“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.” ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
You accept collateral damage, and you are morally right too. If harming one potentially innocent person saves 7 billion people you would have to be a monster to let so many people die. The only question is how much collateral damage you should accept.
+BobWidlefish It seems very clear in the example you give (1 innocent life lost to save 7 billion) that collateral damage should be *accepted* but does that make it *right*? Also, how do we determine the number of innocent lives it is acceptable to sacrifice to save others? e.g. is it ok to kill 4 innocents to save 5? What if those 4 innocents are children? What if the collateral damage does not directly lead to loss of life. What if civilian houses are destroyed or infrastructure? Such things won't kill civilians straight away but will likely make them refugees.
+BobWidlefish There's also the level to which you are harming that one person. Is it okay to continually torture 1 being for years on end, even decades, for the safety of, say a country of people (ie Doctor Who (2005) S05E02 "The Beast Below")
+BobWidlefish I think an even more intriguing scenario is when you are pitted as the one that is the collateral damage. I.e., martyrdom to save x amount of people. Some would argue no amount of lives saved is never enough to trump your own interests.
Absolutely fantastic video, thank you so much! Really helped me hone in on the more interesting aspects of Mill's "liberalism" outside of what we're taught in class (basically just the harm principle)
@@mockingbird3099 The mask might not really do as much as some people assume, but I think there's a general precedent that 'probable to cause harm' counts as causing harm. You could wander down the street juggling chainsaws and not harm anyone, but the general perception is that you shouldn't, and the police would want you to stop.
I have been watching this channel for about a year now, and I have been told to watch this video as part of my Politics A-Level. It it weird to see these videos without the dramatisation.
I've watched hundreds of Phil lectures and this one very accurately describes Mill and the overarching instructions of Utilitarianism and Colonization. It is fair and balanced by weighing the truth against what has become the new "normal" truth. VWD
Abigail I am really happy to have found your channel. This video alone made me see more things a bout ethics than a full course at my university. Thanks a lot for sharing it and for your dedication on the produccion of really good films specialy in your later videos.
"But we're not worried whether we'd be comfortable having him around at the dinner or not, right? He's dead." 😂😂 So blessed to have come across your channel, you explained it so skilfully, thanks a bunch!!
+Philosophy Tube comparing your videos and their "Crash Course" videos, I suspect that you could make an entire 1:1 series refuting and expanding on whatever they say.
I don't understand the significance of the Mill's ideas about colonialism. Why can't the harm principle be revised to exude some of the exceptions Mill made? I was kind of hoping you would bring up some objections to the harm principle itself, rather than just the implications of the exceptions.
Delta X couldn't agree more....also the case of assisted suicide wasn't the best example if it is only being done at the behest of a patient - then it is surely self-inflicted harm and therefore admissible. More problematic is measuring and drawing lines for harming society rather than specific individuals.
There's a video game "Megaton Rainfall" (2017) that seems to be all about collateral damage. The player character is, as far as I'm aware, absolutely invincible, and the object is to use one's incredible destructive power to rescue the inhabitants of various Earth cities from invading extraterrestrial aliens. The big challenge is in minimizing collateral damage while still destroying the enemies quickly enough to keep innocent deaths to a minimum.
Impressive! That whole legacy discussion was well-put an unusually nuanced for youtube. You are taking this channel to new analytic heights. Keep up the enlightening work!
I vote for Can Art Be Defined. I have my own ideas and have had discussions on the subject with other philosophy students when I was a student, but I never actually took a philosophy of art course.
0:21 When can the government legitimately restrict your freedoms . " The Social Contract " - The rights a person gives up to the state , in order to live is structured society . Hobbes and John Locke wrote about this subject . Rousseu coined the phrase . .
2:45 it is legal for you to smoke cigarettes and illegal for anybody to sell them. Does that mean it would be legal if I just "donated" or given out the cigarettes?
Hey @philosophytube I have a question on Stuart Mill: On his book "On Liberty" he says that we can't supress the freedoom of spech for enourmous reasons... but what if that one of that reasons collide with the harm principle?
Assuming that the words intended to psychologically and/or physically harm a person and that said person ended up being harmed (e.g. verbal bullying can drive people towards self-harm), then you would have to suppress it. Ofc the big elephant in the room is that people can go around claiming that anything is harmful, so Mill uses the offence principle in On Liberty to counter this. Offence, he says, is something that causes discomfort (e.g. losing an argument or a debate), so that should technically let people differentiate between situations of when to use the harm principle and when to not use it.
Tolerance Marcello. He says Tolerance is the difinitive factor of individuals in society. Not reducing every action to harm or non, he says people should suffice with a right to be offended even if they cant do anything about it, and more importantly Shouldn't, unless credible harm that can be agreed upon is committed, and only then should the state intervene if called upon. Tolerance philosophy is BIG in this, google some up.
"What has made the European family of nations an improving, instead of a stationary portion of mankind? Not any superior excellence in them, which when it exists, exists as the effect, not as the cause; but their remarkable diversity of character and culture."
@@appleslover This is a direct quotation from 'On Liberty'. Mill is specifically denying assumptions of European (so white) superiority. In 'On Liberty' Mill makes a powerful case for how everyone stands to benefit from diversity.
@@appleslover The video came up as a recommendation, then I saw that I had put a comment. I think at the time I considered writing much more, because the presenter is misreading Mill to some extent. Mill has great reliance on and belief in education. The way he uses te word 'barbarian' is more or less synonymous with uneducated. Of course you could reply that Mill's concept of educated is very Eurocentric, which I suppose it is. By the way, I do not understand your previous comment, I guess it is sarcastic, but on the internet one cannot be sure.
At 6:08 it's pretty clear that earlier mill was referring to race as a group of people sharing a cultural or national backround not as in black Asian or white
Are we allowed to pick and choose ideas from thinkers of the past or do we need to take them as a whole? If I like some of Mill's ideas am I required to adopt some I don't? Conversely if you don't agree with some of his ideas are you allowed to use some of his ideas you do like or are those now off limits to you?
+Calvin Clark For a more modern version of liberalism you could read John Rawls' A Theory of Justice or Richard Rorty's Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Two very different books and two very different conceptions of liberalism. For a critique of modern (neo-)liberalism I'd recommend Undoing the Demos by Wendy Brown.
I would rather Can Art be Defined? But both are very good themes to be discussed And if Mill's definition on liberty and law isn't sufficient, what are the others criterias we should use to define the limit between liberty and State intervention?
In Mill's formulation of the "harm to others" principle, he held that the government could legitimately coerce you only if you harm somebody else TO A DEGREE WHICH WOULD OUTWEIGH THE HARM DONE BY CURTAILING YOUR FREEDOM. The reason why this final sub-clause is important is that Mill believed that the exercise of liberty was of value because it enabled human beings to grow. Depriving a person of their freedoms was sometimes a necessary evil, but was nonetheless still an evil. because it stunted human moral and intellectual growth. Therefore, in Mill's argument, it was not enough merely for me to be harming you before the government could legitimately intervene - it was necessary for me to cause harm to a certain non-trivial degree. The way Mill saw it, there was a threshold-level of harm which had to be met before the criterion became relevant.
ethics of collateral damage sounds very interesting! would it be about collateral damage in war or in ambitious progression of society (ie. cars can be useful but cause many fatalities every year)? love the show Olly!
also would you be OK with bringing up that Marten Luther King was a drinker and cheated on his wife? how about Tesla's mystic beliefs? Newton's alchemy? Malcolm Xs black superiority? I didn't think so.
+Dumb Philosopher Your assertion that King drank and was unfaithful to his wife may or may not be true. However given that the source of these allegations is J Edgar Hover's FBI that was intent upon discrediting King,unthinking acceptance of these allegations is pretty............DUMB
+hankonfire on the MLK point yes the FBI did try to spread slander, sometimes you can find it on conspiracy theory blogs and with hardcore racists. I've read a good bit of it, it has no such subtleties. they accused him of being a serial rapist, an atheist, and a communist. yes those are outright fabrications. but as for some Union leaders and close friends he did drink a bit more then he should have and he did vary much enjoy the company of younger woman. if anything knowing these things make MLK more reliable, more human to me, not some distant demigod.
+Philosophy Tube I'm a little confused, we don't judge him differently based on the time period? but hold him partly responsible for the time period? or don't we? I'm lost.
Please do can art be defined? That was a question at my Cambridge philosophy interview and I argued like Hume that an aesthetic expert should be consulted. Love the show!
Singapore is operated much according to the ideas Mill thought needed for colonies. But an important part of what happened to Singapore was the final moment of it's most famous leader, Lee Kwan Yew. It still maintained what had to be in place for at least Singapore to not backslide and to have the potential to move forward. Most of the Greats of history haven't been able to do this for the most part. Tito, arguably a great leader, had Yugoslavia backsliding after his death, Alexander the Great had the same. Wen, one of the Chinese emperors, had the same.
For the bit about the harm and the doctor's with terminally ill patients, at least a part of it is that some of the terminally ill patients could be misdiagnosed, but probably the biggest reason people find it wrong is that there seems to be an intuitive difference between intentionally killing someone and having someone die without that intention. That and that it makes everybody uneasy that there is somebody killing people which is a minor part of the harm it does.
I owuld like to talk about art defintion. Seems more intersting as art can be made by each citizen in a constructive way while collateral damage will be a talk about destruction. One discussion will able us to inv-crease creation while the other may alow us to decrease destruction.
Both suggested topics sound fascinating, but I'm gonna have to go with "can art be defined". I'm really interested in hearing the different opinions and attempted definitions philosophers came up with over the years.
Thank you for this. When I first studied John Stuart Mill in college, I was a young person who had grown up in a British Commonwealth country. I remember so much of what he said that I love, and I did not even notice a colonial attitude. I might now. I am glad that I watched and will read "On Liberty" again.
I believe the government should be able to stop individuals from harming themselves, mainly because in a way, they are harming someone else. There have been studies showing that people often think of their future selves as an entirely different person. Harmful decisions often don't effect you in the present, but will have lasting consequences that the current iteration of you does not have to deal with.
+Alina Lynn The challenge I would put to this is the following. Even if I accept that my future self is 'in a way' someone else (which I don't necessarily), you still have to explain how the government or state is better placed to read the future outcomes of my present day actions for that 'future self'. At what point do I become competent enough to make such determinations for myself? In most western societies we have the concept of legal maturity occouring at some specific age, from which point parental rights cease to trump their offspring's right to self determination. Where, if anywhere, would you place this bar in the relationship between the state and otherwise 'mature' individuals?
I'm not sure if I missed this but I feel like it's a big leap to say that all governments are based on liberalism. Governments might borrow ideas but are they really based on all the ideas of liberalism.
+Gnimdo Tako Yeah, that's true. Sheth focuses on liberalism because she lives under it and it's interesting. Mill's liberalism has definitely informed the UK and US though.
+Philosophy Tube Is there something I can read where it goes through examples of how liberalism has been reflected in Western Government? Would Sheth's work be a good place to start?
I would like to know more about the ethics of collateral damage! You explain very well by the way! Keep on your good work! Maybe you can tell something about Jeremy Bentham too? Or have you told something about him yet? Then I just haven't found him yet between all your videos! Thanks for helping us through this with your great explaining!
The thing I note is that Mill's passages discussing the exceptions to liberty in the case of "less developed" regions of the world are so strikingly dubious to us. And that means that, while certain vestiges of colonialism may continue on and certain individuals may embrace imperialism to greater or lesser degrees, to some extent western culture has moved away from those positions on the whole. It is always worth examining our biases and assumptions when we are dealing with people outside our own culture (or within our own culture, for that matter), but I don't think we are at risk of adopting Mill's view of other cultures as an express principle any time soon.
