Atheist ACCIDENTALLY Affirms Objective Morality While Denying It 

Killer: What Earth? You: This Earth! Killer: Ok I go look there! - killer slams door on the way out

Be more specific. Ok. Not in Antarctica. Not in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Weeeeeelllll uh, I don't know where they're not!

i still remember a few old style movies where even the bad guys wouldn't lie, instead they'd just say things that get miss-interpreted. They should go back to movies like that.

In reality, the likey possibility..... after you say "earth" Killer - (BANG!!!!!) Your dead Then waits for your family to show up, kills them, just to get even with you because you mouthed off. Thus making you the idiot, not an intellectual

Try and be one. Best decision of my life EVER.

Be careful. Many things are masked as sounding logical until it takes an actual wise person to turn it on its head.

I had to listen to this twice; But makes total sense to me now. Great job man, Great video.

Same

@@peterbassey9668 I agree!

Even if they did there is so much already on the web Tim could make this a family business and it'd last until the heat death of the universe

tj mckay what does this question mean?

@tj mckay How on earth did you read this thread and get anything even related to sexual attraction?

@Anthony A. I wouldn't waste your time. Look at the person you are replying to. There was nothing in the video, in the original post, or in any of the replies preceding his to suggest anything regarding sex let alone homosexuality. tj here is clearly any combination of the following: 1. A pervert who wishes to drag us down to his level. 2. A jerk looking to upset Christians through mockery. 3. A moron who thinks he actually has a point. 2 Peter 3 describes people like him, leave him to God's judgement and seek those who are interested in truth. He is a waste of your time and energy.

@tj mckay You prove by your sheer stupidity that you do not know how the no true scottsman fallacy works. Such basic stuff and yet even that you get wrong. Pathetic.

It's 100% the RU-vid algorithm, which is intervened with Google and if you have an android phone also your phone. So if you do certain things etc. this will be feed into the algorithm and you will get such videos. There is a case in statistical advertisement, where a teenage girl got advertisement flyers for baby stuff, because the algorithm figured out due to her behavior that she probably is pregnant ... Guess what, she was ... the algorithm knew that she was pregnant, before she knew it herself ... just because of certain search and browsing patterns ... That means affirming a believe in God, because technology is advanced, is fallacious reasoning ...

Our phones are always spying on us. Noticed it sooooooo many times!

The device you’re using monitors your texts, your searches, your microphone, and your camera. So yes, RU-vid is spying on you!

both

It's both.

That how understood it as well. He saying that moral objectivism is based on the “objective situation” at hand without defining an “objective situation”, it also implies that everyone would see the “situation” the same way which is a bold claim. And even if there was a “objective situation” there should should be an objective moral prescription for every situation , because that’s what objective is by definition. In essence he can’t make that claim without listing the objective morals.

The definition that you gave is completely irrational. It may be the dictionary definition, but if it is then it's still irrational and the main reason why people have a hard time with this topic. Objective morality depends on the objective facts of the situation that the decision is being made. The knowledge level that the person who is making the decision is an objective fact. It's irrational to judge someone for knowledge they don't have. Subjectivists fail before they even begin bc they set up the topic irrationally, as if we are taking about imaginationland instead of objective reality.

@@mjnine23​​⁠can you give me an example of objective morality and why it’s objective? Because the way you represent objective morality and subjective morality is different than how most people, myself included, think about it.

​@@_Sloppyhammorality is concerned with right and wrong behavior. Behavior is only possible with life. Morality has an objective premise that the vast majority of people ignore. Morality is a question of what's optimal for human life.

Agreed. The 3rd answer to this 'dilemma' is to just not answer at all. Idk why 'the evolved primate' thought the best way to paint the scenario was to force you into a box

And if they said "ANSWER ME OR I'LL SHOOT YOU!"?

@@dragan176 it will depend on the person's inclination or disposition at that moment. 1. If the person's inclination is toward saving himself and his family than mortality then he will lie. 2. If his inclination is toward morality (both not willing to lie nor put his family in peril) then he will choose to die. 3. If his inclination is toward only saving himself then he will tell the killer where his family is and save himself.

@@JohnCarloCahimat Would anyone choose to die just because they won't tell a lie?

@@dragan176 yes, again it would depend on someone's disposition.

For the trash, where it came from

T.R.A.S.H. Truly Rational And Satisfactory Hyperintelligence

@@Bi0Dr01d nowhere to be found here in this garbage! Typical quote mining by cukt conmen!

LOL, can't tell if the comment was meant to be ironic, but it tickles!

@@deeschoe1245 Yea! Ad hominem to the rescue!

[Gist: A philosopher finally came up with an "objective morality"] EVERYONE has been trying to come up with an "objective morality". For thousands of years now. Someone FINALLY came up with it. Just this 2020. A SECULAR JEW, a philosopher and bioethicist named Mitchell Silver. It's also in the field of experimental philosophy. (In the future, his name might even go down in history as the one who finally found the "solution" to all this. After the Greeks started all this debacle. His moral philosophy is crucial, ESPECIALLY in the New Age. In the age of A.I. and biotech) His book is called, "Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework for Moral Objectivism" It's already there. No one just raised awareness to it yet. In fact, they're going to base the new Bill of Rights from this. They've been deliberating it since 2020.

@@CravingInk Who has been deliberating it?

@@coda821 the US government, I mean

@@CravingInk Govt codifying morality? That sounds creepy. Maybe I need to read this guy's writing.

