One Question Bill Nye Doesn't Know How to Answer | OVR THNKR #34
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2017
- Bill Nye, in answering a question about the afterlife, only proved that he has no basis for what he believes. Let me know what you think in the comments!
The original video on Big Think: • 'Hey Bill Nye, Do You ... - Розваги
Bravo!
Evolution imbues upon us that we are moral creatures, therefore we are moral creatures. That's kind of the paradoxical foundation I guess?
Rational moral constructs via religion, dogma, creed, axioms, platitudes or the state don't change that, they simply reinforce our unconscious desires. We simply need to have the conversation and don't need an abstract vague unobserved third party to verify our claims.
Can't agree enough. without some form of higher power/authority there can be no system of morality that doesn't reduce down to "because I said so." Which, now that I think about it, is an basically attempt to BECOME someones higher power/authority. Definitely subbing, makes me glad I found you through the modern rogue!
Totally disagree. Look up moral realism. This video seemed to completely misinterpret Bill's propositions and conclusions.
Moral realism is nothing more than a belief that there are "moral facts." It doesn't provide any evidence of these "moral facts." Besides if morality was based in non-subjective facts, then how would disagreements over morality arise, if we could always look towards these "moral facts." It also doesn't state exactly what those "moral facts" are, let alone how we can KNOW them to be true.
Here I'll show you. PROVE TO ME, that theft is wrong. Write me a fact based thesis on your claim.
Just because there are disagreements, doesn't mean there is no clear answer (ex. earth is round- flat earthers disagree so does this mean we don't know?). If you want to take the moral relativist path then feel free to tell me how rape and murder of innocent children is a "good" or even amoral act.
Theft can be wrong simply because it is a bad idea. You want a society that functions? Then you make theft illegal. No one is saying "theft is bad because I said so" here, rather, we can argue theft is a bad idea because it objectively leads to extremely morally undesirable and destructive outcomes. No need for a Bible, a Quran, etc., no need for a God, just empirical evidence.
"Just because there are disagreements, doesn't mean there is no clear answer." That was not my claim and never was my claim. Thank you for attempting to obfuscate my point.
The question was if there is a "moral fact", then WHY do people disagree? My point isn't "People disagree therefore you're wrong." The point is that there are different moral systems for different cultures, if there is a singular "moral fact" then WHY are there these differences?
"If you want to take the moral relativist path then-" When did I tell you that I was a moral relativist? I didn't, because I'm not. I'm arguing AGAINST Moral realism, not FOR moral relativism.
"No one is saying "theft is bad because I said so""
literally 3 sentences prior.
"Theft is wrong because it is a bad idea."
Who said it's a bad idea? You?
Besides, who said I WANT a functional society, what if I'm an anarchist?
"we can argue theft is a bad idea because it objectively leads to extremely morally undesirable and destructive outcomes."
But can you also prove THOSE outcomes are morally AND objectively undesirable? And is the basis for those arguments similar to the arguments you just made? Morality A is good because without it we wouldn't have Morality B. Who is to say we want Morality B? Should we have Morality B because of Morality C? Isn't that just passing the buck? Wouldn't it eventually lead to circular logic?
When does the objective begin?
"No need for a Bible, a Quran, etc., no need for a God, just empirical evidence."
I'm still waiting for the empirical part.
"Besides if morality was based in non-subjective facts, then how would disagreements over morality arise, if we could always look towards these "moral facts."" - if we know the earth is round because of facts then how do disagreements over the roundness of the earth arise if we could look towards these "facts". Yeah, totally wasn't a claim you were making....
I never said you were a moral relativist, just that your argument is on that path but thanks for obfuscating my point.
I said theft was a bad idea, yes. This is a claim. I can make those. You can chose to reject the claim and make the opposite. This is kinda how logical arguments work... The problem is whether the evidence supports my claim or yours. Whether YOU want a functional society or not is really none of my concern. I am working under a framework of a desired functional society. Whether that society arises from a constitution or some primitive understanding, my argument works in all of them. In either case, I didn't have to plead to some form of higher authority to make a moral argument, proving your claim false.
We can prove the outcomes are desirable if they fulfill criteria we have set beforehand of desirable outcomes, ie. they give us what we want/deem desirable. If a majority of the population feels that theft is morally wrong and objectively a bad idea, well, we have a consensus. Do all of these people get their sense of morality from a religious book? From a God? Nope. Do they base their objective view of theft in their society on a religious book? Nope. Atheists and theists alike can have matching moral and objective views, suggesting morality can be shared without religion or ideas of Gods. Not everyone needs a higher "authority".
So, if you're "just good enough" you should have at least 1 child?
The problem is, caring for a human, is a TON of work.
Some species, lay their eggs or give live birth and the moment the offspring exits their creators body, the parent never has anything to do with their offspring ever again.
The problem I have with having children, is that if you are struggling to take care of yourself financially and healthwise, than having a kid is going to put even more strain on your finances and health, in addition to making another human suffer, because (by law) they are dependant on YOU for survival.
(I've always been a fan of Bill Nye, because he does science videos. Also, I found your channel by reading your comment on The Modern Rogue channel.)
Thanks for swinging by, Jay!
So it’s complicated I because bill bye is obviously a human person in titled to his own opinion and so are you but there are things that we just don’t know and we might never know so to say that bill nye should know these things because he’s a scientist is incorrect
Anyone who claims there is a god or afterlife is just simply a liar, delusional, or both.