Divine Commands: Why Morality Leads to God (2018-05-24) ​

0:00:05 look at this right this picture who
0:00:08 knows what that is
0:00:10 hopefully I took it from the right
0:00:13 source on Google Images basically it's
0:00:16 invasive spinal surgery correct doctors
0:00:21 it looks like you're right good
0:00:24 so it's invasive spinal surgery now I
0:00:28 want you to imagine that you're
0:00:30 observing one of the senior surgeons in
0:00:33 this hospital so you're observing as a
0:00:36 student one of the most senior surgeons
0:00:38 of this hospital and you see him
0:00:42 consciously with intent snipping the
0:00:47 spinal cord for no reason he just nips
0:00:50 it doesn't like the guy doesn't like he
0:00:53 smells or something just snips it I
0:00:54 don't like you patient
0:00:56 let me just snip your spinal cord cord
0:00:58 yeah is that morally wrong put your hand
0:01:03 up if you think it's morally wrong so
0:01:06 you all think it's morally wrong or
0:01:08 morally wrong good put your hand down
0:01:09 now another question is it objectively
0:01:13 morally wrong put your hand up if you
0:01:16 think it's objectively
0:01:17 morally wrong with intent to snip the
0:01:20 spinal cord of a patient that doesn't
0:01:23 require it to be snipped now put your
0:01:25 hand up if you think is objectively
0:01:26 morally wrong it's not quick trick
0:01:28 question is it objectively morally wrong
0:01:30 okay all you be good so I've just tested
0:01:38 your moral intuitions here yeah because
0:01:40 when it comes to philosophy generally
0:01:41 speaking you can reduce everything just
0:01:44 to an intuition and the whole of
0:01:46 philosophy is justifying your intuitions
0:01:48 essentially right generally speaking so
0:01:51 not only do we think that snipping the
0:01:54 spinal cord or cutting the spinal cord
0:01:56 of a patient with intent is morally
0:01:59 wrong we've all agreed it's objectively
0:02:01 morally wrong now let me help you in the
0:02:04 definition of objective here because we
0:02:06 may have different definitions okay when
0:02:09 we're talking about something being
0:02:10 objective its considering or presenting
0:02:14 the facts without being influenced by
0:02:16 personal feelings or pain
0:02:18 so in the context of morality objective
0:02:22 morals something being objectively wrong
0:02:25 or objectively good means it's not
0:02:28 dependent on someone's limited mine
0:02:30 limited mind or limited emotions and
0:02:34 feelings for example one plus one is
0:02:37 equal to two that is an objective fact
0:02:42 regardless if you don't like maths
0:02:45 I hate maths right generally speaking
0:02:47 I'm like you know just because I hate
0:02:49 maths it doesn't now follow that one
0:02:51 plus one is not you right and if I
0:02:54 somehow try to convince you that one
0:02:56 plus one is equal to seven you'd be like
0:02:58 no you're wrong so this will we're
0:03:00 talking about when we're talking about
0:03:01 objective moles we're saying it's not
0:03:03 influenced or dependent on someone's
0:03:06 personal feelings or emotions or even
0:03:08 limited mind just like mathematical
0:03:11 truths one plus one is equal to two
0:03:13 regardless of what you say if you try to
0:03:15 convince me just because you're medical
0:03:17 students that hey hums are you're wrong
0:03:18 one plus one is actually five I reckon
0:03:21 oh you just just just what drugs are you
0:03:24 taking yeah do you see my point so this
0:03:27 will you mean by something being
0:03:30 objective so if these moral values and
0:03:32 facts are objective in this way they sit
0:03:35 outside of the human self in some way
0:03:37 it's not dependent on my limited mind or
0:03:39 limited emotions they're outside of me
0:03:42 in a way they're like you know you just
0:03:43 imagine I'm holding a moral fact note
0:03:46 that you can because it's not really
0:03:47 tangible and this is meta ethics this
0:03:49 metaphysical stuff but generally
0:03:51 speaking if this moral value of this
0:03:53 moral truth is objective and it's not
0:03:56 dependent on a limited mind or limited
0:03:58 emotions therefore its outside so to
0:04:00 speak if it's outside so to speak it
0:04:03 requires some grounding it requires a
0:04:06 foundation remember method Metta ethics
0:04:07 what is its foundation why is it
0:04:11 objective how do you explain its
0:04:13 objectivity where did it come from what
0:04:16 is this where is the source of this
0:04:17 moral value do you see the point so
0:04:20 requires some kind of foundations so far
0:04:22 so good
0:04:23 you with me good so one would argue
0:04:27 hold on a second Hamza don't you need
0:04:30 some evidence to prove that more
0:04:32 objective yes we all believe it's
0:04:35 objectively morally wrong with intent
0:04:37 and consciously to snip someone's spinal
0:04:39 cord we know it's a it's morally wrong
0:04:42 objectively but where's the proof well
0:04:46 this is about meta ethics you don't need
0:04:48 proof you don't need some kind of
