@castroy64 aren't you an impatient boy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_SS ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/12/raw-data-religious-preference-in-the-military/
@castroy64 who do you think killed all those people in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? Those were Christian soldiers? Who were guarding concentration camps in nazi Germany? Christian ss members Hitler, Stalin, LBJ killed very few people themselves
Real life conversation I had in Sunday School when I was a preteen: SS Teacher: "Why do we do the right thing?" Me: "Because it's the right thing to do." SS Teacher. "No. We do it because it please God." Great video. I've been looking for this everywhere since I first heard your definition of morality quoted by others. Glad I found it.
In a few months this video will be 10 years old - but it's still as accurate, concise and rational as the day it was recorded. All you newer UA-camrs should make a point of watching his other videos, too. They're all **EXCELLENT**.
"A particular action or choice is moral, or right, when it somehow promotes happiness, wellbeing, or health, or it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm, or suffering, or it does both. A particular action or choice is immoral, or wrong, when it somehow diminishes happiness, wellbeing, or health, or it somehow causes unnecessary harm, or suffering, or it does both." Fantastic
If that's the case than right or wrong is situational. I agree with it. I just want it to be known that you have to look at each individual situation and obtain the information needed to come to a proper conclusion.
@castroy64 have you ever heard Christopher Hitchens discuss this same concept? I would love for you to read God Is Not Great. It goes into detail. If not, check out some of his debates. He went over this sentiment a considerable amount of times.
@castroy64 i was laughing at the irony of your statement. i dont believe in the bible because god literally wiped out the entire world, and also commanded the killing of innocent men, women and infants. ah screw these leftists for opposing these oppressive religions!!
@castroy64 I'm assuming you're repeating the, "The Black Book of Communism," claim that's been called into question so many times. Even if we're to accept your claim as it's made, those regimes would clearly not be humanist in nature. It's not relevant to the argument presented in the video.
@castroy64 The 30 Years War, fought entirely by christians and couched in entirely christian terms, killed more Europeans as a percentage of population than either World War.
@castroy64 What's your point? Nobody said atheists are incapable of murder. They are just as capable of murder as religious people. There is nothing special about not believing in a god that makes someone less inclined towards violence than those who do believe in a god.
Scott I don’t know you from acting. I was introduced to you from TAE. I never had a secular education growing up. I had to barrel my way independently to this position once I finally left for college and I feel so stunted in my development because of it. Watching your older videos like these where you’re explaining morality even clearer and more definitively than Matt. Who’s debated these topics for years. It’s just inspiring to see someone so young who has such a sober mind. If many more children were raised such as you, the world would be a much better place. Keep up the work!
Right, so imagine that the above is the "TBS's secular morality" version of the Euthyphro Dilemma. The answer is, it's morally better to promote well-being, ONLY because of what I *mean* when I say, "morally better". This isn't a problem for me, however, since I don't posit any "capital-M" Morality that is absolute and transcendent. A Christian apologist is usually very uncomfortable with admitting that something is only "moral" because of their definition of it. Thus, for them it's a "dilemma".
Things are moral if they do not cause physical/psychological harm ! It's how laws are made and its what the practical version of morality is, it's based on real things. Otherwise it's not morality, it's wrong and fictional.
The best definition of what is Moral or Immoral, Right or Wrong without the need of someone telling you what it is. Thank you for this. I have written this down and put it in my Journal to read each day.
@@JoshuaMSOG7 Why should he use the narrow, scholarly philosophical definition of atheism? Language is usage and the term "atheism" is commonly used in two ways-- weak atheism, the doxastic state of lacking a belief in any gods _or_ the narrow common scholarly definition of the proposition that no gods exist-- often called strong or positive atheism. This is why most dictionaries define atheism as disbelief _or_ lack of belief in a god or gods. Philosophy of religion, as it applied to atheism vs theism, is concerned with the propositions of there is a god or gods or there is no god or gods. It is not concerned with psychological states of being unconvinced of the theistic proposition. Regular people often do care about the doxastic psychological state of lack of belief in any gods. There is no such thing as a "correct" definition-- not in linguistics or philosophy textbooks or journals --there are only useful definitions and useless definitions. As long as definitions are consistently applied and describe some phenomenon or concept or thing, it is a valid definition. IMO people should just argue against the actual position someone holds-- and not the semantics of a label one uses for this position. Semantic shift is a thing and it means definitions change over time as usages evolve. Myself, I tend to be a strong atheist towards the specific theistic propositions and descriptions of god(s) expressed by all denominations of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc... But I tend to be a weak atheist in regards to the possibility of a general, deistic god concept. Cheers :)
@@munstrumridcully This is precisely why there needs to be a definite definition of what we are talking about because while talking about word play, you were doing the exact very thing you said could happen, is to play semantics lol. So “regular people” is why they aren’t taken serious when going into a scholarly field and proposing these kinds of arguments because they just don’t withhold. When you actually open a book and start to educate yourself a bit without being a internet troll, you will learn your position is indefensible when pushed to the corners. Do you want to begin?
@@JoshuaMSOG7 The doxastic position of lacking belief in gods does not exist? The English language is prescriptive? Definitions do not change over time? I opened plenty of books when I studied English, philosophy of religion and philosophy in general. How is it trolling to point out that definitions, even in philosophy, are never "the one, true, definition", snd that as long as one defines how one is using his terms and is consistent (not equivocating) one can define a term any way one likes? You really didn't address my points. What matters is the concepts and propositions being expressed not the labels. I brought up semantics as a subset of linguistics exactly because you were arguing semantics. So i addressed your semantic argument in kind and then pointed out how what actually matters is the position or concept being expressed, not the label. I think you need to open a few linguistic books yourself to learn how definitions work. Cheers
There are many, many versions of utilitarianism and consequentialism. My moral philosophy certainly acknowledges the moral relevance of conscious intentions. (Sorry if that's not clear in the video--was trying to bottom-line as much as I could.)
"The christian philosophy of morality always seemed to me like living in an MC Escher staircase painting... How many steps is it going to take you to realize you're not getting anywhere?" Hot damn.
@castroy64 You can't say "Atheistic regimes" because that thing doesn't exist because atheists don't have a book that they follow that tells them what to do so you can't hold a person accountable for what they didn't believe in but rather what they follow. You might say that this is a problem, but I completely disagree. If a government can find a moral basis for its nation I honestly don't care what they follow, as long as they let everyone practice what they want (without posing harm on others) and treat people equally regardless of their beliefs (or lack thereof) and their thoughts. That cannot happen in a theocratic government. I'm an Iraqi Arab and trust me, you don't want religion dominating your country.
@castroy64 that's impossible. Atheism is by definition a lack of belief in a God. Communism is a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. So if you replace the word atheist with lack of beliefs then your claim that atheism is a pillar of communism is nonsensical. Let's try. A lack of belief in a God is a pillar in a political theory advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Please explain how that can be proved and how it's not complete nonsense
@castroy64 I'm still waiting for a fact. You arent very good at trolling or stating facts. But I get lots of joy by correcting people and pointing out their mistakes. So keep trolling and not proving one fact. My job allows for me to be on youtube a lot. I'll be waiting for you to prove atheism has anything to do with communism. I will not be holding my breath though. I'm not that daft
I came to this video after watching AaronRa's 'Correcting Ken Ham and his Facebook Followers'. He referenced Scott's definition for morality and suggested the audience google him. I did, and was pleasantly surprised to see he's a UA-camr! Well done sir!
Scott, I quote you often. Your insightful and concise law of morality is beautiful in its simplicity and robustness. Thank you for gifting this answer to the bleating of the sheeple
7 billion believers and a hand full of people that have realized Truth and Reality. We have a long way to go from being mankind to evolving into human kind.
+steve nunua Truth and Reality, such lovely abstract concepts, you almost think they should really exist. 7 billion -- no room for non-believers? What about that we are actually evolving into womankind? Maybe what humans evolve into won't be human.
Agimaso Schandir I have been a NONE believer of anything for 5 years now. Out of the delusional belief reality business be it science, religion, government, medicine or anything else. Belief destroys intellect.
Lief Theorine To me...Reality is the universe. Truth is what we learn to realize of it. Pure Truth is an unadulterated realization of the universe. Belief must be avoided at all cost to truly know the TRUTH! It is inside your head and Reality is everything out side of your head...but it does include your head! LOL
30 minute videos are now de rigueur. And twelve years after posting, this is still the single most powerful explanation of the superiority of secular over religious morality that I've seen. Thank you.
I had already realized I'm Bi, but I remember opening this video again after a while and literally got butterflies in my stomach from seeing him pop up on the screen. He is so gorgeous
Amazing video! Loved the clarity and directness of your arguments. Please resume making more videos. The world would benefit from more of your mental cogitations being released unto it!
ur like a fish in a fishbowl who thinks “I can’t breathe outside of water, so anything outside of my world must not exist because I can’t wrap my fish brain around it!
I'll offer a simple observation that is probably abundantly obvious to anyone who's watched this video, but it occurs to me, in very simple terms, TB (and I) hold values and derive our moral framework based on those values, like this; values------>morals. Most Christians do it the other way around; morals------->values. The implication for Christians is that, if the bible and ultimately god are the arbiter of morality and morality is defined by whatever it is that god desires, then the Christian must admit that anything that god declares by divine fiat must be moral and the Christian must adjust their values to suit those morals, no matter what those morals are, even if it is to murder or rape.
