It's so refreshing to hear these ideas fleshed out and backed up. So often I hear people declare actions "wrong" with very little argument as to WHY it is wrong other than "because it is, and there's something wrong with you if you don't agree." Thank you.

@jeffreykaplan1

3 жыл бұрын

Welcome to moral philosophy! That's what we do, we present actual arguments.

My biggest problem here is the first point too, but specifically with why necrophilia is only an example. Point one doesn't exclude said wrong time from being too early.

@JM-us3fr

Жыл бұрын

True, although I think to argue against pedophilia, it's easier to first argue for why consent is important from a utilitarian perspective, and then that rules out pedophilia and beastiality pretty easily.

I've watched about 20 of your videos in the last week. I've enjoyed them all. You seem to have enjoyed giving this one more than most. 😊You've rekindled my interest in philosophy. Took a few courses in college back in the 80's. I plan to watch all your videos and start reading philosophy again. Currently reading 5 proofs of the existence of god by Edward Feser.

@Synnipoe

Жыл бұрын

Review of the book? Was thinking of reading this myself

I’ve been gorging on Kaplan’s lectures recently. They are all interesting and fun. This is the funnest by a country mile. Brilliant approach to a tricky subject.

For the necrophilia, there is (imo) a utilitarian argument against it. Just by knowing that necrophilia is allowed, even though the dead person is not affected, all other people, knowing that they could be a victim of this crime upon their death, will feel uncomfortable (pain). And although the necrophiliac might get 10, 100, or even 1000 'points' of pleasure, if every other person feels even 0.1, or 0.01 'points' of discomfort (and this would be over the course of a lifetime) then that would still lead to a net negative. The same argument allows for the other taboos as there are a larger proportion of the population who would be affected by the punishment and detterance. So there is a net positive which counteracts some people's discomfort. If there were more people who wanted to be "used" after death, then that would allow consensuality, and also generate more of a net positive.

@windywinend586

Жыл бұрын

So...if no one know about that action The action is right by utilitarianism perspective

@ericfreitag8967

Жыл бұрын

Correct, utilitarianism takes no special account of minority views. That is one of its weaknesses. For example, in a sufficiently racist society, discrimination would be fine by utilitarianism if the discriminatory view was held by 99% of the population and that view gave them 1 happiness point. If the 1% being discriminated against each got -50 points, then the discrimination would still be justified by this theory (1*99)+(-50*1) = 49, with the nondiscriminatory alternative would being (99*-1) + 50*1 = -49. It interesting that utilitarianism potentially supports almost all forms of discrimination except those based on biological sex.

@littleredpony6868

Жыл бұрын

As for myself I don’t care what anyone does with my body once I’m dead. Just make sure that I’m actually dead first before you do anything

@JM-us3fr

Жыл бұрын

Bentham said "When hidden from the public eye..." so we are assuming no one knows about it, which can be extrapolated to saying no one even considers the act a _possibility_ for their corpse or the corpses of their loved ones. So their utility would be 0. A better utilitarian argument might be this: it's unsanitary.

@rfvtgbzhn

Жыл бұрын

@@JM-us3fr if nobody knows about it, it can't be punished anyway.

Necrophilia is easily considered wrong even in this philosphy. It causes discomfort/anger (i.e. pain) in all people who know the decased, and in the community. Ergo the total (i.e. aggregated) amount of pain is bigger than total amount of plesure.

@mathyeuxsommet3119

9 ай бұрын

So it's okay if nobody knows about it.

@connorcreegan

2 ай бұрын

Sodomitical acts could be considered wrong based on the circumstance of a community that is disgusted by sodomy. Of course, as mathyeuxsommet3119, lack of knowledge could entail the moral liceity of the act under utilitarianism. Then there is also the problem which plagues and has always utilitarianism in general, of measuring and contrasting utility. Does the pleasure of putting the male part in the rectal cavity outweigh the pain of those who become aware of the act or assume that it occurs regularly?

