Morality, Economics, and Disagreement

In this video I attempt to explain 1 way in which moral disagreements can and will arise even if morality is objective.

For a video explaining other ways that moral disagreement can occur even if morality is objective use this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz8frsZHSe4

Stay tuned for the bloopers at the end.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Morality
• economics
• disagreement
• philosophy
• variables
• ceteris paribus
• ethics
• ethical
• ethic
• morals
• argument
• argument from disagreement
• epydemic2020
• value
• pluralism
• moral hierarchy
• ethical intuitionism
• intuition
• supply
• demand
• price
• objective
• subjective
• relativism

[VampiressOnDaProwlq]

i like this vid so well expressed and illustrated. you have good scripting, presence and timing. and your girlfriend, she so cute ; ) lol. what's her channel called?

[Epydemic2020]

@VampiressOnDaProwlq

That'd be my ex-girlfriend. She doesn't have a channel.

[o0AHughman0o]

such a lady's man

[Epydemic2020]

@o0AHughman0o

lol

[emikochan13]

If you can't know without retrospect, then what's the point of this video :P

It's all well and good to say [an act] was objectively moral, but that's not much use to people in life. You can't know if your actions will lead to harmful conclusions in the long term, since, as you said - there is a sensitivity to initial conditions (you were describing chaos theory btw) that makes predictions incredibly difficult to make.

[Epydemic2020]

@emikochan13

Well, this video is not meant to tell us how we can always know what is moral. Rather my purpose was "In this video I attempt to explain 1 way in which moral disagreements can and will arise even if morality is objective."

[thelegionary1000]

@VampiressOnDaProwlq ohh, you seem pretty nice with the comments in here. Not that I have something against. I just wonder if peole here know the real you.

[Epydemic2020]

@MoralityIsAReligion

1 and 2. You will have to read the book, he isn't arguing for consequentialism, but even if he was that wouldn't be a problem. If there are certain consequences we "ought" to bring about, then the point is moot.

3. In his book "the selfish gene" dawkins only touches on our tendency to cooperate. Those are simply comparing apples and oranges.

[InternetPeacemaker]

excellent, thanks

[ApostateltsopA]

@AEVautomatic That's right, it has no measure. You can see the same principle looking at art. I happen to like Starry Night, you may prefer the Mona Lisa. There is no objective means to resolve the dispute. We just get to disagree. A NY tagger may prefer their latest piece. It's all opinion.

[ApostateltsopA]

@AEVautomatic Wrongness is not objective. Exist is not a synonym or objectivity. The better or worseness of things is subjective to a goal. There is no inherent property of betterness, but some things are certainly better for some objectives.

[ApostateltsopA]

It is unmeasurable because we have no units of measure. No aspect of morality we could apply objective measure to. When Epy called economics objective he was right, we have money and cost and sales figures to show objectivity of supply and demand. Morality has none of that. As for morality not being real, I never said that of course it is real, but real and subjective. So no, I'm not an "antirealist"

[MoralityIsAReligion]

@Epydemic2020

Ha ha...if you change your underwear as often as your girlfriends you are a hygienic person. LOL

[AEVautomatic]

@ApostateltsopA you can't measure it? So feeding the hungry is no more evil than killing innocent children? Can't measure them at all?????

[AEVautomatic]

@ApostateltsopA "Wrongness" does not exist? So nothing is right or wrong? no things are better or worse than other things?

[AEVautomatic]

@ApostateltsopA How is it unmeasurable? From our limitation or because its not real. So you are an antirealist eh?

[ApostateltsopA]

The thing is supply, demand and price all have units by which they can be objectively measured. Goodness and evilness, or right and wrong do not. I watch your vids because I think you make a better argument than anyone else I've seen for objective morality but I don't see how we can call something unmeasurable objective.