Responsibility of harm ft. RemTheBathBoi & Harkdan
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- "Have you considered that maybe you are just an asshole?" - The trio hold a heated discussion over the responsibility of harm.
Click▼
Date streamed: 05/28/2019
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/...
►DISCORD - discordapp.com...
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
Follow RemTheBathBoi
►STREAM - / remthebathboi
►TWITTER - / bath_boi
Follow Harkdan
►TWITTER - / dbl
►STREAM - / harkdan
Use Destiny's affiliate link to buy stuff! www.amazon.com/...
Produced by Voddity
►Voddity - / voddity
►Edited by - / ryuice0
►Thumbnail by - / dunoiskr
Music:
►OUTRO: / cc6-mastered-3-conflict
Rem starts off this argument saying there is no difference between not preventing harm and doing harm, then proceeds to say it depends on the situation. I just want to point that out.
Jakchoy And Harkdan, the Libertarian, insists that the old woman dying is a “failure of the government”. So much for personal responsibility 👌.
@@xXRickTrolledXx I don't agree with Harkdan, I'm just pointing out Rem's inconsistency.
No, that is fair, and I really came across as a dick there. It’s too bad Rem couldn’t form a more consistent argument. If only he pointed out that actively putting someone on the street when it doesn’t effect your bottom line and “not donating all of your money to charity” aren’t the same thing.
There is no difference between doing and preventing to him, but doing/preventing aren't the only factors. I believe he's saying that it depends on the situation because of other factors not because he actually started giving a fuck about making a destinction between doing/preventing.
The thing is, inaction is action. What Rem fails to bring up is degree of responsibility.
If someone lights a fuse that leads to a box of tnt in front of an orphanage, and I can stop it, then I have a moral obligation to do so.
However, if I don't I'm not AS responsible as the person who lit the fuze in the first place. But my failure of action still influenced the end result, so in a lesser degree I have some responsibility there.
Cenk's Nephew's friend has some questionable friends that destroyed themselves in this debate.
embarrassing nerds debate about the ethical implications of letting people die as they roleplay as hobbits in a video game
I find it hilarious that's destiny is seen as some big brain God just because he debates these children
Shut up dumb fuck
Rem is the living stereotype of philosophy students
What about them?
@@BUDGETBALLER HarkDan is stupid. Lmao. I think you feel threatened by someone potentially being better and so you rationalize their presence as difficult or inadequate.
@@STKHub For the record I dont even know who HarkDan is. Im not some fan of his.
Destiny drowned in a well in this debate.
... What?
I want to try to verbalise Rem’s moral system:
-not doing something good that you could do is equivalent to actively doing something bad
-everyone has a theoretical moral obligation to do maximal good
-he is unwilling to draw a line beyond which the individual is no longer obliged to exert themself and thinks Dan’s line of “friends and family” is unacceptable
-HOWEVER: you can exempt yourself from needing to do maximal good by pursuing some high-minded field that gives theoretical future benefit to society (ie if you study philosophy you no longer must spend every bit of your spare time benefitting strangers)
This seems to me like an obviously absurd worldview. Who decides what fields are important enough? Who decides how much time you are allowed to spend purely benefitting yourself? Nobody could live according to these rules unless they retroactively day that everything they do was in service of some greater good that they arbitrarily assign. For a Phil student this strikes me as an unbelievably poorly thought out moral philosophy.
Thanks for this i was gonna do a similar comment myself but u wrote it way better
I'd like to see a better steel man of his position by someone else if for no other reason than based on your other comments I'm not positive this is a fully good faith steel man, no offense.
Not saying that as a negative about your anything again, I just would really love to see more interesting discussion on this topic.
If i have the time after considering this video and his point more maybe I'll attempt to come back and do that but honestly it might be beyond me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Heady stuff.
@@Jay-zt1pq That's fair, I wasn't really trying to steelman his points so much as try to fit them together into a coherent worldview.
I certainly came at it from something of an antagonistic light, but I found it hard not to. As someone who has done a little bit of philosophy, the fact that Rem expressed his points so poorly and his misuse of the bathtub question struck me as very amateurish to be coming from someone who is taking some sort of post-grad degree in philosophy.
@@aenz1268 that's a totally fair take, I also dislike the way rem frames the conversation at times.
My girlfriend brought up a really good angle to the whole initial debate. Even if Dan raises his tenants rent he could do so while also pointing them towards low income housing resources. Even if his actions aren't the most altruistic ones possible he could still do them alongside mitigating actions or otherwise going about things in the nicest way possible without straight up not changing the rent lets say.
