I once had an argument about a version of the trolley problem. It was in the movie "the Dark Knight". I argued that it was immoral for the people on the boat to not kill the inmates on the other boat. Since from an outside perspective, it was a choice between 100% of them dying, or only 50% of them dying. And that not turning the switch was the equivalent of killing everyone on the boat. The other guy didn't agree ofcourse, good to see a study that proves me right. (there were other factors).
Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing against rationalizations. To me it seems that Andy is regarding many/most of our thoughts as "secondary justifications" (which I call rationalizations). So uh, upon what do we have to discriminate?
It seems to me that Andy regards our justifications of moral acts as just some post hoc rationalizations. But how can we distinguish these rationalizations from proper, good reasoning. Is there even such a thing?
On the second trolley example, I first thought that I'd push the fat guy to save the workers. Then I changed my mind after hearing that the workers knew they had a risk of death while working there whereas the fat guy was completely innocent. This isn't a rationalization, is it?
I think you missed the definition of a psychopath. How can a person be farther along the evolutionary scale and are capable of making rational decisions faster be possible if they lack morals and only seek out to fulfill themselves and leave a bunch of damaged people behind as he advances?
@llnetbeast within the context of the situation they provide, your action (or lack thereof) can cause 5 people to live/die. So ,complying to your senario, if a handful of damaged or broken people lead to the benefit of an exponentially greater number of people, I contend that it is better to be a "psychopath" in these types of situations
THAT FIVE PERSON BULLETT WAS MEANT FOR THEM, THE ONE GUY WAS PROBABLY A CHRISTIAN WHO WAS SPARED BY GOD. THEN EVIL PEOPLE WANT HIM DEAD. PRETTY EASY WITHOUT BUNCH OF IDIOTIC WORDS TO FIGURE IT OUT. YOU'RE BORN GOOD OR EVIL.
@TheAmazingamerica Wait wait wait, so if 2 percent of the human population makes up 98 percent of the world's psychopaths, what fills in for the other 2 percent of the world's psychopaths? I presume some arbitrary percentage one of the other millions of species on this planet would fit the bill?
People are not born good or evil. Some people might be born with a limited capacity for empathy, but that doesn't make them evil. Not all people who lack empathy go on to become murderers/rapists/whatever else you want to say.
Generalisation is rarely useful, so I can hardly say 'people become murderers/rapists at age [x]'.
I imagine it changes depending on the case and depends on their education, familial background and many other factors. Though I could only speculate since I haven't read much in the way of scientific papers on the subject.
@Snarfoidosis People either need to be born good or evil which would make it physical, and science should fix it, or satan enters them and causes evil. Physical or spirit? It has to be one or the other. These guys are trying to force philosophy into physical science.
@TheAmazingamerica If you believe in Satan I assume you also believe God gave us free will. Where is free will if you're 'born evil', surely you have no choice in the matter if you're born that way and thus God is to blame, not you. Everything about us can, in my opinion, be reduced to the chemical and electrical activity that goes on in our bodies. We just don't fully understand it yet.
@Snarfoidosis There are evil seeds and they have free will, they choose to do evil, The rest of us have a choice to be good or evil. Evil can never be good. I don't know where we came from physically.
@TheAmazingamerica With or without religion, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things. But to make good people do evil things, that takes religion.
@TheAmazingamerica - there is no 'evil' there's just people who are more or less willing to go outside of social norms. With some psychopaths we see that they experiment further and further out, whereas others probably never get diagnosed at all because they are just 'very focused' people about certain topics.
I bet there are more psychopaths among politicians than executives.
So is he implying that it is psychopathic to push the man in the second dilemma? I don't see how. In both cases, you are killing a person. The first case involves the active flipping of a switch, and the second involves the pushing of the man. They seem to be morally equivalent scenarios to me.
Or rather, is it psychopathic to not have that moment of impulsive hesitation as you are deciding how to solve the second dilemma?
I'm an audio engineer, so it probably annoys me more than most. But I wish they would hire competent audio engineers for this kind of thing. The monotonous feedback makes this hard for me to watch.
I found the introductory scenario reminded me greatly of a zombie apocalypse.
If I found myself with a decision of choosing to turn a train away from a friend towards a group of 5 people I hated from past experience, I'd choose the friend in a heartbeat. Although it's honestly a situation that I would hope to never find myself in.
It's probably been posted already, but 'This American Life' just did an episode on the psychopath test that was mentioned near the end of the video. According to TAL 1% of the US population, 25% of the prison population, and 4% of business leaders are psychopaths. It's episode #436 The Psychopath Test. You also find out which of the TAL correspondents are psychopaths...
I'm making notes...while I wait on a point. Man this guy is boring. I'm seeing myself evolve waiting for his argument. He took 5 minutes to give an example. I'm at eleven minutes and nothing yet. Snore. Dawkins' book looks like it was illustrated by Dr. Seuss. I bet it lacks the same quality of content and rhyme scheme though. Can't hold on...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....
@AxeHomeless Yeah... its a lot worse than that... Collins is so religious he deliberately sought, was appointed head of, and then sought to drag out ad infinitum the human genome project.
He'd still be dragging it out now if venter had not interjected with a private company (celera) and accomplished in 12 months what Collins had been tasked to do with a larger budget since 1989!
Collins bottled it when early on it was discovered we only had 30k genes. More or less the same as a rat or a dog!
I guess these guys dont know the morality is subjective (a point of view ad is different for everyone) just like the world we see around us..... check out the holographic universe (quantum physics easily explained)e that will blow your mind, then if you need some direction in your life check out plato (ancient greek philopher) im sure theres some youtube videos of him or read his most known book "the republic" take a new outlook on life just takes a few short videos or just a few books :D
Does islam select for psychopathy, or at least blur the rules of natural selection? Eg, arranged marriages; child marriages; cult of narcissist cruel mohammed; no love or fun in islam; polygamy (favouring status, old age & wealth); 'clerical' & patriarchal authority; silencing of homosexuals, women, artists, thinkers...; glorification of violence in Qu'ran, so in schools, etc; status of boys over girl siblings; an eye for an eye justice. List goes on.
I think the different responses to the two similar moral problems is down to uncertainty. Pushing the fat man off the bridge might not save save the others, Pulling the handle to cause the train to take another track is almost certain to save the others. We can never perfectly predict the outcomes from different actions.My hypothesis is that the more uncertain a situation is the more staying passive is considered moral.
@WhatWouldBukowskiDo The concept of Natural Law explains the difference of these decisions. Does a wrong act produces a good act (killing the fat man saves the others) then it is not viable (Utilitarianism however says that it is good because it saves more lives than kills) . However if the act itself is good but produces a bad act than it is morally good (pulling the lever may not kill the other person but if it does his death doesnt save the other five directly).
@usa303 Simply dividing acts into moral/immoral ones, or simply judging the outcome is not the only criteria. The amount of control over a situation, and if you are the only one in control also matters. If you stand by and watch an accident happen that you know you alone could prevent, then your inaction is something immoral. If its probable that you would only make the accident worse and there are others who are in a better situation to intervene then your inaction is moral.
@WhatWouldBukowskiDo Again but the ends cannot justify the means. Let say you have five patients that need an organ transplant and there is one in a coma that might survive. Do you kill him and save the five? If a good effect only occurs of the result of a bad effect then it is inmoral, however if the bad effect is a consequence and is not the mean to achieve the good effect than it is moral.
@WhatWouldBukowskiDo I have the same problem, when i hear the "precise tuning" of the universe argument,
As if anyone could 100% predict the outcome of the universe if the laws are changed, maybe life could come about because of those laws, not a carbon base life form, but a Radon based one(i'm just giving an exaggerated example).
I almost feel angry when some apologist brings that argument out,i mean with different laws there is a different universe, in wich one must think outside of the box.
@WhatWouldBukowskiDo But it's a hypothetical situation in which the outcomes are certain. Because in real life, no one in their right mind would think that a fat guy would be enough to stop a train...
@Taylor255 If the question is "morality, what influences it?" and you limit yourself to only think about hypothetical where the outcome is certain. That is an rather arbitrary limit. Just by doing so you have ruled out uncertainty having any effect. If you only look at the trunk, you will never see the elephant for what it is...
@WhatWouldBukowskiDo I'd say the question is "Morality, what influences it, in this situation, where this happens and these are your only options?" because he's just using this example to lead into his point of moral domains. Otherwise it is very open to interpretation, like, "The workers knew the risks", "Some may be relatives/friends", "The man pushed may be a friend", etc.
In real life, though, I would imagine most people wouldn't do anything because of, as you said, uncertainty.
