i still remember a few old style movies where even the bad guys wouldn't lie, instead they'd just say things that get miss-interpreted. They should go back to movies like that.
In reality, the likey possibility..... after you say "earth" Killer - (BANG!!!!!) Your dead Then waits for your family to show up, kills them, just to get even with you because you mouthed off. Thus making you the idiot, not an intellectual
Objective morality requires that a moral determination always be the same for all people in all the exact situations. The Evolved Primate isn’t saying it’s moral to lie to save your family. He’s asking the question as it pertains to the concept of lying being objectively bad in general. There is a situation where someone may value telling the truth more than saving their family. In that case, they find moral justification in letting their family get killed. So it’s still subjective.
The standards that determine what decision to make are objective. So, it's possible that a person could be correct to tell the truth about something over saving their family, but why and what for? You would still be using objective standards to determine this.... Example. I tell a truth that saves a country but it costs me my family. Human life is still being used as the objective standard. A situation where it's objectively correct to lie to save your family vs not saving them, would mean that the situations aren't the exact same. Objective Morality depends on the objective facts of the situation.
@@_Sloppyhamobjective morality is based on the objective conditions of the situation. Extreme situations have different objective conditions and objective morality depends on the objective conditions of the specific situation. You are talking about two different objective situations. It's 100% irrational to present them as the same situation or to expect the objectively correct moral decisions to be the same.
You are making the exact mistake. Not the same for all people but all exact situations are the requirements for objective morality. Some people don’t understand why the situation is objectively moral or not therefore, that’s why difference occurs.
I agree, like someone choosing to sacrifice their family in order to tell the truth, even in that extreme situation, because …. say …. your all-powerful god warned you that lying was a sin punishable by eternal torture in hell, and you just can’t risk that AND, you also believe that your murdered family is innocent and will immediately be taken to the “better place” in heaven. So, now that situation becomes a moral win - win ! You get to avoid hell for eternity, and they go right to heaven for eternity, and eventually gods will punish the killer for his actions (unless he sincerely repents before he dies, then the killer gets to join your family in heaven for eternity). So, yet again, we have an “objectively moral” situation where some religious nut uses “perfect logic” to allow his family to be killed by making the correct subjective moral decision ! Seriously, doesn’t any Christian actually think these things through, or are you all just happy to listen to red pen’s faulty examples and just go with that ?
I know right. What I've found good while thinking about such situations is asking 'For Whom'? He said it's objectively right to lie in this situation to save your family. But what if the family of the person facing this situation has committed awful things to him?
If you believe you can be wrong or right about morality in a meaningful way you're invoking an objective standard If you argue against my point you're invoking an objective standard
Let me simplify it for you guys You sit between two sides good and bad That's an objective reality that you think is right for morality There by morality is objective
@Anthony A. I wouldn't waste your time. Look at the person you are replying to. There was nothing in the video, in the original post, or in any of the replies preceding his to suggest anything regarding sex let alone homosexuality. tj here is clearly any combination of the following: 1. A pervert who wishes to drag us down to his level. 2. A jerk looking to upset Christians through mockery. 3. A moron who thinks he actually has a point. 2 Peter 3 describes people like him, leave him to God's judgement and seek those who are interested in truth. He is a waste of your time and energy.
@tj mckay You prove by your sheer stupidity that you do not know how the no true scottsman fallacy works. Such basic stuff and yet even that you get wrong. Pathetic.
I would try to never lie. If a killer asked me where my family was, I'd like to think I'd simply not answer and try to out kill the killer whether I thought I could or not. Edit: I love this channel. Be strong in Faith brothers and sisters!
Agreed. The 3rd answer to this 'dilemma' is to just not answer at all. Idk why 'the evolved primate' thought the best way to paint the scenario was to force you into a box
@@dragan176 it will depend on the person's inclination or disposition at that moment. 1. If the person's inclination is toward saving himself and his family than mortality then he will lie. 2. If his inclination is toward morality (both not willing to lie nor put his family in peril) then he will choose to die. 3. If his inclination is toward only saving himself then he will tell the killer where his family is and save himself.
Your definition of objective morality is wrong as I understand it. It isn't situation dependent - quite the opposite actually. "Objective morality refers to the idea that moral principles exist independently of individual beliefs, cultural norms, or situational factors". Conversely, "Subjective morality suggests that moral judgments are based on individual or societal perspectives and can be influenced by the circumstances of a particular situation."
That how understood it as well. He saying that moral objectivism is based on the “objective situation” at hand without defining an “objective situation”, it also implies that everyone would see the “situation” the same way which is a bold claim. And even if there was a “objective situation” there should should be an objective moral prescription for every situation , because that’s what objective is by definition. In essence he can’t make that claim without listing the objective morals.
The definition that you gave is completely irrational. It may be the dictionary definition, but if it is then it's still irrational and the main reason why people have a hard time with this topic. Objective morality depends on the objective facts of the situation that the decision is being made. The knowledge level that the person who is making the decision is an objective fact. It's irrational to judge someone for knowledge they don't have. Subjectivists fail before they even begin bc they set up the topic irrationally, as if we are taking about imaginationland instead of objective reality.
@@mjnine23can you give me an example of objective morality and why it’s objective? Because the way you represent objective morality and subjective morality is different than how most people, myself included, think about it.
@@_Sloppyhammorality is concerned with right and wrong behavior. Behavior is only possible with life. Morality has an objective premise that the vast majority of people ignore. Morality is a question of what's optimal for human life.
@@mjnine23 morality deals with the concepts of right and wrong, also known as what we ought to do and ought not to do. None of that involves life as the premise for morality. You saying that it is, is you deciding it’s that way with your subjective opinion
Thank you for clarifying this. That's how logic is supposed to work. It's meant to solve problems by clarifying facts. Instead of solving problems by obfuscating facts, as pseudo-intellectuals do.
[Gist: A philosopher finally came up with an "objective morality"] EVERYONE has been trying to come up with an "objective morality". For thousands of years now. Someone FINALLY came up with it. Just this 2020. A SECULAR JEW, a philosopher and bioethicist named Mitchell Silver. It's also in the field of experimental philosophy. (In the future, his name might even go down in history as the one who finally found the "solution" to all this. After the Greeks started all this debacle. His moral philosophy is crucial, ESPECIALLY in the New Age. In the age of A.I. and biotech) His book is called, "Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework for Moral Objectivism" It's already there. No one just raised awareness to it yet. In fact, they're going to base the new Bill of Rights from this. They've been deliberating it since 2020.
Atheist here. And yeah you're actually completely right. I believe morals are relative due to the fact that there's no inherent idea of what is right or wrong. Anyone can have any sort of moral standard and believe they're right. However, depending on the situation, we can use logical thinking and reasoning to determine which is the objectively better decision. Then again, there are many decisions where it's not clear which one is objectively better. Which is often due to lack of information, or inability to predict the future. And then God goes and says that premarital sex, or homosexuality is immoral when there's literally nothing wrong with them.
@@KingPingviini STD's have no correlation to sexual preference. If that's a valid reason we should prohibit something, then we should ban all sex in general. Even then, what about relationships where they aren't having any sex? Are they off the hook, or are they prohibited from loving people? Maybe things would be easier if God didn’t make STD's. Or diseases in general.
@@KingPingviini Sexually transmitted diseases are not exclusive to homosexuality or premarital sex. The same precautions that married heterosexuals take to prevent STDs would apply to any other kind of sexual relationship.
Apparently, each apologist redefines the terms differently. In this case, the speaker identifies relativism with subjectivism. However, for W. L. Craig, who has honed the terminology over decades in his defense of the moral argument, the definition is just the opposite: _"Very little reflection is needed to see that _*_'relative' does not mean 'subjective'"._* (William Lane Craig) The distinctions Craig makes are clearer. Relativism is opposed to absolutism. Indeed, "it does not mean 'subjective'" (Whoopsie). And it can even go hand in hand with both moral "objectivism" and "subjectivism". And this last detail is important: the question of taking into account contextual dynamics (situations and/or circumstances of the individual or individuals) does not conflict with an anti-realist, non-transcendentalist, non-theistic or intersubjective understanding of morality either. So the detail is that "The Evolved Primate" is actually attacking moral absolutism. *_But from this it does not follow that he has affirmed the existence of the so-called "objective morality"._* Other than the latter, I don't see any relevant point in this video.
“But from this it does not follow that he has affirmed the existence of the so-called “objective morality.” Even if this is true, he certainly hasn’t disproved it. Without an objective standard for morality, no actions can be objectively right or wrong. Clearly this “evolved primate” person believes that there are right and wrong actions in certain scenarios (such as lying to the killer to protect his family), otherwise he couldn’t have used a situation where he considers lying a necessary “good.”
This is a great channel. Well done! Awesome editing, great explanation, fantastic work. I'm gonna show all my family and friends this as it is such an important topic. God bless :)
I know that I am late to the game and maybe that is because I am just a late blooming semi-evolved primate, but I am confused. I thought that subjective morals were based on the subject and are based on the person. Objective morals are based on a set of moral standards that are valid for all people and all situations, regardless. And moral situationism are moral judgments that must be made within the context of the entirety of a situation. In all fairness the evolved primate did not use the terms Objectivism or Relativism. regardless you gave the wrong definition for Objectivism. I hope that within the last few years since you made this video that you have corrected your error.
The argument is also self-defeating in that it assumes that it is always right in all circumstances to protect one's family. And while you or I would say that one must protect one's family at all costs, that is not something that can be derived from the givens of this argument, and yet this argument assumes it to be true. So the argument is necessarily self-defeating.
@@megalopolis2015 One example in which it would be morally objectively right not to protect your family would be, for example, if one of your parents was a serial killer. Or one of your siblings, as in the case of the unibomber's brother. But even if your family is perfectly innocent, that you should protect them is cannot be derived from the givens of the argument. Not to say that it's not true, merely that you can't get there logically. The philosopher David Hume made a distinction between "is" statements ( _that is a tree_ ) and "ought" statements ( _I ought to protect my family_ ). We can derive "is" statements logically, through deductions. But there is no tool to allow us to logically derive an "ought" statement (that is, a statement about what is or is not morally right or wrong). For those, we need something outside of ourselves. For further reading, there is a portion of Plato's _Apologia_ called _Euthyphyro_ and in it Socrates has a discussion with another man about why things are right or wrong.
@@megalopolis2015 Simpler answer (my first was too convoluted): You can't get morals without God. Of course we want to protect our families... But the atheists want to pretend that there's a rule out there saying that we have to, even though you can't have a moral rule with a moral God who made that rule. So the fact that we feel that it _is_ a moral imperative to protect our families means that deep down we know that there _is_ a God.
@@WhereWhatHuh Now I get you. Totally agree. God is the moral foundation. Atheists want to explain that our morals just are, say, due to societal conditioning and consensus, but that doesn't explain much, not the least of which would be the desire for a moral framework to begin with.
@@WhereWhatHuh Playing Devil's Advocate, some may say that the behavior to protect one's own is prevalent in animals as well - so its not unique to humans to protect the 'social group' that they belong to whether that is a 'family' or whatever. So they can and will point out that this is a biological imperative that is akin to a natural law. But it is not universal as there are plenty of other animals that just lay eggs and that's the extent of them being parents (salmon, etc). However I think the fact that virtually all humans see their children as innately precious despite the lack of sleep, massive drain on resources and time, and mental stress. There is a deep fulfillment to be had by having children beyond just a biological imperative. Animals don't care about existential concepts at all - they deal in the here and now and whatever their biology tells them. We can go beyond that. How come we are the only ones to do that?
I keep on coming back to this video because of how much it fascinates me this line of reason. I also really like how in the title you say "affirms" instead of "prove" to show that this isn't an end-all argument to the debate, but rather part of the argument for objective morality
WELL BEING.. it CAN and is measured.. eating an APPLE IS OBJECTIVELY GOOD PERIOD few exceptions.. burning in a fire is OBJECTIVELY BAD PERIOD few HYPOTHICAL exceptions... slaver HARMS well being of SLAVES AND harms the slaver too... slaver has to spend TIME and ENERGY ensuring a slaves stays a slavr and has to CRIPPLES GROWN ASS CAPIBLE ADULTS to have "power" two ppl WORKING TOGETHER to solve issues is GREATER then a maste4 forcing a slave... WE CAN MEASURE WELL BEING... we can measure goodness and badness.. it's GOOD to cut ur leg off IF it saves ur life... it's BAD for me to cut ur leg off for personal pleasure.. ur not CRIPPLE AND if ur my slave or someone else ur now ONE LEG LESS abd it's my problem too now... ur one leg hurts me too.. AND if u someone else's slave I'm no in conflict with they owner... xD HUMANISM IS SUPERIOR MORAL SYSTEM and we CAN and DO measure WELL BEING... black and white or good vs evil is stupid thinking AND delusional as no such thing as good vs evil... even pagans grasp nuances unlike monotheism that believed even more made up bs... at LEAST pagans associated womes cycles to thr moon which is MORE valid then forbidden fruit caus9ng women chuld birth issue... xD
FDR during WWII drafted millions of Americans against their will to fight two monstrous empires that declared war on their country (America had it flaws but it was a utopia compared to Nazi Germany and Japan) what he did was a form of slavery and yeah it was the right thing to do.
[Gist: A philosopher finally came up with an "objective morality"] EVERYONE has been trying to come up with an "objective morality". For thousands of years now. Someone FINALLY came up with it. Just this 2020. A SECULAR JEW, a philosopher and bioethicist named Mitchell Silver. It's also in the field of experimental philosophy. (In the future, his name might even go down in history as the one who finally found the "solution" to all this. After the Greeks started all this debacle. His moral philosophy is crucial, ESPECIALLY in the New Age. In the age of A.I. and biotech) His book is called, "Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework for Moral Objectivism" It's already there. No one just raised awareness to it yet. In fact, they're going to base the new Bill of Rights from this. They've been deliberating it since 2020.
This video finds one bad atheist argument (I agree that the argument is bad). However, at the end, there is no evidence that objective morality exists.
@@goranmilic442 I'm going to guess that you live your life as if objective morality exists. For example, if I steal all your money and your digital device because "I want it", I doubt you'll be okay with that. You won't really care what my reasoning is. The fact is it belongs to you, and it's objectively wrong--always--for me to take your stuff. . Now... I can ASK you for it. I can try to PERSUADE you to give it to me. I can APPEAL to your generous nature. But for me to simply knock you down and take you stuff because I want it .... nope. That's objectively wrong. Always.
@@sidwhiting665 No, I don't live as objective morality exists, because I have no evidence that it does. You confirm there is no objective morality in your examples. Belonging (property) is a social construct, it doesn't objectively exist, it exists only in our society, because we humans subjectively decided that we should recognize other's property. And you know that. Also, the reason why I don't steal from you (or harm you or kill you or insult you) is because I subjectively care for you. There is no objective reason why I should do that. However, if you want to prove that stealing is objectively wrong, then do it, please. Don't just say it is always objectively wrong, prove it. And in that proof you can't use my or your subjective opinions. You must prove that stealing is objectively wrong - wrong independent of our minds.
Rookie mistake! This is actually a form of consequentialism. Moral objectivity doesn't even make any sense, since it would either need a logical/empirical grounding (the is/ought problem debunks this), or it would have to be subjective anyway because there's nothing objectively distinguishing it's justification from some other moral standard apart from itself. Besides, our only way to acquire a moral framework is to utilise an arbitrary set of information. So even if objective morality existed, then assuming it isn't consequential, how would we ever know if we got it, if it can't be deduced empirically or logically?
Objectivity is based on one sided rationalism ig. It's not bad if you want to go through one plan or one thinking. But dude, god knows objective morality, he is just, he is omnipotent AND he is caring. That is not supposed to make sense. If he knows what's objective morality (OBJECTIVE MORALITY: Morality like a set of rules) and omnipotent (Basically a creature or anyone who can do BASICALLY ANYTHING.) then....how is it supposed to work? An omnipotent god can change the fabric of reality which we "developed monkeys" or "siblings" define as nature. And he KNOWS how we feel about good and bad. So he should be able to relate to both. Then why is there a hell and a heaven. People might say "Heaven and hell are just a way to separate from god." OK you kinda have a point there but guess what? No one wants to completely separate from god. And god can do that. Problem with the concept of "god" is that he is considered an individual. He is more powerful than EXISTENCE itself and he is considered an individual. So look, if he has opinions on things and he is going to do something about it, then definitely people like me and even you say SATAN wouldn't agree on it. And I know that how cruel you guys said satan is depicted to be so I don't agree to him either. You get it? I neither agree with god nor to satan. I believe what I actually think it is supposed to be and I ain't siding with anybody. I work according to what I think and whether it is god or satan or good or bad. I made it according to myself and I will follow it whether is it god's defined good or bad.......that's freewill.
