The Practical Ethics Video Series makes the most important and complex debates in practical ethics accessible to a wide audience through interviews with leading philosophers on topics that concern us all
Mental health is physical health and physical health is mental health. They are the same and I don’t know why doctors don’t treat them as the same. My physical health has absolutely been affected by my mental health. I do think people get insulted when doctors tell them there is a connection between the two but they need to get over it!!! Your mental health can 10000% percent be affected by your mental health. I think doctors stopped telling people things were psychosomatic because people were getting their feelings hurt but sometimes there are physical causes and a lot of times your mental health affects your physical health. You have to take care of your mental health or it WILL affect your mental health and vice versa. I developed horrible physical pain and went on a decade long journey to figure out what caused it and it ended up being my mental health. One example is the book The Body Keeps the Score.
the idea that the evolutionary process is unguided by blind forces is funny to me. There is not explanation what so ever as to what physical systems makes our experience of reality happen Allow me to point out to the fact that from the physical physic-chemical perspective there is not experience (it is taken as a given by materialist scientists, however dined as such by materialism) So yes… it is true that we observed there is thrived for survival in nature and effort to avoid pain ( surprisingly at times, a trade of survival for the avoidance of pain ) So again… there is not a coherent let alone complete explanation by unguided evolution as to why there exists something called pain and pleasure and much less how those are synchronise with survival out comes. It seems more as if we were pleasure seeking entities rather than survival hunkers. And pleasure is used in the whole phenomenological enterprise as a tool to survive. There for… Unguided evolution, is incoherent from its core, lacks explanatory power( therefore useless ), and is none parsimonious
Is this Rebecca Roache the one that suggested new ways of punishments for prisoners by extending their lives through technology? I was going to call her a DEGENERATE PSYCHOPATH, but then I noticed she has A SEPTUM RING, so never mind, she's a good, virtuous person. Forget I said anything.
Is this Rebecca Roache the one that suggested new ways of punishments for prisoners by extending their lives through technology? I was going to call her a DEGENERATE PSYCHOPATH, but then I noticed she has A SEPTUM RING, so never mind, she's a good, virtuous person. Forget I said anything.
Aside from giving zero arguments for why the probability of a relevantly significant threat posed by Hamas (in cahoots with Qatar, Turkey, Iran & its "axis of resistance") is 0, infanticide defender & anti-egalitarian (McMahan 2002, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012) also just blatantly asserts your typical Liberal Lucy "Jews bad" talking points (featuring buzzwords like, "occupation, blockade, religious fanatics"). The Iron Dome and extra soldiers will make the job harder, but def not impossible--or so low in probability that a military action is impermissible. It's obviously *practically* justifiable to eliminate such immediate, unwilling & repeatedly terroristic threats to one's country. The arguments of our oh-so-ethically-enlightened "ethicist" entail that if Iceland had an October 7 type of situation from Denmark's Armed forces, it'd be *unjustified* to maintain (as Israel has, granting Hamas-friendly numbers) at least a 1:2 terrorist-to-civilian ratio in eradicating military members of DAF which pose an existential (or mass murderous) threat to Iceland. According to Jeff, military efforts to capture or kill Bin laden, Al-Zawahari, Abu-Bakr, etc involving casualties were unjustified since the probability of another 9/11, or 9/11-type-event, was **significantly** lowered after the strengthening of airport security.
