Moral Luck: Crash Course Philosophy #39
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 07. 2024
- Can two people who make the same bad decision bear different levels of moral responsibility? Today, we try to address this question with the concept of moral luck. Hank explains the difference between moral and causal responsibility and the reasons we assign praise and blame.
--
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
www.squarespace.com/crashcourse
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
"I didn't attack him, officer. He simply ran into my coconut."
"He ran into my coconut 10 times."
"he coco'd my nut."
Gregory Samuel Teo Phrasing
Multiple times. (He had it comiiiing)
He ran into my bullet
this dilemma reminded me of a high school friend who found himself in a similar situation back when we were still students. he was involved in a car accident where he killed two cyclists. the thing is the external factors were so many that it was almost unavoidable. the accident happened a 5 am when he was coming home from a night out. if he was intoxicated within the legal limit isn't clear, as the police failed to give him a alcohol test on site and that only occurred in the hospital hours later. the location where it happened was also very prone to accidents. just a few days before there had been another accident there and the road had been covered in oil. city hall instead of cleaning it up, decided to cover it up with sand for the time being. so there was sand and oil on the road. it was also a curved tunnel with no light what so ever. and the cyclists seemed to have decided to stop right on top of the curve at five am, in a dark tunnel. so when my friend came around the curve, he only saw the cyclists right when he was on top of them. having hit the breaks, the floor was covered in sand and oil, car lost control and ran over the cyclists. this of course went to court, but he was found not guilty because of all those external factors. i think his license was revoked but he got some serious emotional trauma because of what happened.
You shouldn't throw coconuts, throw chop chom choms, it's safer
Just don't leave your chom chom peels on the ground where people can slip on them.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING
that i just found
the fact that they were inside a ChomChomRepublic store cracked me up
Oh really? watch?v=mzUAiTPnkng
I think that child's parents are a bit to blame, too. Running in the road in the middle of the night? Come on, parents.
Harambe seal of approval
+++ This deserves more +'s.
Damnit. You beat me to this comment.
Patrick Hogan +
+ Because of RL incident - when I was in 7th grade, two children were killed by a man who said he was reaching for a beer in the passenger floor well (his first). He ended up not contesting involuntary manslaughter charges because of personal guilt (he felt horrible), but he was not charged with vehicular homicide because the children were crossing the road in dark clothes on a dark winding road at night. There was alot of talk about charging the parents with negligence, but I don't think that happened. Whenever you saw the driver on TV, he was either sobbing or looking like he hadn't slept in a year.
This is my favourite episode so far. I saw the title and thought, 'oh, moral luck - the two drunk drivers...' but it was well expanded into other ideas. I'm no expert on philosophy, so it was nice to see a concept that I have some understanding of stretched out beyond what I have read before. THX.
Do some stuff on nihilism, but I don't care if you don't.
The World Is Logic wouldnt really matter either way
Nothing really matters anyway. What does one do in a car park. Parking cars.
@@rawhamburgerjoe everyone dies sooner or later, in one way or another.
This is some next level stuff
Why tf am I even commenting?
This is why risk management exists. Multiply all potential consequences by their probability of it happening.
My favorite crash course series! :D
Wow that was a very bad pun
Is a bad pun blameworthy if the punster had no choice?
+Satan
Yes she should, we should also put a Pun-eral for her
Don't you love that over 4,000 people saw this video, and decided that they wanted to use their time to learn about Philosophy?
Quite impressive, isn't it? Maybe there is hope for humanity afterall.
I love the fact that 589,000 people did now. :)
I'm just hear to read the out of context comments
The only reason you blame the lucky one less is because you cannot prove he would have killed a child had he encountered one.
Otherwise, of course they are equally immoral.
Arthur O'Brien I agree, but I think the point is most people don't think this way. Most people will think differently about a person who got away with drunk driving vs another person who killed a child drunk driving.
Andrew Stuhr
I don't think they do but google closed my window.
My point was essentially: It's theoretical philosophy/ethics that makes people being concerned about stuff like this, but it even seldom does.
I have *one* friend who agonizes over free will, because it's not an ethics problem real people have. Morality existed before philosophy and it is meaningful regardless of theoretical problems, as the video concedes.
Good night.
Arthur O'Brien yes but does being able to stop even though he is drunk mean he is more moral than A?
chomchom republic was a nice touch, thoughtbubble.
This video left me with a great sense of tragedy. Being human is hard, and it's just not fair.
