So profoundly logical, simple and yet we see so much to the contrary all around us. All through human existence, it is those who believe and act for the "common good" who have made this world a better place for all of us
Many thanks for taking my concern seriously in correcting audio, very well balanced. As always loved your channel as it is more relevant to humanity than ever before, including this little 3 min precious gem! Cheers from the land down under.
I think that because not everyone feels empathy, there's something else human action should be guided by. It is self-interest, everyone values being well and you can't be well if you treat others badly. So even if you don't care for others at all, if you don't treat them good they won't treat you good either and being treated good is in everyone's self-interest.
great stuff. Is there a contradiction though, in claiming that morality is rooted in natural social instincts (cooperation, affection etc.), but that our values (fairness, equality, justice etc.) are human inventions?
Truth and harmlessness give rise to wisdom and compassion in the heart and mind. Be mindful of speech bodily actions and thoughts. Good KARMA will bless
Humanism now has. to address some harder questions so that it's not reduced to an anti-religion movement. Epistemology, theories of truth, psychology, sociology etc are the some avenues it should now raise scholarships.
It will never address most of those things because it has no answer. "Humanism" is a parasite that sits on top of an existing religious culture and takes it for granted. "Humans" have had wildly different notions of morality across time and space. The "Humanism" of the west has the values it has because of the Christian heritage of the West, not because they are rational, self evident, or logical.
The ideas of freedom, justice, happiness, equality, fairness are not exclusively human inventions, but are also invented by some nonhuman animals. For me, this gives them more gravitas.
I learned a valuable lesson about right and wrong: they aren't always split between good and bad. You can be right and still a jerk and you can be wrong and still deserve respect. I mishandled a worker's mistakes. I thought I was right and he was wrong. I mean, I was right in some ways, but I didn't handle his mistakes right. I didn't know this until after he willingly protected me. See, in downtown, I was conf ronted by a man with a pistoI. Thankfully, it turned out it was unIoaded; the guy was mistaken. But _before_ we knew this, the worker pushed me out of the way when the man was ready to fire. Once we discovered the thing was unloaded, the worker went after the guy and screamed he would never let him harm me. The beast was arres ted. I feel really bad. I was kind of insensitive to the worker, and yet he was willing to take a buIIet for me. I want to apologize to him. Someone can screw up morally, but it doesn't mean they don't deserve delicacy when you address the issue, you know what I mean? One day your cheating partner might save your life, to illustrate.
I've never understood the argument that "if there is no god, morality is just a human invention." Like, yeah, I would hope so. Humans are the ones whom it primarily concerns. If it was an invention of a god, why would we ever trust it?
If it is a human invention, and all humans think of morality slightly different, then there is no true right or wrong, but instead preferences. Humanistic morality is not actual truth, but preferences according to our own individual tastes. The reason you would trust morality from God is because He made us and He has authority over his creation. Morality from God would be clearer and have true unchanging right and wrong, along with a perfect law to follow. Compared to our many (even slightly) different conciences/moral views.
Sometimes getting hurt is better than empathy. Thats why humanism can never rule. This is why we need rules and fences. Look what the world is coming to. Liberal humanists. We need God literature because without rules and fences we will run amok!!!
Why only "sometimes other animals"? Surely it should be "Always other sentient animals". Their suffering and lives matter too - whether they are our companions, in the wild, or in our farms. That means we should not be farming or fishing them for our pleasure at all, of course. That's why Stephen (I think), many other humanists and I are vegan. If Humanism isn't clear enough about this - there's always Sentientism... "Evidence, reason and compassion for all sentient beings".
