Just a bit of fun. Not much philosophy here, just me expressing my initial reactions. Here's the video I mentioned where I talk about overcoming fear of death: th-cam.com/video/9UAPH7JlLkE/w-d-xo.html
I love trolleys and hate cars, so it would change my answers if it was a car instead of a trolley. I’d always choose the option that makes cars look bad.
This was very entertaining to watch, I wish there were more lol. I hope you do more videos like this, I like your wittiness and the way you go about answering the questions. GREAT VIDEO!
We agreed on all except 2 questions. I wound up with a higher death count of 80 people. I blew up the trolley that was spinning in circles and I would kill the lobsters because utilitarian vegans hate cats and want all predators dead and I'd want to annoy my fellow vegans by saving the cat (though I also prefer lobsters). Otherwise every answer was the same.
Watching this was a delight, since you picked almost entirely different choices for me, but for a set of beliefs I can't really find much fault with :D
Taking a break from well researched philosophical content to provide some deranged personal views. Who TF needs to think about whether to save 5 frickin lobsters or a leopard? A baby versus elderly people? I mean I was entertained so more content like this would be great.
This is an interesting video which shows the absurdity of the whole trolley problem discussion. It’s a good laugh because it’s all ridiculous, thank goodness.
The original problem by (as i remember) Elizabeth Anscombe was created to show that consequentialism allows moral murder, nothing more. And consider that Anscombe too argued against most of thought experiments due to its absurdity and inconsistence with ordinary man world situations. Another fatman thought experiment by Philippa Foot demonstrated existence of the double effect doctrine and it's very important becouse it was literally addressed to judges with concrete goal, not random people. Must judge consider double effect in his case decision or no? Is there juridical difference to judge between killing the fatman and letting people die as an alternative? If yes, how it existence must be argued by judge and how it relate to suggested legal sanction(or no sanction) as outcome of court case.
But not helping someone does not make you morally responsible for their fate even if you could do otherwise, imagine if you were not there, the trolly is going to run over someone anyway, you could intervene and change it's direction but in this case you will be directly responsible for it running over the other person, since it's your action that directly caused the death of that person. morality is not just about the consequences and outcomes of the external world, it has a deeper personal level that is tied to the moral agent.
@@G7NoVaS I'm no longer interested in developing moral theories. I find that whole project kinda silly to be honest, and it certainly doesn't accord with how I actually think about moral questions.
@@KaneB Funnily enough I think the same thing, but then I soon wonder if I’m just a weak-willed brat. I sent you a friend request on discord if you’re open to talking there
We disagreed only in a few cases. Mostly because I prefer not to get myself involved in murder, not because I'm a Kantian (fuck that guy) but because as you said in your video about Moral Arbitrariness, pulling the lever would make me feel "icky'. I chose the cats instead of the lobsters because aesthetics play a role in my emotional reactions, and I chose to blow up my savings because I assumed that the people I save will compensate me
A silly video is suggested by the algorithm, do you click on it or scroll to the next, thereby killing 800 million billion humped llamas, what do you do?
If you pull the lever to reduce the suffering of five people who are already going to die, wouldn't it make sense to pull the lever in the first case to minimise suffering such that only 1 set of family and friends suffer rather than 5 sets?
(a) I'm not concerned only with minimizing suffering. (b) It's not clear to me that switching in the first case would minimize suffering overall, so if that were my goal, I still might not switch.
@@KaneB Thanks for the response. (a) I didn't say that you were, but the answer you gave pretty clearly shows that you have a preference for reducing suffering ceteris parabus; (b) I don't really see a reason to think that killing five over one would reduce suffering. It seems to me that the five lots of grieving families/friends gives us a prima facie reason to think otherwise. On your view all negative utilitarians are committed to pushing the fat man, which seems a little odd to me.
NGL, unless you can give a single reason to believe that saving 4 by ending 1 isn't a good choice I just will have to permanently disagree. As far as I'm concerned it is a closed and shut case.
[copying what I said to another commenter] This video introduces some of the classic arguments for causal antirealism: th-cam.com/video/cxyHiGdlIFU/w-d-xo.html I've been planning on doing a follow-up for a while where I'll talk more about my own take on this, but just haven't got around to it yet.
I just wanted to say you should monetize your videos, as a viewer I have no problem with it, and if others really want to avoid them, they can with an ad blocker. Obviously this is just my opinion and you don’t have to, but I would love to help you financially if it doesn’t affect my pocket. Like you I feel the pain of spending money and I’m sure it would help if your personal interests went towards alleviating that.
