Consent Is Deontological
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- It is not that the ends justify the means, but the means justify the ends.
-----
Join the community discord! ► / discord
Watch Us LIVE (And Click Dat Sub Button!) ► / gameboomers
GB Archive Channel ► / gameboomer
Dev Kit Channel ► / @thedevkit
SFO Backups Channel ► / channel
BitChute ► www.bitchute.c...
Rumble ► rumble.com/c/c...
Brighteon ► www.brighteon....
DailyMotion ► www.dailymotio...
Odysee ► odysee.com/@Sh...
-----
SUPPORT THE SHOW:
BTC:bc1q6udqgvfm9uaj59l24ut7f73wvsfu707kk6pn3m
SubscribeStar! ► www.subscribes...
Streamlabs! ► streamlabs.com...
Patreon! ► / shortfatotaku
Paypal! ► paypal.me/short...
Humble Bundle Affiliate Link! ► www.humblebund...
Amazon CAN Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/322aFAa
Amazon USA Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/30PLxgN
Amazon CAN Wishlist! ► www.amazon.ca/...
Amazon USA Wishlist! ► www.amazon.com...
-----
SFO-CIAL MEDIA! HYUK HYUK
DA TWEETS ► / sfosecretary
DA FACES ► / sfotaku
DA GABS ► www.gab.com/sh...
DA MINDS ► www.minds.com/...
DA PARLERS ► parler.com/pro...
DA STEAMS ► steamcommunity....
-----
Credits:
Thumbnail ► idk some cuck
Background ► / cryomancerlex
Music ► • Parasite Eve OST - Out...
Utilitarians are pro-gang rape, confirmed.
[Edit] Vaush is a utilitarian.
Ah I see…
Utilitarians: Oppose rape gangs
Utilitarians: Get called pro gang rape
Utilitarians: "OK so you've lowered the opportunity cost of switching to being pro gang rape"
Utilitarians: "You know who we are why do you think doing this is a good idea"
majority rule!
They actually are if they think it’s for the good of the majority.....
Ding ding! Everybody hop aboard Vaush's magic space ship and draw straws! Choo choo!
Holy shit when Vaush was ranting about winning he literally sounded like a villain.
😂
you saw the mask slip... watch enough of his streams and he will flip his morals so he can "win"
He basically said he has no honor, his words mean nothing, if he will saying anything to "win" (whatever that means to him) than why trust a single word from his mouth, he spelled it out for anyone watching "DO NOT TRUST ME" is what he proclaimed yet idiots will keep watching
He’s the kind of guy that you if challenged him to an honorable duel; he’ll jump on your back like an animal the moment you turn to pace you steps.
Slap a filter over his voice and make his eyes glow yellow and you have yourself a P5 boss rant before he transforms into a snarling grotesque monster.
Vaush: "Principled failure is dog shit."
Also Vaush: *fails anyway*
atleast hes consistan
Because a principled failure can be a long term victory. A victory without principles doesn't last because you can't keep getting away with dishonesty and scummy tactics for ever. Sooner or later people are gonna see you for what you are.
@@saisameer8771 precisely. People catch on eventually. That's what happened to vaush. Mostly
It depends on what success means to you. If your ONLY goal is to gain wealth or power for their own sake, then sacrificing your principles might make logical sense. But I think that if you asked Vaush, he would claim his goals are altruistic, that he wants to make the world a better place where everyone is happier. Those goals have principles baked into them. With goals like that, unprincipled victory isn’t possible. In other words, if Vaush really means what he said then he's indirectly admitting his goals are purely materialistic.
This is what consequencialists don't understand. Traditional morality and principles were developed for a reason, not just as an "opiate for the masses". They reflect deeper rules about how reality works. They're generally a recipe for success. Being a cynical amoral tyrants always leads to some kind of ruin. Most great conquerors and dictators are either eventually assassinated or have their empire crumble after they die.
I feel like coconuts have surpassed vaush intellectually.
That’s insulting…
to the Coconuts.
@@Snakedude4life never step on snek!
Coconuts: I feel like I have outpaced Vaush intellectually.
Clop-clop, Clop-clop, Clop-clop...
@@afuzzycreature8387 *Lancelot wants to know your location*
You keep cutting to the core of issues that I have trouble parsing out of the political culture. You're doing good work. Godspeed you heightless round weeb.
Excuse me, it's stout rotund anime enthusiast.
This is actually a good reason to become well read on philosophical and political works because very likely some amount of your argument has been to some extent sufficiently formed and by referencing and understanding these works you can solidify your own arguments and have a magic rabbit to pull from your hat during an argument that you can sufficiently break down to argue with
I'd be worried if he couldn't, considering his degree was poli-sci
In an alternate universe this may have been a channel called HeightlessRoundWeeb.
@@jemm113 nothing burger
Vaush saying he only cares about winning isn't a good look.
Then again, everything about Vaush isn't a good look.
Except that one time he protested including kids in LGBT kink parades.
@@AscendantStoic but advocates lowering age of consent and shizz. Sooo.
@@AscendantStoic He probably did that for optics reasons. The last thing he would want is another embarrassing debate with destiny and his reputation being dragged through the mud. With Vaush you can never tell how honest he's being.
@@saisameer8771 Hmmmm, that's quite possible.
@@saisameer8771 yeah he obfuscates his true beliefs, to what degree depends on who he's talking to
"I don't care about principled failure." Well, if that just doesn't explain Vaush in his entirety.
We will never know Tru (tm) Utopia until we achieve Utopia (tm)
But what about the philosophical question is it smart to be principled in a world that isn't.
Humans have this duality Where We Are at our core animals but what makes us different is to come together learn and build together.
But what happens when the social network collapses and now you're on the brink of death?
Think Mad Max style of disintegration of Society is being principled still worth it?
We're reverting back to your Primal state and embracing consequentialism?
Adapting to the situation seems like the ladder.
Maybe it's better to have a equal balance because even in a functioning Society we all have to remember practicality does not favor either side equally allows for both to exist
@@dapperwolf6034 provided we don't lose the knowledge, this will be a hickup. Or we could have knowledge erased as has happened many times in recorded history.
@@ajobdunwell2585 I mean in times of stress is good to balance both in my opinion you want to maintain some principles but also understand that certain situations will require you to be consequentialist
@@dapperwolf6034 never require, consequentialism is not for government to dictate, only for business and mostly individuals to tighten their belts. Government consequentialism is a bad path.
Vaush's winning rant is one of the most mask off thing I've ever seen jfc
Someone play that future song. He has had so many moments when he’s exposed himself it’s comical he has a following
@@dmvbawse4265 He has managed to convince emotionally driven, intellectual dunces that he is smart because he chewed a dictionary once.
@Jinxed Swashbuckler you absolutely right seeing him absolutely getting owned then looking at his chat makes my brain rot
@@PunksterOS I’ll say this over and over again, if you watch Vaush like it’s Comedy Central and have his chat up it’s some of the funniest things I’ve ever seen. Do you remember when he pleaded for his audience to see destiny they way he sees them
@@dmvbawse4265 I cannot say I have watched all that much of him to know but I have been through his comment section and it is indeed a gold mine of emotionally unstable takes with a level of ignorance that if they existed anywhere that's not a first world nation they'd be classed as the Town Idiots and shunned from society.
"Principled failure is worth dogshit"
Most victories and defeats are temporary with more opportunities to win or lose later down the road. As far as I'm concerned selling out your principles for a short-term victory is the only permanent loss
“Die a hero or live as a coward.”
I believe we all know which one Voosh would choose.
There's always selling out and still losing... that's total failure.
It is a permanent loss, especially when dealing with other people. The moment you break promises, cheat others for a quick gain, lie to win, you make a reputation for yourself that no one is willing to work with. Vaush doesn't care because he doesn't understand people.....or he does and assumes they're beneath him.
How is that hard of a concept to realize that you're more credible and able to be taken seriously when you stick to your very beliefs and basis's instead of abandoning them whenever it's optically convenient? I spend a good majority of reflectional periods with myself determining if any of my beliefs, thoughts, or actions are hypocritical and find the best way to resolve such inner conflicts. I assumed, with people being inclined to do good, be more consistent, and improve as people, most people did the same.
Not all battles are honorable duels, some truly are total war, kill or be killed.
