@@bobkalle5662 only retards are non conservative. At least in the real sense of the word. Republicans are stupid for reasons separate from conservatism.
Even though he had a bit of a problem to establish a real debate between both of them I still kinda liked this guy. He was both respectful and kind. It didn't seem like he has absolutely nothing to provide
Well you can't debate if you don't disagree on something. The main difference between the two is Destiny can express his views in a clear logical manner. Does Destiny not believe in treating certain animals different from others or was that just to illustrate a point near the end?
@@theicer213 I believe a lot of his vegan debates are him saying he doesn't think animals should be treated differently. They're all animals and either deserve all moral consideration or none
@@shawnramos422 sigh... I might have to watch those now. I really couldn't give a shit about people's reason for being a vegan/vegetarian but if Destiny thinks certain animals don't deserve different levels of treatment I'm going to be triggered and throw cardboard boxes at him.
@@theicer213 His argument boils down to there's no real difference between dogs and cows, but because people think they're cute or whatever people will get super mad if you kill a dog but don't give a shit about the treatment of cows or pigs or chickens
Yeah, I always hated that notion. A child could be born tomorrow that disagrees, so every claim that is "objectively true" through that method is susceptible to being just subjective based on which people happen to exist at a certain time. It's silly.
@@Jaime_Protein_Cannister No they don't, they are not able to construct reasoning that complicated. Look at the definition of suffering, it's a vague word that could be synonymous to "feeling bad", the word is used to describe the experience of things that are percieved as bad so ofcourse any living things would if they could agree that suffering is bad because the very nature of the word refers to things that are percieved as bad - but not things that are necessarily objectively bad. Take pain for example, not everybody who feels pain suffers, some enjoy it.
Destiny never explains why seeing that someone die makes him dissatisfied. When he answers that with what makes sense , ‘empathy’, then he can discard his stupid egoism standpoint and find out deeper truths. I feel he just uses that argument for convenience without actually believing in it
It'd make him dissatisfied because of his personal morality, he's not arguing for relativism nor is he saying you shouldn't try to do the right thing. I don't see what you're actually taking issue with?
Instead of Disneyland, could use the real example of Mt. Everest. People go past others who have fallen to reach the peak or to avoid risking self-harm.
@Fuck_life_and_Everyone_Else _ every relegious guy I have met (most memorably (Matt slick). He plays the moral truth game a lot but if you don't that's fine.
@@SamI-bs5mm haha, yeah. Modern religious people who claim there's a moral truth but at the same time interpret their scriptures according to their own morals. You get knee-deep into the JBP territory with redefining everything to justify your beliefs. That's actually hilarious!
Basically the guy was trying to prove that some moral good has to exist inherently. Destiny would be inclined more to say that ALL moral statements are "made up" based on circumstances. They're not really truths.
William A destiny had a point in the abuse. The only reason no one wants to understand his point is because people in general don’t want to feel against the general population. Instead everyone falls in line instead of being objective
I personally think a free market can regulate itself. In a true free market without government intervention businesses and corporations can still be held accountable for their actions by the public. Public image, especially in the age of the internet and social media, is a huge deal. If two businesses are offering the same service and one has a bad reputation for exploiting workers or the environment most people will choose the other option, and in turn the businesses with good practices will gain the majority of the market and be able to offer better, more inexpensive services. Government regulation can also be an effective way of making sure businesses have good ethics and wont exploit the environment/workers, however a whole host of new problems gets introduced as well. Its no secret that massive corporations have a hand in the government through corporate lobbying and donations to political campaigns. Gabriel Kolko was a historian who studied and wrote about the rise of corporatism in the United States. To quote him "the corporate elite turned to government intervention when it realized in the waning 19th century that competition was too unruly to guarantee market share." US steel tried to get an agreement between all the major steel companies to fix steel prices in 1907. By May 1908 the free market took over, smaller steel companies were undercutting prices and while US Steel was the biggest steel manufacturer they had no technological advantages due to poor leadership decisions. Their share of the market went from 2/3rds to less than 50% in 1911, and thats when they began to lobby for government regulation in the steel industry, with one of the founders of US steel, Elbert H. Gary, saying "I believe we must come to enforced publicity and governmental control... even as to prices." before a congressional hearing. They went on to become the 1st billion dollar corporation in America. Corporate lobbying has continued and grown in the 21st century, in 2011 spending on lobbying was estimated to be over 30 billion dollars in the US alone. They highly favor any legislation that will make it harder for competition to grow or even exist and this effectively kills the free market. Phillip Morris has lobbied for increased regulations on cigarettes, McDonalds has lobbied for a food safety act, Walmart lobbied for clean energy legislation, cheap healthy food legislation, and food safety. They carefully select legislation that affects their competition more than their bottom line. In a true free market it would be easier for competing businesses to start up, grow, and offer better services and these corporations wouldnt be as massive as they are today. And before you try to argue that a free market has been tried in the early industrial era and it led to extreme exploitation of the environment and worker rights, yes, you are right. However back then the average consumer was much less informed and didnt have access to the internet or social media. That climate simply wouldnt be able to exist today in a first world country. Here are some sources; www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/08/millions-spent-lobbying-food-safety-during-second-quarter/ www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2006/big-business-big-government www.investopedia.com/insights/history-of-us-monopolies/
Humans were necessarily going to evolve to nearly universally share a pretty strong moral intuition against murder, right? Couldn’t that just be what it is for murder to be objectively wrong?
I find it interesting that he said, "... to argue against that is to argue against keynesian theory and that is fucking dumb." Am I seriously supposed to believe that one person's economic models and concepts are beyond questioning? Why is the act of questioning something you personally take for granted so dumb?
Gecko Gaming okay you got me. So let me get this straight, you want people to be free of authority (libertarian) but also socialist? How much socialism are we talking here? Example?
yeah first of all I am not entirely sure of libertarian socialism but you can get a better understanding At this channel in this videoua-cam.com/video/PIfKrI6Q_W8/v-deo.html
I sure hope the guy was joking at the end there, because if not, that's really motivated reasoning shit. Like, having the conclusion that you can get an ought from an is just from how it feels right, and spending your entire career trying to prove that? Sounds like a yikes.
Lmao I thought that at first but then I realized Sam Harris has made millions doing that without even having the philosophy degree. So hey, in our current capitalist society, he should go for it.
He isn't saying that it's true, he's saying that he wants it to be true. The same way plenty of physicists want supersymmetry to be true, since its an elegant theory of reality. That doesn't mean either are married to a single conclusion no matter what.