I believe in general the best course of action is 'do nothing'. I don't have a duty to intervene into a foreign problem (i.e. a problem not set up by me). "No good deed goes unpunished." But sometimes I might have a selfish interest in intervening-e.g. in order to save my loved ones/my savings, or in order to gain reputation at no cost (e.g. saving a child while not dooming anyone else)-large enough for me to put in the "good deed" because the expected gain trumps the expected "punishment". Thank you @Kane for honestly admitting to your fundamentally irrational preferences at the basis of your decision-making.
Why would you kill the baby Kane, I don't quite understand completely. For instance, that trolley problem with age as a factor surely age isn't an issue? That problem is basically the first trolley problem with more context as to the people involved. Not sure why that would make you want to involve yourself with the decision just because of their age. Surely the duty of care for the child isn't part of the problem?
It seems better to kill it quickly with a trolley than let it die slowly from starvation or be eaten alive by predators. If I found a baby tied to those tracks, I would be moved to help it.
@@KaneB I've never found these objections that persuasive. Why should it be problematic for me to believe we have different responsibilities to different people? If I think I have a responsibility to feed and clothe my children, I am not thereby committed to the view that I have a responsibility to feed and clothe every child. And if I think I have a responsibility to save certain people if I am uniquely positioned to do so, that does not commit me to the view that I have a responsibility to save literally everyone possible. I don't think it's a strange moral principle to say that people need to "do their part".
@@davidfoley8546 >> Why should it be problematic for me to believe we have different responsibilities to different people? I don't think that's problematic. Your initial response was not sensitive to any differences in situation -- you seemed to object generally to the idea of letting 5 people die to save one's money. So that's what I directed my response to. If you think there are relevant differences between the trolley scenario and more everyday situations, or even if you just arbitrarily draw a line between them, that's cool. I don't share that view, but I wouldn't say I find it problematic.
This video introduces some of the classic arguments for causal antirealism: th-cam.com/video/cxyHiGdlIFU/w-d-xo.html I've been planning on doing a follow-up for a while where I'll talk more about my own take on this, but just haven't got around to it yet.
I don't mind dying but I won't pull the lever and divert the trolly toward me I don't wanna feel a train running all over my flesh and bones, the most thing I hate and is scared of is intense physical pain.
Seems like it would be over super quickly though. Not a bad way to die. I'd definitely take death by trolley over e.g. a year of suffering from heart disease or cancer, which is the more likely way I'll exit.
@@KaneB ok let's make it a political gender problem, a trolly is going directly toward 5 men, if you pull the lever, it will go toward 5 women. Which would you choose?
Why do you think that we should respect peoples autonomy to commit suicide? I agree that life isn't good in itself, but even if life was bad in itself, what is wrong in not respecting peoples autonomy to commit suicide?
Oh such a missed opportunity to explain your real ethics. Instead it seems your ethics is made up of emotions only, although it was fun. To be honest if you were serious you are a horrible person. I would use the following logic: do I know the people? is there a known moral aspect without appeal to number of people (for example because I know them vs not)? if not, don't pull the lever. for example if there is a good person, save them. it it's objects vs people, save the people. however not pulling the lever doesn't really make you responsible for the deaths, since you didn't set up the situation, but pulling the lever makes you responsible for the outcome. this would become problematic if the choices would have a wider difference of numbers: for example save 5 thousand people vs 1 person. of course, you still don't know whether saving 5 thousand people is a morally better choice, but now there's a higher chance of letting someone die among the 5 thousand who's life may be important for humanity. at the same time, some crazyperson could have set you up to kill Gandhi or 5 thousand murderers from deathrow. and then if someone gives you the choice: 1 person vs the rest of humanity: do you pull? or even just 1 person vs half of humanity. now the problem becomes determining a number of people where the private ethic of "do not kill" is overwritten by the public good (you called in institutional perspective or something) of purely preserving human life.
