I watched all four parts and not only did I enjoy but also benefitted. I have never had the opportunity to follow a program on ethics and I am indeed very thankful that it was made available to the public. In fact, I started watching a few programs on ethics but this was one that captured my attention and go the distance so I should thank Professor Shannon E. French for her enthusiasm and the ability to engage the listener even at a distance! My interest was from a construction business ethics perspective and the Workshop provided me with a basic framework to raise many questions. Thank you.
I'm not learning a lot because of my background in ethics and philsophy but still can appreciate this very much. probably watch all four parts. Good job Shannon French.
I really enjoyed this clip, but have one concern. First off, Shannon French did a wonderful job explaining ethics and moral reasoning. This will really help me with my current class in SOC 120 at Ashford University. My concern is from 17:17, where she describes Immanuel Kant as "another dead white guy". Imagine if she would have said, "another dead Mexican" or "another dead black guy"?
In reality not but that would not be the point. Taking people from history and even well known fictional people and put them in situations they would not face normally but as a thought experiment place them in another situation to see what happens. Kant would not know what the SS is, mistreatment of Jews did happen during his time thou wholesale mass murder didn't. As such Kant would have to be briefed about SS a hypothetical organisation of the future and then ask him to apply his morals on their actions.
you are a terrific lecturer. you should be lecturing to doctoral students not undergrads.. they don't care. doc students would appreciate this type of great info
the argument in the video is reciprocal. People are paralyzed every day. Taking time to perform the testing is the least painful with the best outcome.
If Kant lived in the late 1700s, how could anyone ever ask him about responding to Nazis if you were hiding Jews in your attic? The timeframe does not square unless I'm missing something. Clarification, please. Thank you!
This is a good example of how current (and past) philosophy has been weak - that is, mired in subjectivity - which leads to being lectured at from vapid platforms (as I like to phrase it), and which is why ethics, and philosophy as a whole, have been ignored and marginalized in the minds of people (even though, little do they realize, they have philosophies at their core (just not very good ones) - for lack of good reason - meaning an ultimate objective value in life, which leads to an ultimate goal, which gives us a top-down view for distinguishing good from evil, which moves us beyond the feebleness of past (and still-existing) ethical subjectivity. Just to note, after considering an adequate amount of verified knowledge (considering 'all' is not possible), I've identified three objective values, one being the ultimate). Now, with true objectivity, we will have the ability to (finally) clearly distinguish good from evil, which gives us the ability (finally) to build worthwhile lives and (finally) relevant civilizations (for the first time in human history); and just a note on past philosophers, they have been tripped-up by religions, which have misguided man (including philosophers) for millennia. Just another note, this top-down (ultimate) view will also guide all applied ethics. So what is this new philosophy, you might ask? First, was it easy for me to discover the 'Ultimate Value of Life'? No. First I had to arrange my life to allow extended thinking. Them I began with a serious attempt to answer the Greatest of the Great Questions in Life - that of "Why bother?" (which, you must admit, must be answered before any of the other Great Questions in Life are even addressed). To answer this I had to study many fields of verified knowledge for the reason touched on above - that the 'ideal' philosophy (meta) will have considered 'all' verified knowledge, and since that is impossible, then an adequate amount for an adequate philosophy. Note that I had to restructure philosophy itself to arrive at the correct answers. So what is the ultimate value of life? Higher consciousness - which humans embody - and below that are the two other objective values - consciousness (animals) and life (microbes and vegetation). If you argue that, then give yours up - or life as hypocrite or a fool. Now, according to my new philosophical structure (which I depict as a 'Philosophical Totem'), we create assumptions from verified knowledge and the best theoretical models of reality we currently have, upon which we can identify an ultimate value in life (our 'objective' value, in philosopher's parlance), which is higher consciousness. Now, according to my 'totem', a value begets a goal - in this case the Ultimate Goal of Life - which is to secure higher consciousness (the ultimate value) in a harsh and deadly universe (identified from verified knowledge). There are various strategies to attain this goal - microbes give us three (diversity, sheer numbers, and dispersal), and we humans have added three more (extended reasoning, proactive action, and technology). Properly valuing diversity alone will alleviate envy, hate, war, a lack of self-worth, depression, and suicide (just to name a few). Now (according to my restructuring), a goal gives us a basis for identifying good and evil (which are goal-driven). NOW, with that ability (being based on solid reasoning (objectivity) for the first time in human history) worthwhile individual lives can be built along with relevant civilizations, as we strive to secure higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe - which ultimately entails living forever and knowing everything - which, given infinity and eternity, are impossible to achieve, so we are left with a continuous 'glorious struggle' (as I like to put it). So I've offered needed criticism, and I've backed it up. It is now your move. I"m going back to my quiet, creative life... but first - I should chime-in on your 'ethical scenario' (with Gene Hackman) from the point of view of the new paradigm that would exist. Fist, one may think of using evil people (who WILL exist, since they are necessary, and people tend to fill vacant roles), and based on the severity of their actions, the severity of justice is determined (which is one 'value' of evil - that of supplying the excuse to 'exercise justice' - the assumption being that without exercise, weakness sets in; and this means that the evil person is open for experimentation. But this is not a good solution - for people will then go ahead and murder others, reasoning that by murdering, he is performing a service to mankind by, in effect, volunteering for experimentation- which means the preferred justice for evil doers is to let them rot uselessly, or worse, as a useless burden on society. So the real answer is openness - that is, people knowing full well that they will most likely die from the research. The hypothetical question was raised, "What if nobody volunteers?" which is baseless, considering all the volunteers for the Mars mission - which is equally as hazardous. In any case, if there are no volunteers, then wait (since it is the only way)... it can also be made financially attractive - for many people simply wish to leave something for their family, but this poses another problem - the poor may be exploited, and there may be unethical incentive to 'make' people poor and desperate, so as to create willing experimentee's. There would also be the shiftless, who would use it as 'a way out' or to justify an otherwise useless life - so it would promote lifetimes of uselessness, which is not a good thing. Also remember that all people living under my new paradigm (which we are assuming) will be enlightened (finally having an ultimate value and its associated ultimate goal) and who will be able to make a more informed choice between 'self' (benefiting one) and 'community' (benefiting all - or at least potentially the future, which leads back to the self if future 'recreation' by an advanced higher consciousness is considered). Under an enlightened paradigm, this decision would not be made alone - not only due to enlightenment, but by law - which would have to be created after the inevitable abuses by evil people. As the researcher, I would at least have a plaque with the names of the volunteers to honor them. Note that true artificial intelligence (wholly independent entities) also needs a philosophy in order to function at all (philosophy is what each life decision is weighed against - so no decisions, no 'functioning'), meaning an AI entity will only be as good as its core philosophy.
