The fact that Shapiro limited the scope of his argument to western society shows that he knows there are examples outside of western society that destroy his argument.
Prolife is not from a Judeo-Christian value system. Ben is prolife. Ben doesn't get all his morals from his religion. Ben is right wing first and Judeo Orthodox 2nd. Ben projects his beliefs onto his make believe God, just like Christians do. Remember: "feelings don't care about your facts."
They also had their constitution written for them by the americans and the British though. It wasn’t a particularly kind or gentle place during the Meiji era or before
@@Premiseandconclusion if we are speaking of moral frameworks by doctrine - how does “Judeo-Christian” even make sense as a concept? I get why politically it makes sense but the ethical prescriptions are very different and somewhat contradictory.
@@Premiseandconclusion Buddhist morality. Confucian perhaps, depending on what one is defining as "advanced." What morality would fit a future global highly technological humanity with nukes and genetic engineering and A.I.? Certainly empathy extended beyond Dunbar's number (about 150 people in your circle of acquaintances, rather than anonymous statistics of people so far removed from you) and compassion, which would be founded upon empathy, so the strengthening of the social instinct, albeit without superficial conformity in my preference. That's what I would think of as "advanced" for our concerns, at first thought. That is, if we value the survival of humanity. Also, the golden rule seems ubiquitous and universal in human history. It's uttered, in different wording, in ancient Egypt, India (Hindu and Jainism), pagan Greece, Persian Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Islam (although I believe Islam is just a continuation or reboot of "Judeo-Christianity". And why are people combining Judaism and Christianity when historically Christianity spread antisemitism throughout Europe and the Americas? I don't get it.
@@cwkay6847In my experience, any mention of the Old Testament is immediately shunned by the Christian as irrelevant and inapplicable. Which is somewhat understandable given some of the horrid things in there.
Except that Japan and Korea are both don’t have major religions and also have some of the least amount of crime. But why would Ben use logic and reasoning ever.
Having very little crime is the consequence of stiff penalties for crime. I actually would prefer we take a page from that book…but that’s not even remotely the same as having an ideology of growth. The United States as a template for growth, productivity, and innovation is unprecedented in the history of the species, and it’s very obviously the consequence of the Judeo-Christian ethos of personal responsibility, admission of failure (sin), and being reborn from that failure (resurrection). Japan and Korea are what they are on the back of the industrial progress and innovation of the West. Capitalism is derived from the ethos of personal responsibility and the requirements of growth. The ONLY comprehensive ethos of growth on the planet is the Judeo-Christian model, which is precisely why they were the originators of capitalism. A culture rooted in the personal growth and responsibility of individuals is by definition the only culture that could produce capitalism. Were it not for the Judeo-Christian ethic, there would be no capitalisism and the last 400 years quite simply would not have taken place. No cars, trains, planes, or internet. You owe it all to a culture that DEMANDED personal growth and emphasized the individual’s relationship to the ground of being rather than to the state.
@@winstonsol8713 lol trying to say capitalism is a result of religion is like trying to say AA is a result of prohibition. The Industrial Revolution is the main reason why this was all possible. Judeo-Christian mindset has done nothing to influence or help any major movement in the US. Which is why the founding fathers exclusively kept church and state separate. They saw how that went in England. The South which was more religious than the north used the Bible as the main reason slavery should be allowed. All the major movements in the US the Church was not the one to help the movement. Ending Slavery, Women’s rights, Minority rights, Gay rights the Church was not only not involved they often opposed change. Your judeo Christian values didn’t apologize they were wrong about Galileo until the 1990s. Humans change morality over time. Those being oppressed stand up and say we won’t take this anymore. Judeo Christian values say the opposite…be quiet, don’t speak up, conveniently you’ll be rewarded after death. It’s a smoke show, a con to those not smart or well off enough to see through it. Also if you haven’t noticed Korea and Japan now outshine us tech wise. This has nothing to do with US based capitalism, this is way more recent with the ever growing change in technology with phones, laptop, tvs, cars, etc. they’ve become better at manufacturing, better quality, better all around. Their cultures are based more off not individual success but success of the entire family, neighborhood, country. Where in the US the focus is what is your political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, income level. These divide the culture. Trying to bring religion into economics, cultural philosophy is a complete joke. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
@@coolguy1127 Very well articulated. Just one point, Korea of which I am born is about 25% Christian. I don't understand the details of this phenomena, but it might have to do with the fact Korean culture tends to be very conservative and traditionalistic as it is shown that Christians in general tend to be the same.
The Roman and Spanish Inquisitions definitely reflected the influence of Judeo-Christian values on Western morality. Their methods were *impressively sophisticated* in terms of creativity and execution. They would make Genghis Khan envious. 😁🤪
Nice try. When Christianity ceases to be Christlike, it ceases to be Christian. If you can make an argument from the ethics of Jesus for the Inquisition, I'm all ears but you can't. The Inquisition existed for a period of time but was judged and found to fail. It came to an END! If it were enacted on the teachings of Jesus, it would still be here today. It isn't.
@@BillyBike416 I really like Jesus. He comes over with his crew to tidy up my yard once a month and he makes a mean carne asada too. He's a great cumbanchero. ☮ Cheers!! ua-cam.com/video/yaqdFnjKClE/v-deo.html
When I went to get my A+ certificate one of the things the instructors taught what to do when a customer asks us a question to baffle them woth bullshit. He told us that we knew enough tech jargon that we could baffle them into silencing and that's what I think of Ben Shapiro.
Hitchens was very smart but a street fighter with few sophisticated skills. He never studied religion or philosophy. He held a BA from Balliol College (good school) but no study beyond that. He was a master of easy crowd-pleasing criticism but little depth beyond that.
How does Shapiro arrive at this platform with Harris? Shapiro is no where near his level of accomplishment. He isn't an authority on anything. Harris is countless levels above Shapiro in any measurable way. He doesn't deserve this platform.
Technically it is over 2000 years. The New Testament adds to the Jewish Torah, which has been around for even longer. Which makes it even less likely that our modern morals are due to these religions.
