 T-Jump and Godless girl as well shown up. I've seen a lot of people in the live chat so far Make sure and hit that like button and subscribe if you haven't already All right, so we're just gonna do a simple format five minute openings or so like just take you know I'm not gonna like time it or anything. Just give us your opening and then they want to just jump straight into the discussion So I just want to make sure everybody knows that this channel tries to be unbiased and we want to let You no matter what your background is come here without having to worry about being ridiculed or what's what's whatever So if we could let's just be our friendly selves in the live chat. I know that it gets heated, but let's try that Try the principle of charity there. All right, so T-Jump, would you like to go first or do you think Godless girl should start? Yeah, I can go first. I don't mind All right, so the topic is objective morality I am a moral realist like most philosophers. So I believe there is an objective morality. There are true and false statements about moral claims in the universe Become a misconception that most atheists have is that You can't have moral realism without like a God or some kind of existing thing in the universe, which isn't true Many philosophers hold moral realism as a legitimate position including many Consequentialists and utilitarians it doesn't there are many different ways to have moral realism be true without any kind of a Ontology of morality. You don't need it to be existing in the universe. You can just be an abstract or a kind of a principle like Do what's best for society or something? So there's lots of different ways to have objective morality You don't need a God or the law of nature or anything for it Many philosophers do hold that position my particular viewpoint is that the principle we should be a holding to is that any involuntary imposition of will is immoral and We should avoid doing that because it moves us away from the best of all possible worlds Which is a world where there is no involuntary imposition of will that would be the best world. No The inability to force anyone to do anything. They do not consent to Would be a good thing So no one could ever be forced to do anything that I want to that would be a better world than what we have And as long as you grant that then you pretty much grant objective morality. That's all you really need. You don't really need a Law or a God or anything. It's just there's a better way the world could be and that's it and that is essentially my position Yeah, I thought this was a debate. I just stated his position. I hear an argument or any justification for it I mean, I don't know. I really not supposed to give argument is the opening debate Just the opening statement just staying our position am I only supposed to state my position For the obvious and then you guys can jump straight into do I just state my position or do I give an argument for an opening statement? Yeah, whatever you want to do to open Okay, so I'm a moral non-cognitive list. I don't think the moral claims are true or false. I think when somebody makes a Moral statement that I don't see what standard they can be using other than their preferences. So It's just a preference and preferences cannot be true or false So moral claims cannot be true or false And as far as his position, I'm I would have to ask some clarifying questions, but I Need to know what the first premise of your argument is I understand what Why you believe that what are you appealing to so go ahead? Oh, okay Sure, so You're a moral non-cognitive. I think that moral statements are perfectly reasonable and coherent I don't think they're what? Coherence like you're non-cognitive is which means they are not coaxed to sit in moral sentences do not make sense Well, I don't think that they're the true or false propositions I think it's somebody like when it's like when you say it's a preference So when you say something like the the flavor lemon is bad That's that's all that you're saying. What else could it be? Okay, like if you if they're trying to make a claim about are you making a claim about the world the way the world I'll be Sort of yes sort of no But so you're not a moral non-cognitive is in the fact that you think the sentences don't make sense You just think they're subjective No, I I don't think that they're true or false propositions like when somebody it's like when somebody I'm an emotivist So when somebody it's like when somebody says boo boo to something that's what they're saying They say it's like a claim about a mental state their mental state great great Well, that's fine a motivus is fine, but that's not the same as a non-cognitive I'm an emotivist is a subset of fucking Motivism is a non-cognitive Cognitivism is the position that like it doesn't make sense to make same world. Yeah, that's it's not a true or false proposition A motivism is a non-cognitive position. Just go fucking Google it retards fucking Google the people in the audience go Google it You're an idiot. So so you you really do make sense. The sentences are coherent I don't know what it would when somebody expresses a preference. I don't think that it's incoherent It's not sure false So what is your but what is your position if you disagree with me like what is your argument? Give me the first promise of your argument? I think that the world moral facts can be true because the world will be better in certain ways What is just the first promise moral facts can be true is the first promise or that's the conclusion? I Believe the moral facts being true. I'm not gonna waste my time I believe moral facts can be true. That's the premise. That's the first promise. I'm not gonna put any promises I don't care you can you can do it yourself. You're not gonna give me an argument No, you're not gonna give a syllogism. No, you're just gonna make claims. Yep. I believe moralism is true We have our I thought this was a debate It is a debate Are you just gonna make claims I already did notice my opening there were arguments in there if you couldn't recognize them That's your fault Wait what say it again, then I didn't hear the the up. Is it do you have like? Is it gonna be evidence or what's the just what kind of justification is it that you're going to have? Intuitive moral intuition wait and you wait an intuition is neither rational or irrational It's just an intuition. So it's it's not justification Intuitions can be justification many times used in philosophy all the time in justification Look, it's it's yeah, but it's gonna make it and not it doesn't it makes it an irrational position then no Why should I it's not look that's like internal to what do you have any external justification? No, I don't have any external justification. I don't have any But why would why would anybody accept it because you have an intuition about it? You feel like like an intuition is almost basically a feeling you feel like it's true Tom John feels like it's true. Therefore. I should believe it Most people feel like it's true like most people see things and most people feel things That you're just appealing to majority Yes, like what if you say if I what is it gonna be something like let me try to steal man your argument for you since you Have seen to have a hard time. So what is it gonna be something like? most people feel that an imposition on will is What bad do you want to use the word bad? Sure, okay. It's therefore. It's bad Sure. Yes. Okay. So you're appealing to majority Yes, like when the majority First you're appealing to majority which is You committed an error in reasoning. It's a fallacy Yeah, appealing to majority is a fallacy. I think you're a troll which if you are if this is you fucking troll You're my new favorite person because that's amazing But anyway, so again, I didn't know anyway, I wasn't excuse me. I wasn't I wasn't finished But you got it wrong You're you're confusing my argument for an appeal to a majority as if that is the argument like no, like if a lot of I just made it as most people believe that therefore it's true and you agree And you're confusing that as the appeal to a majority fallacy because you don't understand the difference like in science The majority of people if they can do a test and get the same result We trust the majority in that case. Why are you talking about legitimate appeals to authority? Is that what you're talking about? No, no, no again So this is just like if lots of people see a horse We say yeah, that horse probably exists if one person says they don't see the horse. We probably goes. Yeah, that guy's probably nuts But if it's the other way around and lots of people don't see a unicorn and one person sees a unicorn Then we reject the claim of the one person So we do in many cases go with the majority like if everyone sees something no You look you're not you're believing it because of background information on people, right? But look no Look if it's dependent on People feeling that it's true, then how the fuck is it objective? It's by definition Subjective if that's the standard objective means independent of my it's mind independent. It's independent of what anybody thinks So how can I be your argument? Is your if it's objective your claim has to be that even if no minds existed it would still be true So how the fuck are you gonna appeal appeal to what people think you feel and you're not even like It's just it's just you're just saying it's an intuition So you're just saying most people feel that way therefore. It's true feelings are neither true or false, sir No, they can't be definitely be true or false, but so again What does that mean can mean lots of different things, but that's not my position here So again, you can have a fact that is true about the world which is true about minds You say minds have experience now. That's not that's an objective fact So it's true independent of the minds when it's still true about the mind So the minds feeling is another fact. That's true about the minds and can still be objective, right? But that's not it's not contingent upon what it would be true that minds existed even though if some like don't know person believe that no minds exist It's not dependent that fact I'll tell you why that's that's Objective because it would be true even if then you annihilated all minds It would still be objectively true that at that point in time. They had existed. It's not dependent on minds It was true that they had existed it when they stopped existing I'm not talking about But it wouldn't still be true that it would be bad to impose on will if people existed if nobody existed because So I didn't say the mind exist. I said a mind has conscious experience So what so that's an objective fact that is contingent on a mind So you can get it on