Going for my intense morning run, making breakfast, sitting at my computer playing games whilst listening to this, that's how I spend my weekends, amazing!
I do think the opening example is a false dichotomy. You could refuse to answer the question and instead tell the man that if he doesn't leave, you'll shoot him. Or something like that
@@craydogdog1530 Sure, unless lying is immoral. If it's right to tell the truth, then you ought to tell the truth. Although, in Kant's "on a supposed right to lie" he frames the dilemma so that you can literally only say yes or no
@Sum1hugme Well, Personally I reject the premise that lying is immoral as I think a better premise would be that lying is immoral for the most part except for certain cases e.g the serial killing knocking on your house. In terms of the framing of the “right to lie” hypothetical. I do think it’s way too restrictive with the possibilities. However, you can add to the hypothetical that killer doesn’t take refusing to answer the question as an the correct response, so they will be killed either way. Despite the imperfect hypothetical , I still think deontology is flawed by comparison due to the lack of possibilities in your disposal.
I found this vid very valuable.....cause and effect is a property of the mind to help us organize the world ......then the idea of God as the ultimate goal is a way of organizing the world.
Perhaps, the only sacrifice we can ever give, is of our own body. Not our spirit, not the body or spirit of anything else. As for the butcher, the only righteous response is "I will not tell you where the children are." If someone says you must act against your own personal integrity, or else they will do something worse...the answer is always NO. Because, it is not YOU that will do the horrible act, but them, this is how they kill us with our love. If every person refused to be evil, no matter the personal consequence, evil would end. What do we even think the story of Christ, or other Masters is about? He said the only way to get out of here, is by doing what I do. And he took that all the way. No one can make you do anything, if your eye or "I" is single. This is a monumental thing, it can seem over simplistic, and perhaps outrageous, but it is the only way out of this mess.
Agreed. I did appreciate the video and left a like, but I think you have room to increase the amount of information in your videos. For what was in the video, I had no problem. The thing is, I saw a 27 minute video and assumed it would be packed with information. While certainly informative, it was very brief on many important issues in what is one of the most prominent normative debates out there. Some things I would have liked to see would have been a more in depth weighing between the pros and cons of utilitarianism and deontology. For example, how would Mill have responded to the claim that his uncertainty in the face of an ethical dilemma is bad? Answers to questions like these would have made this, in my humble opinion, a much better video. Aside from what I hope can be constructive criticism for you Stephen, I do enjoy your content and appreciate the podcast!
I think it's not an easy conversation to have morality and dogma, ethics versus aesthetics, egoism versus altruism, etc. There are no easy answers, I think mr. West did a fair job at it for 27 minutes. He only covered a cursory overview of deontology versus consequentialism, that's only what 27 minutes allotted for a guy who doesn't have a belief in objective morality himself.
i think its more of an introduction, rather than a lecture. for someone who is new to Kant, i love listening to his podcasts as an intro which provides me the context the philosopher is operating in and later on i can go watch more technical lectures by professors on the same topic. so for many the simplistic, beginner style is very helpful. if your looking for something more info packed look up lectures on kant by university professors, that will be more to your liking
![[ TEASER ] เงาะป่า - วงL.กฮ. | TMG RECORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M4ObdFfcPww/mqdefault.jpg)
Going for my intense morning run, making breakfast, sitting at my computer playing games whilst listening to this, that's how I spend my weekends, amazing!
I appreciate you reposting all your videos. I am one of those who ep by ep throughout some months, consume the whole thing.
Thanks for introducing this Kant to us. We like this man's work.
Just introducing Kantcepts
Some aditional Kantent, love it!
I'm impressed by your enthusiasm and knowledge.
I do think the opening example is a false dichotomy. You could refuse to answer the question and instead tell the man that if he doesn't leave, you'll shoot him. Or something like that
Truly a proper existentialist answer
@@otto_jk How so?
@Sum1hugme lying is still a viable alternative. To never consider this possibility makes the whole system way too Rigid for it’s own good.
@@craydogdog1530 Sure, unless lying is immoral. If it's right to tell the truth, then you ought to tell the truth. Although, in Kant's "on a supposed right to lie" he frames the dilemma so that you can literally only say yes or no
@Sum1hugme Well, Personally I reject the premise that lying is immoral as I think a better premise would be that
lying is immoral for the most part except for certain cases e.g the serial killing knocking on your house.
In terms of the framing of the “right to lie” hypothetical. I do think it’s way too restrictive with the possibilities. However, you can add to the hypothetical that killer doesn’t take refusing to answer the question as an the correct response, so they will be killed either way.
Despite the imperfect hypothetical , I still think deontology is flawed by comparison due to the lack of possibilities in your disposal.
Subbed cuz of the title of your channel lol❤
Not going to lie. The Fallout Karma system heavily impacted my moral code.
Hey steven avid listener, you create such a great podcast when are you gonna be on the jre?
Will Kamps yoooo, I was just thinking the SAME thing! Its a much different environment and would give us a taste of who Steven West is.
Deontology is hard to justify from a completely universal standpoint that Kant took. So people have a bigger Duty then others.
I found this vid very valuable.....cause and effect is a property of the mind to help us organize the world ......then the idea of God as the ultimate goal is a way of organizing the world.
Perhaps, the only sacrifice we can ever give, is of our own body. Not our spirit, not the body or spirit of anything else. As for the butcher, the only righteous response is "I will not tell you where the children are." If someone says you must act against your own personal integrity, or else they will do something worse...the answer is always NO. Because, it is not YOU that will do the horrible act, but them, this is how they kill us with our love. If every person refused to be evil, no matter the personal consequence, evil would end. What do we even think the story of Christ, or other Masters is about? He said the only way to get out of here, is by doing what I do. And he took that all the way. No one can make you do anything, if your eye or "I" is single. This is a monumental thing, it can seem over simplistic, and perhaps outrageous, but it is the only way out of this mess.
Is this Stephen west? The voice is so difference but has a
similar cadence
You wouldnt download a philosophy education. You wouldnt download a car..
"What do think morality should be based on?"
Answer: Results
So after 2 basic intros to Kant, we skip straight to his ethics? Fail.
Too much of rambling and few bad examples
Agreed. I did appreciate the video and left a like, but I think you have room to increase the amount of information in your videos. For what was in the video, I had no problem. The thing is, I saw a 27 minute video and assumed it would be packed with information. While certainly informative, it was very brief on many important issues in what is one of the most prominent normative debates out there. Some things I would have liked to see would have been a more in depth weighing between the pros and cons of utilitarianism and deontology. For example, how would Mill have responded to the claim that his uncertainty in the face of an ethical dilemma is bad? Answers to questions like these would have made this, in my humble opinion, a much better video. Aside from what I hope can be constructive criticism for you Stephen, I do enjoy your content and appreciate the podcast!
I think it's not an easy conversation to have morality and dogma, ethics versus aesthetics, egoism versus altruism, etc. There are no easy answers, I think mr. West did a fair job at it for 27 minutes. He only covered a cursory overview of deontology versus consequentialism, that's only what 27 minutes allotted for a guy who doesn't have a belief in objective morality himself.
i think its more of an introduction, rather than a lecture. for someone who is new to Kant, i love listening to his podcasts as an intro which provides me the context the philosopher is operating in and later on i can go watch more technical lectures by professors on the same topic. so for many the simplistic, beginner style is very helpful. if your looking for something more info packed look up lectures on kant by university professors, that will be more to your liking
@@muhammadrazashahhash What do you think of virtue ethics?