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

this episode of the cosmic skeptic podcast is brought to you by you to support the podcast please visit patreon.com forward slash cosmic skeptic [Music] [Applause] [Music] so welcome back everybody to the cosmic skeptic podcast for a short time the number two philosophy podcast in the united kingdom and i want to remind you that the reason that we were able to have that accolade was because of the fact that you were voting on itunes i wanna remind you that it only takes a second to open the podcast app which comes with every single iphone have you have you done that I know you don't you must have them but uh we can go on to iTunes and you can give the cosmic skeptic podcast a rating of 5 stars it just helps analytics on iTunes it produces it puts our content on the front page on the trending pages and allows us to have better stats read out to reach out to better guests and speaking of great guests I'm joined in the studio today by my good friend Steven Woodford who most of you will know from the YouTube channel rationality rules a channel in which discusses everything from religious claims and atheism to the Flat Earth to more recently the issue of transgender athletes and and brexit as well you've already been yeah I just started a little good politics yeah so so thanks for joining me it's good happier I will thank you very much for having me it's always a pleasure yeah it's gonna be fun so the reason that were here steven is because of the fact that as followers of my youtube channel we'll know we've had many previous discussions on the issue of morality and we had a discussion together that was quite long on my channel and then you made a video about your views on morality I made a video called rationality rules debunked and then you made a video called cosmic skeptic debunked and it's kind of left in the air like I I criticize you you criticize me and people have been saying what's next so I thought that the best way to settle this dispute that we've been having is to get you on the new podcast and just talk it out so where can we begin I suppose originally your views on morality were kind of summed up by you being a moral Objectivist and me being a moral subjectivist yeah I think that's fair I think that's always yeah I think that like have your views significantly changed since our first conversation I think yes is probably a fair answer to that the from a shallow point of view no it looks the same but there's significant alterations that have happened since then so yes is the answer but it doesn't look like look like on the surface for example I still believe that morality is objective but I think that I've learned a lot since me since having our conversation since reading more literature and since you know digesting your video and digesting the videos and the content of other people who have things to say on the topic so it has changed for sure so originally we spoke about the morality of sam harris and he is a moral Objectivist yeah um what do we what do we mean when we're talking about ethics we're talking about morality what do we mean to say that morality is objective well what what's that like when you say something is is objective yeah what is that sort of ascribing to the to the quality that we're discussing I think really one thing I've noticed with having discussions on this topic is that it can fall into a realm of semantics and a lot of people can fall off the track thinking they're arguing words I don't think that's necessarily what's happening although the words are very important because as I said in one of my videos while I think that we've outgrown religion we have an outgrown religious language and that's particularly the case when it comes to morality so when we say that something is objective in science what we're saying is that it's verifiable through objective means which means that if you say that you know the earth is a sphere well it's not your personal opinion that the earth is a sphere or though it kind of is as well when you're saying it as an objective fact what you're saying is that we can verify this via our objective means and so you can go out and do that and other people can test it this is what mean this is what something means in the scientific realm when it comes to objectivity I think that morality is objective in the scientific sense like that but it is subject in what I've previously called a philosophical sense which is to say that without subjects such as us it doesn't exist if I would put it in the same category as saying that your sexual we call it sexual preferences but I think this is the wrong term to call it your sexual desires your sexual alignments are objectively the case they can be verifiably shown are you saying that morality can be verifiable in the same sense that something like sexual orientation can be so so in in sense that like your your moral preferences are objectively Fariba verifiable in the same way that your sexual preferences are but if I were to say something like you should have sex with it with a man instead of a woman hmm that that is not an objective statement in a philosophical sense no it's not because that's that's kind of based on a subjective desire hmm okay so I think that the the base of our disagreement originally yeah was that I was finding this this this basis of morality to be in a subjective thought but the way that I viewed it was that if you say that something is wrong what you're essentially expressing is an opinion or at the very least you're expressing a reasoned conclusion that's based on objectively verifiable facts and an objective reasoning but there kind of finds its way from a subjective starting point so for me it's like if I say murder is wrong I can say that murder is wrong is an objective corollary of saying something like it is wrong to to unnecessarily harm people right it just necessarily follows that the murder is wrong and it might be wrong to to unnecessarily harm people because it's good to seek the overall pleasure and it might be good to seek the overall pleasure because it's good to seek my own pleasure which is intrinsically linked but my point was that when you break that down to the very last point you end up with simply the the subjective opinion that my pleasure is good yeah now that was kind of the point of disagreement which is me saying that because the full morality is based on on essentially well-being which we think it is I think that's where we can agree and people can watch our our previous discussions on YouTube see what we're up to on that point um if we can agree on that then the discussion just becomes well is it objectively true or subjectively true that we should value our well-being mm-hm and my point was that it's subjectively true hmm is that something that you agree with or hold also this is whether that confusion of words comes into play but so far as what I hear there yes I I agree in that sense it's a bit like I'm trying to think of the best way to approach it but he seems that on that level and what you've just said there yes I'm with you on that sense I think people ask more of moral questions that they then they do with other questions right which hopefully we can delve into today and I can I can unravel a little a little further yeah well let's take a look at that let's take a look at the way that people treat morality and ethics differently to how they treat other areas of philosophical inquiry because this is the point that you really made to me that made me realize that I might have got this wrong now I stand by everything that I've ever said or criticized about the views that you've held but the thing that's really changed for me is the context in which I'm thinking about them yeah so I still stand by the fact that all morality is based on subjective desire and that subjective desire is a desire for our own pleasure yeah so I can reason moral conclusions like you shouldn't do this yeah because of the fact that it's gonna affect our pleasure and I think that my own pleasure is a good thing but I still stand by the fact that it's only my opinion that pleasure is a good thing but what you made me think about yeah was whether that's inconsistent with things like epistemology or induction so one of the big sticking points for morality that we've discussed before is the is or distinction David Humes is all distinction which for those who don't know essentially is just the observation that no or statement can be logically derived from his statements no no normative or prescriptive statements can be derived from descriptive sentences I can say it is the case that it's raining and it is the case that I don't want to get wet therefore I should take an umbrella yes that doesn't logically follow and I doesn't because you need to have the premise that I should do what brings me pleasure I should do what avoids and the pain and discomfort of getting wet so it may be the case that I don't like getting wet it might not necessarily be the case that I should act in accordance with that so in order to get that should in the conclusion you need the should in the premises and so that's that's a big sticking point which is that you can have as many objective facts about the universe as you like but you'll never get to a nought statement but another thing that they become points out which you quite rightly pick me up on Stephen is the famous induction problem which is essentially you can Whittle it down to the induction is the the the inference of information in fact about the unobserved world from the observed world and part of the unobserved world is the future by definition it's unobserved so just as Hume would say you can't get an all from an is he'd also say you can't get a will be from an is yeah so you can't reason it is the case that the Sun has risen every day so far and therefore it will be the case that it will rise tomorrow you can't actually know the Sun is gonna rise tomorrow now this is a big problem like philosophically speaking the problem of induction is is at the very basic basis of epistemology we can't know any facts about the future or about the unobserved world I can't know that gravity will continue to work if I try to drop something right now even though it may be the case that it has worked it doesn't follow that it will work and yet for some reason people are kind of willing to just put that to the side and say well it's still it in in any sense that's meaningful it is objectively true that if I drop this pencil it will fall to the floor that the Sun will rise tomorrow now if we're willing to do that across the is will be divided why aren't people willing to do it for that is all divided it's a great question and I really do think it comes down to language and like the cultural context that we find ourselves in it seems to me when it to anyone that studied epistemology I think that the result that you'll get to is that you just don't know anything for certain you can say you know I think therefore I am but really you just get to this point where you just you realize that you're very much operating on assumptions they're good assumptions you may argue but only under the rubric of assumptions that you've already made and that's just to illustrate the point that you just made about getting a will be from it is no one when somebody makes an argument such as the Sun has risen every day or though more accurately the earth is turned therefore it will rise tomorrow you don't get people going harsh just that's just nonsense even though really it kind of is because as humor there as he showed when it comes to is all as well things just are so much more complex and so much less attached than we think they are when it comes to morality that's the kind of frustration that I have it's like okay you can't and and also something to be made very clear as I don't think that you need to get and all from is at all I actually think he is bang-on correct with that and that's something that's changed in my thoughts I was thinking maybe you can get an or from it is if you describe certain warts as is so it is the case the Alex believes he ought to why but that it's just again it's semantics your your your your working around it at least you think but you're not right so you have that kind of area that happening in that in that circumstance yeah so for our audience let's let's let's break it down what essentially because I think people people couldn't can recognize quite quite trivially that in order to to to logically get an audit statement in a conclusion you need some kind of ought premise you you need something in the beginning to get you there at the end so you can construct a valid argument like if you can have a premise that is and you pointed this out which is if you know that you ought to you ought to promote the survival of your children yes and then you take an is statement like it is the case that vaccines promote the survival of my children then you can conclude valid logically validly that you should vaccinate your children yeah that's that's a valid argument and something to add to that is that it's basically cants hyper hyper feta comparative or cancer have you have you understand good one because that is what it is he's saying that if you want to do X and dou Y and that does follow so yeah so so you've got kind of well actually we'll get into that in a second because the the the important to recognize is that the only reason that's a valid argument that the vaccination one is because of the fact that you've got that ought statement in in the premise that's the only reason you get it from the conclusion if you just had the premise it is the case that vaccines promote the survival of children you can't conclude the wart because you just can't get there without the ordinary amis so what you essentially try to do in your video if I'm understanding you correctly Stephen is you tried to identify certain auth statements that could be in the premises and that could be justifiably in the premises because the because of the fact that they are just axiomatically true okay so when it comes to certain statements such as I want to protect my child what I was trying to drive at is the some of the warts that we have which is basically to say desires or impulses to do things are really ingrained as us as just as a species as an entity it's something that we didn't reason ourselves into it is just there so survival was a good example which most people for most of their life have it's that they just want to survive there's no reasoning to it it's just that is their standing point I would say that almost everybody doesn't want to suffer in eternity they just if you look at any organism it's all about just avoiding the worst kind of Hell possible and so they already have this desire the question then becomes what's the best way to avoid it and so what I'm saying is that they already have this ought value if you will and so there is already right and wrong answers in how they can go around achieving it yeah now whoever or not you want to say is that justified probably not but they just the fact that they have it and I find that whenever I talk to anyone who's speaking in any kind of form of morality we had an atheist you know any anyone from the secular community or the religious if you keep saying why why why you'll always break them down to well-being and this is why I'm saying that is an anchor that takes maybe one