Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
As a European, one of the best things about the discussions about gun control was realizing how close minded I've been about this issue. It really shows the value of listening to both sides and thinking about your own biases critically.
0:00 - what are 'rights'? What is Meta-ethics? 16:29 - Ethical Naturalism 25:32 - Liberty Right - prima facie vs. absolute 35:18 - Ethical Intuitionism 44:32 - Does my Dog have a right to bear arms? 54:38 - The Right to Own a Gun? A Tank? A Nuke?
Voting to givie guns and Jiu Jitsu training to the farm animals. As specially the ones with those "popular" livers. Any discussions on Veganism on this channel?
@@ParkersPensees I'd like to suggest chatting with Perspective Philosophy (also on you tube) He's a Hegelian and was in the process of a PhD on the topic.
The constitution uses terminology like people and person so I suppose it boils down to that distinction when speaking on the amendments. What defines a person? I don't know if a real argument can be made on a dog being a person. Also, it'd be most relevant to the citizens of the United States simply by the notion that they are terms specific to the United States. Therefore, no I don't think it covers a dog using a gun lmao
To me, this video demonstrates the poverty and insularity of analytic philosophy. According to their logic, I, as a Canadian, should be exponentially less safe than my American brethren on account that we have fewer guns. I should be more likely to experience violent crime, because there is a higher ratio of criminals with guns than citizens with guns. Armed criminals should be able to exert their violent will with greater ease upon a comparatively unarmed populace. Yet according to every metric, I enjoy greater safety than my American brethren. Not only am I less likely to be a victim of gun violence, but I am less likely to experience violence altogether. The reason is not because of poverty, as poverty and unemployment rates are roughly equal. Yet any attempt to reduce gun violence in America through the curtailing of the 'right to bear arms' is impossible because "it is implicit in having rights that you have the right to defend your rights," as Huemer claims. They do all the work of constructing a perfectly logical argument, and for what? Only for their argument to have little to no meaningful grasp on reality.
The naturalist, specifically a neo-Aristotelian one, can respond to the OQA in two ways: 1. If by ‘But is such and such good?’ we mean ‘Have you got things right?’ or ‘Are you sure you are not mistaken?’ then we are noting that we are not dealing with a tautology and want to make sure that we have got the facts straight. Being open to this sort of question is the price we pay for not dealing in trivialities and for not being omniscient. Yet even being open to this question does not establish the possibility that we might be wrong or even that this definition might need changing. 2. The meaningfulness of the question ‘But is it good?’ cannot always be determined from the philosopher’s armchair. It may indeed be self-contradictory to ask of a naturalistic definition of goodness ‘But is it good?’ and yet not be evidently so. We'd need to bring in everything else we need to know about the concept in question, and about one's theory of definition.
I don't see how killing Jesus is a rights violation of Jesus so much as an act of self defense. At least with the view of hell and salvation i was raised with.
Let's assume some form of the traditional evangelical view of Hell is correct. I think there are essentially two options we have. Either Jesus, as evangelicals also believe, is God Incarnate or not God Incarnate. Given the former Jesus is a morally perfect being. On the latter, Jesus was just a man. In either case, there's no justification for crucifying Jesus. There's no possibility for a morally perfect being to act in a morally flawed manner, so, by defintion, Jesus's teachings on Hell must be morally sound if he's God. If he's not God, no amount of unpleasant or mean words have the power to justify executing someone.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl so its been a while and i cant remember exactly what in the video provoked my statement but i suspect it was God made hell and we are doomed to it without Jesus being crucified, Jesus is God and thus can be held responsible for Gods choices thus killing him to save us from the fate that he arranged for us is self defense. I think the problem i have with your statement is that you are assuming Jesus is morally perfect and i dont see the grounds for that.
@@spectrepar2458 It's pretty common to claim that God is morally perfect. Think about, for example, Leibniz's definition of God as a being which possesses all perfections or Anselm's definition of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived; it follows from both of these that God is morally perfect. There's also the Platonic tradition of identifying God with (something like) moral perfection itself. If Jesus is God (the traditional Christian view) and God is morally perfect (another traditional Christian view), then Jesus is morally perfect. If these aren't the views you were raised with, then you were raised with some pretty non-traditional views. It is also a pretty strange view that everyone would go to Hell if Jesus didn't die. Note that at least Catholicism has traditionally held that righteous Jews who lived and died before Christ's crucifixion (e.g. Abraham, John the Baptist) did not go to Hell. Jesus also forgives individuals for their sins before the crucifixion; presumably, having God meet you in person and forgive your sins to your face means you won't go to Hell. (After the crucifixion, it is still God forgiving one's sins that constitutes salvation. He just doesn't do it in person.) So people were being saved from Hell before Jesus was killed. Additionally, Christian doctrine is that people go to Hell for being unrepentant sinners-in other words, for really, truly deserving it. They do not get out of going to Hell because Jesus was killed (after all, some people still go to Hell even after the crucifixion), but even if they did, this would be like a criminal getting out of a jail sentence by killing the judge and escaping from the court room. Surely that isn't self-defense.
Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
As a European, one of the best things about the discussions about gun control was realizing how close minded I've been about this issue. It really shows the value of listening to both sides and thinking about your own biases critically.
