@@Ggdivhjkjl avoid those sweeping statements! Quality of education is different from teacher to teacher, school to school - often regardless of the state/country curriculum. The best teachers can take a messy curriculum with a shitty class and turn it around with fun and interesting lessons that go beyond the base requirements. I had a very open-minded and passionate teacher for RE at my high-school in Canberra and she taught damn well! Now I have a warn down intolerant teacher for college and I too find it scary how much I'm relying on Crash Course...
The vlogbrothers, John and Hank Green got it from somewhere but did so much to popularize it that it has kinda become their thing. Of course, I bet they don't mind others using it as well. =)
One of the things I like about Crash Course is that it feels like I'm learning a lot, but it doesn't take long. I hardly notice 10 minutes have passed by the time the video ends.
Good luck with that. I decided to skip all classes and just study the textbooks for two Psych courses, "Tests and Measurements" and "Existential Phenomenological Psychology". Worked fine for "Tests and Measurements", I ended up with a "B". But the Existential class only had a single question on an essay test, and I ended up turning in a blank paper for an "F" and a headache.
I'm curious. when you study philosophy and write exams, do you write what you believe or do you write stuff like "this guy in history said this and this other guy argued that etc etc" like how are you graded?
TheAnnihilator89 i use "this guys and that guys" arguments and ideas to kind of back up my own interpretation of the issue/question if that makes sense
I turned out an acceptably educated young man. Barely good enough, I mean. I can't help but obsess over how much better I could have been today if I had had access to videos like these back in high school! I never cease marveling at what a great resource this channel is! Thank you for sharing.
Not just swedish; 'kant' means edge in a lot of european languages. (" from Old North French cant "corner" (perhaps via Middle Low German kante or Middle Dutch kant), from Vulgar Latin *canthus, from Latin cantus "iron tire of a wheel," possibly from a Celtic word meaning "rim of wheel, edge" (compare Welsh cant "bordering of a circle, tire, edge," Breton cant "circle"), from PIE *kam-bo- "corner, bend," from root *kemb- "to bend, turn, change" (source also of Greek kanthos "corner of the eye," Russian kutu "corner")."
This was awesome and i loved it, i may not agree with the natural law theory but i really love to hear what both sides in any argument has to say, so that i can form my own decisions based on as much information as possible.
***** Of course i understand that this is a simplified version of it. I could give a rough version of Jordan B Petersons "maps of meaning" which is around 15-20 hours i believe but i havent looked at how long. I simply liked this video, first of all because it covers a lot of ground in very little time.
I’ve been listening to all of the Crash Course Philosophy episodes while I’m at work and I gotta say they have been my most productive days by far. I work at target so it’s easy for me to be able to do my job and also listen and ponder all the content of this series. Really great stuff, I’m already starting a list of books that I need to read. If anyone has any suggestions lmk!! Right now I’m mostly interested in ethics and the concept of morality. As a non-religious person I’m not comfortable with saying I have morals without any reason for having those morals. Also, the more I think, the more I realize that I’m not entirely consistent with what I believe. My favorite thing in the world is getting my worldview shattered with new evidence so these philosophy videos have been like crack😅
@Marci marc Damn bro. Voltaire is cool but you have to give it up for the OGs That's like giving a medal for best epic poem written in Italy to Dante while making eye contact with Virgil If they have western vs eastern orators though you've got it
It would be cool if you guys turn some of these into a coloring book. Perhaps it would make memorizing history easier. :) Love your videos!!! Keep up the good work!
I was really hoping for a bit of Locke Hobbes and Rousseau. Also you dont exactly have to believe in god to believe in natural law, Grotius was the first in the 17th century to push a secular natural law.
@@jthemagicrobot3960 that makes absolutely no sense, athiesm only makes some sense through nihilism. Nihilism denys the existence of absolute truth which goes against your claim that athiesm somehow leads to virtue
@@marlonmunguia163 atheism splits to two different paths one as you state nihilism / hedonism the other is totally control of self. it is this path that causes you to adopt certain behaviors which ironically resemble in action that of Christianity (or how Christianity was). Actually think about what it means to have no god. ps I'm not an atheist and I understand this.
@@jthemagicrobot3960 the other side sounds more like Buddhism than anything, controlling ones emotions immensely. There is no logical reason for an athiest to adopt a moral code, this is because there is no reason for an athiest to believe in absolute truth. It makes man an animal instead of a creature that has an immortal soul which is believed by Christians. Athiests can be moral, but it would go contrary to their belief that there is "no God"
You know, even as an atheist, I do respect Thomas Aquinas' approach to rationality and reason. I do feel if he had an intellectual individual to lock horns with, verbally that is, they could have come up with some really nice stuff.
