The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe - "Ethics" eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe4 The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics & Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
Rule utilitarianism is there to make it easier to apply and maximize the utility of its pain and pleasure system. - Why should those rule be absolute? → This just leads to situations, where those rules actually lead to a greater amount of pain. - Why not make general rules that only apply to situations and their context? → This addresses the issue of situations that fail to maximize the utility. → The only condition for this "situation based rule set" to work, is for it to be pragmatic enough, that everyone can follow this rule set.
You guys are AMAZING!!! I am a philosophy minor and your videos always help clarify the theories and concepts that philosopher's seem to delight in making impossible to understand. I just wanted to thank you for all of your hard work and the fantastic information you provide, you have been a life-saver when it comes to papers and essays...honestly, when I get my degree, it should have all three of our names! Thanks George and John, for every single video you have done, you are both making the world a better place (something we desperately need right now)
You will never be confronted with a situation in which you know for certain there are 10 doctors and 10 laymen that you have to choose between. The chances of that are slimmer than the possibility of dream not cheating. This is why I follow the principle of "overall saving a life is by default good and can only become bad if additional information is given to you that proves that saving that life is bad".
@@frorproductions5571 Like in monster, where the desicion of the doctor to save the kid instead of the mayor ends up badly when that kid becomes an assassin. And you could end up in a situation like that, just not so extreme. For example, imagine if a doctor is with a laymen for his medical check, then the building catches fire. Both run in opposite directions and you as a firefighter can only go one way to save one of them. Maybe it is not a common situation but it isn't ridiculous to think that something like that could happen.
@@Samuel-qc7kg Except thing is here: you are already likely provided the information which is the layman and which is the doctor considering he is probably wearing a professional suit. EDIT: first paragraph dismissed because as far as I'm aware that wasnt actually real.
This is how arguments and counter-arguments should be presented. My professor just rants for 20 minutes and it's nearly impossible to map or divide his thoughts into arguments and counterarguments because it feels like a salad of ideas
You guys definetly make it more comprehensible and easier to grasp and understand ethics. I love how your videos don't just explain ethics but they also point the flaws of these ethical theories. I'd take you guys over Crash Course Philosophy, actually. Keep up the good work!
The problem with the thought experiment you brought up about the sadists is that it erased the wider context within which the sadists are torturing the person. Since most people aren’t sadists, not enforcing a law preventing sadists from torturing people would make most people in society afraid of being tortured by sadists. This amount of suffering would be far greater than the pleasure gained by the sadists in their torturing of the person.
I imagine that this though experience assumes a "universe" in which "sadists" are the majority in society. Which would mean that the amount of "pleasure" gained is greater than the amount of "pain".
I loved this. I feel like I could talk with you guys for hours. Another utilitarian argument focuses more on suffering. That is weighing up the suffering, vs the pleasure gained, then doing the calculation to see what action wins. You also expand the circle of concern to all meaningful stakeholders. So take the sadist beating up the guy (Geoff). 10 sadists are happy, Geoff is very unhappy. Also are there other people like Geoff’s family and friends who wouldn’t like him beaten up. That increase the suffering further. Maybe society at large doesn’t like the idea of this, because they wouldn’t want to be the victim in this circumstance, and hence the suffering continues further. Then you do total pleasure vs. total pain. It seems this calculus would come out with don’t beat up Geoff. I feel like you can do this to apply against all situations, and come out with consistently the best results, vs. other moral frameworks.
@@scoogsy The thing is: People have different, subjective experiences of suffering. You can't put yourself in someone else's shoes because you aren't them. The best thing this does is a very, very, very rough estimation which can be so rough that it borders on useless. I would totally be down to lose a foot in order to get an extra hand, but a professional runner would never take that opportunity.
@@N19N90N9 it is very rough, but you still use reason, it’s plausible and maps to reality. A lot people who think about utilitarianism struggle with this aspect early on, until they realise they make these approximations all the time. Why would the runner not want their foot gone, why wouldn’t they rather their hand like you? How could you make such a claim? Easily, because you simply imagined a runner who loves running enough to sacrifice a hand. That’s how straight forward this is. I imagine that doesn’t fully clear things up for you, so feel free to ask more questions 😊
I’ve seen your videos before. It is a good philosophical discourse. I’m not saying I agree with everything, but I love the organization. It has helped me in my ministry. I pray for your Salvation, Encouragement, and Blessing on your Endeavors as you stay with God! Be Encouraged! You are doing something I have not been able to do! There are analytical individuals that don’t just believe God by Faith, but have a more rational mind, not less intelligent, but need better explanations. I am using your videos for that purpose! May none be lost! Be blessed!
