Script & sources at: www.thenandnow.co/2023/06/24/introduction-to-humes-moral-philosophy/ ► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/ ► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018

You are one of the best essayists in KZread at the moment.

@ritjai5482

3 жыл бұрын

I echo with you

Anyone else just doing assigned homework rn?

@aceponce2022

3 жыл бұрын

Me

@AbQadeerChachar

3 жыл бұрын

Me

@spacecookies1197

Жыл бұрын

watchin this on my own time

@dripdrop4625

Жыл бұрын

Riding the struggle bus

Your videos are a great help, i am preparing for public service exam in India, and political science is my subject, your videos are a great help. Thanks for your incredible effort. Keep it up.

@klumaverik

4 жыл бұрын

How did your service exam go? Hopefully you did well.

Your soothing voice alone single-handedly prompted me to subscribe the channel.

Wow, Hume has described the conclusion I feel I’ve come to naturally over the years. it’s powerful to hear it described this concisely

@TheMargarita1948

4 ай бұрын

And you didn’t even have to risk burning at the stake!

His voice makes me want to keep listening.

Thank you. A lovely summary 😊 Got me thinking 🤔

This lines up perfectly with moral development theory.

This is great! Since you have a script written out, is there any chance could you edit the captions so that this is accesible to people who are hard of hearing?

Great video. You have a pleasant but strong voice as well.

Is-Ought? Putnam suggests (while reading this passage), that he (Hume) has never seen an Ought being deduced from another Ought, and that he doesn't have this fact-value distinction as we have it today.

Late to the party, but this is amazing work. I hope to find some Kant in your channel! Keep it up!

Well put-together, rich and so captivating.. this channel has so much depth and potential!! :'o

Very good summary.

I would wish for nothing more than to know your thoughts on hope.

Where are the animations from? Amazing video eassay btw!

Very good and "JUTY" adds a smile. (8.39)

The best video I have never seen

Great job

I'm watching this because I don't want to go to the bad place :(

@queeneon

4 жыл бұрын

Good place reference?

@christianevik9161

4 жыл бұрын

@@queeneon yess

@Skeetpete

3 жыл бұрын

Too late, i saw what you did, and you cant take that back, you disgusting human being.

Loved it

Thank you.

A true Epicurean in the original sense if the word

FIRST! But what do being first even mean?

@GeorgeTheGamerBotGTGB

4 жыл бұрын

You can never be first, if your never last, as it will never mean as much if not

Watched all of it 12:23

I agree with Hume on how people seem to 'work' in this respect - so descriptively. I find it very alluring too. I just don't see how you can make it normative/prescriptive. It's more like moral sociology and psychology. Any other moral antirealists here or am I the only one yet again? What about the moral realists, especially the Humean ones, can you help me see it your way?

@daddyleon

5 жыл бұрын

@@muhamedc9713 Thank you! So if I understood you correctly: you mean, if there is "morality" it can only be absolutist because else it would not satisfy with most (the vast majority of people) mean or seem to mean with morality. Is that right? (One small thing, I got the sense you don't see moral absolutism as a 'flavour' or moral realism. Is that correct? Because we might be defining these terms differently, because I do consider this to be the case.) I think, like you, most people who say they're moral relativists are ...well at the very least mistaken about their position. Just like people who say "well, if that's true for you, then it's true for you. It's not true for me", they don't _actually_ believe in that type of relativism. They just want to be polite and tolerant - whether or not it's conscious or not (e.g.: deeply socially ingrained behaviour). They don't want to and they will disagree with you if you say it's your truth that their money is now yours. Suddenly they understand it on that level: truth is not opinion. I think you're mistaken about a moral nihilist neighbour being a bad neighbour. Don't confuse the one accepting the philosophical and rational position of moral nihilism/moral antirealism as being most likely correct with people who are really psychopathic. I think, like Hume said, reason is a slave to the passions - and moral passions are passions nonetheless. A convinced moral antirealist/nihilist might consider it as a matter of fact correct, but still have the inborn and socialised preferences to be a 'traditionally moral person'. As a tangent...While I know moral relativism is often placed as the opposite of moral realism, I think, one could also consider moral relativism to be part of the moral realist family. (With moral antirealism being the position that denies any existence of a moral realm). What is morally right or wrong or neutral would vary according to person, group, society, species, etc. but it would nevertheless still be a realist version. Just a really quirky one. I always like to use this analogy: moral realists are like theist and moral antirealists are like atheist; moral relativism is a theist of a specific kind, like polytheist, a kantian could be a monotheist, a utilitarian a spiritualist or something like that. The atheist just does not accept any god-claim, not from the polytheist, monotheist, spiritualist; just as the moral antirealist does not accept any claim regarding moral realism, not from the kantian, utilitarian, relativist, virtue ethicist, etc. I wonder what your thoughts are on this. Have a nice day!

