Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality

[Chriliman]

No. Subjectively real is not the same as objectively real. Objectively real means it can be demonstrated as real using empirical facts, subjectively real means based on the subject’s beliefs and opinions. However, that which is objectively real, is also subjectively real,(that which is proven true, is also believed true) however everything that is subjectively real is not always gonna be objectively real. (just because you believe it doesn’t mean you can prove it to be true).
"Subjective" vs. "Objective": What's The Difference?

By definition; if it only exists within your mind, it is not objective.

But isn’t whats happening within my mind a part of objective reality?

If not, then how can I actually think at all?

 

[Ken-1122]

But isn’t whats happening within my mind a part of objective reality?

No. That which is objective can be empirically demonstrated.

If not, then how can I actually think at all?

Because it is a part of YOUR reality. Your reality is both objective and subjective.

 

[Chriliman]

No. That which is objective can be empirically demonstrated.

Am I not empirically demonstrating my thoughts by speaking them?

Because it is a part of YOUR reality. Your reality is both objective and subjective.

I agree, I’m just saying it a bit differently, but also more accurately; All subjectivity is part(sub) of objective reality. If it were not, then subjectivity cant possibly exist at all, unless you think subjectivity is not dependent on objective reality to exist?

 

[Ken-1122]

Am I not empirically demonstrating my thoughts by speaking them?

No they are not. You can speak your thoughts to two different people using the same words and they interpret your thoughts differently.

I agree, I’m just saying it a bit differently, but also more accurately; All subjectivity is part(sub) of objective reality. If it were not, then subjectivity cant possibly exist at all, unless you think subjectivity is not dependent on objective reality to exist?

Subjectivity; or even objectivity do not exist by themselves, they are references to things that exist or not.

 

[Chriliman]

No they are not. You can speak your thoughts to two different people using the same words and they interpret your thoughts differently.

Two different people could also interpret them the same way, though.

Subjectivity; or even objectivity do not exist by themselves, they are references to things that exist or not.

They’re references that exist in the mind, we already covered this. The question is whether their existence in the mind depends on objective reality?

If yes, then what I’m saying is true, but if no, then we have to appeal to something that isn’t dependent on objective reality to explain how we can think about them. Which to me, sounds like saying “we have to appeal to that which can’t exist to explain how we can think” - makes little sense to me…

 

[Ken-1122]

Two different people could also interpret them the same way, though.

True! But speaking does not empirically demonstrate what is in your mind because it requires my interpretation, not you physically demonstrating.

They’re references that exist in the mind, we already covered this.

No. Objective is not something that just exists in your mind. That tree on my front lawn exists regardless of whatever might be going on in my mind. That's because that tree has an objective reality. The dragon on my front lawn........

 

[Chriliman]

True! But speaking does not empirically demonstrate what is in your mind because it requires my interpretation, not you physically demonstrating.

I disagree. I think it’s possible to know what someone’s thinking by them telling you what they’re thinking. I say this knowing full well what a lie is vs what truth is.

No. Objective is not something that just exists in your mind. That tree on my front lawn exists regardless of whatever might be going on in my mind. That's because that tree has an objective reality. The dragon on my front lawn........

Sorry, but I don’t have a lot of faith in our conversation if you don’t think I understand the difference between a tree that exists apart from my mind and my minds perception or representation of that tree.

 

[Ken-1122]

I disagree. I think it’s possible to know what someone’s thinking by them telling you what they’re thinking. I say this knowing full well what a lie is vs what truth is.

I agree! But it is still subjective, because it is based on your thoughts, and my ability to perceive your thoughts.

Sorry, but I don’t have a lot of faith in our conversation if you don’t think I understand the difference between a tree that exists apart from my mind and my minds perception or representation of that tree.

Do you agree an objective reality is a physical reality? If not, how are they different? If so, how can that which only exists in your mind be physical?

 

[Chriliman]

I agree! But it is still subjective, because it is based on your thoughts, and my ability to perceive your thoughts.

Do you agree an objective reality is a physical reality? If not, how are they different? If so, how can that which only exists in your mind be physical?

Q1: yes

Q3: this question presupposes the mind (and that which exists in it) is not dependent on physical reality.

This is the issue I’m having with your position. Logically, the mind is dependent on that which actually exists i.e. objective reality or physical reality(whatever you want to call it), therefore, the mind is a physical phenomena that we label “subjective” since it’s occurring within the physical brain.

