"If you have the ability to stop a killer, and you don’t, are you morally pure because you didn’t kill? Or are you morally dirty because you refused to do what needs to be done?" ~Crash Course Philosophy #36
my ethics course in college has been covering this topic for the past 2 weeks which consist of many many readings and this video just did it all in 10 minutes....
Sometimes it’s better to decipher meanings from different sources because it gives you the practical skill of searching for answers rather than being spoon fed the info
@@tadstrange1465 Yes we are, because batman knows that he is no longer "batman" if he gets rid of his defining adversary. He needs Joker alive to be himself.
It's said that the reason why Batman doesn't kill is due more to the fact that Bob Kane didn't want to keep writing up new villians every month, rather than any moral reason.
True, but also because violence was being censored in comics, all comics, like any super hero story, is very silly, but Batman is the worse, that is because he is portrayed like someone to be feared, but he is unable to kill, well but for kids I think this is enough, or not, after animes I think kids today are getting tired of "the perfect saint" heroes portrayed in comics.
No, it is really a moral dilemma, The Joker ultimate goal is not kill Batman but BEING KILLED by him so he can somewhat corrupt Batman's moral and have him experience the same murderer craziness the Joker has. This is a very central theme in the Batman's comic books
And its even more far reaching. What if he enjoys the killing and starts picking off other super criminals? Will he at some point get so used to killing that he also starts killing common lowlife like muggers? Where is the line? Sure, Joker is an obvious kill candidate. What about Penguin? He killed less than Joker but has a huge criminal empire and lots of henchmen that kill for him. Would killing Penguin be justified? Would killing the henchmen be justified? What about insane people like scarecrow (yes I know and Joker)? Should someone with mental illnesses be killed? What about poison Ivy? In the end she just wants to preserve nature, and in that conquest people die. Since saving the environment would be advantageous for all of humanity (climate change), would this advantage outweigh the killing? Also, with Batman not killing, the police always has a reason to keep him free. Once he murdered someone he would have to be held accountable for his action, meaning he should go to jail, a murder is a murder after all (barring self-defense). So the easiest way to tackle all those problems is not killing at all. This has its drawbacks but also it´s advantages that can´t be overlooked.
or a really sad commentary on Gotham not sentencing a known mass murderer to the death penalty. after all Batman hands him over alive time and time again.....
My favorite version of Batman's personal justification for not killing the Joker is not that he doesn't because it's immoral, but because once he does that, he worries that he would then not be able to stop himself from killing again.
Rule utilitarianism sounds a lot like Kant's categorical imperative - taking a moral rule and universalising it. The difference is Kant asks "if we universalised this, would it lead to logical contradictions?" while rule utilitarianism asks "if we universalised it, what would the consequences be for people's lives and happiness?" So I think it'd be possible for Batman to be a rule utilitarian and still not kill the Joker, if he'd deemed that "killing bad people" was an action that, if universalised, would lead to less happiness in the long run.
One thing to point out in this video is that utilitarianism is not consequentialism. Utilitarianism is also subdivided into three (3) elements" 1. Consequentialist 2. Welfarist 3. Aggregatist There are two ways consequentialist theories are divided: 1. Based on whether an agent only (agent-relative) or both agent and recipient (agent-neutral) are affected 2. Based on whether pleasure or pain are involved (hedonism vs. non-hedonism) Utilitarianism is agent-neutral and not egoistic, as this video says. However, it can be hedonistic or non-hedonistic.
The example of the transplants is a trolley problem and it's a much more difficult one for classic utilitarianism. It also brings into question the easy answer in the classic trolley problem.
"If you have the ability to stop a killer, and you don’t, are you morally pure because you didn’t kill? Or are you morally dirty because you refused to do what needs to be done? We live in a world where sometimes people do terrible things. And, if we’re the ones who happen to be there, and we can do something to make things better, we must. Even if that means getting our hands dirty." ~ Crash Course Philosophy #36
I don't think Batman won't kill the Joker because he doesn't think it would be morally justified, he just knows that he has to stick to a strict list of rules in order to not go off the handle. The willingness to kill one will lead to the willingness to kill another then another then another. He has to keep himself in check or he'll become a dangerous radical vigilante.
It's the nature of power to corrupt. Batman gave himself power, and should be aware of that. Yes killing the Joker might corrupt him, but that's a price he ought to be willing to pay. Corrupt or not he's not going to life forever, he doesn't have to remain perfect.
The Joker actually has had similar injuries multiple times, and he always heals from it. He's had his spine broken, had his kneecaps shot and shattered, and even lost teeth, but all of that always heals. It's not focused on very well, but the chemicals that stained the joker's skin and hair also gave him some kind of healing factor.
Batman really should kill the Joker. Failing that, he should contact a Green Lantern or Supes, find a hospitable planet that hasn't been settled and is completely out of the way, round up all three of the Jokers and just leave them on that planet and have a giant quarantine sign for all sapient species.
z32 ls2 first thing's first, Joker isn't the Hulk. Hulk's a big, green rage monster that suffers from dissociative identity disorder that doesn't have much control over their actions while the Jokers are homicidal maniacs responsible for 75 years of death and mayhem in Gotham through their antics who are in control of their actions. Furthermore, Joker thrives on being around people and playing to their worst demons where as Hulk scares the oants off everyone. Putting Joker in a populated area such as the Phantom Zone is a bad idea even if he does get destroyed by a Superman villain because there is always the chance that a team up will occur because reasons. Secondly, Planet Hulk is the result of Cosmic events landing the Hulk on a populated planet with several sapient species and being forced into gladiator fights and slave uprisings. What I'm proposing is deliberately placing all 3 Jokers on a deserted planet and micromanaging the process every step of the way.
The problem with utilitarianism is, in short, the butterfly effect; determining your ethics by the consequences of your actions forces you to grapple with the fact that consequences are often unpredictable and inconsistent. If Batman kills the Joker, he leaves something of a power vacuum in Gotham (unless we're talking about Silver Age Joker), which could give rise to an even worse evil. Or Harley Quinn could nuke the city in revenge or something. If the man shoots the native, the soldiers could just throw all the prisoners in solitary confinement cells until they starve, killing them even more painfully. Or the man's involvement could influence foreign powers to get involved in whatever struggle was happening in that country, leading to a tangled mess of armies and governments like in the Middle East. Rule utilitarianism fixes this somewhat by considering more long-term consequences, but no system of rules can perfectly predict the consequences of a given action, so utilitarianism will always be imperfect. Of course, just because it's imperfect doesn't mean it's invalid, it just means that it shouldn't be taken as a given that x action will lead to y results.
Sean Murphy Just because there are unforeseen consequences doesn't nullify the moral theory. For example let's imagine I save one of your cousins. Later that day I see on the news that stranger I saved killed three people. Does this mean I have to stop saving people in case they're bad, or I have to vet them before I save them? No. This moral theory still works even though as with everything there are sometimes exceptions. For example cardio is healthy, unless someone has a heart problem. Well does that mean we shouldn't recommend cardio in case someone with an undiagnosed heart problem dies? Once again, no.
Eat Veggies - Save Me It really doesn't. It's just stating that there's unforeseen consequences. With his view (don't kill joker because a worse bad guy COULD take his place) we could justify not killing any horrible person. Oh no, don't kill genocidal dictator X (GDX) because a worse GDX could take his place. Oh no, don't kill GDX, someone might seek vengeance and be even worse. It's really flawed, impractical thinking.
Hi I don't know if this has already been said but John Stuart Mill was a rule utilitarian not an act utilitarian, this is laid out in his book "On Liberty" where he lays out a set of rules a utilitarian society may do. One of his most famous applies very well to you surgeon example and that is the Harm Principle. The Harm Principle according to Mill is "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." ( On Liberty) or for this example the surgeon may not act on the neighbor especially not to violate a right as simple as life unless the neighbor shows the intent to cause harm to others which in the example he has none.
One of my favourite topics to discuss - Batmans moral code. Now I haven't read all his comics, but from what I have read and watched of Batman this is my take on it. Batman doesn't kill, and especially the Joker for a few reasons. 1. If he kills even one person, he crosses the line that puts him on the criminals level, and he may not be able to stop himself from killing again 2. He knows if he kills the Joker someone will just replace him. The fact that Batman exists means there will almost always be a joker anyway 3. Batman always hands the Joker over to authorities because it's still all about law and justice. It's not about stopping the Joker from creating chaos, it's to prove a point that the people and the justice system has power and that evil doers will always be brought to justice without using deadly force. It's up to the people, not just Batman. He's the detective, but not the police, judge, jury or prison guard.
