I also do not understand how something is an illusion just because it is subjective. An illusion is something which is not real. Beauty is real - in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is also culturally dependent, because in the same way we do morals, beauty is shaped by society's collective imagination of what is or is not beautiful. In the exact same way, morals are shaped by society's collective imagination of what is right or wrong. By what standard do cultures A and B condemn eachother?
"Given a godless universe"? What does God have to do with subjective or objective morality? Morality doesn't become any more objective just because there's a god around. For one thing, God's morality would still be HIS opinions, and it would only be a matter of personal preference whether you held them as a standard or not. More importantly, though, we do not have access to God's morality, even if God exists. To wit: hundreds of religions, thousands of denominations, with DIFFERENT standards.
In other words, human morality can only ever be man-made. Even if one denomination of one of all religions out there happen to reflect God's morals, no one can possibly KNOW that they do. The believers of that particular denomination would merely be correct, but no one could possibly know that. All religions believe they are correct with the same force of conviction. All claim to be THE objective truth, but it is entirely subjective to whom you subscribe. Furthermore...
...if there IS such a thing as objective morality, it exists independent of us, and independent of God. There is no reason why God's opinions should count as some sort of objective standard, other than "he can give you great reward if you do" or "he can punish you if you don't". Might is right, in other words. Thought experiment: If God were real, and he supported the Holocaust, would the Holocaust be a good thing? In that case you'd condemn him because you have your OWN morals.
@theBartone9119 No, you're an atheist who follows his/her own vague and arbitrary code, showing it's possible to have subjective moral beliefs that you can randomly choose to follow at your own volition.
@KiddoBeastPro Well I'd rather follow that code than the ones in The Bible.. "A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death."
Looks like your moral code involves going to your local psychic and stoning her to death.....No thanks, I'll stick to actual morals. Have fun stoning people freak :)
Mmm So who's the one violating their own moral code here?. I mean, "God" says it's not right to kill, but it's ok to stone fortune tellers to death? I'm sorry but there are way to many contradictions in The Bible to get your morals from God. If you get your morals from God then I hope nobody ever gives you a stone around a psychic lol
What does the Bible say about someone who worships other Gods?
"You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord"
Deuteronomy 13:7-12
I guess your morals involve going up to people from other religions with rocks and killing them? The Bible is the most immoral thing I've ever read, anyone who gets their morals from The Bible is someone I feel sorry for.
@theBartone9119 What on Earth are you rambling on about? Why do you keep quoting the Bible? If you were directing those inane "criticisms" of the Bible at me then I must ask, why? I'm an atheist. I don't care what the Bible says. Though, I must say, it makes me laugh that you think anyone who does value the Bible cares if you feel bad for them. They'd probably claim to feel bad for you for not getting you morals from the Bible. See how subjective, ridiculous and arrogant human values are.
@theBartone9119 Why would I go around raping and killing? Are you implying that if it wasn't for the arbitrary code in your head holding you back you'd go around raping and killing. I don't see what this has to do with anything.
So if you see a woman being raped, how do you know it is moral to stop it with my moral code below? Well the amount of suffering the man will have to embrace would have to be subtracted from the amount of suffering the women would have embraced if you didn't punch the man in the face. Simple math applied to my below objective moral code dictates that the moral thing to do is punch the man in the face.
@theBartone9119 Your "Objective Moral Code" is both arbitrary and simple-minded. You've done nothing to explain what makes this random and simplistic code objective, nor have you explained how subjective value assessments like negative and positive can be "graphed".
@OrganicKing because your subjective mind is filled with objective material. The action of your mind is subjective but when it uses objective material... you get an objective product. Kind of like a cook in a kitchen. The personal preference of his food has nothing to do with whether or not he uses the wrong ingredients.
Really big problem when you say subjective veiws are both equally vaid... in relation to what? They are only equally vaid as they are equally different, in that: there is no scale of validation to measure them by. So we find that the subjective view is only as vaid as the view itself. We personally judge the view rather than the condition in which the view arises: you can have your oppinion but that doesn't mean I'm going to respect it.