His colleagues in the seminary called him the "dumb ox" because he was big and didn't like talking in front of the class. Then one day he helped out a classmate who was struggling to explain something and stunned the whole class (except the teacher who'd been marking his papers).
I don't really think you gave the is-ought problem justice. It's not really about the bias of assigning ought based on how things are (or have been), but more of the inherent logical leap that is frequently taken when reasoning from how the world IS to how the world OUGHT to be. Basically, it's not clear how we get from IS to OUGHT, and this is a fundamental problem.
The world is in the state "x". In this "x", it exists a guy with the desire A, and this desire is stronger than all the other desires he has. So, the world, for the guy, ought to be in the way that desire A is satisfying. Ought from is. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are still using the word ought to mean simply that things are. The problem of the natural law fallacy is that one assumes that we can derive something without spacial-temporal features from that which is inseparable from them. When one says that something ought to be a certain way they are saying that it should be that way irrespective of how it is in any sense being now or later. The line of reasoning you just used could be used to justify murder without even discussing what is to be the object of ethics; that is because to natural law the object is simply that which is and nothing more. The central concern for the natural law theorist in morality is diametrically oposed to how human beings experience morality. You wouldn't say that something is right simply because it happened, would you? In your own example you devised a hierarchy of intensity for desire, and natural law theorsits generate a similar hierarchy (like Aquinas did)for relative goods to amend this. However, is it not then, something intrinsic to the nature of the goods by which we make moral judgements, and not by the arbitrary metric of how something is that we judge? This is why natural law tends to depend on god, because that lets them ignore the problem of the hierarchy. However, natural law theory still requires that one relinquish reason to a natural law fallacy in order to infer what those natural laws just so happen to be.
People love to bring up the is-ought problem as if it were supposed to be kryponite against natural law theory. It isn't. The only reason it gets off the ground in the first place is by denying the core metaphysical framework that natural law takes for granted (such as formal and final causes). But that's hardly a *refutation* of natural law, so much as a refusal to even consider it. As an aside, you don't have to believe in God to accept natural law, anymore than you have to believe in God to have an idea of what eyes are for.
Well said. As a Catholic Christian and full-time minister I can argue just about every moral stance of the Church without ever bringing God into the discussion.
Alright. Then please justify, Ronnie, why if you suspect your wife of getting pregnant by cheating on you, you're supposed to make her drink "bitterwater", and if she miscarries (which she will) then "God" has deemed she's cheated on you, and you should stone her. That's what it teaches in the Old Testament, after all.
Joshua Urbauer No Christian, who knows their theology that is, is obliged to follow the Jewish laws, this is stated by both Jesus and St. Paul. What you state isn't a Christian law. This is the same reason why it isn't necessary for Christians to be circumcised. In fact St. Paul was a circumcised Jewish convert and mocked people who thought this had to be followed. Jesus criticized the law, one of the reasons why they nailed Him to a cross. Also, God wouldn't "deem" that somebody cheat on their spouse, He doesn't want that to happen, it's not His desire, but He would allow it to happen because He created us with free will.
1. Numbers 5 isn't an example of a moral stance of the Catholic Church. 2. Numbers 5 isn't dealing with suspicion of pregnancy, but of adultery. 3. Numbers 5 makes no mention of stoning either. Capital cases required two trustworthy witnesses, and the whole point of Numbers 5 is that none are available.
I am an atheist but this one is good enough to me. It sounds a lot like evolution and natural selection and if you don't put an omniscient entity (god) into the picture and accept that everything, including nature can be flawed at times but generally works out ok, I think this theory basically nailed it.
I want to know what the conversation was like when the writer(s) realized they could frame Aquinas's message in the form of DFTBA. I imagine there was giggling.
Excellent video! When I saw 7 basic goods, I thought "Oh no, the new natural law of Grisez and Finnis!" But the basic goods here are straight out of Thomas and have an order among them. Very impressive presentation! Still watching...
Cero Balam Oh dear. Then we'll get all the self-important young men who definitely understand what he was really getting at in the comments. It's like a light version of Rand supporters. Luckily, we won't be covering Rand because this is a series on philosophy.
Thank you Crash Course, for making the unintelligible, fictitious babble of my ethics class digestible enough to get me through this quarter- I cannot express my appreciation enough!!!
Ahhh...I love this chanel.Finally achanel which providew us significant amount of knowledge about how our life and the ralations between us work.more generally philosophy!!!!
