Semester Ethics Course condensed into 22mins (Part 1 of 2)
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 06. 2024
- I am writing a book! If you 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.
Video explaining counterexamples: • Why do philosophers us...
This is a philosophy video lecture that compresses a course that normally takes 15 weeks into just one video. Or really, it only manages to condense half of that course into 22 minutes.
What is the morally right thing to do? Is there some moral law that applies to everyone, or is morality relative in some way? And what’s so good about morality anyway? To answer these questions, we read Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Bentham, Locke, Kant, Nietzsche, Nozick, Singer, O’Neill and others. This is an introductory level philosophy course. Students do not need any prior experience with philosophy.
For more of my videos: www.jeffreykaplan.org/youtube
02:29 - Utilitarianism: This ethical theory, introduced by Jeremy Bentham, states that actions should be based on producing the greatest overall balance of pleasure minus pain. It focuses on the consequences of actions and treats pleasure and pain as the ultimate moral factors.
06:35 - Thought Experiment: Robert Nozick's thought experiment involves an experience machine that can provide any desired experience. It challenges the idea that pleasure alone is the sole determinant of moral value, highlighting the importance of other aspects such as control, genuine experiences, and interpersonal relationships.
10:48 - Criticisms of Utilitarianism: H.J. McCloskey presents a counter-example to utilitarianism using a scenario where a sheriff must frame an innocent person to prevent a riot. This demonstrates a conflict between utilitarian calculations and commonly held moral intuitions, suggesting limitations to the theory.
18:26 - Kant's Moral Theory (Deontology): Immanuel Kant's deontological theory focuses on the intentions (maxims) behind actions rather than their consequences. The moral permissibility of an action is determined by whether its maxim can be universally accepted, irrespective of the outcome.
29:07 - Aristotle's Moral Theory (Eudaimonia): Aristotle argues that human beings have a unique purpose or function and that achieving eudaimonia (flourishing or fulfillment) is the ultimate goal. Eudaimonia is attained through the exercise of virtues and realizing one's potential as a rational being.
You’re welcome! 😊
Are those the whole main philosophies in regard to morality throughout western history?
@@Oberstien17 there is also a variety of liberalism's plus of course Judeo-Christian-Islamic moral values that are still prevelent. For instance neoliberalism and libertarianism informs much of the financial and business world modus of operandi.
What happened to stotle
Thanks!
This is AMAZING!!
Please don't stop making these videos, I major in mathematics
I used to be interested in philosophy but I stopped reading some time ago
This is really interesting for people like me, outside the humanities field but also interested to have a basic knowledge in it
Thank you so much!!
Also you had me questioning some of my life choices back there 😂
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
I tried to comment on your video about Peter Singer’s essay, and was disappointed to discover that some viewers had spoiled that opportunity for the rest of us. It took a couple of months and some additional reading before I could no longer accept the immorality of my relative affluence. I’m beginning to address that and I thank you Prof. Kaplan for introducing me to the ideas of Peter Singer. Watching your videos has increased my curiosity about philosophy. It might become my pastime of choice when I retire.
The knowledge density of your video is astoundingly good. Even at 1x speed i also needed a pause to start this. Thanks!
I’m a biology major planning on switching to philosophy. I’ve read some of Nietzsche and Kant, but have quite a scattered knowledge of other prevailing ethical viewpoints. This is extremely helpful in getting my foot in the door.
*update* I've decided to pursue a neuroscience major and philosophy minor. Thanks for all of your input. Made me laugh.
I also recommend the Wireless Philosophy channel where they ask Philosophy Professors to speak for ~10 minutes about a specific topic: czcams.com/users/WirelessPhilosophy If you're interested in debates (especially about topics related to Theology), I recommend this channel as well: czcams.com/users/CosmicSkeptic Finally, I recommend this channel where a brain scientist interviews Theologians, Philosophers and Scientists about all sorts of questions: czcams.com/users/CloserToTruthTV All the best to you! :)
Don't do it. Your employment opportunities will be severely limited.