The Nazis could only carry out their plans by BYPASSING the feelings of sympathy end empathy and thus the morality stemming from it. The best way to do this is by painting the "other" as "less than us" (and thus less than human) through propaganda and brainwashing, so people feel less guilt when doing them harm.
This is a gruesomely effective strategy to get people to kill each other, which has been applied throughout the ages, especially by adherents of religions.
Objective reality does not exist. Human beings simply share the same base for morality (sympathy and empathy) as a result of evolution. Morality is the glue for social interactions and the societies that follow from it, and we are the descendants of good cooperators. Morality is largely NOT a conscious decision.
How would objective morality look like anyway? Would it also apply to sentient aliens? Or even to rocks?
morality is subjective, there is no such thing as an evil person.
what you think of as evil is usually just people trying to do their own brand of "good". there's nothing wrong with a subjective morality, but you have to apreciate that it is subjective in order to properly respect peoples different opinions.
that said, we live in an enlightened time, the internet brings a diversity of ppl together making them realise they're not so different
Im not accpeting this. Ive decided to build a group of people to murder nilhilists and theists. I will fight and survive, i am determined to value life, its the movement of atoms in me which are objective and make me do things. Im forced to surivive, this philosophy threatens me, i will use violence if i have to.
the bit that you are missing at the end is Kant's stuff on morality, the idea is to universalise the maxim. apply what you think should apply to you, to everyone else, and see if it will universalize without being self defeating
ie. i can steal this to make myself richer - universalise to everyone can steal things to get richer, means everyone steals off eachother, everyone is stolen from, no-one is richer.
"better" and "progress" are also defined subjectively, and thus to say our morality is better than that which dominated in the Dark Ages makes perfect sense. It is a subjective assessment of values. To say a certain set of morals are better is the same as saying it is a personal preference.
"This is ONLY discussing the meaning of subjective morality and it's implications. I am not making the case for or against subjective morality."
So outlining all of subjective morality's cons and none of its pros isn't making the case against it? What's the point in making such a transparent lie? I enjoyed the video, I'm just confused.
I really like these videos. It really helps explain what morality is. There is only subjective morality, and I find it funny that people who think a given religions system of morality is absolute will not accept that that religions system of morality is itself subjective morality that many people losely agree on.
Even within a religion no one will agree on morality since each individuals subjective morality influences how they see their religions system of morality.
And people disagree with and transgress the LAW all the time. The fact that I stole means the law did not govern all reality, the fact that I might be punished simply means I was incarcerated after the fact. To translate this to an imperative that 'stealing is wrong' requires a great leap in translation.
All the LAW is, is a written artifact which loosely informs a coercive system. Also, there many societies with many different legal systems.
@Grayto Totally agree with you, we all know how messed up some laws can be, and different societies have different moral standards. But there are certain laws we can all agree on, the problem is when extreme viewpoints influence common law. This is made clear in the more religious societies where some ridiculous morals make it to law.
Are there really? There are certain laws the majority can agree upon, and only when it suits them. There will always be a differing viewpoint about every conduct, even if its a minority.
There is a large difference between the dominant social will and morality. Law is still an imposition of a single view against a variated whole.
Morals are not things we build with a hammer and screwdriver. "Morals" are what we call the rules we live by which are derived from our experiences, and the thoughts arising from those experiences. Thus, morals are objective, because they are formed by assigning cognitive rules to your environment, but subjective, because our brains are not governed by a tool such as the scientific method, and so the brain controls the thoughts and NOT the other way around. You are the remote control robot ...
@basass101 ...(with an onboard AI) contemplating its movements as if you are controlling your limbs. The problem with discussing meaning is that, without a true understanding of the tool being used to examine [the brain], we cannot see the distortions being imposed on our beliefs.
The video´s great but it somehow lacks in a practical conclusion as predicted somewhere in the middle of it.
But anothere Idea: If there is a large consense in a scoiety about their subjetive morals, can´t we claim them to be objective within the system of our society to judge an individual if he wants to live in our society?