form or many that we can all operate from because that's what it's all about and that's that's basically what I was trying to yeah they okay but so said the one question for me is to discuss if it's the case that we if it is the case that we have these sort of these desires at the very base ort of ingrained into the fiber of our being you know we have this ingrained desire to survive for instance that the important jump and the jump that needs to be made for ethics is to say that okay so it is the case that we that we want to survive but how can we reason that it is the case that we ought to survive like is there a meaningful difference to you between wanting to do something and and it being the case that you should do that thing so for me it's like we are saying is that yeah we can recognize that we all have the feeling that we ought to survive but does that mean we ought to have the feeling that we ought to survive yeah like we feel as though we ought to survive do we ought eiseley i think that's where people apply the question which is relevant and it's and it's a fair question to ask philosophically where they won't apply that when it comes to getting a will be from it is people don't operate like that and these kind of spheres but they do when it comes to morality I think that's where this there's a mismatch there is I mean there is one difference there which isn't it then of course in the case of is and will be although this this doesn't work inductively to find conclusions about the future but you can say that in the past predictions that have been made about will B's from from his statements have been found to be true so previously I've said it is the case that the Sun will rise and therefore it will rise tomorrow and then it did like that's been proven to have worked now doesn't mean it will continue to work that would be begging the question but it has at least worked in the past but there aren't any examples that we can objectively show of a similar thing happening with us we can't show that there are past examples where and is has led to a naught and it be proven to have been correct but it always remains in that in that area or of a jump of a kind of leap in logic so you send the we haven't seen and is come from an awe we haven't seen an all come from an it's all come from an ear we have we haven't seen you know we have in one same way that we but we have seen a will we come from an is in the past we so you were saying we have seen a will be in yeah but you still have the problem of induction the fact that we've seen it before doesn't and we've shown that it's it's verifiable and it can happen doesn't mean that it's going to necessarily be the same the next day I mean it shows to me them there's at least a connection between those two things because previously again it's important to press that even if induction has worked and been accurate right up until this point it doesn't mean it will be in five minutes but but the very least we can show that there has been a precedent for a connection between the way things are and the way that they will be yeah has been yeah you're left in this position where you okay I don't know for sure but I do have reasonable expectations based on decent observation that you you haven't got the same thing for isn't alt because there's no lost Oracle precedent what would be an example of what you're looking for well the problem is for me I don't think that can be one which is that I don't think there can ever be the case where you derive an ottoman is and somehow prove that that was actually true or justify upset so so to be crystal clear I don't think you can get an offer from an is you can't do it humours right I've been over backwards trying to figure out at this current point I just I can't get round it and I think he's absolutely right what I'm saying is that if you have an or you can and then you you if you have yeah if you have a naught and your waters say to survive given that you have it all to start with then you can say it is the case that this is this and that is that therefore you ought to do this because it fulfills that original order you have what I'm saying is that people aren't born with a blank slate we're not which is we're just not I don't it seems that it's common sense to look at us to look at ourselves like we are we're not but just not and we are born with these already warts in us which is to say it doesn't mean we have to do it it's just we have impulses desires maybe aught is the wrong word for me to use and that's one point that I definitely have digested from your response to me maybe I'm just confusing the situation more by trying to use the word or even though I feel it's probably the most appropriate maybe it's not maybe I need to stick to impulse or something the isn't heaven to this situation because because if you can't you can't say or to a philosopher without human being very what's going to you know be spoke to spoke about and so maybe maybe that's a fault on my behalf but to be crystal clear I do not think you can get an author from an is and I don't think that's what I'm doing okay I think there's an important distinction to be made there which and and I do think that it was perhaps a mistake to use the terminology of Arts in the way that you're using them there because you're right and I think it's important to point out that we we are born with certain predispositions whether they be genetic whether they be later sort of instilled sociologically in our socialization we do have things within us which are these drives and these impulses that the problem for me and and what I what I try to explain in the video and perhaps press the point a bit too far almost to the point of like patronization and I watched the video back sometimes and I think like Steven obviously knows this I felt like I was kind of doing it more for the audience than for you because like quite clearly there is a difference between having an impulse having having the feeling that you ought to survive and I will completely agree with you that human beings are born with certain impulses from I had was that that doesn't mean we can justify those impulses like what would happen if a human being was born just had some kind of freak psychology and it was just happened to be born with the impulse to rape yeah like then really we would have to say that yeah you have this impulse to rape but like you you shouldn't follow with that impulse and Shannon this is new this is it it should that is it should yes that's it so this is where people may shut off and think you can't be speaking about morality if you're saying that that individuals our hypothetical situation results in that way but you can because I'm morality means what's right and what's wrong and for an individual an entity that has that predisposition that is what they ought to do okay this is so this is this is what I'm saying is that that's where the object of part comes into it there's right and wrong ways to have those impulses as right or wrong wrong ways to achieve what that predisposition is yeah now I promise not to take you out of context and say something like adds its if a child wants to read them we should just let them already this is actually this is actually really interesting so you can see why people would have a problem with the view of morality like yours if you're able to say something like if somebody has an impulse to rape then they should just action accordance with that his is the subtle I do you think I know I think I think you know we're going as well this is really important it just ease and I'm glad that you pull it up people don't have that kind of freedom assertion yeah and they also have many competing predispositions pre-pre compulsions as you will if we're talking philosophy and strictly philosophy it's okay to construe this entity that actually that is what their preference is that is where their impulses but when it comes to reality outside of philosophy this is one of the weaknesses with philosophy not so much with philosophy I should say is with humans is keeping them detached this doesn't happen we are an evolved mammalian ape and as such we don't just inherit physical attributes we inherit a hell of a lot of psychological attributes and we simply would not be alive with those kind of impulses being the ones that were selected for instead the ones that are selected for as a social species tend to be more empathetic empathetic more along those lines so while I can engage with it on a philosophical sense and it helps unravel my thinking on this topic you would be a big mistake to conflate that with what actually is the case and I actually don't have a good defense against that happening it's gonna happen because people will say as you just said well you can do that with this form of morality that your thinking off then you know you're not talking about morality right and and it's really important because this is where I need to highlight a crucial distinction between our views I think and it's a distinction that would that will allow me to get out of that halter to have a similar view to you which is to say that we can sort of take what we desire and and just act as though we ought to do to do so and then just act in accordance with that but still be able to escape issues such as this this case of somebody who just desires to rape which is my disagreement with you that we have multiple can selecting primal instincts to me the only thing that I agree with John Stewart melanin on on the point that the only thing that is actually desired in itself and that doesn't that's not to say it's desirable we're not in the aught category I'm just talking about you just--can terms of psychological fact yeah like the only thing that's actually desired by people in itself is pleasure mm-hmm so when you say you desire to survive yes I think what you really mean is you desire the pleasure that you get from continuing to survive you don't desire a meal you desire the pleasure that will result from eating that meal yeah and when you break it down everything can be can be broken down to to pleasure at the very basis and and pleasure might also be sort of worded as well-being I think that people such as yourself and Sam Harris have used well-being in the same way that someone like mill used to pleasure I think pleasure is a slightly more useful term but but even someone like Harris would characterize well-being essentially in terms of pleasure and pain as a psychological state of the brain so before we go down that rabbit hole because I think there's a very interesting place to go and I think you might be right this is one of the things that my mind's been altered on slightly as of late does that mean that you tend to agree with me when I'm talking about morality as previously stated the there are people were born with certain preferences ball preference is a bad word I've got to stop using it they're born with certain I think preference is fine the preference is actually like preference is probably one of the best words in fact you see the problem for me is that people think of preference and they think of just opinion I'm a small you know nothing that's people's problem like in the philosophical literature as far as I understand it preference preference just if you have a preference it just implies a recognition of pleasure and pain like that's essentially the same thing because and when you when you see that as a definitional issue it becomes a tautology to say that the only thing that's desired is pleasure because essentially pleasure is just whatever you prefer to do yes so you are born with with preferences but you're not you're not so much born with preferences as you're born with just the preference towards pleasure yeah if you see what I'm saying so I think that when you talk about competing desires at the bases and competing impulses at the basis of human nature it's like yeah they're all there but they can all be broken down even further to pleasure the desire to survive the desire to eat the desire to look after your children ultimately can be broken down to Malaysia so one more time before we get to that because yeah I think is a really good point that we should ease your thoughts on morality on the same lines of mine where you would say that its objective in the sense that I say it is its its I agree with you that we do have that desire hmm but like built-in to us as a human species I don't know if I'd like to use the word objective so so here's how I would use it and maybe you can tell me how I do think how you wouldn't okay so I'd say it is objectively the case we are just born with these designs yeah it is verifiable it's a scientific fact get over it yeah that's not a problem and it is objectively the case that there are right and wrong ways to achieve what those desires are trying to achieve yes and you can then say okay so you have this desire here's an is here's and here's his and is and there is an outcome so you can say you ought to do it given this or you could not use the word ort because it is loaded you could use another word but notnot quite isn't like okay I agree with you up into a point I agree with you and in fact these points are crucial to my own ethical framework sure which are firstly that you have a natural and undeniable desire for pleasure and secondly that there are facts to be known about the right and wrong way to maximize pleasure like their ism there is a there is a conceivable method by which we can maximize a person's pleasure and that's just a matter of fact like it that there are just better ways than others to maximize pleasure what what doesn't follow for me and this is the important premise and this is what we've discussed privately and and we spent a lot of time talking about this is that I can say it is the case that I desire X it is the case that the best way to achieve X is y it doesn't follow that I should do why no because you still need that premise because because when you say should you're using or in the same sense the Hume did what I made clear in my video is that I really don't think words like shouldn't all mean what I what I think they mean is that they are descriptive you mean saying that you ought to do something is like saying that this would be good given that you have this preference or given that you have this desire that's all I see ought to be so really it's more descriptive where is the way you just described it is getting an all from an is and I would agree with you I'd say no you can't do that okay but I don't think that's necessary to do in order to you know function and be able to live in a world where you go listen you're wrong to do this or you're right to do this so you're kind of going for a redefinition of ought to just mean add something descriptive or just so basically the way I came to this thinking is that I started looking at moral terms and trying to think what do these things mean absent the rubric of religion sure and I did my best to tap into what philosophers had had spoken about and I also did a fair amount of my own thinking and to me words like should and all they are just descriptive they just describe her and you're getting towards a goal that you have or not or they or you have or something will get you toward your goal or not so for me when I was using the word aught I felt like that I explained it at the beginning of my video exactly how I'm using the word and that's why I said axiomatic words