Semester Ethics Course condensed (Part 2 of 2)

Summary

El video ofrece una visión profunda de la filosofía moral, explorando las perspectivas de varios pensadores influyentes. Comienza con la crítica de Nietzsche al código moral burgués y cristiano europeo, argumentando que la moralidad es un concepto impuesto por los débiles. Luego, el profesor examina la posición de David Hume, quien cuestiona la existencia de verdades morales objetivas al afirmar que las emociones son la única experiencia moral que se tiene. La discusión se expande con la argumentación de John Locke, quien vincula las verdades morales con la voluntad divina, y se contrapone a la objeción de Platón presentada en el diálogo de Eutífrono. Finalmente, se destaca la paradoja en la lógica de Hume, que, al ser una norma epistémica, no puede sustentar su propia validez si niega la existencia de todas las verdades normativas.

Takeaways

• 📚 Friedrich Nietzsche cuestiona la moralidad convencional, argumentando que la moral es para los perdedores y sugiere que la moralidad es un constructo social creado por los débiles.
• 🧐 Nietzsche en su obra 'Genealogía de la moral' ofrece una genealogía de la moralidad, tratando de desmontar la creencia en una moralidad objetiva y fomentando una comprensión de su origen.
• 🏛 La moralidad que Nietzsche critica proviene del código moral burgués y cristiano europeo, el cual promueve la humildad, la bondad y la justicia, y condena la agresión y la autopromoción.
• 📝 La etimología de palabras como 'bueno' y 'malo' según Nietzsche, muestra una transformación de significado a lo largo del tiempo, reflejando una revuelta de los 'esclavos' contra los poderosos.
• 🤔 David Hume sostiene que no hay necesidad de creer en hechos morales objetivos para explicar la experiencia humana, lo que cuestiona la existencia de tales hechos.
• 👉 Hume propone que la maldad de una acción no se experimenta directamente, sino que surge de los sentimientos personales de desaprobación que uno tiene hacia esa acción.
• 💡 John Locke argumenta que los hechos morales objetivos provienen de Dios, pero este razonamiento se basa en la existencia previa de algunos hechos morales objetivos, lo que lo hace un círculo lógico.
• 📜 Platón, a través del diálogo 'Eutifro', explora la relación entre lo divino y lo virtuoso, cuestionando si las acciones son virtuosas porque son amadas por los dioses o si son amadas porque son virtuosas.
• 🔄 El argumento de Locke y la cuestión de Platón sugieren que no se puede usar a Dios para explicar la existencia de todos los hechos morales objetivos sin asumir algunos hechos morales previos.
• 🚫 La原则 de Hume, que sugiere no creer en hechos no experimentados, también se aplica a sí misma, ya que es un hecho normativo sobre la creencia racional, lo que la hace autocontradictory.
• 🤔 La discusión filosófica sobre la existencia de hechos morales objetivos sigue siendo un tema complejo y no resuelto, donde las teorías de Hume, Locke, Nietzsche y Platón ofrecen diferentes perspectivas y desafíos.

Q & A

¿Qué filósofo intentó resumir su curso de ética en un único video y por qué falló?

El profesor, que es un filósofo, intentó resumir su curso de ética en un solo video pero falló al intentarlo, lo que lo llevó a hacer una segunda parte del video.

¿Qué filósofos se discutieron en la primera parte del video?

En la primera parte del video se discutieron a Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, Immanuel Kant y Aristóteles.

¿Qué filósofos se discutirán en la segunda parte del video?

En la segunda parte del video se discutirán a Friedrich Nietzsche y se mencionará brevemente a David Hume, John Locke y Platón.

¿Cuál es la tesis central de Nietzsche sobre la moralidad?

Nietzsche argumenta que la moralidad convencional, especialmente la moralidad burguesa y cristianizada de la Europa de su tiempo, es para los perdedores y que no hay hechos morales objetivos reales que justifiquen seguirla.

¿Cómo describe Nietzsche la genealogía de la moralidad?

Nietzsche describe la genealogía de la moralidad como una revuelta de esclavos, donde las personas sin poder revirtieron los valores aristocráticos al imponer su propia moralidad, convirtiendo lo que antes era considerado bueno (fuerte, agresivo) en malo (malo, tiránico) y viceversa.

