I liked this video for a couple of reasons. 1) Philosophy is interesting in its own way. 2) How many late night talk shows - or talk shows in general for that matter - have a philosopher as a guest? I suspect it is a short list, perhaps only one name. Thanks for preserving this out-of-the-ordinary interview.
I enjoy philosophy myself, there is a course by Michael Sandel from the uni of Harvard. Fantastic moral philosophy lectures, very fascinating basics and more. Well put! It's a pleasure!
Dick Cavett would have, but whether the network would have let him is another story (depending on the year, he got cancelled a lot and switched networks many timea).
i'm still stuck on the part where you don't define morality. If the definition is left un-stated (not even offered as a polemic), all we are left with is trying to draw conclusions about how OTHERS define morality. I'm not sure of that suffices for particularism. Maybe it does.
Thank you so much! This is great! Mr. Dancy is smart, poised, witty, and reads the audience and situation well. He follows Craig's lead and also plays a little too (so he doesn't seem hidebound). I wish he had made more appearances.
Just by listening to Craig before in other interviews when the subject came to more intellectual type subjects, you could tell that he would do well discussing philosophy like this. Craig seems like a very intelligent and well learned, well traveled man, and kudos to him to actually bring John on like he said he would do.
In Mel Brook's movie 'History of the World: Part 1' the character "Comicus" (played by Mr. Brooks) has the following conversation with the "Dole Office Clerk" (played by Bea Arthur): "Dole Office Clerk: Occupation? Comicus: Stand-up philosopher. Dole Office Clerk: What? Comicus: Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension. Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a *bullshit* artist! Comicus: *Grumble*... Dole Office Clerk: Did you bullshit last week? Comicus: No. Dole Office Clerk: Did you *try* to bullshit last week? Comicus: Yes!" I'll end my comment there.
Then he also had Dr. Cornel West who is featured in the 2008 documentary film "Examined Life". Thats what I always liked about Craig, he didnt mind to get a little philosophical.
I think to put it a different way, he's almost a moral historian. As an example, there may be a guy out there who loves working on his car to, say, make it accelerate faster from jump. The guy working on the car will say "to get it to do A, you should do B." The "philosopher" however would ask not what part to use but rather ask how the guy working on the car came to the conclusion to use A or B to begin with. Imagine the guy couldn't use trial and error by measuring the speed of choice A vs choice B mechanically, the same way there is no "moral measuring machine." The philosopher would ask what led the guy to choose choice A over choice B in this specific situation when in a similar situation with different variables, he may choose B over A based on the particulars. Kind of a Jane Goodall as opposed to a person who wants to teach gorillas sign language for example.
I think this gentleman made it more complicated than it really is (and I know - > it's complicated) , and this left craig a bit disappointed ... and me too, because as a philosopher I believe that a philosopher should always instigate and do the opposite of what he did there, and I believe that Craig understands this too. it is not that craig did not understand the concept, but he knows what kind of personality he is dealing with and to whom it is being transmitted ..
Wow, - Stephen Fry was right that was heavy. The trouble was Craig kept changing the scenarios, as I don't think he even understood after about 30 seconds what the very learned gent was talking about, - it was way over his head, (for once), as I'm sure it was the audiences as well. Thank-you for putting it on I had never seen it, and am now reading his book, - it is never too late to learn a different outlook on life.
I don't think it was over his head at all, in fact I think he was doing an admirable job of trying to lock in on Dancy's ideas. Unfortunately, Dancy was doing a terrible job of explaining (as a moral philosophy student who's studied moral particularism, I have to say that Dancy was being very unclear).
Yeah... Was not impressed with the professor at all and it seemed Craig kept switching subjects to avoid embarrassing the gentleman and his lack of coherency.
@@amitb.e.5244 sometimes we get the general idea of something, but even here, if the matter is complex enough, we can't transmit the specifics of the idea in 12 min and he knows it, and so does Craig. Also when you doesn't profoundly know the matter, u tend to make a lot of mistakes related to the scientific nomenclature. At least half of this interview was lost because obviously he had to correct some of Craig's assumptions that are mainly based on his linguistic knowledge rather on the philosophy nomenclature.
I find it interesting conversing with people who think about life and the various dilemmas, conundrums and quadaries that occur on our journeys through it. So many people just live life, but never actually think about it, try to understand it, question it or theorise about it, it's only function seems to be to provide them with a series of self gratifying moments.
"As a philosopher, I'm not in the business of telling people how to live, I'm in the business of trying to understand something". So you're trying to... define things? I thought definitions were bad.
This guy's elevator pitch sucks. ;) I think Craig was expecting the guy to summarize something that he had given a great deal of thought to, yet he couldn't really provide a practical analogy. It did kind of remind me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which largely deals with the concept of whether "quality" exists within a thing independently (objective quality) or if quality is something we ascribe to the thing (subjective quality).
To me philosophers are like a bland candy coated with a tasty spicy layer: At first it is interesting, but after that, when you start debating about the nature of morality and how things might be defined, it gets very bland and I just get the overall feeling that nothing is gained by stretching this debate.
Craig is clever. The idea that morality is entirely contextual and not bound by principles per se is difficult to comprehend. But Craig did very well in tring to tease this out.
This reminds me of the time Baron Cohen interviewed Jacob Rees-Mogg while in his Ali G persona. The only difference here is that Craig Ferguson is himself!
I think this gentleman made it more complicated than it really is, and this left craig a bit disappointed ... And me too, because as a philosopher I believe that a philosopher should always instigate and do the opposite of what he did there, and I believe that Craig understands this too. it is not that craig did not understand the concept, but he knows what kind of personality he is dealing with and to whom it is being transmitted ..
Or anything. Or make any point or reach any conclusion or have anything you say have value or even meaning. The whole thing about not defining things is utter bullcrap, it's just cheating in an argument. He's defining things with every word but when he's questioned he says let's not define things. Even politicians aren't that sly.