Of course there are tons of times where writers deviate from the Batman in my mind, but this is what he stands for in my interpretation of my favourite versions of Batman anyway :P
Jeremiah B it's a perpetual thing, that's why the dynamic is so impossible to break so naturally the struggle continues on forever because neither point will give xD
I imagine the joker could save himself from getting killed by anyone, because his only goal is to make Batman kill him. I wonder if introducing the death penalty would also prove the Jokers point too. I started to feel silly thinking about the wider justice system in a fantasy setting though, I gotta say lol. Clearly the Joker will be able to escape any situation until they're done making Batman anythings xD
You probably get this a lot but thank you so much for your videos they help me so much for essays, understanding etc. im really struggling in philosophy a level in class its so overwhelming with all the content and confusion and how on earth ill remember it all, these videos are like a breath of fresh air and they're so easy to grasp with your visual aids and metaphors and everything. You're amazing
That's how I feel about Kantian ethics in general. There is no excuse for claiming to follow some supposed Higher Good and allowing people to keep suffering. After all, isn't the study of ethics about how we ought to treat people? In what way is some abstract doctrine more important than avoiding unnecessary human suffering?
consequences are impossible to predict. it could be that by killing the joker, batman would lose his meaning in life and go off the deep end, causing suffering in amounts that are greater than the joker would have produced. Or it could cause some kind of joker copycats etc...etc... Batman isn't responsible for the joker's actions. Joker could leave Arkham and never harm again if he so chose to. Of course he wouldn't because hes a made up character motivated purely by creating chaos, but all philosophy is hypothetical so here are scenarios in which killing the joker would do more harm than good so how is keeping him alive selfish?
My psychology professor believed that the morality of an action was independent of the consequence; even though lives might be saved, killing someone is immoral and can't be considered a "good" action. I'm sure modern Kantians believe in self defence and accept that sometimes utilitarianism is a necessary evil for a large civilization.
+Captain Oblivious That statement completely misunderstands utilitarianism, deontology and Batman. Firstly, you say that since he doesn't kill the Joker and therefore is a deontologist, Batman "doesn't value innocent life". This is incorrect. The saving of innocent lives is not the foundation of utilitarianism, the maximisation of value (whatever that may be) is. Put differently, utilitarianism would argue it is morally obligatory for Batman to allow 9 INNOCENT people to die if he could save 10 persons. Secondly, you say that Batman's deontological acts make him value "self-regard" and is "extremely narcissistic". Again, this is an incorrect understanding of deontology. Deontology, or Kantian ethics, focus on the act itself, not notions of self-regard or narcissism. Kantians judge the morality of an act based on the act itself, regardless of the consequences stemming from the act. The end never justifies the means, the means are justifiable on their own merits. Put differently, Kantians would argue Batman (a man by the way who is not sanctioned by law to kill and is tolerated because of his strict moral code) ought to put the rightness of an act before anything else, like for eg. instead of killing, putting away criminals; but this undermines his perception of fear to criminals (and therefore his image) - that hardly seems like actions that perpetuate "self-regard" and narcissism.
+Deena Fahed It's not like utilitarians care about "suffering". They care about the maximisation of a value. they would gladly allow the death of 1 billion people to save 1 billion and one. As for Kantian ethics, I think you are mistaken. The "Higher Good" for Kant is simple: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." You might know this as the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. I know not of any other stronger rule that forbades suffering onto others.
I’m interested… I know you say that the “most primal” goal of humans is to seek pleasure, and that this is common ground for everyone, however other philosophies disagree with this. For instance, Buddhism has some roots in the idea that NOT chasing after pleasure is what equates to true happiness. I would love to have a video on something like this.
Nico Sevilla Then what kind of a society would that be? Where you can simply kill an Innocent man, who was in no way responsible for others misery, and just take his organs? Utilitarianism is a slippery slope because it can be used to excuse anything, even the torturing of an Innocent child.
Cosmas Dexie Yes it could be, if that actually resulted in the best consequences. But the weight of human experience tells us that torturing children almost never results in the best consequences. Remember that utilitarians are supposed to think long term. A society where anyone can be killed at any moment against their will is obviously one in which the overall happiness is lower, hence your aversion to it. If a billion people's lives would be saved by killing one person you would be a fool not to do it. Killing one person to save five in everyday life results in worse consequences overall, not better. You just have to be a smarter utilitarian.
I love this channel. I learn so much. You've made it so easy to grasp the information in such a short amount of time. Thank you to all the crew at CrashCourse! Keep it up you champions.
Let's be really realistic. Batman isn't judge jury and executioner. He acts as a servant to the ppl of Gotham. "I never said thank you!" "And you never have to!" The real fault is with Gothams justice system. Ultimately it should be down to them/us to take the responsibility of having the Joker killed rather than imprisoned. Especially knowing how cunning he is and the likelihood of him just escaping. The choice of killing someone shouldn't be down to just one person and it shouldn't be down to someone like Batman.
The most interesting thing about the Joker is his own reasoning for what he does, and the fault of the justice system is in having only two options for criminals... death or imprisonment.
On the thought experiment, a further confounding factor is the fact that you can't know if the soldier will keep his word. The soldier may kill the other 19 after you kill the one, and then you can have ptsd afterwards so not only did you not save anyone but now you have ptsd
I feel as though people who argue against utilitarianism are looking at it as though they are the neighbor, not as, say, a child who depends on the guy, who needs the heart transplant, for food.
What is more selfless? To put myself in the shoes of a innocent organ harvest victim, or in the shoes of the people who would be benefited by said harvesting?
I think people are opposed to it because it lacks emotion. Utilitarianism is what you would expect a robot to do, who has no emotions. I think it is too rational for people. We like to think we are rational, but really emotions play a huge role in our thinking. For example, imagine you see two children drowing, and you can only save one of them. One of them happens to be your own child, the other is a stranger. Most people would then save their own child, because they are emotionally attached to it. But according to utilitarianism, you should flip a coin to decide who to save, because both children deserve an equal chance.
Utilitarianism does not say both deserve an equal chance, it says both lives are equally worthy of being saved, which doesn't imply anything about how you should go about choosing which one. Also, watching your own child die before your eyes is traumatic, and if you take that into consideration then the utilitarian action is to save your own child and forget about the stranger.
@Matias Javier Furia Rodriguez Neither, to imagine yourself the victim in either situation is not selfless. The real question is should one desire to be selfless? I think trying to create a situation where you lose and others win limits the real possibility where all can win.
I think you guys are being self-righteous. They specifically pointed out it was in Fahrenheit. That's what they're familiar with. As to the actual question, I think it's considered manly to be totally unflappable to things like weather, pain, etc. As to why CARGO shorts, they're great for storing things.
Sid The Great I'm not.. American... nor do I use Fahrenheit I actually googled the conversion because I figured more Americans than Japanese watched this.
I think there's a flaw in your presentation. Utilitarianism and most other consequentialist forms of ethics do look at intention. Example: You're a doctor. You can treat a patient with drug A or drug B. Drug A is very effective, reducing the 5-year likely hood that the patient dies from any cause by 8% (including the effect on his disease, old age, car accidents, side effects of drugs, etc.). That being said, drug A also has a minor chance of causing a patient's death through colapse of his immune system. This is a low chance that doesn't offset the 8% improved survival. Drug B on the other hand increases 5-year survival rate by 4%, but doesn't present dangerous side effects. So the prescriber convinces the patient to go through with treatment A. He puts every measure to detect and quickly react to a failure of the immune system. The patient goes on a trip, misses his blood sample, and tragically dies. The prescriber didn't fail his utilitarian calculation. What matters is _still_ the prescriber's intentions, not the actual outcome of the action. The prescriber must have the _intention_ of taking the course of action whose consequences produce the most utility. Information failure or bad luck can happen. You need only pick the action with the optimal _foreseeable consequences_ .
I don't think it's a flaw. He didn't say it would focus much more in the intention but rather the consequences of an action that would bring greater good to a large number of people. Of course it has something to do with intention. But if he were to focus much more on intentions then you're definitely talking about another ethical theories, not consequentialist- utilitarianism.
Thank you for another excellent video and mental exercise! I am an Atheist/agnostic and I am certainly a utilitarian (and I try to act that way whenever faced with decisions). I think that the way I resolve the dilemna of the transplant patients is by respecting life/property rights just as I respect utilitarian philosophy.
*Richie Rich* You're getting close to arguing that the one victim on the other track is somehow involved. Is it worse if you push the fat man in front of the train to stop it and save the five? What if there's no one on the other track, but an empty train and the collision flings the train into a pizzeria, killing its owner? Does that mean the pizzeria owner _would live_ if the situation is left alone? It's the same scenario: Would you commit a lesser atrocity to prevent a greater one? That is the challenge of consequentialism and the failure of deontology.
You're all missing the point. It's not the trolley problem because the Joker (in disguise) is foisting a scenario on another person with nothing to do with the situation that involves the Joker's own prospective diabolical moral choice. His mere insistence that he's determined in his own mind to make this set of choices disqualifies the Joker from entering into any kind of moral contract. For all you know he's told the villagers that some white guy is going to come along and shoot someone gratuitously on behalf of a neighbouring tribe (all the better to stir up a war that kills thousands). This is closer to sitcom logic than trolleyology (a beloved dramatic premise of people who wear black and attend film school and pretend to be way more profound than they really are).
