To the *worthwhile person* seeing this, your dream is not dead. Don’t allow the past and current pains and hurts stop and define you. You’re more than a conqueror. Rise up and put yourself together. Keep pushing your future depends on it. I wish you all the best in life ❤️.
I believe it’s important to first answer the questions “Why and how morality came to be? What purpose does morality serve?”, before we can meaningfully talk about “What is moral”. To me, moralities developed in various cultures and societies, to reduce conflicts and enhance harmony. Basically to creat a more favorable environment by encouraging and discouraging certain behaviors. So it’s better for us humans to thrive. There are obviously more than one way to create favorable environments for human. Since there are more than one solution to the problem, therefore there are more than one set of universal morality. In the end, I believe all actions that enhances our species’ collective benefits(survival, reproduction, evolution biologically and intellectually), are moral.
In the end it could come down to the process of natural selection being applied to cultural and intellectual aspects, instead of only biological aspects.
Agreed. It's not discussed, but some cultures encouraged and discouraged certain behaviors which led to hundreds of years of success and progress, while others with differing morals led to collapse. The ebb and flow continues as new morals are "experimenting" their way into the culture. Will these lead to a healthier society, or will these new morals erode and regress our society such that we become nothing more than a footnote in the annals of history?
Morality didn't start as a way to reduce conflicts and enhance harmony lmao. Laws do that. Morality was a social subversion of Pagan values, brought about through the spread of Judeo-Christian religion during the transition from Antiquity to The Dark Ages. Before this, ancient civilizations such as The Romans or Greek City-States defined "morality" not in accordance with "Good/Evil", but "Good/Bad" in accordance with personal benefit. It was actually completely juxtaposed to modern ideas of morality. Being wealthy and powerful was not seen as greedy, it was a trait to be desired. Asserting dominance over others wasn't wrathful, but a sign of strength. Pride is encouraged and developed, etc. It wasn't until the spread of Christianity (a religion primarily propagated amongst the slave classes of antiquity) that their concept of morality spread in an attempt to flip the old axis on it's head. This coincides, and in fact is the direct catalyst of, The Dark Ages; drenched in religious superstition and claims of moral highground as they were. Ever since, we've operated under the Judeo-Christian based axis of morality. Self-sacrifice is good, compassion is good, take care of the weak, etc.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no Morality is a set of principles, used to determine right from wrong. It exists in all cultures. It certainly exists in Christianity as well, but not exclusively. And yes, laws do help in reducing conflicts and enhancing harmony, too. There are more than one solution to the problem. Very often, multiple strategies are applied at the same time, especially for something as important as a society’s or species’ collective good.
@@TheNumbuh121 yes, I think that’s how our ancestors beat the Neanderthal who was physically stronger, and possibly individually smarter due to their larger brain size. But us homosapien hung out in larger social groups
@@balasubr2252 I don't think so tho, if there's very hurtful truth that might give some truma Or can shocked someone, would it be right to say the truth to that person? Would it be morality? And what is truth anyway? We can't determine what is good and bad, it same goes for truth too, we can't differentiate the lie and the truth.
@@bipin3639 Well expressed thoughts requiring careful attention to details. Why not indulge in the "self and all the rest" for everyone and everything to demark the differences in the evolution of the self from the antiquity to the eternity? By so doing, we might discover, if there is a "self" and does it evolve or not as well as the relationships of systems be they morality or anything else?
you can take a look at my playlist titled "Objective morality as proof for the necessity of God's existence" for more detailed and a better analysis of morality because no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed a major straw man, namely, when we say objective, we don't mean that its something which all humans agree on, rather it is what's true independent of humans. A great example would be science. Scientists cannot agree on many things about the outside real world which is the way it is independently of humans i.e. they differ in their views, but that doesnt mean that there doesnt exist one correct view which describes reality accuratly. Another common straw man is the argument that some actions can be moral in certain situations whereas not so in others. This counterargument conflates between objective and absolute morality. Whereas absolute morality states that an action is wrong in all possible scenarios objective morality postulates a context sensitive understanding of morality where all moral variables in a given situation determine the necessary moral answer or range of moral answers. A great analogy would be equalities in maths where the value of all known numbers and the operations contribute to the final objective answer or inequalities which have a range of valid answer which are objective aswell as those which do not belong to the set of valid answers.
Morality is the backbone of a society , if there were no place for moral values we would cut each other's throat. So to all the young people here, this is the time you build your moral values and don't fear to fight for your morals, it's not going to get you in trouble its only going to make you stronger
The simplest definition of morality I can come up with right at this moment is that "it's what tells us to take the decision which causes the least harm to everyone, not equally, but in proportion to what they seemingly deserve."
I remember trying to explain the subjectivity of morality to people back when I was around 10 years old, and getting increasingly frustrated at the fact that no one seemed to understand, even adults. Everyone seemingly unable to think outside the boundaries of a very restrictive and intangible box that seemed to imprison their minds. The very subject of morality opens up a doorway into the paradoxical nature of the universe, and having spent my life dwelling upon philosophical concepts, most of which came from internal contemplation rather than external sources or literature, I have come to realise that if you go deep enough into any philosophical rabbithole, at the bottom lies a paradox. Is morality subjective or objective? I believe this question is comparable and intrinsically linked to the question of whether or not there is a God, and also ties into the question of free will. First we must define God. Let's take this dictionary definition: "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." Now we run straight into several paradoxes, collectively known as the omnipotence paradox. This is a complex subject in itself so I will only briefly delve, but to sum it up; "Could God create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" God cannot be omnipotent, as this is a paradox. One thing to bear in mind here is that we may be fundamentally limited as humans, by both language, and our ability to process logic, and there may be a solution to this that lies outside of the reach of our understanding. So, in argument of objective morality we have to ignore the paradox of omnipotence and assume that if there is an omnipotent and omniscient creator, 'he' would be the arbiter of morality, and.. Now we run into yet more paradoxes relating to free will: If God is omnipotent and omniscient then the universe is, by necessity, deterministic. If the future is predetermined, then how can any human or other life form possibly be responsible for their own actions, if they are only following a preordained path through life? Basically, "If God made the game, it's rules, and the players, then how can any player be free?" Now, in argument of morality being purely subjective: It would appear to be completely subjective when you disregard the idea of a God, and attempt to look at the natural order of things from a non-human perspective. The universe seems to be a vast and uncaring place. You can easily observe what we would consider moral behaviour among humans and other social animals, and it would appear that morality formed as an evolutionary response among creatures that evolved with co-operation. Outside of these closed systems, it is not observed anywhere else, and by the very fact that it exists within closed systems and varies greatly from one system to another, would mean by definition, that morality is subjective. Now even if we were to take the position of morality being entirely subjective in nature, we are not free of the burden of paradox. If we were to take the following presupposition: "Suffering is bad, and pleasure is good" So logically, we could say it is moral to cause no suffering. Well, your entire existence is based on suffering. There is no possible way that you can exist without inflicting varying degrees of suffering. What is good for one person may have dire consequences for another, and I'm not just talking about the things that you directly interact with. Our whole society and ecosystem is a giant network of interconnected subsystems that are both co-dependant and in competition, and just by existing you are an active participant in the direction that these systems flow in. One example of this would be if a large supermarket were to open in a small town. The owner has created many new jobs, prosperity, and services which will benefit many people in the town. But this is at the expense of small business owners who will now no longer be able to compete in prices, and may lose their livelihoods. Was this a moral thing to do? It would depend who you asked. Another good way to analogise this, would be the classic example of the trolley problem. For anyone not aware of the trolley problem: "There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options: Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?" Now consider that you are making countless choices like this every day, albeit, not ones that *directly* result in death, but, due to the butterfly effect, will have huge consequences in the long term. Another example: Most people eat meat, in order for these people to live then other sentient life forms must suffer and die. Even if you are vegan, plants demonstrate clear signs of self preservation. They have evolved defence mechanisms to protect themselves from predation, and just because humans are incabable of empathising with a life form so vastly different, this does not detract from the fact that an organism has a will to live and you are depriving that organism of it's will. We do not know on what level plants suffer, or to what extent they are conscious, but that does not mean that they don't suffer and that they're not conscious. To sum it up: These are things that I have contemplated for a long time, and, the only reasonable solution I can fathom is to just try to avoid any action that will directly result in unnecessary suffering. Peace and love to all. 👽
I agree completely mate. I realized too, after lots of internal contemplation on philosophical issues that everything eventually boils down to a paradox or contradiction of some sort.
so I will thank u first for this. I kind of like reading these things they give many arguments at once btw what kind of books do you read if you can suggest some to me
Can God create a rock heavy enough as He cannot lift if? Now my question is can he lift it? cause if He cant lift it He is not all Able. This Kind of questions come because of the lack of knowledge about God. God is All Able but He is also All Powerful and He does not do things that goes against His nature. The other question was where is the free will if God created every action and knows everything? my first question is what is related to your freewill and His knowledge? for example if I knew that you're going to fail the exam does that make me the one who made you fail? God's creation of all actions doesn't make you not have your freewill. you have it and you know it. to make it easier to understand. imagine you are standing between two cupboards in each are drawers. on the right cupboard there are good actions and on the left are bad actions. and they're all choices for you to choose one. God gave you the ability to choose which does not lose anything from His abilities. and when you choose one if God willed He will open the drawer and give you access to the action. But if He did not willed it for you then you cant do it even if it is a good thing or a bad thing. for example while you are going to a party to do a bad thing but you got into an accident and you weren't able to attend the party.. Does God know what you will choose? yes absolutely, what's the problem if you are choosing from your own freewill. Maybe you want God to not to know some of the things you do?
I find morality to be something most people agree upon. One funny example is that people agreed Minecraft is cringe in pre-2017s. And majority agreed with it. Suddenly top guys in UA-cam started playing it and now Minecraft is no more cringe but has actually risen to a point where it is considered holy grail among other 'bad' games like Fortnite and Genshin. People always lean on what majority says smh.