0:04:50 empirical justification to prove that a
0:04:53 more value is objective because it's
0:04:56 about meta ethics you need first
0:04:59 principles or the lenses that you put on
0:05:01 your eyes to understand your moral
0:05:04 intuitions so when it comes to things
0:05:06 like this you don't need proof that is
0:05:08 subjective just like you don't need
0:05:09 proof that causality exists causality
0:05:13 exists we observe causes and we observe
0:05:15 effects fine we might not know the
0:05:17 nature between the causal link what is
0:05:19 the causal link what is causality itself
0:05:22 but we don't need empirical proof to
0:05:25 prove that this internal notion in our
0:05:28 minds of causality actually exists it's
0:05:30 a metaphysical discussion ok so you
0:05:32 don't really need proof for things to be
0:05:34 objective you could start with the first
0:05:36 principle that's why it's called an
0:05:38 axiomatic argument you start with the
0:05:40 first principle its objective it's based
0:05:42 on my intuitions there's nothing wrong
0:05:44 with that by the way and if you study
0:05:46 Western philosophy even Eastern
0:05:47 philosophy there's a hell of a lot of
0:05:49 assumptions going on anyway yeah this
0:05:51 first principle there's no first
0:05:53 principles free philosophy even science
0:05:56 if you study the philosophy of science
0:05:57 you'd understand that there are some
0:05:58 assumptions some first principles namely
0:06:01 that the external what exists that there
0:06:04 are external causal relations that's a
0:06:07 first principle another first principle
0:06:09 or assumption that science has is that
0:06:11 in nature's uniform if we observe 50% of
0:06:14 the universe and there's gravity then it
0:06:15 would follow that gravity permeates the
0:06:18 whole universe based upon the assumption
0:06:20 that nature is uniform anyway that's a
0:06:23 lengthy discussion but another here are
0:06:25 there but you get my point right so
0:06:26 we'll really need proof for the fact
0:06:28 that you know we believe that morals are
0:06:32 objective however if you're talking
0:06:36 about proof in a non empirical way
0:06:38 you're talking about is it coherent then
0:06:40 yes we could start discussing bill if
0:06:42 belief in some moles being objective is
0:06:45 that a
0:06:46 coherent first principle or a coherent
0:06:49 assumption or a coherent axiom in order
0:06:52 to really understand our moral
0:06:54 intuitions we could discuss that but
0:06:57 that's a separate topic so from an
0:07:00 Islamic point of view although I have to
0:07:02 be intellectually fair then not all the
0:07:05 theological schools actually agree with
0:07:06 the objective morals for example the
0:07:10 school of creed known as the azshara the
0:07:14 group of of Muslims are adopted the
0:07:18 utterly creed they generally speaking I
0:07:21 know there is a spectrum they didn't
0:07:23 basically agree that there's anything
0:07:25 more about the universe generally
0:07:28 speaking it's just arbitrary divine
0:07:32 commands from that point of view okay we
0:07:35 have other schools of Crete like the
0:07:36 motto Reedy's for example they said that
0:07:39 no the human mind can rationalize and
0:07:41 and can actually understand using the
0:07:45 sound reason that you have moral truths
0:07:48 in the world then you had the UH Suri's
0:07:52 who basically said no well generally
0:07:54 speaking there are moral values that are
0:07:56 objective and they are grounded in God
0:07:58 but the ground in his command and those
0:08:00 commands are not arbitrary because they
0:08:03 link to his nature because he is good
0:08:05 he's al bara the source of all goodness
0:08:07 and I'm gonna discuss that a bit later
0:08:08 now I'm gonna basically talk about I
0:08:12 can't talk about all the schools I'm
0:08:13 gonna talk about the school of creed
0:08:14 that I adopt especially for the moral
0:08:16 argument cuz I think is more coherent
0:08:17 but just to be intellectually firm I
0:08:19 wanted to give you a taste of all the
0:08:21 schools of Creed's from that point of
0:08:22 view okay so you're intelligent enough
0:08:24 to basically navigate this effectively
0:08:26 so why do I think from an Islamic
0:08:29 perspective there are morals that are
0:08:31 objective well it's very simple because
0:08:33 the worst sin or the worst evil if you
0:08:39 like the most evil saying from an
0:08:40 Islamic intellectual spiritual
0:08:42 perspective according to the Quranic
0:08:43 discourse and the perfect prophetic
0:08:45 traditions is actually polytheism is
0:08:48 actually worshiping other than Allah is
0:08:50 not worshiping God that is considered
0:08:53 the highest evil if you like or the
0:08:57 worst evil
0:08:58 now what's in
0:09:00 can we actually say that's objectively
0:09:03 morally wrong no because the Koran makes
0:09:06 it in such an objective way that it is
0:09:08 wrong it is one of the greatest
0:09:10 injustice --is from a spiritual
0:09:12 perspective and one of the greatest
