Metaethics 

The script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy Vibe - "Metaethics" eBook, available on Amazon: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QNK8ZC UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QNK8ZC Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QNK8ZC India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QNK8ZC Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QNK8ZC Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QNK8ZC - The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R

i watched this video last year to help me understand metaethics in a-level philosophy and i just finished my philosophy a level yesterday. thanks for all the videos they're really helpful!

this taught me more in 10 minutes than my lecturer has been trying to explain in 10 weeks. Thank you!

George really would compare saying “murder is wrong” to “I dislike mayonnaise” 😂 8:30

Please consider doing a video on constructivism as a meta-ethical theory! There's very little material on RU-vid covering it, and I would enjoy hearing John and George explain and debate it.

You have an amazing form of explaining. Thank you!

Much like most subjects in philosophy, the definitive answer is “maybe” The more you learn, the more you know how wrong you can be

Watching this channel has actually helped me a lot!!

This is not just a brilliant Technic of teaching buh , it is also eye opener men ,keep up

Subjectivism and Error theory also fit within the category of Cognitivism

learned more from this than i did from a month in meta ethics class, thank u!

Man you guys are the best....glad i found this channel

Replace pleasure with well being. We generally care about well being. Why? Well because we do. Simple. We should try our best not to infringe on others' well being as much as we have power to. This is mainly based on circumstance. This is my main moral perspective.

Great overview of this topic! I'm really enjoying these videos so far. I hope I can emulate your quality and clarity in my own discussions of philosophy on my channel!

im realy glad i found your channel, it helps so much on my ethic subject :D

Thank you, it is really well explained and helpful

Hello, I want to ask something about Nietzsche related with this topic. Where do you think Nietzsche stands in ethical theory? I have been puzzling with that question for a long time. When we consider his thoughts about truths for example he seems like a non-cognitivist, claiming there are no moral facts only metaphors but he also wants us to revaluate our values and create new truths independent from the valid value judgments. But when we create our own values and name them as our goods and bads-not evils-it seems like we are adopting ethical subjectivism, which is, a cognitivist theory? I would appreciate if you answer my question. Thank you ( or maybe I should not think of him with 20th century ethical categories at all)

Error theory is known to be cognitivist (at least that’s how my teacher taught it)

Why RU-vid is not download?

Hi, there I am a Philosophy, Ethics and Religion student at A-level and wanted to thank you for your videos which are extremely helpful and was wondering if you have any tips for how to pass my exams?

Hey these videos are very helpful thanks! Are you following any specific syllabus for philosophy at all? And will you do applied ethics?

Brilliant video! I'm subscribing

YOU'RE BACK!

WOW Thanks for this!

Will there be a video about ethics of consuming animal food?

Thank you

Merely to reinforce yourselves to continue with these videos. Educative.

I feel like this discussion could have gone way more in depth

perfect

5:18 we have the same thing in most subjects. . .

Keep it up!

u guys are awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pls add caption or subtitle huhu

At 8:16 I have thought about this before. However the argument against non-cognitive philosophy should not in and of itself be a moral argument. If the universe truly lacks a morality that is inherently objective then a statement of condemnation due to a desire for something to be a moral truth can still be viewed as an emotive statement itself. In the case of murder, it is understandable to view murder as something that should be viewed as morally wrong. I personally feel murder is wrong and believe you should feel that way as well. However, that does not effect if the wrongness of murder is interwoven into the fabric of reality. But it does not have to be objective for you to agree with it. That said the logic itself outside of emotional responses to things such as murder is faulty. The criticism can only work if you already accept cognitivism as true. What happens if you replace murder with X? Why is non-cognitivism wrong? Because X is bad. Why is X bad? Because it is inherently bad. Or in other words, cognitivism is true, and as such non-cognitivism is wrong. It is a circular argument. As for concerns for oversimplification, simple does not mean wrong. An argument for why it is more complicated must be levied instead. Now, addressing the statement that it non-cognitivism reduces “statements such as ‘murder is bad’ to the same as ‘I don’t like mayo’” I would argue that this falls short. Firstly, a dislike of mayo may not necessarily reflect a moral nature to that dislike. You may believe it is immoral to murder without believing it is immoral for you to eat mayo. It is possible to believe eating mayo is morally neutral without finding it enjoyable to eat. As such this cannot be used as an effective argument against at least prescriptivism. The murder/mayo argument also falls short in that it ignores the factor of intensity. I would argue prescriptivism contains aspects of conviction intensity. The conviction of the prescription The intensity of the statement For instance, you may be very convicted that murder is wrong. In that you believe strongly that others should share your view. As opposed to how much conviction is behind your belief that “people should hate mayo” Someone liking murder may likely be more unacceptable to you than someone liking mayo. Also, you may intensely hate mayo while not being convicted at all that other people should be. You may feel very convicted that everyone should mildly dislike mayo. You feel X conviction that everyone should feel Y intensity about Z. Perhaps saying “Z is wrong” is not necessarily a proposition about Z but is a proposition of belief about X and Y. Or, “I don’t believe Z is wrong, but I do believe we should treat Z as if it was wrong with X conviction and Y intensity” That is my view anyhow.

