Metaethics: Crash Course Philosophy #32 

But, like, what *is* mortality anyway?

CrashCourse Brain procedes to explode.

Aaliyah Adesida, noted that too.

Aaliyah Adesida , what does it feel like having crash course reply to you?.......

CrashCourse, A grammatical construct that has, for Western english speakers, a different meaning than morality.

Have you guys tried deluding yourselves with conspiracy theories? There are youtube videos for that too.

atine834 I'm a baptist Christian and I think science and philosophy can help with faith. Of course there are somethings in science like the evolution theory that opposes god but u can differentiate what is right and wrong urself

***** Wow, that's an interesting take on it. I am actually just going to write it all out and do as you said. Cheers!

You are not alone in feeling this way. Authoritative models of morality, in my experience, really suffer under outside scrutiny, since by definition they are based on a sort of 'decree' rather than anything about the acts themselves. It begins to feel very arbitrary... which is not *necessarily* a bad thing, but it *is* definitely a thing.

It's absurd to think that you can just dismiss things that you happen to disagree with in science. There is no basis for being able to differentiate "what is right and wrong urself" without having some basis of justification. Doing that and then looking at science as having any merit at all is massively hypocritical, and so either insincere or self-oblivious. Either understand science and pursue unbiased truth (challenging whatever you want but not simply throwing things out for no reason), or deny it wholesale. Cherry-picking is logically unacceptable, as you should know if you're serious about studying either science or philosophy.

These are principles of many ethical theories. Utilitarianism would say the robber was good as the outcome caused more pleasure than pain to more people. Deontology would say the robber was bad as his intentions were evil. Other theories, such as virtue ethics, attempt to combine the two.

I would consider myself as utilitarian (considering most things at least) and I would say that the burglar did a good thing, but still doesn't deserve praise and also still deserves blame and consequentially judicial persecution. What he did was certainly useful since he saved the life of a fellow human. However, he did attempt to break into someones home and steal stuff. Things would have looked better for him (both in an ethical sense and a judicial sense) if he would have called an ambulance upon encountering the unconscious woman.

+Florian Haydn If the burglar did a good thing, why doesn't he deserve praise? In Utilitarianism the only thing that counts is the outcome of an action. So from a Utilitarianist perspective the burglar's actions were equally as good as the actions of a paramedic saving the old woman's life. If you assign moral value to a person's intentions, you are not a Utilitarian.

ilovemypiano Well, for practical reasons. I agree that this might be breaking with pure Utilitarianism, but he was breaking into another persons home. Laws aren't necessarily moral.

+Florian Haydn So you are arguing that from a purely moral perspective the burglar did the right thing, is a good person and deserves praise, but from the perspective of the law he should be punished. Did I understand that correctly? If yes, why do you think that law and morality should be opposed? Isn't it normal to think that the law should be an implementation of our moral principles?

Jippy Panjo AND he should go to jail for being bad at being a burglar.

Ha ha ha.

To equate burglar to be bad is a tautology.

Jippy Panjo yeah but like, what is a burglar anyway?

True But also the woman bad at Changing batteries in carbon detector 😂

hey carl, nice to see you here...

improvement from the "words that hurt" episode

Well, only to normative cultural relativism.

Invokes Goodwin's Law, but Goodwin's Law seems to be the only way to discuss negative cultures without people possibly accusing you of some secondary agenda.

Every now and then PBS as some shows and hosts that aren't too bad.

Hey, I don't know if you will see this,but if you have time to answer,can I as you what domain are you working now on,with your degree?I am majoring in philosophy too,but in my country going to university is debt free.

That's why you develop your own ethical values and express those values to others in hopes of having understanding. The best we can strive for is understanding one another

How are scientific questions not verifiable? We can empirically verify that e.g. the basal ganglia is involved in emotion generation & processing by using functional magnetic resonance imaging or virtually anything else that is written in scientific journals. While they do not represent the 'ground truth' they do provide a best estimate of verification of the hypothesis/scientific question.

@@acidtears I think the user meant "unlike science questions"

Nice Rei profile pic 👌

lol me too

Captain_MasonM Same.

same

Same

You came here expecting a crash course on all of mathematics?