i'm amazed by the cursed morality of this guy. I hope it's troll otherwise i now know what philosophy majors spend their time on while not drinking and not studying anything useful lol As a pragmatic person i'm stunned by the choices, absolutely stunned lol Nah this has to be troll. 1 person over 5 ppl, money over people, arguing that inaction is the path forward when a while after you decide to kill a baby over 5 ppl not because know it's the right thing but because you don't want to care for a baby for 5 min until police reaches the place? The "institution" vs "person" morality is a funny one too, i guess this is how political mass murderers justify their actions or beliefs what the hell man
Most other philosopher majors hate me lol. >> 1 person over 5 ppl Why should I favour the 5 over the 1? >> money over people Do you have any life savings? If so, you're choosing money over people too. You could easily use your money to save lives. The trolley case only makes the choice much more salient. >> when a while after you decide to kill a baby over 5 ppl not because know it's the right thing but because you don't want to care for a baby for 5 min I don't want to spend any amount of time caring for a baby. So obviously, this is a factor that weighs against saving the baby. If it were a baby vs five people with severe dementia or something like that, I'd probably save the baby.
@@KaneB oh god you are not trolling. "Most ****other**** philosophy majors..." I knew it xd. You guys should look into doing useful stuff like building, programming, saving a life, driving the trash truck or cultivating food instead of whatever you do
Great vid as always, Dr. B. I just really don’t share your intuition on “Why should I save 5 instead of 1”. Could you please elaborate a little bit? I kind of thought it’s a no brainer to pull it in the “simple case”? Just to elaborate. Would you also not shoot a person on a killing spray who is killing 5 people and is going to shoot more because you would say “Why prefer 5+ people over one”? This seems absurd. Why should we stop murderers at all then? Ah and why do you hate the trolly company so much? Just standard “capitalism company bad” vibe? Edit: in your video “Am I utilitarian?”, you said you would pull the leaver??
I wouldn't shoot anybody, but that doesn't really have anything to do with "why prefer 5 over 1?"... I just don't wanna shoot people. Re the trolley case, I just don't see any reason to favour the 5 over the 1. So why switch? I can similarly say: I don't see any reason to favour the 1 over the 5, so why not switch? And indeed, sometimes I may be inclined to switch. I'm more likely to not switch though, as that doesn't require me to perform any physical activity. It's the easier option. >> Just standard “capitalism company bad” vibe? I'd blow up the trolleys if they were owned by a worker cooperative or whatever too.
@@AndreasFroestl97 I don't care what the cop does. Similarly, I'm not bothered if other people choose to switch in the standard trolley case. I don't think it's morally wrong to choose the five over the one.
@@AndreasFroestl97 I guess with a cop, it's part of her job to prevent violent crime. If she fails to intervene in a mass shooting, then it would make sense to fire her. But I wouldn't judge her as having done anything morally wrong there. I don't generally see it as a moral issue that people sometimes fail to do their jobs.
Upon watching this video and predicting like 85% of your choices by picking the opposite of what I think the popular choice might be, I have come to the conclusion that you must be an astounding contrarian. Go figure from the modal antirealist lol, but cmon, you gotta know that baby defense was a stretch. You just gotta.
Amoral people should stop getting underfoot like this. It's like someone with no knowledge of science declaring it doesn't exist and then giving commentary on scientific discoveries. Dedicate yourself to finding the meaning in life, in case there is one, because literally every other active pursuit is futile for you on almost every level except where you might, incidentally, do the right thing.
@@lilemont9302 "Can't decide for yourself" seems to beg the question in favour of the idea that morality is decided by other people. And, in terms of deciding for oneself, can you tell me what that process would look like? I'm interested in 1. What facts or feelings you'd look at to make a decision and 2. What the motivation for acting on them would be? The above is my disinterested response. There's an obvious paradox in what you said as well: "What's wrong" is, ordinarily, a typical definition for "not doing the right thing." I'd also wonder what sort of answer someone who is amoral expects from that, since objectively both of our judgements are underpinned by, from your point of view, nothing of any intrinsic value.
Just a bit of fun. Not much philosophy here, just me expressing my initial reactions.
Here's the video I mentioned where I talk about overcoming fear of death:
th-cam.com/video/9UAPH7JlLkE/w-d-xo.html
Kane is the guy that we make up as an illustrative example in metaethical debates but always assumed didn’t actually exist.
Guys it's canon now, Kane is officially an edgy teenager :p
It takes a special kind of edge lord to hate littering but still save the litterer just to troll society 😂
I love trolleys and hate cars, so it would change my answers if it was a car instead of a trolley.
I’d always choose the option that makes cars look bad.
This is a good point. Private motor transport should be abolished. Now I feel bad about destroying those three trolleys.
Sounds like a case study for psychopathology research lol
😢 so the psychopaths answer correct but fast?
