How Can Morality Be Objective | Jamar-NY | The Atheist Experience 942
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- The Atheist Experience 942 for November 1, 2015 with Matt Dillahunty and John Iacoletti.
How can morality be objective?
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
► www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
► www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
Morality is a social construct combined with our innate sense of justice and fairness.
When you're 3 years old and your 5 year old brother steals your favorite toy for himself, you're not screaming because the Bible told you so.
That's your innate sense of fairness and justice. If murder was made legal, would you then think murder is moral? Trick question; you already think murder is moral when supporting the troops or murdering in self defense.
Morality is a social construct.
@@walnutoil100 Your evidence is?
@@walnutoil100 Your evidence that further evidence is required is?
@@walnutoil100 Your question is evidence you have no idea of reality.
NHE Bingo! Thanks Hopeless!
I think you mean killing. Murder is technically a specific legal definition that probably wouldn't apply to self defence (depending on scenario, of course.)
Whether you have free will or not, you do have "choices" and if you are of sound mind,
surely you would always choose what brings the best outcome for you and the tribe you live with.
Only a subject can find anything good or bad. Morality is subjective like it or not.
I noticed the part where a deterministic universe clashes with morality often causes confusion.
One possible cause might be that when people think of consequences for immoral actions, that they may not be "responsible" for, because of the deterministic nature of it all, they think of those consequences as "punishment" instead of "rehabilitation".
Whether or not you're responsible for your crimes, we still can't have you participating in society like that, so rehabilitation away from society is how I think of it, and think it should be done.
This. Right here. There are several forms of sanctions for violations of morality, and determinism is incompatible with only one of them: vengeance. Which should tell you something about society.
_se7enhaender,_ Exactly. I'd add that punishment for crimes is _one of the deterministic factors limiting crime,_ which is another reason for punishing crimes. For example if there wasn't punishment for murder, _there would be more murder,_ because the threat of punishment for murder is one of the effects that reduces how many people act on a desire to commit murder. So then because we as a society agree we want to live in a reality with fewer murders, we enforce that punishment.
@@majmage I'd agree to that to some extent, as in if there were no justice system, things would be worse.
But places like the U.S. which have consequences more akin to "punishment" (overly long sentences, death penalty) also tend to have a higher rate of crime, especially violent crimes in comparison to places where rehabilitation and reintegration into society seems to be the goal.
Repeat offenders are much more likely, if the prison system doesn't care for them. American prisons basically specialize in creating life long criminals.
Also, no one thinks "Oh for 25 years I'll kill the guy that just raped my wife, but for a more severe punishment, I'll let him be..."
Given the chance I'd probably try to kill the guy in a fit of rage and would hope that this doesn't invalidate the rest of my life and that society will give me another chance.
So all in all, the deterrence factor ain't as high as a lot of people would like to think.
@@se7enhaender Well nobody's pretending it's the _only_ deterministic factor influencing crime. But it's definitely _a_ factor influencing things.
@@majmage Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you there, I wanted to make clear that, while I agree with it being a deterrent to some degree, I don't support the "punishment" idea - even though, like rehabilitation away from society and reduced freedom, it that falls under the same umbrella as a form of deterrence.
At the end we were all distracted about what Matt did in his youth.
My personal theory on why we have morals is this, in the past as well as in the present and future, there is strength, security, and safety in numbers. So, to maximize our chances of survival, individuals tend to conform to the rules of the group(s) they belong to. Whether those rules make sense to us today or not. And, at some point, these "rules" are usually codified into law.
To finish the comment about rape statute of limitations, it's because, short of video evidence, tangible evidence doesn't last long, so it doesn't take too long before the case is legally he said/she said. (Strictly speaking of physical, testable evidence. I, in no way, mean to discount eyewitness or other character testimony.)
@@blarglemantheskeptic my best response is that "ability to successfully prosecute" is not only different on a case by case basis, which might the best way, but I don't think the way it's currently done.
And, while a proper lawer might be able to make that determination, as someone without law experience, it's only the clear cut cases that would fall under that category.
Not saying your wrong, only that what you proposed is also highly subjective, for better or worse.
@@blarglemantheskeptic The ideas on what is an appropriate time period for successful prosecution of crimes such as rape are undergoing change. In CA, the statute is 10 years; in MA it's now 15 years: and it's under discussion in other states as well. CA now also has an open statute for the prosecution of child molestation, as it does for murder - so these are flexible, and there's more time and opportunity for victims and their families to seek justice.
And rape should not have a statute of limitations. That only happens in the US by the way.
Damn this was a good conversation.
See Jamar next time on ‘To Catch a Predator’
We don’t need morality. We need pragmatism
People are so hung up about objectivity, as if there is some absolute objectivity. All "objective" really refers to is a general agreement about something.
A god can not provide you with objectivity either. The only thing a theist can do is obey the subjective dictates of a (fantasy) being with (imagined) overwhelming power, and then call those subjective commands "objective", because the god might harm him if he does not submit to this tyranny.
