one of the best content i found on net

Best explanation with best example 👌👌

Thanks. It is grate help for my study

Very clear explanation.

Notes; determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes Ethical choice produces greatest good for greater number Can justify war Most common approach to moral reasoning in business We can't predict the future so irs hard to know if our consequences are GOOD or bad Also can't account for justice and individual rights

Superb example

God Bless and Definitely loves you all. You'll never regret living for him.

oh my god the one healthy person ripped to shreds for the four & the point blank no you dont do that was extremely validating

thank you guys

This saved me on my philosophy exam!!

@bobbuilder5823

3 жыл бұрын

Is that your major?

This is so much more comprehensive

@zakarybourbeau5750

Ай бұрын

It is a bit flawed of a explanation, the organ harvest one would not be something an utilitarist would Do, it would cause fear of suddently behing harvested causing people to not go to hospitals.

Amazing.

The only reason the hospital argument seemingly points out a flaw on utilitarianism is because the hospital argument itself is flawed and incomplete. If utilitarianism is about getting the most happiness in total while avoiding suffering as much as possible. Then if you take into account the absolute dread people all over the world would constantly live with if we harvested organs as easy as that. Then the suffering created by that far outweighs the happiness that is created. So in other words if you take into consideration as much of the potential effects of this cause that you'd consider, you'd see that according to utilitarianism the organs shouldn't be harvested.

@zakarybourbeau5750

Ай бұрын

Good reasonement.

Thanks in advance

*This video goes badly wrong in suggesting that “utilitarianism has obvious limitations”. Instead, it should state that “utilitarianism has some counterintuitive consequences”.* Quantum theory is counter-intuitive too, but that doesn’t mean it is unreliable. Human intuitions are notoriously unreliable and there’s no reason to believe that our moral intuitions are any different. They were naturally selected because they aided our survival. We should not assume that survival-tracking intuitions are also truth-tracking. The fact that utilitarianism involves predicting the future consequences of actions isn’t a limitation. We make prudential decisions based on our assessment of the likely future consequences of our actions every day. Sometimes we get things right, sometimes we don’t. That’s life! Just because we’d like a theory to be able to determine right from wrong with 100% reliability doesn’t mean that such a theory exists. Wishing something to be so doesn’t make it so. To suggest that utilitarianism has a problem accounting for values such as ‘rights’ or ‘justice’ is a little misleading. For utilitarianism, ‘rights’ and ‘justice’ derive their value from their usefulness in promoting better consequences. People who are treated ‘justly’ and have their ‘rights’ respected tend to be happier than those who are treated ‘unjustly’ and have their ‘rights’ disrespected. This means that utilitarians can account for concepts like ‘rights’ and ‘justice’, it’s just that these have instrumental value, not value in and of themselves. They serve the purpose of promoting the foundational value of supporting greater overall happiness. The fact that many people’s intuitions tell them that the transplant scenario is immoral may be so much the worse for their moral intuitions. Our intuitions aren’t built to handle weird philosophical thought experiments about improbable situations that were not part of our evolutionary history. If transplants were safe and reliable, then it would be in our own best interests to agree to participate in a population-wide transplant lottery because that would increase our own chances of survival. A utilitarian would argue that the transplant scenario is justified only in a lottery style situation because of the unhappiness that would be caused by arbitrarily picking up people visiting hospitals. If that happened people would lose faith in the medical system and medical professionals in a way that would not happen if people agreed to be part of an impartial lottery that improved the chances of survival for themselves and their loved ones. For a more thorough exploration of these questions I highly recommend Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer’s most recent book. global.oup.com/ukhe/product/utilitarianism-a-very-short-introduction-9780198728795?cc=&lang=en

@bobbuilder5823

3 жыл бұрын

You're just arguing semantics. Utilitarians have no way of objectively measuring happiness. It's pure fiction. When you you try to objectively measure something as vague and unquantifiable as happiness, your system is going to be inherently limited.

@JohnThomas

3 жыл бұрын

@@bobbuilder5823 _“You're just arguing semantics.”_ Semantics play an important role in philosophical discussion. They are needed to explain the meaning of the language we use and reduce the risk of people talking past one another by using the same word to describe different things. There are some semantics in what I wrote above, but there’s much more than that. I’ve made some substantive claims that are not mere “semantics”. _“Utilitarians have no way of objectively measuring happiness. It's pure fiction. When you you try to objectively measure something as vague and unquantifiable as happiness, your system is going to be inherently limited.”_ That’s a common but failed objection to utilitarianism. The World Happiness Report illustrates that there are ways we can determine whether one person or one society is happier than another. The fact that measures are imprecise does not mean that they have no value. The methodology results in assessments that closely mirror most people’s perceptions. For example, it would not surprise most people to learn that Danes tend to be happier than Afghans.

