Testeverything521 | Toddallengates, Naturalistic Explanations, and Morality @Testeverything521 | Uploaded 14 years ago | Updated 11 hours ago
His video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EjIYZj72iU
Making a response to this video was rather tricky, since I agree with 95% of what he says. Our most noticeable difference is that he rejects objective morality. In this video, I critique the reasons which he uses to conclude objective morality.
The term objective refers to things which exist independently of the mind. Since objectivity is not given by creatures, nothing about creature's presence or lack of knowledge can take away or give objectivity.
In short, nothing about pointing out that our distant ancestor's inability to recognize objective morality prevents morality from objectively existing anymore than pointing out our distance ancestors inability to recognize stars prevents stars from objectively existing.
As always, feel free to start up a discussion. I can prove you with a script if that would make responding or understanding the video easier.
His video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EjIYZj72iU
Making a response to this video was rather tricky, since I agree with 95% of what he says. Our most noticeable difference is that he rejects objective morality. In this video, I critique the reasons which he uses to conclude objective morality.
The term objective refers to things which exist independently of the mind. Since objectivity is not given by creatures, nothing about creature's presence or lack of knowledge can take away or give objectivity.
In short, nothing about pointing out that our distant ancestor's inability to recognize objective morality prevents morality from objectively existing anymore than pointing out our distance ancestors inability to recognize stars prevents stars from objectively existing.
As always, feel free to start up a discussion. I can prove you with a script if that would make responding or understanding the video easier.
