Yeah I understand that. Most debates turn into gishgalops where they don't know how to gishgalop so they just repeat the same point a different way, destiny interupts to find the more fundamental point, then they cry and it turns into a shit show. This guy raps it all up with a nice bow and gets straight to the point.
As long as there is at least one transcultural moral sentiment (a lowest common denominator), Objective Morality people have a point. Like not eating all of your own children at all times, for example.
Thank you! I thought I was having a stroke. (That or that I was suddenly hearing birds because they were talking about a flock of birds, which I'm not sure would've been much better than a stroke.)
That seems to be his position and I don't get it either when there's no way we could all implement our own subjective moralities. We don't live in isolation.
@@ctfofficial4703 ya it was just an extremely circular position. Objective morality is everyone subjectively having the choice of what subjective world they want to love in. It's ridiculous. His position of objective morality is completely subjective. His entire argument eats at itself.
@@exiledfrommyself the choice isn't objective morality to begin with its more the moral dilemma. Like you wouldn't say the trolley problem is moral due to the choice you would say the trolley problem is a moral dilemma because of the choice. He seems to equate the"choice" or moral dilemma as objective morality. I don't think any philosopher would have this position. It just seems to be redefining morality
How can you argue that giving someone a choice is objectivelly morally superior over forcing that person because “it intuitively feels better”? If there’s just ONE person that feels the opposite way, your whole argument falls apart
His argument is bad, but it is going in the right direction. Morality is impossible without choice, therefore something that is forced has no moral weight to it. Looking at it from the perspective of the world rather than from the perspective of the moral agent made this whole line of reasoning kind of pointless.
@Roy How can you choose to be in a universe of your own preferences when there's only one universe and it what it is? I don't even know what the guy is trying to argue.
@@thepleasantpuffin Yeah but no one has said morality doesn't involve moral agents and their choices. What I want to know is how he got objective morality from this. It's all subjective.
objective within a framework. this is 1 meter..... Other guy goes, i reject meters So it is objectively 1 meter once you have acccepted a framework. You must accept frameworks to make any objective claims about reality much less morals. We don't use the argument "if 1 guys disagrees that this is 1 meter" then meters are no longer objective. They are, because they are objective within a framework.
Have you taken a philosophy class? its not a fucking science class. They explain that pretty quick when they talk about God and the other metaphysical shit. Its talking about concepts that will not be explained by science for they next billion years
I just find the combination of moral intuition and moral progress to be strange. If morals are so intuitive, why is moral progress even necessary. Wouldn't the first people have just known the right morals and gone with the stuff that they intuitively feel best about doing? The only way moral progress makes sense is if people don't just intuitively have a certain set of morals that they're born with
I think humans have a built-in moral compass but that compass gets warped and distorted by environmental factors. Imagine someone is good hearted but they are raised around republicans and are led to believe that gender-affirming care is harmful. Now imagine another good hearted person is raised in a progressive area and believes gender-affirming care is helpful. Both of these people are driven by the same moral sense of wanting to help people. It's just that their environments lead them to opposite conclusions on how to accomplish that. It's like if you have a literal compass and wave a magnet around it. The needle will spin around but at the end of the day it's still a compass and operates under the same principles as any other compass.
I think humans act more moral if they have their own basic needs covered and if they become aware of other people's conditions and realize that they are not fundamentally different such that empathy and compassion start doing their work.
No, above all in the past was survival, so morals would be trumped by the will to live and do what's necessary, but any time that survival mode is lessened, the intuitive morals manifest. This is why we appear more morally sound today than in the past since almost all of us have our basic needs met.
@@TJump Hi TJump. Would you mind shedding some light on your view of "best of all possible worlds" for me? If someone had their own world and that world was populated with other people, if that person decided that torturing women and children was "moral", in your view, would such acts be "moral" in that person's world even if every other person felt that such acts were "immoral?" And if so, why? What exactly would make him objectively "right?" "It's good because I say it's good" seems to be pointing to a subjective value. It's dependent on his mind, his feelings and his opinions, which is the definition of subjective. Objective being defined as something that is not dependent on our mind, our feelings or our opinions. So any clarity on that would be appreciated.
i don't think he minded though, he seemed to agree pretty much with tjump, which is what you'd expect from these two, i think they both have a high regard for fact and truth.
Destiney: there is no objective morality everything is subjective preference. This guy: objective morality exists because everything is subjective How is action x objectively moral if it’s antithesis is also moral? This guys “objective” morality conveniently encompasses every possible moral outcome
@Kevin Gallagher Okay I don't usually think of that in terms of antithesis. I use the term negation. An antithesis can also be some other thing that isn't a negation. Like procreation could be an antithesis to killing. There's no "not" in there, but it's still a valid comparison. Using the term antithesis as a synonym of negation turns non-action into the opposite of everything. There's no clear distinction for any prescription. Like for instance saving someone's life would be moral, but it's antithesis would be non-action in your interpretation. Or circuitously we could say we will not not save someone's life. It's very awkward. As to the action being moral it would be moral when no one is really losing their autonomy. Like if one were to choose to murder if the person they were killing were a philosophical zombie then that would be a moral action. It's a case in the extreme. We would assume that event would not happen in real life, but most standards are like that. The triangle is a case of such a standard that we can't observe in reality.
Gabriel Duran well first while I agree with your solipsistic framing I thing it’s an incredibly weak position to start an argument from because inherently everyone has to start from some fundamental assumptions. (To make any claim about the world I have to assume that I am a rational being that can use my perception to make statements about those perceptions) If we can agree on those assumptions then we can start to make claims. I can rationally prove the fact that subjective morality exists because I have the capability of disagreeing with you on any given moral claim. This is because my perception of morality is different that yours. In order for us to agree we would need to agree on certain assumptions. Given this, objective morality only exists in the sense that we both subjectively value and agree on assumptions, definitions and end goals of that moral system
@@RPLUNKETT94 I don't think simple disagreement, or differing perceptions refute objective morality. Like a person could perceive wrongly. You haven't yet shown that you are perceiving correctly. It's not so much solipsism as much as you could just be in error somewhere before your conclusion, and somewhere after your starting assumptions. But you have no well defined premises that distinguish your difference from error.
Around 6:00 bald dude's just arguing for inter-subjective morality, ie the social consensus on what is generally considered to be right and wrong. Yeah, we all understand that that is a thing that can exist. That's not objective though. /argument
@@Gnolomweb Sure, if you start arguing within the assumptions of a moral framework that you have subjectively selected to be the most preferable, then *suddenly*, as if by magic, you can start claiming objectivity of your moral judgement. In the same way Christians argue that their morality is objective once you accept the legitimacy of Christianity (eg assuming Christianity is true, one can claim as objective fact that we should be prohibiting homosexual acts; perfectly objective moral prescription there). Objective here means that individual persons' values play no part, which they clearly do in all moral discussions. You can try to shift the goalposts by smuggling in your moral axioms beforehand but that doesn't actually bring you to objectivity; it's a hollow rhetorical gambit.
"If we ask everyone and see the commonalities of their intuitive morality, thats how we get objectivity" Ah yes, the rotten tomatoes theory of morality
To me it is similar to tracking human life expectancy. Objectively human lifespan has been increasing even though some humans still die at an early age. Simlarily, human morality has been progressing even though individuals might have different morals. So if you stand back, there is an objective direction that moral progress has been heading in.
@@MrWestbrook I don't really agree with that statement. We used to have extremely different morals 2000 years ago, but you wouldn't say that the general moral consensus in a population would be the objectively correct one. With your statement that we are moving towards an objective one, I think that is coming from an extremely biased view where your morals are the "finish line".
@@sleepy3362 Moral realism looks at the data to make the objective statement of what direction something is heading towards based on consensus. There will be outliers but as long as a direction can be shown, it is evidence because it points in a specific direction. The same way that you could look at global temperatures over the past 1000 years and make the objective statement that the planet is getting warmer. Neither statement says if the direction is right or wrong. I think the issue is that people often tie right and wrong with morality instead of just looking at morality as how humans treat one another. So then if we can say that morality is how humans treat each other, and we can plot out a direction that human interactions seem to be heading, then we can say that something is moral if it heads in the same direction and immoral if it goes the other direction. Right and wrong only come into play if you have a goal and say something like "If you want to be moral, then it is right to do an action that follows the direction morality is heading." Also my personal morals don't play into it. The consensus it what is used as the evidence. If this really interests you check out the sources on this page plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/ (especially the 20th century ones) There is plenty of material to sink your teeth into.
@@MrWestbrook I guess I interpreted your comment as objective morality meaning objectively GOOD morals. And that you meant that we were heading towards objectively good morlas. I'll have to read that later. But from your new comment I probably agree with you.
30 mins in, essentially the dude just repeats that definitions are objective, so "subjectivity" is "objective" because it has a definition. Saved ya an hour.
Morality cannot be absolutely objective, but it can be objectively measured if we agree on the axiom that inducing human suffering is immoral and improving human wellbeing is moral.
This guy: "Objective means when it's independent of opinion" Also this guy: "We can just ask many people their opinion about how they feel and then generalize to get to an objective fact." How is that not stupid?
