One important thing that I haven't included in the video, but that follows from it is that sometimes you'll hear someone expressing ideas that sound utterly crazy but that, in the end, turn out to be correct. This is true in many contexts, among which is ethics. Most of the seemingly crazy people are probably wrong. Still, there's a minority, perhaps significant enough, who's right. In the case of ethics, by "right," I mean: "upon further reflection, other people would come to the same conclusion, and that conclusion will be adopted by future humanity" (I hope this captures what I mean, if not I hope you get the idea). Note that this is independent of the moral realism vs. anti-realism debate. After realizing this, I have become way less dismissive of crazy-sounding ideas, and I try to consider them for a while instead of discarding them outright. P.S. When reading comments, you can assume it's the scriptwriter who's writing. As always, you can support us on: 🟠 Patreon: www.patreon.com/rationalanimations 🟤 Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/rationalanimations
Oh, I like that idea. Let me try my hand at one: Humans are not any more moral, ethical, or enlightened than we were 50k years ago, only the mechanisms to suppress most of what we consider as “wrong” or maladaptive behavior have greatly increased (and continue to). The notion that we are progressing toward some better version of ourselves is folly, and only a minor change in our collective circumstance (even via a minor shift in geopolitical realities) will quickly see us return to a (potentially increased/exaggerated) manifestation of all those ‘invisible monsters’ we thought we vanquished so long ago. Turns out, we ourselves are indeed all these so-called monsters.
@Alpheratz & Canopus I feel like being more adapted to a certain situation makes you more valuable, because everything in this universe is relative. One instance has no value until you give it a reference point to compare it to. After having 2 instances or measurements in any given collective gives rise to opportunities that weren't there before. Aristotle's paragraph which essentially says there are those who rule and those who serve and thats decided by a 50/50 chance of being a slave or being a slave master. Which to Aristotle sounded like equality since almost everyone during his time had a slave it was just normal.. To some it up with a quote from my father "It is what it is, so do what you gotta do." The human race is denying its roots as an animal to transcend that boundary. We can do this in 2 ways, become the planet or accept the planet. The former meaning we controll every aspect of life in our ecosystem, everything thing is artificial but it keeps us alive. No more nature to deal with. Or the latter being that we accept nature onto our species boat, since we are not yet independent of the planet we can claim it as part of humanity, the same goes for insects like bees or the atmosphere that keeps us alive. Without any balance of that or total mastery of those things, our time ticks closer and closer to the extinction of our species. In either one of those aforementioned scenarios we as a planet need to come to an understanding or we are doomed.
It's not a straightforward process. For example slavery, when it was invented, was reasonably moral. Because the only alternative that existed before was genocide. We tend to present the movement from past to present as moral growth just because common values become more resemling our present values. But objectively they are just changing, sometimes even back and forward. We can of course choose some major value to evaluate whole value systems on how well do they serve this one. For example "reduction of suffering". But we will miss out the fact that lots of societies view some forms of suffering as acceptable cost for some other, more precious values from their point of view. We can as well asess how sencere those value systems are: do they really lead to what they claim? But again, should they? Demanding consequtiveness from a value system is also a value.
If I may, I'd like to suggest that a consideration of the rights, liberty, autonomy, and wellbeing of youths is a prime example of a way to spot an invisible monster.
Ah, this channel is nascent (excellent point) & I reeaaally like the line of thought entailed within this episode. Y’got me, subbed after two videos (first was Grabby Aliens per algorithm) onward unto this video’s sequel.. together, we’ll watch it all unfold. ⏳
In this video, there's also the assumption that reducing suffering is the moral goal of humanity. And while humanity kind of want to follow this goal right now, it is not the only one. For example, by killing everyone and everything on Earth painlessly, we would end suffering forever. We could also do that by puting everyone in a cage and druging everyone into an ecstatic state. Obviously this is not an outcome that most of us want. It means There's also other moral goals. The maximisation of one's liberty, or the right for every being to not be killed for example.And these moral goals can sometime be incompatible. We can't both control natural predation to prevent death and suffering, and protect the animals liberty, as control is opposed to liberty. The invisible monsters only exist when a moral goal shifts or reinforce itself, but it's hard to know which moral goal will be pursued next.
Yeah, but knowing there is a dilemma and making a monster more visible is just a start to the whole process of overcoming it. At the start, alot of these monsters are hard-baked into our society, and a sudden change could easily mean a collapse of our society as we know it (a good example being slavery). Hell, for problems like world hunger the solutions which will save everyone takes alot of time and research to find something that works (I mean, just look at all the research that has gone into food production to solve world hunger. For once, we literally have the means to feed everyone and not crush our planet... Juuust implementing it is more the challenge now) All in all, with education and awareness comes gradual changes in those political/societal structures or growth into a technology that can allow us to fix what we couldn't before handle/comprehend. And with those changes, what used to be impossible can become possible. Just because we're aware of suffering happening doesn't mean we already know the answers to fixing it. Even with the whole predation thing: If we could talk to lions and gazelles, could we find a solution that makes everyone happy? Maybe lab meats for the lions, and other forms of enrichment is enough? Who knows. I sure as hell don't; and I'm pretty sure you can't say for certain either.
By a similar logic, one can say that slavery only ended because of the start of the Industrial revolution. Early machines were created and average wealth was increasing, people could start to consider affording actually paying their slaves enough that they choose to work their on their own. It was still morally wrong but it was justified because humanities other goals of supporting themselves and ones "tribe" surpassed their goal to help others like them.
@@Hjea People have different goals. Decreasing suffering is not always their biggest priority, otherwise things like slavery would never exist. So in the same way that future humans can have conflicting goals, past and present humans already do.
Yeah, everyone and their dog has a righteous crusade to fight when they got food and shelter guaranteed, but those same people would show unbelievable cruelty when they dont know where their next meal is coming from
Virtue signaling is really just trudging through the internet cesspool for validation. Best to treat the internet like any other addiction: Gradually distance from it and work on yourself instead. If the worlds "issues" were really that important to people, they'd do alot more than incessantly bitch and finger point. Know who else whines and fingerpoints? Politicians... on twitter... lol congrats, you slowly become like the people you always complain about.
What's even more astonishing is the speed with which the trappings of civilization dissolve when expected comforts are abruptly removed. None is more primal, more animalistic and ferocious when they are hungry.
Yeah. Everyone's gonna be against animal farming when lab grown meat becomes ubiquitous and then act like they did so for ethical considerations, rather than due to lab grown meat being cheaper.
I'm worried that anyone who wants to can see the monsters, they just find them to be good, angels instead of demons. Aristotle in the quote recognized the monster and proclaimed it natural and expedient. My great worry is that all monsters are only slain when a more convenient, expedient solution is present for a ruling class. And this, in turn, makes me worry that monsters are only ever slain by larger monsters.
You are right. Emancipation is a harder bondage to break by increasingly weaker subjects. The lowliest slave only had a master to fear. By contrast, the civilized human need to bend the neck multiple times for multiple masters for multiple reasons.
Interesting take. Monsters being slain by larger monsters when the ruling class finds it beneficial or expedient to slay them. In the case of slavery here in America, do you think there was a monster that turned out to be larger than it? And if so what was it? I can think of benefits the ruling class gained from the end of slavery but I'm having a hard time coming up with a monster bigger than slavery. Is that an exception or am I not being creative enough in my thinking?
@@DeMonSpencer It's not an exception and the reasoning is quite interesting. The larger monster is capitalism, for lack of a better word. Slavery, especially before the cotton gin, wasn't very efficient; you had to feed and house the slaves and hire someone to whip them. Capitalism is more efficient at extracting value from others because you don't have to feed or house them, the workers are usually autonomous and self-improving. If this wasn't the case, the South would've won the war. The bigger monster being shackling others with their pride, or their hope for a better life, instead of shackling them with fear.
I'm reminded of the little boy who pointed out that the emperor wears no clothes. Many people like to imagine that they would do the same. In reality, they would be part of the frenzied crowd that lynches the boy for daring to speak. Then everyone would carry on exactly the same as before.
People always seem to miss the real moral of that story It's not about seeing what's there - It's the fact that everyone went along with it cos an authority said so It's a moral against cult following, dogma and hero-worship; as well as about not falling to peer-pressure "Simply because a million people say a stupid thing, does not mean it is any less of a stupid thing to say" - Lao Tzu
There's an implicit assumption in this video that the only thing morality should ever consider is suffering; that is, morality is based on care and harm and if you justify harming another being then they are outside the consideration of morality. But that's not how morality works. Different people will have different intuitions about moral behavior, and much of it has nothing to do with care or harm. For some, loyalty is the highest consideration, and it's impossible for such a person to value animals that can't be loyal. That's not because they are beyond consideration, but because, once considered, it becomes clear they can't matter. Similar things can be said about people whose intuitions are dominated by duty, family, property, freedom, or sanctity. Even if our circle encompassed everything, such overriding concerns would lead to completely different places than solely considering care or harm. I'm not confident that future humanity will only care about care and harm. If transhumans become anything great, like unto a civilization but as an individual, then they will become sufficiently self-sufficient that they would only interact with society if they want to. For such a creature, I would expect its moral considerations to be dominated by either loyalty to some in-group or by freedom/independence from authority. Then again, morality exists for the sake of society, not the individual. If societies become unnecessary then I'm not sure morality will be widely considered at all.
One thing I don't understand is why society would have to become unnecessary in the future? A group of powerful transhumans still seem to be stronger than one. And this is based on an assumption that we will overcome our natural characteristic of being a social being. The need to make as less harm as possible is a result of empathy and understanding that pain is something we don't want, and not having pain is in our interest. But this is an interesting assumption, that future humans wouldn't need society, and with it, perhaps morality would be thrown away and with it, the empathy.
I think you're all incredibly foolish, and your notions about the future of humanity are preposterous illusions, but I could be wrong. Time will tell. One of us is clearly VERY wrong. Either way, I hope I'm around to find out.
@TheManFromAuntie It's true that every culture has its own moral codes, but this doesn't mean that morality isn't subject to reason. People used to believe that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that matter was composed of the elements earth, water, air and fire. Our current understanding of physics and cosmology is not just "different" from medieval models - it's BETTER. We are closer to truth now than we used to be. The same goes for ethics. Everyone has different morals, but some are better than others. Better in this case doesn't mean "closer to truth", but it does mean "more rational". If you fully commit to moral relativism, you will inevitably arrive at nihilism. The concepts of good and evil, right and wrong have no meaning at all, if every definition is equally valid. However, I agree with you that self-righteousness is a particularly ugly quality. I think that mercy, humility and forgiveness are crucial to real virtue. When people assume that they are unquestionably virtuous, they become capable of the worst atrocities.
@@grenadaball7655 I agree. In fact, I'd say it's even less than subjective: it's utterly meaningless. HOWEVER, the word "God" is quite often used by very flawed humans to pursue goals that are equally flawed.
I can point to one transparent monster that seems all too opaque to me: Wage slavery. The idea that basic food and housing for most people is contingent on them selling hours of their lives, often to produce goods that the world would be just fine without, seems preposterous to me.
So whose responsability is it to ensure you have everything you feel necessary to have a decent life? Someone needs to work to produce your food, clothing, house, the water and electricity you use, why do you think those people should work and others should benefit from their labor for free?
If housing and food was free then would the people who build homes and farm food be slaves? Why would anyone grow food or build a house if they had to work for free? Bro needs to consider this thing called economics.
@@baltofarlander2618 Speaking of very well-defended monsters... (looking at you, Capitalism) The problem with Communism is not Communism. It's human nature turning vain attempts at implementing Communism into fascist dumpster fires.
@@coopergates9680 capitalism isn't monster, and seeing monsters in necessary things just as video author does leads nowhere. If anything, the monster lies within our primal, animal nature.
@@baltofarlander2618 Runaway capitalism is why we have atrocious corporate greed like standing rock oil pipeline construction, concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, and people the job market doesn't fit right basically being left for dead. There is no "fair day's wage for a fair day's work" Now, you could be right in that the problems with Capitalism stem from primitive, instinctual behavior, in other words Capitalism isn't the original/root cause.
Humm... yeah about that. Morals do not necessarily progress with time. For now, it worked like that. But it's not obvious or expected that our morals will be "better" in 40 thousand years into the future.
@@Ryanowning i'm willing to bet that rampant poverty and individualism wasn't so prevalent in ancient agrarian societies. Not that they were better in general but, if it was the vase that people took care of each other more than the present days, then this can be a perfect example of "deteriorating morals". However, it's not clear cut as I put there. One cannot simply take a fact from ancient times in isolation and present it as proof that "back them it was better".
A huge thing you're missing in the Aristotle quote on slavery is that, by his definition, anyone who is not a capitalist (owner of a significant amount of productive property) in the current western world is a slave (which I would tend to agree with), ipso facto slavery has not been abolished . So you have to consider not only different concepts of virtue, but concepts of slavery as well. The Anglosphere began abolition of a certain kind of slavery in the 19th century, but did not abolish slavery (per Aristotle) at all, as it remains (per you, Rational Animations) invisible.
There's exactly two responses to this. The first is an argument that "different forms of slavery aren't comparable, so comparing them is pointless.", typically made by those that think the current system is fine. And the second answer is "Yes. Humans the world over are enslaved by capitalism. Thats the core problem of our moment in history. Thats the invisible monster most people can't see."
@@sandler800 I don't know if you are addressing me, or someone else. I guess I haven't watched this video in two years, though my statement above is still accurate, regardless of what it may be responding to. It's a little weird that you're fixated on a "system" because in economic terms that suggests an intentional top down arrangement, and that is a relatively novel situation, historically speaking. I don't think we need to quibble too much over what freedom is, but, as I mentioned previously, anyone who is not a capitalist (in capitalist nations), is a slave, and not free. I would go so far as to say people a hundred years ago in the US were freer than they are now, and freer still a hundred years before that. Prosperity is a much less well defined term, though it would seem to be somewhere on the scale between surviving and flourishing. A necessary component of capitalism is that the few who are capitalists siphon value produced by everyone else, so necessarily, if people were able to retain the value they produced, more people would be doing better on the surviving to flourishing scale. For one person to be rich, thousands of people have to be poor. And I don't think an argument about tech level is persuasive. Technology are just tools, and the vast majority of things produced by capitalism are not merely crap, but intentional waste of natural resources, so you have to buy more crap, which will ultimately destroy the ecology we live in.
I had seen the invisible monster of the terrible treatment of insects for no reason in general. Like my peers casually stomping on insects, or mother's slapping cockroaches who were just chilling in their homes. Since then i have been super compassionate towards insects.
@@brunolevilevi5054 nope. I know very well that the very nature of life is cruel. I must eat meat in order to be healthy. And even plants have life which i take away by eating. But i don't believe in unnecessary violence. Stomping on insects for the fun of it is way different from killing them to eat them
Glad I'm not the only one who at the very least feels bad for random bugs just getting squished because they're disgusting or whatever. Imagine if someone killed you even though you were just chilling on a wall or something. Of course, I understand why people might want to get rid off poisonous insects, but a lot of people hit flies and spiders when they aren't even dangerous.
Something to note that makes slavery a good example is that we have control whether or not someone is treated and thusly categorized as a slave. So when pointing out other monsters it's important to identify the same categorization issue because without it, it can easily be deferred that population suppression and outright eradication could be a grace just as it's been justified in the past.
Categories are made up. We always controll what falls into and outside a category because the existance and bounderies of the category is a "choise". For example what makes a table a table? It's how it is used which is something we determine. Or the Ship of Theseus as an example of where does one category end and another begin. Its how that categorisation came to be or what it is based on that should determine if its usefull and in what context.
Whilst I agree with a lot of this message, it does seem to imply there are objectively correct morals, and that we are on a vaguely linear projection towards the "ultimate morality". Which in truth seems ignorant.
@@speedy01247 I think you misunderstand my argument. I think morals are subjective, and you cannot claim to have "correct" morals nor claim anyone has "incorrect" morals. At least in part because there is no objective metric by which to measure how good a set of morals are.
@@Pedanta I'd disagree. There are basic morals principles that are undeniable. I'm certain there is an objectively perfect level of morality. I will not claim to hold such morals, as I do truly believe some facets such system is ungraspable to me. But there are objective moral truths. As an example of an "invisible monster" that is just now starting to be seen by a large amount of people is the mistreatment of transgender individuals. One can objectively state that transgender people are scientifically, morally, and historically validated. We have many instances of transgender people throughout history. And scientific research about transgender people kicked off in the 1930s. From then until now, the vast, vast majority of research validates that trans people, should be recognized as their indentified sex. And that such identity is their true sex. E.g. trans women are actually, undeniably women, even if they were born men, and vice versa with trans men, (and of course this includes non binary people being non binary) Objectively, rejecting this research in order to protect one's desire to oppress transgender individuals is morally wrong. One can apply this to many tragedies that have been committed, slavery is objectively wrong. One can argue as to why it might have been seen as morally right, but we must recognize that their morality was flawed. Not because they are immoral beings, but because of the lack of education. Lack of education, is the main cause of such. The more science we do, and education we receive, the closer our morals will be to being objective.
@@lunasills8031 You say that education will lead to more objective moral values, but I don't believe science nor education can do that. Science provides you with more knowledge, amd whilst this is excellent in that it allows people to make more informed decisions on moral values, it cannot itself make those decisions. For example I could know the exact frequencies and energy levels of red and green light. But that won't decide which is my favourite colour for me. Ultimately I would still need make the decision. In the same way I could know exactly what a sheep feels like whilst it is sent to the abattoir, but I still need to make the decision whether or not its okay to eat it. Education is similar in that all it can do is inform you on what the impact of different decisions will be. Anymore than that and its no better than propaganda, telling you what to think.