Actually, if memory serves, I believe the essay was never published in Bentham’s lifetime, first being published in 1978, in two consecutive issues of the _Journal of Homosexuality._

@johnmanno2052

Жыл бұрын

Yes! Exactly. I came out in 1976 (at 14), and had never heard of this essay until MUCH later. And yes, it had been suppressed for centuries, being circulated amongst his friends only, and only being finally published in 1978, and even then, it was HELLA controversial and completely ignored by Utilitarians, because they didn't want to be associated with "homosexuals", which at that point where "obviously perverts" (and therefore insane or what have you). It was either Pauline Christianity amongst believers, or amongst atheists Kantian, or "Kantianesque" ethics that I/we had to contend with back in the day ("What if EVERYONE were gay?? WE'D ALL DIE OUT!!") or various forms of biological determinism ("Homosexuality is OBVIOUSLY maladaptive! Each species must PROCREATE! Survival DEPENDS on it!"). For me, Bentham's essay is proof that there's definitely something to Utilitarianism, and I will never fully understand why people despise it like they do. Many philosophers I've personally known, or read, or who's videos I've watched, always seem to take a swipe at it. Don't get that.

Over 2000 years earlier, in Plato's 'The Symposium', Aristophanes argues that men and women were designed by the gods to desire a partner of the same or the opposite sex depending on their nature, and that 'the way for happiness for our race lies in fulfilling the behests of Love, and in each finding for himself the mate who properly belongs to him.'

@mathyeuxsommet3119

9 ай бұрын

That's not even an argument that's just a baseless claim.

amazing stuff, thx!

When was the claim made?

the "wrong time," could refer to actual pedophilia and pederasty.

A corpse is no longer a person. Depending on one's tastes, it's either meat or organic waste. So purely on the basis of its being a corpse, surely the only rules that would apply to it (as if that was all there was to it) would surely be the same as masturbation with some implement? I think for the utilitarian example to be of value, it needs to be placed in its total context, though? So the corpse the guy at the morgue fiddled with was my granny last week, and whatever anyone else might think of what she became between then and now, her corpse belongs to her family. So Bentham's necrophilia example is perhaps valid taken entirely out of context? And if it is, it justifies cannibalism, too. (Whoa! I've gone a bit too far there. It makes it pointless to punish a cannibal in certain circumstances. For instance if she was your granny, and you're the sole survivor, and you choose to fiddle with her remains, and then turn her into a stew, there's no point in punishing you for that, on its own.) Now I'm no longer in the mood for my dinner. Better give it to the dog. (I think if I died, and fell to the ground, the dog would leave my flesh alone. He would lie there and wait for me to return to life - although if starvation started to threaten, he might just have a little nibble, seeing as I don't need that meat any more. There might be some natural law angle one could develop from this? "Dog ethics" - unconditioned by clever arguments, so a model for a more "natural" human morality in some matters?)

Isn't the wrong time not only necrophilia but also pedophilia? That would cause a truckload of pain...

I'm surprised that the argument in favor of not punishing bestiality does not cause controversy in your classrooms during this lecture. It's something widely seen as wrong by most people these days. I suppose the pain such acts can inflict on the animals were not worth considering back when Bentham wrote this essay. I'm greatly enjoying your videos. Thank you very much for making them!

🤣🤣🤣 I used the act of necrophilia as a counterexample to Hedonism on the basis that there must be some qualitative property to make necrophilia unvalued despite its possibility of pleasure... and Bentham uses it as his first example on this list!! 🤣🤣🤣 What a madman. No wonder people remembered him. It's so based, yet such a hard pill to swallow. Necrophilia and cannabilism ought to be wrong even to most utilitarians. This is great! I guess the most diehard utilitarian believes these things are good: necrophilia, cannibalism and more! Maybe desecration of the dead comes up in aggregation though?

