It takes some time to digest all the information and kinda making it more complicated than it is. It's difficult for someone new like me to understand the general idea of Ethics and Morality, but I still appreciate the time and effort you put into this.
Thanks a lot! Something in this video pulled something inside here 🧠 Yours is like the very first time I’ve ever understood the underlinings of how everything connects! Congrats! Best teacher from my experience, it’s perfect that you kept it light and clean so newbies like me wouldn’t got more confused.... or jump to another explanation xDD this was NOT my first video search on the subject so thankÜ Mr. Ben
Good stuff, but the problem with some of the examples used is that there are other ways to deal with a situation (like a guy trying to kill your friend for instance), without lying. Like telling him to get lost, subduing the killer, etc. The problem with philosophy much of the time is that it restricts things to a box without considering ideas outside of said box. Great stuff. Loved the vid.
This was better, by far, than several intros I've encountered. A trouble that the whole discipline labors under, by my impressions and frustrations, is the utter urgency that seems to compel ethical philosophers to jump to categorizing the whole field. It's as though they have ants in their pants to establish the form before the content, the truth before the beauty. Lots of parsing up front, however, makes a forbidding entree into a critically neglected sphere of human endeavor. The arts or sciences usually begin novices in the general roots and principles of their fields, then begin cubby-holing how every thing that eats and poops. A biology 101, for example, would not zoom right to epigenetics, or the question of endothermy among dinosaurs, of the contention over whether pre-sapiens hominids had acquired language. I believe the big academic lanes would be left indistinct for new eyes and ears, like basic mechanisms of slow speciation, not genetic drift or punctuated equilibrium, morphological identification before the magic of molecular biology for gene sequencing. Having rambled about biology, though, why is there no serious field of ethics with an organizing principle in natural selection? I am one of many who believes morality is as integral to human behavior as sexual dimorphism, ritual, belligerence, language and tool use. Some of the most ethical, and naturally philosophical scientists of the 19th and 20th centuries were Alexander Humboldt, Charles Darwin, Alexander Borodin, Nikolai Vavilov, Albert Einstein, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Margaret Mead, Theilhard de Chardin, Francis Crick, Linus Pauling, Rachel Carson, Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Stephen J. Gould and Oliver Sacks, Noam Chomsky.
Couldn't really find a more relevant video to post my about my realization of utter despair, so this will have to do. I have a few friends who come to me for advice now and then or at least listen when I give it, but just a moment ago I realized that I hate being right, because when I'm right about something, it's usually about something not to great, why the hell can't I ever be right when I pick lottery numbers or right about how to save the planet? My life is an Oxymoron...
Regarding Ethical Naturalism. Hume is somewhat guilty of his own complaint. To be sure, he lived in a much less knowledgeable world, but the Is/Ought fallacy fallacy is predicated on lazy thinking about what "ought" means. Ought carries an implicit conditional. If you want to accomplish X, you ought to do Y. This reduces to a basic scientific understanding of cause and effect. Values themselves, at their most distilled and free of supposition, are themselves raw facts of motivation, and are largely driven by cause and effect as well, primarily to do with maintaining homeostasis of one's own biological system. Coupled with knowledge and/or assumptions about the world, they produce higher order values, which can be as good or bad values depending on the accuracy of their assumptions, and the degree to which they have been reflected upon before being acted upon. Bad is just harm, and Good is just benefit or preservation. Many things are a complicated muddled mix that has to be navigated, others are obvious if you know a thing or two, and still others are so basic as to be obvious.
The will in the world is the source of behavior. Survival is the source of habitual behavior. Survival is not necessarily the same as thriving. Thriving requires child rearing: generosity due to abundance. The balance arrived at by Survival is not the same balance arrived at by thriving or by civilization. This balance is habitual behavior. Each behavior is different for the different balances observed. Thought comes from the linguistic mind. Behavior from the will in the world. Ethics, habitual behavior, unconnected from the world, is morality. Ethics, habitual behavior, connected to the world is religion. Ethics, habitual behavior, connected to the world as presented by science or an other theory, is unbalanced because it is incomplete: it has no phenomenal grounding in normal activities such as eating, working, procreation, etc.. To base your behavior on quantum tunnelling or entanglement would make you act how? Similarly with the categorical imperative or consequentialism.
