YouTube Transcript:
PHI 240 (03) Moral Relativism

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

AutoDub

Understand YouTube Foreign Videos

Immersive YouTube Voice Translation

Break language barriers, embrace global quality content

Solve Foreign Video Barriers Instantly

Video Transcript

Video Summary

Summary

Core Theme

This lecture introduces moral relativism as a philosophical stance that denies objective moral truths, arguing instead that moral standards are determined by culture or individuals. It explores arguments for relativism and its significant, often uncomfortable, implications, aiming to motivate listeners to consider alternative ethical systems.

Mind Map

Click to expand

Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate

hello everyone and welcome back to

introduction to ethics this is the third

lecture for the online variation of this

course it's on moral relativism in the

first lecture we simply went through the

syllabus and and some of the

expectations for the course in general

in the second lecture we talked about

the nature of ethics I gave you a sort

of definition or characterization of

ethics as far as I understand it what I

believe its value to be for the average

person in other words the non

philosopher and also attempted to give

you some motivation of why it would be

beneficial for you to study this even if

you have no intention of ever going into

any kind of philosophical field in the

future or academic life in the future

okay so with that in mind we are now

ready to turn our attention towards what

I would count to be the primary

information that that the ethicist can

bring to you it's the abstract question

of how do we decide what is right and

what is wrong now depending on how we

think about that question there are eat

there gonna be either three or four

responses if we count any answer as a

response then we would say there's four

and moral relatives of relativism would

count into that set of responses and

we'll see why that it is shortly if we

wanted to say that by answering that

question you're affirming the reality of

morality well then there would only be

three general responses and that would

be utilitarianism a ontology and virtue

ethics so we're gonna spend the next

four four five six lectures total

talking about how different theories

respond to this again there are four

options that we're going to be thinking

about it in a broader sense and moral

relativism is gonna be the first of

these so this is this is really our

discussion on ethical systems and once

we get through these next six lectures

then we'll turn our attention towards

particular ethical problems and applying

ethical considerations to the real world

all right with that in mind let's think

about relativism before we get into the

arguments for relativism I think it's

pretty valuable to talk about what

relativism is and I actually believe

that before we define roe

of ISM it would be helpful to identify

or define morale objectivism which is

its it's contrary it's the opposite of

relativism and so morale objectivism is

basically the position that says moral

standards are real they exist in some

way in the world in other words both

individuals and societies can succeed or

fail morally now this definition doesn't

necessarily entail that the rules are

the same for everyone and all of the

time in other words there are variations

of moral objectivism some variations

will say something along the lines of

the right thing to do morally will be

indexed or based upon what a particular

person's circumstances are at a

particular time and those positions

would be just general moral Objectivist

positions on the contrary there are

other variations that are gonna say that

moral values are completely absolute and

have no relevance whatsoever with

respect to your circumstances or the

outcomes or any of that sort of thing in

other words the moral standards are are

by implication a set of entirely

exception and less laws so if we wanted

to contrast these two variations we

might say that somebody who says thou

shalt not steal ever is a moral

Objectivist but they would be a moral

absolutist if somebody said well what

about in the case where you know you the

family is starving and the person

they're stealing from the food is just

rotting would that still be wrong the

moral absolutist would say absolutely

that's still wrong the moral

Objectivists might say you know what

there are times when stealing is a good

thing okay

that and this is gonna be the non

absolutist version of Objectivism so all

moral absolutists our moral Objectivists

but not all moral Objectivists our moral

absolutist s' and the difference is

primarily going to be whether or not the

circumstances or the outcomes of the

particular situation matter okay so

we're gonna address that if you wanted

to just a general category of moral

objectivism how it breaks down

typically speaking at least as far as I

understand it utilitarians are

definitely moral Objectivists that are

not moral absolutists i believe that the

virtue ethicists

our moral Objectivists and not

absolutists but i think that the de

ontology our moral absolutist sand will

give characterizations of that going

forward so so don't get caught into the

trap of thinking that if you say that

morality is objective that means that

every single circumstance calls for the

exact same type of actions that just

doesn't follow there are nuances and

variations between the systems that

allow for different answers to that all

right with that in mind the contrary

moral relativism is basically just it's

just a denial of moral objectivism so

the moral objectivism is false moral

standards are culturally or sometimes

individually determined there are no

specific objective or absolute moral

rules so again it's going to deny all

concepts of rules as it goes as it as it

relates to actions in the real world

okay and this is a radical claim this is

not just the claim that most moral

beliefs are subjective and non-binding

it's that all of them are ok so again I

want to make sure that we're not

understanding this is to kind of bipolar

here moral objectivism is not the belief

that all things involve moral judgments

moral objective as long as you believe

there's at least one action that's wrong

in the world

you're a moral Objectivists you know

there are again variations of that if

you believe that there's not a single

action that's technically wrong

according to the nature of the world

then you would be a moral relativist now

as we move forward throughout this

lecture I'm gonna is gonna put my cards

on the table here my aim is going to be

to get you to respect the rationality

and the general argumentation that goes

into kind of presenting a relativistic

position I want to support the

intuitions I'm gonna support the the

thinking that goes into moral relativism

I want to identify the things that they

seem to be correct about but at the end

of the day my goal in this lecture is to

convince you that you personally are not

comfortable with the implications of

being a relative

and if I can convince you of that what

that means is that I have I have

fundamentally I have fundamentally

motivated you to think about the next

you know five lectures that we have

identifying the the character of the

primary three systems of alternative to

moral relativism so that's what's going

on here I want to convince you that even

though moral relativism sounds good on

on the surface and even though moral

relativism you can understand why

somebody might be inclined to believe it

that you personally are not are not

willing to accept the commitments that

go along with that so let's see if we

can do that

all right so cultural relativism

arguments is the first one we're

actually gonna look at three distinctive

arguments in favor of moral relativism

and and none of them hinge upon one

another so what I'll do is I'll develop

I'll present each arguments and then

I'll offer some challenges to the

arguments and we'll try to modify them

to make them stronger as good response

you know give good responses to those

arguments on behalf of the relativist

and for each one of these we will also

look at some implications that seem

troubling in their own right so that's

how we'll go about it we'll start with

the cultural relativism argument we'll

probably spend the most time on that one

then we'll move into the psychological

influence arguments and then to the no

proof argument so these are very very

different as far as arguments go but

we'll see that some of the responses are

similar so all right so what is cultural

relativism well right off the bat you

may have heard this term before

particularly if you've had a sociology

class before it's cultural relativism is

the claim that all grounds of

establishing and or directing morality

so all attempts to show you that there's

a real morality and all attempts to

convince people to act morally whether

religious political or ethical are

relative to culture you might think that

there's a parallel here with one of the

the famous phrases about the concept of

beauty and what is that people say

Beauty is I'm sure you finished a

sentence in the eye and the beholder

right the idea here is that somebody

will find something beautiful because of

who they are not because of what the

thing is

and cultural relativism is gonna say the

same thing about morality you might find

something to be moral or immoral because

of your religious beliefs or because of

your political commitments or because of

your ethical foundations but all of

these they're gonna argue are relative

to the culture okay now one of the

reasons I like to make the contrast with

Beauty being the eye and the beholder

and and I try to link up religious

political and ethical here is because if

we can make the case that even though

something is is your ethical standards

could be relative to a culture and if we

can make the case that that doesn't

imply that morality itself is relative

well then what that does is kind of

frees up those other kind of

characterizations as well maybe there

are objectively correct religious

positions or political positions or

ethical positions or positions about

what's beautiful right we're kind of

these things kind of stand or fall

together as far as theoretical concerns

go it prevents us for being too overly

simplistic about oh just because people

disagree about beauty means there's no

objective standard well that doesn't

necessarily follow and we're gonna be

pushing that forward here

so what does it mean to say that

morality is relative to the culture well

simply put it means that when we say an

action is right or wrong for somebody

it's only determined to be so because

our culture has either disapproved or

approved of that thing right in other

words I'll say if I say an action is

religiously appropriate or inappropriate

it's because the religion that I'm

committed to says so but if I was part

of another religion you would have a

different response to that if I say a

law is politically expedient or

problematic it's a good law or a bad law

what I mean there is well it's a good

law because of the country we're in but

in another country this would be a bad

law and that's how people would look at

it same thing for saying an object is

aesthetically beautiful or ugly it just

depends on my perspective it depends on

what somebody has taught me along the

way that being beautiful or being ugly

is all about and so that's the idea of

what they're saying they're saying that

when we determine that something is

right something is wrong it's because

our culture has inclined us to believe

that okay now when we talk about

cultural relativism sometimes we might

say well you know the culture as you

know you might refer to the culture as a

whole and it's kind of hard to define

this all the way like what did what

counts as my culture so for example here

in Jacksonville North Carolina you might

ask yourself well what culture am i a

part of well you might be a part of the

southern culture you might be a part of

the marine culture you might be a part

of the Millennial culture the boomer

culture right there's there's a lot of

different cultures that we can identify

with so what happens is a lot of

cultural relativist say that the

cultural relativism actually can be

reduced to a subjective relativism where

each person has their own own kind of

unique individual culture so there's a

little bit of an ambiguity of what we

mean by culture in that sense so don't

get too hung up on what culture is what

here let's focus primarily on the kind

of context of argumentation it goes into

cultural relativism okay so let's look

at the argument now so the basic

argument for cultural relativism or

moral relativism that you'll also often

hear go something like this premise 1 if

moral standards differ from culture to

culture then they are culturally

relative now on the face of it this just

seems pretty definitionally obvious

that's what we mean when we say that you

know that's what we mean by culturally

relative we mean standards do differ

from culture to culture so it seems

pretty hard to imagine rejecting this

position second position the second

premise moral standards clearly differ

from one culture to the next on the face

of it this one seems pretty empirically

obvious as well right I mean if you go

into the oh my gosh if you just go into

some of the northern states some of the

things that they do in the northern

states as opposed to way they do things

in the southern states is radically

different from one another and and

oftentimes this is true when we're

talking about not only kind of habits or

or kind of hobbies and that sort of

thing but when we're talking about the

way they make judgments about what's

right and wrong

and it's even amplified if we talk about

going from one country to another

country a lot of countries things that

happen in those countries they look at

as morally appropriate or even morally

demanded where whereas we don't look at

them the same way here I'm thinking for

example if you go into you know

Afghanistan when the Taliban were

running it and women weren't allowed to

go to school or drive cars that was

deemed to be a moral judgment right in

that so they would say women driving

cars are going to school is morally

inappropriate whereas here in America we

have for most of them for a long time

now at least we have affirm that no no

it's morally appropriate to allow women

the same same active rights as men have

and then we make the judgment that what

they're doing is wrong and so obviously

that's a difference from our culture to

their culture over there and and and so

that means that there is according to

this argument that means that there is a

relativism or its relative only

relativistically true that it's wrong

for women to be able to go to school

right that that for them it's okay to

prevent women from going to school for

us it's it's okay to Pro to keep them

going to school and so the inference

from this would be well then there's no

such thing as a moral truth on that

matter that it's it's just you know

what's right for them is right for that

what's wrong for us is wrong for us okay

so that's the basic substance of the

argument there as far as the structure

goes if I were teaching this class

seated I would probably show you on a

tool that logicians eul's use called a

truth table that this argument is is

actually a valid argument now valid when

I say a valid argument I don't mean it's

right I don't mean it's true what I mean

is it has a structure okay it has a

particular structure that guarantees

that if I accept the premises as true

then I would also have to accept the

conclusion is true there is no

alternative for me I am not rationally

allowed to say yeah I accept premise one

I accept premise two but I deny the

conclusion the truth table would be able

to prove that

again that doesn't mean that premise one

and true are in fact true it just means

that if I commit myself to believing

their truth then I have no other options

but to affirm the truth of the

conclusion if I want to be counted as

rational this argument form for those of

you who might be interested in the sort

of thing is what logicians would call

the modus ponens form of argumentation

so what does that mean that means if we

wanted to deny this argument in

principle in principle the best way to

go about doing that would be to try to

deny one of the premises okay but I've

already argued here that the premises

seem to be acceptable at least on the

face of it and so that creates a little

bit of a problem it seems like I backed

myself into a corner to where I have to

affirm the truth of cultural relativism

and therefore the truth that there's no

such thing as any moral standard

whatsoever now there are a couple of

different ways we can challenge us one

of the ways I'm going to challenge this

indirectly here I'm gonna follow the

thinking of a guy named James Rachel's

and and James Rachel's offered what's

called the equivalence argument to moral

relativism okay and so he said instead

of challenging this argument directly by

going after the premises he said you

know what there's something wrong with

these premises that we don't really pick

up on when we're talking about moral

relativism but if we kind of changed out

some of the terms here we kept the exact

same structure but but turned our

attention to focus in on a different

discipline we would feel pretty appalled

by the implications here we would want

to deny them pretty obviously and the

way he does that is he switches out the

term moral in this argument for

scientific and then he asks us what do

we think and so again when we said if

moral standards differ from culture to

culture they're culturally relative

moral standards do differ from culture

to culture therefore it's clearly true

that moral standards are culturally

relative he says let's switch out

science if scientific standards differ

from culture to culture than their

culturally relative scientific standards

differ from one culture to the next

therefore it is clearly true that

scientific standards are called

relative now one thing I want you to

notice here is every single word is

exactly the same located exactly the

same place except for moral and

scientific or have been the scientific

has been subtype for moral in the second

one what does that mean well from a

logical standpoint these statements are

exactly equivalent that means that both

of them would have the same logical

implications and so if premise one if

I'm sorry if the first argument there is

valid but logically then the second

argument would also be valid logically

okay and and that means that if in the

case of the first argument the premises

being true demands the truth the

conclusion I would have to say the same

thing about the second argument so if I

have a problem with the second argument

that means that one of these premises

themselves is problematic and and needs

me to address it and that would be

implication aliy true for the other side

as well so let's think about this can we

protect any sorry can't can we affirm

the second argument here

it's scientists if scientific standards

differ from cool and culture to culture

then they're culturally relative well in

order to answer this claim we have to

think again about what we mean by

cultures and as I argued earlier there's

a little bit of ambiguity of what

exactly counts as a culture and what

doesn't and it would be begging the

question to presume that by scientific

culture here we can only be referring to

the overall current group of scientists

who are deciding for us what

scientifically true and what's

scientifically right right well in other

words why can't we look at subgroups as

having their own distinctive scientific

cultures and and why would we why not

consider that as not determined or

decided by time okay so let me give you

an example here's one scientific culture

the scientific culture of the geocentric

geo centrists the geocentric Tsar the

people who believed that the earth was

at the center of the universe and the

geocentric chily were the predominant

scientific culture from roughly 350 BCE

until roughly

1550 seee or ad depending on how you

measure your time there okay so let's

think about that 350 plus 15 fifty so

it's 350 BC and and 1550 ad or C II

that's a total of nineteen hundred years

so for nineteen hundred years the