I'll reformat later, damn mobile.
@@Jay-zt1pq My (admittedly limited) understanding was that he wanted the apartment vacant in order to renovate or sell or something like that, rather than that he was raising the rent and the tenant couldn't afford it. I agree that he probably could have been more accommodating, but I don't think he is in any way morally required to do so.
I see it as mostly just a transactional relationship: Dan exchanges 1 contract-length worth of guaranteed housing for a promised amount of money per month and either party can choose not to renew the contract once it expires for any reason.
Classic boomer mentality - "well it doesn't explicitly affect me, ergo any negative action I take is not my responsibility"
When the revolution comes 🗡😌.... we give free housing to Harkdan last 😉
Dane Deriesthal revolution against what?
isnt that detinys philosophy to be honest?
if it doesnt effect him he doesnt care about it.
@@vk2336 if he is a utilitarian then that wouldn't be his philosophy, no
Nobody cares about anything that doesn’t affect them.
"I didn't evict you, I chose not to continue renting to you"
This is like Batman saying to Ras Al Ghul "I won't kill you, but that doesn't mean I have to save you".
It's a distinction without a difference.
Almost like you didn’t watch the video👌😂😂😂
The difference is actually gigantic, unless you have the same stupid personal philosophy as Rem.
“It’s a failing of the government, not of me.”
So much for ‘muh personal responsibility.’ If you’re going to kill an old lady, at least own up to it.
Careful, your extra chromosome is showing
To me as long as she’s still paying bruhhh I’m good..
Tom over used meme just say what ur point is no need to cry about his point..
Chukwu fack Off 3Head
The old lady could have found a nice house if local governments would allow for more houses being built. At this time the demand for housing exceeds the supply in most large cities in the US. Local residents and landowners have no incentive to have more housing built as it lowers the value of their property (and thus the rents they receive). Therefore they keep electing nimby's into office, who come up with stupid laws that for example prohibit highrise or efficient public transport. Just take a look at San Francisco.
Destiny avoided answering the truth about unicorns in this debate.
Woof, rem picked a weird final stance for this debate. In a philosophical vacuum, there's pretty limited difference between active and passive harm exclusively in terms of ability to make the world better. However, in a world that's saturated in choice, it is far from reasonable to expect that the average citizen be capable of parcing through all of the options for which they can do good. They are simply not capable of weighing all of these factors, at most, specialists are able to do so within their own fields.
With that in mind, active work becomes far less dismissable than passive works. People are much more able to effectively weigh their actions within these means, which changes the morality of the situation.
I’m out of asthma
LMAO
Dan...do you know anything about KFC?
That it's shit
Kfcnutrients is an oxymoron.
Honest_Bishop One could say the same of an honest bishop
@@maggiegeeee good one.
Lol slumlord Dan over here. "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR LANDLORDS"
Dammitbobby420 But, who would oversee the management of the building? The residents?!
I'm so confused as I'm listening
I too have been out of Asthma.
yikes, usually I think Rem does a decent job of defending his points and shit, but he rly didn't seem to have an answer for why he doesn't do his utmost to reduce suffering in society. Like I'd accept something where his education would suffer from being overworked, or even that he's not willing to give up higher education for helping as many people as possible, but instead it's just "well I'm a student".
1. Being a student has no moral bearing on whether Rem should also being working part-time to amass funds to help those in need by his own moral system
2. The fact that Rem is so quick to dismiss most comparisons as dis-analogous because of random minutiae shows that the specifics of the case are as essential to his moral analyses as the core ethical dynamics yet spends no time whatsoever focusing in the minutiae
3. How the fuck is Rem using his status as a student as an excuse when he himself didn't include philosophy as one of the disciplines morally worthy of long-term pursuit
This exactly.
A PHD in philosophy will get you a nice bartending job
Not if you call all of the patrons assholes for not donating $50 every time they walk by the "feed Africa" booth.
I mean if u push for a PHD in Philosophy u got to have some other degree on the way.. in my college lots double in journalism or literature.. but I think some history majors over lap to.. but that depends on the school..
REM: “I’m out of asthma the government won’t deliver me anymore asthma”
No typos made.
Rem tricked him into arguing something completely different by the end of the debate (whether intentional or not). Good thing destiny is such a debating veteran at this point that he caught it.
That seems to happen a lot where someone changes they're original point in order to prove the other person wrong on something, but then they realize that that doesn't actually agree with what they believe.
