Відео

Hi! Just posted my first criticisms video of situation ethics. Check it out here: ua-cam.com/video/0_HD3NqYZFc/v-deo.html

Just a chill guy telling truths in a world of lies love broski 🐐🤠‼️🔥🌋

I've two qns: Does a philosophical theory change with the passage of time? How the population size affected the Greek philosophers? I mean, suppose there were very very few people listened to Socrates. Would he had turned out differently in his life? You should take q&a sessions, too.

I've been enjoying your talks since two days. How about explaining political happenings through the lence of morality?

A quick, easy-to understand summary!! Thank you :)

Woooow, great explanation ❤

👏👏👏👏

"I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day. One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?” He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.” A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.” The woman asked, “About what?” He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.” The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing. It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same. One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.” But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.” The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.” He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."

good one

Obviously the evolution of the soul is nonsense by today's knowledge. I presume Aquinas' views on elective abortion (not covered here) would have been firmly against. I think the most rational argument for when abortion becomes good or bad is when the fetus becomes capable of living independently of the mother. I think, until that point, the fetus can be safely considered an inseparable part of the mother's body, for which she has sole responsibility. It's not nice to cut off one's own finger, but there's nothing stopping you from doing so if you really want. So should it be for any other part of your body in my view.

Thank u bro from Türkiye.

I have a project on this right now, you explain this so well, keep up the good work!

You explain too well❤

Genius

"The prime mover is milk, everything else is a cat." That must be the greatest explanation Ive ever heard. Great video!

Good, you mentioned TRUST (most important). Famous Slavoj Žižek has done psychoanalysis in The Parallax View: Anglo/Japanese Masters of HYPOCRISY (appear to what they are not - caring/moral)

my problem with lies meant to "protect" people is it takes away my agency. If I grew up my entire life and was lied to about who my parents were, or my partner had an affair but instead of confessing, they chose to keep it secret forever, under the proviso that "we're happy now, why ruin a good thing" Would the truth cause me pain? Yes. Would the truth possibly lead to shattering the family relationship? Maybe. But that's up to me to decide. You've deceived me and now it's my turn to choose whether I wish salvage our relationship or not. Keeping a deception from me because you think it's "protecting" me is offensive. It's condescending. In my personal experience, being the youngest child of the family, despite being in my 40s now, I still find that my family simply don't include me in some discussions because I'm still perceived as the "baby" of the family. Especially when I got sick and needed heart surgery and received a cancer diagnosis, I was treated with kiddie gloves. "oh don't tell Cooper, he's too sick and weak. the truth will be a burden on him" It literally happened during COVID. While in lockdowns my heart was failing and I was enduring tests to see how we would proceed with the operation, and I discover that everyone had kept the secret from me that my brother-in-law died over a week ago. Their concern was that I had enough to deal with and should focus on my own health. I ended up missing the funeral, also partially due to lockdowns, but had I been informed sooner I might've figured something out. There were exemptions for travelling upon compassionate grounds. We were very close and we were both battling health concerns and confided a lot in each other toward the end. Him dealing with pancreatic cancer and me dealing with my own. I hadn't heard from him in a few weeks and it was devastating when I finally heard the news, but I was _more_ upset about the deception. Especially how they perceived me of not being capable of handling the news. I'm not a child. I'm a 40 year old man. My brother-in-law died. You're not protecting me, you're condescending me. There's also the assumption of lies you "take to your grave" which I would attribute my earlier example of a partner having an affair. Their hope is to keep it secret forever. The reality is that most lies are revealed eventually, somehow. And I feel strongly that discovering a lie is vastly worse than a confession. At least you gave me the decency and respect to confess, which is far better than catching somebody in a lie, which alludes to the possibility they were never going to come clean, meaning they don't have any respect for you. So no matter how old your lie is, it's better that you confess, rather than they catch you. Just be honest. If the dress makes me look fat. Tell me. If you're cheating on me. Tell me. If you say you're 6'4'' on Tinder and you're not... what did you expect when we meet up? Just be honest. All lying does is show that you don't respect me enough to handle the truth to make an informed choice.

there's another aspect of lying that is not meantioned in the video: by lying over small things just to be polite and avoid "pain" we more and more normalize lying to a point, where we unconsciously deceive each other and ourself up to a point where we no longer are able to differentiate between truth/reality and lies. our perceiption of reality is influenced by our exchange of information with each other. it also makes communication more and more challenging since language is used to avoid pain rather than the exchange of information. (this is often pronounced in communication between autistic and allistic people.) You can even go as far as saying that downplaying lying or even demand lying just to protect our emotions can be a danger to our species' survival since we need to have a clear picture of how things actually are despite our indiviual emotional sensitivities..

Utilitarianism

Betraying someone's secret happiness gain would have to offset the amount of pain and unhappiness caused by the betray.

