Moral Skepticism - Error Theory (J.L Mackie) 

You made me laugh out loud in a cafe. Well done. Everyone's lookin at me weird now

Do you have your writings? If you are, could you share, please?

Well what is merely convenient, is that not something that's benefitial for us as a species. And isn't something that is benefital for us as a species, something that we all can agree is good, since this is what as you say induces our survival. So if we all can agree that we strive for the things that induce survival, then what is social cohesion, is that not a way in which we induce our survival? Therefore acting in cooperation with one another is clearly something that we strive for, so does this not make social cohesion morally good, as we are then acting in accoradance with our nature, our survival. Anyway, just wanted to rant, thanks.

@Alex Morally good if social cohesion happens to result in survival. There are many situations in which it might not, in which case... the term "morally good" would have to be adjusted, which would make the term "good" and "moral" very...flexible.

@Sebastian Melmoth So the idea you are suggesting is that social cohesion cannot really be morally good because social cohesion is not always good? I wonder if the same could be said about the survival of our species, wouldn't the survival of our species be a frim foundation to base moral good, well perhaps rather the base of what is good. Since if the survival of our species is not deemed good, for our everybody's sake, what then could morality be based on, if not our own lives, thus our survival and continuation of our species.

@Alex So then (all verbiage removed) you mean what is morally good is relative to that which is deemed morally good by general society at a particular time and place? Wouldn't the survival of species be morally good depending on what that species regards as morally good, which might be - for all we know - the survival not of the species but of the creations of the species and the eradication of the actual creature? Culturally, this might be a possibility as time progresses and creeds and codes are altered and changed by time and circumstance. Again, survival might just be convenient until it is deemed not to be... Morally good? Which moral, where moral, when moral, and what circumstance, moral?

@Sebastian Melmoth I guess treat everyone like u want to treat urself?idk

"Notice that these oughts aren't moral oughts but practical ouths. These oughts can be derived from logic and empirical observations because it tells how to accomplish a goal, not why we shpuld have the goal itself." It is absolutely truth. But there is also problem: If I base my morals on my own well-being then my actions are moral accidentally. (For example If I were terminally ill then why shouldn't I take out a loan what I could'nt pay back?)

Isn't the trouble measuring or determining which value maximizes social cohesion or what empirically are we measuring?

"Notice that these oughts aren't moral oughts but practical ouths. These oughts can be derived from logic and empirical observations because it tells how to accomplish a goal, not why we shpuld have the goal itself." That's fine, but that's not morality, that's something else.

What is well being? That just assumes some normative standard of well, which needs to be elucidated upon

There's people who don't care about their well-being. There's people who hate society. There's people who perceive society as harmful to themselves. People have different ideas of well being, and different ideas of social order and cohesion

Why am I not surprised to find u in this comment section brotha Yusuf😂

Pleasure, thank you for watching. Best of luck in the exam.

that is a good point but that's all the time we have for now.

I think he also could have also meant that it was just generally desired (a fact about people's feelings) but not that it was desirable (an objective fact about value).

Moral realists like Harris and Peterson are charlatans in my eyes

@Bilbo Swaggins Well, neither of them are philosophers, I don't know of anyone actually interested in philosophy who goes to their books or lectures for guidance or good arguments on the subject.

what you're talking about is non-cognitivism. take a look at expressivism and emotivism

Gabrielle Shull to help yoy reach the truth I’ll give you a thought system that can help you and it help me a lot supposed you’re God and you decide what is moral and what is not can you justify it just because you are God and if yes suppose there are numbers of beings that disagree with your morality could it then be say that Gods morality is as subjective as the morality of others? If morality can be regard subjectively regardless of a supreme being then for what reason would it justify to be objective we can also then say that it is made up of a being either for his own self interest or for it to either create social order or social abomination to other beings which can then lead to me saying morality is arbitrary if a persons goal is to get to hell the being it is morally good for him to go to hell because that’s what he desires that then lead more destruction to even defend moral realism

Correct.