No…! Please don’t tell me you did it... unless your planning to do Law
@@yurinator4411 that's very utilitarian of you.😊
Honest advice. Think this through, because in the future a philosophy degree won't be enough to land a solid jobs where other fields are more valued, but on the other sense you would be also over-qualified for a barista job.
bruhh dont stop posting great quality and great style
Really good video! Goes without saying that classroom discussions around these issues brings a lot more in terms of learning. Around the 10 minute mark I knew it would be impossible to talk about all these people within the alotted time, but the video itself was captivating from the outset and throughout. In Norway we have something called ex.phil which is a basic philosophy course that all non-STEM majors have to take to get a bachelors degree from a university. The ethics course you referenced in your video includes many of the things we talk about, however ex.phil also has a focus on epistemology.
Brilliant, can't wait for part 2!
Really good! Really excited about part 2
Passionate teachers ❤️ thank you for the summary
9:38 this is without a doubt one of the more important points of the whole semester, I'm glad it wasn't cut in the 22 minute condensed version 😂
Imagine having a course "The Study of Magic" and, only in the last section of the course, discussing whether magic actually exists.
Great Summary of the concepts involved! I've really never seen anyone who could explain the salient features of utilitarianism so succinctly.
You should analyse the morality of promising the entire course in one video and taking two videos to do it. Definitely violated a few maxims 😋
100% correct. Kant would not approve of what I have done.
@@jeffreykaplan1, respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
@@jeffreykaplan1 I mean, considering Kant's habit of over promising shown in the letter to Herz, I'd say this follows in Kant's shoes pretty well 😋
Thank you for this! Waiting for part 2 I started going through your catalogue of videos... subscribed!
I am simple, when Jeffery Kaplan posts- I click.
Excellent video! Can't wait for part 2!
Thank you this compressed video is GREAT!!!
This video is awesome. You summerise everything wonderfully.
Only thing I'm mindblown is how you wrote those in reverse, that's talent!
I wonder the same thing too. It turns out you can write like normal on glass and reflect the image in video edit program.
A full ethics lecture series would be awesome too
Loving your channel! Fun to brush up on what I majored in 20 years ago.
I've been pulling up philosophy videos on CZcams for a few months now. I've been pulling up basso profondo singers for maybe a fortnight.
I'm pretty sure CZcams thinks you're related to singer-songwriter Avi Kaplan. But, whatever algorithmic glitch tilted this video in my direction, I'm glad to be your newest subscriber as of a minute ago.
awh man, totally bummed to see that this is a recent post bc i was lookin fwd to immediately making my way thru pt 2 haha ;_; hope to see it soon!
Thank you dr. Kaplan. This was a great lecture video as always.
I'm taking an intro to philosophy college course for my sophomore year of high school and wanted to get some sort of idea before taking the course, so thanks a bunch!
Bentham equating rightness of moral actions with pleasure reminds me of Adam Smith equating exchangeable value of commodities with labor (my roommate says this is called the 'labor theory of value') in that we assume that different forms of pleasure (resp. labor) can be directly compared. This assumption is vague and handwavy yet incredibly useful in either case. The relationship between Quantity and Knowledge is very mysterious.
love this channel so much
Thanks for putting this stuff out there. If nothing else you’re allowing others to start getting into philosophy.
Jeffery , I looked at most of Your Topics with other online Lecturers and You win
Really great introduction! Enjoyed diving into some fascinating concepts I didn't get a chance to during my undergrad. You seem like a very fun professor to study under!
This is how you educate the multitudes. Thank you.
Boy was I disappointed that comments were disabled on the Peter Singer video.
I'm new to your channel and happy to see you have more videos focusing on ethics.
I just wanted to drop this from the Immanuel Velikovsky archive.
from
The Psychoanalytic Papers
CHAPTER X
The Criterion for Ethical Values and Its Determination
What is evil? Evil means assimilation of the superior by the inferior.
Evil means a failure - Beethoven’s nephew, who sponged at the expense of genius.
Diseases are evil, as is the action of bacteria. Also death is evil.
