02:29 - Utilitarianism: This ethical theory, introduced by Jeremy Bentham, states that actions should be based on producing the greatest overall balance of pleasure minus pain. It focuses on the consequences of actions and treats pleasure and pain as the ultimate moral factors. 06:35 - Thought Experiment: Robert Nozick's thought experiment involves an experience machine that can provide any desired experience. It challenges the idea that pleasure alone is the sole determinant of moral value, highlighting the importance of other aspects such as control, genuine experiences, and interpersonal relationships. 10:48 - Criticisms of Utilitarianism: H.J. McCloskey presents a counter-example to utilitarianism using a scenario where a sheriff must frame an innocent person to prevent a riot. This demonstrates a conflict between utilitarian calculations and commonly held moral intuitions, suggesting limitations to the theory. 18:26 - Kant's Moral Theory (Deontology): Immanuel Kant's deontological theory focuses on the intentions (maxims) behind actions rather than their consequences. The moral permissibility of an action is determined by whether its maxim can be universally accepted, irrespective of the outcome. 29:07 - Aristotle's Moral Theory (Eudaimonia): Aristotle argues that human beings have a unique purpose or function and that achieving eudaimonia (flourishing or fulfillment) is the ultimate goal. Eudaimonia is attained through the exercise of virtues and realizing one's potential as a rational being. You’re welcome! 😊
@@Oberstien17 there is also a variety of liberalism's plus of course Judeo-Christian-Islamic moral values that are still prevelent. For instance neoliberalism and libertarianism informs much of the financial and business world modus of operandi.
This is AMAZING!! Please don't stop making these videos, I major in mathematics I used to be interested in philosophy but I stopped reading some time ago This is really interesting for people like me, outside the humanities field but also interested to have a basic knowledge in it Thank you so much!! Also you had me questioning some of my life choices back there 😂
philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
I’m a biology major planning on switching to philosophy. I’ve read some of Nietzsche and Kant, but have quite a scattered knowledge of other prevailing ethical viewpoints. This is extremely helpful in getting my foot in the door. *update* I've decided to pursue a neuroscience major and philosophy minor. Thanks for all of your input. Made me laugh.
I also recommend the Wireless Philosophy channel where they ask Philosophy Professors to speak for ~10 minutes about a specific topic: ru-vid.com If you're interested in debates (especially about topics related to Theology), I recommend this channel as well: ru-vid.com Finally, I recommend this channel where a brain scientist interviews Theologians, Philosophers and Scientists about all sorts of questions: ru-vid.com All the best to you! :)
Honest advice. Think this through, because in the future a philosophy degree won't be enough to land a solid jobs where other fields are more valued, but on the other sense you would be also over-qualified for a barista job.
I tried to comment on your video about Peter Singer’s essay, and was disappointed to discover that some viewers had spoiled that opportunity for the rest of us. It took a couple of months and some additional reading before I could no longer accept the immorality of my relative affluence. I’m beginning to address that and I thank you Prof. Kaplan for introducing me to the ideas of Peter Singer. Watching your videos has increased my curiosity about philosophy. It might become my pastime of choice when I retire.
Great Summary of the concepts involved! I've really never seen anyone who could explain the salient features of utilitarianism so succinctly. You should analyse the morality of promising the entire course in one video and taking two videos to do it. Definitely violated a few maxims 😋
@@profjeffreykaplan, respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
@@profjeffreykaplan I mean, considering Kant's habit of over promising shown in the letter to Herz, I'd say this follows in Kant's shoes pretty well 😋
Really good video! Goes without saying that classroom discussions around these issues brings a lot more in terms of learning. Around the 10 minute mark I knew it would be impossible to talk about all these people within the alotted time, but the video itself was captivating from the outset and throughout. In Norway we have something called ex.phil which is a basic philosophy course that all non-STEM majors have to take to get a bachelors degree from a university. The ethics course you referenced in your video includes many of the things we talk about, however ex.phil also has a focus on epistemology.