prevailing scientific belief was that

the earth was at the center of the solar

system then of course Copernicus came

along in 1550 and he was followed up by

the likes of Kepler and Newton and

Galileo and they came to decide that no

no you know what it seems a better

theory to believe that it's the

universe's heliocentric or at least the

solar system is yo-yo centric which

means that the Sun is at the center of

the solar system and the earth is in

motion around it now these are certainly

different scientific beliefs and the

beliefs are based upon distinctive

standards of theorization that say

Copernicus would have as opposed to what

the total mass or the Aristotelian would

have had prior to that so the scientific

standards are different between these

cultures and therefore the beliefs end

up being different as well so what does

that mean well that seems to imply then

that because the scientific standards

differed from the one culture to the

next over time here the the geocentric

culture to the heliocentric culture

because that is is empirically true that

there were disagreements and because if

we want to define a scientific

relativism as having you know having

distinctive cultures it seems like it's

gonna follow there are no true

scientific standards that what what is

scientifically true is up to you or up

to me right or maybe we want to say up

to you know for Aristotle we would say

something like geo centrum was is

geocentrism was true for Aristotle and

for Newton we'd say heliocentrism was

true for Newton but there's no objective

truth about the matter I want you to

think about the implications there do

you really want to believe that for

Aristotle geocentrism was true in other

words that the earth really was at the

center of the universe for Arizona

see I don't think you want to believe

that I think you want to believe that he

thought that and he had arguments in

favor of that but at the end of the day

Aristotle's arguments or thoughts were

in accurate that the world is a

particular way and that it didn't all of

a sudden change to where the earth

wasn't moving before Copernicus started

talking about it and then when

Copernicus started talking about and all

of a sudden the Sun stopped moving the

earth started revolving around that we I

don't think we believe that our thoughts

our ideas about the way the world has

had that much power

right now you might think to yourself

well you know that that's a you know

that's a over time Aristotle today

probably would recognize that he that he

had faulty beliefs or something well

let's focus on something that involves

people who were there are disagreements

even today there are some cultures

within the scientific world who believe

that the universe is really only ten

thousand years old and that it only has

the appearance of age now a lot of these

folks from or theologically motivated

and I want to affirm that all right not

everybody who believes that position as

being scientifically reasonable I want

to be very clear here not everybody

who's believing this is doing so on the

basis of scientific reasons that's what

I meant to say but there are a handful

of people out there who actually make

the case that they you know they

challenged the notion of the you know

the 13.8 billion year old universe or

6.4 billion year old earth on the basis

of what they believed to be faulty

assumptions within the concept context

of science and so they'll talk about

carbon dating and they'll talk about

appearances age and all these other

things and technically speaking they can

give a internally consistent story about

the age of the universe that though it's

not a fully scientific story it has to

involve some theoretical commitments it

still fits the data technically speaking

now again I'm not trying to give too

much credibility to this way of thinking

what I'm doing is saying that there are

people in there who actually can attack

the scientific commitments and do so in

a way that's not irrational okay

might be unpractical but it's certain

not irrational so what does that mean

well then some people say the earth the

universe is 13.8 billion years old and

some people say it's you know 10 to 20

thousand years old and what would we

have to say then well then you just have

two different cultures of science and

therefore they're both right but can we

affirm that can we really affirmed that

the universe is both 13.8 billion years

old and just 20,000 years old

again my my bet is that most of you

think no of course not it's got to be

one or the other or some other number

but whatever the age of the universe is

it is the age of the universe it's not

multiple ages there has to be only one

age that's the idea so what do we do

about that how do we fix the logic here

so that we can accommodate for the

denial of the scientific role of this

relativism argument like can we can we

fix that and I actually believe that we

can I believe that there's if we

restructure the premise one I then add

in a third premise that we can actually

kind of get out of the scientific

relativism problem without losing our

ability to support moral relativism at

least for another couple of steps here

and so here's what I would recommend

doing we should add to my premise one so

that we would say something like this if

scientific standards differ from culture

to culture and and there is no clear

path to deciding who's right or wrong

then what is believed is relative is

relative to the culture okay and then we

can go on and say that there are beliefs

they're different beliefs from one

scientific culture to the next and

certain of those beliefs can't be

decided one way or the other therefore

its cultural think that's one way we can

go about it so how would that react to

the way we put that - the moral roads of

his Monument well the moral relativism

argument would that look like this

premise one would be changed if moral

standards differ from culture to culture

and there's no way to deciding who's

right there's no clear path to

arbitrating then they're culturally

relative them in premise - what we do we

have moral standards clearly diff

from one culture to the next which

satisfied the first part of premise one

up there

if moral stand is different from one

culture to another we're saying yes they

do of course then we need to add a third

premise here to say there is no

objective path to deciding who's right

or wrong

to arbitrating between them and then if

you put two and three together you'll

notice that you those two things put

together they make the if clause in

premise one satisfied they fulfill it

therefore the conclusion the then Clause

of the premise one becomes the truth

that's how it works out now again when

we modify this premise it helps us to

distinguish between between the two

versions of the argument it helps us to

also distinguish between the scientific

standards and the problems we were

running into that so let me give you an

example if moral standards different

from culture to close I'm sorry if

scientific standards are from culture to

culture and there's no objectively clear

path to deciding these right then

they're culturally relative scientific

standards do clearly differ from one

culture to the next so for instance

let's look at Flat Earth theory versus

spherical Earth theory right those are

definitely two culturally a cultural

distinctive scientific cultures and and

so we recognize that the first part of

the if clause is true but as the second

part is it the case there's no way to

objectively determine who's right or

wrong about the shape of the earth well

no that's not true it does seem to be

that there is a we're a clear way to

objectively determine the shape of the

earth there are actually multiple ways

that you can objectively determine the

shape of the earth we might point out

that when the earth casts a shadow on

the moon it's spherical we might point

out that when we look out and see other

planets in the universe their spherical

we might point out that if you take a

space shuttle to the moon and look down

at the earth it would be perceived to be

spherical right there are lots of

different ways to show that the concept

of the earth being flat is absurd right

we can talk about the concept of gravity

and we can show that it's incoherent

that the earth can be flat using

concept of gravity at least in the way

that we understand it and we can affirm

we can argue that the concept of gravity

is an objectively viable concept on the

basis of its ability to predict and

explain our experience and so there are

lots of different ways where we can go

about showing how flat our theory is

inconsistent with the data and therefore

we can show that even though we have to

cultural belief sets one of them is

clearly better than the other on the

basis of its ability to explain the data

with the other one cannot that's the

thinking that goes here we might also

say the same thing about about the

difference between the young-earth

version of the universe where we say

though the earth and that the universe

are our only you know it's ten to twenty

thousand years old versus the idea of

them being 13.8 billion years old for

the universe 6 point 4 for the earth we

can say look that first one can't really

explain all of the data well at least

not without bringing in some

presumptions that have no support from

direct empirical data and so there's

ways to try to distinguish between these

two positions ok we can do the same

thing for the geocentric versus

heliocentric model we can say yes on the

surface of it looking at the data of

direct you know experience of what we

can see from standing in the earth you

might not be able to decide between them

but if we get off of the earth and start

looking around if we could in principle

like go out in the universe and watch

the workings of things we would start to

realize that no it's pretty clear that

the earth is in motion ok we can do maps

of the universe and try to show that

that the earth is not at the direct

center of the thing ok so the point is

that it in the science of in the

examples where we choose one scientific

theory over another it seems it seems

that there's at least some way that we

can pursue the idea that the that

certain claims that are made certain

scientific communities are simply wrong

whereas other ones have a more adequate

view because experience or reality seems

to apply to those views better okay so

the question ends up being okay is that

not true with morality

see we got the premises set up here

again premise one two and three now and

they are logically valid this one

doesn't have a fancy name like the Lotus

ponens argument but again if I put this

on a truth table I can show you that if

you were to believe premises one two and

three then you would have no choice but

to accept the conclusion if you're being

rational and so if I wanted to now

reject this argument if I wanted to be a

moral Objectivists and challenged back

my job would be to undercut one of the

premises and so let's just look at these

one at a time premise 1 if moral

standards differ from culture to culture

and there's no way that deciding who's

right or wrong then they're culturally

relative well again on the face of it it

really does seem like this premise is a

very strong premise it's a very

reasonable premise to accept primarily

because that seems to be what the

definition of relativism is there's

difference in belief and there's no way

to decide who's right it seems like in

those circumstances then you would be it

would be appropriate for you to maintain

the position that you feel like is the

right position to maintain and that's

what we mean by relativism so I still

don't think premise 1 is the premise to

go after here premise 2 is left open a

little bit moral standards clearly

differ from one culture to the next now

I didn't poke poke on this premise in

the first variation of the argument

because I wanted to save the challenges

for here but some of you may have when

you seen that premise you might have

thought well wait a minute is it really

true that cultural standards or moral

standards are really different from one

culture to the next I mean certainly

it's the case that there are gonna be

variations from one culture to the next

but what about on the big things you

know some people might argue that

there's actually a lot more agreement

than the relativist submiss then they

might say you know what in every culture

of the world respects respect for your

parents is something that is looked at

as a good thing right or you might say

in every culture in the world abusing

children has looked at as a bad thing

right or at least in the vast majority

if 99.9% of mankind historically has

said you shouldn't abuse children now

they might disagree on what counts as

abuse but but they might have similar

standards or if every standard in

you know if every culture in history in

general had to had the general

commitment to the idea that you

shouldn't take the life of an innocent

person for no reason then then you might

say well then there's a universal

standard right so so a lot of people

will argue in this way yes people say

that a lot more belonging under the

category of being immoral or moral than

early do and so there are disagreements

but because people overextend the

concept of morality but if we really dig

into the the nuggets of the similarities

between cultures we'll find a handful of

police that virtually every culture is

an agreement upon okay and I think that

you know as far as the data goes I mean

you're not gonna find any belief that

every single person affirms but if you

can get like into the 95 to ninety

percent ninety nine percent range I mean

that's a pretty dramatic agreement there

to be able to explain some of the

similarities it seems like there has to

be some explanation by that okay so how

does the relativist respond here do they

just lay over and say you know what

you're right I'm an Objectivist those

things are true I don't think that they

would and actually I think they're

relativists have two different paths of

going about how to respond to this in

one way they might say that so this is

becoming from what's called the ethical

egoist and this is the person that would

say look the reason that people would

say I accept certain standards is

because people realize that it's in my

best interest to do so

one of the one of the more common

analogies or examples about though

ethical egoism that that you might talk

about is a scenario that comes from one

of the writings of the guy named Plato

most of you probably heard the name

Plato he's one of most famous

philosophers who ever lived and he wrote

a book called the Republic and it was a

political treatise and in this political

treatise he actually challenged the idea

of moral relativism so but there was

this this person named force Inachus and

and and he he wanted to come in and and

tell Plato that people that there aren't

really good true rights or wrongs or not

there's not as such

as justice that when we talk about

justice or rightness or wrongness or

holiness or any of these other concepts

really what's going on there is we're

importing this this kind of idealistic

idea of right and wrong from from the

source that actually doesn't really

identify them as right or wrong but good

or bad for me and so here's the example

he gives he gives an example called the

ring of guy G's example and and he asks

Plato actually he's asked Socrates in

the context of the tax but he asked him

to imagine that there's this guy named

guy cheese or there's this guy who found

a ring that belonged to another guy

named guy geez and this ring of guy jeez

is a ring that can make somebody to be invisible

invisible

now again obviously there are parallels

to this in our own kind of modern world

you might think about the the ring that

belonged to first Bilbo Baggins and then

to Frodo Baggins the the ring that the

hobbit has does the same sort of thing

right it makes you to be invisible or

for those of us who are more modern you

might think of the cloak of Harry right

the the idea that there's this thing

that you can put over you that makes you

to be invisible

now we'll just consider the ring because

it's easier to kind of get along and do

with a ring on you don't have to kind of

cover the things you want to take with a

cloak here but but I want you to imagine

that you had a ring that made you

invisible okay and then I want you to

think about what kind of justification

you might offer for your actions if you

are in a position where you could do

pretty much whatever you wanted without

being caught how would you act if you

had let's say you had the ability let's

say that you were in a position where oh

I don't know let's let's think of a

situation where let's think of a

situation where a a friend of yours had

had serious serious medical issues but

they weren't going to be able to get

receive any kind of treatment and let's

say paid upfront okay I mean if I asked

you in that general situation would it

be okay for you to rob a bank to protect

it to save that person

people would be like no no of course not

you you shouldn't rob a bank you would

tell your children no don't don't rob a

bank to to collect the money for your

friends so they can have a medical

procedure now you should try to get the

money buy more legal means maybe you

should try to have some funding drive or

something like that but don't rob a bank

that would be a wrong thing to do okay

and what what through Simic us would say

to you is the only reason that you your

gut tells you that is because in reality

you're not really worried about the

morality of robbing a bank what you're

worried about is getting caught because

if you rob a bank well what's that gonna

do well that's probably oh very likely

gonna end up in you being put into jail

or you might actually have a situation

to where you know where the people think

you're a serious danger and you can even

be killed and so they might say well

like these are really likely outcomes

for this kind of action and so we need

to convince you that this kind of action

is bad so that you don't end up with

these kind of outcomes and so so we use

the concept of right and wrong of

actions to convince people or their lies

that you shouldn't steal because these

things will not end up being good for

you it's not that stealing itself is

intrinsically bad but stealing leads to

negative life experiences okay and so

the ring of guide use example for some

ACCA's brings up says look if we had a

situation where you could actually get

away with it you knew that there was no

way that you were gonna be caught then

would you look at that as an action that

would be worthwhile to do in other words

you know you you're at the bank and you

and you have the ring on so nobody knows

you're even there and you look and you

realize hey there's a clear path to the

right now there's a clear plastic path

into the walk-in

you know vault there that has all the

money I can just go in and and you know

put them on to put the stuff under my

shirt so that nobody can see it right

and walk right out and nobody would be

the wiser see it's believed in that

situation we might say well maybe there

is you know maybe we would be more

inclined to do that our gut wouldn't

stand in the way so much of the action

because our gut would no longer look at

this as a threat to our own freedom

right the idea here is that

is that through silica siz trying to

point out that many of our rules which

are based upon gut feelings or it's or

you know considerations of like how like

whether or not I feel comfortable doing

in action that that comfortability has

more to do with what will happen to us

and it has to do with the action itself

so they would say that agreement between

cultures about what's right and wrong as

far as like murder or stealing or

anything that like that goes could

really be chalked down to worries about

what it will happen to us and this goes

hand in to hand with the thinking of

another person a later thinker guy named

Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes wrote a

famous book in the 17th century called

the Leviathan and the Leviathan is

actually one of the foundational

theoretical treaties that really

establishes the justification for the

kind of government that we cap today

it's it's the idea of a representative

