Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- Our next stop in our tour of the ethical lay of the land is utilitarianism. With a little help from Batman, Hank explains the principle of utility, and the difference between act and rule utilitarianism.
--
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashc. .
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
So, the reason Batman _won't_ kill the Joker is... because he Kant?
he kant
Get out.
wow wow. nice one :))))
+
He's a Kant
Joker being alive means possible future chapters of him returning to action, meaning more comic book sales and hence more utility... to DC comics.
We're talking about in-universe.
the greater good is more enjoyable comics
Cheers
@@tadstrange1465 Yes we are, because batman knows that he is no longer "batman" if he gets rid of his defining adversary. He needs Joker alive to be himself.
my ethics course in college has been covering this topic for the past 2 weeks which consist of many many readings and this video just did it all in 10 minutes....
I'm learning about it and i just started year 7 lol
Sometimes it’s better to decipher meanings from different sources because it gives you the practical skill of searching for answers rather than being spoon fed the info
lol
"If you have the ability to stop a killer, and you don’t, are you morally pure because you didn’t kill? Or are you morally dirty because you refused to do what needs to be done?" ~Crash Course Philosophy #36
Ah, comics and philosophy, two of my favorite subjects
It's said that the reason why Batman doesn't kill is due more to the fact that Bob Kane didn't want to keep writing up new villians every month, rather than any moral reason.
True, but also because violence was being censored in comics, all comics, like any super hero story, is very silly, but Batman is the worse, that is because he is portrayed like someone to be feared, but he is unable to kill, well but for kids I think this is enough, or not, after animes I think kids today are getting tired of "the perfect saint" heroes portrayed in comics.
Bruno Walker That's not true since the Comics Code Authority was created after Batman's code and because it doesn't exist anymore but his code does.
No, it is really a moral dilemma, The Joker ultimate goal is not kill Batman but BEING KILLED by him so he can somewhat corrupt Batman's moral and have him experience the same murderer craziness the Joker has. This is a very central theme in the Batman's comic books
And its even more far reaching. What if he enjoys the killing and starts picking off other super criminals? Will he at some point get so used to killing that he also starts killing common lowlife like muggers? Where is the line? Sure, Joker is an obvious kill candidate. What about Penguin? He killed less than Joker but has a huge criminal empire and lots of henchmen that kill for him. Would killing Penguin be justified? Would killing the henchmen be justified? What about insane people like scarecrow (yes I know and Joker)? Should someone with mental illnesses be killed? What about poison Ivy? In the end she just wants to preserve nature, and in that conquest people die. Since saving the environment would be advantageous for all of humanity (climate change), would this advantage outweigh the killing? Also, with Batman not killing, the police always has a reason to keep him free. Once he murdered someone he would have to be held accountable for his action, meaning he should go to jail, a murder is a murder after all (barring self-defense).
So the easiest way to tackle all those problems is not killing at all. This has its drawbacks but also it´s advantages that can´t be overlooked.
or a really sad commentary on Gotham not sentencing a known mass murderer to the death penalty. after all Batman hands him over alive time and time again.....
'' Pain is pain regardless of whose experiencing it '' powerful line
Kant believe you didn't make a pun between Batman and his 'Utility' belt xD
The most relevant moral argument here is that killing the joker would kill two cash cows, the comics and the film sequels.
6:45 *"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who sit there and watch without doing anything at all"*
~Albert Einstein.
"Life cannot be balanced like an equation. Good deeds do not erase the evil ones." ~ Einstein in National Geographic's 'Genius'
Hey look, television!
Those are called Americans.
Kenli Eldhose I think being an American is is part of someone's nationality, not a race.
*“Apathy is Death”*
~Kreia.
Who else is here to avoid reading a bunch of pages on this chapter
Rule utilitarianism sounds a lot like Kant's categorical imperative - taking a moral rule and universalising it. The difference is Kant asks "if we universalised this, would it lead to logical contradictions?" while rule utilitarianism asks "if we universalised it, what would the consequences be for people's lives and happiness?" So I think it'd be possible for Batman to be a rule utilitarian and still not kill the Joker, if he'd deemed that "killing bad people" was an action that, if universalised, would lead to less happiness in the long run.
