We had the pleasure of sitting down for an awesome talk with Larken Rose on the ideas and existence of objective morality. We discuss both Larken and Patricks conceptions of it as well as what "objective" even means in relation to moral judgments. If you enjoy this talk please consider tossing a coin to your witchers!
For links to our:
Content Submission Form
Supporter Platforms
Social Media Profiles
Other Video Platforms
Swag Stores
Discord Server
and way more check out our web site:
https://www.disenthrall.me/platforms
▶️ DTube
▶️ YouTube
To Mr. Rose: complexity is not an argument for the existence of any mystical "Intention". Both - the theory of evolution and the economics (especially The Austrian School of Economics) - explain complexity all around us without "the need" for "The Intention". There is something called "Spontaneous order" and it can work for all living organisms. For humans - an example:
AND
" It is only an ultimate goal, and end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”
In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.” " ~ Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, p.17