The only thing equally valid about two diferent subjective moralities is that they both fall into the catagory of subjective morality. Other than that they are not equally valid. After that your argument falls apart rather quickly.
@2Jax You'll have to explain this to me. The moment you compare two different subjective moralities and say one is *really* better than the other, you are appealing to some objective standard that you say doesn't exist. To be consistent with your views, you have to admit that your preferences are the only basis for making qualitative statements. But since your preferences are not binding, your qualitative statement is subjective, and, therefore, the two diff. moralities are ultimately equitable.
i completly agree with this video,morality is quite subjective,i stole money of my parents and now you,all the society will say i had done wrong,i am evil,but i never feel i am evil,i think i had done a great act,that money give me lot of pleasure,which will not came if i had not that money,my parents dont give me pocket money
HUMAN BEING JUSTIFY HIS ACTIONS,in the same way when hitler kill jews he had also justify his actions LIKE ME and they never think they are wrong
"The moment you compare two different subjective moralities and say one is... *really* better..., you are appealing to...objective standard" -
but that's the thing when you compare moralities and say one is better your infact using YOUR OWN morality as the benchmark.
on the otherhand the evolutionary origin of morality is based around inhancing our ability to form societies, so morality which contributes more to keeping society stable could be considered objectively 'better'.
You failed at the start when you said two different subjective moralities are both equally valid. What do you mean by valid? Valid is a correlation on a system that you are comparing it to. You have got things backwards because you are looking at subjective through objective eyes. This happens all the time in this argument. The only thing you can compare subjective morals to are other subjective morals. If the two views are the same then they are equally valid in comparison to each other.
It's a massive stretch to say that no moral view is better than another if morality is subjective. A hammer is not "objectively better" than a wet noodle, but that doesn't mean there is no difference between them; a hammer is still the more efficient tool for pounding nails into wood.
One action may not be intrinsically better than another, but even if morality is subjective, certain actions are much better than others IF one is a living human being who wishes to remain alive.
well i'd have to say no to your statements of our lack of ability to progress in morals. for example we can state that; My group does not commit X, Y and Z acts that my group and your group would not like done upon them, you however do, thus u are amoral. In other words most events can be rated as how much we'd be okay with someone doing it to us. yes that is developed in our mind but yet it is a way to judge an act as moral and amoral. so it stays subjective and satisfies most situations.
Why does it have to be either subjective or objective? When we first began to trade, those who were honest in trading would have people trade with them again, those who weren't honest wouldn't be traded with again because people wouldn't trust them.
We have reputation linked with a sense of morality which could lead to a society based around 'treat others how you want to be treated yourself'. This has no need for the God hypothesis or subjective morality but is instead a kind of group morality
It's not strange that you get caught in the semantics war. Most of it is just semantics. MisterBusta is caught in the theist's hopeless view that morality is either subjective or objective, when it clearly is both.
It has an objective basis in nature and evolution. What humans perceive as right and good is mostly necessary for survival. Also, large parts of our thinking around moral issues is hardwired, emotion based and shared across humanity. Meaning we can't escape deriving ought from is.
Of course, on top of that, we have individual differences and can attempt to create ethical systems based on reason instead of emotion.
Such as for example teaching people that it's just as wrong to bypass a dying man on the street as not giving money to charities. Our moral intuition says they are completely different, but that's solely due to limitations in our brains.
I agree with you Gnomefro.....I spent a lot of time debating myself internally on this and came to the conclusion. The definitions of subjective and objective are simply too rigid to deal with such a complex issue.
If we want to call it objective, it still needs to come from humans, not some magic sky daddy.
Comment removed
OrganicKing 2 weeks ago
I also do not understand how something is an illusion just because it is subjective. An illusion is something which is not real. Beauty is real - in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is also culturally dependent, because in the same way we do morals, beauty is shaped by society's collective imagination of what is or is not beautiful. In the exact same way, morals are shaped by society's collective imagination of what is right or wrong. By what standard do cultures A and B condemn eachother?