"...and then you run into the same issues as act and rule utilitarianism... OK THEN! that's all the time we have for now..." :) So we're left with, there is no such thing as a free lunch or answer to our most challenging ethical questions (aka, it's all subjective)
Picking the objective that it maximizes the greatest amount of happiness itself is subjective. It has to be subjective anyway. I think the problem is if we are able to make our actions consistent based on some simple axioms, rather than wondering if moral code can be objective.
@@daviswen7839 I really don't understand why there is doubt about the existence of moral objectivity. I am sincerely confused regarding this. This is not to say that there is no subjective moralitu but that there is some that is objective like cold blooded murder and some that is subjective.
For the drowning example methinks you should go for the one. This is coming from a quondam lifeguard. You're more likely to be drowned yourself if two people are clinging onto you. Methinks that you could also get all three depending on the distance [but every ethical dilemma problem has cop outs & I know that's not the purpose of the exercise]
This is a great video, you all do a great job. I have an observation, not sure I'm accurate or not. It seems to me, that everytime Utilitarianism is "caught" being contradictory they back track, or come up with a new view refuting the contradiction. For me, I think Mills is especially guilt of that.
Hello, utilitarian here. I'll share my thoughts on this topic and respond to some objections. First opinion, "utilitarianism" is a normative moral theory in itself. The labels act, rule, soft rule and preference are a part of how will utilitarianism be applied to most successfully achieve this goal, aka, part of practical ethics. Second opinion, on the moto "the greatest good for the greatest number" seems pretty unprecise. When I define it, I say it like this: let n be a number of all people. Let a1, a2... an be measures of pleasures and pains of each person, caused by an act/set of acts (when encountering pain, it is notified as a negative measure of pleasure of course). Utilitarian goal is to maximize a1+a2+...an. This makes a difference 0:47 I'd like to say something about the following graph. Idk if the author believes that's how every moral choice here goes in here or simplifies it, but it can be deceiving in a way and I wanna clear it up. Third opinion: it's a false dichotomy. When faced with a decision, there are uncountably infinite choices. It isn't that simple. And, how do you expect that a moral code based on pleasure and pain, the quality which can appear in so many different degrees, have "right" and "wrong" choices? There may be "most right" and "most wrong" choices, but really there is a lot of gray area in between. Here we go with objections 3:15 ah, the "what if". Let's say I pick up a hand-sized rock and drop it on the floor. What if it cracks the earth? You're connecting the unconnectable, so this objection is dismissed. But if there was such a situation, then act utilitarianism as it is applied wouldn't solve it. But a better choice for an objection, tho stale, would be the "Trolley problem" 3:38 and 3:54 since when does applicability strictly imply truthfulness? Also here's a little argument for you since you want to take advantage of utilitarian ambiguity. -Ignorance is an incapability -you can't blame a person for being incapable to do what's "right" 5:07 opinion 4: as for his division, I agree that some "pleasures" are higher than others and the bully-victim objection is therefore resolved, but I disagree with his categorical thinking. It's still a part of the same scale. Just wanted to clarify that 6:38 "let's suppose" lol ok. But yea, it can't work ALL the time 7:20 hmmmmm not quite, but you make a point. Here are my views: if faced with a choice, "A or B", then act upon act utilitarianism logic (like the save the most peeps problem- you should save someone, and to make the rightest choice, do the most directly pleasurable thing, at least as it seems to be working. There may be exceptions but over time there can't be a lot of exceptions, so go with thy gut) But an exception, when faced with decisions like the Trolley problem, or the situation "A or ~A" where one act is a matter of changing the course of the bad that's already happening (you get the picture), then act upon Rule utilitarianism. This resolves the beating problem, the trolley problem, the organ problem and all these that are really same gifts, different boxes. For example, the organ problem, you should not extract the organs of one person to save five because in the end it won't give the most pleasure, and who would live in a society that does that unconditionally? But, there are exceptions in this exception as well. Exception #1- if the person consents, or offers someone who would consent (then perform A upon that other person) Exception #2- if not doing A threatens literally every living being in the universe Exception #3- if the person you are about to do A or not do A upon caused the situation (like, in the organ problem, if the patient spread a disease among other patients that made their organs disfunction, then that person should be responsible for them and have their organs extracted even without their consent) 8:04 I disagree with preference utilitarianism (leans too much on moral relativism if you get me) but this is a pointless objection. Again, practicality does not strictly imply truthfulness I hope you find my comment somewhat worthy of reading :)
im a utalateranist as well but i do have a question how can we say that a sadist is wrong to kill when in relativism it's all subjective or opinion for instance the hitler regime he did what he thought gave pleasure to his society !