@@santoshkumar-cr6gi The problem with that is that if God (whatever the origin/nature is for the universe) isn't anything like the way the Bible describes it, which is highly plausible considering Christianity's semblance to other religions that would be manmade and God's reflection of the culture, then accepting the facts as truthful nonsense is just another excuse to make people get a satisfactory answer and submit to ancient propaganda. Things not making sense should be a massive red flag, because reality is generally systematic and not paraconsistent. Also, God's morality is just a list of rules He chose. It has no effect on reality other than the conceptualisation of it and people's response to it's presentation. The only specific reason it seems to be specifically that list and not another list that would theoretically benefit humanity more is that they reflect the ancient culture it originated from
I'm pretty sure CS Lewis addresses all of those questions of moral objectivity. He walks through the cultural comparison and implications. He agrees that objective morality requires more than logical and empirical grounding but actually an ontological one. In most cases we don't have access to anything but the facts themselves, but in the one case we do, in the case of ourselves, we find something behind and above the facts themselves telling us what we ought to do. And then goes through many examples of right actions that don't fit the subjective or consequentialist script. You're absolutely right in that this idea of "God just choosing the moral rules" doesn't cut it, because what we actually need is an ontological grounding, which is how we actually think of the connection between God and Good- unchosen within the very being and nature of God. If you've already read Mere Christianity, find a Christian you respect to chat through your specific objections to the framework with in person :)
@@wondergolderneyes The things that inform us what we feel like we ought to do are understanding and motivation. And empathy and obligation are usually the sort of thing that differentiates what it seems like we ought to do from just what we feel like doing. If you're referring to ontology in the sense of the state of being, which seems like it's related to solipsism in how it's based on the self and their incorrigible knowledge about their perceptions and thoughts, everything still has it's own sense of understanding, desire, obligation and motivation, which are the basis of moral judgment, meaning that moral subjectivism is still true. Different agents are compelled to think and do different things, and there isn't any unifying ruleset that they tend to adopt other than that of instrumental convergence. There's also the orthogonality thesis, which basically posits that agents can have any goals alongside any type and amount of intelligence. Rulesets are just concepts, and if your sense of obligation differs from those concepts, it won't even matter if you know other concepts. A defined scale of goodness - a measure of how good different things are - is just a scale, and only that scale can justify itself being chosen and followed over the infinite other scales to choose, just as only each of those scales justify themselves. The fundamental scale of your mind could only be altered externally, and even then, it would seem that you're just part of a universal scale aligned with following the laws of physics. Your idea just doesn't work because if you told it to an agent you disagree with, perhaps like a psychopath, they would feel justified in their own mindset and continue to pursue it, since that would be the ontological thing they'd perceive that you're referring to
You're missing the larger point, which is that the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" is incoherent. We can't tell the difference between an "objective truth" and a "subjective truth" which is why pretending the difference matters only leads to confusion.
I just discovered your channel. This is so great. I teach logic and rhetoric, and I can see that I will be using this channel for some great examples. Great work. God bless.
@@goranmilic442 I cannot give emperical evidence that objective morality exists (i.e., using logic and reason). Nor can I justifiy my love my wife or children based solely on objective observable behaviour - mine or theirs, at times. I do not think it would be wise to use this as evidence against my love or theirs.. The existence of objective morality is not in the category of logic and reason, it is in the category of metasphysical or faith-based heuristics..
@@goranmilic442 ...but a relatable example that points to objective morality is the concept of karma, that most people seem to agree with. Karma, like objective morality, is not rationally or logically rigorously provable, but it is an organizing principle that most people accept. It regulates behaviour and leads to more contientious, principled behaviour. People do reject these concepts, but we generally view radical rejection of these concepts as correlated to personality disorders (e.g., narcissism, psycopathy, Machiavellialism, sadism).
@@michaelfitze7894 So why would we believe that objective morality exists, if even a teacher of logic can't show it exists. You can have faith in anything, so it's not a real path to knowledge. Love, as human emotion, is well-known, explored and experienced thing, uncomparable to supposed objective morality. Regarding karma, you are contradicting yourself. It doesn't matter what people believe without evidence, because those are subjective opinions. To show that objective morality exists, you would have to show something objective, not subjective opinions.
@@goranmilic442 I am not here to argue. I think ideas come before the material world. I have tried to point to why. If you reject faith and subjective opinions, there is no point in debate - because if we are both perfectly rational, we would never disagree about anything. Or disagreement would be settled by pointing out the correct facts. But disagreement is seldom that simple. If our experience of living could all be boiled down to the correct interpretation of objective facts, the world and human relations would be much simpler. I am not arguing that objective morality exists as some identifiable set of rules expressible in language. "Objective morality" points to something that comes BEFORE language, and therefore cannot be fulled explicated in language using reason and evidence. I hope that answers your original question.
"I'm not going to tell you where my family is" Neither a lie, or a choice to knowingly endanger other people's lives. If I get murdered after being honest, that would fall on the mistake of someone else, and I know where I'm going after this life, so no worries from me.
What if refusing to answer has effectively the same consequences as ratting them out? For example, suppose you are hiding Jewish refugees in WW2 Germany and the gestapo comes and asks if there are any Jewish refugees in your home. Refusing to answer is something they'll effectively take as good as "yes" in that they'll almost certainly exhaustively search your house in both cases. Your only fighting chance of saving them is to deceive the gestapo. What about the act of hiding them in the first place? Isn't that an act of deception of its own and a lie of sorts from people interested in where they are regardless of what you say or don't say? Keeping the truth hidden from people is still a deceptoin of sorts even if you utter no lying words. For example, a man who cheats on his wife and keeps it from his wife is still deceiving her. Hiding the truth from people still has the same type of misleading effects as outright lying to them.
@@darkengine5931 all deception is not lying, and therefore all deception is not immoral. This is where I think lots of Christians go wrong. When you fake a player left or right in basketball, or pump fake in football, the intent is to decide the other team. But I don't think anyone would claim that that's an IMMORAL act. So deceptions are not necessarily lies. And not all lies are even immoral. My father in law was an undercover cop for years, he literally lied for a living to bring down a huge drug syndicate in Chicago. I think that was brave and heroic, not immoral.
"for the moral relativist, both options are equally legitimate" not exactly... the moral relativist would still need to be self consistent with their own moral framework, it is just that that moral framework might be different than someone else.
"Mind-independent moral duties exist for every particular situation." Ok, so now my question is: How do we access the precise, correct, objective moral duty, reliably, for every particular situation?
@@oakriver2128 if we see an effect in nature but lack the ability to pinpoint the source and to reconstruct the cause-effect mechanism, does that mean that this effect is indistinguishable from not existing. That it is just an ilusion?
@@beckc.5084 Ohhh so close, but a swing and a miss. Not big on self awareness huh? Now imagine an atheist making that exact same speech you just made back to you...
Moral subjectivism vs objectivism, in my view, is about the the underlying standard(s) by which we judge moral decisions in specific situations. It seems to me we all have underlying standards, but don't all share the same standards. Therefore, our standards of moral judgment are subjective. Once we have settled on a subjective set of standards, assessing moral situations by those standards is objective. The fact that people come to the same conclusion about the example situation does not mean we use the same underlying standards. For example, I would seek to reduce suffering while another might seek to obey their best understanding of a religious rule or rules. Different subjective standards, same conclusion. A different example might better illustrate our subjective differences. I object to homophobic acts (because they increase suffering), while other people might not (because they demonstrate adherence to religious rules).
@@johnnelligan7093 Many things are subjective and yet exist, subjectively. For example it seems to me that economic value exists, but is entirely subjective. Same for these words that you are reading right now. They have meaning for you and me even though there is nothing intrinsic to the pixels on the screen that convey any meaning.
@@sidwhiting665 Definitions are, by definition, subjective. My subjective definition of "homophobic acts" is something like; acts intended to marginalize or harm people and motivated by the perception that they behave in a way that is inconsistent with gender norms.
I think evolved primate could have worded it better. Perhaps he was trying to say something like "The Ten Commandments says that lying is objectively wrong, so is it wrong in this scenario?" I don't posit that "action A is good in this scenario and bad in this scenario, therefore it is not objectively moral or immoral." Since the morality is dependent on the subject, then the *subject* is what should be focused on. Is abortion okay? Some people say yes, some say no. Is capital punishment okay? Some people say yes, some say no. Is eating meat okay? Some people say yes, some say no. *"But that doesn't prove that morality is subjective!"* Is what I'd imagine the objection would be. I would ask you: How do you prove that something is subjective, if not by what I just did? Can I show that some people like vanilla ice cream, and that some don't like vanilla ice cream? Can I say that this doesn't prove that taste is subjective? I also have never seen objective morality demonstrated or how it can be known, which is probably the biggest reason why I am a moral relativist.
A poor argument perhaps but morality is still subjective. There is no 'moral force' that can be measured or effects existence in any way. Absent of subjects to describe their interpretation of it, morality ceases to be. Considering how you phrase your third point at 3:40 it's clear you never considered subjective morality as an option. Why should I *not* be able to say that you *ought* not tell the killer where your family is without invoking some 'objective standard'? Who is going to stop me? Someone, maybe. A person, doubtless. Not a thing. And that's the thing; A person might and *probably will* disagree with you. Maybe they thought your family had it coming, or their religion will say that that lie was still a sin that must be repented for. There is no measure that you can hold against an action to see if reality itself agrees with it, because reality doesn't care.
1:41 Slight correction if I may. Morals being relative to situations isn't exclusive to objectivism. It can coincide with subjectivism too. The definition of objectivism doesn’t even state situation dependency anyway. It states that morals exist outside of human thought. But other than that, I agree with the rest of the video
Please define the terms "morality" and "good" for us all...... does it relate to human wellbeing or suffering and how we treat each other ? Is it relative or absolute ? Objective or subjective, if objective then *NAME THE SPECIFIC STANDARD* ? What purpose does it serve ie what the goal of a moral system ? 🤔 If these basic questions are beyond you then please don't waste either my time or your own in further discussion
@@trumpbellend6717 Morality is simply a set of rules between right and wrong. Right and wrong themselves being how you ought to or ought not to act. Good is synonymous with right. I don't see any proof that morality is objective so yeah I'd say it's subjective. And yeah, for me it's mainly about the avoidance of suffering. I dislike the idea of people suffering. If others agree, then we start from there and figure out what we should and shouldn't do
@@trumpbellend6717 Yeah, I agree with his refutation of that other guy's point. I don't have to be Christian to recognise when a Christian makes a good argument lol
@@keifer7813 He speaks nonsense, "right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless. My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'. His goal is to conform with the perceived nature/desires of the specific God he subjectively believes is the "correct" one. Theists like him are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality then calling this morality "objective" 🙄🤔
Delusions of objective morality are the kind of thing that leads to planes flying into sky-skrapers and people burning at the stake. Subjective morality might lead to moral apathy, but objective morality can easily lead to moral degeneracy and depravity. One might be tempted to believe that subjective morality is objectively better than objective morality, but that's the way to the Dark Side.
Objective morality is detailing the permissible behavior and responses for a particular situation or in general . Objective morality in the sense we are talking about it is not what you think it is. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a religious concept, it could be discussed and altered at anytime to promote goodness if you’re talking about the context of mankind. Objective morality can range in form from absolute (God) to law(man). It’s just the idea that you expect the moral principle created to be objectively ADHERED to for the while it exists that’s behind all forms of objective morality. Like for instance a person of faith like myself may have a code of biblical moral standards that we see as absolute. An atheist may not believe in biblical authority to their moral codes but still may adhere to certain moral principles and uphold laws in absoluteness within their lives and within a society. They hold their fellow humans accountable to some of these moral standards. So they still operate with objective morality. As we all should. Not stealing, not trespassing, not murdering, not r*ping, etc. Think of objective morality as an operational concept if you can’t think of it as a natural concept(absolutism)
Subjective morality is completely irrational. No society can thrive off people having the autonomy to do whatever the f*ck they please and permanently be “right” 😅 completely disorderly and juxtaposed to law, justice and order.
It gets even better... If morality is subjective, what the killer is doing isn't wrong to begin with. What I love about arguments for relativism is that they are self-refuting. The act of arguing for it refutes it. If all morality is subjective, then there is no moral value in arguing for moral relativism. Someone's belief in objective morality is right for them. Arguing for moral relativism implies some kind of higher moral obligation to it. It's what you OUGHT to believe in. But why? If relativism is true then it is no more true and no more moral than believing in the falsehood of objectivity.
Yep, nailed it. When someone says, "There is no such thing as objective truth" the follow up question always needs to be, "Is that true?" Same goes with morality. If someone claims that morality is subjective, then they have redefined what it means to be moral. Moral behavior is defined as correct behavior. "Correct" means we have to define right and wrong. . Additionally, moral relativists usually debunk their espoused worldviews with how they actually live their lives. Sure, they'll arm-chair philosophize about it online to no end, but if someone punches them in the face and takes their stuff, it's a testimony to how they really think when they get upset that someone OBJECTIVELY did something morally wrong to them. If morality is subjective.... well, maybe that person just needed/wanted their stuff more, in which case the moral relativist has no ground to protest.
@@sidwhiting665Exactly!! God damn yet trying to explain this to a relativist is seemingly impossible.. its as if they dont want to believe it even if they do deep down maybe so they can justify their actions and actions of others whoch they agree with? Idk.
If morality is objective, why has every society and every single individual for all of humanities existence had different moral views? Even in denominations, of religions, you still see radically different morals between congregants. How can there possibly be objective morality? There can’t. Even if God exist there isn’t objective morality. It would be subjective with God being subject. There is no magical objective morality force that goes throughout the universe.
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v correct, god is the subject, yet he exists beyond our reality. Has killing innocent children been seen as objectively moral through time ever?
@@dartskihutch4033 Yes absolutely it has. For the most recent example, the native Americans used to wipe out each others tribe and kill all the babies and children to young to be of any use. It was seen as normal and every tribe would do it. None of the tribe members to get their children killed every complained. It was a way of life for them. Same with hundreds of ancient tribes to practice child sacrifice. Do you think before speaking?
Subjectivism doesn't imply that the subject is always right in his moral judgements. The subject can make moral judgements that go against his interest (survival and procreation), therefore he can be wrong within the framework of subjectivism.
@@dugonman8360 Look, when it comes to any organ in the body we say it is defective if it does not the support the general function of keeping us alive. The brain, being another organ, is therefore also defective whenever it thinks in such a way that does not keep us alive. There is your answer: we are wrong when we think in such a way that does not benefit our survival and procreation. If you do not agree with this, then you do not consider organs to be defective whenever they work against our survival. Such a person is just irrational or crazy.
@@johnnelligan7093 No. Even if there were a hypothetical "objective right and wrong" out there in the world it would always have to interpreted through someone.
This is completely wrong firstly subjective morality is not relativism. They do not mean the same thing. Whether the morals is based on the individual or the situation they are all subjective morality, what is objective morality has not been addressed in this video. Objective morality only exist when there is no opinion.
So, if the killer asking where your family is, is always objectively bad to answer truthfully, then what about the situation where you are a young child and your parents beat you and sexually abuse you regularly. Is it not possible for that to now be a moral answer ? To allow the killer to now act as your saviour from a horrifically immoral situation ? Now it becomes a subjective question again, where the right answer for most would be to lie to the killer, but the right answer for some would be to tell the killer the truth. Your example of an objective answer in that situation seems poorly thought through. Your bible doesn’t seem to be any help on this situation either. This question seems a lot like the biblical commandment to honour your parents, on pain of death (disobedient children are to be stoned to death, on the orders of your “loving god”). What if your parents are monsters and are commanding you to do horrible things ? In the case of the “honour your parents” commandment, it would also become subjective, as the right answer for most would be to obey your parents because they are wiser, more experienced and are looking out for your best interests, but for some, refusing to obey their parents when told to steal, hurt someone or kill someone would be the right answer for them. And the situation goes right back to being subjective again. Some of you guys like to say that your god’s morality is objective, and therefore superior to the societal subjective morality, and yet you always overlook the fact that it’s just your god’s opinion that something is moral then that morality is now subjective to him, like when he tells you that eating shellfish and cutting your beard is morally wrong, but later you get a “new covenant” and those things are no longer morally wrong, proving that those things were never objectively wrong (wrong in all circumstances) but were only subjectively wrong according to your fickle god’s whims. You guys really need to think these things through more, rather than just taking his word for it with a faulty example.
I think the example given is more a problem with Moral Absolutism, which is one of the primary (if not the main) reason we're in the social/political situation we're in today.