@@Premiseandconclusion It is not one thing, but many. Our social primate instincts, some of which are shared across most mammals, and some of which are even found in other groups such as birds, form the basis for most of our morals. Then there is our development of language, especially our written forms, which have allowed us to record and sometimes even learn from past events much more accurately and quickly than before. Science has shown that we really do share a connection with all life, and we are almost identical to everyone, allowing many of us to expand our formerly limited tribe/group mind to include many others. Industrialization and the green revolution has lifted many of us out of poverty, or lives of relative hardship, into a fairly luxurious state where we can do more than struggle for food and shelter each day. Its much easier to care for your fellow man when you are not hungry or cold. Etc, etc. Most of the main religions, despite having been around for thousands of years, have only held back this progress, or history would look very different.
I am not a Christian, was raised in a faith tradition, and see the morals and values in our society which can be attributed to Christianity as universal morals and values which can just as easily be attributed to any major world religion. I had a theological discussion with a Native American Indian woman I worked with. During the course of our discussion, she said, “everyone thinks their religion is the best.” While I would say, “most people,” instead of “everyone,” I fully agreed with this sentiment. I find it an oddity that in the United States, some Christians are so self centered that they feel at once that they are being marginalized and oppressed for their beliefs while at the same time those same beliefs so permeate our society that Christmas is a national holiday.
I agree with your "my religion is the best" point. Every religion has had people commit atrocities in its name, no matter what they teach. Ever heard of Nero? (and he is just the popular example) It is by God's grace that Christianity has become so widespread, but regardless of that Christians are still persecuted around the world. America is just a country where it happens much less
Really enjoying the discussion-please keep it up! That was the whole purpose of this video: to congregate and provide counter-arguments. I would love to see someone take up Ben’s argument and defend it against all the attacks in the video and comment section.
I'll take a swing. I think you missed the point of where (most) Christians believe morality came from. Christians believe man is made in the image of God and even though we sinned we still "bear his likeness" so to speak. Because we are made in His image I'm defending Christians here more than Shapiro's argument, though his stance is defaceable
@@RubusCalculum To further expand on the idea that man is created in the image of God, then Judeo-Christians also have to abide by the genocidal, wrathful, war mongering, misogynistic, racist, vain, and petty aspects of God which is pervasive throughout the Old Testament and some of the New. On this Judeo-Christians cannot use "the devil made him to do" as isn't "God" more powerful than the the devil?
I agree with your conclusion insofar I think he does subconsciously self-sabotage but I’m not as sure that his beliefs are at the root of that. He displays the same dogmatic motivated reasoning even outside of that context. Maybe it’s a chicken or the egg situation.
Ben feels like morality comes from the belief in characters from holy book. Ben doesn't know this for a fact, but Ben feels it. Isn't that what religion is all about?Feeling like the characters written about exist.And feeling like you are going to spend eternity with these characters but not having any facts to back up any of these feelings? Somebody once said facts don't care about your feelings. Anyone know who said that?
@eyelight3056 Jesus is the most significant and documented person in history, and you don’t believe he existed? Your living in denial. The worlds calendar is based on his death.
@@cwkay6847 Jesus is definitely not the most documented person in history. Did you think about this silly propaganda at all before accepting and repeating it as if it's true ???? Go research all the actual factual data known about the supposed messiah character. You'll learn almost nothing that Christianity attributes to this character lines up. Even his name doesn't line up. There is no one in history named Jesus until 1500 years after the new testament narrative takes place. You've accepted a big big lie.
Shapiro apparently believes speaking rapidly, really rapidly, and peppering his vocabulary with catchwords, makes him the smartest man in the room. When he speaks, the listener spends their time sorting out what was just sprayed in their direction and can usually only recall those words that stood out.
Aristotles doctrine of the mean is the foundation of western moral and ethics. The constitution gives us the framework for implementing morals and ethics into public life.
I would have enjoyed seeing Hitchens debate Shapiro. It wouldn't be a fair fight, but I would enjoy it because I find Shapiro to be so insufferably and unjustifiably smug. It would be enjoyable in the same sense as watching some martial arts chi charlatan get knocked on his ass by a real fighter.
I don't think it is in any way obvious that Western society is at all the most moral or ethical possible society. There are societies with Buddhist values that are more kind and gentle. The harsh survivalist and masculine-centric society of the West is only just learning to walk.
You the same basis for your religion, you christians jare just a denomination of Judaism, as is islam which is why they are called the abrahamic religions.
The argument of Ben is even worse when you realize that the definition or measure of what "A sophisticated moral society" is he uses is: "A society that looks like 'our' western society". It becomes even worse when you discover that there is no single 'sophisticated moral western society'. The moral structure of Europe is vastly different from that of the US, and within the US there are subcultures with vastly different moral structures (as there are in Europe). This 'united sophisticated society of morals' is a myth.
History. Ben falls into a common mistake: You start with strong beliefs reached before the evidence is examined. The bias of his upbringing and culture narrow his search. Yet its the study of history.. any history, that clearly show that his theories result in his own base rate fallacies . Ben does this in even his most pedestrian arguments.
morality comes from millions of years of tribal living. It's bad for the tribe to have murder and crime. It's good for the tribe to share and help each other. Done.
I've even read paper's that consider that human dominance over other animals , has resulted from a genetic tendency to look after unfortunate members of the tribe. Social well-being is an important factor for a thriving species.
Shapiro is a word salad nonsense maker. He just speaks fast enough to sound like he knows what he’s saying, without actually having any deep rooted foundation to build off of. Sick and tired of surface level speakers.
I would look at the European history where the Church and christianity persecuted all who did not conform to their views and values. Such as people with different beliefs, critizing artists, people with knowledge to utilize plants herbs in a medical fashion, scientists with theories and discovers not supported by the Church. There are a wide selection of torture devices which were used by the Church still preserved. These and many other facts such as their brutal colonizing tells me there is no moral to find within their religion. None at all.
@@RubusCalculum Except atheism is not a religion. It is simply not believing in a god or gods, that they exist. Nothing more. No ideology or philosophy. Usually it takes an ideology or religion for true horror to occur.
@@naggoob North Korea was identified by Christopher Hitchens as the world's most theocratic society. So I take no comfort in the idea of a society without religion. See Orwell's 1984 and Hitchens 2009 video on North Korea.
It is fallacious to state that only a Judeo-Christian culture can develop into a sophisticated moral society without recognizing the fact that Judeo-Christian culture spent most of its history obliterating any other cultures it encountered. Recently, western culture mostly moved beyond this type of behavior. We are still waiting for our Muslim neighbors to make this evolutionary step.