An excellent point, though the problem persists in breaching a faithful person's bias defense. One can hope more people will admit their cognitive dissonance and take steps towards intellectual honesty.
alueshen This is true in theory, in practise most Christians I know - or at least people who call themselves that - rather adjust their vision of god to the values they already hold. The reasoning is more or less: "X isn't moral, so God wouldn't really do it, hence the story of God doing X is probably just a metaphor (or part of God's bigger plan that includes X as a necessary sacrifice for greater good)." This isn't what they'd tell you they do though. They might for example tell you that through their consciensce God tells them what to do, so their values automatically reflect God's nature.
Completely agree. What I said in the OP wasn't to suggest that if god declared rape moral that most Christians would believe that rape is moral, rather, as an exercise in thought I'm pointing out that values are ultimately (meaningfully) subjective (not to be confused with meaningless and arbitrary). Objective morality isn't a coherent position because God _is_ the subject who is doing the valuing and as (I believe) you point out if people gave themselves enough credit they'd realize it is they that are doing the valuing and their morality is based on those values and they are simply projecting those values onto god as a way to prevent having to come to terms with the fact that their morality is simply a choice, a choice they make based on the values they hold.
13 years later and I am still rewatching this video. I follow along every time I watch it but I could not go anywhere near being able to argue as eloquently and fluently as Scott no matter how many times I watch this video and prepare to plagiarise his content as my own. Amazing my friend. Would love to chat over a beer some day
The thing theists don't understand is that their "objective morality" is actually the most subjective one. Simply taking your subjective morality and saying it comes from god doesn't make it objective. It's simply your subjective morality masqueraded as "objective". It's always funny seeing theists lying to themselves thinking their morality is "objective".
+Swordy Wordy ALL morality is subjective, so this cuts both ways, when atheists lie to themselves thinking their (pet moral theory) is objective. Theist morality is only objective in the sense that, if God exists: Morality is subjective and disputes are decided by power. It is objectively true that God has all the power. Therefore God's morality cannot be disputed. Or rather, you can dispute it, but you cannot win. We are all like the Axis and God is like the Allies... in the end, whatever we think about morality is irrelevant.
Wow...from following my online psychology class (in the netherlands), to a US guy...with really interesting things to say :) Nice subject. Will check out the other clips too:D
Wow. I never thought I'd live to see the day that I would look up to a soap opera actor. Well said, good sir. This video has been favorited, and will be referred back to regularly.
can any Christians explain to us how they know that their god is the good one in the Bible? Or to put it in a slightly different way, if your god appeared to you and made the assertion that he is "good" how would you know his assertion is correct?
How I know, I can't speak for others, I am Catholic and when I questioned, I prayed to The Lord as He said in Matthew 7:7-8 Ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened. Then He answered the prayer, proved to me His existence and healed my eye after I prayed for either a healing or if not that would be ok too. He healed me during a prayer when I least expected it. God exists, humbly ask because He resists the proud and those that demand their whimsical disordered pleasures. God Bless. He also tells me most are lost forever, as Jesus foretold "Narrow is the road that leads to life and few there are who find it." This banter is a waste of time, pray for the Truth. God Bless all.
Sounds like you have reformulated the Christian version of the Euthyphro Dilemma: What Is the Ultimate Standard of Morality? Is an action good because it adheres to some external system of morals, or because God said so? (In the original Euthyphro Dilemma Socrates asked Euthyphro what ultimately is holy or the nature of the good, and whether it is decided by the (Greek) gods, or whether it is by some external standard, like the concept of justice for example).
TruthUnadulterated No rebuttal or debunking of any points made in the video , or any other video , just more claims , ho hum , silly of me to expect any evidence , just backing up claims , with more claims .
Keras33 We have just witnessed something called Cognitive Dissonance Keras33... It happens... Never mind TruthAltered making the claim that there are no rebuttals or debunks in the video or any other video, all while failing to provide any arguments to move beyond assertion and then having the audacity to call out claims...
I've gone over this a million times and I just can't get behind your opinion that there is some kind of objective morality. Every time you cite an instance of supposed objective morality you explain it in terms of subjective experiences. The only kind of objective morality I would grant is possibly societal morality, which certainly exists outside of one's own subjective experience. However, even that societal morality is still just a large consensus of many many people's subjective moralities. Morality would not exist in a universe without humans, humans created morality and humans are the only thing in the universe that is affected by the concept of morality. Morality is purely subjective.
I agree with you 100%. This is one point where I feel like both TBS and Sam Harris missed the boat. Defining morally good as what is likely to bring about well being and minimizing needless harm is in itself subjective. That's not to say that it's arbitrary or that most rational thinking human beings wouldn't agree with that definition however.
I think the vote is still out on that one but as far as I know they have not been able to prove that any other kind of animal, including our closest primate relatives, can actually empathize with another animal. Some animals certainly do display apparently altruistic behavior but the motivation seems to be due to instinct rather than cognitive reasoning. We anthropomorphize other animals when they do something that resembles what we would call a moral act but it seems that is merely humans projecting their own morality into a situation where none actually exists. I would consider empathy a prerequisite to having any kind of morality, good or bad. Most animals cannot recognize "self" as distinct from "someone else" so I don't think empathy or morality ever enters into the picture. Just my 2 cents but biologists may prove that wrong some day soon.
I think you missed the point. Morality is indeed a man made definition to describe a natural, beneficial course. Nobody refutes that (unless you are into religious apologetics). However, although morality is contingent on a population adhering to said morality for a possible subjective reasoning, does not mean that morality itself does not hold a specific objective definition for what is healthy for a population and what is not. What you may feel is the correct course of action (subjectively) is not necessarily what is clearly a more beneficial course of action (objectively). To say that morality would not exist without human rationale, however, is no different from saying God would not exist if there were no humans to revere him. In which we can conclude that the belief in a god is purely subjective if you want to go down that path. But what is being described here is not the likelihood of this phenomenon occurring outside of whether or not humans (or other species) have come to exist, but rather the objective rationale for how they continue to exist and carry on.
"To say that morality would not exist without human rationale, however, is no different from saying God would not exist if there were no humans to revere him." I would definitely make both of those assertions. Neither morality nor the idea of a God would exist if humans did not make them up.
Yeah, I don't buy "intrinsic" moral properties. In fact, the notion of "intrinsic value" seems incoherent--literally self-contradictory--to me. Also, careful not to conflate hedonistic pleasure or pathology with true happiness, wellness and fulfillment. There are many reasons rape is immoral, without needing this strange "moral arithmetic" (pleasure of rapist - pain of victim = net pleasure), or some such nonsense. "Intrinsic significance" solves imaginary problems while creating real ones.
Sometimes they go with "objective moral values", I'm pretty sure "Objective values" is an oxymoron. Value is assigned by a valuer, which would mean all values are subjective. We as valuers give value to objects, ideas, places, people, memories, numbers, etc. Values are contingent on mind.
Since the beginning of the human race, "Oughts" were derived from consequential statements e.g. If I want to live, I ought to breathe and vise versa etc. The can't derive an is from an ought is only a problem for the theists i.e. God "is" the source of morality, therefore you ought to do what God says. How do people not see that? the God hypothesis does not explain any moral concept i.e. it doesn't say why God's commands are moral, they just "are" moral. God explains nothing.
+thatdevilguy more like "God is the exception" to all the rules. God bypasses the can't derive ought from an is problem, the something can't come form nothing or matter can only come from pre-existing matter, everything complex needs a more complex designer, you can't have real infinities (or else "the now" would never have occurred), etc. This god breaks all these supposed rules by by existing...... and somehow this proves he exists? I swear, all those apologists were high when they came up with those arguments.
Dashing them against rocks certainly is, supposedly that is when you are happiest. I've never had a want to test that hypothesis, not religious enough I guess.
I'm tired. It seems like a never-ending task to enlighten regious people and to be honest most don't really seem to care about the deeper applications of their beliefs. They just wanna go to heaven when they die.
it seems to get overlooked but religion was only invented 50,000 years ago, before that i imagine it was purely superstition, but for between 100,000 and 2 million years humans in one form or another had got along fine with "no morality" at all.
I only recently discovered you, through a random reference to this video in another lecture. The title "Treatise on Morality" caught my attention, and I would say this is, by far, your most significant work. You are a very thoughtful, well-informed, and honest person, and I hope that subscription count continues to grow, because we can all benefit from what you have to say. I'm glad you've come out into the world while you're still young, so we can all appreciate your work for years to come.
Problem: Objective morals presuppose intrinsic values, which cannot be empirically proven. You can't prove that the jumble of atoms called a person is "better" than the jumble or atoms called a rock. As such, while a secular version of objective morality may sound nicer than a bleak, nihilistic view, it just amounts to more empty sentimentalism in the end.
Sentimentalism/rationalism is forced unto human to survival fitness (they are programmed that way: people can't choose to don't have them): if sentimentalism and rationalism has to be discredited, humanity's dead. The problem is in fact: we cannot always predict consequences: for example the case of the real priest who save young Adolph Hitler. but it's not a leap of faith: it's just the most good action knowable in some game of bet.
This is typical redefinition. "The definition of morality as I understand it." This is an appeal to subjectivity. Your argument falls apart right there because you cannot ground this morality within the laws of nature. Without God, there is only naturalism. Naturalism means that morality is grounded in the laws of nature, but what grounds morality with the laws of nature? How do you link "X action is wrong" into the laws of nature? And it is this fundamental problem that you have. Nature simply behaves as it does. You cannot derive an ought from an is in any case. Morality requires a lawgiver. If someone murders someone, that's just how it is. The person murdered. There's nothing that can ever be said to be immoral about that action under naturalism.
