This was wonderful in many regards. Well done. Too many big words and obscure connections/tangents for me to follow. I tried. Im a simple man. Guess Ill go work in the garden. You know.... on bended knee, head bowed , hands in the dirt. My neighbors will be over tonight with fresh bread for the table. We all eat good. All are welcome.
+Innavata90 If you're a virtuous person, your desires will aling with that which is right or good. Only people who're not virtuous need those characteristics.
420xHustlerxB0SS But what is right or good? Is it bad to be promiscuous? Is it bad for someone to do a robbery when they need the money for rent and survival? Certain situations call for certain things. Like a man selling drugs to feed his family is that bad?
Innavata90 Virtue ethics implies that the right thing to do is what a virtuous person would do. The problem from the first person perspective is: am I virtuous, if not, how do I become virtuous? Kantian virtue theory on the other hand implies that virtue is the strenght of will to do the right thing. This means that a compassionate person wouldn't necessarily be virtuous. After all, the right thing to do is determined by the structure of rationality. If we need too much strenght of will to do the right thing, it means our ethical theory is implicitly based on an implausible view of human nature.
@@420xHustlerxB0SS this is exactly why computers ought to reason out laws and ethics rather than business for example cherry picking out self fulfilling principles of ethics to suit the greater cause ie) bigger profits. Today's lacklustre, weak and meek academic ethics needs to grow a pair of balls and say business - fuck off and don't piggyback and whore our principles to what suits your causes. The study and the field of Ethics today has absolutely no spine or voice.
Being new to Philosophy, I've been studying this discipline for about two years now and subsequently having my interest renewed in your TH-cam channel as well as the internet website that's curated by you as well, I have come to a conclusion that the information presented and the interpretations of the concepts, thoughts and ideas of Philosophy's founding members; Kant, Nietzsche, Plato........etc. after listening also to lectures by other professionals that occupy TH-cam channels, your channel has information and interpretations that are the most accurate, also knowing that this opinion is merely from my own personal perspective, that with the knowledge I've gained and the insights acquired from your video lectures your channel is first and foremost the best choice I can make in my pursuit of mastering Philosophy to the best that my ability will allow me to. Your video lectures seem to be the most accurate as well as achieving the truest form of unbiased interpretation. So as one who considers himself a lifelong student of Philosophy, this will only aid to my pursuit of mastery of the world's greatest discipline. Thank you and please keep pushing forward in the pursuit of universal knowledge and freedom.
@@Bilbus7 I cannot ever recall feeling even the slightest bit "deperate", or maybe I have felt that way and "DAM-IT-TO-HELL", just didn't know about it? Or have the great emotional capacity, unlike you Elmer, to fondly cultivate what seems like this beautiful and interesting thing, feeling "deperate". Is it in the new DM5?
Because experts in physics aren’t arguing with each other’s conclusions. Although it’s still not that simple, some people will naturally be better at philosophy than hard sciences, and other people (with an equal effort towards both) will struggle more with philosophy. It could also seem more difficult than it has to be due to the fact that many “Famous philosophers” have put forth terrible arguments that are “Incoherent word salads” that are disguising themselves as “Deep brilliant insights.” So you could be pulling your hair out because you can’t understand a certain argument, when it might actually be more accurate that you’re pulling your hair out because the argument is inherently absurd. And you’ll have philosophers of every type (absurd or not) with huge followings of people calling them brilliant. So it takes time to solidify your own positions, and get better at spotting and rejecting positions that you consider to be absurd. I mean imagine having an afternoon physics professor who keeps disagreeing with your morning physics teacher! That feature of philosophy could definitely cause some people to struggle with it more than physics, even though physics is more difficult in other ways.
Great Work people. Keep it going. Repeatly come to you right after Wikipedia on all research. Your lectures have no fluff and get right to the point avoiding personal opinions and presenting instead the argument and fairly presenting both sides. Great Great Work., Your subscribers will grow. Be Patient don't get discouraged.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📜 Albert Camus' quote introduces the importance of ethics, emphasizing that ethics guide human behavior in society. 00:41 🧭 Ethics originated in ancient Greece, with Socrates and the Sophists as early moral philosophers, and it focuses on the study of what's good and bad in life and what's right or wrong in conduct. 02:31 🤔 Key questions in ethics include what makes actions moral or immoral and why individuals should follow ethical theories. 03:13 🌍 Meta ethics explores whether morality is objective, with a focus on whether moral judgments can be objectively true or false, independent of personal opinions. 03:53 🤷♂️ Moral subjectivism holds that moral judgments are expressions of personal preference, while moral realism (objectivism) asserts that moral judgments can be objectively true or false. 04:50 ❓ The "is-ought problem" questions whether one can logically derive what ought to be from what is the case, as explored by David Hume. 06:04 ⚖️ Teleological (consequentialist) theories evaluate actions based on their consequences, while deontological theories ground morality in authority, not consequences. 07:31 📜 Deontological ethics holds that actions are not evaluated solely based on consequences but on some form of authority, often including divine law. 08:30 🤨 Some philosophers have questioned whether ethics can effectively transform individuals into virtuous beings, with varying degrees of skepticism about its practical impact. Made with HARPA AI
2+2=4 in the infinite ring of integers Z. 2+2=0 in the finite ring Z/2Z of integers modulo 2. 2+2=1 in Z/3Z. 2+2=0 in Z/4Z Etc Addition (and multiplication) depends on the underlying number system. In short, 2+2 does not always equal to 4!