a mind It's nice not that clean is not contingent on a mind Because if that mind stopped it stopped existing, that's the statement that it had existed would still be true It wouldn't be dependent on the continued existence of the mind I didn't say it had existed. I was never a part of my arguments I don't know why you're bringing that up wait I didn't hear you what my argument is is that a mind has conscious experience That is an objective fact, which is true contingently on the mind. Which means if the mind stops existing So again, you can say it is objectively true that I like Ice cream like that's that is a fact that is objectively true But it is subjectively contingent on my mind So you can have objective facts that are contingent on minds. It's not contingent on what anybody believes Okay, that's not what I said. I said you have objective facts that are contingent on minds Right, but if that mind were to stop existing would it not still be true that it had existed even if no minds no longer exist I'm sure but that was never a part of my arguments So it's not actually contingent is not contingent on the the the mind itself. It's not it's if the mind never existed It's not true in virtue of what the mind believes Okay, so it wouldn't matter if if minds existed, but they somehow believe that no minds exist It would be great and that has nothing to do with my argument. So I don't know why you keep competing that What's the you have you given an argument? Yes So again my claim is that moral facts are true and we can say that lots of people feel morality That's an objective fact lots of people the reality the first the first promise is I'm not even going to try to it's the waste of my time. So how is that wasted again? So again again So you can have objective facts about minds They are descriptive of minds and the things that minds feel Yeah, like likes yeah likes, um But that doesn't mean that it's mind dependent in the sense that it's dependent on what people believe Right No, I'm not you are making a very confused mistake here So I am my position is not morality is dependent on what people think that is not my position That's not that's moral subjectivism. I'm not a moral subjectivist Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you then because I thought That you said that it was true that it's true that imposing on people's will is bad because Most people believe that it is Or feel that it is the fact that most people feel that it is is like the fact that most people see a horse This is a discernible piece of evidence like induction. Most people see it. It's not true Most people believe in god does that mean god exists? What the fuck does the matter with you? No again So most people have a sense experience of a thing Means the thing exists doesn't tell anything about the thing Most people have an intuition that god exists. Does god exist that justification for me? So if I if me and you were debating the existence of god and I came in here and said my argument is Most people have an intuition that god exists. Therefore god exists Wouldn't I look like a stupid retarded foolish asinine moron top like like you would do now? Yes. Yes, you do Yeah, that's exactly what you're doing. If you were claiming that most people if you were claiming that most people have Intuitions of god and then you said therefore intuitions of god exist. That would be a reasonable argument. That's the argument. I'm making No, you're you're not saying that the conclusion isn't that most people have intuitions about Morality the conclusion is that it's true that imposing on someone's free will is bad And you're saying that it's true that imposing on someone's free will is bad because most people have an intuition that god exists or that That it's that it's bad. How is that? What's the dist analogy when I say again if most people see a horse the horse doesn't exist because most people see it It exists independently, but it's good evidence that it does exist that people see it Look, that's just taking that's just taking testimony, right about um The this the claim that they saw the horse so that's around knowledge on people Shows that like people don't have reasons to lie about having saw a horse. So in your experience, it's like in an induction Uh, no idea what you're telling me. I'm not sure what you're saying. What tell me what the disanalogy is Most people see a horse that's not the horse doesn't exist because people see it. That's that's not the argument I'm saying there is a horse there and it's good evidence that the horse is there that most people see it I'm not making the argument that the horse is there because people see it. No, no, that's not it Well, look the justification can't for why do you believe the horse exists Can't be that people saw people see it right because that would be begging the question It would have to be that because most sir, please calm down it would have to be that It would have to be It would have to be that because they're testifying you believe it because they're testifying to it You can't say the horse is I believe the justification for the horse existing Is that most people saw it because most people seeing a horse is just presupposing that it's true that it there's a horse So what the what the fuck are you talking about? But anyway, so I you look confused. I don't know if you really are but I think I'm sure the audience Yeah, I'm definitely confused about a lot of things right now, but I have no idea what your argument is making So again, it's perfectly if a lot of you can't okay Look, you can't say that your justification that there's a horse is that people saw the horse Right, it would have to be they testified that they saw the horse because if you say If you say that they saw the horse look Then that assumes that the horse exists, right? No, the justification is assuming that the look you can't see something if it's not there Unless you can those are called illusions An illusion is uh, just an existence It's not something that's coming from the external world, right? You're saying that the horse it actually exists in the external world You can have the experience of a horse without the horse being there But the claim is that the horse actually exists not just that people are experiencing the horse Yes, so you can't say that the reason that the horse Or that your justification for the horse being there is that people see the horse Yes, you can that's no no it has to be their testimony Like if I wanted to make an argument that uh, Taj Mahal exists I can say I know a bunch of people who see all the Taj Mahal that is perfectly reasonable for me to believe No, no, it's it's the fact they're testifying to it if you'd say, um, it's like asking Why do you why do I believe that my phone is right here and me saying I because I see my phone? That's not justification Yes, it is It's justification for you and it's justification for me So anytime you say I saw it's always testimony. So whenever I say people saw something It's always going to be their testimony of the thing that they're seeing. I obviously can't see through their eyes But I have no idea why that's relevant to this conversation. So Let's just move on from that. So Yours, so let me just restate with the arguments to be sure on understanding You're saying that Your justification for believing that imposing on will is bad Is that most people feel that it's bad? No, most people see it is the reason to believe morality is real And then I go through all this stuff to get to the conclusion of my specific morality Okay, so if it was if we were talking tell me what the disanalogy is with God So I can say most people have the intuition that God exists. Is that justification to believe in God? No So what's the disanalogy? Because one is not claiming that something external to them exists in reality. Like so if I said I feel like I like ice cream. That's clearly in my head But it's in the head of everyone who likes ice cream Where if I say God, you think that morality is not extra like you think it's internal. Yes What does that even mean for it to be internal? part of our minds So wait abstract minds exist and morality wouldn't exist Yes Wait, I thought I was objective. It is But it's dependent on the existence of minds Right So remember you can have objective facts about minds like the mind is conscious If there is no mind then it wouldn't be conscious So it's contingent on the minds existing if there are no minds and there are no conscious minds So if most people believe that there wasn't morality then there wouldn't be morality Um There would be no evidence of it. That's for sure I just don't understand. That's just again appeal. I don't understand how this is on appeal to majority If most people don't see a horse, that's pretty good reason to think there is no horse There's no evidence of the horse So there are evidence of morality is the fact that we have moral intuitions the fact that most people feel morality Is our evidence of morality We don't have any other evidence of it other than people's feelings Look, so let's instead of using the um With the horse say why do you believe that acts happen in the past? I can't say it's because because I remember it happening, right because that would be Look no because The if you saying that it's an actual memory Then that's assuming that it actually occurred Right No, can you have a memory is can you have a memory of something that never occurred? Yes, it's not an actual memory then really called false memories. We have all kinds of those that happen in humanity That's just gibberish a false memory is actually just gibberish It's it's an actual thing in neurology and psychology. It is a literal condition No, I know I know that but if we break that break that down the false memory What does it even really mean because a memory is? um the reoccurrence of an experience of the past But if that event never happened in the past then it wouldn't be a reoccurrence of an event in the past Would it right? So a memory is a thing that we remember as having happened in the past and there's a part of our brain that That saves things as events that happen in the past And there are mistakes of the brain where it can save things that it says happened in the past that didn't happen in the past And that's what a false memory is this would it save something But that's you said that's what a memory is is it is it having happened in the past? Well, I didn't say that you said that I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you repeat what you said? um, so so Your brain has a thing where it saves Memories is having happened in the past. What's a memory? It's just a thing we remember as having happened in the past But did it actually have to happen? No, that's what a false memory is. So it's