 And we are starting right now you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a lot of fun folks So I'll let you know though if it's your first time here at modern-day debate We host debates on science politics and religion and we are very excited to let you know We have many more debates to come so for example Oh, and I actually just found out right before the debate tomorrow will actually not be Erica and shadow dancer That will be next Wednesday We are working for a quick replacement debate for tomorrow though and Many more to come want to let you know as well a couple quick housekeeping type things We are very excited as modern-day debate is invading the podcast world So really exciting stuff. You'll see it on the right side of your screen Those are just some of the apps that we are on right now We are on a number of more apps and if you don't see your favorite app If you're on your favorite podcast app and you try to look us up and you're like James I'm not seeing you. What's going on? Let me know what we will make sure that we get on that podcast app for you And so with that want to say today's gonna be a fun debate. I really enjoy these guys I have linked both of these guys in the description and I want to say folks for real These guys have been really kind to us at modern-day debate. They've been really supportive of the channel They've been really patient with me. We really appreciate them So I want to say their links are in the description where you can hear so many more debates folks Debates on religion philosophy you name it both of these guys have those on their channel and go ahead click on there and link Subscribe hear more of those debates as I think they're they're done fairly and very I think it's they're very deep They're just excellent debates. So with that we are going to jump right into this one Unless you know Tom jump will be going first He'll have a roughly 10 minute opening statement then ask yourself We'll have the same available to him to use and then there will be an open discussion Following that we'll have q&a So if you happen to have a question feel free to fire it into the old live chat if you tag me with that modern-day debate It makes it easier for me to be sure every question gets in that q&a list and last of all super chat is an option And it allows you to also make a comment toward one of the speakers perhaps their appearance such as Tom's or Maybe about Tom's chair. Well, by the way, I really hope Tom jumps chair shows up in the live chat tonight That's my favorite person that hangs out here. So also Your super chat will go to the top of the list for the q&a. So with that let's get started I want to say thanks again for our guest being here and with that Tom jump. The floor is all yours Well, wait, we said we're gonna clear up the prop before we start. You're right. Oh, thanks for that So gentlemen or I should say my friends in the audience want to let you know that these gentlemen are going to be debating a more precise Component to Tom jumps ethical theory. So I'm gonna let them explain what that is and so thank you so much I appreciate reminding me of that both of the debaters have agreed to this and so we'll let Tom and Basically Tom at the beginning of his opening Explain that and then I suppose just to be sure that we're all on the same page Ask yourself if you would like to just say agreed or disagreed in terms of whether or not you guys are on the exact same page I mean, we have it written. I'll just state it and then you can talk for 10 minutes We agreed to this before the debate So it's just that your usage of the word moral to refer to impositions on will doesn't rule out anti-realism perfect very excited With that Tom the floor is all yours Right, so my position is that as far as I can tell it does rule out anti-realism and the way I could tell this is I just Actually just went up and asked some anti-realist philosophers and they don't agree with my moral theory They're not like, oh, we just agree to that and you just changed it. No, they disagree So that's pretty a pretty good indicator that that it doesn't Allow for anti-realism and the way is because it's still fits the definition of a normative theory of morality Just stripped from the Stanford encyclopedia philosophy Morality definition those who use morality normatively hold that morality is or would be the code that meets a following condition All rational persons under certain specified conditions would endorse it indeed This is a plausible basic schema for definitions of morality in the normative sense My definition fits that exactly because it's just saying all rational persons who can recognize the best of all possible Object would endorse this position as being correct That's all it requires any language of the odds and whether I use odds or prescriptive is irrelevant It doesn't make any difference one way or the other You can still take any conclusion of my moral statement like killing is wrong or whatever And then just describe that with an odd if you want that doesn't that's not excluded from my theory My theory doesn't say you can't use odds. It just doesn't use odds. So nothing about my theory Would be compatible with the anti-realist position which rejects this as being true That's the whole point Further in the Stanford encyclopedia philosophy it goes through Criterions of what the error theorist is saying and how objections to error theory can be applied and I can read that too Or maybe I just should the error theorist pressing this form of argument thus faces two kinds of opponents The challenger may acknowledge that the putatively problematic attribute that the error theorist assigns to morality Really is problematic but deny that this attribute is an essential component to morality which I do so I can I can Grant that odds are problematic and just say this is a can a required part of morality So that would still reject the error theorist position and apply to my morality Alternatively the opponent may accept that the purely problematic attribute is a non-negotiable component of anything deserving the name morality But deny that it is really problematic So for example if the error theorist claims that morale moral properties require a kind of pure autonomy Which the universe does not supply then one type of opponent will assist that morality requires nothing of the sort While another would insist that the universe does need such does contain such a time The error theorist must prepare to defend herself against both The job is made difficult by the fact that it may be hard to articulate precisely what it is that is so troubling about morality This failure needs not be due to a lack of thinking or imagination on the part of the error theorist For the thing that is troubling her may be that there is something deeply mysterious about morality The morality theorist may or blah blah blah lots more stuff essentially There are two ways you can reject this hypothesis say that part of morality isn't required for morality Which I do in some cases and the second to say that part of morality is a part of morality And we can say it's possible at some point in the universe either way Rejects error theory you can take either of those approaches. I'm just usually taking the first one. So no my my moral theory does Rejects anti-realism and I've just asked anti-realists and talked briefly with Alex Rosenberg about morality He rejects my morality. He doesn't just say it's okay He's just now he disagrees with it because it meets the definition of what a normative theory is even if I don't use odds Gotcha. Thanks for that Tom. We'll kick it over to none other than ask yourself Yeah Well, I just I guess I just don't see the argument What is it like if you use the word if you just say I use this mouth sound Moral to refer to impositions on will what have you shown to be false about error theory? Again, if you do want to talk about error theory, you I'm not an error theorist So go talk to an error theorist my my definition of morality fits the normative definition as stated on the North Stanford encyclopedia philosophy So if by error theory, you mean someone who rejects that as in the definition provided by Stanford encyclopedia for both normative morality and error theory then yes my definition by definition Rejects error theory if you mean something else, I don't know what you mean go talk to some other error theorist I'm going to offer this definition in the Stanford encyclopedia philosophy Well, the debate proposition is pretty specific So it says your usage of the word moral to refer to impositions on will doesn't rule out Anti-realism so if for example that doesn't rule out error theory error theory is a form of anti-realism I assume you would agree with that much so then we haven't ruled out anti-realism So what I need is just the argument that shows that if you use the mouth sound Moral or immoral to refer to impositions on will that somehow you've falsified error theory can't appeal to the rest of your moral theory We're just talking about your word usage Right, so just any time I used error theory. I was using it synonymously with anti-realism essentially So you can just replace my entire opening and say anti-realism As well there there are anti-realisms broader I understand that but I'm just using the terms synonymously because the point of the debate makes really no difference I'm just taking error theory as an example Right, I understand that so any my theory rejects anti-realism in every case for the same reason that rejects error theory Because this definition of normative ethics, which is what anti-realists are rejecting is true my theory adopts my theory adopts the definition that Morality normally hold that is a code that meets the following condition all rational persons under a certain specified conditions would endorse it This is the plausible basic schema for a definition of morality in a normative sense The error theorist and the anti-realists are rejecting that that is false. I Am saying it's true. Therefore my theory by definition Rejects anti-realism and error theory, which is why when I talk to the professors who are anti-realists and error theorists They do not accept my moral theory Every time there's not there's no exceptions to this. They're not like, oh, well, we accept it. Just change that. No, they all say no We do not accept that Yeah, I guess that I mean I we're just gonna go in circles because I'm just gonna keep asking the same thing So when you use the mouth sound moral or immoral to refer to impositions on will Have you falsified error theory? Yes, because it is a rational person under some specified conditions would endorse this Which is by definition what a moral sense moral morality is in the normative sense. Yes No, so so when I say moral and I use it to mean a set of specified conditions a rational persons would endorse That meets the criteria Well, Tom, I guess I'm just not getting it like if you I mean I've asked a few times and I don't hear Okay, I don't hear the argument. So if you have well, let me just complete I mean sure if you have like an argument that actually shows That your use of the mouth sound moral to refer to impositions on will somehow falsifies error theory You're welcome to deliver it But like at this point since I've asked a few times and it's not at all clear what the argument is in natural language It would be nice to get premises and a conclusion. Yeah, I