Thank you so much. I understand it on your simpliest explanation. How about Plato's Theory of Forms? I struggle about this topic Maam.Need some help if you have some time.
Thank you so much. I understand it on your explanation. How about Plato's Theory of Forms? I struggle about this topic Maam.Need some help if you have some time.
I understand it now what it is all about inthe simpliest explanation of yours. Thank you so much🥰🥰. How about the theory or forms of plato? Need explanation about this Maam if you have time😊
Deontology is not hedonistic. This is easier to see when you compare the categorical imperative (do what is your obligation) to the hypothetical imperative (do what you should given your goals); deontology tells us to follow the categorical imperative (which does not depend in any way on our goals or desires). I have a video on these other concepts (categorized on my website www.saharjoakim.net)
This baffles me. I've long thought that utilitarianism either can or might be objective, or all moral codes must be subjective (keeping in mind I could quite possibly be incorrect). I definitely don't see how deontology could possibly be objective though...because it doesn't seem to have any system for determining how to create the moral rules it advocates following, which suggests to me they'd have to just stem from people's opinions (or god's opinion...which I'd argue amounts to the same thing as anyone else's opinion). With utilitarianism though...I can imagine a very scientific process involved with much of the utilitarian calculus. I frequently use the scientific method when thinking up my formulas. Plenty of things are pretty hard to prove or disprove one way or the other...but I definitely think I've proven that the moral theory of "total utilitarianism" in its most basic form cannot work if the goal is to maximize pleasure, for example, and a few other things. That's because before life exists, there is no one to gain anything from coming into existence. Therefore endlessly producing more life to try to maximize pleasure just wouldn't make any sense, given that the goal of moral codes is typically to help life...not just create arbitrary rules that don't. Another interesting realization I've figured out stemming from that view is that there is no reason to create new life unless it assists existing life (from a utilitarian/maximization of pleasure perspective)...so one important factor in the question of whether or not to create new life is definitely how good of a life that life form would likely have, but regardless of how happy of a life that life form might have, if the life form doesn't benefit previously existing life forms more than it harms them, through bringing more pleasure to them than it removes, there is no reason to create the life form. I thought up a hypothesis (that total utilitarianism is valid), engaged in an experiment to test the hypothesis, and found total utilitarianism to be flawed. For reasons like that, utilitarianism therefore seems much less arbitrary than every other moral code I can think of. On a side note...I did think up a really interesting thought experiment that I think still follows the above rule...but in a way that gets around it a bit. I imagine a group of humans who would be impoverished if they create a genetically engineered group of superhumans who would live better lives than the humans in every way...but the superhumans don't exist yet. Also, upon their creation the super humans would be teleported into another universe and never allowed to assist their parent species. In that thought experiment, I think there would be two rational routes. You could either look at it like there is no reason to create the superhumans because they don't exist yet and therefore would benefit in no way from coming into existence...or you could look at it like the humans and superhumans are both sensory appendages of the same super organism, and the superhumans are a continuation of the original humans, and so there would be a reason to create them. I figure the answer would probably depend, literally, on just which route seems niftiest to the original humans, because neither is inherently better. Also, there is the possibility that pleasure is produced by our feelings in quantities that are just as real and measurable as marbles in a jar...even if we can't measure them ourselves because of our inability to accurately determine the number of hedons produced by our feelings, and how they are altered by time and other variables. I would have thought that at least calling that utilitarian moral code that would determine how to truly produce the most pleasure/hedons subjective would involve making the exact same mistake as calling the number of marbles in a jar subjective, just because we haven't counted them yet. That said, I've been confused for many years regarding what objective or subjective really mean...especially in regards to morality. I think my confusion about the difference between objective and subjective stems largely from my distrust of the word subjective. I feel like that word implies everything is dependent upon people's opinions oftentimes...whereas that's the complete opposite of how I see utilitarianism as working. In that way calling utilitarianism subjective would feel like calling the inner workings of a black hole subjective just because we don't understand it well yet (and might never...just like how we might never be able to accurately measure hedon quantities). I also have a lot of concerns that calling utilitarianism subjective would encourage people to perceive the utilitarian calculus involved in its moral codes as arbitrarily determined, which I'd say is likely never the case. There will be a lot of people who are wrong (if there is a true best way to maximize pleasure)...but they're all trying to be right. Also, I tend to assume there is a just, flat, best way to maximize pleasure. I can't prove it, but I don't know why there would not be, because I'm pretty sure I can feel that certain things feel better or worse than other things, and I don't know how I'd be able to do that unless there were specific quantities of produced hedons I'm feeling, that are just as real as marbles in a jar...and if they're just as real as marbles in a jar, I'd think there would be a way to produce the most marbles. That's because I'm measuring my levels of feelings when I think about what things feel better or worse than other things. I don't know how I could measure things without there being some specific quantity of those things.