Justin Cain I get suprised that people seem to constantly fall for this without noticing it or call it out during debates.
Gotta love that Rem basically considers artists to be mass-murderers that explains some things he said in the past. in his defense he uses somebody trying to cure cancer as an example of someone with lesser moral burden, as if that was close to comparable to what he is doing. He goes out of his way to laugh at and ridicule his opponent as well as call him a mass-murderer, just cause he can not justify axioms, but he just expects people to accept his answer of:
" Huh I guess if you wanna really phrase it that way I would be a mass-murderer too, but it is okay because I am a student of philosophy which gives me the deontological get-out-of-jailfree card to be a mass-murderer, call me the deontology monster."
He is literally the guy from the KNOWLEDGE meme, with his Lamborghini: "You know what I like more than saving countless starving children ? Knowledge"
he also says that he does not think friends and family are a good enough excuse to not give a kidney, so I hope he has given one then
Rem: "After my system I have raped and killed countless african kids, but it's okay because I am a philosophy student." and people say Destiny has a biased and fucked up system lol
Every time he is on Rem is showing that deontology just serves to justify suffering, while allowing you to jerk off to your own moral superiority, which is the only thing he values
Fuck you Rem is right, I've decided to adopt his moral framework and go about with my violent serial killing fantasy, however I donate $200 for every life I take($100 saves a life, so I save two lives every time I take one), thus I am more morally righteous than thou, silly disgusting unjustified swine ye are.
This video doesn't play for me and I have no idea why. Destiny better hire a better youtube team smh.
Yeah. I think it's a phone issue though, but I'm having the same problems.
Students were found to have moral superiority in this debate.
and no money
It’s pretty disingenuous that this guy tries to deflect by saying “well you don’t donate money every day to save starving kids in Africa!” in response to his (presumably financial) decision to kick a 102 year old lady out of his property.
There’s a world of difference between directly fucking over someone you’re in direct contact with and failing to help a statistic in some random ass country.
Our monkey brains can’t fucking process empathy for people we’ve never seen or met the same way it does for people right in front of us.
4000 people are killed in a tidal wave in Malaysia. The next day your beloved grandmother dies (cause she’s kicked out of her house lol). Objectively the former is clearly the worse thing that happened. But subjectively the latter is worse because it’s someone you know and see.
Likewise same thing happens, tidal wave kills thousands. Next day you’re walking to work and the stranger right in front of you gets hit by a bus and turned into hamburger right in front of your eyes. Which affects you more? All the people that died were strangers but the one you can perceive clearly affects a person more.
So for this dude to pull the “you’re the same as me cause you don’t donate to save starving kids in Africa.” is incredibly dishonest.
Now as a fellow property owner who rents, I can’t really judge him cause I don’t know the facts. Was she a good tenant? Did she take decent care of property? I don’t know, though I feel if he had a good reason to not continue the lease he would have said so. So in all likelihood he did it because he’s being a selfish asshole and stood to make more money by kicking her out.
Destiny became a fascist to own the libs in this debate
Be careful, guys, if you keep going down this road you MAY just discover that the economic status quo will never lead to a moral solution to this debate. ...But, for the record, making a 102-year-old woman move house is a really shitty thing to do. It's criminally dickish.
AhrohAhroh it’s %100 legal she no longer had a right to be there
@@smiff513 I was using the term "criminally dickish" as hyperbole. Not that it's technically criminal. It's just a super, SUPER dick move. And, actually, it MIGHT be illegal if she can show that making her move would cause undue harm. A 102-year-old woman is a protected class because of her age. Asking her move when she's that fragile, could kill her. Or, at the least, hasten her death (most likely this one). If she chose to, she could fight this in court, and probably win. ...Besides, why the FUCK would evict a person that old? Chances are that she's not going to be living there much longer anyway. Anyone who does this is just a piece of shit.
Rem would be so much easier to listen to if he didn't snicker or talk down to people all the time
I haven't even watched the video yet and I already know Destiny got embarrassed
Idk if you changed your mind after watching, but I personally left thinking Rem is being an obnoxious pedant. Destiny seemed much more reasonable.
Feeling responsible for the harm of someone that’s literally in front of you or something you see happening in front of you or involving you is not the same as actively searching for people you’ve never had any interaction with in harm to help or give money to.
Walking by someone drowning and helping them =\= Donating money to someone you’ve never met.
It’s not black and white.
