A problem with Utilitarianism is that it value /quantifies human life even though we can rarely forsee all the consequences of our actions. In your train example, what if, unbeknownst to me, the large man would stop a war in 10 years time, and one passenger went on to become a serial killer who killed 52 people? That's an exaggerated example, but the logic's there. Pricing human life would require superhuman judgment and no emotion, which is why I couldn't stick too closely to Utilitarianism.
I feel that it's kind of hard to figure out where I would place myself. I believe I would be more of Utilitarian, but at the same time I don't really like Utilitarianism or Kantism. As you yourself said, Stalin, Kantism can be used to justify odd things, while at the same time, Utilitarianism requires a large amount of thought, and, ironically enough, god-like abilities (ie. how do you know that man will cure cancer?).
I am a mix of the two and neither. For I think the morality of an action can only be judge after the event by the rest of the society. To myself my own action are amoral, for only thing I can judge from them are my happiness toward the result.
Before event only thing that can be judge are the intent, the mean and the reasoning.
Thus moral decision are made by striking a balance between the three.
@continuing Thus to me utilitarian are Intent > Mean or Intent > Mean + Reasoning, depending on which kind. While the kantian require the three to be positive.
@iniudan Sorry for delete, but saw I made a big mistake in the logic due to language limitation. Correcting then reposting, sorry if you came to give a reply.
If there was no honesty in today's world, then society would be plunged into complete chaos. There would be people lying to their families, bosses, and their so-called friends. The world needs honesty so that it wouldn't be a total hell hole.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, Utilitarianism can justify some pretty horrific stuff. Let's say there is a man with magical powers who can magically make everyone in the world happy in proportion to his own pain. So if this man we're tortured, everyone in the world would receive an continuous stream of happiness.
According to utilitarianism, this man should be kidnapped and tortured for the rest of his life, and it would be immoral to do otherwise
How can you have a discussion of justifying a moral framework without bringing materialism into play? Both philosophies you discussed are on a basis of moral values that essential come from the same place, judeo-christianity. If you look at the change in our values structure over history, the correlation between changes in the material forces of production and how we answer certain philosophical and moral questions is quite apparent
I like that you actually have coffee in these coffee house vids now but i wouldn't mind a little more colour in the background. just makes things look better i reckon. Good video.
Of course killing someone can be justified morally. Legally and morally, if someone is trying to kill you, then you have the right to kill them to protect yourself. Only insane people would look down at someone who killed someone in justifiable self defense.
ritual sacrifice but everybody jumps on the bandwagon of the second example. The justification used for both is the same, which is why I am comparing them. Fact is, most people innately know they have no right to decide so they invoke the proud phrase "because I can." We also know that that is no real justification.
It is a fact that some people performed human sacrifices. It doesn't matter whether the sacrifices actually appeased some god or brought rain. They believed they were acting for the greater good. They were weighing the lives of relatively few against the lives of relatively many and calculated that it would maximize happiness to perform the sacrifice. This logic is no different than pushing the man to stop the train. In both scenarios the person believes. Yet nobody would applaud the
A good universal morality requires a universal culture that all of us have. Morality is based on a culture and thus different cultures have different morals. Morality is this weird thing that exists because culture teaches us what wrong or right. Now while there is some general consensus on some stuff. It is really this hole that only exists based on communal teachings.
honesty is right cause if you r honest, people will believe what you say... if not, they wont believe.!
example: peter is bored of watching the sheep and calls for help: "the big bad wolve is comin, help!!!" so then all the people come an there is no wolves and they r mad. he does this two more times until the big bad wolve REALLY comes... but then the people just say: ah, hes makin fun of us again... leave him..
Honesty is right because the avalibility of correct information is essential for the development of our society, is that good enough? and dont say "why do we want to develop our society, its not difficult to just keep asking questions
@ensignharrykim i have to say is that super being gave us life sounds like the story of Santa Claus so i agree with you. But on subject of course there are times killing is justified like Stalin's reason it is reasonably but the man should be able to choose and if not throw him in the track. Here is my reason you must kill a person to save 10 others, what would you do? Or if you need to steal food for your family or so you can eat is it still bad, and if you lie its ok at times.
@StupidMovieMan well it also has to be remmeberd that i could not go into that much detail because of the 500 character limit but if that wasnt there id go into much more detail on the subject
Another problem with utilitarianism is that you never no clearly what the consequence is going to be, though we do agree that (mostly) we swing towards utilitarianism more naturally then we do kantism
wow my 2 favourite ethical philosophys! (doing A level philosophy, year before going to uni basically) Love the kantian philosophy but he left so many questions unclear e.g do fetis' have reason? Mill's idea is so so much better then Benethem's utilitarianism, because Benethem's idea seem's to justify several "unmoral" ideas, and takes WAY longer to work out, mills universials his rules, benethem takes every situation individually =/.
