Want to get Smarter, Faster? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

@feorgenotgloyd7624

3 жыл бұрын

@Owen Lian 😂

He doesn't have to. He was talking about how many religous people seem to think that morality comes from religion/holy book. He gave reasons and examples as evidence that the claim of morality only coming from religion, is false.

@imalamboman12

4 жыл бұрын

It's inherent, from God. Not from religious books.

@jolness1

2 жыл бұрын

@@imalamboman12 this god guy should do a better job standardizing his books

@comforth3898

2 жыл бұрын

@@jolness1 Maybe produce modern editions

@comforth3898

2 жыл бұрын

@@imalamboman12 Our knowledge of God(s) comes from religious books

My dog just gave birth this week and she is extremely very caring for her pups. She cherishes and love her pups like nothing else And she never read any Rule book or I didn't even command her to treat the pups the way she do it.

@artloverivy

7 жыл бұрын

The religious folk would argue that the dog is programmed with gods moral code. I honestly disagree, but that's definitely what they'd say.

@nelsona9381

7 жыл бұрын

the sad part is most of the christian sect. believe that all animals will not go to heaven. which will devalue your love and memory from your pet which the church contradict each other.

@FindingsOfAnArmouredMind

7 жыл бұрын

Animals have ''buddha's nature'', look for that concept, it'll open your mind.

@punisher00109

7 жыл бұрын

nelson a instinct. She evolved that way. If she killed her puppies or didnt protect them. They would die. Thus ending the species. Species with the mutation of coveting children survive. Its simple

@marcoselosegui9792

7 жыл бұрын

Well if you spell dog backwards.....checkmate.

"There is no good or evil, but thinking makes it so." -William Shakespeare.

@AB-eq9mm

6 жыл бұрын

CegeRoles that was said by hamlet while he was having a mental breakdown. It does not support your point.

@beliefisnotachoice

6 жыл бұрын

We can Define good and we can Define evil. Then we can objectively evaluate if a thing is one or the other or neither.

@Kube_Dog

6 жыл бұрын

Shakespeare didn't say that. It's a line he wrote for his character, Hamlet. Hamlet is troubled, unsure of himself, bouncing back and forth, debating endlessly. This quote is not a statement that Shakespeare presents as fact. It's an idea Hamlet is playing with and ultimately rejects when he does see a difference between good and bad. Shakespeare himself recognizes the difference between good and bad throughout his plays and explores how fools and evil people reject that and what horrors follow.

@snuzebuster

6 жыл бұрын

Morality has been defined for us by social evolutionary imperative. But aside from that I totally agree with your statement.

@beliefisnotachoice

4 жыл бұрын

@Rakscha you speak a lot of truth but it doesnt change that fact that I can define what good and evil are then make judgements. Where we agree, presumably, is that neither an individual or a society can objectivity define these things. All attempts to define good and evil will necessarily be subjective.

Beautifully put man! Excellent stuff!

The Bible is like a buffet of moral and intellectual guidance - people choose what they like the taste of. Except it's a 2000 year old buffet so pretty much everything tastes of irrelevant shit.

@jaystann6681

8 жыл бұрын

Amen

@epiphany55

8 жыл бұрын

vernonclassic Listening to Matt Dillahunty was sound advice.

@epiphany55

8 жыл бұрын

Wouldn't that be playing god's advocate?

@jaystann6681

8 жыл бұрын

+vernonclassic I've def left my share of cringe worthy comments looking back.

@timhallas4275

8 жыл бұрын

That's the best response i have heard all year,....so far. I never knew that there were different varieties of shit, or different levels of irrelevance, but you have cleared that up keenly. 55 is my favorite number by the way.

We all are here ultimately driven to thrive and survive . Do as you will and harm none

Great clip, thanks 👍

When you compare mankind to a computer, it seems clear to me - as an outside observer of your planet - that in the modern, post-enlightenment world, ethics don't need religion as "operating system". But maybe it had it's utility as "installing program" for ethics? Would ancient earthlings have been enlightened enough to embrace ethics without the idea of a metaphysical ethics-enforcement authority?

@Zerepzerreitug

10 жыл бұрын

From my Earthling perspective, the current model of Enlightment, secular morals, and other religion-less structures for ethics and morality, work thanks to the "diversity understanding" which has come from relatively recent Earthling discoveries. Things like how small our place is in the Bureaucracy-driven cosmos is; how convoluted and diverse Earthling history is; how many contradicting worldviews exist among societies; how the brain is so easy to fool; how little differences exist between Earthlings; and how useful/amazing the remaining few differences are. I think that these widespread concepts make it hard (if not impossible) to draw the usual "us vs them" lines. In finding the countless similarities between Earthlings, you encompass in an ever-wider circle _that_ which belongs to your group, to your family, and to yourself, applying decisions and considerations that you would normally dedicate only to your closest ones to an ever-increasing crowd of strangers. In this context, I think that the religious booting-disk served the purpose of encompassing wider and wider circles during the beginning of Earthling history, when more concise knowledge about the universe was limited and thus regular Earthlings were unable to state with confidence that people were really equal, that everyone who is "like me" should be free, or that the people on that other town are not savage beasts who have to be killed. I think that Earthlings need to _feel_ that they understand how the world works before taking decisions of ethical nature. And historically, the religion software has provided such confidence without the need for agreeable facts or narratives. It still does now. However, it is hard to say if the still-primitive Earthling science, or even if the Galactic Bureaucracy Encyclopedia; will fully satisfy our species need for confidence in what greater consequences our actions have, or on who and what are to be included or excluded of our group. Perhaps there will forever keep existing "software patches" to fully complete our moral narratives.