Dan through HIS ACTIONS could of helped that lady or kicked her out. It was HIS choice to make, he’s directly involved in the conflict.
Asking him to have sympathy for that is not the same as asking him to pay for people’s troubles that have nothing to do with you.
What dishonest arguing.
Its only amoral when its personal?
Lumbermill not necessarily but in this situation Destiny is making a false equivocation, Rem is saying that Dan should feel some responsibility for the situation since he is the one who has the final word and it involves him. Destiny is then turning around and saying well then rem should be donating all of his money to charity but this is just not an honest argument. These two situations aren’t the same and sure from a pure ethics standpoint you should want to help everyone but like what was discussed that would result in a net negative for anyone who’s not filthy rich and that is better done but trying to change society as a whole rather than at an individual level.
This is LITERALLY the same bullshit argument that trainwrecks used against hasan on the scuffed podcast.
You’re telling me you should feel equal responsibility for someone you’ve never met as someone you know even at passing?
Again COULD vs SHOULD is a huge thing here.
You say that, but you aren't actually giving any justification for why there's a relevant difference.
By that way of arguing any issue which isn't in your near vicinity is meaningless or has arbitrarily reduced moral relevance.
You can't even define how much distance makes a relevant difference, would you save someone's life with 50$ if he was 5 meters close to you? What about 50, 500, 5000, 50000... You can do the same with relatives or friends "at what level of heritage or friendship would you not save their lives using 50$?". There's like a few morally relevant factors for utilitarianism like "the effort required to save someone", but these are actually supported by justifications from people like Mill or Bentham.
Celektus You’re not understanding my argument, the distance isn’t important, Interaction is the more important factor for me. It doesn’t matter how far they are but if i’ve had no interaction with someone i personally don’t feel ultimately compelled to go searching for ways to help them. Does that mean i shouldn’t? not at all, but again these two situations are completely different. Dan is knowingly and willingly kicking this old lady out, he’s the negative in the situation because he is the one CAUSING the predicament due to his admitted apathy.
@@kingleepz You still have justified why something like interaction is morally relevant. I believe you can claim it is relevant unless you make some kind of virtue-ethics argument.
Why is interaction morally relevant?
"People don't help African children, therefore it doesn't really matter if I treat an extremely fragile old lady like complete shit on a whim."
"A failing of the government" lol that's a little rich considering his political alignment
Dan must at least recognize the moral obligation to vote for what is morally best, right?
I think the well example is a bit stupid because the real moral obligation here would be to vote for removing the well
@@newsoupvialt Isn't that worse? Because you are saving one child per day but killing an entire village due to lack of water the well is providing.
Plus there might not be an candidate who is willing to remove the well and realisticly is able to win the election.
We vote for good democrats. Not bad democrats/leftists. Leftist democrats are insanely fringe and only hold power in the most progressive areas.
Just because some bad democrats push for rent control doesn't mean we should vote in anti-free trade abortion banning gay people locking up climate change causing atheist guillotining republican.
I don't understand rem's point. It feels like saying "if you choose to play videogames instead if improving the world you're causing harm tantamount to murder"
Destiny has graduated to "moderator". AMAZIN'! More please?
Why the FUCK isn’t this video working
SLUMLORD DAN
AT IT AGAN
pls never bring rem on ever again
No.
13:23 when you get absolutely rolled then ramble your way out of it
ye haha jesus christ x)
Yeah this is why I hate this rem guy, and the reason why people dont like strict utilitarianism vs rule utilitarianism. Beyond the pragmatic limitations of having to decide every situations cost benefit analysis on a case by case basis, it's clear that people are great at justifying ones own actions and putting high moral blame on others. It's human nature to be sure, but rem is especially egregious, and its quite convenient that at the end of the day, his moral system allows him to be saddled with no obligations whatsoever because hes a 'student's, and everyone one else is a horrible immoral person for acts which are more costly and hurt less people than what actions he could take.
So when Dan tries to set some sense of consistent rules instead of the case by case basis which rem does it, that's the right thing to do, and the right way to be a better, more moral person. We see the results of Rems path. Its Rem.