Republic the idea that you have a a

system of laws that humankind generates

and agrees to with one another to live

under over also so it's called the

social contract theory as the original

version right so Thomas Hobbes wrote

what's called the social contract theory

and here's what he had to say about

morality that there is no such thing as

morality morality is not real that what

morality is is is the result of a bunch

of people who in the natural state were

constantly at war with one another for

resources in other words human beings

all live in this world together and

there is no such thing as private

property there's not that we don't come

into the world with anything we don't go

out of the world with anything nothing

in the world is really our own so we

come into this world and we find apple

seeds and apple trees and all of these

other things and there's soil that helps

them grow there's sunlight there's water

and all the stuffs in the world and

needed to make this apple tree grow or

make food grow in general but none of it

actually belongs to me

well who does it belong to well in that

case if it doesn't all if none of it

really belongs to me

then it belongs to the earth and and all

who reside in it and so everyone has

equal rights to the particular apple

tree or garden

or other food products right everybody

has equal rights to the natural the not

the nature itself well what does this

mean that well this puts us in a little

bit of a pickle psychologically speaking

because if everybody has the right to

the apple tree that I've been eating off

of well then that means I've got to be

really protective over it right I've got

to be in a situation where like I need

to recognize that somebody could just

take this from me if they wanted to and

there'd be nothing wrong with that right

or if I wanted to think about like my

home or or any other situation the plot

of land that I'm living on that these

things don't technically belong to me

that they are things that everybody has

an equal right to this puts me in danger

why does it put me in danger well

because if somebody wanted to take it

then all they'd have to do is come come

towards me with more force and I'm able

to muster up to fight him off and they

could take it from me well how does this

affect my life my life then becomes a

life of anxiety it becomes a life where

all of a sudden I can't really even

sleep anymore without watching my back I

can't trust anybody who I happen to run

into in the world who pretends to be my

friend because for all I know they're

really after what I have right so Hobbes

looks at this situation and says well

this is a miserable state we're in a

state of war with every other human

being who lives and this is no good for

human experience and so he looks at this

and says it's in the best interest then

of all human beings to come together and

say you know what this isn't really good

for any of us it's just gonna create

anxiety or all of us so we'd be best off

coming up with some kind of pact where

we affirm or at least agree to some some

provisions that would prevent you from

coming and taking my land or my home or

my apple trees and prevents me from

doing the same to you and this compact

this this agreement is gonna have to

have more than just an agreement about

what we're going to do it's also gonna

have to have the authority to be able to

penalize anybody who breaks the

agreement and so this ends up being the

first contractual government now notice

what's going on here this whole

agreement or this governmental contract

nothing at all there's no argument here

at all about what's the right thing to

do and the wrong thing to do what we

have instead is an argument that it's in

our best interests that we adopt rules

against murder and against that and and

and all of these sorts of things right

so it seems like if if that's true if we

really are in a state of nature like

Hobbes says we were where we're

naturally at war with one another and

nobody actually owns property well then

it seems like there's not really any way

to prevent us from going down this path

and saying well yeah like if that's the

way things were like every single human

being would have a intrinsic self

benefit in living under a contract that

protects you know my region and keeps me

that allows me to have sleep and and and

and puts penalties on people who come

and take it we would all be in in a

benefit individually of agreeing to

something like that

and it doesn't matter what culture in

the world that we're living in or what

region of the world every culture

because human beings are pretty pretty

similar everywhere we go and and subject

to being killed right and other human

beings are in need of food and shelter

and and all these because we have

similar circumstances everywhere it

would make sense that different

government contracts that come up in

different regions though they have a lot

of differences depending on their

regional kind of commitments that they

would have a fundamental basic set of

similar features about murder and about

ownership and that sort of thing that

would that would you know be multiplied

from one reason to another and so in

that scenario premise two I believe if

you if you're gonna commit to something

like a Hobbesian concept of the state of

the natural state of human beings that

in that particular situation it seems

like they can explain away similarities

from one culture to the next without

also saying that moral objectivism is

true alright does that make sense

so again premise two there's a way to

that there's a there's an Avenue where a

challenger or moral Objectivist could

could push on that and say no no I don't

accept that necessarily but I do think

the cultural relativist has a

theoretically consistent response that

would kind of undercut the initial

challenge and so that means if you can't

get out of premise one

because it seems definitionally it's

your own premise to has a really good

response to it from the relative a

standpoint it seems like maybe premise 3

is gonna be the one that we have to deny

to ultimately get out from under the

argument there is no objectively clear

path to arbitration and premise 3 is

actually the premise that the objective

the moral Objectivists are going to

hinge upon or they're going to go after

in trying to counter this argument this

is exactly what the next few weeks are

gonna all be about the utilitarian is

gonna say yes there is an objectively

clear path to deciding who's right or

wrong look at the consequences the day

ologists they have course there's an

objectively clear path deciding who's

right or wrong

you just got to look you got to

determine or infer the rules using pure

reason or divine command and the virtue

ethicist is and say of course are

objectively clear clear rules we just

need to look at the nature of human

beings and and it's gonna help you know

that'll allow us to infer them from

there so this is where the primary

disagreement is going to lie on premise

3 on groups of people saying there are

ways to decide who's right and who's

wrong just because to do two cultures

disagree and nobody has kind of decided

the matter doesn't mean the matter can't

be decided okay so that's what we're

gonna be going after for the next few

weeks here you might say well wait a

minute then that's not enough like why

why do you think like why should we

actually even care about going after

premise 3 like if it seems empirically

doubtful in the face of it and premise

one and premise 2 can stand up on their

own then why not just accept premise 3

and go ahead and commit to moral

relativism and I think a lot of people

who don't really understand or don't

think the problem all the way through

might fall into that but I think I've

seen so many statistics from different

philosophy professors over the year

where they'll do an interview at the

beginning of the semester and with their

freshmen students who are thinking about

ethics for the first time and the vast

majority of them on the first question

when you present to them the concept of

moral relativism the vast majority of

them be like yeah I'm a moral both of us

I think more

as a matter of your personal experience

it's not really objectively true because

on the first look at it without really

thinking about the implications it just

seems there's a lot of intuitive pull to

this argument it helps us to explain

disagreements so well right but but

that's not the end of the story

unfortunately and if we actually before

we actually look into the alternative

models and think about the different

theories and play it for saying there

are objectively clear paths are deciding

who's right or wrong

perhaps it would be best for us to look

at some of the implications of

relativism and-and-and I think in doing

so this will motivate us to wonder

whether or not it's worth it to be

committed to such a position and so

that's let's do that at this point so so

basically here's what we're doing we're

going through a third way to challenge

cultural relativism the first one was

equivalence argument it was an indirect

challenge and the relativists were able

to come back against that one the second

way is to challenge the premises

themselves which were which wishes what

we're going to be doing over the course

of the the rest of this part of the

semester so we'll see what kind of

challenges throughout service have has

after that the third way is offering

implicational discomfort again it's

another indirect way it's it's my way of

saying hey okay before you decide

whether or not you are that moral

relativism is okay for you I want you to

think about what other things you're

gonna have to commit to right and and if

you are really uncomfortable with these

things well then that's gonna be support

or motivation enough for you to say you

know what I think it's worth listening

to what the utilitarian the

deontologists and the virtue ethicist

asks it to say and here's the first

implication I want you to think about

cultural relativism does not allow for

moral progress okay cultural relativism

does not allow for moral progress what

does that mean well progress means

things are getting better right and so

on cultural relativism there becomes no

justification for being able to say that

things are ever getting better

all attempts at social reform on the

cultural relativist position our mere

power play is therefore the per the

situation below where we have you know

black individuals with

being sold in the chopping block which

was sorry it sold on the auction block

at the chopping block the auction block

from you know we could have seen this

happening in the early 1800s and today

we see that somebody of the same ethnic

background can be not only not being

sold on the auction block but all

actually can be either teaching in a

classroom or eventually become the

president the leader of the free world

right the culture of all the relativist

cannot interpret the movement from the

1800s up until you know 2008 here are

2016 right you know any time between two

thousand and two thousand two thousand

and eight and two thousand sixteen you

can't interpret that as a circumstance

that involved progress you can't say

things got better at that time you would

only be able to say that they're

different all right

no moral judgment would be allowed from

the cultural laws of his position what

the cultural office would say would be

you know that situation there was the

culturally right thing to do if you're

in this you know if you were in the

United States in 1845 for example but

the thing at the top is the right thing

to do if you're in the United States at

2012 right that these things were right

for their given times that you can't

look back in 2012 and say they were

wrong for doing what they did in 1845

and you can't look at 1845 and saying

they were right for doing what they did

do in 2012 and as a matter of fact if 20

years into the future we went back to a

scenario like what's depicted in that

first picture they're the cultural

relativist would have to say we haven't

regressed that's just the new correct

that is the new morally right thing to

do because that's what the culture says

now are you comfortable with that

are you comfortable with the idea of not

being able to look back on slavery and

say they were wrong for what they're

doing or not being able to look forward

from slavery and say you know what a

world where that where the the black

population is free to pursue their own

desires and to pursue Authority of

leadership that that's that would be a

good thing again you got to think about

that scenario if you are not if you do

not believe

that those circumstances there if you if

you if you believe that going from

circumstance in the first picture to the

circumstance in the second picture is

progress then you are being inconsistent

with relativism

likewise cultural relativism implies

that all cultures are on par or morally

it's not just a matter of you can't make

judgments on other ones but every

culture is equal from a moral manage

pointed so if we look at these two

pictures here the first one is the the

white supremacist protesters who were

marching their way through where were

they march to Charlottesville Virginia

in the you know late 20 teens okay if

you if you look at that and and you

could say well that culture has their

moral commitments their moral beliefs

that's we'll call it the KKK culture or

the you know or the neo-nazi culture or

or if you wanted to put a different

group up there you can you know put if

you put up a you know gang cultures or

anything like that if you can put any

any culture that we generally look at

today as being you know a culture that

is aberrant or acting immorally you can

put that on one side and then on the

other side you have what I have you have

Buddhist children praying meditating

right and and and and and from the

cultural relativism standpoint you'd

have to look at this and say look these

these cultures are equal from a moral

perspective now I want you to imagine

that as you grew up and you have a child

and your child says to you you know I'm

really thinking about what I want to do

with my life

I'm not sure whether or not I want to be

a you know a Buddhist monk or whether I

want to be a white supremacist do you

think there's a right answer to that

question if they're giving you only two

options would you direct them in a

particular way or would you say you know

what to each his own it doesn't matter

whichever culture you become a part of

that's the right thing for you to do do

you really believe that see if you do

believe that then you can you can be

consistent with moral relativism but if

you don't believe that that's true then

you are going to have to deny relativism

on the basis of this implication third implicational

implicational

problem cultural relativism implies the

basic and fallibilities of all cultures

again it's not just a matter of saying

that people have the right to believe

what they want to have it's not just the

right to saying that all moral beliefs

are equal this is also saying that every

moral decision that's made on the basis

of what is cultural dependency is the

absolute right decision to make you

cannot possibly make a moral mistake

according to cultural relativism and so

in these situations the there is nothing

at all wrong here the first picture is a

picture of Sandy Hook elementary school

now some of you might not be familiar

with Sandy Hook elementary school Sandy

Hook elementary school was a place where

a young man his name was Adam Lanza went

into the school and killed 20 some-odd

children are 20-some odd people most of

them kindergarteners shot he shot them

up it was a school shooting situation

and then he he left and I don't know if

he I think believed I think believed you

could he committed suicide in this

situation but we can look at that and

say well wait a minute what was his

culture well Adam Lanza was a culture of

one he decided for himself this was the

right thing to do on the basis of the

commitments that he had made his own

interpretation of the world and so he

decided to do it so we would have to say

that he made the infallibly correct

decision the second picture probably is

that means but not probably not very

familiar to many of you of any of you I

mean gosh at the time of this recording

we're darn near 20 years after this

happened you know I think it's 19th

anniversary comes this year so many of

you aren't even old enough to be able to

remember that it for me as somebody's a

little bit older this picture is very

very fresh in my mind even nineteen

years later right and it's in the second

plane getting ready to crash into the

towers of the World Trade Center going

in Tower one on 9/11 right so when we

look at this when we were always well

wait a minute there's a there's a

culture of people the radical Islamists

that were involved in this they were

al-qaeda operatives right from their

vantage point they had an argument they

had a cultural belief that attacking

American civilians and attacking America

where it hurts was something that needed to

happened in order to kind of correct the

immorality that was happening in the

world in other words they believed this

was a culturally appropriate thing to do

and according to cultural relativism

they would have to say if that's what

the culture determined was right then

they were infallibly correct that was

the exact right decision to make they

were being wholly rational now again if

you're uncomfortable saying that Adam

Lanza did the infallibly correct thing

by shooting up a classroom full of

kindergartners or if you're

uncomfortable with the idea saying that

Muhammad on the 9/11 hijackers were

infallibly correct to fly their planes

into a building filled with American

civilians if you believe that those are

actions that don't that you don't want

to say are absolutely a hundred percent

rationally true well then you're gonna

have a problem cultural relativism and

finally one last implicational problem

and cultural relativism you can't

distinguish the saint from the center so

Mother Teresa is no different evaluative

Lee speaking from a standpoint of

morality than Adolf Hitler it just

depends on you know you putting yourself

in the right shoes so the cultural

relativist might look at what Mother

Teresa did and they say look yeah of

course mother Teresa looks great for

from our vantage point where you have

this this you know group of people who

are starving in India these children who

are not receiving any any food and she's

going over there tried to medically

helped take care of these people and

give them food and she's trying to take

care of the poor and the needy we might

look at that as great for more culture

but guess what what what about the

Hindus how did they rule the Hindu elite

how did they react to Mother Teresa

there they thought mother Teresa was the

worst of people

why because according to Hindu cultural

beliefs the reason the people are born

into poverty and and and born into

situations where they're starving is

because they have cosmic karma that they

need to work off from the life that they

lived in the previous life see Hinduism

believes in reincarnation and they

believe that you're reincarnated state

is a function of the life that you live

in the previous state so if you are

required reincarnated to a negative

circumstances it's because you must have

done something really bad in the last

life and if you're gonna try to help if

somebody's gonna come along and try to

help you in this to get through that then you're not

to get through that then you're not actually getting the opportunity to work

actually getting the opportunity to work off your own moral that's from previous

off your own moral that's from previous life and therefore how do they interpret

life and therefore how do they interpret that they look at the person who's

that they look at the person who's actually coming in and helping as doing

actually coming in and helping as doing more harm than good they're not giving

more harm than good they're not giving the person the opportunity to

the person the opportunity to functionally work off their karma and

functionally work off their karma and therefore they are the worst of people

therefore they are the worst of people because their actions don't only affect

because their actions don't only affect what happens in this life but they