@rossmetacraft

10 жыл бұрын

Zogg, I would say the answer to your question depends on how far back in our history you mean when you say "ancient earthlings." Our sense of morality evolved over time, so if you go back far enough, no, we would not have been enlightened enough to embrace ethics. However, if you only go back a few thousand years to the alleged time of Jesus, we most certainly had a well-developed sense of morality by then. (Welcome to Earth, by the way.)

@carfreelori

9 жыл бұрын

Ross Carlson if you go back 1.8 million years early pre-humans, ie hominids, were already learning about the value of social interaction and that they depended upon each other for survival; it was about that time they started to care about what others thought of them, and so they began developing group values. It's interesting that all hominids weren't considered of the same species and that only one hominid type, homo sapiens, remained to become us humans, though they descended from earlier ancestors such as homo habilis.

@rossmetacraft

9 жыл бұрын

carfreelori Very interesting stuff. How do we know that pre-humans living 1.8 million years ago were developing group values? (I'm not doubting you, just curious how we know that.)

@carfreelori

9 жыл бұрын

Ross Carlson i admit I didn't research it; I picked it up from an anthropology documentary on the evolution of humans from homo habilis through the current day. They interviewed the actual archaeologists who went on the excavations and who did the experiments, so it seemed credible. I don't remember which documentary; there are a bunch on youtube.

This declaration of the "us vs them" of religion is why I became an atheist. Period. There are plenty of other reasons that supported my eventual decision, but that concept was at the core. Exclusive rather than inclusive.

@savvysavages6931

8 жыл бұрын

+Larry Lachmann Atheists don't have an "us vs them" attitude? Really?

@musicmann1967

8 жыл бұрын

+Savvy Savages Yes, some do. The more miltant type. I don't feel the need to do that. but I understand those who do. It's an understandable defensive posture.

@cosmicwaderer1247

8 жыл бұрын

Many hindus , buddhists , followers of the tao don't see reality in such a dualistic manner. All people are part of the "one". Sam harris is such a nice guy, Dawkins should take a lession from him.

@firecrow7973

8 жыл бұрын

+Larry Lachmann thank you for putting into words what i was thinking

@firecrow7973

8 жыл бұрын

+Larry Lachmann thank you for putting into words what i was thinking

who else is watching this in 2021?

@toddwolford2021

3 жыл бұрын

in 2021? Are we there? Did I miss a whole year?

@amandanky685

3 жыл бұрын

@@toddwolford2021 lol yee

@seanrocero2918

3 жыл бұрын

hell yes

@JamieMelhuish

3 жыл бұрын

2020 was cruel and basically evil. Hope 2021 is better.

Where do standards come from? And how can we trust one's own judgment of morality if we are just accidents of nature?

@neocyte85

4 жыл бұрын

Standards come from the agreed upon values of a society.

@keithhunt5328

3 жыл бұрын

@Joshua Creasey Like slavery was okay few centuries ago.

@teamatfort444

3 жыл бұрын

We made it up.

@562mjohnson

Жыл бұрын

@@neocyte85 do those standards change over time?

@RichardsGaySon

3 ай бұрын

Morality is human invented. Just like religion

He says 2X that we have some "serviceable intuitions" about what constitutes right and wrong. Morality is based on intuition? What if my intuition about what is right and wrong is different from yours? I am not arguing for religion but asking a sincere question. Suppose I am married and at the same time I'm screwing the neighbor woman? Some would say that is wrong. But why? Maybe for me is is right. Who's to say? This seems like Harris's weakest argument. Usually he tries to argue on empirical or scientific grounds. But right/wrong and good/evil are abstract concepts which do not exist in the material world. We really have no scientific basis on which to ascribe rightness or wrongness to any behavior. After all, what color is evil? What does it taste, smell, sound, look, or feel like? All we can really say scientifically is that we live in a world where sh--t happens. It is neither good nor evil: it just is. Again, I am not arguing for religion. I would simply have hoped Sam would have offered something a little more definitive.

reminder that Sam never fixed the is-ought gap

Thanks bigthink for posting this video.

As humans we're a bit lazy in thinking, and this isn't always a bad thing. If you consider how taxing driving was when you first started, and how easy it became after a few months behind the wheel, you'll get the picture. There's a lot going on, but you no longer have to think about it actively. You've already worked out the basics, and are only watching for changing conditions. The concepts of "good" and "evil" are much like this. There's really no such thing as "good" or "evil". Those are labels we place on a fairly complicated concept. If you want to make a case for something being "good/evil", what criteria do you use? Unless referring to religion, in which case anything from murder (good example of 'evil') to eating shellfish can fit the bill, you're almost certainly going to describe the event in terms of harm or benefit. At its core, "good" is nothing more than our partially subjective view of beneficial actions/conditions. I say partially subjective, because while some things are objectively beneficial or harmful (don't drink toxic chemicals), some are a matter of opinion. So we can put together a solid base of what nearly everyone will consider "good" by addressing actions and conditions that are beneficial to humans and/or others we feel empathy for. The same is true for "evil". The reason we have a lot of difference of opinion in morality plays more into the subjective areas, and the fact that we just don't agree. To sum up, I consider the terms "good" and "evil" to be placeholders for a much more complicated topic.

@carfreelori

9 жыл бұрын

yes but I think if we can put together a solid base of what nearly everyone considers good, doing so would work better if people checked their religions at the door!!! Without religions TELLING us what to believe, and people thinking from their very own brain power, experiences, and intuition, I'd bet there'd be way more agreement than if these same people came in determined to represent their various, sometimes opposing, religions!

@MattieCooper10000

9 жыл бұрын

AMEN Brother!

