@@thedog5k, I'd call them someone who will be decent at what they do next. If they're a cop, they probably won't be shooting POC in the back at traffic stops. Let them study to be a quant and they won't alter benchmarks to fleece their clients. My living came from real estate and finance by just caring for other people in a way that my competition didn't. I give all the credit that I don't give to God to philosophy, rhetoric, ethics, literature, and moral psychology. Turning out to be mediocre as a researcher didn't hold me back a bit.
This video is REALLY outstanding and insightful. It definitely brings an added value to the viewers. You absolutely do an amazing work and we thank you for that.
This overlaps with thoughts I've been having about language and brains and how they work together. Like it feels like the language part of my brain is more in the foreground and more "visible" to the part of my mind you might call my "conscious" mind. And how that can affect how I tend to think about things. Like if I focus to heavily on just the language processing part, my thinking can look more like rationalization than actual reason, as opposed to when I bring my emotional and intuitive sections into the equation, which give me deeper access to...well I'm not sure what exactly - or rather, it's harder to translate into language, but it's like a deeper part of my brain that holds concepts and senses of things from experience - and is also more imaginative and able to do things like empathize and hypothesize. I was socialized as a male in a moderately conservative community, so I can only guess - but it feels like the female taking the test is doing a better job at actually imagining herself in the situation, while the male is kind of...idealizing the situation. Which could be because she's socially closer to actually being in that position, so it's easier for her to actually put *herself* in the situation? Like I bet if the male were *actually* in that position, the idea of going through the literal process of breaking and entering and stealing the medication would be really scary and uncomfortable, and he'd put a *lot* more effort into finding alternatives before going that route, if he ever mustered the courage to do it at all. I can only guess at the mental process each of them are going through I guess. Whatever the mechanism though, what wonderful insight!! I also love the very practical point of "medicine isn't magic, and if I'm arrested, the wife would lose her caretaker." What a great episode!
Thank you, this is so appreciated and lovely to hear on a warm summer night on Lake Constance. Perhaps the trolley thought experiment is hard to pin down, because it can be altered in a hundred ways, but it can never be pure. The experiment could never be real, because of the human element. Humans can take in massive amounts of information in a split second, and all of those would have to be included in the question. They say either it's an old man or children, fat man and 3 skinny men, etc. The question has to include many situations, plus the mood we are in, our pain level, if our mother forgot our birthday, if we ate or slept the night before, here there are billions of scenarios that can't be included. There was a movie where Tom Hank's character and his co-pilot were on trial for crash landing. Every expert ran simulations and said all of them could have landed. Other pilots over and over, land the plane. The difference was, all of them knew what was going to happen beforehand to the second and immediately knew the goal. However, in the real situation, they had to first establish what the problem really was, and agree on the best course, talk with ground control...the circumstances would have to be exact, down to your birth sign and relative humidity, to even be able to answer the question. This is why I love philosophy, because it helps us see, the possibilities are truly endless. Good night everyone, I am glad you are all here.
i came here completely biased against subject, but by this here at 28:46 it broke me completely. All i do is care, and that is detriment to the miserable thing i call life. i care for my parents, and yet, i'm so unqualified to care for them. My brother is much more suited for this job, but all i do is worry about them, ask them questions, lecture them on their own safety (health, scams, whatnot). i can do nothing else, i'm not good at anything else. i will leave this podcast with a changed viewpoint and quite interested in Ethics of care. Thank you.
Broaden your horizon. You must be good at something in this life, learn how to be good at other things. Make yourself a person of diverse abilities, and you will become useful to many.
Finally getting caught up on your episodes. Thank you for doing episodes about women. It’s so refreshing. But seriously, this is the bridge to a conversation about patriarchy and white supremacy. Woman and people of the global majority have been trying to talk about these connections for years!
Very good Mr West loved it. Duty of care. To listen to other peoples concerns! Imagine a world where this would happen ! 🧐 it’s a lot easier to make them reprehensible and have another donut.
About the trolley problem... If the people are far enough away from the junction one can set the junction half-way making the trolley de-rail, or if that's not possible pull the lever after the first set of wheels have passed, making the trolley de-rail that way. If there are people on board, and the trolley is moving slowly they would have a decent chance at not being injured badly, if the trolley is going very fast one might not be able to successfully pull the lever at the correct time, but if someone pulls it off the people might still have a shot at living compared to the ones on the track. No need to tell me that the trolley problem isn't meant have this as an option when answering.
Humans have a bias because humans have an ego. Ideally we should be practicing habits that reduce our ego which in return will reduce our need to be right or "on the right side of things" and be more willing to change as we gain more information about a subject.
