100? What units are you using? Have you calibrated sufferometer? The standard unit is the "Coulter". It's the amount of suffering per minute that would cause one to jam at least four sharp bamboo sticks in ones ears per minute. 👉🐧👈
If you want to know whether or not this video is worth watching, essentially they're arguing about the definition of one word for over an hour. Skip to 1:30:00 for the summary, you'll miss absolutely nothing from skipping over the argument.
So this is what happens when you give arm-char philosophers mathematics. Can we please go back? Now they think they have definite proof what they are saying is true because "look, I can put it on a graph so it's logical and totally makes sense!".
@@sixflags11804 It's not even that everything they are saying is wrong. Mathematically, if the value of X is not important of course they are right with the straight line, but this whole idea that you can project the axiomatic nature of mathematics onto philosophy (where 1 + 1 = 2 isn't by definition always right) by drawing a fancy graph is just mind-boggling.
It would be so interesting to see our boy take a proof based math course, such as Real Analysis 1 or (proof-based) Linear Algebra 1. This 90 minute convo wouldn't have happened.
One value is binary and one value is numeric. They can't be compared. Once you change the binary value to -1000, it becomes numeric and changes to utility.
The action is binary, you either do it or not. But it's moral value is always negative, so we might as well pick a number to make it concrete. The numerical value itself doesn't mean anything, it's just an abstract model.
@@Lumaflare You have to model it somehow, a constant negative number seems like a natural choice. I'm not saying it's the best model, it has its flaws.
@@Lumaflare I'm a bit confused by the mathematics of this graph and why people are saying it's wrong, if your willing could you please explain in detail why it's incorrect? Thanks.
Spoilers for next episode: Avi comes back on and they still can't agree on anything. Rem enters the fray to take Destiny's side. Avi and Ask Yourself's friend, jhc_, wakes up, she's the PhD philosophy professor. She takes Destiny's side and agrees with Destiny about moral anti-realism. Rem freaks out, because he thinks he's morally obligated to murder moral anti-realists (because they don't claim the holocaust is immoral). Rem does his dumb thing where he posts a bunch of unreadable BS to reddit and teaches nobody nothing and everyone hates him.
cmorera jhc_ is a woman. Unless she was trolling everyone. Not only destiny but Rem and the twitch audience as well. But I don't see the point in trolling everybody then it's just lying without reason
"It's a simple Calculus" - Thanos. Friends, if you take the derivative of any function, a constant like "deontological moral value" disappears. I'm sorry, this is pre-calc.
Exactly, you can tell that they started with the x, y & u as like "the perfect world" then added the bottom part after in order the make it more "real" Completely illogical way to make a graph.
On a graph, the equation of a straight line is represented by Y=mx+b. The moral value of an action (Variable Y) increases as the "Net Wellbeing" (Variable X) increases. The "D" line (or the "M" line as they use later on) is merely the "b" in the equation of a line. "b" in the equation of a line is merely the Y offset, or "Instead of starting at zero, start at B." Their system starts at the "b" and changes based on ONLY the X variable, which is "Net Wellbeing" In their system, as "Net Wellbeing" increases, the moral value of an action increases. It doesn't matter that you start at a lower point. The only variable that actually changes the graph is the Net Wellbeing. Their system is just Utilitarianism, except whereas a utilitarian might say "An action is moral if it generates 50 Net Wellbeing", their system merely says "An action is moral if it generates 500 Net Wellbeing" The problem is that this type of thing can't be represented on a line graph. There's no continuous function of morality. Every action just has a different "B" value that offsets their system to require more utility. But at the end of the day, the only thing that COULD make an action moral in their system is the utility. They just need more of it than the utilitarian would. This is demonstrated by the fact that both of their lines in the graph have the same slope.
Good description. Deontology has a m value of 0, consequentialism has a b value of 0. The graph under discussion would be one version of the consequentialism graph shifted to an origin which has been determined on an method that is not discussed. It is just a different weight of utility. The x axis could be redefined as net societal well being where societal well being is the sum of net well being and some offset b value. This reduces to consequentialism. Because morality seems to be a binary determination once the net value is determined, the question becomes only how one decides to choose a value system.
I think you are wrong. Because an utitilitarian would say that an action that results in 0 net wellbeing would be neutral while this system could say that it's immoral.
@@benaregai9416 Are you actually asking that? Peoples ice cream preferences have no impact on other people, morality is not like that at all. Morality is important as it affects what we value and how we treat other sentient beings. Ice cream preferences is also completely subjective. Although I think Morality is also subjective, humans generally share a set of shared axiomatic principles upon which we can elaborate.
They drew their own graph wrong. The P line should be a horizontal line until the utility reaches a high enough arbitrary number, and then the y value should begin to increase.
OK, no, I'm only 20 minutes in, and I'm not sure who Destiny is talking to, but you can't just simply put utilitarianism and deontology together and think you've successfully combined the two. If it were that simple, the two kinds of theories wouldn't be contrasted in ethics so much. If, at some point, the utility of an action could exceed some supposed deontological concerns, then you're assigning utilities to said deontological concerns! I really don't see how it could be otherwise. How could you measure utility with something else and get an outcome? Like, how could you measure any two things if they're not even in the same unit?? (not sure if unit is the correct choice of word here since English isn't my native tongue, but you get the idea) I'm not saying the two kinds of theories can never be reconciled, but I am saying if the reconciliation were to be done, it would not be brought about in such an uber-simplistic way.
the main person is ask yourself, you can see him the destiny's vegan debate and I believe they've talked before about other things as well. I think everyone else is from his discord server.
absolutely, they disguise the conversion by just having a formula there. U and D are really results of applying an ethical framework to a certain action. When you apply consequentialism you will get some number, utils, whatever you want to call them. Applying deontology will not give you back a number, something is either moral or it's not. It's like saying the morality of an action is 10 + true, or 5 + false, it's jibberish
i think their fault can be illustrated with an analogy. say you have a graph of an individual's intelligence (y axis) against the size of their penis (x axis) (excuse the crude example, i struggled to come up with anything else :x). we then plot points from a sample size of males and draw a line of best fit. then, we decide to also plot points from a sample size of females; this is where we run into the crucial flaw of their graph. by plotting y against x for a given entity, we assume that said entity can be described in terms of x and y. in my example, girls do not have male genitalia, thus we cannot quantify the size of their male genitalia, since it simply does not exist. to draw a parallel between this and the graph in the video, by plotting an action considered from a deontological perspective on a graph which considers utility, we are assuming that this action when observed through a deontological lens has a utility, which is by definition false, as deontology does not consider the ends, i.e. the utility.
@@javinturbotch3660 Well, nationality-wise, I'm actually Taiwanese. And whether or not Taiwanese people are Chinese per se is a complicated and heated issue lol As to your question, I guess if you're a boring guy who's interested in international news and you happen to have good enough English abilities to look for discussions of it, most of which is centered around America, that's just what happens. Also, as a philosophy major, seeing a gaming dude debating about philosophy is quite fresh lol
To be fair, for an action like murder P will have a negative (moral) value for plenty of values of x. So this polyaxiomatic value system would denounce a lot of actions that ultilitarianism would be okay with. That's a big difference.
First of all, thats not the argument here. The argument is whether or not this new value system is consequentialist, which it is because even if you say that murder has non linear mapping of x to y, you still are able to map it from x to y using this new system. Second of all, there is no significance to the fact that this system could denounce more or less than pure utilitarianism might; this new system is essentially rule utilitarianism, which says that given certain situations/rules (where the situations are defined here as a "mix" of utility and deontological value), we can plot a generally non-linear relationship between utility and moral value. But thats literally *just* rule utilitarianism, which is still a strictly consequentialist system. In attempting to incorporate deontology into a graph of utility to moral value, you lose the entire fucking point of what a deontological system is. And the funniest part is that these big brain boys have even demonstrated that fundamental truth on their graph, and it still somehow eludes them lmao.
FeelingVeryAttackedRN I know. I was just pointing out that there is a difference. I'm not missing the forest for the trees; I'm just commenting on the trees and not commenting on the forest at all.
The error is in not explicitly defining how Y is measured. Under U, X would only equal Y if the units are the same (i.e. moral value on the y-axis is being measured in utility or a unit that can be directly converted to utility). This is why graphing D against Y is essentially assigning a negative utility value for breaking a categorical imperative. If D is -1000 Y units and we know Y units = X utility, then we've assigned a value of -1000 utility to D.
Destiny seems to be confusing the axis here. Y is the moral value, X is the amount of utility. X doesn't affect the slope of deontology at all. X can have whatever value, but D remains consistent about the moral value of an action. That is perfectly accurate and valid. Whether or not their system escapes consequentialism entirely does seem to be a matter of semantics, because the consequences of any action are always considered (allthough they aren't always determining whether the action has a positive or negative moral value) Their system is logical, but seems to have both the arbitrary axioms of utilitarianism (that wellbeing is good and suffering bad) and deontology (every rule the deontological system makes). I don't get why you would use that system over the others, but that seems to be my utilitarian pragmatism.
