Morality, Veganism, Nihilism, Peterson and Politics! 100k Q&A

[UltraVid id=73 ]100,000 subscribers thank you so much to everyone that supported me throughout this entire entire journey it’s been absolutely incredible in celebration I thought that I would answer some of your most potent questions and so I’ve reached out to you via patreon Twitter and Facebook and this is what this video is I’ve decided not to do it in my general office as it were even though it’s just a backdrop because it is such a gorgeous day why not get out I’m going to show you a little scene of Portsmouth you probably can’t see it properly now looks absolutely terrible [Music] before we get into questions I want to show you something I’ve shown my patrons to this but I haven’t shown the world at home I’ve got a tattoo of rationality rules on my shoulder and I also got one off the word atheist which is one of the first renditions and people which were referred to as such then was put to death this one I’ve wanted for about 10 years and is to represent thank you to everyone that’s made it so that we can actually have these conversations it’s very easy to forget the positions that we’re in and what people had to go through in order to get what we have and this this one the rationality rules one is because I’m an egomaniac now it’s it’s because it represents more than just a channel to me it represents my perspective on the world and you know what I’m trying to achieve my pursuit of truth for truths sake the tattoo artists that did both of these is called Sykes I’ve linked in the description to his Instagram please check it out even though you’ve most of you live in America and so will never get a tattoo from Sykes give them a follow it’s nice to nice to be able help someone out first question atheist Messiah asks would you rather fight one hundred duck-sized Jordan Peterson’s or one Jordan Peterson sized duck that’s such a complicated question that it’s very hard to get to the metaphorical substrate of it I guess the answer has to be risk anakov jokes aside it depends on what you mean by duck and one and you second question Daniel asks what are your hobbies and interests beyond YouTube I’m an avid video gamer I play video games quite a lot from World of Warcraft to dead by daylight gaming is definitely a factor for me it’s a good way for me to socialize with friends as well I frequently go to the cinema I enjoy watching the films I’ve got a cinema card so that I can go whenever I want and it’s just all covered in one price I I liked exercise I may not look like it but I do like exercise I enjoy lifting weights it’s good fun it’s nice to hit a personal record it’s a good way to socialize with friends I’m also nerdy and to play Dungeons and Dragons on occasion and that’s fun I enjoy again it’s a good time to relax with friends friends are pretty much the most important thing in life for me and so a lot of my hobbies revolve around friends such as gaming I do table tennis and I’m about a century younger than the average person who plays so that’s good fun in fact of all the religious people in me it tends to be the people with table tennis because of that difference in age it’s quite it’s quite peculiar Aaron asks can you please get on the Joe Rogan podcast huge audience spread the message of being logical I would absolutely love to be on the Joe Rogan podcast but I don’t know how to go around that I don’t think I’m I’ve nearly got enough followers I don’t know how it works I’m not so good at that business side of things I tend to do what I enjoy and should opportunities present themselves that’s when I capitalize on them but I would so love to be on the Joe Rogan podcast I tell you what tweet him justjust just send him tweets bombard him saying that they should get me on and if that happens then that happens but I do I do know that at one point I would like to speak with Joe Rogan I think he’s a wonderful person he his approach to conversations is brilliant there’s a few topics I of course disagree with him one but the beauties that he having those conversations and he will have them and debate them and he will appeal to evidence he’s a good guy in his podcast is easily the most viewed by me that makes sense Conrad asks where are you on the political compass Here I am this is where I currently am according to the website that you linked and Alex asks where do you feel you fit on the political spectrum so as full where I personally put myself it tends to be Center left I’m certainly not far on the left for example I voted for brexit and yes I was called a racist by just about everyone for doing so despite what reasons I presented which is problematic to say the least but I am in general left I tend to I tend to be towards a liberal agenda I would not call myself a libertarian I think libertarianism has serious faults vemana but also I’m not super educated on this topic and so that’s why I tend not to touch it just FYI politics 1909 asks do you consider making videos on politics and why do / don’t you yes I do consider making political videos I nearly made several when it came to brexit for example I wanted to show that there was a really logical case for it the reason I didn’t is politics is a whole different game to philosophy and religion and to statements of fact it comes down