Видео

Well, I think it's a feature of many good philosophical arguments that they have a bit of truth, and a bit of shock!

great!

I think this is a bit of Kass' (and Callahan's) point: doctors are already doing too many bad things... so they suggest let's rein them in a bit, and not give them more power.

unfortunately, I don't have access to this pdf. However, there are resources where you can find similar philosophy of law books online... but you have to look for those on your own...

We all have to decide how we evaluate and weigh different pieces of evidence...

Can you pls share the source on which you made the 40% claim?

I think you're keen to notice how those structures might shape our views and interpretations of so many of these moral issues!

There are always different alternatives, but we must decide how to reasonably weigh such different options.

@@GeorgeTsouris Maybe MAID should be carried out by an entirely new specialty -- not doctors. After all, how much of medical training is required for this procedure? It's not like great skill would be needed to resuscitate the patient. Doctors would probably be relieved to distance themselves from this option and patients would not be hampered by their doctor's idea of "morality". Guardrails filtering admissibility such as not allowing the temporarily depressed, etc. could still be maintained and could be done independently of the provider.

Glad you enjoyed it!

unfortunately, I don't have access to this pdf. However, there are resources where you can find similar philosophy of law books online... but you have to look for those on your own...

I'm happy you enjoyed it!

Well, sometimes philosophers want to analyze their reasoning for their simple beliefs; and sometimes that reasoning is more complex than we realized. Of course, there is a place in a good life for simply asserting beliefs; but such religious-style assertions rarely lead to fruitful discourse between people with diverse beliefs. And so I like philosophy because I see value in deeply examining beliefs that I assumed were very simple, but turn out to be very complicated.

it seems like Brock agrees with you, and that's why he's ok with human cloning.

You can't clone something that doesn't exist. So yes, you're correct 👍🏼

indeed, since it seems that all technology might be used towards bad goals, is that really a good reason against some specific technology?

Maybe. But Brock thinks that liberty and freedom are pretty good foundations to argue from.

​@@GeorgeTsouris I think a good argument could be made for the liberty of an unborn child. But is the goal of liberty to reduce harm or expand the range of human freedom? The goal of medicine is, but doctors are not politicians. You could argue that the ability to access this technology is a part of human freedom, but that still does not provide an ethical argument for harm reduction. You could argue that we should not ban these technologies, but I don't think that people should have need or desire to use them, and that need and desire is imposed only by other people. Cloning is a terrible method of reproduction biologically speaking as well, leaving future generations susceptible to disease, creating a need for more medical interventions to just stay alive, and artificially selecting the gene pool based on who has the means to access these technologies. Cloning is about as self-serving as one could possibly be.

Well, it seems that the most extreme version of any philosophy is more likely to be unreasonable.

@@ChristopherLeeShreds thanks! I’m glad you enjoyed it!

Well, I interpret Dworkin here as trying to bridge the gap between two poles: (a) critical legal studies Critical Legal Studies: ruclips.net/video/frpszqiQh7g/видео.html, and (b) extreme formalism ruclips.net/video/77gPTnYmcE0/видео.html

@@GeorgeTsouris not really while Dworkin accepts Neil Maccormick's sort of idea on the institutional facts as grounding legal rights, what he says, is this is an overall moral practice. This is what I object. There are absolute moral duties and pro tanto moral duties, while pro tanto moral duties are subjective leading to disagreement prima facie. Absolute moral duties takes into account the universalizability of morality and moral principles that are sort of Kantian categorical imperatives. But as long as a rule of recognition recognizes them there is no problem. For what Dworkin implies is contrary, that moral considerations can sometimes override legal obligations. Especially in light of persistent moral disagreement, what Dworkin is implicitly trying to convey is break the law for moral considerations. Nonetheless, Dworkin's approach brings ideological judicial biases that are presupposed to weaponize the judiciary as is seen through current examples of the Roberts Court especially with the abortion ban. Dworkin commits slippery slope fallacy by tying morality to its undesirable ends especially creating judges replacing reasons of elected officials when it comes to their judicial decision making. Legal normativity is different from normative ethics as normative ethics ties moral outcomes to deontogical or consequalist approaches, legal normativity is about the law's inherent legitimate authority which is accepted by the capability of guiding action of citizens based on those reasons, which would otherwise not have been had it not been "legal" notwithstanding the evaluative criteria of morality which is separate from these legal reasons. The practical efficacy in guidance should be to solve coordination problems in the legal society among officials than bringing uncertainty through abstract moral principles. As Raz would advocate for while he knows fully well the epistemic constraints of Dworkin's philosophy that law's authoritativeness accounts for the normative force that is distinct from individual moral judgements and precepts that cloud the content of law as a necessary component. Raz would allow for service conception of authority to be guided by right reasons for action on the reasons that are already known to the individuals. So Dworkin while you say is bridging the gap, I don't agree with your assessment, he is actually creating a divide in critical legal theory by further pushing society to a blackhole which is confusing the citizens to understand the reasons to deconstruct and criticize existing power structures, while not recognizing the institutional competence of law (formalist-originalist conception).

That's an awesome idea! If someone needs a donation of a new kidney, or liver, they can clone that specific body part from the patient, and give it back to them! No harm, no fowl (but it would be expensive).

of course, in the beginning all technology is very expensive. But it becomes much more affordable with time and further technological development. (After all, consider that today many of us (including the non-rich!) are walking around with super computers in our pockets, that are connected to the world of information and communication!)

That sounds like a fun idea! Not just for this person, but maybe all of us should be cloned and be forced to compete for existence with our clones! (Sounds like a good movie!)

I explore the complexities of abortion in other videos.