That is true if we deserve it then all other living lifeforms deserve it, so the way I conclude it (I'm not some brilliant scholar or smart ass lol) is that we shouldn't hurt living beings that we can hurt, only if they are a threat to our lives or can harm us in a severe way. Now there comes a line not to cross, the animal kingdom, we can't save a deer from being eaten by a wolf, why? That's nature, but what we can do is not harm deer for fun, we, however, are also animals, we are apex predators, and it is the right of an apex predator to eat the lower-down animals such as deer and chicken. However we can't take some animals and say that eating them is wrong, cats or dogs, we would be acting like rulers deciding what to eat and not to eat, we can't also torture the animals themselves, we kill the animals in the quickest way possible and the most painless way possible so we can use their meat, for use. Then there are lifeforms that we can't do anything about like microbes, those don't count for obvious reasons, but stepping on a fly or some insect? That is an accident and not your fault, you didn't want to hurt the lifeform so don't hurt it. However society has justified killing smaller insects, it's ingrained in us for some reason now. I know I went on a rant, but I just wanted to share my viewpoint and read it if you want to, have a good day.
@@destiny6080 Thank you for the rant :). I like your starting point: "that we shouldn't hurt living beings that we can hurt, only if they are a threat to our lives or can harm us in a severe way." - although I'd narrow this to sentient beings because insentient living things can't experience suffering at all. But that contradicts your view that because we're an "apex predator" we have a right to kill others. To me that seems like a pure "might makes right" argument that I hope we'd never accept from a powerful human. Nearly all humans can easily choose a less harmful/deadly option - so let's do that. "Nature" is brutally amoral. We can and should do so much better. Have a good day too!
@@Sentientism Thank you for your insight! I would like to clear up some things you misunderstood, I will try to be as respectful as possible here. What I mean when I said that it was the right of an apex predator to eat a lower animal in the food chain is basically nearly as it sounds, we can eat animals like cows and chickens and goats and more, and it has a positive effect on us and our bodies, we are built to eat meat so we can if we want to, whether you wanna argue if we should or not is up to you, and no one can hold that against you. But the way we go about getting these food sources (meat) should not be cruel to the animals, we basically end their life as swiftly and as painlessly as possible, and that is an actual practice. Not everyone is gonna do it sure, but that doesn't mean that we have to stop. Then there is the fact that as us apex predators, it is sort of our job to keep the ecosystem stable, by eating meat and not allowing for the ecosystem to collapse with too many herbivores. But to talk about my previous point, "it is the right of the apex predator to eat the animals lower down in the food chain" If you wanna argue I'm wrong then you can, I am doubting this argument I have for the reason that it doesn't really make all that sense and isn't very logical, then there is like 0 evidence I have to it honestly. So do what you want with it I guess! Thanks for reading this!
@@destiny6080 Thank you. No animal is killed painlessly or humanely (kindness and compassion) in animal agriculture. Killing someone so you can eat them when you have other choices available is the very opposite of even minimal compassion. Nearly all humans do have other choices available. So if you and I want to avoid hurting living animals, as we do, then let's take those less harmful choices (e.g. plant foods). Considering the perspective of the other - whether human or not - is the core of any naturalistic ethics. Doing so cuts through these issues very powerfully. The actions of wild animals have no bearing on our human choices. Wild animals are not good ethical role models. Also - let's not let the perfect (avoiding harming flies in all circumstances) be the enemy of the good (making less deadly and less harmful choices - e.g. plant products). If we wouldn't push the knife in ourselves (whether a dog, fish, cat, chicken, pig or cow), for moral reasons, then we shouldn't pay for others to do it for us.
Two quibbles about this content. (1) Not using rules at all is impractical. Rules properly used help to encode decisions carefully reached for convenient use in similar situations in future. (2) Reliance on 'rights' is not as effective as people tend to think because of technical problems with actually lists of rights currently in use and because of having no solid basis for establishing what 'rights' should be. Considering the impact on society overall is better.
Thanks for the clarification! I feel as though there is a slight problem with this view. Lets say person A thinks he does something right. But person B thinks person A did something wrong according to their own individual moralities. Who is right or wrong? Or is both right and both wrong? I would love if you could answer as I do not know how to solve that problem from what you said in the video. ..walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. - 1 Thessalonians 2:12
I like humanism, but I dont quite get why I should be" Good "vs." Bad" in this system. Why should I be Ghandi vs. Hitler? If both thought they were doing the "right thing" If it's agreed it is a natural human concept, and i'm a human, If i think it's good, isn't it "Good"? If I want to destroy humanity to stop bad and i have the means to do it, what makes me wrong? Can someone clear this up?