Yep, I’ve noticed this. I’m a Genshin player, a player of a game considered “bad” or “cringe” but I enjoy it, so I’ll keep playing as long as I’m interested in it/makes me happy. Maybe the “cringe” label will disappear as bigger UA-camrs start playing.
Aperture, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your videos always bring a sense of calmness and bliss and gives a feeling that we all are in this together. Keep moving forward, Aperture! ❤️
One thing I have frequently thought about throughout my life is how valuable a person’s life is based on their age. I remember when I was a little kid the people in my family would rather have died themselves than have me die, even though I always thought the opposite. I realize now, that in the past, I valued a life based on the experience it has. I still don’t think experience is something to completely disregard, but I have started realize how valuable potential/experiences to be gained is as well. I now understand why the people in my family valued my life more than their own, it is because even though they have more experience, I still have more potential/experiences to be gained. I’m still not sure which of the two is more valuable, but unlike when I was younger, I now understand the value of both of those factors.
I remember getting into an argument with my friend about whether or not morality is objective or subjective. I don't believe in God but I believe objective morality can be found in nature through consequentialism. I believe that the only reason why morality appears subjective is because the compass that is morality can be shifted and charted off course by our own biological faults, faulty reasoning and lack of information considering a situation. Morality is a survival strategy for humans and like all survival strategies they don't always work.
when atheist say objective morality can be based on consequentialism (or anything else other than an external neseccary mind) commit the ultimate begging the question fallacy. if you say an action is good because it results in the best aoutcome you basically assume the fact that the outcome of the said action IS the moral outcome. As plainly and simply one can put the heart of the majority of atheist views would be the following with perhaps some additional rules such the harm principle "the action which results in more pleasure than pain is a moral one and the opposite for actions which result in more suffering than pleasure". This assumes tho that pleasure is that which is moral. Since all atheist attempts at grounding objective morality have to do so on "that which is" i.e. the physical unconscious reality it commits the classic is- ought problem which only theism can avoid by grounding morality on a singular nesaccary conscoius being i.e. mind capable of carrying out moral prescriptions
btw you can take a look at my playlist titled "Objective morality as proof for the necessity of God's existence" for more detailed and a better analysis of morality because no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed numerous text-book example straw mans
If our compass of morality is twisted by our "biological faults", and we are entirely biological beings, than that morality itself faulty, because how would you separate "good'" biology and "bad" biology objectively? Unless that morality isn't purely biological, but then where does it come from?
I think best moral decisions we make are the ones made after looking at the larger perspective and consequences. By refusing our biases while being empathetic..we make better decisions for ourselves and others
@@JM-us3fr not exactly i Mean virtue ethics is about 3 things that morality or moral values are good if they have long term benefit good intention and produces virtuous character
My Morals are mine and they might be a bit skewed but they are mine. They are always changing at times it's a judgment call. I am no one to jusge your morals.
One also mustn't underestimate that people arguing for morality purely being subjective usually have something very important to gain from this viewpoint, because it would mean that they cannot be hold accountable to any objective standards of morals (for example by a God) if all morality is purely subjective. Just something to keep in mind.
One must also consider that people arguing for morality being objective usually have something very important to gain from this viewpoint, because it would mean that those that are more powerful than them can be held accountable; even though they themselves cannot enforce this accountability.
"they cannot be hold accountable to any objective standards of morals" Name ONE objective standard of morals. Oh! You already did! Well then... How is God an objective standard of morals? I mean, even if we all assume, he is real... Even we all assume, that we know what he deems moral... How could one prove that this judgement is objective, and not merely an opinion of an omnipotent being? After all, everyone is free to disagree with those morals, and live according to their own standards. Who's to say, those people are wrong?
@@ghurcbghurcb nobody can say they are wrong which is why this discussion is pointless and why laws don't make any sense. You're just atoms. Stop trying to make reason to this pointless life.
People convinced by the logical reasons behind moral subjectivity are somewhat emotionally benefitted from this belief (which is debatable and subjectivity might be a harder thing to cope with than objectivity which we've usually always thought things were like as a society)...therefore the logical argument is somehow void..? Just something to keep in mind.
@@ghurcbghurcbthe results. When people decide to make their own supposed morality, the ones that invent one farthest from the truth (such as murderers, robbers and rapists) bring harm in the world that breaks things down because it's contrary to how the world was designed to work. It's obvious enough.
Something common I've seen is people finding subjectiveness an insult But in reality, objectiveness has no care. Objective thoughts mostly come from objective questions asked for subjective reasons Subjective thought and style is what keeps us alive, and, if it's strong enough, is also the will to live and act with purpose Practically, subjectiveness is literally the barebone of so many essentials for us and objectiveness is mostly just a tool regularly used to follow subjective paths The fact that I prefer objective thought, can be considered a curse
Thank you for making this video about morality. I requested to make a video about morality just a few days ago and I find it so hard to believe that here the video is. You create such a high quality videos in such a short period of time. Wow. Thank you aperture, I now have a better understanding of what morality is.
I believe the general rule for some of these moral dilemmas should be “life over property.” The issue is when it comes to saving the life of one individual or another.
The law is written on our hearts, and conscience also bears witness, and our conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse our actions. The way we think and our morality behind certain actions differs between person to person but morality is concrete. Murder was always wrong even when Hitler thought it was right at The Holocaust, or any other person who decided to take someone elses life.
@@Midwestemoisme Morality is concrete, but different cutlures justify or rationalize different actions or behaviors. For example, the reason the Nazis tortured and killed so many Jews was because Hitler dehumanized them in the eyes of the Nazis. More than that, he taught that they were a threat to society. If morality wasn't concrete, why go through the trouble of dehumanizing the Jews at all?
Imagine a peaceful world, where scientists, researchers, technologists, etc. could apply a learned teaching, such as morality to their experiments and future design for the common good. What society would we all want to craft (goals), having such a high morality and peace as a foundation? In valuing public safety, would there be a need for weapons research? In valuing people's health and nourishment, would there be a need for creating poisons to execute people via injection? Just Imagine all the inefficiencies our system has, all because we fear another party would conspire against us: immorally. While its smart to survive, its smarter to be efficient - if it can be trusted, and we didn't have to focus as a society so much on War or Crime because we knew our lives weren't as dangerous or risky to live, solving the problems in the world that really shouldn't be problems, but are.
@catsrule7751 well in this world of peace would be a slight problem, without a bad side of life there can be no comparison. So would good still be good or is everyone just chillin happy vibes 🤔😂
This is an excellent video, as a philosopher myself I have pondered this time and time again. And I've come to the same conclusion, morality is subjective. But it is also societal. And religion has played such a role in it in the past, they can be hard to break away from
you can take a look at my playlist titled "Objective morality as proof for the necessity of God's existence" for more detailed and a better analysis of morality because no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed a major straw man, namely, when we say objective, we don't mean that its something which all humans agree on, rather it is what's true independent of humans. A great example would be science. Scientists cannot agree on many things about the outside real world which is the way it is independently of humans i.e. they differ in their views, but that doesnt mean that there doesnt exist one correct view which describes reality accuratly. Another common straw man is the argument that some actions can be moral in certain situations whereas not so in others. This counterargument conflates between objective and absolute morality. Whereas absolute morality states that an action is wrong in all possible scenarios objective morality postulates a context sensitive understanding of morality where all moral variables in a given situation determine the necessary moral answer or range of moral answers. A great analogy would be equalities in maths where the value of all known numbers and the operations contribute to the final objective answer or inequalities which have a range of valid answer which are objective aswell as those which do not belong to the set of valid answers.
My Religious Studies teacher showed us 5 minutes of this vid in class, but I had to come and personally subscribe because of how interesting this video is keep making this type of content. (I hope u are I’m 2 years late)
Morality is the first step towards insanity. The presence of morality is usually in the absence of spirituality. Humanity is where its at. When you present your morality/morales you'll lose everytime because of the vast differences in morales amongst humans. But? If you follow your humanity? You always win. Morality is external and humanity is internal. God bless 🙏 ✝️
He said "Without morality, all we have is utilitarianistic critical analysis". Then, I thought "Damn. That's what I've been doing for as long as I can remember..."
Never change, Aperture. Always create what is you, even when you are low on traffic, or losing flow, or losing ideas, even a burnout. Take your time to recover and just be you, we as your real audience will forever love what is you
Morality is basically a social contract that certain groups agree upon so we don't tear each other apart like wolf's , I mean wolf's are more considerate than us humans. Morality will differ upon the groups , one might not be the same for other and there also universal things that we agree upon which is basically a biological trait that goes back to our primates.
thing about morality is that people of different race, culture, country,colour,religion,gender can live and coexist peacefully if they share same morals.But people with different morality can never coexist with each other, never had never will. With this see how much blind and outright suicidal is the decisions of our society and politicians are.So personally for me morality should be something that can make your society more capable of knowledge and creation, then making use of that for the betterment of the human kind. And I love your content ,thank for making them.
If All Humans suddenly gained knowledge every aspect of emotion, memory, and events in every other Human on earth, how would that affect morality? Will it make everyone have the same morality?
Mann, I'm gonna be honest with you, your videos are amazing, It seems like you never fail at picking a subject to talk about, and plus your voice is so cool... Greetings from Brazil!!! 💗💗
I been watching aperture alot recently, I found his video on nihilism and he made me see so much before I was just oblivious of a whole bunch of things but his videos made me grow and learn little by little.
Objective or subjective : One thing's for sure - the standard of human values (in general, honesty, compassion, thinking of someone's well-being other than oneself, being truthful, always trying and doing the right thing etc. ) has been constantly declining. This is happening in a faster manner especially since the dawn of the internet. I, for one, struggle really hard everyday to not be pessimistic and to not completely lose my faith in humanity. I'm 28 and therefore have limited experiences in life but given the experience I have with humans it's quite difficult for me to not label myself as a misanthrope. 😐
I don't know if I agree it's been declining. Take discrimination as an example; a few decades ago far less people had compassion for minorities. A few centuries ago some people were straight up considered less than human for the color of their skin. Another example is how people treat children. Hitting your child used to be far more common and acceptable, at one point children were even treated as mini adults, but we've also become more compassionate in that regard. Or war. Sure, there are still some, but far less than there used to be. Honestly I think humanity's always kind of sucked. And while maybe we are declining in certain areas, we're also improving in others. The internet has just let knowledge, about both, the good and the bad, get to more people quicker.
