WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.200 --> 00:00:03.919 Hello, and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio 2 00:00:04.040 --> 00:00:06.719 version of my videos available to make listening to my 3 00:00:06.759 --> 00:00:10.000 stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But 4 00:00:10.160 --> 00:00:13.640 since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may 5 00:00:13.679 --> 00:00:16.920 be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this 6 00:00:16.960 --> 00:00:19.960 podcast ad free, you can join us on Patreon, Aptpatreon 7 00:00:20.000 --> 00:00:21.559 dot com, slash Vice Rhino. 8 00:00:22.120 --> 00:00:23.719 Please enjoy. 9 00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:28.280 Hello and welcome to my channel Vice Rhino. Here today, 10 00:00:28.440 --> 00:00:31.000 I'm looking at a video on the channel Christianity nine 11 00:00:31.000 --> 00:00:34.399 to five called the Moral standards Argument for the Existence 12 00:00:34.439 --> 00:00:37.280 of God. It's been a hot minute since I've tackled 13 00:00:37.320 --> 00:00:40.200 the video exclusively on the moral argument, so I thought 14 00:00:40.240 --> 00:00:42.479 i'd give this one a look. So let's see if 15 00:00:42.479 --> 00:00:44.920 they find an angle on it that's actually convincing. 16 00:00:51.320 --> 00:00:55.200 Now, consider this, many people who are skeptical about whether 17 00:00:55.679 --> 00:00:59.600 God exists still tend to have pretty strong convictions about 18 00:00:59.600 --> 00:01:00.679 how we should live. 19 00:01:00.920 --> 00:01:04.200 Yep, it's pretty normal to have strong opinions about things 20 00:01:04.280 --> 00:01:08.599 irrespective of culture, religion, upbringing, etc. Of course, not everyone 21 00:01:08.640 --> 00:01:12.480 agrees on those opinionated topics, which is actually the whole 22 00:01:12.519 --> 00:01:15.200 reason that conflict exists in the first place. It's a 23 00:01:15.239 --> 00:01:17.760 bunch of people trying to convince other people that their 24 00:01:17.840 --> 00:01:20.439 strong opinion is the correct opinion. 25 00:01:20.480 --> 00:01:23.359 About how the world should be about what's right and 26 00:01:23.400 --> 00:01:27.040 what's wrong. Now, what's the problem with that, Let's find out. 27 00:01:27.680 --> 00:01:31.400 So you ask for an example of something that is 28 00:01:31.519 --> 00:01:33.040 wrong in the world. 29 00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:35.400 I'm going to go ahead and say it. Mint is 30 00:01:35.560 --> 00:01:39.400 morally wrong and should not be in anything, and to 31 00:01:39.400 --> 00:01:41.799 make use of the appeal to nature fallacy. The fact 32 00:01:41.799 --> 00:01:44.280 that mint can be used as a repellent for everything 33 00:01:44.280 --> 00:01:48.920 from mice to mosquitoes proves that I am objectively correct here. 34 00:01:49.359 --> 00:01:54.159 And they say something like genocide or terrorism or child 35 00:01:54.200 --> 00:01:57.400 molestation or human trafficking or racism or whatever, they say, 36 00:01:58.079 --> 00:02:00.079 your response, yes, I agree. 37 00:02:00.280 --> 00:02:00.640 Yeah. 38 00:02:00.719 --> 00:02:03.599 There are a lot of big ticket moral items that 39 00:02:03.680 --> 00:02:07.120 most people have no problem agreeing with. Notably, the things 40 00:02:07.120 --> 00:02:09.439 that have the most agreement also happen to be the 41 00:02:09.479 --> 00:02:13.080 things that, evolutionarily speaking, would have had the strongest selection 42 00:02:13.159 --> 00:02:16.319 pressures working on them. Killing is bad. It's a really 43 00:02:16.319 --> 00:02:19.280 easy sentiment to get to. Evolutionarily speaking, If we all 44 00:02:19.280 --> 00:02:21.560 went around killing each other every time we got mad, 45 00:02:21.919 --> 00:02:24.479 that would place a pretty big negative selection pressure on 46 00:02:24.520 --> 00:02:27.599 our survival as a species, harming children who are the 47 00:02:27.599 --> 00:02:29.960 people who will be responsible for continuing to propagate the 48 00:02:30.000 --> 00:02:32.560 species after we're done with our turn would also be 49 00:02:32.639 --> 00:02:35.199 a pretty big negative selection pressure on our survival as 50 00:02:35.199 --> 00:02:38.479 a species. So like, stuff like that's easy, and why 51 00:02:38.599 --> 00:02:43.639 is that wrong? Because empathy exists. My question is why 52 00:02:43.680 --> 00:02:46.240 apologists can't seem to wrap their heads around right and 53 00:02:46.280 --> 00:02:49.479 wrong being based in well being? Like, is it really 54 00:02:49.520 --> 00:02:52.319 that difficult to conceptualize the idea that I don't like 55 00:02:52.400 --> 00:02:55.639 being harmed and that this preference can largely be generalized. 