I can only imagine what Dawkins thought of the speakers comment that group selection is real. Dawkins wrote the "Selfish Gene" precisely to debunk such groundless notions. It makes you wonder if the speaker even has read the book or if he just does not understand it.
Should we start testing children for psychopathic breains. And if we can is there a way stimulate, through learning, those reagions of the brain. Or is it a condition that later developes?
When the equation popped up in my head, I paused, then decided to do nothing.
I believe that my survival instincts kicked in, saving 5 people by murdering 1 could be viewed as wrong, and I may have landed in prison. Also, I do not like the idea of killing someone who may be a good person, when the 5 workers may be serial killers.
@infamousgorn Also, this could be seen as god's will, perhaps those 5 workers are supposed to die, or perhaps the big man is supposed to die. By doing nothing, You used free will, and by doing so 5 workers died. Thank god.
They are the same problem but people think about it differently. With pushing the man YOU are killing him, not the trolley. With pulling the lever you're changing the trolley's course, and can rationalize it by saying you didn't kill him, you only moved the trolley.
Also with the first one all of those people were hired to work on the tracks. They knew what risks could exist, so one could rationalize it that way. With the second that guy didn't work on the tracks. He didn't 'sign up for it'.
P.S. and you know what you can do with your, "little man" dude. I should also make more clear is that what I am suggesting is that what is more fundamental than space, time, and matter is consciousness itself, that perhaps, I know this is a bareing my assessments, but all that exists is "consciousness."
@ElysianFields100 "what is more fundamental than space, time, and matter is consciousness itself" That may be our only real point of disagreement so far. Consciousness is a product of space, time, and matter. Remove any one, and you lose consciousness. It can't be more fundamental to the things that compose it. If "all is consciousness," then you may have stretched the definition of the word until it's lost all meaning. Maybe it's just a difference in semantics.
Finally, I do understand why Chalmers statement is not really a correct statement, because of shifting paradigms. The subject of "consciousness is a fascinating subject and a very hard one to even talk about, but at least we are not ignoring it.
(cont'd) ... in other words (as you know), the wave/particle are models of the mind-qualities we mistakenly assume apply to the external world. The Noumenon can't be percieved, the thing- in itself, only the Phenomenon that which appears as the representative in the mind ~Kant. Perhaps, I am being metaphysical trying too much of a metaparadigm. In short, no thing is real in the sense of what science is trying to measure or quantify as something of the material world, which does not really exist?
@ElysianFields100 Natural selection weeds out many mistaken assumptions. The closer our phenomenal mental approximations represent genuine noumenal realities, the better adapted we are. I have no problem making the unargued assertion that there is an external world that really exists. Empiricism gets increasingly more accurate at quantifying this reality. Even if we'll never be able to model reality perfectly, that's fine. It just has to be good enough for mankind's prosperity.
How about: adult sentient beings are polite and respectful towards each other because that's what adult sentient beings do because being polite and respectful are attributes of adulthood.
Am including ALL people here, including our alien galactic neighbors who obviously won't be even slightly genetically related to us. They're just as obligated to operate within the "rules" of adult personhood as we are.
Goodness doesn't need anyone's permission, excuses, or worship to exist. The ONLY thing goodness needs is to be done.
Being evilness is like taking a loaded gun, pointing it at your foot, and then pulling the trigger. With the inevitable result your foot ain't gonna feel so well.
One is led to believe, that in all we do is motivated by reinforcers- via selfish interest. The moral emotion is the result of secondary rationale reasoning.
So, the ultimate act of self-less-ness i.e.: by offering your life for another such as in the "Tale of Two Cities", the cryptic self- immolations, to the sacrifices of soldiers are the consequences of genes; from psychopathy to a saint- is all chem., induced.
@ElysianFields100 "...the result of secondary rationale reasoning." That's an outdated Kantian view of moral reasoning. The meta-ethical reasoning likely follows subconscious decisionmaking, not precedes it. Read Sapolsky's recent "This is your brain on metaphors" on nytimes.com. Intuitions of moral disgust and ethical purity follow subconscious activation of insula and cingulate gyrus (fMRI). The neocortical structures required for conscious awareness do not produce these intuitions.
@ElysianFields100 Yes, I wasn't trying to be a smartass. My main point was that much of moral reasoning doesn't require conscious cogitating. Once a moral dilemma reaches consciousness, one's higher order processing can cede to these intuitions or veto them. Defining what consciousness is is an entirely different question, and if anyone tells you they know, they're lying. You would have your pick of full tenured chairs at the university of your choice if you knew, plus a few Nobel prizes to boot
@ElysianFields100 I have only a poor layman's understanding, & I'd like to read some of the experts (VS Ramachandran, Antonio Damasio, Oliver Sachs, Frans De Waal). They all write lucidly and would be a good springboard. One thing I would say that I don't think is controversial is that consciousness isn't a thing, it's a process. It's not a noun, it's a verb (or a gerund if you use it as a subject). Consciousness is "immaterial" only in the sense that running is immaterial. It's a Gestalt...
@myerssa7 So you've beaten up my Immanuel Kant, Chalmers at least gave us all a debating pt on this process called consciousness. Photons are discrete packets of E or "quantum of action" itself, in the quantum world there really is no manifestations of any particles of matter but a model of such things structured in our minds of each atom, most of that is 9999.999% empty and that isn't even correct. The very notion of what light is and speed is from our observations not the perspective of light.
@ElysianFields100 I don't have any problem with your description of light, though I'm no physicist. My use of the analogy was only to highlight that the perceptual phenomenon of 'color' emerges out of the physical properties, the nanometers in wavelength, of those little packets of energy setting up a cascade that only begins in your eye. There is no color "in" a photon. Similarly, consciousness emerges from brain functions. Mind is what brain does.
@ElysianFields100 ...sum of physical actions that require physical parts. I think that Chalmers quote is an excellent example of the logical fallacy of division. There are countless examples of things composed of parts that lack the quality of the whole. Photons of light don't possess color. An observer must sense their vibrations at the nanometer scale to perceive it. If a skeptical alien heard your definition of 'running,' and demanded to know where the little running homunculum lived before..
@ElysianFields100 ..the running process was initiated, and just where the running homunculum existed within the body (the knees, hips, heart?), you would know the alien was committing the fallacy of division. It's a false notion of "running" as a Platonic "thing" that exists in a higher realm and enters the body when called. Quantifying the experiential "qualia" of awareness will require new tools and may be impossible. Evolution 'intended' for us to probe our external environs not internal.
@SirWinstonChurchill The golden rule is in the bible thats right... Do you think the bible is the only book it makes an appearance in? Do you think the Golden rule appear in the bible before any other book?
Maybe you're a little out of touch with what is in the bible and what is not? But the 'Golden Rule' is no precept of Christianity since it is not only a moral code of all of humanity but of many other animals too!
Your morals, your code is a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. You're only as good as the world allows you to be. They'll show you, when the chips are down, these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
You see, I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve... You have all these rules and you think they'll save you... The only way sensible way to live in this world is without rules...
But, as I already told you, I'm not here to "save" anybody...
There is a word for what is going on in this video. That word is equivocation. This definition of morality, just like with religious absolutism, doesn't allow for negotiation. Our morality may be influenced by natural tendencies, but that is not the entirety of morality's definition.
It is worse than equivocation... Claims to some eternal ideal are a sanctified excuse for deluded minds to pass the collection plate at gunpoint for their gods of communism.
@raeat426 That was stated quite clearly in the video...that the 'reasoning' we apply to morals can indeed result in what we also term 'bad' actions for 'good' reasons...
And since everyone has had a different history in life it is not unlikely that the same base rules will lead to different decisions....
However generally speaking most lectures like this are not absolutist since the lecturer knows full well the audience are free to, encouraged and most likely to read up from other sources.
b) You shouldn't use communism as a derogatory term. In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, the land of opportunity, the home of the free and global enforcers of democracy are on the brink of collapse while the most prosperous nation on the planet is communist...
@SirWinstonChurchill Oi, be nice! Just because the poor chap believes in a sky-fairy doesn't mean you can speak like that. Let's keep the insults witty and ironic, not aggressive and rude.
@SirWinstonChurchill You know I could actually hear winston churchhill say "I will literally bend you over and fuck you with a tire iron". That has to be one of the funniest things to imagine in his voice.
@spinycrayfish China is not communist... its still mostly dynastic with a hint of dictatorship and commercial capitalist policy thrown in for good measure.
