Tommy Dixon umm i humbly disagree. This channel is awesome yes but school of life presents a bit prejudiced version of philosophy while claiming to be unbiased.
You have an amazing way of both imparting the salient pieces of info AND really making me think. You wake up pieces of my brain that have been dormant all day. I'm addicted.
I've watched every vlog you've done so far and i've got to say that you're quickly becoming one of my favorite youtubers. I really look forward to more vlogs and I hope that you continue to do these videos for a long time!
SPOT ON. Sanctity, authority, and loyalty are precisely the reasons that some would be against the family eating their dead dog as food. This video really put this into perspective for me.
Your videos are so fascinating and thought-provoking. I find myself watching and rewatching your work often because it is so rich and stimulating. Thank you! Here's to the next 50 vlogs and more!
Thinking about the topics you talk about always made me feel depressed, mostly due to the fact that I can do little to change them. There's something optimistic in the way you approach things, I never considered such an approach possible. I've been watching your videos for a grand total of two days now and I will agree with the person above; you're probably the best TH-camr I've stumbled upon. So cheers I guess, you've earned yourself -another- enthusiastic follower
I really appreciate your videos. There are so many other videos on this site that are solely for amusement [Not that there's anything wrong with that, I think escapes can be useful and healthy] but it's so refreshing to watch a video, and be forced to think. It feels like I just met someone else who has seen the whole thing.
It would have also been good to mention moral relativism in more detail. What is ok to do in one culture is not in another. So in thinking of this, it raises the question if the concept of morality itself exists or not.
Disagreement doesn't take away the truth of something. To simply state an anthropological fact does not in any way compromise the nature or truth aptness of moral statements. Just because you think X is wrong but in my society it's okay doesn't mean that there is no truth to the matter of the statement "X is wrong." It merely shows that there is a disagreement on the matter and that's where philosophy comes in. To give us the truth. Disagreement may make us question our position but ultimately when we try to determine whether something is moral or not or we engage in ethical discourse we're typically trying to ascertain an overarching structure to explain what why something is wrong and then we take that and we apply it to various issues such as abortion and veganism. To suggest that disagreement about moral propositions affect the truth aptness of a statement just simply strikes me as asinine. If we we're to extend that logic to things outside ethics we would have absolute foolishness. If two scientists have a disagreement over climate change then does that mean that there's no truth in either side? I sure as hell hope not.
Morality is not easily influenced or pliable. It is a static truth. I don't believe in a moral perspective outside of God's perspective. And God's perspective is to love everyone, even those that hate you. Always. End of story. Bless those that persecute you, love those that hate you.
+Moonawrathic That's just asinine. Morality is a feature of God, not a product of God. Is God moral? Yes. But that doesn't answer the question as to what is the essence of morality itself.
Who should I look to, to further delve into Normative Ethics? Congratulations on the 50th video, you are increasing your skills, and I continue to appreciate your topics you discuss. Great work bud.
I love that you are articulate and that you are building your own world view. I really enjoy how you think and express your thoughts. Please! Keep it up. There is already enough ignorance in the world to go around.
please dont stop making these videos! they are amazing and if you keep em coming Im sure you'll reach a larger audience and you could even make a living off of this!
Hi nerdwriter, as a student in England I would love to see a vlog on travel or new york, I so desperately want to live there one day! keep up the good work :)
I think care/harm could be a factor if you consider whether or not the children want the dog to be eaten. It wasn't really made clear whether they were included as "somebody knowing", and they might not have cared, so it's not really a factor to consider, but it is a reasonable circumstance to consider as far as honesty goes. All and all this is a great example of individualistic vs collective order. I personally weigh in on the Western 3, but feel there are contextually appropriate reasons to consider the other 3. What you have there is a desire to come up with extensive conditions of conduct that accounts for people not being perfect in the first place. Not everybody can judge for themselves, so people typically adhere to this at the very least as a sense of decency between each other.
I've been recently struggling with my "moral compass". Sometimes I'm very nihilistic, usually when judging past events. I say, "Why does it matter? How will my opinion change what's already happened?" But sometimes I'm very passionate about what's right and wrong, usually involving the present. I'm very upset with the institutional oppression of minorities and the whole Bernie Sanders thing. I'm trying to be consistent but its very hard. But I guess it doesn't matter if I'm consistent or not.
