Agent Centered Deontology (Intent and Action Based Theories)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ต.ค. 2024
- An explication of Agent Centered Deontology, agent relative obligations, Intent based theories of agent centered deontology, action based theories of agent centered deontology, and combinations of the two. Also including the doctrine of double effect, and the doctrine of doing and allowing.
Sponsors: João Costa Neto, Dakota Jones, Joe Felix, Prince Otchere, Mike Samuel, Daniel Helland, Dennis Sexton, Yu Saburi, Mauricino Andrade, Will Roberts and √2. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
Brilliant, thank you for this great instruction, c
overing issues underlying so many big decisions, not only political choices but also general ones about 'how to live well'
Thanks!
What about the control theory of agency that removes the distinction between causing and lack of intervention?
It is impossible to say that you, in particular, not donating to a particular charity for example, has any affect on a stranger's outcome, due to the multitude of forces at work in the world and your own actions accounting for very little of it in aggregate. However, you could point to your actions affecting the outcome of someone you often interact with personally, since your acts are more focused, there are less transactions costs, and it is easier to see what is happening because you are there rather than relying on a proxy. Also, negative things happening nearer to you will generally have a greater impact on you; so to keep your own life in order, it would benefit you more to take on local problems, preferentially.
4:50 intent & aquinas natural laws (doctrine of double effect)
HEY CARNADES, Inspiringphilosophy has made a video where he tried to debunk YOUR argument against logic. PLEASE make a video response to him as his objection is so bad it needs to be debunked. If you dont, I’ll make it myself to debunk him, the video is called “the laws of logic defended”
Good video. Imo, if said doctor's intent was to save his patients instead of killing them, then the doctor is certainly incompetent, but not evil. Everyone ought to agree that he ought to have his license taken away, though not because he is a murderer, but because he is bad at being a doctor. Although the families and friends of his patients may FEEL otherwise, I do not think one can make a case for putting the doctor in prison or executing him for murder without proving malicious intent. Likewise, I don't think the politician who """serves""" her community because she seeks her own glorification really be held up as an upstanding moral citizen. We've all encountered someone who's been praised a few too many times in their life and as a result has an inflated ego, and more often then not we do not enjoy the company of said person or wish to emulate them. A religious person might say that she is damming herself through her excess pride, self-vanity, narcissism, etc. A secularist/humanist might feel that the world would be a rotten place if it were filled with rotten people like her. Anyway, I'm rambling now, but those are my two cents. Again: great channel, great video.
If a person is doing good for the game then the person is using the good as a means to an end, their fame.
15:00 Omit, Enable, Allow Redirect Accerarate . No, No, No. If it is against the law, moral rules. Deontolgy =NO EXCUSES! 🤔😏😊
So, is an Agent Centered Deontologist someone who thinks the rules of morality only apply to people she has a special relationship with?
I don't think relationships are the only governing factor, nor is someone's agent-centred ethics their only source of ethics. I'm new to this but I think it's supposed to mark the part of your ethical obligations that are limited by, or arise due to who you are. Many of those things will be a question of 'who am I responsible for?', which may or may not be governed by relationships, but also might be situational: 'I'm too ill to go work at the soup kitchen today'; or your role in society: 'I'm doing this particular job so I'm going to do it as well as I can.' Maybe even 'I'm of a superior race so I need to breed and protect our bloodlines.'
Someone correct me if I'm getting the wrong picture.
not really, most agent-centred deontologists would say that you generally have obligations towards all humans, but you have *even more* obligations to your friends, your family, etc. for example, they could say that you are never allowed to lie to someone, but lying to your friends is even worse.
thank you too much