@@coda821 I know I'm late, but governments do codify morality; that's what laws are

Haha. I'll take it.

@@RedPenLogic Ironically this comment disproved your whole video

@@dryfox11 Explain. 🤔

@@dryfox11not at all

There are no situations without objective circumstances. Everything that happens has objective circumstances.

The standards that determine what decision to make are objective. So, it's possible that a person could be correct to tell the truth about something over saving their family, but why and what for? You would still be using objective standards to determine this.... Example. I tell a truth that saves a country but it costs me my family. Human life is still being used as the objective standard. A situation where it's objectively correct to lie to save your family vs not saving them, would mean that the situations aren't the exact same. Objective Morality depends on the objective facts of the situation.

@@mjnine23I believe what you could get out of the post is that telling the truth is not objectively good due to these, admittedly extreme, examples.

​@@_Sloppyhamobjective morality is based on the objective conditions of the situation. Extreme situations have different objective conditions and objective morality depends on the objective conditions of the specific situation. You are talking about two different objective situations. It's 100% irrational to present them as the same situation or to expect the objectively correct moral decisions to be the same.

Objectivity is based on one sided rationalism ig. It's not bad if you want to go through one plan or one thinking. But dude, god knows objective morality, he is just, he is omnipotent AND he is caring. That is not supposed to make sense. If he knows what's objective morality (OBJECTIVE MORALITY: Morality like a set of rules) and omnipotent (Basically a creature or anyone who can do BASICALLY ANYTHING.) then....how is it supposed to work? An omnipotent god can change the fabric of reality which we "developed monkeys" or "siblings" define as nature. And he KNOWS how we feel about good and bad. So he should be able to relate to both. Then why is there a hell and a heaven. People might say "Heaven and hell are just a way to separate from god." OK you kinda have a point there but guess what? No one wants to completely separate from god. And god can do that. Problem with the concept of "god" is that he is considered an individual. He is more powerful than EXISTENCE itself and he is considered an individual. So look, if he has opinions on things and he is going to do something about it, then definitely people like me and even you say SATAN wouldn't agree on it. And I know that how cruel you guys said satan is depicted to be so I don't agree to him either. You get it? I neither agree with god nor to satan. I believe what I actually think it is supposed to be and I ain't siding with anybody. I work according to what I think and whether it is god or satan or good or bad. I made it according to myself and I will follow it whether is it god's defined good or bad.......that's freewill.

@@santoshkumar-cr6gi The problem with that is that if God (whatever the origin/nature is for the universe) isn't anything like the way the Bible describes it, which is highly plausible considering Christianity's semblance to other religions that would be manmade and God's reflection of the culture, then accepting the facts as truthful nonsense is just another excuse to make people get a satisfactory answer and submit to ancient propaganda. Things not making sense should be a massive red flag, because reality is generally systematic and not paraconsistent. Also, God's morality is just a list of rules He chose. It has no effect on reality other than the conceptualisation of it and people's response to it's presentation. The only specific reason it seems to be specifically that list and not another list that would theoretically benefit humanity more is that they reflect the ancient culture it originated from

@@FireyDeath4 That's an acceptable response. Have a nice day.

I'm pretty sure CS Lewis addresses all of those questions of moral objectivity. He walks through the cultural comparison and implications. He agrees that objective morality requires more than logical and empirical grounding but actually an ontological one. In most cases we don't have access to anything but the facts themselves, but in the one case we do, in the case of ourselves, we find something behind and above the facts themselves telling us what we ought to do. And then goes through many examples of right actions that don't fit the subjective or consequentialist script. You're absolutely right in that this idea of "God just choosing the moral rules" doesn't cut it, because what we actually need is an ontological grounding, which is how we actually think of the connection between God and Good- unchosen within the very being and nature of God. If you've already read Mere Christianity, find a Christian you respect to chat through your specific objections to the framework with in person :)

@@wondergolderneyes The things that inform us what we feel like we ought to do are understanding and motivation. And empathy and obligation are usually the sort of thing that differentiates what it seems like we ought to do from just what we feel like doing. If you're referring to ontology in the sense of the state of being, which seems like it's related to solipsism in how it's based on the self and their incorrigible knowledge about their perceptions and thoughts, everything still has it's own sense of understanding, desire, obligation and motivation, which are the basis of moral judgment, meaning that moral subjectivism is still true. Different agents are compelled to think and do different things, and there isn't any unifying ruleset that they tend to adopt other than that of instrumental convergence. There's also the orthogonality thesis, which basically posits that agents can have any goals alongside any type and amount of intelligence. Rulesets are just concepts, and if your sense of obligation differs from those concepts, it won't even matter if you know other concepts. A defined scale of goodness - a measure of how good different things are - is just a scale, and only that scale can justify itself being chosen and followed over the infinite other scales to choose, just as only each of those scales justify themselves. The fundamental scale of your mind could only be altered externally, and even then, it would seem that you're just part of a universal scale aligned with following the laws of physics. Your idea just doesn't work because if you told it to an agent you disagree with, perhaps like a psychopath, they would feel justified in their own mindset and continue to pursue it, since that would be the ontological thing they'd perceive that you're referring to

Thank you for sharing! You've really eloquently pointed out problems I had with this video and I really appreciate your comment.

“But from this it does not follow that he has affirmed the existence of the so-called “objective morality.” Even if this is true, he certainly hasn’t disproved it. Without an objective standard for morality, no actions can be objectively right or wrong. Clearly this “evolved primate” person believes that there are right and wrong actions in certain scenarios (such as lying to the killer to protect his family), otherwise he couldn’t have used a situation where he considers lying a necessary “good.”

