Do you really think so? It seems that Andrew works to get somebody stuck on a singular point and then just keeps working it, like a boxer that opens a cut on his opponent. To me, the argumentation is kind of sleazy. Imagine gambling with somebody that loses and then keeps playing 'double or nothing' until they win. Were they ever really gambling?
Rachel, it's not the ultimate moral imperative of Harris' The Moral Landscape. Harris basically argues that questions on morality have to have answers that fall within the purview of science, that's all.
I never understand why theists like Andrew think their belief in God makes sense of things like morality free-will. Apparently God is a brute fact or necessary, but other metaphysics can’t be?
Jimbob, I would assume that if someone attained arousal through doing harm, that would not constitute the highest peak of well-being. Maybe in the moment, but the repercussion for that person would surely lead in another direction. Maybe drinking 5 bottles of scotch will make you feel good in the moment, but you'd be dead a little while after that. Short term ecstasy is not the same as well-being.
Why does an animal care about the well-being of its young? Why do bees work together for the good of the hive? Is it because of God? Why do animals eat the babies of other animals? God? Maybe we should include the vast majority of the natural world in our philosophical discussions about.... us.
"Universal ought is to follow your preferences, it makes no sense", but when a religious person adheres to God's morals, they're doing so because they _prefer_ doing as God commands.
Yeah they seem to think their belief in a God gets them out of all these philosophical problems. It doesn’t even explain what morality really is. It’s a command from God? Why ought I follow God’s commands? Where did God come from? Oh he created himself? Oh okay so he’s just a brute fact or necessary being. But yet we can’t say the same for other metaphysics of the universe such as morality or consiousness?
So, basically, what Andrew is saying, is that without belief in a god, he could be a murderous psychopath. Not a moral "compass" I would follow. The thousands of years before established religions, tribes worked together without godly commandments. Commandments came from customs, not a godly word. Tit-for-tat is one way how society formed.
2:00 This happens anyway in any worldview. Might makes right is a descriptive fact about the nature of the world. It doesnt matter if you disagree or even if its "wrong" they can still act with violence. There's nothing forcing humans to act rationally.
I don‘t think there is a gap. If the totality of facts, everything that „is“, doesn‘t tell you what you ought to do, how else would you get that information?
@@entertainingideas Do you have access to the totality of "is" statements? You clearly don't, and therefore, your way of accessing "ought" statements is unworkable. If you believe you have access to an "ought" statement, then you need to present a different view.
@@pearidge2936He doesn’t need to have direct access to the totality of what “is” in order to believe that it’s possible. He’s just stating that he believes that, given all the descriptive facts of any given experience, it is enough to get to an ought.
@@BranoneMCSG We're not talking about possibility. I am asking him what mechanism he uses to access "ought" statements. He nor you have access to the totality of "is" statements about a given experience so that can not be the mechanism.
Andrew is right. Without the objective standard that is reductive then you dont have agreed justificTion for the ethic. Even when you take it to because life is the basis since all ethics depend on it. Even if that is the standard its still not reductive to possibly me. It gives no objective standard as to why... objectively that life is the standard. Both argments are reduced to some sense of trancendence but not objectively so minus a standard that exists out there.
The fact that Andrew will obey God's morals due to fear of God (fear of Hell) and devotion (pleasure) to God shows that his morality is based on pleasure and pain stimuli ALONE. So it's no different than Chris's morality, which is also based on avoiding suffering, and seeking pleasure.
Let's say that Andrew's God were to be swapped out for a completely different God; perhaps Andrew was instead born in a different culture and so accepted Zeus, or some other God. Andrew would have the same fear of that God and devotion to it... So it is Andrew's experience itself that is responsible for his morality, despite which God he obeys.
Andrew was great! Very logical.
The opponent couldn't explain anything. Though, he tried..
Lol
Do you really think so? It seems that Andrew works to get somebody stuck on a singular point and then just keeps working it, like a boxer that opens a cut on his opponent. To me, the argumentation is kind of sleazy.
Imagine gambling with somebody that loses and then keeps playing 'double or nothing' until they win. Were they ever really gambling?
yup. opponent got spanked
He didn’t
Rachel, it's not the ultimate moral imperative of Harris' The Moral Landscape. Harris basically argues that questions on morality have to have answers that fall within the purview of science, that's all.