*Allan Stokes* feel free to look at the variation in *Eye In The Sky* in which a military heirarchy can prevent an imminent terror attack, by risking the life of (and ultimately killing) an innocent little girl in an allied nation. There's no contract at all in this case, it's just the weapon they have on hand is a Hellfire missile launched by Predator drone, and the girl's just in the wrong place at the wrong time. But it's the same moral issue. In that one the Prime Minister notes the press disaster of the small atrocity will be an additional factor, where no-one notices terror attacks that are prevented.
wow, so i used utilitarianism. Had to decide whether to keep my baby girl that had Trisomy 13, where she would have a 99% chance of dying within a few hours of being born, if she was born alive at all, and traumatizing my family and friends with the birth and then burial of the baby, or to end her life in the womb. Didnt know there was a name for what happens,
IMO you did the right thing. it gets really complicated in terms of ethics, but regardless of what the babies short life would've been like, it would've been hard for everyone around you (including you) so I think you made the right choice. You made the best decision you could with the knowledge you had and that is what is important.
So, in other words, you killed your baby. Instead of using utilitarianism you should have used an actually moral moral system to make your decision. Like it says at the beginning of the video, “there are some lines that good people do not cross...killing definitely falls on the wrong side of that line.”
@@jarlaxle150 What the beginning of the video is "FOR BATMAN killing definitely falls on the wrong side of that line" - and as a consequence of his un-nuanced view of things, many people die and suffer. Utilitarian moral philosophy is about doing what actually makes the world better - helping beings to live good lives and avoid misery. Non-utilitarian moral philosophies, when they conflict with utilitarian ones, are about making yourself feel "morally pure", perhaps even if you achieve this feeling by making choices that result in others or yourself hurt in terrible ways. I suppose we all are a mix both (few of us are either 0.0% utilitarian or 100.0% utilitarian). In my view Knit Crochet Designs, when she made the best (or perhaps I should say least bad) out of a situation she did not choose, acted like a good person - indeed she acted morally *better* than someone who would have chosen differently.
I love watching these because I am learning (has lots of really great information) and also, it helps me just relax. I have fun watching. They put in funny animations or examples that are just great.
My personal critique of utilitarianism: to judge the morality of actions or to institute norms based solely on their consequences is a dangerous thing to do, not because you might fall on some of these thought experiments, but because you attribute an ethic to an external purpose. Utilitarianism guides ethics in order to attain a greater good, pleasure or utility, much like a recipe book. If you want a happy society, follow these instructions; if you want to bake a cake, do as listed in the recipe book. However, it begs the question: why are these objectives desired, or even there, in the first place? These objectives are certainly outside the field of reason itself to be justified solely by it. Wanting to bake a cake is as much a subjective purpose or want as is wanting a more utilitarian society. This is the essence of the kantian morality: kant justified his ethic not in an external purpose or objective, subjective in nature, but justified in reason itself. This is namely the categorical imperative, that which is good, necessary and universal, contrary to the hypothetical imperative, a recipe for a desired subjective want.
There was an argument that explained why Batman doesn't kill the Joker in the comic: Batman: Under the Red Hood. Batman explains that he does want to kill the Joker, but if he does that would cause him to kill every other criminal for the safety of Gotham, just like the Joker. Going further than this, this could eventually cause Batman to be arrested or killed and have Gotham overrun with more criminals, with no one to stop them. Or, Batman could even resign to killing not only criminals, but also anyone that poses a threat to Wayne Industries, or even innocent people.
From my perspective, utilitarianism is impossible because we as humans are ultimately unable to accurately predict the future and if we could at want time in the future would we stop our calculation at?
The video was a little wrong in that it isn't entirely consequential... In Utilitarianism, you should do the action that will increase happiness or decrease pain for the greatest number, but that is only from your perspective. Bentham provided a handy calculus for working out the moral value of an action based on the number of people affected, the certainty of the outcome, the intensity of the pleasure/pain, the purity, the fecundity, the remoteness and the duration. It doesn't rely on knowing the future, just about what you think will happen.
Graham H Nobody said utilitarianism was easy. We ought to do our best to figure out the consequences of our actions and act according to the best consequences. Even with good information this is hard. Many utilitarians WANT to be vegetarians, or to quit smoking, or to give more to charity, but just because it's right doesn't mean it's easy, to paraphrase Dumbledore.
Uhm, it only means that not every end result would be optimal. But just because humans aren't perfect at making future prediction doesn't mean it would always fail. It doesn't mean it's not the most practical way of thinking despite its flaws. I feel you're posing a nirvana fallacy. Why even bother to have economist, since the market is unpredictable to a larger degree that economist wants you to believe. Because even if the game is largely unpredictable it's _practical enough._ That's really it.
This whole conversation is moot, because Batman has killed many villains...the "Batman doesn't kill" thing was just created during the late 50's when the CCA (comics code authority) made killing in comic books forbidden in order to get their seal of approval.
You didn't mention the problem of multiple variable maximization. If you receive $1 million, should you divide it out and give $1 to a million people each (making a little good for a lot of people), or should you keep it for yourself (making a lot of good for 1 person)
The question is, who will decide which person to choose to be given $1? And what make that million people deserve $1 more than the rest of the population? Also, $1 is a very small amount, will it really make that million people happier or beneficial them in any way?
Money is not utilons! (or whatever you want to call the made-up unit of utility) It's called "decreasing marginal returns": Giving a poor person 20$ can save his life, or at least enable them to live a lot more comfortably for a week. Giving a billionnaire 20$ won't improve her life in any noticeable way. So as long as you don't add more complications, utilitarians should be in favor of redistributing it widely. (That's also one reason why playing the lottery/gambling is a bad idea - e.g. winning 10 Million $ won't make you a million times happier (by far!) than spending the 10$ on something else instead of the ticket, and the probability of winning it are less than one in a million - otherwise the lottery company wouldn't make money.)
nibblrrr As well as turning people close to you into, well, you know how those murder mysteries turn out. I'm obviously exaggerating, but it can strain relationships
Could Batman just sever the Joker's spine so he'll live but be paralyzed from the neck down? Seems like that would make it harder for him to break out.
Does it though Batman has no problem beating people to a pulp but "accidentally" severing their spine especially the jokers doesn't break his no kill rule
He tried that once. (The Dark Knight Returns, aka: "What Batman V Superman should have been") Joker just used his ungodly neck muscles to finish himself off, and frame Bats.
Hello sir, I have one question and the question goes like this: What will utilitarian say in a given condition? There are six people in a hospital and their condition is as given below: All 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th persons are ill and if they won’t get the treatment they will die within 20 to 40 minutes. Situations for saving them If 1st person got good treatment within that time, then he will live a longer life And if other 5 persons got a good treatment within that time, then they will live for 1 to 2 months. If doctor save the first person other five will die in the same time and if the doctor save five persons first person will die in the same time. a. what is good for doctors to do? b. What happens if doctor save only 1st person? c. What happens if doctor save other 5 persons? d. What action do you think is good in this situation?
For the indigenous people example, my thought was to shoot the guy holding the people hostage. Something I hoping to have come up is the Trolly Problem, which highlights one of the big differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism by by separating the choices into action and inaction. If the act to kill the one in favor of the many is small like flipping a lever, than more people will preform it when compared to if the action requires more effort. The distinction between action and inaction was even taken into consideration for Asimov's 3 laws of robotics.
I would just ask if anyone either volunteers, for the greater good, or who the oldest person is. This way, less years of life are lost or the people get a say in making their own choices for their own freedom.
Age doesn’t matter, you don’t have the right to take someone’s life jsut because they don’t have much of it left. But I’m 100% with you on the volunteer thing. Killing is only wrong when it means taking someone’s life when they don’t want you to (which is practically always). If someone decides to sacrifice themself, I wouldn’t even feel bad about killing them. In that case, I am only an instrument for their decision.
There is an important distinction to be made between killing (which can happen in self-defense or defense of others), as opposed to murder. It's not just about putting more lives above others. It's about preventing/avoiding murder. There is also a huge flaw with "producing the greatest good to the greatest number." That flaw is that *you cannot compare utility across individuals.* This is never addressed by the supposed "greater good" crowd. In the 20 people scenario, I would say that shooting the soldiers is the moral approach because they're about to murder 20 people. The transplant scenario shows why utilitarianism fails if held consistently, whereas Kantian thought does not. More importantly, "rule utilitarianism" would immediately destroy something like taxation for welfare programs by the same logic.
Yes, but the Joker is in most accounts morally culpable - however the pedestrians (just like the organ harvesting case) are innocent; but the question posed is, in a sense, at which point does utilitarianism starts to be wrong? E.g. if the driver must turn one way or another vs. keeping straight or turning; or whether a different pedestrian is to be thrown on the tracks to save the rest etc.