Idk but I assumed that one of the reason for this is that you're surrounded by these kinds of people. I hope that you are now surrounded by people who gives importance to these values instead. Take care!
Great videos as always. Ideal time length. Just a small note though, in your last videos same scenes seem to come up in different thematology and if somebody pays attention to your videos seems confusing, if he goes by the "podcast" option it's ok. Thanks again for the great content and calming narration
Personally I try my best to stay away from thinking too much about this. Like recently I have been thinking a lot about adoption. Like it is moral right to give an orphan a new home, a family.. But makes me think like aren't the parents choosing among a group who they want to adopt. Like to me it is like going to store and selecting the best material among others. I mean I know what I feel is wrong but like I don't know this thought just doesn't go away. So I try to stay away from these thoughts. But great video. I mean I was expecting some answers but I know you only generate more curiosity than actually answering
you can take a look at my playlist titled "Objective morality as proof for the necessity of God's existence" for more detailed and a better analysis of morality because no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed a major straw man, namely, when we say objective, we don't mean that its something which all humans agree on, rather it is what's true independent of humans. A great example would be science. Scientists cannot agree on many things about the outside real world which is the way it is independently of humans i.e. they differ in their views, but that doesnt mean that there doesnt exist one correct view which describes reality accuratly. Another common straw man is the argument that some actions can be moral in certain situations whereas not so in others. This counterargument conflates between objective and absolute morality. Whereas absolute morality states that an action is wrong in all possible scenarios objective morality postulates a context sensitive understanding of morality where all moral variables in a given situation determine the necessary moral answer or range of moral answers. A great analogy would be equalities in maths where the value of all known numbers and the operations contribute to the final objective answer or inequalities which have a range of valid answer which are objective aswell as those which do not belong to the set of valid answers.
In my eyes. A little bit of mischief for a greater cause is on the good side. Those rich people already have more than they need. It's the poor, the needy people who might actually die without things like money, shelter and food. As long as ur you don't hurt anyone while driving over the speed limit to get ur ill son to the hospital. That's pretty acceptable to me. Morality is pretty simple tbh. If it benefits others, it's good or moral. If it harms others, it's bad, or immoral. If it harms the smaller to benefit the bigger, it's immoral. If it harms the bigger to benefit the smaller, it's moral. But that's just me tho.
I don’t understand morality, sometimes I don’t know what’s right and wrong, but I do know it isn’t what a book tells you, no matter how holy it claims to be.
So, as someone who admits to not knowing right and wrong, you're going to say definitively that something else is wrong, for no reason and with no evidence?
@@lancepeterson7997 If right and wrong we’re designed by a person wouldn’t it be less complicated? Sometimes doing one things is right, sometimes that same thing is wrong, sometimes it’s right that it’s sometimes right and sometimes wrong and sometimes it’s wrong that it’s sometimes wrong and sometimes right. Pretty confusing, seems more like something the human brain would get up to than something a holy person would invent.
I’m sure I speak for everyone who knows what i’m talking about when I say we would LOVE for you to do a video on liminal space. It’s one of those “i feel like we should’ve known this the whole time” kinda topics.
You're thinking in terms of absolutes. If you observe cultures across times and places you will find some common trends, we even find that cultures that violate some of these do not survive. Thus we can say there is some objectivity to morality, or in other words objective morality. There are other trends that are more efficient but less common and neither efficient nor inefficient and not particularly common across cultures. That is to say not all morality is objective, but some is likely to be.
I've been waiting for this video for a long time😁 and thank you so much for it. In my opinion here... I THINK morality is more of a way you were raised. Like stealing is wrong and helping is right. BUT, I told my uncle a rough theory of my perspective of morality. If you raise two children in separate conditions. One child learns the "Normal Good" (like helping, being respectful and that as being good), and the other child being raised in an "Opposite Good" (Like stealing, violence, and that as being good). Put them in a room many years later after being raised like that, and ask them who is right and who is wrong? IT'S JUST MY LITTLE OPINION AND THEORY, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR OPINIONS.
"as humans evolve and learn new things our morals Change" God that was so powerful. If you are looking for another video which delve into this topic search for "Good and evil" by afterskool
My morality is from God. The Bible explains this video exactly. It talks about how we can change our ideas and “morality” however that does not make it intrinsically morale. The Bible is the source that we can trace back to in order to help correct our beliefs. The word of God always has been. And it will sustain forever. Great video too with cool insights.
@Morgan Oates so by that logic, slavery is not intrinsically bad because many cultures still do it. Also by that logic the holocaust was not bad, it was just what some of the country felt was best for the economy. See how foolish that sounds. We can look at these things and rule them good or bad. If we did not come from God then we would just be chemical compositions roaming around and we would simply be products of a cosmic expansion of matter that was created from nothing which is scientifically impossible. So your argument against Morality from God would not be you reasoning to a conclusion, it would be your chemical composition reacting to a conclusion. Which once again does not add up. It would also be wrong to imprison anyone because their chemical ways of thinking are not inferior to ours with no God. But thankfully we do not have to adopt this way of thinking because God gave us true morality in the Bible. All God Inspired, written by about 40 prophets. Hopefully that makes sense my brother. I am open to hearing any rebuttal against it because I was not always Christian I just reasoned to it when I actually explored it. But I could go on and on with these facts. All love too, I pray that we only pick apart each other’s arguments and not each other as people.
@@kylefuchs By your logic, slavery is moral at worst, and amoral (not a question of morality) at best. The bible comdones slavery, laying down what you can do with them in Exodus, and failing to condemn it in the New Testament. Either god condones slavery forever, making him a horrible god, or he changed his mind eventually, making him someone an unreliable source for morals. Pick your poison.
@@zucc4764 my friend, I recommend you do not act like you know what you do not. The Bible does not once condone slavery. It talks about how the fallen world should deal with it. It never says that it is good. Also slavery in the Old Testament was beneficial to both parties. Slavery took place when someone could not pay their debt or if they were homeless. They would then work for someone in exchange for shelter and food or in exchange for their debt. The Bible then states that the slave owner should respect the slave and that the slave should do the same fkr the slave owner. It also says that the slave owner has authority over the slave in the sense of position but not worth. It basically says that the slave must follow the orders because they are being compensated for the work. What you have said is simple lack of understanding which is the plague of atheists and non believers. Or they just typically choose one verse and ignore all context around it, the origins of who is writing it, the origin of where it is being written, etc. Just because the Bible talks about it, it does not mean that it supports it. God states many times that we are all of value and are made in his image.
@@kylefuchs The Bible condones (does NOT prohibit) slavery in the Old Testament. God is OKAY with it! If he does not like it, he could have said, thou shalt not own any person as property, the same way he commanded thou shalt not kill. The fact is, he did NOT EXPLICITLY said it. Instead what he did was say, IF YOU HAVE SLAVES, here's how you should treat them. God is aware about slavery, makes rules about it but chooses not to forbid it outright. What else could you make of that? You even say it was beneficial! It says you own someone as property, it's in Exodus 21: 20, 21 “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." If god said you get to do something without punishment, he allows it. God said you will not be punished if your slave takes a beating and survives in a couple of days. He ALLOWS it. Please take a close look at your bible and be honest with yourself. I know you find this reprehensible and see slavery as another way to pay off debt with work, but it's worse than that, amd your bible attests to its horrors.
As long one is not hurting others or themselves(physically or otherwise), people should be able to do whatever they want. I know this statement by no means is complete but we can build from here.
I don't know about what is moral but here's my defination of IMMORAL :- if you do something and that hurts somebody in any way when you had other plausible way , it is immoral to do that.
you can take a look at my playlist titled "Objective morality as proof for the necessity of God's existence" for more detailed and a better analysis of morality because no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed a major straw man, namely, when we say objective, we don't mean that its something which all humans agree on, rather it is what's true independent of humans. A great example would be science. Scientists cannot agree on many things about the outside real world which is the way it is independently of humans i.e. they differ in their views, but that doesnt mean that there doesnt exist one correct view which describes reality accuratly. Another common straw man is the argument that some actions can be moral in certain situations whereas not so in others. This counterargument conflates between objective and absolute morality. Whereas absolute morality states that an action is wrong in all possible scenarios objective morality postulates a context sensitive understanding of morality where all moral variables in a given situation determine the necessary moral answer or range of moral answers. A great analogy would be equalities in maths where the value of all known numbers and the operations contribute to the final objective answer or inequalities which have a range of valid answer which are objective aswell as those which do not belong to the set of valid answers.
"What many would agree to be moral(publicly), thought with knowledge(maximum. ie experience(knowledge) with(of) many kind of people) that would tell to favour long term well being of many (under no circumstances). Will be closer to true morality" If there exist a morality & this is my point.
This video made me feel deja vu all for full length. For the while video I kept feeling like yeah I have heard these words or have heard these thoughts or straight up seen this part of the video. It was trippy as hell. WHY? Love your you content.
There is No Objective Morality without God. It is impossible as without God everything is just matter and particles randomly interacting. With God however you see order and harmony and reason and purpose behind it all. If Good and Evil truly exist then God must exist otherwise it is just subjective and based on nothing
I dont believe anything is objectively immoral except for sexual assault and pedophilia. Everything else has situational justification, including murder, lying, and stealing.
