Mother Forkin' Morals with Dr. Todd May - Part 4: Deontology - The Good Place (Digital Exclusive)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- In the fourth installment of Mother Forkin' Morals, resident philosophy advisor Dr. Todd May talks about Immanuel Kant's theory of deontology and Chidi's (William Jackson Harper) struggle to define his intentions.
» Subscribe for More: bit.ly/NBCTheGo...
» Stream Anytime: www.nbc.com/the...
THE GOOD PLACE ON SOCIAL:
Like The Good Place on Facebook: / nbcthegoodplace
Follow The Good Place on Twitter: / nbcthegoodplace
Follow The Good Place on Instagram: / nbcthegoodplace
#MotherForkinMorals #DrToddMay #TheGoodPlace #NBC #EverythingIsFine #Exclusive #Deontology #ChidiAnagonye #WilliamJacksonHarper #Gahhhhhhhh #ImmanuelKant #HeUnlikeUsIsAnAmazingPerson #YouGotThatRightSister #IDontKnowMaybeICantDecide #CoolCoolWeGotThis
NBC’s The Good Place follows Eleanor Shellstrop, Chidi Anagonye, Tahani Al-Jamil, and Jason Mendoza as they seek redemption in the afterlife, aided by Good Place Architect, Michael, and a human-esque repository for all of the knowledge in the universe, Janet.
Find The Good Place trailers, full episode highlights, previews, promos, clips, and digital exclusives here.
NBC ON SOCIAL:
NBC TH-cam: / nbc
Like NBC: / nbc
Follow NBC: / nbc
NBC Pinterest: / nbctv
NBC Instagram: / nbc
ABOUT THE GOOD PLACE
From creator Michael Schur (“Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” “Parks and Recreation” and “Master of None”) comes a unique comedy about what makes a good person. The show follows Eleanor Shellstrop (Kristen Bell, “House of Lies,” “Veronica Mars”), an ordinary woman who enters the afterlife, and thanks to some kind of error, is sent to the Good Place instead of the Bad Place (which is definitely where she belongs). While hiding in plain sight from Good Place Architect Michael (Ted Danson - “Cheers,” “CSI” - in an Emmy Award-nominated performance), she’s determined to shed her old way of living and earn her spot.
Mother Forkin' Morals with Dr. Todd May - Part 4: Deontology - The Good Place (Digital Exclusive)
• Mother Forkin' Morals ...
The Good Place
/ nbcthegoodplace - บันเทิง
This is why everyone loves moral philosophy professors
Fr
These moral lessons are amazing I’m enjoying my favorite show and learning to good at the same time 💥❤️😁
I see Chidi's problem as an _epistemological_ one: he doesn't know _for sure_ what the right thing to do is -- he can't foresee all consequences of his actions -- and this lack of knowledge is what causes his moral paralysis.
Have they covered epistemology? I relate to that so much.
@@lindseycassella3015 I don't think they've addressed epistemology specifically, but I have a hunch it's coming up in the next season.
Chidi's problem is that he's a child
be a man and make a decision
Well, Chidi's field is ethics, not epistemology, so I'm not sure that matters to him. Although, in the recent episodes we see him teaching determinism and theories of identity, so who knows?
@@firstname4337 i dont think children think like him...
I wish this was made 4 years ago when I was taking a Philosophy course in College haha.
My thought exactly.
A lot of my friend take it. I skipped. I don't really missed anything.
You should have learned about Kant during a College Philosophy course
I'm gonna have philosophy next year in school :D
This is actually a required video for the philosophy course I am taking in college.
For everyone wondering 1:08 1:17 and 1:59 -this is when he blinks
Marcela Ďobeková LOOOL
Wow... You need to get away from the computer.
He's got big eyes 😯
lol! I thought the cartoons and clips were to allow him to blink
i need a forkin' season 4
Agent J actually wtf
@The Anna - "want", not "need".
@Agent J what?