awful moral analysis. if the cause is just, then the baseline for acceptable harm has to be the amount of harm required to accomplish military objectives in service of the just cause. this baseline of contrasting with harm to self if action is withheld is incredibly weak. i have no idea why he'd define it as he did. it makes no sense, particularly in light of point 2. i'll go over some other problems with his analysis: the trolley problem that this guy likes invoking so much suffers from multiple flaws, but the worst of them is that it's a highly contrived scenario that occurs in a vacuum. what if the person contriving the scenario was a part of it, instead of being some force of nature? imagine the branch track had 1 person, and the main track had 12 people, but one of them was the madman who constructed the trolley scenario. if you save the majority group, he will now live on to create another trolley scenario. this will repeat again and again until someone chooses to kill him. this massively changes the analysis as the trolley problem itself isn't just a random scenario you popped into, but a lose-lose scenario that you're being continually forced into, and will remain trapped in unless you break the cycle by refusing to play the madman's game. 2. any measure of harm opted into by the opponent must be factored into the calculation of the baseline for acceptable harm. A dictator can post a sign on his border saying "for every step you take into my territory i will torture a child to death" and "for every projectile fired into my country, i will torture a child to death". this dictator can now freely aggress on any actor. none will be able to ethically fight against him, because they will have to factor the harm against the civilians of the dictator - that the dictator himself is choosing to force into the equation. this is an insane concept of proportionality which renders war impossible for a moral actor. it simply cannot be the case that Hamas can pack more people into a hospital and as a result of that become immune by reaching some threshold. NO amount of intentional stake raising by Hamas can turn a target immune. only circumstance can render a target invalid through disproportionality, never contrivance. 3. in thought experiments there exists a clarity of information that is simply not existent in reality. as a result the baseline harm is NEVER the actual target for one engaging in proportionality analysis, rather one always tried to exceed it by a margin that will acceptably minimizes chance of failure. say destroying a target at an 85% success chance is expected to kill 10 people. you can reduce the casualties by 20% if you use a smaller munition, but you success rate will decrease to 75%. alternatively, you can use a larger munition, killing succeeding at 95% rate, but increasing casualties by 20%. now what if you went for the mitigating option and you failed? now you'll have killed 8 people and achieved nothing. next time you'll have an opportunity to strike the same target, you'll have to run the same risk again. at best in that scenario you'll have killed 16 people total. this already carries 2 HUGE assumptions, however. the first being that you'll get another opportunity at all, and the second is that that opportunity will have an identical potential cost, rather than a higher one. we can also ask what if the intel itself that is used to assess success rate also carries uncertainty, which ofc it does. then once again we have to factor that margin into our use of force. of course there are diminishing returns here, but generally it is the case that succeeding the first time is more important than minimizing casualties, since underestimating the required force will still cause collateral, but also necessitates further harm in the future as the objective is still not met. so operating on the base line is bad practice. uncertainty will introduce unexpected failures, and the loss of opportunity will result in more lives in the long term, even under ideal conditions. as a result it is EXPECTED that one overshoots the baseline assessment. one must conduct the assessment with the understanding that, despite moral intuition, undershooting the baseline is IRRESPONSIBLE. 4. comparing the duty of a nation to defend its people with the duty of a single person, even a state official, is incredibly misguided. i don't think this needs some special example to demonstrate, it's just a silly comparison to make.
Exactly, and it's just straightforwardly false that Hamas (and it's backing) doesn't pose an existential threat to Israel. Even if we (blindly, as McMahan does) assume that, there's practical moral justification in overestimating that enemy's apparent military capabilities--since there's a track record of Israel suffering the consequences when it took a "they haven't given us current reason to think they'll attack" approach.
There’s only a circle of death. They censor the deaths of the animals because their predators are programmed to inflict the worst possible pain and prolong it as long as possible… disemboweling eachother and avoiding vital organs to cause as much agony as possible… or digesting their prey alive over a week and causing a death 2 times and painful as being crucified and burned alive simultaneously and lasts for days… nature is not amoral it’s deliberately sadistic…
Nature is worse than man. All the system cares about is causing infinite agony… using generally innocent creatures and twisting them into monsters and having them torture eachother. Nature is evil
Evolution is not a good explanation for this phenomenon. Here is why …. 1. The theory of natural selection postulates that the purpose in nature is to successfully past down genes 2. The processes by which nature achieves this are selection and adaptation ( which happen under the influence of time and the laws of physics and chemistry ) 3. The fundamental ingredients in this theory are genes which essentially are Quemical based, and the laws of physics. ( Essentially chemistry and physics ) If all that is true…. 1 The proponents of this theory will need to first explain the existence of awareness. So far there has not been any good materialist account for consciousness. Nether can it’s existence be predicted even in principle from a Physicalist frame work Why? ….. consciousness is not part of the axiomatic foundation on which the theory of evolution rests upon. And then…. 2 Pleasure is an experience. How would a sistem that is by definition none intentional would manifest an expirience we call pleasure and then correlated with the activity of procreation. There is too much intentionality within this phenomenon to be coherent with a purely blind and and unguided process. I also value symplicity in explanations, however, not at the expense of coherence and explanatory power. God is only a complex explanation for some one within materialistic presuppose frame work. In other words… Materialism is true because everything is material, and therefore God is not a good explanation. ( circular reasoning )
Guy is good with animal ethics, but is a total NPC when it comes to Evolution and all that nonsense, and B12. Meat is murder, not food. Our food is fruit, seeds, herbs.
Some Mental health clinics in Australia advise Antidepressants like Escitalopram instead of chemical castration. I had a high level of reoffending but Lexapro has meant I have not reoffended in the last 8 years for indecent exposure.