@comforth3898

2 жыл бұрын

@@carfreelori True Humanity has to come solid definitions of right and wrong.

There is no such thing like good and evil. There is fear and suffering - in a form that we usually used to call it evil.

@Murri16

9 жыл бұрын

Vytautas Straižys there is a quote, cant remember it word for word, but it says that the only people who deny the existence of evil are the ones who have never been face to face with true evil. With your statement, you just said that the brutal rape and murder of an infant is not evil.

@straizys

9 жыл бұрын

it is not. it's made by a person who suffers from psychological trauma and mental dysfunction

@Murri16

9 жыл бұрын

Vytautas Straižys I forget the name, but there was this man who who denied the existence of evil... but that was until he was faced with true evil and his worldview changed radically. The thing is though, you say one thing.. but living it out is another. I don't think you would be able to witness a loved one be raped and murdered and then go and preach to everyone that evil doesnt exist.

@straizys

9 жыл бұрын

I did experienced my most beloved one being raped. And this wasn't the thing which made me to change my mind. The person who did it is poor man with serious metal injuries made by us, the society.

@Murri16

9 жыл бұрын

Vytautas Straižys so the action in itself was not an evil act? not the man, but the act in itself.

The question be do believe morality is objective? Because if is object then there clear right and wrongs that we judge people by. If there is not objective morality but instead only subjective morality, then person get decides for themselves what they think is right or wrong. Sure you might like slavery or murder but that is just you opinion. Some else might have different opinion what is right and wrong, so that slavery and murder is okay. If morality is subjective then who are you say that it is wrong, it's just your opinion.

Great thumbnail, big think 👍

Well said sir!

Just finished "The Stranger" by Albert Camus (Great Book!!!) and finally getting to "Beyond Good and Evil".

@OMAR-vq3yb

3 жыл бұрын

Wasted your time with that whiny junk

@keithhunt5328

3 жыл бұрын

Nietzsche eats Sam Harris for breakfast.

@csabas.6342

2 жыл бұрын

@@keithhunt5328 Its really not even a comparison... Nietzsche is a real intellectual heavyweight, and Harris is a showman at best and a conman at worst.

@keithhunt5328

2 жыл бұрын

@@csabas.6342 Yup, this new atheism business is best understood as a type of entertainment.

I did. here is what it says " Always be humble and gentle. Patiently put up with each other and love each other. " " Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." " Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear" (from Ephesians 4) Jesus always taught love, mercy , humbleness and forgiveness

Love this channel

Thanks!

In order for the claim that morality requires an "external source" to be taken seriously, it must be demonstrated that an "external source" exists, and that it is necessary for morality.

@NoApologiesTeam

4 жыл бұрын

Basic logic can do that for you. IF you follow it through.

@Viktor-ej9ss

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe.

@yourfutureself3392

3 жыл бұрын

The only thing you have to prove is that an external source is neccesary for morality and that morality exists. From there, you can prove an external source: P1: if morality exists, then an external source for morality exists. P2: Morality exists. C: therefore, an external source for morality exists.

@YY4Me133

3 жыл бұрын

@@yourfutureself3392 You need evidence for P1. Since you've presented none, P1 can be ignored, as can the rest.

@yourfutureself3392

3 жыл бұрын

@@YY4Me133 yeah, I know. I wasn't trying to prove the conclusion. I was just trying to show how with proving that morality exists and that it needs an external source, you already proved the external source exists due to basic laws of logic.

@aahandm "with out God defining what is good and what is evil, wouldn't every man do what he believes is right in his own eyes? even if it is slavery!" Yeah, well, funnily enough that's exactly what's happened so far.

Why is this 4:3? Was it recorded in 1989?

I see. That clarifies things. I have to get back to work now, but thanks for the conversation.

IMO all morality is subjective. When you judge something as "good" or "bad" you are filtering the event through your own personal experiences/understanding. The thing itself is not good or bad it simply IS. So the only real question is, "Who do you want to be in relation to that thing?" You have that choice, and all choices have consequences. I could choose to rob a liqueur store on my way home, but I'm not going to. Along with the legal problems it would cause I know that all actions ripple out into the world. Because of that I choose to 'try' to make as many positive ripples as possible. Not because it is "good" but because it makes me happy and I believe it helps people (which I enjoy doing). So I guess you could say, I choose to act "good" for purely selfish reasons.

@CourtneyHaynes

9 жыл бұрын

Unlucky Fat Guy i agree, and i dont think he really answered the question.

@UnluckyFatGuy

9 жыл бұрын

Yeah. IMO Atheism has a difficult time explaining morality, not to mention altruism.

@DaUzzi1

8 жыл бұрын

+Kevin Cobb I don't think by nature we are born naturally looking at the world through a materialistic paradigm. Historically (i.e cave men days), people have always sought out supernatural answers to life.

@UnluckyFatGuy

8 жыл бұрын

Agreed. There is no culture (that I know of) on Earth that doesn't believe in some "other" that is beyond our understanding. Not to mention that these beliefs evolved independently of each other. A mystical intuition appears to be part of the human condition and most (if not all) feel this is where their morality stems from.

@joegame4576

8 жыл бұрын

+Unlucky Fat Guy very honest opinion. good job.

legendary character.

Is there any difference between "adblock bro" and "adblock plus"?

Where?