Vaush is straight up *this close* to going full-on "Might makes right, kill or be killed". If I heard that speech coming from a fictional character, I'd call the writer a hack.
Might does make right though. The reason why the western part of the world is liberal is because it is backed by the collective might of very powerful nations.
@@nikoclesceri2267 You're not wrong.
@@nikoclesceri2267 Might has nothing to do with being right or wrong. If you have the strength to force your will upon others, the only thing that can stop you from doing so is an even greater strength. If anything, you could say that what's accepted as being right is often due to the influence of the mighty.
@@mr.normalguy69 Might imposes right, not makes right. Those who're strong enough to impose their vision onto others rule. There is only one correct thing Mao ever said: "All political power is grown from the barrel of a gun.' Whomever has the guns and the boots, wins.
Well, he's an NPC, so whoever writes his dialogue is a hack.
"My principal is to win as a socialist not to lose as a socialist."
*Socialists/Authoritarians are inherently losers Vaush...*
What's more astounding is that he adheres to a set of principles while saying he can betray those principles at any time in order to arrive at the desired ends. Thus, he is communism/socialism incarnate, in theory and its espousements principled, in practice the furthes possible thing from itself.
Which I find funny because then you may call Vaush simultaneously a false and true communist at the same time, but to be honest, if history is anything to go by, the latter indeed applies.
That's a line so dramatic and self-centered that I half-expect to hear that in wrestling.
"I don't care about principles, my principle is to win! I want to be a champion, not to lose to a champion!"
Cue the chorus of boos.
@@HolographicParasight This is quite funny, the Kulaks were essentially just the "wealthy farmers". Of course they were used as scape goats and had their property confiscated and were killed. What's funny is that the Kulaks were also "workers" and the "worker's movement" ended up killing them and ruining the lives of a lot of other people who suffered from the consequences.
So in summary, you're right, Vaush really *IS* communism incarnate.
@Oliver Von arx
Violence is our reality, world will not get better by wishful thinking and minding our own business, while the rich do the same, at the expense of everyone.
How the hell do you win as a socialist? I’m pretty sure there is no winning or losing in socialism, just participation.
This is why I put the individual over the group, always. If you won't think of your concerns as "what about other people?" in the face of harm, you can think "what if that one person is me?" and it's a win-win for everyone within that society. The teacher shouldn't punish the whole class for one student's behavior.
Unfortunately a lot of people don’t think like that, they lack the ability to place one-selves in someone else’s shoes, if something bad happens to one person they will usually think “thank god that’s not me”
@@justadummy8076 A lot of people don't know empathy doesn't exist we're not mind readers we'll NEVER know how they feel. Yet we can sympathise with them the best we can. If that's not enough they can kick rocks
Unfortunately for you tribes and groups are highly effective at getting what you want. The left aren't the only people engaged in a revolt against nature it seems.
How does this individualism work when pushed to the extreme? If you are extremely stoic in not hurting others, there will come a time when you have decision paralysis, unable to make a decision at all. In every system, people return to the will of majority, when stressed enough.
@@odyseebetterthanyoutubeglo1767 Not sure what you're getting at, but my general idea was that when you're able to recognize an individual in a group, each other member of said group should, at least in theory, be given the same consideration of being seen as their own person.
I see it this way: a car is made up of many different parts with their own needs and functions, but they all come together to form one cohesive system. Address each individual part on an individual basis, the entire unit improves.
I've been saying for years that "the modern Left has no principles, only tactics." I guess now I have a better explanation as to why that is.
Sounds pretty abstract until you or someone you care about gets cancelled.
In the immortal words of Movie Bob: "There are no bad tactics, only bad targets."
@Moopy both sides just want to win. Am I supposed to believe conservatives want to lose if they are in the minority? Thier gerrymandering efforts would suggest otherwise.
@Moopy not surprising. All anarchist ideologies are consequentialist. All laws within a society are deontological. In order to be justified working outside the law, anarchist must claim the law to be unjust.
The guys name is "chaos is a ladder" his profile picture puts him in the lower left corner. So he's probably an anarchist.
@@daanhunnik7691 I am a stateist and I'm actually pretty authoritarian on some issues. Anarchists are cringe.
"Consequentialists" aren't actually focused on long term consequences. They are actually goal focused, not consequence focused. Vaush lying because he thinks it will be rhetorically effective, for example, does not understand the true consequence, that is, the long term breakdown of TRUST. Principles exist because on an individual basis, a principle breaking action might seem to lead towards your ends, but if people don't hold to principles, everything BREAKS DOWN, so you won't actually meet your ends as you intend.
If everyone behaves like this then no one trusts each other and society collapses
@@allmight9840 Something one might notice upon careful observation is that apart from hedonistic nihilists who do not seek any good end, basically every villain in media is a consequentialist. It's pretty much the trait that defines a villain.
would that explain why they always need to "Progress" also? If goal driven is the moral center then life has no meaning without the crusade or next goal?
You are wrong. They are focused on long term consequences, but their whole worldview is too narrow and too flawed to account for consequences outside their framework. They can't account for breakdown of trust because they are too busy thinking about the utopia. They use their intended long term consequences as the pillar that guides their actions, so they become too blind to understand anything outside it.
Trust is very important. We establish a society with specific rules, written or unwritten. If those people dont follow the rules, less people will trust them. And then there can never be given any consent between these parties. Then they change the semantic of words and suddenly no communication is possible anymore. Tribalism at its peak, society breaks down.
Vaush's "Win as a socialist" speech is so fucked, dude. I could see the desperation for validation pour from his eyes when he was staring right into the camera.
He'd win as a socialist by being an outright nazi, if he sees the benefit of doing so.
Vaush saying "The ends justify the means" is pretty much admitting to being what he accuses people of being. Damn son thats evil, saying he wants to win at any cost, not even realizing that victory on lies can never create anything good.
The greatest irony is he thinks he'll be the high ranking party official in his NWO. When in reality he will be disillusioned and promptly liquidated.
Pov: you get your philosophy from marvel movies
Modern leftist are always what they accuse their opposition of being. Remember that when they call other people racist and try to bring back segregation, or call other people fascists while trying to unite corporate and government power.
@@brendancoulter5761 remembered once I said a pedophile spread the idea that men are women in the 60's, he said that the pedo I'm referring to are Christian conservatives, I don't think anyone who knew what John Money did would ever think he's a Christian conservative.
I hate those ends justify the means people, Pyrrhic victories is just another form of failure.
Just a heads-up: if you invent a doomed Rape Ship, you probably shouldn't name it after yourself.
0_0
The ISS Hidden Ends.
There, ftfy.
Consent necessarily follows a set of rules. It has to be deontological. If it can be revoked ex post facto, then it's not consent, it's something else.
That was his argument.
@@SleepyMatt-zzz
And this is a great summary of that argument.
@@SleepyMatt-zzz i am pretty sure the poster posted this as a summary, not a critique of the video.
Yes to all.
@@FilterExel He has spoken.
You can escape reality, but you can't escape the consequences of escaping reality.
That's a great quote, gonna borrow that my guy.
The piteous thing is, a lot of innocent people get caught up in the fallout from those consequences, as well, and we are seeing this on every macro-economic and political scale possible. Generations will be paying through the nose for irresponsible policies our great-grandparents', grandparents', our parents', and even our generation just cannot stop fucking trumpeting, thinking government is a bottomless damn cookie jar.
"When the truth offends, we lie and lie, until we can no longer remember it is ever there. But it is still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."
And if this hyperinflation is indicating what I think it is, that payment may finally be imminent. Corona merely accelerated the irresponsible policies we've been working at for a century.
@@PeterDivine I find it no coincidence that the money printing began shortly after Goldman Sachs announced that the stock market was recession proof...
@un known that's *why* you can't escape it. ?
@un known I agree that sophistry is a leftist foundational trait.
But this statement is coherant in it's use of multiple contexts to convey it's message.
Words and statements have multiple contexts for a variety of purposes, and in this instance, those purposes are used to portray a message that is coherant across the two contextual uses of the phrase.
"You can escape reality" , both intended and read as the colloquial metaphore, and therefore subjective.
"But you can't escape the consequences of escaping reality" a consequential and literal statement that both uses and breaks the original subjective metaphore.
It's use of different contexts is congruent with the intention of the statement.
It is not sophistry, sophistry is the intentional and incongruent misuse of the different contexts of a word or phrase.