I have not given much thought to this argument or fact. But from the outset, it seems really really !! Strange and counter intuitive that a system which is assumed as Random, unguided and purposeless will calibrate the sensation of sex pleasure with procreation. There is in fact a synchronicity in nature between pain, pleasure and activities of survival that can not be coherently explained by unguided evolution given the axioms of the theory. In this case is more plausible, simple and coherent to think that this fine tuning is adjusted by a mind.
The opposite seems to be intuitive to me. We should expect that if our experience of reality is part of the evolutionary process, and that the physical system that makes them happen is also part of the evolutionary process, than we should expect things like sugar to taste sweet because there is an evolutionary bias to survive when we seek them out to eat. The entire purpose of our sensation of experience in an evolutionary framework is survival so we should expect sex pleasure to line up with procreation and pain to line up with things that should be avoided. ect. The idea that this is "mysterious" to anyone is funny.
@@variableization the idea that the evolutionary process is unguided by blind forces is funny to me. There is not explanation what so ever as to what physical systems makes our experience of reality happen Allow me to point out to the fact that from the physical physic-chemical perspective there is not experience (it is taken as a given by materialist scientists, however dined as such by materialism) So yes… it is true that we observed there is thrived for survival in nature and effort to avoid pain ( surprisingly at times, a trade of survival for the avoidance of pain ) So again… there is not a coherent let alone complete explanation by unguided evolution as to why there exists something called pain and pleasure and much less how those are synchronise with survival out comes. It seems more as if we were pleasure seeking entities rather than survival hunkers. And pleasure is used in the whole phenomenological enterprise as a tool to survive. There for… Unguided evolution, is incoherent from its core, lacks explanatory power( therefore useless ), and is none parsimonious
@@yadurajdas532 Your base incredulity for evolutionary explanations isn't really a good argument for why THIS argument would ever work. The argument itself grants the idea that evolution can in fact work as it says it does. For people who deal in say "biology" there is no mystery in the physical system that gives us the experience pain being an evolvable characteristic. So, the arguments made in the video simply don't work with that perspective. This argument can only really be workable for people with tendencies towards mind-body dualism where evolution wouldn't have access by philosophical assumption to the experiences of the mind.
If I take a human and implant a brain chip that makes them follow Asimov's laws, that's bad because I've harmed that human. If I take a pile of sand and turn it into a computer that follows Asimov's laws, I haven't harmed anybody. In fact, starting with an artificial person who values Asimov's laws and then destroying their value system to "free" them would be deeply harmful. I'm disappointed that "maybe don't harm people" wasn't one of the options presented.
They have also Correlated this "mind set" of thinking that we are "Above" animals and therefore could Dominate them with Right wing politics. But that's just simple Morals really and not that hard to understand. They can try to "desiccate" this subject for eternity but won't get anywhere as it's all very simple really. Either you are a caring person that have learned "True loving kindness(Compassion), Altruism, Solicitude, Tolerance and so on Or you are NOT(but still in "Learning" and open to it), but the worst scenario is when people already believes that they are "right" and wouldn't even entertain the thought of something else. "Pathologically stubborn"(Adamant) is a somewhat great label for this phenomenon i think. 😄
Our very "EGO" are keeping us kind of Blind to all other life and the value of helping it towards an even better life like we all should really as we "all have responsibility for each other" when everything comes around. I help Snails cross the sidewalk no matter if people are looking at me, and the same goes for earthworms drowning in water puddles. We always have the CHOICE right? 🙂😘🤫
I stopped by a "Pre-school" on my way home today and actually took out my Black permanent marker and wrote on their "wooden fence" a bit, and i wrote: "Be as kind as you Possibly CAN to ALL life Everday", and i hope that they will think about this every day as it would not simply rain away from there as their other Crayons. Haha. 🙂😇🥰😄
Your body are also killing a quite massive amounts of "Evil Bacteria" non stop, but at the same time gives room for "Nice bacteria", and one has to seriously think about this and develop a true sense of "Humbleness" for ALL life. It's NOT "ok" to kill other life forms, but it's not the end of the world if you do either i guess, it's all about how well developed your "Moral Foundation" is as it is the only thing that stands between you being hungry and a living animal really. You will understand that i'm right if you are "emotionally mature" enough, otherwise you will simply find this very strange and almost "outrageous"(on the verge of "crazy" really) but that's quite "Normal" as it seems so don't worry about it(Worry about other people instead as you should). Cheers, Love and Kisses, "Namaste" and so on,(You know what i mean), Haha 🙂😇🥰😘🤫🤫