@@brunolevilevi5054 It's just the "Both extremes must be wrong!" ideology many centrists assume must be a basic fact, even when one extreme wants health care and the other extreme wants genocide.
@@brunolevilevi5054when youve decided that making others suffer is prefferable to the ones your trying to “help”…. Its pretty consistent that asylum seekers cause more crime than the natives….
Examples that came to mind: - Leaded gasoline everywhere (unseen, then ignored, now slain) - Fetal alcohol syndrome (not fully recognized; still a huge problem) - Manual driving (causes lots of avoidable crashes) - Female genital mutilation (extremely prevalent in many countries)
What about male genital mutilation ... invisible monster to you? Quite a bit more prevelant in even more countries. Now expand that idea, if you agree that perhaps ALL infant genital mutilation is immoral, could it mean that men also deserve human rights just like women do? What does that say about mens rights activism? Is it really just a label that misogynists hide behind? Or does it perhaps contain people yelling out about the invisible monster which causes people to protest against female genital mutilation without even thinking for a second that perhaps it isn't just performing it on females which makes the act of genital mutilation wrong.
@@ozAqVvhhNue When I see people protest abortion and stuff, the right to live, I wonder if they also see a boy's right to remain as nature intended. Some men learn what was done, and resent it, and it affects them forever. But by then, the monster has already won.
I'm always impressed and brought to a state of introspection when experiencing your scriptwriting ability. Truly. Stimulating depth of thought and truly inspiring.
Ok. But what about when the bigger monsters *do* exist? No one wants Godzilla stomping around in their city. But sometimes he's the only thing that can stop Ghidorah.
We will stop keeping animals for food when lab grown meat is at least at good and cheaper. The same way we stopped child labor when it made more economic sense to do so. We abolished slavery when it became clear economic to do so. Our collective sense of morality always follows to match our economic reality.
lmao what? The south straight up didn't develop industrially, they had slaves, why would they develop an industry the slaves handled fine? Once they were forced to stop the old way of doing things, they adapted to new available technologies. Economic reality followed moral conflict. Also, child labor, and slaves, still exist today. Unless you're careful, you're buying slave-made clothes. And there is no amount of careful you can be to avoid buying slave-made computer parts. We buy them from countries where slaves are legal. Finally, fuck capitalism and fuck you.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You don't need meat to survive, vegetarians have existed for hundreds of years. It has also always been cheaper to be a vegetarian than an omnivore. The propaganda around vegetarian/vegan diets would have you believe they are more expensive. This is a complete farce, especially today with competitive pricing of plant-based "meat" alternatives. The only reason lab grown meat would bring dramatic change is if people will continue to refute the economic and ethical issues of consuming animal flesh, until it is simply cheaper to support their habit without raising and killing an animal to do so. Then they will turn around and be horrified by the thousands of years of animal exploitation, and act like they are now morally superior by making a decision which was not even an option before.
Clear economic sense to whom? Slavery continued to exist in the United States until 1942 (yes, 1942, we only got around to abolishing the means through which slavery was continued after the 13th amendment 75 years after its passage) because it was in the clear economic interest of the wealthy, white, predominately male landowners of the American agrarian South. In truth, this never stopped being the case, even after FDR finally put an end to it. We didn't stop enslaving black men for life (on trumped up charges instead of on the basis of birth) because it stopped being profitable for men with power. We stopped it because we were at war with the Nazis, who could and did use the fact that we still held millions of people in slavery as a propaganda tool to show that they "were no worse than the United States." It was a matter of narrative convenience, not economic expediency. Furthermore, why are we willing to cede that much of our moral sensibility to economics as a system? We already know what economics will do in the name of maximizing consumption and shareholder value: literally spend decades hiding the impending destruction of Earth's capacity to sustain human civilization as we know it from the people and the scientific community. This is not a system we should bend our neck to. It is one we should cast into outer darkness, before it can do the same to us.
I agree, and these monsters need to be slain. But there is (at least) one point missing. How do you decide whether each monster is a good monster or a bad monster? In biological terms, it would depend on how that monster negatively affects the survivability of your species. But ultimately, how do we know that we are on the right track? What if we were far more likely to survive and prosper as a species (but not necessarily individuals) if we killed off all the 'good' monsters and embraced the 'bad' ones?
Awesome. Btw I’m a neurobiologist studying multimodal integration in the nervous system and behavior of honey bees 🐝 and bumble bees 🐝… your video is an ethical justification for my work … love it!
I am curious as to how your work on the sensory modalities and behavior of bees has any bearing on their capacity to suffer or how any empirical research on the nervous system could back up the psychologist theory needed to tie the two together. Hell, i even doubt neuroanthropologists can prove humans suffer with neuroscience. Have you heard of biosemiotics? Also I am curious as to how honey bees and bumblebees compare in those respects.
Animal suffering and taking future generations morally into consideration are probably two huge transparent monsters that are walking around right now, but I really wonder what else we are being blind to... Unknown unknown's are a frightening thing.
Mass abortion is another one. I contribute to animal suffering by eating meat and I recognize this, just as I recognize that abortion causes so much death. But what can be done about either of these things? Especially when they're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and people can't see to separate them from ideologies.
@@cortster12 What? Abortion is a whole different story. There's no sentient being suffering, just the end of a potential life. That's a really big difference, otherwise contraceptives would be morally equivalent to genocide.
I'll toss out the big one I'm seeing, punishment as a mean for disiplin. Society has already begun opening it's eye's to it in schools and homes, atleast the physical variety. Now it's been shown that treating a misconduct through understanding and educating is more effective long term. I belive that as society progress this will extend even to criminals, replacing prisons with mental health centers. Now as I'm no expert I can only state this as my limited understanding of our worldly developments.
@@cortster12 As someone generally pro-abbortion I can see your point. Even if I don't think a fetus is quite the same a born human, all life is precious and should be respected as such. Unfortunaly abortion IS the best choice we got in the world right now, with it combating other Monsters like Rape, Poverty and Incapable Parents. I hope for a breakthrough in chemical contraceptions that are more long lasting, safe and easily reversable.
These things are necessary evils, not monsters. As you pointed out so plainly with meat consumption these things are done away with once they are no longer necessary. You can not judge the past on the morality of the present or the present on the morality of the future. Human beings are not free of the oppression of nature on ourselves. Things like this will continue to exist and be rid of as we free ourselves of nature's oppression.
Nessesary evils ARE monsters, that's the point. Just like abortion is a nessesary evil with our current tech level, that doesn't make it any less monstrous. Same goes for meat consumption. And I will support both these things until both of them can be replaced with something better, but that will likely be centuries.
This video articulates some feelings I've been having for a long time about the treatment of kids in our society. It's totally normalized for adults to treat kids in ways that would be wildly inappropriate for them to treat other adults. (Yelling, manipulating, denial of autonomy, etc.)
Congratulations you see one of many monsters, invisible and still causing damage. It's also one of the oldest evils, you can argue the "monsters" in this video are only seen as an aberration to the natural order once enough people can recognize that the damage is caused by that *particular* one. And it's got other problems just like it, children of it's own too but it's the child of the oldest evil; to help you name it ask why would someone treat children or people whom they have power over as lesser than? Ignorance and Fear are it's immortal parents, but they can be sedated by thinking minds and open hearts. Maybe it doesn't have a name yet your monster but it does have a face, Abuse.
That's historically inaccurate. In the past, childhood wasn't given any particular consideration and children were seen as "simply" smaller adults, who had to pull their own weight like any other adult and so on. In fact - with the exception of the most well off families - childhood as this "special period of your life" is a modern concept that was truly democratized only after World War 2. Yes, children were not treated well, but no one else but the powerful were. Everyone who wasn't in a position of power was abused in some way and, in this regard, children's condition was no lesser than any adult's. What's changed in our modern society gave rise to something of a paradox. On one hand, children are now afforded a "preferential" treatment where they are (supposed to be) protected and educated by adults until they become adults themselves. On the other hand, this has led to the "infantilisation" of children, where a child is a "lesser" being, because they haven't yet reached the status of "productive adult", and thus are "deserving" - as you have rightfully pointed out - of different kinds of abuse. As reference, may I suggest an excellent video by @TheMedievalHistorian : Did Medieval Childhood Exist? ruclips.net/video/zAYDr7Pe5yc/видео.html
Something to consider as a breaking point is co-operation. Regardless of sentience or ability to suffer, its unreasonable to expect someone to morally vouch for someone or something that is actively a threat to them. I don't care if a mosquito can suffer or feel pain, it bites me. Just because I see myself as more aware of morality doesn't mean that I have to make excuses to defend it. We can even see it in our societal growth. Groups of people learn to treat each other with decency if they aren't responsible for the death of their own. We treat animals like dogs, cats, and horses as companions with feelings that we couldn't possibly eat, simply because they have been able to co-operate with us. The only reason the there is now a stance against factory farms is because we also se these farm animals a docile friendly creatures. Here is my line: If an animals evolutionary instincts are to harm me then then I will be unwilling to appreciate its sentience. Leaving room for the creature to evolve a symbiotic relation with humanity. People who hold a nationalist, racist, supremacist, or religious belief that I am unfit to live (or live freely) under their doctrine then I am unwilling to value their sentience equal to my own. Its real simple I'll work with you if you work with me. Nothing less.
Jesus, I feel fucking called out 😆 It's unimaginably frustrating to not be heard until the monster becomes so apparent that people aren't even surprised and often so entrenched that people feel powerless to stop them (especially frustrating since there was ample opportunity to stop them when we first started ringing the alarm bells). It's exhausting and has happened enough times that it makes me want to ignore the information that makes such trends obvious to me so I don't go through it all over again.
You forgot the necromancer monster. When things are good these people seek to create fictional problems or champion a cause that is just overstated in order to rouse people to anger. Then good times turn backwards because people forgot how much we achieved already.
@@constantineergius1626 yeah man I remember in 08 when Obama got elected I think everyone felt pride that we could finally see a person of color in the white house. Kids that were around back then that are adults dont fully understand what that meant to people. Those same kids are now thinking some how today is more racists then what I saw in the late 70's.
@@frocurl to be fair there kind of is more racists now then during the 70s but its all the people that make everything about race rather then just being quite. I know a lot of people who have said "minorities by and large cannot succeed without the government" thats still a very common opinion these days theres this view in many areas that minorities need help and cant do things for themselves
A thing I've been worrying about for a while: is the changing of someone else's mind a kind of invisible monster? Getting someone to change their goals and values seems increasingly insidious to me in today's social climate.
How do you mean, exactly? My knee-jerk reaction is that this an argument *for* ignorance -- not the logical fallacy known as The Argument from Ignorance, but rather an argument *for* ignorance -- meaning we should never change, learn, or grow..? What am I missing here, Random?
@@Halophage I'd say the exact opposite is the far more dangerous monster. There is no issue with people who readily change their minds as it's very difficult for them to hold a position that provides them with negative results, but those that are stuck in their ways historically are the only people who have commit great acts of destruction such as slavery, genocide, etc. It has always been the free thinkers who have pushed the boundaries of what is right and created increasingly more "right" societies.
@@Ryanowning Currently there is a wave of people who on a daily basis wake up and change their Genders depending on their readily changing minds. These type of people are corroding society faster than anything I have seen in my entire life yet they believe they have found an invisible monster and we all must bow to their values despite their values clearly causing Massive amounts of suffering and death that could have been avoided through better understanding on their part. There is currently a push to be progressive as possible never stopping to see if you have progressed off a cliff or not the entire time believing oneself to be morally superior to those who enjoy the current systems and abundance and safety we see in modern age which is well above anything ever seen in history of mankind. If one can rapidly change their mind it means they understand nothing with any certainty and those people would be far better to just stfu and listen to others instead of preaching their half truths from a moral pedestal. .
@@seditt5146 The way to deal with them is to remember that it's common to tell people how you'd like to refer to them if you have a doctorate or if you're a lord or various other scenarios. It really doesn't matter whether you believe in the same thing as them as long as you avoid escalatory remarks etc. Whether they corrode society or not- avoid them and create your own space. The fact of the matter is that despite the emergence of these kinds of people aren't uncommon in history they never reach prevalence for long; they only last about 40 to 60 years as a major group because they cannot exist for much longer than that. They are not aware of the amount of harm they are doing to society and there is no point in trying to inform them of it; instead all we can do is record what happens to them so that we can educate the future generations on the dangers of it while avoiding the pitfalls of aggression.
The evils of slavery didn't "become visible" to all of humanity - its abolition was forced upon the rest of humanity by Europeans, British first, other European nations later.
There’s a lot of talk about animals in this video considering how much human suffering occurs daily and is written off as necessary Listen to some people preach about about how poverty and homelessness are needed to motivate people into the job market, and you’ll see a much more concrete example of a modern monster than “what if insect suffering matters”
This is just based on the assumption human lives are more worth than animal lives. Also meat consumption is just killing people, this is one the one side where plagues come from, it is one of the many sources of climate change which will cause massive refuge waves and also wastes food as the production of meat need a multiple of plant calories. Also there is probably a decent argument to be made to cut together heavily all social programs in the west for development aid as there are people dying from easy to preventing things like malaria where i heard figures like 100 dollar a year a live. We in Europe also simply got this fixed when compared globally and homeless people can get in a homeless shelter even there social benefits which is more then the average income in many countries. Seems honestly we are just really bad at doing things on a global scale and rather think on more local scales where then regional interest cause issues besides resource attribution.
There are trillions of animals tortured and killed each year for food. It's an incredibly significant issue and one that is incredibly overlooked. Your comment reads like whataboutism
Poverty is a transparent monster. It robs all of humanity the talents and intelligence of poor people who will never reach their full potential all because they have to toil to earn a living.
There is something I don't like about the moral circle expansion argument. because the end extrapolations are all matter and energy is equivalent to the 'self'. or no matter and energy is morally equivalent to the 'self'. Which is two statements with no utility. I don't think it should be used as a moral heuristic, but say something like how ''time is a flat circle'' is a mental tool but not a moral code. and if that is the case, its just a mental tool, surely its just the veil of ignorance?
What do you mean? Do you think that even greatest ancient philosophers, wouldn't have some views, that would be considered as completely immoral in modern world? He didn't say that this makes them less of a philosopher or great person, but mindset of people who lived thousands of years before us was very different and the way he presented it is only to show, how these words would be interpreted in modern world. Even by the people we respect and consider as important part of history.
The "enlarging moral circle" is a cute very pop model, but it has no explanatory power and is just an observation, which I by the way would dispute. A more accurate model is a 3D hairy ball, or some mass with tentacles. Circle (or sphere) expansion is neither strictly linear, no strictly compounding. Some moral tentacles might retreat. E.g. political polarization, the woke ideology in full retreat on all fronts, etc. But we are talking circles and balls here. Obviously they are generated with functions. And that's the crux here. What sub-function of the larger function allows for this tentacle arguably-growing but certainly-writhing (= being in flux)? There are several functions. None of which have anything to do with personal moral growth. Stop with this nonsensical optimism and faith in humanity. A trivial function is the growth of media to document far away stuff, and disseminate it easily. Another: more efficient propaganda and adjacent to that, psychology pertaining to manipulation of opinions (those two are not "bad", I just point out that their higher efficiency is simply novel). Another more education or the evolution of political/educational role into gradually taking on more and more condenscending (but also sometimes needed) "adult pedagogic" roles. Another just the loads of debates accumulating over the decades/centuries, and their traces and echoes in writing not getting rid of by various forms of decay, like was more the case in the past. Mevermind moral ***growth***, even just moral ***dynamics*** are like an insanely distant n-th factor in the writhing of the moral tentacles. For example. Idiots in 100 years will believe we were cruel with factory farming, and that is just correct under any framework that considers animals more than playthings. But because they are idiots, they will think they "would have been better". They will turn it into a difference of generations and strict moral growth, when the true answer is that they grew up with vat meat and had the luxury to never face the actual raging debate (either internally, like in me when I decided with 9 to become vegetarian, or in the public sphere). Just like we don't have to face the pressing moral emergency of ... the behaviour of certain knights in horseback on the battlefield anymore. It's just things. Matter. Objects. Circumstances of physical items (and their difference between eras) that accounts for 95% of moral evolution. Slavery is also an example of that. What because factories? No, too pedestrian argument. I mean items were a factor because European guns were superior, and Europeans (or the North in the US) conquered the world and, if not outright dictating outlawing slavery, took the air (=relevance in geopolitics/global civilization) away from the powers that still enslaved. This of course also applies to our past. Nevermind the invisible monsters (a great topic. We should defunct natural predation eventually). Which of the angels of our time were genuine, and which were just a dictator's tacky vanity monument or even bad photoshop job into the scenery? As illustrated above -- there are loads of them for out time as well.