Boy was I disappointed that comments were disabled on the Peter Singer video. I'm new to your channel and happy to see you have more videos focusing on ethics. I just wanted to drop this from the Immanuel Velikovsky archive. from The Psychoanalytic Papers CHAPTER X The Criterion for Ethical Values and Its Determination What is evil? Evil means assimilation of the superior by the inferior. Evil means a failure - Beethoven’s nephew, who sponged at the expense of genius. Diseases are evil, as is the action of bacteria. Also death is evil. Relative evil is the assimilation of something that could have been replaced by the inferior - that which has a lesser capability for the production of lasting values [these last being defined as] accumulated powers of assimilation. Thus the eating of meat is relatively evil. The assimilation drive, in and of itself, is neither good nor evil: it becomes good when sublimation takes place, but when abasement occurs, it becomes evil. Mean is the embezzlement of life from something that is meant to serve the assimilation only to a limited extent. It is mean, because the greater portion is thus condemned to go the contrary way of useless devaluation. Thus the consumption of bird tongues, for which birds are killed, is meant mean, and relatively evil. Equally mean is the activity of bacteria who, for want of a small portion of the human substance which they need, destroy a whole organism -that is, diminish its assimilation capacity excessively. The usurer who destroys the livelihood of a person for a few pennies, is just as mean. If it is possible to calculate the energetic values of an introgenic event mathematically, also nothing stands in the way of determining ethical values in mathematical quantities. ........ The algorithm won't allow me to drop a link in the comments but if you post community I can send my own ethics writing (in comix PDF).
From my own satirical writing Aristotle's Poetics of Evil The Romance, It's Abasing. The Comedy, It's Reprehensible. The Irony, It's Degenerative. The Tragedy, It's Ruinous. excerpted from The Turkish Prisoner's Dilemma - CHEAT SHEET by Ανδρέ Σταμαύρα APPENDIX
I'm taking an intro to philosophy college course for my sophomore year of high school and wanted to get some sort of idea before taking the course, so thanks a bunch!
Bentham equating rightness of moral actions with pleasure reminds me of Adam Smith equating exchangeable value of commodities with labor (my roommate says this is called the 'labor theory of value') in that we assume that different forms of pleasure (resp. labor) can be directly compared. This assumption is vague and handwavy yet incredibly useful in either case. The relationship between Quantity and Knowledge is very mysterious.
Nozick's Experience Machine always bothered me because when you we're in it, how could we know we're not *actually making friends, *actually being the person we want to be, or *actually doing things (ie things like controlling our own lives). This "*actually" part of our experiences would necessarily be a part of the Experience Machine's job. And if I woke up from this life and I realized "Jesse Hall" was all a dream that "real I" (who I can't remember the name of right now) had in an Experience Machine, then I would simply thank whoever or whatever made the Experience Machine, and I'd probably play again without any regrets: Amor Fati. Plus, if I did wake up from the machine, then it wouldn't answer the following question, "Is this the actual reality, or am I still in another Experience Machine?" How many levels of simulation can there be? Much like Inception. I can't be the only person who's gone down this trail of thought. Whether or not it's all a dream, I don't worry too much. It was all a dream worth having. ---- I love Peter Singer's paper and his overall point. I feel like he wants to make heroes of us all. It's the right thing to do. I need to read or look up what Singer feels about socialism, taxes, and government in general. Aren't taxes a major way for me to support the common good of mankind? Socialism of any type would necessarily build the best safety nets for all mankind? The right use of small, efficient, decentralized government would necessarily be the best case for all mankind? Singer must go over these issues. My taxes ought to go towards a socialist, small, efficient, decentralized government which includes the right amount of protection of kids from drowning in shallow ponds.
Kants theory feels like something that only matters in, well, theory. If people were brutally honest with their intentions then sure, judgement could fall on something other than their actions. This is not the case though, and even if it were, there would be no way to tell in any case. I can see there being grey areas based on the situation, but overall, I think actions speak much much louder than intentions, at least to everyone but the person acting.
thank you for hearing out how the lens of another human views human thought enough to be able to question its long term viability without downloading it as absolute truth.