Humanists do look to a god - they make themselves a god. Stephen Fry says, in a subtly authoritarian way, that there is no outside authority. The irony is thick as treacle. 'How do you know that you, yourself are the authority? Is that not the height of arrogance? And what if you are wrong that there is no higher authority (and most people think there is)? What are the consequences then?
As I see it, I believe there is a God, but is he here to help us? Nope, you can try to prove it but at the end of the day, God is not here in public to help us with morality. So we try our best to help each other and have the best positive effects on each other. None of the religions are true either, so we don't have God in that sense either, it is sad if you look at it from my point of view on life, a higher being isn't here to help his creations, but that can be one reason why we move forward and develop our morality to the best one there can be, we have only ourselves, we need to realize that.
Mmm morality is gifted via high metacognition genetically ordained, less than one third own this place, to them it is simple comprehension with all designer ideology's unable to emulate.
This just doesn't make sense though when it's played out. Who defines what kindness is or least harm? What if the kindest thing to do contradicts the thing of least harm? And then once you've got those principles in place, you're contradicting the thing right at the beginning about having no rules. Humanism just fails flat out.
We try to define positivity (kindness in this case) and negativity (harm in this case) by how our actions affect others, yes it's not perfect, and it's not gonna be perfect, but we don't have a perfect being to help us here, none of the religions are true. God may exist to you or not, but at the end of the day he is not here and everyone knows it, so we try to get the best effects and treat others the best way we can. Looking at it this way as I have explained it, you can try to argue that there still are rules, and you may be right, I would argue that in that very situation that you are in, it is in that moment where right and wrong is decided. That way could be without rules, but it still seems like there are basic rules, don't hurt others, and so on, but could I be wrong? Definitely, this is all man-made, but as I said we only have ourselves to try and succeed, not God, unfortunately.
It did tho "We have always to be empathetic, and think about the effects of our choices" Using this you can determine whether something is wrong or right, as positive effects or negative effects.
@@destiny6080 No, it didn't. First, that's a commandment. Where did it come from? God? Why should we be empathetic and think about the effects of our choices on others? Second, you can't derive "right" and "wrong" from that silly rule. In the video, there is a little cartoon dog eating some cake. What about the cow that produced the milk for the cake? Or the chickens whose eggs were used for the cake? Where was the empathy for them? Empathy is an ad hoc emotional reaction, and it certainly won't give you objective right and wrong. People will be more empathetic toward their loved ones than strangers, for example.
@@bgdarumasan I don't go off just those rules, I go off of how I would want to feel from others, I wouldn't wanna feel hurt, so I don't hurt. But where did it come from? Also, it's not a commandment, I do not know of any God that says "Treat people with positive effects and negative effects" And if it did come from one religion then why does it matter so much? So far when I have used it, it has worked wonders, some issues but I try to get through them, it's also not from a God because it's not perfect. And the examples you used aren't really perfect, a cow as far as I know isn't hurt when we get milk from it, and we need milk, maybe we might survive off some other things for sure, but milk has a positive impact on us. A chicken is also not hurt when it lays eggs, and we also use it because it has a positive effect on us and always will. From what you said about empathy I can agree with you, the things we have outside of God are not gonna be perfect, but that's why we are trying, God isn't here physically to help us, The religions we have are not true and logical once you look into them. So we have to try and find objective morality for ourselves and not with God, don't get me wrong if any religion was true, I would follow it because God knows best and is a perfect being to follow, If he were here I would use his objective morality because it is objective of the course. But we have to try without God, otherwise, we would all be simply depressed and without purpose.
‘Reason’, ‘Experience’, ‘Empathy’ and ‘Respect’… Why those values? Did you DETERMINE those values Mr Fry, for if you did, then they are entirely arbitrary, which means that you could just as easily have determined ‘Foolishness’, or ‘Ignorance’, or ‘Apathy’, or ‘Contempt’ to be virtuous! After all, in your world where there is no Absolute, everything goes and all opinions carry equal epistemic and moral weight! Or… do you RECOGNISE those values to rank as ‘virtuous’, for if you did, then you in fact concede that there is a source that determines virtue/vice/truth/right/wrong… that transcends you Mr Fry! Perhaps God? But NEVER! For that would rob you of your own autonomy that only reduces to absurdity in the rigour of critical analysis!
