The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/unsolicitedadvice05241 LINKS AND CORRECTIONS: If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7 CLARIFICATION: Just in case I did not make it clear in the video, I am massively simplifying the literature around pro-social behaviour and religiosity. As I said in meta-analyses there is a slight correlation but a lot of what I looked at suggested we should be careful about blowing the effect out of proportion or saying that atheists are necessarily more anti-social. There is a complex relationship here that is difficult to summarise in a few minutes.
Not sure about some of the arguments. It would depend on the definition of God with respect to your section on "morality needs God". If God were defined as the ultimate good in the universe, or a "maximal good being". Then it follows that God would already know what is moral, that the definition of moral would then be static. If the definitions of moral are not static, then God is not maximal (as morality would then have superseded God), and would not be God. The contrapositive implication is that morality cannot exist from a material world view. Only dualism or idealism can solve for morality. Not atheism (materialism). The atheist must argue for materialism, and ultimately the idea that morals are constructed, or at the very least epiphenomenal.
Carl Watts is a man who grasped for redemption when it was far far too late. His mind might change, but his crimes will always remain. The only strange things about the story is why did he willingly confess? This is a question that cannot be answered materially if I understand the point of your question correctly. In any case a man is subject to morality. And he has been deemed a criminal. And our laws do not come from material necessity. We do not marvel when a lion kills his cub. The lion is an animal. But a man is held to a moral law. Such action not only makes him worthy of prison, but even Carl Watts' own mind cried out against him for justice.
As a religious person, atheists offer a very important lesson to believers BECAUSE of their morals. It shows us that these people, despite believing in no higher power, no greater cosmic judgement, still choose to be good simply for the sake of being good. They have morals when no morals are technically enforced on them from a divine being from their viewpoint. And that's whats so important to learn. The ability to be a good human simply for the sake of being a good human.
One thing I've always wondered about, and i apologize in advance if this is a bad question, what do theists think about evil theists? If a priest turns out to diddle kids, do Christians think the priest wasn't a believer in the first place? It just seems absurd to me that someone thinks god is always watching, and still decides to do things they'd never imagine doing in plain view of, say, their own father.
As an atheist myself I recognize the social and "spriritual" function of god in a civil society. People do need to know why historically and in modern times religion/spirituality is important. It is man's sense of purpose made manifest.
@@Noname-lw6hp not religion as a whole, just this flavour of this version of this personification of the universe aka the Christian diety of Yahwe or however you're meant to spell it. I reckon a video on norse mythology could takle much the same lines of reasoning, but in a far more interesting manner perhaps!
I learned years ago that the Golden Rule exists, in some form, in every major religion in the world. Reflecting on that, I realized that it doesn't require a god to exist in order for it to be valid, because it's entirely about how one person relates to others.
The golden rule does not exist in every major religious system. Especially if you extend the idea to “replacement religions“ which tend to pop up in post Christian/antichristian societies like Nazi Germany, communist Russia, communist China, communist Cambodia etc. Pre-Christian Viking and Germanic societies did not believe in the golden rule. Pre-Christian Greek and Roman societies did not believe in the golden rule. Any resemblance to believing in a “golden rule” applied only to those within the tribal group and no one outside the tribal group. When we talk about golden rule being applied universally, you are talking about the Judeo Christian tradition, as humans are considered to be a value and sacred because they’re all created equal in the image of God and our beloved of God. The universality is what is different and what has led to modern western liberal Democratic Society.
@@alias_crouton2671 I agree that this pattern holds up for many traditional religions, but is mainly applicable to the people in that religious tradition, rather than universal. I’m sure a lot of Muslims believe in the golden rule *for other Muslims*, not necessarily universally (with the exception of Sufi and other similar sects). Probably most Sunnis would not extend the golden rule to shia Muslims and vice versa. I’m not sure about Hinduism. Historically they seem pretty chill, but the BNP is currently trying to re-organize Indian society along Hindu nationalist lines. I suspect Buddhists are universalists in terms of the golden rule. Then you look at atheist “religions“ like nationalism, Nazism, communism, and woke authoritarianism. These are all explicitly founded on the idea that people are not created equal (in other words, group or collective goals are more important than any particular individual) and that individuals are not worthy of dignity and respect, and are suitable to be used as a means to an end. Judeo Christian ethics believe that all humans are created equal in the image of God ,and are beloved of God, therefore inherently sacred and worthy of dignity and respect, etc. That’s the Golden rule applies universally. The universality does come with the price that evangelists can be a little obnoxious because they’re always trying to convert everyone. But the United States has demonstrated that you can have a secular government modeled on Judeo Christian ethics… at least while the populace is mainly following Judeo Christian traditions. It’s unclear if that can continue without those traditions. We saw what happened in Europe after dechristianization. Malthusian ethics, social Darwinism, scientific racism, Nazism, communism, nationalism all superseded, or took the place formally held by the Judeo Christian ethics.
Wow, this was pretty great. I have spent much of my time since deconvertion wrestling with what morality is. You managed to sum up most of what I have found in this brief video. Good job.
4:50 || I find this topic very interesting, especially since I'm from Scandinavia. I once did a report in sociology class on how religion impacts Danes and Americans, where the guy named Phil Zuckerman claimed that "The more you struggle, the easier you turn to religion" whereas I believe that to be true, seeing as we in Denmark have a welfare system that will catch us if we fall, unlike in the US where it's a "to each their own" kind of deal, where the government will not catch you if you fall. Another thing Phil Zuckerman brought up was the fact that America, unlike Denmark, has state and church separately, meaning the churches funds themselves, while in Denmark we have the state funding our churches. But for some reason, despite the churches being funded by the government, Denmark still manages to be the least religious country in the world (as far as I'm concerned), whereas it would make more sense if we were more religious since church is accessible for everyone (I hope that made sense). In short: Because we know the government will help us if we're in need, we don't feel the need to rely on religion or pray. Me personally, I'm atheist.
I read the title and I knew it was about the brothers Karamazov, it's such a great book honestly and your take on the thesis and arguments seemed all impartial enough that I believe both an atheist and a religious person can enjoy this video
It’s easy to be moral when you are afraid of something unseen. That’s the basis of religion. But real morality is being moral for the sake of it, knowing that nobody is judging you or holding you accountable for anything. That’s when your true self can be seen
A "tru self" rised in a a... Religios family? Of course you will be a nornal dude, cause soceity has values iven if you dont belive in them deeply Obviosuly if a soceity has a certain values, you don't want to go gaints that But libertinage and lack of virtue end in the same garbge, literally look "good people" with "modern values", total barbarians or idiots with good intentions Vegans, pro palestine lol, feminists, corrput OnG Lot of these groupes openly laic, atbeist or "" beliveers""" but there are no values Thia video is good, but is just the theory, in practice things are always different, an human morals can decay beliver or not Sorry if my english is not that good
Personally, as a religious person. And wanting to give a different view point. I think that argument falls apart when you consider the idea of what is morality.
@theultimategodofgaming3200 As I was taught by my religion, morality is a character in a book who does the better thing in a hard situation. And that the ultimate goal is Christ to become like Christ in the ways of self-sacrificing. However, when your goal is to be good and do good. How do you know your doing that? What's your example? What is the determining factor? How do you self-sacrifice and know that it is worth that effort? And that is a legit question. What or who do you look for morals?
@@josephfox514 Morality does not necessarily mean self-sacrifice, it just means showing compassion. As another commenter said, our morality comes from our evolutionary instincts of compassion and cruelty. Compassion developed out of an evolutionary necessity, because of our nature as a social species. A society where people are fine with murdering each other whenever they feel like it isn't going to last very long. Cruelty is also necessary, however. It developed out of a desire to protect the in-group. If a predator or a rival tribe threatens your family, it makes sense to develop an instinct to eliminate that threat. In this way, we evolved to be compassionate towards our in-group, and cruel towards any out-groups. This benefited our survival in the past, but sadly this mentality has been hijacked by various totalitarian ideologies, many of which are religious ones. The only way we can move past this is if we start to see all of humanity as our in-group, and not just those belonging to our specific race, gender, religion, or any other identifying characteristics.
@@alena-qu9vj SO... many of them use your "God" as their moral reference standard dear. Indeed tell me, how could Adam or indeed mankind make moral choices without being able to differentiate good from evil ?? Without knowledge of right and wrong every moral "choice becomes meaningless, choice *A* no more valid than the diametrically opposed choice *B* And yet ...... dispite Gods foreknowledge of this he still decided to deny Adam and Eve this knowledge and to punish not only them for gaining this knowledge but also their descendants ?? 🤪 how utterly absurd and immoral!! We have names for people who do not know how to differentiate right from wrong and we lock such people up in concrete boxes or execute them. Yet this is how your "God" wanted mankind to be (and we would still be if not for the Serpent) and you think him a perfect moral reference standard 😂😅🤣🤣🤣🤣
I think that morals evolved as we became more dependent on staying in a group to survive so this is something that’s been with us for millions of years
I have thought of 3 semi-good ways of getting around the is-ought logical fallacy: 1. It appears that only living beings have the experience of goodness. It is their experience of goodness that causes them to behave in the way they do. Therefore, it stands to reason that if we want our morality to have an effect on the material world, it must deal with prescriptions for the behavior of living beings. 2. Any existing thing which destroys itself more than it propagates itself ceases to exist. This applies to all things: stars, animals, and morals, etc. In the case of inanimate objects like stars, they do not directly spawn from one another (at least not consistently), but the same underlying process produces them. In the case of living beings, they spawn from similar living beings who came first. Morality is like a living being in this respect. The morals that are best at propagating themselves will endure. If we care about our morality being widely adopted, it must be structured in such a way that it is good at spreading and maintaining itself. 3. It feels good to feel good, and we are motivated to do those things that feel good. Therefore, if something is good to do, it is good to feel good while doing it, so that it can be done more often. These are only semi-good ways of getting around the is-ought fallacy, because they still require moral suppositions. The first requires the moral supposition that we care about our morality having a material effect on the world. The second requires that we do not want our morality to be successful rather than to destroy itself. The third requires that we care about doing good things (although this seems to come from the definition of goodness itself). But they are not entirely weak either, because the first is based on sensory observation, the second is based on logic, and the third is based on our experience of what goodness means. This is not a coincidence, because my metaphysics (based on phenomenology) treat sensory information (the basis of facts), logic, and values, as elements of faith from which we build ALL of our other experiences. So, the correct morality according to this line of thought is prescriptions for living beings which will tend to spread the morality that they practice (and also the living beings themselves, if that was useful for spreading the morality), that feels good to those who practice it. This fits in nicely with my other moral view that all existing things are good. In order for living beings and things that act like living beings (such as morals) to exist, they must struggle to act in their own interests. So, it is in the nature of morality to prescribe actions that allow morality to exist. I have written books about this kind of stuff, but so far failed to get more than just a couple people to read even the first page.
I don't quite agree with that, morality is fundamentally a matter of what is true, and not all truth is material in nature. it doesn't just exist inside us, it extend beyond our own perception, otherwise morality would be no different than opinion. for example, kindness, compassion, patience, humility. These are all good qualities regardless of your perception. Logic and reasoning isn't material either and yet we know it has rules and exists outside our own perception. envying, jealousy, greed, hating each other, lying. These are bad qualities regardless of your perception. being good doesn't always mean benefiting ourselves but being bad will always lead to someone getting hurt, even if the actions makes you feel good.
@@justiceiria869 "or example, kindness, compassion, patience, humility. These are all good qualities regardless of your perception. " But without perception, those are just words. Values do not exist in a void. "I don't quite agree with that, morality is fundamentally a matter of what is true, and not all truth is material in nature. it doesn't just exist inside us, it extend beyond our own perception, otherwise morality would be no different than opinion." ....morality is very much an opinion. enough people and you have a societal norm. these change with shifts in ideologies, due to cultural changes over time.
"I have written books about this kind of stuff, but so far failed to get more than just a couple people to read even the first page." Perhaps philosophy doesn't offer people anything to act rational. Or threaten them apparently.
@@rageofheaven you can't tell me i am wrong if morality is "just an opinion". If morality can shift by perception ,what is wrong can be right tomorrow and what is right can be wrong. Judgement becomes meaningless when everything is just an opinion. You claim i am somehow wrong while at the same time telling me that morality is just an opinion. Don't you realise that this doesn't make sense? You are basically saying that murder and stealing can be right if social norms shift. If someone told you this while taking your stuff and then murdering you. Are you going to agree with him if this was considered "the norm"?
To me something is evil/good like chocolate is poisonous for a dog's health. "Poison" doesn't describe some object, chocolate isn't intrinsically poisonous, but rather it's a description of a natural object's effect on a being's constitution. The poisonous aspect "supervenes" over the chocolate. In that sense I see wrongness as something that supervenes over an action that negatively effects ones character and constitution.
You never can say that some action has negative effects only in our dual relative reality. You learn most (positive effect) from actions which originally might have effected you negatively.
I take a position similar to Sam Harris: love is logical and science allows us to act better aligned with our ethics along with its continued advancement. Because through scientific discoveries we find cures to alleviate suffering, we invent tools to protect life, to have better food, etc. It's also because we love as most are chemically wired(please don't get pedantic about my wording here), unless you have a condition like psychopathy, we gravitate towards care and kindness. Though this comes in different forms, it is similar in how we react to others. We share and offer food. We respond to sadness, we feel when another is lonely. These things, as wired into us are natural occurences. We are ethically inclined to love and care. Gods are not necessary for this
It was pleasant to read :) I just think God is creator of those rules, which makes them visible to all, believers or not. Being good wins in the long term.
it's my basic understanding that everyone is born an atheist then some are taught to believe because that is how their moral framework is given. as an atheist my moral lessons came in the forms of real world applications from my parents, for example don't hurt others because you yourself wouldn't like being hurt and so on, if i would punch my dad he would grab me and pinch me very hard so it hurt real bad and made the logical connection for me that what i was doing was hurtful and so what i disliked being done to me i did not do to others. and with time there was more difficult questions being asked and so i had to dive deep into logic behind these basic statements that i was taught in order to form new logical reasoning to these difficult morality questions. which i just sum up to self preservation as in survival and societal good as in survival. my survival and everyone elses survival and finding the line of where is too cautious and where is too reckless.
