Good Values, Love, and Happiness?

[DelusiveNinja]

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryA8PafooQ4&list=PLIBtb_NuIJ1w9rrlXRueM3opfoV0rUenS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg-wNxJ5XxY&list=PLIBtb_NuIJ1w9GVrOrzMZbwU7Li6TAT91 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zxnw0l499g&list=PLIBtb_NuIJ1w9GVrOrzMZbwU7Li6TAT91

I'm not sure where I want to take this...

I've recently exposed myself to this YouTube channel called PragerUniversity out of curiosity. After watching a few of their videos, I've come to realize that my worldview may be erroneous in some aspects and I would like to hear some different point of views.

Does this change your perspective?
Do you agree with the lessons taught in these videos?

Does good and evil exist? If so, who determines which actions are which?
Do you believe that "good values" exist? If so, from where do they originate?

Is happiness really a "moral obligation"?
Do externally happy people really make the world a better place?
Should people repress the negative vibes they have for the sake of others?

 

[RadicalDreamer31]

The video titled "What matters most in life" to me sounds like me vs. we. What I mean is, the feelings you have advance your own objectives apart from that of others. Your values advance the objective of you kin, or culture or where ever the hell you adopted your values from.

If I can say that a different way: You are born with your 'feelings', as we are calling them here. They are yours, they are designed to force you to acquire what you need to live. And if no consequence or judgment would befall you for do so, you would be a spoiled child your whole life. Values are not for you, values are the collectives "feelings" the values you have are designed to force to jive with others, because they come from others. You value human life, because you adopted that value from a human wanting to live. Why would you need to look good or be healthy, if youre the last person? You value these things, when there are others. And that's the conflict he mentions, now vs. later, me vs. we.

So are values the most important thing in life? I don't know sure w/e. Also something something Daniel Kahneman, to that video.

-

I.... think i disagree with the notion that happiness is a moral obligation... Hold on. Um.

Now I often act happy, so as not to upset others. True. But happiness is complacency, it's a sedative, it's a negative force. When someone is happy they are not really doing very much. What I'.... I lost my thoughts....
....all he really says in happiness video is, "don't be mean"
Negative vibes have a place and a purpose. Let's be honest and real, that the only way effective

I don't know dude, I lost my thoughts. the melatonin pills kicked in have way through this.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I watched the first one. It seemed to me he set up a nice straw man right from the beginning with his "the so called Age of Reason" telling us that "Reaon alone" would usher in a "better world". I would like a citation on that claim. I'm sure there may have been individuals who made such claims but there were a lot of varying viewpoints in that so-called Age. Much like every other Age. So he did well enough in knocking down that straw man.

I've seen Dennis Prager off and on over the last 20+ years or so. He once had a short lived syndicated talk tv show and last I heard he still has a syndicated talk radio show.

He's a theist. From what I've seen of him he tries to counter atheist arguments in unique ways (at least unique by my experience). He scores points from time to time and falls into fallacies from time to time too.

Does this change your perspective?
Do you agree with the lessons taught in these videos?

No and no. If I except the straw man, I don't entirely disagree with him. Again I just watched the first video.

Does good and evil exist? If so, who determines which actions are which?
Do you believe that "good values" exist? If so, from where do they originate?

Subjective subjective. Your questions are looking for a god. If you want one, go find one if you haven't already.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Evil can be rational, that's obvious. Also, cheating on a test could be good, depending on circumstances and outcomes.

It would be illegal and I see him trying to equal legal with good, while openly trying to ridicule reasoning being good, when he means moral goodness.

The assertion of the assumption rational=good is a fallacy.

He mistakes orders of ethics and morals for non-rational constructs, which are de facto rationally created systems of values, and proceeds to call hiding refugees irrational, when such decision stemming from a system of beliefs and convictions is aimed at achieving set standards and is rational in that perspective.

So there is a lot of changing perspectives and ignoring the circumstances/details. Faulty generalisation.

Towards the end of the video he makes more sense in showing how there is no intrinsic moral value to reason, but again, he created the argument that most state there is, which would mean that the general public is wrong and he is right, while this is wrong, because the equation he created at the beginning was the case of hasty/faulty generalisation.

This is funny because every person that understands the idea that reasoning is not inherently moral, cannot apply to his generalisation of a problem, so this is a convoluted way of dealing with something obvious.

edit : obvious in this example means that there is an explanation.

Spoiler

ra•tion•al•i•ty (ˌræʃ əˈnæl ɪ ti)
n., pl. -ties. 1. the state or quality of being rational.
2. the possession or exercise of reason.
3. agreeableness to reason.
4. a reasonable view, practice, etc.

rea·son (r

z

n)n.1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Notes at because, why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

v. rea·soned, rea·son·ing, rea·sons
v.intr.1. To use the faculty of reason; think logically.
2. To talk or argue logically and persuasively.
3. Obsolete To engage in conversation or discussion.

v.tr.1. To determine or conclude by logical thinking: reasoned out a solution to the problem.
2. To persuade or dissuade (someone) with reasons.