¿Qué principio racional utiliza David Hume para cuestionar la existencia de hechos morales objetivos?

Hume utiliza el principio de que solo se debe creer en la existencia de aquello que uno u otra persona de confianza han experimentado o que debe existir para explicar lo que experimentamos. Al aplicar este principio a la moralidad, Hume concluye que no hay necesidad de creer en hechos morales objetivos para explicar la experiencia.

¿Cómo se relaciona el argumento de John Locke sobre la moralidad con la existencia de Dios?

Locke argumenta que los hechos morales objetivos provienen de Dios, quien es el creador de los seres humanos y, por lo tanto, su propiedad. Deduce que, como no se debe dañar la propiedad de otro, se debe seguir una moralidad que no hiere a los otros seres humanos.

¿Por qué el argumento de Locke no puede explicar la existencia de todos los hechos morales objetivos?

El argumento de Locke asume la existencia de un hecho moral previo, como el que no se debe dañar la propiedad ajena. Esto implica que no puede ser usado para explicar la origen de todos los hechos morales objetivos, ya que al necesitar de hechos morales previos para su propio argumento, no resuelve el problema de la fuente de estos hechos.

¿Cuál es el dilema presentado por Platón en el diálogo Eutyphro?

El dilema de Eutyphro cuestiona si las acciones son virtuosas porque los dioses las aman, o si las acciones son amadas por los dioses porque son virtuosas. Este dilema muestra la dificultad en usar la voluntad divina para explicar la naturaleza de la moralidad objetiva.

¿Por qué la原则 (principio) de Hume podría no ser una buena justificación para negar la existencia de hechos morales objetivos?

El principio de Hume es una norma normativa que indica lo que uno debe creer racionalmente. Sin embargo, este principio también podría aplicarse a sí mismo, lo que podría llevar a la conclusión de que no deberíamos creer en él, dado que no es un hecho que se puede observar directamente y no es necesario para explicar la experiencia empírica.

¿Qué tipo de hechos son los morales y cómo se relacionan con la norma?

Los hechos morales son considerados hechos normativos, lo que significa que son hechos sobre lo que debería ser en lugar de cómo son las cosas. Estos contrastan con los hechos empíricos que se pueden observar o experimentar directamente.

¿Cómo se podría resolver el conflicto entre el principio de Hume y la existencia de hechos morales objetivos?

Para resolver este conflicto, podríamos cuestionar si el principio de Hume es universalmente aplicable o si hay excepciones para ciertos tipos de hechos normativos, incluidos los morales. También podríamos explorar otras teorías epistemológicas que permitan la existencia de hechos morales objetivos sin contradecir el principio de Hume.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introducción a la ética y crítica a la moralidad convencional

El profesor intenta resumir su curso de introducción a la ética en un video y, tras no lograrlo, continúa con una segunda parte. En ella, después de hablar de filósofos como Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, Immanuel Kant y Aristóteles, aborda a Friedrich Nietzsche y su obra 'Sobre la Genealogía de la Moral'. Nietzsche cuestiona la moralidad convencional, argumentando que no existe un verdadero hecho moral objetivo y que la moral es para los perdedores. Critica el código moral de la clase media europea cristianizada, que promueve humildad, bondad y justicia, y ofrece una genealogía de estos valores morales.

05:00

🤔 La rebelión de los esclavos y la revolución moral

Nietzsche describe la genealogía de la moralidad como una "rebelión de los esclavos". Según él, en tiempos de los antiguos romanos, lo noble y poderoso era considerado bueno, mientras que lo común y ordinario, malo. Sin embargo, los poderosos fueron desplazados y los caracteres de los débiles y humildes fueron elevados a la categoría de buenos, mientras que los atributos de los poderosos se convirtieron en malos. Esta revolución no fue física, sino moral, y consistió en convencer a la sociedad de que ciertas características previamente valoradas como buenas, como la agresión y la dominación, eran en realidad malas.

