Mohammed Hijab – Atheist Apologist Rattled by Simple Question

			Is * wrong objectively past present future Yes or no?
		

			Give it? Yes. You shouldn't hesitate here. It's an object. Why not? Because I want Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. So I should. So the base, the base idea of ethics, right, the base idea of doing ethics
is that we reevaluate why we believe certain things and see if they're accurate, right? If there is
a proposition that you believe to be totally true, as I thought, for instance, of something like not
being a racist, right, if somebody asked me why you're not a racist, and I immediately say, or are
you not a racist? And I immediately said, Yes, of course, I'm not a racist, right? whereas it pays
sometimes even if it seems ethically obvious, to sit back and think, Well, why do I think that? Am I
		

			wrong about that? And the answer can lead you to other moral pleasure was the answer. So the answer
is this, right? It is objectively true.
		

			That to allow people to * morally, would not be an achievement of the goal that we all share.
That's not the question. That's, that's that's the objectivity. And yeah, but you're answering what
you want me to do what you are doing one second, you're answering a question I didn't ask. I asked a
very clear question. Everybody, I think understood here, right. I also is * wrong. Is that
objectively true? And us beating around the bush, but the reason why I have to beat around the bush
is because I have to clarify that. Remember how I said that a base principle can be subjective, but
you can have objective derivatives from it. In terms of the objective derivative from our nature,
		

			yes, it is objectively wrong. Yes. Is the answer your question, based upon the so you're gonna want
to turn around and say, but it's based upon a subjective principle? Yes, yes, it is. Right. But that
doesn't mean that I can say * is not objectively wrong. I say that if we agree on this objective
moral principle, which we do, then we can make the objective. * agree to that? Of course they
wouldn't. They wouldn't. But again, whether or not someone agrees with me is irrelevant to whether
it's correct or not. This is another genetic Malik's, what you're doing is you're building a house
on a sandcastle. Yeah. You are trying to say, look, if you ask me the question, I would say it's
		

			* is wrong. Yes. is wrong objectively. Yeah. Then your case, what you basically do you're doing
is you're saying, right, subjectively, some people may hold this opinion according to that then
since they also know all people do hold that opinion from that we objectively arrived at a *
* doesn't, of course doesn't hold that up. You know, a * does value the pleasure and the
avoidance of the value the pleasure, right? So it's not wrong for them. Yeah. Right. Okay, because
they're maximizing their pleasure. But look, again, this is the mistake we're making. I said, I
remember that we're making you're making because this is this is the man going into town and saying,
		

			Let's paint the round yellow, the town yellow, this is what the right this is doing. Right? Just
because they're saying it's all subjective. I want this to be yellow. I don't want it to be blue.
It's like you the awning says you are the ceiling doesn't work. You are wrong. Right. You are
incorrect. Even if it's based on a subjective based principle. Yeah, but it is objectively ronix
driven by arguments based upon the assumption that everybody likes to color blue. That's not true.
And, of course, that's not true. But by analogy, me liking the color me like chocolate or vanilla.
Yeah, it's as arbitrary for Alex as someone committing * or not committing *, but it's not as
		

			necessarily true, but it's not as necessary. Yes, not as necessary. Do you see? So for him, it's
just a subjective, whether you like chocolate, vanilla or something else is just as subjective when
it comes to *, murder, pillaging all of these things. And behind all the sophisticated technical
jargon, and I'll take that as a compliment. Essentially, essentially, what it boils down to is the
same thing which we should Dawkins admitted to the idea that * is wrong is as arbitrary as the
fact that we have five fingers rather than six