Thank you for changing the color of your shirt for the ad, making it easily skippable. Many youtubers forget even this common courtesy. You're a true English gentleman.
Yo Alex; I was wondering if you could do analysis on having similar views that you have to Fydor Dostoevsky, Franz Kafka, G.K Chesterton, Max Stirner, George Orwell, and Ayn Rand Also further explaining how religious figures like William Wilberforce, Fredrick Douglass, Dr King, and Cesar Chavez greatly shows that Atheism still need to work on their original values of morality Can’t wait for more!
@@valmid5069 Ethics and morality are instincts, derived from evolution. And speaking as an old ex-Catholic, over half a century free from that church, there are few Christian churches less moral than that one, some Protestant fundamentalists aside. If we really want to know where our morality comes from, we need only look at our fellow ape species.
So what's the opposite of spicy? I feel like it has to be something that has the potential to be extreme in its own direction; milky or creamy wouldn't do that, but minty would.
No IIRC the kind of spicy being referred to here activates the thermal nerves that detect heat in the tongue while mint activates the thermal nerves that detect cold so they are in a very real way opposites.
@@CrystalLily1302"Spicy" can also be described as just "An unpleasant feeling created from non-harmful compounds activating nerves that signal danger/pain" in which case minty is spicy.
It’s funny because it seems to me like a very obvious thing to say whenever you’re discussing perspectives, so it’s almost as if you’re not only admitting that you love that expression but how well it would apply to yourself. Whether this is the case or not (I clearly know nothing about you, you were probably just appreciating the way it was worded) I believe the best insults are those that point out on others the filth we see in ourselves. So if that logic is true, I must be doing that quite frequently (yes it happens but I’m quite ashamed of that, if I end up acting as if I’m any better, which also happens). I will milk that argument even more, and say that this is precisely what Alex is doing here as well. I mean he knows very well that many people who hold the position he is criticizing are just as capable as he is to imagine that kind of suffering. Some don’t even need that kind of abstraction exercise because they have gone, or are going through incommensurable pain. What he is really saying is that he lacks the imagination to understand how people could experience bliss and find meaning even among the toughest and most excruciating (o wait does that word perhaps refer to a cross?😂) circumstances and therefore he does not stand with the idea that life is always worth to be liven.
Here’s my hot take: someone who is medically psychopathic and thus feels no empathy towards other humans but chooses to behave ethically towards them anyway is more morally praiseworthy than someone who does good because it appeases their conscience.
The obvious question from that is what motivates the psychopath? It’s clearly not altruism as he is incapable of empathy, but it also isn’t self interest because if it was it can’t be ‘more’ morally praiseworthy than if a non-psychopath acted the same way
@@1awlfc1 At that point wouldn't the only possible explanation be some vow of truth, because regardless of personal feelings, a psychopathic person can still be reasoned with to determine what is in the general interest of people and will act accordingly to do what they perceive as right.
@@legittaco5899 But I think motivation remains the issue. Using reason to persuade the psychopath who is incapable of empathy will inevitably conclude that morally right behaviour either helps others (therefore empathy) or himself (self-Interest, therefore no more morally praiseworthy than a non-psychopath). Unless there would be a way to persuade the psychopath with reason that didn’t ultimately boil down to empathy or self interest.
That guy amused me. I think it's more respectful of viewers' intelligence to not explicitly define the widely understood and self-explanatory term 'hot take' than it is to spell it out.
My mintiest take is that Alex should make more videos like this. The debates are brilliant, but i like his solo videos the most where he is just talking about stuff.
I think people that are against euthanasia dont understand that there are cases where it is indicated. I am willing to share my experience to give a better understanding why someone might want to end their life on their own terms. I grew up in a household of neglect and abuse and spent most of my teens living out of black bags without a stable home. I found a reason to live and have dedicated my life to helping reduce the suffering of others. I worked through my trauma and put myself through school and became a registered veterinary nurse. I have specialised and work in a small animal intensive care unit. I have held many animals during their last breaths and many when they are left are not peaceful. Euthanasia means good death and in a lot of cases where treatment and recovery is futile, it is a final act of compassion and kindness. It is the cessation of suffering. I am now 30 years old and also have been diagnosed with Huntingtons disease. Its an incurable, neurodegerative disease with no cure and no treatments. I have started to exhibit the first signs of the disease this year. Left on its own, it takes 10-15 years before I'll be completely bed ridden in a vegetative state. I'm not afraid to die but I am petrified of slowly rotting. Losing my faculties. Someone who had to be so independent would have to depend on others to perform basic human functions. I dont want that. After all that I have been through, and will continue to go through, do I not also deserve to go quietly, and with dignity on my own terms when the time is right? I do not want to kill myself, I simply want to pass away whilst I am still myself. Do I not deserve that kindness?
Here's the way I see it. Two hundred years ago, a doctor visits a family on the plains. Their uncle is bedridden with a horrible illness. The doctor determines that there's nothing he can do for him. He's a goner. What does the doctor tell the family? Does he say he'll leave the uncle to a slow and agonizing death? No. He pulls out his six-shooter and says "I can at least make sure he doesn't suffer". He goes back in the room, and the uncle has already taken his own life. A note rests in his hand: "I'm sorry". How do you think the family reacts? Do they see him as brave? Dignified? Are they supportive of his decision? I don't like the idea of dying with dignity on your own terms. Something about choosing to walk away from life while you're still comfortable seems inhuman to me. But ending someone's life to prevent a future of unbearable suffering is a monumental act of kindness. It's one we've been doing for thousands of years. In short, I don't think the choice to die should be yours to make. I think it should be made by the people around you, as an act of kindness from people who don't want to see you suffer.
@@turbovirgin_ Everyone has a right to an opinion but when it encroaches on the rights and welfare of others it becomes dangerous. Unless you have been given the diagnosis you do not have the qualification or experience to comment on whether someone should have the right to end their life. I'd argue that allowing the disease to progress where I have no comprehension of what is happening to me is leaving me in a state less than human. I've walked away from a long term partner and I've decided not to have children as it'd be unethical. We are born, and then we die and that is it. There is no good, no wicked, no big plan, its just life. Things happen everyday. We add value and determine if something is right or wrong or good or bad. There is no intrinsic truth. Assisted dying is currently illegal in the UK so I cannot rely on others to end my suffering. If I have the ability to be a DNR then I should have the right to be euthanised. If you had understanding of how assisted dying laws work in the world, you would have known that you must gain informed consent when you are of corpus mentis. This means I need to make decisions whilst I'm still of sound mind. This is the reality of living with a terminal diagnosis. I would also implore you to think about what quality of life means to you and how you would feel if you weren't able to do the things you love anymore. I've cried at how beautiful the sun setting is, how the feeling of ocean air feels on my face. I understand the beauty of the world but I won't even be able to comprehend that. Imagine you not being able to walk without falling, not being able to put food in your mouth, button your own clothes, even cleaning yourself up after you've gone to the toilet. Imagine not being able to read, or talk or even being able to understand what is being said to you. Would you want this for yourself? Because that is what you are suggesting I live with.
A horse walks into a bar. The barman says "Hey, you've been in here a lot lately. Do you think you have a drinking problem?" The horse responds "I don't think so". And with that, the horse immediately disappears into thin air. That was the joke. It's a play on René Descartes's "I think therefore I am". I couldn't tell you the last bit before the joke as I didn't want to put Descartes before the horse.
Being in an extreme Christian fundamentalist household, your videos create a really safe space where I can think about philosophy and religion in a much less narrow view. I just wanted to thank you for that, I love your stuff.
You might want to try genetically modified skeptic as well if you haven't already. He's really big on giving a community to those who don't feel like they belong to their religious environment irl.