what happens in this life but they happen in fact what happen in the life

happen in fact what happen in the life to come as well right again if you can

to come as well right again if you can see this scenario we listen to that we

see this scenario we listen to that we think oh wow yeah you know what from

think oh wow yeah you know what from that cultural standpoint the Hindus

that cultural standpoint the Hindus would probably look at somebody like

would probably look at somebody like mother Teresa as being worse than Hitler

mother Teresa as being worse than Hitler because Hitler's actions only affect

because Hitler's actions only affect they only affect one life or if they do

they only affect one life or if they do affect another life they actually affect

affect another life they actually affect it in a way that is good for the people

it in a way that is good for the people who had to work off their karma so they

who had to work off their karma so they might look at that as Hitler being a

might look at that as Hitler being a tool of the people who suffered

tool of the people who suffered immensely under Hitler I mean the

immensely under Hitler I mean the suffering was so traumatic and so

suffering was so traumatic and so horrifying that from the Hindu

horrifying that from the Hindu standpoint you might look at that say

standpoint you might look at that say but you know imagine the Karma they are

but you know imagine the Karma they are working off is the negative karma that

working off is the negative karma that they are working off from previous lies

they are working off from previous lies or the positive karma that they're

or the positive karma that they're storing up for the next one right now

storing up for the next one right now again if you're hearing this and you're

again if you're hearing this and you're thinking oh the sun's appalling the idea

thinking oh the sun's appalling the idea that I can't say that mother Teresa was

that I can't say that mother Teresa was doing something better than him if you

doing something better than him if you can't stomach the idea of affirming that

can't stomach the idea of affirming that there's no difference between these two

there's no difference between these two then again you are not going to be able

then again you are not going to be able to commit to cultural relativism and

to commit to cultural relativism and it's logically coherent and consistent

it's logically coherent and consistent form so what does this all mean for you

form so what does this all mean for you well it doesn't mean we've undercut the

well it doesn't mean we've undercut the cultural relativism argument altogether

cultural relativism argument altogether right this knows none of this was going

right this knows none of this was going after one of the premises directly we

after one of the premises directly we still would have to do that to undercut

still would have to do that to undercut the cultural relativism argument but

the cultural relativism argument but what this does it is if you have agreed

what this does it is if you have agreed with me going through these four

with me going through these four scenarios here and said you know what I

scenarios here and said you know what I am not at all comfortable with following

am not at all comfortable with following through with the implications of

through with the implications of relativism if you say that well that

relativism if you say that well that means you then become motivated to try

means you then become motivated to try to attack premise three the idea that

to attack premise three the idea that there is no way to decide who's right or

there is no way to decide who's right or wrong

wrong and so we're gonna look at that as we go

and so we're gonna look at that as we go through it so you get the judge for

through it so you get the judge for yourself in that matter all right let's

yourself in that matter all right let's move on to the second of the three

move on to the second of the three arguments again most of the time was

arguments again most of the time was gonna be spent on that first argument

gonna be spent on that first argument the next two we'll go through a little

the next two we'll go through a little bit more quickly here my goal is to get

bit more quickly here my goal is to get through this lecture you know in the

through this lecture you know in the hour and a half or so by the way most of

hour and a half or so by the way most of the lectures won't extend this long

the lectures won't extend this long throughout the semester and again there

throughout the semester and again there are only five more that I'm going to be

are only five more that I'm going to be doing after this then we'll move on to

doing after this then we'll move on to our debate section so which will you

our debate section so which will you know be more act more activity on the

know be more act more activity on the screen there to be a little easier to

screen there to be a little easier to follow so I encourage you just keep

follow so I encourage you just keep sticking with me here if you need to

sticking with me here if you need to pause the video now might be a good time

pause the video now might be a good time to do it okay so moving on to

to do it okay so moving on to psychological influence what is a

psychological influence what is a psychological influence well let's break

psychological influence well let's break it down into our parts here psychology

it down into our parts here psychology psychology is a class that you could

psychology is a class that you could take here at Kostal or any other school

take here at Kostal or any other school it's a major that you can participate in

it's a major that you can participate in it's a career field that you can

it's a career field that you can participate in and it has to do with

participate in and it has to do with studying the mind right and that's what

studying the mind right and that's what psychological means it means of or

psychological means it means of or pertaining to the mind and so if

pertaining to the mind and so if something is a psychological influence

something is a psychological influence you know influence of something that

you know influence of something that affects you then we can say a

affects you then we can say a psychological influence is some sort of

psychological influence is some sort of influence it affects you our mind and

influence it affects you our mind and from the potato from the perspective

from the potato from the perspective that we're looking at as it relates to

that we're looking at as it relates to the argument for morality we're

the argument for morality we're looking--we're what we're gonna see here

looking--we're what we're gonna see here is the argument that that morality

is the argument that that morality really is just the product it's the

really is just the product it's the belief that follows from the set of

belief that follows from the set of psychological influences that you have

psychological influences that you have now you might ask yourself well what

now you might ask yourself well what kind of influences are there on my mind

kind of influences are there on my mind or my beliefs well there are lots of

or my beliefs well there are lots of them

them you might think about your family and

you might think about your family and friends these are influences of your

friends these are influences of your beliefs that who your family is and who

beliefs that who your family is and who your friends are do have some

your friends are do have some correlation to the beliefs that you

correlation to the beliefs that you maintain you might also say that your

maintain you might also say that your location geographically where you live

location geographically where you live in the world has some implication on the

in the world has some implication on the things that you believe it is highly

things that you believe it is highly highly unlikely that if you were born in

highly unlikely that if you were born in you know the mountains of Afghanistan

you know the mountains of Afghanistan that you would be a Southern Baptist

that you would be a Southern Baptist Christian right that that would be the

Christian right that that would be the the result the belief set that you would

the result the belief set that you would have in that set set of circumstances if

have in that set set of circumstances if you still lived there all right

you still lived there all right likewise it would be how it would be

likewise it would be how it would be highly unlikely that if you were born in

highly unlikely that if you were born in the you know southern United States that

the you know southern United States that you would be a you know a radical

you would be a you know a radical Islamist right these are not the kind of

Islamist right these are not the kind of beliefs that are traditional or common

beliefs that are traditional or common for one's geography now does that mean

for one's geography now does that mean you can't be born here and and have that

you can't be born here and and have that have that ideology of course not there

have that ideology of course not there there are going to be cases that deviate

there are going to be cases that deviate from the norm of what people believe

from the norm of what people believe likewise are people who are in

likewise are people who are in Afghanistan who are likely Christian who

Afghanistan who are likely Christian who live in the mountains of Afghanistan so

live in the mountains of Afghanistan so so there are gonna be aberrations are

so there are gonna be aberrations are gonna be there are gonna be exceptions

gonna be there are gonna be exceptions but these exceptions are actually

but these exceptions are actually exceptions that would prove the rule

exceptions that would prove the rule right the reason they are conceived of

right the reason they are conceived of as exceptional is because it's so odd to

as exceptional is because it's so odd to be in that circumstance right so it does

be in that circumstance right so it does seem like geography has some

seem like geography has some implications for how you most likely

implications for how you most likely will believe the information that you

will believe the information that you receive what your education is what your

receive what your education is what your brain chemistry is in some situations

brain chemistry is in some situations will affect the way that you process

will affect the way that you process information right how how your minds

information right how how your minds work you know I I don't believe I'm not

work you know I I don't believe I'm not somebody who believes that intelligence

somebody who believes that intelligence is genetic right but I do think that

is genetic right but I do think that there are certain modes of intelligence

there are certain modes of intelligence or certain ways of thinking that

or certain ways of thinking that different people are good at different

different people are good at different that are different people are good at

that are different people are good at well you guys probably know this and you

well you guys probably know this and you know when you go to a math class like

know when you go to a math class like some of you you just get math and when

some of you you just get math and when you try to like help somebody else

you try to like help somebody else understand it who struggles with it it's

understand it who struggles with it it's really hard to do that it's really hard

really hard to do that it's really hard to get the seats get somebody to see the

to get the seats get somebody to see the mathematical connections if you're just

mathematical connections if you're just good at that

good at that alright again I'm not trying to suggest

alright again I'm not trying to suggest that this is this is like somehow the

that this is this is like somehow the people who are just good at it are more

people who are just good at it are more intelligent you know intellectually than

intelligent you know intellectually than others biologically what I'm saying is

others biologically what I'm saying is that they just have an ability to do

that they just have an ability to do certain sorts of reasoning but easier

certain sorts of reasoning but easier than other people's too and and other

than other people's too and and other people would have different abilities

people would have different abilities for reasoning in different areas right

for reasoning in different areas right so I think we all have our own kind of

so I think we all have our own kind of strengths and weaknesses has come to

strengths and weaknesses has come to different forms of intelligence but

different forms of intelligence but again I don't think that this is there's

again I don't think that this is there's this overall universal intelligence that

this overall universal intelligence that some people have genetically and some

some people have genetically and some people don't so I want to make sure I'm

people don't so I want to make sure I'm not being heard in that way right my

not being heard in that way right my point is that that we have biological

point is that that we have biological and

and and electrochemical circumstances that

and electrochemical circumstances that seem to lead to differences in the way

seem to lead to differences in the way that we process information so if we put

that we process information so if we put all this together and we say okay well

all this together and we say okay well wait a minute so yes we have different

wait a minute so yes we have different backgrounds families friends locations

backgrounds families friends locations informations education x' chemical and

informations education x' chemical and biological circumstances yeah these are

biological circumstances yeah these are all psychological influences right so

all psychological influences right so and these things seem to be the kinds of

and these things seem to be the kinds of things that would reflect affect our

things that would reflect affect our moral beliefs true as well that's the

moral beliefs true as well that's the idea that goes behind the psychological

idea that goes behind the psychological influence argument so with that that

influence argument so with that that mine let's let's move forward into that

mine let's let's move forward into that argument okay so premise number one a

argument okay so premise number one a moral belief is the product of a set of

moral belief is the product of a set of one's psychological influences on

one's psychological influences on initial reaction this seems pretty darn

initial reaction this seems pretty darn obvious empirically speaking again like

obvious empirically speaking again like this some of the things that we just

this some of the things that we just talked about you you can think about

talked about you you can think about some of the things that you believe

some of the things that you believe morally that you probably would not have

morally that you probably would not have believed if your parents weren't who

believed if your parents weren't who they were

they were imagine yourself so imagine that let's

imagine yourself so imagine that let's say that you're a pretty staunch right

say that you're a pretty staunch right leaning Republican right and you grew up

leaning Republican right and you grew up in a and a home where you know your

in a and a home where you know your parents were Republican and right

parents were Republican and right leading and and you know you you were

leading and and you know you you were part of a kind of a traditional

part of a kind of a traditional evangelical church and and and and you

evangelical church and and and and you grew up in the south Fox News is always

grew up in the south Fox News is always on in your home and you think about your

on in your home and you think about your background you think yeah I mean I

background you think yeah I mean I that's where we raised it and you can

that's where we raised it and you can believe that's correct and that's fine

believe that's correct and that's fine right but let's just imagine like you

right but let's just imagine like you can think yeah I can understand some of

can think yeah I can understand some of the the influences that have come to me

the the influences that have come to me that have been more supportive of of a

that have been more supportive of of a right-leaning republicanism now I want

right-leaning republicanism now I want you to imagine that instead of growing

you to imagine that instead of growing up in the home where Fox News was always

up in the home where Fox News was always on your parents for always Republicans

on your parents for always Republicans and your evangelical I want you to

and your evangelical I want you to imagine that you were raised in a

imagine that you were raised in a different sort of home perhaps you were

different sort of home perhaps you were raised in a home that wasn't evangelical

raised in a home that wasn't evangelical maybe you are going to be raised in a

maybe you are going to be raised in a home that was let's say let's say I

home that was let's say let's say I don't let's say that you were raised in

don't let's say that you were raised in a home that was more secular thinking

a home that was more secular thinking that that your morality in this home was

that that your morality in this home was more left-leaning that there was a heavy

more left-leaning that there was a heavy influence

influence from thinkers like us for more of the

from thinkers like us for more of the academic culture let's just put it that

academic culture let's just put it that way because academics tend to lean left

way because academics tend to lean left much more heavily than those who lean

much more heavily than those who lean right okay that instead of watching Fox

right okay that instead of watching Fox News in your home growing up that you

News in your home growing up that you listen to a lot more NPR or CNN right

listen to a lot more NPR or CNN right and the and these were your your sources

and the and these were your your sources of information okay do you believe that

of information okay do you believe that if you have been raised in a house like

if you have been raised in a house like that that your your attitude towards

that that your your attitude towards politics would be different my bet is

politics would be different my bet is that it would be right now this isn't to

that it would be right now this isn't to suggest that you would eventually later

suggest that you would eventually later in life switch over to be more right

in life switch over to be more right leaning likewise you know if you were

leaning likewise you know if you were raising at home and and likewise if you

raising at home and and likewise if you were raised in a home where Fox News was

were raised in a home where Fox News was always playing in the background this

always playing in the background this doesn't mean that you would be unlikely

doesn't mean that you would be unlikely or unable at some point later in your

or unable at some point later in your life to kind of move towards the other

life to kind of move towards the other side of the political spectrum people

side of the political spectrum people change their political dispositions I've

change their political dispositions I've undergone a few of these changes myself

undergone a few of these changes myself over the course of my own life right and

over the course of my own life right and so this isn't this isn't my way of

so this isn't this isn't my way of trying to say that you know you're

trying to say that you know you're you're destined to believe what you

you're destined to believe what you started off believing or what your

started off believing or what your family gave you why do why do I not have

family gave you why do why do I not have to commit to that on the basis of the

to commit to that on the basis of the psychological influence argument well

psychological influence argument well because the family that you grew up in

because the family that you grew up in in your history is not the only set of

in your history is not the only set of psychological influences of being

psychological influences of being appealed to here again you're also

appealed to here again you're also talking about your education the friends

talking about your education the friends that you meet the circumstances that you

