@@Ggdivhjkjl avoid those sweeping statements! Quality of education is different from teacher to teacher, school to school - often regardless of the state/country curriculum. The best teachers can take a messy curriculum with a shitty class and turn it around with fun and interesting lessons that go beyond the base requirements. I had a very open-minded and passionate teacher for RE at my high-school in Canberra and she taught damn well! Now I have a warn down intolerant teacher for college and I too find it scary how much I'm relying on Crash Course...
One of the things I like about Crash Course is that it feels like I'm learning a lot, but it doesn't take long. I hardly notice 10 minutes have passed by the time the video ends.
The vlogbrothers, John and Hank Green got it from somewhere but did so much to popularize it that it has kinda become their thing. Of course, I bet they don't mind others using it as well. =)
Good luck with that. I decided to skip all classes and just study the textbooks for two Psych courses, "Tests and Measurements" and "Existential Phenomenological Psychology". Worked fine for "Tests and Measurements", I ended up with a "B". But the Existential class only had a single question on an essay test, and I ended up turning in a blank paper for an "F" and a headache.
I'm curious. when you study philosophy and write exams, do you write what you believe or do you write stuff like "this guy in history said this and this other guy argued that etc etc" like how are you graded?
TheAnnihilator89 i use "this guys and that guys" arguments and ideas to kind of back up my own interpretation of the issue/question if that makes sense
I turned out an acceptably educated young man. Barely good enough, I mean. I can't help but obsess over how much better I could have been today if I had had access to videos like these back in high school! I never cease marveling at what a great resource this channel is! Thank you for sharing.
Not just swedish; 'kant' means edge in a lot of european languages. (" from Old North French cant "corner" (perhaps via Middle Low German kante or Middle Dutch kant), from Vulgar Latin *canthus, from Latin cantus "iron tire of a wheel," possibly from a Celtic word meaning "rim of wheel, edge" (compare Welsh cant "bordering of a circle, tire, edge," Breton cant "circle"), from PIE *kam-bo- "corner, bend," from root *kemb- "to bend, turn, change" (source also of Greek kanthos "corner of the eye," Russian kutu "corner")."
I’ve been listening to all of the Crash Course Philosophy episodes while I’m at work and I gotta say they have been my most productive days by far. I work at target so it’s easy for me to be able to do my job and also listen and ponder all the content of this series. Really great stuff, I’m already starting a list of books that I need to read. If anyone has any suggestions lmk!! Right now I’m mostly interested in ethics and the concept of morality. As a non-religious person I’m not comfortable with saying I have morals without any reason for having those morals. Also, the more I think, the more I realize that I’m not entirely consistent with what I believe. My favorite thing in the world is getting my worldview shattered with new evidence so these philosophy videos have been like crack😅
This was awesome and i loved it, i may not agree with the natural law theory but i really love to hear what both sides in any argument has to say, so that i can form my own decisions based on as much information as possible.
***** Of course i understand that this is a simplified version of it. I could give a rough version of Jordan B Petersons "maps of meaning" which is around 15-20 hours i believe but i havent looked at how long. I simply liked this video, first of all because it covers a lot of ground in very little time.
It would be cool if you guys turn some of these into a coloring book. Perhaps it would make memorizing history easier. :) Love your videos!!! Keep up the good work!
@Marci marc Damn bro. Voltaire is cool but you have to give it up for the OGs That's like giving a medal for best epic poem written in Italy to Dante while making eye contact with Virgil If they have western vs eastern orators though you've got it
Excellent video! When I saw 7 basic goods, I thought "Oh no, the new natural law of Grisez and Finnis!" But the basic goods here are straight out of Thomas and have an order among them. Very impressive presentation! Still watching...
You know, even as an atheist, I do respect Thomas Aquinas' approach to rationality and reason. I do feel if he had an intellectual individual to lock horns with, verbally that is, they could have come up with some really nice stuff.
His colleagues in the seminary called him the "dumb ox" because he was big and didn't like talking in front of the class. Then one day he helped out a classmate who was struggling to explain something and stunned the whole class (except the teacher who'd been marking his papers).
Thank you Crash Course, for making the unintelligible, fictitious babble of my ethics class digestible enough to get me through this quarter- I cannot express my appreciation enough!!!
