Nice work, especially on the critiques. In my view morality is objective and it stems from our evolutionary history. We are primates, social animals, and that is the basis for our morality.
Without cognitive deficiency or failure of reason not see as facts Dr Kings courage and integrity .... Hmm sounds like the no true scotsman fallacy and the common belief fallacy all rolled into one. Saw those two complaints of youtube before :)
Did the "facts" of integrity and courage exist before people did? Facts such as these are immaterial and in theory should exist in eternity, but how is this logically possible before the existence of people and without a transcendent being?
saying it is a fact that mlk was courageous does not make sense. 'courage' is subjective. the objective facts are that he gave speeches, was in marches, etc. Saying he was courageous is subjective, though. even if everybody agrees that the was courageous. consensus does not necessarily mean objective. 'courage' does not exist objectively.
and saying 'this SEEMS utterly ridiculous and obviously false' really doesnt support much at all other than your opinion
"It is in giving that we receive"? Where does this come into play? At the end of the day, without any outside influences, we define what morality it, just like Dr. Rachels, and you did. Therefore, it is subjective and relative unless you want to simply say, "whatever benefits evolution is moral" but even then we are assuming that we wish to benefit evolution. All these assumptions leave this argument with no more strength than it entered with.
This argument is self-defeating, as it attempts to simply absorb subjectivity into objectivity as a means to solve the problem, and fails to address the differences in morality in a very fundamental way.
Because neuroscience can show that we are hardwired to tend to behave in certain ways does not prove that these behaviors are in any way moral, any more than the urge to talk, urinate, or eat is moral. Should we now argue that everything we are hardwired to do is moral? How far does this go? If 80% of the population is hardwired to be heterosexual and 20% homosexual, are homosexuals immoral?
Additionally, "to do what there are the best reasons for doing" implies moral subjectivism, as it claims that whatever is best is moral, yet fails to acknowledge that what is best is totally subjective.
Dr. Rachel's definition is in itself a subjective value placement on what morality is, and cannot in itself be an explanation of morality. Furthermore, if my goals are entirely selfish is nature and I base my morality off of this, how does Dr. Rachels justify condemning me as being "immoral" if I am following evolutionary principles of nature towards my own reproduction and survival? There is no basis for this claim.
Indeed, this logic suggests perhaps a form of idealism where all mental constructs are equally valid and real. How can you substantiate this? Relationships are insignificant as examples, as they are case-dependent, and therefore not objective. Dr. Rachel's definition also fails this test, as it assumes that morality is guided by reason, assumes that it gives weight to other individuals, and assumes that there is a "best way to do something" that is not subjectively motivated.
"Seems utterly ridiculous and false" ? Just because it seems ridiculous doesn't mean it is. "If...then all psychological states must then be non-factual"? This is an obvious fallacy. The psychological states you refer to are all subjective having moral intentions in a fact- but that does not make the morality of them a fact anymore than saying "belief in God proves God is real." Just because morally-guided motivation exists does not mean morals are objective.
"Take any action allowed to be vicious: Willful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In whichever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives,... volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object...
... You never can find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. "
Oh My God you are a completely RHETORICAL philosopher!
First of all when you describe the position of moral subjectivism you do it with an air of disgust in your voice as if you'd have to be the scum of the earth to believe in it, THEN you appeal to consequences saying "If moral subjectivism isn't true then we can't think of the work of Martin Luther King as good" - even if this statement were true it would NOT disprove moral subjectivism but it is a mute point for the reason I will describe
Aside from your appeal to consequences, which is a philosophical fallacy, allow me to continue:
The correct point you mistook for the one above was "If moral subjectivism is true then we can't think of the work of Martin Luther King as OBJECTIVELY good" --- you can still attatch this value to it and most people WOULD attatch that value to it because it promotes kind of society we like to live in as humans. That doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY moral. It's good for the worms if someone kills someone.
you also say "This seems utterly ridiculous" you get a big pen through your paper if you hand a point like that in for your philosophy paper. No matter how idiotic something sounds someone will believe it, it might have been idiotic to think the world was round. You have to SHOW that it is implausable not use rhetoric.
Thanks for posting the video, if you want a further critique of some fallacies in the second half of your video I'll do one.
RevolutionaryJam, while I appreciate your posting your thoughts, it appears you missed the annotation near the start of the video that says I've changed my views on all of this. It also points to a link where I offer a summary explanation of the change in my views. I'm still puzzling through the details. Second, any "air of disgust" that you believe you heard in my voice is, Im afraid, something you're imposing on what you heard. Third, I don't need a lecture on how to construct an...
ok sorry if I seemed a bit heavy, but argue and refute and build on one another is what philosophers do :-P will be watching more of your vids in the future
I appreciate that it 's easy to point out holes in an argument but harder to come up with one that others cannot pick holes in.
Objective morality is based in the fact that man's own life is his highest value, which has to be kept by a conscious decision and a series of actions. 'Life or death is mans only fundamental alternative...If he chooses to live, a rational ethics [and objective morality] will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. [Morality] is a code of values to guide mans choices and actions ... that determine the purpose and the course of his life.' (quotes by Ayn Rand)
yeah, you may have celebrated the falsehood, of this, but dang, it still has the theme song . . . what you really should have celebrated, however, is that you had the wrong microphone and now have a better one :-)
LOL! The theme song was a bit of inspiration, if I do say so myself. And, yeah, that mic. :: shiver :: Although I do recall a certain YouTuber -- I'll just call him "RH" -- saying it was the "classic" ProfMTH sound. lol
How is it not a matter of preference? If you don't care about being punished, or breaking the law, or doing what is unexpected, or acting in a way that is painful, how is it wrong? I don't see the "objective grounding" of obligation. There may be a rational way of acting, but what if someone doesn't care about acting rationally?
I've revised my position on these matters since I made this video. One of these days I'll be inclined to do a new video in which I set forth the revisions.
doodle....no one knows if a god actually exists, even if they claim to know...therefore we all exercise our "morality" to appease our legal systems and our consciences.
I don't know how this video hasn't been flagged. That murder scene is highly disturbing. D: Don't worry, I'm not going to flag you or anything. I'm merely saying that I'm surprised the Christian ZOMG OFFENDED! Flag Campaign hasn't reached this yet. I've seen far less horrific things than this get flagged and even taken down.
Anyway, I agree with everything you say. I get my morals from being a normal sane human being raised in a civil society, not from a book and especially not from the bible.
Ironic the part that Christian books played in my becoming free from it, but you might argue that that reflects that this books are a more mature form of an immature belief system.
First time rejecting moral objectivism (around the age of 20.)
Came back and became even more religious (during which point, I read many Christian books, including the two I mentioned and many on apologetics, and others like that.)
Walked away again, a second time, but this time retaining my belief in moral objectivism (seven years later / now understanding a lot about different "moral actions" inherent value.)
Discovering the inherent value of moral actions endorsed by my former modern / "moderate" understanding of the Christian faith (in Christian books like John Piper's Desiring God and John Eldredge's the Journey of Desire) were essential steps in my journey towards being empowered to question Christianity without feeling I was also questioning moral objectivism at the same time (when before, it was a "baby with the bathwater" situation.)
And this, it seems, is exactly what you are doing when you brand, as "moral terms" (6:09 in the video), the descriptions of generosity (presumably taken to be "good") and willful indifference (presumably taken to be "bad"). In order for your argument to be valid, you must state these premises; but in order for it to be sound, you must logically demonstrate why they are true. Exactly how you propose to bridge the is-ought gap without begging the question escapes me.
This can be best demonstrated in the form of a syllogism.
Premise 1: A "racist" is a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to the others.
Premise 2: Hitler was a person with a prejudiced belief that the Aryan race was superior to the other races.
Premise 3: Hitler was a racist.
Conclusion: Hitler was a bad person.
It's easy enough to locate the fallacy in this argument. The arguer withholds (or rather, presupposes) the necessary fourth premise that racists are bad people.
ProfMTH, let me start by saying I've watched tons of your videos, all of which I've unequivocally agreed with. This one's the anomaly. The difference between normative qualities (e.g. Dr. King's "goodness") and descriptive qualities (e.g. Dr. King's "courage") is that normative qualities require, for their existence, a contemplating subject (hence the term "subjective"). "Courage", on the other hand, requires only a dictionary definition and an object to fit said definition (hence "objective").
ofcourse it is true by convention. just like the self notion is true by convention. just like the atom is true by convention. yet it is part of reality, no? and if it is part of reality then we can be objective about it. or so I think. what about u?