10:01

🚫 David Hume y la existencia de hechos morales objetivos

David Hume, filósofo del Ilustrismo escocés, argumenta que no es racional creer en la existencia de hechos morales objetivos, ya que no son necesarios para explicar las experiencias que tenemos. Hume propone un principio epistémico que dice solo creer en la existencia de aquello que hayas experimentado o que deba existir para explicar lo que experimentas. Al aplicar este principio a la moralidad, Hume concluye que no hay evidencia de la existencia de hechos morales objetivos en el mundo exterior.

15:03

🤔 John Locke y la teoría de la propiedad divina

John Locke, filósofo del siglo XVII, argumenta que los hechos morales objetivos provienen de Dios. Bajo la premisa de que Dios creó a los seres humanos y, por lo tanto, son propiedad de Dios, Locke deduce que no debemos dañar a otros seres humanos, que son propiedad de Dios. Sin embargo, este argumento asume la existencia de un hecho moral previo, el cual dice que no debemos dañar la propiedad ajena. Esto lleva a la objeción de que el argumento de Locke no puede explicar la fuente de todos los hechos morales objetivos.

🧐 El problema de la explicación de la virtud en el diálogo de Platón 'Eutifrón'

Platón, estudiante de Sócrates, explora la cuestión de la virtud en su diálogo 'Eutifrón'. Eutifrón, que cree firmemente en su conocimiento de lo que es correcto y lo que es incorrecto, se encuentra con Sócrates, quien lo cuestiona sobre la naturaleza de la virtud. Eutifrón responde que la virtud es lo amado por los dioses, lo que lleva a Sócrates a plantear la cuestión de si las acciones son virtuosas porque son amadas por los dioses o si son amadas por los dioses porque son virtuosas. Este diálogo resalta la dificultad de explicar la fuente de la virtud y la moralidad sin asumir la existencia previa de hechos morales.

🤨 La paradoja de la normatividad en la filosofía moral

Finalmente, se destaca una paradoja en la filosofía moral. Si la normatividad, que son hechos sobre lo que debería ser, no es necesaria para explicar la experiencia, entonces no deberíamos creer en hechos morales objetivos. Sin embargo, este principio en sí mismo es una norma sobre lo que es racional creer, y no es una experiencia directa. Por lo tanto, si este principio excluye la moralidad porque no es observable, también debería excluirse a sí mismo, ya que es una norma sobre la creencia racional que no se puede observar directamente.

Keywords

💡Etica

La ética es el estudio de las acciones humanas con respecto a lo que es correcto o incorrecto. En el video, se discute cómo diferentes filósofos han abordado la ética a lo largo de la historia, y cómo sus perspectivas han influido en la moralidad convencional.

💡Friedrich Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche es un filósofo alemán que cuestiona la moralidad convencional. En el video, se explora su crítica a la moralidad burguesa y cristiana, argumentando que la moralidad es una invención de los débiles para mantener el estatus quo.

💡Genealogía de la moral

La 'Genealogía de la moral' es una obra de Nietzsche que se divide en ensayos y se utiliza en el video para explicar su teoría sobre los orígenes de la moralidad. Nietzsche sugiere que la moralidad es un concepto impuesto por los 'esclavos' en una revuelta moral contra los 'nobles'.

💡Convencionalismo moral

El convencionalismo moral se refiere a las creencias morales aceptadas por una sociedad. En el video, se argumenta que esta moralidad es una construcción social y no una verdad objetiva, y que ha sido utilizada históricamente para mantener el poder de ciertos grupos.

💡Objetividad moral

La objetividad moral implica la existencia de verdades morales universales e inmutables. En el video, se cuestiona esta noción, sugiriendo que las creencias morales son constructos sociales y no hechos objetivos.

💡David Hume

David Hume es un filósofo escocés que argumenta que no hay hechos morales objetivos. En el video, se utiliza su principio empírico para cuestionar la existencia de tales hechos, sugiriendo que las experiencias morales son meramente subjetivas.

💡John Locke

John Locke es un filósofo que argumenta que los hechos morales objetivos provienen de Dios. En el video, se discute su argumento de que, como los seres humanos son propiedad de Dios, hay un deber moral de no hacer daño a otros seres humanos.