I guess. But he's way too shallow for me, for someone who self proclaims as a philosopher. Ok, what he's saying would be interesting in the 16th century, possibly some of the 17th, but in a 21st century context he talks at a child's level.
My hot take is that people often don't properly consider themselves in relation to the philosophical questions they ask. It causes them to anguish over things they don't need to. A classic example would be "what's the meaning of life?" I think it's much more important, from a personal wellbeing standpoint, to consider "why do I want to know what the meaning of life is?" "how would I change if I knew the meaning of life?" etc. When you ask these questions it seems more apparent to me that the original question is malformed and doesn't really need an answer. There are a few different questions with this problem; "what's the true nature of reality?", "do we have free will?", "do we have a soul?", "what is morally correct?" etc. They all have implicit assumptions and motives that originate from our human experiences and it appears more beneficial to me to understand those assumptions and motives and why I have them than the answers to those questions.
I think i already do this because i've never really wondered if there was some intrinsic "meaning of life" and yet it seems for some people it's all they can think about
Whilst I agree with your take for a question as subjective as "what is the meaning of life", I think the other examples you give are different kinds of questions. Questions such as "do we have free will" are attempting to understand how the universe operates, motivated by the same sentiments as scientists which isn't true for "what is the meaning of life".
The darkest stories humanity has come up with do not end with “everybody dies”; they end with the characters being condemned to eternal conscious suffering. From the Greek punishments of Sisyphus, Tantalus, Prometheus etc. to the biblical concept of hell to modern stories like “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream” to Grimdark concepts such as the sarcophagus / helbrute in Warhammer 40k, or the ending of the video game “Scorn”.
@@bronsonvann2662 both of these are relatively mild takes (unless you mean his opinions actually mean more in reality because of these things and not just that people weigh it more because the latter is totally true)
So, as someone who has attempted suicide before, I wanted to comment on the suicidality one. I think it's very easy for people who haven't had a lot of contact with suicide to go straight to "you should have a right to choose to die, so we shouldn't interfere with suicide attempts". I think the thing that's missing in that analysis is the "of sound mind" aspect of decision-making. I do realize this may vary from person to person, but for many people (myself included), active suicidality comes during moments of crisis. The period of time during which you are in an emotional state where you would actually make an attempt (as opposed to just thinking about it) are generally fairly short and very acute. In other words, you are in a heavily altered state of consciousness. And as with signing legal contracts when heavily drunk, we generally accept that certain things you might in theory have the right to do can be abridged when in a heavily altered state. So, while legal punishment for suicide or suicide attempts like you discussed is pretty abhorrent in my mind, I think it's reasonable to do everything in your power to prevent someone from successfully carrying out an attempt. I am very grateful that the people around me did that for me, and I hope that if I ever get there again, they would do so in the future. (Hopefully I won't but if I do.)
Like all other major decisions in life it should come with the "being of sound mind and body" disclaimer where you have either signed a legally recognisable document ahead of time saying (eg.) "If I ever become mentally/physically disabled beyond an agreed point of satisfaction then I wish to forfeit my life." or you are in a position where you are provided adequate, free counselling to attempt to turn things around before making the final decision.
So how does this apply to people who are not emotionally suicidal? Like you look at things objectively and you come to the logical outcome that its just not worth living anymore? Because this is how I view my life, when its not objectively worth living I will end it, which will probably be soon.
Then that's what it is. We allow people to make wrong choices constantly, why not in this case? No one can say it's a wrong choice, though because no one can see into the future. We can see the past, though. If someone has lived 51% of their expected lifetime then they have enough proof from the past to make this decision.
Well by that logic you don‘t have to read a book after reading 51% of it because you already know what is written in the second half And yes you can do whatever you want but I think there is difference between making bad financial choices for example and ending your life In one instance there is chance to recover the other is final One might think that live cannot get better and be a 100 percent certain about it but as you said noone can see into the future. So there is a chance that things will get better. In my personal opinion that is enough to keep going even of there seems to be no evidence for a better life in the future I cant prove it but ive heard that most people are glad to survive a suicide attempt like the original commentor. Take it as you want Ive lost a friend to suicide a few years ago and i didn‘t even know that he was struggling. He seemed to have eveything. A caring Family, many friends, a loving girlfriend and a good Job with a promising future. I dont know what was going on inside his head, he didnt tell anyone. I guess he thought that he has to deal with it on his own. And he did. but i wish he wouldnt and instead talked about it. Even if it was with me who wasnt too close of a friend. Instead he left behind a lot of shattered hearts and people wondering how they might have contributed to and whether they could have deterred him from his decision He was a really good guy and over two years later i still miss him dearly
He quit veganism (which isn't actually possible) and whined about easily fixable shit because of all the solutions he has access to that almost no one else has because of his extreme privilege and you call him a "well balanced thinker." I think you're "an unthinking clown."
That's what I was thinking! Clearly suicide was deemed a criminal act because it violated someone's property as in the relation between an absolute monarch and his subjects.
@@MexicanNerd10Kinda mild moral subjectivity no? We only come to the conclusion through relative ethics, if a majority of people were masochistic rather than merely a sort of Stockholm syndrome with life suffering would be lesser to them. Not that it isn’t already lesser anyway, imposing people itself causes inevitable harm yet people do it. Driving cars, using electronics or any kind of power appliance usually inadvertently causes pollution which causes harm yet people still do it. People eat more sentient creatures or overeat or throw away causing the waste of resource which indirectly causes harm yet people still do it. I think there’s too many of those to consider in order to live life as you’d constantly be on a paranoid type rope trying to be utmost efficient in order to avoid causing harm, I just think the source of all affliction should be solved instead rather than worrying about how you live.
@@La0boucherethat would be one of my takes. I value consent probably to a degree more than the average person, so commonly disgusting and immoral things are fine to me as long as its consensual, extending to the consent of the dead (contracts n stuff). The only hard part to avoid is instances of grooming and coercion, but that's hardly unique to incest or other "icky" things. Children are of course excluded from this responsibility to consent to certain things since their brains are soup. But it's also hard to draw the line between coerced and consenting, seeing as scams and threats and lapses in judgement are a thing.
@@echiko4932i think one problem is that they should not be allowed to have children. as that both endangers the child and the population. so they would both have to lose the ability to bare children
@theflyingdutchguy9870 But then you would have to enforce that, and of course if you're advocating for incest, those who participate are going to want complete rights as couples. You can either enforce eugenics or you criminalize incest to avoid the discussion altogether. For every reason "someone shouldn't have kids," we get them anyway. You can't tell a group of people "we're going to give you SOME leniency" without expecting them to protest in response for further action.
@@soffybearI would not call it hatred so much as a misunderstanding of human behaviour. A false belief in our autonomy and our rationality. In truth human behaviour is very determined and very irrational. Group affiliation, our love of others and self destructive behaviour is deep brain biology of areas of the brain we inherited from prehuman ancestors. We are mostly unconscious. Our deep brain impulses are fed to the cerebral cortex which then comes up with a story as to why X would be a "noble" or "honourable" thing to do. We are only informed of our true motivation on a need to know basis by the "deep state" of the mind, like the deep state of a nation. Take the Iraq war. America did not want to see itself as greedy, avaricious and grasping so the story of WMDs in Iraq made the war "noble". Our minds operate in the same way, protecting us from knowledge of who we reaaly are. This is where libertarianism completely break down. Its model of human motivations are all wrong and ill informed.
My hot take is individualism can only meaningfully exist within a group. Absent of a group to differentiate oneself from, individualism is meaningless. Like Sydrome from the incredibles said analogously “… And when everyone's super... no one will be.”