Nvm I commented this before watching the video and literally fist one he just killed 5 people cuz why not. Indecision.
So yes probably is
This was very entertaining to watch, I wish there were more lol. I hope you do more videos like this, I like your wittiness and the way you go about answering the questions. GREAT VIDEO!
This video is iconic. We need more of Kane roasting the living hell out of cats.
We agreed on all except 2 questions. I wound up with a higher death count of 80 people. I blew up the trolley that was spinning in circles and I would kill the lobsters because utilitarian vegans hate cats and want all predators dead and I'd want to annoy my fellow vegans by saving the cat (though I also prefer lobsters). Otherwise every answer was the same.
Maybe it's a vegan cat 🐱🥦
Vegan teacher vibes
Watching this was a delight, since you picked almost entirely different choices for me, but for a set of beliefs I can't really find much fault with :D
I usually pull the lever multiple times based on the Fibonacci sequence.
Bro this is evil 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
'the problem with cats' by Dr. Baker coming soon to jstor
'morality is a joke played on all of us'
-The Comedian or the Joker or some edgy character in something probably
th-cam.com/video/8TDC9s-Kt-8/w-d-xo.html i dunno why but its time for a mgs meme
what if we had the standard trolley problem but the bottom lane has a suscriber of this channel and the upper (secondary) lane has 5 random people >:)
Switch to save the subscriber, obviously!
@@KaneB yaaay I never doubted about you :D
I would feel slightly sad if this becomes your defining video, catapulting you to youtube megastardom, but it is brilliant!
13:54 no hesitation lol!
Lmao I literally shrieked out loud when you pulled the lever on the baby
I would pull the lever right after front wheels passed so that way trolley would get out of the track 😂
10:01
*Bahahahahahah*
This video is one of my all time favorites now
Based on your answers, how have you managed to stay out of prison? There are opportunities every day to destroy the property of random strangers.
Stirner would be proud
Be careful Kane, I think you're on the FBI's list now. :)
Taking a break from well researched philosophical content to provide some deranged personal views.
Who TF needs to think about whether to save 5 frickin lobsters or a leopard? A baby versus elderly people? I mean I was entertained so more content like this would be great.
Panpsychism, finally someone who empathises with the trolley :P
This is an interesting video which shows the absurdity of the whole trolley problem discussion. It’s a good laugh because it’s all ridiculous, thank goodness.
The original problem by (as i remember) Elizabeth Anscombe was created to show that consequentialism allows moral murder, nothing more. And consider that Anscombe too argued against most of thought experiments due to its absurdity and inconsistence with ordinary man world situations.
Another fatman thought experiment by Philippa Foot demonstrated existence of the double effect doctrine and it's very important becouse it was literally addressed to judges with concrete goal, not random people. Must judge consider double effect in his case decision or no? Is there juridical difference to judge between killing the fatman and letting people die as an alternative? If yes, how it existence must be argued by judge and how it relate to suggested legal sanction(or no sanction) as outcome of court case.
lmao glad you did this
"cats are crap animals"
Based
Come on, Kane. You know you'd pull that lever.
Today I learnt KaneB is ScroogeMcDuck.
Ok, Jax (AKA) Unknown Knowns Philosophy is on one track and Lance Bush is on the other. Who gets splatted?
Multi-track drifting!
Lol youtube auto-removed my original comment. Let's try a less explicit one...
Obviously you get tied up and splatted every night ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@@KaneB Damn, this makes me feel bad for Lance. If only he knew the pleasures of the splat chamber.
@@DaKoopaKing
Hahahhaahah
Every wrong answer, you chose every wrong answer.
But not helping someone does not make you morally responsible for their fate even if you could do otherwise, imagine if you were not there, the trolly is going to run over someone anyway, you could intervene and change it's direction but in this case you will be directly responsible for it running over the other person, since it's your action that directly caused the death of that person. morality is not just about the consequences and outcomes of the external world, it has a deeper personal level that is tied to the moral agent.
this is quite the troll post
You had me going until the cat. I love cats!
Do a serious version where you ground it in either a coherent, personal or institutional, morality!
No.
@@KaneB why :(
@@G7NoVaS I'm no longer interested in developing moral theories. I find that whole project kinda silly to be honest, and it certainly doesn't accord with how I actually think about moral questions.