I agree. It's pretty amazing. I've watched pretty much all the videos on this channel and they're all great. The Canadian accent just makes the ideas that much better.
The last 3 statements, I conclude that a code of ethics will elevate me, me, as an individual, I have made a decision to live a certain way. This could not be forced upon me, I maybe coerced into lies, but, to live honestly I make a choice and adhere, this way I am elevated, there is no other way. Therefore, am I in most agreement with Schopenhauer? He's meant to be pessimistic, however, honesty combined with reality feels good to me, which I think is Schopenhauer's attitude too. Unless I've misunderstood, I'd love feedback
1. What was the quote from Albert Camus? 2. Where is Ethics originated? 3. Name the first critical thinker in history? 4. According to the Video, what is Ethics? 5. Who gave a better definition of Ethics? 6. Give the difference between Ethics and Morality? 7. What anthropologists are doing? 8. What are the 2 permanents questions in the studies of Ethics? 9. What is Meta-Ethics? 10. What is the Key Question of Meta-Ethics? 11. What is the opposite of moral Objectivity? 12. What will be almost the same as moral Objectivity? 13. Name the famous Scottish philosopher that examined those questions of objectivities and relativism? please help
Interesting lesson. Ethics is the study of morality between right and wrong. Egoism, like you mentioned earlier is an ethical theory that deals with self-interest. Like Kanye West, he's an egomaniac. He even claimed himself that he was a god once. It goes to show that ethics doesn't just teach you the difference between right and wrong, it also teaches you to keep your ego in check. There's a measurement between confidence and arrogance in the confidence spectrum. You can be confident, but don't be arrogant. There's a difference.
@@younggamer7218 I did my research on bipolar disorder and sufferers tend to have manic highs and depressive lows. That explains his mental breakdown in 2016. Usually these other symptoms such as hyperactivity, mood swings and racing thoughts last for years to life. I guess him being an egomaniac was a bit of a stretch. It's more like, he has a high sense of importance. He had a false belief of superiority. Which is a cognitive symptom of bipolar disorder. Thanks for the feedback.
Ethics in general doesn’t teach you to keep your ego in check, certain positions that are held in ethnics teaches you to keep your ego in check (the accurate ones). Other held positions in ethnics teach you that there’s nothing wrong with being like Ted Bundy, or with having an ego like 25 yr old Mike Tyson. One of the most important things in philosophy is learning to spot the absurd “Experts”, and becoming better at knowing why their arguments are absurd.
I've recently self-published a novel that might be of interest to people who are fascinated by ethical dilemmas :) It's called The Decision by Nathan McGregor. It's available in Kindle and paperback format.
"Virtue cannot be taught, no more than genius." As it turns out, you CAN teach genius. And I see people learning virtue all the time. That guy was an idiot. Great video. I subscribed.
"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.” -Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics", The Virtue of Selfishness, 17
YOU ARE GODSEND AND THE FACT THAT YOU MAKE THESE VIDEOS SO CONCISE YET SO FULL OF INFORMATION? GOD BLESS YOU! EXAM IN AN HOUR AND COS OF YOU IMMA KILLL IT!
ethic is the only way to rich and happiness.the law of relationship between person and the whole social is what goes around ,and comes around. this is also called the gold law of cause and result.that means if people think good for others\say good for others\do good for others,the entire social will give the person goods:rich\safety\happiness. otherwise,the person will get poor\difficult\sadness. certainly,the gold law will take at least three years to let result become true.
@@javierchavarria1386 that is precisely the point of The Party declaring that 2+2=5. It is to force you to go against your own judgment and understanding, and conform to their preference of falsified facts. The human being can only endure so much irrationality and bewilderment before it cracks and breaks and folds and becomes willing to submit.
I like feel you can logically come up with a conclusion of what "ought to be". Take slavery of example. Just because something is doesn't mean it's what something should be. Something simply being doesn't make it ethical.
