We Agree Now! | Rationality Rules & Cosmic Skeptic | Is Morality Objective? 

You were right when you said that the person with the anti-social impulse ought to act on it (from their subjective POV). However, ethics as I understand it is like a 3rd party observer looking at what actions provide the most good to the most people. Defining ethics like this allows us to hold ourselves and others accountable (via the law and societal shame) despite whatever anti-social impulses we have.

I do too

Hey, Rationality Rules, Essence of Thought replied to your Transgender Athletics video and it's very interesting. Can you to review your views on it?

@@Jay-vz7og He announced 5 days ago that he's working on a clarification on that topic which I think many people are eagerly waiting for.. probably for very different reasons :)

I saw an unfortunate message that the ACA left on their discord about you. They said something to the effect they've rec'd backlash b/c of your views on transgenders and they're disappointed in themselves and will do a better job of vetting their guests in the future. I thought it seemed like a pretty big back-stab, since you seemingly just palled with them for a week or two in person. Figured you should know.

Alexander Englebert I LITERALLY JUST DID THIS 😂

TLDR please, people.

@@ancbi TLDR Attempt: Free will does not exist as we are subconsciously forced to act on our desire, specifically our desire for pleasure, which is genetically and sociologically ingrained into us. Every action we make is therefore based on what we *think* will give us the most pleasure. But there is an objective answer to what action *will* give us the most pleasure, and, therefore, we have beliefs about which action we should take, which are 'right' or 'wrong' according to this version of morality. I skipped the ending about whether or not it is necessary for free will to not exist for this to be valid, as I got a little lost. Also see Alex and Steven's videos on Free Will for clarification about the first claim and feel free to correct me if you find that I am misrepresenting the views in the video!

@@Max-jf5vu Us as in us as a group or that person individually? because you could say there is an objectively correct way to facillitate group well being, (such as not killing everyone), but how can you objectively tell a rapist that not raping people is for his own best good? what if he believes his lifes purpose is to rape? someone like this does not believe in group well being. Also associating morality with well being in of itself is an opinion, its not in the definition of morality

Rationality rules in the comments says thanks for changing my views. I think it’s him

Hope you didn't derive that "should" (read: ought) from an "is" 😂

Thanks for the time-stamps. I love your username lol.

@@sanmigueltv no probs, they were actually for my own reference

Thanks

I’d prefer to use the phrase “reduce suffering” and not “pleasure”. A person could crave food to avoid hunger and not desire any pleasure from the taste.

Listening now. Pleasure eh....my intuition is that is insufficient

@Kwistenbiebel200 definitely, and they use very technical language. My kids ask me something different every time. What does that mean mom? So thumbs up for that

@evilknibbo you got me there for a moment 😋

Jonas Sandoy ...give examples, please.

@Jonas Sandoy Think it's incumbent on you to expand on why you believe that to be the case. Otherwise, you're guilty of doing the same, only worse being that you're just name-calling.

@Jonas Sandoy thank you for your concern about my kids. It has been noted. Any debate example you would recomend? I am always looking for clean debates that I dont have to censor while with my kids.

If the sun rises for a billion years everyday in the past, we can know it rises tomorrow. This guy said that’s not true. That’s bs.

@@marvinwilliams7938We can *predict* it will rise tomorrow, but we cannot know, because that makes several assumptions that you literally cannot prove. Intuitively, I agree with you - we can know it rises tomorrow. Why? Because it rose yesterday, and 4b years ago, and so on. But in that answer, you take a load of assumptions for granted.

@@Adam-tp8py Barring aside humanities scientific knowledge of space and revolutions of planets, where do you draw the line between 'predict' and 'know'? I think predict is also too soft, if you really had to use the word predict, you would say "predict with extremely extremely extremely strong certainty". If you want to be mathematical about it, the if the sun revolved around everyday for 4billion years, then the chance that tomorrow it does not is 1 divide by 4billion. So really, there's a 99.9999999999% chance it does rise tomorrow. To me, that is a "know".

@@marvinwilliams7938 On a pragmatic level, I don’t disagree. In day to day life we don’t make that distinction, but this is that space where we aren’t talking in day to day terms, but with more semantic adeptness. What you described, semantically, isn’t knowing. It’s, as you said, predict with an extreme level of certainty.