@dexatlon The one where you are the equivalent of a caveman trying to figure out a smartphone. Your lack of an ability to look at big picture developments is comparable to the caveman's crypto or programming proficiency a day after you hand the smartphone to him. Below is an outline how it could be achieved. If your argument isn't ability to envision differently from a technical standpoint, but rather some actually moral appeal to nature fallacy (whatever is natural is "just". Yeah, I am sure antelopes getting eaten alive like it, because it's oh so natural.), then I have nothing to tell you, except you are wrong. Projects for eliminating wilderness predation without carnivore elimination: Mission statement: Humans like goals. Sapient species like goals. The lack of a goal leads to nihilism, defeatism, and self-destruction. It is my holy conviction that the goal of the dominant sapient Earth species should be implementing an infinite and eternal paradise for all sentient life. We need no gods. We, life, will do it. This task is completely trivial (again, acquire a sense of scale beyond petty 21st century Earth) if the only requirement is to abolish predation. But if the additional demand is stipulated that predatory animals should not be behaviourally changed, then you can implement this following program: Mainly, predation will be made unnecessary and punishing, while a natural carnivore lifestyle will be retained via self-replicating non-conscious bionic constructs, that are to be introduced into the entirety of the local cosmic domain's macrofauna-containing ecosystems. These constructs are modelled on the appearance, and programmed to behave similar to, locally appropriate herbivores. These constructs include safeguards to stop a potential risk of runaway self-replication. One extremely conductive element for that is making them about as temperature resistant as biological organic chemistry is, as well as dependent on an atmosphere. Their body should preferably be non-metallic and include the absolute minimum of electronic systems. The constructs are culled every *n* years, with a new generation introduced that is a blank slate. This is mainly to prevent evolution (outside perhaps an acceptable drift, to simulate Darwinian processes, but that is outside scope of this framework), which could lead to development of consciousness, intelligence, hiveminds, and resistance to environmental conditions. This would also further aid in preventing a runaway self-replication scenario. The infrastructure to deployment would be kept at facilities (monitoring, manufacturing the first generations, orbital launch facilities etc. -- all automated) that experience minimal decay over zoological or geological timescales. A planet like Earth has very few such surface locations. Preferably it'd be on a planet's natural or artificial satellite. The constructs are either directly edible, or in the (riskier) non-organic form, they contain edible internals (over a breakable exterior. Perhaps a silicon skin/muscle analogue). This food component (and potential additives) could also be exploited for various other wildlife interventionist projects (although I personally am for laissez-faire. The elimination of worst-grade suffering is the only point in my agenda). Manipulation of predator behaviour towards disregarding non-constructs can be achieved via punishing reactions. The best way to introduce this is via a microscopic parasitic construct, which can attach or embed on animals, and replicate as usual for natural parasites until near-saturation. These bionic parasites would contain implements of disincentivizing predation. Regarding herbivore overpopulation: the same parasitic construct can be used. Lacing the local water with e.g. birth control is overkill, and would be inline with a much more managed and manicured habitat than the philosophy behind this current framework, which seeks to preserve environmental wilderness, but intervention on a per-organism basis. Motile, self-replicating bionic automatons are the best tool for that. Implementation: This project most likely can't be realized the next millennium or two. Technology is the most trivial aspect, economics second, by far the hardest is overcoming the human moral hurdle of regarding untampered-with wilderness as desirable -- especially once alternatives like above framework become feasible. The human hurdle would however not be an issue on terraformed planets/moons.
We havn’t put a dent in slavery. We probably never will. The way it appears, we got rid of one type of slavery in the US. Boy of boy we were so proud we set half of our country on and murdered so many of us to see it through. We were so proud that we didn’t consider the fact that slavery existed in the North as well. It is this blindness to wage slavery that garuntees the continuation of slavery now and into the future. Ehhh whatever. Nothing is going to change. We’ll just keep patting ourselves on the back while the world dies around us.
The BIG monster no one hears me shouting about: *life-extension* allows dictators to threaten with *unending torture* , gathering greater power. Meanwhile, their henchmen won't get a promotion because the boss won't die - unless they kill the boss. To prevent themselves from becoming torture-subjects, they'll have a self-destruct option. The aftermath of the carnage isn't explained to the other henchmen as an attack *between* members of their organization, because that would lead to division. Instead, they'll *blame* the attack on an enemy - and this instability and blame will ensure repeated warfare, in the form of sabotage and attacks on basic utilities. We don't have a system to deal with deathless dictators.
essentially just make sure such a benefit isnt a government monopoly. Government monopolies on anything are really terrifying, ironically enough taking care of the vulnerable, poor and sick is the most common way dictators come to power , economic desperation is the biggest cause of the worst regimes you get rid of death you get rid of that end of life poverty and the biggest justification for state power over one's lives
You don't even need to go that far to see problems. If nobody dies, but new people are born every year, then we will run out of space and food very fast.
Isn't it pointless? As Hume has taught us; "We can't derive ought from is". If we just expand circle of compassion we will run into massive moral dilemma. If killing a mosquito will be considered wrong. What if that mosquito carries a disease that has 15% chance to kill somebody? In reality, it is just a lot of tradeoffs. It is all monsters fighting other monsters all the way down.
Yeah sometimes we should focus on what is possible though. Or we will go insane. The actual amount of suffering in nature is absolutely immeasureable, and there is very little we can do rn without significantly reducing our productivity and getting conquered by more evil cultures in the long run.
I mean Aristotle (and others) weren't wrong. We all exist within hierarchies. Just.. not that implementation, we've moved past that. Edit: This moral expansion is similar to the expansion of knowledge.
Very interesting video.. but the way you call it "monsters" make it seem like you think morality is objective and not subjective.. I personally like the way slavery is illegal and all the examples you cited because I think that an individual should not have such power over another.. but is it true or right ? no its a belief.. it sure feels like its right and true tho.. Take for example the nazis who were known to execute people with disabilities because they were not helping society.. I think they were wrong to do that but let's say they had won the war and that the whole world turned nazi.. nowadays a lot of illnesses that are genetic would be eradicated because they killed everyone who had it.. Wouldn't that prevent the suffering of lots of people ? wouldn't a more enlightened humanity think ahead and accept the sacrifices that are needed in order to prevent future suffering ? Morality is only objective in disney movies and I think one of the problems nowadays is how people treat it as if it is and think anyone who doesn't think like them is evil or not intelligent enough to understand their view.
Most serius genetic illnesses are mutations or non dominant genes. Killing ppl is also the bad solution as the same can be achived by not having children. Also are we going to determine what is moral by fighting wars? If practicaly everyone agrees they would not like to be a slave I think for al practical purposes we can say it is objectively a moraly good decision to ban it. There must certainly be such problems today.
@@someonespotatohmm9513 I'm pretty sure most people would like to not pay taxes too yet it's morally ok to tax them. I think people of the ancient times thought the same way about slavery, they thought it was something needed to keep the civilization going. Same could be said about making human clones to make tests for new medicines or grow organs. Sure it's cruel for the individual but it could really speed up the research on many things and save/cure many people.. it's like that famous thought experiment where a train is heading towards a group of people and you can choose to change its track so it runs into one person instead.. is it moral to change the track and kill someone who would have lived to save multiple people who were doomed to die ? I just think people in general don't see all the gray areas in moral questions and it's sad because it's where both sides meet and can make very interesting discussions
one of the other issues is that the state is often seen as above the individual and the same people who will complain about individuals having power over others will not complain over governments having powers. Funnily enough there have been people of really any disability that achieved great things, the guy who invented windshield wipers was blind if im not mistaken. Morality is objective innocent people or beings of the same mental capacity as a human being should have rights and the idea that morality isnt objective leads to the idea that the state is the source of rights
The issue with your example lies in what you define as 'helping society'. Nazism 'believes' that people with disabilities are not helping society, yet many inventions, creations and understandings came to be thanks to some disabled individuals, by instead alleviating their disabilities rather than exterminating them along with their disability or by studying their disabilities and instead offering those who do not wish to be disabled a way to be like other beings or even become more capable. Another issue is the 'belief' that by exterminating disabled people, eventually genetic illnesses won't be past down anymore. But evidence shows that it's impossible to eliminate genetic illnesses, because life itself is malleable and to stay malleable imperfections occur that silently spread over generations constantly. So instead a better solution is finding out what causes those disabilities so that when someone risks reproducing and passing down a disability to be informed or stopped or better we develop a way to remove/fix those specific genes. In the end it comes down to whether the belief is thoroughly tested and that the solution proposed has the most benefits. A more enlightened humanity would not risk making unnecessary sacrifices. For making unnecessary sacrifices is also a 'monster' in and of itself as it exactly excuses other monsters' doings.
This starts from the wrong assumption that "monster" exist objectively, but are invisible to some. While the case is that there is no "monster" until somebody decides to see it
dont agree slavery ended because ‘more people recognized that it was evil’. technological and economic development made it less useful. as it became less useful, resistance to stopping it became less than the moral forces supporting abolition. veganism will similarly only become popular if thanks to technological developments its benefits evaporate leaving only unnecessary evil. of course it is possible to abolish before that, we see jain buddhists taking on very restrictive lifestyles in order to act maximally ethically, and religions and cultural attitudes do affect the behaviors of whole civilizations even when acting immorally might be highly beneficial, but it is infeasible for the majority of the world to ignore the benefits. and people in the future condemn those who supported immorality in exchange for how it benefited them, while still doing very similar things, ignoring the immoral aspects of their actions thanks to the benefits they get from it. I dont think its because people didnt or couldnt see the problem as much as they avoided seeing it as a problem because that would have made things inconvenient.
Your necasary evils are just evils ppl are unwilling to adress because it will come at the cost of their own comfort. That is how the world is but it doesn't mean it is how the world has to be. Are you moral when you only do it when it doesn't come at a practical cost?
I agree in principal to what you said, but I can't applicate it for animals, well, not completely. My premise is that humanity comes first in everything, not because we have more merit or any sort of moral value : it's just because if I want to maximize humanity's survival and happiness as a whole, then I want it to have dibs in everything. So, from this paradigm, animal exploitation is evitable only in a civilisation that is way more advanced than us. In our current times, animal exploitation and slaughter is inevitable because, for example, meat is an important part of our diet. And even if it isn't, to me the pleasure it brings to our palate is even more important than their lives, even if it's shallow happiness, it is still a form of happiness and as such I can't forbid it. (And yes, because of this paradigm I'm also against mass slaughter of animals because of the massive amount of polution it creates and the ressources it consumes.)
I too also noticed this in the video and felt that it might have been a little too far out of an example. But as you said it might just be a sort of unfortunate necessity at our current level of our specie’s development. Without the consumption of other animals we would not be able to survive as a species as we are today. But that is not to say that I still for the most part agree on the main message of the video, other then with the other issue of how morality is presented to be a universal and a not subjective. As mentioned in other comments the idea of trying to solve a predetermined idea of a “monster” might be a monster in-itself. Being that others might view the monster differently and focusing on one strict interpretation of an issue might lead to unintended consequences and might even be more harmful then doing nothing at all.
Say we flip your moral justification that the pleasure meat brings to your palate is more important than an animal's life and say that you being a slave say to me is a pleasure more important than your life. Which is more likely and why ? That your paradigm indicates that there are no common grounds in morality or that your justification is simply outside the common moral grounds ?
@@Ali-cya In the past year my opinion changed a bit, I still believe that human prosperity is the top priority in this debate but I do not place human pleasure above anything anymore. I'd say that yes my previous opinion has a foot outside of morality. But the other part still stands, we still need beasts to bear our burden. When they will become unnecessary, I will not be against stopping their slaughter as, when that time comes, that opinion will become useless and past its time. But this time is not now.
@@reshirambrotherzekrom It doesn't have anything to do with human prosperity if you could simply choose something else at the grocery store. "When they will become unnecessary" --- they already are.
Hey, a random guy shouting from the rooftop about a monster here: *Capitalism will lead to the death of our species of it is not immediately overthrown and replaced with a human-based social system of economy*
Technology heavily defines morality. In the ancient era where the independence, health, and survival of a tribe/kingdom relied on meat protein, furs, and a full-time warrior caste, you could argue that a level of support/farmer caste slavery and animal slaughter was a necessary evil, perhaps even a morally necessary good. Those who did not engage in such practices as efficiently were enslaved, exterminated, or assimilated by those who did - high-minded choices or apathy in this area often led to far more human suffering. This form of caste slavery was widespread in every locality on Earth, long before any interference by intercontinental empires. Industrialization, gunpowder, markets, and modern prosperity allows us to live equally and free, and able to choose not to eat animals.
I’m pretty sure you’re overstating the presence of caste & similar systems in the described emerald to some degree. Though perhaps ‘locality’ has a very general meaning here. Mostly a note for other readers here.
Technology allows us to be vegan, not markets/capitalism as you seem to imply. Also, slavery and war only came about with the rise of agriculture and settled civilization. The advent of capitalism, markets, gunpowder and industrialization made all injustices and subjugations *worse* until working class people organized effective resistance to these horrors.
Apathy leads to collapse and collapse leads to conquest. Morality is Darwinian instinct rationalized into human thoughts. There is no such thing as right or wrong, only successful and unsuccessful morality. Hedonism, our modern western morality, is and has been unsuccessful. We're going to go through strife soon due to our weakness but future generations will suffer through it, likely making a morality highly abhorrent to the average person in the west today.
I believe one of the big ones which doesn't get a lot of attention is travel restriction-- limits on people's rights to travel, work, and take up residence. Those restrictions make it easier to enslave people, in addition to many other costs.
You might also ask the question... where do rights come from? That is, it's not immediately obvious to me that people have rights to travel, work, and reside. Who grants them? Who protects them? Who chooses those instead of some other factors to call defensible rights?
Everyone is a slave, the only change is the terms and conditions. Perhaps instead of searching for monsters, we should get to know our masters. Some people look outward, others look inward.
This entire argument is based upon the conclusions modern humanity has come to and that they are somehow objectively correct, it is entirely plausible that we simply picked the wrong person to listen to and that the real monsters remained transparent to this day.
Agreed. There are many things that society agrees are wrong that could be argued that they are really not and vise versa. So many things are being censored now. So many things are not ok anymore (Food brands, sports team names). I don't think it's a matter of society being more aware (woke) and morality superior. It's at least debatable to say that things have gotten ridiculous and people (SJWs) are just being assholes now.
The problem is that it's based on the notion of progress. But is humanity on a path of moral progress? It's a common logical fallacy to consider that WE are the epitome of mankind and that our ancestors were barbaric assholes, but it's simply false. And I am not sure that the current trope of considering animals as moral subjects is excellent, since the consequence is that human life is not worth more than that of a cow. Moreover the notion that slavery was widely accepted in the west until the Civil War is simply bonkers : this institution had simply disappeared in Europe from the fall of Rome to the early colonial era, and was very much frowned upon. Even the Greeks were questioning it, and justified it by the fact that, when you conquer an enemy, the alternative to slavery was to slay everybody.
No? The argument literally talks about how there's still "invisible monsters" around us. Meaning we still haven't found them yet, according to our current moral understanding of the world, but they're there anyway - and what to do about it.
@@aspexpl "I am not sure that the current trope of considering animals as moral subjects is excellent, since the consequence is that human life is not worth more than that of a cow." This argument is weak and doesn't say anything. If you replace "animals" with say, women and "human life" with men, the substance of the argument doesn't change at all. It's simply saying "the lives of group X being as valuable as the lives of group Y is bad" without giving any justification. I agree that the idea that humanity always progresses is flawed, but that doesn't mean that invisible monsters don't exist.
There's no such thing as morals. They're just ideas of convenience enabled by the advancement of technology. There's a reason why it makes sense for a mechanical being like Optimus Prime to have the belief that 'Freedom is the right of all sentient beings' Because the technology of Prime's being means Prime doesn't have to kill & consume in order to survive. If we become cybernetic beings in some distant future, then, yeah, future humans would look back on this period of mass farming as a truly dark time when we killed and consumed the flesh of our victims.
While I am mainly for the message of the video I would like to ask an important question on the basses of morality. Based on the argument that morality is subjective according to some of the comments below, is it even possible to determine what is and isn’t a monster? For what could be seen as a monster for one individual might be seen as a necessity to another. And further more, if no one is able to come up to a consensus on what such a monster truly is, then is it even possible or appropriate to even try and solve it if no one knows what it is at the current time?
A few months ago I saved a 3 week old cat who was a runt and abandoned by its mother. I bottle feed it back to health and now it’s healthy and happy. The other day I head a scream outside. When I went out there the cat, which I saved, had a small baby rabbit in its mouth. It was crying in pain and bleeding everywhere. The cat dropped it to the ground and when it tried to get away it batted at it with its sharp claws and taunted it. I managed to chase off the cat and get the baby rabbit away. When I picked it up it died in my hands. Later on that evening the cat came up to me purring and jumped into my lap as if nothing was wrong. Nothing is innocent and everything is cruel. This is the nature of this world. At least we humans can identify when something isn’t right. But we must be careful and realize that every creature is a potential monster. Including your sweet, innocent little kitten. Everything that exist must kill and consume something to live. We are no different. Neither are cats. Neither are fish. Even Baby rabbits have to take life to have life.
Except we don't have to, nor do rabbits. They eat non-thinking grass, we can survive off plants because we know exactly what we need to survive and thrive. For a cat, it's instinct. For us, it's a choice.
@@blacklightredlight2945 it’s only a choice if you get to make it. If it is forced on us all then it’s no longer a choice. If you want to live on plants for the rest of your life then go for it. I’m going to eat as my ancestors did.
The logical end point of moral circle expansion is suicidal extinction, if we only impose those morals on our own species and genocidal if imposed on others. Chattel slavery was monstrous but it was not the norm for slavery of the Greeks nor throughout history. Some people call hunting immoral even though conservationists know that hunting is good for the health of a population and an environment when minimal regulations prevent overhunting which is quite rare.
Just expanding the circle doesn’t work, you have to create a place for everything. For example, in ancient times just declaring slaves as citizens would collapse most city-states, because they didn’t have the required markets and production economics to sustain a large free people population. These things had to be invented so that the monster could be killed. So it is not only natural sciences or lab technologies, but also societal and systemic. The question is how to make everything fit in their best and correct places, and how to move there such that each iterative step is net positive.
Instead of lab-grown meat, we can Rewild areas for more (grazing) animals, and more hunting. Nothing taste better, or is better for you, than a round, grass-raised animal!
Both pursuits are comendable and does not need to be exclusive. I belive both options are needed to put an end to factory farming animals. Labmeat is new tech and tgerefor might not be as palettable to start with but should improve drastically as it's invested in. It will be needed to supply for the current demand of meat in the industry. Grazing animals will ensure the industry, it's workers and it's animals still continues running, albeit now ethically. Grassfeed beef is already a luxery item and gamemeat even more so, they couldn't sustain our huge population on their own.
