Would love to see a quick video describing Kant's aesthetics - I don't see enough exposure of passages from Critique of Judgment. - I love that he references Edmund Burke's work On Fear and The Sublime.
I'm extremely confused about this. Higher reasoning seems like it should factor in as much context and subjectivity as possible as I see it (the higher the reasoning capability, the more hypothetical the imperatives, so to speak). For example, I would think a good parent factors in the psychology of their child in deducing an appropriate punishment for their misbehavior that minimizes the chances of preventing a repeat of the same misbehavior. It doesn't seem like a good approach to ignore such contextual and subjective differences and approach parenting as though all children are the same, or the same as we were when we were children. The one argument I can see to trying to generalize and universalize as much as possible is that the more nuanced data we factor in, perhaps the greater the probability of error in diagnosis, so we might want to err on the side of accounting for less information rather than more absent enormous expertise. For example, I might have a low degree of error in simply assuming a person is mentally ill, but increase my degree of error substantially lacking psychological expertise to attempt to diagnose them more specifically, like bipolar or schizophrenic. There I'd want to consult with experts.
So, I'm going to talk about sexual assault...so here's a rather large trigger warning. So, I'd say the biggest obstacle in utilitarianism is, to be blunt, sex crimes that are unlikely to be caught and result in no long term damage or evidence that they occurred. I'd say utilitarianism becomes a lot trickier when dealing with concepts in which there are moral codes that would be wonderfully beneficial if all members of society followed them (like not engaging in sex crimes) but where, if the individual does not follow those moral codes it won't encourage the rest of society to follow them any less...such as not being caught when engaging in sex crimes. There are probably other issues that are less triggering that contain similar problems...but honestly I can't think of what they are. It seems like pretty much only with sex crimes is there a circumstance in which, someone can gain pleasure from something that does not cause any harm to the person unless they discover it, but if they discover it, it can lead to massive amounts of harm. That risk of massive amounts of harm is a large part of the reason why it'd be better off if society were all to just not engage in sex crimes. The other obstacle is that...utilitarianism kind of makes it sound like, if there were a way to be certain that someone wouldn't be caught engaging in a sex crime, and the person could train themselves to not feel guilt from engaging that sex crime (perhaps because they think utilitarianism is telling them to do it) they actually have a moral obligation to engage in the sex crime. However...I think if we lived in a society in which we believed everybody had a moral obligation to assault us in our sleep, there'd be a pretty strong argument to be made that we'd all be terrified to go to sleep, which I could definitely see as causing more suffering than the pleasure of all those yet-to-be-caught sex offenders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, deontology is rule based...so it could tell people, presumably, just "don't commit sexual assault." (I think...I'm only familiar with Kant's works through Dr. J), and that would be hugely beneficial if we had utilitarian goals...so here, it would seem that the ideal society for utilitarians might actually involve some deontological reasoning. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, a major obstacle for utilitarianism is that...though I think we could make a strong argument that humanity as a whole would be better off without sex crimes...I can think of no way in which individuals abstaining from sex crimes will reduce the number of sex crimes other people engage in. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, I would say deontology has its own problems. It seems to be striving for consistency (unless I'm wrong...I'm not very knowledgeable about Kant). I don't think consistency is our goal though...for anyone. I think consistency can feel desirable...but really our goal is always rooted in maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering, and anything that steps away from that, and that doesn't focus on determining what is right and wrong based on likely consequences or known consequences of actions is going to end up veering us off down the wrong path eventually. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, so far one of my utilitarian proposals to the sex crime issue is that if we reward ourselves for destructive behavior with pleasure, that makes not engaging in those destructive behaviors cause more suffering when we get used to it, whereas if we reward ourselves with pleasure for constructive behaviors that assist society only, or that at least don't cause society risk of harm...then we're enhancing pleasure in others, strengthening ourselves, and making it more pleasurable for us to engage in constructive and helpful-to-society behaviors by our getting used to them resulting in them causing us less suffering. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd say that solution works decently over the long term...but there's still the problem of, if a person is locked in a room with someone else, and they somehow know that person never awakens from sleep, and this is an isolated scenario in which long term impulse control is not a factor (like maybe the world is going to end in a month)...it kind of looks like utilitarianism is actually advocating that other person be sexually assaulted...and if my tent partner or whatever knows I'm a utilitarian...that means they're not going to want to be anywhere near me, unless I can think of some reason why it's bad to commit that kind of sex crime. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I figure that was a major motive in the popularity of deontology. There are ways of dealing with that...but I found them all to seem pretty iffy to me. I'm not willing to say I'm a deontologist though. I ignore that possibility just because I think it veers away from our goals in life of maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering. I think it'll be flawed by default in that way...so I've got to find some utilitarian solution. So...I'm not going to sexually assault anyone. I'm just not sure why not yet though. If anyone can explain to me why I'm not going to do that though, that'd be great...lol. You might save me a lot of work. I've got some more ideas on this...but they're all very long and nothing seems to be a fully satisfactory explanation yet.