I believe in a God, but none of the religions are true, and he DEFINITELY isn't here to help us, not like he is out in public giving a speech about morality and life lessons, so we only have ourselves now, and as I see it from my view in life, how my actions affect others, that determines whether it is wrong, or right.
@@osks I'm right in what I say about God not being physically here to help us because that's literally true. Whether you wanna believe in God or not is up to you. But I go of my morality on how my actions affect others, negative or positive. In that sense, we could have objective morality. What makes my actions right is how I affect others, I'm not always gonna be right, I can make mistakes, but I try my best. However we only have ourselves and not God, so we have to try to find the right objective morality that affects mankind the best. To best answer your question, I don't really know what you mean, but now I think you mean my philosophy. To best answer your question is to simply tell you that I'm not really right, there will be different philosophies, but I try to use logic, that's my view on life and morality, cuz that's what we as humans have when it comes to how we are designed as humans. There will be different philosophies like I said, but we will always try to find the best one for mankind to live with, so we do not suffer because our God failed us.
Wow. I love these! Thank you Humanists UK and Mr. Fry!
I find it reassuring that these videos are being shared. Thank you Humanists UK
So profoundly logical, simple and yet we see so much to the contrary all around us. All through human existence, it is those who believe and act for the "common good" who have made this world a better place for all of us
I agree. Humanist liberals are doing more damage than good. People cannot see it. We need rules and literature of God!
Many thanks for taking my concern seriously in correcting audio, very well balanced. As always loved your channel as it is more relevant to humanity than ever before, including this little 3 min precious gem! Cheers from the land down under.
These are wonderful. I love the conciseness and choice of words. Thanks Humanists UK and Stephen Fry.
humanism seems legit! great video. Right and wrong based on reason and not authority is my jam. who doesn't want to be happy.
I think that because not everyone feels empathy, there's something else human action should be guided by. It is self-interest, everyone values being well and you can't be well if you treat others badly. So even if you don't care for others at all, if you don't treat them good they won't treat you good either and being treated good is in everyone's self-interest.
Yeah that too
I will also make sure that I make comments to 'trick' UA-cam algorithm in a positive way. You deserve more than 38K subscribers.
My favorite narrator.
I also recommend his own myth audiobook series!
Tack!
If it feels wrong, it is wrong
great stuff. Is there a contradiction though, in claiming that morality is rooted in natural social instincts (cooperation, affection etc.), but that our values (fairness, equality, justice etc.) are human inventions?
Nope!
@@HumanistsUK then you need a very clear distinction between morality and values. Speaking as a humanist myself, I'd be interested to know what it is.
@@HumanistsUK Well that settles that then!
There's been a distinct lack of morality in the UK since 2016...
Truth and harmlessness give rise to wisdom and compassion in the heart and mind. Be mindful of speech bodily actions and thoughts. Good KARMA will bless
Who am I? What is my Self? I am more than my atoms and my molecules. I am Consciousness
Least harm, you ever give a dog fruit? Big mistake!
Humanism now has. to address some harder questions so that it's not reduced to an anti-religion movement. Epistemology, theories of truth, psychology, sociology etc are the some avenues it should now raise scholarships.
It will never address most of those things because it has no answer. "Humanism" is a parasite that sits on top of an existing religious culture and takes it for granted. "Humans" have had wildly different notions of morality across time and space. The "Humanism" of the west has the values it has because of the Christian heritage of the West, not because they are rational, self evident, or logical.
The ideas of freedom, justice, happiness, equality, fairness are not exclusively human inventions, but are also invented by some nonhuman animals. For me, this gives them more gravitas.
Lol where is equality in animal world?
Or freedom?
What is the evidence towards us inventing those ideas?
