A Brief Intro to Normative Ethics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- Hi all!
Since people seem to be enjoying this video, I wanted to share some new content on the same subject matter. If you’re interested, check them out!
An Intro to Ethics: • An Introduction to Ethics
An Intro to Metaethics: • An Introduction to Met...
An Intro to Normative Ethics: • An Introduction to Nor...
Coming soon:
An Intro to Applied Ethics
Here five years later, great intro lesson! Have been looking for a well explained, and not overly complicated entry into the muddy world of ethics. Thanks for sharing, your students are lucky to have you.
Very kind of you to say. Thank you!
After watching your video, I came up with a metaphor that every RUclips channel is like an island in the infinite waters of the digital sea. I was looking for trees of knowledge, climbed up one of the biggest on your island, and got as many fruits as I could take with me.
That’s a damn good analogy. Keep traveling to other islands and get what you can, the share what you got.
Wow - you unpacked so much in 15 minutes. Hands down the best ethics video I have came across. This really got me thinking, you're a fantastic presenter!
You were amazing in how you explained. The opener of those who can't do teach had me sold. Lolol.
I'm glad you appreciated that. It funny... because it's true ;)
You do a great job of presenting the information in an unbiased why. Your presentation allows me to think and consider my own thoughts on the subject matter. Your voice is good for such presentations and does not distract with over emphasizing or being monotone. Listening to you I feel like a student in ancient Greece listening to a philosopher in the marketplace.
That’s a mighty fine compliment my friend. Thank you.
I appreciate the fact that I wanted to know only about normative ethics but ended up learning more about the others. Thank you for the concise explanation.
Thank you. I was concerned the title was a bit misleading. But it seemed to me that having a grasp on metaethics would be helpful to understanding normative ethics.
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 Funny enough, I was actually trying to find your other videos regarding the other ethics in the beginning of the video but when I couldn't find them, I continued watching your explanation. Turns out, everything is neatly packed into one package.
the amount of clarity given is overwhelmingly great!
Thank you!
Very well explained, the best I’ve experienced yet, thank you so much
You are very kind. Thank you.
You explained so well, Thankyou so much ❤️
And your son is such a cutie!
Thank you! And I agree about my son :)
Hello, I am a First year college student in University of San Carlos Talamban Cebu, Philippines and Im taking my minor subjects first and I chose Ethics as one of my courses. I am studying in advance and I came across your video. You got a new subscribe and like from me! I know this subject may seem easy with its title but there's more in this subject that meets the eye. Thank you this helps me!🎉
I'm glad to hear you found the video helpful! Good luck in your class and beyond :)
Thank you brother, may God bless and guide you always
lmao I love the way how you teach and talk
You sound younger than me and like you make things interesting
Thanks for the clip at the end!! 😍
What an amazing video. Its very educative. I wish i could give you a double like
Thank you! I'm so glad you found it helpful.
Why am I discovering this just now?😣😣
I don't have any exams coming up... I just love you and your videos..
So relaxing
That's so nice of you :) Thanks!
I love the explanation. Thanks, this was helpful.
Thanks! I'm glad it was helpful!
HOW CAN I THANK YOU?? YOU SAVED MY ASS WITH YOUR DETAILED AND SIMPLE EXPLANATION
Lol. Thanks. Happy to save asses when I can. After all, it's the ethical thing to do.
I think math is invented not discovered. It’s a language l, and its complexity starts by its initial rules.
A lot of math is based off of the real world, and I think that’s why I thought it was discovered for the longest time.
You can describe new operations and math which doesn’t have any grounding In real world stuff (such as abstract algebra).
This is a cool comment. Perhaps it would be better to say that there are aspects of math that are discovered, which is true inasmuch as they are derived from, correspond to, or predict the behavior of, reality.
Of course, this raises the question of what counts as the "real world." There are some philosophers, for instance, who think that math *is* the base reality of the real world. So it get tricky, I suppose.
Either way, thanks for this comment. Get me thinking!
Absolutely brilliant
Thank you!
Thanks a bunch for these wonderful videos my guy
My pleasure! Thanks for watching.
Thank you so much and the ending perfect lol.
Thank you! It's not too long until his 11th birthday. Hoping for that letter from Hogwarts! :)
Very well going Professor! Thank you so much!