I actually favor Deontology broadly as a theory of morality. Because I think a crucial part of any theory of morality is it's explanatory power. Meaning does it accurately describe the human thought process when it comes to morality. The only theory that even comes close to this is Deontology. Mostly because I think morality is irreducible. Concepts like pleasure and suffering or pain don't quite capture the terms Good and Evil/Bad. Is pleasure really the only thing that's good? Most would say of course not, but I think I can even get utilitarians to admit this. And is suffering really the only thing that's bad? Surely not. Whether we like it or not, the foundations of morality are largely intuitive, to everyone, utilitarian or deontologist. There are things that simply are good or bad in themselves, that the vast majority of people wouldn't dare deny. I'm not saying this proves deontology to be 100% correct, but it certainly counts for something. I also don't think deontology is as inflexible as people say it is. Personally, I don't think we need to completely ignore consideration of the consequences of our actions, we can definitly factor that in. But it's secondary whether we realize it or not. An intuition comes first always. Just like we have the intuition that we can trust our sense data to allow us to perceive the world accurately, we have an intuition that certain things like human flourishing are good in themselves. And we have literally no reason to not trust these intuitions. To not trust it, would lead to absurdity and contradiction.
Yeah...I think you're incorrect, Dr. J. Either utilitarianism could be objective, or deontology must always be subjective, so far as I can tell. This is because if the system of rules deontology claims to be the objectively good/universal system of rules can be just objectively good because that's how the nature of the universe works...we can say the exact same thing about some enormous utilitarian calculus math formula that strives to maximize pleasure. If there doesn't need to be some argument for why X is true aside from "it just is," then X can be literally anything...such as that utilitarian math formula...and with systems like deontology that determine what is correct based on rules rather than consequences, there is no way to argue deontology is correct aside from it simply being so because it is an inherent quality of the universe, or because it is someone's subjective opinion, so far as I can tell...perhaps unless the deontology in question is used as part of some consequentialist moral code. Then you might have more pathways for moral objective truths...but without consequentialist reasoning, such as the mathematics of utilitarian calculus, I'm thinking you'd only have the two possible categories of reasons for the deontological moral code being true: #1 either it's someone's subjective opinion or #2 it's just an intrinsic, objectively true property of the universe that the deontological moral code is true...and both of those reasons could apply to utilitarianism as well. On the other hand, so far as I can tell, utilitarianism can tell of objective moral codes at times even if deontology can't...because utilitarianism can involve equations that prove that certain moral codes achieve its goals perfectly. For example, if it does not hurt me more to have my arm torn off by a gorilla than to get a paper cut, I don't think the word "hurt" has any relevant meaning, so it must be fine to say that having my arm torn off by a gorilla definitely hurts me more than getting a paper cut. So, with that in mind let's say that it's my goal to maximize my pleasure over the course of the next thirty seconds. I have the choice of either getting a paper cut or having my arm torn off by a gorilla. With that goal in mind, if I can't say it's the objectively best decision to choose the paper cut over having my arm torn off by the gorilla...I don't know why we'd ever describe anything as objectively true...including math formulas such as 1+1 = 2. I say that because, at first glance it may seem like 1+1 = 2 is more straitforward than measuring how painful different types of pain feel...but I'd say that we have to define having my arm torn off by a gorilla as being more painful than getting a papercut for people with ordinary pain receptors or the word "pain" becomes meaningless...so really what we have is a very similar equation to our 1+1=2 equation in terms of its clarity, but with pain rather than numbers. So, in other words, while there is no reason why 1+1 can't equal 5, you'd have to change the rules of how math works for 1+1 to equal 5. Similarly, while there is no reason why getting that paper cut couldn't be described as more painful than having my arm torn off by a gorilla...you'd have to change our traditional definition of how pain works for that to be the case. That said, again, I've always been confused about what "objective" really means. I will say though that, the math equation 1+1=2 involves addition and I've gotten math addition problems before. Maybe I've added incorrectly and just don't realize it? I would say that degrees of pain are known to us in a much more primal and basic kind of way. No addition required. If things can be objective...it