People are lucky to have such a teacher... I studied in Pakistan then in USA for higher education but only few are at this caliber. I hope you stay safe & healthy.
بہت عمدہ طریقہ سے ہم جیسے کم تعلیم یافتہ لوگوں کو سمجھانے کی کامیاب کوشش کی۔ اللہ ااپ کو اپنے حفظ و امان میں رکھے تاکہ ہم اپ سے لمبے عرصہ تک مستفید ہو تے رہیں اپ جیسے لوگوں کا ہونا ہمارے لیے بہت اہم ہے
All video was great but in end how you assumed that development of all humanity should be the criteria, how do you conclude development as a morally good thing?
Quran’s emphasis of OBJECTIVE MORALITY: {یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا کُوۡنُوۡا قَوّٰمِیۡنَ بِالۡقِسۡطِ شُہَدَآءَ لِلّٰہِ وَ لَوۡ عَلٰۤی اَنۡفُسِکُمۡ اَوِ الۡوَالِدَیۡنِ وَ الۡاَقۡرَبِیۡنَ ۚ اِنۡ یَّکُنۡ غَنِیًّا اَوۡ فَقِیۡرًا فَاللّٰہُ اَوۡلٰی بِہِمَا ۟ فَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا الۡہَوٰۤی اَنۡ تَعۡدِلُوۡا ۚ وَ اِنۡ تَلۡوٗۤا اَوۡ تُعۡرِضُوۡا فَاِنَّ اللّٰہَ کَانَ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ خَبِیۡرًا}(النساء :۱۳۶) اس کاترجمہ ہے اے وہ لوگو جو ایمان لائے ہو! اللہ کی خاطر گواہ بنتے ہوئے انصاف کو مضبوطی سے قائم کرنے والے بن جاؤ خواہ خود اپنے خلاف گواہی دینی پڑے یا والدین اور قریبی رشتہ داروں کے خلاف۔ خواہ کوئی امیر ہو یا غریب دونوں کا اللہ ہی بہترین نگہبان ہے۔ پس اپنی خواہشات کی پیروی نہ کرو مبادا عدل سے گریز کرو۔ اور اگر تم نے گول مول بات کی یا پہلوتہی کر گئے تو یقینا اللہ جو تم کرتے ہو اس سے بہت باخبر ہے۔
Thanks for this lec. Please make some videos other subjects of philosophy like that, Problem of philosophy, philosophy of religion and modern philosophy.
Commendable explaination. A quick question and request to you... Did you ever said anything about the great Ludwig Wittgenstein? If yes then could you share the link for that, if not then I want to hear something about him from your side. Rather it be an explanation of his ideas or book (private language, philosophical investigation) or a criticism on it. Appreciated in advance. ❤
The Agricultural Revolution impacted the environment, transforming forests and previously undisturbed land into farmland, destroyed habitats, decreased biodiversity and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Which morality should we support now? The greater the subject becomes the more ambiguity in morality…
Simple question, How can any one prove That person A , who is beautiful Genius, rich, physically strong equal to person B who is ugly, not intelligent not physically strong through naturalistic explanation.
Question: Indeed metaphysical entities would by definition be not subject to the laws of empirical science derived from observation of the physical world but why would they not be subject to logic ?
@@Taimur_Laal I am not sure I agree that miracles defy logic. They do indeed defy our expectations and the predictions of laws derived from empirical science. As far as I know, the laws of natural science are inductively derived based on empirical observations and thus we can not make definitive claims of causality based on them. In fact, at the smallest scale deterministic laws fail to explain empirical observations and probabilistic formulations are required. Therefore, it is unclear to me how a violation of these laws leads to a violation of logic.
A question for you Taimur sb. I assume this lecture was triggered by Qaiser Raja Vs Haris Sultan debate recently. I watched that and think it was a point scoring exercise and was nothing academic in it. You gave a very good academic perspective no doubt and your perspective is truly scientific, let's assume you have to give a religious perspective as well. For any religion the morality starts and end within it's boundaries, inside the boundary you can tweak as per time and requirements. For example from Islamic perspective there is a "minimum" requirement of covering the body for men, it is from bellybutton to knees (ستر پوشی) but obviously in today's society you don't go visit someone in that attire. One has to follow the dress code according to which part of the world they live in (on top of what is minimum requirement by religion). This is totally fine by society's moral values(subjectivity) as well as religion(objectivity). I would love to know your perspective from a religious point of view (even if you are not a strictly religious person but put that cap on for the sake of argument) that how morality can be "subjective" when religion has defined minimum basis or a starting point to it.
In your consequentialist conclusion, isn't the societal "good" you are pursuing also an objective good? Hence why you are pursuing it as a society? This is why consequentialism relies on objective morality.
How could we identify that any particular moral theory is more beneficial for overall humanity without the presuppositions of some objective good and bad, bcz when we say this thing is good universally that means there is a objective criteria of good and bad according to which we could state these types of statements.
Another interesting and useful nugget of wisdom! There is a reason why you couldn’t give a single valid example of objective morality other than 2+2=4. There is also a reason why there are hardly any ‘laws’ in the Quran! (which is divine). Your conclusion is the real gist of the matter, that every moral between any given morals which helps towards the betterment of humanity can be objectively accepted and adhered to. Once the human conditions and it’s intellect evolved to a certain level, God revealed the final testament, full of wisdom and free from the shackles of laws and asked humans to simply become ‘situational managers’ ! We’re all expected to manage situations in a specific situation, circumstance and time in history.