shouldn't need this. It's pretty obvious to most people But I'll do it for you. Okay Okay, wait, I'm gonna write it down one sec one sec. Just let me crack. I should have had this open from the start, okay? File new text document. All right, P1 premise one the definition of morality in the normative sense is the thing I presented from the Stanford encyclopedia Fuck one second definition of morality in the normative sense is what the thing I presented from the Stanford encyclopedia It's not gonna be contingent. So I mean I don't I don't just you don't need to you don't need to memorize it I do I do want to know what it is if it's part of the problem Persons under a certain specified conditions would endorse it indeed This is the plausible basic schema for a definition of morality in the normative sense all rational persons under certain specified certain specified Conditions actually I should use this start with this previous sentence those who use morality normatively hold that morality is or Would be the code that meets the following condition a All rational persons under certain specified conditions would endorse it indeed This is the plausible basic schema for definitions of morality in the normative sense Okay So is it fair to say P1 is the definition of morality in the normative sense is a code that all Rational persons under certain specified conditions would endorse. Yeah, that's actually okay Premise to error theorists and anti-realists say that this code is false Okay You can just say X or instead of just typing all it out just X X is false It's easy to copy paste and Then what's the conclusion? No, there's another another premise my moral theory states that X is true This is there is a code that does meet this criteria and it's true It's True, okay therefore conclusion my theory rules out anti-realism or and error theory therefore my theory Okay, so the first problem is that it's deductively invalid. So do you want to work on how so go for it Well, it just seems if if we're just saying the definition of morality this premise one Definition of morality in the normative sense is a code that all rational persons under certain specified conditions would endorse premise to error There is a Code that all rational persons under certain specified conditions would endorse is false premise three Tom's moral theory replaced my with Tom I assume that's fine Tom's moral theory states that a code that all rational persons under certain specified moral conditions would endorse is true Conclusion therefore my theory rules out anti-realism So like if we formalize that into propositional logic, we're just gonna get P Q are therefore s which would be invalid No, that's literally that's a valid argument. You're just not using the principle of charity here Like this is not the hill you want to die on Pretty simple so an error theorist what it what is an error theorist? Anti-realism, what is an error theorist? No, no, no, no you you're saying that this is valid what you just given here. Yes, it is Okay, oh Tom I know I you're great. Okay. Well So what do you think the form is and is it representable in propositional logic? Yes, so A person who an error theorist believes x no, no, no, no, I don't know what it is. You can figure it out yourself Wait, but it's formally valid, is it yes, okay, so let's just just just I don't I have I Know so an error theorist believes x is false. I believe x is true. Therefore I invalidate error theory very simple Oh Tom, that's it. Oh, okay Okay, I'm gonna try not to laugh. Okay So when I read this right now, just I'll just you know, I don't think I need to repeat it People can go back and listen to what it was If I translate this directly into PL what I'm gonna get is PQ are there for I don't give you shit Okay, well, you don't care if it's not you don't care it's valid use the principle of charity It's valid. You can't figure that out and you're an idiot. That's your problem Okay, so I just this could be probably just the end of the debate you you aren't willing to show that it's valid I don't need to it's obviously valid. Okay. I don't I don't have anything further to say cool Happy with me. We can take questions. We do have questions This is maybe the shortest debate, but it doesn't mean it's not the best debate folks This has been really fun. We have a lot of questions already People were very excited for this and I do I didn't mind I forgot to mention a couple of Oh, can I have a closing statement before we go to questions? I think that that's fair If you can I you can have the last clue. Yeah, Tom can have the last word I don't care before my closing statement is just that Tom you are something special. Thank you No problem. Very sweet. Okay. If you want Tom is that your closing statement as well when you said thank you Sure. Okay Very nice. I did forgot a couple of quick housekeeping things one. We are very excited. We are on parlor now So this is not instead of Twitter. This is in addition to Twitter, which Thomas and ask yourself. Are you guys on parlor? I'm not on parlor, but you Tom. I don't think so. What's parlor? What the heck? Okay parlor is basically like Twitter, except they're not going to play They I think the idea is they say they're not going to play favorites from what I've seen it looks like it's chat Let me know it looks like it's pretty much like mostly people that lean more politically to the right and The idea is Well, if you're on there follow us We are a non-partisan channel what we want to go on as many platforms as we can Including we just got on subscribe star So if you are triggered by the idea of giving money to patreon if you're like, oh, I'm so triggered. I can't take it It's all right. No problem subscribe star is a way that you can support the channel We are on there and it's linked in the description. Awesome. Look at these guys. They're like brothers. I love them I just love both of them. They're both I'm so sorry. And last want to let you know Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, so we're excited I know that some people were disappointed yesterday that they said hey, we have two white dudes They are both cis dudes debating on whether or not transgender women should be able to Compete in women's sports and some people were triggered by this obviously not my intent to trigger people It's gonna happen. Sometimes everybody's gonna be offended once in a while on this channel. Maybe even often I don't know but the point is we actually for about I think it's 11 days So about a week and a half. I've actually been talking to a trans woman about that same debate topic So we're not trying to like close anybody out of the conversation That same topic will be debated here soon Namely whether or not trans women should be able to compete in women's sports However, it's we don't feel that like we always have to have a certain demographic represented So for example, I know that triggers some people but as an example, I think we've had it debated before where like two atheists Might debate and we're open to doing this in the future where it to atheists want to debate is religion harmful And some religious people might be like, oh, there's no religious person represented I'm like, you know, like we're not big on the identity politics. It's really about the ideas But we are open to having everybody on so want to let you know We are totally open to covering new topics. In fact, cancel culture is a topic that we had one person who looked like they were You could say anti cancel culture. And so I don't know if they're still into it They may not be into it anymore But we have a couple that are actually for it. And so let me know if you would like to debate cancel culture Tom, I think that was maybe a topic you wanted So let's jump into these questions. Give me two seconds. Hey, I'll say one thing I'm happy to take any debate with somebody who wants to take the position that transgenderism is a delusion Had some pretty hilarious encounters on that topic. I mean, I Not trans I could try transitioning for the debate But like yeah, if anyone wants to debate that I would I would love to debate that and I would take the con I'm not convinced it's a delusion Gotcha if anybody would want to take that more extreme position of arguing. It's a delusion. I don't know if anybody I mean, I'm not trying to knock down. Oh, they do. There are absolutely people who take that position I have a grip. I'll defer to you. I haven't really asked around but let's get right into these questions Thank you very much. You guessed it nasty guy Steven Steen sends his super chat in says T jump have me an STD. I Don't know what does that mean? Okay next to the converse contender Thanks for your question. You mistyped it's gave because H and G are right next to each other. Oh, you're right gave me an STD Tom We'll talk about later converse contender appreciate it says Steven Steen was the the the ones lead singer for Nickelback That isn't that stupid horror energies favorite band next Steven Steen Responds saying philosophers discuss anything quote derpity derp derp unquote Wait, so I got a question about your you said you want to debate if trans is a delusion is that are they arguing that like sex is biological and their Opinion that they've changed sex as a delusion because they obviously The arguments for it vary like the main thing that I tend to hear people say is usually something along the lines of like Trans women have a belief that They are women and women. They're usually They're referring to sex so they think that you know trans women has to have a belief that She is of the female sex as opposed to female gender so that that's the form I usually see which it's just like it's not entailed that they believe they're the other sex Right, it's not even entailed that they actually believe they're the other gender. They might not be aware of their transness, but Yeah And I want to say a huge thing. Did that answer you Tom? Yeah, is that clear? Yeah, okay I want to say huge things There's so many people we have to think to yoga is one of them She's an artist who helps the channel with a ton of stuff not just art But also like she's helped a ton in getting the podcast Transition going so we really appreciate her help as well as I mean I could go on and on But now transitioning. Yeah, okay. Thank you for your question Maynard saves who asks Tom's chair is bigger than ask yourselves chair. May the chair be with you all hail the ultimate contingent chair thing does look pretty comfy. Yeah, it does and No joke the next super chat comes from Tom's chair. Thank you for your question says dollars for James's Charity get get the pun By the way our next charity I'm thinking about I already for some reason it just crossed my mind today I think it's gonna be on August 1st. Probably because we do it once a month. We just had one a couple days ago We were going to have another on this will for August It'll be on basically we're looking for a charity for Native American people So that's something I am excited about and we appreciate all of your help with that folks as those are fun events that they mean a lot Logical plausible probable. Thanks for your question sassy says does Tom have any source other than stand for dictionary? I think he just reads it From it to sound smart, but wrong with the exciting original thoughts Why not make fun of the complete lack of a valid argument instead of the legitimate sighting? Monkey pilot on