1/8 Christopher Hitchens vs Robert Wright on Religion

[huwrj]

And, to add something - Hitchens says he can't explain altruism. But we find that altruism occurs naturally. The most obvious example being the humble bumblebee that stings the enemy, sacrificing itself so to kill the enemy of its species, so that its genes can survive into the future and keep evolving. So, religion is not required for altruism to exist in animals.

[huwrj]

LOL. Wright is finding it very hard to counter any of Hitchens' points. Hitchens is a legend.

[senortonyful]

Obviously all these cases aren't with exceptions. In which case I might also want to add that with murder you are morally guilty. Accidents are accidents, and legal responsibility may result. Wars and self-defense are justifiable "killings" (presuming the killings are legal ie. against active enemy combatants). The distinction is also made in the O.T. The original Hebrew version of Exodus makes the distinction in Commandment 6 to not murder. The Hebrew word used means an "unlawful" killing.

[senortonyful]

Granted it is a difficult concept to define, but I would say that the intent, either to kill or maim/injure, is required. In the U.S legal system the term "murder" isn't used in cases of accidental deaths that are directly attributable to actions by the "murderer". We use terms like "manslaughter". The person may be legally responsible, but not morally responsible. The same (and a contradiction to my "intent argument") is true of soldiers. They are not legally or morally responsible for murder.

[senortonyful]

@LFWOL Car accidents, accidental physician poisoning, ski slope avalanches aren't examples of murder. Murder, though not defined by, requires intent. The only time murder wouldn't have intent is if the intent were only to main/injure and death resulted. A true accident, regardless of how negligent, is not concerned murder.

[regelemihai]

@LFWOL

There are absolutes as far as morality goes. It's true that every moral action is done in a vaccum, and often times the context in which it's done gives it meaning, but I wouldn't say that murder can be a fluid concept. It's bad.

[regelemihai]

@LFWOL

Right and wrong are not religious precepts. They are things that any rational human being holds to.

[MrPootisman]

are they just pretending to be streaming this or are they just standing on the opposite sides of the bookshelf

[TheWorldFarOff]

HUMANS : our intestinal tracts are too long, which allows for prolonged putrefaction of meat and a prolonged period to sit for the poisonous nitrogenous acids (urea & uric) that this rotting, slow-moving mass carries (kidney disease, atherosclerosis/arterioscleros­is, gout & arthritis plague modern Westerners who consume 3 servings of meat daily).

[TheWorldFarOff]

Let's see how Hitchens handles his personal denigration in the next several months, after he's championed the denigration of Arab children from the comfort of his luxurious Washington, D.C. townhouse.

[Moh5Itachi1]

@TheWorldFarOff its religious nutbags that did that and there now there beign disposed of. Iraq just has there first elected president but i guess your not happy about that.

[theinsane101]

Robert Wright needs to shut up and go sit in the corner by himself.

[camdawg7]

Why does it matter whether or not we know where morality came from, or how we came about or how the universe started? What does knowing or not knowing prove about a supernatural being? I don't know a lot of things, but that doesn't mean there is a god. On the other hand proving that we do know those things doesn't disprove a god. So I don't understand why these questions come up in every theological debate?

[senorfarqueso]

i find robert wright to be pretty annoying.

[rhyfelur]

I would point out to Mr Wright that we, as a species, HAVE developed our ethical framework without the help or guidance of God. It was only later that we tied a bow around it, called it religion and gave God the credit for it.

Our morals were written down in parables and stories, not because they were being dictated by a supreme being, but because we already knew them.

Huge respect for both of these guys

[BuBBaGump014]

Our capacity of moral awareness is, for me, it seems, no different from our [innate] capacities for language. Language is as closed a system as anything else in the natural world (i.e., it is limited by a finite structure). There will always be questions of meta-language (e.g., define language without using language) and as Mr. Wright points out meta-ethics.

However, an understanding of meta-ethics or meta-linguistics is not necessary to recognize the processes involved in both phenomena.

[BuBBaGump014]

And Hitchens' point should always be reiterated: what we recognize as moral behaviour or even incidences of what can be said to be empathy is observed amongst other species on this planet (no surprise they usually social animals such as elephants or other primates). But really the point is that like anything else in the natural world, we are still ignorant of the necessary connections. We can understand and even use gravitational principles but the ontology of such a thing still escapes us.

[xXshinzoXx]

sounds more like a convo to me than a debate; Great addition to youtube though.

[jeremyshambles]

thanks very much for your efforts in sharing these videos with everyone, it is much appreciated, take care

[konothecook]

hitchens' books are bigger ;)

[ThePublicPolemic]

Both of you Davey's don't get it or at least don't know how to explain lucidly.

[hazydavey]

@thePublicPolemic

Don't get what?

I certainly "get" my own view of morality and the basis for my disagreement with the other Davey.

If you have something to share, feel free.