Can't believe you didn't bring up the trolley problem.
The trolley problem is only hard for Kantians. For literally anyone else, it's an easy decision. Plus there's a million variations
The example of the transplants is a trolley problem and it's a much more difficult one for classic utilitarianism. It also brings into question the easy answer in the classic trolley problem.
The indigenous people thing was pretty much the same thing.
I think he did in a different video and so tried to make the video more unique by avoiding it.
Why continue beating the dead horse though?
My favorite version of Batman's personal justification for not killing the Joker is not that he doesn't because it's immoral, but because once he does that, he worries that he would then not be able to stop himself from killing again.
I love this channel. I learn so much. You've made it so easy to grasp the information in such a short amount of time. Thank you to all the crew at CrashCourse! Keep it up you champions.
"If you have the ability to stop a killer, and you don’t, are you morally pure because you didn’t kill? Or are you morally dirty because you refused to do what needs to be done?
We live in a world where sometimes people do terrible things. And, if we’re the ones who happen to be there, and we can do something to make things better, we must. Even if that means getting our hands dirty."
~ Crash Course Philosophy #36
"All the people I murdered by letting you live...."
Batman, shortly before killing The Joker.
it instantly came on my mind when i clicked on this video lol
Veidt: "In the end, did I do the right thing?"
Dr. Manhattan: "Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends."
"Should Bateman kill the Joker...?"
I can just hear Jason Todd screaming in the distance.
who is bateman, did you mean batman?
@@matthewmccabe3411 Jason Bateman
@@cowardpaulrevere3879 i still don't know
You probably get this a lot but thank you so much for your videos they help me so much for essays, understanding etc. im really struggling in philosophy a level in class its so overwhelming with all the content and confusion and how on earth ill remember it all, these videos are like a breath of fresh air and they're so easy to grasp with your visual aids and metaphors and everything. You're amazing
Batman doesn't even have to cross his line. He could just sever Jokers spine in several places making him paralyzed.
But that's cruel and unusual. A swift kill would be merciful.
Erik M. So is the joker though punishment fits the crime.
The Joker actually has had similar injuries multiple times, and he always heals from it. He's had his spine broken, had his kneecaps shot and shattered, and even lost teeth, but all of that always heals. It's not focused on very well, but the chemicals that stained the joker's skin and hair also gave him some kind of healing factor.
***** So batman would just have to do a weekly visit to arkham and break it in a fresh spot.
Wade Wilson See this is why the Joker wouldn't last long in your universe, Wade ;) lol
I don't think Batman won't kill the Joker because he doesn't think it would be morally justified, he just knows that he has to stick to a strict list of rules in order to not go off the handle. The willingness to kill one will lead to the willingness to kill another then another then another. He has to keep himself in check or he'll become a dangerous radical vigilante.
Good reasoning! That is also another kind of consequential ethics.
That's a slippery slope fallacy.
Tordek And? Just because something is allegedly fallacious doesn't mean a character can't think that way.
It's the nature of power to corrupt. Batman gave himself power, and should be aware of that. Yes killing the Joker might corrupt him, but that's a price he ought to be willing to pay. Corrupt or not he's not going to life forever, he doesn't have to remain perfect.
This is a kind of rule utilitarianism.
I love watching these because I am learning (has lots of really great information) and also, it helps me just relax. I have fun watching. They put in funny animations or examples that are just great.
You literally made it so easy to understand. Had to write a 1500 essay due for tomorrow, now I only have 150 words, thanks to you!
I don't even know if it's possible to create a code of ethics that isn't over-broad or have horrifying, unintended consequences or edge-cases.
I'm pretty sure it's impossible.
All "ism's" end up bad, no matter how well intentioned.
Cubism. True story.
(I'm joking. Cubism is great.)
FireRupee You got me there, Cubist art is beautiful.
This is why I really hope they are going to cover Virtue Ethics
Batman really should kill the Joker. Failing that, he should contact a Green Lantern or Supes, find a hospitable planet that hasn't been settled and is completely out of the way, round up all three of the Jokers and just leave them on that planet and have a giant quarantine sign for all sapient species.
I mean... this really is probably the best plan.
- Nick J.