Not to seem rude, but you do realize that still is implicitly accepting moral objectivism? The fact that you may not accept moral generalism for statements like "murder is bad" doesn't mean much when you do in fact accept that certain moral statements (and the acts they describe) are objectively immoral. It may seem like a trivial point, but this distinction makes ur position very different from say an actual moral relativist since they believe that all moral statements are true or false relative to culture, time period etc. If even some are true, you accept a form of moral realism
@@nevermind8063 Am I wrong? Can you name a single time where either of the immoral things Ive named are situationaly acceptable? Cause I can come up with multiple examples of moral and acceptable murder, lying and stealing.
@@spinoodii well that was not my point. What I meant is that you are still by definition a moral realist (objectivist) since those are objectively immoral according to your view. I said nothing about whether ur view is true or false Generally speaking a moral objectivist/realist argument has 2 premises 1) Moral claims with descriptives such as "immoral" refer to moral properties (the quality of being immoral), and thus moral claims like "genocide is bad" express things that may be objectively true or false 2) *at least some* of these claims are true There is also sometimes an additional metaphysical thesis, but it's not required. Since you accept both premise 1 and 2 you would fall under the objectivist camp. I felt the need to highlight this because Aperture's video leans heavily towards the opposite side (the anti-realist/subjectivist view) and so rejects the 2nd premise. If you accept that even certain things like sexual assault are objectively bad, then it would seem to be in direct opposition to the argument posed in the video. Moral subjectivism is not compatible with objective, situation independent ethical principles, no matter which. Just for clarification I do think you're right. I hope I didn't type too much 😅
But there still is no evidence and your opinion is not such, especially since morality is objectively changed by society. Society is real, God is an improbably and morality is a social construct.
@@unlimitedperseverance1706 I believe nothing. Belief is defined as ignorance. "Good and evil" is a very generalized question with absolutely no context. Define such per your perspective. Objectively, social construct dictates all that is moral. Morality is geographical.
@@brookekathryn1980 So basically murder isn't really wrong according to this logic. Your grasping at straws right now to defend your position. I know deep down you don't really even believe what your saying.
@@PloverTechOfficial no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed a major straw man, namely, when we say objective, we don't mean that its something which all humans agree on, rather it is what's true independent of humans. A great example would be science. Scientists cannot agree on many things about the outside real world which is the way it is independently of humans i.e. they differ in their views, but that doesnt mean that there doesnt exist one correct view which describes reality accuratly. Another common straw man is the argument that some actions can be moral in certain situations whereas not so in others. This counterargument conflates between objective and absolute morality. Whereas absolute morality states that an action is wrong in all possible scenarios objective morality postulates a context sensitive understanding of morality where all moral variables in a given situation determine the necessary moral answer or range of moral answers. A great analogy would be equalities in maths where the value of all known numbers and the operations contribute to the final objective answer or inequalities which have a range of valid answer which are objective aswell as those which do not belong to the set of valid answers are the wrong answers.
@@tifahefendijagaming9606 yes! You are very correct. Not everything could be mentioned. Or was even thought to be. No matter how important. And this is a very deep topic and could definitely warrant more than a 20 minute video.
I know ads are important for creater, but if possible dont put ads in between. I really enjoy ur videos with my eyes closed and giving it full attention. The ads just disturb it. Btw Great work keep it up.😄
Just because we cannot agree that murder/sacrifices/etc. are not immoral within every culture that does not mean that objective morality is not a thing. The conclusion does not follow from that premise. Just because we cannot agree it doesn’t mean that objective morality does not exist. Secondly, just because we are not born with objective morality within us it also doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. We aren’t born knowing our names, words, love, or anything. A “clean slate” OF SORTS. Third, a god is not necessary to give us morality. I suggest watching some videos by Sam Harris or the CosmicSkeptic on morality where they do an excellent job of defining objective morality and how a god is not necessitated
i love your videos they......really hit different it kinda changed the way i this mainly the dom and kruger affect and this one i hope you live a long life so i could give more time for your videos as long as i live
I love the statement at the end that "morality is not measured in absolutes". I kind of wish that this was mentioned early on in the video and not just the tail end, which sadly will not be seen by most people who do watch this video.
@@knowledgeablebro6970 it's a very gray area of discussion, making it more subjective than objective. Thinking of morality by any kind of clearly defined measurable metrics leads to extreme positions, which leads to extremism. Just think of what Immanuel Kant would say?
@@knowledgeablebro6970 there are exceptions to ALMOST everything. There can of course never be any excuse for rape. But then there is room for a moral argument when it comes to capital punishment under any circumstances.
@@TheTimelapseTraveler By murder I meant of innocents. Also, moral dilemmas existing isn't proof of morality being subjective, just like unsolved equation isn't proof of advanced mathematics Being subjective. For example, the trolley problem; which action is better between reducing the amount of deaths 5 to 1, or inaction. Preventing you from physically causing death.. I'm not sure. But what I do know is that if I had the opportunity to stop the train I would. As oppose to willfully choosing to let them die in a brutal accident.
Morals are an evolutionary trait to give the human species the best chance to continue to survive preferably ad infinitum. In the way that morality is merely a function of our best ability to adapt to natural laws for our own survival, you can argue that the actual defined morals are the rules that best adapt to natural laws and are thus objective. Part of the reason punching someone is bad is because momentum transfers from fist into skull, had it not done that punching someone would likely not have been that big of a problem. Thus as the rules for morality are merely that which gives us the best chance at surviving (or thriving) for as long as possible given the natural laws, they are in fact objective. They do not care about whether you believe a punch is evil or not, a punch will still transfer momentum and potentially even kill another person, therefore the rule our evolutionary adaptations are attempting to approximate does not in fact care whether your subjective beliefs are in alignment with it.
stealing from the rich and giving to the poor: immoral. driving over the speed limit to get to the hospital: moral. stealing from the rich and giving is immoral because stealing is always immoral. That person rightfully owns what they have and the poor do not. driving over the speed limit to get to the hospital is moral because it's an emergency. the law literally makes it legal for ambulances to go over the speed limit for this exact reason.
„Love is transforming all of the verbal and paper proclamations to a way of life“ „Environment shapes behavior“ „the mechanistic point of view“ „future by design “ Please learn more about the alternative system to monetary economy, which is named Resource Based Economy RBE, and help making earth a better place! Thank you ❤️🗺️🖖🐇
let's all be honest, we love his videos
Just the plain truth
This is an immoral statement.
bruh ofc we do if we dont he wouldn't have been popular in the first place
Very!
Love is a understatement, this content should be mandatory for your right to Rights!!!!!!!!!!
To the *worthwhile person* seeing this, your dream is not dead. Don’t allow the past and current pains and hurts stop and define you. You’re more than a conqueror. Rise up and put yourself together. Keep pushing your future depends on it. I wish you all the best in life ❤️.
I needed this. I hope I could achieve my dream.
Do we need god for that?
@@uzairtesla3202 no we can make our own morals
Thank you bro, my grandpa died today 16 years ago, and your words encouraged me. GOD bless you, friend
Likewise stranger friend, dreams never truly die unless we kill them.
I believe it’s important to first answer the questions “Why and how morality came to be? What purpose does morality serve?”, before we can meaningfully talk about “What is moral”.
To me, moralities developed in various cultures and societies, to reduce conflicts and enhance harmony. Basically to creat a more favorable environment by encouraging and discouraging certain behaviors. So it’s better for us humans to thrive.
There are obviously more than one way to create favorable environments for human. Since there are more than one solution to the problem, therefore there are more than one set of universal morality.
In the end, I believe all actions that enhances our species’ collective benefits(survival, reproduction, evolution biologically and intellectually), are moral.
In the end it could come down to the process of natural selection being applied to cultural and intellectual aspects, instead of only biological aspects.
Agreed. It's not discussed, but some cultures encouraged and discouraged certain behaviors which led to hundreds of years of success and progress, while others with differing morals led to collapse.
The ebb and flow continues as new morals are "experimenting" their way into the culture. Will these lead to a healthier society, or will these new morals erode and regress our society such that we become nothing more than a footnote in the annals of history?
Morality didn't start as a way to reduce conflicts and enhance harmony lmao. Laws do that. Morality was a social subversion of Pagan values, brought about through the spread of Judeo-Christian religion during the transition from Antiquity to The Dark Ages. Before this, ancient civilizations such as The Romans or Greek City-States defined "morality" not in accordance with "Good/Evil", but "Good/Bad" in accordance with personal benefit. It was actually completely juxtaposed to modern ideas of morality. Being wealthy and powerful was not seen as greedy, it was a trait to be desired. Asserting dominance over others wasn't wrathful, but a sign of strength. Pride is encouraged and developed, etc.
It wasn't until the spread of Christianity (a religion primarily propagated amongst the slave classes of antiquity) that their concept of morality spread in an attempt to flip the old axis on it's head. This coincides, and in fact is the direct catalyst of, The Dark Ages; drenched in religious superstition and claims of moral highground as they were.
Ever since, we've operated under the Judeo-Christian based axis of morality. Self-sacrifice is good, compassion is good, take care of the weak, etc.
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no Morality is a set of principles, used to determine right from wrong. It exists in all cultures. It certainly exists in Christianity as well, but not exclusively.
And yes, laws do help in reducing conflicts and enhancing harmony, too. There are more than one solution to the problem. Very often, multiple strategies are applied at the same time, especially for something as important as a society’s or species’ collective good.
@@TheNumbuh121 yes, I think that’s how our ancestors beat the Neanderthal who was physically stronger, and possibly individually smarter due to their larger brain size. But us homosapien hung out in larger social groups
" Truth is certainly a branch of morality and a very important one to society"
-Thomas Jefferson"
So truth and morality might be interconnected?👣
@@balasubr2252 I don't think so tho, if there's very hurtful truth that might give some truma Or can shocked someone, would it be right to say the truth to that person? Would it be morality? And what is truth anyway? We can't determine what is good and bad, it same goes for truth too, we can't differentiate the lie and the truth.