@@Adam-tp8py Again, barring aside our scientific knowledge of how the planets revolve, interested to know what would make you go from "predict with an extreme level of certainty (in this case 99.999+% certainty given it has everytime in the past 4b years)" of the sun rising tomorrow to "knowing" the sun will rise tomorrow? Would it have to include the scientific knowledge of how planets revolve? Nevertheless, the guy said no flat out, which is quite a far-fetched statement

!!!!n!!HJ++++h-j-+++((((-j+JJJ++JJJ

!!!!n!!HJ++++h-j-+++((((-j+JJJ++JJJ

How any two people should argue.

Agreed, but we might as well call it objective in the framework we have set for ourselves. Best example I can find on this is the analogy to chess. As long as we all agree on the rules/goals of chess we can make objective claims as to what is the best move in said game.

@RDE Lutherie Fair, but it seems to me that on the questions of morality we mostly agree on all topics.(ex. Murder, rape, stealing as a bad thing)

@RDE Lutherie I agree completely

It's an objective framework, which is ultimately subjective in the way that it's not set by fundamental rules of the universe, but objective in the sense that if we agree on what morality is, then we can objectively measure what and what does not act in our best interest as a species.

I'm curious.. What renders science objective, when morality is apparently not objective? After all, it was humans that defined and posited a goal for each. How is our notion of science objective but not our notion of "good"? In my view, they're both subjective and objective in the same ways. They're ontologically subjective and epistemologically objective. All concepts--including planets, keyboards, science, water, fire, matter, etc.--are subjective. No arbiter exists deciding what any of the terms mean. Humans decided what each of those terms mean. And if it's not merely arbitrary/subjective for them to have done that, then why is it when they've chosen to define "good" in a specific way? It's not only our notion of morality that is subjective, but indeed our notion of everything, including what constitutes physical reality. How do you know you are looking at a building when you are standing before it? Because within your mind, there exists a perceptual structure organized into a hierarchy of values, reaching all the way down to the most axiomatic among them, that enables you to determine the nature of reality. And the same can be applied to morality. Within my mind exists a hierarchy of values, rooted in axioms, that enable me to determine what's right and what's wrong. Like with anything, I can be mistaken, but no more reliably than in my efforts to accurately perceive objective, or physical, reality. Maybe it's actually not wrong to murder people, just like maybe the thing I presume to be a building is really an optical illusion of some sort... but I have good reason to doubt both, and I'm generally no less confident in my moral convictions than I am any other convictions I hold. Contrary to popular belief, there exists no fundamental difference between our perceptions of morality and physical reality. The methodology underlying efforts to ascertain truths in both domains is essentially the same. It starts with axioms, and works upward from there. Reach down deep enough in attempting to figure out why it is you believe you know something, and you'll quickly realize that, at best, what you're left with is an axiom--something that can't be verified through reference to anything else, but that is instead simply self-evidently true. You can think of these most foundational of beliefs as the things that, in any effort to deny, you necessarily validate. And morality need not be any less grounded in axioms than our perception of physical reality. At some point, in both cases, you have to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," if you will. If you doubt this, then tell me what the thing you're most confident in of anything is, and I'll demonstrate to you as we dig deeper and deeper how that belief is no more justified than my strongest moral convictions, and likely actually less justified. This is because even our efforts to understand physical reality are ultimately underscored by moral convictions at the end of the day; it's just that many people fail to realize this. They fail to realize why it is they even attempt to understand anything. But there are moral implications at every step along the way, whether people realize it or not. Your moment-by-moment experience of the dynamics of pleasure and pain is motivating all that you consciously do. Evolution instituted pleasure and pain to serve as the catalysts for all conscious action, and this can be easily realized through a marriage of deep enough introspection with the relevant science. Pleasure is the motivating agent, and pain is the deterring agent, and these manifest in complicated arrangements over large spans of time to drive all that we consciously do. And what better way to conceive of what's "good" than literally the only thing that will ever motivate a conscious agent to do anything? Likewise, what better way to conceive of "bad" than literally the only thing that will ever deter a conscious agent from doing anything? I can hardly think of more self-evidently true propositions than those. That well-being is all that matters is such a basic truism that I'm frankly amazed anyone has ever attempted to deny it. Don't you recognize that the very fact that you're trying to deny it implies, at the very least, your subconscious recognition of it?? You're only trying to deny it because the dynamics of pleasure and pain coalesced into your desire to deny it. It reminds me of when people attempt to deny the existence of consciousness without realizing that their efforts to do so are only substantiating the very thing they're attempting to deny. That's what we mean by consciousness, you dopes!! We're talking about the very thing that's enabling you to do what you're attempting to do--quit getting bogged down by the semantics! Likewise, what anyone means--whether they realize it or not--when they're talking about "morality" is well-being; it's reducible to that. I've literally never encountered even a single case where I can't trace someone's moral objection to--or support for--something back to well-being. Again, words don't define themselves; we define them, and we've demonstrated--whether knowingly or not--that the very essence of morality is a system designed to preserve well-being. So again, I must ask--what exactly is less than entirely objective here? To me, this entire debate screams of semantic confusion and strange double standards in language usage.