56 00:02:56.240 --> 00:02:58.560 Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? 57 00:02:58.800 --> 00:03:01.879 Was a thing long for Jesus ever said it. Possibly 58 00:03:01.919 --> 00:03:03.879 the oldest sideration of the golden rule comes from the 59 00:03:03.960 --> 00:03:07.199 ancient Egyptian tale of the Eloquent Peasant, a story that 60 00:03:07.280 --> 00:03:10.080 was likely written about one thousand years earlier than the 61 00:03:10.120 --> 00:03:13.080 oldest estimated date for the oldest book of the Bible. 62 00:03:13.639 --> 00:03:15.520 And yet you're telling me that I need to get 63 00:03:15.520 --> 00:03:17.560 my moral code from your God. 64 00:03:18.719 --> 00:03:19.879 Wow, Now don't miss this. 65 00:03:20.319 --> 00:03:23.759 Unless they point to some sort of supreme lawgiver who 66 00:03:23.759 --> 00:03:28.000 determines moral behavior for all people at all times, well, 67 00:03:28.199 --> 00:03:31.120 then their answer to why is that wrong? Has to 68 00:03:31.159 --> 00:03:33.759 be subjective In other words, it has to be based 69 00:03:33.800 --> 00:03:37.039 on merely personal opinion or societal norms. 70 00:03:37.199 --> 00:03:41.319 And why exactly is that automatically a bad thing in 71 00:03:41.360 --> 00:03:44.199 your eyes? Is it somehow better if you can say 72 00:03:44.240 --> 00:03:47.000 it's wrong because this super powerful being said so, and 73 00:03:47.039 --> 00:03:49.599 he'll torture you for all eternity if you disagree. 74 00:03:49.159 --> 00:03:49.840 With him about it. 75 00:03:50.000 --> 00:03:53.080 I would rather base my morality in empathy, even if 76 00:03:53.080 --> 00:03:55.960 that is subjective. Then in a system of might makes right, 77 00:03:56.159 --> 00:03:59.439 and ultimately God's morality is subjective as well. It just 78 00:03:59.439 --> 00:04:03.199 shifts the subject from being human beings to God. Why 79 00:04:03.319 --> 00:04:05.800 is a thing right or wrong because it's God's opinion 80 00:04:05.840 --> 00:04:08.400 that it is right or wrong? Why is that better 81 00:04:08.479 --> 00:04:10.680 than it being based in the opinions of the people 82 00:04:10.719 --> 00:04:14.400 who are actually directly impacted by moral questions? 83 00:04:14.759 --> 00:04:19.199 So why is genocide wrong? Well, everybody knows that it's wrong. Actually, 84 00:04:19.199 --> 00:04:22.079 that's a subjective opinion. Everybody doesn't know that it's wrong, 85 00:04:22.120 --> 00:04:25.360 Otherwise it wouldn't exist, wouldn't happen. 86 00:04:25.560 --> 00:04:28.480 And that is how you know that a universal moral 87 00:04:28.519 --> 00:04:32.079 code is not written on our hearts. You're undercutting your 88 00:04:32.120 --> 00:04:35.040 own argument here. The whole point of the argument is 89 00:04:35.079 --> 00:04:38.439 that everybody does know that it's wrong, and the reason 90 00:04:38.480 --> 00:04:40.839 everybody knows it's wrong is because it's part of the 91 00:04:40.839 --> 00:04:44.879 moral law that God implants in our brains somehow. So 92 00:04:45.120 --> 00:04:48.120 the fact that everybody does not, in fact know that 93 00:04:48.279 --> 00:04:51.600 even these big ticket items are wrong is itself evidence 94 00:04:51.639 --> 00:04:55.000 that the moral argument does not work. Of course, apologists 95 00:04:55.000 --> 00:04:57.319 will try to rescue this by blaming it on the fall. 96 00:04:57.680 --> 00:05:01.279 We're fallen humans with free will that somehow means that 97 00:05:01.319 --> 00:05:04.439 it can be simultaneously true that most people agreeing on 98 00:05:04.480 --> 00:05:07.160 morality means that a God exists because God gives us 99 00:05:07.199 --> 00:05:10.839 all his moral code, and that not everyone agrees on 100 00:05:10.879 --> 00:05:13.079 this moral code despite God giving it to all of us, 101 00:05:13.519 --> 00:05:16.439 because you know, the fall or whatever. It's a have 102 00:05:16.480 --> 00:05:19.040 your cake and eat it too argument. Heads I win, tails, 103 00:05:19.079 --> 00:05:19.480 you lose. 104 00:05:20.120 --> 00:05:21.519 So why is genocide wrong? 