Aren't you leaving out the fact that morality has developped against heavy resistance of religion? Isn't it the case that anywhere in the world the correlation appears to be, the less influence religion has, the better the morality of society? Religion has fought teeth and nails against about any moral advancement, like womens rights, religion has always been on the immoral side up to the moment where such a huge majority of people turned against religion that religion had to give in to keep their members. The fact that this so far happened only in christian countries doesn't have anything to do with Christianity, it's based on the fact that the developped western world was the first part of the world where religion was pushed out of political power.
@@birdmann9197 The reason why Jews created Christianity (rabbis words, not mine) was to sway away goyim from paganism and the so called false Gods, to unite them (and separate them from chosen Jews) under THIER only true God.
I’m not sure if Ben has ever read a history book if he feels this country was built on good morals and values for one. For two, the Judeo-Christian value system is primarily the foundation of Hierarchal societies, not Democratic. It’s not even amusing how we tend to forget there is a history here long before the Inquisition and colonist. Maybe we should ask them about your Judeo-Christian values?
Even within Western Civilization, the Ancient Greeks spent a lot of time and effort creating a very complex moral code. The Ancient Greeks were not Judeo-Christian. The argument that Judeo-Christianity is the root of all complex moral codes is frankly a grave insult to non-Judeo-a Christian people across the world. The fact is, that every human being who has ever been born, is born neutral, and somehow has managed to coexist with other humans for mutual aid, is (in my view) a solid piece of evidence that humans are essentially good.
It always amazes me that religious people try to attach morality to the scriptures. Dude take a look at Luther era in 15th and 16th century. Look at what church did in those times by reading the bible
He is not arguing that a society has to worship the Judaeo Christian religion, but rather that they have to include the morality of it. A society can worship another religion and still honor the same values as the Judaeo Christian religions.
I don’t think you can remotely make the argument that non-western societies did not develop sophisticated moral systems. The simplest example is literally every current non-western society, which all have systems of morality, that though different, are no less sophisticated. Then there are the multitude of past societies, such as classical Persia, Greece, Egypt, etc etc, who also had elaborate systems of morality. Then there’s the fact that his argument suffers from surviver bias. There could have been myriad societies throughout history all over the world that had complex moral systems that we never learned about because they didn’t survive for various reasons, including the very immoral onslaught of Western colonialism. And finally, and most importantly, if Judeo-Christian values were such a clear and distinctive set of instructions for morality, why did it take 2,000 years for humans to perfect them?
The two of them share many of the same ideas and opinions. Harris may be less out there on some of the ideas but the two are more similar than they are different.
Christianity existed in Europe for a thousand years. But, didn't pull Europe out of being a bunch of warring mud farmers, until the the renaissance. The renaissance being the introduction of ancient Greek philosophy into European culture. Which, I argue, is more responsible for the development of the sophistication of European morality than Christianity. But, not that moral sophistication is exclusive to Europe.
Ben must remember there were thousands of gods.......and each tribe prayed to their own god.. then the Romans used it as a tool and suddenly there was only one god.....and he no longer cared about just Jews.....invented an afterlife.....hell.....and other crap.....millions of gods just vanished
This is certainly not Sam Harris saying anything. It is Christopher Hitchins commenting on a dialogue we don't hear. If Hitchins wants to rely on Neitzke's criticism, he should note that while God was dead in Neitzke's view, he lamented strongly that there was a sufficient replacement for Christian ethics.
Phil Zuckerman has a list of half a dozen MAJOR areas where secular morality clearly displaces Western religious morality. The first item on the list is DEMOCRACY, a concept which is entire absent in the Abrahamic religious texts, despite being more or contemporaneous with them. The principle of GENDER AND RACIAL EQUALITY is also conspicuously absent. Doesn't Shapiro think thst these are a necessary condition for a moral system to be deemed "sophisticated?"
Take "Judeo-Christian" out of the premise and is it still false? (Oh, the spelling errors.) Or could "value system" be replaced with "a society". And why is "sophistication" a necessary metric? I expected better logic from Shapiro, too.
Ben Shapiro uses what I like to call "Used Care Salesman" tactics. He talks super fast and spews out a ton of different points. By not giving you the chance to respond to his individual points, it implies that those points are correct. He "wins" arguments by talking more, not by actually discussing and debating. The other shady tactic he uses is to engage in "debates" where he has a huge power advantage. So, he'll speak at a college and some student will ask a question. He'll then proceed to talk over that student, bombarding them with "facts". Since there's a massive power difference, the student is unable to respond, again, giving the impression that his "facts" are irrefutable, even though they're typically total BS. He'll then post this to his own YT channel referring to himself in the 3rd person so it doesn't look like the blatant self-agrandizing that it really is.
I would tend to go to anthropology for insight into morality. Morality would involve the survival and progress of the tribe or larger social group. Who is in the tribe? Who is the enemy? Morality would be somewhat conditional on that. What actions impose aggravating costs on the tribe in the form of internal conflict? Religion might be enlisted to reinforce the social norms developed. The tribal need would accommodate variations in conscience among its members. Often conscience would be useful in detecting a situation that needs moral development and philosophy to enrich understanding (Athens?). The psychopathic would tend to shape morality around what secures and empowers the tribe to victory (Sparta?). "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual."
I see a lot of religious fellas with clear capacity for argument, good background for education and yet their fear-based demonized beliefs make them slip into irrationality like a mouse in a mousetrap. Sam has been sharpening a sword for ages while Ben comes fighting with toothpicks.
Robert Sepehr is an author and anthropoligist with some very contraversial views, but given the nature of the things you comment on, i highly suggest you look up his views on the history of zionism, communism, MK Ultra, Sebi redemption through sin 1666
The west actually has a secular moral system! It's basically subjective but if you look at a humanist view it is close to where our laws have ended up!
There aren't "sophisticated" moral systems outside the western world? I think that's a pretty Christian centric view. I would argue that there are plenty of cultures out there with even better morals than the western world.
Everything Shapiro says is historically accurate if you consider he is speaking specifically about Western societies, even Western European societies within the last 2000 years. Other than that, there were few truly sophisticated societies that did not rely on a higher authority, God or gods. In all other cases therefore, the morals of those other sophisticated or semi-sophisticated societies based morals and ethics on the fear, worship or fear of a higher diety or demigod ruler.
All of the world's religions have the same moral values. There are always people who will interpret passages and do things that most would find reprehensible.