I was really happy when Craig cornered him on defining "normal". His whole thing about not defining things isn't just cheating, but completely defies rules of logic and conversation. Everything he says hinges on definitions and he's quite comfortable with them when they suit his argument, but when they don't, he just pretends they don't matter. This is a trick politicians should start using -- just make a statement, then when you're questioned about it say -- oh let's not define things.
Only one talk show host could hold his own with this guest, and make this work as well as it did. Thank god Geoff didn't say "in your pants" at any point here. (Even though I'd still like to see the response)
Your pet is sick and suffering. Do you end its life? If you stick to the strict principle of 'must save life', you don't euthanize it, so you watch as your pet suffers through painful seizures every 15 minutes. Pet A has lost its will to live. Every breath is painful. It kept having episodes and you kept sending it to the vet for painful procedures to prolong its life so it can continue to exist. If you stick to the moral principle of 'we gotta put the pet out of its misery', you bring the pet to the vet. Pet B however, freaks the fuck out and tries its best to escape because it knows what is coming and it doesn't want that. That pet wants to live even though it will suffer. Nevermind that its quality of life would not be as good. But because you have a strict principle of not letting that poor pet suffer, you put it to sleep. Moral particularism just means you throw those strict moral principles out of the window and do what is right in the particular situation.
Nietzsche already discussed this in his seminal "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense." The very concepts of "right" and "wrong" are linguistic and created in the imagination of the human species. They are artifacts of culture and society, in short, they are arrived at via consensus within a particular sociocultural framework. They also change. Nietzsche was one of the first philosophers to identify this peculiar aspect of normative appraisal: it can be traced as a genealogy through periods of human life. It was once morally permissible to physically discipline your wife, to own slaves, to trade in opium with a vulnerable population. These actions hold weight only insofar as they have consequences within the purview of human thought and experience at that time. The only real answer to the question of morality is "what is permissible now?" or "what consequences will my actions have in this particular situation and subsequent situations." There is no such thing as morality writ large. I suppose moral philosophers are just one step away from philosophers of language or epistemology in that they recognize the futility of absolutes.
@@patrickmchugh4616 This is late but I'm no fan of Nietzche. I prefer when philosophy centers its discussion on 'action' and not just sitting there wasting everyone's energy arguing about semantics and how it all doesn't matter. Bloody waste of time.
I get the impression Craig Ferguson understands a lot more of this than he lets on. Dancy... struggled, definitely struggled to discuss in a non-academic manner his philosophy; I don't think the 'interview patter' helped (Ferguson was certainly 'selling the chamois,' and I'm sure he would have preffered not to be).
I think this gentleman made it more complicated than it really is, and this let craig a bit disappointed ... And me too, because as a philosopher I believe that a philosopher should always instigate and do the opposite of what he did there, and I believe that Craig understands this too. it is not that he did not understand the concept, but he knows what kind of personality he is dealing with and to whom it is being transmitted ..
@@jessica5497 nah, IT IS very complicated, that's why you normally have to study for years to graduate and then a couple of decades to be specialized in a science. That's definitely not easy, chit chat matter, and I don't say this in a presumptuous way, but science at this level should not be about accessibility.
@@jessica5497 sometimes we get the general idea of something, but even here, if the matter is complex enough, we can't transmit the specifics of the idea in 12 min and he knows it, and so does Craig. Also when you doesn't profoundly know the matter, u tend to make a lot of mistakes related to the scientific nomenclature. At least half of this interview was lost because obviously he had to correct some of Craig's assumptions that are mainly based on his linguistic knowledge rather on the philosophy nomenclature.
@@jessica5497 I'm a geologist, specialized on biostatigraphy. You probably don't know much about my general field, nevermind my specialization, so if you asked me to explain what it is about, I would have to take more than 12 min for sure and that's not even as specific as some theorys of the field.
I worked with a policeman in Canada and his name was Phill. I coined his name to be Phill Officer. Just watched Claire Danes yesterday and then this popped up, where’s the leather pants?
A lot of people think that philosophy is just asking, of various concepts X, But what counts as X? And it is just a game where you invoke this question at various points to come back at somebody. But this is not what philosophy is. There are rules, sorry. It's like jokingly trying to be a footballer with your pro footballer friend by going round kicking random objects. Dancy smiles through it
This conforms with what I extracted from college philosophy classes---philosophy is just a series of intellectual exercises and is fundamentally useless in everyday problem solving...in the real world and the law, definitions are critical. In the real world, racism is characterized as a bad thing...but how can one determine whether something or someone is "racist" without first defining "racism"? In this regard, there is a lot of particularism going on in the world...
Anyone know who he was interviewing when he talked about how thoughts are free of morals and so there is no right or wrong within the mind. It was a similar sort of clip to this outro
Moral particularism means that there isn't an *overriding* moral principle you have to base your decision on in order to do the right thing. This guy, perhaps due to nervousness, didn't explain it well at all. Moral particularism doesn't mean you have to throw all moral principles out of the window, it means you got to look at each problem with fresh eyes and do what is right according to the situation. The reasoning behind it is that life is complicated and each problem has their own intricate complexities that an attempt to force universal moral principles to all, or even similar situations, is an erroneous way of dealing with life. Frankly, people already do this all the time without overthinking it.
@@captlanc if there is no overriding moral principle - no moral absolutes then you should be able to find a realistic situation in which rape is morally justified.....I'm waiting....
@@theferryman4916 You provided a fantastical caveat and demand that it has to be resolved irl situations. Obviously, you are not keen in understanding (which requires effort from yourself) but instead has already made up your mind. You demanded to be spoonfed according to your conditions and I find this attitude narcissistic and atrocious. UA-cam commenters are not your parents.
