In my view ethics is simply the utilisation and production of maximum happiness output. This does also give arise to some concerning ideologies though, if your happy artifically via electrochemical inputs where as you wouldn't be otherwise is that ethical? We seem to think so as we give people antidepressants, etc.
I think as well a problem with this idea of utility maximisation comes in the measurement of that utility. One problem presented by Singer is the difference between the total view and the prior existence view which gets at whether we should consider animals (including humans) replaceable, and whether we should aim at utility maximisation in a broad sense, or if the focus should be more specifically on the maximisation of utility of actually existent beings. Perhaps I will explain the differences in a video.
@@ethanbenson If you aim for broad utility maximisation then you inevitably maximize the utility of nothing as scarcity is diversified, however if you aim for the utility maximisation of animals then you can do so due to animals being perceivers and their perceived benefit can be altered independent of objective materialism. Although you could say that the inability to diversify your resources to maximize material value inevitably impacts the utility of animal utility maximisation. That was a load of jargon but it's just resource distribution and assessing the optimal way to allocate resources to maximise utility. This creates a paradox where utility cannot be maximised. I believe we should be inherently selfish and focus on utility only as it serves our interest, therefore we should focus on maximizing human utility and doing so requires diversifying our resources to optimize the efficacy of processes that benefit us, i.e. waste disposal. Hopefully this makes sense, idk. It's a complex and subjective topic.
@@ethanbenson well you’ve got a really compelling list of topics you’ve covered, so I’ll put something very niche out there: “the necessity of contingency”. Meillassoux offers one approach in After Finitude, but his is not the only treatment of the subject. I’m very intrigued by your most recent post on the Kalam Cosmological argument! I’ll probably have a comment for you there too. Cheers!
I wonder what my mom do in trolley problem!
Wow…. That’s the coldest destruction of an ethical system I’ve seen in a while 🥶
In my view ethics is simply the utilisation and production of maximum happiness output. This does also give arise to some concerning ideologies though, if your happy artifically via electrochemical inputs where as you wouldn't be otherwise is that ethical? We seem to think so as we give people antidepressants, etc.
I think as well a problem with this idea of utility maximisation comes in the measurement of that utility. One problem presented by Singer is the difference between the total view and the prior existence view which gets at whether we should consider animals (including humans) replaceable, and whether we should aim at utility maximisation in a broad sense, or if the focus should be more specifically on the maximisation of utility of actually existent beings. Perhaps I will explain the differences in a video.
@@ethanbenson If you aim for broad utility maximisation then you inevitably maximize the utility of nothing as scarcity is diversified, however if you aim for the utility maximisation of animals then you can do so due to animals being perceivers and their perceived benefit can be altered independent of objective materialism. Although you could say that the inability to diversify your resources to maximize material value inevitably impacts the utility of animal utility maximisation.
That was a load of jargon but it's just resource distribution and assessing the optimal way to allocate resources to maximise utility. This creates a paradox where utility cannot be maximised. I believe we should be inherently selfish and focus on utility only as it serves our interest, therefore we should focus on maximizing human utility and doing so requires diversifying our resources to optimize the efficacy of processes that benefit us, i.e. waste disposal.
Hopefully this makes sense, idk. It's a complex and subjective topic.
Spoiler: no
Hahaha I mean, absolute shocker right?
@@ethanbenson😂 nice video though :)
I appreciate your clear explanations.
@@sgttomas thank you! Glad you liked it! Are there any other topics you’d like to see covered?
@@ethanbenson well you’ve got a really compelling list of topics you’ve covered, so I’ll put something very niche out there: “the necessity of contingency”.
Meillassoux offers one approach in After Finitude, but his is not the only treatment of the subject.
I’m very intrigued by your most recent post on the Kalam Cosmological argument! I’ll probably have a comment for you there too. Cheers!
@@sgttomas I’ll look further into it! Cheers!