There is no such thing as absolute objectivity, because everything is processed via our subjective minds.
I need to look into this free will question. It sure feels like I could choose from a million different things to do tomorrow. I mean the first intersection i come to is 4 options already lol
Nobody denies it feels like that. But what makes you come up with those few options and not others, and what makes you choose the one you choose? Is that truly under your control?
If I ask you to name a city on Earth, and you reply - maybe - Paris, did you consider Buenos Aires, or Wolverhampton? Why did you consider some but not others? Likely you might argue your subconscious came up with those. And what made you pick Paris from the ones you considered? Thinking about it, free will looks less and less "free".
Sam Harris has a nice video on his view where he analyzes such a thought experiment. I found it very convincing, to be honest, to the point where I now find free will still a very convincing but virtually impossible concept.
(Not only for psychological but also physical reasons, actually.)
The worst aspect of being exposed to Sam Harris' writings and speeches on free will is that if your life sucks at the time, you start to think that there is nothing you can do about it and give up any hope you have left. You have to come up with some Jedi mind tricks to get over that sh!t parade of bad news. LOL
All these moral judgements are at least theoretically conditionally objective: "If we agree that this principle is important, then we must uphold it in these cases." I say theoretically because there are complex moral dilemmas where it is not obvious that there is an 'objectively correct' solution even given broad agreement on values.
@@walnutoil100 Your evidence is?
@@walnutoil100 How does anyone? See my original comment.
I like something, I don’t like something. Am I correct?
@@walnutoil100 With a brain... You should get one....
@@walnutoil100 "shifting the burden- avoiding the question." Your evidence for that is?
Hard determinism could be true and you can still be programmed to deliberate your choices. Saying that you accept morality as best for humans doesn't make free will real.
Classic example of the caller not actually listening to the answer.
I can't help but think that people who don't get this are being deliberately dense in many cases. As someone who has played a bit of basketball, albeit badly, I can say that being tall is not inherently good or bad but, if you want to play basketball, being tall is objectively good. Once you have made the subjective decision to play basketball, that being tall is good in that context is not a matter of opinion.
To add to, strengthen, or clarify your analogy, the subjective part (as far as the analogy to a moral dilemma is concerned) isn't the decision to play basketball, even though that is also subjective... the subjective part that is important here, is the goal of putting a ball in basket that's mounted relatively high... if that is the goal, being tall is objectively good.
The rules in basketball are set and skewed to favour the taller player. The rules we make in life are designed to favour us all. But even then, we say killing is bad. But would you kill Hitler to save millions? Would you steal to feed a starving child? Situation and context become factors. Would ending a foetus that we know will develop into a life of misery be a good thing?
Precisely but Theists don't get this
Matt is right, i think, in that you have to assess the circumstances of each situation in order to decide what action to take. But if you accept that every action sets off a chain of events which may be very long, then it is next to impossible to know exactly what action to take in each situation. Sometimes it may be correct to push someone into the river. At another time, it may be appropriate to pull someone out of the river.
That's Matt's point. If the person was about to get swallowed by a huge forest fire, then pushing them into the river would be morally good because we can analyze those results and see the person who got pushed is now saved from burning to death.
Minutes later, it could also be morally good to help remove that same person from that river. Situational.
Perhaps, but supposing they drowned? Apparently, saints know exactly what action to take at any moment, because they know what the final result of it will be.
Sometimes, it’s just like…dude, c’mon🤦🏼♂️
I disagree. Morality is subjective, but we use laws to prevent what has been observed as harmful. However, this is why we also get laws that are immoral as well.
Even the term well being is subjective.
Lmao. This guy keeps adding just a little bit more age at a time to these hypothetical minors, to see when the hosts will agree to call it moral. Getting suspect...
...god in suspect...
..just picking U up and holding you so you can see over the fence ..
...
...ahhh.
.. rezone able
id
ability...
...
...don't need a tv show..to reach
you....
..give em enough rope..
...let them judge themselves...
....who do you complain to...
..🤣🤣😅😂😆👁️👁️👁️👁️
...probe, limb...
Interesting he hitches up so tightly to consequentialism when there are obvious flaws in that theory. See Stanford Encyclopedia.
What if someone has been affected by their whole life because of the crime that has been done toward them..and because of some circumstances such as trauma, evidence etc. Are some reasons they were not able to report it, is the statue of limitation justified? For those who have time limits?
How can morality be objective? When SCOTUS can rarely come to a consensus on how to interpret the law and they are deemed to be among the greatest legal minds in America, how can we expect the average person to be able to decide what is right or wrong?
Laws have bugger all to do with morality objective or otherwise. unless its to impose someone else's "morals". Justice isn't to be found there either .
@@Wardads1 I agree with you but the point is that no matter what framework exists there will always be disagreement in how to interpret and practice this framework.
What is lawful and what is moral are two different subjects. Also he did not say morality in itself was objective, Matt said that the evaluation of a particular action can be objective
Jamar is asking for a friend...