105 00:05:21.959 --> 00:05:25.680 Honestly, that's actually a really good question that I don't 106 00:05:25.720 --> 00:05:28.879 think you can answer properly, given your God's pension for 107 00:05:28.920 --> 00:05:32.519 both commanding his followers to commit genocide and directly committing 108 00:05:32.519 --> 00:05:35.839 genocide himself. So just keep that in mind. When he 109 00:05:35.879 --> 00:05:39.680 starts complaining that human standards are arbitrary and subject to change. 110 00:05:40.240 --> 00:05:44.360 His standard allows for genocide and slavery, to be morally permissible. 111 00:05:44.959 --> 00:05:46.399 Well, it's illegal. 112 00:05:46.879 --> 00:05:49.480 Actually, the law is subjective too, in the sense that 113 00:05:49.480 --> 00:05:52.040 it's based on societal norms at the time. It's been 114 00:05:52.079 --> 00:05:55.000 different in other times in different places, might be different 115 00:05:55.000 --> 00:05:55.639 in the future. 116 00:05:56.000 --> 00:05:58.759 Yep. Almost like we don't get our law from a 117 00:05:58.759 --> 00:06:01.480 perfect lawgiver, but have to figure out what works best 118 00:06:01.560 --> 00:06:02.639 on our own over time. 119 00:06:03.639 --> 00:06:05.639 So why is genocide wrong. 120 00:06:05.800 --> 00:06:09.680 Because it does massive amounts of harm and provides little 121 00:06:09.720 --> 00:06:11.839 to realistically no benefit. 122 00:06:12.560 --> 00:06:16.399 Well, because it harms people, and obviously harming people is wrong. 123 00:06:17.040 --> 00:06:20.160 Yeah, is that really such a bad metric to use? 124 00:06:21.199 --> 00:06:23.279 We see, even that is subjective. 125 00:06:23.279 --> 00:06:25.480 What if there's somebody else out there who doesn't think 126 00:06:25.560 --> 00:06:27.399 that harming people is wrong? 127 00:06:27.839 --> 00:06:33.480 Then, as it turns out, we live in a society. 128 00:06:33.519 --> 00:06:36.759 Most of us do agree that harming other people is wrong, 129 00:06:37.079 --> 00:06:39.519 so the people that disagree, in order to live in 130 00:06:39.560 --> 00:06:43.839 society have to adhere to society's rules. Plenty of people 131 00:06:43.839 --> 00:06:47.519 who exist who have things like antisocial personality disorder where 132 00:06:47.519 --> 00:06:50.399 they don't experience the same level of empathy as most people, 133 00:06:50.639 --> 00:06:53.839 but still manage to live relatively ordinary lives through an 134 00:06:53.839 --> 00:06:56.319 application of things like pragmatism. 135 00:06:56.680 --> 00:07:01.360 So is there any objective, unchanging immovable basis for us 136 00:07:01.360 --> 00:07:02.959 saying that genocide is wrong. 137 00:07:03.120 --> 00:07:09.240 Yes, genocide always does significantly more harm than good and 138 00:07:09.319 --> 00:07:11.639 so is always wrong. 139 00:07:11.959 --> 00:07:14.360 Or that anything is wrong for that matter. 140 00:07:14.399 --> 00:07:18.959 The harm versus benefit metric. Sure, it's not strictly speaking objective, 141 00:07:19.319 --> 00:07:21.839 but I don't understand why apologists think a moral system 142 00:07:21.920 --> 00:07:26.040 must necessarily be truly objective in order to be valid. 143 00:07:26.439 --> 00:07:29.600 They just assume that everyone will axiomatically agree with that 144 00:07:29.680 --> 00:07:32.560 point and then move on without justifying it, usually as 145 00:07:32.600 --> 00:07:35.439 part of an argument that acknowledges that morality is subjective, 146 00:07:35.720 --> 00:07:38.920 as he already did by pointing out that different people 147 00:07:39.079 --> 00:07:40.720 have different moral codes. 148 00:07:41.920 --> 00:07:45.959 Not without an ultimate authority, not without a supreme law giver. 149 00:07:46.279 --> 00:07:49.040 In other words, not without God. 150 00:07:49.240 --> 00:07:51.000 Not without might makes right. 151 00:07:51.560 --> 00:07:54.720 Like I said, this is called the moral standards argument 152 00:07:54.759 --> 00:07:57.360 for the existence of God, or the argument from morality. 