Really great introduction! Enjoyed diving into some fascinating concepts I didn't get a chance to during my undergrad. You seem like a very fun professor to study under!
That was very interesting, coincidentally I began reading "Anarchy, State and Utopia" where Nozick expose his Experience machine, though I find odd that Nozick assume that many people would say no just because they know that they are not in reality ;either way this was a very interesting video👌🏾👌🏾
Nozick's experiment is really whack to be honest. When you get into his deeper arguments he seems completely irrational and delusional, as if he never even met another person.
@@Reality-Distortion I see what you mean there are some though experiment such as the protective agencies in a state of Nature that are really well though especially from an anthropological point of view but then when it comes to thinking of the future with his experiment machine which a page later becomes transformation machine his arguments can only be understood by him, in my opinion 🙆🏾♂️🙆🏾♂️
@@mutabazimichael8404 His transformation machine could basically allow you to be immune to all diseases and live in perfect health as well as shape but he thinks people wouldn't enter it. His impact machine or whatever it was he thought of that can have impact on the world is basically omnipotence but he thinks people wouldn't use it. I don't know if he lived in a basement his entire life or is just so salty and hardheaded that he'd ignore every piece of evidence that his theory makes absolutely no sense.
@@Reality-Distortion I agree with you, for now I'm on part 2 of his book (where he explains why not going further then a minimal state) I shall try to see if in the end his argument all fit in adequately in the grand structure of his theory but still though I got to recognize that the guy had a lot of imagination.
4. The physical proximity of suffering people is irrelevant. If we don't think of them as part of our group, we can easily ignore them, even when they're sitting on the sidewalk in front of us. But if, as it happened after the 2004 tsunami, we're relentlessly reminded of the suffering of others, we can come to recognize them as part of our larger group -- humanity -- and then we help them.
I think (therefor I am LOL) my problem is that you (many philosophers) throw out a LOT of value words without defining or explaining why something is good or right or better than some other point of view or attitude. Example: It was assumed without explanation that a riot that killed hundreds was "right" or "wrong". I think it matters to the individual what their "moral" foundation is built upon. We aren't born (as far as I can tell) with any foundation but we build our foundation on our life experiences, whether those are taught or observed along the way. BTW: whether real or not, your perceived joy in these lectures is what helps keep me coming back for more. I'm 73 years old and I promised my father I would never stop learning. Thank you for helping keep the promise alive.
In the 1972 article, the question is how much of a discreptancy does there have to be between your situation and the ones in 'dire' need to justify charity, and how much charity per unit of discreptancy. And if the people in the 'dire' situation can survive without you, how does that affect the situation, does the need for charity reach a breaking point? If you are obliged to give to those who have less no matter the situation of the person in need then the logical conclusion is communism, where everybody has the same. With this charity-utalitarianism can it not be said that making as much money as possible means you are able to give more, meaning more charity, this draws the conclusion that your morally obliged (I disagree with the word 'oblige' in ethics but whatever) to make as much money as possible, further does it matter how you make this money, can you really calculate how exactly everybody is affected by your way of making money? And if you are most able to make more money if you don't spend it all on charity continually, but rather reinvest or save then should you do that? The conclusion here is to spend your entire life making as much money as humanly possible and then donate it all to charity upon death.
14:08, I think the big difference is not that there are others or the distance, it's that saving the child in the shallow lake ends the danger of that child. Someone who is hungry, if given food, will continue to be in the same situation days later, as the risk of starvation has not been overcome
[1] Do no harm. [2] Try to do some good. [3] Be wary of proposes trading harm for good. Our legal systems define 'harm'. Aesthetics tend to indicate what might be 'some good' - improvements. "The good of the many justifies harm to a few." is an example that proposes trading harm for good.