I have several issues with aquinas, first: as I mentioned in an earlier video, his assumption that God is at the head of everything because he is God falls apart with denial of God's existence, second, his "basic goods" don't explain mental conditions such as suicidal urges, addiction or psychopathy (if "instinct" is inherently good, then is it not a sin to fight against suicidal urges or addictive tendencies? additionally what if you have no moral compass? are you incapable of sinning or is your mere existence a sin itself?), I have respect for him as an intellectual of his time but in the end he's a one trick pony and most if not all of his arguments fall apart with any serious thought given to the nonexistence of god or lack of morality (side note: for any fervent religious types reading this, I'm not attempting to prove or disprove God's existence, this is all for the sake of argument, while I don't consider myself particularly religious as far as strict adherence to any of the Abraham faiths, I do have my own beliefs as to the existence of God and the origins of the universe)
his explanation for endowment of inherent awesomness also doesn't entirely account for other cultures, entirely foreign cultures like the vikings(to use an example from his time period), how would he account for their almost inherent desire for violence (they literally have to die in battle to achieve paradise)? is their lust for violence inherently good because it's instinctual? or are they all sinners because they don't adhere to his value of life? if that's the case must he not throw out his basic goods concept entirely?
I think it does tie back into it. You have to add time to do this. Otherwise if you were to start this world you explained, without time it wouldn’t work. Adding time though is as follows; Preservation of life we all want to live. Ideally suicidal and addictive mental states urged people to death with time. Eventually leading people to realize these mental states weren’t right. To some before christ these were seen as evil spirits, or witchcraft. With time and after the enlightenment era you had mental conditions. Sin on the other hand is far different biblically. You must go further into the Bible and study it. I myself am beginning to believe. Before I doubted too much about life, I questioned why people died if God sent Jesus Christ. Why I had feelings I couldn’t let go. Then one night I said maybe I should try. I prayed, the next day my loneliness vanished.
Nowadays, it's scary that people still believe in that, but it was without a doubt a great progress at the time, explaining evolution and some individual or group behaviour before we could know about evolution and cognitions!
What's with ancient philosophers and baseless claims? Most of the ideas seem really arbitrary, like the list of 7 "basic goods". No respectable intellectual would propose something like this nowadays.
Exactly. Now we know more, and we advanced more, so those ideas seem ridiculous to us. But, that's only today. When those ideas were thought of, they were quite accurate for the time.
1. Thomas was medieval, not ancient. 2. His claims were based on his observations. Now, we don't agree with all of them anymore because a lot of them were culturally contingent, but they were not regarded as arbitrary at the time. 3. As a corollary to 2, how do you know that the things respectable intellectuals say today won't be regarded as equally silly 800 years from now?
1. I don't care. 2. No they weren't. Also it doesn't matter when something is claimed. If there isn't enough evidence, the correct position is "I don't know". 3. If I say "I don't know" now, people after 800 years will say it was a respectable position to have in 2016. If I say something "might exist" or something "is possible", or "more research is needed" that's a respectable position in 2016 or 2816. But we do know a lot of things and the scientific method can even quantify the uncertainty. Science produces accurate predictions we can test. For example Newton's laws weren't arbitrary at all, even though Einstein made improved laws. Newtons laws made really accurate predictions and that will be true after 800 years.
1. Then you're ignorant. 2. How would you know that they weren't? You don't even know when Thomas lived. 3. So in other words we shouldn't claim anything at all. Then you get to the heart of the matter. Look, I'm not a catholic and I agree with basically none of Aquinas' theories. But your arguments are very naively scientistic and ahistorical. I don't really understand why you're watching videos about philosophy when you're not willing to engage with any ideas outside your own preconceptions.
It's disturbing what was advertised by cigarette manufacturers years ago. We have government regulations that prevent such misinformation and lying in tobacco product ads in the United States. We also benefit from laws that restrict tobacco companies from marketing to children. Unfortunately, in many countries today the same "Big Tobacco" corporations that used to market aggressively to children in the U.S., such as Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds etc.., continue to market tobacco and cigarettes to children and spread misleading ads to all ages because they do not have the same laws.
This is definitely my favorite Crash Course series! You're awesome, Hank! =) Can't wait for next week. I've studied Kant's approach to morality and ethics in school and it has been my favorite since then. Can't wait to see what you have to say about it!
If it's real and not just something invented to justify a belief in God, then it applies only to individuals with healthy minds. We have rules because we need to work together. We'd be long extinct if we didn't band together to hunt mammoths and defend against sabertooths. If someone proves to be a threat to the safety of the group, said person was often either banished (practically a death sentence) or outright killed to ensure everyone else didn't wind up dead.
There was little understanding of mental disorders at that time, so there was no Psychopathy to explain. In most cases any genetic abnormalities would weed themselves out quickly through natural selection or legal retribution.
"If it's real and not just something invented to justify a belief in God, then it applies only to individuals with healthy minds." The video says that it is supposed to apply to literally every living thing. God made them all so they _all_ come with the drives that God designed for them. If some people have strange drives that just means that God wants those people to do strange things.
Love your videos but I wish you had also introduced philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes- he actually influenced a lot of Aquinas' work), and Al-Ghazali.