just wouldn't it just merely be an experience then What what I have no idea what you're talking about. No, what is the experience? Sorry, hang on a second This part. Yeah, do I have an echo? Um, I can't hear one Do you have a really bright light right behind you if you could move the shader? Oh, no, that's um Sorry, I can just move her. That's just my the light shining in the glass. I got you Can we just do the q&a now Do what do you have questions for me Tom? um Sure, do you think the world will be better without rape? I don't know what um, I would prefer it but I'm not sure exactly what would depend on what we would have to examine what we meant by better I wouldn't say I would never use the term good or bad What do you mean you wouldn't use the term good or bad? like I wouldn't say that Because I think that entails an ought so I wouldn't say we ought live in a world where there's no rape Why would you not say that? Why would you say we? You would not say we ought live in a world that is has no rape. Why would you say that? Because I wouldn't be able to justify that grief Okay, we'll just forget justifying it. What do you think do would you feel that that world will be better? I will batter or good I consider those synonyms Oh, you think that good what you mean is by good is better like morally good is better. So what is better? I mean Well, I use those as synonyms. They mean the same thing. Right. So I'm asking for the definition not not another synonym I'm asking for the definition Less bad less immoral What what specifically are you asking? Yeah, what's the definition of bad? Give me the definition of good and bad Don't give me a sit like a sit in them. Just give me the definition Well, you mean like just the dictionary definition of good And on your position, what's as good and bad? Oh The least involuntary imposition of will is good or involuntary imposition of will is bad and Assisting will is good. All right. So I'm sorry before you respond Unfortunately, we're unable to hear me in the chat What I said earlier was if you tag me with your questions at converse contender I'll ask them your questions at the end. All right. I'm sorry um So why is it what is you're just saying that What is good is the um Non imposition of will Right. So imposition of will is bad and then assisting wills is good the opposite right So what is that? I don't know what that means though the good. I still don't know what that means Helping people Wait, but what is the word good mean? So in in my model, it means assisting people helping people's like moral means to assist a will So literally what goodness is I heard you are you asking for like the actual dictionary definition of the word good or was Specifically what good is in my model? I'm not like is it an ought plane like ought to impose on people's will Well, odds are not in my model. I don't use odds. They're purely descriptive So if somebody were to impose on somebody's will they wouldn't be blameworthy I don't know. I don't use blameworthy. I just use descriptions So if someone was to impose on someone's will they would be immoral So is there are people morally responsible? um If as a determinist, no They are we would have to treat them as if they are morally responsible in order for the safety of others But there is no actual kind of like universal moral responsibility thing So what are you saying other than the you don't like the imposition of will? What do you mean? What am I saying? Yes, what do you what claim are you making about it? I just it seems like you prefer wills not to be imposed on I'm claiming that it would be objectively better if the world did not have involuntary indigestion of will I'm claiming that is something that is true independent of preference But why what are you appealing to that's not a preference? Uh our moral intuition and moral progress those are the only kinds of others we have pretty bad, but that's all we got Moral progress. Um, so wait, it's not a preference um And it's better why? Because not because you feel it's better No, it's because it would be better for everyone just all living things all conscious No, I understand that's the claim. I'm asking what like what standard are you appealing to? I'm not claiming any standards when it comes to better. What standard are you appealing to? I'm not appealing to a standard. I'm looking at the evidence and trying to make a principle that describes the evidence and where it leads to Say that again I'm looking at the evidence. I plotted out on a little line graph. What's the evidence moral intuition will progress Why would I grant that what somebody else? The why would I grant the moral intuitions of others? um I'm not sure what you mean like it exists Like should I believe should I believe this? No, I'm not saying you should believe anyone else's moral intuitions I'm saying if you take the collection of all people's moral intuitions and you plot them out on a graph This is what it seems to indicate. So it's not like you should believe No, I'm asking no, like you're supposed to be justifying the claim, right? So I'm asking for the justification Um, that is the justification So if you take all moral progress and moral intuition and we plot it out on a graph like evidence Why wait for we have to what is even moral progress? What does that mean? If we look throughout time and we see moral changes throughout societies and cultures that seem to Expand the horizons of morality and apply more generally to people with less imposition of will like Women's rights lgbt rights Um, why why would I grant that any of that is the way the world and you're not saying that's the way the world ought be No, odds aren't in my mind It's purely descriptive it's saying if you impose your immoral and if you help your moral But it doesn't tell you anything about aughts aughts or just It's subjective things afterwards So somebody that comes along and says well, I don't like that. What what is your going to be objection to them? I'm not going to object to them. It's not about what they like. It's a Descriptive thing. So if like if you kill someone and you're immoral and you know, what if they're claiming the exact opposite? They can claim whatever they want. I'm going to appeal to the evidence and say the evidence indicates my conclusion more than theirs What no, what if they say that like suffering is better on everything I'm going to say that their conclusion does not follow the evidence in mind does and so mine's better What so like if they're saying that what is better is suffering and then they're like we like so the torturing leads to suffering and um The whatever you said is leading away from torturing then that's bad. What are you going to say to that person? I'm going to say I my mind follows the evidence and yours doesn't so it's like if someone says the world is flat And someone says the world is round I'm going to say I'm I'm going to follow the evidence and you can you can disagree if you want that's nice But I'm going to go ahead and follow the evidence I think okay, I think we're just talking past each other. So I mean like So you're saying the imposition of will is bad. Yes. What if I say what if somebody comes along and says it's good That's if you're just defining what is good as if you're just using that to be synonymous with the imposition of will Then what if somebody just comes along and says the bad is synonymous with the imposition of will right? I'm going to say there's two possibilities either one The definition of good is imposition of will or the definition of good is non imposition of will And I'm going to say the way we resolve this difference as we look at the evidence We plot it out on a line graph draw a line to connect the dots and see which one it points to And I'm going to say look it points to mind if you look at all the more That's all the evidence it indicates this way is the correct way But no, you've only just defined good the good as the imposition of will though No, no, it's a conclusion of the evidence. It's not just me defining it. I'm it's a conclusion of the evidence I'm not just arbitrarily defining it this way No, I'm at I'm talking about the definition of good Yeah, yeah, so that's that conclusion The definition of good is the not the the imposition of will Here's the non imposition of will right? I'm saying that would that's not what the evidence indicates therefore that is wrong No, I'm not asking you about evidence. It doesn't matter like let's assume that you're you're it's it's um The all the evidence you're talking about is Is um there but we're disagreeing on the definition. Okay So, uh, I'm not exactly sure what you mean here So like if someone's disagreed with the definition of energy and said no I inside I disagree with your definition of energy and I say it says well I have all this evidence and it works and it makes you know and describes the world and Someone else comes along and says no, I just disagree with a definition of energy. I essentially well, you're an idiot I don't really care like okay And my response is going to be the same like if you disagree with my definition of good Then you're not following the evidence just like someone who disagrees with the definition of good Someone who disagrees with the definition of energy is not following the evidence Or are we are you asking me to like what would I do to try and convince them of my model or something? Look the good is uh, is it a descriptive or a prescriptive claim Descriptive everything in my model is descriptive. There are no prescriptions And good the definition of good is the imposition of will or the non imposition of will yeah and Is it irreducible? I don't know what that means. We've been irreducible Like is it um a semantic primitive I don't know what you mean. What do you mean reducer? Is it is there anything you're just taking it to be synonymous with the imposition of will so when you're saying that oh like this this uh The lgbt thing or whatever Is good. You're just saying the the lgbt movement is um The non imposition of will essentially. Yes, I'd be more specific. It would be the removal of restrictions against the I don't understand how you're saying anything other than that. Are you saying anything other than Uh, it's not an imposition of will because if you're just taking good to be synonymous with that Then you're not really saying anything Well, i'm saying that if it's good if you take like two actions and you say this action is good And that means there is less imposition of will in that action No, I thought you said that it was synonymous Yes, that's what they mean. So like if bob is a baxler then you also know bob is not married So if you say the lgbt community Something good happens to the lgbt community, then you know that some restrictions that were