0:00 - what are 'rights'? What is Meta-ethics?
16:29 - Ethical Naturalism
25:32 - Liberty Right - prima facie vs. absolute
35:18 - Ethical Intuitionism
44:32 - Does my Dog have a right to bear arms?
54:38 - The Right to Own a Gun? A Tank? A Nuke?
I like what frege has to say on definitions. Where can I know more about it?
I like art as the background of the video
Voting to givie guns and Jiu Jitsu training to the farm animals. As specially the ones with those "popular" livers. Any discussions on Veganism on this channel?
Not yet
@@ParkersPensees I'd like to suggest chatting with Perspective Philosophy (also on you tube) He's a Hegelian and was in the process of a PhD on the topic.
The constitution uses terminology like people and person so I suppose it boils down to that distinction when speaking on the amendments. What defines a person? I don't know if a real argument can be made on a dog being a person. Also, it'd be most relevant to the citizens of the United States simply by the notion that they are terms specific to the United States.
Therefore, no I don't think it covers a dog using a gun lmao
Always suspected I deserved my own personal nuclear warhead
To me, this video demonstrates the poverty and insularity of analytic philosophy.
According to their logic, I, as a Canadian, should be exponentially less safe than my American brethren on account that we have fewer guns. I should be more likely to experience violent crime, because there is a higher ratio of criminals with guns than citizens with guns. Armed criminals should be able to exert their violent will with greater ease upon a comparatively unarmed populace.
Yet according to every metric, I enjoy greater safety than my American brethren. Not only am I less likely to be a victim of gun violence, but I am less likely to experience violence altogether. The reason is not because of poverty, as poverty and unemployment rates are roughly equal.
Yet any attempt to reduce gun violence in America through the curtailing of the 'right to bear arms' is impossible because "it is implicit in having rights that you have the right to defend your rights," as Huemer claims.
They do all the work of constructing a perfectly logical argument, and for what? Only for their argument to have little to no meaningful grasp on reality.
The naturalist, specifically a neo-Aristotelian one, can respond to the OQA in two ways:
1. If by ‘But is such and such good?’ we mean ‘Have you got things right?’ or ‘Are you sure you are not mistaken?’ then we are noting that we are not dealing with a tautology and want to make sure that we
have got the facts straight. Being open to this sort of question is the price we pay for not dealing in trivialities and for not being omniscient. Yet even being open to this question does not establish the possibility that we might be wrong or even that this definition might need changing.
2. The meaningfulness of the question ‘But is it good?’ cannot always be determined from the philosopher’s armchair. It may indeed be self-contradictory to ask of a naturalistic definition of goodness ‘But is it good?’ and yet not be evidently so. We'd need to bring in everything else we need to know about the concept in question, and about one's theory of definition.
What about chimps owning guns? Presumably, they would be able to learn how to use one. But that seems very undesirable....
I don't see how killing Jesus is a rights violation of Jesus so much as an act of self defense. At least with the view of hell and salvation i was raised with.
Let's assume some form of the traditional evangelical view of Hell is correct. I think there are essentially two options we have. Either Jesus, as evangelicals also believe, is God Incarnate or not God Incarnate. Given the former Jesus is a morally perfect being. On the latter, Jesus was just a man. In either case, there's no justification for crucifying Jesus. There's no possibility for a morally perfect being to act in a morally flawed manner, so, by defintion, Jesus's teachings on Hell must be morally sound if he's God. If he's not God, no amount of unpleasant or mean words have the power to justify executing someone.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl so its been a while and i cant remember exactly what in the video provoked my statement but i suspect it was God made hell and we are doomed to it without Jesus being crucified, Jesus is God and thus can be held responsible for Gods choices thus killing him to save us from the fate that he arranged for us is self defense. I think the problem i have with your statement is that you are assuming Jesus is morally perfect and i dont see the grounds for that.
@@spectrepar2458 It's pretty common to claim that God is morally perfect. Think about, for example, Leibniz's definition of God as a being which possesses all perfections or Anselm's definition of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived; it follows from both of these that God is morally perfect. There's also the Platonic tradition of identifying God with (something like) moral perfection itself. If Jesus is God (the traditional Christian view) and God is morally perfect (another traditional Christian view), then Jesus is morally perfect. If these aren't the views you were raised with, then you were raised with some pretty non-traditional views.
It is also a pretty strange view that everyone would go to Hell if Jesus didn't die. Note that at least Catholicism has traditionally held that righteous Jews who lived and died before Christ's crucifixion (e.g. Abraham, John the Baptist) did not go to Hell. Jesus also forgives individuals for their sins before the crucifixion; presumably, having God meet you in person and forgive your sins to your face means you won't go to Hell. (After the crucifixion, it is still God forgiving one's sins that constitutes salvation. He just doesn't do it in person.) So people were being saved from Hell before Jesus was killed.
Additionally, Christian doctrine is that people go to Hell for being unrepentant sinners-in other words, for really, truly deserving it. They do not get out of going to Hell because Jesus was killed (after all, some people still go to Hell even after the crucifixion), but even if they did, this would be like a criminal getting out of a jail sentence by killing the judge and escaping from the court room. Surely that isn't self-defense.