Allah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila AllahAllah Akbar Allah Akbar, La Illah ila Allah
@@enderpup9289 Strong will rule ofcourse but that doesn't mean the meek can't exist. No man rules alone. They need people to do their bidding. Those who are strong enough will continue to exist and procreate.
I always thought of "Survival of the Fittest" as the opposite of what people usually mean Species don't survive because they're fit, they are fit because they survive The problem comes from the _definition_ of fitness
Reminds me of the "moral foundations" theory, basically saying that humans tend to share a set of ethical values across cultures because they're evolutionary useful, and those foundations go on to inform political and ethical preferences/choices. From the little website the theory has, the moral foundations are: 1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. 2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. 3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one." 4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions. 5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
I see a few huge issues with this. One it frames everything in dualistic terms which is actually a very uniquely western cultural idea, it is not universal and we've just gotten so used to it that we don't even realize it's an idea, in Chinese culture for example usually the focus is instead on harmonies, the idea that instead of having things oppose each other everything exists as part of a whole and when everything is in balance relative to each other you have a harmonious state and this is good. So the whole idea of the foundation kinda inherently fails because it's based on a western idea. Two the last three points just have little basis in historical facts, power structures have certainly shifted but throughout history the thing people have always primarily been loyal to is their friends and family above all. Until the invention of nationalism it was only in the upper class that you saw any kind of identification with some kind of overarching group and it was also only really the upper class where you actually saw any kind of real betrayal where people completely jumped to the other side, otherwise in war peasants usually just deserted to go back to their home because those were the people they cared about and they really did not give a shit about some far away king or nation. That's also why most armies were made up of mercenaries because no one wanted to risk their lives unless they were getting payed very well, and most of the time they became mercenaries because they were on the run. There's not any evidence of a "long primate history of hierarchical social interactions" the earliest evidence is stuff like burials where someone might have gotten a lot of stuff in their burial but it's simply impossible to know whether they were given a lot of stuff because they were the chieftain or just because they were really well respected and liked. After all the people who we tend to care the most about dying nowadays are not those who held any kind of power but celebrities and those who were really selfless and helped others a lot. Not only that but if you go further back it completely breaks down, one of the closest relatives to humans is Bonobos and they basically have no strict hierarchies. The point here isn't that humans are naturally anti-hierarchical the point is that the evidence doesn't clearly point towards anything. Some human relatives were hierarchical, some weren't, and some archeological evidence might point towards hierarchy but a lot also doesn't and in general it's just hard to interpret stuff that's many thousands years old. The idea that the body is a temple is not very widespread, the idea that it is special is but that is not the same as it being a temple that must be kept clean. Buddhism for example would contend that the body is a complete illusion and whether or not it's clean is an unreal idea that keeps you attached to the world and prevents you from reaching nirvana. And the idea of living in some sort of morally pure way is also not at all universal, a lot of religions don't place any kind of importance on that and instead place importance on great skill in battle or hunting or being able to communicate with spirits. A lot of these things are just common in organized religions, but you can perhaps see why an organized religion might say that a specific way of living that's out of the reach of common people is somehow better and benefits the group as a whole, it's kinda needed for you to even have a priest class at all.
Bold, but quite essential to make a video on how science relates to philosophy, ethics and other fields of humanities. This is a dimension that I've noticed is lacking in a lot of great educational channels. It fosters unnecessary division between people with different interests and just generally makes people miss out on how intimately and useful different ways of looking at the same thing can be. Thanks for making great videos.
Favorite Line: "The phrase only makes sense if you know what Darwinian fitness is... and, if you know what that is, you're never going to use the phrase, because it makes no goddamn sense."
Hell yes, love this channel! I probably like this channel because the way he presents seems so relaxed and casual even with the silliness that's actually happening in the video.
I found your channel and I'm loving the videos, a lot of ideas I've had myself and it's really interesting seeing someone talk about topics and questions the way you do. Thank you and I'll be watching more!