Temper R. Haring I know this is late but his example with an object being fuzzy explains it well. You can’t really describe what fuzzy is to someone, you just have to hope that they have experienced something similar and can relate to what feeling something fuzzy is like. So when a bunch of people around the world have felt similar textures that are deemed fuzzy, we get to an objective fact that this object and it’s characteristics are fuzzy. Despite it being made from multiple opinions from different people, we still get to a fact of what fuzzy is, and that fact will not change depending on those people’s opinions anymore. He’s just trying to make that same argument with morality.
@@nvoo123 I think this is a bit misleading. Either you are talking about the experience of feeling something fuzzy which is not objective because, well, it by definition is a subjective thing, or you are talking about a "scientific" definition of the word 'fuzzy'. In that case it is nothing like morality because then it could be measured if some object is fuzzy or not, which is not the case for good or bad.
Temper R. Haring I agree that when you are getting in the realm of perceptions and experiences there really isn’t much objectivity. But I don’t think he meant to use just fuzzy as a proof but more of as an example as to how humans can have subjective views on certain things and bring all these different views together to create an objective fact without really knowing the “science” behind it. We can talk about colors the same way. I know that now we have ways to measure the wavelengths of colors but let’s say this was before we did. A person can see a strawberry and know that it was red, a red green colorblind person can go up to that same strawberry and see his own version of “red” and they know it’s red because that’s what they’ve been told their whole life. Both of them see their own version of red but it is also fact that the strawberry is red. They both have their own subjective views of the red strawberry but the strawberry itself being red is an objective fact even if they didn’t know how to measure wavelengths of light at the time. Maybe now we are just at a point where we can’t measure what’s right and wrong? I really don’t have an opinion for either side right now but I thought the fuzzy argument was really interesting.
@@nvoo123 With the examples of fuzziness or the color of a strawberry you can "reduce" the experiences to measureable things. In the former case you can define fuzzy with certain priorities the object needs to have to be considered fuzzy and in the latter case you can refer to wavelengths of light that are the cause for the experience of color. But there is no physical thing that represents goodness. We can't just measure the electric current in some brain and determine how many goodness units the person has. The fundamental difference between empirical facts and moral opinions is that the latter are exclusively formed within minds. Without a mind to judge there is no morality, no judgements but there are still wavelengths and other properties of objects. So different people can refer to things that exist independent of minds to compare their experiences about fuzzy teddybears or strawberries and then make objective statements about them. But with moral deeds their feelings about them have nothing to compare outside of the people's minds, so any conclusions they draw are solely dependant on the opinions of those people and therefore subjective. Many people or even all of humanity agreeing about some action being good doesn't make this an objective fact.
That's not stupid. He just isn't articulate. There's a term for it called "intersubjectivity". It's a way to extract objectivity from subjectivity. E.g. your opinion and my opinion on what makes a good leader is subjective. What makes a good leader is subjective. However, if we took a vote from everyone in the world on whom the best leader is and counter the plurality winner(s) (the one with the most votes)... well that's just an objective fact and doesn't just change depending on the opinion of me or you.
You can't say morality is objective just because you value something on intuition. Valuing something on intuition just means that it would be in your best interest to act in accordance with what you value on intuition. This does not mean that it is some transcendent objective fact of the universe that you ought to act in accordance with what you personally value. Big difference there. This guy is basically a discount Sam Harris. It's strange to me how so many atheists for some reason think morality is objective.
43:24 Dude refers to "best of all possible worlds" as being an objective concept!? What does "best" mean dude, what are you basing that VALUE judgement on? Your intuition ie subjective feelings? This guy's a literal joke, it's amazing Boneblo could keep a straight face.
It's a standard based on liberty. He explained a bunch of times that it's the opposite of bondage. The "best" is where a person has total control over what they experience. And it's not simply intuition. It's progress. There's no progress if standards aren't objective because there's no where to progress to. Yet people still assume that we are making progress.
@@spacedoohicky "There's no progress if standards aren't objective because there's no where to progress to". Uhm, yes there is, but the progress is subjectively judged. I understand it'd be nice to just be "right", but wanting it doesn't make it so.
@@IMatchoNation It wouldn't be progress then. Progress is by definition objective. Progress unlike other value judgements is measured in observable increments. An initial goal is made subjectively, but the progress afterwards is objective. Like if your goal is to build a house that house once built is an objectively true outcome objectively meeting the goal. You can try to refute that, but you'd be entering a realm of absurdity.
@@spacedoohicky No, progress, as used in this entire discussion is by definition subjective. Progress here refers to the desirability of a state of affairs improving over time, and desirability is 100% subjective. In this discussion, it does nót refer to the degree to which any process has "progressed" in terms of how close it is to being completed. Eg if I say ice cream has gotten better, ie the process of its production has improved, I am making a statement about my subjective judgment about the new state of affairs, compared to the old. You might say "well we also use the word progress to describe ice cream being in a certain stage of its creation", but that's a completely different discussion.
@@IMatchoNation The word progress is in your statement. The statement is subjective, but that doesn't make the progress subjective. You're making a fallacy of division. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
5 minutes in and I can already tell this is going to turn into a pointless pedantic debate over the definition of the word morality rather than an actual discussion of the ideas the term revolves around
Tom, morality is the framework we use to judge choices. Objective morality means that there is a universal standard, independent of any particular population. You were able to arrive to that the value of choice is universal. But without choice there are no moral issues, and it does not give a framework to judge choices. Your best world is actually absent of morality. As if you answered the question "how to best live together" with "just live alone".
Dude the bald atheist guy sucks ass. Tell me, how can one culture think its okay to kill their child if they dishonor their family name and another culture think that same exact act would be heinous murder worthy of punishment? Subjective moraltiy in any form is self-contradictory. You cannot have a situation like that, which are completely on the opposite ends of morality. It doesn't make logical sense when you look back at it. Imagine you are an alien and you just discovered all these culturals, how could you think that all of them are morally correct at the same time? Read any philosophy book on it.
@@shuheihisagi6689 for anyone reading a comment from this guy. He's a legit troll going to funny posts and taking them seriously. He has no idea what people are talking about. He's probably very young
Forcing someome to do X is not always more immoral than to let someone choose X or not X. For instance, some decicions can be so hard that it is better to just take one. And second example coulb be that "not X" is harmful to the decider and they don't know it. So it is better to force X. Isn't it better to force someone not to kill himself than to let him choose should he? Those kind of generalisations about morality don't really work.
The whole point of morality is deciding who wins when two people's preferences are mutually exclusive. In a world of finite resources, each person's action limits others' freedom to the extent that it removes some resource from others' claims. If we couldn't take action that limited others' choices, no one would be able to do anything. The issue is, when choices conflict, which person's claim is stronger? For what reason? Just saying "people have preferences and in the best of all possible worlds everyone could do whatever they want" completely misses the point of moral evaluation, and avoids the situation that leads to moral questions in the first place.
@@XX-bz1wk Example? "The issue is, when choices conflict, which person's claim is stronger?" "For what reason" you asked. The reason is to maximize choices.
A triangle is a two dimensional object. If it were represented on a curved surface, it would be a three dimensional object and therefore no longer a triangle.
GODemon13 So a triangle formed with 3 poles is not a triangle? If you were to draw a triangle on a balloon, it wouldn't be a triangle? If I were to cut a triangle out of paper, would it not be a triangle? You can represent a triangle in 3D space and it would still be a triangle because the defining part of a triangle is the 3 edges and 3 vertices.
Oh dear, a flaw in his first point on triangles (I paused there to write this, in case you point it out later). Triangles made on a plane, in euclidean geometry will always have 180 degree when all angles are added up, but in non-euclidean geometry this is not the case, if you draw a triangle on a spherical surface, you can easily make all the angles 90 degrees making the total over 180. So his first example isnt really that great. Sure this might be nitpicking, but whatever.
@@Godzillaaaaa11 I'm not a snobby mathematician, I just think that when someone wants to use an example they should use one that is actually accurate 😂
Beyond that, the angles of a triangle equal 180° because we have defined the rules of geometry. Those definitions are subjective. Once the rules are in place then objective assessments can be made based on those rules.
@@Godzillaaaaa11 I say its pedantic because the argument doesnt rest on the strict idea of what a triangle actually is or isnt. It was an argument from analogy because TJ was trying to communicate a very abstract idea.
His theory of the perfect world really feels reminicent of Plato's world of forms, but then again so does our entire approach to language. Interesting thought experiment: His construct of the perfect world is subject to the same ideas used to criticize god. Any hypothetical you could produce, such as "can god make a stone even he can't move" would apply. I think the most useful thought experiment would be "can we give you the choice to force other beings with autonomy into your world and remove their ability to choose?" In this example, we either restrict your ability to choose the option or give you the option to commit treason upon your own values. So in this case, even his most fundamental hypothetical can't concretely prove his point.