Gilmaris 4 weeks ago
"Given a godless universe"? What does God have to do with subjective or objective morality? Morality doesn't become any more objective just because there's a god around. For one thing, God's morality would still be HIS opinions, and it would only be a matter of personal preference whether you held them as a standard or not. More importantly, though, we do not have access to God's morality, even if God exists. To wit: hundreds of religions, thousands of denominations, with DIFFERENT standards.
Gilmaris 4 weeks ago
In other words, human morality can only ever be man-made. Even if one denomination of one of all religions out there happen to reflect God's morals, no one can possibly KNOW that they do. The believers of that particular denomination would merely be correct, but no one could possibly know that. All religions believe they are correct with the same force of conviction. All claim to be THE objective truth, but it is entirely subjective to whom you subscribe. Furthermore...
Gilmaris 4 weeks ago
...if there IS such a thing as objective morality, it exists independent of us, and independent of God. There is no reason why God's opinions should count as some sort of objective standard, other than "he can give you great reward if you do" or "he can punish you if you don't". Might is right, in other words. Thought experiment: If God were real, and he supported the Holocaust, would the Holocaust be a good thing? In that case you'd condemn him because you have your OWN morals.
Gilmaris 4 weeks ago
In short, even if there IS such a thing as objective morality, OUR morality is nevertheless subjective.
Gilmaris 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
Gilmaris 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
Gilmaris 4 weeks ago
umad atheists?
EhsaunOwns 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I'm an atheist who follows this Objective Code of Morality. Meaning it's possible that you can have an objective moral code without a God.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 No, you're an atheist who follows his/her own vague and arbitrary code, showing it's possible to have subjective moral beliefs that you can randomly choose to follow at your own volition.
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago
@KiddoBeastPro Well I'd rather follow that code than the ones in The Bible.. "A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death."
Leviticus 20:27 NAB
Looks like your moral code involves going to your local psychic and stoning her to death.....No thanks, I'll stick to actual morals. Have fun stoning people freak :)
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@KiddoBeastPro |it's possible to have subjective moral beliefs that you can randomly choose to follow at your own volition"
"Thou shalt not kill"
Exodus 20:13
Mmm So who's the one violating their own moral code here?. I mean, "God" says it's not right to kill, but it's ok to stone fortune tellers to death? I'm sorry but there are way to many contradictions in The Bible to get your morals from God. If you get your morals from God then I hope nobody ever gives you a stone around a psychic lol
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@KiddoBeastPro
What does the Bible say about someone who worships other Gods?
"You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord"
Deuteronomy 13:7-12
I guess your morals involve going up to people from other religions with rocks and killing them? The Bible is the most immoral thing I've ever read, anyone who gets their morals from The Bible is someone I feel sorry for.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 What on Earth are you rambling on about? Why do you keep quoting the Bible? If you were directing those inane "criticisms" of the Bible at me then I must ask, why? I'm an atheist. I don't care what the Bible says. Though, I must say, it makes me laugh that you think anyone who does value the Bible cares if you feel bad for them. They'd probably claim to feel bad for you for not getting you morals from the Bible. See how subjective, ridiculous and arrogant human values are.
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@KiddoBeastPro "See how subjective, ridiculous and arrogant human values are"
Well if morals are so silly why aren't you murdering and raping people right now? Exactly...
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 Why would I go around raping and killing? Are you implying that if it wasn't for the arbitrary code in your head holding you back you'd go around raping and killing. I don't see what this has to do with anything.
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 1 month ago
So if you see a woman being raped, how do you know it is moral to stop it with my moral code below? Well the amount of suffering the man will have to embrace would have to be subtracted from the amount of suffering the women would have embraced if you didn't punch the man in the face. Simple math applied to my below objective moral code dictates that the moral thing to do is punch the man in the face.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Objective Moral Code:
.Whatever action causes the most happiness and positive impacts to the most amount of living things possible is the most moral
.Whatever action causes the most amount of suffering and negative impacts to the most amount of living beings possible is the least moral.
