Moral Relativism - Explained and Debated 

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook, available on Amazon: US: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088Q85GPK UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088Q85GPK Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088Q85GPK India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088Q85GPK Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088Q85GPK Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088Q85GPK Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics & 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 love how you present these discussions as arguments/dialectics. Makes it even more engaging

Please keep these coming, the dialogue format is the best philosophy on youtube. The Greeks would be proud

I like how you have another person disagreeing and seeing the rules from another perspective. And he is very polite. 😊

I searched for philosophy tube and I found an *actual* philosophy channel. Thanks for this!

love this format, how the other guy politely presents the counterargument!! reminds me of a quote: "we don't need to disagree less, we need to disagree better."

In the case of rain, one of them has to be wrong because rain is objectively true. Nobody is questioning the objective truth of rain. However, the jury is still out on the objective truth of morality.

Murder is merely a term created by society to describe the unlawful killing of another human being. Killing is neither right nor wrong. Morals are relative. If there were no people in the world to care about morals, then morals would not exist. We're just like animals. The only difference is us humans tend to think of ourselves as "better" than animals merely because we're able to articulate our feelings into words. There is no 'better' or 'worse' or 'should' or 'shouldn't' in the realm of objectivity. Animals are just as sentient as humans are in that they can feel emotions and care for other animals and people. However, they still kill. The death of a human is no more tragic than the death of an animal. We merely consider it more tragic because of the bias that humans consider themselves as superior. Another thing we can look at is how we even call things artificial when we create them, as if we're not from nature ourselves. Technology comes from humans and humans come from nature, therefor technology is a product of nature. There is nothing unnatural about humans or their creations. We. Are. Animals. Things like morals, laws, justice, and all that other jazz? Entirely subjective. There is no universal moral that everyone can agree on. Even the golden rule of "treat others how you wish to be treated" can be thrown out the window when you take masochistic sadists into consideration. Surveys and statistics prove nothing. The majority can agree with anything but that will never turn opinions into facts. Value, love, hate, importance, etc. It's all in the eye of the beholder and there's nothing you can do to change that. Even assuming God exists, he's merely passing his subjective judgement onto humans and claiming it to be righteous merely because he considers himself superior due to having created the universe but creating the universe doesn't make your opinions objective. It just means you hold all the power. There is nothing here you can refute, try as you might. Morals are biased and relative to culture and empathy varies between individuals as well. Sure, I have my own morals too but I'm not going to get all egotistical and claim that I know what's truly right or wrong. My morals are just as subjective as anyone else's. No one and I mean NO ONE knows what's truly right or wrong. As far as objectivity is concerned, right and wrong are entirely fluid subjective constructs. If there really is a list of truly objective morals somewhere out there, we humans will never know if it's factual or not. EVER.

Great video and great that you link to the script too. This is a deep subject, and there's a lot of territory left to cover when it comes to the metaethics, but as an overview and a summary of some key arguments, this is first rate! Well done!

This video was amazingly helpful, thank you. Do you guys have an opinion on where these universal morals stem from?

You guys and perspective philosophy are guiding me to understand as many views as I can and the benefits and downsides :) thanks again you guys deserve more recognition

Depends on how dangerous it is. The paradox between life,death,safety,and risk. Master and slave morality is a good example of moral objectivity and moral relativism as a whole. It only works in the pursuit of progress when it is wholly liberated from one another. One reinforces the other. Morality is a good thing as a safety net when too much of a good thing gets dangerous.

terrible point. “Yellow is the best colour!” “No! purple is the best!” they’re not “both correct”. There is no correct, it’s subjective

These videos are amazing and easy to watch. Excellent work.

Great example of dialectic. These two give us practical use of philosophy.

I have this question in my head can somebody help? Good and Evil is just a construct, like it's not really concrete. So If say, there are living beings who enjoy getting hurt or they enjoy dying then I think their morality would favor pain and death? Then my conclusion is morality is subjective or relative? What do you guys think? I'm just confused help.

Ethical subjectivism is like two people standing in the rain, and the other claiming that it's refreshing and the other claiming that it isn't. Or that's how I see it. Moral dilemmas don't hold some absolute truth in them, and are a fools errand to try and crack. There's no formula for ethics. :D

I would argue, rather, that there are certain goods and bads which are relativistic. But there is a fundamental morality which basically spans every culture.

Fair points. I'm definitely in a moral absolutist camp. One that believes in a religion has to be. Though the moral choice on certain issues may be different in different circumstances.