I will admit my reasons for opposing socialism and communism are pretty consequentialist: 100 million dead is enough and I don't really want to eat my cat.
That's not necessarily consequentialist. You're not weighing the goods of the many vs. the goods of the few, you're looking out the outcomes of the other times it's been tried, and calling those that say that THIS time it'll work, for reasons they can never fully articulate, liars. That's not deontological vs. consequentialist, that's denying the other side's premise, truthfulness, and, to a certain extent, honor. Because the other side has shown they lack truthfulness, honesty, and willingness to stick to the principles they themselves espouse.
@@PublicLeeSpeaking they articulate it well enough. It failed because they weren't in charge. Simple, they'll be 'a good dictator' which is, of course, total bullshit.
@@Heathmcdonald considering how they run things as a mod on sites like reddit. I have my doubts too.
@@nikoclesceri2267 Are you Romanian? Romanians always have good communist jokes!
@@Heathmcdonald It's bullshit for many reasons, but one of them is that you can't gain ultimate power to implement these kinds of goals without compromising on every moral principle that would make you a good person in the first place.
This whole Consequentialism vs Deontological reminds me of the Steven Crowder vs Ethan Klein & Sam Seeder squabble. Steven made a consensual agreement with Klein that they’d debate each other. Ethan breaks that agreement because he feels like he can get one over on someone he doesn’t like, which would be a consequentialist frame of mind. Sam Seder who weaseled his way onto the show then uses that event to get a boost in subscribers and mocks Steven for leaving, which was Steven standing up for his Deontological beliefs in what He previously agreed to.
@Sebastian Timothy If you agreed to debate your friend on religion, then all of a sudden Richard Dawkins walks in the room, is that fair? If you walk away from a debate you werent prepared for and did not agree to, does that make you a "weakling"?
If you agreed to have sex with a chick, then all of a sudden, and big buff mf dude walks in and next thing you know, its a threesome, is that right? If you walk out the room, does that make you a b***h even though it wasnt something you agreed to or anticipated?
I'd beg to differ.
@Sebastian Timothy you sound like someone too young to understand they are talking about.
@Sebastian Timothy Just because you spent eight years getting two useless degree's instead of a trade does not make you intelligent it means you memorize well nothing else.
@Sebastian Timothy IT actually But no most of them realize that college is useless and always leads to debt and a miserable existence.
But I should consider a nerve was touched probably because I am not the first person who said this to you.
@Sebastian Timothy I guess the question is this: Was the _act_ of not debating that was cowardly, or was it the _reason_ he did not debate that was cowardly?
In other words, by your standards of integrity, would there by no justifiable reason to pop smoke on the debate?
Moreover, would there by any reason to abandon the debate that would make Crowder some negative thing, but not necessarily cowardly? If he abandoned the debate because he was tired, for instance, could that make him, say, lazy? or weak? Or would abandoning the debate for any reason at all mean cowardice specifically?
Not the most based man on the block, but lord knows we need more people talking about the truth of Marxism
One day, you will realize that Dev is in fact, the most based.
"Oh, you have not seen the sights I have seen."
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin Until he renounces liberalism and accepts Christ I await the day
@@patrickrooney971 o
@@patrickrooney971
"Until he renounces liberalism and accepts Christ I await the day"
You arent going to get anywhere saying stuff like that
How about a healthy sense of nationalism
Churches end up corrupt, hence why you lost your dominance on the world stage
Look at the pope ffs
*Im Aussie right*
While Australia are technically Christians, not many were very observant
Few went to church weekly
Yet we had the flag waving patriots, people with Australia tattooed on their forehead *The shape, not written*
The Eureka stockade flag
USA had the confederate flag
Its deeper than just religion
@@azmanabdula I'm a flag fiend like any other, but Jesus christ is Lord and he will judge the world. And any doctrine contrary to his will be swept aside: whether thomas paine or karl marx or lysander spooner
The ultimate downfall of consequentialism is the user's failure to see it as a vesicle to satisfy your own ego. If you cannot accept that you will not always be right, then you will turn into a tyrant to make your 'ideal world' come true. Thats what deontologicalism has going for it, I guess. You (theoretically) are forced to accept that you acted immorally, lest you give up on the morality that has been drilled into your head.
Doesn't it seem far more reasonable that someone refuses to kill evil lest they kill the innocent and become evil, than someone who is willing to kill the innocent if it means killing the evil in the end?
One has restraint, understanding that they are not alwyas and do not have to be the piece that solves the puzzle, lest they do evil in the process - VS - one who has no self awarness of their place, and will brute force their way to what could just as easily end up being an unintended end filled with consequences that don't even add up to their intention.
( I know it's missing some nuance but the general idea is what's important)
That isn't a bad thing though. Why wouldn't you want your ideal world, no matter the cost?
Consequentialist: "Deontological arguments are stupid. We can decide what is good by the outcome of an action."
Based Deontologist: "And how exactly do you measure what is a good outcome and what is a bad outcome without an appeal to an outside metric?"
Consequentialist: [Begins sweating profusely]
Consequentialist: *MORSHU BEATBOX*
And you think deontologists don't suffer from the same problem? In both cases the will of the majority is king.
@@odyseebetterthanyoutubeglo1767 the will of the majority is what happens (regardless of what framework you use) but no deontologist would say that is or makes it inherently right
@@andrewwashburn6080
Consequentialist would say the outcomes for the majority are more important than the will of the majority.
its really fucking simple honestly.
Deontologists are just other words for culturally appropriate moral axioms
Consequentliams is analogous to making logical statements out of those said axioms.
"I dont give a fuck about principles
I care about winning"
This is exactly how a supervillian talks.
Principles do not suffer deconstruction. They are as much an evolutionary development as they are an intellectual subject. This is why even the most uneducated and unsophisticated person can intuitively grasp their import, conduct themselves with honour, and live with dignity. In a traditional sense, this is the expression of the 'soul', a concept that pre-dates the philosophical notions and classification of Principle. Were 'consequentialism' be the basis from whence we turned 'human', according to some, then we would not have reached civilization beyond a relatively tribal or localized dimension.
Interestingly enough, we can get a glimpse of this from reading history. I was reading some excerpts of Tacitus' descriptions of the German Suebian tribe and listening to Sargon's video on them from 3 years ago, and I came away thinking, "they are consequentialists to the extreme". Acting like louts, drinking, gambling, fighting and whoring everyday cuz it makes them "feel good". Same with the Viking-era Scandinavians. It took being attacked by outside forces such as the Romans or Carolingian Franks, who held more deontological values such as doing good works even if they don't lead to good ends, and the widespread adoption/forced-conversion of/to Christianity, which is inherently deontological in its rules, among the German tribes for the Germans to change and form the European kingdoms that led to the modern republics we have today.
it’s not wrong to kill people, i can even make a case for why it can be morally justified to rpe people.
if an apocalyptic event occurred and the earth needed to be repopulated but the women refuse to willingly bear children, it is morally justifiable to force them to for the sake of the species.
which is more important to you, survival or consent? a bear isn’t gonna care you don’t consent to being eaten.
Japanese people didn’t necessarily see deception as being dishonorable, europeans did.
people are still tribal, all morality is inherently subjective
@@draconisthewyvern3664 I think your example is rather revealing. Rebuilding the human population has a lot more to it then just getting the women to reproduce. The children they produce have to become capable productive adults that can be integrated into society. Forcing a woman or even a man to reproduce against his will is likely going to result in a child without a proper upbringing. This is almost entirely what breeds antisocial and self destructive behavior. These children are not going to help rebuild society only help to destroy it. This is what a lot of other commentators are pointing out that you can't just be goal oriented without regard for the consequences of achieving it. This is why morality exists , to temper goals with consequences. You don't give consent to a bear before it eats you but you are not trying to build a society with the bear, or even coexist with it. Our capacity for this moral reasoning is why we are different from animals and are even capable of building society. In this way morality isn't subjective its universal, the guiding principles that result in a thriving society.