I was really hoping for a bit of Locke Hobbes and Rousseau. Also you dont exactly have to believe in god to believe in natural law, Grotius was the first in the 17th century to push a secular natural law.
@@jthemagicrobot3960 that makes absolutely no sense, athiesm only makes some sense through nihilism. Nihilism denys the existence of absolute truth which goes against your claim that athiesm somehow leads to virtue
@@marlonmunguia163 atheism splits to two different paths one as you state nihilism / hedonism the other is totally control of self. it is this path that causes you to adopt certain behaviors which ironically resemble in action that of Christianity (or how Christianity was). Actually think about what it means to have no god. ps I'm not an atheist and I understand this.
@@jthemagicrobot3960 the other side sounds more like Buddhism than anything, controlling ones emotions immensely. There is no logical reason for an athiest to adopt a moral code, this is because there is no reason for an athiest to believe in absolute truth. It makes man an animal instead of a creature that has an immortal soul which is believed by Christians. Athiests can be moral, but it would go contrary to their belief that there is "no God"
This is definitely my favorite Crash Course series! You're awesome, Hank! =) Can't wait for next week. I've studied Kant's approach to morality and ethics in school and it has been my favorite since then. Can't wait to see what you have to say about it!
How to make burger 1. Use Freshly Ground Beef. 2. Keep Everything Really Cold. 3. Don't Futz With Your Meat. 4. Do Not Salt Beef Until Patties Are Formed. 5. Form Matters. 6. Season Liberally. 7. Flip Your Burger as Often as You Like. 8. Use a Thermometer.
I am an atheist but this one is good enough to me. It sounds a lot like evolution and natural selection and if you don't put an omniscient entity (god) into the picture and accept that everything, including nature can be flawed at times but generally works out ok, I think this theory basically nailed it.
This theory makes far more sense if you use evolution by natural selection as the driver instead of a divine entity: 1. Survival is primary, because you need to be alive to reproduce. 2. Reproduce, because that is the purpose of life (in the eyes of natural selection) 3. This is where the animal kingdom gets pretty divided. Some species just poop out an offspring and then run off to continue there reproduction rampage, and other parents stick around to ensure that their brood survive long enough to continue the process. Humans, in that regard, spend about 18 years doing this because as a society we've determined that's how long it takes for the average human to reach "Adulthood". 4. Aquanis says Find God here. I think instead it should Find Greater Meaning, and I would argue that it only applies to Humans. I have nothing to justify this, but there's a good chance (in my opinion) that during human evolution our intelligence reached a point where the Big Questions (Why am I here, What is my purpose, What happens when I die?) impacted our abilities to function as a society. I think religion is actually a bi-product of naturally selected intelligence, and is why it's so readily accepted by humans throughout the world. It's far easier to run a society if everyone in it bows down to those who can't be questioned. 5-7 Are easy to tie into the concept that we are social beings, evolving from groups of nomadic primates. Wolves and other pack animals don't just constantly murder each other for shiggles (that's shits and giggles if you don't know), but there is also no evidence to suggest that they worship some kind of deity that gives those moral laws to them. Sorry, bit long winded here xD
This is a very well put together argument indeed. but if you base it off of evolution by natural selection, how do humans have the ability to reason? Or at least how do humans have the ability to reason while other animals don't?But it seems to me that the reason natural law theory is a theory that has to do with morals is that it was made in a way where we can use reason to differentiate what is right from what is wrong. I may just be putting my foot in my mouth by saying this though because I don't know the specifics of evolution haha. Like I said at the beginning, this is very well thought out, I just had some questions. Thanks :p
In 3. I would argue that it has been the intention of those who weild the levers of power, to keep humanity as daft as possible? In reality parental engagement has been extended to death?
I don't really think you gave the is-ought problem justice. It's not really about the bias of assigning ought based on how things are (or have been), but more of the inherent logical leap that is frequently taken when reasoning from how the world IS to how the world OUGHT to be. Basically, it's not clear how we get from IS to OUGHT, and this is a fundamental problem.
