YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Frank Quasar wrote: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:04 pm Do you have any thoughts on ethical intuitionism?
I'm not a fan of intuitionism, I see it as comparable to spiritual gnosis in religion.

There are some brief arguments (dumpster fires) over the subject here between myself and Margaret Hayek, you should be able to find them with some Google searches with our user names and the relevant key terms if you want to suffer them.

I'll check out the other post.
Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:10 am Just a note: This struck me to be weird, because he gets rather butt-hurt when people reject his definition of "murder" to be far-reaching in contrast to the standard definition of murder that is commonly used. He's doing something similar here and refusing to acknowledge the other existing definitions that people use.
Right, he's a very assertive Humpty Dumptyist.
He does the same thing on things like Feminism, etc.
Generic Realism:
a, b, and c and so on exist, and the fact that they exist and have properties such as F-ness, G-ness, and H-ness is (apart from mundane empirical dependencies of the sort sometimes encountered in everyday life) independent of anyone's beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and so on.
What are mundane empirical dependencies?
What are properties if not conceptual?

Is mathematics a conceptual scheme? Does "2" exist independent of those things or not?
But isn't having two eyes a property?

How can something HAVE those properties independent of conceptual schemes when those properties are dependent on conceptual schemes?
Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:10 amThe "conceptual schemes" caveat is important because he's referring to it as something beyond one's conceptual scheme, and he believes it to be inherently flawed because in order to justify it you would have to do so from within your conceptual scheme. It's circular.
His notion of "trait" itself violates such a rigid and extreme definition.
Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:10 amOr is it a shallow claim, one that comports with respect to your axioms? He said it does depend on these, he is definitely not on board with robust moral realism because it adheres to the hard deep claim, but with minimal realism it depends on whether or not it is deep/shallow. With shallow I think he could be on board, who knows.
If he thinks following from the laws of thought is a shallow claim, then sure, it's "shallow". :roll:
Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:10 am25:12 -- AVI thinks there's like an overlap between a minimal moral realist and a non-cognitivist because when minimal moral realists reject non-cogntivism in respect to moral statement (true/false) it's a rejection on the basis of a "deep" claim. The kind of deep claim that is beyond axioms, or something, but then the minimal moral realist will say that it is true with respect to our axioms. AVI is trying to point out that a minimal non-cognitivist can do the same thing when they proclaim that moral statements do not report true/falsity beyond our axioms, but within our axioms they do. Essentially, if a robust/minimal realists can make this split, why can't the non-cognitivists? That's what he is trying to get at.
He's confusing non-cognitivism and error theory.

Error theory refers to whether there's a fact in the matter of morality or not, non-cognitivism is a semantic claim that says people aren't attempting to express fact statements.
Error theory admits people are trying to express facts, but are in error because there are no such facts. They're error theorists, not non-cognitivists.

You can pile on some extra bullshit to talk about "shallow facts" and "deep facts", and say you're a non-cognitivist to "deep facts" (you don't think people are trying to express those) but a cognitivist and realist to "shallow facts".

People would only be in error if they're trying to express a level of fact that doesn't exist.
Frank Quasar wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:10 amEssentially, they think if you press a moral realist hard enough on their meaning of truth they will then split into two different boot camps. The kind that mean truth with respect to axioms, as discussed, and the other types that engage in "magical" thinking, as AY puts it.
There are many kinds of moral realists. What's his point?
If he's trying to find a way to save face here that's fine, but he needs to realize that most realist philosophers aren't engaging in any kind of magical thinking here. That would be the small subset of presuppositionalist type theists.
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Frank Quasar »

Update on AY's Realism Video::

Alright, so I just finished watching the remaining 1 hour and 20 minutes of AY's video where he's "debunking" realism. I still think the first 30-40 mins is perhaps the most useful and interesting bit compared to the remaining time.

1:39:50 -- Around here AVI made an interesting point where he thinks you ought to answer correctly to a math question (i.e. 2+2 = 4) if you have a goal. The goal could be something like, if you want to seek truth, and logically it would follow from this that you ought to answer the correct answer. I could see this same logic being applied to minimal moral realism after the correct moral action is determined, especially if the person's goal is to be a moral person that seeks truth.

JHC calls this a hypothetical norm, but he believes moral realists are making categorical norms which he disagrees with. And of course, AY had to slip in some "mind-independent" ought that exists somewhere out there in the universe, lol.

JHC is a bit torn between non-cognitivism and Humean subjectivism, from the looks of it, and he also mentioned something called the "direction of fit" from some particular philosopher.

The rest of the stream is interesting, so if you'd like to watch it to better understand their general position before debating them it'd be worthwhile.