What about sexually transmitted diseases?

@@KingPingviini STD's have no correlation to sexual preference. If that's a valid reason we should prohibit something, then we should ban all sex in general. Even then, what about relationships where they aren't having any sex? Are they off the hook, or are they prohibited from loving people? Maybe things would be easier if God didn’t make STD's. Or diseases in general.

@@KingPingviini Sexually transmitted diseases are not exclusive to homosexuality or premarital sex. The same precautions that married heterosexuals take to prevent STDs would apply to any other kind of sexual relationship.

What do you mean by “objectively better “ who defines what’s better ?

"Atheist here" because everyone has been dying to hear from one. Just as annoying as evangelicals.

Do you know anyone who isn't a psychopath who wouldn't protect their families? If so, what are their arguments for not doing so?

@@megalopolis2015 One example in which it would be morally objectively right not to protect your family would be, for example, if one of your parents was a serial killer. Or one of your siblings, as in the case of the unibomber's brother. But even if your family is perfectly innocent, that you should protect them is cannot be derived from the givens of the argument. Not to say that it's not true, merely that you can't get there logically. The philosopher David Hume made a distinction between "is" statements ( _that is a tree_ ) and "ought" statements ( _I ought to protect my family_ ). We can derive "is" statements logically, through deductions. But there is no tool to allow us to logically derive an "ought" statement (that is, a statement about what is or is not morally right or wrong). For those, we need something outside of ourselves. For further reading, there is a portion of Plato's _Apologia_ called _Euthyphyro_ and in it Socrates has a discussion with another man about why things are right or wrong.

@@megalopolis2015 Simpler answer (my first was too convoluted): You can't get morals without God. Of course we want to protect our families... But the atheists want to pretend that there's a rule out there saying that we have to, even though you can't have a moral rule with a moral God who made that rule. So the fact that we feel that it _is_ a moral imperative to protect our families means that deep down we know that there _is_ a God.

@@WhereWhatHuh Now I get you. Totally agree. God is the moral foundation. Atheists want to explain that our morals just are, say, due to societal conditioning and consensus, but that doesn't explain much, not the least of which would be the desire for a moral framework to begin with.

@@WhereWhatHuh Playing Devil's Advocate, some may say that the behavior to protect one's own is prevalent in animals as well - so its not unique to humans to protect the 'social group' that they belong to whether that is a 'family' or whatever. So they can and will point out that this is a biological imperative that is akin to a natural law. But it is not universal as there are plenty of other animals that just lay eggs and that's the extent of them being parents (salmon, etc). However I think the fact that virtually all humans see their children as innately precious despite the lack of sleep, massive drain on resources and time, and mental stress. There is a deep fulfillment to be had by having children beyond just a biological imperative. Animals don't care about existential concepts at all - they deal in the here and now and whatever their biology tells them. We can go beyond that. How come we are the only ones to do that?

Please define "homophobic acts"... objectively.

At mak8ng up more BS to keep the sheeple in the steeple, and their true $$god$$ walking in the door!

They'd have to first prove that their God actually exists.

[Gist: A philosopher finally came up with an "objective morality"] EVERYONE has been trying to come up with an "objective morality". For thousands of years now. Someone FINALLY came up with it. Just this 2020. A SECULAR JEW, a philosopher and bioethicist named Mitchell Silver. It's also in the field of experimental philosophy. (In the future, his name might even go down in history as the one who finally found the "solution" to all this. After the Greeks started all this debacle. His moral philosophy is crucial, ESPECIALLY in the New Age. In the age of A.I. and biotech) His book is called, "Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework for Moral Objectivism" It's already there. No one just raised awareness to it yet. In fact, they're going to base the new Bill of Rights from this. They've been deliberating it since 2020.

Atheists are "exerts" in intellectual dishonesty and selective logic...

This video finds one bad atheist argument (I agree that the argument is bad). However, at the end, there is no evidence that objective morality exists.

@@goranmilic442 I'm going to guess that you live your life as if objective morality exists. For example, if I steal all your money and your digital device because "I want it", I doubt you'll be okay with that. You won't really care what my reasoning is. The fact is it belongs to you, and it's objectively wrong--always--for me to take your stuff. . Now... I can ASK you for it. I can try to PERSUADE you to give it to me. I can APPEAL to your generous nature. But for me to simply knock you down and take you stuff because I want it .... nope. That's objectively wrong. Always.

@@sidwhiting665 No, I don't live as objective morality exists, because I have no evidence that it does. You confirm there is no objective morality in your examples. Belonging (property) is a social construct, it doesn't objectively exist, it exists only in our society, because we humans subjectively decided that we should recognize other's property. And you know that. Also, the reason why I don't steal from you (or harm you or kill you or insult you) is because I subjectively care for you. There is no objective reason why I should do that. However, if you want to prove that stealing is objectively wrong, then do it, please. Don't just say it is always objectively wrong, prove it. And in that proof you can't use my or your subjective opinions. You must prove that stealing is objectively wrong - wrong independent of our minds.

Spreading false information eh? 😆

But for me that runs up against "just b/c it's in the Bible, doesn't mean that God approved of it." That' passage isn't consistent with Christ refusing to lie when under the direct threat of being stoned in passages like his exchange w/ the Jews in Jn. 8.

if we couldn't reliably ascertain the correct moral duty for a particular situation, does it follow that this moral duty does not exist?

neno5rov it doesn’t follow that it does NOT exist, but it would be indistinguishable from not existing.