@@thepondering63you missed her main point. “Legal” and “Ethical” are distinct concepts. When a scumbag sociopathic politician swipes a pen something becomes “Legal.” This might seem obvious to you, but it’s mind boggling how many people equate right & wrong with what’s legal or illegal.
Great video! Just one thing to say, I couldn't read anything in the video but was just listening to the narration, it was a bit hard keeping up. Otherwise, it was AWESOME!
Ethics is the study of morality and what morality really is. They ask questions, like if there is really a wrong or right since so many societies practice things others societies would think is immoral. Some of those morals are universal, and some not. Some things might be okay in one society (city, country, county, area), but not in the other.
In order to understand ethics shouldn’t one first understand the nature of the thing to which ethics apply? In other words: the way one ought to act is determined by one’s nature; so you would have to understand the nature of man and his end before you can understand the necessary actions he ought to take to achieve that end. I say ought because man has free will and even though he knows he should do something he is free to choose not to do it.
Only real thing in itself is time; though this has no relations, a vice of gravity.A falsification of gravity. It still presses on you! A question is relative only to itself, what we have here is a problem with pride! Just to bring the fairness of pride is the best way to approach ethics. All fairness attributes itself to an employed reasoning, to say a standing of pride in fairness . . . Really it is just about vitality . . . the turn will follow another turn!
This is really unfair, I am trying to reference this video for my current research but there absolutely is no information about the presenter. In fact I'm very much interested in that Richard Taylor's quote and I prefer to use it as-is. Any ideas where I can get the source of the quote? Please help!
And ethics is always existing where thou is not a "wild beast". We have wants and needs and strategies for realising them. We are more or less cognisant of the processes.
There is an element of truth in Moral Realism, in that ethics do contribute to a objectively better society and standard of living. But it's also subjective in how much value we as people attach to those improvements. Idealogical extremism is a classic example of rejecting the objective in favour of the subjective. Schopenhauer's statement misses the point. Like education, ethics and aesthetics provide a framework within which people can operate. The value is in being informed, not inspired.
I think there is a fundamental obstacle in accepting any theory of Ethics seriously, that is the vastness of the universe and the insignificance of human life and suffering, in comparison. Did any one try to address this problem? Only Albert Camus?
I think ethics can help us to think clearly, so that it aids in the process of calculating actions, and creating more meaning in our lives through those calculated actions. We can then only hope that people act more respectfully of others, but there's no guarantee. But at least there is a greater possibility... You may call me more optimistic than some of the authors that were quoted haha
I find that society can become very toxic when lacking simple humility. Humility gives us a spiritual alternative to this toxicity. Beware of personality flaws like: comparing one another, criticizing, complaining, controlling and having a competing spirit.
Exactly. I believe everyone should do some type of charity/helping tasks. It is an eye opener. And your surf and turf tastes even better that night , after handing out Raman noodles to hungry families.
The cost effectiveness of conscientality: the awesome phenomenon with 9 heads up on cloud Sunday; the border with purity, hopefully in love - the trust of sharing and actually caring, exposed without an unfair unbalanced at aaalllllllll selfish burden, of whose winning some irrascibe eternal battle for the victory of their side of judgement, about ideas and creation as pleasant together. It isn't God. It might still be Spirit to respect, even understand when forgiveness is self-evident to the preposterous inevitability of anyone even being set up by some hidden apparent bitterness at anytime biting something they shouldn't. And that is what animals are as loved and cared for, morally.
One last criticism: i thought this video was great. Clever and concise. But you haven't mentioned the concept of VIRTUE. And you've taken it for granted that all ethical systems are concerned with individual action. I agree with you because only individuals ACT, but the Greeks you mentioned believed virtue was to be pursued by the collective/polis.
Can't be answered when the question's nature puts one person's opinion beside another's. So whose opinion is better? That is the question distilled from yours.
We have ethics in our school.. And I'm totally confused with it. I just came to browse TH-cam so I can understand something but since I'm not fluent in English yet, I'M JUST MORE CONFUSED omg
I'm surprised you didn't mention Thomas Aquinas or natural law talking about objective ethics. If you're interested in David Hume you'd probably find Mises' treatment of subjective value theory interesting in Theory and History, and Epistemological Problems of Economics.
Yay, ethics that make no sense and says nothing about anything, that's just what I needed. Philosophy seems entirely devoid of meaning, can we have a field called Fantasy, please? I might even go to a university if I could get a PhD in Fantasy.