Why is having a better functioning society desirable?

Thank you, glad these videos are helping you. The Philosophy of Mind scripts have been written just taking time animating them. Good luck in the exam tomorrow.

Thank you guys again!! The argument from queerness came up and I played back this whole video in my head and actually understood what I was talking about. I was completely lost on Metaethics before I watched your videos.

It's a pleasure. Hope you ace the exam!

Thank you very much, glad you found the video useful.

So your morality is a deal. Do good have good ?

What if i want peaple to steal from me?

@Stanimir Velinov 😳😂

@Stanimir Velinov well it is more likely that the person you steal from disagrees with you

Thank you very much :D

do you do pre u or a level?

A level (AQA syllabus)@Pink Pea

Glad this video helped :) Best of luck in the exams.

You're welcome, glad we can help.

Pleasure, thank you for watching.

A pleasure. Happy it helped.

You’re welcome, thank you for watching.

Thank you for the feedback, really appreciate it. Regarding the full screen, the videos are uploaded as mp4 format, they come out with the boarder however after a few days RU-vid gives the option to improve the video and we can edit them to remove the boarder. So eventually all the videos come out as full screen. I love the idea of giving the characters personalities, we have named them George and John although we do not stress this in the video. I think the plan will be to finish covering the academic subjects of Philosophy, once we have covered a large enough ground we will look to expand the debates into current social and political events, this way we can really give the characters a personality, their own thoughts and opinions and listen to them debate. Once again thank you for the suggestions, this is exactly what we need!

oh yea its full screen now my bad. You guys can also do live debate type of things or partner up with other youtubers for videos for the extra views and subscribers. Oh what will really get your channel views is if you respond to other youtubers. You can do counter arguments or even supportive arguments. Of course I like your material now as well. It seems like you guys have it figured out. I'm looking forward to your later works. All your videos leave me with more questions than answers. Sometimes I'm seeking for an answer haha. I know you do this to keep it neutral. I'll give more ideas and feedback as I think of them as you make new videos. Be safe.

Thanks again for the pointers. Yes the idea is to give a balanced video and let the viewers reach their own conclusions. But of course the debates can go on forever so we can only cram in a few of the major arguments.

Oh yeah one more thing, keep in mind the youtube algorithm favors longer videos so don't be afraid of making longer videos. The longer it is, the more retention time, the more advertisements, etc...

Glad it was helpful!

Thank you 😀

Those examples simply give examples that prove that things exist in the world. If we follow your arguments, we can believe in anything, like god or ghosts or whatever else people 'feel' they can sense.

Thank you.

what does desire have to do with truth lmao

@ferret I'm not making a point about truth, but belief

@Philosophy with an Irish Accent then what is so hard about believing that one can trust in the falsifiability of normative claims? especially since mackie himself clearly did

I have similar thinking.

The intuitionst might similarly argue that we should doubt the existence of space and time since our brains evolved these concepts to survive. We have to start from somewhere.

Moral intuitions are mislabeled.

@@iosefka7774 Morality doesn't appear to be anything like our 5 senses, however. Even with the senses, they don't give us an accurate portrayal of the world around us. Even sight only captures a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. So if you see only the colors of the rainbow, you might doubt the existence of x rays or gamma rays, for example. Same as our supposedly 'moral intuitions', what we perceive in terms of our 5 senses is molded and selected based on what was useful to us. So that's not really a particularly strong argument either to cast doubt on a moral skeptic's argument.

Utilitarianism can hardly be said to transcend culture. It grew from the Western ethical tradition, in the conditions of the Enlightenment. Additionally, moral relativism needn't be anything more than a meta-ethical theory. You can be a moral relativist and still choose to outlaw polygamy, for example, even if you know that your stance against polygamy is no more correct than a polygamist's morals.