@Reality-Distortion

2 жыл бұрын

Well, technically you could say it's ultimately impossible to prove whether having our bodies fully in tact after death is important to us or not. Therefore the amount of potential suffering caused is an unknown. Another thing is the same argument you can use against drugs - long term pain you cause to yourself drastically overshadowing the short term pleasure you gained. Lastly you can just adjust by subscribing to another version of the framework, like rule utilitarianism for example. And I agree, Bentham is really based.

@williamjenkins4913

Жыл бұрын

"Maybe desecration of the dead comes up in aggregation though" Yeah I would think that everybody that hears about a necrophile getting hit with a -2 gross out would outweigh the +10 the pervert gets. On the flips side the -2 we take is because we are bad utilitarians and are biased against what "should" be a harmless act. But utilitarianism doesnt care that we are bad utilitarians it only cares about net pleasure so going against societal norms is bad utilitarianism in practice even if it is neutral in theory.

@Bronco541

Жыл бұрын

Something about your comment comes off as very arrogant and negative. Also, i sincerely doubt that a utilitarian who espouses not opposing necrophilia or the things mentioned = they also find them "good" necessarily.

What if a rapist gets more pleasure from rape than the victim get pain? 🤔 I think rape would still be wrong but I’m not sure why. Or similarly what if a thief values the item they want to steal more than the owner? I think it might be not wrong to steal if they value it enough like if it is a medicine to save the thief’s life and the owner doesn’t care if they have it or not. Perhaps the lesson from this example is that it is good to maintain law and order in a society.

@Reddles37

Жыл бұрын

Well, I think for the most serious crimes like rape or murder, the answer is simply that the suffering of the victim is greater than any possible pleasure it could give the perpetrator.

@btag3714

Жыл бұрын

Another possible answer would be to apply similar principles to the utilitarian perspective on punishment. In the rape example, even if in this case utilitarianism does not claim that the act itself is entirely wrong, it should still be strongly punished, to prevent possible future pain from the vast majority of the cases, when this is not the case. A similar argument could be applied to your thief.

@JM-us3fr

Жыл бұрын

It depends on what we're talking about. Because of the aggregative principle, the rapist needs to take into account for the sum total of the utility of all outcomes of raping. This includes their psychological state, the long-term trauma of the victim, the rapist's potential imprisonment, etc. For most reasonable situations, this aggregate utility will always be in the negative for the act of raping. However, in some highly abnormal situation such as the rapist having no capacity for empathy, possibly getting a thrill from dodging the law, having unusually amazing orgasms, the victim perhaps being a little into it, and maybe there's a bunch of suffering children on the line; the act may actually be morally permissible. However, the act should still be _illegal_ because such a fringe scenario (if even possible) is highly unlikely, and legality would create too much distress in an otherwise peaceful society.

@DuppyBoii187

Жыл бұрын

Utilitarianism doesn't have the best answers for many sadistic actions, it in fact often makes it a moral requirement for sadists to inflict pain.

@JM-us3fr

Жыл бұрын

@@DuppyBoii187 I would agree for Act Utilitarians, but not necessarily for Rule Utilitarians. It take into account how widespread adherence to a rule makes all of society better off in the long run, including sadists.

Pederasty is not homosexual sex, is sex involving a kid and an adult.

this video is sure de demonetize xd

I'm thinking that this can no longer be taught in Florida? That is a question.

My issue with necrophilia isn't a matter of consent (obviously a corpse can't consent, but it also doesn't feel pain so is morally irrelevant), my issue is that it is _unsanitary_ . And my issue with beastiality is that even if the animal did consent, we wouldn't really have a way of _knowing_ it is consenting, and thereby knowing it will experience pleasure.

@oggolbat7932

Жыл бұрын

But you are viewing it from a deontological POV, utilitarianism doesn't value consent.

@JM-us3fr

Жыл бұрын

@@oggolbat7932 Utilitarianism doesn’t _inherently_ value consent, but it can still value consent instrumentally.