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it. If you're interested, check out the videos in the "Ethics and Justice" series for more detailed looks at some of the normative theories of ethics.
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 Sure Sir. (Even though my exams are finished xD)
@@faisalsaddique3323 Knowledge for knowledge's sake... and all that sort of thing :)
This is so good!
Thank you!
Just amazing🙏
Thank you!
OKAY BUT this should have more views
Thanks for the comment! I don't necessarily disagree. With this video, I just wanted to give a basic intro to the most commonly explored theories, but certainly other theories are worthy of exploration as well!
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 no i meant more RUclips views hahaha you were very eloquent, and compared to other videos, you definitely explained it better!
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 i also dont understand how you only have 41 subscriberssss you should have more
@@haifabasucao5194 That's hilarious! Language is a funny thing :)
Amazing explanation thank you so much!
Glad you think so!
Excellento..
Much obliged.
Thank you, your explanations are so effortless to be understood.
Thanks! I'm glad you found it easy to follow :)
thanks for the video in the end
Thanks a lot for this video!
My pleasure!
Something is good for someone if it helps them to achieve their terminal goal. Thus to get to a universal moral standard, we need to identify the universal terminal goal.
Goals can't exist without a conscious entity. A universe without consciousness can't have any goal, which implies that there is no objective moral standard. But there's no restriction in principle which prevents us from having a universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal.
This sounds close to Aristotle's teleological ethics. Or am I am misreading you?
At any rate, I'm not sure that a "universe without consciousness can't have any goal." I suppose it depends on how we understand the notion of "goal." If by "goal" we mean an *intentional* end (e.g., an aim assigned or desired), then yes, I suppose consciousness would be required for that. But if by "goal" we mean something more general (like any end or aim, whether or assigned or not), then we might be able to conceives goals without consciousness.
Now, in terms of identifying the "universal terminal goal," I suppose the great difficulty would be identifying such a thing if it existed. In other words, how would we know when we found it? This is why I tend not toward a moral relativism (in which no such standard exists) but rather toward what I call a relative absolutism (in which such a standard exists, but we only have access to it from our relative perspectives as finite subjects).
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 We must be conscious to conceive a goal in the first place. In a universe without consciousness, including us, the goal cannot exist.
Arg I loved this
Thank you 🙌🏿
Thank you!
Thanks 😊well explained
You are most welcome 😊
moral teacher: those who can't do teach
me: laugh to dead
Professor, may you explain why your listeners didn't like your joke when you explained why you have been teaching ethics? It seemed that they may be focusing on consequences and you may be looking at the boarder picture.
I’ve got to watch this through some more and write it down, I think I’m a utilitarian for the most part but I think there are cases where despite me logically thinking one things right according to that I wouldn’t do it because my emotions would override it like killing a family member to save two strangers, I guess brains are squishy and illogical like that
For what it's worth, I think emotion is a key aspect of being human. So I think there's a place for "squishy and illogical" in these conversations!
Just add the following line to your ethical thinking: "Self Interest". This resolves a lot of ethical issues. Now you can look around the world and make a lot more sense of it. For example, there are people starving in the third world but you use your money to buy food for yourself and your children - not the starving children in the third world.
Should you be required to rescue someone if you are in a position to rescue them without any adverse effect to yourself? For example if a child were to fall in a pool and all you need to do is grab them and pull them back out. Perhaps you would answer "yes", but isn't it just as easy to save a child in the third world with a few dollars?
It comes down to self interest - you look after yourself, your neighbours, locals etc etc first. And the idea is just as valid (in my opinion) as simply declaring yourself to be a utilitarian or a deontologists. It will also save you from having to figure out what the right thing to do is when you are considering the life of one family members or two strangers - it's your family member you must say. Afterall, that is a decision you make every time you spend money to give them food, water, shelter, healthcare etc etc over the needs of a child starving in the third world.
what specific problems can normative ethics would solve?
This was really helpful.
Thank you! I'm glad you found it helpful.
Thank you so much! Also to your son
Thank you, Jaswinder!
Bruh, after this video, subscribing is a categorical imperative.
Best Comment Award.
You are beautiful. Thank you
Thanks!
Thank you!
You're welcome!
I would like to know philosophy beyond or above this presentations is different that the subjective / objective ?
