A way to argue against morality being objective is to saddle the view with something implausible. If moral objectivity holds, then moral standards must be absolute (i.e. it's never okay to break them). But moral rules are not absolute. So morality is not objective. This is the Argument from Absolutism.
In this video or podcast episode, you'll learn how the Argument from Absolutism works. You'll also learn why the argument fails and why moral objectivity comes out unscathed. Welcome to the first episode in the series "10 Arguments Against Moral Objectivity (And Why They Fail!)."
In this first episode, you're going to learn about a challenge to moral objectivity that associates objectivity with absoluteness. That is, if the correct moral standards are objective, then they must be absolute. What does it mean to say they're absolute?
Well, let's take this dog bone. This dog bone is pretty tough to break. If the correct moral standards are this dog bone and they're absolute,...
Ethical objectivism is the view that there are some objective moral standards. What this means is that moral standards apply to everyone everywhere, whether or not people believe that they do, or whether or not obeying those standards satisfies a person's desires. Moral claims are objectively true when they tell us what these objective standards require of us.
When it comes to the status of ethics or metaethics, there are really three major positions. There is relativism such that the correct moral standards are relative to individuals or cultures. Then there's nihilism, which says that, at the end of the day, there really are no moral standards or they're all false.
And then you have objectivism, which holds that the moral standards are in fact true, but their status doesn't depend on what's going on in our heads. It isn't our opinion of them that makes them true. Now, as you may know, there are problems with relativism and nihilism. You might think that that makes...
Discover the sharpest way to press Camus's skeptical challenge: You don't know that your life is meaningful. The challenge is best cast as epistemological, not metaphysical.
Camus' challenge is like other skeptical challenges. They bring into your awareness a possibility of error you ignore in everyday life. You believe you do stuff in life that matters and is worthwhile. But, nothing you do is ultimately worthwhile. It will not have a lasting impact. From a cosmic perspective, everything you do will come to nothing. You will eventually die and all your accomplishments will fade. Camus thought this clash between the internal and cosmic perspective captured the meaninglessness of life.
Philosopher Thomas Nagel argued a better way of understanding the absurd is a clash between two internal perspectives. You take seriously your life projects. You believe you're doing things that are worthwhile. But, all that you do is open to doubt. Such doubt undercuts your justification for...
The free masterclass is now live! Get started building a meaningful life you love by registering for the course at the home page: https://www.thephilosophicallife.com/
Click any button on the page to register for the masterclass. Watch it instantly after registration.
The masterclass helps you start building a super meaningful life because it:
- Busts 2 myths that keep people stuck
- Exposes 3 secrets to building a meaningful life you love
- Reveals the ultimate system for living a meaningful life—Mission Massive Meaning
Hope to see you inside the course!
It's crazy how the Coronavirus has changed our everyday lives. Its changed how we communicate and relate to others.
Social distancing is good to prevent the spread of the disease, but it leads to social isolation and loneliness for many people.
Yet, there's good news...
Intentionally building meaning into your life can counteract loneliness, even in the midst of a global pandemic.
I've created a free masterclass. It shows you the exact 3-part system for building a massively meaningful life--without quitting your job or making history.
It goes live this Sunday (9/20). Keep an eye out for more details.
Wishing you the best in these bizarre times.
-Prof Phil Life
Let me ask: Do you believe you can live a massively meaningful life?
Perhaps you're thinking like Napoleon Dynamite: "I don't have any skills...You know, like nunchuck skills, bo hunting skills, computer hacking skills." Only people with great skills can live massively meaningful lives. And I'm like Napoleon on that front.
Well, it depends how you define a massively meaningful life. If you think only people who've developed super-skills through singular-focus on one area of life can live such a life, then you're right. In fact, you might think only the world's top performers and the mover and shakers of history can live a massively meaningful life.
I think this is mistaken. I think a super-meaningful life is within the reach of average people who don't have crazy skills in one area of life. You don't have to be Bill Gates, Elon Musk, LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Einstein, or Mother Teresa to live a massively meaningful life.
How is it possible for us normal people to live...
...longing for an old way of life.
About 20 years ago I was working a corporate job. You know, the standard cubicle job (cue the movie "Office Space" in your mind). I was bored with creating what felt like TPS reports.
I felt like my work and life weren't making an impact.
I left my corporate job to go back to school. I missed the challenge and rewards of studying philosophy (my undergrad major). I eventually got my PhD. I was on the path toward teaching at a university...then life happened. My wife and I became parents after years of waiting.
Our priorities changed. We wanted to raise our son near family.
That meant I would need to leave academia. That's when the idea for The Philosophical Life hit me! I could share what I had learned with people not in school at a university. I could share the power of philosophy with the public! (cue your favorite inspirational song)
Yet as I settled into being a stay-at-home dad and entrepreneur a funny thing happened. I found myself longing for...
Police reform in the United States is necessary. Part of that reform involves how we talk and think about racial bias and policing. This video helps you think critically about systemic racism and implicit racial biases.
You'll identify logical fallacies made by Senator John Cornyn and Vanita Gupta in a Senate Judiciary Hearing on police reform. You'll learned about Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt’s important research on bias, race, and crime. And you'll explore the nature of implicit racial biases as they relate to systemic racism.