Can You Answer These Tricky Moral Dilemmas?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- For three months free with Express VPN: www.expressvpn.com/cosmicskeptic
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
I was recently introduced to an interesting website that has a variety of philosophy quizzes on it. I thought, after realising the questions were quite interesting, that I would make a video going through some of them, and explaining my thinking!
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
The quiz in this video: www.philosophyexperiments.com...
Philosophy Experiments website: www.philosophyexperiments.com/
Watch 'Should You Sell All Your Possessions': • Should You Sell All Yo...
------------------------TIMESTAMPS--------------------------
Intro 0:00
Question One 1:07
Question Two 8:10
Question Three 9:59
Closing Thoughts 18:16
---------------------SPECIAL THANKS-----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
John Early
Austin Chiappetta
Sveline
Teymour Beydoun
Isaac Medina
Adam Gray
Nolan Kent
Jade
Monstar
Seth Balodi
Anon Training
David Nehlsen
Citizens of Civilization
David Nehlsen
William Davies
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...statistically speaking, you're probably not subscribed..."
I have never been a statistical anomaly, before. Cool!
@JESUS LOVES MUSLIMS Apparently there's a discord link somewhere.
Me neither! I'm so happy.
@JESUS LOVES MUSLIMS Not through me.
I mean that's statistically anomalous itself
Just the fact of existing in this universe is already an statistic anomaly.
Would love to see them all answered! Don't care if it's 10 20min videos or 10000 hours. Please honor my will to be happy 4 the greater good.
It would make an amazing series, causing everyone to think more.
@@johnebner4102 from a utilitarian perspective alex is morally obliged to do it, the amount of pleasure given by such a video it would be greater than anything
@@nayibmedina1616 each moment that passes is another moment content could be added,so Alex is exponentially increasing my suffering by not fulfilling his duty of said series.
same
I agre, but I'd like it to be cut in many videos.
For number one, you are certainly not always in this situation. Every time you add responsibility to your plate, it requires more from you. Therefore, every time you helped someone out, it would require more, and at some point, it would no longer be true that the cost is low for you to help them.
So you could meet that obligation but only if you choose to live a life of relative poverty.
@@vinuzo9548 basically
That's not how the world works. We don't start with a set value of things, and spend amounts of that value to purchase things. We earn money over time, and if it was of little cost to yourself, that implies that you would be spending money that you don't need in order to live. So while you wouldn't be putting yourself in poverty, you would still be barring yourself from pleasures for the greater good, as long as it doesn't cause you suffering.
@@vinuzo9548I think most people would agree forcing yourself into poverty is not "little cost to yourself."
"Therefore, every time you helped someone out, it would require more..."
I don't think I get this. If I give a homeless person $20 dollars on the street, are you saying that I would be required to do more?
For question 1, the question specifically says "in the street." In this specific scenario, where it's possible and/or likely there is no one else that can actually help, I think you actually do have a -weak- moral obligation to help.
He’s not saying that having morals (a vaguely defined, misunderstood, and irrelevant word that is used subjectively by everyone and Pretentiously called “objective” by biased “experts), don’t matter and you should be heartless and cruel, the question posits that You have to help EVERYTIME and are obliged to it. Most people would help due to empathy, and doing onto others what you would want done for you if your in need.
I don’t think that would change things, even if you assumed that there weren’t people around who would in fact change things. A large amount of suffering in the world carries on for decades because nobody can and/or will help, and some stops nearly immediately because pretty much anyone can and will. The question itself only asks if YOU have an obligation yourself to help them.
In such a case, I don’t believe you do, because as Alex pointed out in the video, you leave them in the same state of being regardless of if you had been there and left, or you had not been there at all. Would it be better if you would’ve saved them? Yes. Would you be morally higher if you had saved them? Yes. Does it inherently change your level/degree of morality if you leave them alone? No
This doesn't fully solve the problem though. If everyone else is capable of helping, then nobody has an obligation to help, and you get a situation similar to the Kitty Genovese murder: the screams are loud enough to alert the whole neighborhood, but calling the police has a cost because it takes a few minutes of your time. Since everyone else has heard the screams, you don't have an obligation to help so you don't. In the end nobody calls the police.
Either way he’s changing the conditions. If you are spending your entire life giving money to charity, then you are by definition not “helping someone at little cost”
@@yoeyyoey8937
Well yeah, if that's all you do. If he's saying you simply just do it throughout your life, that could be a lot of different answers
"would you kill 10 thousand to save 100 thousand?"
me: "depends on which side my mom is on"
The best part of this is that you can take it however you like.
@@azuravian if she's on the ten thousands
OHHH MANN, PRESS THE DAMN RED BUTTON
I would just save 110,000
Ramen
Not gonna lie they had us in the first-
Oh shit
“Hopefully you don’t feel cheated that I only answered four of the questions...”
Dude you answered three
Think he took the third one out during editing cause the video was too long
@@gracepearson5905 You mean the fourth?
@@gracepearson5905 OHHH I rewatched that part. Yeah he said so
He didn't actually fully answer the third one either - just said what people of certain views would think. To be fair though, he said it's because he hasn't made up his mind on them. Also, seemed to bloviate a bit, repeating the same thing again and again like 'with rights we don't care about the consequences, 10 people and 10k people is the same', over and over
@@vierte_ true
I think the problem with the first question is we cannot really define what non essential is, and eventually it depends on each specific situation again.
Question 1 is basically test of Peter Singer theory. I see it differently. If everyone stop non essential shopping, having a cup of coffee, a Friday dinner, or whatever non essential item howsoever you define, you will cause a recession in economy, unemployment, lower GDP and lower government expenditure. We will basically end up having lesser collective resources to help eventually than we are right now
or we would be better off per person@@Xadil123
Or you end up with everyone having the same amount of wealth and being happy. Sure that's quite oversimplified, but we don't know what the outcome would be.
@@schmon8409That’s missing the point. By allowing people the liberties of inquiry into things that don’t involve suffering, we advance society towards holistic solutions instead of personally sacrificing your own fortune for a less fortunate individual’s sake
@@noahederyIt's not missing the point whatsoever, it's a different perspective on what the theoretical outcome would be.
For Q1, this is why I am trying to find a middle ground between psychological egoism and Utilitarianism. Both have very modern and valid points, but require the other when put into real practice.
C.S Lewis is rolling in his grave rn
Egoism has no valid points, and utilitarianism is just an egoist's rationalization for why they're not evil people for subscribing to their inherently evil philosophies.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 evil doesn’t exist
@@deithlan What do you mean by this?
@@soleo2783 everything that is and has ever been labeled as "evil", was based on a subjective moral standard, as all moral standards are subjective.
One person’s evil might not be another person’s evil. Thus I personally find it a bit of a useless word.
Objective evil does not exist, is what I mean.
Alex: Imagine saving on razor blades because you could give that money to charity. That would be ridiculous.
Also Alex, two months later:
Lmaao
Lool
Besides, beards are disgusting. ;)
@Wishy Missy I wouldn't mind having one of them. Trouble is, I've got mine. :)
@@Graeme_Lastname hahahahaha nice pic man
Me: Wow Alex is pretty smart
Alex: Your ISP like Chrome or Safari
Me: But no genius
Whoops 🤦🏻♂️
Presumably that section was scripted by NordVPN (or whoever he's advertising) and "like" should have been "through".
@@ellistarceansa8182 yeah, either that or you definitely don’t want to be using their product
There is a lot more wrong with that script he read than just that. He is actively endangering his followers with what he said. It's ridiculous how many people sell out to those VPN providers.