14:08 So far ethics of care sounds like ethics of Convenience If someone gives you a hypothetical and says “ you can’t afford the Medicine” and the response is “make more money”, god that sounds convenient. It comes off as the due diligence to come to peaceful mutually beneficial terms before making concrete decisions where justice comes in. Or not justice.l
I’m a big fan of your podcast, so apologies for my critique-hopefully, it’s constructive enough that no one will take offense. First, on a factual note, though I understand why you chose the Trolley Problem as the exemplar of rigid moral reasoning and of the latent contrast between ideal and non-ideal philosophy, the thought-experiment was formulated by Phillipa Foot, not Immanuel Kant, as a means to expose the very thing you exhaustively laid out. Second, many, if not most, ethicists of care do not view themselves as opposed to justice as such-it is opposed only to what Hegel called the ‘immediate, undetermined’ conception of justice; their point is that justice ought to either correspond to or incorporate ethics of care. Held herself, in her work on terrorism, argues as much. Third, continental philosophy, at least since Marx, has long implicitly incorporated ethics of care in its analyses of justice. It differs crucially from Anglo-Analytic circles in that, thanks to the work of feminist Marxists in particular, it dialectically collapses the private-public divide: the forcible jettisoning of ethics of care to the private sphere is precisely that which allows for any contingent conception of justice to be falsely/‘concretely’ universalized. Anyway, I still enjoyed the episode. The above is just my attempt to nudge your podcast and mainstream discourse towards a more nuanced understanding of how even ordinary definitions are subject to the ambiguities of the syntax-semantics divide, i.e. the meta-language of philosophy is rarely-some might even posit, never-Godel-complete.
people (mostly the party that should be offended here ie- men) are usually not offended with the whole "boys will be boys and girls will be women" idea because it mostly benefits them. it's a kind of weaponized incompetence, similar to how many people claim there's such a thing as "motherly instincts" (even though recent research suggests otherwise) it's easier to do away with responsibility by claiming that you don't know how to do a certain thing... well no one does, everyone has to teach themselves, but this just promotes lack of accountability thereby is convenient. the position Gilligan holds has more to do with the fact that our society is rather male centric due to the existence of patriarchy, which includes epistemic injustice due to which women (and other gender minorities) and their perspectives have been kept away from the mainstream for a long time. it's about seeking that balance and fair representation.
Regarding stealing the drugs there are too many "maybe"s. One can construct an argument either way by describing a specific scenario. If Heinz's wife is "really really sick" then 'maybe' he doesn't have time to "borrow the money or find some sort of extra work he can do to make the money".
PS If you're going to be saying s**t like "almost 50 years ago in the 1970's" you're gonna need to put a trigger warning. Some of us are NOT ready to hear that! 😅
15:27 Shame, had a old buddy recommend this podcast, but I just can’t get over it. The social justice disdain in the voice that sounds like low key complaining at the use of a word like “ woman’s ethics” is just hilariously silly! You try to have your cake and eat it too. Make a point to analyze the apparently seperate way of viewing ethics woman have, then giving it its own name (ethics of care), then complaining about it being separate? (Woman’s ethics) 15:27 in and all it seems to be is just trying not to hurt feelings. It makes sense for woman to be built like that, but that’s also unacceptable, so they were CONDITIONED to be like that right? The ethics juxtaposition seems to be the philosophy version of dudes getting in fights and a woman standing between them Screaming to stop. Can’t point that out though. It’s just an OPPRESSIVE MALE oppressing some little girls ethics.
@@CA-jz9bm People all over the world are being connected by the Internet, allowing a mixing of knowledge and opinions. Businesses are replying on entities all over the world for their factors of production. People communicate with other people they've never met on a daily basis. Me, you, all of us can create an opinion based on the views and knowledge of someone who is on the other side on the world (in metaphorical and litteral meaning). For example this video probably helped to create a similar opinion for a lot of people from different cultures and countries. This is a fact. Can you explain why do you it's division and not globalisation.
This is by far the best explanation on the topic I have found!
Your podcast is what urged me to pursue BA Philosophy for college. Thank you for changing my life ❤️
lol, enjoy never getting a job
Why not study something that will make you money and just read philosophy for it’s own sake?
@@thedog5k, you know what they call a plumber with a blog?
@@christophergiofreda564 You know what you call a fresh philosophy grad?
@@thedog5k, I'd call them someone who will be decent at what they do next. If they're a cop, they probably won't be shooting POC in the back at traffic stops. Let them study to be a quant and they won't alter benchmarks to fleece their clients. My living came from real estate and finance by just caring for other people in a way that my competition didn't. I give all the credit that I don't give to God to philosophy, rhetoric, ethics, literature, and moral psychology. Turning out to be mediocre as a researcher didn't hold me back a bit.
Not just because of how you explain but also your voice is really suit on teaching and making this video. I really appreciate it!!
This video is REALLY outstanding and insightful. It definitely brings an added value to the viewers. You absolutely do an amazing work and we thank you for that.