The "eating your dog" story can resonate with different moral dimensions not just purity/sanctity. Care/Harm: The family didn't harm the dog but if that was a common practice, then there would be some risk that some other family would actually kill the dog to eat it. One has to acknowledge that in reality, some actions inspire other actions that aren't exactly the same. Therefore, on the basis of protecting dogs, the family shouldn't eat it. This maybe related to why we have a moral intuition against eating dead people, eating a dead body may inspire others to kill a human for eating, that is bad from care/harm perspective.
Interesting. I'm taking a special topics philosophy class on Moral Psych at my university. Writing a paper on Normative Ethics tonight actually... The crazy thing about these types of topics is that I feel like they always seem to snowball and spiral into an intense metaphyscial discussion of philosophy with no end in sight... Maybe that's why people enjoy talking about these so much? The topics with which the end of inquiry never seems to show signs of showing up are the most interesting...
Very Interesting video! I have a class this semester on Ethics, where we talk about the various theories of ethics, like utilitarinism, deontology, ethical subjectivism, social contract and so forth.
Just discovered your channel and really love it but I have one question. What's with the constant switcheroo between the Beatles' Album and the diploma in the background?
Well that was scary -- I listened to your list of the six moral values and thought "Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, and Liberty/Oppression, those are important. The other three .. jeez, they verge on *im*moral." Only to hear that that's exactly what I would be expected to think! Darn! Having a moral crisis over here; I'll get back to you.
I really like how you look into all of this. I've been trying to understand the works of Deleuze and some bits of Schopenhauer. Do you have any opinions or comments on these philosophies? And here's to another 50 more vlogs (please) :D
Hey Nerdwriter1(idk if you prefer that or Evan), I just wanted to know what your occupation is and what you majored in college? As a current undergrad its always interesting to see what avenues others take. thanks for your time!
Anyone notice how relevant it was to feature Chigure from No Country for Old Men here. The whole point of the film was to do with principles and morality, that because each person has their own and they're subjective the only thing that matters is that you stick by them.
Your ideas make me think for weeks about things. Usually by happenstance. For example I will forget that it was you that told the story, but the next time I see a dog I will feel sad that some hypothetical family saw fit to eat their own dog. I guess because pets are seen as people, and other animals raised on farms, are not.
Jordan Peterson would argue that there is an absolute morality which emerges from humanity's psychobiological underpinnings. Archetypes as human universals are evidence for this, and the articulation of those archetypal themes are what makes his work so interesting and resonant. I would love to see a nerdwriter episode on JP.
Skywalker 1138 he might argue that... but why is our psychobiological underpinning (which developed via evolutionary selection pressure) important? Obviously you might think its important for a functioning society but why is it important morally? And how can it be universal when a different evolutionary path would have created different psychobiological underpinnings? surely morality is absolute and not dictated by evolution ? When deciding on right and wrong is there anyway to use psychobiological traits? Those traits only tell us about ourselves and how we react as individuals and societies to various moral decisions etc etc but just because we can predict consequences of moral decisions doesnt mean we know whether they are right or wrong because in the end you still need to decide which consequences are optimal. What is morallity optimising. If you say "good" : what is good? Wellbeing? What is it? Could the matrix be moral if everyone was happy and healthy but entirely deluded and unfree?
3:40 yet it can get trickier still because then there is the consideration of the implications of such a moral stance in effecting the mind set of such individuals and how that may influence their other actions (i.e. the general consumption of meat) and thus paying money to have animals harmed rather than eating animals that died already. In essence utilitarianism in practice cannot be achieved as a direct result of trying to put utilitarian theory in to practice. What's the solution? Well, I don't know but it's interesting because it gets even more complicated than we'd like to believe.
i got distracted since the eating dog thing because it made me really want to have a nice meal of dog meat. yes, im from the east, it's very legal where i am and very popular. the key is like eating any other meat, you dont see the animal and dont think about it. just something i'd like to share.
***** if you have a pig pet, would you eat it? no. but would you stop eating pork after that? no. that's how it works with dog too. we dont actually eat the dogs that we keep as pets.