That's it, pretty simple

 

[Cognisant]

When there's a rational cause to be immoral society has a problem that needs to be fixed, either by discouraging this behaviour with greater penalties, removing whatever there is to be gained by this behaviour, or fixing whatever systematic problem is making this behaviour necesscary.

If it was a matter of belief the problem wouldn't be fixed, if a child cheated on a test you wouldn't stop to ask why you'd just punish the child under the assumption that it was a moral failing and the child's sense of morality may have had nothing to do with it.

Maybe the test is too hard, maybe circumstances prevented the child studying sufficiently, maybe a million other things none of which could be solved if the problem was assumed to be the child being evil.

 

[chaos in the oasis]

Video games and rocks will cell your D

 

[StevenM]

It's funny how anything implying morality and ethics always involves a choice of action.

In my opinion, true rationality is when it is used to make an accurate statement of what is. So in the "cheating on a test" example, you would use your rationality to define the whole situation. It might sound something like this:

I have two choices, to cheat or not to cheat. I haven't studied for the test, and from what I can gather intuitively, there is a good possibility I might fail. This conclusion varies depending on the time of reasoning, and the subject of the test. Or the likelihood I could get a better mark based on hunches.

If I were to cheat, and get away with it cleanly, I will pass the class. (Then try to objectively examine the factors leading to a success of cheating, and leaving room for something unexpected or unknown). If I were to get caught, I could get kicked out of school.

Using rationality, you gather what is, try to be aware of the possibilities, the rewards, the downfalls, and taking account there may be something unexpected. And rationality is done there.

The choice that comes after starts getting into the subjective realm. This where we talk about ethics.

 

[Absurdity]

Symptomatic of unraveling culture that there even needs to be a debate. "Good values" used to be the guiding principles of Western civilization, a given, but now this old man needs to assure you that they aren't boring, old fashioned, etc. Winced when he suggested the audience may not know what he meant by "good values."

Turn down for what?
#YOLO
Let's drunkenly sashay our way to Armageddon.

Am I too predictable?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

There is no such thing as an underlying moral fabric of the universe. Morals and ethics are subjective, for each person they're different. Morals and ethics are means to achieve certain outcomes. For two different systems, if the goals are the same, there will be one system which performs better than the other.

Is there such a thing as evil? Appealing to my sensibilities, I do have a conception of what is evil.
Is happiness a moral obligation? Depends on the person... etc. etc.

 

[Hadoblado]

I enjoyed the videos, though I disagree.

People have the choice to walk away from you when you're making them unhappy. It's not evil to be dislikable.

Morality is a goal. It differs between individuals just what that goal entails, and reason (whether air-tight or faulty) is the way you both determine and achieve it.

I agree that values are important, but that's close to redundant. If he then goes on to say that the most important thing is to have value X, he will need to make a longer video.

 

[kora]

Straw man as has been noted already. Reason Is a separate concept from good and evil, although it is accepted that reason is a good, useful thing. I would say "evil" is best defined as the will to destruction, with no intention of construction. Reason is more of a means, a tool. A completely immoral society would be an irrational choice, collectively, because an immoral choice is a destructive one for others or oneself, For this reason an immoral or "bad" society cannot continue long. Self preservation and living within society commands a more or less objective morality (that is to say, shared by all individuals) due to the self preservation instinct and natural desire for progress, and fear of entropy. No one desires absolute destruction of everything, unless maybe they are mad, and even then I would surprised.

 

[TBerg]

There is no "I" without a social projection. There is no capacity for anything intelligent without the ability to attach yourself to this social projection. This means that all of your organized patterns of thought are attributable to the society in which you developed, and you better be goddamn grateful to every fellow creature for teaching you something about yourself. Most things you don't understand are either the result of psychological repression or ignorance. You had better be well-versed in a tradition before you give short-shrift to it.

 

[marv]

There can only be one being who's capable of being evil, and that's the one who has been spectating the agony of millions of people (at the least) throughout the ages.

The existence of the good 'ol "good and bad" is somewhat similar to God's existence, you can't prove it, neither disprove it. Although the sad thing is that just like the argument against God, the argument against "good and bad" is overwhelmingly stronger than the argument for it.


I like to think of moral systems that originate outside of our universe. Maybe we are being part of some hatchery of conscious minds. Billions of years of development in this universe, ran as a few second-long simulation in their universe, while they record the conscious layer of our universe. They want to create artificial intelligence of great magnitude and this amy be the only way. They are hunting for individuals who can live their lives as abstract beings, who can shed their biological skins and accept true wisdom. If -funnily- this was the case, then being more conscious and gaining more wisdom is the right thing to do. By which you raise your algorithmical power and raise your multiversal value ^^. Haha.. Kill me now.