The world is in the state "x". In this "x", it exists a guy with the desire A, and this desire is stronger than all the other desires he has. So, the world, for the guy, ought to be in the way that desire A is satisfying. Ought from is. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are still using the word ought to mean simply that things are. The problem of the natural law fallacy is that one assumes that we can derive something without spacial-temporal features from that which is inseparable from them. When one says that something ought to be a certain way they are saying that it should be that way irrespective of how it is in any sense being now or later. The line of reasoning you just used could be used to justify murder without even discussing what is to be the object of ethics; that is because to natural law the object is simply that which is and nothing more. The central concern for the natural law theorist in morality is diametrically oposed to how human beings experience morality. You wouldn't say that something is right simply because it happened, would you? In your own example you devised a hierarchy of intensity for desire, and natural law theorsits generate a similar hierarchy (like Aquinas did)for relative goods to amend this. However, is it not then, something intrinsic to the nature of the goods by which we make moral judgements, and not by the arbitrary metric of how something is that we judge? This is why natural law tends to depend on god, because that lets them ignore the problem of the hierarchy. However, natural law theory still requires that one relinquish reason to a natural law fallacy in order to infer what those natural laws just so happen to be.
Ahhh...I love this chanel.Finally achanel which providew us significant amount of knowledge about how our life and the ralations between us work.more generally philosophy!!!!
by the way i love your page you are doing a better job at teaching me this stuff than my professor. i showed your page to everyone in my class and they all agree
Cero Balam Oh dear. Then we'll get all the self-important young men who definitely understand what he was really getting at in the comments. It's like a light version of Rand supporters. Luckily, we won't be covering Rand because this is a series on philosophy.
Nowadays, it's scary that people still believe in that, but it was without a doubt a great progress at the time, explaining evolution and some individual or group behaviour before we could know about evolution and cognitions!
It's disturbing what was advertised by cigarette manufacturers years ago. We have government regulations that prevent such misinformation and lying in tobacco product ads in the United States. We also benefit from laws that restrict tobacco companies from marketing to children. Unfortunately, in many countries today the same "Big Tobacco" corporations that used to market aggressively to children in the U.S., such as Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds etc.., continue to market tobacco and cigarettes to children and spread misleading ads to all ages because they do not have the same laws.
I want to know what the conversation was like when the writer(s) realized they could frame Aquinas's message in the form of DFTBA. I imagine there was giggling.
Love your videos but I wish you had also introduced philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes- he actually influenced a lot of Aquinas' work), and Al-Ghazali.
I am super excited for the next episode!!! I am working on a conference project on Immanual Kant (I go to sarah Lawrence, we do crazy semester long projects called conference projects) and so I hope i can get tons of useful information from this!
Scary how much I rely on his videos to get me through A level RE
me right now
UMC _19 big mood
RE isn't taught very well in Australia. How is it where you are?
@@Ggdivhjkjl avoid those sweeping statements! Quality of education is different from teacher to teacher, school to school - often regardless of the state/country curriculum. The best teachers can take a messy curriculum with a shitty class and turn it around with fun and interesting lessons that go beyond the base requirements. I had a very open-minded and passionate teacher for RE at my high-school in Canberra and she taught damn well! Now I have a warn down intolerant teacher for college and I too find it scary how much I'm relying on Crash Course...
One of the things I like about Crash Course is that it feels like I'm learning a lot, but it doesn't take long. I hardly notice 10 minutes have passed by the time the video ends.
LOVE how you brought up the "Don't Forget to be Awesome" quote near the beginning.
it's the golden rule in Greeneic.
Cool profile pic
Yeah, I was like: "I see what you did there..."
Is this where DFTBA came from? Not this video, but this idea
The vlogbrothers, John and Hank Green got it from somewhere but did so much to popularize it that it has kinda become their thing. Of course, I bet they don't mind others using it as well. =)
I love the way you explain things. It almost makes me cry after reading my course books which unnecessarily complicate things 🥺
I really Kant.
Watches a Crash Course Philosophy Ethics video on TH-cam instead of writing my actual Ethics essay for university.
Good luck with that. I decided to skip all classes and just study the textbooks for two Psych courses, "Tests and Measurements" and "Existential Phenomenological Psychology". Worked fine for "Tests and Measurements", I ended up with a "B". But the Existential class only had a single question on an essay test, and I ended up turning in a blank paper for an "F" and a headache.
Or did you perform subject matter research on the topic of your essay?
I'm curious. when you study philosophy and write exams, do you write what you believe or do you write stuff like "this guy in history said this and this other guy argued that etc etc" like how are you graded?