Okay, but what happens to your morality if you grow up in a violent society. Without an appeal to a source of objective morality, you’re more likely to swept away in the chaos.
@@DesOttsel self preservation is still there, it's just not extended to anyone you don't value, meaning morality flies out the window at the first sign of trouble like it often does because you have very little moral framework if not properly established or followed. incidentally this is why i think religion was first founded, when chief is away someone else has to be the arbiter and you can't let the person who has the most to say about it be the judge so they leave it to a power higher than them, namely a god. but that's just my theory about it. emotions overrule any morality or rationality we have and we are left with whatever mayhem we cause. i'm sure you've heard the term crime of passion. this happens regardless no matter how moral a society becomes. that's the fear of losing grip on morality in a world of humans, humans doing as their basic instincts tell them. showing us how little difference there is between us and animals.
@@DesOttsel "Okay, but what happens to your morality if you grow up in a violent society. Without an appeal to a source of objective morality, you’re more likely to swept away in the chaos." Unless, of course, that source of morality was the primary contribution to the violence and chaos. Do schisms not exist amongst those whom claim what god wants or doesn't?
I was an atheist, I would say becoming an atheist is like a freeing experience at first, you see the world in a very sceptical and rational way and only examine people on how they behave with you. After sometime I felt I lost something to hold me together, it felt like I was falling piece by piece. Then I turned to God and now I have peace within me. I feel whole and I can improve and be better.
I fell down the meta-ethics rabbit hole a number of years ago, and from where I stand the problem is not whether atheists can be moral, but rather how we can continue to speak of ‘morality’ when we know that moral language has no inherent meaning. I can see how a religious person might use a god-entity as a kind of anchor, but this is a problem largely because a divine conception of morality cannot be expected to be in any way understandable or applicable to mortal beings. I can never remember who wrote this (I think it was Ayer) but sometimes we have a word without anything to which it refers. We assume that there *must* be a referent - why else would we have the word? - but there is no reason why such a referent must exist. Morality is an example of this: areferential language.
I want to relate a story that actually happened to me several years ago. It is a little long, but it is an incredible story. I am a Christian and would be interested in your opinion as an atheist as to how this happened. It was a very hot summer day; nearly one hundred degrees. My daughter and I took My son to a park where he was playing a soccer double-header. Two back-to-back games in extreme heat. Shortly before the end of the first game, my son ran out of Gatorade. He was borrowing sips from his teammates. (This was obviously pre-covid) At the end of the 2nd game he was "dying of thirst." I said, "Son I'll drive to the 7-11 down the street and get you a Gatorade. As we were pulling on to the freeway onramp, he said, "Dad, I thought you were going to get me some Gatorade." "I'm sorry, I forgot. I'll get off at the next offramp and get you some." As we were passing that offramp, someone in the car said, "I thought you were going to get off and get some Gatorade?" We kept passing offramps and remembering AFTER passing each one but could not remember in time to get off. We did that for seventeen miles. Finally, we pulled into our neighborhood, and I said, "I'm sorry son, we'll get you something to drink at home." As I turned down the first street, I noticed a car up ahead, backing out of a driveway. He was about to run over a "Big Wheel." I little kids toy bike. It had two little wheels in the back and a big wheel in the front. There was no kid on the Big Wheel, so I didn't think much of it, UNTIL I noticed a small child UNDER the car about to be run over. I simultaneously, slammed on the brakes, ripped the door open and screamed as LOUD as I possibly could, "STOP, STOP, STOP." The driver heard my frantic screaming and stopped the car. I ran over to help the little kid. He was face down. The car had LITERALLY stopped two inches from his little head. He was perfectly lined up for the car to run over his head, then his neck and then his spine... If we had just arrived at that time, you could say, "WOW! What a coincidence!" But that does NOT explain how we absolutely could not REMEMBER to get off at seventeen miles of offramps UNTIL we passed each one of them. I believe God had different plans other than a senseless death at that tender age for the little kid, and along the way He bolstered our faith in Him. You might say, "What about other kids who did get run over, or what about kids born with this or that disease. Why didn't God spare them?" God is God. He is All-knowing and All-powerful He does His will. AND He is infinitely more intelligent than we are. In this life we very well may not understand why things happen as they do, but God knows, and we just have to realize He still sits on the Throne and one day will rectify all the problems we face here on this sinful earth.
I do not believe in god, but I really do understand that Religion is an exceptionally important part of human life. It had formed the basis for various traditions and festivals. It was a moral guiding force, a judgement for evil, a pastime, peaceful feeling, sense of belonging and so much more for so long. Though I am an atheist myself. It is the understanding that different ideas can coexist that make the basis for modern science. Yeah I know this question wasn't asked towards me but I just felt the need to clarify the massive significance of religion even in today's world.
"Believe" Is Important In Human Life. Believe Is Not All About Religion Tho. Country, Nationality, Law, Government, Even Money Is System Of Believe. One Thing Human Can Held Stick Together is Believe. Believe In Tribe's, Believe In Religion, Believe In Nationality And Last But No least Is Money.
Nicely done 👍 Broad overview for the short format, brought in contemporary sources & props for philosophy of science and naturalistic fallacy mentions.
10:50 If i remember correctly, The Open Question argument isn't just for naturalism, but also supernaturalism. The question applies when ascribing good to a fact, natural or supernatural.
The reason you use skill share is the reason i watch your vudeo haha its something to watch or invest myself in that actually benifits my brain and time!
When I’m asked about where I base my morals without god I say that we have to have a tribe mentality to survive. Working together makes survival more likely. It’s that simple.
Very simple and elegant. But then they’ll say something like why is survival more favorable than not surviving without the epistemic foundation of a god or some such similar nonsense. They refuse the Brute facts of our evolutionarily driven morals.
Something that throws everything about religions into confusion is the fact that there isn't proof that a biblical or other god is always truthful. The fact that god could exist and have inspired parts of the bible, but also have just lied about parts of it. The only evidence for god being truthful is his being good, which was also sourced solely from god himself. In fact, god could have just lied about being immortal and died years ago. Furthermore claiming you understand god enough to claim he is always truthful in what he says about himself and his morality would suggest that god is not beyond human understanding as many religious people believe.
lying is a sin, hebrew word being "khata", means to fail/achieve something, and that being God's standard. If God were to be able to "lie" then He would be against what He Himself said and would thus fail His own standard, but how is that possible if *He* created this standard. Along with this, how would a being that created time and space die when He isn't even *in* the confines of time and space like we are?
@hemantjain2387 I have personally talked to people that confirmed what I said in my opening post. It's a bit of a dilemma. It's similar to how some people told me they love god because god commanded that they did. It's like love me or else.
@ulrichenevoldsen8371 I agree. It makes me wonder if religious people's goodness comes from a sincere place. Moreover, being good in order to secure a place in heaven is also unsettling.
@@skurt9109 I agree. But there is still a lot of people that have these beliefs. Misunderstood or not. But ok to be fair its not like I have talked to more than a few dusin people or so about this.
This is the first time I've seen someone critique athiesm and theism in the same video lol. And I like your conclusion: Atheists are not intellectually consistent with their morality and their ideas. Each "solution" to morality presented by them sacrifices a key part of their preexisting morality, either the objectivity, of dichotomy, or of being self-proving. As a religious person, I find that my position is VERY comfortable in this regard--I'm interested in seeing atheists present a different system of morals in the future.
You are pronouncing every single syllable in a word; that is riveting to listen to. Your videos are engaging. Having said so, let it be born into your mind that philosophy is in fact a personality-a closeted atheist- wanting to be out by not itself by its readers, learners, and followers, and in that case, it is YOU, as religions do. so it is the amalgamation of both notions as you are in your thinking tilting towards atheism. I might be amiss; I am open to other notions. Thank you for reading.
I was an atheist from 18 to 26, I was brought up in seventh day, Adventism and saw what any child could see that it was false. I am entering the Catholic Church in 2025 and I am totally head over heels for Catholic moral reasoning, and their conception of God. My atheism brought me to nihilism and hedonism pleasure was the highest good for me in practice, and when there was no pleasure, there was crippling depression. It took me years to understand my scientific materialism/empiricism was leading me to focus more on sex and what I could get from others rather than a higher purpose that transcends my desires. I am 29 now with very clear purpose and a desire to pick up my cross and suffer for those around me, even those who oppose me.
@@miguelatkinson in my experience, reducing everything to scientific raw facts made it so the moral landscape was something that was more relative and socially built. Where can you empirically find what is right and wrong? How do you measure that scientifically? My intuition told me if something was right or wrong but what if my intuitions were just molded by a social construction? That means they are not Absolute. This frame of mind personally allowed me to prioritize what felt best for me and in my relations with women it expressed itself in sexual pursuit. I wasn’t nearly as bad as some of my other friends, but I hurt a woman who I believed I loved dearly. But my worldview could not give me the ability to love in the truest sense. Not just emotions, not just affection, but transcendent and selfless love. I left Christianity because I thought there was no good reason to believe it, I came back because In my atheist materialism there was no reason to love and sacrifice for another. My atheism wasn’t an issue of intellect, it was an issue of moral decay and the corrupt will that followed.
@@Nrev973 you aere never an atheist, you were agnostic and when you saw you could use religion as a shield to do whatever you want to anybody you dont like you dodnt hesistate to use it to enact hate upon athers because you get off from it. I do not consent to your weird roleplay
What you said at 15:19 is important and many people don't know or overlook it , you can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time , just like you can beleive and be an agnostic , they aren't mutually exclusive . agnostism is about knowledge .
"naturalistic empiricists on paper sheets and moral spiritualists in messy streets." Excellent wording. My unwitting search for answers in this area I have always fallen back on two things. The first is the oldest rule in every book and I believe is found in every religion around the world to some extent. Treat others the way you want to be treated. The other is a common belief of many Americans, and inspired by the spirit of the U.S. constitution, that you are free and should be free to do whatever you want as long as is does not cause harm to others. I love your channel, and I feel it is extremely underrated.
On a tangent, when I heard you use this phrase, I immediately had a flashback to the late 90's or early 2000's when I was walking in a mall and I saw a shirt with two of the actors from the show the Golden Girls on it. The phrase written on it was "Dorothy in the streets and Blanche in the sheets." I still chuckle at its corniness.
Morality does not require god.. all it needs are feelings, empathy and suffering, those 3 elements that are naturally inherited by human beings in this cruel world will lead to morality as a byproduct.
Something immaterial, abstract and universal cannot be grounded in merely mortal men. You need Christ to justify morality. He is the Lawgiver with an All-knowing Mind that put a conscience into all of us, praising us when we do right and blaming us when we do evil.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy morality does not exist outside humans, for it is a perceived tool granted by the bias of their beliefs, experiences and feelings. it's very nature is subjective, and has been the cause of war and death. but humans are also foolish enough to grant the status of something like the divine to a lowly cause such as morality. alas, the pinnacle of human arrogance.. so that gods would order existence and life and structure it around morality, which is indeed blasphemy.
What about empathy and the need for external approval/validation? Couldn't they form the foundation of a natural moral system? They discourage you from harming others or even letting them get harmed, and encourage you to help people and make them happy.
Empathy is not an universal characteristic, and there are plenty of stories (fictional and real) where external validation was only found in groups like the KKK (for example) or criminal gangs.
This notion is very simple, for God sets what is wrong and right, therefore without God there can be no objective right or wrong; everything would be subjective. This is a problem because someone’s right would be the next’s wrong.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jyI do since I base my morals on wellbeing, empathy and human rights. You have no justification to call them immoral if you believe god is unchanging and the source of objective morality.
I think moral statements are compatible with a scientific/materialistic view of the world. A statement that God exists is supposing the existence of a literal being that we have no tangible sign of. A statement that something is wrong or immoral is an abstract summation of a series of observable events along with some baseline observations about what we as humans almost universally value. Thus we’re not more “spiritual in the streets” than we are on sheets. We’re just making statements that we understand on an intuitive level but can’t quite flesh out in language. A theist runs into all the exact same problems for all the exact same reasons. It’s just easy to think those problems went away when you kicked them up to God and stopped thinking about them.
YOU CLAIM: I think moral statements are compatible with a scientific/materialistic view of the world. RESPONSE: TOTAL NONSENSE: “If we believe in nothing, if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance.” ― former High Priest of Atheism Albert Camus The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. AND THAT’S JUST TOO BAD? -- the current High Priest of Atheism Richard Dawkins. No right, no wrong, nothing has any meaning, and nothing has any importance. ITS ALL IN YOUR WIDDLE HEAD, and no one has a corner--except you--on your thoughts, and the person beside you. Under Atheism--there is no such thing as a Moral Statement. Its just molecules in motion, a chemical reaction, with no basis in "Morality," or reality.
Thing is, most people that define themselves as agnostic/atheist, only have to look back a generation or 2 for a devoutly religious family that passed down all the morals they take for granted.
Frankly I never had much time for Dostoyevsky... II much prefer Sir Terry Pratchett. If a 'god' exists.... Then divine command makes anything permissible. All one needs do, is convince oneself 'god' commands it and... Bobs your uncle.... Oh and... 'Moral realism' as a philosophical paradigm (either robust or minimal)fails since it can't demonstrate its axioms without resorting to subjective experience. (Edit... Just realised I previously commented on this video... But I'leave them both... What the hell)
I know you focus on quality and accuracy a lot, but I’d love to just watch a video where you have no script and shoot from the hip. Also just wanna say your content is great I’ve been watching like all your videos for the last month.
One more for the algorithm. I don't think there has ever been a purely atheist nation, especially not at their founding, so it would be hard to say what athiests would actually do without a culturally religious upbringing. Most athiests I've encountered seem to completely delete the fact that they grew up in the thick of a Christian society and fill the space with the idea that they exist in a vacuum and are untouched by outside influence which I think probably requires more faith than just being religious lol.
As an Atheist ( which in no way should be taken to mean I speak for all Atheists ), my moral line is established by harm. If what I am thinking about doing could reasonably be expected to cause undue, unnecessary harm or hardship to someone else, then I clearly shouldn't do it. If it won't cause undue harm or hardship to others and I feel a need to do it, I'll most likely do it. Bottom line, for me: The potential for harm defines my morality.
