Cosmic Skeptic Says Morality Can't Be Objective. He's Wrong.

In the video linked below, the Cosmic Skeptic makes the argument that morality can't be objective. He's wrong. Here is why.

[DeconvertedMan]

Name what moral is objective, and what ethical system it belongs in.

[DigitalGnosis]

I am a fellow Christian (and aspiring Philosopher but unfortunately an idiot) the polemic Cosmic Skeptic is working on is that of clashing morality within the Christian ethic. For example when we argue Gods nature is the moral authority and yet find things like Genesis 22 difficult, how we would respond if asked that by God, then it appears we appeal to some moral standard outside of God. He phrases this specifically as "If God asked you to shoot up a primary school what would you do?" - As Christian apologists we should seek to address this argument.

[LORDSofCHAOS]

Problem whit objective mortality is that cosmic skeptic fans can't hate on you because this. Means that follow a dogmatic morals system create it by athiest for athiest
And this is odd coming from people who claim that they never judge some one.
Regardless of religion or color

[tex]

Hi SJ. I enjoy your content. I have a few questions if you have time. I'm trying to offer you, hopefully, something a bit different than the typical objections you must hear ad nauseum. If so, I want a gold star for originality!! >.<

Do you believe in genetic predispositions for moral behavior? For example, could one's genetics negatively or positively affect how they treat others? If yes, how does one separate the transcendental (law written on our heart) from natural genetic inheritance. If you answer "no" to the first question, would you consider looking at twin studies, especially those twins who were separated at birth to exclude environmental factors. Side note: there is an excellent movie called "Identical Strangers, " on that topic.. check out the trailer! I think you would really enjoy that documentary.

2nd, Does aesthetics posses an objective standard? I'll explain and use a specific example. It seems that actor Bradly Cooper or actress Alexandra Daddario are both objectively more attractive than say, Danny Devito or former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Yes, age is one factor regarding physical attractiveness. I'd guess that 99% of the population from any culture would agree that there "seems" to be some objective standard for beauty; If so, from where does this standard come? It's true that morality and aesthetics are different categories but I've seen similar strong emotional reactions to both that seem to point to an objective standard. Back to the original questions, If there is an objective standard for beauty, If yes, from where does it come. If the standard for beauty is subjective, why does it "seem" universally true?

3rd, why do most people have a much stronger, innate, emotional reaction to moral transgressions that affect the survivability of their specific tribe rather than moral transgressions against God? For example, if you lived next to a person that tortured babies as opposed to someone that blasphemed the Holly Spirit, which situation would cause you more emotional stress? One of these is "unforgivable, " within Christian theology. If there is a Biblical Hierarchy of sins, it seems that the sins that cause harm to others, universally, cause more emotional outrage than those which insult ones accepted religion. The most important commandment in Christianity is to love God with all your entire being but we, including Christians, don't seem to have a strong emotional reaction, relatively speaking, when this commandment if violated. Yes, there are exceptions in the media but I think these offer a distorted perspective to what is average or expected.

4th, if morality is written on our hearts as an objective standard, why does this standard seem to favor those around us with closer genetic similarities? Starting with family, then close friends, then local communities, then national, then global least of all, on average. I'm speaking of tribalism, in a sense. Yes, there are exceptions but this seems to be a persistent theme in all cultures. There is an excellent podcast called "Nazi Summer Camp" by Radiolab I highly recommend this podcast for the history and amazing talent for story telling. The podcast explains the best theory for why the Japanese Americans that had nothing to do with the war were treated much worse than the Nazi soldiers which directly participated in the war, and then brought to American camps during the same time. You will enjoy that podcast, trust me 🙂

5th, there is a video of a robot dog on youtube called, "Introducing Spot" with 20 million views. Check out the top comments. Most seem upset when a machine is kicked and further confused about their emotional reaction. If morality was "transcendent, " it seems less likely to suffer from cognitive errors in processing, perhaps? Just a thought.

I don't repeat ideas common on atheist channels, blogs, etc.. I try to come up with my own objections. I have at least 5 more examples, rolling around in my head, but didn't want to take too much time. Hopefully I've articulated these clearly because I don't have anything written. I'm just rushing through some morning ideas. would love a reply to any of these points, if this sparks an interest!

Take Care..