Omg are there ads like that that is horrible

Simon you should look at this in a positive way. It's lost ad revenue :D

It's the transfer of money from Prager to CS via Google. Good. 💰😎

Ad Block is your friend.

@@Kevin-jv7mz sometimes sure

True. It's amazing and very fruitful discussion.

That is why I am creating my own language

Objective morality claims always make me chuckle. Morality is nothing more than a man made construct to create an environment where humans can live safely amongst one another. A contract of sorts between mammals that have a particularly large brain in comparison to their body size. Attempting to create an objective morality from nothing is the classic ought from an is and will remain a fallacy in perpetuity. These two very smart people, able to dazzle us with their eloquence, will never change that fact.

Ken Hiett I agree morality is subjective. As it seems does Alex. He does not say that morality is objective. He does say that all morality is rooted in subjectivity. Merely, Alex and Steven are trying to create a useful framework. Which they did. I don’t believe Stevens position on objective morality was cleared up, however, what is very clear is that Alex still remains a moral subjectivist.

@@antoinerockamora9813 You are correct about their positions and then I watch Alex use morality as a basis for his Veganism argument. Morality is a very poor basis for any argument imo.

Yeah, left me quite diss-appointed if I'm being honest

IMO Stephan would've destroyed Alex if they went to the dissing route!

@@gaunterodimm3569 Oh, you mean diss-troyed? 😉

I think you ment keep up the good work;) Although they probably have fun, so it is a good Job for them, but who are you to force them what they should do?

@@Feds_the_Freds keep all the good everything!

Feynman

I agree, i always found the notion that there was really absurd.

a personal expression of morality is subjective the observation of that expression is objective.

@@nyborg6425 Elaborate.

@@Trickey2413 In the same way I guess gravity is expressed by the density of an object, and the expression is subjective to the density of object, but the observed phenomenon we call gravity is objective. It is that we are taking about that object in particular that makes its density subjective to it, not that density is subjective in any other sense.

@@nyborg6425 I see what you are saying, but the problem is simply that imperatives aren't part of the physical universe the way gravity is. Our "oughts" aren't like gravity, because gravity acts with or without the presence of our conscienceness, our oughts do not. Morality suffers in that respects a similar issue to mathematics, and languages, in that it doesn't exist "out there", it is a product of our minds, if human beings had never existed, there would be none of it, because it exists in our conceptualisation of the world and nowhere else.

What reference

Can u explain

Explain the fking reference man

Dyow Zhars don’t even remember at this point.

@@utkarshdixit5567 @Fahimus Alimus Alex had been talking about the concept of 'should' and 'ought' and at the end he did say the word 'should' in his own speech.

have they determined if thanos is a moral objectivist?

I say this with love, but all this conversation is is an incredible game of echo-chamber chess ♟

You’ve clearly never watched anime

Truth

Ah, yes, the good ol' crossover between atheism and atheism, so risque!

Jonas Sandoy hooboy, here we go... Misunderstanding of what?

@Jonas Sandoy evolution comes from living things finding the best way to survive and keep their population surviving. How does that relate to them having the best morality?

I would specifically like to see the "how to o jectibly tell one act is more conductive to pleasure than another" because I understand Steven's case but to me, pleasure is subjective. I like chocolate, yoy like vanilla. I have X music taste you have Y. I agree there is a right and wrong way to go about maximizing your own pleasure but my problem is that pleasure is inherently subjective.