After looking at the graph, I think they should change "moral value of a given action" to "moral value of murder." Only then can the D be plotted. If we don't know the action, D has no place on the graph. Then I would place "well being" on the right of the Y axis, and "suffering" on the left. What that seems to be saying is: "concerning murder,, we agree with Deontology that murder is default wrong, but we think it raises in moral value when considering outcome, where utilitarianism starts with the notion that murder is neutral until we analyze the outcome." I'm not sure if that's a true depiction of utilitarianism but it's how I read what they are saying.
Because it's literally nonsense. There is no quantification to be applied to rhetoric. To "moral value". Graphs give clear, concise information. They argued for a half hour about the content of a graph with 3 lines on it. There is nothing, nothing to be achieved here.
so much bad math the "D" line is useless any linear equation can be subdivided into an infinite amount of other linear equations attributing a meaning to one of the sub-equations is pointless All you care about is P and P is Utilitarianism having a D line a subtracts 1000 points of morality is equivalent to just shifting your Utility equation by 1000 which is just an addition of a constant y = a x + b is U y = -1000 is D y = a x + b - 1000 is P y = ax + (b -1000) b - 1000 = c y = a x+ c has the same form as U P has the same form as U they are the same thing If you really want to incorporate deontology then it would take over D = -infinity y = ax + b - infinity = -infinity is P deontology takes over and consequentialism has no say in the equation
Well the D isn’t deontology, it’s simply the constant value of a given action which yes shifts P by D by definition, but since D is a constant and an axiom, the P incorporates the utilitarian axiom as well, becoming polyaxiomatic.
@@paulaagam5071 and "polyaxiomatic" is just a constant shifted utilitarianism Which still weighs a choice by wellbeing ultimately as the line P goes linearly up as X goes up....
@@paulaagam5071 the constant axiom D being added to utalitarianism to create P. Ok. So. The output D is binary, and only a function of moralityY (But for the purpose of the graph is assumed to only include the negative side, and also is assumed to work irrespective of whatever X value, therefore it is parallel to X and goes to infinity on the graph to make it workable with utalitarianism framework) Ok and. The variable utalitarianism is a function of moralityY and wellbeingX So when you combine the two in an equation, U + D, the outcomeP will be a function of both morality and wellbeing, just like utalitarianism is So the argument the people who made the graph are making is wrong... They're literally arguing that for eg, y=x^2 Is fundamentally different to, y=x^2 + 1
The format of using a graph to display this is not an accurate means. The claim that the P-line and P=U+D are the same statements is incorrect. The P-line on the graph suggests the exact same thing as the U-line except the same action would be less virtuous/less moral. This is not a comment on the system itself, but the means of representation. The statement "P=U+D" has no meaning. You're not talking about anything that can be quantified, otherwise you could modify it and still have it be intelligible, e.g. P= 0.12 x U + 3 x D Unless somebody wants to tell me what the above statement means, I'm not convinced their definition has any real meaning other than semantic games. U = W - S is also a semantical misrepresentation, as wellbeing already encompasses suffering. Wikipedia's definition is: "Well-being, wellbeing, or wellness is the condition of an individual or group. A high level of well-being means that in some sense the individual's or group's condition is positive." So if the group's condition is negative (i.e. they suffer) it would be called low well being. So degree of utility = degree of wellbeing.
Noob question here: I get why the line for deontology is horizontal, but why the y value negative? Now the graph says that, in deontology, the moral value of every action is deemed as negative. But as the moral value of actions in deontology isn't based on outcome, shouldn't it either be undefined in this graph or atleast set to y = 0. Which in these cases makes the graph not usable, or makes P = U respectively. What am I not getting? *Edit:* Wrote this when only a few min into the video. Seems like Destiny had somewhat similar questions to mine. Which was wondering how you could even quantify the morality of deontological actions. This was painful to watch though. Something that destiny gets wrong though, is that IF you were able to give a certain deontological moral value for a given action, that is how the graph would look like. Thing is.. even if this is how the graph would look like, it would still just be a variation of consequentialism... Wtf is even going on
I'm having trouble grasping that too. It also implies the more suffering there is in the action the more likely the deontological viewpoint has to be less immoral than the other two??? Which also doesn't make sense to me. Is D's value a variable?
What you are missing is that the graph isn't plotting the value of all actions within the moral systems, it's plotting the value of a singular given action within the different moral systems. In the graph shown, the action being plotted is something with an inherently negative value within deontology, for example; murder. The graph will look somewhat different depending on action being valued. In another case the "D" value might be positive.
@@Jolron14 I thought that might be the case just now but then why didn't they just make the graph utilitarianism vs deontology where it's assumed positive values are moral and negative values are immoral?
Its funny they claim Destiny doesn't understand high school math. I don't FULLY follow all the philosophical distinctions between the 3 schools of thought being discussed (yes i'm including their poly bull shit as one school of thought for the sake of conversation) but it is literally through my understanding of math that i know destiny is right. When plotting a straight line on a graph even if it doesn't vary in it's Y value, you are still making it a function of X by virtue of being on the graph. If D does not even consider the X axis in it's school of thought, by definition you cannot plot this type of thought on this particular XY graph.
Actually you can. It will be not necessary a single horizontal line (if function y depends on other variables other that x) - it could be a parameterized horizontal line, where value is a parameter. It doesnt mean these guys are right in this debate, whole their point is (imho) stupid. But you (and destiny) kinda miss what function means in mathematic. Function is just a relation that associates each element x of a set X to a single element y of another set Y. If a value Y doesnt vary when i change A, B and X values, i cant still make Y a function of A, B and X ant it is absolutely mathematically correct. The reason is - bcuz I can make a set of Y (1 constant value, cuz set is a collection of distinct objects, lets say Y0) and a set of X (like 1,2,3 and so on)and make a relation [(X,Y)] like [(1,Y0),(2,Y0),(3,Y0), ... so on] and each X asociates with only one Y (cuz its only 1 Y value possible)
wtf they just ignore the key question. in the polyaxiomatic view, if you kill 1 to save 5 its bad, but kill 1 to save 1000000 its good. how is that different to consequentialism at all?
This whole convo was just: Deontology d(); Utilitarianism u(); Utilitarianism convertedD = static_cast(d); //So it can be measured in the graph in the x axis Polyaxiomatism p = u+convertedD; Utilitarianism uP = u+convertedD; //What I'm trying to say is, Polyaxiomatism is just utilitarianism. Maybe at best, it's a derives from utilitarianism
So polyax is simply adding an initial value of morality regardless of wellbeing. Each action begins with a default value of morality and the amount of wellbeing from the action either increases or decreases this default value. Whereas utilitarianism has no default morality. Every action is morally neutral until we see the consequences of the action. Am I correct?
The 3 stooges are wrong. This graph is untenable because it is impossible to graph a deontological line in R2 where an axis of R2 is represents “net utility”. The definition of deontology is that an action is deemed morally right/wrong in and of itself, based on a set of rules, irrespective of any other factors. The problem with P = U + D is that is presupposes that you can “add” a utilitarian moral value to a deontological one. That concept by itself is retarded, because in many cases, utilitarian systems contradict deontological ones (hence why they are different systems). Take a simple example that showcases why this is impossible. A deontologist holds, say from the categorical imperative, that murder is unequivocally wrong. This means, in order to be consistent with the deontological system, NO OTHER FACTORS can INFLUENCE this moral standard. But if the utilitarian line deems that the net utility is so great, that their “polyaxiomatic” conclusion would be to commit murder anyways (as long as you’re saving enough people), one cannot say this system is truly “polyaxiomatic” because deontology is inherently contradicted. The “polyaxiomatic” system here leans heavily upon a consequentialist framework, simply reducing deontological rules to constants of utility (which again is a contradictory to deontology). This is what Destiny was more or less trying to communicate. He wasn’t “equivocating on utility” as the smug guy said. -(Dray1397 in d.gg)
The units for a graph like this would be inherently determined by y/x. Thats why graphs are always like “Thing with respect to time” so destiny’s right, it would be “Moral value with respect to utility”
Hope you enjoyed the past year. Btw, y=3 still is a function of x because in an x-y graph, y is literally f(x) - the output value of the input x. Therefore, f(x)=3 is a function of x.
The problem with this graph isn’t that you can’t put a deontologist on it. It is just done wrong. You can absolutely ask a deontologist what chance In moral value an action that produces more or less good outcomes has, and the answer would always be that no matter how good an outcome is there is no change in moral value. Just ask him the trolley problem. save 5 people kill one: deontologist would say murder is wrong. 100 people for one? Murder is wrong. You can keep going, they will always say murder is wrong regardless of the outcome. Therefore the moral value would be the same regardless of the value of x, hence a straight line. The problem is that a deontologist would never give you a moral value of an action other than good bad or neutral. You could never find a deontologist that would say murder is 1000 units of bad, or any other arbitrary value. They would just say: murder is wrong. Therefore if you would want to graf it, it would be a straight line yes, but the line would be at y=-∞.
Let's plot y = to moral value and x = to number of gods => "What do you mean I'm evaluating morality in a religious framework??? My graph doesn't assume religion is related to moral value at all!!!"