+Krone Nguyen No for sure, I never said that :-) just referring to the story and meaning that it is different from your culture with the pet thing. I might even eat a dog one day, as long as it's not my pet haha
+Kronn If you ever find yourself in Xinjiang (western western China) or anywhere else of Mongolian / Turkic background, you should try the horse-sausages. I'm not being cheeky, this is a serious recommendation. Smoked sausages that are, while game-y and a tad dry, quite delicious when sliced thin and put on bread with vegetable relish, ooh, and yogurt, don't forget the yogurt. Seriously, it's good, though not quite as good as the lamb, but still. And in the case of Xinjiang, or at least the parts I went to, the horse meat was procured from horses that died naturally; no slaughterhouses whatsoever. Think about it, you got no problem feeding the exact same horse to your dog. Great, now I'm hungry for Xinjiangese food, they got lots of good stuff there. Too bad the place is turning into a friggin' war-zone.
The western foundation of morality par excellence isn't a "care/harm" principle but the Natural Law, which was developed by the Greeks, implemented by the Romans and still is the foundation of our European/American judicial systems.
hmm, with regards to the dog owners, after falling in the first category I thought about why it's still wrong (why I wouldn't do it). the best answer I can give is emotion which is inherent in morality. to see it not as a companion but a piece of meat so quickly would require a complete dissipation of the love you felt for it. the dysfunction of their emotions means there would be nothing for morality to be built upon, a paradox. I think of clinical psychopathy which features a lacking of both.
Wasn't there some link to some books you recommenend? Or was that just a comment who wanted to read your favourite books? I want book suggestions by you!
The family did not do something morally wrong but if they can emotionally detach themselves from their companion enough to eat it, my immediate judgement would be that they are inclined to do things which are
my answer to the dog question was what culture are they from and weather or not that culture has a custom of eating dog or not. I also asked if the family was poor and or truly needed the dog as substance
they don't have to "really need" to cook and eat the dead dog, if they all wanted to eat it, they can. since the dog is theirs and no one was watching them eat it.
Your channel looks so awesome to me and I really like your style but as a non-native speaker, I just don't understand your vids good enough (or is it "well enough"?)... either way, keep it up!
True, that was my thought as well. I guess some people feel that a living thing loses all rights if it's not living, or human, maybe, but I myself wouldn't eat the dog. I guess also it's not clear who owns your corpse if you're dead. Again, I would bury the dog.
On a related note, Tom Scott ended one of his videos with the question "At what point does digging up a grave stop being disrespecting the dead and instead become archaeology?"
It is a different thing though. When it's dead, it's a piece of meat and not eating it is a waste of edible food. From the families point of view, the money they might have spent getting some food from the supermarket can now be spent on other things, charity for example. The fact that they ate a piece of meat that was formerly their dog may well end up making some poor starving child's day somewhere significantly better.
6:58 "It's not to say, to be clear, that all moralities and all moral foundations are equally good . . . " This might apply as well to all "Moral Foundations Theories." Could you do a 4th vid where you critique Haidt more? This was a fairly uncritical presentation of his ideas. The very surface look into it (and previously) I did showed at the least there are scientific/philosophic objections. But I'm not an expert.
Morally wrong to eat a dog? Nope. I've got an even more intense one for you: An isolated family's grandma passes away and they are the only living relatives or contacts that she has had throughout the last 50 years of her life. They live in a country where burial procedures do not require supervision from a government entity and properly file the paperwork stating that the burial procedures will be carried out on their property. They then proceed to butcher the grandma and eat her for dinner. Oh yeah, lets assume that there are no children present in this scenario or outside witnesses and all adult participants unanimously agreed to do this with no coercion or persuasion. Morally wrong? Yes? What if it were part of their religious ideologies (and the grandma's) to do so and that failing to do this would result in the grandma's soul being sent to hell? Alright one more stipulation, let's also say that in their isolated culture, eating the deceased was part of the grieving process and that this was passed down to the family by the very grandma in question.
+David Fair But that is a whole different point because eating your own grandma is not just "morally wrong" but plainly illegal. It's called cannibalism btw xD.
+Supergravitation So the legality of something implies whether or not it is immoral? It's illegal to smoke marijuana, but does anyone in their right mind think it's morally wrong to do so?