0:09:13 evils to worship other than God right to
0:09:16 associate partners with him so can we
0:09:19 really say oh yeah good says that by in
0:09:22 a kind of subjective kind of sense I
0:09:24 don't think that's that's that's
0:09:25 appropriate or he says it because it is
0:09:27 based on his command and his command
0:09:29 that come and it was based on some kind
0:09:30 of rule power I I don't see how you can
0:09:33 navigate that if you look at the texts
0:09:35 what I would say is look part of God's
0:09:40 nature is the fact that he deserves to
0:09:41 be worshipped Allah and Allah the one
0:09:44 who is worthy of all worship worshiping
0:09:48 God is a necessity by virtue of who he
0:09:51 is worshipping God is a necessity by
0:09:54 virtue of who he is so therefore you
0:09:57 can't really say this moral command to
0:09:59 worship God is actually subjective as in
0:10:02 knowledge or it's objective because it's
0:10:04 done in such an objective way so that's
0:10:06 why I would argue that there are
0:10:08 objective moral values especially in the
0:10:10 Islamic tradition not only that when you
0:10:12 look at the neck cancers the chapters of
0:10:15 the Quran are revealed in the Meccan
0:10:16 period you would see that God mentioned
0:10:18 seems like justice and compassion does
0:10:21 good define them for us no I don't see a
0:10:25 lengthy definition in the Quranic
0:10:26 discourse on what Rama is on what
0:10:28 compassion is finally have a linguistic
0:10:30 definition and we may have some
0:10:31 prophetic traditions that show their
0:10:33 behavior expression of Rama and mercy
0:10:36 but does the Quran really elaborate on
0:10:40 what is mercy and what is justice
0:10:43 especially in the Meccan period when it
0:10:45 was addressing the polytheist Arabs so
0:10:48 if Allah if God in the Quran is saying
0:10:50 to polit the police the polytheists
0:10:51 Arabs
0:10:52 this is justice this is mercy then there
0:10:55 is an assumption that they know there is
0:10:57 a common moral denominator they
0:10:59 understood what justice and mercy was so
0:11:02 it's as if it was referring to some kind
0:11:03 of objective sense that we can see or
0:11:06 perceive in the universe it was it was
0:11:08 targeting the moral intuitions their
0:11:10 objective moral intuitions in some way
0:11:12 you
0:11:13 Hunter's claim all that justice is God's
0:11:15 justice what he defines and God's mercy
0:11:17 what he defines really but the whole
0:11:20 Quran is like a conversation with people
0:11:21 and telling them to be just to be
0:11:24 merciful and he wasn't Allah wasn't
0:11:26 talking just to Muslims he was talking
0:11:27 to the polytheists Arabs so they must
0:11:31 understood what justice and mercy meant
0:11:32 in some way otherwise the hope most of
0:11:36 the Quranic Disco's would be absolutely
0:11:37 meaningless and I find that very
0:11:39 problematic if you say there are no
0:11:41 objective moral values from that point
0:11:42 of view make sense of Islamic theology
0:11:44 so objective moral values exists it
0:11:49 makes sense exist it makes sense of our
0:11:51 moral intuitions now I want to now start
0:11:53 to talk about if that's the case and God
0:11:55 exists think about this right if
0:11:57 snipping the spinal cord of a patient
0:12:02 that doesn't require his spinal cord or
0:12:04 her spinal cord to be snipped with
0:12:06 intent and consciously if that is
0:12:09 objectively morally wrong as we've all
0:12:11 agreed as we all have agreed then it
0:12:14 follows God exists sounds like a crazy
0:12:18 came right it does doesn't it
0:12:21 how can they mix paint you all right
0:12:23 don't worry I'm not that crazy so listen
0:12:25 here is the basic logic of the argument
0:12:28 it's a axiomatic arguments we start with
0:12:30 the axiom the first principle that there
0:12:32 are objective morals if you start with
0:12:34 that in excess it takes God's existence
0:12:36 okay are you ready for this it's not a
0:12:38 leap of faith it's not kind of you know
0:12:40 some kind of false logical inference no
0:12:44 it's actually it follows logically let
0:12:46 me explain number one if objective mores
0:12:49 exist God exists number two objectives
0:12:53 morals exists 3 therefore God exists let
0:12:57 me just elaborate why so why is it the
0:13:00 case that if we believe axiomatically
0:13:05 first principle that objective Mo's
0:13:08 exists that God must exist because God
0:13:13 is the only foundation to rationally
0:13:16 explain objective morals why because God
0:13:20 number one is not subjective he
0:13:23 transcends human subjectivity he's
0:13:26 outside of the universe
0:13:27 he commits the universal moral claim God
0:13:31 is aleem al-hakim and both he is the
0:13:35 knowing the wise and he is the good the
0:13:38 source of all goodness and God's names
0:13:40 and attributes are what you call
0:13:42 maximally perfect they are to the
0:13:44 highest degree possible all right they
0:13:47 are to the highest degree possible
0:13:49 they have no deficiency and no flaw and
