I am new subscriber. Thank you so much for sharing your excellent videos with visual support. I don't have any background regarding philosophy and General Ethics by watching your videos help me to understand this subject. More power to you. God bless.
It's such a helpful channel for Wisdom lovers. This explanation with aided visual makes it very easy to understand . I also been in the process of watching previous videos. I hope you will continue with such wonderful videos. Thank you so much. For making philosophy easy for us.
if a woman gets raped, that causes her pain but if she has a loving child because of being raped and that child brings her joy was the rape immoral or moral according to the nonsense of utilitarianism ?
if you refer to the pain brought about by raping, the act is absolutely immoral. however, the "joy" of having a child brought about by the act of raping cannot be either moral or immoral. in other words, the feeling of joy is not a human act. it's just a feeling.
4 года назад+1
@@PHILOnotes the joy she receives is from the acts of her child to her or no?
@ yeah, but you don't determine the morality of "feelings". what we need to determine here is the morality of the "act of raping". the feeling of joy is not an immediate result. the immediate result of the act of raping is either "pain" or "happiness"
I have a question in 8:36 So if a Rule Utilitarian learned that torture/killing is illegal in a certain country, they will not pursue on torturing/killing the terrorist right?
yes, Anthony, but as long as it is in accordance to the Utilitarian principle, that is, it produces greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
@@PHILOnotes How do you know that a certain law/rule is in accordance to the Utilitarian principle? Is it just by looking into the law and see the consequences of the law not existing?
Hi Diane, many thanks for your interest in our video. As you may already know, Jeremy Bentham's model of utilitarianism is more on "quantity" while John Stuart Mill's model is more on the "quality" of pleasure. Now, Bentham's model is more on the "maximization" of pleasure, and to be specific, sensual pleasure. Sensual pleasure characterizes the animal (pig) aspect of the human person. Mill, on the other hand, focuses on the "quality" of the pleasure, that is, "intellectual" to be specific (Socrates). As you can see, Mill is reacting to Bentham. Now, since Mill emphasizes "intellectual" pleasure, then he dropped "sensual" pleasure from the equation. Thus, "it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied". To explain further, intellectual pleasure (which is represented by Socrates here) always long for expansion, for self-improvement, while sensual pleasure (represented by the pig) is not concerned about virtue or ethics; it just wants to eat (or have sex). So, for Mill, it's better to be Socrates dissatisfied (that is, for example, becoming a virtuous person) than a pig satisfied (that is, just be like animals whose concern is just to eat, drink, have sex and sleep). my argument here is not so polished, but i hope the idea helps.
I am your new subscriber and thankyou for teaching us these hard topics in simple manner,I have been trying to learn about all political theories on my own by reading books but still was not able to understand anything. 💕💕💕
I have a question in this scenario a husband has decided to pull the plug of a terminally ill wife.The parents of the patient sue him in the court.The husband showed a letter signed by his wife prior to admission in the hospital.Does the husband right in granting the last wish of his wife if you apply utilitarianism?Please help
Robin Hood, good Utilitarian, bad Christian. Good Utilitarian, Bad Denontolgist? Mills and Bentham good Socialist-Epicurians? Good Collectivists, Bad Individualist? 🤔😏😊
I am new subscriber. Thank you so much for sharing your excellent videos with visual support. I don't have any background regarding philosophy and General Ethics by watching your videos help me to understand this subject. More power to you. God bless.
Is an act neither morally good nor bad if there is a balance of pleasure and pain from the people?
It's such a helpful channel for Wisdom lovers. This explanation with aided visual makes it very easy to understand .
I also been in the process of watching previous videos.
I hope you will continue with such wonderful videos.
Thank you so much. For making philosophy easy for us.
Thanks for the overwhelming feedback! :)
Very clearly put
Nice video. Very explicit and direct.
Watching from the REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS ❤️THANK YOOU 😭
The besttt thankyou!❤❤❤
Thank you too, Florence, for your sweet and inspiring comments. Cheers!
So good explanation... really wonderful...thank you 🌼💜 rise and shine
Very informative video.Kindly give the Criticisms if any?
will make critiques of in the future, Frankline.
Thank you for the informative vid❤️
No worries, Russ. Cheers!
thank you and God Bless
if a woman gets raped, that causes her pain but if she has a loving child because of being raped and that child brings her joy was the rape immoral or moral according to the nonsense of utilitarianism ?
if you refer to the pain brought about by raping, the act is absolutely immoral. however, the "joy" of having a child brought about by the act of raping cannot be either moral or immoral. in other words, the feeling of joy is not a human act. it's just a feeling.
@@PHILOnotes the joy she receives is from the acts of her child to her or no?
