Відео

Morality is objective 🔥

Perfect! Now you are one step away from asserting that concepts are recognized in comparison! Hence, Fodor was wrong about atomic concepts. Hence, comparison is what others call "computation" behind cognition.

Craig is so rude to the people who don't phrase their questions fast enough in the Q&A Like, chill out man, it won't kill you if they talk for 40 seconds instead of 30...

I admire Alex for staying so calm when every time he brings up a reasonable rebuttal and or question.. Craig just dodges it. Craig should at least stop and think when an obvious fallacy such as a circular reasoning. I dont say he acts in bath faith. But so many ideas/things he says just don't pass logical scrutiny.

The reality is that the human race is going backwards. The human ago is tye problem with having the need to have something or someone bigger than us to justify life .

1:26:11 missed two points on Sandro animal argument: if a person wastes a steak even if the cow was morally slaughtered, is that not worse than kicking the flower? Second, if nutrition didn't factor in, and a person killed an animal for food anyway VS kicking a flower with utmost contempt for life, how do you delineate between levels of contempt for life?

Slave, an “IDIOT” is defined as a person with an intelligence quotient of 25 or below.

Some people claim that this objective morality exists, but I've yet to find any one who can give me just one example of an objective moral principle. Yet we have a mountain of historical evidence that shows morality to be subjective, as it changes over time and across cultures.

Good video again Craig. It's interesting to me how Communism (or Socialism) and Fascism try to lie about their authoritarian nature in different ways. Fascists lie about people getting to own private property (but to own is to have the authority to decide how to use, dispose of, or trade said property) Communists lie by drawing a distinction between personal and private property - which effectively comes down to consumer vs capital goods. But the same object may be a consumer good if used for personal purposes and a capital good if used for business purposes. A house you live in is a personal property, a house you have an office in becomes private property. Here again, what's really being controlled it your authority to use, dispose of, or trade your property

Craig clearly won this debate. He was holding his own very well despite Alex's very aggressive (and hypothesis-based) argumentative style

You are so wrong sir, this is absolute misinformation, 😟🙏✝️💜

What Craig didn't establish here is what it means for a human to live up to their potential. If a human values ruling over other humans that necessarily implies that one human can decide what it means for another human to live as one.

Bro smashed alex 🔥🔥🔥

Coffee and objectivism in the morning. Wonderful!

Bullshit

Concise and easy to understand. Well done!

You, Sir, are an ABJECT fool.

What is morality? In my opinion, morality is the human version of pack behavior. Any action which negatively affects the cohesion and well being of the pack, is immoral. Murdering a fellow pack member is wrong, but, murdering members of an invading pack, who endanger our pack members, is not. The problem with humans, is the limbic brain. It isn't social. The higher function brain is where we learn right and wrong, but the limbic brain learns behavior patterns before we learn right and wrong. Stopping here!

God provided faithful leaders that we should seek comfort in. Having a hope in God makes sense in this crazy world and I see God's beauty everything around me..

I’m not religious but to call anybody who is even remotely religious immoral is blatantly disgusting. And you should actually be ashamed of yourself.

My faith is the most beautiful thing I have ever experienced in this world or ever will. No matter what is going on around me I am completely at peace bcuz I know who fights my battles and my only care in life is just serving Jesus Christ our Lord and king and I am the best version of me. But sir I look at your speaking and there is no peace or calm, just choas. I pray that you open ur heart to Jesus bcuz living without Jesus will never be fulfilling no matter how much wealth or influence you might think you have. So I implore you cry out to Jesus he alone can save our souls.

His brain is dead

You don’t know what you’re saying, sir. May the Lord bless you and keep you always may you see the light?❤😊

You don’t even know what you’re talking about. I pray for you, brother. May the Lord bless you and keep you safe always and may you see the real light❤😊

You don’t even know what you’re talking about. I pray for you, brother. May the Lord bless you and keep you safe always and may you see the real light❤😊

You dont understand what faith is.

That's laughable. An atheist who supposedly believes in moral relativism making a normative statement calling followers of religion "immoral." In a world without God, there can be no moral or immoral people, so to say that religious people are immoral is a statement based on nothing but your subjective feelings and opinion, and implies that there ARE moral absolutes that ARE right and wrong and that there ARE right and wrong ways of living your life. There is no logical consistency to what you're saying.

Get behind me, Satan

Hearing someone actually treating Ayn Rand as a serious philosopher is very funny

13:24 literally suggested that people choose to be depressed which is the most common thing to lead to suicide. Utter nonsense. Not to suggest blame, judgment, only observation of.

17:01 primmer??