A lot of criticisms of Bentham seem to me to be a bit harsh. For example, the sadists bullying someone. Since utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that maximises utility, it seems very unlikely that allowing a group of sadists to bully someone is the act that most maximises utility. It seems likely that there would be alternative actions that would produce more utility in that moment than the act of bullying
5:30 - I'm sceptical that appealing to "high" pleasures of the mind and "low" pleasures of the body necessarily solves the problem of the sadistic torturers. Could you not argue that the pleasure the sadistic torturers IS a pleasure of the mind? It's not a physical pleasure like food or sex; it is a pleasure entirely in their mind.
Nice video. The 'greatest good to greatest number' is misleading. If the smaller number of people whose happiness is not increased lose much more than the greater number gains, the action would not be morally right. Perhaps, the essence of this theory should be to look at the greatest 'overall good' for all affected. When a group size is small, it is not a difficult to make a decision but the decision may need to be subjected to logic to see whether it makes sense I guess while also trying to find ways to minimize the pain of the few.
Seems to me the ethical debate generally starts with a questionable premise - that ethics/morality is fundamentally best seen as a proscriptive determination of what 'should be' rather than a descriptive determination of 'what is'. The proscriptive approach intellectualises what is best, how we should think, feel, and behave towards others. The descriptive approach notes that we do tend to think, feel and behave in ways that care about others and seeks to understand why.
Maybe we shouldn't focus on pleasure but instead focus on reducing pain. We all have some pain. Pain is unavoidable. Maybe the best belief is reducing the most amount of pain to the most amount of beings. Since its not focused on pleasure, a sadists ideas won't be considered.
My solution to the torture example: Instead of looking at the situation as a whole, let's look from a perspective of a single torturer. If a single person gets more pleasure from his few punches than those harm the person who's beeing tortured, then it's fine. Right? No. He has other, more moral ways to get this pleasure. Therefore, it's moral, but it's a wrong decision. More hard version of this example: There's a single torturer who's streaming the torture for millions to see. Let's look from a perspective of a viewer. He is causing no harm, but his act of watching makes torturing more moral for the torturer. Same story, different package. Since a viewer can do something more moral to get this happiness, he should quit. Every viewer quits, torture becomes immoral. I am probably wrong, it can't be that nobody has thought of this before me. If you know how to debunk this, please.
in my opinion even act utilitarianism would advocate against 10 sadists beating up 1 person as while the extent (10 persons vs 1) goes to the sadists most other aspects advocate against sadists: -intensity: obviously someones pain, sadness and fear from beaing beaten up is far greater than mere happiness of beating someone up so here point goes against sadists -duration: sadists will gain pleasure from this for as long as they continue to beat someone up, however victim will be traumatize for the rest of their life so again point against sadists -certainty: difrent person that qualify as sadists take pleasure from inflicting pain in difrent ways so you cannot quarantee(unless you know all 10 sadists) that all of them will take joy in this action, meanwhile you can be 100% sure that the person being beaten up will suffer so yet another point against sadists -fecundity: just like with duration-sadists will feel joy only when they will be being that person up; meanwhile the person will be traumatize for their entire life, thus reducing his further happiness as they will from this point onward have harder time interacting with other humans creating various problems. So another point against sadists So overall 4 points go against sadists and only 1(extent) go for sadists
I think Utilitarianism is... well, excuse me for using a bad word, but I think it's stupid. It seems to me that almost everyone already wants the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And they did for a very long time before the Utilitarians came upon the scene. For example, the idea in Medieval Europe was that everyone was caring for everyone else in their own way: the knights fought, the peasants labored and the monks prayed (and philosophized) -- all for the good of the entire society. That was the idea. With the benefit of hindsight, of course, we can see many ways of improving upon the Medieval model, but the intent was something very much like, if not actually identical to, the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. Where the utilitarians go wrong is by catastrophically underestimating the complexity of the task. Their simple-minded would-be solutions just get waste everyone's time and get in the way of more serious thinkers.
*"you can do any thing you want just do not harm anybody"* This one is problematic on a society level. It makes any form of punishment immoral, along with any form of self defense or defense of another. Of course, I quite like it as a "rule of thumb" to go by, with exceptions for extreme situations.
Robin Dude this idea was said in the already existence of the idea of harm being played out. Yet if there was a reset button and no body experienced or knew of harm then that could be a different story.
"You can do any thing you want just do not harm anybody" - Necrophilia? (sex with corpses) - Voyeurism? (spying on people change without their knowledge) EDIT: I wouldn't actually do this. I was just wondering whether these would be permissible under this rule.
3:02 no because you could argue That there are certain types of evils or pain that transcend any possible amount of pleasure Saving someone from certain death is certainly more important than 8billion people being cheated on by their spouses
2:21 I ABHOR Utilitarianism, but if I could go back in time and that chap were Bentham, I would be very tempted to make an exception and let him and his callous idiocy of a ‘philosophy’ drown.
That's a scary conclusion. A even more frightening question : can any system of morality take into account chaos theory? If not, does it mean that nothing at all matters?
