A terrific piece. You argue clearly and cogently, never relying on cleverly masked special pleading. I've watched (listened actually) to about half a dozen episodes of your program and have thoroughly enjoyed each one. Thank you for your work, you've earned a subscriber and a fan.
I love the razor-sharp debunking here. It's easy to refute theistic arguments when it comes to stuff like history and science, but with philosophy, it's much easier for them to muddy the waters. Your precision cuts right through all that.
No, Epydemic2020, the appropriate commandment on killing does not say 'Thou shalt not kill just for personal enjoyment, or for self defence, or in a just war, or in self-defence, or when it might, on balance, be better to kill 1 person to save more lives, etc etc '. Morality, to rational non-believers, is a PROCESS, not a prescription. It requires evidence, thought, debate, empathy, willingness to change one's mind...not a slavish adherence to rules,
@shotinthedark90 There are objective, non-relativistic ways of maximizing well-being and promoting health and happiness. However there is no such thing as an objective obligation for us to value well-being over suffering. We just tend to do this on our own.
You've been gone so long i forgot why i even subscribed to you in the first place.... but this... omg... this was both "worth the wait" and "GOD DAMN BRILLIANT".
Outstanding, you say it so elegantly what took me 13 years of Bible study to figure out. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and was pushed to study the Bible and when I raised questions with the Nuns and Priests they would simply say well John if you pray to God he will answer you.... You know he did, he said “I didn't write no damn book, man wrote that THING, I gave you ten laws and that was it.... Oh and John, you guys are on your own none of my ten laws said I was going to stick around.
@Slip819 Yes "Chaos" is just a term we use to explain events which we cannot calculate, until "truly random" events can be demonstrated then there is no good reason to believe everything is not deterministic. This being said this would also give us a deterministic will in which would have little need for gods free will. Just my two cents
1:35 Morality is not about those two things containing oughts and/or shoulds and how to achieve those goals; those are moral conclusions. That would be like saying: Science is about combining H and O and making water. Morality is an emergent property of a social species and is a process which the group uses to get to a moral position on a issue.
This reminds me of an article I read a few months ago, about a kind of "compassion circuit" composed of mirror neurons. Do you think it's possible we evolved with "hardwired" circuits to predispose us towards a preference for a happy, healthy, etc society? And indeed, would we be able to construct societies without a neurological basis for compassion?
I would like to say that you and DasAmericanAtheist are two of my favorites from UA-cam. It's funny but you are very similar but in ways different. Both of you have an excellent grasp of logic.
Nice arguments, Scott. I'd like to see you touch on Kant's Categorical Imperative. After all, when it comes to values and morals, shouldn't we do something simply because it is the right thing to do? Not because we were told to via some cosmic sugar daddy; not because we may be rewarded in an afterlife. I argue that the Xn morale is a childish one where motives are tainted. And what good are morals if they're impure, right?
@eagleeye1975 Actually, I find him to be a really pleasant individual. Not condescending, calm, collected. (Not terribly charismatic, but nothing wrong with that). I don't think he deserves the flack he gets.
@RoundSquareX Not really, BUT! Coming in October will be Sam Harris' new book, "The Moral Landscape" and I think it will be an *amazing* account of the kind of morality I talk about here.
@RoundSquareX Books I recommend on morality: Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology Robert Wright's The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil Also, there is a free on-line Harvard Course on Justice taught by Michael Sandel. It's very informative as well as entertaining.
I always have to watch these long ones twice to understand it all. I think if i had listened to you when i was still a Christian, my brain would have melted.
Man you really put a lot of thought into this video. From where I am sitting you did as much listening as you did responding to your understanding of what you heard. Hats off to you for that. Semantic can be such a challenge. Punishment is a strategy intended to meet a need. It is not an end in and of itself. Needs are not values, they are not dependent upon a single person doing a particular thing... Semantics can be a pain. Awesome video imho. Cheers.
@Epydemic2020 Thanks! Well, can you name one single distinguishable, tangible difference between the two? I can't. It's just the *idea*. The *claim*. It's just words.
@AutodidacticPhd -- This is an interesting point, and a thought that I had as I was watching the exchange as well. Although RB's framework for morality does appear to account for sociopathic behavior, it seems to be at least worth mentioning that there are some genuine chemical differences at play which make comparison to "normal" behavior difficult.
@giecsar What's interesting is that this was NOT the response I wanted to address. But I got so many messages from Christians asking that I make a response to this video, so I did.
@Truechire Hmmmm.... in football there used to be "intentional" or "blatant" facemasking, and "unintentional" facemasking. "Intentional" was a 15 yard penalty. "Unintentional" was a 5 yard penalty. He DID reference Hitler when he could have said I was guilty of "ad hominem" or "ad misericordiam". So I split the diff between the 15 yarder and the 5 yarder and gave him a 10 yard penalty.
When I grew up I always thought that someone would discover a fantastic anomaly left by God and that he/she would get the Nobel price for proving Gods existance. Instead he has insured in every way that his existance or identity is not provable.
wow, I will have to rewatch this again.. Although some Xtians complained that you chose the "weakest" responder, I found that William Lane Craig even had weaker arguments when he defended the Euthyphro dilemma.. Great vid!