David Fair Thats not the point. Something being illegal doesn't mean that it's immoral (take the whole set of traffic laws for example) and vice versa. But eating another human being, also known as cannibalism, which is illegal AND immoral, is not so easily comparable to eating a dog, which btw. is completely legal in many countries, as you correctly stated, not only of this thing with eating your own kind but also the problem of comparability between two entities of different intelligence and mind level and the resulting level of laws coming with these sets of facts. I hope that this made at least any sense and i am deeply sorry for the poor quality of my written english resulting of me not being a native speaker. Yours faithfully, J. Gertulla
+David Fair I said it before and I'll say it again, humans aren't designed to eat human. This is evidenced by the fact that every time the human body does try to ingest human, the body sees the dead human stuff and says "what's that doing there?" and pulls it out of the digestive tract and puts it back where it "belongs", only, the stuff that's being "put back" is dead and really does not belong in the living body that's trying to recycle it. The end result being that the body accidentally poisons itself because it missed "Cannibalistic Digestion 101: What to toss and what to keep?", so the body throws up its hands in confusion, and next thing you know, you got brain damage (hence the "crazy cannibal dancing about" cliche).
But that's not true. YOu could in theory eat a whole human without taking in any poisons. Dude, if you had poison in you, you'd have biger problems than having a conversatoin about cannibalism. Btw there are people who have eaten whole human bodies. They're just in prison right now...
You are the best thing I have stumbled upon on youtube.
I completely agree
If you like his stuff, you might like the channel, The School of Life. You are also 100% correct Nerdwriter1 is arguably the best channel on TH-cam.
A TH-camr called Thomas Frank helps me be productive, Nerdwriter1 helps me survive my never-ending over-thinking.
Tommy Dixon umm i humbly disagree. This channel is awesome yes but school of life presents a bit prejudiced version of philosophy while claiming to be unbiased.
WHY DO YOU KEEP SWITCHING BETWEEN YOUR DIPLOMA AND THE BEATLES ALBUM?!
Space Jammer Beatles albums double as diplomas now
Record is gonna warp in that window! Also he’s keeping his porridge warm on the radiator. Love his vids tho, byeee!
You have an amazing way of both imparting the salient pieces of info AND really making me think. You wake up pieces of my brain that have been dormant all day. I'm addicted.
I've watched every vlog you've done so far and i've got to say that you're quickly becoming one of my favorite youtubers. I really look forward to more vlogs and I hope that you continue to do these videos for a long time!
Thank you for presenting your point without bias. Good job. Proud of you. It's really hard to do.
SPOT ON. Sanctity, authority, and loyalty are precisely the reasons that some would be against the family eating their dead dog as food. This video really put this into perspective for me.
Your videos are so fascinating and thought-provoking. I find myself watching and rewatching your work often because it is so rich and stimulating. Thank you! Here's to the next 50 vlogs and more!
the best thing I have ever learned is that everybody lives differently than everyone else.
I must say, this is likely the greatest running Vlog on all of TH-cam. I look forward to these every week.
Thinking about the topics you talk about always made me feel depressed, mostly due to the fact that I can do little to change them.
There's something optimistic in the way you approach things, I never considered such an approach possible.
I've been watching your videos for a grand total of two days now and I will agree with the person above; you're probably the best TH-camr I've stumbled upon.
So cheers I guess, you've earned yourself -another- enthusiastic follower
I really appreciate your videos. There are so many other videos on this site that are solely for amusement [Not that there's anything wrong with that, I think escapes can be useful and healthy] but it's so refreshing to watch a video, and be forced to think. It feels like I just met someone else who has seen the whole thing.
I agree with your final statement about what the vlog has evolved into and I really like that you choose to vlog this way. I hope you continue that.
It would have also been good to mention moral relativism in more detail. What is ok to do in one culture is not in another. So in thinking of this, it raises the question if the concept of morality itself exists or not.
Disagreement doesn't take away the truth of something. To simply state an anthropological fact does not in any way compromise the nature or truth aptness of moral statements. Just because you think X is wrong but in my society it's okay doesn't mean that there is no truth to the matter of the statement "X is wrong." It merely shows that there is a disagreement on the matter and that's where philosophy comes in. To give us the truth.