To be honest this guy position seems to be simply subjective, he assumed that giving option for everyone (not even that logically speaking only for people that want to leave other people alone) to chose what they perceive to be best world to live in is objective moral option. What if one person wants to control everyone else or just specific people, then either you are forced to subjugate other people to that person will or deprive person that wants to control someone of ability to chose, ultimately subverting principle that giving ability people to chose is morally objective truth, it would be simply a matter of personal preference choosing who will get to make a decision (even if you with majority that simply makes it an opinion that preference of majority is more moral than preference of certain individuals). Not to mention this hypothetical is simply ridiculous because it has no bearing in objective reality, I could simply craft argument in hypothetical world where everyone experiences joy after being raped as an argument for rape being objectively moral choice (even then I would have to assume to experiencing joy is moral fact) but that's simply not true in an objective reality. So even his principle operates on opinion (even if it's majority opinion), I personally simply reject notion that allowing person to become pretty much deity in own "reality" as logically speaking it would simply result in many abusive realities, as for an example in reality of sadist such person would simply torment people within their reality.
giving the person an option(right) to choose how they want to build a world that they perceive to be the best is always preferable to restricting ones freedom to choose regardless of what those choices entail.
@@umparsoze2612 So I assume you support my right to kidnap you, lock you up in a basement and horrifically torture you for my own amusement is preferable than well not giving me a right to do so? In fact any behavioral restriction would violate your principle making law obsolete, needless to say would lead to creation of a world few would desire to live in such world, so you couldn't even apply general moral intuition as argument for and it would refute notion that it's always preferable, or at least that in every instance people find it preferable. If you answer no, then you already contradicted own principle as you admitted you didn't find preferable to not restrict my freedom over restricting it.
You are missing the point. The fundamental right to choose in and of itself is always preferable to being forcefully constrained in exercising choice. The choices can be infinite. Would you prefer to live in a world where you cannot be free to make choices or a world where you do not face those constraints? Forget about the consequences of those limitless choices for a second and just think about the intrinsic value underlying the freedom or right to choose.
The Great Shredman Here’s the thing, you CAN breach that gap, but what you MUST do is concede that point when challenged. At least, that’s the only way to remain logically consistent.
@iPancham I think Rationality Rules is one of the only people I've heard of breach the is-ought gap in a way that's completely logically consistent. If you haven't heard of him, he argues for the existence of conditional oughts which basically means that every normative statement is contingent on a descriptive one (ie if you want this, you should do that).
i think what this guy is basically saying is that its an objective fact that most humans want things and they want what they prefer. it does seem to be a universal truth that humans want what they prefer. but i believe the argument is about that there are universal preferences. the preferences or values, are what is subjective. many people clearly disagree on what to value all the time.
Idk. The more I listen, the more it sounds like this dude is saying "The *only* moral fact is that choice is good. From there, everyone is allowed to choose the rest of their own moral facts. But believe me, moral fact exists."
he is saying that choice is the ultimate moral or good that everything else comes from like.. love, truth..etc.( He is basically saying that love, truth, freedom and all that comes from this ultimate moral thing that is choice.) he is thus eliminating paradoxes were a moral truth faces against another moral truth. For example, would you lie to save someones life.. So is saving someones life more important than lying? (or the train problem)...etc. Edit: Actually nvm i dont know what he is saying...
You can choose to be like you wish it does not mean your choice is moral or good. Having that choice is good not your disturbing morals. For me good and bad exist and people can choose to be, some options are good and some are even better.
The thing is, the definition of morality is different from different sources. As it can be objective or subjective depending on the definition, it's kind of a silly point to debate. Obviously, it could be objective in the sense that there are things one can do that objectively would be better for society and the well-being of people than other things, while it could be subjective in the sense that one could argue that that is not necessarily the goal of morality. It's all fine to have a viewpoint on the subject, but it really boils down to what is your preference of viewing the world/what helps your argument the best.
I find it ironic how when Tom debated askyourself he said his morality is incompatible with error theory, yet here he has conceded that an error theorist could agree with his entire view of morality without issues.
Think about religions. Some deem it wrong to eat pork. Opposing religions see nothing wrong with eating pork. There are many different cultures=many different mindsets. Some may clash proving that Morality cannot be Objective
Questioning the existence of morality because it seems to be rooted on what people prefer is the same as questioning reality because it seems to be rooted on what people perceive.
You’re kind of missing something I think. We very well could question everybody’s perception but we don’t. We know it benefits everybody to assume our perception is correct. We actually do the same thing with morality. Does it exist? No. But we assume it does cause it is what we want to do. It’s kind of like this. Most of math relies on total assumptions that we can’t prove. We made them up. Morality is that. It’s the shit we made up. We can make objective statements about the thing we made up.
So your argument for not questioning the physical worlds is because "We know it benefits everybody to assume our perception is correct", I can say the same about morality. That is my point, you can't simultaneously say for certain that morality doesn't exist and then say that the physical world exists because it is convenient. And also, as far as I know, for the axioms of math, we didn't just invent them, we discovered them. Because at the beginning we had some and then we changed them because it matched better the idea we were pursuing.
Objective morality *probably* doesn't exist, but there are much better cases for it than Steven's opponent made here. Appeals to perception of the masses don't get you anywhere close to objectivity, and I'm shocked he didn't know that.
Actually… most moral philosophers do what he’s doing. They use “intuitions” and “seemings”. Expert consensus is that this is a good way to do moral philosophy. If you disagree with that, you disagree with expert consensus. I lean towards disagreeing, but saying intuitions “dont get you anywhere close” is at the very least ignoarant.
There might be a law of morality that is influencing people to act morally. By asking people from independent culture can show similiar pattern in moral progress which might be indicative of this moral law. It's not about just asking people but to find pattern that independently emerge from this moral intuition people have. TJump is a philosopher and debates with professional philosophers all the times. He knows his stuff.
Morality is not subjective. If it is we don't have justification to critisize Nazis. Which these left leaners do all the time. This is complete failure in philosophy by Destiny.
Two important question was left unasked. 1) We live in a world of limited resources and it is a fact that me using a portion of these resources limits someone else's ability to use these resources. What if I prefer to have 100 times more resources to use than someone poorer than myself? Am I immoral for taking away someone else's ability to use these limited resources? 2) What if I just in general prefer to gain personal benefit by limiting someone else's freedom? How can you objectively demonstrate that I'm behaving immorally? Just because most people would agree that such selfish behavior is immoral? How is that not appealing to popularity? Even if a view is popular, it's just a set of subjective opinions. Sounds like a weak argument.
There must be objective morality based on logic and reasoning. You don't make a law for a country that says "YOU MUST LIE" because communication would cease to exist. If you had to lie then you could never tell someone how to do anything right or what you want, that is why all cultures believe that lieing is evil or immoral. You can take that same idea with stealing, if everyone was allowed or even encouraged to steal from each other everyone would be stealing from each other and no one would have anything for too long. If you take these things like killing and stealing and lieing and you make them into "maxims" you can see how they universally can be seen as immoral by any cultural just through basic logic.
@@shuheihisagi6689 The mere fact that a subjective view on morality is popular doesn't make it objective. All the examples you provided made the same argument: everyone thinks lying / stealing / killing is bad, so this must be the case even if all human beings ceased to exist. Sam Harris makes this same leap of faith in the Moral Landscape. He merely redefines overwhelmingly popular subjective moral opinions as objective moral positions, which is completely disingenuous in my opinion. The term objective truth means that something is true independent of subjective opinions. In other words, overwhelming popularity of a subjective opinion doesn't make it in any way more objectively true. 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true regardless of our individual opinions. Can you say the same about a statement like "Killing is wrong"?
The issue with this debate is that they are not using the word objective correctly. The focus is on morality and not on the objectiveness of said morality. To be objective it NEEDS to be perceptible by all observers, not some or most but all.
The issue then is that science isn't objective under your standards either. There's people who have different sense input or straight up hallucinations or delusions. He brought this up in the debate though if you had paid attention. You can play the ultimate skeptic on his position but then you can't really grant science or any other objective measure any ground either.
Where I think you guys are missing a big part of this discussion is the difference between Truth and fact. Truth is more than just a fact, if you shoot an arrow and it hits the target, the closer to the bullseye the arrow hits the more True the shot was. There HAS to be moral Truths, or else morality is relative, and therefore nothing could be immoral.
I feel that the argument is fundamentally flawed in that morality fundamentally applies to our interactions in society and therefore a world in which everyone is totally separate and beholden to only their own morals doesn't fulfill anyone's morals.
Off the top of my head, I can come up with one exception to his “objective” morality. If someone willingly kills someone it is less moral than if they are unwillingly forced to kill someone.
I think you meant to say "more moral". But the argument against that, using TJump's system, would be: 1st Case: It's moral for the killer and immoral for the victim. 2nd Case: It's immoral for the killer and immoral for the victim. So this is why the 2nd case is more immoral.
I used to think Rem's point that it is necessary to ground axioms in formal study was just intellectual pfaffery, but in this debate TJump proved this point to be objectively true.
@ 21:13 "I would say the (objective) moral fact is: ... Having the right to choose is moral and not having the right to choose is immoral" - TJump Why? Why is it objectively true that having the right to choose is moral?
if restricting choice is the defining act of immorality what if an agent has imperfect information, and you are able to restrict their actions to align with their own values. so, if someone was about to accidentally fall down a hole when crossing the street, their choice was to go to the shop, and you can press a button to stop them. you cannot inform them of this in time, so you have a choice to restrict their actions and align with what their actual choice would have been, or to let them fall and die, not limiting choice. If "limiting choice" freedom is inherently the defining consensus on immorality, letting people die is not only not immoral but actively the most moral choice the "best of all possible worlds". How do you account for this choice morality in a world of imperfect knowledge?