Except that Science has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Zero.Zip. Zilch. Nada.
I can solve the is/ought conundrum right now.
Andrew IS being a dick. Andrew OUGHT to be nicer.
Hahah agreed!
I never understand why theists like Andrew think their belief in God makes sense of things like morality free-will. Apparently God is a brute fact or necessary, but other metaphysics can’t be?
Jimbob, I would assume that if someone attained arousal through doing harm, that would not constitute the highest peak of well-being. Maybe in the moment, but the repercussion for that person would surely lead in another direction.
Maybe drinking 5 bottles of scotch will make you feel good in the moment, but you'd be dead a little while after that. Short term ecstasy is not the same as well-being.
Why does an animal care about the well-being of its young? Why do bees work together for the good of the hive? Is it because of God? Why do animals eat the babies of other animals? God? Maybe we should include the vast majority of the natural world in our philosophical discussions about.... us.
If one good thing comes out of this. Andrew is a chain smoker, therefore he will get to meet his maker sooner than later.
Haha good one
What does him being a smoker have to do with his world view? I'd be a chain smoker too if I had to deal with these Secular lunatics?
"Universal ought is to follow your preferences, it makes no sense", but when a religious person adheres to God's morals, they're doing so because they _prefer_ doing as God commands.
Right! That's a good point
Is it? @@entertainingideas
it is@@itsameamarioyaplumber3981
@@entertainingideas I don't know dude...
Yeah they seem to think their belief in a God gets them out of all these philosophical problems. It doesn’t even explain what morality really is. It’s a command from God? Why ought I follow God’s commands? Where did God come from? Oh he created himself? Oh okay so he’s just a brute fact or necessary being. But yet we can’t say the same for other metaphysics of the universe such as morality or consiousness?
So, basically, what Andrew is saying, is that without belief in a god, he could be a murderous psychopath. Not a moral "compass" I would follow.
The thousands of years before established religions, tribes worked together without godly commandments. Commandments came from customs, not a godly word. Tit-for-tat is one way how society formed.
2:00
This happens anyway in any worldview. Might makes right is a descriptive fact about the nature of the world. It doesnt matter if you disagree or even if its "wrong" they can still act with violence. There's nothing forcing humans to act rationally.
You should think really hard about whether you can bridge the is/ought gap.
I don‘t think there is a gap. If the totality of facts, everything that „is“, doesn‘t tell you what you ought to do, how else would you get that information?
@@entertainingideas Do you have access to the totality of "is" statements? You clearly don't, and therefore, your way of accessing "ought" statements is unworkable. If you believe you have access to an "ought" statement, then you need to present a different view.
@@pearidge2936He doesn’t need to have direct access to the totality of what “is” in order to believe that it’s possible. He’s just stating that he believes that, given all the descriptive facts of any given experience, it is enough to get to an ought.
@@pearidge2936By that logic, you don’t have access to every fact of your own experience therefore your experience and beliefs are “unworkable.”
@@BranoneMCSG We're not talking about possibility. I am asking him what mechanism he uses to access "ought" statements. He nor you have access to the totality of "is" statements about a given experience so that can not be the mechanism.
Andrew is right. Without the objective standard that is reductive then you dont have agreed justificTion for the ethic. Even when you take it to because life is the basis since all ethics depend on it. Even if that is the standard its still not reductive to possibly me. It gives no objective standard as to why... objectively that life is the standard. Both argments are reduced to some sense of trancendence but not objectively so minus a standard that exists out there.
I am sorry but I am not following you
The fact that Andrew will obey God's morals due to fear of God (fear of Hell) and devotion (pleasure) to God shows that his morality is based on pleasure and pain stimuli ALONE. So it's no different than Chris's morality, which is also based on avoiding suffering, and seeking pleasure.
Let's say that Andrew's God were to be swapped out for a completely different God; perhaps Andrew was instead born in a different culture and so accepted Zeus, or some other God. Andrew would have the same fear of that God and devotion to it... So it is Andrew's experience itself that is responsible for his morality, despite which God he obeys.
I wish I had remembered to bring that up during the debate..