that you meet the circumstances that you find yourself in these are all

find yourself in these are all influences that will affect you and it

influences that will affect you and it seems again to me pretty obvious so

seems again to me pretty obvious so without some sorts of without these

without some sorts of without these influences you don't really have any

influences you don't really have any beliefs at all that all of your beliefs

beliefs at all that all of your beliefs in some way or another can be kind of

in some way or another can be kind of reduced down to the circumstances that

reduced down to the circumstances that that led to them and you can think you

that led to them and you can think you know I probably wouldn't believe this

know I probably wouldn't believe this thing here unless these sets of

thing here unless these sets of circumstances came about okay premise to

circumstances came about okay premise to every individual has a unique set of

every individual has a unique set of psychological influences again this

psychological influences again this seems empirically obvious right I mean

seems empirically obvious right I mean there are a very small number of people

there are a very small number of people who had the exact same family that you

who had the exact same family that you have right okay and so that that would

have right okay and so that that would be just your siblings right if you have

be just your siblings right if you have any and even amongst your siblings you

any and even amongst your siblings you can think well even amongst my siblings

can think well even amongst my siblings you know we had different groups of

you know we had different groups of friends we had different

friends we had different teachers in school we had different

teachers in school we had different music that we had listened to we had

music that we had listened to we had different kind of sources of information

different kind of sources of information that we were taking in and so even

that we were taking in and so even amongst my sick siblings like we're

amongst my sick siblings like we're radically different if you really think

radically different if you really think about our overall experiences of the

about our overall experiences of the world right and so the point is like

world right and so the point is like they every person no matter how close

they every person no matter how close you are in your community or no matter

you are in your community or no matter how close you are and your familial

how close you are and your familial relationships like you're going to have

relationships like you're going to have significantly different experiences than

significantly different experiences than every single other individual and from

every single other individual and from this the psychological influence

this the psychological influence argument at first there for every

argument at first there for every individual have a unique and entirely

individual have a unique and entirely unique set of moral beliefs that if your

unique set of moral beliefs that if your set of moral beliefs if your moral

set of moral beliefs if your moral beliefs are contingent upon or based

beliefs are contingent upon or based upon the influences that you have and

upon the influences that you have and everybody has different influences and

everybody has different influences and everybody's gonna have different moral

everybody's gonna have different moral beliefs and if this is the case then

beliefs and if this is the case then nobody is in any position to judge

nobody is in any position to judge somebody else that's the idea that's the

somebody else that's the idea that's the result it's my moral beliefs are

result it's my moral beliefs are different because of my experiences then

different because of my experiences then yours are which you have because of your

yours are which you have because of your experiences how can I be faulted for

experiences how can I be faulted for having the experiences that I have how

having the experiences that I have how can you be faulted for having

can you be faulted for having experiences that you have that seems to

experiences that you have that seems to be unfair absurd right and it seems to

be unfair absurd right and it seems to be again nothing other than a power play

be again nothing other than a power play to try to suggest otherwise therefore

to try to suggest otherwise therefore the right way to react to this is to say

the right way to react to this is to say that moral relativism is true since you

that moral relativism is true since you can't help the circumstances of your

can't help the circumstances of your raisins and see these are the reason

raisins and see these are the reason that you believe what you believe then

that you believe what you believe then you shouldn't be held accountable for

you shouldn't be held accountable for your beliefs in some way where you like

your beliefs in some way where you like they're right or wrong you shouldn't be

they're right or wrong you shouldn't be judged for them so let's think about

judged for them so let's think about this argument again we can think through

this argument again we can think through the logic we can do do multiple things

the logic we can do do multiple things we can go through the premises and we

we can go through the premises and we can think through the logic in this case

can think through the logic in this case we're gonna look to the premises first

we're gonna look to the premises first and then we'll reflect back on the logic

and then we'll reflect back on the logic premise one moral belief is a product of

premise one moral belief is a product of a set of ones psychological influences

a set of ones psychological influences again yeah we can kind of refer to this

again yeah we can kind of refer to this earlier but it doesn't seem like this is

earlier but it doesn't seem like this is going to be the easy way out of the

going to be the easy way out of the argument how I mean what would you

argument how I mean what would you actually believe if you didn't have the

actually believe if you didn't have the family friends that you have located

family friends that you have located geography that you have information that

geography that you have information that you've had chemical reactions biological

you've had chemical reactions biological this is just like take all of that stuff

this is just like take all of that stuff away

away do you believe anything I mean if you

do you believe anything I mean if you had no experiences whatsoever you

had no experiences whatsoever you couldn't have any beliefs beliefs are

couldn't have any beliefs beliefs are formed in the basis of experience so

formed in the basis of experience so this seems obvious

this seems obvious premise to every individual has unique

premise to every individual has unique set again who else has the exact same

set again who else has the exact same family friends geography education

family friends geography education electro chemical and biological

electro chemical and biological dispositions as you do

dispositions as you do does anybody know it seems absurd to

does anybody know it seems absurd to think that would be true and therefore

think that would be true and therefore it seems like the premises are true and

it seems like the premises are true and I don't see any good way to get out of

I don't see any good way to get out of these premises to be honest so does that

these premises to be honest so does that mean we're stuck with the conclusion or

mean we're stuck with the conclusion or again if it's a valid argument that

again if it's a valid argument that would mean we were stuck with the

would mean we were stuck with the conclusion

conclusion and therefore you know if the

and therefore you know if the implication is true with respect to the

implication is true with respect to the conclusion then we would have to affirm

conclusion then we would have to affirm the argument and say that relativism is

the argument and say that relativism is true of course that means if the

true of course that means if the argument is valid if the argument

argument is valid if the argument guarantees that the premise would be

guarantees that the premise would be true

true given that the conclusion would be true

given that the conclusion would be true given the proof of the premises so is

given the proof of the premises so is this a valid argument the answer to that

this a valid argument the answer to that one is no the logic of this argument is

one is no the logic of this argument is faulty now again if I was you know in

faulty now again if I was you know in class and I had a white board to work on

class and I had a white board to work on I would show you that the truth table of

I would show you that the truth table of this allows you to believe the premises

this allows you to believe the premises are true and at the same time deny the

are true and at the same time deny the conclusion I could show you that it also

conclusion I could show you that it also show you that with a another kind of

show you that with a another kind of logical tool which which is called the

logical tool which which is called the Venn diagram which probably you guys are

Venn diagram which probably you guys are familiar Venn diagrams though logicians

familiar Venn diagrams though logicians they don't have just two circles they

they don't have just two circles they have a third circle and allows them to

have a third circle and allows them to test inferences okay so I could show you

test inferences okay so I could show you it that way but because I don't have the

it that way but because I don't have the white board in front of me and it'd be

white board in front of me and it'd be really hard to kind of do that on this

really hard to kind of do that on this system and recording it this way I'm

system and recording it this way I'm going to give you an indirect challenge

going to give you an indirect challenge instead and the way I'm going to do that

instead and the way I'm going to do that is I'm going to do something similar to

is I'm going to do something similar to what we did with James Rachel's

what we did with James Rachel's equivalents argument I'm gonna swish out

equivalents argument I'm gonna swish out some of the terms here but keep the same

some of the terms here but keep the same logical structure and so I want you to

logical structure and so I want you to hear this two argument body weight

hear this two argument body weight premise one body weight is the product

premise one body weight is the product of one's environmental and genetic

of one's environmental and genetic environment and genetic makeup so in

environment and genetic makeup so in other words the weight that you carry is

other words the weight that you carry is partially a product of your genetics and

partially a product of your genetics and partially a product of your environment

partially a product of your environment your environment is going to involve you

your environment is going to involve you know the food that you have around you

know the food that you have around you the access to food and all these other

the access to food and all these other things right and whether or not you eat

things right and whether or not you eat it every individual so that seems pretty

it every individual so that seems pretty true every individual has a unique

true every individual has a unique environment engine

environment engine make up in other words to count the

make up in other words to count the complexity of the exact environment that

complexity of the exact environment that you have and your genetic makeup are

you have and your genetic makeup are distinctive for every single individual

distinctive for every single individual even for identical twins though their

even for identical twins though their genetic makeup beat and I don't know if

genetic makeup beat and I don't know if this is technically true if their

this is technically true if their genetic makeup is identical I suspect

genetic makeup is identical I suspect that if it hasn't been proven at this

that if it hasn't been proven at this point that the one will probably

point that the one will probably eventually be able to find genetic

eventually be able to find genetic distinctions between twins identical

distinctions between twins identical twins right but but if your genetic

twins right but but if your genetic makeup let's say this for the sake of

makeup let's say this for the sake of argument genetic makeup of twins it is

argument genetic makeup of twins it is identical okay

identical okay do they have unique environments well

do they have unique environments well yes their experiences are going to be

yes their experiences are going to be different the other elements of

different the other elements of psychological influence that they have

psychological influence that they have will be different at some level and

will be different at some level and therefore every it seems fair to say

therefore every it seems fair to say every individual has a unique

every individual has a unique environment therefore every individual

environment therefore every individual has an entirely unique body wait does

has an entirely unique body wait does this follow are there are no two people

this follow are there are no two people on the planet who had the exact same

on the planet who had the exact same body weight of course there are people

body weight of course there are people at the exact same body weight all right

at the exact same body weight all right now most people even if we say 145

now most people even if we say 145 pounds I'm sorry 245 pounds if I say

pounds I'm sorry 245 pounds if I say that somebody else is found 245 pounds

that somebody else is found 245 pounds it may be that I'm actually 245 point

it may be that I'm actually 245 point one six three and you're 245 point three

one six three and you're 245 point three two one right like that that's possible

two one right like that that's possible like those aren't the exact same weights

like those aren't the exact same weights but there's got to be at least two

but there's got to be at least two people who have the exact same body

people who have the exact same body weight out of the know what is it seven

weight out of the know what is it seven billion people who live on this planet

billion people who live on this planet now there's somebody out there that has

now there's somebody out there that has the same exact weight of you and yet

the same exact weight of you and yet they have different genetic genetic

they have different genetic genetic makeup and different environmental

makeup and different environmental features and so what does this prove

features and so what does this prove well this proves that structurally

well this proves that structurally speaking there's something wrong here

speaking there's something wrong here okay so the logic is faulty what does

okay so the logic is faulty what does that prove that if the logic is faulty

that prove that if the logic is faulty that that means I can technically accept

that that means I can technically accept the premises without accepting the

the premises without accepting the conclusion as being true

conclusion as being true okay moving forward there's a second

okay moving forward there's a second problem that also can be identified with

problem that also can be identified with this argument and generally it can be

this argument and generally it can be based upon the idea that there are no

based upon the idea that there are no significant agreement so there's a

significant agreement so there's a parallel between this problem the

parallel between this problem the challenge that we had to premise two

challenge that we had to premise two earlier and I know we responded to

earlier and I know we responded to premise two earlier with not with this

premise two earlier with not with this argument obviously with the cultural

argument obviously with the cultural relativism argument I'll address that

relativism argument I'll address that here in a moment

here in a moment but here's how this challenge usually

but here's how this challenge usually goes just because people's entire sets

goes just because people's entire sets of beliefs are not wholly identical with

of beliefs are not wholly identical with somebody others entire sets of belief

somebody others entire sets of belief does not mean that they cannot have many

does not mean that they cannot have many of the same beliefs as another or some

of the same beliefs as another or some sort of significant overlap between the

sort of significant overlap between the the individuals even if they're even if

the individuals even if they're even if their experiences have been radically

their experiences have been radically different right and if this is the case

different right and if this is the case that it's at least feasible that there's

that it's at least feasible that there's an overlap amongst the vast majority

an overlap amongst the vast majority people on a handful of deeply moral

people on a handful of deeply moral issues so for example my bet would be

issues so for example my bet would be that if I went around and interviewed

that if I went around and interviewed you know millions of people from all

you know millions of people from all over the world and I asked them the

over the world and I asked them the question you know do you believe it's

question you know do you believe it's okay to torture babies for fun I would

okay to torture babies for fun I would imagine that the vast vast vast majority

imagine that the vast vast vast majority of them would would be appalled at the

of them would would be appalled at the very idea that I would ask that question

very idea that I would ask that question and they would respond to that and say

and they would respond to that and say of course I don't believe it's okay to

of course I don't believe it's okay to torture babies for fun that is a

torture babies for fun that is a horrific thing and I don't think that

horrific thing and I don't think that there would be any significant deviation

there would be any significant deviation that depends upon that depends upon

that depends upon that depends upon where they were from or who their

where they were from or who their parents were or what religion they

parents were or what religion they started off in like I think most people

started off in like I think most people in all these radically different

in all these radically different scenarios would be in agreement on this

scenarios would be in agreement on this claim and so how would somebody respond

claim and so how would somebody respond who is trying to channel how would

who is trying to channel how would somebody use this information that is

somebody use this information that is trying to respond to the psychological

trying to respond to the psychological influence argument they might say

influence argument they might say something like look yes we have various

something like look yes we have various very different sets of overall

very different sets of overall influences but there's a fundamental

influences but there's a fundamental feature of our psychological influence

feature of our psychological influence that maybe we all have in common some of

that maybe we all have in common some of the more religious among you might think

the more religious among you might think yes there's a there's a concept in the

yes there's a there's a concept in the biblical account called a law that's

biblical account called a law that's written on the heart right or we might

written on the heart right or we might talk about the the human conscience or

talk about the the human conscience or something like that in other words there

something like that in other words there is some feature of us that determines

is some feature of us that determines that amongst all the different beliefs

that amongst all the different beliefs that we can have an OVA most all the

that we can have an OVA most all the different attitudes that we might have

different attitudes that we might have about particular actions that there are

about particular actions that there are a group of them that the vast majority

a group of them that the vast majority of people seem to naturally commit to

of people seem to naturally commit to all right that's the idea that's going

all right that's the idea that's going on here and so so if there are so you

on here and so so if there are so you agreements then it seems like there can

agreements then it seems like there can still be some grounds for morality even

still be some grounds for morality even amongst all the psychological

amongst all the psychological distinction okay now of course you know

distinction okay now of course you know we already saw earlier the pragmatic

we already saw earlier the pragmatic response that comes via the the people

response that comes via the the people like Hobbs or through Sinica says he's

like Hobbs or through Sinica says he's talking about the ring of guy geez that

talking about the ring of guy geez that there are ways for us to challenge back

there are ways for us to challenge back on this and I don't want to be

on this and I don't want to be dismissive of those responses here right

dismissive of those responses here right I think I think I did I tried to do a

I think I think I did I tried to do a really good job of showing how those

really good job of showing how those responses can explain away much of the

responses can explain away much of the overlap that we see but on the other end

overlap that we see but on the other end earlier I didn't really give a fair kind