I think the way people use moral relativism and the way it is understood is missing the point. No one should live their life as a moral relativist, that's stupid. Moral Relativism is a tool to understand people who don't share the same beliefs as you. Why is that important? It's simple, you cannot have peace without understanding others. When you understand those different beliefs, the better chance you have at finding common ground. The truth is that every bit of morality is ultimately the same, it's simply built differently from one individual to another. Everyone wants the same thing, we all want to live. From the day we are born we start to create moral beliefs with every experience we have and since every person will interpret those experiences differently, we end up with diverse morals. The problem is we aren't raised to understand each other, we are raised with lines drawn in the sand and we compete with each other over who deserves to live or die. That is not inherent either, all behavior is learned. I think if more people used moral relativism as a tool to understand other people which is really one of the most important things to survival, the world would certainly be a better place. This is how peace comes about but once again, we choose to behave the way we do because fear is a tool being used to make sure that people don't learn how to deal with differences (there's too much profit in war). It almost feels like moral relativism is purposely looked at in the most stupid way possible. I am not 100% certain of anything but when it comes to this, it is the most certain I can be with leaving room for new information that could change my mind on this.

Wath if 2 peaple eats a brocory and dhe 1 saes it is delisios and dhe oder seas it is discusting?

Another great video. Love the format. Thank you!

What are the absolute bare minimum requirements for a species (primarily humans) to thrive mentally and physically independently yet collectively? Morality. Got some?

11:40 Would we still have mortality if we did not have the capacity to feel pain and suffer?

I have to ponder what a moral relativist would make of Peter Kropotkin's arguments for Ethical Naturalism.

But denying existence of morality as universal is like saying ethics doesn't exist

Great video as always! I really enjoyed seeing both sides of this topic. Thanks guys :) QUESTION regarding the last part of the video: obviously, I agree that the preservation of human life and elimination of pain and suffering are good. BUT these are objectively good... according to who? Why are they objectively good? What objective standard outside of humanity is there to say that something is objectively good or bad? Because if there's no standard outside of humanity, then it's still only OUR opinion that preservation of human life is good. If a man like Stalin has the power to harm others and take their stuff for himself, why is he wrong? "Oh, because that's not good for the survival of the human race as a whole." BUT why should he care about the survival of human race?? It's just our opinion versus his opinion... UNLESS, the survival of human race is not just our opinion, but it's objectively good. If is it objectively good, then what objective basis is there to explain this fact? Evolution? Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. Evolution only describes what survives, NOT what ought to survive. In naturalistic evolution without any intelligence and design, there is no literally no objective purpose and intention for the survival of human race. The survival of human race is purely an accidental by-product of the blind forces of nature. Since there's no objective purpose for the survival of the human race, it would be JUST our opinion now when we say that the human race ought to survive. If that were the case, then we can't say Stalin or Hitler were objectively wrong. It's just our society's/culture's subjective opinion against their subjective opinion. HOWEVER, honest in your heart, you KNOW what Stalin did or what happened in the Holocaust is objectively wrong (for all people at all times). Therefore, there must be a source of morality beyond humanity, beyond just our opinion. What could this source be? I SINCERELY want to hear YOUR thoughts (Philosophy Vibe guys or anyone else). Thanks! Much love. - Kings

Moral relativism is an objective reality independent of personal beliefs. Society often labels it as a debatable belief due to the truth being a hard pill to swallow. Many prefer to hold onto the happy little idea that morality is objective, but the diversity of social norms and laws across different societies demonstrates its subjectivity. This diversity is the essence of moral relativism-an undeniable fact unaffected by individual beliefs. It is a fact that cultural diversity extends beyond customs to encompass varying social norms and legal systems, providing concrete evidence for the objective nature of moral relativism. Just as demonstrating the hardness of a rock proves its physical property, the observed diversity of moral norms across cultures substantiates moral relativism as an objective reality. Even if you were to assert the whole argument of there being a set of universally accepted moral truths such as "murder is wrong" you would still be stating something entirely subjective. Many people within many cultures still believe killing other humans is an okay thing to do. Whether the majority agrees, or the minority disagrees doesn't change the fact. Groups of people with similar moral views often come together to form societies, which is why different countries and cultures have distinct social norms and laws. Humans are not superior to other creatures simply because they possess morals. Humans, their societies, and their moral frameworks are a natural phenomenon just like animals. It would be utterly childish to think humans are capable of viewing what righteousness even is let alone that they are capable of achieving such a thing.