CrashCourse They could even post a guard and keep interaction to a minimum if that sounded too inhumane!
***** Other criminals populate the Phantom Zone and others have escaped it before.
You gotta remember that these characters are for entertainment. They have to last somehow.
z32 ls2 first thing's first, Joker isn't the Hulk. Hulk's a big, green rage monster that suffers from dissociative identity disorder that doesn't have much control over their actions while the Jokers are homicidal maniacs responsible for 75 years of death and mayhem in Gotham through their antics who are in control of their actions. Furthermore, Joker thrives on being around people and playing to their worst demons where as Hulk scares the oants off everyone. Putting Joker in a populated area such as the Phantom Zone is a bad idea even if he does get destroyed by a Superman villain because there is always the chance that a team up will occur because reasons. Secondly, Planet Hulk is the result of Cosmic events landing the Hulk on a populated planet with several sapient species and being forced into gladiator fights and slave uprisings. What I'm proposing is deliberately placing all 3 Jokers on a deserted planet and micromanaging the process every step of the way.
One thing to point out in this video is that utilitarianism is not consequentialism.
Utilitarianism is also subdivided into three (3) elements"
1. Consequentialist
2. Welfarist
3. Aggregatist
There are two ways consequentialist theories are divided:
1. Based on whether an agent only (agent-relative) or both agent and recipient (agent-neutral) are affected
2. Based on whether pleasure or pain are involved (hedonism vs. non-hedonism)
Utilitarianism is agent-neutral and not egoistic, as this video says. However, it can be hedonistic or non-hedonistic.
You have saved me in both psychological and philosophy classes. Thank you very so much.
The problem with utilitarianism is, in short, the butterfly effect; determining your ethics by the consequences of your actions forces you to grapple with the fact that consequences are often unpredictable and inconsistent. If Batman kills the Joker, he leaves something of a power vacuum in Gotham (unless we're talking about Silver Age Joker), which could give rise to an even worse evil. Or Harley Quinn could nuke the city in revenge or something. If the man shoots the native, the soldiers could just throw all the prisoners in solitary confinement cells until they starve, killing them even more painfully. Or the man's involvement could influence foreign powers to get involved in whatever struggle was happening in that country, leading to a tangled mess of armies and governments like in the Middle East. Rule utilitarianism fixes this somewhat by considering more long-term consequences, but no system of rules can perfectly predict the consequences of a given action, so utilitarianism will always be imperfect. Of course, just because it's imperfect doesn't mean it's invalid, it just means that it shouldn't be taken as a given that x action will lead to y results.
What alternative would you prefer?
Sean Murphy Did you watch film theorist's video?
Sean Murphy Just because there are unforeseen consequences doesn't nullify the moral theory. For example let's imagine I save one of your cousins. Later that day I see on the news that stranger I saved killed three people. Does this mean I have to stop saving people in case they're bad, or I have to vet them before I save them? No. This moral theory still works even though as with everything there are sometimes exceptions.
For example cardio is healthy, unless someone has a heart problem. Well does that mean we shouldn't recommend cardio in case someone with an undiagnosed heart problem dies? Once again, no.
+Sean Murphy Your comment deserves more likes. :)
Eat Veggies - Save Me It really doesn't. It's just stating that there's unforeseen consequences. With his view (don't kill joker because a worse bad guy COULD take his place) we could justify not killing any horrible person. Oh no, don't kill genocidal dictator X (GDX) because a worse GDX could take his place. Oh no, don't kill GDX, someone might seek vengeance and be even worse. It's really flawed, impractical thinking.
I love the dramatic music that comes on every time he pulls out a quote.
I love this series and have enjoy it all, this one + the netflix and chill episodes provided the most ready to apply strategies to test in my life right now. Thanks peeps!
"All the people I've murdered by letting you live..."
Batman, Dark Knight Returns Part 2 (2013)
@Mr. 8-Bit Doggo if he killed the joker, the others wont have been killed, hence he killed those people as well
One of my favourite topics to discuss - Batmans moral code. Now I haven't read all his comics, but from what I have read and watched of Batman this is my take on it.
Batman doesn't kill, and especially the Joker for a few reasons.