@@captlanc look - you claim that every situation needs to be morally evaluated individually, because there are no moral absolutes - fine...so for every situation there MUST be the chance of it being evaluated good, bad, neutral, etc......If there is a situation in which those options are not given your position is dead....so all I'm asking is for you to back up your claim......shouldn't be too hard if your position is in fact correct.....
If I guy is stealing things out a car helping him would be wrong? I think he is mistaking what helping a person is for helping the person commit theft. Helping people is always the right thing to do. But what is it to help the thief that is right? You talk to the thief, help him understand how stealing stuff out a vehicle not yours is wrong. Or maybe call the police, he goes to prison, and is shown how it's wrong to steal. That is helping the theif. Your helping him to become a beneficial citizen.
I have to say, this was both more and less interesting than I thought. Also, the exchanges with Alice Eve (the full conv., not just the bit in the outro) showed her to be very well-read and well educated. Nice to see the conventional stereotypes get a firm kick in the wrinklys...
I don't really know this line of thought. I know a bit about moral philosophy though, and in that conversation, the actual problem in the reasoning of the professor is "what is normality". You cannot skip the argument just because it contradicts your point. Context, situationality, moral relativism: ok, I'm with you. then you throw in "normal" and expect no follow up questions? that's odd...
Without the unified moral compass for society the issue is social deviance becomes norms and then morality becomes justifiably objective for everyone. This means everyone plays by their own rules and the rules can change as they cover their own conscience from feeling remorse for their mistakes which to me is the precursors and the seeds of anarchy. This is why a Godless society is the most dangerous one and a man with no religious principles has no moral limits for he just amends the code of ethics he himself once lived by in order to justify his own sins.
Without the unified moral compass for society the issue is social deviance becomes norms and then morality becomes justifiably objective for everyone. This means everyone plays by their own rules and the rules can change as they cover their own conscience from feeling remorse for their mistakes which to me is the precursors and the seeds of anarchy. This is why a Godless society is the most dangerous one and a man with no religious principles has no moral limits for he just amends the code of ethics he himself once lived by in order to justify his own sins.
@@kevinhickers6645 Yes probably his manifesto to deceive this world into destruction- He tells "Do as Thou Wilt". But if everyone does whatever they want we then will have nothin more than lawlessness and again anarchy to follow.
If morality is so obvious that it cannot be defined, moral relativism and situational ethics could not exist! If they did, you couldn't define or describe them, according to a moral particularist. If a particular tree falls in the forest, if it is moral you cannot describe it! I think moral particularism is a joke, therfore I am amused!
Without the unified moral compass for society the issue is social deviance becomes norms and then morality becomes justifiably objective for everyone. This means everyone plays by their own rules and the rules can change as they cover their own conscience from feeling remorse for their mistakes which to me is the precursors and the seeds of anarchy. This is why a Godless society is the most dangerous one and a man with no religious principles has no moral limits for he just amends the code of ethics he himself once lived by in order to justify his own sins.
thanks a lot! I actually looked it up myself hehe 😊 Also, Craig's a smart guy; he was clearly not sold by this guy's bullshit, but basically have him the stage and let him go on saying Craig's wrong and all that crap... Thanks for this anyways!!
Similar. Moral particularism is the philosophical doctrine that moral principles are inefficient or contradictory, and that the only way to be a moral person is to look at each moral situation on its own. Relativism is that nobody is right or wrong.
As I understand it, relativism is the idea that moral principles are true or false only in relation to a cultural standard. Particularism is the position that there are no moral principles, either universal or relative; instead, moral judgment can only be determined based on decisions or actions in particular cases.
But if right and wrong cannot be applied universally than does it not need to be decided on a particular basis if it can be determined at all? If so than it is essentially the same thing as relativism and a philosophical counter to Kant.
Well, everything short of monist universalism is contrary to Kant. I think particularism goes farther than relativism in that it argues that moral principles either do not exist or should be considered no more definitive than a "rule of thumb", even within a given cultural parameter, because "rightness" can only be determined through an individual's motivation and action (or inaction) in each specific scenario. But I am not an expert on the topic, so my understanding may be inaccurate.
The problem is that his examples are all based on intuition. Intuitively, we think helping people is good. We don't think we need any proof -- we think we just know. Yet by the same faculty, we also don't think we should help someone break into a car. Dancy's take is that it's not intuition, but the principle that helping people is good, that is at fault. One premise, intuitively derived, is wrong because it is at odds with another, more particularized principle, also based on intuition. Heaven forbid he actually challenge moral intuition itself... Dancy claims not to believe in universal principles while arguing from a (falsely) supposed universal principle: that morality is intuitive. His entire philosophy is one huge performative contradiction.
Dale Buckley It's like the title of the movie vs the movie itself. Usually people get stuck at the definitions of right and wrong and doesn't proceed from there.
Exactly, thank you. The whole thing about not defining things is utter bullcrap, it's just cheating in an argument. He's defining things with every word but when he's questioned he says let's not define things. Even politicians aren't that sly.
Lol I was like "should I use the word 'heavily'? Ahh, whatever, no one cares." but I guess I shouldn't have after all. :D Yeah it doesn't bother me too much, I'm used to it, many Craig clips on YT have the same problem ;)
I understand what you mean, I do that too sometimes. No, I mean, if one can fix it, why shouldn't one. The fact that you pointed it out, means it was remarkable. Many do, but mine shouldn't (they do sometimes). I just didn't care for this video much tbh, I got frustrated with, what I think is very unproductive discussion. Anyways. Thanks for reporting :D
This interview was in April 2010, but Claire's were on February 5, 2010 and October 10, 2011 Claire was not in May 2010, otherwise that would be really crazy. Sorry, I was lost for a second when I saw the date... honest mistake, of course.