to value judgments and value judgments are based on many values that people don’t necessarily hold with the same level of conviction would probably be the right way to put it but the main reason is that whenever I hear people who are fantastic in one area speak about politics or sometimes just an area where they’re not so fantastic or not so well known it tends to be devastating and the best example I have of this is Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins when it comes to evolution is brilliant and when it comes to deflating religion as it were he is a very good example a firebrand but when it comes to politics really I’m really disappointed by him and I don’t want people to feel the I’ve completely missed the point on some areas what it what it ultimately comes down to is that I can be sure that say the Kalam cosmological argument is inaccurate that it’s that the person making it is committing flaws because it isn’t based on the value judgments it isn’t based on numerous factors whereas when it comes to politics I just don’t know enough and I think politics should really start with the moral philosophers you know Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill and most people that speak about about politics don’t even know these people and yeah that is really where affirmative action and all the rest comes into it so that’s why I don’t tend to speak on politics but with that said I do say quite a lot about free speech and Paula and so I’m very much against this far-left agenda roof being at a shutdown conversations because they disagree with people the reason I make political videos in that case is because that is a slippery slope a very slippery slope and I can’t have any conversations at all I can’t criticize anyone or any argument at all if I don’t have free speech and so that’s why I’ve made several videos relating to free speech the next question comes from solist who asks what do you believe is the best argument for God which is a similar question to Fraser who asks what’s the most convincing or hard to debunk theists claim that you’ve come across so the best argument for a god in my opinion has to be the watchmaker analogy from William Paley because before Darwin before we knew how life could be as complex and seemingly purposed as it is it’s very very easy to look us and assume that there must have been some kind of creative force involved because we are so complicated as is you know this grass here even these rocks everything is just so complicated and seemingly purposed that it’s very very hard to look at that and think that there is not a creator problem is is that I say it’s an argument for God it’s not it’s an argument for a creator and it doesn’t tell you anything about it so that created wasn’t necessary omnipotent or omnipresent it just could have been a creator it tells us that it may have been many creators that they may now be dead because you know if we find a car we know it’s created by a human doesn’t tell us that that humans alive still in fact you can’t get any information like that but before Darwin there’s a reason why many people weren’t atheists they were deists which means they realized that religion is specifically theism but not many people made it to atheism there’s a handful general Jeremy Bentham again is one of them wonderful incredible individual if you to anyone that for some reason doesn’t know much about Jeremy Bentham you should check him out he he was so far ahead of the game flow asks seeing how there are less and less religious people out there or will it take for religion to especially considering what a big part of culture / society it is in some countries so when will religion go extinct er there’s some great names out there like Freud who said that basically it will be when our fear of death comes to an end I don’t personally think religion is going to go anywhere unless until we start editing our genetic makeup and having a culture in which truth really is off the most highest value or very high value at least perhaps just behind well being the reason for that is that we just haven’t evolved to figure out the universe as this we’ve evolved to be able to successfully reproduce and within that is there’s no reason for us to understand the universe as it is there’s every reason to think that we are more important than what we are and we have evolved to fear death we don’t want to die we don’t want we don’t want our life to be in the grand scheme of things basically pointless some die asks what are your epistemological and moral axioms do you have faith in them or do you think your axioms are reasonable very good question and one that I’m just not going to be able to succinctly and adequately answer within this video but but what I do have is my next video is dedicated to morality and specifically why its objective in the scientific sense and so that will answer your question to a large extent I of course have axiomatic and an axiomatic morality but while most people say what are your axiomatic assumptions mine are not assumptions and if they are show me and I will get rid of them what they are is axiomatic facts people tend to think that in the context of morality we’re born with a blank slate this is not true it’s absolutely not true and we’re slowly waking up to this thanks to