@user-pz4tx7if9d

4 ай бұрын

I disagree your bases. Morals are not created through our natural selection (that we survive and adapt) it’s wrong in my eyes. The reason why is because I believe in objective morals created by the one who created space and time, the one who created the beginning and the end, the one who created the creation

@JohnThomas

4 ай бұрын

@@user-pz4tx7if9d *“I disagree your bases. Morals are not created through our natural selection (that we survive and adapt) it’s wrong in my eyes.”* I’m not sure whether you were addressing me, but I agree that morals are not created through natural selection. Morality - good, bad, better, worse, right, wrong - etc look like discoveries to me. *“The reason why is because I believe in objective morals created by the one who created space and time, the one who created the beginning and the end, the one who created the creation"* Here we disagree. The way our conscious experience feels informs us that happiness is better than misery and pleasure is better than pain. Suffering can sometimes serve a useful instrumental purpose, but without some further purpose, it is inherently bad. That gives us sufficient reason to avoid it and try to make our world a happier place for ourselves and others.

Umm I do not see how businesses use utilitarianism in any stretch of the imagination. Most for-profit corporations are not here to make the world a better place, they are there to generate profit for it's owners.

Talking about humans as we would about improving the breading of a herd of cattle, what has this to do with improving the morality of society? A better way: "No one shall enrich themselves upon the misery of another." And so, the more intelligent upper-half of society must stop hoarding all the land, wealth and political power.

Narration in the video: "It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force, or war." This is absurdly false. People have used all kinds of moral frameworks to justify military force or war, for example, religious moral frameworks and contractualist moral frameworks, or for that matter egoistic moral frameworks. Perhaps the speaker means that utilitarianism is the only moral framework that can *successfully* justify military force or war. But that is a huge opinion, and it needs to be proven.

@dmcdivitt

4 жыл бұрын

Completely agree.

@Gunbardo

4 жыл бұрын

It is set in the scope of normative theories of ethics, so it only compares between consequential and non-consequential frameworks a.k.a deontology, utilitarianism, rights and virtues, in which utilitarianism best fits the argument for military actions.

@BenDGrimm

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you! This video explains that terribly-and falsely

@Preacher_.

3 жыл бұрын

But it is the only Moral Framework for justifying war and violence on the whole... If I attack you because you don't believe in the same sky god as me, that's immoral.. But if I attack you because you are attacking myself, or others, and it's the only way to stop you from causing more harm; that's moral. That's Utilitarianism.

@ninacitas

2 жыл бұрын

@@BenDGrimm Exactly this video is wrong! and is more close to Jeremy Bentham, not to Stuart Mill by the way.

Utilitarianism seems the hardest when it comes to ethics.

@Am-uj6qn

5 ай бұрын

Like hardest to understand?

why are they all smiling where there is a dead person on the floor? 1:22

@michi2868

3 жыл бұрын

lmaooo

Hello, what is the font used in this video?

@peeper9182

Жыл бұрын

🧐

The assertion "It is the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits" makes no sense. Business uses law and applicable standards as a basis for morality, and often business places morality second to other concerns such as profit. Why do you think people criticize business practices?

Terrible counterarguments. "can't predict the future so don't determine if actions are good or bad" - This is a flaw of literally every moral framework. Deontology doesn't escape this by not being consequentialist because at the end of the day, the end results of applying a universal rule can't be predicted either and while the results are irrelevant in deontology, they are not irrelevant to the actual experience of real human beings who will be affected by decisions made under this framework. "4 patients scenario" - There are numerous problems with this. First, extremely preposterous scenario that would never happen in real life as the constraints the situation demands are impossible to implement. There would never just be that one option open to the surgeon, any reasonable surgeon who even has an awareness of the Hippocratic Oath would at least give the "victim" a choice and would let the 4 patients know about what would take place. If the victim agrees, consent has been given so while the decision will impact the victim's friends and family, it will be understood to be their decision so will greatly lessen the negative utility involved as well as make the sacrifice more palatable to the 4 patients. But let's assume consent isn't requested and the surgeon does just make the decision himself. If the argument is that greater outrage would follow from killing the victim to save the 4 patients then this is admitting there's greater negative utility in this option not accounted for by whoever proposed the scenario and therefore this is the less moral option. This unaccounted for negative utility will come from the reaction of the 4 patients and public on learning the truth.

@stanimirvelinov2472

10 ай бұрын

And the trolley problem is no diferent, it is jus as nonsensikall :)

@zakarybourbeau5750

Ай бұрын

First person i saw include more Then 2 défenses, good job

Is utilitarianism contrary to rights? If so would act and rule utilitarianism be contrary to rights as well? If it's not contrary to rights, would you say it respects rights?

@JohnThomas

3 жыл бұрын

Utilitarians think that giving people rights has value because it makes people happy. People who are free are happier than people who are not. Societies that are more equal tend to be happier those that are not. This means that utilitarians see rights as derivative, not foundational. Their value is derived from their tendency to promote of a happier world.

@Preacher_.

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, read up on the Harm Principal.

