Utilitarianism
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 01. 2020
- I am writing a book! If you want to know when it is ready (and maybe win a free copy), submit your email on my website: www.jeffreykaplan.org/
I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.
This is a video lecture based on chapter 1 of Jeremy Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789).
I explain how we can understand Bentham's moral theory, Utilitarianism, as being composed of three sub-theories: Hedonism, Aggregation, and Consequentialism.
Hi, I'm a teacher myself (working with ESL students), and your style is exactly the kind of thing I try to emulate. Your pronunciation, intonation, and strategically placed pauses make things so clear, and the way you break everything down into mentally digestible pieces, as well as maintaining links and progressions between ideas, is just perfect and easy to follow. Bravo! Respect! In fact, I'm going to recommend your videos to some of my students for listening practice, since your pacing and enunciation are so good. 👍
Chunk.. a Chunk.. a chunka-chunka chunk
He is intensely good, he is Cambridge 👍
@@chewnyloon6002 english as a second language?
It's good because Americans speak soooo slow so I can listen at double speed and it feels like normal. Speaking slow the effect of intelligent people having to slow down for the lowering IQ of the population.
So to summarize, Utilitarianism answers the following questions in the following manner:
1. What should we do - That with the best outcome (Consequentialism).
2. What is the best outcome - That whose aggregate of good - bad for all individuals in a community/society is greatest (Aggregation).
3. What is good or bad for an individual - Good = pleasure as and end and Bad = Pain as an end (Hedonism).
You're one of the greatest teachers I've ever met.
I'm 16 and you're really good at explaining this. I'm lonely and it's a great way to spend my lunches
jojo reference kakyoin didn’t have friends in school
Definitely try to start a philosophy club; it would be a good place to meet people and look great on a resume.
Love u
Hope you’re doing well! I always used to eat my lunches alone, it does get better when you’re grown up
So many professors forget that they are also TEACHERS. This man does not. Thank you.
Thank you professor, for giving me the right reasons and philosophical framework to just stop and do the drugs. I feel my life needed this.
you're really good at explaining. I'm a total rookie to philosophy and I find it very easy to learn new ideas from you. So thank you and keep making more :)
Thanks. That's very kind!
If it is helpful, I have arranged some of my videos in playlists, which makes it clearer how things fit together: czcams.com/channels/_hukbByJP7OZ3Xm2tszacQ.htmlplaylists
@@profjeffreykaplan 😱0
@@profjeffreykaplan just
You're the coolest professor I've ever come across. A senior student reading law and your videos are pure pleasure
I love the idea of being morally required to do drugs, amazing way of explaining consequentialism, certainly not the example i would've thought of
Great introduction to utlitarianism! Really enjoyed it.
Thanks!
Finally found enough evidence to explain this "writing backwards" action. The video is just flipped horizontally after being recorded.
In the video:
you write left-handed
you're incredibly fluent at writing backwards
you wear a ring on your right ring finger
your shirt buttons are on the traditionally women's side
Seems much more likely that:
the video is mirrored horizontally
you write right-handed
you wear a wedding ring on the traditional finger of the left hand
you're wearing a men's shirt
I don't really know what all that gets us, but I thought it was worth the effort required.
Correct. You have solved it! Here is an explanation of how the video works: czcams.com/video/6_d44bla_GA/video.html
I appreciate your effort. I was in fact wondering the same thing..... LOL I loved this video as well.... But was distracted by my lack of intelligence in regard to direction and misdirection on the camera....
I’m impressed with your analysis
Ha! Wow
Just marvelous Jeff! The best lecture on the "syllogism" of utilitarian theory.. Thank you so much!
WHATEVER YOU DO DONT STOP MAKING VIDEOS!!!!
Its his moral obligation
You are a global asset
Bentham designed prisons on utilitarian pricnciples. If you ever find yourself in Tasmania I reccommend visiting Port Arthur where you can see an example of one of his prisons. You should also visit the memorial to the 35 peolple who lost their lives in the 1998 massacre. Powerful stuff...
this is the most clear explanation i can found in the internet so far
For utilitarianism to be acceptable, it would also rely on three contributing factor's. Situation - Sonario - circumstances.
He could make the process of changing a tyre on a car sound interesting...brilliant
Good teaching style ,anyone can easily understand it.
These videos are so helpful! I’m taking a comprehensive ethics exam in a few weeks. Basically, testing out without taking the class. It is all making sense now.
Did u pass ?
