PragerU's Not a Real Uni and Murder is Wrong.

[x65943]

Not exactly.
Because of His omniscience God knows what is right and because of His Love, He commands exactly that. Things aren't good because He commands them, He commands them because they're good. This may sound like God is subject to an even higher authority, a "morality" beyond Himself - but again, that is no morality at that point, that's Love. He wants Good, because He is Love and that's what Love wants for Its object. We're like little children, trying to put a metal fork into the electrical socket and calling our parents' decision to forbid it "arbitrary" and "selfish". It's not - they just know better and they love us. That combination is key.

"God knows what is right"

But there can be no right, how would you define it? That's like saying God knows what "fdjl;jaf" means

Of course it means nothing because it is gibberish. Or saying - God knows which ice cream flavor is best - none is best of course, because you cannot have a correct value judgement - value is in the eye of the beholder

 

[Foxi4]

"God knows what is right"

But there can be no right, how would you define it? That's like saying God knows what "fdjl;jaf" means

Of course it means nothing because it is gibberish. Or saying - God knows which ice cream flavor is best - none is best of course, because you cannot have a correct value judgement - value is in the eye of the beholder

It's a cost versus benefit analysis, it's fairly objective. Intrinsic value isn't in the eye of the beholder, it's a result of the relation between supply and demand.

 

[x65943]

It's a cost versus benefit analysis, it's fairly objective. Intrinsic value isn't in the eye of the beholder, it's a result of the relation between supply and demand.

But what is a cost and what a benefit? Although they may seem obvious, these too are subjective.

You might imagine someone who does not value their own life or happiness.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value.

 

[WeedZ]

Morality should be relative. If we based society on Christian law to the letter today, we would still be stoning people for their opinions.

You want something objective to base good and evil on, how about freedom vs control. Any act of "evil" is a measurable amount of control taken over another person. For example, theft, rape, murder. But to give people more freedom, food, clothing, kindness, can be measured as good.

This is the philosophy I live by, which is why I feel religion itself can, in some ways, be measured as evil.

 

[the_randomizer]

If you kill people, you're still a dick for doing it. Peoples' lives are their own, you have no right to take that away from someone.

 

[Foxi4]

But what is a cost and what a benefit? Although they may seem obvious, these too are subjective.

You might imagine someone who does not value their own life or happiness.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value.

I'll have to disagree with you. When you're in the middle of a desert and completely parched, we can get back to the subject of intrinsic value of a bottle of water. Again, things that have value are things that allow you to live and prosper, this value is derrived from Maslov's pyramid of needs and it fluctuates based on factors like availability or urgency. The only kind of value that is not intrinsic is sentimental value because the demand is based on your subjective emotional attachment, everything else has a price tag.

 

[x65943]

I'll have to disagree with you. When you're in the middle of a desert and completely parched, we can get back to the subject of intrinsic value of a bottle of water. Again, things that have value are things that allow you to live and prosper, this value is derrived from Maslov's pyramid of needs and it fluctuates based on factors like availability or urgency. The only kind of value that is not intrinsic is sentimental value because the demand is based on your subjective emotional attachment, everything else has a price tag.

I see your argument

You are saying to hell with the philosophical underpinning - value exists for practical reasons

But that is a very subjective argument

You are basically saying it exists because we all feel it exists and say it exists

But you can never prove it exists either by a logic problem or otherwise scientifically

And this is why we say value is subjective - because unlike objective fact which can be measured, this can only be felt

 

[WeedZ]

I see your argument

You are saying to hell with the philosophical underpinning - value exists for practical reasons

But that is a very subjective argument

You are basically saying it exists because we all feel it exists and say it exists

But you can never prove it exists either by a logic problem or otherwise scientifically

And this is why we say value is subjective - because unlike objective fact which can be measured, this can only be felt

But we can measure that we feel. At least most of us that don't suffer from psychopathy.

We are emotional and empathetic creatures, an evolutionary trait to make us work together and survive as a species.

We could then argue that good is any action that benefits all people and evil is measured as actions that benefit only the individual at the expense of others.

As much as that arguement better fits the conservative point that's trying to be made, I feel most conservatives wouldn't like this philosophy.

 

[x65943]

But we can measure that we feel. At least most of us that don't suffer from psychopathy.

We are emotional and empathetic creatures, an evolutionary trait to make us work together and survive as a species.

We could then argue that good is any action that benefits all people and evil is measured as actions that benefit only the individual at the expense of others.

As much as that arguement better fits the conservative point that's trying to be made, I feel most conservatives wouldn't like this philosophy.

You can say many people agree on something, or that most people feel a certain way

But in the end that argument is pretty similar to "most people prefer chocolate over vanilla"

I completely agree with your points, all I am saying is it is not objective, but subjective

 

[WeedZ]

You can say many people agree on something, or that most people feel a certain way

But in the end that argument is pretty similar to "most people prefer chocolate over vanilla"

I completely agree with your points, all I am saying is it is not objective, but subjective

For sure, we could say most people think murder is wrong and it would still be subjective. What empathy tells us is right is subjective. I'm trying to use just the existence of emotion and empathy, and its evolutionary purpose as an objective "one for all" philosophy. In this scenario most people can dislike murder, but killing someone for the good of society could be 'good'.

