The problem with it was most likely, that they didn't stay at the core of the problem. It was about abortion, so starting to discuss when conciseness starts would have been the best thing to do. The other stuff didn't really have anything to do with the argument. I would also say that the discussion shouldn't be if abortion should be legal or not, but about until which point in the pregnancy a abortion is morally acceptable.
Why was there a pivot from ‘letting it die’ to ‘killing it’, especially when there was a clear distinction made between these two in one of your previous videos
This dude is saying he can just recreate the kid but he couldn't recreate his friend as easily, so therefore "logically" it makes more sense to save the friend. I have to say this is a very male perspective. You cannot easily recreate a newborn baby from the female perspective. Women have to carry a baby to term which is actually somewhat physically dangerous depending on if you have access to medical care. Women have to deal with the physical ailments of pregnancy. This discomfort is topped off by one of the most physically demanding and painful experiences a person can imagine, giving birth to a baby. Babies are not easily "replaced". From the female perspective most of us can only have 10 kids max during our lifetime. The fact is most women even in societies without birth control that number is about 8 children. I have had way more than 8 friends in my lifetime. Friends are much more easily replaced. But back to his original argument, who would one save if a house was burning, the logical conclusion is the baby because the 50 year old has more of a chance of escaping the flames than a baby because a baby is helpless and depends on others for its safety.
Dude, slow down with the content. You're spoiling us. Plus, you're taking me away from my girlfriend. She's gonna dump me soon - and it will be your fault!
Frankly, I think Destiny is wrong on this one. Couldn’t the the reductio ad absurdism argument of “I want to promote a society that values life of babies because I’m alive now and was once a baby” extend all the way back to an embryo?
He is basically saying that every person is the same right when they are born, because they haven't established any connections and haven't accomplished anything in life, and because of that they have no value and we can recreate another like its a clone of the one that just died. So he is saying that what we are is 100 % a product of our education and decisions which is not true... Genetics also plays a part into what we are as a person. So no, we can't recreate a child, therefore his point of saving the 50 year old other than the child doesnt make sense
@@sivasiva-jl5tc hmm ok makes a bit more sense now. But the difference between baby 1 and baby 2, as much hard as it is to tell, is quite big. Yes they both have the genetic code from the same mom and dad but there's unique genetic code in them which is what makes us all so different from each other. But yeah, I kinda understand your point there. Still it would be hard for me to make a decision there, although I would probably end up choosing to save the baby
Assuming both the father and the child are unique, the child should be more easily replaced than the father because he has accomplished much more in life and has more value to society, but It's hard for me to say he has more intrinsic value than the child... It's kinda of a tough topic :P
It's kind of freaky how our values on this issue are based on our inevitable upcoming deaths. I wonder how this would change if we were immortal through whatever means. Like what would we mourn more, a million year old dying or a 30 year old dying? With aging cured would we see older people not as a very temporary state of existence or more like a precious antique.
this is stupid there is no formal definition of consciousness, if the baby/ child is able to feel and process the world it's just as conscious as us what it lacks is intelligence and experience and i would argue there is no inherent value to those thing that give older people more reason to live.
Are insects "just as conscious as we are"? Do you think intelligence is unrelated to consciousness? I think you should consider consciousness as a continuum instead of either/or.
@@SigWahrheit obviously other peoples lives have value, i just said that the value doesn't necessarily come from their experiences.on some level a plant is conscious but, the argument was about value difference between babies and adults, who's only separating factor is their age. there's obvious other things like community and empathy that make us put other people no matter what age above and plant or bug.
Plumbers really do a valuable service, controlling sewage is key to living in a city. Helps keeps shit done disease away. Back before there was plumbing and swears systems people literally through shit and piss out of a window..... Plumbing along with medical advances is the reason why we have the life span we do now. People place value on skill level over service is silly in my book. It's back breaking work to do plumbing and most people wouldn't want to do it. Both skill and service should really matter to the value of the job. Signed a former medic.
"I don't really believe in morally wrong" Keeping this comment here for people to reference when Edgestiny is in another debate with someone who is participating in actions he deems morally wrong.
There is no 50 year old person especially a parent who would prefer you to save them over a baby that may or may not be theirs. Therefore save the child as it's what the older person would want. Edit a well adjusted human being is assumed.
@@Sikidd206 maybe, but it's a reason that was never discussed and I believe its reason enough that you wouldn't need to go any deeper into the conversation. IE when victim A tells you to save victim B you save victim B. (in this case victim B is a baby who is unable to say "save A".) However it did make me think about the organ donor issue after I posted which is a tougher situation than the burning building or any other event that would include an act of heroism.
Every dollar you keep for yourself is a dollar you could have donated to starving kids in developing countries, but chose not to. Looks like you're choosing your own wellbeing over the lives of kids every day, oops.
@@aronchai That is an entirely different situation and topic. There is so much to unpack. You are not presented with this option in your daily life, you dont have any knowledge of people outside of your immediate area, you have no idea if giving them money will help them, and it could be argued that giving them all of your money is more harmful to yourself than giving your life as it would leave you suffering in poverty until you die. In other words the amount of help they receive is less than the harm/cost to yourself. Saving someone in a fire right in front of you is far more realistic than trying to save someone thousands of miles away. That being said we do have people who go to other countries and actually help those people and i think anyone would agree they are objectively better human beings for doing so.
Can someone explain destiny's abortion position more clearly as I don't understand; why does he believe all stages of life need to be protected to protect his life, including stages he will never be (fetus)? Wouldn't he only need to be in favor of protecting stages that he is/will/can be?
There are some interesting studies that show opinions change on saving s person, if they are overweight. Also if they could push the button and have the person killed without seeing it. More data that shows how us human beings are generally irrational and complex. This is why we need experts sometimes. (Also why 90% of people shouldn’t vote)
9:48 dO yOu tHinK iT's lOgiCal? Nah, it's not logical that parents would save their child, over some random adult. It's not as if many parents want a life long bond with their child(ren) anyway.
