If you perform an action with a positive motivation, there seem to be two branches of results, one for oneself and one for others. While the latter seems more important, it seems to me that if you perform an action with a positive motivation, the effect on oneself is very likely to be positive (even aside from or prior to the assessments of others), especially if you look at the long term, because of the cumulative effect on shaping one's character, regardless of what the immediate consequence on others might seem to be. It's not clear to me that consequentialism takes this into account. Regardless of what the immediate consequences are, long-term, it seems obvious that it is most important to be guiding people towards taking action with a positive motivation, however we do that. That is, if we believe in cause and effect. Otherwise, we might live in a world of people taking action with a negative motivation because they are focused only on the short term results.
Recently I was thinking that consequentialism in general, and utilitarianism specifically, might be violating Hume's Is/Ought distinction. Utilitarians seem to believe that they can collect a bunch of data, and then make decisions about what is best for the populous at large. For example, scientists determined that smoking two packs of cigarettes a day will significantly increase one's chances of getting lung cancer or emphysema and lead to early death, therefore one ought not smoke cigarettes. This has led to public policies where smoking is banned in most places and cigarettes are heavily taxed to discourage purchase. However, I believe it has also been scientifically determined that smoking eases some of the symptoms of schizophrenia, and some people may choose to "live fast, die young" and smoke rather than concern themselves with living the healthiest possible lifestyle. Also, overly taxing a product leads to a black market which provides financing to criminal organizations and murders over territory being vied over by warring criminal organizations. These secondary effects don't appear to concern the health establishment. It thus seems that many utilitarians smuggle in moral values not based directly on utilitarianism that are used to bridge the Is/Ought gap between their data and their policy proposals. There is a really large divide between those religious folks who are more concerned about the salvation of souls and the more materialistic folks who value bodily health. Since most modern philosophers are not religious they don't seem to realize that a lot of their ponderings about which particular economic, ecological, or health policy is best for the populous completely ignores the concerns of the majority of humans on Earth. The lockdowns that prevented people from attending religious services (that ended up being found to be scientifically unjustified) is just one instance where the moral concerns of utilitarians (bodily health more important than salvation of souls) are smuggled in without acknowledgement.
Is f**k around and find out considered consequntialism? When I read a rant about hedonism, I often ask if people are just angry at people getting the pleasure now. Is it not hedonic to put off partying at college so that one can gratuate to be a high powered corporate suit and enjoy that? I think about how frat boys party vs how high powered suits can party with the finest stuff.
I may be off mark here, but I’ve pondered consequentialism in the context of a fatal car crash. If a dangerous driver, we consider them a criminal that deserves harsh punishment. But if an accident then barely a slap on the wrist. But the consequences are the same. Both ended a life and intent should not be the primary factor in determining the unhappiness created and punishment required.
That's why it's not a good moral or justice system because its not universal. Personally I think destroying anything, whether its life or property, the person should pay the family restitution.
You have not analysed utility widely enough. If the judge is utilitarian, their job is to get the most good for society, which might be slightly different to punish the criminal in front of them relative to how badly they behaved. You need to factor in the consequneces of the judge's decision, and perhaps of having this rule on the books. * Does having a 'bad intent is punsihed more' rule in the roadlaws, cause people to intend less harm on the road? * Does putting driver's with ill intent in prison for longer, protect more people from their reckless driving? * Does the public noticing that the more harsh law was in fact put into effect, discouregae them from driving with harmful intent? Once you answer (or estimated) those 3 questions, then you can try to estimae the moral value of the judge's decision. Maybe the judge acted wrongly/inefficiently (or maybe the parliamentarians who wrote the rule acted wrongly/inefficiently), but we need to zoom out to consider more factors before we make that estimate.
I have no idea why this video was suggested to my by YT but I'm not complaining. It actually wasn't bad I mean not that I'm into philosophy but i did just do an assignment on positivism in sociology and so it was interesting to listen to you. And btw consequences are interpreted by who as right or wrong or good and bad? The person who does the action or should we just vote?
It's basically determined by anyone, in any manner of ways. Which is why it's a nonsense philosophy, because it's not universal. You can basically make up whatever shit you want and the people in power typically do. Which is why it's a philosophy pushed for by tyrants and demagogues, aka fascists and socialists.
It's basically determined by anyone, in any manner of ways. Which is why it's a nonsense philosophy, because it's not universal. You can basically make up whatever shit you want and the people in power typically do. Which is why it's a philosophy pushed for by tyrants and demagogues, aka fascists and socialists.
Hi Dane, I enjoyed this video and look forward to watching more from you. I have a suggestion: it might be worth putting your background in the description of each vid and also in your channel description. When I was suggested this vid by the algorithm, I went to the description to check if you have a background in philosophy (and therefore whether you're worth listening to). Usually once I see nothing in the description I'd click out of the vid cos for all I know you're some crackpot. I stayed for some reason this time, and I'm glad I did because you explained Consequentialism very well and clearly know your stuff, but I thought the suggestion could be helpful for your viewing numbers.
@@Rothbard_is_God8082 sure. Some movies that I'd like get poor reviews. But I've a limited amount of time so I read reviews and tailor my viewing accordingly
I know exactly why RUclips recommended me this and I look forward with my ears to hear what you have to say.
