@@johnebner4102 from a utilitarian perspective alex is morally obliged to do it, the amount of pleasure given by such a video it would be greater than anything
@@nayibmedina1616 each moment that passes is another moment content could be added,so Alex is exponentially increasing my suffering by not fulfilling his duty of said series.
For number one, you are certainly not always in this situation. Every time you add responsibility to your plate, it requires more from you. Therefore, every time you helped someone out, it would require more, and at some point, it would no longer be true that the cost is low for you to help them.
That's not how the world works. We don't start with a set value of things, and spend amounts of that value to purchase things. We earn money over time, and if it was of little cost to yourself, that implies that you would be spending money that you don't need in order to live. So while you wouldn't be putting yourself in poverty, you would still be barring yourself from pleasures for the greater good, as long as it doesn't cause you suffering.
"Therefore, every time you helped someone out, it would require more..." I don't think I get this. If I give a homeless person $20 dollars on the street, are you saying that I would be required to do more?
Do the entire quiz because it begins to ask the same questions but with slightly different circumstances and it's a way to see if those circumstances make a difference to the overall morality. Also there is a score at the end.
Yeah I noticed that all the questions can essentially be boiled down to "are you morally obligated to help people" which Alex already established that you are not. For example take one of take one of the many questions where it asked if you are morally obligated to kill x amount of people to save y amount where y is greater than x. I would say no because again, you are not morally obligated to help people. If we take this position to its logical extreme, we are under no obligation to help people live or prevent death. It doesn't matter if you save 1 or 1 million people, you were never obliged to help them in the first place.
@@Lemon-st3mf Didn't Alex establish that you aren't always obligated to help people, but you are obligated to give some amount of help? If the follow up obligation of giving more effective help also obtains (e.g. the bed nets he mentions rather than donating to an art museum), it would seem that saving 1 million people at least could become an obligation.
@@Lemon-st3mf no, you believe we aren’t morally obligated to help people. He didn’t prove that, he changed a question to make obligations lesser. Mentioning spending money when the question stated little cost to yourself, shows an ignorance to the dilemma. You agreed you don’t want that obligation but the fact is, humans continue to exist because of this obligation.
The first question reminds me of my intro to philosophy class, in which I had a great teacher. I think he was talking about utilitarianism (it was a long time ago) but he asked everyone to raise their hands if they had two kidneys. Everyone raises their hands. He says "Nobody here has donated a kidney? Don't you realize there are lots of people out there with only one kidney, and some who don't have any working kidneys? And you are all just walking around with two working kidneys, you immoral bastards!" lol
*cracks knuckles* The less related two people are the more likely there will be some kind of rejection, meaning donating a kidney may not do anyone any good until you have a relative who needs one and there's a good chance it will be accepted, plus you will die eventually and will still have two perfectly donateable kidneys (I do think there is a moral issue with not being a donor in case of death) wheather you donate one now or not.
I mean if there was a “nice” organized system to efficiently match organs to those in needs what’s the downside? Yes it could be used in a very exploitative way but anything could that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to be more moral. At the very least all dead peoples organs should be public properly no?
@@AJJ129 I'm curious how many people would support switching organ donation to an opt out thing, vs opt in. As in, everyone is an organ donor by default, unless they opt out.
@@FectacularSpail I think they have something like that in Germany, I can't remember exactly but it might be when your getting your drivers licence you need to actually untick the box in the form to say you don't want to be a donator. this does result in a way higher percentage of people donating.
I will say that question one's distinction that there is little cost to yourself is an important one. I think we all understand that the more you help others, at some point or another, it becomes a higher cost. If we spend more time and effort helping others, it may not be proportional, but the cost does increase. I learned this the hard way as a guy who really enjoys helping people. I didn't assign much value to myself or my time. It put me in a place where I was unable to help others for a long time, due to being unwell. Thus, I think the conclusion that we are obligated to help if it is little cost can be argued as long as you remember the "low cost" stipulation.
I totally agree and I also think - because of what you said - that there is no real way for a person to actually judge all the time if it is a low cost or not. It is not just about money. It is about wellfare. If you are morally obligated to help all the time then what happens when you have financial means to do so but not the eg. emotional capacity? I believe you can foresee and calculate your material means and restrictions but not the emotional toll which will also accumulate over time and can only be assesed after the fact, because you will feel the emotional burden after you have done the financial and/or emotional help you gave. So as the cost accumulates you will have a point when it will be not a lower cost but you will be able to determine that only after you passed it. It does not happen at the same time - the realization of cost and realization of the benefit of help.
I think that the sad reality is that the more abstract and far away things are from us the less that we care. Like if someone was hurting a child in front of you, you would have a strong sense to help the child, but when you hear about thousands of children in China being forced into labor you are much less likely to act upon it.
Not really. In each individual act of helping, you are doing it for low cost hence you're obligated. But since you are obligated to do it every time when it costs you low, you are obligated to do it as many times as it takes for you to become unable to help anymore at all, a.k.a until the cost is no longer low. So while the prompt was discussing the cost in a singular act of help, in case you're obligated to do so, it will result in an immense cost overall, which was not a subject of a question but a reason why it should not be an obligation.
For question one, part of the question was "at little cost to yourself". Constantly donating money is costing you, and so is altering your life to the extent where you no longer are able to do things that are not essential. Anything that will affect you, will, in a way, be costing you. Therefore you are not obligated to do this in relation to the terms of that argument. At least, that's my view on it.
I think Alex would argue that the "little cost" is compounding. If you lived in a world where the opportunity to help someone in need only presented itself once a year, he would probably answer differently. So I think you both actually agree
THANK YOU like if it wouldn't have a negative impact on you then you should absolutely help others when you are able to. Idk how that's even an argument. I like Alex's videos and think he is a smart guy, but idk I disagree with what he said about that one.
@@littlebear9842 yes, little costs like foregoing a single book or not going to a restaurant for one meal will compound into massive costs because of the number of people in need. I'll have to think on this more but I think my issue is the equivocation between stumbling upon someone in need (with the assumption that only you can help them) vs actively seeking out every charity under the sun.
He didn't actually fully answer the third one either - just said what people of certain views would think. To be fair though, he said it's because he hasn't made up his mind on them. Also, seemed to bloviate a bit, repeating the same thing again and again like 'with rights we don't care about the consequences, 10 people and 10k people is the same', over and over
@@the1onesquirrel9 Interestingly, none of that is allowed in christianity. You might have confised that with the religion of atheism (which is in reality communism). Look up the great scholars of atheism, for example *laurence krauss on incest* ...here on youtube and learn something about "morality". And btw, the pedophile communists harris, dawkins and delahunty agrere on this.
For question 1, the question specifically says "in the street." In this specific scenario, where it's possible and/or likely there is no one else that can actually help, I think you actually do have a -weak- moral obligation to help.
He’s not saying that having morals (a vaguely defined, misunderstood, and irrelevant word that is used subjectively by everyone and Pretentiously called “objective” by biased “experts), don’t matter and you should be heartless and cruel, the question posits that You have to help EVERYTIME and are obliged to it. Most people would help due to empathy, and doing onto others what you would want done for you if your in need.
I don’t think that would change things, even if you assumed that there weren’t people around who would in fact change things. A large amount of suffering in the world carries on for decades because nobody can and/or will help, and some stops nearly immediately because pretty much anyone can and will. The question itself only asks if YOU have an obligation yourself to help them. In such a case, I don’t believe you do, because as Alex pointed out in the video, you leave them in the same state of being regardless of if you had been there and left, or you had not been there at all. Would it be better if you would’ve saved them? Yes. Would you be morally higher if you had saved them? Yes. Does it inherently change your level/degree of morality if you leave them alone? No
This doesn't fully solve the problem though. If everyone else is capable of helping, then nobody has an obligation to help, and you get a situation similar to the Kitty Genovese murder: the screams are loud enough to alert the whole neighborhood, but calling the police has a cost because it takes a few minutes of your time. Since everyone else has heard the screams, you don't have an obligation to help so you don't. In the end nobody calls the police.
Either way he’s changing the conditions. If you are spending your entire life giving money to charity, then you are by definition not “helping someone at little cost”
I think the problem with the first question is we cannot really define what non essential is, and eventually it depends on each specific situation again.
Question 1 is basically test of Peter Singer theory. I see it differently. If everyone stop non essential shopping, having a cup of coffee, a Friday dinner, or whatever non essential item howsoever you define, you will cause a recession in economy, unemployment, lower GDP and lower government expenditure. We will basically end up having lesser collective resources to help eventually than we are right now
Or you end up with everyone having the same amount of wealth and being happy. Sure that's quite oversimplified, but we don't know what the outcome would be.
@@schmon8409That’s missing the point. By allowing people the liberties of inquiry into things that don’t involve suffering, we advance society towards holistic solutions instead of personally sacrificing your own fortune for a less fortunate individual’s sake
There is a lot more wrong with that script he read than just that. He is actively endangering his followers with what he said. It's ridiculous how many people sell out to those VPN providers.
🤣🤣🤣 seriously? I'm just here for the laughs now. Where do you people exist at? Lol. Do you talk to people about this in the real world? Because this is super embarrassing. Lol
@@myshownvjhope embarrassing? Here for the laughs? This is literally a video about moral dilemmas? Where you getting the comedic form of this? I talk to people and I want more of this because it is thought provoking and strengthens my ability to think critically.
@@jordanrish9053 so what? This person in this video has absolutely ZERO morals so wtf? All of you people and that loser that made this video; pure comedy. The opposite of gold - shined up turds y'all are lmao🤣 Lmao🤣. Think critically about what? Stupid shit? Lmao🤣 stuff that you don't even understand and at this point will NEVER! Lmao🤣 you're a joke.
Alex: "...you never do anything ever again because you're spending your entire life giving money to charity" me: "dude, how much money you think i got?"
you're still using a modern communication device ... why haven't you sold it yet so you can feed the poor people in africa? Clearly you are heartless and morally bankrupt 😂
Well I think that's the point, the question says that you are obligated to help when you'll have little cost to do so. Therefore you won't expend your whole life donating all of your possessions, because that won't be of little cost to you! You will only be obligated to donate while that doesn't disturb your life too much. So I disagree with Alex on that one
I disagree with the first argument, because you’d eventually reach a point where the cost of helping is no longer small. So if the cost is still small enough, you are indeed obliged. The problem here is defining how small that is.
I had the same thought for a moment, but the I realized that he was comparing the suffering you would go through, with the suffering you would prevent. For example, the suffering you would go through from selling all your stuff is less significant than the suffering of children starving to death. Your suffering may not be small but it's of a lower cost in comparison to the suffering you would be preventing. But in the statement it says "Little" not "lower". I think if it's little your point is valid, but if it's lower his point is also valid.
Even Jeff Bezos would eventually run out of wealth if he constantly had to donate money every second. I would be interested to know how many people he could help before he ran out.
Another problem is measuring the cost. Getting involved with the suffering of others, for some kinds of sensitive, compassionate people, becomes stressful and anxiety-producing. How does one evaluate that cost?
Also, constantly donating to charity would add up and amount to much more than a "little cost", so I would simply remove the larger scale component and simply focus on an individual whom you have direct contact with.
Wait a second though, on the first question it specifically says LITTLE COST TO YOURSELF. I'd definitely answer with yes, because as soon as I'm giving away an amount that makes me uncomfortable, it's no longer "little cost to myself". You're making it seem as though "giving away as much as you possibly can" is the same as "little cost". The fact that I'm constantly in that situation doesn't change that.
Would you give everything on you to send someone having a heart attack to hospital would you consider the cost that might be your food for the month but surely it's not a cost issue
While I agree with you, I do think a slightly more conservative version of Alex's point would still be worth considering. I.e how much money can you really afford to spend on charity, monthly, before it can reasonably be classed as no longer 'at little cost to you'. How many luxuries could you give up whilst still existing within some state of comfort. I do share his slight reluctance to say you have this 'moral obligation'.
The problem is that "uncomfortable" is very subjective and shouldn't be part of an answer, but then again the meaning of "little cost" isn't really clear either. Guess it's a bad question.
Question number 2 reminded me of something my daughter once said to me. She said it speaking of kindness but I find that what she said also applies to the answer of yes we should turn in our brother if he has caused harm to someone. She said everyone has a mother. Everyone has someone that loves them. Looking at it that way if being someone's child or loved one is an excuse not to have them suffer the consequences of their bad choices then no one would ever go to prison and lawlessness would rule.
There is a catch however. Say your daughter just joined a gang and commited her first crime - shoplifting. It is not just a question whether you turn her in. Because you, as her mother, may have a unique ability here. She won't care what someone on the street thinks about it, but she may well care for your opinion. She may listen to you. You may be able to convince her to leave that gang and commit no more crimes. That would not only save her, but also all her future victims. If you surrender her to the authorities, what is the consequence? Maybe she also gives up crime. But quite possibly she won't, as we well know. She now feels betrayed by you, and who will she confide in in the future? Probably, the gang members, who will push her to continue a life of crime. So you may well have doomed her, and her future victims.
@@sorsocksfake Doesn't matter. what you are doing is excusing her crime by appealing to a greater good. That's wrong. If she does wrong it is my responsibility to turn her in. Then I can speak to her and try to convince her to do better in the future. If she no longer trusts me then that shows that she has not accepted responsibility for her actions and transferred blame to me instead. As long as she does not take responsibility for her actions she won't change and do better. As long as I only consider her by shutting out the rest of the world I do more harm than good. The entire world needs to be our sons, our daughters, our mothers, our fathers, only then will be make society good for all.
@@bluecce I don't see how it excuses her crime. It is simply not your job to turn her in, just like her lawyer shouldn't. Society has a different role for you in this matter. You argue that, if she hates you for betraying her, she is irresponsible. Yet, if she were responsible, then you wouldn't need to rat her out. You would just convince her to turn herself in. It appears to me that this isn't so black&white. Most people wish to do good, and most people fail at times. As for the last lines: a wishful lie we tell ourselves. No force in the universe could ever make you love me the way you love your daughter. The closest examples might be suicide cults, the stasi and so forth, and those are hardly aspirations to live up to. Evolution does not allow it. At best, such morals destroy themselves, and are thus worthless. Usually, they enable exploitation and make the world a worse place.
In regards to the first problem, never once have I heard the perspective that in the situation with the person in need on the street, you are the ONLY other person on that street that can help them. While as with charity, it’s like the whole world stands beside you on that street and nobody is helping the person in need, even though other people are even better equipped than you are to do so. I think that if you are the only person able to help the guy on the street you are obliged to do so, charity is not really a good comparison, it is virtuous, but not an obligation in the same way.
It was my first thought too, the scenario where you are the only one that could help, you would be obliviously obligated to do so. But isn't this just the bystander effect? Not helping where are others whom also could help, but doesn't help either. And making the bystander effect the morally correct thing just seems strange to me.
If a child was drowning in front of you but you had a nice suit on that you would ruin saving them would it make a difference if 1,000,000,000 world class fully equipped life savers were there if they weren't going to do anything compared to if they weren't? A person who won't do anything is as morally relevant to a person who is not there
Why? The obligation terms is the dealbreaker; I say you are not morally obliged to do anything. It only has moral worth given you take a conscious decision to perform such a task. Otherwise it would be comparable to freerider ideology in the context of morals. Say, you do something that indirectly benefits someone who suffers. Does that make you virtuous for taking an action you do not bother to gauge the morality? So, by obligation, can someone be virtuous if it does not come from intention or free will?
You missed a crucial point. The question was referring to a situation when you passed someone 'on the street ' meaning you are the only one that can help right now. The man in need is not in another continent, not even in another street - he is right where you are and you can help him - no one else is closer and no one else even know he needs help.
Agreed! He also adds in the word(s) "relatively" and/or "comparatively" regarding the cost, in order to make it go from little cost to yourself to costing damned near everything
Yes. That initial little cost to yourself gets compounded into costing everything but your bare and ultimate necessities, which fundamentally changes the nature of the question that is being asked. What he seems to be saying is that that obligation to help (reduce suffering) would eventually come to harm you due to the ubiquity of suffering of others, but the thing is, getting a new book, eating out, or living in a house with a spare room might very well be things that contribute to my health/welfare/ health and welfare of the society I live in.
No, it doesn't say there are not hundreds of other people around (which is pretty normal if is on a street). "Severe need" is not specified further. If you are a medical doctor and the person is in severe need of medical attention it becomes very different. He also says that it depends on the situation.