1. If he kills even one person, he crosses the line that puts him on the criminals level, and he may not be able to stop himself from killing again
2. He knows if he kills the Joker someone will just replace him. The fact that Batman exists means there will almost always be a joker anyway
3. Batman always hands the Joker over to authorities because it's still all about law and justice. It's not about stopping the Joker from creating chaos, it's to prove a point that the people and the justice system has power and that evil doers will always be brought to justice without using deadly force. It's up to the people, not just Batman. He's the detective, but not the police, judge, jury or prison guard.
Of course there are tons of times where writers deviate from the Batman in my mind, but this is what he stands for in my interpretation of my favourite versions of Batman anyway :P
Jeremiah B it's a perpetual thing, that's why the dynamic is so impossible to break so naturally the struggle continues on forever because neither point will give xD
I way to take the blood off batmans hands, why doesnt the justice system execute the joker when hes arrested ?
I imagine the joker could save himself from getting killed by anyone, because his only goal is to make Batman kill him. I wonder if introducing the death penalty would also prove the Jokers point too. I started to feel silly thinking about the wider justice system in a fantasy setting though, I gotta say lol. Clearly the Joker will be able to escape any situation until they're done making Batman anythings xD
because justice is slow. do you really think they'd rush his execution because it's the joker? just saying.
The sound effects in this video are perfect lol, the little slapping..
I had to come here after watching an episode of _The Good Place._ (I highly recommend it)
Hank, we love you, and you're such a great teacher!
This reminds me of the Injustice: Gods Among Us series where Superman represents utilitarianism and Batman is kantian
Batman " I dont use guns!" Me "but shooting missiles at people off an attack boat or jet is ok?"
Snyder Batman Excepted.
Batman: Those are permanent knockout missiles and bullets.
Probably cuz his parents were killed with guns.....
Obviously yes. Rockets are not guns. They are rockets.
Thank you for this! Ethics test tomorrow and this just clarified everything I was confused about :)
These videos are the best. These kind stuff is a gift for the world, specially for developing countries. Thank you so much.
I swear give this man an award he explain all this lesson better than my book and professor combine why hasn't he received. an award yet?
My philosophy professor just taught us a great class on this subject about an hour ago and showed us this clip. Very interesting this utilitarianism
Thankful for you, Hank Green. & the entire CrashCourse Crew ~ THANKYOU
Thank you for another excellent video and mental exercise!
I am an Atheist/agnostic and I am certainly a utilitarian (and I try to act that way whenever faced with decisions).
I think that the way I resolve the dilemna of the transplant patients is by respecting life/property rights just as I respect utilitarian philosophy.
i'm taking a labor relations class and the book is so difficult to understand...this made it so much simpler...thank you.
"Simple answer. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - Spock
Isaac Phillips So, you'd harvest that person's organs like a threshing machine?
If it's for the greater good then yes.
Nico Sevilla Then what kind of a society would that be? Where you can simply kill an Innocent man, who was in no way responsible for others misery, and just take his organs?
Utilitarianism is a slippery slope because it can be used to excuse anything, even the torturing of an Innocent child.
Because Spock is a problem solving being, not people oriented like Captain America
Cosmas Dexie
Yes it could be, if that actually resulted in the best consequences. But the weight of human experience tells us that torturing children almost never results in the best consequences. Remember that utilitarians are supposed to think long term. A society where anyone can be killed at any moment against their will is obviously one in which the overall happiness is lower, hence your aversion to it. If a billion people's lives would be saved by killing one person you would be a fool not to do it. Killing one person to save five in everyday life results in worse consequences overall, not better. You just have to be a smarter utilitarian.
I really enjoyed this video. It helped me to understand Utilitarianism. Also, it was very entertaining.
I really love this ideology, I am going to go on the route of Rule Utilitarianism from now on.
Hi I don't know if this has already been said but John Stuart Mill was a rule utilitarian not an act utilitarian, this is laid out in his book "On Liberty" where he lays out a set of rules a utilitarian society may do. One of his most famous applies very well to you surgeon example and that is the Harm Principle. The Harm Principle according to Mill is "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." ( On Liberty) or for this example the surgeon may not act on the neighbor especially not to violate a right as simple as life unless the neighbor shows the intent to cause harm to others which in the example he has none.