The philosophical definition of the word "reality" is something that exists independent of ideas concerning it. Therefore anything that does not exist outside of convention (or human ideas concerning it) is not considered a part of reality. For instance, the atom exists whether or not it is recognized by convention as it is a physical part of the natural world. However, morality exists only by convention, as it is a human concept and does not apply outside of the human subjective realm.
I meant the atom doesn't exist, as in it is really the collection of neutrons,electrons and protons. and even two of those are conventional truths. where today the fundamental truth is quantum science. all else are bound by convention. anyway your definition of reality is not satisfying. I think reality is all that an observer experiences. and that can be divided to physical and mental realities. under such a definition the causes of what one defines as moral can be viewed objectively.
One more comment actually. Hah, sorry. This is in response to your comment that moral subjectivity is "ridiculous". First, I would like to say that this claim is merely and ad hominem attack, along with being irrelevant. It has no bearing on whether or not moral subjectivity is true. Before you stand by this claim, keep in mind that this is the same argument that theists make in regard to atheism. So I would like to know why you should be granted the use of this argument with any credulity. Thx.
"This is in response to your comment that moral subjectivity is "ridiculous"."
I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you might identify where you believe I made that claim. Thanks.
"...I would like to say that this claim is merely and ad hominem attack...."
First, I don't believe I said that. Second, even if I did, it's not ad hominem. I get the feeling you don't know what the term 'ad hominem attack' means.
"Perhaps you might identify where you believe I made that claim."
In the video you summarized moral subjectivity as merely projections of opinion and then at 5:35 into the video you said "this seems utterly ridiculous" and even had a t-shirt with the word "ridiculous" so as to draw more attention to the statement. Maybe you changed the subject and neglected to mention that you were calling something else "ridiculous"
"In the video you summarized moral subjectivity as merely projections of opinion and then at 5:35 into the video you said 'this seems utterly ridiculous'...."
That particular view of it seems ridiculous to me, yes. And I explained why. Clearly, it's not an ad hominem, nor did I fail to give reasons for what I said.
So are you claiming that your sound reason for calling it ridiculous is that "there Are moral facts"? What evidence do you have to back this up? It's merely a conclusion with no proof or premise presented. If you have proof I am anxious to hear it. Otherwise, you are refuting subjectivity by saying that it is an opposing viewpoint, and that your viewpoint is simply right.
An ad hominem argument consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. For example, if I were to say moral objectivity is "ridiculous" and fails to explain morality, without attempting to explain why I think such "facts" cannot be objective, that would be ad hominem.
"For example, if I were to say moral objectivity is 'ridiculous' and fails to explain morality, without attempting to explain why I think such 'facts' cannot be objective, that would be ad hominem."
No, that's not an ad hominem at all. The above-quoted doesn't go after a characteristic or belief of any person.
So you know the definition of the ad hominem fallacy, but you don't know how to apply it.
Now, you made a compelling case for "conventional" morality or even "widely-accepted" morality, but that fails to address the point that they are still based on some original human discretion, and those moral "values" that remained only did so because they were evolutionarily beneficial to our survival, or, rather, were not detrimental to our survival. Sorry to type so much at once, but I am anxious to hear your reply and continue the debate if you'll have it. Haha, thanks man.
"If you'd like to make a video, I'd be happy to watch it and respond."
I regret to inform you that I do not have the proper equipment to make a video. And even if I did I don't know if I could compete with your videos in entertainment value. :) In all earnest, I have watched a good many of your other videos and thoroughly enjoyed them. I just had to pick bones with this one in pursuit of intellectual truth. You understand.
"I have watched a good many of your other videos and thoroughly enjoyed them. I just had to pick bones with this one in pursuit of intellectual truth. You understand."
As to your comments on marital fidelity and child rearing, you are again just making external observations about human behavior without assigning judgment. You could easily state, from an evolutionary standpoint, that marital fidelity is "bad" because it is counterproductive to increasing the population of the human species, which would have just as much validity as saying it is "good" because it increases survival for a species that thrives on relationships and division of labor.
In order for morality to be objective, as I stated earlier, it must be "mind-independent" and void of opinion. Therefore, in order for morality to be objective, there must be a moral "standard", that does not involve human judgment, in which to compare our morality to in order to say (objectively) that it is "good" or "bad" (I do not believe in any gods and therefore I do not believe in morality outside of human subjectivity - after all we do not judge animals on an objective moral basis).
(cont.) Dr. King's actions and deeds were morally "good", then you have now entered the realm of subjectivity. The reason being is that someone else could come along and say that his deeds were morally "wrong" and neither one of you would have any more claim than the other as to the validity of your opinion. So a person who believed in moral relativism could easily say that Dr. King was courageous, because that is an external observation and has no bearing on moral "goodness".
"...then you have now entered the realm of subjectivity. The reason being is that someone else could come along and say that his deeds were morally 'wrong'...."
People can say all sorts of things. The mere fact that X can be said doesn't mean X is true.
"People can say all sorts of things. The mere fact that X can be said doesn't mean X is true."
You are saying X. What "objective" reason do you have to say that Dr. King's courage and integrity are "good"? Why would you say that your claim is more valid than a person who considers courage to be a bad thing? (Objective, again, meaning that it is independent of human thought and exists without human cognizance.)
(cont. from previous post) without "any cognitive deficiency or failure of reason" that his courage and integrity are not facts. This statement is not necessarily true. In saying that Dr. King is courageous you are merely making an external observation, without assigning any judgment. When it comes to the matter of whether or not his courage and integrity are morally "good" or "bad" (which you failed to acknowledge) you are then assigning said judgment. If you were to say, for example, that--
"This statement is not necessarily true. In saying that Dr. King is courageous you are merely making an external observation, without assigning any judgment."
I noticed a few considerable flaws in your argument against moral relativism that I would like to touch on. In order to subscribe to moral objectivity, one must say that the truth of morality is void of human opinion or that it is "mind-independent," after all that is what makes any truth objective. Now, in your refutation of moral subjectivity, you used the example of the life of Dr. King and said that a person who believed in ethical relativism could look at Dr. King's life and say --
"It seems to me that in order for a fact to be a fact, it must be so objectively. Do you disagree?"
I think so. I think Stairway to Heaven is the best song in history - I would describe that as a fact - but I don't think it objective.
Even if I did agree I could just contest premise 1. Could I not replace "morality" with "artistic" and then it would follow that art/music preferences are objective?
"I think Stairway to Heaven is the best song in history - I would describe that as a fact - but I don't think it objective."
Hmm. That seems quite obviously to be an opinion, not a fact. What do you understand 'fact' to mean?
"Even if I did agree I could just contest premise 1. Could I not replace "morality" with "artistic" and then it would follow that art/music preferences are objective?"
Only if 'fact' and 'preference' can be equated, which I don't believe they can be.
I think its rational to beleive that morality only exists within a mind - that stance properly fits the observational evidence. If then objective (valid outside of human interpretation) morality exists, it must exist within a mind outside of humanity.
I don't understand this stuff much at all. For me I expect people will react similar to myself, and hope that my actions done to others will be reciprocated back to me. Basically, treat others how you want to be treated.
ProfMTH > Morality Is Not "Complex" as you claim.
the average human on the planet will Never write an essay, thesis or any deep analysis as the 'academic'.
the avergae Joe operates on conscience.
e.g if someone was to stab you in the eye for no other reason other than they 'felt like it'....i don't think a deep complex analysis would be required by most living humans to conclude that that action was wrong.
but of course, the 'academic' likes to baffle people with b.s as ProfMTH is into !
I think you'll find that most moral philosophers down through history have regarded courage as a moral characteristic and cowardice as immoral. In the case of Dr. King, for example, without courage in the face of ugly and violent opposition he would not have challenged injustice.
Just because most "moral philosophers" regard courage as a "moral characteristic" does not make it fact.What you call courage is completely arbitrary.Taking istory as a preset does not validify a given theory.
You know what,I think your pretending to be a professor.
"Just because most 'moral philosophers' regard courage as a 'moral characteristic' does not make it fact."
True. But I see no reason to dismiss the consensus among them on this point.
"validify"
That's not a word.
"You know what,I think your pretending to be a professor."
Given your penchant for fabricated words, e.g., "validify", and the fact that you don't know the actual contraction of 'you' and 'are' (it's YOU'RE, by the way), I see no reason to care about what you think.