Either way these questions to begin with is yes and no questions. as you can see he can only wing yes or no. so they are flawed to begin with. these questions can't be answered yes or no. since it depends on the situation. and where is a line from little harm to your self and to much harm. it depends on each person. I think it was what he was trying to say. and compared to the suffering that one person on the street is going through also matters. is it a leg blown of or is it both. that's a lot of suffering. so little for you in that case can be your ruined cloth because of the blood. but if you are wearing 8000$ cloth then it could be to much harm to yourself. or you live in a country where if you bring that person to the hospital you are billed the bill if he dies. that could ruin you. depending on the persons income, it can be low harm or ruin your life completely. But the question just automatically assumes it's a little harm to your self. in that case I would help. but what can count as a little bit harm, that depends on each person.
I’m a physicist and a hard science guy, but I love philosophy in the meantime when I’m not drowning in equations and mathematical rigor. I love your channel and I love to think outside the box on our existence, morals, religion and all the way down the line. Thanks.
@Daniel Blais I'm a Christian and I just don't see the appeal in that argument. Let's just assume God doesn't exist and were a cosmic accident, religion or not, humans would still be here to this day
All of this fellow's videos are extremely interesting and well presented. I enjoy listening to this young man's logic and articulation. He commands a good knowledge of the English language also. Please continue with your videos: they are uniformly instructive and enlightening, particularly on the topics of morality and religion.
In the utilitarian case, it isn't about proportion those being helped to those suffering. It's about the net amount of happiness, which would lend itself to the scenario with the greater amount of being helped as a better one (100,000 - 10,000 = 90,000).
while you're right in principle, it's never as simple as this subtraction. It's difficult enough to know in advance that hurting one person will actually help ten, and to a roughly comparable extent, but I fail to imagine a scenario where hurting 10 000 will predictably help 100 000 to a comparable extent, without any other adverse side-effects, and no other way to help the 100 000 without hurting 10 000, and that is not made up of individual decisions of hurting one individual (eg convicting one criminal)
I agree with this statement. Just like a libertarian would say that harming more people is worse than harming fewer, the utilitarian would say that helping more people is better than helping fewer. Either way, the scale makes a difference.
@Carlos Adrián Aguirre The middle ground is that the counts need to be modified by weights that take large scale good and bad into account. 100,000 x (weight of mass good) - 10,000 x (weight of mass bad). The weight of mass bad would have to quite significant, even if the weight of mass good were underwhelming (
So, utalitarism is based on intersectionalism. It matters who commits a crime because it will determine whether it is a crime or not. So, feminism. Which is the same as communism. This can be summarized like this. If a white person kills another person, it is a crime, unless he kills a white person then it is not a crime. When a muslim kills a person is is not a crime in any way no matter who he kills.
@Carlos Adrián Aguirre I think utilitarianism has 2 major problems, one in that who's to decide what counts as people being happy, the second in that it completely avoids responsibility which makes it a very collectivist ideology similar to communism(i.e its ok to shoot your land lord so that more people benefit by living rent free on his property).
This reminds me about an ethics course I was in in high school. We had this exercise where we discussed few situations where someone ends up killing somebody for various reasons. We were paired up and I had my friend as my pair. We were throwing a lot of this "you wouldn't be morally wrong in this situation" argument around. Then our teacher asked around and some girl was like "it's always wrong you should never kill" Me and my friend looked at eachother, feeling quite evil that day
I would just have said this is a stupid scenario. and there is not wrong or right way to do this. since it's all up to the person in that case. if I could safe 10 people by killing one person. Sure I can say I'll kill that person. but if it happened in real life this is not something I could say I could do. the guilt of just thinking of killing that person would probably stop me from doing so. but I would not be in the wrong if 10 people died. it's and impossible Scenario. but if I killed that one person I would have ignored my morality of not killing people. can be people say good on you for saving 10 people. but I would have murdered a person. no getting past that. If I was not to blame for the scenario I'm not to blame for 10 people dyeing. So Either way you cut it. there is no good way out of it. so the question in it self is stupid.
Why, god doesn't say you must not kill in self defence. You have the same right to your life as anoter person, but when that person attacks you, then your right is being violated. Of course you can fight back. But you should not use more force than he uses on you. So if he is no trying to kill you, then you should not try to kill him. Also, high treason is one crime I stil believe there should be death penalty for. It is the ultimative crime, where the leader of the country or someone in similar high position has attempted to install communism for example. I do not want to pay for such a person in jail for the rest of her life. If she is released, she will be of no good use to anyone simply because she cannot be trusted. Kill the bastard.
I would like to thank you so much Alex. I dont know if you'll see this but , you're the reason I became an atheist and a Vegan! I now learn to live my life without eating any animal products and withoutany guilt of being with "sin". This has made me happier as a person , thank you chap ❤
@@Raptor302 Isn't that exactly what he factors in when he concludes that you don't always have an obligation to help, but you do have an obligation to help some amount?
I think it shows that morality and other big issues like this can't be boiled down to a yes/no or multiple choice answer. Hopefully videos like this help people be more retrospective when answering these questions in their lives.
@@myshownvjhope You are trolling too ,lmao 😂🤡 ,I am laughing too lmao 🤡😂🤡😂🤡 ,I am butthurt too like you ,lmao 🤡😂😳🤡😂😳🤡😂😳🤡😂😳🤡 ,Sus ,Sus ,Amogus ,LMAO 🤡😳😂😂😂😂Lmao 😋😋😋
For question one, if we were all to start worrying more about others and put ourselves second, we wouldn’t have to worry about ourselves. i would take care of person A, person A would take care of person B, and then person B would take care of me. obviously take time for yourself, but people care too much about themselves, that they forget others around them. we tend to block out the negative things around us and live in our own worlds. i speak from experience, multiple times in my life i’ve helped out others, and one way or another that help got passed down to me and someone would help me when i was down in life.
You are obligated if you wish to be considered the most good person you possibly can be. It just depends how comfortable you are with not being as good as you can be.
@@crystalgiddens7276 Good is a value judgment I place on things, and in the case of a moral issue like this, good is what I deem best in motive and course of action.
One of your earlier videos had "Restart" by Ozma at the ending card, and it got me into the band. Very good crying songs can be found between stacks of amazing, entracing but mean grooves. Very cool, thank you, CosmicSkeptic.
For the fourth question, I feel like there's a difference between torturing a person that planted a bomb, and killing one person to save ten others. In the case of the terrorist, if the bomb goes of, the terrorists is responsible for all the deaths that the explosion entails. And presuming that eveyone has a right to live, if he doesn't defuse the bomb before it goes off, he will have failed his moral duty of not infringing upon other people's right to live. Therefore, I argue, he has lost his own rights and it wouls be acceptable to torture him, in order to extract the information of where the bomb is. The reason why I think it would be alright in this case is, that whereas in the first case the one person killed in order to save ten others hasn't done anything to deserve his rights being taken away, the second one has or is at least in the process of doing so. Another fact is that the terrorist chooses himself to be tortured, through the fact the he refuses to give away the location of the bomb. It is entirely in the terrorists hand if he is being tortured or not, the thousands of people in danger because of his bomb can be saved without any harm being done to the terrorist. In the case of the person being killed ot save the ten, him being killed is the condition, for the ten being saved. As you can see, I don't see deontologists as being in a dilemma, as at least in this case, there is a clear right answer.
He didn't say the man who knows the location of the bomb was the one who planted it though. The terrorist who planted it and the man who knows it's location don't have to be the same person in that scenario. The man who knows the location could have the knowledge of where it is, without any other involvement. The terrorist could also have kidnapped his family and threatened to kill them if the bombs location is revealed, for that matter. So while it's his own choice whether or not to be tortured, I don't think he would necessarily "deserve" to have his rights taken away (since he himself isn't violating anyone else's rights, he is just refusing to cooperate with someone trying to stop other peoples right's from being violated). Besides from a deontologists standpoint, rights shouldn't be taken away under any circumstance. So to chose to violate someone's rights, for any reason (including to stop someone else's rights from being violated) would still be wrong, from that point of view. That's how I took it, at least.
My problem with the answer he gave, and kind of with the whole way he described deontology, is it seems remarkably self-centered. He didn't seem at all concerned with how many people were having their rights violated, so much as who was doing the violating. A thousand people die instead of one being tortured? Well, the important thing is that my (the would-be torturer's) hands are clean. So, off the back of that, I'd like to propose a modification. Instead of another human (or moral agent) being the one to torture the guy or sacrifice x people to save 10x, it's a robot. The designers/programmers are all dead, so they aren't part of this moral equation. Since the robot is not a moral agent, we can't hold it to moral standards. Would it be better for it to torture the guy to find the bomb, or harm 10,000 people to help 100,000?
@@hughcaldwell1034 For the robot, yes it would. For a person who’s a deontologist, it wouldn’t. You call it self centered, but that’s moronic. The person who can torture has done nothing wrong up to that point, and if he doesn’t torture the guy and hundreds of thousands of people die, he isn’t responsible for those things. That’s the entire point
@@Jonathan-A.C. And thanks for making my point for me. Your thought process here basically boils down to "Thousands of avoidable deaths happened, but *I personally* didn't do something that made me uncomfortable, which is the important thing." Like I said - self-centered. It's a morality that seems more concerned with whether your own actions feel right than with the consequences to anyone else. I also whole-heartedly object to the idea that inaction implies a lack of responsibility for consequences. Deciding not to pull the lever in the trolley problem is still a decision. It doesn't take you out of the situation. Letting events of which you have knowledge and which you have the power to change run their course is not morally neutral. Otherwise you could argue that if all you had to do to stop the bomb is press a button that's right in front of you, no torture required, then it's okay to stand by and not press it.
A thought: Does the person with the information about the bomb lose some of his rights by planting a bomb and endangering others. By potentially violating peoples rights by planning to kill them with the bomb does that person forfeit their own rights to live without harm? I think they would forfeit their right to safety by violating others rights to safety.
Perhaps the best plan would be to torture the terrorist into providing the information, then offer the information to the city for a reasonable commercial price. I mean nobody cares about the terrorist and it is only fair that you are properly compensated for your time and skills. Of course the terrorist may have been paid for his work, in which case a bribe might be offered to you so he might escape and provide you the lifestyle which you so richly deserve. Or even better you receive the bribe, torture him anyway, and if they refuse to talk invent some information to sell to the city.
The thing is ALex is not representing all deontologist views, not everyone believes that rights are absolute, so in the bomb case you could violate right of one person if by doing so you prevent much greater harm (killing millions of people). Or even more trivial example, you have right to freedom of movement but that right can be overthrown if there are good reason for doing so e.g. you have super infectious deadly disease that can easily spread and kill people, so your movemment can be restricted - you have to be quarantined.
There's no reason to conflate the person who has the information with the person who does the torturing. The person who has the information could be said to have a moral duty not to keep it to themselves. Passing it on to the anti-terrorist squad doesn't violate anyone's rights. The head of the anti-terrorist task force can then make a pragmatic decision that has nothing to do with morality. Combatting terrorism and saving lives is in their job description, so their absolute moral duty is to torture or otherwise extract information from the perp.
If harming someone counts as -1 and helping someone counts as +1 then harming someone to help 10 others nets me +9 points. Harming 10,000 people to help 100,000 nets me +90,000 points. So they're not the same for a utilitarian.
The question is whether the scale of application of the plan affects your decision on whether to apply it. If given that the cost per person helped is equal in each scale, you as a utilitarian should decide the same - whether offered to apply this plan in situation of 1-vs-10, or in situation of 10k-vs-100k. The fact that eventual score is different is not relevant to the question asked.
I think the point they're getting at is that the larger the scale of implementation, the MORE likely they are to act upon it, because of a greater net gain.
@@AlienAV Interestingly, your analysis would render the right-based framework to also make no distinction between the smaller and larger scales, since the decision would always be no.
For Q1, this is why I am trying to find a middle ground between psychological egoism and Utilitarianism. Both have very modern and valid points, but require the other when put into real practice.
Egoism has no valid points, and utilitarianism is just an egoist's rationalization for why they're not evil people for subscribing to their inherently evil philosophies.
@@soleo2783 everything that is and has ever been labeled as "evil", was based on a subjective moral standard, as all moral standards are subjective. One person’s evil might not be another person’s evil. Thus I personally find it a bit of a useless word. Objective evil does not exist, is what I mean.
Wouldn’t opening a tab to donate be classified as “seeking out” ways to help, which may or may not be different than simply addressing the situations that present themselves to you? I’m not so sure.
Yes thats what I think is a difference. As well as the "little cost to yourself" idea. Giving to charity once in awhile isn't a huge cost if you have enough money BUT if you're constantly seeking out charities, when is it too much? When have you given enough/more than you have? Finding this balance and knowing where to donate to knowing you physically do not have enough to donate to help everyone can be really complicated. Its different than seeing someone on the street who will die if you don't buy them a 10 dollar medication, or stop and call 911, or stop and give them water, or whatever act you might do.
@@BrianaLynn7 I think you are simply reframing the distinction Cosmic Sceptic already makes between "duty to always help" and "duty to sometimes help." Either that or implicitly reintroducing the variable of location that CS tried to philosophically abstract away from as ethically irrelevant.
@@TheSurpremeLogician that is really hypothetical because no one would want that. But if it didn't make anyone (family/friends) unhappy then most definitely i think it wouldn't be a bad thing.
I think the first answer is a classic example of “drawing the line at myself” 😂😂 Given that he uses equipment affordable to the average consumer, he is almost certainly the direct cause of some form of human exploitation and suffering. And yet he separates slave labour cleanly from eating backyard eggs, which he doesn’t do. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying “vegans aren’t actually moral” or something stupid like that. Not consuming animal products almost certainly results in less suffering than the contrary. What I am saying is that the statements “directly causing any form of suffering is immoral” and “I am moral” are mutually exclusive. And many would consider hogging a massive fortune, such as many do in the first world, to be immoral. The reasoning for him classifying it as not immoral seems to be “I’m a good person” -> “I don’t do that” -> “that mustn’t be immoral” And before someone says “you’re not that great yourself”, I agree 😂😂 But I believe that a malaria net IS always the moral choice over a Netflix subscription, and I think we should accept that we are selfish assholes rather than do mind games to loop ourselves out of any responsibility.
About the 1st one, it explicitly mentions the scenario about passing by someone in the street. It was Alex that generalized into online charity. I would like to see Alex's point on that since, unlike his point, we are not 24x7 in that situation (passing by someone in need in the street)
I agree that he didn't make it clear in this video, but I think he's abstracting away from location since he deems location ethically irrelevant. If you want further discussion on his part about duty to help others, I believe he has a video uploaded about effective altruism where he goes into much greater nuance.
If it's a neighbour you have to help him somehow. Even if you just tell others to help him but a starving person has rights on us. So i think YES help him. A neighbour is any house for 40 doors in any direction (in Islam) How can ppl let their neighbour go hungry and they know about him... that's inhumane.
Hmm, I would answer the first question differently: Yes, you're morally obliged to help someone if it is at little cost to yourself. However, it is unreasonable to expect people to always follow what is morally obligatory. The unreasonableness of a moral demand does not remove the obligatory part, it just makes it so society allows your conscience to rest, and maybe that's okay, simply because there's nobody else volunteering to be the next Gandhi. However, if we are to always follow our most moral and ethical stance, then yes, we are obliged to help until we are unable to anymore. How far you are willing to strive for that ideal is something that needs to be challenged within your own conscience. I think we need to realize that just because something is the morally right thing to do, does not mean that we are obligated to always be a perfect example of following it. Moral obligation != practical obligation.
Yes, but individually, for each people you help, it will be little cost. But this is theoritical though and from a occidental point of view. Like donating to charities online to feed starving people or help other to have drinkable water, so on. But imagine you are a Massaï herder from Sudan, there is only little you can do to help others around the world before it costs you more than the benefits. It does not work.
