The Problem with Morality | Paul Boghossian, Michael Ruse, Naomi Goulder

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 21 сер 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 20

  • @TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas
    @TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas  4 роки тому +2

    What do you think of this debate? Leave a comment below
    You can watch this debate, The Problem with Morality, in full at iai.tv/video/the-mystery-of-the-good?UA-cam&

  • @mouwersor
    @mouwersor 3 роки тому +10

    No one has ever fixed the is-ought gap, just a reminder necessary in any debate on morality..

  • @jakecostanza802
    @jakecostanza802 4 роки тому +58

    Of course there are objective moral values: they are what I say they are!

  • @conscious_being
    @conscious_being 4 роки тому +36

    _Objective_ doesn't mean universally acknowledged to be true, are having the potential to be so. A blind person may never acknowledge the existence of stars, doesn't make their existence a matter of subjective opinion.
    Everyone does _not_ have a moral compass of the same intensity. Any system of morality that is based wide voluntary acceptance, ends up being of a very low grade.
    Westerners discuss the morality or otherwise of educating girls, but never about the morality of murdering and plundering others. Would be a very uncomfortable issue to bring up among a predominantly Western audience.

  • @ellengran6814
    @ellengran6814 5 років тому +12

    Every mother knows that what is good for one of your children, can be bad for another child. Good and bad is
    personal and depended on time. - The good you do today, can give a bad result tomorrow. As a mother you do the
    best you can in order to learn what is good for THIS child , and ask your child for forgiveness when time proves you
    wrong.

  • @1p6t1gms
    @1p6t1gms 5 років тому +6

    This was fascinating to listen to, however I will definitely listen to more of the same when it is uploaded when time permits. In addition, my older brother moved to Tallahassee four decades ago and I thought for sure he was going to return to his beginnings in four months, so much for my inferences.

  • @joaquincasares2895
    @joaquincasares2895 4 роки тому +24

    I hate that this debate has two thousand view and Despasito has 6.5 billion views. Just think about the quality of content that our generation is watching. But well, as there has being said "one is philosopher by being quiet". :)) Much love you people.

  • @eJohndoe
    @eJohndoe 5 років тому +7

    Not sure how science gets a free pass everytime it makes a "will be" claim from an "is". Haven't seen philosophers going around disputing that.

  • @iain5615
    @iain5615 5 років тому +5

    Paul was far more balanced. I would have expected a far more nuanced and less narrative driven position from the other two.

  • @SimonSozzi7258
    @SimonSozzi7258 5 років тому +9

    Simple. The "Golden rule"; "Do unto others as you would have done to you." (Unless you're into some weird shit, then just do it unto yourself.)

    • @MrJesseBell
      @MrJesseBell 5 років тому +4

      Do to others what they would do to themselves.

  • @pleaseforgivemyinsanity2801
    @pleaseforgivemyinsanity2801 5 років тому +2

    "Intergalactic Relativist" lol
    I like it 👍 😋

  • @dariusnoname12
    @dariusnoname12 4 роки тому +2

    Everything was quite well till they started talking about objective morality, one morality is better than other. This is just baseless claim. To our knowledge morality is simply relativistic, the fact that we are a social species and live in society, changes that, to societies morality being above individual one.
    Objective morality is as dangerous to people as criminal breaking a law. That is already happening in society, we have laws. Yes, you can change them, but until then, thats it.

  • @osiranrebel1591
    @osiranrebel1591 5 років тому

    The problem is CONservative governments!
    Morality is seen differently by different people of course.
    But the fact is right is right , wrong is wrong , and all politics must serv the people , without exception.
    CONservatives however think about money before the people , all the time.
    Which is the current problem we face in the world today with too many CONservative governments. And CONservatives are not as developed in the brain department for processing critical thought.
    The science behind the political brain shows the lack of sufficient capacity CONservatives suffer from .
    Too much fight or flight fear and aggression with a larger more active amygdala, and insufficient capacity for processing critical thought with a smaller less active anterior cingulate cortex section of the brain.
    Which is the reverse in a progressive!
    This could not be more obvious to anyone with any level of intelligence to see .
    But if the science behind the political brain is too hard to understand , than you only need to look at how alcohol effects your politics.
    If a progressive needs to become intoxicated in order to understand where a CONservative is coming from, that pretty much sums it up.
    Google
    CONservative VS liberal brain.