+Jason93609 The utilitarianism doesn't just start to be wrong at some point. It's wrong in it's very foundation, that there's some inconceivable "greater good" you should abide to. They used organ harvesting as an example that killing 1 person is good in a grand scheme of things, because you're saving 5 lives. How about we kill all HIV carriers to prevent thousands from getting infected? How about killing all sick people so that you can reduce taxes, I mean - it's not like they're working real job to pay taxes so you're relieving the entire society of a burden. If morality creates an opportunity for the same act to be both evil and good - it's a wrong morality. A kill is a kill, whether they kill an unborn child , an infant, an adult man or a psychopath. In the trolley problem - I think - you should not turn. You should focus on stopping the train, even if it means destruction-with-no-killing-involved. The only winning move is not to play.
MaC S3th Actually utilitarianism is probably the best generalist ethical theory available. But I was praising the trolley problem because it is very malleable. So you would say that you do not turn. But what if you HAD to turn left or right, and in one case you would kill 10 people, in the other case just one? Or what if you could go straight and not turn but then everyone on the train, many hundreds, is killed?
Jason93609 Not even close. Sorry, I didn't notice "See more" If I had to turn: I wouldn't. What happens? The train derails? So be it. I'd still be busy trying to stop the train or getting people off of it (if there are passengers involved). If going straight kills passengers - see previous statement. I wouldn't engage in an activity that holds me responsible for choosing the target. The only person morally wrong in the situation is the person responsible for creating this situation: Joker, irresponsible workers, careless pedestrians. The problem with, uh, trolley problem is that it forces you to choose between 2 options. If the options are bad, why choose? Hang yourself or shoot yourself? How about neither? If I had to choose morality (code) I'd go with humanism. Do not engage in actions unworthy of a human being.
I have for years been a utilitarianist and i live by this philosophy. My answer to that thought bubbler scenario is: A. Why is it wrong for a moral philosophy to absolutely prevent you from killing if it will lead to a greater public health ? B. it not the observer's place to do anything. the observer has to measure whether his action will bring him pleasure or displeasure, then act on that answer. will it make him happier or sadder to kill 1 person and save 19 OR see 20 people be killed
@@somewhatinformed1208 Do you think other parties are more pro-American than the Democratic one and if so why? I don't particularly like the two-party system in which both are right wing but I'm confused why you think that the Dems are more anti-American. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you aren't going to pull a Nationalist bent.
@@henryzelman4541 Democrats say making America great is racist. Democrats vote to fund built 5 billion dollars to the wall yet they voted this fun 25 billion years ago.. Democrats think people who work should not be able to keep all their pay. Democrats I know think everyone in the world should live in America... they're so worried about children being separated from their parents when the people who claimed to be their parents are criminals we don't normally lock up children with criminals. The children say these people claiming to be their parents are raping them. Democrats want more third world people in America. Democrats want only laws to apply to white people everyone else gets a pass.
Third world country is a nation who is not a part of an alliance. It has nothing to do with poverty and children don't tell their parents raping them, it's a shame for the family.
Well, Batman did essentially kill Ras and definitely killed Dent. He's also giving a middle finger to any cop, soldier, or civilian who has ever had to kill someone to defend themselves or others. The problem is that Batman always pulls a Deus ex machina to avoid killing.
I have an essay where i have to explain Justice with reference to utilitarianism and I'm quite lost as to the "definition" of justice, I know that following utilitarianism (or whichever moral theory you fancy) is a way to achieve it.. but what really is justice? doing the right thing? fair thing? Any help/feedback would be greatly appreciated.. (most comments are like 1 year ago but hey asking won't do any harm)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
So, the reason Batman _won't_ kill the Joker is... because he Kant?
he kant
Get out.
wow wow. nice one :))))
+
He's a Kant
"If you have the ability to stop a killer, and you don’t, are you morally pure because you didn’t kill? Or are you morally dirty because you refused to do what needs to be done?" ~Crash Course Philosophy #36
my ethics course in college has been covering this topic for the past 2 weeks which consist of many many readings and this video just did it all in 10 minutes....
I'm learning about it and i just started year 7 lol
Sometimes it’s better to decipher meanings from different sources because it gives you the practical skill of searching for answers rather than being spoon fed the info
lol
Joker being alive means possible future chapters of him returning to action, meaning more comic book sales and hence more utility... to DC comics.
We're talking about in-universe.
the greater good is more enjoyable comics
Cheers
@@tadstrange1465 Yes we are, because batman knows that he is no longer "batman" if he gets rid of his defining adversary. He needs Joker alive to be himself.
It's said that the reason why Batman doesn't kill is due more to the fact that Bob Kane didn't want to keep writing up new villians every month, rather than any moral reason.
True, but also because violence was being censored in comics, all comics, like any super hero story, is very silly, but Batman is the worse, that is because he is portrayed like someone to be feared, but he is unable to kill, well but for kids I think this is enough, or not, after animes I think kids today are getting tired of "the perfect saint" heroes portrayed in comics.
Bruno Walker That's not true since the Comics Code Authority was created after Batman's code and because it doesn't exist anymore but his code does.
No, it is really a moral dilemma, The Joker ultimate goal is not kill Batman but BEING KILLED by him so he can somewhat corrupt Batman's moral and have him experience the same murderer craziness the Joker has. This is a very central theme in the Batman's comic books
And its even more far reaching. What if he enjoys the killing and starts picking off other super criminals? Will he at some point get so used to killing that he also starts killing common lowlife like muggers? Where is the line? Sure, Joker is an obvious kill candidate. What about Penguin? He killed less than Joker but has a huge criminal empire and lots of henchmen that kill for him. Would killing Penguin be justified? Would killing the henchmen be justified? What about insane people like scarecrow (yes I know and Joker)? Should someone with mental illnesses be killed? What about poison Ivy? In the end she just wants to preserve nature, and in that conquest people die. Since saving the environment would be advantageous for all of humanity (climate change), would this advantage outweigh the killing? Also, with Batman not killing, the police always has a reason to keep him free. Once he murdered someone he would have to be held accountable for his action, meaning he should go to jail, a murder is a murder after all (barring self-defense).
So the easiest way to tackle all those problems is not killing at all. This has its drawbacks but also it´s advantages that can´t be overlooked.
or a really sad commentary on Gotham not sentencing a known mass murderer to the death penalty. after all Batman hands him over alive time and time again.....
The most relevant moral argument here is that killing the joker would kill two cash cows, the comics and the film sequels.
Ah, comics and philosophy, two of my favorite subjects
'' Pain is pain regardless of whose experiencing it '' powerful line
Kant believe you didn't make a pun between Batman and his 'Utility' belt xD
My favorite version of Batman's personal justification for not killing the Joker is not that he doesn't because it's immoral, but because once he does that, he worries that he would then not be able to stop himself from killing again.
6:45 *"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who sit there and watch without doing anything at all"*
~Albert Einstein.
"Life cannot be balanced like an equation. Good deeds do not erase the evil ones." ~ Einstein in National Geographic's 'Genius'
Hey look, television!
Those are called Americans.
Kenli Eldhose I think being an American is is part of someone's nationality, not a race.
*“Apathy is Death”*
~Kreia.
Rule utilitarianism sounds a lot like Kant's categorical imperative - taking a moral rule and universalising it. The difference is Kant asks "if we universalised this, would it lead to logical contradictions?" while rule utilitarianism asks "if we universalised it, what would the consequences be for people's lives and happiness?" So I think it'd be possible for Batman to be a rule utilitarian and still not kill the Joker, if he'd deemed that "killing bad people" was an action that, if universalised, would lead to less happiness in the long run.
"All the people I murdered by letting you live...."
Batman, shortly before killing The Joker.
it instantly came on my mind when i clicked on this video lol
Veidt: "In the end, did I do the right thing?"
Dr. Manhattan: "Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends."
One thing to point out in this video is that utilitarianism is not consequentialism.
Utilitarianism is also subdivided into three (3) elements"
1. Consequentialist
2. Welfarist
3. Aggregatist
There are two ways consequentialist theories are divided:
1. Based on whether an agent only (agent-relative) or both agent and recipient (agent-neutral) are affected
2. Based on whether pleasure or pain are involved (hedonism vs. non-hedonism)
Utilitarianism is agent-neutral and not egoistic, as this video says. However, it can be hedonistic or non-hedonistic.
I don't even know if it's possible to create a code of ethics that isn't over-broad or have horrifying, unintended consequences or edge-cases.
I'm pretty sure it's impossible.
All "ism's" end up bad, no matter how well intentioned.
Cubism. True story.
(I'm joking. Cubism is great.)
FireRupee You got me there, Cubist art is beautiful.
This is why I really hope they are going to cover Virtue Ethics
Can't believe you didn't bring up the trolley problem.