The question of "Why be moral?" can be explained by simply stating that the definition of the word moral is such that you should be moral. To act truly morally is by definition better than not, there is therefor not such a question as why be moral, it's like saying why be good, well the definition good means it is good. Why is it good to act well? Because the definition of the word good means it is good to act well. "Why be moral" is like saying "Why be good" The answer is: Because the deifnition of good means that it is better than to not. It's the definition of the word.
Ahh! Well played. Your second statement was that you would summarize your semester into “one” video. only to be revealed at the end of the first video that you “couldn’t” do it. I’m loving the irony of the dilemma this must have caused you…. (i hope you will have your students analyze this contradiction!). and sincerely, great videos, please keep posting.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:28 📚 Utilitarianism: Morally required to do whatever produces the greatest total of pleasure minus pain, focusing on the consequences of actions and pleasure/pain as the basis for moral value. 03:16 🧠 Thought Experiment: Robert Nozick's experience machine challenges hedonism and suggests that other factors, such as control, friendship, and actual experiences, matter for human well-being beyond pleasure. 09:23 💔 Critique of Utilitarianism: H.J. McCloskey's sheriff example shows a counter-example where utilitarianism yields morally problematic results, questioning its viability as a comprehensive moral theory. 11:25 🤔 Kant's Deontology: Kant's moral theory is based on the maxim or intention of an action, determining its morality by assessing if everyone involved could potentially agree to it. 14:22 😊 Aristotle's Eudaimonia: Aristotle's ethical theory centers on eudaimonia, achieving fulfillment and happiness by fulfilling the unique function or purpose of a human being, which involves rationality and exercising virtues. 18:47 🕶️ Nietzsche's Challenge: Nietzsche's perspective rejects conventional morality, viewing it as for losers and suggesting a questioning of traditional moral values. 21:38 🤔 Ethics Course Continuation: The video will continue with discussions on objective moral facts, including Plato, John Locke, David Hume, and more. Made with HARPA AI
A simple response to the pleasure machine thing is that we don't mindlessly purse pleasure and avoid pain, we are capable of rational analysis and of feeling guilt and anger according to our different personalities, that simply means that there's pleasure and pain in the way that we purse pleasure and avoid pain, certain things can give us pleasure but in a way that brings us pain severe enough to interfere with that pleasure and so we avoid it. Many people might not like giving up the "real world" because that idea brings them pain, pain that is severe enough to interfere with their expectation of pleasure and so they don't do it, because the act in the moment would bring them too much pain for too little expectation of pleasure. Pleasure and pain are still the main forces here.
1. Humans live in groups, and like all social animals we've evolved a system of cooperation that makes group living possible. We call our system morality. Actions that reinforce the group are good, and actions that undermine the group are bad.
Regarding Singer's theory, I think his reasoning that we should save the other's life when we can is the right thing to do. The flaw in the theory might be that it is often impossible to determine wether your action is the one saving the most lives. Take for instance the take-out coffee example, you might argue that the coffee-shops makes more efficient and sustainable use of their coffee machines, maybe tend to buy more fair trade and organic types of coffee, have local mushroom growers pick up their coffee grounds, give people a good experience which helps them do better work over the day (their job might be to facilitate the building of water puts or give microfinances for people in poor countries) and be nicer to others who in turn also do better at work and to others again and so on. Now saving the most lives is definetely the best thing to do, but how do we measure which choice is best? For these small things, like having a take-out coffee, have it at home or don't have it at all, it might be too close to call, I do guess the more expensive the luxury item gets, the more likely it will be that it's better to donate the money.
the thing is everyone is selfish, all compassion and benevolent actions towards others are because we can't guarantee that we'll be "on top" in every interaction and this behavior helps us foster an environment that creates the expectation of cooperation which ends up serving us
3:48 if someone made a decision that is good initially doesn't mean the outcome will be good over time. Yes being strapped into the machine would be good for a time, but pleasure is a multifaceted idea. You may have pleasure from having a satisfying relationship with the world around you or a family that cares about you. In the vat thought experiment time isn't factored into the equation to the idea of pleasure, which means that the theory still holds up. Actually this says a lot about the philosophers understanding of long term outcomes and that he might lack an understanding of delayed pleasure and possibly even concepts of moral pleasure.