I don’t think I understood the example you gave about theft. If we have defined what theft is, and willed that all acted accordingly to the maxim of ‘steal it if you can’t afford it’, why would the idea of theft vanish? Everyone would just be stealing. The definition doesn’t break down under it becoming some universal law of theft. Would it vanish because anyone wanting anyone else to steal from them is by definition impossible? That’s the only explanation I have. I’m not sure if I understand.
If you have permission to take it then you can't steal it-stealing would no longer make sense because possession would no longer make sense. There's a logical contradiction following the maxim to take what you can't afford
@@petesake1181 Good question. If I'm poor, and I want to take food that I can't afford, and I ask myself if I could will that anyone who was hungry could take someone's food, then reasoning through the categorical imperative seems to permit me to take food. Right? (Well-maybe not). But if YES, then reason permits me to take food I can't afford. And it's a logical inconsistency, because reason would be permitting me to take what is not mine and reason would also be trying to holdfast concepts like "property" and "ownership" and "stealing" ... it won't work. So, we can realize that we can't will to take what is not ours even if we are simply motivated by hungry. Thus, stealing is wrong. (these are my words and my interpretations of Kant's deontology)
@@saharjoakim Hold on now… which to forgo: theft or ownership? It seems under Kant’s theory the answer is “obviously” that we forgo theft. Why don’t we just let the concept of theft as a universal law destroy the ideas of private property? Is that the wrong question?
Would love to see a quick video describing Kant's aesthetics - I don't see enough exposure of passages from Critique of Judgment. - I love that he references Edmund Burke's work On Fear and The Sublime.
Liking the videos, Sahar! I love the set up you have!
excellent delivery and crystal clear explanations. kudos to you!
P.S. very unexpected sound effect @1:02
It was not a fart! ha ha
Nomoskar Mam
I want to get more vedioes about Philosophy. I love philosophy because I am the student of philosophy Department of Dhaka University.
hi :) subscribe to my channel, and watch videos on philosophy. All free!
I'm extremely confused about this. Higher reasoning seems like it should factor in as much context and subjectivity as possible as I see it (the higher the reasoning capability, the more hypothetical the imperatives, so to speak). For example, I would think a good parent factors in the psychology of their child in deducing an appropriate punishment for their misbehavior that minimizes the chances of preventing a repeat of the same misbehavior. It doesn't seem like a good approach to ignore such contextual and subjective differences and approach parenting as though all children are the same, or the same as we were when we were children.
The one argument I can see to trying to generalize and universalize as much as possible is that the more nuanced data we factor in, perhaps the greater the probability of error in diagnosis, so we might want to err on the side of accounting for less information rather than more absent enormous expertise. For example, I might have a low degree of error in simply assuming a person is mentally ill, but increase my degree of error substantially lacking psychological expertise to attempt to diagnose them more specifically, like bipolar or schizophrenic. There I'd want to consult with experts.
So, I'm going to talk about sexual assault...so here's a rather large trigger warning.
So, I'd say the biggest obstacle in utilitarianism is, to be blunt, sex crimes that are unlikely to be caught and result in no long term damage or evidence that they occurred. I'd say utilitarianism becomes a lot trickier when dealing with concepts in which there are moral codes that would be wonderfully beneficial if all members of society followed them (like not engaging in sex crimes) but where, if the individual does not follow those moral codes it won't encourage the rest of society to follow them any less...such as not being caught when engaging in sex crimes. There are probably other issues that are less triggering that contain similar problems...but honestly I can't think of what they are.
It seems like pretty much only with sex crimes is there a circumstance in which, someone can gain pleasure from something that does not cause any harm to the person unless they discover it, but if they discover it, it can lead to massive amounts of harm. That risk of massive amounts of harm is a large part of the reason why it'd be better off if society were all to just not engage in sex crimes.