💡Platón

Platón, estudiante de Sócrates, plantea en su diálogo 'Eutifrón' una cuestión crucial sobre la naturaleza de la virtud y la moralidad. En el video, se menciona su argumento para ilustrar la dificultad de fundamentar la moralidad objetiva sin asumir previamente la existencia de hechos morales.

💡Revuelta de los esclavos

La 'Revuelta de los esclavos' es una metáfora utilizada por Nietzsche para describir el cambio en la percepción de la moralidad, donde los débiles imponen su visión de lo bueno y lo malo, transformando los valores de los poderosos.

💡Socrático

El método socrático es una técnica filosófica que utiliza preguntas y diálogo para examinar conceptos y creencias. En el video, se hace referencia a este método en el contexto del diálogo de Platón 'Eutifrón', que cuestiona la relación entre la virtud y el amor de los dioses.

💡Normatividad

La normatividad se refiere a las reglas o principios que determinan cómo las cosas deben ser. En el video, se discute cómo el principio de Hume, que sugiere solo creer en lo que se experimenta, también es una afirmación normativa, lo que lleva a una paradoja en la búsqueda de hechos morales objetivos.

Highlights

The professor attempts to summarize an entire introduction to ethics course in one video lecture.

Part two of the lecture continues the discussion on ethics, following the introduction of Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle in part one.

Nietzsche's work 'On the Genealogy of Morals' is explored, focusing on the first essay which questions why one should be moral.

Nietzsche argues against conventional morality, suggesting it's a construct for losers, contrasting with Aristotle's view that morality leads to happiness.

The distinction between true objective moral facts and conventional morality is discussed, with Nietzsche critiquing the bourgeois, middle-class, European, Christianized moral code.

Nietzsche's 'slave revolt' concept is introduced as a way to understand the origin of moral codes and how they can be rejected once their origins are known.

David Hume's philosophy is presented, arguing against the existence of objective moral facts based on experience and observation.

Hume's principle is applied to morality, leading to the conclusion that moral facts are not needed to explain our experiences.

John Locke's argument that objective moral facts come from God is discussed, linking the existence of moral facts to divine creation.

The Euthyphro dilemma, presented by Plato, challenges the idea that moral goodness is determined by divine approval.

The paradox of Hume's principle is highlighted, as it is a normative fact that purports to rule out the existence of all normative facts, including itself.

The lecture touches on the implications of denying the existence of objective moral facts and the philosophical challenges it presents.

The video aims to provide a comprehensive overview of various philosophical perspectives on ethics within the constraints of a single lecture.

Nietzsche's view that the moral system is a result of a 'slave revolt' where the powerless redefined moral values is discussed in detail.

The transformation of the concepts of 'good' and 'bad' from their original meanings related to social status to their current moral connotations is explored.

Hume's challenge to find an objective moral fact in the experience of witnessing an immoral act, such as murder, is analyzed.

The reliance on prior moral facts in Locke's argument from divine command theory to establish objective moral obligations is critiqued.

The video concludes by suggesting that the existence of normative principles, including epistemic norms, cannot be rationally dismissed by Hume's principle.

Transcripts

here we are again i'm a professor at

this university and i was attempting to

summarize my entire introduction to

ethics course in one video lecture i

failed and so now we need to do part two

in part one we talked about jeremy

bentham and peter singer and emmanuel

kant and aristotle and now we're going

to talk about nietzsche and so just like

the last time i'm going to edit this

video fast

[Music]