0:13:51 they are perfect so it follows when he
0:13:55 commands then his commands are good and
0:13:59 goodness is actually an essential part
0:14:01 of his nature as Professor Ian Malcolm
0:14:05 he explains God explains the mysterious
0:14:07 or pressing down our lives and God
0:14:11 explains the universal nature of the
0:14:13 moral claim as God is outside the world
0:14:15 God the Creator can both be external and
0:14:18 make universal commands also he's an
0:14:21 objective source for morality because he
0:14:25 has the totality of moral knowledge from
0:14:27 that point of view not only this his
0:14:29 commands are not subject to anything
0:14:31 he's not limited by anything external to
0:14:34 him so by definition he is an objective
0:14:36 source so from this point of view it's
0:14:40 trying to make sense that if there are
0:14:43 objective moral truths and objective
0:14:45 moral truths are outside a limited self
0:14:46 limited mind outside of social consensus
0:14:50 and peer pressure and they're outside so
0:14:52 to speak they require some explanation
0:14:54 and grounding remember Metta ethics to
0:14:55 explain the nature of this moral value
0:14:58 and where it came from its foundation
0:15:00 well the only way to explain it
0:15:02 rationally is actually God's existence
0:15:05 from the perspective that what explains
0:15:08 the moral value the objective moral
0:15:10 values are God's commands because God is
0:15:12 outside of the universe he is objective
0:15:14 he's not subjective he has total moral
0:15:17 knowledge and all the things that we
0:15:19 just mentioned what else can ground
0:15:21 objective morals how else can you
0:15:23 explain objective morals and what's
0:15:26 interesting Allah says in the Quran God
0:15:28 says in the Quran say indeed God does
0:15:30 not order immorality so one would argue
0:15:34 well surely there's alternatives it
0:15:36 can't just be God to rationally explain
0:15:39 objective moral truths and
0:15:41 values there must be something else well
0:15:43 there is there are alternatives but I'm
0:15:44 gonna address why those are Trinity
0:15:46 alternatives are false and those
0:15:48 alternatives include biology the
0:15:50 Darwinian mechanism for example social
0:15:53 pressure more realism and constructivism
0:15:56 now these are meta meta ethical
0:15:59 approaches or some people claim they can
0:16:01 be medical approaches to explain
0:16:04 objective morals now before I go and
0:16:07 deconstruct them if you're
0:16:09 philosophically minded you know that
0:16:11 there is a key response to what I've
0:16:12 said so far I don't know what the key
0:16:14 response is it's a dilemma what is it
0:16:21 called you three false dilemma yes
0:16:23 excellent so what would I get hold on
0:16:25 Hamza this is fuzzy logic let me try and
0:16:29 break down what you're saying here God
0:16:31 can't be the kind of rational foundation
0:16:34 for objective moral truths and values
0:16:35 because here's a dilemma and this is you
0:16:39 three folds dilemma or sometimes known
0:16:41 as plato's dilemma it basically goes
0:16:42 like this all right so you're saying God
0:16:45 exists because of objective moral values
0:16:47 exists if objective moral values exist
0:16:50 God must exist objective moral values
0:16:52 exist therefore God exists God if God
0:16:54 exists why because God commands in the
0:16:57 only foundation for objective moral
0:16:59 truths and therefore if God commands are
0:17:02 the only foundation therefore he must
0:17:03 exist - okay fair enough but let's break
0:17:05 it down and this is what the Dunham is
0:17:07 saying is something morally good because
0:17:10 God commands it or does God command it
0:17:13 because it's more really good here's the
0:17:17 Dannemann who repeats you it's something
0:17:19 morally good because God commands it or
0:17:21 does God command it because it's morally
0:17:23 good now one would argue this is a
0:17:25 dilemma there are two horns that - the
0:17:27 dilemma you have the arbitrariness horn
0:17:30 and you have the independent standard
0:17:32 standard horn let me explain what this
0:17:34 means so if you adopt the first part
0:17:37 which is morality is defined by God's
0:17:40 commands alone then there's a little bit
0:17:42 of a problem you may be thinking as
0:17:44 Muslims or as a religious people how's
0:17:45 that problem because you just explained
0:17:47 that objective moral truths are based on
0:17:49 morals on God's commands I have
0:17:51 absolutely but there is an assumption
0:17:53 here
0:17:54 when this part of the Dynamo is
0:17:56 basically saying that morality is
0:17:59 defined by God's commands it's just the
0:18:02 command in an abstract sense divorced
0:18:05 away from God's nature it's dislocated
0:18:08 away from God's nature so what they're
0:18:11 saying is well God could say that you
0:18:14 should kill all fifty five-year-olds and
0:18:16 it would be more really good because God
0:18:18 just said it
0:18:18 we don't really appreciate that it's not
