you Kant have everything.

@Idontuseyoutube

9 жыл бұрын

But I mill at least have something?!

@induplicable

9 жыл бұрын

I Kant believe how this thread turned into a Mill of bad puns…

@jwdogg1551

9 жыл бұрын

That's some categorical bullshit.

@HenryCasillas

3 жыл бұрын

🍪

I obtained a bachelor's degree in Philosophy, so I very much appreciated the explanation of these two differing philosophies regarding ethics. However, Utilitarianism was about maximizing pleasure _for an entire populace_ . I think that needs to be stressed. 'Ethics' connotes moral behavior as applied to more than one individual, but it doesn't define it that way, and I don't think the general public much knows the literary distinction between 'morals' and 'ethics.'

@KSMohoganyWizard1869

8 жыл бұрын

+Facey Neck I've often found that 8-bit never gives me the clear picture that I want it to, or rather never a wide enough picture. As a person who strictly dabbles, I always feel like I am looking at a cropped image. I never took a philosophy course and don't have as many frames of reference to compare these to. It would be nice to know who disagrees with whom, when works were built upon, that sort of thing. If I don't do my own reading, I feel like I am basically taking the odd video that I happen to watch as gospel, which I think is not really in the spirit of the discipline.

@GenkoZynk

8 жыл бұрын

+Mohogany Guy 1869 I felt the same way as you do a couple months ago, so I can tell you what I've done to escape this barrier of ignorance that the limited amount of philosophical resources can give someone. Upon viewing Wisecrack's videos on philosophy, I began to notice that I was only receiving a narrow amount of information on the vast subject of philosophy. What helped me was other philosophy KZread channels (this is good because you can see different interpretations on the texts and concepts, which allows you to further your understanding in turn), the philosophy subreddit, and various website that are dedicated to teach the uninitiated and the initiated, alike. Lastly, I've found that despite the rigor displayed in some philosophical texts, it's always good and important to look at the text for yourself and have a bit of unbiased subjectivity upon interpretation. Despite this list's being brief, I believe that it has helped me tremendously upon my endeavor of learning a bit about the amazing subject of philosophy. Hope this helps, and happy learning, my friend! :)

@bissessarpb12

8 жыл бұрын

Can you help me on my paper$

@connorcoxmusic5942

8 жыл бұрын

What is the topic? ajay jay

@dansattah

8 жыл бұрын

That is very interesting and a good point. Where I live, in Germany, students from class 1 to class 10 usually can choose between RE and ethics. After that they have to take ethics, unless they attend a religious private school.

Great concept and execution. Thank you!

Doing philosophy at school, these help a lot

Thanks guys! I needed a simpler version than the one in my philosophy class.

An an action that bring happiness is moral....so masturbation is moral? sweet!

@nobobonobo

9 жыл бұрын

But what if you feel sad afterwards?

@sandrorass3823

9 жыл бұрын

Mill said, "it is better to be socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" (2:26). I think, he would argue, that masturbating is some way to do good, but there are other activities to engage, which are better for you and for others. If you help someone, you feel better afterwards and someone is helped. So it would be 2 for helping and 1 for masturbating. He would also argue, i think, reading a puzzling poem is more enjoyable in the long run. But you probably know that already, i just want to add my thoughts ;-)

@maztercray42

9 жыл бұрын

It bring's pleasure not happiness. not the same thing

@Dr_Bille

6 жыл бұрын

They literally adressed your point in the video. To Mills, they where the same

Thank you. This is the number one video I've been waiting for.

Keep them coming! I love 8-bit philosophy :)

the best thing about these videos is that they're incredibly accurate. Thanks for spreading philosophy around and making geeks like me happy!

Love this show, keep up the good work!

Thank you for the video and I had to read about 20 pages about Kant and Mill !! However this was such a good summarized explanation!!

It's kind of both at the same time - You have to look at the probability as you're able to determine it regarding the greatest good for the greatest number from the perspective of not having made the choice yet.

I like how one of the only times this channel compares two philosophies on one subject, it's a false dichotomy...

Justice... is an illusion.

Love these videos!!

I love these kinds of questions, always in depth and (as long as the conversation stays civil) educational. I would probably subscribe to the 3rd option presented right at the end, morality seems completely subjective.

i am laughing so hard right now, you ended this with one of my favorite jokes. ^.^

I'm more towards Kant then. The realistic approach towards world that encompass too many uncertainty. Principles over happiness, security over satisfaction.

@LaFonteCheVi

4 жыл бұрын

Who's principles? Yours? Kant's ideas quickly fall apart when you realize that everything he predicated his beliefs on is relative.