If you take an action, graph it, and review using the above Code, you get a level of morality.
theBartone9119 1 month ago
@theBartone9119 Your "Objective Moral Code" is both arbitrary and simple-minded. You've done nothing to explain what makes this random and simplistic code objective, nor have you explained how subjective value assessments like negative and positive can be "graphed".
KiddoBeastPro 1 month ago
how do we claim that objective reality is objective while we use our subjective minds to recognize it?
OrganicKing 2 months ago
@OrganicKing because your subjective mind is filled with objective material. The action of your mind is subjective but when it uses objective material... you get an objective product. Kind of like a cook in a kitchen. The personal preference of his food has nothing to do with whether or not he uses the wrong ingredients.
jamesdc60 1 month ago
You have not demonstrated that without a deity morality must be subjective, you just asserted it.
nightvidcole 3 months ago
Really big problem when you say subjective veiws are both equally vaid... in relation to what? They are only equally vaid as they are equally different, in that: there is no scale of validation to measure them by. So we find that the subjective view is only as vaid as the view itself. We personally judge the view rather than the condition in which the view arises: you can have your oppinion but that doesn't mean I'm going to respect it.
2Jax 4 months ago
how do you know objective things exist regardless of perception?
OrganicKing 4 months ago in playlist More videos from MisterBusta
The Nazis could only carry out their plans by BYPASSING the feelings of sympathy end empathy and thus the morality stemming from it. The best way to do this is by painting the "other" as "less than us" (and thus less than human) through propaganda and brainwashing, so people feel less guilt when doing them harm.
This is a gruesomely effective strategy to get people to kill each other, which has been applied throughout the ages, especially by adherents of religions.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
Objective reality does not exist. Human beings simply share the same base for morality (sympathy and empathy) as a result of evolution. Morality is the glue for social interactions and the societies that follow from it, and we are the descendants of good cooperators. Morality is largely NOT a conscious decision.
How would objective morality look like anyway? Would it also apply to sentient aliens? Or even to rocks?
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
morality is subjective, there is no such thing as an evil person.
what you think of as evil is usually just people trying to do their own brand of "good". there's nothing wrong with a subjective morality, but you have to apreciate that it is subjective in order to properly respect peoples different opinions.
that said, we live in an enlightened time, the internet brings a diversity of ppl together making them realise they're not so different
calgetsboredatuni 4 months ago
Im not accpeting this. Ive decided to build a group of people to murder nilhilists and theists. I will fight and survive, i am determined to value life, its the movement of atoms in me which are objective and make me do things. Im forced to surivive, this philosophy threatens me, i will use violence if i have to.
MrKingatheist 4 months ago
the bit that you are missing at the end is Kant's stuff on morality, the idea is to universalise the maxim. apply what you think should apply to you, to everyone else, and see if it will universalize without being self defeating
ie. i can steal this to make myself richer - universalise to everyone can steal things to get richer, means everyone steals off eachother, everyone is stolen from, no-one is richer.
calgetsboredatuni 4 months ago
"better" and "progress" are also defined subjectively, and thus to say our morality is better than that which dominated in the Dark Ages makes perfect sense. It is a subjective assessment of values. To say a certain set of morals are better is the same as saying it is a personal preference.
travlr3000x 5 months ago
Abe Lincon said "if slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong"
manrayer88 9 months ago
"This is ONLY discussing the meaning of subjective morality and it's implications. I am not making the case for or against subjective morality."
So outlining all of subjective morality's cons and none of its pros isn't making the case against it? What's the point in making such a transparent lie? I enjoyed the video, I'm just confused.
havvyweponsman 9 months ago
Why would one call it an abyss of nihilism? I don't see anything wrong with moral nihilism since it seems closest to reality.
Maybe I am confused. Can a moral nihilist have their own subjective morals that they recognize as subjective?
Silentsam7532 11 months ago
I really like these videos. It really helps explain what morality is. There is only subjective morality, and I find it funny that people who think a given religions system of morality is absolute will not accept that that religions system of morality is itself subjective morality that many people losely agree on.
Even within a religion no one will agree on morality since each individuals subjective morality influences how they see their religions system of morality.