The trolley problem is only hard for Kantians. For literally anyone else, it's an easy decision. Plus there's a million variations
The example of the transplants is a trolley problem and it's a much more difficult one for classic utilitarianism. It also brings into question the easy answer in the classic trolley problem.
The indigenous people thing was pretty much the same thing.
I think he did in a different video and so tried to make the video more unique by avoiding it.
Why continue beating the dead horse though?
"If you have the ability to stop a killer, and you don’t, are you morally pure because you didn’t kill? Or are you morally dirty because you refused to do what needs to be done?
We live in a world where sometimes people do terrible things. And, if we’re the ones who happen to be there, and we can do something to make things better, we must. Even if that means getting our hands dirty."
~ Crash Course Philosophy #36
I don't think Batman won't kill the Joker because he doesn't think it would be morally justified, he just knows that he has to stick to a strict list of rules in order to not go off the handle. The willingness to kill one will lead to the willingness to kill another then another then another. He has to keep himself in check or he'll become a dangerous radical vigilante.
Good reasoning! That is also another kind of consequential ethics.
That's a slippery slope fallacy.
Tordek And? Just because something is allegedly fallacious doesn't mean a character can't think that way.
It's the nature of power to corrupt. Batman gave himself power, and should be aware of that. Yes killing the Joker might corrupt him, but that's a price he ought to be willing to pay. Corrupt or not he's not going to life forever, he doesn't have to remain perfect.
This is a kind of rule utilitarianism.
Batman doesn't even have to cross his line. He could just sever Jokers spine in several places making him paralyzed.
But that's cruel and unusual. A swift kill would be merciful.
Erik M. So is the joker though punishment fits the crime.
The Joker actually has had similar injuries multiple times, and he always heals from it. He's had his spine broken, had his kneecaps shot and shattered, and even lost teeth, but all of that always heals. It's not focused on very well, but the chemicals that stained the joker's skin and hair also gave him some kind of healing factor.
***** So batman would just have to do a weekly visit to arkham and break it in a fresh spot.
Wade Wilson See this is why the Joker wouldn't last long in your universe, Wade ;) lol
"Should Bateman kill the Joker...?"
I can just hear Jason Todd screaming in the distance.
who is bateman, did you mean batman?
@@matthewmccabe3411 Jason Bateman
@@cowardpaulrevere3879 i still don't know
Batman really should kill the Joker. Failing that, he should contact a Green Lantern or Supes, find a hospitable planet that hasn't been settled and is completely out of the way, round up all three of the Jokers and just leave them on that planet and have a giant quarantine sign for all sapient species.
I mean... this really is probably the best plan.
- Nick J.
CrashCourse They could even post a guard and keep interaction to a minimum if that sounded too inhumane!
***** Other criminals populate the Phantom Zone and others have escaped it before.
You gotta remember that these characters are for entertainment. They have to last somehow.
z32 ls2 first thing's first, Joker isn't the Hulk. Hulk's a big, green rage monster that suffers from dissociative identity disorder that doesn't have much control over their actions while the Jokers are homicidal maniacs responsible for 75 years of death and mayhem in Gotham through their antics who are in control of their actions. Furthermore, Joker thrives on being around people and playing to their worst demons where as Hulk scares the oants off everyone. Putting Joker in a populated area such as the Phantom Zone is a bad idea even if he does get destroyed by a Superman villain because there is always the chance that a team up will occur because reasons. Secondly, Planet Hulk is the result of Cosmic events landing the Hulk on a populated planet with several sapient species and being forced into gladiator fights and slave uprisings. What I'm proposing is deliberately placing all 3 Jokers on a deserted planet and micromanaging the process every step of the way.
The problem with utilitarianism is, in short, the butterfly effect; determining your ethics by the consequences of your actions forces you to grapple with the fact that consequences are often unpredictable and inconsistent. If Batman kills the Joker, he leaves something of a power vacuum in Gotham (unless we're talking about Silver Age Joker), which could give rise to an even worse evil. Or Harley Quinn could nuke the city in revenge or something. If the man shoots the native, the soldiers could just throw all the prisoners in solitary confinement cells until they starve, killing them even more painfully. Or the man's involvement could influence foreign powers to get involved in whatever struggle was happening in that country, leading to a tangled mess of armies and governments like in the Middle East. Rule utilitarianism fixes this somewhat by considering more long-term consequences, but no system of rules can perfectly predict the consequences of a given action, so utilitarianism will always be imperfect. Of course, just because it's imperfect doesn't mean it's invalid, it just means that it shouldn't be taken as a given that x action will lead to y results.
What alternative would you prefer?
Sean Murphy Did you watch film theorist's video?
Sean Murphy Just because there are unforeseen consequences doesn't nullify the moral theory. For example let's imagine I save one of your cousins. Later that day I see on the news that stranger I saved killed three people. Does this mean I have to stop saving people in case they're bad, or I have to vet them before I save them? No. This moral theory still works even though as with everything there are sometimes exceptions.
For example cardio is healthy, unless someone has a heart problem. Well does that mean we shouldn't recommend cardio in case someone with an undiagnosed heart problem dies? Once again, no.
+Sean Murphy Your comment deserves more likes. :)
Eat Veggies - Save Me It really doesn't. It's just stating that there's unforeseen consequences. With his view (don't kill joker because a worse bad guy COULD take his place) we could justify not killing any horrible person. Oh no, don't kill genocidal dictator X (GDX) because a worse GDX could take his place. Oh no, don't kill GDX, someone might seek vengeance and be even worse. It's really flawed, impractical thinking.
You literally made it so easy to understand. Had to write a 1500 essay due for tomorrow, now I only have 150 words, thanks to you!
Yes, I'm such a nerd that CrashCourse is in my notifications.
Dont judge meh
We won't :D
- Nick J.
TogePie me too :D
uh u should be proud my friend. .that crash course is your notification(s)
u should be proud that crash course is in your notification (s)
+maham meher Pride leads to liberalism.
Hi I don't know if this has already been said but John Stuart Mill was a rule utilitarian not an act utilitarian, this is laid out in his book "On Liberty" where he lays out a set of rules a utilitarian society may do. One of his most famous applies very well to you surgeon example and that is the Harm Principle. The Harm Principle according to Mill is "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." ( On Liberty) or for this example the surgeon may not act on the neighbor especially not to violate a right as simple as life unless the neighbor shows the intent to cause harm to others which in the example he has none.
Batman " I dont use guns!" Me "but shooting missiles at people off an attack boat or jet is ok?"
Snyder Batman Excepted.
Batman: Those are permanent knockout missiles and bullets.
Probably cuz his parents were killed with guns.....
Obviously yes. Rockets are not guns. They are rockets.
One of my favourite topics to discuss - Batmans moral code. Now I haven't read all his comics, but from what I have read and watched of Batman this is my take on it.
Batman doesn't kill, and especially the Joker for a few reasons.
1. If he kills even one person, he crosses the line that puts him on the criminals level, and he may not be able to stop himself from killing again
2. He knows if he kills the Joker someone will just replace him. The fact that Batman exists means there will almost always be a joker anyway
3. Batman always hands the Joker over to authorities because it's still all about law and justice. It's not about stopping the Joker from creating chaos, it's to prove a point that the people and the justice system has power and that evil doers will always be brought to justice without using deadly force. It's up to the people, not just Batman. He's the detective, but not the police, judge, jury or prison guard.
Of course there are tons of times where writers deviate from the Batman in my mind, but this is what he stands for in my interpretation of my favourite versions of Batman anyway :P
Jeremiah B it's a perpetual thing, that's why the dynamic is so impossible to break so naturally the struggle continues on forever because neither point will give xD
I way to take the blood off batmans hands, why doesnt the justice system execute the joker when hes arrested ?
I imagine the joker could save himself from getting killed by anyone, because his only goal is to make Batman kill him. I wonder if introducing the death penalty would also prove the Jokers point too. I started to feel silly thinking about the wider justice system in a fantasy setting though, I gotta say lol. Clearly the Joker will be able to escape any situation until they're done making Batman anythings xD
because justice is slow. do you really think they'd rush his execution because it's the joker? just saying.
I swear give this man an award he explain all this lesson better than my book and professor combine why hasn't he received. an award yet?
"All the people I've murdered by letting you live..."
Batman, Dark Knight Returns Part 2 (2013)
@Mr. 8-Bit Doggo if he killed the joker, the others wont have been killed, hence he killed those people as well
next time if Aussies call me: "you're a major kant mate" , I'll say thank you
You probably get this a lot but thank you so much for your videos they help me so much for essays, understanding etc. im really struggling in philosophy a level in class its so overwhelming with all the content and confusion and how on earth ill remember it all, these videos are like a breath of fresh air and they're so easy to grasp with your visual aids and metaphors and everything. You're amazing
This reminds me of the Injustice: Gods Among Us series where Superman represents utilitarianism and Batman is kantian
I love the dramatic music that comes on every time he pulls out a quote.