@@jeffmunkynutz1568Philosophy is an excellent and mind stimulating hobby that can help you think more clearly and improve yourself. I think this is a hobby that beats many other hobbies, why would you argue they need another one? Let use our minds- the most powerful organ- to explore the world, damn it!
I mean, you’re doing something that you think will be to your benefit despite the harm you know it will cause to others. I’m of the belief that selfishness isn’t always wrong, even as a Christian. It’s selfish to save your own life at the cost of someone else’s discomfort, but it can still be the moral choice as long as you’re not violating their autonomy. Your needs are just as important, morally speaking, as anyone else’s.
I have always believed that I had a right to die when I wanted to. I still do. Even when I was a Christian. It is an inner belief. Of course I've always felt compassion and empathy for anyone who committed suicide.
My hot take is that suicide, in most cases is not the best decision one should make. Because when someone commits suicide, they will leave behind people who love them, and because if the problem(s) driving someone to suicide is/are removed, the person will likely not have any desire to commit suicide. However, I believe commiting suicide to hasten death in cases of incurable/unbearable illness or in anticipation of them is justified.
My hot take is that while we have a right to suicide, it is not an ideal route to take. Because when someone commits suicide, they leave behind people who love them, and when their problems are adressed most people stop being suicidal. The exception to this is in cases of terminal illness to hasten death.
If you are religious tho, you don’t own your body so you don’t have the right to die. God owns your body so if there is something He forbids you shouldn’t do it
@@m780dff Freak accidents are accidents, not like suicide where there is a concious choice to take one's own life. What I was trying to say is that seeking professional help should be prioritized over ending your own life. Terminal ilnesses are a different story, because you are destined to die a slow miserable death anyway with or without professional help, so why not get it overwith. My moral stance on suicide, is that it is orders of magnitude more moral than murder, and that suicide should not be punished.
Alex suddenly changed shirts in the middle of saying something, and then I quickly realized, “oh, he found the perfect segway for the ad read later on and couldn’t be bothered to wear the same shirt.” Respect.
my hot take is that no religion should be able to leave permanent markings on a child's body, because a child cannot decide upon their own religion which in turn, removes both their right to autonomy and their right to religious freedom. An example of this is genital modifications on infants or toddlers in some religions.
I think, assuming it is to be illegal, the only sentence for attempted suicide should be compulsory *free* therapy sessions. Perhaps loosely enforced by the therapist literally showing up at your house so that you can't just 'forget' to go. Of course this has safety concerns that would have to be worked out, but it was just the first thing that came to mind. I'm sure there's some way of doing this properly.
this already exists in the form of mental hospitals, but they're not free and often people leave worse off than before bc of how much debt they're in. in the us i should clarify
In my country (Germany) suicide isn't illegal. However, if you fail at it and are found in a state where you need help, courts of law take away your autonomy and get you hospitalized until you are seen as not in danger of harming yourself. "Hospitalized" meaning locked away in a mental hospital, together with a bunch of other folk who are a regarded a danger to themselves OR OTHERS (!). At the same time, medical assistance in suicide is still not fully legalized here. Basically what you suggest, but having seen such a ward from the inside (thankfully only as a visitor) I'd say they are a really good place to start wanting to kill yourself...
i also have to agree with the one saying you ahould be able to take your own life because you didnt choose to be born. assisted suicide is legal here in the netherlands. my mom's best friends husband did this. my mom's friend happened to be visiting us. wich she did every vew month. at least once a year. when she suddenly got a call. that call was either the husband or the hospital (i dont remember exactly) the call was that he was done with it. and chose to have his life ended by assisted suicide. this was a very sad day, but i am glad its a thing. people should have the choice to have a peaceful end. my grandmother for example did not get that. she died in a hospital gasping for air trying to yell out that she had to throw up. she died in front of my mother.
So your mom's friend knew nothing of his plans to end his life? If that's true (in this or in any other similar case), I think it's not only an unethical move on his part, but I would question the legality of it--even where assisted suicide is legal. The reason being, marriage is a legal contract between each individual, and between the two of them as one and the state. Under that contract, each person legally obligated to put the best interests of their partner on the same level as their own. Sneaking away to die without telling your partner seems cruel and unfair, as they will be unprepared for the emotional aspect as well as the financial aspect as well..
I watched a video the other day about the concentration camp victims who were forced to move and cremate the bodies killed in the gas chamber. All day long they’d have to lie to the other prisoners: “It’s ok, it’s just a shower” just to keep them from panicking. One of them had to do this for a family member. I’d like to see the person who claims “life is ALWAYS worth living” do that for a day and still make that claim.
Although this is an extreme example, one could imagine reasoning as to why someone in said scenario would wish to live. Probably the most likely scenario, being able to see or possibly even affect being freed from said internment. If you have belief in that happening, I can see a reason or plenty of reasons based off of that for why you would keep living. Perhaps out of sheer spite, even
Well, what's the alternative? Personally, I'd like to think that even after years of dehumanization, mental torture, and starvation, I would still find enough strength and outrage within me to tell those CC guards to burn in hell.
@@turbovirgin_ It’s easy to be a hero and a tough guy in the safety and comfort of your home when the horror is hypothetical or happening to someone else.
@@chimpinaneckbrace Yeah, and it takes incredible strength to look the brutality of the SS in the face and say "What you're doing is pure evil, and I will not be an accomplice to your atrocities." I don't think that would make me a hero. I would just be doing what any human being should do. What would you prefer I do instead? Give in to the violence and do what the guards say? Take my own life? Not be in a concentration camp in the first place?
Wrt Galileo's dialogues, he also named the pro-tradition character Simplicio. If you start your dialogue by introducing one character as Mr Stupid, it's a pretty safe bet which side you support and which you don't.
After watching my Nana suffer for several years, in pain and confusion and terror, while my aunt spent most her time caring for my Nana, causing so much suffering, assisted suicide should absolutely be allowed. I am convinced that my Nana would have filled out a living will while cognizant that allowed for assisted suicide given the physical and mental state she was in.
Same situation here. It was heartbreaking to watch my grannie, an active and beautiful person, completely paralysed, not even able to speak and unwilling to try when she knew it was pointless. And all the suffering was just awful.
That is fine if you have family. But those without family will be thrown out as soon as they are the least bit of a burden. They did it to disabled people during the pandemic. There are dangers that no one thinks about.
I think he focuses FAR too much on comparing and contrasting atheism/agnosticism vs Christianity, as if Christianity is the default religious view. This is somewhat understandable as Christianity undeniably was the default religious framework in which these subjects were examined in most Western philosophy. That said in an age when you aren't going to be stoned to death for not doing so there's no rational reason to confine yourself philosophically to atheism vs Christianity. This is important because Christianity, or any specific religion, is almost impossible to rationally defend over other religions as they are all fantastical in ways that are plainly arbitrary/tied to a specific time/place/culture. Atheism vs Christianity isn't a philosophically relevant question at this point. It's atheism vs ???, because religion can be anything you decide it is (or more likely what you were told it is as a child). Christianity vs any other religion is intractable rationally and atheism vs believing whatever you want is true isn't even a debate.
@@jyjjy7 > It's atheism vs ??? You might struggle to make cogent arguments against something that hasn't been defined yet. And, just to head off one potential response (Or, an attempt to make an argument against something that doesn't yet exist! Will you allow me to succeed? It's quite the spicy paradox!), in this context "pro-atheism" arguments are not necessarily quite the same thing as "anti-???" arguments.