Silentsam7532 11 months ago
Basically, there is no accounting for taste, and taste is everything.
Grayto 1 year ago
Morality is clearly subjective, but to live in a society the common moral standard is made objective which we call LAW.
charzy888 1 year ago
@charzy888
And people disagree with and transgress the LAW all the time. The fact that I stole means the law did not govern all reality, the fact that I might be punished simply means I was incarcerated after the fact. To translate this to an imperative that 'stealing is wrong' requires a great leap in translation.
All the LAW is, is a written artifact which loosely informs a coercive system. Also, there many societies with many different legal systems.
Grayto 1 year ago
@Grayto Totally agree with you, we all know how messed up some laws can be, and different societies have different moral standards. But there are certain laws we can all agree on, the problem is when extreme viewpoints influence common law. This is made clear in the more religious societies where some ridiculous morals make it to law.
charzy888 1 year ago
@charzy888
Are there really? There are certain laws the majority can agree upon, and only when it suits them. There will always be a differing viewpoint about every conduct, even if its a minority.
There is a large difference between the dominant social will and morality. Law is still an imposition of a single view against a variated whole.
Grayto 11 months ago
We are all made of stars :)
Pitfytr 1 year ago
Morals are not things we build with a hammer and screwdriver. "Morals" are what we call the rules we live by which are derived from our experiences, and the thoughts arising from those experiences. Thus, morals are objective, because they are formed by assigning cognitive rules to your environment, but subjective, because our brains are not governed by a tool such as the scientific method, and so the brain controls the thoughts and NOT the other way around. You are the remote control robot ...
basass101 1 year ago
@basass101 ...(with an onboard AI) contemplating its movements as if you are controlling your limbs. The problem with discussing meaning is that, without a true understanding of the tool being used to examine [the brain], we cannot see the distortions being imposed on our beliefs.
basass101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The video´s great but it somehow lacks in a practical conclusion as predicted somewhere in the middle of it.
But anothere Idea: If there is a large consense in a scoiety about their subjetive morals, can´t we claim them to be objective within the system of our society to judge an individual if he wants to live in our society?
dumbzebra 1 year ago
Comment removed
dumbzebra 1 year ago
Godwin's Law FTW!!!
Wraithofvolsunga 1 year ago
The only thing equally valid about two diferent subjective moralities is that they both fall into the catagory of subjective morality. Other than that they are not equally valid. After that your argument falls apart rather quickly.
2Jax 1 year ago
@2Jax You'll have to explain this to me. The moment you compare two different subjective moralities and say one is *really* better than the other, you are appealing to some objective standard that you say doesn't exist. To be consistent with your views, you have to admit that your preferences are the only basis for making qualitative statements. But since your preferences are not binding, your qualitative statement is subjective, and, therefore, the two diff. moralities are ultimately equitable.
botwindfish 1 year ago
i completly agree with this video,morality is quite subjective,i stole money of my parents and now you,all the society will say i had done wrong,i am evil,but i never feel i am evil,i think i had done a great act,that money give me lot of pleasure,which will not came if i had not that money,my parents dont give me pocket money
HUMAN BEING JUSTIFY HIS ACTIONS,in the same way when hitler kill jews he had also justify his actions LIKE ME and they never think they are wrong
MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE
Magarmach09 1 year ago
@Magarmach09 Well thats true than you're objectively a shitty person.
tragicblackness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@botwindfish
"The moment you compare two different subjective moralities and say one is... *really* better..., you are appealing to...objective standard" -
but that's the thing when you compare moralities and say one is better your infact using YOUR OWN morality as the benchmark.
on the otherhand the evolutionary origin of morality is based around inhancing our ability to form societies, so morality which contributes more to keeping society stable could be considered objectively 'better'.
types10000 1 year ago
You failed at the start when you said two different subjective moralities are both equally valid. What do you mean by valid? Valid is a correlation on a system that you are comparing it to. You have got things backwards because you are looking at subjective through objective eyes. This happens all the time in this argument. The only thing you can compare subjective morals to are other subjective morals. If the two views are the same then they are equally valid in comparison to each other.