153 00:07:57.920 --> 00:07:58.800 It's been around for. 154 00:07:58.759 --> 00:08:01.800 A very long time. Emmanuel Kahn, maybe a name you've 155 00:08:01.879 --> 00:08:04.720 heard of, maybe the most famous celebrated philosopher in the 156 00:08:04.800 --> 00:08:08.079 last thousand years, made this argument so eloquently, so powerfully. 157 00:08:08.560 --> 00:08:09.040 And C. S. 158 00:08:09.120 --> 00:08:13.040 Lewis popularized this argument in his book Mere Christianity. Here's 159 00:08:13.079 --> 00:08:15.879 an excerpt from the book on this question of morality. 160 00:08:15.959 --> 00:08:16.720 Oh fuck me. 161 00:08:16.839 --> 00:08:19.519 I thought he was actually going to just present the argument, 162 00:08:19.639 --> 00:08:22.319 but apparently he rambles so much that the people who 163 00:08:22.360 --> 00:08:24.319 put his own video together felt the need to cut 164 00:08:24.319 --> 00:08:27.000 out an unknown amount of what he said. That awkward 165 00:08:27.040 --> 00:08:28.639 cut wasn't me and there's more coming. 166 00:08:29.120 --> 00:08:32.720 Lewis says, this says the moment you say that one 167 00:08:32.759 --> 00:08:35.799 set of moral ideals can be better than another. In 168 00:08:35.840 --> 00:08:38.960 other words, no genocide is better than genocide. The moment 169 00:08:39.000 --> 00:08:40.840 you say that one set of moral ideals can be 170 00:08:40.840 --> 00:08:43.159 better than another, you are in fact measuring them both 171 00:08:43.240 --> 00:08:45.960 by some standard, saying that one of them conforms to 172 00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:48.080 that standard more nearly than. 173 00:08:48.039 --> 00:08:51.279 The other, not necessarily. If you lay two sticks side 174 00:08:51.279 --> 00:08:53.480 by side and say that one is longer than the other, 175 00:08:53.759 --> 00:08:57.600 you aren't comparing those sticks to some objective standard of length. 176 00:08:57.759 --> 00:09:00.039 But what's really interesting here to me is that this 177 00:09:00.240 --> 00:09:03.360 quote comes one page after Lewis said, though there are 178 00:09:03.399 --> 00:09:06.080 differences between the moral ideas of one time or country 179 00:09:06.120 --> 00:09:09.120 and those of another, the differences are not really very great, 180 00:09:09.320 --> 00:09:11.720 which on its face seems like it's just a minor 181 00:09:11.759 --> 00:09:15.279 oversimplification that minimizes the cultural differences in morality to a 182 00:09:15.320 --> 00:09:18.519 greater extent than is warranted. But when you realize that 183 00:09:18.759 --> 00:09:21.840 he literally wrote that during the height of World War 184 00:09:21.919 --> 00:09:24.159 two and was aware of what the Nazis were doing 185 00:09:24.240 --> 00:09:27.399 and frequently used them as an example of immorality, it 186 00:09:27.639 --> 00:09:33.279 blows the top off the yixometer or yikesometer. I feel 187 00:09:33.279 --> 00:09:35.320 like it should be yixometer, but then I feel like 188 00:09:35.360 --> 00:09:38.159 it should also be yixometer. I'm not sure comment down below, 189 00:09:38.240 --> 00:09:42.000 let me know yikesometer or yixometer. But putting the strange way, 190 00:09:42.080 --> 00:09:45.679 he can say that cultures don't really have big moral differences. Well, 191 00:09:45.799 --> 00:09:48.519 still using the Nazis as an example of a bad culture, 192 00:09:49.120 --> 00:09:52.120 let's borrow an analogy that Lewis used earlier in that chapter. 193 00:09:52.519 --> 00:09:54.639 The moral law tells us the tune we have to 194 00:09:54.639 --> 00:09:57.519 play on the piano. Our instincts merely take the keys. 195 00:09:58.000 --> 00:10:01.080 But when watching a pianist perform, how do we determine 196 00:10:01.120 --> 00:10:03.679 whether they did a good job or not well by 197 00:10:03.759 --> 00:10:06.399 comparing what they played to the notes on the sheet music. 198 00:10:06.799 --> 00:10:10.639 The sheet music itself is arbitrarily chosen, but how closely 199 00:10:10.639 --> 00:10:14.000 the pianist adheres to the music can be objectively determined. 