Відео

I think you're pronouncing his name incorrectly.

thankyou for your explanation! When you got to the Mill's harm principle I immediately thought of the moral dilemmas surrounding abortion and the pro-life/pro-choice stances. Turns out it's one of the principles on which the pro life argument is founded.

Good explanation and the presenter’s able to write mirror image onto the glass to show in clear diagram

This is the bullsh*t that's taught in college

I guess some people never truly understand object permanence.

passive euthanasia is the mindset of the entire medical profession...saves dollars, saves staff requirement and is easier to implement. VA in particular possibly unconsciously desires vets to be off the roles of care and passive euthanasia using harmful pharms, delayed care, lots of gaslighting and brainwashing. Additionally hyou will find a move to get all under Do Not Resusitate (they will cliam "you want a natural death dont you} but then DNR makes liability go away if they accidntly kill you during a procedure, also saves time and money ang gets you off the patient roles.

Marx initially made observations about labor use and profitability while looking specifically at slavery, where wages were not paid at all, rather than in a capitalist system where trades men and other itinerant laborers were being paid piece rates etc. Certainly the industrial revolution tipped most ideas about the value of labor on its head as many people lost their incomes to machinery.

At 1:39 on the first slide, I am thinking, this strategy sounds just like what happen to labor in America. Which means it is rife for the Marxist picking if they do not reform their outdated social capitalist system.

Sorry, but I don't see any discussion of a Marxist concept of justice in your video. Your discussion of differential impact of income or wealth of youth is not something specific to Marxism, in fact is more of a problem in mixed capitalist economies.

❤

Thank you professor, your videos are extremely helpful, clear and concise. Preparing for my exams with your help is much easier and pleasant. Thanks from Italy 😁

What is your point of origin?

thank you so much! this explains things so much more clearly than the article/chapter itself

The other big thing it brings up to me is trust issues lol…I feel like in order to refute the relevance of shared pain and to doubt whether pain in another being is even real, it takes some serious trust issues to manifest that. Again maybe I go too far but these are the things his works brings up to me.

I feel like I get the beetle in the box analogy, and it’s presented well here. What I find harder to grasp is what he is trying to say about its analogy to pain and philosophy of mind. “ That is to say: if we construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on the model of 'object and designation', the object drops out of consideration as irrelevant.” So the pain felt itself is the object (what’s in the box) and our word or description of pain is the “grammar of expression of sensation” ( beetle). His point being that in the game of language pain cannot be “generalized irresponsibly” just bc we know it from our experience, we can’t automatically correspond it to another persons pain and what they are experiencing. Not at least without some sort of triangulation like you speak of. It’s also interesting to me the things that he is dancing around here that I don’t know if he talks about (been a while since I read the book). Things like empathy and compassion are implicated here. As well as the value of self knowledge, he seems to say they are effectively irrelevant. Whereas in Vedic philosophy we have quite the opposite ideas where “the science of the Self” is of supreme importance. Anyways that may be going far with it, but his work always stirs up all those ideas for me. Definitely one of the more memorable analogies in western philosophy.

Quantum mechanics looks like some species of idealism.

But this is Aristotle's theory of justice.

Thank you for the video, writing a paper on animal ethics and this is very helpful

If the "only I exist" can be experienced as "only Consciousness exists and I am that", then solipsism is the way; you experience everything and everyone from a different perspective but it is all You (the Broader Perspective You, not the illusion of the body you, which is perceived from the senses; you are ALL). Basically Only I exist because I am the All (God, Source Energy, whatever word you feel good about). The "others" (other people, other consciousnesses) exist (and experience a Universe of their own, no doubt, and you ultimately are them as well on a much "higher" plain), yet in this Film you can only see that certain version of them that is perceived within your assumptions, within this body-you, this actor of your Film. And things exist because vibration has been turned into objects by focus on them by the You. What a Grand Film we are playing out, "don't you think" :P

The example given about the locked door with Smith not having the desire to help the child. Smith would still be guilty because even if the door wasn't locked he would not want to help the child.

Can we act against our greatest desire? I don't think so because that would mean we are not in control of our decisions. To be in control of our choices entails we are doing what we most intend to do. Are we in control of our desire? I can think of one example that proves we aren't in control of our desire. Hunger or the desire to eat food is caused by our empty stomach yet our digestive system is not under our control. So it seems circumstances determine our desires.