Phelan There is nothing in the Bible that states that me disobeying you is wrong because slavery is not by fiat. Slavery, instead, is an idea of dependence on a master in return for absolute servitude. What the Bible teaches us in this and other cases is to not be consumed by our circumstances, and instead embrace them and have a relationship with God within them. That is the entire point of Paul's discussions with the unhappy slave. God lets us know that there is a greater life ahead and not to have great concern for matters on Earth.
Phelan You can always make an offer, but my servitude isn't for sale. It's difficult for a spiritually blind person to understand what the Bible is saying. For you, there's no context. But, I can't put it any more simply. The circumstances one faces in this world aren't meaninful. This is why Paul tells the slave to graciously serve his master, because obsessing over circumstances puts greed into play, making a relationship with God more challenging. You are weakened when you seek to improve your Earthly circumstances, not strengthened.
Phelan Well, of course I can decide because you simply have no power in this world. The Bible reminds us that there is a better life ahead and to be gracious and live well within our circumstances. That is the entire point. That's the way it is. You can deny reality all you want, doesn't make it less true.
Phelan You never did get it. Since you don't have a relationship with God, context is impossible for you. Just as nobody would trust a blind man to do their interior decorating, no one should take an atheist's critique of the Bible seriously. Without knowledge of that relationship, you're blind and ignorant. Sorry about your failed demonstration, bro. Next time you'll be smarter about it. God bless.
Phelan I'm not trying to be hostile toward you, lol. I'm just saying you need to think your analogies through before you post them. You don't have to let it upset you bro, just do better next time. :)
Treatise on Morality. *"What I'm interested in is maximizing health happiness and well being and minimizing unnecessary harm and suffering."* - If enslaving a person to be tortured for their entire life maximized the entire world's health, happiness and well being and minimized unnecessary harm and suffering then it would be objectively moral to do that from your atheistic worldview Scott. Do you see any problems with that?
Here's the difference: In the Christian worldview people have objective value other than what other humans give them. Their worth isn't contingent on what other people opinions of them are.
"If enslaving a person to torture for their entire life maximized the entire world's health, happiness and well being and minimized unnecessary harm and suffering then it would be objectively moral to do that from your atheistic worldview Scott." Another way of phrasing this is "there is one person who, by permitting them to remain free, is reducing the health, happiness and well-being of the entire world." This person's freedom is CAUSING a reduction in overall quality of life for EVERYONE. Yes, enslaving them would be moral. No, I do not see a problem with that. One person, for the happiness of billions. If that person did not WILLINGLY submit to slavery, then THEY are the immoral party. EDIT - To be honest, this seems to be the type of morality that the sacrifice of Jesus supports, anyway...doesn't it? Jesus' death didn't even maximize well-being, and it didn't even improve well-being for most of the world...yet the sacrifice is considered justified, even though Jesus requested that the cup be taken from him, it was still justified.
////////////mind blown/////////////// All I can say is AMEN. I serve a God that loves so much that they are willing to give the most he could give which was to step down from his MIGHTY THRONE and humble himself to being born among us in a manger rather than a castle. Grow up as a man facing all the same struggle we do and dying as a living sacrifice to give us the atonement offered through his salvation plan.
Joe Stier Actually, according to Christianity, humans have *conditional* value, conditional upon God thinking you have value. You might as well ask, if enslaving one person were the will of God, would it be good to do so? Well, according to the bible, genocide and enslavement were, at least for a while, the expressed and unambiguous will of God. You don't have the perfect inoculation that you're requesting of atheistic moralities.
WingedWyrm actually you clearly don't know anything about the value God has for us. You claim to know how God thinks and that just about tosses out any chance of objectivity. Satan always deceives those who aren't in Christ. Genocide? What? I don't know what you arre talking about so you need to be more clear.
This guy is so smart he invented UTILITARIANISM. (Oh wait...) Problem is, UTILITARIANISM is actually arbitrary. WHY should happiness and pleasure be the ultimate good against which all actions are judged? WHY not freedom, or progress, or love, (or racial purity)? More importantly, WHY should we follow someone's an arbitrary utilitarian definition of good over our own definition of good? And WHO gets to decide how to "maximize" something as subjective as happiness? This guy can't pass his own "four year old" WHY test.
Clide Seamore "WHY should happiness and pleasure be the ultimate good against which all actions are judged?" I never said "pleasure". I said, happiness, health and well-being. (In other words, I'm not a classical utilitarian; I'm a consequentialist who is, if anything, closer to rule utilitarianism, and very far from hedonism.) But to answer your question, we can tug on our intuitions to test this: take any one of the virtues you mentioned-freedom, progress, love, racial purity-and ask yourself: if maximizing any of these things were known to *guarantee* the worst possible misery, suffering and disease for every sentient being, would they still be moral? Would we still value them, the way we do (if we do)? The short answer is that the *reason* we value things like freedom and love is because, intuitively, we recognize that they contribute to our well-being. To borrow from Sam Harris, if you believe, hypothetically, that the worst possible misery for every sentient being could somehow be "good", then I don't know what you mean by "good", and you probably don't know what you mean, either.
Theoretical Bullshit *Why* should we believe what our intuition tells us? *Why* should we do anything that is against our personal best interest? *Why* should we care about "every sentient being" rather than just ourselves? *Why* should we care about doing what others tell us is "good"? If I believe, hypothetically, that "the worst possible misery for every sentient being BUT the greatest happiness, health and well-being for myself/my friends/my race" is good... WHY am I wrong? WHY shouldn't I act ONLY in my own interest. (Note that, in practice, this may often include pretending to act "selflessly") If you COULD become supreme dictator of the world would you? What if you just had to kill *one* person to do it. Wait... JUST THINK of all the "good" you could do... You see the problem is, basically, in your moral world, being "good" means you are just another SUCKER who believes the BULLSHIT that you should SACRIFICE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS etc.. in order to adhere to rules based on your intuition... which was created by the blind forces of evolution. BUT WAIT... evolution doesn't care about YOU at all... it only "cares" that your species survives. SO WHY should YOU care what your evolved empathy/intuition tells you anyway? Of course, even if you realize that the rules are all BULLSHIT, it is very much in YOUR SELF-INTEREST that I BELIEVE in those bullshit moral rules... that way YOU can take advantage of me and everyone else whenever you know you will get away with it. Do you see the problem yet? Also, freedom DOESN'T really contribute to our health and well-being... If we weren't free to own guns, less people would get shot... if we weren't free to smoke, less people would die of lung cancer. If we weren't free to have children, less kids would grow up in bad families... in many (if not most) cases, freedom actually hurts overall health happiness and well being.. but we still value freedom. WHY? EDIT: The problem is you are misusing the phrase "objective moral facts" "Unconditional moral oughts.... don't exist." Oh... well why didn't you say that at the beginning of your video...I missed that earlier. It appears you agree with me. But the questions remain. Since morality is merely practical, why shouldn't the individual take advantage of the system? Why shouldn't one group of people make gains at the expense of others. Why shouldn't Hitler kill all the Jews, provided he can win the war? Aside from the possibility of punishment in the afterlife, I don't see any reason... do you?
Clide Seamore Because it's immoral? He gave a definition of what he means when he says and act is moral, and that is, to paraphrase, and act that promotes well-being. Well-being, generally speaking, is an objectively measurable parameter. If I physically attack someone and break their legs, they are objectively less well-off than they were before, which makes it an immoral act. Now, of course there are caveats to consider, but to go back to Sam Harris, there are generally good and bad moves in Chess, like for example losing your queen. Of course there are situations in which losing your queen is beneficial, or even the only move available, but that does not contradict the argument.
Max10192 I know he gave a definition. But he cant define away this problem. Things dont become moral or immoral just because we say so or feel a certian way. You can define killing Jews to be "good" just as easily as he defines "well being" to be good. There is NO DIFFERENCE in terms of logic. His morals amount to a social contract. Thats fine, but lets call it what it is: TRIVIAL. BASELESS. and NOT OBJECTIVELY ANY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER MORAL SYSTEM... to claim that it is would be circular logic.
Pacificmaelstrom Of course it amounts to a social contract, although i'd use convention. Language as a whole is a combination of arbitrary sounds and letters, we give arbitrary definitions to every word. We have a general agreement as to what is "good" and what is "bad", and it is based on many things, including our intuition and experience. Sure you can say "well I don't share that definition of what is "good" and so it doesn't apply to me". Problem is, no one is gonna accept your definition because it's not useful or coherent, it doesn't help our society flourish. I mean, what if I took it upon myself to redefine the meaning of the word "life". I say that from now on, anything that can talk is alive, and anything that can't isnt. Would that suddenly shatter your idea of what life is? Would you be able to tell me that I am wrong? Definitions are subjective, they can ONLY be subjective. When we say that an action is objectively wrong, what we are really saying is that WITHIN our subjectively defined concept that is morality, there are actions that either fit that description or don't, which is an objective statement. But i'm curious. Do you think that objective morality, as in things that are wrong always for everyone everywhere exists? If it does, how would we recognize it? How could we find, for example, a moral maxim and KNOW that it is objective?
So I just found your video 3 years after you made it and holy Hell! I'm going to have to watch this over and over again to catch everything you're saying. You're blowing my mind man!
"Also youre foundation is selfish" There is no escape from "selfish" if you drag a stranger from a burning car you are simply saving yourself the pain of watching the stranger burn to death (love) Assigning "selfish" with a derogatory connotation is a ruse, an appeal to pride by those who think you should be doing more than you already do.
I've seen this video referenced before (by Aron Ra and others) but only just now finally got around to watching it. This is a really fantastic talk and I'm kind of frustrated I waited so long to watch it because it's really good. Truly excellent video, and a really effective explanation of morality from a secular perspective.