@@Ajinzem explain
For the fourth question, I feel like there's a difference between torturing a person that planted a bomb, and killing one person to save ten others. In the case of the terrorist, if the bomb goes of, the terrorists is responsible for all the deaths that the explosion entails. And presuming that eveyone has a right to live, if he doesn't defuse the bomb before it goes off, he will have failed his moral duty of not infringing upon other people's right to live. Therefore, I argue, he has lost his own rights and it wouls be acceptable to torture him, in order to extract the information of where the bomb is.
The reason why I think it would be alright in this case is, that whereas in the first case the one person killed in order to save ten others hasn't done anything to deserve his rights being taken away, the second one has or is at least in the process of doing so. Another fact is that the terrorist chooses himself to be tortured, through the fact the he refuses to give away the location of the bomb. It is entirely in the terrorists hand if he is being tortured or not, the thousands of people in danger because of his bomb can be saved without any harm being done to the terrorist. In the case of the person being killed ot save the ten, him being killed is the condition, for the ten being saved.
As you can see, I don't see deontologists as being in a dilemma, as at least in this case, there is a clear right answer.
He didn't say the man who knows the location of the bomb was the one who planted it though. The terrorist who planted it and the man who knows it's location don't have to be the same person in that scenario. The man who knows the location could have the knowledge of where it is, without any other involvement. The terrorist could also have kidnapped his family and threatened to kill them if the bombs location is revealed, for that matter. So while it's his own choice whether or not to be tortured, I don't think he would necessarily "deserve" to have his rights taken away (since he himself isn't violating anyone else's rights, he is just refusing to cooperate with someone trying to stop other peoples right's from being violated).
Besides from a deontologists standpoint, rights shouldn't be taken away under any circumstance. So to chose to violate someone's rights, for any reason (including to stop someone else's rights from being violated) would still be wrong, from that point of view. That's how I took it, at least.
My problem with the answer he gave, and kind of with the whole way he described deontology, is it seems remarkably self-centered. He didn't seem at all concerned with how many people were having their rights violated, so much as who was doing the violating. A thousand people die instead of one being tortured? Well, the important thing is that my (the would-be torturer's) hands are clean.
So, off the back of that, I'd like to propose a modification. Instead of another human (or moral agent) being the one to torture the guy or sacrifice x people to save 10x, it's a robot. The designers/programmers are all dead, so they aren't part of this moral equation. Since the robot is not a moral agent, we can't hold it to moral standards. Would it be better for it to torture the guy to find the bomb, or harm 10,000 people to help 100,000?
@@hughcaldwell1034
For the robot, yes it would. For a person who’s a deontologist, it wouldn’t.
You call it self centered, but that’s moronic. The person who can torture has done nothing wrong up to that point, and if he doesn’t torture the guy and hundreds of thousands of people die, he isn’t responsible for those things. That’s the entire point
Refer to @Nattbad’s answer
@@Jonathan-A.C. And thanks for making my point for me. Your thought process here basically boils down to "Thousands of avoidable deaths happened, but *I personally* didn't do something that made me uncomfortable, which is the important thing."
Like I said - self-centered. It's a morality that seems more concerned with whether your own actions feel right than with the consequences to anyone else. I also whole-heartedly object to the idea that inaction implies a lack of responsibility for consequences. Deciding not to pull the lever in the trolley problem is still a decision. It doesn't take you out of the situation. Letting events of which you have knowledge and which you have the power to change run their course is not morally neutral. Otherwise you could argue that if all you had to do to stop the bomb is press a button that's right in front of you, no torture required, then it's okay to stand by and not press it.
I’d love to see more of these! I especially love how respectful you are to others’ views.
The first question reminds me of my intro to philosophy class, in which I had a great teacher. I think he was talking about utilitarianism (it was a long time ago) but he asked everyone to raise their hands if they had two kidneys. Everyone raises their hands. He says "Nobody here has donated a kidney? Don't you realize there are lots of people out there with only one kidney, and some who don't have any working kidneys? And you are all just walking around with two working kidneys, you immoral bastards!" lol
*cracks knuckles*
The less related two people are the more likely there will be some kind of rejection, meaning donating a kidney may not do anyone any good until you have a relative who needs one and there's a good chance it will be accepted, plus you will die eventually and will still have two perfectly donateable kidneys (I do think there is a moral issue with not being a donor in case of death) wheather you donate one now or not.
I mean if there was a “nice” organized system to efficiently match organs to those in needs what’s the downside? Yes it could be used in a very exploitative way but anything could that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to be more moral. At the very least all dead peoples organs should be public properly no?
@@AJJ129 I'm curious how many people would support switching organ donation to an opt out thing, vs opt in. As in, everyone is an organ donor by default, unless they opt out.
@@FectacularSpail I think they have something like that in Germany, I can't remember exactly but it might be when your getting your drivers licence you need to actually untick the box in the form to say you don't want to be a donator. this does result in a way higher percentage of people donating.
It is on a per case basis, rights should be respected.
For question one, part of the question was "at little cost to yourself". Constantly donating money is costing you, and so is altering your life to the extent where you no longer are able to do things that are not essential. Anything that will affect you, will, in a way, be costing you. Therefore you are not obligated to do this in relation to the terms of that argument. At least, that's my view on it.
I think Alex would argue that the "little cost" is compounding. If you lived in a world where the opportunity to help someone in need only presented itself once a year, he would probably answer differently. So I think you both actually agree
THANK YOU like if it wouldn't have a negative impact on you then you should absolutely help others when you are able to. Idk how that's even an argument. I like Alex's videos and think he is a smart guy, but idk I disagree with what he said about that one.
@@littlebear9842 to be fair, the question says "little cost", not "no cost". That's a massive difference.
1000 × 0 = 0 but 1000 × 0.1 = 100
@@Eden-LikeTheGarden-Rama but he said never doing anything you enjoy again like going out to eat or reading books, which would be a big cost. 😐
@@littlebear9842 yes, little costs like foregoing a single book or not going to a restaurant for one meal will compound into massive costs because of the number of people in need.
I'll have to think on this more but I think my issue is the equivocation between stumbling upon someone in need (with the assumption that only you can help them) vs actively seeking out every charity under the sun.
One of your earlier videos had "Restart" by Ozma at the ending card, and it got me into the band. Very good crying songs can be found between stacks of amazing, entracing but mean grooves.
Very cool, thank you, CosmicSkeptic.
Please go through the list! I’ll be waiting for the next 4 questions because your phenomenal!
I will say that question one's distinction that there is little cost to yourself is an important one. I think we all understand that the more you help others, at some point or another, it becomes a higher cost. If we spend more time and effort helping others, it may not be proportional, but the cost does increase.
I learned this the hard way as a guy who really enjoys helping people. I didn't assign much value to myself or my time. It put me in a place where I was unable to help others for a long time, due to being unwell.
Thus, I think the conclusion that we are obligated to help if it is little cost can be argued as long as you remember the "low cost" stipulation.
I totally agree and I also think - because of what you said - that there is no real way for a person to actually judge all the time if it is a low cost or not. It is not just about money. It is about wellfare. If you are morally obligated to help all the time then what happens when you have financial means to do so but not the eg. emotional capacity? I believe you can foresee and calculate your material means and restrictions but not the emotional toll which will also accumulate over time and can only be assesed after the fact, because you will feel the emotional burden after you have done the financial and/or emotional help you gave. So as the cost accumulates you will have a point when it will be not a lower cost but you will be able to determine that only after you passed it. It does not happen at the same time - the realization of cost and realization of the benefit of help.