Natural Law is inherent and cannot be taken away - it is innaliable. Just because you do not believe in it, it does not mean it is not there. Natural Law will always catch up and punish you for the bad behavior. Some may call this karma, but nonetheless, it is true. Seek the middle ground, stay within moderation, and do not be assholes to each other, and world peace could be accomplished. If only about 5 billion people would just adhere to the basics of goodness.
Scary how much I rely on his videos to get me through A level RE
me right now
UMC _19 big mood
RE isn't taught very well in Australia. How is it where you are?
@@Ggdivhjkjl avoid those sweeping statements! Quality of education is different from teacher to teacher, school to school - often regardless of the state/country curriculum. The best teachers can take a messy curriculum with a shitty class and turn it around with fun and interesting lessons that go beyond the base requirements. I had a very open-minded and passionate teacher for RE at my high-school in Canberra and she taught damn well! Now I have a warn down intolerant teacher for college and I too find it scary how much I'm relying on Crash Course...
LOVE how you brought up the "Don't Forget to be Awesome" quote near the beginning.
it's the golden rule in Greeneic.
Cool profile pic
Yeah, I was like: "I see what you did there..."
Is this where DFTBA came from? Not this video, but this idea
The vlogbrothers, John and Hank Green got it from somewhere but did so much to popularize it that it has kinda become their thing. Of course, I bet they don't mind others using it as well. =)
One of the things I like about Crash Course is that it feels like I'm learning a lot, but it doesn't take long. I hardly notice 10 minutes have passed by the time the video ends.
Watches a Crash Course Philosophy Ethics video on RUclips instead of writing my actual Ethics essay for university.
Good luck with that. I decided to skip all classes and just study the textbooks for two Psych courses, "Tests and Measurements" and "Existential Phenomenological Psychology". Worked fine for "Tests and Measurements", I ended up with a "B". But the Existential class only had a single question on an essay test, and I ended up turning in a blank paper for an "F" and a headache.
Or did you perform subject matter research on the topic of your essay?
I'm curious. when you study philosophy and write exams, do you write what you believe or do you write stuff like "this guy in history said this and this other guy argued that etc etc" like how are you graded?
TheAnnihilator89 i use "this guys and that guys" arguments and ideas to kind of back up my own interpretation of the issue/question if that makes sense
Samuel Fanara OK I get it
I really Kant.
Kant wait for the next one.
(sorry, not sorry)
someone had to say it
I laughed when I read this, and now I am very disappointed with myself
oh BOY, Categorical Imperative?! Categorical Imperative HERE. WE. GO!!!
Me Nietzsche!
Theorak
you kant
Crash course is a better resource then my university lectures that I'm paying for. Sad.
I turned out an acceptably educated young man. Barely good enough, I mean. I can't help but obsess over how much better I could have been today if I had had access to videos like these back in high school! I never cease marveling at what a great resource this channel is! Thank you for sharing.
I love how Kant showed up on the edge of the screen, as "kant" is Swedish for edge.
Not just swedish; 'kant' means edge in a lot of european languages. (" from Old North French cant "corner" (perhaps via Middle Low German kante or Middle Dutch kant), from Vulgar Latin *canthus, from Latin cantus "iron tire of a wheel," possibly from a Celtic word meaning "rim of wheel, edge" (compare Welsh cant "bordering of a circle, tire, edge," Breton cant "circle"), from PIE *kam-bo- "corner, bend," from root *kemb- "to bend, turn, change" (source also of Greek kanthos "corner of the eye," Russian kutu "corner")."
In polish language it is "kant" too (as the meaning of edge). :)
Just "kant", no "ą" "ł" and other stuff.
Cool. I didn't want to mention other languages because I was only sure about the word in Swedish. I love learning new things. :D
So he was an edgy guy?
What is this russian kutu you talk about? I can only think of 'kant' as an edge of a piece of cloth/ item of clothing.
When I say "Explain it to me like I'm five." this is what I mean.
1:10
I see what you did there...
With all the "Kant" puns in the comments section I was starting to think that I was the only one...
darling fetch the battle axe!
Lolz #dftba
dont forget, brains attract
That made me smile so much.
This was awesome and i loved it, i may not agree with the natural law theory but i really love to hear what both sides in any argument has to say, so that i can form my own decisions based on as much information as possible.
***** Of course i understand that this is a simplified version of it. I could give a rough version of Jordan B Petersons "maps of meaning" which is around 15-20 hours i believe but i havent looked at how long. I simply liked this video, first of all because it covers a lot of ground in very little time.
Agree to disagree...
@@TheRobExpo That isn't real natural law. That guy is completely ignorant and you should stick to academic philosophers on the subject.
If you get the "Don't Forget to be Awesome" reference, you've been here for a long time.