Pretty damn good, particularly the section with the Euthyphro Dilemma and cutting between the horns. I've tried to point such a thing out many-a-time to individuals reciting Craig's standard line. Overall, I think your critique of objective values and the Christian contention of objective moral values in particular is good, though I have reservations about your overall moral stance. Hopefully I'll get around to posting a video about it sometime as these boxes are much too small. Best of luck.
I thoroughly enjoy your sound reasoning. I'm a new subscriber and curious if you have academic credentials. (Not that you necesssarily need them.) I only ask this because I would be delighted to learn of you teaching at a university or lecturing. Thank you for continual contributions to science and reason from a fellow atheist!
That was a very long video....and I loved every second of it. Absolutely astounding job. It will be interesting (to say the least) to observe how Epydemic2020 will address this.
@Zoetherat On the contrary. I mean the word illusion in the exact same sense. "all the evidence available to use" is merely that validity of our senses. We have just as much reason to accept our moral sense as being true.
I watched this exchange between TB and Epydemic and to me it's like watching a professional football team (TB) playing a high school football team (epydemic). Epydemic is so out matched that you know what the result is going to be long before the kickoff. You might think the high school team has some attributes that might put the professional team to work but at the end of the game you are there saying, yeah, yeah that's pretty much what I had expected. A total shut out, TB 42, Epydemic 3.
In a few debates with Christians, mainly creationists, I've accused God of narcissism through his need for constant praise and thanks. You're far more articulate than me at making these arguments, I was wandering what your views are on this.
Oh, no! Now I have to place yet another subscription on my list. Simply outstanding. Very well thought out. Truly analytical and uncompromising. I'm a simple armchair philosopher and this video appears to encapsulate everything needed to refute any of the arguments made for celestial objective standards of morality. This guy is a danger to nonsense and ignorance.
I'm interested if we follow the Argument further past the "Does god determine what's good", and let's assume he's referencing some standard of good outside himself. Is that source not itself arbitrary?
Good video. I'd quite like you to do more videos relating to genetics/environment/parenting/personality etc as I find your views on it very interesting and different to what is commonly taught.
In addition to the Thessalonians verse, another instance of God being immoral/deceptive/cruel to his creation is in Romans 9: 10-23..arbitrarily condemning a child to slavery before it is born. He then clearly states that he intentionally "hardens the heart" of many..guaranteeing they will never see the truth and face destruction and eternal torment. The Reason? Simply to make himself appear more glorious to the lucky few he decides to show mercy on.
A secular morality is quite simple to derive. Consider the health of your teeth. In regards to having healthy teeth, can we derive "what we should and should not do with our teeth?" It is quite simple to understand: "You should brush your teeth, IF you want healthy teeth." Many people leave the "IF" part out of the phrase (perhaps on purpose, so that an external source can get the credit for the source of the "oughts"), and that is a mistake. The same goes for human interactions as it does for tooth health: You should not steal, IF you do not want to be stolen from. You should not do things to others that they do not want done to them, IF you yourself do not want your desires for your own body abused. If we leave the "IF" bit out, people say "then why should we not kill rape etc? what demands it?" It is the "If you want x" bit that demands it. It is a logical conclusion. Logic is the true source of our morality. You can also test this. Consider a person that lacks the ability to process logic, a baby, someone mentally retarded. DO YOU HOLD THEM MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for actions that would be considered wrong? Like destroying your property? Would you get mad at your baby for destroying your phone for example? If not, it is because they lack logical facilities. Thus logical ability is the source of moral responsibility.
+capoman1 Of course. And what you are talking about is what one values (not using the term as a synonym for morals). What one "values" in the sense of desires (I value/desire nice teeth) will dictate what they consider moral and immoral. And yes, people absolutely leave out the "IF". Thus they miss or intentionally scurry away from the reality that not all people value the same things. Its rather pointless to attempt to discern someone's moral code or "where it came from" without first recognizing what they value.
Noah Summerall Notice the statement "one ought to brush teeth, IF one wants healthy teeth..." Does not tell you that "you ought to value healthy teeth" or even that "you ought to brush your teeth..." It just says "for x to be true, y must occur." There is no subjectivity or dependency on values. The statement evaluates to true. ---- In a more general case "one ought not do things to people that go against others wishes, IF one has things he wishes to not have done to him." Every person has things he doesn't want done to him, it's impossible not to. Even a man that wants to be killed "doesn't want to be left alive." So every person has things he doesn't want done to him, and to maintain that he can dictate whether others are allowed to violate him, he must not violate others... Where do you see "one ought to value x" in any of these statements? And is the truth of the brushing teeth DEPENDENT on the values of an individual? Or is it just a logical statement that evaluates as true? So for example, for the guy that doesn't value nice teeth, does that mean that the if statement is no longer true? Does that mean that healthy teeth are generated by just desiring nice teeth, no brushing needed? ---- I challenge your statement that "values dictate the correctness of moral statements." I state that "logic" and the ability to process logic dictates the correctness. And your personal values don't change the truth value of "if statements."