Thank you for this video, I really enjoyed it,
You did a great job hosting it.
this just saved me and my philosophy paper. bless you, hank
Your channel is still awesome! And kudos on answering my question in the comments several years ago. That makes you a cool youtuber in my book!
I feel as though people who argue against utilitarianism are looking at it as though they are the neighbor, not as, say, a child who depends on the guy, who needs the heart transplant, for food.
I think that is because most people view themselves as innocent, just as the neighbor is.
What is more selfless? To put myself in the shoes of a innocent organ harvest victim, or in the shoes of the people who would be benefited by said harvesting?
I think people are opposed to it because it lacks emotion. Utilitarianism is what you would expect a robot to do, who has no emotions. I think it is too rational for people. We like to think we are rational, but really emotions play a huge role in our thinking. For example, imagine you see two children drowing, and you can only save one of them. One of them happens to be your own child, the other is a stranger. Most people would then save their own child, because they are emotionally attached to it. But according to utilitarianism, you should flip a coin to decide who to save, because both children deserve an equal chance.
Utilitarianism does not say both deserve an equal chance, it says both lives are equally worthy of being saved, which doesn't imply anything about how you should go about choosing which one. Also, watching your own child die before your eyes is traumatic, and if you take that into consideration then the utilitarian action is to save your own child and forget about the stranger.
@Matias Javier Furia Rodriguez
Neither, to imagine yourself the victim in either situation is not selfless. The real question is should one desire to be selfless? I think trying to create a situation where you lose and others win limits the real possibility where all can win.
Batman's refusal to kill the Joker proves that he doesn't value innocent life so much as he values his own self-regard. It's extremely narcissistic.
That's how I feel about Kantian ethics in general. There is no excuse for claiming to follow some supposed Higher Good and allowing people to keep suffering. After all, isn't the study of ethics about how we ought to treat people? In what way is some abstract doctrine more important than avoiding unnecessary human suffering?
consequences are impossible to predict. it could be that by killing the joker, batman would lose his meaning in life and go off the deep end, causing suffering in amounts that are greater than the joker would have produced. Or it could cause some kind of joker copycats etc...etc... Batman isn't responsible for the joker's actions. Joker could leave Arkham and never harm again if he so chose to. Of course he wouldn't because hes a made up character motivated purely by creating chaos, but all philosophy is hypothetical so here are scenarios in which killing the joker would do more harm than good so how is keeping him alive selfish?
My psychology professor believed that the morality of an action was independent of the consequence; even though lives might be saved, killing someone is immoral and can't be considered a "good" action. I'm sure modern Kantians believe in self defence and accept that sometimes utilitarianism is a necessary evil for a large civilization.
+Captain Oblivious
That statement completely misunderstands utilitarianism, deontology and Batman.
Firstly, you say that since he doesn't kill the Joker and therefore is a deontologist, Batman "doesn't value innocent life". This is incorrect. The saving of innocent lives is not the foundation of utilitarianism, the maximisation of value (whatever that may be) is. Put differently, utilitarianism would argue it is morally obligatory for Batman to allow 9 INNOCENT people to die if he could save 10 persons.
Secondly, you say that Batman's deontological acts make him value "self-regard" and is "extremely narcissistic". Again, this is an incorrect understanding of deontology. Deontology, or Kantian ethics, focus on the act itself, not notions of self-regard or narcissism. Kantians judge the morality of an act based on the act itself, regardless of the consequences stemming from the act. The end never justifies the means, the means are justifiable on their own merits. Put differently, Kantians would argue Batman (a man by the way who is not sanctioned by law to kill and is tolerated because of his strict moral code) ought to put the rightness of an act before anything else, like for eg. instead of killing, putting away criminals; but this undermines his perception of fear to criminals (and therefore his image) - that hardly seems like actions that perpetuate "self-regard" and narcissism.
+Deena Fahed
It's not like utilitarians care about "suffering". They care about the maximisation of a value. they would gladly allow the death of 1 billion people to save 1 billion and one.
As for Kantian ethics, I think you are mistaken. The "Higher Good" for Kant is simple: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."
