Do a video on the actual antinatalist arguments. Oh, and has Avi gotten around to reaching out to Benatar for a debate? Starting to believe Avi wasnt being truthful when he commented that he would love to debate him.
In your opinion, is it possible to advance an ethical argument in favour of veganism / against consumption of animal products without being invalidated by the is-ought gap?
@Austin Reeve I agree that there is a phenomenology of suffering. However, I don't think it is contingent on realism vs anti-realism. Suffering that has a mind-independent referent isn't worse than suffering that doesn't. If we attempt to quantify suffering in units (dolors), I don't see the argument that ceteris paribus, the presence of a mind-independent referent adds units. It takes information, concepts, reasoning to get from the suffering present in a phenomenological snapshot or frame to premises and arguments. This is more problematic. Fallible memory is relied upon to recall historical experiences of suffering as fodder for an argument. More fallible material and processes are involved in positing the existence of other sufferers. Yet more fallibility threatens historical and predictive claims over the conditions and causes of suffering. When we try to do work in response to sense of suffering immediately present, or fallibly recalled, that work is problematized by the puzzles and problems philosophy has perennially grappled with. There is a transition from the phenomenological to the epistemological when the raw phenomenology is converted into claims and arguments.
@@theslyngl Avi and Ask yourself did do that. Also someone from their community did that on behalf of Abi. Benatar didn’t respond to Avi or Ask Yourself but responded to the community member saying he had accepted a bunch of interviews recently so wasn’t taking any more.
The is-ought problem is a serious problem even for moral realists. You have an inbuilt "ought" to avoid suffering, because of the way your motivational system in the brain works. But you don't necessarily have the same motivation to not do something that harms others. If we had such a motivation, we probably wouldn't need ethics and we'd live in a better world. But we - and other animals - don't have this motivation, we don't have this experiential "ought" to not harm others. This is one way to explain, why the is-ought problem is so serious. Apart from it being merely a logical problem of deduction.
Even though I don't agree with some of your points (e.g. about pain giving us an obvious ought), I don't get AY's whole "SHOW me the contradictions! bluffs" I turned up in his discord just curious and asked him to reconcile the contradiction in these two: Veganism - which boils down to: It is morally wrong to cause a living animal to suffer unnecessarily. Natalism - which boils down to: It is morally right to cause a living animal to suffer unnecessarily. And he yelled at me for 5 min about how it's 'not technically a contradiction' and then banned me. Just look at his dilemma he gives at 32:00 "There is no contradiction in a world with more wellbeing than suffering" vs "There is only suffering but it's not bad to suffer". And just apply that to veganism. 'There is no contradiction with an animal that is bred for meat but does have some wellbeing' vs 'there is suffering of meat animals but it's not bad to suffer'. Grats, AY's position just defeated his own veganism. "Is it good to make a victim that can and will be tortured to death by life?" Vegan: NO! Natalist: YES! This is why he wont ever answer the question.
@Cosmic Lifeist Their inability to be experience their non-existence is an irrelevancy, as a fact they will not experience deprivation, harm, or risk as a result of the decision made not to create them. As a fact, there are no victims made by not procreating, there are no children begging to be born or lamenting the state of their non-existence. But there are plenty of people lamenting their existence on this planet, plenty of victims made by people's reckless desire to reproduce. What gives you the right to make victims when there is no rational or ethical necessity to make winners, besides your silly stargazing aspirations of utopia. And I've seen you argue before that a universal right to die is an answer against antinatalism, as if you have the right to rape me or impose some manner of grave harm on me and get off scot-free as long as you put a gun in my hand .
Indeed, when you hear the news about the deaths of people from older generations and see the aging process (or death) of parents, you feel that you are not as far from the meat grinder as you might have thought before.
@Mr S his book. "Something deeply hidden, quantum worlds and the emergence of spacetime". He thinks theres other universes that only he knows about because only he is good enough at physics to believe in a DC comics concept....
I think he explains this choice in the first video. I think it was at least partially due to youtube changing. Censorship is a bit spooky. Never know when or for what reason it may come.
As a long-time viewer of AYs content (since nearly the beginning), there's no shady reason for it. He simply wanted to eliminate all of his prior content because it contained some vulgarities and unprofessionalism, and didn't want those qualities associated with his current content.