@@telectronix1368 no need, i dont think you understand what i wrote it says NEED, and you cant say i want coz you dont know me
@@Anna-rm1qs No, you do not "need" a tv programme, it is something that you enjoy and want more of......but you don't "need" it.
These are extremely enlightening, wow.
So Kant is like, the unabridged version of "treat others as you want to be treated"? A phase I agree with, but which ironically leads people to feel cold and betrayed when others don't treat them with the same level of kindness and generosity that they treated others with..
Kant is very adamant that he isn't - as an example, he gives a prisoner who ges justly punished. If he was to insist on the golden rule he could say to he judge: You would want to be left off the hook, had you commited the crime! and the judge would probably have to admit: yes, he would want to be treaed with undue lenience if he had commited the crime.
So the CI is a bit more than the golden rule. With the CI, the judge would say: Sure, I would want to be treated as an exception if I was you, but I don't (Kant would gos o far as to say: can't!) want to live in a world where those are granted to everyone who wants them. At the same time, to take your example, you could also ask: Should everybody treat everybody with as much kindness as, say, their spouse? And they may come down on the side of: No! The unviersal law that would make sense is that of treating spouses better than strangers.
We watched the good place in a PHILOSOPHY LESSON IN SCHOOL WE LOVED IT
i love this show
I Love This Show
I LOVE THIS SHOWWW
Its the best tv in at least forty years. It is way too clever for tv.
I do too... Except when Micheal says "EleanER" instead of Eleanor... which he does probably 15 times an episode. It just makes me cringe.
I think the way he says Elean"er" is really sweet. It gives his character more of a depth
Isn't the categorical imperative just a gussied up Golden Rule: treat others as you want to be treated?
No because it is based on LOGIC. The golden rule is not. Thanks for your question
There are definitely similarities, but the categorical imperative solves some issues that the Golden Rule runs into with differences in taste/preference. "Do Unto Others" breaks down when what you want to be done unto you is very different from what someone else wants done to them (as the joke goes, nothing is worse than a masochist who obeys the golden rule). It also gives different results when it comes to things that don't cause direct harm, such as white lies, which would be ok under the Golden Rule but not under the categorical imperative.
@@Meloncov interesting
@@Meloncov there's a workaround for the "problem" you identified with the golden rule. Every individual would like others to take their preferences into consideration when deciding how to treat them. So there would be no difference in how a masochist and a sadist would treat me according to that consideration.
@@Meloncov you're breaking down interests too far. it's not "do exactly the same thing" but if you expect people to fulfill your interests then do the same for them, first considering what they are, then acting.
These 4 minutes packed SO MUCH INFORMATION! absolutely love it. clear, concise, articulate. 5 stars. 10/10. gold medal. all of it!
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐💯🥇💟❣
The Good Place is really helping me get through my college ethics classes right now, not gonna lie
I can't believe how you made this so easy to understand. I have a lot of problems understanding some of the simplest things. I enjoyed listening to your video on this topic.
Thats the sign of a good teacher, or someone with v good explaining skills, if you can break down any topic, especially a complicated one, down to a really easy way to digest, then you really understand it and youre good to teach it :)
This show is currently getting me an A in Ethics. Noice.
the way i learned more over 20 minutes of this than a whole year of philosophy class
These are so fascinating, I love them
This is Brilliant, such a coherent way to explain Kant. Wish I gound this during intro to philosophy xD
Why didn't you do more videos like this? I love them!!! More please! More!
this taught me literally more than my religion teacher ever did
why would your religion teacher teach you Kantian deontological ethics?
@@williammagsambol2143 because we learn about ethics in religion class. like it's not just Christianity we learn about but different religions and beliefs
Does this guy think that it’s categorically imperative to NOT BLINK?
This is a god send during a final summary of kantian ethics essay.
Thank you for helping me answer a question on my exam today c:
Never thought The Good Place would help me with Philosophy homework, but my studies brought me here.
Seriously loving this and learning along the way! Thanks!
I want to apply for a job. But if *everybody* applies for that job, it will crash the email server of the HR department, and nobody will get the job. So nobody should apply for jobs.