+capoman1 If I understand you correctly then I believe I disagree. I am not certain we can always objectively say what one ought to value. "IF you value an early retirement, then you ought to invest in a retirement plan." Can we, without question, say that one ought to value early retirement? I don't think so. Values can be subjective. One person may value an early retirement while it may not be overly appealing for another. But I agree the quoted statement above is true regardless of the person's position an early retirement simply because of the "IF". Now, we can make objective determinations as to what supports or is consistent with the stated value. IF the person values early retirement then we can objectively say that investing in a retirement plan is a good thing. We cannot objectively say that early retirement is something you should value. We cannot say that you ought to invest in a retirement plan if you are not concerned with early retirement (unless you locate another value that would justify or suggest its the proper course - but that would be leaving the example) So.. in order for the statement "you ought to invest in a retirement account" to be correct in this context one must value an early retirement. Thus, whether or not the subject values early retirement (THE VALUE) dictates the correctness of "you ought to invest in a retirement plan" (the moral statement). I hope that explains the statement you challenged.
Noah Summerall "IF you value an early retirement, then you ought to invest in a retirement plan." You derived A CORRECT if statement, this if statement is true. Does that mean that "one ought to value retirement?" or in the other example that "one ought to value healthy teeth?" NO! The if statement does not DEMAND what you value, it demands WHAT YOU MUST (ought to) do IF YOU SEEK THE GOAL (caps only for emphasis). An if statement has the form: If P then Q. Alternatively, if P is true, then Q is true. Alternatively, for P to be true, Q must be true. So the IF P portion is not what "one ought" do. The "then Q" portion is what "one ought" to do (if the person insists that P be true). So can you achieve healthy teeth without brushing? NO! Does that mean YOU MUST desire healthy teeth? NO! It means YOU OUGHT to brush IF YOU INSIST on having healthy teeth. ---- We live in a world where a large percentage of people desire healthy teeth. And for all these people, we can say "what they ought to do, in light of their stated preference." ---- Now onto tougher examples, theft assault rape murder (TARM). This works for all actions not just TARM, but TARM are the reason that we ask the big moral question, these are the basic actions that we really think violate morality. IF YOU INSIST that you yourself should not be TARMed, then "you ought not TARM others." What does it mean if you violate this if statement? It means that "you are okay with being TARMed yourself." Just like not brushing your teeth means you are okay with bad teeth. Just like avoiding retirement investment means you are okay with not having a retirment, etc. So if you violate the logic of these if statements that evaluate to true, you are making a statement. And in the case of TARM (and all levels of "immoral behavior"), you are saying that "I am fine with being violated."
Noah Summerall +Noah Summerall "Thus, whether or not the subject values early retirement (THE VALUE) dictates the correctness of "you ought to invest in a retirement plan" (the moral statement)." Now you've got it. VALUING the if portion DEMANDS (ought) a certain behavior. And all the examples we have examined only concern THE INDIVIDUAL, not behavior towards others. So now: "If I have things that I don't want done to me, then I ought not do things to others that they don't want." (golden rule). Now how can this one be arbitrary? In the teeth and retirement example, no other individuals came into question. Now when others are involved, I make a statement that "you can violate me" once I violate another. How many people actually do that? How many people actually ask to be violated? And isn't that even a contradiction of terms? Wanting to be violated? If you want it, it's not a violation. So violating others means that you forfeit your right to not be violated. In a less organized society, this individual would be killed or tortured. And the whole basis is "If P then Q." And people understand it intuitively. They understand that this person has violated this principle and has asked to be violated. And people will teach him that lesson. Even children do this, without deriving any of this. They understand at a gut level the principle of "If P then Q," and kid's reactions to violations is evidence of that. If one child violates another child, he wants to know "did you violate me on purpose?" And if he thinks you violated him on purpose, he wants an explanation. And he will begin to violate the violator. Because he knows the violator has violated the principle, the If P then Q found in the golden rule. So it is our ability to understand these if statements, to process logic; that allows us to perceive "immoral behavior," to perceive violations. ---- You can also tell that understanding logic is the basis for moral accountability. If a baby destroys your phone, are you mad at the baby? Do you seek justice against the baby? Do you ask the baby questions or look to break something of his in return? If a mentally retarded person breaks your phone, do you blame the individual? Seek justice? Break something of his in return? A dog breaks your phone, a bird, any animal, etc... I think it is safe to say that you only hold those with the ability to process logic, people mentally competent, morally accountable. This is an indicator that "the ability to understand or process logic" is the source of moral accountability, the source of morality.
@Hexdoll Given your analogy, colorblind people do not disprove the validity of normal people's sight experience. To argue that there exists morally colorblind people would not disprove the validity of normal people's moral experience for example the same reason. I don't see any reason to believe morally colorblind people exist (this is where people usually bring up psychopaths, so I made a video on that), but this argument doesn't even work in principle.
6:44 I often thought that this isn't a contradiction at all. As impulsive beings, sometimes we impulsively value our own selfish interest over the interests of everybody else, and in this sense we NEVER act in ways contradictory to what we value. When I have hypothetical overwhelming drive kill, if I kill it is because I'm acting in favor of a selfish value over another empathic and kind value on human life. What's distressing is that we are able to change how much we value something and therefore change how we act about certain things, and this is actually necessary for forming any system of moral values in the first place.Everyone has to fight their selfish desires in order to achieve the more selfless values, and everyone has to fight to sustain the long term value and fight of the short term one.