I am arguing against Ben's position by conditionally holding it as true. In other words, although sophisticated moral systems have not developed outside the West (as Ben holds), there may come a time when they do, while not having judeo-Christianity at their root. I am countering his argument by demonstrating the open-endedness of his premise.
look into tucker carlson's most recent episode regarding the marriage between the FDA , welfare, ozempic, the merger between companies that manufacture poisons and those who heal medical issues, it's disgusting and profoundly enlightening
I suppose it depends on what you mean by sophisticated moral system. I’d say most people in the world have a relatively sophisticated moral system. And really all it boils down to is treating others the way you want to be treated anyway that is a rule present in date I say every religion or culture of the world. Now you could perhaps make the argument that for some peoples that that is not thought to apply to every person but rather the ingroup or tribe exclusively. Although that argument can be made at times of western society as well so maybe there really is little difference in that regard except that we tend to believe at least I think that every human being is deserving of the same rights of being treated like you’d want to be treated and everything that stem therefrom but as stated before there are always exceptions to that generality. Additionally other factors such as say criminality which may vary from place to place are far more connected to greater inequality and poverty which drives the instinct to do what you may need to in order to survive and for your closest kin to survive. It has far less to do with morality than it does economics. And perhaps that is one of the more important factors differentiating the “sophisticated western moral framework from others is that we have freed our minds via providing for the needs of the majority of our society via more robust economies. This is just conjecture I have no specific data or other research to back it up but I think base morality is essentially the same across our species with minor variation due to personality etc and greater variation depending on definition due to more systemic factors.
If we're using Shapiro's definition of what constitutes a sophisticated moral system, then yes, we can certainly say a sophisticated moral systems have not appeared in non-western societies (it's conditional). Also, if you listen closely to the preceding argument, it states that Shapiro's concept of a sophisticated moral system may be ethnocentric. Hence, the reference to Nietszch's critique of Western morality.
@@Premiseandconclusion NO, you did not mention Shapiro when you said "an argument could be made on that fact. And you present it as fact and conclusion
Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are peas in a pod. They are surface intelligent men who nevertheless are masquerading as intellectuals, which are not remotely the same thing, though to superficial observation they may appear to be; the equivalent of something gold plated being presented as solid gold. I am not a fan of Sam Harris but I can absolutely allow that he is actually an intellectual instead of a charlatan like Peterson (in the words of another actual intellectual, Nicholas Taleb) - Harris genuinely engages with ideas in the way pseudo-Aristotle suggested was the mark of an educated man (yes, I’m aware that was likely misattributed). Peterson and Shapiro, frankly, are paper tigers who made their careers vacillating - depending on the situation - between vitriol and casuistry, which proved to be the perfect blend for the shallow posturing our inane modern “debate culture” rewards, but when faced with genuine intellectual substance their charade just falls apart immediately.“ 💯
Morality comes from groups. Groups are cultural entities and cannot exist without moral principles. Even parking lot users have rules and laws they must follow. Which is better? You can't tell. Good is what exists, Islam, Christianity exists for a reason, so which is better? or who is it better for? What is good for the group may not be good for its members. We still don't understand that people are a Darwinian space where ideas live
No it’s the handshake. The handshake is only really found I. Western culture therefore it’s the reason for our moral value system. Anyone can make a dumbass false correlation argument.
I mean, colonising the globe imu det the auspice of Christianity, you’d have to develop a standard of moral sophistication to protect your own interests No different to property rights It isn’t inherent in the choice of the religion, but the subjugation of millions of natives who are subject to the rules imposed upon them
The fact that Shapiro limited the scope of his argument to western society shows that he knows there are examples outside of western society that destroy his argument.
Yes and no. Harris argues using the example of Islam, but Islam for example, holds sacred a good chunk of the Christian Bible
Prolife is not from a Judeo-Christian value system. Ben is prolife. Ben doesn't get all his morals from his religion. Ben is right wing first and Judeo Orthodox 2nd.
Ben projects his beliefs onto his make believe God, just like Christians do.
Remember: "feelings don't care about your facts."
Or he knows he is underequipped to make his argument from them. He goes with what he is more thoroughly equipped to use in the conversation.
Japan has a sophisticated moral society and is traditionally and predominantly buddhist.
They also had their constitution written for them by the americans and the British though. It wasn’t a particularly kind or gentle place during the Meiji era or before
Japan also has a much stronger sense of civic duty and social awareness.
Just Japan has that outside the judeo-christian world? People definitely need to stop this nonsense. Morality is universal.
@@christianround2774 Neither was the United States, or any other country in the world at that time.
Or India? which I believe predates Japan, as we know it.
I would never refer to Judeo-Christian morality as "advanced." Mediocre at best.
what would you consider an advanced morality? If any
@@Premiseandconclusion if we are speaking of moral frameworks by doctrine - how does “Judeo-Christian” even make sense as a concept? I get why politically it makes sense but the ethical prescriptions are very different and somewhat contradictory.
@@Premiseandconclusion Buddhist morality. Confucian perhaps, depending on what one is defining as "advanced." What morality would fit a future global highly technological humanity with nukes and genetic engineering and A.I.? Certainly empathy extended beyond Dunbar's number (about 150 people in your circle of acquaintances, rather than anonymous statistics of people so far removed from you) and compassion, which would be founded upon empathy, so the strengthening of the social instinct, albeit without superficial conformity in my preference. That's what I would think of as "advanced" for our concerns, at first thought. That is, if we value the survival of humanity. Also, the golden rule seems ubiquitous and universal in human history. It's uttered, in different wording, in ancient Egypt, India (Hindu and Jainism), pagan Greece, Persian Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Islam (although I believe Islam is just a continuation or reboot of "Judeo-Christianity". And why are people combining Judaism and Christianity when historically Christianity spread antisemitism throughout Europe and the Americas? I don't get it.
@@AdamEdn
It has to do with the shared beliefs of Jews and Christians. Mainly the Old Testament
@@cwkay6847In my experience, any mention of the Old Testament is immediately shunned by the Christian as irrelevant and inapplicable. Which is somewhat understandable given some of the horrid things in there.
Except that Japan and Korea are both don’t have major religions and also have some of the least amount of crime. But why would Ben use logic and reasoning ever.