on their will have been removed They have been given more freedoms. They are no longer being imposed upon involuntarily so you're not saying that the imposition on will is Is good because you wouldn't say like a synonym is a synonym and the um I'm sorry. I'm I don't know where I was going with that whenever you guys get ready. Just let me know and we'll head into the q&a section Okay, we we can move to the sorry guys. I'm really sleep deprived. I You guys uh, you want a chance to round off or do you want to just jump straight in? Either you guys want like a closing I want I want to rematch. I can try to summarize my points. Sure. So Um, I believe moral realism is true because I believe there is evidence of morality I think our moral intuitions and moral progress is evidence that morality exists kind of like Evidence of gravity is stuff falling and we see stuff fall. We can then Plot out the evidence and say well, what is the rate of things falling and then we can try to make a principle That describes the rate of falling and so my argument that moral realism is true Is that we can look at the evidence of morality, which is our moral intuition and moral progress We can plot it out on a line graph Just like for gravity and then try to create a principle that describes where this line What this the picture of the lines when you connect the dots where it's leading to And that's what my position is is that we can look at the evidence connect the dots Create a principle that describes the phenomenon and that's morality Just like in gravity you look at the evidence connect the dots Then create a principle of f equals ma to describe gravity But what it what it actually is newton didn't know anything about gravity. He didn't know what it was He didn't care. It's not like appealing to a standard of god to describe morality He's just describing what it does. So I'm doing the same thing. I'm describing what morality does which is leading to the Best of all possible things the non-invalidation position All right guys, would you like a couple minutes to wrap up or? No, I'm sorry. I my thoughts were really scary because I'm really sleep surprised um I want I would live want to challenge tom. I'm sorry. I got um yelled during the debate That's just my personality. I do that when I'm not even Well, I mean you talked to me before so I would really love a rematch though. Sure. Yeah, we definitely set that up And I guess until round two We'll go ahead and jump into the q&a because we do have a lot of questions. So we'll go ahead and get started on that so Um, we have our first Question is actually a super chat from Stephen anthony jolly. Thanks so much for your 199 super chat says hey you and it has a pair So pretty cool. Well, thank you so much for the support to the channel. Oh second stupid whore energy Thank you so much for your five dollar super chat stupid whore energy says Can you experience horse? I think this is the rate of I think this is the speed of light Okay Not sure. I know that the little c represents the speed of light but it says could you read it again? What is it the actual question? Can you experience horse the speed of light okay Without believing in horses or maybe that's c Zero k. I'm not sure without believing in horses. All right. Uh, I'm gonna guess that's a trolling Oh, yeah, I figured I figured out what that meant. Uh, it's not it's not what you thought it meant. Yeah I was trying to Joke around about it because I didn't want to come out and say we're trying to keep it PG on this channel Adam friend says How do you know your moral feelings are right? What is the justification for tom's beliefs? The moral intuition and more progress of society. It's not my moral feelings It's not based on me at all. It's based off of the collection of moral intuition and more progress of all societies throughout all time All right, thanks so much for that response tom tryhard supreme says godless is a wreck What a Oblivious woman. Uh, it's just kind of a troll. Do you want to respond to that at all or you want to just move past it? Oblivious like is unaware. I don't know what he means unaware I'm not sure It's probably just a troll if you want to just move forward. We'll uh, oh, I have a lot of haters all over We all do All right Next is sj. Thomason says converse How does t jump ground our objective morality consequentialism? How does he get past circular reason? Well, there's a couple things to that one is that you don't need to ground at all like for when new when newton described gravity He had no ground for gravity. He was just describing the phenomenon. He didn't know what caused it He didn't know if it was actually a thing or not So you don't need a ground for anything to have an objective model You just need a principle that describes a phenomena Secondly, you can ground it in lots of different things. You can ground it in the platonic object a law of nature and abstract Concepts you can ground in all kinds of things. I'm not a consequentialist But consequentialists do have objective moral realists who do ground Objectivity in consequential principles. So that's not really a problem In regards to the circular reasoning thing all reasoning in all forms of logic rest on one of three kinds of Justification one is foundationalism or dogmatism, which is Just say it so and just be done second is circular reasoning where it justifies itself and third is infinite or gross Those are the only three options. Everything you do is going to fall back onto one of those three no matter what Um, I'm not I think mine. I'm not sure which one mine would fall into because I'm essentially just using the scientific method So whichever one the scientific method goes to is the one I'm using Um, but yeah, so it doesn't it's any it's not less Supported than gods. I bought the god. I bought this also fails and one of these three falls into one of these three justifications So it's not any more or less justified in that sense. All right. Thanks so much for that. Tom stupid or energy had another five dollar super chat says You can still deal with bad brains under I'm not sure if she means the pump man or not. You can still deal with bad brains under no free will Or I should say faulty brains under the standard of human well-being Yeah, that's totally right. So you can Hold people accountable even though they aren't actually at fault So it's something to do with their brain chemistry Which is causing them to do things which will hurt others And so we have to confine them just like we have to confine a rabid bear or something And so it's they're not blame-worthy. They don't have some kind of Extra property where that's there at fault. It's just there how their brain works And we have to then hold them accountable for how their brain works. So yeah, are you saying like just quarantine them? Yeah, essentially All right. Thanks so much for that response. Tom. We had another super chat come in. Um, sorry, I'm From Kyle's lawyer. Thanks so much Kyle's lawyer for your super chat. Um, sorry Okay, uh, he says let children run don't impose their will Yeah, if we lived in the best world possible We wouldn't have to force them to not run into the streets because the streets couldn't hurt them anymore Like that's kind of the point so that we only restrict them because there's a Really bad consequence if we let them run into the streets, which is they get hit by a car So if we get rid of the consequence, there'd be no reason to stop them from running into the streets But yeah, why does Kyle's lawyer use a picture that looks exactly like Jim Majors? That picture does look like a Jim Majors a little bit like maybe uh Jim, uh, maybe uh, Kyle with Jim Majors mustache Uh, he also had another super chat, uh, five dollar super chat that I missed. Sorry about that And thanks for your super chats Kyle's lawyer says T jump's argument is the horse is there because I said it's there No, the horse is there because lots of people see it lots of people see something in reality It's pretty reasonable included there as long as it's not something extravagant that we have no basis for in reality So as long as it has we have a basis for it existing and someone says they saw it Like I saw a dog you can reasonably conclude. There was a dog there. It's completely completely reasonable. All right. Thanks so much for that for that response, Tom Labs are Hope i'm pronouncing that right had a two ca super chat says How does diverse morality moral intuition explain homo sex? I'm not sure explain what Homosexuality. Yeah, I'm not sure if that's a question or a troll that might actually be a legit question How does um morality doesn't explain homosexuality homosexuality is a product of evolution has nothing to do with morality directly It's not really any different from asexuality or Uh heterosexuality. It's just a product of evolution. It's not specifically to do with morality at all it's or unless he's asking about the moral progress thing, which is the LGBTQ rights And that's a one example of moral progress, which there's lots of others like women rights and workers rights and universal health care and um helping the elderly helping people who are mentally or physically handicapped and in animal rights, vegetarianism, veganism, there's tons and tons of examples of moral progress, which is just the expanding of moral Agenthood to lots of other things that we didn't previously Considered to have that property. It's not specifically it doesn't have anything to do with lgbt specifically All right. Thanks so much for that uh brian stevens with a patreon question says to godless girl What is your best argument for morality in a godless world? That's the question is to me. Uh, yeah Yeah, that person's a retard because that's not my position. My position is that my moral claims are not true or false What the fuck are you talking about? Yeah, because you're you're a um a moral Uh, non-cognizant An emotivist which is a moral non-cognizant which tom said that that wasn't the case you can just google it Okay, thanks so much for that Had a super chat come in two dollars from nathan artwork. Thanks so much. Thanks for your support says can there be a good time to be Rape gg A good time to be raped Yeah, yeah, he's asking if is it always bad to be raped? I don't think it's it's I like I think when people say rape is bad that they're just saying that they don't like it So he said the question is is there a good time? Yeah Yeah, like is there a time that they like it or like is there a time where it's permissible? I think Well, I don't think anything is morally permit permissible or impermissible but I guess you could say if it's If since it's just a preference I guess you can say it's it's good when They're expressing that they like it when um a rape turns into Uh enjoyable