Do you mean you would like a more in-depth look at whether morality is objective or subjective?
btw great video sir
sir but how can we say someone is wrong in relativism? if it's all subjective then isnt it just opinion ?
Good point! FWIW, I don't think we can definitively that relativism is wrong. But I *do* thin we can highlight some issues with relativism. For example, if pure relativism is true (either an individual or cultural level), then we can't say that rape, slavery, murder, genocide, etc. is wrong. If we find this conclusion problematic, then we might have an issue with relativism. To be clear, just because we want to say that genocide is wrong doesn't mean absolutism is true. It just demonstrates that we might have issues putting relativism into practice.
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 thanks sir
What Makes an Action Moral?
There's two ways to read this questions. First, you could be asking, "What makes an act a moral act (as opposed to a nonmoral act)? Second, you could be asking, "What makes an action good or right (i.e., moral as opposed to immoral)?
I address the second question in the video (and a bit more in this video: ruclips.net/video/XxkotGYwzGQ/видео.html
As far as the first question is concerned:
Typically, for an action to be moral, it has to have a few elements. First, it must involve some level of choice (in other words, it can't be merely reflexive or instinctive). Second, the action must be subject to the quality of "goodness" or "badness", or perhaps "rightness" or "wrongness" (when they have a moral connotation).
The first question is complicated because there are different theories about human freedom (including theories that it doesn't exist). One important question is: Do we need to have libertarian freedom in order for moral acts to be feasible?
The second question is complicated because, from a metaethical perspective (you can check out my video on metaethics here: ruclips.net/video/GSuUQnGCFMs/видео.html), we can ask if moral qualities like "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong" are objective (i.e., facts that aren't a matter of human opinion) or subjective (i.e., constructed views that people create and are therefore relative to individuals or groups).
Regardless, that's a basic rundown on what's required for an act to qualify as a "moral act."
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 thank you a lot professor. It helps.
Envision teaching with simple graphic representations of the total content like a graph.
If a group of people were to defend sexual abuse as an ethical practice they would not call it abuse. They would diffuse any connection to ideas of abuse or misuse, recasting it as a kind of "experience" of some sort and break down any distinctions between that kind of experience and others and they would attack the boundaries we have in place against such acts, such as age of consent. They would argue a child is a person and able to consent.
Language is the battlefield of moral philosophy.
Perhaps. By that I mean that would be one way of defending it. Another would be to accept it fits the functional definition of "abuse" (not, of course, if wrongness is essential to the definition of abuse) but say there's nothing wrong with abuse in certain cases. But generally speaking, I agree with you, language is absolutely central in these discussions, which is, I think, a way of saying metaethics is central.
@@thewanderingprofessor9532 I'm amazed you got through what is possibly the longest sentence I have ever typed.
To argue there is not necessarily anything wrong with "abuse" would be to define it as something that is not abuse, but can be justified, or made right through the justice of subjective interpretations of experience. We are seeing this happen right now through the queer theorist and activists.
@@annaworthington9522 It was a good comment. And I agree, language is extremely important.
But I also think we're probably in a bit of disagreement with regard to how language functions (and this is not to say that I'm right--it's only to say that we seem to disagree on this point). You seem to be starting off with the premise that language is such that terms have essential definitions underlying them--such that a definition for a term is either objectively right or wrong. For instance, there is an objective or essential definition to the term "abuse" (which entails its wrongness), and so any time someone engages an instance that you would identify as "abuse" (I imagine you're referring to discussions involving transgenderism in your last comment) but refer to it as something other than "abuse", you would argue that they are merely redefining "abuse" as something else. Am I reading you correctly? If not, please disabuse me (no pun intended!).
Now, for my part, I agree that there are culturally forceful definitions for which one must account. However, I would argue that language has less of an essential quality to it and more of a functional quality to it (I'm thinking of Wittgenstein and language games here). In this sense, the aim shouldn't be to understand the essential truth behind a word and then see who's using it correctly or incorrectly. The aim is to understand how words function is different language games so that one communicate effectively. For example, if I'm going to engage in a debate entitled, "Does God Exist?", I don't want to assume an essential definition to the word "God" and force it upon my interlocutor. I want to understand how the word is going to function in our shared space. (If they're trying to demonstrate that Spinoza's God exists and I'm trying to argue that Aquinas's God doesn't, we aren't going to get very far).
