The video explains the meaning behind "objective" and "subjective" morality. It then uses this to justify the exsistence of God.
At 4:36 you can see the whole argument in a series of nice little logical statements.
1-If God does not exist, objective morals and values do not exist.
2-Objective morals and values do exist.
3-Therefore, God exists.
The main problem is with the second one. "Objective morals and values do exist." The video bases this satement on one's "moral experience". The video then makes the claim that morality exists simply because one may feel bad after a "immoral" event happens to them. This is, of course, simple anecdotal evidence and holds no value. (3:39)
Another problem is with statement 1. The video claims that something is not good because God says it is, or because it is inherently good, but because the closer something is to God, it is good, because God is good. (2:20) Of course, this is simply a different version of "God says something is good because it is inherently good". This is true based on the video's statement that "God is good", meaning there is someone standard of goodness applied to God, not created by him. Hence, morals can exist without God (according to the video).
The video claims that atheism allows any actions without consequences. It asks "Who or what lays such [moral] duties upon us?" (2:57). In response, I would say we have no moral duties, as morality doesn't exist. Instead, we should cooperate with others because it gives us individually a better life. Think about the tragedy of the commons - it is most logical to work together - even if we are all rational actors.
Anarchist working on arguing here. How did I do?
Ian Butler
Okay job, low hanging fruit though.
Luke Collins
Arguments for objective morality can be boiled down to an appeal to adverse consequences. In other words, that there has to be objective morality, therefore there is objective morality.
Ayden Parker
Morality is a spook.
Cause if I do something, others will be able to do the same to me.
"Morality" is only a code of ethics that allow society to function. A social construct. A spook.
Now, does that mean we don't need it? NO!
…
Unless we are ready to go on without spooks and need no state and authorities…
ARE WE? ARE WE????
Dylan Campbell
I don't really like the deontological approach. I wonder how a virtue ethicist would've made the argument.
Aaron Morales
That we learn through experience isn't anecdotal evidence.
Tyler Robinson
...
Adam Brooks
It's universally true. We all learn through experience and we all experience moral and immoral events.
Carson Allen
and how can we trust our experience? besides - just because you experience and interpret something doesn't make it true. someone may learn differently from the same experience
Owen Miller
I doubt even without a state or a regularized authority system, we will be able to do away with morality.
Levi Foster
Hah! It truly takes a fragile mind indeed to be able to not imagine a morality entirely within the subject. This is a common sense argument so that both atheists and Christians can get to keep their lovely moral codes without facing the radical gap of subjectivity that we've had since Descartes. A copious capricious cop-out, certainly.
Leo Cook
Yes. Until a better society is possible, a state will always be needed.
This is why we need a Vanguard Party.
t. Leninist
Zachary Gomez
Wow, your gaps of argumentation are even more evident than OP's religious argument. Congrats, Grouchofag.
David Nguyen
...
Daniel Perry
Fucking Poe'd
Cooper Rodriguez
I never got how god= "objective" morals.
Lets say God comes down from heaven and gives us a moral code but he isn't the God from any religion. In fact there is no afterlife. Lets say for whatever reason he fucking hates us eating seafood. Should we stop eating seafood? Fuck no just because its now has this label of being "immoral" doesn't mean anything. Now if God punished us for eating sea food, or reveals that most sea creatures actually have a high level intelligence it would make a difference but the idea of objective morals seem to go into the "not even wrong" category, at least from this theistic point of view.
Ryan Ramirez
...
Benjamin Hill
so our senses are lying 100% of the time? Yes, some thought is required when intepreting something but there comes a point when shit like the "brain in the jar" notion starts happening.
Bentley Davis
Here is an experiment. Take some pure sodium metal, and stick it (along with your hand) into a bottle of water. Repeat until the reaction no longer blows your hand off.
Matthew Watson
This is essentially believing your parents are perfect when you are a child.
Camden Anderson
...
Jose Taylor
you experience events which you subjectively interpret as moral or immoral
Levi Carter
Moral arguments for God are horrific. But you know what I hate more? Godless arguments for morals.
Morality is a spook, just deal with it.
Elijah Jackson
He answers this in the video. I suggest you pay closer attention.
Robert Adams
How do you respond to philosophers who think we have an intuitive sense of right and wrong?
Gabriel Clark
I don't know, that doesn't look much like porn to me, fam.
Samuel Myers
...
Cooper Green
...
Grayson Thompson
I have an intuitive sense that the earth is flat.
Also i have an intuitive sense that they are imbeciles, literally.
Their " intuitive sense" is code for "my fragile mind cant conceive of this belive of mine as a non-universal"
Brandon Peterson
no it didn't.
Lucas Brooks
It's not sarcasm, that's what Grouchofag actually believes.
Ian Perry
...
Anthony Roberts
I'm saying their is no way of knowing if they are lying or not
see above
one of the reasons morality is an idiotic notion
If morality comes from God, I'd much rather be immoral.
Nathan Gomez
It really did. The question you're asking is whether God commands something because it is good or is it good because God commands it. Or in other words; is something good independent of God or is it good because God says so. This is directly addressed in the video. Pay closer attention.