Blame only matters as a mean to influence the future(immediate and far).
The cause and effect blame assignment/qualification should be prescribed in such a way that the future creates less bad sentient experiences.
The only Value that lies in the past, is in that we can Learn from it.
I instantly said both of them were equally blame worthy
I see why you'd think that way, but for me it's just a bit harder idk
dσcтσя єиzумє αρσcαlуρѕє Constitutive luck.
There are two problems with saying that both are _equally_ blame worthy:
a) It implies that drunk-driving is just as bad as accidentally killing someone while drunk-driving even if no accidents occurred.
And b) killing someone while drunk-driving isn't any worse than just driving under the influence, which means that the death of the person didn't really matter.
But that would make sense in this context. While it's awful to kill someone, if it was truly out of the person's control, it would be consistent with this lens to assign equal blame.
They are equally worthy of being shunned, but here's the catch; Because A's abilities in drunk driving weren't tested, you can't say that A would have been equally inept in avoiding the child, thus you can't put equal blame on them.
Both are equally blameworthy! If two persons want to murder someone and one succeeds while the other fails, both should be punished equally because they both had the same intention. That's how I always thought.
Yaume Lepire I disagree. if intention was everything, then people wouldn't hate cops so much.
Except that neither of the drivers intended to kill the child, not only that, but if you punish/blame them both equally, you're implying that:
_a)_ drunk-driving is just as bad as accidentally killing someone while drunk-driving even if no accidents occurred.
And _b)_ killing someone while drunk-driving isn't any worse than just driving under the influence, which means that the death of the person didn't really matter.
Steelhunter777 Lastname, But people shouldn't hate cops.
Yaume Lepire They shouldn't, but the media hasn't been helpful lately. The drama has died down a bit though.
Adrian Fahrenheit, First: I was doing an exemple; second: no, both posed the same action, the difference was that B was causally ( not morally ) responsible for the death of a child; the result isn't the same, but the crime is.
Wait, so is "ought Implies can" - With great power, comes great responsibility?
In a way, yes.
You got it spider-man.
loudrockacdc Not really. It's more like the inverse statement: "Without power comes no responsibility".
QED
ought implise can is more like “with responsibility comes power”
@@manaulhoque6507 um no i think you turning cause and effect on its head with that.
being responsibility for something doesn't necessarily mean you have any power over set ting.
tho that can be called unfair to be responsibil for someting you cant control.
But stil, "With power comes responsibility" not “with responsibility comes power”.
Same way as "a hand has fingers" not "a finger has hands"
As Maynard James Keenan said,
"Consequences dictate my course of action
and it doesn't matter what's right.
It's only wrong if you get caught."
The idea of "moral luck" reminds me of the movie "in Bruges"
good point.
Been watching/following crash course for the past two years and crash course philosophy is my favourite topic so far. I love the conversations i have with family and friends afterwards. Thank you. Crash course adds value to the lives of many.
I love this guy. He actually keeps me interested and engaged in the lesson. Thanks, @CrashCourse!
I am so happy you guys keep making these. It's encouraging to see knowledge and curiosity being promoted in a meaningful way.
I'm just here to say 82% on my Philosophy final, thank you Crash Course
The only thing we can really control are our actions. The ability to know whether they are harmful or not, for us or for others is true wisdom. Thank you for the knowledge and wisdom Hank. Not only do you educate us, you provide us with the tools to develop a well formed mind. Much love and gratitude. Happy New year :)
this series of crash course is especially poppin, im shook Hank! Good Job!
Hands down one of my favorite episodes of the philosophy series.
Your way of delivering such complicated thoughts is just awesome! I love it!
Big fan here :) :) :)
DFTBA
Hank Green is the best teacher ever, the way he teaches shows concern, and that makes me feel responsible.
This made me think. It made my head spin in the best way. Love this channel and this course.
I think if a person does wrong they should be judged accordingly, no matter if they cause harm or not.
Then in comes the hard task of deciding what is wrong and what isn't.
so all drunk driving = murder? What if you accidentally run into a car carrying a nuclear bomb and it blows up? Does drunk driving = mass destruction?
Alex Parodi is Who would report a moral crime.
poketopa1234 Drunk driving = taking the concious decision to utilize a machine of immense power, that requires high levels of concentration to operate, in an area that might have bystanders while under the effects of substances that impair judgement and concentration.
Or, in simpler terms, you conciously increase the risk of a machine beast causing great harm.