Adrián Buenfil Darling Fetch The Battle Axe!
+
Adrián Buenfil while I've been a long time fan, I missed that reference. I get it, but totally missed it.
Adrián Buenfil :)
unless...you..are...the mongols :'D
I said it before and I'll say it again: Crash Course is the best thing on the internet.
"Do all the procreating you want" - Hank Green, 2016
"It's important that you don't forget to be awesome" - roll credits!
1:56 Actually made me chuckle. It doesn't take a hard look around to see plenty of people doing things that are definitely not what's best for them.
Hi classmates! 🤣 I know you're here because of the online class
The Bible does not say, "do not kill." It says thou shall not murder. " It's a difference. Murder requires premeditated.
Thank goodness for Crash Course! Even though I read all about this 1st, my brain doesn't seem to soak it in until I watch these. Thanks man!!
I’ve been listening to all of the Crash Course Philosophy episodes while I’m at work and I gotta say they have been my most productive days by far. I work at target so it’s easy for me to be able to do my job and also listen and ponder all the content of this series. Really great stuff, I’m already starting a list of books that I need to read. If anyone has any suggestions lmk!! Right now I’m mostly interested in ethics and the concept of morality. As a non-religious person I’m not comfortable with saying I have morals without any reason for having those morals. Also, the more I think, the more I realize that I’m not entirely consistent with what I believe. My favorite thing in the world is getting my worldview shattered with new evidence so these philosophy videos have been like crack😅
I love the way you explain things. It almost makes me cry after reading my course books which unnecessarily complicate things 🥺
Forgive me Crash Course for I have sinned. I had several chom-choms this weekend and forgot to refer to them as such. I am so sorry
😂😂
Indeed
YES!!! The categorical imperative is next. I can't wait, and neither should you! ;)
Another great lesson from Thomas Aquinus, the manus.
Yeah gotta love "the hand"
Divia Whiteberg Ah you beat me to it! lol
Gotta do what I gotta do, you know?
Anyway Marc, don't you have some speeches to write or some letters to Atticus? :P
Divia Whiteberg Nah, I've just been a bit melancholy over not getting into ERB Western vs Eastern Philosophers. Melior quam Voltaire sum.
@Marci marc Damn bro. Voltaire is cool but you have to give it up for the OGs
That's like giving a medal for best epic poem written in Italy to Dante while making eye contact with Virgil
If they have western vs eastern orators though you've got it
3:21 Wow, I thought I was the only one with that feeling. It is pretty cathartic to find that I am not.
STOP LEAVING ME AT SUPSENSE!!! Great video. I'm enjoying the philosophy series.
It would be cool if you guys turn some of these into a coloring book. Perhaps it would make memorizing history easier. :) Love your videos!!! Keep up the good work!
I was stuck, so now I'm here
I'm so glad there's a video about this
The explanation was so satisfying that I understood it so easily
I was really hoping for a bit of Locke Hobbes and Rousseau. Also you dont exactly have to believe in god to believe in natural law, Grotius was the first in the 17th century to push a secular natural law.
Doesnt make sense tho, the end of athiesm is no morality and hedonism
@@marlonmunguia163 or it can go the exact opposite
@@jthemagicrobot3960 that makes absolutely no sense, athiesm only makes some sense through nihilism. Nihilism denys the existence of absolute truth which goes against your claim that athiesm somehow leads to virtue
@@marlonmunguia163 atheism splits to two different paths one as you state nihilism / hedonism the other is totally control of self. it is this path that causes you to adopt certain behaviors which ironically resemble in action that of Christianity (or how Christianity was). Actually think about what it means to have no god. ps I'm not an atheist and I understand this.
@@jthemagicrobot3960 the other side sounds more like Buddhism than anything, controlling ones emotions immensely. There is no logical reason for an athiest to adopt a moral code, this is because there is no reason for an athiest to believe in absolute truth. It makes man an animal instead of a creature that has an immortal soul which is believed by Christians. Athiests can be moral, but it would go contrary to their belief that there is "no God"
I cant stop loving this man
You know, even as an atheist, I do respect Thomas Aquinas' approach to rationality and reason. I do feel if he had an intellectual individual to lock horns with, verbally that is, they could have come up with some really nice stuff.
agreed, man was big brain
@@brendankapp5237 I think you mean Big Brian
His colleagues in the seminary called him the "dumb ox" because he was big and didn't like talking in front of the class. Then one day he helped out a classmate who was struggling to explain something and stunned the whole class (except the teacher who'd been marking his papers).