A common problem in these sorts of debates over the objectivity/subjectivity of moral facts or claims is that these terms tends to get conflated with a number of superficially similar, but distinct, notions--like necessity/contingency. Traditionally, "subjective" meant "mind-dependent," but there different ways of being mind-dependent. Plenty of general psychological facts or facts about local world-states caused by human action are mind-dependent in the sense that their existence is causally or constitutively contingent upon our minds being generally the way they are, yet they are nevertheless broadly regarded as objective, 3rd-person-accessible facts we would be irrational to refuse to accept. What matters in the moral realm, I submit, is not dependence on the existence or general features of minds per se, but dependence on particular mental states. The realist's goal, practically speaking, is a theory in which I can't exempt myself from moral obligation simply by citing or changing my desires. Now, a lot of realists here go looking for universal values, and I think this is a mistake (even if there are universal values). We should look instead to the general conditions of value satisfaction. If I'm to act effectively in the world in so as to consistently realize my values (whatever they are), I will need, at minimum, three things: 1. freedom from unnecessary external constraints on my ability to act (i.e., liberty); 2. freedom from unnecessary internal constraints on my ability to act (i.e., healthfulness); and 3. sufficient knowledge of how the relevant parts of the world are apt to respond to my interventions. These, I submit, are objective moral goods insofar as we all have reason to realize them irrespective of the particular values we hold. It matters only that we are value-having beings. There is a kind of mind-dependence here (in that if value-having minds didn't exist, no moral facts would exist), but the categoricity demanded by moral realism is preserved. The normativity stems solely from the contingent values people happen to have (i.e., it's no more exotic than the Humean theory reasons found in many an anti-realist theory), and the objectivity stems from that small subset of satisfaction conditions applicable to all values. We could, in Rawlsian fashion, pose to ourselves the following question: "What should I want of the world knowing nothing about what I will, in fact, want?" The rational response, it seems to me, would have to go something like: "I should want to be able to satisfy whatever my wants turn out to be. Ergo, I should want to be able to act freely, capably, and successfully in the world. Ergo, I should want liberty, healthfulness, and knowledge." And it shouldn't stop there, for one is apt to depend for the realization of these goods on the actions of many others (scientists, judges, doctors, etc.), the success of which actions depends in turn on the actors having sufficient liberty, health, and knowledge of their own. I thus have a stake in their ability to realize these goods as well as mine, and vice versa, with the global moral upshot being a world that stably affords optimal access to these general value satisfaction conditions. There's nothing, I think, terribly controversial or (in Mackie's words) queer here. To say that "I ought (in the general, pre-moral sense) to x" is just to say that I have a reason to x (which, on a Humean view, is to say that I have a value that will be satisfied by x-ing). The truth conditions for such claims are rather clear, even if we can't know all the truth values until after the x-ing. The subset of "ought" statements that are properly moral have an additional constraint, but it too is quite metaphysically innocent. I morally ought to x iff: 1. I have a (Humean) reason to x (whether I know this and am motivated by it or not); and 2. Others have a (Humean) reason to want me to x (whether they know this and are motivated by it or not). A moral claim is true for a given x where both these conditions are satisfied and false otherwise. The truth-makers of such claims (the "reduction base" as the philosopher Peter Railton collectively calls them) are simply the many physical (including neuropsychological) facts that determine whether both conditions obtain. No weird, sui generis moral properties required.
Why do people have a hard on for trying to prove Destiny wrong? I guess this was much more pleasant than your average bloodsports neanderthal match which is a breath of fresh air. I enjoy these borderline almost milquetoast streams.
two things: the caller is confusing meta-ethics and normative ethics. also, the is-ought gap can be bridged with a dysjunctive syllogism. see Michael Huemer's Ethical Intuitionism*. (I disagree with this book because moral realism is probably incorrect but there are useful arguments. P1: It is raining today, or all cats ought to have homes. P2: It isn't raining today C: All cats ought to have homes. *slight correct this argument originates with AN Prior: www.fecundity.com/job/isought.pdf
In P1 you didn't use two mutually excluding descriptive statements, but you said, either something is OR something ought to be, thereby establishing a norm as it was a fact of life.
@@PiecefulKaos A disjunctive syllogism is not the same thing as a logical disjunction please read this www.philosophy-index.com/logic/forms/disjunctive-syllogism.php edit: also, thank you for taking the time to read my comment and write our your reply. You are correct if we were talking about a form of argument that took a logical disjunction. That is not the form of argument I presented. Nor is it the form of argument used by AN Prior originally to bridge the is ought gap with regard to moral arguments. The paper I linked in my original comment would provide context for the use of disjunctive syllogisms in moral philosophy among other potential "bridges" to the is ought gap. I hope these explanations make sense to you. Best regards. Thank you again.
Let me try to steel man this guy's position: All normative claims are false. The claim "one ought to believe a proposition is true only when it's true" is a normative claim, and therefore it's false. It follows then that it's incorrect to say one shouldn't make moral claims on the ground they're false. Further (and this argument is weaker), all reasoning presupposes a value judgement. You only engaged in deductive reasoning about red balls because you felt you should. Now, to my knowledge you've never contradicted the first argument, and the latter confuses physiological impetus for logical presumption.
11:05 Well it depends, do you care about well being or not? As far as I know all of us do in some sense, so that is why we aught to follow that principle of moral.
If you believe in deductive logic then logical tautologies/validities are necessarily true. You can construct tautologies/validities out of ought predicates such as "You ought to do what you ought to do". Do these count as objective moral statements?
@@Dorian_sapiens I can make a theoretical computer science argument as to why they aren't "trivial" to know. Propositional tautologies are a CoNP-complete language, meaning that the only chance of efficiently recognising them is if P=NP . Logical validities in predicate logic without function symbols are NEXPTIME hard meaning the time it takes to recognise their truth grows at least exponential in the size of the sentence. If you include function symbols it becomes undecidable and we won't know how long it could take show something is a logical validity. Knowing a hard logical validity could therefore be valuable knowledge that took years to prove. Logical tautologies/validities have already found use as mathematical theorems and could be informative to a moral agent in much the same way that mathematics is useful.
@@OnoxOrion Do you think "You ought to do what you ought to do" serves that purpose? I'm not really sure how it could, but your computer science analogy is pretty opaque to me, so maybe you're making a really good argument that I just don't understand.
@@Dorian_sapiens No, the example I gave is actually quite easy to prove. But I posit that there exist (moral) tautologies and validities that will take years to prove based on how we understand the hardness of deciding logic in computer science. Think of it as; as the length of the tautology increases, the time it takes to derive it can increase exponentially. Hence, because is can take disproportionately long to understand something as a tautology (even under the theoretically best procedure), it's not reasonable to think every tautology is "trivial".
Dude. If you're gonna debate, take some time to think about what you're saying, what's being said in reply to you and then again about what you're saying. I think your discussion on killing cows versus dogs could have been great. Fact: cows are prey animals before and after domestication. Dogs are predator animals before and after domestication. Generally, humans dont eat predators.
I would use the following arguments against the bombing of Japan: 1) Japan was largely defeated and could have been blockaded or invaded to end the war. At least that is my understanding. 2) For it to be morally right we either have to decide that killing noncombatants is not morally wrong or that there some number of soldiers that can be saved which is equal to 100,000 - 300,000 civilians. I think we can agree that shooting a civilian or even a captured enemy combatant is wrong so we must agree that bombing hundreds of thousands should be wrong as well.
well, truman didnt have so much of an option, japan was an ideological driven mess, in which if they didnt take some measurement that could ensure the surrender of japan, hundreds of civilian would literally commit suicide because they thinked that hirohito was a god and diying for him would ensure the paradise, with all forms, i believe the only solution to this was a massacre of some form, people killing themselves for hirohito or people diying by soldiers or some weanpon from another country to scare hirohito, in this case it was a nuclear bomb, something never seen and so destructive, that hirohito ended surrendering for it, i dont know how if what you say in 1) could work, because is just speculations and what i said could been a possibility too, it was inmoral?, obviously, hundreds of innocent died, but we dont know if the bomb could have saved more lives than what it taked from the fear that provoked, or japan could had surrendered with what you say, it could had been the lesser evil, we dont know really.
@@checkthisout7616 I see your view but it is as speculative as my assumption that a blockade or invasion could force a surrender. I think mine is more likely but it is just a guess. My understanding though is that neither of these locations were military targets. So the question is then is it acceptable to kill someone under the assumption they would do it themselves anyways rather than surrender. I don't think so. If they decide to fight during an invasion then they are combatants. But I don't think anyone would accept another country nuking a US city to end a war as a moral action so I can't really argue that it should be moral for us to have done it.