@nightsage217

4 жыл бұрын

Im not picking side, i just found mine more related to kant than mill. At least i can tell u my constant factor is Good/evil is relative to the observents.

Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Neutral! Ding ding ding!

@Gibson4411

8 жыл бұрын

+Bellamy Chae I'd say lawful neutral. Acting out of one's duty to do the right thing is so subjective that it can sometimes be bad

There's also two kinds of Utilitarianism: act Utilitarianism and rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism is based on a single action. For example, it would be okay to kill one healthy person and donate their organs to save 5 people in need. Rule Utilitarianism is based on if the action is a good rule. So a rule Utilitarian would say that killing one person to save 5 people in need of an organ donation is bad because if everyone was killing healthy people it would create much more unhappiness and fear throughout society.

My only critic: too short of a video! It was awesome, and I wish it was longer and more in depth.

Wisecrack I have been following your channel since 8-bit philosophy started, and I have loved it ever since. Now, I have to say, this video feels copped out, is easy to say "its relative" I can use that statement to finish all your philosophy videos. I think you know the answer to the question of, where do we get our morality (what is good?) from. I know people won't like it, but it is the closest thing to the truth.

Throwing some Nietzsche in at the end I see.

Awesome vid

What if you knew there was a predator in the water? Would you still jump in to save the child? What if in the "now" you are more important than the child? Should you risk your influence over something that is not a person yet? What if that baby was sacrificed to keep 100,000 people safe? Should you still attempt to save it?

As I watched this video, I was curious if you Wisecrack guys would consider rebranding some of the 8Bit episodes. The ones that focus on a single philosopher could be the original "8 Bit Philosophy" and the ones that compare two philosophies could be something like "8 Bit Philosophy: Duking it Out" or "Double the Trouble"or something. Just a suggestion. :)

An issue I see with Mill's special form of consequentialism,utilitarianism (the video should have brought up how it's a form of consequentialism) is how it can still resonate so strongly nowadays even though it lags badly behind our current info on developmental psychology and the biological significance of altruism. I'd pick Kant's deontology and call to action via a sense of duty over having my sense of unrestrained self-direction (.i.e. freedom) defined by something as fickle and potentially one-sided as pleasure.

Damn that was a good episode

I believe in a world with equal freedoms and equal rights. Thus... Before performing an action, I must consider that everybody else must have the right of doing the very same action. Then, I analyze the consequence of such by asking myself: if everybody else does this very same action, because they have the same rights and freedoms I do, would the world become a better or worst place? If the world would become a better place, I mark the action as moral, and I proceed on acting. If the world would become a worst place, I mark the actions as immoral, and refrain from acting. This is the closest to a logical guideline to morality I could come up with. The only issue is determining "better" and "worst". While some actions are truly simple to analyze, some are very difficult; also, good and bad are subjective. Example of simplicity: if I throw trash in the sidewalk, and I believe everybody has the same rights and freedoms as I do, everybody else must have the right of throwing trash on the sidewalk as well; if they do, the world would become worst. Thus, I don't throw trash in the sidewalk. Example of difficulty: if I run naked on the streets, and I believe everybody has the same rights and freedoms as I do, everybody else must have the right of running naked on the streets; if they do, a lot of people would be offended by those actions. Even though I believe running naked causes no harm and nakedness is good, some believe it is bad. Thus, it is difficult to determine if the world would be better or worst due to the subjectivity of my actions.

They're both right. Good is defined by following duty, derived at by reasonable means toward the goal of maximizing the quality of life for the most people. However, I wouldn't use pleasure as the measure for quality of life, but rather the maximum total freedom of choice.

@saeedbaig4249

8 жыл бұрын

+Shawn Ravenfire I wouldn't use pleasure either per say, but I wouldn't use freedom of choice. I would use happiness (happiness and pleasure can be somewhat different). After all, if a person's happy to have certain freedoms of theirs restricted, who are you to stop them?

Wow we just had a seminar at school about these two types of moral systems and how they are seen in the book Antigone

I think it all comes down to empathy and reciprocity. Without those 2 things, morality always falls apart. I wouldn't call it completely subjective or objective, more like inter-subjective.

i always thought it was pretty obvious myself. help those in need, don't be cruel or inconsiderate, think about your actions, that sort of thing. evil doesn't question itself, it just does things and doesn't care, good constantly weighs what the best options are, sometimes doing nothing, but always tries.

"What if it's all relative?" I sure hope we look at that next week.

@WhaleManMan

4 жыл бұрын

What were u referring to here?

@th484953

4 жыл бұрын

@@WhaleManMan I have no idea after 5 years

@WhaleManMan

4 жыл бұрын

@@th484953 Was it the debates leading up to the 2016 election?