Relative evil is the assimilation of something that could have been replaced by the inferior - that which has a lesser capability for the production of lasting values [these last being defined as] accumulated powers of assimilation.
Thus the eating of meat is relatively evil. The assimilation drive, in and of itself, is neither good nor evil: it becomes good when sublimation takes place, but when abasement occurs, it becomes evil.
Mean is the embezzlement of life from something that is meant to serve the assimilation only to a limited extent. It is mean, because the greater portion is thus condemned to go the contrary way of useless devaluation.
Thus the consumption of bird tongues, for which birds are killed, is meant mean, and relatively evil. Equally mean is the activity of bacteria who, for want of a small portion of the human substance which they need, destroy a whole organism -that is, diminish its assimilation capacity excessively.
The usurer who destroys the livelihood of a person for a few pennies, is just as mean.
If it is possible to calculate the energetic values of an introgenic event mathematically, also nothing stands in the way of determining ethical values in mathematical quantities.
........
The algorithm won't allow me to drop a link in the comments but if you post community I can send my own ethics writing (in comix PDF).
From my own satirical writing
Aristotle's Poetics of Evil
The Romance,
It's Abasing.
The Comedy,
It's Reprehensible.
The Irony,
It's Degenerative.
The Tragedy,
It's Ruinous.
excerpted from
The Turkish Prisoner's Dilemma - CHEAT SHEET
by Ανδρέ Σταμαύρα
APPENDIX
Nozick's Experience Machine always bothered me because when you we're in it, how could we know we're not *actually making friends, *actually being the person we want to be, or *actually doing things (ie things like controlling our own lives). This "*actually" part of our experiences would necessarily be a part of the Experience Machine's job.
And if I woke up from this life and I realized "Jesse Hall" was all a dream that "real I" (who I can't remember the name of right now) had in an Experience Machine, then I would simply thank whoever or whatever made the Experience Machine, and I'd probably play again without any regrets: Amor Fati.
Plus, if I did wake up from the machine, then it wouldn't answer the following question, "Is this the actual reality, or am I still in another Experience Machine?" How many levels of simulation can there be? Much like Inception.
I can't be the only person who's gone down this trail of thought. Whether or not it's all a dream, I don't worry too much. It was all a dream worth having.
----
I love Peter Singer's paper and his overall point. I feel like he wants to make heroes of us all. It's the right thing to do.
I need to read or look up what Singer feels about socialism, taxes, and government in general. Aren't taxes a major way for me to support the common good of mankind? Socialism of any type would necessarily build the best safety nets for all mankind? The right use of small, efficient, decentralized government would necessarily be the best case for all mankind? Singer must go over these issues.
My taxes ought to go towards a socialist, small, efficient, decentralized government which includes the right amount of protection of kids from drowning in shallow ponds.
Very productive teaching, thank you
Informative and helpful! Thank you for sharing, professor.
Can’t wait for part 2
Thank you for the summary. Nice and simple. Great! Congrats!
You're such a great teacher, you should make a video on how to teach !
Finally, finally after almost a year of exhausting internet searches I have found the philosophy professor I was looking for.... 🎉🎉🎉
This is such an awesome explanation and breakdown of concepts. Hatsoff!
Powerful and it breaks down ethics in a relatable form. Thanks.
Brilliant video!
Sir, God bless you! Thank so much for this.
And thanks for your time and effort
This channel will blow up like no man's business. I cannot believe this when I am discovering it
Sir I love your content so education and novel keep it up , your way of explanation very 👍
I so wish others would do the same and make it accessible or atlesast wet the appetite for potential aspirants! super! thanks!
A masterpiece. Bravo!
great lecture! really looking forward to the discussion of empiricists
bro.. appreciate your effort.
Excellent! Thank you.
this was very helpful!
Yay more videos 🥳 also nice intro 😂
Deep and brilliant!
14:08, I think the big difference is not that there are others or the distance, it's that saving the child in the shallow lake ends the danger of that child. Someone who is hungry, if given food, will continue to be in the same situation days later, as the risk of starvation has not been overcome
In the 1972 article, the question is how much of a discreptancy does there have to be between your situation and the ones in 'dire' need to justify charity, and how much charity per unit of discreptancy. And if the people in the 'dire' situation can survive without you, how does that affect the situation, does the need for charity reach a breaking point? If you are obliged to give to those who have less no matter the situation of the person in need then the logical conclusion is communism, where everybody has the same.