@@KaneB Funnily enough I think the same thing, but then I soon wonder if I’m just a weak-willed brat. I sent you a friend request on discord if you’re open to talking there
@@G7NoVaS Feel free to join my discord server too: discord.gg/RUjwFdDDtK
Solid choices 😂I loved the yeah I'm killing the baby hallaruos
could Kane B point me to the video where he talks about causation?. (he doesnt buy into it hmmm)
I haven't made a video outlining my own views on this, but I have an introductory lecture on causality here: th-cam.com/video/cxyHiGdlIFU/w-d-xo.html
7:16
I love your sadism hahahahahh
ı did this trolley problems too and ı did the worst route as ı can
ı got 77 kills
unlocked serial killed: 50 kills
We disagreed only in a few cases. Mostly because I prefer not to get myself involved in murder, not because I'm a Kantian (fuck that guy) but because as you said in your video about Moral Arbitrariness, pulling the lever would make me feel "icky'.
I chose the cats instead of the lobsters because aesthetics play a role in my emotional reactions, and I chose to blow up my savings because I assumed that the people I save will compensate me
But what if lil ol me was on the tracks? Would you kill me Doc?
No I'd save you
@12:54 This was your best moment the whole thing
Dr. Baker's let's play?
Option c. I did not involve myself in the lever pulling in any way
I enjoyed it.
i’m destroying those lobsters
A silly video is suggested by the algorithm, do you click on it or scroll to the next, thereby killing 800 million billion humped llamas, what do you do?
If you pull the lever to reduce the suffering of five people who are already going to die, wouldn't it make sense to pull the lever in the first case to minimise suffering such that only 1 set of family and friends suffer rather than 5 sets?
(a) I'm not concerned only with minimizing suffering. (b) It's not clear to me that switching in the first case would minimize suffering overall, so if that were my goal, I still might not switch.
@@KaneB Thanks for the response. (a) I didn't say that you were, but the answer you gave pretty clearly shows that you have a preference for reducing suffering ceteris parabus; (b) I don't really see a reason to think that killing five over one would reduce suffering. It seems to me that the five lots of grieving families/friends gives us a prima facie reason to think otherwise. On your view all negative utilitarians are committed to pushing the fat man, which seems a little odd to me.
LOL I went back and forth between Like and Dislike way too many times XD
NGL, unless you can give a single reason to believe that saving 4 by ending 1 isn't a good choice I just will have to permanently disagree. As far as I'm concerned it is a closed and shut case.
hilarious. do you have a video about why causality is a hunk of bologna?
[copying what I said to another commenter] This video introduces some of the classic arguments for causal antirealism: th-cam.com/video/cxyHiGdlIFU/w-d-xo.html
I've been planning on doing a follow-up for a while where I'll talk more about my own take on this, but just haven't got around to it yet.
Option 3: Let the trolley splat the 5 people, then break off the track lever and then manually splat the single person. Leave no witnesses.
I lost it on 14:01
I just wanted to say you should monetize your videos, as a viewer I have no problem with it, and if others really want to avoid them, they can with an ad blocker. Obviously this is just my opinion and you don’t have to, but I would love to help you financially if it doesn’t affect my pocket. Like you I feel the pain of spending money and I’m sure it would help if your personal interests went towards alleviating that.
yeah I probably will at some point. Thanks for the suggestion.
02:35 oh gosh....
I believe in general the best course of action is 'do nothing'. I don't have a duty to intervene into a foreign problem (i.e. a problem not set up by me). "No good deed goes unpunished." But sometimes I might have a selfish interest in intervening-e.g. in order to save my loved ones/my savings, or in order to gain reputation at no cost (e.g. saving a child while not dooming anyone else)-large enough for me to put in the "good deed" because the expected gain trumps the expected "punishment".
Thank you @Kane for honestly admitting to your fundamentally irrational preferences at the basis of your decision-making.
pretty based video ngl
That was fun haha
A lot of fun and *provocation* obviously!
Why would you kill the baby Kane, I don't quite understand completely. For instance, that trolley problem with age as a factor surely age isn't an issue? That problem is basically the first trolley problem with more context as to the people involved. Not sure why that would make you want to involve yourself with the decision just because of their age. Surely the duty of care for the child isn't part of the problem?
It seems better to kill it quickly with a trolley than let it die slowly from starvation or be eaten alive by predators. If I found a baby tied to those tracks, I would be moved to help it.
some people just want to see the world burn
Less than five minutes in and we're killing 5 people to save some money. Good lord, this video is just too spicy for me.