That's why I like this guy, he can convince you of anything and then, convince you of the opposite.
Feels good to think sometimes
Only if you are stupid. His arguments on morasly always fai, because there is no where he can get his morality from when he is atheist.
@@doyoufeel...thatyoulackcri6760 neither can theists. They get their morality from something unprovable.
@@guydude7550 Interestingly, none of that is allowed in christianity. You might have confised that with the religion of atheism (which is in reality communism). Look up the great scholars of atheism, for example
*laurence krauss on incest*
...here on youtube and learn something about "morality". And btw, the pedophile communists harris, dawkins and delahunty agrere on this.
Hmm
All of this fellow's videos are extremely interesting and well presented. I enjoy listening to this young man's logic and articulation. He commands a good knowledge of the English language also. Please continue with your videos: they are uniformly instructive and enlightening, particularly on the topics of morality and religion.
Please answer all the questions! I agree with you profoundly and would love to hear more of your thoughts. In depth analysis, beautifully done!
Do the entire quiz because it begins to ask the same questions but with slightly different circumstances and it's a way to see if those circumstances make a difference to the overall morality. Also there is a score at the end.
Yeah I noticed that all the questions can essentially be boiled down to "are you morally obligated to help people" which Alex already established that you are not. For example take one of take one of the many questions where it asked if you are morally obligated to kill x amount of people to save y amount where y is greater than x. I would say no because again, you are not morally obligated to help people. If we take this position to its logical extreme, we are under no obligation to help people live or prevent death. It doesn't matter if you save 1 or 1 million people, you were never obliged to help them in the first place.
Score? In what way? Does it tell you which ethics/ moral philosophy is closest to yours?
@@Lemon-st3mf Didn't Alex establish that you aren't always obligated to help people, but you are obligated to give some amount of help? If the follow up obligation of giving more effective help also obtains (e.g. the bed nets he mentions rather than donating to an art museum), it would seem that saving 1 million people at least could become an obligation.
Yo this video wasn't long ENOUGH. I want atleast 10 more hours of this!
I loved your takes on these dilemmas, i would love to see more
It’s been a year for you but only 20 minutes for me. It’s interesting following your thought process. Thank you for sharing 💭
Wait a second though, on the first question it specifically says LITTLE COST TO YOURSELF. I'd definitely answer with yes, because as soon as I'm giving away an amount that makes me uncomfortable, it's no longer "little cost to myself". You're making it seem as though "giving away as much as you possibly can" is the same as "little cost". The fact that I'm constantly in that situation doesn't change that.
Very good point.
I agree
Would you give everything on you to send someone having a heart attack to hospital would you consider the cost that might be your food for the month but surely it's not a cost issue
While I agree with you, I do think a slightly more conservative version of Alex's point would still be worth considering.
I.e how much money can you really afford to spend on charity, monthly, before it can reasonably be classed as no longer 'at little cost to you'. How many luxuries could you give up whilst still existing within some state of comfort.
I do share his slight reluctance to say you have this 'moral obligation'.
The problem is that "uncomfortable" is very subjective and shouldn't be part of an answer, but then again the meaning of "little cost" isn't really clear either. Guess it's a bad question.
I disagree with the first argument, because you’d eventually reach a point where the cost of helping is no longer small. So if the cost is still small enough, you are indeed obliged. The problem here is defining how small that is.
I had the same thought for a moment, but the I realized that he was comparing the suffering you would go through, with the suffering you would prevent. For example, the suffering you would go through from selling all your stuff is less significant than the suffering of children starving to death. Your suffering may not be small but it's of a lower cost in comparison to the suffering you would be preventing. But in the statement it says "Little" not "lower". I think if it's little your point is valid, but if it's lower his point is also valid.
Even Jeff Bezos would eventually run out of wealth if he constantly had to donate money every second. I would be interested to know how many people he could help before he ran out.
In question, small is relative to you.
I'm here to add that I, too, would love to see your responses to each of the questions! They are rather... prickly and (as the title agrees) _tricky_ moral questions, indeed! And you only touched on three of them? I'd love to see the rest, too!
Though many of us may disagree with your answers, it would certainly make us _ALL_ actually _THINK_ about them more. That should be a very _GOOD_ thing!
Now, since this video is a few months old, I will have to rush over to your channel page and see if you actually _DID_ do a longer video (or series of videos) on this set of questions! I sincerely hope I find one!
Oh, man... just looked, and you didn't do it... waaaahhhhhh 😭😭😭😭😭
This is me, sitting here, still hoping you _will_ do this that several of us requested!
I agree, the dilemma of obligation to help has been exacerbated by globalism. For example, the parable of the Good Samaritan makes sense given its locality and immediacy, but you're right, to require that ethic on a global scale actually makes it harder for the individual to respond to immediate needs in a meaningful way.
Global scale is high cost
Alex: "...you never do anything ever again because you're spending your entire life giving money to charity"
me: "dude, how much money you think i got?"
you're still using a modern communication device ... why haven't you sold it yet so you can feed the poor people in africa? Clearly you are heartless and morally bankrupt 😂
@@BrutusAlbion would you save your phone or a child from a burning building?
@@TheMoMoBigGC theoretically I could save more children with the money the phone is worth than the singular child that I might save.
@@TheMoMoBigGC whose kid? 😂
The answer is both though.
Well I think that's the point, the question says that you are obligated to help when you'll have little cost to do so. Therefore you won't expend your whole life donating all of your possessions, because that won't be of little cost to you! You will only be obligated to donate while that doesn't disturb your life too much. So I disagree with Alex on that one
This is why I like this guy. A Simple topic with so many layers to peel away.
Layers of paint. Lmao🤣
You nuts. Lmao🤣
That's that's paint y'all peeling off the walls y'all be talking to. Lmao🤣
@@myshownvjhope Why do like using "lmao" ,so much lmao 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@myshownvjhope lmao
I'd definitely love to watch you answering all the other questions (inclusing question #3)
This was super interesting, I hope you'll make videos on the other dilemmas!
@Mahesh Krishnan yes, I am an atheist, I love this channel!
@Mahesh Krishnan I'm working as a translator
Sure, you can find me on insta, I'm @mely_93
Yes dude! Please go through all of
Them. We don’t care how long the video is. The longer the better
🤣🤣🤣 seriously? I'm just here for the laughs now. Where do you people exist at? Lol. Do you talk to people about this in the real world? Because this is super embarrassing. Lol
@@myshownvjhope embarrassing? Here for the laughs? This is literally a video about moral dilemmas? Where you getting the comedic form of this? I talk to people and I want more of this because it is thought provoking and strengthens my ability to think critically.
@@jordanrish9053 yes. Super. Lmao🤣. Yes I'm actually back to do that. Lmao🤣
@@jordanrish9053 so what? This person in this video has absolutely ZERO morals so wtf? All of you people and that loser that made this video; pure comedy. The opposite of gold - shined up turds y'all are lmao🤣 Lmao🤣. Think critically about what? Stupid shit? Lmao🤣 stuff that you don't even understand and at this point will NEVER! Lmao🤣 you're a joke.
He's got my subscription now! Lmao🤣
Question number 2 reminded me of something my daughter once said to me. She said it speaking of kindness but I find that what she said also applies to the answer of yes we should turn in our brother if he has caused harm to someone. She said everyone has a mother. Everyone has someone that loves them. Looking at it that way if being someone's child or loved one is an excuse not to have them suffer the consequences of their bad choices then no one would ever go to prison and lawlessness would rule.
protecting peoples right to life is important.