@@ChairmanJMao It is like the study of philosophy has a inherent bias to justify itself, with Rem being the ultimate example
@@umor9014 Yeah I hate his argument so much, because its so clear he could at the very damn least do stuff which would saddle him with a significantly lower burden than the landlord, and cause significantly more good, and yet he doesn't because 'some people have lower obligations because they are pursuing some good for society'. Like, what? No, that's not what it means. The idea is that people like doctors or scientists in the future will do good, so therefore we don't begrudge them for their education. But a) its not like you're a doctor or a scientist, you're at best a mediocre philosophy student who is entering a field which is already oversaturated, so future good is unfucking likely, and b) its not like you're spending all your time on studying anyways, you spend a whole lot of it fucking about. Maybe spending some of that time working, a good 4-5 hours on the weekend, and donating that money, is a reasonable burden to bear even for the frail constitution of a 'student', and would save many more lives than a landlord evicting someone.
But noooo, conveniently, Rem gets a pass in his moral system. Wow, very nice.
His argument is actually correct on a certain level. It's a delayed gratification type of thing. It's a utilitarian argument though as Destiny pointed out a little bit later.
BUT IM A STUDENT OMEGALUL
i know right?
what a fucking prick
REM, take off a semester, and donate a kidney.
This conversation was WAY off topic due to the random analogies given. if a landlord is renting property out to someone and decides to not renew contract of said person only to rent out to someone else, then this is basically eviction. This doesn't need to be drawn into a conversation about donating to the needy or any crap like that.
Agreed, without even knowing the context of the situation. I was waiting for "At what point is a landlord morally, even if not legally, obligated not to evict or not re enter a lease with a tenant?". Sickness, age, income, what factors matter? What if they can't pay rent?
None of this was ever raised unless I spaced out. None of the examples included a clearly agreed upon set of conditions in a contract with a clear timeline.
Take aways: 1. Dan is a post-modern capitalist. 2. Rem is a 2nd Wave Marxist Elitist 3. Destiny likes ...a bath tub guy. 4. I need to poop.
Rem was saying what we ought do not the pragmatism of it but what is moral or not
Yeah I guess this summarized what he was getting at, but he cant just say this without being an asshole and also getting his philosophy mixed in with pragmatism.
BUDGET BALLER yea I cringed on the takes of the bath tub scenario, the argument is focused on intent, if you have the ability to save someone from drowning and you have no intent to you are just as complicit as if you were to have the intent to drown the person and did , now I don’t necessarily agree with that but I don’t think that it was stressed enough on the nuances of that scenario
yea and he said it in such a smirky and asshole-ish way that it was a chore to listen to him.
his base idea is alright but he expects things from people that he isn't even doing himself
Siggi I don’t dislike him but I think he may need to better his moral grounding before debating others on their moral grounding
Sniggelistigo yea he needed to make it clearer that this isn’t about pragmatism it’s about what is the moral thing to do
In reality although no one can be ethically perfect, there is no reason not to try your best to be every day. No ones perfect but you should try to act on your beliefs and you should try to be a good person
This video wont let me watch it anymore
I swear Rem finds a way to be more annoying every time I hear him talk.
I resent how little acknowledgement of systemic factors for harm, like the material conditions of those allegedly responsible, played a role in this discussion. Destiny and Dan made better arguments, but I still find their overall position to be a bit lacking.
I feel proximity may have an inverse reaction, in terms of how to determine an ethical evaluation. For example, people who live in 3rd world countries may be systematically exploited due to systems I benefit from, ergo I feel I would have more responsibility to assist someone in such a circumstance, rather than an individual closer to me (say a homeless person who is about to die right in front of me) due to said homeless persons suffering not being caused by circumstances I could not be considered directly responsible for.
21:40 I'm gona take the other route. Sell the Kidney, donate the money to saving thousands of other kids in poverty
Checkmate omegalul
But the point of selling the kidney was not to donate the money to save thousands of other kids poverty. Because then he might actually agree with that.
It seems to me that Rem tries very hard to not understand what other people say. If you are a Philosophy student and you are the one who knows the most about it, why not use it to understand and complete others thoughts, instead of mock and ridicule them? He comes off as an asshole too many times, in all the videos that I've watched where he appears.
The problem with framing these kind of pseudo philosophical discussions within the realm of politics, or rooting this type of a political discussion with a pseudo-philosophical framing, is that not everything can be considered on this type of individualized philosophical basis
What Dan would or wouldn't do as a landlord is not relevant to the discussion of how landlords writ large act in the world, these conversations need to be grounded in the material reality rather than philosophical whataboutisms
They get lost in the weeds when they start talking about the ethics of murder vs allowing someone to die - THAT conversation is functionally useless when we have actual harm being caused by people who are hoarding land and capital
These types of pseudo philosophical conversations give Credence to the "human nature" argument (that the way things are currently is the natural state of being), we don't actually focus on the institutional systems that contribute to this antisocial behavior from those on top
I can see why Destiny gets annoyed with the lefties that show up on his channel they don't know how to talk about this shit
They would argue it's incredibly relevant and directly analagous to the real world situation and morality of landlords.