Batman's refusal to kill the Joker proves that he doesn't value innocent life so much as he values his own self-regard. It's extremely narcissistic.
That's how I feel about Kantian ethics in general. There is no excuse for claiming to follow some supposed Higher Good and allowing people to keep suffering. After all, isn't the study of ethics about how we ought to treat people? In what way is some abstract doctrine more important than avoiding unnecessary human suffering?
consequences are impossible to predict. it could be that by killing the joker, batman would lose his meaning in life and go off the deep end, causing suffering in amounts that are greater than the joker would have produced. Or it could cause some kind of joker copycats etc...etc... Batman isn't responsible for the joker's actions. Joker could leave Arkham and never harm again if he so chose to. Of course he wouldn't because hes a made up character motivated purely by creating chaos, but all philosophy is hypothetical so here are scenarios in which killing the joker would do more harm than good so how is keeping him alive selfish?
My psychology professor believed that the morality of an action was independent of the consequence; even though lives might be saved, killing someone is immoral and can't be considered a "good" action. I'm sure modern Kantians believe in self defence and accept that sometimes utilitarianism is a necessary evil for a large civilization.
+Captain Oblivious
That statement completely misunderstands utilitarianism, deontology and Batman.
Firstly, you say that since he doesn't kill the Joker and therefore is a deontologist, Batman "doesn't value innocent life". This is incorrect. The saving of innocent lives is not the foundation of utilitarianism, the maximisation of value (whatever that may be) is. Put differently, utilitarianism would argue it is morally obligatory for Batman to allow 9 INNOCENT people to die if he could save 10 persons.
Secondly, you say that Batman's deontological acts make him value "self-regard" and is "extremely narcissistic". Again, this is an incorrect understanding of deontology. Deontology, or Kantian ethics, focus on the act itself, not notions of self-regard or narcissism. Kantians judge the morality of an act based on the act itself, regardless of the consequences stemming from the act. The end never justifies the means, the means are justifiable on their own merits. Put differently, Kantians would argue Batman (a man by the way who is not sanctioned by law to kill and is tolerated because of his strict moral code) ought to put the rightness of an act before anything else, like for eg. instead of killing, putting away criminals; but this undermines his perception of fear to criminals (and therefore his image) - that hardly seems like actions that perpetuate "self-regard" and narcissism.
+Deena Fahed
It's not like utilitarians care about "suffering". They care about the maximisation of a value. they would gladly allow the death of 1 billion people to save 1 billion and one.
As for Kantian ethics, I think you are mistaken. The "Higher Good" for Kant is simple: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."
You might know this as the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. I know not of any other stronger rule that forbades suffering onto others.
The sound effects in this video are perfect lol, the little slapping..
I had to come here after watching an episode of _The Good Place._ (I highly recommend it)
I’m interested… I know you say that the “most primal” goal of humans is to seek pleasure, and that this is common ground for everyone, however other philosophies disagree with this. For instance, Buddhism has some roots in the idea that NOT chasing after pleasure is what equates to true happiness. I would love to have a video on something like this.
this is much easier to understand from a mouth rather than a paper, thank you so much
"Simple answer. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - Spock
Isaac Phillips So, you'd harvest that person's organs like a threshing machine?
If it's for the greater good then yes.
Nico Sevilla Then what kind of a society would that be? Where you can simply kill an Innocent man, who was in no way responsible for others misery, and just take his organs?
Utilitarianism is a slippery slope because it can be used to excuse anything, even the torturing of an Innocent child.
Because Spock is a problem solving being, not people oriented like Captain America
Cosmas Dexie
Yes it could be, if that actually resulted in the best consequences. But the weight of human experience tells us that torturing children almost never results in the best consequences. Remember that utilitarians are supposed to think long term. A society where anyone can be killed at any moment against their will is obviously one in which the overall happiness is lower, hence your aversion to it. If a billion people's lives would be saved by killing one person you would be a fool not to do it. Killing one person to save five in everyday life results in worse consequences overall, not better. You just have to be a smarter utilitarian.
I love this channel. I learn so much. You've made it so easy to grasp the information in such a short amount of time. Thank you to all the crew at CrashCourse! Keep it up you champions.
Let's be really realistic. Batman isn't judge jury and executioner. He acts as a servant to the ppl of Gotham.
"I never said thank you!"
"And you never have to!"
The real fault is with Gothams justice system. Ultimately it should be down to them/us to take the responsibility of having the Joker killed rather than imprisoned. Especially knowing how cunning he is and the likelihood of him just escaping. The choice of killing someone shouldn't be down to just one person and it shouldn't be down to someone like Batman.
true
wow
The most interesting thing about the Joker is his own reasoning for what he does, and the fault of the justice system is in having only two options for criminals... death or imprisonment.
Great point.
@@MrFunkstains Torture is a third.
I really love this ideology, I am going to go on the route of Rule Utilitarianism from now on.
On the thought experiment, a further confounding factor is the fact that you can't know if the soldier will keep his word. The soldier may kill the other 19 after you kill the one, and then you can have ptsd afterwards so not only did you not save anyone but now you have ptsd
Who else is here to avoid reading a bunch of pages on this chapter
I feel as though people who argue against utilitarianism are looking at it as though they are the neighbor, not as, say, a child who depends on the guy, who needs the heart transplant, for food.
I think that is because most people view themselves as innocent, just as the neighbor is.
What is more selfless? To put myself in the shoes of a innocent organ harvest victim, or in the shoes of the people who would be benefited by said harvesting?
I think people are opposed to it because it lacks emotion. Utilitarianism is what you would expect a robot to do, who has no emotions. I think it is too rational for people. We like to think we are rational, but really emotions play a huge role in our thinking. For example, imagine you see two children drowing, and you can only save one of them. One of them happens to be your own child, the other is a stranger. Most people would then save their own child, because they are emotionally attached to it. But according to utilitarianism, you should flip a coin to decide who to save, because both children deserve an equal chance.
Utilitarianism does not say both deserve an equal chance, it says both lives are equally worthy of being saved, which doesn't imply anything about how you should go about choosing which one. Also, watching your own child die before your eyes is traumatic, and if you take that into consideration then the utilitarian action is to save your own child and forget about the stranger.
@Matias Javier Furia Rodriguez
Neither, to imagine yourself the victim in either situation is not selfless. The real question is should one desire to be selfless? I think trying to create a situation where you lose and others win limits the real possibility where all can win.
It's not profound but I've concluded that life is basically a series of compromises which is certainly by default utilitarian.
You have saved me in both psychological and philosophy classes. Thank you very so much.
Can you explain the philosophy of high school boys wearing cargo shorts in 15 degrees Fahrenheit weather?
麻衣子 Maiko no because you used fahrenheit come back when you've caught up with the rest of the world lol
Sid The Great Ok, what about 263.706 Kelvin then?
Sid The Great Silly americans.
I think you guys are being self-righteous. They specifically pointed out it was in Fahrenheit. That's what they're familiar with.
As to the actual question, I think it's considered manly to be totally unflappable to things like weather, pain, etc.
As to why CARGO shorts, they're great for storing things.
Sid The Great I'm not.. American... nor do I use Fahrenheit I actually googled the conversion because I figured more Americans than Japanese watched this.
It would be amazing if you guys did a programming crash course , a bit hard to pull off though
Holyshit, I want that.
B BC plz plz plz
bro. yes.
B BC That would be great if they could. :)
YES YES YES! Programming crash course!
The fact that I'm watching this instead of doing homework is kind of ironic
I think there's a flaw in your presentation. Utilitarianism and most other consequentialist forms of ethics do look at intention.
Example:
You're a doctor. You can treat a patient with drug A or drug B. Drug A is very effective, reducing the 5-year likely hood that the patient dies from any cause by 8% (including the effect on his disease, old age, car accidents, side effects of drugs, etc.). That being said, drug A also has a minor chance of causing a patient's death through colapse of his immune system. This is a low chance that doesn't offset the 8% improved survival.
Drug B on the other hand increases 5-year survival rate by 4%, but doesn't present dangerous side effects.
So the prescriber convinces the patient to go through with treatment A. He puts every measure to detect and quickly react to a failure of the immune system. The patient goes on a trip, misses his blood sample, and tragically dies.
The prescriber didn't fail his utilitarian calculation. What matters is _still_ the prescriber's intentions, not the actual outcome of the action. The prescriber must have the _intention_ of taking the course of action whose consequences produce the most utility. Information failure or bad luck can happen. You need only pick the action with the optimal _foreseeable consequences_ .
Yes, good point. Many people misunderstand this and think a utilitarian must be able to foresee all future.
Somebody knows his Utilitarianism!!
Well said
I don't think it's a flaw. He didn't say it would focus much more in the intention but rather the consequences of an action that would bring greater good to a large number of people. Of course it has something to do with intention. But if he were to focus much more on intentions then you're definitely talking about another ethical theories, not consequentialist- utilitarianism.