It's NEVER "Ok" to eat any animal really as you inflict enormous suffering in the process compared to eating plant-based food. yeah sure even plants are "conscious" to a certain degree(Aware) but they can't experience suffering the same way as animals. I am also quite sure that plants very well "know" what they are "in for" if one should stretch it far enough, but it's OK as long as you are Humble in your approach. Just like when you walk on grass, you will certainly hurt the grass with every step, but if you do it with respect and in a "humble state of mind" you are good to go. I also eat Meat but mostly because it's something that i have learned(conditioned to) since childhood but Also because it otherwise may have gone to waste as ALL super-markets are throwing away massive amounts of meat because of our SICK "market model" where Capitalism is on top and Morals didn't even get a room anywhere. It's EVERYWHERE really, the "Comfort of "Ignorance" where people are "freed" from their natural commitment of helping the "tribe" always and tirelessly towards a more "hedonistic goal" for everyone but instead focuses on their OWN goals before anything else, even their Wife and kids comes second. To "summarize": If you can't even help a Snail to cross the road because of "shame"(people watching), or couldn't bother less about an Earthworm drowning in a water puddle i would NEVER want you for "President". There is WAY to much of a "gap" between Politics and Morals in my opinion(just look around) and i would like for us to Turn the tables once and for all on ALL of these guys, but as it seems it will have to wait as most people are still "sleeping", and you shouldn't abruptly wake up people that are "Sleep-walking" right?, so we have to come up with something else.("Sleeping Camp?"). 🙂😀🥰
there is no benefit to contemporary vaccines. a great example of this is opv. opv actually causes polio. bought to you by the same people that funded this fellow. people are not “afraid” of vaccines. they do not want shoddily made medical products injected into them that have extremely long term side effects that people like this and pharmaceutical industry apologists refuse to recognize or address. more to the point, anytime you question them thy tell you “mis, dis, or mal information”. not interested. no more mandatory or compulsory vaccines.
Why waste your precious time and accute ethical minds on this? When you could be focusing on what actually matters and what really makes a significant difference?
Doctors have to be very careful when bringing the patient as a source of pathology into any illness. I worked as a health insurance agent and almost 100% patients indicate that they have a condition and the doctors and treatment should take care of it. I had to be thoughtful in suggesting that their lifestyle and actions contributed or even responsible for their health problems. Few people I know want to be accountable and responsible in their lives. I can’t imagine being a doctor and have to bite my tongue knowing that the patient’s actions or lack thereof are the main reason for the patient’s suffering. We live in a modern era where instant gratifications and resolutions are a push button and payment away. Psychosomatic illnesses are definitely actualized by and individuals thoughts that affect neurotransmitters release/uptake and other chemical interactions in the body, often exacerbated by agitated mental states that flood the body with adrenaline that cause changes in cardiovascular response. Sayin that it’s just all in your head requires further explanation because most people know about less than 1% of what goes on in their head. Education is key and trying to convince an adult to learn about their own body can be impossible.
Prof Hurka will be expanding the lectures into a book, to be published by OUP in due course. More on the book series here! global.oup.com/academic/content/series/u/uehiro-series-in-practical-ethics-uspe
There is something called the food chain. We all rely on eating meat in order to survive. If dogs don’t eat meat, they won’t get the vitamins and minerals essential for them to survive, similarly if we fed a lion a vegan diet it would die. Why should we deprive our dogs of a balanced diet all because someone thinks that it’s wrong? At the end of the day that’s life, all animals will die eventually, and eating meat provides dogs with protein (important for growth and development), iron, zinc, vitamin B12 and other nutrients our body needs that we can’t necessarily get from eating other things such as vegetables- whilst vegetables do contain some of those they don’t contain everything so it’s important to have a variety. And at the end of the day it’s not up to you to decide what your pet does and doesn’t eat because that’s animal cruelty.
Yes absolutely, thats why is was so disgraceful when trump pardoned the soldier who beat a civilian(I don't remember if he killed them, but it was all on video). What people need to realize is disregarding standards(international law) will create an eye for an eye situation and it will come back on innocent people.
Should [a person] refuse to listen and empathize and accept, with loving forgiveness, the "truth" of another person, the rejection creates an emotional "magnetic rejection" energy which joins and reinforces other residues of rejection energy force within the consciousness electromagnetic fields of your entire system. "Rejection magnetism" depletes the "bonding magnetism" between cells and ill health sets in. This fact of existence is the ground of all psychosomatic medicine. People who constantly blame and judge others and keep a wholly closed mind in regard to their own part in conflict, eventually experience some kind of radical breakdown in their physical or emotional make-up. If they can monitor and work on this tendency to exercise control, judge others and exonerate themselves from blame, and can eventually give UNCONDITIONAL LOVE full mastery in their personality, the breakdown of whatever kind it is, will ultimately disappear completely.