Utilitarianism is a dangerous contradiction. Mill pointed out that the greatest moral good begins with the individual. A society of virtuous individual naturally translates to the greatest pood. However, at the same time there is no virtue in self sacrifice. Its murky and grossly inconsistent to presume it could possibly deliver on its promise.for the greatest possible good. Haphazardly perhaps and in smaller numbers a more viable application.
My friends , do not complicate life with tortious example . Amoeba will recoil from an electric shock( pain) and will relish a yeast (pleasure); very primitive yet
Of course. It is a moral theory without foundation. Its famous maxim is "the ends justify the means" which simply means anything is possible as long as you desire a certain end.
It has some good aspects to it, but it's overall flawed. What you and I find morally right, might be morally wrong to another. Sure killing 1 person to save 10 lives sounds great, but that 1 life could be the only daughter of a single mother. The mother is devastated and torn that her daughter is now dead. She now suffers more pain than the 10 people who lived and experienced pleasure.
Another thought experiment could also be that the 1 person whose life you saved was a doctor and the 10 lives you saved where murders. With out any knowledge of the lives these people lived. You inherently thought you're actions were morally correct as you brough the maxim happiness possible
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe - "Ethics" eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe4
The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics & Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
Rule utilitarianism is there to make it easier to apply and maximize the utility of its pain and pleasure system.
- Why should those rule be absolute?
→ This just leads to situations, where those rules actually lead to a greater amount of pain.
- Why not make general rules that only apply to situations and their context?
→ This addresses the issue of situations that fail to maximize the utility.
→ The only condition for this "situation based rule set" to work, is for it to be pragmatic enough, that everyone can follow this rule set.
You guys are AMAZING!!! I am a philosophy minor and your videos always help clarify the theories and concepts that philosopher's seem to delight in making impossible to understand. I just wanted to thank you for all of your hard work and the fantastic information you provide, you have been a life-saver when it comes to papers and essays...honestly, when I get my degree, it should have all three of our names! Thanks George and John, for every single video you have done, you are both making the world a better place (something we desperately need right now)
So lovely to read this. Delighted that this channel has helped you in your studies. Wishing you the best of luck in your philosophy course.
The table is always flipping when the two of you exchange ideas. This channel deserves more recognition!
Thank you!
“Oh no, I have to choose between saving 10 drowning doctors and saving 10 drowning laymen. Lemme pull out my hedonic calculator real quick.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You will never be confronted with a situation in which you know for certain there are 10 doctors and 10 laymen that you have to choose between. The chances of that are slimmer than the possibility of dream not cheating. This is why I follow the principle of "overall saving a life is by default good and can only become bad if additional information is given to you that proves that saving that life is bad".
@@frorproductions5571 Like in monster, where the desicion of the doctor to save the kid instead of the mayor ends up badly when that kid becomes an assassin.
And you could end up in a situation like that, just not so extreme. For example, imagine if a doctor is with a laymen for his medical check, then the building catches fire. Both run in opposite directions and you as a firefighter can only go one way to save one of them. Maybe it is not a common situation but it isn't ridiculous to think that something like that could happen.
@@Samuel-qc7kg Except thing is here: you are already likely provided the information which is the layman and which is the doctor considering he is probably wearing a professional suit.
EDIT: first paragraph dismissed because as far as I'm aware that wasnt actually real.
@@frorproductions5571 No, it wasn't. It was from monster, I just pointed it out because it is a similar case.
This is how arguments and counter-arguments should be presented. My professor just rants for 20 minutes and it's nearly impossible to map or divide his thoughts into arguments and counterarguments because it feels like a salad of ideas
He probably doesn't know himself how to sort out the arguments and follow the common thread.
This is one of the most underrated channels ever
Thank you :D
Finally! A video on Utilitarianism I have been looking for.
You guys definetly make it more comprehensible and easier to grasp and understand ethics. I love how your videos don't just explain ethics but they also point the flaws of these ethical theories. I'd take you guys over Crash Course Philosophy, actually. Keep up the good work!
Finally!! I’ve been through 11 videos and still could not understand and this video made it clear in a sequential manner. Thank you!!!!
This channel is absolutely amazing , amazing clarification and I love the back to back arguments about the theories!
really well done, covered exactly what is needed for my course thank you
Glad you found it useful.
Hopefully your course is free :( This is a fantasic video btw! :)
The problem with the thought experiment you brought up about the sadists is that it erased the wider context within which the sadists are torturing the person. Since most people aren’t sadists, not enforcing a law preventing sadists from torturing people would make most people in society afraid of being tortured by sadists. This amount of suffering would be far greater than the pleasure gained by the sadists in their torturing of the person.
I imagine that this though experience assumes a "universe" in which "sadists" are the majority in society.