@@bipin3639 Well expressed thoughts requiring careful attention to details. Why not indulge in the "self and all the rest" for everyone and everything to demark the differences in the evolution of the self from the antiquity to the eternity? By so doing, we might discover, if there is a "self" and does it evolve or not as well as the relationships of systems be they morality or anything else?
a branch of morality? Truth is the only thing morality depends on.
@@blumacaw9399 If so, how are we understand this: ua-cam.com/video/bFCOm1P_cQQ/v-deo.html ?
I already like this video I've been questioning morality alot recently so it should help
What's your thinking
Follow your inner compass!!
you can take a look at my playlist titled "Objective morality as proof for the necessity of God's existence" for more detailed and a better analysis of morality because no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed a major straw man, namely, when we say objective, we don't mean that its something which all humans agree on, rather it is what's true independent of humans. A great example would be science. Scientists cannot agree on many things about the outside real world which is the way it is independently of humans i.e. they differ in their views, but that doesnt mean that there doesnt exist one correct view which describes reality accuratly. Another common straw man is the argument that some actions can be moral in certain situations whereas not so in others. This counterargument conflates between objective and absolute morality. Whereas absolute morality states that an action is wrong in all possible scenarios objective morality postulates a context sensitive understanding of morality where all moral variables in a given situation determine the necessary moral answer or range of moral answers. A great analogy would be equalities in maths where the value of all known numbers and the operations contribute to the final objective answer or inequalities which have a range of valid answer which are objective aswell as those which do not belong to the set of valid answers.
It comes objectively from God. Or it doesn't exist. Only one option
This video is exactly what's wrong with the world
Morality is the backbone of a society , if there were no place for moral values we would cut each other's throat. So to all the young people here, this is the time you build your moral values and don't fear to fight for your morals, it's not going to get you in trouble its only going to make you stronger
Are you saying that cutting each other's throats is immoral? That sounds like a moral judgement.
@@Jay-ate-a-bug lol
@@Jay-ate-a-bug I said moral values prevents that
@@hishamshafi8819 And who's Moral values determine that?
@@Jay-ate-a-bug every groups has certain moral values and these values differ upon groups
The simplest definition of morality I can come up with right at this moment is that "it's what tells us to take the decision which causes the least harm to everyone, not equally, but in proportion to what they seemingly deserve."
I remember trying to explain the subjectivity of morality to people back when I was around 10 years old, and getting increasingly frustrated at the fact that no one seemed to understand, even adults. Everyone seemingly unable to think outside the boundaries of a very restrictive and intangible box that seemed to imprison their minds.
The very subject of morality opens up a doorway into the paradoxical nature of the universe, and having spent my life dwelling upon philosophical concepts, most of which came from internal contemplation rather than external sources or literature, I have come to realise that if you go deep enough into any philosophical rabbithole, at the bottom lies a paradox.
Is morality subjective or objective?
I believe this question is comparable and intrinsically linked to the question of whether or not there is a God, and also ties into the question of free will.
First we must define God. Let's take this dictionary definition:
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."
Now we run straight into several paradoxes, collectively known as the omnipotence paradox.
This is a complex subject in itself so I will only briefly delve, but to sum it up; "Could God create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?"
God cannot be omnipotent, as this is a paradox.
One thing to bear in mind here is that we may be fundamentally limited as humans, by both language, and our ability to process logic, and there may be a solution to this that lies outside of the reach of our understanding.
So, in argument of objective morality we have to ignore the paradox of omnipotence and assume that if there is an omnipotent and omniscient creator, 'he' would be the arbiter of morality, and..
Now we run into yet more paradoxes relating to free will:
If God is omnipotent and omniscient then the universe is, by necessity, deterministic.
If the future is predetermined, then how can any human or other life form possibly be responsible for their own actions, if they are only following a preordained path through life?
Basically, "If God made the game, it's rules, and the players, then how can any player be free?"
Now, in argument of morality being purely subjective:
It would appear to be completely subjective when you disregard the idea of a God, and attempt to look at the natural order of things from a non-human perspective. The universe seems to be a vast and uncaring place.
You can easily observe what we would consider moral behaviour among humans and other social animals, and it would appear that morality formed as an evolutionary response among creatures that evolved with co-operation.
Outside of these closed systems, it is not observed anywhere else, and by the very fact that it exists within closed systems and varies greatly from one system to another, would mean by definition, that morality is subjective.
Now even if we were to take the position of morality being entirely subjective in nature, we are not free of the burden of paradox.
If we were to take the following presupposition: "Suffering is bad, and pleasure is good"
So logically, we could say it is moral to cause no suffering.
Well, your entire existence is based on suffering. There is no possible way that you can exist without inflicting varying degrees of suffering. What is good for one person may have dire consequences for another, and I'm not just talking about the things that you directly interact with.
Our whole society and ecosystem is a giant network of interconnected subsystems that are both co-dependant and in competition, and just by existing you are an active participant in the direction that these systems flow in.
One example of this would be if a large supermarket were to open in a small town. The owner has created many new jobs, prosperity, and services which will benefit many people in the town. But this is at the expense of small business owners who will now no longer be able to compete in prices, and may lose their livelihoods. Was this a moral thing to do? It would depend who you asked.
Another good way to analogise this, would be the classic example of the trolley problem.
For anyone not aware of the trolley problem:
"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:
Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?"
Now consider that you are making countless choices like this every day, albeit, not ones that *directly* result in death, but, due to the butterfly effect, will have huge consequences in the long term.
Another example:
Most people eat meat, in order for these people to live then other sentient life forms must suffer and die.
Even if you are vegan, plants demonstrate clear signs of self preservation. They have evolved defence mechanisms to protect themselves from predation, and just because humans are incabable of empathising with a life form so vastly different, this does not detract from the fact that an organism has a will to live and you are depriving that organism of it's will.
We do not know on what level plants suffer, or to what extent they are conscious, but that does not mean that they don't suffer and that they're not conscious.
To sum it up:
These are things that I have contemplated for a long time, and, the only reasonable solution I can fathom is to just try to avoid any action that will directly result in unnecessary suffering.
Peace and love to all. 👽
I agree completely mate. I realized too, after lots of internal contemplation on philosophical issues that everything eventually boils down to a paradox or contradiction of some sort.
so I will thank u first for this. I kind of like reading these things they give many arguments at once
btw what kind of books do you read
if you can suggest some to me
I loved reading that thanks
Can God create a rock heavy enough as He cannot lift if? Now my question is can he lift it? cause if He cant lift it He is not all Able. This Kind of questions come because of the lack of knowledge about God. God is All Able but He is also All Powerful and He does not do things that goes against His nature. The other question was where is the free will if God created every action and knows everything? my first question is what is related to your freewill and His knowledge? for example if I knew that you're going to fail the exam does that make me the one who made you fail? God's creation of all actions doesn't make you not have your freewill. you have it and you know it. to make it easier to understand. imagine you are standing between two cupboards in each are drawers. on the right cupboard there are good actions and on the left are bad actions. and they're all choices for you to choose one. God gave you the ability to choose which does not lose anything from His abilities. and when you choose one if God willed He will open the drawer and give you access to the action. But if He did not willed it for you then you cant do it even if it is a good thing or a bad thing. for example while you are going to a party to do a bad thing but you got into an accident and you weren't able to attend the party.. Does God know what you will choose? yes absolutely, what's the problem if you are choosing from your own freewill. Maybe you want God to not to know some of the things you do?
@@umaishilyas8826 umm where is it written that God won't do anything against his nature. And also why
If it's something religious then let's forget it
I find morality to be something most people agree upon. One funny example is that people agreed Minecraft is cringe in pre-2017s. And majority agreed with it. Suddenly top guys in UA-cam started playing it and now Minecraft is no more cringe but has actually risen to a point where it is considered holy grail among other 'bad' games like Fortnite and Genshin. People always lean on what majority says smh.
Even anime have the same treatment, but now is everywhere in the media at least the entertainment industry
Yep, I’ve noticed this. I’m a Genshin player, a player of a game considered “bad” or “cringe” but I enjoy it, so I’ll keep playing as long as I’m interested in it/makes me happy. Maybe the “cringe” label will disappear as bigger UA-camrs start playing.
@@zhomap430 Right, I remember liking anime used to be bad and cringey, but now everyone watches it and it’s a lot more acceptable
I always noticed this, it never changes, most People prefer to follow the Group's Opinion
@@fwoop4848 I agree. Watching anime is immoral
Aperture, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your videos always bring a sense of calmness and bliss and gives a feeling that we all are in this together.
Keep moving forward, Aperture! ❤️
One thing I have frequently thought about throughout my life is how valuable a person’s life is based on their age.
I remember when I was a little kid the people in my family would rather have died themselves than have me die, even though I always thought the opposite. I realize now, that in the past, I valued a life based on the experience it has.
I still don’t think experience is something to completely disregard, but I have started realize how valuable potential/experiences to be gained is as well. I now understand why the people in my family valued my life more than their own, it is because even though they have more experience, I still have more potential/experiences to be gained.
I’m still not sure which of the two is more valuable, but unlike when I was younger, I now understand the value of both of those factors.
I remember getting into an argument with my friend about whether or not morality is objective or subjective. I don't believe in God but I believe objective morality can be found in nature through consequentialism. I believe that the only reason why morality appears subjective is because the compass that is morality can be shifted and charted off course by our own biological faults, faulty reasoning and lack of information considering a situation.
Morality is a survival strategy for humans and like all survival strategies they don't always work.
Just like veganism vs meat-eating. Is what the vegans claim objective or subjective?
when atheist say objective morality can be based on consequentialism (or anything else other than an external neseccary mind) commit the ultimate begging the question fallacy. if you say an action is good because it results in the best aoutcome you basically assume the fact that the outcome of the said action IS the moral outcome. As plainly and simply one can put the heart of the majority of atheist views would be the following with perhaps some additional rules such the harm principle "the action which results in more pleasure than pain is a moral one and the opposite for actions which result in more suffering than pleasure". This assumes tho that pleasure is that which is moral. Since all atheist attempts at grounding objective morality have to do so on "that which is" i.e. the physical unconscious reality it commits the classic is- ought problem which only theism can avoid by grounding morality on a singular nesaccary conscoius being i.e. mind capable of carrying out moral prescriptions
btw you can take a look at my playlist titled "Objective morality as proof for the necessity of God's existence" for more detailed and a better analysis of morality because no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed numerous text-book example straw mans
If our compass of morality is twisted by our "biological faults", and we are entirely biological beings, than that morality itself faulty, because how would you separate "good'" biology and "bad" biology objectively? Unless that morality isn't purely biological, but then where does it come from?
