วีดีโอ

Thank you

both are the same for me in the sense that in Consequentialism probabilities of consequence are already priced in the decision. Plus in the 2nd case, Consequentialism would still lead you to a no because the consequence is yes you "killed" a person to save five, but you're going to prison and the result of that is that even more people will die than the five you saved by society not having a doctor or one less doctor to attend the sick patients.

"even though dr smith is a medical expert, the vast majority of experts disagree with her." And this is an appeal to consensus, or appeal to popularity, another fallacy.

if its non consequentionalism theory and based on action then would stealing drugs in order to save my wife is correct according to kantian deontology

Regarding the railroad tracks, it depends on who the one is. If the one is a stranger then you save the five other strangers. If the one is someone you love you save the one. At least that's what I would do. But the conductor should probably just try to slow down & derail the train safely. If the conductor had been paying attention to the tracks, then he would have seen them and had sufficient time to slow down or even stop

#1 put the switch half way and the trolley will then derail … #2 as you can hear the trolley coming , run forward and free the single person , run back and switch to where the single person was

All of these "All people don't have concious thought some people are just npcs" thought experiments sound like excuses to treat people badly and put yourself above everyone else

What many philosophers missing is PEAPLE DON'T WANNA DIE,the argument that "it's not bad because you don't exist to experience it"IS THE PROBLEM and it falls apart the moment someone remembers that killing is a thing,if death is not bad then why killing not good?

Induction works until it doesnt, then we modify our beliefs.

It seems then that the Zombie is attempting to deceive the observer. if the zombie has no experience of awe at the painting, for what purpose does it exclaim "wow so beautiful" ? without the experience to instantiate the 'feeling' of awe it must be motivated in some ulterior way. for what other purpose does it maintain human-like behaviour than to camouflage and conceal itself? fundamentally there will be different patterns of neural activation involved in the zombie interacts with it's environment

Beautifully explained. Thank you.

Believe your account... but not your doctor. Believe the doctors paid for opinions. And don't ask paid for by whom. 😊

When I was kid I used to assume that all the other people are this kind of zombies and I blame autism for that

A good example of the appeal to authority fallacy. There are certain types of political people who seriously wanna believe that "apoliticism" is a thing, because they have looked it up on wikipedia despite the fact that wikipedia is not an infallible website, and it can also put out wrong information, sometimes. Side note: I'm not trying to say that every bit of information that is on wikipedia is wrong. What i'm trying to say here is that people really need to be very analytical when something is posted on wikipidia, because it's not always gonna be 100% perfect. Me: "Sigh" Man. I just simply don't care about politics, because it just bores me to tears. 🥱 A random person: Oh. So you really don't care about politics, right? 😃 Me: Yeah. So what's up?😏 A random person: That's called "apoliticism". 😃 Me: Ummm...What? Really? So how do you even know that's even a thing?🤨 A random person: Because I've looked it up on the list of political ideologies that was on wikipedia.😃 Me: Ummmm...Dude. You do even realize that wikipedia is not an infallible information website, right?😏 A random person: Ummmm....Really? But why is that?🙂 Me: Because wikipedia can also put out wrong information, sometimes. 😏 A random person: So what makes you even think that wikipedia is wrong? 🙂 Me: 😁Because apolitical is not really an ideology. It's just a matter of a personal choice that you can make on your own. That'll be no different than saying that being apathetic towards subject matters such as "sports", and "movies" is an ideology. When in reality, it really isn't. So in order for something to be classified as an ideology. It really needs to meet these characteristics. 1. A coherent set of beliefs. 2. An organized set of principles 3. A clear vision, and a goal. 4. Explanatory(How the world works) 5. Evaluative(Deciding whether things are good or bad) 6. Orientation(Supplies the holder with a sense of identity) 7. Programmatic(What to do, and how to do it) So, therefore, you don't really need to have an ideology in order to be apolitical, because politics is just like any other subject matter that you can choose to be invested in or not. Plus, the authors who have created that article didn't even provide any empirical proof that apolitical is even an ideology, because they didn't even list any characteristics that even constitute as one. A random person: Oh. So you really don't even need to have an ideology in order to be apathetic towards politics, right?😳 Me: Yes.😁 A random person: 😳

Me changing the path of the train is interfering with something that was fate and actively get involved in the decision WHO will die. That's wrong in my opinion and not yours to decide. Harvesting organs from an innocent person in order to save others is even worse because you are betraying the trust of an innocent person and using him as a means to an end.

Awesome video! I understood everything clearly. This concept was a little tricky for me. Thanks!

Regarding evolution, although Richard Dawkins is not the sole source of expertise, the consensus among professional biologists is that evolution is a FACT. In this case, there is a huge burden of proof on creationists to debunk evolution. A scientific consensus among all the experts is pretty solid. Appealing to the authority of one expert is much more iffy. The problem with these science debates, is that non-scientists don't have access to all the evidence, and they usually overestimate the level of mastery they do have over the subject at hand.