With this charity-utalitarianism can it not be said that making as much money as possible means you are able to give more, meaning more charity, this draws the conclusion that your morally obliged (I disagree with the word 'oblige' in ethics but whatever) to make as much money as possible, further does it matter how you make this money, can you really calculate how exactly everybody is affected by your way of making money? And if you are most able to make more money if you don't spend it all on charity continually, but rather reinvest or save then should you do that? The conclusion here is to spend your entire life making as much money as humanly possible and then donate it all to charity upon death.
YOU ARE JEWEL for US SIR ❤️❤️❤️
The argument against Singer can be summed up in 1 word: time
Excited for part 2 going back to school and needed a refresher. Very concise and informative, love the editing style. Quick like and sub
So that's where the pilot episode for Star Trek Original series came from (experience machine). I loved that idea. Thanks for this video!
[1] Do no harm. [2] Try to do some good. [3] Be wary of proposes trading harm for good.
Our legal systems define 'harm'. Aesthetics tend to indicate what might be 'some good' - improvements.
"The good of the many justifies harm to a few." is an example that proposes trading harm for good.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:28 📚 Utilitarianism: Morally required to do whatever produces the greatest total of pleasure minus pain, focusing on the consequences of actions and pleasure/pain as the basis for moral value.
03:16 🧠 Thought Experiment: Robert Nozick's experience machine challenges hedonism and suggests that other factors, such as control, friendship, and actual experiences, matter for human well-being beyond pleasure.
09:23 💔 Critique of Utilitarianism: H.J. McCloskey's sheriff example shows a counter-example where utilitarianism yields morally problematic results, questioning its viability as a comprehensive moral theory.
11:25 🤔 Kant's Deontology: Kant's moral theory is based on the maxim or intention of an action, determining its morality by assessing if everyone involved could potentially agree to it.
14:22 😊 Aristotle's Eudaimonia: Aristotle's ethical theory centers on eudaimonia, achieving fulfillment and happiness by fulfilling the unique function or purpose of a human being, which involves rationality and exercising virtues.
18:47 🕶️ Nietzsche's Challenge: Nietzsche's perspective rejects conventional morality, viewing it as for losers and suggesting a questioning of traditional moral values.
21:38 🤔 Ethics Course Continuation: The video will continue with discussions on objective moral facts, including Plato, John Locke, David Hume, and more.
Made with HARPA AI
Just found this channel, very interesting. How is Jeff writing the text back to front? Is there a mirror involved? Oh I get it! Reversed video, very clever!
That was very interesting, coincidentally I began reading "Anarchy, State and Utopia" where Nozick expose his Experience machine, though I find odd that Nozick assume that many people would say no just because they know that they are not in reality ;either way this was a very interesting video👌🏾👌🏾
Nozick's experiment is really whack to be honest. When you get into his deeper arguments he seems completely irrational and delusional, as if he never even met another person.
@@Reality-Distortion I see what you mean there are some though experiment such as the protective agencies in a state of Nature that are really well though especially from an anthropological point of view but then when it comes to thinking of the future with his experiment machine which a page later becomes transformation machine his arguments can only be understood by him, in my opinion 🙆🏾♂️🙆🏾♂️
@@mutabazimichael8404 His transformation machine could basically allow you to be immune to all diseases and live in perfect health as well as shape but he thinks people wouldn't enter it.
His impact machine or whatever it was he thought of that can have impact on the world is basically omnipotence but he thinks people wouldn't use it.
I don't know if he lived in a basement his entire life or is just so salty and hardheaded that he'd ignore every piece of evidence that his theory makes absolutely no sense.
@@Reality-Distortion I agree with you, for now I'm on part 2 of his book (where he explains why not going further then a minimal state) I shall try to see if in the end his argument all fit in adequately in the grand structure of his theory but still though I got to recognize that the guy had a lot of imagination.