@@kaimcgregor7615 and we should include actual neuroscientists and psychologists in the debate

I thought as well.

Akil Bryan aaaaaiiiiiiii

their name is yonko. not four horseman shit

@@BigBaibars one piece eh!

And now he’s not LOL

njAutonomy aaaaahaaaaallhh

Jonah Kane be careful! I was too, now I don’t consider myself a Christian 😉

Ben McCurry I was very non religious at a time but I couldn’t continue to ignore the massive amount of evidence for Christianity.

@@jonahkane7027 I'm sorry, what evidence for christianity? I am genuinely curious.

Gijs Brans How do you define evidence? What would it look like?

@@jonahkane7027 it doesn't matter what it looks like, it just has to prove enough Christian beliefs to validate christianity.

HahahaahhhaaaXD

Wanting what's best for the species could be seen as a moral position.

nowhereboy - It could but, philosophically, they differ. That’s why university philosophy departments have Ethics courses, not Morality courses. Morality is based on dogma where the few decide what’s best for all. Ethics is neutral and unconcerned with dogma. I’m not using common vernacular here. Just as the non-scientists often misuse the word “theory”’, the average person blurs the line between ethics and morality.

@@cheeseofultimatedoom thats no such thing as best for species...either way we evolved such that adaptive genes are generally propagated, that could just as easily be morality

David Williams - Ethics is concerned with the benefit of society, not necessarily species. We discourage murder and theft because if these behaviours were left unchecked, society could no longer function. Morality places values of “right and wrong” or “good and evil” on various actions, often with an explanation of “because god said so.” Ethics and morality often do overlap in what behaviours are encouraged or discouraged, but they are not the same. Each religion has its own moral code, but Ethics is concerned with none of them. As a Pagan, I care nothing for the “right and wrong” of Christianity, for example, but I do care about the wellbeing of those around me and the continued functioning of society. As such, ethics drive my conscience, not religious moral imperatives.

@@hollyhartwick3832 do you agree is misguided to speak of objective, scientific morality or ethics?

Same here... I just keep having these kinda deep debates in my mind since there's no one I know who is interested or even understands such topics.... Honestly I think there should be an online group of like minded people who can converse with each other!!!..

to me, the answer to this is that truth-seeking is a skill people develop those who have been indoctrinated may be discouraged from developing that skill, and may cross a threshold where they're no longer open to doing so and are essentially "lost causes" but indoctrination is fundamentally a less accurate mechanistic tool than truth-seeking itself because there's always margin for error, whereas the latter approach's _goal_ inherently entails that those things be ironed out rather than hindered by discouraging critical thought or etc.

it's probably just that you lost brain cells

@@efenty6235 Maybe I am a lost brain cell

(๑•﹏•)

You are not alone

therealpepeu It is a good one.

You ought to.

Get ought

lol you got me 11 months later, good one

I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result: Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word', which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than theist-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect here.

I understand the theory of this but i dont understand why we could still define good or bad morally of this. Because if im wired to do what my pleasure is telling me to do. Why can i say that this or that action would maximize my pleasure. For example if i take pleasure in hurting someone, who can say to me that im not maximizing my pleasure and therefore am doing the wrong thing?

@@O_tropos No one but nihilism is scary to a lot of people, so they find all sorts of ways to back up their standard of morality

math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Applied_Mathematics/Book%3A_Introduction_to_the_Modeling_and_Analysis_of_Complex_Systems_(Sayama)/19%3A_AgentBased_Models/19.01%3A_What_Are_Agent-Based_Models%3F What you've described is the mathematical model of humans where they are called "agents" who seek to maximise a reward function, it's a really big part of AI research I encourage you to read up on it if this is in line with how you think where the human "pleasure" function is unknown and constantly changing.

@@O_tropos Because you can have repercursions which would inevitably lower your pleasure. You can, indeed find hurting someone pleasurable but it wouldn't maximise pleasure as it would have repercusions which by themselves would reduce it. If you do end up for example, in jail over hurting someone, your pleasure most definately not be greater if you didn't do it. I do think they address it when saying that: saying muder is bad is vacous. Actions themselves aren't good or bad, they're conducing or non-conducing towards pleasure and as such can be compared. Actions, in this framework, are indicators of incorrect beliefs, if you may call them such. (Not sure if I made any sense, lmao)

I think when uncertain facts are in play you can’t talk about objectivity at all

​@@arthurgale1612 then no one can talk about objectivity, ever, which would make it a completely useless term

I think it would me accurate to say: There is awareness of thought Awareness comes before the thought I would assume

stop, what the hell are you talking about?

where do "desires" come from then ?