The other obstacle is that...utilitarianism kind of makes it sound like, if there were a way to be certain that someone wouldn't be caught engaging in a sex crime, and the person could train themselves to not feel guilt from engaging that sex crime (perhaps because they think utilitarianism is telling them to do it) they actually have a moral obligation to engage in the sex crime.
However...I think if we lived in a society in which we believed everybody had a moral obligation to assault us in our sleep, there'd be a pretty strong argument to be made that we'd all be terrified to go to sleep, which I could definitely see as causing more suffering than the pleasure of all those yet-to-be-caught sex offenders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, deontology is rule based...so it could tell people, presumably, just "don't commit sexual assault." (I think...I'm only familiar with Kant's works through Dr. J), and that would be hugely beneficial if we had utilitarian goals...so here, it would seem that the ideal society for utilitarians might actually involve some deontological reasoning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, a major obstacle for utilitarianism is that...though I think we could make a strong argument that humanity as a whole would be better off without sex crimes...I can think of no way in which individuals abstaining from sex crimes will reduce the number of sex crimes other people engage in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I would say deontology has its own problems. It seems to be striving for consistency (unless I'm wrong...I'm not very knowledgeable about Kant). I don't think consistency is our goal though...for anyone. I think consistency can feel desirable...but really our goal is always rooted in maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering, and anything that steps away from that, and that doesn't focus on determining what is right and wrong based on likely consequences or known consequences of actions is going to end up veering us off down the wrong path eventually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, so far one of my utilitarian proposals to the sex crime issue is that if we reward ourselves for destructive behavior with pleasure, that makes not engaging in those destructive behaviors cause more suffering when we get used to it, whereas if we reward ourselves with pleasure for constructive behaviors that assist society only, or that at least don't cause society risk of harm...then we're enhancing pleasure in others, strengthening ourselves, and making it more pleasurable for us to engage in constructive and helpful-to-society behaviors by our getting used to them resulting in them causing us less suffering.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say that solution works decently over the long term...but there's still the problem of, if a person is locked in a room with someone else, and they somehow know that person never awakens from sleep, and this is an isolated scenario in which long term impulse control is not a factor (like maybe the world is going to end in a month)...it kind of looks like utilitarianism is actually advocating that other person be sexually assaulted...and if my tent partner or whatever knows I'm a utilitarian...that means they're not going to want to be anywhere near me, unless I can think of some reason why it's bad to commit that kind of sex crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I figure that was a major motive in the popularity of deontology.
There are ways of dealing with that...but I found them all to seem pretty iffy to me. I'm not willing to say I'm a deontologist though. I ignore that possibility just because I think it veers away from our goals in life of maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering. I think it'll be flawed by default in that way...so I've got to find some utilitarian solution.
So...I'm not going to sexually assault anyone. I'm just not sure why not yet though. If anyone can explain to me why I'm not going to do that though, that'd be great...lol. You might save me a lot of work. I've got some more ideas on this...but they're all very long and nothing seems to be a fully satisfactory explanation yet.
I don’t think I understood the example you gave about theft. If we have defined what theft is, and willed that all acted accordingly to the maxim of ‘steal it if you can’t afford it’, why would the idea of theft vanish? Everyone would just be stealing. The definition doesn’t break down under it becoming some universal law of theft.
Would it vanish because anyone wanting anyone else to steal from them is by definition impossible? That’s the only explanation I have. I’m not sure if I understand.
If you have permission to take it then you can't steal it-stealing would no longer make sense because possession would no longer make sense. There's a logical contradiction following the maxim to take what you can't afford
@@saharjoakimWhere does the permission come from?
@@petesake1181 Good question. If I'm poor, and I want to take food that I can't afford, and I ask myself if I could will that anyone who was hungry could take someone's food, then reasoning through the categorical imperative seems to permit me to take food. Right? (Well-maybe not). But if YES, then reason permits me to take food I can't afford. And it's a logical inconsistency, because reason would be permitting me to take what is not mine and reason would also be trying to holdfast concepts like "property" and "ownership" and "stealing" ... it won't work. So, we can realize that we can't will to take what is not ours even if we are simply motivated by hungry. Thus, stealing is wrong. (these are my words and my interpretations of Kant's deontology)
@@saharjoakim Hold on now… which to forgo: theft or ownership? It seems under Kant’s theory the answer is “obviously” that we forgo theft. Why don’t we just let the concept of theft as a universal law destroy the ideas of private property? Is that the wrong question?
@@petesake1181 these are all great questions