Jamien if we are to look at the origins of any philosophical theory, you are right. They all originate from a person or group, who is effected by the culture they reside within. The environment and institutions they are subject to in all likelihood helped in some significant way to push the theory in a direction that was built on or modified from theories that culture generated previously. That said cultures are complex and driven from a rich history often involving many cross cultural influences. Western culture for that matter covers a huge swath of influences from across the globe. Was it the Italian influence, or German influence? Or the English, Russian or Greek influence that made a theory what it is? Or was it all of them? Regardless when we talk about universality, we mean lifting it out and applying it across cultures. Putting cultures aside and seeing how fitting it is for the human race in general. Philosophical theories with deeply entrenched cultural influences (ie. do this because god says so) often fail the test of universality. For instance “throw gays off tall buildings”. How does that translate universally regardless of culture? Obviously not well if we apply a more universal value of reducing unnecessary suffering. Finally wouldn’t you say your last point regarding the polygamist vs monogamists (I assume you meant monogamist) argues for the position that when faced with two theories, you simply have to accept the other as valid even where it directly contradicts your own?

@Ryan Scougall In what way can homophobic morality not be applied cross-culturally? I don't even see what your defense is supposed to be. You apparently just assume that utilitarianism wins out only because it's more general. As for your last paragraph: I can't tell what you're saying. When did I mention theories and "accept[ing] the other" theory? I think you've misread my comment.

Jamien because homophobia is derived from an underlying reason. In particular religious contexts it’s derived from a holy book, which says homophobia is bad and here are the ways in which it should be dealt with. That doesn’t scale in any culture who doesn’t follow that religion. And it’s not based on *credible* reasoning. It’s just “because god says so”. These cultural specific morals, based on the preferences of a culture, that can’t use reasoning or evidence to hold up their claims then require no reasoning or counter evidence to refute them. I’m using utilitarianism as an example as it’s a well understood and popular form of moral framework. We could use Kants categorical imperative if we like, or any other framework designed for universal application. The fact that a theory is universally applicable also does not make it good, so I apologise if I gave you the impression I was arguing for that. Would you say it is better to develop a moral frameworks that scale and can be applied regardless of ones cultural background if it is shown to enhance human well being?

@Ryan Scougall Modern (institutional) homophobia is based in a pseudo-scientific obsession with reproduction. i.e. homosexuals are immoral because they lower the birth rate. How is this any less universally applicable than the incredibly Western ideas of the quantification of suffering and a calculus-based ethics? Anyway it's irrelevant. When I say that utilitarianism is *Western*, I am not misspeaking or overstating myself. It formed from the ideas that unified the various intellectual cultures of Enlightenment-era Europe. The differences between Italian, French, German, etc. thought are only there in so far as these cultures of thought developed different additions to the Enlightenment fundamentals. Just as with your religion example: if you went to a hunter-gatherer person living on a remote island, and told them about utilitarianism or the categorical imperative or whatever, they would think it was the most bizarre idea they had ever heard. You would be unable to convince them that it made sense. --- I think moral frameworks are silly. We possess our morals and I trust they will refuse any attempt at systemisation.

Actually he takes into account any extraneous factors. The point is, after all calculations have happened is there an "objective" moral answer we can verify? The answer depends on ones system of morality and their values.

Thank you! And yes I think the final point can be expanded on in more depth. Essentially Mackie's argument for acting in a "moral" way - if morality does not really exist - was for the cooperation of society. John argues that a peaceful society then becomes a desired goal, and so in a way becomes a moral goal. So moral law might not cover specific universal behaviors (i.e do not kill, do not steal etc) but it will cover any behavior that leads to a peaceful functioning society. If you donating money to charity leads to less poverty and improves your society then this becomes a morally good act. Of course this needs a lot of work and probably a dedicated video. As you said this cannot really be verified empirically, it could fall under the Quasi Realist umbrella, however even that ultimately renders morality non cognitive. Also it leads to even more problems of defining a peaceful society and how to balance different ideologies on how a society should run.

I noticed you mentioned peace. Peace without justice is tyranny. If you want to know what morality is, look up the word Justice. It's the perfect word to describe what morality is. Morality is fairness. Sure life is not fair, but we can work a step closer. justice n. The quality of being just; fairness. n. The principle of moral rightness; equity. n. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

This is an interesting point. I think a video debating justice will be worthwhile.