200 00:10:14.360 --> 00:10:16.960 Same with morality. If we agree that a net increase 201 00:10:16.960 --> 00:10:19.200 in well being is a good goal to aim for, 202 00:10:19.519 --> 00:10:22.799 then when taking an action, we can objectively determine if 203 00:10:22.799 --> 00:10:25.960 that action increased or decrease the well being. So a 204 00:10:26.080 --> 00:10:28.759 goal may be subjectively chosen, much as a song that 205 00:10:28.799 --> 00:10:32.000 a pianist plays, but you can still objectively measure morality 206 00:10:32.039 --> 00:10:32.639 based on it. 207 00:10:33.159 --> 00:10:35.200 And his point is that we can't claim that something 208 00:10:35.279 --> 00:10:38.679 is moral or immoral, right or wrong for all people 209 00:10:39.000 --> 00:10:43.279 at all times, across all cultures unless we recognize that 210 00:10:43.320 --> 00:10:47.120 there's a higher authority than what people think. And frankly, 211 00:10:47.799 --> 00:10:51.440 true atheists fully recognize the validity of this argument. 212 00:10:51.799 --> 00:10:55.200 Keep in mind here he's using valid in the philosophical sense, 213 00:10:55.279 --> 00:10:58.320 which does not mean that the argument actually works. It 214 00:10:58.440 --> 00:11:01.039 just means that it would work if all the premises 215 00:11:01.039 --> 00:11:03.600 were true. And given that he hasn't actually laid out 216 00:11:03.600 --> 00:11:06.480 a philosophical argument, it looks like he's gotten confused in 217 00:11:06.559 --> 00:11:10.000 this point himself. So let's look at an actual formulation 218 00:11:10.159 --> 00:11:12.960 of the moral argument, shall we. I'll take the version 219 00:11:12.960 --> 00:11:16.000 that William Lane Craig favors, as he's generally very highly 220 00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:18.759 regarded among Christians, despite his admission that he lowers the 221 00:11:18.799 --> 00:11:21.559 epistemic bar that Christianity must meet to be believed, simply 222 00:11:21.600 --> 00:11:23.080 because he wanted it to be true. 223 00:11:23.360 --> 00:11:26.879 If there is just one chance in a million that 224 00:11:26.960 --> 00:11:32.639 this is true, it's worth believing. And so my attitude 225 00:11:32.720 --> 00:11:37.279 toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. Far from 226 00:11:37.480 --> 00:11:43.000 raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must 227 00:11:43.039 --> 00:11:46.240 meet to be believed, I lower. 228 00:11:45.960 --> 00:11:49.440 It Premise I if God does not exist, objective moral 229 00:11:49.480 --> 00:11:52.960 values and duties do not exist. Premise too, objective moral 230 00:11:53.039 --> 00:11:57.360 values and duties do exist, Therefore God exists. To say 231 00:11:57.360 --> 00:11:59.600 that this is a valid argument is not to say 232 00:11:59.639 --> 00:12:02.279 that it is true. It is simply to say that 233 00:12:02.320 --> 00:12:05.879 the conclusion actually does follow from those premisses. So the 234 00:12:05.919 --> 00:12:07.840 only way to show this argument to be false is 235 00:12:07.879 --> 00:12:10.240 to show one or more of the premisses. 236 00:12:09.720 --> 00:12:10.240 To be false. 237 00:12:10.440 --> 00:12:13.000 Now, personally, I am not one of the atheists who 238 00:12:13.000 --> 00:12:15.519 thinks that this is a valid argument. Both the premises 239 00:12:15.519 --> 00:12:18.320 are flawed. I don't think that objective moral values and 240 00:12:18.399 --> 00:12:21.159 duties do exist, and even if they did, I don't 241 00:12:21.200 --> 00:12:23.840 see how they would necessarily be contingent on the existence 242 00:12:23.879 --> 00:12:26.879 of a God. In fact, quite the contrary, if they 243 00:12:26.919 --> 00:12:29.919 require the existence of a subject in order to exist, 244 00:12:30.159 --> 00:12:34.279 then they are necessarily subjective. Apologists just don't seem to 245 00:12:34.279 --> 00:12:36.879 be able to grasp the concept of God being a subject. 246 00:12:37.159 --> 00:12:39.480 I feel like this argument is almost the opposite of 247 00:12:39.519 --> 00:12:41.919 what it should actually be. If objective moral values and 248 00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:45.720 duties do exist, they exist independent of the existence of 249 00:12:45.759 --> 00:12:50.240 any beings of any kind, including gods. Therefore, the existence 250 00:12:50.320 --> 00:12:53.240 or non existence of God is actually irrelevant to the 251 00:12:53.240 --> 00:12:56.039 existence or non existence of objective moral values and duties. 252 00:12:56.440 --> 00:12:59.600 Be consistent, they have to contend that there's no real 253 00:12:59.679 --> 00:13:01.320 right and wrong in the world. 