วีดีโอ

Emerson would be proud, albeit perhaps confused by the relevance.

I doubt Alice Walker considered parasites friends for this very reason.

This is the way.

I appreciate this clarification. Thank you. I encountered a few sources that used the term "semi-molten" (including Christian's text) but I should have followed up more closely on the sources I read discussing how the layer behaves plastically. That likely would have helped me to avoid this issue. Again, thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Fascinating. I think your example is helpful here. As a philosopher, I tend to be a bit hesitant about "best definitions" (it would take a while to explain myself here epistemologically), and I actually tend more toward the "prototype" theory of concepts as opposed to the "classical" theory (which tries to establish conditions that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient to define a concept). That's why I establish *a* definition rather than *the* definition. But I think your point is well-made. It is theoretically possible, at least, to imagine an "entity" (as it were) with a genetic code that can metabolize without having the other features. The question would be: Why draw the line of "life" there? You say, "it would count as life as soon as it was copying its information," and, "Once something has a genetics copying information and a metabolism for the genetic information to have effects through, it can evolve the rest of the traits that are consistently associates with extant life." One might respond that copying information in this case and having the ability to gain the other criteria just demonstrates that we're looking at a form of pre-life. (This is one reason why I think Wittgenstein's view of language is helpful as it's been developed in terms of defining concepts). I digress. I don't have a horse in the race, so to speak. I'm just considering what a counter-argument might look like here. At any rate, I really appreciate the comment. PS: I agree about viruses. I was merely attempting to highlight that, for many biologists, viruses suggest a potential blurriness around the borders. They're not alive (by most definitions I've encountered), but they have some life-like qualities.

@@cibeles2884 I prefer the cosmic variety. So does my wallet!

@@cibeles2884 that makes two of us!

Great question. It’s actually something I’ve written on. My book, Christian Theology and the Status of Animals, includes a chapter on Roman Catholicism and animal ethics. My own view is that Catholic Social Teaching betrays an ambiguity when it comes to sentient nonhuman animals. For example, in certain places, especially more recent writings, you find affirmations that animals have substantial intrinsic worth. However, you also find claims that animals exist instrumentally for humans (to be used as food, clothing, and for experimentation when this benefits humans sufficiently). In some cases, you find claims that humans are the only creatures that exist for themselves (Catechism, 356). There are furthermore claims that there is nothing wrong in causing animals suffering and death for human benefit provided the integrity of creation (e.g., the health of an ecosystem) is not violated. One of the biggest areas of tension is with the principle of the “common good.” Are animals (and we can limit our focus to *sentient* animals here) part of the “goods” (that collection of created things that persons are to hold in common), or are they part of the “community” (that collection of persons who should have equitable access to the goods of created order)? There’s a lot of ambiguity in Catholic thought, so far as I can tell, on this point. My friend Charlie Camosy has written about how Pope Francis’s recent apostolic exhortation, “Laudate Deum” doesn’t go far enough with regard to animal rights (it goes in the right direction but doesn’t provide specific details about how humans should respect the intrinsic worth of animals): www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2023/10/13/laudate-deum-pope-francis-animals-246292 For a broader view of Christianity and animals, check out my recent entry with the Saint Andrews Encyclopedia of Theology: www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/NonhumanAnimalsinChristianTheology#section2 Sorry for the long reply!

Also seems like a category error because this is applying a societal context rather than a subjective view for ethical egoism