etc and in hindsight I think that was a bit of a blunder because even with yourself here and even with you knowing my views where we've just ended up just two minutes ago before my ramblings now is with you trying saying I don't think you can get an author from it is which tells me that I'm just using the wrong language or I'm failing to articulate articulate myself so well I think I think I think we just have to be careful with using words like brought in in ways that people wouldn't traditionally use them yeah it's much in the same way that we feel that people like compatibilist use the word free will in a sense it doesn't really mean free will like that's not what people are talking about like well this is where I would have disagreement with you because when it comes to free will hmm people have always traditionally meant that you are free to do whatever you want that you're not some puppet on strings and so to change that definition is to remove it from the essence but I don't think that's the case when it comes to aught because ice I really genuinely sea otters only describing that you should do something which is essentially the same thing as tautology in that sense it's it's like saying this gets you from A to B and you want to get from A to B so do it kind of thing but but data sight I I actually think you're right and I'm happy to concede that all was probably and is probably not the right terminology for me to use just because the thing is like I actually advocate an ethical framework which will jump into in a second absolutely yes Sam but I advocate in ethical framework which essentially it says that we should keep using words like Orton should but just think about them differently I'm essentially arguing for a redefinition of these terms so there's not necessarily a problem with with doing that but I think we just hope need to be absolutely clear by what we mean by ort and I think it's fair to say that most people traditionally speaking when they have a should or an or it means something more than just the achievement of a goal it does but on the on the point of redefining things and being very clear the first five minutes of my video is me being very clear about how I'm using the term and it didn't do anything right that makes me think several things but one of them is that this is just very much ingrained as a concept that is very it's not malleable in that sense language has this kind of kind of way maybe there is room to do it and I'm really interested to hear on the specific way that you you would use it in your framework okay so so then tell me what you think of this as a definition of the word wart when I say you ought to do this what I mean is if you could see things the way I was or them you would do this so that's like saying if you had my preferences not know if you have my preferences just if you even like if you understood my view of what your preferences are like if you could just if you knew the same facts or believed the same facts as I did about my own preferences but also about your preferences then you would do this I think by saying if you believe the same things as me and believe the same facts you kind of are saying if you had my preference you would do this not necessarily because III think that when you want to tell somebody what they ought to do ya you necessarily need to know their state of mind and their state of mind may not correlate with yours and it could be because they have incorrect facts but it could also be that they have incorrect impulses but not incorrect pulses different importance let me give you an example then yeah oh sure like using your sort of gold view of morality like driving towards a goal that kind of teleological we're thinking about it if somebody is about to go on a car journey and there are two routes they can take and and they look at their they look at their map and they see that the fastest route is route a rather than route B but you know that their map is outdated and that there's actually roadworks happening and they'd be faster going on on route B so you tell them you shouldn't you should use route B instead of route a and they say no no I trust this map is it's I'm gonna go through pay and you say but they're a roadworks in that and they're like look I just don't I just don't believe you I trust my map and going with the map its root a you they're saying you should use route B is essentially you saying look if you believe the things I believed hmm then you would use route B that's not the same essences as me that's just to say if you understood that world as I understand that you would use route B so in that scenario you have someone that has the preference of getting from A to B yeah and what you're saying is that that's their preference that's what I would call an ort they ought to get from A to B but you can say is their preference to get its did a goal to get from A to B right well let's say you start to finish because I'm using state a and B is the kind of routes to get there okay you a really don't want to get from the start to finish you want to get from Portsmouth to Oxford yeah you know and what you're saying is they have planned their journey on facts that they think of facts but it's not-it's not true so they have planned a journey on basically non information so they have an East statement a factual statement that's wrong mm-hmm so you're saying the if they knew when you say if they knew what I knew they would change your mind oh I see that as saying is that they're just wrong with their is statement if there is statement was this which is as far as you're concerned correct they would do what you do but it's still predicated on them wanting to get from Portsmouth to Oxford but okay so let's complicated then let's say that by some weird feet turns out they're actually right unbeknownst to you and the roadworks are stopped and their map is entirely reliable now sure you would still be stood there saying you ought to take Road B you'd be wrong if you'd still be there saying you ought to take B and and what you mean by that is not if you knew the facts of the world you would go route B CH that's not the case cuz if they knew that back to the world and they would still go route a what you're saying is if you could see the world as I saw it if you could believe the things about the world that I believe that I believed then you would act in this way you could be right or wrong about that but that's not what matters what you're saying when you should do this is like if you could see it if you could if you could understand the world in the same way as I'm understanding right now if you could believe the same natural facts that I believe right now and you would take route B yes so slightly confused on stance in the sense if it's when people speak about facts which is what that essentially is they are is statements you know it is the case that this is the best route you should take it is the case that that is the best route you should take people state them as facts they don't state them as I believe this because of x y&z they say it is the case that the earth is a sphere it is the case that the earth is flat they don't say if you saw the documentary that I saw you would believe that the earth is flat you they say it is the case that it's flat you're wrong your information is incorrect so I'm just wondering how that fits into your phone ring I'm looking at should as a sort of separate category of thought okay which is is to say the traditionally speaking people people that scene should is something that kind of transcends transcends is statements I'm saying that we can understand should to simply mean something akin to look if if you agreed with me right now you would do this it keeps it in the realm of is it's fairly trivial to say like you know perhaps the obviously if you agreed with me then you would agree with me and you would feel as though you should do this but it's but instead of saying like if you agreed with me then you believe you should do this I'm saying if you agreed with me then you would do this because you will act upon that impulse because if you're sort of seeing shoulds as as an impulse as a kind of desire what I'm saying is should essentially means if you could see things the way that I saw them then you would do this because I know that you like ID and that doesn't necessarily mean you have the same desires as me it means like I believe that the best way to act in accordance with your desires is to do this hmm it's to like user would be the best way in accordance with your desires is to use Ruby so you should usually be like I mean if you could see the way I were you do usually be that doesn't mean if you had my preferences that means if you could understand the way that I'm viewing your preference but they would necessarily oh okay okay so you say but I think like I think it's it's a fairly trivial definition and I think that you could use those things interchangeably it's like if I say you know oh you really you really shouldn't be like to work today it's like look if you could see things that way I'm seeing them right now if you knew our boss if you if you knew what the consequence is were going to be like I do then you just would not be late for work I think that's what we kind of mean when we say should now you can be if it's not then that's the next point it's like I think it should be and there's a reason for this which is because I think that is the most helpful way to construct a theory of ethics and keep it in the realm of is is because you'll notice that if we define wort and should as if you could see things the way I saw them then you would do this it becomes which is the same thing as you're essentially trying for a descriptive statement and if we can turn warts into descriptive is statements then we can get an aunt from it is because the or is just an is if you see what I'm saying yeah so so I think it's their own is useful to try and find a way of doing that the question is to fight in doing so it is a good question and they'll be interesting to see exactly where you go with with this definition that you're working with the way that gel was with the way in which I've previously described things is how I would call something in axiomatic or no we think which is you just say that I really won set yeah as I said you're you're not born with a blank slate it is objectively verifiably a fact that you're born with a psychological predisposition that's a fact that's an East statement which contains the shirt because it's an Israeli statement about the field so that's what an axiomatic thought is it's a it's a desire that you have instilled within you as a matter of fact that you sort of didn't control or reason your way into that's for you what an axiomatic water but the something I'd like to just take us back to if you were huh as you were saying that you think that there's only one yeah that's why I take well yeah cool so I'm gonna say if now if that is how you're defining an axiomatic or yeah and I would say that there is only one axiomatic Ord sure and that is pleasure that lives it you ought to seek pleasure and buy pleasure I also mean the avoidance of pain yeah so if I recall correctly I gave I gave one example my video was it or did I give two ah it's going back a bit now I think it is yeah I may have like just responded to one but you remember an example you gave us for instance the or that your children should survive yeah that really comes down to pleasure you can break that down right and it does all come down to pleasure and to be clear we're not talking about the child's pleasure though we're talking about the parents pleasure yes there's maybe something to be concerned about or addressed when it comes to the fact that we are a you know a social species and the fact you know basically in reference to Richard Dawkins Selfish Gene we were not really completely you know lonely ships in the sea we really are this were connected it's all about genes of oh yeah this will be crucial shortly and it is important but as far as breaking it down to one thing yes it really is just all down to pleasure can I find it no matter who you talk to on the topic of morality no matter where they're coming from be them religious as I saying earlier or rather than being secular there's a significant amount of the secular popular population that Jeff believes it's just a cultural construct which drives me nuts I think it's sad whoever you take who's arguing for some kind of objective morality you can break them down and you will always get down to this pleasure pain as a dynamic you know you take the Christian down you go why should we obey God because you'll go to hell forever why should I care about that because suffering sucks it's like okay you've just went Auto it back down to pressure and planed you're just wrong about your ears statement which is the a God exists and it's gonna punish you for using the brain that it apparently gave what about like there are there are different religious views on on morality like you could take something like natural law theory or something which sort of says that or just means to to act in accordance with your your nature as a human being which is kind of defined by God so it's not like it's not the reason that you should do what God commands isn't because you'll be punished for it it's because what God dictates is correct oh yeah I you will be punished as a result but that's not why why we say is why do you care about being correct interesting yeah because if I the center is essentially like you're gonna get them down to pray until you'll still break them down you'll get so so whichever route you take ultimately the axiomatic desire rather than you'll find that no matter who you talk to if that honest and they would they will go down that rabbit hole with you you will get to this this axiom right and I think it's fair as you said to call it one axiom rather than you know there's there are axiomatic or snow there is just there's just an axiom so we get to it we get to an interesting and important conclusion here when it comes to ethics which is where I think we can basically meet in the middle and say that we essentially agree maybe we will disagree with our linguistics or the way that we decided to frame it or contextualize it or the way we describe it or which words we use you know but conceptually I think we can agree here if we both agree that the only thing that is ultimately desired at the very basic level is pleasure and every other desire that you can possibly have ultimately breaks down to pleasure and for the audience listening is worth noting that there are common objections to this for instance someone might say well it's possible to desire things that are pleasurable so for instance you can you want to get hit during sex yeah okay so that that's one way people often say like what about sadomasochism it's like the way that we're defining pleasure is almost like I said earlier it's kind of like a tautology it's like pleasure is Derek Parfit essentially defined it by saying it is essentially what is wanted when experienced by definition as well also the people that are get in here yeah there you will probably tell you that they are getting more pleasure like yeah I mean it's a lady masochist is basically defined as someone who takes pleasure from things that other people would generally consider to be painful so that's not a good objection another