Utilitarianism - John Stuart Mill
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2024
- In this video, I take a look at John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. The work is summarized with reference to Jeremy Bentham and Ursula K. Le Guin's The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, and Rodger Crisp's analogy of Haydn and the Oyster.
Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: patreon.com/use...
Facebook: thethenan...
Instagram: / thethenandnow
Twitter: / lewlewwaller
Ambiment Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
Please like and share if you like this video! It will really help me out. Thanks everyone
Nice video's im now a sub
Please avoid vocal fry and deliver more loudly. Great program though
hi my name is kevin and im watching this video for a college class. my friends decided to watch it with me and we all enjoyed it. we have all watched it a total of 3 times. keep up the great work!
Who else has a philosophy test in a hour?
Got an ethics exam tomorrow lol
me, in less than an hour
Me, in 54 mins.🤓
Tomorrow lol
For Gods’s sake you lot - you don’t have time to comment!!
Just finished reading his book on Utilitarianism. Hard at first because he likes long sentences, but then it gets easier. Very good book.
I have yet to read the book ughh
@@nunpuiisingson298 It's marvellous. The last three chapters are posed as questions and I found the answers to be based on commonsense than as philosophical conundrums.
I feel like I will struggle deeply to understand it! Ugh :(
Biggest insight?
I literally read the first sentence and just wanted to throw the book across the room.
I appreciate how clear and concise this is especially after trucking through his book on utilitarianism
wow, I'm really painful to read the original book of utilitarianism 'cause i'm not a native English speaker, but by watching your video I instantly comprehended like a magic. Great Appreciation!Subscribed.
who wouldnt want to be a cute lil oyster floatin around tho
Probably not
not if i can’t conceptualise that i’m a cute lil oyster
i’ll pass, but in a perfect world you would have the choice
People now have already begun to choose the oyster. Don't you see? The electronics are our shell. The more we stare at the electronic the more we become adrift in life. Programmed with what those that hate American's what us to believe...Being an oyster is amazing. There is no need to go out and do things and strive for a high quality of life. Sit. Float. We will take care of everything else. All we ask is you go to work 5 days a week for 8 hours each day. Sweet Cute little Oyster.
KEEP IT UP MAN!
you can really see the amount of time and effort you put into your videos, for someone who is just starting out you show great promise for the future, keep it up man your sub count will fly up soon enough
This is such appreciated encouragement! It really helps and I'm so glad you like them. Thank you!
You are the definition of "not all heroes wear capes" awesome videos !
your voice is so soothing, can you narrate my life
😂😂😂
Big lol
I think it's the effect of the piano in the background
🤣🤣🤣
@@tupactwin lmao, don't be like that
I've always struggled with justifying rule utilitarianism but you gave me the perfect explanation of my own internal thought process - if a society could sacrifice 10,000 citizens for the happiness of 10,000,000 , would it not be less happy than one where all 10,010,000 citizens live without the fear of being potentially executed by the state?
Welcome to the thought process of the elite. Remember, social Darwinism was prevalent among these "philosophers" of that era.
Happiness isn't a virtue
@@jeremyjames1659 nothing wrong with social darwinism
@@user-fl3qb4eo2l the belief in “survival of the fittest”-the notion that some people deserve power because they are deemed inherently better than others. Social Darwinism has been used to justify Empire, racial prejudice, xenophobia, eugenics and inequality at different times in the past. Do you mean that 'Social Darwinism?
Everything is wrong with social Darwinism
This is a great video! I think it would get more views if you added Bentham VS Mill in the description so that those looking for this subject - such as myself - would be deeply satisfied. This is the best youtube video on this subject by far! Keep up the amazing work!
And William Sidis..
Could you please add substitles??
They need to be done by someone. It's usually done for free. I believe that's the audience's responsibility. I used to do it when I was learning English, for instance.
I feel like a lot of People misunderstand Benthams Utilitatism. He desent not divide the Pleasures. He just says that Pleasure in its foundation is the same, but that's its divided in how much Please it gives over infinite time.
Means that he 100% differentiates Reading Poetry from eating Ice or whatever, because of extremely many Factors that decide the Quantity of the Pleasure, like the Long term effects or social influences etc.
Basically you could Argue that Quantitative Utilitatism and Qualitative Utilitatism says the same, except it reasons it a little but differently, which also could just be because of the different definitions of Pleasure.
In other words, utilitarianism tries to protect freedoms by using the greatest happiness principle/principle of utility. In this, it assumes that human life can’t be inductively measured, and thus must assume that one cannot take life without being considered evil (the problem with Mill’s, and Bentham utilitarianism is that it leaves this to be assumed. It allows us to assume what gives others pleasure, or pain, merely beckoning our thoughts to the ideas of suffering and happiness).
I just finished Utilitarianism of Mill and wanted to get a quick recap. Well this video was a perfect summary of the great work of Mill!
THANK YOU. This helped a lot for an essay.
Thanks for your thought and valuing John Stuard Mill.
Thank you so very much! You're a life saver 😍 plus, you have a wonderful oratory voice!!!💗🤍💖💕 calm and strong!