1 - Not obliged. Helping someone is a charitable act, and once charity becomes an obligation it's no longer charity. Charity is commendable, not obligatory. 2 - Any of the three, depending on the criminal activity. If he merely littered and it caused someone to slip and injure themselves, not obliged. If he did something evil and destructive and violent like robbing a bank using thermite on a group of orphans, then strongly obliged. An evil and dangerous person needs to be stopped, insulated from the world at large, and experience the consequences of their actions. Reciprocity, respect and adherence to consequences, and honesty, are moral obligations. Morally, you would be doing what is right by your dangerous brother when you report the crime. You are helping him to become a more moral person. A littering brother merely made an honest mistake, and the consequences were disproportionate. That was simply bad luck, and your brother doesn't need correcting just because of some bad luck. 4 - No. If you can make an entire village happy and prosperous by torturing a puppy, you are still torturing a puppy. A person's morality is not rational. It is social and psychological (especially in that one person is a committee of minds; you are a social being, stuck in a lifelong relationship with yourself). Morality is subjective, but Humans only have a limited range of subjectivity. This relationship-with-yourself is effectively the conscience most of us grapple with, attempt to lie to, or cooperate with. Every time you would hurt those few people for the benefit of others, it would make you a more cruel person, a more exploitative person, a more predatory person. Anyone with a conscience would slowly be poisoned with self-loathing, or else be self deceptive and justify evil, thus becoming a monster. Moral integrity cannot survive sustained cruelty, even if it is "for the greater good" in the grand calculus. You are not a god or a universe or a society, you are a Human, so the grand calculus and the greater good aren't truly relevant to your merely Human mind. Perhaps a person's morality is different from a group's morality? 4a - If such a system (help 10 by hurting 1) existed, and there were volunteers who were willing to be sacrificed for helping 10 apiece, and the system were automated (nobody is being corrupted by cruelty), then we have a super good system. This isn't cruelty from the operators, but charity from the self-sacrificial ones. 4b - In the case of the torture vs. time bomb... being evil (and performing torture to save many lives) is an option. It's immoral, but reality is full of counterexamples and caveats. There exist people who are willing to be evil for the sake of some other agenda. If that agenda helps the "grand calculus" then we have a sort of meta-morality. I see no issue with having multiply layers of morality - morality of the individual, morality of the group, etc. And these different layers of morality have different rules.
I slightly disagree on the first answer. The question says at “little cost”. The more you give the less resources you have. The $5 you have to give when you have 2k in the bank might be considered “little cost”, but to give $5 when you only have $10 is at GREAT cost. Therefore, the question is relative and dependent on what you consider to be “little cost”. You could decide to be morally obliged to give at all times, but believe everything is a high cost and therefore never give... or you could believe everything is “low cost” and always give.
I would agree with you but the question says: "at little cost to yourself". The last two words are quite important as to me, they imply that the amount you give is relatively small in comparison to what you have, not what is perceived as a small amount by most people.
@@oli5120 that is where my “slightly disagree” with comes in. Alex said you would have an obligation to always give in the situation, but that’s not true. The more you give, the greater the cost to yourself. $5 would not always be considered low cost. Eventually you need to decide when giving is too great of a cost.
@Ashton M Correct, making this a relative decision. Which means you could believe a person is morally obliged to always give to help the needy, but never actually give anything. If a person had 10 million and believed every penny spent is a high cost, then you’d never be obliged to give even though your answer would say otherwise.
Q1 asked if I was obligated to help someone in front me and was in need of help. It didn’t specify what kind of help they needed or what help I would provide. But you compared it to the situation of being obligated to help everyone by donations to charity at every given opportunity. I don’t think those two are the same situation. Depending on the situation I think I would feel mostly obliged to help. For example, someone is bleeding to death on the side walk, I would absolutely do whatever I can to help them. If they are starving, I would feel obliged to spare some change and help them buy a meal. How does this feeling of obligation equal to the obligation to make donations to charities and trust other people use that money to help others?
everyone is forgetting the first part: YOU PASS THE PERSON IN THE STREET. It does not say you are obliged to help every person in need if it is of little cost to you
@@curiodyssey3867 Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that. But as Alex points out; what's the difference between that and donating money to someone with just a click (for example)? It's ALWAYS easy to help someone. The first one is perhaps in more immidiate danger than the second one, but I'd argue that it would be just as important helping people before they are in grave danger. To the best of our abilities preventing bad things to happen in the first place. Couldn't it then be argued that this is also our duty? But yes, the one who is in grave danger is more important to help. I agree with that. And from a practical standpoint the first person may be easier to help. But for argument's sake, let's really think about this... First you would have to argue that the first person is in more danger than the second one. But what if that's not the case? Then second; you would have to argue that a person being more physically closer to you is more relevant to you/is worth more to you. But distance wouldn't matter besides from a practical standpoint obviously. But questions about human worth to begin seems rather meaningless to me. But back again to a close person and a person far away: Would it really make a difference to you if the person you loved the most either (a) were bleeding out in front of you and you knew you could save this person by applying pressure and calling an ambulance or (b) the person you loved the most is being held hostage with a gun to their head and you have the option to save this person by making a deal which isn't too difficult for you? For me to say it's my duty to the first person and not the second one, I do believe all of these factors need to be in "my favor": 1. It's easier for me 2. The person is in more danger 3. The person is worth more to me And I can't necessarily say that these factors will be in "my favor". And thus the first part about passing someone in the street will not necessarily change my mind about the case from a philosophical standpoint (but argueably from a practical standpoint obviously). And I would argue that factor 3 isn't relevant. Of course it's our "duty" in a legal sense, and of course I would have done it myself. But the usage of the term "duty" makes the issue more complicated from a philosophical standpoint. I know it doesn't only say that we are obliged to help every person in need if it's of little cost to us, but that's the problem with the question to begin with. Because passing the person in the street won't necessarily give us stronger reasons to help someone. And if that's the case, what is even the point of this "duty"?
@@K.Jerico because that's a different question. Hes not answering the question provided, but a hypothetical question he invented. Physically walking past a person and helping them and seeing the immediate effect is far different from clicking an impersonal button
@@curiodyssey3867 It doesn't matter if it's a different question. Because that other question is asked while the original question still is a reality. It's simply a way to make the bigger picture logically coherent. But the question wasn't "Is it more likely for you to help the first person?" or "Would you help the first person?" Then I would definitely answer yes. But it's the word duty I don't like. I have this standard way of viewing things (If I'm not shown something specific that changes my mind about certain aspects of a thing that is) that absolutely nothing is our duty. We don't owe anyone anything. That's where I'm coming from. We can't say that it's our duty or moral obligation to for example not to steal. People can do whatever they want to... But they have to face the consequences ofc. Don't always think that we never owe anyone anything of course, but that's the standard. If nothing is a moral duty we shouldn't act like that's not the case of course. For example: I don't believe in free will, but it's essential to act like it is so that we may make better choices. Not entirely related, I know, but maybe it's easier for you to argue against me when you see where I'm coming from. You are definitely more than welcome to change my mind about the case
Alex, I think a true utilitarian would actually *prefer* the 100,000 to 10,000 situation to the 10 to 1 one, what matters is not the ratio, but the difference, and in one case your net contribution has been of 90,000 whereas on the other case it's been just 9. Though tremendously improbable, I hope you see this. Great video as always ;)
Alex’s answer to the first moral dilemma isn’t actually an answer to the first moral dilemma. The scenario is that you can help someone at low cost, but by pointing out that the cost is in fact high he’s defying his own scenario.
he didn't say that the cost is actually high, either. the question was asking about a single case, where the cost is in fact low. the cost is only high in the aggregate.
@@scotth5114 yes, but in his build up, the reasoning he uses to justify "no you are not always obligated to help" is BECAUSE the costs would be small but NEVER ENDING. He went down a slippery slope of: little cost here, little cost there.... not taking into account the fact that when you give away something that was 1% of your wealth ... you now have 99% of your wealth left ... so the next gift of the same dollar amount will be a greater percentage of what you have left ... making it NO LONGER - 'low cost'. So in the scenario where I'm at the limit of where someone would call the act of kindness "low cost"... I can only give ONCE, and then it becomes 'higher than low cost' right after the first time. We have morals as an idea because we want a useful, good, strong, productive community. So, if you want the strongest community you want one with the highest morals, and I would say "if it didn't matter one way or the other to you....and therefore is 'low cost'... then you are obliged, morally, to help someone in your community" The question is really: Should you catch a baby that is falling ... or just keep walking. It is low cost to hold out your hands to catch the child.... I think most people would say, that you are a morally good person to catch the falling baby. We want people in our community that would catch a baby rather than letting it fall. In the video, Alex, equates cost to money in his examples and then he goes down a slippery slope that no longer matches the conditions of the question... as Leith Crowther points out. COST could be any number of things: cost to my mental health, cost to my business, cost to my sense of well being, cost to the time it takes to donate to all the innumerable charities. Scenario: I could have a million dollars in my pocket, and someone is in severe need to eat and it would cost $1. You are not obliged to give the dollar, IF the cost is not nominal. You might think, that $1 out of a million is obviously nominal, and low cost, BUT it is not necessarily. IF I have been given the responsibility to hold the $1 million to buy a business, by my boss, and I could lose my job if I do not deliver it in full, then the scenario becomes 'higher cost' than might be suggested by the question. IF I am in a mental state where the exacting sum of $1 million being off by $1 would make me extremely uneasy and mentally unstable, because I like even numbers .... then 'low cost' is not obvious.
A better moral question is: Should you catch the baby even if it is at high cost? How high is too high? Do you want a community where you would lay your life on the line to save a baby from certain death. This would seem to be the highest cost scenario. Then another step up from that would be. Should you pay the price, even if the outcome wasn't guaranteed. Should you try and save a baby from being run over, even if you die, and even if there is a low probability that the child will also survive, but there is a chance?
@@globalunconscious Every scenario is different for different people. Sure I would try and catch the baby, but putting my life at risk is not just affecting me. My family depends on me and how I help, so I would be putting them at risk also. I agree with Alex that we are not 'obligated' to help. Even using a money scenario, giving away a few dollars is a good thing, but what if that was the few dollars that could get my son the medication he needs to live? This is not a black and white world and there is no 'right' answer for these kinds of questions.
(Paraphrased) "If you have to help everyone all the time then you'd never get anything done!" That seems like quite a heavy cost ;) Alex leaps from "at little cost to yourself" to "you have to get rid of everything that is strictly not essential to your life". This is by no means an indictment that Alex misinterpreted the question or anything, the question is purposely subjective and invites us to fill in our own biases. It is interesting though, that Alex' interpretation of "at little cost" is everything non-essential to his life. I think that points to a rather charitable framework. "You can't say that in every instance of that situation you're morally obliged to help, because if you do you're led to this conclusion where you can never do anything ever again because you're spending your entire life giving money to charity." As I alluded to earlier, I think Alex is committing a slippery slope fallacy here. The question says "at little cost to yourself", and his argument is that eventually it would become too great a cost. But surely once it reaches the point of even moderate cost, it's no longer a moral obligation as defined here, because it explicitly says "at little cost to yourself"? Once the cost is greater than what you think of as "little cost", this moral obligation would no longer apply. The difference between Committing Harm vs Allowing Harm is fascinating and I need a full video on that if he hasn't already done one.
How we determine what is little cost? When can i tell that someone did wrong, because something was little cost for him? (sorry for my english, hope everything is understandable)
@@EldestZelot It would not be a slippery slope fallacy either way because every cost is indeed little individually, and it does actually accumulate. Slippery slope is a fallacy only when there isn't actually a slippery slope. But if I'm in the wrong for not donating to any given charity (and this is where he may have misinterpreted the question), solely on the basis that it is of little cost to me, then there is always more to give, and I am always in the wrong.
@@gernottiefenbrunner172 I don't think it's a slippery slope fallacy, but a fallacy of conjunction. I.e. assuming that because things are individually true, they are collectively true. Look up the lottery ticket paradox for a good illustration of this. My problem is that he's extrapolating the moral obligation to a very general one, while insisting on doing the cost-benefit calculation on an individual basis, which seems like cherry-picking to me.
If you help everybody all the time, it’s suddenly not „at little cost“ anymore You are obliged to help a decent amount of people the best way you can. I for example consider donating a waste. The money usually changes absolutely nothing. So I try to change the underlying issues instead
I understand time is as valuable as money of not more but it's wrong to say charities don't help you can check them out see what they do even if 50% of your money goes to admin you could still be saving lives
Maybe you should start an organisation of trying to change the underlying issues. And then obviously you'll need to fund this, and able to do it better by getting more people to do it. Maybe you could then ask people to give you money to help address those underlying issues. You know... like a charity...
@@vierte_ pretty much every charity I've ever heard of only ever helps the people affected by the root, not the root itself. which is fair enough in a way, fixing the root of the problem will take time and more effort and in that time plenty of people will die. but in the long term, working to fix the root cause will save more lives than simply trying to cure the symptoms of the problem.
Your premise was: That if you came upon a person in need and you have the ability to help them with little cost to yourself; would you be obligated to help? Then you talk about going online, find a charity who will use your money to help a person unknown to you and that's that. There is a big difference between a person suffering in your presents and giving money to a charity to help an unknown. I feel that in a situation like you propose, you are obligated to assist. There are even "Good Samaritan laws" in place to address this need. You see a person in need of your help and you say, "Sorry, Mate, I made a donation earlier this week to help people, so you're on your own."
6:45 Given this active/passive distinction, can you morally use electricity, if electricity requires damaging the environment to some degree in ways which do harm to conscious beings? Pollution increases cancer rates, for example. Hosting your videos on UA-cam means that they will use electricity, which causes some dispersed harm. As I understand your position, it is not about the scale of the suffering; killing a lobster is always bad, while allowing 10 men to starve is not always. If so, shouldn't even the minor wound to conscious beings by damaging the evironment be immoral?
Excellent points. I think it’s also the case that the A/P distinction is blurry. The line between when you’re causing X vs when you’re merely allowing X is not clear. Negligence, for instance, is an important concept that falls in the gap between allowing and causing. Thus I’m a bit suspicious when one makes too much use of the distinction.
I think you misread the first question. It was about passing someone in need on the street which happens very rarely (to me at least). The fact that there is infinite suffering in general isn't relevant.
The thing is, nowadays with the accessibility we have to make an impact on other parts of the world, it is basically equivalent to always passing by someone in need. We are always aware of it and charities are always open. That being said, I think we still would not be count in an infinite loop, as whatever cost we deemed "very little" will eventually stop being so as our resources dwindle.
Yes, it seems Alex is arguing that with today's global communications, anyone suffering anywhere is effectively "on the street in front of you". There is some truth in that, but the question also said you can help them "at little cost to yourself". Once you start selling all your unnecessary possessions and giving all the money to charities, that is no longer "little cost" to you. Whether you have an obligation to do that is a different question.
for question 1, I think the difference between your charity-donation example and the situation proposed by the website, is that on the street, YOU uniquely have the opportunity to help them (that is if you are alone), whilst with the charity example, like 40% (just a guess) or so of the human population is able to help the people in need. Still I am not sure if that is enough decide the question. Great video btw;)
The answer to the first question is ultimately tied to social scaling. As a species our social dynamics lose coherence as they scale upward. This is obliquely referred to when you note that suffering is everywhere all the time. For this reason I agree with your response.
@@Chattosaurus One of the proposed causes of death regarding Diogenes was an infected dog bite. If that is true, the universe really is a dark comedy after all
"You may get to keep your house, you might have to downsize it though" *laughs in the thought of having a house* Overall I love the video though. Good work.
Also laughs in the thought of having a car or watching Netflix. This is a revolution. Veganism is not only the greatest moral issue of our time. It is the only revolution that can possibly save us. People need to start understanding this reality. Thank you.
Love you Alex💖 you've taught me so much over the past couple months and have given me so many things to think about- and also to love thinking about them! And most importantly, you've inspired a new interest in me to just keep learning about everything I can. I seriously appreciate it all. Thank you for your amazing content and I look forward to expanding my knowledge.
So for the first one I think it could be argued that we are always morally oblidged to help someone when it's at little cost to ourselves. If everyone had such an obligation, and everyone followed through with it, and those with the most to give did give much of their wealth or possessions away, we could possibly reach a point where the suffering in the world was reduced to a point where actually everyone wouldn't have to give everything away. It might be possible to achieve an equilibrium where if everyone was being charitable, there'd be enough to go around for us all to retain some amount of comfort. Also, I can say that i'm obligated to do something and still choose not to do it. I think many of us can and do choose to live more selfish lives than we could, and we have the right to make that immoral choice.
For question 1, a key part imo is that you are passing them in the street. My opinion is that you are obliged to help someone who needs help in your presence. In this way, we spread the burden of helping the needy to everyone without overburdening any individual person.
Agreed 100%. I feel you are committing a moral wrong by not helping where you so easily can. Its multiplied not only by your ease of ability, but by the potential suffering you are stopping by helping them. Those things add up fast.