Having very little crime is the consequence of stiff penalties for crime. I actually would prefer we take a page from that book…but that’s not even remotely the same as having an ideology of growth. The United States as a template for growth, productivity, and innovation is unprecedented in the history of the species, and it’s very obviously the consequence of the Judeo-Christian ethos of personal responsibility, admission of failure (sin), and being reborn from that failure (resurrection). Japan and Korea are what they are on the back of the industrial progress and innovation of the West. Capitalism is derived from the ethos of personal responsibility and the requirements of growth. The ONLY comprehensive ethos of growth on the planet is the Judeo-Christian model, which is precisely why they were the originators of capitalism. A culture rooted in the personal growth and responsibility of individuals is by definition the only culture that could produce capitalism. Were it not for the Judeo-Christian ethic, there would be no capitalisism and the last 400 years quite simply would not have taken place. No cars, trains, planes, or internet. You owe it all to a culture that DEMANDED personal growth and emphasized the individual’s relationship to the ground of being rather than to the state.
@@winstonsol8713 lol trying to say capitalism is a result of religion is like trying to say AA is a result of prohibition.
The Industrial Revolution is the main reason why this was all possible. Judeo-Christian mindset has done nothing to influence or help any major movement in the US. Which is why the founding fathers exclusively kept church and state separate. They saw how that went in England.
The South which was more religious than the north used the Bible as the main reason slavery should be allowed.
All the major movements in the US the Church was not the one to help the movement. Ending Slavery, Women’s rights, Minority rights, Gay rights the Church was not only not involved they often opposed change. Your judeo Christian values didn’t apologize they were wrong about Galileo until the 1990s. Humans change morality over time. Those being oppressed stand up and say we won’t take this anymore. Judeo Christian values say the opposite…be quiet, don’t speak up, conveniently you’ll be rewarded after death. It’s a smoke show, a con to those not smart or well off enough to see through it.
Also if you haven’t noticed Korea and Japan now outshine us tech wise. This has nothing to do with US based capitalism, this is way more recent with the ever growing change in technology with phones, laptop, tvs, cars, etc. they’ve become better at manufacturing, better quality, better all around. Their cultures are based more off not individual success but success of the entire family, neighborhood, country. Where in the US the focus is what is your political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, income level. These divide the culture. Trying to bring religion into economics, cultural philosophy is a complete joke. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
@@coolguy1127 Very well articulated. Just one point, Korea of which I am born is about 25% Christian. I don't understand the details of this phenomena, but it might have to do with the fact Korean culture tends to be very conservative and traditionalistic as it is shown that Christians in general tend to be the same.
The values used to set up the western morality existed prior to the judeo-Christian religion in the Greek and Román cultures.
Yes! Christianity is strongly influenced by the Platonic idea
The Roman and Spanish Inquisitions definitely reflected the influence of Judeo-Christian values on Western morality. Their methods were *impressively sophisticated* in terms of creativity and execution. They would make Genghis Khan envious. 😁🤪
Nice try. When Christianity ceases to be Christlike, it ceases to be Christian. If you can make an argument from the ethics of Jesus for the Inquisition, I'm all ears but you can't.
The Inquisition existed for a period of time but was judged and found to fail. It came to an END! If it were enacted on the teachings of Jesus, it would still be here today. It isn't.
@@BillyBike416 I really like Jesus. He comes over with his crew to tidy up my yard once a month and he makes a mean carne asada too. He's a great cumbanchero. ☮
Cheers!! ua-cam.com/video/yaqdFnjKClE/v-deo.html
So we established that Shapiro begins with a fallacy. Welcome to his entire career.
Shame on you Sam Harris for engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man 😂
Ben isn't "unarmed"... he just has very weak arms!.. Haha?
Frankly, all of Shapiro's arguments are easily dismantled.
When I went to get my A+ certificate one of the things the instructors taught what to do when a customer asks us a question to baffle them woth bullshit.
He told us that we knew enough tech jargon that we could baffle them into silencing and that's what I think of Ben Shapiro.
False
A debate between Harris and Shapiro is nothing more than Shapiro getting free tutoring.
And still ignoring it.
Hitchens was very smart but a street fighter with few sophisticated skills. He never studied religion or philosophy. He held a BA from Balliol College (good school) but no study beyond that. He was a master of easy crowd-pleasing criticism but little depth beyond that.
How does Shapiro arrive at this platform with Harris? Shapiro is no where near his level of accomplishment. He isn't an authority on anything. Harris is countless levels above Shapiro in any measurable way. He doesn't deserve this platform.
We had these Judeo-Christian values 500 years ago, and we’re more moral today. Something else is at work.
Technically it is over 2000 years. The New Testament adds to the Jewish Torah, which has been around for even longer. Which makes it even less likely that our modern morals are due to these religions.
what do you believe is the underlying motor? is it a natural formation? or?
@@Premiseandconclusion Separation of church and state, for one.
@@Premiseandconclusion It is not one thing, but many. Our social primate instincts, some of which are shared across most mammals, and some of which are even found in other groups such as birds, form the basis for most of our morals. Then there is our development of language, especially our written forms, which have allowed us to record and sometimes even learn from past events much more accurately and quickly than before. Science has shown that we really do share a connection with all life, and we are almost identical to everyone, allowing many of us to expand our formerly limited tribe/group mind to include many others.
Industrialization and the green revolution has lifted many of us out of poverty, or lives of relative hardship, into a fairly luxurious state where we can do more than struggle for food and shelter each day. Its much easier to care for your fellow man when you are not hungry or cold. Etc, etc.
Most of the main religions, despite having been around for thousands of years, have only held back this progress, or history would look very different.
What makes you think we are more moral today than 2000 years ago. While technology has changed people have typically not
I am not a Christian, was raised in a faith tradition, and see the morals and values in our society which can be attributed to Christianity as universal morals and values which can just as easily be attributed to any major world religion.
I had a theological discussion with a Native American Indian woman I worked with. During the course of our discussion, she said, “everyone thinks their religion is the best.”
While I would say, “most people,” instead of “everyone,” I fully agreed with this sentiment.
I find it an oddity that in the United States, some Christians are so self centered that they feel at once that they are being marginalized and oppressed for their beliefs while at the same time those same beliefs so permeate our society that Christmas is a national holiday.
I agree with your "my religion is the best" point. Every religion has had people commit atrocities in its name, no matter what they teach.