Sure but it depends on your relationship with the person. Some people have relationships with high levels of confidentiality and trust
There is a catch however. Say your daughter just joined a gang and commited her first crime - shoplifting. It is not just a question whether you turn her in.
Because you, as her mother, may have a unique ability here. She won't care what someone on the street thinks about it, but she may well care for your opinion. She may listen to you. You may be able to convince her to leave that gang and commit no more crimes. That would not only save her, but also all her future victims.
If you surrender her to the authorities, what is the consequence? Maybe she also gives up crime. But quite possibly she won't, as we well know. She now feels betrayed by you, and who will she confide in in the future? Probably, the gang members, who will push her to continue a life of crime.
So you may well have doomed her, and her future victims.
@@sorsocksfake Doesn't matter. what you are doing is excusing her crime by appealing to a greater good. That's wrong. If she does wrong it is my responsibility to turn her in. Then I can speak to her and try to convince her to do better in the future. If she no longer trusts me then that shows that she has not accepted responsibility for her actions and transferred blame to me instead. As long as she does not take responsibility for her actions she won't change and do better. As long as I only consider her by shutting out the rest of the world I do more harm than good. The entire world needs to be our sons, our daughters, our mothers, our fathers, only then will be make society good for all.
@@bluecce
I don't see how it excuses her crime. It is simply not your job to turn her in, just like her lawyer shouldn't. Society has a different role for you in this matter.
You argue that, if she hates you for betraying her, she is irresponsible. Yet, if she were responsible, then you wouldn't need to rat her out. You would just convince her to turn herself in.
It appears to me that this isn't so black&white. Most people wish to do good, and most people fail at times.
As for the last lines: a wishful lie we tell ourselves. No force in the universe could ever make you love me the way you love your daughter. The closest examples might be suicide cults, the stasi and so forth, and those are hardly aspirations to live up to.
Evolution does not allow it. At best, such morals destroy themselves, and are thus worthless. Usually, they enable exploitation and make the world a worse place.
Very good video. Amazingly thought out. Well done.
Please answer more of the questions! I found this video fascinating
"Little cost to yourself"
Hmmm yes, selling everything I own that isn't essential.
Exactly, Alex didn't factor in acute circumstances vs the aggregate costs of constantly being charitable.
@@Raptor302 Isn't that exactly what he factors in when he concludes that you don't always have an obligation to help, but you do have an obligation to help some amount?
@@davidlovesyeshua His answer is 'no obligation'.
@@Raptor302 he didn't factor in a lot of shit. Lmao🤣
@@Raptor302 because he's a cold heart bitch. Cold hearted. Lmao🤣
I slightly disagree on the first answer. The question says at “little cost”. The more you give the less resources you have. The $5 you have to give when you have 2k in the bank might be considered “little cost”, but to give $5 when you only have $10 is at GREAT cost. Therefore, the question is relative and dependent on what you consider to be “little cost”. You could decide to be morally obliged to give at all times, but believe everything is a high cost and therefore never give... or you could believe everything is “low cost” and always give.
Little cost for you. $5 might be pennies for someone but for a poor person a little cost might be their time and effort.
And you may need the money for security, preventing yourself being the one in need in the future
I would agree with you but the question says: "at little cost to yourself". The last two words are quite important as to me, they imply that the amount you give is relatively small in comparison to what you have, not what is perceived as a small amount by most people.
@@oli5120 that is where my “slightly disagree” with comes in. Alex said you would have an obligation to always give in the situation, but that’s not true. The more you give, the greater the cost to yourself. $5 would not always be considered low cost. Eventually you need to decide when giving is too great of a cost.
@Ashton M
Correct, making this a relative decision. Which means you could believe a person is morally obliged to always give to help the needy, but never actually give anything.
If a person had 10 million and believed every penny spent is a high cost, then you’d never be obliged to give even though your answer would say otherwise.
loved the video, do more questions please!
Loved this, thanks mate.
In the utilitarian case, it isn't about proportion those being helped to those suffering. It's about the net amount of happiness, which would lend itself to the scenario with the greater amount of being helped as a better one (100,000 - 10,000 = 90,000).
while you're right in principle, it's never as simple as this subtraction. It's difficult enough to know in advance that hurting one person will actually help ten, and to a roughly comparable extent, but I fail to imagine a scenario where hurting 10 000 will predictably help 100 000 to a comparable extent, without any other adverse side-effects, and no other way to help the 100 000 without hurting 10 000, and that is not made up of individual decisions of hurting one individual (eg convicting one criminal)
I agree with this statement. Just like a libertarian would say that harming more people is worse than harming fewer, the utilitarian would say that helping more people is better than helping fewer. Either way, the scale makes a difference.
@Carlos Adrián Aguirre The middle ground is that the counts need to be modified by weights that take large scale good and bad into account. 100,000 x (weight of mass good) - 10,000 x (weight of mass bad). The weight of mass bad would have to quite significant, even if the weight of mass good were underwhelming (
So, utalitarism is based on intersectionalism. It matters who commits a crime because it will determine whether it is a crime or not. So, feminism. Which is the same as communism. This can be summarized like this. If a white person kills another person, it is a crime, unless he kills a white person then it is not a crime. When a muslim kills a person is is not a crime in any way no matter who he kills.
@Carlos Adrián Aguirre I think utilitarianism has 2 major problems, one in that who's to decide what counts as people being happy, the second in that it completely avoids responsibility which makes it a very collectivist ideology similar to communism(i.e its ok to shoot your land lord so that more people benefit by living rent free on his property).
I’m a physicist and a hard science guy, but I love philosophy in the meantime when I’m not drowning in equations and mathematical rigor. I love your channel and I love to think outside the box on our existence, morals, religion and all the way down the line. Thanks.
want to grab a beer?
@@pianoman1403 Pretty sure we all do....
Krauss is a fool to disregard philosophy.
@Daniel Blais What a silly comment
@Daniel Blais I'm a Christian and I just don't see the appeal in that argument. Let's just assume God doesn't exist and were a cosmic accident, religion or not, humans would still be here to this day
Alex, I think a true utilitarian would actually *prefer* the 100,000 to 10,000 situation to the 10 to 1 one, what matters is not the ratio, but the difference, and in one case your net contribution has been of 90,000 whereas on the other case it's been just 9.
Though tremendously improbable, I hope you see this. Great video as always ;)
I agree, I was looking for this comment as I had came to the same conclusion.
@@Adam-ez8dwI also agree. Maybe someone can elaborate?
Great video! Would love to see more 🙌🏽
I am never disappointed by your videos. I'd be perfectly content with as many videos of whatever length you can tolerate making.
This reminds me about an ethics course I was in in high school.
We had this exercise where we discussed few situations where someone ends up killing somebody for various reasons. We were paired up and I had my friend as my pair.
We were throwing a lot of this "you wouldn't be morally wrong in this situation" argument around.
Then our teacher asked around and some girl was like "it's always wrong you should never kill"
Me and my friend looked at eachother, feeling quite evil that day
she wouldn't have said that if someone threatened to kill her.
I would just have said this is a stupid scenario. and there is not wrong or right way to do this. since it's all up to the person in that case. if I could safe 10 people by killing one person. Sure I can say I'll kill that person. but if it happened in real life this is not something I could say I could do. the guilt of just thinking of killing that person would probably stop me from doing so. but I would not be in the wrong if 10 people died. it's and impossible Scenario. but if I killed that one person I would have ignored my morality of not killing people. can be people say good on you for saving 10 people. but I would have murdered a person. no getting past that.