PS - No military organization that has a single braincell amongst it's management would transport a thermonuclear device assembled and ready to go critical. It just doesn't happen.
"No harm, no foul" man
Sometimes I cannot believe how much awesome this channel doesn't forget to be!
fantastic episode, and wonderfully timed! I'm teaching about moral luck tomorrow!
Watched this right after the social psychology episodes on social thinking and influence. Great cross course linking!
OMG, I just got a vision of Hank in grey hair, still doing these videos...
Hello, blame the child. Duh.
I blame the dog that was chasing the child that forced the child to dart across the road.
Qaedtg H Touche'. Nice one.
Thanks bro ;P
Qaedtg H I like clever. That one was good.
***** There is no him. Him doesn't exist anymore.
Probably the best episode of CC Phi to date.
Loved this! And can follow easily now that you've e slowed down your talking speed :-). Thanks for doing these videos!
Drawing on the determinism episode, no element of a person's life was ever really in their control. Every circumstance a person finds themself in is due to luck. Therefore, assigning responsibility to a person's actions is as meaningless as assigning responsibility to a planet for its orbit.
If you're going to say there's no free will, I'm going to say there's no reason NOT TO assign blame. Ultimately, we assign blame and praise to discourage bad behavior and encourage good behavior. Even if someone has no control over themselves we can influence them into doing the right thing.
I agree that assigning blame and praise are used to control peoples' behavior. However, if we took the stance that people are just the result of the factors that preceded them, then policies could be enacted to ensure that when a child is born that child would be born with the most fortitous circumstances and the fewest unforturate cicumstances.
This is a foundational tenet of Utilitarianism. Focus on what people
need and let "what people deserve" be damned. That being said, We MUST
assume that responsibility is meaningful or else morality can't be
meaningfully discussed. To believe in hard determinism without being
some sort of anti-realist or non-cognitivist requires that you treat
responsibility as a useful fiction - that is, you must assume it to be
true when making decisions about how to act (regardless of its actual
truth value).
Well, drinking and driving CAN be stopped. If you are drunk, you have the ability not to drive and if you are so drunk, you can't think, then you are still to blame because you had the knowledge that alcohol causes such things and the ability to not drink it. Other people told me to do it is no excuse, otherwise I can just kill x if y told me so and get scot-free. WHat you are saying is that there is no free will, and if that's the case, you should NEVER EVER BE ANGRY TOWARDS ANYONE EVER AGAIN, simply because they couldn't control themselves. You probably won't like that now would ya?
The hard determinist views us as victims of ourselves. All of the things that make us uniquely us, like our beliefs and values, our genetic dispositions and environmental experiences, even our own brains and neurology are said to rob us of any control. Question: What is the "us" that remains after you remove all that stuff? Answer: Nothing remains. All that stuff is "us". And if all that stuff is actually in control of what we do, then it logically follows that "us" is actually in control of what we do. Welcome to the resolution of the determinism "versus" free will paradox.
I've never been more excited for a CZcams video then the next upcoming crash course on Justice
with the exception of death battle Hulk vs Doomsday
Priorities: straight
Yesss more philosophy, loving the content!
This lesson is incredibly relevant to my current life-situation.
holy f****** s*** I've never been more excited for CZcams video then the upcoming Justice on Crash Course
Yay new episode!
So well said. I love this series
I love this account. It really makes me think about life.
Freaking love this Channel.
For those who don't like religious discussions in the comment section, I apologize in advance.
This video also provides one of the strongest argument against the concept of original sin that we find in the Abrahamic religions. According to the story of genesis, Adam and Eve were supposedly made perfect yet without knowledge of good and evil. Only after they ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge (Genesis 2:17) did they gain knowledge of what is good and evil. This is further emphasized by Genesis 3:5, where the talking snake (who is not Satan btw) tells Eve that _your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil._ Btw, god was taking a casual stroll around the garden of Eden for some reason (Genesis 3:8).
In other words, Adam and Eve had the moral reasoning of an infant and yet they were expected to make a moral conclusion regarding the fruit of the tree of knowledge. If *ought* implies that you *can*, then you can apply this same reasoning to the concept of original sin. Adam and Eve were incapable of making moral evaluations and thus shouldn't have been expected to do so.
The deck was also stacked against them. God knew all this, and STILL placed the tree and the snake in their vicinity, and didn't even make the tree repulsive in any way. It's almost as if God wanted it to happen...