Why does the rug have a wrinkle? Seems like you would have drawn it perfectly flat. Does it signify something?

👍👍👍

the guy on the left is on some heavy ket

The simpleles anser is often the right one

Stealing by definition is wrong, depending what is stolen this action can land you in the slammer.

Saving my a levels!

people do argue that pineapple on pizza is a moral sin... so it's not a stretch to place a moral conundrum on liking or disliking mayonnaise akin to the same capacity of consideration for murder... we need to get our morality in order... and realise that pineapple can go on pizza...

1:05

“Why do we not have moral unity?” Um because of the values society gives us lmao. You’re made to think that, for instance, gaining money even at the expense of others is something you must do in life, even though you may be taught that being selfish and lacking empathy is wrong.

“Murder is technically not wrong”. I think that statement itself contradicts. The definition of murder is basically the ‘unlawful’ killing. Saying murder, which is defined itself wrong, not wrong just contradicts. Saying murder is not wrong basically means it’s actually not ‘murder’ itself. I think it has to be rephrased as “killing is technically not wrong”.

No objective truths.Only favorable or unfavorable circumstances that demand an immediate and convenient course of action based on relative ideals and values. Every situation can be vfc reduced to a drive or basic instict to overcome. We can all agree that protein is essential for a healthy diet but the we may not agree on the source of protein . An objective truth supported by subjective value .Truths are more self evident than universal. They translate well for the sake of reasoning.

This video highlights a common false dichotomy, either objective morality, or subjective morality (relativism). That is incorrect. The claim that objective morality exists is *not* the claim that subjective morality *doesn't* exist. Why? Because it doesn't deny that people have disagreements. When one says objective morality exists, they're saying that there's an objective level to morality even though subjective morality *also exists.* This means pointing to the disagreement amongst people does not strengthen the conclusion that ONLY subjective morality exists. It does not follow. What also can explain that people disagree is *because* objective morality exists, because that would imply humans are not the source, and that would also explain why people disagree at times. It would mean people have imperfect knowledge of something they are not the direct source of. If one were to argue that if objective morality were to exist, everyone would be in agreement, that claim would have to be demonstrated. Why? Because logic itself *objectively* exists, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees logically. So is logic objective or subjective? The answer is, *IT'S BOTH,* not one or the other. This best explains why we imply the existence of objective morality through our moral judgments and don't always agree due to not being the source of that morality, and this implies our genuine belief in ethics which must first assume value come a purpose, meaning, right and wrong, etc, and to show genuine belief in something is to treat something as objectively real or true. Otherwise, it is a delusion by definition to have genuine belief in a non-existent thing or concept. Therefore, our behavior points to objective morality, and therefore objective morality best explains the world we live in. As a result of objective morality, this implies a Transcendent Moral Law Exists, and this implies a Transcendent Moral Law Giver, God. Therefore, God exists.

I think you strawmanned natural cognitivism.

Contemporary metaethics is a bit of a joke, frankly. The positions defended in the literature are laughably implausible. Let's go through them. Objectivist Naturalism: the mindless natural world wants us to be nice. That's silly - indeed, crazy - because the mindless natural world can't want us to be or do anything. That single observation refutes objectivist naturalism. If we want to be fancy about it, we can say that objectivist naturalism cannot accommodate morality's normativity. And as morality is essentially normative, that's it done. Decisively refuted. Objectivist non-naturalism: moral norms and values are what they are and they float about all by themselves (although perhaps they're stuck fast to things - but they're not the things they're struck to). That's as silly as the previous view but with some needless ontological extravagance thrown in for free! An instruction to be nice can't float around by itself anymore than it can be issued by mindless things. The problem with objectivist naturalism is that mindless things can't issue instructions (or value anything). You don't solve that problem by proposing that instructions and values can just float about by themselves! It's mad. And if you're fine with it - if you're fine with instructions and values just wafting about - then why not be find with mindless natural features issuing instructions? That's simpler. No less mad, but simpler at least. Those are the two main views (I kid you not!). The other major view is 'expressivism'. This is the view that we're not talking about reality when we say things like "that's immoral" despite it seeming to all the world as if we are.....no, we're just barking orders at each other and expressing our feelings. This view is patently false and perverse. The only people who find this view credible are those who have no moral intuitions - that is, their reason does not represent some acts to be wrong and others right. And thus the best way these morally blind folk can make sense of what the rest of us are talking about is to suppose we're emoting and ordering, rather than describing. It's as if the blind decide that when the rest of us talk of colours, then we must be emoting because, well, what else could we be doing?

The non-bearded guy's voice is irritating.