They're still torn on a lot of these "objective shoulds" or "mind-independent" thing that exists out there nonsense. I feel like they're also taking propositions in of themselves to be "objective" as if they exist out there, but from my understanding this isn't the case because it's objective in regards to the correct moral theory it comports with, which is also established from an objective standard (logical consistency and non-arbitrariness) that makes the theory "correct/objective".

I urge anyone else here to watch their video if they feel like a better charitable presentation of their view can be achieved. There could be a lot of different equivocations/false comparisons/misunderstandings of moral realism (secular) in there that I might've missed/not been able to understand with my current knowledge, but if you guys can spot them then feel free to post.

And finally, they take a strong position (in the shallow sense, meaning, even if we talk about moral realism in reference to axioms) that moral facts are mind-independent. Perhaps their understanding/usage of "mind-independent" is different than ours, who knows, they always seem to speak of it in regards to the fucking universe/platonic realm.
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Frank Quasar »

https://www.revue-klesis.org/pdf/Klesis ... debate.pdf

^ Also, is the paper above any good to read in regards to moral universalism?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Frank Quasar wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:38 am 1:39:50 -- Around here AVI made an interesting point where he thinks you ought to answer correctly to a math question (i.e. 2+2 = 4) if you have a goal. The goal could be something like, if you want to seek truth, and logically it would follow from this that you ought to answer the correct answer.
He's still presuming 2+2=4 to be true, which is the only point.

"Doing X is morally bad" is true, "Doing Y is morally good" is true. This is the only point of minimal realism. Binding force (that you should do Y or should not do X) is aside from the point.
Frank Quasar wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:38 amI could see this same logic being applied to minimal moral realism after the correct moral action is determined, especially if the person's goal is to be a moral person that seeks truth.
Right, so it misses the point entirely and isn't a meaningful criticism of realism, just a straw man.

Frank Quasar wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:38 amJHC calls this a hypothetical norm, but he believes moral realists are making categorical norms which he disagrees with.
Some realists do make categorical norms, and I think that such normative facts CAN be argued for. But that's a different conversation from that of minimal realism. It's not clear why @_jhc is painting all realists with the same brush here, effectively backing up Isaac and AVI's strawman. He should know better.

I'd like to see him admit that not all realists are making such claims about universal shoulds, but can be limited to descriptive understandings of morality with the normative part being contingent on the desire to be a good person.
If he can admit that, I'd be glad to go beyond minimal realism and argue for the binding force; that everybody *should* be a good person.
Frank Quasar wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:38 amI feel like they're also taking propositions in of themselves to be "objective" as if they exist out there, but from my understanding this isn't the case because it's objective in regards to the correct moral theory it comports with, which is also established from an objective standard (logical consistency and non-arbitrariness) that makes the theory "correct/objective".
Right. Are they all doing that?
Frank Quasar wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:38 amAnd finally, they take a strong position (in the shallow sense, meaning, even if we talk about moral realism in reference to axioms) that moral facts are mind-independent. Perhaps their understanding/usage of "mind-independent" is different than ours, who knows, they always seem to speak of it in regards to the fucking universe/platonic realm.
Do you mean "mind-dependent"?
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Frank Quasar »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 6:54 pm Right. Are they all doing that?


I'm not sure about JHC, but AY and AVI are definitely doing this based off of the stream. JHC is aware of what AVI is trying to get at.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Do you mean "mind-dependent"?


Yes. They take a strong position on mind-dependence.

AY is also going to do a discussion with a large YouTube channel known as "RationalityRules". I can only fear the kind of damage that he'll do by further pushing his dichotomous viewpoint to a much larger audience combined by both parties. RR is perhaps going to adopt the viewpoint that Sam Harris has on objective morality.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Frank Quasar wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:49 am AY is also going to do a discussion with a large YouTube channel known as "RationalityRules". I can only fear the kind of damage that he'll do by further pushing his dichotomous viewpoint to a much larger audience combined by both parties.
Yikes, that's terrible. :shock:

Think there's any way we can get through to him?
I'm pretty busy most of the day and still don't have a good place to record yet (working on it), but I can maybe take off work and go to town to get a quiet hotel room with internet to do a stream and talk to him about it since the stakes are so high here.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Red »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 1:41 pm
Frank Quasar wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:49 am AY is also going to do a discussion with a large YouTube channel known as "RationalityRules". I can only fear the kind of damage that he'll do by further pushing his dichotomous viewpoint to a much larger audience combined by both parties.
Yikes, that's terrible. :shock:
Is Rationality Rules a meat eater/carnist? If he lets Isaac's asinine arguments make him generalize all vegans that way, well... then he wouldn't be very rational. Not to mention his carnist fans will be even less inclined to veganism.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
Frank Quasar
Junior Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:10 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Frank Quasar »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Think there's any way we can get through to him?
I'm pretty busy most of the day and still don't have a good place to record yet (working on it), but I can maybe take off work and go to town to get a quiet hotel room with internet to do a stream and talk to him about it since the stakes are so high here.