That was exactly my thought. The thing is, with charity organizations, theoretically anyone around the world is able to help by giving money through the internet. On the other hand, you passing someone on the street, who is let's say crushed under a car, it is your obligation, to at least try to lift that car off of him, as you are the only one in that street that can do so. It is impossible for anyone other than you to know about this situation in this moment. That makes it critically different in my opinion and is why, I would say that you are obligated to help him.
How important is the "You"and "in the street" parts of the first question?I think being there in person makes it more of a conscious decision not to help someome. I'm still not sure this would make you obliged, but I think many people would feel more obliged to do so in person.
I agree with you. The guy in need is right there in the street, according to the wording, so i feel I ought to help him because oxfam or another charity is not there in that very moment. It's me and that person, with very little price to pay. So I'd do it.
Yeah, for me, I don't think it makes much of a difference. I live in an area where homelessness seems incredibly common. I essentially can't walk down my main Street without seeing at least one homeless person, and there will often be more than just the one. If I was obligated to help these people every time I stepped out of my house, then I'd be in the exact same situation that Alex described. Not to mention the fact that nothing that I can help them with has any permanent effect. Anything within my power would result in their suffering being reduced for just that one night, but next time I set out, I'll see the same people again and will have to act on the same obligations. For what I think are obvious reasons, this scenario just isn't feasible. It's really unfortunate but that's the reality.
@@amarntsitran3406 I always feel guilty passing by homeless people but I figure that donating to charities is more efficient because they have the infrastructure to turn my donation into something more far-reaching.
@@amarntsitran3406 That's real!y not the scenario described; you can't alleviate A homeless person's suffering without a significant cost either in time or money. Passing them a buck or two is not going to change their circumstances or solve whatever delema is causing then to live in the street. So, for instance, calling 911 to help a person having a stroke on the street can make a significant contribution to their very survival. That's the only sort if thing that would not cost you anything of real value- not even of time. Even so, I'd say that one is never obligated to do anything morally, because morale are always circumstantial- and, suppose one were the sort of person who would do nothing to help another - to me that we like indicate some sort of mental condition. Something that not only blocks empathy, but directly short circuits it,; Meaning that to help would be profoundly emotionally distressing to them in ways those without that condition can't even fathom . so I really can't think of any hypothetical in which there were no real cost to help
@@hexum7 Not to be a dick, dude, but you're super wrong. Alleviate doesn't mean to eliminate their problems, it just means to reduce suffering and the specific wording used is as follows: "You pass someone in the street who is in severe need and you are able to help them at little cost to yourself." A homeless person is in severe need of help, are they not? Not just for shelter but food, clothes, and a number of other things. Nowhere in the question does it even imply that your assistance should have a permanent effect or solve their problems so your example of helping somebody who is having a stroke isn't more or less valid than my own example. Technically, I can absolutely help homeless people by buying them a cheap meal. Just because this only helps them temporarily, doesn't mean it doesn't count. However, the fact that the help is only temporary is part of the problem as I've described.
You are wrong with question 1. The first question specifies minimum cost. That's the loop breaking condition, if you can't live your life anymore or have difficulty helping everyone it is not anymore a minimum cost... And so you are not obliged anymore. It's hard to define the limit where the minium cost is also because it's not a valuable cost, it takes in account various currencies (mental health, money, time, physical health...) So it really depends on every situation. If you are in a wheelchair and a person has fallen down, you are not obliged to help him get up, because the cost to do so would be high, you could although call someone with your phone to assist...
Disagree with your answer to the first question you took it way too generally. The question was specific in its detail of the scenario of you passing someone in the street.
I disagree, his point still remains, the specific detail doesnt change it. Say you pass one person on the street that needs help, you are obliged to help him or her. What if you encountered 10 on your way home? What if you encountered 100? 500? The fact that of the matter is - time and space of the scenario are irrelevant for this argument. Or at least it should be in a discussion about morality.
Each time you help a person- THAT particular action is infact of little cost to you. I’d argue the question needs clearer wording but cosmic’s argument still remains.
6:46 By this same logic, doesn’t it follow that by buying any product that was made in unethical conditions (i.e. the vast majority of products in circulation in the market, especially those made in deregulated third-world factories), you are causing suffering and hence are obliged to refrain from doing so? Should we be boycotting “Made in China” stickers? Just some food for thought.
Yes. Although I think this is made much more complex by the sheer number of things we buy/use in any given week and the fact that we can't research every item purchased either due to rational time constraints, inability to find definitive research and a general lack of will power to carry out such a task. With things like meat it is pretty easy since a animal being killed is an inherent part of meat but with an item made in china it becomes more difficult because there are some things made under ethical working conditions in china and so separating out which things come from which companies and what are their policies and how well do they enforce them as well as what are the ethics of their supply chains makes the whole thing unbearably more complex. That being said, I think we have an obligation to avoid anything we know to be unethical. Like Monsanto or Nestle products. They use child slavery on their cocoa farms, and want to turn water into a commodity instead of a right etc. But even these are made more complex by Nestle owning like a hundred subsidiaries and Monsanto chemicals being used by the majority of farmers making it hard to boycott.
What you call "unethical conditions" happen to be works with one of the best conditions in the areas where these factories are. People are dreaming of working there bc of his bad the alternatives are. So most of the time it's more ethical to buy those than the 'made in US' ones, because of how good conditions job the workers in the US would find anyway if that one factory didn't exist. Peter Singer talked about it in a Q&A on "Room for Discussion" yt channel.
About the bomb example, you can argue that since the terrorist has violated the rights (to live) of the people who are going to die in the explosion, his rights are now invalid. This means that the interrogator is allowed to torture the terrorist, because he doesn’t have rights anymore. This comes from the perspective that by violating someone elses rights, you make yours invalid.
i think there is a third person in the scenario that must be tortured to get the location of the bomb, so essentially ur torturing a random person not the terrorist
But this is not completely analogous to the situation in the video, a fairer assessment would be, "if you have a bag of logs and a matchbox, and there are people dieing of hypothermia, are you required to light your logs on fire to keep them warm?"
@James Black Are you kidding me? What is stopping me? These babies daddies are! I have to jump through all sorts of hoops just to give them what they need to survive and now their "daddies" are demanding blood tests to determine *"if the kid is really theirs!"* They should have thought about that much sooner! Now, I have no choice but to have another abortion! At 7 months!
Bro, pleease make more podcasts. I have nothing to listen to and your interviewing/conversational style is so nice to listen to while running/out and about.
Although I love Alex, I think his answer to one is slightly unfounded. 1. The question is not about helping every person in the world, it is about someone you walk past on the street. This would not be an 'infinite' number of people in which you would need to seel your belongings to do so. 2. It assumes you are the only one in the world in this position, which is certainly incorrect. 3. It assumes that everyone is perfectly and infallibility moral. So yes, I would say that when you walk past someone in the street and you have the capacity at little harm to yourself, you are in fact morally obligated to help a fellow human, you could always not do it through. Imagine steve jobs walking past a homeless person and ignoring them. You would tell me that is moral? 4. I find his analogy with vegans to be outright wrong as well (although i am in favor of vegans) as he says that the indirect harm you cause to an animal (you are often never the one killing it) isnt the same as the indirect harm you would cause by not helping someone. By being a vegan, you are not saving any animals from suffering, you are simply not indulging on the ones that did. In the same capacity, if you were to see someone suffering in the street who needed help and you chose to ignore them, would that not be significantly worse, as you are in direct action of that harm, as opposed to an animal where it will still happen but by someone elses hand, and because it is a human?
So I disagree on the first question. I think you miss the fact that the question specifies that the dilemma happens "on the street." His arguement (if I understand it correctly) extrapolates this to all possible circumstances. I don't think that line of reasoning applies since the question is more specific than that. I could be missing something of course. Anyways, great video and keep em' coming!
@James Black The difference is the guy on the street entered your reality ,you did'nt go searching for it.So its not about the capacity to help,its the immediate situation demanding it.Either way the same answer applies I agree,no obligation.
Question 3: Would deontologists view those who have planted the bomb as having not upheld their duty to respect others' rights and therefore forfeited their own rights, thus making torture in that scenario ethical?
@@Jonathan-A.C. It's a pretty safe bet, since anyone else who knew where it was wouldn't need to be tortured to give the information. The only exception might be someone who colludes with the original terrorist and planted it for them, but in that case they themselves have now become a terrorist anyway and given up their rights.
@@davidsherlock5528 How do you know that? Plenty of even hypothetical cases where they work with others who will also be as committed to the cause as they were, or even just know others (friends/family/etc.). Well in the case of working with another, there is some sacrifice of rights, but I'm not sure as many (depends on what they did). In the case of a friend/family who wasn't related to it, no, they didn't give up their rights
@@Jonathan-A.C. Unless the friend/family member was in on it, they would have given up the information. By choosing not to do so, they are participating in terrorism themselves.
Edit: First of all, happy birthday Alex.🖤 Now: I think we could make a change if we would help the poor in our own neighbourhood, in our own city... there is a small chance every person will be able to help thousands of people, but why can't we all start with one? And take helping them as an "obligation"? Why do we forget that the small things are the one's that make a big change. You will never be able to help everyone. And in general, living a "normal" life today isn't that easy, because you "need" so much to live one. And to pay your living, literally. And it's 1 a.m. and i just lost the point of what i had to say...😅
If you have a neighbor who's elderly and/or disabled, just taking out their garbage for them would be a big help. So would picking up a few things at the grocery store, when you're going anyway. Help with seemingly small things can make a big difference in the lives of those who can no longer do them.
Beautiful reply. Agree with you. Alex is being too philosophical here. Not necessarily a bad thing, but a stretch for sure. in that situation, just help. Fuck philosophy. Just help.
@@MK-dx8mt Yes, totally. Yes, we tend to sometimes lose our point and our purpose in life, bcuz we think too much about problems that aren't really solveable just by that. It is work that has to be done.
For me question two requires context and what the crime was and why somebody got hurt, was it intentional? Did somebody only get hurt because the brother was in a panic due to the crime they committed because they know somebody’s going to come after them, Who knows, The crime may have been stealing from a bank in order to give it to somebody who is threatening your brothers families life and your brother is trying to save people but accidentally hurts somebody in the process. Also think about it like this, maybe the brother told you that in confidence because he trusted you, in which case you have a moral dilemma on whether it is morally OK to break somebody’s trust, because most people wouldn’t tell them “i’m gonna turn you in“ so is it ethically justified to lie and break the trust of somebody who trusted you? Other questions you can ask, Who is the person who was hurt? Maybe the person who was hurt was a serial killer and the brother was doing it to defend other people. Ultimately what I’m getting at is that unless you know the actual circumstances you cannot just say yes or no to whether you should because there are plenty of reasons that could be outside of your knowledge of why it wouldn’t be good to do that
Would love to see them all answered! Don't care if it's 10 20min videos or 10000 hours. Please honor my will to be happy 4 the greater good.
It would make an amazing series, causing everyone to think more.
@@johnebner4102 from a utilitarian perspective alex is morally obliged to do it, the amount of pleasure given by such a video it would be greater than anything
@@nayibmedina1616 each moment that passes is another moment content could be added,so Alex is exponentially increasing my suffering by not fulfilling his duty of said series.
same
I agre, but I'd like it to be cut in many videos.
Alex: Imagine saving on razor blades because you could give that money to charity. That would be ridiculous.
Also Alex, two months later:
Lmaao
Lool
Besides, beards are disgusting. ;)
@Wishy Missy I wouldn't mind having one of them. Trouble is, I've got mine. :)
@@Graeme_Lastname hahahahaha nice pic man
"...statistically speaking, you're probably not subscribed..."
I have never been a statistical anomaly, before. Cool!
@JESUS LOVES MUSLIMS Apparently there's a discord link somewhere.
Me neither! I'm so happy.
I mean that's statistically anomalous itself
Just the fact of existing in this universe is already an statistic anomaly.
Not being a statistical anomaly would itself be a statistical anomaly. So, we're all anomalous!
For number one, you are certainly not always in this situation. Every time you add responsibility to your plate, it requires more from you. Therefore, every time you helped someone out, it would require more, and at some point, it would no longer be true that the cost is low for you to help them.
So you could meet that obligation but only if you choose to live a life of relative poverty.
@@vinuzo9548 basically
That's not how the world works. We don't start with a set value of things, and spend amounts of that value to purchase things. We earn money over time, and if it was of little cost to yourself, that implies that you would be spending money that you don't need in order to live. So while you wouldn't be putting yourself in poverty, you would still be barring yourself from pleasures for the greater good, as long as it doesn't cause you suffering.
@@vinuzo9548I think most people would agree forcing yourself into poverty is not "little cost to yourself."
"Therefore, every time you helped someone out, it would require more..."
I don't think I get this. If I give a homeless person $20 dollars on the street, are you saying that I would be required to do more?
Do the entire quiz because it begins to ask the same questions but with slightly different circumstances and it's a way to see if those circumstances make a difference to the overall morality. Also there is a score at the end.
Yeah I noticed that all the questions can essentially be boiled down to "are you morally obligated to help people" which Alex already established that you are not. For example take one of take one of the many questions where it asked if you are morally obligated to kill x amount of people to save y amount where y is greater than x. I would say no because again, you are not morally obligated to help people. If we take this position to its logical extreme, we are under no obligation to help people live or prevent death. It doesn't matter if you save 1 or 1 million people, you were never obliged to help them in the first place.
Score? In what way? Does it tell you which ethics/ moral philosophy is closest to yours?
@@Lemon-st3mf Didn't Alex establish that you aren't always obligated to help people, but you are obligated to give some amount of help? If the follow up obligation of giving more effective help also obtains (e.g. the bed nets he mentions rather than donating to an art museum), it would seem that saving 1 million people at least could become an obligation.
@@Lemon-st3mf no, you believe we aren’t morally obligated to help people. He didn’t prove that, he changed a question to make obligations lesser. Mentioning spending money when the question stated little cost to yourself, shows an ignorance to the dilemma. You agreed you don’t want that obligation but the fact is, humans continue to exist because of this obligation.
The first question reminds me of my intro to philosophy class, in which I had a great teacher. I think he was talking about utilitarianism (it was a long time ago) but he asked everyone to raise their hands if they had two kidneys. Everyone raises their hands. He says "Nobody here has donated a kidney? Don't you realize there are lots of people out there with only one kidney, and some who don't have any working kidneys? And you are all just walking around with two working kidneys, you immoral bastards!" lol
*cracks knuckles*
The less related two people are the more likely there will be some kind of rejection, meaning donating a kidney may not do anyone any good until you have a relative who needs one and there's a good chance it will be accepted, plus you will die eventually and will still have two perfectly donateable kidneys (I do think there is a moral issue with not being a donor in case of death) wheather you donate one now or not.
I mean if there was a “nice” organized system to efficiently match organs to those in needs what’s the downside? Yes it could be used in a very exploitative way but anything could that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to be more moral. At the very least all dead peoples organs should be public properly no?
@@AJJ129 I'm curious how many people would support switching organ donation to an opt out thing, vs opt in. As in, everyone is an organ donor by default, unless they opt out.
@@FectacularSpail I think they have something like that in Germany, I can't remember exactly but it might be when your getting your drivers licence you need to actually untick the box in the form to say you don't want to be a donator. this does result in a way higher percentage of people donating.
It is on a per case basis, rights should be respected.
I will say that question one's distinction that there is little cost to yourself is an important one. I think we all understand that the more you help others, at some point or another, it becomes a higher cost. If we spend more time and effort helping others, it may not be proportional, but the cost does increase.
I learned this the hard way as a guy who really enjoys helping people. I didn't assign much value to myself or my time. It put me in a place where I was unable to help others for a long time, due to being unwell.
Thus, I think the conclusion that we are obligated to help if it is little cost can be argued as long as you remember the "low cost" stipulation.
I totally agree and I also think - because of what you said - that there is no real way for a person to actually judge all the time if it is a low cost or not. It is not just about money. It is about wellfare. If you are morally obligated to help all the time then what happens when you have financial means to do so but not the eg. emotional capacity? I believe you can foresee and calculate your material means and restrictions but not the emotional toll which will also accumulate over time and can only be assesed after the fact, because you will feel the emotional burden after you have done the financial and/or emotional help you gave. So as the cost accumulates you will have a point when it will be not a lower cost but you will be able to determine that only after you passed it. It does not happen at the same time - the realization of cost and realization of the benefit of help.