If you want to sacrifice all your money to save lives, you can do that right now. You don't need to wait for the trolley scenario to happen.
@@KaneB I've never found these objections that persuasive. Why should it be problematic for me to believe we have different responsibilities to different people? If I think I have a responsibility to feed and clothe my children, I am not thereby committed to the view that I have a responsibility to feed and clothe every child. And if I think I have a responsibility to save certain people if I am uniquely positioned to do so, that does not commit me to the view that I have a responsibility to save literally everyone possible. I don't think it's a strange moral principle to say that people need to "do their part".
@@davidfoley8546 >> Why should it be problematic for me to believe we have different responsibilities to different people?
I don't think that's problematic. Your initial response was not sensitive to any differences in situation -- you seemed to object generally to the idea of letting 5 people die to save one's money. So that's what I directed my response to. If you think there are relevant differences between the trolley scenario and more everyday situations, or even if you just arbitrarily draw a line between them, that's cool. I don't share that view, but I wouldn't say I find it problematic.
@@KaneB Fair enough!
09:00 how could you omgggg 😱😱 UNSUB 😭😭 monster! 😿
26:58
Why don't you believe in causality? Do you have a video on this?
This video introduces some of the classic arguments for causal antirealism: th-cam.com/video/cxyHiGdlIFU/w-d-xo.html
I've been planning on doing a follow-up for a while where I'll talk more about my own take on this, but just haven't got around to it yet.
I can’t help but feel like there is some subtle underdone of jaded bitterness throughout this video…
Hope your doing alright man
Bad application becouse there are no decisions like "toss a coin" which is very common response.
im amazed by your decisions i cant understand your thinking
Wow who knew watching an ethical anti realist engage in applied ethical thought experiments would be so boring
15:55
Just leave it tied on the track 👌😊
I don't mind dying but I won't pull the lever and divert the trolly toward me I don't wanna feel a train running all over my flesh and bones, the most thing I hate and is scared of is intense physical pain.
Seems like it would be over super quickly though. Not a bad way to die. I'd definitely take death by trolley over e.g. a year of suffering from heart disease or cancer, which is the more likely way I'll exit.
@@KaneB ok let's make it a political gender problem, a trolly is going directly toward 5 men, if you pull the lever, it will go toward 5 women. Which would you choose?
@@virtuouspyromaniac4467 I'd save the women.
@@KaneB I would choose to save the women, since violent crimes are hardly associated with men than woman, so this way crimes would decrease.
@@virtuouspyromaniac4467 I couldn't care less about decreasing crimes. I just find women more attractive than men.
Evil laugh at 1:56
Are you sure you are not trolling here.
Oh so this explains the Ukraine takes
Interesting video! But mark Rothko… really? Mark Rothko is better than da Vinci?
damn i got 93
13:15
Nooooooooo
Why do you think that we should respect peoples autonomy to commit suicide?
I agree that life isn't good in itself, but even if life was bad in itself, what is wrong in not respecting peoples autonomy to commit suicide?
I don't like telling other people what to do and I don't like people who do like telling other people what to do.
8:25 For shame
lol
At first I was shocked, then I started understanding your thought process more, and now I agree with you.
Oh such a missed opportunity to explain your real ethics. Instead it seems your ethics is made up of emotions only, although it was fun. To be honest if you were serious you are a horrible person.
I would use the following logic: do I know the people? is there a known moral aspect without appeal to number of people (for example because I know them vs not)? if not, don't pull the lever. for example if there is a good person, save them. it it's objects vs people, save the people. however not pulling the lever doesn't really make you responsible for the deaths, since you didn't set up the situation, but pulling the lever makes you responsible for the outcome. this would become problematic if the choices would have a wider difference of numbers: for example save 5 thousand people vs 1 person. of course, you still don't know whether saving 5 thousand people is a morally better choice, but now there's a higher chance of letting someone die among the 5 thousand who's life may be important for humanity. at the same time, some crazyperson could have set you up to kill Gandhi or 5 thousand murderers from deathrow. and then if someone gives you the choice: 1 person vs the rest of humanity: do you pull? or even just 1 person vs half of humanity. now the problem becomes determining a number of people where the private ethic of "do not kill" is overwritten by the public good (you called in institutional perspective or something) of purely preserving human life.
The views I expressed here are my real ethical views.