looks to me like if we don't consider that things can objectively be more painful than other things, or more pleasurable, I don't see how we could be being consistent. Furthermore, I wonder if you might be able to expand that concept outwards into a type of utilitarian math formula that's objective and universal as well...that just tells of the objectively best way of doing things, through utilitarian calculus, and that would not be dependent on our opinions. Through the above reasoning, I'd definitely argue that there are at least some things that are definitely better than other things. Even if that would not technically be an objective truth...I think we'd need some kind of replacement term that emphasizes that certain things are just bassicaly better than other things in every way that matters to us. The remaining question in my mind is...can these foundational concepts be expanded to encompass ideal behaviors for the whole universe? I don't know why they couldn't. This is Clint from Socratic Society, by the way. You taught me what utilitarianism and hedonism were...but I had thought up the concept of those two and hedons independently before ever realizing there were existing words for those terms, and have been thinking about that stuff for at least a decade or so now a lot. I'd be real surprised if I weren't pretty good at that stuff now and then for that reason.
Thank you so much. I understand it on your simpliest explanation. How about Plato's Theory of Forms? I struggle about this topic Maam.Need some help if you have some time.
Thank you so much. I understand it on your simpliest explanation. How about Plato's Theory of Forms? I struggle about this topic Maam.Need some help if you have some time.
really clear and FINALLY makes complete sense to me. THANK YOU
I love the new format!
I’m a student from Korea and I’m currently watching all your videos. Thanks for making highly informative contents☺️
Thank you. My friend with a degree in philosophy took over an hour to explain this difference to me, but you did it in under 10 minutes. Sub earned.
Thank you for the explanation.
Well done!
Thank you so much. I understand it on your simpliest explanation. How about Plato's Theory of Forms? I struggle about this topic Maam.Need some help if you have some time.
Thank you so much. I understand it on your explanation. How about Plato's Theory of Forms? I struggle about this topic Maam.Need some help if you have some time.
I understand it now what it is all about inthe simpliest explanation of yours.
Thank you so much🥰🥰. How about the theory or forms of plato? Need explanation about this Maam if you have time😊
Is deontology not tied to hedonism via the categorical imperative?
Deontology is not hedonistic. This is easier to see when you compare the categorical imperative (do what is your obligation) to the hypothetical imperative (do what you should given your goals); deontology tells us to follow the categorical imperative (which does not depend in any way on our goals or desires). I have a video on these other concepts (categorized on my website www.saharjoakim.net)
This baffles me.
I've long thought that utilitarianism either can or might be objective, or all moral codes must be subjective (keeping in mind I could quite possibly be incorrect).
I definitely don't see how deontology could possibly be objective though...because it doesn't seem to have any system for determining how to create the moral rules it advocates following, which suggests to me they'd have to just stem from people's opinions (or god's opinion...which I'd argue amounts to the same thing as anyone else's opinion).
With utilitarianism though...I can imagine a very scientific process involved with much of the utilitarian calculus. I frequently use the scientific method when thinking up my formulas. Plenty of things are pretty hard to prove or disprove one way or the other...but I definitely think I've proven that the moral theory of "total utilitarianism" in its most basic form cannot work if the goal is to maximize pleasure, for example, and a few other things. That's because before life exists, there is no one to gain anything from coming into existence. Therefore endlessly producing more life to try to maximize pleasure just wouldn't make any sense, given that the goal of moral codes is typically to help life...not just create arbitrary rules that don't. Another interesting realization I've figured out stemming from that view is that there is no reason to create new life unless it assists existing life (from a utilitarian/maximization of pleasure perspective)...so one important factor in the question of whether or not to create new life is definitely how good of a life that life form would likely have, but regardless of how happy of a life that life form might have, if the life form doesn't benefit previously existing life forms more than it harms them, through bringing more pleasure to them than it removes, there is no reason to create the life form. I thought up a hypothesis (that total utilitarianism is valid), engaged in an experiment to test the hypothesis, and found total utilitarianism to be flawed. For reasons like that, utilitarianism therefore seems much less arbitrary than every other moral code I can think of.