@@tridoshic1688 Response Excellent comment! I appreciate this nuance. A few thoughts. First, I was mostly aiming to be charitable to a view with which I disagree, attempting to present it in its best light rather than its worst. In this sense, while I think ethical egoism *can* lead to the claim that murder is morally acceptable (indeed, I would argue that it’s only logical that the moral system remains open to this possibility), I also know that most ethical egoists do not advocate for the morality of murder, many for the reason I shared (more on this point below). Second, I'm not sure I agree that the situation I described enters into ethical altruism (unless I'm missing your point, which is a real possibility). If the working definition of ethical egoism is outlining the parameters of morality based on self-interest, it is at least possible to imagine an ethical egoist rationally ariving at the conclusion that what is in their best interest (and therefore what is moral) is to seek a stable and lawful society (e.g., without murder); therefore, that is the moral thing for that person to do. It is moral only because it ultimately benefits them to do this. (For more on this point, check out iep.utm.edu/egoism/#:~:text=Though%20interaction%20can%20either%20be,of%20an%20individual's%20greatest%20good.) Third, and here’s where I think we might be running into an issue, this position of the ethical egoist does not hold that murder, as an individual act, is immoral. It merely holds that it is moral to seek a stable and lawful society in which murder is not permitted. This is, I think, a key point (and one I think you’re keen to sense). So, what the ethical egoist is saying is that it is in their best interest to present murder as wrong (or at least illegal). Because it is in their best interest to do so, presenting murder in way is the moral thing to do. Thoughts?

Much obliged.

Thanks!

@@LunaddDereje-ct7kk I’m glad to hear this!

He's very shy :)

@@thewanderingprofessor9532 😅😅

I mean, it would awesome if unicorns did exist. Although, I'm not sure why they wouldn't be called "unihorns." Oh well.

😅😅😅😅​@@thewanderingprofessor9532

​@@thewanderingprofessor9532 Hilarious 😅😅😅 I would love to connect with you sir 😊

Thank you!

Thanks! I disagree with this statement, though: "it is quite clear from the bible that God doesn't care about animals at all... They are meant to be ruled over by humans since genesis, and all the sacrifices to pay for human sins." I've actually written about this issue. For instance: Christian Theology and the Status of Animals (Palgrave Macmillan) and "A Meatless Dominion?" (Biblical Theology Bulletin. Many other have written on this as well. At bare minimum, I'd say the Bible isn't overly clear on this matter. Here's a quick point to consider: In Genesis 2, why did God create nonhuman animals? According to the text, God created them because "it was not good for Adam to be alone," and so Adam needed a companion. So, according to that narrative, animals were created as potential partners for animals. That was their initial purpose. It is true that certain animals were included in the sacrificial system. But it's also true that, according to Christian theology, Jesus's sacrifice saved animals from having the fulfill that function any more. Jesus also spoke about God knowing about every sparrow that falls to the ground (i.e., every single one that dies). So, I'd say there's some solid evidence that God cares for animals and that animals have a much larger role that serving humans in the sacrificial system. (The book of Job is another interesting example here). Anyway, just some thoughts. Thanks for commenting!!!

@@thewanderingprofessor9532 Amazing! Thank you for the enlightenment! Guess I have much more to learn :) Oh yes, appreciate the humor you injected into your videos as well. Cheers!

Thanks! I think humor goes a long way (on the rare occasions I’m successful with it 😏). In terms of having more to learn, you and me both!!!

Good luck!!!

Thank you! Check out the playlist for more videos. I cover a number of theodicies and defenses. (th-cam.com/play/PLVmpEMpzmL0KVNlyREMfhqvubL--DFdzi.html)

Thank you for the comment. I appreciate it. I think it's good to hear the negative feedback as well.

Thank you so much for this comment! You are overly kind. I'm very glad you found the content so helpful.

Good question! Yes, as you suggest, this question has been thought about before. One common approach is to suggest that humanity's cannot be created in a state of freedom and sinlessness, but such a state can be achieved through the moral or spiritual development we receive through living in this world. So, for instance, Augustine argued that while Adam and Eve (even if we now think of these figures only metaphorically) were in a state where it was possible for them not to sin, humans are now in a state where it is impossible not to sin. But after grace perfects nature, we will be in a state where, though free, it will be impossible to sin. Alternatively, Irenaeus argued that that Adam and Eve were like children. The human race had to mature through the difficulties of this world (this is Hick's reading of Irenaeus at any rate) in order to become people who could use freedom correctly. To be clear, I don't think these issues clearly settle the issue of the problem of evil. After all, even if we accept the argument that "heaven," understood as world without evil, is compatible with human freedom because of the method by which it comes about (e.g., humans maturing through a tumultuous world), the problem of gratuitous and evolutionary evil still remain in great force. And I'm not sure the argument works, at any rate.