254 00:13:01.399 --> 00:13:04.240 And in order to be consistent, you have to ignore 255 00:13:04.320 --> 00:13:07.039 cultural differences in order to make it look like objective 256 00:13:07.039 --> 00:13:11.039 moral values and duties exist and somehow transcend cultures, despite 257 00:13:11.080 --> 00:13:12.679 the fact that is not the case. 258 00:13:13.639 --> 00:13:17.320 Richard Dawkins, maybe the most famous atheist on the planet today, 259 00:13:17.440 --> 00:13:20.399 said this quite directly. He said, the universe we observe 260 00:13:20.639 --> 00:13:25.399 has no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. 261 00:13:26.039 --> 00:13:29.600 Okay, that doesn't say anything about the validity of the argument. 262 00:13:29.960 --> 00:13:32.639 That is simply an observation. The universe doesn't care about 263 00:13:32.720 --> 00:13:35.480 us or things like baby cancer wouldn't exist. 264 00:13:35.919 --> 00:13:39.679 Wow, nothing but blind pitiless indifference is actually an echo 265 00:13:39.679 --> 00:13:42.080 of Frederick Nietzsche from one hundred and fifty years ago 266 00:13:42.279 --> 00:13:43.360 of God Is Dead. 267 00:13:43.159 --> 00:13:46.720 Fame, a quote that unfortunately spawned a series of Christian 268 00:13:46.759 --> 00:13:49.720 propaganda films that depict a distorted view of reality in 269 00:13:49.799 --> 00:13:52.799 order to exert political influence, the fifth installment of which 270 00:13:52.919 --> 00:13:56.840 is in theaters now. Seriously, they have a profitable movie 271 00:13:56.879 --> 00:14:00.440 making business that regularly capitalizes on the perception that Christians 272 00:14:00.480 --> 00:14:03.600 are being oppressed and persecuted. If the picture they paint 273 00:14:03.639 --> 00:14:05.720 of the United States and those movies were even a 274 00:14:05.759 --> 00:14:08.919 little bit true, they wouldn't be allowed to make those movies. 275 00:14:09.639 --> 00:14:13.120 And Nietzsche insisted that if there is no God, in 276 00:14:13.159 --> 00:14:16.440 other words, if God is dead, then the idea of 277 00:14:16.480 --> 00:14:19.480 morality is completely baseless. 278 00:14:19.840 --> 00:14:21.879 Okay, you're giving me less to go on to find 279 00:14:21.919 --> 00:14:25.600 context here than Mike Winger did when he misconstrued Nietzsche's work. 280 00:14:25.919 --> 00:14:28.519 But whether or not he said that and actually meant 281 00:14:28.519 --> 00:14:31.360 what you are saying, he meant, I disagree with it. 282 00:14:31.759 --> 00:14:34.519 We can base our morality in broadly accepted goals. 283 00:14:34.720 --> 00:14:36.240 You might not like. 284 00:14:36.240 --> 00:14:38.440 That as a base because you have this weird hang 285 00:14:38.519 --> 00:14:41.360 up about ultimate objectivity. But for those of us who 286 00:14:41.399 --> 00:14:44.279 are willing to be more pragmatic, it's fine, but also 287 00:14:44.480 --> 00:14:46.840 to take it back to Nietzsche, because I apparently can't 288 00:14:46.879 --> 00:14:50.000 let things slide as it happens. His views on moral 289 00:14:50.039 --> 00:14:53.840 philosophy are extremely difficult to parse, to the point where 290 00:14:54.000 --> 00:14:57.440 it's actually a current area of philosophical debate, with philosophers 291 00:14:57.440 --> 00:14:59.919 trying to piece together what he thought about morality by say, 292 00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:02.360 lifting through all of his work, figuring out where he 293 00:15:02.440 --> 00:15:04.960 was being serious, where he was using hyperbole, and where 294 00:15:04.960 --> 00:15:07.120 he was being tongue in cheek. So while I'm not 295 00:15:07.200 --> 00:15:10.600 comfortable saying exactly what Nietzsche thought about morality with any 296 00:15:10.600 --> 00:15:13.919 sort of confidence, I can confidently say that his position 297 00:15:14.039 --> 00:15:17.120 is almost certainly not as simple as God is dead. 298 00:15:17.360 --> 00:15:19.840 Their form morality has no basis. 299 00:15:19.639 --> 00:15:20.799 Merely subjective. 300 00:15:20.960 --> 00:15:23.440 No reason to be kind to anyone or even civil, 301 00:15:24.039 --> 00:15:26.480 no reason to care about others, no reason to work 302 00:15:26.519 --> 00:15:29.360 for just there's no basis for any human rights. 