I have finished watching 2 full playlists, and some other videos of your channel. I am absolutely impressed by the way you guys break down complex philosophical concepts and explain them. Way to go guys, cheers!
Firth is aware of the potential circularity problem. His ideal observer does not actually judge whether an act is right or wrong, according to Firth. He only "reacts" to the act, either approving or disapproving or it. The problem seems to be then, why should we care about how the ideal observer reacts? How or why should the observer's reactions influence our decisions?
Here is another problem in this theory. How do we know that being impartial and dispassionate while making a moral judgment is morally good? Which is we are applying to the ideal observer. Is being inconsistent, partial while making a moral judgment is necessarily bad? Without solving this questions, we are considering these values as 'ideal' in an ideal observer.
Could you guys please do a video on the grounding problem in moral philosophy please? By extension, talking about Max Stirner would be cool. It seems to be the biggest issue for cognitive moral philosophy. By grounding problem I mean why it is that pleasure or social cohesion or not using people as a means to a end should be a basis to work on with morality and are good? Seems like with every moral philosophy in the cognitive branch you could keep asking why until they either get to circular reasoning or make axioms. Hopefully I am saying this all right ^^ Anyway take care.
@@wyatt4710 This confuses metaethics and normative ethics. The ideal observer is a metaethical, where as deontology, virtue ethics, and the like are normative.
I feel like a lot of the criticisms of IOT (charges of circular reasoning, Euthyphro dilema, questions about what principles the IO uses to make their judgement (utilitarian, Kantian, libertarian, etc)) are different manifestations of the same problem: The IO can't make a judgement without knowing which facts are morally-relevant, which implicitly relies on some external ethical theory (thus rendering IOT superfluous, à la 1st horn of Euthyphro dilemma). To paraphrase Richard Garner ("Beardsley, Firth and the Ideal Observer Theory"): "Either the condition that the IO knows which facts are morally-relevant must be added to the definition of the IO, or it need not. If it must be added, the definition of IO must be rejected as circular. If it need not be added, the definition must be rejected on the grounds that an IO who does not know what is & isn't morally-relevant is no better than one who knows nothing at all". Great video btw; this is by far the best (and one of the only) video explaining Ideal Observer Theory.
Thanks ...waiting for your video...your channel is really good . Please make video on immortality of soul, and religious pluralism and absolute truth .
Both of you are guys are wrong.... The ideal observer can not judge one's behavior,with no emotions or affection. Our ideal observer must have emotions to judge someone action. On the other hand, emotions are not perfect for judging one's action. Because morals are not complete universal. You can say that his or her actions are wrong , but in other countries are right. How can an ideal observer judge such actions if morals are relative..... It is incoherent..... It doesn't work... Thank you I enjoyed your videos
We have covered Kantian Ethics: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZOoJ9Cq3oKM.html We are looking to do more videos on Kant. Transcendental Idealism has been requested quite a lot.
just completed the video game "observer" here i was looking up theory videos on the game and i come across this, hmmmm, dont think this is connected lmao