@@oakriver2128 if we see an effect in nature but lack the ability to pinpoint the source and to reconstruct the cause-effect mechanism, does that mean that this effect is indistinguishable from not existing. That it is just an ilusion?

Well that's what the ten billion commands is for. Obvious innit?

you can access it reliably through the honest use of your faculty of reason in all situations instead of relying on what you simply WANT (i.e. your desires, your biases, your simple preferences, your current emotions, etc). reason is not a prerogative exclusive to the human mind, because reason is the structure of reality, so it's not correct to say that these moral duties are "mind-independent". rather, they are "self-independent". that is, independent to your current selfish gain. in christian thought, Jesus is considered to be Reason itself. that is why we call him the Word of God, Logos, through which the universe was created in a logical structure. but we also have reason. so there's a compatibility between our reason and the reason that shapes the universe. if we can believe that through our rational faculties we can reliably discern the laws of physics, then we can believe that through our rational faculties we can reliably discern the laws of morality. if your rational faculties are dimmed and you can't take the best choice, it's not necessarily your fault, unless the dimming of your rational faculties was directly caused by you, or unless you voluntarily subscribed to a self-serving, relativistic, passion-driven philosophy to establish your decision making

Yep, nailed it. When someone says, "There is no such thing as objective truth" the follow up question always needs to be, "Is that true?" Same goes with morality. If someone claims that morality is subjective, then they have redefined what it means to be moral. Moral behavior is defined as correct behavior. "Correct" means we have to define right and wrong. . Additionally, moral relativists usually debunk their espoused worldviews with how they actually live their lives. Sure, they'll arm-chair philosophize about it online to no end, but if someone punches them in the face and takes their stuff, it's a testimony to how they really think when they get upset that someone OBJECTIVELY did something morally wrong to them. If morality is subjective.... well, maybe that person just needed/wanted their stuff more, in which case the moral relativist has no ground to protest.

​@@sidwhiting665Exactly!! God damn yet trying to explain this to a relativist is seemingly impossible.. its as if they dont want to believe it even if they do deep down maybe so they can justify their actions and actions of others whoch they agree with? Idk.

If morality is objective, why has every society and every single individual for all of humanities existence had different moral views? Even in denominations, of religions, you still see radically different morals between congregants. How can there possibly be objective morality? There can’t. Even if God exist there isn’t objective morality. It would be subjective with God being subject. There is no magical objective morality force that goes throughout the universe.

@@user-vt3vo1yd3v correct, god is the subject, yet he exists beyond our reality. Has killing innocent children been seen as objectively moral through time ever?

@@dartskihutch4033 Yes absolutely it has. For the most recent example, the native Americans used to wipe out each others tribe and kill all the babies and children to young to be of any use. It was seen as normal and every tribe would do it. None of the tribe members to get their children killed every complained. It was a way of life for them. Same with hundreds of ancient tribes to practice child sacrifice. Do you think before speaking?

That's an open debate within Christian circles (or ethics more broadly). But either way, the debate is on which objective conclusion is correct.

What if refusing to answer has effectively the same consequences as ratting them out? For example, suppose you are hiding Jewish refugees in WW2 Germany and the gestapo comes and asks if there are any Jewish refugees in your home. Refusing to answer is something they'll effectively take as good as "yes" in that they'll almost certainly exhaustively search your house in both cases. Your only fighting chance of saving them is to deceive the gestapo. What about the act of hiding them in the first place? Isn't that an act of deception of its own and a lie of sorts from people interested in where they are regardless of what you say or don't say? Keeping the truth hidden from people is still a deceptoin of sorts even if you utter no lying words. For example, a man who cheats on his wife and keeps it from his wife is still deceiving her. Hiding the truth from people still has the same type of misleading effects as outright lying to them.

@@darkengine5931 all deception is not lying, and therefore all deception is not immoral. This is where I think lots of Christians go wrong. When you fake a player left or right in basketball, or pump fake in football, the intent is to decide the other team. But I don't think anyone would claim that that's an IMMORAL act. So deceptions are not necessarily lies. And not all lies are even immoral. My father in law was an undercover cop for years, he literally lied for a living to bring down a huge drug syndicate in Chicago. I think that was brave and heroic, not immoral.

@@SeraphsWitness That's a much more pragmatic way of thinking to which I can subscribe. I always found Kantian ethics obnoxious.

@@darkengine5931 you're thinking in the right direction, and I appreciate that. Good questions too.

That's an excellent observation.

[Gist: A philosopher finally came up with an "objective morality"] EVERYONE has been trying to come up with an "objective morality". For thousands of years now. Someone FINALLY came up with it. Just this 2020. A SECULAR JEW, a philosopher and bioethicist named Mitchell Silver. It's also in the field of experimental philosophy. (In the future, his name might even go down in history as the one who finally found the "solution" to all this. After the Greeks started all this debacle. His moral philosophy is crucial, ESPECIALLY in the New Age. In the age of A.I. and biotech) His book is called, "Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework for Moral Objectivism" It's already there. No one just raised awareness to it yet. In fact, they're going to base the new Bill of Rights from this. They've been deliberating it since 2020.

whatever this assessment is subjective doesnt in any way disprove existence of objective morality...