Daniel Sterman that's a basic answer to Kant. The response is that that's a non moral situation and the categorical imperative only works for moral situation. The response to that is that there's no such clear separation between moral and non moral, it's a false idealistic separation.
@Daniel - you know that that really isn't an example of what Kant is saying.
based on what this professor said, i think the way to approach this from Kant's pov would be:
I want to apply for a job. Would I be okay with everyone applying for the job they want ? If yes, my decision to send the application is morally in the clear.
Also, Kant asks to not care about what happens in the real world; so the server crashing problem isn't to be considered here maybe¿
This is one of the subjectivity issues in Kantian thought - you have to describe your internal decision process in such a way that it can be made a "rule", and there are often many different rules that would lead you to the same action. "Everyone should wait in *this* line", "everyone should wait in the line closest to them when they walk in", and "everyone should wait in the line that's shortest" are all different rules to follow at the checkout counter, but multiple ones might lead to the same decision; and so it can be hard to figure out which rule to use to evaluate societywide effects.
Similarly, should the rule be "everybody should apply for this job"? "Everybody should apply for a job in this particular field"? "Everybody should apply to the first 5 jobs that show up in a Google search"? And because humans are not actually rational creatures, who's to say what is the *actual* rule you followed while reaching your decision?
I’ve always hated philosophy (sorry, philosophy majors at my school were the worst) but this series makes it really interesting and manageable. And THAT is how Chidi always gets it wrong. Yes! Dr Todd Mays put it perfectly.
Ethics (moral philosophy) is just one branch of philosophy. Epistemology, Logic and Aesthetics are others. Physics was once a branch, but it now is it's own branch of science. Metaphysics is still practiced, but it is a very different thing from what that term conjures in the mind of most people.
I love Kant - I say “What a Kant, [PAUSE] Immanuel” all the time :P
Wow! This was amazing, thanks for teaching this stuff! (Also, I love the show and all the ethical and morality involved, and I love the way it shows people can improve :)
Make more please
I still want more
Keep the moral lessons coming please!!
Sooo at a choice/decision, the person who follows Deontology would basically ask... "Would I want to live in a world where ______ is common law or practice?" then act upon that decision based on personal reasoning?
I think so. This is me pulling together threads of two different ideas I don't fully understand, but I think Kantian practical reasoning asks the question of actions "Is this a zero-sum game?" i.e. does someone have to lose in this situation for someone else to gain. If everybody is trying to win, against you and against everyone else that's not a world that you want to live in, therefore you shouldn't do it, which is sort of utilitarian but not quite.
A adult with some moral would easily make good decision.
@Bailey Lee -- This is generally correct. The problem is (both in your example and in Kant's writings) the specificity and intentionality of the act to be common practice. For example, let's say, that your girl-friend asked you if the makeup she put on accents her eyes well. You believe that it does not, but tell her a white lie that it looks good to spare her feelings. Is the level of moral analysis: (1) General -- "Would I want to live in a world where lying is common law or practice?" -- Obviously not. Spreading untruths as a common principle would lead to a communications breakdown. (2) More Specific -- "Would I want to live in a world where white lying is common law or practice?" -- Maybe, so. It may be worth preserving people's happiness as opposed to revealing objective realities. (3) Intention 1 -- "Would I want to live in a world where lying is common law or practice?" -- Same as before; lying results in a communications breakdown. (4) Intention 2 -- "Would I want to live in a world where people respecting each others' feelings is common law or practice?" -- Yes. We have to interact with other people and helping them be happy is something we wish to preserve.
So, while you have correctly summed up the categorical imperative, that is not the be-all and end-all of deontology.
@@seanthebluesheep I would disagree completely. There is no "zero-sum" question in deontology. A rule either exists or does not exist based on intent, not result. Both sides could "lose" or both sides could "win".
