I'm a neophyte to philosophy but always saw an objective basis for morality independent of religion. From my perspective, the function of ethics is to optimize our cooperative survival. As with evolution, objectively superior ethics allows us to better adapt to our environment and survive, cooperate, reproduce, live in harmony, and inferior ethics have the opposite effect. For example, if a small group of children crash land on an island, completely oblivious to anything about ethics, then surely there are objectively better or worse ways for them to think and behave. If one set results in them cooperating and surviving in harmony (well-adapted), I would consider that objectively superior to another set that results in a Lord of the Flies situation where the children end up all killing each other (maladapted).
Interesting! I agree with you about religion, and it sounds plausible that's how ethical thinking has emerged. It also sounds a bit like naturalism regarding metaethics.
Euthyphro was the first philosophical work I read. Plato's genius shines on this one. Also, even if morality is just a "made up thing" created by us humans, I don't see how this devalues it. Moral anti realism is a meta ethical position not a normative theory, as far as I know. Even if you accept it, you still need to answer what ought to be done. It may also be inspiring, that us humans, in our finite nature, were able to create such a magnificent ideal as morality is. Saying morality is just a made thing up, in order to devalue it, is like saying that a Van Gogh painting is just a bunch of colors on piece of canvas and thus denying its beauty,
Very well put! Yeah, I will delve into the metaethical issue in the next episode. I believe that even Mackie thought that should continue to live as though morality exists even if it just made upp. Very nice analogy to art.
Hey, thanks for the video! Concerning the issue of miracles and revelations, There is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, i.e. something that has never happened in the common course of nature. No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish. That's David Hume! Thomas Reid's (innate principles that governed) presence is discernible by scent.😅...
Yeah! I think I've read of that statement from Hume! I agree. Hume certainly was a genius, and one of the most important philosopher from history that is still quotes frequently. I also think that we can apply Kierkegaard here. One of his points is that truth regarding religion is very problematic. The whole point of the leap of faith is that it is irrational!
You are correct, my bad. I appologize. I just thougth to include all religions without the implications. I'll will change it soon. Thank you so much for the help!
@@soundandsophia no worries and not trying to be the Dharma police. I only clicked on because I was curious how Buddhism might be included in with the other ones. Which of course it does in some ways but not in regard to an ethical pact with God!
@@soundandsophia When I said "included" I meant that Buddhism is often included in the major faiths (a problematic word!) Ninian Smart's 7 dimensions are an agreeable example. In this respect your thumbnail makes sense. But I didn't mean "include" as relevent to this problem you express here. Buddhists are not just ignoring a creator immortal god but explictly seek to show that this notion comes from a deeper bewilderment. This theism coming from profound confusion creates problems, including ethical ones. The Buddhist no-god idea is so radically different so that other faiths usually deny that Buddhists are even saying it. They often try to make out that some Buddhist ideas (Buddha, Sunyata, Tathata etc) are still refering to a foundational god. However subtle. Buddhism tries to be be meticulously clear that they really aren't. In the absence of God, Buddhism approaches ethics from again radically different routes. Thanks for the video I enjoyed it.
Thanks for your video As a Catholic I believe that there is a natural law that everyone can follow and accept and discern, while divine comandments improve it and clear up potential ambiguities that are a result of our corruption. It's only desirable that everyone can access morality. I don't separate religion from morality bc I think truth is unitary and therefore they can only reinforce each other. For example, to me marriage is a sacrament, not a contract, and this has some clear directions of what I should actually do if I get married (putting great effort in being loyal, caring etc). I disagree with the idea that we don't know what God commands because we can discern it from our experience, conscience and observations of nature (other than revelation itself). You may remember from an old comment that I'm 100% for virtue ethics, so I think that by observing the properties of a thing I know how to act good on it. I'm not totally sure that morality, math and logic can exist outside God, maybe they're the form of the Universe. So, 1 + 1 is always 2 because God is the definition of those things, and He doesn't change. I'll wait for the next video!
Thank you for the comment! Many interessting thougts. Especially the part about truth being unitary. And it also it seems reasonable to see marriage as something more than a contract. I am skeptical of the epistemological claim though. One of Kant's thoughts was that if morality exists, it had to be something which is not investigated empirically but rather studies a priori. But anyways.
@@soundandsophia I don't really agree with strict separations between rationality and contigency (in this case experiences), bc the idea of a neutral rational observer utterly failed in philosophy of science In the case of us humans, we're very much shaped by our experiences, if we weren't taught language in time, we would lose the faculty to actually gain it
The divided line analogy in The Republic significantly aided in understanding the concept of "objectiveness.
Rather, what is piety's true, universal form, that ties all pious acts together!!!
"Morality precedes religion" was my foundational premise before departing from religion and into Plato's Republic!
Yeah, I find that view congenial as well even if God exists.