"Courage is merely a description of behaviour.What has it got to do with morality?"
It's a description of morally good behavior.
A moral relativist would say that both King and Manson were courageous b/c they both acted on what they believed was right. A moral objectivist knows that Charles Manson was morally incorrect and therefore not courageous.
4. Are all moral behaviors objective? Really? What about cultural differences? For example, amongst some of the indigenous peoples of central Australia it is considered moral and correct behavior for two persons of differing "skin names" to avoid each other (a mother-in-law and a son-in-law for example.) These customs took place in a particular cultural context, for family, heritage and marriage purposes, they make moral sense in that culture, but not necessarily applicable outside the culture.
There's a difference between actual matters of morality and matters that are perceived, e.g., in a particular cultural context, to be matters of morality. Thanks for your questions. And thanks for watching the series.
Thanks for your replies, again excellent video, you have raised the bar of dialogue in You Tube from bar-room brawl shouting matches to intelligent conversation, cheers.
2. If moral requirements are based on objective moral facts, and you come into a situation where conflicting moral requirements force you to make a judgement, what yardstick do you use to determine which moral facts are of greater or lesser importance without recourse to subjectivity?
3. Morality is only one of the by products of evolution, some pretty heinous types of behavior can also be traced back to our evolutionary development. How do we determine which evolved behaviors are moral?
Good to see a non theist deal with this subject intelligently. I still have some questions about objective moral facts however.
1. How do you deal with conflicts between different moral requirements without some subjectivity coming into play. Consider the classic case in Plato's Republic where its pointed out that it is right to tell the truth and repay debts but perhaps wrong to say return a borrowed weapon to a friend who is not in their right mind and tell them the truth that you have it.
"People with minds infinitely greater than mine have already done this [develop a fully comprehensive moral theory]." - ProfMTH
LOL, theists are the ones who claim that our moral theory is from Someone with a mind infinitely greater than our own. Or are you a polytheist whose gods are human philosophers?
Developed and presented full, non-theistic theories of objective morality, yes. The worst of them is better than the Divine Command Theory, which, as I quite clearly showed in the series, comes down to little more than "God said, therefore, X is moral."
Incredible series, sir! EVERYONE should watch your videos.
Doing good because it feels good is clearly innate in all well-adjusted human beings, who don't need the fear of hellfire in the back of their minds 24/7 in order to behave ethically.
There are alot of things this video doesn't take into consideration such as "where does love come from" or "evolution can't explain altruism". For at times people&animals sacrifice themselves regardless of wether they earn anything
There is even a book named
Exposing Darwinism's Weakest Link: Why Evolution Can't Explain Human Existence
Altruistic behaviour, by definition, is not in one's own interests. The extreme of altruism—giving up one's life in order that others might live—cannot be the result of conditioning through natural selection. Those who give up their lives for others are eliminated from the gene pool. Extreme self-sacrifice is a trait that natural selection not only does not encourage, but should even eliminate from society. The selfish are more likely to survive and reproduce than are the selfless.
Even the foremost advocate of evolution theory, Richard Dawkins, recognises this. In The Selfish Gene, he writes:
"My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true... Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good,
you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish." [Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press (1989), p3]
For more details: users(.)bigpond(.)com(/)rdoolan(/)altruists(.)html
This video fails to take into consideration of were morality comes from and just tries to disprove it's from God
Actually, the video talks about the roots of morality in reason and the human brain. With respect to God, I detailed the many problems of Divine Command Theory.
actually you only mention the brain on part 3 and say that even among theists there are other reasons for doing good other than considering God. Sure they have other reasons, but God is still among the reasons why they do it, love comes from God and God alone, reasons come from us and from freewill that God gave us
Good and evil are psychological constructs that vary across time and societies, that's why Divine command theory fails
I have no idea what you mean when you say this has become "a red herring and an argument from personal incredulity." Frankly, I don't think you have any idea what you mean either.
I'm sorry you were disatisfied. Make a video some time and find out how much work is involved in covering the main points within the time limits. Then you might be less prone to complaining.
Then the second problem is: When you say "Generous behaviour is moral behaviour" you are not providing a source for morality but you are making another moral claim. You are saying "Something that is done generously is morally good". This is a moral statement itself - what is the source for this statement ? So you have not provided a source for your morality you just explained one moral claim with another which does in no way answer the question for a source of morality.
Hey, FatGermanBastard. Thanks for your comments. As I said in the video, it wasn't my project to present a full atheistic metaethical theory. Many of the questions you raise are addressed by the authors whom I recommended. I'm not sure you're right that I've confused moral subjectivism and relatavism. But I'll go back to have a look in light of your comment. Thanks again.
As far as I understand the inter subjective agreement on the definition of the word morality (language is subjective and the meaning of words is assigned to them as the result of an inter subjective agreement) people mean something like a higher, second instance in your decision making, standing on a higher level than the interests of whatever individual or group determining the moral value of an action.
I.e. morality is the claim that apart from real effects such as generosity there is a higher instance that determines if an act is right or wrong. This is why I think that any attempt to fill the words good and wrong with content does not meet the definition of the word morality because we can only fill the words with "real effect content".
Then the second problem is: When you say "Generous behaviour is moral behaviour" you are not providing a source for morality but you are making another moral claim. You are saying "Something that is done generously is morally good". This is a moral statement itself - what is the source for this statement ? So you have not provided a source for your morality you just explained one moral claim with another which does in no way answer the question for a source of morality.
First of all you are confusing moral subjectivism with moral relativism. These are two different things. Moral subjectivism claims objective morality may exist but if it does we have no knowledge about it. A moral statement you make may be objectively true or false but the subjective aspect is your limited knowledge on the topic. What you were talking about is moral relativism which is something entirely different.
Even if "generous and "indifferent" are factual, does it necessarily follow that they are good or bad? What are the criteria for good? Perhaps enlightened self interest could apply just as much as altruism to how we perceive good and bad.
You ask very good questions. It seems difficult to imagine, e.g., generous as bad. However, there's lots of moral philosophical work that I just couldn't get to in this series.
I think though generosity is usually good, it can be bad, like when poor people give what money they have to televangelists. The question is how do you define good. I tend to agree with the utilitarian argument; an act or rule is good if it produces the best results for the most people. "Best" could be defined either as satisfaction of preferences or maximization of happiness, though I prefer the latter.
I would suggest a book by Pascal Boyers called Religion Explained which gives an explanation, not only of religion, but of morality based in evolutionary psychology.
Well, whether such a video were 13 seconds long or 13 hours long, its conclusion would be dead wrong. Morality is not at all existentially dependent on the existence of a god or gods. In fact, with Divine Command Theory, which assumes the existence of a god or gods, one gets some grossly immoral stuff.
Oh no it doesn't. Your right. But still a man does what he pleases of of his own self desires. No 2 ppl are the same. Everyone has their own interpritation on life. Just as Darwin's Survival of the fittest, it would be alright for me to eat you. But you would say thats malicious and spiteful...I hope. So who are you to tell me that Im wrong?
I did a three-part video series on the topic of morality, Swagga, in which I expounded and expanded. The mere fact that you failed to grasp my position after watching it -- assuming you watched it at all -- doesn't compel me to rehearse all of it here in text comments. Watch the videos. If you have specific questions after that, ask them. But I'm not rehashing the whole thing here.
'Nonsense' is one word. Since you haven't watched the series, you have no basis for making any judgment about it. As I said, watch the videos. Then -- and only then -- should you return with any questions you might have.
That's all fine - the thing is, I can hear the subjectivist in my head saying those intentions are fact only in as much as the intender believes the action conforms with a given moral concept. Are intentions objective fact if they are ill informed?
Intentions are facts per se. E.g., I have an intention to eat a slice of pizza. That's a fact. Whether I ever eat the pizza -- indeed, whether there's even pizza out there to be eaten -- doesn't affect the factual status of the intention to eat a slice of pizza.
Ok, so to you it's intent when the mind has committed to pursuing an action. Is the intent to an action really a psychological state any more than any idle thought or belief is a psychological state? I don't like the way you equate them to every other psychological state, and say to refute one as factual is to refute them all, leading the argument towards mistrust of all one's own thoughts. That seems dishonest to me.
Well, you're certainly free to dislike my argument; you're even free to regard it as dishonest (odd as that assessment may be). Is it your position that intentions are *not* psychological states? And if so, what exactly are intentions if they're not psychological states? Thanks.