@Buruc "Objective value" is a contradictio in terminis. Per *definition* a value is attributed - values are not inherent, not objective. As TBS explained, you need at least one valuer for something to be valuable to anybody. What's more, two subjects do not have to agree on the value of an object.
@Hexdoll I have not argued that everyones moral knowledge is equivalent to mine. I argued that human's share a realm of innate knowledge about morality. Nothing about that definitions excludes different cultures from behaving in different ways. In fact, I have gone into great length explaining variation of morality between cultures and I am quite sure you have even commented on those videos.
@Epydemic2020 i think the analogy holds, as a color blind person would not hold that something is objective X color as it is meaningless to them, hence making color a subjective reality as it is contingent on the sight of the subject.
@nephyrias Senses can be an illusion, but it is irrational to believe they are an illusion without reason. "Ghost limbs" and "hallucinations" are then reasons to doubt your senses at that moment.
@secretagentninjas26 1). Watch "Treatise on Morality". There's an annotated link to it in the beginning of this vid. It outlines my moral stance. 2). That only works if people are allowed to cherry-pick what to accept and reject from religious doctrines and texts. But then this illustrates that we are the "standard", not religion.
« No, but we may need God in order to account for knowing that honesty is right » Occam's Razor would require that we reject all possible naturalistic explanations first, wouldn't it?
So, according to Biblical doctrine, regardless of how repulsive we may personally find the actions God supposedly took in the OT, whether on having people killed or enslaved, He was always doing right by his children....
TBS, I think there are a few objective values for conscious beings that come about during the course of their lives. One example is self-consistency-- Stimulus during a being's existence causes them to value certain things over others. Lets attempt to assume that they do not value self-consistency. However, maximizing any value is improved by some consistent effort. Therefore, self-consistency is something they will be compelled to value.
@nephyrias I am not arguing that value his hardwired into our minds, that is a strawman of my position. I am arguing that we are hardwired to recognize objective value exists. Similarly, we use our senses to recognize that reality exists. The senses themselves are subjective, but the things we sense are objective.
@RuinSonic Occam's razor can point to a wrong conclusion. However, we should apply Occam's razor to this issue because 1) it's the most useful methodology available to determine what we believe is true, and 2) because consistency demands it since we apply Occam's razor to everything else, and have no logical justification to make an exception for this issue.
@AtheistTower I am not sure what Stephen Hawking's personal position regarding the existence of a deity has to do with statements about heaven and hell. You stated that atheist's make the claim that there is no heaven or hell, and I would disagree. They merely reject theistic claims that there is one. We have no evidence for such locations and therefore no reason to believe they exist. Oh, and Stephen Hawking just recently called heaven a fairytale, since he is the measure of logic, I guess.
A terrific piece. You argue clearly and cogently, never relying on cleverly masked special pleading. I've watched (listened actually) to about half a dozen episodes of your program and have thoroughly enjoyed each one. Thank you for your work, you've earned a subscriber and a fan.
Epidemic2020?
Mind blown.
0:41 I heard epidemic 2020 🤯
I love the razor-sharp debunking here. It's easy to refute theistic arguments when it comes to stuff like history and science, but with philosophy, it's much easier for them to muddy the waters. Your precision cuts right through all that.
No, Epydemic2020, the appropriate commandment on killing does not say 'Thou shalt not kill just for personal enjoyment, or for self defence, or in a just war, or in self-defence, or when it might, on balance, be better to kill 1 person to save more lives, etc etc '. Morality, to rational non-believers, is a PROCESS, not a prescription. It requires evidence, thought, debate, empathy, willingness to change one's mind...not a slavish adherence to rules,
This guy needs to become an actual philosopher he would be fantastic at it
Instead of being a character in The Bold and The Beautiful.
Quite eerie to hear about a guy called Epydemic2020 from 2010. Not sure what of make of it.
Epidemic 2020? C'mon!
There’s been an epidemic every year, you just don’t hear about the ones contained.
Cool, done.
What? Epydemic 2020? What?
The most coherent argument on morality, I'm stunned. You got a new sub, keep up the content!
@shotinthedark90 There are objective, non-relativistic ways of maximizing well-being and promoting health and happiness. However there is no such thing as an objective obligation for us to value well-being over suffering. We just tend to do this on our own.
You've been gone so long i forgot why i even subscribed to you in the first place.... but this... omg... this was both "worth the wait" and "GOD DAMN BRILLIANT".
Outstanding, you say it so elegantly what took me 13 years of Bible study to figure out. I was raised as a Roman Catholic and was pushed to study the Bible and when I raised questions with the Nuns and Priests they would simply say well John if you pray to God he will answer you.... You know he did, he said
“I didn't write no damn book, man wrote that THING, I gave you ten laws and that was it.... Oh and John, you guys are on your own none of my ten laws said I was going to stick around.
Brilliant video! at about minute 17:40, you totally destroyed the theist's arguments; in fact that was the KO moment right there.
@Slip819 "Chaotic system"? Isn't that sort of like "jumbo shrimp"? Or maybe "military intelligence?"
