For the first few videos of yours I saw, I was amazed at how proficiently you could write backwards on the glass. Then I realized it's probably much more likely and straightforward to assume you just write normally and then mirror the video.

@ThatZommy

Жыл бұрын

I'd been thinking this too, didn't even consider that they might be mirroring the video.

@gm2407

Жыл бұрын

Yes that is exactly what he does. I went back to the first video Jeremy is right handed when he writes on the white board. But is "left" handed in this video when writing on the glass in front of him.

@forbidden-cyrillic-handle

Жыл бұрын

​@@gm2407 Or he can write well with both hands. Since the alternative hypothesis requires additionally mirroring the video, therefore by Occam's razor, we must conclude that explanation containing only the professor is the better one. Yeah. The video is flipped, but I guess from other people, not him personally. Occam left the chat...

@gm2407

Жыл бұрын

@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle Haha, but his face is also slightly asymetrical so you can see it is flipped.

@ncedwards1234

Жыл бұрын

@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle But with Bayes Theorem we can overrule Occam's Razor because the prior belief of being ambidextrous is lower than the prior of him knowing how to mirror.

Excellent, many people seem to wilfully misunderstand Utilitarianism. Your presentation rigorously clears up many silly objections.

The start made me chuckle. Love your sense of humour to have included that. Also while I'm commenting, I love your work/content.

Amazing lectures leaned alot from you Sir.

Thankyou for the amazing session 👍

Your lecture was better than reading from a book.😃

@TheRealLachlan

Жыл бұрын

im retarded too

Thank you so much. Made it so simple to understand

This was really helpful Thank you so much.

I love your lecture ♥️

@jeffreykaplan1

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

Thanks for providing interesting content, and not asking me to press a button, and leaving a few seconds of time at the end so that I could press a button if I want to.

@darev6780

2 ай бұрын

The length of time it took you to write that , you could have easily just pressed that button. 😂

@jamesmantooth7364

2 ай бұрын

@@darev6780 I pressed the button, and then I wrote that.

This was the best of your lectures that I have seen so far. I can hardly find any fault with it. And I have to say that in modern eyes, you made a great case for Utilitarianism! Any moderate or liberal person, upon hearing this lecture, would want to take the Utilitarian position. It WAS the dominant position for thousands of years to punish consensual but "deviant" sexual acts, but the majority of people in advanced countries now strongly reject that idea. I would only add that these moral principles are not as new as you are suggesting. The morals of Jesus in the Gospels are often strongly on the side of humaneness, even for "sinners," as long as they are repentant. (Sometimes the Old Testament takes that view.) As for no ex-post-facto laws, that's encoded in the US Constitution, and as for disliking excessive punishment, there is of course the eighth amendment in the Bill of Rights. But, that aside, great job on this topic.

Thank you ❤

Thank you !

@jeffreykaplan1

3 жыл бұрын

You're welcome!

the minute Jeffrey could not spell scenario I could relate ...hahahhaxxx

Around 11 minutes, I got confused by you writing -50 and calling it the reason we must do something... Were you calling it +50 for the pleasure gained from people not being hurt by the criminal? Being in prison = -5 pleasure People who would have been hurt = -50 pleasure (but only if they knew they would have been hurt? Who exactly gets these pleasure points? How do you account for preventing harm of people who didn't know they were going to be harmed?) So we end up with an end result of -5 points if we imprison the criminal, instead of the -50 points if we allow him to go out and hurt more people. Writing this out helped me understand better. In this case, the maximum pleasure is negative either way. That's what confused me I think. There's really no pleasure, but we're minimizing the pain? By the way, great videos. Since discovering your channel I've been much less interested in gaming/funny/fails/whatever. I'd rather be thinking.