0:18:21 doesn't make sense of our moral
0:18:22 intuitions also if we take this side of
0:18:25 the dilemma in this way we would have to
0:18:27 believe that there is nothing in the
0:18:29 universe that is objectively morally
0:18:31 wrong or objectively more really good so
0:18:34 we can't accept that part of the dilemma
0:18:37 because they're assuming there's just
0:18:39 God's commands and those commands are
0:18:41 not linked to his nature in any way
0:18:43 they've dislocated God's commands away
0:18:45 from his nature so we can't say morality
0:18:47 is defined just by God's commands in
0:18:49 that way because it makes it arbitrary
0:18:51 and it also makes us understand that
0:18:53 there should be nothing in the universe
0:18:54 that we should even consider as
0:18:55 objectively morally wrong well let's
0:18:57 look at the other side of the dilemma
0:18:59 well morality is now external to God's
0:19:02 commands because it says or does God
0:19:04 command it because it's morally good
0:19:06 well if it's morally good that you
0:19:08 already know what good is to judge God's
0:19:10 commands by so therefore good is outside
0:19:13 of God's commands game over argument
0:19:16 done so what they're saying is that
0:19:19 moral standards are not completely
0:19:20 outside of God so we're not going to
0:19:23 accept that part of the dilemma either
0:19:25 so what's the solution
0:19:26 we can't take the arbitrariness horn and
0:19:30 we can't take the independent standard
0:19:32 Horn of the dynamic what do we do we
0:19:35 can't see that in an abstract way
0:19:36 morality is just based on God's commands
0:19:39 because we don't believe God's commands
0:19:41 are disick aid from his nature and we
0:19:44 can't accept the fact that Mariah he's
0:19:45 external to God that good is external to
0:19:48 God so what do we do whose good answer
0:19:52 who has the answer sorry
0:19:57 put the two together mm interesting how
0:20:12 good so objective good is based on God's
0:20:15 nature good it is something what I said
0:20:16 in the beginning so here's the response
0:20:18 there is a third option it's a false
0:20:20 dilemma why because God is good Allah he
0:20:26 is the source of all goodness as
0:20:27 Professor Acton and his really good
0:20:30 interesting really interesting book
0:20:31 really good book called the Quran in the
0:20:32 secular mind he says there is a third
0:20:35 alternative a morally stable god of the
0:20:38 kind found in scripture a Supreme Being
0:20:40 who would not arbitrarily change his
0:20:42 mind about the goodness of compassion
0:20:44 and the evil of sexual misconduct such a
0:20:46 God always commands good because his
0:20:49 character and nature are good now let me
0:20:52 explain the response a little bit
0:20:54 further so what we're saying is there is
0:20:58 indeed a moral standard but it's not
0:21:01 external to God so there is indeed a
0:21:05 moral standard but it's not external to
0:21:07 God it's it necessarily follows from
0:21:09 God's nature goodness is part of God
0:21:13 it's not external to God so we do have a
0:21:16 standard but that Stan is not external
0:21:17 to God it's actually part of who God is
0:21:19 as part of his reality because he is
0:21:21 Albar he is the source of all goodness
0:21:25 so his nature contains within it the
0:21:28 perfect the maximally perfect
0:21:31 non-arbitrary moral standard so when he
0:21:34 makes a command the command is a
0:21:37 manifestation of his will and his rule
0:21:40 doesn't contradict his nature which is
0:21:42 good wise loving merciful so we have a
0:21:45 standard by its no external to God and
0:21:47 it is based on God's commands but it's
0:21:50 not arbitrary it's actually part of
0:21:52 God's nature
0:21:52 Shaboom mic drop as we say yeah there
0:21:56 you go
0:21:56 we've solved the dilemma now a natural
0:21:59 response from someone who doesn't agree
0:22:00 with this like an atheist or an agnostic
0:22:01 or whoever they may argue well you must
0:22:05 know what good is to define good as good
0:22:08 therefore you haven't solved the problem
0:22:09 well this is a big philosophical
0:22:11 discussion about the kind of necessity
0:22:14 of God's goodness I don't get into that
0:22:16 but a good a good response to this would
0:22:18 be well God defines what good is because
0:22:21 he's the only being worthy of worship
0:22:23 and the only being worthy of worship is
0:22:25 the highest moral being so we've solved
0:22:30 the kind of response here the kind of
0:22:32 ethos dilemma it doesn't break down our
0:22:34 argument so God's commands and God
0:22:36 Himself being the kind of rational
0:22:38 foundation to explain objective moral
0:22:40 truths it still stays as truth it's
0:22:43 still a strong argument it still follows
0:22:45 if objective morals exist God must exist
0:22:48 but as I said there are alternatives
0:22:50 let's adjust the alternatives we ready
0:22:52 for the tentative
0:22:52 good so the first one was biology I'm
0:22:57 sorry it just doesn't work I do