Excellent video! Very thought provoking. I’ll add one thing that convinced me of moral relativism (or something similar to the hybrid relativism mentioned at the end) that wasn’t mentioned in this video which was reading The Righteous Mind and learning how morals evolved to strengthen groups. The evolutionary purpose of morality is to bind us to a group and blind us to the morals of other groups.

Well..............i certainly learnt something today. I was going to summerise it up by saying, moral objectiveness seems to be concluded by society in general, if an act a person does victimises another person, like murder or slavery ect.

the rain comparison is not a good argument. Whether or not it is raining is objective reality, whether or not something is moral is subjective perspective. We share an objective reality but we observe that reality through subjective perspective.

This two perspectif is great.

I really wish someone would address the natural commonalities between societies and cultures. Relativism will say, "look at all these cultures doing different things that are moral/immoral in other cultures!". For example my textbook said that Inuit people will kill off babies to survive the winter if resources are short. They put them out on an ice flow. Therefore they find infanticide moral. Comparing to the West where infanticide is reprehensible. However moral objectivists might respond that all cultures are finding different ways to preserve the most human life. Doing what it takes to sustain the most human life is pervasive in ALL cultures and peoples. Anyone who would disagree that life is valuable would not survive long. Surely putting an infant out on the ice is something acceptable if only as a last resort. Cannibalisms is an even better use of the flesh however it isn't practiced. Why? Because they know that its an act of desperation and last resort and are trying minimize the immorality of the act. There are at least some things like this, some moralities that *must* arise as a result of the human condition. I would love to here a rebuttal to this.

Brilliant but I have a question though If its all subjective than how can we say something is wrong? And isn't eliminating pain relative as well? Pleasure and pain can be relative to ppl like for masochist's or sadist

The fact that there’s even a discussion about what’s right and wrong is proof of an objective truth.

Wath about the masocist?

In 10:53 its said that there are two conflicting statements and both are true… i think the problem here is that the “for me” words are missing… once you put then in the phrases, “morally good for me” and “morally bad for me” stops being contradictory

Learned more from this than my 3h class on the topic

I'm so glad to find this amazing channel!

Thank you so much for helping me write my essay

I disagree with moral relativism for much the same reasons as John does at 8:55. My own conclusion was to embrace moral skepticism. The problem then becomes, if you reject morality what replaces it? So many of the concepts of our society are founded upon a moral basis. Replacing that in a way that does not invite instability can be difficult. A lot of moral skeptics I have found continue to make use of morality, whether by continuing to act as if morality were true or treating it as a useful fiction. The idea of blending of objective and relative morality is interesting to me and I do think provides a more stable grounding for how one might define even if not an objective morality, then at least a unified structure for how one might conceptualize human values. I personally can see practical problems in tying one's view to either of the two extremes. I know I'm a moral nihilist, so I'm one to talk on extremes :-) But in all honesty, I feel my position is in some ways a middle ground. -M

Microphone sounds a bit echoy

Hey guys great video I liked the arguments proposed here! I would like to ask a question/ propose an argument to which anyone can reply, to what is said at 12:15 regarding Cold blooded murder as being wrong. Couldn't one who believes that life is suffering say that murder is infact justifiable and true elimination of pain? And in addition to that who is to say that the promotion of life and elimination of pain is the ultimate goal of humanity?

I disagree with your rain example @10:56, you are comparing here a fact with an abstract concept (morality)..

Relativism seems to highlight the importance of convention using outlier examples to contend with near universal moralities

What is your moral standards for then???

What about the genetic fallacy, the idea that the true or falseness of a belief depends on how someone came to believe it?

I don't think a moral absolutist needs to explain why there is disagreement, any more than a math professor has to explain why he might have a test question that gets 12 different answers back. However the explanation is simple, people who do not like the moral law and intend on violating it want a different theory to dominate. It does not mean they don't believe it. How do you explain how we know that there are many people who totally continue to believe what their church says and don't go because they don't wan to be told to stop being irresponsible? The combo theory at the end assumes morality can only consist in what Kant calls hypothetical imperatives. I think Kant is right that when we look at it from Reason, morality is supposed to command rather than advise.

The only absolute stand I take is that everything is absolutely gray.

Amazing video!

Thank you

I would like to offer some tips. If you aren't using a blue yeti microphone - acquire one. You can also throw a blanket over you (or record under a blanket) for cheap echo cancellation!