303 00:15:29.720 --> 00:15:34.480 Why are the consequences of your actions considered? No reason 304 00:15:34.720 --> 00:15:38.039 in your mind is if I am civil and kind 305 00:15:38.039 --> 00:15:40.080 to people, they will also be civil and kind to me. 306 00:15:40.440 --> 00:15:43.159 Not a reason to be civil and kind. Sure, you 307 00:15:43.240 --> 00:15:46.200 might complain that that's a selfish reason, But that doesn't 308 00:15:46.240 --> 00:15:49.039 make it not a reason. And what about empathy? Is 309 00:15:49.080 --> 00:15:52.720 empathy no reason? Because there's more than just recifrocation. There's 310 00:15:52.759 --> 00:15:55.399 also I know or can imagine what it's like to 311 00:15:55.399 --> 00:15:58.000 be in that situation, so I will do something to 312 00:15:58.120 --> 00:16:01.200 help because not helping makes me feel bad for them. 313 00:16:01.360 --> 00:16:04.200 That's a reason, is it not. It's not even a 314 00:16:04.200 --> 00:16:06.279 selfish one, So you can't just dismiss it as being 315 00:16:06.320 --> 00:16:07.840 a reason you don't like, as you might do with 316 00:16:07.879 --> 00:16:11.200 the expectation of reciprocation. Why is the basis of increasing 317 00:16:11.279 --> 00:16:14.519 human well being no basis in your mind? Why is 318 00:16:14.559 --> 00:16:18.639 it objective or nothing? And really, given that human morality impacts, 319 00:16:18.720 --> 00:16:21.919 you know, humanity, why do we get no say in 320 00:16:21.960 --> 00:16:25.399 the creation of a basis for human morality? Seriously, you 321 00:16:25.519 --> 00:16:28.039 keep arguing that a god has to exist in order 322 00:16:28.039 --> 00:16:30.559 for objective morality to exist, which I disagree with. That 323 00:16:30.600 --> 00:16:32.840 would still be a form of subjective morality. But if 324 00:16:32.840 --> 00:16:35.559 I grant that that counts as objective for some reason, 325 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:38.679 why should I care whether the basis for morality is 326 00:16:38.720 --> 00:16:42.679 objective or subjective? Y'all just assume that objective is superior. 327 00:16:43.000 --> 00:16:47.240 But your objective moral code has provisions for slavery and genocide, 328 00:16:47.480 --> 00:16:51.240 which modern morality that has subjectively changed over time as 329 00:16:51.240 --> 00:16:53.440 we as a species went through a process of learning 330 00:16:53.480 --> 00:16:57.080 and growth, says that they're always wrong. Now, why should 331 00:16:57.080 --> 00:17:00.480 we go back to the regressive slavery, endorsing genocide, permitting 332 00:17:00.519 --> 00:17:04.920 anti LGBTQ moral code of the ancient Hebrews When modern morality, 333 00:17:04.960 --> 00:17:08.400 as subjective as it may be, is objectively better for 334 00:17:08.559 --> 00:17:12.599 human outcomes. Hell, the very fact that morality is subjective 335 00:17:12.880 --> 00:17:16.720 actually makes it better than your objective, biblical base morality. 336 00:17:16.799 --> 00:17:19.480 Because if there's something that we think is morally permissible, 337 00:17:19.480 --> 00:17:21.799 but through a process of learning we figure out that 338 00:17:21.839 --> 00:17:24.400 it actually has a negative impact on the overall well 339 00:17:24.440 --> 00:17:26.920 being of us as a species, we can update our 340 00:17:26.920 --> 00:17:30.799 morality to include that information. By not being set in stone, 341 00:17:30.920 --> 00:17:32.839 we are free to change it when we figure out 342 00:17:32.880 --> 00:17:35.559 that it needs to be changed. So why would I 343 00:17:35.599 --> 00:17:39.920 want a strict, unyielding morality that has objectively worse outcomes 344 00:17:40.200 --> 00:17:43.480 even if the source of that morality were actually objective, 345 00:17:43.799 --> 00:17:47.079 Especially since the very apologists who argue for God because 346 00:17:47.119 --> 00:17:50.000 they see no other way to ground morality can be 347 00:17:50.039 --> 00:17:53.079 found pivoting to the very same consequentialist moral system that 348 00:17:53.119 --> 00:17:57.119 I'm suggesting here. When difficult subjects like genocide show up. 349 00:17:57.200 --> 00:18:01.359 We need to understand this was not an arbitrary ethnic cleansing, 350 00:18:01.720 --> 00:18:05.480 but in fact, this is a specific judgment on a 351 00:18:05.559 --> 00:18:07.359 morally degraded people. 