Rational Ethics: Introduction, Part 1

[Esoparagon]

Really good way to explain it. This is what I had been thinking. It's not that you ought to do it, it's that you do, it's deterministic, you will by your human nature. There is no choice in it.

[skater3shefik]

i dont believe in man made global warming i believe its all natural.....

we have had cars and factories since before WW2 why is it just now warming up?

and i heard of a water runned car, dont water vapors realease even more green house gasses...

al gore, is the smartest man ever!! he was able to pull off the biggest money and politic scam, the world has ever seen or heard, and people still believe it...

[borderlinebuddhist]

he wants full release

[GStolyarovII]

This is an excellent beginning to your series, and I look forward to the rest.

I, for one, have always maintained that free will and causality are compatible and have rejected the determinists' claim that, just because actions are caused, that implies that decisions are illusory. On the other hand, I have debated against dualists who asserted that, because choice is real, it must be that the mind is exempt from the laws of causality and, even more radically, from physicality as such.

[loserbum3]

One weak point in your argument (which I very much like) is that one can ask: ought human nature be this way? If there is non-human intelligent life in the universe, whether from another planet or due to changes in humanity, would it follow the same ethics? Would the non-universality of the ethical system make it not quite objective?

[XOmniverse]

Thats a really interesting point!

I think it would still be objective in the sense that the ethical system is grounded in reality and human nature, but it wouldn't necessarily apply to aliens.

As far as the implications of transhumanism and the ability to fundamentally alter the human condition, that is a much more interesting question. How much of our nature is grounded in sentience itself, for example?

I don't claim to have the answer to that but it'll definitely be on my mind now.

[rickdelagarza]

Its impossible to have ethics in reality or human nature because they can't be tangibly measured so the notion of ethics' being significant is diminished to nothing.You can't see or touch ideas.And I mean this as politely as possible.They are only relevant to conditioned ethics, that is, learned behavior.

[EyesLikeHoles]

@rickdelagarza You can measure the usefulness of ideas, their function, their outcomes, benefits, their cohesiveness with what we know or believe to be true etc.

[BamBam41510]

@XOmniverse I think all of our nature is grounded in sentience itself. and it all is subjective, while being an objective point of view (assuming rational logical decisions.... making the presumption that all people try and make the best decisions for themselves). The perseption of the event is what gives anything its power.

[Wes561]

"welcome everyone" most epic thing you've said in awhile

[Nofaris]

"welcome everyone" Good job on the new intro :)

[fede2]

"welcome, everyone"

lol. interesting change of pace.

[drew335533]

Hmmmmm, isn't all human nature different though?

[XOmniverse]

Do you have arms?

[drew335533]

Lol yes, I do. I apologize, I didn't mean to sound rude if I did. I meant that a moral subjectivist would try and use this argument. I wonder that human nature could be different because all of our goals are different. I will watch the rest of these videos later, so if this is discussed in the rest of the videos, you don't need to respond to this.

[SBRslacker00]

Not every human has arms. ;)

[XOmniverse]

And a book on how to throw baseballs probably would have no utility for such a person.

However, that does not invalidate the utility of such a book to the vast majority of people who do have arms.

[SBRslacker00]

"However, that does not invalidate the utility of such a book to the vast majority of people who do have arms."

Baseballs?

I'd say the vast majority of people with arms have no valid utility for throwing baseballs, much less reading a book on the subject.

Besides, I was hoping we were talking about something more meaningful than idle recreation involving baseball throwing.

[XOmniverse]

I was making an analogy.

[SBRslacker00]

I know.

I was trying to continue the analogy by suggesting that your audience is a lot smaller than you may think it is. Is that the point of ethics? I'd prefer to think of ethical discussion as inclusive rather than exclusive.

[modelmark]

I always get a bit of confused about compatiblism. It is usually said it means free will and determinism are not contradictory. If you agree with that definition, what does 'free' mean in that context? Free of what? Humans make decisions and choices, but I do not consider those free of causal history. I always considered that viewpoint the determinist viewpoint. I have never met a determinist who claimed people did not have will or did not make choices,

[FatGermanBastard]

exactly

[MaikUniversum]

nice video :) thanks

[hellavadeal]

Where have I heard that;"it depends on how you define is." before?. LOL

If you make it to complacated it looses its meaning. All that can be is . All that is not cannot be. What one does is in them to do it or not. It is how it is.

[XOmniverse]

I don't think I explained things in a complicated or convoluted way.

[hellavadeal]

It is probable that my brain thinks in to simple a way.

[aaron0883]

Great video!

[FatGermanBastard]

@XOmniverse:

Part 1:

As usual you are defining your way out of the problem.

Sure if you define decision making as the physical process that occurs in a brain and leads to an action then we have free will.

And yeah if you define morality as a description of the efficiency of an action in regards to a goal such as achieving happiness then you have objective morality.

[FatGermanBastard]

@XOmniverse:

Part 2:

But being free and having morality then only means that a physical process in our brain causes actions and some actions make me more happy than others. It does not matter which words you use to describe this. Reality reamins the same.

Define "nice" as "mass murderer" and you can claim that Hitler was a nice man. This doesn't change any facts of reality though. Hitler remains a killer and your using the word "nice" to describe that won't change my feelings about him.