people like Steven Pinker and the general debate as a whole and you know what Jordan Peterson is is to an extent helping out here not through his work himself but by getting others to take on some of his his floors with militant atheism as he calls or celebrity atheist so whatever kind of angle you want to take what it comes down to is that you and I are born with the capacity to feel pain that’s an axiomatic fact not assumption and you want to avoid it that is a fact not an assumption now it’s very easy to say no it’s it’s subjective because it’s to do with your feelings but this comes down to an equivocation fallacy regarding the word feelings we could use feelings to mean one state of conviction or we can use feelings to mean the the expression of physiological things that we can verify objectively being in pain for example I’ll explain this all much more in detail on my next video Andrew asks can you elaborate on why Harris thinks that years or distinction is spurious that’s another very good question in short I don’t want to answer for Sam because while I consider myself a disciple of Sam he is he is far beyond me he’s a very very intelligent individual I think he will be remembered long after almost everyone alive today is gone he will be a case of someone who wasn’t really appreciated as much as he should have been in his time in my opinion but with that said when it comes to Humes ears or distinction one of the biggest mistakes people make is that they they equate it and the naturalistic fallacy and that’s not what humor saying fact Hume wasn’t actually saying much at all because if you look at his notes it’s not like he produced an essay on this it was more of a backhanded comment to slap people of his time with his classic sarcasm so if I was to say or if anyone was to say that we ought to allow rape in our culture because it is the case that people rape in the wild or the animals rape in the world that would be a naturalistic fallacy that’s saying that things ought to be a certain way because it is that way in nature that’s not what humor saying he was saying that you can’t say that someone ought to do something based on the way something is and I think he’s incorrect and as does Harris for example you could be somebody who is deep down homosexual and I come up to you and say or we could have a conversation in which you say that you know you practice a heterosexual life now I could say you ought to consider homosexual relationships and the reason you ought to do so is because it is the case that you are attracted to males or females or whatever it might be that is an ort from an is and that’s why Hume was wrong and that’s the perspective as I understand it the Harris is approaching it from this needs more of a conversation and is something I again I’m going to tap into much more in my next video and I will probably have subsequent conversations with mine’s greater than mine you can basically berate me from different angles next question is from curious what are your thoughts on cosmic skeptics new video about morality and whether it is objective or subjective it would be interesting to find your opinion on the matter your question is in good company because a lot of people have asked me the same over the last couple of days in short there’s big disagreements that I have with Alex but then not so much disagreements with his approach it’s more to do with the way in which he’s looking at things he’s demanding off morality something that he does not demand of other areas of science of other areas of discourse and I think that that’s something that a lot of people do including myself when I was younger I don’t mean that as a condescending comment either because alex is an incredibly intelligent young man far more intelligent than I was at his age and he has a brilliant future ahead of him I’m sure you’ll agree with me my next video again is to do with morality I suspect that we will have a conversation in Oxford or down here in Portsmouth where we can iron out our disagreements and really bringing bringing in the context of moral philosophers because I think that’s absent at the present but in short again with Alex it was a fantastic video as always but big disagreements from me next question is from calculated failure what’s your force on nihilism nihilism you guys are really giving me the big topics right again I’m not going to be able to sufficiently address it within this video and but the fact that so many of you have seemed to be showing interest in this topic means that maybe I will make a video specifically dedicated to it where I can fully address all of the concerns that people have all of the arguments for nihilism the problem is that is that or the primary problem is that there’s many different types existential nihilism tends to be the most popular people specifically suffer from nihilism when they’ve been born into a world or have been convinced of a world in which there is absolute objective purpose so it tends to be people who were previously religious in some form to learn that there is no grand purpose for you to them can render everything as meaningless this isn’t the case and it’s not even the case for them and I can show that which I will in a video to come but ensure you have objective purpose it’s based on an objective