@@Half-timeHero they were prepared to figth again, japan never had the will to surrender because of their cultural values of the bushido, the only way to end the war was to hit them hard, or sooooo much more people would die, read up ketsu-go.
@@checkthisout7616 I disagree that the only way to cause Japan to surrender was by nuking two cities. But I am most concerned about the casualties of combatants versus civilians as opposed to pure casualties. I don't think it is acceptable to target non military targets during a war. If we do then we would have to accept it of enemies as well. And would you be OK with an enemy bombing your town to tell DC to surrender? (Or the capital of whatever country you are from)
Has he had like a legit Kantian ever explain to him the categorical imperative. If he hasn't he really needs to. I've never heard him dismiss it effectively. I'm not a Kantian, but I at least sorta know the theory.
Destiny in WW2 we were carpet bombing Japanese cities off the maps by the day. When we nuked them they didn't surrender after the first one because losing one city a day was normal for them, why would it matter if it happened with 1 bomb or 10 thousand? Douglass MacArthur is practically a cartoon war criminal who fought on our side. It's worth reading about.
Dump Truck the Japanese didin’t even surrender because of the the two bombs. And the us could have taken Japan without dropping them. They just wanted to make it faster.
@@kakibackup2koujo612 Yeah that's my point. MacArthur firebombed Dresden in Germany and they sent him off to go genocide the Japanese instead, which he did by destroying civilian populations in such quantity it makes us look just as fanatical as the Japanese that raped Nanking. It'd be a war crime if we didn't win.
You said there's no incentive to care about the environment if you can make money but that's an absolute truth made without proof. Sure it's less likely and I'm not a libertarian but my point is something else. Capitalism is not pointing a gun to anyone's head. They can choose poverty as others had before. Why I side with the commie here
This guy just dismisses any arguments against Keynesianism like their crazy. Governments haven't used Keynesian theory since 1970, it's all about the supply now and there's a good reason for it, his sticky wages theory has weakened since Western nations deindustrialised and the unions declined, same with his multiplier theory because Western nations have built the bulk of their infrastructure already (Keynesianism saw the bulk of its success post-WWII).
Thank fuck Destiny has finally said Capitalism is unsustainable, probably. At least he understands that might be the case although he admits he doesn't know enough to say.
You won't learn much Keynesian economics nowadays. Keynes is used to explain comtemporary market flaws but the overall assertions of Keynesian theory are rejected. It seems like Keynes has a comeback every time a major economic crisis occurs but this time his comeback has been short, though no economist was able to predict the 2008 crash whereas the Keynesian interpretation of market behavior on financial markets could account for innecessary speculation.
@@KommentarSpaltenKrieger I highly doubt that you don't learn Keynsian in economics school. If you don't learn it explicitly they almost certainly draw on it implicitly.
@@jacovichstabs841 You use some aspects of Keynesian theory for your IS-LM-model. But it's stripped off the context of Keynesian theory for the sake of a neo-classical synthesis. If I had to put it in easy words, Keynes is used very selectively in circumstances where the economy is a bit flawed and hasn't reached it's "natural" equilibrium again. Then some Keynesian methods (mostly deficiit spending) can be good to bring the economy back into a state that can be described by neo-classical theory, it is argued. The over-all Framework will be neo-classical theory, though.
@@KommentarSpaltenKrieger Do you study/ teach it? Or have friends that do? Where are you getting this from? Not saying I don't believe you, I just want to know the context.
Hmmm... So, just because something is found in nature in a certain way that doesn't make it right (morally). [I agree] We cannot build a true moral system because in nature we cannot find axioms to build it on. ...It sounds like even if we did it wouldn't be enough ;) I kinda agree with what destiny means, but not how he says it. Just because we cannot find/discover something in nature, just because it's a construct of our mind it doesn't exclude the possibility of being true. But yeah coming up with an independent universal moral truth is hard and probably impossible. The world is just a horrible meaningless place... If we accept that then we can live our life in complete uncertainty, in decision paralysis (or we don't accept and believe in some form of higher power, magical being and live based on that - and have a perceived sense of false certainty... or follow a probabilistic approach, and believe in things that seems reasonable - there is enough positive confirmation and no reliable contradiction) There might not be some absolute truth, maybe logic doesn't exist, but it was and is a good enough tool to make decisions, predictions with it. We value well being and happiness generally (these might not be absolute, but good enough for me, maybe they shouldn't be valued because ultimately everything is baseless - because axioms are baseless). Playing with a dog makes me happy and eating fish, pork, chicken... also makes me happy. If most people are like this then killing dogs lowers happiness and killing cow and chicken (not the cartoon, but animals:) increases happiness of the human population. So morally they are different in this axiomatic system. (Where we value the happiness of people. People! People only and not all living/sentient things. There can be other systems that value the happiness of all living being on earth, or the universe if we find extraterrestrial life... )
With increased production force, all commodities that undergo industrialisation and digitalisation decrease in value. If we assume that technological advancement continues, the workers will lose the foundation of their wages. How to account for that?
Destiny understands Egoism better than all stupid Right Wingers. Finally. Its Max Stirner's philosophy btw. I dont think Destiny read the Ego & Its Own + Stirner's Critics but his friend circle has.
I hear the "we all agree not to kill" claim a lot in folks' initial journeys into ethics but unsurprisingly this is not true. for any curious people there is an interesting (though sort of dated and a teeny bit regressive) text written by the anthropologist Ruth Benedict called "Anthropology and the Abnormal" in which she describes some cultures that have no such qualms about killing, and whose culture pivots to some degree around the practice of just straight up merc'ing people sometimes
@@christopherlin4706 idk what that has to do with my comment but 1) politics and morality/ethics are irreversibly entangled with one another and 2) I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that x is always morally wrong but x can be rational since if you are operating as a moral being there should be no 'rational reason' to transgress a moral claim (unless of course, you don't really care about being moral). See again the multitudes of cultures across time that saw nothing inherently wrong with killing (there are lots of them).
Jon Phelps For those cultures, “like the Aztecs” killing was used to placate the gods since they logically deduced “from false premises” that not killing prisoners of war or ball game ritual captains will cause the extinction of their civilization. It was still immoral since the act offends the concept of empathy. Also the premise that we are acting as moral beings is wrong. No one takes morality as the main decider of judgement.
@@christopherlin4706 1) you should really consider reading the text in the first comment because it's very cool and opens one up to some interesting ways of thinking about what morality *is* and where it comes from 2) the concept of empathy is a construction in the same way that a sun god is, it cannot be empirically demonstrated to have value or to be a universal basis for establishing prohibitions against the act of killing. DISCLAIMER: i am very against killing people 3) if an agent ascribes a set of moral and immoral values to an action based on a logical framework they are inherently claiming that there are actions one should and should not take - if the agent decides upon actions with no regard for the moral values they proclaim then there is no use in assigning moral values at all
Jon Phelps Empathy, unlike religion, is a phenomenon inherent to the human psyche rather than an unproven belief in a single or more deities. For part 2 of your argument, empathy, though an emotional reaction, can be demonstrated to have a logical basis. It is based on the idea that violating another human being deprives them of emotional connections to those closest to them, hurts others psychologically, and deprives the person of their potential. More empathy in a community leads to acceptance and social trust. It has value but not enough value to override other forms of reasoning, such as self preservation, which can make murder ok in certain circumstances (war, criminal justice, etc) 3) Yes there is still reason to assign moral values in politics as it is logical in some ways. Morality is just one system of rationalizing rather than the end all be all. When I meant morality and politics should be separate I really meant morality should not dictate politics.