Which would mean that the amount of "pleasure" gained is greater than the amount of "pain".
pretty much wrote my essay for me! Thank you so much, guys!
Glad we could help, best of luck in the essay :)
haha hi jasper thanks for recommending this
@@niicoleeve lol hello
Best description ever ❤️✅
Thank you very much :)
Great video, I love that you guys had arguments and examples from both side.
Thank you, happy you found the video useful.
love this video, it explains everything in details with reasoning arguments that makes it easy to understand everything
Glad you like the content :)
I loved this. I feel like I could talk with you guys for hours.
Another utilitarian argument focuses more on suffering. That is weighing up the suffering, vs the pleasure gained, then doing the calculation to see what action wins.
You also expand the circle of concern to all meaningful stakeholders.
So take the sadist beating up the guy (Geoff). 10 sadists are happy, Geoff is very unhappy. Also are there other people like Geoff’s family and friends who wouldn’t like him beaten up. That increase the suffering further. Maybe society at large doesn’t like the idea of this, because they wouldn’t want to be the victim in this circumstance, and hence the suffering continues further.
Then you do total pleasure vs. total pain. It seems this calculus would come out with don’t beat up Geoff.
I feel like you can do this to apply against all situations, and come out with consistently the best results, vs. other moral frameworks.
Thank you. And great point!
how do you even calculate someone's suffering?
@@N19N90N9 one way could be to imagine you are in the position of the person suffering, and imagine how bad that would be.
@@scoogsy The thing is: People have different, subjective experiences of suffering. You can't put yourself in someone else's shoes because you aren't them. The best thing this does is a very, very, very rough estimation which can be so rough that it borders on useless. I would totally be down to lose a foot in order to get an extra hand, but a professional runner would never take that opportunity.
@@N19N90N9 it is very rough, but you still use reason, it’s plausible and maps to reality. A lot people who think about utilitarianism struggle with this aspect early on, until they realise they make these approximations all the time.
Why would the runner not want their foot gone, why wouldn’t they rather their hand like you? How could you make such a claim?
Easily, because you simply imagined a runner who loves running enough to sacrifice a hand. That’s how straight forward this is.
I imagine that doesn’t fully clear things up for you, so feel free to ask more questions 😊
Absolutely amazing 🤩, very easy and simple to understand. thanks for making such complicated topic as simple as possible! Well done guys! Thanks a lot
You're welcome, thank you for watching!
I’ve seen your videos before. It is a good philosophical discourse. I’m not saying I agree with everything, but I love the organization. It has helped me in my ministry. I pray for your Salvation, Encouragement, and Blessing on your Endeavors as you stay with God! Be Encouraged! You are doing something I have not been able to do! There are analytical individuals that don’t just believe God by Faith, but have a more rational mind, not less intelligent, but need better explanations. I am using your videos for that purpose! May none be lost! Be blessed!
8:35 The guy on the left raises some valid points. The other one ‘Yeah… Unfortunately, we’ve run out of time…’ 😄
Thanks for the fantastic content as always.
I would love to see a part 2 of this going in some more detail if possible.
Thank you
Glad you enjoyed, happy to revisit Utilitarianism at some point, but it is not currently on the list as there's so many other topics in the pipeline.
Wow, thank you so much for the video. It answered all my questions and I actually enjoyed it. Easy to understand.
Glad you found it useful, thanks for watching.
Animation looks great guys, glad your back
+muncleike Thank you :)
"...and then you run into the same issues as act and rule utilitarianism...
OK THEN! that's all the time we have for now..."
:)
So we're left with, there is no such thing as a free lunch or answer to our most challenging ethical questions (aka, it's all subjective)
Picking the objective that it maximizes the greatest amount of happiness itself is subjective. It has to be subjective anyway. I think the problem is if we are able to make our actions consistent based on some simple axioms, rather than wondering if moral code can be objective.
@@daviswen7839 I really don't understand why there is doubt about the existence of moral objectivity. I am sincerely confused regarding this. This is not to say that there is no subjective moralitu but that there is some that is objective like cold blooded murder and some that is subjective.
thank you for giving a good explanation with great examples!
You're welcome. Thank you for watching.
I love the other guy who always contradicts... His arguments are soooo good 😍🤩
Thank you 😀
Prescriptively flawed, but descriptively valid that we like pleasure and dislike pain
This is amazing for A level RS or a level Philosophy
Thanks, glad you find it useful :)
thank you so much philosophy vibe. Your videos helps me a lot when studying
Glad we can help :)
For the drowning example methinks you should go for the one. This is coming from a quondam lifeguard. You're more likely to be drowned yourself if two people are clinging onto you. Methinks that you could also get all three depending on the distance [but every ethical dilemma problem has cop outs & I know that's not the purpose of the exercise]
if you don't have a boat haha
By far the best video on Philosophy out of all that I have watched before.