It feels so strange that there are still people out there following Mill.

This reminds me of the Kobayashi Maru test from Star Trek. According to Kant the morally right choice would be to attempt to save the Kobayashi Maru from the Klingons because it is a Star Fleet Commanders duty to save lives. Even if the commander fails to save the Kobayashi Maru and gets himself and his crew killed Kant would argue attempting to save the Kobayashi Maru would be righteous. However Mill may argue that it would not be morally right to save the Kobayashi Maru because the Kobayashi Maru is doomed no matter what the commander chooses to do. In order to promote greater happeniness it would be better to let the Kobayashi Maru get destroyed by the Klingons because at least the commander and his crew will both be alive. There is more happiness when the commander and his crew survive as opposed to the star fleet ship and the Kobayashi Maru dying without any chance of success. What do you think? Is there anything I missed?

Is it just me that, despite trying to soak in and appreciate this video's points, I couldn't stop laughing after 0:39 when I mistook the name 'Immanuel Kant' for 'a manual c*nt'...?

This one is tough. The way I see it is simple, I treat you like I like you to treat me. It makes me uncomfortable to treat you the way I would despise someone treating me. This also applies to our world... I know that if I do something wrong, it's gonna affect the world in a negative way... So I just don't do it. So both are highly relevant.

@ZoanBlade90

9 жыл бұрын

Amen! Unfortunately, people tend to forget this at times. They might look for or find ways to rationalize what they've done.

@ZoanBlade90

9 жыл бұрын

Brad Magyar Indeed, go on. I find this discussion fascinating.

@ZoanBlade90

9 жыл бұрын

Brad Magyar Indeed, how does his powers work? What exactly IS the Speed Force?

@ZoanBlade90

9 жыл бұрын

Brad Magyar How do his powers work? Where do they come from?

@ZoanBlade90

9 жыл бұрын

Brad Magyar The Flash

Talking about Nietzsche's stance on morality, and critics against Kant's theory, would have made an interesting outro to the episode (as one of the mentioned alternative). But it was good nonetheless, nice job.

In my opinion there is no right or wrong. It is merely a social construct to enforce a standardized moral structure or a mental illusion to affirms one's beliefs and ideals.

Yea!

Missed a few points, but the essential was there. Kant : Basis of morality : the good will and rationality (to do our duty). Principles that helps determine our duty : 1-Principle of universality. 2-Principle of the general respect of the individual. 3-Principle of the negative respect of the individual. 4-Principle of the positive respect of the individual. Mill : simply states that his utilitarism is a the classical form of utilitarism and the fact that it is a form of consequentialism.

I got to love the narrator.

Kant's version seems to consider terrorism good as long as you believe it is good...

@VeniVinnieVici

7 жыл бұрын

Actually, terrorism goes against kant's categorical imperative and thus it is not moral. You probably make a reference to the last remark in the video which points to moral relativism (which is not Kant's). In moral relativism there is no absolute right and absolute wrong, and so terrorism is not wrong. Not being wrong does not however make something good

I always thought Mill believed that an action was good if it resulted in the least amount of suffering, as opposed to the most pleasure? Doesn't the latter imply that he is a hedonist rather than a utilitarian?

Good cannot exist without evil.

I want more

I'm not satisfied with either answer, but at first I thought that I believed a derivative of Mill... Only that no action is inherently good or bad... And that only when it's perceived by another person that it becomes good or bad. But then I realized that my answer simply won't do. Supposing that you're a God (in the Christian sense, "creator"), the only thing in existence was whatever came to mind, or whatever you willed there to be. In this reality there would only be two possible actions: The first is an action which corresponds to your preferences as a God, and the second is an action which contradicts those preferences. But I personally feel that no preference is inherently good or bad, because, in the case of you as a God, you are both the judge and the jury; The only sort of action that would ever occur would (by definition) be to your liking, therefore all things would be to your liking, therefore all things would be inherently good to your mind. It's only when you introduce another mind to the equation that concessions must be made. If that new mind were to act in a way that didn't correspond to the preferences of the originator, he would be considered a "bad" person. This is an analogy of course, because although we might not have the power to create personalized realities like a god, we have the power to reason like a god. Because we can never prove that another person exists, or even that the reality around us exists, I feel that I can only conclude that I am the originator (or that my mind acts as a projector, creating the swirling imagery of this dreamworld in my mind's eye). Therefore, whatever I feel is the case is only a matter of preference, and anyone who exceeds my preference is by definition not preferable. Because of this, I am inclined to persecute as heretic any one who does not see the world the way I do. That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

I believe a good action is an attempt, failed or not, to reduce suffering by either not allowing it or by giving pleasure (not sexually you pervs!) to atenuate suffering. It also have to be rational and based on verified beliefs, as doing evil things thinking they are good, like a genocide for the sake of a country, wouldn't be moral.