Hello from Russia. I liked your video. touches upon a relevant topic. I had to deal with an onological obscurantist. he constantly asked about the gap "is / ought". he also asked why the rational is right. Could you subtitle in English anytime soon? it will be easier for me to translate into Russian. thank you in advance.
The claim that (personal) pain ought to be avoided because we have a natural, physiological, built-in aversion to pain, seems to venture into naturalistic fallacy territory -- claiming that pain ought to be avoided because we naturally avoid it. We also have a natural, physiological, built-in inclination to reproduce, which by this reasoning indicates we ought to reproduce. Both configurations of the human organism have a scientific basis in biology. As a vegan/anti-natalist/efilist, it would be nice to take for granted that we ought to take minimization of pain as axiomatic, however, I don't see how this can be used as a defeater for premises used in contrarian argumentation. For example, consider the following argument: Premise 1 (P1): Reality -- based in scientific observations of what is -- determines what ought to be done. Premise 2 (P2): Our best (evidence-based) theories about human biology show that humans have a built-in drive to reproduce. Conclusion: Humans ought to reproduce. P1 is asserted in the video here: ua-cam.com/video/ArvPZHdAtGo/v-deo.html&t=1142 P2 is consensus biology: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction I think we have to use other strategies to argue for veganism/anti-natalism/efilism all of which face an uphill battle against the standard evaluation of what is the case -- or real -- when we look at how humans behave outside the purview of brute force self-preservation mechanisms such as those indicted in pulling a hand off of a hot stove. We probably have to appeal to values subjectively held by cohorts -- values obtained from biology and socio-cultural-historic contexts -- which align with our moral calculus (e.g. negative utilitarianism, threshold deontology) to unveil antagonisms and contradictions that obtain by not being vegan/anti-natalist/efilist.
You're speaking of G.E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy I assume. I'm not sure I buy into it. Also animals have a drive to have sex. There is no natural drive or instinct to have kids.
The argument may be an enthymeme, we may want to add another premise: Premise 3 (P3): Humans with a drive to reproduce in absence of physiological (e.g. fertility) and other impediments (e.g. waiting for marriage), reliably reproduce as attested to by population growth data. P3 should be uncontroversial: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth P2 and P3 would seem to establish what is "really" the case. P1 is the controversial premise that I'm disinclined to defend. I don't see how we can get from a description of biological, survival mechanisms -- especially autonomic nervous system responses -- to an argument that we ought to hold beliefs consonant with a philosophical position that advocates minimization of suffering for others such as negative utilitarianism -- especially when it is at a cost to ourselves or those within a privileged cohort (e.g. family, friends, etc.). We should be cautious not to conflate aversion produced by low-level biological systems with that of high-level, metacognition systems. I consider veganism/anti-natalism/efilism to be problems best described by the science of belief acquisition and commitment and not that of survival mechanisms that operate autonomously. The upshot of a malleable-belief-system position is that reprogramming to hold beliefs that direct behavior in the direction of veganism/anti-natalism/efilism is possible -- it's also possible that enough people can be reprogrammed to create socio-cultural contexts in which these become the default. The downside is that there is no guarantee that the critical mass required for radical suffering reduction will ever obtain. To get serious buy-in from the academic philosophy community will require a lot of hard work using existing materials to build the argumentation and/or formulation of new materials. Deontology -- and its threshold variant -- is not without controversy (see: plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/). Ideally, we can build arguments that will not be strongly tied to any single normative theory concerning ethics and responsibilities.
@@LifeSucks Yes, Moore's naturalistic fallacy per: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy A mentioned in that article, there are criticisms which merit consideration, just as there are responses worth considering in regard to the is-ought problem: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem#Responses Not sure I entirely agree with the claim about sex drive. For example, animals have a drive to engage in mating rituals or other activities that are instrumental to having sex. One could likewise posit that having sex is instrumental to reproduction under sufficient and necessary conditions. Likewise, reproducing is instrumental to gene preservation and survival of the species. I suppose you could limit drives to actions and not outcomes or downstream effects -- excluding teleology from the equation. Is there a drive to act in the relation of a mother or father? Is there a drive to commit actions of parenthood? I think this gets fairly complicated, and that it's not as simple as a "drive to have sex" without deeper considerations.