how about... 15% of the population has a disease (currently incurable and 100% mortality) 100 days is likely time to to find a cure. The rate of infection doubles every 30 days. Quarantine has not stopped the spread of the disease and the virus dies with the infected. Without action extinction is imminent. Should the option to purge the infected be exercised? If so when?
This is one of those cases where you either commit genocide or by failing to do so allow for something even worse. A problem with this is that any genocider worth their salt will use this excuse and say that it had to be done pointing at studies that may or may not be falsified.
I would appreciate at the very beginning that there be made a distinction between morals and ethics. I understand that, within discussion between or within philosophical and behavioral specialist academics, morals and ethics take on the same definition interchangeably. But as I understand, morals are made by a person's own personal beliefs in what is right and wrong, and ethics are those beliefs of right and wrong accepted by society or imposed by a company or controlling body. I think that this distinction would have helped guide the conversation and teaching goals in a more understandably focused way.
No you have it Backwards! Morals are supposed to be HIGHER than ethics. Ethics are what controlling beings set up for other humans to follow. This is why there are different ethical categories like military ethics, which differ from legal ethics, which differ from business ethics, which is different from medical ethics, and so on. Ethics is NOT a universal set of rules. Morality is supposed to cover a UNIVERSAL SET of rules not based on AUTHORITY. Morals have objective facts to govern the rules. The rules have to be founded on principles that apply everywhere on Earth. For example, killing a human being for no apparent reason is deemed immoral in every civilized environment.
I don't know anybody who goes through a drive-thru to pick up food that they've already ordered I don't think you were aware of your situation. It doesn't make sense to go through a drive-thru order your food and then turn and go back around to the drive-thru when that's how orders get messed up in two because most people who order something go inside to pick it up if they didn't order it in the Drive-Thru.... 🤯
That's a good point, I have no idea. Kind of makes you wonder. Your hypothetical question about the whale and two pandas is ridiculous, though. I hate extreme hypotheticals that don't lead to any real insight and are just there to stir up emotions.
A key point that is missed is that morality is entirely subjectivistic (not the same as subjective but rather referring to the lack of any grounding or basis in physical, objectivistic, reality; yes, this is an ontological position). The issue of the ends justifying the means was simply glossed over and with the obvious question being why wouldn't one want to intellectually travel down the road. The socialist justice signaling... ugh...
Isn't principalism just consequentialism in another form? For example, if doctors started experimenting on people against their will, this would result in a society that creates MORE suffering since no one would trust their doctor. The principal is in place to protect broader consequences.
At the end, she paraphrases the categorical imperative as: "never use a human, a rational being, as a mere means to an end". Why is rationality the criterion by which she distinguishes humans from other beings? Babies and the severely cognitively impaired don't have the capacity for rational deliberation, and yet we clearly (and intuitively) should not treat them merely as a means. At the same time, there is ample evidence of rational behaviour (in an economic sense) in other species - particularly those which are most closely related to us. Any attempt to distinguish humans as moral subjects (and other beings as not) must rely on some other criterion. If you have any ideas, please let me know...
I don't think French's implication that humanity is defined by rationality follows Kant's (the author of the Categorical Imperative) own "Humanity Formula," which you can research. I think French's statement could be rephrased as, 'morality, which springs from human rationality, requires that we never use another human, rational or not, as a mere means to an end.' Nonetheless, she's a great instructor.
My comment is oon the vedio clip, he coulod have gotten permission from the government to use hardened criminals that have been sentenced to death, that would have been killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
Sorry but this lady sounds like she doesn't really understand what she's talking about. The total lack of humbleness in her way to talk about Kant and the philosophical issues are really upsetting to anyone who understands, loves and respects these subjects.
21:10 Kant died in 1804, while Nazis didn't exist until the 1900s. Or did Kant time travel to the modern era? This is a terrible made-up example she gave.
It is strange that you give a lecture on ethics and morality, mentioning baboons like Kant or Stewart Mill. Your lecture is like that of a parrot discussing linguistics. There is only one question-concern regarding ethics and morality: "To be, or not to be..."