Emotivism- not even once.

Not sure they are in great conflict, if pleasure is a your rational, then so be it. Although I am not sure it's quite the reason he asserts, I think it's a matter of doubting and questioning motives.

This question is fun, and the video is well done as always, but we should probably not dwell on it too long if we want to avoid logical circles and metaphysical dead ends. In fact, most questions that try to speak of a concept in a way that is divorced from experience or potential experience lead nowhere, or worse, distract from potentially useful questions. To make progress, we seem to need to ask questions tied to experience, like "What actions would cause some segment of the population to report that the action fell into the category that they define as good." instead of questions that try to rip the idea of "good" from the way people actually use it.

The problem with Kant's moral system is how do you determine what the duty is in the first place? You have to look at whether the adherence to the duty will typically produce positive results for human beings or not, so you are back to utilitarianism/consequentialism. But the problem with utilitarianism is how can you possibly measure all the results of any one action? You can't, unless maybe determinism were true & you had a super computer that could calculate every single consequence from any one action, but the consequences are potentially infinite. I'm left thinking both views are flawed.

Psshhhhhh I already answered this question. Good always applies to something. Confused? That's fine, here's an example: bob deciding to do his homework, was good towards doing well in school. Maybe he would have played video games instead, which may have been good towards his immediate happiness. Overall, getting A s leads to better jobs, which leads to better income, which leads to happiness. Bob would most likely gain more happiness in the end from doing his homework then doing video games, which is why you think the obvious best thing to do, is homework. To put it as simply as I can, something "good" is something that has the highest chance of having something wanted happen. So, if you wanted people to trust you, and like you, then you'd save that baby. It doesn't matter that the crocodile ate it, because you had the same preferred outcome from the drowning baby situation, (saving the baby) and did the action that would make that outcome most likely. (Trying to save the baby)

Would have been a nice addition to talk about the sophists ideas around morality as well as Frederich nitczes ideas around right and wrong

People never understand when I tell them morality is relative. If you are brought up into a certain set of rules, you yourself will value them as truly good morals, despite what other mindsets will tell you. That is why people can justify killing in the name of, while others will call them savage and uncivilized.

@lesyah.2775

6 жыл бұрын

Cultural relativism.

Right and wrong are just perceptions of what is. And like any perception, it is relative to the person who is perceiving. This is just what I think.

@sunsetsoverlavenderfields

9 жыл бұрын

Ethical relativism has been pretty much destroyed as an actual philosophy to live by. Through relativism, Ted Bundy could argue his actions were moral. Same with IS and the Nazis.

@sunsetsoverlavenderfields

9 жыл бұрын

Cultures can allow unethical actions, but that doesn't make it right. Human reason isn't perfect, which is why there is still a debate. However, most actual philosophers would disagree that relativism is a valid way of looking at things. That's also why we have several ethical theories: not every one works for every situation. Some people believe deontology is the best, others look at utilitarianism, others work with social contract theory. However, the difference between those theories and relativism are that the theories have a framework on which we can derive decision through reason. Relativism on the other hand boils down to "I think I should be able to do this, and you can't judge me for it," no matter what the action is.

@sunsetsoverlavenderfields

9 жыл бұрын

And that's where the debate comes in. One person cannot know all morals. Our current moral stance is determined by the debate between everyone, and that debate is constantly changing our view of what is moral to get closer to the truth.

@Unethicist

9 жыл бұрын

Follow your instincts. Solipsism is a temple.

Happiness in a societal sense is irrelevant. Happiness is only important at the individual level. In the context of this video of course.

I agree with both. Though I'm leaning on Kant. The problem with Kant is that doing something out of duty can be wrong, because the the "law maker" can be immoral. The story of Abraham and God comes to mind where Abraham was told to kill his son when god was testing his obedience.

This video lagged and for a while I thought it was the game effect and not my internet.

Mill didn't think that trying and failing to save a baby from a lake is an immoral act. He did think that not trying to save the baby would (under certain circumstances) be immoral. Bad example really guys- should've used that thing about lying/ not lying to the guy who's blatantly an axe murderer.

Someone please an actual 8-bit philosophy game.

I think its relative because people go to war for good intentions but can makes things way worse.