Keep up the talks, good to see someone elses perspective.
I do agree with you that Utilitarianism is the better system as it can improve on itself by saying "right, is Utilitariansim really as good as it can be" and then if you think no you can improve on it or start again. While with Kantism, you ignore the consequences and remove what we use to improve what we've already got.
So, according to Kantism if everyone fed the poor then no one would be hungry, therefore no one would feed the poor, therefore feeding the poor is wrong?
Stalin explained Utilitarianism well enough, but he kind of misrepresented Kant's universal imperative.
What Kant was really arguing was that one should not take an action if that action, we're it universalized, would produce an undesirable world. For example, one shouldn't steal, because if everyone stole all the time(theft universalized) society would cease to function and we'd return to an animalistic state.
Kantianism still has issues though. Like Stalin said, it can be used to argue some strange positions. Like being gay as he said. You shouldn't be gay, because if homosexuality we're universalized(everyone is gay), then no children would be born and humanity would go extinct, etc. Thus being gay is morally wrong.
Kantianism really has nothing to do with making this or that meaningless as Stalin described, I'm not really sure where he got that from
interesting... the way utilitarianism was explained to me was that the process was innate in any decision anyone makes (as in the debating the two candy bars situation on occasion might happen, you innately know the value of each candy bar to you) The other difference was that the way it was explained to me is that 'humans are fundamentally selfish seeking out their own happiness. Under this principle, a mass murderer is actually sane, because he is maximizing his utility(happiness/cost ratio)
@TheGstein Well you are right that there is some innate calculation into every decision you make ensuring that the decision would maximize the good. You wrong about the mass murderer, you have to understand that utilitarianism must take everyone’s happiness into account. If our murderer was killing people the small amount of happiness he would get from killing would be outweighed by the fact his victims couldn't feel happiness there by not maximizing the good.
@JosefVStalin Hmmmph, I liked my misguided version a lot better, now I have an inner moral dilemma since I don't want to be one of those "for the greater good" fellows.
@TheGstein However if our murderer was killing murderers, kinda of like a Dexter scenario :P. That could be justified under utilitarianism. Because he kills some one that would have killed 5 other people, we have saved those 5 people, insuring that they could continue going feeling happiness, therefore maximizing the amount of happiness.
very nice ur a very intelligent man and I think its great that i dont hav to read a textbook, i can listen to a very smart and eloquent man for 15 minutes and not several hours
@andreas55k I Don't think I would, but if it helped a great many people I would sacrifice myself.
OT: stalin, I find it impossible to measure happiness at different points in life. If every person was intelligent but bored, society would become depressed. Also a labour force is needed. Otherwise we might get a rapture on our hands.
ghgh
TomLULZ 3 months ago
hey wat r yr opening lines, those russian words?
killing is always justifiable, as long as yr intentions r noble.
BENTHEMAN11 8 months ago
@BENTHEMAN11 how can you justify what a noble cause is or prove that it wasfor those reasons?
MrBenjarming 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@MrBenjarming
watever noble means to u.
a killer believes killing someone who wronged them is noble, up until they get arrested.
BENTHEMAN11 2 months ago
Comment removed
BENTHEMAN11 8 months ago
A problem with Utilitarianism is that it value /quantifies human life even though we can rarely forsee all the consequences of our actions. In your train example, what if, unbeknownst to me, the large man would stop a war in 10 years time, and one passenger went on to become a serial killer who killed 52 people? That's an exaggerated example, but the logic's there. Pricing human life would require superhuman judgment and no emotion, which is why I couldn't stick too closely to Utilitarianism.
davehead3 1 year ago
I feel that it's kind of hard to figure out where I would place myself. I believe I would be more of Utilitarian, but at the same time I don't really like Utilitarianism or Kantism. As you yourself said, Stalin, Kantism can be used to justify odd things, while at the same time, Utilitarianism requires a large amount of thought, and, ironically enough, god-like abilities (ie. how do you know that man will cure cancer?).
OrcishTroll 1 year ago
Do a video on Rand
naesdkuma 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am a mix of the two and neither. For I think the morality of an action can only be judge after the event by the rest of the society. To myself my own action are amoral, for only thing I can judge from them are my happiness toward the result.