0:23:00 apologize Darwin and everybody else it
0:23:02 just doesn't work and this doesn't
0:23:03 dismantle the Darwinian mechanism no I'm
0:23:05 not don't make that false inference but
0:23:07 you can't now use it as a as a basis for
0:23:10 your meta ethics okay you can't use it
0:23:12 for more ontology you can't use it to
0:23:14 explain the source of objective morals
0:23:18 and to explain why morals are objective
0:23:20 why well let me quote you Charles Darwin
0:23:22 Charles Darwin gave an extreme example
0:23:25 as well he basically said if men were
0:23:28 reared under precisely the same
0:23:29 conditions as hive bees they can hardly
0:23:31 be a doubt that our unmarried females
0:23:34 would like the worker bees think a
0:23:37 sacred duty to kill their brothers and
0:23:39 mothers will strive to kill the fertile
0:23:41 daughters and no would think of
0:23:43 interfering it's true because if we as
0:23:47 here beings were reared under precisely
0:23:49 the same conditions as the hy-vee's if
0:23:51 that's the case then we wouldn't think
0:23:54 it's morally wrong to kill off fertile
0:23:57 daughters now if you extend the example
0:24:02 and you start talking about the nurse
0:24:04 shock if you watch National Geographic
0:24:06 it talks about the nurse shock and they
0:24:08 did some studies or some observations
0:24:10 and they found that a nurse shark male I
0:24:12 believe bites the fin of its mate and
0:24:15 wrestles with it before it mates that's
0:24:17 tantamount to rape so if we would if we
0:24:19 were real pros I see under the same king
0:24:22 as the nurse shark who think rape no
0:24:24 problem right
0:24:25 god forbid right but you get my argument
0:24:28 here
0:24:29 so if morals are just about this rearing
0:24:33 your reared based upon certain
0:24:34 biological conditions then what happens
0:24:37 number one morals are not objective
0:24:39 anymore because they're subject to
0:24:41 inevitable biological changes also
0:24:44 Moore's on objective anymore because
0:24:46 they lose their meaning there's actually
0:24:48 no meaning behind any morality if it
0:24:50 just happens to be a kind of biological
0:24:53 reaction to certain biological
0:24:54 conditions where is the moral value and
0:24:56 meaning behind Moses they're gone it's
0:24:58 finished a lot so as we say right so
0:25:02 from that point of view I don't think
0:25:04 biology or the Darwinian mechanism is
0:25:06 very strong to explain the objectivity
0:25:08 of morals by the way it can explain how
0:25:11 we have the capacity to formulate
0:25:14 ethical rules of course like natural
0:25:16 selection occurred to the moral
0:25:17 philosopher Phillip pitcher you you
0:25:19 could basically use natural selection to
0:25:22 come to the conclusion that yes you know
0:25:24 this is a basis for why we formerly at
0:25:27 the Carew's fine but that's not our
0:25:28 discussion today so biology is out the
0:25:31 window
0:25:31 what's next who remembers what next
0:25:33 what's next social pressure wave all
0:25:36 human beings and this is the kind of
0:25:38 humanist approach to to to moral values
0:25:41 because a lot of humans believe that
0:25:43 more values are actually objective and I
0:25:45 see yeah well you know rational human
0:25:46 beings come together will decide and
0:25:49 it'll be objective in that sense well I
0:25:51 don't think so I don't think so because
0:25:53 think about a lot of more pressures in
0:25:57 our society for example Nazi Germany in
0:25:59 the 1940s there was some moral pressure
0:26:02 sorry social pressure in some way some
0:26:04 kind of consensus funny it wasn't a
0:26:06 hundred percent but there was something
0:26:07 going on that really you know groups of
0:26:10 people came together to think it was
0:26:11 okay to kill Jewish people and to murder
0:26:13 them and to think that they evil which
0:26:16 we know is objectively morally wrong so
0:26:18 if we use social pressure as the basis
0:26:20 for objective moral truths then we have
0:26:22 a problem here because more truths are
0:26:24 subject to inevitable social changes and
0:26:26 if you study Social Psychology society
0:26:29 changes just ask your grandma just look
0:26:33 at TV like 20 years ago MTV
0:26:35 was like you know I yeah I don't know it
0:26:38 was like it's like reading the Bible
0:26:39 honestly look at MTV today you know
0:26:43 that's like almost porn 20 years ago
0:26:46 know that I know but you know I mean
0:26:47 yeah so it's mobile like I'm being you
0:26:50 know it's hyperbole so is its media my
0:26:53 point right so so there it's a crude
0:26:55 example but there are inevitable social
0:26:57 changes now even if you study social
0:26:58 psychology you see that social norms are
0:27:01 developed in the developed because of
0:27:03 two main things informational social
0:27:05 influence or normative social influence
0:27:06 which basically is based on the fact
0:27:08 that we have a need to belong and we
0:27:11 have a need to feel certain so if I ever