it's not that complicated. perhaps the professor was incoherent at first but then he gave the example with jokes and I understood immediately what he meant. suppose Geoff says balls. for the most part, it's funny as hell, due to timing. the comedic genius behind it is that he knows precisely when it will be funny and times it correctly. if Geoff was just interrupting Craig and yelling balls all the time, it wouldn't be funny, it would be annoying and ruin the show. so yeah, balls is funny, but not by definition or some principles of comedy, but because of context. and no, it's not relativism like some here suggests. balls is funny, according to most people, for the most time. it has nothing to do with some people defining their own sense of comedy or whatever, comedy is funny, but trying to define this 'funny' is useless and a waste time. if anything, it seems more to be a rebranding of intuitionism rather than relativism. if I'm doing the professor justice, it seems like he's claiming the same for morality. Craig wanted simple easy answers to many questions in a short time, while trying to keep it entertaining. the professor did the best he could. perhaps a talk show setting isn't the place to discuss complicated ideas. I enjoyed it nonetheless
I love Craig and Claire is magnificent but if this man gets $100 per book he's a freeking genius. It's too bad highly developed intellectuals have to try so hard to talk down to good, honest people.
The guy's pretentious and spouting opinions as fact. Separating parental moralism (his "small society") from the larger sway of societal (moral and legal determinants) doesn't even make any sense, and suggesting that humor is intrinsic to a joke and not determined by mutual understanding (linguistic, idiomatic, social, contemporary) makes even less sense. Guess this senselessness makes his ideas seem arcane and, therefore, too precise for the common mind. Duh.
While I followed along with his thought I found myself disagreeing with some of his tenants. I’m assuming that the degree awarded upon graduation from this school of thought is a B.S. degree (much like my degree in English Literature should be, since I bs’d my way to it).
From Stanford, "Moral Particularism, at its most trenchant, is the claim that there are no defensible moral principles, that moral thought does not consist in the application of moral principles to cases, and that the morally perfect person should not be conceived as the person of principle. There are more cautious versions, however. The strongest defensible version, perhaps, holds that though there may be some moral principles, still the rationality of moral thought and judgement in no way depends on a suitable provision of such things; and the perfectly moral judge would need far more than a grasp on an appropriate range of principles and the ability to apply them. Moral principles are at best crutches that a morally sensitive person would not require, and indeed the use of such crutches might even lead us into moral error." You can search for it with this text. Any attempt to link it is removed by YTub. My interpretation is that a moral person takes the appropriate action in a given situation and does not follow principles because principles fail and lead to inappropriate actions in particular situations.
So morality depends on context and things are nuanced and complex with varying shades of grey. Does this really need an entire academic field dedicated to it? Seems common sense to me.
Ok so I listened to this garbage, so I see why he has no clear answers no right or wrong. Nothing with a concrete base. Morality is something the professor can't grapple with morality he would have to have a basis which he has none. With out morality we would have no value. Value of life. Value of reason. Example a pile of dog poop is worth the same as a human life. If there is no morality there is no value, no purpose.
I love the fact he really invited him to the show. Craig was and is the best talk show host of all times.
I liked this video for a couple of reasons. 1) Philosophy is interesting in its own way. 2) How many late night talk shows - or talk shows in general for that matter - have a philosopher as a guest? I suspect it is a short list, perhaps only one name. Thanks for preserving this out-of-the-ordinary interview.
I enjoy philosophy myself, there is a course by Michael Sandel from the uni of Harvard. Fantastic moral philosophy lectures, very fascinating basics and more.
Well put! It's a pleasure!
Dick Cavett would have, but whether the network would have let him is another story (depending on the year, he got cancelled a lot and switched networks many timea).
Amen!
Holy crap bro, you found the moral philosopher. I always wanted to see this one. Top shelf my friend, top shelf.
Enjoy bro!
I never knew i could enjoy listening to a philosopher this much
i'm still stuck on the part where you don't define morality. If the definition is left un-stated (not even offered as a polemic), all we are left with is trying to draw conclusions about how OTHERS define morality. I'm not sure of that suffices for particularism. Maybe it does.
Thank you so much! This is great!
Mr. Dancy is smart, poised, witty, and reads the audience and situation well. He follows Craig's lead and also plays a little too (so he doesn't seem hidebound). I wish he had made more appearances.
Dancy
Just by listening to Craig before in other interviews when the subject came to more intellectual type subjects, you could tell that he would do well discussing philosophy like this. Craig seems like a very intelligent and well learned, well traveled man, and kudos to him to actually bring John on like he said he would do.
I watched this years ago when it aired and was so thrilled when Eleanor Shellstrop referred to him. #thegoodplace
I bet that was Kristen Bell's doing.
Holy hell, he actually came on the show
I knoow! I had the same reaction!
Interesting way to describe your reaction 😎
What a thoughtful conversation. I doubt any of the current late night hosts could pull off such a nuanced discussion.
Agree , love he did this
Colbert definitely could- it's his strong suit.
You never disappoint. You knew I preferred Alice Eve talking about free will, and you delivered.
For some reason I thought you'd follow with a Hugh Dancy video just to be thorough - a very nice, genital-friendly conversation, highly recommended :D
genital, haha? Did you mean genial or am I missing something?
@@shiniwang138 He means it's a real conversation, warts and all...
In Mel Brook's movie 'History of the World: Part 1' the character "Comicus" (played by Mr. Brooks) has the following conversation with the "Dole Office Clerk" (played by Bea Arthur):
"Dole Office Clerk:
Occupation?
Comicus:
Stand-up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk:
What?
Comicus:
Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk:
Oh, a *bullshit* artist!
Comicus:
*Grumble*...
Dole Office Clerk:
Did you bullshit last week?
Comicus:
No.
Dole Office Clerk:
Did you *try* to bullshit last week?
Comicus:
Yes!"
I'll end my comment there.
Is it weird that I think this is one of the funniest interviews?
It's too bad that 1) this interview didn't go longer, and 2) it didn't end with an awkward pause.
Yes either an awkward pause or the mouth organ and it turns out he's really good and wins the golden harmonica.
I think there were enough awkward pauses in the segment anyway
Craig held his own well...