God didn't tell Adam and Eve to do what's right (because they weren't able to tell what's right and wrong, as you point out) - he just gives a command. They weren't expected to evaluate it morally, the were expect to obey it. Afterwards, God doesn't say it was wrong what they did, he's just saying it's going to have consequences.
I'd like to notice that in Christianity wrongdoing always causes harm, not only to someone else, but to one's soul and one's connection to God as well. And vice versa, doing things that harm the soul or its connection to God is always wrong. In A&E case, they can be seen as this cocunut that was unknowingly used to cause harm, and the only one morally responsible would be the Serpent - still, the harm was done, their connection to God was damaged, and their life was affected.
Did God know that they would eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge, or did he not know that?
How does God's knowledge is relevant to what humans ought to do?
I am willing to discuss it, but first please show it's relevant to the case at hand.
If God knew that Adam and Eve were going to disobey the command, and he placed them in that situation anyways, doesn't that mean that that future had already been determined, and Adam and Eve had no choice in the matter?
this is the exact thought that will lead to a dystopian society, where every action that have a potential to cause harm is punished as if they have already caused harm
It was the parent's fault what was a child doing in the middle of the street at night?
Walter K ... touché
replace child with old lady using a walker at night
Perhaps we can blame the grandparents for teaching the child's parents that it is fine for kids to wander around at night. Or the rapists for chasing the kid in the night and eventually on to the road
Canadian Apistevist It was the old ladies caretakers' fault then.
People have been known to get drunk during the day. What then?
Anyway, what has the time of day to do with it? Laws against drunk driving apply 24 hours a day, not "except between midnight and 4 a.m. And hitting lone kids is always free!" Officially, anyway.
Then both are blamed because both did wrong of DUI but A got lucky for not harming
Thanks Hank, what an awesome video.
Why is it this episode that stumped me more than any other
Excellent video, Hank and the Crash Course crew! ...Had Hank more time in this vid, it would have been interesting to hear him consider what happens to the social worth of praise or blame with the second option (beginning @ 7:38). If their function is merely to serve as a deterrent or reward, rather than serve as part of a moral judgment itself, getting praised or blamed for something starts to look like more like sheep herding than genuine responsibility. If praise or blame are more about promoting social harmony rather than receiving one's just desserts for specific actions, doesn't this diminish the meaning of these concepts for either proponents or recipients of them? (Imagine discovering that the praise or blame you received for your actions is really more about proper herd functioning than forming your character. How does that make you feel about the praise and blame you receive henceforth? I suspect it damages one's motivation either way.)
Whoever captioned the video, please, take the time to have a maximum of two lines at once on the screen x)
My love of crash course grows more every day!
This was a particularly good one - challenging without confrontation on a common subject people often encounter.
Do pragmatism next?
Brain.exe has stopped working
JK I love it as always, but I need to re-watch it twice ,so many information in so little time 😅
Both are guilty.... but what asstown parent lets their kid out at 11:13 pm?!?!?!?!?!
I'm writing a literary essay on Les Miserables and the role of conscience in the actions of Valjean throughout the novel. This video helps me a lot in considering other factors to determine if Valjean should be held morally responsible in stealing a loaf of bread
Amazing ! Before this I had hardly given a thought to the differnce bw harm & wrongdoing
Reputational harm doesn't require your knowledge of it happening.
yes but since these people don't know you or anyone you might know, it won't harm your reputation either.
There's the likely chance it would. Especially today, if they took a photo. It's only their moral luck that it didn't.
kdhlkjhdlk
Can't argue that....
public health strives to save lives all the time, and regularly fails.
I'm sure the majority of us praise them for the intention to good, irrelevant of their failures
Should we though? I'm sure hardly anyone has a problem with the individuals in the situation, but assume that public health is a very inefficient government bureaucracy. Should we keep sending money their way because they try to do good, or should we cut waste and tighten control to make sure that their job actually gets something done?
Utilitarians might go with the latter, whilst others would go with the former.
bureaucracy is a government overreaction to the people's demand to see the effects of policy. If both sides were willing to lower the demand for immediate evaluations then government would make less bureaucracy. They're well aware it limits effectiveness, but they need to show results to petty naysayers.
That said, yes of course praise public health. You can complain about government in/action to the government, rather than nurses and doctors working 80 hour weeks to do the best they can to prevent the deaths and improve the lives of patients who will only complain about the forms healthcare workers don't want to have to give them.