Ethics is the theory, morality is the practice? Political idealism vs Political Idealism? Cicero vs Machiavelli? Dentology, Utilitarian, Virtue Ethics. I prefer the Virtue Ethics framework, specifically Stoicism. 🤔😊🦉
Virtue ethics actually comes from China. It was later developed by the Greeks but they did not come up with the idea. Why is it that the greeks take credit for so many things they did not invent? As recently as last year we found out they weren't inventors of trigonometry like previously thought, either! It's kind of ridiculous.
TheVoidReturnsNull Yep, I tried this as well and was lead to a few books by Richard Taylor. The best option available is to use Academy of Ideas as author and reference the full video...
I was saying about milk and moss being for protection yesterday wasnt i? Thats how i got round to Michaelmass, beasom milk ridling stones, moss bros and beesom wax
Very informative !! Thanks ! I was reading a book by Mises and he was constantly mentioning eudaimonism and I was a litle lost. But now a have a basic view of this subject and I know that my Chsirtian ethics are in the so called deontological class. Well I persnaly don't feel confortable with all this talk about ethics...The normal human dose not see ethics as something man made to say so. Even the Teleological ones are actualy based upon the ethics that evry human beign perceives in his normal daily life !! You could construct a ethical system that respects the philosophical standard but it will be actualy bad perceived by the normal human beign in the real life. Comunism had a lot to say about ethics and I spoke with a marxist-leninist a few weeks ago and he told me that it is ok to kill the rich people because it is for a greater good and all actions that bring that greater good are good.....
You should contrast ethics with economics and history more than anthropology. I think you'd find Mises' Human Action and Theory and History very interesting
I do not disagree that morality and ethics are important. Although ethics are not a necessity, they are very useful and important to people. Morality is like a self government people have. It is meant to keep you in line with things and prevent you from doing bad things.
This was wonderful in many regards. Well done. Too many big words and obscure connections/tangents for me to follow. I tried.
Im a simple man. Guess Ill go work in the garden. You know.... on bended knee, head bowed , hands in the dirt.
My neighbors will be over tonight with fresh bread for the table. We all eat good. All are welcome.
You also need self control and discipline to apply ethics.
+Innavata90 If you're a virtuous person, your desires will aling with that which is right or good. Only people who're not virtuous need those characteristics.
420xHustlerxB0SS But what is right or good? Is it bad to be promiscuous? Is it bad for someone to do a robbery when they need the money for rent and survival? Certain situations call for certain things. Like a man selling drugs to feed his family is that bad?
Innavata90 Virtue ethics implies that the right thing to do is what a virtuous person would do. The problem from the first person perspective is: am I virtuous, if not, how do I become virtuous?
Kantian virtue theory on the other hand implies that virtue is the strenght of will to do the right thing. This means that a compassionate person wouldn't necessarily be virtuous. After all, the right thing to do is determined by the structure of rationality.
If we need too much strenght of will to do the right thing, it means our ethical theory is implicitly based on an implausible view of human nature.
@@420xHustlerxB0SS this is exactly why computers ought to reason out laws and ethics rather than business for example cherry picking out self fulfilling principles of ethics to suit the greater cause ie) bigger profits. Today's lacklustre, weak and meek academic ethics needs to grow a pair of balls and say business - fuck off and don't piggyback and whore our principles to what suits your causes. The study and the field of Ethics today has absolutely no spine or voice.
yeah it needs practice, a lot of practices
Get the transcript: academyofideas.com/2013/08/introduction-to-ethics/
Being new to Philosophy, I've been studying this discipline for about two years now and subsequently having my interest renewed in your TH-cam channel as well as the internet website that's curated by you as well, I have come to a conclusion that the information presented and the interpretations of the concepts, thoughts and ideas of Philosophy's founding members; Kant, Nietzsche, Plato........etc. after listening also to lectures by other professionals that occupy TH-cam channels, your channel has information and interpretations that are the most accurate, also knowing that this opinion is merely from my own personal perspective, that with the knowledge I've gained and the insights acquired from your video lectures your channel is first and foremost the best choice I can make in my pursuit of mastering Philosophy to the best that my ability will allow me to. Your video lectures seem to be the most accurate as well as achieving the truest form of unbiased interpretation. So as one who considers himself a lifelong student of Philosophy, this will only aid to my pursuit of mastery of the world's greatest discipline. Thank you and please keep pushing forward in the pursuit of universal knowledge and freedom.
It's like you're writing a paper and deperate to reach the word count.
@@Bilbus7 I cannot ever recall feeling even the slightest bit "deperate", or maybe I have felt that way and "DAM-IT-TO-HELL", just didn't know about it? Or have the great emotional capacity, unlike you Elmer, to fondly cultivate what seems like this beautiful and interesting thing, feeling "deperate". Is it in the new DM5?
This is excellent. Thank you for your work and sharing with us.