Jayleno Fly should make a philosophy compilation, craig seems to be sooo into it, and I've seen him bring it up quite often
Great choice of outro bit, my dude.
Then he also had Dr. Cornel West who is featured in the 2008 documentary film "Examined Life". Thats what I always liked about Craig, he didnt mind to get a little philosophical.
Cornell West is a quack.
Nice one JayLeno Fly! Thanks again :)
Glad you liked it bro!:D
Moral Philosopher:
"Did you Bulls#!t last week?"
No.
"Did you Try to Bulls#!t last week?"
Craig F: define bullshit then
I think to put it a different way, he's almost a moral historian. As an example, there may be a guy out there who loves working on his car to, say, make it accelerate faster from jump. The guy working on the car will say "to get it to do A, you should do B." The "philosopher" however would ask not what part to use but rather ask how the guy working on the car came to the conclusion to use A or B to begin with. Imagine the guy couldn't use trial and error by measuring the speed of choice A vs choice B mechanically, the same way there is no "moral measuring machine." The philosopher would ask what led the guy to choose choice A over choice B in this specific situation when in a similar situation with different variables, he may choose B over A based on the particulars.
Kind of a Jane Goodall as opposed to a person who wants to teach gorillas sign language for example.
I like this guy.
He basically started out saying that religion is a great mistake :)
Very perceptive , Peter
Creates wars !
I think this gentleman made it more complicated than it really is (and I know - > it's complicated) , and this left craig a bit disappointed ... and me too, because as a philosopher I believe that a philosopher should always instigate and do the opposite of what he did there, and I believe that Craig understands this too. it is not that craig did not understand the concept, but he knows what kind of personality he is dealing with and to whom it is being transmitted ..
"Claire Dane's Father-In-Law"??
How about Hugh Dancy's Father!!
The Good Place votes ‘Claire Danes father in law’ so I’m going with that.
Let's be honest, we all came here from Clair Dane's interview video so it makes more sense this way.
Or "Hannibal Victim's father"
Who Dancy?
@@fabricancustoms This.
Wow, - Stephen Fry was right that was heavy. The trouble was Craig kept changing the scenarios, as I don't think he even understood after about 30 seconds what the very learned gent was talking about, - it was way over his head, (for once), as I'm sure it was the audiences as well. Thank-you for putting it on I had never seen it, and am now reading his book, - it is never too late to learn a different outlook on life.
I'm not so sure it was WAY over his head. I feel he realized where things were flowing but wanted so many questions answered in 12 minutes.
I don't think it was over his head at all, in fact I think he was doing an admirable job of trying to lock in on Dancy's ideas. Unfortunately, Dancy was doing a terrible job of explaining (as a moral philosophy student who's studied moral particularism, I have to say that Dancy was being very unclear).
Yeah... Was not impressed with the professor at all and it seemed Craig kept switching subjects to avoid embarrassing the gentleman and his lack of coherency.
@@amitb.e.5244 sometimes we get the general idea of something, but even here, if the matter is complex enough, we can't transmit the specifics of the idea in 12 min and he knows it, and so does Craig. Also when you doesn't profoundly know the matter, u tend to make a lot of mistakes related to the scientific nomenclature. At least half of this interview was lost because obviously he had to correct some of Craig's assumptions that are mainly based on his linguistic knowledge rather on the philosophy nomenclature.
@@austin3789 Yeah it seems very goal post move-y. Like "it is whatever I say it is", and conversely, "Whatever *you* think it is, it's not that."
I was gonna ask for this. Thanks JLFly!
Jonathan Dancy is high as a kite :D
He actually came on the show!
I find it interesting conversing with people who think about life and the various dilemmas, conundrums and quadaries that occur on our journeys through it. So many people just live life, but never actually think about it, try to understand it, question it or theorise about it, it's only function seems to be to provide them with a series of self gratifying moments.
I love all the pretty girls and movie stars, but this is the best episode ever!
this why craig is awesome
Fascinating
Great interview, inspires me to read up on it.
Bless...Craig did his best lol
Holy shit craig needs a fucking podcast!
Too high and I'm still high. Nothing else to lose!
"As a philosopher, I'm not in the business of telling people how to live, I'm in the business of trying to understand something".
So you're trying to... define things? I thought definitions were bad.
Really interesting.......made my head hurt. I think Craig wanted easy definitions lol
This guy's elevator pitch sucks. ;) I think Craig was expecting the guy to summarize something that he had given a great deal of thought to, yet he couldn't really provide a practical analogy. It did kind of remind me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which largely deals with the concept of whether "quality" exists within a thing independently (objective quality) or if quality is something we ascribe to the thing (subjective quality).
He wanted any definitions.
Very interesting subject no doubt.
its better than Desmond Tutu's interview, man! thx JLFly
Anytime man!
Wrong
To me philosophers are like a bland candy coated with a tasty spicy layer: At first it is interesting, but after that, when you start debating about the nature of morality and how things might be defined, it gets very bland and I just get the overall feeling that nothing is gained by stretching this debate.
Does his laugh reminds you of Sheldon?
Holy crap. This fits her character in the 90's in that show with Jared Leto. For real. Life and coincidence
It would have been hilarious if Craig could have sat in on this man's lectures playing the part of Geoff.
Craig is clever. The idea that morality is entirely contextual and not bound by principles per se is difficult to comprehend. But Craig did very well in tring to tease this out.
This reminds me of the time Baron Cohen interviewed Jacob Rees-Mogg while in his Ali G persona. The only difference here is that Craig Ferguson is himself!
I think this gentleman made it more complicated than it really is, and this left craig a bit disappointed ... And me too, because as a philosopher I believe that a philosopher should always instigate and do the opposite of what he did there, and I believe that Craig understands this too. it is not that craig did not understand the concept, but he knows what kind of personality he is dealing with and to whom it is being transmitted ..