@@riftvallance2087 but animals do build societies and they do have moral capacity.
for example elephants have been known to actually hold grudges and use their high intelligence to exact revenge.
some dolphins rpe and other dolphins don’t.
orca pods have developed separate cultures surrounding hunting and hunting techniques.
humans aren’t special.
they might not be perfect but you don’t need perfection to rebuild, to reset
@UC0EGt-pvKtg-07AAWma1VCA This is, of course, retarded. The idea that humans, as the only sapient creatures in the world, and possibly the entire galaxy if not more depending, aren't 'special' is so laughably stupid it barely even deserves addressing. Animals being capable of forming hunting packs with unique methods, or individual animals acting different from other individual animals, does not a society make. And it sure as fucking shit isn't even close to what we, as human beings, are and have accomplished. Get the fuck out of here with this misanthropic garbage.
I don't know what's worse; Vaush admitting that he only cares about winning, or his viewers agreeing with him.
It doesn't matter what a person believes in, it's the influence of that opinion that does. The fact that his viewers are so blind and vehement to follow his word no matter how obviously absurd and uneducated it is just goes to show how fucked the current political landscape is.
He argued against his viewers though. Not all of course but it was a discussion about voting for Biden over "sticking to your principles" and withholding your vote for not getting Bernie.
@@n16r49 What's so funny is that the moment his "favored" candidate lost, Vaush folded like a fucking lawn chair and immediately went to shilling the next candidate. This is the reason why political streamers are both unreliable and hypocritical, as they only speak purely for rhetoric and appeal rather than genuinely holding onto a firm belief system (maybe Destiny is an exception as he does profess some semblance of principle, but ultimately he's just as guilty as all of them). They are the most spineless and manipulative cowards, and to think they have any revolutionary significance is both absurd and fanatical. They couldn't even hold a secure marriage together for more than barely a few months, let alone manage an actual federal government without it collapsing in an ephemeral amount of time. If you're seriously considering getting into real politics, read some books (preferably a wider range of different ideological narratives that don't just appeal to your bias so you actually know which stance you feel most confident with), don't waste your time with these cons.
Winning is good
@@willlord6289 Hitler also think so.
It's amazing how differently Vaush acts on his own channel compared with how he acts when he's exposed to a broader audience.
It's amazing how differently you are when meeting with your friends compared with how you act infront of strangers.
He needs confirmation bias to survive.
Without that Twitch dollars, he would be an unemployed fatty forced to take part in the system he hates so much.
"what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul"
Alternatively:
"I'm not upset that you lied to me. I'm upset that from now on I can't trust you"
That's cool and all, but more importantly...
Is that God damn Anelace from Trails in the Sky as your profile pic, or am I mistaken? Wrong colored eyes, but...
@@papapalps2415 no, is Suzumiya Haruhi
The funny thing to me is that trust in american society has already broken down. So in a sense vaush is right when he declares he's going to act in self-interested manner. In vee's boxing analogy the society itself has already pulled the knife, you just don't like vaush because he wants to pull out a bazooka while you're pulling out wiffle bats.
@@samuraiflack3880 So, what are the chances of Vaush just using communism as a grift and doesn't believe anything he says?
Also, I haven't watched Vee in a while.
@@HareHaruhi He just did a video on vaush today. And yes vaush admits you can just live as a capitalist while talking socialism the whole time, it's hilarious.
"That's my principle, TO WIN" Spoken with the desperation of a true loser.
Why would that be a bad principal? If by winning you can achieve your goals?
@@eikukaan377 The point is that he has no moral code. A.K.A. he is willing to, by his own word, defy his own assumed principles to "win". So basically, everything he says is a bunch of shit, cause as soon as his "principles" don't align with his goal of "winning", he will discard them.
Basically he showed his hand, and admitted he really doesn't believe in what he says, because all he believes in is being on top. Spoken like a true villain.
Edit: And before this is asked, I'll eplian why that is generally a bad thing. When engaging anyone, in anything, it is best that both sides have some sort of "mutual understanding". In war its the idea that you don't kill/torture prisoners, in debates its that both sides abide by rules of conduct like not interrupting each other or simply dismissing the other's point without a proper counterargument. Once one side says "screw the rules, I want to WIN", then that means that all bets are off, and the OTHER side no longer need play by the rules either. Basically, you at least want to give the appearance that you are following some code of conduct and morality, because if you at like a savage, then others will look at you, say "that's a savage", and put you down like the animal you are, ignoring all the rules YOU decided to dismiss because you were too stupid to understand that those rules were there for your protection too.
@@schorltourmaline4521 He was talking about voting for Biden instead of being a Bernie or Buster that's what the whole rant was about. Not some amoral behaviour.
@@eikukaan377 Perhaps not, but this IS a display of his general character. It almost doesn't matter the context, cause it says it straight. He wants to "WIN", and that means doing anything necessary. Unfortunately, dude doesn't realize he's already a loser.
@@schorltourmaline4521
How do you beat such a loser... if he's winning? He takes advantage of things that you aren't allowed to. He has practical advantage. Fair play in vast majority of cases will be weaker than bending to commonly known rules. How do you beat someone who is stronger, and takes advantage of you, without you yourself resorting to bending the rules to beat him?
I love how you've come around to Sargon's position of 'what is honour to a communist?'
To be abused
If I was on a crashing spaceship, gang suprise saix would probably not make my top 3 choices.
Maybe top 5.
Surprise sex recipients don't tend to have it in their top lists.
@Doom3Guy 8 out of 10 participants loved their scenes.
@@vla1ne lol that's ugly dark
@@iandick1364 Only because lilith hates using light filters.
Wow, it gives a hole new meaning by saying "fu@k this!"
People like Vaush are on a vicious cycle where they break their own principles to achieve their goal, and they taint their principles AND their goal in the process. It is sad. People who disregard their principles to achieve their end goals deserve neither to have those principles nor to achieve anything in life.
Why you don't own life.life rewards winners only.the ethnic native population of Europe and the Anglo Saxon Europeans of America and Australia are losing out due to their self imposed rupes and they deserve to rule if they are so stupid.
No one cares about your rules except you.
I am a brown person by the way.
Truly hegelian very dialectical
Much critical
why? is that directed at vaush or dev?
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin It's Hegelian Dialectics, not personal animosity.
9:00 I've often joked that the left has this weird problem with saying the quiet part loud, but even by that standard this is something that no sane person should ever admit. Why on Earth would anyone ever listen to this guy ever again when he's just openly admitted this?
because the cult of Vaush would see that as a virtue and not a flaw?
The thing is Vaush is smarter than all of us by saying this, because we're living in the ruins of a collapsing society. In a collapsed society might does make right, maybe Vaush can't exactly understand why that's the case now when it wasn't before, but he does intuitively grasp the opportunity that exists when societies get troubled and decay for his side.
@@samuraiflack3880 survive by any means and let humanity be damned... still don't think that is moral in any society even a decaying one
@@jesshorn257 Well we're about to find out.
@@samuraiflack3880 well I hope the mad max lvl of collapse can be avoided... but I do agree we will find out sooner rather then later
The thing with the "workers cant consent" argument is that it applies less to the open market and more to socialist countries. On the open market you have the choice of working for any number of companies, but in socialism you only have the choice of one company, the government. Work for the government or starve... Or starve anyways, cause there will be no food either way, but you get what I mean
Having no principles means you have no integrity, so why should people stand on what you say? Vaush is such a clown.
The way I learned in Catholicism is that to get a truly good act you must: Have good intentions + good actions + good outcomes = a truly good act.
If you do a good act with bad intentions, a bad action with a good outcome, or a bad outcome with good intentions then the act is not truly good.
yes in fact most relgions on earth also preach this because humans despite how disgusting we can be truly are the only ones who can understand true good and true evil and doing the right thing is wanting to do the right thing doing the good thing and having a good outcome occur missing any such step makes it not a good thing unless the outcome was mad bad by things outside ones knowledge or controll.
If I follow this logically, how many people go to hell because they got unlucky
@@thanatosdriver1938 Only if they don't repent.
@@FeHearts I shook a child’s hand and transmitted a strain of the common cold unknowingly. Time to repent how much more am I guilty of?
What do you call a catholic priest in a windowless van?
A normal Catholic priest.
I figured out what disturbed me so much about Vaush's winning rant, besides the obvious lack of morals. He's entirely dependent on his chat. Look how shifty his eyes are looking down while ranting. He's reading to see how his chat will react to his rant. This is quite literally his principle of winning at play, and it's also why he's obsessed with talking about other people's chats - he's performing for the crowd
When you're a streamer, you learn how to balance talking, playing your game or whatever, and looking at chat. You're looking too deep, dude.