I loved this, Your stuff is some of the most Interlectually Engaging videos on youtube. You appeal to me with your basic ideas and then develop them so skillfully. Thanks for all the content!
This is such good content!!! It reminds me of the incredible potential internet media such as youtube has to illustrate and spread ideas.This vid is prime example of this in its highest capacity.
Thank you so much for the hard work it takes to make these videos. They are always amazing and really make me think about things I otherwise wouldn't think this deeply about.
Hey man! I absolutely love your videos and I have shared your videos with everyone every time you release one. Your content is amazing and I sincerely hope that you grow as a channel.
It's worth noting, though, that many professional philosophers (those doing philosophical research today in meta-ethics) think that moral truths are objective (i.e., their truth values do not vary according to our attitudes about them)-a view called "moral realism"-and that there are first-order normative ethical theories (e.g., Kantian deontology) that can generate particular "oughts" without reference to, or being conditional upon, particular desires or any other "empirical determining ground." Robust moral realists would dispute the claim that "goodness" and "badness" are moral properties that only subsist in minds. They would say that "goodness" and "badness" (and perhaps other moral properties) actually exist in the world just like any other objective properties do, perhaps because they are reducible to certain natural properties. There are a handful of theories that explain the "reduction relation" that obtains between moral properties and natural properties. (For example, analytic reductionism says that moral properties are identical to some natural properties; synthetic reductionism says that moral properties stand in some other relation to natural properties: e.g., that moral properties supervene on natural ones, etc.) There are a handful of theoretical virtues to these kinds of views, like how they explain our moral epistemology (i.e., how we come to know moral facts). Of course, there are also some cons. These pros and cons are what constitute the contemporary debate in metaethics among professional philosophers. That said, not all moral realists are robust realists. Yet, that doesn't threaten the objectivity of morality for them. And again, on the first-order level, it's a good exercise to think about how we can generate unconditional/categorical oughts (cf. Kantian deontology).
Ah. Stay tuned for "Part 2" This was a 30 minute video. All my "beta testers" agreed it was disorganized and confusing so I’ve been splitting it up. But the ideas you talk about were the inspiration for the video
Veritas most would argue that deontological arguments just like kantian ethics are flawed in the sense that making something a categorical imperative takes consequential reasoning (usually utilising emotion-good vs bad within the mind) and therefor even these arguments are not exempt from good vs bad thinking.
I am definitely a robust moral realist, I think morality is inherent to intelligent life, and that it's real even beyond what we know as intelligent life.
I've seen many times, you just state a definition for term. Typically, they just say something like, "it's hard to argue that the killing of the rabbit isn't doing evil to the rabbit." What, then, is a reasonable way to assess our wants versus the needs of another? And this is where from you get derivatives of thought that expand the definitions of things like sentience to include all manner of animals, often without considering them in relation to our own sentience, but as an absolute. Thus, with regards to the first question, it does not seem that in our civilization the paucity of resources with any linkage to a developed world country has anything to do with abortion, indeed, one may obtain additional resources simply by placing the child for adoption. Thus, we are lead to a place where morality of abortion is nigh absolute in terms of doing evil to the child, and the validity of doing it for the civilization seems unlikely as well. Although some philosophers I've seen point out some remote cases, however, they do not center the need for abortion on these unlikely circumstances. I think this is what you're asking? Indeed, in most of the developed world the rights of the child are acknowledged after 12 weeks, or several weeks later, and the woman is then expected to take responsibility for it. One could argue they were more or less obligated to "take care of it" before that point. Although, it seems if one really wants a work around it is sometimes available. Nonetheless, in the design of the system, this is relevant. I suspect you're form the US, in the US the SCOTUS decided that the child's rights were undetermined and the woman was given the right to privacy. A very odd finding, lol, to make killing a human something the state cannot be concerned with, and I fairly certain it's an anomaly in law, not just US law, but abortion law internationally. That makes it trickier in the US to assert the rights of the child or the medical good of the abortion itself. Very late term abortions aren't safer for the female and seem to result in negative life outcomes for the woman as well. Indeed, from a statistical standpoint women are better if they give live birth, in general, and women with a deceased fetus recover more quickly if they give birth and grieve rather than have it ripped up, although, I believe, inducing labor is fine. The point is that the grieving process seems to work better if birth is given. SO, what you have even after abortions in many countries