you Tom, okay Well, in a sense in a sense. I'm agreeing with him. I don't think it's illegitimate to site What do you say Stanford or IP like? It's a philosophy encyclopedia. It's pretty reasonable source No, I was just ask yourself brings up an irrelevant point of wanting the formal argument in his trick sense It's just doesn't make any difference to my position at all. So I'm still right even if I don't put as a developed argument I don't even need one Because it can be phrased in a valid argument Well, just just to be clear. I don't I don't as you will notice if you play this back I don't start a conversation by you know insisting someone formalize their argument But if I ask for the argument repeatedly where I want to see how you're getting from using a certain mouth sound to refer to imposition's on will to Error theory being false and it's not clear what the inference is after asking a certain amount of times I do ask for something formal and even at that point. I'm very fair. I understand That I might not be talking to someone who's comfortable with logic and I'm no kind of logic whiz I'm comfortable with propositional logic basic level first-order logic So if it reaches that point where the inference, you know, hasn't been clarified and I want it to be clarified formally I'll just get them to spell out premises and conclusion as best they can if they can't if they can't make it You know formally valid. That's fine. I'll help them do so But if they try to make the move of insisting it's valid when it obviously isn't and they can't specify the form in any formal language And they refuse to do so Then I might laugh a bit Yeah, but your arguments just eat your oven. Like my argument is so simple. I didn't I didn't make an argument I'm what you're saying. Everything is so stupid. That's what it is So like a horse is a thing with hooks X does not have those apps is not a horse. That's the form of my argument Um, we'll wait so so I'm serious to someone who says this moral thing the moral definition I gave if one of those codes exist, it's false my vision is that code is not false It's true. Therefore it rules out everything just like you ah done You do you want to get back into why I want to be clear about it Do you want to get back into trying to clarify the form because like I'm having to do that form? Like it's so obvious who isn't a moron understands this a horse is a thing with hooves X does not have hooves X is not a horse So what is that? What is that modus ponens? Modus Tolens? I don't know. I don't give a shit Well, I mean, it's clearly neither of it has three premises, right? I'm happy. I'm happy to help you formalize it. Do you want to take another crack at it because no No, I don't give a shit about normalizing. This is very simple. Just Let me just complete this and then you can say yours. Okay, we've been we've been sharing nicely this time I don't always care about things being formal the point when I care about something being formal is when I can't Understand what the inference is now. I understand that you think it's obvious what you're saying It's not obvious right and I just I just want to clarify what the actual inference is I'm happy to help you formalize it, right? But your insistence that it's valid as is when the form is PQR there for S It's just so which part which part about a horse is a thing with hooves hooves are here's some definition of Huff X does not have a hoof therefore. That's not a horse. Which part of that is I'd rather I'd rather before Considering some analogous. That's literally the same thing. It's the same structure. It's possible But I don't want to sit I don't even want to sit here and think of your argument and another and look at if they're analogous I just want to figure out the form for yours Right, if you want to do that, I just want you to know which part of this argument Do you not see as valid that you forget my Horses are things with hooves. A hoof is X Objects P does not have X therefore P is not a horse. I Mean we'd have to like write it out and see what the structure is. Okay. We can go We can do that. We have time go for it because it's literally the same structure as my argument Now I'm happy to do that But can we just do it with your argument because that would be no because you keep because I've done this with my argument multiple times And you okay? Do it with the horse one and then see if it applies to yours. Okay, so what's the first premise? Horses have hooves Horses have hooves. Okay Next a horse a hoof is X just give a definition of a hoof. What a hoof is X wait a hoof is Defining what we'll say X for now. Okay, sure Promise three P does not have a hoof He does any variable any variable doesn't matter anything. Let's just say you want to say like a human sure humans humans don't have hooves Therefore a human is not a horse conclusion Therefore humans aren't sorry humans. What aren't are not a horse human is not a horse. Therefore Human is not a horse Horses have hooves a hoof is X humans don't have hooves. Therefore a human is not a horse I mean when I read that I just go PQ are there for us So I don't know if you're trying to use like first order logic or something there It's not clear to me what the form is supposed to be it just seems to me like all horses All all horses have hooves. Do you need the all in there if we want to have a valid argument the Probably, I mean whatever you want to do pulls your head out of your ass and just apply it naturally Just assume it's there. It's I mean, I know that you like to just always You like to suggest that it's just obvious what the structure is right It's it's actually, you know logic is a nuanced thing finding out exactly What the structure of an argument is is not always that straightforward horses have hooves And all horses have hooves any normal speaking English human being will understand that I want I just want to be clear about what the structure of the argument is Use the principle of charity horses have hooves means the same thing as all horses have hooves You're being pedantic and moronic that everyone can see okay all horses have hooves So we could make that like what are you trying are you trying to use like first order logic you want it to be like For all x like if x is a horse x has a hoof Yes, like all men are mortal. I am mortal. I am a man or something like that Yeah, that was that was incorrect Or did you spill your drink? Oh he's breaking up Fucking universal quantifier symbol. I have to hit a button switch it. Okay. Sorry about that um, okay, so uh for all x if x is a horse so like h of x implies Hove for Hove. I don't know. We'll just use like we'll see is a k or something K of x okay So Let's see then we're gonna be staying h is horse and k is As a hoof Okay, a hoof is x That's just giving a definition of a hoof. It's not you don't need this as a premise at all It's just a definition of what a hoof is So do we actually want p2 there or are we just i'm to make it analogous to my argument You don't you don't you don't need to you don't need to put a definition in your premise Yeah, I'm doing that for clarification so that you can understand my argument like my argument has a definition in there For the same thing you can take it out as a premise. You don't need it as a premise. That's totally fine Okay, well, it'll be simpler the let the last premise is the more simple, right? We didn't understand it when the first time I set it with the last premises. So I had to add in the definition Okay um in fact So what do what do we want to say we want to say All horses have hooves and then we want to say humans don't have hooves. Yeah, sure So like yeah, okay Now I don't I don't know why I'm doing the whole formula You could just pick a human bob does not have a hoof bob bob does not have hooves Okay So here what you're doing the work because you're the only one who wants this like everyone else Well, what I what I want is just to be clear about the structure. I don't I don't want to like, you know Blaber the point or something you were the only one who wants this like no one else wants this everyone else gets it That's why we're doing this. So yes, all okay, but let's not have a hoof bob is not a horse Okay, so but wait now now if we're just getting into okay one second. So we're just going Okay, so if something is a horse it has a hoof something doesn't have a horse therefore or something doesn't have a hoof Therefore, it's not a horse that that I'm fine with but now I'm not seeing how that's analogous to your to your initial argument So so an error theorist is someone who believes a normative theory of That this is false that the definition I gave whatever that code is that code is false My position is that code is true. Therefore my position is incompatible with error theory Okay, so if if you're an error theorist you think this code is false Yes, that that's the first premise. Okay, and then what did you say the second one is this code is My theory holds this code is true. This code is true Therefore, I am not an error. My theory is not compatible with error theory. Okay. Well now now you've got it to modus tolin So, uh, which is the exact same thing as my original argument. No original argument at three premises. You'll be that that's okay That's okay. No, no, no, this is this is really this is really good This is this is this is really good if we're if we're getting structure. Okay So we want to say let's just go through that because maybe we can get clarity now So, um, well just walk walk me through that again. How did you want to say that you want to say Error theory. Error theory. No, no, just what is the oh, yeah, so so what? um on if what if uh error theory is true Then what what do you want to say? If you are an error theorist you believe that Any code assumed to be morality is false Okay, if uh, okay. Yeah, so there we go. Yeah, if you are an error theorist then any code Assumed to be morality is false and you just want to modus tolin's that that's the idea. Yeah My theory is one that assumes it's true. Therefore my case is compatible with error theory One second. We can write that out. Okay. So any code Assumed to be morale. It's not the case that any code assumed to be morality is false inclusion therefore You are not an error theorist. Do you want to go a do you want to go error theory is false? Do you want to go if error theory is true than any code assumed to be morality is false? It's not the case that any code assumed to be morality is false. Therefore It's not the case that error theory is true. Is that what you want to do? Uh, I guess you could go that way. I was just going that my theory is incompatible with error theory theory, my theory, if my theory is true, then error theory is false. Well, if you believe my theory, you can't be an error theorist. I don't know which, which argument you want to take. Well, it's, I mean, presumably, we want the conclusion to be that, that we want the conclusion to be the debate proposition. Well, yeah. So my question is, is the debate proposition. Yeah. Only just to clarify, because people want to see Tom's argument, they think it's a tremendous argument. Is it possible that, ask yourself, would you be so kind as to share your screen just so peeps can see it up close? I think I can. One second. So it's a G bottom. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think I got it. Okay. Thanks, bro. Wait, did I share it right? Is that working? Yeah, we see it. Okay. One sec. Let me reopen zoom here also. Oh, I see zoom like minimizes or some shit. How do I make this blow up again? We can't see, we can only see the word thing. If you press control plus, it'll zoom in on those words. But I can zoom in on the words easily, but I just, I wanted to see you guys, but that's okay. Whatever. So if you are an error theorist, then any code assumed to be morality is false. So that's just like P implies Q. And then if we say it's not the case that any code assumed to be morality is false, then we're going to go not Q. Well, I'd say add in my theory or if you accept my theory, then it's not the case. Well, if you do, if you do that, then it's not going to strictly be modus tollens anymore. There has to be, yeah, because well, it's, it's, I know that it bothers you, Tom. Okay. But you have to understand that if, if you have inconsistent word usage between your, your premises and your conclusion, it's not going to actually strictly be valid, right? There can be little equivocations. There can be little slights of hand, right? Yes. Yes. So we can, we can get it, what we could do is get it to a valid modus tollens and then, you know, try like modifying bits of it. So we'll just, here, we'll just do it this way and then we can modify it. So if you're an error theorist, then any code assumed to be morality is false. It's not the case that any code assumed to be morality is false. Therefore, it's not the case that you're an error theorist and that's therefore not key. So, so wouldn't you have to have it, I believe premise two, because yours in the conclusion, there is no your, or if you believe it's not the case? Well, it's, it's, it's kind of like on you how you want to set it up. So, well, this is yours. I'm never going to use this. This is going to be completely useless. Well, we're, we're trying to clarify why we're trying, we're trying to, so, so in premise two, it should say, if you believe it's not the case. If you believe, if, if, yeah, so, or if it's, it's not the case, you want to say, if it's not, it's not the case you build, it's not the case you believe that any code assumed to be. Yeah. So I understood the debate topic to be, does my theory is my theory compatible with error three? Can you believe my theory and be an error theory? So it's about a person, wait, no, no, no, no, no, no, that's, that's not what it is. The proposition specifically is that if you Tom jump, use the word moral to refer to impositions on will that then anti realism is falsified or I can get the exact wording if you want. If you give me two seconds, your usage of the word moral to refer to impositions on will doesn't rule out anti realism. So if you believe my moral theory, you can't also believe error theory. Those two. That's different. That's one second. That's, that's wait, wait, no, no, the whole idea here is that error theory is falsified just in virtue of you using the word moral to refer to impositions on will. That is what I'm not convinced of at all. No, no, it's falsified. If my usage is correct. If that is. I was waiting for you to try to make that move, Tom, because that's not, that's not what the proposition is, right? We're not saying that's a further claim, right? That's you saying that's, that's you trying to take the pathway of I have the correct moral semantics and error theory doesn't, right? That would be a move that you can make that that yours. Do you know what that means? It's like saying, if I'm using the word right and error theorists are using it wrong, then error theory is wrong. Like that's the kind of thing you want to say, right? No, that's, that's your own straw man that I don't have. I never said that at all. Okay. But something like that would actually make sense if you're trying to say their moral semantics are mixed. No sense to me. It just sounds like gibberish nonsense. Okay. But the whole point is that the proposition you're supposed to be arguing for is that if you just use the word differently, right? Like you, Tom jump, use the word moral to refer to impositions on will that we've ruled out anti realism, right? No, again, it's not at all my position. It's never been my position. That's your own straw man nonsense. It's always never been my position. Tom, do I, can I screen, can I, can I screen share our conversation where you agree to the debate proposition? I agree to the great position right now. I don't disagree to the great debate. Okay. So the debate proposition is that if you use the word moral to refer to impositions on will that error theory or anti realism, but obviously then tells their theory is ruled out. So, so I don't understand what you mean by that because what I interpret that to mean is that if you are, believe my position is true or if my position is true, then error theory is false. We're not talking about whether it's true. We're talking about if you use this mouth I don't know what that means. You don't know what it means to use a sound, but I don't know what you mean by the proper position. So again, the way I interpret the proposition is, is if my theory is true, than all these false or if you believe my theory, you can't be an error theory. There. That's what I interpret the proposition to be. I don't know what you mean by the proposition. No, so the proposition, which is it, is it okay for me to just like screen share this? Go for it. We're still screen sharing. Okay. Once I know, I'll have to drag it onto that screen though. I just want to make sure there's nothing personal here. Okay. Yep. So, here, if you look at our- Yeah, I still agree to the proposition. I'm not claiming I don't agree to the proposition. Wait. Where is this in here one second? Yeah. Okay. So, you're down to argue that your usage of the word moral to refer to impositions on will doesn't rule out anti-realism, right? Yes. I still agree to that. I'm still agreeing to that. Okay. So, the way I interpret those words- Right, but you can't make some further claim about like if my usage is correct and their usage is incorrect. No, so I still don't know what you mean by those words, because by those words, what I interpret that to mean is if you are, except my model, then you can't be an erytherist. No. You can't be true. So, I don't know what you mean by that statement. It's pretty straightforward. So, your usage of the word moral, are you following so far? You use the word moral to refer to a certain thing. Yes, use the word moral. And you use it to refer to impositions on will, right? Right. Okay. Now, if you do that, error theory hasn't been ruled out. That's the debate proposition, okay, like falsified, like you haven't shown error theory is false. Using words in a certain way doesn't prove anything false other than you can't use words in a certain way. That doesn't make any sense. Right. Well, I mean, if you're going to concede the debate proposition, that's awesome. So, all that you're arguing is that word usage doesn't prove error theory wrong? Is that your argument? What we're arguing over right here is that your usage of the word moral to refer to impositions on will- I'm just trying to understand what you mean by that statement. So, it seems like what you mean by that statement- I can repeat myself. Using words doesn't invalidate anti-realism. Words don't invalidate- That's close, but it's your usage. So you, Tom, using the word moral to refer to impositions on will, you follow me so far? Yes. I have no idea. You don't know what I mean by you using a word to refer to something? Yes. So, all words are used to refer to things, yes. Okay. So, your proposition, which I'm taking agnostic on and you're taking con on, right, is that your use of the word moral to refer to impositions on will doesn't rule out anti-realism. Okay. Explain to me how that's different from the proposition that any words used to mean anything doesn't disprove anything. It sounds like that's some bigger, like universal claim about any word or something. Yes. The way I'm interpreting what you're saying is so vague that you can apply it to any word usage in any position at all. You can say, I use words like this, and the fact that you use words like this doesn't disprove or prove any proposition in the universe true or false. Well, the specific proposition is about your use of the word moral. If you think that by, if you, if you think that if, sorry, sorry, I just want to complete, if you think that by parallel reasoning and applies to other things, which I'm sure it does, that's fine, right? I'm just asking for clarification here. I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. Well, I can, I can clarify again. Tom, just let me, let me clarify. You're saying the same thing doesn't help me. So try to clarify from my position. So the way I'm, I'm hearing what you're saying is that it seems like you're saying that the way someone uses a word doesn't prove any proposition about the universe true or false, which I agree. That's the analytic synthetic distinction. I agree there. I didn't, I didn't make a universally quantified statement about like any word or something like this. I understand you. So it seems to me that the argument as you've expressed it is just the analytic synthetic distinction. Words and word uses just don't prove propositions about the universe true or false. I agree. Well, I don't know. I don't know how you're tying that to analytic synthetic analytics, but just forget about the definition versus things true about the world. So I'm seems like you're saying, yeah, but just, just to be clear, the debate proposition here is just that your usage of the word moral. So you, you, I don't, I mean, I don't know what to say if you can't follow this sentence. When you use that word to refer to a certain thing that doesn't falsify, uh, anti-realism. Do you agree? So again, just to be clear, do you understand that sentence? I'm not sure I do. That's why I'm asking for clarification. Okay. Yeah, let's say, let's say that someone says your use of the word unicorn to refer to cabbage doesn't falsify gravity. Does that make sense to you? It seems to me that any word usage at all the way, any word, Tom, sorry, I'm not making a universal. Yeah. This is not about what you're saying. This is what I'm interpreting the sentence to me. So this is me. This is me. I'm interpreting this word to mean, or this sentence to mean, essentially that Well, you're not interpreting your, your extrapolating is what you're doing. Right. I'm, I, we're talking about this exact proposition here. That's fine. I'm trying to understand what you mean by this. It would apply to other cases to see if I can lean a similar analogous understanding of the simulator. So it seems like the proposition is, is it would apply in the same way to any word you use, anyone who uses any word in any way will never prove any proposition to or false, which I'm fine with. Well, I wouldn't, I wouldn't make a universally quantified statement like that because there'll be weird, weird self-referential shit. Like if the proposition is about like your word usage or something. Yeah. I understand that. But, but I think, I think you're on the right track though. Like the idea is just you using the mouth sound, moral, to refer to the thing in the world and in position on will, that does not falsify anti-realism. Right. I would never say that word usage falsifies anything other than like self-referential statements. Sorry. Sorry. So, so you agree. That's never been my position. So I, yes. Well, you said you wanted to debate it. If you're conceding the debate prop, that's great. Again, we've already been under this. I understand that you think that something so unbelievably stupid and trivial was what you meant by those words. So that's not what I intended to debate. Yes. Word usage doesn't prove anything. Obviously. Okay. Well, no, if you can see, yeah, if you can see the debate, that's fucking awesome. Thank you. Yeah. I can see the, the straw man nonsense interpretation that you have that means nothing. Sorry, Tom, do you, do you, I just want everyone to see on screen where Tom is agreeing to this debate? Yes. I still agree because the way I interpret those words is not as stupid as the way you interpret those words. Well, I mean, I don't know what kind of interpretation you're taking. I mean, if the only thing you're saying is that words usage doesn't prove stuff, obviously that's like the foundation of my, one of my epistemology rules. That's too, too broad when you say it. No, I understand that. Because it proves, it proves, it proves something, for example, about the proposition that you use the word in a certain way or something like that. Granted. Granted. So again, that's all you're saying. That's irrelevant to anything I care about or anything in my morality or anything in my epistemology. Yeah. And that's, that's, that's a great, you know, cop out when you realize it's indefensible. That's fine. So yeah. If you concede that's great. This is literally a thing in my epistemology. Words, conceptual evidence cannot justify empirical claims about the world. Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. If you, if you, if you agree with my position, that's fantastic. That's good. Right. So yeah. Thank you. My moral theory is just to be clear. Can we, can we just get you to say that you concede? I'm understanding what your, what your position is. And yeah, words don't prove stuff. Yes. Words do not prove things. That's too broad. You keep, sorry. You keep going to this broad statement. Right. Like just, just to be clear, when you say words don't, you word usage doesn't prove things. There's propositions about like how Tom uses word. Yeah. So stop. No, no, no, don't, don't principle of charity mean that, that has a kind of like a weird entailment. I don't agree with it. Like there's going to be some proposition about how you use a word. Right. And that, that propositions truth value could just be contingent on how you use the word. Right. So I'm not going to make some big broad. Obviously. I understand that. So, so the way I'm saying it's using the principle of charity, meaning obviously self referential statements are excluded and there are going to be some other exclusions. The argument you seem to be presenting is that my usage of words doesn't prove stuff. My usage of the word Barley doesn't prove anything other than the fact that you use the word Barley. Not stuff. Not, I've just stopped saying anything, please. It's bothering me. I'm, I'm saying that what you're, what I'm not convinced of is that you using the word in that particular way somehow falsifies anti realism. Now, if you, if you concede that, that's fine. I'm, I'm happy to win the debate. That's awesome. So, so good. My usage of the words only proves the circular things about my usage of the word self referential thing. That's it. That's all it proves. That's all any words prove words can't prove anything other than self referential statements about the words or any words in any language ever. Just to be clear, you do concede the debate proposition. What do you mean by it? Yes. And it's insanely stupid. Okay. No, I don't have, I don't have anything else to say. That's awesome. We can go into Q&A. No, no, I, I genuinely appreciate the concession. So thank you. If that was all you were saying, yeah, I mean, because words, words usage doesn't prove anything about reality or the world when I'm making claims about reality and the world about morality. My word usage obviously isn't what makes it true. So obviously it wouldn't invalidate anti realism. Word usage isn't what's important there. They're just words, describe things. The words aren't the things. Yes. I'm happy for the concession. Okay. Yeah. That's all you were claiming. Yeah. Word usage doesn't do anything. And could we, could we get you to say, nice victory? Ask yourself. Oh, nice victory. Ask yourself. I love the fact that words don't prove stuff. Great. I love it. I love the fact that you. Okay. I love, I love, I love the fact that you agreed to the debate proposition and then realized it's not defensible. So yeah. No, I genuinely had no idea that's what you were, the claim you were making. Yeah. Well, if you, if. Okay. Good. We're done. Let's go to the Q&A. Just, just, just, just one more thing because if, if the whole move you want to make here is. No, I generally did not know this. I did not understand this is what you were saying until just now. Why? I mean, yeah. It, uh, when you agree to a debate proposition like that, I take it that you actually believe something that fucking stupid. And if you're going to say I don't, then that's great. I'm glad that you concede. So yeah, what I interpreted that statement to mean is not the same thing you interpreted that statement. What did you interpret it to mean? That holding my position and holding. Where are you talking about holding your position? It's talking about using the word. Yeah. So that's so insanely stupid that I didn't think it could possibly mean what you meant. I'm sorry. Well, I'm, I don't know. I don't, I guess that all I could really say to that is that I don't understand how you could have possibly read that debate proposition as anything other than what it says. But if you agree with the debate proposition and you've always agreed with it and you just took some really fucking weird reading of it that is not remotely what it says, then I'm glad that you're not doing that anymore that you understand what it says and that you concede. That's great. Yeah, I'm happy. I'm happy to concede that. Word usage doesn't prove stuff. Sure. We will go into the Q&A. We want to say thanks so much everybody. And thanks most of all to our guests as this has been epic. I can't believe it. Tom Jump and Ask Yourself have converged in agreement. What the heck is happening? We've never really... I lost the debate. First debate I lost ever. Oh, God. Well, I think that, I mean, if you guys had just a misunderstanding, you can still say face. But basically, we've never... I'm happy to grant that, sorry. I'm happy to grant if it's just a misunderstanding on Tom's part of what the proposition is. That's fine. No, I'm not even saying that to like sass you. No, me neither. I'm totally serious. If that's what you meant, I'm happy to grant I lose. I fully 100% agree. Words don't prove stuff in whatever specific way you want to mean that. So I agree. Yes, completely. I'm happy to admit I lose the debate. That's literally like one of the laws of my epistemology, that exact statement. So I agree with you. Don't worry. We're one of these days, Tom. You're going to have your first victory on modern day debate. So we are just teasing. Folks, when I tease Tom, it's because we're tight. We've got a great relationship. We can tease each other. Just so, I think most people get that. But once in a while, people are like, where are you so mean to Tom? And I'm like, we're tight. We're like brothers. OK, next. I like to think that Tom and I have an OK relationship. Yeah, I respect you a lot more than Steve McRae. So no problem. I like Steve, but OK. Then who? Oh, that's right. Your enemy. We still have to have the debate of Steve McRae against Tom Jump. The people need that debate. So thanks for your question. Nasty guy, Dwayne Burke says, I'm James Coons. Tom's chair and I are now dating. Very nice, Dwayne. And logical plausible probable. Oh, we read that one. And Flour, thanks for your question, said, Isaac, do you think you do well in philosophy courses at a university? Your classmates and professor might not take kindly to your arrogance. Didn't you just get accepted to university? Yeah, I got into comps at Guelph. But yeah, I, sorry, what was the question? Do I think I do well in philosophy? I mean, I've always done fairly OK in any course I would apply myself in. So probably. They say that your professors and classmates think you're arrogant, cocky. Um, I like to think that my arrogance is like proportional to the claims that someone's making and how confident they are about them and things like this. Gotcha. And thanks for your question. Maynard Save says, Oh, is this the dumpster fire's request? This is the one Godless girl hid behind and said to have debate debated Tom. What's ask yourself epistemology and his credentials? Um, well, I don't have any credentials. And I don't actually have like a formal theory of epistemic justification. I think it's, you know, it's a pretty complicated question. So I don't have a formal theory. You just, your, you work on Tom's. You use his. I don't know what his theory is. Next. Sunflower thinks for your other question said, Isaac, are there philosophy PhDs who are better at logic than you, but that are not vegan? How is that possible without them being evil? Well, I would, I mean, I would assume that virtually anyone with a philosophy PhD is going to be better than me with logic. I mean, maybe that's an overstatement. I guess maybe there's some people who somehow don't do any formal logic in their philosophy training, but like I don't have, you know, any kind of deep knowledge of logic or anything I've never claimed to. Um, so what was the question? It's, are there PhDs who, who know more logic? More logic. Yeah. I'm not. I assume so. Um, and who are, who are not vegan. Uh, yeah, and who are not vegan, sure. Um, and no, I don't think that someone is evil in virtue of not being vegan. Um, I think that there's things that are relevant there. Like for example, their awareness of the problem. Like say that someone's just never really looked into the issue and it's in virtue of that, that they're not vegan. I don't really think that that person's evil. I just think they're kind of ignorant. Next. Phillip thinks for your super chat said, maybe Tom jump hasn't put enough premises to show the inferences. Do you see a way the argument could be fixed? Ask yourself. I assume that that came in before we reached clarity. So, so once you remove that second premise and just made it into a kind of like modus tollens thing, we got to a valid form. But once we got to the valid form, it was clear that it wasn't addressing the proposition. And then once we clarified what the proposition actually is, it seems like Tom doesn't disagree with it. So now it's useful going through that whole stock process that really helps clarify our position. So I can't, I can't tell if you're joking because I actually think it was. Are you, are you being sarcastic? No, like that was actually useful. I had no idea what you actually meant by the original statement. I really did think that way you were trying to show that my theory was compatible with air theory. I thought that's what the position was. I did not understand. It sounds, it sounds like, well, if we want, if we want to, now that the propositions, I'm happy to talk about your general moral theory and how it relates to error theory. Now I just didn't want to do that. Well, the