Thank you so much! Glad you like the videos :)
@@PhilosophyVibe Great job buddy! Keep it up.
This is a great video, you all do a great job. I have an observation, not sure I'm accurate or not. It seems to me, that everytime Utilitarianism is "caught" being contradictory they back track, or come up with a new view refuting the contradiction. For me, I think Mills is especially guilt of that.
1:50 Act Utilitarianism
4:33 Rule Utilitarianims
Well explained. It helped me a lot in understanding the position of utilitarianism.
Glad we could help!
Hello, utilitarian here. I'll share my thoughts on this topic and respond to some objections.
First opinion, "utilitarianism" is a normative moral theory in itself. The labels act, rule, soft rule and preference are a part of how will utilitarianism be applied to most successfully achieve this goal, aka, part of practical ethics.
Second opinion, on the moto "the greatest good for the greatest number" seems pretty unprecise. When I define it, I say it like this: let n be a number of all people. Let a1, a2... an be measures of pleasures and pains of each person, caused by an act/set of acts (when encountering pain, it is notified as a negative measure of pleasure of course). Utilitarian goal is to maximize a1+a2+...an. This makes a difference
0:47 I'd like to say something about the following graph. Idk if the author believes that's how every moral choice here goes in here or simplifies it, but it can be deceiving in a way and I wanna clear it up. Third opinion: it's a false dichotomy. When faced with a decision, there are uncountably infinite choices. It isn't that simple. And, how do you expect that a moral code based on pleasure and pain, the quality which can appear in so many different degrees, have "right" and "wrong" choices? There may be "most right" and "most wrong" choices, but really there is a lot of gray area in between.
Here we go with objections
3:15 ah, the "what if". Let's say I pick up a hand-sized rock and drop it on the floor. What if it cracks the earth? You're connecting the unconnectable, so this objection is dismissed. But if there was such a situation, then act utilitarianism as it is applied wouldn't solve it. But a better choice for an objection, tho stale, would be the "Trolley problem"
3:38 and 3:54 since when does applicability strictly imply truthfulness?
Also here's a little argument for you since you want to take advantage of utilitarian ambiguity.
-Ignorance is an incapability
-you can't blame a person for being incapable to do what's "right"
5:07 opinion 4: as for his division, I agree that some "pleasures" are higher than others and the bully-victim objection is therefore resolved, but I disagree with his categorical thinking. It's still a part of the same scale. Just wanted to clarify that
6:38 "let's suppose" lol ok. But yea, it can't work ALL the time
7:20 hmmmmm not quite, but you make a point.
Here are my views: if faced with a choice, "A or B", then act upon act utilitarianism logic (like the save the most peeps problem- you should save someone, and to make the rightest choice, do the most directly pleasurable thing, at least as it seems to be working. There may be exceptions but over time there can't be a lot of exceptions, so go with thy gut)
But an exception, when faced with decisions like the Trolley problem, or the situation "A or ~A" where one act is a matter of changing the course of the bad that's already happening (you get the picture), then act upon Rule utilitarianism. This resolves the beating problem, the trolley problem, the organ problem and all these that are really same gifts, different boxes. For example, the organ problem, you should not extract the organs of one person to save five because in the end it won't give the most pleasure, and who would live in a society that does that unconditionally?
But, there are exceptions in this exception as well.
Exception #1- if the person consents, or offers someone who would consent (then perform A upon that other person)
Exception #2- if not doing A threatens literally every living being in the universe
Exception #3- if the person you are about to do A or not do A upon caused the situation
(like, in the organ problem, if the patient spread a disease among other patients that made their organs disfunction, then that person should be responsible for them and have their organs extracted even without their consent)
8:04 I disagree with preference utilitarianism (leans too much on moral relativism if you get me) but this is a pointless objection. Again, practicality does not strictly imply truthfulness
I hope you find my comment somewhat worthy of reading :)
@@uwuchiller lel
God bless you, i am to see you comment that's help me with my assignment
@@uwuchiller nope i dont beleive in flying horses
im a utalateranist as well but i do have a question
how can we say that a sadist is wrong to kill when in relativism it's all subjective or opinion
for instance the hitler regime
he did what he thought gave pleasure to his society !
A lot of criticisms of Bentham seem to me to be a bit harsh. For example, the sadists bullying someone. Since utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that maximises utility, it seems very unlikely that allowing a group of sadists to bully someone is the act that most maximises utility. It seems likely that there would be alternative actions that would produce more utility in that moment than the act of bullying
This channel is amazing & has put things into perspective for me … thank you!
Our pleasure, glad you like the content.
5:30 - I'm sceptical that appealing to "high" pleasures of the mind and "low" pleasures of the body necessarily solves the problem of the sadistic torturers. Could you not argue that the pleasure the sadistic torturers IS a pleasure of the mind? It's not a physical pleasure like food or sex; it is a pleasure entirely in their mind.