I just thought this up as an approach to the "is ought distinction" by using a visual metaphor: take for example a fibonacci spiral - an Existentialist with only one eye (based on Existentialist philosophy which draws from spatial metaphors) would look at the spiral and see it as a helix projecting off into the distance, whereas a Reactionary with only one eye (assuming the premise that a Reactionary is the opposite of an Existentialist) would look at the spiral and see it as a flat 2-D image spiralling to a point in the middle. Existentialist philosophers abandoned morality, but I think morality is what defines Reactionaries. I have speculated that the difference comes from Existentialists engaging more the dorsal stream of their consciousness, while Reactionaries engage more with the emotional ventral stream of their consciousness. But of course we have two eyes usually - so this would be a metaphor for the crisis of the commons: the two visual fields (the two perspectives) would have come to a consensus to determine whether one should carry on walking down a tunnel decorated with a helix or avoid walking into a wall decorated with a spiral. Where's my nobel prize?
Communism is just state capitalism, this fellow seemed to understand that Marx’s communist manifesto merely called for it to reach the goals that capitalists sought when over throwing feudalism. Obviously both revolutions killed many, and were idealized more than the outcomes were won. Capitalism’s modern day successes might of seemed different to Marx considering the horrors that he beheld in the 1800s. That said in the last 30 years markets have remade the kings of old in a way. Much of the third world exists as food plantations with indentured servitude to outright slavery for western nations. Often poor people have slaughtered and disposed of with our aid to keep things as is.
Goals of both major revolutions were based around freedoms/elevating the common man. Marx realized that capitalism had failed to bring this about hence spending years writing about the problems of the system. I think we have a much larger global issues than he imagined. And the goal to have broadly social and community run society still makes sense as a community isn’t likely to send its children to die for a ruling classes profit. Nor would a community poison its own drinking water if it understood the finite nature of its availability. Our watersheds have been pushed to the limits of the feedback loops that our own ecosystems survive on. And as we toxify our own oxygen supply we are creating an exponential greenhouse feedback loop which will end the existence of all but the smallest mammals. Which also tends to cause huge issues for the smallest parts of life which have for thousands of years kept our ecosystems going.
No it isn't. You are just showing a deep misunderstanding of what communism is. Comminism is suppose to be a stateless moneyless society where people organise around communities just like in anarchism. What you are describing is the proletariat dictatorship, which is a transition phase FROM capitalism. USSR and China where failed ATTEMPT at establish communism. You can have the exact same critism of marxism while using the right vocabulary and not sound ignorant by the occasion.
@@anglosaxon7806 Well you said communism is state capitalism. It is not. You should say instead that trying to make communism happen leads to state capitalism if that is what you believe. I would point out to rhodesia, the french commune, current zapatista and current rojava as counter example but they existed/exist on much smaller scale.
Of course there aren't 'universal' moral truths, but certainly there are cultural ones and human ones. We see this clearly represented in movies and books as a humane framework. I expect you to be objective* when it comes to punishing rape for example. It's goofy to assume that poisoning people on a large scale isn't morally reprehensible because there is no 'universal' morality. Another way to describe my point is universality of 'truth' doesn't exist, right? But we can all do simple math and logic in spite of that. The real hot take is that Destiny should be taking these conversations a little more seriously and acting a little less like Steven Crowder sitting a table sipping coffee.
Destiny doesn't believe in the non-aggression principal, or property rights, agrees with the principle of markets, agrees with socialist principles, and isn't for abortion? What a contortion mix of hypocritical fundamental beliefs
I wasn't aware he doesn't believe in property rights given his discussion with that women where he was trying to justify shooting someone that stepped onto his property, unless you're referring to like intellectual property and copyrights.
Destiny played a video game during this debate
like always ?
@@aa898246 is sarcasm ;)
k@@arond6790
@@radiack123 it is observably true and there is nothing to indicate otherwise
@@arond6790 wht
Destiny failed to falsify the christian god in this debate
Where is this meme like statement from? sounds kinda funny.
I just had major ptsd flashbacks. That debate made me want to kill myself.
wheres your defeater bro
@@MasksOfficial what's stopping you?
Making him tonight’s big loser
"We don't call them retarded we call them libertarians" LOL I'm stealing that.
What would you call nationalist and conservatives? They are even worse.
@@bobkalle5662 only retards are non conservative. At least in the real sense of the word. Republicans are stupid for reasons separate from conservatism.
@@stickmandomination9730 destiny hates conservatives
@@JDyo001 No he just hates people who identify as conservatives because more often than not they are just regressives.
@@stickmandomination9730 conservatives means holding on to tradition tho, which is regressive
Even though he had a bit of a problem to establish a real debate between both of them I still kinda liked this guy.
He was both respectful and kind.
It didn't seem like he has absolutely nothing to provide
What made you think he was kind?
And what did he provide except fangasming over destiny?
Just curious.
Well you can't debate if you don't disagree on something. The main difference between the two is Destiny can express his views in a clear logical manner.
Does Destiny not believe in treating certain animals different from others or was that just to illustrate a point near the end?
@@theicer213 I believe a lot of his vegan debates are him saying he doesn't think animals should be treated differently. They're all animals and either deserve all moral consideration or none
@@shawnramos422 sigh... I might have to watch those now. I really couldn't give a shit about people's reason for being a vegan/vegetarian but if Destiny thinks certain animals don't deserve different levels of treatment I'm going to be triggered and throw cardboard boxes at him.
@@theicer213 His argument boils down to there's no real difference between dogs and cows, but because people think they're cute or whatever people will get super mad if you kill a dog but don't give a shit about the treatment of cows or pigs or chickens
Destiny's free market got constructed in this debate
Thank God! Now I’ve got something to watch while I eat breakfast.
A car accident right infront of your window?
>breakfast
amerilards everybody
*HELL YEAH BROTHER IM EATING BREAKFAST RIGHT NOW*
nothing can satisfy me anymore except more gnomes, tombs, and catacombs.
@@ayoCC oh my god, apparently they just did #7. It's happening!
@@smitty7326 it's streamed every Wednesday 6pm pst, either on destiny's or Lily's twitch
@@ayoCC they took a break for holidays, then Lily had an extra week of family stuff to do
Smitty Games are you satisfied now? (he just uploaded one)
Smitty Games Paris in other words.
Universal agreement with a proposition does not make it objectively true.
Yeah, I always hated that notion. A child could be born tomorrow that disagrees, so every claim that is "objectively true" through that method is susceptible to being just subjective based on which people happen to exist at a certain time. It's silly.
true but a proposition that is universally agreed on is what you are still going to live by even if it is not correct.
@@mayainverse9429 not if you disagree.
Not only most humans ,MOST CREATURES, agree that suffering is bad.
@@Jaime_Protein_Cannister No they don't, they are not able to construct reasoning that complicated. Look at the definition of suffering, it's a vague word that could be synonymous to "feeling bad", the word is used to describe the experience of things that are percieved as bad so ofcourse any living things would if they could agree that suffering is bad because the very nature of the word refers to things that are percieved as bad - but not things that are necessarily objectively bad. Take pain for example, not everybody who feels pain suffers, some enjoy it.
i invented the economy
Nah you didn you fucken druggo'
great work!
thanks @@trisolarsyzygy
The market exists because I believe it now give me my fuckin vbucks
Thanks Shrek
Destiny never explains why seeing that someone die makes him dissatisfied. When he answers that with what makes sense , ‘empathy’, then he can discard his stupid egoism standpoint and find out deeper truths. I feel he just uses that argument for convenience without actually believing in it
Even given that's true, What would be the issue with using the argument for convinience though?
It'd make him dissatisfied because of his personal morality, he's not arguing for relativism nor is he saying you shouldn't try to do the right thing. I don't see what you're actually taking issue with?