10:45 I disagree with this counterpoint. To refresh, it's saying that if two people see something and disagree about whether it's moral or not, and if they are both right, there is a contradiction. However, if those same people are eating food and one of them says that it's good and the other says that it's bad, they are both right and there's no contradiction. I think it's very much possible that morality is similar. Personally, I'm new to the philosophy of ethics, but, I agree with moral relativism in a sense. I don't believe that there's an objective moral system. Like, most people would agree that cold-blooded murder is wrong. But, why? Can anybody back this argument up using only logic or objective criteria? I think morality is dependent on subjective feelings and empathy. Of course, if God exists, then there would be an objective sense of morality. But, if God doesn't exist, then how could any aspect of morality be objective?

8:17 As a moral relativist I disagree that those acts should have been or should be tolerated. In fact, this whole notion of tolerance is only half true to me. Of course, there are things that can't be tolerated. Just because there are no objective moral truths doesn't mean that I can't fight for my (subjective) moral truth. In short, the strongest person wins - that's always how morals changed in society. 8:42 Personally, I would choose the side according to my subjective morality. Both cultures are equally true, so it's just a matter of preference. 9:15 I agree with this argument. Instead of focusing solely on culture, I believe that culture is just one of the factors that goes into shaping one's morals. Every person's morals are different, so each person has their subjective truths. 10:37 This argument presents a wrong example that already assumes that there is an objective truth out there. A better example would be: "This salad is disgusting!" And "This salad is delicious!" 11:41 The problem I have with this argument is that these truths are not truly objective. They are just popular. So, basically, if I start killing people, I'm going to be "objectively" evil only because that's a very popular opinion. In my opinion, morals exist only because of our emotions and tendencies. Because that's how we evolved. We have no right to claim that the way we evolved is correct, that almost sounds like racism. (Joke) The fact is, morals cannot exist without emotions. A robot without emotions will never help a human, and we have no way to prove that the robot is wrong.

Trying to make morality into a truth claim is where most people go wrong. Morality is a group survival strategy. Truth claims do not involve morality. They are different spheres entirely. This misunderstanding gives rise to the of the idea of moral progress (which is itself founded on the false idea of evolution and linear time). To claim there could be a universal moral truth would require that morality be a feature of the universe (it clearly is not and cannot be found outside of the human mind). Some will try and point to god (monotheists actually try to say this with a straight face while their god breaks his own moral rules and orders his people to do the same), but this is an untestable hypothesis. If it were the case, wouldn't every person know this set of rules? if you make this claim, you end sounding like someone claiming that gravity is part of every objective, but only some objects act in accordance with it. It is completely illogical as a position. If you say, "ah, but objects don't have choice, while people do" you are in no better of a position because the people who have a choice don't know what the "correct" one is. We can see the immediate consequences of ignoring the law of gravity. We see no such consequences when people exhibit moral choices, even at odds with one another. The clown on the right just keeps arguing by assertion, and provides no examples or evidence to support his positions. "I'm pretty sure that...." No you aren't. You're assuming it because you have no idea what you are talking about. Murder, rape and torture are the norm in Africa for example. Objectivity is not determined by similarity, but by its differences. The differences are ALWAYS what define any category. We don't group humans and fruits together because both contain water. We separate them because of their differences. One thing he does get right is that leftist moral relativists are hypocrites because they have no moral standing to condemn any other groups moral standards: slavery, racism, infidelity, violence precisely because morality is relative. They can say that it is immoral in their group, but to say it is wrong for everyone contradicts their own position. He then contradicts his own position again when he claims that people within a culture can't agree on moral standards. That just further shows that even in a shared culture, morality is not objective. He is also leaving out that until very recently, most cultures would NOT have largely divergent viewpoints on what is moral. That is a product of modernity and the cancer of forced diversity, and exactly why it is such a bad idea. The two people having opposing moral views of a certain situation is not a contradiction and comparing it to rain is a false analogy. Whether it is raining or not is a testable and verifiable question. Whether X action is moral is not in any way testable or verifiable. That is the whole issue here. If morality is objective, where is this object? Where is this standard by which we can test our own moral perceptions against? Moral objectivists, who are mostly christians, are really just moral cowards, looking to offload moral responsibility onto some authority figure. They are terrified of having to make a moral decision for themselves and having to take responsibility for that choice. This is where the cowardice of salvation is rooted. It is really about getting some authority figure (government, god, police) to tell you what is proper and grant you absolution for obeying that authority. At the end of the video the relativist cucks and starts babbling about marxist BS about happiness and liberty. Plenty of things that make people happy are things he would condemn as immoral (molesting kids, rape, theft). This "debate" is badly written, badly narrated, and just pushing ideological nonsense under the guise of critical thinking.