I swear I find physics easier to understand than ethics . Thank you for the video, although still confused, not so much now. (maybe)
Lol
@@Perfectpearl >> Haaaaaa love it
Omg thank you. Too abstract for me.
Because experts in physics aren’t arguing with each other’s conclusions. Although it’s still not that simple, some people will naturally be better at philosophy than hard sciences, and other people (with an equal effort towards both) will struggle more with philosophy.
It could also seem more difficult than it has to be due to the fact that many “Famous philosophers” have put forth terrible arguments that are “Incoherent word salads” that are disguising themselves as “Deep brilliant insights.” So you could be pulling your hair out because you can’t understand a certain argument, when it might actually be more accurate that you’re pulling your hair out because the argument is inherently absurd. And you’ll have philosophers of every type (absurd or not) with huge followings of people calling them brilliant. So it takes time to solidify your own positions, and get better at spotting and rejecting positions that you consider to be absurd.
I mean imagine having an afternoon physics professor who keeps disagreeing with your morning physics teacher! That feature of philosophy could definitely cause some people to struggle with it more than physics, even though physics is more difficult in other ways.
Great Work people. Keep it going. Repeatly come to you right after Wikipedia on all research. Your lectures have no fluff and get right to the point avoiding personal opinions and presenting instead the argument and fairly presenting both sides. Great Great Work., Your subscribers will grow. Be Patient don't get discouraged.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📜 Albert Camus' quote introduces the importance of ethics, emphasizing that ethics guide human behavior in society.
00:41 🧭 Ethics originated in ancient Greece, with Socrates and the Sophists as early moral philosophers, and it focuses on the study of what's good and bad in life and what's right or wrong in conduct.
02:31 🤔 Key questions in ethics include what makes actions moral or immoral and why individuals should follow ethical theories.
03:13 🌍 Meta ethics explores whether morality is objective, with a focus on whether moral judgments can be objectively true or false, independent of personal opinions.
03:53 🤷♂️ Moral subjectivism holds that moral judgments are expressions of personal preference, while moral realism (objectivism) asserts that moral judgments can be objectively true or false.
04:50 ❓ The "is-ought problem" questions whether one can logically derive what ought to be from what is the case, as explored by David Hume.
06:04 ⚖️ Teleological (consequentialist) theories evaluate actions based on their consequences, while deontological theories ground morality in authority, not consequences.
07:31 📜 Deontological ethics holds that actions are not evaluated solely based on consequences but on some form of authority, often including divine law.
08:30 🤨 Some philosophers have questioned whether ethics can effectively transform individuals into virtuous beings, with varying degrees of skepticism about its practical impact.
Made with HARPA AI
2+2=4 in the infinite ring of integers Z.
2+2=0 in the finite ring Z/2Z of integers modulo 2.
2+2=1 in Z/3Z.
2+2=0 in Z/4Z
Etc
Addition (and multiplication) depends on the underlying number system.
In short, 2+2 does not always equal to 4!
but the *normative* evaluation of the expression is indeed 2+2 = 4 :^]
Having just finished The Outsider, I find Camus' opening quote rather ironic.
I'm sorry, I could only focus on the amazing Canadian accent.
I agree. It's pretty amazing. I've watched pretty much all the videos on this channel and they're all great. The Canadian accent just makes the ideas that much better.
Same here 😂
As a Canadian I don't hear it lol
soo majestic...
As an ethical man I liked your video
Your videos are so thoughtful and well put together. Thank you so much for making them!
Teach kids... And especially adult's !
This is very clear, thank you. More on Kant's contribution to ethics would be appreciated in the future. Regards.
Excellent presentation! Thank you for sharing.
"One ought to like this video" kkkkk
The last 3 statements, I conclude that a code of ethics will elevate me, me, as an individual, I have made a decision to live a certain way. This could not be forced upon me, I maybe coerced into lies, but, to live honestly I make a choice and adhere, this way I am elevated, there is no other way. Therefore, am I in most agreement with Schopenhauer? He's meant to be pessimistic, however, honesty combined with reality feels good to me, which I think is Schopenhauer's attitude too. Unless I've misunderstood, I'd love feedback
1. What was the quote from Albert Camus?
2. Where is Ethics originated?
3. Name the first critical thinker in history?
4. According to the Video, what is Ethics?
5. Who gave a better definition of Ethics?
6. Give the difference between Ethics and Morality?
7. What anthropologists are doing?
8. What are the 2 permanents questions in the studies of Ethics?
9. What is Meta-Ethics?
10. What is the Key Question of Meta-Ethics?
11. What is the opposite of moral Objectivity?
12. What will be almost the same as moral Objectivity?
13. Name the famous Scottish philosopher that examined those questions of objectivities and relativism?
please help
same question
Interesting lesson. Ethics is the study of morality between right and wrong. Egoism, like you mentioned earlier is an ethical theory that deals with self-interest. Like Kanye West, he's an egomaniac. He even claimed himself that he was a god once. It goes to show that ethics doesn't just teach you the difference between right and wrong, it also teaches you to keep your ego in check. There's a measurement between confidence and arrogance in the confidence spectrum. You can be confident, but don't be arrogant. There's a difference.