Philip Flood autistic people don’t lack empathy. Stop spreading misinformation and keep your mouth shut about things you don’t understand. You’re hurting people.
@@jcavs9847 Logic is a method of reasoning. Therefore, emotions are better considered as outside the realm of logic, instead of either logical or illogical. Emotion-based reasoning can be illogical (ie that man looks scary we shouldn't trust him). You can also use logical reasoning to make choices that will fulfill your emotional needs. (ie. I love my son, so I will vaccinate him). Therefore, wanting an emotional bond is not 'illogical', but rather 'alogical', if you will. Thinking that emotional bonds will probably make you happier is logical. That's why I said that saving your child is a logical way to maximize your own happiness, the premises being of course that the parents care more about their child than the other person and that they want to maximize their own happiness.
Honestly the real answer is that in that situation you are pretty much going into autopilot, and it depends on a lot of factors ( like where the family members are located even in relation to the fire and you). I have heard a case where a father ran out of the burning house and left his two young daughters in the home, and I have heard of a woman dying in a fire because she was trying to save her disabled husband. I also think in those instances it is unfair to hold people as morally responsible for their actions because they often do not react logically.
Just a quick question. I heard Destiny say he's an 'egoist' or something meaning that his moral system is derived from self interest, ultimately, and so if there's an action which serves him no benefit, he doesn't care. What if I told Destiny that after he's dead, I will murder Nathan. Would he do anything to stop me, or will he not care since killing Nathan would not harm Destiny after he's dead. (Just a random question, don't know why my mind went there)
Well if you told him that while he's alive, he could easily say that you saying that is hindering his life. Because now he would have that in back of his head. So him being an egoist would still be permissible in thos situation.
@@EmoBurrito123 Ok sure, I'm just confused cause as an egoist, why would Destiny care what happens to his son after being dead. Why would it hinder his life if he knows nothing will happen to him while Destiny is alive?
@@stuartkeating6508 well he could argue that him KNOWING that his son will be murdered after he died could hinder his experience with him CURRENTLY. Much like you cant fully have great experiences with somone you care about that has terminal cancer because in the back of the head u still feel bad about it? Cant really articulate my thought perfectly but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say
@@anarchyintheusa4443 I'm just really stupid. I was really asking "why" would it cause Destiny emotional baggage? I know what's being said is me telling Destiny will "create the emotional baggage" during his life, but why would it create the emotional baggage if Nathan will be killed AFTER Destiny's death is what I'm asking. Why does he care what happens to his son after his death? But in the same vein, if I told Destiny that I will nuke Earth after his death, would he care as much? (since it could also kill Nathan)
This scenario is presented in intro to philosophy classes in college, this guy clearly was not paying attention because he definitely misunderstood the arguments for saving the 50 year old.
I have two sons. From day one they were very distinct individuals from each other. True they aren’t full formed humans and maybe they can’t form bonds with me at day one, but the parents absolutely form bonds with that specific child that are very strong and very valuable. Almost no parents would believe one new born is interchangeable with a future new born
This guy is completely wrong on every level what? How did Destiny let him get away with saying that babies are “blank slates” his whole thing there would fall apart if Destiny had said anything at all about the fact that that’s completely false, they have all there genes and potential traits ready to be influenced on at any given point of their life, how did Destiny let him get away with that, unless I’m totally wrong on this
I kinda said the opposite, that’s why I said they have everything, the genes and traits, “ready to be influenced” you may have mistyped though idk, from what I understand I would say it’s actually ~90% nurture, ~10% nature, It seems to me all personality type genes are only there for higher probability of your personality traits, but are mostly if not entirely dependent on how you’re brought up from direct learning, to what goes on around you
Not_Tommy well not only is it not a blank slate from the get-go because of traits like height, hair color, eye color, etc. but I think babies can be influenced on from conception as well, from what the mother eats, to even, if in the womb the parents scream and are angry a lot or are happy and talk normally
The dude's complaining that morality shouldn't involve kneejerk decisions or people shouldn't base anything on a knee jerk decision but a scenario in which you have to choose between two people to save is literally a scenario where you'd have to go with a kneejerk decision before they both die. In the real world, you'd be better of trying to save the baby because the 50-year-old has the potential to save themselves and would probably survive longer. In general I just kinda hate moral philosophy where it relies on hypotheticals rather than realistic scenarios.
4:30 the answer is no. killing someone is not acceptable. the scenario is about choosing who to save in a desperate situation not about who to kill. also thats pretty much the argument for late term abortion right? it doesnt know anything/its not human yet so its ok to kill it.
What you do, is run in to the burning building, pick up the baby & then run to the old guy and ask him yourself 'you ok with this?', and then decide there. The question doesn't specify if the building is 2 story, how far the persons involved are away from each other, if you know where they are, or how bad the fire is. If you run into a fire you are also person yourself at risk, so even if you save the one you didn't really want to save, you still won, I guess. I guess you could ask yourself, if you were the old person, would you want the baby to live instead? Or survive and live with the reminder that you had the choice.
Honestly,..... do these people not get embarrassed that they go on and argue a valid point but can't put in to words the reasoning behind it. He was trying to play the argument of objective probability over future potential/future time of life. I would save whoever is more likely to survive me pulling them out of the fire. Whoever is more likely to accept the heart transplant successfully. Really not hard to argue but this guy let destiny just run him round in circles......
They literally couldn't be more amateur. They're just viewers that have an idea they want to talk about. Calm down. Also, your solution for this is a non-answer; This isn't a real life example, it's a hypothetical to determine the value of life. The probability of survival is 100% for whoever you choose
Depending on the patient, the one with the most positive outcome from transplant. Is the 50 year old higher risk than the infant? You could have a 50 year old who is healthy and an infant who is deathly ill. Which ever who has optimal chance of survival.