@@thotslayer9914 Darwinian Evolution discounts the will. It subordinates it to survival and therefore cannot explain the thriving known as civilization. Indeed Darwinism is used to justify the notion that the will is not free. That the will of mankind, artificially selective as it is, is subordinate, ultimately, to the imperatives of nature. That "genes" not science, philosophy or religion determines man's fate.
Good stuff. I hope there’s a bet to find out what ethical system you maintain? It has to be cognitive by the way you express one points. ;) nonetheless, great video… thank you for putting this together.
Where could moral knowledge come from if gods and deities don’t exist? The only thing that is left is opinions or what the majority (society) believes is right and wrong. If absolute moral facts exist then they would be true regardless of belief however the rightness and wrongness completely changes depending on context or situation. Someone could say murder is always wrong yet in a battle or a war it would be seen as ethically or morally justified and you would be classed as a hero for fighting the perceived bad or evil people. I believe that ethical naturalism is very interesting.
I believe there’s no such thing as true good and evil because the perception of rightness and wrongness completely changes depending on who interprets them or perceives them. Morality itself can completely change depending on the individual and not everyone has the same moral compass. If moral facts existed then they would be absolute and true regardless of the context or situation.
Why does everyone use that scenario where a murderer wants to kill your friends and you are hiding them and the murderer knocks at the door and when you answer the murderer asks if your friend is there?? There is no reason to lie. You were aware of the situation so you have a weapon already nor to mention its on your turf. You can absolutely tell the truth and then let the murderer know that you are defending your friend because what sort friend agrees to hide you and doesn't defend not just their friend but their home. This way you don't lie and you aren't a bitch
A litmus test for ethics and morality can be the phenomena where rape and murder are widely blamed upon the victim. The Law is often shakey surrounding blame culture where judges and juries are reticent to convict for rape and murder. If enough people believe that these activities are morally justifiable then even a code of ethics cannot protect the most vulnerable. But, what is the source of morality? I believe the most controversial source comes from religious literature. The Christian Bible I find unsettling because it fails to challenge this attitude concerning the breaking of the commandments. I don't believe Christ or his disciples ever advocated rape or murder and the Bible's stance is a paradox but then this could explain the blaming of victims for their misfortune.
Okay. I stopped at about 4-1/2 minutes. The Bottom Line: Other than repercussions for illegal infractions, any action that any prudent human being would not want imposed upon his or her own family member is more than likely an immoral/unethical action - PERIOD. The problem with our sociopathic species is that we’d rather stuff our adolescent curricula with rhetorical subjects (that usually amount to squat, in life) and forsake what “ought” to be ingrained into the young mind - compassion (which would eliminate at least 50% of this planet’s ills) and self-sustainment. We have the gall to deem this nonsense an “education,” and to add insult to injury - bilk millions out of monies that they absolutely don’t have. GTFOH At least here, in America, the typical individual would not know what the branch of philosophy called ethics was - if it crawled out of his/her ass... And so, like sands through the hour glass, we will continue this cyclical indifference - until we realize and then actually act on said notion.
I beg to differ. You told that if every human being shared certain moral «oughts» based on compassion the world would become a better place. It might be true but you didn`t explain why we should make the world a better place to begin with. You said «any action that any prudent human being would not want imposed upon his or her own family member is more than likely an immoral/unethical action», This principle is false as well because there’s no proof behind it.