GiggleBlizzard you’re at surface level using circular reasoning. Why would his morality take issue if not for empathy
mar98co1 it wouldn’t be genuine
@@svpantheon7339 yes, empathy, what about it? Are you saying there's objective morality in empathy?
Instead of Disneyland, could use the real example of Mt. Everest. People go past others who have fallen to reach the peak or to avoid risking self-harm.
Destiny says he doesn't believe in moral truths in this video, but so many of his opinions ignore this belief completely.
I get so triggered when people claim there's an absolute moral truth.
I really don't get how you can come to that conclution.
Unless they believe in the Bible or the Quran. (However they go to relativism when trying to justify the horrible shit the abrahamic God has ordered.)
@Fuck_life_and_Everyone_Else _ every relegious guy I have met (most memorably (Matt slick). He plays the moral truth game a lot but if you don't that's fine.
@@SamI-bs5mm haha, yeah. Modern religious people who claim there's a moral truth but at the same time interpret their scriptures according to their own morals.
You get knee-deep into the JBP territory with redefining everything to justify your beliefs. That's actually hilarious!
@Fuck_life_and_Everyone_Else _ oh okay
JUST PASSING BY.
Not gonna lie, i barely understood anything in this vid
You're not alone.
I still love listening to it lmao
Read Marx
@@levvy3006 this guy was confused and anxious as hell i couldn't understand shit
I surely understand Marx because i am a leftist myself
Basically the guy was trying to prove that some moral good has to exist inherently.
Destiny would be inclined more to say that ALL moral statements are "made up" based on circumstances. They're not really truths.
This guy’s smart! Destiny is still the debate teacher of the internet though!
I think "ask yourself" is also a great debater
yeah, if youre into abuse apologists.
William A destiny had a point in the abuse. The only reason no one wants to understand his point is because people in general don’t want to feel against the general population. Instead everyone falls in line instead of being objective
@@andydavis3075 ask yourself is amazing.
@@andydavis3075 I actually like AY too haha. He and Vegan Gains are the ones who got me into online debates back when they were on Warski's show.
There is no free market, there is a dual market system: legal and illegal.
Hey guest who came on, thanks for the content, I for one enjoyed it. Good vibes
It is morally wrong to torture people for fun. That's a moral truth, whether you believe in it or not.
I personally think a free market can regulate itself. In a true free market without government intervention businesses and corporations can still be held accountable for their actions by the public. Public image, especially in the age of the internet and social media, is a huge deal. If two businesses are offering the same service and one has a bad reputation for exploiting workers or the environment most people will choose the other option, and in turn the businesses with good practices will gain the majority of the market and be able to offer better, more inexpensive services.
Government regulation can also be an effective way of making sure businesses have good ethics and wont exploit the environment/workers, however a whole host of new problems gets introduced as well. Its no secret that massive corporations have a hand in the government through corporate lobbying and donations to political campaigns. Gabriel Kolko was a historian who studied and wrote about the rise of corporatism in the United States. To quote him "the corporate elite turned to government intervention when it realized in the waning 19th century that competition was too unruly to guarantee market share." US steel tried to get an agreement between all the major steel companies to fix steel prices in 1907. By May 1908 the free market took over, smaller steel companies were undercutting prices and while US Steel was the biggest steel manufacturer they had no technological advantages due to poor leadership decisions. Their share of the market went from 2/3rds to less than 50% in 1911, and thats when they began to lobby for government regulation in the steel industry, with one of the founders of US steel, Elbert H. Gary, saying "I believe we must come to enforced publicity and governmental control... even as to prices." before a congressional hearing. They went on to become the 1st billion dollar corporation in America.
Corporate lobbying has continued and grown in the 21st century, in 2011 spending on lobbying was estimated to be over 30 billion dollars in the US alone. They highly favor any legislation that will make it harder for competition to grow or even exist and this effectively kills the free market. Phillip Morris has lobbied for increased regulations on cigarettes, McDonalds has lobbied for a food safety act, Walmart lobbied for clean energy legislation, cheap healthy food legislation, and food safety. They carefully select legislation that affects their competition more than their bottom line. In a true free market it would be easier for competing businesses to start up, grow, and offer better services and these corporations wouldnt be as massive as they are today.
And before you try to argue that a free market has been tried in the early industrial era and it led to extreme exploitation of the environment and worker rights, yes, you are right. However back then the average consumer was much less informed and didnt have access to the internet or social media. That climate simply wouldnt be able to exist today in a first world country.
Here are some sources;
www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/08/millions-spent-lobbying-food-safety-during-second-quarter/
www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2006/big-business-big-government
www.investopedia.com/insights/history-of-us-monopolies/
tacticalxxpanda agree
Humans were necessarily going to evolve to nearly universally share a pretty strong moral intuition against murder, right? Couldn’t that just be what it is for murder to be objectively wrong?
Morals are 100 percent based on empathy. Whether we follow this standard or not is irrelevant. Change my mind
Destiny is like : why do i always have to deal with this kids
Having no moral truths is great and all, and philosophically/naturally its correct, but it doesn't get a society very far..
11:16 what gap is he saying? I'm hearing "Izord" gap or something like that. Does anyone know?
Is-ought gap.
Google Hume's Law
@@millhouse701 cheers, never heard it before and thought it was some philosophical term I've never heard of lol
Rhys Williams check out David hume. Very interesting
I find it interesting that he said, "... to argue against that is to argue against keynesian theory and that is fucking dumb."
Am I seriously supposed to believe that one person's economic models and concepts are beyond questioning? Why is the act of questioning something you personally take for granted so dumb?
Excellent comment. Check out Wisdom of the Infinite by David Quinn.
Glad that guy has such a high opinion of the viewers
Destiny debated this guy from the future in this debate. Knowing what he would say before he said is. Destiny has transcended debate itself
Any thoughts on libertarian socialism?
It's basically blissfully ignorant hypocrisy
did you even research it
Or did you just base what you said off what you think those words mean?
Gecko Gaming okay you got me. So let me get this straight, you want people to be free of authority (libertarian) but also socialist? How much socialism are we talking here? Example?
yeah first of all I am not entirely sure of libertarian socialism but you can get a better understanding
At this channel in this videoua-cam.com/video/PIfKrI6Q_W8/v-deo.html
I sure hope the guy was joking at the end there, because if not, that's really motivated reasoning shit. Like, having the conclusion that you can get an ought from an is just from how it feels right, and spending your entire career trying to prove that? Sounds like a yikes.
Lmao I thought that at first but then I realized Sam Harris has made millions doing that without even having the philosophy degree. So hey, in our current capitalist society, he should go for it.
He isn't saying that it's true, he's saying that he wants it to be true. The same way plenty of physicists want supersymmetry to be true, since its an elegant theory of reality. That doesn't mean either are married to a single conclusion no matter what.
Destiny clarified market socialism in this debate.
DahVoozel lol that’s pretty much what we have in sweden
"something that we can all accept" how do you measure this? impossible
so you are saying morality is subjective?
Morality should be based off well-being.
A common problem in these sorts of debates over the objectivity/subjectivity of moral facts or claims is that these terms tends to get conflated with a number of superficially similar, but distinct, notions--like necessity/contingency. Traditionally, "subjective" meant "mind-dependent," but there different ways of being mind-dependent. Plenty of general psychological facts or facts about local world-states caused by human action are mind-dependent in the sense that their existence is causally or constitutively contingent upon our minds being generally the way they are, yet they are nevertheless broadly regarded as objective, 3rd-person-accessible facts we would be irrational to refuse to accept.