The apathy argument is weak and a strong disagreement point for myself. There is a difference between identifying a Moral difference between societies based on culture, generation, or other influences; and accepting it as being a MORAL truth for yourself. Hence why it is a SUBJECTIVE TRUTH.

The counter argument assumes that a moral relativist does not have his own set of morals he abides by and judges other cultures actions on . So even though I can acknowledge some cultures in the past didn't think slavery was bad , my cultural beliefs now , as a moral relativist tells me "F that , and F them " lol

Then where did morality come from? If we and our cultures can love as we define love, where did we get that from?

I feel that the linguistics or paradigms of these narrow boxes - that the brain so much wants as to kill dissonance, and to create order - are in this case very limiting and make it dualistic thing. Also, increase of life, of happiness etc are moral objective truths, then one can ask for whom? for oneself, or for a family or for a village, a nation etc? Since we all know many (especially nowadays) are focussed more on their own individual happiness and health etc even when its at the cost of someone else's happiness and life. In certain cultures it is the opposite, where you can not be (morally) happy if your neighbour is suffering. It feels like morals are objective in many ways but humans tend to want to bend them whenever it suits them, especially when there is room to do so. Many more thoughts pop in my mind, but I let it marinate first...maybe ill be back another time.;) But nonetheless still interesting and very well made video.

Great video! But I might add: At 11:03, it’s not really that with moral subjectivism everyone has their own personal belief of what’s morally true or false. The point is that ethics can’t be understood in terms of “true” or “false” in the first place. If one person says pizza is yummy and another person says pizza is gross, both people are expressing personal opinion/ taste, not fact. The same applies to morality. Disagreement doesn’t lead to contradiction, it’s just two people with different opinions.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. You can't say there is no truth because you haven't found it yet.

Thank you very much!

Only a subject can find something good or bad

“But what gives God the right to judge me?” Objective and Subjective moral standards and God? Let me propose a more refined definition of Objective and Subjective standards. Something is Subjective if its existence is dependent on consciousness because without consciousness nothing can be Subjective. Something is Objective if its existence is independent of consciousness and only in so far as it could continue even if all consciousness in the universe were eliminated. AKA 1 plus 1 would still equal two regardless if there is anybody around to know it. Now if we think of God as consciousness, as most definitions of God do. Then the morality that comes from that consciousness, according to the definition that I have just set out, would also be just as Subjective as any morality that any man could construct. If this is correct, the question we must now ask is. Does God not have the right to impose his moral standards on his own creation? And if so, does that not make those standards Objective rather than Subjective in that creation? If those Subjective morals are built into this creation, then would not that in itself, make those Subjective morals Objective in and to all that are part of this universe? To explain farther, let’s use a video game as a parallel. A programmer can build into his game world any morality he chooses. The NPCs (non player character) in the game (AKA you and me) are locked into its built-in moral system as well as the consequences for breaking that system. Because the NPC’s are part of the game world itself they also are subject to the rules of that game world including any morals built into it. As a programmer do you not have the right to make the rules (morals) for your own game? Are you then not allowed to impose your rules (morals) on the NPC’s in your game? If you give the NPC’s randomized adaptable IA (free will) and they refuse to accept and live by your rules while in your game do you not have the right and responsibility then to force them to do so (change their code) or remove them from your game (delete them) especially if they are doing things that could crash the game? The fact that this is God's universe (game), one that he made and owns justifies his absolute, universal morality here. It must be pointed out that we are his creation, we live in and are part of his universe (game) itself, therefore we are then subject to his rules (morals) while in his universe (game). If one does not like God’s rules (morals) and refuse to live by them, they should not be surprised by their difficulties when they find themselves bumping into those built in morals and realities that they refuse to accept. That said, God did give us free will to do as we please while in his universe. Sure God gave us instruction on how this universe works best. What set of rules (morals) to follow that would reduce pain and suffering to a minimum. But one can chose to ignore those instructions and do things his/her own way if that is what one insist. And we all get to suffer the consequences of each other's chosen actions wile in this universe. This, of course all rests on whether or not God exists. But that is a question for another time. P.S. Some try to postulate that because the morals of God are subjective rather than objective that he then does not exist, or that because mankind can make a set of his own Subjective morals that God and his morals then do not exist. These arguments of course would both be a very big and obvious non sequitur. Having the ability to construct your own morals simply has nothing to do with whether or not God and his morals exist.

