Atheist ACCIDENTALLY Affirms Objective Morality While Denying It

In today’s example, The Evolved Primate offers an argument against objective morality and for subjective morality. The Evolved Primate seems a bit puzzled about what it means for morality to be subjective. First, objective morality always depends on the situation or circumstances. Relativism is when right and wrong depend on (are relative to) the person.

Second, moral dilemmas based on the circumstances (as in Mr. Primate’s example) always demonstrate objectivism, not subjectivism.

Third, if it’s true that we ought to lie to save our family from a killer, then morality is objective, not subjective.

The Evolved Primate thinks his ethical dilemma illustrates subjective morality. Ironically, it illustrates just the opposite.

Follow Red Pen Logic with Mr. B:

Follow Stand to Reason:

[steelcarnivore]

Killer: Where is your family?
Me, an intellectual: Earth

[cybrmeds]

I am not a christian but hey a channel focusing on logic and clear thinking like this one is awesome, subscribed.

[Weexk]

They just can't stop giving you material, can they?

[No_Degree_McGee]

I just had this conversation earlier today. Either YouTube is spying on me, or God is affirming my thoughts. Thanks for this! New sub

[Unshou]

Your definition of objective morality is wrong as I understand it. It isn't situation dependent - quite the opposite actually. "Objective morality refers to the idea that moral principles exist independently of individual beliefs, cultural norms, or situational factors". Conversely, "Subjective morality suggests that moral judgments are based on individual or societal perspectives and can be influenced by the circumstances of a particular situation."

[Eye_of_a_Texan]

I would try to never lie. If a killer asked me where my family was, I'd like to think I'd simply not answer and try to out kill the killer whether I thought I could or not.
Edit: I love this channel. Be strong in Faith brothers and sisters!

[coda]

Thank you for clarifying this. That's how logic is supposed to work. It's meant to solve problems by clarifying facts. Instead of solving problems by obfuscating facts, as pseudo-intellectuals do.

[ecpracticesquad]

Objective morality requires that a moral determination always be the same for all people in all the exact situations. The Evolved Primate isn’t saying it’s moral to lie to save your family. He’s asking the question as it pertains to the concept of lying being objectively bad in general. There is a situation where someone may value telling the truth more than saving their family. In that case, they find moral justification in letting their family get killed. So it’s still subjective.

[BlazarAzul]

Apparently, each apologist redefines the terms differently. In this case, the speaker identifies relativism with subjectivism.
However, for W. L. Craig, who has honed the terminology over decades in his defense of the moral argument, the definition is just the opposite:
_"Very little reflection is needed to see that _*_'relative' does not mean 'subjective'"._* (William Lane Craig)

The distinctions Craig makes are clearer. Relativism is opposed to absolutism. Indeed, "it does not mean 'subjective'" (Whoopsie). And it can even go hand in hand with both moral "objectivism" and "subjectivism".

And this last detail is important: the question of taking into account contextual dynamics (situations and/or circumstances of the individual or individuals) does not conflict with an anti-realist, non-transcendentalist, non-theistic or intersubjective understanding of morality either.

So the detail is that "The Evolved Primate" is actually attacking moral absolutism. *_But from this it does not follow that he has affirmed the existence of the so-called "objective morality"._*

Other than the latter, I don't see any relevant point in this video.

[jkm]

Anyone else find the handler name “the_evolved_primate” a little ironic?

[Toadzx]

I could not hit like hard enough.
I needed this one.

[peregrine]

I just feel bad for all the people who read these absurd tweets and get brainwashed.

[FireyDeath]

Rookie mistake! This is actually a form of consequentialism. Moral objectivity doesn't even make any sense, since it would either need a logical/empirical grounding (the is/ought problem debunks this), or it would have to be subjective anyway because there's nothing objectively distinguishing it's justification from some other moral standard apart from itself. Besides, our only way to acquire a moral framework is to utilise an arbitrary set of information. So even if objective morality existed, then assuming it isn't consequential, how would we ever know if we got it, if it can't be deduced empirically or logically?

[iceberg]

I know that I am late to the game and maybe that is because I am just a late blooming semi-evolved primate, but I am confused.

I thought that subjective morals were based on the subject and are based on the person. Objective morals are based on a set of moral standards that are valid for all people and all situations, regardless. And moral situationism are moral judgments that must be made within the context of the entirety of a situation.

In all fairness the evolved primate did not use the terms Objectivism or Relativism. regardless you gave the wrong definition for Objectivism.

I hope that within the last few years since you made this video that you have corrected your error.

[lifewasgiventous]

I run across so many atheist who think this way in regards to morality and they don’t understand it, definitely gonna bookmark this video.

[CoryTheRaven]

It gets even better... If morality is subjective, what the killer is doing isn't wrong to begin with. What I love about arguments for relativism is that they are self-refuting. The act of arguing for it refutes it. If all morality is subjective, then there is no moral value in arguing for moral relativism. Someone's belief in objective morality is right for them. Arguing for moral relativism implies some kind of higher moral obligation to it. It's what you OUGHT to believe in. But why? If relativism is true then it is no more true and no more moral than believing in the falsehood of objectivity.

[philswaim]

Thats not usually what people mean by subjective vs objective morality.

When people use objective they tend to mean something that is true regardless of minds existing. Objective is like this pencil is 6 inches long. Thats true regardless of human minds observing the pen or not.

Subjective would be people deciding what is moral or not based on their desires or needs.

Which is what we have done. I dont believe there is objective moral truth. I believe morality is necessarily subjective because it describes how we feel about others actions and how they impact us and each other.

Its good to have definitions down, but realize you may not be using the words the same way someone else is.

[ronrontall]

What a cool channel. It should have a lot more subscribers!

[Hannodb]

Subjective morality makescas much sense as a criminal being judge in his own court case.

[samuelhunter]

Gotta love these atheist tweets nowadays...