Dear thumbnail-maker, you could have just written 420 BC. That would be funny AND historically possible, since it would have fallen within his lifespan. PS: Socrates was actually born 469 BC.
So the correct solution to someone disagreeing with you is murdering them? You actually agree with Vaush on this? Imagine what some of Vaush’s fans are gonna do with these arguments. Vaush applies the terms “nazi” and “fascist” to anyone he doesn’t like. Are his fans justified in doing the same? And furthermore are they justify to enact violence against those they disagree with?
Hey, I loved this talk. That's the kind of talk where Vaush outperforms your expectations and you remember he's actually pretty well educated. There are so many interesting philosophy debates that are worth having, because everything reduces to philosophy.
The problem is that the philosophical discussions worth having are pretty difficult to have even with someone on roughly the same wavelength. Trains of thought get slippery, you may have to set up placeholder language, thought experiments start layering on top of one another. It can become a waste of time real easy
@@Implicacean It is difficult but worth doing. Without philosophical inquiry, we end up being limited to some incredibly bad foundations, like uncritical tribalism and moral intuition.
@@FelisImpurrator ya know what's funny for me personally is that before they did the Chad Vaush meme, I always thought it was confusing why the right was using a meme character that unironically looked like Vaush or just any leftist hipster with a beard?
this was really wholesome, I think it was less of a debate and more like two guys having a good time talking about philosophy, I hope the guest has a great day
very fun debate! i WILL say: i do believe you can logic certain folk out of emotional axioms, but its dependent on their willingness to recognize reality (or, in my case, if they're autistic and can't choose to dismiss truth) i was raised very right wing, very fascist-apologetic, and very christian-theocratic. it took having everything logically explained to me from start to end to knock me out of that cognitive bias. i think its possible, just noy exactly something to bank entire moral arguments on.
I think you're onto something- that is, one has to have enough humility or willingness to recognize that what they believe is reality could not actually be true, and to test their beliefs against other ones. But if you are not in that state, logos will never be able to get through your cognitive or emotional wall.
Vaush is right here, if you have non contradictory axioms it is impossible to be logically convinced out of them. When you changed your mind, the things you changed either weren't axioms (eg. a Nazi didn't believe a priori that racial integration was bad, they ACTUALLY believed a priori that their own happiness was good, and had a factually mistaken belief that racial exclusion would best lead to that) or their axioms were contradictory and you arbitrarily dropped one of them to fulfil a deeper Axiom of "I ought to have non contradictory axioms". Axioms aren't just facts you happen believe without sufficient evidence, they are the things you hold to be true as brute facts and wouldn't expect to ever receive evidence for. Most people's axioms are fundamentally "I ought to do what makes me feel more pleasure/less suffering" "I ought to not hold contradictory beliefs" There are some others most people hold, but is debatable whether these are properly basic beliefs, or they are beliefs held towards achieving one's own happiness. "I ought to what brings about happiness for the most conscious creatures" "I ought to apportion my beliefs to the extent that they accurately represent and predict observation" If you hold a belief in this category like "truth is god" or "I only value the happiness of white humans", then when faced with the fact that these may empirically contradict with your own happiness, you could instead drop the value of your own happiness or the value of empiricism. And as Vaush would say, that's when you pull out the rock. That being said, I think it is almost impossible to drop the value for one's own happiness, which is why most religions include infinite reward to justify any action, to make self interest always align with the otherwise irrational.
@@perplexedon9834 I have to disagree in part; I fully believed that a: my alt-right beliefs were the way to ensure the world would be a better place, and b: my religion required me to be this way. Again, it took breaking everything down from start to finish, and realizing where all of my "answers" lead, that I realized that the framework I thought within was wildly incorrect. Again, I'm not saying "hug the nazis" or nothing, I only believe that there's always going to be the rare exception, and all you can do is hope they stumble into whatever form of education yoj can provide them
@@divineterabyte5181 what you said was full comparable with what I said. I properly believe the earth is round, but it's not an axiom. You properly believed your alt right beliefs, but they weren't properly basic beliefs (axioms). Even if you believed them without evidence, that doesn't make them axioms. The fact that you believed alt right policies would make the world better shows that your beliefs were something like as follow: Axiom: I ought to make the world better Axiom: my beliefs should be empirical Empirical belief: Alt right policies will make the world better Conclusion (from 1 and 3): I ought to support alt right policies If your alt right beliefs were an axiom, then you could conceivable throw out "I ought to make the world better" an be the anime villain who actually values making the world worse. The fact that you changed your mind shows that the belief wasn't axiomatic, it was a conclusion from mistaken empirical beliefs.
Being someone who got a degree in theatre and film analysis, how Vaush described the "who is more relatable?" thing is spot on. What ends up happening more often than not when discussing or arguing about media analysis with people is you have to locate what they value or connect to or are biased towards and then proceed to try to make an argument about how your view of the media fits better to their values/biases/etc AND, in the best case scenario, plant the seed to alter or add to their values/biases/etc. What makes someone good at changing minds is how well you can adapt your view of something to how the other person views things and make a more compelling argument as to why they should take your view seriously.
I like this guy, the most likeable philosophy bro. I’d just like to ask him how he’d intend to logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic their way into. That’s kinda what I think of when Vowchie says “hit ‘em with a rock”, as in “they’re as likely to change their position through logic as they would be by being hit with a rock”
1:56 Thank you vaush I have been looking for the term "inter subjective" without knowing it for so long! Love vaushes samuri honor code example also 51:36
Absolutely loved this convo, I totally empathize with the other guy, it's frustrating when people go with their base instincts instead of thinking of other people but Vaush is right about people being inclined towards tribalism and ultimately if you can't emotionally talk then out of it, you need your rocks. This was still fun to listen to and the guy that came on did wonderful!
*if you can't I do understand where this guy is coming from. I suspect that, like me, he's neurodivergent and his moral intuition is inclined toward utilitarianism and pursuing beneficial outcomes. It involves an implicit challenge to the classical definition of rational self-interest, which is riddled with flaws. The problem is that he's kind of naive and doesn't fully account for the fact that many people are, simply put, irrational and don't think about what their best interests are. Usually because they don't understand what those are - environmental factors such as lack of education play a role in that, as do cognitive biases like tribalism.
I love this c: This is the kind of debate that makes me pause halfway in and challenge my own ethical/moral framework. I love seeing Vaush dunk on racists and transphobes, but more of this kind of debate would be appreciated
Mildly frustrated by this guy trying to find universal ethical codes, while responding that he doesn't care when presented with contradictory points. MY GUY - It's fine if you don't care, but this feels like weirdly weaselly, but in good faith?
Yeah made it to the end c: Was a good debate. I disagree with the guy, but the written statement he came up with shows he's thought about it and does want to make society better. I hope he comes back on in the future c:
I feel like this individual’s arguments could be stronger if they expounded on the idea that since social morals are developed through self interest, other ideas like honor and tribalism could be. Then you could argue to say, a samurai, that their valuing honor derives from some form of self interest in absorbing the values of their society growing up. I don’t necessarily know if it would be right or not, but I’d like to see them discuss it
An hour and a half long conversation that can be summarized with, "Philosophy student has trouble grasping the concept that the is/ought gap can't be crossed without an assumption."