So, if you refer to a particular act as "abuse" (in the sense that it's intrinsically wrong because it constitutes a misuse or wrongful use of something), that's how the term functions for you (and, in all honesty, for a lot of people). I would tend to assume this definition (that is, abuse refers to the misuse of something). But let's consider two possible scenarios.
1.) Two people are in a relationship where they harm each other (think extreme S&M or something). They accept that the relationship is "abusive" (in the sense that they repeatedly cause *violence* to one another), but they don't think it's wrong because they are willing participants in this shared violence. Let's imagine that someone else thinks what they're doing *is* morally wrong--a misuse of their bodies. Here, you have a situation where an observer claims they are witnessing "abuse" (in the sense of violence that is morally wrong) and participants who claim they are engaging in "abuse" (in the sense of mutually-embraced violence that is not morally wrong). They're using the same word, but it's functioning differently. And I'm not sure we can say that one is *objectively* correct about the *essential* definition of the world. That semantical argument would be, I think, a waste of time, at any rate.
2.) A person engages in outright cruelty toward others. They "abuse" others. They accept that they "abuse" others. But they are operating under a moral framework in which such violence is morally acceptable (perhaps they are an unhinged ethical egoist who doesn't realize the value of a strong community). At any rate, again, someone else sees this activity as "abusive" (in the sense a violent cruelty that is not morally wrong). The cruel person also sees it as "abusive" (but only in the sense of cruelty that they are entitled to engage in for some reason).
In both cases, they are using the word "abuse," but the term is no functioning to signify an immoral act. Now, you may argue that this is an abuse of the word "abuse" (that's a fun sentence), but I think this raises the question of whether language is objective/essential or subjective/functional. I tend toward the latter, but in the sense that we ought to try to understand how terms function in different setting so we can communicate effectively. I find this to be a more productive method.
But again, I might be wrong.
If you've read this tome of a response, you deserve a reward!!!
@@thewanderingprofessor9532
Yes, I understand and can follow.
But by looking up the word abuse in the dictionary, it gives a shared and agreed meaning that makes any discussion between two or more people meaningful and productive.
abuse (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
So an S&M couple are not abusing, from their perspective. They are doing something else in some subjective interpretation of behaviours most would consider abusive. They are using themselves and each other in ways they choose to be used in. It's consensual. This can't be defined as misuse from an essentialist perspective.
But the fact that they are from some subjective perspective doing something else while engaging in abusive acts, does not change the usual shared meaning of the word abuse that we use to construct a reality that we can share.
People can and do abuse their children and as children cannot consent (no choice) we do not say at least in a legal framework, well they liked it, or they never left, or they kept behaving in a way that produced the abuse, so what conclusion am I supposed to make? The meaning of the behaviour is considered essential and fixed and is not dependent on the subjective response of the child to the mis-treatment.
No. We hold that there is a deontological duty not to cause harm, misuse or abuse children. Although there are people out there using post modern theories and language games to try and persuade others that these protections are oppressive. They argue children can consent. These people are lost in abstraction, all words mean nothing it all.
@@annaworthington9522 I think we’re agreeing on a lot. We’re just disagreeing on whether language necessarily possesses essential, objective meanings or not.
“So an S&M couple are not abusing, from their perspective.”
I’m not sure you can say this. You can’t say what they are doing *from their perspective*.
“They are doing something else in some subjective interpretation of behaviours most would consider abusive. They are using themselves and each other in ways they choose to be used in. It's consensual. This can't be defined as misuse from an essentialist perspective.”
I agree with all of this.
“But … does not change the usual shared meaning of the word abuse that we use to construct a reality that we can share.”
I agree with this part of your claim (although, I’m not sure who the “we” is referring to). But I don’t think I ever suggested one group’s subjective view of terms or morality necessarily dictated another group’s view. (That seems to be your position based on the majority view). I merely noted the possibility that a group could adopt a subjective, functional position in which the term “abuse” would be morally acceptable. Depending on the “abuse” they were referring to, you and I would disagree with them, I assume, but that’s beside the point I was making.