I don't really think you gave the is-ought problem justice. It's not really about the bias of assigning ought based on how things are (or have been), but more of the inherent logical leap that is frequently taken when reasoning from how the world IS to how the world OUGHT to be. Basically, it's not clear how we get from IS to OUGHT, and this is a fundamental problem.
exactly
+
The world is in the state "x". In this "x", it exists a guy with the desire A, and this desire is stronger than all the other desires he has. So, the world, for the guy, ought to be in the way that desire A is satisfying. Ought from is. Am I wrong?
+
Yes, you are still using the word ought to mean simply that things are. The problem of the natural law fallacy is that one assumes that we can derive something without spacial-temporal features from that which is inseparable from them. When one says that something ought to be a certain way they are saying that it should be that way irrespective of how it is in any sense being now or later. The line of reasoning you just used could be used to justify murder without even discussing what is to be the object of ethics; that is because to natural law the object is simply that which is and nothing more. The central concern for the natural law theorist in morality is diametrically oposed to how human beings experience morality. You wouldn't say that something is right simply because it happened, would you? In your own example you devised a hierarchy of intensity for desire, and natural law theorsits generate a similar hierarchy (like Aquinas did)for relative goods to amend this. However, is it not then, something intrinsic to the nature of the goods by which we make moral judgements, and not by the arbitrary metric of how something is that we judge? This is why natural law tends to depend on god, because that lets them ignore the problem of the hierarchy. However, natural law theory still requires that one relinquish reason to a natural law fallacy in order to infer what those natural laws just so happen to be.
Sitting an RE exam in a few hours, arrived here, thanks for saving meeee
I am so glad this series exists. I would not be able to pass my PHL class without!
When you're studying global law and crash course is still life
People love to bring up the is-ought problem as if it were supposed to be kryponite against natural law theory. It isn't. The only reason it gets off the ground in the first place is by denying the core metaphysical framework that natural law takes for granted (such as formal and final causes). But that's hardly a *refutation* of natural law, so much as a refusal to even consider it.
As an aside, you don't have to believe in God to accept natural law, anymore than you have to believe in God to have an idea of what eyes are for.
Well said. As a Catholic Christian and full-time minister I can argue just about every moral stance of the Church without ever bringing God into the discussion.
Alright. Then please justify, Ronnie, why if you suspect your wife of getting pregnant by cheating on you, you're supposed to make her drink "bitterwater", and if she miscarries (which she will) then "God" has deemed she's cheated on you, and you should stone her. That's what it teaches in the Old Testament, after all.
Joshua Urbauer
No Christian, who knows their theology that is, is obliged to follow the Jewish laws, this is stated by both Jesus and St. Paul. What you state isn't a Christian law. This is the same reason why it isn't necessary for Christians to be circumcised. In fact St. Paul was a circumcised Jewish convert and mocked people who thought this had to be followed. Jesus criticized the law, one of the reasons why they nailed Him to a cross.
Also, God wouldn't "deem" that somebody cheat on their spouse, He doesn't want that to happen, it's not His desire, but He would allow it to happen because He created us with free will.
1. Numbers 5 isn't an example of a moral stance of the Catholic Church.
2. Numbers 5 isn't dealing with suspicion of pregnancy, but of adultery.
3. Numbers 5 makes no mention of stoning either. Capital cases required two trustworthy witnesses, and the whole point of Numbers 5 is that none are available.
Joshua Urbauer
By the way, sweet profile pic.
Thank you crash course! Your psychology and philosophy videos are helping me understand my college chapters better.
"It's just important that you don't...forget to be awesome."
*looks into the camera like I'm in The Office*
AND AS WE SAY IN MY HOMETOWN, "DON'T FORGET TO BE AWESOME"
I love crash course. Been here learning since the beginning
getting hyped for Kantian ethics!
You do a better job than my ethics teacher.
I have a question. Is it possible to maintain a natural law theory without believing in the divine source? Why or why not?
Nice video! It would be great to add Aquinas's answer to Dave Hume's objection ...
Ugh, this hurts my brain.
I need a chom chom
AMEN! I SAY THIS ALMOST 5 TIMES A DAY! 😄
I wish I were a philosopher...
So be one.
Max10192 Touché...
Nah, be a mathematician. Same use of logic, but the goal is agreement rather than disagreement
Well, physicists were once called Natural Philosophers....
APaleDot your comment made me smile :)
At 5:40 I kind of thought Hank was going to say "And if you think it through with your goddamn brain for a second..."
oh joy, all of the ancraps are gonna roll in these next few episodes
I am an atheist but this one is good enough to me. It sounds a lot like evolution and natural selection and if you don't put an omniscient entity (god) into the picture and accept that everything, including nature can be flawed at times but generally works out ok, I think this theory basically nailed it.
As a devout Catholic myself and therefore a theist Aquinas has always been my boi.
I remember having a debate on the last video about this concept.
I have never been more thrilled for the next episode
I want to know what the conversation was like when the writer(s) realized they could frame Aquinas's message in the form of DFTBA. I imagine there was giggling.