If I was not to blame for the scenario I'm not to blame for 10 people dyeing.
So Either way you cut it. there is no good way out of it. so the question in it self is stupid.
Why, god doesn't say you must not kill in self defence. You have the same right to your life as anoter person, but when that person attacks you, then your right is being violated. Of course you can fight back. But you should not use more force than he uses on you. So if he is no trying to kill you, then you should not try to kill him.
Also, high treason is one crime I stil believe there should be death penalty for. It is the ultimative crime, where the leader of the country or someone in similar high position has attempted to install communism for example. I do not want to pay for such a person in jail for the rest of her life. If she is released, she will be of no good use to anyone simply because she cannot be trusted. Kill the bastard.
I definitely would like to see more of this format.
About the bomb example, you can argue that since the terrorist has violated the rights (to live) of the people who are going to die in the explosion, his rights are now invalid. This means that the interrogator is allowed to torture the terrorist, because he doesn’t have rights anymore.
This comes from the perspective that by violating someone elses rights, you make yours invalid.
You are obligated if you wish to be considered the most good person you possibly can be. It just depends how comfortable you are with not being as good as you can be.
This is so strong.
good is what and to who is it good? good for goodness sake/ what is are peoples speaking of here?
What a great way to sum up a complex idea, honestly well worded.
@@crystalgiddens7276 Good is a value judgment I place on things, and in the case of a moral issue like this, good is what I deem best in motive and course of action.
@@xensonar9652 good for who? I asked. Good for you?
In regards to the first problem, never once have I heard the perspective that in the situation with the person in need on the street, you are the ONLY other person on that street that can help them. While as with charity, it’s like the whole world stands beside you on that street and nobody is helping the person in need, even though other people are even better equipped than you are to do so.
I think that if you are the only person able to help the guy on the street you are obliged to do so, charity is not really a good comparison, it is virtuous, but not an obligation in the same way.
It was my first thought too, the scenario where you are the only one that could help, you would be obliviously obligated to do so. But isn't this just the bystander effect? Not helping where are others whom also could help, but doesn't help either. And making the bystander effect the morally correct thing just seems strange to me.
If a child was drowning in front of you but you had a nice suit on that you would ruin saving them would it make a difference if 1,000,000,000 world class fully equipped life savers were there if they weren't going to do anything compared to if they weren't? A person who won't do anything is as morally relevant to a person who is not there
Why? The obligation terms is the dealbreaker; I say you are not morally obliged to do anything. It only has moral worth given you take a conscious decision to perform such a task. Otherwise it would be comparable to freerider ideology in the context of morals. Say, you do something that indirectly benefits someone who suffers. Does that make you virtuous for taking an action you do not bother to gauge the morality? So, by obligation, can someone be virtuous if it does not come from intention or free will?
Please do more!
please do more videos like this!
every one of his videos feels like a “well...actually🥸” and it’s so good
I think it shows that morality and other big issues like this can't be boiled down to a yes/no or multiple choice answer. Hopefully videos like this help people be more retrospective when answering these questions in their lives.
You think this is good?. ....Lmao🤣. No. No. Lmao🤣
@@myshownvjhope Troll ,I would love to see you make better content
@@skaldro who's trolling? I'm laughing. You're trolling. And its pathetic. Lmao🤣🤡
@@myshownvjhope You are trolling too ,lmao 😂🤡 ,I am laughing too lmao 🤡😂🤡😂🤡 ,I am butthurt too like you ,lmao 🤡😂😳🤡😂😳🤡😂😳🤡😂😳🤡 ,Sus ,Sus ,Amogus ,LMAO 🤡😳😂😂😂😂Lmao 😋😋😋
A thought: Does the person with the information about the bomb lose some of his rights by planting a bomb and endangering others. By potentially violating peoples rights by planning to kill them with the bomb does that person forfeit their own rights to live without harm? I think they would forfeit their right to safety by violating others rights to safety.
Very good question. We take away voting rights of imprisoned criminals.
Perhaps the best plan would be to torture the terrorist into providing the information, then offer the information to the city for a reasonable commercial price. I mean nobody cares about the terrorist and it is only fair that you are properly compensated for your time and skills. Of course the terrorist may have been paid for his work, in which case a bribe might be offered to you so he might escape and provide you the lifestyle which you so richly deserve. Or even better you receive the bribe, torture him anyway, and if they refuse to talk invent some information to sell to the city.
my god I knew this video was missing something
so many unsaid things that would have provided obvious foundations for our answers
The thing is ALex is not representing all deontologist views, not everyone believes that rights are absolute, so in the bomb case you could violate right of one person if by doing so you prevent much greater harm (killing millions of people). Or even more trivial example, you have right to freedom of movement but that right can be overthrown if there are good reason for doing so e.g. you have super infectious deadly disease that can easily spread and kill people, so your movemment can be restricted - you have to be quarantined.
There's no reason to conflate the person who has the information with the person who does the torturing. The person who has the information could be said to have a moral duty not to keep it to themselves. Passing it on to the anti-terrorist squad doesn't violate anyone's rights. The head of the anti-terrorist task force can then make a pragmatic decision that has nothing to do with morality. Combatting terrorism and saving lives is in their job description, so their absolute moral duty is to torture or otherwise extract information from the perp.
Happy 420k subs Alex!
Alex, as a fellow conscientious person who has been moved to follow a vegan diet I am drawn to your content. I appreciate your analysis on ethical and moral issues and since I just recently discovered your channel I have a lot to catch up on! I’m a Christian because of my study of the Bible and would find it to be a pleasure to attempt to answer some of the questions you’ve posed regarding God and faith. I’ve noticed that many believers don’t use the Bible to answer questions which is a shortcoming of the person and not God. Not trying to convert you lol but perhaps be edified by your input.
You missed a crucial point. The question was referring to a situation when you passed someone 'on the street ' meaning you are the only one that can help right now. The man in need is not in another continent, not even in another street - he is right where you are and you can help him - no one else is closer and no one else even know he needs help.
exactly, he even read the question again and missed that crucial part
Agreed! He also adds in the word(s) "relatively" and/or "comparatively" regarding the cost, in order to make it go from little cost to yourself to costing damned near everything
Yes. That initial little cost to yourself gets compounded into costing everything but your bare and ultimate necessities, which fundamentally changes the nature of the question that is being asked.
What he seems to be saying is that that obligation to help (reduce suffering) would eventually come to harm you due to the ubiquity of suffering of others, but the thing is, getting a new book, eating out, or living in a house with a spare room might very well be things that contribute to my health/welfare/ health and welfare of the society I live in.
No, it doesn't say there are not hundreds of other people around (which is pretty normal if is on a street). "Severe need" is not specified further. If you are a medical doctor and the person is in severe need of medical attention it becomes very different. He also says that it depends on the situation.
Either way these questions to begin with is yes and no questions. as you can see he can only wing yes or no. so they are flawed to begin with. these questions can't be answered yes or no. since it depends on the situation. and where is a line from little harm to your self and to much harm. it depends on each person. I think it was what he was trying to say. and compared to the suffering that one person on the street is going through also matters. is it a leg blown of or is it both. that's a lot of suffering. so little for you in that case can be your ruined cloth because of the blood. but if you are wearing 8000$ cloth then it could be to much harm to yourself. or you live in a country where if you bring that person to the hospital you are billed the bill if he dies. that could ruin you. depending on the persons income, it can be low harm or ruin your life completely.