That’s not what he’s saying. He means faults in our biology obscure our ability to recognize an unfaulty morality
I think best moral decisions we make are the ones made after looking at the larger perspective and consequences.
By refusing our biases while being empathetic..we make better decisions for ourselves and others
well said
That's known as virtue ethics
U pullin a thanos
@@rufusjohngoa I don’t think that’s right.
@@JM-us3fr not exactly i Mean virtue ethics is about 3 things that morality or moral values are good if they have long term benefit good intention and produces virtuous character
Finally, the most awaited video from aperture.
Great job as always.
Keep it up.
My Morals are mine and they might be a bit skewed but they are mine. They are always changing at times it's a judgment call. I am no one to jusge your morals.
One also mustn't underestimate that people arguing for morality purely being subjective usually have something very important to gain from this viewpoint, because it would mean that they cannot be hold accountable to any objective standards of morals (for example by a God) if all morality is purely subjective. Just something to keep in mind.
One must also consider that people arguing for morality being objective usually have something very important to gain from this viewpoint, because it would mean that those that are more powerful than them can be held accountable; even though they themselves cannot enforce this accountability.
"they cannot be hold accountable to any objective standards of morals"
Name ONE objective standard of morals. Oh! You already did!
Well then...
How is God an objective standard of morals?
I mean, even if we all assume, he is real... Even we all assume, that we know what he deems moral...
How could one prove that this judgement is objective, and not merely an opinion of an omnipotent being? After all, everyone is free to disagree with those morals, and live according to their own standards.
Who's to say, those people are wrong?
@@ghurcbghurcb nobody can say they are wrong which is why this discussion is pointless and why laws don't make any sense. You're just atoms. Stop trying to make reason to this pointless life.
People convinced by the logical reasons behind moral subjectivity are somewhat emotionally benefitted from this belief (which is debatable and subjectivity might be a harder thing to cope with than objectivity which we've usually always thought things were like as a society)...therefore the logical argument is somehow void..? Just something to keep in mind.
@@ghurcbghurcbthe results. When people decide to make their own supposed morality, the ones that invent one farthest from the truth (such as murderers, robbers and rapists) bring harm in the world that breaks things down because it's contrary to how the world was designed to work. It's obvious enough.
Something common I've seen is people finding subjectiveness an insult
But in reality, objectiveness has no care.
Objective thoughts mostly come from objective questions asked for subjective reasons
Subjective thought and style is what keeps us alive, and, if it's strong enough, is also the will to live and act with purpose
Practically, subjectiveness is literally the barebone of so many essentials for us and objectiveness is mostly just a tool regularly used to follow subjective paths
The fact that I prefer objective thought, can be considered a curse
Thank you for making this video about morality. I requested to make a video about morality just a few days ago and I find it so hard to believe that here the video is. You create such a high quality videos in such a short period of time. Wow. Thank you aperture, I now have a better understanding of what morality is.
some of the highest quality videos I've seen on UA-cam. Keep it up man 👍🔥
Morality is more often than not, a set of precepts that have been gradually normalized in a given society over time.
One of the best UA-cam channels. Thanks for all of this always solid and rich content.
I believe the general rule for some of these moral dilemmas should be “life over property.” The issue is when it comes to saving the life of one individual or another.
I read “what is mortality” and I was like wow, that’s dark
The law is written on our hearts, and conscience also bears witness, and our conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse our actions. The way we think and our morality behind certain actions differs between person to person but morality is concrete. Murder was always wrong even when Hitler thought it was right at The Holocaust, or any other person who decided to take someone elses life.
He just said in the video speaking about actions you find barbaric but is normal in other cultures, morality isn’t concrete
Morality is subjective.
@@Midwestemoisme Morality is concrete, but different cutlures justify or rationalize different actions or behaviors. For example, the reason the Nazis tortured and killed so many Jews was because Hitler dehumanized them in the eyes of the Nazis. More than that, he taught that they were a threat to society. If morality wasn't concrete, why go through the trouble of dehumanizing the Jews at all?
I posed a question when I was 16.
"How will the way we pose questions change when morality become irrelevant?"
This video should be interesting
Imagine a peaceful world, where scientists, researchers, technologists, etc. could apply a learned teaching, such as morality to their experiments and future design for the common good. What society would we all want to craft (goals), having such a high morality and peace as a foundation? In valuing public safety, would there be a need for weapons research? In valuing people's health and nourishment, would there be a need for creating poisons to execute people via injection? Just Imagine all the inefficiencies our system has, all because we fear another party would conspire against us: immorally. While its smart to survive, its smarter to be efficient - if it can be trusted, and we didn't have to focus as a society so much on War or Crime because we knew our lives weren't as dangerous or risky to live, solving the problems in the world that really shouldn't be problems, but are.
@catsrule7751 well in this world of peace would be a slight problem, without a bad side of life there can be no comparison. So would good still be good or is everyone just chillin happy vibes 🤔😂
This is an excellent video, as a philosopher myself I have pondered this time and time again. And I've come to the same conclusion, morality is subjective. But it is also societal. And religion has played such a role in it in the past, they can be hard to break away from
you can take a look at my playlist titled "Objective morality as proof for the necessity of God's existence" for more detailed and a better analysis of morality because no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed a major straw man, namely, when we say objective, we don't mean that its something which all humans agree on, rather it is what's true independent of humans. A great example would be science. Scientists cannot agree on many things about the outside real world which is the way it is independently of humans i.e. they differ in their views, but that doesnt mean that there doesnt exist one correct view which describes reality accuratly. Another common straw man is the argument that some actions can be moral in certain situations whereas not so in others. This counterargument conflates between objective and absolute morality. Whereas absolute morality states that an action is wrong in all possible scenarios objective morality postulates a context sensitive understanding of morality where all moral variables in a given situation determine the necessary moral answer or range of moral answers. A great analogy would be equalities in maths where the value of all known numbers and the operations contribute to the final objective answer or inequalities which have a range of valid answer which are objective aswell as those which do not belong to the set of valid answers.
Should we break away from it?
Hey Josh, nice to see you here!
@@tifahefendijagaming9606 Yeah, you said "God" I'm out... Not into fairy tales.
If morality is subjective then how is murder wrong?
Obrigado pelo conteúdo contínuo, valioso e bastante perceptível.
@@mauriciozanella5496 também n sei
@@umbrperdido4662 eu também n
@@maybeanonymous6846 nem eu kkkk
@@mauriciozanella5496 Porque você é brasileiro
Sla
My Religious Studies teacher showed us 5 minutes of this vid in class, but I had to come and personally subscribe because of how interesting this video is keep making this type of content. (I hope u are I’m 2 years late)
His voice is so calming and he makes science and education videos, entertaining!.he's so cool :)
Morality is the first step towards insanity. The presence of morality is usually in the absence of spirituality. Humanity is where its at. When you present your morality/morales you'll lose everytime because of the vast differences in morales amongst humans. But? If you follow your humanity? You always win. Morality is external and humanity is internal. God bless 🙏 ✝️
The difference between morality and law is, law depends on an action while morality depends on the motive behind the action.
Consequentialism has left the chat
He said "Without morality, all we have is utilitarianistic critical analysis". Then, I thought "Damn. That's what I've been doing for as long as I can remember..."
this would’ve helped me so much for my philosophy essay a month ago 😭
Aaaah, this video hits the spot 🤤 just like all Apertures videos... So calming
Never change, Aperture. Always create what is you, even when you are low on traffic, or losing flow, or losing ideas, even a burnout. Take your time to recover and just be you, we as your real audience will forever love what is you
Cringe
I appreciate the ads at the end of the video instead of in the middle of video that most UA-camrs do.
Keep up the good work! Always love these mind provoking videos
Morality is basically a social contract that certain groups agree upon so we don't tear each other apart like wolf's , I mean wolf's are more considerate than us humans. Morality will differ upon the groups , one might not be the same for other and there also universal things that we agree upon which is basically a biological trait that goes back to our primates.
Damn right
And why humans should rip each other apart if they have morality, do you have proof ?
Religion argues it brought morality but throughout human history it’s obvious most devastation was caused by rel
Reddit moment
thing about morality is that people of different race, culture, country,colour,religion,gender can live and coexist peacefully if they share same morals.But people with different morality can never coexist with each other, never had never will.
With this see how much blind and outright suicidal is the decisions of our society and politicians are.So personally for me morality should be something that can make your society more capable of knowledge and creation, then making use of that for the betterment of the human kind.
And I love your content ,thank for making them.
If All Humans suddenly gained knowledge every aspect of emotion, memory, and events in every other Human on earth, how would that affect morality? Will it make everyone have the same morality?
Mann, I'm gonna be honest with you, your videos are amazing, It seems like you never fail at picking a subject to talk about, and plus your voice is so cool...
Greetings from Brazil!!! 💗💗
I been watching aperture alot recently, I found his video on nihilism and he made me see so much before I was just oblivious of a whole bunch of things but his videos made me grow and learn little by little.