well, I guess then at that point it would no longer be right because then it would be consensual So I don't know. I guess no, there's not Of time when so but if if there can't ever be a time when rape is good Doesn't that seem to be that rape is objectively bad wouldn't that statement then follow? No, I'm saying that if well, I guess you actually No, I'm wrong. You could um Have enjoyment like a woman can have an orgasm when she's being raped so that she would part of it Her would be enjoying it, but I guess the preference to be raped wouldn't be there. So All right, thanks so much for that response. Um, we had another super chat come in from Melee or melee time says does godless girl does godless have an argument seem like no Um, I'm not sure if you want to respond to that just it might just be a troll remark Yeah, I gave my argument and uh, I gave my formal argument in the beginning of the stream more than once in like with premises and a conclusion All right, perfect. I can restate it. I can restate it if they want sure you want to go ahead and restate it real quick For the people who just came in yeah moral when moral claims are just uh preferences. Is somebody expressing a preference? Uh preferences can be neither true or false. So moral claims are not either true or false All right, thanks so much for that Pants L. Jones and by the way, um I am giving everybody's questions even if I don't uh message you right back and say I got you I'm trying to uh get them all but there's like a ton of questions. So uh pants L. Jones asked covers for tj Are all the actions that do not impose will involuntarily moral Or does your model only explain how to be immoral not moral? Moral is the assistance of will so if you're helping someone with their will that will be moral I mean I use I use immoral as the way to just explain it But then you can just mirror all of everything I say to the moral side to understand what morality is There's also like if I pick up a rock you didn't consent to me picking up the rock That would not be immoral, but it also wouldn't be moral. It would just be amoral So it has moral amoral and immoral options The moral option would just be assisting someone if you need help and it helps you to achieve your will that would be moral All right, thanks so much for that Jeremy Taylor, thank you for your one dollar super chat that just came in. Appreciate that. It looks like there was no um No message with that, but we also got another super chat from Nathan artwork says for five dollars says So would you allow something? Someone to rape you gg if it could be a good thing. I don't know if this is appropriate or to really um That might just be a little too far unless you you take that seriously and you want to repeat it Yeah, it's just would you allow if if that is the case? Would you allow someone to rape you if you if it could be a good thing? Well, if you are allowing it then it doesn't seem it would seems like not right by definition Yeah, I agree with you. I think so Because the consent aspect. All right, let's move on we have a question from David Donahue says come first for both Do you believe that morality is a spectrum for every person based on their education experience and observation? Etc of the world around them It's for both of us. Yeah Well, I I would say yes to that because I think it's just preferences. So yeah, I do think preferences are Uh influenced by that those things All right, I think there's subjective morality that they would learned would be yes But I think there is an objective morality that is not no. Thanks so much for that Uh, jerry taylor. Thanks for another one dollar super chat. He asked He jumped if you lived in a society where everyone thought that slavery and removing rights were good Would you conclude that slavery is good? um No, I would just say there's no evidence for morality So if there was no one who actually thought things were moral then there would be no evidence for morality So it could be the case that maybe there's evidence that for immorality in that case, but All right. Thanks so much for that. We just had a question come in from Tom rabbit It's to t jump. I'm not sure if there's any relation there But he says to t jump It's letting all the murderers out of jail moral progress. It would be ending imposition on their free will If there was no risk to hurting anyone else Yeah, if there was no risk that they could if we lived in the best of all possible worlds where it was impossible to Harm anyone else. Yeah, we might as well. We should let them go All right. Thanks so much for that Next question from Pants l jones says for tj Oh, no, I'm sorry. He already asked. I've already asked that question next is Um, tasteless opinion says question for godless. How does it feel to Have wiped the floor with your opponent? Oh taking shots at you, uh, tom Oh, well, I actually uh, unlike other atheists, uh Uh, I would honestly say I did very good in the second half and then falter in the The second or I mean I did very good in the second half the falter at the end I'm extremely uh sleep deprived. So my I abused coffee very bad and I haven't had sleep in a long time. But uh, You can look at my time. Shall we did we had a short debate before and it was brutal. It was really brutal He was I wiped the floor with in that time. I don't know how he felt then but um, I honestly didn't do good the second half But I would love a rematch. Yep Definitely second round if tom's cool Steve actually steve mccray wants to debate team team on my team against you and someone else about morality tom Tom that could be a cool future debate. I know you and steve have have kind of been looking for something to go at Sure. All right. Cool. All right next question from ask yourself Says ask t-jump how his objective morality in quotes is incompatible with any form of Realism since all he's doing is making descriptive claims about what does or doesn't impose on will Again, I would say it follows the evidence So I'm saying the descriptive claims are a result of the principle describing the evidence So the evidence describes a thing in the world presumably that the idea is is that when we look at moral intuition and moral progress And we plot out the evidence. It's describing some thing That exists. It could just be an abstract concept. That's perfectly fine, too But that some thing is what it's describing So it wouldn't be an anti-realist thing since it would actually exist even even as an abstract object That's where the contradiction is All right. Thanks so much for that our next question is from x caliber says Is this just for entertainment so we can watch t-jump gaslight is competitors And simply use the argument it is just that way. So I win like championship wrestling I'd never use that argument. So you could if you find a quote and feel free to like post me saying that Okay, thanks so much for that t-jump um, we have a Sorry Jumping back and forth in the live chat so I can get the super chat to push to the top of the list We had a super chat from nathan artwork again. Thanks for your two dollars says tj. What is your opinion on gg's argument? um Our argument states that Moral statements can't be true or false. That's a pretty common argument in philosophy. I don't know I disagree with it, but it's not like it's an incoherent argument That's not stating that moral claims cannot be true if all this is not an argument. That's that's the conclusion of any argument Right, so I can just state the conclusion and say here's here's your position No, you can't position if you Like if you ask he's asking you what do you think of the argument? You can't just say well, I don't agree with the conclusion, right? Sure, I can like what? No, he's asking you what that would mean like do you think it's a good argument or a bad argument or and why? Right, so I disagree with the conclusion. So I think it's a bad argument But I don't think it's completely incoherent. It's not like it's unfounded so it's an argument that's used in academia quite pretty often so it's not a super terrible Religious argument god exists. You don't think that there's arguments using academia that are terrible um There are but they're usually not in the majority or consensus So that argument is a fairly widely held position in academia. It's not a bad argument All right. Thanks. I just disagree with it. Thanks so much for that answer. We have uh Question from john robertson. Wait. I'm sorry. I have to can I ask tom jumbo question about that? Sure Like the majority. I know you one thing you do get right is the free will stuff I was I think I saw that so the majority of philosophers are compatibilists What do you think of that? um Does that mean that you We should be compatibilists Compatibilism is just like a rebranding of determinism. So I don't know What it's saying a free will is compatible with determinism, which is not your position No, I I agree with majority of philosophers that Compatibilism is true, but compatibilism is I thought that you weren't a compatibilist. I'm sorry No, no, it's it's compatibilism is a kind of determinism. There's no actual free will there It's still just a rebranding of determinism. It's not there's no libertarian You think the compatibilists aren't saying that free will exist. That's correct They're just saying that a brain function in neurology, which is determined by physical forces. We're going to call that free will That's what they're saying Wait, you think that it's not a compatibilist position that free will is compatible with determinism They're calling free will how our brain functions. So neurology the purely deterministic forces of biology and our brain We're they're going to call that free will it's still determinism. It's not a new thing There's no new feature in compatibilism. It's still would you disagree with them that that's free will You can call it free will I don't disagree with them that that exists. They're just calling you a compatibilist I agree with everything in their position. I just don't use the word free will All right, so let's move on that way we have because we have so many questions. We'll try to use we'll try to Keep brevity in mind So next question from ask yourself says when t-jump says better All he means is x does or doesn't maximize preferences How are statements about what maximizes preferences incompatible with any type of anti realism? So again, the definitions here don't matter at all. The what differentiates it between anti realism is i'm stating There is evidence of moral intuition moral progress and these pieces of evidence indicate something that exists It is not anti real. It's not a fictional thing. It is a real thing That's the difference. I mean, I don't know why ask yourself can't Put this together. It's pretty simple Like even