Moral Skepticism and Moral Objectivism

I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.

This is a video lecture about chapter 1 of Russ Shafer-Landau's book "Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?" The lecture includes discussion some terminoligical points about moral skepticism and moral objectivism, but it also includes the three reasons why Shafer-Landau thinks that moral skepticism, which he understands to be the denial that there is one universal set of moral laws that apply to everyone's actions everywhere, is increasing in popularity at the moment. There is also a criticism of moral skepticism, based on the fact that all, or virtually all, people who subscribe to it also seem to hold commited, non-relative moral opinions. Shafer-Landau calls this moral schizophrenia. I also explain the distinction between ethics and metaethics. This lecture is part of an introductory-level philosophy course, Introduction to Ethics.

[lugardo]

I CAN'T WAIT to binge watch the crap outta you. Exceptional speaker: enthusiasm, explanations, personality, etc. what a gold mine

[cumulus]

"Pick Your Favorite Evil Practice"

I go into public restrooms and turn around the toilet paper so it's facing the other way. MUAHAHAHAHAHA

[SpeedyBozar]

The last 26 seconds of this video are very satisfying. I think it sums up all the philosophical debates about morality beautifully. Since if there is no objective morality, then it might not be objectively moral to deny objective morality but it definitely saves time.

[lancetschirhart]

I graduated with a phil degree about ten years ago, and this high level overview from a few videos (so far) is the first time I've really revisited the content. I think Jeffrey does a great job, and I hope he is a lecturer at a university. Euthyphro overview recommended.

Philosophy struggles to discover new things compared to the efficiency of science, or to tell us just what to think at all, but it's very effective as a tool to make sure our beliefs are consistent. Just a random observation that comes to mind now as I listen to this lecture.

For fans of this channel, I highly recommend Kagan's Philosophy of Death course from Yale, available here on YT. He is a brilliant philosopher and riveting professor, and you simply can't do better when it comes to an undergrad level deep dive into Death from many angles.

[williammcmahon]

Kaplan, I love the style and energy in these lectures. Stumbled on the Russell's paradox one last night and then plowed through a handful of others and thank you for putting these on YouTube for the general public! I was tossed out of school and got my GED at 17 and did some tech school stuff and my life ended up with me owning an IT contracting company. I still hunger for knowledge, especially in mathematics (blame my mom who was a TA at NDSU in statistics) and philosophy so it's really fulfilling coming across stuff like this. Thank you!

[lo]

good video. i just have one question: is he writing backwards?!

[peter.tjeerdsma]

Thank you for this series, Jeffrey! Best rabbit hole I've been down since Robert Sopolsky's behavioral biology lectures.
So. A question: even as a kid I wondered about the words "morals" and "ethics, " given how vaguely they were defined separately, and how often they appeared together in circular definitions.
No teacher ever offered a satisfying contrast. Then, finally, I encountered Theodore Sturgeon's elegantly dovetailed delineation in his masterwork "More Than Human", and as an appropriately Socratic dialog in "The Wages of Synergy":

“An act can be both moral and ethical. But under some circumstances a moral act can be counter to ethics, and an ethical act can be immoral.”
“I’m with you so far, ” he said.
“Morals and ethics are survival urges, both of them. But look: an individual must survive within his group. The problems of survival within the group are morals.”
“Gotcha. And ethics?”
“Well, the group itself must survive, as a unit. The patterns of an individual within the group, toward the end of group survival, are ethics.”
Cautiously, he said, “You’d better go on a bit.”
“You’ll see it in a minute. Now, morals can dictate a pattern to a man such that he survives within the group, but the group itself may have no survival value. For example, in some societies it is immoral not to eat human flesh. But to refrain from it would be ethical, because that would be toward group survival. See?”

To me, this squares the vicious circle of moral schizophrenia, and skepticism vs. objectivism arguments in general. It points to the deeper question: "What kind of society do you actually live in, and what does it really need in order to survive?"

[MatheusOliveira-quxq]

Simple and beautiful presentation like Michael Smith's ''Moral Problem''. Congrats!

[josefopeda]

Isn’t the primary thesis of moral skepticism that ethicists are jumping Hume’s fact-value gap when trying to uncover moral facts about reality? There is no epistemic method to derive objective moral facts from reality the way we can gain facts through scientific inquiry. That’s why there is still a divide among ethicists about which moral theory, eg Kantianism, utilitarianism, or virtue ethics, is ultimately true. And I think what Schafer-Landau is missing in his seeming caricature of moral skepticism is that you don’t have to be amoral to be skeptical of how we derive moral facts about reality. You can still believe in justified moral beliefs by virtue of their correspondence to some independent moral reality that might exist even if you are skeptical of how moral truths can be uncovered in reality. Skepticism isn’t necessarily nihilism or moral relativity.

[olivergroning]

All of these reasons of Schafer-Landau are not really dealing with objectivity. Let me reformulate the reasons a bit to make their contradictions clear:

Reason 1: 'Objective' moral truths need to be told to us by 'subjects' with authority.
Reason 2: These 'subjects with authority' seem to have different 'objective views' in different cultures.
Reason 3: People doubt moral objectivity, because believing it too strongly can go horribly wrong.