I learned a valuable lesson about right and wrong: they aren't always split between good and bad. You can be right and still a jerk and you can be wrong and still deserve respect. I mishandled a worker's mistakes. I thought I was right and he was wrong. I mean, I was right in some ways, but I didn't handle his mistakes right. I didn't know this until after he willingly protected me. See, in downtown, I was conf ronted by a man with a pistoI. Thankfully, it turned out it was unIoaded; the guy was mistaken. But _before_ we knew this, the worker pushed me out of the way when the man was ready to fire. Once we discovered the thing was unloaded, the worker went after the guy and screamed he would never let him harm me. The beast was arres ted. I feel really bad. I was kind of insensitive to the worker, and yet he was willing to take a buIIet for me. I want to apologize to him. Someone can screw up morally, but it doesn't mean they don't deserve delicacy when you address the issue, you know what I mean? One day your cheating partner might save your life, to illustrate.
God is not exterior but our very Self
I've never understood the argument that "if there is no god, morality is just a human invention." Like, yeah, I would hope so. Humans are the ones whom it primarily concerns. If it was an invention of a god, why would we ever trust it?
If it is a human invention, and all humans think of morality slightly different, then there is no true right or wrong, but instead preferences. Humanistic morality is not actual truth, but preferences according to our own individual tastes.
The reason you would trust morality from God is because He made us and He has authority over his creation. Morality from God would be clearer and have true unchanging right and wrong, along with a perfect law to follow. Compared to our many (even slightly) different conciences/moral views.
Sometimes getting hurt is better than empathy. Thats why humanism can never rule. This is why we need rules and fences. Look what the world is coming to. Liberal humanists. We need God literature because without rules and fences we will run amok!!!
Why only "sometimes other animals"? Surely it should be "Always other sentient animals". Their suffering and lives matter too - whether they are our companions, in the wild, or in our farms. That means we should not be farming or fishing them for our pleasure at all, of course. That's why Stephen (I think), many other humanists and I are vegan. If Humanism isn't clear enough about this - there's always Sentientism... "Evidence, reason and compassion for all sentient beings".
That is true if we deserve it then all other living lifeforms deserve it, so the way I conclude it (I'm not some brilliant scholar or smart ass lol) is that we shouldn't hurt living beings that we can hurt, only if they are a threat to our lives or can harm us in a severe way. Now there comes a line not to cross, the animal kingdom, we can't save a deer from being eaten by a wolf, why? That's nature, but what we can do is not harm deer for fun, we, however, are also animals, we are apex predators, and it is the right of an apex predator to eat the lower-down animals such as deer and chicken. However we can't take some animals and say that eating them is wrong, cats or dogs, we would be acting like rulers deciding what to eat and not to eat, we can't also torture the animals themselves, we kill the animals in the quickest way possible and the most painless way possible so we can use their meat, for use. Then there are lifeforms that we can't do anything about like microbes, those don't count for obvious reasons, but stepping on a fly or some insect? That is an accident and not your fault, you didn't want to hurt the lifeform so don't hurt it. However society has justified killing smaller insects, it's ingrained in us for some reason now.
I know I went on a rant, but I just wanted to share my viewpoint and read it if you want to, have a good day.
@@destiny6080 Thank you for the rant :). I like your starting point: "that we shouldn't hurt living beings that we can hurt, only if they are a threat to our lives or can harm us in a severe way." - although I'd narrow this to sentient beings because insentient living things can't experience suffering at all. But that contradicts your view that because we're an "apex predator" we have a right to kill others. To me that seems like a pure "might makes right" argument that I hope we'd never accept from a powerful human. Nearly all humans can easily choose a less harmful/deadly option - so let's do that. "Nature" is brutally amoral. We can and should do so much better.
Have a good day too!
@@Sentientism
Thank you for your insight!
I would like to clear up some things you misunderstood, I will try to be as respectful as possible here.
What I mean when I said that it was the right of an apex predator to eat a lower animal in the food chain is basically nearly as it sounds, we can eat animals like cows and chickens and goats and more, and it has a positive effect on us and our bodies, we are built to eat meat so we can if we want to, whether you wanna argue if we should or not is up to you, and no one can hold that against you.