@daddyleon

5 жыл бұрын

@@muhamedc9713 Oh..and sorry for the long-ass reply, I hope you don't mind?

@daddyleon

5 жыл бұрын

@@muhamedc9713 Hi again! Thanks for responding...but my apologies if I'm tediously wordy :( I agree that the nazis were moral realists. I also agree that it's fundamentally flawed to base the entity of ethics on logic (human or otherwise). I think, as I've said before, morality is driven by 'passions', sentiments, emotions, … some term along those lines (feel free to pick the ones that fit best ;-P ). And I think that reason can help order or put into hierarchy of importance or help better understand, or help discover the route towards a goal. BUT I do not think logic motivates. Reason is a slave to the passions. And given that most people mean moral realism in the sense of: mind-independent, universal, and to some extent as an inwoven part of the universe, I am not in line with that being true. Moral relativism (as I defined it before) is not going to satisfy those people at all. But I do think it's the most honest approach. The most we can (seemingly) hope for is a subjective (or intersubjective, i.e. subjective agreement between people) about what we deem moral, immoral, amoral, etc. > I think that is why even the most hardcore atheists still, deep down, acknowledge the integrity of the Ten Commandments I.. really don't. Atheists do not care about the vast majority of the 10 commandments. I understand this was more of an off-hand comment. I suspect too that you didn't meant it as literally as I'm going to take Nevertheless, I'm going to derail it onto a rather large tangent, because I find this an interesting topic that, I hope, I can interest you in too. 1a - Believe in God/Yahweh/YHWH - by definition not. 1b - Believe in him and don't hold other gods before him (despite claiming to be monotheistic too, wtf??) 2 - Don't make graven images of a god you already don't believe in? 3 - Don't use that name in vain?? 4 - Keep the sabbath holy? Why would they? 5 - Honour parents - debatable, what does honour mean, how far should on take this, what if they abuse you?? Etc. 10 - Don't covent/desire/want stuff your neighbour has? Especially in a capitalistic consumer society as we have to day...seems very unlikely even religious people agree with this, let alone the unbelievers. 11 - Place these commandments on Mount Gerizim - yeah, idk. (Yes, this is 11, but in some traditions this is the 10th and some others are smush other together). All we have left that people don't often object too are: 6 - Don't murder 7 - Don't commit adultery. 8 - Don't steal 9 - Don't bear false-witness/lie. And even with most of these, I think there are great arguments against some of these pronouncements. 6 - What if it's in self-defense, can you kill then? Sure if you can defend yourself without [accidentally] killing the other then don't, but what if you can't? What if you want to defend others from a serial killer? 7 - What if you're divorced and remarried? What if you have an open marriage? What if you're not married at all?? Fine, let's be overly accommodating and 'update' it to a more modern context: don't sexually cheat. Sure, then it becomes a lot more of a thing people are against. But then we have to have a conversation about what cheating is. Will we count so called 'emotional cheating'? What if you have a 'sexless' marriage while both got married with the understanding sex would be in marriage, is the 'not-having-sex' perhaps also a form of cheating (similar to how not telling the truth by not correcting people could be seen as an indirect lie)? What if someone does not want someone to have sex with another but also does not want to have sex themselves and does not agree to a device or break-up, could they hold someone 'sexually hostage'? All very interesting and not at all answered questions that will come up if one would seriously treat the subject. 8 - What if you have a an immensely powerful and rich dictator/king and a starving population, would you _really_ not be morally allowed to take something from that rich dictator/king's grain to feed the poor something the that rich dictator/king would not even miss in the slightest? 9 - Well, what about if it hurts them to tell the truth, what if it endangers other people, what if it makes your live a whooole lot more difficult, what if it's a white lie? Also quite debatable, I think. Moreover, the less objectionable parts (like no unnecessary murder or greedy theft or the otherwise indefensible cheating, etc.) are not just socially ingrained but there are also evolutionary psychology explanations for that. If there wasn't some sort of 'biological basis' it wouldn't feel as 'normal' and wouldn't be that 'universal [with limited local variations]' in the wider civilisational aspect. I wonder what you think :) > "There must be some ethical foundation that is unquestionable and transcendental otherwise terrible outcomes arise" But...what if this isn't actually the case? And the most we do is act and belief it is the case? I...would like to point to religion for this too. There are plenty of religions that are mutually exclusive, for example: Christianity and Islam They both claim 1 god, but other claims within the religions make it clear that they aren't the same, e.g.: Jesus being God or merely one of the most important prophets. Even within "Christianity" there is mutually exclusive claims: predestination vs free will. So, having deduced that some religions necessarily being mistaken if others are correct (of course all could be incorrect), we can now deduce that some people who sincerely believe their religion to be true might actually be mistaken. How does this change how they act compared to if it was true? It seems...not very differently. So, could the same not be true for a belief in moral realism, or a specific type of moral realism? Meaning: I don't think moral realism _has to be_ correct in order for merely the belief in it to have beneficial effects. Moreover, if moral realism is correct but we all disbelief in it, how would that be different from moral anti-realism being correct and our beliefs correctly lining up with that? Just as our beliefs about gravity don't change the effects of it, so too, do I not think our beliefs shouldn't really matter. Unless of course it's a purely social phenomenon, but that would make not mind-independent, not universal, not an inwoven part of the universe, but only (inter)subjective. And that would be something you seem to find untenable - would that be a correct statement? You might have to explain a bit with what you mean [un]absolutism to mean. > "Antirealist might just be a reaction to bad realists but a nihilist sees no point in ethics whatsoever" I would say it differently. I would say: - A moral realist makes the claim moral realism is true