Love your videos, great explanation

This was very useful; thank you!

Thnks. Good summaary.

Augustine's understanding of humanity was rooted in the intellectual and cultural context of his time, which was indeed limited compared to modern perspectives. While his views were advanced for his era and often guided by sincere intentions, basing our entire understanding of humanity or faith solely on his interpretations may overlook the significant developments in philosophy, psychology, and theology that have occurred since. Augustine’s insights-particularly on human nature, original sin, and grace-remain influential, but they are part of a broader tradition that has continued to evolve as new knowledge and perspectives have emerged. It is therefore important to appreciate Augustine's contributions while also engaging with subsequent developments in human thought. Look up Holistic Free Will you can download the full document from PhilPapers

thank you so much this is soooo useful

Brilliant video, very useful and clear, thanks!

Loved it! Amazing materials. Will share it with my friends. In the 1st chapter of Jan Assmann's The Price of Monotheism, under the very first section How Many Religions Stand Behind the Old Testament?, he expressed exactly the same opinion. And he call them the 'primary religion' and the 'secondary religion', former being polytheistic, and latter monotheistic. On page 9, one passage reads: These two religions are not just placed side by side in the Hebrew Bible. Rather, they stand opposed to each other in a relationship of tension, since one envisages precisely what the other negates. That this antagonism does not break out into open contradiction is due to the fact that neither religion unfolds in its full purity and rigor in the writings of the Old Testament. The archaic, polytheistic religion that seeks to make its votaries at home in the world is accessible to us only in fragments, having been painted over by the monotheistic redaction. It cannot be reconstructed in anything more than broad outline, with the help of numerous parallels drawn from neighboring religions. The post-archaic, monotheistic religion of world-redemption, for its part, is evident only as a general tendency in the books of the Old Testament, and does not come to full expression, in the severity with which it denounces other religions as idolatrous, until the writings of rabbinical Judaism and patristic Christianity that build upon those books. In the Hebrew Bible, both religions are able to coexist in this state of nonsimultaneous simultaneity, of a “no longer” and a “not yet.” Indeed, this highly charged antagonism within the Bible undoubtedly represents one of the secrets of its worldwide success.

I love the term 'theodicy', most often it appears to be an ironic combination of theo- and idiocy. Augustine did not shine for his critical thought skills, he was no philosopher.

nice video. keep it up!!!

Good work young man, you made it so simple to understand, Love from India❤(a UPSC aspirant)

Why does God allow evil...? 'Good' and 'evil' have their existence in the unSaved judgmental dualistic mind of the beholder! There are equal amounts of (whatever) 'good' (is) and the same for evil in the Universe. The Universe is perfectly balanced; The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" For us to imagine/conceptualize 'good', we must imagine 'evil'. Such judgment is not made by the Saved! There is neither good nor evil, there is just God! The very question of "why does God allow evil" (is so fraught with fallacious assumptions and ignorance that the pursuit of the question) is no more than vain mental/ego masturbation. Which is what philosophy (without science) is; mental masturbation! The "free-will/choice' vs 'determinism' argument is already a fallacy; a false dilemma. That they are already a fallacy, it shouldn't be shocking that there is a superior theory. The quote from Feynman at the end is the death knell of both 'free-will' and 'determinism' and their bastard children 'compatabilism and un-compatabilism! But first, a definition; "Free-will/Choice"; an egoically satisfying theory as to the meaning of a feeling/thought (ego). Get it? Whether the concept of 'free-will/choice' is anything more than an egoic delusion seems to be simply answered by 'deconstruction'. The punch line is that All is One! The Enlightened/Saved, Mystic know this experientially. Quantum physics certainly supports this. So, starting from this point, One single Universe, in perfect balance... One Truth perceived by Consciousness through infinite unique Perspectives (Souls), us. Not anything is actually moving, time is the theory to 'splain the illusion of motion, and now there are concepts of a 'self' distinct from Self with the ability to alter the entire Universe to, most often, make their own little life a bit more comfortable. After all, if you could actually 'change' anything, in the great One, you'd have to also 'change' everything! Talk about an ego trip, a God complex, no wonder people believe in 'free-will/choice'. Not to mention that everyone has the Godlike ability to alter the Universe for a Big Mac! Is this not the very definition of 'chaos'? The concept/belief does have quite the twitching support group, though. I suspect that the notion of free-will/choice is just another acquired belief virus. The symptoms of the defenders supports that theory. So, deconstructing Truth, 'free-will/choice' is impossible, other than as a notion/belief/delusion. Every moment of existence exists Now! "The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

I have issues with the word evil... What is evil? Is a tiger eating a prey, is that evil? Is trump evil or harris? And why? Evil is a perspective, for example in a war, either side will call each other evil.. so what is it? I dislike these terms because its polarizing and it's another 'hip' word to use.. It's simplifying difficult matters.

thank you sir

I mistakenly say "Aquinas" instead of "Leibniz" at 1:35. My sincerest apologies for this!