The adult heart would make that baby unacceptably powerful, causing it to pose a threat to my wellbeing. Therefore, preemptive violence against the baby is justified.
@Don't Eat Animals why not use a better example like blood transfusion? its just a stupid example. you dont need to do hypotheticals for everything, like you do in math most of the time.
@Don't Eat Animals its an example that realy apears in real life and you dont need to make it up with nonsense that never would happen so you can 'isolate' the value of each person. my blood is for example is 0- and i can spend for everybody, but can only get from 0+ and optimal from 0- . So the heart example is just poorly chosen. its not like when a 3 months old toddler and i need blood they go like: yeah give that dude the blood and whats left over goes to the toddler. they have to chose who gets the blood. pls stop defending a bad example.
saving hundreds of people from the alt right would mean saving maybe 10 people from actual death or at least worse lifes through their philosophies but a doctor would instantly safe 10 lifes in that example the worth would be the same
This argument negates the 50 year old could want the baby to potentially to live too. Self sacrifice or genroisty is a thing morally in everyday situations
These are way better to watch on UA-cam compared to Twitch. The past few Sunday Q&As have been brutal with every other caller only wanting to talk about socialism 🤦🏼♂️
I understand how you can argue that the baby doesnt intrinsically have value but doesnt assigning an arbitrary value to the baby benefit society and thereby give the baby value?
I can't tell if this guy is just not speaking loud enough or if his accent is just that harsh. There are points where I can't tell what the fuck he's saying because it sounds like incomprehensible gibberish.
Terrible argument. Society has put so much more into the 50 year old especially in terms of education. A 5 year old has had little of that. Easy to make a new one.
@@michaelh878 I don't see the logic of saving the 50 year old because of what society "put into him". While we're at it, should a frail 95 year old diagnosed with final stage prostate cancer be saved over a baby?
@@TonyMishima92 The baby has 15-20 years of being a parasite before it starts being a productive member of society. There are millions of babies being aborted every year and millions more in foster care, orphanages etc. Unless we have some way to foresee this one being special it aint worth it. The 50 year old has accumulated education and experience and should have 15+ productive years ahead of him after which he better have accumulated enough in social security so he's only being a parasite to his earlier self. Same idea for the 90 year old.
These videos harm my language practice. I want to spend all day immersing and using a different language and I can absolutely not find any sort of media that communicates these kinds of ideas in japanese.
I believe it's morally equal to save the child or the man in the burning building. Although the child may add to society more than the man can at this point, I also believe it is just as likely the child will detract from the world more than the old man.
It's just as "logical" for a parent to value their child as an individual (even before they've developed a personality) as it is for you to value a friend as some unique being even though they're not. What kind of stupid argument is that lmao.
This guy's argument literally hinges on the blank slate concept. If you think that "the blank slate" is actually something even remotely correct, then his argument holds some water. Otherwise it falls apart pretty quickly.
I disagree here with destiny btw its just more complicated. on your surface level example it might be irellevant, but in reality if you had to choose and you could know the difference in value, which you can, you would choose the less valuable. in a situation where its just age difference and no other information, you should choose to kill the one with less time left but in reality you wouldnt kill albert einstein in his 50s over a random child.
If it's just a blanket question of a newborn vs a 50 year all you can go off of is potential...and in this case, a newborn has more potential than a 50 year who on average in the US only has about 30 years of the worst years of their life left.... but objectively there is no answer to this question that always remains true.... after all the life of a 50 year old Nobel prizing winning researcher faaaar outweighs the average baby, just like the life of a healthy baby outweighs someone who's in a coma.... There's a lot of factors that can be used to determine whose life has more value than someone else's.... but if all we know about two people is their age... then all we can talk about is their potential
@@perzn7877 Because Destiny's argumemt at one point was that babies are more worthy of being saved because they have "potential" but "potential" is fuckin irrelevant because that "potential" could be the potential to be a horrid fuckin person
babies in general will be average, if we do this over and over depending on the specific 50 year olds being above or below average value, we would end up having better people in our society. if 50 year olds value is unevenly distributed among themselves, like less people being below average than above, then it's still negligible if value is a net value, you would not kill the 50 year olds, even though they stop working soon. but I think it's not only about people's value but the value's value, so to say. idc if people have more value if it means that maybe I work my ass off just to be killed if I am not enough in the end. I didn't watch the debate, maybe it did came up already or maybe I'm irrelevant, but that's my take
If I keep living there's a theoretical chance I could live forever but in the scenario the vid uses it doesn't matter since they said both eventually die
Haven't seen the video yet, but my initial thought is, looking at it as objectively as I can... I would save the baby. Unless the 50 yr old is an exceptional contributor to society or is the primary earner of his *dependant* family, the baby offers greater potential to contribute to his community. We can delve deeper by looking at things like the parents of the baby's economic status and the 50 yr old's ability to immediately reproduce, but I think I'll be intellectually lazy and let Steven be my voice of reason again.
I like to imagine a robot with super fast processing speed and an internet connection going through all the different factors in its utilitarian calculus to decide who to save in the course of a second.
Maybe if this guy didn't play video games while answering questions he could make more cogent arguments. How bout this hypothetical to force yourself to focus on the main issue. If you could only save one of your two children would you save your 2 month old or your 10 year old? Mind you these types of hypotheticals only work when the parent is making the choice. They do NOT somehow grant legitimacy for a centralized healthcare administrative body to decide who to save or not save.