@daddyleon

5 жыл бұрын

@@muhamedc9713 Oof… I feel your pain man, I’ve had that happen lots of times too. Now, I often write (suspecting long) replies into a google doc file. That’s much less stress inducing :P > “My standing is that a good ethical system inspires passion and not the other way around, ” I can understand that, but I think you’d be mistaken a bit. Emotions motivate you, logic does not: e-motions. Logic can only serve to help you see the facts of the matter better, they inform the emotional part of you. Form that point on, the emotions will flow. The ethical systems or logical arguments that are inspiring are not inspiring because of their internal logical consistency; that is to some extent a necessity but not sufficient. Those arguments are inspiring because they tap into the emotions. Look at those inspiring speeches, the parts that are most inspiring aren’t the logical syllogisms but the emotional loaded words. > “As for the Ten Commandments, you may notice that I carefully chose the phrase “acknowledge the integrity” and not care for or hold true.” Hmm..since I’’m not a native speaker I might’ve misinterpreted the word integrity. So I looked it up and I found 4 meanings: 1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles. 2. the state of being whole and undivided. 3. the condition of being unified or sound in construction. 4. internal consistency or lack of corruption in electronic data. Considering the 10 commandments are just pronouncements (or..commandments) and not a set of arguments working towards a conclusion, they can’t be seen as a system of cohering things, a few things are thematically similar (like 1 thru 4), but those don’t even necessarily follow. there certainly isn’t made an argument in favour of it. As I said: commandments. > “So as for the first commandment, even if you don’t believe in an omniscient being it should still be an important ethical guide.” I profoundly disagree, sorry. 1st of all, it’s not (meant as) poetry that is to be interpreted in favourable ways. They are clearly and simply statements of what one ought to do. Especially when seen in the larger context of its source, it gets even worse. Especially the first 4, as you’ve mentioned yourself those 4 have been used by the likes of crusader-jihadis to massacre as many people they disagree with on those 4 points. You may say that you think they were mistaken or that you take those 10 commandments and not treat them as commandments for the sake of this argument but as a provocative example to start a discussion about But that’s not really how it was meant, nor is it necessary to talk about the importance of kindness and forgiveness, etc. Besides, the 10 commandments are help up way too high, even by (uninformed) atheists/agnostics. So a push back is more than necessary and a poetic defence/reframing (like you’re attempting) is a bit misguided. Sorry if this comes off a bit too rash, but I’m quite opinionated about this :) > “I think we can agree that perfection exist or, at the very least, that the idea of perfection exist.” This is a brilliant example of twisting the actual meaning of the commandment. It really doesn't mean the same. Besides it’s a trivial point: the existence of the abstract and unattainable concept of perfection. I also don't quite get your "insurance company"-example, it seems more related to a "moral relativism vs moral universalism"-debate than to a "perfection"....uh..conversation. I don't even understand what we're trying to discuss with "perfection". Sorry. > "God is perfection to the nth degree so how could anyone possibly create an image of such a being? The idea of infinite perfection perpetually perpetuates progress of thought." This could easily be seen as a self-defeating argument. If you're not allowed to make graven images..you can't even strive for perfection because every attempt isn't allowed. Besides...as I've said before and will say about this again: this is the twisting the actual meaning of the commandments; even the poetic interpretation doesn't get us closer to our initial and unresolved topic: moral realism vs moral anti-realism. > "The fourth one is at it’s core an antislavery clause. By working everyday without rest we enslave ourselves even if it appears that we a voluntarily doing it." Sorry, I'm sincerely wondering if you're joking here. Have you read the Bible, how is "me not working" in any way synonymous with "you cannot hold people