I can't say with complete certainty if they should or shouldn't be categorized as such - as a layperson in the psychological field, I don't know the details of the term's definition. Are you lumping these into one category along with emotions, like "happiness", "contentment", "fear", "confidence"... and thoughts about action, like "I'm going to cross the street", "I'm going to supersize my combo", "I'm going to recycle this can"?
What are intentions? Your definition seems fine: that they're what you have after you've decided to perform an action (and if that definition makes them psych states too, ok). Moral intentions, then, if "your morals" = "your values", are thoughts about actions that directly relate to your values. Kosher? :)
The bone I'm picking with you is that moral intentions aren't emotional states, and they're not idle thoughts, even if, granted, they were lumped under the same umbrella of "psychological states", and denying the "factyness" of one need not also negate it of the others.
Again, MercifulMing, if all psychological states are factual, and intentions (including moral intentions) are psychological states, then moral intentions are factual. I don't know how to explain what 'intention' means any better than I've explained it in the video and in my text responses to you.
Moreover, in preparing this series, I spent time discussing my ideas with colleagues of mine in philosophy and psychology (neither is my field of expertise either). Each opined that my argument was philosophically and psychologically sound. I'm not saying you should accept my argument merely because these experts opined that it is sound; that would be the fallacy of appealing to authority.
However, absent the presentation of an obviously superior argument that refutes what I've offered, I see no reason to abandon my argument merely because someone doesn't find it persuasive. You haven't shown me that my argument is unsound. So we disagree. That's OK. :-)
Yay! There's part 3. Thank you very much. Though I felt your previous two were damning arguments, your case against subjectivism feels weak by comparison. For one, you equate moral descriptions with psychological states, which I don't think is accurate, since moral descriptions are contingent on actions and not wholly the realm of the mind.
Listened to the section again - you're saying the *intent* to do an action that conforms with a moral description, or in other words, the urge, not even the decision, is a psychological state. Ok. Hm. I dunno - moral words like "integrity" etc. seem more like filters for our actions, I'm not sure if that can be accurately described as a psychological state. They're still contingent on actions, regardless of whether or not the action is executable.
Not to be pedantic, but it seems to me 'intention' goes beyond 'urge'. E.g., I may have the urge to eat a slice of pizza, but never form the intention to go get one and eat it. An action (or actions) pursuant to an intention bring the intent to fruition, but the intention informs the nature of the act.
This is, e.g., how intent and action are understood in criminal law, which, as a general matter, requires both a mens rea (criminal state of mind) and an actus reus (criminal act) for a crime to have been committed. Perhaps the analogy to criminal law will clarify my point for you.
Hmm. I guess what I was hoping to get out of this video series was not only an argument that moral truths exist, but some sort of system that would help us to discover what those moral truths are.
True, you accomplished what you set out to do, but I can't shake the feeling that you essentially pushed the opposing team back to the 50-yard line and declared victory. =/
Thanks for your comment, LaughingManRa. I'm glad you recognize that I accomplished what I had set out to do, which, as I said in the first part of this series, was to establish the possibility of objective morality absent any reference to a god or gods. Since I fulfilled the goal I had set, it's not clear to me why you view it as a false declaration of victory.
I enthusiastically recommended several books, two of which have extensive -- nay, exhaustive -- descriptions of what such a non-theistic system looks like. The others have less detailed descriptions. I didn't feel the need to reinvent the wheel on this topic; rather I wanted to get the already-existing wheel rolling.
Hi LaughingManRa, I think ProfMTH told us in a previous vid that he was going to becomd a priest or something, but decided against it :-) So he's no longer in the telling-us-what-to-do biz :)
Indeed. And I recommeneded the work of scholars who've dedicated much of their scholarly lives to presenting precisely that. Moreover, I showed one of the entirely natural bases for moral facts and one of the entirely natural bases for moral obligations. Not to mention that -- if I do say so myself -- I demolished Divine Command Theory as a viable explanation of objective morality.
Nice work, especially on the critiques. In my view morality is objective and it stems from our evolutionary history. We are primates, social animals, and that is the basis for our morality.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
Without cognitive deficiency or failure of reason not see as facts Dr Kings courage and integrity .... Hmm sounds like the no true scotsman fallacy and the common belief fallacy all rolled into one. Saw those two complaints of youtube before :)
Did the "facts" of integrity and courage exist before people did? Facts such as these are immaterial and in theory should exist in eternity, but how is this logically possible before the existence of people and without a transcendent being?
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 *on youtube
gmh1206 1 year ago
NO.
saying it is a fact that mlk was courageous does not make sense. 'courage' is subjective. the objective facts are that he gave speeches, was in marches, etc. Saying he was courageous is subjective, though. even if everybody agrees that the was courageous. consensus does not necessarily mean objective. 'courage' does not exist objectively.
and saying 'this SEEMS utterly ridiculous and obviously false' really doesnt support much at all other than your opinion
whyiaskyou79 1 year ago
"It is in giving that we receive"? Where does this come into play? At the end of the day, without any outside influences, we define what morality it, just like Dr. Rachels, and you did. Therefore, it is subjective and relative unless you want to simply say, "whatever benefits evolution is moral" but even then we are assuming that we wish to benefit evolution. All these assumptions leave this argument with no more strength than it entered with.
college12003 1 year ago
This argument is self-defeating, as it attempts to simply absorb subjectivity into objectivity as a means to solve the problem, and fails to address the differences in morality in a very fundamental way.
college12003 1 year ago
Because neuroscience can show that we are hardwired to tend to behave in certain ways does not prove that these behaviors are in any way moral, any more than the urge to talk, urinate, or eat is moral. Should we now argue that everything we are hardwired to do is moral? How far does this go? If 80% of the population is hardwired to be heterosexual and 20% homosexual, are homosexuals immoral?
college12003 1 year ago
Additionally, "to do what there are the best reasons for doing" implies moral subjectivism, as it claims that whatever is best is moral, yet fails to acknowledge that what is best is totally subjective.
college12003 1 year ago
Dr. Rachel's definition is in itself a subjective value placement on what morality is, and cannot in itself be an explanation of morality. Furthermore, if my goals are entirely selfish is nature and I base my morality off of this, how does Dr. Rachels justify condemning me as being "immoral" if I am following evolutionary principles of nature towards my own reproduction and survival? There is no basis for this claim.
college12003 1 year ago
Indeed, this logic suggests perhaps a form of idealism where all mental constructs are equally valid and real. How can you substantiate this? Relationships are insignificant as examples, as they are case-dependent, and therefore not objective. Dr. Rachel's definition also fails this test, as it assumes that morality is guided by reason, assumes that it gives weight to other individuals, and assumes that there is a "best way to do something" that is not subjectively motivated.
college12003 1 year ago
"Seems utterly ridiculous and false" ? Just because it seems ridiculous doesn't mean it is. "If...then all psychological states must then be non-factual"? This is an obvious fallacy. The psychological states you refer to are all subjective having moral intentions in a fact- but that does not make the morality of them a fact anymore than saying "belief in God proves God is real." Just because morally-guided motivation exists does not mean morals are objective.
college12003 1 year ago
love the quote from James Rachels
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Anyway debating subjectivism is fun but to be honest morality is loving yourself which is loving all others which is loving God. that is the Tao.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
"Take any action allowed to be vicious: Willful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In whichever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives,... volitions and thoughts. There is no other matter of fact in the case. The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object...
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
... You never can find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. "
- David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
in other words, nothing has any meaning until you attatch meaning to it. Live in the moment and you will know. That is the Tao.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Oh My God you are a completely RHETORICAL philosopher!
First of all when you describe the position of moral subjectivism you do it with an air of disgust in your voice as if you'd have to be the scum of the earth to believe in it, THEN you appeal to consequences saying "If moral subjectivism isn't true then we can't think of the work of Martin Luther King as good" - even if this statement were true it would NOT disprove moral subjectivism but it is a mute point for the reason I will describe
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Aside from your appeal to consequences, which is a philosophical fallacy, allow me to continue:
The correct point you mistook for the one above was "If moral subjectivism is true then we can't think of the work of Martin Luther King as OBJECTIVELY good" --- you can still attatch this value to it and most people WOULD attatch that value to it because it promotes kind of society we like to live in as humans. That doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY moral. It's good for the worms if someone kills someone.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
you also say "This seems utterly ridiculous" you get a big pen through your paper if you hand a point like that in for your philosophy paper. No matter how idiotic something sounds someone will believe it, it might have been idiotic to think the world was round. You have to SHOW that it is implausable not use rhetoric.