Amen. :)

"Clearly not true" Ok then what is the Atheistic position on good and evil? "We have some serviceable intuitions" Do you mean by intuition that developed humans have an advanced instinct regarding good and evil? Or that the human capability of reason allows for the objective observation of good and evil (that they are somehow logical)? "every culture agrees that cruelty is wrong that taking pleasure in the suffering of others is wrong in the context of your in group" At first I was lead to believe that this was a limited view of ethics, that only within a "people group" does a mutually recognized ethic stand (by consensus it appears, or else we all just "know"). But then he continues "The challenge of civilization is to extend the sphere or our moral community to include the entire species and even other species so that we don’t have these us and them boundaries." He then goes on to morally define religion, broadly, as insidious. There appears to be several underlying assumptions silently in play that these statements are truly based on, that there is another layer of foundational beliefs he is positing. Otherwise someone could just ask “what justifies your belief that all people intuitively know good and evil, culture to culture?” One of the criticisms of religion that atheists espouse is that if we all know there is a God how come there are so many different religions? However this is a problem for the atheist, in that if all humans have intuition about good and evil, why is it limited to the context of the ‘in group’ or only culturally relevant in many cases? Why would it not be the case that the atheist view of ethics is itself, imposed artificially on an already naturally operating human existence? That is to say, how come we do not observe that humans are already acting as they ‘ought to’ when they oppress other people groups, one culture to another. Why is it, apparently, arbitrarily selected that we should all ‘get along’ and by what rational basis does this apply other than in a utilitarian sort of way? Why are not opposing ethical systems equally recognized, but instead for some reason supposed to submit to this utilitarian idea of spreading what is good and evil in sphere to the entire species? If it gives pleasure to someone to be cruel to someone else, why is that morally wrong, because the target of cruelty does not get pleasure? Why does that matter to the inflictor of cruelty? Shouldn’t the strong dominate the weak and if not, then why not? Why bother with minority or special interest groups, when by the atheistic ethic they should adopt what is more widely accepted by a greater number in the populous of a culture? This conflates and does not answer the ethical dilemma that SH brought up about the Nazi’s. If the German political group of its time convinces the German people broadly that Jews were to be treated as non-persons (additionally not allowing them a vote as an ‘in group’) then by what right did other nations have in interceding on their behalf? Did other nations observe that Jews were people and attempting to correct the German nation? If Germany and Nazi though had won the day, would their ethic be “good” since no other nation could impose a different ethic on them (this type of thing also reduces down to the ‘strong rule the weak’ philosophy of thinking). Does might make right? If so then Germany was ethically right, if not then by what right did the Allies have in “forcing” Germany to change using their might….. from an atheistic ethical point of view? I think that it is probably true that people believe death is unacceptable, that people might even want to restrain cruelty, but the problem is that these kinds of things just do not comport with an atheistic worldview. In an atheistic worldview, there is only biology and the observational world, limited in scope to the examination, testing and evaluation of finite mankind. Does it make sense that such a worldview can deal with concepts like good or evil.

@truthteller1914

8 жыл бұрын

+Demetrios Mustakas Jr. Our attitude towards inflicting suffering on others shows a great moral weakness on your art. I am not surprised.

@dmustakasjr

8 жыл бұрын

+Truth teller It shows the empty self contradiction in it. The Atheistic view has no more need to show moral substance than any other evolved biological animal given to the pressures of physics. The Atheist is just as consistent being a torturer as they are benevolent. Sadly considering that the measure of such morality is completely subjective at its foundation, its is a wonder that an follower of that system can rightly tell the difference.

@truthteller1914

8 жыл бұрын

Prove even a single sentence you posted is not true. All of it is BS you WANT to believe and for you no proof is needed. FYI, atheism is not a system or religion. That's just another example of your deliberate ignorance.

@dmustakasjr

8 жыл бұрын

+Truth teller Guess I invested too much explanation and rational argumentation to turn cynic like you .... guess you will suffer that position alone.

@coolgamerman

5 жыл бұрын

Demetrios Mustakas Jr. an atheist dealing with a worldview can most certainly deal with such a topic. With your logic, you are saying that is not okay for a christian to deal and study biology because their book which they follow says that adam lived 600 years. An atheist, if any, is more capable to dealing with this topic because their definition simply states: lack of belief in a god or deity. This means that an atheist can still study science, and how moral compasses were created through evolution, etc.

thanks.you too :)

We judge our own and others' behavior as good or bad, and it is through this act of internal (and sometimes also external) judgement that morality manifests in reality. It manifests (as actions and internal states) in those that subscribe to this social system (or rules for how one should behave), and if that is not objective enough grounds to treat morality (or "good" and "bad") as even quasi-objects, then I believe we'll miss the mark on what the phenomenon is truly about.

This may be the silliest point to religion. The fact that it's needed to know right from wrong. I know its wrong to kill people randomly, I don't need a book of rules to tell me why that's not a good thing. Now granted some ppl may need to be told certain things are wrong, But dont try to sell me that it's been passed down from the great creator of the universe. I get it, I wish more ppl got it as well

@jakkeday1

6 жыл бұрын

megarudyray1 What about non-random killing?!? Is that ok???

@keithhunt5328

3 жыл бұрын

@@jakkeday1 lol

Just watch Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. It answers every question about life. Especially good vs evil.

@MrBlue-km8qv

4 жыл бұрын

The Force is science fiction. imagine if Luke had joined his father and over threw the emperor and ruled the galaxy as father and son instead of Luke jumping down the Cloud City ventilation shaft. i think Luke would have been a fair and just emporer.

@joshjewell1960

4 жыл бұрын

The force isn’t science fiction. The force is just true faith in its purest form. We just don’t know how to use it. Jesus walked on water, calmed a storm with his words, and performed all of his miracles because he had a true understanding of “the force”. And he said that we all have the ability as well. Peter walked on the water also with Jesus. And when he lost faith he sank into the water. Jesus made it pretty clear that if you have true faith the size of mustard seed that you could command a mountain to bow down.