@@ezdepaz4363 I switched to fish and eggs for a while and never noticed a difference, I wouldn't say we need red meat to sustain anyone. Ask people in India if they need beef to sustain their huge population. Personally I wouldn't mind having a quality burger now and then, but I don't understand why we have convinced ourselves that we need regular beef to "sustain our huge population" like it's some kind of required food. If anything it's the opposite, we have a huge heart disease problem and cheap beef is killing people. Don't get me wrong, I don't really care about the suffering or standing on moral highgrounds like the a lot of vegans and vegetarians do, go ahead and raise all the livestock you want, but it makes no sense to talk about red meat like a requirement for humans. Even many of the biggest red meat eaters, eventually will get the talk from their doctor about cutting back. Even the healthiest red meat will never be as healthy as finding protein from other sources like eggs, fish, chicken, or plants. If you're worried about muscle mass, no body builder I know relies on beef, it's always chicken breasts or eggs. You can get protein powder that uses whey or peanuts and absolutely bulk up.
@@pismodude2 Yo, I agree with you. Me using grassfeed beef as an example was a bit poor when it really could have been any type of ecologialy produced protein. My post was more from the prespective that lab meats would go easier on nature by skipping the agricultural step of raising/catching animals, while also potentially better in terms of nutrition due to more variety in what could be made. Say lab meat could be made from Rat cells, but doesn't sound that appetizing does it? Hovewer your cat might think differently! Current day pet food is mostly made of scraps from our own food production and probably not their best diet. Honestly what we currently produce is probably not our best diet, see how healt concerns there are regarding overweight and more. Lab meat will let us explore more options to solve our dietery problems. Now while I'm clearly in favour of lab meat, I don't think it's possible to do a too rapid shift. Agriculture has been a part of civilazation since it's dawn and moving away from it will be tough. Having farms and fishermen cut back is neccesary for the enviorment, but they will only do so if they can still make a living on their work. Thats whe treating "real" ecological meat as a luxery product makes sense, they'd get to produce less but still get well paid. There would also be an option for those not onboard with labmeats which is fair, new tech can be scary to some. This all applies to fish and eggs just the same as beef. Our oceans need be left alone to recover from us killing 50% of all marine life in just 40 years. Now all of this is just based of random articles I half remember, so I might be wrong, so please tell if I am. All in all I think we both seem to be pro-life and pro-health.
The problem is not that people choose to ignore the monsters. It's that they consider the monsters to be good, and the stopping of the monsters to be an evil act. Genocides, for example, almost always are only committed against a group that the genocidal group feels oppresses them somehow. We convince ourselves that to stop the monsters would be a monstrous act, and that it doesn't make any sense at all to consider the other group as decent upright people who deserve kindness because "it's obvious they don't." It's not that nobody agrees with "love thy neighbor". They just mentally append a list of "obvious" exceptions. If you can convince yourself that people are nazis and that anything is excusable against them, then you can convince yourself to do anything against people.
Actually it is very simple. We are mammals so our circle of inclusion is kind of limited to that. I've yet to see compassion towards snakes, spiders and cockroaches - the sensible caring ones usually being the first to scream and climb up the chair even in front of a mice. The theory that all life is sacred already exists - it is buddhism. However not even the buddhism sees it as an imperative, merely saying "do the least wrong". Why? Because most of the time people wanted to do the right thing they did atrocities. This penchant of posturing towards a unknown good has no reason and has no future. Being morally ambiguous yet pretending to do good is simply larping at the wind. Who are these monsters? Where are these vast tragedies? Were they not known, were they not new? The moment you define them you put yourself in the line and that's why you never mentioned such vast tragedies except maybe the trendy narrative of the yesteryear. Well? Any other tragedies? Or you're in the business of reaping benefits from bashing a top philosopher? It is completely unsubstantiatied to pretend that he wanted to justify the political and social statu-quo and the same implying he was evil or self-centered when he made these assertions, thousands of years ago. You live thousands of years later without being able to understand him yet you trash him because he cannot understand you...sad irony.
we are men so our circle of inclusion is limited to that. we are white so our circle of inclusion is limited to that. we are straight so our circle of inclusion is limited to that. we are Americans so our circle of inclusion is limited to that.
Nice video, and thought provoking! I would caution your method a little... you appear to be measuring the detection of transparent monsters as a function of how far from our own value system are our ancestors' systems, with the implicit assumption that we are more moral than they. It's an easy argument to make (after all, we are at distance 0 from our own system, roit?) but we shouldn't be too smug about it. These ancestors might be aghast at what to them looks like us *introducing* monsters that they believed they'd taken care of... Anyway, just as a bonus, here's my favorite recent transparent monster. We've discovered that when given advanced medicine and education, human beings tend to stop breeding. All advanced countries have negative population growth (unless they're fortunate enough to be a favored immigration center). Is this our nature? Should we... "do" something? If so, what?
Please don't bring meat into this. Not all animals are treated badly and are even put to death in a humane way. It's a death much better than what's suffered by wild animals in nature and humans in our society. As for the part about putting myself in that creature's place, yes, that's a good way, but there needs to be a limit to this rather than going crazy with that chain of thought. I'd be happy to sacrifice myself if I was raised for that purpose and my meat was going to feed people. This brings me to morality. The concept itself is subjective. Trying to make it an objective thing and forcing, manipulating or shaming others to take your (not you specifically) moral standpoint is in and of itself a contradiction of moral standards, and the future of morality is in grave danger if we do indeed do this to gt others to do things that they don't even get a say in. Morals have changed according to the societal changes. So even changing the society to fit a specific moral is technically immoral, because it's an indirect manipulation. I.E. Taking away someone's freedom to choose on their own, by taking away the choice itself. A child growing up in a world without freedom, will never know what it is and continue to believe that the world they're in, is the only world that exists. That doesn't mean the child is free. It just means they're kept in the dark. That's not an enlightened human. The rest I do agree with though. I always disagree with topics that try and change the personal habits of people, habits that don't harm any other human. It is nature for living beings to feed on others, that's not harm.
"Please don't bring meat into this. Not all animals are treated badly and are even put to death in a humane way. It's a death much better than what's suffered by wild animals in nature and humans in our society." As someone that eats meat, I think it's perfectly valid to consider meat as a transparent monster. However, this is all considering purely utilitarian ethics, which is what the video seems to be defending. If we talk about something such as Kantian ethics, where animals have no rights whatsoever, killing animals for meat is perfectly fine as animals aren't moral agents, just like if an animal kills you, that animal has no responsability and punishing it is futile (maybe cruel if you combine Kantian and utilitarian ethics). Being killed by an animal is like falling off a cliff or being hit by a lightning strike. "As for the part about putting myself in that creature's place, yes, that's a good way, but there needs to be a limit to this rather than going crazy with that chain of thought. I'd be happy to sacrifice myself if I was raised for that purpose and my meat was going to feed people." I agree, because sometimes putting you in someone else's shoe doesn't justify your actions. A nihilist psycho may go around killing people as well as not value his own life, but just because he thinks it would be ok to be killed doesn't mean it's ok to kill. This is also a sort of hole in the utilitarian ethical theory, because if everyone views the concept of suffering differently (like a masochist, for them physical pain is not suffering), it's impossible to draw lines of what is correct and what isn't. Kantian ethics solve this by making so every human is a moral agent with set fundamental rights and therefore you can't go through someone's rights regardless if you value your own.
I found this unconvincing. Way too Cowpox of Doubt, training our intuitions not just on the most obvious examples, but on the least nuanced, most one-sided takes on those examples.
That's fair enough. By using obvious examples, I risk making it seem easy to spot monsters, even if the message is exactly the opposite. But if I used more nuanced examples, they would be more controversial, and the attention would be drawn to them, away from the general point. Plus, they would be associated with the groups happening to be crusading for them at the moment, and I would also be at higher risk to be saying something "wrong" (see definition of "wrong" in the pinned comment).
@@RationalAnimations That's a good point. It was a good idea to first show that monsters exist, and then give advice on how to spot them. Still, I wonder if essential detail isn't being masked by the simplicity of our assumptions. What happens if we allow that, contrary to the slide at 0:47, Nature really is allowed to present us with a choice between multiple large, genuine, hard-to-compare evils? Say, if there's a tradeoff between Athens widening its circles, and Athens being able to compete demographically, economically and ultimately militarily with its neighbours? And, what happens if we decompose that definition of "wrong" into something which doesn't presuppose a katamari-like nature of morality? The core concept of evil which is not at the time understood to be evil would obviously still be true and important. But we would have to frame it in a different way. Probably in a way which leaves us less sure of our own moral assumptions.
I find the idea of "slaying the monster" quite counterproductive, because most problems can only be eliminated when an alternative to its root causes is developed Most moral problems originate from a physical need that generates countermeasures, which then are assimilated as tradition Yu can change the tradition all you want but as long as the base problem remains, the tradition will eventually re-emerge
You know the shortsightedness of a character when they view people living thousands of years ago without machine servants, piped water or electronic heating as morally inferior because they had slaves.
The idea that suffering=bad is becoming increasingly damaging to humanity's mental health. It's painful to go to the gym, it's painful to spend hours studying alone, it's painful to grieve a lover's death, it's painful to have an unrequited love. Yet we don't advice people to avoid such suffering. There's no way to calculate the overall happiness-suffering of society, and NO MORAL ADVANCES were implemented on the grounds of "hehe lets reduce suffering", not even animal rights, which were given to prevent cruelty (not suffering). I'm very annoyed by the unsophisticated utilitarianism prevalent in the "rationalist community". Differences are used all the time to arrive at ethical behavior: Criminals have reduced liberty, children can't drive cars nor gamble, animals can't hold property. We have no rational argument to argue that the collective happiness of eating meat, and the efficiency of factory farming, are trumped by the suffering of animals. We treat them like they would treat us, sometimes even better, and the only argument to undermine a whole sector of the economy and change our whole diet is: "I think pain bad so let's reduce animal pain, without contemplating human suffering at all". Lab meat will replace farming when economically efficient, not because animals deserve the same rights as us, but because meeting our needs without resorting to violence and exploitation makes us better human beings.
Ever been sitting at home being bothered by a persistent pesky fly or a couple of them, only for them to completely disappear when you pick up the fly swatter? They are aware enough somehow to understand that fly swatter is death. I find that strange. Did they always have that awareness?? Or were they somehow capable of observational learning too associate the fly swatter with death??
I think personally, that it is immoral to build robots in our own image and use them as toys or slaves based on comparing the humanoid robot to a human who was born lobotomised and then raised for either pleasure or labor. If a machine is meant for working it should funtion as an extension of a human operator not as an individual being. If a machine is designed to look like a person or animal, or is designed to think for itself then it should be afforded rights. And one of those rights should be the right to think for itself.
honestly i have to agree, mankind was giften with intelligence and any being we create in our image should have its own intellect an free will to an extent, i dont have problems with people making cranes for work but we should put a higher value on the individual right to both property and self preservation. Even moreso having a machine that looks like a human being but cannot think for itself normalizes collectivism and will lead to actual people really being easy to push over
The thing is new monsters appear all the time. We eradicated slavery right? Well its coming back in the form of modern slavery. I wont explain it but it means that an issue can always come back
There is no relevant difference(s) between Humans and the rest of the animal kingdom that we use as justification for denying them life, that most of us would consider moral if the same standards were applied to Humans (that is to say they are double standards). The most common example being we often use the intelligence gap (in one way or another such as calling it by different words like self awareness) between animals & Humans as justification for us bringing them into the world to suffer for our pleasure, yet they would never consider this justification valid for killing a Human of equal intelligence to the animal (whose intelligence, or rather lack there of was given as justification for killing them). This argument (known as NTT / name the trait) applies just as well to any of the justifications given (which are all variants of "killing animals is justified because of": intelligence tho, nature tho, species tho, might makes right tho, god tho, somebody else will tho).
4:31 I agree that what you've pointed out here is a monster. I was raised with a "liberal" philosophy that we should prioritise individual freedom, happiness and prosperity above "tradition" or "what is natural". Sure, disease, ableism and poverty are "natural" but that doesn't make them ok, and they should be eradicated. Yet the same people who taught me this philosophy, suggest that the ruthless violent competition of the natural world should be preserved, because it is "natural". I don't see a difference between a murderer violating their victim's bodily autonomy, and nature itself violating animals' bodily autonomy, by torturing and killing them if they're not fit and adaptable enough. Darwin discovered a monster, but he didn't realise it was a monster. The earliest sign I've found of someone pointing out this monster for what it truly is, was Osamu Tezuka in the 1960s, in the manga 'Jungle Emperor Leo'. Where the main protagonist is a lion who finds an alternative to meat, and liberates the animals in his jungle from the monster that is natural selection. As you say, one way to find monsters is to ask the question, "would I like to be in that individual's place?" I would not like to be a predator who has to kill to survive. I would not like to be a prey animal under constant threat of violence. I would not like to be a competitive territorial animal who must fight for love and land and food, and my childrens' safety. All those things sound horrible. The natural world is a dystopian hellscape. People who complain about it in the comments section of wildlife videos usually get laughed at and ganged up on. But the fact that there are even people commenting in the first place, shows that you, me and Tezuka are not the only ones who have spotted this monster. People are starting to see it. There's no way, with current technology and current wisdom, that we could correct the cruelty of the natural world. It's not possible to fight this monster right now. But we can at least persuade ourselves that we do intend to fight it in the future, once we have the ability to do so. And we can at least start being kinder to the animals who we do have power over right now. That's a first step in the right direction. The technology and knowledge required to fight this monster might be thousands of years in our future. But conscious animals have suffered this misery for 540 million years. A few thousand years, even a few hundred thousand years, is not very long to wait at all, compared to that.
I legit had this thought a few times but couldn’t explain it half as well as you! I do agree with other comments however that morality isn’t objective so we’re not being “more moral” we just have different moral standards
One important thing that I haven't included in the video, but that follows from it is that sometimes you'll hear someone expressing ideas that sound utterly crazy but that, in the end, turn out to be correct. This is true in many contexts, among which is ethics. Most of the seemingly crazy people are probably wrong. Still, there's a minority, perhaps significant enough, who's right. In the case of ethics, by "right," I mean: "upon further reflection, other people would come to the same conclusion, and that conclusion will be adopted by future humanity" (I hope this captures what I mean, if not I hope you get the idea). Note that this is independent of the moral realism vs. anti-realism debate. After realizing this, I have become way less dismissive of crazy-sounding ideas, and I try to consider them for a while instead of discarding them outright. P.S. When reading comments, you can assume it's the scriptwriter who's writing. As always, you can support us on:
🟠 Patreon: www.patreon.com/rationalanimations
🟤 Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/rationalanimations
Oh, I like that idea. Let me try my hand at one: Humans are not any more moral, ethical, or enlightened than we were 50k years ago, only the mechanisms to suppress most of what we consider as “wrong” or maladaptive behavior have greatly increased (and continue to). The notion that we are progressing toward some better version of ourselves is folly, and only a minor change in our collective circumstance (even via a minor shift in geopolitical realities) will quickly see us return to a (potentially increased/exaggerated) manifestation of all those ‘invisible monsters’ we thought we vanquished so long ago. Turns out, we ourselves are indeed all these so-called monsters.
@Alpheratz & Canopus I feel like being more adapted to a certain situation makes you more valuable, because everything in this universe is relative. One instance has no value until you give it a reference point to compare it to. After having 2 instances or measurements in any given collective gives rise to opportunities that weren't there before.
Aristotle's paragraph which essentially says there are those who rule and those who serve and thats decided by a 50/50 chance of being a slave or being a slave master. Which to Aristotle sounded like equality since almost everyone during his time had a slave it was just normal.. To some it up with a quote from my father "It is what it is, so do what you gotta do."
The human race is denying its roots as an animal to transcend that boundary. We can do this in 2 ways, become the planet or accept the planet. The former meaning we controll every aspect of life in our ecosystem, everything thing is artificial but it keeps us alive. No more nature to deal with. Or the latter being that we accept nature onto our species boat, since we are not yet independent of the planet we can claim it as part of humanity, the same goes for insects like bees or the atmosphere that keeps us alive. Without any balance of that or total mastery of those things, our time ticks closer and closer to the extinction of our species.
In either one of those aforementioned scenarios we as a planet need to come to an understanding or we are doomed.
It's not a straightforward process. For example slavery, when it was invented, was reasonably moral. Because the only alternative that existed before was genocide. We tend to present the movement from past to present as moral growth just because common values become more resemling our present values. But objectively they are just changing, sometimes even back and forward.
We can of course choose some major value to evaluate whole value systems on how well do they serve this one. For example "reduction of suffering". But we will miss out the fact that lots of societies view some forms of suffering as acceptable cost for some other, more precious values from their point of view. We can as well asess how sencere those value systems are: do they really lead to what they claim? But again, should they? Demanding consequtiveness from a value system is also a value.
That's one of the better definitions of what is "right" I've seen tbh
If I may, I'd like to suggest that a consideration of the rights, liberty, autonomy, and wellbeing of youths is a prime example of a way to spot an invisible monster.
Wow I can't believe I stumbled across this gem of a RUclips channel in it's infancy.
Ah, this channel is nascent (excellent point) & I reeaaally like the line of thought entailed within this episode.
Y’got me, subbed after two videos (first was Grabby Aliens per algorithm) onward unto this video’s sequel.. together, we’ll watch it all unfold. ⏳
One month later, 11k subs
*its
Turns out I watched one of their videos and only now am really watching them
I came for the shibes and stayed for the quality.
In this video, there's also the assumption that reducing suffering is the moral goal of humanity.
And while humanity kind of want to follow this goal right now, it is not the only one. For example, by killing everyone and everything on Earth painlessly, we would end suffering forever. We could also do that by puting everyone in a cage and druging everyone into an ecstatic state. Obviously this is not an outcome that most of us want. It means There's also other moral goals. The maximisation of one's liberty, or the right for every being to not be killed for example.And these moral goals can sometime be incompatible.
We can't both control natural predation to prevent death and suffering, and protect the animals liberty, as control is opposed to liberty.
The invisible monsters only exist when a moral goal shifts or reinforce itself, but it's hard to know which moral goal will be pursued next.
Yeah, but knowing there is a dilemma and making a monster more visible is just a start to the whole process of overcoming it. At the start, alot of these monsters are hard-baked into our society, and a sudden change could easily mean a collapse of our society as we know it (a good example being slavery). Hell, for problems like world hunger the solutions which will save everyone takes alot of time and research to find something that works (I mean, just look at all the research that has gone into food production to solve world hunger. For once, we literally have the means to feed everyone and not crush our planet... Juuust implementing it is more the challenge now)
All in all, with education and awareness comes gradual changes in those political/societal structures or growth into a technology that can allow us to fix what we couldn't before handle/comprehend. And with those changes, what used to be impossible can become possible. Just because we're aware of suffering happening doesn't mean we already know the answers to fixing it. Even with the whole predation thing: If we could talk to lions and gazelles, could we find a solution that makes everyone happy? Maybe lab meats for the lions, and other forms of enrichment is enough? Who knows. I sure as hell don't; and I'm pretty sure you can't say for certain either.
@Khenric Schopenhauer/Huxley/Mill.
By a similar logic, one can say that slavery only ended because of the start of the Industrial revolution. Early machines were created and average wealth was increasing, people could start to consider affording actually paying their slaves enough that they choose to work their on their own. It was still morally wrong but it was justified because humanities other goals of supporting themselves and ones "tribe" surpassed their goal to help others like them.
@@gabemerritt3139 your example did not highlight his "logic"
@@Hjea People have different goals. Decreasing suffering is not always their biggest priority, otherwise things like slavery would never exist. So in the same way that future humans can have conflicting goals, past and present humans already do.
It's amazing how much "moral"people can be when technology makes their lives easier.
Yeah, everyone and their dog has a righteous crusade to fight when they got food and shelter guaranteed, but those same people would show unbelievable cruelty when they dont know where their next meal is coming from
Virtue signaling is really just trudging through the internet cesspool for validation. Best to treat the internet like any other addiction: Gradually distance from it and work on yourself instead. If the worlds "issues" were really that important to people, they'd do alot more than incessantly bitch and finger point. Know who else whines and fingerpoints? Politicians... on twitter... lol congrats, you slowly become like the people you always complain about.
Or just ignorant to the process which made them gain the technology in the first place
What's even more astonishing is the speed with which the trappings of civilization dissolve when expected comforts are abruptly removed. None is more primal, more animalistic and ferocious when they are hungry.
Yeah. Everyone's gonna be against animal farming when lab grown meat becomes ubiquitous and then act like they did so for ethical considerations, rather than due to lab grown meat being cheaper.
I'm worried that anyone who wants to can see the monsters, they just find them to be good, angels instead of demons. Aristotle in the quote recognized the monster and proclaimed it natural and expedient.
My great worry is that all monsters are only slain when a more convenient, expedient solution is present for a ruling class. And this, in turn, makes me worry that monsters are only ever slain by larger monsters.
You are right. Emancipation is a harder bondage to break by increasingly weaker subjects. The lowliest slave only had a master to fear. By contrast, the civilized human need to bend the neck multiple times for multiple masters for multiple reasons.
My concern is that the incessant witch hunt for new monsters and the "expanding moral circle" is in fact the monster.
Interesting take. Monsters being slain by larger monsters when the ruling class finds it beneficial or expedient to slay them. In the case of slavery here in America, do you think there was a monster that turned out to be larger than it? And if so what was it? I can think of benefits the ruling class gained from the end of slavery but I'm having a hard time coming up with a monster bigger than slavery. Is that an exception or am I not being creative enough in my thinking?
@@DeMonSpencer Authoritarianism has killed and enslaved far more people than colonial America ever did.
@@DeMonSpencer It's not an exception and the reasoning is quite interesting. The larger monster is capitalism, for lack of a better word. Slavery, especially before the cotton gin, wasn't very efficient; you had to feed and house the slaves and hire someone to whip them. Capitalism is more efficient at extracting value from others because you don't have to feed or house them, the workers are usually autonomous and self-improving. If this wasn't the case, the South would've won the war.
The bigger monster being shackling others with their pride, or their hope for a better life, instead of shackling them with fear.
I'm reminded of the little boy who pointed out that the emperor wears no clothes. Many people like to imagine that they would do the same. In reality, they would be part of the frenzied crowd that lynches the boy for daring to speak. Then everyone would carry on exactly the same as before.
People always seem to miss the real moral of that story
It's not about seeing what's there - It's the fact that everyone went along with it cos an authority said so
It's a moral against cult following, dogma and hero-worship; as well as about not falling to peer-pressure
"Simply because a million people say a stupid thing, does not mean it is any less of a stupid thing to say" - Lao Tzu
If u are a liberal in the modern day u are apart of the crowd
all the people who took the covid vaccine
There's an implicit assumption in this video that the only thing morality should ever consider is suffering; that is, morality is based on care and harm and if you justify harming another being then they are outside the consideration of morality. But that's not how morality works. Different people will have different intuitions about moral behavior, and much of it has nothing to do with care or harm. For some, loyalty is the highest consideration, and it's impossible for such a person to value animals that can't be loyal. That's not because they are beyond consideration, but because, once considered, it becomes clear they can't matter. Similar things can be said about people whose intuitions are dominated by duty, family, property, freedom, or sanctity. Even if our circle encompassed everything, such overriding concerns would lead to completely different places than solely considering care or harm.
I'm not confident that future humanity will only care about care and harm. If transhumans become anything great, like unto a civilization but as an individual, then they will become sufficiently self-sufficient that they would only interact with society if they want to. For such a creature, I would expect its moral considerations to be dominated by either loyalty to some in-group or by freedom/independence from authority. Then again, morality exists for the sake of society, not the individual. If societies become unnecessary then I'm not sure morality will be widely considered at all.
@XetXetable good points
One thing I don't understand is why society would have to become unnecessary in the future? A group of powerful transhumans still seem to be stronger than one. And this is based on an assumption that we will overcome our natural characteristic of being a social being.
The need to make as less harm as possible is a result of empathy and understanding that pain is something we don't want, and not having pain is in our interest.
But this is an interesting assumption, that future humans wouldn't need society, and with it, perhaps morality would be thrown away and with it, the empathy.
I think you're all incredibly foolish, and your notions about the future of humanity are preposterous illusions, but I could be wrong.
Time will tell.
One of us is clearly VERY wrong. Either way, I hope I'm around to find out.
@TheManFromAuntie It's true that every culture has its own moral codes, but this doesn't mean that morality isn't subject to reason.
People used to believe that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that matter was composed of the elements earth, water, air and fire. Our current understanding of physics and cosmology is not just "different" from medieval models - it's BETTER. We are closer to truth now than we used to be.
The same goes for ethics. Everyone has different morals, but some are better than others. Better in this case doesn't mean "closer to truth", but it does mean "more rational".
If you fully commit to moral relativism, you will inevitably arrive at nihilism. The concepts of good and evil, right and wrong have no meaning at all, if every definition is equally valid.
However, I agree with you that self-righteousness is a particularly ugly quality. I think that mercy, humility and forgiveness are crucial to real virtue. When people assume that they are unquestionably virtuous, they become capable of the worst atrocities.
@@grenadaball7655 I agree. In fact, I'd say it's even less than subjective: it's utterly meaningless.
HOWEVER, the word "God" is quite often used by very flawed humans to pursue goals that are equally flawed.
I can point to one transparent monster that seems all too opaque to me: Wage slavery. The idea that basic food and housing for most people is contingent on them selling hours of their lives, often to produce goods that the world would be just fine without, seems preposterous to me.
That's how a society happens, but in the future, maybe we could use technology to get the basics for free or the government does it
So whose responsability is it to ensure you have everything you feel necessary to have a decent life? Someone needs to work to produce your food, clothing, house, the water and electricity you use, why do you think those people should work and others should benefit from their labor for free?
If housing and food was free then would the people who build homes and farm food be slaves? Why would anyone grow food or build a house if they had to work for free? Bro needs to consider this thing called economics.
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains" - Rosa Luxemburg
She was communist, so I would doubt her morality.
@@baltofarlander2618 Speaking of very well-defended monsters... (looking at you, Capitalism)
The problem with Communism is not Communism. It's human nature turning vain attempts at implementing Communism into fascist dumpster fires.
@@coopergates9680 capitalism isn't monster, and seeing monsters in necessary things just as video author does leads nowhere.
If anything, the monster lies within our primal, animal nature.
@@coopergates9680 if problem with communism is human nature, then this system is pointless and impossible.
@@baltofarlander2618 Runaway capitalism is why we have atrocious corporate greed like standing rock oil pipeline construction, concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, and people the job market doesn't fit right basically being left for dead. There is no "fair day's wage for a fair day's work"
Now, you could be right in that the problems with Capitalism stem from primitive, instinctual behavior, in other words Capitalism isn't the original/root cause.
Humm... yeah about that. Morals do not necessarily progress with time. For now, it worked like that. But it's not obvious or expected that our morals will be "better" in 40 thousand years into the future.
Nice Warhammer 40k reference LOL
@@grenadaball7655 Name even a single way they've deteriorated.
Yeah objectively it’s merely changing, not necessarily progressing in that sense
@@Ryanowning i'm willing to bet that rampant poverty and individualism wasn't so prevalent in ancient agrarian societies.
Not that they were better in general but, if it was the vase that people took care of each other more than the present days, then this can be a perfect example of "deteriorating morals".
However, it's not clear cut as I put there. One cannot simply take a fact from ancient times in isolation and present it as proof that "back them it was better".
I think the arguement is that morals grow with affordability of necessities.
A huge thing you're missing in the Aristotle quote on slavery is that, by his definition, anyone who is not a capitalist (owner of a significant amount of productive property) in the current western world is a slave (which I would tend to agree with), ipso facto slavery has not been abolished . So you have to consider not only different concepts of virtue, but concepts of slavery as well. The Anglosphere began abolition of a certain kind of slavery in the 19th century, but did not abolish slavery (per Aristotle) at all, as it remains (per you, Rational Animations) invisible.
abolitionists in America often called for the end of not only chattel slavery but wage slavery as well but such rhetoric was stamped out quickly.
There's exactly two responses to this. The first is an argument that "different forms of slavery aren't comparable, so comparing them is pointless.", typically made by those that think the current system is fine.
And the second answer is "Yes. Humans the world over are enslaved by capitalism. Thats the core problem of our moment in history. Thats the invisible monster most people can't see."
No your wrong
So what system has brought more freedom and prosperity to people?
@@sandler800 I don't know if you are addressing me, or someone else. I guess I haven't watched this video in two years, though my statement above is still accurate, regardless of what it may be responding to. It's a little weird that you're fixated on a "system" because in economic terms that suggests an intentional top down arrangement, and that is a relatively novel situation, historically speaking. I don't think we need to quibble too much over what freedom is, but, as I mentioned previously, anyone who is not a capitalist (in capitalist nations), is a slave, and not free. I would go so far as to say people a hundred years ago in the US were freer than they are now, and freer still a hundred years before that. Prosperity is a much less well defined term, though it would seem to be somewhere on the scale between surviving and flourishing. A necessary component of capitalism is that the few who are capitalists siphon value produced by everyone else, so necessarily, if people were able to retain the value they produced, more people would be doing better on the surviving to flourishing scale. For one person to be rich, thousands of people have to be poor. And I don't think an argument about tech level is persuasive. Technology are just tools, and the vast majority of things produced by capitalism are not merely crap, but intentional waste of natural resources, so you have to buy more crap, which will ultimately destroy the ecology we live in.
I had seen the invisible monster of the terrible treatment of insects for no reason in general. Like my peers casually stomping on insects, or mother's slapping cockroaches who were just chilling in their homes. Since then i have been super compassionate towards insects.
Are you vegan?
@@brunolevilevi5054 nope. I know very well that the very nature of life is cruel. I must eat meat in order to be healthy. And even plants have life which i take away by eating. But i don't believe in unnecessary violence. Stomping on insects for the fun of it is way different from killing them to eat them
Glad I'm not the only one who at the very least feels bad for random bugs just getting squished because they're disgusting or whatever. Imagine if someone killed you even though you were just chilling on a wall or something. Of course, I understand why people might want to get rid off poisonous insects, but a lot of people hit flies and spiders when they aren't even dangerous.
Something to note that makes slavery a good example is that we have control whether or not someone is treated and thusly categorized as a slave. So when pointing out other monsters it's important to identify the same categorization issue because without it, it can easily be deferred that population suppression and outright eradication could be a grace just as it's been justified in the past.
Categories are made up. We always controll what falls into and outside a category because the existance and bounderies of the category is a "choise". For example what makes a table a table? It's how it is used which is something we determine. Or the Ship of Theseus as an example of where does one category end and another begin. Its how that categorisation came to be or what it is based on that should determine if its usefull and in what context.
@@someonespotatohmm9513 yes. That's where the problems come from.
Whilst I agree with a lot of this message, it does seem to imply there are objectively correct morals, and that we are on a vaguely linear projection towards the "ultimate morality".
Which in truth seems ignorant.
yep
I agree that we won't reach true morality, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try?
@@speedy01247 I think you misunderstand my argument. I think morals are subjective, and you cannot claim to have "correct" morals nor claim anyone has "incorrect" morals. At least in part because there is no objective metric by which to measure how good a set of morals are.
@@Pedanta I'd disagree. There are basic morals principles that are undeniable.
I'm certain there is an objectively perfect level of morality. I will not claim to hold such morals, as I do truly believe some facets such system is ungraspable to me.
But there are objective moral truths.
As an example of an "invisible monster" that is just now starting to be seen by a large amount of people is the mistreatment of transgender individuals.
One can objectively state that transgender people are scientifically, morally, and historically validated.
We have many instances of transgender people throughout history. And scientific research about transgender people kicked off in the 1930s.
From then until now, the vast, vast majority of research validates that trans people, should be recognized as their indentified sex. And that such identity is their true sex. E.g. trans women are actually, undeniably women, even if they were born men, and vice versa with trans men, (and of course this includes non binary people being non binary)
Objectively, rejecting this research in order to protect one's desire to oppress transgender individuals is morally wrong.
One can apply this to many tragedies that have been committed, slavery is objectively wrong. One can argue as to why it might have been seen as morally right, but we must recognize that their morality was flawed. Not because they are immoral beings, but because of the lack of education.
Lack of education, is the main cause of such. The more science we do, and education we receive, the closer our morals will be to being objective.
@@lunasills8031
You say that education will lead to more objective moral values, but I don't believe science nor education can do that.
Science provides you with more knowledge, amd whilst this is excellent in that it allows people to make more informed decisions on moral values, it cannot itself make those decisions.
For example I could know the exact frequencies and energy levels of red and green light. But that won't decide which is my favourite colour for me. Ultimately I would still need make the decision.
In the same way I could know exactly what a sheep feels like whilst it is sent to the abattoir, but I still need to make the decision whether or not its okay to eat it.
Education is similar in that all it can do is inform you on what the impact of different decisions will be. Anymore than that and its no better than propaganda, telling you what to think.
The problem with idea-based directions (I.e. reducing suffering for humanity) is that it often goes too far and becomes a pursuit in its own right
When has reducing suffering ever gone too far?
@@brunolevilevi5054 It's just the "Both extremes must be wrong!" ideology many centrists assume must be a basic fact, even when one extreme wants health care and the other extreme wants genocide.
@@brunolevilevi5054when youve decided that making others suffer is prefferable to the ones your trying to “help”…. Its pretty consistent that asylum seekers cause more crime than the natives….
Examples that came to mind:
- Leaded gasoline everywhere (unseen, then ignored, now slain)
- Fetal alcohol syndrome (not fully recognized; still a huge problem)
- Manual driving (causes lots of avoidable crashes)
- Female genital mutilation (extremely prevalent in many countries)
-Coerced vaccinations and mask mandates.
What about male genital mutilation ... invisible monster to you? Quite a bit more prevelant in even more countries.
Now expand that idea, if you agree that perhaps ALL infant genital mutilation is immoral, could it mean that men also deserve human rights just like women do? What does that say about mens rights activism? Is it really just a label that misogynists hide behind? Or does it perhaps contain people yelling out about the invisible monster which causes people to protest against female genital mutilation without even thinking for a second that perhaps it isn't just performing it on females which makes the act of genital mutilation wrong.
What about circumcision? Even if it is not as radical as FGM it still violates bodily autonomy with barely if any medical benefits.
@@ozAqVvhhNue When I see people protest abortion and stuff, the right to live, I wonder if they also see a boy's right to remain as nature intended. Some men learn what was done, and resent it, and it affects them forever. But by then, the monster has already won.
I'm always impressed and brought to a state of introspection when experiencing your scriptwriting ability. Truly. Stimulating depth of thought and truly inspiring.
Great anti-abortion argument
Ok. But what about when the bigger monsters *do* exist?
No one wants Godzilla stomping around in their city. But sometimes he's the only thing that can stop Ghidorah.
We will stop keeping animals for food when lab grown meat is at least at good and cheaper. The same way we stopped child labor when it made more economic sense to do so. We abolished slavery when it became clear economic to do so. Our collective sense of morality always follows to match our economic reality.
lmao what? The south straight up didn't develop industrially, they had slaves, why would they develop an industry the slaves handled fine? Once they were forced to stop the old way of doing things, they adapted to new available technologies. Economic reality followed moral conflict.
Also, child labor, and slaves, still exist today. Unless you're careful, you're buying slave-made clothes. And there is no amount of careful you can be to avoid buying slave-made computer parts. We buy them from countries where slaves are legal.
Finally, fuck capitalism and fuck you.
And that is why we today only have cooperatively owned businesses for they outperform traditional firms in stability and success rate....
@@morningstarcollective4671 funny, how many of those child laborers live in communist countries
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You don't need meat to survive, vegetarians have existed for hundreds of years. It has also always been cheaper to be a vegetarian than an omnivore. The propaganda around vegetarian/vegan diets would have you believe they are more expensive. This is a complete farce, especially today with competitive pricing of plant-based "meat" alternatives.
The only reason lab grown meat would bring dramatic change is if people will continue to refute the economic and ethical issues of consuming animal flesh, until it is simply cheaper to support their habit without raising and killing an animal to do so. Then they will turn around and be horrified by the thousands of years of animal exploitation, and act like they are now morally superior by making a decision which was not even an option before.
Clear economic sense to whom?
Slavery continued to exist in the United States until 1942 (yes, 1942, we only got around to abolishing the means through which slavery was continued after the 13th amendment 75 years after its passage) because it was in the clear economic interest of the wealthy, white, predominately male landowners of the American agrarian South. In truth, this never stopped being the case, even after FDR finally put an end to it. We didn't stop enslaving black men for life (on trumped up charges instead of on the basis of birth) because it stopped being profitable for men with power. We stopped it because we were at war with the Nazis, who could and did use the fact that we still held millions of people in slavery as a propaganda tool to show that they "were no worse than the United States." It was a matter of narrative convenience, not economic expediency.
Furthermore, why are we willing to cede that much of our moral sensibility to economics as a system? We already know what economics will do in the name of maximizing consumption and shareholder value: literally spend decades hiding the impending destruction of Earth's capacity to sustain human civilization as we know it from the people and the scientific community. This is not a system we should bend our neck to. It is one we should cast into outer darkness, before it can do the same to us.
its a gem. thank you so much, so much.
Great videos. I hope the channel grows. I'm glad the algorithm recommended it. I'll for sure watch a lot more like this.
I agree, and these monsters need to be slain. But there is (at least) one point missing. How do you decide whether each monster is a good monster or a bad monster? In biological terms, it would depend on how that monster negatively affects the survivability of your species. But ultimately, how do we know that we are on the right track? What if we were far more likely to survive and prosper as a species (but not necessarily individuals) if we killed off all the 'good' monsters and embraced the 'bad' ones?
@Mikey Nexus that's a good point lol
The biggest, oldest, evilest monster is the fundamental principle upon which both "species surviving" and "humans suffering" are built: pronatalism.
Who gets to decide which monster to accept and which monsters to slay?
Awesome. Btw I’m a neurobiologist studying multimodal integration in the nervous system and behavior of honey bees 🐝 and bumble bees 🐝… your video is an ethical justification for my work … love it!
I am curious as to how your work on the sensory modalities and behavior of bees has any bearing on their capacity to suffer or how any empirical research on the nervous system could back up the psychologist theory needed to tie the two together. Hell, i even doubt neuroanthropologists can prove humans suffer with neuroscience.
Have you heard of biosemiotics? Also I am curious as to how honey bees and bumblebees compare in those respects.
Another test is to ask yourself:
If every person on the planet is able to do what I'm doing, what kind of a world would it be?
Animal suffering and taking future generations morally into consideration are probably two huge transparent monsters that are walking around right now, but I really wonder what else we are being blind to...
Unknown unknown's are a frightening thing.
Mass abortion is another one. I contribute to animal suffering by eating meat and I recognize this, just as I recognize that abortion causes so much death. But what can be done about either of these things? Especially when they're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and people can't see to separate them from ideologies.
@@cortster12 What? Abortion is a whole different story. There's no sentient being suffering, just the end of a potential life.
That's a really big difference, otherwise contraceptives would be morally equivalent to genocide.
I'll toss out the big one I'm seeing, punishment as a mean for disiplin. Society has already begun opening it's eye's to it in schools and homes, atleast the physical variety. Now it's been shown that treating a misconduct through understanding and educating is more effective long term. I belive that as society progress this will extend even to criminals, replacing prisons with mental health centers.
Now as I'm no expert I can only state this as my limited understanding of our worldly developments.
@@ezdepaz4363 good point! Disentangling vengeance from justice could definitely be one as well.
@@cortster12 As someone generally pro-abbortion I can see your point. Even if I don't think a fetus is quite the same a born human, all life is precious and should be respected as such. Unfortunaly abortion IS the best choice we got in the world right now, with it combating other Monsters like Rape, Poverty and Incapable Parents. I hope for a breakthrough in chemical contraceptions that are more long lasting, safe and easily reversable.
These things are necessary evils, not monsters. As you pointed out so plainly with meat consumption these things are done away with once they are no longer necessary. You can not judge the past on the morality of the present or the present on the morality of the future. Human beings are not free of the oppression of nature on ourselves. Things like this will continue to exist and be rid of as we free ourselves of nature's oppression.
Nessesary evils ARE monsters, that's the point. Just like abortion is a nessesary evil with our current tech level, that doesn't make it any less monstrous. Same goes for meat consumption. And I will support both these things until both of them can be replaced with something better, but that will likely be centuries.
This video articulates some feelings I've been having for a long time about the treatment of kids in our society. It's totally normalized for adults to treat kids in ways that would be wildly inappropriate for them to treat other adults. (Yelling, manipulating, denial of autonomy, etc.)
Congratulations you see one of many monsters, invisible and still causing damage. It's also one of the oldest evils, you can argue the "monsters" in this video are only seen as an aberration to the natural order once enough people can recognize that the damage is caused by that *particular* one. And it's got other problems just like it, children of it's own too but it's the child of the oldest evil; to help you name it ask why would someone treat children or people whom they have power over as lesser than? Ignorance and Fear are it's immortal parents, but they can be sedated by thinking minds and open hearts. Maybe it doesn't have a name yet your monster but it does have a face, Abuse.
That's historically inaccurate. In the past, childhood wasn't given any particular consideration and children were seen as "simply" smaller adults, who had to pull their own weight like any other adult and so on. In fact - with the exception of the most well off families - childhood as this "special period of your life" is a modern concept that was truly democratized only after World War 2.
Yes, children were not treated well, but no one else but the powerful were. Everyone who wasn't in a position of power was abused in some way and, in this regard, children's condition was no lesser than any adult's.
What's changed in our modern society gave rise to something of a paradox. On one hand, children are now afforded a "preferential" treatment where they are (supposed to be) protected and educated by adults until they become adults themselves. On the other hand, this has led to the "infantilisation" of children, where a child is a "lesser" being, because they haven't yet reached the status of "productive adult", and thus are "deserving" - as you have rightfully pointed out - of different kinds of abuse.
As reference, may I suggest an excellent video by @TheMedievalHistorian : Did Medieval Childhood Exist? ruclips.net/video/zAYDr7Pe5yc/видео.html
Yes, because they are children. They need to be taught how to be adults. You really think a child should just be able to do whatever they want?
Something to consider as a breaking point is co-operation. Regardless of sentience or ability to suffer, its unreasonable to expect someone to morally vouch for someone or something that is actively a threat to them. I don't care if a mosquito can suffer or feel pain, it bites me. Just because I see myself as more aware of morality doesn't mean that I have to make excuses to defend it. We can even see it in our societal growth. Groups of people learn to treat each other with decency if they aren't responsible for the death of their own. We treat animals like dogs, cats, and horses as companions with feelings that we couldn't possibly eat, simply because they have been able to co-operate with us. The only reason the there is now a stance against factory farms is because we also se these farm animals a docile friendly creatures. Here is my line: If an animals evolutionary instincts are to harm me then then I will be unwilling to appreciate its sentience. Leaving room for the creature to evolve a symbiotic relation with humanity. People who hold a nationalist, racist, supremacist, or religious belief that I am unfit to live (or live freely) under their doctrine then I am unwilling to value their sentience equal to my own. Its real simple I'll work with you if you work with me. Nothing less.
Jesus, I feel fucking called out 😆
It's unimaginably frustrating to not be heard until the monster becomes so apparent that people aren't even surprised and often so entrenched that people feel powerless to stop them (especially frustrating since there was ample opportunity to stop them when we first started ringing the alarm bells). It's exhausting and has happened enough times that it makes me want to ignore the information that makes such trends obvious to me so I don't go through it all over again.
In my opinion, the ultimate monster we might overcome in the future is death
Bruh, the next video is literally about that
Bruh, death is essential despite whatever you may think of it.
You forgot the necromancer monster. When things are good these people seek to create fictional problems or champion a cause that is just overstated in order to rouse people to anger. Then good times turn backwards because people forgot how much we achieved already.
like how america is segregating again in the name of racial justice and equality?
@@constantineergius1626 yeah man I remember in 08 when Obama got elected I think everyone felt pride that we could finally see a person of color in the white house. Kids that were around back then that are adults dont fully understand what that meant to people. Those same kids are now thinking some how today is more racists then what I saw in the late 70's.
@@frocurl to be fair there kind of is more racists now then during the 70s but its all the people that make everything about race rather then just being quite. I know a lot of people who have said "minorities by and large cannot succeed without the government" thats still a very common opinion these days theres this view in many areas that minorities need help and cant do things for themselves
@@constantineergius1626 **cough cough** fat acceptance and Twitter sexualities **cough cough cough*
@@constantineergius1626 "To the privileged, equality will feel like oppression".
These invisible monsters are the corrupt institutions.
😯
Such a strong video
The algorithm finally showed me someone good, keep up the work! Its amazing
A lot of people nowadays want to be the main character by being offended by everything. Not all that cry monster should be taken seriously
A thing I've been worrying about for a while: is the changing of someone else's mind a kind of invisible monster? Getting someone to change their goals and values seems increasingly insidious to me in today's social climate.
How do you mean, exactly?
My knee-jerk reaction is that this an argument *for* ignorance -- not the logical fallacy known as The Argument from Ignorance, but rather an argument *for* ignorance -- meaning we should never change, learn, or grow..? What am I missing here, Random?
@@keykrazy I don't know what to say to you if you think values are the same as beliefs.
@@Halophage I'd say the exact opposite is the far more dangerous monster. There is no issue with people who readily change their minds as it's very difficult for them to hold a position that provides them with negative results, but those that are stuck in their ways historically are the only people who have commit great acts of destruction such as slavery, genocide, etc. It has always been the free thinkers who have pushed the boundaries of what is right and created increasingly more "right" societies.
@@Ryanowning Currently there is a wave of people who on a daily basis wake up and change their Genders depending on their readily changing minds. These type of people are corroding society faster than anything I have seen in my entire life yet they believe they have found an invisible monster and we all must bow to their values despite their values clearly causing Massive amounts of suffering and death that could have been avoided through better understanding on their part.
There is currently a push to be progressive as possible never stopping to see if you have progressed off a cliff or not the entire time believing oneself to be morally superior to those who enjoy the current systems and abundance and safety we see in modern age which is well above anything ever seen in history of mankind.
If one can rapidly change their mind it means they understand nothing with any certainty and those people would be far better to just stfu and listen to others instead of preaching their half truths from a moral pedestal. .
@@seditt5146 The way to deal with them is to remember that it's common to tell people how you'd like to refer to them if you have a doctorate or if you're a lord or various other scenarios. It really doesn't matter whether you believe in the same thing as them as long as you avoid escalatory remarks etc. Whether they corrode society or not- avoid them and create your own space. The fact of the matter is that despite the emergence of these kinds of people aren't uncommon in history they never reach prevalence for long; they only last about 40 to 60 years as a major group because they cannot exist for much longer than that. They are not aware of the amount of harm they are doing to society and there is no point in trying to inform them of it; instead all we can do is record what happens to them so that we can educate the future generations on the dangers of it while avoiding the pitfalls of aggression.
The evils of slavery didn't "become visible" to all of humanity - its abolition was forced upon the rest of humanity by Europeans, British first, other European nations later.
There’s a lot of talk about animals in this video considering how much human suffering occurs daily and is written off as necessary
Listen to some people preach about about how poverty and homelessness are needed to motivate people into the job market, and you’ll see a much more concrete example of a modern monster than “what if insect suffering matters”
This is just based on the assumption human lives are more worth than animal lives. Also meat consumption is just killing people, this is one the one side where plagues come from, it is one of the many sources of climate change which will cause massive refuge waves and also wastes food as the production of meat need a multiple of plant calories.
Also there is probably a decent argument to be made to cut together heavily all social programs in the west for development aid as there are people dying from easy to preventing things like malaria where i heard figures like 100 dollar a year a live. We in Europe also simply got this fixed when compared globally and homeless people can get in a homeless shelter even there social benefits which is more then the average income in many countries.
Seems honestly we are just really bad at doing things on a global scale and rather think on more local scales where then regional interest cause issues besides resource attribution.
There are trillions of animals tortured and killed each year for food. It's an incredibly significant issue and one that is incredibly overlooked. Your comment reads like whataboutism
I'm watching all of your vids now, in chronological order, but I have to pause and say I loved that 5:56 reference!
It ends up that the biggest monster of all was the ruling class of humans all along.
based
Poverty is a transparent monster. It robs all of humanity the talents and intelligence of poor people who will never reach their full potential all because they have to toil to earn a living.
There is something I don't like about the moral circle expansion argument. because the end extrapolations are all matter and energy is equivalent to the 'self'. or no matter and energy is morally equivalent to the 'self'. Which is two statements with no utility.
I don't think it should be used as a moral heuristic, but say something like how ''time is a flat circle'' is a mental tool but not a moral code.
and if that is the case, its just a mental tool, surely its just the veil of ignorance?
slandering Aristotle and destroying your own foundations. Very well.
dark music and glowy eyes lol
childish.
What do you mean? Do you think that even greatest ancient philosophers, wouldn't have some views, that would be considered as completely immoral in modern world? He didn't say that this makes them less of a philosopher or great person, but mindset of people who lived thousands of years before us was very different and the way he presented it is only to show, how these words would be interpreted in modern world. Even by the people we respect and consider as important part of history.
The "enlarging moral circle" is a cute very pop model, but it has no explanatory power and is just an observation, which I by the way would dispute. A more accurate model is a 3D hairy ball, or some mass with tentacles. Circle (or sphere) expansion is neither strictly linear, no strictly compounding. Some moral tentacles might retreat. E.g. political polarization, the woke ideology in full retreat on all fronts, etc.
But we are talking circles and balls here. Obviously they are generated with functions. And that's the crux here. What sub-function of the larger function allows for this tentacle arguably-growing but certainly-writhing (= being in flux)?
There are several functions. None of which have anything to do with personal moral growth. Stop with this nonsensical optimism and faith in humanity. A trivial function is the growth of media to document far away stuff, and disseminate it easily. Another: more efficient propaganda and adjacent to that, psychology pertaining to manipulation of opinions (those two are not "bad", I just point out that their higher efficiency is simply novel). Another more education or the evolution of political/educational role into gradually taking on more and more condenscending (but also sometimes needed) "adult pedagogic" roles.
Another just the loads of debates accumulating over the decades/centuries, and their traces and echoes in writing not getting rid of by various forms of decay, like was more the case in the past.
Mevermind moral ***growth***, even just moral ***dynamics*** are like an insanely distant n-th factor in the writhing of the moral tentacles.
For example. Idiots in 100 years will believe we were cruel with factory farming, and that is just correct under any framework that considers animals more than playthings. But because they are idiots, they will think they "would have been better". They will turn it into a difference of generations and strict moral growth, when the true answer is that they grew up with vat meat and had the luxury to never face the actual raging debate (either internally, like in me when I decided with 9 to become vegetarian, or in the public sphere). Just like we don't have to face the pressing moral emergency of ... the behaviour of certain knights in horseback on the battlefield anymore. It's just things. Matter. Objects. Circumstances of physical items (and their difference between eras) that accounts for 95% of moral evolution. Slavery is also an example of that. What because factories? No, too pedestrian argument. I mean items were a factor because European guns were superior, and Europeans (or the North in the US) conquered the world and, if not outright dictating outlawing slavery, took the air (=relevance in geopolitics/global civilization) away from the powers that still enslaved.
This of course also applies to our past. Nevermind the invisible monsters (a great topic. We should defunct natural predation eventually). Which of the angels of our time were genuine, and which were just a dictator's tacky vanity monument or even bad photoshop job into the scenery? As illustrated above -- there are loads of them for out time as well.
@dexatlon The one where you are the equivalent of a caveman trying to figure out a smartphone.
Your lack of an ability to look at big picture developments is comparable to the caveman's crypto or programming proficiency a day after you hand the smartphone to him.
Below is an outline how it could be achieved.
If your argument isn't ability to envision differently from a technical standpoint, but rather some actually moral appeal to nature fallacy (whatever is natural is "just". Yeah, I am sure antelopes getting eaten alive like it, because it's oh so natural.), then I have nothing to tell you, except you are wrong.
Projects for eliminating wilderness predation without carnivore elimination:
Mission statement:
Humans like goals. Sapient species like goals. The lack of a goal leads to nihilism, defeatism, and self-destruction.
It is my holy conviction that the goal of the dominant sapient Earth species should be implementing an infinite and eternal paradise for all sentient life.
We need no gods. We, life, will do it.
This task is completely trivial (again, acquire a sense of scale beyond petty 21st century Earth) if the only requirement is to abolish predation. But if the additional demand is stipulated that predatory animals should not be behaviourally changed, then you can implement this following program:
Mainly, predation will be made unnecessary and punishing, while a natural carnivore lifestyle will be retained via self-replicating non-conscious bionic constructs, that are to be introduced into the entirety of the local cosmic domain's macrofauna-containing ecosystems.
These constructs are modelled on the appearance, and programmed to behave similar to, locally appropriate herbivores.
These constructs include safeguards to stop a potential risk of runaway self-replication.
One extremely conductive element for that is making them about as temperature resistant as biological organic chemistry is, as well as dependent on an atmosphere. Their body should preferably be non-metallic and include the absolute minimum of electronic systems.
The constructs are culled every *n* years, with a new generation introduced that is a blank slate. This is mainly to prevent evolution (outside perhaps an acceptable drift, to simulate Darwinian processes, but that is outside scope of this framework), which could lead to development of consciousness, intelligence, hiveminds, and resistance to environmental conditions.
This would also further aid in preventing a runaway self-replication scenario.
The infrastructure to deployment would be kept at facilities (monitoring, manufacturing the first generations, orbital launch facilities etc. -- all automated) that experience minimal decay over zoological or geological timescales. A planet like Earth has very few such surface locations. Preferably it'd be on a planet's natural or artificial satellite.
The constructs are either directly edible, or in the (riskier) non-organic form, they contain edible internals (over a breakable exterior. Perhaps a silicon skin/muscle analogue). This food component (and potential additives) could also be exploited for various other wildlife interventionist projects (although I personally am for laissez-faire. The elimination of worst-grade suffering is the only point in my agenda).
Manipulation of predator behaviour towards disregarding non-constructs can be achieved via punishing reactions. The best way to introduce this is via a microscopic parasitic construct, which can attach or embed on animals, and replicate as usual for natural parasites until near-saturation.
These bionic parasites would contain implements of disincentivizing predation.
Regarding herbivore overpopulation: the same parasitic construct can be used. Lacing the local water with e.g. birth control is overkill, and would be inline with a much more managed and manicured habitat than the philosophy behind this current framework, which seeks to preserve environmental wilderness, but intervention on a per-organism basis. Motile, self-replicating bionic automatons are the best tool for that.
Implementation:
This project most likely can't be realized the next millennium or two. Technology is the most trivial aspect, economics second, by far the hardest is overcoming the human moral hurdle of regarding untampered-with wilderness as desirable -- especially once alternatives like above framework become feasible.
The human hurdle would however not be an issue on terraformed planets/moons.
delete your rant
We havn’t put a dent in slavery. We probably never will. The way it appears, we got rid of one type of slavery in the US. Boy of boy we were so proud we set half of our country on and murdered so many of us to see it through. We were so proud that we didn’t consider the fact that slavery existed in the North as well. It is this blindness to wage slavery that garuntees the continuation of slavery now and into the future. Ehhh whatever. Nothing is going to change. We’ll just keep patting ourselves on the back while the world dies around us.
The BIG monster no one hears me shouting about: *life-extension* allows dictators to threaten with *unending torture* , gathering greater power. Meanwhile, their henchmen won't get a promotion because the boss won't die - unless they kill the boss. To prevent themselves from becoming torture-subjects, they'll have a self-destruct option. The aftermath of the carnage isn't explained to the other henchmen as an attack *between* members of their organization, because that would lead to division. Instead, they'll *blame* the attack on an enemy - and this instability and blame will ensure repeated warfare, in the form of sabotage and attacks on basic utilities. We don't have a system to deal with deathless dictators.
essentially just make sure such a benefit isnt a government monopoly. Government monopolies on anything are really terrifying, ironically enough taking care of the vulnerable, poor and sick is the most common way dictators come to power , economic desperation is the biggest cause of the worst regimes you get rid of death you get rid of that end of life poverty and the biggest justification for state power over one's lives
Worrying about never dying dictators ignores the more realistic future where we are all owned by cyberpunk Walmart CEOs.
You don't even need to go that far to see problems.
If nobody dies, but new people are born every year, then we will run out of space and food very fast.
Isn't it pointless? As Hume has taught us; "We can't derive ought from is". If we just expand circle of compassion we will run into massive moral dilemma. If killing a mosquito will be considered wrong. What if that mosquito carries a disease that has 15% chance to kill somebody? In reality, it is just a lot of tradeoffs. It is all monsters fighting other monsters all the way down.
No such thing as right or wrong. Only darwinian success or failure.
The animation is awesome, and the subjects are fascinating. Keep up the great work!
Great anti-abortion argument
@@kevc5510 what??
I love this channel. Please keep making awesome videos!
Yeah sometimes we should focus on what is possible though. Or we will go insane. The actual amount of suffering in nature is absolutely immeasureable, and there is very little we can do rn without significantly reducing our productivity and getting conquered by more evil cultures in the long run.
I mean Aristotle (and others) weren't wrong. We all exist within hierarchies. Just.. not that implementation, we've moved past that.
Edit: This moral expansion is similar to the expansion of knowledge.
Very interesting video.. but the way you call it "monsters" make it seem like you think morality is objective and not subjective.. I personally like the way slavery is illegal and all the examples you cited because I think that an individual should not have such power over another.. but is it true or right ? no its a belief.. it sure feels like its right and true tho..
Take for example the nazis who were known to execute people with disabilities because they were not helping society.. I think they were wrong to do that but let's say they had won the war and that the whole world turned nazi.. nowadays a lot of illnesses that are genetic would be eradicated because they killed everyone who had it.. Wouldn't that prevent the suffering of lots of people ? wouldn't a more enlightened humanity think ahead and accept the sacrifices that are needed in order to prevent future suffering ?
Morality is only objective in disney movies and I think one of the problems nowadays is how people treat it as if it is and think anyone who doesn't think like them is evil or not intelligent enough to understand their view.
Most serius genetic illnesses are mutations or non dominant genes. Killing ppl is also the bad solution as the same can be achived by not having children. Also are we going to determine what is moral by fighting wars?
If practicaly everyone agrees they would not like to be a slave I think for al practical purposes we can say it is objectively a moraly good decision to ban it. There must certainly be such problems today.
@@someonespotatohmm9513 I'm pretty sure most people would like to not pay taxes too yet it's morally ok to tax them. I think people of the ancient times thought the same way about slavery, they thought it was something needed to keep the civilization going. Same could be said about making human clones to make tests for new medicines or grow organs. Sure it's cruel for the individual but it could really speed up the research on many things and save/cure many people.. it's like that famous thought experiment where a train is heading towards a group of people and you can choose to change its track so it runs into one person instead.. is it moral to change the track and kill someone who would have lived to save multiple people who were doomed to die ? I just think people in general don't see all the gray areas in moral questions and it's sad because it's where both sides meet and can make very interesting discussions
@@k0lpA .
one of the other issues is that the state is often seen as above the individual and the same people who will complain about individuals having power over others will not complain over governments having powers. Funnily enough there have been people of really any disability that achieved great things, the guy who invented windshield wipers was blind if im not mistaken. Morality is objective innocent people or beings of the same mental capacity as a human being should have rights and the idea that morality isnt objective leads to the idea that the state is the source of rights
The issue with your example lies in what you define as 'helping society'. Nazism 'believes' that people with disabilities are not helping society, yet many inventions, creations and understandings came to be thanks to some disabled individuals, by instead alleviating their disabilities rather than exterminating them along with their disability or by studying their disabilities and instead offering those who do not wish to be disabled a way to be like other beings or even become more capable.
Another issue is the 'belief' that by exterminating disabled people, eventually genetic illnesses won't be past down anymore. But evidence shows that it's impossible to eliminate genetic illnesses, because life itself is malleable and to stay malleable imperfections occur that silently spread over generations constantly. So instead a better solution is finding out what causes those disabilities so that when someone risks reproducing and passing down a disability to be informed or stopped or better we develop a way to remove/fix those specific genes.
In the end it comes down to whether the belief is thoroughly tested and that the solution proposed has the most benefits. A more enlightened humanity would not risk making unnecessary sacrifices. For making unnecessary sacrifices is also a 'monster' in and of itself as it exactly excuses other monsters' doings.
This starts from the wrong assumption that "monster" exist objectively, but are invisible to some. While the case is that there is no "monster" until somebody decides to see it
dont agree slavery ended because ‘more people recognized that it was evil’. technological and economic development made it less useful. as it became less useful, resistance to stopping it became less than the moral forces supporting abolition.
veganism will similarly only become popular if thanks to technological developments its benefits evaporate leaving only unnecessary evil. of course it is possible to abolish before that, we see jain buddhists taking on very restrictive lifestyles in order to act maximally ethically, and religions and cultural attitudes do affect the behaviors of whole civilizations even when acting immorally might be highly beneficial, but it is infeasible for the majority of the world to ignore the benefits. and people in the future condemn those who supported immorality in exchange for how it benefited them, while still doing very similar things, ignoring the immoral aspects of their actions thanks to the benefits they get from it.
I dont think its because people didnt or couldnt see the problem as much as they avoided seeing it as a problem because that would have made things inconvenient.
Your necasary evils are just evils ppl are unwilling to adress because it will come at the cost of their own comfort. That is how the world is but it doesn't mean it is how the world has to be. Are you moral when you only do it when it doesn't come at a practical cost?
slavery is soo bad
imagine leting your enemies live. those who didn t kill the innocent, are terrible for... well ideological stuff
Bro is unironically arguing FOR slavery???
I agree in principal to what you said, but I can't applicate it for animals, well, not completely. My premise is that humanity comes first in everything, not because we have more merit or any sort of moral value : it's just because if I want to maximize humanity's survival and happiness as a whole, then I want it to have dibs in everything.
So, from this paradigm, animal exploitation is evitable only in a civilisation that is way more advanced than us. In our current times, animal exploitation and slaughter is inevitable because, for example, meat is an important part of our diet. And even if it isn't, to me the pleasure it brings to our palate is even more important than their lives, even if it's shallow happiness, it is still a form of happiness and as such I can't forbid it. (And yes, because of this paradigm I'm also against mass slaughter of animals because of the massive amount of polution it creates and the ressources it consumes.)
I too also noticed this in the video and felt that it might have been a little too far out of an example. But as you said it might just be a sort of unfortunate necessity at our current level of our specie’s development. Without the consumption of other animals we would not be able to survive as a species as we are today.
But that is not to say that I still for the most part agree on the main message of the video, other then with the other issue of how morality is presented to be a universal and a not subjective. As mentioned in other comments the idea of trying to solve a predetermined idea of a “monster” might be a monster in-itself. Being that others might view the monster differently and focusing on one strict interpretation of an issue might lead to unintended consequences and might even be more harmful then doing nothing at all.
is saying "humanity comes first" any more justifiable than saying "white people come first"?
Say we flip your moral justification that the pleasure meat brings to your palate is more important than an animal's life and say that you being a slave say to me is a pleasure more important than your life.
Which is more likely and why ? That your paradigm indicates that there are no common grounds in morality or that your justification is simply outside the common moral grounds ?
@@Ali-cya In the past year my opinion changed a bit, I still believe that human prosperity is the top priority in this debate but I do not place human pleasure above anything anymore.
I'd say that yes my previous opinion has a foot outside of morality. But the other part still stands, we still need beasts to bear our burden. When they will become unnecessary, I will not be against stopping their slaughter as, when that time comes, that opinion will become useless and past its time. But this time is not now.
@@reshirambrotherzekrom It doesn't have anything to do with human prosperity if you could simply choose something else at the grocery store. "When they will become unnecessary" --- they already are.
The war on drugs is such a monster.
It nearly destroyed my life and it killed countless people i know.
Hey, a random guy shouting from the rooftop about a monster here:
*Capitalism will lead to the death of our species of it is not immediately overthrown and replaced with a human-based social system of economy*
0:32 Yeah they are among us
Technology heavily defines morality. In the ancient era where the independence, health, and survival of a tribe/kingdom relied on meat protein, furs, and a full-time warrior caste, you could argue that a level of support/farmer caste slavery and animal slaughter was a necessary evil, perhaps even a morally necessary good. Those who did not engage in such practices as efficiently were enslaved, exterminated, or assimilated by those who did - high-minded choices or apathy in this area often led to far more human suffering. This form of caste slavery was widespread in every locality on Earth, long before any interference by intercontinental empires. Industrialization, gunpowder, markets, and modern prosperity allows us to live equally and free, and able to choose not to eat animals.
An evil act that helps you out is still an evil act.
I’m pretty sure you’re overstating the presence of caste & similar systems in the described emerald to some degree. Though perhaps ‘locality’ has a very general meaning here. Mostly a note for other readers here.
Technology allows us to be vegan, not markets/capitalism as you seem to imply.
Also, slavery and war only came about with the rise of agriculture and settled civilization. The advent of capitalism, markets, gunpowder and industrialization made all injustices and subjugations *worse* until working class people organized effective resistance to these horrors.
Thanks for this awesome new channel. Love all of your work and the community that's forming around this channnel.
Guys remember the snake of that Buddha was talking about.
This guy is literally talking about all of them.
Some people are chased like prey.
I am not as optimistic for the better future of humanity as this vid.
The way society is heading towards is an apathetic future.
Apathy leads to collapse and collapse leads to conquest. Morality is Darwinian instinct rationalized into human thoughts. There is no such thing as right or wrong, only successful and unsuccessful morality. Hedonism, our modern western morality, is and has been unsuccessful. We're going to go through strife soon due to our weakness but future generations will suffer through it, likely making a morality highly abhorrent to the average person in the west today.
@@bitcoinzoomer9994 Humanity is at it's infancy. A type 0 civilization. Like a toddler that doesn't know any better.
My first time watching a video on this channel and I gotta say the narrator is solid. He makes it sound alive. And the animation is on point too!
I believe one of the big ones which doesn't get a lot of attention is travel restriction-- limits on people's rights to travel, work, and take up residence. Those restrictions make it easier to enslave people, in addition to many other costs.
You might also ask the question... where do rights come from? That is, it's not immediately obvious to me that people have rights to travel, work, and reside. Who grants them? Who protects them? Who chooses those instead of some other factors to call defensible rights?
Everyone is a slave, the only change is the terms and conditions. Perhaps instead of searching for monsters, we should get to know our masters. Some people look outward, others look inward.
“Recognize what is in front of you, and what is hidden from you will be revealed. There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed.” - Some Guy
This entire argument is based upon the conclusions modern humanity has come to and that they are somehow objectively correct, it is entirely plausible that we simply picked the wrong person to listen to and that the real monsters remained transparent to this day.
Agreed. There are many things that society agrees are wrong that could be argued that they are really not and vise versa.
So many things are being censored now. So many things are not ok anymore (Food brands, sports team names). I don't think it's a matter of society being more aware (woke) and morality superior.
It's at least debatable to say that things have gotten ridiculous and people (SJWs) are just being assholes now.
The problem is that it's based on the notion of progress. But is humanity on a path of moral progress? It's a common logical fallacy to consider that WE are the epitome of mankind and that our ancestors were barbaric assholes, but it's simply false. And I am not sure that the current trope of considering animals as moral subjects is excellent, since the consequence is that human life is not worth more than that of a cow. Moreover the notion that slavery was widely accepted in the west until the Civil War is simply bonkers : this institution had simply disappeared in Europe from the fall of Rome to the early colonial era, and was very much frowned upon. Even the Greeks were questioning it, and justified it by the fact that, when you conquer an enemy, the alternative to slavery was to slay everybody.
@@TheEgg185 Then again, look at the other end and it is legitimate homophobes, racists and greedy scumbags. So really, all of society is just a joke.
No? The argument literally talks about how there's still "invisible monsters" around us. Meaning we still haven't found them yet, according to our current moral understanding of the world, but they're there anyway - and what to do about it.
@@aspexpl "I am not sure that the current trope of considering animals as moral subjects is excellent, since the consequence is that human life is not worth more than that of a cow." This argument is weak and doesn't say anything. If you replace "animals" with say, women and "human life" with men, the substance of the argument doesn't change at all. It's simply saying "the lives of group X being as valuable as the lives of group Y is bad" without giving any justification.
I agree that the idea that humanity always progresses is flawed, but that doesn't mean that invisible monsters don't exist.
There's no such thing as morals. They're just ideas of convenience enabled by the advancement of technology. There's a reason why it makes sense for a mechanical being like Optimus Prime to have the belief that 'Freedom is the right of all sentient beings' Because the technology of Prime's being means Prime doesn't have to kill & consume in order to survive. If we become cybernetic beings in some distant future, then, yeah, future humans would look back on this period of mass farming as a truly dark time when we killed and consumed the flesh of our victims.
While I am mainly for the message of the video I would like to ask an important question on the basses of morality. Based on the argument that morality is subjective according to some of the comments below, is it even possible to determine what is and isn’t a monster? For what could be seen as a monster for one individual might be seen as a necessity to another. And further more, if no one is able to come up to a consensus on what such a monster truly is, then is it even possible or appropriate to even try and solve it if no one knows what it is at the current time?
I agree. There's many holes that can be poked in this overall theme. It would feel foolish to take this stuff seriously.
A few months ago I saved a 3 week old cat who was a runt and abandoned by its mother. I bottle feed it back to health and now it’s healthy and happy.
The other day I head a scream outside. When I went out there the cat, which I saved, had a small baby rabbit in its mouth. It was crying in pain and bleeding everywhere. The cat dropped it to the ground and when it tried to get away it batted at it with its sharp claws and taunted it.
I managed to chase off the cat and get the baby rabbit away. When I picked it up it died in my hands.
Later on that evening the cat came up to me purring and jumped into my lap as if nothing was wrong.
Nothing is innocent and everything is cruel. This is the nature of this world. At least we humans can identify when something isn’t right. But we must be careful and realize that every creature is a potential monster. Including your sweet, innocent little kitten.
Everything that exist must kill and consume something to live. We are no different. Neither are cats. Neither are fish. Even Baby rabbits have to take life to have life.
Except we don't have to, nor do rabbits. They eat non-thinking grass, we can survive off plants because we know exactly what we need to survive and thrive. For a cat, it's instinct. For us, it's a choice.
@@blacklightredlight2945 it’s only a choice if you get to make it. If it is forced on us all then it’s no longer a choice. If you want to live on plants for the rest of your life then go for it. I’m going to eat as my ancestors did.
The logical end point of moral circle expansion is suicidal extinction, if we only impose those morals on our own species and genocidal if imposed on others. Chattel slavery was monstrous but it was not the norm for slavery of the Greeks nor throughout history. Some people call hunting immoral even though conservationists know that hunting is good for the health of a population and an environment when minimal regulations prevent overhunting which is quite rare.
Just expanding the circle doesn’t work, you have to create a place for everything. For example, in ancient times just declaring slaves as citizens would collapse most city-states, because they didn’t have the required markets and production economics to sustain a large free people population. These things had to be invented so that the monster could be killed. So it is not only natural sciences or lab technologies, but also societal and systemic. The question is how to make everything fit in their best and correct places, and how to move there such that each iterative step is net positive.
Women being considered inferiour was serving a cause of protecting and providing for women by the society. This is an interesting hypothesis
Instead of lab-grown meat, we can Rewild areas for more (grazing) animals, and more hunting. Nothing taste better, or is better for you, than a round, grass-raised animal!
Both pursuits are comendable and does not need to be exclusive. I belive both options are needed to put an end to factory farming animals. Labmeat is new tech and tgerefor might not be as palettable to start with but should improve drastically as it's invested in. It will be needed to supply for the current demand of meat in the industry. Grazing animals will ensure the industry, it's workers and it's animals still continues running, albeit now ethically. Grassfeed beef is already a luxery item and gamemeat even more so, they couldn't sustain our huge population on their own.
@@ezdepaz4363 I switched to fish and eggs for a while and never noticed a difference, I wouldn't say we need red meat to sustain anyone. Ask people in India if they need beef to sustain their huge population. Personally I wouldn't mind having a quality burger now and then, but I don't understand why we have convinced ourselves that we need regular beef to "sustain our huge population" like it's some kind of required food. If anything it's the opposite, we have a huge heart disease problem and cheap beef is killing people. Don't get me wrong, I don't really care about the suffering or standing on moral highgrounds like the a lot of vegans and vegetarians do, go ahead and raise all the livestock you want, but it makes no sense to talk about red meat like a requirement for humans. Even many of the biggest red meat eaters, eventually will get the talk from their doctor about cutting back. Even the healthiest red meat will never be as healthy as finding protein from other sources like eggs, fish, chicken, or plants. If you're worried about muscle mass, no body builder I know relies on beef, it's always chicken breasts or eggs. You can get protein powder that uses whey or peanuts and absolutely bulk up.
@@pismodude2 Yo, I agree with you. Me using grassfeed beef as an example was a bit poor when it really could have been any type of ecologialy produced protein. My post was more from the prespective that lab meats would go easier on nature by skipping the agricultural step of raising/catching animals, while also potentially better in terms of nutrition due to more variety in what could be made. Say lab meat could be made from Rat cells, but doesn't sound that appetizing does it? Hovewer your cat might think differently! Current day pet food is mostly made of scraps from our own food production and probably not their best diet. Honestly what we currently produce is probably not our best diet, see how healt concerns there are regarding overweight and more. Lab meat will let us explore more options to solve our dietery problems.
Now while I'm clearly in favour of lab meat, I don't think it's possible to do a too rapid shift. Agriculture has been a part of civilazation since it's dawn and moving away from it will be tough. Having farms and fishermen cut back is neccesary for the enviorment, but they will only do so if they can still make a living on their work. Thats whe treating "real" ecological meat as a luxery product makes sense, they'd get to produce less but still get well paid. There would also be an option for those not onboard with labmeats which is fair, new tech can be scary to some.
This all applies to fish and eggs just the same as beef. Our oceans need be left alone to recover from us killing 50% of all marine life in just 40 years.
Now all of this is just based of random articles I half remember, so I might be wrong, so please tell if I am. All in all I think we both seem to be pro-life and pro-health.
@@pismodude2 why do you not care about the suffering of sentient beings?
I was turned off by the titles and thumbnails, and this is the first time I clicked on one of them. Subscribed.
Monsters are among us
📮
The problem is not that people choose to ignore the monsters. It's that they consider the monsters to be good, and the stopping of the monsters to be an evil act. Genocides, for example, almost always are only committed against a group that the genocidal group feels oppresses them somehow. We convince ourselves that to stop the monsters would be a monstrous act, and that it doesn't make any sense at all to consider the other group as decent upright people who deserve kindness because "it's obvious they don't."
It's not that nobody agrees with "love thy neighbor". They just mentally append a list of "obvious" exceptions. If you can convince yourself that people are nazis and that anything is excusable against them, then you can convince yourself to do anything against people.
The slavery during ancient Greece was not the same as slavery in the US.
How so, I am not aware of Greek history
Slavery is still bad
So eventually mosquito will be a protected class?
And we have to stop the violence against covid virus as well.
Actually it is very simple. We are mammals so our circle of inclusion is kind of limited to that. I've yet to see compassion towards snakes, spiders and cockroaches - the sensible caring ones usually being the first to scream and climb up the chair even in front of a mice. The theory that all life is sacred already exists - it is buddhism. However not even the buddhism sees it as an imperative, merely saying "do the least wrong". Why? Because most of the time people wanted to do the right thing they did atrocities.
This penchant of posturing towards a unknown good has no reason and has no future. Being morally ambiguous yet pretending to do good is simply larping at the wind. Who are these monsters? Where are these vast tragedies? Were they not known, were they not new? The moment you define them you put yourself in the line and that's why you never mentioned such vast tragedies except maybe the trendy narrative of the yesteryear. Well? Any other tragedies?
Or you're in the business of reaping benefits from bashing a top philosopher? It is completely unsubstantiatied to pretend that he wanted to justify the political and social statu-quo and the same implying he was evil or self-centered when he made these assertions, thousands of years ago. You live thousands of years later without being able to understand him yet you trash him because he cannot understand you...sad irony.
we are men so our circle of inclusion is limited to that.
we are white so our circle of inclusion is limited to that.
we are straight so our circle of inclusion is limited to that.
we are Americans so our circle of inclusion is limited to that.
The world is still filled with so many unreasonable things. I accepted all those who stand against it
Nice video, and thought provoking! I would caution your method a little... you appear to be measuring the detection of transparent monsters as a function of how far from our own value system are our ancestors' systems, with the implicit assumption that we are more moral than they. It's an easy argument to make (after all, we are at distance 0 from our own system, roit?) but we shouldn't be too smug about it. These ancestors might be aghast at what to them looks like us *introducing* monsters that they believed they'd taken care of...
Anyway, just as a bonus, here's my favorite recent transparent monster. We've discovered that when given advanced medicine and education, human beings tend to stop breeding. All advanced countries have negative population growth (unless they're fortunate enough to be a favored immigration center). Is this our nature? Should we... "do" something? If so, what?
Life is suffering. Accept it!
With that mentality, we would be hunters and gatherers
@@TalpaTulpa No because after you accepted it you also should ask, what to do about it.
Bro is the caveman that said we should stay in caves until we solve our cave problems
@@drabberfrog This analogy is just a strawman.
Please don't bring meat into this. Not all animals are treated badly and are even put to death in a humane way. It's a death much better than what's suffered by wild animals in nature and humans in our society.
As for the part about putting myself in that creature's place, yes, that's a good way, but there needs to be a limit to this rather than going crazy with that chain of thought. I'd be happy to sacrifice myself if I was raised for that purpose and my meat was going to feed people.
This brings me to morality. The concept itself is subjective. Trying to make it an objective thing and forcing, manipulating or shaming others to take your (not you specifically) moral standpoint is in and of itself a contradiction of moral standards, and the future of morality is in grave danger if we do indeed do this to gt others to do things that they don't even get a say in.
Morals have changed according to the societal changes. So even changing the society to fit a specific moral is technically immoral, because it's an indirect manipulation. I.E. Taking away someone's freedom to choose on their own, by taking away the choice itself. A child growing up in a world without freedom, will never know what it is and continue to believe that the world they're in, is the only world that exists. That doesn't mean the child is free. It just means they're kept in the dark. That's not an enlightened human.
The rest I do agree with though. I always disagree with topics that try and change the personal habits of people, habits that don't harm any other human. It is nature for living beings to feed on others, that's not harm.
"Please don't bring meat into this. Not all animals are treated badly and are even put to death in a humane way. It's a death much better than what's suffered by wild animals in nature and humans in our society."
As someone that eats meat, I think it's perfectly valid to consider meat as a transparent monster. However, this is all considering purely utilitarian ethics, which is what the video seems to be defending.
If we talk about something such as Kantian ethics, where animals have no rights whatsoever, killing animals for meat is perfectly fine as animals aren't moral agents, just like if an animal kills you, that animal has no responsability and punishing it is futile (maybe cruel if you combine Kantian and utilitarian ethics). Being killed by an animal is like falling off a cliff or being hit by a lightning strike.
"As for the part about putting myself in that creature's place, yes, that's a good way, but there needs to be a limit to this rather than going crazy with that chain of thought. I'd be happy to sacrifice myself if I was raised for that purpose and my meat was going to feed people."
I agree, because sometimes putting you in someone else's shoe doesn't justify your actions. A nihilist psycho may go around killing people as well as not value his own life, but just because he thinks it would be ok to be killed doesn't mean it's ok to kill. This is also a sort of hole in the utilitarian ethical theory, because if everyone views the concept of suffering differently (like a masochist, for them physical pain is not suffering), it's impossible to draw lines of what is correct and what isn't. Kantian ethics solve this by making so every human is a moral agent with set fundamental rights and therefore you can't go through someone's rights regardless if you value your own.
@@flydrop8822 Interesting points. Your last point, I think already mentioned it? If not, I fully do agree.
@@THETRIVIALTHINGS yeah you did I was just extending it further.
@@THETRIVIALTHINGS your username brings me nostalgia, lol
@@feetfinderguy7044 :)
Progressivism has turned into a transparent monster
It's been transparent for 30 years, but now it's becoming very a very obvious horror
I found this unconvincing. Way too Cowpox of Doubt, training our intuitions not just on the most obvious examples, but on the least nuanced, most one-sided takes on those examples.
That's fair enough. By using obvious examples, I risk making it seem easy to spot monsters, even if the message is exactly the opposite. But if I used more nuanced examples, they would be more controversial, and the attention would be drawn to them, away from the general point. Plus, they would be associated with the groups happening to be crusading for them at the moment, and I would also be at higher risk to be saying something "wrong" (see definition of "wrong" in the pinned comment).
@@RationalAnimations That's a good point. It was a good idea to first show that monsters exist, and then give advice on how to spot them.
Still, I wonder if essential detail isn't being masked by the simplicity of our assumptions.
What happens if we allow that, contrary to the slide at 0:47, Nature really is allowed to present us with a choice between multiple large, genuine, hard-to-compare evils? Say, if there's a tradeoff between Athens widening its circles, and Athens being able to compete demographically, economically and ultimately militarily with its neighbours?
And, what happens if we decompose that definition of "wrong" into something which doesn't presuppose a katamari-like nature of morality?
The core concept of evil which is not at the time understood to be evil would obviously still be true and important. But we would have to frame it in a different way. Probably in a way which leaves us less sure of our own moral assumptions.
Question: Why does everyone hold their coffee with their feet?
I find the idea of "slaying the monster" quite counterproductive, because most problems can only be eliminated when an alternative to its root causes is developed
Most moral problems originate from a physical need that generates countermeasures, which then are assimilated as tradition
Yu can change the tradition all you want but as long as the base problem remains, the tradition will eventually re-emerge
Great video thx! ... and I subscribed ☺️
You know the shortsightedness of a character when they view people living thousands of years ago without machine servants, piped water or electronic heating as morally inferior because they had slaves.
Absolutely brilliant video.
The idea that suffering=bad is becoming increasingly damaging to humanity's mental health.
It's painful to go to the gym, it's painful to spend hours studying alone, it's painful to grieve a lover's death, it's painful to have an unrequited love.
Yet we don't advice people to avoid such suffering. There's no way to calculate the overall happiness-suffering of society, and NO MORAL ADVANCES were implemented on the grounds of "hehe lets reduce suffering", not even animal rights, which were given to prevent cruelty (not suffering).
I'm very annoyed by the unsophisticated utilitarianism prevalent in the "rationalist community". Differences are used all the time to arrive at ethical behavior: Criminals have reduced liberty, children can't drive cars nor gamble, animals can't hold property.
We have no rational argument to argue that the collective happiness of eating meat, and the efficiency of factory farming, are trumped by the suffering of animals.
We treat them like they would treat us, sometimes even better, and the only argument to undermine a whole sector of the economy and change our whole diet is: "I think pain bad so let's reduce animal pain, without contemplating human suffering at all".
Lab meat will replace farming when economically efficient, not because animals deserve the same rights as us, but because meeting our needs without resorting to violence and exploitation makes us better human beings.
You’ve been doing the hard work!
Nice! I was thinking about how I "saw" things that other people didn't see... I guess they are moral monsters
Ever been sitting at home being bothered by a persistent pesky fly or a couple of them, only for them to completely disappear when you pick up the fly swatter?
They are aware enough somehow to understand that fly swatter is death. I find that strange.
Did they always have that awareness??
Or were they somehow capable of observational learning too associate the fly swatter with death??
I think personally, that it is immoral to build robots in our own image and use them as toys or slaves based on comparing the humanoid robot to a human who was born lobotomised and then raised for either pleasure or labor. If a machine is meant for working it should funtion as an extension of a human operator not as an individual being. If a machine is designed to look like a person or animal, or is designed to think for itself then it should be afforded rights. And one of those rights should be the right to think for itself.
honestly i have to agree, mankind was giften with intelligence and any being we create in our image should have its own intellect an free will to an extent, i dont have problems with people making cranes for work but we should put a higher value on the individual right to both property and self preservation. Even moreso having a machine that looks like a human being but cannot think for itself normalizes collectivism and will lead to actual people really being easy to push over
This idea was expanded upon by Charles Stross in his novel "Accelerando". But there, they were enhanced lobsters not robots.
The thing is new monsters appear all the time. We eradicated slavery right? Well its coming back in the form of modern slavery. I wont explain it but it means that an issue can always come back
There is no relevant difference(s) between Humans and the rest of the animal kingdom that we use as justification for denying them life, that most of us would consider moral if the same standards were applied to Humans (that is to say they are double standards).
The most common example being we often use the intelligence gap (in one way or another such as calling it by different words like self awareness) between animals & Humans as justification for us bringing them into the world to suffer for our pleasure, yet they would never consider this justification valid for killing a Human of equal intelligence to the animal (whose intelligence, or rather lack there of was given as justification for killing them).
This argument (known as NTT / name the trait) applies just as well to any of the justifications given (which are all variants of "killing animals is justified because of": intelligence tho, nature tho, species tho, might makes right tho, god tho, somebody else will tho).
so someone having intercourse with a bear is totally fine according to this argument?...
@@noahtv6683 intercouse with a bear would probably lead to suffering for one of the parts.
4:31
I agree that what you've pointed out here is a monster.
I was raised with a "liberal" philosophy that we should prioritise individual freedom, happiness and prosperity above "tradition" or "what is natural". Sure, disease, ableism and poverty are "natural" but that doesn't make them ok, and they should be eradicated.
Yet the same people who taught me this philosophy, suggest that the ruthless violent competition of the natural world should be preserved, because it is "natural".
I don't see a difference between a murderer violating their victim's bodily autonomy, and nature itself violating animals' bodily autonomy, by torturing and killing them if they're not fit and adaptable enough.
Darwin discovered a monster, but he didn't realise it was a monster.
The earliest sign I've found of someone pointing out this monster for what it truly is, was Osamu Tezuka in the 1960s, in the manga 'Jungle Emperor Leo'. Where the main protagonist is a lion who finds an alternative to meat, and liberates the animals in his jungle from the monster that is natural selection.
As you say, one way to find monsters is to ask the question, "would I like to be in that individual's place?" I would not like to be a predator who has to kill to survive. I would not like to be a prey animal under constant threat of violence. I would not like to be a competitive territorial animal who must fight for love and land and food, and my childrens' safety. All those things sound horrible. The natural world is a dystopian hellscape.
People who complain about it in the comments section of wildlife videos usually get laughed at and ganged up on. But the fact that there are even people commenting in the first place, shows that you, me and Tezuka are not the only ones who have spotted this monster. People are starting to see it.
There's no way, with current technology and current wisdom, that we could correct the cruelty of the natural world. It's not possible to fight this monster right now. But we can at least persuade ourselves that we do intend to fight it in the future, once we have the ability to do so. And we can at least start being kinder to the animals who we do have power over right now. That's a first step in the right direction.
The technology and knowledge required to fight this monster might be thousands of years in our future. But conscious animals have suffered this misery for 540 million years. A few thousand years, even a few hundred thousand years, is not very long to wait at all, compared to that.
I legit had this thought a few times but couldn’t explain it half as well as you! I do agree with other comments however that morality isn’t objective so we’re not being “more moral” we just have different moral standards
The idea of lab grown meat sounds like a source for more invisible monsters, that humans create, or even a new avenue for existing monsters.