Before event only thing that can be judge are the intent, the mean and the reasoning.
Thus moral decision are made by striking a balance between the three.
iniudan 1 year ago
@continuing Thus to me utilitarian are Intent > Mean or Intent > Mean + Reasoning, depending on which kind. While the kantian require the three to be positive.
iniudan 1 year ago
Comment removed
iniudan 1 year ago
@iniudan Sorry for delete, but saw I made a big mistake in the logic due to language limitation. Correcting then reposting, sorry if you came to give a reply.
iniudan 1 year ago
Although I am a firm Methodist, this view stands even if their wasn't a God. I believe the world be a hopeless place to live if their wasn't honesty.
TripleCheesetheThird 1 year ago
If there was no honesty in today's world, then society would be plunged into complete chaos. There would be people lying to their families, bosses, and their so-called friends. The world needs honesty so that it wouldn't be a total hell hole.
TripleCheesetheThird 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interdemensional Church?
jongtu 1 year ago
Interdemension Church?
jongtu 1 year ago
Utilitarianism is the way to go
D3adtrap 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Utilitarianism also has it's own issues
Taken to it's logical conclusion, Utilitarianism can justify some pretty horrific stuff. Let's say there is a man with magical powers who can magically make everyone in the world happy in proportion to his own pain. So if this man we're tortured, everyone in the world would receive an continuous stream of happiness.
According to utilitarianism, this man should be kidnapped and tortured for the rest of his life, and it would be immoral to do otherwise
Ironzealot7531 1 year ago 6
Killing is justified by the natural law of self-preservation.
TheBiggestWolf 1 year ago
@TheBiggestWolf True but only without restriction in a fully amoral society.
iniudan 1 year ago
@teremaster
Guys think sex is better than reading and women think the opposite
Napoleon4511 1 year ago
How can you have a discussion of justifying a moral framework without bringing materialism into play? Both philosophies you discussed are on a basis of moral values that essential come from the same place, judeo-christianity. If you look at the change in our values structure over history, the correlation between changes in the material forces of production and how we answer certain philosophical and moral questions is quite apparent
pedro3131 1 year ago
intellecual pleasure is better than physical pleasure? does that mean reading a book is better than sex?
TheTeremaster 1 year ago
I like that you actually have coffee in these coffee house vids now but i wouldn't mind a little more colour in the background. just makes things look better i reckon. Good video.
kaelim888 1 year ago
wow stalin looks real profesional.
chrisdeli7158 1 year ago
great vid stalin, have u consider uploading podcasts?
PatSan1984 1 year ago
NOOOO THE EPIC BEARD OF GOD-MODE IS GONE!!! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?
Corben667 1 year ago
Kant had some good ideas but he went too universal with things. But at least he makes Ayne Rand fans flip out.
dv8nation 1 year ago
i love the way he wears a big fancy suit every time
jewflaps 1 year ago
@jewflaps
big and fancy. aren't you descriptive
NINJAHUDANSKILZ 1 year ago
@NINJAHUDANSKILZ aren't you hilarious
jewflaps 1 year ago
Of course killing someone can be justified morally. Legally and morally, if someone is trying to kill you, then you have the right to kill them to protect yourself. Only insane people would look down at someone who killed someone in justifiable self defense.
PkayerZxz2 1 year ago
Screw both bars I'll take a trixs
fanofdarhorror 1 year ago
Mars bar is so old school.
UltimaRoTaD 1 year ago
i don't know wtf a mars bar is so i'd choose the snickers
aarontaylor94 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1:52 says it all.
cliffhanger11414 1 year ago
Comment removed
cliffhanger11414 1 year ago
Mars bar.
aced1592 1 year ago
ritual sacrifice but everybody jumps on the bandwagon of the second example. The justification used for both is the same, which is why I am comparing them. Fact is, most people innately know they have no right to decide so they invoke the proud phrase "because I can." We also know that that is no real justification.
MegaHussar 1 year ago
It is a fact that some people performed human sacrifices. It doesn't matter whether the sacrifices actually appeased some god or brought rain. They believed they were acting for the greater good. They were weighing the lives of relatively few against the lives of relatively many and calculated that it would maximize happiness to perform the sacrifice. This logic is no different than pushing the man to stop the train. In both scenarios the person believes. Yet nobody would applaud the
MegaHussar 1 year ago
A good universal morality requires a universal culture that all of us have. Morality is based on a culture and thus different cultures have different morals. Morality is this weird thing that exists because culture teaches us what wrong or right. Now while there is some general consensus on some stuff. It is really this hole that only exists based on communal teachings.