Disagreement may make us question our position but ultimately when we try to determine whether something is moral or not or we engage in ethical discourse we're typically trying to ascertain an overarching structure to explain what why something is wrong and then we take that and we apply it to various issues such as abortion and veganism.
To suggest that disagreement about moral propositions affect the truth aptness of a statement just simply strikes me as asinine. If we we're to extend that logic to things outside ethics we would have absolute foolishness. If two scientists have a disagreement over climate change then does that mean that there's no truth in either side? I sure as hell hope not.
+garrison call The real danger is in thinking that all morality is a concept created by man and that it is malleable.
Morality is not easily influenced or pliable. It is a static truth. I don't believe in a moral perspective outside of God's perspective. And God's perspective is to love everyone, even those that hate you. Always. End of story. Bless those that persecute you, love those that hate you.
+Moonawrathic That's just asinine. Morality is a feature of God, not a product of God. Is God moral? Yes. But that doesn't answer the question as to what is the essence of morality itself.
dsettleascii It's a product of God. He decided what was good and what was not.
There need to be more philosophical videos like this on TH-cam. I am so glad I found this channel.
Who should I look to, to further delve into Normative Ethics? Congratulations on the 50th video, you are increasing your skills, and I continue to appreciate your topics you discuss. Great work bud.
You're videos really make me question things I considered normal before. Love them, keep them up!
I love that you are articulate and that you are building your own world view. I really enjoy how you think and express your thoughts. Please! Keep it up. There is already enough ignorance in the world to go around.
another killer record chillin in the background
please dont stop making these videos! they are amazing and if you keep em coming Im sure you'll reach a larger audience and you could even make a living off of this!
I have always thought about this, how my good and other's good can be completely different. This is my favorite video of yours.
I love your comment.
I've found that the sheer quality of your videos out-match any other vlogger I have ever come across.
Feels like just yesterday that I watched all of your videos (around ten at the time) all in one sitting.
Grammar slam! (You're after my own heart, Fran.) (Thanks Klaitor!)
I don't just look forward to the next 50 vlogs, but to next 100, 200 and so forth ones :D
Your work here is really amazing
Thanks for making these videos. I have been trying to construct my own worldview and you have really been helping 🙏🙏🙏
Happy 50th! What a long strange trip it's been. Can't wait to see what's next! Keep it up!
Thank you Nerdwriter, love your videos, I came over from wisecrack. Both channels are a shining light amongst many other ignorant ones.
My daily dose of philosophy: NerdWriter1
THE MORAL IMPERATIVE: 'Whatever moves the greatest amount of people towards a greater understanding of what constitutes perfection.'
This is the second of your videos that I have seen. Really Extraordinary work. Wow. I will be watching all of them. I subscribed. Thank you.
Your work is much appreciated, very well done sir, I look forward to watch another 50 and expanding this community of world view.
It would be cool if you did vlogs like this again, especially if a main essay takes longer than a week or two to complete.
Hi nerdwriter, as a student in England I would love to see a vlog on travel or new york, I so desperately want to live there one day!
keep up the good work :)
I think care/harm could be a factor if you consider whether or not the children want the dog to be eaten. It wasn't really made clear whether they were included as "somebody knowing", and they might not have cared, so it's not really a factor to consider, but it is a reasonable circumstance to consider as far as honesty goes. All and all this is a great example of individualistic vs collective order.
I personally weigh in on the Western 3, but feel there are contextually appropriate reasons to consider the other 3. What you have there is a desire to come up with extensive conditions of conduct that accounts for people not being perfect in the first place. Not everybody can judge for themselves, so people typically adhere to this at the very least as a sense of decency between each other.
Here's to the next 50 vlogs and more. You're doing a great job, man. :)
this is great! i hope you keep doing what you're doing. i always look forward to these videos.
I fell in love with your videos, they're amazing
Brilliant as always, leaving me with much to consider but nothing too eloquent to dictate off the bat. Congrats on 50!