This is ridicolus. I am an atheist but I believe that morality has an origin in nature. In parenthood, group evolution and symbiosis. Also, morality needs to be relative, and take into account the war and peace game, and the need to punish evil.
I was wondering about this. If morality is simply a Natural habit in us, would it be alright if somebody rejected their own Nature? I mean, say Morality = a way of optimizing preserving the species. On what grounds does a person accept the preservation of species as something to protect? See this: 1) When you look at atoms or molecules moving around, say hydrogen ones, you don't say "Wow that's evil hydrogen" or good hydrogen. Atoms in motion are just atoms in motion. 2) Humans are just atoms in motion. 3) Therefore humans have no morality.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 By the way, I am working on a project you might find interesting. I am trying to create an atheistic version of Christianity, that is based on the idea that Jesus Christ was a fictitious character created by Titus Flavius the roman emperor. This also means that Christianity is a true slave morality both in nature and purpose, as Nietzsche had half figured out. So to strengthen this Christianity and make it viable, we need to add an equal part of master morality and acceptance of violence, based on the War Peace game. This creates a duality of cooperative and competitive morality. The whole ide is to create a super-based form of atheism that is nothing like nihilism, and that also ties into Christianity. Jesus Christ is still a holy figure in this religion, because he shows us the way towards cooperative morality. According to my atheistic religion, there is good and evil, based upon what we have chosen to be good and evil. Evil is lack of reciprocity and parasitism, and when someone does not allow others to be free. Freedom is a fundamental right, because without freedom, we cannot search for the truth. And if we cannot search for the truth, we cannot judge and create a better world Here are some links. It is all work in progress, so all clips on my channel are unlisted: ua-cam.com/video/VVGF723-Wdw/v-deo.html (there is a draft of my "Bible" in the description to this clip)
Morality definitely has an empirical feeling to it though, doesn't it? When you help someone, when your actions lead to someone being hurt, you feel those things appropriately as they happen. We could look at morality as a social contract when it doesnt fit into the "feelings" category 😅
According to science Either something IS good or bad IS completely subjective, as It IS a mechanism in our brain created because if millions of years of Evolution that mainly destroying, harming and other actions are bad as they can inderectly harm you or your close ones, that's a very important behavior as if we wouldn't have it, we would harm each other without caring and the species would go extint.
it's not that you have no morals yourselves, but you have no basis for any such morality. If survival of the fittest is the truth of the universe, by what right do you complain if a stronger man takes what is yours because you are too weak to stop him? If i'm angry and my will to hurt you and your loved ones is stronger than your will to not let me do that, that's just the way it is. It might be subjectively bad for you, but what does that matter? Doing it made me happy. Oh you want laws and rules because you want to live in a society? Why? Why is that good? Why is anything good? What if someone prefers chaos? What if someone hates society? Then your only rights are the ones you can defend with force. That a world you want to live in? Why not? Yet you do have an inherent sense of good and evil. Isnt that illogical? Where do you suppose it comes from? Selfishness? That's not a great moral framework for all the reasons i said above.
Survival of the fittest is not (solely) about the strongest, it's about the best adapted. And even more detailed: it's about the species, not the individual. So morality is an evolutionary trait to enhance our survival, part of survival of the fittest. Just as our lange brain and being social animals because of safety in numbers.
@@KasperKatje Do you or have you eaten your children? Because evolution evolved that morality for a shocking number of species. You are no more evolved than all of histories greatest conquerors and monsters. Your morals did not evolve from them, they are a social construct. One with no basis in nature. By what metric do you gauge eating a baby to be wrong? Certainly not a natural one.
I honestly believe that morality is not an objective and tangible thing, but rather a human projection that varies not only from person to person, but also from society and time period. Of course this does not make morality useless or worthless in the slightest, but makes it human. That's why you should not go against your morals, it is like going against your humanity, it would only cause suffering and complications, not only for others but for you as well. Of course there are exceptions to this (sociopaths, psichopaths etcetara), but they really are only exceptions, most people want order, and they want to do what's more suitable not only for them, but for others as well.
Honestly, motality is a balancing act between 3 things: desire, practicality, and truth/fact/logic/etc ( how things can reasonably be desribed as accurate and real). The first thing is deciding which should take priority, as each have benefits and detraments. desire often conflicts with truth, as our brains often try to simplify and exagerate and fantasise things ultimately leading to falsehood. Practicality is often highly restrictive to desirability, and sometimes to truth, for the sake of stability and cohesion, which would leave miserable and clueless but practical/ efficient to the given goal induviduals in its wake. Truth can be great for understanding and advancement, but will involve undesirable and destabilising practices and discoveries by its very persuit as well.
@@mcfloridaman2192 There is no objective morality with god either, that would merely make god the subject.... and it would be dependent on your subjective opinion that it's moral to do what god says
The man I consider as the best teacher I've ever had is an atheist, I recall asking him: "you don't believe in God, but you are very kind and selfless, what motivates you and what prevents you from harming others?" He chuckled and said "there's a golden rule for everyone, do to others what you'd like done to you". How more religious can be possibly be?
Hi Okon Albert, He was not being religious; he was being a Humanist. Confucius derived the Golden Rule too and he was a secular humanist and not a theist and he derived it from observing human behaviour as it pertained to social living. Humans are a social species by necessity. The necessity of social living is not an opinion, it’s an observed fact. And it’s how we get an ought from an is, and ground moral obligation on a non-optional reason, something theism can’t do. The is/ought problem David Hume was talking about is a “system of morality” ie how we behave towards other people. However, David Hume did not say it was impossible to get an ought from an is. He said it couldn't be done with the moral systems he was familiar with, which he had “hitherto met with”, namely Western philosophy with its theist/deist backgrounds. Hume was not familiar with Eastern secular thought on moral obligation and moral values as at that time, unlike us, he could not go into a bookshop in England or Scotland and buy the translated works of the Confucianists, Taoists and Buddhists. That wouldn’t happen until after he died. Though there is circumstantial evidence that he had awareness of some Buddhist ideas obtained from talking to the Jesuits he socialised with in France while writing his Treatise. Over 2,000 years before Hume put forward the is/ought issue, the Confucianists had an answer as their secular humanist worldview did not have an is/ought problem as they didn't have the crushing baggage of Western theism. The Confucianists effectively said - social living is necessary therefore we ought to follow the rules of social living, rules we know as the commonly held moral values encompassed in the Golden Rule, which Confucius put as Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. Morality is not a solo gig, it’s about the group. The necessity of social living is not an opinion, it’s an observed fact. And it’s how we get an ought from an is, and ground moral obligation.
I believe being a good person without needing a god to hold you accountable is better than following a religion simply to enforce your morals or "stay on track" like many people do Pride in your own ability to do good without needing to flaunt it or think you are above others can bring happiness to yourself and them Most people either lean way too far into reason and become cold or lean way to far into morality and become irrational, the ability to mix both and weigh morality while acting as if others are above you simply to be nice without the need of an outside source to motivate you is an important skill that nearly noone has, and the ability to use knowledge of how your own mind and personality works to trick your brain into giving dopamine for tasks that bring you nothing material is also an integral skill, when you can trick your subconscious into wanting the same thing as your conscious, you have control over your emotions and get a free source of motivation to do anything you want, even if it would logically be a cost to you
An atheist can be moral, but an atheist cannot justify their moral standard. If there is no objective standard for morality then right and wrong are just a matter of preference. Saying "I prefer living in a society without murder." is no different from saying "I prefer eating ice cream for dessert." but a preference is not a justification. Atheists will tend to go one of two ways from here. Either 1. the appeal to consensus or 2. the appeal to harm theory. The appeal to consensus is when atheists argue that whatever the majority of people agree on is correct. If you can't see how this standard fails then there probably isn't much hope for you, this is obviously incorrect. Just because the majority of people agree on something doesn't mean they're correct. The appeal to harm theory might seem good but ultimately fails as well. If you say "Murder is wrong because you're harming another person." then all I have to do is take skepticism to its logical conclusion in order to debunk this. I'll play Hume and ask in response "Ok, who determines what harm is and why is harming people bad?" All I have do is keep asking "Why?" to every single response because there is not justifiable response. Another thing atheists will do is appeal to evolution, which isn't really an argument. An explanation of how something came to be is not an epistemological justification for how we know it to be correct or why we ought to adhere to it.
Her second approach (that of the vicious use of "why?") fails, for she will end up falling into the denial of a statement treated as self-evident. In fact, his second approach can be used against any kind of argumentation and always ending in disagreement with argumentative implications or disagreement with basic premises (in short, his "why?" masks a judgment).
@@martasilva8036 So you believe in self evident truths? Explain to me how murder being bad is self evident. No, stating "why?" over and over is not a judgement. I'm just playing the ultimate skeptic like David Hume.
@@Nick-ij5nt If you do not believe that there is at least one evident truth, any and all argumentation in favor of any conclusion is defeated by principle, and you are even distant from the discussion of the video. Although the claim that murder is wrong cannot be an evident claim in itself, there are more basic axioms that can lead to this conclusion. One of the criticisms made to Hume's "final skeptic" is precisely the fact that it implies a statement about the nature of reasoning (which can also be challenged with the "why?").
@@martasilva8036 So you believe that self evident truths are a necessary precondition for all world views? How do you know this to be the case? I think you're trying to argue because of the impossibility of the contrary, but I'd like for you justify that. Which axioms can justify why murder is wrong and why should I adhere to them? Exactly, but that's an argument in favor of my position. The fact that you can use Hume's skepticism to destroy his own argument shows that it's ultimately absurd. But I can still use Hume as an internal critique of your position in order to expose the flaws in your world view. You still haven't addresses the crux of my argument which is the is-ought dilemma. How do you justifiably derive an ought from an is within an atheist paradigm?
@@Nick-ij5nt I thought this was clear, but Hume's approach is self-defeating. Ultimately, regardless of the context for using his approach, it's not a hurdle here. Whether it's justifying a duty in an atheistic paradigm or justifying a duty in a theistic paradigm, his approach can be used in both 'ad infinitum' so that it doesn't favor any of the scenarios. It's merely a problematic (counterproductive) issue about the nature of reasoning. If you don't grasp this, your situation is complicated.
@@gibbobux1033 That was exactly my point - atheistic bolshevics /mostly of other than slavic ethnicity) had no connections to religious prosecution. Their atheistic prosecution has been terrifying and no fun all the same.
@@gibbobux1033 What I am trying to say that yours: "Crazy atheist = funny Crazy religious person = terrifying" is nonsence. You can have crazy religious persons as well as crazy atheist not funny at all.
Three books that might be of help 'the sociology of religion' , 'religion and capitalism' and 'the protestant ethic'. All fairy old books, some of the content may not even be relevant to todays perspectives, but they are helpful.
My idea of objectively morality is that things are morally right if they improve “your” quality of life. However I’m using an objective your, so it’s you as though you could be any person alive, dead or unborn at any point in history or the future. The idea is that anyone could reach this conclusion on their own and it follows what I think is a very simple train of logic. Every single person in the world can easily think to themself that they would like to have a good life, however every person also can see that other people exist and realize that they didn’t do anything to be born as them rather than any of the other people that exist (even if you don’t believe other people exist you still haven’t done anything to exist in your perspective rather than any other perspective), this means that to truly be objective you would need to acknowledge that you could be anyone and realize that if everyone behaved in a way consistent with this, then your life would be better.
As an atheist leaning agnostic I used to agree with the argument that if you’re moral out of fear of punishment you’re not actually moral just acting selfishly. But as I see certain groups attacking all values I’m now more inclined to believe the religious person that I as a moral atheist only have those morals for having been raised in a Christian culture and the further removed we get from that the more we lose a basis for any morals at all.
In fact goodness for fear of divine retribution isn't goodness or morality at all. Morality can co-exist with religion but the later isn't the origin. Morality originates from the sublime perception that we're all humans or in the case of animals living feeling things with a right to exist and suffer the same existence that is hunger, illness and death. In being thrown into a harsh world we are at times rivals but also brothers and sisters. What yo do unto others you do to your equals.
When we say morals come from God, we don't mean you need to believe in God to know morals, or your need to read the Bible. We simply mean that if God does not exist, then morals would not exist.
A few points; - Objective morality does not exist and is a non issue perpetuated by Theists. I urge all Atheists to stop taking the bait and stop arguing about it. If human secularism is subject to us, any Christian morality is subject to God. It’s ALL subjective. It’s just a matter of who’s personal opinions we’re talking about - ours or God’s. - Commandment is not a “moral”. It’s a command. It’s place inside of right/wrong isn’t defined simply by God commanding it. And, if it’s argued that it IS the case, then (as was mentioned in the video) you’ve essentially stepped away from the figurehead (the “Law Giver”), pointed back at him and said, “oh yeah, that’s “right’…which of course then bring Euthyphro into the picture… - Well Being is a force of nature and undeniable. It’s the PERFECT foundation for a moral system.
Many of your videos are well explained and easier to consume. Perhaps the limits of my language skills are showing again because I struggled to fully understand this one.
Of course "atheists" can be good. At everyones core there is the loving awareness that we truly are. All connected. The human stories, the persona, the flesh/mind keeps you from feeling this. You are not your name, job title, country. You are aware that those labels have been added to you. The real question is why are we in the flesh? Why don't we remember who we are? Who benefits from that? Once you have an idea of the answers to those questions, your whole life and understanding of what life is will change.
Where did Reverend Jim Jones of People's Temple get his morals from? Every individual who comes into existence has the potential for compassionate and horrific behaviour. An infinite possible range of circumstances will determine when we behave one way or the other.
I'd argue that the concept of personal salvation can lead to immoral acts because the weight and consequences of those actions can be minimized in the mind of a man who has "already" been saved.