@jeffreykaplan1

3 жыл бұрын

Oh, I see what's going on there. Yeah, that was a pretty confusing way of putting it. What I was saying there is that punishing generates -5 and not punishing would generate -50 (because the punished person is prevented from doing other harm) and so when we compare punishing and not punishing we see that punishing is better because -5 is a much higher number than -50. But you are right that that wasn't clear enough.

Hi i love your videos and your humor. But lol I also am v curious to know how do you write like that

@twelvemaps

Ай бұрын

he writes normally and the video is flipped!

Can you do a video on moral particularism. I feel like all moral theories are gonna have problems because they dont conform to our moral sense, which can often vary in every situation and even in the same situation and different times. Perhaps rather than building these big overarching complex moral systems its better to just focus on the morality of particular decisions and look at the relavent moral features in each situation. So we may want to focus on protecting rights in one instance, but focus on consequences in another, or focus on virtues in another.

@adrianmarkstrom6692

2 жыл бұрын

How would we determine what moral features are relevant if not by using an overarching complex moral system?

@Dante_Seth

2 жыл бұрын

that's a complicated way of saying you believe morality is subjective

@bastobasto4866

Жыл бұрын

@@Dante_Seth Na, he doesn't : I think he means that we should applicate one ethical system in certain cases, and another one in another case, and so on. However, you'd need to argue why this is valid/would be needed (why use ... in the case of ... ?), and to think that an attempt at establishing a rational, objective ethical system, we would need to have this ethical system be perfectly in harmony with the moral system of our society misses the ultimate goal of establishing a rational, objective ethical system (and isn't rational/objective) - which ultimately, as you said, would just be a way to judge the morality of actions according to our society's subjective ethical system without personnal bias. In short, I don't think he necesssarily (from what's in his comment) believe in ethical subjectivity, but rather that he misunderstand the whole point of normative ethics.

Or is it that we just don't trust that the machines would do what we're promised they would do -- that on some level, we would fundamentally know that the experiences were false and therefore the pleasure would always seem hollow, if only in some way we could never properly identify? And why assume that we are experiencing reality now? If we come to believe that we would simply be trading a mediocre false experience for a better false experience, why WOULDN'T we choose the better one? We're already testing ways of creating virtual realities and is it so unlikely that people who grow up with that technology will prefer VR to mundane reality? Aren't some people already leaning in that direction? The assumption that people will just always be inclined to turn down the Experience Machine and the rest seems to me to be just another prejudice...

It matters so it seems who one considers his community and who he chooses to ignore

Could I ask where Money and Power of a person, sit in the utilitarian view?

@fieldrequired283

7 ай бұрын

Most utilitarian models don't specifically privelege the happiness of the rich or powerful. A poor man's happiness is worth the very same as a rich man's happiness in the eyes of the archetypal Utilitarian.

Perhaps diminishing marginal utility can help address aggregation.

What I find disturbing in utilitarianism is the lack of concern for the individual in regards to the "common good". I'd like to get your opinion on the relationship between utilitarianism and communism, and on Peter Singer's most controversial ideas.

Is he really writing backwards on the class? i need to know xD Maybe he just flips the video side to side in editing, but it got me thinking

@ncedwards1234

Жыл бұрын

He mirrors. Left hand here, right hand videos with a different angle.

You have chosen in this presentation to not account for the negative consequences on the soul of the person committing those acts. Surely infinite punishment in hell should be part of the calculation? I'd say atleast 50 points for gryffindor.

Even if utilitarianism made sense it is so impractical. First you have to have the expectation that the choices you make will have the outcome you expect. Most actions have more than one outcome. To determine if the choice you make has a desirable outcomes you have to add up the individual outcomes. Not all of the outomes will e apparently immediately and some outcomes will be more important than others. So you must not only add but give the outcomes weight. So you try to come to grips with the variables, plan for the unexpected, allow for some error, come up with alternatives. But how do you know that you have done all that right. How do you even know when it is time to act, that you have considered things enough. How about this! You know you are doing the right thing because that is the thing you have chosen. Flip a coin, consult with a team of experts in the end you make a decision on incomplete knowledge no matter what.