There hasn't been a communist nation on this planet so far...and I doubt there will be... humans it seems are not capable of ruling themselves without other people to tell them what to do and use them for gain. Marx I'm sure looks excellent on paper and would be perfect if we were all robots...but we aren't!
@spinycrayfish Next... I take slight offence (though not a lot given the medium of YT) that you might consider for some odd reason that just because you are not religious this might mean you will be agreed with by everyone so minded.
In fact if anything I'm proof in this conversation... (as are you) that the absence of religion would not remove independent thought or positions on matters... but increase same!
Yeah, my bad, should have been more clear. That comment was about the above posts, clowns assuming I'm religious for no reason and then going on with abuse...
Disagreement is fine, but those tools give athiests a bad name. Go back and read them and I'm sure my comments will make more sense in context. :)
As for communism you can nit pick forever, the terms aren't even set in concrete. But it's probably more a western perception than a dictionary definition.
@spinycrayfish Well a dictionary is not apt to explain a political ideology. The original book on communism is Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. It's 'the' description. So if a political set up goes so far outside that ideology that it falls squarely into another then thats what it is!
Most people that dislike communism only think they object to communism when what they object to is totalitarianism. My objection to communism is based on it being designed with no understanding of human nature.
@MumblingMickey "what they object to is totalitarianism" To remove from people the chance for doing their own business is not only a form of totalitarism, but the most dumb idea one can make. Of course you can design a system where the state has control over the economy, but let people choose freely if they want to integrate the private or public part of it. The problem is, this is exactly what we have now, the only issue is how big the public part should be.
@lfzadra Well if you consider that any business that is so large that no competition can take place beneath it...and so large government simply does as it wishes... then that is far from capitalism... totalitarian economics I'd say.... I don't think we have a legitimate description for what is observed in the business world at that monopolistic level yet... its above Oligarchy .
@MumblingMickey I´m not saying that the world live in a perfect balanced economy where all our problems are solved. All what I´m saying is that a system where a citizen don´t have the freedom to start its own business is, by definition, totalitarian. The line between this scenario and one where just a single private organization (or a oligarchy) owns everything is somehwere between thin and non existent.
@lfzadra Well the 'cutsy' idea of capitalism... the 'american way' always resolves to the system you see now... its built in... then theres a destruction and upheaval of the system...and it collapses... leading to the same cycle again.
@njwhetstone Well theres more to boom an bust than just that. All business cycles also rely on people. People being born, retiring, leaving college etc. and the decisions they make impact on economy.
Yes I accept that the economy is always a victim of its own success but its also governed by events etc.
Right now during a recession fewer will get jobs leaving college and therefore MORE will need to start their own business. More new businesses now = more successful businesses later.
@njwhetstone Anyway... although I would accept many points raised by proponents of the Austrian economic theory we are also fucking miles of the topic of the video... ;)
@lfzadra Well such a nation would be commercially totalitarian.... it might not be socially, educationally, democratically etc. totalitarian. For example... in Gene Roddenberry original Star Trek book... all money had been done away with. Essentially there was no commercial reason to begin a business... Now although fictitious... was the society as described totalitarian?
Oligarchy might not be totally prevalent in the US... but it certainly is elsewhere or in certain industries.
@MumblingMickey "Essentially there was no commercial reason to begin a business" Such world is not only fictitious, but impossible. If you are not trading value, then you are back to the jungle. How can you build a starship if such task demmands the cooperation of several people? You will have pay them with something, even if this thing is not money, and this thing will have to be proportional to the value added in some way. Such thing would be just money with another fancy name or format.
@lfzadra The value depicted in the book at least. Not the tv series since it was altered to include ray guns and all sorts of nonsense was that which outweighs personal wealth and ignores 'self' as a primary concern.
That idea is altruism. We all obey altruistic behavior instinctively. Although certainly from the perspective of one accustomed to money and the accumulation of resources this might seem foreign. But it did manage to serve the human species for over 99% of its existence.
@MumblingMickey "accumulation of resources this might seem foreign" There´s no economy without accumulation of resources. The only real difference between a capitalist and a socialist system in this issue is who will manage the accumulated resources. To construct a building you need to accumulate resources first in the form of tools, knowledge and materials. In socialism, these tools are property of the state, in capitalism, these tools are private property.
@lfzadra There has never been a 100% socialist government in this world... nor has there ever been a 100% capitalist one. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. You are confusing a monetary policy with a political doctrine.
communist states (such as they are) can indeed operate a capitalistic economy. Unless you think the Chinese government own all those businesses?
And capitalist nations .do indeed own monopolies in many industries. Unless you think the UK is a communist country.
Money and the accumulation of resources one will never use is a 'new kid' on the block. Its fed by another instinct akin to 'hunger' .When one is never hungry but still desires to be fed, money will do the trick every time!
Moneys only value is the actions that can be done using it. Which might explain why the brightest billionaires realise that, and give it all away!
I might add I say this as one who is not exactly short a few bucks. Seems I'm prone to instinct too!
@MumblingMickey "brightest billionaires realise that, and give it all away" What is interesting about your point is that billionaires never give away stocks from their companies. They are not interested in money anymore simply because they have a better currency, control over the machine that creates money. Power is the real currency of the world. Money is just a paper thing we use to trade this currency.
@lfzadra Stocks are not theirs to give. Money or resources are only as good from a charitable perspective as the actions that can be taken with them and very few schools or clinics could be opened in Africa without liquidating the stocks to cash!
We are not talking small amounts of resources either. Gates alone donated his entire personal fortune. $33.4 billion AND donates his entire stock dividend.
Buffet donated $41 billion! Again almost his entire fortune, his wife done the same.
Why are you hung up on this ...he didn't give stocks to starving people who would have no use for them.....he also didn't donate shoes or cars or clothing or any other worthless crap cos its WORTHLESS to a charity.
ahh I see ..Is this the ONLY hole you can find in someone giving away over 95% of their resources?
Okay, do you think bill gates had 33.4 billion in cash? or did he donate his stock? Why don't you look that up? hmmm?
CONT. So let me ask the question again... since if you've since bothered to look up where the capital from both of those I mentioned... and others too, actually came from... you'd realised they did in fact sacrifice their stake in whatever business ventures they had a stake in...
The question is WHY? why would they do that?
And if this is what humans do with excess of resources... then where does that leave money? It seems to me that only those who are truly stupid try to bring it with them!
@lfzadra The question you should be asking is WHY? why would a person deny their own children these resources yet donate them altruistically. What benefit do they get?
They are all really bright people, so its not stupidity or naivety. They are also all atheistic, so they are not trying to buy space in heaven.
They are doing it because they can't help it... its instinctive. They are doing it cos they would feel guilty if they stood by and done nothing. the same reason given by Nobel.
@spinycrayfish I'd agree that if everyone thinks totalitarian dictatorship with no free market is actually called 'communism' then whether I or you like it or not....for all intent and purpose thats what it is!
I suppose we could always rename the 'real' communism and call it something else! Either way its a bullshit ideology. Humans can't adhere to an ideology that presupposes they wish to share with the group...thats not a primary concern for most of us. Collecting resources certainly is!
CONT. Also as for the churchill guy... meh.. I'd just ignore him... and the reason is simple... take one of his supposedly 'profound' sounding sentences and paste it into google and you'll see what I mean! ;)
I already pointed that out to him... so he knows at least one person is onto him. If theres's one fault I posses its not accepting people who refuse to use their own mind but rather opt for a 'mind nanny'.
Any fool can read a book... not everyone can reason the words they read!
@pyr666 : Yup, I would like to solve them without too much damage to animals and nature. So a plaque targetting just humans would be preferable. 5 billion deaths by a disease would help this planet last habitable for thousands of years.
Morality and religion belong altogether to the psychology of error... The whole realm of morality and religion is one of imaginary causes.
-
Morality is rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
-
Nature is pure war with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep the peace, so man is civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.
Only if you ignore the survival advantages of group, society and altruism. Yes, these are also selfish survival tactics, but if they bring survival advantages, they will evolve and by necessity be complex, since a group is dynamic and changing. Also, now you have individuals fighting for the "safest" places in the group, which can lead to even more altruistic behavior sans just "nature".
Morality is rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Nature has no such pretense. Nature is the only eternal victor. Nature kills everything.
But, since most men believe their weenies come from heaven, this gives them a sanctified excuse (in their deluded minds) to pass the collection plate at gunpoint for their gods of communism.
It is hysterically funny that these frightened fragile men gather like a church group.
@SirWinstonChurchill Morality is rooted in the natural altruistic impulse most sentient creatures possess at birth. It is a basic survival mechanism. Without the tremendous advantages afforded by cooperation and the institutions derived from it, humans probably would have died out thousands of years ago. To cast morality as an appeal to authority is both absurd and vulgar.