You can't get a value statement from a factual statement, Hume's Law. So if we can't get value from facts then all of morality is subjective.

@@tedidk8639 Could you clarify what you mean with the statement "f we can't get value from facts then all of morality is objective"? I understand that you can't get an "ought" from an "is", but how does that then connect to make morality objective?

@@Wertbag99 Sorry it was a typo. It was supposed to be subjective morality at the end not objective.

@@tedidk8639 Your reference to Hume's law is correct, yet your conclusion is wrong. We can't get value from facts - right. But morality is objective (just watch the video) - therefore there has to be something _outside_ of us defining morality. Every atheist who says "genocide is wrong" approves of this moral law, a law that can only be given from outside, from God.

@@friedrichrubinstein2346 When people like myself say something is wrong, we are referring to our own personal morals, not an objective standard. We just assume that most people would share a moral view similar to our own which is why we say things like genocide is wrong. Also why do you thing morality is objective? I'm still not convinced that it is.

I don't think "absolute" is a helpful term but just adds confusion. Under objective morals, it is already always wrong to lie in isolation. What does absolute add? The atheist trap counts on people not countenancing that what is proposed is a moral dilemma which by definition involves being constrained to choices which are both bad. He is trying to show you are a relativist because you are doing something you say is objectively wrong. The solution is simple, don't be naive that moral dilemmas don't exist and do the greater good. Also under the premise of "absolute" you must always rescue those being led away to death, thus you should protect your family and not lie which under the dilemma is not possible. This is why "absolute" is not helpful.

Protecting your family is not wrong. Lying is. So, yes, you committed a moral wrong by lying, even if it was to protect your family and that is why sin is disgustingly vile. Abhorrent. You had good intention to protect your family, that should be commended and praised, but you had to resort to immoral means to do so. It's evidence to the fact that the world that we live in is condemned by sin and is therefore unfair, and forces you to perpetrate sin in order to prosper. Which is even more tragic when you understand that sin is what seperates you from God, and that everyone is sinful by nature due to being born of this condemned world. Sin traps you in its arms in those types of situations. "You are already condemned. I condemn you. Separation from God is what awaits if you were to die here right now. Though, you could avoid premature death and keep your life by lying. This doesn't change the fact that you are still condemned though. After all you'll be commiting a sin in order to live. All you'll accomplish is delaying your inevitable separation from God." - sin scoffing in your face in that type of situation. Lying is a sin capable of being forgiven, so do not despair.

It should have a lot less subscribers given the amount of videos, or rather lack thereof.

Straw man, that has nothing to do with his argument or the topic, Good try tho.

@@souzajustin19d What was I thinking? Why would clearing up confusion over what constitutes objective morality be relevant to a discussion on objective morality? My bad.

tj mckay I would love to answer your question, but I would like some clarification first so I don’t say something that I disagree with due to a misunderstanding. TL;DR: the way your question is written is too broad, could you narrow it down a little?

@tj mckay you appear to have an unhealthy fixation with sex and especially gay sex

You are not far from the Kingdom.

Hope some day you'll come to know Christ. In the real way, not in the way that about a billion people on earth are false converts and only have self deceived. I've heard most the common arguments against Christianity and the bible, and i've never seen one that is a smoking gun. Somehow people think they've somehow disproven Christianity with the question "why does God allow so much evil to continue in the world?". The answer is that God allows free choice, and if he prevented every evil before it happened, or gave an immediate punishment to every evil.. then that would require God to remove the freedom of choice from mankind. For mankind to have the free will to do good, they also receive the free will to do evil. Additionally, God will fix all the evil when the time comes and put everything in the correct place. What strange logic people have to assume that God must fix all problems for mankind exactly whenever humans demand.

What has atheism got to do with it? Questions of morality apply to both atheists and non-atheists alike.

I know right. What I've found good while thinking about such situations is asking 'For Whom'? He said it's objectively right to lie in this situation to save your family. But what if the family of the person facing this situation has committed awful things to him?

Yeah, agree

Teaching logic and rhetoric is cool job. Now, can you show me one evidence that objective morality exists?

@@goranmilic442 I cannot give emperical evidence that objective morality exists (i.e., using logic and reason). Nor can I justifiy my love my wife or children based solely on objective observable behaviour - mine or theirs, at times. I do not think it would be wise to use this as evidence against my love or theirs.. The existence of objective morality is not in the category of logic and reason, it is in the category of metasphysical or faith-based heuristics..

@@goranmilic442 ...but a relatable example that points to objective morality is the concept of karma, that most people seem to agree with. Karma, like objective morality, is not rationally or logically rigorously provable, but it is an organizing principle that most people accept. It regulates behaviour and leads to more contientious, principled behaviour. People do reject these concepts, but we generally view radical rejection of these concepts as correlated to personality disorders (e.g., narcissism, psycopathy, Machiavellialism, sadism).

@@michaelfitze7894 So why would we believe that objective morality exists, if even a teacher of logic can't show it exists. You can have faith in anything, so it's not a real path to knowledge. Love, as human emotion, is well-known, explored and experienced thing, uncomparable to supposed objective morality. Regarding karma, you are contradicting yourself. It doesn't matter what people believe without evidence, because those are subjective opinions. To show that objective morality exists, you would have to show something objective, not subjective opinions.