I've realized the problem with all these positions. They assume that you can have these nice and neat situations, where you can compare two options and know that there is only one factor between them. But this *never* happens in real life, so coming up with a moral framework that fits into the messy and full of limited information real world won't look like the kind of thing you derive from these kind of thought experiments.
Good Points. In regard to endangering others lives. Both knew the possibilities and I see time and chance as a form of cosmic mercy and justice at work or careful watching at play. I don't think it's practical to make examples here but your point is well taken and true.
I think that the consequences for A and B should be the same. the child, really shouldn't change anything. Pick a standard, if you ask me
I agree.
B simply is not murder
It is impossible to pick a standard. Different people have different moral sentiments.
Not murder, manslaughter.
But that's the problem with moral luck.
In real life you wouldn't know who A was to punish them equally.
I feel like this is such a harsh attack on utilitarianism. Kant's formulation stands up to this challenge much better.
What? No. Not at all. This is right out of utilitarian text books in risk management.
Kant would say stuff like: "if you lie to the murderer and you like causes the improbable event of facilitating the crime you're responsible.
Consequentialism says: When you make a decision, measure the expected / possible outcomes of different courses of action, and adjust for risk of success / failure, then pick the one that creates the most utility.
Nonsense. You just said Kant would blame someone for causing something. Kant would NEVER blame someone for causing something. Actions, my friend, not results. Drunk driving is either a hypothetical imperative, or it is a question of moral duty. Given that it is a question of moral duty, the imperative would instantly invalidate drunk driving, first, because it is untenable to universalize the action of drunk driving, and second, because it is using all the other possible drivers on the road as a mere means, ignoring their want to be safe.
Apart from other various flaws in utilitarianism (the utility monster, the difficulty in quantifying utility, if you kill someone do they even lose utility if they are already dead? etc.), let's go back to a modified version of the drunk driving case.
Both drunk drivers have identical goals. They want to get home quickly, because they want to see their wives for you-know-what. There is only one person that goes out on the road at night that they could run over due to increased reaction time. The probability of hitting this person is given as .0000000000001, given that they are drunk. The net change in utility from sobering out is a loss for the driver AND his wife, and for driving drunk, it's a near certain gain of a lot of utility for both the driver and his wife, and only a small chance for one person to lose out on a lot of utility.
If we're talking probability, you would be not only recommended to, but morally obliged to drive drunk under utilitarianism.
Graybat12 that is why I like watching people discus utilitarianism. It is so intuitive and yet at the same time, results in so many ridiculous conclusions.
Though we can say that the death of someone causes so much utility lost it can still outweights the utility of going home earlier even when multiplied with .0000000000001
Graybat12
This is a classic issue in computation: Garbage in, Garbage out.
If you ascribe ridiculous utility values to things, then it is not surprising that reasonable utilitarian calculus produces unsettling results.
This is the same issue underlying the utility monster criticism.
In the abstract people view the utility monster scenario as a scathing indictment of utilitarianism. In concrete examples they are very accepting of the possibility that the utility of one billion bacteria could be offset by the utility of a single human.
I LOVE CRASH COURSE PHILOSOPHY!!! NEVER END THE VIDEOS EVERRRR!!!!! :-)
Thanks! Great video indeed
Drinking alcohol impairs judgement, so were you really in "control" when you decided to drive? I think substance abuse, that introduces us to situations we would not agree to be in if we were sober, are definitely one of the dodgier areas in determining agency.
Stevil Cee yet you are responsible for consuming said substance which impaired your judgment, therefore you are still responsible for your actions even after your judgment is impaired. If you unknowingly consumed alcohol or were forced to, then your actions could be considered beyond your control (depending on the circumstance), but otherwise, people should be held accountable for their behavior while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
@@spencergsmith Do you think they could be at least partially excused from blame if, say, they were raised by a drug-abusing family in a drug-abusing community, which contributed to them becoming a drug addict?
@@alfiewright1396 no. I understand what you're arguing, and our environment certainly plays a role in our development, but ultimately the choice is the individual's responsibility. Exactly how much environmental influence must exist for a person to not be responsible for their decisions? Who gets to decide where to draw that line? For that matter, can ANYONE be responsible for ANY of their behavior - good or bad - since we are all products of our environment? Every successful person owes their success to their environment, so no one should earn any praise or reward either. When you take away the concept of responsibility, society devolves into chaos. Extreme ownership is the first step to success, both on an individual and societal level.