as property"?? Imho, they have noooothing to do with each other. Besides, again, this poetic interpretation has nothing actually to do with the commandments nor does it help us resolve our debate/discussion/conversation. > "It’s about not forgetting people who do good to you at their own expense." For this, fine, but certainly not all parents do this. Shouldn't honour and respect be 'earned' as you suggested with what I quoted above? Even the "giving birth"-part is that not a form of 'earning it'? I'm going to skip all the rest, save that rebellions vs stealing one because because...I've always found the topic of owning/property very interesting. But that's a tangent I'm aware of to be such a distraction, I'm not yet ready to fully go there - since we haven't come close to resolving our first topic: "moral realism vs moral anti-realism". > "On the eighth I’m going to be a little Kantian and say no it’s not OK to steal from the rich oppressive king, because such a circumstance should inspire rebellion." The king says he owns the lands, titles, wealth, etc. a rebellion would take that away. How is that not a form of theft? They took it away. Even if they didn't take it for themselves, it would still be theft. If would I steal your laptop and dump it off a bridge, or give it to someone else, or hide it somewhere, or use it myself, or sell it - all of those things don't change the fact that I stole it. I'm sorry but I still don't quite understand what you mean with absolutism. If I understood you well, you said what absolutism is not, i.e.: being drunk on logic or emotion or science or passion. You said what you considered to be the problematic consequences of this: Nazism, maleficent dictatorial communism, the acceptance of collateral damage (which isn't just utilitarianism, but every ethical system takes consequences into account). But I didn't see you explain what absolutism _does_ mean, nor given examples of these fictional utopian nations that did adopt a(ny of the many?) absolutist framework and had stability for centuries. The distinction between a realist (I assume moral realist???) and an absolutist to be even more confusing. But perhaps we could leave this for now, perhaps we could revisit this later, as well as the paragraph above? What would you say about this after reading the following: I describe the terms as such: - A moral realist makes the claim moral realism is true

@daddyleon

5 жыл бұрын

@@muhamedc9713 Ok, sorry then. We don't have to keep going. Have a nice day, we may meet again one day ;)

Thanks! My artifical duty

Comment for the Algorithm. Thank you for making this

Scotland!

If the foundations for our moral behavior can be found in our feelings, our emotions, and our sentiments, then how do we react, deal with, and predict liars, thieves, and killers? Precrime has been disproven, and Eminem has sang about the unpredictibility of our fates. Predestination, sure, but obviously not enough.

Why was Hume such a good natured person?

🤯🤯

Taoism is the best, YA BASIC DAVID

What’s with the “introduction can be found here” arrows point up in your vids? There’s no fucking link anywhere.

I dont understand. My body is dehydrated. I ought to drink water. Why is that not an ought from an is?

@danielbird1907

4 жыл бұрын

That presupposes the value of your own life; you could choose to die of dehydration. There is no outside force mandating that you drink

@klumaverik

4 жыл бұрын

@@danielbird1907 my thirst.

@klumaverik

4 жыл бұрын

@@danielbird1907 sorry I dont understand

@fountainovaphilosopher8112

4 жыл бұрын

@@klumaverik It's simple. No state of affairs has any meaning to you until you instill a goal. The full argument would be: I ought not die I am dehydrated If I am dehydrated, I may die Thus I ought drink water Negate any of the premises and the argument disappears. If you didn't "ought not die" or ought anything primarily, why would you begin "oughting" just now? In total absence of all desire and motivation, everything you do, to you has an indifferent result. Really now, think about it: if you felt no pleasure or pain whatsoever, and were neutral on anything, does it really do anything if you drink water? Thus "you can't get an ought from an is". You can't derive goals from facts and facts alone, it's a non-sequitor. Saying "I'm dehydrated thus I ought drink" is no more sensible that "the sun arose, thus I ought sing aloud", without a wider context at least.