This overlaps with thoughts I've been having about language and brains and how they work together. Like it feels like the language part of my brain is more in the foreground and more "visible" to the part of my mind you might call my "conscious" mind. And how that can affect how I tend to think about things. Like if I focus to heavily on just the language processing part, my thinking can look more like rationalization than actual reason, as opposed to when I bring my emotional and intuitive sections into the equation, which give me deeper access to...well I'm not sure what exactly - or rather, it's harder to translate into language, but it's like a deeper part of my brain that holds concepts and senses of things from experience - and is also more imaginative and able to do things like empathize and hypothesize.
I was socialized as a male in a moderately conservative community, so I can only guess - but it feels like the female taking the test is doing a better job at actually imagining herself in the situation, while the male is kind of...idealizing the situation. Which could be because she's socially closer to actually being in that position, so it's easier for her to actually put *herself* in the situation?
Like I bet if the male were *actually* in that position, the idea of going through the literal process of breaking and entering and stealing the medication would be really scary and uncomfortable, and he'd put a *lot* more effort into finding alternatives before going that route, if he ever mustered the courage to do it at all.
I can only guess at the mental process each of them are going through I guess. Whatever the mechanism though, what wonderful insight!!
I also love the very practical point of "medicine isn't magic, and if I'm arrested, the wife would lose her caretaker."
What a great episode!
Was a blast playing with you, can't wait to listen!
this is one of my favourite podcasts and one of my favourite episodes 🙌
Thank you, this is so appreciated and lovely to hear on a warm summer night on Lake Constance. Perhaps the trolley thought experiment is hard to pin down, because it can be altered in a hundred ways, but it can never be pure. The experiment could never be real, because of the human element. Humans can take in massive amounts of information in a split second, and all of those would have to be included in the question. They say either it's an old man or children, fat man and 3 skinny men, etc. The question has to include many situations, plus the mood we are in, our pain level, if our mother forgot our birthday, if we ate or slept the night before, here there are billions of scenarios that can't be included. There was a movie where Tom Hank's character and his co-pilot were on trial for crash landing. Every expert ran simulations and said all of them could have landed. Other pilots over and over, land the plane. The difference was, all of them knew what was going to happen beforehand to the second and immediately knew the goal. However, in the real situation, they had to first establish what the problem really was, and agree on the best course, talk with ground control...the circumstances would have to be exact, down to your birth sign and relative humidity, to even be able to answer the question. This is why I love philosophy, because it helps us see, the possibilities are truly endless. Good night everyone, I am glad you are all here.
This is a fantastic episode. Really looking forward to this series. Thank you Stephen
This most definitely is challenging me to think out of the box...
Thank you very much. It's highly appreciated!
Holy cow ... never heard of this experiment. This topic is worth pondering deeply 🤔
Listening to you on a summer evenig in a garden right outside of Paris. Could I ask for more? 😁
Oh my goodness! This episode was amazing.
i came here completely biased against subject, but by this here at 28:46 it broke me completely. All i do is care, and that is detriment to the miserable thing i call life. i care for my parents, and yet, i'm so unqualified to care for them. My brother is much more suited for this job, but all i do is worry about them, ask them questions, lecture them on their own safety (health, scams, whatnot). i can do nothing else, i'm not good at anything else. i will leave this podcast with a changed viewpoint and quite interested in Ethics of care. Thank you.
Broaden your horizon. You must be good at something in this life, learn how to be good at other things. Make yourself a person of diverse abilities, and you will become useful to many.
Are you a carer for your parents?
Finally getting caught up on your episodes. Thank you for doing episodes about women. It’s so refreshing.
But seriously, this is the bridge to a conversation about patriarchy and white supremacy. Woman and people of the global majority have been trying to talk about these connections for years!
patriarchy and white supremacy aren't real issues, especially not in philosophy
Amazing ! Thank you !
Very good Mr West loved it.
Duty of care. To listen to other peoples concerns! Imagine a world where this would happen ! 🧐 it’s a lot easier to make them reprehensible and have another donut.
I LOVE THIS
About the trolley problem...
If the people are far enough away from the junction one can set the junction half-way making the trolley de-rail, or if that's not possible pull the lever after the first set of wheels have passed, making the trolley de-rail that way. If there are people on board, and the trolley is moving slowly they would have a decent chance at not being injured badly, if the trolley is going very fast one might not be able to successfully pull the lever at the correct time, but if someone pulls it off the people might still have a shot at living compared to the ones on the track.
No need to tell me that the trolley problem isn't meant have this as an option when answering.
Great show 💗
This topic is important.
10:40
They were socialized that way because that’s what their mothers are biologically built for.
Humans have a bias because humans have an ego. Ideally we should be practicing habits that reduce our ego which in return will reduce our need to be right or "on the right side of things" and be more willing to change as we gain more information about a subject.
