What Should We Maximise? Peter Singer on Utilitarianism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 тра 2022
- Consequentialists hold that the right action is the one that brings about the best consequences. Some non-consequentialists also hold that, when choosing between actions that do not violate any non-consequentialist constraints, we should do what will bring about the best consequences, and other non-consequentialists hold that good consequences can sometimes outweigh non-consequentialist considerations. So on many ethical theories, it is important to decide what consequences are best. The answers offered to this question fall into three main categories. The classical utilitarians were hedonists, holding that “best consequences” means the greatest possible surplus of pleasure over pain. Preference utilitarians argue that the best consequences are those that do most to satisfy, on balance, the preferences of all those affected by our action. Pluralist consequentialists hold that there are several intrinsic values, not only pleasure or happiness, but also such things as knowledge, truth, beauty, freedom, equality and justice. In this talk, Peter Singer discusses some of the considerations for and against each of these positions. This was given at Oxford in 2017 as part of a seminar in moral philosophy.
#Philosophy #Ethics #Metaethics
It is a pleasure to listen to one of the greatest minds in the field. It is even greater to see how he contrasts, compares, and makes up his mind on the issues. Thanks for sharing.
There are Objective normative truths. It sounds contradictory but it is certainly a product of a fine philosophy.
Maybe the rats weren't getting pleasure from pressing the leaver but more that when they stopped they experienced something negative, in other words they were addicted to the experience.
Please, POverdose: let us enjoy your videos!! Five videos a week!! You dont give us the time to discover and understand the videos. 2 videos per week max!!!!
You're free to watch them at your own pace though. I'm glad we get an abundance of videos since not all of them are gonna be equally interesting
Let us have them all! We don't have to see them in real time, and there is always the channel as a repository.
Yo mama
Your statement, alongside your pfp, looks like a snapshot of something from 2009.
“Maximise”? Not, “maximize”?
It is the British spelling.
@@alexmarkadonis7179 Ah. Thank you
@@alexmarkadonis7179 the right spelling
@@Sam-_- - oh yes. the wonderful British, our elite sickening dystopian owners. they really know how to spell. the godless pigs have brought the entire workd to destruction, like the POS espousing his poisonous beliefs here in this presentation. this guy would eat his own children if he felt the urge.
@@BlogofTheW3st -ize for words with a Greek origin -ise for Old French, Latin etc.
Y'all philosophickers need to include the characteristics of the human genome in your gestations. What is it trying to produce in a 'blueprinted' outcome; genetic misfires semi-excused?
One understanding is that the vast majority should have developed the characteristics of an alpha by the time of their adulthood. Those being _adequate_ courage, resilience, seeking achievement and highly sociable. [From the genome-determined confluence of a. instincts at birth plus b. the behaviour-modifying neurotransmitters.]
These birthright outcomes will determine how we deal with issues. Philosophy alone cannot recommend any ideal human society until it knows what is an ideal human.
Do you honestly believe that by studying genetics we could in any way come to know what an "ideal" human being is like? Genetics describes how certain genes influence behavior and traits: ideality is a normative question. Looking at the human genome for answers to ideality amounts to taking certain actually valued traits as a given and then finding genetic correlates for those. And what is actually valued by people is not necessarily what should be valued by them. You're just collapsing the distinction between actuality and ideality.
genome is how you build human body ya fanny! list of amino acids to make the proteins in our eyeballs, knees, brain not your narcissist fantasy.
@@iMJBNi no genetics is sequence of amino acids that make proteins in different parts of our body! One of which is the brain, changes there may influence those things through material changes and material responses to chemical brain sygnalling processes etc. Genes don't influence our behaviour they are merely a construction blue print in which alterations may change biological function - understand that then you understand genes can't have a blue print for ethics. Difference between saying people were throwing rubbish out of window because of their genes to saying people were throwing rubbish out the window because somebody left the rubbish shoot out of their building's construction plans.
@@shonagraham2752 Sure, what you're giving is a more detailed version of how genes influence behavior. Even though on a precise, scientific level genetics is more complicated than "gene X influences behaviour Y", on a general level those genes (as sequences of amino acids) are correlated with certain semi-stable traits and behaviors. As far as I understand, we're broadly in agreement that it is useless to look to genetics for a blueprint on what an "ideal human being" is.
This is the old “nature vs nurture” argument. You, Peter Clark, have gone all in on the “nature” side. The problem with the extreme “nature” position is that all talk of morality, ethics and philosophy become irrelevant. There would be no point in discussing right & wrong when the path of one’s life is formed by inheritance. Even the argument about “nature” becomes hollow.
we should maximise the absence of people like Singer.
There can only be one of the greatest ethics-philosopher of all time.
That seems rude. I'm not too motivated by consequentialism, but it seems clear to me that Singer works from a sincere desire to help others. If I'm wrong, help me understand why.
why would we maximise the absence of ethicists? what is it you want absolute power to do, murder or genocide?