"Jihadi" "sub-human" Was this guy unable to create an example without sounding like a white supremacist? I say this as an Arab guy who's been called sub-human on more than one occasion. "Yay Alex" "Boo Craig" 🙃

Most creatures evolve not to keep staying alive, rather they evolve to stay alive long enough to pass on their genes. Some even die in the process of mating. Think of Mantis mating. The male gets his head eaten off post coitus. Even humans are known for taking extreme risks in the pursuit of reproduction, particularly males.

57:00

seems like this exposition of Rand's moral objectivism, is in fact a subjective theory of morality

I agree and believe the Bible is the greatest lie ever sold.

I pray the Lord opens your eyes from yoru foolishness. Amen. P.s. subjective morality only opens the door for murder, rape and other crimes to run rampant.

Emotivism and egoism actually align quite well. Not the kind egoism of Rand, but of Max Stirner. Stirner was among the first of the modern moral anti realists. Essentially, he only believed in pure self interest as a motivator, with no higher values like Rand introduces. From there, you can easily reach the idea of emotive egoism. "I don't like that, it makes me feel bad, so the bad thing is not in my interest." I think that's probably how people actually function anyway. You see something, and it intuitively makes you feel a certain way, and then you form your actions around that to make yourself feel better. Humans are material creatures no doubt, but we crave materials to enrich our subjective experience, or at the very least to make it bearable. So, maybe poverty causes you a lot of psychological discomfort. You don't have to believe in a high ideal to then go think it's bad that people are impoverished. You can simply admit to yourself that you'd feel less sad if we didn't have poverty, and voila, now you have an ethical stance that arose naturally through your personal need to feel better. When you reach the level of social, we're really just dealing with the aggregate of egos, trying to coexist, so the principles that allow for the greatest number of egos to coexist are probably the best. Not objectively, but inter-subjectivley. And, more and more people become included in this over time due to their efforts of persuasion. Anyway Craig's full of beans. Rights don't exist, there's only two options, violence or mutual respect, neither has anything to do with rights though in an abstract sense.

The quality of the comments from the Alex O'Connor fan club here is just low. I was expecting learned commentaries, but I was wrong.

Be Craig. Be unable to speak about hypotheticals also take part in philosophical debate about objective morality.

human rights are a new thing, does that mean that humans were outside of ethic before the definition of human rights?

craig biddle.... flint dibble.... we need a buddy cop movie ASAP

Nice discussion. There are two main views in meta-ethics: moral realism and moral anti-realism. They each divide in different branches but their core thesis is, respectively, that there are stance-independent moral truths and that there are not stance-independent moral truths. The key is *stance-independence/stance-dependence* . I think Craig's view shared here is not only completely consistent with moral anti-realism but actually it's resting fundamentally in stance-dependent features which are characteristic of moral-antirealism. In summary, the view he shared fundamentally rests on the fact that _as long as you _*_care_* or *want* to adopt the moral point of view that Craig shared, you should do X and Y to achieve the goal of the view, because there indeed are stance-independent (objective), descriptive non-moral facts about what contributes better to achieve certain goal. But notice nothing about what Craig shared has prescriptivity *independent* of at least some stance or subjective perspective on the matter. This is not to say Alex is correct (since I think emotivism, at least as presented in academia where there's a semantic thesis assumed, is incorrect), but it is to say that the superiority of moral anti-realism, as the general meta-ethical thesis that it is, shined here over moral realism.

It wont be done because of big pharmaceutical companies and the rich elite ...

Agree somewhat. However, this will never be reality in the US. What exactly are rights violating "anti" immigration laws? They're made up for those crossing a border illegally to possibly secure votes. As long as one comes into the country by way of legal means, there is not an issue.

I'm seeing a lot of comments about Craig not liking Alex's use of thought experiments. I understand the importance of thought experiments, but I do think Craig had a point. I believe Alex's thought experiments illustrated that the basis of life is subjective, but not that life can't be a basis for morality. I think Craig's use of life as a standard for morality works, but it isn't an objective standard.

Craig needs to take an into philosophy course. He has an elementary school level understanding of how it works.

What talk is this from? Would like to hear the whole thing.

If every argument in favor of your position is subjective, it seems odd to insist on calling that position objective.

borders are boundary's and people put up boundaries to keep others out of their space. its not theirs, they cant have it because you virtue signal that they can.... let them live on your property and dont be a hypocrite or you can move to a country that agrees with you. everyone has to pay to live 'where' they want, if you want to pay for it than you can, you have no 'morale right' to make that decision for me or anyone else. they have no morale right to land I have worked and developed and paid to have built and secured and maintained. this guy us an idiot. I want to live at his house, I have the morale right.... sheesh.