I like the question at the end. If you accept that "What good is it?" is meant as society generally accepts it, then you've admitted to accept the same definition of good. And if you define good differently? Then it's not an offensive question. It's literally just asking you to defend your position, and your definition of good. Meta.
Great presentation! Interesting body language. Lot's of voice variety. Just the right amount of impatience. I predict you will become a leading speaker as time goes by.
Personally I don't like to reference bible passages when talking philosophy with my Christian friends, as apparently they can be interpreted however one sees fit, as can God's intentions in the bible. I don't think they are necessary to make the point TBS is making, I would leave them out.
Good work! I'm sure you have a full plate but it would be good if you can make more videos. You do make a good solid argument and give a strong and effective presentation.
I came here because Aron Ra did a "Faithful Inquiry" YT video posted Nov 5, 2019 with Joel Montoya and recommending this name and this video title. Specifically, AronRa said he particularly liked the definition for morality: 3:56 "Here is what I understand the terms morally right and morally wrong to mean. A particular action or choice is moral or right when it somehow promotes happiness, well-being or health, or it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering, or it does both. A particular action or choice is immoral or wrong when it somehow diminishes happiness, well-being or health or it somehow causes unnecessary harm or suffering or, again, it does both."
To put it even more into perspective, we can apply it to ideas of 'being forced to take a certain action,' like being held at gunpoint to make a certain decision over another. In the end, it's our choice to make no matter how biased it may be.
He forgot one thing in saying "minimizing unnecessary harm or suffering". It is better explained to those who deny or don't quite grasp it, "minimizing unnecessary harm or suffering which includes not causing anyone to live in an unnecessary state of fear". This is included in "suffering", but it seems some people don't get this. He has clarified this in more recent talks.
I can give my take on this one. There are motives behind anything that one does. That motive, however, can be selfless, such as...love. If one wants to know what being selfless is, one needs to know how to act upon love. It sounds lovey-dovey but it works when applied in life. I guess the real question is "what is your motive to love?". You kow you're being selfless when you risk losing your well-being on behalf of another person. As C.S Lewis puts it amazingly: "To love is to be vulnerable".
Watching this again, I realize now that this is Sam Harris' line on morality exactly (especially from 30:11). And his book, _The Moral Landscape,_ wasn't published until October 2010. I also realize this is the line that I've been taking more recently when thinking about this, without remembering this video at all
haha! splendid :) If your in a jam, you just do the best you can do, no one will hold it against you as they don't have the capacity to simulate the "trolley problem" pitted against any particular mind desperately grappling to make the best possible decision. In the cold light of day with lots of time to play with, a strategy might be drawn.... I am all ears, have you found a splendid strategy for such cases?
Yes, I'd have to be more specific since conscious experiences aren't the same at all times. You could replace 'conscious experiences' above with any particular kind of experience, e.g. happiness, so we're talking about something narrower. The main point I'm making is that we don't have any good basis to distinguish between the value of our own experiences, and those same experiences of others. Ideally, we should act in everyone's interest; we simply can't do so due to physical constraints.
Asking can be so much more powerful than explaining sometimes. When you explain why something is wrong it comes out to the Christian Blah blah blah. When you ask them "What is it about stealing that makes it wrong?" Well, you can fill in the blank here. TB, that was very well put. As always very cogent and eloquent.
I think that what makes them intrinsic is that they are fundamental in some respect, namely self-ownership. We at bottom naturally own ourselves. Another intrinsic good is maximizing happiness. It's fundamental and objective, essential to the object in question.
in fact, if one's morality has to come from another being, no matter how great that being is, is still not really moral, even if that being is commanding them to do what is already socially accepted to be right such as not littering, they are not doing it out of reasons for the community and people, but only because of an authoritative figure, hence doing it not for the cause but merely acting and behaving as a mindless robot, which often gets covered up as spirituality when the real spiritual people are but someone doing yoga at home, thinking about life, or the astrophysicists looking into the vast universe and thinking about all those galaxies, or a mathematician in a park writing down new ideas in a notebook, real morality and spirituality comes not from memorising paragraphs and reciting from an old book which is outdated for where we are nowadays, as that is in itself the worst way to learn about any topics, be it history, geography and so on. Thank you for this video!
Both good and bad are just emotionally driven perspectives we interpret of events and their consequences over time. Whether it's an imagined consequence or an actual one, it will always be a limited interpretation because the consequence of an action is potentially unlimited. So neither can ACTUALLY BE one or the other in any absolutely undeniable manner. Your good will balance with bad eventually, and vice versa. This is nature.
I don’t really see the point you are trying to make. Although it is true that are emotionally driven, we have all evolved to have the same emotional responses. Certainly there are exceptions, but those exceptions will never outnumber the rule because those emotional responses have proven to be the most conducive to our survival. So the limitations you speak of are irrelevant at worst and actually helpful at best.
-Why is it morally better to promote well-being and reduce unnecessary harm rather than the opposite? -Well, because promoting well-being and reducing unnecessary harm is a reflection of the nature of goodness whereas the opposite is not. -Yeah, why is the nature of goodness one of promoting well-being and reducing unnecessary harm rather than the opposite? -Oh, because promoting well-being and reducing unnecessary harm is morally better than the opposite. Did you really escape the dilemma?
How is it circular? I have defined what right/wrong is in a social context, ie what makes an action right and what makes it wrong, with my definition we have something to work with, something to measure our actions against. Whereas you have simply asserted right is right because it is right...
That's the definition that's given. Harm is measurable, necessity is a bit sticky, but arguable. He's defining an immeasurable conceptual term "immoral" with objectively measurable means. One of the means he chose is "unnecessary harm." The harder question you're really asking is why should we avoid unnecessary harm, and I think the reason is also addressed. Unnecessary harm is deleterious for our personal relationships and society as a whole.
TBS's Definition of Good. "Something is morally good when it promotes happiness, Well being in society, and health" P1 Promoting happiness is a good thing P2 Well being in society is a good thing P3 Being healthy is a good thing C :. Therefore it is Good to promote happiness, well being in society, and Health.
Just thought of another example. Let's try it : Helping an old lady get up after she fell. There is no legal obligation to help, yet most people would feel an urge to. This better illustrates the distinction between legal and social behavior.
As one example ... What if A steals from B and A's act of stealing promotes the happiness, well-being or health of A or minimizes the harm to or suffering of A (or does both), but diminishes these qualities in B, causes harm/suffering to B (or does both)? If the morality/immorality of acts are determined by their observable effects, they cannot be discretely and universally classified as right/wrong (as you defined them) since their observable effects vary from person to person.
" What are you measuring Good actions to?" My definitions based on reason, reasons ive mentioned several times, reasons people are capable of recognising and carrying out.
Still periodically check back for these streams of consciousness videos…I study the articulation to take pointers on my own to hopefully use as a professor in the near future. A+ even after a decade.
Almost eight years, and still a fantastic video.
@castroy64 watch this: ua-cam.com/video/YP_iNCGH9kY/v-deo.html
@castroy64 hundreds of thousands of Christians actually carried out the murders on behalf of those regimes.
@castroy64 aren't you an impatient boy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_SS
ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/12/raw-data-religious-preference-in-the-military/
@castroy64 who do you think killed all those people in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? Those were Christian soldiers?
Who were guarding concentration camps in nazi Germany? Christian ss members
Hitler, Stalin, LBJ killed very few people themselves
Agreed!
12 years later and I am still using this as a beautifully succinct summary of how human morality works. Thank you for this!
Aron Ra sent me here. 8 minutes in and I know I'll be sharing this video!
In which one of Aron Ra’s videos did he advertize this video?
I would so love if TBS could guest star on Aron or Matt Dillahunty or Jimmy Snow's shows
14 years and this is still the most succinct morality video I have ever seen.
Real life conversation I had in Sunday School when I was a preteen:
SS Teacher: "Why do we do the right thing?"
Me: "Because it's the right thing to do."
SS Teacher. "No. We do it because it please God."
Great video. I've been looking for this everywhere since I first heard your definition of morality quoted by others. Glad I found it.
In a few months this video will be 10 years old - but it's still as accurate, concise and rational as the day it was recorded. All you newer UA-camrs should make a point of watching his other videos, too. They're all **EXCELLENT**.
"A particular action or choice is moral, or right, when it somehow promotes happiness, wellbeing, or health, or it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm, or suffering, or it does both. A particular action or choice is immoral, or wrong, when it somehow diminishes happiness, wellbeing, or health, or it somehow causes unnecessary harm, or suffering, or it does both."
Fantastic
I use this all the time now. It is clear and to the point.
If that's the case than right or wrong is situational. I agree with it. I just want it to be known that you have to look at each individual situation and obtain the information needed to come to a proper conclusion.
@castroy64 have you ever heard Christopher Hitchens discuss this same concept? I would love for you to read God Is Not Great. It goes into detail. If not, check out some of his debates. He went over this sentiment a considerable amount of times.
Sam Harris too.
Fantastic because it summarizes your arbitrarily learned social mores?
I make a distinction between hedonistic pleasure and real happiness. Raping someone does not create happiness or well-being, for either party.
@castroy64 lmao!
@castroy64 i was laughing at the irony of your statement. i dont believe in the bible because god literally wiped out the entire world, and also commanded the killing of innocent men, women and infants. ah screw these leftists for opposing these oppressive religions!!
@castroy64 I'm assuming you're repeating the, "The Black Book of Communism," claim that's been called into question so many times. Even if we're to accept your claim as it's made, those regimes would clearly not be humanist in nature. It's not relevant to the argument presented in the video.