But the way we go about getting these food sources (meat) should not be cruel to the animals, we basically end their life as swiftly and as painlessly as possible, and that is an actual practice. Not everyone is gonna do it sure, but that doesn't mean that we have to stop. Then there is the fact that as us apex predators, it is sort of our job to keep the ecosystem stable, by eating meat and not allowing for the ecosystem to collapse with too many herbivores.
But to talk about my previous point, "it is the right of the apex predator to eat the animals lower down in the food chain" If you wanna argue I'm wrong then you can, I am doubting this argument I have for the reason that it doesn't really make all that sense and isn't very logical, then there is like 0 evidence I have to it honestly. So do what you want with it I guess!
Thanks for reading this!
@@destiny6080 Thank you. No animal is killed painlessly or humanely (kindness and compassion) in animal agriculture. Killing someone so you can eat them when you have other choices available is the very opposite of even minimal compassion. Nearly all humans do have other choices available. So if you and I want to avoid hurting living animals, as we do, then let's take those less harmful choices (e.g. plant foods). Considering the perspective of the other - whether human or not - is the core of any naturalistic ethics. Doing so cuts through these issues very powerfully.
The actions of wild animals have no bearing on our human choices. Wild animals are not good ethical role models. Also - let's not let the perfect (avoiding harming flies in all circumstances) be the enemy of the good (making less deadly and less harmful choices - e.g. plant products). If we wouldn't push the knife in ourselves (whether a dog, fish, cat, chicken, pig or cow), for moral reasons, then we shouldn't pay for others to do it for us.
Two quibbles about this content. (1) Not using rules at all is impractical. Rules properly used help to encode decisions carefully reached for convenient use in similar situations in future. (2) Reliance on 'rights' is not as effective as people tend to think because of technical problems with actually lists of rights currently in use and because of having no solid basis for establishing what 'rights' should be. Considering the impact on society overall is better.
Thanks for the clarification! I feel as though there is a slight problem with this view. Lets say person A thinks he does something right. But person B thinks person A did something wrong according to their own individual moralities. Who is right or wrong? Or is both right and both wrong?
I would love if you could answer as I do not know how to solve that problem from what you said in the video.
..walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. - 1 Thessalonians 2:12
I like humanism, but I dont quite get why I should be" Good "vs." Bad" in this system. Why should I be Ghandi vs. Hitler? If both thought they were doing the "right thing" If it's agreed it is a natural human concept, and i'm a human, If i think it's good, isn't it "Good"? If I want to destroy humanity to stop bad and i have the means to do it, what makes me wrong? Can someone clear this up?
So pretty much everyone being their own God. Satan wanted that too.God doesn’t share His glory with man. Worshiping Creation not the Creator.
Try explaining that to someone with Antisocial personality disorder.
Why?
@@chikkipop
Probably just a joke, it did get me to chuckle tho, cause it is funny.
Humanists do look to a god - they make themselves a god. Stephen Fry says, in a subtly authoritarian way, that there is no outside authority. The irony is thick as treacle. 'How do you know that you, yourself are the authority? Is that not the height of arrogance? And what if you are wrong that there is no higher authority (and most people think there is)? What are the consequences then?
As I see it, I believe there is a God, but is he here to help us? Nope, you can try to prove it but at the end of the day, God is not here in public to help us with morality. So we try our best to help each other and have the best positive effects on each other. None of the religions are true either, so we don't have God in that sense either, it is sad if you look at it from my point of view on life, a higher being isn't here to help his creations, but that can be one reason why we move forward and develop our morality to the best one there can be, we have only ourselves, we need to realize that.
Mmm morality is gifted via high metacognition genetically ordained, less than one third own this place, to them it is simple comprehension with all designer ideology's unable to emulate.
This just doesn't make sense though when it's played out. Who defines what kindness is or least harm? What if the kindest thing to do contradicts the thing of least harm? And then once you've got those principles in place, you're contradicting the thing right at the beginning about having no rules. Humanism just fails flat out.