Yeah Sam Harris isn't regarded as your best reference towards objective morality, and he mixes up descriptive/prescriptives. Try Derek Parfit "what matters" , Rawls "a theory of justice" but look up his "veil of ignorance " to learn about theories of fairness I'd also recommend Jurgen Habermas's. Discourse Ethic but he is really tough to read . Most respectful philosophers base objective morality as a methodological or epistemological fact that raises from the ashes of inter-subjective interactions with reality, so something that reflects all sentient agents. So like money is a intersubjective phenomenon and how we spend money and think of money's quazi-"behaviour" is based on more mathematical ideas. Logic isn't a floaty thing. "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" - Socrates

The morality of god(s) is still subjective. As for "morality for society's sake..." No thanks. Group selectionist hypotheses have it exactly backward.

Hi Avontay, this is an excellent point and definitely a response that would be worth mentioning. I think this will ultimately rely on whether you consider a statement around the functioning of society a moral statement? As you have correctly pointed out the desire to count blades of grass is amoral. Is a desire to see a happier population a moral statement, or shall we say, a moral desire? If it is, and it is something that most people will strive for, then does this become a sort of moral truth. "A well functioning, happy society is morally good" becomes a true statement.

If we want to only do good and eating babies is good then what's the problem?

Thank you!

“All moral claims are false” isnt a moral claim.

@BrookBeast Clarification: "all moral claims are false" is a claim based on *perceptions* , not necessarily a "moral claim" - I was in a hurry :) Morality comes from our perceptions and you claim to not trust them, but your claim is also based on perceptions. "All moral claims are false" is self refuting because it is *based on your perceptions* as our morality is. Basically you say "don't trust the perceptions that gives us a sense of morality but DO trust the perception that *all moral claims are false* ".

You completely missed the point!

@@anteodedi8937 The point about "all moral claims are false" - based on ones perception being self refuting?🧐

@@hojda1 No no, it is not about how morality is, it is about moral claims (what you ought to do and what you ought not to do). Those claims are false and do not contain objective truth but are based in subjective emotions and feelings. "All moral claims are false" does not mean that all claims about "how morality is", are false (aka self refuting) but all claims about "how things ought to be or ought not to be" are false (categorical imperative). It is about the difference between factual claims (is) and moral claims (ought).

If you were to say that an absolute truth were false, that would be incoherent, but knowledge is a different story. I know that Brazil is playing Germany today. I turn on the tv, watch Brazil beat Germany, and I know that Brazil won this year. In reality, I was watching a rerun of last year's game and Brazil lost to Germany in THIS year's game. What I know is false. Your response is probably, "you really didn't KNOW that Brazil won." My response is to ask you to research all the different philosophical definitions of "knowledge" and the weaknesses that each one has. When people practically say they know something, that is different from knowing absolute truth, and many philosophers claim we can never know absolute truth, so practical knowledge is the best we've got. How many things have societies, not just individual people, "known" that turned out to be false?

Glad we could help.

Plant Seeds Stay Woke Are you saying murder and stealing is wrong because you don't want to be murdered and have our things stolen? That's like the "golden rule" treat others the way you want to be treated. Also are saying morality should tied to pleasure and pain or just pain?

Yea the golden rule is good. Also being the change you want to see in the world. Pleasure should definitely be considered when it comes to morality. Pleasure is a good thing as long as there's no suffering or it outweighs the suffering. and no rights are being violated.

Plant Seeds Stay Woke Interesting. The "Golden Rule" is the morally right action. Treat others the way you want to be treated. I think the golden rule can be a good moral code for dealing with issues of justice. But my concern is how can "Golden Rule" establish and define political rights and how to govern? Also how would we define pleasure/good and pain?

