A Brief Intro to Normative Ethics 

That’s a damn good analogy. Keep traveling to other islands and get what you can, the share what you got.

Thank you!

I'm glad you appreciated that. It funny... because it's true ;)

You are very kind. Thank you.

That’s a mighty fine compliment my friend. Thank you.

Thank you! And I agree about my son :)

I'm glad to hear you found the video helpful! Good luck in your class and beyond :)

Thank you!

Thank you. I was concerned the title was a bit misleading. But it seemed to me that having a grasp on metaethics would be helpful to understanding normative ethics.

@@thewanderingprofessor9532 Funny enough, I was actually trying to find your other videos regarding the other ethics in the beginning of the video but when I couldn't find them, I continued watching your explanation. Turns out, everything is neatly packed into one package.

Thanks! I'm glad it was helpful!

My pleasure! Thanks for watching.

Thank you!

Glad you think so!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you! It's not too long until his 11th birthday. Hoping for that letter from Hogwarts! :)

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it. If you're interested, check out the videos in the "Ethics and Justice" series for more detailed looks at some of the normative theories of ethics.

@@thewanderingprofessor9532 Sure Sir. (Even though my exams are finished xD)

@@faisalsaddique3323 Knowledge for knowledge's sake... and all that sort of thing :)

That's so nice of you :) Thanks!

Thank you! I'm so glad you found it helpful.

My pleasure!

Lol. Thanks. Happy to save asses when I can. After all, it's the ethical thing to do.

Thank you! I'm glad you found it helpful.

Thanks! I'm glad you found it easy to follow :)

You're welcome!

You are most welcome 😊

For what it's worth, I think emotion is a key aspect of being human. So I think there's a place for "squishy and illogical" in these conversations!

Just add the following line to your ethical thinking: "Self Interest". This resolves a lot of ethical issues. Now you can look around the world and make a lot more sense of it. For example, there are people starving in the third world but you use your money to buy food for yourself and your children - not the starving children in the third world. Should you be required to rescue someone if you are in a position to rescue them without any adverse effect to yourself? For example if a child were to fall in a pool and all you need to do is grab them and pull them back out. Perhaps you would answer "yes", but isn't it just as easy to save a child in the third world with a few dollars? It comes down to self interest - you look after yourself, your neighbours, locals etc etc first. And the idea is just as valid (in my opinion) as simply declaring yourself to be a utilitarian or a deontologists. It will also save you from having to figure out what the right thing to do is when you are considering the life of one family members or two strangers - it's your family member you must say. Afterall, that is a decision you make every time you spend money to give them food, water, shelter, healthcare etc etc over the needs of a child starving in the third world.

Thanks for the comment! I don't necessarily disagree. With this video, I just wanted to give a basic intro to the most commonly explored theories, but certainly other theories are worthy of exploration as well!

@@thewanderingprofessor9532 no i meant more RU-vid views hahaha you were very eloquent, and compared to other videos, you definitely explained it better!

@@thewanderingprofessor9532 i also dont understand how you only have 41 subscriberssss you should have more

@@haifabasucao5194 That's hilarious! Language is a funny thing :)

Thanks!

Thank you, Jaswinder!

Do you mean you would like a more in-depth look at whether morality is objective or subjective?

Goals can't exist without a conscious entity. A universe without consciousness can't have any goal, which implies that there is no objective moral standard. But there's no restriction in principle which prevents us from having a universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal.

This sounds close to Aristotle's teleological ethics. Or am I am misreading you? At any rate, I'm not sure that a "universe without consciousness can't have any goal." I suppose it depends on how we understand the notion of "goal." If by "goal" we mean an *intentional* end (e.g., an aim assigned or desired), then yes, I suppose consciousness would be required for that. But if by "goal" we mean something more general (like any end or aim, whether or assigned or not), then we might be able to conceives goals without consciousness. Now, in terms of identifying the "universal terminal goal," I suppose the great difficulty would be identifying such a thing if it existed. In other words, how would we know when we found it? This is why I tend not toward a moral relativism (in which no such standard exists) but rather toward what I call a relative absolutism (in which such a standard exists, but we only have access to it from our relative perspectives as finite subjects).