As a scientist in my book something 'objective' means: I can formulate a method by which everyone who applies this method correctly can determine, regardless of his believes, a certain parameter (the height of a table) or whether something is true or not e.g. 2+2=4. Sometimes the latter example is taken as the existence of an 'objective truth', however what makes 2+2=4 objectively true is the mathematical method to prove it and that relies on mathematical axioms. I.e. statements which are true by choice or definition and therefore are subjective. Here below is what is needed to prove 2+2=4:

Axioms of equality, i.e what means "="
1: x=x
2: If x=y then y=x
3: If x=y and y=z then x=z
4. If x belongs to M and x=y then y belongs to M

Axioms defining Numbers (N)
5: 0 is a N
6: If x is a N then the successor of x (called S(x)) is also a N
7: There is no x of N such that S(x)=0
8: If x and y are N and x=y then, and only then S(x)=S(y)
9: S(0)=1, S(1)=2, S(3)=4, S(4)=5, ... recursive definition of the number symbols

Axioms defining addition "+"
10: If x is a N then x+0=x
11: If x and y are N then S(x)+y=S(x+y)

And now the proof:
-> 2+2=4

The axioms are not objectively 'true' or 'false', but the statements following from then are 'objectively' true or false, but only within the system of these axioms
E.g. I could change the axioms and define S(3)=5 and S(5)=4, in this system 2+2=5 is true and 2+2=4 is false.

So if you want to make morality 'objective' (which many people seem to be determined to do) then you should be able to formulate a method of proof, but then you end up like mathematics that you see that you must define some axioms and there subjectivity enters back.

[SlimThrull]

Shafer-Landau's case is based on a faulty premise. One can be outraged by slavery while still being a moral skeptic. Those aren't mutually exclusive ideas. To say, "I think slavery is evil" is shorthand for, "My moral code says that slavery is evil." It is NOT shorthand for, "Everyone's moral code says that slavery is evil." Shafer-Landau conflates these ideas. In doing so, his reasoning becomes fallacious.

[anthonypape]

I really like this guy. What a great professor. The philosophy videos are great but also the tips on how to be a good student I wish I had. I have been certain to have my son watch them before he goes off to school. Everytime Jeffrey cleans that glass though I keep thinking he's missing a spot but it's my tv. I always have to wipe my tv down first to ensure there are no finger prints on his glass.

[evelcustom]

How do you compare and contrast moral skepticism versus moral relativism?

[dogsdomain]

but the skeptic's ability to act in accordance with or be consistent with his moral claims doesnt really make his/her argument true or false. Just like I can act like free will exists while knowing determinism is true.

[remidall]

There is another reason to be a moral skeptic. Because hypocrisis is an hommage that vice is doing to virtue....And Virtue would not go very far if vanity and self interest were not very far behind to help carry the weight of culpabilities. But.. Such is human nature...Most of the time when it speaks of Morals

[emmettobrian]

This is an old video I see, but i do see one objective in morality. As far as I've ever heard, ownership underpins all moral claims.

Don't kill? That person owns their life.
Don't covet? Another person owns that stuff.
Don't rape? That person owns bodily autonomy.

There is one interesting caviat, a higher authority, government, God, what have you, owns the right to say you can't own a thing anymore. Often, ownership is considered provisional, stemming from the authority of that power. In a sense, the higher authority owns the thing you claim to own and are provisionally extending their ownership to you.

It's my friendly supposition, if you read that and said "No way! What about X" I'm interested in hearing it.

[marcusgrubius]

Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin helped make me a moral skeptic.

It's the world THEY helped to create we're living in now, not Hitler's.

[FAAMS]

Lets see if one can simplify the topic so much that it will seam super complex...

I am a Moral Realist.
My axiom for Moral Realism is Existence.
I don't believe in Free Will, thus I don't believe in choice, and still I claim that everything that exits is NECESSARILY Good precisely because it exits!
There is no bigger criteria for what is Good then the ORDER of THINGS is my very simple rational!
I call this the all inclusive Theory of Good!
If it looks like awfully similar to Moral Relativism is because it is...the nuance is that Moral Relativism ascertains that things are neither good or bad while I ascertain that all things that exist are NECESSARILY Good!

[chillbro]

The idea of moral skeptic schitzophrenia severely ignores the lohic of motal skepticism. If morality was hunger it would say this : "moral skeptics don't believe that every human is currently feeling hunger, but later when their stomach is empty they state they feel hunger! You either must always feel hunger or never feel hunger, if you feel hunger sometimes and sated other times it is schizophrenia!" Moral skeptics can express morals and even have them assuming that they admit they would have different morals in different cultures.

[TheDragonStratagem]

{! Disclaimer: I am a hobbyist hypothetical physicist, an amateur conjectural theologian, and an aspiring philosophical sci-fi/fantasy author. The ideas posited and owned by the author of this comment are entirely fantasy fictional or science fictional, and are not representations of actual reality or existence, but are only and exclusively abstract philosophical nonsense !}

Ethic is morality that we vote on. Morality is not a democracy but since democracy is morale then ethics overrules morality.

{! Disclaimer: I am a hobbyist hypothetical physicist, an amateur conjectural theologian, and an aspiring philosophical sci-fi/fantasy author. The ideas posited and owned by the author of this comment are entirely fantasy fictional or science fictional, and are not representations of actual reality or existence, but are only and exclusively abstract philosophical nonsense !}