How could you not define terms? Thats absolutely essential when you want to understand someone else.
Or anything. Or make any point or reach any conclusion or have anything you say have value or even meaning. The whole thing about not defining things is utter bullcrap, it's just cheating in an argument. He's defining things with every word but when he's questioned he says let's not define things. Even politicians aren't that sly.
I was really happy when Craig cornered him on defining "normal". His whole thing about not defining things isn't just cheating, but completely defies rules of logic and conversation. Everything he says hinges on definitions and he's quite comfortable with them when they suit his argument, but when they don't, he just pretends they don't matter. This is a trick politicians should start using -- just make a statement, then when you're questioned about it say -- oh let's not define things.
Only one talk show host could hold his own with this guest, and make this work as well as it did.
Thank god Geoff didn't say "in your pants" at any point here.
(Even though I'd still like to see the response)
and this has just 80k views!!!!
i pity modern society
Your pet is sick and suffering. Do you end its life?
If you stick to the strict principle of 'must save life', you don't euthanize it, so you watch as your pet suffers through painful seizures every 15 minutes. Pet A has lost its will to live. Every breath is painful. It kept having episodes and you kept sending it to the vet for painful procedures to prolong its life so it can continue to exist.
If you stick to the moral principle of 'we gotta put the pet out of its misery', you bring the pet to the vet. Pet B however, freaks the fuck out and tries its best to escape because it knows what is coming and it doesn't want that. That pet wants to live even though it will suffer. Nevermind that its quality of life would not be as good. But because you have a strict principle of not letting that poor pet suffer, you put it to sleep.
Moral particularism just means you throw those strict moral principles out of the window and do what is right in the particular situation.
Nietzsche already discussed this in his seminal "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense." The very concepts of "right" and "wrong" are linguistic and created in the imagination of the human species. They are artifacts of culture and society, in short, they are arrived at via consensus within a particular sociocultural framework. They also change. Nietzsche was one of the first philosophers to identify this peculiar aspect of normative appraisal: it can be traced as a genealogy through periods of human life. It was once morally permissible to physically discipline your wife, to own slaves, to trade in opium with a vulnerable population. These actions hold weight only insofar as they have consequences within the purview of human thought and experience at that time. The only real answer to the question of morality is "what is permissible now?" or "what consequences will my actions have in this particular situation and subsequent situations." There is no such thing as morality writ large. I suppose moral philosophers are just one step away from philosophers of language or epistemology in that they recognize the futility of absolutes.
@@patrickmchugh4616 This is late but I'm no fan of Nietzche. I prefer when philosophy centers its discussion on 'action' and not just sitting there wasting everyone's energy arguing about semantics and how it all doesn't matter. Bloody waste of time.
He didn't bring the leather pants!
🤣🤣🤣 halfway through the professor was starting to enjoy himself....
I get the impression Craig Ferguson understands a lot more of this than he lets on.
Dancy... struggled, definitely struggled to discuss in a non-academic manner his philosophy; I don't think the 'interview patter' helped (Ferguson was certainly 'selling the chamois,' and I'm sure he would have preffered not to be).
Exactly!
I think this gentleman made it more complicated than it really is, and this let craig a bit disappointed ... And me too, because as a philosopher I believe that a philosopher should always instigate and do the opposite of what he did there, and I believe that Craig understands this too. it is not that he did not understand the concept, but he knows what kind of personality he is dealing with and to whom it is being transmitted ..
@@jessica5497 nah, IT IS very complicated, that's why you normally have to study for years to graduate and then a couple of decades to be specialized in a science. That's definitely not easy, chit chat matter, and I don't say this in a presumptuous way, but science at this level should not be about accessibility.
@@jessica5497 sometimes we get the general idea of something, but even here, if the matter is complex enough, we can't transmit the specifics of the idea in 12 min and he knows it, and so does Craig. Also when you doesn't profoundly know the matter, u tend to make a lot of mistakes related to the scientific nomenclature. At least half of this interview was lost because obviously he had to correct some of Craig's assumptions that are mainly based on his linguistic knowledge rather on the philosophy nomenclature.
@@jessica5497 I'm a geologist, specialized on biostatigraphy. You probably don't know much about my general field, nevermind my specialization, so if you asked me to explain what it is about, I would have to take more than 12 min for sure and that's not even as specific as some theorys of the field.
I worked with a policeman in Canada and his name was Phill. I coined his name to be Phill Officer. Just watched Claire Danes yesterday and then this popped up, where’s the leather pants?
Situational ethics... plain and simple.
Wrong.
A lot of people think that philosophy is just asking, of various concepts X, But what counts as X? And it is just a game where you invoke this question at various points to come back at somebody. But this is not what philosophy is. There are rules, sorry. It's like jokingly trying to be a footballer with your pro footballer friend by going round kicking random objects. Dancy smiles through it
This conforms with what I extracted from college philosophy classes---philosophy is just a series of intellectual exercises and is fundamentally useless in everyday problem solving...in the real world and the law, definitions are critical. In the real world, racism is characterized as a bad thing...but how can one determine whether something or someone is "racist" without first defining "racism"? In this regard, there is a lot of particularism going on in the world...
C S Lewis describes the human condition of mortality perfectly in his book. Mere Christianity
Anyone know who he was interviewing when he talked about how thoughts are free of morals and so there is no right or wrong within the mind. It was a similar sort of clip to this outro
3 years late, but you're welcome 😀.
ua-cam.com/video/Awa_xZC2Ggc/v-deo.html
The interview with her, is one of my favourite interviews.
He thinks right and wrong should be felt instinctually.
BAM
Exactly. And the worst part is that since the validity of instinct on morality is itself a universal moral principle, he actually contradicts himself.
I feel like I didn't really learn anything about moral particularism from this video
Aurorus2086 , I feel well versed in it , by comparison
until somebody gives me a realistic situation in which rape is morally justifiable I'm calling bullshit on the entire approach...
yeah....welll...I said REALISTIC...... so try again....