I try to cover all logical steps systematically. So there are no jumps in logic. Sometimes, this makes a lecture a bit overly detailed. But thanks for your feedback.
Sir, It was a thorough analysis, but no examples of objective morality were brought into discussion besides a mathematical equation of 2+2=4. Could anybody please mention a few examples of objective morality?
Religions claim to have objective morality and he also talked about Kant's philosophy. But in end he conceded that there is no objective morality, so where will you get its example from?
Sacha, jhoot , insaf, pura tolna Koi shakhs kbhi ye nai chahe ga k uski jaan k khilaf koi iqdam kia jae. Ya koi shakhs kbi bazar me ja k ye ni kehta k mje aj zra km tol do Insan k andr ye bunyadi qadren de k bheja gya hy
Unfortunately most people doesn't understand this concept, it's rationality and logic that humans possess, which helps us form our moral values, even when it's objective. I hope people will learn from this. Morality is created by the societies period.
I am a student of stoic philosophy Seneca: “the true goods are those which reason bestows, substantial and eternal; they cannot fall away, neither can they grow less or be diminished. Other things are goods according to opinion, and though they are called by the same name as the true goods, the essence of goodness is not in them.”
Hello sir! I think you have oversimplified the concept and overlooked many complexities that are involved. According to your logic even rape might be considered moral in the future or killing or stealing or anything if the development of society somehow becomes associated with it. Kindly educate me if I sound stupid. Thank you.
Nothing. I mostly post the longer and more serious videos on UA-cam. UA-cam is a better platform for such longer videos because you can play it at different speeds, save it, download it, watch it later etc.
@@Taimur_LaalRich and poor. So you are saying rich will always be rich and poor will always be poor since that’s their destiny per Pakistani rich . But history says it changes hands . Rich can be poor and poor can be rich . Best always wins that’s best for humanity. You are right 👏👏👏
Sir baat ab bhi wohi ki wohi h, jab do subjective mortality contradict kren gi to is ka faisla kn kry ga k reality sy Qreeb kn c h, agr aik jmaat aik apni subjective morality ko support kry or dusri apni, or is me bhi aap consequences ko dekh rhy k kn c insanyat k lyea sahi to new wali bhi subjective morality hi hui na, to yeh kehny me kia harj h k objective morality doesn't exist in philosophy
Very interesting lecture. But I have some doubts regarding the way you defined the dialectics between two relative moralities, which you based on the criteria of interests of the humanity as a whole. You went on to explain with examples of what is better for humanity between contending ideas and concluded that the one which came next in the historical process is the better one. The problem i have with this idea is that it is based on the principle of linear progression of history. And if we think dialectically its not linear. Dialectic says as i understand when two ideas contest with each other. They transform each other and create something new. It might be progress for one idea and might not be progressive for another idea. The problem with your argument arise from the fact that you created a utopian moral code based on your curent understanding of the world as better for all humanity, which is subjective for that historical context.
I don’t think he said what came next is a better idea, or mentioned or condoned any linearity. He’s asserting the point that there is no such thing as objective reality in itself and if any morality can be objectively superseded between the two contending subjective moralities is the one that propels humanity towards progress and betterment. Hope I’ve understood your opinion !
@@Taimur_Laal I watched your video again to figure out whether I understood it wrong. Still I am not satisfied with the argument. The problem started to arise when you defined a scientific way of understanding objective reality(observation) and you superimposed this idea on morality. If we consider our nature's observation(objective reality) is true then we pick the theory which is close to this reality in science. But when we consider two relative moralities, we pick the one which is closed to a defined objective morality which is defined as good for all of humanity or towards the progression of humanity. The problem is you didn't define what you mean by "good for all humanity". This part is a subjective matter. From the examples you gave from hunter gatherer up till capitalism, you used a certain criteria to pick the better one. It doesn't mean that I am going to agree with the criteria. This criteria is so subjective, it's not easy to pick which is right. If we think about the transition from hunter gatherer to agrarian society, it did create surplus(which can be considered good in one sense) but it also created a lot of contradictions. It removed the egalitarian nature of the hunter-gatherer society and created a new unequal society. Can we call it progress. The way you viewed the history from a certain standpoint of the current society, it felt for me that you are making the linear progression using the certain criteria of development of humanity.
@@IAzizIAziz thanks for writing. It's possible that i was ineffective in explaining my reservations about the video. I tried to put it again in a reply to Taimur. You can read it and let me know your opinion.
@@Taimur_Laal Sir its present throughout your lecture. Morality is neither quantifiable, nor a concrete concept, it is an intangible concept so its abstract. In metaphysical sense, it is beyond any empirical observation...
