Comments by "MC116" (@angelmendez-rivera351) on "PragerU" channel.

  1. YxVm Collective agreements aren’t equivalent to objectivity. If morality were objective, then species would practice it regardless of whether they are human or not. We are not the only intelligent species which exists.
    1
  2. "Dennis summation of opinionated desirability / undesirability is correct." We agree on this much. "His point is that, if the proposition is true, it is merely a emotional appeal w/ out any real inherit substance and or moral force to apply or agree upon." Not true. Be careful. While it is true that this would imply it is an emotional appeal, it does not imply there is no real substance to it. We do have reason to agree on a set of collective morality. The only implication stemming from emotional appeal is that this collective morality is not objective and therefore highly arbitrary and non-deductive. It says nothing about whether it is meaningful or not. "Also, this isn't how the real world operates." It need not be. Objectivity has nothing to do with practicality. Something can be established subjectively while remaining practical. Please review the definition of objectivity: nowhere in it is there mention of practicality. "Nobody in their right mind believes there isn't something inherently objectively wrong in certain human behaviors." This is true, but a straw-man argument. Humans are animals, which means that we have an instinct to survive and use our abilities for this purpose. Hence, we have an inherent bias into believing that certain things are simply moral imperatives, but only because these things serve our own purposes, and purpose is also subjective. If we had been robots instead who hadn't an instinct for biological survival, but instead had some other purpose, then our moral biases would still be very different. Which goes to show that morality is still subjective, and this isn't negated by the fact that we have inherent biases towards moralities of survival. "We need not hold to an unconscious unintelligent standard - a ludicrous standard IMO - when applied to rational autonomous agents." I agree. We need no objective morality in order to operate on a functional society. We are rational beings, so we are intelligent enough to agree on subjective moral standards to serve our purposes, which is completely fine. However, keep in mind that by no means does this imply morality is objective. You seem to think it does. "Logically only conscious / intelligent beings can set the objective standards for conscious / intelligent beings behavior." False by definition. Revise what objectivity is. Keep in mind that objectivity and practicality are very much unrelated. I'm claiming morality is completely subjective, and that it does indeed boil down to a debate of what is desirable versus what isn't. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that, despite morality being subjective, there are multiple arbitrary, subjective, yet practical and intuitive reasons to lean towards our moral biases and instincts and socially agree that murder is immoral. You keep confusing practicality with objectivity, which are not at all equal. "History has shown that societies can conclude the murdering of others can be highly desirable regardless of the dangers and or rationale." I agree. This isn't relevant though. "Individuals or societal conclusions opting for moral behavior being nothing other than opinionated desirability has no business declaring anything on anyone." It does have a business, actually, because the lack of objectivity debunks the notion that God must necessarily exist, which is super relevant for society. It is relevant because whether God exists or not is incredibly important and our futures literally depend on figuring it out. "The objectivity you speak of isn't going to happen." I know. It is impossible by definition. Objectivity is self-contradicting. Again, I never said it was going to happen. You keep going on tangents and making comments that are either irrelevant or that make me think you are confused as to what this debate is even about. "Morality set by our creator and or God would still be insufficient for you in establishing objectivity? Incredible." Yes, because by definition, it LITERALLY cannot be objective. It isn't difficult to understand and I'm tired of repeating. Any morality established by God must by definition serve God's own purposes, REGARDLESS of whether God is omniscient and eternal, or not (and God is in fact NOT omniscient nor eternal, both of these are self-contradicting and therefore impossible, and I already discussed this). It isn't incredible: it's called logic.
    1
  3. Collective appeals are different from objective realities, even if they serve the same purpose. Again, I think you misunderstand what objectivity is. You're presumably defining objectivity as being something of the collective, but that's not what the agreed upon definition of objectivity is. No one actually ever uses the word "objectivity" the way you're using it. Practical and objective are not synonyms. Yes, a collective appeal as a practical approach is real, it doesn't make it objective.
    1
  4. " health is considered when making moral claims." ...because human instinct dictates that what is ultimately most desirable is to have good health. hence explaining why morality is centered around health and things that involve violence and the prevention of it.
    1
  5. Ungoogleable o_O Of course he disagrees.
    1
  6. Mbathroom1 Not true at all. We disproved his point
    1
  7. Mbathroom1 I did not misspell anything. Learn how to read.
    1
  8. Mbathroom1 Not true
    1
  9. Mbathroom1 I know what I wrote
    1
  10. Without God, there is no objective morality, but neither there is with God regardless. For morality to be objective, it must exist independence of any consciousness.
    1
  11. Silly Sad That isn't a valid argument. Here is how this debate gets resolved. Objective morals cannot exist with OR without God. The reason is that any justification of an standard for an objective moral will itself need to be a moral statement itself, hence engaging in infinite regress.
    1
  12. This is just all jumbo not supported by evidence. Historically, authoritative parents have never been successful and have never been considered an ideal type of parent by well-informed psychologists. This so called “expert” provided an example with a teacher, and providing an example is fine and all, but the problem is that what actually happens in real life shows that authoritative teachers are not successful. Children are not really supposed to simply obey everything and period. This is not how raising children works, and children do not like authority. Children are curious. Historically, children of authoritative parents are actually not obedient at all, but their parents are unaware because they’re also secretive about it on top of that. It just completely destroys the parenting. Children want explanations. You have to provide these explanations to them for then to learn and understand and comply to an order. If they get argumentative and are able to pick apart your explanations, then that means your explanations are objectively bad and you’re a bad parent. That’s what it comes down to. If you tell them “because I said so”, that isn’t going to convince them at all. Sure, it may instill fear in them, and some children will react to fear by applying an obedient stance. But most of the other children won’t. If they’re not convinced and you tell them that, they’ll simply lose your trust and keep disobeying your orders, but in secret. And you know what we call it when we use fear as method of governing and ruling? Terrorism. Think about this for a second. Also, you act as though obedient children are rare in this generation, and as though children are intrinsically little devils that need quarantine, but neither of these claims has evidence to support it. Children have always been disobedient.
    1