I tend to argue that the difference between good and evil is empathy vs indifference. In games and stories, "good" is typically portrayed as "we worship the good god, begin the bloody crusades!", which is a neat parallel to "duty = good", and in those examples, you very commonly see the self-righteous humans being the badguy in the story. The "pleasure = good" answer is actually MORE correct somehow, but only if you heavily imply empathy and a net pleasure by all, not just for oneself. If you cause one person minor suffering to bring happiness to twelve people, that could arguably be seen as a good act. I have a feeling this video shows "pleasure = good" in a pimp-y light out of a misunderstanding of it, and I think them shallow for doing do.

We looked at this in the philosophy club my school used to have, I came to the conclusion that because there is no inherent morality (my nihilism showing here!) there can be no right or wrong action. I personally define a good action as one that works toward the more moral conclusion, or one that satisfies your morals.

A mix of both is a good thing i guess, but damn could you do horrible things with Kant's thesis if you were to play ring around the rosie with your interpretation of moral :P

Those 4:3's are dangerous

I believe that in regard to morality, we ought only consider if our intent is *immoral.* As a member of the public, I have no obvious _duty_ to rescue strangers' drowning children.

The answer is that both are one half of the truth, as you need to use rational thought to define real happiness. Rational Self Interest. That way morality is not relative, as reason is the objective means and your (not any greater number) happiness the objective ends.

Great concept! This makes my preparations for my "political theories" exam not seem so one sided. However I would like to point out the it was Jermey Bentham, the creator of utilitarianism, who messured good and bad actions in who much pleasure or pain the created. For Mill, there were "higher" and "lower" pleasures. Mill was concerned to promotee those pleasures the develop an individual's intellectual, moral or aesthetic sensibilities. He thought humans were more the pleasure-seeking machines. Summed up by his qoute "I will rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied".

Thee is a saying that goes like this. The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Immanuel ,,The imperative´´ Kant best name ever

Could you make a video about H. Bergson, please? :)

I am confused about something. It seems to me like utilitarianism does not necessarily say that acting out of duty is wrong, that would just be the reasoning for actually carrying out the said utilitarian action. For example, if a boy is going to choose that he will kill one person to save 20, can't he still be acting out of his sense of duty, in that he may not really want to do it but it is his duty as a human to maximize good?

The problem with Kant's approach is that in striving to be permanently rational it becomes irrational and unpragmatic. Take the example of the enquiring murderer, who asks where your friend or mother is; under Kant's categorical imperative it is your duty to tell him, as lying is a non-universalisable action because it removes the value of truth. It seems universalism cannot be an end in itself like happiness is. Yet a route to happiness cannot be short-termist and situational, merely about maximising the pleasure here and now with no regard for others. Mill overcomes this by introducing his own elements of universalism to Utilitarianism with an emphasis on universal happiness for all; an action should both produce happiness and be universalisable. It seems Mill's theory is the most practical and makes the most sense, hence why it's my favourite, although I do reject his hierarchy of pleasures for just being elitist and a product of Victorian culture.

@slacker1689

9 жыл бұрын

Why are you assuming that you have to lie? All you to do is refuse to answer on the grounds that it would hurt people.

Morality is definitely relative to an individual. Look at serial killers. Most would probably tell you that they know what they're doing is wrong but still killed for pleasure. That would be acting out of Mill's Utilitarionism. Some of them would argue that although society considers their murders immoral, they themselves believe they are doing a good thing. Culling overpopulation or smiting those that are truly evil. These people are acting out of duty, falling into Kant's Deontology. Even I, who shares a similar moral view as most others, would thank a serial killer for stopping someone who attempts to harm me or my loved ones, and would in fact take pleasure in seeing someone with that goal harmed.