While I don't know that I'd call myself a Vaush fan, I've always been drawn to his willingness to stand up for what is right when it's politically unpopular to do so (not saying he's always right though). But I admit I find philosophical discussions to be far more interesting and I always love seeing him engage in them.
@@zacheryeckard3051 it’s always the *virgin* “we can use logic and reason to get people from different backgrounds to behave the way we’d like” *liberal* vs the *Chad* “time to deploy the rock” *Vaush*
Agreed. I disagree with him as often as I agree and when he's upset and knee-jerking he can downright make me cringe. I appreciate his intellectual honesty. Even when he's wrong. It's also refreshing to watch someone who isn't trying to be as earnestly unproblematic as possible. Not a Vaushite though.
Honour can easily be rational self-interest... You can boast about it, it probably makes you feel positive about yourself if you care about it and feel like you live by it, it might make others respect you more... There's plenty of ways in which honour can be in your self-interest... Maybe it gets you killed or something, but self-interest isn't about what is best for you... Plenty of egoists will point out how doing things altruistically/dutifully can be motivated by self-interest like the usual example of jumping on a grenade because maybe your own life doesn't matter much to you, you don't want to live with the guilt of not doing so, you want to be remembered as a hero, etc... 32:00 This guy is equating egoism with hedonism and self-interest with happiness which CAN be the same, but often are not... Like, it can be in your self-interest to stop eating McDonald's and eat healthier if self-interest is seen as meaning "your well-being"... But it can also be in your self-interest to not stop eating McDonald's because you desire it and self-interest for you = desire... (Or some egoists see self-interest as a hybrid of well-being and desire)... Hedonists meanwhile could also take either side since they might argue that by not eating McDonald's you are maximizing your happiness in the long term since you will be happier being healthy and live longer while other types of hedonists would take a more short term perspective and say you should eat McDonald's as much as you want if it brings you pleasure to do so regardless of the harm on your body... It really depends, hedonism is somewhat of a subset of ethical egoism, but there CAN also be times where arguably what would be in your self-interest is at conflict with what would bring you happiness and in those instances an ethical egoist and a hedonist might disagree on a person's course of action depending on how they think of their philosophical views on ethical egoism/hedonism really... And then there's also utilitarianism which was basically inspired by hedonism... It's just taking a hedonist perspective and applying it to a more societal sort of scale rather than a more individualistic one... I think it's no secret that Bentham was inspired by like hedonists like Epicurus when doing Act Utilitarianism (and then Rule Utilitarianism builds off that)... Anyway, at the timestamp it really seems like he has this hedonistic/utilitarian sort of outlook that he really believes in and he is trying to use his conclusion on that to argue that it naturally follows that one's self-interest would lead to the conclusion that he has reached... When that isn't really true...
literally just had a conversation with an "apolitical" friend where it went like, why do you care? because caring is in ones self interest. Well Im not interested in that I just don't care. But but but- but you should! (YAMERO)... then he proceeded to say I got circular reasoning becaues I care about stuff because I do and I want a better world for everyone because I do and Im like... Yeah but also you should also care aaaaaaaa
@@KalebPeters99 im vegan and would love to see a veganism discussion between alex and vaush. in all fairness to vaush though, if i remember correctly, even if he is unwilling to debate veganism, he has stated on stream that he is fully aware that he is morally inconsistent and that going vegan is the best decision if you hold the axiomatic belief that it is a good thing to reduce the suffering for all living things. he has pointed out that he knows eating animal products is indefensible if alternatives exist. hes aware of his cognitive dissonance. which is more than you can say about most people that eat meat. i had a similar realization that my moral beliefs and actions werent aligned and it took me a few years before i took any action towards it. i was also aware that i was being inconsistent but still didnt take steps towards changing my behaviors for a long time. the acknowledgment is the first step on a long journey for some people, but if you are aware of the cognitive dissonance i truly believe its only a matter of time before you feel obligated to act in accordance with your beliefs. also sorry if this comment was poorly worded and sorry that it has large run on sentences. i am at work and am writing in between working. time theft ftw
@@SPELTMUSIC ahah no don't apologise, I really appreciate your comment and it was written perfectly fine! This is good info, thank you. I'm basically in Vaush's position right now. I don't call myself vegan but I fully accept it's the most moral and environmentally conscious choice. I've taken steps to reduce my meat consumption and all but removed cows milk. (cheese is tough tho ahah) I'd love to talk to more vegans because I'm still interested in where they draw the line. (What do you think about eating insects?) But I think eating mammals, birds and fish is clearly unnecessary in most developed areas. If that's the position Vaush holds then I actually wouldn't have much to criticise him on. Thank you for the reply! ☺️
@@KalebPeters99 i had typed out a lengthy response, but my browser reloaded due to the internet cutting out and i lost what i had typed haha. since i dont feel like retyping everything, i'll give the bullet points. -most vegans wouldn't consider you a "real vegan" for eating insects. i hold a different belief though. i view insects similarly to how i view plants, bacteria/single cell organisms. "living organisms" yes, but clearly not capable of the same feelings, and mental processes that humans, mammals, fish and birds are. people dont think twice about killing insects themselves. ask them to kill a cow or pig though with their bare hands and they'll have a lot harder of a time. - even though i dont have any real problems with insect consumption, i personally wouldn't do it, mostly because i dont think they would taste very good and because i see them more as pests than food haha, but who knows, this could easily change. -you'll get people giving you shit for going vegan, dont buy into it, just laugh it off and dont get preachy. i've found if you just ignore the ignorant comments, they tend to give up veryyyy quickly since they know they won't "trigger you". that's their intention, ignoring it seems to do more for making them reconsider their positions than preaching about how they are wrong and you're doing the right thing. - veganism gets a bad rep because of gatekeeping and the "holier than thou" attitude when the goal should be to reduce suffering as much as possible. if you're working towards it, you're on the right path, attacking other people for where they are on that path is more damaging than helpful since people tend to defend beliefs when they are attacked. - the animals we choose to consider "livestock" vs "pets" is a completely arbitrary line and if you don't have a problem with us eating cows in america/uk/canada etc... you should have no problems with people eating dogs/cats/etc... in other parts of the world. people only have a problem with it because they haven't thought critically about how the culture of a geographic location plays a role in their consumption. pigs are more intelligent than most breeds of dogs, but since dogs are cuddly and cute, we've decided to let them sleep in our beds, while pigs get loaded into gas chambers. their ability to feel pain and suffer is equal if not greater to that of dogs though. - cheese was the hardest thing for me to cut out, but vegan alternatives are getting better by the day. pick up a couple options and see if any work well enough for you as a substitute. - keep in mind that most people dont want to consider their cognitive dissonance and changing individual minds is not the path to reducing suffering and helping the environment. do your part, do what aligns with your moral framework, but advocacy for structural changes in how we produce food and reducing the influence and power that the meat and dairy industries have will be more impactful in the long run than trying to change every persons mind. - going vegan doesn't mean you have to pretend meat isn't fucking delicious. it is, but my pleasure when it comes to taste, isn't worth the suffering and complete annihilation of animal lives. - vegan food is delicious - i eat way healthier, unintentionally - i appreciate vegtables more and have tried foods i never would have considered when i was eating meat. - vegan options are becoming more popular everywhere. most plant based "meats" are indistinguishable, especially after not eating meat for a couple of months. even friends of mine that eat meat can't tell the difference when my wife makes something for all of us. - you dont have to believe that humans and animals have the same exact worth, clearly they dont, you just have to believe that their worth is greater than the worth we prescribe to the sensation of taste. a little long, but hopefully you get something from it. if you have any questions or wanna talk feel free to hit me up. post a comment on a video on my channel and we'll find a way to communicate. if not good luck! hope you figure it out or at least continue reducing your meat consumption. something is always better than nothing. its tough but worth it IMO.