I'd argue that the "objective moral truths" mentioned in the video are still not objective, but relative to the group of "all human beings of sound mind in the Universe". Our morals are always relativistic, even the ones that seem "universal" are limited by race, specie or state of being. If you wanted to make a truly universal morality you'd have to also include on it all possible conscious creatures, even non-humans, and even from outside our planet. Possibly, even non-conscious actions/beings could be susceptible to have morality. And we are in no possition to understand what is "good" for non-living beings. We can only know whats "good" for us, and those similar to us. So we can only discuss in relative terms.

I know... late comment. I just came across this video accidentally. Really impressed by the fact that the points you brought up are generally the ones present in the literature on moral relativism. Congrats, great stuff! I label myself as a moral relativism and part of the motivation for being a moral relativism is what you rightly called "descriptive relativism". The way you characterise the view was that there are "fierce" moral disagreements; usually it's called "persistent", "fundamental" and sometimes "deep" disagreements, not "fierce", but I'll assume your using the adjective in the same sense. However, the way you then went on to describe the view was pointing that there are moral disagreements. The issue is not just that agents disagree about moral matters, but that those persist even when the parties disagreeing agree on all the non-moral facts relevant to the disagreement. Also, your characterisation of moral relativism is lacking important features. Relativist hold not just that moral truths are not truth simpliciter (or absolute), but that the truth of moral judgments varies relative to moral standards and that there is no privileged standard from which a moral judgment is assessed. Here's the distinction exemplified: I can say that a moral judgment is true relative to historical periods, but that for each historical period there is a privileged moral standard. This would imply e.g. that when during the Roman Empire someone states that slavery is wrong is making a false statement, while during the modern era someone stating the same thing would be making a true statement. But each statement is absolutely false/true-hence, no moral relativism here. Now, to the objectivist arguments. Firstly, the burden is on the objectivist to explain why moral disagreements persist. One way to go, which you pointed out, is either saying that moral truths are hard to find and another is that they are unknowable (moral skepticism). The latter view has its own problems and, arguably, leaves the objectivist in a worse position than the relativist. The former option still needs to say something about what makes moral truths so hard to find. And here you cannot just say that other truths are also hard to discover. Sure, truths about the fundamental reality, the origin of the universe are hard to discover, but at the very least it seems we're making some scientific progress when inquirying about them and arguably if we haven't discovered more that has to do with technological limitations; can we say the same about moral truths? I would say no. So, what's so special about morality that makes it so mysterious? Secondly, someone else has already pointed this out in another comment, but the reply that there are many moral similarities across cultures and diverse groups is the wrong reply to the motivation for relativism from moral diversity. Here's the challenge for the objectivist: moral diversity is a fact, can the objectivist account for it? The wrong way to go would be to say "well... there's many more moral similarities". That's dodging the challenge. Unless, you can show that moral diversity is really scarce, then the challenge can be reinstated: given the diversity that exists, how does the objectivist account for it? Thirdly, the "it is raining" example is begging the question. The objectivist is already assuming that moral facts are objective. Fourthly, the whole point of relativism is that when A states that S is wrong and B disagrees they aren't contradicting each other. What A is saying is true relative to A's moral standards while what B is saying is true relative to B's moral standards. They are both right in the sense that according to each standard none of the two is asserting something false. But A is not right according to B's moral standards. And, hence, we can make perfect sense of this. Finally, a remark on the solution presented at the end of the video. The objectivist is the one making the strong claim that all moral truths are objective, many relativist views hold that only some truths are relative (in the relevant sense-i.e. in the sense that their truth varies according to moral standards).

So no answers?

It's true that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - but that goes for the tooth fairy as well. On the other hand: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Furthermore, yes, there are many similarities between cultures - but often these rules *apply only to their own tribe.* They do not apply to members *outside* their tribe. E.g. killing a tribe member is forbidden, but killing a member of another tribe is ok - or even encouraged! See the Bible for some nice examples. And yes, "presentism" is a logical fallacy. And tell me: what is the moral foundation for forcing a Jew to refrain from eating kosher meat because it is considered bad to the environment and animal cruelty? Such act can only be performed if one claims moral superiority - which is pretty arrogant to begin with. Then we jump to a "false dichotomy" fallacy. Moral judgments are neither right nor wrong - in as much as it can rain just a bit, not just being dry and raining cats and dogs. There is a clear gradient - otherwise everybody would either be found innocent or get life when tried. We have a solution for this dilemma, though. It's called "contractual ethics" aka "the law".