 

[Ken-1122]

Q1: yes

Q3: this question presupposes the mind (and that which exists in it) is not dependent on physical reality.

What we call the mind is the thinking function of the brain. The brain is a physical reality, but it does not depend on any outside physical realities in order to function.

This is the issue I’m having with your position. Logically, the mind is dependent on that which actually exists

I disagree. In theory, if nothing else existed except for the brain, it will still function.

i.e. objective reality or physical reality(whatever you want to call it), therefore, the mind is a physical phenomena that we label “subjective” since it’s occurring within the physical brain.

You seem to be suggesting the mind and the brain are 2 separate things; it is not, the mind is what we call the brain when it is thinking. This function does not make the brain subjective, however what the brain is doing is subjective.

 

[Gene2memE]

The whole video is wish fulfillment at its worst. It reads like someone who has only read the arguments dunking on opposing positions, without actually understanding the opposing positions properly or addressing the criticisms of their own position.

It appears to me as if the creator is arguing "I want morality to be a universally objective set of laws and guidelines for behaviour, because that's the only thing I'm comfortable with. Therefore it is. Oh, and they're objective because a god, and specifically my God, made them".

Also, the creator fails to engage with any modern (as in post Enlightenment) ethics theories, asserting that Divine Command Theory is not only top trumps, but the only card in play. Talk about willfully ignorant.

He also presents a whopping misunderstanding of evolutionary theory with the 'survival of the fittest' diatribe, ignore evolution with how it relates to group selection, and egregiously mischaracterises the views of biologists (and the occasional physicist and philosopher) when it comes to moral standards and 'free will'. It seems he's either not read the work of the people he's quoting, or totally failed to understand authors like Dawkins, Harris and Pinker when they address morality.

Additionally, he also fails to engage with ANY of the modern (post WW2) research into social group theories or animal moral behaviour - which provide plenty of foundation for reciprocal altruism, normative theory and the foundation(s) of morality and moral behaviours.

 

[Chriliman]

What we call the mind is the thinking function of the brain. The brain is a physical reality, but it does not depend on any outside physical realities in order to function.

I disagree. In theory, if nothing else existed except for the brain, it will still function.

You seem to be suggesting the mind and the brain are 2 separate things; it is not, the mind is what we call the brain when it is thinking. This function does not make the brain subjective, however what the brain is doing is subjective.

I think we’re close to agreeing. Just one clarifying question: when you say “what the brain is doing is subjective”, you understand/agree that subjective process is happening in objective reality, yes?

 

[Gregory95]

Found a video that proves the existence of God that even my non-Christian friends were willing to watch all the way through.

This is probably the most approachable and amicable version of the Moral Argument I've seen:

i always just ask...explain why murder, rape and child abuse are wrong WITHOUT morality....

 

[Gregory95]

Found a video that proves the existence of God that even my non-Christian friends were willing to watch all the way through.

This is probably the most approachable and amicable version of the Moral Argument I've seen:

furthermore if truth is subjective we can have NO court system since courts GOAL is to get to the 1 TRUTH

 

[Gregory95]

Why do you believe that morality has to be "objective"?

Also Biblical morality seems highly variable depending on chapter, verse and circumstance.

how? nowhere does it say any of the men of old were without sin save Christ...Bibles clear on what IS moral... Bible is clear EVERYONE but Christ is guilty of breaking morality at some point...moral
môr′əl, mŏr′-
adjective
Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

morality
mə-răl′ĭ-tē, mô-
noun
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
Virtuous conduct.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

 

[Estrid]

i always just ask...explain why murder, rape and child abuse are wrong WITHOUT morality....

Fun, if you are psychopath.

 

[DaisyDay]

how? nowhere does it say any of the men of old were without sin save Christ...Bibles clear on what IS moral... Bible is clear EVERYONE but Christ is guilty of breaking morality at some point...moral
môr′əl, mŏr′-
adjective
Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

morality
mə-răl′ĭ-tē, mô-
noun
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
Virtuous conduct.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

Nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I said.

 

[Gregory95]

Fun, if you are psychopath.

not a anwser...if you cant defeat somthing to ridicule is only to prove to everyone you do not have the anwser AND your so puffed up you dont think you could be wrong...

 

[Gregory95]

Nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I said.

very sorry believe i misunderstood you or meant to quote another you say morality is NOT subjective correct?

 

[Estrid]

.