We try to define positivity (kindness in this case) and negativity (harm in this case) by how our actions affect others, yes it's not perfect, and it's not gonna be perfect, but we don't have a perfect being to help us here, none of the religions are true. God may exist to you or not, but at the end of the day he is not here and everyone knows it, so we try to get the best effects and treat others the best way we can. Looking at it this way as I have explained it, you can try to argue that there still are rules, and you may be right, I would argue that in that very situation that you are in, it is in that moment where right and wrong is decided. That way could be without rules, but it still seems like there are basic rules, don't hurt others, and so on, but could I be wrong? Definitely, this is all man-made, but as I said we only have ourselves to try and succeed, not God, unfortunately.
Doesn't answer the question.
It did tho
"We have always to be empathetic, and think about the effects of our choices"
Using this you can determine whether something is wrong or right, as positive effects or negative effects.
@@destiny6080 No, it didn't.
First, that's a commandment. Where did it come from? God?
Why should we be empathetic and think about the effects of our choices on others?
Second, you can't derive "right" and "wrong" from that silly rule. In the video, there is a little cartoon dog eating some cake. What about the cow that produced the milk for the cake? Or the chickens whose eggs were used for the cake? Where was the empathy for them? Empathy is an ad hoc emotional reaction, and it certainly won't give you objective right and wrong. People will be more empathetic toward their loved ones than strangers, for example.
@@bgdarumasan
I don't go off just those rules, I go off of how I would want to feel from others, I wouldn't wanna feel hurt, so I don't hurt. But where did it come from? Also, it's not a commandment, I do not know of any God that says "Treat people with positive effects and negative effects" And if it did come from one religion then why does it matter so much? So far when I have used it, it has worked wonders, some issues but I try to get through them, it's also not from a God because it's not perfect.
And the examples you used aren't really perfect, a cow as far as I know isn't hurt when we get milk from it, and we need milk, maybe we might survive off some other things for sure, but milk has a positive impact on us. A chicken is also not hurt when it lays eggs, and we also use it because it has a positive effect on us and always will.
From what you said about empathy I can agree with you, the things we have outside of God are not gonna be perfect, but that's why we are trying, God isn't here physically to help us, The religions we have are not true and logical once you look into them. So we have to try and find objective morality for ourselves and not with God, don't get me wrong if any religion was true, I would follow it because God knows best and is a perfect being to follow, If he were here I would use his objective morality because it is objective of the course. But we have to try without God, otherwise, we would all be simply depressed and without purpose.
‘Reason’, ‘Experience’, ‘Empathy’ and ‘Respect’…
Why those values? Did you DETERMINE those values Mr Fry, for if you did, then they are entirely arbitrary, which means that you could just as easily have determined ‘Foolishness’, or ‘Ignorance’, or ‘Apathy’, or ‘Contempt’ to be virtuous! After all, in your world where there is no Absolute, everything goes and all opinions carry equal epistemic and moral weight!
Or… do you RECOGNISE those values to rank as ‘virtuous’, for if you did, then you in fact concede that there is a source that determines virtue/vice/truth/right/wrong… that transcends you Mr Fry! Perhaps God? But NEVER! For that would rob you of your own autonomy that only reduces to absurdity in the rigour of critical analysis!
I believe in a God, but none of the religions are true, and he DEFINITELY isn't here to help us, not like he is out in public giving a speech about morality and life lessons, so we only have ourselves now, and as I see it from my view in life, how my actions affect others, that determines whether it is wrong, or right.
@@destiny6080 And what makes you right and anyone else not right?
@@osks
I'm right in what I say about God not being physically here to help us because that's literally true.
Whether you wanna believe in God or not is up to you.
But I go of my morality on how my actions affect others, negative or positive. In that sense, we could have objective morality.
What makes my actions right is how I affect others, I'm not always gonna be right, I can make mistakes, but I try my best. However we only have ourselves and not God, so we have to try to find the right objective morality that affects mankind the best.
To best answer your question, I don't really know what you mean, but now I think you mean my philosophy. To best answer your question is to simply tell you that I'm not really right, there will be different philosophies, but I try to use logic, that's my view on life and morality, cuz that's what we as humans have when it comes to how we are designed as humans. There will be different philosophies like I said, but we will always try to find the best one for mankind to live with, so we do not suffer because our God failed us.
BS