alex got this in like the first like five seconds of the debates Ask yourself just doesn't understand this is that if you're arguing that this evidence indicates a thing that exists It can't be not real. So that's that's why it's not like anti realism anti realism not real Realism, it's real There's the thing and the evidence indicates the thing you guys to debate it We did yeah, hey, how already have that was an interesting discussion there. I think it was on adam for this channel, right? Uh, no, I think it was on discord. Ask yourself this. Oh, I'm gonna watch that. Okay. Did you win tom? Uh, I don't know if anyone counts as a winner and that was pretty It was it was like the dark thawkins debate pretty much All right, so I guess I guess I won because I got lots of views for the sake of the questions Let's move on x caliber another question says anyone knows that t-jump's eternal smile is leaving his face He jumped taking shots at you is what it said it was what his face Is leaving his face. I think he's saying that you were doing so well that t-jump was starting to frown a little So you got a fan out there godless girl. Oh sj. Thomason says cumbers How do you distinguish our moral intuitions of progress from our moral law givers? Uh, I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I'll I'll give it a shot. So Just looking at the evidence of moral intuition moral progress. It doesn't say anything about whether there is or isn't a law giver Like there could be a god that Created this principle and it's grounded in God's nature Potentially I don't think it's a moral law giver I don't think it's a moral law giver I don't think it's a moral law giver I don't think it's a moral law giver I don't think it's a moral law giver I don't think it's a moral law giver Potentially that doesn't work because it's Purely subjective to the god so it the euthephodalum approves that false But it could be so the just the evidence indicates here's what the principle is And it doesn't say anything about the ontology of whether it's grounded in a god or an abstract principle or a platonic object Any of those are possible I tend to go with the abstract object things that there's no evidence that there is like a god at all So that's that's how you would distinguish is that there's just no evidence of a god And if it was grounded in the god then it would be arbitrary as didn't worry about the euthephodalum So I think I think that answers the question. All right. Thanks so much for that Um, john robertson says that I might have missed his question. Actually, john. I did ask your question Um, I will give you t-jumps response again. He said teach t-jump What is the standard against what you call something better or worse progress or regret? Uh, do you want me to answer it again? Yeah Oh, yeah, so there's not the standard. You don't need the standard That's the same question sj. Just asked like you can create a standard and say it's god's nature or a platonic object Or an abstract object that isn't required for objective morality You just need to describe a principle that the evidence indicates And that's it. And so I'm if I pick the standard I would say pick an abstract object as a standard and that would be my preferred kind of standard But you don't need a standard All right. Thanks so much for that Some people are telling me my mic's really low, so I'm gonna try and uh Try to talk a little louder. We had a uh super chat come in from fat man says did gg say That if a woman was sexually assaulted and had an orgasm, then the assault wasn't a bad thing Uh, well, she overall she would have I just take good and bad to be preferences So overall she would have not preferred it But if she I said that if she had an orgasm during it, then part of it would have been physically enjoyable But no, I wouldn't say then she preferred it. So no, all right. Thanks so much for that um Looks like our next question is from Uh No, it's just a comment tasteless opinion says that's lame tj Um Next from pansail jones again says partij Uh, when did you plot all moral intuition on a graph and why don't you show this graph that contains all moral intuition? Uh, again, I'm just going with the consensus on the academic data there from philosophers on moral intuition I didn't actually plot any of it. They they did all the work All right. Thanks so much for that. Um, ask yourself says tell godless that all If you impose on will your immoral means is if you impose Can you repeat it? I sorry, I didn't hear it Ask yourself says tell godless that all if you impose on will your immoral means is If you impose on will you're imposing on will I'm wait. I'm not I'm sorry. I'm not following what I'm not following it. Okay. He's he's critiquing tom But he's just telling you like hey all that he means by if you impose on your On will Your immoral all that means is if you impose on will you're imposing on will Yeah, I actually agree with that. He's kind of a tautology. Maybe tom. Do you want to? Yeah, that is that is what? I agree that it's a tautology. Yeah, he's confusing the definitions with the argument that it exists So if I say all I mean by tree is the tree well, yes, but the tree actually has properties outside of the word So the word when I say impositions of will yes, that means bad and when I say Bad that means impositions of will but the definition isn't the ontology of what it is There's a separate kind of thing with ontology. So it has separate properties outside of the definition Namely it exists That's the guys need a rematch. We guys need a rematch All right, uh, we'll move on because we do have a ton of questions. I mean we got almost 400 people watching uh Stupid or energies had five dollar shipchats. Sorry. I uh missed that one says question for godless Does moral non-cognitivism make any testable predictions as cognitiveism does? As testable predictions, I don't take it to be a scientific theory. So I don't know what that means Okay, no, I wouldn't say that it's not a hypothesis. What the fuck? All right. Thanks so much for that response. We'll move on to our next question from Excalibur says stj if he is anti vaccine He says people should be forced to do anything they don't want to do If we lived in a world where there were no consequences for not getting Vaccinated then no, we should never never under any circumstance force people to be vaccinated The only reason it's justified is because it has consequences on other people So it's not wait. Are those consequences bad though because you just take bad to mean the non-imposition the imposition of will Right. So yes, the consequences would also be imposition of will So like if you don't get vaccinated and you get a disease and it spreads to other people and they die That is an imposition on their will. So that's also bad All right, you're saying that the virus would be an imposition on their will Anything that imposes on their will like anything that kills them is an imposition on their will. So, yeah All right. Thanks so much for those responses We had a five dollar super chat come in from ask yourself. He says from underscore chc For t-jump. How does he know we are morally progressing and not morally regressing? Uh, with absolute certainty. I don't have absolute certainty. I just have a probabilistic conduction belief looks like we're He didn't ask about your level of certainty is the level of confidence. He asked about your level of confidence. He said no He said no and so yeah, so no knowledge is like what justified you believe. So he's asking you what he's How do you know like what is the justification? The evidence of moral intuition and moral progress from the same thing that philosophers use So that's that is a justified belief. It isn't absolute certain because if he's That's the thing when he asked those knowledge questions. He's asking those absolute certainty questions And I'm just saying no, I don't need that I can be justified with just the same evidence we have in philosophy You you think that when somebody asks, how do you know something they're asking absolute a question about absolute certainty? Yes, that is a very common thing to happen All right. Thanks so much for that response. We'll move on. We have kyle's lawyer with another two dollar super chat says God is the abstract object Thanks so much for that Kyle's lawyer That actually I would agree if theists argued that god was an abstract object I would probably think the arguments are perfectly fine That it exists as an abstract object Like just the conception of god as an outside object. Yeah Oh, that would that would definitely make for an interesting conversation But we'll move on to tasteless opinion says converse a question for Ask yourself. Okay. Well All right, so we'll move on because he's not here But ask yourself has actually the next question. It says till godless that all Okay, so he just We put that in we've already read that. All right adam friend. It says many people see moral progress as moral decay Whatever it is. Do you have that they are wrong? I would again just go with the same evidence that the philosophers use in the majority of what people see as moral intuition more progress seems to be increasing All right, thanks so much for that Uh, our next question is from john roverson again for t-jump is imposition of will always immoral Yes All right, thanks so much involuntary involuntary imposition of will because imposition of will can be voluntary And in case it wouldn't be immoral. There's only if it's involuntary Okay, because he said, okay. I got you. Perfect. So only if it's involuntary sure All right. Logos theos question for t-jump. How do you determine? What is a moral a morally bad action? By seeing if it has an involuntary imposition of will All right. Thanks so much cow's lawyer another two dollar super chat. Thanks for your contributions. He says t-jump Ontology equals exist Yes, the study of what exists. Yes All right. Thanks so much for that Stephen steen says converse There are six b this much should be like 68 or something but six Looks like 68 religious people whose moral intuition says tom is wrong If this is all the evidence we have bad or good, why isn't that evidence of god? Because if you're arguing for god as an abstract concept that exists in the mind, that's perfectly reasonable So it's what you're claiming like if I'm imagining a unicorn. That's perfectly reasonable But if I say a unicorn exists and I saw it that's not reasonable So it's it's the level of the claim if I'm claiming morality as an abstract object something in our heads Then the fact that people Intuitively feel it is perfectly justifiable evidence if I'm claiming like morality is a super powerful being that had created the universe Then the intuition of morality would not be sufficient. Okay, so he clarified