It should be noted that the commandments in the Bible, such as the Ten Commandments, are written in regards to the greatest ideal, that is, of the ideal will of the Father in paradise/Heaven. In the perfect paradise, there is no need to lie in order to protect your family from a killer because there won't be any killer in the first place. In the perfect paradise, no situation will ever arise that will make it moral to lie or to cheat/steal, etc. Moral dilemmas such as the one in this video can confuse moral decisions, but they do not prove that morality is not objective. The scenario described in this video begins with the existence of a killer, and so you begin with someone who is already committing atrocious acts of violence whom one is forced to deal with, perhaps in ways that aren't perfectly moral in and of themselves (two wrongs don't make a right). If the Ten Commandments were obeyed, the killer wouldn't exist in the first place and thus there would be no need to lie to protect one's family. God's commandments are perfect if everyone obeys them, but if someone starts breaking them it causes all sorts of chaos and moral dilemmas.
Don't forget, the midwives lied about killing baby Hebrew boys and were rewarded for it. Lying to preserve innocent life could be argued to be a moral imperative.
But for me that runs up against "just b/c it's in the Bible, doesn't mean that God approved of it." That' passage isn't consistent with Christ refusing to lie when under the direct threat of being stoned in passages like his exchange w/ the Jews in Jn. 8.
You don't win an argument with semantics. The OP's definition of objective and yours are obviously different. By objective, he is referring to something we cannot disagree about without one of us being definitively wrong. For example, if we disagree on the world being flat, one of us is definitively wrong.
Except that morality evolved what was right some years ago is now wrong, which basically means morality is subjective to each culture and people group. For example should the gays be stoned? Cuz stoning them is the “objective” thing in Islam. Or should a gay person be left alone to live their life however it they see fit long as they not harming anyone, cuz that would mean the moral is now “subjective”. People who use the argument of objective morality speak from a position of religion not from a position of logic. If your god said it’s wrong to lie then your morality isn’t objective.
Hope some day you'll come to know Christ. In the real way, not in the way that about a billion people on earth are false converts and only have self deceived. I've heard most the common arguments against Christianity and the bible, and i've never seen one that is a smoking gun. Somehow people think they've somehow disproven Christianity with the question "why does God allow so much evil to continue in the world?". The answer is that God allows free choice, and if he prevented every evil before it happened, or gave an immediate punishment to every evil.. then that would require God to remove the freedom of choice from mankind. For mankind to have the free will to do good, they also receive the free will to do evil. Additionally, God will fix all the evil when the time comes and put everything in the correct place. What strange logic people have to assume that God must fix all problems for mankind exactly whenever humans demand.
@S Gloobal in Brazil indigenous people kill babies with defects and don't have regrets. Maori people practiced cannibalism with no regrets. Humans kill humans with no regrets. I guess we know now what the nature of god is. But anyway, what you said is by definition subjective because you, subject, feel regret.
I don't see your point. Yes, the Christian God is a person. All morality is grounded in Him, but it's not subjective because it applies to everyone. The issue is not the origin of morality, but whom it holds sway over.
@@sasilik Is killing babies wrong? Why? Can you justify your answer from a subjective moral standpoint? No need to go to Brazilian tribes, Aristotle himself said "Let there be a law that no deformed child shall live". That was par for the course in Roman and Greek thought (they also often disposed of baby girls, it's well documented). You know what changed things? Christianity and its belief that "Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, female" were all equals (as the apostle Paul said more than once). To clarify, objective morality doesn't mean that everyone should innately know and agree on what is right, just that there is such a thing as right and wrong that applies to all.
@@leandronc your problem is that you can't show that there are such thing that just apply to all. Also that it is right or wrong without humans. Another problem is that the ones who make these rules are still human beings.
@@tedidk8639 Could you clarify what you mean with the statement "f we can't get value from facts then all of morality is objective"? I understand that you can't get an "ought" from an "is", but how does that then connect to make morality objective?
@@tedidk8639 Your reference to Hume's law is correct, yet your conclusion is wrong. We can't get value from facts - right. But morality is objective (just watch the video) - therefore there has to be something _outside_ of us defining morality. Every atheist who says "genocide is wrong" approves of this moral law, a law that can only be given from outside, from God.
@@friedrichrubinstein When people like myself say something is wrong, we are referring to our own personal morals, not an objective standard. We just assume that most people would share a moral view similar to our own which is why we say things like genocide is wrong. Also why do you thing morality is objective? I'm still not convinced that it is.
Your example of objective morality is only objective past the subjective stance that’s agreed upon. It’s unintelligible to have objective morals or a moral view where one gains an ought without a stance or value. And stances and/or values are subjective.
The primary issue with this video is the false assumption that subjective morality occurs in a vacuum where every individual opinion has equal weight. Nothing could be further from the truth. Within a subjective system, individual moral intuitions only have weight if they align with collective intuitions. Collective intuitions must align with broadly accepted moral conventions like Universal Human Rights. Conventions like these have been put in place as a preventative measure in response to past collective moral failures that were detrimental to general human flourishing. The idea that moral intuitions must be grounded in a foreign realm of value to have any authority is undermined by the utility of other subjectively derived systems of value we rely on every day. Monetary value, citizenship, national borders, etc. Nor is the idea of objective morality any more likely to produce a morally equitable system. Just look at the Christian concept of God being the source of objective morality. If we follow God's example, genocide, slavery, infanticide, the slaughter of marginalized groups, and the status of women as property are all negotiable depending on the situation. Right and wrong become a matter of interpretation. In the end, what is the practical difference between socially negotiated subjective principles and endlessly reinterpreted 'objective' moral principles? It seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.
It is also important to point out the difference in objective moral values/duties and absolute moral values/duties. Objective allows for the situational changes described in the video eg lying is normally wrong, but it is right if you're protecting your family from a killer. Absolute morality would say that lying is always wrong, and, therefore, if you lie to protect your family, you're committing a moral wrong. Thus, you should not lie to protect your family.
I don't think "absolute" is a helpful term but just adds confusion. Under objective morals, it is already always wrong to lie in isolation. What does absolute add? The atheist trap counts on people not countenancing that what is proposed is a moral dilemma which by definition involves being constrained to choices which are both bad. He is trying to show you are a relativist because you are doing something you say is objectively wrong. The solution is simple, don't be naive that moral dilemmas don't exist and do the greater good. Also under the premise of "absolute" you must always rescue those being led away to death, thus you should protect your family and not lie which under the dilemma is not possible. This is why "absolute" is not helpful.
Protecting your family is not wrong. Lying is. So, yes, you committed a moral wrong by lying, even if it was to protect your family and that is why sin is disgustingly vile. Abhorrent. You had good intention to protect your family, that should be commended and praised, but you had to resort to immoral means to do so. It's evidence to the fact that the world that we live in is condemned by sin and is therefore unfair, and forces you to perpetrate sin in order to prosper. Which is even more tragic when you understand that sin is what seperates you from God, and that everyone is sinful by nature due to being born of this condemned world. Sin traps you in its arms in those types of situations. "You are already condemned. I condemn you. Separation from God is what awaits if you were to die here right now. Though, you could avoid premature death and keep your life by lying. This doesn't change the fact that you are still condemned though. After all you'll be commiting a sin in order to live. All you'll accomplish is delaying your inevitable separation from God." - sin scoffing in your face in that type of situation. Lying is a sin capable of being forgiven, so do not despair.
Nowhere is Mr B claiming that lying is a moral good. He is pointing to a moral dilemma based on the object, not the subject. Lying is wrong. Protecting your family is right. The dilemma exists based on the situation. That's all he is saying.
"Objective morality depends on the individual situation" And who will decided how a situation must be assessed so that a moral value can be applied? Is this assessment subjective or objective? Why should the person in that example lie to protect his family?
[Gist: A philosopher finally came up with an "objective morality"] Yes, there are dangers to moral relativism. Why EVERYONE has been trying to come up with an "objective morality". For thousands of years now. Someone FINALLY came up with it. Just this 2020. A SECULAR JEW, a philosopher and bioethicist named Mitchell Silver. It's also in the field of experimental philosophy. (In the future, his name might even go down in history as the one who finally found the "solution" to all this. After the Greeks started all this debacle. His moral philosophy is crucial, ESPECIALLY in the New Age. In the age of A.I. and biotech) His book is called, "Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework for Moral Objectivism" It's already there. No one just raised awareness to it yet. In fact, they're going to base the new Bill of Rights from this. They've been deliberating it since 2020.
Your definitions are all wrong. Subjective is opposite of objective. Relative is opposite of absolute. Subjective and relative are not interchangeable. Subjective morals could be relative or absolute ("I think it is wrong to lie unless there is a good reason" vs. "I think it is wrong to lie no matter what"). But you don't have to listen to me, here's William Lane Craig on the topic: _The reason I think it preferable to talk about objective moral values and duties rather than absolute moral values and duties can best be seen by considering their opposites. The opposite of “objective” is “subjective.” The opposite of “absolute” is “relative.” _*_Now very little reflection is needed to see that “relative” does not mean “subjective.”_*_ Just because one’s moral duties are relative to one’s circumstances doesn’t in any way imply that they are subjective, that there is not an objectively right or wrong thing to do in such a situation. _*_So the distinction objective/subjective is not the same as absolute/relative._* _“Absolute” means “regardless of the circumstances.” “Relative” means “varying with the circumstances.” We can agree, for example, that it is not absolutely wrong to kill another person. In some circumstances killing another person may be morally justified and even obligatory. To affirm that one’s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill._ _“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.” If we do have objective moral duties, then in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves we are obligated or forbidden to do various actions, regardless of what we think._ -William Lane Craig www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/objective-or-absolute-moral-values
Little mistake in defining, indeed. However, it also responds to the post from the Primate; "In the dilemma, mix the objective moral reasoning with a relative response" would be a brief answer to it. Anyone can make mistakes. Just as what Newton believed was debunked by Einstein (just a little example), what Red Pen believed was debunked by Craig or viceversa.
@@Martial-Mat Making a mistake doesn't mean it is lying. Just as atheists constantly misinterpret the Bible, I won't inmediately say they're all making straw men.
@@mpleandre Even CHRISTIANS argue constantly about the content of the Bible. However, if you're going to make a video about the meaning of objective and subjective, and deliberately confuse the meanings, you are lying. Or a moron.
Thats not usually what people mean by subjective vs objective morality. When people use objective they tend to mean something that is true regardless of minds existing. Objective is like this pencil is 6 inches long. Thats true regardless of human minds observing the pen or not. Subjective would be people deciding what is moral or not based on their desires or needs. Which is what we have done. I dont believe there is objective moral truth. I believe morality is necessarily subjective because it describes how we feel about others actions and how they impact us and each other. Its good to have definitions down, but realize you may not be using the words the same way someone else is.
@@johnnelligan7093 right or wromg is dependent on how one defines morality which is subjective. We are social creatures and society is a general agreement on what harms or benefits society. And that changes over time for various reasons
Objective morality makes no sense to me. I know it’s a popular idea and a good chunk of philosophers support it so they must make it work somehow but it just sounds like an incoherent idea to me.
I only know of 2 kinds of people who believe in objective morality - religious people, and objectivists. Religious people say it comes from God so I'm not even going to bother addressing that. Objectivists use a contradictory definition of objective that simultaneously means "not up to people" and "invoked in a person's logic." The objectivity they invoke does not preclude subjectivity - which still forms the assumptions of how to form the logic in the first place. So even if I accepted their use of the word "objectivity" as non-contradictory, it does not mean their morality is not subjective - just that it involves objective information.
We each subjectively choose what we think is good and evil, even when it comes to the most minute things. So yes, morality is 100% subjective and I didn't need to make a long video or call others names to make that fact clear.
Great video! Though the ethical dilemma is a false dichotomy. There is a third option, refusing to answer the killer. This is the more moral answer for the objectivist. You are not lying, because the killer didn't ask whether you knew where your family is and you are still doing everything in your power to protect your family because you are not disclosing their location.
After an opening sentence like that, what follows could only be outstandingly brilliant, or brain-meltingly stupid. Let's see.... EP defines relativism as personal belief. You define it as situational within an objective framework. So his argument is incoherent if he used your definitions. Which he doesn't. So you prove nothing. While being astonishingly smug about it.
No, morality would not be objective. If morality was based on the situation that you were in Because. Different people have different ways of looking at the circumstances that they are in. They come to conclusions based on value judgments. Which are also subjective. Ever. Y vague judgments are based on how people see the effects of things or slow may also be subjective. The effects of things help decide how to live their lives. The fact that it is objectively true that you're using these things does not mean that those things are objective. Nor does that mean that morality is objective. Even if you're right now, all those things were objective. That still won't mean that morality is subjective. Some subjective things can be based on objective things. The point of the guy's demonstration is that some people can make their judgments based off of this thing. The fact that people make their judgments based on this thing objectively does not make those things themselves objective. It being objectively true that you use these things to make your judgments. Ystem, make these things objective. The point of the guy's demonstration was to show. Okay, this is a way that you could do this thing.
What if he says he will kill you if you don't tell him and you are pretty sure he wont kill you if you give an answer? Should you lie or accept your death?
RIFAT SARWAR well do you love your family? Are you selfless enough to sacrifice yourself for another, but not just 1 person, but multiple people? Also why can’t you just say a broad truth, it is true but too ambiguous or a truth that is true and specific, but at the time he gets there the family won’t be there anymore.
Your definition for objective morality is mind-independent moral duties exist for every situation. I might be wrong on this part, but when you say mind-independent I believe you a referring to God making the moral decisions based on the situation. At no point is it ever argued that God determines what is morally correct and in the situation you are still just making the assumption on what you personally believe God wants you to do. Better example is if we knew what the killers motives were. Let’s say the killer is trying to find your spouse because your spouse is going to blow up a building. Either way you could be morally justified in lying to protect your spouse or telling the killer to stop your spouse. So at the very least subjective morals exist, but in order to claim objective morals exist you have to prove that Morals come from God.
You say "but in order to claim objective morals exist you have to prove that Morals come from God." That's just not true. One need not prove that God exists in order to show that objective morals exist. This is obvious given the existence of atheistic neo-platonists.
So when the 6th commandmetnt says Thou Shall Not Kill, then the Bible gives numerous examples of God COMMANDING people to kill, doing it himself, or doing nothing when people do it in his name, that's situational huh? I see ZERO ambiguity in the command. It doesn't say "Don't kill unless your fingers are crossed." There was no subjective wiggle room. Also, you totally missed the guy's point. He was demonstrating that all morality is fluid. What have we learned? We've learned that you TOTALLY don't understand the subject that you are talking about. "Subjective morality" does not descrtibe the situation, it describes the subjective perspective of the person making moral judgements. You are WILFULLY reinterpreting a phrase that has a clearly defined and understood meaning to fit your silly argument. Nice try. Don't give up your day job.
So what is the case for subjective morality in Murder? Murder is NOT simply the act of killing. For example, killing in self defense is not murder. Murder is taking another person's life out of selfish/malicious intent. In what scenario is actual murder okay?
After timestamp 2:50 he basically shows how a moral objectivist comes off as a moral subjectivist. Makes the entire video pointless. He nitpicks a tweet, but forgets the gaping hole his entire video is not even trying to hide.
Uh, are we just ignoring the killer who thinks its perfectly acceptable to kill your family? At the end of the day to say that something is objective means that it is beyond the human mind and its opinions, beliefs and biases. It may be, but how as a human being living in a world full of people with conflicting ideas about what is right ever claim that for myself? Now perhaps we might say that killers are immoral, but what does it mean to say that morality is some universal unchanging thing if we only choose to compare our morality with folks who morally agree with us? Or who share our interpretation of God? Objective morality to me seems like a russian nesting doll of no true scotsman's. I'm not sure that it is even biblically supported. Love they neighbor as themself, love God with your whole heart. Basing your moral outlook on love and compassion, that seems pretty subjective to me. The problem is most people when they hear subjective morality they don't pay any attention to what subjective standard morality is being judged by and and assume it's just some excuse for self gratification. But do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a subjective framework.
You are right that the lines seem subjective. I'm assuming cause every person defines love differently or how they want to be respected. The context of the verse "love the Lord... Love your neighbor...", Was the religious leaders asked Jesus to give them the best commandment to follow. Jesus said these two and then followed with, "all the law and the prophets hang on these two". Based on what Jesus said we can say God's law defines love for God and others. This is why Christians claim an objective morality that is not based on a person's opinion, but based on God's law.
3:00 “In subjectiveism, the subject gets to decide what’s right or wrong, and he’s always right by definition.” You’re right. I had to explain to my Christian friends that their morality is subjective, NOT objective, because their god is always right and their morality is based on whatever he wants. They didn’t like that and said I was wrong, so I’ll just show them your video next time.