But the question just automatically assumes it's a little harm to your self. in that case I would help. but what can count as a little bit harm, that depends on each person.
Did Alex ever do a video about dying not being bad? He mentioned it a while ago as something big he was working on. It sounded interesting.
Being dead is not bad for you, but having cancer (dying) is.
@Joshua Mcgillivray Thanks for the info.
Dying isnt bad especially if you can die on your own terms
@@christophercombs7561 so if someone is dying of a disease that’s bad, but if they desire to die of that disease it ceases to be bad?
@@noobslayeru that is really hypothetical because no one would want that. But if it didn't make anyone (family/friends) unhappy then most definitely i think it wouldn't be a bad thing.
Loved it, keep it up.
On the first question: Yes, you're absolutely obliged if it's of little cost to you. The problem here is that "little cost" is a relative term. The median person in most countries is mostly living in practical poverty, from paycheck to paycheck with little or no savings. Asking these people to give up what little comfort they have is immoral, when there are people that have so much more and would lose so much less in the same way. The result of this would be that those having the most, would be the most morally obliged to prevent suffering in this way and those having the least, would be obliged the least. Utopian daydreaming is my favourite pastime.
agreed, the problem is people take that line of reasoning to go, oh im poor and the ceo of my company isn't so he has to donate and not me. When in reality most people in the united states are still rich compared to everyone else, so likely everyone could manage to give something within their means.
If harming someone counts as -1 and helping someone counts as +1 then harming someone to help 10 others nets me +9 points. Harming 10,000 people to help 100,000 nets me +90,000 points. So they're not the same for a utilitarian.
The question is whether the scale of application of the plan affects your decision on whether to apply it.
If given that the cost per person helped is equal in each scale, you as a utilitarian should decide the same - whether offered to apply this plan in situation of 1-vs-10, or in situation of 10k-vs-100k. The fact that eventual score is different is not relevant to the question asked.
I think the point they're getting at is that the larger the scale of implementation, the MORE likely they are to act upon it, because of a greater net gain.
@@AlienAV Interestingly, your analysis would render the right-based framework to also make no distinction between the smaller and larger scales, since the decision would always be no.
@@davidlovesyeshua That's where I though Cosmic was heading initially, until, well, he wasn't.
Why not save all 110,000?
I would like to thank you so much Alex. I dont know if you'll see this but , you're the reason I became an atheist and a Vegan! I now learn to live my life without eating any animal products and withoutany guilt of being with "sin". This has made me happier as a person , thank you chap ❤
thank you for letting reason rule and showing compassion! Wish you all the best on your journey
That’s awesome. Since going vegan I feel so much better mentally and physically. I wish you well.
just found your channel, this is the second video of yours i’ve seen and i felt like sharing some thoughts!
for question 1 i think every time we are faced with one of these hypothetical suffering people we are obliged to help in order to be aligned with the right side of ethics and morals. i say this because the question explicitly adds the qualifier of the help we provide being of little cost to ourselves. your example about having a chance to constantly donate to charity in this day and age seems to be disregarding that point. of course if we were simply obliged to help anyone who’s suffering no matter what then we’d all be immoral in this case, but the cost factor is what does it for me.
i might also add that as an american, i see people begging and suffering on the streets almost every time i leave my house. i am not rich by any means, but in those instances when i have money to spare and i see someone who seems like they could use some money, i think giving something it’s definitely the right thing to do. if i simply don’t have money to spare, due to having to buy a train ticket or pay a bill or something, then the obligation to help is no longer there since the cost on me would be too high
Great video would like to see all of the questions answered.
Wouldn’t opening a tab to donate be classified as “seeking out” ways to help, which may or may not be different than simply addressing the situations that present themselves to you? I’m not so sure.
Yes thats what I think is a difference. As well as the "little cost to yourself" idea. Giving to charity once in awhile isn't a huge cost if you have enough money BUT if you're constantly seeking out charities, when is it too much? When have you given enough/more than you have? Finding this balance and knowing where to donate to knowing you physically do not have enough to donate to help everyone can be really complicated. Its different than seeing someone on the street who will die if you don't buy them a 10 dollar medication, or stop and call 911, or stop and give them water, or whatever act you might do.
@@BrianaLynn7 I think you are simply reframing the distinction Cosmic Sceptic already makes between "duty to always help" and "duty to sometimes help."
Either that or implicitly reintroducing the variable of location that CS tried to philosophically abstract away from as ethically irrelevant.
Aside: Try 'Tab For a Cause'.
2:27 I just went ahead and did it. didn't know Alex suggesting it as an option was the justification I needed
Interesting video to the scenarios presented. Tough decisions explained with the best choice available thru philosophy.
this would be a great playlist to do
i watched this channel when i was way younger, but fell out of the loop for this side of youtube. glad to have you pop back up into my feed
YESSS PLEASE. No matter the length of the videos in succession to this one, I will gladly watch and rewatch! Thank you, Alex!
I can find fault with a few of the points that you make or the way that you make them but well done overall, you've made a dam good stab at it and an interesting and highly accessible video, (one of the best that I've seen).
1. Obliged? No. Helping could harm when you're enabling
2. Turn them in? Not at first. Make them turn themselves in or threaten to turn on them.
4. Does it make a difference? Depends on who i'm hurting, and how they hurt
if you dedicate your life to others, it will become at some point, with large cost, as opposed to little cost .
Yes, but individually, for each people you help, it will be little cost.
But this is theoritical though and from a occidental point of view. Like donating to charities online to feed starving people or help other to have drinkable water, so on.
But imagine you are a Massaï herder from Sudan, there is only little you can do to help others around the world before it costs you more than the benefits. It does not work.
This was great!
It is amazing to hear your perspectives on quite tricky topics.
Please do more!
This really helped me understand the difference between causing harm and allowing it. My issue with utilitarianism is that reality is incredibly complex and in the biggest picture sense I don't think humans can make an accurate account of the benefits and harms of any particular act.
We definitely have some very different perspectives on ethics but this was an excellent and interesting video
PLEASE DO MORE! I've learned so many things regarding moral choice in this video
About the 1st one, it explicitly mentions the scenario about passing by someone in the street. It was Alex that generalized into online charity. I would like to see Alex's point on that since, unlike his point, we are not 24x7 in that situation (passing by someone in need in the street)
I agree that he didn't make it clear in this video, but I think he's abstracting away from location since he deems location ethically irrelevant. If you want further discussion on his part about duty to help others, I believe he has a video uploaded about effective altruism where he goes into much greater nuance.
exactly what I was thinking too
If it's a neighbour you have to help him somehow. Even if you just tell others to help him but a starving person has rights on us. So i think YES help him. A neighbour is any house for 40 doors in any direction (in Islam) How can ppl let their neighbour go hungry and they know about him... that's inhumane.
The second one got me thinking as I was once in a similar situation and decided against turning a person in. The situation was as follows: Two people I know (not familly, just freinds) did each something considerer illeagal. One of the actions I considered justifiable illegal and the other I think should be legal (But isn't). However, the two actions were connected and turning in one would lead to the discovery (and punishment) of the other.
It's not your responsibility anyway. The people in charge hire police to enforce the law. Leave it to them.
For question 1, a key part imo is that you are passing them in the street. My opinion is that you are obliged to help someone who needs help in your presence. In this way, we spread the burden of helping the needy to everyone without overburdening any individual person.