“People can and do abuse their children and as children cannot consent (no choice) we do not say at least in a legal framework, well they liked it, or they never left, or they kept behaving in a way that produced the abuse, so what conclusion am I supposed to make? The meaning of the behaviour is considered essential and fixed and is not dependent on the subjective response of the child to the mis-treatment. No.”
This appears to me to be a strawman argument in the sense that you seem to be suggesting that I’ve argued that the child’s subjective understanding of “abuse” is relevant in the question of whether the child has been abused in some societal standard (such that if the child thinks it’s OK, then it is). I want to be clear I never made that claim, and that’s not quite how the language theory I’m discussing works. Societal standards (e.g., laws) are a different question that what I’m addressing in terms of subjective morality or language theory.
So, to clarify: If someone acts a particular way towards a child that is, by a reasonable standard (a rather squishy phrase) unnecessarily harmful, then I would argue (in agreement with you) that we have a responsibility to prevent or stop such harm. (I say “unnecessarily” because parents cause harm to children frequently for their good, for instance if the child needs a shot or some other medical procedure that causes harm in the broad sense of the term. The child cannot consent to these acts, but parents facilitate them frequently for the good of the child). It would not matter to me if the person committing the unnecessary harm said, “This isn’t abuse,” or if they said, “This is abuse, but abuse is morally acceptable.” In either case, I would seek to hold them accountable by the reasonable societal standards in place (assuming there were such standards in place).
I suppose the issue is that you seem to be confusing my claims about language theory and subjective morality (which exist de facto) with an *endorsement* of absolute moral relativism (de jure), which is not the case.
“Although there are people out there using post modern theories and language games to try and persuade others that these protections are oppressive. They argue children can consent. These people are lost in abstraction, all words mean nothing it all.”
I’m not sure exactly who you’re referring to here (I assume you have particular groups in mind), but I don’t know of too many people who thinks “words mean nothing at all.” The rejection of essential meanings of words is not the rejection of *any* meanings of words (or the rejection of meaning or truth more generally). I think you’re lumping a lot of groups together here that aren’t necessarily related to one another (various language theories, post-modernity, relativism, nihilism, etc.).
That said (and this is important): Regarding the part of the video to which you’re referring, I probably could have saved us both a lot of trouble by simply saying, “There are people who do not think it’s wrong to harm children in ways that most of us would consider abusive.” That would have been clearer and avoided the language question altogether. I was speaking off the cuff for this entire video (i.e., I didn’t use a script), so I probably spoke a bit too freely there.
Still, I think the points I’m making about language are worth considering.
I really appreciate the time you’ve put into this dialogue!
I dont think its cool i waited more them half the video to get to Normative ethics but i appreciate your efforts sir.
That's a fair point.
Ethical egoism here🖕😈😏🤘
Do you, my friend. Do you. 🤘
So you’re fine with torturing infinite people for infinite time if it benefits you?
@@benjamingurevitch4097 I don’t think it’s synonymous with psychopathy. Maybe most anti social types are ethical egoists but not all ethical egoists are psychopaths🤷♂️ I think it has more to do with individuality than collectivism imo
@@Entropy106 What's the definition of ethical egoism? To my knowledge it is a type of consequentialism where you only care about your own pleasure/suffering but I could be wrong.
@@benjamingurevitch4097 like the guy said in the video, if the act has a good consequence for yourself then I guess it can be ethical egoism. I know Ayn rand talks about ethical egoism and connects it with capitalism. She’s not a serial killer. Also max stirner is an ethical egoist but he falls more into the left wing anarchist category. So it isn’t invariably involved with murdering babies
i am a teacher i teach what i do. funny but you are generalizing and people take you joke serious.thank you for your views.
why tf are all these videos long. I hate wannabe philosophers who try to be deep. Just say what it means.
It took my man 15 minutes to break this down as simply as he could, and you ain't listen to a single word.
@@ianchapoy9617 I appreciate the defense :)
This professor is very kindly & freely dedicating his time to educate others. His explanation was by far the most simplistic version freely available with a very welcomed humourous touch added (trust me I know, I've watched countless videos about this topic on youtube and none come close to explaining this complex topic as easily) so next time perhaps just exit a video if you're not enjoying it instead of bashing on someone whose actually trying to help others better themselves.
@@aoife6043 Much obliged. Thanks for watching!
i promise you you won't find a better video in a shorter time peridod than this