propositions on the table because the proposition is that just in virtue of this one aspect of your position, which is word usage, that error theory is falsified. That seemed insane. So I was very surprised to see anyone take position like that. When we talk about error theory more broadly, I think that there is going to be a tension between Tom's moral semantics and error theory. So like what Tom takes moral to mean and what an error theorist takes moral to mean. I pulled up a quote in case we got into it. One second, it's on my other window. I have a quote from Mackie who's like big error theory guy. One second. Yeah. So the assertion that their objective values or intrinsically prescriptive entities or features of some kind, which ordinary moral judgments presuppose, is I hold it not meaningless but false. So like error theory is... We must move forward quickly. Okay. Well, I don't know how to be that fast. Like the moral semantics of error theory, they're cashing out moral as referring to something like, again, intrinsically prescriptive or something like this. So Tom's not using moral in that way. So there is going to be a tension between Tom's view and error theory in terms of moral semantics, as far as I understand. But the one thing that I would emphasize is that the, I don't think that I'm not currently aware of any, I don't see any reason to think that Tom's theory falsifies the claim that the kinds of statements and error theorists is talking about on their moral semantics are always false. Gotcha. That's not clear to me. I don't know if Tom disagrees with that. Was that clear to you what I'm saying there, Tom? So there's a semantic tension. You take moral to mean something else in an error theory. Right, right. Short and sweet. Like Tom. I try to address that in the opening. I don't use odds, but you can still use odds to describe any of the conclusions of my moral thing. Yeah, but when you do say something's moral, something's good, something's bad, you're saying it's an imposition of will. You're not talking about some intrinsically prescriptive feature of the universe or something like that. I'm not excluding that. I'm not saying that is incompatible with my theory. I'm saying I don't do that. So you can still do that for anything in my theory and can't keep odds. Okay. Well, then it's not clear. It's not clear whether there will be tension or not. If you don't, so if you disagree with the error theorist moral semantics, there could be a disagreement there. Right. But with the actual, when you look within their semantics, what, sorry, James, let me get this one done. When you look at what kind of propositions are error theorists saying are always false, I don't see how your moral theory is claiming that those kinds of propositions aren't always false. So there's two things. The semantics and the actual, whether the actual propositions, error theories are talking about being false are somehow, you know, not false on your view. Given Tom the last word so we can move on. What do you got Tom? So I'm not sufficiently changing morality to get rid of odds. I'm just don't use the language of odds. You can still use odds anywhere in my moral theory you want to to make it a normal idea of normal. I know you've got another round in the chamber, but we must keep going. I hate to do this. Just we've got a lot of questions and they're not all trolled. Well, I'll just, I'll say one thing that's not about this, but just real quick. No, so we gotta keep going. I hate to do this. I promise we could host it another time, but we, it's just going to keep going otherwise. I just want to say we can have a further discussion about those tensions though, because there might be more disagreement there. Fair. And I will tweet it out if it's on either of your guys channels. I hate cutting you guys short. I really do. That's okay. That's okay. Some of, about 25% of these super chats are authentic questions. Next up. That's okay. That's okay. Thanks. Oren Wells says, I'm going to jump off a bridge. Okay. That must have been during a, one of those swampy parts of the debate. Sunflower thinks your question says, how do you know you're not trans if you can be trans without knowing it? Is that true? I didn't know that you can be trans without knowing it. Yeah, it's something that trips people out, but like gender, and it don't see how it's entailed by, like when you look at what it means to be trans, it just means you have a gender that differs from your sex and gender, having a gender doesn't entail having a belief about your gender. So for example, well, once, sorry. What doesn't tell? Cause I thought like a kind of sense of identity and sense isn't like strictly about explicit beliefs. So you might be just like comfortable in a certain kind of mode of being, being treated a certain way. And just to make it really clear with real world example quickly, cause I know James and Harry, if you actually talk to trans people, a lot of them will like confirm this. They'll say, yeah, you know, when I was a kid, I knew that I liked wearing dresses. I knew I liked so and so I didn't actually understand that I was trans until I was older. So the explicit belief about what their gender is came later, but they nonetheless had that kind of sense of personal identity that wasn't an explicit belief about gender at an early age. So that's the idea. Gotcha. Thank you for that. And I'll be, thanks for your question says question for Tom. Jump. If you think your argument is valid, can you tell us what inference rules make up the argument? I think we already went over that fair enough. Yeah. I mean, I think Tommy 10 10. Thanks for your question as well. So does the Tom have any expertise? I like that. The Tom have any expertise like a degree? Nope. I ought to be classes. I don't think I can waste some money on a degree. Wasting snow. So taught. I was actually surprisingly chintzy. I just learned this today, but he really wants to, wants to miser that money. Yeah. Gotcha. Nobody's cheaper than me. Believe me. Next up. Jay man, your question says, can someone explain both sides in more simple language? What is this theory thing in simple words? Well, I don't think there are two sides on the actual proposition. Now we agree about the proposition, but there might still be tension about whether there is some kind of, there might still be a disagreement about whether there's tension between error theory and Tom's view in terms of moral semantics and whether, I think that's what they're asking is what is error three? What is my mole for magic? What are the different theories? Oh, I thought they're asking about the debate proposition. If they're asking what error theory is, it's that moral, moral propositions have a truth value and they're always false. If you're asking what Tom's theory is, as far as I understand, he's just taking a kind of like descriptive view where moral just means like imposition on will. When you say something's immoral, you're just saying that this doesn't move us towards or moves us away from the world with the least imposition on will. I don't know if that's accurate or not. Is that what you're saying, Tom? Well, I just simplify it. Say error theory is the position that moral statements are false. My theory says that moral statements are true. But your theory is broader than just moral statements are true though. Yeah, it's true because it's a reference to the best of all possible worlds with the least imposition of will. Okay. Thank you for your question. Tom. Oren Well says, my drink shrink in this debate. Thanks, Tom. Okay, next. Thanks, Dwayne Burke says, the arms on Tom's chair are longer than this debate. Ah, so this is, wow, these, some of these are old super chats. SG Thomason says, are horses born without hooves, not true horses? Wasn't an actual argument. I don't actually, horses are not defined as things with hooves. You just got wrecked, bro. SJ destroyed me. I just lost to SJ. I'm giving up debates now. Better luck next time. Logical plausible probable. Thanks for your question says, premise. Both Tom, jump and ask yourself, need therapy, therefore James, can't read the rest. But I, let's see. It's not, it's nothing bad about you. It's that they misrepresent me in an accidental way. But, It sounds like it's You all need therapy. There's everything, everybody can work on something. Yeah, it sounds like it's invalid. Just to be clear, like saying Isaac and Tom, something, something, therefore James something. It's like, probably going to be invalid as far as I can tell. New proposition showing up in the conclusion. So good, good try. He's just being a troll. And Timothy Brice, I'm trolling back. Says, Morals are completely subjective and made up by humans in our current society. Anything beyond us, quote unquote, and our current opinions devolves into excuses, conjecture, and assumptions. Well, it depends what your moral theory is. I mean, if by moral, you're just talking about impositions on will. I mean, no, there's an objective fact about what does or doesn't impose on will, but like I take, I take the word moral to just refer to people's desires. So obviously, like what you desire is a subjective thing. Gotcha. Tom's chair makes an appearance saying, ask yourself, please steelman Tom's position. That's nice. Your chair is here. Here they've got your back Tom. Go ahead Isaac. Well, on the debate proposition, I think the steelman would just be that he agrees. So we agree about the debate proposition. If you mean his general moral theory, I mean, I don't know the details of it, but I think he just takes the word moral to refer to, but immoral to refer to impositions on will vice versa with moral. So when you make a moral statement, like X is wrong, he's just saying X imposes on will or X moves us away from the world with the least imposition of will or something like that. You're squinting at me. Is that wrong? Yeah, it's more like a platonic object where there's a thing in the world that exists. And these statements are just referring to that thing. Is the thing in the world, the imposition on will? No, the imposition will is just a statement to refer to the thing. Wait, wait. So what, the thing that's being referred to, you're referring to it when you use the word moral? Yes. Sort of. It's like a platonic object. Yes. It refers to what then? If not an imposition on will, the platonic objects like an abstract ideal object. What is the platonic object? That would be the best of all possible worlds. That's the object itself. So when you say something is immoral, you're saying something is the least imposition on will. No, no, those are all just descriptions of an actual object that actually exists somewhere in the world. Can you tell me what it means when you say something is immoral? Same thing as a platonic object. I don't know exactly how to explain this to you because again, we don't use words the same. But I can understand from within your worldview just, I guess, I mean, James won't want us to talk about it for whatever, but this, this kind of stuff is also where we might have some tension because if you want to just say all your, that all you're doing when you make moral statements, which I know you don't want to say this, but if you were to say that all you're doing is making descriptive statements on will, I just say, okay, I mean, I don't use the word like that, but I understand what he's saying. It's not wrong. But if you're sorry, just