What would be a far better argument is to argue that a certain set of morals has better utility for a certain goal.

You cant force people to have the same morals even in the most equalizing scenarios tbh

-insert Matt sounder here- DISAVOW

Of course, you *also* have to argue that said goal is desireable or even the most desireable goal.

Plus looking at morals from a utility standpoint misses the point. People use it to give themselves hope, that there is meaning despite tragedy. It serves a personal psychological purpose.

Sorry, just something to consider. Lol

I gotta go drive home now but thank you for the stimulating discussion. I love this channel because of the kinds of people Matt and Blonde attract ^^

Yes! Be safe!!

And the closest you could get to saying a set of morals is objective is to prove that the goal that drives the morals has *always* and *always will be* the most desireable goal, and secondly that said morals are the best way to reach that goal and *have always been* the best way.

That is by no means an easy task.

But, if an omnicient entity exists, most of that work is handled by saying "the entity said this is the way to live".

And I would argue that you *can* look at morality from a utility standpoint and not miss the point.

You just have to start with the goal of said morals.

That has generally been the disagreement with utilitarians, people disagree with their metrics for utility and thus their end goal.

(Because they derive their metrics *from* the end goal.)

Honestly I think the evidence is pointing to biological imperatives being a bigger driver of behaviour than we give them credit for

TL;DR, don't try to argue that a certain set of morals is objective, at best it is an impossible task, at worst a task that has no benefit.

Instead argue the utility of a set of morals.

Utility in terms of what though

Society benefit? Individual benefit?

That's still too broad

Oh look. SciShow released a vid called "There are More Than Two Human Sexes"
I'm prejudicial to it already.

>marriage and parenthood is a consistent predictor of success
>married parents report highest satisfaction ratings
And then there's, you know, the baseline biological reality of it all

Kuja, I think you are stuck on the term utility as though it only comes from utilitarianism.

Anyone in the debate voice channel? It's really quiet for me

In order to argue the utility of a set of morals, you *have* to argue the goal of the morals. A part of that *is* arguing who does and should benefit from said morals.

@warmwaffles Try relaunching discord

Lots of chat in the Debate VC

lemme just reboot, probably something fucky in my linux

figured it out, `WEBRTC VoiceEngine`

Pius and Find debated God earlier.
Fond let us unbelievers and damned (I'm the later) down, and hard.

Paranoid -- But probably not so paranoid thought -- YT has been planning to bury videos that show motherhood in a positive light to outflank the trads

Anybody have the audio of the debate?

I believe this is it - https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-49353702+gw8zvE1ZR

@CooterMcGavin

@BarbaricWafflez 👍

Be warned it's rather underwhelming

The discussion on the debate channel by the audience afterwards was much more productive... but that of course, isn't on the recording

The audio from the guy on camera doesn't work

Hey, does anyone know if Matt and Blonde still consider themselves pro-choice? I haven't heard them mention it in a while, and I know Matt was starting to become much more sympathetic to the pro-life side.

I'd kinda like to try my hand at changing their minds on the call-in show one evening if they are

I don't think either of them are pro-choice