[tex]

Sorry, before I commented, I didn't listen to your video because I thought it was simply a specific objection to cosmic skeptic. However, I have heard some of your other conversations on morality over the previous months and that is partially what I based my first comment on. I know I said I wouldn't add anything more since I've already written a wall of text.. please feel free to ignore this. Some statements in this video really caught my attention when you said, "Humans are unique in that we are innately wired with the knowledge to do what is right, no other life forms have these obligations." You site examples of forced copulation, killing, and taking food from one another and how animals do not feel bad when they do those things, rather it's just a means for survival. Again, no obligation to reply to any of this.. it's mainly for my own research although dialogue is always welcome.

Animals seem to have an innate sense of morality given the scientific consensus in relevant fields. Almost everything that I've read points to a deep sense of fairness and empathy, even, in light of, the wide spectrum of selfish behaviors in animals and humans. There are many examples where animals risk their lives to save others that they care about without any training by humans and the best explanation seems to be empathetic altruistic behavior. Can we dismiss all these seemingly clear acts of empathy with the examples of "bad" moral behavior?

When humans have babies, most feel a strong connection and moral obligation to take the best possible care of their offspring and, at times, at a major toll to their own well being and safety. We've all seen animals put themselves in danger for their offspring. Can we say that this has nothing to do with moral obligation, that somehow human moral obligation is different? How do we make the distinction? Besides one's offspring, what about videos like "battle at Kruger, " where many buffalo in a group risk their lives for the greater good of only one? There is another very short video(very funny), on a study, where monkeys seem happy to get a cucumber until another monkey gets a grape. This example show an innate sense of fairness. Some may say, they only have a sense of fairness if the monkey receiving the grapes, refuses the grapes until the other monkey gets an equal reward. That has been demonstrated too, and I'd suspect at the same low rate on occurrence in which humans would reject something valuable until their fellow human received the same. That vid is called "Two Monkeys Were Paid Unequally: Excerpt from Frans de Waal's TED Talk. There are tons of other videos and studies which seem to add to a growing body of evidence that animals do have an equally strong sense of moral behaviors. I'll list some of the studies:

Study: "The comparative study of empathy: sympathetic concern and empathic perspective‐taking in non‐human animals"
quotes, "A review of the comparative study of empathy is thus timely to complement and constrain anthropocentric views, and to integrate current findings. However, this is not an easy task. The study of animal empathy has developed using different paradigms, different concepts of the phenomena involved, and the absence of a systematic program. Herein, we carry out a comprehensive review of the literature on complex forms of empathy in non‐human animals: sympathetic concern and empathic perspective‐taking. In particular, we focus on consolation and targeted helping, as the best examples of each category."

"Rats preferring to free trapped companions than to eat chocolate chips, voles ‘consoling’ distressed partners, dolphins helping injured companions to breathe … reports like these have fascinated us since ancient times. In his Historia Animalium(Aristotle, 1897), the Greek philosopher Aristotle considered the temper of animals, highlighting the gentleness of the lion, the sensitivity of the elephant or the kindness of the dolphin in saving companions from fishermen or compassionately supporting dead calves to prevent them from being devoured. However, fear of anthropomorphism restricted research on non‐human animal empathy for decades (Panksepp, 1998; de Waal, 1999). Recently the field has overcome this concern, stimulating public interest and promoting observational and empirical studies."


Study: "Emergence of a Peaceful Culture in Wild Baboons"

study: "Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats"
"Peggy Mason has been told over and over that the rats she experiments on are not capable of empathy. Only humans and other primates can understand the emotions of another. Most other animals can't. And certainly not beady-eyed rats.
But what she was witnessing in the lab was telling her something very different. In experiments, Mason and her colleagues at the University of Chicago were finding that when one rat was placed near another jailed rat, the free rat would open the hatch for a rescue — something it wouldn't do for a toy rat. What's more, when given the choice between saving a fellow rat and some delicious chocolate, the free rat would open both cells and then share"

There are many other studies which support my thoughts on animal morality.. would you consider providing any studies within the past 20 yrs or so that indicate that animals do not have some innate moral obligation? If you concede that they do have some natural instinct but it's somehow different than humans, I'd like to know how it is different.


Thanks if you made it this far! lol :) take care. I'll keep enjoying your conversations!

[waldo..]

You did not address Alex's point about God being unable to account for objective morality.

[_a.z]

Objective yes, absolute, no.
Either way, it certainly does not come from the Bible, which is massively inferior to the common morality shared by most!
Quite clearly morality is formed evolutionarily and culturally. It is somewhat undefined and fluid.