Not if the parents have great genetics. That's the opposite of eugenics

@@frederickburke9944 I think you are confusing the terms. Eugenics is not talking about dysgenics or genetic fitness, it is talking about selection. The act of choosing what children are born into the future and which ones are not, the act of the choice, is eugenics.

@@frederickburke9944 the ONLY way to actually avoid eugenics is to randomly pair sexual partners so that people don't have a choice over which babies will be born or which genes or parents they will have. Nobody is in support of that. Everyone supports some form of eugenics or another, but all of the socially tolerated forms of eugenics are not called eugenics while the word itself carries an overall negative connotation even though it is practiced by those who portend to stand against it. That is to say that the public outcry against eugenics is bullshit. The public embraces some forms of eugenics already, they just don't call it that.

@@elinope4745 the eu in eugenics is from Greek for good. If you aren't selecting for good traits, it is not eugenic..

Indeed! But since there are so many other medical procedures that you can say the same things about, I wonder how much weight these concerns have.

@@GeorgeTsouris Yes, so many other medical procedures, so many organs, tissue, liquid, etc.. It's too evil to say out🙏

Your body is your temple, to venerate the body is to worship God.

@@elinope4745 You prove again that the Democrats, Communists and Nazis only worship themselves.

@@elinope4745 You violate article 1 of Ten Commandments. You prove the sin of democrats, communists, and nazi, they worship themselves, they oppose morality, so we have the bad thing, that is you say freedom to murder other people, even they are clone. Now that this evidence is finally coming out for the first time, it's clear Kamala Harris led a cover-up of late-term abortion crimes as California Attorney General.

Good points. But organs seems like a pretty significant reason.

What if only others can decide who is cloned, perhaps in a public competition? Sure you may want to clone yourself, but you need to compete for the opportunity. I also wouldn't mind if you voluntarily paid extra taxes to be used for public welfare to purchase the clone. This would clone the people who helped everyone else the most.

Cloning is stupid because we already have sexual reproduction. It would be stupid to have an offspring exactly the same as yourself

I’m happy you enjoyed it!

What's your position on abortion?

I think most of us agree that some situations obligate us to forgo certain rights... but the million dollar question is: is pregnancy one of those situations? Of course, this is a controversial question with many diverse arguments on both sides!

my position is that such questions are a lot more complicated than many people suppose. I am frustrated with many people (on both sides!) who simply assert their position without argument, or without recognizing further entailments of their ideas.

I’m happy you enjoyed it and found it helpful. (This can be tough stuff!)

I don’t know what might or might not be tempting. But it seems that Harris’ reproductive freedom might allow for your proposal… especially since people can do something like this via ‘old fashioned’ reproduction methods (by picking certain partners)

@@Platterofsounds I’m glad you like it. Thanks!

I’m so happy you and your team enjoy them!

Thanks! I’m glad you found it Informative.

Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed it!

look at Amazon.com. I think they have the second edition; the first edition may be out-of-print.

@@GeorgeTsouris thanks

I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Indeed, I think you're right-on when suggesting that pragmatic ideas (and pragmatic thinking) plays a significant role in virtue ethics. But by the way, a lot of pragmatism is subject to many of the same problems that you're trying to address. Furthermore, it is hard for me to wrap my head around the notion of something like a "tradition-free" perspective. (I think that even the early scientists you are mention were working within some tradition, a tradition that goes back to (at least) Aristotle.) After all, we were all raised somewhere... Even still, you've offered a lot of ideas to examine and explore in greater depth.

My pleasure!

I'm glad you like the video. I just did an internet search for her photo... to be honest, while I am confident this is a photo of her, I am not 100% certain.

... and to go a bit further, while I am confident of my interpretation of her ideas, I am not 100% certain my interpretation is the best, either... but that's how I do philosophy.

@@GeorgeTsouris Thank you for a quick response! She was a professor at San Francisco State University and usually you can see a photo of professor on the faculty stuff tab. Since she passed away, it is probably impossible to find it on their website. What other sources do you think should I check to be 100% certain it is her! Thank you for your help!

@@anastasiyaolegovnalopez3616 I don't know. I like David Hume's ideas about 100% certainty: it doesn't happen with such empirical matters. I have a video about something like that here: ruclips.net/video/oWnHU0DDDvA/видео.html

I'm so happy you enjoyed it.

indeed!

Glad to hear that!

Of course, you raise interesting points. Please watch my video about Beckwith’s response to Thomson… he mentions your ideas, and more. "Arguments from Bodily Rights" by Francis Beckwith ruclips.net/video/wKbk3twVslM/видео.html

Well, no argument is perfect (or at least, very very few are), and he illustrates interesting problems with Warren’s ideas. But that means that probably Schwarz’ arguments aren’t perfect either… so how do you work around these problems? Well, that’s why I love philosophy! Michael Tooley has an interesting way around Schwarz’ ideas, but I haven’t made that video, yet.

@@GeorgeTsouris interesting does Schwartz respond in his book?

@@GeorgeTsouris hay can you tell me where Dr. Tooley responded to Dr. Schwartz's I can only find Dr. Tooley talk about him briefly.

Well, one way of responding to philosophical disagreement is to double-down on your own principles. So instead of explicitly responding to Schwarz, Tooley shows how much he agrees with (something like) Warren's criteria for personhood, and accepts the entailments that Schwarz suggests are unacceptable. Tooley's famous article is entitled "Abortion and Infanticide."

@@GeorgeTsouris I see thank you

I’m so happy you enjoyed it, and gleaned some interesting insights!

I think reasonable people can interpret complicated texts in different ways.