Uh huh, transphobia, uh huh

Jonas Sandoy Since when has the universe had any opinions on anything?

What do you even mean by "truly objective". And how did you know that a moral system couldn't be truly objective? It the fact 1+1=2 objective? or is it subjective because they are just made up symbols? Are you saying morality can't be objective in the way math is objective?

Well, we set the bar of objectivity-- which is the best known possible subjective morality, according to science.

Jonas Sandoy Evolution is a blind force, it doesn’t have opinions.

Jonas Sandoy Also, the universe and evolution are two different things. -_-

Zeal Raphaeaeael Yes well in utilitarianism, utility is defined with pleasure

@@JM-us3fr beneficial is a much better word then pleasure.

@@JM-us3fr beneficial is a much better word then pleasure.

Well put. But yes, I find that Steven is inconsistent model. Because on one hand in other podcasts as saying nature.by itself is amoral. So he is arguing as if he is not within nature, whilst using evolutionary psychology, to assume the ought. I find it fall flat, and o Connor so far seems to me to be more consistent than Steven.

"risk that a new deadly disease has developed and that person is carrying" Murdering the individual in question doesn't necessarily eliminate the chance of the disease spreading though. Quarentine would be a better option for all involved as it would maximise the pleasure of all involved. To take another case: A man says he's going to shoot fifteen people. Do you shoot him first? To which I'd say you could still quarentine the danger until such is mitigated.

It’s kind of absurd when they bring up murder, because murder is a human made law and is literally defined as “unlawful”

@@AvatarOfBhaal This is a pointless objection. I agree that my example was flawed but the point still stands just as strong. There are definitely cases where you cannot midigate a disaster without committing an act that would in less extreme cases be regarded as immoral.

Yea I don't understand their attempt to frame morality as objective within the mind attempting to negate the ability of human choice and put people into a realm of, it's not my fault my mind made me do it. Their moral framework does a lot of good to the eugenicist who says man is moral bc of his genetics and that the genetics of those immoral should be wiped out. Though I won't pretend that's what they're arguing, but I am saying that their positions are old, baseless and a very vulgar materialism..

Nah, actual transphobe. Disgusting

Are pleasure and pain objective or subjective phenomena in your view? If they're objective, then how is morality any less objective than them? Both only exist in relation to conscious subjects. In my view, morality--as well as concepts like pleasure and pain--are ontologically subjective, but epistemologically objective. Hell, even thoughts themselves are entirely subjective, ontologically speaking. This doesn't make them any less real. I can't help but feel some of what you said is mired in the same sort of semantic confusion so much of the rest of this discussion seems to be. Am I missing something?

As a follow-up to my previous post, I'd like to note that some semantic confusion also seems to have spilled over into your thinking on free will. The argument against free will is not an argument against conscious agency. Conscious entities are conscious systems influenced by all manner of phenomena, including the conversation of others, and act differently depending on the influences they're exposed to. But susceptibility to influence does not grant something any more true freedom than something within an entire closed system, where nothing could possibly influence it. Think of it like this: the artificial intelligence within video games was previously programmed with far fewer degrees of freedom than the artificial intelligence within most modern video games. This has resulted in NPC behavior that is far more advanced and sophisticated than what was previously possible. So in some sense, yes--it is now operating in a freer manner. Fundamentally, however, it is no freer than it ever was; its behaviors have merely become more wide-ranging and unpredictable. It's still being entirely dictated by its programming, however. This is analogous to the human situation. Humans are susceptible to a far wider variety of influences than other animals, but they're still fundamentally no more free. They've simply generated a greater illusion of freedom. The idea of free will can be thoroughly demolished in a variety of ways, but perhaps the most succinct way to do it is to simply point out that anything anyone ever thinks or does is entirely the consequence of his neurophysiology in that moment, which he didn't create. And whatever neurophysiology he does contribute to has been determined by the neurophysiology present at the moment he decided to contribute to it in some way. As such, it ultimately reduces to something out of the person's control. Looking for any true freedom reveals only an endless concatenation of prior causes, each of which necessarily produced the next. In each moment, you are forced to act out your strongest desire, and your strongest desire in that moment is entirely determined by the state of your neurophysiology in that moment. Sure, your desires are constrained by innumerable factors. For instance, if you determine something to be unhealthy for you, there's some probability that that will result in your no longer desiring to indulge in it. But again, having your desires constrained is not for you to have any real control over them, as whatever control you attempt to exercise over them will itself be the product of a desire to do so. A sort of infinite regress of desires develops where the freedom you're looking for is never found. Let me know if you're confused about any of this, and I'll try my best to clarify. Be careful to remember, however, that none of this renders anything you do any less meaningful. Good and bad consequences of behavior will always exist regardless of what ultimately drove the behavior, and people, including you, in acknowledgement of this, should seek to maximize the good consequences and minimize the bad ones.