@@spencergsmith interesting! I am currently writing an undergraduate dissertation on the very topic. In it I argue for the very position you call absurd. I agree that either we all are morally responsible, or none of us are. My argument is that none of us are truly responsible. But I also argue that this doesnt mean we need to abandon any notion of moral responsibility in society: these practices are useful for consequentialist reasons in that they help society function better even if they may not be entirely rational. Look up Derk Pereboom and Neil Levy for views like these. It's an interesting debate and I think your position you have argued for there is also pretty valid
@@alfiewright1396 fair enough. I would argue that we are all morally responsible. If we don't behave this way then society devolves into chaos, but beyond that, I am a Christian and believe there is an external objective standard of morality put in place by our creator, and we are all responsible for our actions, even if they may have been influenced by our environment.
anyone else catch the chomchom republic?
No I didn't, thanks for making me go back and catch that! :-)
Was scrolling looking for someone else who caught it. Thank you. I am not crazy :)
Yes, but it took me a whole year after you did!
spinningninja2 what’s the time stamp?
I've been pretty anti-blame for quite awhile. Also, I do use praise and try to be specific on praising behavior rather than consequence. This is all for the very things mentioned in this video. It's been interesting arguing my perspective as rational when it comes to personal experiences involving others in a group. Though, my fellow behaviorist therapists totally get it. Our perspective leans easily to this view as well.
You're awesome Hank
When the "flash" from Flash Philosophy happens, Hank gets a Bunny Ears treatment. 3:41
Also, Pizza John 4:35
I don't understand how anyone could that A should not be blamed for drunk driving.
I think that you are misunderstanding. Under nearly any conception A is still blameworthy for the act of drunk-driving. The question is whether or not A is as blameworthy as a person who kills a child while drunk-driving. The puzzle here is that our normal moral instinct is to believe that a person who kills somebody while drinking and driving is morally WORSE than somebody who gets home safely, but, the person who gets home safely got home safely by moral luck.
Here is perhaps a more clear case. Two people each attempt to murder somebody by entering that person's home and shooting at him. The gun person A just bought has sights that are slightly off and only grazes the person's shoulder. Person B aim is true and kills his victim. Our instinct is typically to think that person B is worse than person A. Certainly our judicial system punishes person B more harshly. Yet it seems as if person A was just lucky--he bought a gun with bad sights. He MEANT to kill his victim. His intent was just as foul. He just missed.
I hope that this helps explain the puzzle, if not the solution.
If we had to put everyone who drunks drive in jail for 4 years (same as the drunk driver who killed someone), then we'd have major societal problems. Moreover, it wouldn't really do anything. It wouldn't teach a better lesson than just jailing those that end up causing an accident. So, while both people are blame worthy, the question is: should the one that killed a child get away with a slap on the hand just like driver who was just drunk driving?
GregTom2 I suppose the logistics that you mention are a good point. But what if you knew that in this hypothetical society drunk driving carries a 4 year sentence, wouldn't you be less likely to do it?
this is a great series :)
The way I tend to judge both the photograph situation and the drunk driving situation is by taking into account potential harm as well as actual harm. In both cases, the blameworthy person have intentionally engineered a situation in which harm is likely to occur. I think this allows for some moral liability based on the actual likelihood of an actual harm being done. This kind of moral potential works just as well for praiseworthy actions as it does for blameworthy ones.
The arguments or lecture presented has the underlying assumption of free will of choices, lest there wouldn't be a difference between causal and moral responsibility
Or just lucky and general
I think we are all capable of doing something that is morally. The key is whether or not that right variables will line up allowing us to do something unjust. That's why empathy should always take the lead on moral issues.
This is such an amazing series I already count on continuation.
ChomchomRepublic!
I never thought that B was more blameworthy than A...
Am I a phsycopath?
0_o
No, you're logical.
Charlie Palmer
That's what I hoped xD
Your intros keep getting more spot on
The point of holding responsible is to correct the causes of harm. Ideally, we would seek out all the relevant contributing causes, and correct them all, to minimize the risk of future harm. The drunk driver is only one cause. Not only is the "unlucky" driver punished, but we also set up random police checkpoints to find drunk drivers who have not had the bad luck of an accident yet. Another point of responsibility is the child who ran into the street and even the parents who allowed the child to get into that danger. Even if the driver was sober he could have hit the child. The punishment of the injury is probably sufficient, but if the community takes responsibility it will also educate parents and children about the dangers, and provide traffic signs warning of children at play etc.