@castroy64 The 30 Years War, fought entirely by christians and couched in entirely christian terms, killed more Europeans as a percentage of population than either World War.
@castroy64 What's your point? Nobody said atheists are incapable of murder. They are just as capable of murder as religious people. There is nothing special about not believing in a god that makes someone less inclined towards violence than those who do believe in a god.
I occasionally rewatch this to remind myself how badass this is.
Don't be sorry about the length. Sometimes what needs to be said and understood is simply just that... long.
Scott I don’t know you from acting. I was introduced to you from TAE. I never had a secular education growing up. I had to barrel my way independently to this position once I finally left for college and I feel so stunted in my development because of it. Watching your older videos like these where you’re explaining morality even clearer and more definitively than Matt. Who’s debated these topics for years. It’s just inspiring to see someone so young who has such a sober mind. If many more children were raised such as you, the world would be a much better place. Keep up the work!
Right, so imagine that the above is the "TBS's secular morality" version of the Euthyphro Dilemma. The answer is, it's morally better to promote well-being, ONLY because of what I *mean* when I say, "morally better". This isn't a problem for me, however, since I don't posit any "capital-M" Morality that is absolute and transcendent. A Christian apologist is usually very uncomfortable with admitting that something is only "moral" because of their definition of it. Thus, for them it's a "dilemma".
So, what are YOUR metaethics, Scott?
Things are moral if they do not cause physical/psychological harm !
It's how laws are made and its what the practical version of morality is, it's based on real things.
Otherwise it's not morality, it's wrong and fictional.
The best definition of what is Moral or Immoral, Right or Wrong without the need of someone telling you what it is. Thank you for this. I have written this down and put it in my Journal to read each day.
Best explanation of secular morality I’ve ever heard.
@castroy64 atheism is lack of belief in gods and doesn't tell you kill anyone. I think you need to look what atheism means.
@@Messi29209 Babies lack a belief, I think you need to cite your sources from Philosophical texts books for your definition of atheism.
@@JoshuaMSOG7 Why should he use the narrow, scholarly philosophical definition of atheism? Language is usage and the term "atheism" is commonly used in two ways-- weak atheism, the doxastic state of lacking a belief in any gods _or_ the narrow common scholarly definition of the proposition that no gods exist-- often called strong or positive atheism. This is why most dictionaries define atheism as disbelief _or_ lack of belief in a god or gods.
Philosophy of religion, as it applied to atheism vs theism, is concerned with the propositions of there is a god or gods or there is no god or gods. It is not concerned with psychological states of being unconvinced of the theistic proposition. Regular people often do care about the doxastic psychological state of lack of belief in any gods.
There is no such thing as a "correct" definition-- not in linguistics or philosophy textbooks or journals --there are only useful definitions and useless definitions. As long as definitions are consistently applied and describe some phenomenon or concept or thing, it is a valid definition. IMO people should just argue against the actual position someone holds-- and not the semantics of a label one uses for this position. Semantic shift is a thing and it means definitions change over time as usages evolve.
Myself, I tend to be a strong atheist towards the specific theistic propositions and descriptions of god(s) expressed by all denominations of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc... But I tend to be a weak atheist in regards to the possibility of a general, deistic god concept. Cheers :)
@@munstrumridcully This is precisely why there needs to be a definite definition of what we are talking about because while talking about word play, you were doing the exact very thing you said could happen, is to play semantics lol. So “regular people” is why they aren’t taken serious when going into a scholarly field and proposing these kinds of arguments because they just don’t withhold.
When you actually open a book and start to educate yourself a bit without being a internet troll, you will learn your position is indefensible when pushed to the corners. Do you want to begin?
@@JoshuaMSOG7 The doxastic position of lacking belief in gods does not exist? The English language is prescriptive? Definitions do not change over time?
I opened plenty of books when I studied English, philosophy of religion and philosophy in general. How is it trolling to point out that definitions, even in philosophy, are never "the one, true, definition", snd that as long as one defines how one is using his terms and is consistent (not equivocating) one can define a term any way one likes?
You really didn't address my points. What matters is the concepts and propositions being expressed not the labels. I brought up semantics as a subset of linguistics exactly because you were arguing semantics. So i addressed your semantic argument in kind and then pointed out how what actually matters is the position or concept being expressed, not the label.
I think you need to open a few linguistic books yourself to learn how definitions work. Cheers
There are many, many versions of utilitarianism and consequentialism. My moral philosophy certainly acknowledges the moral relevance of conscious intentions. (Sorry if that's not clear in the video--was trying to bottom-line as much as I could.)
Great video
"The christian philosophy of morality always seemed to me like living in an MC Escher staircase painting... How many steps is it going to take you to realize you're not getting anywhere?"
Hot damn.
This is one of the videos that I'll need to watch several times to get the most out of it!
Definitely true and I 100% endorsement.
most of scotts videos are extremely well thought out. I am very jealous of his intelligence and ability to articulate so well what he thinks.
This video is still, by far, the best and most accessible explanation of why secular morality is so superior to a religious one.
@castroy64 You can't say "Atheistic regimes" because that thing doesn't exist because atheists don't have a book that they follow that tells them what to do so you can't hold a person accountable for what they didn't believe in but rather what they follow. You might say that this is a problem, but I completely disagree. If a government can find a moral basis for its nation I honestly don't care what they follow, as long as they let everyone practice what they want (without posing harm on others) and treat people equally regardless of their beliefs (or lack thereof) and their thoughts. That cannot happen in a theocratic government. I'm an Iraqi Arab and trust me, you don't want religion dominating your country.
@castroy64 that's impossible. Atheism is by definition a lack of belief in a God. Communism is a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. So if you replace the word atheist with lack of beliefs then your claim that atheism is a pillar of communism is nonsensical. Let's try. A lack of belief in a God is a pillar in a political theory advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Please explain how that can be proved and how it's not complete nonsense
@castroy64 great rebuttal to proving your statement nonsensical
@castroy64 that one was even more logical than your first couple of comments.
@castroy64 I'm still waiting for a fact. You arent very good at trolling or stating facts. But I get lots of joy by correcting people and pointing out their mistakes. So keep trolling and not proving one fact. My job allows for me to be on youtube a lot. I'll be waiting for you to prove atheism has anything to do with communism. I will not be holding my breath though. I'm not that daft
I came to this video after watching AaronRa's 'Correcting Ken Ham and his Facebook Followers'. He referenced Scott's definition for morality and suggested the audience google him. I did, and was pleasantly surprised to see he's a UA-camr!
Well done sir!
Scott, I quote you often. Your insightful and concise law of morality is beautiful in its simplicity and robustness.
Thank you for gifting this answer to the bleating of the sheeple
It would be great if you could provide a link to a text version of this; i.e. put it into essay form. Excellent work sir.
7 billion believers and a hand full of people that have realized Truth and Reality. We have a long way to go from being mankind to evolving into human kind.
+steve nunua
Truth and Reality, such lovely abstract concepts, you almost think they should really exist. 7 billion -- no room for non-believers? What about that we are actually evolving into womankind? Maybe what humans evolve into won't be human.
Agimaso Schandir
I have been a NONE believer of anything for 5 years now. Out of the delusional belief reality business be it science, religion, government, medicine or anything else. Belief destroys intellect.
Lief Theorine
To me...Reality is the universe. Truth is what we learn to realize of it. Pure Truth is an unadulterated realization of the universe. Belief must be avoided at all cost to truly know the TRUTH! It is inside your head and Reality is everything out side of your head...but it does include your head! LOL
30 minute videos are now de rigueur. And twelve years after posting, this is still the single most powerful explanation of the superiority of secular over religious morality that I've seen.
Thank you.
Ah, intellectual honesty about what morality really is. How about that?
This is so brilliantly concise and clear. Why didn't I find this video years ago? Thank you so much for making this, Theoretical Bullshit.
Well, when you think about it now, you did find this video years ago. How does it feel to get older? :P
I'm not even going to lie. Scott not only is a great UA-camr, he helped me realize that I am bisexual.
I'm not gay or bi but yeah he do be kinda fresh doe
I thought men could never be attractive to me but nahhhhhhhhhhh
I had already realized I'm Bi, but I remember opening this video again after a while and literally got butterflies in my stomach from seeing him pop up on the screen. He is so gorgeous
Amazing video! Loved the clarity and directness of your arguments.
Please resume making more videos. The world would benefit from more of your mental cogitations being released unto it!
Thanks, Scott! I just "shut down" an argument on the existence of God after watching this informative video. All credit goes to YOU!
ur like a fish in a fishbowl who thinks “I can’t breathe outside of water, so anything outside of my world must not exist because I can’t wrap my fish brain around it!
This video has made my "awesome" list.
Please make more.
I'll offer a simple observation that is probably abundantly obvious to anyone who's watched this video, but it occurs to me, in very simple terms, TB (and I) hold values and derive our moral framework based on those values, like this; values------>morals. Most Christians do it the other way around; morals------->values.
The implication for Christians is that, if the bible and ultimately god are the arbiter of morality and morality is defined by whatever it is that god desires, then the Christian must admit that anything that god declares by divine fiat must be moral and the Christian must adjust their values to suit those morals, no matter what those morals are, even if it is to murder or rape.
An excellent point, though the problem persists in breaching a faithful person's bias defense. One can hope more people will admit their cognitive dissonance and take steps towards intellectual honesty.