Gonna play this on repeat just to relax and release pressure
really cool and meaningful clips in the video, I very much enjoyed the choice of footage as well as the content :)
The rarest of people. A Victorian man who was also a feminist.
This video essay brings to mind the French Philosopher Rene Girard's Philosophical theory of mimetic behavior: Girard believed that human development occurs initially through a process of observational mimicry, where the infant develops desire through a process of learning to copy adult behaviour, fundamentally linking acquisition of identity, knowledge and material wealth to the development of a desire to have something of another's, such a desire should be contrasted against Mill's theory about desire.
there should be subtitles and/or a transcript.
I didn't quite understand the last remark: "The first principle of utility is the protection of the rights of all." If utility is measured by happiness it can surely not be based on the protection of rights because the latter may include a reduction of net happiness. For example in the trolley problem if you respect the right of the uninvoled fat person and don't throw him on the rails, you reduce the net happiness of humanity because a group of people will be crushed to death by the trolley. The net happiness of all people having the right to not being thrown on to the rails in an emergency would be very low because the probability of anyone getting into such a situation is extremely low.
Moreover, if you argue that there is a high net utility in providing personal rights to everyone, wouldn't this utilitarianism be a kind of deontology? And how are we going to measure happiness anyway? How can we be sure that living in a society with personal rights really produces more net happiness than living in a purely utilitarian one?
I think the rights of all refers to society as a whole throughout time and ages. While it is easy to say at a single moment, throwing one man for the sake of a group of others, if we were to make this allowed at all times, no one would feel safe knowing it is allowed to do such a thing in society if the problem ever arose. In such a society, people would feel discomfort and fear of being put to death in some way for the sake of a group of others. However, in a society with set rules which protect all peoples, all peoples have a piece of mind at all times OTHER than those select moments where they are put in danger by some random cause.
However, I do agree with you that the means of measuring net happiness or knowing which society truly gives that net happiness is not clear and we may not be able to know for sure, plus different people may have different societies they view in a more happy light.
The rights of all remark is more so a reference to on liberty which in my opinion contradicts his utilitarianism or tries to find a middle ground between his moral and political philosophy.
As such you could say that Mill does not believe that one must live a moral live since the diversity of experiences and ideas are important for humanity as a whole. Liberty offered to people will, in turn, help them over the long term and improve their long-term utility. However, at the same time too much liberty will interfere with other peoples liberty and hurt their liberty and happiness. So it's about stricking the right balance between universal liberty and individual liberty, universal happiness and personal hapiness. What makes it so hard to find this balence is that in terms of hapiness Mills seems to lean towards the univeral while in terms of liberty he seems to lean towards the individual.
It is theorised that when society regulates behaviour/decision-making with human rights, utility tends to be maximised. If human rights are not adhered to, utility does not reach as high a level as otherwise would have been possible.
What's interesting, too, is how people see other's lives and the value or lack of value they place upon it. Is there a hierarchical scale of "worth"? We thought about this a lot in my philosophy class during my freshman year of college.
What we ought to be doing it's not what we do though because utility would not imply reduction through statistical analysis of the people. That's not good. They don't have time for utilitarianism, this is the extreme opposite of socialist. Communism is utilitarian but it will never be good enough for the actual greater good. Democracy is improvised, which is reducible to the first degree. I was never a political philosophy major but rather focused on philosophy of the mind and metaphysics with an intro to history's function in modernized society.
omg literally saved me in rs thank you so much. hope all is well with you xx
Mind if i ask you, What does "saved me in rs" means ?
I thought Felicific calculus was proposed by Jeremy Bentham and Mill was disagreed about his concept, we cannot measure the state of happiness.
Interesting.
please avoid using music track in the background; it is too distracting or perhaps you can lower its volume.
All in all, a clear and succinct overview of Mill. Thank you! My only quibble is with your pronunciation of the composer's name. Rather than rhyme with "Maiden", it's generally pronounced to rhyme with "Biden". Keep up the good work!
Wow , what a story (Omelas) . . . obviously the author writes from experience
Ay this was not only really helpful, but really pleasant. Thanks man :)
instead of goiing in detail, can you please give us the overall idea of mill's utilitarianism and how it is different from classic "utilitarianism". Thank you.
What is the major contribution of this philosopher in utilitarianism?
This was a really great video, and clearly explained. Would have been nice if there was a bit on Rule Utilitarianism as well
Good video but for me distracting with the loud background music
I've enjoyed the background piano a lot. PLEASURE
Was Mill's purpose to make arguments against human injustices such as slavery & physical abuse?
Yes,
The content is interesting, but I could barely hear your voice because the music was too loud. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the Video
Even I as a non native speaker could understand your explanation easily.
"A society that wasn't sure if one of it's members could be murdered at anytime by the government for the sake of another person's happiness, would surely be a less happy society." But what if the tortured child in Omelas was successfully kept a secret from the population, therefore his existence doesn't compromise the societies happiness in any way? Would what is being done to the child be a moral good under utilitarianism?