Meme Theory and The Selfish Gene. I find it's useful to sometimes think of ideas as replicating viruses. Some of these viruses kill the host fast, some kill the host slow, some help the host and fight off the bad viruses. Religion might kill the host in a holy war, but it also can help the host find some interlocking genitals. These viruses can survive after the host dies. The wheelbarrow is an old old meme. We must cultivate our garden(s) (of memes). We need both science and morality/ethics to reach the stars and survive longer than our wet dustball of a planet. Some memes are useful, some memes are harmful. Feed the good ones, starve the bad ones. Maybe bash the hosts of the bad memes in the head with a rock, maybe force feed them good memes, maybe cultivate phages that target the bad memes in others.
What I define as morally good is not stopping in the middle of a sentence and then starting a new one over and over again, and then finally asking again the question to which you started out answering. The punishment: Get the Rock.
I studied martial arts not out of a fear for my life but for a fear for my reaction for my survival. I studied religion not for the sake of endearment to a higher power, but for a semblance of humanitarianism. I studied eastern philosophy not to boast of self mastery but to further refine my sense of humanity. I studied politics to learn how our collective humanitarianism can be turned against itself. That's my reason for being me.
What I found surprising when I saw a polling of philosophy professors, is most are moral realists. I'm also a philosophy graduate, and a moral realists, but I assumed most might be moral anti-realists.
I'm gunna ask a bunch of questions about what you believe and you don't have to answer them if you don't want to, If there is objective morality then it is innate and if so how does how do you explain sociopaths, if they are discarded as exceptions what about nature genetic differences that cause different responses, which one would be the real one? would you take an average? The average height around the world is 5 8" but most people are shorter or taller even then other animals have different morality why are ours real and theres are not. And even if there all real morals you would have to be tremendously stupid to think you have or even could find them. Anyway I put a lot of words into your mouth and was just vaguely gesturing at what you may believe.
@@asherroodcreel640 I don't think it is innate. It's not a moral code built into people at birth. But the capacities for moral thinking are born into most people. Sociopaths are probably capable of moral thinking, they just don't care as much about it due to having less empathy or being able to ignore it more easily. I think morality is a bit like reason, or mathematics. It's an attempt at an objective perspective on subjective experience. We can say that all peoples experiences are equal. Then, that subjectively unwelcomed pain is a negative to all individuals. It becomes morality when you try to objectively consider the subjective negatives and positives in a reasonable and empathic way. That's Ethics. That's my opinion, while trying not to write too much.
@Jacob B I just looked it up; from a few days ago, right? I only watched Huemer's opening, and I agree it doesn't seem like the best argument to me. It seems wishy washy and as he says himself, based on intuition. Which can be wrong. That one man doesn't necessarily represent all philosophy professors. His is just one belief type, and personally my reasons are different than his.
If most are moral realists I wonder what their ethical systems are? I'd think you'd have a better idea then me, as a philo grad. I imagine they think it's real because then they can make moral prescriptions. As this convo demonstrates, if you posit subjective moral anti realism then you have no counter to someone who argues for moral nihilism. If morality is not objective I think it's actually a better argument that it doesn't exist at all rather than it existing subjectively.
@@JebeckyGranjola I think I just found the survey I'd read before. Apparently about 25% believe in deontology and consequentialism, each. A bit less supported virtue ethics, and the rest said 'Other'. So the ethical theory is very split.
6:30 - This is so true! If morals can be good-then morals can also be evil. There's a general misunderstanding that morals always has to be good from, at least from the perspective of the person carrying this moral tenant. But it's not true. Morals can also be justifiable negative; vengeful, pity, envious, spiteful or even hateful. Like any other human invention morals can me used for evil outcomes. There's no question about that!
@@zacheryeckard3051 not really though. Axioms are the statements from which consistent principles are derived. We’re also using “questioning” and “justification” differently here. It’s one thing to ask whether or not you’ve got the “right” set of axioms, but justifying why they’re correct doesn’t really make sense. For example, in the math we are all taught, we rely on the principle of identity ie for every x, x is the same as x. That’s not a statement we typically ask for justification for
heard this debate live, I shall further support Mr. Eiyn McVoosh by liking, posting this very comment, and playing this back whilst I allow myself to drift off into the sleepyzone.
I saw ethics as an code of morals applied to a group that follows the axiomatic good of the group, whereas morals were the views and beliefs of an individual that informed the actions they took for their axiomatic good.
This was surprisingly interesting and not annoying lol. I feel like this dude almost entirely agrees with vaush here, but also just reeeeeally hopes people will be good
I would really love to see Vaush talk to more philosophy guys. Ask Yourself Avi heck even Jack Angstreich. Feels like he can use their ways to help better our positions as those on the left
@@dominiks5068 yeah lol but only because Vaush was being dishonest. It could have been a “oh wow you make a very good case as to why I should be vegan” But Avi could help him with so much of the Phil stuff especially on the trans issue. Bogardus’s critiques aren’t that great, but Vaush had nothing
@@oscarwalker5910 expect that he couldn't rhetoric was boing as hell, minced his words was anti science and gave up the goose and showed his true colors as a catholic that believes objective truth comes from god and just so happens to be what he already believed, and that's just off the top of my head ooh and his argument sucked
If anyone is interested in a contemporary philosopher whose work is super relevant to this discussion, Bernard Williams is one such figure. His book Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy is pretty dope.
@@thek2despot426 Well, I'm paraphrasing, but he says if you kill to save people while still believing the killing is bad, you're renouncing your human identity and becoming a mindless algorithm.
@@thek2despot426 Williams's concern is not with trying to replace Utilitarianism with a different normative ethical system, but rather to examine the ways in which such systems fall short in addressing how individuals should answer the OG Socratic question "how should I live?" within their own social contexts, rather than defaulting to the answers given by a particular moral system simply because such a system is given the form of a proper theory.