I personally think that there are no real objective morals in the sense that there is no certain chart where there is written that a certain thing is good or bad . i would say to extend that there is no real good or bad in the sense that good is something that is of some utility to humans and bad is something that is not . however i understand the objective morals by divine command in the sense that God knows wholely and completely what is good for humans and not and god due to his absolute knowledge of what would benefit humans have commanded certain things and thus making it objective. My point is , there is no intrinsic good or bad only instrumental. If i am to paraphrase spinoza on divine command objectivity he says " there is no certain charter or model which the god sees and then decides whats about to be good or bad cus it would bring theological problems"
When muslims say religious morality is objective, I think some of them are making the argument that religious morality is based on a set of rules defined by scripture, independent of a person's subjective feelings towards those rules, which does seem to make religious morality NOT SUBJECTIVE atleast within it's own worldview (subjective morality is still subjective even within its own worldview). The reason why the principle of "we follow whatever the scripture says" is not subjective is because it does not take into account a person's subjective feelings. Now if we define objective morality as something that can only be achieved through reason alone, then religious morality ceases to be objective, so religiousmorality is neither subjective nor objective? Also, if we define religious morality to be predicated on God's scripture (which does have an objective reality as in its literally an object and has text in it) instead of God himself, wouldnt the transcendental problem be removed?
Can there be moral values which are based on solid reasons which passes the test of time and cultural boundaries? and those can be said Objective Truth or Morals, like Stealing someone's property is bad...
Probably the word objective is bit confusing, any morality is not valid without valid reasons behind it; so in other words all are subjective in a sense.
@@onlyitj I personally think that there are no real objective morals in the sense that there is no certain chart where there is written that a certain thing is good or bad . i would say to extend that there is no real good or bad in the sense that good is something that is of some utility to humans and bad is something that is not . however i understand the objective morals by divine command in the sense that God knows wholely and completely what is good for humans and not and god due to his absolute knowledge of what would benefit humans have commanded certain things and thus making it objective. My point is , there is no intrinsic good or bad only instrumental. If i am to paraphrase spinoza on divine command objectivity he says " there is no certain charter or model which the god sees and then decides whats about to be good or bad cus it would bring theological problems"
Sir,i have respectfully disagreement on this important topic with you because sir you did explain objective morality only with just mathematical examples,after that you say that it is objective morality only on the basis of words objective 🙄 so the rules of this world not applicable on this,and also after that sir you say that objective morality not defined the religion because religion are different if we study that the morality is same in all religion examples murder of someone is immoral in all religion,sir if you say that morality is subjective and defined only for the purpose of society then masturbation is not harmful for society so it is moral or immoral?please sir explain it
Sirrr……. Thooooooddaa…saa.. Urdu merko kam aati hai So I was wishing ki if u can speak your lectures like these in Urdu, but in a bit more simple Urdu for listeners like me from India. Thank u. I enjoy your videos sir. Thank you for them as well.
If God Or a Religion is proven through objective criteria ie; Principles of logics, Rationale etc Would the Morality provided by this Specific religion becomes Objectively True or Not? - If Not then Quran Asks ( ""How could He not know His Own creation? For He ˹alone˺ is the Most Subtle, All-Aware."" 67:14 ) - Or if Yes, then the discussion is whether or not this Claim of that Religion to have Its Origin From God is True OR False and whether Is it still preserved. Dielectric Resoltion: Using this way I cannot know about something is right or wrong at current time/right now I have to wait for it to become history and then compare results, thus not fulfilling current needs because at the time this process will be carried I will have gone ?
Dear Sir, even 1+1 is not always equal to 2 because 1+1 is equal to 0 in residue mod 2. 😂 Besides, one can like or dislike Nietzsche’s philosophy on morality but that can’t be ignored so easily. 😊
Can some one argue that 1+1 = 0 residue mode is false cus he perciees it differently . dont u think if a person knowns the logic behind this thing they can understand it objectively?
کامریڈ اگر آپ پہلے سے معروضی و غیر معروضی،سبجیکٹیو و اَوبجیکٹیو پہ گفتگو کر چکے ہوں،تو اس کا لنک کمینٹس میں ڈال دیجیے، ورنہ آئیندہ کسی ویڈیو میں یہ موضوع بھی سامعین کے لیے زیادہ صراحت سے بیان کر دیں جیتے رہیں 🎉
Very narrow conclusion sir... The nature of morality is not so simple and dialectical.... Even if it is, supposedly, then who has the authority to choose the best one among them and how to measure the superiority of the selected one...
Sir aap samny samny dandi maar rhy, "religion non material sy taluq rakhta h", religion ka link material world sy h insano sy or us k qanoon bhi insano k lyea hen, to non material world sy believe taluq rakhta srf, mgr daily life me physical activity material worl me perform ki jati h
Religion agr poora nizam dy rha ho, us k ander jo cheez aap ko ghallat lagti h us pr behas ki ja skti h, or islam k ilawa knsa religion h js ka nizam nfaz k qabil ho, jitna meny study kiya h, christian jews hiduism in k pas to koi law h hi nhi, jisko implement kiya ja sky, zyada ki to books me hi contradictions hen
When you take the religion out of your lives, then you’ve to make such confusing videos. The explanation of right and wrong can only be provided by creator in all the best possible ways.