4:35 does this mean pizzajohn stuff is available in malls?
Memington At Chomchom Republic, at least.
***** well played
A should be in trouble for leaving his life and the life of others up to chance, but B killed someone, and should get a harsher penalty.
I strongly disagree.
1) Both agents made the same choice. A = A. If both choices are the same, then the moral responsibility of either choice cannot be different.
2) Penalty is a foolish concept, more so when the penalty does not correlate with the moral responsibility of the offense.
Penalty also acts as a deterrent. If there were no additional penalty for killing someone while driving drunk, there wouldn't be as much legal incentive for a drunk driver to avoid hitting people.
Penalty acts as a deterrent to unwanted decisions. We should penalize the decision that they decided to drive drunk. You can not deter hitting a child while driving drunk because once the act of drunk driving starts, hitting the child is no longer a decision of the driver. You can not deter being unlucky.
Hitting another person while drunk isn't always unlucky. The scenario of hitting a child might not be some split second decision but due to a drunk driver swerving onto the sidewalk, driving too fast or going the wrong way or something. I think punishment for drunk driving is right but there should also be additional punishments for additional harms.
ok, let's simplify it. Lets ASSUME that we can objectively prove that they were driving the exact same way. Would you agree that they should be considered equally guilty?
Very informative!
Wow, this episode was especially good.
“HAHA! That guy got hit in the head with two coconuts!”
Is wrongdoing necessarily connected to a perpetrator? For example, could it be that the coconut falling on your head is morally bad, even if nobody caused it. Similarly, perhaps a man who's circumstances influence him towards participating in the holocaust is not himself bad, only his actions. Food for thought.
Also, if someone can be blamed for the possible consequences of their actions (such as drunk driving), how improbable does a consequence need to be for the person to still be blamed for it? After all, there is a tiny % chance that a driver kills not one but ten children because he was drunk that night. Should all drunk drivers be blamed for the potential deaths of ten children?
It is not the deaths of the children all drunk drivers would be blamed for.
They would be (actually are) blamed for putting it on the table as a potential risk of their driving.
A coconut, based on our understanding, isn't sentient. Therefore, making choices is impossible, and it's not a moral agent.
Whether someone is bad or just their actions, well, once a choice has been made and action has been taken, we can only look at the result. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, they say. No matter how noble your intent, if the actions result in suffering, you are responsible. But the concentration camp guard is a bit different than the drunk driver, because the guard has more control over his response, but that's where it gets pretty murky. He could refuse to carry out an order to harm someone. Even if that meant he'd be shot for insubordination, he could make that choice. But what if that person was so overtaken by fear that it was impossible for him to take that choice? Would he be more or less responsible if the punishment was something we'd see as less severe? What if he loves singing, but he'd lose his tongue? For him, losing his tongue would be a much harsher punishment for someone who was born mute, for example.
In the end, we'll probably end up saying that he should've taken the bullet (or other punishment) because we value a society where people don't do harm others, even under duress. At least that's what I'd like to think, because I'd feel that fear is the fuel of tyranny. A society governed by fear will stand silent while others commit atrocities.
Well, that was a digression and a half. I guess the point stands that "moral responsibility" is just shorthand for desirable and undesirable choices and action.
I have a friend who chooses to drive drunk. She goes out on non-residential country roads and drinks a few beers, sobers up, then comes home. I have friends who do the same with pot.
I assign them far less moral blame than someone who does these things in a more dangerous setting: places with more cars and more people. Not to be a utilitarian, but I think the _exact_ amount of risk you take does make a difference. If one of a hundred people doing what you do kill someone, that's a big deal. If one of ten thousand people doing what you do kill someone, it's less of a big deal?
But this might have some weird consequences. Because the one in ten thousand, "safe" drunk driver who _does_ kill someone also should get equally less blame as the drivers who didn't. Hey, they tried, right? Even if society rightly punishes them like they killed a whole person, we as moral agents should know that they _really_ only killed a much smaller portion of a person than even your average drunk driver.