@williamjenkins4913

Жыл бұрын

Indeed and we can use one of the points in this video as an example. Bentham states deterrence as a value of punishment. Yet we now know that punishment does not deter further crime neither in the punished nor in society at large. So he was making a utilitarian argument for punishment when punishment is poor utilitarianism. Since it essentially require omniscient that makes every utilitarian a terrible utilitarian.

@palindromo7380

Жыл бұрын

@@williamjenkins4913 Layman here, but I would assume that a society with no punishment for crime would have much more crime than a society that does. Being sent to jail is a punishment, one which I would assume is a pretty decent deterrent against crime. Is that not the case?

As a (kinda-sorta) utilitarian person who's trying to prove that punishment is bad altogether I still love this video.

@JM-us3fr

Жыл бұрын

There's certainly psychological grounds to suggest that wherever possible, reward-incentives are more effective than punishment-incentives. However, there may be scenarios for which reward-incentives aren't even possible, so punishment will have to do. For a philosophic argument, I don't really think any consequentialist theory can say any _specific_ act is bad altogether because one can always imagine more and more consequences at stake.

None of my utilitarian friends suffer with these mathmatical cases of decision making, effectively. A true utilitarian punishment is only humane in an "evangelical" sense. For example if you destroy something, you are made to replace it. Such punishment often coincides with max utility, as pointed out. More interesting than Bentham, the theorist, is for example Caesar Augustus, the practitioner.

Fun fact: there is no study that proves there is a correlation between the severity of a punishment and deterrence. Punishment as it is used in penal codes is purely a method of exacting revenge.

@fluffysheap

Жыл бұрын

Just because there's "no study" doesn't mean it isn't true. No such study could be performed, either as a matter of political possibility or as a matter of scientific ethics.

@nataliaborys1554

10 ай бұрын

​@@fluffysheap I mean, you could make a study that uses a less severe version of this problem. For example, have the participants play a game, in which they could be able to cheat. Divide them into three groups - in group one, there's no punishment for choosing to cheat, even if you're caught doing it. In group two, you get some timeout for cheating if caught. In group three, you get eliminated from the game permanently if caught cheating. Then check if there are differences in how frequently each group tried to cheat, and you get some evidence on whether or not severity of punishment deters breaking rules

@simperingham

10 ай бұрын

Fun fact: there are multiple reasons why we do or could punish. Retribution is only one (I think there are like 5). Deterrence is another; so is rehabilitation; plain, old prevention (either by prison or capital punishment) is another. In theory, prison is one of the best mechanisms to reach most of these goals. I don’t necessarily mean to dispute you here, but it is worth thinking about for law students and philosophers alike.

@oliverniemann2541

9 ай бұрын

I would say that while there’s not a study we could use real life examples. For example, less people will speak out against the government in North Korea than America, because they will be killed in North Korea

@ishmael_03

6 ай бұрын

​@@nataliaborys1554It's common sense: Punishment = deterrence.

14:06 'It seems totally unfair to then go back, find the people who exhibited that behavior, who acted in that now impermissible way in the past, before there was a rule against it and punish those people'. Welcome to 2023.

It seems incredibly presumptuous to think you can accurately quantify the net pain or pleasure of any choice. I can see how this system of ethics was very easy to utilize to justify oppression while still acting like you made a quantifiably correct decision. I respect the attempt to be more just and try to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, but it just seems misguided, from a modern perspective, to assume that any person could accurately quantify the pain and pleasure of yourself and others not only in the present but also the future.

Informative video but your writing 😳😥

@Pimp_Shrimp

Жыл бұрын

The writing of an intelligent man.

18:20 we still punish deviant sexual acts - bestiality, incest, necrophilia. What's changed is not the philosophical position on punishing deviancy, we just don't consider homosexuality to be deviant any more.