Moral particularism means that there isn't an *overriding* moral principle you have to base your decision on in order to do the right thing. This guy, perhaps due to nervousness, didn't explain it well at all. Moral particularism doesn't mean you have to throw all moral principles out of the window, it means you got to look at each problem with fresh eyes and do what is right according to the situation. The reasoning behind it is that life is complicated and each problem has their own intricate complexities that an attempt to force universal moral principles to all, or even similar situations, is an erroneous way of dealing with life. Frankly, people already do this all the time without overthinking it.
@@captlanc if there is no overriding moral principle - no moral absolutes then you should be able to find a realistic situation in which rape is morally justified.....I'm waiting....
@@theferryman4916 You provided a fantastical caveat and demand that it has to be resolved irl situations. Obviously, you are not keen in understanding (which requires effort from yourself) but instead has already made up your mind. You demanded to be spoonfed according to your conditions and I find this attitude narcissistic and atrocious. UA-cam commenters are not your parents.
@@captlanc look - you claim that every situation needs to be morally evaluated individually, because there are no moral absolutes - fine...so for every situation there MUST be the chance of it being evaluated good, bad, neutral, etc......If there is a situation in which those options are not given your position is dead....so all I'm asking is for you to back up your claim......shouldn't be too hard if your position is in fact correct.....
If I guy is stealing things out a car helping him would be wrong? I think he is mistaking what helping a person is for helping the person commit theft. Helping people is always the right thing to do. But what is it to help the thief that is right? You talk to the thief, help him understand how stealing stuff out a vehicle not yours is wrong. Or maybe call the police, he goes to prison, and is shown how it's wrong to steal. That is helping the theif. Your helping him to become a beneficial citizen.
He was explaining a certain concept Craig couldn't understand, not dissecting the moral dilemma of what it is to help a thief.
Nope
I have to say, this was both more and less interesting than I thought. Also, the exchanges with Alice Eve (the full conv., not just the bit in the outro) showed her to be very well-read and well educated. Nice to see the conventional stereotypes get a firm kick in the wrinklys...
it's a fair cop
I don't really know this line of thought. I know a bit about moral philosophy though, and in that conversation, the actual problem in the reasoning of the professor is "what is normality". You cannot skip the argument just because it contradicts your point. Context, situationality, moral relativism: ok, I'm with you. then you throw in "normal" and expect no follow up questions? that's odd...
Without the unified moral compass for society the issue is social deviance becomes norms and then morality becomes justifiably objective for everyone. This means everyone plays by their own rules and the rules can change as they cover their own conscience from feeling remorse for their mistakes which to me is the precursors and the seeds of anarchy. This is why a Godless society is the most dangerous one and a man with no religious principles has no moral limits for he just amends the code of ethics he himself once lived by in order to justify his own sins.
Philosophy gives me a headache.
Just a matter of being used to critical and thorough inquiry or not, I would imagine.
An interesting person but I certainly would not wish he were my father.
Without the unified moral compass for society the issue is social deviance becomes norms and then morality becomes justifiably objective for everyone. This means everyone plays by their own rules and the rules can change as they cover their own conscience from feeling remorse for their mistakes which to me is the precursors and the seeds of anarchy. This is why a Godless society is the most dangerous one and a man with no religious principles has no moral limits for he just amends the code of ethics he himself once lived by in order to justify his own sins.
Quoted by satan
@@kevinhickers6645 Yes probably his manifesto to deceive this world into destruction- He tells "Do as Thou Wilt". But if everyone does whatever they want we then will have nothin more than lawlessness and again anarchy to follow.
5:12 tldr: context matter
If morality is so obvious that it cannot be defined, moral relativism and situational ethics could not exist! If they did, you couldn't define or describe them, according to a moral particularist.
If a particular tree falls in the forest, if it is moral you cannot describe it! I think moral particularism is a joke, therfore I am amused!
Without the unified moral compass for society the issue is social deviance becomes norms and then morality becomes justifiably objective for everyone. This means everyone plays by their own rules and the rules can change as they cover their own conscience from feeling remorse for their mistakes which to me is the precursors and the seeds of anarchy. This is why a Godless society is the most dangerous one and a man with no religious principles has no moral limits for he just amends the code of ethics he himself once lived by in order to justify his own sins.
Craig is 100% more useful than the professor. Possibly smarter as well.
So his whole thing is -- context matters. Do you really need a PhD to figure this one out?
thanks a lot! I actually looked it up myself hehe 😊
Also, Craig's a smart guy; he was clearly not sold by this guy's bullshit, but basically have him the stage and let him go on saying Craig's wrong and all that crap...
Thanks for this anyways!!
Is moral particularism just a modern repackaging of relativism? It has to be more than counter stance against Kant right?
Similar.
Moral particularism is the philosophical doctrine that moral principles are inefficient or contradictory, and that the only way to be a moral person is to look at each moral situation on its own.
Relativism is that nobody is right or wrong.
ZacharyHavenor fucking nerds
As I understand it, relativism is the idea that moral principles are true or false only in relation to a cultural standard. Particularism is the position that there are no moral principles, either universal or relative; instead, moral judgment can only be determined based on decisions or actions in particular cases.
But if right and wrong cannot be applied universally than does it not need to be decided on a particular basis if it can be determined at all? If so than it is essentially the same thing as relativism and a philosophical counter to Kant.
Well, everything short of monist universalism is contrary to Kant. I think particularism goes farther than relativism in that it argues that moral principles either do not exist or should be considered no more definitive than a "rule of thumb", even within a given cultural parameter, because "rightness" can only be determined through an individual's motivation and action (or inaction) in each specific scenario. But I am not an expert on the topic, so my understanding may be inaccurate.
Sounds a bit like moral relativism, just using different terms?
The problem is that his examples are all based on intuition.