@hagop3620

3 жыл бұрын

@@joshjewell1960 my friend that is taken completely out of context. Jesus is the object of faith and the creator of the universe. Everything is under His rule. The Bible constantly shifts between the literal and metaphorical and when talking about moving a mountain with a mustard seed, He’s talking about having faith in God to do God’s will, not yours. There is no force in the universe that we can all control, there is God who is running the entire show. Jesus died in order to purify your darkness and my darkness, our sin, so that we may have a relationship with God starting in this life and lasting all of eternity.

I agree with your initial sentence, and the idea of an external source for moral goodness would in fact be worthless if we kept our moral convictions to ourselves. If all we have is moral relativism, then no one person has a basis to claim another person to be morally wrong in anything they do. However, the moment we suppose others ought to adhere to our moral notions then we also suppose a universal sense of moral goodness external from the self that we all appeal to, yet not all adheres to.

@loganleatherman7647

11 ай бұрын

Or we’re just egotistical humans who feel, even if unconsciously, that everyone else should subjectively feel the way we subjectively feel, respectively.

I guess that depends on what the attitude of the time is. My understanding of morality is there is an "end goal" sort of thing. like "everyone in the world is happy", or "make humanity last as long as possible (stable society)", or "keep as many people in a religion as possible". But within those goals people don't come up with the same ideas, so as a result of the 2, morality is constantly changing

Sam Harris for president

@charmainejames2106

8 жыл бұрын

+Ebkallday not with that atheism haha

@rr7firefly

7 жыл бұрын

The philosopher prince... what a concept. I'm afraid that today many people prefer a ruthless S.O.B. who talks tough and believes his opinion is the only one that matters.

@Dogitude

7 жыл бұрын

times change, don't be narrow minded, trump has a maximum of 8 years in office. You always gotta keep the big picture in mind . Society is improving gradually but surely and often its our impatience with progress that fuels that growth .But balance that impatience, don't let it distort your intelligence and turn you into a pessimist lol.

@edreynolds2819

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, he'd be right along the lines of what we have. THINK.

@keithhunt5328

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dogitude What's the evidence that society is gradually improving?

omg this guy is so right

@tariqcolakovic4556

4 жыл бұрын

How, when he said that morality comes from intuition, that is completely subjective. He literally said how cultures vary in morality.

@onzku

4 жыл бұрын

@@tariqcolakovic4556 yeah, they do...? TF you going on about

@tariqcolakovic4556

4 жыл бұрын

@@onzku I'm saying that, it literally means morality is subjective without God and religion provides a sound moral foundation, but he tries to derive morality from nature when he disproved himself

@onzku

4 жыл бұрын

@@tariqcolakovic4556 except that it obviously doesn't like was stated in the video

Yes!!! Thank you!!!

Good and evil are human concepts we use to explain or describe an intention, they only exist as part of language and in our minds and thoughts. Abstractly evil and good actually describe a process of development from once stage to another, Evil to good, ignorance to knowledge, chaos to tranquillity, destruction to creation. low frequency to higher frequency. They also suggest that you can either stagnate and refused to grow or elevate and refuse to remain the same. There is a big difference between trying to appear or sound clever and actually being clever, one is ego driven the other is intelligence driven. Which are you?

@counterculture10

2 жыл бұрын

Yep, assessments made in the mind at an early stage in perception. Nothing more.

"We all know it is immoral?" How do we know?

@user-td3ut4tg3v

4 жыл бұрын

Intuition

@shawarmageddonit

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe because we wouldn't like it if it happened to ourselves?

@tariqcolakovic4556

4 жыл бұрын

You dont, the intuition is subjective, every point he made is clearly subjective

@milesandrews6711

3 жыл бұрын

@@shawarmageddonit what about someone is suicidal, is it okay for him to kill because he'd like it if it happens to him?

@shawarmageddonit

3 жыл бұрын

@@milesandrews6711 You mean legally? Not sure what kind of answer you're expecting here. There's rarely a clear-cut answer to hypothetical examples and extreme examples, and this is both. So I dunno, man; you tell me.

I wish I could question him personally on some of these points. I think at this point, I need more of a Christian vs. Atheism/Agnostic debate, as I am Christian, and because throwing the Bible and the Koran together as the same thing is not, for me at least, a starting point. So, I guess my first question would be how are the Koran and the Bible the same thing?

@SuperDraupnir

9 жыл бұрын

Both are about a god and both are made up books who some believe is true.

@shattynatty27

9 жыл бұрын

Harris does acknowledges differences between the Koran and the Judaeo-Christian bible. In this context he's grouping them together on the basis of being "holy" books written by God, which make truth claims about the nature of reality and morality.

The perception of good and evil depends on social norms. IF we lived in a society where murder, genocide and cruelty were accepted or praised, Compassion would then be an act of evil.

@carfreelori

9 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure if there are universal taboos; the way our morals, as humans are shaped, may be a result of cultural or human pressure. Most people believe murder is a universal taboo, but it's not..I think it's cultural or even human pressure that teaches us that murder is wrong, which it is! I don't think we need organized religion, however, to find values that are nearly universal. But I do think there is something to the role of genetics passing along our values from generation to generation.

The way I see it, people who have no sense of good or evil have never listened to their conscience a day in their lives because if they did, they would know that there is an objective good and evil because if I killed someone, my conscience would affect me based on whether I did so in self-defense in which I wouldn't feel guilty(good) or murder in which I would feel guilty(evil).

@Ajnjn-x3d

Ай бұрын

You are missing all the complexity of real life though. For example, how do you know the killing of someone in self-defence was actually legit self-defence? You may think well of course I know, but it's actually not that simple. How do we objectively define permitted self-defence? Who defines it? There will be some cases where it's easier and others where it's grey or not all parties agree that it was justified. People have been imprisoned for killing a person in what they believed was self-defence and historically people have manufactured self-defence scenarios (see WW2) to justify killings etc. The question you have to think about is whether could you live according to this black-and-white standard you have? I think hardly anyone can because if you killed someone in self-defence and it turned out it wasn't a legit case of self-defence, you would have to see yourself as evil-you would be on the wrong side of your own standard.

Good and evil are nothing more than moral compasses that are at opposing ends, like north and south. In truth, what is just is, and that is whatever is happening. Nothing is good, nothing is evil, everything that happens is just a happening. The problem of evil argument is only a problem by assuming that evil exists and is thus a problem in its existence. Now, I do not mean to say to act out of malice, but one can seldom act that way when they grasp the true interconnected nature of reality; that all life, everything you see, taste, touch, love, hate, whatever, it is all made from the same stuff that the rest of the universe is on a basic, fundamental level. All of it is equal in worth and validity. Getting this often brings one to a state of 'love', a state of compassion and consideration for the state of affairs shown off in whatever existence is. The issue with our thinking, be it of our culture or primarily theology raises the idea that there are certain things inherently terrible about the state of affairs in some areas of existence, like illness. By pointing and becoming a dictator to impose that X is good and Y is bad is dividing elements in the world, and division is always the beginning of conflict. This is why we are so easily prepared to engage in wars, for we already think that one pocket of life in one area is different than another pocket, when in truth the difference is mainly scenery. The first thing we do when we see something or someone new, we instantly look at the differences. Why don't we try looking and see what's similar? Most of our problems in the world are all founded on the differences we see.

@ShakinJamacian

10 жыл бұрын

Luke Jacobs If you say so.

Here are the fallacies of Sam Harris (1) Appeal to Population: Saying "every culture" is false. (2) Appeal to emotions/ empathy/ feeling/ pain/ suffering: I guess the girl who cuts herself when she's depressed should use that same empathy to treat other depressed people. (3) Moral Equivalence Fallacy: Religion has done bad things. I guess Joseph Stalin isnt in the picture of Atheism. Nonsense. God bless you

@DominickDecocko

8 жыл бұрын

you think you are so smart

@ErnestAdewoyin

8 жыл бұрын

+Eddie Ed appealing to the credulity of my smartness is a strawman and red-herring. If you have an intelligent Argument to make that is independent of my personality, please state it. God bless you

@DominickDecocko

8 жыл бұрын

Ernest Adewoyin Wow you stated even more smartass things. Im not here to argue im here to judge you. Deal with it.

@ErnestAdewoyin

8 жыл бұрын

+Eddie Ed OK... Thanks for your personal assessment of my incredulity my fellow sincere seeker of truth. I invite you to engage with the argument when you have finished judging me.?that way, progress can be made in achieving knowledge. God bless you

@DominickDecocko

8 жыл бұрын

Ernest Adewoyin Smartass. Your choice of word looks like wannabe smart person. But deep down you know you are not.

where do these intuitions come from?

@MortimerZabi

4 жыл бұрын

From the postulate that existence is bona in se, and is better promoted by goodness rather than evil? You can reach that conclusion without the need of a creator.

@MortimerZabi

3 жыл бұрын

@Joshua Creasey Because it is the predicate of basically everything. First you have to be.

Those very serviceable intuitions are rooted in self-preservation, if something endangers your health and safety then it is bad, whereas things that improve your health and safety are desirable and therefore good.

There's no standard for morality without God.

Sam Harris is one of those people where no matter when you pause his face, he always looks funny

@paradise745

2 жыл бұрын

?

This is the beauty of the Internet; we can express how we really feel and come out with real truths that can only expose The cryptic intent of religions.

Excellent

This just shows how everybody should read the Bible on their own. Sam Harris either hasn't read the Bible, or has just flipped through it and is purposely distorting it. Let's see if slavery should have survived HAD the southern slave owners followed the Old Testament: *Exodus **21:16* 16 “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. *Deuteronomy **23:15**-16* 15 “You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him. Based on these two commandments alone, southern slavery should have immediately fallen apart if they had been sticking to the Old Testament writings. The problem, though, is that they should have been sticking to the NEW TESTAMENT writings if they were really Christians, because Jesus reduced all commandments down to just two: *Matthew **22:37**-40* 37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Since this is the case, slavery should have never started at all. So, clearly Sam Harris is ignorant of the Bible, or is distorting it for some reason. The Bible is all about taking care of the less fortunate, even in the Old Testament: *Isaiah 58:6-7* (God speaks) 6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? 7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? *Leviticus **19:10* 10 And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the Lord your God. *Micah 6:8* 8 He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? What's even more interesting is that Sam Harris' argument is actually an argument FOR the existence of God. If I don't have an outside standard to judge from, then I can't make a judgment. If I don't have a standard for an authentic dollar bill, then it's not possible for me to judge a forgery. Likewise, if I don't have a standard for "best" then "better" and "worse" can't possibly exist. So for Harris to say that things like "right", "wrong", "good", "evil", "better", "worse", actually exist is to argue FOR the existence of God. Without God, there is no outside standard for "best". The standard of good MUST be independent of humanity, like the dollar standard would be independent from a human, and this is what the Bible has always said: *1 John 4:8* 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God _is_ love.

He doesn't really answer what he thinks good and evil are. He just vaguely says that morality is a problem of modernity and then rants on how he thinks the Bible, and other texts, are not where we get it. It's a poor video.