@@Кинокультист Wow... What a rebuttal. You are, absolutely, more than welcome to differ ‘til your heart’s content. However, your reply crystallizes my assertion that this planet is nearing a pandemic of outright sociopaths. (Clearing my throat) Can someone say; Trump? When a human being propositions others; “Why should we make the world a better place?” - “Houston, we have a problem.” My teenage daughter read your reply. I am so glad that she was utterly flabbergasted. She could not believe that someone would actually have such thoughts. I’m proud of her. Apparently, I must be doing a decent job: regarding her upbringing - and thus, there’s still a glimmer of hope for humanity. As for the ethics part of your reply: One who consciously rejects the ‘Golden Rule’ principle - that most, worldly, religions have absolutely distorted to their own ends; will eventually see the error of his/her ways (well after it is far too late). If you are an argumentative Virgo and desire a back and forth, I’m not the one. Furthermore, it is ironic that would get this TH-cam notification while watching the classic movie ‘Dune’ - ‘talk about galactic sociopaths... Jeeshh. Lastly, it seems more than fitting that I leave you with my time-stamped Twitter header (juxtaposed with the genius writer/narrator Rod Serling) - that’s been posted since about a couple of weeks, immediately, before the worldwide pandemic ensued: “He is an overtly greedy and selfish species; which will ultimately slowdown his short-lived evolution, speedup his inevitable regression, and finally end in his unfortunate extinction.” - C.S. Oliver (2019) Please take care of yourself... ... And ‘good luck. Okay. ‘Off to my daily fantasy FunDuel MLB lineups...
It takes some time to digest all the information and kinda making it more complicated than it is. It's difficult for someone new like me to understand the general idea of Ethics and Morality, but I still appreciate the time and effort you put into this.
Thanks a lot! Something in this video pulled something inside here 🧠 Yours is like the very first time I’ve ever understood the underlinings of how everything connects! Congrats! Best teacher from my experience, it’s perfect that you kept it light and clean so newbies like me wouldn’t got more confused.... or jump to another explanation xDD this was NOT my first video search on the subject so thankÜ Mr. Ben
Good stuff, but the problem with some of the examples used is that there are other ways to deal with a situation (like a guy trying to kill your friend for instance), without lying. Like telling him to get lost, subduing the killer, etc. The problem with philosophy much of the time is that it restricts things to a box without considering ideas outside of said box. Great stuff. Loved the vid.
Ya but consider a situation where by resisting you are also subjected to danger.
This was better, by far, than several intros I've encountered. A trouble that the whole discipline labors under, by my impressions and frustrations, is the utter urgency that seems to compel ethical philosophers to jump to categorizing the whole field. It's as though they have ants in their pants to establish the form before the content, the truth before the beauty. Lots of parsing up front, however, makes a forbidding entree into a critically neglected sphere of human endeavor. The arts or sciences usually begin novices in the general roots and principles of their fields, then begin cubby-holing how every thing that eats and poops. A biology 101, for example, would not zoom right to epigenetics, or the question of endothermy among dinosaurs, of the contention over whether pre-sapiens hominids had acquired language. I believe the big academic lanes would be left indistinct for new eyes and ears, like basic mechanisms of slow speciation, not genetic drift or punctuated equilibrium, morphological identification before the magic of molecular biology for gene sequencing.
Having rambled about biology, though, why is there no serious field of ethics with an organizing principle in natural selection? I am one of many who believes morality is as integral to human behavior as sexual dimorphism, ritual, belligerence, language and tool use. Some of the most ethical, and naturally philosophical scientists of the 19th and 20th centuries were Alexander Humboldt, Charles Darwin, Alexander Borodin, Nikolai Vavilov, Albert Einstein, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Margaret Mead, Theilhard de Chardin, Francis Crick, Linus Pauling, Rachel Carson, Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Stephen J. Gould and Oliver Sacks, Noam Chomsky.