earlier I didn't really give a fair kind of counter challenge to the response

of counter challenge to the response that Hobbs or through syndicates could

that Hobbs or through syndicates could bring you know in other words I don't

bring you know in other words I don't want to be too Smith's dismissive of the

want to be too Smith's dismissive of the overlap what we have here is a situation

overlap what we have here is a situation wire where Hobbs can explain the data

wire where Hobbs can explain the data you know similar moral codes from

you know similar moral codes from culture to culture as a function of the

culture to culture as a function of the basis of similarity between experiences

basis of similarity between experiences and in particular similarity in with

and in particular similarity in with respect to mortality that we're gonna

respect to mortality that we're gonna find out individuals from one culture to

find out individuals from one culture to the next I'm just going to explain that

the next I'm just going to explain that information perfectly well but that

information perfectly well but that doesn't undo the potential that somebody

doesn't undo the potential that somebody who talks about a law written on the

who talks about a law written on the heart can also explain the same data so

heart can also explain the same data so what we really have here is a pair of

what we really have here is a pair of theories that may equally be able to

theories that may equally be able to explain the data that are inconsistent

explain the data that are inconsistent one of them being consistent with

one of them being consistent with relativism one of them being consistent

relativism one of them being consistent with more of an objective ism right and

with more of an objective ism right and so when I kind of push that one away on

so when I kind of push that one away on premise two earlier on I didn't give the

premise two earlier on I didn't give the fair I didn't give the you know I didn't

fair I didn't give the you know I didn't give any credibility to the response

give any credibility to the response that you know Hobbs is just a theory and

that you know Hobbs is just a theory and that written on the law heart theory

that written on the law heart theory could work as well so hopefully you guys

could work as well so hopefully you guys can see that maybe there is a pathway to

can see that maybe there is a pathway to challenging premise two of the cultural

challenging premise two of the cultural relativism argument on the basis of that

relativism argument on the basis of that as well my focus was on premise three

as well my focus was on premise three because it really fits the narrative of

because it really fits the narrative of trying to explain the the not just the

trying to explain the the not just the belief that there is different moral

belief that there is different moral that there are moral true morality but

that there are moral true morality but also the belief that we can find a

also the belief that we can find a method to help us discover it and so it

method to help us discover it and so it helps us to kind of set that narrative

helps us to kind of set that narrative up really well right so that leads us to

up really well right so that leads us to premise

premise problem the third problem and that's the

problem the third problem and that's the assumption that causal determinacy has

assumption that causal determinacy has any significant relation to whether or

any significant relation to whether or not we determined that something is

not we determined that something is right or wrong again there are many

right or wrong again there are many instances where we would look at

instances where we would look at somebody again those of us who believe

somebody again those of us who believe in moral objectivism where we can

in moral objectivism where we can acknowledge that there are often

acknowledge that there are often causally causally expressive reasons why

causally causally expressive reasons why somebody might commit some of the may be

somebody might commit some of the may be crimes that they do so for example there

crimes that they do so for example there have been lots of studies that that

have been lots of studies that that would identify the brains of serial

would identify the brains of serial killers or drunk or child predators or

killers or drunk or child predators or drunk drivers even as having some

drunk drivers even as having some biological determining feature in other

biological determining feature in other words that there's something different

words that there's something different in the way that the biology works and

in the way that the biology works and people who end up being serial killers

people who end up being serial killers or child predators or alcoholics and I'm

or child predators or alcoholics and I'm not suggesting that there's some unique

not suggesting that there's some unique are there some similarity between these

are there some similarity between these sorts of things overall I'm just saying

sorts of things overall I'm just saying that there's a there's a causal story

that there's a there's a causal story that can be told in all these scenarios

that can be told in all these scenarios right I'm not equating obviously drunk

right I'm not equating obviously drunk drivers with child predators or

drivers with child predators or something but the point is that there's

something but the point is that there's a causal story we can tell in all those

a causal story we can tell in all those and yet we don't move from the claim

and yet we don't move from the claim that well because there's a cause will

that well because there's a cause will determine and see that somebody would be

determine and see that somebody would be a serial killer because it seems to be

a serial killer because it seems to be built in them - that their brain works

built in them - that their brain works differently well then therefore there's

differently well then therefore there's nothing wrong with serial killing we

nothing wrong with serial killing we don't make that judgment we still would

don't make that judgment we still would look and say look even if there's a

look and say look even if there's a causal story we might have more empathy

causal story we might have more empathy but so what somebody has to go through

but so what somebody has to go through but we still say that the action that

but we still say that the action that they're engaging in is the wrong type of

they're engaging in is the wrong type of action right and so so when we look at

action right and so so when we look at these three problems kind of all

these three problems kind of all together we realize that though the

together we realize that though the psychological influence argument does

psychological influence argument does have a strong pull on us it ultimately

have a strong pull on us it ultimately there are plenty of reasons why we could

there are plenty of reasons why we could challenge us starting with the logic

challenge us starting with the logic moving forward to the law written on the

moving forward to the law written on the heart possibility and finally to the

heart possibility and finally to the causal determinacy argument and realize

causal determinacy argument and realize that this argument just doesn't as a

that this argument just doesn't as a whole cut the mustard and finally we can

whole cut the mustard and finally we can look at the implication as well remember

look at the implication as well remember the implication we drew from this is

the implication we drew from this is that as a result no moral belief is

that as a result no moral belief is better or worse than the other this is

better or worse than the other this is exactly what the utilitarian the day

exactly what the utilitarian the day ontology sin the situation is they're

ontology sin the situation is they're going to channel

going to channel you say look perhaps some of these bring

you say look perhaps some of these bring about better results that's utilitarian

about better results that's utilitarian in other words psychological influence

in other words psychological influence is a challenge meant to be overcome by

is a challenge meant to be overcome by the big-picture moral thinker and the de

the big-picture moral thinker and the de ologists would say well perhaps some

ologists would say well perhaps some argue some positions are demanded by

argue some positions are demanded by rational Authority it's not just a

rational Authority it's not just a matter of you know you having

matter of you know you having psychological influences but maybe

psychological influences but maybe psychological influences are challenges

psychological influences are challenges that you're meant to overcome in order

that you're meant to overcome in order to improve your rationality and the

to improve your rationality and the Situationists might say look perhaps

Situationists might say look perhaps perhaps some moral beliefs are demanded

perhaps some moral beliefs are demanded by metaphysics by Nature in other words

by metaphysics by Nature in other words psychological influencers are the kinds

psychological influencers are the kinds of things they're challenges that meant

of things they're challenges that meant to be overcome or the person who's

to be overcome or the person who's virtuous and thoughtful right and so

virtuous and thoughtful right and so there are ways of responding to the

there are ways of responding to the implications law so at the end of the

implications law so at the end of the day the psychological influence argument

day the psychological influence argument though I think it has a really strong

though I think it has a really strong pool in its initial characterization has

pool in its initial characterization has serious failures throughout that leads

serious failures throughout that leads us with the no proof argument the no

us with the no proof argument the no proof argument is much more of a

proof argument is much more of a philosophical type of argument it has to

philosophical type of argument it has to do with the nature of knowledge and it

do with the nature of knowledge and it goes like this premise one only claims

goes like this premise one only claims it can be proven our claims that can be

it can be proven our claims that can be characterized as knowledge okay so so

characterized as knowledge okay so so you can't say that something is known

you can't say that something is known unless it's proven unless there's proof

unless it's proven unless there's proof for it you know the difference between

for it you know the difference between something being known and something

something being known and something being merely believed is that when you

being merely believed is that when you know something you have evidence you

know something you have evidence you have proof or a belief as oftentimes

have proof or a belief as oftentimes just an opinion that's the way that

just an opinion that's the way that these would be characterized as opposed

these would be characterized as opposed to another premise to know ethical

to another premise to know ethical statements or claims that can be proven

statements or claims that can be proven therefore no ethical statements claims

therefore no ethical statements claims are can be characterized as knowledge

are can be characterized as knowledge okay now this argument here is a valid

okay now this argument here is a valid argument as well okay so this is a if I

argument as well okay so this is a if I was gonna draw this on the board I would

was gonna draw this on the board I would give you a Venn diagram this time

give you a Venn diagram this time definitely to show you that the premise

definitely to show you that the premise is one and two if you accept them as

is one and two if you accept them as true you would have no choice but to

true you would have no choice but to accept the conclusion that's a necessary

accept the conclusion that's a necessary implication of accepting premises wanted

implication of accepting premises wanted to for the rational person the

to for the rational person the implication that's drawn from all this

implication that's drawn from all this is that no ethical knowledge is

is that no ethical knowledge is possessed by anyone right so if no

possessed by anyone right so if no ethical statements or claims it can

ethical statements or claims it can be proven then there's no ethical

be proven then there's no ethical knowledge if there's no ethical

knowledge if there's no ethical knowledge that means nobody has the

knowledge that means nobody has the ethical knowledge that means all moral

ethical knowledge that means all moral beliefs are going to be equivalent which

beliefs are going to be equivalent which would seem to be a fair implication at

would seem to be a fair implication at you know at the stage of the argument so

you know at the stage of the argument so if it's a valid argument as I mentioned

if it's a valid argument as I mentioned before it's it's it it meets all the

before it's it's it it meets all the conditions that would be there to

conditions that would be there to guarantee the conclusions true if the

guarantee the conclusions true if the premises is true if the argument is

premises is true if the argument is valid which I've already said that it is

valid which I've already said that it is then the only way to get out of it is to

then the only way to get out of it is to assess the premises and see if there's

assess the premises and see if there's one that we can get rid of so we'll

one that we can get rid of so we'll start with premise one only claims that

start with premise one only claims that are proven there that can be proven or

are proven there that can be proven or claims it can be characterized as

claims it can be characterized as knowledge well the obvious question that

knowledge well the obvious question that the Philosopher's can ask here is what

the Philosopher's can ask here is what are the standards being referred to here

are the standards being referred to here for proof right so it's and this would

for proof right so it's and this would require a pretty lengthy discussion in

require a pretty lengthy discussion in the field of what's called epistemology

the field of what's called epistemology the study of knowledge okay but but the

the study of knowledge okay but but the idea here is is what what kind of

idea here is is what what kind of conditions are we required when we say

conditions are we required when we say that something is proven do we mean that

that something is proven do we mean that it's proven beyond an absolute doubt

it's proven beyond an absolute doubt that we have certainty well this can't

that we have certainty well this can't be the case because there are too many

be the case because there are too many things that we would count as as being

things that we would count as as being or that we can be uncertain about that

or that we can be uncertain about that would prevent us from being able to

would prevent us from being able to affirm any sorts of knowledge so here's

affirm any sorts of knowledge so here's an example we can't be absolutely

an example we can't be absolutely certain this is all philosophical like

certain this is all philosophical like thought experiment we can't be

thought experiment we can't be absolutely certain that we weren't

absolutely certain that we weren't created five minutes ago with all the

created five minutes ago with all the memories that we have right just

memories that we have right just automatically built into us

automatically built into us you can't technically prove that right

you can't technically prove that right you can't technically prove that you're

you can't technically prove that you're not dreaming right now and this is an

not dreaming right now and this is an argument that and we talked about it at

argument that and we talked about it at length in my philosophical issues class

length in my philosophical issues class which is kind of an introduction to

which is kind of an introduction to philosophy it harkens back to the

philosophy it harkens back to the thought of a guy named Rene Descartes

thought of a guy named Rene Descartes who who gave the infamous dream argument

who who gave the infamous dream argument he said you can't really know that

he said you can't really know that you're not dreaming right now everybody

you're not dreaming right now everybody in this room has probably had a dream at

in this room has probably had a dream at some point in their life where they

some point in their life where they thought when they woke up from it they

thought when they woke up from it they thought oh my gosh it was so real and he

thought oh my gosh it was so real and he actually had to kind of decompress and

actually had to kind of decompress and and and wonder about whether or not what

and and wonder about whether or not what happened actually happened I mean maybe

happened actually happened I mean maybe you had a dream that was so real and

you had a dream that was so real and somebody in there like did you wrong and

somebody in there like did you wrong and then later in the day you see that

then later in the day you see that person you feel like

person you feel like but uncomfortable around them because

but uncomfortable around them because even though like it didn't really happen

even though like it didn't really happen you know it didn't really happen the

you know it didn't really happen the memory is so fresh of of what they did

memory is so fresh of of what they did in your dream or what wrong they did to

in your dream or what wrong they did to you in your dream that you kind of have

you in your dream that you kind of have to like engage that deal with it it has

to like engage that deal with it it has these effects that happened in your

these effects that happened in your so-called awakened life right well if a

so-called awakened life right well if a if if you can have a dream that is so

if if you can have a dream that is so real that you can't tell the difference

real that you can't tell the difference between it and the awakened to life in

between it and the awakened to life in while you're in the dream well then that

while you're in the dream well then that means at any time that you're

means at any time that you're experiencing what you believe to be

experiencing what you believe to be awakened life it's at least

awakened life it's at least theoretically possible that you're

theoretically possible that you're actually in the midst of a dream in that

actually in the midst of a dream in that situation all right

situation all right Descartes argued and I think most

Descartes argued and I think most philosophers would agree that you can't

philosophers would agree that you can't be certain if that you're not dreaming

be certain if that you're not dreaming okay well if you can't have certain

okay well if you can't have certain certainty that you're not dreaming then

certainty that you're not dreaming then every single experience that you have

every single experience that you have you can't be certain that it's a real

you can't be certain that it's a real experience that it's an experience that

experience that it's an experience that transcends just what's happening in your

transcends just what's happening in your brain in a in a period of and a period

brain in a in a period of and a period of sleep okay well that's gonna cut out

of sleep okay well that's gonna cut out a lot of the possible things that you

a lot of the possible things that you want to count as knowledge and most

want to count as knowledge and most philosophers and look at that say yeah

philosophers and look at that say yeah that that's evidence not that we should

that that's evidence not that we should doubt all the things that we know which

doubt all the things that we know which is what Descartes was trying to use it

is what Descartes was trying to use it to argue but most philosophers would say

to argue but most philosophers would say that's just evidence that certainty is

that's just evidence that certainty is too strong of a condition to maintain

too strong of a condition to maintain for believing that we have knowledge

for believing that we have knowledge right we can't hold things up to the

right we can't hold things up to the evidence of certainty we also can't hold

evidence of certainty we also can't hold things up to the evidence of empirical

things up to the evidence of empirical experience I mean let's think for

experience I mean let's think for example about black holes nobody

example about black holes nobody actually sees a black hole right they're

actually sees a black hole right they're like what we see when we when we

like what we see when we when we identify black holes in the in the

identify black holes in the in the universe what we're actually seeing is

universe what we're actually seeing is the lack of light we're seeing that in

the lack of light we're seeing that in certain regions of the universe the

certain regions of the universe the light just ceases to come towards us but

light just ceases to come towards us but we don't actually see the cause of

we don't actually see the cause of what's happening in those places we have

what's happening in those places we have theories about what's happening we

theories about what's happening we believe that there's some giant body

believe that there's some giant body there that's gravitational field is so

there that's gravitational field is so strong that even the photons have come

strong that even the photons have come in its vicinity gets sucked into the you

in its vicinity gets sucked into the you know the gravitational pull of these

know the gravitational pull of these objects alright but but it's actually

objects alright but but it's actually you know it's actually impossible that

you know it's actually impossible that we could ever

we could ever verify that these things are there if we

verify that these things are there if we wanted to go try to verify this you know