'It is intuitively always better to not force anyone' is not an argument that can ground objective morality, because it just reflects that Tom thinks it applies to every situation. But no matter if he thinks all situations should live up to such a description, it is not right or true for that reason. Indeed, even if everyone thought it was correct that does not mean it is correct.
Destiny, the definition you gave for Error Theory at around 26:00 wasn't correct. Error theory states that moral propositions exist, but they are all false. So for example "Murder is wrong" is false for an error theorist.
Morality is a human construct ... it can only be manifested by the implementation of laws within a compliant society ... otherwise, all actions are neither moral or immoral, but rather reactive to any and all situations that may present themselves ...
Yes morality can be objective, it is whatever principles produce the most fulfilment and joy. If we trial and experiment by following certain principles it will emerge that some will produce more than others. I believe that serving and loving others is probably one of the most central principles to producing joy. but idk🤷
I spotted a problem early on. Who says it's intuitive to behave morally? Most morality has to be taught to children, for example a child will certainly try to impose their will on someone else and not see this as immoral.
@@qwerty-ib7ww Idk I don't agree with it, I guess there's a similar assumption as the one Sam Harris uses in his framework which is more about suffering than choice, something along the lines of: "The worst of all possible worlds, where all suffering which is possible occurs, is bad"
Objective morality at the base only does one thing significantly better with regard to going beyond explaining “right vs. wrong”. It’s to convince those who get lost in their morality because they can’t bridge the is/ought and it’s the only thing holding them back from doing “good” things, they should recognize that they don’t need to make that bridge...they can just start and end with the “is”.
I agree propably all or at least the vast majority would agree that we should have freedom to do what we want, as long as we don't harm others, religious people excluded. But ultimately i also agree with destiny, i don't think most people would call that morality or that it is defined that way. So Tjump made an interesting case, but not for morality. Maybe for something linked to morality...
I always say that I believe that morality is objective, but never that I have the objective matter of fact as to what those moral principles actually are. Like, I can't say that I can answer every or any moral question, just that there is an objectively true answer. Moreover, with the exact same circumstances, a moral action is a moral action no matter who does it, and an immoral action is immoral no matter who does it. This is more in opposition to moral relativism, where morality is culturally or subjectively determined
Morality is about interactions between sentient beings, but Tom’s moral exemplar involves being perfectly free to do want you want, as long as it has no effect on anyone else, which would imply no interactions with anyone. So it is kind of irrelevant at best
Something doesn't become objective by adding more subjective opinions supporting it. You could almost say that makes it even more subjective. When people aren't willing to recognize their own subjectivity, that's when we get religion.
Truth is a real logical thing, duh. 2+2=4 right? So how could someone have two seperate moralities? Something must be truely good or bad in order for us to conclude such a thing is worthy of moral consideration. If a tiger kills its prey, we don't attribute morality to the tiger because it was not making a rational choice to kill like we can. So to attribute moral worth, free will and rational thought have to exist in some form in order to place moral responsiblity on those agents of free will. And of you have that to base your moral judgments on, they cannot be simply be subjective opinions based on cultural traditions. Morality must be objective in order to place moral responsiblity upon those who deserve it. If we don't, we have no system to base the idea of justice on.
A clear refutation of the argument is: The best of all possible worlds is not a reality we can move towards like this man's philosophy suggests. Because we can't progress towards it, it makes no sense to say that the right to choose, because it would be moral in this implausible world, is also a moral fact in the world we inhabit. Sure, in a world where you can bring any desire to fruition you might be happy, which this man considers a moral good, but we don't live as omnipotent God's in our own universe, so having unlimited choice in everything we do will not always lead to the desired happiness that this man's philosophy seeks to obtain. If unfettered choice doesn't necessarily obtain happiness, it is not objectively moral to grant people the right to choose in everything.
To the people who's commenting that destiny lost of course he did. The debate was about morality being subjective or objective. The person he was debating was technically only debating being given a choice is objectively morally right. He even said anything that you create in these world would be subject there for everything is subjective except for being able to make a choice. Which he was wrong because if even one person makes the choice that having free reign is not the right way even if they're given the choice to oppose the choice it's still not objective. For something to be objective choices can't be there.
What's to say that morality isn't just a misinterpretation of emotions felt by someone when they are involved in situations with others? As in order to have the best chances to survive/thrive, emotions are built in evolutionary to make sure that that organism's chances increase, and that they form subconscious thoughts that form that organism's ideas on how to successfully live with others like it? I never got the justification of the need for the word "morality".
Destiny won when his opponent said you should stop at traffic signs which Destiny fundamentally rejects
LOL
Insert: roundabout problem solved 😉
Nice comment
@Tom H Videos like that one remind us Destiny is still only human, a flawed non stopping at traffic signs ass, human.
Ya actually stop at stop signs?
I really like that this guy actually let destiny speak. It felt like an actually debate/conversation. Quick 30s - 1min responses.
Yeah this was a pleasant surprise I'm used to annoying people debating him. Usually makes me want to scream at them to wait their turn.
@@poltergeist078 You'd think Destiny would put a moderator there to make sure none of that happens so often.
Yeah, even tho the whole argument was kinda dumb in my opinion, the flow of the debate made it really nice to listen to
Yeah I understand that. Most debates turn into gishgalops where they don't know how to gishgalop so they just repeat the same point a different way, destiny interupts to find the more fundamental point, then they cry and it turns into a shit show. This guy raps it all up with a nice bow and gets straight to the point.
@@tehking111 That too. It's okay to interrupt to clarify what the arguement is supposed to be about but not to go on a rant.
Until the day 10/10 dentists recommended a toothpaste, objective morality is not real
I second this
Parabola Practice not the one who wants business
THEY DID IT! Look it up
Thesomethingisuponus BLASPHEMY!
Parabola Practice But do they all recommend the same brand toothpaste? That’s the subject here.
you can tell it's moral because of the way it is
Thank u dolan
@@Gnolomweb said the person who's every other comment is "low IQ" omegalul
Please tell me you have seen "neature walk."
@@darrenr90 hey morals just is. ThAtS pReTtY nEaT!
As long as there is at least one transcultural moral sentiment (a lowest common denominator), Objective Morality people have a point. Like not eating all of your own children at all times, for example.
Destiny got objectified in this debate
i love it
"Slavery probably isn't good, and giving women the right to vote probably is good" -Steven Bonner
@@Senumunu no, you
@@Senumunu lol what is "passive agressive slavery." Sounds like slavery with a bitchier master.
Senko S. wtf
Splattercatbambi watch the video again and then ask yourself if he was talking about his own personal belief or what society now believes
@@HucklePeel no , you
The birds chirped in the background ever so beautifully in this debate.
Thank you! I thought I was having a stroke.
(That or that I was suddenly hearing birds because they were talking about a flock of birds, which I'm not sure would've been much better than a stroke.)
Destiny got objectively moralized by Johnny Sins in this debate.
Burst out laughing when I read this ngl
morality: is it gay?
Fellas?
Wanna play gay chicken with your morality?
/slides my hand up your thigh
Idk man it’s pretty Sus
It's not gay if the balls don't touch
@@GiovanniGNV What are you doing here?
@@EliasOwnage95 he sounds like Spy from TF2 "you got blood on my suit"
So objective morality is everyone being able to implement their subjective morality? I'm 20 mins in and this makes 0 sense to me.
okay glad I wasn't the only one confused
That seems to be his position and I don't get it either when there's no way we could all implement our own subjective moralities. We don't live in isolation.
@@ctfofficial4703 ya it was just an extremely circular position. Objective morality is everyone subjectively having the choice of what subjective world they want to love in. It's ridiculous. His position of objective morality is completely subjective. His entire argument eats at itself.
@@exiledfrommyself the choice isn't objective morality to begin with its more the moral dilemma. Like you wouldn't say the trolley problem is moral due to the choice you would say the trolley problem is a moral dilemma because of the choice. He seems to equate the"choice" or moral dilemma as objective morality. I don't think any philosopher would have this position. It just seems to be redefining morality
@@paddyd50gamer86 I was half paying attention alt tabbed out and I was just like "wait, is he not arguing for subjective???"
How can you argue that giving someone a choice is objectivelly morally superior over forcing that person because “it intuitively feels better”? If there’s just ONE person that feels the opposite way, your whole argument falls apart
That's why you gotta view it intersubjektivly why do people only know Hume's guillotine and nothing else this man has written
His argument is bad, but it is going in the right direction. Morality is impossible without choice, therefore something that is forced has no moral weight to it. Looking at it from the perspective of the world rather than from the perspective of the moral agent made this whole line of reasoning kind of pointless.
@Roy How can you choose to be in a universe of your own preferences when there's only one universe and it what it is? I don't even know what the guy is trying to argue.
@@thepleasantpuffin Yeah but no one has said morality doesn't involve moral agents and their choices. What I want to know is how he got objective morality from this. It's all subjective.
objective within a framework.
this is 1 meter.....