Agreed 100%. I feel you are committing a moral wrong by not helping where you so easily can. Its multiplied not only by your ease of ability, but by the potential suffering you are stopping by helping them. Those things add up fast.
That was exactly my thought. The thing is, with charity organizations, theoretically anyone around the world is able to help by giving money through the internet. On the other hand, you passing someone on the street, who is let's say crushed under a car, it is your obligation, to at least try to lift that car off of him, as you are the only one in that street that can do so. It is impossible for anyone other than you to know about this situation in this moment. That makes it critically different in my opinion and is why, I would say that you are obligated to help him.
Hmm, I would answer the first question differently: Yes, you're morally obliged to help someone if it is at little cost to yourself. However, it is unreasonable to expect people to always follow what is morally obligatory. The unreasonableness of a moral demand does not remove the obligatory part, it just makes it so society allows your conscience to rest, and maybe that's okay, simply because there's nobody else volunteering to be the next Gandhi.
However, if we are to always follow our most moral and ethical stance, then yes, we are obliged to help until we are unable to anymore. How far you are willing to strive for that ideal is something that needs to be challenged within your own conscience.
I think we need to realize that just because something is the morally right thing to do, does not mean that we are obligated to always be a perfect example of following it. Moral obligation != practical obligation.
If you help everybody all the time, it’s suddenly not „at little cost“ anymore
You are obliged to help a decent amount of people the best way you can.
I for example consider donating a waste. The money usually changes absolutely nothing. So I try to change the underlying issues instead
I understand time is as valuable as money of not more but it's wrong to say charities don't help you can check them out see what they do even if 50% of your money goes to admin you could still be saving lives
donating waste isn't very beneficial to anyone anyway.
Maybe you should start an organisation of trying to change the underlying issues. And then obviously you'll need to fund this, and able to do it better by getting more people to do it. Maybe you could then ask people to give you money to help address those underlying issues. You know... like a charity...
If it's not at little cost then you don't need to help.
@@vierte_ pretty much every charity I've ever heard of only ever helps the people affected by the root, not the root itself. which is fair enough in a way, fixing the root of the problem will take time and more effort and in that time plenty of people will die. but in the long term, working to fix the root cause will save more lives than simply trying to cure the symptoms of the problem.
The absence of free will results in the absence of moral responsibility.
However, if we pretend for a moment that free will exists, we find an interesting question implied within Dilemma #4:
Is harming 1000 people any worse than harming 1 person?
The temptation is to say that "Of course harming 1000 people is worse", but assuming each person is harmed in the same fashion, to the same degree, each person suffers equally.
By causing 1000 people to suffer, you are not causing 1000 times the suffering to any one person. You are causing 1000 people to suffer the same amount. The suffering sustained by each person is never greater than what a single person sustains, regardless of how many people are harmed.
So... what is it about harming 1000 people that makes it any worse? What is it about collective harm that makes it worse than individual harm?
I think for question 3, the question is asking "when considering whether or not is its morally justified", not "which is morally worse". So even from a rights based perspective, whether you are a utilitarian or a rights based person, the number of people being harmed doesn't actually matter when concerned to the question itself "if it is morally justified or not". For the utilitarian, it will always be justified. for the rights based person, it will always be not justified. So the answer will be the same for both - it does not matter how many people are being harmed.
3:38. I think the cost won't be low if every time we have to help the person in serious need, every single time. the cost is just too much now.
Yes that's what I was thinking too
I really liked it! I do wish you continue talking about this questions :D
Q1 asked if I was obligated to help someone in front me and was in need of help. It didn’t specify what kind of help they needed or what help I would provide. But you compared it to the situation of being obligated to help everyone by donations to charity at every given opportunity. I don’t think those two are the same situation.
Depending on the situation I think I would feel mostly obliged to help.
For example, someone is bleeding to death on the side walk, I would absolutely do whatever I can to help them.
If they are starving, I would feel obliged to spare some change and help them buy a meal.
How does this feeling of obligation equal to the obligation to make donations to charities and trust other people use that money to help others?
You are wrong with question 1. The first question specifies minimum cost. That's the loop breaking condition, if you can't live your life anymore or have difficulty helping everyone it is not anymore a minimum cost... And so you are not obliged anymore.
It's hard to define the limit where the minium cost is also because it's not a valuable cost, it takes in account various currencies (mental health, money, time, physical health...)
So it really depends on every situation.
If you are in a wheelchair and a person has fallen down, you are not obliged to help him get up, because the cost to do so would be high, you could although call someone with your phone to assist...
(Paraphrased) "If you have to help everyone all the time then you'd never get anything done!"
That seems like quite a heavy cost ;)
Alex leaps from "at little cost to yourself" to "you have to get rid of everything that is strictly not essential to your life".
This is by no means an indictment that Alex misinterpreted the question or anything, the question is purposely subjective and invites us to fill in our own biases. It is interesting though, that Alex' interpretation of "at little cost" is everything non-essential to his life. I think that points to a rather charitable framework.
"You can't say that in every instance of that situation you're morally obliged to help, because if you do you're led to this conclusion where you can never do anything ever again because you're spending your entire life giving money to charity."
As I alluded to earlier, I think Alex is committing a slippery slope fallacy here.
The question says "at little cost to yourself", and his argument is that eventually it would become too great a cost. But surely once it reaches the point of even moderate cost, it's no longer a moral obligation as defined here, because it explicitly says "at little cost to yourself"? Once the cost is greater than what you think of as "little cost", this moral obligation would no longer apply.
The difference between Committing Harm vs Allowing Harm is fascinating and I need a full video on that if he hasn't already done one.
How we determine what is little cost? When can i tell that someone did wrong, because something was little cost for him? (sorry for my english, hope everything is understandable)
It would be a slippery slope fallacy were he talking about the accumulation of cost, but he was talking about the time spent.
@@EldestZelot Alex was absolutely referring to an accumulation of cost. Hence "have no books on the shelf behind me".
@@EldestZelot It would not be a slippery slope fallacy either way because every cost is indeed little individually, and it does actually accumulate. Slippery slope is a fallacy only when there isn't actually a slippery slope.
But if I'm in the wrong for not donating to any given charity (and this is where he may have misinterpreted the question), solely on the basis that it is of little cost to me, then there is always more to give, and I am always in the wrong.
@@gernottiefenbrunner172 I don't think it's a slippery slope fallacy, but a fallacy of conjunction. I.e. assuming that because things are individually true, they are collectively true. Look up the lottery ticket paradox for a good illustration of this. My problem is that he's extrapolating the moral obligation to a very general one, while insisting on doing the cost-benefit calculation on an individual basis, which seems like cherry-picking to me.
I think you misread the first question. It was about passing someone in need on the street which happens very rarely (to me at least). The fact that there is infinite suffering in general isn't relevant.
I agree.
The thing is, nowadays with the accessibility we have to make an impact on other parts of the world, it is basically equivalent to always passing by someone in need. We are always aware of it and charities are always open.
That being said, I think we still would not be count in an infinite loop, as whatever cost we deemed "very little" will eventually stop being so as our resources dwindle.
Yes, it seems Alex is arguing that with today's global communications, anyone suffering anywhere is effectively "on the street in front of you". There is some truth in that, but the question also said you can help them "at little cost to yourself". Once you start selling all your unnecessary possessions and giving all the money to charities, that is no longer "little cost" to you. Whether you have an obligation to do that is a different question.
I like how you took many points of view!