On a side note...I did think up a really interesting thought experiment that I think still follows the above rule...but in a way that gets around it a bit. I imagine a group of humans who would be impoverished if they create a genetically engineered group of superhumans who would live better lives than the humans in every way...but the superhumans don't exist yet. Also, upon their creation the super humans would be teleported into another universe and never allowed to assist their parent species. In that thought experiment, I think there would be two rational routes. You could either look at it like there is no reason to create the superhumans because they don't exist yet and therefore would benefit in no way from coming into existence...or you could look at it like the humans and superhumans are both sensory appendages of the same super organism, and the superhumans are a continuation of the original humans, and so there would be a reason to create them. I figure the answer would probably depend, literally, on just which route seems niftiest to the original humans, because neither is inherently better.
Also, there is the possibility that pleasure is produced by our feelings in quantities that are just as real and measurable as marbles in a jar...even if we can't measure them ourselves because of our inability to accurately determine the number of hedons produced by our feelings, and how they are altered by time and other variables. I would have thought that at least calling that utilitarian moral code that would determine how to truly produce the most pleasure/hedons subjective would involve making the exact same mistake as calling the number of marbles in a jar subjective, just because we haven't counted them yet.
That said, I've been confused for many years regarding what objective or subjective really mean...especially in regards to morality. I think my confusion about the difference between objective and subjective stems largely from my distrust of the word subjective. I feel like that word implies everything is dependent upon people's opinions oftentimes...whereas that's the complete opposite of how I see utilitarianism as working. In that way calling utilitarianism subjective would feel like calling the inner workings of a black hole subjective just because we don't understand it well yet (and might never...just like how we might never be able to accurately measure hedon quantities). I also have a lot of concerns that calling utilitarianism subjective would encourage people to perceive the utilitarian calculus involved in its moral codes as arbitrarily determined, which I'd say is likely never the case. There will be a lot of people who are wrong (if there is a true best way to maximize pleasure)...but they're all trying to be right.
Also, I tend to assume there is a just, flat, best way to maximize pleasure. I can't prove it, but I don't know why there would not be, because I'm pretty sure I can feel that certain things feel better or worse than other things, and I don't know how I'd be able to do that unless there were specific quantities of produced hedons I'm feeling, that are just as real as marbles in a jar...and if they're just as real as marbles in a jar, I'd think there would be a way to produce the most marbles. That's because I'm measuring my levels of feelings when I think about what things feel better or worse than other things. I don't know how I could measure things without there being some specific quantity of those things.
I actually favor Deontology broadly as a theory of morality. Because I think a crucial part of any theory of morality is it's explanatory power. Meaning does it accurately describe the human thought process when it comes to morality. The only theory that even comes close to this is Deontology. Mostly because I think morality is irreducible. Concepts like pleasure and suffering or pain don't quite capture the terms Good and Evil/Bad. Is pleasure really the only thing that's good? Most would say of course not, but I think I can even get utilitarians to admit this. And is suffering really the only thing that's bad? Surely not. Whether we like it or not, the foundations of morality are largely intuitive, to everyone, utilitarian or deontologist. There are things that simply are good or bad in themselves, that the vast majority of people wouldn't dare deny. I'm not saying this proves deontology to be 100% correct, but it certainly counts for something.
I also don't think deontology is as inflexible as people say it is. Personally, I don't think we need to completely ignore consideration of the consequences of our actions, we can definitly factor that in. But it's secondary whether we realize it or not. An intuition comes first always. Just like we have the intuition that we can trust our sense data to allow us to perceive the world accurately, we have an intuition that certain things like human flourishing are good in themselves. And we have literally no reason to not trust these intuitions. To not trust it, would lead to absurdity and contradiction.
Yeah...I think you're incorrect, Dr. J.
Either utilitarianism could be objective, or deontology must always be subjective, so far as I can tell.