I think that the sad reality is that the more abstract and far away things are from us the less that we care. Like if someone was hurting a child in front of you, you would have a strong sense to help the child, but when you hear about thousands of children in China being forced into labor you are much less likely to act upon it.
3:50 “it will completely upend the way we live our lives.” = immense cost to yourself = not included by the rules of the prompt.
Also it said when crossing the street. not involving charity.
Yeah, his argument kind of breaks down here
that’s exactly what i was thinking
Not really. In each individual act of helping, you are doing it for low cost hence you're obligated. But since you are obligated to do it every time when it costs you low, you are obligated to do it as many times as it takes for you to become unable to help anymore at all, a.k.a until the cost is no longer low. So while the prompt was discussing the cost in a singular act of help, in case you're obligated to do so, it will result in an immense cost overall, which was not a subject of a question but a reason why it should not be an obligation.
"would you kill 10 thousand to save 100 thousand?"
me: "depends on which side my mom is on"
The best part of this is that you can take it however you like.
@@azuravian if she's on the ten thousands
OHHH MANN, PRESS THE DAMN RED BUTTON
I would just save 110,000
Ramen
Not gonna lie they had us in the first-
Oh shit
For question one, part of the question was "at little cost to yourself". Constantly donating money is costing you, and so is altering your life to the extent where you no longer are able to do things that are not essential. Anything that will affect you, will, in a way, be costing you. Therefore you are not obligated to do this in relation to the terms of that argument. At least, that's my view on it.
I think Alex would argue that the "little cost" is compounding. If you lived in a world where the opportunity to help someone in need only presented itself once a year, he would probably answer differently. So I think you both actually agree
THANK YOU like if it wouldn't have a negative impact on you then you should absolutely help others when you are able to. Idk how that's even an argument. I like Alex's videos and think he is a smart guy, but idk I disagree with what he said about that one.
@@littlebear9842 to be fair, the question says "little cost", not "no cost". That's a massive difference.
1000 × 0 = 0 but 1000 × 0.1 = 100
@@Eden-LikeTheGarden-Rama but he said never doing anything you enjoy again like going out to eat or reading books, which would be a big cost. 😐
@@littlebear9842 yes, little costs like foregoing a single book or not going to a restaurant for one meal will compound into massive costs because of the number of people in need.
I'll have to think on this more but I think my issue is the equivocation between stumbling upon someone in need (with the assumption that only you can help them) vs actively seeking out every charity under the sun.
“Hopefully you don’t feel cheated that I only answered four of the questions...”
Dude you answered three
Think he took the third one out during editing cause the video was too long
@@gracepearson5905 You mean the fourth?
@@gracepearson5905 OHHH I rewatched that part. Yeah he said so
He didn't actually fully answer the third one either - just said what people of certain views would think. To be fair though, he said it's because he hasn't made up his mind on them. Also, seemed to bloviate a bit, repeating the same thing again and again like 'with rights we don't care about the consequences, 10 people and 10k people is the same', over and over
@@vierte_ true
Thanks
That's why I like this guy, he can convince you of anything and then, convince you of the opposite.
Feels good to think sometimes
Only if you are stupid. His arguments on morasly always fai, because there is no where he can get his morality from when he is atheist.
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable neither can theists. They get their morality from something unprovable.
@@the1onesquirrel9 Interestingly, none of that is allowed in christianity. You might have confised that with the religion of atheism (which is in reality communism). Look up the great scholars of atheism, for example
*laurence krauss on incest*
...here on youtube and learn something about "morality". And btw, the pedophile communists harris, dawkins and delahunty agrere on this.
Hmm
Yo this video wasn't long ENOUGH. I want atleast 10 more hours of this!
For question 1, the question specifically says "in the street." In this specific scenario, where it's possible and/or likely there is no one else that can actually help, I think you actually do have a -weak- moral obligation to help.
He’s not saying that having morals (a vaguely defined, misunderstood, and irrelevant word that is used subjectively by everyone and Pretentiously called “objective” by biased “experts), don’t matter and you should be heartless and cruel, the question posits that You have to help EVERYTIME and are obliged to it. Most people would help due to empathy, and doing onto others what you would want done for you if your in need.
I don’t think that would change things, even if you assumed that there weren’t people around who would in fact change things. A large amount of suffering in the world carries on for decades because nobody can and/or will help, and some stops nearly immediately because pretty much anyone can and will. The question itself only asks if YOU have an obligation yourself to help them.
In such a case, I don’t believe you do, because as Alex pointed out in the video, you leave them in the same state of being regardless of if you had been there and left, or you had not been there at all. Would it be better if you would’ve saved them? Yes. Would you be morally higher if you had saved them? Yes. Does it inherently change your level/degree of morality if you leave them alone? No
This doesn't fully solve the problem though. If everyone else is capable of helping, then nobody has an obligation to help, and you get a situation similar to the Kitty Genovese murder: the screams are loud enough to alert the whole neighborhood, but calling the police has a cost because it takes a few minutes of your time. Since everyone else has heard the screams, you don't have an obligation to help so you don't. In the end nobody calls the police.
Either way he’s changing the conditions. If you are spending your entire life giving money to charity, then you are by definition not “helping someone at little cost”
@@yoeyyoey8937
Well yeah, if that's all you do. If he's saying you simply just do it throughout your life, that could be a lot of different answers
I think the problem with the first question is we cannot really define what non essential is, and eventually it depends on each specific situation again.
Question 1 is basically test of Peter Singer theory. I see it differently. If everyone stop non essential shopping, having a cup of coffee, a Friday dinner, or whatever non essential item howsoever you define, you will cause a recession in economy, unemployment, lower GDP and lower government expenditure. We will basically end up having lesser collective resources to help eventually than we are right now
or we would be better off per person@@Xadil123
Or you end up with everyone having the same amount of wealth and being happy. Sure that's quite oversimplified, but we don't know what the outcome would be.
@@schmon8409That’s missing the point. By allowing people the liberties of inquiry into things that don’t involve suffering, we advance society towards holistic solutions instead of personally sacrificing your own fortune for a less fortunate individual’s sake
@@noahederyIt's not missing the point whatsoever, it's a different perspective on what the theoretical outcome would be.
Me: Wow Alex is pretty smart
Alex: Your ISP like Chrome or Safari
Me: But no genius
Whoops 🤦🏻♂️
Presumably that section was scripted by NordVPN (or whoever he's advertising) and "like" should have been "through".
@@ellistarceansa8182 yeah, either that or you definitely don’t want to be using their product
There is a lot more wrong with that script he read than just that. He is actively endangering his followers with what he said. It's ridiculous how many people sell out to those VPN providers.
@@Ajinzem explain
I am never disappointed by your videos. I'd be perfectly content with as many videos of whatever length you can tolerate making.
Yes dude! Please go through all of
Them. We don’t care how long the video is. The longer the better
🤣🤣🤣 seriously? I'm just here for the laughs now. Where do you people exist at? Lol. Do you talk to people about this in the real world? Because this is super embarrassing. Lol
@@myshownvjhope embarrassing? Here for the laughs? This is literally a video about moral dilemmas? Where you getting the comedic form of this? I talk to people and I want more of this because it is thought provoking and strengthens my ability to think critically.
@@jordanrish9053 yes. Super. Lmao🤣. Yes I'm actually back to do that. Lmao🤣
@@jordanrish9053 so what? This person in this video has absolutely ZERO morals so wtf? All of you people and that loser that made this video; pure comedy. The opposite of gold - shined up turds y'all are lmao🤣 Lmao🤣. Think critically about what? Stupid shit? Lmao🤣 stuff that you don't even understand and at this point will NEVER! Lmao🤣 you're a joke.
He's got my subscription now! Lmao🤣
For the first question i would answer that you are never obligated to help anybody. I believe doing good is a choice in ANY circumstance.
Same, good point
Alex: "...you never do anything ever again because you're spending your entire life giving money to charity"
me: "dude, how much money you think i got?"
you're still using a modern communication device ... why haven't you sold it yet so you can feed the poor people in africa? Clearly you are heartless and morally bankrupt 😂
@@BrutusAlbion would you save your phone or a child from a burning building?
@@TheMoMoBigGC theoretically I could save more children with the money the phone is worth than the singular child that I might save.
@@TheMoMoBigGC whose kid? 😂
The answer is both though.
Well I think that's the point, the question says that you are obligated to help when you'll have little cost to do so. Therefore you won't expend your whole life donating all of your possessions, because that won't be of little cost to you! You will only be obligated to donate while that doesn't disturb your life too much. So I disagree with Alex on that one
This is why I like this guy. A Simple topic with so many layers to peel away.
Layers of paint. Lmao🤣
You nuts. Lmao🤣
That's that's paint y'all peeling off the walls y'all be talking to. Lmao🤣
@@myshownvjhope Why do like using "lmao" ,so much lmao 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@myshownvjhope lmao
I disagree with the first argument, because you’d eventually reach a point where the cost of helping is no longer small. So if the cost is still small enough, you are indeed obliged. The problem here is defining how small that is.
I had the same thought for a moment, but the I realized that he was comparing the suffering you would go through, with the suffering you would prevent. For example, the suffering you would go through from selling all your stuff is less significant than the suffering of children starving to death. Your suffering may not be small but it's of a lower cost in comparison to the suffering you would be preventing. But in the statement it says "Little" not "lower". I think if it's little your point is valid, but if it's lower his point is also valid.
Even Jeff Bezos would eventually run out of wealth if he constantly had to donate money every second. I would be interested to know how many people he could help before he ran out.
In question, small is relative to you.
Another problem is measuring the cost. Getting involved with the suffering of others, for some kinds of sensitive, compassionate people, becomes stressful and anxiety-producing. How does one evaluate that cost?
The first question said little cost, not comparatively low, big difference
@SZvenM when it says little cost i take that as meaning basically nothing, not just less than the alternative
But i see what youre saying about compartively being implied, thats probably what the asker meant
@@SZvenM no problem, thanks for asking
Also, constantly donating to charity would add up and amount to much more than a "little cost", so I would simply remove the larger scale component and simply focus on an individual whom you have direct contact with.
@@penpenliddygd3814this makes more sense. Such as the age old “helping the old lady cross the road”.
Wait a second though, on the first question it specifically says LITTLE COST TO YOURSELF. I'd definitely answer with yes, because as soon as I'm giving away an amount that makes me uncomfortable, it's no longer "little cost to myself". You're making it seem as though "giving away as much as you possibly can" is the same as "little cost". The fact that I'm constantly in that situation doesn't change that.
Very good point.
I agree
Would you give everything on you to send someone having a heart attack to hospital would you consider the cost that might be your food for the month but surely it's not a cost issue
While I agree with you, I do think a slightly more conservative version of Alex's point would still be worth considering.
I.e how much money can you really afford to spend on charity, monthly, before it can reasonably be classed as no longer 'at little cost to you'. How many luxuries could you give up whilst still existing within some state of comfort.
I do share his slight reluctance to say you have this 'moral obligation'.
The problem is that "uncomfortable" is very subjective and shouldn't be part of an answer, but then again the meaning of "little cost" isn't really clear either. Guess it's a bad question.
Question number 2 reminded me of something my daughter once said to me. She said it speaking of kindness but I find that what she said also applies to the answer of yes we should turn in our brother if he has caused harm to someone. She said everyone has a mother. Everyone has someone that loves them. Looking at it that way if being someone's child or loved one is an excuse not to have them suffer the consequences of their bad choices then no one would ever go to prison and lawlessness would rule.
protecting peoples right to life is important.
Sure but it depends on your relationship with the person. Some people have relationships with high levels of confidentiality and trust
There is a catch however. Say your daughter just joined a gang and commited her first crime - shoplifting. It is not just a question whether you turn her in.
Because you, as her mother, may have a unique ability here. She won't care what someone on the street thinks about it, but she may well care for your opinion. She may listen to you. You may be able to convince her to leave that gang and commit no more crimes. That would not only save her, but also all her future victims.
If you surrender her to the authorities, what is the consequence? Maybe she also gives up crime. But quite possibly she won't, as we well know. She now feels betrayed by you, and who will she confide in in the future? Probably, the gang members, who will push her to continue a life of crime.
So you may well have doomed her, and her future victims.
@@sorsocksfake Doesn't matter. what you are doing is excusing her crime by appealing to a greater good. That's wrong. If she does wrong it is my responsibility to turn her in. Then I can speak to her and try to convince her to do better in the future. If she no longer trusts me then that shows that she has not accepted responsibility for her actions and transferred blame to me instead. As long as she does not take responsibility for her actions she won't change and do better. As long as I only consider her by shutting out the rest of the world I do more harm than good. The entire world needs to be our sons, our daughters, our mothers, our fathers, only then will be make society good for all.
@@bluecce
I don't see how it excuses her crime. It is simply not your job to turn her in, just like her lawyer shouldn't. Society has a different role for you in this matter.
You argue that, if she hates you for betraying her, she is irresponsible. Yet, if she were responsible, then you wouldn't need to rat her out. You would just convince her to turn herself in.
It appears to me that this isn't so black&white. Most people wish to do good, and most people fail at times.
As for the last lines: a wishful lie we tell ourselves. No force in the universe could ever make you love me the way you love your daughter. The closest examples might be suicide cults, the stasi and so forth, and those are hardly aspirations to live up to.
Evolution does not allow it. At best, such morals destroy themselves, and are thus worthless. Usually, they enable exploitation and make the world a worse place.
In regards to the first problem, never once have I heard the perspective that in the situation with the person in need on the street, you are the ONLY other person on that street that can help them. While as with charity, it’s like the whole world stands beside you on that street and nobody is helping the person in need, even though other people are even better equipped than you are to do so.
I think that if you are the only person able to help the guy on the street you are obliged to do so, charity is not really a good comparison, it is virtuous, but not an obligation in the same way.
It was my first thought too, the scenario where you are the only one that could help, you would be obliviously obligated to do so. But isn't this just the bystander effect? Not helping where are others whom also could help, but doesn't help either. And making the bystander effect the morally correct thing just seems strange to me.
If a child was drowning in front of you but you had a nice suit on that you would ruin saving them would it make a difference if 1,000,000,000 world class fully equipped life savers were there if they weren't going to do anything compared to if they weren't? A person who won't do anything is as morally relevant to a person who is not there
Why? The obligation terms is the dealbreaker; I say you are not morally obliged to do anything. It only has moral worth given you take a conscious decision to perform such a task. Otherwise it would be comparable to freerider ideology in the context of morals. Say, you do something that indirectly benefits someone who suffers. Does that make you virtuous for taking an action you do not bother to gauge the morality? So, by obligation, can someone be virtuous if it does not come from intention or free will?
I’d love to see more of these! I especially love how respectful you are to others’ views.
i watched this channel when i was way younger, but fell out of the loop for this side of youtube. glad to have you pop back up into my feed
You missed a crucial point. The question was referring to a situation when you passed someone 'on the street ' meaning you are the only one that can help right now. The man in need is not in another continent, not even in another street - he is right where you are and you can help him - no one else is closer and no one else even know he needs help.
exactly, he even read the question again and missed that crucial part
Agreed! He also adds in the word(s) "relatively" and/or "comparatively" regarding the cost, in order to make it go from little cost to yourself to costing damned near everything
Yes. That initial little cost to yourself gets compounded into costing everything but your bare and ultimate necessities, which fundamentally changes the nature of the question that is being asked.
What he seems to be saying is that that obligation to help (reduce suffering) would eventually come to harm you due to the ubiquity of suffering of others, but the thing is, getting a new book, eating out, or living in a house with a spare room might very well be things that contribute to my health/welfare/ health and welfare of the society I live in.
No, it doesn't say there are not hundreds of other people around (which is pretty normal if is on a street). "Severe need" is not specified further. If you are a medical doctor and the person is in severe need of medical attention it becomes very different. He also says that it depends on the situation.
Either way these questions to begin with is yes and no questions. as you can see he can only wing yes or no. so they are flawed to begin with. these questions can't be answered yes or no. since it depends on the situation. and where is a line from little harm to your self and to much harm. it depends on each person. I think it was what he was trying to say. and compared to the suffering that one person on the street is going through also matters. is it a leg blown of or is it both. that's a lot of suffering. so little for you in that case can be your ruined cloth because of the blood. but if you are wearing 8000$ cloth then it could be to much harm to yourself. or you live in a country where if you bring that person to the hospital you are billed the bill if he dies. that could ruin you. depending on the persons income, it can be low harm or ruin your life completely.