where they are legal is that the socialized medical system packages the abortion around these types of care which improve outcomes, often, these include what in the US is considered obstacle, but just health care, in the rest of the world. Certainly, that first baby takes a toll on the body, and there is some normally quite minor risk to health, in the developed world. Also, there is certainly a social aspect... regardless of the choice you make. I don't mean to be misconstrued, as is often done by pro-choice persons... Indeed, pro-life persons often do counseling in the US for post abortive women who seek such service, apparently much often than noted by PP, perhaps for plausible deniability reasons. It seems a bit serious, but perhaps it's amusing to note that religious beliefs are blamed for the pain caused to women by having their unborn child killed. Rather perverse thing. We see a similar behaviour in the media, wherein they do not like to discuss abortion to remind people of what is, lest they become devasted unnecessarily, especially because of widespread lies about a mass of cells or some such nonsense not present in the reality of looking it up online, perhaps the most notable reason, other than unity fighting among religions... it is quite easy to research abortion on line, and look at the product, which appears to be dead human beings, and, indeed it is. And this is why the decision of the SCOTUS using pragmatic reasoning to yield abortion to the feminists has not aged well.
This is a fantastic idea that I have considered myself. The way that I think about it is by considering the philosophical question about mathematics 'are numbers a fundamental quality of the universe around us or are they a concept created by the human intellect to more easily understand the universe around us?' and then ask that same question about ethics. 'are good and evil fundamental qualities of the universe around us or are they a concept created by the human intellect to more easily understand the universe around us?'
interesting how this video kinda links to the minute physics video that came out 2 hr prior about how models we use to look at the world isn't nesssarily reality
Very interesting. But what do you think about pragmatism based on nature ? By that I mean that one considers “moral” what is the likeliest to make the most people happy, and since we are in a large part programmed by nature and evolution to be happy for certain things, then we are accepting as moral (generally) what we are programmed to do ?
Very interesting video. I - as a homosexual often get this viewpoint from other people that humans have to do something and that it is against ome kind of "natural order"...but I think - with making your point clear it is easier for them to accept, that it is their system of feeling or wanting something "creates" their "order" something ought to be. V€ry nice illustrations - very cute. Also the voice over again ;).
"Survival of Fittest" is a term coined by people who were trying to put a spin on why some people end up rich while others end up poor. It was never used in Darwin's Book on Evolution. It's just become associated with it due to political spin and trying to reframe it with "biological fitness" means is gonna fail. Funny thing is Darwin actually says in his book that it's not the Fittest that Survive, but rather those most responsive to change. Another words being more adaptable is better than being "fittest" which usually refers to the best as in fastest, strongest, and etc. And it's this common misconception and reference to "Survival of Fittest" which leads people to faulty conclusions and surprising results in studies. Because the implications of the phase is usually that it's best to be the best in the most selfish way looking out only for yourself. Which turns out no to be true as those with experience in game theory can tell you.
I find is that using a literal definition of fitness, is the most effective when discussing evolution. Eg. the quality of an object's relationship to other objects or surroundings. Ie. How well does this organism FIT into its surroundings, including environment and other organisms.
I think arguments around applying survival of the fittest to social phenomena, if that's what you're getting at, can be too easily reduced to an "is/ought" fallacy. Sometimes it's not someone saying "this is the way things happen in the wild, so this is how things should happen in the social world" (in fact I think it's extremely rare that that's the substance of someone's argument), but it can be someone pointing out that related principles can explain a lot or that living by them can make life easier or make systems more efficient and therefore more productive and beneficial. For example, in a job system when you seek equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcomes, the people who are best equipped for specific jobs may be more likely to get them. Sometimes natural hierarchies form (natural as in spontaneous, unforced, automatic) that generally make sense, and appealing to the fact that systems can organise themselves in this way can be a valid part of counter-arguments to those who endorse micromanagement and heavy regulation. And yeah, the wording of "survival of the fittest" tends to make people think of brute strength or ruthlessness, and people need to keep in mind that being optimally equipped for the social world can include qualities like empathy. But are you talking about "mirror neurons" around 3:30? The actual science there is still pretty speculative, and I think it's kind of a flimsy basis for argument. It's interesting to investigate, but I don't think we should be using it as evidence yet.