24:35
Mafia B(-oss)
i'm amazed by the cursed morality of this guy. I hope it's troll otherwise i now know what philosophy majors spend their time on while not drinking and not studying anything useful lol
As a pragmatic person i'm stunned by the choices, absolutely stunned lol
Nah this has to be troll. 1 person over 5 ppl, money over people, arguing that inaction is the path forward when a while after you decide to kill a baby over 5 ppl not because know it's the right thing but because you don't want to care for a baby for 5 min until police reaches the place?
The "institution" vs "person" morality is a funny one too, i guess this is how political mass murderers justify their actions or beliefs
what the hell man
Most other philosopher majors hate me lol.
>> 1 person over 5 ppl
Why should I favour the 5 over the 1?
>> money over people
Do you have any life savings? If so, you're choosing money over people too. You could easily use your money to save lives. The trolley case only makes the choice much more salient.
>> when a while after you decide to kill a baby over 5 ppl not because know it's the right thing but because you don't want to care for a baby for 5 min
I don't want to spend any amount of time caring for a baby. So obviously, this is a factor that weighs against saving the baby. If it were a baby vs five people with severe dementia or something like that, I'd probably save the baby.
@@KaneB oh god you are not trolling. "Most ****other**** philosophy majors..." I knew it xd. You guys should look into doing useful stuff like building, programming, saving a life, driving the trash truck or cultivating food instead of whatever you do
i agree with you😭
@@TileBitan trolling > useful stuff
@@christopherrussell63 i like both. As i said if it's troll im perfectly happy with it, but it isnt. This degen thinks like this
Great vid as always, Dr. B.
I just really don’t share your intuition on “Why should I save 5 instead of 1”. Could you please elaborate a little bit? I kind of thought it’s a no brainer to pull it in the “simple case”?
Just to elaborate. Would you also not shoot a person on a killing spray who is killing 5 people and is going to shoot more because you would say “Why prefer 5+ people over one”? This seems absurd. Why should we stop murderers at all then?
Ah and why do you hate the trolly company so much? Just standard “capitalism company bad” vibe?
Edit: in your video “Am I utilitarian?”, you said you would pull the leaver??
I wouldn't shoot anybody, but that doesn't really have anything to do with "why prefer 5 over 1?"... I just don't wanna shoot people. Re the trolley case, I just don't see any reason to favour the 5 over the 1. So why switch? I can similarly say: I don't see any reason to favour the 1 over the 5, so why not switch? And indeed, sometimes I may be inclined to switch. I'm more likely to not switch though, as that doesn't require me to perform any physical activity. It's the easier option.
>> Just standard “capitalism company bad” vibe?
I'd blow up the trolleys if they were owned by a worker cooperative or whatever too.
@@KaneB I can respect that
@@KaneB would you also not want the cop to stop the killer because why kill one to save many?
@@AndreasFroestl97 I don't care what the cop does. Similarly, I'm not bothered if other people choose to switch in the standard trolley case. I don't think it's morally wrong to choose the five over the one.
@@AndreasFroestl97 I guess with a cop, it's part of her job to prevent violent crime. If she fails to intervene in a mass shooting, then it would make sense to fire her. But I wouldn't judge her as having done anything morally wrong there. I don't generally see it as a moral issue that people sometimes fail to do their jobs.
Upon watching this video and predicting like 85% of your choices by picking the opposite of what I think the popular choice might be, I have come to the conclusion that you must be an astounding contrarian. Go figure from the modal antirealist lol, but cmon, you gotta know that baby defense was a stretch. You just gotta.
Amoral people should stop getting underfoot like this. It's like someone with no knowledge of science declaring it doesn't exist and then giving commentary on scientific discoveries.
Dedicate yourself to finding the meaning in life, in case there is one, because literally every other active pursuit is futile for you on almost every level except where you might, incidentally, do the right thing.
What's so wrong with not doing the right thing? Can't decide for yourself?
@@lilemont9302 "Can't decide for yourself" seems to beg the question in favour of the idea that morality is decided by other people. And, in terms of deciding for oneself, can you tell me what that process would look like? I'm interested in 1. What facts or feelings you'd look at to make a decision and 2. What the motivation for acting on them would be?
The above is my disinterested response. There's an obvious paradox in what you said as well: "What's wrong" is, ordinarily, a typical definition for "not doing the right thing." I'd also wonder what sort of answer someone who is amoral expects from that, since objectively both of our judgements are underpinned by, from your point of view, nothing of any intrinsic value.