Other guy goes, i reject meters
So it is objectively 1 meter once you have acccepted a framework. You must accept frameworks to make any objective claims about reality much less morals.
We don't use the argument "if 1 guys disagrees that this is 1 meter" then meters are no longer objective.
They are, because they are objective within a framework.
Gravity is immoral in this debate.
Have you taken a philosophy class? its not a fucking science class. They explain that pretty quick when they talk about God and the other metaphysical shit. Its talking about concepts that will not be explained by science for they next billion years
@@shuheihisagi6689 bro what is wrong with you, not only are people joking but this was an actual hypothetical used in the debate. How are you mad
I just find the combination of moral intuition and moral progress to be strange. If morals are so intuitive, why is moral progress even necessary. Wouldn't the first people have just known the right morals and gone with the stuff that they intuitively feel best about doing? The only way moral progress makes sense is if people don't just intuitively have a certain set of morals that they're born with
I think humans have a built-in moral compass but that compass gets warped and distorted by environmental factors.
Imagine someone is good hearted but they are raised around republicans and are led to believe that gender-affirming care is harmful.
Now imagine another good hearted person is raised in a progressive area and believes gender-affirming care is helpful.
Both of these people are driven by the same moral sense of wanting to help people. It's just that their environments lead them to opposite conclusions on how to accomplish that.
It's like if you have a literal compass and wave a magnet around it. The needle will spin around but at the end of the day it's still a compass and operates under the same principles as any other compass.
I think humans act more moral if they have their own basic needs covered and if they become aware of other people's conditions and realize that they are not fundamentally different such that empathy and compassion start doing their work.
Because your external factors can stop your intuitive progress
No, above all in the past was survival, so morals would be trumped by the will to live and do what's necessary, but any time that survival mode is lessened, the intuitive morals manifest. This is why we appear more morally sound today than in the past since almost all of us have our basic needs met.
Absolutely a fantastic back in forth. Thank you.
thank you
@@TJump Hi TJump. Would you mind shedding some light on your view of "best of all possible worlds" for me? If someone had their own world and that world was populated with other people, if that person decided that torturing women and children was "moral", in your view, would such acts be "moral" in that person's world even if every other person felt that such acts were "immoral?" And if so, why? What exactly would make him objectively "right?" "It's good because I say it's good" seems to be pointing to a subjective value. It's dependent on his mind, his feelings and his opinions, which is the definition of subjective. Objective being defined as something that is not dependent on our mind, our feelings or our opinions. So any clarity on that would be appreciated.
Destiny got objectively destroyed in this debate.
Please tell me this is unironically a joke. It is right? :)
i don't think he minded though, he seemed to agree pretty much with tjump, which is what you'd expect from these two, i think they both have a high regard for fact and truth.
@@johncowart9536 destiny couldn't disprove the other guys argument, he conceded and accepted that he agrees, so yeah he did sorta lose on this one
@@tecategpt1959no he didn’t
Destiney: there is no objective morality everything is subjective preference.
This guy: objective morality exists because everything is subjective
How is action x objectively moral if it’s antithesis is also moral?
This guys “objective” morality conveniently encompasses every possible moral outcome
What would be an antithesis of an action?
There is no objective morality everything is subjective preference.
Hmm how does he know this? Does he just feel so or does he objectively know?
@Kevin Gallagher Okay I don't usually think of that in terms of antithesis. I use the term negation. An antithesis can also be some other thing that isn't a negation. Like procreation could be an antithesis to killing. There's no "not" in there, but it's still a valid comparison.
Using the term antithesis as a synonym of negation turns non-action into the opposite of everything. There's no clear distinction for any prescription. Like for instance saving someone's life would be moral, but it's antithesis would be non-action in your interpretation. Or circuitously we could say we will not not save someone's life. It's very awkward.
As to the action being moral it would be moral when no one is really losing their autonomy. Like if one were to choose to murder if the person they were killing were a philosophical zombie then that would be a moral action. It's a case in the extreme. We would assume that event would not happen in real life, but most standards are like that. The triangle is a case of such a standard that we can't observe in reality.
Gabriel Duran
well first while I agree with your solipsistic framing I thing it’s an incredibly weak position to start an argument from because inherently everyone has to start from some fundamental assumptions. (To make any claim about the world I have to assume that I am a rational being that can use my perception to make statements about those perceptions)
If we can agree on those assumptions then we can start to make claims.
I can rationally prove the fact that subjective morality exists because I have the capability of disagreeing with you on any given moral claim. This is because my perception of morality is different that yours. In order for us to agree we would need to agree on certain assumptions.
Given this, objective morality only exists in the sense that we both subjectively value and agree on assumptions, definitions and end goals of that moral system
@@RPLUNKETT94 I don't think simple disagreement, or differing perceptions refute objective morality. Like a person could perceive wrongly. You haven't yet shown that you are perceiving correctly. It's not so much solipsism as much as you could just be in error somewhere before your conclusion, and somewhere after your starting assumptions. But you have no well defined premises that distinguish your difference from error.
Destiny got destroyed by Foucault’s estranged son in this debate.
lmao I was thinking the same thing
Around 6:00 bald dude's just arguing for inter-subjective morality, ie the social consensus on what is generally considered to be right and wrong. Yeah, we all understand that that is a thing that can exist. That's not objective though.
/argument
/argument... haahha fk off you idiot
@@Gnolomweb Thank you
@@Gnolomweb Sure, if you start arguing within the assumptions of a moral framework that you have subjectively selected to be the most preferable, then *suddenly*, as if by magic, you can start claiming objectivity of your moral judgement. In the same way Christians argue that their morality is objective once you accept the legitimacy of Christianity (eg assuming Christianity is true, one can claim as objective fact that we should be prohibiting homosexual acts; perfectly objective moral prescription there).
Objective here means that individual persons' values play no part, which they clearly do in all moral discussions. You can try to shift the goalposts by smuggling in your moral axioms beforehand but that doesn't actually bring you to objectivity; it's a hollow rhetorical gambit.
@@IMatchoNation you know the that your subjective values don't matter if you view something intersubjektive?
@@retard1657 Sorry, what are you trying to say?
"If we ask everyone and see the commonalities of their intuitive morality, thats how we get objectivity"
Ah yes, the rotten tomatoes theory of morality
To me it is similar to tracking human life expectancy. Objectively human lifespan has been increasing even though some humans still die at an early age. Simlarily, human morality has been progressing even though individuals might have different morals. So if you stand back, there is an objective direction that moral progress has been heading in.
@@MrWestbrook I don't really agree with that statement. We used to have extremely different morals 2000 years ago, but you wouldn't say that the general moral consensus in a population would be the objectively correct one. With your statement that we are moving towards an objective one, I think that is coming from an extremely biased view where your morals are the "finish line".
@@sleepy3362 Moral realism looks at the data to make the objective statement of what direction something is heading towards based on consensus. There will be outliers but as long as a direction can be shown, it is evidence because it points in a specific direction. The same way that you could look at global temperatures over the past 1000 years and make the objective statement that the planet is getting warmer.
Neither statement says if the direction is right or wrong. I think the issue is that people often tie right and wrong with morality instead of just looking at morality as how humans treat one another. So then if we can say that morality is how humans treat each other, and we can plot out a direction that human interactions seem to be heading, then we can say that something is moral if it heads in the same direction and immoral if it goes the other direction. Right and wrong only come into play if you have a goal and say something like "If you want to be moral, then it is right to do an action that follows the direction morality is heading." Also my personal morals don't play into it. The consensus it what is used as the evidence.
If this really interests you check out the sources on this page plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/ (especially the 20th century ones) There is plenty of material to sink your teeth into.
@@MrWestbrook I guess I interpreted your comment as objective morality meaning objectively GOOD morals. And that you meant that we were heading towards objectively good morlas. I'll have to read that later. But from your new comment I probably agree with you.
@@MrWestbrook what an unexpected insightful exchange
Am I going crazy or are there birds in the background throughout the whole debate? What's with the birds?
he has kerbal space program running in the background
birds are a myth.
@@MenWithoutTies true
You are going crazy AND there are birds in the background. Good luck.
Yeah, frickin nature.
30 mins in, essentially the dude just repeats that definitions are objective, so "subjectivity" is "objective" because it has a definition. Saved ya an hour.
Destiny's triangles and imaginary apples got objectively destroyed in this debate.
Morality cannot be absolutely objective, but it can be objectively measured if we agree on the axiom that inducing human suffering is immoral and improving human wellbeing is moral.
This guy: "Objective means when it's independent of opinion"
Also this guy: "We can just ask many people their opinion about how they feel and then generalize to get to an objective fact."
How is that not stupid?
Temper R. Haring I know this is late but his example with an object being fuzzy explains it well. You can’t really describe what fuzzy is to someone, you just have to hope that they have experienced something similar and can relate to what feeling something fuzzy is like. So when a bunch of people around the world have felt similar textures that are deemed fuzzy, we get to an objective fact that this object and it’s characteristics are fuzzy. Despite it being made from multiple opinions from different people, we still get to a fact of what fuzzy is, and that fact will not change depending on those people’s opinions anymore. He’s just trying to make that same argument with morality.