And the person whose brakelines were cut, even more bizarrely, should pick up a little bit of blame and so should_every person who doesn't check their brakelines before every car ride just to be sure_. They're taking people's lives in their hands. Even if less than one in a billion people accidentally kill someone because their brakelines were unknowingly cut, you still bear that one in a billion culpability every time you drive for not taking the precaution.
that's how you end up blaming god or the universe or existence. if we don't blame, we also negate our agency.
circumstances can lead anyone to anything bad, but they could also lead them to something good. even if you chose a bad outcome and then cite your bad circumstances, it doesn't mean you didn't choose the bad outcome.
on the blamer's end, you can always blame anyone for the maximum consequence. the fact that you're alive in this society means you can be blamed for anything that society does. you can also not blame anyone. blame is an afterthought and a guilt trip which does nothing to right the initial error; it's just a response to help the hurt cope. there is no right or wrong amount to blame, only the blamer's agency and choice.
that bit about making heroes of people reminded me of the BBC Sherlock quote, "Don't make people into heroes, John. Heroes don't exist, and if they did, I wouldn't be one of them." I guess this means Sherlock subscribes to the idea of neither blaming or praising people for their moral decisions.
"Chom Chom Republic" omg yes
"Next time we are going to talk about Justice!" THERE IS NO JUSTICE, ONLY ME.
(Please work that into the next video somehow ^)
Obrigada pela traduçao em português (br). Amo vocês
They both deserve blame, but different levels. That's why the law dictates one punishment for drunk driving, a discouragement-based punishment for the harm they could have caused, and another punishment for killing the child as a harm you have caused. What the second part gets messier is should it be murder or manslaughter; a normal accident would imply manslaughter, but if you drive impaired the argument can be made that you knew beforehand it was wrong, so murder charges apply.
The reason there is a separate charge for killing the child is not based on moral grounds. The state sees loss of life as loss of potential human resource, hence you would be charged. The question of whether it is manslaughter or murder must be brought into by a understanding of murder and manslaughter. Both refer to the harm of a person leading to loss of human life, however, using the crash course terms murder is the harm of a person leading to loss of human life as a result of wrongdoing by the perpetrator of the action. Therefore as the wrongdoing of drunk driving makes it murder.
Personally I view both as equally wrong from a moral standpoint however I hold the separate view that compounds on a negative view on B due to the loss of a potential human resource.
if no one is harmed, how can an action be objectively wrong, given that the definition for right or wrong is wether or not someone was harmed.
The problematic bit is that you assume what is right and wrong is define by someone who got harmed. We can't just keep punishing people after the facts. If we see someone about to do something really stupid, like driving drunk, we should convince them not to. If we spot them driving drunk, we should pull them over and fine them. (By "we" I mean society and in this specific case, the police) The behavior should be discouraged at every opportunity because it's a stupid and reckless act that should always be avoided.
Pro tip, don't drink yourself drunk you dummies. That's causing harm to your brain cells and your liver, accident or not.
The point being made is that harm is not a necessary or sufficient condition for wrongdoing, it is not the definition. You can be harmed where nobody is morally responsible (if a coconut drops on your head from a tree) and people can be morally responsible for actions that cause no harm (spying on you.) The definition of wrongdoing that relies on harm seems to be the wrong definition.
The issue may come down to who we mean by "someone". In the hypothetical, the person who was photographed may not feel harmed since they were unaware and so the claim is made that no harm was done. However, what if the someone who is "harmed" by this scenario is society at large? We are all harmed when a societal norm like "not invading people's privacy" is broken. We are all made less safe and less secure. Now, whether something being a "societal norm" is grounds for declaring an act "objectively" wrong is a different discussion for a different video, but my point here is that "harm" need not be synonymous with "personal injury".
you've just made that definition up. :D
Josh Cottle I'm sorry the only objective measure for right and wrong actions is to ask whether someone was objectively harmed. Anything else is simply NOT objective and therefore NOT measurable.
You blame the kid for being stupid enough to run in the middle of a road with traffic on it.
Taken to the extreme, you can conclude that no one is responsible for anything they do, or everyone is responsible for everything they do. There is no moral gray area in a purely logical sense. Because if everything you are is shaped by things out fo your control, free will is non-existent. However, we are not purely logical creatures. We feel as if we are in control, so it stands to reason that we act like we are as well.
Just something to add onto the video.
Great food for thought...
I love how your subjects invoke thoughts and discussions in our minds which are ignored in this shallow life.
Observing 99.99% of the humans, I feel they are still basically primitive animals looking for food, reproduction, shelter and power status. Only philosophers are actually aware of the their existence and looking for a meaning in this life.
I don't think any philosophy reaches the real truth and give the absolute right answer. But the search itself is what makes humans special.
Thank you for this beautiful series 💕
*YAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS*
C'mon, "Chomchom Republic"!