I view the will as being determined by our greatest desire or preference at the moment of choice. To say that the will is not determined by anything is to say that our choices are mere accidents. Accidental decisions would be made against our desires and therefore by definition we have no control over our own decisions. Moral responsibility would also be an issue because we can't hold people accountable for accidentally doing something. It would seem we can only hold people accountable even if a person cannot do otherwise or has no reason to choose otherwise. Also circumstances can also change a person's desire.

By “person” she means a human being who is developed enough to deserve legal protection from being killed by his or her own mother. Of course we are human beings from the moment of conception but sorry, that just doesn’t meet her arbitrary, self serving developmental criteria for legal protection. It’s not enough to be human. The strong can kill the weak. What barbaric times we live in.

great start !

“My property, my prerogative”. - every slave owner to an abolitionist

the dying star part ate

You are totally wrong straight from the beginning. Determinism is neither true nor false. It is not a claim about reality, it is just a theoretical idea about circumstances very much different from reality. A practical tool in classical physics, useless in just about everything else. Alternative possibilities are not a "principle" that could be true or false. Alternative possibilities are practical observable reality. So is moral responsibility. Whether free will is real or imaginary is not subject to debate. It is completely up to the *definition*. "Ability to act independently from prior causes." = TRUE, "Ability to act independently from personal history." = FALSE, "Ability to start new causal chains" = TRUE, "Ability to control one's own muscles" = TRUE, "Ability to break the laws of physics" = FALSE. No valid definition defines free will as an open question.

Thank you sir

👍

The objection concerning agent ''deflationism'' is what has always bothered me as a libertarian. There seems to be a clear-cut possibility of glossing over personalism at large, let alone agency. Such possibility unfurls from biology and physiology. In that telling, agency seems to be completely an arbitrary bridge to cross, a sort of representational euphemism (similar to that discussed in Attention Schema theory). It is this partial, incomplete knowledge about physiology that acts as a sort of pillar to libertarianism. But come on, I am not going to live as a libertarian thinking about that of course.

I think psychology and the unconscious influences limit free-will as an absolute. Even quantum entanglement could affect this. But morality establishes (as in Kant’s morality) a fixed space of determinism within the spectrum of free will outside of the influence of the unconscious.

I think it both. Predetermination and free will can coexist. I think the material plane is a special place. I think before I was born that me as some fragment of a colllective planned out my life. We determined what my trials were to be, who my parents were and other major events. As has been said, for the most part our free will enables us to cho0se what color shirt we will wear today. Now the determined events can be subverted but a price must be paid at some point down the road. Those who choose to opt out by suicide will find out that it is not allowed. They spend the rest of their allotted time witnessing what they have done.

That information is quite good

First stab...The construction of visual signals or the modulation of sounds to produce patterns that other biological units mutually agree and understand as signifiers that represent real entities or actions that have physical or sociocultural properties collectively agreed upon by a circumscribed group and perceived by their senses and common understanding. These noise of visual signals represent real world observations, actions, objects, properties or relationship and can be translated from sound and visual gestures into symbols that contain agreed representations. Meaning emerges from social and environmental interaction and the construction of semantic models of the world..

Thank you

In my opinion, idealism, if thought through logically and consistently, inevitably leads to solipsism.

Thanks for this. Have you checked out ontological mathematics?

This was really informative. Thank you! ❤

I'll watch this later. It's not a good time for me right now, but I appreciate the video.

I really appreciated the emphasis on prima facie duties, as this is normally overlooked when talking about the difference between deontology and consequentialism.

Thank you so much sir

Thank you sir

I have always contemplated this problem and knew there is a possible solution. I just watched this lecture and will watch all others. Is there a comprehensive lists of which scientists are working on which stages of Partial Ectogenesis? From conception, to petri dish, to artificial womb, to delivery? This needs to be worked on in countries it is legal in. I feel like this research should be given a substantial sum of money.

thank you for explaining mill's harm principle!

Thanks for the video! However I don’t understand why the rain example wouldn’t be an abduction. Isn’t it the best explanation to to say it rained after observing that many things are wet?

Very good topic.

I share your enthusiasm! There are of course drawbacks -- costs, risks, possibly thousands of additional unwanted babies. But on whole, simultaneously enabling choice AND life sure is attractive...

John Malkovich

A good vet can getter done. Put down like a dog.

Very good considertion. 👍 Rawls is the veil of ignorance It's meant to identify the needy. Nozick is the experience machine. The matrix movie is one take on it.