@@johnnypopstar I used ??? in reference to the problem with faith I pointed out and labelled intractable. Faith based beliefs are necessarily arbitrary and personal and objectively almost uniformly artifacts of upbringing, ethnicity and the local culture of the time. You can argue for any of The Holy Trinity, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra, Quetzalcoatl, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the invisible purple unicorn, over the others but those arguments are necessarily ultimately faith based, often explicitly and proudly so. It is the same reason Pascal's wager doesn't work; which religion's eternal infinite reward is one supposed hedge towards if one accepts the premise? Most religious doctrines are mutual exclusive requiring worship of this deity or that pantheon over another, often with divine retribution for choosing wrong, but there's no objective or rational standard by which to choose, though most believers will be able to cite things the consider sufficient evidence for their specific faith it is only actually so from a perspective informed by the insular confirmation bias nurtured by most religions. What I'm saying is that even among the religious one person's religion is objectively mythology to those of a different time and place, and often even many others of the same time and place. From any meaningful anthropological perspective religion is a social construct, one whose specific structure, ideology and goals serve social functions, ones orthogonal at best to any serious rational inquiry into the nature of objective reality. Ignoring all this to meet Christians halfway and handle them with kid gloves by taking the specifics of their mythology and its long standing philosophically history of tortured apologetics seriously is what this channel is about really. It colors to the point of distortion how he presents much of the conflict between faith based ideologies and rationality, both directly and in discussions with others.
It's because he's way more philosophical so he covers a wide variety of topics that are still in a similar ballpark. For most atheist creators, atheism content is all they do, which is totally fine, it's a different field. But I think going deep into philosophy provides more context.
My philosophical hot take is: “Forgiveness is not needed to move on from the past but acceptance is.” I say this because when I was in group therapy the constant notion of “forgiveness” kept coming up and that being the end goal to move on from trauma. For me and to this day I find this a silly concept. To me when you forgive someone it means “what you did wasn’t a big deal and it’s okay” and I believe their are certain actions that people can do that don’t warrant forgiveness. For me I feel like acceptance is better than forgiveness. I accept that this situation has happened and can move beyond it but your actions can’t be forgiven. And I feel like not forgiving someone doesn’t mean you can’t move on from the situation as I feel forgiveness really only makes the person who was wrong feel better. But when you accept a situation for what it is and what happened you can feel better because now you can work on moving beyond that situation and not have it limit you anymore.
Interesting. I think this is kind of in 'definition of terms' territory. I definitely don't see forgiveness that way. I would say forgiveness is something that is most relevant when someone did something in fact is a big deal and not ok. If it wasn't a big deal, then it's almost - not quite, but almost - a case of why would the idea of forgiveness even come up, if it wasn't that serious? It's the very seriousness that makes it a matter that needs to be forgiven if the relationship is to be restored. I also am of the opinion that forgiving is at least as important for the person doing the forgiving as the person they are extending forgiveness to for whatever offense. Not to forgive is to retain bitterness, and add self-injury to the initial offense.
The idea of forgiveness probably stems from a time where we still needed to get along with people no matter their level of previous wrongdoing. In our day and age, where we can cut people out from our lives with little consequence it has become a somewhat abstract concept that nobody needs to implement if they don't want to. We'd have to look back to the old times, the bad times, where you had to care personally for your aging parents, no matter how abusive they were during your childhood, when "until death do us part" was meant quite literally, when wars weren't fought against foes from an ocean or two away, but the dividing line ran straight through the country. In such situations, where you are still required to care, to coexist, to engage in civilised activity with one another, it was necessary to forgive, to actively suppress whatever negativity you might justifiably feel and treaet the other person with kindness. Only in such a context would we figure out our attitude towards forgiveness.
I THOROUGHLY enjoyed this. It was brief, light, humorous and still pretty stimulating. It was nice to see this opinion/ video-essay style of content being uploaded again.
Hot take/ critique: If incest is wrong because it‘s icky, according to your world view homophobia wasn‘t wrong, when homosexuality was generally seen as disgusting and wrong.(I am neither a homophobe nor am I interested in an incestious relationship, btw)
@@jasonulriksen8897 What about regret? The man who survived jumping off the golden gate bridge regretted his decision as he was falling. My guess is that at least 1/3 of people who commit suicide regret it whilst in the act.
@@si-jd9oqregardless of regret, it’s still their choice. we can’t read someone’s mind, so to deny them of bodily autonomy because they might regret it is still wrong. i’m absolutely for suicide prevention, i just take issue with denying one the option at all times and framing it like it’s not their choice to make
@@si-jd9oq You might regret purchasing a sandwich at a store. Would you like it if the store owner refused to sell anybody sandwiches because they might regret buying them?
@@TheWorstestPro You can't use that as comparison. I now learnt something off of that, I don't like that sandwich, there's no drastic consequence. You never will be able to learn that you didn't actually want to commit suicide.
I can imagine a lot of moral scenarios that are icky and one would rationally conclude that it isn't wrong. I am highly skeptical of moral emotivism being true
Its there because it helped us survive. People who liked incest got damaged babies and those babies couldnt reproduce thus their bloodline ends and we are left with people who dont like incest.
Agree. Some people find homosexual sex disgusting, most people find old people having sex disgusting. These are icky in the same way and sometimes to the same extent as the ickyness of incest. I think they're different
I've never heard of emotional emotivism before, but as soon as I heard the explanation, it's something I've unknowingly agreed with. I do suspect there's a lot of cases where people form their moral values based around how it makes them feel, and I feel is especially prevalent in the sexual sense, whether it be for homosexuality or fetishes. It's nice to find out there's actually a philosophical argument for this.
@@LeanAndMean44 Exactly. At first glance, this position seems to me a bit like kicking the can down the road because it stops at emotions. Emotions are also a reaction, and I believe it is pretty commonly understood that emotions and rationality don't exclude each other. The anger at perceived unfairness, for instance, might be biologically dependent, but that doesn't stop it from being a rational position independently of that. This is just my hot take upon hearing it for the first time, though. I'll have to read into it more. Not every day I get introduced to a new ethical position.
When I was young, I found the thought of two men having sex "icky". Then I learned that it doesn't matter how I felt about it. I learned to just let people do what they like without judging, as long as it's harmless. Now, I'm profoundly puzzled by how many people have a problem extending this tolerance to the topic of incest. To me, it's the same concept. I don't have to relate, I don't have to cheer. But I have no business booing either. Why isn't it that simple?
It absolutely should be a simple matter of liberal tolerance, but it gets even worse. Homosexuality has been legal in most developed countries for a long time now, but consanguinamory is still criminalized in much of the world, including the United Kingdom and most of the United States. Consanguinamorists deserve equal rights.
can we take this concept further into adults having sexual relations with children? If there are truly no bounds, then surely that can’t be bad either. If there’s consent, of course.
@turolretar The problem is ofcourse, consent. Since you cannot feasibly take it on a case by case basis (which is another topic of discussion), you generally have to take a general rule (with allowance for exceptions) for it. That general rule is age of consent for that place. Most children definitely wouldn't qualify for consent.
Those people never do. They just write that stuff no matter where they end up online & get doubly annoying if they think the video content might somehow be ungodly, for whatever reason. A whole slew of such people seem to think philosophy that isn't grounded entirely in religion is just a trick to turn people against god, and is therefore the enemy.
My hot take: Most people have little clue what they are actually saying or sometimes what they even mean, and this is largely because of our twisted relation to language (which we are mostly unaware of and unanalytic about, leading to sheepish adherence the linguistic structures and the ways in which they guide our thinking for better and for worse)
I could prove this but it takes time and real interactions between humans to show. Arguments between people are the most fruitful sources. Most people can go about their lives with no issues with this because language is meant to be useful (pragmatic), not a direct(!) reflection of reality. When we get to religion, philosophy and science, that's when things start to break down because we're trying to pinpoint reality with words. And people are super confident in the meaning of words/definitional accuracy, 99% of people don't even stop to think what the difference of denotation and connotation are, not to mention what it really means to denote anything with words or symbols @@pythondrink (notice how my use of "99%" was rhetorical, not literal...the amount of people who ever think about the difference between denotation and connotation might be way, way less....I'd include the first commenter into that group tbh but I could be wrong).