@@thewanderingprofessor9532 We must be conscious to conceive a goal in the first place. In a universe without consciousness, including us, the goal cannot exist.

Best Comment Award.

Good point! FWIW, I don't think we can definitively that relativism is wrong. But I *do* thin we can highlight some issues with relativism. For example, if pure relativism is true (either an individual or cultural level), then we can't say that rape, slavery, murder, genocide, etc. is wrong. If we find this conclusion problematic, then we might have an issue with relativism. To be clear, just because we want to say that genocide is wrong doesn't mean absolutism is true. It just demonstrates that we might have issues putting relativism into practice.

@@thewanderingprofessor9532 thanks sir

This is a cool comment. Perhaps it would be better to say that there are aspects of math that are discovered, which is true inasmuch as they are derived from, correspond to, or predict the behavior of, reality. Of course, this raises the question of what counts as the "real world." There are some philosophers, for instance, who think that math *is* the base reality of the real world. So it get tricky, I suppose. Either way, thanks for this comment. Get me thinking!

There's two ways to read this questions. First, you could be asking, "What makes an act a moral act (as opposed to a nonmoral act)? Second, you could be asking, "What makes an action good or right (i.e., moral as opposed to immoral)? I address the second question in the video (and a bit more in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XxkotGYwzGQ.html As far as the first question is concerned: Typically, for an action to be moral, it has to have a few elements. First, it must involve some level of choice (in other words, it can't be merely reflexive or instinctive). Second, the action must be subject to the quality of "goodness" or "badness", or perhaps "rightness" or "wrongness" (when they have a moral connotation). The first question is complicated because there are different theories about human freedom (including theories that it doesn't exist). One important question is: Do we need to have libertarian freedom in order for moral acts to be feasible? The second question is complicated because, from a metaethical perspective (you can check out my video on metaethics here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GSuUQnGCFMs.html), we can ask if moral qualities like "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong" are objective (i.e., facts that aren't a matter of human opinion) or subjective (i.e., constructed views that people create and are therefore relative to individuals or groups). Regardless, that's a basic rundown on what's required for an act to qualify as a "moral act."

@@thewanderingprofessor9532 thank you a lot professor. It helps.

That's a fair point.

Do you, my friend. Do you. 🤘

So you’re fine with torturing infinite people for infinite time if it benefits you?

@@benjamingurevitch4097 I don’t think it’s synonymous with psychopathy. Maybe most anti social types are ethical egoists but not all ethical egoists are psychopaths🤷‍♂️ I think it has more to do with individuality than collectivism imo

@@Entropy106 What's the definition of ethical egoism? To my knowledge it is a type of consequentialism where you only care about your own pleasure/suffering but I could be wrong.

@@benjamingurevitch4097 like the guy said in the video, if the act has a good consequence for yourself then I guess it can be ethical egoism. I know Ayn rand talks about ethical egoism and connects it with capitalism. She’s not a serial killer. Also max stirner is an ethical egoist but he falls more into the left wing anarchist category. So it isn’t invariably involved with murdering babies

It took my man 15 minutes to break this down as simply as he could, and you ain't listen to a single word.

@@ianchapoy9617 I appreciate the defense :)

This professor is very kindly & freely dedicating his time to educate others. His explanation was by far the most simplistic version freely available with a very welcomed humourous touch added (trust me I know, I've watched countless videos about this topic on youtube and none come close to explaining this complex topic as easily) so next time perhaps just exit a video if you're not enjoying it instead of bashing on someone whose actually trying to help others better themselves.

@@aoife6043 Much obliged. Thanks for watching!

i promise you you won't find a better video in a shorter time peridod than this