How can it be a certainty that the passions are indeed the origin of choice? By this, one could say that a fish has freedom and can be moral through freedom of choice. I personally have never heard of a moral or immoral fish. A fish is simply a fish, nothing more.

@davidd1289

3 жыл бұрын

But what of our natural born passions? Reproduction for example. The need to reproduce is not simple, as it is a function that has evolved over thousands of years and can have many complexities, mating rituals natural selection, etc. Passion for reproduction in fish or even in people is not moral or immoral. It just is. Aristotle understood this and attributed a certain level of natural born feeling that is free of rationalized morality to animals and also people. I guess what I'm saying is that some experience cannot be attributed to morality, even in human beings, as we did not choose them. Would it be fair to say that a value judgement of morality requires free will?

@davidd1289

3 жыл бұрын

Kant believed morality required free will as well, I think beating out Hume's participation trophy of "empiric" morality. Hitler experienced feelings of love and compassion in his life most likely. Was he moral? I think not...

@davidd1289

3 жыл бұрын

Taimoor Khan the act of “putting a passion aside” is a rational act, not an empiric one. Simple beings cannot do it.

@davidd1289

3 жыл бұрын

Introspective value judgements are required

@sinababajaniferemi9561

Жыл бұрын

@@davidd1289 well i don't believe that reproduction can be classified as passion, mainly because your definition of the idea relies on it being a universal want that is within everyone. Today we call that a biological inclination. Wether we like to reproduce or not is not really up to us. not something we can control. we are simply made to want to reproduce because of years of natural selection. Humes passions (emotions, feelings, and desires) more often refers to those that can be derived from society rather than biology. If we see a societal need for sex it is often because sex has been made a status symbol. the reproductive urge we feel is simply either the biological need to spread our genes, or the psychological want to feel good. The aspect of this "reproduction" that is derived from society would be the need for status. we see here a difference between the ideas of a societal passion and a natural passion. these are akin to the ideas of primary and secondary reinforcers in psychology. we are biologically inclined to want food shelter water and sex. we are societally inclined to want praise, treats, or money. TL;DR hume's passions are referring to those that can be learned not those that are associated with all organic organisms.

I'm sorry, it was I that made the likes count 421, I hate to have been the cause of this. Anyway, feel free to hammer that like button from now on, y'all

Sometimes, I think these philosophers create their own systems of thought and out of respect people have to study them, like one out of respect memories a poem or tries to analyse a work of art, thus adding value to them. This is science-fiction shit, bloody complicated, similar to when you enjoy the likes of Tolkien or R. Martin cause of the world that they have created. You investigate, dedicate your time to it, give it value when able to analyse and to justify the system of thought. (or never mind, it's just me who's stupid ...)

@jasoncruz19800

8 ай бұрын

Uh no. You're just not very educated or intelligent then. Philosophy encompasses science. Anything scientific falls under empiricism, which is a field in philosophy. Logic? Philosophy. Anything you can think of can be traced back to philosophy or epistemology, even math.

9:33 property rights are “natural,” or at least in as much as they’re derived from self-ownership, which is axiomatic and obviously a natural aspect of the human condition.

@Sazi_de_Afrikan

3 жыл бұрын

Ok Locke and Mises

@Google_Censored_Commenter

2 жыл бұрын

if it was natural, how come no other animals but humans recognize them? They're artificial, a social construct. You can argue they were a necessary construct to form a society (that's what Hume argues) - but they're not natural, and not less valuable for that reason either. Your grandfather's last memento has great emotional value even if it's not "natural" and merely social.

Hume shoulda spent time with 2 year olds ....those children would have taught him more than he coulda imagined...just sayin

@victorvelie3980

2 жыл бұрын

What's that supposed to mean, what about his philosophy would change from observing 2 year olds?

I don’t understand how Hume can claim that morality is irrational when he recognizes the fact that morality has a utilitarian basis. If we do a good action because it will increase goodness in ourselves and in the world, isn’t that perfectly rational?

His voice doesn't make me interested in listening.