​@@goranmilic442 I am not here to argue. I think ideas come before the material world. I have tried to point to why. If you reject faith and subjective opinions, there is no point in debate - because if we are both perfectly rational, we would never disagree about anything. Or disagreement would be settled by pointing out the correct facts. But disagreement is seldom that simple. If our experience of living could all be boiled down to the correct interpretation of objective facts, the world and human relations would be much simpler. I am not arguing that objective morality exists as some identifiable set of rules expressible in language. "Objective morality" points to something that comes BEFORE language, and therefore cannot be fulled explicated in language using reason and evidence. I hope that answers your original question.

So there's nothing wrong with me killing another person?

Nah, that's not right. Subjectivism is about fulfilling the needs of the subject, primarily survival and procreation. Subjects can make decisions that go against this, which means that they can be wrong within the framework of subjectivism.

@@varaconn6708 Survival and procreation? I did not find anything about survival or procreation when reviewing subjectivism or subjective.

​@@ByorinThe function of morality is precisely survival and procreation. According to the theory of evolution our mental processes are evolved for the purpose of survival and procreation. Morality, being the result of mental processes, has this function. Just like a organ can vary in it's functionality, so can morality, therefore subjects can make wrong decisions under subjectivism.

@@varaconn6708 if the function of morality is survival and procreation then that means any notion of a biblical god = morality must include selfishness at its core. That does make sense in light of how obsessed it seems to be with demanding worship and requiring believers to spread its message and defend it even to death. I’ll think about this more. Thanks!

@@Byorin That's right. Morality as a survival-strategy does three main things. Firstly, it unites a group against a common enemy. Second, it demonizes that enemy by describing him in negative terms and getting into his head. Thirdly, it provides the group with habits that increase chances of survival. For example, a jew living under Roman rule is far more likely to live if he "turns the other cheek" than if he slaps the Roman back.

Just backwards

He missed a d after the first underscore.

@@Ap31920 Everyone: OOOHHHHH!!!!!!

And this cult has 0 knowledge! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7V0u3nEsmJI.html

@infinity730 Even if we grant that God is a subject, which is true, the rules would still apply objectively to our universe. As an example, however the game of chess came about, the rule that rooks cannot move diagonally was chosen by the creators (subject.) To us, the players, however, the rule that rooks cannot move diagonally is a property of the game (object). As such, even if one agrees that morality is subjective because God is a subject, the argument still holds because it would apply as an objective property of His creation.

@@Ap31920 right so why can't that also apply to any subjects objextive rules? I think everyone including theists are partaking in a hypothetical imperative.

@@Daz19 Because unless that subject is the creator of the system the rules do not apply objectively within that system. Using my earlier example, if I play chess incorrectly then no one can really stop me from doing so but it can objectively be said that I am playing incorrectly. I am not the creator of chess therefore my ruleset is subjective and can this be discarded by anyone. Same with morality. The rules of morality, being set in place by the creator of the universe upon which they operate act as objective *within* that system. You, as a subject within that system, cannot force your rules to apply objectively. As such, your comparison fails.

@@Ap31920 What does it mean for rules to apply objectively? Do you mean in accordance with a subjects intent? i.e the creator's of chess, or could it also be by the consensus of the players? or some other way? How are the rules of the Christian god anymore objective than those rules of a different deity?

@@Daz19 What does objective mean? Is the movement of the rook a property of the game of chess or a property of the player? Your final question shows you have not understood me. The subjective choice of the creator of a given system applies objectively *to that system*. If the creator of the universe is the Christian God then His rules apply objectively. If some other deity, then that deity's rules apply. If no deity then there are no objective moral rules, only the mechanical rules of the universe (aka physics). If the Christian God exists then He is the creator of the universe, if He is the creator then His rulings apply, otherwise they do not.

I’m trying to do that more! 😂

Says who? Ancient hearsay?

What if he says he will kill you if you don't tell him and you are pretty sure he wont kill you if you give an answer? Should you lie or accept your death?

RIFAT SARWAR , “they are somewhere on the planet”

RIFAT SARWAR well do you love your family? Are you selfless enough to sacrifice yourself for another, but not just 1 person, but multiple people? Also why can’t you just say a broad truth, it is true but too ambiguous or a truth that is true and specific, but at the time he gets there the family won’t be there anymore.

I appreciate common ground where we can find it!

[Gist: A philosopher finally came up with an "objective morality"] Yes, there are dangers to moral relativism. Why EVERYONE has been trying to come up with an "objective morality". For thousands of years now. Someone FINALLY came up with it. Just this 2020. A SECULAR JEW, a philosopher and bioethicist named Mitchell Silver. It's also in the field of experimental philosophy. (In the future, his name might even go down in history as the one who finally found the "solution" to all this. After the Greeks started all this debacle. His moral philosophy is crucial, ESPECIALLY in the New Age. In the age of A.I. and biotech) His book is called, "Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework for Moral Objectivism" It's already there. No one just raised awareness to it yet. In fact, they're going to base the new Bill of Rights from this. They've been deliberating it since 2020.

@infinity730 It was deliberate (he's more likely to accept one of his people over a secular source).

Yup, just another Christian lying for Jesus. Apologetics is the art of dissembling.

Little mistake in defining, indeed. However, it also responds to the post from the Primate; "In the dilemma, mix the objective moral reasoning with a relative response" would be a brief answer to it. Anyone can make mistakes. Just as what Newton believed was debunked by Einstein (just a little example), what Red Pen believed was debunked by Craig or viceversa.

@@Martial-Mat Making a mistake doesn't mean it is lying. Just as atheists constantly misinterpret the Bible, I won't inmediately say they're all making straw men.