objection might be you can desire things that actually aren't pleasurable for instance you can you take someone who like desires to throw himself on a grenade to save his squad like the soul yes and that's an important question because it's like if he's acting in accordance with that desire they're like surely desiring throw herself in a grade like that's not pleasurable and the answer to that is well firstly he could be wrong he could think that that's gonna maximize this pleasure and it not actually do so but secondly like the way the way that his his brain could be thinking is like as Aristotle had it an intense short pleasure over kind of stretched out I think lesser pleasure I think the real strong thing to emphasize there is Richard Dawkins Selfish Gene as well yeah you know like when a bee stings and it kills itself in the process people who don't really understand evolution will look at that and go wow that's that seems odd it's like no makes perfect so you know I caused it makes sense at the level of the genetics like The Selfish Gene essentially says that we do things that at the level of the organism seem quite selfless but at the level of the gene of selfish but I'm talking at the level of the organism here so I'm talking psychologically we desire pleasure I don't think you can talk about the level of an organism without actually talking about the level of the species I think I think when you're talking about when you're talking about pleasure because what I'm essentially saying is like we desire pleasure all things that are pleasurable that say although you don't desire things that are pleasurable you desire those things to get the pleasure so you do desire pleasure and that's at the level of the organism like that the gene doesn't have desires and in that same philosophical circles so when this whole jumps on the grenade you can explain that evolutionarily in terms of in terms of the selfish gene or the expanding circle as Peter Singer has it but I think that you can you can also describe it at the level of the psychological the psychology of the organism by saying for instance I said the pleasure is also the importance of pain mm-hm well guilt is is is a pain as we're defining it it's yes a pain it's a discomfort and if that soldier has been trained in such a way that he knows he'll live the rest of his life in in in complete guilt if he didn't sacrifice himself and in order to avoid that pain the maximization the pleasure would be throw himself on the grenade now the important to note is that he could be totally wrong that could be totally irrational like the guilt would never actually outweigh the pain of throwing yourself in a to be wrong however he still desires the pleasure even if he's got the wrong means to achieve it like he's still going in with the desire for pleasure yeah so you'll always break down to whether you want to call in well-being or pleasure which essentially mean the same thing in this discussion I do I do agree with you on that point but I will just want to add again that considering consider all species while the B for example I don't know whether or not expect it experience is any pleasure and whatever pleasure it does experience what I want to point out is the it's psychological disposition when it's born he's completely controlled by his genes and so the genes do actually play a role it's just oblique yeah they play a role but the gene doesn't do the desiring in the sense that we're interested in nobody doesn't wire it from yeah it does okay yeah that actually makes sense that's an important thing to add but okay so so the reason that I think it's important press is is because to me without kind of necessarily realizing right now we've got two important premises that are hanging in the air that if we just trivially put together we've got an objective theory of ethics give it to me so one of the premises is this idea that the only thing that you can desire ultimately is the maximization of your pleasure I don't know if it's your pleasure but it is pleasure like this is where the the selfish gene will age I think it I think it has to be your pleasure so so when you're feels like your place when you say you want to maximize everyone's pleasure like again the that could be true not not necessarily everyone's your tribe or someone else let's just say someone else's in any sense of the word like yeah that can be true yeah but only true in the sense that that as a derivative of that the reason you desire someone else's pleasure is because of your own pleasure okay yes because again the gene as you've rightly pointed out there the gene could have wired you to be irrational like it might not actually be in my interest to make sure that you are like hydrated if I offer you a glass of water that might not add any amount from a selfish point of view it isn't yeah but my genes have wired me to believe that it is because they're wrong on that but that does that mean you're wrong because if your desires are not aligned to what you think maybe they should be aligned to which is your survival but they're actually aligned to survival off your tribe or your species then that's just the fact well what's true what's happened here then is that you've got a situation where even if the reason why we've developed pleasures is for our survival and even if it it's wrong in the sense that my pleasures aren't actually conducive to survival they're like a byproduct what's your personal survival it's yeah it's still a fact that the reason why I care about you having the pleasure of being hydrated when after your glass of water is because your your being your hydration which is a pleasure brings me pleasure or voids my dadís or still true and that that is actually true like now it might be it might be misguided in the sense that evolutionarily that's not good for me well let's say let that's not unperceived that's not conducive to evolutionary development I want to avoid like good a is conducive to evolutionary development well she doesn't matter whether it worked whether it is or isn't what is a fact and we can know is you know the reason I care about your pleasure is because I derive my own pleasure from that yeah that's that's that's premise one that's a fact so ultimately we desire our own pleasure yeah and that's the only thing that's desired in itself yeah okay premise two we haven't discussed yet and I hope the audience doesn't get too annoyed if I'd suddenly bring this up but it's a free world premise sure now free will is something we've never disagreed on like we're both we're both on the same page here to anybody who's listening or watching if you if you're really genuinely unfamiliar with our views on free will use both my videos on it I made a video called something like why you don't have free will you made free well debunked I think it's cool dude you can go much why we don't believe in free will and it's important to understand the context in which we're talking about it the essential rundown I'll give you the argument it will take a few seconds and if you disagree with any of the premises then go and listen to these arguments the premises are this you will only ever do anything in your life because you desire to do so now you might say no like I desire I don't desire to go to the gym but I still go to the gym well the only reason you do that is because you desire to be healthy and the desire to be healthy outweighs your desire to stay in bed why is that the case it just is you don't get to choose that right so so whatever you do you do because of some kind of desire even when you you appear to do something that's undesirable it's because there's another desire that's stronger that's forcing you to do it essentially so you only do what you want because you desire to do so desire motivates action that's the trick that's a trivial point that what you desire to do motivates your action premise to is you don't get to choose your desires you don't control your desires if you don't control your desires but your desires control your actions then you don't control your actions now again if you want a further if you want to deeper dive on that than watch our watch our videos on the subject and leave a like and comment and subscribe but we're on the same page here so we will just discuss this as though that's kind of a given so here's how they go together and this this is what I found really interesting is that if it's the case that whatever you do you can only do because you desire it which which is the freewill argument you'll only ever do what you desire and you're not a control of you do that I know but it's also the case that the only thing that you can actually desire ultimately is the maximization of pleasure yes and anytime you do anything it necessarily and logically follows that you must believe that what you are doing will maximize your pleasure so give that one more time so if it's the case that you will only ever act in accordance with your desires sure which is the freeway oral argument situation you'll only ever act in accordance with your desires but we also know that the only thing that you can desire is the maximization of pleasure then that means anytime you do anything you must believe it will maximize your pleasure because you have to act and plan you with your right and wrong about me right or wrong about that but what we know is that anytime you do anything ever you must necessarily believe that doing that will maximize your pleasure because you're only doing it because you desire it that's the freewill argument and the only thing you desire is the maximization of your pleasure so you have to believe that doing this will actually maximize your pleasure you know yeah again if you don't look current anyway if people have an issue with this or going a bit fast here like I actually recently gave a talk to Dorset humanists I believe by the time this podcast goes out that video will be online it will be called the good delusion it's a talk that I gave and it basically just just completely breaks this argument down so so you can go and watch that if you want to see an even deeper discussion but essentially because it seems it seems that like you seem to have no problems with this some people have a bit of a problem or or seeing it kind of in the wrong context but yeah I think it makes it makes perfect sense to say if free will doesn't exist and therefore you you and that's because you act in accordance with your desires and we've just agreed that the only thing that is possible to desirous pleasure then that we didn't just add to that whether your your desires are determined or random neither of which give you free will and is under stress for you but so whenever you act you act in accordance with your desires and your desires for pleasure you know that whatever you act whatever you do it's because you think it will maximize your pleasure like that just logically follows so now we've got an interesting situation which is this if you do action X mm-hmm I know necessarily that you believe that doing X will maximize your pleasure mmm-hmm you're either right or wrong about that yeah you're either correct or incorrect that that will maximize your pleasure that's something also that we agreed on earlier today and you'll see how this is very similar to the moral you that you were espousing why I essentially say that I pretty much agree with you now but use different language so if you are wrong and it's not the case that doing X will actually maximize your pleasure then that's because you believe something that's incorrect you but you believe a false piece of information about the natural world you believe something wrong but the only way to correct that belief would be in such a way that would make you act differently because if you discovered that doing X went maximize your pleasure or you became convinced doesn't even need to be arrived you don't need to be correct like if you just became convinced or believed that doing X isn't gonna maximize your pleasure doing Y is going to maximize your pleasure then because you act in accordance with your desires and your desire pleasure you will necessarily do Y you will have to do Y yeah so when you do X I can say that that indicates necessarily a belief you hold about X that is right or wrong and right or wrong in such a way that could only be rectified if you act it differently now I'm not saying that X is wrong I'm not saying that doing X is wrong what I'm saying is that doing X indicates necessarily a belief that you hold that is wrong in such a way that can only be rectified in a way that would make you act differently so what would be an example so as an example let's say you let's say you shoplift it sure so you went to you just tried to shoplift something that necessarily means because of the free will argument you only act in accordance with your desires and your in his desire pleasure you shoplifting was in accordance with the desire for pleasure so you think that shoplifting will bring you pleasure you think that shoplifting is the way to maximize your pleasure in that instance now I would argue perhaps that you are wrong about that and actually the way to maximize your pleasure is to not shoplift mmm now it one of us is right there like one of us is correct it's either the case that shoplifting maximizes your pleasure or it's the case that it doesn't yes so if you're wrong and that again I stress that's no alt statement now that's just an in-state usage actual fact about the brains the facts than we make in all sorts of statements of science exactly if you're wrong if shoplifting would not actually maximize your pleasure then the only way you could actually rectify that belief any way that you could become right is to believe that shoplifting will not as your pleasure yeah and if you believe that chocolate in wouldn't maximize your pleasure then you necessarily wouldn't do it that's the freewill argument so by saying like when you shoplift I can say you your action there you're shoplifting indicates to me necessarily it logically follows that you hold a belief about the natural world and is statement which is wrong and it's wrong in such a way that the only way you could become right is in a way that would cause you to act differently yes so you're wrong in a way that can only be rectified if you act differently I'm not saying what you're doing is wrong and to correct yourself act differently I'm saying that what you're doing indicates wrongness and to become right you it would follow that you would act differently would it be fair to say that you're saying what they're doing is wrong because their facts are incorrect no what they're doing is not is is not wrong this is the important thing or would it be fair to say that they're fact what they what they are doing their actions are not conducive to their goal and the reason because it's not conducive is because there is statements they're factual statements are incorrect yeah so so that's right and that's essentially where we would find agreement but the import is Lea the important part is knowing the important point do add is that yeah I can say that you know doing that shoplifting isn't confusing to you in isn't conducive to your goal but I can also say like I know what your goal is and I know that if you became convinced that doing this isn't conducive to your goal you would act differently like as a matter of fact isn't as necessity because there's no free will and we