Proximity is most certainly a relevant difference because the cost of shipping is non-zero. And the transparency of these agencies is sometimes in question. In some cases they are suspected of doing the cheapest jobs possible and pocketing the rest.
Money can be wanted for itself, as an indicator of value being added to society. Kind of like points in a video game. You can see who sees it this way (warren Buffett, who spends very little), and people who see money as means to something else (criminals who buy lots of jewelry or material things. They won’t see money as an indicator of value add if they are not adding value).
14:00 Actually, the problem is easy to figure out. We assume infallibility on the part of relief agencies. The child who's drowning in a shallow pond, it's obvious we could walk in and save him. But a sufficiently corrupt agency, or one based on a sufficiently flawed premise, could very well (and some would argue often do) make the problem worse. That assumption of infallibility is our unquestioned assumption. As the saying goes, "Tax the rat farms".
If the experience machine perfectly simulates all and any pleasure, then it becomes the ultimate life in a sense. Making friends, doing things, and being kind, etc, are pleasurable to those who seek those pursuits. And by design, these activities will be even more enjoyable inside the experience machine. So, no, it is not rational to opt out of the experience machine if it's really all it's cranked up to be, no pun intended.
I tend to believe in utilitarianism, but an important point that a lot of counterarguments seem to miss is that you need to work through all the long-term consequences of your actions. So with the sheriff example, maybe framing the person could have good short-term effects, but upholding justice would be better for society and lead to less suffering in the long run. It's like saying I could get a lot of pleasure if I went out and blew all my savings on drugs, which is true but would make me unhappy later once I'm broke and an addict. I think the main issue with consequentialism in general is that it's just too much work to think through all the effects of every action, and there is a lot of uncertainty involved. That's where the idea of deontological rules comes in, they give you a (relatively) simple system for making decisions in real life without having to stop and draw up a flow chart. But in principle the rules should be derivable from utilitarianism, based on what types of actions tend to on average produce the most benefit and least harm in the long term. It's essentially the same as the idea of type 1 and type 2 thinking, where we use simple heuristics to make snap judgements but then if necessary we can go back and think it through slowly and logically.
Just found this channel, very interesting. How is Jeff writing the text back to front? Is there a mirror involved? Oh I get it! Reversed video, very clever!
I love this channel. It is honestly such a blessing in this day and age to have access to such comprehensive and efficient knowledge. It is a shame that in spite of this, my generation is glued to tiktok and other such vapid content. ALSO! I have come to the conclusion every lecture of yours is an intellectual parallel of charlie from "It's always sunny in Philidelphia." All your lectures remind me of his conspiracy wall. If you don't know what I mean, search it up and I'm sure you will agree.
philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
14:18 Shallow pond counterexample: there's always another child in the pond, no matter now many times you save a child from the pond. So the question is, how much should you care about other people? How much of your time & quality of life should you give to help others?
My high school ethics teacher tought us why virtue ethics is the best ethics, it is only now that I see a valid &atheistic reasoning for such. His reasoning was that virtues are less subjective.
To the child in the shallow pond thing, you getting wet only happens once. If when you donate money you lose more and more money. It would be a better example if thousands of children were constantly drowning and once you save them they keep wading into the pond. Also, each time you wade into the river a random piranha takes a bite out of you. If you spend your day saving kids you will die and the kids will go back to the pond just like how if you donate all your money you will be poor and all the poor will still need more to eat. My answer is to watch the kids drown and only helping those who are learning how to swim out themselves. Also my answer to the sheriff dilemma is to frame the guy and then release him later once the perp was caught since the innocent man might get killed in the riot
The argument against the comparison of shallow pond to UNISEF aid would be that there is a significant cost to spending all of your excess money that you worked for all of your life to obtain on a problem that will never end vs just pulling a kid out of the water, job done. Then we could modify the shallow pond question into; if there was location nearby that had an infinite amount of kids drowning in shallow ponds, am I morally obligated to live as modestly as possible, working as little as possible to spend all my time saving these kids? And others aren't dedicating their free time to do this either?