Nah, that's not right. Subjectivism is about fulfilling the needs of the subject, primarily survival and procreation. Subjects can make decisions that go against this, which means that they can be wrong within the framework of subjectivism.
@@ByorinThe function of morality is precisely survival and procreation. According to the theory of evolution our mental processes are evolved for the purpose of survival and procreation. Morality, being the result of mental processes, has this function. Just like a organ can vary in it's functionality, so can morality, therefore subjects can make wrong decisions under subjectivism.
@@varaconn6708 if the function of morality is survival and procreation then that means any notion of a biblical god = morality must include selfishness at its core. That does make sense in light of how obsessed it seems to be with demanding worship and requiring believers to spread its message and defend it even to death. I’ll think about this more. Thanks!
@@Byorin That's right. Morality as a survival-strategy does three main things. Firstly, it unites a group against a common enemy. Second, it demonizes that enemy by describing him in negative terms and getting into his head. Thirdly, it provides the group with habits that increase chances of survival. For example, a jew living under Roman rule is far more likely to live if he "turns the other cheek" than if he slaps the Roman back.
Ok- I'm going to get controversial here. Hold on. In the first place ALL HUMANS ARE IMMORAL, whether or not they want to think they are. We just are. Only God is totally moral all the time. SO if a killer says, "tell me where your family is or I'll kill you," whether or not it would be moral to lie is a moot point. I'm already immoral so I'll do my best in every situation but I know ahead of time that I will often fall short and act immorally. But I'm going to protect my family. In my opinion, that imperative, for me to protect my family, is beyond morality. Morals are not involved. I will do anything, including murder, to protect my family. Especially my little granddaughters. I know how to drive a backhoe and California has a very big desert.
Tim, I need help understanding this video. I'm a christian. I believe in objective morality. But I don't believe in situational ethics. I think that saying objective morality is based on the situation is really saying that morals are situational not objective. I believe that morals are based on God's nature not on situations. But I agree that it's right to lie to protect your family. Does this mean I'm a hypocrite?
In subjective morality, right and wrong depend completely on each individual subject--the individual determines what is right and wrong. But in objective morality, by contrast, right and wrong does not depend on each individual subject, but on a transcendent standard. I believe the standard is God's nature. But objective morality is always in relation to some situation. This isn't "situational ethics" since situational ethics, properly defined, entails the rejection of an objective standard. Maybe an example will help clarify. Is it wrong to plunge a knife into someone's body? Well, it depends on the situation. In some situations, like murder, it's wrong. But, in other situations, like a doctor performing open heart surgery, it's not wrong. The circumstances matter. But that doesn't mean morality is subjective. We would say that certain actions in one situation are objectively immoral (they would be immoral for everyone in that same situation, not up to the individual), while similar actions in another situation are objectively moral (they would be moral for everyone in that same situation, not up to the individual). It just depends on what the situation looks like. I hope this helps clarify a little more.
The problem is, the question is a false dichotemy. You can either a) tell the truth, or b) expose your family. It ignores other options such as c) silence, or d) telling the truth in a useless way (e.g. "They are with God - because God is omnipresent), or e) telling the truth in a way that the killer will certainly misinterpret and believe to be a lie (e.g. Saying they are cowering behind the fridge when two rooms away behind the fridge they are cowering in a closet), or f) answering with your fists or a weapon, etc... There is always a moral option, the trick is figuring out the moral option in a high-pressure situation.
@@RedPenLogic you flip flop on definitions. you don't get to pick and choose however you like and act like it's an absolute truth. you are rather intellectually dishonest. for example, you can't use descriptive morality and normative morality as one morality that just changes magically to suit your needs
@infinity730 Even if we grant that God is a subject, which is true, the rules would still apply objectively to our universe. As an example, however the game of chess came about, the rule that rooks cannot move diagonally was chosen by the creators (subject.) To us, the players, however, the rule that rooks cannot move diagonally is a property of the game (object). As such, even if one agrees that morality is subjective because God is a subject, the argument still holds because it would apply as an objective property of His creation.
@@Ap31920 right so why can't that also apply to any subjects objextive rules? I think everyone including theists are partaking in a hypothetical imperative.
@@Daz19 Because unless that subject is the creator of the system the rules do not apply objectively within that system. Using my earlier example, if I play chess incorrectly then no one can really stop me from doing so but it can objectively be said that I am playing incorrectly. I am not the creator of chess therefore my ruleset is subjective and can this be discarded by anyone. Same with morality. The rules of morality, being set in place by the creator of the universe upon which they operate act as objective *within* that system. You, as a subject within that system, cannot force your rules to apply objectively. As such, your comparison fails.
@@Ap31920 What does it mean for rules to apply objectively? Do you mean in accordance with a subjects intent? i.e the creator's of chess, or could it also be by the consensus of the players? or some other way? How are the rules of the Christian god anymore objective than those rules of a different deity?
@@Daz19 What does objective mean? Is the movement of the rook a property of the game of chess or a property of the player? Your final question shows you have not understood me. The subjective choice of the creator of a given system applies objectively *to that system*. If the creator of the universe is the Christian God then His rules apply objectively. If some other deity, then that deity's rules apply. If no deity then there are no objective moral rules, only the mechanical rules of the universe (aka physics). If the Christian God exists then He is the creator of the universe, if He is the creator then His rulings apply, otherwise they do not.
That's not how I understand objective vs subjective. Water freezing at a zero degrees Celsius at sea level is objective or true no matter who or no one observes it. Morality depends on which being, including your gods, evaluating the action. Killing is moral when a god says it's moral.
It’s easy to find poorly thought out arguments for anything. That’s all Red Pen does. The fact that the OP used incorrect reasoning to get to his assertion that morals are subjective doesn’t mean that morals are objective. But Red Pen isn’t interested in trying to show what the truth is. He’s just interested in making himself look better to his gullible followers by debunking terrible arguments. At their root, morals are subjective. Red Pen even admitted that he sees premarital sex as immoral, while plenty of people do not. That is, by definition, subjective.
Would morality being objective necessarily mean that our subjective perspectives and opinions about morality are not also real? I don't think that's an argument against moral objectivism.
Sean you're missing the point of this channel. The point of this channel is specifically to address bad arguments so people can improve their critical reasoning skills. There are plenty of other channels that make good cases for objective morality on their own. But unfortunately most people don't listen to good arguments; they're too busy being mislead by bad ones. The point of this channel is to address the bad ones, show why they're bad, and thus give people the reasoning capacity to move onto the playing field of good argumentation; where objective morality and theism always come out on top, mind you.
I'll also point out that disagreement with objective fact does not render the fact subjective. Plenty of people also believe the earth is flat. Doesn't mean that the roundness of the earth is subjective. Just like your disagreement with the immorality of premarital sex does not make it subjective. Your argument is worse than the one being presented here. Try harder.
@@DaveyKanabus Right, every claim needs to be proven. We can prove that the Earth is round, but can we prove that premarital sex is objectively or absolutely immoral or bad?
Morals are subjective. We can look at church and differences there. They cannot agree upon various moral issues. If a moral is objective we should have uniformity. We don’t. Ergo moral objectivity doesn’t exist. The apologist will never explain this in detail because they cannot. So they stay surface level hoping you don’t ask obvious follow up questions.
Hold up.. This video specifically says the situation that the moral in question is relative to depends the on objective circumstances within the situation to make said moral objective. Therefore according to what we just learned in this video, if a situation has no objective circumstances, which many do not, the moral in question is inherently not objective, i.e relative.
the_evolved_primate incorrectly conflated objective morality with absolute morality, and did not swap definitions of objective and subjective morality. Absolute morality means that an action is moral or immoral regardless of the situation. Subjective morality says that what defines what is moral or immoral will vary from one social group to the next. Objective morality says that the rules to define morality are the same regardless of the social group. You are correct in that your morality being objective does not imply that your morality is absolute. You are incorrect in asserting that subjective morality is absolute. Absolute morality is a subset viewpoint of objective morality; all absolute morality is objective. An absolute rule cannot vary between social groups, because it cannot vary. You are flatly incorrect when you assert that moral dilemmas always demonstrate objective morality. Having conflicting standards with which to adhere does not imply that either standard is objective --- if it is an epistemic ethical dilemmas, where the conflict merely *seems* unresolvable because of the agent's lack of knowledge. An objective morality cannot have *genuine* dilemmas, because exactly one of the choices must be preferable. So if it's a genuine moral dilemma, then it is in fact subjective, and it is the agent who must determine which rule wins. You blatantly deceive when you assert that "we ought to save our family" is objective. the_evolved_primate did not ask if he was obligated to save his family; he asked if he was prohibited from lying. So it's an unrelated statement. So, bad post, but worse video.
This is purely ficticious & hyperbolic but you asked if there was ever a morally acceptible circumstance with this. If then entire human race was extinct save just 2 people left, a male & female, both fertile. The female refuses 2 mate with the male because...well whatever. Like if she was a lesbian, chaste, hysterical, if she was a belligerant "antinatalist", etc. It is under that specific scene exclusively that it might be relatively more moral than immoral since all humanity would be lost without impregnating her.
I always find these posed two thought questions hilarious. They put stipulations believing they can railroad you into thinking you only have two options. Most of these two stipulation scenarios exist because they apply only selfish exits out of the scenario. Christ gave us more options in all things due to the reality of we shouldn’t be self centered but selfless. In this scenario you know the person will kill your family. The easy answer is to reply with “you don’t need to know where they live.” No need to lie, you get to tell the truth as well as you detain a known felon. The very “worst” thing that could happen here is always the best thing for those that understand the truth. Knowing that Heaven and hell are real and following Christ allows us to be giving to the point of sacrificing ourselves as we are told to not have fear at all even in physical death as we should fear God alone because He can destroy our spirit. Physical death is just the beginning of really living for those that know Jesus and judgement unfortunately for everyone else.
You can't just wave your hand away at moral dilemmas though. It's a real problem that needs solving in ethics. I don't think Christians do ourselves any good to ignore that.
@@SeraphsWitness He’s saying it’s worth while not to say anything even if the murder kills him because he didn’t lie and he still inherits the kingdom. I see where you come from as well.
Couldn’t it be argued that... “Morality is objective? I disagree”... is an appeal to objective morality? Or objectivity in general? Love your videos, Mr. B! Keep them coming!
Depends on if he thinks his disagreement is means he thinks its actually wrong, or just his opinion that doesn't matter. Since he shared it. He probably thinks it matters and is really right
You’ve taken this instagram post and ran a whole entirely different narrative with it. Their stance is that every person has their OWN subjective morality. What you concider to be the right thing to do, could be the complete opposite of what someone else thinks is the right thing to do. The rules and regulations that people set for themselves are their morals, they hold these beliefs close to their chest because it’s what they truly believe in. You’re saying objective morality always depends on the person or circumstance, which is literally a DIRECT contradiction to your entire point. Every person is different with different values, there can’t be objective morality regardless of the circumstance because no one thinks the same way or has had the same life experiences.
Having a different life experience does not negate anything thrown in this video, a serial killer who murders others because he or she had a terrible life experience doesn’t make it wrong according to your own logic. Objective morality depends on the situation and circumstance. He didn’t say Objective morality depends on the person, he said that Subjective morality depends on the person.
I'd agree that whether morality is subjective is different from whether morality is absolute. That said, their example may still demonstrate an argument against moral absolutism: if the morality of the action depends on the results, then this seems to admit to consequentialism (and it seems very difficult to hold to both absolutism and consequentialism).
Sorry I still don't get it. If subjective morals are a personal choice, and the person in the example has a choice that he could make. It wasn't that there is one right answer, but several valid options, then doesn't that make it a subjective moral choice? And "if it’s true that we ought to lie to save our family from a killer, then morality is objective, not subjective." but its not true that we ought to do that. There is a choice and each person would have a subjective opinion on what would be the best option to take. Maybe your family is abusive, perhaps the person is selfish and values self preservation over that of his family, perhaps his personal beliefs say never lie no matter what. From my limited understanding objective morality would say there can only be one right or wrong answer in any situation, while subjective says it is that persons choice in that situation. Have I got that wrong?
Killer: Where is your family?
Me, an intellectual: Earth
Killer: What Earth?
You: This Earth!
Killer: Ok I go look there!
- killer slams door on the way out
Be more specific.
Ok. Not in Antarctica. Not in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Weeeeeelllll uh, I don't know where they're not!
i still remember a few old style movies where even the bad guys wouldn't lie, instead they'd just say things that get miss-interpreted. They should go back to movies like that.
In reality, the likey possibility..... after you say "earth"
Killer - (BANG!!!!!) Your dead
Then waits for your family to show up, kills them, just to get even with you because you mouthed off.
Thus making you the idiot, not an intellectual
Objective morality requires that a moral determination always be the same for all people in all the exact situations. The Evolved Primate isn’t saying it’s moral to lie to save your family. He’s asking the question as it pertains to the concept of lying being objectively bad in general. There is a situation where someone may value telling the truth more than saving their family. In that case, they find moral justification in letting their family get killed. So it’s still subjective.
The standards that determine what decision to make are objective.
So, it's possible that a person could be correct to tell the truth about something over saving their family, but why and what for? You would still be using objective standards to determine this.... Example. I tell a truth that saves a country but it costs me my family. Human life is still being used as the objective standard.
A situation where it's objectively correct to lie to save your family vs not saving them, would mean that the situations aren't the exact same.
Objective Morality depends on the objective facts of the situation.
@@mjnine23I believe what you could get out of the post is that telling the truth is not objectively good due to these, admittedly extreme, examples.
@@_Sloppyhamobjective morality is based on the objective conditions of the situation.
Extreme situations have different objective conditions and objective morality depends on the objective conditions of the specific situation.
You are talking about two different objective situations. It's 100% irrational to present them as the same situation or to expect the objectively correct moral decisions to be the same.
You are making the exact mistake. Not the same for all people but all exact situations are the requirements for objective morality. Some people don’t understand why the situation is objectively moral or not therefore, that’s why difference occurs.
I agree, like someone choosing to sacrifice their family in order to tell the truth, even in that extreme situation, because …. say …. your all-powerful god warned you that lying was a sin punishable by eternal torture in hell, and you just can’t risk that AND, you also believe that your murdered family is innocent and will immediately be taken to the “better place” in heaven. So, now that situation becomes a moral win - win ! You get to avoid hell for eternity, and they go right to heaven for eternity, and eventually gods will punish the killer for his actions (unless he sincerely repents before he dies, then the killer gets to join your family in heaven for eternity). So, yet again, we have an “objectively moral” situation where some religious nut uses “perfect logic” to allow his family to be killed by making the correct subjective moral decision ! Seriously, doesn’t any Christian actually think these things through, or are you all just happy to listen to red pen’s faulty examples and just go with that ?
I am not a christian but hey a channel focusing on logic and clear thinking like this one is awesome, subscribed.
Try and be one. Best decision of my life EVER.
Be careful. Many things are masked as sounding logical until it takes an actual wise person to turn it on its head.
I had to listen to this twice; But makes total sense to me now. Great job man, Great video.
Same
@@peterbassey9668 I agree!
Immediately I noticed that this entire argument assumes that’s saving your family is morally right lol
I know right. What I've found good while thinking about such situations is asking 'For Whom'? He said it's objectively right to lie in this situation to save your family. But what if the family of the person facing this situation has committed awful things to him?
If you believe you can be wrong or right about morality in a meaningful way you're invoking an objective standard
If you argue against my point you're invoking an objective standard
If you believe the objective standard isn't there but a social providence then you got the right idea
Let's pack it up here guys you want paper for dinner or light sabers?
Let me simplify it for you guys
You sit between two sides good and bad
That's an objective reality that you think is right for morality
There by morality is objective
They just can't stop giving you material, can they?
Even if they did there is so much already on the web Tim could make this a family business and it'd last until the heat death of the universe
tj mckay what does this question mean?
@tj mckay How on earth did you read this thread and get anything even related to sexual attraction?
@Anthony A. I wouldn't waste your time. Look at the person you are replying to. There was nothing in the video, in the original post, or in any of the replies preceding his to suggest anything regarding sex let alone homosexuality. tj here is clearly any combination of the following:
1. A pervert who wishes to drag us down to his level.
2. A jerk looking to upset Christians through mockery.
3. A moron who thinks he actually has a point.
2 Peter 3 describes people like him, leave him to God's judgement and seek those who are interested in truth. He is a waste of your time and energy.
@tj mckay You prove by your sheer stupidity that you do not know how the no true scottsman fallacy works. Such basic stuff and yet even that you get wrong. Pathetic.
