Amazing debate on morality

[enchanted]

Whether he wins or loses Destiny is a skilled debater. This video is a fascinating debate on morality, the nature of reality and perception is also discussed. T.K Coleman is also exceptional in this debate. A good example of how to debate in a mature and productive way. 

 

[enchanted]

Here's another example of great debate skills by Destiny. Especially this case against an opponent who uses personal attacks and anger rather as a strategy.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by enchanted

[zurew]

Good quality debate but TK made some mistakes and Destiny wasn't really prepared to challenge things because he never seriously engaged with philosophy.

First you can just reject one of the main premise of TK's argument that there is a shared set of moral intuitions/seemings across all people. This is an empirical question that isn't substantiated and even if it would be, his claim relies not just on current times, but in past times as well (and I dont see why we should think that people in the past had a shared disagreement about torturing people for fun for instance).

He also confused meta-ethics with normative ethics and he confused intersubjective with objective. Moral antirealists can have the normative ethics position that torturing kids for fun is bad without them needing to have any moral realist meta ethical position. And people having a shared set of moral intuitions is consistent with moral antirealism.

 

When it comes to his evolution argument  

1) People already accept that evolution is true, so they can just use evolution to explain why people have shared moral intuitions (if they have, again this wasnt substanstiated by TK) without them needing to affirm any extra propositions that they dont already believe in. So its not like they are forced to inflate their worldview by affirming that evolution is true.

2) TK  didnt make any supporting argument and he didnt substantiate  how it follows from evolution being optimized for survival that people dont have truth tracking cognition at all or how they dont have reliably truth tracking cognition. He needs to show whats the actual inconsistency in saying that evolution selects for moral intuitions that are good for survival and evolution also didnt select against people having reliably truth tracking cognition.

3) Even in the context where we go with the position that evolution does completely undermine truth-tracking cognition, even in that context the conclusion isn't that evolution is false, and isn't that evolution didnt select for moral intuitions that are optimized for survival; The conclusion is that if evolution is true, then we are epistemically undermined, but that is consistent with evolution being true. Even in this case his argument would be a pragmatic argument at  best that would only  show how accepting evolution leads you to not being able to justify your worldview (But again, not being able to justify your worldview isn't the same as your worldview being false).

 

 

He used the abductive move where he searched for the best explanation for accounting for a shared set of moral intuitions. The issue there is that when it comes to abductive reasoning, you gonna have different theoretic virtues that you will look for and by him affirming that there is a moral structure out in the world, he needs to inflate his ontology by adding extra entities that moral anti-realists dont need to affirm to account for the same facts.

TK also begged the question against dialetheists. Im not even sure if he knows that there are philosophers who take the stance that there are true contradictions. This is unfortunately typical of scholastics, that they for some reason think that classical logic is above everything else and they think that there havent been any progress made in  the discovery/creation of new logics since Aquinas.

TK also dodged the question about the God moral question (implying that the scenario is unintelligible when thats clearly not the case). He couldn't even entertain that hypothetical even though in the Bible you can actually find at least one instance where God wants people to do something that would go completely against most modern people's moral seemings and intuitions. I am referring to God ordering the Israelites to genocide  the canaanites (not just adults, but their children and their animals as well).

 

Edited 4 hours ago by zurew

[Hojo]

@zurew He started out as a streamer seriously engaging in philosophy its why I started watching him. He's just not ready to give up his logic to metaphysics cause he's so honest he would have to stop being logical.

He already reached the end of philosophy and saw the insanity and said no. So thats where he is being dishonest.

Edited 58 minutes ago by Hojo