We got a lightweight over here..

ah it does seem to silly to evaluate existence, doesn't it

yld Not at all. I'm just sayin this video is hardly down the rabbit hole if you know what I mean.

I do, but it's a very elementary approach to something so profound, that it gives philosophy a base. That's just daunting. so yes, lightweight here, in a way.

This isn't particularly existential. Morality isn't the same as meaning.

Me in a nutshell.

Bruh

I love seeing closed mindsets

@AMellowFellow That depends... some people literally do not think that way. Ask your local priest or someone who is deeply religious... The reason why there are multiple moral theories are mentioned in the video is because not everyone has the same moral theory lmao

hey, look its *me*

One of the nice things about virtue ethics is that it's able to take just about anything into consideration. (It's also one of the difficulties, as it rarely gives one definitive, simple answer as to what one should do.) Your typical ethical theory looks at an isolated event from the point of view of an abstract person and then judges that event. (Is that a good or a bad thing to do, in the abstract?) In contrast, virtue ethics is all about the character of the person. (What kind of person would I be if I did this?) It easily combines action, intention, context, personal history, etc., typically as part of a lifelong project of improving oneself.

+

Intuitions, even those held by a single person, are most often inconsistent. People are very prone to believing in conflicting principles - it is particularly easy to see that by coming up with not-too-unlikely scenarios where two seemingly unrelated principles cannot hold simultaneously. So that forces absolutists to create hierarchies of principles, however that's no easy task. It is true that consequentialism and intentionalism are two contrasting flavours of ethical theories, however they are not necessarily inconsistent. But even then there are many hidden assumptions - e.g. that people are to be "judged" (assumes the existence of an either reliable or at least powerful arbiter), or that ethical statements have the same truth values as statements about facts, etc. etc. ...and even if one is to decide on preferred metaethical positions, the general principles for guiding actions and to actully engage in ethical practice are usually independent of the metaethical position; also one would be prone to assume certain things about semantics and also will tend not to have treated metasemantic issues at all. So it's rather fascinating, but also a long and difficult task.

Jason93609 All that is true. However, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss moral intuition. After all, if an ethical system comes to conclusions that go against most peoples' moral intuition would generally be considered deeply flawed for this reason.

Timothy McLean I am not dismissing it! In fact I believe that very few people act guided by rational principle - the vast majority is guided by intuition. But practical ethics is one thing, the academic study of the ideas behind it is quite another...

they are doesnt mean its useless. every spook has its utility.

@@ElDrHouse2010 Spooks are chains. Some chains help us get rid of bigger chains. I don't think ethics is such.

+

+

I feel sorry for your mother.

SparkyFister aight then

Emma Horan I'm sure your mother is lovely, she raised someone who knows how to not engage with loathsome trolls.

*1:41

perhaps the window was jammed

@@jeffreymcneary3055 Still doesn't explain how the Carbon Monoxide didn't escape from the house

​@@DIYLabs prior it was escaping too slowly, there was still too much CO in the air.

@@officialkue *opened

I know, right? Obviously peanut!

Chase Groll he is Hank not John

+Rainbow Mechanic oh shoot im with my friend named John and got confused! Thank you

So, would that be normative cultural relativism for the issue of M&Ms?

I don't think that was a good comparison, it is objective truth that peanut butter M&M's are superior to all other varieties.

This is short sighted. There are pretzel M&Ms, crispy, mint, white chocolate, almond and more.

chomchoms 4 life

Skittles are the best M&Ms.

That is quite the worse misspelling ever Moral and Death (Mortality)... Oh Shakespeare

And the metaethics chart, all the times it comes up, also has a spelling error (Descriptive cutiral relativism).

BlankPicketSign I am not sure if this comment is sarcastic or not.

If it's sarcastic-- lousy sense of humor. If honest-- someone needs a new hobby.

It is Honest and I need a Hobby =^_^=

Alvin Tossler Antirealism is a piece of nihilism, not the other way around, I'm sure he'll go into it later

there is nothing

Alvin Tossler what moral? :p