For question three i think it depends on the situation and circumstance like the ticking time bomb. If you can somehow negotiate with the guy who knows how to stop the bomb you can save the rest of the people around the bomb. You don’t necessarily need ti violate his rights to save the rest.
I believe the first question is a paradox. You can't always be obliged to do so without it being a severe cost to yourself.
everyone is forgetting the first part: YOU PASS THE PERSON IN THE STREET.
It does not say you are obliged to help every person in need if it is of little cost to you
@@curiodyssey3867 Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that. But as Alex points out; what's the difference between that and donating money to someone with just a click (for example)? It's ALWAYS easy to help someone. The first one is perhaps in more immidiate danger than the second one, but I'd argue that it would be just as important helping people before they are in grave danger. To the best of our abilities preventing bad things to happen in the first place. Couldn't it then be argued that this is also our duty?
But yes, the one who is in grave danger is more important to help. I agree with that. And from a practical standpoint the first person may be easier to help.
But for argument's sake, let's really think about this...
First you would have to argue that the first person is in more danger than the second one. But what if that's not the case? Then second; you would have to argue that a person being more physically closer to you is more relevant to you/is worth more to you. But distance wouldn't matter besides from a practical standpoint obviously. But questions about human worth to begin seems rather meaningless to me. But back again to a close person and a person far away: Would it really make a difference to you if the person you loved the most either (a) were bleeding out in front of you and you knew you could save this person by applying pressure and calling an ambulance or (b) the person you loved the most is being held hostage with a gun to their head and you have the option to save this person by making a deal which isn't too difficult for you?
For me to say it's my duty to the first person and not the second one, I do believe all of these factors need to be in "my favor":
1. It's easier for me
2. The person is in more danger
3. The person is worth more to me
And I can't necessarily say that these factors will be in "my favor". And thus the first part about passing someone in the street will not necessarily change my mind about the case from a philosophical standpoint (but argueably from a practical standpoint obviously). And I would argue that factor 3 isn't relevant.
Of course it's our "duty" in a legal sense, and of course I would have done it myself. But the usage of the term "duty" makes the issue more complicated from a philosophical standpoint.
I know it doesn't only say that we are obliged to help every person in need if it's of little cost to us, but that's the problem with the question to begin with. Because passing the person in the street won't necessarily give us stronger reasons to help someone. And if that's the case, what is even the point of this "duty"?
@@K.Jerico because that's a different question.
Hes not answering the question provided, but a hypothetical question he invented.
Physically walking past a person and helping them and seeing the immediate effect is far different from clicking an impersonal button
@@curiodyssey3867 It doesn't matter if it's a different question. Because that other question is asked while the original question still is a reality. It's simply a way to make the bigger picture logically coherent.
But the question wasn't "Is it more likely for you to help the first person?" or "Would you help the first person?" Then I would definitely answer yes.
But it's the word duty I don't like.
I have this standard way of viewing things (If I'm not shown something specific that changes my mind about certain aspects of a thing that is) that absolutely nothing is our duty. We don't owe anyone anything. That's where I'm coming from. We can't say that it's our duty or moral obligation to for example not to steal. People can do whatever they want to... But they have to face the consequences ofc. Don't always think that we never owe anyone anything of course, but that's the standard. If nothing is a moral duty we shouldn't act like that's not the case of course. For example: I don't believe in free will, but it's essential to act like it is so that we may make better choices.
Not entirely related, I know, but maybe it's easier for you to argue against me when you see where I'm coming from. You are definitely more than welcome to change my mind about the case
this is great, it could grow into a series and you can spend enough time on each question as you see fit.
When will CosmicSkeptic be done with his exams??? In sever need of a new video!
According to his answer to question one, he is not morally obliged in afraid! ;)
Q 1 says “little cost to yourself”. It doesn’t inherently imply that you would then be obligated to sell everything you own until you only have the bare necessities. It could be seen as giving until it would degrade what one deems as their baseline
Great video! Would be nice to hear what it is YOU personally think about the questions. Also, I think an important point about the first question was that it said "if you pass someone by one the street". That is a specific situation and excludes donating to charity and stuff like that, don't know if you realized that.
Would love to see more of this kind of videos!
PS.: take a shot everytime he says "right(s)"
Alex, you were the one that said there was no difference between acts and omissions and now you’re saying there are? Be consistent, man.
(1) If I have the means to help someone chances are that I will. As long if it isn't a danger to me. I don't care about the word. Weather or not if I think it would be wrong for me to help someone isn't what I am thinking about. Are you going to help them or not? Or just tell them "I'm not obligated to help you." To me no one technically is obligated to help anyone.
But this is about you and how would you feel about yourself if you had the opportunity to help someone and the means to help someone and didn't?
If you feel bad because you didn't technically it was wrong not to help them. Idc what the world thinks I go off of what I feel what I find right.
Wow that is the dumbest argument I heard!? we can donate all the time? How much do you think we have to give?
Everyone knows you can't give all the time. But if you see someone you can help and you have the means too then help. That is so stupid no one is saying you have to live in poverty to help people. You making leaps. The question said if you you had the means to help someone do you feel obligated to help them? Where does it say you have to put yourself into poverty to help someone?
If you don't want to help them then don't. Lol.
(2) No I live in America the government and the police are curpt. If my brother did anything illegal most likely it to survive. Fact is when most people do crime it's to survive not necessarily because they want to hurt people.
Sure there are some people in it to hurt others. But like people not all crime is equal. When you say crime that is a very blanket statement. Selling weed is a crime, prostitution is a crime, hey in fact in America just being Transgender is a crime. Teaching you kids about the LGBT is a crime.
So what do you mean by crime?
Murder? But is it? What is the context?
Someone killing someone else to defend themselves or their family is much different then a white man walking up into a gay club and killing everyone because he's a homophobe and transphobe.
(3) maybe? If I get to chose who gets hurt? Bad people should live, they shouldn't even exist, they area plague to society. So if I could chose who gets hurt
The technically I'm killing 2 birds with one stone. I'm helping good people and taking out the bad. I really don't see the dilemma in that? And if you say people has a right to live? I'll say ya I have a right to live to. I'm a trans girl and people are trying to genocide us. Let me know when people are trying to genocide you, then you can debate me on this.
That's the problem of that philosophy.
You're assuming the majority of people care about other people rights?
Did England care about anyone's rights with the slave trade?
Did America care about the black lives they bought from England from the slave traid? How about the Japanese Americans rights when they was thrown in intermittent camps? How about the laws being passed to genocide trans people? Are you saying you're morally obligated not to save a bunch of innocent people from a bomb because you don't want to infringe the rights of some evil terrorists that wants to kill people. And just brush it off your shoulders telling yourself "it's not my fault, he planted the bomb, I can live with that." Tell me would that change if you found out your daughter was there?
My philosophy is "the Good of the Gay" meaning to protect the good in the world, the means to that end is justified.
If I have to torture someone to save people. Well? I hope they like pain.
And I won't feel any remorse doing so.
Because if someone wants to harm innocent people they shouldn't exist.
Your premise was: That if you came upon a person in need and you have the ability to help them with little cost to yourself; would you be obligated to help? Then you talk about going online, find a charity who will use your money to help a person unknown to you and that's that. There is a big difference between a person suffering in your presents and giving money to a charity to help an unknown. I feel that in a situation like you propose, you are obligated to assist. There are even "Good Samaritan laws" in place to address this need. You see a person in need of your help and you say, "Sorry, Mate, I made a donation earlier this week to help people, so you're on your own."