kanye west also has bipolar disorder so I won't really say he is a egomaniac
@@younggamer7218 I did my research on bipolar disorder and sufferers tend to have manic highs and depressive lows. That explains his mental breakdown in 2016. Usually these other symptoms such as hyperactivity, mood swings and racing thoughts last for years to life. I guess him being an egomaniac was a bit of a stretch. It's more like, he has a high sense of importance. He had a false belief of superiority. Which is a cognitive symptom of bipolar disorder. Thanks for the feedback.
@@nigelanicette9243 I think his industry also supports such behaviour
Ethics in general doesn’t teach you to keep your ego in check, certain positions that are held in ethnics teaches you to keep your ego in check (the accurate ones). Other held positions in ethnics teach you that there’s nothing wrong with being like Ted Bundy, or with having an ego like 25 yr old Mike Tyson. One of the most important things in philosophy is learning to spot the absurd “Experts”, and becoming better at knowing why their arguments are absurd.
I don’t see which path -teleological or deontological- picks Taylor’s statement. I ended up with the same question… What is worth striving for?
Your videos are awesome and very informative! Keep it up! :)
Can I use your video for my presentation?
tx for this video, I learn something that is good
I've recently self-published a novel that might be of interest to people who are fascinated by ethical dilemmas :) It's called The Decision by Nathan McGregor. It's available in Kindle and paperback format.
"Virtue cannot be taught, no more than genius." As it turns out, you CAN teach genius. And I see people learning virtue all the time. That guy was an idiot.
Great video. I subscribed.
"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”
-Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics", The Virtue of Selfishness, 17
YOU ARE GODSEND AND THE FACT THAT YOU MAKE THESE VIDEOS SO CONCISE YET SO FULL OF INFORMATION? GOD BLESS YOU! EXAM IN AN HOUR AND COS OF YOU IMMA KILLL IT!
Why no discussion of consequentialism and utilitarianism?
Have you read Mises Human action?
ethic is the only way to rich and happiness.the law of relationship between person and the whole social is what goes around ,and comes around. this is also called the gold law of cause and result.that means if people think good for others\say good for others\do good for others,the entire social will give the person goods:rich\safety\happiness. otherwise,the person will get poor\difficult\sadness. certainly,the gold law will take at least three years to let result become true.
Can you do a video about the philosopher J. Krishnamurti?
What are the basic ethics which are applicable to all human beings all the time ?
Thanks, very accessible for me
Is the act of ignoring questions moral? Is it ethical? Is it wrong? Is it verbal abuse? Is it the norm?
We appreciate your content
3:17
If the Party sais that 2+2=5, then it is so
FloWhite It is not logical.
there's logical different between consideration of ethic and of mathematic
No.
@@javierchavarria1386 that is precisely the point of The Party declaring that 2+2=5. It is to force you to go against your own judgment and understanding, and conform to their preference of falsified facts. The human being can only endure so much irrationality and bewilderment before it cracks and breaks and folds and becomes willing to submit.
I like feel you can logically come up with a conclusion of what "ought to be". Take slavery of example. Just because something is doesn't mean it's what something should be. Something simply being doesn't make it ethical.
Slavery was considered "ethical" for 10s of thousands of years.
@@thepondering63 Remember also that just because slaves were legal, it doesn't mean that it was ethical.
@@amandavespo4035 You're defining your meaning of ethics not those who owned slaves for 10s of thousands of years.
@@thepondering63you missed her main point. “Legal” and “Ethical” are distinct concepts. When a scumbag sociopathic politician swipes a pen something becomes “Legal.”
This might seem obvious to you, but it’s mind boggling how many people equate right & wrong with what’s legal or illegal.
What is the name of the ethical theory that says that what is good is whatever glorifies God the most?
Great video! Just one thing to say, I couldn't read anything in the video but was just listening to the narration, it was a bit hard keeping up. Otherwise, it was AWESOME!
Who else is here because of the Good Place???❤️😂
Libby Peat i can’t do anything now without thinking about what’s the good thing to do 😂😂
@@candidlyyoursfilm ikr😂
Don't gotta call me out like that😂
Chidi got me studying ethics and sh!t 🤣😂
ME!