It is all about will to power Jiss wqt mein ruling class ko jis morality se fayda nazar ata hai wo wohi nazraiya samaj par toop dete hai for e.g Kch 100 saal phle ruling class ke liye salves zarori the to maintaining their empire So it was moral for them to have slaves Aur iss wqt ruling class ke liye slaves zarori nhi hai so they have declared slavery immoral "Imo"
ڈاکٹر صاحب objective اخلاقیات کو بتارھے ھیں ۔۔۔ جو چیز اچھی ھے وہ اچھی۔۔۔ یہ جملہ کنفیوزنگ ھے۔۔۔۔ اچھے کو اچھا کون بتزرھا اور کس بنیاد پر بتارھا ھے۔۔۔۔ یہ ڈاکٹر صاحب نہیں بتارھے۔۔۔ جبکہ سائنس کا حوالہ دے رھے ہیں کہ سائنس جسطرح objectively
So you are saying Pharaoh was morally right . Moses thought he was morally right to eliminate Pharaoh. I had a course at university that was called ethics in USA. Where you think who’s right . Even you could put it to present conflict. Stealing someone’s land is morally wrong . 👏👏👏 Why can’t we eliminate rich or poor. Make everyone equal . When we die we are all equal . World has reached a point where everyone over internet are all equal . World needs a change where no one is powerful or rich and no one is weaker or poor. Looking from ethics view
lol, you are not telling what morality is. Literally, you are delivering this speech on a philosophical subject and look at your bongiyan. come on Taimur sab, just get yourself ahead of these cheap commentators and internet social praise. there are two reasons and one among them is more painful. The first one to consider is that you don't deserve, and the second is, they aren't qualified to praise you nonetheless what they say isn't even praise but even if you think. if you are a man of character, now just read the definition from a dictionary, then you would definitely don't fall for this cheap praise. i mean, literally people talk about you, quoting you and referencing you as a philosopher - and someone who calls you a philosopher himself doesn't know what a philosopher is, isn't actually qualified to make that claim, right?
![Mod Phil 5: Introduction to Dialectics [Urdu]](/img/n.gif)
People are lucky to have such a teacher... I studied in Pakistan then in USA for higher education but only few are at this caliber. I hope you stay safe & healthy.
Thank you ❤
پاکستانیوں کی خوش قسمتی ہے کہ ڈاکٹر صاحب جیسا دانشور مفت میسر ہے۔ شاد آباد رہیے ڈاکٹر صاحب ۔
بہت شکریہ ڈاکٹر صاحب
آپ کے لیکچرز کے بعد تو ایسا محسوس ہوتا ہے جیسے اس سے قبل جہالت کی ذندگی گزار رہا تھا
بہت عمدہ طریقہ سے ہم جیسے کم تعلیم یافتہ لوگوں کو سمجھانے کی کامیاب کوشش کی۔ اللہ ااپ کو اپنے حفظ و امان میں رکھے تاکہ ہم اپ سے لمبے عرصہ تک مستفید ہو تے رہیں اپ جیسے لوگوں کا ہونا ہمارے لیے بہت اہم ہے
او بھائ وہ اللہ کو نہیں مانتے 😅
Allh ko manna ya na manna Alag bat hai lekin kisi ki nek khuhahish ka ahtram kar na chahye
شاندار گفتگو کی آپ نے objective morality پر
I considered myself well educated living abroad but my man, you made me feel as I am back in college and know nothing. Props to you.
I'm not student of political science but your way of delivering lectures is awesome.. i found it interesting..
ٹھیک ہے اور خبر بھی طورصاحب جیو پروفیسر صاحب اب اتنالمبا عرصہ بعد دیکھا وجہ میراگم ہونا ہے اور خبر بھی
Beautiful! Educational! Logical and philosophical. Enjoyed your talk, Taimur. Long Live!
As usual @ Dr. Taimur!! brilliant and brief Explanation!!!!
Taimur: Great on your part. Educational your videos are!
All video was great but in end how you assumed that development of all humanity should be the criteria, how do you conclude development as a morally good thing?
That is what why society creates morality. Society creates morality to serve society.
VERY VERY important matter to discuss. And beautifully described comrade sir
thanks
Thanks for sharing, easy to understand: stay blessed
Excellent and tangible elaboration
Very needed video
Zabardast ❤
Zaberdast
Amazing perspective sir, I have been trying to understand the concepts of mortality but this lecture is quite helpful as well insightful.
Thank you comrade for explaining everything explicitly and effectively ❤❤
i hv sophia for philo and i must , hither , confess that DR TAIMUR has explained one of the most difficult topics of ETHICS eloquently
Thanks sir G ❤❤❤
Great sir❤❤
Well explicated
Quran’s emphasis of OBJECTIVE MORALITY:
{یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا کُوۡنُوۡا قَوّٰمِیۡنَ بِالۡقِسۡطِ شُہَدَآءَ لِلّٰہِ وَ لَوۡ عَلٰۤی اَنۡفُسِکُمۡ اَوِ الۡوَالِدَیۡنِ وَ الۡاَقۡرَبِیۡنَ ۚ اِنۡ یَّکُنۡ غَنِیًّا اَوۡ فَقِیۡرًا فَاللّٰہُ اَوۡلٰی بِہِمَا ۟ فَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا الۡہَوٰۤی اَنۡ تَعۡدِلُوۡا ۚ وَ اِنۡ تَلۡوٗۤا اَوۡ تُعۡرِضُوۡا فَاِنَّ اللّٰہَ کَانَ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ خَبِیۡرًا}(النساء :۱۳۶)
اس کاترجمہ ہے اے وہ لوگو جو ایمان لائے ہو! اللہ کی خاطر گواہ بنتے ہوئے انصاف کو مضبوطی سے قائم کرنے والے بن جاؤ خواہ خود اپنے خلاف گواہی دینی پڑے یا والدین اور قریبی رشتہ داروں کے خلاف۔ خواہ کوئی امیر ہو یا غریب دونوں کا اللہ ہی بہترین نگہبان ہے۔ پس اپنی خواہشات کی پیروی نہ کرو مبادا عدل سے گریز کرو۔ اور اگر تم نے گول مول بات کی یا پہلوتہی کر گئے تو یقینا اللہ جو تم کرتے ہو اس سے بہت باخبر ہے۔
Maza aya sir
You mixed in the last.