can perfectly agree on that because we both agree with with the freeway movement and again if you don't then you're gonna have to yeah you can but it just becomes the case that we have kind of fell into an agent-based ethical theory because like I say I still can't say that an action is wrong but I can say that an action indicates a belief that you hold as an agent that is right or wrong hmm and if you're wrong the only way you can become right is if you acted differently and if you're right the only way you can become wrong is if you're acted differently but it's not the act that's right or wrong it's you and your beliefs that are right or wrong and the act simply indicates which beliefs you hold yes what caused the act right but like this is practically indistinguishable from ethics like if I said to you it is yeah if I said to you you know shoplifting is wrong in order to become right you should not shoplift essentially no different from me saying shoplifting indicates that you're wrong and the only way to become right or it's license and wear your jeans wrong yeah it which it's not wrong now that sounds mental but this is what we talk it's it's not murder isn't wrong but murder is decay for you to murder the the act of murder indicates a belief that you hold that is wrong exactly that can only become right in such a way that would cause you not to murder yeah now this is this is important because remember the definition of should I came up with earlier and this is and you'll see why I like this definition now because should in my book simply means if you saw things the way I saw them you wouldn't do this or you would do this hmm should shouldn't or should so when I say you shouldn't shoplift I mean if you could see things the way that I saw them you wouldn't chocolate what I mean by that is if you could see if you could believe the same things I believe which is that shoplifting will not maximize your pleasure then you would not do it and I know you wouldn't do it because you have to act in accordance with what you think will maximize your pleasure do you see what I'm saying that I do see what you're saying and I what I can say is that I agree and I think that the freewill argument the deterministic argument if you will just makes it stronger I'm not necessarily sure if it's needed to make the point but in any case I'm sliding against I think it is and I'll tell you why the reason I think it is is because the freewill argument is essentially that you will act in accordance with your desires and nothing else if it's the case that that is false that you can act out of accordance with your desires and who cares if you desire pleasure who cares if you have an axiomatic or an axiomatic desire towards doing a certain thing like you don't have to act in accordance with that nobody who cares if you had free will with it anyway it's like okay you have preferences you have goals you don't have to act in one case you act towards it in one case you don't right but I don't know that's the difference like if you don't have free will then it is the case that actually if you have this axiomatic desire then yet you have to act in accordance with it or you just will yeah that's what I mean by happy in a world where Free Will exists you might not do exactly but in any case the situation is still the same well it's you have a goal and there are right or wrong ways to achieve that goal right but when you have free will like your action is not indicative of a belief that you hold necessarily no that's true so if there's no free will because of the desire argument then I can say that when you shoplift I know like that that is necessarily indicative of a belief that you hold that either right or wrong if freewill does exist then you can't say that you can't say that you shoplifting indicates a belief you hold it could be completely detached from the belief that you hold there sure now the only way for this ethical argument to work is for me to say like your action indicates that you're doing something wrong that you believe something wrong they can only be corrected in a way that would make you act differently if you remove the element of saying that the action indicates a belief that can be right or wrong then you can't make that next step which is to say that to rectify you're right or wrong belief you'd have to act differently I I think you can but it's not erect if you're not right to find the belief per se you're rectifying you're correcting them on facts they have this wrong so here's here's the scenario if I can paint it yeah the way I'm looking at it and then you tell me how you're looking and looking to see where that's going wrong or where we're disagreeing you have somebody that's shoplifting and this person shoplifting because he believes that the best way for him to feed his family is still and I'm I'm looking by on the side and I'm saying that's not the best way to feed your family I understand that your goal your ought if you will stay with goal your goal is to feed your family but importantly and I don't mean to interrupt but like like we just agreed earlier the the goal isn't to feed the family you can break that down you can break it the goal the goal is still pleasure but still if in this context it fests as that that's the step that he's taking yeah to fulfill his own pleasure other who can we I don't think hair Matt's like who care who cares of his goal is to to to maximize his pleasure by by feeding his family like what more important has to act in accordance with that who cares if he has free will or not in this situation the facts still the same this person once ultimately to increase his own pleasure but how that manifests in at this particular time is that he thinks to to fulfill my own pleasure he may even not think this consciously it may be unconsciously but to him it's I need to feed my family and he thinks the best way to achieve that is by stealing food I I don't see how free will and not having free will changes that scenario whatsoever because if you follow it through I would say that the the results the same and that is me coming up to him or someone else coming up to him and saying listen you're wrong about the east' statement which is it is this is the best way for me to feed my family stealing it you can say no you're better it is the case that if you work for it your feed your family and you won't necessarily have repercussions of going to prison where you're not even going to be able to feed your family maybe mumps you know it could be years depending on the seriousness and the context of wherever he's stealing from in that case you're still saying it doesn't matter if he has free will or not you're just saying that you're operating under under that under that assumption just saying he's wrong his facts are wrong the reason it matters for me is because like you you've essentially just made the the free will argument which is that look if you if you feel that the best way to achieve your goal is to feed your family then you will feel I'd need to feed my family that's what that's what you just said well that is the free world argument which is that if you think if you if you have this goal and that goal is pleasure as we've already agreed I would ever call you how it's ultimately broken down to pleasure so this man has this goal and you say if he thinks the best way to achieve that goal is to feed his family then he'll feel like he needs to do it well yeah that means he has no free will that is the freewill argument which is that if he believes that this is the way to achieve a goal but I don't necessarily like them then he then he must do that I don't think that part is necessary because you you're right and I agree with you but what I'm saying is that whether or not that person has free will is irrelevant to me saying the if that is that person's goal then his that is not the best way to achieve it dad that is the best way to achieve it given this circumstance giving this situation so is the cat is the current situation yeah but what you can't say is that like let's take this guy and say he will act that way I can just say you do what you won't give a situation like here I've corrected that that's the problem I said so you can you can just say like that's not the best way to maximize this goal and he could just be like well I disagree with you like so what like or even if I agree with you like so so what like it doesn't make a difference the only the only reason why it would make a difference to someone yeah I don't agree they wouldn't know make a difference because the the only reason that it would make a difference to say to someone if you say to someone actually the best way to maximize your goal that you're trying to achieve is to do this instead the only the only way that that would mean something to someone is if that was enough to compel them to act differently and if that is another they have free will or not and I agree that they don't know if that in any case that will still compel them it's just that they may not act on it know what I mean compel is in as in as in make them do it you in the case where they have free will yeah what would happen is I would show this individual that this is a better way in which to achieve his goal okay yeah and I would go there there you go I've removed an is statement from your premise that was incorrect and I've given you an his premise that is correct yeah and let's just say hypothetically it is the case that that is the best way for him to achieve his goal or feeding his family which in turn means that he increases his own pleasure now in a scenario where he doesn't have free will which we we agree that is the case he will necessarily act towards what information I gave him and you would try and get a job and you do it that way but in a scenario where he doesn't have free will the situation is still objectively the case this is what I mean by the objective point in morality it is objectively the case that that is what is best for him to achieve his goal with it's what he should do all right but okay he may say I don't want to act on that because that's where this freewill component comes in okay fine it doesn't change the fact that that's still objectively the case yeah that is why I would say at the present that I don't see although I agree with you I don't see it I'd prefer to get people through this first hurdle than make them go through both hurdles at once because I just I pains me to watch otherwise very educated and talented people that are on my side they're secularists they're non-religious just so easily dismiss depravities egregious acts because they believe the morality is just a cultural construct that it doesn't reduce down to well being for me it's so important to get them past that first hurdle that I and I don't think that we necessarily need to attach the the freewheel component that I just want to get people past the hurdle I just want people to go crap I was thinking about this wrong and yes it is wrong to you know the example that Sam Harris gives for a battery acid into the face of little girls for the crime of trying to read that's it it's me it's just it's tricky right because I agree with you that it's important to jump this hurdle rather than throw everything at everyone at once but firstly it's worth noting that I think that the concept of free will it is kind of conceptually incoherent so I don't I don't even think it makes sense to kind of imagine a hypothetical in which a man does have free will because I don't think it makes sense but but but here's the facts just are like Karen the fact is that while I agree with you there is most people believe in free will yeah so we have to work with that fact well I think I still think you do need this free will component and and and the reason is because like yeah you can say to somebody if even if they have free will you can say look whatever that means you can say look you have this goal and you think that the best way to achieve this goal is to is to do this well you can't even actually say that because who's to say they're acting in accordance with what they think is the best goal like they they don't have to be doing that because they have free will they know you like you have to make the assumption of the their actions line up with their preferences that that is the freewill argument but that's fine we do that again with everything we go the Sun will rise up tomorrow because it really look what I mean is is like this is why I don't think it makes sense we even even talked about the hypothetical that being free will because you're like well we have to kind of assume that this person is act in accordance with their preferences well if you're acting in accordance with your preferences if you're actually in accordance with your desires that is the anti freewill argument that when you act you're acting in accordance with your desires mm-hmm the only way to get out of that and to retain this libertarian free will is to say no you can act out of accordance with your desires yeah but as you're rightly pointing out like for us to make any sense of somebody's motives and action and behavior we have to assume that what they're doing they believe to be the best course of action in accordance with that with their desires okay so we we have to have you at that anti free wall component we think that I think this is the key point I don't think that's anti free will I think the concept of free will is that you can act not according to your desires not according to these deterministic factors or random chance or whatever it might be but that doesn't necessarily follow that people won't do what won't follow it to the tee until that point so this person has this preference to feed his children or he has this desire to satisfy himself and that's the way that it's manifesting in this situation I see no issue with him having all of that desire and all of his actions when you look at him showing that he has that desire and then him just are but at the very end he just goes no I'm not gonna do it anymore that would be an act of actual free will if you will because it could be against his desires etc but I don't see how that changes the fact is still or protectively the case yeah that that's a stupid mister okay so instead of instead of instead of talking about the the free world component going sort of into the to the person's action let's talk about coming out of out of it like so remember my my view is that when you act it is indicative of a belief you hold that if it's wrong can only be made right in such a way that would make you act differently so let's talk about that second part okay which is if there's if there's no free will that the second part is crucial because like yeah I can say that shoplifting is is wrong for you but what does it mean for me to say that it's right to not do that well that it's right to do something always right to give to charity what I mean is that if it's wrong to shoplift then well again I don't think it's wrong to shoplift I think that that shoplifting indicates that you hold a belief that shoplifting will maximize your pleasure and if you're wrong about that then if you correct your belief that actually not shoplifting will maximize your pleasure then you would have to act in accordance with that there's the freewill component yeah if there is freewill then you could correct your belief that you hold you could correct the belief and yet still