Read Finnis’s book, Moral Absolutes, and you can see how the Is-Ought problem is solved by Natural Law philosophers.
Excellent video! When I saw 7 basic goods, I thought "Oh no, the new natural law of Grisez and Finnis!" But the basic goods here are straight out of Thomas and have an order among them. Very impressive presentation! Still watching...
Sees Kant pop out from the side of the frame
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE INTENSIFIES
When you finish this series, you should sing the Philosophers Song from Monty Python.
Congrats on 5 million subscribers!
Watching this instead of actually studying for my exam
juuustt started this in a-level philosophy.. great timing!!!!!
I love this Aquinas, guy.
The whooshing vapor tendrils at the end are so relaxing.... ahhhhhh
Yaaaay Kant is coming
I Kant wait
you are such a Kant
Said no one ever.
I hate Kant but the categorical imperative does stay with you as an ethical standard.
Someone
damnit already used my joke you kant
Cero Balam Oh dear. Then we'll get all the self-important young men who definitely understand what he was really getting at in the comments.
It's like a light version of Rand supporters. Luckily, we won't be covering Rand because this is a series on philosophy.
You are amazing thank you.
Thank you Crash Course, for making the unintelligible, fictitious babble of my ethics class digestible enough to get me through this quarter- I cannot express my appreciation enough!!!
Ahhh...I love this chanel.Finally achanel which providew us significant amount of knowledge about how our life and the ralations between us work.more generally philosophy!!!!
I have several issues with aquinas, first: as I mentioned in an earlier video, his assumption that God is at the head of everything because he is God falls apart with denial of God's existence, second, his "basic goods" don't explain mental conditions such as suicidal urges, addiction or psychopathy (if "instinct" is inherently good, then is it not a sin to fight against suicidal urges or addictive tendencies? additionally what if you have no moral compass? are you incapable of sinning or is your mere existence a sin itself?), I have respect for him as an intellectual of his time but in the end he's a one trick pony and most if not all of his arguments fall apart with any serious thought given to the nonexistence of god or lack of morality (side note: for any fervent religious types reading this, I'm not attempting to prove or disprove God's existence, this is all for the sake of argument, while I don't consider myself particularly religious as far as strict adherence to any of the Abraham faiths, I do have my own beliefs as to the existence of God and the origins of the universe)
his explanation for endowment of inherent awesomness also doesn't entirely account for other cultures, entirely foreign cultures like the vikings(to use an example from his time period), how would he account for their almost inherent desire for violence (they literally have to die in battle to achieve paradise)? is their lust for violence inherently good because it's instinctual? or are they all sinners because they don't adhere to his value of life? if that's the case must he not throw out his basic goods concept entirely?
You are so interesting and I totally agree with what you are saying . These rules can't explain everything and can't place all moral emphasis on God
I think it does tie back into it. You have to add time to do this. Otherwise if you were to start this world you explained, without time it wouldn’t work. Adding time though is as follows; Preservation of life we all want to live. Ideally suicidal and addictive mental states urged people to death with time. Eventually leading people to realize these mental states weren’t right. To some before christ these were seen as evil spirits, or witchcraft. With time and after the enlightenment era you had mental conditions. Sin on the other hand is far different biblically. You must go further into the Bible and study it. I myself am beginning to believe. Before I doubted too much about life, I questioned why people died if God sent Jesus Christ. Why I had feelings I couldn’t let go. Then one night I said maybe I should try. I prayed, the next day my loneliness vanished.
Nowadays, it's scary that people still believe in that, but it was without a doubt a great progress at the time, explaining evolution and some individual or group behaviour before we could know about evolution and cognitions!
What's with ancient philosophers and baseless claims? Most of the ideas seem really arbitrary, like the list of 7 "basic goods". No respectable intellectual would propose something like this nowadays.
Exactly. Now we know more, and we advanced more, so those ideas seem ridiculous to us. But, that's only today. When those ideas were thought of, they were quite accurate for the time.
Well, you have to start somewhere. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" etc.
1. Thomas was medieval, not ancient.
2. His claims were based on his observations. Now, we don't agree with all of them anymore because a lot of them were culturally contingent, but they were not regarded as arbitrary at the time.
3. As a corollary to 2, how do you know that the things respectable intellectuals say today won't be regarded as equally silly 800 years from now?
1. I don't care.
2. No they weren't. Also it doesn't matter when something is claimed. If there isn't enough evidence, the correct position is "I don't know".
3. If I say "I don't know" now, people after 800 years will say it was a respectable position to have in 2016. If I say something "might exist" or something "is possible", or "more research is needed" that's a respectable position in 2016 or 2816.