@@Jorge-np3tq Yeah, I get not being particularly won over by his particular critiques of Utilitarianism, but I do think his overall project has a lot of relevance to this debate topic and that whether or not you ultimately buy into what Williams has to say he is worth engaging with
I've been listening to philosophical debates for the last 4 years and come to vaush (huhuhu) for something different. Oh well, have a like and a cooment (huhuhu) you sexy hairy king.
I think a bit of confusion is arising from the assumption that "best interest" is well-defined, rather than being itself a subjective term. What is in someone's best interest depends on them, what they want. There is no objective "best interest". At the end of the day, objectivity doesn't exist in statements, it exists in arguments.
The reason morality is never gonna be realized by everyone equally is because that make us more robotic and less human. Human are as such is because every one operate on different principles, sometimes for personal or betterment of others. It’s the conflicts that make our lives meaningful, via personal choices, moral or otherwise. In other words, morality as is came about when a group of people have shared values and their actions aligned with that. It’s more an outcome than a recipe.
Dude was entirely wrong at around 16 minutes stating that morality isn't about emotions. Even if purely about self interest one acts morally then that is for one's own emotional state, everything we do is about how we feel.
I would say the latter statement may be an overextension unless you have an extremely broad definition of "feeling" that includes all sensory responses to stimuli. But I can get behind moral emotivism as an anti-realist framework, seeing as the biggest objections to emotivism seem to literally just be semantic arguments about linguistic constructs of moral statements not making sense in an emotivist context (hello, map/territory problem, lmao). Edit: Neither party knows how psychopathy actually works. Psychopaths who behave ethically do so because they're capable of utilizing utilitarian moral reasoning, which is more of a general sense of benefit rather than egoistic self-interest - they're actually more inclined to act in ways that indiscriminately benefit everyone without regard for their own safety (low fear means low self-preservation instinct) and without regard for social groups or hierarchies (low social comparison and bonding means no specially preferred ingroup).
@@Cumdown Is there an objective way to determine that? The only one I know and can prove works is the rock. All moral foundations reduce to axioms - arbitrarily decided values. There's no way to prove anything other than that exists outside in the universe. And those axioms ultimately reduce to feelings. Why would someone, for instance, believe that all human life has value? It could be because they have a sense of affective, tribalistic empathy toward their own species. It could be because they believe an external force like God or the Universe says humans are special, but that would require that they feel that external force's opinion is worthy of respect. Or they could feel that, subjectively, existence is better with humans in it. But no one can KNOW any of those answers are objectively correct. Maybe by some imperceptible metaphysical calculating machine humans are in fact worth nothing. Maybe someone else might disagree and say all life has value, not just humans. Maybe some hypothetical aliens only believe their species has value and thus humans don't. How do you resolve that? Rock.
@@FelisImpurrator Why would you say it is an overextension? All I'm say is we are ultimately always guided by emotion, not that an emotion itself is always a goal (though it often is).
@@Cumdown You're speaking like an objectivist. What you personally consider moral or not doesn't determine what others do. You might think you are correct but that's because you have an emotional preference to care about others (or likely that you care about yourself and so treat others well to be treated well)
wait unironically do more philosophy debates. I love
*softly*
don't
Weird that you had to say unironic
@Rodrigo Farias do you enjoy being wrong?
You really didn't need to use the word unironically 😭
Yeah no, this is an outlier on phylosophy most people are annoying
This guy was the least annoying philosophy bro ever. He was very wholesome, very well-spoken and very good faith. Very cool!
So far I agree, most philosophy debates make me want to pull my hair out
And yet I’m still annoyed by him
Least annoying but still sooooo boring a conversation as usual
As a philosophy graduate, are we really that bad? 😅
Philosophers are either Rem level insufferable or chill like this dude. No in between.
Dear thumbnail-maker, you could have just written 420 BC. That would be funny AND historically possible, since it would have fallen within his lifespan.
PS: Socrates was actually born 469 BC.
Actually he was born 6.9.420 BCE
@@OneEyeShadow nice
nice
go back to reddit
who tf is that lego figurine?
Every time vaush talks about bringing out the "rock" I feel more fulfilled.
So the correct solution to someone disagreeing with you is murdering them? You actually agree with Vaush on this?
Imagine what some of Vaush’s fans are gonna do with these arguments. Vaush applies the terms “nazi” and “fascist” to anyone he doesn’t like. Are his fans justified in doing the same? And furthermore are they justify to enact violence against those they disagree with?
POV: Vaush deploys Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson against you
Hey, I loved this talk. That's the kind of talk where Vaush outperforms your expectations and you remember he's actually pretty well educated. There are so many interesting philosophy debates that are worth having, because everything reduces to philosophy.
Only if someone takes a critical eye to their thoughts.
Can't think yourself out of a position you didn't think yourself into.
The problem is that the philosophical discussions worth having are pretty difficult to have even with someone on roughly the same wavelength.
Trains of thought get slippery, you may have to set up placeholder language, thought experiments start layering on top of one another. It can become a waste of time real easy
And all philosophy discussion reduces to brain rot
@Jacob B are you serious? philosophy is the fundamental form of inquiry, why on earth would you only see it as a tool to dunk on people?
@@Implicacean It is difficult but worth doing. Without philosophical inquiry, we end up being limited to some incredibly bad foundations, like uncritical tribalism and moral intuition.
Vaush do be looking like an old Greek philosopher just with glasses and an anime shirt lol
Vaush literally looks so much like the chad yes meme that there's a Vowsh version with glasses.
@@FelisImpurrator ya know what's funny for me personally is that before they did the Chad Vaush meme, I always thought it was confusing why the right was using a meme character that unironically looked like Vaush or just any leftist hipster with a beard?
Plato bod
We need more philosophy bros that sound like e-boys that work Dennie’s night shifts
So. You're just saying that we need more philosophy bros. Cuz you're literally describing most of them lol.
Is being a philosophy bro a red flag cause I’ve been strictly dating philosophy bros for this reason alone.
Writing a comment so the government knows to throw me in a camp during the great vaushite cleanse.
Oooo! Same. Maybe we'll be cell mates....with 3 other Vaushites.
based
this was really wholesome, I think it was less of a debate and more like two guys having a good time talking about philosophy, I hope the guest has a great day
This new vaush arc kicks so much ass holy shit !!!! MOVING CASTLE LETS FUCKING GO
I’ve watched this live, liked it, and now I’m rewatching it as a segment and liking the video.
We have found the most true Vaushite
Going all the way
very fun debate! i WILL say: i do believe you can logic certain folk out of emotional axioms, but its dependent on their willingness to recognize reality (or, in my case, if they're autistic and can't choose to dismiss truth)
i was raised very right wing, very fascist-apologetic, and very christian-theocratic. it took having everything logically explained to me from start to end to knock me out of that cognitive bias. i think its possible, just noy exactly something to bank entire moral arguments on.
I think you're onto something- that is, one has to have enough humility or willingness to recognize that what they believe is reality could not actually be true, and to test their beliefs against other ones. But if you are not in that state, logos will never be able to get through your cognitive or emotional wall.
