You're presupposing Moral Realism, God, Virtue Ethics, and Augustinian interpretations of Platonism to be true in order to critique Utilitarianism. I was truthfully hoping for a more thought out critique than "Its consequential and not based on objective moral truths" which is innate ideas to the philosophy. You're merely asserting that virtue ethics is superior rather than actually formulating an argument for that of Virtue Ethics (or any of the ideas that you presuppose) or actually critiquing Utilitarianism. Your argument assumes to many ideas to be true in order to stand as a legitimate critique in of itself.
Thanks for the comment. As I mentioned to another who made a similar complaint, the philosophy I propose is based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and so all the things you assert in your comment are true of my opinions. This page is dedicated to the teachings of St. Thomas so one might expect a bit of a bias in that direction.
@@emerealm3779 That's a loaded question, all the things I have mentioned that he presupposed are Unfalsifiable in nature, meaning we cant prove them to be false, but also cant prove them to be true either. If you believe they are true you would have to acknowledge your beliefs are faith based or prove so either empirically or through a priori means.
I fail to see where you address what the flaw of utilitarianism is? I mean you simply state it doesn't presuppose any universal and objective moral truth to exist, which i don't find to be a problem at all. However I'd perhaps challenge even that idea. You say that the utilitarian method doesn't hold any universal principles by which actions can be judged, but i mean clearly it does! The principle utilitariansim follows universally is one of pleasure being good and suffering being bad. Every action hence is judged by this quality equally. Obviously this principle isn't derived from any naturally existing "truth" (as hume put it, you can't get an ought from an is), but it is nonetheless universal.
In the two examples I used at the beginning of the video, about the woman with Alzheimers and the baby in the young lady's womb, the problem with Utilitarianism is that in both cases they die because the greatest good for the greatest number means that the individual is subjected to the will of the many. this was not stated explicitly in the video but I figured viewers would come to the conclusion about my examples without me spoonfeeding it. I'm not trying to be cheeky, just trying to honesty respond to your very legitimate response. - Dave
I suspect I am not the audience you were targeting, but youtube recommended this to me anyhow. Nevertheless I watched the video in full and I don't think you gave utilitarianism its due. Your critique of its fundamentals doesn't go beyond saying that it's not how you view the issues at hand and you don't really cut past the surface. This isn't coming from a utilitarian btw.
Thanks for the comment and for watching the video. Happy to hear TH-cam recommended the video to you. This page is dedicated to the study of St.Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica so you can assume that there is a bit of a bias in favor of this fundamental Christian philosophy as proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas. So the 'fatal flaw' of utilitarianism, as mentioned in the video, is that it doesn't recognize absolute truth, natural law, universals (supports Nominalism), all of which St. Thomas would reject. Anyone is free to disagree and I'm happy to debate the issue. You mention you're not a utilitarianism. What do you think are it's biggest flaws?
@@thethomist Simply that assuming happiness can be measured in any meaningful way and that it is always desirable and that either is a moral statement. The last is obviously an indictment against all moral axioms, but I'm not a fan of moral nihilism either so I don't think the last problem is that much of a problem to begin with. Personally, I think that utilitarianism can be incorporated into a Christian moral framework. Heaven is eternal pleasure after all, and the form of justice could be instantiated by maximizing pleasure. These aren't necessarily mutually contradictory.
Why not? Did he and Aristotle not set the stage for the remainder of the history of philosophy up to the present age (with some help from Socrates and the Pre-Socratics, of course)? How can one discount Plato? The ball's in your court.
You're presupposing Moral Realism, God, Virtue Ethics, and Augustinian interpretations of Platonism to be true in order to critique Utilitarianism. I was truthfully hoping for a more thought out critique than "Its consequential and not based on objective moral truths" which is innate ideas to the philosophy. You're merely asserting that virtue ethics is superior rather than actually formulating an argument for that of Virtue Ethics (or any of the ideas that you presuppose) or actually critiquing Utilitarianism. Your argument assumes to many ideas to be true in order to stand as a legitimate critique in of itself.
How can you claim something that is true is a presupposition?
Thanks for the comment. As I mentioned to another who made a similar complaint, the philosophy I propose is based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and so all the things you assert in your comment are true of my opinions. This page is dedicated to the teachings of St. Thomas so one might expect a bit of a bias in that direction.
@@emerealm3779 That's a loaded question, all the things I have mentioned that he presupposed are Unfalsifiable in nature, meaning we cant prove them to be false, but also cant prove them to be true either. If you believe they are true you would have to acknowledge your beliefs are faith based or prove so either empirically or through a priori means.
@@thethomist My apologies then, I was unaware the purpose of this page was dedicated Aquinas.
@@cydonia2780 Your penultimate comment has been obsolete for about 80 years now.
I fail to see where you address what the flaw of utilitarianism is? I mean you simply state it doesn't presuppose any universal and objective moral truth to exist, which i don't find to be a problem at all. However I'd perhaps challenge even that idea. You say that the utilitarian method doesn't hold any universal principles by which actions can be judged, but i mean clearly it does! The principle utilitariansim follows universally is one of pleasure being good and suffering being bad. Every action hence is judged by this quality equally.
Obviously this principle isn't derived from any naturally existing "truth" (as hume put it, you can't get an ought from an is), but it is nonetheless universal.
In the two examples I used at the beginning of the video, about the woman with Alzheimers and the baby in the young lady's womb, the problem with Utilitarianism is that in both cases they die because the greatest good for the greatest number means that the individual is subjected to the will of the many. this was not stated explicitly in the video but I figured viewers would come to the conclusion about my examples without me spoonfeeding it. I'm not trying to be cheeky, just trying to honesty respond to your very legitimate response. - Dave
I suspect I am not the audience you were targeting, but youtube recommended this to me anyhow. Nevertheless I watched the video in full and I don't think you gave utilitarianism its due. Your critique of its fundamentals doesn't go beyond saying that it's not how you view the issues at hand and you don't really cut past the surface. This isn't coming from a utilitarian btw.
Thanks for the comment and for watching the video. Happy to hear TH-cam recommended the video to you. This page is dedicated to the study of St.Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica so you can assume that there is a bit of a bias in favor of this fundamental Christian philosophy as proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas. So the 'fatal flaw' of utilitarianism, as mentioned in the video, is that it doesn't recognize absolute truth, natural law, universals (supports Nominalism), all of which St. Thomas would reject. Anyone is free to disagree and I'm happy to debate the issue. You mention you're not a utilitarianism. What do you think are it's biggest flaws?
@@thethomist Simply that assuming happiness can be measured in any meaningful way and that it is always desirable and that either is a moral statement. The last is obviously an indictment against all moral axioms, but I'm not a fan of moral nihilism either so I don't think the last problem is that much of a problem to begin with.
Personally, I think that utilitarianism can be incorporated into a Christian moral framework. Heaven is eternal pleasure after all, and the form of justice could be instantiated by maximizing pleasure. These aren't necessarily mutually contradictory.
@@alantelemishev9335 Thank you for this perspective. Let me think about this before giving you a haphazard response. God bless- Dave
Thanks, Dave.
You're welcome. Thanks for the feedback! God bless- Dave
Really? Platonism?
Why not? Did he and Aristotle not set the stage for the remainder of the history of philosophy up to the present age (with some help from Socrates and the Pre-Socratics, of course)? How can one discount Plato? The ball's in your court.
Platonism is the only defensible position in matters of philosophy, mathematics and physics. More than 2 thousand years and no one can overcome it.