All things are permissible?

If you listen to the objective morality debate or come across atheistic philosophers like Sartre you may also come across a phrase similar to "if God doesn't exist, then all things are permissible". In this video, I seek to clarify the meaning of that phrase and bring up some points that I hope you find thought-provoking.

After making this video, I came across this interesting verse. It coincides with what I said freakishly well. 1 Corinthians 10:23 ""Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial..." Unlike my point, that is not referencing a lack of objective morality, but merely a lack of the old covenant laws. While the context of that verse is different from the point I was arguing, the similarity of the wording really shocked me.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• all things are permissible
• Jean-Paul
• Sartre
• Neitzsche
• Nihilism
• all
• things
• are
• permissible
• God
• existence of God
• morals
• moral
• morality
• religion
• atheism
• atheist
• Christian
• philosophy
• epydemic2020
• dostoevsky
• anarchy
• chaos
• objective morality
• subjective morality
• relativism
• objective
• subjective
• clarify
• clarification
• radical evil
• diabolical evil

[PainefulMass]

This is nonsense. I just don't ever see how bringing God into the picture changes anything. First, bringing God in does NOT give you objective morality. I've never seen anyone successfully argue this (see Euthyphro dilemma). Second, even if it did, how are there non-permissible things when objective morality exists? Regardless of objective morality, all things are always permissible. It's not like God enforces his morals.

[Epydemic2020]

@PainefulMass

I have made several videos on the Euthyphro dilemma, as well as videos explaining how God can be the foundation of objective morality (See the debate with schwanerd).

When sartre (an atheist btw) talked about all things being permissible, he was not saying "no group's set of desires or goals are enforced".

[ChocolateWarship90]

Faggot.

[Epydemic2020]

@TheTomtompiper

Nothing about observing that something exists implies that it is good. When you observe that humans exist... you merely observe that humans exist. That provides no foundation for morality, and makes no statement about what must be good.

"Now we must look at humanity and ask why it is what it is, and we find that there are behaviors that are inherent to humanity that are properties of its 'Nature' QED"

Are you familiar with the naturalistic fallacy?

[TheTomtompiper]

@Epydemic2020 Regarding Hume, he was thinking and writing pre Darwin and pre DNA and if he had the benefit of this knowledge he might have come to a different conclusion. And relying on the subjective assessment of someone from the past seems to me an odd thing to do in pursuit of objective proofs. I instead will use the tools provided by the people who have lived since the mid eighteenth century and have shown time and time again that we are what we are.

[TheTomtompiper]

@Epydemic2020 Rocks cannot be destroyed, their matter and energy can only be rearranged therefore your analogy fails on a technicality. Instead we must look at why a rock is a rock, and we find that it is defined by the properties of the rock its "Nature", these are objectively true and are as you say independent of any mind. Now we must look at humanity and ask why it is what it is, and we find that there are behaviors that are inherent to humanity that are properties of its "Nature" QED

[exodus21v20]

@Epydemic2020

People believing in objective morality usually believe it is objectively immoral to kill a child for the wrongdoing of a parent. The biblical god commands this:

"…Kids shall not be put to death for their fathers sins" [Deut 24:16]

The problem with his “objective” morality is that he later commands people to violate the exact objective moral that supposedly originated with him:

"Attack the Amalekites and kill all of their children and babies and animals." [1 Samuel 15:2-4]

[Epydemic2020]

@TheTomtompiper

I use the real definition lol.

Objective just means mind-independent, while subjective is a product of a mind (like tastes and preferences).

Humans are objects, that is true. But nothing about observing we are objects implies that benefiting humanity is "objectively good". Rocks are objects, that doesn't imply that destroying rocks is objectively bad. You should look up what David Hume (an atheist) calls the "is-ought gap" if you want a more detailed explanation.