@MrMarioSm

8 жыл бұрын

+Cadeus22 maybe its a bad title

@frankanderson5012

5 жыл бұрын

Cadeus22 Its a less than five minute video! Just how much did you expect him to say on such a subject? This has been debated for thousands of years. Stop being lazy and if you’re genuinely interested in what he has to say, watch some of his more in depth videos. And by the way, ‘rant’ would be the last description I would give to his way of speaking and anybody who’s seen his videos would know that which makes me wonder if you had already decided on an opinion of him.

@bretzajac7986

5 жыл бұрын

Harris is his biggest fan.

@koolgool

5 жыл бұрын

Read his book the Moral Landscape, he covers it there. The topic of morality deserves more than 5 minutes to explain. But out of curiosity, what do you consider good and evil?

@bretzajac7986

5 жыл бұрын

@@koolgoolit is easier to say what is sin but the atheist do not like using that term because in some bizarre twist of political correctness they are allowed to make the rules when they debate and believers are not allowed to use God or his outline for our lives in defense of what we believe in. To name a few "sins", lying, stealing, covetousness, murder, fornication (and yes all types except sex between a married man and woman). Just to name a few. And to be clear i am a sinner and have done almost every sin imaginable and do not claim to be sinless but admit i am a sinner and hope God forgives me. Calling something good or evil without the ultimate moral authority GOD makes all so called evil acts subjective and they are only then man made laws and not good or evil. If you truly believe you are only a higher evolved animal then survival of the fittest should still apply unless secretly you really know there is good and evil defined by God, which obviously you do.

I'm not saying I can't determine right from wrong. I'm asking how evolution accounts for everybody choosing to do wrong at some points. If all we are is a complex system of chemical reactions that have gradually changed over time (Empathy being one of those changes), and chemical reactions are predictable, then why do we all react in unpredictable, unempathetic ways? I know what, why, and how I do what I do as well. But I don't know how I could do it if I'm just a product of evolution (cont)

Yep I'm learning this the norm in one area is def not normal in another, I just always remember the messages, I remind myself my victories to keep going, I think we all know not right to lie, we all know if sex ain't sacred than nothing is.

I'll agree to that. Philosophically speaking, one could perhaps say that absence of evidence is an indication of absence. The more you look for something without finding it, the higher the probability of the inexistence of that something.

For cultural reasons, yes. According to Wikipedia, "31% of Danish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god"... 49% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 19% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force"." [Religion in Denmark] My (Norwegian) brother is a good example of a cultural Christian. He despises religious zeal, and doesn't believe in any Christian tenets, yet is still a member in the Protestant state church.

What he is talking is similar to terror management theory, in which one of our coping mechanisms to the fact that our life is ephemeral is culture, by providing some sense of belonging (through rituals and to a certain group and making us feel useful and therefore giving some meaning to our existence religion would be then just a byproduct.

I believe religion set the standards for good and evil throughout history and as we evolved we became more morally independent.

Empathy teaches morality. Narcissism is the death of empathy.

"we all presuppose the existence of such a criteria for moral goodness every time we claim moral rightness or wrongness in the actions of other people." - We appeal to our own notions of what is or is not moral. - Reality is the standard by which claims about reality are adjudicated. I submit that one's own conscience IS the standard by which individuals adjudicate issues of morality, which is why there is disagreement over what is or is not moral.

Good and evil is chaos and evil is uncontrolled chaos while good is controlled chaos

You can base good and evil relative to free will, for myself, that is the only measure to judge by. This comes down to being forced to serve some one else, or some governmental system, or being free to do as you wish, as long as such an act does not interfere with the freedom of another, or someone too young to protect themselves or know better. i.e. I am not referring to being free to do immoral acts or freedom to harm someone.

@nikitachirich7985

Жыл бұрын

Why not? i remain free to harm someone and it gives me pleasure.

in Denmark most people belong to the lutheran church, but most people are only in it for the benefits, not the actual religion. most people is in it just to get a place where you can get burried and things like that, they don't actually believe it. Cheers from Denmark

yes, truly im with you in that regard. thats why im saying interpolation in religions, god never says he is in any kind of shape, or form like in this world. we just know his being from his perfect attributes. To think something that All-perfect will always entails existence.

There are only three fundamental springs of homine conduct, and all possible motives arise from one or other of these. They are: 1. Egoism: which desires the weal of the self and is limitless. 2. Malice: which desires the woe of others and may develop into the utmost cruelty. 3. Compassion: which desires the weal of others and may rise to nobleness and magnanimity. very human act is referable to one of these springs; although two of them may work together.

1. Morality is a value judgment yes but it is much more than that also as it is a personal opinion about something all inclusive not only about our personal selves. 2. Correct, morality is not claimable as objective WITHOUT a criteria. The thing is, every personal who expresses moral notions toward other people presuppose such a criteria even if they don't know what it is. The same way we all assume a reality of some fashion even if what we perceive to be such reality is not it.

The idea of ANY moral goodness is necessarily intrinsic to the nature of what we are as well as our sensibilities as a general statement. So, the notion of an external notion is worthless, since, the standard must be intrinsic to what/how we are...

Earliest example I can give was taking a cookie from a small bag of cookies secretly, and hiding it in my pocket to sneak it past my parents. I believe I was 4 or 5, somewhere in that area. Another example would be an audio cassette of mine being stolen from me at school, and torn out by someone who was smaller and younger, and despite wanting to physically assault them for being a jerk, I felt guilty at the idea of hurting them. This was around the age of 12. I am curious why you ask.