He should have made the argument and directed it to certain areas where the baby could grow up to be a Hitler or a White Nationalist I know the counter would be that the baby could to be a social good as a scientist or doctor for example. His value on life doesn’t make sense and I don’t know why he doesn’t get it. A general saving a 50 year old is the same argument on who they are or even for a general population study of 50 year olds in America. Much love dude I’m actually going to subscribe on twitch so I can hear all your arguments. I hope my email on my Israel paper helped
One angle that I'm thinking on this debate, is the "impact" of each person. If a 3 month baby were to die, not a lot of people would care for it, for example, other than the parents, and even then it might be easier to get over than an adult. However, that 50 yo, might know more people, more people would have a strong emotional connection to them because of the 50 yo impact in their life, and therefore impacted by the death much more. In that regard, it's a net negative for the 50 yo to die. But yea, I'd still save the baby, because it's far more likely to fight in the revolution against the capitalists. 👌
@@sivasiva-jl5tc Sure, but that's essentially making the dilemma into a choice of self-preservation, rather than one that's there to measure the value of life based on the age. I think part of Destiny's egoist system isn't necessarily always about self-preservation, but instead what he himself values in general. So, if he values the life of a 5 year old more than his, he'd choose to save that kid instead of himself. For example, it's possible he'd choose himself if he's 30, because he values all the future in front of him, but not if he's 90 on his death bed.
I still would have picked the 50 year old doctor over the 5 year old future doctor. A 50 year old doctor can literally be saving lives as soon as he recovers form the surgery, while the 5 year old still has 15+ years ahead of him in development before he is able to contribute to the well being of people around him in the same magnitude as the doctor. People could literally die if that doctor dies, nobody will die due to a 5 year old not getting a heart. I think the immediate good of having a doctor outweighs the future good of having a doctor for a longer period of time. This is all assuming we have a 100% assurance this kid is a carbon copy of the doctor and will be equal in all ways, which is unrealistic, but necessary to isolate variables. If the kid was for some reason promised to be a greater doctor then then 50 year old this calculation changes, ultimately none of this matters because we make decisions with emotions, and not logic, and when emotions are concerned, probably even with me, the kid wins every time.
CabbageFoot16 you don’t think the kid will be able to save A LOT more people once he becomes a doctor since he’d have more time to live then the 50 year old man
Mr Bonnelli is pumping out that CONTENT BABY.
Shoutout to the editors
Sam Van Penuela The editors fucking rock.
damage control after trainwrecks debate
@@Shakalkg ??? He's been pumping out videos frequently long before that. Assuming you're talking about Keem, I don't keep up with Train like that.
Help me with the campaign to bring back the old TUDU-DU INTRO
The baby was NOT morally lucky in this debate.
That means destiny is morally wrong
morals are a meme
The problem with it was most likely, that they didn't stay at the core of the problem. It was about abortion, so starting to discuss when conciseness starts would have been the best thing to do. The other stuff didn't really have anything to do with the argument.
I would also say that the discussion shouldn't be if abortion should be legal or not, but about until which point in the pregnancy a abortion is morally acceptable.
Destiny destroyed a baby in this debate
i dont see it
Yikes
Waste of valuable stem cells
Please help me bring the old TUDU-DU INTRO
50 year old Destiny failed to save a baby in this debate
Destiny - Debate Speedrun [27:29] any% [No Major Glitches] WR
Start of Debate: “Which would we let die?”
LITERALLY JUST FOUR MINUTES LATER: “CAN WE KILL A BABY, THEN?”
welp
My studying habits were destroyed in this debate
Why was there a pivot from ‘letting it die’ to ‘killing it’, especially when there was a clear distinction made between these two in one of your previous videos
This dude is saying he can just recreate the kid but he couldn't recreate his friend as easily, so therefore "logically" it makes more sense to save the friend. I have to say this is a very male perspective. You cannot easily recreate a newborn baby from the female perspective. Women have to carry a baby to term which is actually somewhat physically dangerous depending on if you have access to medical care. Women have to deal with the physical ailments of pregnancy. This discomfort is topped off by one of the most physically demanding and painful experiences a person can imagine, giving birth to a baby. Babies are not easily "replaced". From the female perspective most of us can only have 10 kids max during our lifetime. The fact is most women even in societies without birth control that number is about 8 children. I have had way more than 8 friends in my lifetime. Friends are much more easily replaced.
But back to his original argument, who would one save if a house was burning, the logical conclusion is the baby because the 50 year old has more of a chance of escaping the flames than a baby because a baby is helpless and depends on others for its safety.
TFBlade failed to falsify the baby in this debate
Both are good it’s value vs tempo basic hearthstone
LMFAOO
Maybe someone should warn the cops about this guy, just in case.
Dude, slow down with the content. You're spoiling us. Plus, you're taking me away from my girlfriend. She's gonna dump me soon - and it will be your fault!
Destiny is my tulpa girlfriend.
If she'd leave you for listening to Destiny it's time to find a better girlfriend.
Okay. But would you kill your girlfriend or a 50 year old man?
@@cookiebandit18 my gf obviously
Save men of a certain age!
Frankly, I think Destiny is wrong on this one. Couldn’t the the reductio ad absurdism argument of “I want to promote a society that values life of babies because I’m alive now and was once a baby” extend all the way back to an embryo?
Its so cool seeing these live before youtube
Destiny was killed in his sleep in this debate
And the CONTENT KEEPS ON COMING BABY!!
AND THE BABY KEEPS ON GOING!
He is basically saying that every person is the same right when they are born, because they haven't established any connections and haven't accomplished anything in life, and because of that they have no value and we can recreate another like its a clone of the one that just died. So he is saying that what we are is 100 % a product of our education and decisions which is not true... Genetics also plays a part into what we are as a person. So no, we can't recreate a child, therefore his point of saving the 50 year old other than the child doesnt make sense
@@sivasiva-jl5tc hmm ok makes a bit more sense now. But the difference between baby 1 and baby 2, as much hard as it is to tell, is quite big. Yes they both have the genetic code from the same mom and dad but there's unique genetic code in them which is what makes us all so different from each other. But yeah, I kinda understand your point there. Still it would be hard for me to make a decision there, although I would probably end up choosing to save the baby
Assuming both the father and the child are unique, the child should be more easily replaced than the father because he has accomplished much more in life and has more value to society, but It's hard for me to say he has more intrinsic value than the child... It's kinda of a tough topic :P
Well yeah because he thinks babies are a blank slate and is already wrong
It's kind of freaky how our values on this issue are based on our inevitable upcoming deaths. I wonder how this would change if we were immortal through whatever means.