I recall there is an effect where, when raised with another human from a very young age, humans develop an instinctive barrier to being attracted to that other human
@@SPDLand not only eternity, also words like allmighty, allknowing. People often throw around those kind of words, but rarely can imagine the implications of their concepts.
The right to die thing is something I've extensively thought about without having any suic*dality present. I actually have an issue with people saying a hastening of death is okay with terminal or unbearable illnesses, while excluding that treatment-resistant mental illnesses are a thing that exists that could also be labeled unbearable. I don't have a treatment resistant mental illness myself, I believe most self-inflicted deaths are very preventable with a way better mental health system and a more aware society, but I refuse to believe ending ones own life is immoral or whatever other negative thing people label it. It's neutral, the living left behind ascribe things to it. 90% of things society says to suicidal people is from a place of shame or guilttripping (including the argument of selfishness). Society needs to stop thinking that others need to stay alive so they themselves don't have to experience suffering. A lot of the aversion around the topic of self-inflicted death is still filtered through society being influenced by religions telling them it's not okay. Sorry, but if I had a friend that's 60 and they had treatment-resistant depression all their life I'm the last one to judge them for wanting to end it. My potential grief would not be a reason to guilttrip them into staying in an existence that pains them 24/7. I'd even say people shouldn't be allowed in that discussion unless they gather extensive knowledge about types of therapy, coping with suic*dality and ways to make help more accessible to people (surprise, that accessibility doesn't exist under capitalism). As long as the system is rigged against the mentally and chronically ill and society at large turns a blind eye preventable deaths will happen and we won't be developing an awareness for which people have a lower level of preventability of their death and instead make it less traumatic for them and their loved ones. Let people decide what quality of life is. If that quality cannot be regained, let them decide. Nobody needs to help them in a direct sense either imho, just make it less traumatic for everyone involved!? Sidenote: I'd also say that a right to live and therefore a right to die entails the right to not be forcefully hospitalized since that feels infringing on both if there was no previous indicator given that hospitalization is wanted in case of crisis (mainly speaking about people for whom it isn't the first crisis of this kind)
Sigh. I attempted suicide three times during my depression years. Tried half a dozen anti depressants before I found one that worked. Sorry to break it to you, but suicide is - in fact - selfish. It is a decision based on no logic whatsoever that undefinably and irrefutably, whether you like it or not, passes your pain on to someone else. I can also tell you that every individual I’ve spoken out of suicide in times where they cursed me out and told me I was infringing on their rights or whatever, extensively thanks me when they’re in a better place. Curing depression is about working at it. There is not one person on this planet who doesn’t have problems, and we have a moral responsibility to work on ourselves so as to reduce the suffering. If that fact displeases you or anyone, that is fine, but it doesn’t change its validity. Suicide is immoral, end of story.
Incest is included in one of my special interests so I've thought a lot about this. It's a very common form of abuse, but when you see something like siblings who don't find out they're related until after they start dating there's not that same power imbalance concern. You might say that they still shouldn't have children because of the risk of problems, but that implies we should forbid anyone with hereditary conditions to not have kids, especially with each other, which is... not great.
Yeah if incest is not inherently and objectively bad then inbreeding is no worse than anybody else with hereditary genetic issues having children. Kind of fucking wild even saying that because it sounds like they shouldn’t equate but they technically do.
@@Corzappy yeah, it's so weird to think abt because I'm absolutely disgusted by incest but I can't come up with any reason to back it up that doesn't have some really ableist implications
I think it is important to distinguish between sexual abuse between family members (where the abuse part is the actual problem) and consetual incest, which is what we are talking about
If you had a relationship with someone while knowingly being siblings than there is something wrong with you due to going against the pre programmed disgust of being in a relationship with a family member. Even if both parties are consenting and of age, don’t plan on having kids or are of the same gender it’s still wrong because of the previous reason.
Interesting. I actually do feel that “certainty” infers truth necessarily, but people are often mistaken in their certainty, mistaking it for conviction.
The trouble is - when our certainty is wrong, in whose estimation is it wrong? Yours? Mine? Consensus? Religion? Politics? When it comes to a whole lot of important subjects, I accept only one opinion as relevant - and that's my own.
The connection between not choosing to be born and therefore having the right to die doesn‘t make sense to me. If there is a connection at all, it should be the opposite: I didn‘t chose to be born, therefore I shouldn‘t (don‘t) have the choice to die. Compare with the following statements: „I didn‘t chose to go to prison, therefore I have the right to leave.“ Or: „I didn‘t chose to become father, therefore I have the right to rid myself of the child.“ Both sounds wrong to me.
Kindness is selfish because of the positive feeling one gets when expressing kindness. Would people still be kind if such a feeling didn't exist? If not, are they in turn, just being kind to help themselves? Would just sympathy and empathy be enough to get humanity to act on kindness?
Well, you could go further and claim everything is "selfish" if you say you have no free will and every act you take is as a result of factors outside of your control that control your wants and thus who you are. I might be pushing it though
@@fahrenheit2101 that is our reality (of course i have no rights to claim it, but it's seems the most logical and close to reality worldview), and i'm wishing it to be different and suffering from existential agony from realizing all of it
@@CamelliaFlingert huh i get existential agony for totally different reasons - mostly just thanks to death. Only way around them for me is distracting myself...
my first thought was ‘this is stupid. i’m kind not because it feels good, but because it feels bad not to’ and then i realized. is that also inherently selfish? would anyone actually be kind if there was no negative feeling involved. anyways this stood out to me made me think
Am I the only person who thinks that incest is not intrinsically wrong? I am aware of the evolutionary motives to avoid it, but how does it matter today? If two siblings want to have consensual protected sex, there's really nothing that should be stopping them.
Their shared DNA makes them incompetent. We should always seek and give ethical qualified consent. Related DNA disqualified intimate relations. If we value ethics, they are deeply violated and all society will disqualifie and dissolve itself! It's right back to the jungle then 🐒
To reply to Sir Ena's deleted comment, I believe that if you and/or your partner have genetic traits that would be harmful to your potential offspring, just adopt a child instead and wear protection if you still wanna boink each other.
AlexOC, when I was in college, one of the philosophy teachers read alout to the class Descartes' reasoning, and it ended with "je doute, donc j'existe". A lot more believable than "je pense, donc je suis".
Je fais quelque truc donc j'existe Ou Je sais que j'existe , je suis sûre que j'existe et j'ai raison Ou Bien-sûr j'existe , n'être pas stupide I'm just practicing my french and I think Descartes was right and I don't know why Alex seem to oppose him. Maybe Descartes should've formulated it better?
@@fukpoeslaw3613 I think therefore I am. A. Implies that causality, as Descartes understood it, was really a thing. Ask a quantum physicist. B. The brain in a box idea that reality up to and including your existence could be created illusion. No there there. C. It implies that the true nature of reality is perceivable or understandable by looking in your head. Hm. Arguments about reality without actual observations to support premises are just that, arguments.