we start with a work by friedrich

nietzsche called on the genealogy of

morals this work is divided up into

essays and we're going to talk about the

first essay and in this essay nietzsche

answers the question

why be moral

in the first half of this video which

you should watch and i'll link to in the

description or whatever we saw what

aristotle's answer to this question was

aristotle's answer was the reason you

should be moral is because it will make

you happy nietzsche's answer to this

question why be moral is don't don't be

moral because morality is for losers

in order to understand what nietzsche is

saying here you need to understand the

distinction between true objective moral

facts if there are any and conventional

morality by conventional morality i just

mean the accepted moral code of a

society what that society as a group

believes what they believe about ethics

or morality and by true or objective

morality i mean the real one true moral

law the facts about what's right and

wrong

that this believed moral system is

trying to capture if you understand this

distinction then you understand that

there's some controversy about whether

this thing even exists but there's no

controversy about whether this exists

conventional morality is definitely real

because it just means the moral beliefs

of groups of people and groups of people

definitely have moral beliefs nietzsche

is talking just about this he's talking

about conventional morality specifically

the bourgeois middle class european

christianized moral code this is your

moral code and he's going to be

criticizing it he's going to be

criticizing the idea that people should

be humble and that they should be kind

and that institutions should be fair and

just and democratic the idea that

aggression is bad and that

self-promotion and self-aggrandizement

that these are are bad things this moral

perspective which nietzsche thinks is

dominant at the time that he's writing

and is if it was dominant then then it's

dominant now it's your moral view and he

thinks that it's wrong he's gonna give a

genealogy of it or an origin story

genealogy is just the word that means

the study of lineage here's what he's

trying to do he's trying to say where

this moral code comes from he's trying

to tell you

where you got your moral beliefs from

and he thinks once he's exposed the

origin of your moral beliefs then you

won't be so attracted to them you'll

think oh those are sort of silly i can

abandon this moral code that my society

has given me

nietzsche provocatively labels this

genealogy the slave revolt once upon a

time he says sometime around when the

ancient romans

ruled most of the earth there were

powerful people and these powerful

people were strong and aggressive and

cruel and that was thought to be good

whoever was common or ordinary or

plebeian the powerless were thought to

be bad he thinks that he knows this was

the case because of the origin of the

word good nietzsche writes the signpost

to the right road was for me the

question what was the real etymological

significance of the designations for

good coined in the various languages i

found they all led back to the same

conceptual transformation everywhere

noble aristocratic in the social sense

is the basic concept from which good in

the sense of with aristocratic soul

noble with a soul of a high order with a

privileged soul necessarily developed a

development which always runs parallel

with that other in which common plebeian

low are finally transformed into the

concept bad the most convincing example

of the latter is the german word

schlecht bad itself which is identical

with schlicht plain simple compare

schlechtvig plainly

simply and originally designated the

plane the common man as yet with no

inculpatory implication and simply in

contradistinction to the nobility well

okay what did all that mean what

nietzsche means is that the word good

originally just meant aristocratic or

rich or powerful and the word bad had no

inculpatory implication the word bad

just meant common plain ordinary but

then he thinks there was a slave revolt

not literal slaves but the powerless

people

these people they rose up

and

imposed themselves as the good ones and

their characteristics as the good ones

and they demoted the powerful people and

changed their characteristics from good

to well now it's not bad now it's not

good versus bad it's good versus evil

this revolt wasn't a physical

overthrowing of the dominating people

the dominating powerful people no this

was a sort of moral

revolt or revolution whereby the people

who are not in charge sort of convinced

everyone somehow that being aggressive

or being warlike or being dominating all

of those characteristics that were

thought to be good beforehand well those

things are actually evil and what's good

what's good is well our characteristics

us the powerless um being meek and being

humble and and that sort of thing that's

right are you following he's saying that

a long time ago there was a moral system

according to which being kind or being

gentle was not good and nietzsche says

that the only reason that you think that

being kind or being gentle is morally

good is because you're just so deep in

it you're just stuck in the moral system

that resulted from this slave revolt

which he calls the priestly mode of

valuation whatever that's just his word

for this

system of conventional morality that

results once you know about this system

of morality you're supposed to just

realize that there's nothing so great

about it and so then you realize that

being moral at least according to this

code of morality it's something that you

don't have to do because it was just

made up by the losers

now that we're done with nietzsche we're

going to try to answer this question are

there objective moral facts we're going