wanted to go try to verify this you know that if we get close enough to actually

that if we get close enough to actually see the body well guess what we're gonna

see the body well guess what we're gonna get pulled into it as well and we can't

get pulled into it as well and we can't verify it by taking pictures because

verify it by taking pictures because taking pictures of this thing requires

taking pictures of this thing requires us to send light out there and it

us to send light out there and it reflect back and come to us it's the

reflect back and come to us it's the only way to capture an image of

only way to capture an image of something that far away but we can't do

something that far away but we can't do that why because the photons that we're

that why because the photons that we're using as light to reflect off the image

using as light to reflect off the image actually don't reflect they'll get

actually don't reflect they'll get sucked right into the the gravitational

sucked right into the the gravitational pull themselves and so black holes are

pull themselves and so black holes are the things you can't empirically see at

the things you can't empirically see at all but does this mean we don't have any

all but does this mean we don't have any knowledge of black holes I don't think a

knowledge of black holes I don't think a lot of people would want to go that far

lot of people would want to go that far right and so the point is that you know

right and so the point is that you know your your your standards of proof cannot

your your your standards of proof cannot be extreme they cannot be so strong that

be extreme they cannot be so strong that there can't be some wiggle room we can't

there can't be some wiggle room we can't call for certainty we can't demand that

call for certainty we can't demand that we see something empirically we have to

we see something empirically we have to have a more loosened concept of proof

have a more loosened concept of proof now what that is I'll just let you know

now what that is I'll just let you know like that's a really hard thing to be

like that's a really hard thing to be able to determine philosophers been

able to determine philosophers been arguing about this ad nauseam for

arguing about this ad nauseam for certainly the last fifty five sixty

certainly the last fifty five sixty years but really this goes all the way

years but really this goes all the way back to Plato people have been wondering

back to Plato people have been wondering what it means to have knowledge for a

what it means to have knowledge for a long long time so premise number one it

long long time so premise number one it seems like at very least we'd have to

seems like at very least we'd have to say by proven there we're not quite sure

say by proven there we're not quite sure what that means but it has to be

what that means but it has to be something of a loose concept of proof if

something of a loose concept of proof if we're gonna be able to accommodate well

we're gonna be able to accommodate well you know all the things that we want to

you know all the things that we want to be able to count is knowledged it again

be able to count is knowledged it again with so move onto premise two no ethical

with so move onto premise two no ethical statements or proclaims that can be

statements or proclaims that can be proven well why why would we affirm the

proven well why why would we affirm the statement you might say well people

statement you might say well people haven't agreed upon things ethically

haven't agreed upon things ethically well yeah but there's a lot of that

well yeah but there's a lot of that there are a lot of things that haven't

there are a lot of things that haven't like scientists haven't agreed on yet

like scientists haven't agreed on yet that one day we believe we will have

that one day we believe we will have knowledge of all right so for example

knowledge of all right so for example like cancers cure like I I believe that

like cancers cure like I I believe that there's gonna be a cure for cancer but

there's gonna be a cure for cancer but that hasn't been proven yet but I still

that hasn't been proven yet but I still believe that there is a cure out there

believe that there is a cure out there we just haven't discovered it see

we just haven't discovered it see there's a distinction between having

there's a distinction between having having proven something and something

having proven something and something being proved a bold right and so so I

being proved a bold right and so so I believe that the cure for cancer that

believe that the cure for cancer that cancer is curable is a provable

cancer is curable is a provable statement even though it has not been

statement even though it has not been proven likewise maybe claims about

proven likewise maybe claims about morality are provable statements even

morality are provable statements even though they have not yet been proven in

though they have not yet been proven in other words there's a distinction that

other words there's a distinction that we should draw between something being

we should draw between something being between being the proof being actually

between being the proof being actually possessed and possibly possessed it's

possessed and possibly possessed it's kind of like maybe we have an analogy

kind of like maybe we have an analogy with like a lazy bass - dn't or

with like a lazy bass - dn't or something

something lazy master that might look at a problem

lazy master that might look at a problem with a page and say you know what

with a page and say you know what there's no answer to this thing well

there's no answer to this thing well those of us who understand mathematics

those of us who understand mathematics realize that they're wrong about that

realize that they're wrong about that there's there's gonna be an answer on

there's there's gonna be an answer on the page that if one knew the way to

the page that if one knew the way to find it they would be able to identify

find it they would be able to identify what that answer is the problem isn't

what that answer is the problem isn't with the reality of the answer the

with the reality of the answer the problem is with the effort of the

problem is with the effort of the answerer writer perhaps the

answerer writer perhaps the irrationality perhaps the you know just

irrationality perhaps the you know just laziness perhaps some other story they

laziness perhaps some other story they can be told we lack the technological

can be told we lack the technological proficiencies something along those

proficiencies something along those lines so we need to draw a distinction

lines so we need to draw a distinction between those two things

between those two things empirically I think we have every right

empirically I think we have every right to say that ethical statements are

to say that ethical statements are claims I haven't been absolutely proven

claims I haven't been absolutely proven right like there's disagreements on

right like there's disagreements on there for many good reasons but that

there for many good reasons but that doesn't mean that there's no way of

doesn't mean that there's no way of there's no promise or possibility for

there's no promise or possibility for for their approval 'ti that's a

for their approval 'ti that's a different question with that in mind you

different question with that in mind you know we seem to be having decent ways to

know we seem to be having decent ways to challenge premises 1 & 2 here these

challenge premises 1 & 2 here these really are going to hinge on deeply

really are going to hinge on deeply philosophical discussions where there is

philosophical discussions where there is so much disagreement but if there's

so much disagreement but if there's disagreement that's justification in

disagreement that's justification in itself for saying there's plenty of room

itself for saying there's plenty of room to reject premise one and premise two

to reject premise one and premise two here and so without the premises being

here and so without the premises being true then you don't really have any own

true then you don't really have any own behind the conclusion the only way to

behind the conclusion the only way to get that is if you had to demand and

get that is if you had to demand and accept as a premise one premise - if

accept as a premise one premise - if there were good reasons to mand either

there were good reasons to mand either one of these and it doesn't seem like

one of these and it doesn't seem like that's the case finally with the

that's the case finally with the implication and no ethical knowledge is

implication and no ethical knowledge is possessed by anyone so all moral beliefs

possessed by anyone so all moral beliefs are equivalent again non-possession does

are equivalent again non-possession does not equal non reality just because

not equal non reality just because Aristotle did not possess understanding

Aristotle did not possess understanding of the fact that this the earth moved

of the fact that this the earth moved around the Sun does not mean that the

around the Sun does not mean that the earth was not moving around

earth was not moving around Aristotle's day we have to draw a

Aristotle's day we have to draw a distinction between our reasons for

distinction between our reasons for knowing something our reasons for

knowing something our reasons for believing something and the facts of the

believing something and the facts of the matter and the facts of the matter may

matter and the facts of the matter may be a certain way without us having the

be a certain way without us having the full characterization of the reasons

full characterization of the reasons that would support them okay so that's

that would support them okay so that's the no proof argument in a nutshell so

the no proof argument in a nutshell so we've looked at three arguments so far

we've looked at three arguments so far there's one last kind of move that we

there's one last kind of move that we need to make to explain moral relativism

need to make to explain moral relativism here and that's the fact that moral

here and that's the fact that moral relativists they are often empiricists

relativists they are often empiricists which means they look at experience and

which means they look at experience and and they're going to affirm that that

and they're going to affirm that that morality does seem to be something that

morality does seem to be something that the vast majority of people believe in

the vast majority of people believe in and they need to give some explanation

and they need to give some explanation for that they need to be able to explain

for that they need to be able to explain what these so-called moral intuitions

what these so-called moral intuitions are like how would they characterize

are like how would they characterize them if they believe they're not

them if they believe they're not reflective of any true morality and the

reflective of any true morality and the response is generally going to be what's

response is generally going to be what's called emotivism the moral relativist is

called emotivism the moral relativist is generally going to prescribe to the

generally going to prescribe to the theory that morality is just the

theory that morality is just the expressions of one's internal feelings

expressions of one's internal feelings so when I say an action X is morally

so when I say an action X is morally wrong or person P is bad what I'm really

wrong or person P is bad what I'm really saying is I don't like action s X or

saying is I don't like action s X or person P doesn't make me happy and so if

person P doesn't make me happy and so if I want to say some you know if I want to

I want to say some you know if I want to say you know murder is wrong moral the

say you know murder is wrong moral the moral intuition there that I'm having

moral intuition there that I'm having that's a you know it's a real feeling

that's a you know it's a real feeling that I have when somebody's limit one

that I have when somebody's limit one night when somebody makes me think of

night when somebody makes me think of murder I think oh you know I don't like

murder I think oh you know I don't like that and the more of a road service is

that and the more of a road service is gonna say yes that's really the extent

gonna say yes that's really the extent of it and you've gone beyond that when

of it and you've gone beyond that when you say that morality is real all you've

you say that morality is real all you've done is take that I don't like it

done is take that I don't like it feeling and say that that's because

feeling and say that that's because that's the way things are and so the

that's the way things are and so the moral relativism does not believe that

moral relativism does not believe that that's appropriate likewise if I say an

that's appropriate likewise if I say an action is morally right I'm saying that

action is morally right I'm saying that when I think about actions like that it

when I think about actions like that it gives me good feelings and I think good

gives me good feelings and I think good feelings mean that the world is the way

feelings mean that the world is the way that I think that that corresponds with

that I think that that corresponds with my feelings and therefore you know I

my feelings and therefore you know I should accept it right I should accept

should accept it right I should accept this as morally correct essentially the

this as morally correct essentially the moral relativist admits the truth that

moral relativist admits the truth that we feel certain ways and they say that

we feel certain ways and they say that our feelings about what's right or wrong

our feelings about what's right or wrong are really the entire

are really the entire substance of their rightness or

substance of their rightness or wrongness that there's not really any

wrongness that there's not really any kind of objective feature in the world

kind of objective feature in the world that justifies them but of course you

that justifies them but of course you know as as the ones challenging back at

know as as the ones challenging back at the moral all of us here I think that we

the moral all of us here I think that we could remind ourselves of the

could remind ourselves of the implications the implication here

implications the implication here rationality if I'm gonna be an emotive

rationality if I'm gonna be an emotive astrology is not the right tool for

astrology is not the right tool for engaging in justifications about

engaging in justifications about morality that if I wanted to talk about

morality that if I wanted to talk about morality I just need to talk about my

morality I just need to talk about my feelings only right we shouldn't even

feelings only right we shouldn't even think about the concepts of right and

think about the concepts of right and wrong according to the relativist

wrong according to the relativist because these only lead us astray let's

because these only lead us astray let's just be honest and say that I don't feel

just be honest and say that I don't feel good about this this makes me unhappy

good about this this makes me unhappy and that that's all there is to it the

and that that's all there is to it the other implication is that every reason

other implication is that every reason is grounded my feelings ends up being a

is grounded my feelings ends up being a legitimate justification for my actions

legitimate justification for my actions in other words if I have a feeling

in other words if I have a feeling that's all that I need to justify what I

that's all that I need to justify what I did so when we see one child had another

did so when we see one child had another child at the park because they were

child at the park because they were angry because you know the one child was

angry because you know the one child was on the swing and they were then the

on the swing and they were then the other one wanted it right we can't say

other one wanted it right we can't say that the the child who hit the kid that

that the the child who hit the kid that was on the swing did anything wrong as a

was on the swing did anything wrong as a matter of fact we should praise them for

matter of fact we should praise them for their honest emotionally aware response

their honest emotionally aware response it's just boys being boys right and

it's just boys being boys right and likewise if the parent of the child sees

likewise if the parent of the child sees it and explodes an anger and beats the

it and explodes an anger and beats the snot out of the other child the child

snot out of the other child the child that hit their own nothing wrong here

that hit their own nothing wrong here child abusers will be child abusers

child abusers will be child abusers right okay I'd imagine that most of you

right okay I'd imagine that most of you when you heard that you're you're you're

when you heard that you're you're you're waiting for the backslash s after the

waiting for the backslash s after the statement right because obviously am

statement right because obviously am being tongue-in-cheek I'm being

being tongue-in-cheek I'm being sarcastic here nobody responds in that

sarcastic here nobody responds in that way nobody actually believes that if

way nobody actually believes that if it's just it by if you're willing to

it's just it by if you're willing to react on the basis of like those

react on the basis of like those internal impulses that that's what the

internal impulses that that's what the the substance of morality is that seems

the substance of morality is that seems crazy again many of us believe that that

crazy again many of us believe that that morality involves like kind of

morality involves like kind of suppressing a lot of our internal urges

suppressing a lot of our internal urges and our and our desires and a lot of

and our and our desires and a lot of that I mean I'm thinking of somebody

that I mean I'm thinking of somebody like the Apostle Paul and the divine

like the Apostle Paul and the divine command theory tradition and the

command theory tradition and the biblical account he says you know I want

biblical account he says you know I want to do mentally intellectually I want to

to do mentally intellectually I want to do things that my body doesn't want me

do things that my body doesn't want me to do and and my body wants me to do

to do and and my body wants me to do that things intellectually I don't want

that things intellectually I don't want to do

to do there's this seems to be this conflict a

there's this seems to be this conflict a lot of times when it comes to morality a

lot of times when it comes to morality a lot of times we think I want to do this

lot of times we think I want to do this but I know it's not the right thing

but I know it's not the right thing right and so the you know emotivism

right and so the you know emotivism really can't explain that away now moral

really can't explain that away now moral relativism can explain that as a product

relativism can explain that as a product of psychological influences or a lot of

of psychological influences or a lot of other there's a lot of other stories

other there's a lot of other stories they can tell about that but the

they can tell about that but the question is where do you stand

question is where do you stand are you comfortable saying that you know

are you comfortable saying that you know the the grown man who who just gets the

the the grown man who who just gets the feeling to to beat down some young child

feeling to to beat down some young child that they're just acting on their

that they're just acting on their emotional impulses and therefore they're

emotional impulses and therefore they're morally pure are you comfortable with

morally pure are you comfortable with that implication third implication there

that implication third implication there are no actual moral perspectives

are no actual moral perspectives concerning perspectives so if you think

concerning perspectives so if you think what happened to Ahmad our burry at

what happened to Ahmad our burry at Georgia was wrong when when to local

Georgia was wrong when when to local apparent white supremacists hunted him

apparent white supremacists hunted him down because they were they believe that

down because they were they believe that he stole material of a construction site

he stole material of a construction site they hunted him down and shot him to

they hunted him down and shot him to death while trying to perform a

death while trying to perform a citizen's arrest if you if you believe

citizen's arrest if you if you believe that you know there's nothing wrong with

that you know there's nothing wrong with that you just got to get into the

that you just got to get into the mindset of the two white supremacists

mindset of the two white supremacists who did this if like that would be the

who did this if like that would be the implication of this emotivist response

implication of this emotivist response if you just understood how they were

if you just understood how they were feeling then you would understand that

feeling then you would understand that their actions were justified or you know

their actions were justified or you know if you think Mohammed Atta did something

if you think Mohammed Atta did something wrong when he he collected together you

wrong when he he collected together you know the other the other members of al

know the other the other members of al Qaeda on 9/11 to attack the World Trade

Qaeda on 9/11 to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and you know