TheAnnihilator89 i use "this guys and that guys" arguments and ideas to kind of back up my own interpretation of the issue/question if that makes sense
Samuel Fanara OK I get it
I turned out an acceptably educated young man. Barely good enough, I mean. I can't help but obsess over how much better I could have been today if I had had access to videos like these back in high school! I never cease marveling at what a great resource this channel is! Thank you for sharing.
When I say "Explain it to me like I'm five." this is what I mean.
Kant wait for the next one.
(sorry, not sorry)
someone had to say it
I laughed when I read this, and now I am very disappointed with myself
oh BOY, Categorical Imperative?! Categorical Imperative HERE. WE. GO!!!
Me Nietzsche!
Theorak
you kant
Crash course is a better resource then my university lectures that I'm paying for. Sad.
I said it before and I'll say it again: Crash Course is the best thing on the internet.
1:56 Actually made me chuckle. It doesn't take a hard look around to see plenty of people doing things that are definitely not what's best for them.
I love how Kant showed up on the edge of the screen, as "kant" is Swedish for edge.
Not just swedish; 'kant' means edge in a lot of european languages. (" from Old North French cant "corner" (perhaps via Middle Low German kante or Middle Dutch kant), from Vulgar Latin *canthus, from Latin cantus "iron tire of a wheel," possibly from a Celtic word meaning "rim of wheel, edge" (compare Welsh cant "bordering of a circle, tire, edge," Breton cant "circle"), from PIE *kam-bo- "corner, bend," from root *kemb- "to bend, turn, change" (source also of Greek kanthos "corner of the eye," Russian kutu "corner")."
In polish language it is "kant" too (as the meaning of edge). :)
Just "kant", no "ą" "ł" and other stuff.
Cool. I didn't want to mention other languages because I was only sure about the word in Swedish. I love learning new things. :D
So he was an edgy guy?
What is this russian kutu you talk about? I can only think of 'kant' as an edge of a piece of cloth/ item of clothing.
Thank goodness for Crash Course! Even though I read all about this 1st, my brain doesn't seem to soak it in until I watch these. Thanks man!!
STOP LEAVING ME AT SUPSENSE!!! Great video. I'm enjoying the philosophy series.
I’ve been listening to all of the Crash Course Philosophy episodes while I’m at work and I gotta say they have been my most productive days by far. I work at target so it’s easy for me to be able to do my job and also listen and ponder all the content of this series. Really great stuff, I’m already starting a list of books that I need to read. If anyone has any suggestions lmk!! Right now I’m mostly interested in ethics and the concept of morality. As a non-religious person I’m not comfortable with saying I have morals without any reason for having those morals. Also, the more I think, the more I realize that I’m not entirely consistent with what I believe. My favorite thing in the world is getting my worldview shattered with new evidence so these philosophy videos have been like crack😅
This was awesome and i loved it, i may not agree with the natural law theory but i really love to hear what both sides in any argument has to say, so that i can form my own decisions based on as much information as possible.
***** Of course i understand that this is a simplified version of it. I could give a rough version of Jordan B Petersons "maps of meaning" which is around 15-20 hours i believe but i havent looked at how long. I simply liked this video, first of all because it covers a lot of ground in very little time.
Agree to disagree...
@@TheRobExpo That isn't real natural law. That guy is completely ignorant and you should stick to academic philosophers on the subject.
I am so glad this series exists. I would not be able to pass my PHL class without!
I cant stop loving this man
YES!!! The categorical imperative is next. I can't wait, and neither should you! ;)
The Bible does not say, "do not kill." It says thou shall not murder. " It's a difference. Murder requires premeditated.
The explanation was so satisfying that I understood it so easily
It would be cool if you guys turn some of these into a coloring book. Perhaps it would make memorizing history easier. :) Love your videos!!! Keep up the good work!
3:21 Wow, I thought I was the only one with that feeling. It is pretty cathartic to find that I am not.
1:10
I see what you did there...
With all the "Kant" puns in the comments section I was starting to think that I was the only one...
darling fetch the battle axe!
Lolz #dftba
dont forget, brains attract
That made me smile so much.
I was stuck, so now I'm here
I'm so glad there's a video about this
Another great lesson from Thomas Aquinus, the manus.
Yeah gotta love "the hand"
Divia Whiteberg Ah you beat me to it! lol
Gotta do what I gotta do, you know?