Intuitively, we think helping people is good. We don't think we need any proof -- we think we just know. Yet by the same faculty, we also don't think we should help someone break into a car. Dancy's take is that it's not intuition, but the principle that helping people is good, that is at fault. One premise, intuitively derived, is wrong because it is at odds with another, more particularized principle, also based on intuition. Heaven forbid he actually challenge moral intuition itself...
Dancy claims not to believe in universal principles while arguing from a (falsely) supposed universal principle: that morality is intuitive. His entire philosophy is one huge performative contradiction.
Ja ja ja .... that was GOOD .... very different than talking to bimbos !!!!!!!!!!!
So he says definitions are a mistake while defining his approach. It would seem he needs a more unique approach to meet his own criteria
Dale Buckley
It's like the title of the movie vs the movie itself.
Usually people get stuck at the definitions of right and wrong and doesn't proceed from there.
Exactly, thank you. The whole thing about not defining things is utter bullcrap, it's just cheating in an argument. He's defining things with every word but when he's questioned he says let's not define things. Even politicians aren't that sly.
Philosophers tend to create confusion rather than solve problems.
Damn, the audio is heavily out of sync :/ but I guess there was nothing you could do about it.
Box0rz I didnt notice it while editing, only after. And then didnt care enough to remake. I wouldn't say, "heavily" tho. Is it really that unbearable?
Lol I was like "should I use the word 'heavily'? Ahh, whatever, no one cares." but I guess I shouldn't have after all. :D Yeah it doesn't bother me too much, I'm used to it, many Craig clips on YT have the same problem ;)
I understand what you mean, I do that too sometimes. No, I mean, if one can fix it, why shouldn't one. The fact that you pointed it out, means it was remarkable. Many do, but mine shouldn't (they do sometimes). I just didn't care for this video much tbh, I got frustrated with, what I think is very unproductive discussion. Anyways. Thanks for reporting :D
synced or not nothing makes sense to me anyway.
I know what you mean bro ;)
I feel the good doctor talks in circles. Craig is a sharp cat - IMO Craig showed moral particularism for what Zachary indicated it is - relativism.
Am i the only one who sees craig is winning the argument and the guy has no idea how to respond to him
This interview was in April 2010, but Claire's were on February 5, 2010 and October 10, 2011
Claire was not in May 2010, otherwise that would be really crazy. Sorry, I was lost for a second when I saw the date... honest mistake, of course.
“Define normal”… “why?” 😂
john malkovich please
I never came to do this one :/ I'm sry to say. Maybe I'll get on with it.
A little too pompous for my liking.
Someone is paying this charlatan to..do nothing.
He's just another moral relativist.
it's not that complicated. perhaps the professor was incoherent at first but then he gave the example with jokes and I understood immediately what he meant. suppose Geoff says balls. for the most part, it's funny as hell, due to timing. the comedic genius behind it is that he knows precisely when it will be funny and times it correctly. if Geoff was just interrupting Craig and yelling balls all the time, it wouldn't be funny, it would be annoying and ruin the show. so yeah, balls is funny, but not by definition or some principles of comedy, but because of context. and no, it's not relativism like some here suggests. balls is funny, according to most people, for the most time. it has nothing to do with some people defining their own sense of comedy or whatever, comedy is funny, but trying to define this 'funny' is useless and a waste time. if anything, it seems more to be a rebranding of intuitionism rather than relativism. if I'm doing the professor justice, it seems like he's claiming the same for morality.
Craig wanted simple easy answers to many questions in a short time, while trying to keep it entertaining. the professor did the best he could. perhaps a talk show setting isn't the place to discuss complicated ideas. I enjoyed it nonetheless
Love his book
Just cost $100.00
I love Craig and Claire is magnificent but if this man gets $100 per book he's a freeking genius. It's too bad highly developed intellectuals have to try so hard to talk down to good, honest people.
The guy's pretentious and spouting opinions as fact. Separating parental moralism (his "small society") from the larger sway of societal (moral and legal determinants) doesn't even make any sense, and suggesting that humor is intrinsic to a joke and not determined by mutual understanding (linguistic, idiomatic, social, contemporary) makes even less sense. Guess this senselessness makes his ideas seem arcane and, therefore, too precise for the common mind. Duh.
While I followed along with his thought I found myself disagreeing with some of his tenants. I’m assuming that the degree awarded upon graduation from this school of thought is a B.S. degree (much like my degree in English Literature should be, since I bs’d my way to it).
Craig is more of a philosopher than the philosopher
From Stanford, "Moral Particularism, at its most trenchant, is the claim that there are no defensible moral principles, that moral thought does not consist in the application of moral principles to cases, and that the morally perfect person should not be conceived as the person of principle.
There are more cautious versions, however.
The strongest defensible version, perhaps, holds that though there may be some moral principles, still the rationality of moral thought and judgement in no way depends on a suitable provision of such things; and the perfectly moral judge would need far more than a grasp on an appropriate range of principles and the ability to apply them. Moral principles are at best crutches that a morally sensitive person would not require, and indeed the use of such crutches might even lead us into moral error."
You can search for it with this text. Any attempt to link it is removed by YTub.
My interpretation is that a moral person takes the appropriate action in a given situation and does not follow principles because principles fail and lead to inappropriate actions in particular situations.
So morality depends on context and things are nuanced and complex with varying shades of grey. Does this really need an entire academic field dedicated to it? Seems common sense to me.
Might seem like it to you, but to most people it isn't. They want a black a white and no other situation.
Your summary could "define" any philosophical theory, so, yes, we do need an academic field dedicated to it.
Ok so I listened to this garbage, so I see why he has no clear answers no right or wrong. Nothing with a concrete base. Morality is something the professor can't grapple with morality he would have to have a basis which he has none.
With out morality we would have no value. Value of life. Value of reason.
Example a pile of dog poop is worth the same as a human life. If there is no morality there is no value, no purpose.
So relativism?
No