[ThePublicPolemic]

@hazydavey

As Hitchens says there are some things that he just knows are wrong but doesn't know how he ascertained that presumption. I would suggest that all average people throughout the ages have had problems with killing and so forth from an individual prospective. Society, in a sense, poisons the individuals clean slate by its use of dogma. No one can be certain, obviously, but I think that dogma of all kinds is really the source and foundation for immorality...

[ThePublicPolemic]

@hazydavey

Then to continue that thought, Martha Nussbaum has described how it is possible and sometimes necessary to do something that is considered evil in a situation of one's own moral destruction by agents and factors that are out of one's own control. He book is called the Fragility of Goodness. check it out if you want.

To sum it up, Wright's challenge serves to confuse and muddle the arguments starting point by judging morality by society rather than the individual.

[hazydavey]

Thanks for the posts.

I see and accept your point re: individual vs. society. The thing that I think Wright was getting at (though not very effectively) was an aspect of morality that Hitchens does not address - namely the descriptive vs. prescriptive nature of morality. Hitchens can account for the evolution of morality - attitudes toward behavior that benefit the species and promote human solidarity, community survival etc. But for Hitchens, morality is largely intuitive. (cont)

[hazydavey]

What I suspect is unsatisfying for Wright is that this doesn't address the prescriptive nature of morality - it suggests that morality is a reflection of social convention and nothing more. I don't think this is Hitchens view but the challenge is in providing the justification for why certain moral standards are the correct ones.

My earlier point was that attributing morality to God doesn't really help either- that merely provides an illusion of objectivity.

[ThePublicPolemic]

Like Hitchens, I am wondering what Wright's position is. I don't like the way this discussion went at all. Hitchens is my man but he and his comrade were utterly boring today. My standard is high for Hitch though.

And you are correct about assuming god to our knowledge gaps. That sort of thing is veridically worthless.

[nyomythus]

I keep coming back to this too, what is Wright's position?

[hazydavey]

@ThePublicPolemic

Also, thanks also for the book recommendation, I'll check it out. I think one of the challnges for those like Hitchens, who reject the notion of objectively "absolute" moral values (as I do) is in explaining how the choice between absolutism and relativism is a false choice. If morality is rooted in human nature and our faculties for reason, then one should be able to articulate some basis for universal morality (or at least, ethics).

[ThePublicPolemic]

The best answer to that question that is known to me is the simple golden rule, or the reverse golden rule as I prefer: "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you" is the basic idea. It was first written in the Analects of Confucius. Do you know of one that you think is a better answer for an universal rule of ethics?

[hazydavey]

@ThePublicPolemic

Works for me - at least as a starting point. (Like you, I prefer the "reverse" iteration)

What that golden rule expresses is the notion that any notion of universal morality derives from our rational capacity for understanding of the pleasure and pain of others.

[TheBlackLagooner]

Mr. Wright, let's not shout. It is quite grating and unnecessary.

[LazyIrish829]

I just don't know how Wright can sit there and be unphased by Hitch's arguments.

I give him credit for it but it's baffling.

[hazydavey]

Wright's challenge - the question of how we arrive at some moral theory - is a challenge for any rational person.

But attributing morality to a divine or supernatural presence solves absolutely nothing. That's merely a way of identifying a cosmic policeman. It doesn't actually tell you the first thing about what makes something good or evil.

[DaveyH123]

@hazydavey -Not really, if we didn't have basic 'morality', you mean don't rob, murder or hate, well quite simply we wouldn't have survived as a species had the majority of peoples not accepted that wasn't sustainable, for piss sake, humans nowadays can be incredibly morally ambiguous. Also, morals change with the times, things we think of as horrific now, were commonplace as recently as the 18th century and perfectly acceptable morally.

[hazydavey]

@DaveyH123

But that's exactly what Wright is getting at. Since morals (or our understanding of them) change over time, can we say that certain things are right or wrong independent of individual opinion?  And on what basis? Is morality simply what a given society decides is good for humanity? These are real questions and while attributing answers to some supernatural God, solves nothing, the observation that morality is a product of evolution (which it is) doesn't answer them either.

[DaveyH123]

@hazydavey

But you cannot say what others morals should be, only your own. I thought that was fairly obvious. You can comment on others actions in a moral way, but only by juxtaposing that with your own. I cannot say you are immoral because you mutilate the genitals of women, to me it is immoral, but to them, perfectly acceptable. Morals are entirely individual, but with an educated society these become the norm. Yet again, a new born child wouldn't no it was wrong to kill.

[hazydavey]

@Davey

Well that's one view of morality. It's not my view - and it's not Hitchens view either. For example, slavery is wrong and has always been wrong.  In my view, what has evolved is our understanding and knowledge of humanity which lead us to conclude that prior societies had it wrong. But I have no problem concluding that any society that practices slavery is engaging in immoral conduct.

