Morality Can't Be Objective, Even If God Exists (Morality p.1)

Summary

In this philosophical discourse, Alex challenges the notion of objective morality, arguing that even religious beliefs cannot provide a solid foundation for it. He critiques popular atheistic and theistic perspectives, including those of Sam Harris and Dr. William Lane Craig, and asserts that morality is inherently subjective. Alex plans to further explore the implications of this view, including its potential link to nihilism, in upcoming videos, inviting viewers to engage in the conversation on social media.

Takeaways

• 📢 Alex has returned to YouTube after an absence and encourages viewers to follow him on Twitter for more thoughts.
• 🤔 Alex challenges the notion of objective morality, disagreeing with atheist colleagues and arguing that morality is inherently subjective.
• 🛑 He asserts that even religious individuals cannot provide an objective basis for morality, contrary to common belief.
• 🔄 Alex's moral philosophy has shifted to consider that the existence of God does not necessarily make morality objective.
• 📝 He plans to release a series of videos to explain his stance on morality, starting with defining what morality means to him.
• 🤖 Alex uses the example of a programmed robot to argue that recognition of concepts like fairness does not make an entity a moral agent.
• 💡 He defines morality as the intuition that we ought to do what is good and avoid what is bad, emphasizing the subjective nature of 'good' and 'ought'.
• 🚫 Alex argues that 'good' and 'bad' cannot be objectively defined, and any attempt to do so presupposes a particular moral philosophy.
• 🔗 He points out that religious morality varies by social and geographical backgrounds, just like atheistic morality, indicating its subjectivity.
• 🕊 Alex contends that even if God's existence were proven, it would not make religious morality objective without proving why we ought to do what is good.
• 🤝 He invites viewers to engage with his arguments, acknowledging the possibility of logical errors and looking forward to feedback and discussion.

Q & A

What is the main topic of discussion in the video script?

The main topic of the video script is the subjective nature of morality, including both religious and atheistic perspectives, and the argument against the existence of objective morality.

Why does Alex disagree with his atheist colleagues on the topic of objective morality?

Alex disagrees with his atheist colleagues because he believes that it's not possible to prove in any objective sense that a person should or shouldn't act in a particular way, which contrasts with some of his colleagues' views that morality can be objective.

What is Alex's view on the relationship between atheism and the possibility of objective morality?

Alex used to think that atheism was a premise against the existence of objective morality, but he has come to realize that even religious individuals cannot provide an objective basis for morality, suggesting that morality is subjective regardless of one's religious beliefs.

What significant shift has Alex experienced in his moral philosophy?

Alex's significant shift in moral philosophy is the realization that even with the existence of God, morality remains subjective, which he previously thought was the final gap where objective morality could exist.

What does Alex plan to do in his upcoming videos?

Alex plans to make a series of videos to solidify his stance on the subjectivity of morality, explain why he thinks religious and atheistic morality are both subjective, and explore the implications of this view, including its relation to nihilism.

What is Alex's definition of morality according to the script?

Alex defines morality as the intuition that we ought to do that which is good and ought not to do that which is bad, emphasizing that this definition is broad enough to encompass all popular notions of morality.

Why does Alex believe that defining 'good' or 'bad' is impossible?

Alex believes that defining 'good' or 'bad' is impossible because any attempt to define these terms would necessarily presume a particular moral philosophy, and the very ability to disagree on what is good or bad demonstrates the inherent subjectivity of these concepts.

What is Dr. William Lane Craig's argument for the existence of objective morality?

Dr. William Lane Craig argues that objective morality exists because he cannot accept that the Holocaust wasn't objectively bad, suggesting that there are objective moral duties and values that are not relative to any cultural or societal standards.

How does Alex respond to the argument that atheism cannot provide an objective basis for morality?

Alex responds by arguing that even religious morality is subjective and varies based on social and geographical backgrounds, just like atheistic morality, and that the belief in the objectivity of one's own morality is ultimately a subjective decision.

What is the main issue Alex takes with religious claims of objective morality based on the existence of God?

Alex's main issue is that even if God exists and defines what is good and bad, there is still no objective way to determine why we ought to do what is good and avoid what is bad, suggesting that the 'ought' aspect of morality remains subjective.

How does Alex view the implications of his stance on subjective morality?

Alex views the implications of his stance as significant, leading to philosophical conclusions such as nihilism for some people, but he also aims to show that ethical decisions can still be made as though they are based in objectivity, even when they are not.