For example, Professor May talked about whether a car dealer should tell his customer (old man) that the breaks don't work on the car he is going to buy. We could have a scenario where the car dealer follows the categorical imperative of honesty and tells the old man. The old man receives this positively and knows that he will need to fix the breaks prior to buying and feels secure in buying a car with this salesman because he is honest (e.g. he wins). The car dealer reacts positively to his own honesty because it secured him a sale (e.g. he wins). And society overall has one fewer car with brake issues because the salesman's honesty has resulted in the old man getting the brakes repaired (e.g. it wins).
However, we could have exactly the opposite result if the old man receives this negatively. In this scenario, the car dealer still follows the categorical imperative of honesty and tells the old man about the brakes. However, the old man wanted a perfect used car, so he refuses to buy the car that he now knows has a brake issue (e.g. he wins). But the salesman loses a sale that otherwise would have occurred (e.g. he loses). And society gains no benefit because the same number of brake-deficient cars exist.
The change in results does not affect the categorical imperative of honesty. The question is not whether a good result comes from following the imperative in a specific circumstance or whether a zero-sum game exists, but from the value of the intention itself.
@@oremfrien maybe, amigo. I was just saying it asks the question, not poses any answers.
Very thought provoking. 👍
this would have been really great for my social studies final if it had been uploaded three months ago.
This Is Awesome!
love these videos!!!
goddamn you couldn't have made these videos BEFORE my philosophy final? 😭😭
ok so how would Kant approach the Trolley problem? what would be the Categorical Imperative there? would you rather live in a world where no one pulls the lever and 5 people die, or where everyone pulls the lever and 1 person dies? It seems to me like we've just arrived at the same problem only now iinstead of "what would i do?" it's "what should we all do?"
@Mitchell Stacy and I guess this subjective nature to Kant's approach is what makes Chidi (a Kantian) so indecisive then hahah nice
There's another subjectivity issue, which is where "intention" comes in. For the cheating example - someone could also phrase it as "would I want to live in a world where all the people who are too busy with sports/art/$YOUR_FAVORITE_HOBBY cheat off of everyone else?" And that's a different universal rule than "would I want to live in a world where *all people* cheat". So there's a real question when using this method of "what rule am I actually following in making this decision".
@@vonschlesien What if someone used Kantian logic to justify doing something bad - I could see old Eleanor doing this: "If everyone else in the world did this, then it wouldn't make me look as bad for doing it too!"
idk this seems pretty clear. i'd rather live in a world where everyone chooses the action that will cause the least damage to humanity, even if it causes that individual to suffer. imo the trolley problem is about the selfishness of inaction. we often ignore the costs of inaction because taking action is personally inconvenient.
@Mitchell Stacy "What I’m hearing" -- anybody who starts a sentence like that should automatically be ignored.
Just say what you think and stop with the psychological garbage
mmmm love that categorical imperative
this show is E V E R Y T H I N G
GREAT stuff
Counterpoint: I think motivations for an action can be numerous. You can get coffee for your boss both to do a nice thing but also to expect a kickback for a raise later. That's where Kants ideas break down. There's almost no situation where your motivation is purely one thing
I forkin hate Kant.
Kant isn't talking about the motivations (or the possible future/afterlife/whatever benefits).
In your example the question would be "Do I want to live in a world where, when someone sees another person needing coffee, they give that person a coffee?"
i.e. do I want to live in a world where people look out for and to try to help meet others' needs?
So if you do want that sort of world or society.....you'd offer to get them coffee.
It doesn't matter what all your possible reasons could be but about the end result around you.
David Kocik this is an excellent point
Kant is my dude!!!
"Would I want to live in a world where everyone was a cheater" and "what would be the point of cheating if everyone cheats" are two different questions.... Not sure if I'm missing something, but the two seem to be conflated here. Which question is more Kantian...? Or are the two more similar than they seem to be on the surface...?