I would love to see them actually tackle the more houses than homeless people problem with dancing around our real world situation in hypotheticals and philosophicals.
@@franklinvonfrankenstein1137 how the fuck do I get on this bitch, this shit isn't difficult to articulate
There's a difference between "choosing to better someone's life every day" by going out of your way to donate to charity or physically assisting a stranger you have no connection to, and doing the fucking job you chose. What was his reason for not renewing the lady's lease? By cancelling it you are putting a burden on a 102 year old lady that did not need to be there, while you, a young seemingly healthy person goes on with your life and rents out to another tenant. Zero skin off your back, a huge wound on hers.
I'm only part way through the video so maybe this gets answered but I'm driven up the wall by this idea that he seems to have that morality always involves extra effort. If you choose to be a landlord and provide housing to people, something they NEED, then be prepared to do the bare minimum of your job and not "decide to end a lease" for no good reason. This guy is like a five year old bought some houses, decided to play god, and can't even give a reason for his decisions besides "uhhh, I just did it cuz... cuz... it's the government's fault". I'm so baffled. Time to force myself to finish this video...
Destiny and Dan just building strawmen and drowning bathtubs in this debate.
A moral framework in which the overwhelming majority of people choose a course of action that makes them “assholes” is a stupid framework. If everyone is an asshole, the term is effectively meaningless.
If I were Dan I would just say to Rem “if your definition of being an asshole includes most of society, I am comfortable with you considering me an asshole.”
All true utilitarians can’t justify a PhD, and therefore don’t get one. :p
I mean higher education is a largely a waste of time and money so yeah.
@@aronchai waaaaaaaaiiiiiiit...you wanna tell me that we could run the world with just highschool degrees? no engineering no social science no biology no medicin no physics?
@@karimshebeika8010 Notice that all of what you just mentioned were stem degrees. People who pay the same amount of money for a degree in dance / philosophy as someone who pays the same amount for a degree in nursing or engineering are not going to have similar outcomes, nor are they going to help the same amount of people.
@@wolfmayner6274 You're a moron. Tier 0 arguments.
WolfMayneR6 I mean, I was a history major. I think in some cases, humanities professionals do a tremendous amount of good, but it would be hard for an individual to justify themselves as being that one person.
This is huge problem on the west coast right now. The zoning laws of San Francisco and Los Angeles are set up in such a way they make it impossible for higher density housing to be built where it is needed. Single family homes are an extremely inefficient use of space. This lost space brings a lot of problems with it, such as homelessness and a high threshold for people to move into the city. Local landowners do everything in their power to stop the allocation of high density housing zones, which makes the land prices very high,. Combine this with a poor public transit system and congested highways and you've got yourself an urban nightmare.
It is a problem the local goverments need to deal with, but current residents (and those who they elect) have no interest in solving it.
Land Value Tax gang assemble.
Land is the natural endowment bestowed to all of humanity, regardless of generation! Land ownership is a monopoly of use granted and controlled by all of society! Land Value Tax now!
Glen Weyl has an interesting elaboration of Georgist ideas you might find interesting.
Rem is insufferable, definitively would not pay 50 bucks to save him
I wouldn't rescue Rem from a well if he GAVE me a $20 pair of pants.
He really isn't.
I would make an 102 year old Rem move out of my house
@25:00 - Destiny trying to spam Blood Fury for 5 minutes is the best part of this debate...
Yess!!! I was waiting for this one!
Slumlord Dan at it again
The world is harmed if Rem gets a degree in philosophy
Dan: Says some dumb shit
Destiny: What Dan was trying to so is....
Just started and the framing is already bad. The question should be "why does a 102 year old woman not have stable housing in our society? Why is she forced to rent an apartment from an asshole?"
The entire purpose of generalizing the argument into an abstract first principle about the nature and responsibility of harm is to avoid the discussion of the specific moral implications of evicting an old lady.
That conversation has nothing to do with responsibility for abstract harm. It's about responsibilities a landlord chose to undertake by being a landlord.
Otherwise, Dan's philosophy is purely Randian Selfishness mixed with Gordon Gecko Greed-is-Good-ism. It's auto-justification for behavior they have already chosen. If acting in one's own self interest maximizes some moral good when everyone is doing it, then societies would never have formed. It's that simple to me.