Vaush is right here, if you have non contradictory axioms it is impossible to be logically convinced out of them.
When you changed your mind, the things you changed either
weren't axioms (eg. a Nazi didn't believe a priori that racial integration was bad, they ACTUALLY believed a priori that their own happiness was good, and had a factually mistaken belief that racial exclusion would best lead to that) or their axioms were contradictory and you arbitrarily dropped one of them to fulfil a deeper Axiom of "I ought to have non contradictory axioms".
Axioms aren't just facts you happen believe without sufficient evidence, they are the things you hold to be true as brute facts and wouldn't expect to ever receive evidence for. Most people's axioms are fundamentally
"I ought to do what makes me feel more pleasure/less suffering"
"I ought to not hold contradictory beliefs"
There are some others most people hold, but is debatable whether these are properly basic beliefs, or they are beliefs held towards achieving one's own happiness.
"I ought to what brings about happiness for the most conscious creatures"
"I ought to apportion my beliefs to the extent that they accurately represent and predict observation"
If you hold a belief in this category like "truth is god" or "I only value the happiness of white humans", then when faced with the fact that these may empirically contradict with your own happiness, you could instead drop the value of your own happiness or the value of empiricism. And as Vaush would say, that's when you pull out the rock.
That being said, I think it is almost impossible to drop the value for one's own happiness, which is why most religions include infinite reward to justify any action, to make self interest always align with the otherwise irrational.
@@perplexedon9834 I have to disagree in part; I fully believed that a: my alt-right beliefs were the way to ensure the world would be a better place, and b: my religion required me to be this way. Again, it took breaking everything down from start to finish, and realizing where all of my "answers" lead, that I realized that the framework I thought within was wildly incorrect.
Again, I'm not saying "hug the nazis" or nothing, I only believe that there's always going to be the rare exception, and all you can do is hope they stumble into whatever form of education yoj can provide them
@@divineterabyte5181 what you said was full comparable with what I said. I properly believe the earth is round, but it's not an axiom. You properly believed your alt right beliefs, but they weren't properly basic beliefs (axioms). Even if you believed them without evidence, that doesn't make them axioms. The fact that you believed alt right policies would make the world better shows that your beliefs were something like as follow:
Axiom: I ought to make the world better
Axiom: my beliefs should be empirical
Empirical belief: Alt right policies will make the world better
Conclusion (from 1 and 3): I ought to support alt right policies
If your alt right beliefs were an axiom, then you could conceivable throw out "I ought to make the world better" an be the anime villain who actually values making the world worse. The fact that you changed your mind shows that the belief wasn't axiomatic, it was a conclusion from mistaken empirical beliefs.
100% agree
I am easily manipulated.
It’s kind of cool to see two people just discuss something and both get something meaningful from it
Being someone who got a degree in theatre and film analysis, how Vaush described the "who is more relatable?" thing is spot on. What ends up happening more often than not when discussing or arguing about media analysis with people is you have to locate what they value or connect to or are biased towards and then proceed to try to make an argument about how your view of the media fits better to their values/biases/etc AND, in the best case scenario, plant the seed to alter or add to their values/biases/etc.
What makes someone good at changing minds is how well you can adapt your view of something to how the other person views things and make a more compelling argument as to why they should take your view seriously.
the thumbnail made me do it
i am currently rewatching this stream.
still liking and commenting and letting it run through muted for the algorithm, moving fortress lesgoo!
Just started watching but I can say with absolute certainty that destiny lost this lost this debate.
Just started watching but I can say with absolute certainty that destiny lost this lost this lost this lost this debate.
Just started watching but I can say with absolute certainty that destiny lost this lost this lost this lost this lost this debate.
Damn, spoilers in the comments :/
@@isislee919 you fucked it up 😊
damn, lost so hard you had to say lost 2 times lol.
This is one of the better debates you’ve had in a while
writing a comment to verify my vaushite identity.
I like this guy, the most likeable philosophy bro. I’d just like to ask him how he’d intend to logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic their way into. That’s kinda what I think of when Vowchie says “hit ‘em with a rock”, as in “they’re as likely to change their position through logic as they would be by being hit with a rock”
1:56 Thank you vaush I have been looking for the term "inter subjective" without knowing it for so long!
Love vaushes samuri honor code example also
51:36
In case you wanted to write it down ever, it's all one word: "Intersubjective"
Yo, philosophy, my favourite thing that I like to hear people discuss cause I know nothing about it!
You don’t have to know nothing about it though philosophy is one of those subjects that you can a decent understanding of through self study
Absolutely loved this convo, I totally empathize with the other guy, it's frustrating when people go with their base instincts instead of thinking of other people but Vaush is right about people being inclined towards tribalism and ultimately if you can't emotionally talk then out of it, you need your rocks. This was still fun to listen to and the guy that came on did wonderful!
*if you can't
I do understand where this guy is coming from. I suspect that, like me, he's neurodivergent and his moral intuition is inclined toward utilitarianism and pursuing beneficial outcomes. It involves an implicit challenge to the classical definition of rational self-interest, which is riddled with flaws. The problem is that he's kind of naive and doesn't fully account for the fact that many people are, simply put, irrational and don't think about what their best interests are. Usually because they don't understand what those are - environmental factors such as lack of education play a role in that, as do cognitive biases like tribalism.
@@FelisImpurrator or they value certain principles that don't coincidence with self interest
"Finally, an opponent worthy of my prodigious intellect." - Vaush probably
Vaush is, indeed, intelligent. You got that absolutely right.
@@InfiniteDeckhand he is, indeed, not. He is, indeed, a spineless weasel.
I love this c: This is the kind of debate that makes me pause halfway in and challenge my own ethical/moral framework. I love seeing Vaush dunk on racists and transphobes, but more of this kind of debate would be appreciated
Mildly frustrated by this guy trying to find universal ethical codes, while responding that he doesn't care when presented with contradictory points. MY GUY - It's fine if you don't care, but this feels like weirdly weaselly, but in good faith?
Yeah made it to the end c: Was a good debate. I disagree with the guy, but the written statement he came up with shows he's thought about it and does want to make society better. I hope he comes back on in the future c:
I have some reading to do, but I think today was the first time I realized consciously that I'm probably a moral anti-realist...
try a metaethics book. moral anti realism isnt even super popular from what i understand so id look into it for urself
@@abigailhayes7910 I've bookmarked the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's my go-to for background info.
Based
This guest is very charming and intelligent. Would be cool to see him on again
I feel like this individual’s arguments could be stronger if they expounded on the idea that since social morals are developed through self interest, other ideas like honor and tribalism could be. Then you could argue to say, a samurai, that their valuing honor derives from some form of self interest in absorbing the values of their society growing up. I don’t necessarily know if it would be right or not, but I’d like to see them discuss it
An hour and a half long conversation that can be summarized with, "Philosophy student has trouble grasping the concept that the is/ought gap can't be crossed without an assumption."