@@nvoo123 I think this is a bit misleading. Either you are talking about the experience of feeling something fuzzy which is not objective because, well, it by definition is a subjective thing, or you are talking about a "scientific" definition of the word 'fuzzy'. In that case it is nothing like morality because then it could be measured if some object is fuzzy or not, which is not the case for good or bad.
Temper R. Haring I agree that when you are getting in the realm of perceptions and experiences there really isn’t much objectivity. But I don’t think he meant to use just fuzzy as a proof but more of as an example as to how humans can have subjective views on certain things and bring all these different views together to create an objective fact without really knowing the “science” behind it. We can talk about colors the same way. I know that now we have ways to measure the wavelengths of colors but let’s say this was before we did. A person can see a strawberry and know that it was red, a red green colorblind person can go up to that same strawberry and see his own version of “red” and they know it’s red because that’s what they’ve been told their whole life. Both of them see their own version of red but it is also fact that the strawberry is red. They both have their own subjective views of the red strawberry but the strawberry itself being red is an objective fact even if they didn’t know how to measure wavelengths of light at the time. Maybe now we are just at a point where we can’t measure what’s right and wrong? I really don’t have an opinion for either side right now but I thought the fuzzy argument was really interesting.
@@nvoo123 With the examples of fuzziness or the color of a strawberry you can "reduce" the experiences to measureable things. In the former case you can define fuzzy with certain priorities the object needs to have to be considered fuzzy and in the latter case you can refer to wavelengths of light that are the cause for the experience of color. But there is no physical thing that represents goodness. We can't just measure the electric current in some brain and determine how many goodness units the person has. The fundamental difference between empirical facts and moral opinions is that the latter are exclusively formed within minds. Without a mind to judge there is no morality, no judgements but there are still wavelengths and other properties of objects.
So different people can refer to things that exist independent of minds to compare their experiences about fuzzy teddybears or strawberries and then make objective statements about them. But with moral deeds their feelings about them have nothing to compare outside of the people's minds, so any conclusions they draw are solely dependant on the opinions of those people and therefore subjective. Many people or even all of humanity agreeing about some action being good doesn't make this an objective fact.
That's not stupid.
He just isn't articulate. There's a term for it called "intersubjectivity". It's a way to extract objectivity from subjectivity.
E.g. your opinion and my opinion on what makes a good leader is subjective. What makes a good leader is subjective.
However, if we took a vote from everyone in the world on whom the best leader is and counter the plurality winner(s) (the one with the most votes)... well that's just an objective fact and doesn't just change depending on the opinion of me or you.
best debate in months, this kinda stuff is why I subscribed.
Same
Same
You can't say morality is objective just because you value something on intuition. Valuing something on intuition just means that it would be in your best interest to act in accordance with what you value on intuition. This does not mean that it is some transcendent objective fact of the universe that you ought to act in accordance with what you personally value. Big difference there. This guy is basically a discount Sam Harris. It's strange to me how so many atheists for some reason think morality is objective.
Good luck for understanding nothing. Anyone who read moral philosophy and science would laugh at non sense you wrote
This video is objectively immoral for wasting my time. In the best of all possible worlds it wouldn't have been uploaded.
43:24 Dude refers to "best of all possible worlds" as being an objective concept!? What does "best" mean dude, what are you basing that VALUE judgement on?
Your intuition ie subjective feelings?
This guy's a literal joke, it's amazing Boneblo could keep a straight face.
It's a standard based on liberty. He explained a bunch of times that it's the opposite of bondage. The "best" is where a person has total control over what they experience. And it's not simply intuition. It's progress. There's no progress if standards aren't objective because there's no where to progress to. Yet people still assume that we are making progress.
@@spacedoohicky "There's no progress if standards aren't objective because there's no where to progress to". Uhm, yes there is, but the progress is subjectively judged. I understand it'd be nice to just be "right", but wanting it doesn't make it so.
@@IMatchoNation It wouldn't be progress then. Progress is by definition objective. Progress unlike other value judgements is measured in observable increments. An initial goal is made subjectively, but the progress afterwards is objective. Like if your goal is to build a house that house once built is an objectively true outcome objectively meeting the goal. You can try to refute that, but you'd be entering a realm of absurdity.
@@spacedoohicky No, progress, as used in this entire discussion is by definition subjective. Progress here refers to the desirability of a state of affairs improving over time, and desirability is 100% subjective. In this discussion, it does nót refer to the degree to which any process has "progressed" in terms of how close it is to being completed. Eg if I say ice cream has gotten better, ie the process of its production has improved, I am making a statement about my subjective judgment about the new state of affairs, compared to the old. You might say "well we also use the word progress to describe ice cream being in a certain stage of its creation", but that's a completely different discussion.
@@IMatchoNation The word progress is in your statement. The statement is subjective, but that doesn't make the progress subjective. You're making a fallacy of division. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
3:09 Destiny researching triangles
5 minutes in and I can already tell this is going to turn into a pointless pedantic debate over the definition of the word morality rather than an actual discussion of the ideas the term revolves around
Tom, morality is the framework we use to judge choices. Objective morality means that there is a universal standard, independent of any particular population. You were able to arrive to that the value of choice is universal. But without choice there are no moral issues, and it does not give a framework to judge choices. Your best world is actually absent of morality. As if you answered the question "how to best live together" with "just live alone".
Best comment.
Glad two internet guys weigh in on this
Destiny debates Walter White
Morally speaking, Destiny got the best of all possible results in this debate.
Dude the bald atheist guy sucks ass.
Tell me, how can one culture think its okay to kill their child if they dishonor their family name and another culture think that same exact act would be heinous murder worthy of punishment?
Subjective moraltiy in any form is self-contradictory. You cannot have a situation like that, which are completely on the opposite ends of morality. It doesn't make logical sense when you look back at it. Imagine you are an alien and you just discovered all these culturals, how could you think that all of them are morally correct at the same time? Read any philosophy book on it.
@@shuheihisagi6689 for anyone reading a comment from this guy. He's a legit troll going to funny posts and taking them seriously. He has no idea what people are talking about. He's probably very young
Forcing someome to do X is not always more immoral than to let someone choose X or not X. For instance, some decicions can be so hard that it is better to just take one. And second example coulb be that "not X" is harmful to the decider and they don't know it. So it is better to force X.
Isn't it better to force someone not to kill himself than to let him choose should he? Those kind of generalisations about morality don't really work.
Jesus Andy Warski has really let himself go
That's it , Tjump just changed the definition of objective morality and now we have to pretend that he won the debate.
In a recent debate with Daniel Haqiqatjou, Tjump said harm is NOT evidence of immorality, but here, he says just the opposite.
To be fair, theres like a 2 year window between the two debates, very possible he could have updated his position
The whole point of morality is deciding who wins when two people's preferences are mutually exclusive. In a world of finite resources, each person's action limits others' freedom to the extent that it removes some resource from others' claims. If we couldn't take action that limited others' choices, no one would be able to do anything. The issue is, when choices conflict, which person's claim is stronger? For what reason? Just saying "people have preferences and in the best of all possible worlds everyone could do whatever they want" completely misses the point of moral evaluation, and avoids the situation that leads to moral questions in the first place.
He explained it, and Destiny gave the example with the totalitarian state and the direct democracy state. Timestamp: 37:20
@@sythous1313 He replies, but he does not answer-or, at least, his answer does not suggest that he understands the issue.
@@XX-bz1wk Example? "The issue is, when choices conflict, which person's claim is stronger?" "For what reason" you asked. The reason is to maximize choices.
@@sythous1313 The idea that the maximization of choice is "good" is already a subjective preference, not an objective fact.
@@XX-bz1wk What's subjective about it? Everyone wants to be able to choose.
Destiny crushes the most greasy face award during this debate.
A triangle is a two dimensional object. If it were represented on a curved surface, it would be a three dimensional object and therefore no longer a triangle.
That isn't true. If you got 3 poles and arranged them in a triangle....it would still be a triangle. A triangle is a mathematical concept.
@@E94-y6p Yes. A mathematical concept. Sorry I said object. That was just a miswording.
Otherwise, I am correct.
@@GODemon13 A triangle made with poles would be 3 dimensional and still a triangle. A triangle is a mathematical concept, not a 2d only shape.
@@E94-y6p A triangle is defined as being 2 dimensional. You are sorely lacking if you want to question this.
GODemon13 So a triangle formed with 3 poles is not a triangle? If you were to draw a triangle on a balloon, it wouldn't be a triangle? If I were to cut a triangle out of paper, would it not be a triangle? You can represent a triangle in 3D space and it would still be a triangle because the defining part of a triangle is the 3 edges and 3 vertices.
Oh dear, a flaw in his first point on triangles (I paused there to write this, in case you point it out later).
Triangles made on a plane, in euclidean geometry will always have 180 degree when all angles are added up, but in non-euclidean geometry this is not the case, if you draw a triangle on a spherical surface, you can easily make all the angles 90 degrees making the total over 180.
So his first example isnt really that great.
Sure this might be nitpicking, but whatever.