I like the way you talk, it is much better than other people who cover topics involving Philosophy and Ethics!

How does such a philosophy deal with cases when the preferences of the majority are tyrannical towards the minority? And for animal preferences, how do we weight them? How is the preference of a mosquito weighted against a dog, and a dog to a human? Does a lion as an apex predator have 500+ times the preferential weight of its prey, considering that an adult lion consumes 500+ prey animals (gazelles, zebras, etc) over the course of its lifetime? How can we allow lions to continue to exist when their dietary preferences are in conflict with the survival preferences of so many prey animals? There seems to be so much ambiguity to me when we evaluate ethics in such subjective terms.

Weak rule utilitarianism makes the most sense to me, but in ways where the weakening in exceptional circumstances doesn't devolve to act utilitarianism (more sophistication, broader in scope) but rather simpler, more generalized rules (less sophistication, narrower in scope). For example, suppose I'm walking along a secluded beach which has been temporarily ruled off-limits for swimming due to shark sightings. And while walking along the secluded beach, I spot a child in the distance drowning in the sea. I cannot save the drowning child now without further breaking the rules of staying out of the waters. Yet this is an exceptional circumstance and the basic, simpler rule of human decency (the higher probabilistic utility of acting benevolently) takes precedence for me here. So I violate the lower-priority, more sophisticated rules of staying out of the waters to save the child, but not in pursuit of act utilitarianism; I do it in pursuit of a simpler, more generalized rule of human decency and responsibility which has higher priority in this scenario. Life generally demands that we navigate conflicting rules and conflicts of interests. There's a practical type of rule pluralism required to do so effectively, with more generalized rules taking higher precedence than less generalized rules (which are more likely to find themselves in a state of conflict, as they're less generally applicable). As an example, I value a sophisticated rule of never resorting to violence, but that takes lower priority to me than the generalized rule of protecting my family. If someone breaks into my home, the more generalized rule of protecting my family now takes moral precedence over the less generalized rule of never resorting to violence. As another, I value aiding complete strangers (broader in scope) but not as much as aiding my own children (narrower in scope) -- if the two are in a state of conflict, my children take priority.

That trolley variant with the fat man seems rigged for shallow thinkers incapable of deep consequentialist thought in my blunt opinion. The practical societal consequences of condoning such actions as ethical would likely lead to complete chaos. If we permit pushing innocent people off of bridges under any circumstance, then we'll likely deal with public outrage, and even the basic act of crossing a bridge would become a public safety hazard. It's just thoroughly counter-productive to ethically condone such actions even from a purely consequentialist view; we don't even have to consider the means. To me, a more practical way to highlight the difference between proper ends-oriented thinking vs. means-oriented thinking is like this: suppose we have three drivers: A) A drunk driver who has no foul intentions and just means to drive home safety. B) A blind driver who has no foul intentions and just means to drive home safely. C) A sober, seeing driver who has no foul intentions and just means to drive home safety. A means-oriented thinker should find no difference between the three since they all have the same means (all have good intentions, e.g.) and doesn't care about consequences. However, to me as an ends-oriented thinker, A and B are behaving unethically despite their means, because if we ethically condone drunk/blind driving, chances are that we will get our fair share of bad results from it (these blind/drunk drivers might get lucky and arrive home safely, but other blind/drunk drivers may not be so lucky if we ethically approve of blind or drunk people driving all over the place).

Hey! I found your videos because I’m looking for valid criticisms to tell my very utilitarian friend, haha. Firstly, you have a lovely speaking voice and are very engaging and informative thanks! This is what I can’t figure out how to argue against: My friend says that Utilitarianism being too demanding is a human limitation, not a flaw with the moral philosophy. ‘It being demanding doesn’t make it less correct,’ he says. The other point he makes is that, for example in your charity case, where utilitarianism is arguing that selfishness is good in some cases - as you said, that feels wrong to us, intuitively. My friend says intuition isn’t an argument for moral correctness - that ‘it feels wrong’ is a guess from our ape-brains, that is generally applicable in day to day life but not useful for an objective moral philosophy. ‘If you can’t argue why it is wrong then it feeling wrong is meaningless.’ I’ve tried but I can’t find a reason why things like selfishness, violations of consent, etc etc are still wrong even if the result is maximised pleasure. I’m very new to philosophy, and I’d love some pointers. Help! 😅

Thank you for your channel. I have a question. Why didn't God make the Bible so clear and exhaustive that there was no way to distort it or pervert it. Thank you

Hick is a heretic.