I've been recently struggling with my "moral compass". Sometimes I'm very nihilistic, usually when judging past events. I say, "Why does it matter? How will my opinion change what's already happened?" But sometimes I'm very passionate about what's right and wrong, usually involving the present. I'm very upset with the institutional oppression of minorities and the whole Bernie Sanders thing. I'm trying to be consistent but its very hard. But I guess it doesn't matter if I'm consistent or not.
The "eating your dog" story can resonate with different moral dimensions not just purity/sanctity.
Care/Harm: The family didn't harm the dog but if that was a common practice, then there would be some risk that some other family would actually kill the dog to eat it. One has to acknowledge that in reality, some actions inspire other actions that aren't exactly the same. Therefore, on the basis of protecting dogs, the family shouldn't eat it.
This maybe related to why we have a moral intuition against eating dead people, eating a dead body may inspire others to kill a human for eating, that is bad from care/harm perspective.
Interesting. I'm taking a special topics philosophy class on Moral Psych at my university. Writing a paper on Normative Ethics tonight actually... The crazy thing about these types of topics is that I feel like they always seem to snowball and spiral into an intense metaphyscial discussion of philosophy with no end in sight... Maybe that's why people enjoy talking about these so much? The topics with which the end of inquiry never seems to show signs of showing up are the most interesting...
I was wishing I read mortality when I first saw the video title - please do a video on mortality next!
Very Interesting video! I have a class this semester on Ethics, where we talk about the various theories of ethics, like utilitarinism, deontology, ethical subjectivism, social contract and so forth.
I love your videos! Congrats on the 50 vlogs! Looking forward to many more :)
Just discovered your channel and really love it but I have one question. What's with the constant switcheroo between the Beatles' Album and the diploma in the background?
Well that was scary -- I listened to your list of the six moral values and thought "Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, and Liberty/Oppression, those are important. The other three .. jeez, they verge on *im*moral." Only to hear that that's exactly what I would be expected to think! Darn! Having a moral crisis over here; I'll get back to you.
something special lined up for vlog 52? after all it is a year. maybe a Q&A?
Continue to hope that you start a podcast!
I really like how you look into all of this. I've been trying to understand the works of Deleuze and some bits of Schopenhauer. Do you have any opinions or comments on these philosophies?
And here's to another 50 more vlogs (please) :D
I've enjoyed every one of your vlogs. I only wish you had half the subs you deserve.
Just noticed the shirt says"don't give". Nice touch
Your mug made me smile, even if it isn't real.
great vid, you re doing really valuable work man!
Kudos Evan for 50!!! Good work fine man ;)
Been here since Number 1. Keep it up!
The video editing helps a lot. But yes I do agree this guy is a wiz among others.
congrats on 50 vlogs!
Hey Nerdwriter1(idk if you prefer that or Evan), I just wanted to know what your occupation is and what you majored in college? As a current undergrad its always interesting to see what avenues others take. thanks for your time!
Anyone notice how relevant it was to feature Chigure from No Country for Old Men here. The whole point of the film was to do with principles and morality, that because each person has their own and they're subjective the only thing that matters is that you stick by them.
+Mikey Proctor Indeed. Each second of the film takes my mind deeper and deeper into the conundrum of Anton's fashion choice.
Your ideas make me think for weeks about things. Usually by happenstance. For example I will forget that it was you that told the story, but the next time I see a dog I will feel sad that some hypothetical family saw fit to eat their own dog. I guess because pets are seen as people, and other animals raised on farms, are not.
Excellent video. Thanks for the food for thought.
Do you watch The Good Place. It covers so much in this topic in ways easily digestible to the general public
Jordan Peterson would argue that there is an absolute morality which emerges from humanity's psychobiological underpinnings. Archetypes as human universals are evidence for this, and the articulation of those archetypal themes are what makes his work so interesting and resonant. I would love to see a nerdwriter episode on JP.
Skywalker 1138 he might argue that... but why is our psychobiological underpinning (which developed via evolutionary selection pressure) important? Obviously you might think its important for a functioning society but why is it important morally?
And how can it be universal when a different evolutionary path would have created different psychobiological underpinnings?
surely morality is absolute and not dictated by evolution ?
When deciding on right and wrong is there anyway to use psychobiological traits? Those traits only tell us about ourselves and how we react as individuals and societies to various moral decisions etc etc but just because we can predict consequences of moral decisions doesnt mean we know whether they are right or wrong because in the end you still need to decide which consequences are optimal.