@Slip819
Yes "Chaos" is just a term we use to explain events which we cannot calculate, until "truly random" events can be demonstrated then there is no good reason to believe everything is not deterministic. This being said this would also give us a deterministic will in which would have little need for gods free will.
Just my two cents
This guy prepares his videos carefully, to everything well though out, it's a form of respect trying to be as smooth, precise and clear as possible.
I really like your longer videos. It helps you clarify your arguments better.
1:35 Morality is not about those two things containing oughts and/or shoulds and how to achieve those goals; those are moral conclusions. That would be like saying: Science is about combining H and O and making water. Morality is an emergent property of a social species and is a process which the group uses to get to a moral position on a issue.
This reminds me of an article I read a few months ago, about a kind of "compassion circuit" composed of mirror neurons. Do you think it's possible we evolved with "hardwired" circuits to predispose us towards a preference for a happy, healthy, etc society? And indeed, would we be able to construct societies without a neurological basis for compassion?
I would like to say that you and DasAmericanAtheist are two of my favorites from UA-cam. It's funny but you are very similar but in ways different. Both of you have an excellent grasp of logic.
the dark tone of the wind blowing at the end really put it all together
@FatLingon true, but why aim artillery at sparrows?
@Terrayeah No problem! The beauty of civil discourse is, you can always just ask "what do you mean by that?"
11 years ago and while behind on his knowledge of the moral argument, Epydemic2020 was ahead of his time in choosing a username (albeit with a y)
Nice arguments, Scott.
I'd like to see you touch on Kant's Categorical Imperative. After all, when it comes to values and morals, shouldn't we do something simply because it is the right thing to do? Not because we were told to via some cosmic sugar daddy; not because we may be rewarded in an afterlife.
I argue that the Xn morale is a childish one where motives are tainted. And what good are morals if they're impure, right?
@eagleeye1975 Actually, I find him to be a really pleasant individual. Not condescending, calm, collected. (Not terribly charismatic, but nothing wrong with that). I don't think he deserves the flack he gets.
@RoundSquareX Not really, BUT! Coming in October will be Sam Harris' new book, "The Moral Landscape" and I think it will be an *amazing* account of the kind of morality I talk about here.
@RoundSquareX Books I recommend on morality:
Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology
Robert Wright's The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are
Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil
Also, there is a free on-line Harvard Course on Justice taught by Michael Sandel. It's very informative as well as entertaining.
I always have to watch these long ones twice to understand it all. I think if i had listened to you when i was still a Christian, my brain would have melted.
Damn that kid got destroyed.
Man you really put a lot of thought into this video. From where I am sitting you did as much listening as you did responding to your understanding of what you heard. Hats off to you for that. Semantic can be such a challenge. Punishment is a strategy intended to meet a need. It is not an end in and of itself. Needs are not values, they are not dependent upon a single person doing a particular thing... Semantics can be a pain. Awesome video imho. Cheers.
@Epydemic2020 Thanks! Well, can you name one single distinguishable, tangible difference between the two? I can't. It's just the *idea*. The *claim*. It's just words.
This is the only person on youtube for whom I will dedicate a watch, as long as it has their name on it.
@AutodidacticPhd -- This is an interesting point, and a thought that I had as I was watching the exchange as well. Although RB's framework for morality does appear to account for sociopathic behavior, it seems to be at least worth mentioning that there are some genuine chemical differences at play which make comparison to "normal" behavior difficult.
seeing you for the first time. Very interesting. We need more debating like this. Good to see someone exercising their Intellect.
@giecsar What's interesting is that this was NOT the response I wanted to address. But I got so many messages from Christians asking that I make a response to this video, so I did.
@Truechire Hmmmm.... in football there used to be "intentional" or "blatant" facemasking, and "unintentional" facemasking. "Intentional" was a 15 yard penalty. "Unintentional" was a 5 yard penalty.
He DID reference Hitler when he could have said I was guilty of "ad hominem" or "ad misericordiam".
So I split the diff between the 15 yarder and the 5 yarder and gave him a 10 yard penalty.
@othellopiano Yes, I'm actually planning on doing another follow-up to that. So if you wanted to wait, I wouldn't blame you.
Epi demic 2020??? Now that it's 2020, there IS an epidemic!!! Is that person really Nostradamus?
When I grew up I always thought that someone would discover a fantastic anomaly left by God and that he/she would get the Nobel price for proving Gods existance.
Instead he has insured in every way that his existance or identity is not provable.
Scott, Absolutely OUTSTANDING argument, dude. I feel like I got smarter just for watching this video. Rock on, brother.
wow, I will have to rewatch this again..
Although some Xtians complained that you chose the "weakest" responder, I found that William Lane Craig even had weaker arguments when he defended the Euthyphro dilemma..
Great vid!
Pretty damn good, particularly the section with the Euthyphro Dilemma and cutting between the horns. I've tried to point such a thing out many-a-time to individuals reciting Craig's standard line. Overall, I think your critique of objective values and the Christian contention of objective moral values in particular is good, though I have reservations about your overall moral stance. Hopefully I'll get around to posting a video about it sometime as these boxes are much too small. Best of luck.
Can you recommend a book that discusses everything you are talking about in this video?