What matters in the moral realm, I submit, is not dependence on the existence or general features of minds per se, but dependence on particular mental states. The realist's goal, practically speaking, is a theory in which I can't exempt myself from moral obligation simply by citing or changing my desires.
Now, a lot of realists here go looking for universal values, and I think this is a mistake (even if there are universal values). We should look instead to the general conditions of value satisfaction. If I'm to act effectively in the world in so as to consistently realize my values (whatever they are), I will need, at minimum, three things: 1. freedom from unnecessary external constraints on my ability to act (i.e., liberty); 2. freedom from unnecessary internal constraints on my ability to act (i.e., healthfulness); and 3. sufficient knowledge of how the relevant parts of the world are apt to respond to my interventions. These, I submit, are objective moral goods insofar as we all have reason to realize them irrespective of the particular values we hold. It matters only that we are value-having beings. There is a kind of mind-dependence here (in that if value-having minds didn't exist, no moral facts would exist), but the categoricity demanded by moral realism is preserved. The normativity stems solely from the contingent values people happen to have (i.e., it's no more exotic than the Humean theory reasons found in many an anti-realist theory), and the objectivity stems from that small subset of satisfaction conditions applicable to all values.
We could, in Rawlsian fashion, pose to ourselves the following question: "What should I want of the world knowing nothing about what I will, in fact, want?" The rational response, it seems to me, would have to go something like: "I should want to be able to satisfy whatever my wants turn out to be. Ergo, I should want to be able to act freely, capably, and successfully in the world. Ergo, I should want liberty, healthfulness, and knowledge."
And it shouldn't stop there, for one is apt to depend for the realization of these goods on the actions of many others (scientists, judges, doctors, etc.), the success of which actions depends in turn on the actors having sufficient liberty, health, and knowledge of their own. I thus have a stake in their ability to realize these goods as well as mine, and vice versa, with the global moral upshot being a world that stably affords optimal access to these general value satisfaction conditions.
There's nothing, I think, terribly controversial or (in Mackie's words) queer here. To say that "I ought (in the general, pre-moral sense) to x" is just to say that I have a reason to x (which, on a Humean view, is to say that I have a value that will be satisfied by x-ing). The truth conditions for such claims are rather clear, even if we can't know all the truth values until after the x-ing. The subset of "ought" statements that are properly moral have an additional constraint, but it too is quite metaphysically innocent. I morally ought to x iff:
1. I have a (Humean) reason to x (whether I know this and am motivated by it or not); and
2. Others have a (Humean) reason to want me to x (whether they know this and are motivated by it or not).
A moral claim is true for a given x where both these conditions are satisfied and false otherwise. The truth-makers of such claims (the "reduction base" as the philosopher Peter Railton collectively calls them) are simply the many physical (including neuropsychological) facts that determine whether both conditions obtain. No weird, sui generis moral properties required.
I can assure you all that not all Christians are like this, they mostly understand faith
Shripplez expect they don’t
kakibackup2 Koujo except they do?
It all depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.
Why do people have a hard on for trying to prove Destiny wrong?
I guess this was much more pleasant than your average bloodsports neanderthal match which is a breath of fresh air. I enjoy these borderline almost milquetoast streams.
two things: the caller is confusing meta-ethics and normative ethics. also, the is-ought gap can be bridged with a dysjunctive syllogism. see Michael Huemer's Ethical Intuitionism*. (I disagree with this book because moral realism is probably incorrect but there are useful arguments.
P1: It is raining today, or all cats ought to have homes.
P2: It isn't raining today
C: All cats ought to have homes.
*slight correct this argument originates with AN Prior: www.fecundity.com/job/isought.pdf
In P1 you didn't use two mutually excluding descriptive statements, but you said, either something is OR something ought to be, thereby establishing a norm as it was a fact of life.
@@PiecefulKaos A disjunctive syllogism is not the same thing as a logical disjunction please read this www.philosophy-index.com/logic/forms/disjunctive-syllogism.php
edit: also, thank you for taking the time to read my comment and write our your reply. You are correct if we were talking about a form of argument that took a logical disjunction. That is not the form of argument I presented. Nor is it the form of argument used by AN Prior originally to bridge the is ought gap with regard to moral arguments. The paper I linked in my original comment would provide context for the use of disjunctive syllogisms in moral philosophy among other potential "bridges" to the is ought gap. I hope these explanations make sense to you. Best regards. Thank you again.
Let me try to steel man this guy's position:
All normative claims are false. The claim "one ought to believe a proposition is true only when it's true" is a normative claim, and therefore it's false. It follows then that it's incorrect to say one shouldn't make moral claims on the ground they're false.
Further (and this argument is weaker), all reasoning presupposes a value judgement. You only engaged in deductive reasoning about red balls because you felt you should.
Now, to my knowledge you've never contradicted the first argument, and the latter confuses physiological impetus for logical presumption.
if sam harris and Richard dawkins had gamer kids who liked to argue about dads ideas.
Destiny got socially constructed in this debate
11:05 Well it depends, do you care about well being or not? As far as I know all of us do in some sense, so that is why we aught to follow that principle of moral.
If you believe in deductive logic then logical tautologies/validities are necessarily true. You can construct tautologies/validities out of ought predicates such as "You ought to do what you ought to do". Do these count as objective moral statements?
OnoxOrion shutup
Statements like that are true but trivial. Call them "objective" if you want, but they aren't good for anything.
@@Dorian_sapiens I can make a theoretical computer science argument as to why they aren't "trivial" to know. Propositional tautologies are a CoNP-complete language, meaning that the only chance of efficiently recognising them is if P=NP . Logical validities in predicate logic without function symbols are NEXPTIME hard meaning the time it takes to recognise their truth grows at least exponential in the size of the sentence. If you include function symbols it becomes undecidable and we won't know how long it could take show something is a logical validity. Knowing a hard logical validity could therefore be valuable knowledge that took years to prove. Logical tautologies/validities have already found use as mathematical theorems and could be informative to a moral agent in much the same way that mathematics is useful.
@@OnoxOrion Do you think "You ought to do what you ought to do" serves that purpose? I'm not really sure how it could, but your computer science analogy is pretty opaque to me, so maybe you're making a really good argument that I just don't understand.
@@Dorian_sapiens No, the example I gave is actually quite easy to prove. But I posit that there exist (moral) tautologies and validities that will take years to prove based on how we understand the hardness of deciding logic in computer science. Think of it as; as the length of the tautology increases, the time it takes to derive it can increase exponentially. Hence, because is can take disproportionately long to understand something as a tautology (even under the theoretically best procedure), it's not reasonable to think every tautology is "trivial".
>Not understanding the difference between libertarians and anarcho-capitalists
Incredible
just the title makes me happy
@Just_J yes
@Just_J i dont think you are likely to argue in good faith
when destiny says he’s an egoist has he constructed that view from stirner’s philosophy or somewhere else? just curious if anyone knows
Defunct Account never heard of it but will look it up.
Dude. If you're gonna debate, take some time to think about what you're saying, what's being said in reply to you and then again about what you're saying.
I think your discussion on killing cows versus dogs could have been great. Fact: cows are prey animals before and after domestication. Dogs are predator animals before and after domestication. Generally, humans dont eat predators.
interesting discussion i guess, not sure why he was so adamant to find a position he disagrees with you on though
I'm pretty sure you took Jordan Peterson out of context in this debate
Destiny destroyed himself in this debate. If your moral argument is vacuous that means it cannot describe human behavior let alone better describe it.
I would use the following arguments against the bombing of Japan:
1) Japan was largely defeated and could have been blockaded or invaded to end the war. At least that is my understanding.