I don't agree that the question is limited to the scope of criminal law as Mill also focusses on the force of public opinion. The harm principle applies to both.
The ethics of collateral damage sounds cool. I think I have to rewatch the video to be sure I completely get what you are saying but that is the great thing about the video format. About your example wouldn't drinking yourself to death cause harm to your family and friends, the people who love you? I would like if there was some more Albert Camus coming in the future I think and hope that might help my existential crisis a bit
Hello Olly. How are you? I am a fan of philosophy tube and I have learned a lot about philosophy with you videos. I am from Costa Rica and I speak Spanish, I would like people that speak Spanish to have access to your videos by adding subtitles to them, so it would be awesome if you can help me add them. Please contact me if you are interested. Thank you for your time. Tus vídeos son demasiado buenos, sigue haciendo gran contenido en youtube jajaja.
I vote Define Art. Being an environmental engineering student, I've actually had to take a class on the ethics of collateral damage (environmental ethics). However, I've never really looked to deeply into art.
as an a-level politics student i LOVE you for this. thank you abigail!
The same old Abi ? ... Nice
@@bankafoufShe is transgender.
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
"How long is your nose mate?" Lost my shit right here!!!
Thanks for saving me on my Philosophy exam
I'd like to know about the ethics of colateral damage.
This is an interesting query
You accept collateral damage, and you are morally right too. If harming one potentially innocent person saves 7 billion people you would have to be a monster to let so many people die. The only question is how much collateral damage you should accept.
+BobWidlefish It seems very clear in the example you give (1 innocent life lost to save 7 billion) that collateral damage should be *accepted* but does that make it *right*?
Also, how do we determine the number of innocent lives it is acceptable to sacrifice to save others? e.g. is it ok to kill 4 innocents to save 5? What if those 4 innocents are children?
What if the collateral damage does not directly lead to loss of life. What if civilian houses are destroyed or infrastructure? Such things won't kill civilians straight away but will likely make them refugees.
+BobWidlefish There's also the level to which you are harming that one person. Is it okay to continually torture 1 being for years on end, even decades, for the safety of, say a country of people (ie Doctor Who (2005) S05E02 "The Beast Below")
+BobWidlefish I think an even more intriguing scenario is when you are pitted as the one that is the collateral damage. I.e., martyrdom to save x amount of people. Some would argue no amount of lives saved is never enough to trump your own interests.
Absolutely fantastic video, thank you so much! Really helped me hone in on the more interesting aspects of Mill's "liberalism" outside of what we're taught in class (basically just the harm principle)
This is especially relevant now in light of the pandemic ...
how so?- I am genuinely curious, please respond. I think I somewhat understand , but I would appreciate explanation
Now leaving home with no reason or without mask is considered 'harm' to others.
@@dereckmj23 Although it is not harm but merely presumed or potential harm to others, leaving off the mask which obstructs natural breathing.
@@mockingbird3099 The mask might not really do as much as some people assume, but I think there's a general precedent that 'probable to cause harm' counts as causing harm. You could wander down the street juggling chainsaws and not harm anyone, but the general perception is that you shouldn't, and the police would want you to stop.
Anti-maskers: the highest order of pretentiousness and gross disregard for human life imaginable.
…Next to anti-vaxxers I suppose.
I have been watching this channel for about a year now, and I have been told to watch this video as part of my Politics A-Level. It it weird to see these videos without the dramatisation.
Dammmmnnnn. Young Philosophy Tube still cute.
baby Olly
He is beautiful
What do you mean? He looks pretty much the same.
@@juanlopezvillegas1550 she sure does :D
Please do make videos on Hobbes ,machaivelli and others it truly helps
Love from india
"Can art be defined?" Please!
Great video, by the way.
I've watched hundreds of Phil lectures and this one very accurately describes Mill and the overarching instructions of Utilitarianism and Colonization. It is fair and balanced by weighing the truth against what has become the new "normal" truth. VWD
Abigail I am really happy to have found your channel. This video alone made me see more things a bout ethics than a full course at my university. Thanks a lot for sharing it and for your dedication on the produccion of really good films specialy in your later videos.
From the 6:26 - 11:46 minute mark, I fell in love with what you said.
Seriously? I want both episodes!!! Coincidentally they're both present questions in my mind.
Thank you for the video! This one helped me clear my thoughts on a few things that have been on my mind recently.
This is by far the most informative video of J.S. Mill ive seen lol You got my sub :)
That's awesome! Welcome!
I'd appreciate Can Art be Defined?
What a joy it is to find such a good video in the youtube jungle. Thank you!
Thanks for the video and for bringing up Mill's historical context!
That cut to your hair suddenly being in your face is glorious
"But we're not worried whether we'd be comfortable having him around at the dinner or not, right? He's dead." 😂😂
So blessed to have come across your channel, you explained it so skilfully, thanks a bunch!!
I'd be more worried about Jeremy Bentham coming around for dinner, honestly.
@philosophytube Hank and John Green also started philosophy on their crash course channel. It would be cool if you could collaborate with them.
+Xavy Johnson Tomy If they ever answered their emails, yeah.
+Philosophy Tube comparing your videos and their "Crash Course" videos, I suspect that you could make an entire 1:1 series refuting and expanding on whatever they say.
I don't understand the significance of the Mill's ideas about colonialism. Why can't the harm principle be revised to exude some of the exceptions Mill made? I was kind of hoping you would bring up some objections to the harm principle itself, rather than just the implications of the exceptions.
Delta X couldn't agree more....also the case of assisted suicide wasn't the best example if it is only being done at the behest of a patient - then it is surely self-inflicted harm and therefore admissible. More problematic is measuring and drawing lines for harming society rather than specific individuals.
If I were a superhero, I'd be Collateral Damage Man
+XxDuckofDoomxX And I'd be your arch nemesis, Art Definition Man
There's a video game "Megaton Rainfall" (2017) that seems to be all about collateral damage. The player character is, as far as I'm aware, absolutely invincible, and the object is to use one's incredible destructive power to rescue the inhabitants of various Earth cities from invading extraterrestrial aliens. The big challenge is in minimizing collateral damage while still destroying the enemies quickly enough to keep innocent deaths to a minimum.
Or « Demolition Man » ?
(Five years late, I know... but I just couldn't resist ! ^_^')
ty for this the professor who did this lecture explains things in the most roundabout way possible and i actually understand it now
Collateral damage ethics sounds super interesting. That's my vote.
Impressive! That whole legacy discussion was well-put an unusually nuanced for youtube. You are taking this channel to new analytic heights. Keep up the enlightening work!
Ethics of Collateral Damage, please
I vote for Can Art Be Defined. I have my own ideas and have had discussions on the subject with other philosophy students when I was a student, but I never actually took a philosophy of art course.
0:21 When can the government legitimately restrict your freedoms .
" The Social Contract " - The rights a person gives up to the state , in order to live is structured society .
Hobbes and John Locke wrote about this subject . Rousseu coined the phrase .
.
I'd love to go with "Can art be defined?". I appreciate your videos.
Nice discussion and analysis of the first chapter and I expected to watch the discussing of the rest of the book!
You helped me write a paper for my class on this. Thank you so much!
My pleasure!
Super video! This saved my school assignment! You explain the content in a good and clear way, with good examples. ;)thank you
I vote "Ethics of Collateral Damage," or rather what we should never have stopped calling them; civilian casualties.
'The ethics of collateral damage' please.
2:45 it is legal for you to smoke cigarettes and illegal for anybody to sell them. Does that mean it would be legal if I just "donated" or given out the cigarettes?
Hey @philosophytube I have a question on Stuart Mill:
On his book "On Liberty" he says that we can't supress the freedoom of spech for enourmous reasons...
but what if that one of that reasons collide with the harm principle?
Assuming that the words intended to psychologically and/or physically harm a person and that said person ended up being harmed (e.g. verbal bullying can drive people towards self-harm), then you would have to suppress it.
Ofc the big elephant in the room is that people can go around claiming that anything is harmful, so Mill uses the offence principle in On Liberty to counter this. Offence, he says, is something that causes discomfort (e.g. losing an argument or a debate), so that should technically let people differentiate between situations of when to use the harm principle and when to not use it.
so Mill agree that ofenses should be penalized?
Tolerance Marcello. He says Tolerance is the difinitive factor of individuals in society. Not reducing every action to harm or non, he says people should suffice with a right to be offended even if they cant do anything about it, and more importantly Shouldn't, unless credible harm that can be agreed upon is committed, and only then should the state intervene if called upon. Tolerance philosophy is BIG in this, google some up.
I would very much like to hear your thoughts on whether or not art can be defined.
In other words "What is the scope of the criminal law" < extraordinarily well said. thank you
Just subbed to the channel. Really liked some of the videos that I saw. You seem like one of the few actually educated people.
+Giffica Welcome to the little community!
Ethics of collateral damage please!!
"What has made the European family of nations an improving, instead of a stationary portion of mankind? Not any superior excellence in them, which when it exists, exists as the effect, not as the cause; but their remarkable diversity of character and culture."
An American would call all you described as "white culture"..
@@appleslover This is a direct quotation from 'On Liberty'. Mill is specifically denying assumptions of European (so white) superiority. In 'On Liberty' Mill makes a powerful case for how everyone stands to benefit from diversity.
@@martinbennett2228 everyone benefits from diversity when they are in the process of killing it
@@martinbennett2228 my comment a year old, how did it get to your notifications?
@@appleslover The video came up as a recommendation, then I saw that I had put a comment. I think at the time I considered writing much more, because the presenter is misreading Mill to some extent. Mill has great reliance on and belief in education. The way he uses te word 'barbarian' is more or less synonymous with uneducated.
Of course you could reply that Mill's concept of educated is very Eurocentric, which I suppose it is.
By the way, I do not understand your previous comment, I guess it is sarcastic, but on the internet one cannot be sure.
At 6:08 it's pretty clear that earlier mill was referring to race as a group of people sharing a cultural or national backround not as in black Asian or white
Are we allowed to pick and choose ideas from thinkers of the past or do we need to take them as a whole? If I like some of Mill's ideas am I required to adopt some I don't? Conversely if you don't agree with some of his ideas are you allowed to use some of his ideas you do like or are those now off limits to you?
It’s interesting that you ignore government as being exempt from ˋdo no harmˋ.
Glad I found this channel
i'd love to hear about "can art be defined?" :)
Any lists of books I should read that have to do with liberalism? Any door stopper books in particular?
Also, any list of books on political theory? I have only found a few lists.
+Calvin Clark For a more modern version of liberalism you could read John Rawls' A Theory of Justice or Richard Rorty's Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Two very different books and two very different conceptions of liberalism. For a critique of modern (neo-)liberalism I'd recommend Undoing the Demos by Wendy Brown.
+Thom Aalmoes Thank you.
Can you spell out the name of the women you quoted saying " power makes exceptions for people who doesn't like"? I'd like to reference it.
Falguni Sheth, and the book is "Toward A Political Philosophy of Race." It's listed in the description. That's not a direct quote of hers though.
I'd like to hear if art can be defined, being an artist (performance) of sorts myself.
You’re so good!!
i really liked you showed big parts from the original text. + can art be defined
I would rather Can Art be Defined? But both are very good themes to be discussed
And if Mill's definition on liberty and law isn't sufficient, what are the others criterias we should use to define the limit between liberty and State intervention?
In Mill's formulation of the "harm to others" principle, he held that the government could legitimately coerce you only if you harm somebody else TO A DEGREE WHICH WOULD OUTWEIGH THE HARM DONE BY CURTAILING YOUR FREEDOM. The reason why this final sub-clause is important is that Mill believed that the exercise of liberty was of value because it enabled human beings to grow. Depriving a person of their freedoms was sometimes a necessary evil, but was nonetheless still an evil. because it stunted human moral and intellectual growth. Therefore, in Mill's argument, it was not enough merely for me to be harming you before the government could legitimately intervene - it was necessary for me to cause harm to a certain non-trivial degree. The way Mill saw it, there was a threshold-level of harm which had to be met before the criterion became relevant.
ethics of collateral damage sounds very interesting! would it be about collateral damage in war or in ambitious progression of society (ie. cars can be useful but cause many fatalities every year)?
love the show Olly!
Thank you for uploading his video!!!
Thank you. Nicely explained
Could you do a video on Slavoj Zizek? :)
THANK YOU FOR UPLOADING !!
I'm down for hearing you talk about collateral damage, can't wait to hear about the world wars damage on the land and monuments.
Great video! Focusing on the new aspect which other videos don't emphasizes..
great video. one recommendation, take this style of analysis, apply it to Falguni Sheth theory.
also would you be OK with bringing up that Marten Luther King was a drinker and cheated on his wife? how about Tesla's mystic beliefs? Newton's alchemy? Malcolm Xs black superiority?
I didn't think so.
+Dumb Philosopher Colonialism wasn't shaped by any of those though. Like I said in the video, it's not about Mill's character but his legacy.
+Dumb Philosopher Your assertion that King drank and was unfaithful to his wife may or may not be true. However given that the source of these allegations is J Edgar Hover's FBI that was intent upon discrediting King,unthinking acceptance of these allegations is pretty............DUMB
+hankonfire
on the MLK point
yes the FBI did try to spread slander, sometimes you can find it on conspiracy theory blogs and with hardcore racists. I've read a good bit of it, it has no such subtleties. they accused him of being a serial rapist, an atheist, and a communist.
yes those are outright fabrications. but as for some Union leaders and close friends he did drink a bit more then he should have and he did vary much enjoy the company of younger woman.
if anything knowing these things make MLK more reliable, more human to me, not some distant demigod.
+Philosophy Tube
I'm a little confused, we don't judge him differently based on the time period? but hold him partly responsible for the time period? or don't we?
I'm lost.
Please do can art be defined? That was a question at my Cambridge philosophy interview and I argued like Hume that an aesthetic expert should be consulted. Love the show!
Thanks for the vid. Always great.
Singapore is operated much according to the ideas Mill thought needed for colonies. But an important part of what happened to Singapore was the final moment of it's most famous leader, Lee Kwan Yew. It still maintained what had to be in place for at least Singapore to not backslide and to have the potential to move forward. Most of the Greats of history haven't been able to do this for the most part. Tito, arguably a great leader, had Yugoslavia backsliding after his death, Alexander the Great had the same. Wen, one of the Chinese emperors, had the same.
What are some references on defining harm? Does anyone have anything to suggest?
This was very informative and understandable. Thank you.
For the bit about the harm and the doctor's with terminally ill patients, at least a part of it is that some of the terminally ill patients could be misdiagnosed, but probably the biggest reason people find it wrong is that there seems to be an intuitive difference between intentionally killing someone and having someone die without that intention. That and that it makes everybody uneasy that there is somebody killing people which is a minor part of the harm it does.
I owuld like to talk about art defintion. Seems more intersting as art can be made by each citizen in a constructive way while collateral damage will be a talk about destruction. One discussion will able us to inv-crease creation while the other may alow us to decrease destruction.
Both suggested topics sound fascinating, but I'm gonna have to go with "can art be defined". I'm really interested in hearing the different opinions and attempted definitions philosophers came up with over the years.
Both are interesting topics for next video, but I think I rather the art one. Thanks for always posting thought provoking content!
Would be nice if the book On Liberty was discussed in this video.
Thank you for this. When I first studied John Stuart Mill in college, I was a young person who had grown up in a British Commonwealth country. I remember so much of what he said that I love, and I did not even notice a colonial attitude. I might now. I am glad that I watched and will read "On Liberty" again.
I believe the government should be able to stop individuals from harming themselves, mainly because in a way, they are harming someone else. There have been studies showing that people often think of their future selves as an entirely different person. Harmful decisions often don't effect you in the present, but will have lasting consequences that the current iteration of you does not have to deal with.
+Alina Lynn The challenge I would put to this is the following. Even if I accept that my future self is 'in a way' someone else (which I don't necessarily), you still have to explain how the government or state is better placed to read the future outcomes of my present day actions for that 'future self'. At what point do I become competent enough to make such determinations for myself? In most western societies we have the concept of legal maturity occouring at some specific age, from which point parental rights cease to trump their offspring's right to self determination. Where, if anywhere, would you place this bar in the relationship between the state and otherwise 'mature' individuals?
Very insightful video! I'd love to see what you have to say on "collateral damage" :)
The ethics of collateral damage sounds really interesting, that please!
Thank you so much for making those videos!!!!!!!
I'd love to see a video exploring the definition of art!
I appreciate the work you do. Thank you.
You’re amazing mate, thankyou! 😊👍🙏
"The ethics of collateral damage" would be an intensely interesting (and relevant to modernity with drones especially) video.
This really helped me out. Thank you x
I'm not sure if I missed this but I feel like it's a big leap to say that all governments are based on liberalism. Governments might borrow ideas but are they really based on all the ideas of liberalism.
+Gnimdo Tako Yeah, that's true. Sheth focuses on liberalism because she lives under it and it's interesting. Mill's liberalism has definitely informed the UK and US though.
+Philosophy Tube Is there something I can read where it goes through examples of how liberalism has been reflected in Western Government? Would Sheth's work be a good place to start?
The US Constitution or the news would show it tbh. But Sheth's book would be good anyway.
the best video I've ever watched thank you
+hamad alshehi Wow, high praise!
Thank you. This helped me understand his ideas better. :)
Keep up the great work!
I would like to know more about the ethics of collateral damage! You explain very well by the way! Keep on your good work! Maybe you can tell something about Jeremy Bentham too? Or have you told something about him yet? Then I just haven't found him yet between all your videos! Thanks for helping us through this with your great explaining!
The thing I note is that Mill's passages discussing the exceptions to liberty in the case of "less developed" regions of the world are so strikingly dubious to us. And that means that, while certain vestiges of colonialism may continue on and certain individuals may embrace imperialism to greater or lesser degrees, to some extent western culture has moved away from those positions on the whole. It is always worth examining our biases and assumptions when we are dealing with people outside our own culture (or within our own culture, for that matter), but I don't think we are at risk of adopting Mill's view of other cultures as an express principle any time soon.
I don't agree that the question is limited to the scope of criminal law as Mill also focusses on the force of public opinion. The harm principle applies to both.
I miss these straight up informational videos sometimes! love her new stuff too but im bad at intepreting metaphors lol
Love you Ollie 🥰
Very helpful, thank you for this!
The ethics of collateral damage sounds cool. I think I have to rewatch the video to be sure I completely get what you are saying but that is the great thing about the video format. About your example wouldn't drinking yourself to death cause harm to your family and friends, the people who love you? I would like if there was some more Albert Camus coming in the future I think and hope that might help my existential crisis a bit
"Can art be defined?" would actually be really interesting
Thankyou very much!Its quite helpful!
Hello Olly. How are you?
I am a fan of philosophy tube and I have learned a lot about philosophy with you videos.
I am from Costa Rica and I speak Spanish, I would like people that speak Spanish to have access to your videos by adding subtitles to them, so it would be awesome if you can help me add them. Please contact me if you are interested. Thank you for your time. Tus vídeos son demasiado buenos, sigue haciendo gran contenido en youtube jajaja.
I vote Define Art. Being an environmental engineering student, I've actually had to take a class on the ethics of collateral damage (environmental ethics). However, I've never really looked to deeply into art.
This is not an exploration of mill. This is a hit piece based off a single line in only one of his essays.
7:30