@CosmoShidan

8 жыл бұрын

+Kazuma - kun Kant would not approve of a serial killers actions insofar as killing is a coercive means that violates one's right to live. In fact, I can show you the categorical imperative in full: The Categorical Imperative (CI) is based around a set of four or five rules that are a starting point to building your own set of Ten or more Commandments, that come from good will or good intentions, and from duty or principles; they are contingent on trust, which means you cannot lie or make any exceptions to the established set of rules. Or else it will lead to contradiction within. The main point of the categorical imperative is to take responsibility for one’s own actions via free will. In layperson’s terms, this means that you think before you act! Immanuel Kant, one of the greatest philosophers in the western tradition, as well as historian and anthropologist, believed that one cannot have freedom without responsibility. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Rule #1 Motivation - Say you're walking down the street, and you see a senior citizen crossing the street, and you decide to help them. Are you doing this because you: A) Help the senior citizen in the prospect that they will offer you money for the help? B) Help the senior citizen because it is the right thing to do, insofar as it is responsible? Rule #2 Reason - At this stage, you "test" the two criterion through a thought experiment to see if the act itself is based on good will and duty. Now in the case of act A, if everyone did it for the sake of reward, it would be of bad intention, and not dutiful, because it means that you are not only thinking about yourself all the time, but you are taking advantage of the integrity of the person in question. In the case of act B, it is very obvious that this is the right answer, for it is consistent with good will and duty as it is based on responsibility, and can be universalized into a commandment. Rule#3 Empathy - This is the most crucial of all the rules. This law requires that you treat others as "ends-in-themselves" and never a means to an end. What that entails is, you show respect for the lives, well-being and autonomy of others. This means that you show respect for their values, rights, beliefs, race, ethnicity and ideals. Why we should do this is because if we did not, no one would respect your or rights or mine and such. Hence, this law applies to everyone and is the most universal of all the laws and is the foundation for modern human rights, and which all the laws have to be consistent with, along with duty and good will. Not to mention that going back to action B, that rule or maxim is to be adapted since it is showing respect for the senior citizen's life, and integrity. Rule#4 Autonomy - This Law requires that we act upon the very rule, such as the example above, from which has chosen been as by the individual as an established rule. Not to mention one should also consider acting upon it has gone through the process of the first three laws. Otherwise if the rule needs to be modified, then it would require that it be taken back to the last three rules. In other words, this modification requires a repeat if it does not line up well or is in conflict with the first three established laws. Rule#5 Politics - One of the more simplistic rules of the first four. You basically adapt all four laws into politics as to create a civil society or what Kant calls the "Kingdom of Ends". To illustrate, imagine X calls a cab to get to the Empire State Building from the Chrysler Building. In such a situation, X is entitled to receive the service of transportation with fair price from the Cabbie, while the cabbie herself is entitled to receive payment for the service from X. Simply put, the Cabbie is to respect X’s right to be taken from once place to another with fair pay, and the X is to respect the Cabbie’s right to payment for the service. In short, for Kant’s civil society to work, everyone else’s rights must line up with everyone else’s rights through mutual respect, understanding and sympathy for the values of others. This means that each and every person in the Kingdom of Ends is to treat others as persons and not objects as per the thought experiment above.

@Kazuma11290

8 жыл бұрын

CosmoShidan​ Sorry to ruin your "fun" but the serial killer thing was just an example. My point being that morality isn't inherited at birth; It's learned. And what you learn depends on your teacher. Ergo; relative. It's that simple.

@CosmoShidan

8 жыл бұрын

***** Wait a minute, are suggesting morality is relative? Because if it where, that would render human rights irrelevant.

@Kazuma11290

8 жыл бұрын

CosmoShidan​ Oh, I'm not suggesting. I'm saying it plain as day. In the grand scheme of the universe human rights and morals are beyond irrelevant.

@CosmoShidan

8 жыл бұрын

***** But if you disregard human rights, then you would no longer have the ability to express yourself freely or have the entitlement to information. Why, we would not be having this conversation if it wasn't for human rights. And if you are implying nihilism, anything you suggest in that we should follow our desires is creating a value insofar as nihilism qua nothing. In other words, nihilism can't have values or involve doing nothing at all for it is an action, hence it is non-existent. Now with that said, on the subject of moral relativism, imagine that a Taoist and Hindu were conversing about the meaning of life, but their views are conflicting over who is right and wrong about their views, how do they go about resolving this issue if morality is subjective?

Is that thunderfoot?

Mills: We need happy pills forced on everyone. Kant: Then we have become unable to learn what is good. Mills: Doesn't matter, but it feels good. Kant: What is feeling? Mills: Stupid religious guy! Kant: Who's talking 'bout happyness? ... go on

But a world in which people jump into lakes to save babies has more overall happiness than a world in which they do not. So even though the crocodile ate the baby in that scenario, it was still a good action in the long run. If you look at utilitarianism closely, you find an emergent element of intentionalism.

@justwannabehappy6735

7 жыл бұрын

You described another form of utilitarism : utilitarism of the rule.

The categorical imperative being innate, as I understand it, you might argue that utilitarianism is its expression manifest in those of a particular moral predisposition. If that predisposition fails to qualify as categorical imperative, it is not a moral one, yet if not moral, what?

The problem with Mill's view is that you can be put into a position where all possible actions, by his definition, are immoral (that is, cause unhappiness). Take the baby in the swamp example. If they rescuer chooses not to rescue the baby, his action will clearly be seen as immoral. If he attempts, but fails; the same. But, if he succeeds, and the baby grows up to be Joseph Stalin, then he also fails. His action has not determined the morality, but the outcome; which he does not have control.