Thank you for this, God bless you
You’re welcome 😊 thank you for watching.
Thank for explaining with great narrative again. Can you make a video on Prima Facie Duty and Virtue Ethics?
Thank you for the recommendation, we will look into it.
Nice video. The 'greatest good to greatest number' is misleading. If the smaller number of people whose happiness is not increased lose much more than the greater number gains, the action would not be morally right. Perhaps, the essence of this theory should be to look at the greatest 'overall good' for all affected. When a group size is small, it is not a difficult to make a decision but the decision may need to be subjected to logic to see whether it makes sense I guess while also trying to find ways to minimize the pain of the few.
when the psycho comes to the door - dont answer it
You don't know who is at the door until you answer it so this objection is invalid.
Tell the truth, and disallow them their action; man-up utilitarianism.
@@johnsmith1474 exactly, tell the truth then slam the door and call the cops
i absolutely love this channel
Thank you!
Seems to me the ethical debate generally starts with a questionable premise - that ethics/morality is fundamentally best seen as a proscriptive determination of what 'should be' rather than a descriptive determination of 'what is'.
The proscriptive approach intellectualises what is best, how we should think, feel, and behave towards others.
The descriptive approach notes that we do tend to think, feel and behave in ways that care about others and seeks to understand why.
Explained very clearly.
Awesome job because it's literally free give away 😊 Also effective content.
Thank you, glad you like the content :)
@@PhilosophyVibe best channel so far that I have subscribed to in education field.🙏
And what of the Kantian categorical imperative ? Why can you integrate the RULE utilaritism?????
Thanks for the great video!!! Missing the old drawing tho lol !
+mochi milk Its a pleasure. Ah sorry, just thought the characters needed to evolve.
this will be very useful for my report
Glad you find it useful. Best of luck in the report.
glad my teacher shows us your videos in class
Great teacher :D
Thank you so much ❤️
Pleasure, thank you for watching.
When you don't have time to calculate utilitarianism, moral intuition is the only right logical step
Which would usually include the amount of people.
Guys the website is not there, what is your new website. I am interested in buying your e-books
Awsome explanation💪
Thank you 😀
Absolutely brilliant, well-made video. :)
Thank you very much.
THANK YOU
You're welcome.
thank youuu
Love these videos - thanks
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
Maybe we shouldn't focus on pleasure but instead focus on reducing pain. We all have some pain. Pain is unavoidable. Maybe the best belief is reducing the most amount of pain to the most amount of beings. Since its not focused on pleasure, a sadists ideas won't be considered.
Rule utilitarianism is an ethical principle that recognize the necessity for rules that are created for the greater good of the many
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few
My solution to the torture example:
Instead of looking at the situation as a whole, let's look from a perspective of a single torturer.
If a single person gets more pleasure from his few punches than those harm the person who's beeing tortured, then it's fine. Right? No. He has other, more moral ways to get this pleasure. Therefore, it's moral, but it's a wrong decision.
More hard version of this example: There's a single torturer who's streaming the torture for millions to see. Let's look from a perspective of a viewer. He is causing no harm, but his act of watching makes torturing more moral for the torturer. Same story, different package. Since a viewer can do something more moral to get this happiness, he should quit. Every viewer quits, torture becomes immoral.
I am probably wrong, it can't be that nobody has thought of this before me. If you know how to debunk this, please.
Best Video on utilitarianism. But, I want to watch the Bentham's Theory!
Thank you glad you liked it :)
this video is very good!!!
Thank you :)
This was simply refreshing
Thank you, glad you enjoyed.
Simple solution: minimize suffering instead of maximizing pleasure.
Those first-copy Starbucks coffee cups got me 😂😂
in my opinion even act utilitarianism would advocate against 10 sadists beating up 1 person as while the extent (10 persons vs 1) goes to the sadists most other aspects advocate against sadists:
-intensity: obviously someones pain, sadness and fear from beaing beaten up is far greater than mere happiness of beating someone up so here point goes against sadists
-duration: sadists will gain pleasure from this for as long as they continue to beat someone up, however victim will be traumatize for the rest of their life so again point against sadists
-certainty: difrent person that qualify as sadists take pleasure from inflicting pain in difrent ways so you cannot quarantee(unless you know all 10 sadists) that all of them will take joy in this action, meanwhile you can be 100% sure that the person being beaten up will suffer so yet another point against sadists
-fecundity: just like with duration-sadists will feel joy only when they will be being that person up; meanwhile the person will be traumatize for their entire life, thus reducing his further happiness as they will from this point onward have harder time interacting with other humans creating various problems. So another point against sadists
So overall 4 points go against sadists and only 1(extent) go for sadists
amazing video!