No. You are correct. The first question is more Kantian than the second one in that it seeks to determine the value of a standard of behavior for all people. The second question is simply a pragmatic or utilitarian concern about the benefit that may accrue to any single person who engages in the activity.
there's a saying in Hebrew roughly translated as "don't do to another what you hate ", which i think is quite similar to this idea
Kant took his lessons from conventional Christian morality which sought that one should be grateful for what you have, but you don’t want and should hate what you don’t have, but Envy.
i just hear c u next tuesday
If everyone cheats on a test then there is a problem with the design of the test. Is the goal of the test yo meet a certain threshold of knowledge or confidence, or is the gosl to get the best score? In the latter case then cheating may neutralize the effects, or the test may be unnecessary. Economist Bryan Csplan argues in 'The Case Against Education', that most upper level education is driven by virtue signaling, instead of building human capital. This mrans that while individuals get value from education, on the whole education takes resources from the economy and delays the ability of individuals to earn, hurting lower income individuals in society.
One possible deficiency in the Kantian method is touched on here, but definitely needs more depth - it isn't just your intention that changes with how you describe the action, but the *action itself* that can change with how it is described.
Take the example of Chidi choosing a muffin: Blueberry or Raisin? Does Chidi have to consider "What if everyone picked the Blueberry over the Raisin?", or is it more appropriate to consider "What if everyone picked a muffin over a danish?", or even "What if everyone wanted convenient pastry for breakfast?"? What is the actual action that Chidi is considering doing that he has to weigh the categorical imperative of? Or is it all of them? Where is the boundary of any given action - what are you actually doing? Depending on what the actual scope of the action is, you get different answers.
How specific do you have to be in your categorical imperative? For the salesman and the faulty brakes, are we questioning whether we want to live in a world where salesmen ought to tell buyers about faulty breaks before they buy, or are we questioning whether we want to live in a world where salesman ought to sell cars with faulty brakes at all? Or even questioning whether people ought to sell cars, given their environmental impact, regardless of the status of their brakes?
It seems absurd: there is no good answer to where to draw the line. Too specific, and it becomes absurd to even imagine 'everyone' doing the thing (everyone choosing the blueberry muffin). Too general, and it becomes absurd again (everyone choosing to sell cars). But there is no obvious place where that absurdity must stop.
But, i wouldn't want to live in a world where everybody lies, or where everybody always tells the truth.
then ur not a deontologist
When I grew up in Germany in the 80s and early 90s, people said "What if everyone would do that?" to children when telling them not to do things a lot.
I never connected that to Kant.
Good morning
2:04 Like someone's cheating off Chidi. That must be where Chidi gets his name from.
Two questions:
Does subconscious actions have morality?
Cause many bad deeds often come from momentarily lacks of judgment.
And...
Does searching for recognition matters when the end result remains the same?
Because a world where everyone wants recognition for their actions doesn't seem that different from one where everyone's accomplishments remain anonymous.
That would require believing in subconcious thought, which is a whole different philosophical debate.
I really like the point about lying. It is only useful if YOU do it. If everyone acts that way then all trust is lost and not only can society not function, you cant function either. The sole reason you did it, makes no sense. Did you see Ricky Gervais in The invention of lying? It gives the question a great workout
Kant is not interested in what sort of world people would want to live in. That's irrelevant. This fellow is getting it wrong. He starts to get it correct at the 2:30 mark.
The cheating is a weird example because it assumes that they are cheating off each others papers instead of the test rubric. If everyone cheated off the test rubric then memorization exams would stop working and people would be forced to find a way of testing people that isn't entirely contingent on access to information, which seems like a good thing.
Wait, so the last one when you bring a coffee to your boss because you think it is the "Right" thing.
It is because "You think it is the right thing and by bringing your boss a coffee won't ask your integrity"
Some people would also just feel it is good to be right, or just want to prove your "Right" to yourself so you can feel at ease.
Yes, back to Part 3 of Ego.
By this reasoning I could not stop wondering for years that there are no person that does not do something for themselves. Consciously or unconsciously.
Can someone please somehow tell me how I am wrong? I want to understand why I am wrong so badly, because this kinda haunts me that there are no true good person that do something not based on their ego.