@@LifeSucks Exactly, sex drive tricks species into reproduction. Only humans are also blinded by stupid ambitions (tragically stupid: they want to create a great musician, but create a cancer patient instead, want to create an athlete, but create an alcoholic, etc.)
@@LifeSucks the end result is obviously to have kids. And there obviously is a natural drive to take care of children which result from having sex. You can't leave one half of the process out and say it's finished.
AskYourself does hold 2 opposing views but so do you (or you might have not realised it) if you want to be a pure utilitarian. You're opposed to causing the existence of another sentient being, which you think is a utilitarian pov, but it's probably not. Stats are compiled from unreliable sources (park & rec bulletins etc) but it's hard to find up to date metrics for nr of sentient beings / hectare: 1. arable land use per person in the US is 0.53ha 2. 1.2 mammals 0.3 birds per hectare on temperate region arable land = 1.5 total 3. 75 mammals 25 birds per hectare on temperate region forest = 100 total If our offspring would cause the decrease of individuals continuously suffering from 100 to 1.5 then them being born could be positive. I think no-one can hold a purely utilitarian pov due to computing errors for our actions. I would consider myself a utilitarian when it's easy to compute and a deontologist when it's not, and most often I find myself on the deontology side. Should we start building parking lots and chopping down forests? Probably not, because we would make a decision for someone else (the inhabitants of the forest), but that's also a deontological pov. Should we be vegan even if we have a lower impact on land use? Probably, because the calculations don't account for nr of sentient animals killed for the food of those individuals.
Thanks for checking in. I am nearly finished with my first antinatalist book. After that I will make more videos. It's been an all consuming project. You can follow me on Instagram if you want to @lifesuckspublishing.
@@FinalFantasy8911debater “it seems” was how I ended the sentence🙄 obv there’s not gonna be concrete evidence of him saying “I’m too scared”. We can read between the lines and make logical assumptions.
@@kylehardy8562 NO, it doesn't even SEEM that way. What are you "reading" that indicates he's scared, as opposed to just not being interested in debating ask yourself? How do you tell the difference? I do think ask yourself ought to be fought directly on this matter though, because we can easily win the argument. ask yourself is an anti-realist and a nihilist, he has no rational foundation for himself.
I think it does because you're saying that there objectively is no good reason to prevent harm and torture, but since my brain tricks me into thinking there's good reason, I'll buy into that delusion. Theists have a more rational foundation for their morals than secular humanists/ atheists who buy into subjective morality, because theists have the foundation of a higher power who has special knowledge of what ought/ought not happen. What do people like ask yourself and the mainstream atheist community have. Opinions, thats it, and thats not rational nor good enough.
@@FinalFantasy8911debater when I say subjective morality I am not saying that morality doesn't exist. But other than that your response wasn't very clear, so I'd prefer if you asked a more concise question I can answer so its easier for me to understand
@@andrewholmes5392 My point is this: mainstream atheists like hitches, dawkins, cosmicskeptic, etc. have NO RATIONAL argument for any of their moral values (bettering the human race) because REAL value is objectively rooted, NOT subjectively rooted (which are opinions). THEREFORE, mainstream atheists should be neutral to anything that happens if they want to be logically consistent with themselves. Get it now?
Life sucks you clearly are misunderstanding the is ought gap. the is ought gap isnt saying we dont want to do x or dont want to do y. its prescribing that you ought do one or the other based on natural facts. for example if someone were to say we ought start a dance group because we will be able to perform in the talent show, the syllogism would look like this p1: we can participate in the talent show if we form a dance group c: therefore we ought form a dance group to participate in the talent show so there seems to be some missing steps here, how do we get from "its a fact that being a part of this dance group lets us perform in the show to "we ought be form a dance group to be in the show" without evoking anything normative. The way people normally get there is by evoking the normative fact as a premise SO p1:We can participate in the talent show if we form a dance group p2: If we want to participate in the show as a dance group we should form a dance group p3 We WANT to participate in the show as a dance group C: We should form a dance group This would be a VALID argument It doesnt logically follow from there being a talent show that people want to perform in it, or form a dance group for it. THE SAME THING APPLIES TO SAMS ARGUMENT sams whole argument is literally: P1: People dont like pain P2: touching a hot stove is painful C: We Ought not touch a hot stove. SEE how he fails to provide a normative premise in his argument such as We OUGHT not do painful things BECAUSE its the very thing he is supposed to be demonstrating. What he needs to do in order to make a valid argument would be to say: p1: If something causes pain we ought avoid it p2: touching a hot stove is painful c: we ought avoid touching a hot stove C: we ought avoid pain- This is the thing sam harris is actually trying to prove in his argument THE PROBLEM IS that the thing that hes trying to justify use this argument to justify in his actual conclusion is the first premise of the argument, which is just to say he actually begs the question when trying to justify the conclusion that we ought avoid painful things.