What is morallity optimising.
If you say "good" : what is good?
Wellbeing? What is it?
Could the matrix be moral if everyone was happy and healthy but entirely deluded and unfree?
love your work!
I love your eloquence.
I always loved this video.
hahaha great choice using Anton's haircut!
3:40 yet it can get trickier still because then there is the consideration of the implications of such a moral stance in effecting the mind set of such individuals and how that may influence their other actions (i.e. the general consumption of meat) and thus paying money to have animals harmed rather than eating animals that died already. In essence utilitarianism in practice cannot be achieved as a direct result of trying to put utilitarian theory in to practice. What's the solution? Well, I don't know but it's interesting because it gets even more complicated than we'd like to believe.
I would say with you for another 100 vlogs
"The Righteous Mind" was totally fascinating.
This is such a good video. Really got me thinking, thanks for making it =]
You should move that Beatles record away from the heater (if that's what it is) wouldn't want it to warp.
I saw it and assumed he was using it has a sort of humidifier for dry air in the apartment.
No, thank you, Evan! Here's to another 50! :D
i got distracted since the eating dog thing because it made me really want to have a nice meal of dog meat. yes, im from the east, it's very legal where i am and very popular. the key is like eating any other meat, you dont see the animal and dont think about it. just something i'd like to share.
+Krone Nguyen I think it was more of the fact it was their pet? For me and my dog, it would be like eating my brother.
***** if you have a pig pet, would you eat it? no. but would you stop eating pork after that? no. that's how it works with dog too. we dont actually eat the dogs that we keep as pets.
+Krone Nguyen No for sure, I never said that :-) just referring to the story and meaning that it is different from your culture with the pet thing. I might even eat a dog one day, as long as it's not my pet haha
In that it's not that its a dog - its that its the family's pet that makes me shiver.
+Kronn If you ever find yourself in Xinjiang (western western China) or anywhere else of Mongolian / Turkic background, you should try the horse-sausages. I'm not being cheeky, this is a serious recommendation. Smoked sausages that are, while game-y and a tad dry, quite delicious when sliced thin and put on bread with vegetable relish, ooh, and yogurt, don't forget the yogurt. Seriously, it's good, though not quite as good as the lamb, but still. And in the case of Xinjiang, or at least the parts I went to, the horse meat was procured from horses that died naturally; no slaughterhouses whatsoever. Think about it, you got no problem feeding the exact same horse to your dog. Great, now I'm hungry for Xinjiangese food, they got lots of good stuff there. Too bad the place is turning into a friggin' war-zone.
That was a great video. Thank you for writing it
Looking forward to the next fifty :)
The western foundation of morality par excellence isn't a "care/harm" principle but the Natural Law, which was developed by the Greeks, implemented by the Romans and still is the foundation of our European/American judicial systems.
Another thought provoking vlog. Thanks.. :)
Ever think about doing a podcast? I would listen or watch.
love your videos man keep it up! :)
hmm, with regards to the dog owners, after falling in the first category I thought about why it's still wrong (why I wouldn't do it). the best answer I can give is emotion which is inherent in morality. to see it not as a companion but a piece of meat so quickly would require a complete dissipation of the love you felt for it. the dysfunction of their emotions means there would be nothing for morality to be built upon, a paradox. I think of clinical psychopathy which features a lacking of both.
Why did you switch the picture that was on top of your AC unit with the degree from Boston University?? And then back again?
Wasn't there some link to some books you recommenend? Or was that just a comment who wanted to read your favourite books? I want book suggestions by you!
The family did not do something morally wrong but if they can emotionally detach themselves from their companion enough to eat it, my immediate judgement would be that they are inclined to do things which are
my answer to the dog question was what culture are they from and weather or not that culture has a custom of eating dog or not. I also asked if the family was poor and or truly needed the dog as substance
they don't have to "really need" to cook and eat the dead dog, if they all wanted to eat it, they can. since the dog is theirs and no one was watching them eat it.
Your channel looks so awesome to me and I really like your style but as a non-native speaker, I just don't understand your vids good enough (or is it "well enough"?)...
either way, keep it up!
