No Avail | If you're going to argue with a moral relativist... @No_Avail | Uploaded June 2009 | Updated October 2024, 1 hour ago.
Update: 2011-10-22: Just watched this video again for the first time since 2009. Found it to be a bit cringe worthy because I never specified that I take no issue with the statement "Ethics are subjective" when the term 'subjective' is viewed as a synonym with 'mind-dependent' and relating to a subject. Likewise, the statement "Ethics cannot be objective" is also appropriate when the term 'objective' is a placeholder for 'mind-independent' or in relation to materialism & physicalism. It's semantics, but I did underestimate the ubiquity of the divergence in usage. I'd rather not see these terms applied in this way, because I get the sense that so many of these disagreements have always stemmed from colloquial usage of subjective/objective, referring to our ranged ability to judge conflicts in biased/unbiased ways. This has nothing to do with mind-dependency. So in any debate surrounding subjective/objective values, writers/uploaders/content creators should, first and foremost, go over the prescriptive and the descriptive. I regret not having done this at the beginning of this video. So to elaborate, if I'm refereeing a sporting event and succumb to favoritism at the expense of making the right call during a crucial part of the game (where making the right call would have led to my preferred team losing the game), any attempt on my part to rationalize my decision to not make the right call would fall into the 'subjective' category when the term subjective is meant to describe a bias stemming from arbitrary conditioning. Whereas if I decide to make the right call despite not wanting to emotionally, due to my knowledge of the fact that doing so would have led to my preferred team losing the game, my decision to proceed with the right call will be one grounded in an objective sense of fairness. When taking this into consideration, it's asinine to suggest that both my former and latter decisions are equally grounded in subjectivity. It's laughable to insist that my belief in making the right call is just as divorced from objectivity as is my avoidance of making the right call due to my partiality towards the team that would have lost had I made the right call. Again, this doesn't remotely suggest that notions of ought exist outside the mind, but it does shed light on varying levels of emotive fraudulence and duplicity. So while it's important to stress that facts and ought-statements are indeed fundamentally distinct from one another, it's also important place emphasis on the fact that not everyone is equally owned by their inner aspirations to apply double standards based on conditioned bigotries (Racism/Nationalism/Nepotism/Speciesism). Update over.
---------------------------
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair.
Update: 2011-10-22: Just watched this video again for the first time since 2009. Found it to be a bit cringe worthy because I never specified that I take no issue with the statement "Ethics are subjective" when the term 'subjective' is viewed as a synonym with 'mind-dependent' and relating to a subject. Likewise, the statement "Ethics cannot be objective" is also appropriate when the term 'objective' is a placeholder for 'mind-independent' or in relation to materialism & physicalism. It's semantics, but I did underestimate the ubiquity of the divergence in usage. I'd rather not see these terms applied in this way, because I get the sense that so many of these disagreements have always stemmed from colloquial usage of subjective/objective, referring to our ranged ability to judge conflicts in biased/unbiased ways. This has nothing to do with mind-dependency. So in any debate surrounding subjective/objective values, writers/uploaders/content creators should, first and foremost, go over the prescriptive and the descriptive. I regret not having done this at the beginning of this video. So to elaborate, if I'm refereeing a sporting event and succumb to favoritism at the expense of making the right call during a crucial part of the game (where making the right call would have led to my preferred team losing the game), any attempt on my part to rationalize my decision to not make the right call would fall into the 'subjective' category when the term subjective is meant to describe a bias stemming from arbitrary conditioning. Whereas if I decide to make the right call despite not wanting to emotionally, due to my knowledge of the fact that doing so would have led to my preferred team losing the game, my decision to proceed with the right call will be one grounded in an objective sense of fairness. When taking this into consideration, it's asinine to suggest that both my former and latter decisions are equally grounded in subjectivity. It's laughable to insist that my belief in making the right call is just as divorced from objectivity as is my avoidance of making the right call due to my partiality towards the team that would have lost had I made the right call. Again, this doesn't remotely suggest that notions of ought exist outside the mind, but it does shed light on varying levels of emotive fraudulence and duplicity. So while it's important to stress that facts and ought-statements are indeed fundamentally distinct from one another, it's also important place emphasis on the fact that not everyone is equally owned by their inner aspirations to apply double standards based on conditioned bigotries (Racism/Nationalism/Nepotism/Speciesism). Update over.
---------------------------
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair.