14:08
So far ethics of care sounds like ethics of Convenience
If someone gives you a hypothetical and says “ you can’t afford the Medicine” and the response is “make more money”, god that sounds convenient.
It comes off as the due diligence to come to peaceful mutually beneficial terms before making concrete decisions where justice comes in. Or not justice.l
Great essay!
Heading echoes of Derrick Bell here! This better not turn into CRITICAL RACE THEORY! 😄😉
Loving this!
I’m a big fan of your podcast, so apologies for my critique-hopefully, it’s constructive enough that no one will take offense.
First, on a factual note, though I understand why you chose the Trolley Problem as the exemplar of rigid moral reasoning and of the latent contrast between ideal and non-ideal philosophy, the thought-experiment was formulated by Phillipa Foot, not Immanuel Kant, as a means to expose the very thing you exhaustively laid out.
Second, many, if not most, ethicists of care do not view themselves as opposed to justice as such-it is opposed only to what Hegel called the ‘immediate, undetermined’ conception of justice; their point is that justice ought to either correspond to or incorporate ethics of care. Held herself, in her work on terrorism, argues as much.
Third, continental philosophy, at least since Marx, has long implicitly incorporated ethics of care in its analyses of justice. It differs crucially from Anglo-Analytic circles in that, thanks to the work of feminist Marxists in particular, it dialectically collapses the private-public divide: the forcible jettisoning of ethics of care to the private sphere is precisely that which allows for any contingent conception of justice to be falsely/‘concretely’ universalized.
Anyway, I still enjoyed the episode. The above is just my attempt to nudge your podcast and mainstream discourse towards a more nuanced understanding of how even ordinary definitions are subject to the ambiguities of the syntax-semantics divide, i.e. the meta-language of philosophy is rarely-some might even posit, never-Godel-complete.
Just Wow!!
4:13
Any reason for the butthurt around saying they develop slower?
How often do you see people complain about boys grow up slower than girls?
people (mostly the party that should be offended here ie- men) are usually not offended with the whole "boys will be boys and girls will be women" idea because it mostly benefits them. it's a kind of weaponized incompetence, similar to how many people claim there's such a thing as "motherly instincts" (even though recent research suggests otherwise)
it's easier to do away with responsibility by claiming that you don't know how to do a certain thing... well no one does, everyone has to teach themselves, but this just promotes lack of accountability thereby is convenient.
the position Gilligan holds has more to do with the fact that our society is rather male centric due to the existence of patriarchy, which includes epistemic injustice due to which women (and other gender minorities) and their perspectives have been kept away from the mainstream for a long time. it's about seeking that balance and fair representation.
Regarding stealing the drugs there are too many "maybe"s. One can construct an argument either way by describing a specific scenario. If Heinz's wife is "really really sick" then 'maybe' he doesn't have time to "borrow the money or find some sort of extra work he can do to make the money".
Great video!!! Thanks
The next one is about why we exclude the opinions of psychopaths in moral dilemmas.
I love you.
PS If you're going to be saying s**t like "almost 50 years ago in the 1970's" you're gonna need to put a trigger warning. Some of us are NOT ready to hear that! 😅
9:17 prob cuz it was kind of a garbage argument
But
Girl power
Yay
9:47
No wonder it feels useless asking woman to problem solve lmao
Freud isn't "widely respected"' at all. Quite the contrary...
15:27
Shame, had a old buddy recommend this podcast, but I just can’t get over it.
The social justice disdain in the voice that sounds like low key complaining at the use of a word like “ woman’s ethics” is just hilariously silly!
You try to have your cake and eat it too. Make a point to analyze the apparently seperate way of viewing ethics woman have, then giving it its own name (ethics of care), then complaining about it being separate? (Woman’s ethics)
15:27 in and all it seems to be is just trying not to hurt feelings. It makes sense for woman to be built like that, but that’s also unacceptable, so they were CONDITIONED to be like that right?
The ethics juxtaposition seems to be the philosophy version of dudes getting in fights and a woman standing between them
Screaming to stop.
Can’t point that out though.
It’s just an OPPRESSIVE MALE oppressing some little girls ethics.
increasingly globalized world? really m8?
Is it not true?
@@standowner6979 no we are moving towards multipolarity and division
@@CA-jz9bm People all over the world are being connected by the Internet, allowing a mixing of knowledge and opinions. Businesses are replying on entities all over the world for their factors of production. People communicate with other people they've never met on a daily basis. Me, you, all of us can create an opinion based on the views and knowledge of someone who is on the other side on the world (in metaphorical and litteral meaning). For example this video probably helped to create a similar opinion for a lot of people from different cultures and countries. This is a fact. Can you explain why do you it's division and not globalisation.