context, nor improper interpretation...spell check maybe?
Delinexwow 2 years ago
it was a verse in the bible, not 'one errant christian'
Delinexwow 2 years ago
Just like you said - we all know what's right and wrong inherently. However, some of it comes from society also and that's undeniable (such as in the example of being racist outlined by Delinexwow just now).
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
funny part being, when i thought racism was ok, and hating gays was right...i was religious...it was only when i stopped listening to what "god" had to say i quit being an immoral prick. such as lev 18:22.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
Well you weren't *really* a christian, because god has a lot to say about owning slaves, forcibly marrying women, genocide of those neighbours who are unbelievers etc. So unless you were doing all of these, you weren't using god's "moral compass" :)
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
Why do you think i lost my 'faith' =P
Delinexwow 2 years ago
Yeah, I lost my "faith" after actually reading the bible and asking questions of other christians.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
pretty much same, as i spoke to more, i read the bible more, the more i read and listened the more i was forced to say wtf is wrong with you people
Delinexwow 2 years ago
this is just wrong on a massive scale. each and everyone one learns whats right and wrong through both brain, and history. for instance i was raised as a christian, also with racism, and hating gays...the last two are simply wrong, period. HOWEVER i thought it was right when i was younger. no one has ever, or will ever, have an absolute moral compass..morality changes for EVERYONE, therefor is not absolute. NO one knows for sure what is right and wrong for all circumstances on all issues.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
and this was a reply to Jss...sorry...not the video...
Delinexwow 2 years ago
So how is that any different from how I derive my own morals? From my perspective god doesn't exist so each person inherently knows what's right and wrong, and also society plays a role in things too (e.g. 100 years ago there were black slaves but we wouldn't do that now). From your perspective god created you and me, instilling those morals within us. I follow my "inner morals" which to you come from god - so how am I less moral?
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
OK, and how do you determine what those morals are?
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
faries.
Delinexwow 2 years ago
Ok thanks, I get it now. :)
So from where do you get your independent set of moral absolutes?
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
LOL sorry that's not quite what I was getting at.
What I mean is, when you say "absolute" how are you defining that? I mean, I feel as though I "know" what's right and wrong, but others may feel the same way yet have morals that differ from mine. E.g. in the grey areas such as killing, my morals may differ from someone else's but I personally have strong feelings about whether it's ever right or wrong to kill (e.g. in war, self defence etc).
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
What's your definition of an "absolute moral compass" if it's not absolute? It can't be absolute if it's not