[DaveyH123]

@hazydavey

By the same token you could say that about many things, prison system and class systems are only a few examples. This society is no more moral than any before it, it's all relative and for you to decide for yourself, you cannot claim slavery is 'wrong' to everyone, only yourself, you apply your own morals when you choose too. You can't speak for others, otherwise you are professing a theology all of your own.

[hazydavey]

"By the same token you could say that about many things, prison system and

class systems are only a few examples"

Yes, But I WOULD say that. Only, it's not a theology that I am professing but rather a moral standard. An example: Child slavery is prevalent, in many parts of the world. Are you really suggesting that we have no grounds for saying that this is wrong? Is the only fair response to say "Well, it's wrong for me but hey...to each his own." I don't think so.

[DaveyH123]

You're missing the point entirely, yes that is a 'moral standard', your moral standard, mine too as im sure it is for 90% of the planets population, but you have no right to declare what is moral for others and whatever morals one holds are only true for ones self and are not entirely demographical. Society dictates the path but it is for others to find their way along it. Sadly, not all do, or they can't. That is the only true morality, any attempt to force onto others doesn't always work.

[hazydavey]

I don't think I'm missing your point. I'm strongly disagreeing with your point.

This imposition of morality that you speak of is inherent in all law and all civil society. Individuals may disagree on what behaviors belong in the category, but moral judgments can legitimately be made, and, at times, must be made.

What right did the Allied nations have to declare Hitler's actions criminal? or to even declare them to be wrong? According to your formulation, no right at all.

[DaveyH123]

Nope, you're most definitely missing the point. Nothing you saying seems to be getting anymore interesting, only more frustrating with you displaying repeatedly your inability to understand. Take some time, think about it and get back to me, It now feels as though I'm banging my head against a brick wall, with the brick wall being you. No more time for this if you fail to deduce the basic principles. Goodbye for now.

[hazydavey]

No need to bang your head against the wall. It's very simple DaveyH123, I think you're wrong. I explained why.

It seems that you are one of those types who simply can't understand why others won't agree with them - as if the problem is their comprehension when it might just be the fact that they have grounds for disagreement.

This isn't rocket science: Your view of morality is purely relativist. Mine isn't.

[DaveyH123]

Nope you're wrong, and the fact you can't see how anything you say is immediately redundant, points out to me you would have trouble grasping anything of relative intellectual weight at all. That's unfortunate for you.

[hazydavey]

DaveyH123: That temper tantrum was very persuasive.

What is so difficult about accepting the obvious? You are a moral relativist whereas others are not. One would hope you could at least defend your view. But as we can all see, you can't.

An infantile view of morality is the least of your troubles. When you grow up, you'll hopefully learn how to think, to maintain an argument and articulate a viewpoint.

Until then. Stick to the insults. Leave the discussion for adults.

[DaveyH123]

Haha, you being serious? You've offered nothing but weak idiotic statements and you can't see the forest for the trees. You have displayed that you are a total imbecile incapable of understanding or deducing anything relevant. You sir are the infant. Anyway, you are signing in with two different accounts to attempt to back up your own idiotic point of view. You were wrong, I owned you, now take your lashings and retire gracefully, not like a spoiled brat who's had his dummy taken from him.

[hazydavey]

@DaveyH123

Thanks for giving it a shot.

[DaveyH123]

As intellectually biting as anything you have produced. Well done! Goodbye douche.

[ThePublicPolemic]

@hazydavey

Your debating partner is flat out wrong and you are correct in pointing out his moral relativism as ridiculous. I don't think that you have said anything wrong, just that you have approached this problem of morality from the wrong side, or at least a tougher side to philosophically wrestle with. I think it is most beneficial to start viewing morality with the individual as the starting point.

[DaveyH123]

Flat out wrong? Care to elaborate and not just allow your brain to produce pure piffle on matters you can clearly offer nothing remotely interesting too. You have not shown anything that would dispute my point of view. Starting to sniff to me like apparent mongoloids banding together behind a haze of stupidity. Wouldn't be surprised if it was the same guy with two accounts. By the way, if you claim something is wrong, it is basic courtesy to actually offer a reply to what it is you dispute.

[ThePublicPolemic]

You are a moral relativist. No rebuttal is needed.

[DaveyH123]

Really? Is that all. How incredibly weak of your malnourished intellect. Absolutely laughable.

[ThePublicPolemic]

Laugh it up with the rest of us, bud.

[DaveyH123]

Wow, that was worth it wasn't it, nothing more than the usual purile drivel. What a total joke you are. I still think the most apt description is WEAK. Truly pathetic, well done.

[BigMikeMcBastard]

Hmm, it's a close one here. Hitchens has a lot of books in the background, but so does Wright. I believe we'll have to give this one to Christopher, as he seems to have more hardcover books than Wright. Congratulations, Christopher!

[niginit]

Wright is wrong. lol

He's out of his league, element, galaxy here.