I'm just jotting thoughts down, don't read unless interested. ------ Objectivism only exists if we believe and adhere to its concordance but life is not as clear cut and simple as a rulebook. Naturally, humanity will gravitate towards placing subjectivity (discretion) on before deciding which objective choice one should make - an interpretation of the law. Think of it as a judge judging a hard case and weighing what is the morally right option. Is it better to lie to save your family from a killer? Or tell the truth and let your family be killed? There's no such scenario in which a human (with exception I suppose) would tell the truth here but when weighing whether to be immaculately morally right or wrong, humanity will almost always choose a greater good, path of least resistance, or ends justifies the means behavior. We have a moral obligation (a greater good) to lie (ends justifies the means) to achieve safety for loved ones (path of least resistance).

Could you do a video on conscience

i'm y'all's biggest fan thank u

I just had a deep critical thinking session about this and I could've just came here and get schooled and not waste my time. I ended up writing this down. God could just be the main FORCE FIELD, so if God exists, he is a neutral being meaning to him there's no good and there's no bad, he doesn't prefer any religion either. So I imagine that thieves also pray, people of all religions pray, atheist pray (I'm referring to the law of attraction) so all of these acts are ways of projecting our wants through waves to the main force field & that's what we refer to as God, this would kinda explain why Criminals pray too when they're about to do a crime, this would kinda explain why we still have a lot religions. We are feezing to the force field, it feezes back! God (the Main Force Field) doesn't recognize Morality, but we do, we've created it and we keep on modifying it. And if you think my theory has errors, please present them, I'm open to criticism.

Objectivism is just a scapegoat term for being absolutist

Are whole society is based on relative morality and that’s why everyone is being divided and conquered

I think this confused the metaphysical with the physical. One cannot argue that it is raining if it is not raining.

Good work !

i never understood moral relativism, since there can never be a fact of the matter when expressing a moral proposition on that position, which seems counterintuitive.

2:44 in ancient times, genocide, slavery, and infanticide were completely acceptable by those benefiting from it. victims of genocide/infanticide would completely reject their fate, if they could.

your videos are so informative 🙏🏼🙏🏼

Despite your points about there being moral truths e.g. murder, rape etc, those are still just your opinion on the general attitude modern people have towards said things. Additionally you countered this exact point multiple times throughout the video when you mentioned cultural and historical moral frame works. You could have pointed to darwinism and how our natural instincts are the foundation of what direction our morals develop in, you could even point to maslow's pyramid of needs and some developmental psychology to flush it out. However and this is a big one, everything is causality all thoughts actions, feelings ect are predetermined and a result of prior happenstance.

Fascinating

There should be such things as universal moral code, when comes to stealing killing and bribery....

Great video

One flaw I see is between the two lies euthanasia which would eliminate pain but go against preserving life if you preserve a cancer patients life they are suffering but if killing is wrong then.. where does that leave us?

Amazing video. Greetings from México

So your moral is based on your preference

Excellent 👍

We live in a dualistic reality so there cannot exist 1 absolute truth about anything. All truths are but half truths. The last argument presented is not about what is right or wrong but rather what is conducive to survival which is not relevant to the subject matter.

Fair enough. ps. Love all those "traps" along the conversation ^_^

I would have to slightly disagree with the last point. Wild animals have the evolutionary desire for less pain and more life, however how the way they go about achieving it is not "moral" or "immoral" for, wild animals simply do what is in their nature. This is because wild animals lack the intellectual capacity to make "enlightened" choices. Intellect correlates with morality. And as long as intellect is a factor morality with also be of importance With that said I believe that morality can be both objective and subjective however only in the relative sense as intellect is relative and the only thing which is absolute is supreme source conscious. Morality like the ego is not absolute, rather it is all an illusion from the absolute perspective of supreme source conscious. All things which are not source conscious are physical and subject to physical law, making cause and effect substantial and morality a real principle when considering the intelligent mortal/physical being