The problem with Singer’s argument is game theory, in that “charity begins at home.” Unless we ALL globally agree to contribute towards famine relief; when we ourselves face famine or hunger or destitution, if we have spent our resources, we cannot be assured they will come back to us in our time of need. So, we tend to wait until we are older, or when meeting our own needs is assured, to give to greater and less personal causes. Until then, we limit our generosity to those we know and trust to step up to help us if times become difficult. This is the reason generosity to the poor can be miserly-because they have few resources beyond their character, to return the favor if they are called on. (But can also be the most likely to step up if asked).
Jeffrey Kaplan, GREAT PRESENTATION! However, sadly, these "Super Stars" of Ethical Theory are All Wrong. For example, e.g., Kant's Deontic or Duty Ethics does not adequately reveal the origins of Duty. When two people make an agreement they both have an obligation to fulfill their part of their agreement. They have an obligation. They each have a Duty to Fulfill their agreement. Without an Agreement there are no duties to fulfill. In closing, your work is admirable! I choose to Subscribe and Not hear anymore of Robert Sapolsky's inability to find a realistic, practical, working definition of Free Will. Thank You for your work.
I have been thinking about your video on famine, affluence and morality and think that I have an objection. I get the pond example, where jumping in to save the child is something we must do with a truly insignificant loss to us (the person who does the saving). But when he applies it to a way of life, one where you can never get coffee, or eat out, or ever buy nice and expensive clothes or a nice car is far fetched. Think of it like the utilitarians: when you add up all the things you have to give up, it is no longer insignificant. You would have to change your entire way of living, give up time cooking at home, and experiences of connecting with friends at restaurants, you would have to give up potentially a lot of seemingly insignificant things, but over time they add up. Picture it like this, if you were walking past the child in a puddle, and you saved him and got wet and muddy, that is fine because you go home and dry off and clean off the mud. But what if you lived in a world where that happened all day, all the time, all around you. You would never have time to dry off, you would always be muddy, and suddenly getting wet and muddy goes from a relatively insignificant thing to an entire lifestyle with constant loss that you must experience to keep saving the children. If you are a utilitarian martyr, it might make sense to keep saving the children, or giving up a coffee to save a life, but in the big picture it is NOT a insignificant loss that you take on, it is extremely significant. If you are a strict utilitarian, you will agree that this is still what you should do, because your life being far worse ends up saving thousands, which utilitarians think is worth it, but then again, the argument is as flimsy as strict utilitarianism.
With regards to Singer’s essay, I have one question: If we send all our money to these relief programs, then what of all the jobs that will be lost in the clothing, hospitalities, and entertainment fields? Would this not in turn cause famine due to lack of employment and earning potential? I’m sure this point has been made, but I do not have access to the argument refuting it. Let me make it known too that I have not read the full article, so I beg forgiveness if this question and conclusion is presumptive and ignorant. 😅 I would then postulate to say that when one buys clothes, coffee, a movie, etc then they are in fact doing the very thing that Singer encourages others to do. They are supporting those who have employment and wage earning abilities in those industries, thus doing their part to “pull the child from the pond”. Further, the child in the pond is only temporarily “saved”. It does not guarantee that he will not die or even face imminent death either by illness or famine. The child would still need to learn skills to sustain his own life. Part of those skills require the training given to teach said skills to the child by others coupled with an environment that promotes sustaining of life. Which brings the next point: The other aspect that was not addressed is with regards to those in this “philanthropic” business. Those at the head are, often, quite wealthy and do the very thing Singer condemns. For example, Bill Gates who spends an exorbitant amount of money beyond his “needs” somehow gets a free pass because he appears to spear head philanthropic endeavors to “end world hunger”. Such endeavors can in fact be debated in and of themselves. Therefore, the situation becomes mere rhetoric and people continue to die of famine. Philanthropy can be a means to gain control over a population. “Give someone a fish and they eat for a day, teach them to fish and they eat for a lifetime”. Those who give the fish in turn have the power to take the fish away. And this goes down a well of further possibilities that defy the premise of “do good”. To that I digress 😂.