I don't know much about this but I would say the pleasure got from a "gruesome" act will be for the short term but it will be the opposite in the long term? Therefore, it would not be in your best interest to do it. Sorry, if it doesn't make much sense.

@@ioanaberbece8137 I agree that your answer would be valid for psychological psycho, who is psycho because of his past experiences. But not valid for physiological psycho,that is a person who is born with a mutation to be psycho. For him even in the long term this is the most pleasurable. You should see some psycho documentaries where they will go to extreme lengths of preparation to cause violence. It's neurological, they become like this at a very young age, without any bad experience. Of course such people deserve societies' pity. But you will end calling that person a moral person under Stephen's framework . I agree with Stephen's initial premises, but we have to work on the framework a little more and polish it, so that we can include all the aspects of morality.

@@varunnrao3276Hmmmm, you are right of course. I didn't think about that. But if I may, if the 'gruesome' act is commited it will provide pleasure in the short term but in the long term that person could be caught and imprisoned, right? So I could say that it would be less pleasurable to commit the act followed by the loss of freedom rather than not commit the act and have freedom in the long term. I admit I don't know much about psychology in general but the loss of freedom would be acceptable for a momentary period of pleasure? I don't know, at this point I don't have the necessary grasp on this subject.

@@ioanaberbece8137 I agree with you. But all I am telling is you will still call the psycho as a moral being. That is the problem. You may put him in a prison, but you will not be able to call him immoral. And Ioana there is so much problem with long term pure rational thinking, for example why would a soldier want to sacrifice himself in a war. As they discussed in the video the short term belief that he helped his people is more pleasurable than a lifetime of guilt of not helping one's own people. So soldier is justified, but then the same argument can be made for the psycho where he says one cold murder and jail for a life time for him is better than entire life of guilt of not doing it. For him its just the opposite of a soldier. These are dangerous arguments. That is why I think the best school of morality is the harmony of logical-emotive-intutional-biological schools . We need every resource available to mankind to uphold morality and humanity.

@@varunnrao3276 I understand now and I get what you are saying. You're right that it goes in dangerous territory when someone like that ends up being called moral under these circumstances. Hey, thank you for responding. 😊

you're an insecure atheist. you really put tabs on your years of being an atheist? hahah. silly. 🤣

@@tigers14 I take it you're a theist. You hold all your faith on a fantasy. Plus, I live every fulfilled life and love to learn and grow. The fact that you assert some thing ignorant about atheists reflects flaws about you, not atheists.

Lol I can't believe they take that seriously

The Fuzzician : The best way to avoid suffering to put everyone under anesthesia and then euthanize them. You could do this to all lifeforms that have any sort of consciousness. Then there will be no more suffering.

unnefer001 Well being is not only absence of suffering but also in the maximized presence of pleasure.

@@m03biu5 glad you said it so I dont have to

@@unnefer001 That is probably true. But I can't quite decide if you are using this as a _reductio ad absurdum_ of the The Fuzzician's position, or if it what you actually advocate.

@@omp199 It was to point out the "we ought to avoid suffering" is not self-evident alone. May need a bit more to it.

Thanks, Mr. Obvious

Is/will is not testable. But it will be.