Objective or subjective :
One thing's for sure - the standard of human values (in general, honesty, compassion, thinking of someone's well-being other than oneself, being truthful, always trying and doing the right thing etc. ) has been constantly declining. This is happening in a faster manner especially since the dawn of the internet. I, for one, struggle really hard everyday to not be pessimistic and to not completely lose my faith in humanity. I'm 28 and therefore have limited experiences in life but given the experience I have with humans it's quite difficult for me to not label myself as a misanthrope. 😐
I don't know if I agree it's been declining. Take discrimination as an example; a few decades ago far less people had compassion for minorities. A few centuries ago some people were straight up considered less than human for the color of their skin. Another example is how people treat children. Hitting your child used to be far more common and acceptable, at one point children were even treated as mini adults, but we've also become more compassionate in that regard. Or war. Sure, there are still some, but far less than there used to be.
Honestly I think humanity's always kind of sucked. And while maybe we are declining in certain areas, we're also improving in others. The internet has just let knowledge, about both, the good and the bad, get to more people quicker.
Idk but I assumed that one of the reason for this is that you're surrounded by these kinds of people. I hope that you are now surrounded by people who gives importance to these values instead. Take care!
Morality is just a social construct. There is no good or bad... There is and there isn't. Either something happens, or it does not.
Ah, nihilism
Not always
To be honest
I actually watch his videos for his voice
I literally love it
Great videos as always. Ideal time length. Just a small note though, in your last videos same scenes seem to come up in different thematology and if somebody pays attention to your videos seems confusing, if he goes by the "podcast" option it's ok. Thanks again for the great content and calming narration
this is the best thing i've ever heard about morality.I really apreciate who made that
Thank you for this video. You’re an amazing person doing a hell of a service that benefits everyone. Humanity needs this.
ive been having a battle with myself on whatever's right or wrong in my life lately.. its definitely complex but i really appreciate this video.
Personally I try my best to stay away from thinking too much about this. Like recently I have been thinking a lot about adoption. Like it is moral right to give an orphan a new home, a family.. But makes me think like aren't the parents choosing among a group who they want to adopt. Like to me it is like going to store and selecting the best material among others. I mean I know what I feel is wrong but like I don't know this thought just doesn't go away. So I try to stay away from these thoughts.
But great video. I mean I was expecting some answers but I know you only generate more curiosity than actually answering
you can take a look at my playlist titled "Objective morality as proof for the necessity of God's existence" for more detailed and a better analysis of morality because no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed a major straw man, namely, when we say objective, we don't mean that its something which all humans agree on, rather it is what's true independent of humans. A great example would be science. Scientists cannot agree on many things about the outside real world which is the way it is independently of humans i.e. they differ in their views, but that doesnt mean that there doesnt exist one correct view which describes reality accuratly. Another common straw man is the argument that some actions can be moral in certain situations whereas not so in others. This counterargument conflates between objective and absolute morality. Whereas absolute morality states that an action is wrong in all possible scenarios objective morality postulates a context sensitive understanding of morality where all moral variables in a given situation determine the necessary moral answer or range of moral answers. A great analogy would be equalities in maths where the value of all known numbers and the operations contribute to the final objective answer or inequalities which have a range of valid answer which are objective aswell as those which do not belong to the set of valid answers.
As we gain new experiences and begin to understand the life and struggles of others we learn more and become wise with our judgments. Nice ...
Another great video. Your videos are so thought provoking.
In my eyes. A little bit of mischief for a greater cause is on the good side. Those rich people already have more than they need. It's the poor, the needy people who might actually die without things like money, shelter and food. As long as ur you don't hurt anyone while driving over the speed limit to get ur ill son to the hospital. That's pretty acceptable to me. Morality is pretty simple tbh. If it benefits others, it's good or moral. If it harms others, it's bad, or immoral. If it harms the smaller to benefit the bigger, it's immoral. If it harms the bigger to benefit the smaller, it's moral. But that's just me tho.
There's no right nor wrong.
There's are only appropriate actions at the appropriate time.
Absolutely adore this summation.
Compliment this with Sam Harris' TED talk on how science can provide objective morality, highly recommended.
Beautifuly explained. Stunning video. And, as always, relaxing narration.
I would love to learn where and how you collect your knowledge and then especially-how you express it so articulate? I would be so happy to be as wise
I don’t understand morality, sometimes I don’t know what’s right and wrong, but I do know it isn’t what a book tells you, no matter how holy it claims to be.
You should write a book about it.
So, as someone who admits to not knowing right and wrong, you're going to say definitively that something else is wrong, for no reason and with no evidence?
@@lancepeterson7997
If right and wrong we’re designed by a person wouldn’t it be less complicated? Sometimes doing one things is right, sometimes that same thing is wrong, sometimes it’s right that it’s sometimes right and sometimes wrong and sometimes it’s wrong that it’s sometimes wrong and sometimes right. Pretty confusing, seems more like something the human brain would get up to than something a holy person would invent.
@@brendanvanbiljon3861 lol
@valiantcat7780. The law of relativity. It is all Relative to the situation
I’m sure I speak for everyone who knows what i’m talking about when I say we would LOVE for you to do a video on liminal space. It’s one of those “i feel like we should’ve known this the whole time” kinda topics.
It's a tool used to move ahead or stay stagnant, genealogy of morals by nietzsche changed my world
You're thinking in terms of absolutes. If you observe cultures across times and places you will find some common trends, we even find that cultures that violate some of these do not survive. Thus we can say there is some objectivity to morality, or in other words objective morality. There are other trends that are more efficient but less common and neither efficient nor inefficient and not particularly common across cultures. That is to say not all morality is objective, but some is likely to be.
I've been waiting for this video for a long time😁 and thank you so much for it. In my opinion here... I THINK morality is more of a way you were raised. Like stealing is wrong and helping is right. BUT, I told my uncle a rough theory of my perspective of morality.
If you raise two children in separate conditions. One child learns the "Normal Good" (like helping, being respectful and that as being good), and the other child being raised in an "Opposite Good" (Like stealing, violence, and that as being good). Put them in a room many years later after being raised like that, and ask them who is right and who is wrong?
IT'S JUST MY LITTLE OPINION AND THEORY, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR OPINIONS.
"as humans evolve and learn new things our morals Change" God that was so powerful.
If you are looking for another video which delve into this topic search for "Good and evil" by afterskool
My morality is from God. The Bible explains this video exactly. It talks about how we can change our ideas and “morality” however that does not make it intrinsically morale. The Bible is the source that we can trace back to in order to help correct our beliefs. The word of God always has been. And it will sustain forever. Great video too with cool insights.
@Morgan Oates can you please tell me why?
@Morgan Oates so by that logic, slavery is not intrinsically bad because many cultures still do it. Also by that logic the holocaust was not bad, it was just what some of the country felt was best for the economy. See how foolish that sounds. We can look at these things and rule them good or bad. If we did not come from God then we would just be chemical compositions roaming around and we would simply be products of a cosmic expansion of matter that was created from nothing which is scientifically impossible. So your argument against Morality from God would not be you reasoning to a conclusion, it would be your chemical composition reacting to a conclusion. Which once again does not add up. It would also be wrong to imprison anyone because their chemical ways of thinking are not inferior to ours with no God. But thankfully we do not have to adopt this way of thinking because God gave us true morality in the Bible. All God Inspired, written by about 40 prophets. Hopefully that makes sense my brother. I am open to hearing any rebuttal against it because I was not always Christian I just reasoned to it when I actually explored it. But I could go on and on with these facts. All love too, I pray that we only pick apart each other’s arguments and not each other as people.
@@kylefuchs By your logic, slavery is moral at worst, and amoral (not a question of morality) at best. The bible comdones slavery, laying down what you can do with them in Exodus, and failing to condemn it in the New Testament.
Either god condones slavery forever, making him a horrible god, or he changed his mind eventually, making him someone an unreliable source for morals. Pick your poison.
@@zucc4764 my friend, I recommend you do not act like you know what you do not. The Bible does not once condone slavery. It talks about how the fallen world should deal with it. It never says that it is good. Also slavery in the Old Testament was beneficial to both parties. Slavery took place when someone could not pay their debt or if they were homeless. They would then work for someone in exchange for shelter and food or in exchange for their debt. The Bible then states that the slave owner should respect the slave and that the slave should do the same fkr the slave owner. It also says that the slave owner has authority over the slave in the sense of position but not worth. It basically says that the slave must follow the orders because they are being compensated for the work. What you have said is simple lack of understanding which is the plague of atheists and non believers. Or they just typically choose one verse and ignore all context around it, the origins of who is writing it, the origin of where it is being written, etc. Just because the Bible talks about it, it does not mean that it supports it. God states many times that we are all of value and are made in his image.
@@kylefuchs The Bible condones (does NOT prohibit) slavery in the Old Testament. God is OKAY with it! If he does not like it, he could have said, thou shalt not own any person as property, the same way he commanded thou shalt not kill. The fact is, he did NOT EXPLICITLY said it. Instead what he did was say, IF YOU HAVE SLAVES, here's how you should treat them. God is aware about slavery, makes rules about it but chooses not to forbid it outright. What else could you make of that?
You even say it was beneficial! It says you own someone as property, it's in Exodus 21: 20, 21
“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."
If god said you get to do something without punishment, he allows it.
God said you will not be punished if your slave takes a beating and survives in a couple of days. He ALLOWS it.
Please take a close look at your bible and be honest with yourself. I know you find this reprehensible and see slavery as another way to pay off debt with work, but it's worse than that, amd your bible attests to its horrors.
We live in a society, whatever, just vibe and try making yours and others life a fun one while you have it
Morality is something that is generally acceptable to the masses. Nothing more, nothing less.
As long one is not hurting others or themselves(physically or otherwise), people should be able to do whatever they want. I know this statement by no means is complete but we can build from here.
I don't know about what is moral but here's my defination of
IMMORAL :- if you do something and that hurts somebody in any way when you had other plausible way , it is immoral to do that.
No that's your perception only.. It's all in the mind..
@@pratyushkumardash4410 "my defination of ...."