Thesis or feces closed captioning couldn't tell the difference.

@fluffysheap

Жыл бұрын

In many cases there isn't any 😂

How does Utilitarianism actually measure pleasure and pain? How do we know person A is feeling 5 pleasure points and person B -5? It seems to me that without a way to accurately measure pleasure and pain, especially when it comes to predicting future consequences, Utilitarianism is useless.

@bastobasto4866

Жыл бұрын

It's not meant to be an actual mathematical calculation with quantities, at least according to Mill.

@moth5799

Жыл бұрын

@@bastobasto4866 How do we make decisions then? Based on our intuition of what will cause more or less suffering?

@fieldrequired283

7 ай бұрын

​@@moth5799 Utilitarianism doesn't tell you how to measure a person's happiness or suffering, it just tells you what to do based on the information you have about how much suffering and how much happiness results from different actions. Yes, you have to investigate and use your own faculties of reason to determine how much pain or pleasure results from any particular course of action. Such things may be difficult to quantify precisely, but they can be at least vaguely estimated. If you care about the pain and pleasure of people, and your choices are between estimating how to improve them, and not accounting for them at all, estimating seems like the better choice.

`Shouldn't we take into consideration how much unhappiness the prisoner has already caused?

@fieldrequired283

11 ай бұрын

Only when doing so has an effect on pain or pleasure caused in the future. To the utilitarian, punishment is always bad, because you are adding suffering to the world. The utilitarian doesnt recognize the concept of "deservingness" on a fundamental level. The reason a utilitarian would want to punish harmful acts and reward helpful one is because doing so can encourage people to do more good and less bad. So from the utilitarian standpoint, there is nothing _intrinsically right_ about punishing misdeeds, it's just (in principle) useful for preventing further misdeeds. If you can prevent misdeeds _without_ hurting anyone, from the perspective of a utilitarian, that will always be the strictly better option, regardless of how bad prior misdeeds have been.

@zendan37

11 ай бұрын

@@fieldrequired283 Then I 'm not a utilitarian. Wrongdoers should be punished to incentivise them not to repeat their misdeeds and warn others of the consequences of wrongdoing.

@fieldrequired283

11 ай бұрын

@@zendan37 While I believe you when you say you dont consider yourself a utilitarian, I would like to point out that the reasons why you think misdeeds should be punished are the very same reasons I presented for why a utilitarian would want to punish misdeeds.

@twitchynosesam

7 ай бұрын

​@@fieldrequired283could it not be said that locking up an innocent person would cause unnecessary harm to the person, while letting an evil person free would also cause harm due to them committing evil actions, so that situation would only be pain and should be avoided. While in the reversed situation, the imprisoned evil person would suffer, the subtraction of the harm they would commit would be seen as a pleasure, while the good person getting paid would also be pleasurable. I don't see how both situations are the same under utilitarianism and especially consequencism

@fieldrequired283

7 ай бұрын

@@twitchynosesam It doesn't seem like we're disagreeing? I don't think the two situations you described are the same to me, I don't think they're the same from a strict utilitarian perspective, and I don't think most people would consider them intuitively the same. What position do you think I was espousing?

I didn't watch the video till the end (first 8 minutes), but I see the problem in the assumption that being in prison for Alice (evil) is the same as being in prison for Bob (good). It's much different, especially, if let' say Alice was in prison twice already (we can imagine it easily taking into account she's evil). The same conclusion we can come up with money (let's say Alice will spend it on guns or crack while Bob will buy a new bicycle for his son or donate to charities). So if you dive deeper, the sum is different in 2 scenarios. So let's watch the video till the end and see if we agree on that :)

Punishment is cruelty well used if it prevents more pain for more people than the pain for the the one. If the person is in jail it bad for the one but good for the few and the many. Is punishment a deterrent? Punish or treat? Is gay sex a crime or a sin? Or should a sin be a crime? Spare the rod spoil the child, Denontolgy?