The rest is self-indulgent babble. For the sake of your dignity and my patience, I'm going to pretend you didn't write it.
These terrified men gather like a church group to discuss and evangelize why there is no god... and do exactly the same things they accuse the religionists of doing...
There is no eternal ideal. Nature is the only eternal victor. Nature kills everything. The universal dissatisfaction with mortality drives them to seek some eternal truth... Pathetic little feminized men...
Said to SirWinstonChurchill "Philosophize much ???"
yeah you should grab one or two of his comments and paste a sentence into google... seems you're conversing here with a machine.... or an extremely bored person with nothing better to do than argue bullcrap!
Paints reality with words? More like painting the absence of his own mind with someone elses!
Hes using someone else words, so often, that the search engines pick him up on it all over the place!
@PillowcaseHead The example doesn't really matter. It could've been anything to satisfy whatever you have a problem with. He's just using it to show how these problems make certain parts of people's brains light up perhaps suggestion that morality can be something determined be genes and not just something you learn in school.
@Kain5th And also remember he's using the katrina hospital real life example as well. So if the trolley example seems like b.s. to you how about the example of a dilemma that really happened?
Lastly, the guy with the "God delusion T-shirt" who stood up SHOULD HAVE asked:
if psychopathy is heritable and there's sexual selection for moral behavior, therefore sexual selection against immoral behavior, how is it that the portion of psychopathy in our society has been the same throughout history or perhaps even increasing? How come psychopaths haven't been selected out from the population?
As well, Andy Thomson mentions conscientiousness as one of the big 5 factors of personality.
In almost all studies there is a positive correlation between conscientiousness and religiosity. Now Andy Thomsons MUST be aware of this fact since he's a psychiatrist, but he burries it under rhetoric and misinformation.
@GoforBrokeVideos There is sexual selection for immoral behaviour as well. The selection pressures equalize at the current proportions of both behaviours in the population.
I could assume the proportion of psychopaths in society is similar regardless, though studies/sources on this would be helpful.
Psychopaths are more able to mimic behaviours to appear normal; compared to sociopaths.
Gene's can do different things depending on environmental factors. Just like there is no 'gay gene'.
I once had an argument about a version of the trolley problem. It was in the movie "the Dark Knight". I argued that it was immoral for the people on the boat to not kill the inmates on the other boat. Since from an outside perspective, it was a choice between 100% of them dying, or only 50% of them dying. And that not turning the switch was the equivalent of killing everyone on the boat. The other guy didn't agree ofcourse, good to see a study that proves me right. (there were other factors).
DutchDread 3 weeks ago
Why not just tell the workers to get the fuck off the tracks?
Oneironaut93 3 weeks ago
If some people can't tell right from wrong then maybe we do need religion. LOL
gregrutz 1 month ago
you can't be properly selfish without being altruistic
manonthemount 2 months ago
Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing against rationalizations. To me it seems that Andy is regarding many/most of our thoughts as "secondary justifications" (which I call rationalizations). So uh, upon what do we have to discriminate?
daveluik 2 months ago
It seems to me that Andy regards our justifications of moral acts as just some post hoc rationalizations. But how can we distinguish these rationalizations from proper, good reasoning. Is there even such a thing?
On the second trolley example, I first thought that I'd push the fat guy to save the workers. Then I changed my mind after hearing that the workers knew they had a risk of death while working there whereas the fat guy was completely innocent. This isn't a rationalization, is it?
daveluik 2 months ago
23:45 why are they psychopaths? perhaps these are who are farther along the evolutionary scale and are capable of making rational decisions faster
Streyar 3 months ago
@Streyar
I think you missed the definition of a psychopath. How can a person be farther along the evolutionary scale and are capable of making rational decisions faster be possible if they lack morals and only seek out to fulfill themselves and leave a bunch of damaged people behind as he advances?
llnetbeast 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
@llnetbeast within the context of the situation they provide, your action (or lack thereof) can cause 5 people to live/die. So ,complying to your senario, if a handful of damaged or broken people lead to the benefit of an exponentially greater number of people, I contend that it is better to be a "psychopath" in these types of situations
Streyar 3 weeks ago
THAT FIVE PERSON BULLETT WAS MEANT FOR THEM, THE ONE GUY WAS PROBABLY A CHRISTIAN WHO WAS SPARED BY GOD. THEN EVIL PEOPLE WANT HIM DEAD. PRETTY EASY WITHOUT BUNCH OF IDIOTIC WORDS TO FIGURE IT OUT. YOU'RE BORN GOOD OR EVIL.
TheAmazingamerica 4 months ago
2 % OF THE POPULATION ARE 98% OF THE WORLD'S PSYCHOPATHS.
TheAmazingamerica 4 months ago
@TheAmazingamerica
BlueScreenLife 4 months ago
@TheAmazingamerica That ridiculous math you just did is psychopathic.
BlueScreenLife 4 months ago
@BlueScreenLife Truth is stranger than fiction. Tis true, check it out yourself.
TheAmazingamerica 4 months ago
@TheAmazingamerica Wait wait wait, so if 2 percent of the human population makes up 98 percent of the world's psychopaths, what fills in for the other 2 percent of the world's psychopaths? I presume some arbitrary percentage one of the other millions of species on this planet would fit the bill?
BlueScreenLife 4 months ago
THIS IS A BUNCH OF HOG WASH! THE GUY IS A DOLT! HE CHANGES THE GIRLS QUESTION AND THEN DOESN'T ANSWER IT.
WHY WOULD U KILL THE GUY TO SAVE FIVE LIVES? HOW STUPID.
DUMB BUNCH OF HOGWASH, HE GETS PAID FOR THIS PSYCHO ABSTRACT?
NAZI'S SAID PSYCHOPATHS WERE INHERITIED.
TheAmazingamerica 4 months ago
@TheAmazingamerica
YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOUT, WE CAN ALL HEAR YOU.
People are not born good or evil. Some people might be born with a limited capacity for empathy, but that doesn't make them evil. Not all people who lack empathy go on to become murderers/rapists/whatever else you want to say.
Snarfoidosis 4 months ago
@Snarfoidosis So when do evil people become evil? Teens?
TheAmazingamerica 4 months ago
@TheAmazingamerica
Generalisation is rarely useful, so I can hardly say 'people become murderers/rapists at age [x]'.
I imagine it changes depending on the case and depends on their education, familial background and many other factors. Though I could only speculate since I haven't read much in the way of scientific papers on the subject.
Snarfoidosis 4 months ago
@Snarfoidosis People either need to be born good or evil which would make it physical, and science should fix it, or satan enters them and causes evil. Physical or spirit? It has to be one or the other. These guys are trying to force philosophy into physical science.
TheAmazingamerica 4 months ago
@TheAmazingamerica If you believe in Satan I assume you also believe God gave us free will. Where is free will if you're 'born evil', surely you have no choice in the matter if you're born that way and thus God is to blame, not you. Everything about us can, in my opinion, be reduced to the chemical and electrical activity that goes on in our bodies. We just don't fully understand it yet.
Snarfoidosis 3 months ago
@Snarfoidosis There are evil seeds and they have free will, they choose to do evil, The rest of us have a choice to be good or evil. Evil can never be good. I don't know where we came from physically.
TheAmazingamerica 3 months ago
@TheAmazingamerica With or without religion, good people will do good things and evil people will do evil things. But to make good people do evil things, that takes religion.
GluttonForSex 1 month ago
@TheAmazingamerica - there is no 'evil' there's just people who are more or less willing to go outside of social norms. With some psychopaths we see that they experiment further and further out, whereas others probably never get diagnosed at all because they are just 'very focused' people about certain topics.
I bet there are more psychopaths among politicians than executives.
gwcstudio 4 months ago
Richard Dawkins has gone off the rails:
search for Richard Dawkins and male privilege on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog.
Participating in flaming a woman because she dares to say 'don't objectify me at a conference'? Poorly done, Dawkins.
8yankee 4 months ago
@8yankee Really? I will check it out. What is he saying IDF and AAI? why can't he speak English?
TheAmazingamerica 4 months ago
Dawkins:
He has crazy in his eyes.
TheAmazingamerica 4 months ago
@8yankee
Why are you spamming all these videos with the same comment?
Snarfoidosis 4 months ago
"up until the year 1500 2/3rds of the worlds population are hunter gatherers"?