to start with someone who gives the

answer no and that person is the

greatest philosopher of the scottish

enlightenment david hume

hume is operating with something like

the following principle

only believe in the existence of stuff

that you

or someone else trustworthy have

experienced or that must exist in order

to explain stuff we do experience you

believe in the existence of trees

they're real because you've experienced

trees and you believe in the existence

of some far away place even if you've

never been there because someone else

who you trust

has been there and told you about it or

they wrote about it in a book and you

trust the book because it's a

trustworthy book and then there are the

things like electrons that have not been

experienced or at least hadn't been

experienced when it was first rational

to believe in them you believe in those

because of other things that we do

experience like we experience the

results that we read out of certain

equipment and the best explanation for

those results which we do experience is

the existence of electrons or whatever

so this covers all the stuff that we're

supposed to believe in and it excludes

all the things we're not supposed to

believe in like unicorns hume applies

this principle which seems like a very

rational one he applies it to morality

and he gets the result that oh we don't

need to believe in moral facts objective

moral facts in order to explain anything

that we experience and so then he thinks

it's irrational to believe in the

existence of objective morality he

writes take any action allowed to be

vicious willful murder for instance

examine it in all lights and see if you

can find that matter of fact or real

existence which you call vice what he's

asking here is for you to imagine

experiencing some bad thing like you're

watching someone

murder someone else you're experiencing

the murder but do you experience the

wrongness the murder is happening the

knife is there and the blood is real you

experience those things

but the badness is the badness there the

vice entirely escapes you as long as you

consider the object by the object he

means the thing out there in the world

that you're experiencing the event the

murder but what you're looking for in

this experience is the vice the badness

the moral evil do you experience that

you never can find it till you turn your

reflection into your own breast and find

a sentiment of disapprobation which

arises in you towards this action here

is a matter of fact but tis an object of

feeling it lies in yourself not in the

object hume's point is that the only

thing that we experience that seems to

be anywhere close to

moral badness is just your own feelings

your own feelings of disliking this

action that you're witnessing this this

violent act but if that's all that we

find then according to this principle

you shouldn't believe in objective

morality it's not out there in the world

outside of your own mind

well if there were objective moral facts

where would they come from one answer is

given by john locke

and his answer is

that objective moral facts come from god

locke was a philosopher living in

england in the 1600s and he presented

this argument

one god created human beings two

if x creates y

then y is x's property three therefore

these little three dots they mean

therefore they're just a shorthand for

therefore therefore human beings are

god's property okay that's the first

part of the argument god created human

beings if something creates something

else then the first thing owns the

second thing

so god owns human beings humans are

god's property all right interim

conclusion keep going four

we must not harm someone else's property

five therefore we must not harm human

beings this is an argument that goes

from the fact that god exists and has

certain characteristics did certain

things like created human beings it goes

from that to the conclusion that we must

not harm human beings so what this

argument does is it derives a certain

moral claim about what human beings must

do and this you might think is a model

for the origin of objective moral facts

that's a very natural thought now here's

the thing

this argument might be perfectly good

like it might very well be that premise

one is true premise two is true premise

four is true three really does follow

from one and two five really does follow

from four and three it may be a totally

valid and legit argument i'm not arguing

with any of that i'm not objecting to

any of that but notice something you

can't use an argument of this style

you can't do it you can't use an

argument of this style in order to show

where all objective moral facts come

from in the first place they can't all

come from god at least not via this

route here's why you see it

it's right there you see it

that

what is that look at that what is that

in premise four we're assuming that

there's a moral fact we must not harm

someone else's property it may be that

we must not harm human beings and locke

may be right that it's true that this

moral obligation this objective moral

obligation may exist and it may come

from god it may come from the fact that

god made us and owns us maybe but

this argument relies on the prior

existence of some moral facts some

objective moral facts so it cannot

explain where all moral facts come from

i'll say it another way you can't use

god to explain the existence of all

objective moral facts if in doing so you

have to appeal to some prior existing

putative objective moral fact this

objection actually is older than locke

who is writing in the 1600s it comes all

the way from plato who was writing in

like the negative 300s or something like

that i'll put up the dates

on the screen

plato was the student of socrates

socrates walked around a bunch and plato

wrote dialogues wrote stories about