Thank you! And I completely agree about adding a focus on 'the common good' and 'subsidiarity.' I've considered releasing an updated version (or perhaps a supplemental version) to address these topics. The common good could warrant a whole video series on its own!

I don’t currently have an introduction on metaphysics. Perhaps down the road.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Possibly. I think I need to get back to finishing a number of intro videos to topics first. Then, I might want to return to some deeper dives. But these comments are really helpful, as they let me know what people might be interested in viewing, so thank you! I think the MAiD debate is really interesting (both morally and legally), so it's definitely a topic worth exploring.

Good luck!!!

Thanks!

I appreciate your appreciation of the aesthetics! Thanks for the comment!

This is a cool comment. Perhaps it would be better to say that there are aspects of math that are discovered, which is true inasmuch as they are derived from, correspond to, or predict the behavior of, reality. Of course, this raises the question of what counts as the "real world." There are some philosophers, for instance, who think that math *is* the base reality of the real world. So it get tricky, I suppose. Either way, thanks for this comment. Get me thinking!

Thanks for this comment. I appreciate the honest feedback. A few words in response to your point about dignity. First, I don't think that the claim that you can't lose your dignity is wholly incompatible with an affirmation of capital punishment. For example, one could argue that, in some cases, capital punishment is not about punishing the offender but about protecting society--similar to the way self-defense does not require the claim that the assailant has lost their dignity. In short, we are not justified in killing because the human being has forfeited their dignity. We are justified in killing (assuming this is the case in capital punishment) because the prima facie to honor someone's inviolable dignity by not killing them has come into tension with the prima facie obligation to protect society or self. But that the person still has dignity is evident in the restrictions regarding *how* someone can kill them (e.g., we don't use drownings as a form of capital punishment). Second, in terms of the Catholic Social Teaching, the position on human dignity is fairly clear and accepted (to my understanding). I should clarify that I'm not Catholic, though, so I'm looking at this as an outsider. But the documents of Vatican II and the Catechism connect human dignity to the image of God (I've written about this in my book, Christianity and the Status of Animals). The catechism is pretty clear in III.1.2.3. And, with regard to contemporary Catholic Social Teaching, I would suggest that the documents of Vatican II and the Catechism (as well as papal encyclicals) outweigh Aquinas's writings in terms of authority. (This isn't to say Aquinas wasn't a genius. He obviously was. But according to the Church's own authoritative structure, the dogmatic declarations of Vatican II outweigh his work). So, while I acknowledge fully that not all Catholics accept that human dignity can't be lost, I'm inclined to retain my view that Catholic Social Teaching (the magisterial view) does hold this view. What do you think?

I'm glad to hear you found the video helpful! Good luck in your class and beyond :)

So glad you found it helpful!

Glad it was helpful. Thanks for the comment!

Thank you! I appreciate it!

I've not heard many people describe themselves as "anti-deontology." But that's a sign that you're probably heavily leaning toward consequentialism, as you say.

Karl asked me to tell you that he appreciates your support! :)

It's a real issue. Some people tell me that they listen to my lectures on 50% or 75% speed. That might help. Or, I could slow down 😏 It's funny that you mention being a rapper, though. In another life, that's exactly what I try to do (emphasis on *try*): Two raps I wrote for my son: About Dinosaurs: th-cam.com/video/as4h2IglA78/w-d-xo.htmlsi=GIQFMlr2YRM9cwBp About Minecraft: th-cam.com/video/egFyhER9f0g/w-d-xo.htmlsi=oBcIiTnxwqERlTbA Some live stuff: Alphabet Aerobics (Blackalicious): https: //th-cam.com/video/xAXH7oLkLfU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=cXS1Uo0iJHtejQvD Lose Yourself (Eminem): th-cam.com/video/7dwcxvOBsdg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=kP6sVe8E4avMG-ZN Cover with Original: th-cam.com/video/FGD2B63uKpE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=NglTVrE4FjrmpLsv

😂😂😂😂😂

"I think we can all agree there aren't enough cartoons of Sumerian myths out there." A unifying sentiment, to be sure! :)