I have a case if terrorists are using human shields and keeps on attacking you human shields are 100 in number , but terrorists killed 400 people in 5 different airstikes and you can't fire back cause of human shields 😮😮😮😮

Morality = protection of all lives Utilitarian = one war in history where no innocent died Morality = well... Me = Utilitarianism is realistic and recognize harsh realities

this helped me understand that 44 page 1st chapter in less than a minute😭 I dont know why I was so confused about how this worked

You should kill the one guy to save 5 patients. We kill people all the time. What if you convinced him? Say donated. Im gonna need more information though. How likely are the people die after the surgery. A darker reason could be the peoples contribution to society, even financially so. You dont kill the person cos yoi dont want to jump to conclusions and emd up just killing 6 people and waste resources in the process logical speaking and cos it feels wrong emotionally speaking. Deontology links this to that eveyone should live by. If i suspect that this would be turned into law the answer os no as there are so many unintended consequences but if this is an isolated incidents then my amswer might change slightly. Is this one guy on deathrow and will be killed anyway. Remember kiliing can be pain free eg assisted suicide.

Depends on how much time and info i have to make the decision.

I am not sure the P-Zombie debate is valid. I can imagine lot of things that are physically impossible. Just because we can conceive of a P-Zombie does not imply we can conclude anything significant.

High-Stakes Gambler: “Concentrate all resources and power in as few hands as possible!”

The difference, to me, is that the original Trolley Problem would likely be a one-time emergency that would never be repeated and would pose no danger to society as a whole. Meanwhile, the medical version is different, as it could lead us into a society where the bodily autonomy of the patient is no longer respected. So you're not simply sacrificing one person, you're sacrificing one person AND endangering one of the core foundations of a humane society.

Excellent videos.

what the heck , throw in..... the 5 on the track are ...children or ,illegal immigrants,white or black and the one on the other track is .... a child or .....

We don't really know about subjective death; we can only speculate as to it's nature. But pain is a thing we know all too well. The pain of dying is what we fear along with proceeding into the unknown. That's (at least partially) why death has a bad reputation.

general aung san familys and be this is myanmar year 1915.

my tun lin aung am myanmar states to myanmar nation. welcome next years 2053 time ok.

I cut; you choose predates John Rawls. As Anatole France wrote: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Laws are written by legislators that are not affected by those laws and do not know the consequences of those laws. That is the actual Veil of Ignorance.

So, if these are 5 random people, why should I care in the first place? Regardless if I'm next to the switch or not

Question is why the heck are they just chilling on the track

I've recently self-published a novel that may be of interest to people who are intrigued by the consequentialism v deontology debate in the context of a "life and death" ethical dilemma. It's called "The Decision" by Nathan McGregor, and it's available in both Kindle and paperback format through Amazon.

I am a deontologist Because I don't wanna interfere anything

You are probably extremely busy, but hoping to see some more videos from your channel and from Let's Get Logical.

I thought LOVE was supposed to be THE ANSWER. War and punishment retribution. Love creates only LOVE.

I remember once asking my grandpa if my friends are conscious or not whilst he was fixing something important. It feels amazing getting this video recommended now after so many years and realizing that I asked this deep philosophical question as a kid out of curiosity.

It’s not the ‘future’ that’s behaving like the past though. It’s a physical phenomenon that is occurring.

Essentially, P zombies are only possible in the case that consciousness isn't physical. They are exact physical duplicates, so in the case where physicalism is true all resultant properties should also be the same. We are carrying out an experiment without carrying it out, then assuming an outcome. First, you'd need to be able to replicate someone's physiology down to the quantum level, then you'd have to be able to tell the difference between a P zombie and a person with a consciousness. Then with your conclusion you could make a determination. This argument skips all that rubbish and asserts in the first premise that the p zombie is possible, which is only true if the experiment would be carried out and shown in their favor. Sure, I can "imagine" the experiment going in the non-physicalist's favor but that doesn't mean it is literally possible, it means It is possible that physicalism is wrong but to know, we'd actually have to carry out the experiment to see what the ACTUAL truth would be. But no, physicalism isn't true or false based on my ability to imagine it is true or false. Possible in the sense that I can imagine an outcome, or another is not the same as possible showing there are no literal contradictions in reality preventing my ideas from being true.

The analogy doesn’t hold though. The analogy needed to be “Amy in the past paid you back once, she says she will pay you back again”.

thanks -- explains it well for me

I used this as a term recently, calling somebody a philosophical zombie as a throwaway insult, totally unconscious of the fact that it's a concept in philosophy until someone asked if it was a known term and someone else explained that it is. So I'm probably a philosophical zombie myself, without knowing it. But I do believe many people are zombies, and this, based primarily on a particularly vivid nightmare I had in 2019

I think the biggest issue with this argument / thought experiment is Claim 1: "zombies are possible". This is the sketchiest, flimsiest part of the whole thing, IMO. It seems silly to say "ok, but are zombies POSSIBLE -- in ANY universe?" when the entire point of the argument is to ground consciousness IN OUR universe. It's comparing apples to oranges, it doesn't work. And this is coming from someone who believes that consciousness is NOT just a code in our brains, and is "something more".

King 👑👑

2:25 Bout to be the biggest check-up of his life boiiiii. Doctor's probably doing the Birdman hand rub 😂

All appeals to an authority are fallacious.

People who use the "slippery slope fallacy" argument likely support the projected result at the end of the slope, but don't currently want to admit it because doing so would not be politically expedient.

What a Phenomenal analogy Rawls uses.

I liked the video, I hate it when people make an appeal to a possible slippery slope but there isn't an actual precedent for the slippery slope to happen.