You are being taught to be hurt in certain occasions
The videos are both calming & intriguing
GOOD AND EVIL ARE A QUESTION OF PERSPECTIVE✨
@Kleos that's one of a kind
you can take a look at my playlist titled "Objective morality as proof for the necessity of God's existence" for more detailed and a better analysis of morality because no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed a major straw man, namely, when we say objective, we don't mean that its something which all humans agree on, rather it is what's true independent of humans. A great example would be science. Scientists cannot agree on many things about the outside real world which is the way it is independently of humans i.e. they differ in their views, but that doesnt mean that there doesnt exist one correct view which describes reality accuratly. Another common straw man is the argument that some actions can be moral in certain situations whereas not so in others. This counterargument conflates between objective and absolute morality. Whereas absolute morality states that an action is wrong in all possible scenarios objective morality postulates a context sensitive understanding of morality where all moral variables in a given situation determine the necessary moral answer or range of moral answers. A great analogy would be equalities in maths where the value of all known numbers and the operations contribute to the final objective answer or inequalities which have a range of valid answer which are objective aswell as those which do not belong to the set of valid answers.
@@tifahefendijagaming9606' we can never know 'ever...
"What many would agree to be moral(publicly), thought with knowledge(maximum. ie experience(knowledge) with(of) many kind of people) that would tell to favour long term well being of many (under no circumstances).
Will be closer to true morality"
If there exist a morality & this is my point.
Eh don't care, I have free will
I enjoy listening to these types of videos. It broadens my perspective on reality🙂
There is no truth, there is only prespectives
This video made me feel deja vu all for full length. For the while video I kept feeling like yeah I have heard these words or have heard these thoughts or straight up seen this part of the video. It was trippy as hell. WHY?
Love your you content.
There is No Objective Morality without God. It is impossible as without God everything is just matter and particles randomly interacting. With God however you see order and harmony and reason and purpose behind it all. If Good and Evil truly exist then God must exist otherwise it is just subjective and based on nothing
I agree 💯
Morality doesn't need god to be objective. It only needs to be logical and scientific.
If this guy is my teacher, I won’t have a 2nd thought to teach me all day
I dont believe anything is objectively immoral except for sexual assault and pedophilia. Everything else has situational justification, including murder, lying, and stealing.
Not to seem rude, but you do realize that still is implicitly accepting moral objectivism? The fact that you may not accept moral generalism for statements like "murder is bad" doesn't mean much when you do in fact accept that certain moral statements (and the acts they describe) are objectively immoral. It may seem like a trivial point, but this distinction makes ur position very different from say an actual moral relativist since they believe that all moral statements are true or false relative to culture, time period etc. If even some are true, you accept a form of moral realism
@@nevermind8063 Am I wrong? Can you name a single time where either of the immoral things Ive named are situationaly acceptable? Cause I can come up with multiple examples of moral and acceptable murder, lying and stealing.
@@spinoodii well that was not my point. What I meant is that you are still by definition a moral realist (objectivist) since those are objectively immoral according to your view. I said nothing about whether ur view is true or false
Generally speaking a moral objectivist/realist argument has 2 premises
1) Moral claims with descriptives such as "immoral" refer to moral properties (the quality of being immoral), and thus moral claims like "genocide is bad" express things that may be objectively true or false
2) *at least some* of these claims are true
There is also sometimes an additional metaphysical thesis, but it's not required. Since you accept both premise 1 and 2 you would fall under the objectivist camp. I felt the need to highlight this because Aperture's video leans heavily towards the opposite side (the anti-realist/subjectivist view) and so rejects the 2nd premise. If you accept that even certain things like sexual assault are objectively bad, then it would seem to be in direct opposition to the argument posed in the video. Moral subjectivism is not compatible with objective, situation independent ethical principles, no matter which.
Just for clarification I do think you're right. I hope I didn't type too much 😅
Didnt even had a second thought, i immediatly click the notifications.
If GOD isn't real objective morality doesn't exist. This is one of the many things that lead me to realize GOD is definitely real.
But there still is no evidence and your opinion is not such, especially since morality is objectively changed by society.
Society is real, God is an improbably and morality is a social construct.
@@brookekathryn1980 Do you really believe that? Do you really believe it's not objectively wrong to murder? I think your lying to yourself...
@@brookekathryn1980 Do you believe good and evil exist?
@@unlimitedperseverance1706 I believe nothing. Belief is defined as ignorance.
"Good and evil" is a very generalized question with absolutely no context. Define such per your perspective.
Objectively, social construct dictates all that is moral. Morality is geographical.
@@brookekathryn1980 So basically murder isn't really wrong according to this logic. Your grasping at straws right now to defend your position. I know deep down you don't really even believe what your saying.
The extent in which the meaning of morality matters is dependent not on what it truly is, but rather how we use them.
THIS IS ART 👆🏽... THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS EYE OPENING VIDEO
I just love how he places sponsors after the video
I swear, Aperture studies this stuff so much that I get the impression that they are a supernatural being who knows all.
this is pretty basic philosophy
@@almondwater2191 it is, but it just gives me such “wise” vibes. Despite me probably already knowing a lot about the topic.
@@PloverTechOfficial no offence to aperture but he glosed over some major points and committed a major straw man, namely, when we say objective, we don't mean that its something which all humans agree on, rather it is what's true independent of humans. A great example would be science. Scientists cannot agree on many things about the outside real world which is the way it is independently of humans i.e. they differ in their views, but that doesnt mean that there doesnt exist one correct view which describes reality accuratly. Another common straw man is the argument that some actions can be moral in certain situations whereas not so in others. This counterargument conflates between objective and absolute morality. Whereas absolute morality states that an action is wrong in all possible scenarios objective morality postulates a context sensitive understanding of morality where all moral variables in a given situation determine the necessary moral answer or range of moral answers. A great analogy would be equalities in maths where the value of all known numbers and the operations contribute to the final objective answer or inequalities which have a range of valid answer which are objective aswell as those which do not belong to the set of valid answers are the wrong answers.
@@tifahefendijagaming9606 yes! You are very correct. Not everything could be mentioned. Or was even thought to be. No matter how important. And this is a very deep topic and could definitely warrant more than a 20 minute video.
@@PloverTechOfficial it's very high quality content
"what some people consider justice, others think of as revenge." reminds me of Nagato's philosophy during the Pain Assault arc in Naruto lol.
I know ads are important for creater, but if possible dont put ads in between.
I really enjoy ur videos with my eyes closed and giving it full attention. The ads just disturb it.
Btw Great work keep it up.😄
Just because we cannot agree that murder/sacrifices/etc. are not immoral within every culture that does not mean that objective morality is not a thing. The conclusion does not follow from that premise. Just because we cannot agree it doesn’t mean that objective morality does not exist.
Secondly, just because we are not born with objective morality within us it also doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. We aren’t born knowing our names, words, love, or anything. A “clean slate” OF SORTS.
Third, a god is not necessary to give us morality. I suggest watching some videos by Sam Harris or the CosmicSkeptic on morality where they do an excellent job of defining objective morality and how a god is not necessitated
This was Awesome ! Just loved it !!!
i love your videos they......really hit different it kinda changed the way i this mainly the dom and kruger affect and this one i hope you live a long life so i could give more time for your videos as long as i live
I honestly fell in love with your videos recently, so I'm gonna comment for the algorithm.
That's moral
I love the statement at the end that "morality is not measured in absolutes". I kind of wish that this was mentioned early on in the video and not just the tail end, which sadly will not be seen by most people who do watch this video.
But it can be measured therefore it's objective
@@knowledgeablebro6970 it's a very gray area of discussion, making it more subjective than objective. Thinking of morality by any kind of clearly defined measurable metrics leads to extreme positions, which leads to extremism. Just think of what Immanuel Kant would say?
@@TheTimelapseTraveler murder and rape are both immoral call me extreme all you want.
@@knowledgeablebro6970 there are exceptions to ALMOST everything. There can of course never be any excuse for rape. But then there is room for a moral argument when it comes to capital punishment under any circumstances.
@@TheTimelapseTraveler By murder I meant of innocents. Also, moral dilemmas existing isn't proof of morality being subjective, just like unsolved equation isn't proof of advanced mathematics Being subjective. For example, the trolley problem; which action is better between reducing the amount of deaths 5 to 1, or inaction. Preventing you from physically causing death.. I'm not sure. But what I do know is that if I had the opportunity to stop the train I would. As oppose to willfully choosing to let them die in a brutal accident.
Morals are an evolutionary trait to give the human species the best chance to continue to survive preferably ad infinitum. In the way that morality is merely a function of our best ability to adapt to natural laws for our own survival, you can argue that the actual defined morals are the rules that best adapt to natural laws and are thus objective. Part of the reason punching someone is bad is because momentum transfers from fist into skull, had it not done that punching someone would likely not have been that big of a problem.
Thus as the rules for morality are merely that which gives us the best chance at surviving (or thriving) for as long as possible given the natural laws, they are in fact objective. They do not care about whether you believe a punch is evil or not, a punch will still transfer momentum and potentially even kill another person, therefore the rule our evolutionary adaptations are attempting to approximate does not in fact care whether your subjective beliefs are in alignment with it.
Danm this a good video yet why the low views, thanks for the video man i love it hope you make more
When we miss somebody what do we actually miss, do we miss that person or the feeling we get from them when we are with them??
His voice helps me fall asleep at night
Thank for this video, hope I can use these as reference on my report
stealing from the rich and giving to the poor: immoral. driving over the speed limit to get to the hospital: moral.
stealing from the rich and giving is immoral because stealing is always immoral. That person rightfully owns what they have and the poor do not.
driving over the speed limit to get to the hospital is moral because it's an emergency. the law literally makes it legal for ambulances to go over the speed limit for this exact reason.
Completely agree with you morality IS objective
What is "rightful"
„Love is transforming all of the verbal and paper proclamations to a way of life“
„Environment shapes behavior“
„the mechanistic point of view“
„future by design “
Please learn more about the alternative system to monetary economy, which is named Resource Based Economy RBE,
and help making earth a better place!
Thank you ❤️🗺️🖖🐇
Aaah, yes... This guy again... This guy is my favorite UA-camr 😊♥️