Exactly what destiny said about him, he said when Vaush debates he’s not talking to you he’s talking to the audience.
He's a demagogue. He fancies himself a "good Hitler".
@@dmvbawse4265 That's why vaush is popular.
In other words he's a grifter. He has nothing worth hearing to say. He'll say whatever makes him a buck.
"Never heard of this crap before in my life, but now I have something else to be angry about."
Pretty much sums up my mentality here with this.
Edit: I mean at these socialists who value "winning" over principles. Yea good luck with trust then.
"I don't care about principled failure." Well if he does not live up to his principles, it is possible that he will eventually lose credibility and fail to achieve his ends. I respectfully think that he might want to reconsider that line of thought.
He just said he'd rather compromise than not accomplishing anything, the quote was about voting for Biden over abstaining for Bernie.
I've been trying to wrap my head around the Vaush Charlie Kirk debate the past couple of days. It's the first time ever I've heard arguments I didn't utterly reject immediately from Vaush. While I'm not a Charlie Kirk fan either, I was surprised at how reasonable the discussion was and that I found points to agree with both of them. This was the missing piece, Vaush saying he only cares about winning. He's using Tim as a platform specifically to make the case that he's a reasonable guy and Tim's audience should listen to him.
I watched destiny covering it and he immediately pissed me off by saying we need a two tiered system for people that don't make the same private health decisions he did. Consent, bodily autonomy, individual choice, individual health concerns do not matter to him. The authoritarians are good at putting on a mask in polite society.
You should watch the Distributist vid on the Charlie Kirk Vs Vaush debate. Pretty insightful.
ua-cam.com/video/UYKyfR6O54A/v-deo.html
yep. vaush has openly stated he dials back the extremism for larger platforms like tim's.
@@Zayindjejfj thanks for throwing me down that rabbit hole lol
Yeah but you still agree with Destiny don't you? If there was a legit plague killing 1/4 of the population most people would be begging for lockdowns, vaccines, and anything else to stop it from happening.
They would and some are now but that doesn't make it right.
Edit: and no I don't agree with destiny that people should be excluded from life and liberty because they don't make the same health choices he does. That's tyranny flat out. He has no consideration of consent or other people's health considerations that may make the jab make more or less sense. No consideration of previous natural inoculation either. Do as I say or rot on the vine... how liberal.
I guass socialsts never hear saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
To be fair Christianity requires both good rules and good ends. Judaism seems to be purely reliant on good rules. Islam is just chaotic.
Both Judaism and Islam have rules somewhere that say you should also seek good ends. They had to have _something_ to cover the cases where no rules apply.
@Chris Jok lul what thats not how it goes, in judaism everyone goes to hell to pay for your sins than go to heaven after you paid your dues, in christanity you go to heaven if you tell god your a sinner and ask for forgivness. in islam its if you sin you go to hell.
Islam is about imitating and obeying mohammed, but mohammad is a chaotic guy
How so for each one? They all seem to have rules if anything Christianity is the most chaotic as it has split into so many churches.
The trouble is when you derive rules of experience and forget why and how they were applied. I'm not justifying the uglier doctrines but I'm sure they had their reasons. For instance assurance of the nuclear family and the maximization of progeny.
Vaush's reaction prediction:
"WAIT, WHAT???!!!???
WAIT WAIT WAIT, WHAT???!!!??!"
*45 minutes of ad hominem and walking back previous claims and then walking them forward again*
I would pay good money to see you debate Vaush and make a stand for centrist common sense ideals.
to debate with Vaush is equvivalent to speaking to a brick wall.
As much as I agree with the this. Vaush never argues in good faith so I cannot see this goinging well, he would do anything to secure a "victory" leaving a fruitful debate meaningless
no ignore the grifter
Why don’t you just give the money straight to Dev and save us all the headache?
@@25acpunderrated71 hes admitted to being bad faith
I'm sure in Dev's spaceship scenario, there would a submissive and breedable Vaush always on standby
>Breedable
>Vaush
Pick one
CEACE
I was eating a very nice Italian dinner before I read this. I no loger have any appetite.
@@VallornDeathblade okay now I'm sad.
I wouldnt Vaush with your
.
Vaush is loud, angry, smug and wrong. In other news the sky is blue.
So their stance is effectively the "bike cuck" meme but scaled up for an entire nation?
I was just reminded of the self deletion of August Aimes. She didn't want to sleep with a guy and the left bullied her until she took her own life. They didn't care about her consent.
When it comes to the rape question, I typically ask. "Do you believe that sex has a moral value?" The answer from the modern lefty is typically "No, I do not. Sex is just sex." To which I ask "Then why is rape wrong? When there is no moral value to sex, rape constitutes little beyond theft of labour. And the majority of western society considers rape to be a decidedly evil behaviour." I have yet to have someone do something other than either reconsider their position when posited this question, in this manner, or double down, with the effort being trying to separate rape from sex.
This invariably proves impossible, because at the end of the day, regardless of motivating factors, it is a sexual behaviour. It's no more possible to remove sexuality from rape as it is classify masturbation as anything other than a sexual behaviour. People don't masturbate because they're hungry. They don't masturbate because they're angry. They masturbate because they're horny. Same principal, on a different scale, in a different context.
The modern lefty, like the rest of society,, when they say sex carry a lot of assumptions so it's a loaded question. For instance, consent. I don't consider your thing to be in good faith
@@afuzzycreature8387 It's not a loaded question, and it is not in bad faith, because it presents its ends at face value.
Does sex have a moral value?
Logically, it must. Or sex related crimes become an issue of stolen labour, rather than an issue of victimization. In that context, It must be judged as a practical crime, and not a moral one.
Put another way, If sex does not have some kind of moral value, then what is wrong with rape?
Rape is a moral injustice, based around the act of violating consent for sex. You cannot in good faith decouple rape from the sexual act that it is. And you cannot decouple sex from its intrinsic morality in that regard. Otherwise the concept of rape as a crime ceases to function.
In the frame of this argument, morality is the space created for compassion. Without it, you must boil things down to their practical nature.
Sex becomes a labour with an assigned monetary, or even practical value.
In that context, rape simply wouldn't be a crime if sex held no moral value. Any more than stealing a loaf of bread would be.
Lefty here. Sex is just sex. The difference is that you have added the element of HARM. My freedom to move ends when my fist reaches the tip of your nose. Me moving my arm is me moving my arm but if I use it for an action knowing that it will cause HARM that moves it from a moral neutral to a moral negative. The reason why rape is wrong is because it is one of the greatest HARMS you can do onto someone
@@thanatosdriver1938 Okay. What makes it harmful? Genuine question.
The act of rape is harmful, I agree. But what causes the harm?
Because it looks like you're arguing that the crime involved in rape is the physical assault, such as someone striking you in the course of subduing you for sex, and not the act of violating one's consent.
You cannot account for the violation of one's consent without first ascribing some moral value to it. Sex will carry that moral value in the case of rape, and if you attest that it does not, then the harm comes from the practice, and practical violations. Ergo, _they struck me to subdue me_ and-or _they stole my labour._ as opposed to what most people will say is actually harmful about rape.
@@thanatosdriver1938 In that case, what makes rape a greater harm than other forms of assault? At some point, we arrive at "because the victim thinks it's worse" and "because humans view sex as important" (i.e., as having "moral value").
To rephrase the original statement: Sex is important and serious, which is why rape is viewed as one of the worst crimes. Getting your arm broken is bad, but getting raped is worse because it adds a component of violation, intimacy and a sense of permanence that ordinary physical assault does not have. Treating sex as "just sex" when it comes to casual hookups stands in contrast to the seriousness with which we view it when judging rape.
Consequentialism, the only ethical doctrine that can justify "Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!"
@@Zlyxon If the highest good to you is the highest pile of skulls and the largest lake of blood, the death of the entire cosmos can be morally justified, it just becomes a bit of a logistical challenge to get them all piled up in one place when your done.
Some things are so dumb you have to stupid not to do them.
Smart people over complicate most times.
That seems to be a big problem with the left. They deliberately overcomplicate simple things as a way to feel intellectually superior. It's like a reverse Occam's Razor.
Orwell did say "there are things so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them".
And I think T. S. Elliot or Mark Twain said "Don't let school get in the way of your education".