I thoroughly enjoy your sound reasoning. I'm a new subscriber and curious if you have academic credentials. (Not that you necesssarily need them.) I only ask this because I would be delighted to learn of you teaching at a university or lecturing. Thank you for continual contributions to science and reason from a fellow atheist!
@GrudgyDiablo Did you intend to say "thorough?"
That was a very long video....and I loved every second of it. Absolutely astounding job. It will be interesting (to say the least) to observe how Epydemic2020 will address this.
0:36 Wtf their username was epidemic2020. Talk about foreshadowing 😂
@Zoetherat
On the contrary. I mean the word illusion in the exact same sense.
"all the evidence available to use" is merely that validity of our senses.
We have just as much reason to accept our moral sense as being true.
The end of your videos are always fantastic.
@nephyrias
*Are our sensory halucinations always about real objects in reality?
I watched this exchange between TB and Epydemic and to me it's like watching a professional football team (TB) playing a high school football team (epydemic). Epydemic is so out matched that you know what the result is going to be long before the kickoff. You might think the high school team has some attributes that might put the professional team to work but at the end of the game you are there saying, yeah, yeah that's pretty much what I had expected. A total shut out, TB 42, Epydemic 3.
In a few debates with Christians, mainly creationists, I've accused God of narcissism through his need for constant praise and thanks. You're far more articulate than me at making these arguments, I was wandering what your views are on this.
Ok, you cleared up all the questions I had from the previous video, Bravo sir, this was an epic!
Oh, no! Now I have to place yet another subscription on my list. Simply outstanding. Very well thought out. Truly analytical and uncompromising. I'm a simple armchair philosopher and this video appears to encapsulate everything needed to refute any of the arguments made for celestial objective standards of morality. This guy is a danger to nonsense and ignorance.
I'm interested if we follow the Argument further past the "Does god determine what's good", and let's assume he's referencing some standard of good outside himself.
Is that source not itself arbitrary?
Good video. I'd quite like you to do more videos relating to genetics/environment/parenting/personality etc as I find your views on it very interesting and different to what is commonly taught.
I didn't think that I would actually sit through the whole 25 minutes, but it was worth it.
Well-spoken and intelligent, you didn't stoop low and attack anything except what he said, and you utterly annihilated his argument. Subbed.
In addition to the Thessalonians verse, another instance of God being immoral/deceptive/cruel to his creation is in Romans 9: 10-23..arbitrarily condemning a child to slavery before it is born. He then clearly states that he intentionally "hardens the heart" of many..guaranteeing they will never see the truth and face destruction and eternal torment. The Reason? Simply to make himself appear more glorious to the lucky few he decides to show mercy on.
Epydemic2020 must be a prophet! There is an epidemic in 2020!
A secular morality is quite simple to derive.
Consider the health of your teeth. In regards to having healthy teeth, can we derive "what we should and should not do with our teeth?" It is quite simple to understand: "You should brush your teeth, IF you want healthy teeth."
Many people leave the "IF" part out of the phrase (perhaps on purpose, so that an external source can get the credit for the source of the "oughts"), and that is a mistake.
The same goes for human interactions as it does for tooth health: You should not steal, IF you do not want to be stolen from. You should not do things to others that they do not want done to them, IF you yourself do not want your desires for your own body abused.
If we leave the "IF" bit out, people say "then why should we not kill rape etc? what demands it?"
It is the "If you want x" bit that demands it. It is a logical conclusion. Logic is the true source of our morality.
You can also test this. Consider a person that lacks the ability to process logic, a baby, someone mentally retarded. DO YOU HOLD THEM MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for actions that would be considered wrong? Like destroying your property? Would you get mad at your baby for destroying your phone for example?
If not, it is because they lack logical facilities. Thus logical ability is the source of moral responsibility.
+capoman1 Of course. And what you are talking about is what one values (not using the term as a synonym for morals). What one "values" in the sense of desires (I value/desire nice teeth) will dictate what they consider moral and immoral.
And yes, people absolutely leave out the "IF". Thus they miss or intentionally scurry away from the reality that not all people value the same things. Its rather pointless to attempt to discern someone's moral code or "where it came from" without first recognizing what they value.
Noah Summerall Notice the statement "one ought to brush teeth, IF one wants healthy teeth..."
Does not tell you that "you ought to value healthy teeth" or even that "you ought to brush your teeth..."
It just says "for x to be true, y must occur."
There is no subjectivity or dependency on values. The statement evaluates to true.
----
In a more general case "one ought not do things to people that go against others wishes, IF one has things he wishes to not have done to him."
Every person has things he doesn't want done to him, it's impossible not to. Even a man that wants to be killed "doesn't want to be left alive." So every person has things he doesn't want done to him, and to maintain that he can dictate whether others are allowed to violate him, he must not violate others...
Where do you see "one ought to value x" in any of these statements?
And is the truth of the brushing teeth DEPENDENT on the values of an individual? Or is it just a logical statement that evaluates as true?
So for example, for the guy that doesn't value nice teeth, does that mean that the if statement is no longer true? Does that mean that healthy teeth are generated by just desiring nice teeth, no brushing needed?
----
I challenge your statement that "values dictate the correctness of moral statements."
I state that "logic" and the ability to process logic dictates the correctness. And your personal values don't change the truth value of "if statements."