Like what would we mourn more, a million year old dying or a 30 year old dying? With aging cured would we see older people not as a very temporary state of existence or more like a precious antique.
this is stupid there is no formal definition of consciousness, if the baby/ child is able to feel and process the world it's just as conscious as us what it lacks is intelligence and experience and i would argue there is no inherent value to those thing that give older people more reason to live.
Are insects "just as conscious as we are"? Do you think intelligence is unrelated to consciousness? I think you should consider consciousness as a continuum instead of either/or.
@@SigWahrheit obviously other peoples lives have value, i just said that the value doesn't necessarily come from their experiences.on some level a plant is conscious but, the argument was about value difference between babies and adults, who's only separating factor is their age. there's obvious other things like community and empathy that make us put other people no matter what age above and plant or bug.
As a plumber I am deeply offended. I'd argue I am more valuable.
@TheEsotericZebra Ha, not at all. Though I still do think my job is more valuable.
Plumbers really do a valuable service, controlling sewage is key to living in a city. Helps keeps shit done disease away. Back before there was plumbing and swears systems people literally through shit and piss out of a window..... Plumbing along with medical advances is the reason why we have the life span we do now.
People place value on skill level over service is silly in my book. It's back breaking work to do plumbing and most people wouldn't want to do it. Both skill and service should really matter to the value of the job.
Signed a former medic.
"How many plumbers is my life worth?"
"If I kill you right fucking now-"
I'm dying dude omf
‘I can make a new one’. This dude that Destiny is speaking to, is gonna struggle with women through his life. Lol
"I don't really believe in morally wrong"
Keeping this comment here for people to reference when Edgestiny is in another debate with someone who is participating in actions he deems morally wrong.
There is no 50 year old person especially a parent who would prefer you to save them over a baby that may or may not be theirs. Therefore save the child as it's what the older person would want.
Edit a well adjusted human being is assumed.
@x x :(
Even if thats true. Thats not the main reason why you would save the baby.
@@Sikidd206 maybe, but it's a reason that was never discussed and I believe its reason enough that you wouldn't need to go any deeper into the conversation. IE when victim A tells you to save victim B you save victim B. (in this case victim B is a baby who is unable to say "save A".)
However it did make me think about the organ donor issue after I posted which is a tougher situation than the burning building or any other event that would include an act of heroism.
Every dollar you keep for yourself is a dollar you could have donated to starving kids in developing countries, but chose not to. Looks like you're choosing your own wellbeing over the lives of kids every day, oops.
@@aronchai That is an entirely different situation and topic. There is so much to unpack. You are not presented with this option in your daily life, you dont have any knowledge of people outside of your immediate area, you have no idea if giving them money will help them, and it could be argued that giving them all of your money is more harmful to yourself than giving your life as it would leave you suffering in poverty until you die. In other words the amount of help they receive is less than the harm/cost to yourself.
Saving someone in a fire right in front of you is far more realistic than trying to save someone thousands of miles away.
That being said we do have people who go to other countries and actually help those people and i think anyone would agree they are objectively better human beings for doing so.
Y'know Destiny, if you just accepted Socialism into your heart, you wouldn't have to debate any more Socialists!
Why do communists hate kids?
@@anarchyintheusa4443 They do? Also, what are you replying to?
@@jondoh9414 He's probably triggered because of the S-word. lmao
Destiny resisted to let both the baby and the elderly burn in this debate
Can someone explain destiny's abortion position more clearly as I don't understand; why does he believe all stages of life need to be protected to protect his life, including stages he will never be (fetus)? Wouldn't he only need to be in favor of protecting stages that he is/will/can be?
He has contradictory beliefs. He doesn't know what he believes in like most on the far left.
this is easy, 50 year old would win any time in a fight
There are some interesting studies that show opinions change on saving s person, if they are overweight. Also if they could push the button and have the person killed without seeing it. More data that shows how us human beings are generally irrational and complex. This is why we need experts sometimes. (Also why 90% of people shouldn’t vote)
Would you advocate for some form of Authoritarianism or actually selecting the people who get to vote in that case?
9:48 dO yOu tHinK iT's lOgiCal?
Nah, it's not logical that parents would save their child, over some random adult.
It's not as if many parents want a life long bond with their child(ren) anyway.
Philip Flood autistic people don’t lack empathy. Stop spreading misinformation and keep your mouth shut about things you don’t understand. You’re hurting people.
You could say it is pretty logical in the sense that it's the choice that will probably maximise their happiness.
@@unslaadkrosis3489 fair point, good callout
Well, emotions are illogical. So wanting an emotional bond is illogical
@@jcavs9847 Logic is a method of reasoning. Therefore, emotions are better considered as outside the realm of logic, instead of either logical or illogical. Emotion-based reasoning can be illogical (ie that man looks scary we shouldn't trust him). You can also use logical reasoning to make choices that will fulfill your emotional needs. (ie. I love my son, so I will vaccinate him).
Therefore, wanting an emotional bond is not 'illogical', but rather 'alogical', if you will. Thinking that emotional bonds will probably make you happier is logical.
That's why I said that saving your child is a logical way to maximize your own happiness, the premises being of course that the parents care more about their child than the other person and that they want to maximize their own happiness.
Honestly the real answer is that in that situation you are pretty much going into autopilot, and it depends on a lot of factors ( like where the family members are located even in relation to the fire and you). I have heard a case where a father ran out of the burning house and left his two young daughters in the home, and I have heard of a woman dying in a fire because she was trying to save her disabled husband. I also think in those instances it is unfair to hold people as morally responsible for their actions because they often do not react logically.