Thank you.
love you guys !
Thank you.
Great argument...i have enjoyed the debate...
Thanks, glad you enjoyed.
Awesome video sir
Thank you :)
What is the relevant difference between rule utilitarnism and threashold deontology?
Thank you 😊
You're welcome 😊
is there any circumstances that u only need to use one of the 7 criteria in
hedonistic calculus ?
I think Utilitarianism is... well, excuse me for using a bad word, but I think it's stupid. It seems to me that almost everyone already wants the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
And they did for a very long time before the Utilitarians came upon the scene. For example, the idea in Medieval Europe was that everyone was caring for everyone else in their own way: the knights fought, the peasants labored and the monks prayed (and philosophized) -- all for the good of the entire society. That was the idea. With the benefit of hindsight, of course, we can see many ways of improving upon the Medieval model, but the intent was something very much like, if not actually identical to, the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.
Where the utilitarians go wrong is by catastrophically underestimating the complexity of the task. Their simple-minded would-be solutions just get waste everyone's time and get in the way of more serious thinkers.
very balanced exploration...
Thank you :)
How far would you go in imagination or action if it was simply > "you can do any thing you want just do not harm anybody"
*"you can do any thing you want just do not harm anybody"*
This one is problematic on a society level. It makes any form of punishment immoral, along with any form of self defense or defense of another. Of course, I quite like it as a "rule of thumb" to go by, with exceptions for extreme situations.
Robin Dude this idea was said in the already existence of the idea of harm being played out. Yet if there was a reset button and no body experienced or knew of harm then that could be a different story.
"You can do any thing you want just do not harm anybody"
- Necrophilia? (sex with corpses)
- Voyeurism? (spying on people change without their knowledge)
EDIT: I wouldn't actually do this. I was just wondering whether these would be permissible under this rule.
my weekly dose of smartness.
+JustHecks Glad you enjoyed. See you next week!
3:02 no because you could argue
That there are certain types of evils or pain that transcend any possible amount of pleasure
Saving someone from certain death is certainly more important than 8billion people being cheated on by their spouses
2:21 I ABHOR Utilitarianism, but if I could go back in time and that chap were Bentham, I would be very tempted to make an exception and let him and his callous idiocy of a ‘philosophy’ drown.
So in conclusion, utilitarianism is a faulty system that doesn't take into account chaos theory.
That's a scary conclusion. A even more frightening question : can any system of morality take into account chaos theory? If not, does it mean that nothing at all matters?
Great video!
Thanks!
Happiness or pain? Happiness is secondary to pain. We must not create pain to any one for the happiness of others. .This is what moral is.
So do you think utilitarianism works for some things but not everything?
Utilitarianism is a dangerous contradiction. Mill pointed out that the greatest moral good begins with the individual. A society of virtuous individual naturally translates to the greatest pood. However, at the same time there is no virtue in self sacrifice. Its murky and grossly inconsistent to presume it could possibly deliver on its promise.for the greatest possible good. Haphazardly perhaps and in smaller numbers a more viable application.
7:00 You don’t have to tell the bad guy anything, just slam de door in his face and call the Police- and tell Police the truth.
Moral principles first.
My friends , do not complicate life with tortious example . Amoeba will recoil from an electric shock( pain) and will relish a yeast (pleasure); very primitive yet
… and humans wonder why everybody else in the Cosmos stays at a safe distance from Earth… 😱🤮
This powerful💪😎👍
Thank you :)
very witty discussion
Instead of maximizing please why not reducing the most amount of suffering
1:18 - Fesundity?, don't you mean Fecundity?
Oh Dear! what a shallow video, showing very little understanding of Utilitarianism and at one point confusing it with Kant's Moral Imperative.
Woah
5:16 This is one of the philosophies of the affluent who have farted throughout history their stinking ideas applicable only for the hungry mobs.
Utilitarianism in any form is the worst moral theory ever created.
Of course. It is a moral theory without foundation. Its famous maxim is "the ends justify the means" which simply means anything is possible as long as you desire a certain end.
It has some good aspects to it, but it's overall flawed. What you and I find morally right, might be morally wrong to another. Sure killing 1 person to save 10 lives sounds great, but that 1 life could be the only daughter of a single mother. The mother is devastated and torn that her daughter is now dead. She now suffers more pain than the 10 people who lived and experienced pleasure.
Another thought experiment could also be that the 1 person whose life you saved was a doctor and the 10 lives you saved where murders. With out any knowledge of the lives these people lived. You inherently thought you're actions were morally correct as you brough the maxim happiness possible
@@patrickmeyers4463 or that 1 life could potentially be a doctor who could save many lives.
idk i think it's quite appealing
Simultaneously too superficial and too exacting.
Jesus Christ loves you 💓✝