socrates one of those dialogues is

called euthyphro because it's about a

conversation between socrates and some

guy named euthyphro euthyphro meets up

with socrates like by the courthouse

because euthyphro is prosecuting his own

father for murder you don't have to know

the details but if you do if you want to

know the details i have a whole video

about this dialogue explaining it in

detail the point is this euthyphro seems

to know a lot about what's right and

wrong because he's confident enough in

his beliefs about what's right and wrong

to prosecute his own father so socrates

asks him what virtue is and then they

have a discussion and i'm going to

summarize that discussion right now

so socrates asks this guy euthyphro what

is virtue and euthyphro says virtue is

what is loved by the gods so whatever

actions the gods or we can say god if we

think there's just one god whatever

action or actions are loved by the gods

those are the good ones those are the

moral ones those are the ethical ones

but then socrates asks this question are

the acts virtuous because the gods love

them

or do the gods love them because they

are virtuous this is a question about

the order of explanatory priority

you don't have to know that technical

term what you have to understand is that

the issue is

are they morally good first and then

because they're good the gods love those

actions or do the gods love them first

and the fact that the gods love them

makes them those virtuous okay well

euthyphro gives an answer he says oh the

gods love them because they are virtuous

so they're virtuous first

and then because they're already

virtuous those are the ones that the

gods choose to love

because the gods are good or whatever

and they love good things oh but then

socrates points out you haven't answered

my question if the reason that the gods

love them

is because they're already virtuous then

then what made them virtuous in the

first place we haven't answered the

original question this was exactly the

problem with using locke's argument

which might be a perfectly good argument

for its own purposes but using it to

explain the origin of objective moral

facts if there have to be objective

moral facts in order for that argument

to work then that argument can't explain

where objective moral facts come from

there's a lot more to say about this

dialogue by plato and i say a lot more

in the full video about this but right

here we're cramming a whole semester

into one video or two you might be

thinking at this point that the right

answer to this question is no

no there are no objective moral facts

and the main reason for concluding that

there are no objective moral facts is

the argument that david hume gave uh you

know two minutes ago or if this was a

whole semester like three weeks ago

there's a problem though there's a

problem with that argument so what i

need to do at this point is i need to go

back to david hume get that principle

from hume back up on the board so that

we can assess whether or not we can use

it to rule out the existence of

objective moral facts and we're going to

get that principle from david hume back

up onto the board through the magic of

editing this was hume's principle and it

was based on this principle that we

seemed to get an argument against the

existence of objective moral facts it

seems like there's no reason to believe

in any fact about what you should or

shouldn't do but notice something about

this principle it tells you what to do

only believe in the existence of stuff

that blah blah blah blah blah it's like

an order or a command what it really

means is you should only believe in this

stuff this is a fact about what you

should do

you should only believe in the existence

of things that you experience blah blah

blah blah blah and this seems to rule

out the existence of objective moral

facts but think about what kinds of

facts moral facts are they're facts

about

should about what you should do

in moral philosophy we call these sorts

of facts normative

that's our technical term for them you

don't have to worry about this technical

term you just have to know that these

are not facts about how things are

they're facts about how they ought to be

according to this principle if it's

right and if you follow it then you

should stop believing in

moral

facts about how things should be but

this fact itself

is normative it's a fact about how

things should be it's not a moral claim

this isn't a moral claim this is a claim

that falls into the category of what

what we technically call epistemic

normativity epistemic means having to do

with belief or knowledge episteme is the

greek word for knowledge this is a

principle of rationality but it's a

principle about what you ought to do

rationally and the moral facts the

objective moral facts they're principles

of

objective moral normativity so if this

principle rules out moral facts because

their normative and normative facts

aren't needed to explain what we

experience then this principle should

also rule out

epistemic normative facts it should also

rule out itself if this principle for

what's rational to believe in means that

you can't believe in

moral facts because the moral facts

aren't things you can observe they're

things about how things ought to be

they're facts about how things ought to

be well then this principle is also

going to rule out itself because a fact

about what you should believe in

rationally speaking is not something

that you experience you don't experience

the fact that you should believe in this

or that and no one experiences it and

you don't need to posit it in order to

explain things we do experience so this

principle doesn't work at least it

doesn't work in every case if it rules

out moral normativity if it rules out

morality objective morality then it also

rules out itself

you