@A for Carrot Not in slandering people. Even then, he doesn't slander people if they actually make a good faith effort to defend their position. Recently, he had a debate with Perspective Philosophy in which he said he misunderstood the criticism he had, after which he said he should not have assumed he was bad faith. What Life Sucks is doing is obviously bad faith.
Wtf, did you call Unnatural Vegan a troll? Of all the things that could be levied against her, I don't think "troll" would be something that comes to mind. Fkn lol
Come to the server and debate me on the is-ought gap, you're not tracking.
Do a video on the actual antinatalist arguments.
Oh, and has Avi gotten around to reaching out to Benatar for a debate? Starting to believe Avi wasnt being truthful when he commented that he would love to debate him.
In your opinion, is it possible to advance an ethical argument in favour of veganism / against consumption of animal products without being invalidated by the is-ought gap?
@Austin Reeve I agree that there is a phenomenology of suffering. However, I don't think it is contingent on realism vs anti-realism. Suffering that has a mind-independent referent isn't worse than suffering that doesn't. If we attempt to quantify suffering in units (dolors), I don't see the argument that ceteris paribus, the presence of a mind-independent referent adds units.
It takes information, concepts, reasoning to get from the suffering present in a phenomenological snapshot or frame to premises and arguments. This is more problematic. Fallible memory is relied upon to recall historical experiences of suffering as fodder for an argument. More fallible material and processes are involved in positing the existence of other sufferers. Yet more fallibility threatens historical and predictive claims over the conditions and causes of suffering.
When we try to do work in response to sense of suffering immediately present, or fallibly recalled, that work is problematized by the puzzles and problems philosophy has perennially grappled with. There is a transition from the phenomenological to the epistemological when the raw phenomenology is converted into claims and arguments.
Isaac serious question bud, is it easy being a near 30 year old virgin?
@@theslyngl Avi and Ask yourself did do that. Also someone from their community did that on behalf of Abi. Benatar didn’t respond to Avi or Ask Yourself but responded to the community member saying he had accepted a bunch of interviews recently so wasn’t taking any more.
The is-ought problem is a serious problem even for moral realists. You have an inbuilt "ought" to avoid suffering, because of the way your motivational system in the brain works. But you don't necessarily have the same motivation to not do something that harms others. If we had such a motivation, we probably wouldn't need ethics and we'd live in a better world. But we - and other animals - don't have this motivation, we don't have this experiential "ought" to not harm others. This is one way to explain, why the is-ought problem is so serious. Apart from it being merely a logical problem of deduction.
Even though I don't agree with some of your points (e.g. about pain giving us an obvious ought), I don't get AY's whole "SHOW me the contradictions! bluffs" I turned up in his discord just curious and asked him to reconcile the contradiction in these two:
Veganism - which boils down to:
It is morally wrong to cause a living animal to suffer unnecessarily.
Natalism - which boils down to:
It is morally right to cause a living animal to suffer unnecessarily.
And he yelled at me for 5 min about how it's 'not technically a contradiction' and then banned me.
Just look at his dilemma he gives at 32:00 "There is no contradiction in a world with more wellbeing than suffering" vs "There is only suffering but it's not bad to suffer". And just apply that to veganism. 'There is no contradiction with an animal that is bred for meat but does have some wellbeing' vs 'there is suffering of meat animals but it's not bad to suffer'. Grats, AY's position just defeated his own veganism.
"Is it good to make a victim that can and will be tortured to death by life?"
Vegan: NO! Natalist: YES! This is why he wont ever answer the question.