Well said.
alueshen This is true in theory, in practise most Christians I know - or at least people who call themselves that - rather adjust their vision of god to the values they already hold. The reasoning is more or less: "X isn't moral, so God wouldn't really do it, hence the story of God doing X is probably just a metaphor (or part of God's bigger plan that includes X as a necessary sacrifice for greater good)."
This isn't what they'd tell you they do though. They might for example tell you that through their consciensce God tells them what to do, so their values automatically reflect God's nature.
Completely agree. What I said in the OP wasn't to suggest that if god declared rape moral that most Christians would believe that rape is moral, rather, as an exercise in thought I'm pointing out that values are ultimately (meaningfully) subjective (not to be confused with meaningless and arbitrary). Objective morality isn't a coherent position because God _is_ the subject who is doing the valuing and as (I believe) you point out if people gave themselves enough credit they'd realize it is they that are doing the valuing and their morality is based on those values and they are simply projecting those values onto god as a way to prevent having to come to terms with the fact that their morality is simply a choice, a choice they make based on the values they hold.
13 years later and I am still rewatching this video. I follow along every time I watch it but I could not go anywhere near being able to argue as eloquently and fluently as Scott no matter how many times I watch this video and prepare to plagiarise his content as my own. Amazing my friend. Would love to chat over a beer some day
The thing theists don't understand is that their "objective morality" is actually the most subjective one. Simply taking your subjective morality and saying it comes from god doesn't make it objective. It's simply your subjective morality masqueraded as "objective".
It's always funny seeing theists lying to themselves thinking their morality is "objective".
+Swordy Wordy
ALL morality is subjective, so this cuts both ways, when atheists lie to themselves thinking their (pet moral theory) is objective.
Theist morality is only objective in the sense that, if God exists:
Morality is subjective and disputes are decided by power.
It is objectively true that God has all the power.
Therefore God's morality cannot be disputed.
Or rather, you can dispute it, but you cannot win. We are all like the Axis and God is like the Allies... in the end, whatever we think about morality is irrelevant.
James R That's not morality. That's obedience.
I'd suggest that puts you closer to the hypothetical axis than allies.
So very true
Wow...from following my online psychology class (in the netherlands), to a US guy...with really interesting things to say :) Nice subject. Will check out the other clips too:D
Morality cannot be objective.
Wow. I never thought I'd live to see the day that I would look up to a soap opera actor. Well said, good sir. This video has been favorited, and will be referred back to regularly.
Will Theoretical Bullshit ever make a return to UA-cam?? It's an absolute treasure.
can any Christians explain to us how they know that their god is the good one in the Bible?
Or to put it in a slightly different way, if your god appeared to you and made the assertion that he is "good" how would you know his assertion is correct?
I've told Christians that "god" told me they were wrong.
How I know, I can't speak for others, I am Catholic and when I questioned, I prayed to The Lord as He said in Matthew 7:7-8 Ask and you will receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened. Then He answered the prayer, proved to me His existence and healed my eye after I prayed for either a healing or if not that would be ok too. He healed me during a prayer when I least expected it. God exists, humbly ask because He resists the proud and those that demand their whimsical disordered pleasures. God Bless. He also tells me most are lost forever, as Jesus foretold "Narrow is the road that leads to life and few there are who find it." This banter is a waste of time, pray for the Truth. God Bless all.
Sounds like you have reformulated the Christian version of the Euthyphro Dilemma: What Is the Ultimate Standard of Morality? Is an action good because it adheres to some external system of morals, or because God said so?
(In the original Euthyphro Dilemma Socrates asked Euthyphro what ultimately is holy or the nature of the good, and whether it is decided by the (Greek) gods, or whether it is by some external standard, like the concept of justice for example).
I answer this question in the video.
The comparison with Escher paintings is so relatable! That's exactly how religious reasoning works and feels.
short answer....DON'T do siht you don't want others do to you and DO siht you want others do to you...simple...S&M excluded..hehe
Better; Don't do shit others don't want you to do to them, and Do shit that other want you to do them
I have not watched any of his videos but I kind of want to subscribe to him just because of his amazing name.
Subscribe...you won't regret it!
Keras33 If darthvatrayen plans on have logically consistent beliefs, then I would NOT advise him/her to subscribe.
TruthUnadulterated
No rebuttal or debunking of any points made in the video , or any other video , just more claims ,
ho hum , silly of me to expect any evidence , just backing up claims , with more claims .
Axis of .Weevils
What? Really?
Keras33 We have just witnessed something called Cognitive Dissonance Keras33... It happens... Never mind TruthAltered making the claim that there are no rebuttals or debunks in the video or any other video, all while failing to provide any arguments to move beyond assertion and then having the audacity to call out claims...
I've gone over this a million times and I just can't get behind your opinion that there is some kind of objective morality. Every time you cite an instance of supposed objective morality you explain it in terms of subjective experiences. The only kind of objective morality I would grant is possibly societal morality, which certainly exists outside of one's own subjective experience. However, even that societal morality is still just a large consensus of many many people's subjective moralities. Morality would not exist in a universe without humans, humans created morality and humans are the only thing in the universe that is affected by the concept of morality. Morality is purely subjective.
I agree with you 100%. This is one point where I feel like both TBS and Sam Harris missed the boat. Defining morally good as what is likely to bring about well being and minimizing needless harm is in itself subjective. That's not to say that it's arbitrary or that most rational thinking human beings wouldn't agree with that definition however.
Not to say it's objective but other animals also have morals... Humans aren't the only ones. Right?
I think the vote is still out on that one but as far as I know they have not been able to prove that any other kind of animal, including our closest primate relatives, can actually empathize with another animal. Some animals certainly do display apparently altruistic behavior but the motivation seems to be due to instinct rather than cognitive reasoning. We anthropomorphize other animals when they do something that resembles what we would call a moral act but it seems that is merely humans projecting their own morality into a situation where none actually exists. I would consider empathy a prerequisite to having any kind of morality, good or bad. Most animals cannot recognize "self" as distinct from "someone else" so I don't think empathy or morality ever enters into the picture. Just my 2 cents but biologists may prove that wrong some day soon.
I think you missed the point. Morality is indeed a man made definition to describe a natural, beneficial course. Nobody refutes that (unless you are into religious apologetics). However, although morality is contingent on a population adhering to said morality for a possible subjective reasoning, does not mean that morality itself does not hold a specific objective definition for what is healthy for a population and what is not. What you may feel is the correct course of action (subjectively) is not necessarily what is clearly a more beneficial course of action (objectively).
To say that morality would not exist without human rationale, however, is no different from saying God would not exist if there were no humans to revere him. In which we can conclude that the belief in a god is purely subjective if you want to go down that path. But what is being described here is not the likelihood of this phenomenon occurring outside of whether or not humans (or other species) have come to exist, but rather the objective rationale for how they continue to exist and carry on.
"To say that morality would not exist without human rationale, however, is no different from saying God would not exist if there were no humans to revere him."
I would definitely make both of those assertions. Neither morality nor the idea of a God would exist if humans did not make them up.
I think this is the best video on morality I've ever seen.
The problem is not that some people do not get their morals from god, the problem is that some people do.
Yeah, I don't buy "intrinsic" moral properties. In fact, the notion of "intrinsic value" seems incoherent--literally self-contradictory--to me.
Also, careful not to conflate hedonistic pleasure or pathology with true happiness, wellness and fulfillment. There are many reasons rape is immoral, without needing this strange "moral arithmetic" (pleasure of rapist - pain of victim = net pleasure), or some such nonsense. "Intrinsic significance" solves imaginary problems while creating real ones.
Sometimes they go with "objective moral values", I'm pretty sure "Objective values" is an oxymoron.
Value is assigned by a valuer, which would mean all values are subjective. We as valuers give value to objects, ideas, places, people, memories, numbers, etc. Values are contingent on mind.
Since the beginning of the human race, "Oughts" were derived from consequential statements e.g. If I want to live, I ought to breathe and vise versa etc. The can't derive an is from an ought is only a problem for the theists i.e. God "is" the source of morality, therefore you ought to do what God says. How do people not see that? the God hypothesis does not explain any moral concept i.e. it doesn't say why God's commands are moral, they just "are" moral. God explains nothing.
+SXeNaz It's divine command. If god said raping babies is a good thing then it is good.
+thatdevilguy more like "God is the exception" to all the rules. God bypasses the can't derive ought from an is problem, the something can't come form nothing or matter can only come from pre-existing matter, everything complex needs a more complex designer, you can't have real infinities (or else "the now" would never have occurred), etc. This god breaks all these supposed rules by by existing...... and somehow this proves he exists? I swear, all those apologists were high when they came up with those arguments.
Dashing them against rocks certainly is, supposedly that is when you are happiest. I've never had a want to test that hypothesis, not religious enough I guess.
12 years...Wow. I watched this bad boy when it came out. Felt like a trip down memory lane.
Hope you're keeping well, Scott!
AronRa sent me here.
I think you made a pisstake.
I'm tired. It seems like a never-ending task to enlighten regious people and to be honest most don't really seem to care about the deeper applications of their beliefs. They just wanna go to heaven when they die.
it seems to get overlooked but religion was only invented 50,000 years ago, before that i imagine it was purely superstition, but for between 100,000 and 2 million years humans in one form or another had got along fine with "no morality" at all.
all y’all completely miss the point. it’s hilarious and sad asf all at once
I only recently discovered you, through a random reference to this video in another lecture. The title "Treatise on Morality" caught my attention, and I would say this is, by far, your most significant work. You are a very thoughtful, well-informed, and honest person, and I hope that subscription count continues to grow, because we can all benefit from what you have to say. I'm glad you've come out into the world while you're still young, so we can all appreciate your work for years to come.