six billion. He meant okay Gotcha, but your your response still positive. So he will move on. He said to follow up What testable predictions has tom has tom documented with his model? It's the only thing that is evidence Yes, testable predictions are great. So my testable predictions are that in the future as moral progress continues to change in a certain way, then we will begin to see things like um traffic lights will be immoral we'll be able to Increase the scope of a moral claim until it gets to any involuntary vision of will as a moral That'll be the end point of morality and as we continue to go on we'll be able to see more crimes like misreading children in certain ways that we do Like spanking or something spanking used to be thought of as moral or justified and now it's starting to be seen as more immoral And so as moral progress increases, we'll have more and more examples of that where any kinds of imposition on will Even the smaller mundane ones will begin to be seen as immoral by people That is the future testable predictions of my model. All right. Thanks so much If we'll try and get to these as quick as possible. Just answer as quick as you can because we have so many Um ask yourself says at godless girl good is just a Uh synonym for maximized preference All forms of anti realism can agree There are facts of the matter about what maximizes preferences either one of you guys want to take a stab at that or you want Yeah, so again, he's just confusing the description of the the definition with what the definition referring to It's just confusing the map for the territory fallacy It's just when the word tree is synonymous with the same word in other languages But that doesn't mean that the trees only have the properties of new languages There's an external thing there more than just the language So he's confusing the map for the territory over and over again because he just doesn't know the difference Uh, I actually don't think that there could be a that there I think there's cases in which there's not a fact of the matter Or what um would maximize the preference also All right. Thanks so much for that we had two superstitious roll in adam friend of it with five dollars says What kind of evidence do your philosophers provide testimonial evidence? Who are these philosophers? Um, I don't have their names memorized. You can just google the stanford size psychopedia philosophy on moral progress and moral realism And you can go through the links and find out what their evidence is and their papers are all listed there Um, yeah, it's mostly again just the evidence of moralism or progress throughout society throughout time Those are the two grounds of evidence we have for moral realism. All right. Thanks so much for that Looks like we might have lost Godless girl at least your videos um I'll just I'll I'll answer your questions until we figure out where what happened there Yeah Godless girl if you could hear me, uh, maybe jump out and come back in um question from We have a super chat from stupid whore energy and she asked X was a good person And no good person would kill millions of people ergo x would not kill millions of people testable predictions Uh, and not all science makes testable predictions Thanks so much for that. Uh, it wasn't a question but uh more of a statement I think it was a response to what, uh gg said to her the last one All right, so we'll move on we have um Uh, godless girl are you there? Hey godless girl Looks like she's back Are you able to hear me godless girl? Yeah, can you hear me? All right, you're good to go. Oh, yeah All right, thanks so much for that super chat. We had a super chat come in from troids 117 says for five CAs Just ask him as cultural preferences change. Does morality change with it? I would say no, I would say the cultural preferences changing is actually out in some what the Objective morality is so it's changing in the specific direction that we can plot out and see where it's going All right, thanks so much for that Uh, $20 super chat from Hey, yush Gupta says What does the name? Gary Milne Mean to you Not sure about that one Maybe that's like one of those uh There's like where there's a joke in there Uh, it's somebody it's somebody's docs Oh, gotcha Oh, is that oh, I think yeah, I think I know what it means. I'd love to be in on an inside joke one day Michael Scott. All right, we'll move on to our next question comes from Steven steen question for tom. How can objective morale? How can an objective? Moral framework not be prescriptive by definition Um, because it can be descriptive You can say if someone does an immoral action and they're labeled as this is immoral It doesn't need to be prescriptive at all. It can just say it describes the occurrences There's no problem with that Like you can take any kind of prescription and change it to a descriptive statement Just take take out the odds and replace it with niz All right, Tom. Thanks so much for that. We have labs or says converse How does t-jumps moral system? Work with homosexuality, especially considering the differences in people's moral intuition Treats homosexuality exactly the same as asexuality and heterosexuality. There's no difference at all It is not immoral to be homosexual. It is not in any way any different from any other kind of sexual preference Um, it's just normal. You can you get to have that preference. There's nothing immoral about it at all All right, thanks so much for that Tom. We had another super chat come in from philip Servingek, I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly five dollars or five a whatever that is a question for both If you think that a lot of this debate around moral realism Was just arguing about semantics and how we should best label things. All right Go ahead I think that No, I don't think it was about semantics actually Uh Not the topic of the debate that wasn't about semantics, but we did end up in semantical issues with semantics in parts of the debate All right, thanks. I agree. Tom you agree with that Yeah, all right. I'm gonna reread um stupid whore energies last super chat because uh, Godless girl had went out and it was a response to her so she asked me if I would review it Now that she's back I'm gonna do that now $10 super chases X quotations X was a good person and No, good person would kill millions of people ergo X would not kill millions of people testable prediction and not all science makes testable prediction Is that a response to that Um, I think maybe that's this is that the same person that had asked me if it If it makes predictions. Yeah. Yeah, um, so That's not a prediction. It would just be true by definition that if person acts doesn't whatever then They would it would just be by definition that they wouldn't do them All right. Thanks much for that It's not a prediction. It's just it seems to necessarily follow that that would be true. It's not that it would be a prediction Okay, thanks so much for that. John robertson again says for tom if the majority of people into it forcing people to do something is good Does that make it moral? No, again the intuition is just the evidence. It's not actually the morality itself It's the same thing. Uh Ask yourself was confusing. It's not about the intuition isn't the thing isn't morality. The intuition is just evidence of morality All right. Thanks so much for that our next question comes from x caliber says cumbers ask her If she does drugs by the way t jump did a typical horrible job Sad so attacking both people equally this guy's relentless and just Going in so I don't know if anybody wants to well, I don't see if it is an attack I'm hope I have a long drug history, but I'm so rare right now Well, that's well, that's really good news And tom did you want to have any response or anything for that? Uh, no. All right. Thanks so much for that response tasteless opinion says cumbers a question for t jump how he knows that we are Progressing and not okay. So we that question came up again. We've already asked that question. So we'll move on Let's see our next question comes from Uh, jeremy taylor t jump if you lived in a society where everyone thought that slavery was good and a worldwide variety Uh Of imposing will are good. Would you conclude that slavery is good? Possibly Well, how could you put it as good if slavery is an imposition on will and by definition? What's good is a non imposition Because my definition describes What my definition just follows the evidence So I take all moral intuition and more progress and plot it out on a graph And so if all the moral intuition more intuition and more progress Said slavery was good and that's the evidence I was using and that would come to the conclusion slavery was good So if you change all of the evidence and make it exactly the opposite of the evidence we have now then that would Lead to the opposite conclusion that I have now All right, thanks. I mean I respond about there's a lot of questions, right? So we want to move on All right, so sj. Thompson. Thanks so much for your super chat two dollars says tom our moral odds prescriptive or descriptive They're prescriptive. I don't have any odds in my claim my model though All right, thanks so much for that tom troids 117 sit with five LHCA says How do we know when When we have reached objective morality when using intuition um When there is no initially when it's gone We no longer have any kind of moral intuition because it's just the way things are essentially All right rider job book says tom for two dollars says for tom. Do you accept the law of non-contradiction? Um in most cases yes in some cases no All right, thanks so much for that frank 92 says can't wait for the book t jump two dollars Thanks so much for that frank 92 Yeah, I actually have Uh, I have a publisher lined up So it's supposed to be published within the next year or something like that about what? It's a debate between me and a christian On uh morality and the existence of god kind of stuff All right, thanks so much for that. We'll be looking for it t jump Mr corpus colapsum says question for tj. So if tomorrow So if tomorrow if the majority of human The majority of the human society decides slavery was good and into it Would that okay, so it's the same question from a different person You did kind of already answer that. No, no, that's that's a different question So if if if we took all the evidence we have now which is indicating that Nonimposition of will is good and then we add in like if everyone tomorrow just completely flipped That would be evidence to add to the to the set But it would still only make it go down like a little bit It wouldn't change it significantly because everyone in throughout all history has thought the opposite So it would be evidence that we would have to account