this is why it might be very scary when we meet other sentient aliens out there in the universe. (And to a greater extent: Artificial Intelligence) Their feelings about what is right and wrong, could be quite different to ours, and it may be difficult to deal with this difference peacefully and diplomatically because of how ingrained they are in our respective different social psyches. We may instinctively want to annihilate each-other. I sometimes wonder if this is what happened to the Neanderthals. Perhaps homo-sapiens wiped them out because their inherent social biases were different to ours, and this made us so uncomfortable that we exterminated them.
the real question is, whether they will even be familiar with the concept of right and wrong in the first place. These things are more of a social construct. In case of neanderthals, what's most likely happened was, they were simply assimilated and out-competed non-violently. As far as we can tell, only peace of evidence which shows Sapiens and Neandertals ever met is a fact that modern europeans contain Neanderthal DNA. Which is more indicative of peaceful relationship rather than violent one.
Why do you think they went extinct lol? Because they were less intelligent and of a lower technological prowess, same reaper will come for the aboriginals of colonised countries as they cannot adapt to civilisation
6:41 Just a minor nitpick, but the chloride ion should be larger than the sodium ion because it has more repulsive forces between electrons, whereas the sodium ion has more attractive forces between the nucleus and electrons
I know evolution doesn't have a specific task or goal to complete, it's just a thing that happens. But I still sometimes fall into the trap of thinking stuff like "the purpose of evolution is ___" or "they ___ because evolution told them to do so" and while those aren't completely wrong descriptions, it subconsciously assigns evolution some sort of intent which it doesn't have. Talking about evolution that way may give people the wrong idea, and also make some random and strange mutations harder to explain for no real reason, yet I still struggle to not talk about it that way automatically.
You can argue that the desire to use contraceptive an outgrowth of the advantageous desire to shirk parenting requirements in males and reduce the number of competing children in females. Our ancestors were desired sex for a long time before the were aware of the results. So in the case the models would still predict that a sentient mind would pick to use contraceptive because the genes behind that mind are just the result of successful strategies in prior generations. It is kind of like how one camouflage in one generation was advantageous, but is disadvantageous after a forest fire or a soot spewing factory is built near by. The same applies here. Before the advent of modern contraceptives. If an organism loved sex but hated babies, it might be able to shirk its parenting duties onto those in the community with overdeveloped sense parental responsibility. The end result is that organism might be able to reproduce more than other genes.
Yes human beings and systems tend to presume that the way things are is the way things ought to be. And yes, this can be mistaken. But there is a reason for this presumption, which you have seemingly ignored: it is overwhelmingly correct. Over the course of human history behaviors that produce bad outcomes have been shunned, and behaviors that produce good outcomes have been copied. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't always be trying to make things better. But it does mean that there is vast wisdom in respecting the way things are, and asking "why are they that way" before effecting a change. Changes have unintended and often surprising consequences when applied to something as complex as human civilization. At a meta-level, the presumption that "the way things are is the way things ought to be" is an example of this. If it didn't consistently produce good decisions, it would not longer be part of our culture. But it does, and it is.
I feel like we are dismissing the idea of survival of the fittest by talking in similar terms to how the days of the week are not real outside of human consciousness. Not that it is not true, but I do not feel like it pushes the needle anywhere. No idea is real outside of human consciousness, but I do not see how that challenges an idea's merit when that applies to everything we think about. Personally, I feel that we can not live the survival of the fittest way because we are morally obligated to see human life as valuable after we are born in most cultures.