I would try to never lie. If a killer asked me where my family was, I'd like to think I'd simply not answer and try to out kill the killer whether I thought I could or not.
Edit: I love this channel. Be strong in Faith brothers and sisters!
Agreed. The 3rd answer to this 'dilemma' is to just not answer at all. Idk why 'the evolved primate' thought the best way to paint the scenario was to force you into a box
And if they said "ANSWER ME OR I'LL SHOOT YOU!"?
@@dragan176 it will depend on the person's inclination or disposition at that moment.
1. If the person's inclination is toward saving himself and his family than mortality then he will lie.
2. If his inclination is toward morality (both not willing to lie nor put his family in peril) then he will choose to die.
3. If his inclination is toward only saving himself then he will tell the killer where his family is and save himself.
@@JohnCarloCahimat Would anyone choose to die just because they won't tell a lie?
@@dragan176 yes, again it would depend on someone's disposition.
Your definition of objective morality is wrong as I understand it. It isn't situation dependent - quite the opposite actually. "Objective morality refers to the idea that moral principles exist independently of individual beliefs, cultural norms, or situational factors". Conversely, "Subjective morality suggests that moral judgments are based on individual or societal perspectives and can be influenced by the circumstances of a particular situation."
That how understood it as well. He saying that moral objectivism is based on the “objective situation” at hand without defining an “objective situation”, it also implies that everyone would see the “situation” the same way which is a bold claim. And even if there was a “objective situation” there should should be an objective moral prescription for every situation , because that’s what objective is by definition. In essence he can’t make that claim without listing the objective morals.
The definition that you gave is completely irrational. It may be the dictionary definition, but if it is then it's still irrational and the main reason why people have a hard time with this topic.
Objective morality depends on the objective facts of the situation that the decision is being made. The knowledge level that the person who is making the decision is an objective fact. It's irrational to judge someone for knowledge they don't have.
Subjectivists fail before they even begin bc they set up the topic irrationally, as if we are taking about imaginationland instead of objective reality.
@@mjnine23can you give me an example of objective morality and why it’s objective? Because the way you represent objective morality and subjective morality is different than how most people, myself included, think about it.
@@_Sloppyhammorality is concerned with right and wrong behavior. Behavior is only possible with life. Morality has an objective premise that the vast majority of people ignore.
Morality is a question of what's optimal for human life.
@@mjnine23 morality deals with the concepts of right and wrong, also known as what we ought to do and ought not to do. None of that involves life as the premise for morality. You saying that it is, is you deciding it’s that way with your subjective opinion
Thank you for clarifying this. That's how logic is supposed to work. It's meant to solve problems by clarifying facts. Instead of solving problems by obfuscating facts, as pseudo-intellectuals do.
[Gist: A philosopher finally came up with an "objective morality"]
EVERYONE has been trying to come up with an "objective morality".
For thousands of years now.
Someone FINALLY came up with it.
Just this 2020.
A SECULAR JEW, a philosopher and bioethicist named Mitchell Silver.
It's also in the field of experimental philosophy.
(In the future, his name might even go down in history as the one who finally found the "solution" to all this. After the Greeks started all this debacle. His moral philosophy is crucial, ESPECIALLY in the New Age. In the age of A.I. and biotech)
His book is called, "Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework for Moral Objectivism"
It's already there. No one just raised awareness to it yet.
In fact, they're going to base the new Bill of Rights from this. They've been deliberating it since 2020.
@@EddyMerlyBorjaLit Who has been deliberating it?
@@coda821 the US government, I mean
@@EddyMerlyBorjaLit Govt codifying morality? That sounds creepy. Maybe I need to read this guy's writing.
@@coda821 I know I'm late, but governments do codify morality; that's what laws are
Your videos are such a breath of fresh air brother.
You rock. (subjective)
Haha. I'll take it.
@@RedPenLogic Ironically this comment disproved your whole video
@@dryfox11 Explain. 🤔
@@dryfox11not at all
Atheist here. And yeah you're actually completely right. I believe morals are relative due to the fact that there's no inherent idea of what is right or wrong. Anyone can have any sort of moral standard and believe they're right. However, depending on the situation, we can use logical thinking and reasoning to determine which is the objectively better decision. Then again, there are many decisions where it's not clear which one is objectively better. Which is often due to lack of information, or inability to predict the future. And then God goes and says that premarital sex, or homosexuality is immoral when there's literally nothing wrong with them.
What about sexually transmitted diseases?
@@KingPingviini STD's have no correlation to sexual preference. If that's a valid reason we should prohibit something, then we should ban all sex in general. Even then, what about relationships where they aren't having any sex? Are they off the hook, or are they prohibited from loving people? Maybe things would be easier if God didn’t make STD's. Or diseases in general.
@@KingPingviini Sexually transmitted diseases are not exclusive to homosexuality or premarital sex. The same precautions that married heterosexuals take to prevent STDs would apply to any other kind of sexual relationship.
What do you mean by “objectively better “ who defines what’s better ?
"Atheist here" because everyone has been dying to hear from one. Just as annoying as evangelicals.
Thanks Mr.B!!! I actually like the way you explain complex topics and make them easy to understand.
Shout out from a new fan here😃👋
Apparently, each apologist redefines the terms differently. In this case, the speaker identifies relativism with subjectivism.
However, for W. L. Craig, who has honed the terminology over decades in his defense of the moral argument, the definition is just the opposite:
_"Very little reflection is needed to see that _*_'relative' does not mean 'subjective'"._* (William Lane Craig)
The distinctions Craig makes are clearer. Relativism is opposed to absolutism. Indeed, "it does not mean 'subjective'" (Whoopsie). And it can even go hand in hand with both moral "objectivism" and "subjectivism".
And this last detail is important: the question of taking into account contextual dynamics (situations and/or circumstances of the individual or individuals) does not conflict with an anti-realist, non-transcendentalist, non-theistic or intersubjective understanding of morality either.
So the detail is that "The Evolved Primate" is actually attacking moral absolutism. *_But from this it does not follow that he has affirmed the existence of the so-called "objective morality"._*
Other than the latter, I don't see any relevant point in this video.
Thank you for sharing! You've really eloquently pointed out problems I had with this video and I really appreciate your comment.
“But from this it does not follow that he has affirmed the existence of the so-called “objective morality.”
Even if this is true, he certainly hasn’t disproved it. Without an objective standard for morality, no actions can be objectively right or wrong.
Clearly this “evolved primate” person believes that there are right and wrong actions in certain scenarios (such as lying to the killer to protect his family), otherwise he couldn’t have used a situation where he considers lying a necessary “good.”
This is a great channel. Well done! Awesome editing, great explanation, fantastic work. I'm gonna show all my family and friends this as it is such an important topic. God bless :)
Spreading false information eh? 😆
I know that I am late to the game and maybe that is because I am just a late blooming semi-evolved primate, but I am confused.
I thought that subjective morals were based on the subject and are based on the person. Objective morals are based on a set of moral standards that are valid for all people and all situations, regardless. And moral situationism are moral judgments that must be made within the context of the entirety of a situation.
In all fairness the evolved primate did not use the terms Objectivism or Relativism. regardless you gave the wrong definition for Objectivism.
I hope that within the last few years since you made this video that you have corrected your error.
The argument is also self-defeating in that it assumes that it is always right in all circumstances to protect one's family. And while you or I would say that one must protect one's family at all costs, that is not something that can be derived from the givens of this argument, and yet this argument assumes it to be true. So the argument is necessarily self-defeating.
Do you know anyone who isn't a psychopath who wouldn't protect their families? If so, what are their arguments for not doing so?
@@megalopolis2015 One example in which it would be morally objectively right not to protect your family would be, for example, if one of your parents was a serial killer. Or one of your siblings, as in the case of the unibomber's brother.
But even if your family is perfectly innocent, that you should protect them is cannot be derived from the givens of the argument. Not to say that it's not true, merely that you can't get there logically. The philosopher David Hume made a distinction between "is" statements ( _that is a tree_ ) and "ought" statements ( _I ought to protect my family_ ). We can derive "is" statements logically, through deductions. But there is no tool to allow us to logically derive an "ought" statement (that is, a statement about what is or is not morally right or wrong).
For those, we need something outside of ourselves. For further reading, there is a portion of Plato's _Apologia_ called _Euthyphyro_ and in it Socrates has a discussion with another man about why things are right or wrong.
@@megalopolis2015 Simpler answer (my first was too convoluted): You can't get morals without God. Of course we want to protect our families... But the atheists want to pretend that there's a rule out there saying that we have to, even though you can't have a moral rule with a moral God who made that rule.
So the fact that we feel that it _is_ a moral imperative to protect our families means that deep down we know that there _is_ a God.
@@WhereWhatHuh Now I get you. Totally agree. God is the moral foundation. Atheists want to explain that our morals just are, say, due to societal conditioning and consensus, but that doesn't explain much, not the least of which would be the desire for a moral framework to begin with.
@@WhereWhatHuh Playing Devil's Advocate, some may say that the behavior to protect one's own is prevalent in animals as well - so its not unique to humans to protect the 'social group' that they belong to whether that is a 'family' or whatever. So they can and will point out that this is a biological imperative that is akin to a natural law. But it is not universal as there are plenty of other animals that just lay eggs and that's the extent of them being parents (salmon, etc).
However I think the fact that virtually all humans see their children as innately precious despite the lack of sleep, massive drain on resources and time, and mental stress. There is a deep fulfillment to be had by having children beyond just a biological imperative. Animals don't care about existential concepts at all - they deal in the here and now and whatever their biology tells them. We can go beyond that. How come we are the only ones to do that?
Awesome, thanks Mr. B!
Theists individually can be moral, but they have no way to explain through faith why any act is right or wrong. Unless someone can manage it?
They'd have to first prove that their God actually exists.
You're conflating explaining and proving. Those are two different concepts.
I keep on coming back to this video because of how much it fascinates me this line of reason. I also really like how in the title you say "affirms" instead of "prove" to show that this isn't an end-all argument to the debate, but rather part of the argument for objective morality
Thank you very much for the subtitles. They are very helpful for me to understand more.
So morality is objective. Is slavery objectively wrong? If so, based on what? The bible is fine with slavery, and never says that it is immoral
it isn't
@@ВячеславВячеславыч-с7с that's a hot take buddy.
WELL BEING.. it CAN and is measured.. eating an APPLE IS OBJECTIVELY GOOD PERIOD few exceptions.. burning in a fire is OBJECTIVELY BAD PERIOD few HYPOTHICAL exceptions... slaver HARMS well being of SLAVES AND harms the slaver too... slaver has to spend TIME and ENERGY ensuring a slaves stays a slavr and has to CRIPPLES GROWN ASS CAPIBLE ADULTS to have "power" two ppl WORKING TOGETHER to solve issues is GREATER then a maste4 forcing a slave... WE CAN MEASURE WELL BEING... we can measure goodness and badness.. it's GOOD to cut ur leg off IF it saves ur life... it's BAD for me to cut ur leg off for personal pleasure.. ur not CRIPPLE AND if ur my slave or someone else ur now ONE LEG LESS abd it's my problem too now... ur one leg hurts me too.. AND if u someone else's slave I'm no in conflict with they owner... xD HUMANISM IS SUPERIOR MORAL SYSTEM and we CAN and DO measure WELL BEING... black and white or good vs evil is stupid thinking AND delusional as no such thing as good vs evil... even pagans grasp nuances unlike monotheism that believed even more made up bs... at LEAST pagans associated womes cycles to thr moon which is MORE valid then forbidden fruit caus9ng women chuld birth issue... xD
FDR during WWII drafted millions of Americans against their will to fight two monstrous empires that declared war on their country (America had it flaws but it was a utopia compared to Nazi Germany and Japan) what he did was a form of slavery and yeah it was the right thing to do.
@@guitardude125 He's probably a capitalist.
I run across so many atheist who think this way in regards to morality and they don’t understand it, definitely gonna bookmark this video.
[Gist: A philosopher finally came up with an "objective morality"]
EVERYONE has been trying to come up with an "objective morality".
For thousands of years now.
Someone FINALLY came up with it.
Just this 2020.
A SECULAR JEW, a philosopher and bioethicist named Mitchell Silver.
It's also in the field of experimental philosophy.
(In the future, his name might even go down in history as the one who finally found the "solution" to all this. After the Greeks started all this debacle. His moral philosophy is crucial, ESPECIALLY in the New Age. In the age of A.I. and biotech)
His book is called, "Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework for Moral Objectivism"
It's already there. No one just raised awareness to it yet.
In fact, they're going to base the new Bill of Rights from this. They've been deliberating it since 2020.
Atheists are "exerts" in intellectual dishonesty and selective logic...
This video finds one bad atheist argument (I agree that the argument is bad). However, at the end, there is no evidence that objective morality exists.
@@goranmilic442 I'm going to guess that you live your life as if objective morality exists. For example, if I steal all your money and your digital device because "I want it", I doubt you'll be okay with that. You won't really care what my reasoning is. The fact is it belongs to you, and it's objectively wrong--always--for me to take your stuff.
.
Now... I can ASK you for it. I can try to PERSUADE you to give it to me. I can APPEAL to your generous nature. But for me to simply knock you down and take you stuff because I want it .... nope. That's objectively wrong. Always.
@@sidwhiting665 No, I don't live as objective morality exists, because I have no evidence that it does. You confirm there is no objective morality in your examples. Belonging (property) is a social construct, it doesn't objectively exist, it exists only in our society, because we humans subjectively decided that we should recognize other's property. And you know that. Also, the reason why I don't steal from you (or harm you or kill you or insult you) is because I subjectively care for you. There is no objective reason why I should do that. However, if you want to prove that stealing is objectively wrong, then do it, please. Don't just say it is always objectively wrong, prove it. And in that proof you can't use my or your subjective opinions. You must prove that stealing is objectively wrong - wrong independent of our minds.
Rookie mistake! This is actually a form of consequentialism. Moral objectivity doesn't even make any sense, since it would either need a logical/empirical grounding (the is/ought problem debunks this), or it would have to be subjective anyway because there's nothing objectively distinguishing it's justification from some other moral standard apart from itself. Besides, our only way to acquire a moral framework is to utilise an arbitrary set of information. So even if objective morality existed, then assuming it isn't consequential, how would we ever know if we got it, if it can't be deduced empirically or logically?
Objectivity is based on one sided rationalism ig. It's not bad if you want to go through one plan or one thinking. But dude, god knows objective morality, he is just, he is omnipotent AND he is caring. That is not supposed to make sense. If he knows what's objective morality (OBJECTIVE MORALITY: Morality like a set of rules) and omnipotent (Basically a creature or anyone who can do BASICALLY ANYTHING.) then....how is it supposed to work? An omnipotent god can change the fabric of reality which we "developed monkeys" or "siblings" define as nature. And he KNOWS how we feel about good and bad. So he should be able to relate to both. Then why is there a hell and a heaven. People might say "Heaven and hell are just a way to separate from god." OK you kinda have a point there but guess what? No one wants to completely separate from god. And god can do that. Problem with the concept of "god" is that he is considered an individual. He is more powerful than EXISTENCE itself and he is considered an individual. So look, if he has opinions on things and he is going to do something about it, then definitely people like me and even you say SATAN wouldn't agree on it. And I know that how cruel you guys said satan is depicted to be so I don't agree to him either. You get it? I neither agree with god nor to satan. I believe what I actually think it is supposed to be and I ain't siding with anybody. I work according to what I think and whether it is god or satan or good or bad. I made it according to myself and I will follow it whether is it god's defined good or bad.......that's freewill.
@@santoshkumar-cr6gi The problem with that is that if God (whatever the origin/nature is for the universe) isn't anything like the way the Bible describes it, which is highly plausible considering Christianity's semblance to other religions that would be manmade and God's reflection of the culture, then accepting the facts as truthful nonsense is just another excuse to make people get a satisfactory answer and submit to ancient propaganda. Things not making sense should be a massive red flag, because reality is generally systematic and not paraconsistent. Also, God's morality is just a list of rules He chose. It has no effect on reality other than the conceptualisation of it and people's response to it's presentation. The only specific reason it seems to be specifically that list and not another list that would theoretically benefit humanity more is that they reflect the ancient culture it originated from
@@FireyDeath4 That's an acceptable response. Have a nice day.
I'm pretty sure CS Lewis addresses all of those questions of moral objectivity. He walks through the cultural comparison and implications. He agrees that objective morality requires more than logical and empirical grounding but actually an ontological one. In most cases we don't have access to anything but the facts themselves, but in the one case we do, in the case of ourselves, we find something behind and above the facts themselves telling us what we ought to do. And then goes through many examples of right actions that don't fit the subjective or consequentialist script. You're absolutely right in that this idea of "God just choosing the moral rules" doesn't cut it, because what we actually need is an ontological grounding, which is how we actually think of the connection between God and Good- unchosen within the very being and nature of God.