352 00:18:07.559 --> 00:18:10.599 God's command for Israel to drive out the Canaanites was 353 00:18:10.680 --> 00:18:14.759 not race based, but behavior based, as the Canaanites engaged 354 00:18:14.759 --> 00:18:18.759 in acts that would be considered criminal in civilized societies. 355 00:18:19.039 --> 00:18:21.200 Is first it starts off with incest, and then it 356 00:18:21.200 --> 00:18:24.039 goes into adultery, then it goes into offering your children 357 00:18:24.119 --> 00:18:29.359 to molek, homosexual sins, and then bestiality. And we know 358 00:18:29.720 --> 00:18:33.359 from Canaanite primary source documents another that all of these 359 00:18:33.400 --> 00:18:35.519 things were being practiced by the Canaanites. 360 00:18:35.960 --> 00:18:37.839 He gives reasons, right, he doesn't just wake up like 361 00:18:37.880 --> 00:18:40.880 a mob boss and go Canaanites, I want him dead, right, 362 00:18:41.440 --> 00:18:45.799 He's got reasons for it. And probably the biggest reason, 363 00:18:46.119 --> 00:18:49.799 after four hundred years of warning, is that the Canaanites 364 00:18:49.839 --> 00:18:55.240 were sacrificing their children on the molten hot God molek. 365 00:18:55.319 --> 00:18:59.240 This idol, the culture that is described there, this was 366 00:18:59.279 --> 00:19:01.839 one that practic It's not only all sorts of human 367 00:19:01.960 --> 00:19:08.240 sexual aberrations, but also temple prostitution. In the worship of God, 368 00:19:08.759 --> 00:19:13.440 they practice best reality. There are texts describing how a 369 00:19:13.519 --> 00:19:16.720 buck would be strapped down to a wooden frame, and 370 00:19:16.759 --> 00:19:20.799 then women would mount the buck and copulate with it. 371 00:19:21.079 --> 00:19:25.720 They were engaged in offering child sacrifice to their gods, 372 00:19:26.480 --> 00:19:32.160 and so reading these ancient documents that are from pre 373 00:19:32.359 --> 00:19:38.400 Israelite canaan really bear out the truth of the Biblical 374 00:19:38.440 --> 00:19:39.720 description of them. 375 00:19:39.799 --> 00:19:42.240 Not a single one of those people said that the 376 00:19:42.279 --> 00:19:45.519 Canaanite genocide was okay because the order to wipe them 377 00:19:45.519 --> 00:19:48.480 out came from God, who is the source of all morality. 378 00:19:48.960 --> 00:19:52.119 They all appealed to the behavior of the Canaanites as 379 00:19:52.160 --> 00:19:56.160 the reason their destruction was justified. So, since apologists can't 380 00:19:56.200 --> 00:19:59.440 even be consistent when it comes to their supposedly objective 381 00:19:59.480 --> 00:20:02.200 source of ma reality, why is it a bad thing 382 00:20:02.319 --> 00:20:04.599 that I am advocating for a type of morality that 383 00:20:04.599 --> 00:20:07.359 these apologists all appeal to when they're put in a 384 00:20:07.359 --> 00:20:10.160 tight spot by the scriptures that they claim are morally perfect. 385 00:20:11.240 --> 00:20:12.279 Horrifying, isn't it? 386 00:20:12.680 --> 00:20:15.440 Why is it horrifying that I won't accept a moral 387 00:20:15.480 --> 00:20:18.680 code that allows for slavery and genocide. In what world 388 00:20:18.880 --> 00:20:19.880 is that horrifying? 389 00:20:20.839 --> 00:20:22.799 I heard this news story the other day of parents 390 00:20:22.799 --> 00:20:25.599 who are on trial for starving their two young boys. 391 00:20:25.880 --> 00:20:28.240 And I heard this news story the other day that 392 00:20:28.279 --> 00:20:31.519 people are eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio. But 393 00:20:31.559 --> 00:20:33.400 when you actually look at the source of the story, 394 00:20:33.519 --> 00:20:36.559 it wound up literally being an acquaintance of a friend 395 00:20:36.599 --> 00:20:39.519 of a friend of the original poster's daughter. Now why 396 00:20:39.559 --> 00:20:42.039 do I bring this up? Mainly I just wanted an 397 00:20:42.079 --> 00:20:42.920 excuse to play. 398 00:20:42.759 --> 00:20:43.759 This were. 399 00:20:50.759 --> 00:20:56.160 They're eating the cats, they're eating they're eating the pets 400 00:20:55.960 --> 00:20:59.759 in Springfield. Also, I'm skipping the rest of the story. 401 00:21:00.079 --> 00:21:03.839