not act in accordance with it yeah but you would be wrong you wouldn't no no you wouldn't necessarily you would be right because you believe the right thing you believe like I could you could be shoplifting and I can say that indicates that you think that shoplifting maximizes your pleasure yeah and I could say look actually here's an argument that shoplifting doesn't maximize your pleasure when you go you know what you're right and you believe that actually shoplifting will minimize your pleasure and you just do it anyway yeah that would mean I was wrong I don't it doesn't it why does it mean you're doesn't mean I'm not like you believe the right thing everything you believe you know every single is statement that you believe is incorrect yeah like you believe that it will minimize your pleasure if you give you shoplift so so I mean you follow just correct you just do it anyway person's got a desire to maximize his pleasure he's in this situation where he finds at this moment the best way to maximize his pleasure is by stealing food to fill dish to feed his children yeah you come along and you say listen this is not the best way to do it this is statement of stealing is bad what you should do or what is the case that would get you to your goal yeah is by taking a job and he says you're correct you have changed my belief I now recognize that that is the best way for me to achieve my own goal yeah and then he just doesn't and he doesn't do it he's still wrong it's just all you have there is a free will component where he was wrong I was wrong believe does he hold he's what no he's wrong in the sense that that action does not it's not conducive to his goal yeah he knows that who lived exactly so so he's not so was he wrong about like he knows that's not he's not wrong acting that way there is no right and wrong about what people do and how they do things like like that it's just that he's wrong in the sense that it doesn't objectively follow that that's the way that he should achieve achieve his goal or that's the best way to achieve his goal it follows from another route it's like when people say things like he believes all things to be true like there is nothing that he believed there's no belief that he holds in this in this scenario there is that is false so how can you say that how can you say that he's there's no he's not holding me wrongfully no no no no no his beliefs aren't wrong so what's wrong if I said his beliefs oh I don't think you did that's why no no no his beliefs are what is wrong then his action just isn't it doesn't it's not coherent with his goal that's what I mean by wrong his beliefs aren't rockin is that all you mean then by bikers because that sort of implies that what do you mean when you say you shouldn't do something when you say something's wrong well you literally mean it's like that's not coherent with your goal that seems like because I think yeah that makes sense but it just seems a bit weak it doesn't have the normative function so that you think that that's missing and I think the reason why and I see what you're saying which is to say that because again this is like a definitional thing right so you're literally just defining wrong and shouldn't shouldn't in in in terms of achieving a goal as I said its description towards it's okay to write or to go about it so then so then work for it or against it because I really don't think that this is what was talking about at the beginning with religious words people say things like it's wrong to murder no it's not to me that's like saying gravity is and then you just give a random number is like no the Earth's gravity is X the moon's gravity is why so I wouldn't say murder is wrong I would say you should not murder why because we can go down to what is pleasure but I mean like even an apology work then you can reword it to say something like um you know gravity is is in relation to mass and and that is true of the earth it's true the CERN is true of everything but that's like saying morality is in relation to the being to beings yeah I suppose so but like that doesn't necessarily it's just that's just a statement of fact it isn't it's just just a statement of fact that's not oh don't say anything okay and actually just to take a sort of very brief detour I want to want to clear some things up about moral subjectivism people think that moral subjectivism is something akin to you saying the earth is is you know the Earth's gravity is five meters per second squared and I say that it's nine point a like no I think that when I was espousing moral subjectivism in the past it's not like you think murder is wrong and that's just your opinion I think murder is right and that's just my opinion it's like we can be right or wrong about whether or not that conduces is conducive to pleasure the subjective level is is the desirability of pleasure so like you it the subjectivity doesn't lie at the level of the action at lies at the level of the desire which is which is which is pleasure but okay look let me I agree with that but we live in a world where people do make such statements they say killing is wrong other people say that homosexuality is wrong they're just blanket statements and the reason why it makes sense to them is because they are operating under this religious rubric these religious definitions where these things are dictated it's like a law of the universe by a god or whatever it might be absent now we have to start thinking about things in a different way I think the shift that we need is essentially what we had from going from a stralla G to astronomy mm-hmm we defer a lot of concepts because inherent in those concepts were assumptions that we weren't justified to make yeah but do continue so I mean previously people will have criticized me for saying in a situation where somebody thinks murder is wrong some things murders right as a moral subjectivist Alex you just have to kind of accept that that's that person's opinion and that they're right for them and that's right for me and when you talk about like things being right for and people might might mistaken they were that what you mean is like if someone thinks that murders right yeah then well that's true for them like know what we're saying here I think is that what's true for them is that the maximization of that pleasure is good and when they say that murder is right or Berto is wrong like they're either correct or incorrect about that in relation to that goal of pleasure and it's normally because they have facts that are incorrect and they're legion yes the granddaddy of this so somebody saying it is the case that I should throw homosexuals from rooftops that is a case that happened right now in the Middle East it's a common practice and the reason they're do what and what I would say to them is that what they're wrong about is the fact the other exists that the Quran is true and that is what should be done to people who don't have the you know the typical straight sexuality they're just wrong about that fact yeah really what they're trying to do you ask them they say I'm doing a conduct here why because they do care about kindness they're just wrong about certain so when I've previously said that morality is subjective I don't mean to say that it's subjective but the level of the belief like murders right of murder is wrong I mean that it's a subjective desire to maximize your pleasure yeah but once you have that desire that we both agree on I can say that you are right or wrong about that so when I say to someone like like you're wrong like murderers murderers is the wrong thing to be doing and someone says but aren't you and moral subjectivist how can you say that it's like because I know that subjectively this person desires pleasure and that doing this isn't going to get them now yeah let's talk about briefly before we end because these things usually go up like an hour an hour and half yeah we've got an hour twenty so everyone is still listening thank you very for saying this and I feel like the clarity has kind of improved like the beginning of the conversation was kind of jumpy in which we're trying to find our feet but but like as we've discussed more it's really sort of cleared up and I think we're roughly getting to the same page here you you think that you think that good and bad and shouldn't shouldn't should be just defined in terms strictly of achieving goals in reference to goals now of course you can do that if you want no it's even one that I think that is actually what is when you take good and bad outside of the context of morality that is what they mean but the problem we're talking about morality I understand the problem I have with that in the problem other people would have with that is that it's a bit too weak it's like it doesn't have the the prescriptive function the morality needs have morality when scientists started giving statements about astronomy people said it's too weak you're not telling me why it's doing that you're just saying how and it's like yeah okay it doesn't give you what you wanted them then you're not doing morality or just you're just doing science like morality needs this this this prescriptive element it needs more than just the description of goals it needs the kind of like your actions need to change and here's why that's what that's what morality needs I would say that whether you want to call what I'm doing morality or not what is important and what I'm just trying to convey is that it is not subjective in the scientific sense which is to say based on opinion or cultural circumstances here it is scientifically objectively verifiable there is facts to be known about our more about morality about our preferences and there are right or wrong ways to achieve the the goals that pretty much everyone has which is pleasure okay so so whether you want to call that morality or not doesn't concern me so so if the if the free world component isn't necessary in your view to the to this but I do think that is is a powerful addition well yeah let me let me let me try on that then why I think it's why I think it is not just powerful why I think if somebody's looking but when I think people are looking for things you're happy to sort of say that well actually maybe ethics just is weak maybe it is just descriptive maybe it is just about goal achievement I and other people I think would be more inclined to say but I want more than that from ethics I want there to be something a bit more like ethics needs to be able to tell me behave like this or change your behavior or something like that or like your behavior is in accordance with rightness or wrongness like outside of just achieving a goal but like as as some kind of objective circle like you're completing the circle it is right for you to act in this in this way needs it needs more and this is what I think that the free will argument brings more to the table because if it's the case that you have to act in accordance with your desires and you have a false desire that shoplifting will maximize your pleasure then I can say that by correcting your desire you must act differently so the only way what aren't you just saying you will yeah you will you might and I don't still there is no moral part in this then you're just saying you with it there's no there's no ought in the traditional sense but but but the reason why the will is important the reason why that and this is the part that you would you would dispute as necessary as is the ability to say that if you changeably if you correct your belief then you would act differently yeah like that's the point on dispute here and the reason I think it's so important to retain this is because you you inject ethics with the ability to say that in order to correct your belief you act differently like in order to be right you act like this and I don't mean right in accordance with like some goal you hold I mean like objectively right like correct I don't mean in order to achieve this goal in the maximum possible way do this I mean in order to be correct in order to be objectively right then you would have to act in this way that's what the freewill argument gives you it takes you from just saying but but they will only act in that way given that they have preferences given that they have goals right yeah yeah and and only and only if they have to act in accordance with that preference and I'm gonna say that preference rather than preferences because the preference is sure yeah yeah sure sure I would say that when it comes to the situation at the end and you have one scenario where this free will and one where there's not the difference really boils down to in with with the case where they don't have free will you will say straight up given this you will do this it's just a statement of fact you will act and that way whereas in the scenario where they have free will which I don't believe they do but in this scenario where he has free will you're basically saying that if you want to feel whatever gold that you have whatever your preference if you want to fulfill your preference then that is the way to do it that is objectively verifiably so scientifically the best way to do it whether or not he does it I just don't personally sit his relics he said we sort of saying different things here and the reason why is all you're right to point out that I'm not actually getting a I'm not actually getting a it in the traditional sense I'll just describe I'm still I'm still just describing facts but I'm doing it in such a way that is that so like the whole sort of conclusion of this and you need the freewill component for this this kind of specific incarnation of the of the argument which is that if you shoplift then you are wrong in such a way that can only be corrected if you were to act differently because the part that's wrong is the belief you hold and I know you hold the belief because your beliefs have to influence your action and I know that if you were to correct that belief you'd act differently because your beliefs have to in to motivate that action that's the free world component so I can say that you are wrong in a way that can only be corrected if you act differently that's not ethics that's not that's not an ort that's not crossing the assault divide but it's practically indistinguishable so it's useful but I'm I'm not also going from the is or going over the is I don't think I don't think okay no what you're doing is you're soldier subscribing fact as am i but you're not doing it in such a way that you can say in order to be objectively right hmm you must do this or you can say is that you know in order to objectively achieve your goal you must do this but I can say with with this framework in order to be correct like full stop in order to be right in order to have all the things that you believe be correct you have to act this way whereas all you can say is like nobody else and you have to you say in your will yeah but that's what I mean by have to it yeah you must you you will you have to you have no choice but to do so I will do this yeah so so if there's no choice hmm then people may be listening and thinking what the hell does this have to do with morality morality has always been about choice now well what it means is that we've constructed a theory of ethics which not only can it doesn't require free well but actually requires the non-existence of free will see what I think that maybe a subsequent conversation at some point but