Most commies could learn from those phrases.
@@Saint_Wolf_ They would reject such things as ''anti-intellectual'' as if intellectualism is an inherently good thing. I'm a big fan of thomas sowell's Intellectuals and Society which shows that intellectualism, more often than not, has negative outcomes (I.e. marxism).
@@RandomAussieGuy87 Intellectualism is just what happens when you have useless humanities degrees being handed out. People too full of themselves since they're so useless to everyone else. It's like that joke
- IS THERE A DOCTOR HERE? THIS MAN IS HAVING A HEART ATTACK
- Yes, I'm a doctor in philosophy.
- Please this man is dying.
- We all are.
Midwits.
SFO you've blessed me today with that clip of vaush song that he only cares about winning.
It's the same mentality that makes war so reprehensible. Who cares if thousands are gonna die in this advance? We'll be home by Christmas as victors! Out the trenches and into no-man's-land with all of you.
So..."Because I know better than you, you shouldn't have the right to say 'no' to me."
It's like something out of a comic book.
Sounds like something Dr Doom would say with a straight face.
@@dzonatangavert1408 Then again, with that mask it's _always_ a straight face! j/k
No one is born with their consent.
Egoism is far better than collectivism tbh. Also, I hate how people use fancy jargon to sound sophisticated, and call anybody who can't be fucked to read their text wall a plebian.
2:17 I should point out that Fascism IS an Marxist ideology at its core. Think hyper-authoritarian socialism and you have boiler-plate fascism.
What people think to be "fascism" now is anything they deem to be racist, because the nazis are the most well known example of fascists and they were super-racist. The nazis were fascists and were eugenecists, which despite both being horrific are not the same idea. So to alot of people think fascism = racism (or more accurately think right-wing ideaologies = racism, as many right-wingers happen to be/were historically racists)
I just felt I needed to point it out as seperating Marxism from Fascism to me feels like differentiating between rectangles and squares.
Now I should say this because some people are dumb: I am in no way defending racist or fascists, honestly if those ideas were to be resigned to the history books the world would be a far, far, far better place.
Both ideas are wrong in every way, and if you support either please leave your parent's basement for once in your sad, pathetic life.
I think Dev characterized fascism as Post-Marxist socialism which is as good a definition as any I've yet heard.
"As many right-wingers happen to be/were historically racists".... really now what year are you talking about because the vast majority of human history people practiced identitarian politics so racism was its own factor not even on the classic left vs right spectrum
@@jesshorn257 Yes you are correct. For the sake of brevity I was refering to the contemporary understanding of the NorthAmerican left-right political spectrum
Yes, you are correct we should see left-right, libertarian-authoritarian, and progressive-conservative political spectrums as disconnected.
What I was more refering to mid-20th century American politics where "right-wingers" (heavy quotaions around that term) supported policies that had either explicit or implicit racial effects.
Nowadays I will concede that it's more the "left-wing" (again, massive quotation marks) that is supporting explicitly/implicitly racist policies.
That all said I think my point stands. Hope that clears up any confusion I may have caused.
Cheers!
Loving me some philosophy lessons.
As someone who's code of morality is just "dont start none, wont be none" I hadnt spent a lot of time reading about Deontological vs Consequentialist morality. This is a smart video. Thank you.
I never realized consequentialism was the word for it. I’ve been calling it the Batman Dilemma. The Joker kills and destroys many innocent people. Should Batman just kill him to save the lives of potential victims? Batman refuses to do so therefore innocents suffer.
However, Batman knows that to kill the Joker would be the first step on the path to justifying any evil act so long as the ends justifies the means or he was serving “the greater good.”
I was sitting there listening to Marx complain about France's guarantees of rights going "Ok, where's the 'but'? I don't see the problem here." Then I realized he of course has an issue with the nature of it, itself.
Well yeah, fundamental thinkers do tend to question things... fundamentally. The concept of rights hasn't really worked out the way the people founding it wanted.
a consequentialist does not necessarily value human happiness as their ultimate and only goal. They could, for instance, place human bodily autonomy above it.
I think intent and consequence matters. I wouldn't be fully one or the other.
Yeah, why people think it has to be one or the other is really ridiculous to me.
Virtue ethics are the way to go. If you want to make the world a better place, make yourself a better man and your job is done. You are better so all around you and all you interact with will be better as a result.
Agreed. The more people that follow this pattern the better society will be as a whole.
the problem is like most forms of ethical thought is every human is diffrent and in this case some people would consider being a "better man" as a more succesfull or famous person thus it dosent matter HOW you get there or something more vain like those who consider building there bodies far more important then being a good person to others or there familys etc etc
@@wilmagregg3131 "thus it dosent matter HOW you get there" that is were the "good action + good outcome= overall good... so still have to follow a moral code that is "good" for your society
Is it ethical to decide for others what they can consent to? For example: some politician decides that normal people are too stupid to give consent to participate in some discussions, and therefore initiating those discussions with unqualified person is illegal. Similar to how it is with children and what some politicians decided what they are allowed to consent.
No sacrifice will ever be enough. You will never reach true socialism. People will be born who do not remember you, and they will recommit the sins of the past you justified temporary atrocities to fix permanently. You sold your soul for nothing.
"the path way to utopia is just another thousand mountains of bodies away" those who say the ends ALWAYS justifys the means are those whos ignorance will always instead create hell on earth with there own court of demons running it and torturing and using the people to there hearts content {the one party}
Just as there is no highest number, there is no final revolution.
@@blackosprey2219 When people revolt against revolution itself, it will be the final revolution.
"Selling your soul" isn't a thing
@@Dubulcle it isn't if you don't have one.
Principled Failure: "Wanna get together later?" "Oh, I'm actually busy" "Oh, alright then..."
Vaush: "PRINCIPLED FAILURE IS WORTH DOGSHIT!"
Michael Malice's (I think) disbelieving "Are you a consequentialist?" towards the beginning is so perfect. He can't believe he's talking to someone who thinks the ends justify the means.
Brand new to your channel homie. Stream isn’t up yet but I’ve been hearing about you from Sargon for YEARS
Been missing out. Glad you're here now tho :) welcome
@@P.Convenience awww a vaush fan
@@P.Convenience if you don't like philosophy I'm sure their is "lighter" topics on screwtube
@@P.Convenience so great to see you hanging out on channels you hate
@@P.Convenience the question remains, why are you here?
"I am a Virtue Ethicist
Fight for the Rights Of every Man
I am a Virtue Ethicist
Fight for what's yours
Fight for your life!
When the comments crash down and it hurts inside
You gotta take a stand, it don't help to hide
If you hurt my friends then you hurt my pride
I gotta be a man, I can’t let it slide!"
Main event Hulk Otaku'gan vs Ian "The Snake" Kochinski for Debatemania XXXVII, BOOK IT VINCE!!
The issue with consequentialism is with the people who believe the ends justify the means, will never have understand that it is difficult to know certain outcomes of society.
I wonder how often those "ends" never actually came to reality, and the countless evils that paved the way amounted to nothing.
Utilitarians who are smart enough to understand what is neccessary to make a better world act like deontologists because they understand that they are not immortal. The Herculean task of bringing heaven to Earth is one that cannot be undertaken by one man. Any task of that magnitude would take multiple generations of disciplined work, and self-sacrifice on every generations' part, with no guarantee that the work won't be undone by any future unstoppable act of the unpredictable human species. The only way to bring a guaranteed amount of measurable goodness is to act principled and consistent so that others can depend on you, and make plans around you that they can rely on to better themselves in ways they couldn't without you, to inspire them to act better, to make them want to be like the Absolute Chad you are, and hopefully build a small community foundation together that will raise better children to carry on your goodness into the future where you cannot.
I think I recognize 'the abolition of man' in this discussion.
'All consequentialist ethics are deontological if you dig deep enough.' The dao holds sway over us all.
Why are people who say "good is subjective" also suggesting that "good ends" is sufficient to determine whether something should be allowed? Surely you need pretty fucking solid and objective "good ends" before you start saying they are sufficient to build morality around.
Not really
Overt utilitarian's will claim to be anything that would grant them value, but holds true to none of em.
#Users
@Joe Edang
1. Vaush on his magic space ship advocating for the lowering of the age of consent, then walking it back after he got heat by saying "but I don't think kids should be allowed at pride parades that feature kink" dispite having already justified child sexuality.
2. Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, China, etc, etc, and their very smart verbal manipulator apologists saying "that wasn't true Communism". You see, Soviet Russia is real *Socialism*. True Communism is the end stage of Socialism when all resistance to Socialism in the world has been extinguished by any means neccessary. Once only "good communists" are left, *that*, is when True Communism will exist. So yes, True Communism has never been tried, because True Genocidal Socialism keeps tripping over itself before it can get to killing and pillaging everyone else outside of their boarders first.
3. You, gaslighting me saying that utilitarians don't fib, asking for examples when you just as well as I saw that clip of Vaush saying winning is all that matters, be damned the atrocities we need to commit to do it so long as it gives us an advantage.
The anguish of one individual is greater then any joy an infinity of people can "feel".
9:15 Oh, so that's why TJ later said "your principles don't mean shit." Because he was learning from Vaush. Honestly, if your principles don't mean anything, what are you even fighting for?
The thing I would ask Vaush is, how exactly do you "win" as a socialist if you don't actually ascribe to socialist principles? That's about like him saying he wants to "win fair & square by cheating".
I'd ask him whether he'd pursue Strasserism to score a victory for socialism.
There is still universal wrongs in the world. Consequentialism still requires a set of moral principles (human rights, equal opportunity, liberty, etc.). The appealing part of consequentialism is that it gives way to nuance and critical thinking towards moral rules and dilemmas, but it shouldn't justify the infringement of your moral principles (unless your moral principles made the exception already).
Consequentialism should work with deontological thinking, not be opposed to it.
won't a Consequentialist feel that the rules would be slowing him down from reaching the desired outcome and be a handicap? if you only care about results then the shortest and easiest path should be correct
Consequentialism is made to justify infringement of your moral principles. Just look at the left justifying racial discrimination and calling it "positive discrimination". It started with a small violation of their principles for the "greater good". It now evolved to the Orwellian redefinition of the term "racism" to mean the exact opposite of what it was before. Their desire to "do the right thing" ended up with them becoming the thing they hated.
@@jesshorn257 You got me there then. If consequentialism is hampered with moral principles, then it's not consequentialism. I supported the Aristotelian view on ethics before, but Dev put it in a light with deontology that I've never really thought of before.
Maybe following rules (deontology) and upholding virtues (Aristotelian ethics) would result into good outcomes (consequentialism) regardless. Therefore, honor and principles triumph over ideals, for the ideal world is made of honor and principles.
This is gonna be a thought in the shower for sure.
There are no universal wrong
So Vauch's Coconut island experiment reminds me of Jacob Taylor's loyalty mission in Mass Effect 2. And that thought makes Vauch's arguments or morality alot more stupid.
This feels like a really long version of that part in Donnie Darko when he shoots down the "Love and Fear" nonsense...and Vaush is the gym teacher...R.I.P. Patrick Swayze.
I just recently thought about this movie, maybe we share the same mind string?
I feel like Vaush is secretly a Max Stirner fan
Consequentialism is the "we cut a virgin in half and our harvest this year was great, so we'll keep doing it" but turned up to 11 and allowed to run rampant.
"Sure, millions died during the great leap forward in China, but now we have jobs making Iphones and apartments and food isn't a concern", as if all the deaths leading up to the current situation was therefore justified.
Ask a consequentialist if the biological genocide of the native American Kaw nation was justified, since it allows them to sit at home and read Marx in Topeka KS, and if not, why?
They cannot rationalize, in good faith, why the good environment they live in, and the literature they read makes up for atrocities
I wanna live in Dev's Spaceship
edit: I should have seen what happened inside the spaceship first...
We covered some of this in my university class "Making the Moral Choice", way back in 2009. This class was riveting, but also distressing, and it was just a taste of what higher education, of Liberal Arts, could be all about, and not the wasted time of social programming that much of the rest of the University was doing. Yet, I had to many computer science and mathematics courses I had to take so I didn't get to go further than this, in philosophy, but am grateful for what I got, which was this, and an introduction to the works of Sowell.
The Golden Rule is still the most effective ethical system ever devised
Its so simple. Don't want to be treated like shit, don't treat others that way. Don't want people lying to you, stealing your stuff, attacking you? Don't do the same to others. That's why I try to avoid lying to people, not lay hands on others, try not to destroy property.
@@slydoorkeeper4783 The problem with The Golden Rule, like most if not all ethical systems, is that it leaves a lot of room for subjective interpretation. Like if I'm okay with people borrowing my stuff without asking, does that mean I can borrow other people's stuff without asking? This logic falls apart on closer inspection.
Imagine you're a master bike thief, you don't really mind if someone steals your bike because you can easily just get a new one. Does that make it okay to steal bikes? What if I'm incredibly rich don't mind losing a $1000, does that mean I can doom another to starve to death? You could accuse me of ignoring the context, but The Golden Rule does not specify the correct level of detail. Besides, adding more context doesn't always fix the problem. For example, a Nazi might feel justified in killing Jews because they think "I'd rather be dead than a Jew".
The Golden Rule tends to work better when we consider less context and turn it into general concepts like "don't kill people" but there are obviously cases where those interpretations are too general, like how self defense can justify a lot of things that are otherwise unacceptable. The best way to apply The Golden Rule is probably just to ask yourself "am I being mean?" It's pretty good as a rule of thumb for teaching people to be empathic, but it is by no means a coherent ethical system.
@@simongotborg3866 Not to accuse you specifically, but I think you have to be deliberately obtuse to misapply the Golden Rule like that. Anyone who’s honest with themselves understands that people are affected by things in different ways. Any grey areas should be covered under, “I wouldn’t want others to hurt me, so I shouldn’t hurt others.” I may not care if someone steals a couple chips from me, but I’m smart enough to understand that I’d feel very differently if those chips were all I had to eat for a week. So I’m not gonna go steal chips from someone who’s about to starve.
I realize this isn’t really a strong logical rebuttal. It’s just that if someone actually said to me, “I’d rather be dead than a Jew, so it’s ok to murder Jews,” I wouldn’t believe he actually believes that.
@@DuneStone6816 Ironically the pharisees were the ones that argued the most strongly against the Golden Rule. And there's a core of modern care bears which are identical to how the pharisees thought and acted.
@@Wicker_ You could argue that criminals have broken the social contract and therefore can be treated differently
They could seriously interpret sexual dimorphism in such a manner that no relationship between man and women is consensual because men is inherently stronger than her and force the situation if he so chooses.
This is why Christianity has lasted so long and done so well, it's a blend of both deontological, and consequentialist. The Bible talks several times about how the rules can be abused, and thus to be wary of the rules, as you follow them. Just because someone is following the rules, doesn't mean they're doing good, and just because someone isn't following the rules means their all bad. While the Bible holds a few rules that cannot be overturned, Jesus summarized them best as: Love the lord your God with all your heart mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. These rules are so basic and simple, that it's very hard for one to argue they hold society back.
I see the bible more as virtue-based, the moral framework mentioned at the end of the video.
With the heavy emphasis of needing to be virtues and not sinfull. Deontology is definetly a big part of it to, since the actions define the person. "A man is virtues if he follows the commandments of god" sounds more like deontology. But things like: you should be courages, humble, charitable, chast. That seems more virtue-based.
I see it as follows:
Deontology: some actions are good, some are bad (per a code). The things these actions result in are thereby justified.
Virtue based: some character traits are good, some are bad. Whether or not an action is justified depends on whether it is indicative of good or bad character traits.
Consequentialist: some outcomes are good, some are bad. Whether or not an action is justified depends on the result it generates.
I think the bible takes more from the virtue-based and deontological moral frameworks then it does the consequentialist framework. But I do not doubt that one can find consequentialism within the bible.
All of these frameworks have their uses but I might be a bit biased since i'm not a big fan of consequentialism.
Yes, the most essential strictly moral (rather than religious) principle that Christianity advocates, the "golden rule", is a blending of deontologicalism and consequentialism. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a deontological rule to be followed, but one that is wholly based on the consequences of your actions on others and how those consequences will in turn come back to effect you.
@@keepinmahprivacy9754 that's a classic and fantastic rule.