Infringing on personal rights is seen as acceptable if the person is a danger to others so saying this is a flaw if utilitarianism is pretty disingenuous.

Let’s take on the hospital example. A stranger wonders into a hospital and finds that 4 different people have needs. They need a heart, lung, kidney and liver. A utilitarian would evaluate he situation and make an argument for who should be treated based on the hospital capacity. Does this sound like something else? Every Democrat is a utilitarian when they open their mouths about someone dying Of COVID-19 whom has not been vaccinated, or has been vaccinated, but of the wrong party.

@McleozinBra

2 жыл бұрын

Me podrías decir un ejemplo de salud de Universalismo , Personalismo y Principialismo porfisss

@k.g.phemantha9082

Жыл бұрын

Nature allows little bit normo-utility rather than hyper or hypo,as where the more passion involves we lost the middle path,destroy ourselves much earlier to the earth destruction.

concept get clear but the example does'nt look more suitable for this approach because one person can't donate 4 organs to 4 person it also has several limitations and costs in medical context. you shuold explain the example in business context or any other social context such as unethical business practices of any organization. thank you ! i appreciate your understanding for my feedback

2.G gang rise up

Outcome doesn't justify the means.

The man wandering into the hospital would have his happiness and liberty (and thus his organs) protected under Utilitarianism due to The Harm Principal... Now swap that "healthy wandering man" out for another, who through a fatal incident has recently died and is an organ donor. Now you have actual Utilitarianism. There's also a scenario where no one passes away and no "unused organs" are available for transplant... In that case those needing transplants would inevitably die, and under utilitarianism their final days would be met with palliative care that reduced their pain and suffering as much as possible, and that would be that... Under utilitarianism you would never forcibly harvest the organs of a person who's currently using those organs because of the pain and suffering it would cause that person... That's the entier bases of The Harm Principal.

@rosieghuman

3 жыл бұрын

could you pls explain the harm principle to me ? tsym !!

I do wonder who is actually willing to have their organs transplanted to the other patients?

Too many assumptions- Kant's categorical imperative is much better!

@Am-uj6qn

5 ай бұрын

What do you mean by assumptions?

Well, i am a utilitarian and i wouldn´t consider it ethical to kill one person that comes into the hospital to save four lives. People would no doubt stop going to the hospital if they figures out that hospitals did that and the long term consequnces would be devastating.

1:17 That’s Christianity in a nutshell.

Utilitarianism is economical but is it ethical?

@zakarybourbeau5750

Ай бұрын

Yes, it is, thats like the whole thing, it's goal is to make evryone happy, aim for the outcome that would Makes evry one happy

forgot it was categorical, that's even older

HAHA oh i love the example

i thought utilitarian was just the opposite of minimalism; instead of one button to handle everything (so to speak), everything has its' own settings to configure to your heart's desire also, that example is stupid; there's such a thing as organ donors

1 person to give up organs for 4 people is an absurdity. There would be other avenues to explore such as: Cloning organs, Anyone recently deceased to harvest organs from?, Pig organs, artificial organs, stem cell research to help cure their own organs and other possibilities. Also, Who and what ages are these people? Are they all children or are they old adult junkies or drunks? Also, how do they contribute to the betterment of society? Who is dependent upon them? is it a single mother or father who would have orphaned children? Is it a parent with 4 children who need the organs? I would give my organs to save my children and I believe most parents would. Details matter. Playing these blanket statements is BS without any kind of details and specifics. This argument that seeks to find the flaw in utilitarianism is weak.

@boysteacher3818

2 жыл бұрын

How about negative utilitarianism? What are your thoughts about them?

It is not “the most reason based approach”

.

uhh deconstructing the one healthy human to save 4 does not sounds like a good utilitarianism decision because everyone will fear for there life when walking into a hospital and thus causing more suffering then 4 life's are worth not arguing for utilitarianism at all just my opinion that the example was bad :)

@stanimirvelinov2472

10 ай бұрын

And the trolley problem is no diferent. Peaple wud be in fear if they know that if they are the minorety they wod be sacrifised. :)

@frodojuniormlg653

10 ай бұрын

@@stanimirvelinov2472 yup agree the hard thing is gonna be accurately measuring the pleasure and pain of all the possible actions ever

i have friends who died from organ harvesting as falun gong members dont talk about this.

what the hell fate zero reference11!?11!!?

Poggers

organ donation is blasphemy. your organs are gifted to you by good and your parents and should never taken away by other humans.

Drivel!

You can always harvest a convicted criminal. Win-Win

@elsahutalla8677

3 жыл бұрын

very informative

@klosmaximus9530

3 жыл бұрын

What if that criminal was falsely convicted?

#FJB

Wow! Super over simplification. No system can be predicted to do absolute good or bad. I have never heard the idea that utilitarianism demands the destruction of an individual. This video was a miss.

This video teaches as many wrong facts as right. Find something else.

@robbklobb6501

3 жыл бұрын

Perhaps you could explain the wrong points.