Life is always worth living? My father had a stroke so bad that, in order to survive, would be confined to a bed for 24 hours a day, unable to speak, breathe on his own, beat his own heart, a machine to feed him, another machine to remove his waste, completely trapped inside his own head, conscious, for the rest of his life The decision to support his wishes and take him off life support was both the hardest and simplest decision our family has made.
my hot take: suffering is so much more bad than pleasure is good, that we should basically take all super rich peoples' money by force and use it to feed the poor and save them from dying preventably, suffering unnecessarily, etc
@@gaopinghu7332 in my experience usually communist arguments are made from a point of view of "the workers made it so they should own it" rather than a strictly utilitarian one
@@zeusjukem9484 _not really._ Marx believed that communism was inevitable, not necessarily that it was better than other systems (besides the fact that other system would, in his view, eventually fail). Communism is when every good and service and resource is shared equally among all members, who are all equal to eachother and all deserve the same treatment. This does in fact include forcing the rich to give up their wealth for the poor. Is it good? Eh, I wouldn't trust a society of that kind to think completely selflessly,
As a utilitarian, my spiciest take is that consensual, incest with contraceptives isn't morally wrong, it's just disgusting. I wouldn't eat shit, but I don't think a person who does it is evil. I'm just physically repulsed by that thought, thinking about the possible health problems and sexual implications. But, hey, you do you. (Unless there's a child involved, then you're putting the child thorugh unnecessary genetic risk, and actually damaging someone. Similar to drinking or smoking while pregnant)
Pretty sure the one about forgiveness is from the point of view of the forgiver. Forgiveness takes an emotional effort and it's not always earned. Pushing for people to forgive others can thus be toxic for the "victim"
My hot take: You cannot prove to me that you are conscious. Only I can prove to myself that I am conscious. By conscious, i mean the qualitative experience in which you are aware of both the actions you make, as well as your own consciousness.
On the "Life is always worth living" argument, I suppose this argument could maybe be rephrased as "Suffering is better than not living", whatever not living then implies. I think it's an interesting argument, especially when taking your example of a man trapped in a box with the bare minimum of food ald water to survive, almost makes me think of Sissiphus
The arguement is still fundamntally flawed in my eyes and relies too heavily on the optimism bias and the pro-life position. The same illogical thinking leads to people seriously thining that bringing other organisms into this suffering filled world is worth it.
Yeah you sentenced my thoughts better, but I'm trying to see if that exact argument can be made, if it is always preferable to experience things rather than not, regardless of how painful this existence is. Imo this could fall back on the philosophy of existentialism, as in existence is suffering in itself, but you can make a personnal sense out of this struggle, aka even pain is a valuable experience. Again, Sissiphus
@@Indivus My argument against suicide is that even if you off yourself, nature will recreate you and you will have to live again, and since you were dead, it will happen in an instant. Nature created you once, there is no reason it won't do so again eventually. Eternal return baby. Suicide is just a reset button.
To quote the philosopher Three Days Grace “I’d rather feel pain than nothing at all”. In all seriousness, I see the arguments against it and how the logical conclusion of “maximize number of babies born” is a problem, but the basic statement of “suffering is better than nothingness” still intrigues me. Even in the worst suffering possible, there is small variance which we perceive as joy relatively. Does that make life always worthwhile? I think it is at least arguable.
“Mint” being the opposite of “Spicy” is more accurate than you think. There was a guy who described how we can taste more than the 5 tastes (sweet, sour, bitter, salty, and umami), I think he listed over 50 different tastes, including spicy and minty being more-or-less opposites, as well as different types of spicy (ie peppers vs horseradish). These different tastes motivate some of the principles in theoretical mixology. In theory, we can craft a cocktail that contains pepper like jalapeño, and adding mint will probably not be very good… it may not “cancel” any of the sensations from spiciness or mintyness, but it may cancel the flavors to some degree (both jalapeño and mint have some other flavors, like bitterness, that will likely combine to yield a flavor that is less pleasant than before the attempt to cancel these flavors)… In some instances, “balancing” a cocktail is a technique that usually refers to things like “acid-balancing” where we add concentrates or simple ingredients to adjust the tastes of the mixture to something more specific. 2 Examples: 1) Good cocktails, can be fine tuned with small doses of balance changes, (adding a dash of bitters for vibrancy/ flavor) 2) To-be good cocktails, are more complicated… recipes themselves call for ingredients to make up a good cocktail (ie, lemonade has a recipe is technically a cocktail), so substituting a common ingredient for a rebalanced alternative is common practice (pineapple juice with added citric acid will become more sour, eventually as sour as lemon juice… replacing the lemon juice component of the recipe for lemonade, will theoretically give you a similar tasting cocktail, with the added flavor of pineapple) You might argue that 1 and 2 are the same, just in a different order. If there is temperature involved in the process or machinery, then they become more different. Cocktail balancing means we recognize which flavors are present, which are too strong/ too weak, and also taking into account harmonic flavors, as well as water/ soda water for flavor dilution (you can have something that tastes perfect, but it’s flavor is too concentrated “rich”, so it needs to be cut with something like water) 💧 Examples of IBA (international bartending association) recipes that are unbalanced (in my opinion): Piña colada: (it is often too fruity/ too rich), substituting coconut creams, removing excess pineapple, diluting with additional water/ white or gold rum (non-spiced and “no funk” rums), and using ingredients like (Malibu) Coconut Rum (which has a “saviorness” I don’t know what it comes from though) is a good practice. Some bartenders use complex rum varieties and saline in this Class of cocktail. Vesper: I think it needs less vermouth and the “dimensions” of the base spirits should depend on the pairing (some vodka gin pairs should focus on the gin- ie semi-botanical london dry pairs tend to be better in a 2:1 ratio; whereas, some pairs might benefit from more vodka). Cosmopolitan: it depends on the curacao; Cointreau is almost universally acceptable and can be more forgiving due to its natural astringency/ savory flavor in this mixture. Cointreau is sweeter than a bunch of curacao, meaning you have to be careful with the quantity usually (cosmos are precise and leave little room for change in the dimensions of spirits… usually… adding mandarin flavor seems to work okay- which might explain why Cointreau feels more flexible, but doesn’t explain why TripleSec or Marnier don’t work as well with this cocktail,,, for that, you would need to recognize some other qualities in the cocktail). Those 3 examples dive into different topics of balancing: 1) balancing with tastes 2) balancing with dilution 3) dimensions of cocktails 4) variability of ingredients (small changes in an ingredient might not be acceptable, small changes in the entire recipe might not be acceptable, because of how chaotic the recipes can be) Some recipes have the opposite issue: Margaritas you can 100% add all of the wrong ingredients, and it’ll still taste good. That’s why Margarita bars do so well. Some flavors have never worked well for me in cocktails, or have very very few recipes: - Apple Juice (fruit punch or dark rum) - Coke (sprite is used more for “lemonades”) - Vinegar (the dot line) - Cilantro Some flavors need to branch out more in my opinion: - Campari (is 95% MiTo variations) - OJ (shouldn’t mostly be tiki) - Pineapple (shouldn’t just be tiki) - Coffee (shouldn’t just be desert)
Dan Mclellan's last video talked about an online lecture on the synthesis of the concept of hell. I don't recall who's presenting, but it's a "pay what you think" arrangement so anybody can listen to a scholar's explanation of how the modern concept of hell was invented.
Determinism and Justice are mutually exclusive. If the universe it deterministic, there is no justice. If there is true, metaphysical justice, the universe cannot be determined.
I think the reason why most people find incest "icky" is simply that it's unusual. A lot of us have siblings, but a vast majority of us would never think of them as potential sexual partners. Just the idea of me potentially having sex with my sister makes me uncomfortable, simply because I'm not attracted to her and I could never imagine being attracted to her. However, that doesn't mean that someone else can't have such feeling for their sibling and I shouldn't project my own feelings about my siblings to other people and their sublings. Just because I feel this way about my sibling doesn't mean that everyone should feel the same about their siblings. Another thing is that many people miss the "consensual" part of consensual incest, when they see incest they immediately imagine a father raping his 10-year old daughter, which is definitely a problem. The only reason why I can think of incest as being wrong from a secular view is that it could lead to genetic defects in potential offspring, but even that isn't entirely certain based on some studies I've seen. The funny thing is though that if you look at commonly searched phrases on porn sites, incest is actually quite common, whether it's with step-sisters, sisters, step-moms or whatever. So for some reason people condemn it in public, but then secrectly fantasize about it in private xD
What’s your stance on the criminalization of consensual consanguinamory (which is the status quo in much of the world, including the United Kingdom and most of the United States)? You rightly pointed out doubt about the average layman’s interpretation of the severity of inbreeding, but even then, it would be eugenics to use risks of inbreeding as justification for the criminalization thereof, would it not? Of course, to see an example of someone unaffected by inbreeding (gone right), look no further than the widely admired Cleopatra.