for but it wouldn't completely change the model would just be a Change in direction a slight change. Gotcha. All right. Thanks so much for that t jump um Let's see Pancel jones says for tj if there were no minds It wouldn't be true that minds are Conscious because they wouldn't even exist You can't have objective facts without minds About minds without minds Right if there were no minds you couldn't have objective facts about minds Which means since there are minds you have objective facts about minds which are contingent on minds So yes, I agree with that completely All right. Thanks so much. We'll move on. Um, we have a question from Patreon question from brian steve that says to gala's girl Uh, what is your best? Okay, so we've we've already answered. Yeah, so we've already asked that one um, and she did answer it um Pancel jones against for tj Uh, so which is required for evidence future testable predictions or lots of people see it So it's reasonable to believe as evidence Um, those would both be kinds of evidence future testable predictions is evidence of If you want to show something exist outside of the human mind You need future testing predictions If you just want to show something exists in the mind like an abstract objects Then testimony is sufficient. So they're both evidence, but it's dependent upon the claim you're making All right. Thanks so much Jhc Converse how does t-jump? No, we are morally progressing and not morally Okay, so I think actually somebody super chatted this question in for them and you already answered it I think ask yourself did that. Yeah, it's the same. It's the same question Just look we have it as a floss or just google moral realism and moral progress And then you can find the papers that argue for it. All right. Thanks so much for that Sj. Thomas says how does tom explain our conscious? When our conscious calls Calls us to react beyond our intuition such as a soldier taking a bullet for another That would be a kind of intuition the fact that he would take a bullet for another would be an intuitive thing He felt I don't know what exactly that means All right. Thanks so much for that thom. We just have a few more so we'll try and get to these last ones as quick as possible Are there way more than usual? There are quite a lot. Yeah, but we have over 400 people watching so That's why they keep rolling in like by the second like we just got another super chat It just came in from Charles in solo says for 499 does objective morality depend on a society agreeing to the objective? Like non-imposition or general well-being No, it's not dependent upon what a society says the society is just evidence of what it is So the society sees it and we count that as evidence for the objective morality, but it isn't dependent on the society All right. Thanks so much for that sj. Thomas and says rape is always wrong But two animals is permissible Why do we why do we have morals and animals don't if evolution explains our morals? Well animals do have morals like all of the morals we have are also found in animal societies all throughout the world So they do have morals. That's just Just like when we had someone with a big gun who could just rape whoever they wanted to we couldn't stop them And they we still didn't like them and animals feel the same way There's no difference there all of the Animals have the same kind of evolutionary morals. We do just not to the same level of consciousness But morality applies independently of whether or not we have it. I think that answers. I think that was your question Yeah, I think what she said is like how sharks that they call it force copulation, but it's really I mean, it's great. I think she's saying like if what's the difference between that them doing that and us doing it If it's immoral shouldn't it be moral for them as well as us? Yeah, I'd say it's a moral for them also. So I'd say they also apply But yeah, the reason they have it is the same reason we have it which is evolution animals do have Orals all right. Thanks so much for that next question is from Brian Stevens What a debate follow-up In your worldview, how do you define something as good or bad? I guess this will be for both I define it as bad as an involuntary addition of will and good as a voluntary assistance of will All right, go girls Yeah, sure Uh in your worldview, how do how do you define something as good or bad? Well, I think that when somebody says something is good or bad when morally good or bad, they're just expressing their problems All right. Thanks so much for that Jeremy Taylor says t-jump if you lived in a So we've already had that question came in again Next question from x caliber says looks like they both believe the same thing and no one is narcissistic and the other The other drugs this is one either should debate hoven agree um So we'll skip past that because I think it's more just to comment Andrew t says can I tell both? Uh debaters that he said hey And he asked me to debate him Okay, no problem. Uh, Amy Newman for godless girl. Do you think our laws should be based on morality? If not, what should they be based on? Models based on preps she said models Yeah, laws be based on laws Do I think models should be based on laws should be based on preferences on morality on morality? I'm well, that's what morality. I take morality. Well, I wouldn't say that's something all I wouldn't make a claim about the way the world ought be so All right, the answer All right. Thanks so much for that Sunday worship says Is kind of hoven going to be debating against a t-rex on thursday may 14. I would hope so I don't think so, but but I would love to see that if that could be possibly happened All right, Brenda finally got to your question says, please can I ask what evidence? Would contradict Tom's claim You know Yeah, I'd be like the examples the people listed earlier like if everyone tomorrow started to believe that Slavery was good or something that would contradict my model Um That's one example. All right. Thanks so much for that Kyle Kyle's lawyer $2 ship shaft says, how do you map morality linearly tj? Um, we would look at it over a scale of time and the amount of imposition of will Opposed imposed by a society in certain contexts at different times. So like the Abolition of slavery would then Be one one point of time on a line and then another point of time on the line where there was no abolition of slavery Or where there was where slavery was abolished and that would be a transition up on the scale of morality on the left hand side That's how you do it All right. Thanks for that. He also had another question tj all right, nope It looks like the exact same question All right, so we'll move on to our next question which was from David Donahue for t jump is morality objective how come the graph Of moral data from a hundred years ago 200 years ago a thousand years ago is different from objective morality today The same reason the graph for climate change is a different 200 years ago 500 years ago a thousand years ago is that There's different data. So it only plotted to a specific point and then as we had more years We have more data and then we can plot it more accurately All right. Thanks for that brennan says What is the evidence that would falsify tom's moral theory? uh The same thing so it would be like if everyone throughout all history thought slavery was Good or something or if everyone from tomorrow on forever thought that it was good that would falsify the theory All right. Thanks so much tom david donahue for t jump if someone is trying to commit suicide Is involuntary imposition of their will still immoral? um No, it would be moral to help them like in the case of youth in asia if someone wants to die Then it's moral to help them die All right. Thanks so much for that tom jane steward Converse, can you ask t jump if you're going to simplify morality good to helping someone? Then doesn't that mean if you're If you help your best friend kill somebody you're being morally good No, because that would be an involuntary imposition on the will of the person you're killed So that would be immoral to do that Even if it would be moral to help your friend do whatever your friend wants to do It's also going to be immoral to kill a person So no All right. Thanks so much for that x caliber says t jump needs to go back to college and take a few statistics classes He obviously was gaslighting his friends and not paying attention He jumped this guy's relentless I don't know. I don't know what statistics. He thought I was misrepresenting there. I have no idea. All right. Thanks so much Pants L. Jones says for tj You can't have objective facts without minds Therefore those facts are not objective. You don't Yes, so I already proved that wrong remember that there is somebody in the comments who actually made the thing that If minds exist they have consciousness. So that's an objective fact about minds But if minds don't exist then it's not a fact anymore. So it's an objective fact that is contingent on minds Proving that statement wrong All right. Thanks so much tasteless opinion says t jump How is you losing this debate in the way you did not immoral? Um and morality is an involuntary imposition of will as far as I know There's been no involuntary imposition of will so it wouldn't be immoral All right. Thanks so much. I think we've got one more question Nope, that's it. Well, no, hold on. I'm sorry I've got one more here Pants L. Jones wanted to clarify and said T jump You can't have moral have objective facts about minds without minds therefore those facts are not objective. You don't Know it's still the case that they're objective. Like for example, we have objective facts about the earth But if the earth didn't exist then they wouldn't be objective Still an objective fact that the earth exists. So it's still an objective fact like the earth is round That's an objective fact that the earth didn't exist and it wouldn't be But it's still an objective fact that the earth is round It's the same thing applies to minds like you can have objective facts about minds And if they didn't exist, they wouldn't be facts anymore. It's totally fine. No problem there All right. T jump. Thanks so much for that thing I want to thank both of the contenders for coming on tonight and giving their their side And I want to thank everybody else for showing up And if you would please we had a lot of people here tonight Please hit that like button on your way out because there's a low percentage Unfortunately, because I'm sure you guys like these types of debates. Let's see some likes and subscribe if you haven't already We try to make this an unbiased platform for everybody to get their thoughts and beliefs across And as always keep sifting the reasonable from the unreasonable