let me finish. But if you're saying something, if you're doing something other when you use the word moral, then just referring to an imposition on will, I need to know what you're referring to basically. Right. So quick response just platonic objects. You describe morality as a description of a platonic object and the oddness comes from the nature of the tonic object. The odds aren't like they'll come from the definition of the words of morality. They are in the entailed in the object itself. So all of my words just describe the object. The oddness will come from the object. I could say more. I'll spare James, but I think we very likely have tension here also. Next up. Thank you for your question from labs or says, why is imposition of will the criterion for moral? Well, I think I think I just want to, yeah, go for moral intuition, more progress. I just use those as evidence to guide us to what the best principle is and imposition of will is the principle I land on based on the evidence. Wait, but when you say, see that this, this is where I think there's weird fucking language being used. Like when you say imposition on, I'm a fuck, I know James wants to go for it. There's weirdness here though. I'm virtually certain. Next lap. Well, Charles in solo. Thanks for your question says, thank you, James. Who screens your interlocutor is very funny. Appreciate that. We miss Darth. I have message Darth on discord. I said, Darth. The people want you back. They need to see you. The stands will be filled for your return. But I have an outstanding debate offer for Darth on the proposition that agnosticism is contradictory. He begged the question last time I talked to him by saying that what's, what's the argument? And he says, Oh, well, well delivering the argument, he says you either affirm or deny that God exists. I said, well, well, so that's a different thing as saying that the proposition God exists. You either believe it or you believe that it's false, because if so, that's just begging the question against agnosticism. That's just your argument for agnosticism being, that you can't be an agnostic. But if on the other hand, he just means that you either accept the proposition or you don't, then it's not clear how his argument even rules out agnosticism. So yeah, I have an outstanding challenge from there. I don't think he'll ever take it because it would not go well. Gotcha. And thank you so much. asks, the salad chewed up this guy's brain, worse than Rom did Steve's. Can we get a linguist in here sometimes, James, to settle how language is used in all caps? I'm not- To settle a linguist to settle how languages, do you think that there's a fact of the matter about the correct way to use a word? I bet even Tom, do you think that there's facts of the matter about that kind of stuff? I think we probably agree there's not. What would make a word usage correct? Only if I use it, that makes it correct. All right, okay. Gotcha. And I always like debate ideas. Let me- What have I done? I accidentally just- Oh, apparently, logical, plausible, probable, has an after show coming up. And that is, I think, in the description you- or not the description, the live chat. I can put that in the description if anybody has an after show, happy to put that in our description from any of our debates. And then people can go on over there and see what people are saying. So thanks for your question. This one comes from- Dinkano says, can we get an Avi versus Bart Kay on here? The one channel with a completely neutral moderator. That's really kind of you. Thank you so much. I don't know if that's true, but I'll take what I can get. Is this a backhanded compliment meant to insult one of you guys? The context is just that Bart Kay is a complete sophist. He won't debate Avi on basically anywhere. So this is theoretically a neutral platform where he'd do it, but he has ridiculous standards for the debate. Avi can't use over five citations. Bart's an idiot. He claims to be a logician. You know that? He claims to be a logician. Watch my last video. Makes that statement, and then he doesn't know what a fucking contradiction is or what truth happiness is. It's complete moron and a liar. That's pretty interesting. Well, I appreciate the debate offer. Who knows? And Sunflower thinks your question said, Isaac is the Charlie Zelenoff of philosophy. Well, I mean, Charlie Zelenoff is known for losing fights, right? So I understand that you want to make that statement, but I would expect you to actually show something I'm wrong about if you want to make an analogy between me and Charlie Zelenoff. I've never heard of this fellow. Is it like boxing or what? Look him up. He's basically like this kind of insane delusional guy who thinks he's like a pro fighter and he's challenged all these pro fighters to fights and, you know, sometimes they fight him and they just beat the shit out of him. So he's just known for being this narcissistic, insane lunatic who like challenges pro fighters, gets his ass kicked, and then like claims he won. Oh, now I get it. Okay. Which, which, which, which, no, it's fine. It's just the, the analogy to me. Like, I mean, I don't care. You can think whatever you want, but if you want to persuade me, you'd have to actually show me something that I'm wrong about. And in addition to that, you'd have to show me that I have a pattern of behavior of thinking, thinking I'm right, going in, being shown wrong, and then continue to be wrong. Well, thinking I'm right, then, then maybe I'd accept the analogy, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Gotcha. And thank you for that. It's an interesting idea. Thanks for your question coming in from son. No, we got the converse contender said he needs some milk. Who needs milk? It can't be Isaac because he's a vegan. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. I think, I mean, converse is really nice. We get along well. So I assume he's just trolling, but you know converse, if you want to debate veganism, I'm happy to do so. Oh, that would be epic. And Joshua White, thanks for your question says, ask yourself, you look incredibly uncharitable. Tom obviously took your debate proposal differently than you did. He took it to mean that someone who accepts his moral theory could not be an anti realist. See, I think that that's really unfair. So I'm somehow being uncharitable by just having a completely legitimate reason reading of the proposition, right? The proposition just says your usage of the word to refer to impositions on will doesn't rule out anti realism, right? My reading seems fair. So I don't I don't understand what's uncharitable about that, right? Yeah, I wouldn't say it was being uncharitable. I think it was it's my fault, because when I read statements like that, it seems so unbelievably obvious. I can't even interpret it to mean that. Gotcha. Stupid whore energy makes her appearance. Glad to see you. It feels like you remember that in Avengers? I think it was Infinity War. Was it an infinity war where Thor arrived with it? He had the Stormbreaker. And yeah, we're going to use Fat Harry. Oh, Thomas. Okay. She says, could Tom jump, please call, ask yourself daddy. That's kind of weird. I'd rather we don't start calling each other weird shit like that. Well, only if you Super Chat on my channel. Only if you Super Chat on my channel. Logical possible probable. Thanks for your Super Chat says after show, whose arguments were worse? Tom jumps or ask yourselves open Mike invite. Well, that that would reveal some severe stupidity on behalf of the person in question, because they're assuming that at some point I actually delivered an argument when I was agnostic. I don't even think Tom's going to take the view that I delivered an argument. So that person simply did not track the discussion. God, do you think that at any point in this discussion I delivered an argument? I think they mean by argument position, not necessarily an actual formal argument. Oh, well, I mean, my position Tom agrees with as far as I understand. So I mean, if we hold the same position, then it would also be stupid to think one person is somehow more stupid than the other because they believe the same thing. When when I saw it go through or the chat heard stupid or energy's request for Tom to call ask yourself daddy for like eight seconds the chat froze. Like people didn't know what to say. Thanks for your logical or we got that JG thinks your question said Tom jump only lost this debate to set up the huge pay per view payday. Yeah, well, I do. I mean, without taking time really to get into it, I do think that we have some tension. There's the question about the moral semantics. And if there's a tension with air theory, there's a question about the content of the propositions air theorists are talking about and if they're actually somehow shown to be something other than false via Tom's moral theory. And then there's some weirdness about how Tom is like using the word moral. I thought he just used it to refer to impositions on will. But if he's saying it refers to something other than that, there's a lack of clarity there. At least I mean, I don't understand. So I would need more clarity to tell if that makes sense. Gotcha. And thanks for your question. This one comes in from Philip says, I think a y is saying that Tom's moral theory is compatible with error theory, if consistent terminology is used across the two theories. Am I right? That's not I'd have to think about that. That's not how I was framing it. So the debate proposition was just that error theory isn't falsified in virtue of Tom using the word moral in a particular way, which we agree with. And again, the tension between Tom's view and error theory, if there is a tension, it just seems like there's two spots it could be. It seems like there could be a semantic tension like what they take moral statements to be. And then there's also potentially a tension about the content of like moral propositions. Like does Tom's view actually show that the kind of propositions error theory is saying are false are in fact not all false. And I'm not clear about that. Gotcha. And thanks for your question. This comes in from genius tracks. Thanks for your question says what ask yourself meant by the debate proposition was so trivial. It's beyond belief. Also, Tom has only ever been arguing that you can't believe his moral philosophy and be an error theorist pit entry equals a why? Yeah, I think I've seen that blazing idiot before. Genius tracks, I'd be happy to stomp you if you actually, you know, have some kind of, you know, thing that you think I'm wrong about that I think I'm right about. So, you know, if you have proposition you can raise it. And I don't think when you when you say, I don't forget what it were to use. Did you say uncharitable or something like that? What was the word there James at the start? Not pedantic, but before that the trivial trivial. Well, I guess it depends how you think about that. But I think that, you know, I don't even think Tom would think it's unreasonable if someone if I perceive someone as objecting to that position to be like, I mean, this is just insane, like, of course, of course, that's wrong. And we can have a debate about it. So, Gotcha. And next, thanks so much. Appreciate your question. This comes in from Philip says, Tom jump, I don't understand what you mean when you explain morality with a platonic like object. Couldn't I like