You might know this as the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. I know not of any other stronger rule that forbades suffering onto others.
this brings tears to my eyes
It's not profound but I've concluded that life is basically a series of compromises which is certainly by default utilitarian.
On the thought experiment, a further confounding factor is the fact that you can't know if the soldier will keep his word. The soldier may kill the other 19 after you kill the one, and then you can have ptsd afterwards so not only did you not save anyone but now you have ptsd
next time if Aussies call me: "you're a major kant mate" , I'll say thank you
I'm so hyped that I've come across these videos! Well done!
IF SOMEONE IS ORDERING ME TO KILL ONE OR THEY ALL DIE...................................I'M SHOOTIN' THE MUFFUKKER GIVIN' THAT ORDER.......THE ONLY RIGHT SOLUTION
Absolutely the most entertaining way to study philosophy.
Batman doesn't even have to kill the joker, just drop him on some deserted island! That could make a good story.
"Wanna know how I got these coconuts?"
hahaha that's great
AngelHQ dont forget to leave him a gun with 1 bullet in it
These videos are very helpful, and are awesome supplements for studying!!! Thank you!
intro music to crash course philosophy always gives me chills
really cool video thank you!!! you made me understand everything tho, 8 days before my state exam! great examples!
8:52 you spelled "contant" instead of "constant"
Fantastic series!!! I'm just seeking the most good for the most people.
Wow you're the only one that noticed
Can you explain the philosophy of high school boys wearing cargo shorts in 15 degrees Fahrenheit weather?
麻衣子 Maiko no because you used fahrenheit come back when you've caught up with the rest of the world lol
Sid The Great Ok, what about 263.706 Kelvin then?
Sid The Great Silly americans.
I think you guys are being self-righteous. They specifically pointed out it was in Fahrenheit. That's what they're familiar with.
As to the actual question, I think it's considered manly to be totally unflappable to things like weather, pain, etc.
As to why CARGO shorts, they're great for storing things.
Sid The Great I'm not.. American... nor do I use Fahrenheit I actually googled the conversion because I figured more Americans than Japanese watched this.
Wow this was the best intro I've ever seen for a Philosophy subject
I remember this guy from history in college. Just subscribed!
I’m interested… I know you say that the “most primal” goal of humans is to seek pleasure, and that this is common ground for everyone, however other philosophies disagree with this. For instance, Buddhism has some roots in the idea that NOT chasing after pleasure is what equates to true happiness. I would love to have a video on something like this.
Can we just acknowledge how epic that batman voice is?
Video is great, always helpful in school assignments. thank you
This helped me in my studying for my exam! Thanks a lot!
I've had such trouble understanding the book assigned for moral ethic class. But this video helped make it simpler for me! Thank you!
Oooh a trolley problem but with guns and indigenous peoples. Fancy.
just shoot one of their body parts, it doesn't specify that you need to kill them :)
*Richie Rich* You're getting close to arguing that the one victim on the other track is somehow involved. Is it worse if you push the fat man in front of the train to stop it and save the five? What if there's no one on the other track, but an empty train and the collision flings the train into a pizzeria, killing its owner? Does that mean the pizzeria owner _would live_ if the situation is left alone?
It's the same scenario: Would you commit a lesser atrocity to prevent a greater one? That is the challenge of consequentialism and the failure of deontology.
You're all missing the point. It's not the trolley problem because the Joker (in disguise) is foisting a scenario on another person with nothing to do with the situation that involves the Joker's own prospective diabolical moral choice. His mere insistence that he's determined in his own mind to make this set of choices disqualifies the Joker from entering into any kind of moral contract. For all you know he's told the villagers that some white guy is going to come along and shoot someone gratuitously on behalf of a neighbouring tribe (all the better to stir up a war that kills thousands). This is closer to sitcom logic than trolleyology (a beloved dramatic premise of people who wear black and attend film school and pretend to be way more profound than they really are).
*Allan Stokes* feel free to look at the variation in *Eye In The Sky* in which a military heirarchy can prevent an imminent terror attack, by risking the life of (and ultimately killing) an innocent little girl in an allied nation. There's no contract at all in this case, it's just the weapon they have on hand is a Hellfire missile launched by Predator drone, and the girl's just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But it's the same moral issue. In that one the Prime Minister notes the press disaster of the small atrocity will be an additional factor, where no-one notices terror attacks that are prevented.