I say the basis for morality is not religion, but pain. Experience. When one knows pain, one can feel empathetic towards other's pain. when one is able to feel empathetic that can be said to be a heightened state of awareness (good). Life seeks to preserve itself and it fears death, so we know we want this, and as all life around us also must want this, there I think morality is born. One can then say that anything that seeks to obstruct life is a lesser state of being or awareness (bad). So how do we know if something is good or evil, just check its effect, is it detrimental to life or does it enhance life.

Ive discussed much of the matters in the previous comments. read them and if anything comes up, just ask away. regarding the slacks in my grammar, Im sorry,still learning though, n maybe I was a bit rushing

wow, a very good way on interpreting the points. but i think if you try to do some research on the science and history, and also why and what's going to happen next after the revelation of quran. i mean it's quite interesting if you're curious. peace

I see. Well, it's late for me. Maybe we can finish our talk later. Thanks.

I learned the golden rule, it tells you about good and evil and and how to treat other's. I learned it when I was young. but I wonder if it's being taught theses days? I get the impression it's not.

@chris1806

Жыл бұрын

?

I think unless we all come to a consensus on morality we can't see it's objectively right or wrong

Good thoughts, but the key word here is “intuitions”. What does Harris mean by intuitions? Unfortunately the line between facts and intuitions isn’t always easy to discern. We ascribe negative values to things that occur naturally already, like sickness and disease. Why is that?

Thank you for posting this, bigthink.

first of all empathy expands our personal identity to include others, meaning it allows us to be good to others by focusing on self-interest (since self isnt so singular when empathy is involved). 2nd, it's impossible to being anything other than self-centered (tho, again, empathy allows that to be a good thing). 3rd theres nothing more important than discussing good/bad so dont mock it. and 4th, my original comment said morality is more complicated than just empathy. i said nothing about greed.

@nikitachirich7985

Жыл бұрын

I am The Atheist, born raised Communist in Soviet Russia, grandmother was executed for being discovered a Jehovahs Witness, tried to teach me about god when i was a kid. It was all trash, it exposed her. Still an atheist though, just like my siblings and parents, hard true atheist, i cheat lie, deceived hurt maim and kill on behalf of government sometimes for a paycheck, sometimes just for myself. There is no god, there is no higher anything, no energies no chakras, no bullshit, just a bunch of weak little beings running around scared, until they run into me that is , dog eats dog, its evolution, whatever you wanna call it that formed on this pathetic little planet. I revel and rejoice in the emptiness of your meaningless and dark existence, i seek pleasure in watching you suffer, its the only please thats left for me to enjoy everything else kinda lost flavor

It's amazing how he can be so right and so wrong at the same time.

@laza6141

Жыл бұрын

how is he wrong ?

I agree with your conclusions, I would just like to point out that psychology has recently provided evidence that the reason we originally started believing in gods actually wasn't the fear of death. It was our natural Dualism, or our belief that minds can be separate from bodies. Another way of saying it is, we evolved to be natural-born animists. KZread has a great lecture by Paul Bloom about the very subject.

Incorrect. Reality does not allow for an objective standard, Reality IS the objective standard. We assume through perception that what we experience is reflective of that reality. My point, we make the assumption about the existence of a reality, even if our perception isn't reflective of that reality. We do the same with morality. We assume a criteria for moral goodness when we object to the actions of others, even if our convictions are not reflective of the very criteria we assume to be.

@Nev3rdie00 "There is no cosmological balance sheet that will tally up your good and wrongs" Every action causes a reaction, there you have your cosmological balance sheet.

What do you think is one moral principle humans have always held onto since our early days?

^ Getting it.

What if we CREATE an universal concept of good and evil? For example the phrase " you don't have to do to other people things that you don't want to be done to you". This little passage has in it all the major moral concepts and it is accepted by all religions, in their non fondamental form, and there is no person that can say this is wrong without admitting his selfishness. So if al people in this word considered and accepted this moral rule we have create a base for the morality and also we have create free will because everyone would choose the good way but the evil way would act like as a temptation. In this situation all depends in our strength of will. Please leave an opinion about this because I'm very curious to hear other opinions.

Mad thumbnail.

@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity. Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future.

Example: It has always been wrong to kill other humans. This is true about every society known to man to have ever existed. The only difference is this moral notion varies to different degrees. Some societies deem in acceptable from a social basis to kill certain people based on certain conditions such as the person's race, gender, religion or sexuality; but there has never been a society where it was acceptable to kill any and everyone you like. Morality is much more universal than you suggest.

@Quizlyxorquizzles1 In fact, OFF is my favorite TV channel! Very insightful thought, though. :-)

I said that to illustrate that while "claims" appeal to the objective, they are NOT objective within their own right. What is considered objective is assumed knowledge, not knowledge claims. I acknowledge that you have YOUR own personal convictions regarding moral actions, but again, these convictions you have are not only about yourself, and THAT is the key point. The moment you claim moral rightness or wrongness in anyone beyond yourself...you must then justify such to them.

The absence of evidence that there is a weightless, invisible heffalump dancing atop my head is not evidence of absence of a weightless, invisible heffalump dancing atop my head.

The message changes with the times.. that's the beauty of it... Saying the slaveholders were on the right side of the biblical argument is bullshit.. Not to mention "slave" in that time was a term used to describe person that work a job (aka employee)

He contradicts himself here, first saying we don't need anything to guide us morally, we have those "intuitions" already inside us, then agrees, the problem is - without human made morals, we don't have anything to teach our kids about right and wrong.

Morality is a value judgement which is not claimable as objective given #1 without a criteria that can be shown in reality to be true.

Because we were brought up in that mind-set, we internalized it, it became part of our super-ego, our inner authority. Whenever we see something that is against what our super-ego says, we'll think it's wrong.

@keithhunt5328

3 жыл бұрын

Yes.