+capoman1 If I understand you correctly then I believe I disagree. I am not certain we can always objectively say what one ought to value.
"IF you value an early retirement, then you ought to invest in a retirement plan." Can we, without question, say that one ought to value early retirement? I don't think so.
Values can be subjective. One person may value an early retirement while it may not be overly appealing for another. But I agree the quoted statement above is true regardless of the person's position an early retirement simply because of the "IF".
Now, we can make objective determinations as to what supports or is consistent with the stated value. IF the person values early retirement then we can objectively say that investing in a retirement plan is a good thing.
We cannot objectively say that early retirement is something you should value.
We cannot say that you ought to invest in a retirement plan if you are not concerned with early retirement (unless you locate another value that would justify or suggest its the proper course - but that would be leaving the example)
So.. in order for the statement "you ought to invest in a retirement account" to be correct in this context one must value an early retirement.
Thus, whether or not the subject values early retirement (THE VALUE) dictates the correctness of "you ought to invest in a retirement plan" (the moral statement).
I hope that explains the statement you challenged.
Noah Summerall "IF you value an early retirement, then you ought to invest in a retirement plan."
You derived A CORRECT if statement, this if statement is true.
Does that mean that "one ought to value retirement?" or in the other example that "one ought to value healthy teeth?" NO!
The if statement does not DEMAND what you value, it demands WHAT YOU MUST (ought to) do IF YOU SEEK THE GOAL (caps only for emphasis).
An if statement has the form: If P then Q. Alternatively, if P is true, then Q is true. Alternatively, for P to be true, Q must be true.
So the IF P portion is not what "one ought" do. The "then Q" portion is what "one ought" to do (if the person insists that P be true).
So can you achieve healthy teeth without brushing? NO! Does that mean YOU MUST desire healthy teeth? NO! It means YOU OUGHT to brush IF YOU INSIST on having healthy teeth.
----
We live in a world where a large percentage of people desire healthy teeth. And for all these people, we can say "what they ought to do, in light of their stated preference."
----
Now onto tougher examples, theft assault rape murder (TARM). This works for all actions not just TARM, but TARM are the reason that we ask the big moral question, these are the basic actions that we really think violate morality.
IF YOU INSIST that you yourself should not be TARMed, then "you ought not TARM others."
What does it mean if you violate this if statement? It means that "you are okay with being TARMed yourself." Just like not brushing your teeth means you are okay with bad teeth. Just like avoiding retirement investment means you are okay with not having a retirment, etc.
So if you violate the logic of these if statements that evaluate to true, you are making a statement. And in the case of TARM (and all levels of "immoral behavior"), you are saying that "I am fine with being violated."
Noah Summerall +Noah Summerall "Thus, whether or not the subject values early retirement (THE VALUE) dictates the correctness of "you ought to invest in a retirement plan" (the moral statement)."
Now you've got it. VALUING the if portion DEMANDS (ought) a certain behavior.
And all the examples we have examined only concern THE INDIVIDUAL, not behavior towards others.
So now: "If I have things that I don't want done to me, then I ought not do things to others that they don't want." (golden rule).
Now how can this one be arbitrary? In the teeth and retirement example, no other individuals came into question. Now when others are involved, I make a statement that "you can violate me" once I violate another.
How many people actually do that? How many people actually ask to be violated? And isn't that even a contradiction of terms? Wanting to be violated? If you want it, it's not a violation.
So violating others means that you forfeit your right to not be violated. In a less organized society, this individual would be killed or tortured. And the whole basis is "If P then Q." And people understand it intuitively. They understand that this person has violated this principle and has asked to be violated. And people will teach him that lesson. Even children do this, without deriving any of this. They understand at a gut level the principle of "If P then Q," and kid's reactions to violations is evidence of that.
If one child violates another child, he wants to know "did you violate me on purpose?" And if he thinks you violated him on purpose, he wants an explanation. And he will begin to violate the violator. Because he knows the violator has violated the principle, the If P then Q found in the golden rule.
So it is our ability to understand these if statements, to process logic; that allows us to perceive "immoral behavior," to perceive violations.
----
You can also tell that understanding logic is the basis for moral accountability. If a baby destroys your phone, are you mad at the baby? Do you seek justice against the baby? Do you ask the baby questions or look to break something of his in return?
If a mentally retarded person breaks your phone, do you blame the individual? Seek justice? Break something of his in return?
A dog breaks your phone, a bird, any animal, etc...
I think it is safe to say that you only hold those with the ability to process logic, people mentally competent, morally accountable.
This is an indicator that "the ability to understand or process logic" is the source of moral accountability, the source of morality.
I love this. You drive on the idea that mankind has the ability to be 'good' and 'moral' without god and it's articulated well.
Very powerful response. You combine a certain charasmatic showmanship with some excellent philosophical points. Hope to see more.
You are amazing. Thanks for the videos, Scott. I love watching you.
@Hexdoll
Given your analogy, colorblind people do not disprove the validity of normal people's sight experience.
To argue that there exists morally colorblind people would not disprove the validity of normal people's moral experience for example the same reason.
I don't see any reason to believe morally colorblind people exist (this is where people usually bring up psychopaths, so I made a video on that), but this argument doesn't even work in principle.