2) For it to be morally right we either have to decide that killing noncombatants is not morally wrong or that there some number of soldiers that can be saved which is equal to 100,000 - 300,000 civilians.
I think we can agree that shooting a civilian or even a captured enemy combatant is wrong so we must agree that bombing hundreds of thousands should be wrong as well.
well, truman didnt have so much of an option, japan was an ideological driven mess, in which if they didnt take some measurement that could ensure the surrender of japan, hundreds of civilian would literally commit suicide because they thinked that hirohito was a god and diying for him would ensure the paradise, with all forms, i believe the only solution to this was a massacre of some form, people killing themselves for hirohito or people diying by soldiers or some weanpon from another country to scare hirohito, in this case it was a nuclear bomb, something never seen and so destructive, that hirohito ended surrendering for it, i dont know how if what you say in 1) could work, because is just speculations and what i said could been a possibility too, it was inmoral?, obviously, hundreds of innocent died, but we dont know if the bomb could have saved more lives than what it taked from the fear that provoked, or japan could had surrendered with what you say, it could had been the lesser evil, we dont know really.
@@checkthisout7616 I see your view but it is as speculative as my assumption that a blockade or invasion could force a surrender. I think mine is more likely but it is just a guess.
My understanding though is that neither of these locations were military targets.
So the question is then is it acceptable to kill someone under the assumption they would do it themselves anyways rather than surrender. I don't think so. If they decide to fight during an invasion then they are combatants. But I don't think anyone would accept another country nuking a US city to end a war as a moral action so I can't really argue that it should be moral for us to have done it.
@@Half-timeHero they were prepared to figth again, japan never had the will to surrender because of their cultural values of the bushido, the only way to end the war was to hit them hard, or sooooo much more people would die, read up ketsu-go.
@@checkthisout7616 I disagree that the only way to cause Japan to surrender was by nuking two cities.
But I am most concerned about the casualties of combatants versus civilians as opposed to pure casualties.
I don't think it is acceptable to target non military targets during a war. If we do then we would have to accept it of enemies as well. And would you be OK with an enemy bombing your town to tell DC to surrender? (Or the capital of whatever country you are from)
Half-time Hero you do realize that the argument used by the us back then, was that lives that would be lost in taking Japan would be to much?
Has he had like a legit Kantian ever explain to him the categorical imperative. If he hasn't he really needs to. I've never heard him dismiss it effectively. I'm not a Kantian, but I at least sorta know the theory.
Is/ought gap is not as solid as stated here.
Anarcho-Capiltalists are the same as Libertarians in this debate.
Anyone know what game he's playing in this?
store.steampowered.com/app/457140/Oxygen_Not_Included/
i get so triggered when people talk about morality. theres no such thing
“i guess, I guess, um I guess”
Is the ambiance game music or music music
what is he playing? looks interesting
store.steampowered.com/app/457140/Oxygen_Not_Included/
Destiny read Max Stirner
Destiny in WW2 we were carpet bombing Japanese cities off the maps by the day. When we nuked them they didn't surrender after the first one because losing one city a day was normal for them, why would it matter if it happened with 1 bomb or 10 thousand? Douglass MacArthur is practically a cartoon war criminal who fought on our side. It's worth reading about.
Dump Truck the Japanese didin’t even surrender because of the the two bombs. And the us could have taken Japan without dropping them. They just wanted to make it faster.
@@kakibackup2koujo612 Yeah that's my point. MacArthur firebombed Dresden in Germany and they sent him off to go genocide the Japanese instead, which he did by destroying civilian populations in such quantity it makes us look just as fanatical as the Japanese that raped Nanking. It'd be a war crime if we didn't win.
You changed my pc bro!
Debate got morals in this destiny
....this debate
what game is this?
You said there's no incentive to care about the environment if you can make money but that's an absolute truth made without proof. Sure it's less likely and I'm not a libertarian but my point is something else. Capitalism is not pointing a gun to anyone's head. They can choose poverty as others had before. Why I side with the commie here
destiny looks so different in here
This guy just dismisses any arguments against Keynesianism like their crazy. Governments haven't used Keynesian theory since 1970, it's all about the supply now and there's a good reason for it, his sticky wages theory has weakened since Western nations deindustrialised and the unions declined, same with his multiplier theory because Western nations have built the bulk of their infrastructure already (Keynesianism saw the bulk of its success post-WWII).
Destiny got constructed during this debate
Thank fuck Destiny has finally said Capitalism is unsustainable, probably. At least he understands that might be the case although he admits he doesn't know enough to say.
Nothing is sustainable.
"arguing against Keynsian theory is dumb"
Bet they don't teach you any Austrian School in uni do they?
@@Dorian_sapiens
Keynesians economics is pretty flawed
You won't learn much Keynesian economics nowadays. Keynes is used to explain comtemporary market flaws but the overall assertions of Keynesian theory are rejected. It seems like Keynes has a comeback every time a major economic crisis occurs but this time his comeback has been short, though no economist was able to predict the 2008 crash whereas the Keynesian interpretation of market behavior on financial markets could account for innecessary speculation.
@@KommentarSpaltenKrieger I highly doubt that you don't learn Keynsian in economics school. If you don't learn it explicitly they almost certainly draw on it implicitly.
@@jacovichstabs841 You use some aspects of Keynesian theory for your IS-LM-model. But it's stripped off the context of Keynesian theory for the sake of a neo-classical synthesis. If I had to put it in easy words, Keynes is used very selectively in circumstances where the economy is a bit flawed and hasn't reached it's "natural" equilibrium again. Then some Keynesian methods (mostly deficiit spending) can be good to bring the economy back into a state that can be described by neo-classical theory, it is argued. The over-all Framework will be neo-classical theory, though.
@@KommentarSpaltenKrieger Do you study/ teach it? Or have friends that do? Where are you getting this from? Not saying I don't believe you, I just want to know the context.
Hmmm... So, just because something is found in nature in a certain way that doesn't make it right (morally). [I agree]
We cannot build a true moral system because in nature we cannot find axioms to build it on.
...It sounds like even if we did it wouldn't be enough ;)
I kinda agree with what destiny means, but not how he says it.
Just because we cannot find/discover something in nature, just because it's a construct of our mind it doesn't exclude the possibility of being true. But yeah coming up with an independent universal moral truth is hard and probably impossible.
The world is just a horrible meaningless place...
If we accept that then we can live our life in complete uncertainty, in decision paralysis (or we don't accept and believe in some form of higher power, magical being and live based on that - and have a perceived sense of false certainty... or follow a probabilistic approach, and believe in things that seems reasonable - there is enough positive confirmation and no reliable contradiction)
There might not be some absolute truth, maybe logic doesn't exist, but it was and is a good enough tool to make decisions, predictions with it.
We value well being and happiness generally (these might not be absolute, but good enough for me, maybe they shouldn't be valued because ultimately everything is baseless - because axioms are baseless).
Playing with a dog makes me happy and eating fish, pork, chicken... also makes me happy.
If most people are like this then killing dogs lowers happiness and killing cow and chicken (not the cartoon, but animals:) increases happiness of the human population. So morally they are different in this axiomatic system. (Where we value the happiness of people. People! People only and not all living/sentient things. There can be other systems that value the happiness of all living being on earth, or the universe if we find extraterrestrial life... )
destiny please debate christian prince plsssssssssssssss
ua-cam.com/channels/RYDyW5rWLgGI1qJCYr5wWQ.html i literally can't stress this enough on how much i want to see cp to educate destiny.
This guy from Australia?
Yeboah Amoafo I honestly thought he was British at first
Please stop having Phil discussions with year 2 students.