that? Couldn't someone explain your kind of moral progress using human psychology? For example, there's a problem or even answers that there's there's a problem of what what would moral progress even mean on Tom's view because right now I'm not I'm again back to being unclear about what moral means on Tom's view. But sorry, please answer the question. I just I just seem problematic because they are talking about moral progress, but we haven't clarified what moral means. So, morality is a reference to the best of all possible worlds, more progress is moving closer to it, more regression further away from it, which means more or less imposition of will essentially. Yes, morality can be fully explained by psychological phenomenon. My theory doesn't disprove all the other moral theories. It's just another theory. Psychological phenomenon. Wait, but you don't you don't think that there's non psychological facts of what brings us closer to a given. Yes. So, so my theory is not compatible with morality being purely explained by psychological phenomenon. Morality can be explained by purely psychological phenomenon just like quantum mechanics can be explained by lots of different theories. I do not agree with the other theories. I just want to ask one more time like I just I just want to see if if I can make sense. What do you what do you when you say something's moral like when you say rape is immoral like what does that mean? Are you saying rape is a platonic object? Are you saying rape doesn't move us closer to the world with no imposition of will like what does that sentence mean to you? I'm saying that morality is a representation of the essence of a platonic object. I mean, that's specific sentence. So not morality. Generally, I just mean what does that sentence translate into rape is wrong. It's a sentence does not correspond to the object. Essentially, it's like saying that object is round when it's actually a square. No, it's not. Rape doesn't correspond to bring us closer to the world with the least imposition of will rape would not be a description of the best of all possible world would be describing something else. Okay, so when you say rape is immoral, you're just saying rape is not like what happens in the world with the least imposition on will. Yeah, it would be describing the platonic object, but the honest again comes from its nature, not the word uses the word uses does nothing but describe it. I could push more, but I know James wants to continue. Next, thank you for your question. This one comes down from Philip or no, Gabriel K asks, how many languages Mr. Salad speaks? Well, I mean, I can speak French to a degree, but really just English. Gotcha. And next up, I get so much pleasure out of reading this, because I usually get this from Earl the postman, but now it is. Hold on, let me, we've got two got confused for a second there. Sorry, folks. Thanks for your patience. Fair enough. Okay. So I am, Irmin Serbia says, does a Y have a girlfriend? He's really cute. I was expecting a does a Y have a girlfriend. He's the fucking autist and no one would ever talk to me. Well, I mean, I wouldn't like to have a girlfriend, but I'll leave it a little ambiguous. Yes. Not a proper girlfriend. I'll put it, I'll put it that way, but I'm not interested in whoever the fucking commentaries. I don't want to pick up on weird, if they watch your channel, I don't want fucking anything to do with it. Thanks for making it crystal clear. But available if you're big enough, super chats. Tom is I don't fucking get his channel banned for prostitution, please. Next, thanks for your question from integral lens says, does Tom realize that the gods that the ancients like the Greeks and Romans were platonic forms Christianity worships the same platonic form is Tom? No, the gods were not platonic objects in Greek and Roman mythology. Those are not the I might be like lost here. Aren't platonic objects supposed to be like a causal? That's the theory is how to put on objects cause anything. Yeah, that's because because it if if they're I guess I don't know enough about Platonism, but if they're supposed to be a causal, I don't think like the gods are usually seen as a causal. They usually like kind of do shit or at least did shit if it's a deist God or something. So yeah, I don't know that. Yeah, that's a good argument. Gotcha. And thanks. Oh, the chat, they like that one. All right. Thanks for your question. I think we had one more. Do we have one more yet? No, I think that's it. So I want to say thanks so much, everybody. We are excited. We might even have that cancel culture debate tomorrow because you'll see in the bottom right of your screen, Erica and shadow dancer were scheduled. They had a postpone it to the following Wednesday. It might be the cancel culture debate tomorrow. It might be anti-theism. We're figuring it out, you know, go with the flow. Thanks for our guests. We cannot thank them enough. I have linked them in the description. Both Tom's and ask yourselves links are waiting for you folks. If you love debates, those links, I can tell you there is an abundant supply of tremendous debates at their links. So want to say thanks to these guys though. Tom jump and ask yourself for hanging out with us anytime. It was a enjoyable conversation. Thanks for having us. And with that stoked folks, as we had mentioned, we have, oh wait, we did have just a couple of last ones come in. Cold poison. Thanks for your super chat said lol at Tom jump fanboys who spent $10 on a super chat to say that a Y was uncharitable or trivial only for T jump to concede. It was his misunderstanding. I mean, I don't even think I'm not going to rip on T jump if he just says I misunderstood something. I don't disagree. I mean, I probably was ripping a bit earlier, but if I'm thinking totally clearly about it, I don't really care. Like if he just agrees and there's just a misunderstanding, that's fine. Gotcha. And but yeah, yeah, that's if some fanboys saying sitting there saying I'm being insanely uncharitable for fighting Tom on this proposition. When I genuinely thought he was taking a position, which once he was clear on, he believes would be an insanely stupid position. I don't really, uh, I don't really see how that's uncharitable. Like Tom, if you saw if you saw someone arguing, right, I didn't think he said there was a problem, but I think the uncharitable part is like when I said my argument originally and then had to compare it to the horse example, which is the exact same structure and you couldn't it took a while though, because we had to go through we had to remove one of the premises and then we had finally clear to fight clarified it into modus tollens for him and then we realized what was being said. I don't think it was actually clear what was being said before that. That's the part that's being argued as uncharitable and trivial because everyone else did that in like five seconds just by hearing the argument. I think that I think that the kind of people who think that they did that that quickly don't actually have a grasp on basic logic because I think that the form was not clear until we clear about it. Next, we must go to the next question. I hate interrupting your insulting half of the audience, but let's see, two, two, three, Mr. Awesome. I'm just teasing. We love you folks. Ask yourself, loves you. Tom loves you. And by the way, come on, be real guys. Like, wait, who do I love? Well, when it came up before, because your, your, your lover is still in the live chat and you said you are seeing someone kind of, I, is it godless girl? Oh, fuck no. Not that I have any problem with this. I mean, she's, she's fairly nice to me. No, she's, she's dating Josh, the realistic nihilist. I like him too, though, in a, in a non-sexual way. He's a nice enough guy. Thanks for clarifying. We assumed automatically it was sexual, but we, what was it? Now you would wonder folks, are Tom and ask yourself brothers, because I know you wonder, you also wonder. We've, we've, we've yelled at each other a few times. Um, I'm confused by some of the shit Tom says, but you know, I don't really have any like deep problem with Tom. And that's because your brother, I can, I can enjoy like chat. Like, I could get a beer with Tom, not that I drink, but like, you know, I can hang out with Tom and have a good enough time. I don't have a problem with Tom. Well, we are all, I mean, you, you guys, though, it's interesting because you guys, you both love philosophy. You wrote while red and philosophy, you're both good debaters. So you guys do have a lot in common. That's, that's an overstatement. I, I don't like when people say I'm well read and philosophy or logic or something. And that's not me being modest. Like I have not read a lot of philosophy. I'm not read a lot of logic. I have some like basic level understanding of some things. Gotcha. And two, two, three, Mr. Awesome. Ask Tom and ask yourself, why are your arguments so stupid? Is that to both of us? Yes, they're trying to insult both of you simultaneously. James doesn't, doesn't have that his, his debaters. It's James's fault. Yeah. I mean, I didn't make an argument. And if we're taking Tom, these are trolls to position, I'm not clear that I have a position that says anything stupid. No. They're just trying to get a rise. I just like to respond hyper literally to them. That that's my, my favorite way to respond to a troll. I think they just, they're just doing it for the, the lulls. Next, thanks for your question from I am Irmin Serbia, person who said that you're cute Isaac said, I'm that girl you destroyed on animal testing on discord. Oh no. So it's pretty serious. It sounds like, all right, thanks for that. And let's see, we, oh, do we have, let me just check somebody. Spart, are you telling me Spart that you got a, did you send a question via email? I'm confused. Why would, I don't know, but thanks for your other super chat from Gabriel K. who says morals mean nothing based on the natural world. Beyond that, it's about the soundness of opinions among humans, Ergo language and society in the move. The soundness of opinions in humans. Love it. Yeah, I don't think I agree with that. I mean, I take morals to refer to like our desires. And I mean, I think our desires are, far as I can tell, they're part of the natural world, unless our, unless consciousness is like non-natural or something. I don't fucking know. Gotcha. And next, thanks for your, I think that might be it. So let me just double check. Want to say thanks folks. It's been a fun time. I love these guys. I feel like you guys are my brothers. That's why I just love to tease you so much. Well, I always like being on here. That's, that's a lie. I like being on here about 50% of the time. So that's all right. It's, you know, it's a wild one. Anything can happen. So we want to say thanks so much folks. It is always a pleasure. As we had mentioned, if you can't find us on your favorite podcast app, email me at moderndatabate at gmail. We will make it happen. We really appreciate you folks. And with that, want to say keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care folks. And we will hopefully see you tomorrow if, oh wait, one sec. Just because you gotta read more super chats. Nope. There's no more. Okay. Thanks for that folks. Appreciate it. We will see you hopefully tomorrow. If not, maybe Thursday or Friday. So have a great rest of your Tuesday. Thanks guys. See you.