evidence that can be verified and tested by other people especially as our Sciences advance which is to say that the some facts that we can’t yet get a hold of but they are still objectively a fact bit of a weird play with language I understand there but I’ll elaborate at another time my purpose for example is to enjoy my life is to make the universe better for sentient and for sentient entities than it currently is it’s to enjoy friendship to travel the world and to make a difference all of this gives me great purpose it makes me very happy now what does it matter that I’m probably going to be forgotten within a thousand years just gone that’s it gone does that mean that it’s meaningless no it doesn’t it does not meanings mean that it’s meaningless is it meaningless in the sense that then in the grand scheme of things perhaps but that that is that’s a different type of nihilism to the one that people are perpetuating Colin asks i like what jordan peterson says on almost everything except religion and morality this puts me in a bind as I want to bring others attention to him but doing so might bring more attention to these absurd views do you think Jordans overall effect is positive or negative so first off join the club the amount of people I’ve spoken to who whose value Jordan Peterson they like what he has to say except for on the topic of morality and religion is staggering it’s a hell of a lot of people and to a large extent I consider myself among them but as for your primary question which is do I think Jordan Peterson is a force for good I’m not sure I’m not sure is probably the best answer I can give he’s causing people to have discussions about topics that are very interesting and not adequately addressed but when he talks about them it’s quite bad when it comes to his positions on sjw’s or on free speech I’m with him and I think he’s doing a fantastic fantastically good job the problem is that the left is creating this environment in which people like ben shapiro and jordan peterson are born stilts as if they are supremely intellectual when they’re not and people think that that extends to other domains of discourse and it doesn’t weave that said while I don’t think Jordan Peterson is doing good work when it comes to morality and religion I do think he’s raising good questions and good concerns that aren’t adequately addressed by by previous thinkers by our state as a society at the present but the best thing about that is that it leaves gaps for people to come in and answer those questions and to address them accordingly Brett Weinstein has done a fantastic job of taking Jordan Peterson’s truth and turning it into something that is practical pragmatic and not tied to woo woo Christianity that’s one example but East Jordan Peterson a force for good I don’t know Graham asks our sjw’s as dangerous to democracies as Peterson claims yes I would say that sjw’s and that far left agenda is as dangerous to democracy as Jordan Peterson and others have said it’s really unfortunate but as Brendan O’Neill has very rightfully pointed out we face as a a generation or even two generations of people who have been scored against enlightenment for and we’re making the same mistakes or they’re making the same mistakes that we’ve seen through history again and again and again fighting for free speech is the most important free speech is the most important value there’s no two ways about that it is the one that allows us to enact and defend all our rights and so the fact that in the name of progress in the name of meritocracy in the name of equal opportunity people were shutting down conversations to criticize the policies that they’re trying to perpetuate that’s dangerous that’s really really dangerous and so on on that front yeah I I’m very much convinced that Jordan Peterson is correct the logos asks Jordan Peterson asserts in his first book maps of meaning the action presupposes valuation the individual cannot live without belief without action and valuation and science cannot provide that belief your thoughts and response to this quote would be interesting yes action presupposes value so you have to have values before you deliberately act so if you was to do the action of eating it’s because you value the food because you want the sustenance to live you know if you do the act of getting in bed comfortably to sleep it’s because you value sleep it’s because you value the rest that will come from from getting into that position from having from having and doing those actions Jordans correct when he says that he’s not the first to make that observation of course moral philosophers have have said the same for a very long time but as for the point about science not being able to give you these values of course science is a methodology it’s a way in which we objectively tell the truth the on how you define the word truth off off the environment we’re in is how you can objectively verify and prove to someone that something is or is not the case does does it have value in and off itself no it doesn’t it doesn’t at all but we are born with value that’s an axiomatic fact not assumption we have values of eating values of understanding the world the best way to understand the world is the scientific method hybrid asks two questions the first being what are your