Thanks for posting the video, if you want a further critique of some fallacies in the second half of your video I'll do one.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
RevolutionaryJam, while I appreciate your posting your thoughts, it appears you missed the annotation near the start of the video that says I've changed my views on all of this. It also points to a link where I offer a summary explanation of the change in my views. I'm still puzzling through the details. Second, any "air of disgust" that you believe you heard in my voice is, Im afraid, something you're imposing on what you heard. Third, I don't need a lecture on how to construct an...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...argument, thank you very much. I was merely sharing some thoughts here on a topic with which I was wrestling at the time.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
ok sorry if I seemed a bit heavy, but argue and refute and build on one another is what philosophers do :-P will be watching more of your vids in the future
I appreciate that it 's easy to point out holes in an argument but harder to come up with one that others cannot pick holes in.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
@ProfMTH I think you might want to make the annotation last slightly longer. ;) To make it more obvious. :D
luvtheheaven3 1 year ago
Objective morality is based in the fact that man's own life is his highest value, which has to be kept by a conscious decision and a series of actions. 'Life or death is mans only fundamental alternative...If he chooses to live, a rational ethics [and objective morality] will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. [Morality] is a code of values to guide mans choices and actions ... that determine the purpose and the course of his life.' (quotes by Ayn Rand)
TOMsReason 2 years ago
yeah, you may have celebrated the falsehood, of this, but dang, it still has the theme song . . . what you really should have celebrated, however, is that you had the wrong microphone and now have a better one :-)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
LOL! The theme song was a bit of inspiration, if I do say so myself. And, yeah, that mic. :: shiver :: Although I do recall a certain YouTuber -- I'll just call him "RH" -- saying it was the "classic" ProfMTH sound. lol
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Dang it, you lawyers have entirely too good of memory!!! :-)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
lol
ProfMTH 2 years ago
How is it not a matter of preference? If you don't care about being punished, or breaking the law, or doing what is unexpected, or acting in a way that is painful, how is it wrong? I don't see the "objective grounding" of obligation. There may be a rational way of acting, but what if someone doesn't care about acting rationally?
unassumption 2 years ago
I've revised my position on these matters since I made this video. One of these days I'll be inclined to do a new video in which I set forth the revisions.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Did you see this survey?
54 percent of those who go to services at least weekly say it's often or sometimes OK
In survey, people unaffiliated with any religious group were least likely to back torture
phoenixavenger 2 years ago
didnt watch all of it but didnt like the nottion of moral facts
afshordy 2 years ago
u speak very clear and precise thanx:)
masoomsaddat 2 years ago
You're welcome.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Nice searies! Helped a lot! Very orginized and clear!
kadet2988 3 years ago
Thanks.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Excuse me, I should have said
all we could say is doing wrong is wrong, except when it isn't.
hilbert54 3 years ago
Further
It seems that all your arguments for objective morality, if not culture based are species specific.
Would insects, if they gained the cognitive ability to ponder, find the same moral "truths".
Has anyone ever come up with a list of moral truths.
This one is probably dumb, so slap me. What about "killing babies is wrong, what if it was Hitler I was killing"?
Seems to me all we could say is doing wrong is wrong, and even that is situational.
hilbert54 3 years ago
Great series.
Most would agree that cheating in a game is wrong.
But what would constitute cheating in one game would not necessarily be cheating in another.
The thing that is common to cheating is that you break the rules of the game.
It is the rules of the game that give it meaning.
I am faithful to my wife of 33 years, even though we are not married, yes out of respect for her, but mostly I suspect to give meaning to my life.
hilbert54 3 years ago
Wow, this series is great!
GarbagePlanet 3 years ago
I'm glad you liked it.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
doodle....no one knows if a god actually exists, even if they claim to know...therefore we all exercise our "morality" to appease our legal systems and our consciences.
istheretruth 3 years ago
Thank YOU!!!!
mcknightfilms 3 years ago
Without fear of god or fear of revenge people would slaughter each other without remorse
Jason7463 3 years ago
I think you're telling us more about you, Jason, than anyone else.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
It's a sad notion to think that you think we can't be answeble to each other if there is no God. That says a lot about you
AsheIsTheRaven 3 years ago
I don't know how this video hasn't been flagged. That murder scene is highly disturbing. D: Don't worry, I'm not going to flag you or anything. I'm merely saying that I'm surprised the Christian ZOMG OFFENDED! Flag Campaign hasn't reached this yet. I've seen far less horrific things than this get flagged and even taken down.
Anyway, I agree with everything you say. I get my morals from being a normal sane human being raised in a civil society, not from a book and especially not from the bible.
Bobbiethejean 3 years ago
(3)
Ironic the part that Christian books played in my becoming free from it, but you might argue that that reflects that this books are a more mature form of an immature belief system.
myintellectualjourny 3 years ago
(2)
I actually walked away from my faith twice.
First time rejecting moral objectivism (around the age of 20.)
Came back and became even more religious (during which point, I read many Christian books, including the two I mentioned and many on apologetics, and others like that.)
Walked away again, a second time, but this time retaining my belief in moral objectivism (seven years later / now understanding a lot about different "moral actions" inherent value.)
myintellectualjourny 3 years ago
(1)
Discovering the inherent value of moral actions endorsed by my former modern / "moderate" understanding of the Christian faith (in Christian books like John Piper's Desiring God and John Eldredge's the Journey of Desire) were essential steps in my journey towards being empowered to question Christianity without feeling I was also questioning moral objectivism at the same time (when before, it was a "baby with the bathwater" situation.)
myintellectualjourny 3 years ago
And this, it seems, is exactly what you are doing when you brand, as "moral terms" (6:09 in the video), the descriptions of generosity (presumably taken to be "good") and willful indifference (presumably taken to be "bad"). In order for your argument to be valid, you must state these premises; but in order for it to be sound, you must logically demonstrate why they are true. Exactly how you propose to bridge the is-ought gap without begging the question escapes me.
BeauClayton 3 years ago
This can be best demonstrated in the form of a syllogism.
Premise 1: A "racist" is a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to the others.
Premise 2: Hitler was a person with a prejudiced belief that the Aryan race was superior to the other races.
Premise 3: Hitler was a racist.
Conclusion: Hitler was a bad person.
It's easy enough to locate the fallacy in this argument. The arguer withholds (or rather, presupposes) the necessary fourth premise that racists are bad people.
BeauClayton 3 years ago
ProfMTH, let me start by saying I've watched tons of your videos, all of which I've unequivocally agreed with. This one's the anomaly. The difference between normative qualities (e.g. Dr. King's "goodness") and descriptive qualities (e.g. Dr. King's "courage") is that normative qualities require, for their existence, a contemplating subject (hence the term "subjective"). "Courage", on the other hand, requires only a dictionary definition and an object to fit said definition (hence "objective").
BeauClayton 3 years ago
Perfect! exactly what I think about morality! however while it is fact and objectively so. it is not a fundamental fact. btw your videos are awesome.
agent0sephiroth 3 years ago
Incorrect. It is conventionally accepted (which many people will mistakenly label objectively true), but it is by no means objective.
chadwick115 3 years ago
ofcourse it is true by convention. just like the self notion is true by convention. just like the atom is true by convention. yet it is part of reality, no? and if it is part of reality then we can be objective about it. or so I think. what about u?
agent0sephiroth 3 years ago
The philosophical definition of the word "reality" is something that exists independent of ideas concerning it. Therefore anything that does not exist outside of convention (or human ideas concerning it) is not considered a part of reality. For instance, the atom exists whether or not it is recognized by convention as it is a physical part of the natural world. However, morality exists only by convention, as it is a human concept and does not apply outside of the human subjective realm.
chadwick115 3 years ago
I meant the atom doesn't exist, as in it is really the collection of neutrons,electrons and protons. and even two of those are conventional truths. where today the fundamental truth is quantum science. all else are bound by convention. anyway your definition of reality is not satisfying. I think reality is all that an observer experiences. and that can be divided to physical and mental realities. under such a definition the causes of what one defines as moral can be viewed objectively.
agent0sephiroth 3 years ago
One more comment actually. Hah, sorry. This is in response to your comment that moral subjectivity is "ridiculous". First, I would like to say that this claim is merely and ad hominem attack, along with being irrelevant. It has no bearing on whether or not moral subjectivity is true. Before you stand by this claim, keep in mind that this is the same argument that theists make in regard to atheism. So I would like to know why you should be granted the use of this argument with any credulity. Thx.
chadwick115 3 years ago
"This is in response to your comment that moral subjectivity is "ridiculous"."