But can we even put any moral claim into practice let's look at something simple suffering. We are obligated tjo decrease rather than increase suffering. I will assume that this is true and that were not talking about spending every waking moment doing that but just when we make a choice of one thing over another that we chose the one that reduces or at least does not increase suffering. You see a child suffering from hunger. You are morally responsible to stop that suffering. Do you feed the child? What if the child has a food allergy that might kill it. Perhaps it is just the appearance of hunger but something else like immediate need of medial attention. Are you also morally obligated to find out how the child came to be hungry and to provide a long term solution to the hunger? What if hunger is just one of a host of things that will cause the child to suffer learning disabilities, poverty, racism. Is simply telling the next person you see that you just saw a child that tooks very hungry. We are morally obligated to tell the truth. Your neighbors are in a nasty divorce with a custody battle and you must testify now you know that it is nte children's best interest that the father gets custody. The mother cares not at all about the children. The whole neighborhood knows it but you did see the father strike his son one time in flustration . So do you tell the truth knowing the harm it will cause or lie, that. Causing less harm than telling the truth? Either way you are not following the moral thing to do. In other words when we try to put moral principals into action and two actions collided what does do. Are we obligated to give up summer vacations to feed the poor? If we don't know if what we try To do to help someone will make things better or worse are we still obligated to try?

Some of the arguments of the Moral objectivism are not moral dilemas, but scientific facts...I think is there a little confusion. Of course, we can make the hipotesis that some moral are intrinsic to human species and that moral is then comum to all the individuals, but if this is in our instinct then is not a conscientious choice. For example, a mother dog protecting is child... Is this in the realm of moral? The Dog is doing some type of action based in Moral? or is only instinct? I can't see any situation that we have absolute moral, we can find any little twist that put some "imoral" act in a "moral" act...

John rocks... 🤙

Some things are relative, and some things are objective. I believe infanticide is objectively wrong..

Awesome video lads

Thanks!!

Moral objectivity does definitely exist and the fact that we aren't all impeccable moral people doesn't disprove it's existence. Cultural and individual beliefs about what is or isn't moral is just belief. Beliefs about what is moral or not are not actually the same as morality. Beliefs can be inaccurate, nonsensical, harmful, denialist, unscientific, and unknowable. There are many reasons why we don't all use objective morality to make decisions. We do immoral things (causes harm (excluding neutral harm) because we are told to do so by our communities, families, governments, and people in positions of power, we were told that harmful behaviors and beliefs are okay, good, or justifiable, we aren't taught what morality actually is, and also we are imperfect creatures who cause harm whether we always mean to or not. Neutral harm includes things like accidents where the act that caused the harm isn't immoral such as stepping on someone's toe by accident. The act itself isn't necessarily immoral (although if harm was intended it would be) but it also isn't moral and so it's neutral. Sometimes harm happens regardless of people's intentions. Also to apologize for causing harm is the moral thing to do. To refuse to acknowledge and apologize for causing harm prolongs the other person's suffering and is therefore immoral. Also apologies naturally vary in scale just as all harm is not all equal. This is why the Christian belief that all sin is equal is simply inaccurate. To consider and compare to immoral acts such as calling someone a slur with harmful intent vs murdering someone, the harm caused is simply not the same. In one situation the other person is harmed but is still alive and in the other, the person's life has been forcibly ended. Another aspect I haven't yet mentioned is the topic of true ignorance vs willful ignorance. True ignorance would fall under neutral harm because we are all naturally born ignorant and cannot always be aware of everything including the harm we cause. Willful ignorance, the choice to deny, ignore as well as neglect to learn new information is intentionally hurtful. To deny you hurt someone when asked to acknowledge the harm caused is wrong. Also you can't say that one act like murder is "obviously objectively immoral" and then say another act like arranged marriage is "morally subjective" because it's controversial. Controversy is about belief. The assumption with the first part also is that everyone agrees murder is wrong but not all people do actually believe that. Also just because a belief is widely held doesn't alone make it moral. This is why you can't base morality on beliefs about the morality of specific acts but instead view every act in vacuum from an objective standpoint and analyse whether or not it causes harm and consider if intention was involved. This method allows you to clearly decide whether or not a specific act is moral and immoral. Morality is about the choices people make. Things beyond our control like accidents and bad luck are morally neutral whether they are actually good or bad, helpful or harmful. My main issue with this video is that it neglects to bring up different possibilities, confuses beliefs about morality with actual morality, and at different points breaks its own logic. This is obviously a nuanced topic so I'd gladly expand on this more and am open to criticism. Sorry this is so fucking long.

Wow

thank you so much for the clear explanation, really helpful

Will the answers we’re looking for come after death in the...after life? 🤔