Anyway Marc, don't you have some speeches to write or some letters to Atticus? :P
Divia Whiteberg Nah, I've just been a bit melancholy over not getting into ERB Western vs Eastern Philosophers. Melior quam Voltaire sum.
@Marci marc Damn bro. Voltaire is cool but you have to give it up for the OGs
That's like giving a medal for best epic poem written in Italy to Dante while making eye contact with Virgil
If they have western vs eastern orators though you've got it
I have never been more thrilled for the next episode
Excellent video! When I saw 7 basic goods, I thought "Oh no, the new natural law of Grisez and Finnis!" But the basic goods here are straight out of Thomas and have an order among them. Very impressive presentation! Still watching...
I love crash course. Been here learning since the beginning
Sitting an RE exam in a few hours, arrived here, thanks for saving meeee
If you get the "Don't Forget to be Awesome" reference, you've been here for a long time.
Adrián Buenfil Darling Fetch The Battle Axe!
+
Adrián Buenfil while I've been a long time fan, I missed that reference. I get it, but totally missed it.
Adrián Buenfil :)
unless...you..are...the mongols :'D
getting hyped for Kantian ethics!
Forgive me Crash Course for I have sinned. I had several chom-choms this weekend and forgot to refer to them as such. I am so sorry
😂😂
Indeed
Thank you crash course! Your psychology and philosophy videos are helping me understand my college chapters better.
This is actually one of the most sensible interpretations of "god's will" that I've heard so far....
"Do all the procreating you want" - Hank Green, 2016
You know, even as an atheist, I do respect Thomas Aquinas' approach to rationality and reason. I do feel if he had an intellectual individual to lock horns with, verbally that is, they could have come up with some really nice stuff.
@@brendankapp5237 I think you mean Big Brian
His colleagues in the seminary called him the "dumb ox" because he was big and didn't like talking in front of the class. Then one day he helped out a classmate who was struggling to explain something and stunned the whole class (except the teacher who'd been marking his papers).
When you're studying global law and crash course is still life
Thank you Crash Course, for making the unintelligible, fictitious babble of my ethics class digestible enough to get me through this quarter- I cannot express my appreciation enough!!!
"It's just important that you don't...forget to be awesome."
*looks into the camera like I'm in The Office*
Thomas De Aquino, folks! Thanks for the videos, always awesome ones
I was really hoping for a bit of Locke Hobbes and Rousseau. Also you dont exactly have to believe in god to believe in natural law, Grotius was the first in the 17th century to push a secular natural law.
Doesnt make sense tho, the end of athiesm is no morality and hedonism
@@marlonmunguia163 or it can go the exact opposite
@@jthemagicrobot3960 that makes absolutely no sense, athiesm only makes some sense through nihilism. Nihilism denys the existence of absolute truth which goes against your claim that athiesm somehow leads to virtue
@@marlonmunguia163 atheism splits to two different paths one as you state nihilism / hedonism the other is totally control of self. it is this path that causes you to adopt certain behaviors which ironically resemble in action that of Christianity (or how Christianity was). Actually think about what it means to have no god. ps I'm not an atheist and I understand this.
@@jthemagicrobot3960 the other side sounds more like Buddhism than anything, controlling ones emotions immensely. There is no logical reason for an athiest to adopt a moral code, this is because there is no reason for an athiest to believe in absolute truth. It makes man an animal instead of a creature that has an immortal soul which is believed by Christians. Athiests can be moral, but it would go contrary to their belief that there is "no God"
You do a better job than my ethics teacher.
AND AS WE SAY IN MY HOMETOWN, "DON'T FORGET TO BE AWESOME"
Congrats on 5 million subscribers!
"It's important that you don't forget to be awesome" - roll credits!
thanks to the makers of crash course, I learn a lot from their videos
At 5:40 I kind of thought Hank was going to say "And if you think it through with your goddamn brain for a second..."
Nice video! It would be great to add Aquinas's answer to Dave Hume's objection ...
While this video may give you an understanding of what natural law is you will not walk away with an overstanding of natural law.
oh joy, all of the ancraps are gonna roll in these next few episodes
This is definitely my favorite Crash Course series! You're awesome, Hank! =)
Can't wait for next week. I've studied Kant's approach to morality and ethics in school and it has been my favorite since then. Can't wait to see what you have to say about it!
juuustt started this in a-level philosophy.. great timing!!!!!