Ever heard of Nero? (and he is just the popular example) It is by God's grace that Christianity has become so widespread, but regardless of that Christians are still persecuted around the world. America is just a country where it happens much less
It could be argued that"Judeo-Christian values" gave us the "troubles" in Northern Ireland too.
The most "sophisticated" morality... of who has invaded and killed all kind of countries all over the world... and still keep doing that. 🤷
Ben Shapiro talking about moral superiority while supporting a genocide is the most contradictory argument in the last 2,000 years
Really enjoying the discussion-please keep it up! That was the whole purpose of this video: to congregate and provide counter-arguments. I would love to see someone take up Ben’s argument and defend it against all the attacks in the video and comment section.
It’s indefensible argument. Just a final straw for theists to desperately grasp at
I'll take a swing.
I think you missed the point of where (most) Christians believe morality came from. Christians believe man is made in the image of God and even though we sinned we still "bear his likeness" so to speak. Because we are made in His image
I'm defending Christians here more than Shapiro's argument, though his stance is defaceable
@@RubusCalculum To further expand on the idea that man is created in the image of God, then Judeo-Christians also have to abide by the genocidal, wrathful, war mongering, misogynistic, racist, vain, and petty aspects of God which is pervasive throughout the Old Testament and some of the New. On this Judeo-Christians cannot use "the devil made him to do" as isn't "God" more powerful than the the devil?
I'm not a fan of little ben. His push of his religious beliefs is his failure. The bias he brings to the argument or debate is where he fails.
I agree with your conclusion insofar I think he does subconsciously self-sabotage but I’m not as sure that his beliefs are at the root of that. He displays the same dogmatic motivated reasoning even outside of that context. Maybe it’s a chicken or the egg situation.
He ignores the contribution of the Greeks and Romans to western society as well as Christianity.
Ben feels like morality comes from the belief in characters from holy book.
Ben doesn't know this for a fact, but Ben feels it.
Isn't that what religion is all about?Feeling like the characters written about exist.And feeling like you are going to spend eternity with these characters but not having any facts to back up any of these feelings?
Somebody once said facts don't care about your feelings.
Anyone know who said that?
Martin Luther Jesus Jr.
So your saying that historically there wasn’t a Jesus that was crucified and rose from the dead?
@@cwkay6847 You’re.
@eyelight3056
Jesus is the most significant and documented person in history, and you don’t believe he existed? Your living in denial. The worlds calendar is based on his death.
@@cwkay6847
Jesus is definitely not the most documented person in history.
Did you think about this silly propaganda at all before accepting and repeating it as if it's true ????
Go research all the actual factual data known about the supposed messiah character.
You'll learn almost nothing that Christianity attributes to this character lines up. Even his name doesn't line up.
There is no one in history named Jesus until 1500 years after the new testament narrative takes place.
You've accepted a big big lie.
Not hard to win a debate when one side believes in fairy tales
It comes from empathy and people who put dogma over empathy are dangerous.
a link to the original debate would have been helpful.
Shapiro apparently believes speaking rapidly, really rapidly, and peppering his vocabulary with catchwords, makes him the smartest man in the room. When he speaks, the listener spends their time sorting out what was just sprayed in their direction and can usually only recall those words that stood out.
So called morality is a natural outcome of a group working together. Behavior that benefited the group thus benefitted the individual.
At least the surviving individuals. Why become a soldier?
Aristotles doctrine of the mean is the foundation of western moral and ethics. The constitution gives us the framework for implementing morals and ethics into public life.
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
since christopher hitchens passing, harris voice is one of the more logical & powerful one to counter the silly arguments presented by many charlatans
Straw manning doesn't prove a point. Harris is a good reasonable debater, but he is also civil and respectful of other's beliefs
I would have enjoyed seeing Hitchens debate Shapiro. It wouldn't be a fair fight, but I would enjoy it because I find Shapiro to be so insufferably and unjustifiably smug. It would be enjoyable in the same sense as watching some martial arts chi charlatan get knocked on his ass by a real fighter.
I don't think it is in any way obvious that Western society is at all the most moral or ethical possible society. There are societies with Buddhist values that are more kind and gentle. The harsh survivalist and masculine-centric society of the West is only just learning to walk.
As a Christian it’s so gross to me when people say “Judeo Christian” as if we have any shared values.
You the same basis for your religion, you christians jare just a denomination of Judaism, as is islam which is why they are called the abrahamic religions.
@@donkink3114 except the Talmud shows we clearly don’t have the same value system. Muslims are closer to us than the Jews.
The argument of Ben is even worse when you realize that the definition or measure of what "A sophisticated moral society" is he uses is: "A society that looks like 'our' western society". It becomes even worse when you discover that there is no single 'sophisticated moral western society'. The moral structure of Europe is vastly different from that of the US, and within the US there are subcultures with vastly different moral structures (as there are in Europe).
This 'united sophisticated society of morals' is a myth.
History. Ben falls into a common mistake: You start with strong beliefs reached before the evidence is examined. The bias of his upbringing and culture narrow his search. Yet its the study of history.. any history, that clearly show that his theories result in his own base rate fallacies . Ben does this in even his most pedestrian arguments.
It’s.
morality comes from millions of years of tribal living. It's bad for the tribe to have murder and crime. It's good for the tribe to share and help each other. Done.
I've even read paper's that consider that human dominance over other animals , has resulted from a genetic tendency to look after unfortunate members of the tribe.
Social well-being is an important factor for a thriving species.
Shapiro is a word salad nonsense maker. He just speaks fast enough to sound like he knows what he’s saying, without actually having any deep rooted foundation to build off of. Sick and tired of surface level speakers.
I would look at the European history where the Church and christianity persecuted all who did not conform to their views and values. Such as people with different beliefs, critizing artists, people with knowledge to utilize plants herbs in a medical fashion, scientists with theories and discovers not supported by the Church. There are a wide selection of torture devices which were used by the Church still preserved. These and many other facts such as their brutal colonizing tells me there is no moral to find within their religion. None at all.
Every religion has had people commit atrocities in its name, no matter what they teach. I include most categories of Atheism in that statement as well
@@RubusCalculum Except atheism is not a religion. It is simply not believing in a god or gods, that they exist. Nothing more. No ideology or philosophy. Usually it takes an ideology or religion for true horror to occur.