If say if you are a dad who let's their children die and you feel no regret about it after you're a piece of shit.
The baby is lighter and a sure bet when it comes down to knowing whether you can get them out alive.
Yeahp true but I also bet it depends on location of the person.
Traveler Finder babies are heavy af bro :[
@@eartianwerewolf True, if the baby is on floor 10 and the guy on floor 1 maybe I have a better chance in saving the guy.
That's not part of the dilemma.
This guy hard to listen to, he doesn't understand his own argument at all
Just a quick question. I heard Destiny say he's an 'egoist' or something meaning that his moral system is derived from self interest, ultimately, and so if there's an action which serves him no benefit, he doesn't care. What if I told Destiny that after he's dead, I will murder Nathan. Would he do anything to stop me, or will he not care since killing Nathan would not harm Destiny after he's dead. (Just a random question, don't know why my mind went there)
Well if you told him that while he's alive, he could easily say that you saying that is hindering his life. Because now he would have that in back of his head. So him being an egoist would still be permissible in thos situation.
@@EmoBurrito123 Ok sure, I'm just confused cause as an egoist, why would Destiny care what happens to his son after being dead. Why would it hinder his life if he knows nothing will happen to him while Destiny is alive?
@@stuartkeating6508 well he could argue that him KNOWING that his son will be murdered after he died could hinder his experience with him CURRENTLY. Much like you cant fully have great experiences with somone you care about that has terminal cancer because in the back of the head u still feel bad about it? Cant really articulate my thought perfectly but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say
@@EmoBurrito123 because it would cause emotional damage
@@anarchyintheusa4443 I'm just really stupid. I was really asking "why" would it cause Destiny emotional baggage? I know what's being said is me telling Destiny will "create the emotional baggage" during his life, but why would it create the emotional baggage if Nathan will be killed AFTER Destiny's death is what I'm asking. Why does he care what happens to his son after his death? But in the same vein, if I told Destiny that I will nuke Earth after his death, would he care as much? (since it could also kill Nathan)
Damn I was hoping this debate was future destiny vs a baby.
This guy seems like he's barely thought about what he's trying to debate, or his perception is just skewed. A kid is just a blank slate? Wtf?
Can you elaborate?
He definitely thought of this shit just hours before
This scenario is presented in intro to philosophy classes in college, this guy clearly was not paying attention because he definitely misunderstood the arguments for saving the 50 year old.
I have two sons. From day one they were very distinct individuals from each other. True they aren’t full formed humans and maybe they can’t form bonds with me at day one, but the parents absolutely form bonds with that specific child that are very strong and very valuable. Almost no parents would believe one new born is interchangeable with a future new born
This guy is completely wrong on every level what? How did Destiny let him get away with saying that babies are “blank slates” his whole thing there would fall apart if Destiny had said anything at all about the fact that that’s completely false, they have all there genes and potential traits ready to be influenced on at any given point of their life, how did Destiny let him get away with that, unless I’m totally wrong on this
I kinda said the opposite, that’s why I said they have everything, the genes and traits, “ready to be influenced” you may have mistyped though idk, from what I understand I would say it’s actually ~90% nurture, ~10% nature, It seems to me all personality type genes are only there for higher probability of your personality traits, but are mostly if not entirely dependent on how you’re brought up from direct learning, to what goes on around you
Idk, if Destiny would have caught that the debate would be over.
@@flipflop1194 How is something that hasn't been influenced on yet not a blank slate?
Not_Tommy well not only is it not a blank slate from the get-go because of traits like height, hair color, eye color, etc. but I think babies can be influenced on from conception as well, from what the mother eats, to even, if in the womb the parents scream and are angry a lot or are happy and talk normally
What would you prefer, live to 50 or not live at all?
50
Not at all please someone abort me
@@Malkether im talking about 50 year old or baby with no social connections
Thatsthejoke.png
@@Malkether oh no im embarrassed
The dude's complaining that morality shouldn't involve kneejerk decisions or people shouldn't base anything on a knee jerk decision but a scenario in which you have to choose between two people to save is literally a scenario where you'd have to go with a kneejerk decision before they both die. In the real world, you'd be better of trying to save the baby because the 50-year-old has the potential to save themselves and would probably survive longer. In general I just kinda hate moral philosophy where it relies on hypotheticals rather than realistic scenarios.
4:30 the answer is no. killing someone is not acceptable. the scenario is about choosing who to save in a desperate situation not about who to kill.
also thats pretty much the argument for late term abortion right? it doesnt know anything/its not human yet so its ok to kill it.
Why is killing someone not acceptable
Absolutely cranking out these videos
Save the 50 year old, babies don't deserve moral consideration
We pound out truckloads of babies on the daily
@@Bynming Then we can pound them back in
What do you mean by that lol
Babies are perfectly innocent
@@anarchyintheusa4443 Babies are disgusting creatures
What you do, is run in to the burning building, pick up the baby & then run to the old guy and ask him yourself 'you ok with this?', and then decide there. The question doesn't specify if the building is 2 story, how far the persons involved are away from each other, if you know where they are, or how bad the fire is.
If you run into a fire you are also person yourself at risk, so even if you save the one you didn't really want to save, you still won, I guess.
I guess you could ask yourself, if you were the old person, would you want the baby to live instead? Or survive and live with the reminder that you had the choice.
A plumber is more valuable because if my toilets fucked than where am i gunna shit? He helps keep my quality of life to a certain standard
Honestly,..... do these people not get embarrassed that they go on and argue a valid point but can't put in to words the reasoning behind it.
He was trying to play the argument of objective probability over future potential/future time of life.
I would save whoever is more likely to survive me pulling them out of the fire.
Whoever is more likely to accept the heart transplant successfully.
Really not hard to argue but this guy let destiny just run him round in circles......
Lol just go to destiny's discord to meet more of these people
They literally couldn't be more amateur. They're just viewers that have an idea they want to talk about. Calm down.
