Morality Can't Be Objective, Even If God Exists (Morality p.1)

To anybody who supports (or even considers supporting) my channel monetarily, thank you. I am naturally grateful for any engagement with my work, but it is specifically people like you that allow me to do what I do, and to do so whilst avoiding sponsorship.

--------------------------------------VIDEO NOTES--------------------------------------

It's good to be back. Check out my previous livestream to catch up on where I've been. In the meantime, I've decided to lay out my moral philosophy. In this video, I discuss why I think morality can't be objective even if God exists. My next video will discuss why atheistic morality must be subjective too.

--------------------------------------------LINKS---------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------CONNECT------------------------------------------

SOCIAL LINKS:

Snapchat: cosmicskeptic

----------------------------------------CONTACT-------------------------------------------

Or send me something:

Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[tamircohen]

Thank the lord! God has provided us with a new CosmicSkeptic video

[arri]

Alex: says one sentence
My dumbass : *goes onto google dictionary for the 10th time*

[elenafari_]

you've put into words what i've been thinking for a long time!!
btw, i love the way in which you express yourself

[Silvercrypto-xkzy]

I discovered your channel a couple days ago while watching one of Lukas videos on his channel Deflate, in which you were discussing the problem of hiddenness. even as a christian I like and respect the way you do your content, its not vitriolic and/or hateful like some atheists (and unfortunately some professed christians) can be. I enjoy dialoging w3ith people such as yourself where we can disagree without being disagreeable

[shannonfernandes]

Quite fascinating. This reminded me of the Socratic version of this. "Do the gods call certain behavior good and that makes it good? or do the gods recognize that which is good and say so?" (This is a simplified paraphrased version)

[SawtoothWaves]

Sam Harris: "Good's not dead"

[soyevquirsefron]

Most theists don’t know or care what “objective” morality means. They are simply trying to express “my morality is more important than your morality”

[anubhavphukan]

The moment you got onto your actual points I was completely shocked and it was like an enlightenment.

[emmaclayton]

I love watching your videos- I’ll admit that I’m not very smart, but I love learning about these kinds of things (even though 50% of the time I have no clue what’s going on).

[strategossable]

0:00 "good morning everybody"

It's evening, you fool.





CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

[LebaneseLizard]

As a Catholic, I can say wholeheartedly this was very enlightening to hear. It’s very interesting how we can question everything and switch up our beliefs so quickly. I love how you’ve explained your points and I appreciate the new perspective on morality

[df]

I think you've provided an excellent analysis on a topic which I've grappled with for some time. One question I would like to ask is: Is it possible to establish objectivity in the absence of "standards"? Words like "ought" and "good" and so many other such words are, I believe, inherently subjective and their inclusion in the logical argument would be like including a variable in a mathematical equation that can only be estimated and expecting to obtain an accurate answer to the equation that contains it. Alternatively, can you present a logically consistent case where objectivity has been achieved from subjective premises?

[opanpro]

Theists: Morality is Objective
Atheists: Morality is Subjective
Nihilists: There is nothing such as Morality!

[Ian_sothejokeworks]

‘Ought’ is a funny word. Kind of a suffix or root: sought, thought, bought. Very active. Good word.

Shit, there’s a gas leak in my house.

[airwolfcentral]

As a religious moral objectivist this video was highly interesting 🧐 thank you!

[tyler-qrjn]

Gosh, the internet is both a curse and blessing. I'm glad we have a platform for great thinkers around the world to collectively speak to everyone. Unlike those in the past... everything move exponentially.

[slrandomperson]

I've grown up Christian my whole life, but I've always had questions that no one had answers to and doubts that were brushed off. I scoured the internet for hours and possibly days in total, compiling a list of arguments that Christianity makes versus what atheists have to say on the topic. Your videos were a common source within this list, and I can honestly say that part of what converted me to atheism, at least what helped me realize that I have been an atheist for much longer than I'd let myself believe, was definitely your channel. You opened my eyes to so many new views and topics that the Church is too afraid to touch on because they don't have answers yet. My parents don't know that I do not believe in god, so I still have to go to church every Sunday, but the more I go the more I realize how ludicrous it all is. Thank you for helping me figure out who I am.

[jungleismasiv]

Alex defines morality as "the *intuition* that we ought to do that which is good and ought not to do that which is bad, " and then, by further building arguments using this definition, concludes that morality is subjective. But the word "intuition" assumes the subjective nature of morality. So he has assumed his conclusion.

If we replace the word "intuition" with "notion, " then we can avoid assuming our conclusion. Although then we run into another problem: let's say we design a robot, which can recognise good and bad, and is programmed to only do good. Would that robot be "moral?" According to this definition, yes.

Although, if we define morality as "the *notion* that we ought go do that which is good and ought not to do that which is bad, where there may be circumstances in which we might be able to do that which is bad, " then this problem is solved. We need to assume that the *choice* to do both good as well as bad is a prerequisite for morality, which is not the case with the aforementioned robot. Morality cannot be defined for a being that has no potential to do that which is bad.

[theboombody]

To quote Mike Tyson, everyone thinks morality is relative until they get punched in the face.

[michaelhenry]

you are 100 percent correct, this channel is helping me stay sane, even though sanity is subjective as well if you ask me,