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?
This is how ot SHOULD look like, that is, if the rulers geniuenly wanted to work for the global good. Rights are like guidelines. You need something to work with, you need some schemes or structures, because the attention and means to research each individual case is limited (from the perspective of rulers - The individuals on the other hand know their own situation very well, but they don't know the situation of others as much as rulers do). Laws and rights are (in theory) basically simplified, approximated guidelines on how people should act, that in theory have the highest CHANCE of creating the most good (least bad), at least compared to alternatives or no law at all and also creating SOME stability.
That's the simplified basic idea of laws (those created with an utilitarian intent)
Hard to follow without subtitles.
Any thoughts on John Stuart Mill's Civilization?
Video sound is too low and subtitles are also not showing 😑😑
Can I ask about John Stuart qualitative model?
Someone has the same subtitle problem, i can't understand the whole video without sub.
life is pain and u cant make people happy because u naturally feel pain by existing, and u only become happy after u understand what are u doing wrong to be causing pain. so he's whole pleasure thing is very utopic. u can't make everyone happy, ever.
The background music is so distracting
It was well made.
Seriously, more expected actions for a refund?
Your music is too loud
Subtitle please I cant understand your languange
Not the amount of people - the NUMBER of people. You might also want to check out how to pronounce Haydn. Otherwise, excellent discussion
So can someone quickly answer if this is true. John Stuart Mill's philosophy focuses on one's own pleasure rather than the pleasure of all?
His focus is on aggregate pleasure and he argues for altruism. So yes, pleasure for all, even at the expense of the self in certain cases.
7:35 That part but it’s too deep to break down in a comment …
What would be a good biomedical scenario to apply Utility to?
The risk of testing something on humans vs the potential increase in lifespan/decrease in pain?
Involuntary organ donation is a good one too. Sacrifice one healthy person to save 5 people in need of organ transplants
this video is great! Thank you.
"...that finded.."????
Emotional news: cash coming back to you
Q INCREÍBLE LO ENTENDÍ TODO LOKOOOOO chao me encantó lo pasé súper gracias
Very helpful! Thank you!
This minecraft music be hitting different
I don't see why this one is so much more popular when it's more boring and I'm not trying to be mean it's just these philosophies need to be taught to people that have short attention spans and nobody with the short attention span is going to listen to this I did listen to this so please don't count me in as one of them
the whole pleasure argument is not valid, you cannot measure these things
😂
I felt this one pretty hard
Cool video
Great.
Is it wrong for a 60 year old man to have sex with a 20 year old young woman? The man sees no wrong thinking that an older man is a more giving lover than a younger man but he can not be sure about the young womans experience only that she seemed to wish to experience sex with him is it wrong
Haydn is pronounced High Den. (
I dont understand the accent. Srsly.
psychopaths serial killers would give this theory a bad name
You are wrong at 0:50 because the end is best described as good or bas
pain from naruto had this philosophy
Got a test
I don't like Philosophy, it's too complicated.
Cant understand a thing cause of his accent lmao
Not exactly a babe magnet..?
This was the "genius" that claimed it was possible for 2+2 to = 5.
I feel like I'm in Minecraft
Hindi ko ma gets potek
Wot ?
Il
Shout out mga ka home quarantine gawa na tayo kay maam salmorin!
Tang ina mo ka bill HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
who's here because of sir cielo????
live discussion ka na lang sir huhu
Who is sir cielo ?
I fell asleep
Putangina inaantok ako dito.....
He received a salary from the East India Company, so his 'happiness' was more important than that of 300 million Indians, who were treated as slaves. So 'thinking' about 'happiness' and 'rights' are useless when you are unable to put yourself in others shoes. His theory may be true, but I it was also a way to justify his hypocrisy.
Indians were not treated as slaves. Slavery was outlawed in the empire areas by Britain outright in 1833
he is so wrong, so if a truth cause harm in someone it becomes a lie...he's thinking is everywhere today.
Oh dear. He was doing ok until he pronounced "Haydn". 😅
I disagree. Freedom is the best criteria to base whether something is wrong or not wrong.
Can I ask, do you believe in absolute freedom?
So the freedom to murder any person of my choosing?
@@perplexingpantheon the kind of mentality you have is the reason why humanity seem to weaponize any good thing they discover. Look we can split atoms. Let's go nuclear on each other. Look, we can make vehicles go through mud. Let's make tanks. In your case...Look, freedom. Now I can murder freely. With this kind of mentality, there's no saving you from yourself.
But people like me who don't have the enthusiasm to wraponize what's good in the world will always find way to save you without compromising our freedom and yours. Yes you are free to murder. All people are. But sane people are also free to not be victims and to help victims.
I said freedom is the best criteria because all other criteria are bound to be exploited.
@@pipsantos6278 That's the problem with pure freedom, it can be exploited. Hence why I brought up such an extreme example. Freedom is not a good indicator for moral judgments.
I would argue to much freedom or lack of repercussions causes more evil and harm to the majority of the population.
listen at 1.25. your welcome