Yay! Loving that there's been so many more debates.
More debates like this plz
That was a super interesting convo! Keep 'em coming!
Artemy is the cat in the entire world
While I don't know that I'd call myself a Vaush fan, I've always been drawn to his willingness to stand up for what is right when it's politically unpopular to do so (not saying he's always right though).
But I admit I find philosophical discussions to be far more interesting and I always love seeing him engage in them.
Trust me, his nodding take?
Even Vaush fans will happily state he isn't always right.
@@zacheryeckard3051 it’s always the *virgin*
“we can use logic and reason to get people from different backgrounds to behave the way we’d like” *liberal*
vs the
*Chad* “time to deploy the rock” *Vaush*
@@zacheryeckard3051 that nodding take was reasonable, iirc. vaush's fans are pretty insular themselves.
Agreed. I disagree with him as often as I agree and when he's upset and knee-jerking he can downright make me cringe. I appreciate his intellectual honesty. Even when he's wrong. It's also refreshing to watch someone who isn't trying to be as earnestly unproblematic as possible. Not a Vaushite though.
i can tell you're not a vaush fan bc all true fans will know its called a vowshite
Honour can easily be rational self-interest... You can boast about it, it probably makes you feel positive about yourself if you care about it and feel like you live by it, it might make others respect you more... There's plenty of ways in which honour can be in your self-interest... Maybe it gets you killed or something, but self-interest isn't about what is best for you... Plenty of egoists will point out how doing things altruistically/dutifully can be motivated by self-interest like the usual example of jumping on a grenade because maybe your own life doesn't matter much to you, you don't want to live with the guilt of not doing so, you want to be remembered as a hero, etc... 32:00 This guy is equating egoism with hedonism and self-interest with happiness which CAN be the same, but often are not... Like, it can be in your self-interest to stop eating McDonald's and eat healthier if self-interest is seen as meaning "your well-being"... But it can also be in your self-interest to not stop eating McDonald's because you desire it and self-interest for you = desire... (Or some egoists see self-interest as a hybrid of well-being and desire)... Hedonists meanwhile could also take either side since they might argue that by not eating McDonald's you are maximizing your happiness in the long term since you will be happier being healthy and live longer while other types of hedonists would take a more short term perspective and say you should eat McDonald's as much as you want if it brings you pleasure to do so regardless of the harm on your body...
It really depends, hedonism is somewhat of a subset of ethical egoism, but there CAN also be times where arguably what would be in your self-interest is at conflict with what would bring you happiness and in those instances an ethical egoist and a hedonist might disagree on a person's course of action depending on how they think of their philosophical views on ethical egoism/hedonism really...
And then there's also utilitarianism which was basically inspired by hedonism... It's just taking a hedonist perspective and applying it to a more societal sort of scale rather than a more individualistic one... I think it's no secret that Bentham was inspired by like hedonists like Epicurus when doing Act Utilitarianism (and then Rule Utilitarianism builds off that)...
Anyway, at the timestamp it really seems like he has this hedonistic/utilitarian sort of outlook that he really believes in and he is trying to use his conclusion on that to argue that it naturally follows that one's self-interest would lead to the conclusion that he has reached... When that isn't really true...
I liked this debate a lot actually, it was nice to watch live
literally just had a conversation with an "apolitical" friend where it went like, why do you care? because caring is in ones self interest. Well Im not interested in that I just don't care. But but but- but you should! (YAMERO)...
then he proceeded to say I got circular reasoning becaues I care about stuff because I do and I want a better world for everyone because I do and Im like...
Yeah but also you should also care aaaaaaaa
Alex O'Connor, Cosmic Skeptic, debates moral subjectivity really well.
where did he get the shelv from though?
I'd love to hear Alex and vaush chat.
He seems to have a policy against debating veganism tho (classic carnist moment 😆)
@@KalebPeters99 im vegan and would love to see a veganism discussion between alex and vaush. in all fairness to vaush though, if i remember correctly, even if he is unwilling to debate veganism, he has stated on stream that he is fully aware that he is morally inconsistent and that going vegan is the best decision if you hold the axiomatic belief that it is a good thing to reduce the suffering for all living things. he has pointed out that he knows eating animal products is indefensible if alternatives exist. hes aware of his cognitive dissonance. which is more than you can say about most people that eat meat.
i had a similar realization that my moral beliefs and actions werent aligned and it took me a few years before i took any action towards it. i was also aware that i was being inconsistent but still didnt take steps towards changing my behaviors for a long time. the acknowledgment is the first step on a long journey for some people, but if you are aware of the cognitive dissonance i truly believe its only a matter of time before you feel obligated to act in accordance with your beliefs.
also sorry if this comment was poorly worded and sorry that it has large run on sentences. i am at work and am writing in between working. time theft ftw
@@SPELTMUSIC ahah no don't apologise, I really appreciate your comment and it was written perfectly fine!
This is good info, thank you. I'm basically in Vaush's position right now. I don't call myself vegan but I fully accept it's the most moral and environmentally conscious choice. I've taken steps to reduce my meat consumption and all but removed cows milk. (cheese is tough tho ahah)
I'd love to talk to more vegans because I'm still interested in where they draw the line. (What do you think about eating insects?) But I think eating mammals, birds and fish is clearly unnecessary in most developed areas.
If that's the position Vaush holds then I actually wouldn't have much to criticise him on.
Thank you for the reply! ☺️
@@KalebPeters99 i had typed out a lengthy response, but my browser reloaded due to the internet cutting out and i lost what i had typed haha.
since i dont feel like retyping everything, i'll give the bullet points.
-most vegans wouldn't consider you a "real vegan" for eating insects. i hold a different belief though. i view insects similarly to how i view plants, bacteria/single cell organisms. "living organisms" yes, but clearly not capable of the same feelings, and mental processes that humans, mammals, fish and birds are. people dont think twice about killing insects themselves. ask them to kill a cow or pig though with their bare hands and they'll have a lot harder of a time.
- even though i dont have any real problems with insect consumption, i personally wouldn't do it, mostly because i dont think they would taste very good and because i see them more as pests than food haha, but who knows, this could easily change.
-you'll get people giving you shit for going vegan, dont buy into it, just laugh it off and dont get preachy. i've found if you just ignore the ignorant comments, they tend to give up veryyyy quickly since they know they won't "trigger you". that's their intention, ignoring it seems to do more for making them reconsider their positions than preaching about how they are wrong and you're doing the right thing.
- veganism gets a bad rep because of gatekeeping and the "holier than thou" attitude when the goal should be to reduce suffering as much as possible. if you're working towards it, you're on the right path, attacking other people for where they are on that path is more damaging than helpful since people tend to defend beliefs when they are attacked.
- the animals we choose to consider "livestock" vs "pets" is a completely arbitrary line and if you don't have a problem with us eating cows in america/uk/canada etc... you should have no problems with people eating dogs/cats/etc... in other parts of the world. people only have a problem with it because they haven't thought critically about how the culture of a geographic location plays a role in their consumption. pigs are more intelligent than most breeds of dogs, but since dogs are cuddly and cute, we've decided to let them sleep in our beds, while pigs get loaded into gas chambers. their ability to feel pain and suffer is equal if not greater to that of dogs though.