But the question just automatically assumes it's a little harm to your self. in that case I would help. but what can count as a little bit harm, that depends on each person.
I’m a physicist and a hard science guy, but I love philosophy in the meantime when I’m not drowning in equations and mathematical rigor. I love your channel and I love to think outside the box on our existence, morals, religion and all the way down the line. Thanks.
want to grab a beer?
@@pianoman1403 Pretty sure we all do....
Krauss is a fool to disregard philosophy.
@Daniel Blais What a silly comment
@Daniel Blais I'm a Christian and I just don't see the appeal in that argument. Let's just assume God doesn't exist and were a cosmic accident, religion or not, humans would still be here to this day
All of this fellow's videos are extremely interesting and well presented. I enjoy listening to this young man's logic and articulation. He commands a good knowledge of the English language also. Please continue with your videos: they are uniformly instructive and enlightening, particularly on the topics of morality and religion.
In the utilitarian case, it isn't about proportion those being helped to those suffering. It's about the net amount of happiness, which would lend itself to the scenario with the greater amount of being helped as a better one (100,000 - 10,000 = 90,000).
while you're right in principle, it's never as simple as this subtraction. It's difficult enough to know in advance that hurting one person will actually help ten, and to a roughly comparable extent, but I fail to imagine a scenario where hurting 10 000 will predictably help 100 000 to a comparable extent, without any other adverse side-effects, and no other way to help the 100 000 without hurting 10 000, and that is not made up of individual decisions of hurting one individual (eg convicting one criminal)
I agree with this statement. Just like a libertarian would say that harming more people is worse than harming fewer, the utilitarian would say that helping more people is better than helping fewer. Either way, the scale makes a difference.
@Carlos Adrián Aguirre The middle ground is that the counts need to be modified by weights that take large scale good and bad into account. 100,000 x (weight of mass good) - 10,000 x (weight of mass bad). The weight of mass bad would have to quite significant, even if the weight of mass good were underwhelming (
So, utalitarism is based on intersectionalism. It matters who commits a crime because it will determine whether it is a crime or not. So, feminism. Which is the same as communism. This can be summarized like this. If a white person kills another person, it is a crime, unless he kills a white person then it is not a crime. When a muslim kills a person is is not a crime in any way no matter who he kills.
@Carlos Adrián Aguirre I think utilitarianism has 2 major problems, one in that who's to decide what counts as people being happy, the second in that it completely avoids responsibility which makes it a very collectivist ideology similar to communism(i.e its ok to shoot your land lord so that more people benefit by living rent free on his property).
This reminds me about an ethics course I was in in high school.
We had this exercise where we discussed few situations where someone ends up killing somebody for various reasons. We were paired up and I had my friend as my pair.
We were throwing a lot of this "you wouldn't be morally wrong in this situation" argument around.
Then our teacher asked around and some girl was like "it's always wrong you should never kill"
Me and my friend looked at eachother, feeling quite evil that day
she wouldn't have said that if someone threatened to kill her.
I would just have said this is a stupid scenario. and there is not wrong or right way to do this. since it's all up to the person in that case. if I could safe 10 people by killing one person. Sure I can say I'll kill that person. but if it happened in real life this is not something I could say I could do. the guilt of just thinking of killing that person would probably stop me from doing so. but I would not be in the wrong if 10 people died. it's and impossible Scenario. but if I killed that one person I would have ignored my morality of not killing people. can be people say good on you for saving 10 people. but I would have murdered a person. no getting past that.
If I was not to blame for the scenario I'm not to blame for 10 people dyeing.
So Either way you cut it. there is no good way out of it. so the question in it self is stupid.
Why, god doesn't say you must not kill in self defence. You have the same right to your life as anoter person, but when that person attacks you, then your right is being violated. Of course you can fight back. But you should not use more force than he uses on you. So if he is no trying to kill you, then you should not try to kill him.
Also, high treason is one crime I stil believe there should be death penalty for. It is the ultimative crime, where the leader of the country or someone in similar high position has attempted to install communism for example. I do not want to pay for such a person in jail for the rest of her life. If she is released, she will be of no good use to anyone simply because she cannot be trusted. Kill the bastard.
YESSS PLEASE. No matter the length of the videos in succession to this one, I will gladly watch and rewatch! Thank you, Alex!
For question 2, one scenario where I wouldn’t feel the need to turn him in is if the injured person was also part of committing the criminal activity.
Facts , literally was my first thought
I would like to thank you so much Alex. I dont know if you'll see this but , you're the reason I became an atheist and a Vegan! I now learn to live my life without eating any animal products and withoutany guilt of being with "sin". This has made me happier as a person , thank you chap ❤
thank you for letting reason rule and showing compassion! Wish you all the best on your journey
That’s awesome. Since going vegan I feel so much better mentally and physically. I wish you well.
"Little cost to yourself"
Hmmm yes, selling everything I own that isn't essential.
Exactly, Alex didn't factor in acute circumstances vs the aggregate costs of constantly being charitable.
@@Raptor302 Isn't that exactly what he factors in when he concludes that you don't always have an obligation to help, but you do have an obligation to help some amount?
@@davidlovesyeshua His answer is 'no obligation'.
@@Raptor302 he didn't factor in a lot of shit. Lmao🤣
@@Raptor302 because he's a cold heart bitch. Cold hearted. Lmao🤣
every one of his videos feels like a “well...actually🥸” and it’s so good
I think it shows that morality and other big issues like this can't be boiled down to a yes/no or multiple choice answer. Hopefully videos like this help people be more retrospective when answering these questions in their lives.
You think this is good?. ....Lmao🤣. No. No. Lmao🤣
@@myshownvjhope Troll ,I would love to see you make better content
@@skaldro who's trolling? I'm laughing. You're trolling. And its pathetic. Lmao🤣🤡
@@myshownvjhope You are trolling too ,lmao 😂🤡 ,I am laughing too lmao 🤡😂🤡😂🤡 ,I am butthurt too like you ,lmao 🤡😂😳🤡😂😳🤡😂😳🤡😂😳🤡 ,Sus ,Sus ,Amogus ,LMAO 🤡😳😂😂😂😂Lmao 😋😋😋
For question one, if we were all to start worrying more about others and put ourselves second, we wouldn’t have to worry about ourselves. i would take care of person A, person A would take care of person B, and then person B would take care of me. obviously take time for yourself, but people care too much about themselves, that they forget others around them. we tend to block out the negative things around us and live in our own worlds. i speak from experience, multiple times in my life i’ve helped out others, and one way or another that help got passed down to me and someone would help me when i was down in life.
You are obligated if you wish to be considered the most good person you possibly can be. It just depends how comfortable you are with not being as good as you can be.
This is so strong.
good is what and to who is it good? good for goodness sake/ what is are peoples speaking of here?
What a great way to sum up a complex idea, honestly well worded.
@@crystalgiddens7276 Good is a value judgment I place on things, and in the case of a moral issue like this, good is what I deem best in motive and course of action.
@@xensonar9652 good for who? I asked. Good for you?
One of your earlier videos had "Restart" by Ozma at the ending card, and it got me into the band. Very good crying songs can be found between stacks of amazing, entracing but mean grooves.
Very cool, thank you, CosmicSkeptic.
2:27 I just went ahead and did it. didn't know Alex suggesting it as an option was the justification I needed
He stretched #1 SO far to give a more interesting sounding answer
For the fourth question, I feel like there's a difference between torturing a person that planted a bomb, and killing one person to save ten others. In the case of the terrorist, if the bomb goes of, the terrorists is responsible for all the deaths that the explosion entails. And presuming that eveyone has a right to live, if he doesn't defuse the bomb before it goes off, he will have failed his moral duty of not infringing upon other people's right to live. Therefore, I argue, he has lost his own rights and it wouls be acceptable to torture him, in order to extract the information of where the bomb is.
The reason why I think it would be alright in this case is, that whereas in the first case the one person killed in order to save ten others hasn't done anything to deserve his rights being taken away, the second one has or is at least in the process of doing so. Another fact is that the terrorist chooses himself to be tortured, through the fact the he refuses to give away the location of the bomb. It is entirely in the terrorists hand if he is being tortured or not, the thousands of people in danger because of his bomb can be saved without any harm being done to the terrorist. In the case of the person being killed ot save the ten, him being killed is the condition, for the ten being saved.
As you can see, I don't see deontologists as being in a dilemma, as at least in this case, there is a clear right answer.
He didn't say the man who knows the location of the bomb was the one who planted it though. The terrorist who planted it and the man who knows it's location don't have to be the same person in that scenario. The man who knows the location could have the knowledge of where it is, without any other involvement. The terrorist could also have kidnapped his family and threatened to kill them if the bombs location is revealed, for that matter. So while it's his own choice whether or not to be tortured, I don't think he would necessarily "deserve" to have his rights taken away (since he himself isn't violating anyone else's rights, he is just refusing to cooperate with someone trying to stop other peoples right's from being violated).
Besides from a deontologists standpoint, rights shouldn't be taken away under any circumstance. So to chose to violate someone's rights, for any reason (including to stop someone else's rights from being violated) would still be wrong, from that point of view. That's how I took it, at least.
My problem with the answer he gave, and kind of with the whole way he described deontology, is it seems remarkably self-centered. He didn't seem at all concerned with how many people were having their rights violated, so much as who was doing the violating. A thousand people die instead of one being tortured? Well, the important thing is that my (the would-be torturer's) hands are clean.
So, off the back of that, I'd like to propose a modification. Instead of another human (or moral agent) being the one to torture the guy or sacrifice x people to save 10x, it's a robot. The designers/programmers are all dead, so they aren't part of this moral equation. Since the robot is not a moral agent, we can't hold it to moral standards. Would it be better for it to torture the guy to find the bomb, or harm 10,000 people to help 100,000?
@@hughcaldwell1034
For the robot, yes it would. For a person who’s a deontologist, it wouldn’t.
You call it self centered, but that’s moronic. The person who can torture has done nothing wrong up to that point, and if he doesn’t torture the guy and hundreds of thousands of people die, he isn’t responsible for those things. That’s the entire point
Refer to @Nattbad’s answer
@@Jonathan-A.C. And thanks for making my point for me. Your thought process here basically boils down to "Thousands of avoidable deaths happened, but *I personally* didn't do something that made me uncomfortable, which is the important thing."
Like I said - self-centered. It's a morality that seems more concerned with whether your own actions feel right than with the consequences to anyone else. I also whole-heartedly object to the idea that inaction implies a lack of responsibility for consequences. Deciding not to pull the lever in the trolley problem is still a decision. It doesn't take you out of the situation. Letting events of which you have knowledge and which you have the power to change run their course is not morally neutral. Otherwise you could argue that if all you had to do to stop the bomb is press a button that's right in front of you, no torture required, then it's okay to stand by and not press it.
A thought: Does the person with the information about the bomb lose some of his rights by planting a bomb and endangering others. By potentially violating peoples rights by planning to kill them with the bomb does that person forfeit their own rights to live without harm? I think they would forfeit their right to safety by violating others rights to safety.
Very good question. We take away voting rights of imprisoned criminals.
Perhaps the best plan would be to torture the terrorist into providing the information, then offer the information to the city for a reasonable commercial price. I mean nobody cares about the terrorist and it is only fair that you are properly compensated for your time and skills. Of course the terrorist may have been paid for his work, in which case a bribe might be offered to you so he might escape and provide you the lifestyle which you so richly deserve. Or even better you receive the bribe, torture him anyway, and if they refuse to talk invent some information to sell to the city.
my god I knew this video was missing something
so many unsaid things that would have provided obvious foundations for our answers
The thing is ALex is not representing all deontologist views, not everyone believes that rights are absolute, so in the bomb case you could violate right of one person if by doing so you prevent much greater harm (killing millions of people). Or even more trivial example, you have right to freedom of movement but that right can be overthrown if there are good reason for doing so e.g. you have super infectious deadly disease that can easily spread and kill people, so your movemment can be restricted - you have to be quarantined.
There's no reason to conflate the person who has the information with the person who does the torturing. The person who has the information could be said to have a moral duty not to keep it to themselves. Passing it on to the anti-terrorist squad doesn't violate anyone's rights. The head of the anti-terrorist task force can then make a pragmatic decision that has nothing to do with morality. Combatting terrorism and saving lives is in their job description, so their absolute moral duty is to torture or otherwise extract information from the perp.
If harming someone counts as -1 and helping someone counts as +1 then harming someone to help 10 others nets me +9 points. Harming 10,000 people to help 100,000 nets me +90,000 points. So they're not the same for a utilitarian.
The question is whether the scale of application of the plan affects your decision on whether to apply it.
If given that the cost per person helped is equal in each scale, you as a utilitarian should decide the same - whether offered to apply this plan in situation of 1-vs-10, or in situation of 10k-vs-100k. The fact that eventual score is different is not relevant to the question asked.
I think the point they're getting at is that the larger the scale of implementation, the MORE likely they are to act upon it, because of a greater net gain.
@@AlienAV Interestingly, your analysis would render the right-based framework to also make no distinction between the smaller and larger scales, since the decision would always be no.
@@davidlovesyeshua That's where I though Cosmic was heading initially, until, well, he wasn't.
Why not save all 110,000?
It’s been a year for you but only 20 minutes for me. It’s interesting following your thought process. Thank you for sharing 💭
For Q1, this is why I am trying to find a middle ground between psychological egoism and Utilitarianism. Both have very modern and valid points, but require the other when put into real practice.
C.S Lewis is rolling in his grave rn
Egoism has no valid points, and utilitarianism is just an egoist's rationalization for why they're not evil people for subscribing to their inherently evil philosophies.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 evil doesn’t exist
@@deithlan What do you mean by this?
@@soleo2783 everything that is and has ever been labeled as "evil", was based on a subjective moral standard, as all moral standards are subjective.
One person’s evil might not be another person’s evil. Thus I personally find it a bit of a useless word.
Objective evil does not exist, is what I mean.
Wouldn’t opening a tab to donate be classified as “seeking out” ways to help, which may or may not be different than simply addressing the situations that present themselves to you? I’m not so sure.
Yes thats what I think is a difference. As well as the "little cost to yourself" idea. Giving to charity once in awhile isn't a huge cost if you have enough money BUT if you're constantly seeking out charities, when is it too much? When have you given enough/more than you have? Finding this balance and knowing where to donate to knowing you physically do not have enough to donate to help everyone can be really complicated. Its different than seeing someone on the street who will die if you don't buy them a 10 dollar medication, or stop and call 911, or stop and give them water, or whatever act you might do.
@@BrianaLynn7 I think you are simply reframing the distinction Cosmic Sceptic already makes between "duty to always help" and "duty to sometimes help."
Either that or implicitly reintroducing the variable of location that CS tried to philosophically abstract away from as ethically irrelevant.
Aside: Try 'Tab For a Cause'.
Did Alex ever do a video about dying not being bad? He mentioned it a while ago as something big he was working on. It sounded interesting.
Being dead is not bad for you, but having cancer (dying) is.
@Joshua Mcgillivray Thanks for the info.
Dying isnt bad especially if you can die on your own terms
@@christophercombs7561 so if someone is dying of a disease that’s bad, but if they desire to die of that disease it ceases to be bad?
@@TheSurpremeLogician that is really hypothetical because no one would want that. But if it didn't make anyone (family/friends) unhappy then most definitely i think it wouldn't be a bad thing.
I think the first answer is a classic example of “drawing the line at myself” 😂😂
Given that he uses equipment affordable to the average consumer, he is almost certainly the direct cause of some form of human exploitation and suffering. And yet he separates slave labour cleanly from eating backyard eggs, which he doesn’t do.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying “vegans aren’t actually moral” or something stupid like that. Not consuming animal products almost certainly results in less suffering than the contrary. What I am saying is that the statements “directly causing any form of suffering is immoral” and “I am moral” are mutually exclusive. And many would consider hogging a massive fortune, such as many do in the first world, to be immoral. The reasoning for him classifying it as not immoral seems to be “I’m a good person” -> “I don’t do that” -> “that mustn’t be immoral”
And before someone says “you’re not that great yourself”, I agree 😂😂 But I believe that a malaria net IS always the moral choice over a Netflix subscription, and I think we should accept that we are selfish assholes rather than do mind games to loop ourselves out of any responsibility.