@ yeah, but you don't determine the morality of "feelings". what we need to determine here is the morality of the "act of raping". the feeling of joy is not an immediate result. the immediate result of the act of raping is either "pain" or "happiness"
thank you very much for this.
Very well explained!!
Many thanks for your inspiring comments, Ayusha!
Great video
thanks Omio. cheers!
What are the phases of utilitarianism
Thanks a bunch 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
That was very informative video, thank you😊
No worries, Jenelle. Glad you found it informative. Best wishes!
I have a question in 8:36
So if a Rule Utilitarian learned that torture/killing is illegal in a certain country, they will not pursue on torturing/killing the terrorist right?
yes, Anthony, but as long as it is in accordance to the Utilitarian principle, that is, it produces greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
@@PHILOnotes How do you know that a certain law/rule is in accordance to the Utilitarian principle? Is it just by looking into the law and see the consequences of the law not existing?
Hi can I ask how utilatianism relate to saf 44 thank youu
Thanks for the information.
Our pleasure! And, thanks for dropping a comment @Jerryl An Loberio
thanks a lot
hello! nice class . thank u very much...can u upload a vedio about the great philosopher Alain Badiou?
thanks avni. sure, we will do research on Badiou.
@@PHILOnotes thank u
@@avnicom3898 no worries, avni. cheers!
Thank you so much ma'am......
No worries, mate!
Thanksss, great help!!
No worries, JR Mae. Cheers!
I have a question
hello! I have a question. at 6:33 I do not get the context of the quote about socrates and the pig. Can you please expound?
Hi Diane, many thanks for your interest in our video. As you may already know, Jeremy Bentham's model of utilitarianism is more on "quantity" while John Stuart Mill's model is more on the "quality" of pleasure. Now, Bentham's model is more on the "maximization" of pleasure, and to be specific, sensual pleasure. Sensual pleasure characterizes the animal (pig) aspect of the human person. Mill, on the other hand, focuses on the "quality" of the pleasure, that is, "intellectual" to be specific (Socrates). As you can see, Mill is reacting to Bentham. Now, since Mill emphasizes "intellectual" pleasure, then he dropped "sensual" pleasure from the equation. Thus, "it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied". To explain further, intellectual pleasure (which is represented by Socrates here) always long for expansion, for self-improvement, while sensual pleasure (represented by the pig) is not concerned about virtue or ethics; it just wants to eat (or have sex). So, for Mill, it's better to be Socrates dissatisfied (that is, for example, becoming a virtuous person) than a pig satisfied (that is, just be like animals whose concern is just to eat, drink, have sex and sleep). my argument here is not so polished, but i hope the idea helps.
@@PHILOnotes thank you so much!
Simple and precise ❤️
Helped a lot for my school activity. Thank youuuu ♥️
Glad it helped!
Nailed it
Thanks John. Cheers!
Wow....Million Dollar Video Ma'am...👍👍 !!
Thank you so much for your very inspiring comments, MD MUSTAK. Cheers!
@@PHILOnotes Welcome Ma'am !!
Cheers!
You may view our compilation of video lectures in Ethics here: ruclips.net/video/ScvJfxSuYB4/видео.html
@@PHILOnotes Okk...Great
Really supportive love from Nepal ❤🎓
Many thanks, Dipesh. Cheers!
I have a question, can you help me ?
What are some objections to the utilitarian doctrine of morality?
It is considered by some ethicists as a selfish ethical theory as it undermines the rights of the few in favor of the majority
I am your new subscriber and thankyou for teaching us these hard topics in simple manner,I have been trying to learn about all political theories on my own by reading books but still was not able to understand anything. 💕💕💕
I have a question in this scenario a husband has decided to pull the plug of a terminally ill wife.The parents of the patient sue him in the court.The husband showed a letter signed by his wife prior to admission in the hospital.Does the husband right in granting the last wish of his wife if you apply utilitarianism?Please help
That appears to be a class assignment. I'm sorry, but I'd rather not answer your questions, Angel.
I was searching for the course/lecture of meta ethics but ............
Please visit the link for Free Online Learning Materials in Ethics ruclips.net/video/ScvJfxSuYB4/видео.html
It's worthy
thanks mate
Is sex between and Old man and a young woman good or bad there's only 2 people involved
Fernandez, Paul Ethics
thanks
❤❤❤❤❤
Happiness-- Pain ----Balance! People are not inanimate objects. You think of happiness at the pain of others. Radicullas. immoral.
hmmm...
please = pleasure
hmmm...
Wow 😁
many thanks Kezziah!
.
Robin Hood, good Utilitarian, bad Christian. Good Utilitarian, Bad Denontolgist? Mills and Bentham good Socialist-Epicurians? Good Collectivists, Bad Individualist? 🤔😏😊