I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you might identify where you believe I made that claim. Thanks.
"...I would like to say that this claim is merely and ad hominem attack...."
First, I don't believe I said that. Second, even if I did, it's not ad hominem. I get the feeling you don't know what the term 'ad hominem attack' means.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Perhaps you might identify where you believe I made that claim."
In the video you summarized moral subjectivity as merely projections of opinion and then at 5:35 into the video you said "this seems utterly ridiculous" and even had a t-shirt with the word "ridiculous" so as to draw more attention to the statement. Maybe you changed the subject and neglected to mention that you were calling something else "ridiculous"
chadwick115 3 years ago
"In the video you summarized moral subjectivity as merely projections of opinion and then at 5:35 into the video you said 'this seems utterly ridiculous'...."
That particular view of it seems ridiculous to me, yes. And I explained why. Clearly, it's not an ad hominem, nor did I fail to give reasons for what I said.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
So are you claiming that your sound reason for calling it ridiculous is that "there Are moral facts"? What evidence do you have to back this up? It's merely a conclusion with no proof or premise presented. If you have proof I am anxious to hear it. Otherwise, you are refuting subjectivity by saying that it is an opposing viewpoint, and that your viewpoint is simply right.
chadwick115 3 years ago
"What evidence do you have to back this up?"
I explained it in the video, Chadwick, and have no intention of rehearsing it here.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
An ad hominem argument consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. For example, if I were to say moral objectivity is "ridiculous" and fails to explain morality, without attempting to explain why I think such "facts" cannot be objective, that would be ad hominem.
chadwick115 3 years ago
"For example, if I were to say moral objectivity is 'ridiculous' and fails to explain morality, without attempting to explain why I think such 'facts' cannot be objective, that would be ad hominem."
No, that's not an ad hominem at all. The above-quoted doesn't go after a characteristic or belief of any person.
So you know the definition of the ad hominem fallacy, but you don't know how to apply it.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Moral objectivity is a belief or position, and therefore to say that it is "ridiculous" would be to "go after" your belief.
chadwick115 3 years ago
Now, you made a compelling case for "conventional" morality or even "widely-accepted" morality, but that fails to address the point that they are still based on some original human discretion, and those moral "values" that remained only did so because they were evolutionarily beneficial to our survival, or, rather, were not detrimental to our survival. Sorry to type so much at once, but I am anxious to hear your reply and continue the debate if you'll have it. Haha, thanks man.
chadwick115 3 years ago
"Sorry to type so much at once, but I am anxious to hear your reply and continue the debate if you'll have it. Haha, thanks man."
Thank *you*. I'm not much for debating in comment boxes though. If you'd like to make a video, I'd be happy to watch it and respond.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"If you'd like to make a video, I'd be happy to watch it and respond."
I regret to inform you that I do not have the proper equipment to make a video. And even if I did I don't know if I could compete with your videos in entertainment value. :) In all earnest, I have watched a good many of your other videos and thoroughly enjoyed them. I just had to pick bones with this one in pursuit of intellectual truth. You understand.
chadwick115 3 years ago
"I have watched a good many of your other videos and thoroughly enjoyed them. I just had to pick bones with this one in pursuit of intellectual truth. You understand."
Indeed.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
As to your comments on marital fidelity and child rearing, you are again just making external observations about human behavior without assigning judgment. You could easily state, from an evolutionary standpoint, that marital fidelity is "bad" because it is counterproductive to increasing the population of the human species, which would have just as much validity as saying it is "good" because it increases survival for a species that thrives on relationships and division of labor.
chadwick115 3 years ago
In order for morality to be objective, as I stated earlier, it must be "mind-independent" and void of opinion. Therefore, in order for morality to be objective, there must be a moral "standard", that does not involve human judgment, in which to compare our morality to in order to say (objectively) that it is "good" or "bad" (I do not believe in any gods and therefore I do not believe in morality outside of human subjectivity - after all we do not judge animals on an objective moral basis).
chadwick115 3 years ago
(cont.) Dr. King's actions and deeds were morally "good", then you have now entered the realm of subjectivity. The reason being is that someone else could come along and say that his deeds were morally "wrong" and neither one of you would have any more claim than the other as to the validity of your opinion. So a person who believed in moral relativism could easily say that Dr. King was courageous, because that is an external observation and has no bearing on moral "goodness".
chadwick115 3 years ago
"...then you have now entered the realm of subjectivity. The reason being is that someone else could come along and say that his deeds were morally 'wrong'...."
People can say all sorts of things. The mere fact that X can be said doesn't mean X is true.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"People can say all sorts of things. The mere fact that X can be said doesn't mean X is true."
You are saying X. What "objective" reason do you have to say that Dr. King's courage and integrity are "good"? Why would you say that your claim is more valid than a person who considers courage to be a bad thing? (Objective, again, meaning that it is independent of human thought and exists without human cognizance.)
chadwick115 3 years ago
(cont. from previous post) without "any cognitive deficiency or failure of reason" that his courage and integrity are not facts. This statement is not necessarily true. In saying that Dr. King is courageous you are merely making an external observation, without assigning any judgment. When it comes to the matter of whether or not his courage and integrity are morally "good" or "bad" (which you failed to acknowledge) you are then assigning said judgment. If you were to say, for example, that--
chadwick115 3 years ago
"This statement is not necessarily true. In saying that Dr. King is courageous you are merely making an external observation, without assigning any judgment."
I think you're wrong here.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Okay, well then explain to me why I am wrong.
chadwick115 3 years ago
As I said, Chadwick, I'm not doing debates in comment boxes.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
ProfMTH,
I noticed a few considerable flaws in your argument against moral relativism that I would like to touch on. In order to subscribe to moral objectivity, one must say that the truth of morality is void of human opinion or that it is "mind-independent," after all that is what makes any truth objective. Now, in your refutation of moral subjectivity, you used the example of the life of Dr. King and said that a person who believed in ethical relativism could look at Dr. King's life and say --
chadwick115 3 years ago
Prof, I see this as your arguement for factual morality:
1. The only way that moral descriptions can be called non-factual is if all psychological states are non-factual
2. Not all psychological states are non-factual
3. Therefore moral descriptions are factual
How does this equate to objectivism? Does objectivism equal factual moral descriptions to you?
Morality is a product of cognitive ability which is the product of a mind. How can morality exist outside of a mind?
Thx
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
"Does objectivism equal factual moral descriptions to you?"
It seems to me that in order for a fact to be a fact, it must be so objectively. Do you disagree?
"I see this as your arguement for factual morality...."
More precisely, it's my argument for the possiblity of objective morality without reference to any god.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"It seems to me that in order for a fact to be a fact, it must be so objectively. Do you disagree?"
I think so. I think Stairway to Heaven is the best song in history - I would describe that as a fact - but I don't think it objective.
Even if I did agree I could just contest premise 1. Could I not replace "morality" with "artistic" and then it would follow that art/music preferences are objective?
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
"I think Stairway to Heaven is the best song in history - I would describe that as a fact - but I don't think it objective."
Hmm. That seems quite obviously to be an opinion, not a fact. What do you understand 'fact' to mean?
"Even if I did agree I could just contest premise 1. Could I not replace "morality" with "artistic" and then it would follow that art/music preferences are objective?"
Only if 'fact' and 'preference' can be equated, which I don't believe they can be.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I think its rational to beleive that morality only exists within a mind - that stance properly fits the observational evidence. If then objective (valid outside of human interpretation) morality exists, it must exist within a mind outside of humanity.
spAdeman1001 3 years ago
I don't understand this stuff much at all. For me I expect people will react similar to myself, and hope that my actions done to others will be reciprocated back to me. Basically, treat others how you want to be treated.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
I have not read any of his books. But I'm curious what your thoughts are on Michael Shermer's provisional morality
A4AgnstcFndmntlst 3 years ago
I'm not familiar with it enough to comment in any meaningful way. Why do you ask, A4AgnstcFndmntlst?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
No real reason. Just curious I guess.
A4AgnstcFndmntlst 3 years ago
ProfMTH > Morality Is Not "Complex" as you claim.
the average human on the planet will Never write an essay, thesis or any deep analysis as the 'academic'.
the avergae Joe operates on conscience.
e.g if someone was to stab you in the eye for no other reason other than they 'felt like it'....i don't think a deep complex analysis would be required by most living humans to conclude that that action was wrong.
but of course, the 'academic' likes to baffle people with b.s as ProfMTH is into !
YBigRay 3 years ago
any sados here?
TJae1 3 years ago
Sados?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You claim courage is a "moral fact".I dont see how courage or integrity can be considered moral.
Is morality not essentially concerned with what is good and/or evil?
Courage is merely a description of behaviour.What has it got to do with morality?
mickoooo123 4 years ago
I think you'll find that most moral philosophers down through history have regarded courage as a moral characteristic and cowardice as immoral. In the case of Dr. King, for example, without courage in the face of ugly and violent opposition he would not have challenged injustice.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Just because most "moral philosophers" regard courage as a "moral characteristic" does not make it fact.What you call courage is completely arbitrary.Taking istory as a preset does not validify a given theory.
You know what,I think your pretending to be a professor.
To what end,I can only surmise.
mickoooo123 4 years ago
"Just because most 'moral philosophers' regard courage as a 'moral characteristic' does not make it fact."
True. But I see no reason to dismiss the consensus among them on this point.
"validify"
That's not a word.
"You know what,I think your pretending to be a professor."
Given your penchant for fabricated words, e.g., "validify", and the fact that you don't know the actual contraction of 'you' and 'are' (it's YOU'RE, by the way), I see no reason to care about what you think.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
"Courage is merely a description of behaviour.What has it got to do with morality?"
It's a description of morally good behavior.
A moral relativist would say that both King and Manson were courageous b/c they both acted on what they believed was right. A moral objectivist knows that Charles Manson was morally incorrect and therefore not courageous.
Try not to get too bogged down in semantics.
atlasPeeked 3 years ago
4. Are all moral behaviors objective? Really? What about cultural differences? For example, amongst some of the indigenous peoples of central Australia it is considered moral and correct behavior for two persons of differing "skin names" to avoid each other (a mother-in-law and a son-in-law for example.) These customs took place in a particular cultural context, for family, heritage and marriage purposes, they make moral sense in that culture, but not necessarily applicable outside the culture.
jacksonstreet41 4 years ago
There's a difference between actual matters of morality and matters that are perceived, e.g., in a particular cultural context, to be matters of morality. Thanks for your questions. And thanks for watching the series.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Thanks for your replies, again excellent video, you have raised the bar of dialogue in You Tube from bar-room brawl shouting matches to intelligent conversation, cheers.
jacksonstreet41 4 years ago
2. If moral requirements are based on objective moral facts, and you come into a situation where conflicting moral requirements force you to make a judgement, what yardstick do you use to determine which moral facts are of greater or lesser importance without recourse to subjectivity?
3. Morality is only one of the by products of evolution, some pretty heinous types of behavior can also be traced back to our evolutionary development. How do we determine which evolved behaviors are moral?
jacksonstreet41 4 years ago
Both complicated questions -- too complicated to deal with in a comments box. Perhaps I'll do another video about this down the line.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Good to see a non theist deal with this subject intelligently. I still have some questions about objective moral facts however.
1. How do you deal with conflicts between different moral requirements without some subjectivity coming into play. Consider the classic case in Plato's Republic where its pointed out that it is right to tell the truth and repay debts but perhaps wrong to say return a borrowed weapon to a friend who is not in their right mind and tell them the truth that you have it.
jacksonstreet41 4 years ago
"How do you deal with conflicts between different moral requirements without some subjectivity coming into play."
By acknowledging that morality isn't a purely objective matter.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
"People with minds infinitely greater than mine have already done this [develop a fully comprehensive moral theory]." - ProfMTH
LOL, theists are the ones who claim that our moral theory is from Someone with a mind infinitely greater than our own. Or are you a polytheist whose gods are human philosophers?
gondorking86 4 years ago
I'm sorry, you said, "People with minds infinitely greater than mine have done quite well at this."
gondorking86 4 years ago
Developed and presented full, non-theistic theories of objective morality, yes. The worst of them is better than the Divine Command Theory, which, as I quite clearly showed in the series, comes down to little more than "God said, therefore, X is moral."
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Incredible series, sir! EVERYONE should watch your videos.
Doing good because it feels good is clearly innate in all well-adjusted human beings, who don't need the fear of hellfire in the back of their minds 24/7 in order to behave ethically.
Antichrist4Life 4 years ago
Thanks, Antichrist4Life. Yeah, many people do themselves a significant disservice by not recognizing their innate faculty for morality.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
There are alot of things this video doesn't take into consideration such as "where does love come from" or "evolution can't explain altruism". For at times people&animals sacrifice themselves regardless of wether they earn anything
There is even a book named
Exposing Darwinism's Weakest Link: Why Evolution Can't Explain Human Existence
By: Kenneth Poppe
Anxagoras 4 years ago
Altruistic behaviour, by definition, is not in one's own interests. The extreme of altruism—giving up one's life in order that others might live—cannot be the result of conditioning through natural selection. Those who give up their lives for others are eliminated from the gene pool. Extreme self-sacrifice is a trait that natural selection not only does not encourage, but should even eliminate from society. The selfish are more likely to survive and reproduce than are the selfless.
Anxagoras 4 years ago
Even the foremost advocate of evolution theory, Richard Dawkins, recognises this. In The Selfish Gene, he writes:
"My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true... Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good,
Anxagoras 4 years ago
you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish." [Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press (1989), p3]
For more details: users(.)bigpond(.)com(/)rdoolan(/)altruists(.)html
This video fails to take into consideration of were morality comes from and just tries to disprove it's from God
Anxagoras 4 years ago
Actually, the video talks about the roots of morality in reason and the human brain. With respect to God, I detailed the many problems of Divine Command Theory.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
actually you only mention the brain on part 3 and say that even among theists there are other reasons for doing good other than considering God. Sure they have other reasons, but God is still among the reasons why they do it, love comes from God and God alone, reasons come from us and from freewill that God gave us
Good and evil are psychological constructs that vary across time and societies, that's why Divine command theory fails
Anxagoras 4 years ago
And there are any number of arguments for how altruistic behavior accrues evolutionary advantages. This is complex stuff, Anxagoras.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Yup, this is complex stuff, this has became a red herring and an argument from personal incredulity
Anxagoras 4 years ago
I have no idea what you mean when you say this has become "a red herring and an argument from personal incredulity." Frankly, I don't think you have any idea what you mean either.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Bees.
jpararaja 4 years ago
Anxagoras: "There are alot of things this video doesn't take into consideration...."
You make the mistake of equating consideration of something with whether it ended up in the video.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
at the end of the video you barely discussed the true origin of morality
Anxagoras 4 years ago
I'm sorry you were disatisfied. Make a video some time and find out how much work is involved in covering the main points within the time limits. Then you might be less prone to complaining.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Then the second problem is: When you say "Generous behaviour is moral behaviour" you are not providing a source for morality but you are making another moral claim. You are saying "Something that is done generously is morally good". This is a moral statement itself - what is the source for this statement ? So you have not provided a source for your morality you just explained one moral claim with another which does in no way answer the question for a source of morality.
FatGermanBastard 4 years ago
Hey, FatGermanBastard. Thanks for your comments. As I said in the video, it wasn't my project to present a full atheistic metaethical theory. Many of the questions you raise are addressed by the authors whom I recommended. I'm not sure you're right that I've confused moral subjectivism and relatavism. But I'll go back to have a look in light of your comment. Thanks again.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
As far as I understand the inter subjective agreement on the definition of the word morality (language is subjective and the meaning of words is assigned to them as the result of an inter subjective agreement) people mean something like a higher, second instance in your decision making, standing on a higher level than the interests of whatever individual or group determining the moral value of an action.
FatGermanBastard 4 years ago
I.e. morality is the claim that apart from real effects such as generosity there is a higher instance that determines if an act is right or wrong. This is why I think that any attempt to fill the words good and wrong with content does not meet the definition of the word morality because we can only fill the words with "real effect content".
FatGermanBastard 4 years ago
Then the second problem is: When you say "Generous behaviour is moral behaviour" you are not providing a source for morality but you are making another moral claim. You are saying "Something that is done generously is morally good". This is a moral statement itself - what is the source for this statement ? So you have not provided a source for your morality you just explained one moral claim with another which does in no way answer the question for a source of morality.
FatGermanBastard 4 years ago
First of all you are confusing moral subjectivism with moral relativism. These are two different things. Moral subjectivism claims objective morality may exist but if it does we have no knowledge about it. A moral statement you make may be objectively true or false but the subjective aspect is your limited knowledge on the topic. What you were talking about is moral relativism which is something entirely different.