If you perform an action with a positive motivation, there seem to be two branches of results, one for oneself and one for others. While the latter seems more important, it seems to me that if you perform an action with a positive motivation, the effect on oneself is very likely to be positive (even aside from or prior to the assessments of others), especially if you look at the long term, because of the cumulative effect on shaping one's character, regardless of what the immediate consequence on others might seem to be. It's not clear to me that consequentialism takes this into account.
Regardless of what the immediate consequences are, long-term, it seems obvious that it is most important to be guiding people towards taking action with a positive motivation, however we do that. That is, if we believe in cause and effect. Otherwise, we might live in a world of people taking action with a negative motivation because they are focused only on the short term results.
Recently I was thinking that consequentialism in general, and utilitarianism specifically, might be violating Hume's Is/Ought distinction. Utilitarians seem to believe that they can collect a bunch of data, and then make decisions about what is best for the populous at large. For example, scientists determined that smoking two packs of cigarettes a day will significantly increase one's chances of getting lung cancer or emphysema and lead to early death, therefore one ought not smoke cigarettes. This has led to public policies where smoking is banned in most places and cigarettes are heavily taxed to discourage purchase.
However, I believe it has also been scientifically determined that smoking eases some of the symptoms of schizophrenia, and some people may choose to "live fast, die young" and smoke rather than concern themselves with living the healthiest possible lifestyle. Also, overly taxing a product leads to a black market which provides financing to criminal organizations and murders over territory being vied over by warring criminal organizations. These secondary effects don't appear to concern the health establishment. It thus seems that many utilitarians smuggle in moral values not based directly on utilitarianism that are used to bridge the Is/Ought gap between their data and their policy proposals.
There is a really large divide between those religious folks who are more concerned about the salvation of souls and the more materialistic folks who value bodily health. Since most modern philosophers are not religious they don't seem to realize that a lot of their ponderings about which particular economic, ecological, or health policy is best for the populous completely ignores the concerns of the majority of humans on Earth. The lockdowns that prevented people from attending religious services (that ended up being found to be scientifically unjustified) is just one instance where the moral concerns of utilitarians (bodily health more important than salvation of souls) are smuggled in without acknowledgement.
She speaks like a philosophical zombie.
Nice! I love it! 50% of all humans do not have an inner monologue, and they need teachers too.
Is f**k around and find out considered consequntialism?
When I read a rant about hedonism, I often ask if people are just angry at people getting the pleasure now. Is it not hedonic to put off partying at college so that one can gratuate to be a high powered corporate suit and enjoy that? I think about how frat boys party vs how high powered suits can party with the finest stuff.
I may be off mark here, but I’ve pondered consequentialism in the context of a fatal car crash. If a dangerous driver, we consider them a criminal that deserves harsh punishment. But if an accident then barely a slap on the wrist. But the consequences are the same. Both ended a life and intent should not be the primary factor in determining the unhappiness created and punishment required.
That's why it's not a good moral or justice system because its not universal.
Personally I think destroying anything, whether its life or property, the person should pay the family restitution.
You have not analysed utility widely enough. If the judge is utilitarian, their job is to get the most good for society, which might be slightly different to punish the criminal in front of them relative to how badly they behaved.
You need to factor in the consequneces of the judge's decision, and perhaps of having this rule on the books.
* Does having a 'bad intent is punsihed more' rule in the roadlaws, cause people to intend less harm on the road?
* Does putting driver's with ill intent in prison for longer, protect more people from their reckless driving?
* Does the public noticing that the more harsh law was in fact put into effect, discouregae them from driving with harmful intent?
Once you answer (or estimated) those 3 questions, then you can try to estimae the moral value of the judge's decision.
Maybe the judge acted wrongly/inefficiently (or maybe the parliamentarians who wrote the rule acted wrongly/inefficiently), but we need to zoom out to consider more factors before we make that estimate.
I have no idea why this video was suggested to my by YT but I'm not complaining. It actually wasn't bad I mean not that I'm into philosophy but i did just do an assignment on positivism in sociology and so it was interesting to listen to you. And btw consequences are interpreted by who as right or wrong or good and bad? The person who does the action or should we just vote?
It's basically determined by anyone, in any manner of ways. Which is why it's a nonsense philosophy, because it's not universal. You can basically make up whatever shit you want and the people in power typically do. Which is why it's a philosophy pushed for by tyrants and demagogues, aka fascists and socialists.
It's basically determined by anyone, in any manner of ways. Which is why it's a nonsense philosophy, because it's not universal. You can basically make up whatever shit you want and the people in power typically do. Which is why it's a philosophy pushed for by tyrants and demagogues, aka fascists and socialists.
Hi Dane, I enjoyed this video and look forward to watching more from you.
I have a suggestion: it might be worth putting your background in the description of each vid and also in your channel description.
When I was suggested this vid by the algorithm, I went to the description to check if you have a background in philosophy (and therefore whether you're worth listening to). Usually once I see nothing in the description I'd click out of the vid cos for all I know you're some crackpot. I stayed for some reason this time, and I'm glad I did because you explained Consequentialism very well and clearly know your stuff, but I thought the suggestion could be helpful for your viewing numbers.
I don't think Socrates had a background in philosophy, and he was still worth listening to.
@@Rothbard_is_God8082 sure. Some movies that I'd like get poor reviews. But I've a limited amount of time so I read reviews and tailor my viewing accordingly
@@Mart-B Thats based on opinion and many reviews are either bots, AI, or paid shills.
elementary school level
why did the youtube algorithm think I wanted to listen to a woman
Because the outcome was likely to be good. 😂
It didn't