Good point. Goodness really depends from the one who defines it. If there is no goodness ideal / standard / template: There is nothing to compare yourself to. In that regard you see yourself as one who is better, with better self-control, with better choices made throughout your life. In other words: You have relative morality, measuring to the average, to not stand out too much in debauchery. If there is more criminals among religious people: atheists are kings... or it only means that atheists are better in getting away with it, or it doesn't mean either of these things. Maybe looking into warped mirror: you won't see morality, (or immorality) of your deeds. If you put a collective (atheists) into room full of warped mirrors: You won't be closer to the truth of the matter. Christians have another template to measure against: Life of Christ, and his Saints. Such a comparison offers true visions of our lacks in the same way like when we compare ourselves with heroes who jump into burning building to rescue a child. We see that such a person had a superior courage, and if we are honest we arrive at a conclusion that it's unlikely that we would do that. We wish we could, but would we? We doubt, we bow our head and thank God that we could see hero in action, that he somehow did this. Saints of the early Christianity, who died for what they saw to be the truth offer us one of the dimensions of the comparison, but there are those who although uneducated exemplified heroic virtues of the highest kind, led simple life, but were as beacons of light, like athletes crushing world record, showing that it's possible. Belief in a god, or lack there of doesn't not cause us to be instantly good, but believe in the God may offer us a way, trajectory to start the race against ourselves, world, and evil. The fact that people ask the question about "goodness", or "morality" of one side, or the other point that there has to be a standard, that there is something higher. Some of the conclusions point to "no man is perfect", and that we fail miserably when we compare ourself to brilliancy of the perfect life. Now, we can compare number of criminals (percentage wise), or number of completely average people... but I think it's a wrong way to do it. I would rather point to Saints, and look for equivalents of such people in atheistic world view. It's not about slightly better, or worse average personal moral achievements within a specific group, but about the fact that this specific group produces moral gold-medalists.
I can’t say atheist are bad, they’re just not too swift! It’s actually far more insane to believe this all happened by chance than to KNOW that there is something far more intelligent behind it all. It’s mathematical IMPOSSIBLE that this happened on its own.
Naturalistic empiricism is also based on a metaphysical assumptions much like morality. One of its fundamental axioms, that what cannot be proven is false, is itself unprovable and therefore self-contradictory. This isn’t to say that empiricism is bad or useless. It very clearly is a very good epistemology that has built much of the world around us. But rather that it’s important to understand that these epistemologies are axiomatic systems and, as was proven by gödel’s incompleteness theorem, these systems are inherently imperfect, as any system that can justify and prove its own axioms must also be contradictory. Reasoning is only structured by these systems and not generated as a product of them (see how mathematicians create axioms for a better idea of what I’m talking about). Similarly, people already have an intuition about morality much like how people can intuitively understand the direct proof or proof by contradiction. From what I see, divergence only starts when the moral propositions get more complex. You absolutely could compile a bunch of moral axioms that you could use to construct a system. With more complex propositions e.g. ‘is it wrong to kill people who disagree with you’ and moral concepts e.g. deontology and teleology they can be reduced to these more fundamental axioms through inquiry about the motivations behind the diverging opinions.
The idea of Lucifer is quite interesting. Let’s say this if Lucifer does indeed exist then why would a “Good God” permit such a being to interact with his creation? Why not snuff him out or destroy him? Unless god Knew that he would fall and temp people away from God so God has justification to destroy or send people to hell! And since god is all knowing he knew who he wanted to destroy or get rid off so in conclusion humanity has no free will only God’s will! See how bad that is? God made Lucifer so people would be tempted and God could destroy them with the justification that they had “turned away”
I think ethics and morals exist as an extension of disharmony within people. It is a lacking of what could be harmonious when some believe is an extension of it. You can't achieve full peace at any point of living because you have the ability to fall out of it. True peace is when you rest in peace, pun intended.
In Christianity, God changed a lot between the Old and New Testament What if there is a city of gods? Assuming there is a god, then they must come from somewhere. If they come from somewhere, then where? Notice: God noticeably changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Hypothesis: God comes from a city of gods Implications: - God replaced after being immoral? - God had to make changes after new laws came into place making them have to become more hands off? - God was dying and wanted to leave us with better morals? - Multiple gods control our universe? - - Multiple religions - - Council of gods - - Council split up making Catholics, Christians, Illslams, and Jews - - Other gods in Hindu - - Known in ancient times (Romans, Greek, Egyptian, etc.) Interpretation: Too many possibilities and no way to prove them, Reject them. If you can't prove it true or false because you can't see it or interact with it or be interacted with it, all while staying alive, then it would be the same if it wasn't there. Therefore, why believe in it? Any of it.
This video reminds me of a little loop a buddy of mine and I would go through in high-school when we talked about theology. And it always started with two statements he would make. "Without objective morality, society would fall apart." And "There's no reason that Evolution would result in Morality." He didn't understand that these points refute each other. If society can not function without objective morality, then it's evolutionarily beneficial to develop. If it's not possible to develop objective morality, then a species wouldn't evolve to require it. It's basically like saying "well you can't have a chicken without an egg first, and you can't lay an egg without a chicken." And concluding that God did it
bible says everyone has a conscience. believer or non. that is the law written on the heart that you will be judged by, even if u deny a deity. u know its wrong to lie, murder, steal, cheat on your wife etc. everyone knows.
_Existential_ good, in the broadest sense, is well-being, which is experienced as positive valence states in sentient subjects. The more specific sense of _moral_ good is positive valences in the domain of interpersonal motives and the choices generated from them. Ethical right & wrong are defined by the _Principle of Reciprocity,_ which is the normative analogue to the descriptive _Law of Identity._ Below, I'll lay out argumentation logically demonstrating the bases of objective morality: *P1* - The existence of sentient subjects is an objective reality. *P2* - As real entities, subjects have properties inherent to them which may be objectively known and explicated. *P3* - Among the properties of sentience is the inherent capacity to have interests, which may be harmed or benefited. *P4* - This dichotomy of benefit & harm is the ontological basis of intrasubjective normativity, as it entails existential conditions such as "good/bad" and "better/worse" defining what's preferable or non-preferable for a given subject. *P5* - The property of inhering interests further entails that subjects as entities are ultimate ends. *P6* - There exist a multiplicity of distinct subjects with their own interests which may align or conflict with one another, entailing an intersubjective landscape for them to navigate which broadly coincides with the domain we call "morality". *P7* - Subjects are liable to have motive dispositions which generally incline them towards wanting to benefit the interests of others or harm them, entailing that subjects may themselves have normative value of an intersubjective nature, defining their worth as moral ends. *P8* - The concept generally referred to as "justice" entails reciprocity (i.e. commentsurate responsivity) in the intersubjective domain, with impartial and equitable judgments in such matters constituting an objective approach to it. *P9* - The equitable distribution of justice inevitably promotes general intersubjective well-being, in that it reinforces benevolent interpersonal choices & subjects while simultaneously punishing malevolent choices & subjects. *C* - Given the objective reality of sentient subjects, the inherent normative properties of their existence, and the possibility of making epistemologically objective assessments of such normative conditions _(which includes the matter of reciprocity in the intersubjective domain)_ it stands to reason that impartial, existential justice is definitionally the objective basis of natural rights.
@@rageofheaven Yes. Being a purposeful, goal-seeking agent with its own interests necessarily entails being an end. The quality of core motivations a subject operates from determines their existential value as an end.
"P8 - The concept generally referred to as "justice" entails reciprocity (i.e. commentsurate responsivity) in the intersubjective domain, with impartial and equitable judgments in such matters constituting an objective approach to it." And also no. I don't know what legal system you're speaking about, but equality did not come about in any objective manner.
@@rageofheaven All intents and purposes are necessarily in the service of intentional, purposeful agents. Definitionally, sentient agents are _literally_ the ultimate source and end of every purpose.
Something i try to live by instead of just arbitrary sin rules are these questions: 1. Does this have a positive impact on me? 2. Does it have a positive impact on everyone else?
You're answering the wrong question, dear friend. I would argue that the first moral code, written and manifested long before the Greek philosophers, came from Moses. All other manifestations were derivatives or further episodes (Old Testament, Koran). Ultimately, it's about the timeless and objective distinction between good and evil, moral right and wrong. 2+2=4 was, should, and will continue to exist forever. At some point, atheists will no longer be able to distinguish between the two if they move too far away from the culturally established religious life. EXAMPLE: You have the choice to get on an atheist boat or one where everyone believes in God. All other parameters remain the same and your life will be put to the test, with the high probability that you will die at sea. Who is more likely to eat each other up or lose hope? Who will move mountains with just their faith?
2+2=4 has nothing to do morality. But funny you point to Moses andcthe Tenach/OT: Do you believe slavery, misogyny, stoning gays, genoc1de and r4ping virgin girls are (still) moral? All condoned and/or ordered by your god.
I like to look at logical reasoning and actually think for myself. Unlike most religious people i've met who will undoubtably give everything to their god based on some hallucination they had
Here is a phenomenological definition of goodness: Goodness is whatever a living being subjectively feels ought to exist, implying a need to act to bring it about whenever the opportunity arises. This definition is objectively true in the sense that it can be observed from our behavior in the material world. Since it's describing a phenomena which one can experience within one's self and see in others, the definition is not arbitrary. However, it is subjective in the sense that it provides no basis for a morality that everyone can agree upon.
I would be more inclined to respect the claim of moral goodness being synonymous with religiosity, if sincere and cynical spiritual beliefs alike do not serve as justification for incredibly immoral acts (slavery, genocide, et al) both in historical and contemporary contexts. When the spiritualist simultaneously claims Objective moral frameworks, while ignoring or re-writing elements of their own holy texts and the history of their ingroup, that fail their own current moral standards, they have surrendered all intellectual and philosophical credibility. Those who maintain philosophical continuity with their predecessors, attempting to claim that the harm they cause is instead a moral goodness, are equally non-credible.
I always ask my friends: " when there are not legal or security autjorities around, do you usually commit crimes?". The point shouldn't revolve around the morality itself ( and the effort to turn it perfect or superior) but the level of comprenhension oneself may have to display to be moral. In this way even an ordinary dude may be superior to saints and pholosophers. Even the common sense may turn useful, in case of need. It's not the the law that makes us innocent or good, but our respect of laws. Criminals may be christian and still may kill. Their behaviour shows their unavoidable hypocrisy (or incoherence).Then the question may be: " is it always moral to respect an unjust law?".
I want to know the truth not just believe what people think is good for society. How can we make competent decisions on anything without first finding the truth?
The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/unsolicitedadvice05241
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS:
If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE.
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
CLARIFICATION: Just in case I did not make it clear in the video, I am massively simplifying the literature around pro-social behaviour and religiosity. As I said in meta-analyses there is a slight correlation but a lot of what I looked at suggested we should be careful about blowing the effect out of proportion or saying that atheists are necessarily more anti-social. There is a complex relationship here that is difficult to summarise in a few minutes.
Not sure about some of the arguments. It would depend on the definition of God with respect to your section on "morality needs God". If God were defined as the ultimate good in the universe, or a "maximal good being". Then it follows that God would already know what is moral, that the definition of moral would then be static. If the definitions of moral are not static, then God is not maximal (as morality would then have superseded God), and would not be God. The contrapositive implication is that morality cannot exist from a material world view. Only dualism or idealism can solve for morality. Not atheism (materialism). The atheist must argue for materialism, and ultimately the idea that morals are constructed, or at the very least epiphenomenal.
Yr proof J e s u s energy wash Enjoy ✨
I am curious on your perspective of Alan Watts…
Carl Watts is a man who grasped for redemption when it was far far too late. His mind might change, but his crimes will always remain. The only strange things about the story is why did he willingly confess? This is a question that cannot be answered materially if I understand the point of your question correctly. In any case a man is subject to morality. And he has been deemed a criminal. And our laws do not come from material necessity. We do not marvel when a lion kills his cub. The lion is an animal. But a man is held to a moral law. Such action not only makes him worthy of prison, but even Carl Watts' own mind cried out against him for justice.
@@leocilliers4346 ALTHOUGH I LOVE THIS INTERPRETATION, I MEANT ALAN WATTS IM SO SORRY YOU HAD TO WRITE THAT💀💀
As a religious person, atheists offer a very important lesson to believers BECAUSE of their morals. It shows us that these people, despite believing in no higher power, no greater cosmic judgement, still choose to be good simply for the sake of being good. They have morals when no morals are technically enforced on them from a divine being from their viewpoint. And that's whats so important to learn. The ability to be a good human simply for the sake of being a good human.
👏
Is that how you describe the atheist treatment of the palestinians? Choosing to be good by supporting genocide?
One thing I've always wondered about, and i apologize in advance if this is a bad question, what do theists think about evil theists? If a priest turns out to diddle kids, do Christians think the priest wasn't a believer in the first place?
It just seems absurd to me that someone thinks god is always watching, and still decides to do things they'd never imagine doing in plain view of, say, their own father.
Being a good human is its own reward. It feels good and makes one happy to be good. Morality is a choice in my absurdist atheistic worldview.
Believing is like an application. No one who does not apply will get the job, but not everyone who does will get him eather. @@BryanReggie
"Character is what you do when no one is watching" This quote has helped to be more mindful and considerate to live in a way that wouldn't cause harm.
So are my masturbatory activities actually a character building exercise? LOL
Yours is one of the only channels that both theists and atheists can watch without feeling attacked for their beliefs.
There are plenty
I feel attacked by his looks. He's so pretty is very distracting!
Beliefs? Between a theist and atheist, there is only one belief and one lack there of my dude.
@@aaronvoxous7806 lack of belief in a God is also a belief
@@الحمدلله101 my guy, please explain, how a lack of belief, is a belief. Currently your statement is a contradiction.
As an atheist myself I recognize the social and "spriritual" function of god in a civil society. People do need to know why historically and in modern times religion/spirituality is important. It is man's sense of purpose made manifest.
Marx told everyone about its function. They just refused to and still refuse to listen.
There is nothing more ironic than atheist knowing the important of things and then proudly reject it. The stupidity is truly astonishing to see.
@@DJWESG1 Marx was biased and we've seen obvious indications that blind dogmatism extends beyond the scope of religion.
I agree and I am a catholic
@@Psyshimmer are you on your period?
As an orthodox christian i am looking forward to watch this video. It is nice to see more and more christian/god centered videos on your channel.
I disagree. Of all the fictions man has ever come up with, this one has been the most over-analysed. Let's try another one for diversity's sake.
@@Victor_Andrei You are on youtube not reddit.
@@skurt9109 shit, you're right. My bad.