@sanctamachina

9 жыл бұрын

You failed to understand utilitarianism entirely. Stalin is a perfectly reasonable and moral individual under Mill's philosophy; sacrificing the happiness & health of millions of enemies to create happiness & health for tens of millions of your supporters (not to mention the hundreds of millions he saved across Europe) easily makes his actions moral under the context of Mills. Not only that, but it is a common thread among each of the major European actors at the time (Churchill, Eisenhower, etc. in that their actions are driven to do for the majority at the expense of the minority. Such thoughts are usually what history tends to consider hallmarks of a good leader while those that work for the minority at the expense of the majority (Hitler, Pol Pot, Obama/Bush/Clinton/etc.) are tend to be looked upon poorly.

@BurnEdOutOne

9 жыл бұрын

You guys are actually hinting at a problem that is discussed in philosophy as a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. If a person rescued a drowning baby that grew up to be a serial killer (lets sidestep the Stalin/Utility discussion), an Act utilitarian would see it as the wrong thing to have done. His action, in retrospect, (probably) caused more displeasure than if he had let it drown. A rule utilitarian, on the other hand, would say that saving the baby was still the right thing because "as a rule" saving babies generally results in positive happiness while unsaved babies generally results in a net loss of happiness. Since we are unable to live in a world where the consequences of our actions are directly foreseeable, the act utilitarian tries to generalize behaviors so that it becomes a more practical guideline. Act utilitarianism has a big problem where the 'consequences' of a particular action are a forever moving goalpost: Oh, I saved a drowning baby! (That's good!) Oh, the drowning baby turned out to be a serial killer... (That's bad!) Oh, the serial killer actually killed someone that would have been Hitler II! (That's good!) Oh, but one of the billion people that Hitler II would have killed was the guy who developed a new strain of super-virus that wound up destroying all of human kind! (That's bad!) Guess I should have let the baby drown, so he wouldn't have serial killed Hitler II, so that Hitler II could genocide patient zero, was the correct course of action!! Shame on me for not thinking ahead!!

@arewbund2886

9 жыл бұрын

BurnEdOutOne Haha, brilliant. But you should save the baby after all, because if all of human kind isn't destroyed by patient zero, imperialistic humans will take over the galaxy by destroying countless alien civilizations! (that's worse)

@gamingwhatwecan

9 жыл бұрын

Uh, no, that's not true at all. It's about minimization/maximization and choosing the optimal choice.

Kronigsberg?! Königsberg!

Wisecrack You should have used the trolley scenario instead in this video. I think it would have been a better example

I think intent is far more valuable than the happiness it produces but also end product is almost equally as valuable as intent.. If you intended to save the baby and the alligator eats it, you intended to good and failed. So you're not evil or bad, you're a failure. If you also intended to do evil/bad by pushing the baby in and the alligator instead grabs you and eats you and saves the baby, then while you intended to do bad you still did neither, you are a failure. Which implies there is more than just good and evil in the universe and things are not black and white. On a different note to the happiness that is produced you have the one vs the many needs argument. If I had a top rated TV show in another hypothetical country that took prisoners and made them fight to the death for the entertainment of others, I will be increasing the happiness of others at the detriment of the prisoners. If I switched that for people who are poor and needy it gets even worse because they did nothing wrong unless you consider being desperate a thing worth punishing. Either case though, you are ending up with a net gain of happiness but I would think most people in our society would see this as a bad or evil thing.

Rawls destroyed Utilitarianism, anyone interested should check out the Rawls game. Check out Non-Foundationalism.

I think they are both right and wrong. You can't make everyone happy, and no matter how goos your intentions are there will be moments where you will fail. You can learn that in Church, Life moments, even on Scrubs.

What if they're both wrong? Then enters the famous Nietzsche!! To argue that morality is a delusion

@CosmoShidan

8 жыл бұрын

+85.2 FM Nietzsche was an egoist, not a nihilist. In fact, he called Nihilism unlivable.

If you want to continue learning about moral philosophy by going about internet routines, this is an excellent browser game: www.kongregate.com/games/chiefwakamakamu/socrates-jones-pro-philosopher

Morality doesn't exist. Or rather it does, but not objectively. It is an entirely social creation. Our basis for morality comes from agreements made by our society. It isn't hard to discern why people think that it is bad to kill. You'd be hard pressed to find a person that would like to be killed. Because of this common opinion, we as human beings have decided to label the action as bad. We all benefit from this decision because whenever someone takes this action, society condemns them and it discourages this action even more, therefore reinforcing the "morality". It's simply a mutually beneficial agreement between human beings. It's a system that works, but I don't think there's any benefits to seeing it as anything other than a human creation. Religion didn't create this concept. The universe is indifferent to human beings, so it is up to us to create a world in which we all have the most enjoyable experience possible. (Please let me know if you agree)

@CosmoShidan

9 жыл бұрын

Alex Burgess Well Alex, I am afraid you did explain moral realism, in that morality is objective by means of social relations. Ethics is based on empathy and reason, and it is through the core values of life, autonomy and well-being, which all human beings have, it is by conceptualizing and understanding the three core values which make morality possible. To simply put, if human beings respect the three core values, then we not only have objective morality but civil society as well. Also, if you claim that morality is subjective in the secular sense, and pit it against the subjective morality of religion, then it is a circular fallacy as you are arguing with subjective morality with subjective morality. So that is my disagreement.