@@warrenenglehart4900 failed😂
I don’t say this lightly. I’ve been through a lot in life and I can say that pain is good for human beings. Pain has taught me more and made me grow and mature more then pleasure ever has.
but it learned you by making you try to overcome it and to go away from it, so the right phrase is that it's a good and better teacher by being a mean for your growth and maturity so you could be able to get pleasured more.
the conclusion is pain could be good as a mean (by learning you), but it always bad as an end also pleasure could be bad as a mean (spoil you and make you do drug, then you get pain as an end) but it always good as an end.
and the proof on what I say is that you still seek pleasure as an end and try to avoid pain.
@@iahmedkhaled7346 true I thought about that and even though some sorts of pain has been good for me in life it’s usually delay gratification as the goal. But the painful process itself leads to growth and maturity so in that way was good for me.
I am from India and thank you Sir for your help in understanding the Subject
By far this is the best explanation that ties hedonism, aggregation, consequentialism, and utilitarianism. Thanks for posting.
This video is absolutely good. Love it.
I find your teaching very informative, approachable, and enjoyable! If possible, could you please make some intro series on logic or rhetoric? Thanks!
Your teaching methods are excellent sir 👏👏
Thank you sir your lectures helps me
Pleasure is sometimes good for motivation
Coffee is also good as an end, it's an enjoyable drink
Ok, this is my 2nd video and my 2nd comment. I'm in love! Lol I'm so excited to watch every video thank you so much
Gotta love learning philosophy with such an enthusiastic young professor who moreover looks just like Jake Gyllenhaal 😍
When he said "pleasure is just good"...its like I could physically see pleasure
Wowwww Thank you so much , I'm worried about my ethics as a subject understanding and it's applications on daily life this video gives me a hope to try once more ❤❤
So well explain Sir
You are great
Thank you for the fantastic video
Wow this helped now I can understand
What moral law do we use to decide which moral law to choose?
I'm only halfway through, but I'm going to finish it now. I just wanted to share this thought while it's fresh. Maybe I'll eat my words after I finish this video, haha. But anyway, I believe that the dig for deeper meaning doesn't stop at pleasure. Pleasure is good for your health. I believe that nature gave us this awareness of the link between pleasure and good health for a reason. I don't believe that it's happenstance. Good health is good for longevity. Longevity is good for the good of man kind. The longer we are here, the more of an impact and a difference we can make. Pleasure, yielded properly in the right conditions, is in itself a means to a better world when that pleasure is gained through altruistic acts. Thoughts?
And a better world is a means for more pleasure? Sorry, im not a native english speaker so probably i didn't get the point you we're trying to make. But would love to talk about it.
you are the best 👌🏻
Jeremy Bentham was one of the founders of University College London. If you are fortunate enought to go to London, the entry to the UCL Building is on Gower Street. Go inside and wander down the south cloister. There, in a box, you will meet Mr Bentham. He is still a (silent) member of the UCL Senate and always votes with the affirmative. 😀
I studied philosophy at University College many, many moons ago. The glass case contains, in accordance with his will, the mummified body of Bentham dressed in his early 19th century finery (at the time looking rather threadbare and dusty). I was told the head was actually a wax model, since the original had not stood the test of time, allegedly at least partly due to some shenanigans by students in earlier times, and was housed in the box he is sitting on. It soon became just another familiar piece of furniture only really an object of curiosity to visitors and first year students.
Thanks so much!
I liked your 'What's going on here?' on 10:10 hahaha
You just taught me how to draw a jet ski in the most simplest and easiest way :)
Greatest happiness of the greatest number.
...which is seen as the foundation of moral and as well as law
To quote Spock '" The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one "
Thank you
I beg to differ!!!! Coffee is a good end in itself!
Hi I enjoyed your talk on Peter Singer’s 1972 paper. I agree with Singer and your analysis. One criticism. You mentioned this is “radical” and “nobody thinks this way”. I invite you and Mr. Singer to read the gospels of Jesus Christ, especially the epistles of Paul and James. Read the parable of the good Samaritan. In fact read just about any page of the New Testament, or of (most of) the Old. Virtually all members of the Christian faith that read the Bible would say, “well of course!” to Singer’s paper. I will admit however, that a non-trivial fraction of nominal Christians, may initially object, at least until they have had a prayerful encounter with their pastor, their brothers and sisters in Christ, or with the Holy Spirit. Thanks for your video.
I have a question about your video on Peter Singer. Would giving those that are enduring famine the food they need make them dependent upon that very act and set them up for future such expectations? Might it not be the most moral thing to allow them to struggle through the issue and even if it caused a lot of pain and death, let them learn how to take care of themselves?