5. Survival, procreation opportunities, and quality of life are all enhanced for a person who cooperates with others in a group (if we had not evolved as social animals, and survived, we'd still be throwing rocks at our next meal). A morally good action reinforces the group and, by extension, benefits the person performing that action.
6. If it's recognized that a person who could contribute to the group but is not doing so, their quality of life and possibly their procreation opportunities are often reduced. If a person undermines the group through bad actions, they're punished or ostracized.
The experience machine is a wrong analogy. He does not address that the reason people dont pick the machine is because the "pain" of knowing your experience is fake is greater than any pleasure it could produce. Yet im sure there are some, and maybe many, that would pick the machine willingly. Perhaps because their lives are so painful that living a "fake" life would still seem better. Thus, experience machine doesn't contradict utilitarianism :)
As I see it, the field of ethics was initially based on figuring out what our morals are and what they should be. It then evolved to just a question of what our morals are.
As an undergraduate studying Philosophy, I find this particularly interesting. Utilitarianism resonates with me as a system of government. I am a Marxist and a Democratic Socialist.
8:10 no, the other solution would be that the Sheriff convinces the crowd with proof. Also the pain an action produces has more weight in a situation like this.
Here is my answer to Peter singers morality theory. Imagine you are in a relationship with someone who has mental health issues. You are thus obliged to help them out. But what if helping them out brings a fraction of your mental health down. Should you still help them or is it their inability to change for maybe reasons they cannot help that can lead to a toxic relationship. Should I donate to famished people or am I just perpetuating authoritarian regimes to continue not taking care of their people with charity as a buffer. If i donate I may improve a discrete case but I have not even put a dent in the machine that perpetuates it. So why not enjoy some luxury as systems of human suffering are always perpetual and insurmountable. Sometimes if you prop yourself up, you may not help people in far away systems of suffering but it can arm you to improve your slice of existence and the existence of the immediate people around you. What needs to be adjusted in society is the incentive systems we generate to obtain luxuries. For example let a construction worker enjoy his pay check for providing a home to a family. Capitalism has achieved in some cases this result. But obviously we need to continuously retool our economic systems so our incentive systems for luxuries has more positive benefits for the most people.
The division between animal nature and human nature is a faulty assumption. We are animals - specifically, one of the numerous species of primates. We are very closely related to the common chimpanzee, and we share with our cousins mutual traits like intelligence, playfulness, curiosity, aggression and violence. Chimps organize hunting parties and war bands. The desire to control our impulses stems from our bigger, more developed brains. Our frontal lobes help us foresee to an extent the results of our behavior. People capable of empathy and compassion - states of mind dogs, elephants and dolphins are demonstrably capable of- are willing to defer the gratification of pleasure or impulses for society's good. That is, we humans expect more of ourselves because we can do better. This is noble - but it's still animal. Just grown up as it were. Human nature isn't evil. That's a hangover from the Abrahamic Tradition. Human nature is tragic, not evil. Then there's the issue of principles, important principles like social justice. Frederick Douglas said 'Tyrants do not deserve to live.' Revolution to free slaves is morally right despite the lives it takes, because the principle is about human agency itself. Some things matter more than individual lives.
16:53 - I'm confused please help: I doubt that Kant's theory gets a different result on the Sheriff example. The Maxim or intention of the sheriff is to avoid the death of many innocent people by framing one single person. In that case, in my opinion, the person framed might agree to that.