 

[x65943]

For sure, we could say most people think murder is wrong and it would still be subjective. What empathy tells us is right is subjective. I'm trying to use the just the existence of emotion and empathy, and its evolutionary purpose as an objective "one for all" philosophy. In this scenario most people can dislike murder, but killing someone for the good of society could be 'good'.

I see. You're using the existence of shared values as a sort of reflection of an inner moral drive.

I can agree that humans seem to be biologically programmed to condone or condemn certain actions especially as they pertain to the group as a whole.

But you know a human's inner drives may not exactly be "good" in the sense we talk about in modern society. For example killing and raiding a neighboring tribe may be seen as good by older societies.

And different groups agree and disagree as to what is right and wrong. There seem to be some agreement over the biggies like murder, but in different circumstances even that is not a constant.

 

[osm70]

Morality also derives from what your end goal is. At the level of "the continuation of the species is the right thing", rape would be considered a good thing.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

There's plenty of things stopping one from murdering, but other than belief in higher, objective morality, there isn't anything I can see that would stop one from believing murder isn't wrong. That's my point - I believe that the world was created not just with matter, not just with space and time and not just with rules of physics built in - but also with moral rules. That morality is as real and objective as gravity - it's not "ideas we invent", it's "facts we discover". It's like science, only we're capable of going against it, unlike with, say, gravity.
Do tell me what stops you from believing murder is as morally neutral as blowing your nose and doesn't have its source in objective idea of morality. That something is exactly what I have never been able to find.

I mean, you could have just started off by asking, rather than taking the crusader route of asserting that your faith is objective truth and then making us come to you.

But, for your answer, murder is wrong for the same reason rape and, in most cases, theft, are wrong; you're taking something (in this case, life) from someone else without their consent. If you want to think of the Ten Commandments as objective moral law, I'd have no qualms with that, but you have to understand that they are also Jewish in origin, and the Commandments themselves are borrowed from a condensed version of Hammurabi's code; which is to say, the idea of Supreme Wrongs has existed LONG before Christianity

It's also worth mentioning that I was raised Christian, and I still occasionally go to and appreciated church -- but I was also religious to an extreme at one point, and after seeing what that did to me, I've distanced myself considerably from Christianity and prefer a more "do good without witness or reward" approach

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It's a cost versus benefit analysis, it's fairly objective. Intrinsic value isn't in the eye of the beholder, it's a result of the relation between supply and demand.

? God's a capitalist?

 

[Xzi]

Once again, an atheist hears "morality comes from God" and answers with "that's just ridiculous, illogical propaganda and no, I'm not gonna tell you why that is, have an insult instead".
Edgy 13-17 year-olds indeed.
Come on, if you want to argue against the points made - argue against the points being made.

I'm not religious, but I'm also not an atheist, and I'm not going to spend hours dissecting a video that has a stupid premise to begin with. His basic argument is that all morality outside of religion or god is reduced to "opinion," but that would make all morality nothing but opinion because nobody has proven the existence of god yet. Morality, even for religious people, is obviously informed by far more than their religion alone. Otherwise goat sacrifices would still be as common as they were in the year zero.

 

[the_randomizer]

I don't care what religious beliefs people have or don't have, but don't try to shove the whole "morality isn't real" or that "good and evil" don't exist bullshit, at least have a compelling argument as to why. Or how murder, rape, theft, etc are somehow not a bad thing to do against other people.

Even if religion wasn't a thing, people should still have a sense of good and bad.

 

[osm70]

I don't care what religious beliefs people have or don't have, but don't try to shove the whole "morality isn't real" or that "good and evil" don't exist bullshit, at least have a compelling argument as to why. Or how murder, rape, theft, etc are somehow not a bad thing to do against other people.

Of course, I THINK murder, rape, theft, etc are bad things. But YOU might not think that, because everyone has their own ideas of what's right and wrong. That's the point I am trying to make.

(You not thinking that and then doing it does NOT mean that you won't get shit from me. I judge people based on my own morality... as does everyone else.)

 

[the_randomizer]

Of course, I THINK murder, rape, theft, etc are bad things. But YOU might not think that, because everyone has their own ideas of what's right and wrong. That's the point I am trying to make.

(You not thinking that and then doing it does NOT mean that you won't get shit from me. I judge people based on my own morality... as does everyone else.)

And I do, I think anything that harms another human in any shape, is a dick thing to do.

 

[osm70]

And I do, I think anything that harms another human in any shape, is a dick thing to do.

The point is that there might be people who don't think that.

 

[the_randomizer]

The point is that there might be people who don't think that.

And I honestly worry about those people.

 

[osm70]

And I honestly worry about those people.

But you agree that it is possible for people like that to exist, right?