@@Victor_Andrei No worries brother👍
@@Noname-lw6hp not religion as a whole, just this flavour of this version of this personification of the universe aka the Christian diety of Yahwe or however you're meant to spell it. I reckon a video on norse mythology could takle much the same lines of reasoning, but in a far more interesting manner perhaps!
this guy is one of the smartest people ive ever seen on this platform
At least he know how to look like one for sure
Sure, he is.
he isnt even he admits that
Yes, he is very smart and funny.
Ask him who he says that about
I'm learning English and I really appreciate that the video has subtitles, which makes me understand better. Good video :) 👍
I learned years ago that the Golden Rule exists, in some form, in every major religion in the world. Reflecting on that, I realized that it doesn't require a god to exist in order for it to be valid, because it's entirely about how one person relates to others.
It’s kinda what Kant’s categorical imperatives boils down to. The golden rule, although grounded a bit differently
"Exists in every major religion" - "doesn't require god". Sus
The golden rule does not exist in every major religious system.
Especially if you extend the idea to “replacement religions“ which tend to pop up in post Christian/antichristian societies like Nazi Germany, communist Russia, communist China, communist Cambodia etc.
Pre-Christian Viking and Germanic societies did not believe in the golden rule. Pre-Christian Greek and Roman societies did not believe in the golden rule.
Any resemblance to believing in a “golden rule” applied only to those within the tribal group and no one outside the tribal group.
When we talk about golden rule being applied universally, you are talking about the Judeo Christian tradition, as humans are considered to be a value and sacred because they’re all created equal in the image of God and our beloved of God.
The universality is what is different and what has led to modern western liberal Democratic Society.
@@mbmurphy777I think what they're saying is that there's a pattern.
@@alias_crouton2671 I agree that this pattern holds up for many traditional religions, but is mainly applicable to the people in that religious tradition, rather than universal.
I’m sure a lot of Muslims believe in the golden rule *for other Muslims*, not necessarily universally (with the exception of Sufi and other similar sects). Probably most Sunnis would not extend the golden rule to shia Muslims and vice versa.
I’m not sure about Hinduism. Historically they seem pretty chill, but the BNP is currently trying to re-organize Indian society along Hindu nationalist lines.
I suspect Buddhists are universalists in terms of the golden rule.
Then you look at atheist “religions“ like nationalism, Nazism, communism, and woke authoritarianism. These are all explicitly founded on the idea that people are not created equal (in other words, group or collective goals are more important than any particular individual) and that individuals are not worthy of dignity and respect, and are suitable to be used as a means to an end.
Judeo Christian ethics believe that all humans are created equal in the image of God ,and are beloved of God, therefore inherently sacred and worthy of dignity and respect, etc. That’s the Golden rule applies universally. The universality does come with the price that evangelists can be a little obnoxious because they’re always trying to convert everyone. But the United States has demonstrated that you can have a secular government modeled on Judeo Christian ethics… at least while the populace is mainly following Judeo Christian traditions. It’s unclear if that can continue without those traditions.
We saw what happened in Europe after dechristianization.
Malthusian ethics, social Darwinism, scientific racism, Nazism, communism, nationalism all superseded, or took the place formally held by the Judeo Christian ethics.
Wow, this was pretty great. I have spent much of my time since deconvertion wrestling with what morality is. You managed to sum up most of what I have found in this brief video.
Good job.
I'm Muslim and I enjoy your videos and perspectives. It's broaden my views about how other ppl understanding religions, the philosophy aspects in life
4:50 || I find this topic very interesting, especially since I'm from Scandinavia. I once did a report in sociology class on how religion impacts Danes and Americans, where the guy named Phil Zuckerman claimed that "The more you struggle, the easier you turn to religion" whereas I believe that to be true, seeing as we in Denmark have a welfare system that will catch us if we fall, unlike in the US where it's a "to each their own" kind of deal, where the government will not catch you if you fall.
Another thing Phil Zuckerman brought up was the fact that America, unlike Denmark, has state and church separately, meaning the churches funds themselves, while in Denmark we have the state funding our churches. But for some reason, despite the churches being funded by the government, Denmark still manages to be the least religious country in the world (as far as I'm concerned), whereas it would make more sense if we were more religious since church is accessible for everyone (I hope that made sense). In short: Because we know the government will help us if we're in need, we don't feel the need to rely on religion or pray. Me personally, I'm atheist.
I read the title and I knew it was about the brothers Karamazov, it's such a great book honestly and your take on the thesis and arguments seemed all impartial enough that I believe both an atheist and a religious person can enjoy this video
It’s easy to be moral when you are afraid of something unseen. That’s the basis of religion. But real morality is being moral for the sake of it, knowing that nobody is judging you or holding you accountable for anything. That’s when your true self can be seen
A "tru self" rised in a a... Religios family? Of course you will be a nornal dude, cause soceity has values iven if you dont belive in them deeply
Obviosuly if a soceity has a certain values, you don't want to go gaints that
But libertinage and lack of virtue end in the same garbge, literally look "good people" with "modern values", total barbarians or idiots with good intentions
Vegans, pro palestine lol, feminists, corrput OnG
Lot of these groupes openly laic, atbeist or "" beliveers""" but there are no values
Thia video is good, but is just the theory, in practice things are always different, an human morals can decay beliver or not
Sorry if my english is not that good
Personally, as a religious person. And wanting to give a different view point. I think that argument falls apart when you consider the idea of what is morality.
@@josephfox514 Why is that? Being good for the sake of being good isn't morality? That's the purest form of morality there is in my opinion.
@theultimategodofgaming3200 As I was taught by my religion, morality is a character in a book who does the better thing in a hard situation. And that the ultimate goal is Christ to become like Christ in the ways of self-sacrificing.
However, when your goal is to be good and do good. How do you know your doing that? What's your example? What is the determining factor? How do you self-sacrifice and know that it is worth that effort?
And that is a legit question. What or who do you look for morals?
@@josephfox514 Morality does not necessarily mean self-sacrifice, it just means showing compassion. As another commenter said, our morality comes from our evolutionary instincts of compassion and cruelty. Compassion developed out of an evolutionary necessity, because of our nature as a social species. A society where people are fine with murdering each other whenever they feel like it isn't going to last very long. Cruelty is also necessary, however. It developed out of a desire to protect the in-group. If a predator or a rival tribe threatens your family, it makes sense to develop an instinct to eliminate that threat. In this way, we evolved to be compassionate towards our in-group, and cruel towards any out-groups. This benefited our survival in the past, but sadly this mentality has been hijacked by various totalitarian ideologies, many of which are religious ones. The only way we can move past this is if we start to see all of humanity as our in-group, and not just those belonging to our specific race, gender, religion, or any other identifying characteristics.
As an Agnostic, I just go with "Treat others how you want them to treat you"
Unfortunately, there is a lot of selfdestructing psychopaths out there - and they are also going by this.
@@alena-qu9vj
Lol and........ there are a lot of _"self destructing psychiopaths"_ out there even if your specific subjective God exists dear
@@trumpbellend6717 So??
@@alena-qu9vj
SO... many of them use your "God" as their moral reference standard dear. Indeed tell me, how could Adam or indeed mankind make moral choices without being able to differentiate good from evil ?? Without knowledge of right and wrong every moral "choice becomes meaningless, choice *A* no more valid than the diametrically opposed choice *B*
And yet ...... dispite Gods foreknowledge of this he still decided to deny Adam and Eve this knowledge and to punish not only them for gaining this knowledge but also their descendants ?? 🤪 how utterly absurd and immoral!!
We have names for people who do not know how to differentiate right from wrong and we lock such people up in concrete boxes or execute them. Yet this is how your "God" wanted mankind to be (and we would still be if not for the Serpent) and you think him a perfect moral reference standard 😂😅🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@trumpbellend6717 Have no idea how your lecture relates to what I remarked and honestly have no interest to find out.
I think that morals evolved as we became more dependent on staying in a group to survive so this is something that’s been with us for millions of years
I have thought of 3 semi-good ways of getting around the is-ought logical fallacy:
1. It appears that only living beings have the experience of goodness. It is their experience of goodness that causes them to behave in the way they do. Therefore, it stands to reason that if we want our morality to have an effect on the material world, it must deal with prescriptions for the behavior of living beings.
2. Any existing thing which destroys itself more than it propagates itself ceases to exist. This applies to all things: stars, animals, and morals, etc. In the case of inanimate objects like stars, they do not directly spawn from one another (at least not consistently), but the same underlying process produces them. In the case of living beings, they spawn from similar living beings who came first. Morality is like a living being in this respect. The morals that are best at propagating themselves will endure. If we care about our morality being widely adopted, it must be structured in such a way that it is good at spreading and maintaining itself.
3. It feels good to feel good, and we are motivated to do those things that feel good. Therefore, if something is good to do, it is good to feel good while doing it, so that it can be done more often.
These are only semi-good ways of getting around the is-ought fallacy, because they still require moral suppositions. The first requires the moral supposition that we care about our morality having a material effect on the world. The second requires that we do not want our morality to be successful rather than to destroy itself. The third requires that we care about doing good things (although this seems to come from the definition of goodness itself). But they are not entirely weak either, because the first is based on sensory observation, the second is based on logic, and the third is based on our experience of what goodness means. This is not a coincidence, because my metaphysics (based on phenomenology) treat sensory information (the basis of facts), logic, and values, as elements of faith from which we build ALL of our other experiences.
So, the correct morality according to this line of thought is prescriptions for living beings which will tend to spread the morality that they practice (and also the living beings themselves, if that was useful for spreading the morality), that feels good to those who practice it.
This fits in nicely with my other moral view that all existing things are good. In order for living beings and things that act like living beings (such as morals) to exist, they must struggle to act in their own interests. So, it is in the nature of morality to prescribe actions that allow morality to exist.
I have written books about this kind of stuff, but so far failed to get more than just a couple people to read even the first page.
I don't quite agree with that, morality is fundamentally a matter of what is true, and not all truth is material in nature. it doesn't just exist inside us, it extend beyond our own perception, otherwise morality would be no different than opinion.
for example, kindness, compassion, patience, humility. These are all good qualities regardless of your perception. Logic and reasoning isn't material either and yet we know it has rules and exists outside our own perception.
envying, jealousy, greed, hating each other, lying. These are bad qualities regardless of your perception.
being good doesn't always mean benefiting ourselves but being bad will always lead to someone getting hurt, even if the actions makes you feel good.
Why is kindness an objectively good quality? Just curious. @@justiceiria869
@@justiceiria869 "or example, kindness, compassion, patience, humility. These are all good qualities regardless of your perception. "
But without perception, those are just words. Values do not exist in a void.
"I don't quite agree with that, morality is fundamentally a matter of what is true, and not all truth is material in nature. it doesn't just exist inside us, it extend beyond our own perception, otherwise morality would be no different than opinion."
....morality is very much an opinion. enough people and you have a societal norm. these change with shifts in ideologies, due to cultural changes over time.
"I have written books about this kind of stuff, but so far failed to get more than just a couple people to read even the first page."
Perhaps philosophy doesn't offer people anything to act rational. Or threaten them apparently.
@@rageofheaven you can't tell me i am wrong if morality is "just an opinion".
If morality can shift by perception ,what is wrong can be right tomorrow and what is right can be wrong. Judgement becomes meaningless when everything is just an opinion.
You claim i am somehow wrong while at the same time telling me that morality is just an opinion. Don't you realise that this doesn't make sense?
You are basically saying that murder and stealing can be right if social norms shift. If someone told you this while taking your stuff and then murdering you. Are you going to agree with him if this was considered "the norm"?
"Show me one atom of good, one molecule of justice"
It's from Santahog
'Hogfather - Terry Pratchett'
To me something is evil/good like chocolate is poisonous for a dog's health. "Poison" doesn't describe some object, chocolate isn't intrinsically poisonous, but rather it's a description of a natural object's effect on a being's constitution. The poisonous aspect "supervenes" over the chocolate.
In that sense I see wrongness as something that supervenes over an action that negatively effects ones character and constitution.
You never can say that some action has negative effects only in our dual relative reality. You learn most (positive effect) from actions which originally might have effected you negatively.
It’s not actually the chocolate that is bad for dogs it’s the caffeine in chocolate thats bad for dogs however caffeine is bad for humans as well.
I take a position similar to Sam Harris: love is logical and science allows us to act better aligned with our ethics along with its continued advancement. Because through scientific discoveries we find cures to alleviate suffering, we invent tools to protect life, to have better food, etc.
It's also because we love as most are chemically wired(please don't get pedantic about my wording here), unless you have a condition like psychopathy, we gravitate towards care and kindness. Though this comes in different forms, it is similar in how we react to others. We share and offer food. We respond to sadness, we feel when another is lonely. These things, as wired into us are natural occurences. We are ethically inclined to love and care. Gods are not necessary for this
It was pleasant to read :) I just think God is creator of those rules, which makes them visible to all, believers or not. Being good wins in the long term.
it's my basic understanding that everyone is born an atheist then some are taught to believe because that is how their moral framework is given.
as an atheist my moral lessons came in the forms of real world applications from my parents, for example don't hurt others because you yourself wouldn't like being hurt and so on, if i would punch my dad he would grab me and pinch me very hard so it hurt real bad and made the logical connection for me that what i was doing was hurtful and so what i disliked being done to me i did not do to others.
and with time there was more difficult questions being asked and so i had to dive deep into logic behind these basic statements that i was taught in order to form new logical reasoning to these difficult morality questions. which i just sum up to self preservation as in survival and societal good as in survival. my survival and everyone elses survival and finding the line of where is too cautious and where is too reckless.
Okay, but what happens to your morality if you grow up in a violent society. Without an appeal to a source of objective morality, you’re more likely to swept away in the chaos.
@@DesOttsel self preservation is still there, it's just not extended to anyone you don't value, meaning morality flies out the window at the first sign of trouble like it often does because you have very little moral framework if not properly established or followed.
incidentally this is why i think religion was first founded, when chief is away someone else has to be the arbiter and you can't let the person who has the most to say about it be the judge so they leave it to a power higher than them, namely a god.
but that's just my theory about it.
emotions overrule any morality or rationality we have and we are left with whatever mayhem we cause.
i'm sure you've heard the term crime of passion. this happens regardless no matter how moral a society becomes.
that's the fear of losing grip on morality in a world of humans, humans doing as their basic instincts tell them. showing us how little difference there is between us and animals.
you cant be born an atheist, atheists have a firm belief that there is no god, you cant have such concept when you're born.