[FatGermanBastard]

@XOmniverse:

Part 3:

Likewise if a physical reaction in our brain causes our decisions then I have certain feelings and opinions about this and it does not matter what words you use to describe this. My feelings are not at all affected by the words you use to describe something. I do not see why you always insist on the use of confusing word when simple descriptive language would do the trick and avoid confusion.

[aaron0883]

to FGB: gosh darn word nazis ... Haven't I talked to you about this? You pick out definitions you like to fit your framework, you ignore other definitions people use, and than you claim a person is doing what you did!  Do you not see the insanity? You do not use standard definitions ... in fact, there is no standard definition to speak of. Since you wish to bully people with words ... you define words in such a way to make it so no one else can express their ideas. It is insanity!

[FatGermanBastard]

Look Aaron. I use the word "Aaron" to describe the sky and the term "wrong" to describe the colour blue.

I just looked out the window and have seen Aaron is wrong ! But if you don't believe me open the window and take a look your self. Obviously you will see that Aaron is wrong.

Problem solved. Aaron is wrong ! It's a proven fact. Deal with it !

[aaron0883]

FGB:  You play word games how you wish, and you define the rules. The problem is ... you are acting like they are objective. My comment still stands. However, very cute!

[FatGermanBastard]

What ? So are you saying you don't agree with my definitions ? WORD NAZI !

[aaron0883]

I am sensing quite a bit of prohjection here FGB. That's okay though. if you need objective definitions and condescention to feel mighty philosophical. Maybe it would be ethical for you to do so?

[XOmniverse]

FatGermanBastard: I do not believe I defined any words in a way that is at odds with how the words are commonly used. My goal was not intentional obfuscation (which is exactly why I made a point of defining every term).

Honestly, I doubt we can have a fruitful discussion about this. I think you very much WANT prescriptive claims to be illogical/useless.

[FatGermanBastard]

By my definition of the term prescriptive non of your claims are prescriptive. There is no disagreement between my philosophy and yours. The only disagreement is about words such as "morality", "free will", "anarchy" etc.

Why don't we all stop using these words alltogether ?

I.e. I stop calling myself a moral nihilist and will only say that I reject intrinsicism and believe only in rationality and in return you stop calling yourself a moral objectivist and say the same. How about that ?

[XOmniverse]

I think those words are useful and, in their common use, accurately describe my views.

I think you're way too concerned about the fact that I use those words. Why does it bother you that I call my ideas on what people should and shouldn't do "ethics"?

[FatGermanBastard]

For one because you use it synonymously to rationality and that has nothing to do with ethics. I.e. I should not use a hammer to brush my teeth. But what does that have to do with ethics ? Ethics is not about the question how a goal is achieved but which goal ought to be preferred. Your philosophy does not address this question. Instead it arbitrarily defines ethics as that which deals with matters of efficiency in achieving happiness. You don't claim happiness is intrinsically valuable do you ?

[FatGermanBastard]

My second problem is that you define ethics as any type of codified principles (by your definition anything is objective so adding the word objective doesn't really do anything).

I.e. mafia rules or Nazi laws are codified principles and they deal with the rational efficiency of an action in regards to the goals preferred by those groups. However, ethics does not deal with that. Ethics refers to the question which goal ought to be preferred. I.e. why prefer happiness over self sacrifice ?

[ks100001]

Wow, excellent stuff.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

That's one sexy intellect. ;)

[Rorshak1313]

I've read this essay and I think it's great. As you yourself said, it's far from complete. However, I think it lays down a rather strong foundation.

[EsotericThrone]

Bridging the is-ought gap and establishing any sort of foundation for objective ethics has been, and does keep me up at night. This is really interesting to me so far, and similar to thoughts I've had as well. I suppose we can all agree that there is obviously no such thing as "Absolute" ethics in the sense that there is no cosmic force which cares how we behave. But "absolute" and "objectively valid" or "objectively valid about human beings or on the human plane" are very different things.

[Ramiiam]

Let me know if I am misunderstanding you. The solution that you provide to the is/ought problem, which you give in one of the last sentences of the video, is to move the "ought" of human "flourishing and happiness" across the border into the realm of "is"--a metaphysical given as you put it. Interesting maneuver. I'll have to think about it. What do you mean by that phrase "metaphysical given?" Do you mean, literally, "metaphysical?"

[XOmniverse]

I mean a part of reality, basically. A given fact rather than something up for choice.

[Ramiiam]

I see. That's pretty much what I guessed you meant. I hope you'll make further videos explaining why you believe that the goal of "human flourishing and happiness" is intrinsic to reality.

[Ramiiam]

I take it that by "ethical nihilism" you mean any understanding of ethics that is not based on "codified objective principles?"

[XOmniverse]

The responses I assign to "ethical nihilism" are based on conversations with ethical nihilists and how they typically object to my arguments.

Since ethical nihilism is a claim that no moral claims are valid, naturally the only way to argue against it is to provide a base for moral claims, which naturally leads to me defending my ethical philosophy.

I am not claiming, however, that anyone who disagrees with me is an ethical nihilist.

[Ramiiam]

Interesting. That I'm aware, I've never met a sane person who would deny the validity of any moral claim whatever. If you're aware of any, I would be interested to hear them out. What I suspect is that you the people you call "moral nihilists" have a different standard for "valid," you claiming that for a moral claim to be valid it must have some kind of ontological footing beyond simply what people tend to agree is right. Am I correct?