Couldn't really find a more relevant video to post my about my realization of utter despair, so this will have to do. I have a few friends who come to me for advice now and then or at least listen when I give it, but just a moment ago I realized that I hate being right, because when I'm right about something, it's usually about something not to great, why the hell can't I ever be right when I pick lottery numbers or right about how to save the planet? My life is an Oxymoron...
Worthy to subscribe
Very helpful channel 👏
Who's here after watching the good place?
Me LOL, it fr got me into ethics and stuff
You
Meself, of course!
Thankyou For Short And Clear Explanition
Very helpful for what I’m learning thanks
Objective Morality: Create no harm, loss or damage for your fellow Man and if you do (life happens, accidents happen) make it right.
"SAPERE AUDE"¡¡¡Thank you Ben¡¡¡
Regarding Ethical Naturalism. Hume is somewhat guilty of his own complaint. To be sure, he lived in a much less knowledgeable world, but the Is/Ought fallacy fallacy is predicated on lazy thinking about what "ought" means.
Ought carries an implicit conditional. If you want to accomplish X, you ought to do Y. This reduces to a basic scientific understanding of cause and effect. Values themselves, at their most distilled and free of supposition, are themselves raw facts of motivation, and are largely driven by cause and effect as well, primarily to do with maintaining homeostasis of one's own biological system. Coupled with knowledge and/or assumptions about the world, they produce higher order values, which can be as good or bad values depending on the accuracy of their assumptions, and the degree to which they have been reflected upon before being acted upon.
Bad is just harm, and Good is just benefit or preservation. Many things are a complicated muddled mix that has to be navigated, others are obvious if you know a thing or two, and still others are so basic as to be obvious.
The will in the world is the source of behavior. Survival is the source of habitual behavior. Survival is not necessarily the same as thriving. Thriving requires child rearing: generosity due to abundance.
The balance arrived at by Survival is not the same balance arrived at by thriving or by civilization. This balance is habitual behavior. Each behavior is different for the different balances observed.
Thought comes from the linguistic mind. Behavior from the will in the world. Ethics, habitual behavior, unconnected from the world, is morality. Ethics, habitual behavior, connected to the world is religion.
Ethics, habitual behavior, connected to the world as presented by science or an other theory, is unbalanced because it is incomplete: it has no phenomenal grounding in normal activities such as eating, working, procreation, etc..
To base your behavior on quantum tunnelling or entanglement would make you act how? Similarly with the categorical imperative or consequentialism.
My thoughts just exploded after coming across this. 🥲
@@thotslayer9914 Darwinian Evolution discounts the will. It subordinates it to survival and therefore cannot explain the thriving known as civilization. Indeed Darwinism is used to justify the notion that the will is not free. That the will of mankind, artificially selective as it is, is subordinate, ultimately, to the imperatives of nature.
That "genes" not science, philosophy or religion determines man's fate.
Thank you, but I more on amorality
Good stuff. I hope there’s a bet to find out what ethical system you maintain? It has to be cognitive by the way you express one points. ;) nonetheless, great video… thank you for putting this together.
Do you have example possible exam questions in ethics and sustainability? I would really want some .
Where could moral knowledge come from if gods and deities don’t exist? The only thing that is left is opinions or what the majority (society) believes is right and wrong. If absolute moral facts exist then they would be true regardless of belief however the rightness and wrongness completely changes depending on context or situation. Someone could say murder is always wrong yet in a battle or a war it would be seen as ethically or morally justified and you would be classed as a hero for fighting the perceived bad or evil people. I believe that ethical naturalism is very interesting.
well done!
This blew my mind thx
8:44 I think we would prefer if lying to the killer about a victims whereabouts were a universal law. Take that Kant!
I believe there’s no such thing as true good and evil because the perception of rightness and wrongness completely changes depending on who interprets them or perceives them. Morality itself can completely change depending on the individual and not everyone has the same moral compass. If moral facts existed then they would be absolute and true regardless of the context or situation.
I like the content and the presentation
Great content.
Do you have a Patreon?