- cheese was the hardest thing for me to cut out, but vegan alternatives are getting better by the day. pick up a couple options and see if any work well enough for you as a substitute.
- keep in mind that most people dont want to consider their cognitive dissonance and changing individual minds is not the path to reducing suffering and helping the environment. do your part, do what aligns with your moral framework, but advocacy for structural changes in how we produce food and reducing the influence and power that the meat and dairy industries have will be more impactful in the long run than trying to change every persons mind.
- going vegan doesn't mean you have to pretend meat isn't fucking delicious. it is, but my pleasure when it comes to taste, isn't worth the suffering and complete annihilation of animal lives.
- vegan food is delicious
- i eat way healthier, unintentionally
- i appreciate vegtables more and have tried foods i never would have considered when i was eating meat.
- vegan options are becoming more popular everywhere. most plant based "meats" are indistinguishable, especially after not eating meat for a couple of months. even friends of mine that eat meat can't tell the difference when my wife makes something for all of us.
- you dont have to believe that humans and animals have the same exact worth, clearly they dont, you just have to believe that their worth is greater than the worth we prescribe to the sensation of taste.
a little long, but hopefully you get something from it.
if you have any questions or wanna talk feel free to hit me up. post a comment on a video on my channel and we'll find a way to communicate. if not good luck! hope you figure it out or at least continue reducing your meat consumption. something is always better than nothing. its tough but worth it IMO.
Meme Theory and The Selfish Gene.
I find it's useful to sometimes think of ideas as replicating viruses. Some of these viruses kill the host fast, some kill the host slow, some help the host and fight off the bad viruses. Religion might kill the host in a holy war, but it also can help the host find some interlocking genitals. These viruses can survive after the host dies. The wheelbarrow is an old old meme.
We must cultivate our garden(s) (of memes). We need both science and morality/ethics to reach the stars and survive longer than our wet dustball of a planet. Some memes are useful, some memes are harmful. Feed the good ones, starve the bad ones. Maybe bash the hosts of the bad memes in the head with a rock, maybe force feed them good memes, maybe cultivate phages that target the bad memes in others.
What I define as morally good is not stopping in the middle of a sentence and then starting a new one over and over again, and then finally asking again the question to which you started out answering. The punishment: Get the Rock.
jokes on you this is my favorite type of vaush content
I studied martial arts not out of a fear for my life but for a fear for my reaction for my survival.
I studied religion not for the sake of endearment to a higher power, but for a semblance of humanitarianism.
I studied eastern philosophy not to boast of self mastery but to further refine my sense of humanity.
I studied politics to learn how our collective humanitarianism can be turned against itself.
That's my reason for being me.
this actually felt pretty old school. proper ol vaush debate
What I found surprising when I saw a polling of philosophy professors, is most are moral realists.
I'm also a philosophy graduate, and a moral realists, but I assumed most might be moral anti-realists.
I'm gunna ask a bunch of questions about what you believe and you don't have to answer them if you don't want to,
If there is objective morality then it is innate and if so how does how do you explain sociopaths, if they are discarded as exceptions what about nature genetic differences that cause different responses, which one would be the real one? would you take an average? The average height around the world is 5 8" but most people are shorter or taller even then other animals have different morality why are ours real and theres are not. And even if there all real morals you would have to be tremendously stupid to think you have or even could find them. Anyway I put a lot of words into your mouth and was just vaguely gesturing at what you may believe.
@@asherroodcreel640 I don't think it is innate. It's not a moral code built into people at birth. But the capacities for moral thinking are born into most people. Sociopaths are probably capable of moral thinking, they just don't care as much about it due to having less empathy or being able to ignore it more easily.
I think morality is a bit like reason, or mathematics. It's an attempt at an objective perspective on subjective experience. We can say that all peoples experiences are equal. Then, that subjectively unwelcomed pain is a negative to all individuals. It becomes morality when you try to objectively consider the subjective negatives and positives in a reasonable and empathic way. That's Ethics.
That's my opinion, while trying not to write too much.
@Jacob B I just looked it up; from a few days ago, right?
I only watched Huemer's opening, and I agree it doesn't seem like the best argument to me. It seems wishy washy and as he says himself, based on intuition. Which can be wrong.
That one man doesn't necessarily represent all philosophy professors. His is just one belief type, and personally my reasons are different than his.
If most are moral realists I wonder what their ethical systems are? I'd think you'd have a better idea then me, as a philo grad. I imagine they think it's real because then they can make moral prescriptions. As this convo demonstrates, if you posit subjective moral anti realism then you have no counter to someone who argues for moral nihilism. If morality is not objective I think it's actually a better argument that it doesn't exist at all rather than it existing subjectively.
@@JebeckyGranjola I think I just found the survey I'd read before. Apparently about 25% believe in deontology and consequentialism, each. A bit less supported virtue ethics, and the rest said 'Other'. So the ethical theory is very split.
It was a morally inter-vaushites good discussion, also the guy was speaking in good faith which is always a nice thing to see
Hank Schrader: It's not a rock, it's a mineral!
i love how the chat was simping for this dude 😭😭
6:30 - This is so true!
If morals can be good-then morals can also be evil.
There's a general misunderstanding that morals always has to be good from, at least from the perspective of the person carrying this moral tenant. But it's not true. Morals can also be justifiable negative; vengeful, pity, envious, spiteful or even hateful. Like any other human invention morals can me used for evil outcomes. There's no question about that!
Put this on the previously live podcast
ngl I zoned out halfway through but the title challenged me and I will not back down
The idea you need to justify your axioms seems to defeat the purpose of having axioms in the first place to me
Axioms are just the consistent principles you consider important.
You should definitely examine and question those principles.
@@zacheryeckard3051 not really though. Axioms are the statements from which consistent principles are derived. We’re also using “questioning” and “justification” differently here. It’s one thing to ask whether or not you’ve got the “right” set of axioms, but justifying why they’re correct doesn’t really make sense.
For example, in the math we are all taught, we rely on the principle of identity ie for every x, x is the same as x. That’s not a statement we typically ask for justification for
Orange cats are the beeeeeeesssst! Mad props to king cat daddy. I love a man with confidence.
Im here to feel smarter than I am
I’m here to renew my vaushite license!
heard this debate live, I shall further support Mr. Eiyn McVoosh by liking, posting this very comment, and playing this back whilst I allow myself to drift off into the sleepyzone.
ive liked and commented every vid and vod for the last 24 months consecutively
on both channels
viva la revolución comrades 🤘
And Comment
Omg 😱 a debate about philosophy with an opponent who ISNT stuck up and pretentious????? I thought I’d never see it
There is literally no one on earth who cares about philosophy who isn't stuck up and pretentious. Me included
I saw ethics as an code of morals applied to a group that follows the axiomatic good of the group, whereas morals were the views and beliefs of an individual that informed the actions they took for their axiomatic good.