6:44 I often thought that this isn't a contradiction at all. As impulsive beings, sometimes we impulsively value our own selfish interest over the interests of everybody else, and in this sense we NEVER act in ways contradictory to what we value. When I have hypothetical overwhelming drive kill, if I kill it is because I'm acting in favor of a selfish value over another empathic and kind value on human life. What's distressing is that we are able to change how much we value something and therefore change how we act about certain things, and this is actually necessary for forming any system of moral values in the first place.Everyone has to fight their selfish desires in order to achieve the more selfless values, and everyone has to fight to sustain the long term value and fight of the short term one.
@shotinthedark90 But as I explained in the video, God does *not* account for those values.
EPIDEMIC 2020?!?!?! ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS
I was thinking the same shit. What the hell is going on here
26 minutes and I enjoyed every second of it! Brilliant as always TBS.
@Buruc
"Objective value" is a contradictio in terminis. Per *definition* a value is attributed - values are not inherent, not objective. As TBS explained, you need at least one valuer for something to be valuable to anybody. What's more, two subjects do not have to agree on the value of an object.
Particularly nice response... I'm probably going to write my next humanities paper on this now.
@Hexdoll
I have not argued that everyones moral knowledge is equivalent to mine. I argued that human's share a realm of innate knowledge about morality.
Nothing about that definitions excludes different cultures from behaving in different ways. In fact, I have gone into great length explaining variation of morality between cultures and I am quite sure you have even commented on those videos.
wow! great debate. thanks for sharing.
@Lazyintellectual4 So, did you wathc three minute philosophy yet? I personally like the one on Thomas Aquinas, since I am Chistian and all.
one tiny nitpick..I'm pretty sure you are mispronouncing "Euthyphro". The ending is "fro" as in a 1970's "afro". It sounds like "Youthafro"
Equivocations upon equivocations, on both sides. Both sides seem to be talking past each other, misunderstanding what is meant by "standard".
@Epydemic2020
i think the analogy holds, as a color blind person would not hold that something is objective X color as it is meaningless to them, hence making color a subjective reality as it is contingent on the sight of the subject.
@darkxblue13 his real name is Scott Clifton. Hes in the series "The bold and the beautiful":
@nephyrias
Senses can be an illusion, but it is irrational to believe they are an illusion without reason. "Ghost limbs" and "hallucinations" are then reasons to doubt your senses at that moment.
6:28, I brought up the same objection to Epydemic2020 in his comment section over that line.
glad I'm not alone.
@secretagentninjas26 1). Watch "Treatise on Morality". There's an annotated link to it in the beginning of this vid. It outlines my moral stance.
2). That only works if people are allowed to cherry-pick what to accept and reject from religious doctrines and texts. But then this illustrates that we are the "standard", not religion.
Epidemic 2020? Bro I think you were corresponding with the devil himself
@fredbloggs02 I'm...not sure what this means. Are you saying you don't want a happy, healthy, flourishing society?
@adamkoncz Wasn't that Conan the Barbarian?
« No, but we may need God in order to account for knowing that honesty is right »
Occam's Razor would require that we reject all possible naturalistic explanations first, wouldn't it?
So, according to Biblical doctrine, regardless of how repulsive we may personally find the actions God supposedly took in the OT, whether on having people killed or enslaved, He was always doing right by his children....
Because, after all, He is the perfect Judge... Right?
Theoretical Bullshit is smart and I love it
Why are your videos so long??
I'm going to have to put this one in the queue for later. :P
woot first post :P love the videos man keep it up
TBS, I think there are a few objective values for conscious beings that come about during the course of their lives. One example is self-consistency--
Stimulus during a being's existence causes them to value certain things over others.
Lets attempt to assume that they do not value self-consistency.
However, maximizing any value is improved by some consistent effort.
Therefore, self-consistency is something they will be compelled to value.
@nephyrias
I am not arguing that value his hardwired into our minds, that is a strawman of my position.
I am arguing that we are hardwired to recognize objective value exists.
Similarly, we use our senses to recognize that reality exists.
The senses themselves are subjective, but the things we sense are objective.
*Epidemic 2020* at 0:36.....what the fuck!?? This video is 10 years old.
@RuinSonic
Occam's razor can point to a wrong conclusion. However, we should apply Occam's razor to this issue because 1) it's the most useful methodology available to determine what we believe is true, and 2) because consistency demands it since we apply Occam's razor to everything else, and have no logical justification to make an exception for this issue.
That quote you used at the end could have been enough without the first 24 minutes of the video. Still fun to watch though.
@8WholeThing Yeah, I understand, but I was running out of characters, so I shortened it to "very flawed God" :P
Amazing series so far :D
@AtheistTower I am not sure what Stephen Hawking's personal position regarding the existence of a deity has to do with statements about heaven and hell. You stated that atheist's make the claim that there is no heaven or hell, and I would disagree. They merely reject theistic claims that there is one. We have no evidence for such locations and therefore no reason to believe they exist. Oh, and Stephen Hawking just recently called heaven a fairytale, since he is the measure of logic, I guess.
My brain's about to explode.
TBS, do you have a good reading list you could recommend?