Quite pedantic indeed
I don't think it's pedantic I too thought the same and I'm not a snobby mathematician
@@Godzillaaaaa11 I'm not a snobby mathematician, I just think that when someone wants to use an example they should use one that is actually accurate 😂
Beyond that, the angles of a triangle equal 180° because we have defined the rules of geometry. Those definitions are subjective. Once the rules are in place then objective assessments can be made based on those rules.
@@Godzillaaaaa11 I say its pedantic because the argument doesnt rest on the strict idea of what a triangle actually is or isnt. It was an argument from analogy because TJ was trying to communicate a very abstract idea.
His theory of the perfect world really feels reminicent of Plato's world of forms, but then again so does our entire approach to language.
Interesting thought experiment:
His construct of the perfect world is subject to the same ideas used to criticize god. Any hypothetical you could produce, such as "can god make a stone even he can't move" would apply. I think the most useful thought experiment would be "can we give you the choice to force other beings with autonomy into your world and remove their ability to choose?"
In this example, we either restrict your ability to choose the option or give you the option to commit treason upon your own values. So in this case, even his most fundamental hypothetical can't concretely prove his point.
To be honest this guy position seems to be simply subjective, he assumed that giving option for everyone (not even that logically speaking only for people that want to leave other people alone) to chose what they perceive to be best world to live in is objective moral option. What if one person wants to control everyone else or just specific people, then either you are forced to subjugate other people to that person will or deprive person that wants to control someone of ability to chose, ultimately subverting principle that giving ability people to chose is morally objective truth, it would be simply a matter of personal preference choosing who will get to make a decision (even if you with majority that simply makes it an opinion that preference of majority is more moral than preference of certain individuals).
Not to mention this hypothetical is simply ridiculous because it has no bearing in objective reality, I could simply craft argument in hypothetical world where everyone experiences joy after being raped as an argument for rape being objectively moral choice (even then I would have to assume to experiencing joy is moral fact) but that's simply not true in an objective reality.
So even his principle operates on opinion (even if it's majority opinion), I personally simply reject notion that allowing person to become pretty much deity in own "reality" as logically speaking it would simply result in many abusive realities, as for an example in reality of sadist such person would simply torment people within their reality.
you make a good argument.. i wish destiny was not so stressed in this debate and asked him something similar at some point. :/
giving the person an option(right) to choose how they want to build a world that they perceive to be the best is always preferable to restricting ones freedom to choose regardless of what those choices entail.
@@umparsoze2612 So I assume you support my right to kidnap you, lock you up in a basement and horrifically torture you for my own amusement is preferable than well not giving me a right to do so? In fact any behavioral restriction would violate your principle making law obsolete, needless to say would lead to creation of a world few would desire to live in such world, so you couldn't even apply general moral intuition as argument for and it would refute notion that it's always preferable, or at least that in every instance people find it preferable. If you answer no, then you already contradicted own principle as you admitted you didn't find preferable to not restrict my freedom over restricting it.
You are missing the point. The fundamental right to choose in and of itself is always preferable to being forcefully constrained in exercising choice. The choices can be infinite. Would you prefer to live in a world where you cannot be free to make choices or a world where you do not face those constraints? Forget about the consequences of those limitless choices for a second and just think about the intrinsic value underlying the freedom or right to choose.
And in your thought experiment you are violating the principle by denying the person the right to choose not to be harmed or be held against his will.
44:12 perfect example of breaching the is-ought gap and destiny just let it slide
The Great Shredman Here’s the thing, you CAN breach that gap, but what you MUST do is concede that point when challenged. At least, that’s the only way to remain logically consistent.
@iPancham I think Rationality Rules is one of the only people I've heard of breach the is-ought gap in a way that's completely logically consistent. If you haven't heard of him, he argues for the existence of conditional oughts which basically means that every normative statement is contingent on a descriptive one (ie if you want this, you should do that).
Great debate!!
Destiny, hold my hand, protect me from the world 🌎
Anyone can play guitar?!
This guy is just simply not talking about morality and it took 40 minutes to get to that
i think what this guy is basically saying is that its an objective fact that most humans want things and they want what they prefer. it does seem to be a universal truth that humans want what they prefer. but i believe the argument is about that there are universal preferences. the preferences or values, are what is subjective. many people clearly disagree on what to value all the time.
Speaking of objectivity, the idea that Noam Chomsky is an anarco-capitalist is objectively false.
Idk. The more I listen, the more it sounds like this dude is saying "The *only* moral fact is that choice is good. From there, everyone is allowed to choose the rest of their own moral facts. But believe me, moral fact exists."
he is saying that choice is the ultimate moral or good that everything else comes from like.. love, truth..etc.( He is basically saying that love, truth, freedom and all that comes from this ultimate moral thing that is choice.) he is thus eliminating paradoxes were a moral truth faces against another moral truth. For example, would you lie to save someones life.. So is saving someones life more important than lying? (or the train problem)...etc.
Edit: Actually nvm i dont know what he is saying...
You can choose to be like you wish it does not mean your choice is moral or good. Having that choice is good not your disturbing morals. For me good and bad exist and people can choose to be, some options are good and some are even better.
Is objective morality becoming god and creating your own perfect existence ?
The thing is, the definition of morality is different from different sources. As it can be objective or subjective depending on the definition, it's kind of a silly point to debate. Obviously, it could be objective in the sense that there are things one can do that objectively would be better for society and the well-being of people than other things, while it could be subjective in the sense that one could argue that that is not necessarily the goal of morality. It's all fine to have a viewpoint on the subject, but it really boils down to what is your preference of viewing the world/what helps your argument the best.
The birds chirping in the background was my favourite part of the debate
Destiny looked greasy in this debate.
@@Gnolomweb LMAO Destiny is a liberal, not a leftist
destiny is funny on his show because he's always nicely dressed and enthusiastic trying to make it entertaining why destiny looks like he just woke up
I find it ironic how when Tom debated askyourself he said his morality is incompatible with error theory, yet here he has conceded that an error theorist could agree with his entire view of morality without issues.
Think about religions. Some deem it wrong to eat pork. Opposing religions see nothing wrong with eating pork. There are many different cultures=many different mindsets. Some may clash proving that Morality cannot be Objective
Bald markiplier
Bald markiplier
Questioning the existence of morality because it seems to be rooted on what people prefer is the same as questioning reality because it seems to be rooted on what people perceive.
You’re kind of missing something I think. We very well could question everybody’s perception but we don’t. We know it benefits everybody to assume our perception is correct. We actually do the same thing with morality. Does it exist? No. But we assume it does cause it is what we want to do. It’s kind of like this. Most of math relies on total assumptions that we can’t prove. We made them up. Morality is that. It’s the shit we made up. We can make objective statements about the thing we made up.
So your argument for not questioning the physical worlds is because "We know it benefits everybody to assume our perception is correct", I can say the same about morality.
That is my point, you can't simultaneously say for certain that morality doesn't exist and then say that the physical world exists because it is convenient.
And also, as far as I know, for the axioms of math, we didn't just invent them, we discovered them. Because at the beginning we had some and then we changed them because it matched better the idea we were pursuing.
@@santiagoley6403 I mean I don't see the problem, because I deny the existence of a physical world lol.
@@pandawandaswhy
@@Hi-cu2vx dunno what a physical world is supposed to be
Objective morality *probably* doesn't exist, but there are much better cases for it than Steven's opponent made here. Appeals to perception of the masses don't get you anywhere close to objectivity, and I'm shocked he didn't know that.
Actually… most moral philosophers do what he’s doing. They use “intuitions” and “seemings”. Expert consensus is that this is a good way to do moral philosophy. If you disagree with that, you disagree with expert consensus. I lean towards disagreeing, but saying intuitions “dont get you anywhere close” is at the very least ignoarant.
There might be a law of morality that is influencing people to act morally.
By asking people from independent culture can show similiar pattern in moral progress which might be indicative of this moral law. It's not about just asking people but to find pattern that independently emerge from this moral intuition people have. TJump is a philosopher and debates with professional philosophers all the times. He knows his stuff.
Morality is not subjective. If it is we don't have justification to critisize Nazis. Which these left leaners do all the time. This is complete failure in philosophy by Destiny.
Two important question was left unasked.
1) We live in a world of limited resources and it is a fact that me using a portion of these resources limits someone else's ability to use these resources. What if I prefer to have 100 times more resources to use than someone poorer than myself? Am I immoral for taking away someone else's ability to use these limited resources?
2) What if I just in general prefer to gain personal benefit by limiting someone else's freedom? How can you objectively demonstrate that I'm behaving immorally? Just because most people would agree that such selfish behavior is immoral? How is that not appealing to popularity? Even if a view is popular, it's just a set of subjective opinions. Sounds like a weak argument.
There must be objective morality based on logic and reasoning. You don't make a law for a country that says "YOU MUST LIE" because communication would cease to exist. If you had to lie then you could never tell someone how to do anything right or what you want, that is why all cultures believe that lieing is evil or immoral.
You can take that same idea with stealing, if everyone was allowed or even encouraged to steal from each other everyone would be stealing from each other and no one would have anything for too long.
If you take these things like killing and stealing and lieing and you make them into "maxims" you can see how they universally can be seen as immoral by any cultural just through basic logic.