This is not correct. They may have been tribal, but still agricultural tribes. Not HGs
farmandmao 5 months ago
So is he implying that it is psychopathic to push the man in the second dilemma? I don't see how. In both cases, you are killing a person. The first case involves the active flipping of a switch, and the second involves the pushing of the man. They seem to be morally equivalent scenarios to me.
Or rather, is it psychopathic to not have that moment of impulsive hesitation as you are deciding how to solve the second dilemma?
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
I'm an audio engineer, so it probably annoys me more than most. But I wish they would hire competent audio engineers for this kind of thing. The monotonous feedback makes this hard for me to watch.
narco73 7 months ago
I found the introductory scenario reminded me greatly of a zombie apocalypse.
If I found myself with a decision of choosing to turn a train away from a friend towards a group of 5 people I hated from past experience, I'd choose the friend in a heartbeat. Although it's honestly a situation that I would hope to never find myself in.
IsolationInstigation 7 months ago
this was shot with a really nice camera!!!
UtopiaMinor666 7 months ago
It's probably been posted already, but 'This American Life' just did an episode on the psychopath test that was mentioned near the end of the video. According to TAL 1% of the US population, 25% of the prison population, and 4% of business leaders are psychopaths. It's episode #436 The Psychopath Test. You also find out which of the TAL correspondents are psychopaths...
lucifersam1399 7 months ago
I'm making notes...while I wait on a point. Man this guy is boring. I'm seeing myself evolve waiting for his argument. He took 5 minutes to give an example. I'm at eleven minutes and nothing yet. Snore. Dawkins' book looks like it was illustrated by Dr. Seuss. I bet it lacks the same quality of content and rhyme scheme though. Can't hold on...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....
FRWHELAN 7 months ago
@FRWHELAN Go back to church then. Much more entertaining I bet
dfvish 6 months ago
I love how an audience member laughs after Thomspon goes "...or are they a gift from God?" :P (6:05)
KimmehCharmeleon 8 months ago in playlist AAI 2009 Conference 17
For anyone interested; the book mentioned, by Hare about psychopathy in business, is called 'Snakes in Suits'.
Faboba 8 months ago
Is Francis Collins still a belivever? Maybe he is ignorant?
AxeHomeless 8 months ago
@AxeHomeless Yeah... its a lot worse than that... Collins is so religious he deliberately sought, was appointed head of, and then sought to drag out ad infinitum the human genome project.
He'd still be dragging it out now if venter had not interjected with a private company (celera) and accomplished in 12 months what Collins had been tasked to do with a larger budget since 1989!
Collins bottled it when early on it was discovered we only had 30k genes. More or less the same as a rat or a dog!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I guess these guys dont know the morality is subjective (a point of view ad is different for everyone) just like the world we see around us..... check out the holographic universe (quantum physics easily explained)e that will blow your mind, then if you need some direction in your life check out plato (ancient greek philopher) im sure theres some youtube videos of him or read his most known book "the republic" take a new outlook on life just takes a few short videos or just a few books :D
mezzanur 8 months ago
For an atheist, he sure defends that damn trolly problem religiously!
mayonasepatty 8 months ago
Comment removed
ElysianFields100 9 months ago
Does islam select for psychopathy, or at least blur the rules of natural selection? Eg, arranged marriages; child marriages; cult of narcissist cruel mohammed; no love or fun in islam; polygamy (favouring status, old age & wealth); 'clerical' & patriarchal authority; silencing of homosexuals, women, artists, thinkers...; glorification of violence in Qu'ran, so in schools, etc; status of boys over girl siblings; an eye for an eye justice. List goes on.
BoredToDistraction 10 months ago
I think the different responses to the two similar moral problems is down to uncertainty. Pushing the fat man off the bridge might not save save the others, Pulling the handle to cause the train to take another track is almost certain to save the others. We can never perfectly predict the outcomes from different actions.My hypothesis is that the more uncertain a situation is the more staying passive is considered moral.
WhatWouldBukowskiDo 10 months ago 10
@WhatWouldBukowskiDo The concept of Natural Law explains the difference of these decisions. Does a wrong act produces a good act (killing the fat man saves the others) then it is not viable (Utilitarianism however says that it is good because it saves more lives than kills) . However if the act itself is good but produces a bad act than it is morally good (pulling the lever may not kill the other person but if it does his death doesnt save the other five directly).
usa303 8 months ago
@usa303 Simply dividing acts into moral/immoral ones, or simply judging the outcome is not the only criteria. The amount of control over a situation, and if you are the only one in control also matters. If you stand by and watch an accident happen that you know you alone could prevent, then your inaction is something immoral. If its probable that you would only make the accident worse and there are others who are in a better situation to intervene then your inaction is moral.
WhatWouldBukowskiDo 8 months ago
@WhatWouldBukowskiDo Again but the ends cannot justify the means. Let say you have five patients that need an organ transplant and there is one in a coma that might survive. Do you kill him and save the five? If a good effect only occurs of the result of a bad effect then it is inmoral, however if the bad effect is a consequence and is not the mean to achieve the good effect than it is moral.
usa303 7 months ago
@WhatWouldBukowskiDo I have the same problem, when i hear the "precise tuning" of the universe argument,
As if anyone could 100% predict the outcome of the universe if the laws are changed, maybe life could come about because of those laws, not a carbon base life form, but a Radon based one(i'm just giving an exaggerated example).
I almost feel angry when some apologist brings that argument out,i mean with different laws there is a different universe, in wich one must think outside of the box.
mihaimoldo 5 months ago
@WhatWouldBukowskiDo But it's a hypothetical situation in which the outcomes are certain. Because in real life, no one in their right mind would think that a fat guy would be enough to stop a train...
Taylor255 4 months ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
@Taylor255 If the question is "morality, what influences it?" and you limit yourself to only think about hypothetical where the outcome is certain. That is an rather arbitrary limit. Just by doing so you have ruled out uncertainty having any effect. If you only look at the trunk, you will never see the elephant for what it is...
WhatWouldBukowskiDo 4 months ago
@WhatWouldBukowskiDo I'd say the question is "Morality, what influences it, in this situation, where this happens and these are your only options?" because he's just using this example to lead into his point of moral domains. Otherwise it is very open to interpretation, like, "The workers knew the risks", "Some may be relatives/friends", "The man pushed may be a friend", etc.
In real life, though, I would imagine most people wouldn't do anything because of, as you said, uncertainty.
Taylor255 4 months ago
@WhatWouldBukowskiDo
Didn't you see that question addressed at the end by the audience?
Kloborgg 4 months ago in playlist Lectures
I can only imagine what Dawkins thought of the speakers comment that group selection is real. Dawkins wrote the "Selfish Gene" precisely to debunk such groundless notions. It makes you wonder if the speaker even has read the book or if he just does not understand it.
WhatWouldBukowskiDo 10 months ago
Bentham, Mill, Kant, The Trolley Problem! i feel like im right back in philosophy
therealallpro 10 months ago
Should we start testing children for psychopathic breains. And if we can is there a way stimulate, through learning, those reagions of the brain. Or is it a condition that later developes?
Thayer79 10 months ago
bravo !!!!! someone actually backed up my beliefs that has a degree !!!! proud Atheist !!!!
turbodave420 10 months ago
@turbodave420 Atheism is a lack of a belief, not a belief in and of itself.
101011001 10 months ago 2
@MumblingMickey Was that supposed to a response to me, because it didn't address my critique. At all.
raeat426 11 months ago
@raeat426 Did I press the wrong friggin reply button again... fuck I need new glasses!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
Just found some hot, latin girls busizz4me.info
malikadiana 11 months ago
When the equation popped up in my head, I paused, then decided to do nothing.
I believe that my survival instincts kicked in, saving 5 people by murdering 1 could be viewed as wrong, and I may have landed in prison. Also, I do not like the idea of killing someone who may be a good person, when the 5 workers may be serial killers.
Thus, by doing nothing, I saved 2 lives.
infamousgorn 11 months ago
@infamousgorn Also, this could be seen as god's will, perhaps those 5 workers are supposed to die, or perhaps the big man is supposed to die. By doing nothing, You used free will, and by doing so 5 workers died. Thank god.
infamousgorn 11 months ago
@infamousgorn However if you're a Christian, Thou shall not kill. So god never wanted you to kill the man to save those 5.
infamousgorn 11 months ago
@infamousgorn Enjoy your first class trip to hell!
infamousgorn 11 months ago
They are the same problem but people think about it differently. With pushing the man YOU are killing him, not the trolley. With pulling the lever you're changing the trolley's course, and can rationalize it by saying you didn't kill him, you only moved the trolley.