Sort of a tough love example. This is what I think is wrong with Peter Singer's approach. BTW, I like your various video series. Oh, the reason I am asking here instead of in that video is that comments have been disabled for that video.
I thought of that as well. "Teach a man to fish..."
Also, I believe the primary problem in the "poor" countries that "need" aid is corruption and lack of individual freedoms (which promotes productivity and prosperity for everyone -> ending hunger).
Listening to your arguments of Money as only a means is interesting these days. It seems that the accumulation of money is in itself a pleasure generator for some, and that in several cultures a high score in that realm is celebrated and those who get that score are venerated by society. PS Principle is misspelled in the title card of the video.
Also another principle in capitalist interpretation of pleasure is that it is just equated with money, i.E. doubling the money means doubling the pleasure. That completely ignores that giving already rich people even more money (which is the main thing that capitalism does) really only has a small effect on their pleasure, while redistributing the money instead would give many people pleasure and overall more pleasure. And it leads to economists thinking that the most important goal is just growth and distribution only matters for them if it becomes unequal enough to be a threat to the stability of the capitalist system.
But I think pleasure should be replaced by something else, I think a good idea would be to replace it by the fulfillment of needs, especially basic needs. Pleasure is very subjective and can't be measured, while you can compare the fulfillment of needs. But a system that is based on the fulfillment of needs contradicts the principles on which capitalism works, so it will never be a used a lot in a capitalist system where education, philosophy, politics, etc. are in general controlled by the bourgeoisie.
I see sparkles in the professor's eyes as he argues the positive points of the theory because he knows it's going to be fun to attack those points later.
Love it
Maybe this is classic utilitarianism, but I thought non-hedonistic forms of utilitarianism existed. Perhaps like act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism.
17:10
Luckily, no one needs convincing to do the morally right outcome in that case.
I simultaneously believe that pleasure can be good and bad and that pain can be good and bad. It's completely subjective to every personal experience and situation... 😅 maybe i'm bipolar 😢😂😂
Pleasure’s end might be good health or bad health. So there can be an end, and it isn’t necessarily intrinsic.
the only thing that makes you want a good health is to have pleasure and avoid pain as long as possible so it's still the end from doing anything actually
@@iahmedkhaled7346 I don’t think you understood me, but I darn sure didn’t understand you
Sure must be nice to be a handsome, eloquent ethics teacher :p
youre amazing
At 5:43: Money can also be invested. Does Utilitarianism take account of smart investments that can continually generate more assets/money?
That money would still be means to an end tho. You can't do much without spending it (or staking it)
Btw I can't remember what the video is now or I'd say it there but there was one that was introduced with you saying you'd get to the argument over whether or not Nietzsche had anti-Semitic sentiments later on and you never did. 😢 I'm pretty sure he wasn't, since he said anti-Semites were part of what was wrong with contemporary German society and he supposedly turned against Wagner over Wagner's attitude toward Jews and he said Jews as a race were some of the strongest people still living, he just had some strong criticisms against Judaism and religion as a whole (Christianity especially), but I do want to know when there is a dissenting argument. The only thing I've found to make me think less of him is his attitude about war being necessary for evolution - that seems like a toxic sentiment to me.
Great presentation.
Does anyone know how he filmed this scene or the technical term for filming like this?
It seems like he is writing on a mirror in front of him with a camera concealed to capture it all. However, where is the camera? It must be in front of him, no?
The only other explanation is that he is standing behind a glass panel and is adept at writing backwards. While that is not out-of-the-question, that seems a far-fetched explanation.
Or am I over-thinking this?
He is standing behind a glass panel and is writing normally, and then the image is reversed in the editing process.
20:40 what is utilitarianism
Pursuance of pleasure can be wrong. Say a person steals something that gives him pleasure but another person suffers loss [pain] Or a person is tortured to betray friends so he tells all to avoid pain but others have increased pain because of it. So hedonism is selfishness and if you define causing others pain wrong then selfishness is wrong. If you exclude the interests of others then selfishness is OK.
31:32 yes
Opening title slide has misspelt principle
Pricniple.😂
I like utilitarianism as a means of ranking actions, but to say you are *required* to do the highest ranking thing on that list is a bit off. Doing the 2nd thing on the list may be less good, but not bad. I'm not sure about plain addition as a means of aggregation. I think I'd rather live in a world where we have a sum of 1+1+1+1 than one where we have a sum of 10-1-1-1.
I guess that I'd go for something less strict than consequentialism.