About the 1st one, it explicitly mentions the scenario about passing by someone in the street. It was Alex that generalized into online charity. I would like to see Alex's point on that since, unlike his point, we are not 24x7 in that situation (passing by someone in need in the street)
I agree that he didn't make it clear in this video, but I think he's abstracting away from location since he deems location ethically irrelevant. If you want further discussion on his part about duty to help others, I believe he has a video uploaded about effective altruism where he goes into much greater nuance.
exactly what I was thinking too
If it's a neighbour you have to help him somehow. Even if you just tell others to help him but a starving person has rights on us. So i think YES help him. A neighbour is any house for 40 doors in any direction (in Islam) How can ppl let their neighbour go hungry and they know about him... that's inhumane.
Hmm, I would answer the first question differently: Yes, you're morally obliged to help someone if it is at little cost to yourself. However, it is unreasonable to expect people to always follow what is morally obligatory. The unreasonableness of a moral demand does not remove the obligatory part, it just makes it so society allows your conscience to rest, and maybe that's okay, simply because there's nobody else volunteering to be the next Gandhi.
However, if we are to always follow our most moral and ethical stance, then yes, we are obliged to help until we are unable to anymore. How far you are willing to strive for that ideal is something that needs to be challenged within your own conscience.
I think we need to realize that just because something is the morally right thing to do, does not mean that we are obligated to always be a perfect example of following it. Moral obligation != practical obligation.
Please do the rest of the questions!
If you take an arguement to its extreme form just to find an answer, its not a good or reasonable arguement, it's sophism.
Yes, do more. So interesting to hear your reasoning!
This was great!
It is amazing to hear your perspectives on quite tricky topics.
Please do more!
if you dedicate your life to others, it will become at some point, with large cost, as opposed to little cost .
Yes, but individually, for each people you help, it will be little cost.
But this is theoritical though and from a occidental point of view. Like donating to charities online to feed starving people or help other to have drinkable water, so on.
But imagine you are a Massaï herder from Sudan, there is only little you can do to help others around the world before it costs you more than the benefits. It does not work.
1 - Not obliged. Helping someone is a charitable act, and once charity becomes an obligation it's no longer charity. Charity is commendable, not obligatory.
2 - Any of the three, depending on the criminal activity. If he merely littered and it caused someone to slip and injure themselves, not obliged. If he did something evil and destructive and violent like robbing a bank using thermite on a group of orphans, then strongly obliged. An evil and dangerous person needs to be stopped, insulated from the world at large, and experience the consequences of their actions. Reciprocity, respect and adherence to consequences, and honesty, are moral obligations. Morally, you would be doing what is right by your dangerous brother when you report the crime. You are helping him to become a more moral person.
A littering brother merely made an honest mistake, and the consequences were disproportionate. That was simply bad luck, and your brother doesn't need correcting just because of some bad luck.
4 - No. If you can make an entire village happy and prosperous by torturing a puppy, you are still torturing a puppy. A person's morality is not rational. It is social and psychological (especially in that one person is a committee of minds; you are a social being, stuck in a lifelong relationship with yourself). Morality is subjective, but Humans only have a limited range of subjectivity. This relationship-with-yourself is effectively the conscience most of us grapple with, attempt to lie to, or cooperate with. Every time you would hurt those few people for the benefit of others, it would make you a more cruel person, a more exploitative person, a more predatory person. Anyone with a conscience would slowly be poisoned with self-loathing, or else be self deceptive and justify evil, thus becoming a monster. Moral integrity cannot survive sustained cruelty, even if it is "for the greater good" in the grand calculus. You are not a god or a universe or a society, you are a Human, so the grand calculus and the greater good aren't truly relevant to your merely Human mind. Perhaps a person's morality is different from a group's morality?
4a - If such a system (help 10 by hurting 1) existed, and there were volunteers who were willing to be sacrificed for helping 10 apiece, and the system were automated (nobody is being corrupted by cruelty), then we have a super good system. This isn't cruelty from the operators, but charity from the self-sacrificial ones.
4b - In the case of the torture vs. time bomb... being evil (and performing torture to save many lives) is an option. It's immoral, but reality is full of counterexamples and caveats. There exist people who are willing to be evil for the sake of some other agenda. If that agenda helps the "grand calculus" then we have a sort of meta-morality. I see no issue with having multiply layers of morality - morality of the individual, morality of the group, etc. And these different layers of morality have different rules.
I'm really liking the beard, my man 😊 thanks for the great videos!
3:38. I think the cost won't be low if every time we have to help the person in serious need, every single time. the cost is just too much now.
Yes that's what I was thinking too
I slightly disagree on the first answer. The question says at “little cost”. The more you give the less resources you have. The $5 you have to give when you have 2k in the bank might be considered “little cost”, but to give $5 when you only have $10 is at GREAT cost. Therefore, the question is relative and dependent on what you consider to be “little cost”. You could decide to be morally obliged to give at all times, but believe everything is a high cost and therefore never give... or you could believe everything is “low cost” and always give.
Little cost for you. $5 might be pennies for someone but for a poor person a little cost might be their time and effort.
And you may need the money for security, preventing yourself being the one in need in the future
I would agree with you but the question says: "at little cost to yourself". The last two words are quite important as to me, they imply that the amount you give is relatively small in comparison to what you have, not what is perceived as a small amount by most people.
@@oli5120 that is where my “slightly disagree” with comes in. Alex said you would have an obligation to always give in the situation, but that’s not true. The more you give, the greater the cost to yourself. $5 would not always be considered low cost. Eventually you need to decide when giving is too great of a cost.
@Ashton M
Correct, making this a relative decision. Which means you could believe a person is morally obliged to always give to help the needy, but never actually give anything.
If a person had 10 million and believed every penny spent is a high cost, then you’d never be obliged to give even though your answer would say otherwise.
Q1 asked if I was obligated to help someone in front me and was in need of help. It didn’t specify what kind of help they needed or what help I would provide. But you compared it to the situation of being obligated to help everyone by donations to charity at every given opportunity. I don’t think those two are the same situation.
Depending on the situation I think I would feel mostly obliged to help.
For example, someone is bleeding to death on the side walk, I would absolutely do whatever I can to help them.
If they are starving, I would feel obliged to spare some change and help them buy a meal.
How does this feeling of obligation equal to the obligation to make donations to charities and trust other people use that money to help others?
I believe the first question is a paradox. You can't always be obliged to do so without it being a severe cost to yourself.
everyone is forgetting the first part: YOU PASS THE PERSON IN THE STREET.
It does not say you are obliged to help every person in need if it is of little cost to you
@@curiodyssey3867 Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that. But as Alex points out; what's the difference between that and donating money to someone with just a click (for example)? It's ALWAYS easy to help someone. The first one is perhaps in more immidiate danger than the second one, but I'd argue that it would be just as important helping people before they are in grave danger. To the best of our abilities preventing bad things to happen in the first place. Couldn't it then be argued that this is also our duty?
But yes, the one who is in grave danger is more important to help. I agree with that. And from a practical standpoint the first person may be easier to help.
But for argument's sake, let's really think about this...
First you would have to argue that the first person is in more danger than the second one. But what if that's not the case? Then second; you would have to argue that a person being more physically closer to you is more relevant to you/is worth more to you. But distance wouldn't matter besides from a practical standpoint obviously. But questions about human worth to begin seems rather meaningless to me. But back again to a close person and a person far away: Would it really make a difference to you if the person you loved the most either (a) were bleeding out in front of you and you knew you could save this person by applying pressure and calling an ambulance or (b) the person you loved the most is being held hostage with a gun to their head and you have the option to save this person by making a deal which isn't too difficult for you?
For me to say it's my duty to the first person and not the second one, I do believe all of these factors need to be in "my favor":
1. It's easier for me
2. The person is in more danger
3. The person is worth more to me
And I can't necessarily say that these factors will be in "my favor". And thus the first part about passing someone in the street will not necessarily change my mind about the case from a philosophical standpoint (but argueably from a practical standpoint obviously). And I would argue that factor 3 isn't relevant.
Of course it's our "duty" in a legal sense, and of course I would have done it myself. But the usage of the term "duty" makes the issue more complicated from a philosophical standpoint.
I know it doesn't only say that we are obliged to help every person in need if it's of little cost to us, but that's the problem with the question to begin with. Because passing the person in the street won't necessarily give us stronger reasons to help someone. And if that's the case, what is even the point of this "duty"?
@@K.Jerico because that's a different question.
Hes not answering the question provided, but a hypothetical question he invented.
Physically walking past a person and helping them and seeing the immediate effect is far different from clicking an impersonal button
@@curiodyssey3867 It doesn't matter if it's a different question. Because that other question is asked while the original question still is a reality. It's simply a way to make the bigger picture logically coherent.
But the question wasn't "Is it more likely for you to help the first person?" or "Would you help the first person?" Then I would definitely answer yes.
But it's the word duty I don't like.
I have this standard way of viewing things (If I'm not shown something specific that changes my mind about certain aspects of a thing that is) that absolutely nothing is our duty. We don't owe anyone anything. That's where I'm coming from. We can't say that it's our duty or moral obligation to for example not to steal. People can do whatever they want to... But they have to face the consequences ofc. Don't always think that we never owe anyone anything of course, but that's the standard. If nothing is a moral duty we shouldn't act like that's not the case of course. For example: I don't believe in free will, but it's essential to act like it is so that we may make better choices.
Not entirely related, I know, but maybe it's easier for you to argue against me when you see where I'm coming from. You are definitely more than welcome to change my mind about the case
Yeah, and the turtle will be in the line first because the rabbit cannot catch it.
Alex, I think a true utilitarian would actually *prefer* the 100,000 to 10,000 situation to the 10 to 1 one, what matters is not the ratio, but the difference, and in one case your net contribution has been of 90,000 whereas on the other case it's been just 9.
Though tremendously improbable, I hope you see this. Great video as always ;)
I agree, I was looking for this comment as I had came to the same conclusion.
@@Adam-ez8dwI also agree. Maybe someone can elaborate?
Alex’s answer to the first moral dilemma isn’t actually an answer to the first moral dilemma. The scenario is that you can help someone at low cost, but by pointing out that the cost is in fact high he’s defying his own scenario.
He said 'no you are not always obligated to help'.
he didn't say that the cost is actually high, either. the question was asking about a single case, where the cost is in fact low. the cost is only high in the aggregate.
@@scotth5114 yes, but in his build up, the reasoning he uses to justify "no you are not always obligated to help" is BECAUSE the costs would be small but NEVER ENDING.
He went down a slippery slope of: little cost here, little cost there.... not taking into account the fact that when you give away something that was 1% of your wealth ... you now have 99% of your wealth left ... so the next gift of the same dollar amount will be a greater percentage of what you have left ... making it NO LONGER - 'low cost'.
So in the scenario where I'm at the limit of where someone would call the act of kindness "low cost"... I can only give ONCE, and then it becomes 'higher than low cost' right after the first time.
We have morals as an idea because we want a useful, good, strong, productive community.
So, if you want the strongest community you want one with the highest morals, and I would say "if it didn't matter one way or the other to you....and therefore is 'low cost'... then you are obliged, morally, to help someone in your community"
The question is really: Should you catch a baby that is falling ... or just keep walking. It is low cost to hold out your hands to catch the child.... I think most people would say, that you are a morally good person to catch the falling baby. We want people in our community that would catch a baby rather than letting it fall.
In the video, Alex, equates cost to money in his examples and then he goes down a slippery slope that no longer matches the conditions of the question... as Leith Crowther points out.
COST could be any number of things: cost to my mental health, cost to my business, cost to my sense of well being, cost to the time it takes to donate to all the innumerable charities.
Scenario: I could have a million dollars in my pocket, and someone is in severe need to eat and it would cost $1. You are not obliged to give the dollar, IF the cost is not nominal.
You might think, that $1 out of a million is obviously nominal, and low cost, BUT it is not necessarily.
IF I have been given the responsibility to hold the $1 million to buy a business, by my boss, and I could lose my job if I do not deliver it in full, then the scenario becomes 'higher cost' than might be suggested by the question.
IF I am in a mental state where the exacting sum of $1 million being off by $1 would make me extremely uneasy and mentally unstable, because I like even numbers .... then 'low cost' is not obvious.
A better moral question is: Should you catch the baby even if it is at high cost? How high is too high? Do you want a community where you would lay your life on the line to save a baby from certain death. This would seem to be the highest cost scenario.
Then another step up from that would be. Should you pay the price, even if the outcome wasn't guaranteed. Should you try and save a baby from being run over, even if you die, and even if there is a low probability that the child will also survive, but there is a chance?
@@globalunconscious Every scenario is different for different people. Sure I would try and catch the baby, but putting my life at risk is not just affecting me. My family depends on me and how I help, so I would be putting them at risk also. I agree with Alex that we are not 'obligated' to help. Even using a money scenario, giving away a few dollars is a good thing, but what if that was the few dollars that could get my son the medication he needs to live? This is not a black and white world and there is no 'right' answer for these kinds of questions.
Thats why the first one literally starts with: "You pass someone in the street.."
Alex, you did ignore this beginning in your answer.
this is great, it could grow into a series and you can spend enough time on each question as you see fit.
(Paraphrased) "If you have to help everyone all the time then you'd never get anything done!"
That seems like quite a heavy cost ;)
Alex leaps from "at little cost to yourself" to "you have to get rid of everything that is strictly not essential to your life".
This is by no means an indictment that Alex misinterpreted the question or anything, the question is purposely subjective and invites us to fill in our own biases. It is interesting though, that Alex' interpretation of "at little cost" is everything non-essential to his life. I think that points to a rather charitable framework.
"You can't say that in every instance of that situation you're morally obliged to help, because if you do you're led to this conclusion where you can never do anything ever again because you're spending your entire life giving money to charity."
As I alluded to earlier, I think Alex is committing a slippery slope fallacy here.
The question says "at little cost to yourself", and his argument is that eventually it would become too great a cost. But surely once it reaches the point of even moderate cost, it's no longer a moral obligation as defined here, because it explicitly says "at little cost to yourself"? Once the cost is greater than what you think of as "little cost", this moral obligation would no longer apply.
The difference between Committing Harm vs Allowing Harm is fascinating and I need a full video on that if he hasn't already done one.
How we determine what is little cost? When can i tell that someone did wrong, because something was little cost for him? (sorry for my english, hope everything is understandable)
It would be a slippery slope fallacy were he talking about the accumulation of cost, but he was talking about the time spent.
@@EldestZelot Alex was absolutely referring to an accumulation of cost. Hence "have no books on the shelf behind me".
@@EldestZelot It would not be a slippery slope fallacy either way because every cost is indeed little individually, and it does actually accumulate. Slippery slope is a fallacy only when there isn't actually a slippery slope.
But if I'm in the wrong for not donating to any given charity (and this is where he may have misinterpreted the question), solely on the basis that it is of little cost to me, then there is always more to give, and I am always in the wrong.
@@gernottiefenbrunner172 I don't think it's a slippery slope fallacy, but a fallacy of conjunction. I.e. assuming that because things are individually true, they are collectively true. Look up the lottery ticket paradox for a good illustration of this. My problem is that he's extrapolating the moral obligation to a very general one, while insisting on doing the cost-benefit calculation on an individual basis, which seems like cherry-picking to me.
If you help everybody all the time, it’s suddenly not „at little cost“ anymore
You are obliged to help a decent amount of people the best way you can.
I for example consider donating a waste. The money usually changes absolutely nothing. So I try to change the underlying issues instead
I understand time is as valuable as money of not more but it's wrong to say charities don't help you can check them out see what they do even if 50% of your money goes to admin you could still be saving lives
donating waste isn't very beneficial to anyone anyway.
Maybe you should start an organisation of trying to change the underlying issues. And then obviously you'll need to fund this, and able to do it better by getting more people to do it. Maybe you could then ask people to give you money to help address those underlying issues. You know... like a charity...
If it's not at little cost then you don't need to help.
@@vierte_ pretty much every charity I've ever heard of only ever helps the people affected by the root, not the root itself. which is fair enough in a way, fixing the root of the problem will take time and more effort and in that time plenty of people will die. but in the long term, working to fix the root cause will save more lives than simply trying to cure the symptoms of the problem.
Your premise was: That if you came upon a person in need and you have the ability to help them with little cost to yourself; would you be obligated to help? Then you talk about going online, find a charity who will use your money to help a person unknown to you and that's that. There is a big difference between a person suffering in your presents and giving money to a charity to help an unknown. I feel that in a situation like you propose, you are obligated to assist. There are even "Good Samaritan laws" in place to address this need. You see a person in need of your help and you say, "Sorry, Mate, I made a donation earlier this week to help people, so you're on your own."