This is because if the system of rules deontology claims to be the objectively good/universal system of rules can be just objectively good because that's how the nature of the universe works...we can say the exact same thing about some enormous utilitarian calculus math formula that strives to maximize pleasure. If there doesn't need to be some argument for why X is true aside from "it just is," then X can be literally anything...such as that utilitarian math formula...and with systems like deontology that determine what is correct based on rules rather than consequences, there is no way to argue deontology is correct aside from it simply being so because it is an inherent quality of the universe, or because it is someone's subjective opinion, so far as I can tell...perhaps unless the deontology in question is used as part of some consequentialist moral code. Then you might have more pathways for moral objective truths...but without consequentialist reasoning, such as the mathematics of utilitarian calculus, I'm thinking you'd only have the two possible categories of reasons for the deontological moral code being true: #1 either it's someone's subjective opinion or #2 it's just an intrinsic, objectively true property of the universe that the deontological moral code is true...and both of those reasons could apply to utilitarianism as well.
On the other hand, so far as I can tell, utilitarianism can tell of objective moral codes at times even if deontology can't...because utilitarianism can involve equations that prove that certain moral codes achieve its goals perfectly. For example, if it does not hurt me more to have my arm torn off by a gorilla than to get a paper cut, I don't think the word "hurt" has any relevant meaning, so it must be fine to say that having my arm torn off by a gorilla definitely hurts me more than getting a paper cut. So, with that in mind let's say that it's my goal to maximize my pleasure over the course of the next thirty seconds. I have the choice of either getting a paper cut or having my arm torn off by a gorilla. With that goal in mind, if I can't say it's the objectively best decision to choose the paper cut over having my arm torn off by the gorilla...I don't know why we'd ever describe anything as objectively true...including math formulas such as 1+1 = 2. I say that because, at first glance it may seem like 1+1 = 2 is more straitforward than measuring how painful different types of pain feel...but I'd say that we have to define having my arm torn off by a gorilla as being more painful than getting a papercut for people with ordinary pain receptors or the word "pain" becomes meaningless...so really what we have is a very similar equation to our 1+1=2 equation in terms of its clarity, but with pain rather than numbers. So, in other words, while there is no reason why 1+1 can't equal 5, you'd have to change the rules of how math works for 1+1 to equal 5. Similarly, while there is no reason why getting that paper cut couldn't be described as more painful than having my arm torn off by a gorilla...you'd have to change our traditional definition of how pain works for that to be the case.
That said, again, I've always been confused about what "objective" really means. I will say though that, the math equation 1+1=2 involves addition and I've gotten math addition problems before. Maybe I've added incorrectly and just don't realize it? I would say that degrees of pain are known to us in a much more primal and basic kind of way. No addition required. If things can be objective...it looks to me like if we don't consider that things can objectively be more painful than other things, or more pleasurable, I don't see how we could be being consistent.
Furthermore, I wonder if you might be able to expand that concept outwards into a type of utilitarian math formula that's objective and universal as well...that just tells of the objectively best way of doing things, through utilitarian calculus, and that would not be dependent on our opinions. Through the above reasoning, I'd definitely argue that there are at least some things that are definitely better than other things. Even if that would not technically be an objective truth...I think we'd need some kind of replacement term that emphasizes that certain things are just bassicaly better than other things in every way that matters to us. The remaining question in my mind is...can these foundational concepts be expanded to encompass ideal behaviors for the whole universe? I don't know why they couldn't.
This is Clint from Socratic Society, by the way. You taught me what utilitarianism and hedonism were...but I had thought up the concept of those two and hedons independently before ever realizing there were existing words for those terms, and have been thinking about that stuff for at least a decade or so now a lot. I'd be real surprised if I weren't pretty good at that stuff now and then for that reason.
WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT HOLD UP, ARE you writing backwards with your left hand. wow thats crazy
Hi, it’s an e-glass lightboard that it mirroring everything. I’m writing with my right hand in English :)
oh wow thats cool, very high tech. thanks for clarifying and thanks for the video really helpful@@saharjoakim
Western Civilization has been a lifesaver for humanity. At the same time," There Will Be Blood".😅
Thank you so much. I understand it on your simpliest explanation. How about Plato's Theory of Forms? I struggle about this topic Maam.Need some help if you have some time.
Thank you so much. I understand it on your simpliest explanation. How about Plato's Theory of Forms? I struggle about this topic Maam.Need some help if you have some time.