Hi classmates! 🤣 I know you're here because of the online class
I've got a friend who self-describes as a Natural Law Theorist (I'm about as far as one can get). Been waiting for this episode!
As a devout Catholic myself and therefore a theist Aquinas has always been my boi.
How to make burger
1. Use Freshly Ground Beef.
2. Keep Everything Really Cold.
3. Don't Futz With Your Meat.
4. Do Not Salt Beef Until Patties Are Formed.
5. Form Matters.
6. Season Liberally.
7. Flip Your Burger as Often as You Like.
8. Use a Thermometer.
I am an atheist but this one is good enough to me. It sounds a lot like evolution and natural selection and if you don't put an omniscient entity (god) into the picture and accept that everything, including nature can be flawed at times but generally works out ok, I think this theory basically nailed it.
My fave philosopher's up next. I. Kant wait!
This theory makes far more sense if you use evolution by natural selection as the driver instead of a divine entity:
1. Survival is primary, because you need to be alive to reproduce.
2. Reproduce, because that is the purpose of life (in the eyes of natural selection)
3. This is where the animal kingdom gets pretty divided. Some species just poop out an offspring and then run off to continue there reproduction rampage, and other parents stick around to ensure that their brood survive long enough to continue the process. Humans, in that regard, spend about 18 years doing this because as a society we've determined that's how long it takes for the average human to reach "Adulthood".
4. Aquanis says Find God here. I think instead it should Find Greater Meaning, and I would argue that it only applies to Humans. I have nothing to justify this, but there's a good chance (in my opinion) that during human evolution our intelligence reached a point where the Big Questions (Why am I here, What is my purpose, What happens when I die?) impacted our abilities to function as a society. I think religion is actually a bi-product of naturally selected intelligence, and is why it's so readily accepted by humans throughout the world. It's far easier to run a society if everyone in it bows down to those who can't be questioned.
5-7 Are easy to tie into the concept that we are social beings, evolving from groups of nomadic primates. Wolves and other pack animals don't just constantly murder each other for shiggles (that's shits and giggles if you don't know), but there is also no evidence to suggest that they worship some kind of deity that gives those moral laws to them.
Sorry, bit long winded here xD
The fact that this beautifully-constructed argument only received one like makes me disappointed in humanity.
HERESY!! DRAG THE HERETIC
This is a very well put together argument indeed. but if you base it off of evolution by natural selection, how do humans have the ability to reason? Or at least how do humans have the ability to reason while other animals don't?But it seems to me that the reason natural law theory is a theory that has to do with morals is that it was made in a way where we can use reason to differentiate what is right from what is wrong. I may just be putting my foot in my mouth by saying this though because I don't know the specifics of evolution haha. Like I said at the beginning, this is very well thought out, I just had some questions. Thanks :p
Hume's criticism still applies, though. Trying to derive "ought" from "is" is completely fallacous.
In 3. I would argue that it has been the intention of those who weild the levers of power, to keep humanity as daft as possible? In reality parental engagement has been extended to death?
i like your discussion a lot. i only got to the maximum of 5 minute listening capacity but if topic is interesting i can stay an hr or more.
I don't really think you gave the is-ought problem justice. It's not really about the bias of assigning ought based on how things are (or have been), but more of the inherent logical leap that is frequently taken when reasoning from how the world IS to how the world OUGHT to be. Basically, it's not clear how we get from IS to OUGHT, and this is a fundamental problem.
exactly
+
The world is in the state "x". In this "x", it exists a guy with the desire A, and this desire is stronger than all the other desires he has. So, the world, for the guy, ought to be in the way that desire A is satisfying. Ought from is. Am I wrong?
+
Yes, you are still using the word ought to mean simply that things are. The problem of the natural law fallacy is that one assumes that we can derive something without spacial-temporal features from that which is inseparable from them. When one says that something ought to be a certain way they are saying that it should be that way irrespective of how it is in any sense being now or later. The line of reasoning you just used could be used to justify murder without even discussing what is to be the object of ethics; that is because to natural law the object is simply that which is and nothing more. The central concern for the natural law theorist in morality is diametrically oposed to how human beings experience morality. You wouldn't say that something is right simply because it happened, would you? In your own example you devised a hierarchy of intensity for desire, and natural law theorsits generate a similar hierarchy (like Aquinas did)for relative goods to amend this. However, is it not then, something intrinsic to the nature of the goods by which we make moral judgements, and not by the arbitrary metric of how something is that we judge? This is why natural law tends to depend on god, because that lets them ignore the problem of the hierarchy. However, natural law theory still requires that one relinquish reason to a natural law fallacy in order to infer what those natural laws just so happen to be.
