To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/PhilosophyVibe . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Im against utilitarianism because im an eye for an eye tipe of person, if you think its ok for the majority to save its self by sacrificing the minority, then the minority has the same rigth to save it's self by sacrifice the majority. That's is my morals
You left out a pretty massive aspect of ethics (although you could apply these to it) - ethics rowards other living creatures/nature. Do any of those theories have anything to say about how we should treat our fellow members of the earth community? I think an ethic like Albert Schweitzers Reverence for Life ethics might work here.
I don’t think your reductio to the categorical imperative works. You were to vague, sure we wouldn’t want to live in a world where everyone lies for trivial reasons, but I would want to live in a world where people lie to prevent others from being murdered. So when you take the action specifically “lying to prevent murder” I WOULD want to live in a world where people lie to prevent murder.
@@skullnetwork4482 I would say that morality has the same true value as math, the ego, the laws of logic and physics do. I would say we cannot have absolute knowledge, as Kant claims. We cannot know how things are in themselves (the noumenal realm), but we can know things within the limits of reason and experience. Through reason and experience, there are a lot of presuppositions we make, like that we exist (the ego), that others exist (other minds), that math and logic are true, and I would put morality in the same category. Because every conscious being does conscious actions only because of an internal or external motivation. These motivations stem from desires. And these desires imply that conscious beings have the capacity to suffer or experience pleasure. And I would say that this is the basis of morality.
You cant just "take bits and pieces" of wisdom of each theory in remotely the same way you do here. In general, your videos often bases logic off of gut/instinct reactions, and that is layed out especially clearly here. If you are a person that takes bits and pieces of different theories, you are someone that merely acts on what "feels right", something Philosophy Vibe has pretty openly shown they do with arguments like "Well Argument A is wrong because of gut reaction to Situation B" For example, personally, as a utilitarian, i do not learn anything from the deontologist, at least not in the baseless way this channel thinks people should be learning. Why should we not allow stealing? Because it is a tool to preventing the decreasing of societal well being. If stealing wete allowed, we would be in a less secure society, and therefore, a society with less well being. I see a deontological question in utilitarian lens, instead of going, "oh, i have gut reaction, let me arbitrarily base my ethics off of that gut reaction". If you have any ethical backbone, you would not further your moral character by considering other moral theories, at least in the baseless method of moral development this channel does. If u are to make any moral development from considering other moral theories, it should only be such that you improve the moral theory you believe and live by In general, ethics is too often armchair intellectual common sense debating. We need to rigorize ethics by basing it in metaphysics. The entirety of math and all the sciences is based off of a few obviously true logic theorems and the assumption of the accuracy of empirical observation, because it has gone through extreme rigor to get to such a point. Of course philisophy cannot go through that same rigor, but it seems that since many philosophical claims cant go through 100% undeniable rigor, too many philosophers completely give up on it and wing it, and as long as you're good enough at logic to bullshit everything, you'll do fine in assuming baseless premises that fall too close to home to much smarter but still very baseless versions of the kinds of stuff in this video. And since philosophy is inherently partially subjective, philosophers can get away with baseless assumptions too often. Metaphysics and logic is the basis of the rest of philosophy, and too often people dont give metaphysics more than a second thought
I agree with your wish to see people take a more rigorous approach to ethics, but realistically, I doubt most people have the interest to put significant effort into building a robust ethical framework. For some people who aren't already particularly enthused by philosophy, videos like this will be one of few explicit engagements they have with new ethical principles. I see no harm in allowing people to pick and choose some different ideas that appeal to them. They may decide to explore some of those ideas further, which they could do through past content on this channel. Even if they don't explore further, and never develop a fully coherent ethical foundation, they have at least been introduced to some basic ethical principles that they may not have known prior, and they may implement some of the principles they have learned in ways that a utilitarian could appreciate. It seems a utilitarian would care more about whether the new ideas positively impact the viewers' actions than how rigorous their moral framework is. There is no shortage of great resources out there for people who already have a strong background in philosophy and want to engage at a deeper level. Philosophy Vibe seems to be more specialized at introducing philosophical ideas to a casual audience in a way that is comprehensible for those of us who lack formal, academic training in philosophy.
Instead all these you should just say the bible singe everything you mention in there are in the scriptures,by the way the imaginary being as the highest ideal is real and it’s called god
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/PhilosophyVibe . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Could you do a political philosophy tier list please 🙏 ?
Can you make a video about the paradox of supererogatory actions?
Im against utilitarianism because im an eye for an eye tipe of person, if you think its ok for the majority to save its self by sacrificing the minority, then the minority has the same rigth to save it's self by sacrifice the majority. That's is my morals
That’s crazy! I respect that
You left out a pretty massive aspect of ethics (although you could apply these to it) - ethics rowards other living creatures/nature. Do any of those theories have anything to say about how we should treat our fellow members of the earth community? I think an ethic like Albert Schweitzers Reverence for Life ethics might work here.