NamesSuk 1 year ago
honesty is right cause if you r honest, people will believe what you say... if not, they wont believe.!
example: peter is bored of watching the sheep and calls for help: "the big bad wolve is comin, help!!!" so then all the people come an there is no wolves and they r mad. he does this two more times until the big bad wolve REALLY comes... but then the people just say: ah, hes makin fun of us again... leave him..
so c, thats the proof
Archdukey 1 year ago
ass usualy when it comes down to 2 choices neither is ideal whenter its philosiphy or politics i would like a mixture and that would be great
nowayout5221 1 year ago
Well somebody was dumb enough to buy the beard. How much?
ronjon707 1 year ago
I really hate it when I am talking about religion to a Christian and EVERY single answer they have has the word God in it. Pisses me the hell off.
reddenbawker 1 year ago
yes because killing somone like a war mongering dictatior because your going to save thousands of lives
nowayout5221 1 year ago
Honesty is right because the avalibility of correct information is essential for the development of our society, is that good enough? and dont say "why do we want to develop our society, its not difficult to just keep asking questions
Kooletz71 1 year ago
Fuck Moral Theories and live life
lolPaperclip 1 year ago
@lolPaperclip you realize thats a moral theory right?
Kooletz71 1 year ago
well you dont need god to tell you whats right here is a list of things you should not do
steal-its wrong becoase it causes pain to the recipent
lie-it can couse problems later on in your life or even after
kill-again this should be self explanitory its just not a cool thing to do
suicide-alot of people say its a one way trip to hell but i say that its selfish it harms your familly and friends
and discriminate based on faith race ect.-discrimination is wrong in general .
ran outa space
ensignharrykim 1 year ago
@ensignharrykim i have to say is that super being gave us life sounds like the story of Santa Claus so i agree with you. But on subject of course there are times killing is justified like Stalin's reason it is reasonably but the man should be able to choose and if not throw him in the track. Here is my reason you must kill a person to save 10 others, what would you do? Or if you need to steal food for your family or so you can eat is it still bad, and if you lie its ok at times.
StupidMovieMan 1 year ago
@StupidMovieMan well it also has to be remmeberd that i could not go into that much detail because of the 500 character limit but if that wasnt there id go into much more detail on the subject
ensignharrykim 1 year ago
@ensignharrykim yeah me too i hate that 500 character limit
StupidMovieMan 1 year ago
Can I get high on happiness pills?
CLU10123 1 year ago
lol put on transcibe audio
jrelm7 1 year ago
Another problem with utilitarianism is that you never no clearly what the consequence is going to be, though we do agree that (mostly) we swing towards utilitarianism more naturally then we do kantism
RAG1923 1 year ago
wow my 2 favourite ethical philosophys! (doing A level philosophy, year before going to uni basically) Love the kantian philosophy but he left so many questions unclear e.g do fetis' have reason? Mill's idea is so so much better then Benethem's utilitarianism, because Benethem's idea seem's to justify several "unmoral" ideas, and takes WAY longer to work out, mills universials his rules, benethem takes every situation individually =/.
Keep up the talks, good to see someone elses perspective.
RAG1923 1 year ago
This channel is interesting.Perhaps you should apply for partnership do the videos can be longer and therefore improve your discussions.
lukeclews 1 year ago 4
@lukeclews he is a parnter on his other channel
hokko1 1 year ago
Comment removed
PriestOfFilm 1 year ago
But then if every one was straight, therefor the concept of gayness would not exist. Resulting in head explosians
So the moral of the story is dont be straight
MrUnknownSonOfSpeech 1 year ago
What happened to the soviet flag?
viperb10 1 year ago
All right, out with it...who the hell bought the beard?
ACleverName17 1 year ago 35
@ACleverName17 his dad
hokko1 1 year ago
@ACleverName17
his dad won in the end according to a facebok update
3man75 1 year ago
@ACleverName17 his dad.it said on his facebook
codmod55 1 year ago
@ACleverName17 his dad.. :P
jewflaps 1 year ago
That pill of pleasure is called Mdma or Ecstasy, distribute it worldwide and all our problems will be solved :)
thedicklick1 1 year ago
@thedicklick1 Getting everyone high will not solve any problems. All forms of drugs are a problem.
promdawg 1 year ago
"pill that provides pleasure"
Painkillers?