What is the difference between morals and ethics?
Ethics is the study of morality and what morality really is. They ask questions, like if there is really a wrong or right since so many societies practice things others societies would think is immoral. Some of those morals are universal, and some not. Some things might be okay in one society (city, country, county, area), but not in the other.
In order to understand ethics shouldn’t one first understand the nature of the thing to which ethics apply? In other words: the way one ought to act is determined by one’s nature; so you would have to understand the nature of man and his end before you can understand the necessary actions he ought to take to achieve that end. I say ought because man has free will and even though he knows he should do something he is free to choose not to do it.
Nice video. Are you perhaps from New England?
Thanks, no I am from Toronto.
+joavim Sorry for the very late reply! Nope, I'm from Canada.
Great job Torontonian. Cheers from Mississauga ;) Great channel!
Nice! Interesting that we're so close by. And thanks :)
Only real thing in itself is time; though this has no relations, a vice of gravity.A falsification of gravity. It still presses on you! A question is relative only to itself, what we have here is a problem with pride! Just to bring the fairness of pride is the best way to approach ethics. All fairness attributes itself to an employed reasoning, to say a standing of pride in fairness . . . Really it is just about vitality . . . the turn will follow another turn!
I love the Academy of ideas and I'd love to study of that place I just wish I understood this video to keep up the good work
This is really unfair, I am trying to reference this video for my current research but there absolutely is no information about the presenter. In fact I'm very much interested in that Richard Taylor's quote and I prefer to use it as-is. Any ideas where I can get the source of the quote? Please help!
+Mthandeni Langa He said the name of the book it comes from right before he said the quote itself... Richard Taylor's book "Good and Evil".
+TheVoidReturnsNull Just my ignorance. I heard the name of the book when I ran the video the second time around :(
Ethics = a piece of paper
Morals = whatever you want
yes, v black and v white. V good. [no indecisiveness ever?]
And ethics is always existing where thou is not a "wild beast". We have wants and needs and strategies for realising them. We are more or less cognisant of the processes.
There is an element of truth in Moral Realism, in that ethics do contribute to a objectively better society and standard of living. But it's also subjective in how much value we as people attach to those improvements. Idealogical extremism is a classic example of rejecting the objective in favour of the subjective.
Schopenhauer's statement misses the point. Like education, ethics and aesthetics provide a framework within which people can operate. The value is in being informed, not inspired.
I think there is a fundamental obstacle in accepting any theory of Ethics seriously, that is the vastness of the universe and the insignificance of human life and suffering, in comparison. Did any one try to address this problem? Only Albert Camus?
I think ethics can help us to think clearly, so that it aids in the process of calculating actions, and creating more meaning in our lives through those calculated actions. We can then only hope that people act more respectfully of others, but there's no guarantee. But at least there is a greater possibility... You may call me more optimistic than some of the authors that were quoted haha
What come first reason or Will!?
Angraj Hindi m de deta to kya ho jay?
Yash Jain. angrezi seekh lo kya ho jay ?
I find that society can become very toxic when lacking simple humility. Humility gives us a spiritual alternative to this toxicity. Beware of personality flaws like: comparing one another, criticizing, complaining, controlling and having a competing spirit.
Cant believe music critic center their job on a personality flaw!
Exactly. I believe everyone should do some type of charity/helping tasks. It is an eye opener.
And your surf and turf tastes even better that night , after handing out Raman noodles to hungry families.
@@dixieboy5689 Yes!
The cost effectiveness of conscientality: the awesome phenomenon with 9 heads up on cloud Sunday; the border with purity, hopefully in love - the trust of sharing and actually caring, exposed without an unfair unbalanced at aaalllllllll selfish burden, of whose winning some irrascibe eternal battle for the victory of their side of judgement, about ideas and creation as pleasant together. It isn't God. It might still be Spirit to respect, even understand when forgiveness is self-evident to the preposterous inevitability of anyone even being set up by some hidden apparent bitterness at anytime biting something they shouldn't. And that is what animals are as loved and cared for, morally.
Incredible!
Apparently going to the gym made me loose my ethics.
Thanks.
Can some1 write a summary pls?
Just watched this video in an ethics class... Was that Jordan Peterson talking or is the Canadian accent deceiving me?
One last criticism: i thought this video was great. Clever and concise. But you haven't mentioned the concept of VIRTUE. And you've taken it for granted that all ethical systems are concerned with individual action. I agree with you because only individuals ACT, but the Greeks you mentioned believed virtue was to be pursued by the collective/polis.
"My own counsel will I keep."