Why does everyone use that scenario where a murderer wants to kill your friends and you are hiding them and the murderer knocks at the door and when you answer the murderer asks if your friend is there?? There is no reason to lie. You were aware of the situation so you have a weapon already nor to mention its on your turf. You can absolutely tell the truth and then let the murderer know that you are defending your friend because what sort friend agrees to hide you and doesn't defend not just their friend but their home. This way you don't lie and you aren't a bitch
A litmus test for ethics and morality can be the phenomena where rape and murder are widely blamed upon the victim. The Law is often shakey surrounding blame culture where judges and juries are reticent to convict for rape and murder. If enough people believe that these activities are morally justifiable then even a code of ethics cannot protect the most vulnerable. But, what is the source of morality? I believe the most controversial source comes from religious literature. The Christian Bible I find unsettling because it fails to challenge this attitude concerning the breaking of the commandments. I don't believe Christ or his disciples ever advocated rape or murder and the Bible's stance is a paradox but then this could explain the blaming of victims for their misfortune.
👍
Epic
Of course took some slow and fast repetitions 😅
Algo
The example of hitler wasn’t a wise choice 😂
Okay. I stopped at about 4-1/2 minutes.
The Bottom Line: Other than repercussions for illegal infractions, any action that any prudent human being would not want imposed upon his or her own family member is more than likely an immoral/unethical action - PERIOD.
The problem with our sociopathic species is that we’d rather stuff our adolescent curricula with rhetorical subjects (that usually amount to squat, in life) and forsake what “ought” to be ingrained into the young mind - compassion (which would eliminate at least 50% of this planet’s ills) and self-sustainment. We have the gall to deem this nonsense an “education,” and to add insult to injury - bilk millions out of monies that they absolutely don’t have. GTFOH
At least here, in America, the typical individual would not know what the branch of philosophy called ethics was - if it crawled out of his/her ass...
And so, like sands through the hour glass, we will continue this cyclical indifference - until we realize and then actually act on said notion.
I beg to differ. You told that if every human being shared certain moral «oughts» based on compassion the world would become a better place. It might be true but you didn`t explain why we should make the world a better place to begin with. You said «any action that any prudent human being would not want imposed upon his or her own family member is more than likely an immoral/unethical action», This principle is false as well because there’s no proof behind it.
@@Кинокультист
Wow... What a rebuttal.
You are, absolutely, more than welcome to differ ‘til your heart’s content.
However, your reply crystallizes my assertion that this planet is nearing a pandemic of outright sociopaths. (Clearing my throat) Can someone say; Trump?
When a human being propositions others; “Why should we make the world a better place?” - “Houston, we have a problem.”
My teenage daughter read your reply. I am so glad that she was utterly flabbergasted. She could not believe that someone would actually have such thoughts. I’m proud of her. Apparently, I must be doing a decent job: regarding her upbringing - and thus, there’s still a glimmer of hope for humanity.
As for the ethics part of your reply: One who consciously rejects the ‘Golden Rule’ principle - that most, worldly, religions have absolutely distorted to their own ends; will eventually see the error of his/her ways (well after it is far too late).
If you are an argumentative Virgo and desire a back and forth, I’m not the one.
Furthermore, it is ironic that would get this TH-cam notification while watching the classic movie ‘Dune’ - ‘talk about galactic sociopaths... Jeeshh.
Lastly, it seems more than fitting that I leave you with my time-stamped Twitter header (juxtaposed with the genius writer/narrator Rod Serling) - that’s been posted since about a couple of weeks, immediately, before the worldwide pandemic ensued:
“He is an overtly greedy and selfish species; which will ultimately slowdown his short-lived evolution, speedup his inevitable regression, and finally end in his unfortunate extinction.”
- C.S. Oliver (2019)
Please take care of yourself...
... And ‘good luck.
Okay. ‘Off to my daily fantasy FunDuel MLB lineups...
well done!
Great content.