@Cosmic Lifeist It only matters if there is someone to be denied it
@Cosmic Lifeist Their inability to be experience their non-existence is an irrelevancy, as a fact they will not experience deprivation, harm, or risk as a result of the decision made not to create them. As a fact, there are no victims made by not procreating, there are no children begging to be born or lamenting the state of their non-existence. But there are plenty of people lamenting their existence on this planet, plenty of victims made by people's reckless desire to reproduce. What gives you the right to make victims when there is no rational or ethical necessity to make winners, besides your silly stargazing aspirations of utopia. And I've seen you argue before that a universal right to die is an answer against antinatalism, as if you have the right to rape me or impose some manner of grave harm on me and get off scot-free as long as you put a gun in my hand .
It's true, we humans are also on a slaughterhouse and year after year we're grinded a bit more
Indeed, when you hear the news about the deaths of people from older generations and see the aging process (or death) of parents, you feel that you are not as far from the meat grinder as you might have thought before.
Sean carroll actually thinks he has evidence that the dc comics multiverse is real. Lol.
@Mr S his book. "Something deeply hidden, quantum worlds and the emergence of spacetime". He thinks theres other universes that only he knows about because only he is good enough at physics to believe in a DC comics concept....
Max Tegmark >>>
I question the integrity of anyone who completely deletes their entire channel, only to start all over again. Seems shady.
Seems human?
Many people do this.
Age - evolve, reinvent.
I don't watch AY - he gives me a migraine, but wouldn't convict him on those grounds.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 Agreed
I think he explains this choice in the first video. I think it was at least partially due to youtube changing. Censorship is a bit spooky. Never know when or for what reason it may come.
As a long-time viewer of AYs content (since nearly the beginning), there's no shady reason for it. He simply wanted to eliminate all of his prior content because it contained some vulgarities and unprofessionalism, and didn't want those qualities associated with his current content.
ask yourself ruins public discourse . now everyone is using weird philospeak
Hello from Russia. I liked your video. touches upon a relevant topic. I had to deal with an onological obscurantist. he constantly asked about the gap "is / ought". he also asked why the rational is right. Could you subtitle in English anytime soon? it will be easier for me to translate into Russian. thank you in advance.
Hi, thanks for watching. If you click the "CC" button it will have English subtitles.
О, приветствую! Круто встретить кого-то со схожими взглядами) Позволь уточнить, ты ведёшь какой-нибудь канал или есть ли ты где-то в соц медиа?
The claim that (personal) pain ought to be avoided because we have a natural, physiological, built-in aversion to pain, seems to venture into naturalistic fallacy territory -- claiming that pain ought to be avoided because we naturally avoid it. We also have a natural, physiological, built-in inclination to reproduce, which by this reasoning indicates we ought to reproduce. Both configurations of the human organism have a scientific basis in biology.
As a vegan/anti-natalist/efilist, it would be nice to take for granted that we ought to take minimization of pain as axiomatic, however, I don't see how this can be used as a defeater for premises used in contrarian argumentation. For example, consider the following argument:
Premise 1 (P1): Reality -- based in scientific observations of what is -- determines what ought to be done.
Premise 2 (P2): Our best (evidence-based) theories about human biology show that humans have a built-in drive to reproduce.
Conclusion: Humans ought to reproduce.
P1 is asserted in the video here: ua-cam.com/video/ArvPZHdAtGo/v-deo.html&t=1142
P2 is consensus biology: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction
I think we have to use other strategies to argue for veganism/anti-natalism/efilism all of which face an uphill battle against the standard evaluation of what is the case -- or real -- when we look at how humans behave outside the purview of brute force self-preservation mechanisms such as those indicted in pulling a hand off of a hot stove. We probably have to appeal to values subjectively held by cohorts -- values obtained from biology and socio-cultural-historic contexts -- which align with our moral calculus (e.g. negative utilitarianism, threshold deontology) to unveil antagonisms and contradictions that obtain by not being vegan/anti-natalist/efilist.
You're speaking of G.E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy I assume. I'm not sure I buy into it. Also animals have a drive to have sex. There is no natural drive or instinct to have kids.
The argument may be an enthymeme, we may want to add another premise:
Premise 3 (P3): Humans with a drive to reproduce in absence of physiological (e.g. fertility) and other impediments (e.g. waiting for marriage), reliably reproduce as attested to by population growth data.
P3 should be uncontroversial: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
P2 and P3 would seem to establish what is "really" the case.