Very good point
8:52 you spelled "contant" instead of "constant"
Fantastic series!!! I'm just seeking the most good for the most people.
Wow you're the only one that noticed
Thank you for another excellent video and mental exercise!
I am an Atheist/agnostic and I am certainly a utilitarian (and I try to act that way whenever faced with decisions).
I think that the way I resolve the dilemna of the transplant patients is by respecting life/property rights just as I respect utilitarian philosophy.
Oooh a trolley problem but with guns and indigenous peoples. Fancy.
just shoot one of their body parts, it doesn't specify that you need to kill them :)
*Richie Rich* You're getting close to arguing that the one victim on the other track is somehow involved. Is it worse if you push the fat man in front of the train to stop it and save the five? What if there's no one on the other track, but an empty train and the collision flings the train into a pizzeria, killing its owner? Does that mean the pizzeria owner _would live_ if the situation is left alone?
It's the same scenario: Would you commit a lesser atrocity to prevent a greater one? That is the challenge of consequentialism and the failure of deontology.
You're all missing the point. It's not the trolley problem because the Joker (in disguise) is foisting a scenario on another person with nothing to do with the situation that involves the Joker's own prospective diabolical moral choice. His mere insistence that he's determined in his own mind to make this set of choices disqualifies the Joker from entering into any kind of moral contract. For all you know he's told the villagers that some white guy is going to come along and shoot someone gratuitously on behalf of a neighbouring tribe (all the better to stir up a war that kills thousands). This is closer to sitcom logic than trolleyology (a beloved dramatic premise of people who wear black and attend film school and pretend to be way more profound than they really are).
*Allan Stokes* feel free to look at the variation in *Eye In The Sky* in which a military heirarchy can prevent an imminent terror attack, by risking the life of (and ultimately killing) an innocent little girl in an allied nation. There's no contract at all in this case, it's just the weapon they have on hand is a Hellfire missile launched by Predator drone, and the girl's just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But it's the same moral issue. In that one the Prime Minister notes the press disaster of the small atrocity will be an additional factor, where no-one notices terror attacks that are prevented.
"No one's gonna defend philosophical position on the grounds: It gives me pleasure."
Max Stirner: "If I may, gentlemen..."
Can we just acknowledge how epic that batman voice is?
Hank, we love you, and you're such a great teacher!
wow, so i used utilitarianism. Had to decide whether to keep my baby girl that had Trisomy 13, where she would have a 99% chance of dying within a few hours of being born, if she was born alive at all, and traumatizing my family and friends with the birth and then burial of the baby, or to end her life in the womb. Didnt know there was a name for what happens,
Knit Crochet Designs im sorry to hear that. I hope you're doing okay now
IMO you did the right thing. it gets really complicated in terms of ethics, but regardless of what the babies short life would've been like, it would've been hard for everyone around you (including you) so I think you made the right choice. You made the best decision you could with the knowledge you had and that is what is important.
So, in other words, you killed your baby. Instead of using utilitarianism you should have used an actually moral moral system to make your decision. Like it says at the beginning of the video, “there are some lines that good people do not cross...killing definitely falls on the wrong side of that line.”
@@jarlaxle150 What the beginning of the video is "FOR BATMAN killing definitely falls on the wrong side of that line" - and as a consequence of his un-nuanced view of things, many people die and suffer. Utilitarian moral philosophy is about doing what actually makes the world better - helping beings to live good lives and avoid misery. Non-utilitarian moral philosophies, when they conflict with utilitarian ones, are about making yourself feel "morally pure", perhaps even if you achieve this feeling by making choices that result in others or yourself hurt in terrible ways. I suppose we all are a mix both (few of us are either 0.0% utilitarian or 100.0% utilitarian). In my view Knit Crochet Designs, when she made the best (or perhaps I should say least bad) out of a situation she did not choose, acted like a good person - indeed she acted morally *better* than someone who would have chosen differently.
@@jarlaxle150 okey sherlock. U know everything.
0:34 Joker's slaps were too cute. More than it was needed.
Batman doesn't even have to kill the joker, just drop him on some deserted island! That could make a good story.
"Wanna know how I got these coconuts?"
hahaha that's great
AngelHQ dont forget to leave him a gun with 1 bullet in it
I love watching these because I am learning (has lots of really great information) and also, it helps me just relax. I have fun watching. They put in funny animations or examples that are just great.
My personal critique of utilitarianism: to judge the morality of actions or to institute norms based solely on their consequences is a dangerous thing to do, not because you might fall on some of these thought experiments, but because you attribute an ethic to an external purpose. Utilitarianism guides ethics in order to attain a greater good, pleasure or utility, much like a recipe book. If you want a happy society, follow these instructions; if you want to bake a cake, do as listed in the recipe book. However, it begs the question: why are these objectives desired, or even there, in the first place? These objectives are certainly outside the field of reason itself to be justified solely by it. Wanting to bake a cake is as much a subjective purpose or want as is wanting a more utilitarian society. This is the essence of the kantian morality: kant justified his ethic not in an external purpose or objective, subjective in nature, but justified in reason itself. This is namely the categorical imperative, that which is good, necessary and universal, contrary to the hypothetical imperative, a recipe for a desired subjective want.
8:59
You misspelled "constant".
My philosophy professor just taught us a great class on this subject about an hour ago and showed us this clip. Very interesting this utilitarianism
Wow this was the best intro I've ever seen for a Philosophy subject
i'm taking a labor relations class and the book is so difficult to understand...this made it so much simpler...thank you.
I guess you can say batman Kant kill the joker.
Underrated
There was an argument that explained why Batman doesn't kill the Joker in the comic: Batman: Under the Red Hood. Batman explains that he does want to kill the Joker, but if he does that would cause him to kill every other criminal for the safety of Gotham, just like the Joker. Going further than this, this could eventually cause Batman to be arrested or killed and have Gotham overrun with more criminals, with no one to stop them. Or, Batman could even resign to killing not only criminals, but also anyone that poses a threat to Wayne Industries, or even innocent people.
But aside from the philosophy aspect, I still thoroughly enjoy the vid.
From my perspective, utilitarianism is impossible because we as humans are ultimately unable to accurately predict the future and if we could at want time in the future would we stop our calculation at?
+
The video was a little wrong in that it isn't entirely consequential... In Utilitarianism, you should do the action that will increase happiness or decrease pain for the greatest number, but that is only from your perspective. Bentham provided a handy calculus for working out the moral value of an action based on the number of people affected, the certainty of the outcome, the intensity of the pleasure/pain, the purity, the fecundity, the remoteness and the duration. It doesn't rely on knowing the future, just about what you think will happen.
Graham H Nobody said utilitarianism was easy. We ought to do our best to figure out the consequences of our actions and act according to the best consequences. Even with good information this is hard. Many utilitarians WANT to be vegetarians, or to quit smoking, or to give more to charity, but just because it's right doesn't mean it's easy, to paraphrase Dumbledore.
Uhm, it only means that not every end result would be optimal.
But just because humans aren't perfect at making future prediction doesn't mean it would always fail. It doesn't mean it's not the most practical way of thinking despite its flaws. I feel you're posing a nirvana fallacy.
Why even bother to have economist, since the market is unpredictable to a larger degree that economist wants you to believe.
Because even if the game is largely unpredictable it's _practical enough._
That's really it.
No. Not impossible, just difficult. That is like saying it is impossible to fly a plane because there will be wind and the plane might crash.
Tragically, 20 people would die. :S
6:36 feels a lot like "with great power, comes great responsibility"
This whole conversation is moot, because Batman has killed many villains...the "Batman doesn't kill" thing was just created during the late 50's when the CCA (comics code authority) made killing in comic books forbidden in order to get their seal of approval.
You didn't mention the problem of multiple variable maximization. If you receive $1 million, should you divide it out and give $1 to a million people each (making a little good for a lot of people), or should you keep it for yourself (making a lot of good for 1 person)
The question is, who will decide which person to choose to be given $1? And what make that million people deserve $1 more than the rest of the population?
Also, $1 is a very small amount, will it really make that million people happier or beneficial them in any way?
Money is not utilons! (or whatever you want to call the made-up unit of utility)
It's called "decreasing marginal returns": Giving a poor person 20$ can save his life, or at least enable them to live a lot more comfortably for a week. Giving a billionnaire 20$ won't improve her life in any noticeable way.
So as long as you don't add more complications, utilitarians should be in favor of redistributing it widely.
(That's also one reason why playing the lottery/gambling is a bad idea - e.g. winning 10 Million $ won't make you a million times happier (by far!) than spending the 10$ on something else instead of the ticket, and the probability of winning it are less than one in a million - otherwise the lottery company wouldn't make money.)
To both commentors, yes I agree. The point is that there's difficulty in coming to a decision in utilitarianism.
nibblrrr
As well as turning people close to you into, well, you know how those murder mysteries turn out. I'm obviously exaggerating, but it can strain relationships
8:02 More ambiguous situations! Bondrewd from Made in Abyss! For the scientific progress!