Also with the first one all of those people were hired to work on the tracks. They knew what risks could exist, so one could rationalize it that way. With the second that guy didn't work on the tracks. He didn't 'sign up for it'.
mentalkitty789 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
B-O-R-I-N-G
Acecool444 1 year ago
P.S. and you know what you can do with your, "little man" dude. I should also make more clear is that what I am suggesting is that what is more fundamental than space, time, and matter is consciousness itself, that perhaps, I know this is a bareing my assessments, but all that exists is "consciousness."
respectfully,
ElysianFields100 1 year ago
@ElysianFields100 "what is more fundamental than space, time, and matter is consciousness itself" That may be our only real point of disagreement so far. Consciousness is a product of space, time, and matter. Remove any one, and you lose consciousness. It can't be more fundamental to the things that compose it. If "all is consciousness," then you may have stretched the definition of the word until it's lost all meaning. Maybe it's just a difference in semantics.
myerssa7 1 year ago
@myerssa7 I'm with you, for the following reason:
1. If adequate oxygenated blood flow to the brain does not exist, consciousness does not exist
2. Without space, time, and matter, adequate oxygenated blood flow to the brain does not exist, although the opposite is not necessarily the case.
Therefore, consciousness is less fundamental.
nightvidcole 1 year ago
Comment removed
ElysianFields100 1 year ago
Finally, I do understand why Chalmers statement is not really a correct statement, because of shifting paradigms. The subject of "consciousness is a fascinating subject and a very hard one to even talk about, but at least we are not ignoring it.
8 )
ElysianFields100 1 year ago
(cont'd) ... in other words (as you know), the wave/particle are models of the mind-qualities we mistakenly assume apply to the external world. The Noumenon can't be percieved, the thing- in itself, only the Phenomenon that which appears as the representative in the mind ~Kant. Perhaps, I am being metaphysical trying too much of a metaparadigm. In short, no thing is real in the sense of what science is trying to measure or quantify as something of the material world, which does not really exist?
ElysianFields100 1 year ago
@ElysianFields100 Natural selection weeds out many mistaken assumptions. The closer our phenomenal mental approximations represent genuine noumenal realities, the better adapted we are. I have no problem making the unargued assertion that there is an external world that really exists. Empiricism gets increasingly more accurate at quantifying this reality. Even if we'll never be able to model reality perfectly, that's fine. It just has to be good enough for mankind's prosperity.
myerssa7 1 year ago
Comment removed
ElysianFields100 1 year ago
How about: adult sentient beings are polite and respectful towards each other because that's what adult sentient beings do because being polite and respectful are attributes of adulthood.
Am including ALL people here, including our alien galactic neighbors who obviously won't be even slightly genetically related to us. They're just as obligated to operate within the "rules" of adult personhood as we are.
electronfun 1 year ago
Goodness doesn't need anyone's permission, excuses, or worship to exist. The ONLY thing goodness needs is to be done.
Being evilness is like taking a loaded gun, pointing it at your foot, and then pulling the trigger. With the inevitable result your foot ain't gonna feel so well.
electronfun 1 year ago
One is led to believe, that in all we do is motivated by reinforcers- via selfish interest. The moral emotion is the result of secondary rationale reasoning.
So, the ultimate act of self-less-ness i.e.: by offering your life for another such as in the "Tale of Two Cities", the cryptic self- immolations, to the sacrifices of soldiers are the consequences of genes; from psychopathy to a saint- is all chem., induced.
Conscience is reduced to genes.
But, how are we conscious of all this?
ElysianFields100 1 year ago
@ElysianFields100 "...the result of secondary rationale reasoning." That's an outdated Kantian view of moral reasoning. The meta-ethical reasoning likely follows subconscious decisionmaking, not precedes it. Read Sapolsky's recent "This is your brain on metaphors" on nytimes.com. Intuitions of moral disgust and ethical purity follow subconscious activation of insula and cingulate gyrus (fMRI). The neocortical structures required for conscious awareness do not produce these intuitions.
myerssa7 1 year ago
Comment removed
ElysianFields100 1 year ago
@myerssa7
I wrote too hastily and reread what you had to say. I am sure that your comentary was written with erudition and sincerity.
But, what is consciousness, what is its cause? Can science quantify it and test it? What is this thing called awareness?
The hard problem: How does something as immaterial as consciousness arise from something as unconscious as matter? ~ Chalmers
Why is this a wrong question?
Respectfully,
ElysianFields100 1 year ago
@ElysianFields100 Yes, I wasn't trying to be a smartass. My main point was that much of moral reasoning doesn't require conscious cogitating. Once a moral dilemma reaches consciousness, one's higher order processing can cede to these intuitions or veto them. Defining what consciousness is is an entirely different question, and if anyone tells you they know, they're lying. You would have your pick of full tenured chairs at the university of your choice if you knew, plus a few Nobel prizes to boot
myerssa7 1 year ago
@ElysianFields100 I have only a poor layman's understanding, & I'd like to read some of the experts (VS Ramachandran, Antonio Damasio, Oliver Sachs, Frans De Waal). They all write lucidly and would be a good springboard. One thing I would say that I don't think is controversial is that consciousness isn't a thing, it's a process. It's not a noun, it's a verb (or a gerund if you use it as a subject). Consciousness is "immaterial" only in the sense that running is immaterial. It's a Gestalt...
myerssa7 1 year ago
@myerssa7 So you've beaten up my Immanuel Kant, Chalmers at least gave us all a debating pt on this process called consciousness. Photons are discrete packets of E or "quantum of action" itself, in the quantum world there really is no manifestations of any particles of matter but a model of such things structured in our minds of each atom, most of that is 9999.999% empty and that isn't even correct. The very notion of what light is and speed is from our observations not the perspective of light.
ElysianFields100 1 year ago
@ElysianFields100 I don't have any problem with your description of light, though I'm no physicist. My use of the analogy was only to highlight that the perceptual phenomenon of 'color' emerges out of the physical properties, the nanometers in wavelength, of those little packets of energy setting up a cascade that only begins in your eye. There is no color "in" a photon. Similarly, consciousness emerges from brain functions. Mind is what brain does.
myerssa7 1 year ago
@ElysianFields100 ...sum of physical actions that require physical parts. I think that Chalmers quote is an excellent example of the logical fallacy of division. There are countless examples of things composed of parts that lack the quality of the whole. Photons of light don't possess color. An observer must sense their vibrations at the nanometer scale to perceive it. If a skeptical alien heard your definition of 'running,' and demanded to know where the little running homunculum lived before..
myerssa7 1 year ago
@ElysianFields100 ..the running process was initiated, and just where the running homunculum existed within the body (the knees, hips, heart?), you would know the alien was committing the fallacy of division. It's a false notion of "running" as a Platonic "thing" that exists in a higher realm and enters the body when called. Quantifying the experiential "qualia" of awareness will require new tools and may be impossible. Evolution 'intended' for us to probe our external environs not internal.
myerssa7 1 year ago
Comment removed
ElysianFields100 1 year ago
Man I would have loved to be able to attend this conference.
123backinyerface 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Thompson,
The "Golden Rule" is from the Bible... now I know you are full of shit...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill The golden rule is in the bible thats right... Do you think the bible is the only book it makes an appearance in? Do you think the Golden rule appear in the bible before any other book?
Maybe you're a little out of touch with what is in the bible and what is not? But the 'Golden Rule' is no precept of Christianity since it is not only a moral code of all of humanity but of many other animals too!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey
Do you really think I give a damn about what your god thinks?
A male lion will kill his rival and the cubs of his rival, then immediately mate with his new willing females.
Ants, who are man's only rival for the mastery of the earth would wipe us out in a matter of weeks if they were the size of a house cat.
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted in a presupposition - - that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
SirWinstonChurchill 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your morals, your code is a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. You're only as good as the world allows you to be. They'll show you, when the chips are down, these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
You see, I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve... You have all these rules and you think they'll save you... The only way sensible way to live in this world is without rules...
But, as I already told you, I'm not here to "save" anybody...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
t-shirt win @ 42:40
happycoconut19 1 year ago
preach brotha preach! lol. this video is awesome. THANK YOU for this!
happycoconut19 1 year ago
There is a word for what is going on in this video. That word is equivocation. This definition of morality, just like with religious absolutism, doesn't allow for negotiation. Our morality may be influenced by natural tendencies, but that is not the entirety of morality's definition.
raeat426 1 year ago
@raeat426
It is worse than equivocation... Claims to some eternal ideal are a sanctified excuse for deluded minds to pass the collection plate at gunpoint for their gods of communism.