what I think is that we've the component off not having free will which you've bring brought on I think it does make the argument more powerful I I am I'm just struggling it might be me being obtuse to see why that is necessary to attach to the primary argument that I've been laying out because I want to get people past the Perth past that first hurdle yeah and I while I think your argument makes it stronger with with the free will mm-hm lack off free will I don't think that it's necessary to get to what I want from this which is a scientific verifiable objective morality and for people to just recognize it that's the case right well for the record I don't think it being accused but I think then in order to get in order to get what I want from this in order to get what I think other people want on this which is just a little bit more than what your what you're offering if I could just add thinking a little bit more and I think I do I found it was just when when you say perhaps the subsequent conversation I think it will have to be one because we'll have to wrap up soon but you will we will what I would say is that if you do look at these kind of conversations that this is to everyone listening to what me and you are having do you find that let's say that you find what I'm saying to be correct and you and you think okay that is correct and there is some element here which really does TEVAR tuber ality and I agree with Steve but alex is right I'm in this situation where it just doesn't give me that that that it just doesn't give me what I'm looking for my answer honestly is tough get over it when you first figured out hopefully when if you're an atheist if you're non-religious I should say when you first figure it out oh wow we're an evolved species and the universe doesn't care about us lots of people were stuck thinking that just doesn't give me what I want which is eternal life essentially it's seeing my love once again but the answer is just tough this is what you have yeah I think the same is true of this morality case it's like listen you you have your cake you just can't eat it too right well look I mean I totally agree with you that if it is just the case that that's as far as you can get and tough what I'm saying is that and we both seem to agree here that with this free will component it takes you further so like you could say if this isn't sufficient for you than tough but what I'm saying is like yet if it weren't sufficient than tough but we can make it sufficient really easily by just adding this component the argument that's why I think it's if even if you don't agree that it's necessary in a matter ethical sense you can at least agree that it's necessary in the sense that that for people to be fulfilled by it they might have to believe this and because we both believe that that part is true that's not a problem because it's just it's just a true addition to this theory let's just take this these ideas is that meta reticle consonant construct let's add this other thing that we both agree to be true and we suddenly got something that that is not just like well we'll tuff that's all you're getting it's like here's a fulfilling ethical framework by which I can I can say that you're right or wrong in such a way that's indicated by the way that you act like that's just that's a fulfilling ethical theory what I would say to that is that I'm with you I agree on both of the premises if you will I'm completely in the same box as you despite the fact I'm arguing from a slight you know mainly for the first premise if you will I'm not satisfied by that my I actually find the fact that free will doesn't exist to be incredibly unsatisfying I find that it's sucks satisfaction out of things that I enjoy but it's just the case and I would just get why would I get over it tough yeah so for for some people it'll it will be okay I some people may have this value and get what they want from this as you described and as you seem to but I think you'll find that there'd be plenty of people like me this just they're either indifferent to it and so it's just confusing to add it right or two it just doesn't give them what you're claiming it may give them or what it gives you perhaps would be the most accurate way to put it because it doesn't give it to me hmm to me it's just a lots of the things I found out from approaching life honestly from really trying to delve into what's what's really the case it's just disappointing so you look at you know you're gonna die everyone you know is gonna die and they're probably gonna die in a suffering way cancer what no it's just a fact tough that's not satisfying but I prefer that over the illusion the falseness off what's given to us by religions when it comes to morality is like yeah it's not wrong to murder but he is wrong for everyone will almost everyone to murder because it's not conducive to their preference I say that instead of preferences of course cuz I I think you're right on that that doesn't give me great comfort it's just a fact and it's very interesting but these this is just the way life is to me and people might see that as cynical but it's but it's honest and it's in it's humbling because you deal with life and you go wow this universe wasn't created with me in mind and everything I am learning everything that I earnestly bring on board is teaching me that so explicitly that it sometimes I just want to sink into my biases and disappear because you know I'm an I'm an ape like everyone else and that's what we want to do this is why I'm I'm not so concerned on that element of giving people what they want I'd rather just go look there is that here is the cake there is the moral framework it is objective it's scientifically verifiable objective and the reason I haven't had such concern for people wanting them more is because perhaps selfishly or from my own perspective I don't it's just the way it is life is life's cruel rough life nasty do you think do you think it's more important to know true things then enter and to have these these comforting falsehoods like it that may be the choice that you've taken and the wrote that you've preferred but do you think you can say of everybody that it's worth knowing the truth over-over sort of list full ignorance like I think for individuals sometimes it's they on going to suffer from knowing certain certain truth Triffids but I think that as a whole when when it all it takes is one person to be ignorant to cause a lot of harm to a lot of things and so it's just the price that we have to pay and that is to know is many true things as possible because you don't you you cause other people to suffer and you need to know these truths whether or not they bring you the comfort that you're looking for that's just just the way it is to me and it's unfortunate but life owes you nothing and then you're gonna die so that I do understand what you're saying about the freewheel component I don't mean to end on a heavier note but I think it is an important distinction to bring in because morality is one of the biggest topics that we care about and to address that concern is pretty important reminds me of something that Neil deGrasse Tyson said to Richard Dawkins he said do you not think that your way of communicating with people isn't the most effective in his experience deGrasse Tyson's experience it's to say here are the facts and here is a sensitivity to your state of mind and is only then when you make impact and Dawkins pretty much quoted a reply where he said science is interesting if you don't agree you can off it's like depending on where you land on there is how well you're going to be a to digest certain truths such as morality not giving you what you may have wanted but it is still objective and I insist that you I just hope that people for people they figure out that that is enough because it is for me so if my listeners have been listening to this entire one hour and a half conversation just waiting and wondering why it is that the tiny little e is next to this particular episode on the on the cosmic skeptic podcast I said a note explicit content we finally reached it yeah look I think it's worth I think it's worth pointing out that I totally agree with you in everything you're saying I just think that more can be added and I think more should be added if should can mean such a thing I mean even should in the sense that I mean and I think that like more than them than what you're them what you're promoting here is an ethical theory can be added without changing anything that you're saying but whilst also adding a whole lot more fulfillment and also adding a whole new dimension to the argument and and being able to bring together different areas of philosophy that that people often like as soon as you make the freewill argument the moral egman comes up because if there's no free will happen they'll be morality well if we can combine these stratum we have it then we have a really useful system by which to to convince people that you can have an objective ethic you don't need to worry about for even a lot of existing and it does all fit together so don't worry about kind of discrepant philosophical thoughts flying around but i think the important thing to note is that even if i think we should take it further i still agree with as far as you've taken it and even if you don't think that i need to take it further the steps that i'm using to take it further you also agree with so the disagreement is another big thing to celebrate you know the treatment is now not like not the actual substantive content but now how much of that substantive content is necessary to make a good point well yes essentially it's like disagreement i have on free will with i think i still have it and i haven't seen much of his content with Matt Dillahunty it's like we're on the same side it's just a difference in tactics mmm and that's pretty much where we seem to be and I and that is I mean I want to thank you for making your videos and having these conversations with me morality can be a boring subject to many people and it's a difficult one to at least for me it's a difficult one to wrap my head around or it was a obviously still is because I'm still not as articulate as I want to be on the topic it's just a difficult one it seems to be difficult for humans in general and part of that is because of historical reason ISM I think part of it is that it's just we haven't evolved to figure these things out that's what makes these extra hard but I do thank you for how you've changed my mind on the subject because I've went from a position of being not entirely sure but really needing an answer to a position where I have an answer but it may not be all that satisfying yeah well likewise I thank you because like I said at the very beginning of the video you've changed the context in which I'm thinking about this you've you've made me realize the the inconsistencies I was holding in terms of getting an alpha manners and getting a will be from and isn't that kind of thing which I kind of hadn't put that together before but but now when you sort of read the problems of induction you read Hume writing about adduction it just it jumps out at the page of me like this can apply to the earth thing and I just hadn't put those together before so I have to think you should make new videos as well but I'm glad to say that we were essentially substantively speaking in agreement now we are indeed it's one of those rare occasions I thought you said a second ago is worth celebrating is one of those rare occasions where we started celebrating on the opposite sides of the table saying I'm subjectivist you're an Objectivist and we might still like hold similar views and so we might change what we mean by those terms or whatever but those are like the objective and subjective are essentially you know antithesis that they are completely opposed to each other and we sat opposite the table without realizing we take the conversation quite this far all those years ago and in my back garden yeah and yet now we both sort of in the same place and we've managed to do it and it seems like it can be done and if it can be done for morality it can be done for free will it can be done for a religion it can be done for politics I'm always so nervous I really dump salutely it's it's a bizarre place to be in this might be I'm sure we can discuss this in the future but in terms of like having these debates in these long-form like-like-like breakdowns and things I think I think we're essentially done I would agree with you I think you're pretty much done on shake shake my hand absolutely fantastic that's how you argue yeah and and to everybody listening to everybody who's been following the channel and to everyone who's been following Steven channel and and has seen this conversation evolve to see it come to this I won't call it a conclusion because I have no idea what takes in the future but it's come to this agreement like I hope it's somewhat satisfying even if you don't agree with us to see us agree with each other I think is is exciting to say the least and thank you for sticking around this has been the longest podcast so far though it has only been episode three I just reminded you that if you have spent all this time listening to this podcast all the way to the end then it takes such an incalculable s amount of time to go to iTunes hit that five-star rating get us on the analytic get us in in iTunes algorithm get us on the the new and noteworthy pages for philosophy or for society and culture for education and we will be viewed by more people and we can get better guests and it only takes a second you could have done it in the time since I began this sentence I'd really appreciate if you could do so and for those who have already thank you so much it means a lot I've been reading all of your reviews and they mean a lot so with that said I think that's place to wrap up so sure people want to see either Stephens previous content or the the videos that we've referenced if you're watching on YouTube links will be in the description if not then you can simply search rationality rules anywhere Twitter Facebook YouTube it'll all come up find me and also look out for the the card game which which is coming out debunked which the kick-start is now done for and it's all sort of on track now she's yeah it's making great progress I'm really excited with how that's when and I'm just I'm excited to make it available to the public after the kickstart has been done so yeah it's gonna be good I see Anna it's gonna be good like we played another prototype today you brought sort of an updated version in the game with new graphics and things we're playing it earlier and man I'm so excited for this game to launch and I hope that people listening are aware of the game if you don't you can you can see in this channel but it's this this car games coming out you know look out for it I think I think is gonna be I think is gonna be really good because I'm one of the sort of few people on the planet who have actually been able to play it yeah and yes I think it's it's a genius idea still but okay so ladies gentlemen thank you so much for listening do remember to subscribe either here on YouTube or here on iTunes which you can also do and and continue to download the podcasts in the future thanks for being here I've been Alex O'Connor in conversation with Steven woodford thanks for having me [Music] [Music] [Music]