Problem: Objective morals presuppose intrinsic values, which cannot be empirically proven. You can't prove that the jumble of atoms called a person is "better" than the jumble or atoms called a rock. As such, while a secular version of objective morality may sound nicer than a bleak, nihilistic view, it just amounts to more empty sentimentalism in the end.
True, but we can empirically study the things that people value and why they value them.
Sentimentalism/rationalism is forced unto human to survival fitness (they are programmed that way: people can't choose to don't have them): if sentimentalism and rationalism has to be discredited, humanity's dead.
The problem is in fact: we cannot always predict consequences: for example the case of the real priest who save young Adolph Hitler. but it's not a leap of faith: it's just the most good action knowable in some game of bet.
Smart and good looking @.@
Just good looking.
This is typical redefinition.
"The definition of morality as I understand it." This is an appeal to subjectivity. Your argument falls apart right there because you cannot ground this morality within the laws of nature.
Without God, there is only naturalism. Naturalism means that morality is grounded in the laws of nature, but what grounds morality with the laws of nature? How do you link "X action is wrong" into the laws of nature?
And it is this fundamental problem that you have. Nature simply behaves as it does. You cannot derive an ought from an is in any case. Morality requires a lawgiver. If someone murders someone, that's just how it is. The person murdered. There's nothing that can ever be said to be immoral about that action under naturalism.
Phelan There is nothing in the Bible that states that me disobeying you is wrong because slavery is not by fiat. Slavery, instead, is an idea of dependence on a master in return for absolute servitude.
What the Bible teaches us in this and other cases is to not be consumed by our circumstances, and instead embrace them and have a relationship with God within them. That is the entire point of Paul's discussions with the unhappy slave. God lets us know that there is a greater life ahead and not to have great concern for matters on Earth.
Phelan You can always make an offer, but my servitude isn't for sale.
It's difficult for a spiritually blind person to understand what the Bible is saying. For you, there's no context.
But, I can't put it any more simply. The circumstances one faces in this world aren't meaninful. This is why Paul tells the slave to graciously serve his master, because obsessing over circumstances puts greed into play, making a relationship with God more challenging.
You are weakened when you seek to improve your Earthly circumstances, not strengthened.
Phelan Well, of course I can decide because you simply have no power in this world. The Bible reminds us that there is a better life ahead and to be gracious and live well within our circumstances. That is the entire point.
That's the way it is.
You can deny reality all you want, doesn't make it less true.
Phelan You never did get it. Since you don't have a relationship with God, context is impossible for you.
Just as nobody would trust a blind man to do their interior decorating, no one should take an atheist's critique of the Bible seriously. Without knowledge of that relationship, you're blind and ignorant.
Sorry about your failed demonstration, bro. Next time you'll be smarter about it.
God bless.
Phelan I'm not trying to be hostile toward you, lol. I'm just saying you need to think your analogies through before you post them. You don't have to let it upset you bro, just do better next time.
:)
10 years and this hasn't hit 1 million views. It pains me.
It's an amazing video, more should watch
Treatise on Morality. *"What I'm interested in is maximizing health happiness and well being and minimizing unnecessary harm and suffering."* - If enslaving a person to be tortured for their entire life maximized the entire world's health, happiness and well being and minimized unnecessary harm and suffering then it would be objectively moral to do that from your atheistic worldview Scott. Do you see any problems with that?
Here's the difference: In the Christian worldview people have objective value other than what other humans give them. Their worth isn't contingent on what other people opinions of them are.
"If enslaving a person to torture for their entire life maximized the entire world's health, happiness and well being and minimized unnecessary harm and suffering then it would be objectively moral to do that from your atheistic worldview Scott." Another way of phrasing this is "there is one person who, by permitting them to remain free, is reducing the health, happiness and well-being of the entire world." This person's freedom is CAUSING a reduction in overall quality of life for EVERYONE. Yes, enslaving them would be moral. No, I do not see a problem with that. One person, for the happiness of billions. If that person did not WILLINGLY submit to slavery, then THEY are the immoral party.
EDIT - To be honest, this seems to be the type of morality that the sacrifice of Jesus supports, anyway...doesn't it? Jesus' death didn't even maximize well-being, and it didn't even improve well-being for most of the world...yet the sacrifice is considered justified, even though Jesus requested that the cup be taken from him, it was still justified.
////////////mind blown///////////////
All I can say is AMEN. I serve a God that loves so much that they are willing to give the most he could give which was to step down from his MIGHTY THRONE and humble himself to being born among us in a manger rather than a castle. Grow up as a man facing all the same struggle we do and dying as a living sacrifice to give us the atonement offered through his salvation plan.
Joe Stier Actually, according to Christianity, humans have *conditional* value, conditional upon God thinking you have value.
You might as well ask, if enslaving one person were the will of God, would it be good to do so? Well, according to the bible, genocide and enslavement were, at least for a while, the expressed and unambiguous will of God.
You don't have the perfect inoculation that you're requesting of atheistic moralities.
WingedWyrm actually you clearly don't know anything about the value God has for us. You claim to know how God thinks and that just about tosses out any chance of objectivity. Satan always deceives those who aren't in Christ.
Genocide? What?
I don't know what you arre talking about so you need to be more clear.
This guy is so smart he invented UTILITARIANISM. (Oh wait...)
Problem is, UTILITARIANISM is actually arbitrary. WHY should happiness and pleasure be the ultimate good against which all actions are judged? WHY not freedom, or progress, or love, (or racial purity)? More importantly, WHY should we follow someone's an arbitrary utilitarian definition of good over our own definition of good? And WHO gets to decide how to "maximize" something as subjective as happiness?
This guy can't pass his own "four year old" WHY test.
Clide Seamore "WHY should happiness and pleasure be the ultimate good against which all actions are judged?"
I never said "pleasure". I said, happiness, health and well-being. (In other words, I'm not a classical utilitarian; I'm a consequentialist who is, if anything, closer to rule utilitarianism, and very far from hedonism.) But to answer your question, we can tug on our intuitions to test this: take any one of the virtues you mentioned-freedom, progress, love, racial purity-and ask yourself: if maximizing any of these things were known to *guarantee* the worst possible misery, suffering and disease for every sentient being, would they still be moral? Would we still value them, the way we do (if we do)?
The short answer is that the *reason* we value things like freedom and love is because, intuitively, we recognize that they contribute to our well-being. To borrow from Sam Harris, if you believe, hypothetically, that the worst possible misery for every sentient being could somehow be "good", then I don't know what you mean by "good", and you probably don't know what you mean, either.
Theoretical Bullshit
*Why* should we believe what our intuition tells us?
*Why* should we do anything that is against our personal best interest?
*Why* should we care about "every sentient being" rather than just ourselves?
*Why* should we care about doing what others tell us is "good"?
If I believe, hypothetically, that "the worst possible misery for every sentient being BUT the greatest happiness, health and well-being for myself/my friends/my race" is good... WHY am I wrong? WHY shouldn't I act ONLY in my own interest. (Note that, in practice, this may often include pretending to act "selflessly")
If you COULD become supreme dictator of the world would you? What if you just had to kill *one* person to do it. Wait... JUST THINK of all the "good" you could do...
You see the problem is, basically, in your moral world, being "good" means you are just another SUCKER who believes the BULLSHIT that you should SACRIFICE YOUR OWN HAPPINESS etc.. in order to adhere to rules based on your intuition... which was created by the blind forces of evolution. BUT WAIT... evolution doesn't care about YOU at all... it only "cares" that your species survives. SO WHY should YOU care what your evolved empathy/intuition tells you anyway?
Of course, even if you realize that the rules are all BULLSHIT, it is very much in YOUR SELF-INTEREST that I BELIEVE in those bullshit moral rules... that way YOU can take advantage of me and everyone else whenever you know you will get away with it. Do you see the problem yet?
Also, freedom DOESN'T really contribute to our health and well-being... If we weren't free to own guns, less people would get shot... if we weren't free to smoke, less people would die of lung cancer. If we weren't free to have children, less kids would grow up in bad families... in many (if not most) cases, freedom actually hurts overall health happiness and well being.. but we still value freedom. WHY?
EDIT: The problem is you are misusing the phrase "objective moral facts"
"Unconditional moral oughts.... don't exist."
Oh... well why didn't you say that at the beginning of your video...I missed that earlier. It appears you agree with me. But the questions remain. Since morality is merely practical, why shouldn't the individual take advantage of the system? Why shouldn't one group of people make gains at the expense of others. Why shouldn't Hitler kill all the Jews, provided he can win the war?
Aside from the possibility of punishment in the afterlife, I don't see any reason... do you?
Clide Seamore Because it's immoral? He gave a definition of what he means when he says and act is moral, and that is, to paraphrase, and act that promotes well-being. Well-being, generally speaking, is an objectively measurable parameter. If I physically attack someone and break their legs, they are objectively less well-off than they were before, which makes it an immoral act. Now, of course there are caveats to consider, but to go back to Sam Harris, there are generally good and bad moves in Chess, like for example losing your queen. Of course there are situations in which losing your queen is beneficial, or even the only move available, but that does not contradict the argument.
Max10192 I know he gave a definition. But he cant define away this problem. Things dont become moral or immoral just because we say so or feel a certian way. You can define killing Jews to be "good" just as easily as he defines "well being" to be good. There is NO DIFFERENCE in terms of logic. His morals amount to a social contract. Thats fine, but lets call it what it is: TRIVIAL. BASELESS. and NOT OBJECTIVELY ANY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER MORAL SYSTEM... to claim that it is would be circular logic.