@@jeremylakes-gardner9958 No, it's testABLE now, we just haven't go the result yet

The issue is deeper than probability. Without bridging the is/will be divide it is impossible to act with intent. Hume making the claim, intending it to be understood, is practically if not philosophically incoherent. So people don't just gloss over the is/will be divide, they ignore it because it is metaphysically impossible for them to consciously do otherwise.

I see the cases you’re explaining as instances where you aren’t really making the decision at all, rather your decision making processes and your physical actions are disagreeing. You WANT to act according to your desires, you are merely unable to physically.

I think he said that person ought to do it but not that it's right or good

@@davidwilliams6966 on top of that, he should have mentioned that everyone else who has the social impulses ought to stop the antisocial ones. I.e. if someone has the impulse to murder but everyone else has the impulse to prevent murder, then they also ought to stop the murderer or find ways to convince them not to murder

he only means they ought to do it to achieve their goal though

Very well said, my take is that pleasure is too often stripped of its evolutionary origins. We only feel it in order for our brain to teach us what we should avoid and pursue; we dont pursue pleasure as an ends (or atleast we're not supposed to). In this way, pleasure as a means for survival feels like a solid place to start.

I feel like well-being in terms of moraltiy is just an axiom. To morally ask a question about "Why ought we value well-being?" is simply a malformed question. It's like asking a philosopher, "Why OUGHT we value the laws of logic?". The ONLY way you can logically answer the question "why ought we value logic" is through logic itself. You need reason in order to reason. It just boils down to the law of non-contradiction. Same with morality. It all boils down to well-being, and to morally question why we ought to value well-being is simply meaningless. It is like trying to give a logical answer as to why we ought to value logic. It comes down to reductio ad absurdum. Drugs give short-term pleasure, and not long-term pleasure. The long term administration of drugs leads to dependence and withdrawal, and thereofre objectively impacts well-being in a negative way

@@johnnylamaa2569 --the problem is, it does not always boil down to wellbeing.

@@joshboston2323 There are obviously many factors to take into consideration, but well-being is an undeniable part of the equation. But we can go down your rabbit hole, and we can take for example condemned criminals. If a serial child rapist got smashed in the head with a hammer versus an innocent person, we would not be as bothered by one as opposed to the other, even though the amount of suffering for each person would be pretty much equal. This is due to us thinking that since one has committed horrendous crimes, they "deserve" suffering as compensation. Of course, this opens a can of worms, and OP made a very brilliant point about free will. If we don't technically have free will, then nobody "deserves" anything, since their choices aren't really something they can truly freely control. We only punish them so that people are less incentivized to commit the crime. However, the theory of retributive justice is something that is very central to the law, and it aligns with all of our gut feelings and intuitions. In any case, this is clearly a very complex issue, and I'm very open to being convinced one way or the other.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

So I'm quite late to the party, but I agree with you here. So, if someone gets extreme pleasure to the act of killing someone, as well as extreme pleasure to the fact that people see how horribly genious they are, but also don't really take too much displeasure to the fact that they might spending their life in prison, can we say it is right for them to commit murder ? That doesn't sound right to me. I can't help but think that morals don't exists without a social component to define it. If you live alone on an island, is there anything you can do that is morally right or wrong ?

@@POolBacK Fully agree with you here !!

@Jonas Sandoy Sorry I was just perturbed with my coworker.

Ye

At the point where the lines meet, there are six lines outwards in a symmetrical way. Therefore, no horisontal lines are needed to satisfy my autism. The horisontal lines would make that point non-symetrical, so the horisontal line is not wanted.

why are horizontal lines needed? more than the absence of horizontal lines the presence of the diagonal lines annoy me

Well when he says you ought to do something its quite clear he just means if you want to reach a goal so if goal X is achieved by means of Y then you ought to do Y that just logically follows. Now we can say that goal X is bad but we cant say that person ought not to do Y unless we mean they ought not to do it to achieve goal Z which is a totally different goal. its not like rationality rules wants people to go around raping and murdering or anything. Also as for the statement you ought to do whatever you feel doing well yeah kind of i mean someone is always going to do whatever it is they feel like doing. Because if someone does something they must have felt like doing it or they wound not have done it its just that as a society we agree that wellbeing specifically that of humans in most cases (but animals should be included too) is what should be pursued so if someone has inclinations that go against that we either try to change that or we you know destroy them