Destiny evicted the libs in this debate
I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference between killing a person versus letting them die if not letting them die. One difference is with murder we are putting effort into killing somebody whereas it's much easier not to act and cause the same amount of suffering. It says more about the type of person they are. Yes as a society if people felt they were identical that causes problems, but that's more of a macro phenomenon I think. It's possible for actions of one person to be justifiable but for it to be terrible if everyone did it. I don't think that's contradictory because extra downsides are introduced when an entire society adopts that kind of worldview.
If I kill 1 person and harvest their organs to save 3 people, I think that's moral. It's crazy but it's isolated.
If everybody did that, everybody ends up living in hell because they're afraid of getting killed.
Is this video not available in the US or something? It’s not loading for me for some reason.
Destiny spent the whole time riding around aimlessly on the back of a dragon in this debate.
*Wyvern
And they're on pre prgrammed paths and are basically planes in the game and do not fly aimlessly
@@brandonden795 ughhh, get laid, nerd. lol.
Fuck. I shit on rem the last two times he was on this channel, but now i have to agree. The whole point of ethics is to determine what should be done, not to categorize the world, not to only specify what good and bad actions are, and not to describe what is (is-ought distinction). Baked into that definition is literally the obligation to engage, thats what should means.
Its a terrible argument to say, just because something is virtuous doesn't mean that i have an obligation to do it. Because baked into the definition of virtuous is the assumption that it is worth doing. To say you should do something means that if you don't you are not acting morally.
Seems like Destiny is defending the guy saying he shouldnt be called a bad person because he doesnt do good things, despite the fact that the definition of a bad person is one that doesn't do good things. Christ take some responsibility for your actions.
Also, inaction is an action. That is absolutely ludicrous that Destiny disagrees with that notion.
You win this time Rem!!!
"academics are exempt" is a real fucking convenient argument.
Listening to Rem reminds me how much I hate listening to condescending upper middle class college students say literally anything
Having your moral positions questioned and realizing you're a bad person typically upsets people, yeah.
@@1Nostrand1 He is probably also a philosophy student so he can happily murder all day long as long as he is "amassing knowledge" like Rem, you do not have a moral burden because studying philosophy is already so moral xD
@@1Nostrand1 I did donate $100 and saved a few kids today while typing my comment to you. Ever heard of multitasking?
@@assuming9735 I basically agree with Rem but you have to admit his reasoning for why he himself is allowed to sit on his ass studying philosophy and making youtube videos without donating to charity is self-serving bullshit
I you think that there is no moral distinction between actively killing someone and allowing someone to die through no action of your own, then I think you are a psychopath. If you think that being in the wrong place at the wrong time and doing absolutely nothing is enough to consider someone a murderer, then something is very wrong with your method of thought.
The distinction in the drowning example is very easy to demonstrate. Just imagine in both scenarios that we remove the "Person A" who wanted to drown "Person B". In the scenario where "Person B" was drowning anyways, he still dies even when "Person A" does not exist, therefor "Person A" can have no responsibility for the death.
why the fuck would a landlord have to take care of a 102 year old instead of her children ?!?!? when do renters become your burden ? I really hope this guy opens his home to every homeless person.
Destiny: Inaction is action.
GaLaXy BrAiN Destiny: If a kid's drowning, you only have to save him once ://
I don't think that anyone expects any type of consistency at this point. I'm just here to see some bloodsports.
Bill Gates uses his capital undemocratically and even his charities affect other charities that wish to deliver medical assistance, or put their foot down on their held medical patterns disallowing other communities to give assistance as well. Bill Gates is a terrible example for your point, and a great one to advocate for capital to be more democratically used (whether directly or at least not just consolidated in one person's hands)
If these questions are interesting to you, look up Effective Altruism.
Altruism is only effective at one thing and that's death.
Oh god I can understand Singers position of maximizing well being by spending as much money as possible for the most cost effective charity organisations by quitting your degree in a field most people consider worthless, but like Contrapoints once pointed out in a video it's almost like JPs "clean your room" meme because it might not actually be the most effective way to maximize well being.
@@jacovichstabs841 wrong kind of altruism
This video does not play for me.
Reuben Mcmurray same
Video won’t load 😭😭
If ending a contract leads to a old lady die, by no means the blame should fall into the contractor, it's the blame of their cause of death, wtf. You dont kill the old lady, you stop helping her and if no one else helps her instead it's everyones fault that she is dead.