But we do know a lot of things and the scientific method can even quantify the uncertainty. Science produces accurate predictions we can test. For example Newton's laws weren't arbitrary at all, even though Einstein made improved laws. Newtons laws made really accurate predictions and that will be true after 800 years.
1. Then you're ignorant.
2. How would you know that they weren't? You don't even know when Thomas lived.
3. So in other words we shouldn't claim anything at all.
Then you get to the heart of the matter.
Look, I'm not a catholic and I agree with basically none of Aquinas' theories. But your arguments are very naively scientistic and ahistorical. I don't really understand why you're watching videos about philosophy when you're not willing to engage with any ideas outside your own preconceptions.
My fave philosopher's up next. I. Kant wait!
i have a kantegorical imperative to watch the next episode
Not just Christian monk. Catholic Priest. A saint. St. Thomas Aquinas.
Ave Christus Rex!
Ave Maria Regina!
your lesson is also AWESOME!
My bio teacher showed the class of these vids and I started to watch the chem vids to study but now I just watch all of them to learn mor e
Pause at 6:24 and read it.
"You're not coughing because there's anything wrong with the cigarettes in general, you've just been smoking an inferior brand", lmao.
It's disturbing what was advertised by cigarette manufacturers years ago. We have government regulations that prevent such misinformation and lying in tobacco product ads in the United States. We also benefit from laws that restrict tobacco companies from marketing to children. Unfortunately, in many countries today the same "Big Tobacco" corporations that used to market aggressively to children in the U.S., such as Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds etc.., continue to market tobacco and cigarettes to children and spread misleading ads to all ages because they do not have the same laws.
Advertising in a nutshell.
Thank you, David Hume.
I forgot to be awesome, what do I do now?
Don't?
U Wot M8 uhh I think the next step is reproduction
Eat some chom choms.
BE AWESOME!
become a hindu and be reborn and try again.
Everything is awesome when you are part of a team
I expect at least 2 episodes about Kant
Sagen Sagita Yes pleeease
*****
K lol
i like your discussion a lot. i only got to the maximum of 5 minute listening capacity but if topic is interesting i can stay an hr or more.
This is definitely my favorite Crash Course series! You're awesome, Hank! =)
Can't wait for next week. I've studied Kant's approach to morality and ethics in school and it has been my favorite since then. Can't wait to see what you have to say about it!
Crash Course over here getting me through college
The natural law theory appears to have difficulty explaining sociopaths and psychopaths.
shanellypooh Laws are made to be broken, my friend
Well, they naturally face the consequences of their stupid choices regardless of whether they are are aware of how stupid they are or not.
If it's real and not just something invented to justify a belief in God, then it applies only to individuals with healthy minds. We have rules because we need to work together. We'd be long extinct if we didn't band together to hunt mammoths and defend against sabertooths.
If someone proves to be a threat to the safety of the group, said person was often either banished (practically a death sentence) or outright killed to ensure everyone else didn't wind up dead.
There was little understanding of mental disorders at that time, so there was no Psychopathy to explain. In most cases any genetic abnormalities would weed themselves out quickly through natural selection or legal retribution.
"If it's real and not just something invented to justify a belief in God, then it applies only to individuals with healthy minds."
The video says that it is supposed to apply to literally every living thing. God made them all so they _all_ come with the drives that God designed for them. If some people have strange drives that just means that God wants those people to do strange things.
thanks to the makers of crash course, I learn a lot from their videos
I Kant see your point, mr.
Love your videos but I wish you had also introduced philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes- he actually influenced a lot of Aquinas' work), and Al-Ghazali.
"God is Awesome. He made you so you're awesome. Don't forget to be Awesome." I want a tee shirt!
This concept always tripped me up, thanks guys!
Don't forget to be awesome...I see what you did there....
This was really interesting.
I'm guessing this was pre-recorded since Hank is on vacation. By the way, congrats on being a new dad Hank!
Love the channel! 💙
We do indeed see what you did there. Very clever.
Natural Law is inherent and cannot be taken away - it is innaliable. Just because you do not believe in it, it does not mean it is not there. Natural Law will always catch up and punish you for the bad behavior. Some may call this karma, but nonetheless, it is true. Seek the middle ground, stay within moderation, and do not be assholes to each other, and world peace could be accomplished. If only about 5 billion people would just adhere to the basics of goodness.
"We are born to shun ignorance" from what i experiences it seems to be the opposite we humans want to be stupid and ignorant, minus me of course
Very inspiring word, "Owesome" related creator and created. Owesome is an analogy of dignity. Thank you, you Arie Owesome Sir.
Hear that? God says DFTBA. He needs a Pizza John shirt.
What did Thomas Aquinas say that is so very special? What made him so great?
Search the seminar Mark Passio gave on Natural Law on RUclips. It’s extremely informative, detailed and groundbreaking.