I'm now.... in love with your work bro. Keep it up.
Your are a very good teacher, this is amazing. Thank you!
Helped me pass my Philosophy midterm. Thanks bb.
Good stuff, the video version of Philosophy for Dummies and I love it.
Great, well-explained video! I just started medical ethics and this helped me a lot. :)
Laura Oosterh I love you
Best last look at utilitarianism before my exam. Thanks!!
Sir, you are so amazing. I learned a lot. I could use it to finally make things clear with what I do everyday and to others as well.
Anyway sir, do you have videos that will discuss ross' prima facie duties and intuitionism? The other non consequentialist theories of ethics?
The fact that I'm watching this instead of doing homework is kind of ironic
Thats awesome, thanks for explaining such a clumsy thepry in the easiest way possible.
One of the best crash course episode
"No one's gonna defend philosophical position on the grounds: It gives me pleasure."
Max Stirner: "If I may, gentlemen..."
Let's be really realistic. Batman isn't judge jury and executioner. He acts as a servant to the ppl of Gotham.
"I never said thank you!"
"And you never have to!"
The real fault is with Gothams justice system. Ultimately it should be down to them/us to take the responsibility of having the Joker killed rather than imprisoned. Especially knowing how cunning he is and the likelihood of him just escaping. The choice of killing someone shouldn't be down to just one person and it shouldn't be down to someone like Batman.
true
wow
The most interesting thing about the Joker is his own reasoning for what he does, and the fault of the justice system is in having only two options for criminals... death or imprisonment.
Great point.
@@MrFunkstains Torture is a third.
your way of explanation is really interesting and easy to understand.
This video really helps me. Thank you very much!
It would be amazing if you guys did a programming crash course , a bit hard to pull off though
Holyshit, I want that.
B BC plz plz plz
bro. yes.
B BC That would be great if they could. :)
YES YES YES! Programming crash course!
0:34 Joker's slaps were too cute. More than it was needed.
You are only one who could teach me this lesson. Thanks
These videos are amazing, thanks a lot!
Very well explained. Thanks! :)
I kant even..
Descartes that shitty pun
Existentialism? Don't even get me Sartred
And Diogenes still disproves.
ilker yoldas lollipop
"I am dead and your puns have killed me" - Nietzsche
Well done guys. Good production.
One of the best channels ever
I've unknowingly been a rule utilitarian since I was about 14.
wow, so i used utilitarianism. Had to decide whether to keep my baby girl that had Trisomy 13, where she would have a 99% chance of dying within a few hours of being born, if she was born alive at all, and traumatizing my family and friends with the birth and then burial of the baby, or to end her life in the womb. Didnt know there was a name for what happens,
Knit Crochet Designs im sorry to hear that. I hope you're doing okay now
IMO you did the right thing. it gets really complicated in terms of ethics, but regardless of what the babies short life would've been like, it would've been hard for everyone around you (including you) so I think you made the right choice. You made the best decision you could with the knowledge you had and that is what is important.
So, in other words, you killed your baby. Instead of using utilitarianism you should have used an actually moral moral system to make your decision. Like it says at the beginning of the video, “there are some lines that good people do not cross...killing definitely falls on the wrong side of that line.”
@@jarlaxle150 What the beginning of the video is "FOR BATMAN killing definitely falls on the wrong side of that line" - and as a consequence of his un-nuanced view of things, many people die and suffer. Utilitarian moral philosophy is about doing what actually makes the world better - helping beings to live good lives and avoid misery. Non-utilitarian moral philosophies, when they conflict with utilitarian ones, are about making yourself feel "morally pure", perhaps even if you achieve this feeling by making choices that result in others or yourself hurt in terrible ways. I suppose we all are a mix both (few of us are either 0.0% utilitarian or 100.0% utilitarian). In my view Knit Crochet Designs, when she made the best (or perhaps I should say least bad) out of a situation she did not choose, acted like a good person - indeed she acted morally *better* than someone who would have chosen differently.
@@jarlaxle150 okey sherlock. U know everything.
As a toddlers mom studying, these videos r perfect!
Thank you for making Philosophy bareable