Be aware that he wrote that book when he was s young, later he said he changed his mind on many things on his book.
Ahh! Well played. Your second statement was that you would summarize your semester into “one” video. only to be revealed at the end of the first video that you “couldn’t” do it.
I’m loving the irony of the dilemma this must have caused you….
(i hope you will have your students analyze this contradiction!). and sincerely, great videos, please keep posting.
Okay, okay, okay… *subscribes*
Awesome video tx!
4. The physical proximity of suffering people is irrelevant. If we don't think of them as part of our group, we can easily ignore them, even when they're sitting on the sidewalk in front of us. But if, as it happened after the 2004 tsunami, we're relentlessly reminded of the suffering of others, we can come to recognize them as part of our larger group -- humanity -- and then we help them.
Is it unethical to condense introduction to ethics in un 25 mins? 🤔
the thing is everyone is selfish, all compassion and benevolent actions towards others are because we can't guarantee that we'll be "on top" in every interaction and this behavior helps us foster an environment that creates the expectation of cooperation which ends up serving us
Regarding Singer's theory, I think his reasoning that we should save the other's life when we can is the right thing to do. The flaw in the theory might be that it is often impossible to determine wether your action is the one saving the most lives.
Take for instance the take-out coffee example, you might argue that the coffee-shops makes more efficient and sustainable use of their coffee machines, maybe tend to buy more fair trade and organic types of coffee, have local mushroom growers pick up their coffee grounds, give people a good experience which helps them do better work over the day (their job might be to facilitate the building of water puts or give microfinances for people in poor countries) and be nicer to others who in turn also do better at work and to others again and so on.
Now saving the most lives is definetely the best thing to do, but how do we measure which choice is best? For these small things, like having a take-out coffee, have it at home or don't have it at all, it might be too close to call, I do guess the more expensive the luxury item gets, the more likely it will be that it's better to donate the money.
Those are the things that matter for an action to be morally good or bad
I dont even do the ethics course, I just came here to learn cause its interesting. But damn you are so fun to listen to. Keep up the good work, you seem like a great teacher.
Excellent content
Its cute that Aristotle named his philosophy after his son. I hope there isnt some unwholesome reason why.
I had to stop this. I became overwhelmed. So much so that I do not know why, but I want to cry.
Ok now, back to it.
Hi. Can you include a list of the texts that go along with the class. I’m sure I’m not the only one who wants to read the associated writings.
As I see it, the field of ethics was initially based on figuring out what our morals are and what they should be. It then evolved to just a question of what our morals are.
I love this channel. It is honestly such a blessing in this day and age to have access to such comprehensive and efficient knowledge. It is a shame that in spite of this, my generation is glued to tiktok and other such vapid content. ALSO! I have come to the conclusion every lecture of yours is an intellectual parallel of charlie from "It's always sunny in Philidelphia." All your lectures remind me of his conspiracy wall. If you don't know what I mean, search it up and I'm sure you will agree.
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
Okay thats it! I’ll take my philosophy course!
Kants theory feels like something that only matters in, well, theory.
If people were brutally honest with their intentions then sure, judgement could fall on something other than their actions.
This is not the case though, and even if it were, there would be no way to tell in any case.
I can see there being grey areas based on the situation, but overall, I think actions speak much much louder than intentions, at least to everyone but the person acting.
thank you for hearing out how the lens of another human views human thought enough to be able to question its long term viability without downloading it as absolute truth.
14:18 Shallow pond counterexample: there's always another child in the pond, no matter now many times you save a child from the pond.
So the question is, how much should you care about other people? How much of your time & quality of life should you give to help others?
A simple response to the pleasure machine thing is that we don't mindlessly purse pleasure and avoid pain, we are capable of rational analysis and of feeling guilt and anger according to our different personalities, that simply means that there's pleasure and pain in the way that we purse pleasure and avoid pain, certain things can give us pleasure but in a way that brings us pain severe enough to interfere with that pleasure and so we avoid it.