@@shuheihisagi6689 The mere fact that a subjective view on morality is popular doesn't make it objective. All the examples you provided made the same argument: everyone thinks lying / stealing / killing is bad, so this must be the case even if all human beings ceased to exist. Sam Harris makes this same leap of faith in the Moral Landscape. He merely redefines overwhelmingly popular subjective moral opinions as objective moral positions, which is completely disingenuous in my opinion.
The term objective truth means that something is true independent of subjective opinions. In other words, overwhelming popularity of a subjective opinion doesn't make it in any way more objectively true.
2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true regardless of our individual opinions. Can you say the same about a statement like "Killing is wrong"?
The issue with this debate is that they are not using the word objective correctly. The focus is on morality and not on the objectiveness of said morality. To be objective it NEEDS to be perceptible by all observers, not some or most but all.
The issue then is that science isn't objective under your standards either. There's people who have different sense input or straight up hallucinations or delusions. He brought this up in the debate though if you had paid attention. You can play the ultimate skeptic on his position but then you can't really grant science or any other objective measure any ground either.
Where I think you guys are missing a big part of this discussion is the difference between Truth and fact. Truth is more than just a fact, if you shoot an arrow and it hits the target, the closer to the bullseye the arrow hits the more True the shot was. There HAS to be moral Truths, or else morality is relative, and therefore nothing could be immoral.
I smelled trouble when he started off with Kant then moved on to the earlier optimism.
I feel that the argument is fundamentally flawed in that morality fundamentally applies to our interactions in society and therefore a world in which everyone is totally separate and beholden to only their own morals doesn't fulfill anyone's morals.
Duder: My moral system doesn’t really have oughts.
Bro, that’s definitionally not a moral system. Morality is “what ought to be”.
That would be absolute
Off the top of my head, I can come up with one exception to his “objective” morality.
If someone willingly kills someone it is less moral than if they are unwillingly forced to kill someone.
Assuming I’ve understood him correctly that is
I think you meant to say "more moral".
But the argument against that, using TJump's system, would be:
1st Case: It's moral for the killer and immoral for the victim.
2nd Case: It's immoral for the killer and immoral for the victim.
So this is why the 2nd case is more immoral.
I used to think Rem's point that it is necessary to ground axioms in formal study was just intellectual pfaffery, but in this debate TJump proved this point to be objectively true.
@ 21:13 "I would say the (objective) moral fact is: ... Having the right to choose is moral and not having the right to choose is immoral" - TJump
Why? Why is it objectively true that having the right to choose is moral?
The audio shat itself in the beginning of this debate
That was great. An interesting POV.
Steven "we can open a compuler and throw in a bunch of programming language" Bonnell
if restricting choice is the defining act of immorality what if an agent has imperfect information, and you are able to restrict their actions to align with their own values. so, if someone was about to accidentally fall down a hole when crossing the street, their choice was to go to the shop, and you can press a button to stop them. you cannot inform them of this in time, so you have a choice to restrict their actions and align with what their actual choice would have been, or to let them fall and die, not limiting choice. If "limiting choice" freedom is inherently the defining consensus on immorality, letting people die is not only not immoral but actively the most moral choice the "best of all possible worlds". How do you account for this choice morality in a world of imperfect knowledge?
'It is intuitively always better to not force anyone' is not an argument that can ground objective morality, because it just reflects that Tom thinks it applies to every situation. But no matter if he thinks all situations should live up to such a description, it is not right or true for that reason. Indeed, even if everyone thought it was correct that does not mean it is correct.
Destiny, the definition you gave for Error Theory at around 26:00 wasn't correct. Error theory states that moral propositions exist, but they are all false. So for example "Murder is wrong" is false for an error theorist.
Bears. Beets. Best of all possible worlds.
when thinking about issues like this i forget what objective or subjective is
Morality is a human construct ... it can only be manifested by the implementation of laws within a compliant society ... otherwise, all actions are neither moral or immoral, but rather reactive to any and all situations that may present themselves ...
Yeah Nazis did to Jews is not wrong?
Yes morality can be objective, it is whatever principles produce the most fulfilment and joy. If we trial and experiment by following certain principles it will emerge that some will produce more than others.
I believe that serving and loving others is probably one of the most central principles to producing joy. but idk🤷
Objectively drugs produce the most fulfilment and joy.
@@1GTX1 depends which drugs and not in the long run but if we're talking in a short term sure maybe
I spotted a problem early on. Who says it's intuitive to behave morally? Most morality has to be taught to children, for example a child will certainly try to impose their will on someone else and not see this as immoral.
WHy is it right to choose the best of all possible worlds?
Just *feels* right to me bro
Because choosing the worst of all possible worlds is wrong
@@mattw2396 ???????????????? why do you say it is wrong lmao
@@qwerty-ib7ww Idk I don't agree with it, I guess there's a similar assumption as the one Sam Harris uses in his framework which is more about suffering than choice, something along the lines of: "The worst of all possible worlds, where all suffering which is possible occurs, is bad"
Objective morality at the base only does one thing significantly better with regard to going beyond explaining “right vs. wrong”. It’s to convince those who get lost in their morality because they can’t bridge the is/ought and it’s the only thing holding them back from doing “good” things, they should recognize that they don’t need to make that bridge...they can just start and end with the “is”.
What?😂. Morality by nature is Ought. If start and end with is ,, then it's not morality
I agree propably all or at least the vast majority would agree that we should have freedom to do what we want, as long as we don't harm others, religious people excluded. But ultimately i also agree with destiny, i don't think most people would call that morality or that it is defined that way. So Tjump made an interesting case, but not for morality. Maybe for something linked to morality...
I always say that I believe that morality is objective, but never that I have the objective matter of fact as to what those moral principles actually are. Like, I can't say that I can answer every or any moral question, just that there is an objectively true answer. Moreover, with the exact same circumstances, a moral action is a moral action no matter who does it, and an immoral action is immoral no matter who does it. This is more in opposition to moral relativism, where morality is culturally or subjectively determined
God damn the introductions
>triangles aren’t real
>gravity is voluntary
What the fuck is this guy on
Morality is about interactions between sentient beings, but Tom’s moral exemplar involves being perfectly free to do want you want, as long as it has no effect on anyone else, which would imply no interactions with anyone. So it is kind of irrelevant at best
Something doesn't become objective by adding more subjective opinions supporting it. You could almost say that makes it even more subjective. When people aren't willing to recognize their own subjectivity, that's when we get religion.
Truth is a real logical thing, duh. 2+2=4 right? So how could someone have two seperate moralities?
Something must be truely good or bad in order for us to conclude such a thing is worthy of moral consideration. If a tiger kills its prey, we don't attribute morality to the tiger because it was not making a rational choice to kill like we can. So to attribute moral worth, free will and rational thought have to exist in some form in order to place moral responsiblity on those agents of free will. And of you have that to base your moral judgments on, they cannot be simply be subjective opinions based on cultural traditions.
Morality must be objective in order to place moral responsiblity upon those who deserve it. If we don't, we have no system to base the idea of justice on.
*_Morality is a Choice, and there is no such thing as an objective choice_*
-John Galt Atlas Shrugged (1957)
Lol imagine quoting Atlas Shrugged. I don’t believe in objective morality but Atlas Shrugged is uhhhhh quite silly
>unironically quotes Ayn Rand
@@blankname1209 I'm just pointing out an ironic contradiction.
@@neoir8514 Is there any philosopher who's infiltrated American pop psychology more than Ayn Rand?
A clear refutation of the argument is:
The best of all possible worlds is not a reality we can move towards like this man's philosophy suggests. Because we can't progress towards it, it makes no sense to say that the right to choose, because it would be moral in this implausible world, is also a moral fact in the world we inhabit.
Sure, in a world where you can bring any desire to fruition you might be happy, which this man considers a moral good, but we don't live as omnipotent God's in our own universe, so having unlimited choice in everything we do will not always lead to the desired happiness that this man's philosophy seeks to obtain. If unfettered choice doesn't necessarily obtain happiness, it is not objectively moral to grant people the right to choose in everything.
To the people who's commenting that destiny lost of course he did. The debate was about morality being subjective or objective. The person he was debating was technically only debating being given a choice is objectively morally right. He even said anything that you create in these world would be subject there for everything is subjective except for being able to make a choice. Which he was wrong because if even one person makes the choice that having free reign is not the right way even if they're given the choice to oppose the choice it's still not objective. For something to be objective choices can't be there.
I lost it at the moderator's confusion at the Trigun question
lol
This camera emphasizing your chiseled jawline.
Sooooo basically this guy's saying "The only objective thing about morality is that it isn't objective"?
What's to say that morality isn't just a misinterpretation of emotions felt by someone when they are involved in situations with others?
As in order to have the best chances to survive/thrive, emotions are built in evolutionary to make sure that that organism's chances increase, and that they form subconscious thoughts that form that organism's ideas on how to successfully live with others like it?
I never got the justification of the need for the word "morality".
The right to choose begs the question. Where does the right to choose come from?
Wait this man is a Determinist whose moral system is based on the ability to exercise agency. Like what. That's insane
Agency still exists even if the process behind agency is deterministic. We can't just stop making choices lol
"The right to choose is the objective moral fact" try bringing that one up in the abortion debate...
Exactly the child gets to choose whether it wants to keep its head or not.