@@DesOttsel "Okay, but what happens to your morality if you grow up in a violent society. Without an appeal to a source of objective morality, you’re more likely to swept away in the chaos."
Unless, of course, that source of morality was the primary contribution to the violence and chaos. Do schisms not exist amongst those whom claim what god wants or doesn't?
I was an atheist, I would say becoming an atheist is like a freeing experience at first, you see the world in a very sceptical and rational way and only examine people on how they behave with you. After sometime I felt I lost something to hold me together, it felt like I was falling piece by piece. Then I turned to God and now I have peace within me. I feel whole and I can improve and be better.
I fell down the meta-ethics rabbit hole a number of years ago, and from where I stand the problem is not whether atheists can be moral, but rather how we can continue to speak of ‘morality’ when we know that moral language has no inherent meaning. I can see how a religious person might use a god-entity as a kind of anchor, but this is a problem largely because a divine conception of morality cannot be expected to be in any way understandable or applicable to mortal beings.
I can never remember who wrote this (I think it was Ayer) but sometimes we have a word without anything to which it refers. We assume that there *must* be a referent - why else would we have the word? - but there is no reason why such a referent must exist. Morality is an example of this: areferential language.
I want to relate a story that actually happened to me several years ago. It is a little long, but it is an incredible story. I am a Christian and would be interested in your opinion as an atheist as to how this happened.
It was a very hot summer day; nearly one hundred degrees. My daughter and I took My son to a park where he was playing a soccer double-header. Two back-to-back games in extreme heat. Shortly before the end of the first game, my son ran out of Gatorade. He was borrowing sips from his teammates. (This was obviously pre-covid) At the end of the 2nd game he was "dying of thirst." I said, "Son I'll drive to the 7-11 down the street and get you a Gatorade. As we were pulling on to the freeway onramp, he said, "Dad, I thought you were going to get me some Gatorade." "I'm sorry, I forgot. I'll get off at the next offramp and get you some." As we were passing that offramp, someone in the car said, "I thought you were going to get off and get some Gatorade?" We kept passing offramps and remembering AFTER passing each one but could not remember in time to get off. We did that for seventeen miles. Finally, we pulled into our neighborhood, and I said, "I'm sorry son, we'll get you something to drink at home."
As I turned down the first street, I noticed a car up ahead, backing out of a driveway. He was about to run over a "Big Wheel." I little kids toy bike. It had two little wheels in the back and a big wheel in the front. There was no kid on the Big Wheel, so I didn't think much of it, UNTIL I noticed a small child UNDER the car about to be run over. I simultaneously, slammed on the brakes, ripped the door open and screamed as LOUD as I possibly could, "STOP, STOP, STOP." The driver heard my frantic screaming and stopped the car. I ran over to help the little kid. He was face down. The car had LITERALLY stopped two inches from his little head. He was perfectly lined up for the car to run over his head, then his neck and then his spine...
If we had just arrived at that time, you could say, "WOW! What a coincidence!" But that does NOT explain how we absolutely could not REMEMBER to get off at seventeen miles of offramps UNTIL we passed each one of them.
I believe God had different plans other than a senseless death at that tender age for the little kid, and along the way He bolstered our faith in Him.
You might say, "What about other kids who did get run over, or what about kids born with this or that disease. Why didn't God spare them?" God is God. He is All-knowing and All-powerful He does His will. AND He is infinitely more intelligent than we are. In this life we very well may not understand why things happen as they do, but God knows, and we just have to realize He still sits on the Throne and one day will rectify all the problems we face here on this sinful earth.
As an atheist I never understood why people need a reason to be "good". For me being good is the default not the exception.
you do not know what good is.
@@L1_L2to say that is unbelievably ignorant. It's appalling
@@lyrenbells you don’t know either.
@@L1_L2 I should clarify in saying that you don't as well is what I mean by my last comment. I never claimed to know
@@L1_L2 nobody knows because nobody *can* know
do you think religion is insignificant? edit: sorry for not clarifying, i was specifically referring to the abrahamic religions
I do not believe in god, but I really do understand that Religion is an exceptionally important part of human life. It had formed the basis for various traditions and festivals. It was a moral guiding force, a judgement for evil, a pastime, peaceful feeling, sense of belonging and so much more for so long.
Though I am an atheist myself. It is the understanding that different ideas can coexist that make the basis for modern science.
Yeah I know this question wasn't asked towards me but I just felt the need to clarify the massive significance of religion even in today's world.
@hemantjain2387 hi so sorry for not specifiying i was talking abt the abrahamic religions
"Believe" Is Important In Human Life.
Believe Is Not All About Religion Tho.
Country, Nationality, Law, Government, Even Money Is System Of Believe.
One Thing Human Can Held Stick Together is Believe. Believe In Tribe's, Believe In Religion, Believe In Nationality And Last But No least Is Money.
Nicely done 👍 Broad overview for the short format, brought in contemporary sources & props for philosophy of science and naturalistic fallacy mentions.
10:50 If i remember correctly, The Open Question argument isn't just for naturalism, but also supernaturalism. The question applies when ascribing good to a fact, natural or supernatural.
The reason you use skill share is the reason i watch your vudeo haha its something to watch or invest myself in that actually benifits my brain and time!
When I’m asked about where I base my morals without god I say that we have to have a tribe mentality to survive. Working together makes survival more likely. It’s that simple.
Very simple and elegant. But then they’ll say something like why is survival more favorable than not surviving without the epistemic foundation of a god or some such similar nonsense. They refuse the Brute facts of our evolutionarily driven morals.
@@apimpnamedslickback5936 ape together strong
CAESARRRRR!!!!!!
So, whatever morals the collective decides on that makes society work is good enough for you?
Something that throws everything about religions into confusion is the fact that there isn't proof that a biblical or other god is always truthful. The fact that god could exist and have inspired parts of the bible, but also have just lied about parts of it. The only evidence for god being truthful is his being good, which was also sourced solely from god himself. In fact, god could have just lied about being immortal and died years ago. Furthermore claiming you understand god enough to claim he is always truthful in what he says about himself and his morality would suggest that god is not beyond human understanding as many religious people believe.
lying is a sin, hebrew word being "khata", means to fail/achieve something, and that being God's standard. If God were to be able to "lie" then He would be against what He Himself said and would thus fail His own standard, but how is that possible if *He* created this standard. Along with this, how would a being that created time and space die when He isn't even *in* the confines of time and space like we are?
To me there's something strange and unsettling about people that behave in a moral way only because they are scared to be judged by a god. 😮
@hemantjain2387 I have personally talked to people that confirmed what I said in my opening post.
It's a bit of a dilemma. It's similar to how some people told me they love god because god commanded that they did. It's like love me or else.
@ulrichenevoldsen8371 I agree. It makes me wonder if religious people's goodness comes from a sincere place. Moreover, being good in order to secure a place in heaven is also unsettling.
Then you have misunderstood christianity.
@@skurt9109 I agree. But there is still a lot of people that have these beliefs. Misunderstood or not. But ok to be fair its not like I have talked to more than a few dusin people or so about this.
@@tevbuff yea. Maybe if you grow up with that sort of belief it's easy to adopt it yourself
This is the first time I've seen someone critique athiesm and theism in the same video lol. And I like your conclusion: Atheists are not intellectually consistent with their morality and their ideas. Each "solution" to morality presented by them sacrifices a key part of their preexisting morality, either the objectivity, of dichotomy, or of being self-proving. As a religious person, I find that my position is VERY comfortable in this regard--I'm interested in seeing atheists present a different system of morals in the future.
You are pronouncing every single syllable in a word; that is riveting to listen to.
Your videos are engaging. Having said so, let it be born into your mind that philosophy is in fact a personality-a closeted atheist- wanting to be out by not itself by its readers, learners, and followers, and in that case, it is YOU, as religions do. so it is the amalgamation of both notions as you are in your thinking tilting towards atheism.
I might be amiss; I am open to other notions.
Thank you for reading.
I was an atheist from 18 to 26, I was brought up in seventh day, Adventism and saw what any child could see that it was false. I am entering the Catholic Church in 2025 and I am totally head over heels for Catholic moral reasoning, and their conception of God. My atheism brought me to nihilism and hedonism pleasure was the highest good for me in practice, and when there was no pleasure, there was crippling depression. It took me years to understand my scientific materialism/empiricism was leading me to focus more on sex and what I could get from others rather than a higher purpose that transcends my desires. I am 29 now with very clear purpose and a desire to pick up my cross and suffer for those around me, even those who oppose me.
How did scientific materialism and empiricism lead to you focusing more on sex ?
I'm on a similar journey; interesting how so many people are finding that materialist reductionist worldviews inevitably evolve into nihilism.
@@Psyshimmer sometimes you gotta live it to know it 😅, I will guide my children better than I was guided 🙏🏾.
@@miguelatkinson in my experience, reducing everything to scientific raw facts made it so the moral landscape was something that was more relative and socially built. Where can you empirically find what is right and wrong? How do you measure that scientifically? My intuition told me if something was right or wrong but what if my intuitions were just molded by a social construction? That means they are not Absolute. This frame of mind personally allowed me to prioritize what felt best for me and in my relations with women it expressed itself in sexual pursuit. I wasn’t nearly as bad as some of my other friends, but I hurt a woman who I believed I loved dearly. But my worldview could not give me the ability to love in the truest sense. Not just emotions, not just affection, but transcendent and selfless love. I left Christianity because I thought there was no good reason to believe it, I came back because In my atheist materialism there was no reason to love and sacrifice for another. My atheism wasn’t an issue of intellect, it was an issue of moral decay and the corrupt will that followed.
@@Nrev973 you aere never an atheist, you were agnostic and when you saw you could use religion as a shield to do whatever you want to anybody you dont like you dodnt hesistate to use it to enact hate upon athers because you get off from it. I do not consent to your weird roleplay
What you said at 15:19 is important and many people don't know or overlook it , you can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time , just like you can beleive and be an agnostic , they aren't mutually exclusive . agnostism is about knowledge .
"naturalistic empiricists on paper sheets and moral spiritualists in messy streets." Excellent wording.
My unwitting search for answers in this area I have always fallen back on two things. The first is the oldest rule in every book and I believe is found in every religion around the world to some extent. Treat others the way you want to be treated. The other is a common belief of many Americans, and inspired by the spirit of the U.S. constitution, that you are free and should be free to do whatever you want as long as is does not cause harm to others.
I love your channel, and I feel it is extremely underrated.
On a tangent, when I heard you use this phrase, I immediately had a flashback to the late 90's or early 2000's when I was walking in a mall and I saw a shirt with two of the actors from the show the Golden Girls on it. The phrase written on it was "Dorothy in the streets and Blanche in the sheets." I still chuckle at its corniness.
Morality does not require god.. all it needs are feelings, empathy and suffering, those 3 elements that are naturally inherited by human beings in this cruel world will lead to morality as a byproduct.
Something immaterial, abstract and universal cannot be grounded in merely mortal men. You need Christ to justify morality. He is the Lawgiver with an All-knowing Mind that put a conscience into all of us, praising us when we do right and blaming us when we do evil.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy
What if I don't think morality is immaterial abstract and universal?
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy Shut up
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy morality does not exist outside humans, for it is a perceived tool granted by the bias of their beliefs, experiences and feelings.
it's very nature is subjective, and has been the cause of war and death.
but humans are also foolish enough to grant the status of something like the divine to a lowly cause such as morality.
alas, the pinnacle of human arrogance.. so that gods would order existence and life and structure it around morality, which is indeed blasphemy.
@@calebr7199 Well then you are stupid because you can't observe morality with your five senses. It's not an action, it's an ideal.
What about empathy and the need for external approval/validation? Couldn't they form the foundation of a natural moral system? They discourage you from harming others or even letting them get harmed, and encourage you to help people and make them happy.
Empathy is not an universal characteristic, and there are plenty of stories (fictional and real) where external validation was only found in groups like the KKK (for example) or criminal gangs.
Evolution has engraved all species with some version of social contract theory
This notion is very simple, for God sets what is wrong and right, therefore without God there can be no objective right or wrong; everything would be subjective. This is a problem because someone’s right would be the next’s wrong.
The people who wrote your holy book hade no truth so made one.
So slavery, misogyny, stoning gays, genoc1de and r4ping virgin girls are (still) moral?
All condoned and ordered by god.
@@KasperKatjeYou have no justification as to why that would be immoral. It's just your subjective opinion.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jyI do since I base my morals on wellbeing, empathy and human rights.
You have no justification to call them immoral if you believe god is unchanging and the source of objective morality.
@@KasperKatje Human rights don't exist. How do you justify knowledge of anything?
I think moral statements are compatible with a scientific/materialistic view of the world. A statement that God exists is supposing the existence of a literal being that we have no tangible sign of. A statement that something is wrong or immoral is an abstract summation of a series of observable events along with some baseline observations about what we as humans almost universally value. Thus we’re not more “spiritual in the streets” than we are on sheets. We’re just making statements that we understand on an intuitive level but can’t quite flesh out in language. A theist runs into all the exact same problems for all the exact same reasons. It’s just easy to think those problems went away when you kicked them up to God and stopped thinking about them.
YOU CLAIM: I think moral statements are compatible with a scientific/materialistic view of the world.
RESPONSE: TOTAL NONSENSE: “If we believe in nothing, if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance.” ― former High Priest of Atheism Albert Camus
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. AND THAT’S JUST TOO BAD? -- the current High Priest of Atheism Richard Dawkins.
No right, no wrong, nothing has any meaning, and nothing has any importance.
ITS ALL IN YOUR WIDDLE HEAD, and no one has a corner--except you--on your thoughts, and the person beside you. Under Atheism--there is no such thing as a Moral Statement. Its just molecules in motion, a chemical reaction, with no basis in "Morality," or reality.
Thing is, most people that define themselves as agnostic/atheist, only have to look back a generation or 2 for a devoutly religious family that passed down all the morals they take for granted.
Frankly I never had much time for Dostoyevsky... II much prefer Sir Terry Pratchett.
If a 'god' exists.... Then divine command makes anything permissible. All one needs do, is convince oneself 'god' commands it and... Bobs your uncle....