Sophistry...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@raeat426 That was stated quite clearly in the video...that the 'reasoning' we apply to morals can indeed result in what we also term 'bad' actions for 'good' reasons...
And since everyone has had a different history in life it is not unlikely that the same base rules will lead to different decisions....
However generally speaking most lectures like this are not absolutist since the lecturer knows full well the audience are free to, encouraged and most likely to read up from other sources.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
"You simply can't be really selfish and rational."
Summed up the female of the species right there...
spinycrayfish 1 year ago
@spinycrayfish
"You simply can't be really selfish and rational."
That is his sanctified excuse to pass the collection plate at gunpoint for the gods of communism.
This guy is a charlatan just like a boxwood pastor.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill
a) How so?
and
b) You shouldn't use communism as a derogatory term. In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, the land of opportunity, the home of the free and global enforcers of democracy are on the brink of collapse while the most prosperous nation on the planet is communist...
spinycrayfish 1 year ago
@spinycrayfish
I shouldn't what?
Thou shalt not? I don't think so...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill
You sir are a quack! If society functioned properly, you would be in complete exile, never to be seen or heard from again.
spinycrayfish 1 year ago
@spinycrayfish
Fuck off religious faggot...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill
How do you get to religious? You're the one with crazy, deluded and repetitive rants...
spinycrayfish 1 year ago
@spinycrayfish
I can't hear you with that turd in your mouth...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill Oi, be nice! Just because the poor chap believes in a sky-fairy doesn't mean you can speak like that. Let's keep the insults witty and ironic, not aggressive and rude.
juikm 1 year ago
@juikm
If you want to talk about the issue and use logic fine with me. Make your points.
If you want to hand me nonsense and talk shit about me, I'm the kind of guy who will literally bend you over and fuck you with a tire iron.
I put up with these pointy headed academics in college and got along with a lot of them just fine.
The campus agitators stayed away from me because of the aforementioned reason and because I am tall...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill You know I could actually hear winston churchhill say "I will literally bend you over and fuck you with a tire iron". That has to be one of the funniest things to imagine in his voice.
mitenzouki 1 year ago
@spinycrayfish China is not communist... its still mostly dynastic with a hint of dictatorship and commercial capitalist policy thrown in for good measure.
There hasn't been a communist nation on this planet so far...and I doubt there will be... humans it seems are not capable of ruling themselves without other people to tell them what to do and use them for gain. Marx I'm sure looks excellent on paper and would be perfect if we were all robots...but we aren't!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey
You're arguing semantics there. A near dictatorship run by a communist party may as well be called communist nation.
Who are these abusive clowns? You give atheists a bad name, for two reasons.
1) I'm an athiest and have not said anything to indicate otherwise. Making us look like retarded idiots unable to think or follow a conversation.
2) Even if I was a Jebus follower, the abuse is totally uncalled for and makes all the anti-four horsemen complaints sound accurate.
spinycrayfish 11 months ago
@spinycrayfish erm... no communism is pretty well defined in several books... Russia was not communist... it was a dictatorship... china isn't either.
Tthats not semantics! Its looking at the political ideology of both countries and pointing out they are simply not communist and never were!
What abuse? I'm not abusing you! I'm disagreeing with your idea that china is communist when its observably not.
Plus who mentioned religion?... communism (or lack of it) has nothing to do with religion.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@spinycrayfish Next... I take slight offence (though not a lot given the medium of YT) that you might consider for some odd reason that just because you are not religious this might mean you will be agreed with by everyone so minded.
In fact if anything I'm proof in this conversation... (as are you) that the absence of religion would not remove independent thought or positions on matters... but increase same!
Would you have that any other way?
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey
Yeah, my bad, should have been more clear. That comment was about the above posts, clowns assuming I'm religious for no reason and then going on with abuse...
Disagreement is fine, but those tools give athiests a bad name. Go back and read them and I'm sure my comments will make more sense in context. :)
As for communism you can nit pick forever, the terms aren't even set in concrete. But it's probably more a western perception than a dictionary definition.
spinycrayfish 11 months ago
@spinycrayfish Well a dictionary is not apt to explain a political ideology. The original book on communism is Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. It's 'the' description. So if a political set up goes so far outside that ideology that it falls squarely into another then thats what it is!
Most people that dislike communism only think they object to communism when what they object to is totalitarianism. My objection to communism is based on it being designed with no understanding of human nature.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey "what they object to is totalitarianism" To remove from people the chance for doing their own business is not only a form of totalitarism, but the most dumb idea one can make. Of course you can design a system where the state has control over the economy, but let people choose freely if they want to integrate the private or public part of it. The problem is, this is exactly what we have now, the only issue is how big the public part should be.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra Well if you consider that any business that is so large that no competition can take place beneath it...and so large government simply does as it wishes... then that is far from capitalism... totalitarian economics I'd say.... I don't think we have a legitimate description for what is observed in the business world at that monopolistic level yet... its above Oligarchy .
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey I´m not saying that the world live in a perfect balanced economy where all our problems are solved. All what I´m saying is that a system where a citizen don´t have the freedom to start its own business is, by definition, totalitarian. The line between this scenario and one where just a single private organization (or a oligarchy) owns everything is somehwere between thin and non existent.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra Well the 'cutsy' idea of capitalism... the 'american way' always resolves to the system you see now... its built in... then theres a destruction and upheaval of the system...and it collapses... leading to the same cycle again.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey Look up "Austrian Business Cycle Theory", there is a reason why America goes through the Boom-Bust cycle.
njwhetstone 8 months ago
@njwhetstone Well theres more to boom an bust than just that. All business cycles also rely on people. People being born, retiring, leaving college etc. and the decisions they make impact on economy.
Yes I accept that the economy is always a victim of its own success but its also governed by events etc.
Right now during a recession fewer will get jobs leaving college and therefore MORE will need to start their own business. More new businesses now = more successful businesses later.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@njwhetstone Anyway... although I would accept many points raised by proponents of the Austrian economic theory we are also fucking miles of the topic of the video... ;)
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@lfzadra Well such a nation would be commercially totalitarian.... it might not be socially, educationally, democratically etc. totalitarian. For example... in Gene Roddenberry original Star Trek book... all money had been done away with. Essentially there was no commercial reason to begin a business... Now although fictitious... was the society as described totalitarian?
Oligarchy might not be totally prevalent in the US... but it certainly is elsewhere or in certain industries.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey "Essentially there was no commercial reason to begin a business" Such world is not only fictitious, but impossible. If you are not trading value, then you are back to the jungle. How can you build a starship if such task demmands the cooperation of several people? You will have pay them with something, even if this thing is not money, and this thing will have to be proportional to the value added in some way. Such thing would be just money with another fancy name or format.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra The value depicted in the book at least. Not the tv series since it was altered to include ray guns and all sorts of nonsense was that which outweighs personal wealth and ignores 'self' as a primary concern.
That idea is altruism. We all obey altruistic behavior instinctively. Although certainly from the perspective of one accustomed to money and the accumulation of resources this might seem foreign. But it did manage to serve the human species for over 99% of its existence.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey "accumulation of resources this might seem foreign" There´s no economy without accumulation of resources. The only real difference between a capitalist and a socialist system in this issue is who will manage the accumulated resources. To construct a building you need to accumulate resources first in the form of tools, knowledge and materials. In socialism, these tools are property of the state, in capitalism, these tools are private property.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra There has never been a 100% socialist government in this world... nor has there ever been a 100% capitalist one. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. You are confusing a monetary policy with a political doctrine.
communist states (such as they are) can indeed operate a capitalistic economy. Unless you think the Chinese government own all those businesses?
And capitalist nations .do indeed own monopolies in many industries. Unless you think the UK is a communist country.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@lfzadra CONT.
Money and the accumulation of resources one will never use is a 'new kid' on the block. Its fed by another instinct akin to 'hunger' .When one is never hungry but still desires to be fed, money will do the trick every time!
Moneys only value is the actions that can be done using it. Which might explain why the brightest billionaires realise that, and give it all away!
I might add I say this as one who is not exactly short a few bucks. Seems I'm prone to instinct too!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey "brightest billionaires realise that, and give it all away" What is interesting about your point is that billionaires never give away stocks from their companies. They are not interested in money anymore simply because they have a better currency, control over the machine that creates money. Power is the real currency of the world. Money is just a paper thing we use to trade this currency.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra Stocks are not theirs to give. Money or resources are only as good from a charitable perspective as the actions that can be taken with them and very few schools or clinics could be opened in Africa without liquidating the stocks to cash!