If you've already read Mere Christianity, find a Christian you respect to chat through your specific objections to the framework with in person :)
@@wondergolderneyes The things that inform us what we feel like we ought to do are understanding and motivation. And empathy and obligation are usually the sort of thing that differentiates what it seems like we ought to do from just what we feel like doing. If you're referring to ontology in the sense of the state of being, which seems like it's related to solipsism in how it's based on the self and their incorrigible knowledge about their perceptions and thoughts, everything still has it's own sense of understanding, desire, obligation and motivation, which are the basis of moral judgment, meaning that moral subjectivism is still true. Different agents are compelled to think and do different things, and there isn't any unifying ruleset that they tend to adopt other than that of instrumental convergence. There's also the orthogonality thesis, which basically posits that agents can have any goals alongside any type and amount of intelligence. Rulesets are just concepts, and if your sense of obligation differs from those concepts, it won't even matter if you know other concepts. A defined scale of goodness - a measure of how good different things are - is just a scale, and only that scale can justify itself being chosen and followed over the infinite other scales to choose, just as only each of those scales justify themselves. The fundamental scale of your mind could only be altered externally, and even then, it would seem that you're just part of a universal scale aligned with following the laws of physics. Your idea just doesn't work because if you told it to an agent you disagree with, perhaps like a psychopath, they would feel justified in their own mindset and continue to pursue it, since that would be the ontological thing they'd perceive that you're referring to
You're missing the larger point, which is that the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" is incoherent. We can't tell the difference between an "objective truth" and a "subjective truth" which is why pretending the difference matters only leads to confusion.
Your videos are so underrated keep up the good work
I just discovered your channel. This is so great. I teach logic and rhetoric, and I can see that I will be using this channel for some great examples. Great work. God bless.
Teaching logic and rhetoric is cool job. Now, can you show me one evidence that objective morality exists?
@@goranmilic442 I cannot give emperical evidence that objective morality exists (i.e., using logic and reason). Nor can I justifiy my love my wife or children based solely on objective observable behaviour - mine or theirs, at times. I do not think it would be wise to use this as evidence against my love or theirs.. The existence of objective morality is not in the category of logic and reason, it is in the category of metasphysical or faith-based heuristics..
@@goranmilic442 ...but a relatable example that points to objective morality is the concept of karma, that most people seem to agree with. Karma, like objective morality, is not rationally or logically rigorously provable, but it is an organizing principle that most people accept. It regulates behaviour and leads to more contientious, principled behaviour. People do reject these concepts, but we generally view radical rejection of these concepts as correlated to personality disorders (e.g., narcissism, psycopathy, Machiavellialism, sadism).
@@michaelfitze7894 So why would we believe that objective morality exists, if even a teacher of logic can't show it exists. You can have faith in anything, so it's not a real path to knowledge. Love, as human emotion, is well-known, explored and experienced thing, uncomparable to supposed objective morality. Regarding karma, you are contradicting yourself. It doesn't matter what people believe without evidence, because those are subjective opinions. To show that objective morality exists, you would have to show something objective, not subjective opinions.
@@goranmilic442 I am not here to argue. I think ideas come before the material world. I have tried to point to why. If you reject faith and subjective opinions, there is no point in debate - because if we are both perfectly rational, we would never disagree about anything. Or disagreement would be settled by pointing out the correct facts. But disagreement is seldom that simple.
If our experience of living could all be boiled down to the correct interpretation of objective facts, the world and human relations would be much simpler. I am not arguing that objective morality exists as some identifiable set of rules expressible in language. "Objective morality" points to something that comes BEFORE language, and therefore cannot be fulled explicated in language using reason and evidence. I hope that answers your original question.
"I'm not going to tell you where my family is" Neither a lie, or a choice to knowingly endanger other people's lives. If I get murdered after being honest, that would fall on the mistake of someone else, and I know where I'm going after this life, so no worries from me.
That's an open debate within Christian circles (or ethics more broadly). But either way, the debate is on which objective conclusion is correct.
What if refusing to answer has effectively the same consequences as ratting them out? For example, suppose you are hiding Jewish refugees in WW2 Germany and the gestapo comes and asks if there are any Jewish refugees in your home. Refusing to answer is something they'll effectively take as good as "yes" in that they'll almost certainly exhaustively search your house in both cases. Your only fighting chance of saving them is to deceive the gestapo.
What about the act of hiding them in the first place? Isn't that an act of deception of its own and a lie of sorts from people interested in where they are regardless of what you say or don't say? Keeping the truth hidden from people is still a deceptoin of sorts even if you utter no lying words. For example, a man who cheats on his wife and keeps it from his wife is still deceiving her. Hiding the truth from people still has the same type of misleading effects as outright lying to them.
@@darkengine5931 all deception is not lying, and therefore all deception is not immoral. This is where I think lots of Christians go wrong.
When you fake a player left or right in basketball, or pump fake in football, the intent is to decide the other team. But I don't think anyone would claim that that's an IMMORAL act.
So deceptions are not necessarily lies. And not all lies are even immoral. My father in law was an undercover cop for years, he literally lied for a living to bring down a huge drug syndicate in Chicago. I think that was brave and heroic, not immoral.
@@SeraphsWitness That's a much more pragmatic way of thinking to which I can subscribe. I always found Kantian ethics obnoxious.
@@darkengine5931 you're thinking in the right direction, and I appreciate that. Good questions too.
Beautifully done and well paced!
"for the moral relativist, both options are equally legitimate" not exactly... the moral relativist would still need to be self consistent with their own moral framework, it is just that that moral framework might be different than someone else.
I need some more coffee.. I'm not awake enough for this yet 😅
"Mind-independent moral duties exist for every particular situation." Ok, so now my question is: How do we access the precise, correct, objective moral duty, reliably, for every particular situation?
if we couldn't reliably ascertain the correct moral duty for a particular situation, does it follow that this moral duty does not exist?
neno5rov it doesn’t follow that it does NOT exist, but it would be indistinguishable from not existing.
@@oakriver2128 if we see an effect in nature but lack the ability to pinpoint the source and to reconstruct the cause-effect mechanism, does that mean that this effect is indistinguishable from not existing. That it is just an ilusion?
Well that's what the ten billion commands is for. Obvious innit?
@@beckc.5084 Ohhh so close, but a swing and a miss. Not big on self awareness huh? Now imagine an atheist making that exact same speech you just made back to you...
Moral subjectivism vs objectivism, in my view, is about the the underlying standard(s) by which we judge moral decisions in specific situations. It seems to me we all have underlying standards, but don't all share the same standards. Therefore, our standards of moral judgment are subjective. Once we have settled on a subjective set of standards, assessing moral situations by those standards is objective. The fact that people come to the same conclusion about the example situation does not mean we use the same underlying standards. For example, I would seek to reduce suffering while another might seek to obey their best understanding of a religious rule or rules. Different subjective standards, same conclusion. A different example might better illustrate our subjective differences. I object to homophobic acts (because they increase suffering), while other people might not (because they demonstrate adherence to religious rules).
Please define "homophobic acts"... objectively.
Morality must be objective for morality to exist at all.
A specific moral code can be wrong.
But morality can not be subjective.
@@johnnelligan7093 Many things are subjective and yet exist, subjectively. For example it seems to me that economic value exists, but is entirely subjective. Same for these words that you are reading right now. They have meaning for you and me even though there is nothing intrinsic to the pixels on the screen that convey any meaning.
@@sidwhiting665 Definitions are, by definition, subjective. My subjective definition of "homophobic acts" is something like; acts intended to marginalize or harm people and motivated by the perception that they behave in a way that is inconsistent with gender norms.
This guy does a really good job
At mak8ng up more BS to keep the sheeple in the steeple, and their true $$god$$ walking in the door!
It sucks how he has to explain what should be common sense but people are brainwashed out here
I think evolved primate could have worded it better. Perhaps he was trying to say something like "The Ten Commandments says that lying is objectively wrong, so is it wrong in this scenario?"
I don't posit that "action A is good in this scenario and bad in this scenario, therefore it is not objectively moral or immoral." Since the morality is dependent on the subject, then the *subject* is what should be focused on.
Is abortion okay? Some people say yes, some say no.
Is capital punishment okay? Some people say yes, some say no.
Is eating meat okay? Some people say yes, some say no.
*"But that doesn't prove that morality is subjective!"*
Is what I'd imagine the objection would be. I would ask you: How do you prove that something is subjective, if not by what I just did? Can I show that some people like vanilla ice cream, and that some don't like vanilla ice cream? Can I say that this doesn't prove that taste is subjective?
I also have never seen objective morality demonstrated or how it can be known, which is probably the biggest reason why I am a moral relativist.
A poor argument perhaps but morality is still subjective. There is no 'moral force' that can be measured or effects existence in any way. Absent of subjects to describe their interpretation of it, morality ceases to be.
Considering how you phrase your third point at 3:40 it's clear you never considered subjective morality as an option. Why should I *not* be able to say that you *ought* not tell the killer where your family is without invoking some 'objective standard'? Who is going to stop me? Someone, maybe. A person, doubtless. Not a thing.
And that's the thing; A person might and *probably will* disagree with you. Maybe they thought your family had it coming, or their religion will say that that lie was still a sin that must be repented for.
There is no measure that you can hold against an action to see if reality itself agrees with it, because reality doesn't care.
Anyone else find the handler name “the_evolved_primate” a little ironic?
Just backwards
He missed a d after the first underscore.
@@Ap31920 Everyone: OOOHHHHH!!!!!!
Ohhhh, the poster's name is "the evolved primate". I genuinely thought it was an insult this whole video 😂
Keep up the good work!
1:41 Slight correction if I may. Morals being relative to situations isn't exclusive to objectivism. It can coincide with subjectivism too.
The definition of objectivism doesn’t even state situation dependency anyway. It states that morals exist outside of human thought. But other than that, I agree with the rest of the video
Please define the terms "morality" and "good" for us all...... does it relate to human wellbeing or suffering and how we treat each other ? Is it relative or absolute ? Objective or subjective, if objective then *NAME THE SPECIFIC STANDARD* ? What purpose does it serve ie what the goal of a moral system ? 🤔
If these basic questions are beyond you then please don't waste either my time or your own in further discussion
@@trumpbellend6717 Morality is simply a set of rules between right and wrong. Right and wrong themselves being how you ought to or ought not to act. Good is synonymous with right.
I don't see any proof that morality is objective so yeah I'd say it's subjective. And yeah, for me it's mainly about the avoidance of suffering. I dislike the idea of people suffering. If others agree, then we start from there and figure out what we should and shouldn't do
@@keifer7813
🤔 Hmm yet you say that you _"agree with the rest of the video"_ that this apologist presents ??
@@trumpbellend6717 Yeah, I agree with his refutation of that other guy's point. I don't have to be Christian to recognise when a Christian makes a good argument lol
@@keifer7813
He speaks nonsense, "right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless.
My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard.
One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'.
His goal is to conform with the perceived nature/desires of the specific God he subjectively believes is the "correct" one. Theists like him are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality then calling this morality "objective" 🙄🤔
Delusions of objective morality are the kind of thing that leads to planes flying into sky-skrapers and people burning at the stake.
Subjective morality might lead to moral apathy, but objective morality can easily lead to moral degeneracy and depravity.
One might be tempted to believe that subjective morality is objectively better than objective morality, but that's the way to the Dark Side.
Objective morality is detailing the permissible behavior and responses for a particular situation or in general . Objective morality in the sense we are talking about it is not what you think it is. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a religious concept, it could be discussed and altered at anytime to promote goodness if you’re talking about the context of mankind. Objective morality can range in form from absolute (God) to law(man). It’s just the idea that you expect the moral principle created to be objectively ADHERED to for the while it exists that’s behind all forms of objective morality. Like for instance a person of faith like myself may have a code of biblical moral standards that we see as absolute. An atheist may not believe in biblical authority to their moral codes but still may adhere to certain moral principles and uphold laws in absoluteness within their lives and within a society. They hold their fellow humans accountable to some of these moral standards. So they still operate with objective morality. As we all should. Not stealing, not trespassing, not murdering, not r*ping, etc. Think of objective morality as an operational concept if you can’t think of it as a natural concept(absolutism)
Subjective morality is completely irrational. No society can thrive off people having the autonomy to do whatever the f*ck they please and permanently be “right” 😅 completely disorderly and juxtaposed to law, justice and order.
It gets even better... If morality is subjective, what the killer is doing isn't wrong to begin with. What I love about arguments for relativism is that they are self-refuting. The act of arguing for it refutes it. If all morality is subjective, then there is no moral value in arguing for moral relativism. Someone's belief in objective morality is right for them. Arguing for moral relativism implies some kind of higher moral obligation to it. It's what you OUGHT to believe in. But why? If relativism is true then it is no more true and no more moral than believing in the falsehood of objectivity.
Yep, nailed it. When someone says, "There is no such thing as objective truth" the follow up question always needs to be, "Is that true?" Same goes with morality. If someone claims that morality is subjective, then they have redefined what it means to be moral. Moral behavior is defined as correct behavior. "Correct" means we have to define right and wrong.
.
Additionally, moral relativists usually debunk their espoused worldviews with how they actually live their lives. Sure, they'll arm-chair philosophize about it online to no end, but if someone punches them in the face and takes their stuff, it's a testimony to how they really think when they get upset that someone OBJECTIVELY did something morally wrong to them. If morality is subjective.... well, maybe that person just needed/wanted their stuff more, in which case the moral relativist has no ground to protest.
@@sidwhiting665Exactly!! God damn yet trying to explain this to a relativist is seemingly impossible.. its as if they dont want to believe it even if they do deep down maybe so they can justify their actions and actions of others whoch they agree with? Idk.
If morality is objective, why has every society and every single individual for all of humanities existence had different moral views? Even in denominations, of religions, you still see radically different morals between congregants. How can there possibly be objective morality? There can’t. Even if God exist there isn’t objective morality. It would be subjective with God being subject. There is no magical objective morality force that goes throughout the universe.
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v correct, god is the subject, yet he exists beyond our reality. Has killing innocent children been seen as objectively moral through time ever?
@@dartskihutch4033 Yes absolutely it has. For the most recent example, the native Americans used to wipe out each others tribe and kill all the babies and children to young to be of any use. It was seen as normal and every tribe would do it. None of the tribe members to get their children killed every complained. It was a way of life for them. Same with hundreds of ancient tribes to practice child sacrifice. Do you think before speaking?
Subjectivism doesn't imply that the subject is always right in his moral judgements. The subject can make moral judgements that go against his interest (survival and procreation), therefore he can be wrong within the framework of subjectivism.
The problem is, when is someone's subjective morals ever wrong and they freely admit it?
@@dugonman8360 Look, when it comes to any organ in the body we say it is defective if it does not the support the general function of keeping us alive. The brain, being another organ, is therefore also defective whenever it thinks in such a way that does not keep us alive. There is your answer: we are wrong when we think in such a way that does not benefit our survival and procreation. If you do not agree with this, then you do not consider organs to be defective whenever they work against our survival. Such a person is just irrational or crazy.
@dugonman8360 and if they admit they are wrong, they are admitting there is an objective good and they missed the mark
@@varaconn6708 so when a man leaps into a lake to save someone else's child, his brain is defective?
@@johnnelligan7093 No. Even if there were a hypothetical "objective right and wrong" out there in the world it would always have to interpreted through someone.
This is completely wrong firstly subjective morality is not relativism. They do not mean the same thing. Whether the morals is based on the individual or the situation they are all subjective morality, what is objective morality has not been addressed in this video. Objective morality only exist when there is no opinion.
So, if the killer asking where your family is, is always objectively bad to answer truthfully, then what about the situation where you are a young child and your parents beat you and sexually abuse you regularly. Is it not possible for that to now be a moral answer ? To allow the killer to now act as your saviour from a horrifically immoral situation ? Now it becomes a subjective question again, where the right answer for most would be to lie to the killer, but the right answer for some would be to tell the killer the truth. Your example of an objective answer in that situation seems poorly thought through.
Your bible doesn’t seem to be any help on this situation either. This question seems a lot like the biblical commandment to honour your parents, on pain of death (disobedient children are to be stoned to death, on the orders of your “loving god”). What if your parents are monsters and are commanding you to do horrible things ? In the case of the “honour your parents” commandment, it would also become subjective, as the right answer for most would be to obey your parents because they are wiser, more experienced and are looking out for your best interests, but for some, refusing to obey their parents when told to steal, hurt someone or kill someone would be the right answer for them. And the situation goes right back to being subjective again.