Ahhh...I love this chanel.Finally achanel which providew us significant amount of knowledge about how our life and the ralations between us work.more generally philosophy!!!!
Read Finnis’s book, Moral Absolutes, and you can see how the Is-Ought problem is solved by Natural Law philosophers.
Thank you, David Hume.
your lesson is also AWESOME!
by the way i love your page you are doing a better job at teaching me this stuff than my professor. i showed your page to everyone in my class and they all agree
Yaaaay Kant is coming
I Kant wait
you are such a Kant
Said no one ever.
I hate Kant but the categorical imperative does stay with you as an ethical standard.
Someone
damnit already used my joke you kant
Cero Balam Oh dear. Then we'll get all the self-important young men who definitely understand what he was really getting at in the comments.
It's like a light version of Rand supporters. Luckily, we won't be covering Rand because this is a series on philosophy.
Nowadays, it's scary that people still believe in that, but it was without a doubt a great progress at the time, explaining evolution and some individual or group behaviour before we could know about evolution and cognitions!
I remember having a debate on the last video about this concept.
This concept always tripped me up, thanks guys!
I love this Aquinas, guy.
The whooshing vapor tendrils at the end are so relaxing.... ahhhhhh
I'm guessing this was pre-recorded since Hank is on vacation. By the way, congrats on being a new dad Hank!
Love the channel! 💙
Another great one, thanks. The first couple of chapters of CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity" contain a similar idea.
Pause at 6:24 and read it.
"You're not coughing because there's anything wrong with the cigarettes in general, you've just been smoking an inferior brand", lmao.
It's disturbing what was advertised by cigarette manufacturers years ago. We have government regulations that prevent such misinformation and lying in tobacco product ads in the United States. We also benefit from laws that restrict tobacco companies from marketing to children. Unfortunately, in many countries today the same "Big Tobacco" corporations that used to market aggressively to children in the U.S., such as Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds etc.., continue to market tobacco and cigarettes to children and spread misleading ads to all ages because they do not have the same laws.
Advertising in a nutshell.
My bio teacher showed the class of these vids and I started to watch the chem vids to study but now I just watch all of them to learn mor e
I want to know what the conversation was like when the writer(s) realized they could frame Aquinas's message in the form of DFTBA. I imagine there was giggling.
Love your videos but I wish you had also introduced philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes- he actually influenced a lot of Aquinas' work), and Al-Ghazali.
I have a question. Is it possible to maintain a natural law theory without believing in the divine source? Why or why not?
Everything is awesome when you are part of a team
Ugh, this hurts my brain.
I need a chom chom
AMEN! I SAY THIS ALMOST 5 TIMES A DAY! 😄
I am super excited for the next episode!!! I am working on a conference project on Immanual Kant (I go to sarah Lawrence, we do crazy semester long projects called conference projects) and so I hope i can get tons of useful information from this!
Sees Kant pop out from the side of the frame
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE INTENSIFIES
Thank you for this very interesting episode.
When you finish this series, you should sing the Philosophers Song from Monty Python.
this channel is so helpful thanks you so much!
7:59 That is a fallacy due to it violating natural law
Very inspiring word, "Owesome" related creator and created. Owesome is an analogy of dignity. Thank you, you Arie Owesome Sir.
I wish I were a philosopher...
So be one.
Max10192 Touché...
Nah, be a mathematician. Same use of logic, but the goal is agreement rather than disagreement
Well, physicists were once called Natural Philosophers....
APaleDot your comment made me smile :)
This was really interesting.
Watching this instead of actually studying for my exam
I have a jurisprudence exam tomorrow and if I pass it'll be because of this video.
"God is Awesome. He made you so you're awesome. Don't forget to be Awesome." I want a tee shirt!
What did Thomas Aquinas say that is so very special? What made him so great?
i have a kantegorical imperative to watch the next episode
Natural Law theory has also happened to shape some concepts of Law (juridical). Like the right to own property and the right to a fair trial.
I Kant see your point, mr.
This is a pretty good one.
I really love philosophy.