@@mpleandre Even CHRISTIANS argue constantly about the content of the Bible. However, if you're going to make a video about the meaning of objective and subjective, and deliberately confuse the meanings, you are lying. Or a moron.

You are right that the lines seem subjective. I'm assuming cause every person defines love differently or how they want to be respected. The context of the verse "love the Lord... Love your neighbor...", Was the religious leaders asked Jesus to give them the best commandment to follow. Jesus said these two and then followed with, "all the law and the prophets hang on these two". Based on what Jesus said we can say God's law defines love for God and others. This is why Christians claim an objective morality that is not based on a person's opinion, but based on God's law.

You say "but in order to claim objective morals exist you have to prove that Morals come from God." That's just not true. One need not prove that God exists in order to show that objective morals exist. This is obvious given the existence of atheistic neo-platonists.

Just say "Nah, the jeans are not the problem."

Would morality being objective necessarily mean that our subjective perspectives and opinions about morality are not also real? I don't think that's an argument against moral objectivism.

Sean you're missing the point of this channel. The point of this channel is specifically to address bad arguments so people can improve their critical reasoning skills. There are plenty of other channels that make good cases for objective morality on their own. But unfortunately most people don't listen to good arguments; they're too busy being mislead by bad ones. The point of this channel is to address the bad ones, show why they're bad, and thus give people the reasoning capacity to move onto the playing field of good argumentation; where objective morality and theism always come out on top, mind you.

I'll also point out that disagreement with objective fact does not render the fact subjective. Plenty of people also believe the earth is flat. Doesn't mean that the roundness of the earth is subjective. Just like your disagreement with the immorality of premarital sex does not make it subjective. Your argument is worse than the one being presented here. Try harder.

@@DaveyKanabus Right, every claim needs to be proven. We can prove that the Earth is round, but can we prove that premarital sex is objectively or absolutely immoral or bad?

I find that interesting, since I consider one of the worst arguments. Can you explain why you think it's so effective?

I prefer cosmic consciousness but okay

You can't just wave your hand away at moral dilemmas though. It's a real problem that needs solving in ethics. I don't think Christians do ourselves any good to ignore that.

@@SeraphsWitness From a Christian perspective it does.

@@carsonfox6 explain.

@@SeraphsWitness He’s saying it’s worth while not to say anything even if the murder kills him because he didn’t lie and he still inherits the kingdom. I see where you come from as well.

@@carsonfox6 these are still issues worth talking about.

And You can’t measure what’s worse than the other if there is no objective standard beyond you to measure what worse than the other.

But a lie is a lie is a lie Or shall we say we are better than murderers, we who also sin Don't forget, to the Lord, we are all but filthy rags, not too much difference

Opinions and perspectives vary, yes. I may have the opinion that 2+2=5. Which of course is false. Opinions as we can see are not an effective tool for measurement. Opinions are susceptible to world view, their nature, their emotional state, etx. You'd have to be able to prove that there is or isnt objective moral truth. Which we cannot. You can only show me examples of people not agreeing. It makes no sense to assess the validity of something by the metric of people's opinions. But just because you cant measure it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. There are plenty of things we cannot properly measure. However there are trends and correlations that seem to indicate that there is such thing as objective truth. Take art for example. Art is generally regarded as being subjective. Surrealist art will have appeal to one but another might prefer the rigidity amd order of a Renaissance painting. But if it was truly subjective you'd have just about as much luck making successful art splashing around in paint as you would meticulously planning and brushing. The use of things like leading lines, texture, brush technique, color theory, etc all broaden the appeal. Which seems to indicate an intangible and unobtainable objective value.

@@austin0_bandit05 Thanks for your insight, I’ve types quite a long response so fair warning lol. TLDR: Objectivity requires unchanging facts, which only exist as abstractions/categories in the mind. Subjectivity is not random, it is deeply connected to our human condition, explaining why art can “improve” over time and is not random in nature. Objectivity can only exist in the mind, as an expression of abstracted concepts and categories, which ultimately do not exist in the real world and thus cannot change (ie. Numbers) All categorizations/abstractions are inherently subjective, thus all manipulations of these categories is also subjective. They require a presupposition or assumption. You must assume that the number 2 exists in some sense before you can contemplate any further mathematical manipulations. Even mathematics has axiomatic presuppositions and assumptions (axioms) that ultimately designated entirely different systems of mathematics. THERE ARE NO NUMBERS, they are simply abstractions based on prior assumptions. (Side note, I believe our deep habit of categorization/abstraction comes from the illusion of self created within the psyche, which is foundational to our lived experience. There is no lived experience without ego, there is ego without identification, there is no identification without categorization/abstraction.) The art example is deeply flawed. First off, I would argue that the ”things we cannot properly measure” exist not in the world as objective truths, but rather in the psyche as abstractions. Such as the appreciation of a thing we designate as art. Second, I would argue that art exists more concretely as a lived experience, as opposed to a particular thing or process. I would agree that aspects of a piece of art can be more pleasurable or less pleasurable (you mention color, detail, skill with a brush, etc.) However, this does not make the more pleasurable art more objective, and for that matter, it doesn’t make it better than other art. It just makes it more pleasurable to a particular person. Thirdly, subjectivity does not mean completely random, as you say random splashing does not produce art. Subjectivity is intrinsically connected to our biology, our experience, our intuition, our self. A random splash of paint does not trigger the same pleasure as a Picasso painting because Picasso made the art using his human intuition, which correlates in some way to other humans understanding and experience of the art itself. The intuition that some art looks better than other art is just that, AN INTUITION. It has no basis in reality as objective fact, precisely because it cannot be measured or replicated. For the same reason, it does not serve as some arrow pointing down an objective path to some end point of objective truth about art. It’s simply a human creation, appreciated by other humans to some extent. If objective art existed, it would generate exactly the same response in all observers, humans or nonhuman, at all times and in all contexts. That is what objective means, there are no exceptions in the way it is experienced (always good, always bad, always art, etc). You are essentially rehashing Plato’s “perfect shadow” ideology, that our conception of things can in fact exist in a perfect objective way, but only in the world of shadows and not in the world of experiences. I am perfectly fine with saying that there are subjective presuppositions and assumptions that should be made irrefutable, in order to provide a foundation of moral reasoning. But this is different from being “objective because it incorporates the notion that the human mind could be wrong in its ultimate detection of reality. We know for a fact that the brain does not detect true reality, but rather detects a reality most likely to cause behavior that leads to reproduction. Therefore I think this is a perfectly reasonable stance, and further, I do not think we need objective morality at all. Something to think about: objective truth requires linearity to be real and infinity to be real. I bring this an additional set of arguments against the claim of objective truth, but I will not elaborate now cause I’ve typed enough.