I don’t think your reductio to the categorical imperative works. You were to vague, sure we wouldn’t want to live in a world where everyone lies for trivial reasons, but I would want to live in a world where people lie to prevent others from being murdered. So when you take the action specifically “lying to prevent murder” I WOULD want to live in a world where people lie to prevent murder.
Rule consequentialism >>
Good video, but why so western base ?
You really can’t figure this one out?
@ I’m asking directly to the creator
@@ShangTsung69 why? You really can’t figure this one out?
@@asyetundetermined asking someone their motives instead of assuming >>>
What about moral sentimentalism!!!!!
definitely moral nihlism
Is there someone that wants to debate with me about philosophy? Free will Free and many more things
Yeah totally man! I love nothing more!
Then Nietzsche came and destroyed all these moral assumptions
He doesn't.
@I6eeikahdu38 really then u must have proof or evidence for morality
Enlighten me with this proof or evidence
@@skullnetwork4482see Plato, Kant and Thomas Aquinas... Nietzsche's arguments are garbage
@@skullnetwork4482 I would say that morality has the same true value as math, the ego, the laws of logic and physics do. I would say we cannot have absolute knowledge, as Kant claims. We cannot know how things are in themselves (the noumenal realm), but we can know things within the limits of reason and experience. Through reason and experience, there are a lot of presuppositions we make, like that we exist (the ego), that others exist (other minds), that math and logic are true, and I would put morality in the same category. Because every conscious being does conscious actions only because of an internal or external motivation. These motivations stem from desires. And these desires imply that conscious beings have the capacity to suffer or experience pleasure. And I would say that this is the basis of morality.
Not really. Nietzsche absorbed these ideas into his own treatise
it seems you have not taken to Stoic philosophy, which is as potent, if not more, as any of the ethical monoliths you have espoused.
is this satire? who uses the word espoused as the first option?
@joshueerickson6640 did you get my point?
@@musgrave6886went over his small brain
Broadly speaking, philosophy as a genuine intellectual pursuit is really rather silly.
Please don't use AI art it's so cringe
You cant just "take bits and pieces" of wisdom of each theory in remotely the same way you do here. In general, your videos often bases logic off of gut/instinct reactions, and that is layed out especially clearly here. If you are a person that takes bits and pieces of different theories, you are someone that merely acts on what "feels right", something Philosophy Vibe has pretty openly shown they do with arguments like "Well Argument A is wrong because of gut reaction to Situation B"
For example, personally, as a utilitarian, i do not learn anything from the deontologist, at least not in the baseless way this channel thinks people should be learning. Why should we not allow stealing? Because it is a tool to preventing the decreasing of societal well being. If stealing wete allowed, we would be in a less secure society, and therefore, a society with less well being. I see a deontological question in utilitarian lens, instead of going, "oh, i have gut reaction, let me arbitrarily base my ethics off of that gut reaction". If you have any ethical backbone, you would not further your moral character by considering other moral theories, at least in the baseless method of moral development this channel does. If u are to make any moral development from considering other moral theories, it should only be such that you improve the moral theory you believe and live by
In general, ethics is too often armchair intellectual common sense debating. We need to rigorize ethics by basing it in metaphysics. The entirety of math and all the sciences is based off of a few obviously true logic theorems and the assumption of the accuracy of empirical observation, because it has gone through extreme rigor to get to such a point. Of course philisophy cannot go through that same rigor, but it seems that since many philosophical claims cant go through 100% undeniable rigor, too many philosophers completely give up on it and wing it, and as long as you're good enough at logic to bullshit everything, you'll do fine in assuming baseless premises that fall too close to home to much smarter but still very baseless versions of the kinds of stuff in this video. And since philosophy is inherently partially subjective, philosophers can get away with baseless assumptions too often. Metaphysics and logic is the basis of the rest of philosophy, and too often people dont give metaphysics more than a second thought
I agree with your wish to see people take a more rigorous approach to ethics, but realistically, I doubt most people have the interest to put significant effort into building a robust ethical framework. For some people who aren't already particularly enthused by philosophy, videos like this will be one of few explicit engagements they have with new ethical principles. I see no harm in allowing people to pick and choose some different ideas that appeal to them. They may decide to explore some of those ideas further, which they could do through past content on this channel. Even if they don't explore further, and never develop a fully coherent ethical foundation, they have at least been introduced to some basic ethical principles that they may not have known prior, and they may implement some of the principles they have learned in ways that a utilitarian could appreciate. It seems a utilitarian would care more about whether the new ideas positively impact the viewers' actions than how rigorous their moral framework is.
There is no shortage of great resources out there for people who already have a strong background in philosophy and want to engage at a deeper level. Philosophy Vibe seems to be more specialized at introducing philosophical ideas to a casual audience in a way that is comprehensible for those of us who lack formal, academic training in philosophy.
Instead all these you should just say the bible singe everything you mention in there are in the scriptures,by the way the imaginary being as the highest ideal is real and it’s called god
You seem really sure about that
Have you read it ? The God of the bible has some questionable morals and questionable logic.
@@howardwylie1620 the bible says the truth because it says the truth therefore I'm right and you're wrong