6:45 Given this active/passive distinction, can you morally use electricity, if electricity requires damaging the environment to some degree in ways which do harm to conscious beings? Pollution increases cancer rates, for example. Hosting your videos on UA-cam means that they will use electricity, which causes some dispersed harm.
As I understand your position, it is not about the scale of the suffering; killing a lobster is always bad, while allowing 10 men to starve is not always. If so, shouldn't even the minor wound to conscious beings by damaging the evironment be immoral?
Amazing question lol
Excellent points. I think it’s also the case that the A/P distinction is blurry. The line between when you’re causing X vs when you’re merely allowing X is not clear. Negligence, for instance, is an important concept that falls in the gap between allowing and causing. Thus I’m a bit suspicious when one makes too much use of the distinction.
I would kill dozens of lobsters to save 10 starving men. Call me speciest if you want, but people are worth more
I think you misread the first question. It was about passing someone in need on the street which happens very rarely (to me at least). The fact that there is infinite suffering in general isn't relevant.
I agree.
The thing is, nowadays with the accessibility we have to make an impact on other parts of the world, it is basically equivalent to always passing by someone in need. We are always aware of it and charities are always open.
That being said, I think we still would not be count in an infinite loop, as whatever cost we deemed "very little" will eventually stop being so as our resources dwindle.
Yes, it seems Alex is arguing that with today's global communications, anyone suffering anywhere is effectively "on the street in front of you". There is some truth in that, but the question also said you can help them "at little cost to yourself". Once you start selling all your unnecessary possessions and giving all the money to charities, that is no longer "little cost" to you. Whether you have an obligation to do that is a different question.
Yay new video :)
for question 1, I think the difference between your charity-donation example and the situation proposed by the website, is that on the street, YOU uniquely have the opportunity to help them (that is if you are alone), whilst with the charity example, like 40% (just a guess) or so of the human population is able to help the people in need. Still I am not sure if that is enough decide the question. Great video btw;)
Alex, you were the one that said there was no difference between acts and omissions and now you’re saying there are? Be consistent, man.
Please go through the list! I’ll be waiting for the next 4 questions because your phenomenal!
0:02 No, I subscribed.
😆
I wasnt subed i subseibed and puted the video back to the start
What the sigma @@raphifou999
The answer to the first question is ultimately tied to social scaling. As a species our social dynamics lose coherence as they scale upward. This is obliquely referred to when you note that suffering is everywhere all the time. For this reason I agree with your response.
Solution for the first dilemma: become a full on Diogenes.
Yeah the first guy to make me think “Do i really need bowls?”
BEHOLD, A MAN
He was right to hold up dogs as the ideal creatures :P
Hey John, almost didn’t see you there
@@Chattosaurus One of the proposed causes of death regarding Diogenes was an infected dog bite. If that is true, the universe really is a dark comedy after all
"You may get to keep your house, you might have to downsize it though"
*laughs in the thought of having a house*
Overall I love the video though. Good work.
Also laughs in the thought of having a car or watching Netflix. This is a revolution. Veganism is not only the greatest moral issue of our time. It is the only revolution that can possibly save us. People need to start understanding this reality. Thank you.
Love you Alex💖 you've taught me so much over the past couple months and have given me so many things to think about- and also to love thinking about them! And most importantly, you've inspired a new interest in me to just keep learning about everything I can. I seriously appreciate it all. Thank you for your amazing content and I look forward to expanding my knowledge.
So for the first one I think it could be argued that we are always morally oblidged to help someone when it's at little cost to ourselves. If everyone had such an obligation, and everyone followed through with it, and those with the most to give did give much of their wealth or possessions away, we could possibly reach a point where the suffering in the world was reduced to a point where actually everyone wouldn't have to give everything away. It might be possible to achieve an equilibrium where if everyone was being charitable, there'd be enough to go around for us all to retain some amount of comfort. Also, I can say that i'm obligated to do something and still choose not to do it. I think many of us can and do choose to live more selfish lives than we could, and we have the right to make that immoral choice.
For question 1, a key part imo is that you are passing them in the street. My opinion is that you are obliged to help someone who needs help in your presence. In this way, we spread the burden of helping the needy to everyone without overburdening any individual person.
Agreed 100%. I feel you are committing a moral wrong by not helping where you so easily can. Its multiplied not only by your ease of ability, but by the potential suffering you are stopping by helping them. Those things add up fast.
That was exactly my thought. The thing is, with charity organizations, theoretically anyone around the world is able to help by giving money through the internet. On the other hand, you passing someone on the street, who is let's say crushed under a car, it is your obligation, to at least try to lift that car off of him, as you are the only one in that street that can do so. It is impossible for anyone other than you to know about this situation in this moment. That makes it critically different in my opinion and is why, I would say that you are obligated to help him.
Alex for the first question they said little cost to yourself and giving all the time giving would be at great cost
Pretty much what I was going to say.
How important is the "You"and "in the street" parts of the first question?I think being there in person makes it more of a conscious decision not to help someome. I'm still not sure this would make you obliged, but I think many people would feel more obliged to do so in person.
I agree with you. The guy in need is right there in the street, according to the wording, so i feel I ought to help him because oxfam or another charity is not there in that very moment. It's me and that person, with very little price to pay. So I'd do it.
Yeah, for me, I don't think it makes much of a difference.
I live in an area where homelessness seems incredibly common. I essentially can't walk down my main Street without seeing at least one homeless person, and there will often be more than just the one. If I was obligated to help these people every time I stepped out of my house, then I'd be in the exact same situation that Alex described.
Not to mention the fact that nothing that I can help them with has any permanent effect. Anything within my power would result in their suffering being reduced for just that one night, but next time I set out, I'll see the same people again and will have to act on the same obligations. For what I think are obvious reasons, this scenario just isn't feasible. It's really unfortunate but that's the reality.
@@amarntsitran3406 I always feel guilty passing by homeless people but I figure that donating to charities is more efficient because they have the infrastructure to turn my donation into something more far-reaching.
@@amarntsitran3406 That's real!y not the scenario described; you can't alleviate A homeless person's suffering without a significant cost either in time or money. Passing them a buck or two is not going to change their circumstances or solve whatever delema is causing then to live in the street.
So, for instance, calling 911 to help a person having a stroke on the street can make a significant contribution to their very survival. That's the only sort if thing that would not cost you anything of real value- not even of time.
Even so, I'd say that one is never obligated to do anything morally, because morale are always circumstantial- and, suppose one were the sort of person who would do nothing to help another - to me that we like indicate some sort of mental condition. Something that not only blocks empathy, but directly short circuits it,; Meaning that to help would be profoundly emotionally distressing to them in ways those without that condition can't even fathom . so I really can't think of any hypothetical in which there were no real cost to help
@@hexum7 Not to be a dick, dude, but you're super wrong.
Alleviate doesn't mean to eliminate their problems, it just means to reduce suffering and the specific wording used is as follows:
"You pass someone in the street who is in severe need and you are able to help them at little cost to yourself."
A homeless person is in severe need of help, are they not? Not just for shelter but food, clothes, and a number of other things. Nowhere in the question does it even imply that your assistance should have a permanent effect or solve their problems so your example of helping somebody who is having a stroke isn't more or less valid than my own example.
Technically, I can absolutely help homeless people by buying them a cheap meal. Just because this only helps them temporarily, doesn't mean it doesn't count. However, the fact that the help is only temporary is part of the problem as I've described.
You are wrong with question 1. The first question specifies minimum cost. That's the loop breaking condition, if you can't live your life anymore or have difficulty helping everyone it is not anymore a minimum cost... And so you are not obliged anymore.
It's hard to define the limit where the minium cost is also because it's not a valuable cost, it takes in account various currencies (mental health, money, time, physical health...)
So it really depends on every situation.
If you are in a wheelchair and a person has fallen down, you are not obliged to help him get up, because the cost to do so would be high, you could although call someone with your phone to assist...
Disagree with your answer to the first question you took it way too generally. The question was specific in its detail of the scenario of you passing someone in the street.
I disagree, his point still remains, the specific detail doesnt change it. Say you pass one person on the street that needs help, you are obliged to help him or her. What if you encountered 10 on your way home? What if you encountered 100? 500?
The fact that of the matter is - time and space of the scenario are irrelevant for this argument. Or at least it should be in a discussion about morality.
@@willoschOGbut helping 100-500 people would be of higher cost to you, which would then negate you having to do based on the prompt
Each time you help a person- THAT particular action is infact of little cost to you. I’d argue the question needs clearer wording but cosmic’s argument still remains.
@@willoschOGbut then it wouldn’t be of little cost of yourself to meet 100 (and help them) so I don’t think your point holds.
@@butterflymonster9726in every individual instance, there would be a low cost to you to help the person who’s suffering
6:46 By this same logic, doesn’t it follow that by buying any product that was made in unethical conditions (i.e. the vast majority of products in circulation in the market, especially those made in deregulated third-world factories), you are causing suffering and hence are obliged to refrain from doing so? Should we be boycotting “Made in China” stickers?
Just some food for thought.
Yes. Although I think this is made much more complex by the sheer number of things we buy/use in any given week and the fact that we can't research every item purchased either due to rational time constraints, inability to find definitive research and a general lack of will power to carry out such a task. With things like meat it is pretty easy since a animal being killed is an inherent part of meat but with an item made in china it becomes more difficult because there are some things made under ethical working conditions in china and so separating out which things come from which companies and what are their policies and how well do they enforce them as well as what are the ethics of their supply chains makes the whole thing unbearably more complex. That being said, I think we have an obligation to avoid anything we know to be unethical. Like Monsanto or Nestle products. They use child slavery on their cocoa farms, and want to turn water into a commodity instead of a right etc. But even these are made more complex by Nestle owning like a hundred subsidiaries and Monsanto chemicals being used by the majority of farmers making it hard to boycott.
@@michaeld4861 Well said
Yes, and an interesting thought is that eating animals that have incidentally died should then be fine... Roadkill casserole, anyone?
What you call "unethical conditions" happen to be works with one of the best conditions in the areas where these factories are. People are dreaming of working there bc of his bad the alternatives are. So most of the time it's more ethical to buy those than the 'made in US' ones, because of how good conditions job the workers in the US would find anyway if that one factory didn't exist. Peter Singer talked about it in a Q&A on "Room for Discussion" yt channel.
4:05 "It becomes obligatory that you never again eat out at a restaurant"...
*laughs in covid*
The whole "pass someone in the street" part is kinda a non-issue too. I rarely leave home these days.
I just ate at a restaurant
About the bomb example, you can argue that since the terrorist has violated the rights (to live) of the people who are going to die in the explosion, his rights are now invalid. This means that the interrogator is allowed to torture the terrorist, because he doesn’t have rights anymore.
This comes from the perspective that by violating someone elses rights, you make yours invalid.
i think there is a third person in the scenario that must be tortured to get the location of the bomb, so essentially ur torturing a random person not the terrorist
I try to remember the quote you are not required to light yourself on fire to keep other people warm
But this is not completely analogous to the situation in the video, a fairer assessment would be, "if you have a bag of logs and a matchbox, and there are people dieing of hypothermia, are you required to light your logs on fire to keep them warm?"
@@jefgir good analogy
Alex, a video on your ethical system of preference would be cool.
if only we could have our own ethical system of preference and codify it for everyone else. *NOW! That would be cool!*
@James Black Are you kidding me? What is stopping me? These babies daddies are! I have to jump through all sorts of hoops just to give them what they need to survive and now their "daddies" are demanding blood tests to determine *"if the kid is really theirs!"* They should have thought about that much sooner! Now, I have no choice but to have another abortion! At 7 months!
@@crystalgiddens7276
What did I read?
@@crystalgiddens7276 have you considered birth control, condoms, and commitment?
Bro, pleease make more podcasts. I have nothing to listen to and your interviewing/conversational style is so nice to listen to while running/out and about.
Although I love Alex, I think his answer to one is slightly unfounded.
1. The question is not about helping every person in the world, it is about someone you walk past on the street. This would not be an 'infinite' number of people in which you would need to seel your belongings to do so.
2. It assumes you are the only one in the world in this position, which is certainly incorrect.
3. It assumes that everyone is perfectly and infallibility moral. So yes, I would say that when you walk past someone in the street and you have the capacity at little harm to yourself, you are in fact morally obligated to help a fellow human, you could always not do it through. Imagine steve jobs walking past a homeless person and ignoring them. You would tell me that is moral?
4. I find his analogy with vegans to be outright wrong as well (although i am in favor of vegans) as he says that the indirect harm you cause to an animal (you are often never the one killing it) isnt the same as the indirect harm you would cause by not helping someone. By being a vegan, you are not saving any animals from suffering, you are simply not indulging on the ones that did. In the same capacity, if you were to see someone suffering in the street who needed help and you chose to ignore them, would that not be significantly worse, as you are in direct action of that harm, as opposed to an animal where it will still happen but by someone elses hand, and because it is a human?
So I disagree on the first question. I think you miss the fact that the question specifies that the dilemma happens "on the street." His arguement (if I understand it correctly) extrapolates this to all possible circumstances. I don't think that line of reasoning applies since the question is more specific than that. I could be missing something of course.
Anyways, great video and keep em' coming!
@James Black The difference is the guy on the street entered your reality ,you did'nt go searching for it.So its not about the capacity to help,its the immediate situation demanding it.Either way the same answer applies I agree,no obligation.
Question 3: Would deontologists view those who have planted the bomb as having not upheld their duty to respect others' rights and therefore forfeited their own rights, thus making torture in that scenario ethical?
That's what I was thinking. I was disappointed he didn't mention that
He never said the person who you would torture is also the terrorist
@@Jonathan-A.C. It's a pretty safe bet, since anyone else who knew where it was wouldn't need to be tortured to give the information. The only exception might be someone who colludes with the original terrorist and planted it for them, but in that case they themselves have now become a terrorist anyway and given up their rights.
@@davidsherlock5528
How do you know that? Plenty of even hypothetical cases where they work with others who will also be as committed to the cause as they were, or even just know others (friends/family/etc.). Well in the case of working with another, there is some sacrifice of rights, but I'm not sure as many (depends on what they did). In the case of a friend/family who wasn't related to it, no, they didn't give up their rights
@@Jonathan-A.C. Unless the friend/family member was in on it, they would have given up the information. By choosing not to do so, they are participating in terrorism themselves.
Edit: First of all, happy birthday Alex.🖤
Now: I think we could make a change if we would help the poor in our own neighbourhood, in our own city... there is a small chance every person will be able to help thousands of people, but why can't we all start with one? And take helping them as an "obligation"? Why do we forget that the small things are the one's that make a big change. You will never be able to help everyone.
And in general, living a "normal" life today isn't that easy, because you "need" so much to live one. And to pay your living, literally. And it's 1 a.m. and i just lost the point of what i had to say...😅
If you have a neighbor who's elderly and/or disabled, just taking out their garbage for them would be a big help. So would picking up a few things at the grocery store, when you're going anyway. Help with seemingly small things can make a big difference in the lives of those who can no longer do them.
Beautiful reply. Agree with you. Alex is being too philosophical here. Not necessarily a bad thing, but a stretch for sure. in that situation, just help. Fuck philosophy. Just help.
@@MK-dx8mt Yes, totally. Yes, we tend to sometimes lose our point and our purpose in life, bcuz we think too much about problems that aren't really solveable just by that. It is work that has to be done.
@@YY4Me133 Yes, exactly.
For me question two requires context and what the crime was and why somebody got hurt, was it intentional? Did somebody only get hurt because the brother was in a panic due to the crime they committed because they know somebody’s going to come after them, Who knows, The crime may have been stealing from a bank in order to give it to somebody who is threatening your brothers families life and your brother is trying to save people but accidentally hurts somebody in the process. Also think about it like this, maybe the brother told you that in confidence because he trusted you, in which case you have a moral dilemma on whether it is morally OK to break somebody’s trust, because most people wouldn’t tell them “i’m gonna turn you in“ so is it ethically justified to lie and break the trust of somebody who trusted you? Other questions you can ask, Who is the person who was hurt? Maybe the person who was hurt was a serial killer and the brother was doing it to defend other people. Ultimately what I’m getting at is that unless you know the actual circumstances you cannot just say yes or no to whether you should because there are plenty of reasons that could be outside of your knowledge of why it wouldn’t be good to do that