Also, your solution for this is a non-answer; This isn't a real life example, it's a hypothetical to determine the value of life. The probability of survival is 100% for whoever you choose
Depending on the patient, the one with the most positive outcome from transplant. Is the 50 year old higher risk than the infant? You could have a 50 year old who is healthy and an infant who is deathly ill. Which ever who has optimal chance of survival.
Shawn Brink yeah true
I read the first part of the title and thought it was another debate against soph.
FeelsBadButAlsoKindaGoodMan
Save the 50 year old or the nazi baby Soph
I'm not killing anyone no matter what
But if invaderVie asked me to kill I'd do it with a SMILE.
ok
imagine invaderVie stepping on you 🤧🤧🤭
All hail our Leg Goddess
invaderVie haHAA
3 VIDEOS IN A DAY \○/
yeah like a hearth that would work for a 50 years old could be stuffed into a 3 months old baby
The adult heart would make that baby unacceptably powerful, causing it to pose a threat to my wellbeing. Therefore, preemptive violence against the baby is justified.
@Don't Eat Animals something that cant happen isnt a good point
@Don't Eat Animals why not use a better example like blood transfusion? its just a stupid example. you dont need to do hypotheticals for everything, like you do in math most of the time.
@Don't Eat Animals its an example that realy apears in real life and you dont need to make it up with nonsense that never would happen so you can 'isolate' the value of each person. my blood is for example is 0- and i can spend for everybody, but can only get from 0+ and optimal from 0- . So the heart example is just poorly chosen. its not like when a 3 months old toddler and i need blood they go like: yeah give that dude the blood and whats left over goes to the toddler. they have to chose who gets the blood. pls stop defending a bad example.
@Don't Eat Animals the heart example makes no sense at all. The blood example atleast is logical and ty for proving my point
saving hundreds of people from the alt right would mean saving maybe 10 people from actual death or at least worse lifes through their philosophies but a doctor would instantly safe 10 lifes in that example the worth would be the same
This argument negates the 50 year old could want the baby to potentially to live too. Self sacrifice or genroisty is a thing morally in everyday situations
The old man knows what death means. The baby is indifferent. Save the old man
If someone picked me over a baby I'd be pissed
You say that now but you're not at risk of dying @@anarchyintheusa4443
@@kayvahn2141 well even if my judgement lapses hopefully they ignore my pleas for help
These are way better to watch on UA-cam compared to Twitch. The past few Sunday Q&As have been brutal with every other caller only wanting to talk about socialism 🤦🏼♂️
I understand how you can argue that the baby doesnt intrinsically have value but doesnt assigning an arbitrary value to the baby benefit society and thereby give the baby value?
Another 30 minutes well spent :D
Michalkiewicz, to ten faszysta!
I can't tell if this guy is just not speaking loud enough or if his accent is just that harsh. There are points where I can't tell what the fuck he's saying because it sounds like incomprehensible gibberish.
i knew this dude was a serb from the second he joined on stream and youd be surprised about the professor he has but a lot of serbs are like that
Terrible argument. Society has put so much more into the 50 year old especially in terms of education. A 5 year old has had little of that. Easy to make a new one.
I'd choose a baby over you lol
@@anarchyintheusa4443 I'd choose a baby over anyone who lols at their own comment as clearly their education has failed.
@@michaelh878
I don't see the logic of saving the 50 year old because of what society "put into him". While we're at it, should a frail 95 year old diagnosed with final stage prostate cancer be saved over a baby?
@@TonyMishima92 The baby has 15-20 years of being a parasite before it starts being a productive member of society. There are millions of babies being aborted every year and millions more in foster care, orphanages etc.
Unless we have some way to foresee this one being special it aint worth it. The 50 year old has accumulated education and experience and should have 15+ productive years ahead of him after which he better have accumulated enough in social security so he's only being a parasite to his earlier self.
Same idea for the 90 year old.
@@michaelh878 lol
For the burning building, you save the baby, because the 50 year old is more likely to be able to help himself.
A heart that can be used on a baby would not be able to be used on an adult, and vice versa, so it's a false choice.
Destiny here is conflating a long life with a good life. The value of life has nothing intrinsically to do with how long it lasts
Ur right life has no value
What is this? CoachRedPill vs Soph?
These videos harm my language practice. I want to spend all day immersing and using a different language and I can absolutely not find any sort of media that communicates these kinds of ideas in japanese.
That would be very difficult
Anime is proof two nukes weren't enough
I believe it's morally equal to save the child or the man in the burning building. Although the child may add to society more than the man can at this point, I also believe it is just as likely the child will detract from the world more than the old man.
I want to debate Destiny on the post axiomatic after life
It's just as "logical" for a parent to value their child as an individual (even before they've developed a personality) as it is for you to value a friend as some unique being even though they're not. What kind of stupid argument is that lmao.
this guy is almost there
Does this guy not have a sibling. You can't just "make another one."
This guy's argument literally hinges on the blank slate concept. If you think that "the blank slate" is actually something even remotely correct, then his argument holds some water. Otherwise it falls apart pretty quickly.
I disagree here with destiny btw its just more complicated. on your surface level example it might be irellevant, but in reality if you had to choose and you could know the difference in value, which you can, you would choose the less valuable. in a situation where its just age difference and no other information, you should choose to kill the one with less time left but in reality you wouldnt kill albert einstein in his 50s over a random child.
If it's just a blanket question of a newborn vs a 50 year all you can go off of is potential...and in this case, a newborn has more potential than a 50 year who on average in the US only has about 30 years of the worst years of their life left.... but objectively there is no answer to this question that always remains true.... after all the life of a 50 year old Nobel prizing winning researcher faaaar outweighs the average baby, just like the life of a healthy baby outweighs someone who's in a coma.... There's a lot of factors that can be used to determine whose life has more value than someone else's.... but if all we know about two people is their age... then all we can talk about is their potential
Destiny doesn't view his child as a blank slate in this debate
Who would you save? Destiny's child? Or destiny?