Could Batman just sever the Joker's spine so he'll live but be paralyzed from the neck down? Seems like that would make it harder for him to break out.
But that would be cruel, and being cruel goes against what batman stands for
Erik M. what a spineless bastrd
Does it though Batman has no problem beating people to a pulp but "accidentally" severing their spine especially the jokers doesn't break his no kill rule
He tried that once. (The Dark Knight Returns, aka: "What Batman V Superman should have been")
Joker just used his ungodly neck muscles to finish himself off, and frame Bats.
Isthisnameused ungodly XD
These videos are the best. These kind stuff is a gift for the world, specially for developing countries. Thank you so much.
Hello sir, I have one question and the question goes like this:
What will utilitarian say in a given condition?
There are six people in a hospital and their condition is as given below:
All 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th persons are ill and if they won’t get the treatment they will die within 20 to 40 minutes.
Situations for saving them
If 1st person got good treatment within that time, then he will live a longer life
And if other 5 persons got a good treatment within that time, then they will live for 1 to 2 months.
If doctor save the first person other five will die in the same time and if the doctor save five persons first person will die in the same time.
a. what is good for doctors to do?
b. What happens if doctor save only 1st person?
c. What happens if doctor save other 5 persons?
d. What action do you think is good in this situation?
simple, there should be a lot of doctors to save them. Can a hospital survive if there is only one doctor 🙄🙄🙄
Read a chapter of a book about it, coincidentally it had to do with superheroes too
Did a work on it
For the indigenous people example, my thought was to shoot the guy holding the people hostage.
Something I hoping to have come up is the Trolly Problem, which highlights one of the big differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism by by separating the choices into action and inaction. If the act to kill the one in favor of the many is small like flipping a lever, than more people will preform it when compared to if the action requires more effort. The distinction between action and inaction was even taken into consideration for Asimov's 3 laws of robotics.
But remember, it's a *group* of soldiers. Shoot their leader, and they'll all just shoot you, then shoot the natives. Everybody loses.
I would just ask if anyone either volunteers, for the greater good, or who the oldest person is. This way, less years of life are lost or the people get a say in making their own choices for their own freedom.
Age doesn’t matter, you don’t have the right to take someone’s life jsut because they don’t have much of it left. But I’m 100% with you on the volunteer thing. Killing is only wrong when it means taking someone’s life when they don’t want you to (which is practically always).
If someone decides to sacrifice themself, I wouldn’t even feel bad about killing them. In that case, I am only an instrument for their decision.
There is an important distinction to be made between killing (which can happen in self-defense or defense of others), as opposed to murder. It's not just about putting more lives above others. It's about preventing/avoiding murder.
There is also a huge flaw with "producing the greatest good to the greatest number." That flaw is that *you cannot compare utility across individuals.* This is never addressed by the supposed "greater good" crowd.
In the 20 people scenario, I would say that shooting the soldiers is the moral approach because they're about to murder 20 people. The transplant scenario shows why utilitarianism fails if held consistently, whereas Kantian thought does not. More importantly, "rule utilitarianism" would immediately destroy something like taxation for welfare programs by the same logic.
I really enjoyed this video. It helped me to understand Utilitarianism. Also, it was very entertaining.
Thank you for this! Ethics test tomorrow and this just clarified everything I was confused about :)
One of the best channels ever
What? No trolley problem?
The Batman thing is just another spin on it.
Yes, but the Joker is in most accounts morally culpable - however the pedestrians (just like the organ harvesting case) are innocent; but the question posed is, in a sense, at which point does utilitarianism starts to be wrong? E.g. if the driver must turn one way or another vs. keeping straight or turning; or whether a different pedestrian is to be thrown on the tracks to save the rest etc.
+Jason93609 The utilitarianism doesn't just start to be wrong at some point. It's wrong in it's very foundation, that there's some inconceivable "greater good" you should abide to.
They used organ harvesting as an example that killing 1 person is good in a grand scheme of things, because you're saving 5 lives. How about we kill all HIV carriers to prevent thousands from getting infected? How about killing all sick people so that you can reduce taxes, I mean - it's not like they're working real job to pay taxes so you're relieving the entire society of a burden. If morality creates an opportunity for the same act to be both evil and good - it's a wrong morality. A kill is a kill, whether they kill an unborn child , an infant, an adult man or a psychopath.
In the trolley problem - I think - you should not turn. You should focus on stopping the train, even if it means destruction-with-no-killing-involved. The only winning move is not to play.
MaC S3th
Actually utilitarianism is probably the best generalist ethical theory available.
But I was praising the trolley problem because it is very malleable.
So you would say that you do not turn. But what if you HAD to turn left or right, and in one case you would kill 10 people, in the other case just one?
Or what if you could go straight and not turn but then everyone on the train, many hundreds, is killed?
Jason93609
Not even close.
Sorry, I didn't notice "See more"
If I had to turn: I wouldn't. What happens? The train derails? So be it. I'd still be busy trying to stop the train or getting people off of it (if there are passengers involved).
If going straight kills passengers - see previous statement. I wouldn't engage in an activity that holds me responsible for choosing the target.
The only person morally wrong in the situation is the person responsible for creating this situation: Joker, irresponsible workers, careless pedestrians.
The problem with, uh, trolley problem is that it forces you to choose between 2 options. If the options are bad, why choose? Hang yourself or shoot yourself? How about neither?
If I had to choose morality (code) I'd go with humanism. Do not engage in actions unworthy of a human being.
I've unknowingly been a rule utilitarian since I was about 14.
I have for years been a utilitarianist and i live by this philosophy.
My answer to that thought bubbler scenario is:
A. Why is it wrong for a moral philosophy to absolutely prevent you from killing if it will lead to a greater public health ?
B. it not the observer's place to do anything. the observer has to measure whether his action will bring him pleasure or displeasure, then act on that answer.
will it make him happier or sadder to kill 1 person and save 19 OR see 20 people be killed
Oh, hey.
You know you're famous when you can get likes on your comment just for saying "Oh, hey."
Your reply had more likes than the original comment...
Oh, you...
But is it possible to know every consequence of an action?
Not if you're so anti-American that you vote Democrat.
@@somewhatinformed1208 Do you think other parties are more pro-American than the Democratic one and if so why? I don't particularly like the two-party system in which both are right wing but I'm confused why you think that the Dems are more anti-American. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you aren't going to pull a Nationalist bent.
@@henryzelman4541 Democrats say making America great is racist. Democrats vote to fund built 5 billion dollars to the wall yet they voted this fun 25 billion years ago.. Democrats think people who work should not be able to keep all their pay. Democrats I know think everyone in the world should live in America... they're so worried about children being separated from their parents when the people who claimed to be their parents are criminals we don't normally lock up children with criminals. The children say these people claiming to be their parents are raping them. Democrats want more third world people in America. Democrats want only laws to apply to white people everyone else gets a pass.
Yes. if you think you´re god.
Third world country is a nation who is not a part of an alliance. It has nothing to do with poverty and children don't tell their parents raping them, it's a shame for the family.
You are only one who could teach me this lesson. Thanks
Thank you for this video, I really enjoyed it,
You did a great job hosting it.
I kant even..
Descartes that shitty pun
Existentialism? Don't even get me Sartred
And Diogenes still disproves.
ilker yoldas lollipop
"I am dead and your puns have killed me" - Nietzsche
Jim should consult with the hostages about what they want him to do. He should also consider himself now a hostage.
So..Thanos is a utilitarian?
Helped me pass my Philosophy midterm. Thanks bb.
Thankful for you, Hank Green. & the entire CrashCourse Crew ~ THANKYOU
Finally a morality I agree with.
Well I'm harvesting your organs. Don't worry, 5 people are going to be really happy about it!
I'm more worried that you would choose to let 4 people die when saving them was definitely in your grasp
+Sonbru The 5 people in the video? They're cartoons, they require cartoon organs, not commenter organs.
Andrew Torgerson Every moral system has its difficulties. Just keep that in mind
+Sonbru I'm feeling he's talking about rule utilitarianism
Well, Batman did essentially kill Ras and definitely killed Dent. He's also giving a middle finger to any cop, soldier, or civilian who has ever had to kill someone to defend themselves or others. The problem is that Batman always pulls a Deus ex machina to avoid killing.
he has the power to not kill and catch him anyways. So its never an act of self defense.
@@arjunadesire1792 see definition of Deus ex Machina.
As a toddlers mom studying, these videos r perfect!
I have an essay where i have to explain Justice with reference to utilitarianism and I'm quite lost as to the "definition" of justice, I know that following utilitarianism (or whichever moral theory you fancy) is a way to achieve it.. but what really is justice? doing the right thing? fair thing? Any help/feedback would be greatly appreciated.. (most comments are like 1 year ago but hey asking won't do any harm)