You could use a formula that factors in equality, however I think a big problem is that it's impossible to measure pleasure, so i think we should rather use the fulfillment of needs, especially basic as a basis.
Happiness is a component of life not the purpose.
Coffee is pretty good as an end 😁
Is Bentham missing an epistemology which provides evidence that his idea of "good" or "pleasure" as an end is indeed correct? What about each individual end?
"his idea" lol.
Isn't pleasure/happiness good for well-being and isn't well-being good for health and isn't health good for living a longer life?
This is wildly off topic but how on earth are you writing in such a way that it's legible to both you and the camera?
This is like blues clues for adults
Hedonism Bot approves of this lecture
Great video! I love this platform of teaching.
Of course, Utilitarianism, though it treats everyone's happiness of being of equal value, is also vulnerable to problems such as the slave-owner paradox, whereby the theory would deem Utility as maximized if the happiness gained by the masters of slaves, through slave ownership, more than offsets the happiness deprived from the slaves.
Deriving a morality based on a version of the much older Golden Rule, say along the lines of respecting everyone else’s need for fulfilment as much as your own, provided they return that respect, avoids such a paradox, by side-stepping aggregationism. At the same time, ultimately from enlightened self interest, such a theory also obligates the continual expansion of a “moral community”, where-in the happiness of all moral agents is again treated as being of equal value, just as in Utilitarianism.
Combining the above with considerations arising from the mind-body problem, it then possible to start deducing principles for political organisation, such as the desirability of personal autonomy and consensus-based democracy.
Using this theory it then becomes clear that the rational and moral reaction to Peter Singer's 1972 paper (as explored in another one of your very clear and informative videos) is to organise society in such a way as to match those moral obligations with socially obligatory distribution, thus ensuring that all members of our “moral community” do not want for basic needs, through such mechanisms as progressive taxation and sufficiently equal “pre-distribution” of the mechanisms for creating and gaining resources,
There's more on the above at my gezwinstanley press and word (please just invert those words: sorry to be cryptic but the algorithm is viciously deleting any comments the direct away from CZcams and may now be receiving AI assist!) . If anyone is interested the two main articles to read would be "Questions and some answers: how to live with yourself and others" and "What is economic justice and how can we create it?".
Who’s john mill
Bentham's student
10:08
Me at 3am high on sleep deprivation
Bentham's head.
Coffee is good as an end prof 😂
The problem with utilitarianism is that ít is always in hindsight.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
If "God" not only created people but also created a "user manual" for people to use, all of this utilitarianism stuff as well as other theories of how to behave or live wouldn't even be necessary.
he did and that manual is the holy Quran
you just have to put the effort in understanding it
@@AhmedHussein-de3dx oh plz stfu
@@AhmedHussein-de3dx ppl do understand it
That's why they are pro slavery
As Ahmed already pointed out, Islam has made a "user manual" and the Muslims named it the Quran. Unfortunately, so have about five thousand other religions and philosophies each made a "user manual". How can we choose the right one out of thousands?
The beautiful thing about a moral framework like Utilitarianism is how it creates a sleek & simple "user manual" without religion, god, or any divine aspect. Really, Utilitarianism pulls together the good aspects of many philosophies & religions without the extra baggage.
I love that this video starts with a spelling mistake. The "pricniple" of utility.
I like this word. Pricniple. Sounds naughty.
"So we're back to money. And again what's money good for?", well for buying coffee...
You def have seen Math BFF videos with the hot girl Nancy from MIT math grad. She draws on glass in reverse just like this. But she been doing it for like 8 years ago.
I'm sorry officer, I was morally required to do all these drugs 🤣
His video on Peter Singer proves that ethics is hard! It's costly. And neither you nor God wants to pay it.
Utilitarianism = Collective-Aggated Hedonism? Utilitarian = Collective Epicureanism?😁😊🦉
Hi. Change the word “pricniple” in the title to this lecture.
It’s funny because there are basically no Bentham Utilitarians in the entire academic universe and yet almost every course uses it as a jumping off point. I wonder if freshmen students hear this and immediately start thinking through why consequentialism could be wrong, why aggregation could be wrong, etc.
Any philosophy that tells me to do drugs has to be correct.
Short term or long term? I expect we'll get into it.
Professor Toby Maguire over here
(i love u, no disrespect intended)
So, I should force someone to take heroin?
pleasure is just good
Fix spelling of intro title.
My philosophy is easy always choose the answers with the most love and if you find a better answer with more love adopt that one
TItle: "PRCNIPLE...
I can’t help but hear “sub-feces”
pricniple lol
hehe it adds up to 69, did you do that on purpose?