@@kylenmaple4668 Edit: Your TLDR was quite succinct and well worded. You are very articulate, friend! 👍🏻 Truth doesnt exist only in the mind, the mind simply is too finite to have a perfect interpretation of the world. Thats not the same thing. The exact nature of a thing can never be understood completely by our limited brains but that doesn't make its existence untrue. Numbers and figures are just our way of conceptualizing it -as you say abstractions. 2+2=4 isnt wholly true but it is more true than 2+2=5. So we know that there is a dimension of absolute reality but that it is unobtainable. You cannot measure the infinite. You havent actually refuted my stance only pointed out that all metrics and tools are too finite. Which I would agree. Haven't you inadvertently proved my point? You can neither prove or disprove the subjectivity of a thing. Only the subjectivity of the opinion that analyzes it. If I say Picasso is good and you say its bad that doesnt prove that its subjective or objective. The same argument you use to disprove objectivity doesn't support subjectivity either. Which is the mistake people make. Subjectivity must be true because objectivity cannot be measured. Neither can subjectivity. Only a poll could measure a collective opinion. We have to consider the conceptual existence of an unobtainable and inconceivable and infinite truths. We have monkey brains after all. Which will respond positively to some thing and negatively to others.

@@austin0_bandit05 Hey thanks, you as well! Getting late here so I’m gonna write this quickly, but I appreciate the conversation nonetheless! I have not spent enough time thinking about these ideas, so it is nice to flex these muscles so to speak. My apologies, when I said “objective truth requires linearity and infinity” I meant to say objective morality. Morality is a reference to good and bad along a scale, hence linear and infinite. So objective morality would require you to move linearly along the path of good until you reach infinity. Thats my conception. Additionally, I think there is a major difference between objective moral truth and objective truth. A moral requires a perception to exist, while truth does not. I didn’t say objective truth can’t exist outside the mind, in fact I believe it cannot exist within the mind. I probably confused everything when I miss-wrote in the previous message. What I tried to say was *objectivity* cannot exist outside the mind. In other words, objective perception specifically cannot exist. We fundamentally cannot perceive true reality, but we can utilize our perceptions in an objective manner. 2+2 will ALWAYS equal 4, but the number 2 or 4, will NEVER exist. I define truth as existence, if it exists it’s true. I think we fundamentally agree here, but it may depend on how we each define what “existence” means. I think what you’re saying is that our conception of the world is not true because it is not real. But the real thing does exist, and therefore is truth. I agree fully. The problem is *not* that objective truth doesn’t exist, in fact it is the only thing that can exist, it is literally everything. The problem is that we have no way of detecting this objective truth or even utilizing it in any way because it must be universal, it must exist in all moments forever. By extension, something like objective morality is completely off the table, unless we reduce reality down to abstractions we can share and utilize. I agree that you cannot measure subjective truth externally, as it does not exist externally. This is different from objective truth, which cannot be measured because it cannot be detected. Unlike objective truth, which cannot exist in your mind, you can make measurements on subjective truth internally or in the mind. In the Picasso example, the painting objectively exists and has objective qualities. We do not have an objective perception of the painting, despite the fact that we do have some perception of it. We can objectively say that we perceive the color red, and measure the fact that we like this painting more than another painting (in this moment). But we cannot externalize the color red as a fact or say that the painting is objectively better than any other painting. All we can do is communicate our perception, or the measurement of our perception, and interpret other people’s communication. In this sense we can come to agreement about subjective reality. But it is not clear if this has any bearing on actual reality or a connection to objective truth. The color red is not true in any sense, but 99.9% of people can agree in their perception of red. In the same way, we can develop subjective moral truths that are so agreeable, they become irrefutable. We don’t really need objective truth or objective morality, this is my argument. It’s a fools errand. What we should focus on instead is maximizing communication, as you say, getting a poll of all humans and synthesizing that information to some base level that all humans can agree upon. Just like numbers. Once we have these base “moral units” we can properly build a moral framework through objective manipulation of the subjective moral units.

@@kylenmaple4668 I'll give it a read when I have a moment. Ive enjoyed the discussion as well. Cheers!