Well enough. Good is a judgement of morality.
Articulate, intelligent, well-read, cute.....I'm in love!
fedora... fedora..
FEDOOOOORAAAAAAA!!!!!
Great video bro.
what would you do if i sang out of tune?
Would you stand up and walk out on me?
Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song,
and i'll try not to sing out of key
FrownyMascot my favorite song by the beatles.
what is the music you use, that starts just after the intro?
I would say that eating the dead dog is dishonoring/desecrating its body.
True, that was my thought as well. I guess some people feel that a living thing loses all rights if it's not living, or human, maybe, but I myself wouldn't eat the dog. I guess also it's not clear who owns your corpse if you're dead. Again, I would bury the dog.
On a related note, Tom Scott ended one of his videos with the question "At what point does digging up a grave stop being disrespecting the dead and instead become archaeology?"
Roxor128 more like: how cute does an animal have to be not to be eaten by us?
It is a different thing though. When it's dead, it's a piece of meat and not eating it is a waste of edible food. From the families point of view, the money they might have spent getting some food from the supermarket can now be spent on other things, charity for example. The fact that they ate a piece of meat that was formerly their dog may well end up making some poor starving child's day somewhere significantly better.
6:58 "It's not to say, to be clear, that all moralities and all moral foundations are equally good . . . "
This might apply as well to all "Moral Foundations Theories."
Could you do a 4th vid where you critique Haidt more? This was a fairly uncritical presentation of his ideas. The very surface look into it (and previously) I did showed at the least there are scientific/philosophic objections. But I'm not an expert.
growlinghands he should watch The Good Place
Morally wrong to eat a dog? Nope. I've got an even more intense one for you: An isolated family's grandma passes away and they are the only living relatives or contacts that she has had throughout the last 50 years of her life. They live in a country where burial procedures do not require supervision from a government entity and properly file the paperwork stating that the burial procedures will be carried out on their property. They then proceed to butcher the grandma and eat her for dinner. Oh yeah, lets assume that there are no children present in this scenario or outside witnesses and all adult participants unanimously agreed to do this with no coercion or persuasion. Morally wrong? Yes? What if it were part of their religious ideologies (and the grandma's) to do so and that failing to do this would result in the grandma's soul being sent to hell? Alright one more stipulation, let's also say that in their isolated culture, eating the deceased was part of the grieving process and that this was passed down to the family by the very grandma in question.
+David Fair But that is a whole different point because eating your own grandma is not just "morally wrong" but plainly illegal. It's called cannibalism btw xD.
+Supergravitation So the legality of something implies whether or not it is immoral? It's illegal to smoke marijuana, but does anyone in their right mind think it's morally wrong to do so?
David Fair
Thats not the point. Something being illegal doesn't mean that it's immoral (take the whole set of traffic laws for example) and vice versa. But eating another human being, also known as cannibalism, which is illegal AND immoral, is not so easily comparable to eating a dog, which btw. is completely legal in many countries, as you correctly stated, not only of this thing with eating your own kind but also the problem of comparability between two entities of different intelligence and mind level and the resulting level of laws coming with these sets of facts.
I hope that this made at least any sense and i am deeply sorry for the poor quality of my written english resulting of me not being a native speaker. Yours faithfully, J. Gertulla
+David Fair I said it before and I'll say it again, humans aren't designed to eat human. This is evidenced by the fact that every time the human body does try to ingest human, the body sees the dead human stuff and says "what's that doing there?" and pulls it out of the digestive tract and puts it back where it "belongs", only, the stuff that's being "put back" is dead and really does not belong in the living body that's trying to recycle it. The end result being that the body accidentally poisons itself because it missed "Cannibalistic Digestion 101: What to toss and what to keep?", so the body throws up its hands in confusion, and next thing you know, you got brain damage (hence the "crazy cannibal dancing about" cliche).
But that's not true. YOu could in theory eat a whole human without taking in any poisons. Dude, if you had poison in you, you'd have biger problems than having a conversatoin about cannibalism. Btw there are people who have eaten whole human bodies. They're just in prison right now...
your amazing!!
This reminds me of a TED talk i watched... Does anybody know the name?
Should you give money to panhandlers?
Saucepan at the back next to the AC.