Best debater, just gotta find a some strong ddisagrement and we'll get an actual smart conversation
Read Wisdom of the Infinite by David Quinn
Nah
Labor theory of value hasn't been disproven. it'd be funny to watch you try.
With increased production force, all commodities that undergo industrialisation and digitalisation decrease in value. If we assume that technological advancement continues, the workers will lose the foundation of their wages. How to account for that?
KommentarSpaltenKrieger 129394032 yep
no more memes in this chat or else >:(
Destiny understands Egoism better than all stupid Right Wingers. Finally.
Its Max Stirner's philosophy btw. I dont think Destiny read the Ego & Its Own + Stirner's Critics but his friend circle has.
nice guy
Is gnoming to reach political revolution morally justifiable?
Do the gn-ends justify the gn-means?
Edgestiny
I hear the "we all agree not to kill" claim a lot in folks' initial journeys into ethics but unsurprisingly this is not true. for any curious people there is an interesting (though sort of dated and a teeny bit regressive) text written by the anthropologist Ruth Benedict called "Anthropology and the Abnormal" in which she describes some cultures that have no such qualms about killing, and whose culture pivots to some degree around the practice of just straight up merc'ing people sometimes
Jon Phelps Politics and morality should be separate. It is never morally acceptable to kill but sometimes rationally sound to.
@@christopherlin4706 idk what that has to do with my comment but 1) politics and morality/ethics are irreversibly entangled with one another and 2) I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that x is always morally wrong but x can be rational since if you are operating as a moral being there should be no 'rational reason' to transgress a moral claim (unless of course, you don't really care about being moral). See again the multitudes of cultures across time that saw nothing inherently wrong with killing (there are lots of them).
Jon Phelps For those cultures, “like the Aztecs” killing was used to placate the gods since they logically deduced “from false premises” that not killing prisoners of war or ball game ritual captains will cause the extinction of their civilization. It was still immoral since the act offends the concept of empathy.
Also the premise that we are acting as moral beings is wrong. No one takes morality as the main decider of judgement.
@@christopherlin4706 1) you should really consider reading the text in the first comment because it's very cool and opens one up to some interesting ways of thinking about what morality *is* and where it comes from
2) the concept of empathy is a construction in the same way that a sun god is, it cannot be empirically demonstrated to have value or to be a universal basis for establishing prohibitions against the act of killing. DISCLAIMER: i am very against killing people
3) if an agent ascribes a set of moral and immoral values to an action based on a logical framework they are inherently claiming that there are actions one should and should not take - if the agent decides upon actions with no regard for the moral values they proclaim then there is no use in assigning moral values at all
Jon Phelps Empathy, unlike religion, is a phenomenon inherent to the human psyche rather than an unproven belief in a single or more deities. For part 2 of your argument, empathy, though an emotional reaction, can be demonstrated to have a logical basis. It is based on the idea that violating another human being deprives them of emotional connections to those closest to them, hurts others psychologically, and deprives the person of their potential. More empathy in a community leads to acceptance and social trust. It has value but not enough value to override other forms of reasoning, such as self preservation, which can make murder ok in certain circumstances (war, criminal justice, etc)
3) Yes there is still reason to assign moral values in politics as it is logical in some ways. Morality is just one system of rationalizing rather than the end all be all. When I meant morality and politics should be separate I really meant morality should not dictate politics.
37 minutes in and destiny hasn't been destroyed yet???? Bring out your memes bois!
I just thought this up as an approach to the "is ought distinction" by using a visual metaphor: take for example a fibonacci spiral - an Existentialist with only one eye (based on Existentialist philosophy which draws from spatial metaphors) would look at the spiral and see it as a helix projecting off into the distance, whereas a Reactionary with only one eye (assuming the premise that a Reactionary is the opposite of an Existentialist) would look at the spiral and see it as a flat 2-D image spiralling to a point in the middle. Existentialist philosophers abandoned morality, but I think morality is what defines Reactionaries. I have speculated that the difference comes from Existentialists engaging more the dorsal stream of their consciousness, while Reactionaries engage more with the emotional ventral stream of their consciousness. But of course we have two eyes usually - so this would be a metaphor for the crisis of the commons: the two visual fields (the two perspectives) would have come to a consensus to determine whether one should carry on walking down a tunnel decorated with a helix or avoid walking into a wall decorated with a spiral. Where's my nobel prize?
I liked this dudes voice. I'd like to hear more from him.
Just a typical aussie accent
Turn back now - what a waste of time. Go back to debunking absolutists.
I want my son to be just like destiny.
Communism is just state capitalism, this fellow seemed to understand that Marx’s communist manifesto merely called for it to reach the goals that capitalists sought when over throwing feudalism.
Obviously both revolutions killed many, and were idealized more than the outcomes were won. Capitalism’s modern day successes might of seemed different to Marx considering the horrors that he beheld in the 1800s.
That said in the last 30 years markets have remade the kings of old in a way. Much of the third world exists as food plantations with indentured servitude to outright slavery for western nations. Often poor people have slaughtered and disposed of with our aid to keep things as is.
Goals of both major revolutions were based around freedoms/elevating the common man. Marx realized that capitalism had failed to bring this about hence spending years writing about the problems of the system.
I think we have a much larger global issues than he imagined. And the goal to have broadly social and community run society still makes sense as a community isn’t likely to send its children to die for a ruling classes profit. Nor would a community poison its own drinking water if it understood the finite nature of its availability.
Our watersheds have been pushed to the limits of the feedback loops that our own ecosystems survive on. And as we toxify our own oxygen supply we are creating an exponential greenhouse feedback loop which will end the existence of all but the smallest mammals. Which also tends to cause huge issues for the smallest parts of life which have for thousands of years kept our ecosystems going.
Anglo Saxon true that
No it isn't. You are just showing a deep misunderstanding of what communism is. Comminism is suppose to be a stateless moneyless society where people organise around communities just like in anarchism. What you are describing is the proletariat dictatorship, which is a transition phase FROM capitalism.
USSR and China where failed ATTEMPT at establish communism. You can have the exact same critism of marxism while using the right vocabulary and not sound ignorant by the occasion.
Tatatatatre I agree that’s why we have state capitalism not communism
@@anglosaxon7806 Well you said communism is state capitalism. It is not. You should say instead that trying to make communism happen leads to state capitalism if that is what you believe.
I would point out to rhodesia, the french commune, current zapatista and current rojava as counter example but they existed/exist on much smaller scale.
Wannabe non-normie.
desTiny
Of course there aren't 'universal' moral truths, but certainly there are cultural ones and human ones. We see this clearly represented in movies and books as a humane framework. I expect you to be objective* when it comes to punishing rape for example. It's goofy to assume that poisoning people on a large scale isn't morally reprehensible because there is no 'universal' morality. Another way to describe my point is universality of 'truth' doesn't exist, right? But we can all do simple math and logic in spite of that. The real hot take is that Destiny should be taking these conversations a little more seriously and acting a little less like Steven Crowder sitting a table sipping coffee.
hi
Morality is objectively subjective. :O #debateme Can #proveyouwrong in 3 easy payments of #facts
Destiny doesn't believe in the non-aggression principal, or property rights, agrees with the principle of markets, agrees with socialist principles, and isn't for abortion? What a contortion mix of hypocritical fundamental beliefs
He doesn't like abortion but I believe he isn't for outright banning it either. Never heard him say anything about even restricting it.
I wasn't aware he doesn't believe in property rights given his discussion with that women where he was trying to justify shooting someone that stepped onto his property, unless you're referring to like intellectual property and copyrights.
@@theronerdithas2944 Are you referring to my comment?
oh hi im early this time
Lol early me