2Jax 1 year ago
You completely miss epistemology. You completely miss formation. You completely miss intersubjectivism. You completely miss the point.
asdfgasdfasdful 1 year ago
And what exactly do you want to say?
No Moral, no Good, no Evil!
There are values and you have to make decisions. Better use your rational mind, than any external system of believe whatsoever.
nogodnowhere 2 years ago
It's a massive stretch to say that no moral view is better than another if morality is subjective. A hammer is not "objectively better" than a wet noodle, but that doesn't mean there is no difference between them; a hammer is still the more efficient tool for pounding nails into wood.
One action may not be intrinsically better than another, but even if morality is subjective, certain actions are much better than others IF one is a living human being who wishes to remain alive.
army103 2 years ago
well i'd have to say no to your statements of our lack of ability to progress in morals. for example we can state that; My group does not commit X, Y and Z acts that my group and your group would not like done upon them, you however do, thus u are amoral. In other words most events can be rated as how much we'd be okay with someone doing it to us. yes that is developed in our mind but yet it is a way to judge an act as moral and amoral. so it stays subjective and satisfies most situations.
qulqunick 2 years ago
Subjective as numbers morality is, or father,mother, son, law, language.
It does not mean it holds no objective grounds, it is a part of our understanding us human and it is a part of our biology.
This video is sophism.
If you define beauty as a value, then it is subjective but within a very limit.
reality is not between subjective and objective, it is the two.
Forkroute 2 years ago
Why does it have to be either subjective or objective? When we first began to trade, those who were honest in trading would have people trade with them again, those who weren't honest wouldn't be traded with again because people wouldn't trust them.
We have reputation linked with a sense of morality which could lead to a society based around 'treat others how you want to be treated yourself'. This has no need for the God hypothesis or subjective morality but is instead a kind of group morality
jiffin8687 2 years ago
outstanding video.
more people should watch it but unfortunately most YT viewers will never know a video like this even exists.
In the meantime we'll have some american idol crap shoved down our throats.
Steve2323ZX 2 years ago
Good video, intelligent.
Are you an atheist yourself? what do you think of objectivism?
Sam26100 2 years ago
Whar is your opinion of the term "inter-subjective order?"
pedantologist 2 years ago
lol, and theists think that there code of ethics isnt anymore subjective than any atheists.
EricTheNihilist 2 years ago
great video. He did not escape from the abyss of nihilism.
jxwhit8 2 years ago
the abyss of nihilism?
don't knock it till you've tried it.
EricTheNihilist 2 years ago
really have enjoyed these videos :) you aren't playing to either the theist or the atheist. What you say is real for both parties.
My biggest problem is that I get caught in the semantics war... misusing should, ought, etc etc. :) But I think that's a common problem.
anyway, I'm just going off on a tangent and not making sense. Great videos :) very thought provoking.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
It's not strange that you get caught in the semantics war. Most of it is just semantics. MisterBusta is caught in the theist's hopeless view that morality is either subjective or objective, when it clearly is both.
It has an objective basis in nature and evolution. What humans perceive as right and good is mostly necessary for survival. Also, large parts of our thinking around moral issues is hardwired, emotion based and shared across humanity. Meaning we can't escape deriving ought from is.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
Of course, on top of that, we have individual differences and can attempt to create ethical systems based on reason instead of emotion.
Such as for example teaching people that it's just as wrong to bypass a dying man on the street as not giving money to charities. Our moral intuition says they are completely different, but that's solely due to limitations in our brains.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
I'll have to give that a little more thought probably, but my immediate reaction is that it's still subjective.... any moral standard.
The whole debate could go on forever to be honest hehe. You could just as well be correct.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
I agree with you Gnomefro.....I spent a lot of time debating myself internally on this and came to the conclusion. The definitions of subjective and objective are simply too rigid to deal with such a complex issue.
If we want to call it objective, it still needs to come from humans, not some magic sky daddy.
unclexbob 2 years ago
it took me awhile...awhile, to actually come to this.
elliotcheely 2 years ago