We are not talking small amounts of resources either. Gates alone donated his entire personal fortune. $33.4 billion AND donates his entire stock dividend.
Buffet donated $41 billion! Again almost his entire fortune, his wife done the same.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey "donates his entire stock dividend" Again, no stocks were given away.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@lfzadra
Why are you hung up on this ...he didn't give stocks to starving people who would have no use for them.....he also didn't donate shoes or cars or clothing or any other worthless crap cos its WORTHLESS to a charity.
ahh I see ..Is this the ONLY hole you can find in someone giving away over 95% of their resources?
Okay, do you think bill gates had 33.4 billion in cash? or did he donate his stock? Why don't you look that up? hmmm?
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
CONT. So let me ask the question again... since if you've since bothered to look up where the capital from both of those I mentioned... and others too, actually came from... you'd realised they did in fact sacrifice their stake in whatever business ventures they had a stake in...
The question is WHY? why would they do that?
And if this is what humans do with excess of resources... then where does that leave money? It seems to me that only those who are truly stupid try to bring it with them!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@lfzadra
I'm totally unclear as to why you would think an uneducated starving farmer in Eritrea would find stock in Microsoft a benefit?
Maybe you think he could give up farming and become an internet day trader on the commodities market or the Nasdaq?
Or maybe he just wants an education in farming and a new plough? Maybe his kids need an education.... maybe his community need a school?
My guess is he isn't in the slightest interested in stock options in fucking Coca Cola!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@lfzadra The question you should be asking is WHY? why would a person deny their own children these resources yet donate them altruistically. What benefit do they get?
They are all really bright people, so its not stupidity or naivety. They are also all atheistic, so they are not trying to buy space in heaven.
They are doing it because they can't help it... its instinctive. They are doing it cos they would feel guilty if they stood by and done nothing. the same reason given by Nobel.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MumblingMickey "deny their own children these resources" I can assure that they did not leave their children helpless.
"What benefit do they get?" We are programed biologically to find pleasant the act of helping others. What else could you expect from a social animal?
lfzadra 8 months ago
@spinycrayfish I'd agree that if everyone thinks totalitarian dictatorship with no free market is actually called 'communism' then whether I or you like it or not....for all intent and purpose thats what it is!
I suppose we could always rename the 'real' communism and call it something else! Either way its a bullshit ideology. Humans can't adhere to an ideology that presupposes they wish to share with the group...thats not a primary concern for most of us. Collecting resources certainly is!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
CONT. Also as for the churchill guy... meh.. I'd just ignore him... and the reason is simple... take one of his supposedly 'profound' sounding sentences and paste it into google and you'll see what I mean! ;)
I already pointed that out to him... so he knows at least one person is onto him. If theres's one fault I posses its not accepting people who refuse to use their own mind but rather opt for a 'mind nanny'.
Any fool can read a book... not everyone can reason the words they read!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
Andy Thomson is my moral hero.
napataatta 1 year ago
Religion is the second biggest problem on this planet. I so hope we manage to end it.
bary1234 1 year ago
@bary1234 What was Number 1?
chh5555 1 year ago
@chh5555 : Human overpopulation is number one.
bary1234 1 year ago
@bary1234
well there's one way to solve both problems but it's kinda messy >,<
pyr666 1 year ago
@pyr666 : Yup, I would like to solve them without too much damage to animals and nature. So a plaque targetting just humans would be preferable. 5 billion deaths by a disease would help this planet last habitable for thousands of years.
bary1234 1 year ago
Being generous is inborn; being altruistic is a learned perversity. No resemblance --
(RH)
ElysianFields100 1 year ago
Good point of people naturally moving back from the person presented as an atheist.
patto2k 1 year ago
The question remains, what ethics are correct? watch?v=sLCEXtpTNYU
alalelalex 1 year ago
Morality and religion belong altogether to the psychology of error... The whole realm of morality and religion is one of imaginary causes.
-
Morality is rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
-
Nature is pure war with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep the peace, so man is civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill Nature is pure war with every man against another.
Only if you ignore the survival advantages of group, society and altruism. Yes, these are also selfish survival tactics, but if they bring survival advantages, they will evolve and by necessity be complex, since a group is dynamic and changing. Also, now you have individuals fighting for the "safest" places in the group, which can lead to even more altruistic behavior sans just "nature".
Mmmmmmmbacon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mmmmmmmbacon
Morality is rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Nature has no such pretense. Nature is the only eternal victor. Nature kills everything.
But, since most men believe their weenies come from heaven, this gives them a sanctified excuse (in their deluded minds) to pass the collection plate at gunpoint for their gods of communism.
It is hysterically funny that these frightened fragile men gather like a church group.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill Morality is rooted in the natural altruistic impulse most sentient creatures possess at birth. It is a basic survival mechanism. Without the tremendous advantages afforded by cooperation and the institutions derived from it, humans probably would have died out thousands of years ago. To cast morality as an appeal to authority is both absurd and vulgar.
The rest is self-indulgent babble. For the sake of your dignity and my patience, I'm going to pretend you didn't write it.
FuzzyWhisper 1 year ago
@FuzzyWhisper
Morality is rooted in a presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Both religion and morality is a psychology of error in a realm of false causes.
So, I am vulgar, as you say... I'm a "sinner" in your book? Fuck off reverend...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill I'm not sure why you copy and paste comments so virulently...
Its just funny to be honest... I think I could write a bot to do that.... You're not a comment bot are you?... lol
1. Read comments addressed to bot.
2. Examine database of replies based on keywords.
3. Select appropriate non committal reply...
4. Post reply with added punchline!
Hey... its a formula alright!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
Excellent video. I love the study of psychology in the case of morals and human behaviour. Really interesting stuff.
Jcm9991 1 year ago 7
And so again, our final score tonight... Dr. Andy Thomson 579, Dr. Francis Collins 1
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago 48
My favorite part of this was Dr Thompson's closing sentence "You be the judge."
Rather than claim that he is right, he presents evidence and let's you decide.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
Magnificent! Andy is the 5th Horseman.
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago 37
@wonkothemagicelf
I ride a pale horse...
These terrified men gather like a church group to discuss and evangelize why there is no god... and do exactly the same things they accuse the religionists of doing...
There is no eternal ideal. Nature is the only eternal victor. Nature kills everything. The universal dissatisfaction with mortality drives them to seek some eternal truth... Pathetic little feminized men...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill Philosophize much ???
wonkothemagicelf 1 year ago
@wonkothemagicelf
Warrior poets don't philosophize, they paint reality with words... especially when they are nursing a few broken toes...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@wonkothemagicelf
Said to SirWinstonChurchill "Philosophize much ???"
yeah you should grab one or two of his comments and paste a sentence into google... seems you're conversing here with a machine.... or an extremely bored person with nothing better to do than argue bullcrap!
Paints reality with words? More like painting the absence of his own mind with someone elses!
Hes using someone else words, so often, that the search engines pick him up on it all over the place!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@PillowcaseHead The example doesn't really matter. It could've been anything to satisfy whatever you have a problem with. He's just using it to show how these problems make certain parts of people's brains light up perhaps suggestion that morality can be something determined be genes and not just something you learn in school.
Kain5th 1 year ago
@Kain5th And also remember he's using the katrina hospital real life example as well. So if the trolley example seems like b.s. to you how about the example of a dilemma that really happened?
Kain5th 1 year ago
Lastly, the guy with the "God delusion T-shirt" who stood up SHOULD HAVE asked:
if psychopathy is heritable and there's sexual selection for moral behavior, therefore sexual selection against immoral behavior, how is it that the portion of psychopathy in our society has been the same throughout history or perhaps even increasing? How come psychopaths haven't been selected out from the population?
GoforBrokeVideos 1 year ago
As well, Andy Thomson mentions conscientiousness as one of the big 5 factors of personality.
In almost all studies there is a positive correlation between conscientiousness and religiosity. Now Andy Thomsons MUST be aware of this fact since he's a psychiatrist, but he burries it under rhetoric and misinformation.
GoforBrokeVideos 1 year ago
Source: Religiousness as a Cultural Adaptation of Basic Traits: A Five-Factor Model Perspective
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2010
GoforBrokeVideos 1 year ago
@GoforBrokeVideos There is sexual selection for immoral behaviour as well. The selection pressures equalize at the current proportions of both behaviours in the population.
I could assume the proportion of psychopaths in society is similar regardless, though studies/sources on this would be helpful.
Psychopaths are more able to mimic behaviours to appear normal; compared to sociopaths.
Gene's can do different things depending on environmental factors. Just like there is no 'gay gene'.
Thomas60 1 year ago