Teleological and Deontological ethics are a contrast that I could spend 5 years thinking about before I reach a conclusion 😂
"Microsoft Sam" has come a long way - almost sounds human now.
Indeed it sounds robotical in a way, it's probably as he reads very fast and doesn't allow for people to absorb the ideas. Racing through the text.
Good is subjective
Very !! You nailed it. Sounds easy, right ?? haaa it aint.
The fundamental question of ethics remains: "What is the best way to live?" It is a question that is relevant only when other rational beings exist.
Can't be answered when the question's nature puts one person's opinion beside another's. So whose opinion is better? That is the question distilled from yours.
English word best is arrived at through opinion.
That's how he pronounced it. It just sounded like he pronounced the 's' because the word following Camus was 'stated'
Ethics the study of Human conduct. Am I right?
We have ethics in our school.. And I'm totally confused with it.
I just came to browse TH-cam so I can understand something but since I'm not fluent in English yet, I'M JUST MORE CONFUSED omg
do you not know the Good Place?
I'm surprised you didn't mention Thomas Aquinas or natural law talking about objective ethics.
If you're interested in David Hume you'd probably find Mises' treatment of subjective value theory interesting in Theory and History, and Epistemological Problems of Economics.
Yay, ethics that make no sense and says nothing about anything, that's just what I needed. Philosophy seems entirely devoid of meaning, can we have a field called Fantasy, please? I might even go to a university if I could get a PhD in Fantasy.
this is why everybody hates moral philosophers.
someone had to do it
Ethics is the theory, morality is the practice? Political idealism vs Political Idealism? Cicero vs Machiavelli? Dentology, Utilitarian, Virtue Ethics. I prefer the Virtue Ethics framework, specifically Stoicism. 🤔😊🦉
Virtue ethics actually comes from China. It was later developed by the Greeks but they did not come up with the idea. Why is it that the greeks take credit for so many things they did not invent? As recently as last year we found out they weren't inventors of trigonometry like previously thought, either! It's kind of ridiculous.
You're a dummy.
It's fine I'll just reference the video from the Academy of Ideas, 2013 and quote Richard Taylor as written...
+Mthandeni Langa Have you tried just googling the quote (using quotation marks so it comes up exactly as searched)?
TheVoidReturnsNull Yep, I tried this as well and was lead to a few books by Richard Taylor. The best option available is to use Academy of Ideas as author and reference the full video...
one ought to like this video..done
Veganism, a teleological application of ethics. ❤️
can someone recommend me good books based on ethics( it does not matter how much time has passed since i made this comment)?
I was saying about milk and moss being for protection yesterday wasnt i? Thats how i got round to Michaelmass, beasom milk ridling stones, moss bros and beesom wax
Who else is here because of school🙋
It would have been easy to understand if you said it a little more slowly otherwise everything is okay, thank you so much😊
i have no moral or ethical prejudice against ads..altho i always block them.
Very informative !! Thanks !
I was reading a book by Mises and he was constantly mentioning eudaimonism and I was a litle lost.
But now a have a basic view of this subject and I know that my Chsirtian ethics are in the so called deontological class.
Well I persnaly don't feel confortable with all this talk about ethics...The normal human dose not see ethics as something man made to say so. Even the Teleological ones are actualy based upon the ethics that evry human beign perceives in his normal daily life !!
You could construct a ethical system that respects the philosophical standard but it will be actualy bad perceived by the normal human beign in the real life.
Comunism had a lot to say about ethics and I spoke with a marxist-leninist a few weeks ago and he told me that it is ok to kill the rich people because it is for a greater good and all actions that bring that greater good are good.....
Or is ethics our attempt to justify the way we choose to use our divisive mind? Great stuff btw.
2+2=5; You must not only obey big brother, you must also love him...
Schopenhauer did as well.
Lol @One ought to like this video!
Voluntary=Moral, Involuntary=Immoral, not difficult
I'm here because I need to make an essay .
What's pro man?
Pro God?
pro nature ?
Means?
I'm still lost for that I have no philosophical background
The splendors and miseries of philosophers.
Ethics was too broad to understand if you trying to dig some information into it. A lot of depth of thinking in comes of this topic..
Ethics professor from the order
beautiful
Immense blessings. 🌻
You should contrast ethics with economics and history more than anthropology. I think you'd find Mises' Human Action and Theory and History very interesting
croakers and ethics in business care for me to site the professor ?
bagels bagels sight is v maurine
Who else here because you have to take a quiz after watching this video
I think morality is based on opinions. Many morals are widely agreed upon, but that does not make them true.
I do not disagree that morality and ethics are important. Although ethics are not a necessity, they are very useful and important to people. Morality is like a self government people have. It is meant to keep you in line with things and prevent you from doing bad things.