Many people might not like giving up the "real world" because that idea brings them pain, pain that is severe enough to interfere with their expectation of pleasure and so they don't do it, because the act in the moment would bring them too much pain for too little expectation of pleasure.
Pleasure and pain are still the main forces here.
I should have gone into philosophy 😢 😭😭😭 I love this so much it makes me excited 😮
The problem with Singer’s argument is game theory, in that “charity begins at home.” Unless we ALL globally agree to contribute towards famine relief; when we ourselves face famine or hunger or destitution, if we have spent our resources, we cannot be assured they will come back to us in our time of need. So, we tend to wait until we are older, or when meeting our own needs is assured, to give to greater and less personal causes. Until then, we limit our generosity to those we know and trust to step up to help us if times become difficult. This is the reason generosity to the poor can be miserly-because they have few resources beyond their character, to return the favor if they are called on. (But can also be the most likely to step up if asked).
The argument against the comparison of shallow pond to UNISEF aid would be that there is a significant cost to spending all of your excess money that you worked for all of your life to obtain on a problem that will never end vs just pulling a kid out of the water, job done. Then we could modify the shallow pond question into; if there was location nearby that had an infinite amount of kids drowning in shallow ponds, am I morally obligated to live as modestly as possible, working as little as possible to spend all my time saving these kids? And others aren't dedicating their free time to do this either?
Money can be wanted for itself, as an indicator of value being added to society. Kind of like points in a video game.
You can see who sees it this way (warren Buffett, who spends very little), and people who see money as means to something else (criminals who buy lots of jewelry or material things. They won’t see money as an indicator of value add if they are not adding value).
Good job.
Great video
14:00 Actually, the problem is easy to figure out. We assume infallibility on the part of relief agencies.
The child who's drowning in a shallow pond, it's obvious we could walk in and save him.
But a sufficiently corrupt agency, or one based on a sufficiently flawed premise, could very well (and some would argue often do) make the problem worse.
That assumption of infallibility is our unquestioned assumption.
As the saying goes, "Tax the rat farms".
Does the pleasure minus pain only include the choice maker or everyone affected by the decision? Also, what timeframe is taken into account? If you include everyone and all time, it solves that one guys experience machine gripe.
3:48 if someone made a decision that is good initially doesn't mean the outcome will be good over time. Yes being strapped into the machine would be good for a time, but pleasure is a multifaceted idea. You may have pleasure from having a satisfying relationship with the world around you or a family that cares about you. In the vat thought experiment time isn't factored into the equation to the idea of pleasure, which means that the theory still holds up. Actually this says a lot about the philosophers understanding of long term outcomes and that he might lack an understanding of delayed pleasure and possibly even concepts of moral pleasure.
6. If it's recognized that a person who could contribute to the group but is not doing so, their quality of life and possibly their procreation opportunities are often reduced. If a person undermines the group through bad actions, they're punished or ostracized.
I did not consent to watch part 1 of a 2-part video! You Kant do this to me!!
1. Humans live in groups, and like all social animals we've evolved a system of cooperation that makes group living possible. We call our system morality. Actions that reinforce the group are good, and actions that undermine the group are bad.
7:54
It’s just the trolley problem. To act morally in the sheriff problem is to deescalate in whatever way possible.
Hi Dr. Kaplan,
Can we make video 'requests' or do your video subjects just follow online course content via UNCG? If so, I would love to see your take on Phenomenology ('pure', that is Husserl's) and/or Structuralism (any one, , Foucault?, or just the philosophy generally).
P.S. I've been making my way through your Ethics playlist/course and it's just awesome. Exciting, even.
Also, is there a philosophy arguing for rationality itself? As in, why should we think rationally?
That is, I've been wondering, in Singer's drowning child example, why should we expect that an abstraction of that hypothetical example can be transferred to something like Singer's ultimate argument for giving excess wealth. Is it possible that the human thought is itself an irrational 'thing' and so transferring a specific 'real world' example to a generalized abstract one is not rational either, simply because rationality is arbitrary?
Extremely interesting video, thank you!
I would plug in, there's no doubt about it.
brilliant