force on the philosophy of veganism at this stage do you plan to perhaps create some videos in regards to this topic and his second question is what is the most convincing ethical argument for veganism in your opinion so we’ve spoken about the controversial topic of morality and nihilism and so I guess it makes sense that veganism comes up next I’m sure I think the veganism is the most rational logical and reasonable and consistent position that there is when it comes to morality and I think I can make an objective case for it as well which I will do in my next video but as for creating videos specifically to do with veganism I’m not sure that I will and might at some point if I do the first I will do the first videos I will make will have something to do with allow and caution meat because even if you eat meat Jesus Christ you should boycott that it’s just barbaric it’s so horrible that’s that’s where some kind of compassion for non-human animals should probably start is it’s hard to find someone that can justify that who’s not religious as for the most convincing argument for veganism it’s it falls into the name the trait game get someone to name a tray as as a justification for why one species should be exempt from abduction torture rape and murder while every other species falls into that purview because I’ve never seen it done it always gets dragged into this combination of traits such as being able to sign a social contract well being conscious for as if that matters and intellect as a whole none of these factors mean anything at all other than well-being and if you take well-being you have to extend it to other creatures specifically mammals that can feel pain with very similar levels to us but with the exception of psychological anguish because you have to be able to understand what a threat is before you can adequately be scared of such a situation William asks since we can live perfectly healthy lives without animal products is there any rational defense for eating meat or using leather except for that matter don’t want to sound like some vegan nutjob but I’ve seen both Harris Dawkins and Crouch struggle to defend eating meat themselves whilst all continuing to do so would be interesting to see your views on this so again morally speaking no I see no justification at all but I do have a problem with the way in which you’ve raised your question because it presumes the veganism is a very healthy lifestyle I’m not entirely convinced that’s the case and that could be entirely due to ignorance on my part I need to do more research but I have seen plenty of studies showing the vegetarian and pescetarian diets do very well for longevity they’re really good for us but the omnivorous and vegan diets tend to perform quite bad the NHS released a study where they I don’t know how many people it was but it’s a hell of a lot I’ll link it on screen now and I shall put a link in the description to the study so assuming that veganism is as healthy as a vegetarian how a lifestyle and pescetarian lifestyle there really is no justification at that point Craig asks do you think it’s morally justifiable to eat meat or keep pets so I’ve already answered the formal part of the question but as for the latter to do with pets you know I don’t know and I think there’s a difference between owning a pet the necessarily has to kill animals has to eat me and one that doesn’t so for example if you was to have a pet rabbit that’s not as bad as having a pet cat however cats are my favourite animals I find them to be adorable is there a way in which I can justify having an animal that necessarily must have meat to survive by the way in case you’re inclined to say that cats don’t eat meat come on you’re not doing anyone favours here ultimately I don’t know and I have to do more research next question is from Curtis if you could make one change to the world what would you change another good question you guys are you’re not making this easy for me thank you what would I change if I could change anything at all I think it it would have something to do with almost certainly would have something to do with sentience and sentient entities if there’s anything that we should worry about in this universe it’s it’s experiencing pain pain is the ultimate sovereign master of everything so what would I change I’d be tempted to make it so the sentence wasn’t a thing so that no one felt anything so essentially I turned the universe off I would consult others before doing as much and I would considerably think this through but as a whimsical answer that’s what I would change Nate talks do asks in the u.s. atheism is typically associated with the left do you have any ideas on how to make atheism more socially acceptable on the right as to undo this stereotype interesting question Nate and hi by the way I’m a fan so hmm I think what’s going on is it’s not arbitrary the the right tend to be religious and the left tend to be non-religious I think that’s not an accident if you think about it the right tends to be about conservativism it tends to have more rules and regulations it depends on where we’re talking here as well because UK right is different to American right but I think what goes hand-in-hand is that if you think the universe has very specific laws that are preordained that there are