Interesting
Thanks for this lec. Please make some videos other subjects of philosophy like that, Problem of philosophy, philosophy of religion and modern philosophy.
Please continue more on philosophy
Commendable explaination.
A quick question and request to you...
Did you ever said anything about the great Ludwig Wittgenstein? If yes then could you share the link for that, if not then I want to hear something about him from your side. Rather it be an explanation of his ideas or book (private language, philosophical investigation) or a criticism on it.
Appreciated in advance. ❤
Thank you. Not yet. I have not.
The Agricultural Revolution impacted the environment, transforming forests and previously undisturbed land into farmland, destroyed habitats, decreased biodiversity and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Which morality should we support now? The greater the subject becomes the more ambiguity in morality…
Simple question,
How can any one prove
That person A , who is beautiful Genius, rich, physically strong equal to person B who is ugly, not intelligent not physically strong through naturalistic explanation.
Rich and physically strong can be proven objectively. But the other things are harder to prove objectively.
کام کرتی ھے اسطرح objective morality بھی کام کرتی ھے
Sound?
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all in it 43:07
Love u ho goya
Question: Indeed metaphysical entities would by definition be not subject to the laws of empirical science derived from observation of the physical world but why would they not be subject to logic ?
Simple. Logic is based on determined causality. God can break causality. He can perform miracles. Miracles defy logic.
@@Taimur_Laal I am not sure I agree that miracles defy logic. They do indeed defy our expectations and the predictions of laws derived from empirical science. As far as I know, the laws of natural science are inductively derived based on empirical observations and thus we can not make definitive claims of causality based on them. In fact, at the smallest scale deterministic laws fail to explain empirical observations and probabilistic formulations are required. Therefore, it is unclear to me how a violation of these laws leads to a violation of logic.
A question for you Taimur sb.
I assume this lecture was triggered by Qaiser Raja Vs Haris Sultan debate recently. I watched that and think it was a point scoring exercise and was nothing academic in it.
You gave a very good academic perspective no doubt and your perspective is truly scientific, let's assume you have to give a religious perspective as well. For any religion the morality starts and end within it's boundaries, inside the boundary you can tweak as per time and requirements. For example from Islamic perspective there is a "minimum" requirement of covering the body for men, it is from bellybutton to knees (ستر پوشی) but obviously in today's society you don't go visit someone in that attire. One has to follow the dress code according to which part of the world they live in (on top of what is minimum requirement by religion). This is totally fine by society's moral values(subjectivity) as well as religion(objectivity).
I would love to know your perspective from a religious point of view (even if you are not a strictly religious person but put that cap on for the sake of argument) that how morality can be "subjective" when religion has defined minimum basis or a starting point to it.
İm just waiting for the pre prepared message of excellent analysis to be pasted thus posted by EMAM without understanding it. 😅
😂😂
In your consequentialist conclusion, isn't the societal "good" you are pursuing also an objective good? Hence why you are pursuing it as a society? This is why consequentialism relies on objective morality.
I’ve synthesised objective and subjective morality.
Sir can we have a live questions answer session with you at zoom or any other app?
کامریڈ آپ ایک لیکچر anarchism پی بنائیں
Yes sir
How could we identify that any particular moral theory is more beneficial for overall humanity without the presuppositions of some objective good and bad, bcz when we say this thing is good universally that means there is a objective criteria of good and bad according to which we could state these types of statements.
👍👍👍
Another interesting and useful nugget of wisdom!
There is a reason why you couldn’t give a single valid example of objective morality other than 2+2=4.
There is also a reason why there are hardly any ‘laws’ in the Quran! (which is divine).
Your conclusion is the real gist of the matter, that every moral between any given morals which helps towards the betterment of humanity can be objectively accepted and adhered to.
Once the human conditions and it’s intellect evolved to a certain level, God revealed the final testament, full of wisdom and free from the shackles of laws and asked humans to simply become ‘situational managers’ !
We’re all expected to manage situations in a specific situation, circumstance and time in history.
❤️❤️
کمال کی گفتگو کرتے ہیں آپ مگر کھبی کھبی موضوع کو اتنا الجھادیتے ہیں کہ سر ہیر سمجھ نہیں آئی
I try to cover all logical steps systematically. So there are no jumps in logic. Sometimes, this makes a lecture a bit overly detailed. But thanks for your feedback.