I’m getting my boss coffee because I want to live in a world where everyone gives everyone coffee.
3:22
To the coffee girl question !
Would, I Want to live in a world of people not doing their jobs ?
So do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
It's a lot deeper than that. Some people assume the worst in others so they do exactly as they assume others would. You moron.
It sounds like you have some experience in assuming the worst of others.
Treat people with respect. Or just ignore their need all together if you dealing with someone clearly do only for their interest.
Anyone know When the next episode is coming on Netflix 🙃?
WOLFIE SSNIPES January 10
Yup its on tomorrow here. That's January 10th. I can barely contain myself.
So that’s kind of like Buddha’s words - peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.
Does anyone know at what episode this idea was featured?
It’s sort of scattered in all the episodes (mostly season 2) and not just one
Who else relates most to Chidi?
Sounds like '' Do unto others as you would like to be done onto you'' Just rewarded with big grammar
Didn't Decartes and Plato also belive in pure reason?
JPC anyone?
😍😍
Chapter 10 🤔🤔
y doesn’t he blink
0:00
If we all lied, then everyday would be opposite day.
He didn't blink once
They all end up in the good place... The End..
This guy keeps his eyes wide the f**k open because he is looking for answers.
i know this isn't the point of the video, but let's not pretend kant was even an okay person. the dude was a huge huge racist. like he made racial hierarchies and taught them at university as a professor of anthropology. I love the good place, but i wish they could've mentioned that at least once in the show
I feel like a Kantian.
It looks like i'm going to the bad place. i think too much like chidi.
PS: I also can't agree with Kant because I don't believe in universal ethics. I know that makes me a moral relativist, but seriously, read the "Bhagavad Gita": God Himself advises Arjuna to do his duty as a Ksatriya and kill his cousins, even though, under normal circumstances, Arjuna would go to the Narakas for a stunt like that.
I'm beginning to agree with the TV show premise that everybody hates moral philosophers you said a lot of words that ended up saying nothing
According to Kant, you can't do most Jobs because if the 100% of population did the same job, there would be issues.
Sounds a bit like the philosophy of a 1st century thinker named Jesus of Nazareth "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
I'm sorry, but not all cheating is the same.
Some cheating is from getting the answer sheet for the test. Therefore, some world actually have the answers in which the cheaters you are referring to can chat off of.
This means it's Kantian to cheat.
I wish they werent so stingy with the show i feel like you only get 3 ep in a row, wait a couple months get a few more and then wait a year
And I would rather they keep the quality of the writing. I hope the show finishes too soon rather than drag the series out and wring every single last line out of it. Course that's just my opinion. It's my impression of U.S. television they take a really great idea and instead of making it really special they kill it by overdoing it. Take a look at the british series Fawlty towers and see what I mean. Totally hysterical. But if it went on for too long it would have killed the concept.
Grunthos The Flatulent yes i agree! I was very worried about that after ep six that they would run out of story but they keep going so i guess anything at this point is gravy for me
The difference between a politician and a philosopher is the philosopher will tell you why he's pulling the bull shirt over your eyes
Canadians? (Except Alberta). Sorry.
Wasn’t Kant a racist?
I think he should blink more often.
I cahn't, honey. Cahn't agree with Kant. Cheating liars rule and they always have.
But; question. Can you teach philosophy to a non human intelligence?
I just follow what the Bible teaches, it is my standard for morality.
Kristina good for you! Everyone has their own standards for morality, what’s important is to use that to help people, I think.
That sucks for your firsr born, then.
And where do you source your only-1-material clothes?
And do you follow the "love and forgive" part or the "smite them for their actions" part?
@@PyroBlossomTech Yes, I agree, helping others is always important to me. Also being good for goodness' sake rather than for "moral dessert" as the "Judge" said.
@@telectronix1368 T, you obviously are not familiar with the Bible. = )
@@Kristina-gz2wu No, dear, those are things in the bible. And the questions were which of those do you follow?