I believe @HybridPhoenix has DMs on Twitter open to him, and I have his personal discord tag so I can let him relay the message to RR. He'll be able to link some material from the forum to him, as well as possibly get him to join and set up a time to speak on voice chat. It'd be worthwhile for RR to understand minimal moral realism well, because I'm not sure just how far down the Sam Harris landscape he is, but knowing AY, he'll probably find his way to snipe the "ought" in his argument.

His base axiom is well-being, as far as I know. And also, I'm not exactly sure if this will definitely happen, but it's safe to presume that it most likely will sometime in the future. Even if it doesn't, there's still another matter. RR is planing to release a video on why morality is objective, so it'd probably be worthwhile if he understood better arguments to represent the case for this. It'd also be extremely useful to note out some really common misconceptions for him as well, so he can include these in the video if he ever does it. Just a list of very common straw-mans.
Red wrote: Is Rationality Rules a meat eater/carnist? If he lets Isaac's asinine arguments make him generalize all vegans that way, well... then he wouldn't be very rational. Not to mention his carnist fans will be even less inclined to veganism.


No, he's not. He's a vegetarian, but he knows that his worldview is rather inconsistent, and he cannot justify it. He believes that the vegan position is the most moral and virtuous path, as well as CosmicSkeptic.

And, speaking of which, he thinks NTT is one of the better arguments. I think he only sees it this way because of the general principle behind NTT, and how it exposes the outright inconsistency/insanity.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Lay Vegan »

Interestingly, Rationality Rules is a moral objectivist. I think he subscribes to the minimal moral realist model, and this seems to be the main source of contention between himself and other skeptics (like Cosmic Skeptic and Ask Yourself). This contention is followed in this discussion, where they seem to speak past each other on objectivity. Cosmic seems be following a very specific definition; he thinks x is objective if it can be verified with 100% certainty. In other words, moral claims are not objective facts, because their propositions cannot be verified (or falsified) with complete certainty. But this isn’t the definition RR is working with; he thinks x is objective if it exists independent of subjective opinion. In other words; some moral claims are objective facts because their propositions refer to objective features of world. We can verify moral claims like “murder is evil” by analyzing the objective consequences (independent of subjective opinion) that result from such an action.

I think it’s this kind of epistomoligcal nihilism, or uncertainty of of knowledge, that is leading so many people into moral nihilism (including some of the vegan skeptics). However, this doesn’t seem necessary given what most philosophers refer to when they talk about objectivity and knowledge. @brimstoneSalad what do you make of this?
Red wrote: Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:49 pm Is Rationality Rules a meat eater/carnist? If he lets Isaac's asinine arguments make him generalize all vegans that way, well... then he wouldn't be very rational. Not to mention his carnist fans will be even less inclined to veganism.
He's vegetarian, although he's on board with vegan ethics. I made a response video to him supporting him on his positive view of vegan ethics, but also explaining why NTT is not a strong argument for veganism, and alternatively suggested some stronger ones (Name the Justification, NTT2.0 empirical arguments etc.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VVeWVuFVrI&t=931s

This seems to have enraged AY, and I've heard he plans to made a video "wrecking" me.
Logical Celery
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:37 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: YouTuber CosmicSkeptic - Objective Morality

Post by Logical Celery »

@Lay Vegan The worst part is that he apparently engages in subjective reductionism, so I heard. He keeps breaking everything down to their basic axiomatic roots and says that they're assumptions, subjective ones. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but this is a rather disastrous way of thinking imo, nor is it even a good bit of criticism.

That definition of "objective" is twisted and useless. TheAmazingAtheist did something similar, if I'm not mistaken. He thinks "all truth" is ultimately subjective, and that you cannot be 100% sure about objectivity, or that science even proclaims such things as 100% objective. I guess whether the Earth is truly round is a matter of subjective opinion? We can't be 100% sure if it is round!

Also, this may be a very nooby 101 question, but I've read some threads this morning and some people are saying that morality is by definition objective/universal, and that it is something close to the golden rule. I'm still a bit confused on how it's close to the golden rule, and I was wondering if somebody could clear that up for me and explain how that is the case?

Also, I would appreciate if somebody pasted the definition of morality that is argued to be by definition objective/universal. Is it just the basic one from Google or something? I'd like to start of my future conversations with this basic route as a means to introduce new people to the general idea. I know this is like one of the basic semantic arguments. This is also the "sophistry" that Ask Yourself is referring to ^_^
Post Reply