@@kevinnavarro402 I don't know if I'd call it eugenics. To me, eugenics is more like forcing certain people TO breed, rather than forbidding them from it. If the risks of producing a child with birth defects is very high I would be against it, cause it just produces unnecessary suffering. But I'm not sure that the risk really is that high as is generally believed.
@@tommy_svk There’s a subtype of eugenics called negative eugenics, which in the twentieth century (when eugenics was more popular) had people involuntarily sterilized or worse. This even happened in places like the United States, not just Germany, although not on the same scale. I’ll grant that the motivations might not be exactly the same as those you’re considering, but it’s still about preventing undesirable traits by restricting freedoms, which indeed is the same thing as negative eugenics. The eugenicists of then also, in their own way, cared about preventing unnecessary suffering, even if it was just in the long-term, but that didn’t stop them from inflicting unnecessary suffering; it inflicts unnecessary suffering to deprive anyone of the basic dignity of reproductive liberty. In any case of extremely high risk (consanguineous or not), I can sympathize with making exceptions to reproductive liberty, but I would rather have alleviated through healthcare any suffering that comes rather than use suffering to prevent suffering. I think that’s the most pluralistic solution to different normative views on the matter; that way if a couple thinks it’s wrong to reproduce, they’re free not to; if a couple has a fetus with detected serious defects and they think it’s wrong to let such fetus live, they’re free to terminate. Imagine if a couple (unrelated or otherwise) were shocked to detect with genetic screening that their fetus would grow up with a deeply serious congenital defect, but it was their sincere belief that the right thing to do for their child was to choose life and tend to the child’s needs the best they could; imagine they were robbed of this choice by a government forcing an involuntary termination of pregnancy upon them. To me, it’s the same calculus. Of course, the risk with inbreeding isn’t generally as high as people would have you believe, but there’s a way around such cloudiness. With genetic counseling, today each couple could, before reproduction, have their specific risk measured and determined. That would be the most objective way of determining risk given the variability of risk both within consanguineous and non-consanguineous couples.
I agree that there is no reason to consider consensual incest to be any different from any other form of consensual sex when it comes to it's morality. The part I'm unsure about is having children with siblings or other close relatives as there are significantly increased risks of genetic problems. The closest analogy I can think of is heavy drinking or smoking during pregnancy which is also known to be detrimental to the baby's health. In this case it is generally expected of the mother to sacrifice those liberties in the interest of her child's health, but not having children with a loved partner is a lot more of a sacrifice. I'm obviously against any form of eugenics, but even criminalizing reproduction with a few very close relatives is very different from forbidding some people to reproduce entirely and already included when outlawing incest completely.
@@LeanAndMean44 You have to understand that on certain topics, having an opinion doesn't exclude you from being criticized as opinions oftentimes need to be backed by some form of reasoning. And criticism isn't hate, if you're thinking that way. Either way, I also agree that one could genuinely forgive someone, yet have the other party not recognize their (perceived or otherwise) fault in the matter. It happens all the time.
Hot take. Ethical emotivism fundamentally fails as an ethical framework because it doesn’t allow for discourse surrounding moral beliefs. It provides a model for understanding moral statements but unlike a framework like utilitarianism it provides no way to have discussions about those moral statements. If I think incest is icky and you think incest is not icky it provides no way to break apart those moral beliefs and discuss the axiomatic principles those moral statements are built on. All it tells us is that I go boo to incest and you go yeah to incest. Its as useful as a model of the planets as big balls of rock. Sure it may be useful at defining the thing, but it doesn’t tell us about interactions like gravity or provide an understanding of how objects in space behave it doesn’t provide a deeper understanding of the thing we’re trying to understand.
Here's a take that might be spicy: ceteris paribus, it's better that a person who wants to stay alive be able to than that they die before they're ready. You'd think this would be minty, but everyone seems to want to make exceptions to it.
"treat others as you wish to be treated" isn't empathy. I understand it's a way of teaching empathy but it's by no means empathetic. true empathy is when you do something good without expecting something back, even if subconsciously. if doing good makes you feel good, that's your brain rewarding you to keep doing that, so true empathy can only be achieved if you somehow disconnect yourself from your natural instincts
A _hot take,_ meaning “controversial opinion”, is a relatively new expression mostly used by the younger generations. Even _take_ or _take-away_ meaning “opinion” only entered common usage from corporate jargon in the last decade or so. I had to google the meaning of _hot take_ when I noticed the kids using it more and more. Therefore, I think it’s safe to assume that the person who didn’t understand the assignment is most likely over 35 years old.
No because he didn’t use the phrase hot take in the original question. The post included normal words understandable for everyone who knows english. Also if you don’t understand a word you look it up like you did.
@@LeanAndMean44- he did indeed use the expression “hot take” as evidenced by his own screenshots at the start of the video. Also, the person’s reply began with “If I knew what a _hot take_ was…” implying that they had indeed read the expression in Alex’s post.
Here's an actual hot take, religious people in my view tend to be worse people than non-religious people as the logical jumps religion allows for lead many religious people to not be able to morally justify their worldview past "a 2000 year-old book said so". I also think this is why several elements of the modern fascist movements are heavily religious, because if you believe your own beliefs are from a supreme being and the consequence for not following his will is eternal hell than you will find it near impossible to ever challenge your own beliefs. I also believe these people are very susceptible to being told what to think from people with the right aesthetics.
My spicy hot take is that Indian food isn't that spicy. In the US, we have a level of spicy called "nuclear" that is meant to be the highest level of spicy that restaurant has to offer and is generally accepted nationwide, so you'll see it on menus everywhere. The implications though...
How about this: We have a natural moral obligation to either eat the dead, or to use them for pet food if we don't like the taste (or donate them to homeless shelters, who should donate them to animal shelters if they don't have anyone there at the time willing to eat human meat). For obvious good reasons.
@@AYVYN That would be a higher priority (not least because corpses don't really account for much of the biomass we put back into the ecosystem - the processed "corpses" of the plants and animals we eat outweigh us, for starters). And the implication that these are strictly ordered priorities (finish the one before even starting on the next) seems reasonable to me.
Another take that people seem to want to fight me on: the purpose of ethical principles is to make you do things you aren't comfortable doing; therefore, if your ethical principles can't under any circumstances require anything that feels a bit icky of you, you don't have ethical principles, you have whims. This is why I see it as a feature, not a bug, that my ethical principles forbid cruel and unusual punishment even when cruelty feels justified (like against child abusers).
Yeah I 100% agree, if the moral framework never pushes you to conclude that something that feels intuitively right/wrong is actually the contrary then your framework is just post-hocing your moral intuitions. That's why I will actually defend that incest is morally neutral if there is no child produced despite the fact that it is intuitively icky.
@@jackbicknell4711 I would say incest, and for less ambiguity there is no potential for children. I would argue that despite feeling quite icky this is completely morally neutral. There's also things like trying to rehabilitate people who have done horrible things which feels intuitively wrong to many people but I would argue is always the right thing to try to do.
@@CrystalLily1302 Incest feels wrong because it is wrong - the chances of faulty genetic mutation increases with incest, making it evolutionarily beneficial to reproduce outside the family.