edicts that do not change that there are conversations that should not be had because the answers are already here in other words that you’re religious then I can understand why you would fall towards the right as it’s traditionally conceived where it is when you figure out things are not quite that simple and there needs to be lots more conversations and ultimately we want to allow people to have as much freedom as possible before we have justification to take that away you’re going to naturally fall towards at the left so I think the divide is it’s not arbitrary and I think that to a large extent there’s not much we can do about it Yanis asks are you optimistic about the future do you think humanity will be in a better place in 50 years you know I’m tempted to say in ecstatic yes based on works such as Steven Pinker’s most recent books but I’m also tempted more my more rational mind is telling me no I’m I’m not so optimistic I’m deeply deeply concerned about the death of Enlightenment values and if it keeps going the way it’s going I see us regressing as you’ve seen regressive states in history as a whole you know the Greeks were so far ahead and it just fell into depravity because certain values were not held as values anymore because there was a change in education on perspective and I see a change of perspective in our environment it it’s very hard when you are so close into the painting which I am and you are it’s hard to see the frame and so maybe these feelings of doubts are natural and everyone is predisposed to think things are worse than what they are and going to get worse than what they are moving on Allen asks what websites do you like to use to read scientific articles or used to fact-check your material ultimately it depends on what I’m researching if I’m trying to have an objective scientific conversation if I’m trying to present a scientific case it’s always going to be scientific peer-reviewed papers that I look through and what I reference you need to watch out because there’s some pay-to-play peer review papers out there but I’ll link in the descriptions the ones that are good it can be quite hard to read scientific papers by the way until you get the knack of it just one in you just in case you haven’t tried so before but as far as websites in general which are good for knowledge the best by far is Wikipedia we’re taught in schools in the UK and I assume over the world Wikipedia is a bad thing it’s going to be wrong it can be changed by anyone but this is a myth to a large extent because schools and education want you to learn they don’t want you to simply regurgitate what you’ve read off Wikipedia and so that’s why they keep you off them but really Wikipedia is fantastic it tends to have an abundance of references that you can check which are in and of themselves other things other websites to lead and it tends to be factually accurate so if one of the best things you can do if you want to start becoming smarter is to learn to read the language level of Wikipedia in general because it’s slightly above like general newspapers then read Wikipedia pages read Wikipedia articles it’s a fantastic website it’s one of the best things we have and finally Solaris asks what are your favorite other content creators yeah I always feel bad answering questions like this because I’m bound to miss out so many fantastic creators and also I don’t want to bore you guys by just naming everyone that I listen to and everyone that I recommend so I give you some of my favorites I very much enjoy cosmic skeptics content sam harris bret weinstein brett Weinstein is truly truly fantastic very small person same is true with the other two and all of the rest I’m going to say as well so Matt Dillahunty fantastic fantastic to listen to really good content and if you’re into philosophy if you’re into atheism if you’re into a religion you know who Matt is shortly others would be counter-arguments I really enjoy counter-arguments I had the opportunity to I say the opportunity I have I’ve collaborated with counter-arguments and they are fantastic and their content is it’s just great holy kool-aid Maya my colleague at this point Thomas Westbrook fantastic and the same is true of Rachel Oates she brings a unique perspective and her her I hope she doesn’t mind my saying but her emotional approach is really nice and it will resonate with a lot more people than the hardline atheism that perhaps people associate me with and then you’ve got people a little bit not so far in the same genre as me but similar like professor stick great content godless cranium oh gosh like I said I so many I’m gonna miss Lloyd Evans very cool if you want to get an inside look at how Jehovah’s Witnesses work yeah there’s there’s many areas there’s many people I just could not name enough I’m sorry if I missed you out so to wrap up Oh get my ass of this rock because oh my gosh I can’t feel my butt anymore there’s Portsmouth in the background I think you can see it I just want to thank you all again for all of your support 110,000 subs at the present you’re you’re making me achieve dreams that I didn’t even know I had so thank you so much for your support and hopefully we can go further until next time my fellow Apes until next time you

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *