Philosophers Think We Shouldn't Care About Global Warming?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Climate change is one of the greatest challenges humanity faces, but what if our attempts to fix it are misguided? In this video, we delve into the philosophical views of Jeremy Bentham, David Benatar, and the school of utilitarianism to explore whether our focus on sustainability might be missing the mark. Could a more radical approach be the answer, or is there a way to justify our current path? Join the discussion and discover some thought-provoking ideas!
References:
Mark Timmons - Moral Theory
Peter Singer - Practical Ethics
David Benatar - "Why it is better never to come into existence"
Host:
Pelle W.
Music
Ardie Son - Fury
W Trio - Treading Through the Swamp
W Trio - Lonnie's Lament (Coltrane)
open.spotify.c...
3D animations where created in Blender.
I love this theory! Here's my stance:
If there are more happiness in the world than suffering, that would mean total utilitarianism does not justify "party and go" (note that Benatar is not a classical utilitarian as he believes suffering is worse than happiness is good). Regarding human beings I find it plausible to say that we have a net positive in happiness and will have that in future as well (but I mean I've never read Kirkegaard😉). Taking all the non-human animals in regard as well, the question of "party and go" becomes a more nuanced one to answer (at least for the total utilitarian). Sadly, factory farmed animals currently stand for the majority of all mammals on earth, causing a tremendous amount of suffering. But even if it's more suffering right now I think that lab-grown meat will nearly extinguish factory farmed meat in the long future. What our future effect on other animals will be I don't know, but I [want to] think we will reach that net positive future in the long run.
To actually trying to through with the "party and go" method would be practically ridiculously difficult (right?), but it's theoretically interesting nevertheless!
Thank you for clarifying Benatar's version of utilitarianism!
Regarding humans, I'm not sure that a human life is net positive, and that is one of the reasons why I'm not leaning towards utilitarianism. But I obviously can't say that for sure, not even regarding my own life. Arguments can be made for both sides.
Yeah, the future on lab-growned meat is certainly interesting! Though I heard that some states in America has banned it... But I think it is the future.
Haha, yeah, Party and go is practical madness xD.
what makes me unconfortable with benatar's argument is that it assumes that you can take the decision to not exist for someone else, and then he argues it is morally good to do so, which is such a weird idea.
Maybe a utilitarian's answer would be : the reason someone may want to live, even if live is mostly suffering, is because of the perspective of happiness, which would have to be protected. The reason it wouldn't be good to prevent others from living is that you remove that perspective.
which challenges our intuitive understanding of personal autonomy. By arguing that it's morally justifiable to prevent someone from existing to spare them potential suffering, Benatar's view seems to disregard the significance.
Lovely comments from both of you! Thank you so much for that. Yes, it seems like a plausable defense against Benatar, I'll try to contemplate on it.
I recommend you "The Human Predicament" by David Benatar.
It is easier read than "Better Never to Have Been" and it is wonderfully pessimistic and according to Benatar realistic representation of our existence.
Nice, thank you for the tip!
Great video as always ❤
2:13 My only objection might be that, to stop climate change it is necessary if not obligatory to advocate for income equality. So it will increase the overall pleasure of all living beings, as most of the wealth of countries (for example india) is in the hands of very few people who have the most critical contributions to accelerate climate change. So i think we can justify it with the route of prior existence. Just guessing.
Another question that i wanted to ask is that, as we cannot discuss non-temporal entities or quantities in a temporal sense, can we actually extend the idea of pleasure and pain to someone non-existent ? Because it is only the property of living organism to experience pain and pleasure. (Even that is arguable as plants and bacterias are not considered as sentient).
And as always thanks for the video. 🤝
Thank you so much! I highly appreciate it. I want to give you a good response, but I feel that my mind is a little bit burnt out at the moment, I will try to reply tomorrow and answer your question. Hope that's okay.
As always, thank you so much for the comment. ❤️
@@soundandsophia that's completely fine.
Hmm, I don't see the necessity for income equality in order to solve the climate problem? We could see a world in which technology advances so much that it itself solves the issue. For instance, an advancement in fusion energy. In such a case we would have solved the climate without income equality. But I see what you mean. Lobbying is a big problem within this issue.
Also, a utilitarian would probably not argue for income equality. It's always a matter of maximum happiness. If we have a world in which 90% of the population is vastly happy, while the rest is very unhappy, this world would still be more preferable than a world in which everyone is equally happy but just 'happy' instead of 'vastly happy'. Do you see what I mean? It's always a matter of maximum happiness. Although, there are versions such as sufficientarianism that argues differently.
The next question: Well that is an excellent question. But we seem to do it in certain situations. Take a situation in which a woman finds out that she has a disease in which if she ever had children, those would be born with terrible disabilities only leading to suffering. Wouldn't we say that it would be immoral for her to have children if it will only lead to suffering?
Maybe that's a bad example, but I think you know what I mean. Maybe people don't think like that. Anyways. Thank you so much for the comment! ❤️
Brilliant acting at 1:23 😂
Haha, thank you. 😂
Yes, you're back! So thrilled to see you with this new energy. Thanks for bringing up this topic and using Benatar, of course!
Fantastiskt Redigerad Lycka till, kompis
Thank you so much Wahid! Yeah, I remembered that you mentioned him! I felt that I had to read his article for this video. 😀 Peter Singer even mentioned him in his book practical ethics, although, he never went into great detail of the argument. Reading between the lines, Benatar seems to be troublesome for him in that book.
Tack! Lite ny stil. ❤️