@KatherineClairmont

9 жыл бұрын

CosmoShidan I think alex was referring to morality not existing outside of humanity. If you remove the human equation, morality is objectively nonexistent.

@CosmoShidan

9 жыл бұрын

Katherine Clairmont Not what I interpret. He claims that morality even in the mind is subjective. Yet how can it be if human society were to exist?

A good action is an action you have done from morality, if it didnt succeed its still a good action but with bad consequences.

the problem with mill's prospective is the meening of happines, if it means pleasere then making drugs is morally good? what about the possability that life is naturally pain, then commiting mass murder is good as well?

I think looking at both perspectives can lead someone to the conclusion that morality isn't subjective, and that morality would be best if it benefited anyone other than yourself; which is ultimately selflessness at it's highest level. Ultimate morality is focused a lot in Buddha's teachings of enlightenment -Spouting random thoughts

morality and hedonism shouldn't be equated.

Or, in game-related terms, Kant's philosophy is that of someone who plays the game as it is meant to be played, and derives contentment from showing their skill within the confines of the simulation, while Mill's philosophy is that of someone who opts instead to cheat at the game, giving themselves more short term pleasure That's not the best comparison of course, there are more elements at play there, but I think it fits well enough

Wittgenstein plz.

why did you have to add the moral relativism at the end

@nightsage217

7 жыл бұрын

it's like speed. U can't see the value until you had a reference point, like society stereotype, your social circle, local jurisdiction, literature.

Whether morality is real or not doesn't matter. Ultimate every person has to have some kind of moral system to direct their life, otherwise you wouldn't make any decisions at all. If you're not certain what you think about morality consider how you would act in the following situation: Imagine that you are a police man in a small town. Recently a string of murders have been committed and everyone in the town thinks one person did the killing because of some circumstantial evidence. You brought the man in for questioning but now determined that everyone is wrong and this man is innocent. But before you have a chance to release him an angry mob descends upon your police station. The people in the mod are clearly very angry and demand that you turn the suspected criminal over to them to be lynched. You've tried talking them down but it doesn't work, your only options are to either forcefully disperse the mob, potential injuring or even killing several innocent people, or give a man you know to be innocent over to the mob to be murdered. Once you know how you would react also consider why you would react that way. Kant would say you should protect the man, since as a policeman it is your duty to protect the innocent from evil people. While Mill would say you should let the mob has its way because the happiness and safety of the large mob outweighs the life of the man. Personally I would defy the mob, since I think that giving the man over would make me complicit in the act of murder the mob would preforming. While i have little right to dictate the morality of others, I believe I must do what is necessary to keep my own conscience clean, even if that meant harming others to keep myself from sinning. .

@BurnEdOutOne

9 жыл бұрын

I think Mill would dig a little deeper and say that saving the man is the right way to act. While the temporary blood-lust of the crowd has been sated by using a scapegoat, you are overall doing more harm to the society itself in the long run, and over time that causes far more displeasure for everyone. Any satisfaction the mob would have gained would not offset the long-term displeasure all those people would eventually face. By handing over the man to the angry mob the police man becomes complicit in the misdeeds of that mob, and he has done his part to ensure that the society becomes one where innocent people are put to death to satisfy mob justice. If we can assume that most citizens would be less happy overall to live in such a society, the displeasure of everyone increases by letting an innocent man be put to death. I'm pretty sure Mill and Kant would agree with the correct course of action (IE. Save the innocent man, and defend societal justice), and that also lines up with the inclination that most people will have about that scenario. The only disagreement would probably be on "why" we can live with confidence that our actions were actually justified.

what would a willer will rationally do? ( volitionally will be a whole other history) if it's rational a=a, it's a tautology therefore not moral, but in the "best of the worlds" will do for the moral agent (not deterministic) contingent. nevertheless duty (categorical imperstive)and utilitarianism are both based on determinateness or a uniqueness of a world

lets see some sade vs kirby or stirner vs fzero

There are no moral facts, and it is all relative. It's better to be utilitarian though, because it inevitably results in the most amount of happiness and the least amount of suffering which creates the most value for humanity of any philosophy.