Yeah, and shooting someone in the head, you can't blame the shooter for that person having a cardiac arrest. That's just biological facts, stupid liberals. lmao
Ugh, listening to debates where Desinty is basically holding Dan's hand to ensure he doesn't say anything TOO stupid is really frustrating to me because you know Destiny would never extend this level of charitability to the average person he shits on. Which, I mean, obviously makes sense; Dan is his friend, he's known him forever, the relationship is very valuable to him, etc, etc. But I wonder when he defends Dan as vehemently as he does; does he actually believe Dan doesn't hold these shit opinions or is he just doing it because it's in his best interest to do and because he loves arguing points he thinks he can win. Because Dan has a pretty proven track record of having consistently shit takes, Destiny, as his friend, is likely exposed to said takes even more so than the average viewer can see- so I find it a little hard to believe the former.
if rem ends up buying a more expensive and luxurious car instead of donating that additional money to Africa he is bullshitting.
So the problem with donating money to a charity IMO, is you have no idea what your actually paying for right? Like if i donate a thousand dollars a day to Banos charity that only raises awareness, theres no measurable lives being saved, but if i could give 100 dollars and know that 100 dollars actually saved a life I'm much more willing to give
please stop talking to rem.
yikes
There’s a veganism analogy to be made here, but I can’t be asked.
Yeah, Destiny is a lost cause at this point.
Dan's right, but it's worse than an imaginary line for Rem. It's a clearly self serving line. Theres so much Rem could morally do without having to sacrifice as much as a landlord would have to, while helping more people, and he doesn't do it. Like, you dont have to drop out, but why not pursue a degree in something that'll make more money so you can comfortably donate a larger percentage of your income? This will make your life worse, but its clearly not some end of the world cost, or unsustainable cost, or even that much of a cost really compared to other examples where rem derived obligations. Why not reduce the time you spend fucking around, which I know for a fact he does, and volunteer? All these things he can do, yet his morality conveniently justifies his inaction. But at the same time, he turns around and demands people make even larger sacrifices for even smaller gains, and calls the assholes for not doing it.
If his line was arbitrary but consistent, at least I could respect him. But I really cant respect someone like this. People like him make me sick.
I think the best thing anyone can do after watching this is to realistically assess how much money and time you have. Afterwards, do research and try to give time/donate to people who really need it.
what's rem's moral system?
that he is exempt from any cause he is a student.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
If you are a consequentialist there's no way you can say that there's a difference between saving or letting someone drown.
I don't get it. The consequences are obviously different. In one you save it and in the other you let it drown. How can you say that a consequentialist can't say that there's a difference between them?
The overwhelming problem I have with Dan's argument about the well is, if I choose to save 1 child that does not imply I would make the same decision infinitely many times. I do draw the line somewhere, but why do I have to draw the line at the first person? Is it within my means to allow a 100 year old lady to stay on a bad contract for me? Maybe. Do i expect 100 instances like her to occur in my lifetime? Probably not. So I would take that hit to save her life. That doesnt imply that I would save everyone I see. The story of the good samaritan isn't about a guy who saved 100 people. It is about helping those within your means. And drawing the line at the first child in the well because you don't want to set an impossible standard is, to me, an objectively bad argument.
Not destiny's best debate. His points are kind of half baked.
REM gets off from being 'morally superior' to other people.
Rem is the worst kind of person. when you reverse the problem to him he all of a sudden becomes exempt.
Jobs work very similarly to renting as Dan put it. Every day you work is an agreement to renew a relationship. Except salaries, that seems more grey.
And now they're saying to be moral you need a Patreon to donate 100% of to Africa or to work at MacDonalds and give away every bit you can or else you're responsible for deaths? This is so stupid.
The topic is not the entire world here, it's the people who are directly involved in our lives/under our care/living on our property. There are degrees of moral responsibility. I might not have extra money to donate to a cause across the world but if I see someone hit by a car I'll assist them, if someone chokes at the restaurant I work at I'll help them. This idiot evicted an old lady and is using the excuse he can't save the whole world as moral justification.
Unironically, #44 of Sam Harris Waking up was about this same subject and was pretty interesting. Talked to a PHD about altruism and I recall the cost of malaria nets as bought by a charity being the stand in dollar value to save a life.
Holy fuck it annoys me more than it should when Dan comes out with some really shit take on philosophy and then acts like he knows it all
The fuck is a puffer? It's called an inhaler.
I hate Rem, but I love watching Rem argue because he triggers the shit out of people