Center and the Pentagon and you know eventually try to go after the capital

eventually try to go after the capital if you think there's something wrong

if you think there's something wrong then then you're just being uncharitable

then then you're just being uncharitable you're not being empathetic enough you

you're not being empathetic enough you need to put yourselves in the shoes of

need to put yourselves in the shoes of Mohammed outside and understand or even

Mohammed outside and understand or even Hitler in Europe if you would just

Hitler in Europe if you would just understand what Hitler was trying to

understand what Hitler was trying to accomplish you'd see that there's

accomplish you'd see that there's nothing wrong with what he was doing

nothing wrong with what he was doing see these are the implications that

see these are the implications that would go along with the emotivism if

would go along with the emotivism if hitler muhammad akhtar adam lanza were

hitler muhammad akhtar adam lanza were just following through with what they

just following through with what they felt was the right thing to do then

felt was the right thing to do then don't they stand that you can't stand in

don't they stand that you can't stand in judgment of them all right that's the

judgment of them all right that's the implication of emotivism so again you

implication of emotivism so again you have to wrestle with that if

have to wrestle with that if you were comfortable with these things

you were comfortable with these things then emotivism ends up being a viable

then emotivism ends up being a viable explanation moral intuition for you and

explanation moral intuition for you and you can be a relativist but if you don't

you can be a relativist but if you don't believe in any of these implications if

believe in any of these implications if you can't conceive of a life where these

you can't conceive of a life where these implications just are justified if you

implications just are justified if you can't conceive of the world such that

can't conceive of the world such that these implications are correct well then

these implications are correct well then you have a serious problem with moral

you have a serious problem with moral relativism that's the point finally a

relativism that's the point finally a fourth implication the most emotionally

fourth implication the most emotionally open persons are to be recognized as the

open persons are to be recognized as the most ethically pure one of my favorite

most ethically pure one of my favorite examples here whatever you think about

examples here whatever you think about is politics it's clear that Donald Trump

is politics it's clear that Donald Trump has been our most morally pure president

has been our most morally pure president ever from the standpoint of a moral

ever from the standpoint of a moral emotivist Agrella Swit

emotivist Agrella Swit by nobody no president ever has wore

by nobody no president ever has wore their emotions on their sleeve to the

their emotions on their sleeve to the extent to this man house right and so

extent to this man house right and so again even though that's not meant to

again even though that's not meant to say I'm not trying to imply that he's

say I'm not trying to imply that he's bad or morally bad or something but I

bad or morally bad or something but I know it's a matter of controversy right

know it's a matter of controversy right and is that how we want to judge

and is that how we want to judge morality that that you're the most

morality that that you're the most willing to express your emotions is that

willing to express your emotions is that what makes somebody to be morally pure

what makes somebody to be morally pure or do you think there's something more

or do you think there's something more do you think that morality involves some

do you think that morality involves some kind of action acting appropriately with

kind of action acting appropriately with the world right

the world right not with your feelings but with the

not with your feelings but with the world itself so some final thoughts have

world itself so some final thoughts have we disproven moral relativism I hope

we disproven moral relativism I hope that you when you see this question like

that you when you see this question like I hope that after all this your reaction

I hope that after all this your reaction is not well yeah of course we've

is not well yeah of course we've disproven it because technically we

disproven it because technically we haven't in a vacuum moral relativism is

haven't in a vacuum moral relativism is a theoretically viable model it's a

a theoretically viable model it's a model that can stand up to intellectual

model that can stand up to intellectual challenges again with with all of the

challenges again with with all of the arguments here again premise I'm sorry

arguments here again premise I'm sorry the let's think our way backwards the no

the let's think our way backwards the no proof argument I mean one can make the

proof argument I mean one can make the case that you know they can commit to a

case that you know they can commit to a theory of proof they could say well this

theory of proof they could say well this is the way that you know you you prove

is the way that you know you you prove something when you can empirically see

something when you can empirically see it and therefore they can say you know

it and therefore they can say you know what that therefore you know we haven't

what that therefore you know we haven't proven black holes or we haven't proven

proven black holes or we haven't proven elektra the reality of electrons

elektra the reality of electrons you can you can you can commit to an

you can you can you can commit to an empirical model of proof that just rules

empirical model of proof that just rules out some of the things that you kind of

out some of the things that you kind of knowledge and along with it goes

knowledge and along with it goes morality you can accept that and that

morality you can accept that and that would it be and that wouldn't be

would it be and that wouldn't be intellectually dishonest it would it be

intellectually dishonest it would it be irrational

irrational you can also accept the this strong

you can also accept the this strong standard or proof of saying you can't

standard or proof of saying you can't prove something unless there's certainty

prove something unless there's certainty and therefore you know admit that you

and therefore you know admit that you don't have knowledge of anything beyond

don't have knowledge of anything beyond your own existence you can commit to

your own existence you can commit to that without being intellectually

that without being intellectually dishonest or irrational and so if you

dishonest or irrational and so if you commit to those things it would follow

commit to those things it would follow then that morality ends up being just a

then that morality ends up being just a matter of personal personal choice

matter of personal personal choice because there's no proof to the matter

because there's no proof to the matter there's no knowledge to be had likewise

there's no knowledge to be had likewise if you go you know permanent the second

if you go you know permanent the second argument psychological influence

argument psychological influence argument had its logical filling so we

argument had its logical filling so we won't focus on that one too strongly but

won't focus on that one too strongly but if we go back to the original art but

if we go back to the original art but the cultural relativism argument you we

the cultural relativism argument you we can accept the challenges that Hobbes

can accept the challenges that Hobbes offers against premise two and say you

offers against premise two and say you know what that's that's a good enough

know what that's that's a good enough explanation for me I may accept that

explanation for me I may accept that explanation and and when we hear the

explanation and and when we hear the utilitarian de ontological and virtue

utilitarian de ontological and virtue ethical responses to attempts to get out

ethical responses to attempts to get out from under it for the third premise in

from under it for the third premise in that argument we might say to ourselves

that argument we might say to ourselves well you know what like I just don't

well you know what like I just don't find them to be set like completely

find them to be set like completely satisfying they don't altom utley give

satisfying they don't altom utley give me enough reason to deny that third one

me enough reason to deny that third one you can intellectually do that and then

you can intellectually do that and then the argument being valid you end up

the argument being valid you end up having a justification for more lots of

having a justification for more lots of it so in a vacuum theoretically speaking

it so in a vacuum theoretically speaking it is a consistent and coherent model

it is a consistent and coherent model that can be made to fit fit them to fit

that can be made to fit fit them to fit our narrative some people might say well

our narrative some people might say well what happens if I reject relativism you

what happens if I reject relativism you know do I then have to deny that you

know do I then have to deny that you know we'd be taller it's like a lot of

know we'd be taller it's like a lot of people I think a lot of people are moded

people I think a lot of people are moded motivated towards relativism because

motivated towards relativism because they see relativism kind of having a

they see relativism kind of having a structural justification for being

structural justification for being tolerant of other people look if there

tolerant of other people look if there are less moral rights and wrongs and

are less moral rights and wrongs and that that becomes a reason that we can

that that becomes a reason that we can call for accepting people's differences

call for accepting people's differences right but here's what I want to ask you

right but here's what I want to ask you do you really think that moral

do you really think that moral relativism is the only way to justify a

relativism is the only way to justify a call to tolerance

call to tolerance because I would I would contend that you

because I would I would contend that you can't actually make a call to tolerance

can't actually make a call to tolerance under moral relativism that the only

under moral relativism that the only justification for calling to tolerance

justification for calling to tolerance is to do so on the basis of an

is to do so on the basis of an Objectivist position that recognizes not

Objectivist position that recognizes not a not an absolutist position but a

a not an absolutist position but a position that recognizes that there are

position that recognizes that there are some things that that are just morally

some things that that are just morally demanded and then lots of other things

demanded and then lots of other things that we've mistakenly thought are

that we've mistakenly thought are matters of morality that are actually

matters of morality that are actually matters of choice and and among those

matters of choice and and among those things that they would say are morally

things that they would say are morally demanded are we should demand tolerance

demanded are we should demand tolerance see how does the relative assay you

see how does the relative assay you ought to be tolerant they can't do that

ought to be tolerant they can't do that because oughtness is a property of

because oughtness is a property of objective morality it's not it's you

objective morality it's not it's you know you give I say I don't feel like

know you give I say I don't feel like being tolerant than a moral relativist

being tolerant than a moral relativist because it's a okay then you shouldn't

because it's a okay then you shouldn't be tolerant right and again I don't

be tolerant right and again I don't think that implication I don't think a

think that implication I don't think a lot of people who initially are drawn to

lot of people who initially are drawn to talk to relatives ISM on the basis of

talk to relatives ISM on the basis of their the perception that it creates a

their the perception that it creates a better groundwork for tolerance I don't

better groundwork for tolerance I don't think today they would like that that

think today they would like that that when they say we want people to be

when they say we want people to be tolerant of another one another they say

tolerant of another one another they say you ought to be tolerant that's what

you ought to be tolerant that's what most people believe with respect to

most people believe with respect to dollars and only works on an Objectivist

dollars and only works on an Objectivist system and so what does this mean well

system and so what does this mean well the the final question that I'm gonna

the the final question that I'm gonna ask you and again this is the question

ask you and again this is the question that I that I told you I was going to

that I that I told you I was going to ask you at the end has this lecture

ask you at the end has this lecture convinced you that you are not

convinced you that you are not personally disposed to moral relativism

personally disposed to moral relativism as an ethical Theory see that's the big

as an ethical Theory see that's the big question that I think we have to ask and

question that I think we have to ask and there's a little bit of an irony here

there's a little bit of an irony here because it seems like it's relativistic

because it seems like it's relativistic relativistic that I'm asking you to look

relativistic that I'm asking you to look inwardly for the answers here right it

inwardly for the answers here right it seems like do you feel personally like

seems like do you feel personally like you would accept an objective ism that

you would accept an objective ism that seems like I'm appealing to Rosa vism

seems like I'm appealing to Rosa vism you know we're saying something like

you know we're saying something like relativism is fine for you but not for

relativism is fine for you but not for you know might be fine for me but not

you know might be fine for me but not for you something along those lines

for you something along those lines because if what if you answer yes here

because if what if you answer yes here then it seems like them well then you

then it seems like them well then you could be relativistic and and and my

could be relativistic and and and my response would be yeah I mean that would

response would be yeah I mean that would be true like you have to base us on the

be true like you have to base us on the you have to make this determination on

you have to make this determination on the basis of your own experience so you

the basis of your own experience so you put up put up what I here's what I'm

put up put up what I here's what I'm asking you

asking you individually every one of you who's

individually every one of you who's listening to this is relativism

listening to this is relativism consistent with the world that you

consistent with the world that you experience can you can you accept the

experience can you can you accept the implications of relativism there is no

implications of relativism there is no such thing as moral progress they're not

such thing as moral progress they're not there nobody can be characterized as

there nobody can be characterized as better or worse than any other person

better or worse than any other person that nobody has ever made a mistake ever

that nobody has ever made a mistake ever from a moral vantage point can you

from a moral vantage point can you affirm those things because if not then

affirm those things because if not then it seems like the world that you

it seems like the world that you experience is inconsistent with or

experience is inconsistent with or incompatible with the theory of moral

incompatible with the theory of moral relativism you can't make those two

relativism you can't make those two things work together and here's the

things work together and here's the point

point ethics is a synthetic discipline you

ethics is a synthetic discipline you can't just think of theory by itself I

can't just think of theory by itself I think you got to think about your

think you got to think about your experience you got to put these two

experience you got to put these two things together and decide what's the

things together and decide what's the best kind of interplay between your

best kind of interplay between your experience and the potential theories

experience and the potential theories that you can have to explain it if these

that you can have to explain it if these implications that we've talked about

implications that we've talked about throughout this discussion are not

throughout this discussion are not consist with your experiences then I

consist with your experiences then I contend that you are not disposed to

contend that you are not disposed to moral relativism but if you are

moral relativism but if you are comfortable with the experiences the

comfortable with the experiences the inability to you know look at somebody

inability to you know look at somebody like Hitler and say that person did

like Hitler and say that person did something wrong well then theoretically

something wrong well then theoretically actually you have every leg to stand on

actually you have every leg to stand on so you guys decide for yourself if you

so you guys decide for yourself if you fall into the first camp you believe you

fall into the first camp you believe you know what the implications are too much

know what the implications are too much for me then we've done everything we can

for me then we've done everything we can to motivate you to look forward to the

to motivate you to look forward to the rest of the ethical systems and so I

rest of the ethical systems and so I hope you enjoy the discussion that we

hope you enjoy the discussion that we have in those places

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:PHI 240 (03) Moral Relativism