Some of you guys like to say that your god’s morality is objective, and therefore superior to the societal subjective morality, and yet you always overlook the fact that it’s just your god’s opinion that something is moral then that morality is now subjective to him, like when he tells you that eating shellfish and cutting your beard is morally wrong, but later you get a “new covenant” and those things are no longer morally wrong, proving that those things were never objectively wrong (wrong in all circumstances) but were only subjectively wrong according to your fickle god’s whims.
You guys really need to think these things through more, rather than just taking his word for it with a faulty example.
I think the example given is more a problem with Moral Absolutism, which is one of the primary (if not the main) reason we're in the social/political situation we're in today.
It should be noted that the commandments in the Bible, such as the Ten Commandments, are written in regards to the greatest ideal, that is, of the ideal will of the Father in paradise/Heaven. In the perfect paradise, there is no need to lie in order to protect your family from a killer because there won't be any killer in the first place. In the perfect paradise, no situation will ever arise that will make it moral to lie or to cheat/steal, etc. Moral dilemmas such as the one in this video can confuse moral decisions, but they do not prove that morality is not objective. The scenario described in this video begins with the existence of a killer, and so you begin with someone who is already committing atrocious acts of violence whom one is forced to deal with, perhaps in ways that aren't perfectly moral in and of themselves (two wrongs don't make a right). If the Ten Commandments were obeyed, the killer wouldn't exist in the first place and thus there would be no need to lie to protect one's family. God's commandments are perfect if everyone obeys them, but if someone starts breaking them it causes all sorts of chaos and moral dilemmas.
That's an excellent observation.
Don't forget, the midwives lied about killing baby Hebrew boys and were rewarded for it. Lying to preserve innocent life could be argued to be a moral imperative.
But for me that runs up against "just b/c it's in the Bible, doesn't mean that God approved of it." That' passage isn't consistent with Christ refusing to lie when under the direct threat of being stoned in passages like his exchange w/ the Jews in Jn. 8.
You don't win an argument with semantics. The OP's definition of objective and yours are obviously different. By objective, he is referring to something we cannot disagree about without one of us being definitively wrong. For example, if we disagree on the world being flat, one of us is definitively wrong.
In other words the statement presents a false dichotomy between subject and objective morality.
Except that morality evolved what was right some years ago is now wrong, which basically means morality is subjective to each culture and people group.
For example should the gays be stoned? Cuz stoning them is the “objective” thing in Islam.
Or should a gay person be left alone to live their life however it they see fit long as they not harming anyone, cuz that would mean the moral is now “subjective”.
People who use the argument of objective morality speak from a position of religion not from a position of logic. If your god said it’s wrong to lie then your morality isn’t objective.
Glad I found your page. Even as an atheist I can examine these claims and continue to work on my philosophy so I don’t make the same mistakes .
You are not far from the Kingdom.
Hope some day you'll come to know Christ. In the real way, not in the way that about a billion people on earth are false converts and only have self deceived.
I've heard most the common arguments against Christianity and the bible, and i've never seen one that is a smoking gun.
Somehow people think they've somehow disproven Christianity with the question "why does God allow so much evil to continue in the world?". The answer is that God allows free choice, and if he prevented every evil before it happened, or gave an immediate punishment to every evil.. then that would require God to remove the freedom of choice from mankind. For mankind to have the free will to do good, they also receive the free will to do evil. Additionally, God will fix all the evil when the time comes and put everything in the correct place. What strange logic people have to assume that God must fix all problems for mankind exactly whenever humans demand.
What has atheism got to do with it? Questions of morality apply to both atheists and non-atheists alike.
@1:25 " In subjective morality, right and wrong depend completely on the
individual subject. " Is Yahweh an individual subject?
@S Gloobal Is the trinity 3 persons? Does God have a mind? Isn't the answer to these 2 questions "yes" and "yes" from the Christian worldview?
@S Gloobal in Brazil indigenous people kill babies with defects and don't have regrets. Maori people practiced cannibalism with no regrets. Humans kill humans with no regrets. I guess we know now what the nature of god is. But anyway, what you said is by definition subjective because you, subject, feel regret.
I don't see your point. Yes, the Christian God is a person. All morality is grounded in Him, but it's not subjective because it applies to everyone. The issue is not the origin of morality, but whom it holds sway over.
@@sasilik Is killing babies wrong? Why? Can you justify your answer from a subjective moral standpoint? No need to go to Brazilian tribes, Aristotle himself said "Let there be a law that no deformed child shall live". That was par for the course in Roman and Greek thought (they also often disposed of baby girls, it's well documented). You know what changed things? Christianity and its belief that "Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, female" were all equals (as the apostle Paul said more than once).
To clarify, objective morality doesn't mean that everyone should innately know and agree on what is right, just that there is such a thing as right and wrong that applies to all.
@@leandronc your problem is that you can't show that there are such thing that just apply to all. Also that it is right or wrong without humans. Another problem is that the ones who make these rules are still human beings.
Subjective morality makescas much sense as a criminal being judge in his own court case.
You can't get a value statement from a factual statement, Hume's Law. So if we can't get value from facts then all of morality is subjective.
@@tedidk8639 Could you clarify what you mean with the statement "f we can't get value from facts then all of morality is objective"? I understand that you can't get an "ought" from an "is", but how does that then connect to make morality objective?
@@Wertbag99
Sorry it was a typo. It was supposed to be subjective morality at the end not objective.
@@tedidk8639 Your reference to Hume's law is correct, yet your conclusion is wrong.
We can't get value from facts - right.
But morality is objective (just watch the video) - therefore there has to be something _outside_ of us defining morality.
Every atheist who says "genocide is wrong" approves of this moral law, a law that can only be given from outside, from God.
@@friedrichrubinstein
When people like myself say something is wrong, we are referring to our own personal morals, not an objective standard. We just assume that most people would share a moral view similar to our own which is why we say things like genocide is wrong.
Also why do you thing morality is objective? I'm still not convinced that it is.
Your example of objective morality is only objective past the subjective stance that’s agreed upon. It’s unintelligible to have objective morals or a moral view where one gains an ought without a stance or value. And stances and/or values are subjective.
I just found this and I subscribed thank you Professor B
Thank you, friend. This whole time I've been toying with false definitions. Knowledge truly is power. Praise Jesus!
And this cult has 0 knowledge! ua-cam.com/video/7V0u3nEsmJI/v-deo.html
What a cool channel. It should have a lot more subscribers!
It should have a lot less subscribers given the amount of videos, or rather lack thereof.
I could not hit like hard enough.
I needed this one.
My answer is “What is the context where turning your family over to the serial killer is the moral action?”
The primary issue with this video is the false assumption that subjective morality occurs in a vacuum where every individual opinion has equal weight. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Within a subjective system, individual moral intuitions only have weight if they align with collective intuitions. Collective intuitions must align with broadly accepted moral conventions like Universal Human Rights. Conventions like these have been put in place as a preventative measure in response to past collective moral failures that were detrimental to general human flourishing.
The idea that moral intuitions must be grounded in a foreign realm of value to have any authority is undermined by the utility of other subjectively derived systems of value we rely on every day. Monetary value, citizenship, national borders, etc.
Nor is the idea of objective morality any more likely to produce a morally equitable system. Just look at the Christian concept of God being the source of objective morality. If we follow God's example, genocide, slavery, infanticide, the slaughter of marginalized groups, and the status of women as property are all negotiable depending on the situation. Right and wrong become a matter of interpretation.
In the end, what is the practical difference between socially negotiated subjective principles and endlessly reinterpreted 'objective' moral principles?
It seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.
Yep! This isn't said enough! If I could have a nickel for every high schooler who gets thrown off by this mistake.
Hey, he blinked!
I’m trying to do that more! 😂
It is also important to point out the difference in objective moral values/duties and absolute moral values/duties. Objective allows for the situational changes described in the video eg lying is normally wrong, but it is right if you're protecting your family from a killer. Absolute morality would say that lying is always wrong, and, therefore, if you lie to protect your family, you're committing a moral wrong. Thus, you should not lie to protect your family.
I don't think "absolute" is a helpful term but just adds confusion. Under objective morals, it is already always wrong to lie in isolation. What does absolute add? The atheist trap counts on people not countenancing that what is proposed is a moral dilemma which by definition involves being constrained to choices which are both bad. He is trying to show you are a relativist because you are doing something you say is objectively wrong. The solution is simple, don't be naive that moral dilemmas don't exist and do the greater good. Also under the premise of "absolute" you must always rescue those being led away to death, thus you should protect your family and not lie which under the dilemma is not possible. This is why "absolute" is not helpful.
Protecting your family is not wrong. Lying is.
So, yes, you committed a moral wrong by lying, even if it was to protect your family and that is why sin is disgustingly vile. Abhorrent. You had good intention to protect your family, that should be commended and praised, but you had to resort to immoral means to do so. It's evidence to the fact that the world that we live in is condemned by sin and is therefore unfair, and forces you to perpetrate sin in order to prosper. Which is even more tragic when you understand that sin is what seperates you from God, and that everyone is sinful by nature due to being born of this condemned world. Sin traps you in its arms in those types of situations.
"You are already condemned. I condemn you. Separation from God is what awaits if you were to die here right now. Though, you could avoid premature death and keep your life by lying. This doesn't change the fact that you are still condemned though. After all you'll be commiting a sin in order to live. All you'll accomplish is delaying your inevitable separation from God." - sin scoffing in your face in that type of situation. Lying is a sin capable of being forgiven, so do not despair.
Nowhere is Mr B claiming that lying is a moral good.
He is pointing to a moral dilemma based on the object, not the subject.
Lying is wrong.
Protecting your family is right. The dilemma exists based on the situation. That's all he is saying.
Great logic and reasoning sir..awesome channel.
"Objective morality depends on the individual situation"
And who will decided how a situation must be assessed so that a moral value can be applied? Is this assessment subjective or objective? Why should the person in that example lie to protect his family?
whatever this assessment is subjective doesnt in any way disprove existence of objective morality...
Hey I actually agree with you here. Moral relativism, from what I understand of it, is lacking. And I say that as a hardcore atheist.
I appreciate common ground where we can find it!
[Gist: A philosopher finally came up with an "objective morality"]
Yes, there are dangers to moral relativism.
Why EVERYONE has been trying to come up with an "objective morality".
For thousands of years now.
Someone FINALLY came up with it.
Just this 2020.
A SECULAR JEW, a philosopher and bioethicist named Mitchell Silver.
It's also in the field of experimental philosophy.
(In the future, his name might even go down in history as the one who finally found the "solution" to all this. After the Greeks started all this debacle. His moral philosophy is crucial, ESPECIALLY in the New Age. In the age of A.I. and biotech)
His book is called, "Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework for Moral Objectivism"
It's already there. No one just raised awareness to it yet.
In fact, they're going to base the new Bill of Rights from this. They've been deliberating it since 2020.
Your definitions are all wrong.
Subjective is opposite of objective. Relative is opposite of absolute. Subjective and relative are not interchangeable. Subjective morals could be relative or absolute ("I think it is wrong to lie unless there is a good reason" vs. "I think it is wrong to lie no matter what").
But you don't have to listen to me, here's William Lane Craig on the topic:
_The reason I think it preferable to talk about objective moral values and duties rather than absolute moral values and duties can best be seen by considering their opposites. The opposite of “objective” is “subjective.” The opposite of “absolute” is “relative.” _*_Now very little reflection is needed to see that “relative” does not mean “subjective.”_*_ Just because one’s moral duties are relative to one’s circumstances doesn’t in any way imply that they are subjective, that there is not an objectively right or wrong thing to do in such a situation. _*_So the distinction objective/subjective is not the same as absolute/relative._*
_“Absolute” means “regardless of the circumstances.” “Relative” means “varying with the circumstances.” We can agree, for example, that it is not absolutely wrong to kill another person. In some circumstances killing another person may be morally justified and even obligatory. To affirm that one’s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill._
_“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.” If we do have objective moral duties, then in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves we are obligated or forbidden to do various actions, regardless of what we think._
-William Lane Craig
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/objective-or-absolute-moral-values
@infinity730
It was deliberate (he's more likely to accept one of his people over a secular source).
Yup, just another Christian lying for Jesus. Apologetics is the art of dissembling.
Little mistake in defining, indeed. However, it also responds to the post from the Primate; "In the dilemma, mix the objective moral reasoning with a relative response" would be a brief answer to it.
Anyone can make mistakes. Just as what Newton believed was debunked by Einstein (just a little example), what Red Pen believed was debunked by Craig or viceversa.
@@Martial-Mat Making a mistake doesn't mean it is lying. Just as atheists constantly misinterpret the Bible, I won't inmediately say they're all making straw men.
@@mpleandre Even CHRISTIANS argue constantly about the content of the Bible. However, if you're going to make a video about the meaning of objective and subjective, and deliberately confuse the meanings, you are lying. Or a moron.
Thats not usually what people mean by subjective vs objective morality.
When people use objective they tend to mean something that is true regardless of minds existing. Objective is like this pencil is 6 inches long. Thats true regardless of human minds observing the pen or not.
Subjective would be people deciding what is moral or not based on their desires or needs.
Which is what we have done. I dont believe there is objective moral truth. I believe morality is necessarily subjective because it describes how we feel about others actions and how they impact us and each other.
Its good to have definitions down, but realize you may not be using the words the same way someone else is.
If people are deciding was is right based on their own wants then there is no right or wrong to begin with and no point in calling it morality.
@@johnnelligan7093 right or wromg is dependent on how one defines morality which is subjective.
We are social creatures and society is a general agreement on what harms or benefits society. And that changes over time for various reasons
the title of the video makes it clear, to me anyway, that the important thing is to see someone with an opposing belief be humiliated.
Objective morality makes no sense to me. I know it’s a popular idea and a good chunk of philosophers support it so they must make it work somehow but it just sounds like an incoherent idea to me.
I only know of 2 kinds of people who believe in objective morality - religious people, and objectivists. Religious people say it comes from God so I'm not even going to bother addressing that. Objectivists use a contradictory definition of objective that simultaneously means "not up to people" and "invoked in a person's logic." The objectivity they invoke does not preclude subjectivity - which still forms the assumptions of how to form the logic in the first place. So even if I accepted their use of the word "objectivity" as non-contradictory, it does not mean their morality is not subjective - just that it involves objective information.
What makes it seem incoherent to you? It seems pretty straightforward to me.
We each subjectively choose what we think is good and evil, even when it comes to the most minute things. So yes, morality is 100% subjective and I didn't need to make a long video or call others names to make that fact clear.
So there's nothing wrong with me killing another person?
Great video! Though the ethical dilemma is a false dichotomy. There is a third option, refusing to answer the killer. This is the more moral answer for the objectivist. You are not lying, because the killer didn't ask whether you knew where your family is and you are still doing everything in your power to protect your family because you are not disclosing their location.
After an opening sentence like that, what follows could only be outstandingly brilliant, or brain-meltingly stupid. Let's see....
EP defines relativism as personal belief. You define it as situational within an objective framework. So his argument is incoherent if he used your definitions. Which he doesn't. So you prove nothing. While being astonishingly smug about it.
i thought the meaning of "objective reality" means mind independent reality.
Yep.
Christian apologists such as RPL seem to have no clue what objective morality is.
No, morality would not be objective. If morality was based on the situation that you were in Because.
Different people have different ways of looking at the circumstances that they are in. They come to conclusions based on value judgments. Which are also subjective. Ever.
Y vague judgments are based on how people see the effects of things or slow may also be subjective. The effects of things help decide how to live their lives. The fact that it is objectively true that you're using these things does not mean that those things are objective. Nor does that mean that morality is objective. Even if you're right now, all those things were objective. That still won't mean that morality is subjective. Some subjective things can be based on objective things. The point of the guy's demonstration is that some people can make their judgments based off of this thing. The fact that people make their judgments based on this thing objectively does not make those things themselves objective. It being objectively true that you use these things to make your judgments. Ystem, make these things objective. The point of the guy's demonstration was to show. Okay, this is a way that you could do this thing.
Yeah, agree
Just tell the killer , “I’m not telling you where my family live!” No lies and my family stays protected.
What if he says he will kill you if you don't tell him and you are pretty sure he wont kill you if you give an answer? Should you lie or accept your death?
RIFAT SARWAR , “they are somewhere on the planet”
RIFAT SARWAR well do you love your family? Are you selfless enough to sacrifice yourself for another, but not just 1 person, but multiple people? Also why can’t you just say a broad truth, it is true but too ambiguous or a truth that is true and specific, but at the time he gets there the family won’t be there anymore.