P1 is the controversial premise that I'm disinclined to defend.
I don't see how we can get from a description of biological, survival mechanisms -- especially autonomic nervous system responses -- to an argument that we ought to hold beliefs consonant with a philosophical position that advocates minimization of suffering for others such as negative utilitarianism -- especially when it is at a cost to ourselves or those within a privileged cohort (e.g. family, friends, etc.). We should be cautious not to conflate aversion produced by low-level biological systems with that of high-level, metacognition systems.
I consider veganism/anti-natalism/efilism to be problems best described by the science of belief acquisition and commitment and not that of survival mechanisms that operate autonomously.
The upshot of a malleable-belief-system position is that reprogramming to hold beliefs that direct behavior in the direction of veganism/anti-natalism/efilism is possible -- it's also possible that enough people can be reprogrammed to create socio-cultural contexts in which these become the default.
The downside is that there is no guarantee that the critical mass required for radical suffering reduction will ever obtain. To get serious buy-in from the academic philosophy community will require a lot of hard work using existing materials to build the argumentation and/or formulation of new materials. Deontology -- and its threshold variant -- is not without controversy (see: plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/). Ideally, we can build arguments that will not be strongly tied to any single normative theory concerning ethics and responsibilities.
@@LifeSucks Yes, Moore's naturalistic fallacy per: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
A mentioned in that article, there are criticisms which merit consideration, just as there are responses worth considering in regard to the is-ought problem: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem#Responses
Not sure I entirely agree with the claim about sex drive. For example, animals have a drive to engage in mating rituals or other activities that are instrumental to having sex. One could likewise posit that having sex is instrumental to reproduction under sufficient and necessary conditions. Likewise, reproducing is instrumental to gene preservation and survival of the species. I suppose you could limit drives to actions and not outcomes or downstream effects -- excluding teleology from the equation. Is there a drive to act in the relation of a mother or father? Is there a drive to commit actions of parenthood? I think this gets fairly complicated, and that it's not as simple as a "drive to have sex" without deeper considerations.
@@LifeSucks Exactly, sex drive tricks species into reproduction. Only humans are also blinded by stupid ambitions (tragically stupid: they want to create a great musician, but create a cancer patient instead, want to create an athlete, but create an alcoholic, etc.)
@@LifeSucks the end result is obviously to have kids.
And there obviously is a natural drive to take care of children which result from having sex. You can't leave one half of the process out and say it's finished.
Fantastic video!
AskYourself does hold 2 opposing views but so do you (or you might have not realised it) if you want to be a pure utilitarian. You're opposed to causing the existence of another sentient being, which you think is a utilitarian pov, but it's probably not. Stats are compiled from unreliable sources (park & rec bulletins etc) but it's hard to find up to date metrics for nr of sentient beings / hectare:
1. arable land use per person in the US is 0.53ha
2. 1.2 mammals 0.3 birds per hectare on temperate region arable land = 1.5 total
3. 75 mammals 25 birds per hectare on temperate region forest = 100 total
If our offspring would cause the decrease of individuals continuously suffering from 100 to 1.5 then them being born could be positive.
I think no-one can hold a purely utilitarian pov due to computing errors for our actions. I would consider myself a utilitarian when it's easy to compute and a deontologist when it's not, and most often I find myself on the deontology side.
Should we start building parking lots and chopping down forests? Probably not, because we would make a decision for someone else (the inhabitants of the forest), but that's also a deontological pov. Should we be vegan even if we have a lower impact on land use? Probably, because the calculations don't account for nr of sentient animals killed for the food of those individuals.
Great job as always.
Miss your videos. Hope you are well.
Thanks for checking in. I am nearly finished with my first antinatalist book. After that I will make more videos. It's been an all consuming project. You can follow me on Instagram if you want to @lifesuckspublishing.
@@LifeSucks Really excited for that!
Ask yourself is the smug and obnoxious
Thanks for the response video
Debate him, then. 💁♂️
On the old drawing of you, You look a lot like Ben Gibbard!
I want some art lessons, Matt!! I n love the 😷 yoo hoo!!!
You should debate him
How do you not understand Humes guillotine... and have a "philosophy" channel, jfc
Just debate him.. problem solved
There is no problem.