0:27:13 need to belong and I have an idea that's
0:27:15 alien to your ideas I may suspend my
0:27:18 ideas and throw them away for a while
0:27:19 and accept your views and ideas just to
0:27:23 belong conversely the other one is that
0:27:28 basically we have a need to feel certain
0:27:31 so if I'm uncertain about something I go
0:27:33 to the consensus and that's how social
0:27:37 norms are developed and social norms
0:27:38 change over time so if our more values
0:27:41 as a result of society and social norms
0:27:43 then we have a big problem
0:27:44 because they're gonna be subject to
0:27:45 inevitable social changes and for me
0:27:48 morality loses its meaning objective
0:27:51 morality loses its meaning and it's
0:27:53 subject to inevitable social changes so
0:27:55 from that point of view it doesn't
0:27:56 explain objective morals at all social
0:27:58 pressure doesn't explain objective
0:28:02 morals any shape or form we have another
0:28:04 another alternative which is called
0:28:06 moral realism
0:28:07 now more realism agrees and it says yes
0:28:11 there are objective moral truths there
0:28:14 are objective moral values more realism
0:28:16 says yes but they do not require
0:28:18 foundation they just are I find this a
0:28:22 little bit difficult because we require
0:28:25 an answer to the question why is it
0:28:27 objective where where did it come from
0:28:29 rember meta ethics is about answering
0:28:30 the question why is this more value
0:28:33 objective and what's its foundation
0:28:35 where did it come from
0:28:36 it's almost ignoring meta ethics in a
0:28:39 way saying we can't answer the question
0:28:40 or the only way to answer is they just
0:28:42 are get over it move forward this is
0:28:45 also known as moral objectivism as well
0:28:47 but for me
0:28:48 it gets a little bit more tricky when we
0:28:51 understand morals as moral duties
0:28:53 because when we're thinking justice
0:28:55 exists and compassion exists we don't
0:28:59 think of that as some kind of abstract
0:29:00 way because when we say yes this is the
0:29:02 compassionate thing to do this is the
0:29:04 just thing to do
0:29:05 we we are obligated we have a duty right
0:29:08 I'm duty bound to be compassionate in
0:29:13 certain contexts especially you know as
0:29:14 medical practitioners you have to show
0:29:16 that compassion you have to show that
0:29:18 fairness etc you have a moral duty it's
0:29:21 not only recognizing that justice exists
0:29:23 somewhere in the world and compassion
0:29:25 exists but what explains that drive to
0:29:28 fulfill those moral duties more realism
0:29:31 doesn't explain that because more duties
0:29:35 are owed owed to whom do you see the
0:29:39 point and that's why it makes sense of
0:29:41 God's commands because is owed to God
0:29:43 more the sense of moral duties make
0:29:47 sense of God's commands from that point
0:29:49 of view so more realism is not an
0:29:52 alternative either there's another
0:29:53 alternative one would argue it's a
0:29:55 rational alternative and this occurred
0:29:57 constructivism now I've taken this from
0:30:00 an academic encyclopedia and you can
0:30:02 find online and mine I forgot the
0:30:04 reference I'll give it to you later but
0:30:05 basically constructivism is the view
0:30:07 that in so far as there are normative
0:30:10 truths for example truths about what we
0:30:12 ought to do so moral truths there are in
0:30:15 some sense determined by an idealized
0:30:17 process of rational deliberation choice
0:30:20 or agreement now you have to understand
0:30:23 something constructivism doesn't say
0:30:26 that as a result of using your rational
0:30:30 faculties in a rational process you're
0:30:32 going to understand what is moral no
0:30:34 that's epistemology to know to find out
0:30:36 what is moral but what it basically says
0:30:38 is is that morality is construed through
0:30:43 rationally meaning the very fact that
0:30:45 man is rational that becomes a
0:30:48 foundation for morality and it explains
0:30:51 the objective nature of morality it's
0:30:53 like the two sides of the same coin so
0:30:57 it's not just like oh I'm right on their
0:30:58 fur I'm gonna find out in my own way
0:31:00 what good is no that's epistemology
0:31:02 rather constructivism says that the very
0:31:05 fact of the human being is rational that
0:31:06 is the foundation for morality and it
0:31:11 explains the nature of objective moral
0:31:14 truths why their objective in the first
0:31:16 place now there's a big discussion there
0:31:18 are volumes of discussion I want to get
0:31:19 into it but basically one would argue
0:31:21 well what kind of more what kind of
0:31:23 ration are you gonna use you know are
0:31:25 you duty bound to even be rational right
0:31:27 because if rationality and and objective
0:31:31 morals are two sides of the same coin
0:31:32 then in order for objective morals to
0:31:35 make sense you should also be duty-bound
0:31:37 to be rational but are you you don't
0:31:40 have to be many of us are really