FatGermanBastard 4 years ago
Even if "generous and "indifferent" are factual, does it necessarily follow that they are good or bad? What are the criteria for good? Perhaps enlightened self interest could apply just as much as altruism to how we perceive good and bad.
IdleBystander1 4 years ago
You ask very good questions. It seems difficult to imagine, e.g., generous as bad. However, there's lots of moral philosophical work that I just couldn't get to in this series.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I think though generosity is usually good, it can be bad, like when poor people give what money they have to televangelists. The question is how do you define good. I tend to agree with the utilitarian argument; an act or rule is good if it produces the best results for the most people. "Best" could be defined either as satisfaction of preferences or maximization of happiness, though I prefer the latter.
IdleBystander1 4 years ago
I would suggest a book by Pascal Boyers called Religion Explained which gives an explanation, not only of religion, but of morality based in evolutionary psychology.
klangsteiner 4 years ago
Thanks for the recommendation.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
LoL. You know what? I could have made a 13 second vid telling people that
No God = No mirality = Chaos. Man cannot dictate his own philosophy on Morality.
swagga07 4 years ago
Well, whether such a video were 13 seconds long or 13 hours long, its conclusion would be dead wrong. Morality is not at all existentially dependent on the existence of a god or gods. In fact, with Divine Command Theory, which assumes the existence of a god or gods, one gets some grossly immoral stuff.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Oh no it doesn't. Your right. But still a man does what he pleases of of his own self desires. No 2 ppl are the same. Everyone has their own interpritation on life. Just as Darwin's Survival of the fittest, it would be alright for me to eat you. But you would say thats malicious and spiteful...I hope. So who are you to tell me that Im wrong?
but um... please expound and expand... Really.
swagga07 4 years ago
I did a three-part video series on the topic of morality, Swagga, in which I expounded and expanded. The mere fact that you failed to grasp my position after watching it -- assuming you watched it at all -- doesn't compel me to rehearse all of it here in text comments. Watch the videos. If you have specific questions after that, ask them. But I'm not rehashing the whole thing here.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
No i didnt bother to watch your other non sense. But hey i might just take a look. So are you athiest?
swagga07 4 years ago
'Nonsense' is one word. Since you haven't watched the series, you have no basis for making any judgment about it. As I said, watch the videos. Then -- and only then -- should you return with any questions you might have.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
lol no no no mr. ProfMTH. You did'nt answere my question about being an athiest. That doesnt have anything to do with your other nonsense videos.lol.
swagga07 4 years ago
Have a good life, Swagga. :-)
ProfMTH 4 years ago
That's all fine - the thing is, I can hear the subjectivist in my head saying those intentions are fact only in as much as the intender believes the action conforms with a given moral concept. Are intentions objective fact if they are ill informed?
MercifulMing 4 years ago
Intentions are facts per se. E.g., I have an intention to eat a slice of pizza. That's a fact. Whether I ever eat the pizza -- indeed, whether there's even pizza out there to be eaten -- doesn't affect the factual status of the intention to eat a slice of pizza.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Ok, so to you it's intent when the mind has committed to pursuing an action. Is the intent to an action really a psychological state any more than any idle thought or belief is a psychological state? I don't like the way you equate them to every other psychological state, and say to refute one as factual is to refute them all, leading the argument towards mistrust of all one's own thoughts. That seems dishonest to me.
MercifulMing 4 years ago
Well, you're certainly free to dislike my argument; you're even free to regard it as dishonest (odd as that assessment may be). Is it your position that intentions are *not* psychological states? And if so, what exactly are intentions if they're not psychological states? Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I can't say with complete certainty if they should or shouldn't be categorized as such - as a layperson in the psychological field, I don't know the details of the term's definition. Are you lumping these into one category along with emotions, like "happiness", "contentment", "fear", "confidence"... and thoughts about action, like "I'm going to cross the street", "I'm going to supersize my combo", "I'm going to recycle this can"?
MercifulMing 4 years ago
What are intentions? Your definition seems fine: that they're what you have after you've decided to perform an action (and if that definition makes them psych states too, ok). Moral intentions, then, if "your morals" = "your values", are thoughts about actions that directly relate to your values. Kosher? :)
MercifulMing 4 years ago
The bone I'm picking with you is that moral intentions aren't emotional states, and they're not idle thoughts, even if, granted, they were lumped under the same umbrella of "psychological states", and denying the "factyness" of one need not also negate it of the others.
MercifulMing 4 years ago
Again, MercifulMing, if all psychological states are factual, and intentions (including moral intentions) are psychological states, then moral intentions are factual. I don't know how to explain what 'intention' means any better than I've explained it in the video and in my text responses to you.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Moreover, in preparing this series, I spent time discussing my ideas with colleagues of mine in philosophy and psychology (neither is my field of expertise either). Each opined that my argument was philosophically and psychologically sound. I'm not saying you should accept my argument merely because these experts opined that it is sound; that would be the fallacy of appealing to authority.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
However, absent the presentation of an obviously superior argument that refutes what I've offered, I see no reason to abandon my argument merely because someone doesn't find it persuasive. You haven't shown me that my argument is unsound. So we disagree. That's OK. :-)
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Yay! There's part 3. Thank you very much. Though I felt your previous two were damning arguments, your case against subjectivism feels weak by comparison. For one, you equate moral descriptions with psychological states, which I don't think is accurate, since moral descriptions are contingent on actions and not wholly the realm of the mind.
Cowardice is not the same as fear.
Courage is not the same as confidence.
MercifulMing 4 years ago
Actually, what I argue is that moral *intentions* are psychological states and psychological states are in the factual realm.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Listened to the section again - you're saying the *intent* to do an action that conforms with a moral description, or in other words, the urge, not even the decision, is a psychological state. Ok. Hm. I dunno - moral words like "integrity" etc. seem more like filters for our actions, I'm not sure if that can be accurately described as a psychological state. They're still contingent on actions, regardless of whether or not the action is executable.
MercifulMing 4 years ago
Not to be pedantic, but it seems to me 'intention' goes beyond 'urge'. E.g., I may have the urge to eat a slice of pizza, but never form the intention to go get one and eat it. An action (or actions) pursuant to an intention bring the intent to fruition, but the intention informs the nature of the act.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
This is, e.g., how intent and action are understood in criminal law, which, as a general matter, requires both a mens rea (criminal state of mind) and an actus reus (criminal act) for a crime to have been committed. Perhaps the analogy to criminal law will clarify my point for you.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Hey Prof,
I'm sure you'd like to know that I went over to our biblioteca and started reading "value and virtue in a Godless Universe"
Adios (hehe)
AJokerToTheThief 4 years ago
I'm glad to hear it. It's an excellent book. Please let me know what you think of it when you've finished reading it.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Hmm. I guess what I was hoping to get out of this video series was not only an argument that moral truths exist, but some sort of system that would help us to discover what those moral truths are.
LaughingManRa 4 years ago
True, you accomplished what you set out to do, but I can't shake the feeling that you essentially pushed the opposing team back to the 50-yard line and declared victory. =/
LaughingManRa 4 years ago
Thanks for your comment, LaughingManRa. I'm glad you recognize that I accomplished what I had set out to do, which, as I said in the first part of this series, was to establish the possibility of objective morality absent any reference to a god or gods. Since I fulfilled the goal I had set, it's not clear to me why you view it as a false declaration of victory.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
I enthusiastically recommended several books, two of which have extensive -- nay, exhaustive -- descriptions of what such a non-theistic system looks like. The others have less detailed descriptions. I didn't feel the need to reinvent the wheel on this topic; rather I wanted to get the already-existing wheel rolling.
ProfMTH 4 years ago
Hi LaughingManRa, I think ProfMTH told us in a previous vid that he was going to becomd a priest or something, but decided against it :-) So he's no longer in the telling-us-what-to-do biz :)
randyhelzerman 4 years ago
Still, I think supplying an alternate moral system is necessary to fully refute theists' claim that it is impossible to ground morals without God.
LaughingManRa 4 years ago
Indeed. And I recommeneded the work of scholars who've dedicated much of their scholarly lives to presenting precisely that. Moreover, I showed one of the entirely natural bases for moral facts and one of the entirely natural bases for moral obligations. Not to mention that -- if I do say so myself -- I demolished Divine Command Theory as a viable explanation of objective morality.
ProfMTH 4 ye