"they have more potential life"
lmao, they also could be the next Hitler but okay
??? How is that relevant
@@perzn7877 Because Destiny's argumemt at one point was that babies are more worthy of being saved because they have "potential" but "potential" is fuckin irrelevant because that "potential" could be the potential to be a horrid fuckin person
babies in general will be average, if we do this over and over depending on the specific 50 year olds being above or below average value, we would end up having better people in our society. if 50 year olds value is unevenly distributed among themselves, like less people being below average than above, then it's still negligible if value is a net value, you would not kill the 50 year olds, even though they stop working soon. but I think it's not only about people's value but the value's value, so to say. idc if people have more value if it means that maybe I work my ass off just to be killed if I am not enough in the end. I didn't watch the debate, maybe it did came up already or maybe I'm irrelevant, but that's my take
Violet K. Okay he could become the next Gandhi as well so your argument is completely irrelevant
@@Lors_101 No, thats literally my argument
im saying potential is a pointless metric because it means literally nothing
I don't know what the fuck this debate even was
That said, if I'm fifty and in any kind of situation like these, SAVE THE KID FOR FUCKS SAKE
This is basically the abortion debate but with a 3 month old baby instead.
By this logic wouldn't a newborn baby be more valuable than a child?
Doesn't matter who you save if both are gonna die one day.
If I keep living there's a theoretical chance I could live forever but in the scenario the vid uses it doesn't matter since they said both eventually die
Will you be at the MINDS convention in New Jersey?
Haven't seen the video yet, but my initial thought is, looking at it as objectively as I can... I would save the baby. Unless the 50 yr old is an exceptional contributor to society or is the primary earner of his *dependant* family, the baby offers greater potential to contribute to his community. We can delve deeper by looking at things like the parents of the baby's economic status and the 50 yr old's ability to immediately reproduce, but I think I'll be intellectually lazy and let Steven be my voice of reason again.
I like to imagine a robot with super fast processing speed and an internet connection going through all the different factors in its utilitarian calculus to decide who to save in the course of a second.
Damn, I know someone whose babies burned to death in a fire. It’s dark shit.
Destiny saved 15% on car insurance by saving a baby in this debate.
Tbh I don't opt donate my organs because I do a lot of drugs and they're probably fucked at this point
I am 50 save the kid let me die.
Same and I'm only 19
Please save me and f the kid
aww
I’m 30, save the kid.
Maybe if this guy didn't play video games while answering questions he could make more cogent arguments.
How bout this hypothetical to force yourself to focus on the main issue. If you could only save one of your two children would you save your 2 month old or your 10 year old?
Mind you these types of hypotheticals only work when the parent is making the choice. They do NOT somehow grant legitimacy for a centralized healthcare administrative body to decide who to save or not save.
He should have made the argument and directed it to certain areas where the baby could grow up to be a Hitler or a White Nationalist I know the counter would be that the baby could to be a social good as a scientist or doctor for example. His value on life doesn’t make sense and I don’t know why he doesn’t get it. A general saving a 50 year old is the same argument on who they are or even for a general population study of 50 year olds in America. Much love dude I’m actually going to subscribe on twitch so I can hear all your arguments. I hope my email on my Israel paper helped
TFW baby vs 50 year old debate is longer than the socialism debate. PepeHands
Destiny got hypothetically aborted in this debate
How's this a 30 min conversation? Destiny won the debate in the first minute
I hope this guy never has any children. If there was a burning building its own father wouldnt save it.
One angle that I'm thinking on this debate, is the "impact" of each person. If a 3 month baby were to die, not a lot of people would care for it, for example, other than the parents, and even then it might be easier to get over than an adult. However, that 50 yo, might know more people, more people would have a strong emotional connection to them because of the 50 yo impact in their life, and therefore impacted by the death much more. In that regard, it's a net negative for the 50 yo to die.
But yea, I'd still save the baby, because it's far more likely to fight in the revolution against the capitalists. 👌
@@sivasiva-jl5tc Sure, but that's essentially making the dilemma into a choice of self-preservation, rather than one that's there to measure the value of life based on the age. I think part of Destiny's egoist system isn't necessarily always about self-preservation, but instead what he himself values in general. So, if he values the life of a 5 year old more than his, he'd choose to save that kid instead of himself. For example, it's possible he'd choose himself if he's 30, because he values all the future in front of him, but not if he's 90 on his death bed.
Moral debate:
Choose between destiny's mental state or destiny arguing with right wing nut jobs.
50 year old baby a moral debate
With the title, I thought Destiny was gonna debate a child for some reason.
This is the weirdest conversation I've ever heard.
Consequentialist: save 50 year old because he can still make new babies pronto and the baby has to wait 9-18 years to even be capable of having babies
I would say there are a lot more factors to consider....
Triple upload???
I still would have picked the 50 year old doctor over the 5 year old future doctor. A 50 year old doctor can literally be saving lives as soon as he recovers form the surgery, while the 5 year old still has 15+ years ahead of him in development before he is able to contribute to the well being of people around him in the same magnitude as the doctor. People could literally die if that doctor dies, nobody will die due to a 5 year old not getting a heart. I think the immediate good of having a doctor outweighs the future good of having a doctor for a longer period of time. This is all assuming we have a 100% assurance this kid is a carbon copy of the doctor and will be equal in all ways, which is unrealistic, but necessary to isolate variables. If the kid was for some reason promised to be a greater doctor then then 50 year old this calculation changes, ultimately none of this matters because we make decisions with emotions, and not logic, and when emotions are concerned, probably even with me, the kid wins every time.
CabbageFoot16 you don’t think the kid will be able to save A LOT more people once he becomes a doctor since he’d have more time to live then the 50 year old man
New abortion policy: 6 months out of the womb