Sir, It was a thorough analysis, but no examples of objective morality were brought into discussion besides a mathematical equation of 2+2=4. Could anybody please mention a few examples of objective morality?
Religions claim to have objective morality and he also talked about Kant's philosophy. But in end he conceded that there is no objective morality, so where will you get its example from?
there isn't exist any
murder
@@firstnamelastname6976 police encounters🤣
Sacha, jhoot , insaf, pura tolna
Koi shakhs kbhi ye nai chahe ga k uski jaan k khilaf koi iqdam kia jae. Ya koi shakhs kbi bazar me ja k ye ni kehta k mje aj zra km tol do
Insan k andr ye bunyadi qadren de k bheja gya hy
😊
Her kuja beeni jahaan e rang o bu
Aaan k az khakash barwaid aarzu Ya za Noor e Mustafa SAW ao ra bahasat Ya Hanooz e ander talaash e Mustafa SAW sat
لال سلام ڈاکٹر صاحب
موریلٹی اور ایتکس ایک ہی ہے یا اس میں کوئی فرق ہے؟
اگر الگ الگ ہیں تو ایک ویڈیو اس پر بھی بنا دیں۔
شکریہ
Unfortunately most people doesn't understand this concept, it's rationality and logic that humans possess, which helps us form our moral values, even when it's objective. I hope people will learn from this. Morality is created by the societies period.
Rationality also develops with history.
Yes as we learn, we make adjustments, any society which becomes stagnant becomes rotten, which leads to downfall.
I am a student of stoic philosophy
Seneca:
“the true goods are those which reason bestows, substantial and eternal; they cannot fall away, neither can they grow less or be diminished. Other things are goods according to opinion, and though they are called by the same name as the true goods, the essence of goodness is not in them.”
SIR AP PARHTAY KESY HAIN? MUTALIYA KAB AUR KITNA KRTAY HN? AUR TIME MANAGEMENT WAGHYRA PAY AIK VIDEO BANAYIN PLEASE .
It’s a good question.
@@Taimur_Laal thanks sir💖
Hello sir! I think you have oversimplified the concept and overlooked many complexities that are involved. According to your logic even rape might be considered moral in the future or killing or stealing or anything if the development of society somehow becomes associated with it. Kindly educate me if I sound stupid. Thank you.
👍
Taimur sb, where can I read more about socialist ethics and morality?
Ethics 101 book is good
At the end, morality is still subjective
Yes, morality can't be objective even if god exists
Sir kia hua, you haven't post this video on your Facebook page??
Nothing. I mostly post the longer and more serious videos on UA-cam. UA-cam is a better platform for such longer videos because you can play it at different speeds, save it, download it, watch it later etc.
@@Taimur_LaalRich and poor. So you are saying rich will always be rich and poor will always be poor since that’s their destiny per Pakistani rich . But history says it changes hands . Rich can be poor and poor can be rich . Best always wins that’s best for humanity. You are right 👏👏👏
Sir baat ab bhi wohi ki wohi h, jab do subjective mortality contradict kren gi to is ka faisla kn kry ga k reality sy Qreeb kn c h, agr aik jmaat aik apni subjective morality ko support kry or dusri apni, or is me bhi aap consequences ko dekh rhy k kn c insanyat k lyea sahi to new wali bhi subjective morality hi hui na, to yeh kehny me kia harj h k objective morality doesn't exist in philosophy
Excellent analysis by EMAM 😂
Very interesting lecture. But I have some doubts regarding the way you defined the dialectics between two relative moralities, which you based on the criteria of interests of the humanity as a whole. You went on to explain with examples of what is better for humanity between contending ideas and concluded that the one which came next in the historical process is the better one. The problem i have with this idea is that it is based on the principle of linear progression of history. And if we think dialectically its not linear. Dialectic says as i understand when two ideas contest with each other. They transform each other and create something new. It might be progress for one idea and might not be progressive for another idea. The problem with your argument arise from the fact that you created a utopian moral code based on your curent understanding of the world as better for all humanity, which is subjective for that historical context.
I don’t think he said what came next is a better idea, or mentioned or condoned any linearity.
He’s asserting the point that there is no such thing as objective reality in itself and if any morality can be objectively superseded between the two contending subjective moralities is the one that propels humanity towards progress and betterment. Hope I’ve understood your opinion !
My conception of history is dialectical. Not linear.
Dialectics argues for non-linear development.
@@Taimur_Laal I watched your video again to figure out whether I understood it wrong. Still I am not satisfied with the argument. The problem started to arise when you defined a scientific way of understanding objective reality(observation) and you superimposed this idea on morality. If we consider our nature's observation(objective reality) is true then we pick the theory which is close to this reality in science. But when we consider two relative moralities, we pick the one which is closed to a defined objective morality which is defined as good for all of humanity or towards the progression of humanity. The problem is you didn't define what you mean by "good for all humanity". This part is a subjective matter. From the examples you gave from hunter gatherer up till capitalism, you used a certain criteria to pick the better one. It doesn't mean that I am going to agree with the criteria. This criteria is so subjective, it's not easy to pick which is right. If we think about the transition from hunter gatherer to agrarian society, it did create surplus(which can be considered good in one sense) but it also created a lot of contradictions. It removed the egalitarian nature of the hunter-gatherer society and created a new unequal society. Can we call it progress. The way you viewed the history from a certain standpoint of the current society, it felt for me that you are making the linear progression using the certain criteria of development of humanity.
@@IAzizIAziz thanks for writing. It's possible that i was ineffective in explaining my reservations about the video. I tried to put it again in a reply to Taimur. You can read it and let me know your opinion.
@@krishnamanohara thanks brother. Will have a read 👍
Sir with respect, morality itself is a metaphysical and abstract
Please elaborate.
@@Taimur_Laal
Sir its present throughout your lecture. Morality is neither quantifiable, nor a concrete concept, it is an intangible concept so its abstract. In metaphysical sense, it is beyond any empirical observation...
@@Taimur_Laal
Sir this is the best and most comprehendable lecture on morality i have ever seen... Thanks ❤
I personally think that there are no real objective morals in the sense that there is no certain chart where there is written that a certain thing is good or bad . i would say to extend that there is no real good or bad in the sense that good is something that is of some utility to humans and bad is something that is not . however i understand the objective morals by divine command in the sense that God knows wholely and completely what is good for humans and not and god due to his absolute knowledge of what would benefit humans have commanded certain things and thus making it objective. My point is , there is no intrinsic good or bad only instrumental. If i am to paraphrase spinoza on divine command objectivity he says " there is no certain charter or model which the god sees and then decides whats about to be good or bad cus it would bring theological problems"
When muslims say religious morality is objective, I think some of them are making the argument that religious morality is based on a set of rules defined by scripture, independent of a person's subjective feelings towards those rules, which does seem to make religious morality NOT SUBJECTIVE atleast within it's own worldview (subjective morality is still subjective even within its own worldview). The reason why the principle of "we follow whatever the scripture says" is not subjective is because it does not take into account a person's subjective feelings. Now if we define objective morality as something that can only be achieved through reason alone, then religious morality ceases to be objective, so religiousmorality is neither subjective nor objective?
Also, if we define religious morality to be predicated on God's scripture (which does have an objective reality as in its literally an object and has text in it) instead of God himself, wouldnt the transcendental problem be removed?
The Perfect Way of Service to God is by Objective Morality 👍
Can there be moral values which are based on solid reasons which passes the test of time and cultural boundaries? and those can be said Objective Truth or Morals, like Stealing someone's property is bad...
Kant tried creating rational basis of objective morals but failed\
Probably the word objective is bit confusing, any morality is not valid without valid reasons behind it; so in other words all are subjective in a sense.
@@onlyitj I personally think that there are no real objective morals in the sense that there is no certain chart where there is written that a certain thing is good or bad . i would say to extend that there is no real good or bad in the sense that good is something that is of some utility to humans and bad is something that is not . however i understand the objective morals by divine command in the sense that God knows wholely and completely what is good for humans and not and god due to his absolute knowledge of what would benefit humans have commanded certain things and thus making it objective. My point is , there is no intrinsic good or bad only instrumental. If i am to paraphrase spinoza on divine command objectivity he says " there is no certain charter or model which the god sees and then decides whats about to be good or bad cus it would bring theological problems"
Sir,i have respectfully disagreement on this important topic with you because sir you did explain objective morality only with just mathematical examples,after that you say that it is objective morality only on the basis of words objective 🙄 so the rules of this world not applicable on this,and also after that sir you say that objective morality not defined the religion because religion are different if we study that the morality is same in all religion examples murder of someone is immoral in all religion,sir if you say that morality is subjective and defined only for the purpose of society then masturbation is not harmful for society so it is moral or immoral?please sir explain it
Murder is not immoral in all religions. Many religions practiced human sacrifice.
sir when will you invite me on your lecture?
I have already mailed you.
could you share me his email address also?
sir Kant ka aisa janaza nikala he apne. why sir why??
Nothing against Kant. He was a great figure of philosophy. But his categorical imperative doesn't work.
Sirrr…….
Thooooooddaa…saa..
Urdu merko kam aati hai
So I was wishing ki if u can speak your lectures like these in Urdu, but in a bit more simple Urdu for listeners like me from India.
Thank u.
I enjoy your videos sir. Thank you for them as well.
Itne thand me kaun morality sunna chahega sir...? Gaana sunaiye... "Uth Jatta... Tu marda kiyu jaye..."-wala....
If God Or a Religion is proven through objective criteria ie; Principles of logics, Rationale etc Would the Morality provided by this Specific religion becomes Objectively True or Not? - If Not then Quran Asks ( ""How could He not know His Own creation? For He ˹alone˺ is the Most Subtle, All-Aware."" 67:14 ) - Or if Yes, then the discussion is whether or not this Claim of that Religion to have Its Origin From God is True OR False and whether Is it still preserved. Dielectric Resoltion: Using this way I cannot know about something is right or wrong at current time/right now I have to wait for it to become history and then compare results, thus not fulfilling current needs because at the time this process will be carried I will have gone ?
Reality/Truth is never this ‘black or white’.
It demands sincere effort.
Dear Sir, even 1+1 is not always equal to 2 because 1+1 is equal to 0 in residue mod 2. 😂
Besides, one can like or dislike Nietzsche’s philosophy on morality but that can’t be ignored so easily. 😊
Lecture on Nietzsche coming soon.