Your definition for objective morality is mind-independent moral duties exist for every situation. I might be wrong on this part, but when you say mind-independent I believe you a referring to God making the moral decisions based on the situation. At no point is it ever argued that God determines what is morally correct and in the situation you are still just making the assumption on what you personally believe God wants you to do.
Better example is if we knew what the killers motives were. Let’s say the killer is trying to find your spouse because your spouse is going to blow up a building. Either way you could be morally justified in lying to protect your spouse or telling the killer to stop your spouse. So at the very least subjective morals exist, but in order to claim objective morals exist you have to prove that Morals come from God.
You say "but in order to claim objective morals exist you have to prove that Morals come from God." That's just not true. One need not prove that God exists in order to show that objective morals exist. This is obvious given the existence of atheistic neo-platonists.
So when the 6th commandmetnt says Thou Shall Not Kill, then the Bible gives numerous examples of God COMMANDING people to kill, doing it himself, or doing nothing when people do it in his name, that's situational huh? I see ZERO ambiguity in the command. It doesn't say "Don't kill unless your fingers are crossed." There was no subjective wiggle room.
Also, you totally missed the guy's point. He was demonstrating that all morality is fluid.
What have we learned? We've learned that you TOTALLY don't understand the subject that you are talking about. "Subjective morality" does not descrtibe the situation, it describes the subjective perspective of the person making moral judgements. You are WILFULLY reinterpreting a phrase that has a clearly defined and understood meaning to fit your silly argument. Nice try. Don't give up your day job.
So when god committed acts of genocide he is good but when hitler did it he is evil, so is genocde subjective or objective.
So what is the case for subjective morality in Murder?
Murder is NOT simply the act of killing. For example, killing in self defense is not murder.
Murder is taking another person's life out of selfish/malicious intent. In what scenario is actual murder okay?
My favorite argument for God’s existence is the moral argument, great video!
I find that interesting, since I consider one of the worst arguments.
Can you explain why you think it's so effective?
I prefer cosmic consciousness but okay
After timestamp 2:50 he basically shows how a moral objectivist comes off as a moral subjectivist. Makes the entire video pointless. He nitpicks a tweet, but forgets the gaping hole his entire video is not even trying to hide.
I don't think you understand yet. Play through a few more times.
Uh, are we just ignoring the killer who thinks its perfectly acceptable to kill your family? At the end of the day to say that something is objective means that it is beyond the human mind and its opinions, beliefs and biases. It may be, but how as a human being living in a world full of people with conflicting ideas about what is right ever claim that for myself? Now perhaps we might say that killers are immoral, but what does it mean to say that morality is some universal unchanging thing if we only choose to compare our morality with folks who morally agree with us? Or who share our interpretation of God? Objective morality to me seems like a russian nesting doll of no true scotsman's. I'm not sure that it is even biblically supported. Love they neighbor as themself, love God with your whole heart. Basing your moral outlook on love and compassion, that seems pretty subjective to me. The problem is most people when they hear subjective morality they don't pay any attention to what subjective standard morality is being judged by and and assume it's just some excuse for self gratification. But do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a subjective framework.
You are right that the lines seem subjective. I'm assuming cause every person defines love differently or how they want to be respected.
The context of the verse "love the Lord... Love your neighbor...", Was the religious leaders asked Jesus to give them the best commandment to follow. Jesus said these two and then followed with, "all the law and the prophets hang on these two". Based on what Jesus said we can say God's law defines love for God and others.
This is why Christians claim an objective morality that is not based on a person's opinion, but based on God's law.
3:00 “In subjectiveism, the subject gets to decide what’s right or wrong, and he’s always right by definition.”
You’re right.
I had to explain to my Christian friends that their morality is subjective, NOT objective, because their god is always right and their morality is based on whatever he wants. They didn’t like that and said I was wrong, so I’ll just show them your video next time.
Nah, that's not right. Subjectivism is about fulfilling the needs of the subject, primarily survival and procreation. Subjects can make decisions that go against this, which means that they can be wrong within the framework of subjectivism.
@@varaconn6708 Survival and procreation?
I did not find anything about survival or procreation when reviewing subjectivism or subjective.
@@ByorinThe function of morality is precisely survival and procreation. According to the theory of evolution our mental processes are evolved for the purpose of survival and procreation. Morality, being the result of mental processes, has this function. Just like a organ can vary in it's functionality, so can morality, therefore subjects can make wrong decisions under subjectivism.
@@varaconn6708 if the function of morality is survival and procreation then that means any notion of a biblical god = morality must include selfishness at its core. That does make sense in light of how obsessed it seems to be with demanding worship and requiring believers to spread its message and defend it even to death.
I’ll think about this more. Thanks!
@@Byorin That's right. Morality as a survival-strategy does three main things. Firstly, it unites a group against a common enemy. Second, it demonizes that enemy by describing him in negative terms and getting into his head. Thirdly, it provides the group with habits that increase chances of survival. For example, a jew living under Roman rule is far more likely to live if he "turns the other cheek" than if he slaps the Roman back.
Ok- I'm going to get controversial here. Hold on.
In the first place ALL HUMANS ARE IMMORAL, whether or not they want to think they are. We just are. Only God is totally moral all the time. SO if a killer says, "tell me where your family is or I'll kill you," whether or not it would be moral to lie is a moot point. I'm already immoral so I'll do my best in every situation but I know ahead of time that I will often fall short and act immorally. But I'm going to protect my family. In my opinion, that imperative, for me to protect my family, is beyond morality. Morals are not involved. I will do anything, including murder, to protect my family. Especially my little granddaughters. I know how to drive a backhoe and California has a very big desert.
Tim,
I need help understanding this video. I'm a christian. I believe in objective morality. But I don't believe in situational ethics.
I think that saying objective morality is based on the situation is really saying that morals are situational not objective. I believe that morals are based on God's nature not on situations.
But I agree that it's right to lie to protect your family.
Does this mean I'm a hypocrite?
In subjective morality, right and wrong depend completely on each individual subject--the individual determines what is right and wrong. But in objective morality, by contrast, right and wrong does not depend on each individual subject, but on a transcendent standard. I believe the standard is God's nature.
But objective morality is always in relation to some situation. This isn't "situational ethics" since situational ethics, properly defined, entails the rejection of an objective standard.
Maybe an example will help clarify. Is it wrong to plunge a knife into someone's body? Well, it depends on the situation. In some situations, like murder, it's wrong. But, in other situations, like a doctor performing open heart surgery, it's not wrong. The circumstances matter. But that doesn't mean morality is subjective. We would say that certain actions in one situation are objectively immoral (they would be immoral for everyone in that same situation, not up to the individual), while similar actions in another situation are objectively moral (they would be moral for everyone in that same situation, not up to the individual). It just depends on what the situation looks like.
I hope this helps clarify a little more.
@@RedPenLogic thank you
The problem is, the question is a false dichotemy. You can either a) tell the truth, or b) expose your family. It ignores other options such as c) silence, or d) telling the truth in a useless way (e.g. "They are with God - because God is omnipresent), or e) telling the truth in a way that the killer will certainly misinterpret and believe to be a lie (e.g. Saying they are cowering behind the fridge when two rooms away behind the fridge they are cowering in a closet), or f) answering with your fists or a weapon, etc... There is always a moral option, the trick is figuring out the moral option in a high-pressure situation.
@@Acaykath thank you
@@RedPenLogic you flip flop on definitions. you don't get to pick and choose however you like and act like it's an absolute truth. you are rather intellectually dishonest. for example, you can't use descriptive morality and normative morality as one morality that just changes magically to suit your needs
Hmmmm,...🤔
By the same logic then abortion can be wrong for general cases and can be right for cases like rape, mothers life at stake etc...
It can be when there must be a choice between mother or baby. Seldom the case.
I just feel bad for all the people who read these absurd tweets and get brainwashed.
@infinity730 Even if we grant that God is a subject, which is true, the rules would still apply objectively to our universe. As an example, however the game of chess came about, the rule that rooks cannot move diagonally was chosen by the creators (subject.) To us, the players, however, the rule that rooks cannot move diagonally is a property of the game (object). As such, even if one agrees that morality is subjective because God is a subject, the argument still holds because it would apply as an objective property of His creation.
@@Ap31920 right so why can't that also apply to any subjects objextive rules?
I think everyone including theists are partaking in a hypothetical imperative.
@@Daz19 Because unless that subject is the creator of the system the rules do not apply objectively within that system. Using my earlier example, if I play chess incorrectly then no one can really stop me from doing so but it can objectively be said that I am playing incorrectly. I am not the creator of chess therefore my ruleset is subjective and can this be discarded by anyone. Same with morality. The rules of morality, being set in place by the creator of the universe upon which they operate act as objective *within* that system. You, as a subject within that system, cannot force your rules to apply objectively. As such, your comparison fails.
@@Ap31920 What does it mean for rules to apply objectively?
Do you mean in accordance with a subjects intent? i.e the creator's of chess, or could it also be by the consensus of the players? or some other way?
How are the rules of the Christian god anymore objective than those rules of a different deity?
@@Daz19 What does objective mean? Is the movement of the rook a property of the game of chess or a property of the player?
Your final question shows you have not understood me. The subjective choice of the creator of a given system applies objectively *to that system*. If the creator of the universe is the Christian God then His rules apply objectively. If some other deity, then that deity's rules apply. If no deity then there are no objective moral rules, only the mechanical rules of the universe (aka physics).
If the Christian God exists then He is the creator of the universe, if He is the creator then His rulings apply, otherwise they do not.
Bold of you to assume I don’t lie with a clean conscience
That's not how I understand objective vs subjective. Water freezing at a zero degrees Celsius at sea level is objective or true no matter who or no one observes it. Morality depends on which being, including your gods, evaluating the action. Killing is moral when a god says it's moral.
It’s easy to find poorly thought out arguments for anything. That’s all Red Pen does. The fact that the OP used incorrect reasoning to get to his assertion that morals are subjective doesn’t mean that morals are objective. But Red Pen isn’t interested in trying to show what the truth is. He’s just interested in making himself look better to his gullible followers by debunking terrible arguments.
At their root, morals are subjective. Red Pen even admitted that he sees premarital sex as immoral, while plenty of people do not. That is, by definition, subjective.
Would morality being objective necessarily mean that our subjective perspectives and opinions about morality are not also real? I don't think that's an argument against moral objectivism.
Sean you're missing the point of this channel. The point of this channel is specifically to address bad arguments so people can improve their critical reasoning skills. There are plenty of other channels that make good cases for objective morality on their own. But unfortunately most people don't listen to good arguments; they're too busy being mislead by bad ones. The point of this channel is to address the bad ones, show why they're bad, and thus give people the reasoning capacity to move onto the playing field of good argumentation; where objective morality and theism always come out on top, mind you.
I'll also point out that disagreement with objective fact does not render the fact subjective.
Plenty of people also believe the earth is flat. Doesn't mean that the roundness of the earth is subjective. Just like your disagreement with the immorality of premarital sex does not make it subjective. Your argument is worse than the one being presented here. Try harder.
@@DaveyKanabus Right, every claim needs to be proven. We can prove that the Earth is round, but can we prove that premarital sex is objectively or absolutely immoral or bad?
Morals are subjective. We can look at church and differences there. They cannot agree upon various moral issues. If a moral is objective we should have uniformity. We don’t. Ergo moral objectivity doesn’t exist.
The apologist will never explain this in detail because they cannot. So they stay surface level hoping you don’t ask obvious follow up questions.
Hold up.. This video specifically says the situation that the moral in question is relative to depends the on objective circumstances within the situation to make said moral objective.
Therefore according to what we just learned in this video, if a situation has no objective circumstances, which many do not, the moral in question is inherently not objective, i.e relative.
There are no situations without objective circumstances. Everything that happens has objective circumstances.
the_evolved_primate incorrectly conflated objective morality with absolute morality, and did not swap definitions of objective and subjective morality. Absolute morality means that an action is moral or immoral regardless of the situation. Subjective morality says that what defines what is moral or immoral will vary from one social group to the next. Objective morality says that the rules to define morality are the same regardless of the social group.
You are correct in that your morality being objective does not imply that your morality is absolute. You are incorrect in asserting that subjective morality is absolute. Absolute morality is a subset viewpoint of objective morality; all absolute morality is objective. An absolute rule cannot vary between social groups, because it cannot vary.
You are flatly incorrect when you assert that moral dilemmas always demonstrate objective morality. Having conflicting standards with which to adhere does not imply that either standard is objective --- if it is an epistemic ethical dilemmas, where the conflict merely *seems* unresolvable because of the agent's lack of knowledge. An objective morality cannot have *genuine* dilemmas, because exactly one of the choices must be preferable. So if it's a genuine moral dilemma, then it is in fact subjective, and it is the agent who must determine which rule wins.
You blatantly deceive when you assert that "we ought to save our family" is objective. the_evolved_primate did not ask if he was obligated to save his family; he asked if he was prohibited from lying. So it's an unrelated statement.
So, bad post, but worse video.
I can't imagine any scenario where r*ping a person, a child or an animal would be moral
This is purely ficticious & hyperbolic but you asked if there was ever a morally acceptible circumstance with this. If then entire human race was extinct save just 2 people left, a male & female, both fertile. The female refuses 2 mate with the male because...well whatever. Like if she was a lesbian, chaste, hysterical, if she was a belligerant "antinatalist", etc. It is under that specific scene exclusively that it might be relatively more moral than immoral since all humanity would be lost without impregnating her.
I always find these posed two thought questions hilarious. They put stipulations believing they can railroad you into thinking you only have two options. Most of these two stipulation scenarios exist because they apply only selfish exits out of the scenario. Christ gave us more options in all things due to the reality of we shouldn’t be self centered but selfless. In this scenario you know the person will kill your family. The easy answer is to reply with “you don’t need to know where they live.” No need to lie, you get to tell the truth as well as you detain a known felon. The very “worst” thing that could happen here is always the best thing for those that understand the truth. Knowing that Heaven and hell are real and following Christ allows us to be giving to the point of sacrificing ourselves as we are told to not have fear at all even in physical death as we should fear God alone because He can destroy our spirit. Physical death is just the beginning of really living for those that know Jesus and judgement unfortunately for everyone else.
You can't just wave your hand away at moral dilemmas though. It's a real problem that needs solving in ethics. I don't think Christians do ourselves any good to ignore that.
@@SeraphsWitness From a Christian perspective it does.
@@carsonfox6 explain.
@@SeraphsWitness He’s saying it’s worth while not to say anything even if the murder kills him because he didn’t lie and he still inherits the kingdom. I see where you come from as well.
@@carsonfox6 these are still issues worth talking about.
Couldn’t it be argued that...
“Morality is objective?
I disagree”... is an appeal to objective morality? Or objectivity in general?
Love your videos, Mr. B! Keep them coming!
Depends on if he thinks his disagreement is means he thinks its actually wrong, or just his opinion that doesn't matter.
Since he shared it. He probably thinks it matters and is really right
You’ve taken this instagram post and ran a whole entirely different narrative with it. Their stance is that every person has their OWN subjective morality. What you concider to be the right thing to do, could be the complete opposite of what someone else thinks is the right thing to do. The rules and regulations that people set for themselves are their morals, they hold these beliefs close to their chest because it’s what they truly believe in. You’re saying objective morality always depends on the person or circumstance, which is literally a DIRECT contradiction to your entire point. Every person is different with different values, there can’t be objective morality regardless of the circumstance because no one thinks the same way or has had the same life experiences.
Having a different life experience does not negate anything thrown in this video, a serial killer who murders others because he or she had a terrible life experience doesn’t make it wrong according to your own logic.
Objective morality depends on the situation and circumstance. He didn’t say Objective morality depends on the person, he said that Subjective morality depends on the person.
I'd agree that whether morality is subjective is different from whether morality is absolute. That said, their example may still demonstrate an argument against moral absolutism: if the morality of the action depends on the results, then this seems to admit to consequentialism (and it seems very difficult to hold to both absolutism and consequentialism).
Sorry I still don't get it. If subjective morals are a personal choice, and the person in the example has a choice that he could make. It wasn't that there is one right answer, but several valid options, then doesn't that make it a subjective moral choice?
And "if it’s true that we ought to lie to save our family from a killer, then morality is objective, not subjective." but its not true that we ought to do that. There is a choice and each person would have a subjective opinion on what would be the best option to take. Maybe your family is abusive, perhaps the person is selfish and values self preservation over that of his family, perhaps his personal beliefs say never lie no matter what. From my limited understanding objective morality would say there can only be one right or wrong answer in any situation, while subjective says it is that persons choice in that situation. Have I got that wrong?
Nope, you got it right.
Which is why morals are indeed subjective and the video got it wrong.