Then we'll set P[antheism] = x (number of gods)... Now, we can graph secular humanism (S) and set S = -1000 and then add it to "P". That new line is B[ullshit]. Tada!!! I've combined pantheism and secular humanism and come up with a great new moral system - called Bullshit. I'm brilliant.
Nomad Music It’s the ethical equivalent of the political mess that is centrism. “Do what hurts the least amount of people and benefits the most unless I can’t be arsed.”
It’s consequentialism where they reduce or decrease the moral value of certain actions (soft rules that can be broken) and then apply the utilitarian moral values onto it. I don’t know if there’s a thing such as rule consequentialism where the rules aren’t definite and binary yes/no, just additional guidelines apart from the utility-moral value relationship, but that’s basically what their moral theory is.
I'm not here to defend Ask Yourself and Avi, but it was really frustrating watching Destiny misunderstand and strawman these guys nonstop. I was actually really shocked because even if they're wrong, I would've thought Destiny would at least understand what they're saying. It's a shitty proposition but it's not a very complicated one.
Simon M Destiny was probably being salty because Ask Yourself is a pompous asshole. Pretty sure Ask Yourself was pretty clear on how Destiny was wrong.
Gee, this hurts my brain so much to listen to them debate over that graph when it seems they just can't understand how graph works on any side for over 1 hour. As it is in the beginning, that graph doesn't represent the whole of their "polyaxiomatic" system, but only for a definitive action ! As Destiny says, if it talked about all actions within this system the deontological line D would be all over the place because even if you quantify the value of it all actions would have different values... once you pick an action tho, it makes sense that the line is straight and doesn't vary: deontological thinking doesn't take into account outcomes... but whether or not it takes it into account doesn't change whether or not it can appear on the graph. When Destiny tries to explain that the D line makes no sense because it isn't affected, he's just as wrong as them; you most definitely can graph constant without infering that it vary according to y or x -> that's why we call them constant An easy exemple is this: you've got 10 apples and 1 pear, you eat 1 apple a day but never the pear. If you graph the number of pears per day on a line and the numbers of apple on the other, the apples go down by 1 every day and starts at (0,10), but the pear stays a straight line from (0,1) to (10,1) and more. I hate graphs, but i most certainly hate when ppl read or describe them wrong while still assuming they know how it works.
Destiny argues that a Deontologist would never assign a numerical value to an action (actually he argues further and says that there isn't even any relative difference in value for all actions). Who cares, they are representing the intrinsic moral value of a graph against the varying moral value according to utility. Since both "something varying with utility" and "something not varying with utility" is considered, it cannot be reduced to consequentialism.
The real problem here is that they're attempting to graph something which is ungraphable. They're trying to generalize a system of wellbeing down to a single equation, which is so reductionist that it's ludicrous.
His definition of net welbeing is normal welbeing, because units of suffering dont cancel out positive experiences,but also do have to be implicated in the equation. Welbeing is positive experiences minus negatice onces.
If daeontology were to be represented on this graph it would be a constant x=0 and y=daeontological outcome (moral value). Since NetWB is never considered it is always zero. Destiny was totally right. Graphing daeontology requires a function: moral_value = action_rule(action). This is not equivalent to moral_value = net_well_being(wellbeing, suffering). If you wanted to implement both sets you would create a system of equations that houses both functions, then dependent upon a level of moral value you could determine which system to use.
"For it to be Utilitarianism, it has to be that the moral value of the action is actually determined entirely by the utility." The only independent variable for P is utility... it's the literal only thing that you would plug into the the mathematical expression P = x + D, where D is an arbitrary constant, and x is utility, as defined by 'well-being - suffering'.
D is also an independent variable and this should be a 3 dimensional graph, they're just dumb and only plotted the deontological value of a single action (with a negative deontological value) in a 2d graph. If this was made properly it would be: x=well-being-suffering caused by action; y=deontological moral value of the type of action; z=overall moral value, and U would be a flat surface (z=x), D would also be a flat surface but it'd be perpendicular to U (z=y), and P would be yet another flat surface, and between that and the x-y plane would be a 45 degree angle (z=x+y). basically go to octave-online.net and copy this into the console: uval=linspace(-1,1,40); dval=linspace(-1,1,40); [uval,dval]=meshgrid(uval,dval); U=uval; D=dval; P=uval+dval; surf(uval,dval,U); surf(uval,dval,D); surf(uval,dval,P); and you'll get 3 graphs for utilitarianism, these guys' version of deontology, and whatever the fuck the third one is respectively where the 3 axes represent net well-being, deontological value, and moral value respectively
@@penguinvader7057 D isn't an independent variable, it's a constant. For a given action, e.g. telling a lie, it's assigned the same numerical value for every scenario where that action can take place. So if you were trying to determine whether telling a lie was morally justified using this system, you would plug in the utility produced by that lie, in the form of x, into the equation P = x - 100 (D = -100 for all lies). I don't understand what you're tying to do with your 2D surface, are you trying to plot every single possible action -- telling a lie, committing murder, cheating on your spouse, etc -- on the same surface? Because you can't do that, such a a set of values would be discontinuous. It's not a linear vector, as you plotted in that console. Ultimately, all of this discussion about how to accurately plot this dumbass system mathematically is missing the larger point that if you were to truly use Deontology to determine the moral value of an action, you wouldn't get numerical values like '-100' or '-1000'. It would resemble something more like a Boolean expression, where actions are either 'moral' or 'immoral'. For them to assign relative moral value to different actions, they are necessarily using some third, unnamed system to do it.
D (which in my example is y) is a constant when you only consider a single type of action, but when the domain of the deontological function (and therefore the domain of the "polyaxiomatic" one) is all actions, it's a variable. And yeah, the 2D surface's purpose was to illustrate every single possible action, and while unless there are infinite actions with different "deontological values" it'd be a bunch of parallel lines on the surface rather than the entire surface (which in turn also makes the P function a bunch of parallel lines on the surface rather than the entire surface), the main point was that to graph the entire moral system rather than a single action, you'd need a 3D graph, which still stands. But yeah, I agree that deontology is entirely different and you can't really "add" deontological morality to utility, so overall this moral system has essentially nothing to do with deontology (and it also seems pretty dumb and arbitrary imo but that's just my 2 cents)
@@penguinvader7057 Unless you know something I don't know about the system they're using to determine the values for every given action, D is just a set of values, it's not a continuous function. You're plotting this hypothetical Deontological function as a linear vector, when it's not, it'd be just a scatter plot where each point corresponds to a different action
@@pixelated_cow Ok let's say there are only 3 actions total: murdering, stealing and complimenting. Now, let's say murdering has a y of -2, stealing has a y of -1, and complimenting has a y of 1. Since "deontology" (I'll be using quotation marks to refer to this made up moral system where morality isn't binary) has a moral value (z) of D=y, and it doesn't take x (utility) into account in the formula, it assigns -2 moral value to every (x, -2) point on the x-y plane, making a parallel line to the x axis where y and z are always -2, which is part of the D surface I mentioned earlier. Do the same to stealing and complimenting, and boom, you get 2 more lines also on the surface that are parallel to that, but they have -1 and 1 y (and z) values. The only purpose of the surface was to show every single line that could possibly exist in this moral system for every action and I couldn't exactly list all of them since I don't even know the list of actions that the guys who made this up consider moral or immoral. But yeah, unless there are infinite actions with infinite different "deontological" values, it would not be continuous, as I've said in my last comment.
The problem with this graph is that a deontologist would never assign a numerical value to an action, even an arbitrary one. Murder wouldn’t have a D-value of -1000 because then that value would be comparable to the value of other actions, which makes it no longer deontology. What Isaac and Avi are calling ‘Deontology’ on that graph is actually just an arbitrary level of utility that serves as a threshold for that particular action, and if the utility exceeds that threshold the action is good. This is just a basic cost-benefit analysis, the same kind that utilitarians do. I’m not even gonna go down the rabbit hole of how Isaac calls himself a moral anti realist and yet seems to believe that actions have intrinsic positive or negative weights to them.
All it means is that you consider both the consequences AND the intrinsic moral value of an action. How complicated is this to explain? You can't simply call it consequentialism since it values more than simply the consequences.
Destiny isn't arguing that any system that considers consequences is utilitarianism. You can't argue that because you don't know every single system that might consider outcomes. He's arguing that *your* system is utilitarianism.
I think what Destiny is getting at is correct, but it goes both ways. For example, he says that a deontologist wouldn't even consider the x-axis, so by the virtue of the x-axis being there Line P collapses into utilitarianism. This works both ways. A utilitarian wouldn't even consider the y-axis, so you could also say that by the virtue of the y-axis being there Line P collapses into deontology. Line P can't fully collapse into utilitarianism and deontology simultaneously, that would mean U=D which is a contradiction. That's the purpose Line P: it's only _partially_ utilitarian and _partially_ deontic, not fully utilitarian and fully deontic, that's why P=U+D and not P=U=D, P is equal parts of both. You can't argue that P collapses into full utilitarianism without saying that it also fully collapses into deontology, so it seems Destiny's whole argument goes out the window. I'm not saying I agree with Polyaxiomatism, just that it is internally consistent and doesn't collapse.
I think I can state this in a way that Destiny can understand their point better. Imagine 3 people, one is a deontologist, one is a utilitarian, and one is this weird hybrid of the two systems. We ask them "Is it alright to kill 1 person to save 2 other people". The Deontologist says "obviously not, that has a moral value of -1000 regardless of how many it saves". The Utilitarian says "heck yea, kill that guy because 2>1". The hybrid says "no, don't kill them, because -1000+2=-998 which is still negative. You'd have to save at least 1001 people to make it worth killing 1". Whether or not the hybrid still falls under the definition of "utilitarian" is an argument of semantics, which I think was Destiny's overall point. The way he sees it, it doesn't matter what constant baseline value you assign to an action. If you are using utility to come to your conclusion in any way, then it's utilitarian. That -1000 is just being used as an assumed negative utility that goes along with murdering someone.
I have a 2:1 philosophy degree, and I can say quite assuredly that my knowledge in philosophy is about as limited as everyone in this video. Destiny wishing to include someone with a philosophy degree wouldn't necessarily solve this argument.
It actually solved this argument. Did you see the conversation with jhc? Destiny was just being obtuse or bad faith by shifting the argument to epistemology while this argument was about wether this system is consequentialist or not.
They have two different units on the x axis, and keep saying that's okay because one of them is constant. You can't have speed and meters on the same axis just because one of them doesn't change. I don't think that's how graphs work.
after this isaac even went as far as to demote you from expert debater on discord and everyone was circle jerking about how avi "crushed" you. I'm not seeing it.
That was such a hard listen. That "highschool math" guy is so insecure about his own stupid graph that he refuses to bring in any educated person (his own to boot) to help verify it in a debate. Why even both arguing if you don't think the system can stand up to any scrutiny? What the hell is with people with almost no formal education trying to revolutionize the field? That line about "charity" after all that mudslinging, projection, and jabbing is downright scummy. This video should be a litmus test for those who can't handle criticism.
Their argument isn't a merger between utilitarianism and deontology, it's a way to choose one over the other. Since the position of the moral value line is arbitrary, you could just make it -1,000,000 for actions you really hate, so that no amount of utility would overcome it. At that point, you're just paying lip service to consequentialism, while acting solely based on deontology.
i think the problem is that they're pretending to consider moral value and net well-being to be to different things, when they really aren't considering them differently. If they were more honest with their ideas, the graph would be like a number line, with the single axis being moral value/well-being, and the "deontological" part would just be a dot somewhere in the line.
It took me a while to figure this out, but their graph is so stupid. You can't put deontology at an arbitrary point on the Y axis like that (at best, at zero).
I agree that you can't do that, however I don't think that's exactly what they are trying to do. I think they were taking the idea from deontology that the morality of an action doesn't change based on the utility of it, but they weren't taking the binary property that an action is good or bad. I think they. And so you can't plat deontology like that, but you can plot a single hypothetical scenario like murder.
He said the its a complete different system because it’s u - 1000... but doesn’t that just mean the outcome has to be greater in order to say it’s morally okay when judging the same action compared to the utilitarian line ? Which to me means you’re not really arguing any thing different than the u-line
I remember when Destiny actually used to talk to other people. When did he start a study group with his undergraduate Ethics seminar where they discuss abstract representations of their theoretical ethics system using a foreign language Philosophy (where no words have their common definitions and everyone uses any definition they want so nobody can ever be on the same page). All this to create an abstract theoretical system that has no real use in the word other than to further complicate ethics conversations.
I'm going to take a crack at understanding this. Basically, any individual act carries a moral value in terms of duty (D) AND another value in terms of Utility (wellbeing-suffering or Net wellbeing or X) and where those lines cross gives you a Total Moral Value (P). Correct?
That graph is so dumb. What are we supposed to do, say that utility of murdering 1 person to save 100 is arbitrarily 755 points while murder = 166 points and saying "murder is bad" = 200 points? It's totally arbitrary. If D is really flat than that makes it look like everything is good or bad under deontology so it's even more skewed up than that
How exactly does someone quantify wellbeing, suffering, or the value of D (a predefined moral inaction/action)? Everytime a person makes a moral decision, isn't the valence of the choice in accordance with their subjective presuppositions anyway?
honestly their graph does make since Its basically utilitarianism but you move the line up if the action is good on the deontological spectrum and you move the line down if it is bad. All they are doing when they add the two lines,. So, utilitarianism might say that stealing bread is okay if your hungry as long as the baker is rich and doesn't really need the bread. IF we don't consider the social impact of rampant stealing this action would be good when viewed utiliatrianly, however if you are using this guys scale you would still consider the positive good, but you would have to subtract the "bad" of stealing and that might move it down to being a "bad" action, however once you got Hungary enough the utilitarian value of stealing the bread would outweigh the dentological reduction for stealing and the act would once again become moral.
I do think you *could* put these two things on the same graph because all actions in Deontology would fall along the y-axis (since utility/well-being is not a concern for actions, just moral weight) with anything above a certain value being required, below a certain value being forbidden, and anything in between would be permissible/neutral, while all actions in Utilitarianism would fall along the x-axis (since moral weight has no consideration, only utility) with similar upper/lower thresholds to establish forbidden/permissible/required actions. If you put those together (with simplifying respective lower bounds to be 0), you'd end up with a curve with the x/y axis as asymptotes, and any action that would be plotted in the region greater than that line would be considered moral. So if either system would forbid an action it is wrong full stop, if it is permitted or required by one system it is ok if it is permitted or required by the other, if it is required in both I guess it is super-required. I guess it would differ from rule utilitarianism as the rules it incorporates are not rules meant to maximize utility, but rather as utility-agnostic limits. This would be more restrictive than either system and sounds like it is the opposite of what they wanted, but any other mix sounds like Util. with added moralizing or Deon. with added exceptions, & either way leads to loophole city.
This video made me experience 100 units of suffering.
but its ok because it produced 200 units of happiness for someone else
_utils_
@@johnk3841 is destiny that someone????
@@mrbushmaster3322 I'm that someone
100? What units are you using? Have you calibrated sufferometer? The standard unit is the "Coulter". It's the amount of suffering per minute that would cause one to jam at least four sharp bamboo sticks in ones ears per minute.
👉🐧👈
Destiny failed to utilise facts and logic to falsify the Christian God in this Minecraft Let's Play.
Why should I trust an individual who can't even defeat the christian god?
utilize*
Cullen Froese is that a knowledge claim?
Cullen Froese how do you know your logic is valid?
Cullen Froese how do you know that logic is a valid tool? Do you use your logic to verify logic?
"Had it not been for the laws of this land, I would have slaughtered you."
- Destiny, 2018
Quote him on this.
Don't we all want to kill some people but can't because of the law?
@@deanvere4839 No. Thats like saying "havent we all wanted to rape someone but cant because of the law?" Dont let laws decide your morals.
Sumguy who loves Waifus 🤦🏿
No timestamp. BOO!
What's morally wrong with killing? Killing, not murder.
Destiny got utilized in this debate
**TRIGGERED** U S E D !
This meme is unuprootable. I dont even care whether that’s a real term.
Seriously though
If you want to know whether or not this video is worth watching, essentially they're arguing about the definition of one word for over an hour. Skip to 1:30:00 for the summary, you'll miss absolutely nothing from skipping over the argument.
THANK YOU!
"And again, if I'm wrong, we can look into it"
Destiny: "You are wrong"
"Well hold up, we're just doing simple math here"
So this is what happens when you give arm-char philosophers mathematics. Can we please go back? Now they think they have definite proof what they are saying is true because "look, I can put it on a graph so it's logical and totally makes sense!".
As a Mathematician, I cringed so much...
@@sixflags11804 It's not even that everything they are saying is wrong. Mathematically, if the value of X is not important of course they are right with the straight line, but this whole idea that you can project the axiomatic nature of mathematics onto philosophy (where 1 + 1 = 2 isn't by definition always right) by drawing a fancy graph is just mind-boggling.
The idea of actually being able to calculate utility as a number makes no sense. This doesnt feel like a good way to use math to prove a point lol.
It would be so interesting to see our boy take a proof based math course, such as Real Analysis 1 or (proof-based) Linear Algebra 1. This 90 minute convo wouldn't have happened.
@@Ideennot shit if everyone who debated destiny just took an intro to proofs class then he wouldnt have a career and we wouldnt have any memes lol
Our hero is late, so I'll take the mantle for now...
**Inhales**
Gno
Oi me ol' chum.
well a red line plus a blue line would make a purple line so at least they got that right
One value is binary and one value is numeric. They can't be compared. Once you change the binary value to -1000, it becomes numeric and changes to utility.
The action is binary, you either do it or not. But it's moral value is always negative, so we might as well pick a number to make it concrete. The numerical value itself doesn't mean anything, it's just an abstract model.
@@Lumaflare You have to model it somehow, a constant negative number seems like a natural choice. I'm not saying it's the best model, it has its flaws.
@@Lumaflare I'm a bit confused by the mathematics of this graph and why people are saying it's wrong, if your willing could you please explain in detail why it's incorrect? Thanks.
Spoilers for next episode: Avi comes back on and they still can't agree on anything. Rem enters the fray to take Destiny's side. Avi and Ask Yourself's friend, jhc_, wakes up, she's the PhD philosophy professor. She takes Destiny's side and agrees with Destiny about moral anti-realism. Rem freaks out, because he thinks he's morally obligated to murder moral anti-realists (because they don't claim the holocaust is immoral). Rem does his dumb thing where he posts a bunch of unreadable BS to reddit and teaches nobody nothing and everyone hates him.
Wait, jhc had a sex change? We need a whole episode on that
Alan Schwarzweller what day is that on? i want to check it out
Note me when it comes to that, I would like to see it. ;)
I think it was just a meme with JHC, he actually is not trans but was memeing somehow on Destiny
cmorera jhc_ is a woman. Unless she was trolling everyone. Not only destiny but Rem and the twitch audience as well. But I don't see the point in trolling everybody then it's just lying without reason
that graph is the most foolish attempt at philosophy ive ever seen
Debate Ask Yourself or Avi if you have a problem.
Actually, no, the problem is that they are meta-analyzing the graphinc instead of using examples
@@MatheusVS and here arises the problem when trying to reduce philosophy to some lines on a piece of paper
G0D1Y N1NJA how would I do that?
rorschach if you can quantify well being and moral value you can put it in a graph
"It's a simple Calculus" - Thanos. Friends, if you take the derivative of any function, a constant like "deontological moral value" disappears. I'm sorry, this is pre-calc.
Exactly, you can tell that they started with the x, y & u as like "the perfect world" then added the bottom part after in order the make it more "real"
Completely illogical way to make a graph.
Man if i knew you could make dank comments with calculus i would have paid better attention.
@@rafnaegels8913 You should see what math majors meme about. Now that is some dank shit. (Althou I am biased on this one).
This is the most needlessly complex explanation of threshold deontology I've ever seen.
Welcome to philisophy there is no end to the rabbit hole
On a graph, the equation of a straight line is represented by Y=mx+b.
The moral value of an action (Variable Y) increases as the "Net Wellbeing" (Variable X) increases.
The "D" line (or the "M" line as they use later on) is merely the "b" in the equation of a line. "b" in the equation of a line is merely the Y offset, or "Instead of starting at zero, start at B."
Their system starts at the "b" and changes based on ONLY the X variable, which is "Net Wellbeing"
In their system, as "Net Wellbeing" increases, the moral value of an action increases. It doesn't matter that you start at a lower point. The only variable that actually changes the graph is the Net Wellbeing.
Their system is just Utilitarianism, except whereas a utilitarian might say "An action is moral if it generates 50 Net Wellbeing", their system merely says "An action is moral if it generates 500 Net Wellbeing"
The problem is that this type of thing can't be represented on a line graph. There's no continuous function of morality. Every action just has a different "B" value that offsets their system to require more utility. But at the end of the day, the only thing that COULD make an action moral in their system is the utility. They just need more of it than the utilitarian would. This is demonstrated by the fact that both of their lines in the graph have the same slope.
Good description. Deontology has a m value of 0, consequentialism has a b value of 0. The graph under discussion would be one version of the consequentialism graph shifted to an origin which has been determined on an method that is not discussed. It is just a different weight of utility. The x axis could be redefined as net societal well being where societal well being is the sum of net well being and some offset b value. This reduces to consequentialism. Because morality seems to be a binary determination once the net value is determined, the question becomes only how one decides to choose a value system.
I think you are wrong. Because an utitilitarian would say that an action that results in 0 net wellbeing would be neutral while this system could say that it's immoral.
Thank you Ask Yourself and Avi for finally solving ethics after two and a half millennia :-)
Just draw it onto a graph bro, philosophy is now solved.
theres nothing to solve
@@leonlx564 if they'd spent the same time talkijg about people's ice cream preferences would you say the same
@@benaregai9416 Are you actually asking that? Peoples ice cream preferences have no impact on other people, morality is not like that at all. Morality is important as it affects what we value and how we treat other sentient beings. Ice cream preferences is also completely subjective. Although I think Morality is also subjective, humans generally share a set of shared axiomatic principles upon which we can elaborate.
@@leonlx564 they weren't trying to be persuasive , just prove their multiple flavours ice cream were a valid choice
--Ideas Marketplace--
Boys whose moms told them they were smart
56:40 my lord this dude is arrogant as all fuck, with 0 idea of what he is even talking about
Nope
They drew their own graph wrong. The P line should be a horizontal line until the utility reaches a high enough arbitrary number, and then the y value should begin to increase.
"You are being obtuse"
Why don't they just invite some 350 IQ Philosophy professor, like Trainwrecks?
LOL GUD1 😂
"I don't mean to get salty, I don't mean to seem rude..." He says in the most condescending tone possible
OK, no, I'm only 20 minutes in, and I'm not sure who Destiny is talking to, but you can't just simply put utilitarianism and deontology together and think you've successfully combined the two. If it were that simple, the two kinds of theories wouldn't be contrasted in ethics so much.
If, at some point, the utility of an action could exceed some supposed deontological concerns, then you're assigning utilities to said deontological concerns! I really don't see how it could be otherwise. How could you measure utility with something else and get an outcome? Like, how could you measure any two things if they're not even in the same unit?? (not sure if unit is the correct choice of word here since English isn't my native tongue, but you get the idea)
I'm not saying the two kinds of theories can never be reconciled, but I am saying if the reconciliation were to be done, it would not be brought about in such an uber-simplistic way.
the main person is ask yourself, you can see him the destiny's vegan debate and I believe they've talked before about other things as well. I think everyone else is from his discord server.
absolutely, they disguise the conversion by just having a formula there. U and D are really results of applying an ethical framework to a certain action. When you apply consequentialism you will get some number, utils, whatever you want to call them. Applying deontology will not give you back a number, something is either moral or it's not. It's like saying the morality of an action is 10 + true, or 5 + false, it's jibberish
Not trying to be weird, but how does a chinese person stumble upon Destiny's philosophical discussions?
i think their fault can be illustrated with an analogy. say you have a graph of an individual's intelligence (y axis) against the size of their penis (x axis) (excuse the crude example, i struggled to come up with anything else :x). we then plot points from a sample size of males and draw a line of best fit. then, we decide to also plot points from a sample size of females; this is where we run into the crucial flaw of their graph. by plotting y against x for a given entity, we assume that said entity can be described in terms of x and y. in my example, girls do not have male genitalia, thus we cannot quantify the size of their male genitalia, since it simply does not exist. to draw a parallel between this and the graph in the video, by plotting an action considered from a deontological perspective on a graph which considers utility, we are assuming that this action when observed through a deontological lens has a utility, which is by definition false, as deontology does not consider the ends, i.e. the utility.
@@javinturbotch3660 Well, nationality-wise, I'm actually Taiwanese. And whether or not Taiwanese people are Chinese per se is a complicated and heated issue lol
As to your question, I guess if you're a boring guy who's interested in international news and you happen to have good enough English abilities to look for discussions of it, most of which is centered around America, that's just what happens.
Also, as a philosophy major, seeing a gaming dude debating about philosophy is quite fresh lol
They literally have two asymptotic equivalent lines and try to argue that they have any difference.
It hurts so much to look at.
To be fair, for an action like murder P will have a negative (moral) value for plenty of values of x. So this polyaxiomatic value system would denounce a lot of actions that ultilitarianism would be okay with. That's a big difference.
Do you know what asymptotic means?
First of all, thats not the argument here. The argument is whether or not this new value system is consequentialist, which it is because even if you say that murder has non linear mapping of x to y, you still are able to map it from x to y using this new system. Second of all, there is no significance to the fact that this system could denounce more or less than pure utilitarianism might; this new system is essentially rule utilitarianism, which says that given certain situations/rules (where the situations are defined here as a "mix" of utility and deontological value), we can plot a generally non-linear relationship between utility and moral value. But thats literally *just* rule utilitarianism, which is still a strictly consequentialist system. In attempting to incorporate deontology into a graph of utility to moral value, you lose the entire fucking point of what a deontological system is. And the funniest part is that these big brain boys have even demonstrated that fundamental truth on their graph, and it still somehow eludes them lmao.
FeelingVeryAttackedRN I know. I was just pointing out that there is a difference. I'm not missing the forest for the trees; I'm just commenting on the trees and not commenting on the forest at all.
The error is in not explicitly defining how Y is measured. Under U, X would only equal Y if the units are the same (i.e. moral value on the y-axis is being measured in utility or a unit that can be directly converted to utility). This is why graphing D against Y is essentially assigning a negative utility value for breaking a categorical imperative. If D is -1000 Y units and we know Y units = X utility, then we've assigned a value of -1000 utility to D.
why was the debate about this debate posted before this debate?
because the debate was after the debate debate?
Destiny seems to be confusing the axis here. Y is the moral value, X is the amount of utility. X doesn't affect the slope of deontology at all. X can have whatever value, but D remains consistent about the moral value of an action. That is perfectly accurate and valid. Whether or not their system escapes consequentialism entirely does seem to be a matter of semantics, because the consequences of any action are always considered (allthough they aren't always determining whether the action has a positive or negative moral value)
Their system is logical, but seems to have both the arbitrary axioms of utilitarianism (that wellbeing is good and suffering bad) and deontology (every rule the deontological system makes). I don't get why you would use that system over the others, but that seems to be my utilitarian pragmatism.
After looking at the graph, I think they should change "moral value of a given action" to "moral value of murder." Only then can the D be plotted. If we don't know the action, D has no place on the graph. Then I would place "well being" on the right of the Y axis, and "suffering" on the left.
What that seems to be saying is: "concerning murder,, we agree with Deontology that murder is default wrong, but we think it raises in moral value when considering outcome, where utilitarianism starts with the notion that murder is neutral until we analyze the outcome."
I'm not sure if that's a true depiction of utilitarianism but it's how I read what they are saying.
Destiny got utilized as a consequence
holy shit this is confusing lol
Your confusion has a moral value of -1000
It's not confusing, you're just being obtuse.
Because it's literally nonsense. There is no quantification to be applied to rhetoric. To "moral value". Graphs give clear, concise information. They argued for a half hour about the content of a graph with 3 lines on it. There is nothing, nothing to be achieved here.
Which is the point of 98% of philosophy arguments is it not?
tldw: no gnomes
Oh gno
nice meme
so much bad math
the "D" line is useless
any linear equation can be subdivided into an infinite amount of other linear equations
attributing a meaning to one of the sub-equations is pointless
All you care about is P
and P is Utilitarianism
having a D line a subtracts 1000 points of morality is equivalent to just shifting your Utility equation by 1000 which is just an addition of a constant
y = a x + b is U
y = -1000 is D
y = a x + b - 1000 is P
y = ax + (b -1000)
b - 1000 = c
y = a x+ c has the same form as U
P has the same form as U
they are the same thing
If you really want to incorporate deontology then it would take over
D = -infinity
y = ax + b - infinity = -infinity is P
deontology takes over and consequentialism has no say in the equation
Why would anyone think this way at all? Math doesn't seem like a good framework for ethics.
Well the D isn’t deontology, it’s simply the constant value of a given action which yes shifts P by D by definition, but since D is a constant and an axiom, the P incorporates the utilitarian axiom as well, becoming polyaxiomatic.
@@paulaagam5071 and "polyaxiomatic" is just a constant shifted utilitarianism
Which still weighs a choice by wellbeing ultimately as the line P goes linearly up as X goes up....
John Smith yes and that constant is an axiom is it not? That axiom being some concept of deontology?
@@paulaagam5071 the constant axiom D being added to utalitarianism to create P. Ok.
So.
The output D is binary, and only a function of moralityY
(But for the purpose of the graph is assumed to only include the negative side, and also is assumed to work irrespective of whatever X value, therefore it is parallel to X and goes to infinity on the graph to make it workable with utalitarianism framework)
Ok and.
The variable utalitarianism is a function of moralityY and wellbeingX
So when you combine the two in an equation, U + D, the outcomeP will be a function of both morality and wellbeing, just like utalitarianism is
So the argument the people who made the graph are making is wrong...
They're literally arguing that for eg, y=x^2
Is fundamentally different to, y=x^2 + 1
Lol destiny said "irregardless" DEBATE LOST
If you can not properly explain your own system to someone, there is a fair chance that it is not a good system
Steven Heslop I understood it, and I’m pretty dumb.
The format of using a graph to display this is not an accurate means. The claim that the P-line and P=U+D are the same statements is incorrect. The P-line on the graph suggests the exact same thing as the U-line except the same action would be less virtuous/less moral. This is not a comment on the system itself, but the means of representation.
The statement "P=U+D" has no meaning. You're not talking about anything that can be quantified, otherwise you could modify it and still have it be intelligible,
e.g. P= 0.12 x U + 3 x D
Unless somebody wants to tell me what the above statement means, I'm not convinced their definition has any real meaning other than semantic games.
U = W - S is also a semantical misrepresentation, as wellbeing already encompasses suffering. Wikipedia's definition is:
"Well-being, wellbeing, or wellness is the condition of an individual or group. A high level of well-being means that in some sense the individual's or group's condition is positive."
So if the group's condition is negative (i.e. they suffer) it would be called low well being. So degree of utility = degree of wellbeing.
Noob question here: I get why the line for deontology is horizontal, but why the y value negative?
Now the graph says that, in deontology, the moral value of every action is deemed as negative. But as the moral value of actions in deontology isn't based on outcome, shouldn't it either be undefined in this graph or atleast set to y = 0. Which in these cases makes the graph not usable, or makes P = U respectively.
What am I not getting?
*Edit:* Wrote this when only a few min into the video. Seems like Destiny had somewhat similar questions to mine. Which was wondering how you could even quantify the morality of deontological actions.
This was painful to watch though. Something that destiny gets wrong though, is that IF you were able to give a certain deontological moral value for a given action, that is how the graph would look like.
Thing is.. even if this is how the graph would look like, it would still just be a variation of consequentialism... Wtf is even going on
I also would like to know.
I'm having trouble grasping that too. It also implies the more suffering there is in the action the more likely the deontological viewpoint has to be less immoral than the other two??? Which also doesn't make sense to me. Is D's value a variable?
What you are missing is that the graph isn't plotting the value of all actions within the moral systems, it's plotting the value of a singular given action within the different moral systems. In the graph shown, the action being plotted is something with an inherently negative value within deontology, for example; murder. The graph will look somewhat different depending on action being valued. In another case the "D" value might be positive.
Yes, you're right. At best, deontology would be set at 0 on the Y axis.
@@Jolron14 I thought that might be the case just now but then why didn't they just make the graph utilitarianism vs deontology where it's assumed positive values are moral and negative values are immoral?
Its funny they claim Destiny doesn't understand high school math. I don't FULLY follow all the philosophical distinctions between the 3 schools of thought being discussed (yes i'm including their poly bull shit as one school of thought for the sake of conversation) but it is literally through my understanding of math that i know destiny is right.
When plotting a straight line on a graph even if it doesn't vary in it's Y value, you are still making it a function of X by virtue of being on the graph. If D does not even consider the X axis in it's school of thought, by definition you cannot plot this type of thought on this particular XY graph.
Actually you can. It will be not necessary a single horizontal line (if function y depends on other variables other that x) - it could be a parameterized horizontal line, where value is a parameter.
It doesnt mean these guys are right in this debate, whole their point is (imho) stupid.
But you (and destiny) kinda miss what function means in mathematic. Function is just a relation that associates each element x of a set X to a single element y of another set Y. If a value Y doesnt vary when i change A, B and X values, i cant still make Y a function of A, B and X ant it is absolutely mathematically correct. The reason is - bcuz I can make a set of Y (1 constant value, cuz set is a collection of distinct objects, lets say Y0) and a set of X (like 1,2,3 and so on)and make a relation [(X,Y)] like [(1,Y0),(2,Y0),(3,Y0), ... so on] and each X asociates with only one Y (cuz its only 1 Y value possible)
I mean they’ve have said multiple times in the conversation that you don’t have to say that D is deontology.
last minute of destiny explaining this whole conversation is worth more than this whole conversation ifself
wtf they just ignore the key question. in the polyaxiomatic view, if you kill 1 to save 5 its bad, but kill 1 to save 1000000 its good. how is that different to consequentialism at all?
This whole convo was just:
Deontology d();
Utilitarianism u();
Utilitarianism convertedD = static_cast(d); //So it can be measured in the graph in the x axis
Polyaxiomatism p = u+convertedD;
Utilitarianism uP = u+convertedD;
//What I'm trying to say is, Polyaxiomatism is just utilitarianism. Maybe at best, it's a derives from utilitarianism
So polyax is simply adding an initial value of morality regardless of wellbeing. Each action begins with a default value of morality and the amount of wellbeing from the action either increases or decreases this default value.
Whereas utilitarianism has no default morality. Every action is morally neutral until we see the consequences of the action.
Am I correct?
Correct.
I want more ask yourself convos on the destiny channel pleaseeeee these were so good
Shit got real when the GRAPHS came out
It makes me so mad that none of these people know the difference between consequentialism and utilitarianism.
did they bring the PHD duder in on one of destinys streams before he went to LA? cos id like to watch that vod
Watched this live, was a really good one
The 3 stooges are wrong. This graph is untenable because it is impossible to graph a deontological line in R2 where an axis of R2 is represents “net utility”. The definition of deontology is that an action is deemed morally right/wrong in and of itself, based on a set of rules, irrespective of any other factors. The problem with P = U + D is that is presupposes that you can “add” a utilitarian moral value to a deontological one. That concept by itself is retarded, because in many cases, utilitarian systems contradict deontological ones (hence why they are different systems). Take a simple example that showcases why this is impossible. A deontologist holds, say from the categorical imperative, that murder is unequivocally wrong. This means, in order to be consistent with the deontological system, NO OTHER FACTORS can INFLUENCE this moral standard. But if the utilitarian line deems that the net utility is so great, that their “polyaxiomatic” conclusion would be to commit murder anyways (as long as you’re saving enough people), one cannot say this system is truly “polyaxiomatic” because deontology is inherently contradicted. The “polyaxiomatic” system here leans heavily upon a consequentialist framework, simply reducing deontological rules to constants of utility (which again is a contradictory to deontology). This is what Destiny was more or less trying to communicate. He wasn’t “equivocating on utility” as the smug guy said. -(Dray1397 in d.gg)
The units for a graph like this would be inherently determined by y/x. Thats why graphs are always like “Thing with respect to time” so destiny’s right, it would be “Moral value with respect to utility”
Plotting y=3 on a x-y plot makes y=3 a function of x? --No.
Hope you enjoyed the past year. Btw, y=3 still is a function of x because in an x-y graph, y is literally f(x) - the output value of the input x. Therefore, f(x)=3 is a function of x.
The problem with this graph isn’t that you can’t put a deontologist on it. It is just done wrong.
You can absolutely ask a deontologist what chance In moral value an action that produces more or less good outcomes has, and the answer would always be that no matter how good an outcome is there is no change in moral value.
Just ask him the trolley problem. save 5 people kill one: deontologist would say murder is wrong. 100 people for one? Murder is wrong. You can keep going, they will always say murder is wrong regardless of the outcome. Therefore the moral value would be the same regardless of the value of x, hence a straight line.
The problem is that a deontologist would never give you a moral value of an action other than good bad or neutral. You could never find a deontologist that would say murder is 1000 units of bad, or any other arbitrary value. They would just say: murder is wrong. Therefore if you would want to graf it, it would be a straight line yes, but the line would be at y=-∞.
Their graph shows that an action with positive (wellbeing-suffering) can have a negative moral value
But why do you even need to make a graph? Does it assist in understanding? I dont get it.
Let's plot y = to moral value and x = to number of gods => "What do you mean I'm evaluating morality in a religious framework??? My graph doesn't assume religion is related to moral value at all!!!"
Then we'll set P[antheism] = x (number of gods)... Now, we can graph secular humanism (S) and set S = -1000 and then add it to "P". That new line is B[ullshit]. Tada!!! I've combined pantheism and secular humanism and come up with a great new moral system - called Bullshit. I'm brilliant.
Made a whole ass graph to explain you’re a centrist. lmao
Wtf does it have to do with centrism? They're trying to depict a logically consistent moral system.
Nomad Music It’s the ethical equivalent of the political mess that is centrism. “Do what hurts the least amount of people and benefits the most unless I can’t be arsed.”
It’s consequentialism where they reduce or decrease the moral value of certain actions (soft rules that can be broken) and then apply the utilitarian moral values onto it. I don’t know if there’s a thing such as rule consequentialism where the rules aren’t definite and binary yes/no, just additional guidelines apart from the utility-moral value relationship, but that’s basically what their moral theory is.
I'm not here to defend Ask Yourself and Avi, but it was really frustrating watching Destiny misunderstand and strawman these guys nonstop. I was actually really shocked because even if they're wrong, I would've thought Destiny would at least understand what they're saying. It's a shitty proposition but it's not a very complicated one.
Simon M Destiny was probably being salty because Ask Yourself is a pompous asshole. Pretty sure Ask Yourself was pretty clear on how Destiny was wrong.
Destiny = P - U
Destiny = Despair - pair + tiny
AKA someone small, lonely and sad. D:
Gee, this hurts my brain so much to listen to them debate over that graph when it seems they just can't understand how graph works on any side for over 1 hour. As it is in the beginning, that graph doesn't represent the whole of their "polyaxiomatic" system, but only for a definitive action ! As Destiny says, if it talked about all actions within this system the deontological line D would be all over the place because even if you quantify the value of it all actions would have different values... once you pick an action tho, it makes sense that the line is straight and doesn't vary: deontological thinking doesn't take into account outcomes... but whether or not it takes it into account doesn't change whether or not it can appear on the graph. When Destiny tries to explain that the D line makes no sense because it isn't affected, he's just as wrong as them; you most definitely can graph constant without infering that it vary according to y or x -> that's why we call them constant
An easy exemple is this: you've got 10 apples and 1 pear, you eat 1 apple a day but never the pear. If you graph the number of pears per day on a line and the numbers of apple on the other, the apples go down by 1 every day and starts at (0,10), but the pear stays a straight line from (0,1) to (10,1) and more.
I hate graphs, but i most certainly hate when ppl read or describe them wrong while still assuming they know how it works.
Unlike the video, too few gnomes.
Destiny argues that a Deontologist would never assign a numerical value to an action (actually he argues further and says that there isn't even any relative difference in value for all actions). Who cares, they are representing the intrinsic moral value of a graph against the varying moral value according to utility. Since both "something varying with utility" and "something not varying with utility" is considered, it cannot be reduced to consequentialism.
The real problem here is that they're attempting to graph something which is ungraphable. They're trying to generalize a system of wellbeing down to a single equation, which is so reductionist that it's ludicrous.
His definition of net welbeing is normal welbeing, because units of suffering dont cancel out positive experiences,but also do have to be implicated in the equation. Welbeing is positive experiences minus negatice onces.
I killed the graph from a different angle, might write up an email
If daeontology were to be represented on this graph it would be a constant x=0 and y=daeontological outcome (moral value). Since NetWB is never considered it is always zero. Destiny was totally right. Graphing daeontology requires a function: moral_value = action_rule(action). This is not equivalent to moral_value = net_well_being(wellbeing, suffering). If you wanted to implement both sets you would create a system of equations that houses both functions, then dependent upon a level of moral value you could determine which system to use.
"For it to be Utilitarianism, it has to be that the moral value of the action is actually determined entirely by the utility." The only independent variable for P is utility... it's the literal only thing that you would plug into the the mathematical expression P = x + D, where D is an arbitrary constant, and x is utility, as defined by 'well-being - suffering'.
D is also an independent variable and this should be a 3 dimensional graph, they're just dumb and only plotted the deontological value of a single action (with a negative deontological value) in a 2d graph.
If this was made properly it would be:
x=well-being-suffering caused by action;
y=deontological moral value of the type of action;
z=overall moral value,
and U would be a flat surface (z=x),
D would also be a flat surface but it'd be perpendicular to U (z=y),
and P would be yet another flat surface, and between that and the x-y plane would be a 45 degree angle (z=x+y).
basically go to octave-online.net and copy this into the console:
uval=linspace(-1,1,40);
dval=linspace(-1,1,40);
[uval,dval]=meshgrid(uval,dval);
U=uval;
D=dval;
P=uval+dval;
surf(uval,dval,U);
surf(uval,dval,D);
surf(uval,dval,P);
and you'll get 3 graphs for utilitarianism, these guys' version of deontology, and whatever the fuck the third one is respectively where the 3 axes represent net well-being, deontological value, and moral value respectively
@@penguinvader7057 D isn't an independent variable, it's a constant. For a given action, e.g. telling a lie, it's assigned the same numerical value for every scenario where that action can take place. So if you were trying to determine whether telling a lie was morally justified using this system, you would plug in the utility produced by that lie, in the form of x, into the equation P = x - 100 (D = -100 for all lies).
I don't understand what you're tying to do with your 2D surface, are you trying to plot every single possible action -- telling a lie, committing murder, cheating on your spouse, etc -- on the same surface? Because you can't do that, such a a set of values would be discontinuous. It's not a linear vector, as you plotted in that console.
Ultimately, all of this discussion about how to accurately plot this dumbass system mathematically is missing the larger point that if you were to truly use Deontology to determine the moral value of an action, you wouldn't get numerical values like '-100' or '-1000'. It would resemble something more like a Boolean expression, where actions are either 'moral' or 'immoral'. For them to assign relative moral value to different actions, they are necessarily using some third, unnamed system to do it.
D (which in my example is y) is a constant when you only consider a single type of action, but when the domain of the deontological function (and therefore the domain of the "polyaxiomatic" one) is all actions, it's a variable. And yeah, the 2D surface's purpose was to illustrate every single possible action, and while unless there are infinite actions with different "deontological values" it'd be a bunch of parallel lines on the surface rather than the entire surface (which in turn also makes the P function a bunch of parallel lines on the surface rather than the entire surface), the main point was that to graph the entire moral system rather than a single action, you'd need a 3D graph, which still stands.
But yeah, I agree that deontology is entirely different and you can't really "add" deontological morality to utility, so overall this moral system has essentially nothing to do with deontology (and it also seems pretty dumb and arbitrary imo but that's just my 2 cents)
@@penguinvader7057 Unless you know something I don't know about the system they're using to determine the values for every given action, D is just a set of values, it's not a continuous function. You're plotting this hypothetical Deontological function as a linear vector, when it's not, it'd be just a scatter plot where each point corresponds to a different action
@@pixelated_cow Ok let's say there are only 3 actions total: murdering, stealing and complimenting. Now, let's say murdering has a y of -2, stealing has a y of -1, and complimenting has a y of 1. Since "deontology" (I'll be using quotation marks to refer to this made up moral system where morality isn't binary) has a moral value (z) of D=y, and it doesn't take x (utility) into account in the formula, it assigns -2 moral value to every (x, -2) point on the x-y plane, making a parallel line to the x axis where y and z are always -2, which is part of the D surface I mentioned earlier. Do the same to stealing and complimenting, and boom, you get 2 more lines also on the surface that are parallel to that, but they have -1 and 1 y (and z) values. The only purpose of the surface was to show every single line that could possibly exist in this moral system for every action and I couldn't exactly list all of them since I don't even know the list of actions that the guys who made this up consider moral or immoral. But yeah, unless there are infinite actions with infinite different "deontological" values, it would not be continuous, as I've said in my last comment.
The problem with this graph is that a deontologist would never assign a numerical value to an action, even an arbitrary one. Murder wouldn’t have a D-value of -1000 because then that value would be comparable to the value of other actions, which makes it no longer deontology. What Isaac and Avi are calling ‘Deontology’ on that graph is actually just an arbitrary level of utility that serves as a threshold for that particular action, and if the utility exceeds that threshold the action is good. This is just a basic cost-benefit analysis, the same kind that utilitarians do. I’m not even gonna go down the rabbit hole of how Isaac calls himself a moral anti realist and yet seems to believe that actions have intrinsic positive or negative weights to them.
All it means is that you consider both the consequences AND the intrinsic moral value of an action. How complicated is this to explain? You can't simply call it consequentialism since it values more than simply the consequences.
Destiny isn't arguing that any system that considers consequences is utilitarianism. You can't argue that because you don't know every single system that might consider outcomes.
He's arguing that *your* system is utilitarianism.
You know it is gonna be a good meme when the guest says "I don't really care about labels. I really just care about my ideas I'm putting forward."
I think what Destiny is getting at is correct, but it goes both ways. For example, he says that a deontologist wouldn't even consider the x-axis, so by the virtue of the x-axis being there Line P collapses into utilitarianism. This works both ways. A utilitarian wouldn't even consider the y-axis, so you could also say that by the virtue of the y-axis being there Line P collapses into deontology. Line P can't fully collapse into utilitarianism and deontology simultaneously, that would mean U=D which is a contradiction. That's the purpose Line P: it's only _partially_ utilitarian and _partially_ deontic, not fully utilitarian and fully deontic, that's why P=U+D and not P=U=D, P is equal parts of both. You can't argue that P collapses into full utilitarianism without saying that it also fully collapses into deontology, so it seems Destiny's whole argument goes out the window. I'm not saying I agree with Polyaxiomatism, just that it is internally consistent and doesn't collapse.
Sam Harris-tier ethics, wew.
Why is sam Harris getting shit on in the comments?
0/10. The diagonal lines aren't the same length. This whole idea needs to be scrapped.
Honestly "you're being obtuse" was a missed opportunity for a clip
You could relabel those lines as literally anything and it would still work mathematically... that doesn't mean it's good/right.
I like that they shortened "for example" to "for ex". That will surely catch on.
I think I can state this in a way that Destiny can understand their point better. Imagine 3 people, one is a deontologist, one is a utilitarian, and one is this weird hybrid of the two systems. We ask them "Is it alright to kill 1 person to save 2 other people". The Deontologist says "obviously not, that has a moral value of -1000 regardless of how many it saves". The Utilitarian says "heck yea, kill that guy because 2>1". The hybrid says "no, don't kill them, because -1000+2=-998 which is still negative. You'd have to save at least 1001 people to make it worth killing 1".
Whether or not the hybrid still falls under the definition of "utilitarian" is an argument of semantics, which I think was Destiny's overall point. The way he sees it, it doesn't matter what constant baseline value you assign to an action. If you are using utility to come to your conclusion in any way, then it's utilitarian. That -1000 is just being used as an assumed negative utility that goes along with murdering someone.
I have a 2:1 philosophy degree, and I can say quite assuredly that my knowledge in philosophy is about as limited as everyone in this video. Destiny wishing to include someone with a philosophy degree wouldn't necessarily solve this argument.
It actually solved this argument. Did you see the conversation with jhc? Destiny was just being obtuse or bad faith by shifting the argument to epistemology while this argument was about wether this system is consequentialist or not.
They have two different units on the x axis, and keep saying that's okay because one of them is constant. You can't have speed and meters on the same axis just because one of them doesn't change. I don't think that's how graphs work.
after this isaac even went as far as to demote you from expert debater on discord and everyone was circle jerking about how avi "crushed" you. I'm not seeing it.
Wow, Destiny got consequentially defined in this debate.
That was such a hard listen. That "highschool math" guy is so insecure about his own stupid graph that he refuses to bring in any educated person (his own to boot) to help verify it in a debate. Why even both arguing if you don't think the system can stand up to any scrutiny? What the hell is with people with almost no formal education trying to revolutionize the field?
That line about "charity" after all that mudslinging, projection, and jabbing is downright scummy.
This video should be a litmus test for those who can't handle criticism.
Isn't utilitarianism just a special case of polyax based on the graph?
They're all y=mx+b but with utilitarianism, b=0.
Their argument isn't a merger between utilitarianism and deontology, it's a way to choose one over the other. Since the position of the moral value line is arbitrary, you could just make it -1,000,000 for actions you really hate, so that no amount of utility would overcome it. At that point, you're just paying lip service to consequentialism, while acting solely based on deontology.
i think the problem is that they're pretending to consider moral value and net well-being to be to different things, when they really aren't considering them differently. If they were more honest with their ideas, the graph would be like a number line, with the single axis being moral value/well-being, and the "deontological" part would just be a dot somewhere in the line.
Well, people can’t read simple xy graphs anymore. X+constant=y is definitely not the same straight line moved up or down as X=y. Ok then
Shouldn't the D line actually be on y=0 and y=infinity if an action is only considered moral or immoral?
It took me a while to figure this out, but their graph is so stupid. You can't put deontology at an arbitrary point on the Y axis like that (at best, at zero).
I agree that you can't do that, however I don't think that's exactly what they are trying to do. I think they were taking the idea from deontology that the morality of an action doesn't change based on the utility of it, but they weren't taking the binary property that an action is good or bad. I think they. And so you can't plat deontology like that, but you can plot a single hypothetical scenario like murder.
I think what this debate has shown is that neither of these two guys understand philosophy nor math.
He said the its a complete different system because it’s u - 1000... but doesn’t that just mean the outcome has to be greater in order to say it’s morally okay when judging the same action compared to the utilitarian line ? Which to me means you’re not really arguing any thing different than the u-line
I remember when Destiny actually used to talk to other people.
When did he start a study group with his undergraduate Ethics seminar where they discuss abstract representations of their theoretical ethics system using a foreign language Philosophy (where no words have their common definitions and everyone uses any definition they want so nobody can ever be on the same page).
All this to create an abstract theoretical system that has no real use in the word other than to further complicate ethics conversations.
I'm going to take a crack at understanding this. Basically, any individual act carries a moral value in terms of duty (D) AND another value in terms of Utility (wellbeing-suffering or Net wellbeing or X) and where those lines cross gives you a Total Moral Value (P). Correct?
"18 units of suffering." Wouldn't want that. That sounds like a lot.
Listening to these people is so difficult...
Wow I'm surprised it took destiny longer than 10 minutes to get this.
Jesus Destiny it took you a while to understand
That graph is so dumb. What are we supposed to do, say that utility of murdering 1 person to save 100 is arbitrarily 755 points while murder = 166 points and saying "murder is bad" = 200 points?
It's totally arbitrary. If D is really flat than that makes it look like everything is good or bad under deontology so it's even more skewed up than that
How exactly does someone quantify wellbeing, suffering, or the value of D (a predefined moral inaction/action)? Everytime a person makes a moral decision, isn't the valence of the choice in accordance with their subjective presuppositions anyway?
Does anyone know what's days and time destiny usually starts his Livestreams.
honestly their graph does make since Its basically utilitarianism but you move the line up if the action is good on the deontological spectrum and you move the line down if it is bad. All they are doing when they add the two lines,. So, utilitarianism might say that stealing bread is okay if your hungry as long as the baker is rich and doesn't really need the bread. IF we don't consider the social impact of rampant stealing this action would be good when viewed utiliatrianly, however if you are using this guys scale you would still consider the positive good, but you would have to subtract the "bad" of stealing and that might move it down to being a "bad" action, however once you got Hungary enough the utilitarian value of stealing the bread would outweigh the dentological reduction for stealing and the act would once again become moral.
Destiny did a bad job of explaing why they're wrong
I do think you *could* put these two things on the same graph because all actions in Deontology would fall along the y-axis (since utility/well-being is not a concern for actions, just moral weight) with anything above a certain value being required, below a certain value being forbidden, and anything in between would be permissible/neutral, while all actions in Utilitarianism would fall along the x-axis (since moral weight has no consideration, only utility) with similar upper/lower thresholds to establish forbidden/permissible/required actions. If you put those together (with simplifying respective lower bounds to be 0), you'd end up with a curve with the x/y axis as asymptotes, and any action that would be plotted in the region greater than that line would be considered moral. So if either system would forbid an action it is wrong full stop, if it is permitted or required by one system it is ok if it is permitted or required by the other, if it is required in both I guess it is super-required. I guess it would differ from rule utilitarianism as the rules it incorporates are not rules meant to maximize utility, but rather as utility-agnostic limits. This would be more restrictive than either system and sounds like it is the opposite of what they wanted, but any other mix sounds like Util. with added moralizing or Deon. with added exceptions, & either way leads to loophole city.