How ironic that Jamar ask questions on morality of consensual sex with a minor, in the only country of western civilisation were the almost totality of states laws say it’s legal for minor to get married, down to age 10 in some state! So religious beliefs overcome common sense morality, how about God as the source of it?
We hold meatsack John accountable for the action because we (society) think that will have a deterministic effect on other meatsacks in the future (and it may). Mainly to place a criterion for an unpleasant “consequence” into the brain state of future meatsacks, to inhibit the potential action of “meatsack decapitation”.
Even if morality is often objective, some situations are very ambiguous and depend on the values and perspective of whoever is making the judgment. Sometimes you have to weigh the degree of morality/immorality of a particular action. Obviously lying, stealing, cheating, killing, etc are on a scale of different degrees of immorality and some are worth enforcing with legislation and some not. For example, abortion. Even pro-choice people would have to admit that aborting an incomplete human being is immoral to some degree or another. But they would say that the government forcing a woman to bear, birth, and raise a child against her will is more immoral. Depends largely on a lot of subjectivity. So I would say that morality is a combination of objective and subjective determinations.
If morality is subjective, anything can be moral just by saying you subjectively think it's moral.
@@goranmilic442 There is some truth in this, any individual can justify almost any action. But in the vast majority of situations, reasonable people can objectively determine what is moral or not. In the remaining cases, we as a society must attempt to come to a consensus of what we consider is right or wrong and there will be disagreements, but we do the best we can. It is one of the challenges that we as humans must struggle to constantly improve.
@@robertvirnig638 If moral is subjective, there is no "reasonable", "right", "wrong", "best we can" or "improve". Because any action can be better or worse, reasonable or unreasonable, depending on personal opinion. But if your claim is that reasonable people can objectively determine what is moral, what standard are they using?
@@goranmilic442 Wrong. If morality is subjective(the default position), nothing is moral or immoral.
@@FourDeuce01 My bad. When I said everything can be moral, what I meant was everything can be described as moral.
John-"you didn't cut off anybody head for example?"
Matt-"ok gotta go" lol
Headless bodies buried all around Houston.
There is no such thing as free will. Can you fly by flapping your arms? No?
I think you are being too literal in regards to free will lol
@@micahbinns2740 I wonder... have you ever been able to fly in your dreams? I did as a child. I remember the view 60 years later.
@@richiejohnson no I have not had dreams like that
@@micahbinns2740 the moment of liftoff is exhilarating! My dreams lately are endless loops of trying to get to the airport in a strange city.
There's a much better way to define something as either moral or immoral, being quite objective, and that is within the context of property rights. Anything you do that harms another's property without his consent is immoral. Now put that within the context of you owning yourself, as in your body is your property. So now, anything you do to someone's property, including his body, without his consent, is immoral. If you assault that person, you are initiating aggression against his property, that is immoral, and he has every right to defend his property from that initiation of aggression. Same would apply to any other of his property, his car, his house, whatever else.
People need to get over this ridiculous assumption that the Bible has anything whatsoever to do with morals, or that the Bible is some standard for morals, because it clearly is NOT. And all these arguments over morality being subjective can pretty much be done away with.
Well, for this to overcome the objection of "You don't have an objective basis for morality!", you would have to establish an objective basis for property rights, and what property claims count as justified and which ones don't. Also, not all moral claims cam necessarily be shoehorned into the construct of property rights- is that a good reason to simply dismiss them?
@@amtlpaul So what can NOT be "shoehorned" into property rights?
@@anarchomoto1152 Is lying moral?
@@amtlpaul Depends on what the lie is. Does it harm anyone? I think you might be confusing morals with ethics. Not the same thing. If it harms no one, how is it immoral? Since morals have nothing to do with it, is it ethical or unethical to tell your wife that yes, she does look fat in those pants?
Buy you didn't answer the question of what moral/ immoral thing would not fall under property rights somehow.
@@anarchomoto1152 But wait- now you say that what harms people is immoral. Is the harm done by lying necessarily harm to property? I don't believe that lying is always wrong, no. But I do believe that habitual lying about important things is corrosive. If people cannot broadly trust other people to be truthful about things important to them, do you not agree that that is harmful? So how is this property damage? Well, you could say that it harms the collective good, which is the property of all, but at this point I think we'd be stretching things somewhat. Also, I don't consider myself to be property. Maybe you find it helpful to think of yourself as your own property, but I don't. To me, I am myself, not my property, and the issue is personal autonomy. In fact, I would say that property rights exist as a subset of personal autonomy, not vice versa. That is, having my own property gives me autonomy that I would not otherwise have.
Allah told me that in the year 2041, Matt will become a Muslim
How utterly fascinating
@John Wood
I am a servant of Allah. Christianity is blasphemy against Allah
@@amtlpaul
It is. I can't wait for the prophecy to be fulfilled
@@louisbarrow4671 Fancy that
@@amtlpaul
I hope you convert as well