0:31:42 irrational anyway and there many studies
0:31:43 if you study the philosophy of the mind
0:31:44 and you study for example cognitive
0:31:46 science there even theorists that claim
0:31:48 that human beings are not rational
0:31:50 quraían if you study David Hume you said
0:31:52 our morality has nothing to do
0:31:54 rationality which is we just try to
0:31:55 intellectually justify our you know
0:31:58 emotions right but that's a bigger
0:32:00 discussion and it's more needs and I've
0:32:02 just expressed it so I do apologize go
0:32:05 google it
0:32:06 no don't google it go buy a book on it
0:32:07 but anyway the point is constructivism
0:32:09 doesn't really provide a meta ethical
0:32:13 foundation for objective moral truths so
0:32:15 I think God commands and God's existence
0:32:19 is the most rational foundation for
0:32:23 morals for objective moral truth they
0:32:26 explain where they came from the gods
0:32:29 commands and they explain and and God's
0:32:31 existence explains why more truths are
0:32:34 objective because of who God is game
0:32:38 over if you believe in objective more
0:32:39 trees like we discussed what objectivity
0:32:41 is for a moral point of view it
0:32:42 philosophically necessitates God's
0:32:45 commands and God's existence if you
0:32:47 disagree with me give me an alternative
0:32:50 now before we get to the more
0:32:52 epistemology just wanna address certain
0:32:54 things one would argue a hold on a
0:32:56 second Hamza but in your religious
0:32:57 discussions and discourse even in our
0:32:59 own intuitions you know things are not
0:33:01 objective because most change over time
0:33:04 now there is a conflation between to
0:33:08 understand understandings of morality
0:33:10 here absolute morality an objective
0:33:12 morality absolute morality basically
0:33:15 says
0:33:16 killing is wrong right or the cessation
0:33:19 of human life is wrong if there is a
0:33:22 conscious with intent to see someone's
0:33:26 life that is morally wrong regardless
0:33:28 that's absolute morality objective March
0:33:31 is slightly different it says ceasing or
0:33:34 stopping someone's life right for no
0:33:38 justification is morally wrong so
0:33:41 objective morals is based upon the moral
0:33:43 variables it's context-sensitive for
0:33:46 example absolute morality would say it
0:33:50 is morally wrong to kill a crazy guy
0:33:52 with a machine gun if that was the only
0:33:54 option to stop him killing 300 children
0:33:57 in the school absalom variety would say
0:34:00 we don't care if he's gonna kill three
0:34:02 other kids killing him is still morally
0:34:04 wrong objective all morality says horror
0:34:07 in a second if that's our only option
0:34:09 then it's morally good to stop this
0:34:13 person's life if that was the only way
0:34:15 to stop him killing 300 children you may
0:34:18 disagree with the example but don't it's
0:34:21 a logical fallacy to dam the example you
0:34:23 get the point yeah to get the essence of
0:34:24 the point so there's a difference
0:34:26 between absolute morality morality and
0:34:28 objective morality objective morals are
0:34:30 objective from the point of view that
0:34:32 they transcend human subjectivity and
0:34:35 limited minds and emotions based upon
0:34:36 the moral variables is context-sensitive
0:34:39 so there's a conflation with different
0:34:43 types of morality here the other thing
0:34:45 would be humza in order for this to work
0:34:47 you have to believe that modes are
0:34:50 objective remember the first principle
0:34:52 spoke about in the beginning the fact
0:34:54 that it's axiomatic its first principle
0:34:57 you just have to adopt the fact that
0:34:58 some not all but some morals are
0:35:00 objective what if someone says I
0:35:01 disagree with you fine you don't have to
0:35:04 agree with me but it becomes very
0:35:07 interesting doesn't it it's like a
0:35:09 double-edged sword because if you accept
0:35:12 the objectivity of some more rules like
0:35:15 snipping the spinal cord of a patient
0:35:18 right for no reason deliberately right
0:35:23 if you accept that some moles are
0:35:25 objective in SS it takes God's existence
0:35:28 but if you don't like that conclusion
0:35:30 you'd be like Oh more than uh objective
0:35:32 anymore there are no objective morals
0:35:34 well what happens now is someone can
0:35:36 snip therefore the spine of a patient
0:35:40 and say you could have your view I have
0:35:43 my view I think it was ethically more
0:35:45 good to do it and you can't point the
0:35:47 finger at that KKK or Isis in an
0:35:50 objective more way from a philosophical
0:35:52 point of view because was your
0:35:54 foundation if it's a subjective now and
0:35:57 phallus I have a silent welcome all
0:36:01 different moral views you can have a bit
0:36:04 of the pie I'll have a bit of my moral
0:36:05 pie as well they may contradict each
0:36:07 other but so well that's life get over
0:36:08 it right it becomes like a double edged
0:36:12 sword right