So no disfigured baby, no pregnancy problems, no family members who find out and no people who feel gross about it who have to find out or even think about it. Also I would question whether the underlying causes of the incestuous attraction have anything to do with suffering.
@@LeanAndMean44 You seriously think merely finding out or thinking about it to be equivalent to suffering? Now that’s spicy. Tell me, where was the suffering when Cleopatra’s parents inbreeded, had a normal pregnancy, and produced a widely admired, non-disfigured, female ruler of ancient Egypt? And nobody had any qualms with that fact either; it was part of their culture; even gods of their pantheon married consanguinamorously, inbreeded, and produced other gods therefrom. Of course, I’m not saying inbreeding is always healthy; even outbreeding isn’t always healthy; that’s what genetic counseling is for. Why should we criminalize consenting consanguinamorists?
@@LeanAndMean44 the first two are problems absolutely the second two however just dont really matter that much if you ask me you might as well say race mixing is wrong using that logic
Hot take: The people of the future will see your (whoever you are's) morals 😇 and values as just as savage and degenerate as you see the values of the past. And they will think the same of you as a person if you don't try and be better than what you are taught.
As i understand it, forgiveness is more about letting go of the anger associated with having been wronged-- that is, its an entirely internal decision. For example, lets say someone cheats on you. Forgiveness doesnt necessarily mean not breaking up with them, it means no longer being angry with them. This definition also allows for forgiving people who are dead or otherwise unavailable for retribution (i.e. you dont know who they are). I think its easier to forgive someone who recognizes the error in their deeds, but it certainly isnt a prerequisite.
now I am confused about your moral worldview. In ethical emotivism you can say "incest is wrong" because basically you dont like it, fine but you still have a problem justifying why you dont like it or why others should not like it too. How is it a stronger position compared to secular/material ethics?
Right? It's just lazy, I mean, you are just introducing an additional step, people will still ask "but where does the emotion come from" and derive some kind of utilitarian origin grounded in human evolution.
There is no problem justifying the view because there simply isn’t a proposition to justify. It’s also the case that in other forms of secular ethics that the first proposition used to start their ethical reasoning is unjustified itself, so it isn’t as if it’s any stronger by virtue of claiming moral proposition have truth value
@@dream1430 sure, but we know that emotions originate from somewhere, so why would we just stop and not investigate further? It's not like our emotions are some kind of completely un-examineable like a god or something.
@@KangMinseok Further investigation into the origin of emotions still doesn’t close the is-ought gap, so I don’t see it’s relevance in moral discussions, unless you have a convincing argument for why? I’m all ears.
_"why you dont like it or why others should not like it too"_ no, this is impossible, it just IS if you say the thing it is wrong because of X than you can ask _"what makes you think X is wrong"_ and this will lead to infinite regression, this is not lazyness or a plus step, this is the whole point, you just feel it wrong and you dont like it and that's it if you want to understand better there is a video on youtube "David Hume's Argument Against Moral Realism" it's a long video 23 minutes but it is easy to follow and help to understand this thing
15:03 Mild take: The fact that you can exchange the words „homosexual sex“ with „incest“ and you basically end up with the same argument is a pretty good indicator for the fact that you should rethink your argument.
Yeah I was dissapointed in Alex here. There are reasons why we feel certain way about some things so his statement still doesnt make any sense. He just dodged a question here. Feeling disquist is diffrent from having a opinion that something is good or bad
8:16 - Wow, Justin Brierley really has an adolescent mindset in this conversation. He thinks free will is a spicy position? That's entry level conversation.
@@LeanAndMean44- I'm not saying he could have done otherwise, I'm just saying he doesn't know things and it's clearly not worth our time to consider what he has to say until he grows up.
This is a mild take, because there is some ground to be made that both spicy and minty are both irritants, and that similarity stops them from being absolute opposites.
The solution I’ve arrived at to the secular problem of incest is simply that in our modern culture, familial *relationships* are incompatible with romantic and sexual *relationships*. It’s got nothing to do with any biological reality (assuming no child is conceived), rather the issue is that our modern understanding of a healthy family dynamic and our modern understanding of a healthy romantic/sexual dynamic are mutually exclusive. More specifically, from a secular rule utilitarian perspective, the notion of allowing family members (including adopted family members) into such relationships is typically not only unhealthy, but in fact is typically predatory and thus we ought to reject it as a general rule. This is especially the case if at least one member of the relationship was present for the other’s childhood, since as a delegate general rule, we ought not allow relationships wherein one person plays a formative role in the other’s upbringing, as this this paved the way for children being groomed for sex (and not in the bs conservative talking point way). This solution does have a few holes and it does require that I bite the bullet on certain cases, but I find that such cases are also generally considered to be more acceptable societally despite being biologically incestuous. For example, the biggest bullet I must bite is the case in which two siblings are separated at birth and unknowingly form a relationship together. Since there is a total lack of familial relationship between the two unknowing siblings, even if they discover that they are related after the fact, it is still morally acceptable that they be in a romantic/sexual relationship. I am personally fine with biting this bullet, as there are real instances of this example and in my mind letting them continue always seems to be the best answer, provided they don’t conceive a child together
"is simply that in our modern culture, familial relationships are incompatible with romantic and sexual *relationships*." Where did this come from? Are you talking purely about yourself? Then simply say so. "the notion of allowing family members (including adopted family members) into such relationships is typically not only unhealthy, but in fact is typically predatory" Totally disagree. Same age consenting adults exist.
And my argument is simply that cultural norms what you consider healthy are just social construct and should be changed to better reflect the actual harm. Not to long ago the modern cultures view of a healthy family and relationships definitely didn't include homosexuality either.
7:29 this hypothetical isn't very good imo because you'd need some kind of prescience for it to work as intended. You could easily just argue that there's always a possibility of getting out of that situation via rescue or w/e so it's worth continuing to eat, even if you could get yourself not to...as someone _(admittedly fairly low)_ on the claustrophobia spectrum it still sounds utterly unbearable tbf, but who knows when you've been there a couple hours/days ^^ I'd say long term mental and/or physical torture is a fine example as those are _(I think especially prolonged mental suffering)_ common reasons why (sane)people in real life chose to end it.
A little late but my hot take is that there are areas of logic, which are completely unattainable for us humans just because of the way our brain works. I came to the Idea when finding out about the Halting-Problem. So apparently man-made computers cannot obtain certain information, just because of the way they are constructed - and what are we humans, if not biological computers with a bunch of sensors? Analog to the Halting-Problem there could be worlds of useful knowledge, which is forever locked away from us, just because we can't comprehend it. Not because the knowledge is to complex, but because it contains logical patterns which our brain just cannot process. I intuitively believe that take to be false, but I couldn't prove it so far.
Life is not always worth living. I know of a guy who was dropped as a baby. Lost his hearing and vision so he had no way of communicating. Plus he was too young to understand the world around him and his mom just abandoned him. The fact that he was dropped caused a bunch of other defects in him. Yet the healthcare system in my country that abides by the doctor's oath to always help people continue living no matter the circulstances, he was over 90 years old when i heard about him. Dude wouldn't know when his caretakers entered his room until they touched him ance they did he would immedietly show fear and scream. His limbs had stopped growing and for some reason caused him immense pain whenever he'd move, judging by his screaming at least. He spent over 90 years in absolute isolation in his own head, not understanding the world around him or even percieving it in anything other than touch and smell. He would be fed liquid food through a pipe instead of actually eating. Something about the fact that they actually kept that guy alive is just disturbing to me. His life has to be one of the worst lives in all of history
i actually didnt realize until now how often and how effective self-narrated dialogue is. I guess i've never used that method to make a point, but it is true that i have come across many texts and videos in which people use this form