@@LifeSucks you have plenty of disagreements... so there clearly is a problem.. you’re just too scared to confront him in a debate format it seems.
@@kylehardy8562 Not wanting to debate someone doesn't logically mean you're scared of them. There's no evidence of that.
@@FinalFantasy8911debater “it seems” was how I ended the sentence🙄 obv there’s not gonna be concrete evidence of him saying “I’m too scared”. We can read between the lines and make logical assumptions.
@@kylehardy8562 NO, it doesn't even SEEM that way. What are you "reading" that indicates he's scared, as opposed to just not being interested in debating ask yourself? How do you tell the difference? I do think ask yourself ought to be fought directly on this matter though, because we can easily win the argument. ask yourself is an anti-realist and a nihilist, he has no rational foundation for himself.
Believing in subjective morality doesn't mean you are a nihilist
I think it does because you're saying that there objectively is no good reason to prevent harm and torture, but since my brain tricks me into thinking there's good reason, I'll buy into that delusion. Theists have a more rational foundation for their morals than secular humanists/ atheists who buy into subjective morality, because theists have the foundation of a higher power who has special knowledge of what ought/ought not happen. What do people like ask yourself and the mainstream atheist community have. Opinions, thats it, and thats not rational nor good enough.
@@FinalFantasy8911debater when I say subjective morality I am not saying that morality doesn't exist. But other than that your response wasn't very clear, so I'd prefer if you asked a more concise question I can answer so its easier for me to understand
@@andrewholmes5392 My point is this: mainstream atheists like hitches, dawkins, cosmicskeptic, etc. have NO RATIONAL argument for any of their moral values (bettering the human race) because REAL value is objectively rooted, NOT subjectively rooted (which are opinions). THEREFORE, mainstream atheists should be neutral to anything that happens if they want to be logically consistent with themselves. Get it now?
Life sucks you clearly are misunderstanding the is ought gap. the is ought gap isnt saying we dont want to do x or dont want to do y. its prescribing that you ought do one or the other based on natural facts. for example if someone were to say we ought start a dance group because we will be able to perform in the talent show, the syllogism would look like this
p1: we can participate in the talent show if we form a dance group
c: therefore we ought form a dance group to participate in the talent show
so there seems to be some missing steps here, how do we get from "its a fact that being a part of this dance group lets us perform in the show to "we ought be form a dance group to be in the show" without evoking anything normative. The way people normally get there is by evoking the normative fact as a premise SO
p1:We can participate in the talent show if we form a dance group
p2: If we want to participate in the show as a dance group we should form a dance group
p3 We WANT to participate in the show as a dance group
C: We should form a dance group
This would be a VALID argument
It doesnt logically follow from there being a talent show that people want to perform in it, or form a dance group for it.
THE SAME THING APPLIES TO SAMS ARGUMENT
sams whole argument is literally:
P1: People dont like pain
P2: touching a hot stove is painful
C: We Ought not touch a hot stove.
SEE how he fails to provide a normative premise in his argument such as We OUGHT not do painful things BECAUSE its the very thing he is supposed to be demonstrating. What he needs to do in order to make a valid argument would be to say:
p1: If something causes pain we ought avoid it
p2: touching a hot stove is painful
c: we ought avoid touching a hot stove
C: we ought avoid pain- This is the thing sam harris is actually trying to prove in his argument
THE PROBLEM IS that the thing that hes trying to justify use this argument to justify in his actual conclusion is the first premise of the argument, which is just to say he actually begs the question when trying to justify the conclusion that we ought avoid painful things.
he invited you to his discord to discuss and you're just smug about it?
This borders on slander.
The goal of a debate is not necessarily to find common ground. Quit misrepresenting AY and debate him already.
AY is a joke
@@Brains-GPTUsername checks out.
@@victorylion Username doesn't check out.
@A for Carrot Not in slandering people. Even then, he doesn't slander people if they actually make a good faith effort to defend their position. Recently, he had a debate with Perspective Philosophy in which he said he misunderstood the criticism he had, after which he said he should not have assumed he was bad faith.
What Life Sucks is doing is obviously bad faith.
@@victorylion what you're doing is bad faith.
Wtf, did you call Unnatural Vegan a troll? Of all the things that could be levied against her, I don't think "troll" would be something that comes to mind. Fkn lol