And there I was always thinking why is the comments section turned off in Philosophy15. There surely would be great comments and suggestions of literature or other sources by the viewers. But guess not :)
This is in response to your other video "The Problem of Worship" where comments have been turned off. I believe that a parallel argument can be made in a purely material godless universe raising doubts about your particular argument. It goes like this: Imagine that the Earth is visited by the proverbial super intelligent ETs that bestow upon the world a supercomputer that is capable of instantly calculating those actions of each and every human that would contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number, i.e. a utilitarian's fantasy. An iPhone-like device is bestowed upon each human that will tell them at the beginning of each day what they ought to do in order to guarantee the greatest good for the greatest number of fellow humans. Each human can choose to follow the advice or ignore it. If a human follows the advice then the greatest possible good that individual can do is performed. However, if a particular human chooses to do something else, then something less is achieved and the supercomputer recalculates everyone's actions so that the new greatest good for the greatest number can be achieved. Those humans who followed the advice exactly every day in one way could be said to be slavishly obeying the wishes of the ETs. However, they would always be freely choosing to follow that advice, and by so doing they would be doing the best they could to guarantee the greatest good for the greatest number. Now a god could be considered like a super intelligent alien. And the advice of that god would be considered worthy of consideration. So if a particular person freely chooses to follow what he/she considers to be the advice of this super intelligent being then it might seem to an onlooker that the person is slavishly obeying their god, when it fact they are freely choosing to do what they consider to be the best action for themselves and their fellow human beings. In the first scenario the humans that freely chose to follow all of the advice of the ETs might not only consider that they are doing what is best for themselves and humanity, but what is also best for the ETs as their actions might eventually lead to them advancing to the point where they could join with the ETs and help them in their endeavors. Similarly someone in the second scenario could be following their god's advice not only to advance their own goals and the goals of their fellow humans, but also the goals of their god in hopes of joining up with that god when they have achieved a sufficient level of wholeness or holiness. A more mundane analogy might be that of the sprinter who hopes to break the world record in the 100 meter dash. To an outside onlooker it might appear that the sprinter is slavishly obeying his/her coaches in terms of following a strict diet and exercise regimen, however the sprinter sees it as freely choosing to do those things that will most likely lead to a new world record sprint.
Greatly appreciated several of the videos i've seen so far from you guys. Any plans in the future to discuss moral anti-realism perhaps?
I would be interested in a comparison video of Heraclitus and Nagarjuna
Excellent video by the way, very insightful
I always think unclean thoughts when I read the name Heraclitus.
And there I was always thinking why is the comments section turned off in Philosophy15. There surely would be great comments and suggestions of literature or other sources by the viewers. But guess not :)
This is in response to your other video "The Problem of Worship" where comments have been turned off. I believe that a parallel argument can be made in a purely material godless universe raising doubts about your particular argument. It goes like this:
Imagine that the Earth is visited by the proverbial super intelligent ETs that bestow upon the world a supercomputer that is capable of instantly calculating those actions of each and every human that would contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number, i.e. a utilitarian's fantasy. An iPhone-like device is bestowed upon each human that will tell them at the beginning of each day what they ought to do in order to guarantee the greatest good for the greatest number of fellow humans.
Each human can choose to follow the advice or ignore it. If a human follows the advice then the greatest possible good that individual can do is performed. However, if a particular human chooses to do something else, then something less is achieved and the supercomputer recalculates everyone's actions so that the new greatest good for the greatest number can be achieved.
Those humans who followed the advice exactly every day in one way could be said to be slavishly obeying the wishes of the ETs. However, they would always be freely choosing to follow that advice, and by so doing they would be doing the best they could to guarantee the greatest good for the greatest number.
Now a god could be considered like a super intelligent alien. And the advice of that god would be considered worthy of consideration. So if a particular person freely chooses to follow what he/she considers to be the advice of this super intelligent being then it might seem to an onlooker that the person is slavishly obeying their god, when it fact they are freely choosing to do what they consider to be the best action for themselves and their fellow human beings.
In the first scenario the humans that freely chose to follow all of the advice of the ETs might not only consider that they are doing what is best for themselves and humanity, but what is also best for the ETs as their actions might eventually lead to them advancing to the point where they could join with the ETs and help them in their endeavors. Similarly someone in the second scenario could be following their god's advice not only to advance their own goals and the goals of their fellow humans, but also the goals of their god in hopes of joining up with that god when they have achieved a sufficient level of wholeness or holiness.
A more mundane analogy might be that of the sprinter who hopes to break the world record in the 100 meter dash. To an outside onlooker it might appear that the sprinter is slavishly obeying his/her coaches in terms of following a strict diet and exercise regimen, however the sprinter sees it as freely choosing to do those things that will most likely lead to a new world record sprint.