I've always defined morality as the abstract idea of what is good, whereas ethics is the more concrete analysis of how to act (in a given situation).
Kitties! If it fits it seats. Adorbs
the pact is sealed
27:24 Tyranny. _The tyranny of 'should.'_
I'm no damn Vaushite, bro! Anyway, liked, commented and subscribed.
As I am commanded, I shall serve.
Its not about what is best for you it is about what is best for your ofspring
Please do more of this. This kinda getting in the ethical weeds is why I subscribed in 2019. Quit the drama.
the rock line is very real
My body is ready
10/10 thumbnail. I have no notes, it’s a masterpiece
One commenter randomly said.... this debate is going to replenish my virginity. lolololol
This was a fun debate.
After the 2 previous convos this restored my IQ
This was surprisingly interesting and not annoying lol. I feel like this dude almost entirely agrees with vaush here, but also just reeeeeally hopes people will be good
Vaush is a lot older
Both a philosophy talk and therapy session all in one, Vaush chad
I would really love to see Vaush talk to more philosophy guys. Ask Yourself Avi heck even Jack Angstreich. Feels like he can use their ways to help better our positions as those on the left
Vaush got annihilated when he last talked to AY
@@dominiks5068 yeah lol but only because Vaush was being dishonest. It could have been a “oh wow you make a very good case as to why I should be vegan”
But Avi could help him with so much of the Phil stuff especially on the trans issue. Bogardus’s critiques aren’t that great, but Vaush had nothing
@@oscarwalker5910 expect that he couldn't rhetoric was boing as hell, minced his words was anti science and gave up the goose and showed his true colors as a catholic that believes objective truth comes from god and just so happens to be what he already believed, and that's just off the top of my head ooh and his argument sucked
we out here
If anyone is interested in a contemporary philosopher whose work is super relevant to this discussion, Bernard Williams is one such figure. His book Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy is pretty dope.
Doesn't he get a little essentialist when arguing against utilitarianism?
@@Jorge-np3tq Never read him, but arguing against utilitarianism = cringe.
@@thek2despot426 Well, I'm paraphrasing, but he says if you kill to save people while still believing the killing is bad, you're renouncing your human identity and becoming a mindless algorithm.
@@thek2despot426 Williams's concern is not with trying to replace Utilitarianism with a different normative ethical system, but rather to examine the ways in which such systems fall short in addressing how individuals should answer the OG Socratic question "how should I live?" within their own social contexts, rather than defaulting to the answers given by a particular moral system simply because such a system is given the form of a proper theory.
@@Jorge-np3tq Yeah, I get not being particularly won over by his particular critiques of Utilitarianism, but I do think his overall project has a lot of relevance to this debate topic and that whether or not you ultimately buy into what Williams has to say he is worth engaging with
I love philosophy convos!!
I am a true Vaushite and have therefore liked and commented on this philosophy debate
That was a hoot mate. Good day.
hey that's me!
Philosophy Debates
I swear my mannerism suffer more and more from vautism the more of this type of content I watch.
I don't understand most of thethings being said but i'm still watching the entire debate
You're not alone
The babeys won this debate hands down.
Unironically though, this is quality wholesome convo content, and I'm here for it.
i was summoned to this video by the vonchite thumbnail and title.
I've been listening to philosophical debates for the last 4 years and come to vaush (huhuhu) for something different. Oh well, have a like and a cooment (huhuhu) you sexy hairy king.
I'm in a bad mood and too tired to think, but fine. I'll leave my dumb useless comment because how DARE you insinuate I'm not a true Vaush simp
I think a bit of confusion is arising from the assumption that "best interest" is well-defined, rather than being itself a subjective term. What is in someone's best interest depends on them, what they want. There is no objective "best interest".
At the end of the day, objectivity doesn't exist in statements, it exists in arguments.
Vonch; philosopher of our times.
You can't make me
His last bit was actually a really nice defense of philosophy overall
Alright, alright. Stay with me guys... what if the blue I see... isn't the same blue you see?
Amazing debate, please have more calm and eloquent people like this guy.
We want blood
@@aarn700 Whoa it's Xavier Cross
@@asherroodcreel640 that’s right
@@aarn700 when are you gunna tape alligators to your arms and bite the shit out of mohamud Ali again?
Here before the title changes
am I now worthy of the title vaushite vaush?
I fucking hate philosophy, why can’t other people just understand that I’m always based and poggers
The reason morality is never gonna be realized by everyone equally is because that make us more robotic and less human. Human are as such is because every one operate on different principles, sometimes for personal or betterment of others. It’s the conflicts that make our lives meaningful, via personal choices, moral or otherwise. In other words, morality as is came about when a group of people have shared values and their actions aligned with that. It’s more an outcome than a recipe.
Dude was entirely wrong at around 16 minutes stating that morality isn't about emotions. Even if purely about self interest one acts morally then that is for one's own emotional state, everything we do is about how we feel.
I would say the latter statement may be an overextension unless you have an extremely broad definition of "feeling" that includes all sensory responses to stimuli. But I can get behind moral emotivism as an anti-realist framework, seeing as the biggest objections to emotivism seem to literally just be semantic arguments about linguistic constructs of moral statements not making sense in an emotivist context (hello, map/territory problem, lmao).
Edit: Neither party knows how psychopathy actually works. Psychopaths who behave ethically do so because they're capable of utilizing utilitarian moral reasoning, which is more of a general sense of benefit rather than egoistic self-interest - they're actually more inclined to act in ways that indiscriminately benefit everyone without regard for their own safety (low fear means low self-preservation instinct) and without regard for social groups or hierarchies (low social comparison and bonding means no specially preferred ingroup).
@@Cumdown Is there an objective way to determine that? The only one I know and can prove works is the rock.
All moral foundations reduce to axioms - arbitrarily decided values. There's no way to prove anything other than that exists outside in the universe. And those axioms ultimately reduce to feelings. Why would someone, for instance, believe that all human life has value? It could be because they have a sense of affective, tribalistic empathy toward their own species. It could be because they believe an external force like God or the Universe says humans are special, but that would require that they feel that external force's opinion is worthy of respect. Or they could feel that, subjectively, existence is better with humans in it.
But no one can KNOW any of those answers are objectively correct. Maybe by some imperceptible metaphysical calculating machine humans are in fact worth nothing. Maybe someone else might disagree and say all life has value, not just humans. Maybe some hypothetical aliens only believe their species has value and thus humans don't. How do you resolve that? Rock.
@@FelisImpurrator Why would you say it is an overextension? All I'm say is we are ultimately always guided by emotion, not that an emotion itself is always a goal (though it often is).
@@Cumdown You're speaking like an objectivist. What you personally consider moral or not doesn't determine what others do. You might think you are correct but that's because you have an emotional preference to care about others (or likely that you care about yourself and so treat others well to be treated well)
@@Cumdown If you will, explain how either murdering or stealing is bad, without involving feelings.