I'm a neophyte to philosophy but always saw an objective basis for morality independent of religion. From my perspective, the function of ethics is to optimize our cooperative survival. As with evolution, objectively superior ethics allows us to better adapt to our environment and survive, cooperate, reproduce, live in harmony, and inferior ethics have the opposite effect.
For example, if a small group of children crash land on an island, completely oblivious to anything about ethics, then surely there are objectively better or worse ways for them to think and behave. If one set results in them cooperating and surviving in harmony (well-adapted), I would consider that objectively superior to another set that results in a Lord of the Flies situation where the children end up all killing each other (maladapted).
Interesting! I agree with you about religion, and it sounds plausible that's how ethical thinking has emerged. It also sounds a bit like naturalism regarding metaethics.
Euthyphro was the first philosophical work I read. Plato's genius shines on this one.
Also, even if morality is just a "made up thing" created by us humans, I don't see how this devalues it. Moral anti realism is a meta ethical position not a normative theory, as far as I know. Even if you accept it, you still need to answer what ought to be done. It may also be inspiring, that us humans, in our finite nature, were able to create such a magnificent ideal as morality is. Saying morality is just a made thing up, in order to devalue it, is like saying that a Van Gogh painting is just a bunch of colors on piece of canvas and thus denying its beauty,
Very well put! Yeah, I will delve into the metaethical issue in the next episode. I believe that even Mackie thought that should continue to live as though morality exists even if it just made upp. Very nice analogy to art.
@soundandsophia Keep up the good work man. Love your videos!!
Thank you! Great to hear!
Hey, thanks for the video! Concerning the issue of miracles and revelations,
There is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, i.e. something that has never happened in the common course of nature. No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.
That's David Hume!
Thomas Reid's (innate principles that governed) presence is discernible by scent.😅...
Yeah! I think I've read of that statement from Hume! I agree. Hume certainly was a genius, and one of the most important philosopher from history that is still quotes frequently. I also think that we can apply Kierkegaard here. One of his points is that truth regarding religion is very problematic. The whole point of the leap of faith is that it is irrational!
Not sure why you included an symbol for Buddhism crossed out like those of the other symbols then talked about God.
You are correct, my bad. I appologize. I just thougth to include all religions without the implications. I'll will change it soon. Thank you so much for the help!
@@soundandsophia no worries and not trying to be the Dharma police. I only clicked on because I was curious how Buddhism might be included in with the other ones. Which of course it does in some ways but not in regard to an ethical pact with God!
Yeah, it might be included in this problem in some way, but I'm not aware how because of my ignorance about buddhism.
@@soundandsophia When I said "included" I meant that Buddhism is often included in the major faiths (a problematic word!) Ninian Smart's 7 dimensions are an agreeable example. In this respect your thumbnail makes sense. But I didn't mean "include" as relevent to this problem you express here. Buddhists are not just ignoring a creator immortal god but explictly seek to show that this notion comes from a deeper bewilderment. This theism coming from profound confusion creates problems, including ethical ones. The Buddhist no-god idea is so radically different so that other faiths usually deny that Buddhists are even saying it. They often try to make out that some Buddhist ideas (Buddha, Sunyata, Tathata etc) are still refering to a foundational god. However subtle. Buddhism tries to be be meticulously clear that they really aren't. In the absence of God, Buddhism approaches ethics from again radically different routes. Thanks for the video I enjoyed it.
Nice, thank you for the info! Glad you enjoyed the video as well. :)
Thanks for your video
As a Catholic I believe that there is a natural law that everyone can follow and accept and discern, while divine comandments improve it and clear up potential ambiguities that are a result of our corruption. It's only desirable that everyone can access morality.
I don't separate religion from morality bc I think truth is unitary and therefore they can only reinforce each other. For example, to me marriage is a sacrament, not a contract, and this has some clear directions of what I should actually do if I get married (putting great effort in being loyal, caring etc).
I disagree with the idea that we don't know what God commands because we can discern it from our experience, conscience and observations of nature (other than revelation itself). You may remember from an old comment that I'm 100% for virtue ethics, so I think that by observing the properties of a thing I know how to act good on it.
I'm not totally sure that morality, math and logic can exist outside God, maybe they're the form of the Universe. So, 1 + 1 is always 2 because God is the definition of those things, and He doesn't change.
I'll wait for the next video!
Thank you for the comment! Many interessting thougts. Especially the part about truth being unitary. And it also it seems reasonable to see marriage as something more than a contract.
I am skeptical of the epistemological claim though. One of Kant's thoughts was that if morality exists, it had to be something which is not investigated empirically but rather studies a priori. But anyways.
@@soundandsophia I don't really agree with strict separations between rationality and contigency (in this case experiences), bc the idea of a neutral rational observer utterly failed in philosophy of science
In the case of us humans, we're very much shaped by our experiences, if we weren't taught language in time, we would lose the faculty to actually gain it
Your question is false
Which question? Euthypho's dilemma?