Channel: CosmicSkeptic

Views: 203,189

Rating: 4.8837852 out of 5

Keywords: Alex O'Connor, cosmic, skeptic, cosmicskeptic, atheism, rationality rules, podcast, morality, objective, religion, language, philosophy, Hume, Is ought, subjective, debate, discussion

Id: yrYLvaXCokg

Length: 104min 30sec (6270 seconds)

Published: Thu May 09 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/[deleted]]

Their understanding of Kant's categorical imperative is aggressively wrong. Kant believes that you can derive essentially rule ethics. Kant's works purport to show how to properly derive an ethical framework.

​

I also object semantically to the use of pleasure to describe the goal of utilitarianism. Pleasure does not capture the breadth of competing consequentialist philosophy

[u/Tsegen]

Two atheist Youtubers talking about ethics and metaethics. Sam Harris name dropped and RR makes a Harris-style argument early on

[u/Madokara]

Having watched one of their exchanges before, I think it's good that they read up on some things and are discussing the topic a bit closer to how it's usually discussed instead of making up own vocabulary and trying to come up with ad-hoc theories.

A couple of things, quotes roughly from memory.

is-ought and induction:

There isn't really an analogy between the is-ought gap in deductive arguments and induction the way they both characterized it, in two ways. First, by the very definition of what deduction and induction mean. Deduction is supposed to necessarily preserve truth, induction isn't. If an argument doesn't necessarily preserve truth it fails deductively but not inductively. Inductive strength is about making the conclusion unlikely to be false given that premises are true. Second, the is-ought gap is not a problem of deduction in the same sense as to how the problem of induction actually is a problem of induction. One can accept the is-ought gap and find plenty of deductive arguments which do preserve truth. The problem of induction is about induction as such, and all inductive arguments.

Claim: "If you ask people why why why questions about morality, you always break them down to well-being."

This is, as he says, something borrowed from Harris. A trivial answer to that would be that this is an assertion about what kind of answers people actually give but only a brief look at people writing about this topic shows that this is not only not the answer people give, many outright reject it. There are more than enough people who maintain that there are values which 'compete' with well-being and can't be reduced to it. For instance justice. There are many problems where one solution seems to maximize overall well-being while the other is juster. Maybe you want to claim that these people are confused and that's actually not what they mean. But I wish people (Sam too) would stop asserting that this actually *is* the only thing that people answer, when it clearly isn't.

Furthermore, the problem with the attempt to use well-being as an umbrella-term for every potential value ("well, that's included in well-being, that's also well-being, yeah I mean that with well-being as well") is that you're simply not saying anything distinct at some point. If you play that game forever, it ultimately just collapses into "everything that's good is good, and what isn't is bad, morality means to do good and not do bad".

"If you want X, do Y. That's from Kant, that's Kant's hypothetical imperative."

The name, or more precisely the German original, comes from Kant. But that's precisely the view Kant strongly rejects, of course.

Now, I'm at 30 minutes and it seems like they're already reiterating some things for the third time. Not sure if I want to continue.

[u/StationaryTransience]

Hey /u/FuturePreparation this is for you.

[u/[deleted]]

I don't think that "If you want X, you ought to do Y", with Y being the thing that is most efficient to maximize X, is a true statement. I think a more correct statement would be "If you want X, you are more likely to do whatever you believe is Y". And I don't think that this gives us any framework for morality - yes, people have desires and yes, people try to fulfill their desires. You can't get a prescriptive system out of it, and defining "ought" as a descriptive statement when it's clearly a prescriptive one is very dishonest. It doesn't give us a framework for what is good and what is bad. If, for instance, I desire happiness, how is it good if I have it? It does raise my happiness, but it's not good, there's just a fact that I have it. I desire a thing, my desire has been fulfilled. It's neither good nor bad. Neither does desiring happiness makes it good or bad. Or, for instance. If I desire happiness, how is it good if I act in a way that increases my happiness? It's not good, it's just an action that increases my happiness.

All of that utilitarian system where you have a goal, and then you say you ought to act in accordance with the goal and there are good and bad things in accordance with it, its bullshit. It's just one big equivocation - you use words like "goal", "ought and should", "good and bad", "virtue and vice", but you don't really mean them in the way they are conventionally used. As I understand their view without those words, it's just:
People desire things.
One of the major desires is well-being.
There are certain actions that are more and less likely to increase our well being.

It just doesn't mean anything. Yes, we desire well-being. Yes, we are more likely to act in accordance with what fulfills our desires. There are actions that are more and less likely to cause an increase in well-being. There's no ought there, there's nothing good and bad, just simple and obvious facts stated in a weird manner. It still doesn't justify any single action.

For instance, why not say "If you want X, you ought to do Y", where Y is the opposite of what you want? For instance, if you want to increase human well-being, you ought to eat babies. Does it logically follow? No. Neither does "saving babies". How is it logical to act in accordance with your desires rather than to the opposite of them, how is it rational and why ought we do it? Those questions are still unanswered.

[u/cogentcreativity]

This isn't a bad discussion, but I stopped listening about halfway through because it struck me as mid-level uni dorm room discussion (which is fine!). They do a really good job of describing that 1) the subjective aspect of morality is the goal (basically) but 2) the objective aspect is in the tactics.

My dorm room comment aside, this tidbit is a succinct point that I'd agreed with for the longest time, but hadn't found the words for (of course, CS alluded to this concept when they had their original exchange, so this was kind of diminishing returns for me).

Anyway, I disagree that ethics is all about well-being as a lot of backwards ethical systems advocate certain principles that don't fit in that paradigm. Perhaps if you want to be reductionist you could say they care about harm/well-being, but they really don't. For instance, Christians believe you should accept Christ as savior not because it will save you from hell, but because it is the right thing to do. And there are others.

I'm a big fan of virtue ethics fwiw