Edit: spelling mistake
@@keepinmahprivacy9754
Interestingly, most leftists seem to reject "the golden rule" and uave started coming up with their own variations like "the platinum rule: do unto others as they would have you do unto them." Generally citing the edge case that you may desire to be treated in a way others do not. While it is true that the golden rule can break down when it comes to dealing with ridiculous zealots that would genuinely want to be tortured to death in order to save their soul... realistically you have to ignore a bunch of other violations of the core premise and get machiavellian with what you are willing to have done to you to excuse most actual harmful behaviour. And it primarily gets used to cry about trivial shit like pronouns, cultural quirks, and offensive language.
I think the "improvement" you see leftist moral reletivist consequentialists come up with is "the platinum rule: treat others how they want to he treated." Which advertises as more comprehensive and virtuous, allowing them to claim to be the side of "empathy." But it absolutely implodes when you realize just how many of these decisions have to be made without communicating those desires. And it also establishes a foot in the door for them to compel behaviour. Since you have to do what others demand of you. Plus they're also total hypocrotes about it considering they also advocate seizing property.
@@42billybob Yes, the hypocrisy of leftists adopting that rule is truly too much. I wish to be left alone by the government, but there's not one leftist on the planet who is willing to respect my wishes and treat me as I want to be treated. I don't know why they bother to try to create new rules when they only follow any rule as long as it doesn't get in the way of their goals.
The problem is that you should only consider positive results *after* you've minimized negative results. This solves the million person gang rape issue, as it establishes that no number of positive outcomes can justify an unnecessary negative outcome. Or, as Jordan Peterson likes to put it, "minimize the suffering in the world".
I like this idea of having a right to stand apart. I've always heard people going on about how you have to contribute to society if you want anything. Why aren't we all afforded the right to simply stand apart and live life according to personal freedom? Why are we all beholden to the whims of those who came before us?
Make a sandwich from scratch. You cannot purchase or ask for any ingredients. Bread ham lettuce bread. How do you get each ingredient?
That’s why we are beholden to others. We would have to be entirely self reliant which means we get our food shelter water and whatever by our own manual labor.
@@thanatosdriver1938 It would be nice if we lived in a simpler world where resources were abundant instead of hoarded and gatekept, and people were raised learning to fashion tools, hunt, forage, etc. Barring that, if currency were more readily available, at least freedoms wouldn't be so restricted. (no i'm not suggesting communism or socialism i appreciate your lack of assumptions so far but i still have to clarify just in case). People can't figure out a way to make that happen, though, so why can't employment at least be more readily available? Why do we have people posting signs saying "nobody wants to work" in a country full of people desperate for even the smallest bit of employment?
I'm of the mind that the world was ruined long before any of us were born. All systems have failed the majority of humanity. Those who hoard resources and currency are truly the ones who want to watch the world burn while they hang on to what they have out of fear, spite, or sheer hubris. The rest are stuck struggling to generate some semblance of generational wealth for their offspring in the hopes of giving them a slightly less painful and humiliating life with maybe a bit more freedom. A lot of them give their entire lives and bodies to this task, only to be robbed of what they earned. Some of the hardest working men to ever live have died before receiving even a modicum of what they paid into retirement and social security, and the widows and children they sacrificed themselves for don't see a penny of it.
@Lick Tasty That was my point, that we don't have the ability to hunt or forage anymore. We don't need to perfectly reproduce store bought bread to have perfectly edible bread. The gatekeeper isn't the store, it's the world we were born into, where the resources have already been hoarded and our freedoms have been limited as a result.
I don't think we should regress, but I'd rather have a world where everyone has a reasonable quality of life instead of taking shots at becoming millionaires and then just sitting back and watching the world burn if they succeed.
As far as solutions, I'm still trying to figure that out. I agree that progress is slowly being made, I simply want that trend to continue, and I feel like it can't if we stagnate into the current systems and structures that are just becoming increasingly corrupt with no sign of improvements in sight. It baffles me how people started to reform the flaws in capitalism by banning monopolies then just... stopped, and started fighting to maintain any other flaws that are found.
As for a small solution, I touched on that in my comment. This might have just been a thing in the US, but we had employers hanging out signs saying "nobody wants to work anymore" because former employees were getting better quality of life from pandemic relief programs than they were from the salary/tips (look up tipping in the US if you're unfamiliar, it's another huge flaw in capitalism here that people refuse to correct) they got at their minimum wage jobs. Two solutions here. One, do what capitalism is supposedly so good at and compete by raising wages and adding incentives in order to get employees back. Two, acknowledge that there are actually a lot of people who are absolutely desperate for work and give them a chance instead of turning down applicants while hanging signs that say nobody wants to work.
I'm not even talking about, lowering hiring standards to any great degree. I'm one of those people desperate for work; I have a clean background, but I have anxiety and some physical issues, plus an unusual job history because of times I've had to take off to care for and help ailing relatives. I want to work, but nobody wants my imperfect ass working for them.
Because societies have always been about giving up your rights to be part of a collective. It's just in the past that was more clear and you could still leave and live in the woods if you really wanted to. Now we pretend society is about respecting freedom when it really never was, but now you don't even have the right to leave and live in the woods!
@@Pensive_Scarlet That's because of immigration, US economy has always heavily relied on slaves or indentured labour to get an advantage against europe. Putting the sign up saying nobody wants to work or saying you need 10 years exp for an entry-level job is just a way to deny you employment while giving it to a cheaper 3rd-worlder to exploit better. Sorry libertarians but corporations are now the bad guy.
If internet platforms were consistent with their ToS, Vaush would have been canceled a long time ago.
The socialist view of the world is fairly close to the Sith's interestingly enough.
Everything is based on power, winning is the only thing that matters.
And allies who help you attain power are destroyed and erased
@@juliantheapostate8295 yes, something i forgot. Everything is me me me with them ironically and everyone they associate with is just a tool to them.
Failure is how you learn.
You can’t really apply some quantified “pleasure” variable in the 100 person gang rape scenario though, because rape isn’t just an isolated unpleasant experience that has determinate consequences for the victim. The trauma of rape can completely recalibrate the victim’s nervous system and leave them to repeatedly experience the emotional and psychological pain of their rape for the rest of their life. If you’re going to quantify “pleasure” vs “non-pleasure,” then you need to account for a lifetime of residual suffering.
16:00
As Issac Arthur said on his channel
"Beware the xenophile"
"The xenophobe hates you, wants nothing to do with you"
"The xenophile might be maliciously tricking you"
In other words
A species who will change you against your will thinking its in your best interests, is far worse than a species who would simply fight you if you became a problem
The problem of our age is our elites have learned how to be apart from their incumbent society. Their comeuppance is when they get knifed by other elites and the people won't their back. Our comeuppance likewise will be the fall of our society for allowing such an elite in the first place
@@afuzzycreature8387 Nations split for simpler reasons
Im guessing something like that might happen soon
Problem is, then warring begins
@@afuzzycreature8387 Cleisthenes of Athens realised this. He made common cause with the common folk to help him defeat his rivals - in return, he kept his promise to allow the common citizens to share power
@@afuzzycreature8387 Most based comment I've read today.
Committing Necrophilia without anyone knowing, would be considered evil, but there isn’t really a consequentialist reason why. The perpetrator would presumably derive pleasure, but the victim would be absolutely unaffected and the loved ones are never aware. However, this action is vile and should be deemed wrong, and I think 99% of consequentialists would agree.
There's a difference between ethics/morality and aesthetics/decorum.
This video is excellent and finally justifies the libertarian non-aggression principle in my eyes.
I always hated consequentialist arguments, and was drawn to libertarianism because of that. Consequentialism is like arguing whether pizza or ice cream is better.
Vaush is a moral vacuum.
Yeah I've been getting pretty weary of this modern moral relativism. At the very least, as a human, it's exhausting to not have firm reliable answers in life, you know? As far as I can see, humans have always compulsively conjured explanations for EVERYTHING, even if those explanations later need revising in light of new information, and so there must be a reason and need for such behavior. But lately that need has been ignored (or even shamed), and a lot of foundations have been purposely shattered leaving people's minds in some kind of limbo of uncertainty where there are an infinite number of "truths".
5:25 man, I had a Christian arguing with me about without God can atheist have moral basis and I had a three day argument saying that it doesn't matter if the net value of happiness is positive because it cost the rights of someone.
(It was a lot deeper than that but that's the best way I can sum it up)
Is there an imposter on Dev’s spaceship??