"Cold Blooded Murder and Stealing is wrong because I wouldn't want it to happen to me, because of empathy, because it causes suffering." This statement falls victim to David Hume is/ought problem and is logical fallacy of a non-sequitur. You can not logical get an ought (x action is wrong) from a is (i wouldn't want that to happen to me). Your conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise.

That's a great opinion. Doesn't make it objective or a moral fact of any kind. Doesn't even make it personally consistent, unless you're willing to embrace veganism.

One thing to consider is that the whole of society is built upon the individual. The individual is the building block in which “society” arises. Society is a mental concept it’s not a concrete thing. If one acts “morally good”, it translates into an environment that fosters growth and progress for everyone. This is much different from say enacting laws or making moral decision as *society* as the target. Like I said, society isn’t concrete. Whatever laws that are enacted or whatever decisions made on a moral level should be directed at each individual as the sole focus. Utilitarianism attempts to establish morals on the number of people the decision effects or in other words, what benefits “society” the most. As long as 51 million people are happy, it’s ok for 50 million to perish, according to Utilitarianism. The philosophy in this video is much different, as it attempts to base morality on the individual level, and as a result of morally good actions of the participants, society as a consequence flourishes without “society” as the focus.

Would it be moral for a sentient robot to harm another sentient robot? Neither are alive. If you found yourself as an disembodied entity, a kind of spirit, would it be moral for you to harm other entities like yourself? None of you are alive. How do you know what the project of life is? One can observe that living things *want* to survive and to reproduce, but one can also observe that a broken clock doesn't tell the time.

Just because some behavior was useful to overcome certain problems doesn't mean that it was/is right. Knowldege from wisdom can, at best, be useful, but not right or wrong. Imagine the follow scenario: tomorrow the wisdom tells us that we need to kill you because you are an economic burden to society. Would you consider it right? Or wrong? Is it a moral truth that we have to kill you?

@Cinemascope If the moral truths are defined as intergenerationally accrued wisdom then my killing should have a grounds known to a long standing tradition. Your example instead suggests a failure of acting with long standing wisdom (acting wisely) which would involve not getting society in a position where killing humans is seen as a solution to alleviate an economic issue which could have been prevented by not introducing unthoughtful policies. Hence, it is not only morally wrong, it is evil in the modern and in the religious sense of the word. A problem that could have been solved with wisdom, doing the necessary, instead was solved with an immoral deed which became inevitable. A truth that is failed against is that lack of foresight (providence) or omission to act when necessary can leads to reactionary damage control (which can lead to even worse outcomes). Wisdom, which involves informing oneself on history and past experience and how older generations prevented problems (i.e. Bible advices to build granaries with a 7 year supply in case of the quite frequent multi-season droughts reported on by successive generations), could have lead to the necessary insight preventing this. These kinds of proposals normally are suggested by dictators, ideologues omitting to examine and apply the logic behind old wisdom, mono-variable analysis, or introducing policies condemned by old and gray experts, i.e. a simple example regarding green policies: expensive energy can cause farmers to simply stop buying fertilizer resulting in a 30% drop in food production + a larger immediate production shock due to farmers going out of business. The result in an interdependent world could be almost universal worldwide hunger one to two seasons later. All this could be the result of green policies resulting in hindrances to the production, sale and transport of energy types currently in wide use. Or more bluntly: if you want a better car, don't sell your car before you have the new one in your possession.

And you base that on...what?

Postmodernists don't reject the idea of objective truth, they just wish us to be more careful with what we call "objective truth."

@@iosefka7774 Wrong.

@@outofoblivionproductions4015 Why is it wrong? You don't get to deny something without reason - unless you think your feelings are more important than the facts.

@@iosefka7774 It is true they believe in one objective truth (which is wrong)- that there is no objective truth, only different perspectives, and this contradicts their sole position :(

@@outofoblivionproductions4015 Plenty of post-modernist authors, and laypeople who agree with them, accept that there is objective truth; I am one of them. Postmodern philosophy is about critiquing/examining naive culturally-constructed narratives which purport to objectively explain the world. e.g. postmodernists criticise the Marxist story of societal progression and its inevitability.