@Xcalator35

Жыл бұрын

Actually, experiences of pleasure and pain are basic and almost universal through the animal kingdom. Their behavioral expressions are the most obvious and transparent of all. On the other hand I have difficulties in grasping what 'consent' could mean in non-human animals if not those behavioral expressions of acceptance or avoidance.

@JM-us3fr

Жыл бұрын

@@Xcalator35 I don't disagree.

I think the problem is if enough people becomes gay and stop having kids. The aging population leads to all sorts of trouble (the most recent example being France needing to raise retirement age as they are short of workers to support the aging population). I get the impression that utilitarianism does not take into account the passage of time. What might be pleasurable now may lead to pain in the future. And it is best not to gamble on that possibility

@_sarpa

8 ай бұрын

'become' gay? u think tolerance leads to people 'becoming' gay?

@peolt

4 ай бұрын

To add on first of all I dont think there is any data that shows (or can show) an increase in the gay population just an increase in the number of people who self identify as gay, but second of all the issue with aging populations is a problem in all industrialized nations which is why nations like Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea which haven't legalized homosexuality and have tighter immigration laws have a much bigger issue with depopulation over North America and Europe, and also why most of the world doesn't have this issue as they aren't as industrialized yet.

if the pleasure a rapist gets from raping overweights the pain it costs to the victim, then the crime is impunishable?

@mathyeuxsommet3119

9 ай бұрын

Yeah but that's never happens tho so too bad you're argument suck,also consent.

@Iam-not-VEGAN-but-

8 ай бұрын

Even if it was, there is still to consider similar to the points against punishment at 21:42

To me, the fact that Bentham's use of utility cannot find anything wrong with homosexuality shows that his method is flawed. That this accords with modern sentiments has nothing to do with any prescient attributes of his method but shows a dissolution of morals that has resulted from postmodern thought.

@samuctrebla3221

Жыл бұрын

Can you elaborate the reasoning behind your first deduction ? Without ad hoc moral assumption like "gay bad", obviously, please.

@theodoreturner5567

Жыл бұрын

@@samuctrebla3221 That Bentham draws conclusions that agree with modern sentiments is no evidence that his method has some foresight. Modern thought has simply aligned with his thinking. That is my point. There are many paths that lead to our present situation. We live in an age where morals have changed. What was once consider bad is now good and what was once good is now bad. How is the belief that homosexuality is immoral ad hoc?

@samuctrebla3221

Жыл бұрын

@@theodoreturner5567 to simplify, let's forget the past 200 years. We're in bentham's time. Gay bad in most people's mind. it's a crime. He's proposing his new moral theory nonetheless (as he did) that is meant to be applicable regardless of historical contingencies. How can you say that his method is flawed, because one of his conclusions is that there isn't anything wrong with homosexuality ? to be more specific, with private gay affairs. This is what he thinks is OK. Please elaborate your reasoning that this conclusion proves it's method is flawed, by bentham time's standards if you need.

@theodoreturner5567

Жыл бұрын

@@samuctrebla3221 Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. How do we decide what is good? Based on whose opinion? Homosexuality is, based on all objective measures, destructive. It is destructive to the participants as well as to society. Its acceptance is a sign of a civil dissolution of society. Utility cannot provide a reason for justifying the punishment of many immoral acts. Bentham begins with an assumption that Thomas Sowell would call the unconstrained vision. He cannot reason, or find the reason, that these immoral acts should e considered immoral. This is a limitation of his understanding. The reason these activities exist, even if one does not believe in objective morality, cannot be known by a single individual. This theory is what has led to the present situation. Only an insane person can imagine that the morals that exist today are beneficial. Incest, bestiality, pedophilia, homosexuality, necrophilia, etc. are all accepted, once all societal constraints are removed. These constraints exist for a reason, even if we cannot discern them through reason alone.