TheKarakoran 1 year ago
@TheKarakoran That actually takes an unpleasent sensation -pain- but does not give you pleasure.
draftione 1 year ago
i think the Utilitarian way is the way to go beacuse i doubt everyone would become straight if everyone was gay so Utilitarianism FTW
Trillios 1 year ago
rip stalins beard
jaza505 1 year ago
NO BEARD!!! Hahaha, who the hell bought it? xD
TheAnnoyingSwede 1 year ago 23
I do agree with you that Utilitarianism is the better system as it can improve on itself by saying "right, is Utilitariansim really as good as it can be" and then if you think no you can improve on it or start again. While with Kantism, you ignore the consequences and remove what we use to improve what we've already got.
Jamarmy2012 1 year ago
How can you derive an 'ought' from an 'is'?
SonOfTanit 1 year ago 3
@SonOfTanit Good point =D
RAG1923 1 year ago
Utilatarianism FTW!
CylonAndrew 1 year ago
This Is The First time I saw Stalin Without his Beard In Months
bloodyjohnny1993 1 year ago
You look good without the beard Stalin...
I hope you got a lot for it.
MichaelMMo 1 year ago
So, according to Kantism if everyone fed the poor then no one would be hungry, therefore no one would feed the poor, therefore feeding the poor is wrong?
buhite1 1 year ago
@buhite1 no, not really
Stalin explained Utilitarianism well enough, but he kind of misrepresented Kant's universal imperative.
What Kant was really arguing was that one should not take an action if that action, we're it universalized, would produce an undesirable world. For example, one shouldn't steal, because if everyone stole all the time(theft universalized) society would cease to function and we'd return to an animalistic state.
It still has issues though
Ironzealot7531 1 year ago
@buhite1 (continued)
Kantianism still has issues though. Like Stalin said, it can be used to argue some strange positions. Like being gay as he said. You shouldn't be gay, because if homosexuality we're universalized(everyone is gay), then no children would be born and humanity would go extinct, etc. Thus being gay is morally wrong.
Kantianism really has nothing to do with making this or that meaningless as Stalin described, I'm not really sure where he got that from
Ironzealot7531 1 year ago
Where is the beard! :( :D
lubo979 1 year ago
@lubo979
he sold it
vikas6141 1 year ago
I agree that utalitarianism is the best choice out of the two. But read Hard Times by Charles Dickens. That's utalitarianism gone wrong.
leegarden3 1 year ago
Very excited for Nietzsche!
cheesepie72 1 year ago
interesting... the way utilitarianism was explained to me was that the process was innate in any decision anyone makes (as in the debating the two candy bars situation on occasion might happen, you innately know the value of each candy bar to you) The other difference was that the way it was explained to me is that 'humans are fundamentally selfish seeking out their own happiness. Under this principle, a mass murderer is actually sane, because he is maximizing his utility(happiness/cost ratio)
TheGstein 1 year ago
Comment removed
JosefVStalin 1 year ago
@TheGstein Well you are right that there is some innate calculation into every decision you make ensuring that the decision would maximize the good. You wrong about the mass murderer, you have to understand that utilitarianism must take everyone’s happiness into account. If our murderer was killing people the small amount of happiness he would get from killing would be outweighed by the fact his victims couldn't feel happiness there by not maximizing the good.
JosefVStalin 1 year ago
@JosefVStalin Hmmmph, I liked my misguided version a lot better, now I have an inner moral dilemma since I don't want to be one of those "for the greater good" fellows.
TheGstein 1 year ago
@TheGstein However if our murderer was killing murderers, kinda of like a Dexter scenario :P. That could be justified under utilitarianism. Because he kills some one that would have killed 5 other people, we have saved those 5 people, insuring that they could continue going feeling happiness, therefore maximizing the amount of happiness.
JosefVStalin 1 year ago
Loved your utilitarian example... lol so ridiculous.
DMBHawk 1 year ago
Comment removed
YodSamechLamed 1 year ago
very nice ur a very intelligent man and I think its great that i dont hav to read a textbook, i can listen to a very smart and eloquent man for 15 minutes and not several hours
YodSamechLamed 1 year ago
Great video! A very interesting topic.
ValkiryeMax 1 year ago
Im Split... i would not be able to sacrifice anyone anyone for the greater good...
andreas55k 1 year ago
@andreas55k I Don't think I would, but if it helped a great many people I would sacrifice myself.
OT: stalin, I find it impossible to measure happiness at different points in life. If every person was intelligent but bored, society would become depressed. Also a labour force is needed. Otherwise we might get a rapture on our hands.
yersimapestis 1 year ago