@@naggoob North Korea was identified by Christopher Hitchens as the world's most theocratic society. So I take no comfort in the idea of a society without religion. See Orwell's 1984 and Hitchens 2009 video on North Korea.
It is fallacious to state that only a Judeo-Christian culture can develop into a sophisticated moral society without recognizing the fact that Judeo-Christian culture spent most of its history obliterating any other cultures it encountered. Recently, western culture mostly moved beyond this type of behavior. We are still waiting for our Muslim neighbors to make this evolutionary step.
Aren't you leaving out the fact that morality has developped against heavy resistance of religion?
Isn't it the case that anywhere in the world the correlation appears to be, the less influence religion has, the better the morality of society?
Religion has fought teeth and nails against about any moral advancement, like womens rights, religion has always been on the immoral side up to the moment where such a huge majority of people turned against religion that religion had to give in to keep their members.
The fact that this so far happened only in christian countries doesn't have anything to do with Christianity, it's based on the fact that the developped western world was the first part of the world where religion was pushed out of political power.
Lil’ Ben ‘Goebbels’ Shapiro must get wood every time he says ‘woke’
Is Shapiro argument circular?
I think so, yes.
Yes. All of these arguments are. It was our morality that lead us to invent religion, not the other way around.
@@birdmann9197 The reason why Jews created Christianity (rabbis words, not mine) was to sway away goyim from paganism and the so called false Gods, to unite them (and separate them from chosen Jews) under THIER only true God.
Haha oh shit, "Sophisticated moral systems have not appeared in non-Western societies"! Damn dude, shots fired!
I’m not sure if Ben has ever read a history book if he feels this country was built on good morals and values for one. For two, the Judeo-Christian value system is primarily the foundation of Hierarchal societies, not Democratic. It’s not even amusing how we tend to forget there is a history here long before the Inquisition and colonist. Maybe we should ask them about your Judeo-Christian values?
Even within Western Civilization, the Ancient Greeks spent a lot of time and effort creating a very complex moral code. The Ancient Greeks were not Judeo-Christian.
The argument that Judeo-Christianity is the root of all complex moral codes is frankly a grave insult to non-Judeo-a Christian people across the world.
The fact is, that every human being who has ever been born, is born neutral, and somehow has managed to coexist with other humans for mutual aid, is (in my view) a solid piece of evidence that humans are essentially good.
Or at least intelligent enough to discern when moral behavior is in their self-interest.
I wonder how he thinks the Greeks got so advanced in their philosophy.
It always amazes me that religious people try to attach morality to the scriptures. Dude take a look at Luther era in 15th and 16th century. Look at what church did in those times by reading the bible
I mean the nerve on Ben Shapiro to even think about such things
I wonder if Ben realizes that he's going to hell since he has so much Pride, Envy and so, so, so much irrational Wrath in his little body.
It was great to hear Ben and Sam discussing the points here.
LOL.
what sophisticated morality? constant wars, the financial oppression by the plutocrats, the extortion of our "health care" system, etc etc
He is not arguing that a society has to worship the Judaeo Christian religion, but rather that they have to include the morality of it. A society can worship another religion and still honor the same values as the Judaeo Christian religions.
1:35 TF is that image? I guess that eyesore represents the religious arguments.
Meanwhile, Ben wants to take human rights away from people.
I don’t think you can remotely make the argument that non-western societies did not develop sophisticated moral systems. The simplest example is literally every current non-western society, which all have systems of morality, that though different, are no less sophisticated. Then there are the multitude of past societies, such as classical Persia, Greece, Egypt, etc etc, who also had elaborate systems of morality. Then there’s the fact that his argument suffers from surviver bias. There could have been myriad societies throughout history all over the world that had complex moral systems that we never learned about because they didn’t survive for various reasons, including the very immoral onslaught of Western colonialism. And finally, and most importantly, if Judeo-Christian values were such a clear and distinctive set of instructions for morality, why did it take 2,000 years for humans to perfect them?
The two of them share many of the same ideas and opinions. Harris may be less out there on some of the ideas but the two are more similar than they are different.
The basic premise it's not even accurate and extremely racist. But we are talking about Ben Shapiro here.
Christianity existed in Europe for a thousand years. But, didn't pull Europe out of being a bunch of warring mud farmers, until the the renaissance. The renaissance being the introduction of ancient Greek philosophy into European culture. Which, I argue, is more responsible for the development of the sophistication of European morality than Christianity. But, not that moral sophistication is exclusive to Europe.
Ben must remember there were thousands of gods.......and each tribe prayed to their own god.. then the Romans used it as a tool and suddenly there was only one god.....and he no longer cared about just Jews.....invented an afterlife.....hell.....and other crap.....millions of gods just vanished
I thought the actual video was going to start at some point...
This is certainly not Sam Harris saying anything. It is Christopher Hitchins commenting on a dialogue we don't hear.
If Hitchins wants to rely on Neitzke's criticism, he should note that while God was dead in Neitzke's view, he lamented strongly that there was a sufficient replacement for Christian ethics.
Phil Zuckerman has a list of half a dozen MAJOR areas where secular morality clearly displaces Western religious morality.
The first item on the list is DEMOCRACY, a concept which is entire absent in the Abrahamic religious texts, despite being more or contemporaneous with them. The principle of GENDER AND RACIAL EQUALITY is also conspicuously absent. Doesn't Shapiro think thst these are a necessary condition for a moral system to be deemed "sophisticated?"
Interesting, thank you for sharing
the first premise was wrong
Take "Judeo-Christian" out of the premise and is it still false? (Oh, the spelling errors.) Or could "value system" be replaced with "a society". And why is "sophistication" a necessary metric? I expected better logic from Shapiro, too.
Ben Shapiro uses what I like to call "Used Care Salesman" tactics. He talks super fast and spews out a ton of different points. By not giving you the chance to respond to his individual points, it implies that those points are correct. He "wins" arguments by talking more, not by actually discussing and debating.
The other shady tactic he uses is to engage in "debates" where he has a huge power advantage. So, he'll speak at a college and some student will ask a question. He'll then proceed to talk over that student, bombarding them with "facts". Since there's a massive power difference, the student is unable to respond, again, giving the impression that his "facts" are irrefutable, even though they're typically total BS. He'll then post this to his own YT channel referring to himself in the 3rd person so it doesn't look like the blatant self-agrandizing that it really is.
Christianity had been used to rationalize slavery, violence and genocide.