Oh and... 'Moral realism' as a philosophical paradigm (either robust or minimal)fails since it can't demonstrate its axioms without resorting to subjective experience.
(Edit... Just realised I previously commented on this video... But I'leave them both... What the hell)
Breathing is not allowed in this video
I know you focus on quality and accuracy a lot, but I’d love to just watch a video where you have no script and shoot from the hip.
Also just wanna say your content is great I’ve been watching like all your videos for the last month.
Maybe the best channel
One more for the algorithm.
I don't think there has ever been a purely atheist nation, especially not at their founding, so it would be hard to say what athiests would actually do without a culturally religious upbringing. Most athiests I've encountered seem to completely delete the fact that they grew up in the thick of a Christian society and fill the space with the idea that they exist in a vacuum and are untouched by outside influence which I think probably requires more faith than just being religious lol.
"Brief but potent existential crisis" bahahahahahahaha
Can confirm.
I'm glad I found your channel. Thanks so much.
hard to be moral when everyone is rotten
Which is why secular humanism is a joke. Human nature is inherently rotten
Which is why secular humanism is incorrect. It trusts far too much in human nature as being good.
No one ever said it was easy. If anything you have been provided the best opertunity to stand out as moral.
He who endures to the end shall be saved.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy Amen brother☦️
Uploading these videos is the ultimate moral good 💪
As an Atheist ( which in no way should be taken to mean I speak for all Atheists ), my moral line is established by harm.
If what I am thinking about doing could reasonably be expected to cause undue, unnecessary harm or hardship to someone else, then I clearly shouldn't do it.
If it won't cause undue harm or hardship to others and I feel a need to do it, I'll most likely do it.
Bottom line, for me: The potential for harm defines my morality.
This is ridicolus. I am an atheist but I believe that morality has an origin in nature. In parenthood, group evolution and symbiosis. Also, morality needs to be relative, and take into account the war and peace game, and the need to punish evil.
I should clarify I don't support the title statement. That's why I have put it in quotes :)
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Yes I know. I just got fired up because it is an argument you often hear from religious people.
I was wondering about this. If morality is simply a Natural habit in us, would it be alright if somebody rejected their own Nature? I mean, say Morality = a way of optimizing preserving the species. On what grounds does a person accept the preservation of species as something to protect? See this:
1) When you look at atoms or molecules moving around, say hydrogen ones, you don't say "Wow that's evil hydrogen" or good hydrogen. Atoms in motion are just atoms in motion.
2) Humans are just atoms in motion.
3) Therefore humans have no morality.
Why does morality need to be relative?
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 By the way, I am working on a project you might find interesting. I am trying to create an atheistic version of Christianity, that is based on the idea that Jesus Christ was a fictitious character created by Titus Flavius the roman emperor. This also means that Christianity is a true slave morality both in nature and purpose, as Nietzsche had half figured out. So to strengthen this Christianity and make it viable, we need to add an equal part of master morality and acceptance of violence, based on the War Peace game. This creates a duality of cooperative and competitive morality. The whole ide is to create a super-based form of atheism that is nothing like nihilism, and that also ties into Christianity. Jesus Christ is still a holy figure in this religion, because he shows us the way towards cooperative morality.
According to my atheistic religion, there is good and evil, based upon what we have chosen to be good and evil. Evil is lack of reciprocity and parasitism, and when someone does not allow others to be free. Freedom is a fundamental right, because without freedom, we cannot search for the truth. And if we cannot search for the truth, we cannot judge and create a better world
Here are some links. It is all work in progress, so all clips on my channel are unlisted:
ua-cam.com/video/VVGF723-Wdw/v-deo.html (there is a draft of my "Bible" in the description to this clip)
Morality definitely has an empirical feeling to it though, doesn't it? When you help someone, when your actions lead to someone being hurt, you feel those things appropriately as they happen. We could look at morality as a social contract when it doesnt fit into the "feelings" category 😅
Ex-atheist here. Recently became a believer. Back when I was an atheist a man once said to me that I was the "most Christian atheist" he had ever met.
Why did he say that?
Damn. They got you too huh? Sorry for your loss 😅
@@inquisitionagent9052 cringe
Taking practicallity over fact. Its a fair position nonetheless
According to science Either something IS good or bad IS completely subjective, as It IS a mechanism in our brain created because if millions of years of Evolution that mainly destroying, harming and other actions are bad as they can inderectly harm you or your close ones, that's a very important behavior as if we wouldn't have it, we would harm each other without caring and the species would go extint.
it's not that you have no morals yourselves, but you have no basis for any such morality. If survival of the fittest is the truth of the universe, by what right do you complain if a stronger man takes what is yours because you are too weak to stop him? If i'm angry and my will to hurt you and your loved ones is stronger than your will to not let me do that, that's just the way it is. It might be subjectively bad for you, but what does that matter? Doing it made me happy. Oh you want laws and rules because you want to live in a society? Why? Why is that good? Why is anything good? What if someone prefers chaos? What if someone hates society?
Then your only rights are the ones you can defend with force. That a world you want to live in? Why not?
Yet you do have an inherent sense of good and evil. Isnt that illogical? Where do you suppose it comes from? Selfishness? That's not a great moral framework for all the reasons i said above.
Survival of the fittest is not (solely) about the strongest, it's about the best adapted.
And even more detailed: it's about the species, not the individual.
So morality is an evolutionary trait to enhance our survival, part of survival of the fittest.
Just as our lange brain and being social animals because of safety in numbers.
@@KasperKatje Do you or have you eaten your children? Because evolution evolved that morality for a shocking number of species. You are no more evolved than all of histories greatest conquerors and monsters. Your morals did not evolve from them, they are a social construct. One with no basis in nature.
By what metric do you gauge eating a baby to be wrong? Certainly not a natural one.
I honestly believe that morality is not an objective and tangible thing, but rather a human projection that varies not only from person to person, but also from society and time period. Of course this does not make morality useless or worthless in the slightest, but makes it human. That's why you should not go against your morals, it is like going against your humanity, it would only cause suffering and complications, not only for others but for you as well. Of course there are exceptions to this (sociopaths, psichopaths etcetara), but they really are only exceptions, most people want order, and they want to do what's more suitable not only for them, but for others as well.
Honestly, motality is a balancing act between 3 things: desire, practicality, and truth/fact/logic/etc ( how things can reasonably be desribed as accurate and real). The first thing is deciding which should take priority, as each have benefits and detraments. desire often conflicts with truth, as our brains often try to simplify and exagerate and fantasise things ultimately leading to falsehood. Practicality is often highly restrictive to desirability, and sometimes to truth, for the sake of stability and cohesion, which would leave miserable and clueless but practical/ efficient to the given goal induviduals in its wake. Truth can be great for understanding and advancement, but will involve undesirable and destabilising practices and discoveries by its very persuit as well.
*"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told....*
*Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right"*
Bingo!
Completely inaccurate, there is no objective morality without God
@@mcfloridaman2192 There is no objective morality with god either, that would merely make god the subject....
and it would be dependent on your subjective opinion that it's moral to do what god says
very well said
@@antve1618 depends on your objective/persuit
The man I consider as the best teacher I've ever had is an atheist, I recall asking him: "you don't believe in God, but you are very kind and selfless, what motivates you and what prevents you from harming others?" He chuckled and said "there's a golden rule for everyone, do to others what you'd like done to you". How more religious can be possibly be?
Hi Okon Albert, He was not being religious; he was being a Humanist. Confucius derived the Golden Rule too and he was a secular humanist and not a theist and he derived it from observing human behaviour as it pertained to social living. Humans are a social species by necessity. The necessity of social living is not an opinion, it’s an observed fact. And it’s how we get an ought from an is, and ground moral obligation on a non-optional reason, something theism can’t do.
The is/ought problem David Hume was talking about is a “system of morality” ie how we behave towards other people. However, David Hume did not say it was impossible to get an ought from an is. He said it couldn't be done with the moral systems he was familiar with, which he had “hitherto met with”, namely Western philosophy with its theist/deist backgrounds. Hume was not familiar with Eastern secular thought on moral obligation and moral values as at that time, unlike us, he could not go into a bookshop in England or Scotland and buy the translated works of the Confucianists, Taoists and Buddhists. That wouldn’t happen until after he died. Though there is circumstantial evidence that he had awareness of some Buddhist ideas obtained from talking to the Jesuits he socialised with in France while writing his Treatise.
Over 2,000 years before Hume put forward the is/ought issue, the Confucianists had an answer as their secular humanist worldview did not have an is/ought problem as they didn't have the crushing baggage of Western theism.
The Confucianists effectively said - social living is necessary therefore we ought to follow the rules of social living, rules we know as the commonly held moral values encompassed in the Golden Rule, which Confucius put as Don't do to others what you don't want done to you. Morality is not a solo gig, it’s about the group.
The necessity of social living is not an opinion, it’s an observed fact. And it’s how we get an ought from an is, and ground moral obligation.
I believe being a good person without needing a god to hold you accountable is better than following a religion simply to enforce your morals or "stay on track" like many people do
Pride in your own ability to do good without needing to flaunt it or think you are above others can bring happiness to yourself and them
Most people either lean way too far into reason and become cold or lean way to far into morality and become irrational, the ability to mix both and weigh morality while acting as if others are above you simply to be nice without the need of an outside source to motivate you is an important skill that nearly noone has, and the ability to use knowledge of how your own mind and personality works to trick your brain into giving dopamine for tasks that bring you nothing material is also an integral skill, when you can trick your subconscious into wanting the same thing as your conscious, you have control over your emotions and get a free source of motivation to do anything you want, even if it would logically be a cost to you
An atheist can be moral, but an atheist cannot justify their moral standard. If there is no objective standard for morality then right and wrong are just a matter of preference. Saying "I prefer living in a society without murder." is no different from saying "I prefer eating ice cream for dessert." but a preference is not a justification. Atheists will tend to go one of two ways from here. Either 1. the appeal to consensus or 2. the appeal to harm theory.
The appeal to consensus is when atheists argue that whatever the majority of people agree on is correct. If you can't see how this standard fails then there probably isn't much hope for you, this is obviously incorrect. Just because the majority of people agree on something doesn't mean they're correct.
The appeal to harm theory might seem good but ultimately fails as well. If you say "Murder is wrong because you're harming another person." then all I have to do is take skepticism to its logical conclusion in order to debunk this. I'll play Hume and ask in response "Ok, who determines what harm is and why is harming people bad?" All I have do is keep asking "Why?" to every single response because there is not justifiable response.
Another thing atheists will do is appeal to evolution, which isn't really an argument. An explanation of how something came to be is not an epistemological justification for how we know it to be correct or why we ought to adhere to it.
Her second approach (that of the vicious use of "why?") fails, for she will end up falling into the denial of a statement treated as self-evident. In fact, his second approach can be used against any kind of argumentation and always ending in disagreement with argumentative implications or disagreement with basic premises (in short, his "why?" masks a judgment).
@@martasilva8036 So you believe in self evident truths? Explain to me how murder being bad is self evident.
No, stating "why?" over and over is not a judgement. I'm just playing the ultimate skeptic like David Hume.
@@Nick-ij5nt If you do not believe that there is at least one evident truth, any and all argumentation in favor of any conclusion is defeated by principle, and you are even distant from the discussion of the video. Although the claim that murder is wrong cannot be an evident claim in itself, there are more basic axioms that can lead to this conclusion.
One of the criticisms made to Hume's "final skeptic" is precisely the fact that it implies a statement about the nature of reasoning (which can also be challenged with the "why?").
@@martasilva8036 So you believe that self evident truths are a necessary precondition for all world views? How do you know this to be the case? I think you're trying to argue because of the impossibility of the contrary, but I'd like for you justify that.
Which axioms can justify why murder is wrong and why should I adhere to them?
Exactly, but that's an argument in favor of my position. The fact that you can use Hume's skepticism to destroy his own argument shows that it's ultimately absurd.
But I can still use Hume as an internal critique of your position in order to expose the flaws in your world view.
You still haven't addresses the crux of my argument which is the is-ought dilemma. How do you justifiably derive an ought from an is within an atheist paradigm?
@@Nick-ij5nt I thought this was clear, but Hume's approach is self-defeating. Ultimately, regardless of the context for using his approach, it's not a hurdle here. Whether it's justifying a duty in an atheistic paradigm or justifying a duty in a theistic paradigm, his approach can be used in both 'ad infinitum' so that it doesn't favor any of the scenarios. It's merely a problematic (counterproductive) issue about the nature of reasoning. If you don't grasp this, your situation is complicated.
Crazy atheist = funny
Crazy religious person = terrifying
"Crazy atheist = funny" - try to say it to the victims of atheistics bolshevics...
@@alena-qu9vj Soviet Union had no direct connections to religious prosecution. You could get sent to gulag if you are not "loyal to the regime".
@@gibbobux1033 That was exactly my point - atheistic bolshevics /mostly of other than slavic ethnicity) had no connections to religious prosecution. Their atheistic prosecution has been terrifying and no fun all the same.
@@alena-qu9vj what im trying to say is, it wasn't really about religion. Mostly ideology.
@@gibbobux1033 What I am trying to say that yours:
"Crazy atheist = funny
Crazy religious person = terrifying"
is nonsence.
You can have crazy religious persons as well as crazy atheist not funny at all.
Three books that might be of help 'the sociology of religion' , 'religion and capitalism' and 'the protestant ethic'. All fairy old books, some of the content may not even be relevant to todays perspectives, but they are helpful.
My idea of objectively morality is that things are morally right if they improve “your” quality of life. However I’m using an objective your, so it’s you as though you could be any person alive, dead or unborn at any point in history or the future.
The idea is that anyone could reach this conclusion on their own and it follows what I think is a very simple train of logic. Every single person in the world can easily think to themself that they would like to have a good life, however every person also can see that other people exist and realize that they didn’t do anything to be born as them rather than any of the other people that exist (even if you don’t believe other people exist you still haven’t done anything to exist in your perspective rather than any other perspective), this means that to truly be objective you would need to acknowledge that you could be anyone and realize that if everyone behaved in a way consistent with this, then your life would be better.
Do you understand that “my idea of [objective] morality” borders on the oxymoronic?
I really wish I had your content to mentor me during my cringe "spit and vinegar" phase of atheism.