Pacificmaelstrom Of course it amounts to a social contract, although i'd use convention. Language as a whole is a combination of arbitrary sounds and letters, we give arbitrary definitions to every word. We have a general agreement as to what is "good" and what is "bad", and it is based on many things, including our intuition and experience. Sure you can say "well I don't share that definition of what is "good" and so it doesn't apply to me".
Problem is, no one is gonna accept your definition because it's not useful or coherent, it doesn't help our society flourish. I mean, what if I took it upon myself to redefine the meaning of the word "life". I say that from now on, anything that can talk is alive, and anything that can't isnt. Would that suddenly shatter your idea of what life is? Would you be able to tell me that I am wrong? Definitions are subjective, they can ONLY be subjective. When we say that an action is objectively wrong, what we are really saying is that WITHIN our subjectively defined concept that is morality, there are actions that either fit that description or don't, which is an objective statement.
But i'm curious. Do you think that objective morality, as in things that are wrong always for everyone everywhere exists? If it does, how would we recognize it? How could we find, for example, a moral maxim and KNOW that it is objective?
So I just found your video 3 years after you made it and holy Hell! I'm going to have to watch this over and over again to catch everything you're saying. You're blowing my mind man!
"Also youre foundation is selfish"
There is no escape from "selfish" if you drag a stranger from a burning car you are simply saving yourself the pain of watching the stranger burn to death (love)
Assigning "selfish" with a derogatory connotation is a ruse, an appeal to pride by those who think you should be doing more than you already do.
I've seen this video referenced before (by Aron Ra and others) but only just now finally got around to watching it. This is a really fantastic talk and I'm kind of frustrated I waited so long to watch it because it's really good. Truly excellent video, and a really effective explanation of morality from a secular perspective.
I like the question at the end. If you accept that "What good is it?" is meant as society generally accepts it, then you've admitted to accept the same definition of good. And if you define good differently? Then it's not an offensive question. It's literally just asking you to defend your position, and your definition of good. Meta.
Great presentation! Interesting body language. Lot's of voice variety. Just the right amount of impatience. I predict you will become a leading speaker as time goes by.
I wish there was a shorter version of this video for me to share with everyone but I can't think of anything that could be taken out. Well done.
Personally I don't like to reference bible passages when talking philosophy with my Christian friends, as apparently they can be interpreted however one sees fit, as can God's intentions in the bible. I don't think they are necessary to make the point TBS is making, I would leave them out.
This is absolutely brilliant!
13 years later and this video still does not miss.
Thank you for this amazingly clear and compelling video.
13 years later and its still a great video
Good work! I'm sure you have a full plate but it would be good if you can make more videos. You do make a good solid argument and give a strong and effective presentation.
+Old Man from Scene Twenty Four I know right? This kids on.
I came here because Aron Ra did a "Faithful Inquiry" YT video posted Nov 5, 2019 with Joel Montoya and recommending this name and this video title.
Specifically, AronRa said he particularly liked the definition for morality:
3:56 "Here is what I understand the terms morally right and morally wrong to mean. A particular action or choice is moral or right when it somehow promotes happiness, well-being or health, or it somehow minimizes unnecessary harm or suffering, or it does both. A particular action or choice is immoral or wrong when it somehow diminishes happiness, well-being or health or it somehow causes unnecessary harm or suffering or, again, it does both."
To put it even more into perspective, we can apply it to ideas of 'being forced to take a certain action,' like being held at gunpoint to make a certain decision over another. In the end, it's our choice to make no matter how biased it may be.
He forgot one thing in saying "minimizing unnecessary harm or suffering". It is better explained to those who deny or don't quite grasp it, "minimizing unnecessary harm or suffering which includes not causing anyone to live in an unnecessary state of fear". This is included in "suffering", but it seems some people don't get this. He has clarified this in more recent talks.
Blessed are the parents of that child Clifton
I can give my take on this one. There are motives behind anything that one does. That motive, however, can be selfless, such as...love. If one wants to know what being selfless is, one needs to know how to act upon love. It sounds lovey-dovey but it works when applied in life. I guess the real question is "what is your motive to love?". You kow you're being selfless when you risk losing your well-being on behalf of another person. As C.S Lewis puts it amazingly: "To love is to be vulnerable".
Yes you do have a point if you can measure necessity in terms of net gain for all the parts
Thanks, Scott! The most clear video on this topic I have ever seen!
Watching this again, I realize now that this is Sam Harris' line on morality exactly (especially from 30:11). And his book, _The Moral Landscape,_ wasn't published until October 2010.
I also realize this is the line that I've been taking more recently when thinking about this, without remembering this video at all
haha! splendid :)
If your in a jam, you just do the best you can do, no one will hold it against you as they don't have the capacity to simulate the "trolley problem" pitted against any particular mind desperately grappling to make the best possible decision.
In the cold light of day with lots of time to play with, a strategy might be drawn.... I am all ears, have you found a splendid strategy for such cases?
Yes, I'd have to be more specific since conscious experiences aren't the same at all times. You could replace 'conscious experiences' above with any particular kind of experience, e.g. happiness, so we're talking about something narrower. The main point I'm making is that we don't have any good basis to distinguish between the value of our own experiences, and those same experiences of others. Ideally, we should act in everyone's interest; we simply can't do so due to physical constraints.
Asking can be so much more powerful than explaining sometimes. When you explain why something is wrong it comes out to the Christian Blah blah blah. When you ask them "What is it about stealing that makes it wrong?" Well, you can fill in the blank here. TB, that was very well put. As always very cogent and eloquent.
I think that what makes them intrinsic is that they are fundamental in some respect, namely self-ownership. We at bottom naturally own ourselves. Another intrinsic good is maximizing happiness. It's fundamental and objective, essential to the object in question.
Excellent video. It should have a downloadable transcript. It’s content is without a doubt noteworthy.
Great dissection of the morality argument! 👏🏾
Another great video. I cannot believe I was not subscribed to your channel.
12 years, still a brilliant video.
Well said! Where can I copy your definition of morality? I'm looking for it but I cannot find it. I was sent here by Aron Ra
Did…did you not watch?
love that quote in the beginning
I am going to have to listen to this several times.
in fact, if one's morality has to come from another being, no matter how great that being is, is still not really moral, even if that being is commanding them to do what is already socially accepted to be right such as not littering, they are not doing it out of reasons for the community and people, but only because of an authoritative figure, hence doing it not for the cause but merely acting and behaving as a mindless robot, which often gets covered up as spirituality when the real spiritual people are but someone doing yoga at home, thinking about life, or the astrophysicists looking into the vast universe and thinking about all those galaxies, or a mathematician in a park writing down new ideas in a notebook, real morality and spirituality comes not from memorising paragraphs and reciting from an old book which is outdated for where we are nowadays, as that is in itself the worst way to learn about any topics, be it history, geography and so on. Thank you for this video!
Both good and bad are just emotionally driven perspectives we interpret of events and their consequences over time. Whether it's an imagined consequence or an actual one, it will always be a limited interpretation because the consequence of an action is potentially unlimited. So neither can ACTUALLY BE one or the other in any absolutely undeniable manner.
Your good will balance with bad eventually, and vice versa. This is nature.
I don’t really see the point you are trying to make. Although it is true that are emotionally driven, we have all evolved to have the same emotional responses. Certainly there are exceptions, but those exceptions will never outnumber the rule because those emotional responses have proven to be the most conducive to our survival.
So the limitations you speak of are irrelevant at worst and actually helpful at best.
Very well thought out and rational. I will recommend.
-Why is it morally better to promote well-being and reduce unnecessary harm rather than the opposite?
-Well, because promoting well-being and reducing unnecessary harm is a reflection of the nature of goodness whereas the opposite is not.
-Yeah, why is the nature of goodness one of promoting well-being and reducing unnecessary harm rather than the opposite?
-Oh, because promoting well-being and reducing unnecessary harm is morally better than the opposite.
Did you really escape the dilemma?
How is it circular? I have defined what right/wrong is in a social context, ie what makes an action right and what makes it wrong, with my definition we have something to work with, something to measure our actions against. Whereas you have simply asserted right is right because it is right...
That's the definition that's given. Harm is measurable, necessity is a bit sticky, but arguable. He's defining an immeasurable conceptual term "immoral" with objectively measurable means. One of the means he chose is "unnecessary harm." The harder question you're really asking is why should we avoid unnecessary harm, and I think the reason is also addressed. Unnecessary harm is deleterious for our personal relationships and society as a whole.
TBS's Definition of Good.
"Something is morally good when it promotes happiness, Well being in society, and health"
P1 Promoting happiness is a good thing
P2 Well being in society is a good thing
P3 Being healthy is a good thing
C :. Therefore it is Good to promote happiness, well being in society, and Health.
Just thought of another example. Let's try it : Helping an old lady get up after she fell.
There is no legal obligation to help, yet most people would feel an urge to. This better illustrates the distinction between legal and social behavior.
As one example ... What if A steals from B and A's act of stealing promotes the happiness, well-being or health of A or minimizes the harm to or suffering of A (or does both), but diminishes these qualities in B, causes harm/suffering to B (or does both)?
If the morality/immorality of acts are determined by their observable effects, they cannot be discretely and universally classified as right/wrong (as you defined them) since their observable effects vary from person to person.
" What are you measuring Good actions to?" My definitions based on reason, reasons ive mentioned several times, reasons people are capable of recognising and carrying out.
Cheer~~~a written work dealing formally and systematically with a subject.😊
Still periodically check back for these streams of consciousness videos…I study the articulation to take pointers on my own to hopefully use as a professor in the near future. A+ even after a decade.