I would tend to go to anthropology for insight into morality. Morality would involve the survival and progress of the tribe or larger social group. Who is in the tribe? Who is the enemy? Morality would be somewhat conditional on that. What actions impose aggravating costs on the tribe in the form of internal conflict? Religion might be enlisted to reinforce the social norms developed. The tribal need would accommodate variations in conscience among its members. Often conscience would be useful in detecting a situation that needs moral development and philosophy to enrich understanding (Athens?). The psychopathic would tend to shape morality around what secures and empowers the tribe to victory (Sparta?).
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual."
I see a lot of religious fellas with clear capacity for argument, good background for education and yet their fear-based demonized beliefs make them slip into irrationality like a mouse in a mousetrap. Sam has been sharpening a sword for ages while Ben comes fighting with toothpicks.
Robert Sepehr is an author and anthropoligist with some very contraversial views, but given the nature of the things you comment on, i highly suggest you look up his views on the history of zionism, communism, MK Ultra, Sebi redemption through sin 1666
The west actually has a secular moral system! It's basically subjective but if you look at a humanist view it is close to where our laws have ended up!
There aren't "sophisticated" moral systems outside the western world? I think that's a pretty Christian centric view. I would argue that there are plenty of cultures out there with even better morals than the western world.
Shapiro talks too fast, that's the only thing going for him
Everything Shapiro says is historically accurate if you consider he is speaking specifically about Western societies, even Western European societies within the last 2000 years.
Other than that, there were few truly sophisticated societies that did not rely on a higher authority, God or gods. In all other cases therefore, the morals of those other sophisticated or semi-sophisticated societies based morals and ethics on the fear, worship or fear of a higher diety or demigod ruler.
All of the world's religions have the same moral values. There are always people who will interpret passages and do things that most would find reprehensible.
The narrator at the end says sophisticated moral systems havent developed in non-western societies? Ugh, what?
I am arguing against Ben's position by conditionally holding it as true. In other words, although sophisticated moral systems have not developed outside the West (as Ben holds), there may come a time when they do, while not having judeo-Christianity at their root. I am countering his argument by demonstrating the open-endedness of his premise.
look into tucker carlson's most recent episode regarding the marriage between the FDA , welfare, ozempic, the merger between companies that manufacture poisons and those who heal medical issues, it's disgusting and profoundly enlightening
Ben is spot on.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by sophisticated moral system. I’d say most people in the world have a relatively sophisticated moral system. And really all it boils down to is treating others the way you want to be treated anyway that is a rule present in date I say every religion or culture of the world. Now you could perhaps make the argument that for some peoples that that is not thought to apply to every person but rather the ingroup or tribe exclusively. Although that argument can be made at times of western society as well so maybe there really is little difference in that regard except that we tend to believe at least I think that every human being is deserving of the same rights of being treated like you’d want to be treated and everything that stem therefrom but as stated before there are always exceptions to that generality. Additionally other factors such as say criminality which may vary from place to place are far more connected to greater inequality and poverty which drives the instinct to do what you may need to in order to survive and for your closest kin to survive. It has far less to do with morality than it does economics. And perhaps that is one of the more important factors differentiating the “sophisticated western moral framework from others is that we have freed our minds via providing for the needs of the majority of our society via more robust economies. This is just conjecture I have no specific data or other research to back it up but I think base morality is essentially the same across our species with minor variation due to personality etc and greater variation depending on definition due to more systemic factors.
"Although sophisticated moral systems have not appeared on non-western societies..." You make facts off your @$$ like that ?
If we're using Shapiro's definition of what constitutes a sophisticated moral system, then yes, we can certainly say a sophisticated moral systems have not appeared in non-western societies (it's conditional). Also, if you listen closely to the preceding argument, it states that Shapiro's concept of a sophisticated moral system may be ethnocentric. Hence, the reference to Nietszch's critique of Western morality.
@@Premiseandconclusion NO, you did not mention Shapiro when you said "an argument could be made on that fact. And you present it as fact and conclusion
And yet religion has caused more strife by dogma through those so-called moral doctrines. Slavery for example
But Ben Shapiro is a giant in the Lilliputian community!!!
Pompous and shallow level of argument
Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are peas in a pod. They are surface intelligent men who nevertheless are masquerading as intellectuals, which are not remotely the same thing, though to superficial observation they may appear to be; the equivalent of something gold plated being presented as solid gold. I am not a fan of Sam Harris but I can absolutely allow that he is actually an intellectual instead of a charlatan like Peterson (in the words of another actual intellectual, Nicholas Taleb) - Harris genuinely engages with ideas in the way pseudo-Aristotle suggested was the mark of an educated man (yes, I’m aware that was likely misattributed).
Peterson and Shapiro, frankly, are paper tigers who made their careers vacillating - depending on the situation - between vitriol and casuistry, which proved to be the perfect blend for the shallow posturing our inane modern “debate culture” rewards, but when faced with genuine intellectual substance their charade just falls apart immediately.“
💯
these AI videos are fucking ridiculous
Morality comes from groups. Groups are cultural entities and cannot exist without moral principles. Even parking lot users have rules and laws they must follow. Which is better? You can't tell. Good is what exists, Islam, Christianity exists for a reason, so which is better? or who is it better for? What is good for the group may not be good for its members. We still don't understand that people are a Darwinian space where ideas live
No it’s the handshake. The handshake is only really found I. Western culture therefore it’s the reason for our moral value system. Anyone can make a dumbass false correlation argument.
Thought we'd hear those two instead of an interpretation. UA-camrs are losers.
Is the narration AI!?
You can hear inhalation during the speech. Not sure if AI is that clever...
@@funkknuckle that’s what I was thinking exactly
Stop talking and let them speak AI!
Like and subscribe? What exactly? An AI voice reading a script with video taken from another source? Try harder.
I mean, colonising the globe imu det the auspice of Christianity, you’d have to develop a standard of moral sophistication to protect your own interests
No different to property rights
It isn’t inherent in the choice of the religion, but the subjugation of millions of natives who are subject to the rules imposed upon them
So many flaws in Shapiro's argument, I could debunk it and im no expert.
I would have liked to hear Sam dismantle Shapiro instead of a narration of it.
ua-cam.com/video/bdUC8nRVyYY/v-deo.htmlsi=IKp_K6N9RkOE5IBj&t=1150