Welcome to the video! Hick's theodicy is an interesting albeit problematic defence of God. More theodicies, including Augustine and Leibniz, will be added to this playlist: ua-cam.com/play/PL85Fs8yMgt8rG-jLqbtK40m3J39vtL8gv.html

I now feel that I could have explained the fourth condition better than I did. "There must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the bad effect". The grave reason is that you're going to die if you don't act. Your action of self-defence is proportionate because you are fighting for your life. Your act would NOT be proportionate if, say, you killed someone in "self-defence" who was trying to poke you.

Invisible beings can only be a logical fallacy. Evil exists because owners and investors require it.

But you see I had to make trillions of animals suffer for billions of years before humans even existed so that humans could grow into spiritual maturity after looking at all of the incomprehensible horror and deciding that the universe wasn't going to provide justice, so we need to provide it ourselves. I needed five global extinction events to reset things because I am omniscient and omnipotent. Omniscient beings need an Etch-a-sketch, don't you know? I needed to allow tens of millions of women to get pregnant so that I could take away their pregnancy. It wasn't that I didn't want them to have children. If I didn't want them to have children, I could have simply planned for them to not get pregnant. They had to lose those pregnancies so that they would grow spiritually. The same for the 10 million children who die every year of hunger and preventable disease. All of their surviving family members who didn't kill themselves grew. And even if they kill themselves, their surviving family members grow. At least the ones who don't kill themselves. So I am a good god and you should worship me.

One big problem is free will. Think about the idea that a human being is a body and a soul. Christianity says that the body is just a vessel for the soul and that the soul has all of the agency. Biology tells us the opposite, leaving the soul, if it even exists at all, with much less agency and perhaps even none. Instead, we are just passengers on a Darwinian adventure! To me, modern science has far more explanatory power than religion, but it is hard to believe that my existence is entirely mapped out by biological processes.

There's no such thing as free will, it's an oxymoron. We can, of course, make choices, but they are constrained by our genetics and environment. Furthermore, the god of Abraham, (worshipped by Jews, Christians, and Muslims),* is an evil sadist, but fortunately, it exists only in mythology. Since the brutal Bronze Age we suffered the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust, and the many Wars of Religion, yet the gods in their abode remained silent and invisible, though they still begot theology that’s really quite risible. If just one were real, to spare us havoc, it would reveal its plan, but the gods, all, were made in the image of man. So, what confounds the concept of objective morality? Why, all the gods who condoned their own immorality. Could an ethical god create cruel, cunning carnivores, with raptorial beaks, sharp teeth, venomous fangs, and claws? Did it create parasites, bacteria, and viruses like herpes, but keep hidden from us that germs can cause disease? Did it make men strong, but some, brutal in seduction, yet give women all the burdens of human reproduction? No! A moral agent, to be ethical, accepts their duty of care, so, not one of mankind’s gods could be ethical, just, or fair. * If it really existed, it would, as a moral agent, have a duty of care to not cause unjustified harm. By not telling its followers how it should be worshipped, it has allowed for religious wars to be fought in its name. Regarding the Israel (Judaism) vs. HAMAS (Sunni Islamism) war, it's a religious war, a thousand years in the making. Historically, wars of religion were particularly bloody. Christians persecuted Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, and then took Palestinian land to form the state of Israel, as reparation. Palestinians are fighting back; the stated aim of HAMAS is to eliminate the state of Israel. If there really were a god,it should intervene to say which religion, or sect, is the correct one, so they could all worship without maiming and slaughtering each other. As this hasn't happened, the obvious conclusion is that there isn't a god. If both sides realized this, they could then get along peacefully.

great video, I'm grateful to have found this channel!

As my understanding of Aristotle continues to grow, I feel that there is something slightly misleading in this video. I do not mean to imply, at 4:03 that "matter" and "form" equal "substance", although it is the case that a natural object is composed of matter and form. There appears to be confusion on this point stemming from Aristotle's various discussions of "substance" in his different works. In the "Physics" where Arsitotle discusses change, "substance" appears to simply refer to individual objects. However, the OCR textbook I use for the basis of some videos explicitly equates "substance" with "matter" (and "essence" with "form"). However, the SEP rejects this position reading: "The elimination of matter as a good candidate for being substance, leaves either form alone or the composite of form and matter. The composite seems more consonant with the doctrine of Categories, for the composite is the individual. Aristotle, however, chooses the form as more paradigmatically substance. This has puzzled some commentators". I invite any Aristotelian scholars to clarify below.

Again, a nice post about a great thinker. One minor quibble here, but with substantial implications. You describe the final cause as 'the driving force behind natural change'. This implies an entity pushed from the present towards its future state. I would argue that the final cause, the telos, is pulling that entity into the future, not pushing it from the present. Pushed from the present the entity must follow a path which will vary, in our messy real world. Pulled from the future the same entity moves towards a goal, which does not vary. This becomes particularly interesting when we consider that many steps along a path, at least in living organisms, involve quantum interactions, probabilistic not deterministic in outcome.