As an atheist leaning agnostic I used to agree with the argument that if you’re moral out of fear of punishment you’re not actually moral just acting selfishly. But as I see certain groups attacking all values I’m now more inclined to believe the religious person that I as a moral atheist only have those morals for having been raised in a Christian culture and the further removed we get from that the more we lose a basis for any morals at all.
I think that's false.
Uh, I think there may have been another factor for low crime rates in Scandinavian countries, at least until the last 15 or so years.
In fact goodness for fear of divine retribution isn't goodness or morality at all. Morality can co-exist with religion but the later isn't the origin.
Morality originates from the sublime perception that we're all humans or in the case of animals living feeling things with a right to exist and suffer the same existence that is hunger, illness and death. In being thrown into a harsh world we are at times rivals but also brothers and sisters. What yo do unto others you do to your equals.
The best and easiest way to be a good person is to not be a Christian, Muslim or be of an existing faith.
When we say morals come from God, we don't mean you need to believe in God to know morals, or your need to read the Bible. We simply mean that if God does not exist, then morals would not exist.
So slavery, misogyny, stoning gays, genoc1de and r4ping virgin girls are moral?
And is every lie, k1lling and abortion immoral?
A few points;
- Objective morality does not exist and is a non issue perpetuated by Theists. I urge all Atheists to stop taking the bait and stop arguing about it. If human secularism is subject to us, any Christian morality is subject to God. It’s ALL subjective. It’s just a matter of who’s personal opinions we’re talking about - ours or God’s.
- Commandment is not a “moral”. It’s a command. It’s place inside of right/wrong isn’t defined simply by God commanding it. And, if it’s argued that it IS the case, then (as was mentioned in the video) you’ve essentially stepped away from the figurehead (the “Law Giver”), pointed back at him and said, “oh yeah, that’s “right’…which of course then bring Euthyphro into the picture…
- Well Being is a force of nature and undeniable. It’s the PERFECT foundation for a moral system.
Religons have waged more war pushing beilefes then any atheist has done. This is why I like budahhaisim and just the practice of meditation
Many of your videos are well explained and easier to consume. Perhaps the limits of my language skills are showing again because I struggled to fully understand this one.
Of course "atheists" can be good. At everyones core there is the loving awareness that we truly are. All connected. The human stories, the persona, the flesh/mind keeps you from feeling this. You are not your name, job title, country. You are aware that those labels have been added to you. The real question is why are we in the flesh? Why don't we remember who we are? Who benefits from that? Once you have an idea of the answers to those questions, your whole life and understanding of what life is will change.
Where did Reverend Jim Jones of People's Temple get his morals from? Every individual who comes into existence has the potential for compassionate and horrific behaviour. An infinite possible range of circumstances will determine when we behave one way or the other.
I'd argue that the concept of personal salvation can lead to immoral acts because the weight and consequences of those actions can be minimized in the mind of a man who has "already" been saved.
What you are talking about is the argument that believing is a virtue in and of itself. I ran into this alot in the American south.
Good point. Goodness really depends from the one who defines it.
If there is no goodness ideal / standard / template: There is nothing to compare yourself to.
In that regard you see yourself as one who is better, with better self-control, with better choices made throughout your life. In other words: You have relative morality, measuring to the average, to not stand out too much in debauchery. If there is more criminals among religious people: atheists are kings... or it only means that atheists are better in getting away with it, or it doesn't mean either of these things. Maybe looking into warped mirror: you won't see morality, (or immorality) of your deeds. If you put a collective (atheists) into room full of warped mirrors: You won't be closer to the truth of the matter.
Christians have another template to measure against: Life of Christ, and his Saints.
Such a comparison offers true visions of our lacks in the same way like when we compare ourselves with heroes who jump into burning building to rescue a child. We see that such a person had a superior courage, and if we are honest we arrive at a conclusion that it's unlikely that we would do that. We wish we could, but would we?
We doubt, we bow our head and thank God that we could see hero in action, that he somehow did this.
Saints of the early Christianity, who died for what they saw to be the truth offer us one of the dimensions of the comparison, but there are those who although uneducated exemplified heroic virtues of the highest kind, led simple life, but were as beacons of light, like athletes crushing world record, showing that it's possible.
Belief in a god, or lack there of doesn't not cause us to be instantly good, but believe in the God may offer us a way, trajectory to start the race against ourselves, world, and evil.
The fact that people ask the question about "goodness", or "morality" of one side, or the other point that there has to be a standard, that there is something higher. Some of the conclusions point to "no man is perfect", and that we fail miserably when we compare ourself to brilliancy of the perfect life.
Now, we can compare number of criminals (percentage wise), or number of completely average people... but I think it's a wrong way to do it.
I would rather point to Saints, and look for equivalents of such people in atheistic world view.
It's not about slightly better, or worse average personal moral achievements within a specific group, but about the fact that this specific group produces moral gold-medalists.
I can’t say atheist are bad, they’re just not too swift! It’s actually far more insane to believe this all happened by chance than to KNOW that there is something far more intelligent behind it all. It’s mathematical IMPOSSIBLE that this happened on its own.
Almost nothing is mathematically impossible. When we say impossible, we usually just mean very low chances.
Naturalistic empiricism is also based on a metaphysical assumptions much like morality. One of its fundamental axioms, that what cannot be proven is false, is itself unprovable and therefore self-contradictory. This isn’t to say that empiricism is bad or useless. It very clearly is a very good epistemology that has built much of the world around us. But rather that it’s important to understand that these epistemologies are axiomatic systems and, as was proven by gödel’s incompleteness theorem, these systems are inherently imperfect, as any system that can justify and prove its own axioms must also be contradictory. Reasoning is only structured by these systems and not generated as a product of them (see how mathematicians create axioms for a better idea of what I’m talking about). Similarly, people already have an intuition about morality much like how people can intuitively understand the direct proof or proof by contradiction. From what I see, divergence only starts when the moral propositions get more complex. You absolutely could compile a bunch of moral axioms that you could use to construct a system. With more complex propositions e.g. ‘is it wrong to kill people who disagree with you’ and moral concepts e.g. deontology and teleology they can be reduced to these more fundamental axioms through inquiry about the motivations behind the diverging opinions.
really like your contend. could you upload it to spotify so i can listen to it while working?
Morality is survival mechanism you don't God to know that pissing other people off is bad for your health.
love listening to the weekly podcast of Lucifer. You are mesmerizing, no wonder so many followed you :P
The idea of Lucifer is quite interesting. Let’s say this if Lucifer does indeed exist then why would a “Good God” permit such a being to interact with his creation? Why not snuff him out or destroy him? Unless god Knew that he would fall and temp people away from God so God has justification to destroy or send people to hell! And since god is all knowing he knew who he wanted to destroy or get rid off so in conclusion humanity has no free will only God’s will! See how bad that is? God made Lucifer so people would be tempted and God could destroy them with the justification that they had “turned away”
Morality is like math , it exists as Objectively and as long as it doesn't contradict itself
another great video man!! Can I ask what got you into philosophy?
Nice question
Curiosity lol
I think ethics and morals exist as an extension of disharmony within people. It is a lacking of what could be harmonious when some believe is an extension of it. You can't achieve full peace at any point of living because you have the ability to fall out of it. True peace is when you rest in peace, pun intended.
In Christianity, God changed a lot between the Old and New Testament
What if there is a city of gods?
Assuming there is a god, then they must come from somewhere.
If they come from somewhere, then where?
Notice: God noticeably changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament.
Hypothesis: God comes from a city of gods
Implications:
- God replaced after being immoral?
- God had to make changes after new laws came into place making them have to become more hands off?
- God was dying and wanted to leave us with better morals?
- Multiple gods control our universe?
- - Multiple religions
- - Council of gods
- - Council split up making Catholics, Christians, Illslams, and Jews
- - Other gods in Hindu
- - Known in ancient times (Romans, Greek, Egyptian, etc.)
Interpretation:
Too many possibilities and no way to prove them,
Reject them.
If you can't prove it true or false because you can't see it or interact with it or be interacted with it, all while staying alive, then it would be the same if it wasn't there.
Therefore, why believe in it? Any of it.
This video reminds me of a little loop a buddy of mine and I would go through in high-school when we talked about theology. And it always started with two statements he would make.
"Without objective morality, society would fall apart."
And
"There's no reason that Evolution would result in Morality."
He didn't understand that these points refute each other. If society can not function without objective morality, then it's evolutionarily beneficial to develop. If it's not possible to develop objective morality, then a species wouldn't evolve to require it.
It's basically like saying "well you can't have a chicken without an egg first, and you can't lay an egg without a chicken." And concluding that God did it
bible says everyone has a conscience. believer or non. that is the law written on the heart that you will be judged by, even if u deny a deity. u know its wrong to lie, murder, steal, cheat on your wife etc. everyone knows.
_Existential_ good, in the broadest sense, is well-being, which is experienced as positive valence states in sentient subjects. The more specific sense of _moral_ good is positive valences in the domain of interpersonal motives and the choices generated from them.
Ethical right & wrong are defined by the _Principle of Reciprocity,_ which is the normative analogue to the descriptive _Law of Identity._ Below, I'll lay out argumentation logically demonstrating the bases of objective morality:
*P1* - The existence of sentient subjects is an objective reality.
*P2* - As real entities, subjects have properties inherent to them which may be objectively known and explicated.
*P3* - Among the properties of sentience is the inherent capacity to have interests, which may be harmed or benefited.
*P4* - This dichotomy of benefit & harm is the ontological basis of intrasubjective normativity, as it entails existential conditions such as "good/bad" and "better/worse" defining what's preferable or non-preferable for a given subject.
*P5* - The property of inhering interests further entails that subjects as entities are ultimate ends.
*P6* - There exist a multiplicity of distinct subjects with their own interests which may align or conflict with one another, entailing an intersubjective landscape for them to navigate which broadly coincides with the domain we call "morality".
*P7* - Subjects are liable to have motive dispositions which generally incline them towards wanting to benefit the interests of others or harm them, entailing that subjects may themselves have normative value of an intersubjective nature, defining their worth as moral ends.
*P8* - The concept generally referred to as "justice" entails reciprocity (i.e. commentsurate responsivity) in the intersubjective domain, with impartial and equitable judgments in such matters constituting an objective approach to it.
*P9* - The equitable distribution of justice inevitably promotes general intersubjective well-being, in that it reinforces benevolent interpersonal choices & subjects while simultaneously punishing malevolent choices & subjects.
*C* - Given the objective reality of sentient subjects, the inherent normative properties of their existence, and the possibility of making epistemologically objective assessments of such normative conditions _(which includes the matter of reciprocity in the intersubjective domain)_ it stands to reason that impartial, existential justice is definitionally the objective basis of natural rights.
"P5 - The property of inhering interests further entails that subjects as entities are ultimate ends."
No.
@@rageofheaven
Yes. Being a purposeful, goal-seeking agent with its own interests necessarily entails being an end. The quality of core motivations a subject operates from determines their existential value as an end.
@@Kimani_White But not an "Ultimate" end?
"P8 - The concept generally referred to as "justice" entails reciprocity (i.e. commentsurate responsivity) in the intersubjective domain, with impartial and equitable judgments in such matters constituting an objective approach to it."
And also no. I don't know what legal system you're speaking about, but equality did not come about in any objective manner.
@@rageofheaven
All intents and purposes are necessarily in the service of intentional, purposeful agents. Definitionally, sentient agents are _literally_ the ultimate source and end of every purpose.
I am not religious. Does that make me evil?
Nope
Yes. Stop eating babies
Something i try to live by instead of just arbitrary sin rules are these questions:
1. Does this have a positive impact on me?
2. Does it have a positive impact on everyone else?
You're answering the wrong question, dear friend. I would argue that the first moral code, written and manifested long before the Greek philosophers, came from Moses. All other manifestations were derivatives or further episodes (Old Testament, Koran). Ultimately, it's about the timeless and objective distinction between good and evil, moral right and wrong. 2+2=4 was, should, and will continue to exist forever. At some point, atheists will no longer be able to distinguish between the two if they move too far away from the culturally established religious life. EXAMPLE: You have the choice to get on an atheist boat or one where everyone believes in God. All other parameters remain the same and your life will be put to the test, with the high probability that you will die at sea. Who is more likely to eat each other up or lose hope? Who will move mountains with just their faith?
2+2=4 has nothing to do morality.
But funny you point to Moses andcthe Tenach/OT:
Do you believe slavery, misogyny, stoning gays, genoc1de and r4ping virgin girls are (still) moral?
All condoned and/or ordered by your god.
I like to look at logical reasoning and actually think for myself. Unlike most religious people i've met who will undoubtably give everything to their god based on some hallucination they had
Here is a phenomenological definition of goodness: Goodness is whatever a living being subjectively feels ought to exist, implying a need to act to bring it about whenever the opportunity arises. This definition is objectively true in the sense that it can be observed from our behavior in the material world. Since it's describing a phenomena which one can experience within one's self and see in others, the definition is not arbitrary. However, it is subjective in the sense that it provides no basis for a morality that everyone can agree upon.
my late night show for today !!
I would be more inclined to respect the claim of moral goodness being synonymous with religiosity, if sincere and cynical spiritual beliefs alike do not serve as justification for incredibly immoral acts (slavery, genocide, et al) both in historical and contemporary contexts. When the spiritualist simultaneously claims Objective moral frameworks, while ignoring or re-writing elements of their own holy texts and the history of their ingroup, that fail their own current moral standards, they have surrendered all intellectual and philosophical credibility. Those who maintain philosophical continuity with their predecessors, attempting to claim that the harm they cause is instead a moral goodness, are equally non-credible.
I always ask my friends: " when there are not legal or security autjorities around, do you usually commit crimes?". The point shouldn't revolve around the morality itself ( and the effort to turn it perfect or superior) but the level of comprenhension oneself may have to display to be moral. In this way even an ordinary dude may be superior to saints and pholosophers. Even the common sense may turn useful, in case of need. It's not the the law that makes us innocent or good, but our respect of laws. Criminals may be christian and still may kill. Their behaviour shows their unavoidable hypocrisy (or incoherence).Then the question may be: " is it always moral to respect an unjust law?".
I want to know the truth not just believe what people think is good for society. How can we make competent decisions on anything without first finding the truth?