@@Taimur_Laal Waiting
Can some one argue that 1+1 = 0 residue mode is false cus he perciees it differently . dont u think if a person knowns the logic behind this thing they can understand it objectively?
@@Taimur_Laal That could be an interesting lecture (subjective or objective or both?) on Nietzsche. Looking forward for that video.
ڈاکٹر صاحب پھر سوشلسٹ عینک لگا کر چیزیں دیکھا رھے ھیں۔۔۔ hegal کا
deialecticle analysis
کامریڈ اگر آپ پہلے سے معروضی و غیر معروضی،سبجیکٹیو و اَوبجیکٹیو پہ گفتگو کر چکے ہوں،تو اس کا لنک کمینٹس میں ڈال دیجیے،
ورنہ آئیندہ کسی ویڈیو میں یہ موضوع بھی سامعین کے لیے زیادہ صراحت سے بیان کر دیں
جیتے رہیں 🎉
Yes. May be I need such videos explaining these terms in simple language.
I differ your opinion. We are living new virgin of slavery. Jain confusion and Buddha not believe in God
Ab tu hum direct West ki ghulami mai agaye hain... :p
Very narrow conclusion sir...
The nature of morality is not so simple and dialectical.... Even if it is, supposedly, then who has the authority to choose the best one among them and how to measure the superiority of the selected one...
consequentialism atleast with the current philosophical human understanding
Sir aap samny samny dandi maar rhy, "religion non material sy taluq rakhta h", religion ka link material world sy h insano sy or us k qanoon bhi insano k lyea hen, to non material world sy believe taluq rakhta srf, mgr daily life me physical activity material worl me perform ki jati h
Religion agr poora nizam dy rha ho, us k ander jo cheez aap ko ghallat lagti h us pr behas ki ja skti h, or islam k ilawa knsa religion h js ka nizam nfaz k qabil ho, jitna meny study kiya h, christian jews hiduism in k pas to koi law h hi nhi, jisko implement kiya ja sky, zyada ki to books me hi contradictions hen
Please read. www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/hindu-law
مجھے کیوں سمجھ نہیں آرہی 😢😢
اس لئے کہ ڈاکٹر صاحب جود کنفیوز ھیں۔۔۔ کہ objective morality ھوتی کیا چیز ھے
When you take the religion out of your lives, then you’ve to make such confusing videos.
The explanation of right and wrong can only be provided by creator in all the best possible ways.
It is all about will to power
Jiss wqt mein ruling class ko jis morality se fayda nazar ata hai wo wohi nazraiya samaj par toop dete hai for e.g
Kch 100 saal phle ruling class ke liye salves zarori the to maintaining their empire
So it was moral for them to have slaves
Aur iss wqt ruling class ke liye slaves zarori nhi hai so they have declared slavery immoral
"Imo"
You will continue to chase your tail all your life. Kuch hasil nahein hoga.
Objective morality doesn't exist.
Yup
Even if god exists
Hence proven that neither subjective morality nor objective morality is good... Only Islamic morality is the solution for Humanity
ڈاکٹر صاحب objective اخلاقیات کو بتارھے ھیں ۔۔۔ جو چیز اچھی ھے وہ اچھی۔۔۔
یہ جملہ کنفیوزنگ ھے۔۔۔۔ اچھے کو اچھا کون بتزرھا اور کس بنیاد پر بتارھا ھے۔۔۔۔ یہ ڈاکٹر صاحب نہیں بتارھے۔۔۔ جبکہ سائنس کا حوالہ دے رھے ہیں کہ سائنس جسطرح objectively
So you are saying Pharaoh was morally right . Moses thought he was morally right to eliminate Pharaoh. I had a course at university that was called ethics in USA. Where you think who’s right . Even you could put it to present conflict. Stealing someone’s land is morally wrong . 👏👏👏
Why can’t we eliminate rich or poor. Make everyone equal . When we die we are all equal . World has reached a point where everyone over internet are all equal . World needs a change where no one is powerful or rich and no one is weaker or poor. Looking from ethics view
Moses was right.
سرقة
Mislead ker raha hai
Write detailed reasons of why this professor is misleading the audience.
lol, you are not telling what morality is. Literally, you are delivering this speech on a philosophical subject and look at your bongiyan. come on Taimur sab, just get yourself ahead of these cheap commentators and internet social praise. there are two reasons and one among them is more painful. The first one to consider is that you don't deserve, and the second is, they aren't qualified to praise you nonetheless what they say isn't even praise but even if you think.
if you are a man of character, now just read the definition from a dictionary, then you would definitely don't fall for this cheap praise.
i mean, literally people talk about you, quoting you and referencing you as a philosopher - and someone who calls you a philosopher himself doesn't know what a philosopher is, isn't actually qualified to make that claim, right?
میرے 43 منٹ برباد کر دیے آپ نے اور موریلٹی کی تعریف کو بھی غلط بیان کیا آپ نے.
What is the definition of morality according to you? Don't jump to the conclusions based on your preconceived notions.
I guess this topic is taken from @vimoh (an atheist) vs @smile2jannah (Islamist) debate going on.
there is nothing objective 😂 not even haqeeqat( agnostic).