Simulation theory is insane though.(insanely appropriate)

 

[Cherry Cola]

I didn't watch the videos but I'm betting that they are talking about the kind of good and evil which religion does, ie god or by some other paradox-granted absolutes resounding in the very tapestry of being. That's metaphysical morality and it's easy to dismiss. By dismissing this particular notion of morality as if though it was THE one (rather than simply deviating from it) they keep morality intertwined with religion and metaphysics and do us all a disservice.

There is the morality existing innately in mankind put in place by millions of years of evolution, and there are the moralities thought out by mankind many of which propose that good and evil are metaphysical properties.

-The innate morality is not conceptually imperative, ie it simply is.
-The construed moralities which dwell into metaphysics can be discarded as bullshit, by making good or evil absolute qualities these moral systems are able to claim an objectivity which doesn't exist. Enter religious moral-systems here.
-The construed moralities which are built upon things that can be argued for and against rationally.

The latter is what's interesting. Too much debate on morals is spent on lofty bullshit.

 

[marv]

I didn't watch the videos but I'm betting that they are talking about the kind of good and evil which religion does, ie god or by some other paradox-granted absolutes resounding in the very tapestry of being. That's metaphysical morality and it's easy to dismiss. By dismissing this particular notion of morality as if though it was THE one (rather than simply deviating from it) they keep morality intertwined with religion and metaphysics and do us all a disservice.

There is the morality existing innately in mankind put in place by millions of years of evolution, and there are the moralities thought out by mankind many of which propose that good and evil are metaphysical properties.

-The innate morality is not conceptually imperative, ie it simply is.
-The construed moralities which dwell into metaphysics can be discarded as bullshit, by making good or evil absolute qualities these moral systems are able to claim an objectivity which doesn't exist. Enter religious moral-systems here.
-The construed moralities which are built upon things that can be argued for and against rationally.

The latter is what's interesting. Too much debate on morals is spent on lofty bullshit.

So? Any conclusion of yourself regarding this topic?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Good and Evil exist just not the God or by spirit-granted Goodness and Evilness that permeates the universe. Saying it doesn't exist is letting the mumbo jumbo definition be THE definition.

 

[marv]

Good and Evil exist just not the God or by spirit-granted Goodness and Evilness that permeates the universe. Saying it doesn't exist is letting the mumbo jumbo definition be THE definition.

If they exist, what defines them?

 

[Cherry Cola]

We define them like we do everything else. Like chairs, what defines them? People. Or Gods for that matter. Whether or not something is defined or not doesn't really have a bearing on its existence.

 

[marv]

That sounds a little bit equivocal to me.. The good and bad that you think exist, were you just talking about the notion of good and bad in any man's head, or as "somewhat objective" moral singularities??

 

[Cherry Cola]

The subjective morality of human beings exists objectively. It was put in place by evolution. The notion of good and evil came to be at some point in this development. When you have intelligent social animals living in groups these concepts are required in order to keep track of who will steal your food, beat you up, and who will be nice to you.

This is the only "real" morality so to speak, though the kind of morality we find in the bible exists it does so only as a constructs which builds upon the innate morality of the human species. They are on different ontological levels so to speak.

The definitions are of course fleeting and by no means perfect, but that is the case with all definitions.

IMO, if we want to progress morally the discourse needs to change direction. Who cares about whether good or evil "really exist" I sure as hell can experience both positive and negative emotions and seeing as I'm a human being so can other humans. Take it from there and it's a lot simpler.

 

[marv]

The subjective morality..
.

That is all true, although we are seeking not-necessarily-subjective values here that are not just products of imprinted evolutionary progress. The existence of these kind of values are the question, I think.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm mostly using the terms subjective and objective to make the distinctions clearer. We already know what suffering is, the fact that we experience suffering as bothersome and undesirable makes for a pretty good (within the limits of our existence as humans) objective basis for any moral system. Hence the absence of suffering is desirable. Evil is that which consciously causes suffering. Bad is whatever causes suffering.

 

[Brontosaurie]

That is all true, although we are seeking not-necessarily-subjective values here that are not just products of imprinted evolutionary progress. The existence of these kind of values are the question, I think.

who cares about the details when this much is evident:

1. we can learn about how humans thrive
2. we are the humans

that's ethics 101

( hume's butt plug go fuck yourself )

 

[Cherry Cola]

That is all true, although we are seeking not-necessarily-subjective values here that are not just products of imprinted evolutionary progress. The existence of these kind of values are the question, I think.

You can't have objective knowledge of any particular without knowing the whole. To ask whether good and evil are objective values is essentially to ask: Why does things exist? Why the universe? How everything?

It doesn't get you anywhere.