All I have to say about it is just because we feel something is right or wrong intuitively does not make it right or wrong and that there are certain scenarios where there is no way to make something feel right to other people for one simple reason; Empathy.
This is how social organisms function, and these impulses either evolve with us or are culturally engrained in us because we can understand what it would be like to be the victim, and so we empathise and it becomes socially unacceptable.
@Epydemic2020 Intuition is still not a good argument, since intuition is frequently wrong, just when we come to morality or ethics there's not much else to base it on but what you feel about it and how others feel about it (either repercussions or empathy) and what I'm saying is that those intuitions are just learnt or evolved behavioural traits. That doesn't make them "right"
You have 0 examples of when our moral intuitions are wrong.
" what I'm saying is that those intuitions are just learnt or evolved behavioural traits."
Similarly our senses evolved. It is wrong to discount the truth value of our what either our senses, intuitions, or anything else for that matters tells us on the mere basis of how they evolved. That'd be a type of genetic fallacy.
@Epydemic2020 So you've never done anything that with hindsight you would consider was the wrong decision?
You've never seen something that wasn't there? Never heard a sound that wasn't there? Misheard someone? misread something?
I didn't put a truth value on anything. I said that that is the way we have developed. By your argument then a psychopath IS moral if they follow their intuitions that killing someone is the best possible thing they could do.
@kelarael and if not, why is it that when YOU have an intuition it is right, and when someone else has a different intuition it is wrong?how can you say from intuition that someone else's intuition is wrong? what are you basing that on?
A psychopath only falls into one of two categories (psychologist seem to disagree how to classify them). They either have the same moral intuitions but merely lack empathy, or they lack both. They don't have different intuitions. I laid out this argument in my vid on psychopaths.
"when someone else has a different intuition it is wrong"
I don't think that happens. See my vid "the argument from disagreement" for a more robust explanation.
@Epydemic2020 special pleading. "They know it's wrong, they just justify it a different way" e.g. "they're not really people" all you're saying is "my moral intuition is right, they're wrong, they just refuse to follow the truth"
It's no different from "atheists just want to sin! They know god exists!" it's just a case of applying something you believe to be true as fact to everyone else.
@kelarael Moral intuitions are informed by your upbringing and culture, but there are some common themes found n ALL social animals, because that is how social structures develop. They can't develop in a completely "everyone for themselves" or completely selfish manner, because it would not produce a stable social structure and thus it would not BE a social animal.
Morality is simply rules of interaction with others and their property and possessions.
Moral intuitions are not informed by culture nor upbringing (that'd be a contradiction in terms), you apparently mean to say "moral conclusions" are informed by culture and upbringing. If that is what you meant, then I agree, but it wouldn't undermine my position at all.
@Epydemic2020 Then why do children not follow these intuitions, they hit and fight over the smallest things, or just to make themselves feel better. They need to be told that that is not appropriate behaviour.
Why have entire societies broken these supposed intuitions and not felt they are doing anything wrong?
You can say "they knew, they just came up with a justification" but I would disagree.
I have addressed all of these in past videos, there may be more than one explanation.
With children in particular, ignorance is a huge factor. Children are quite bad at understanding the ramifications of their actions. A kid might shoot you dead and laugh having no idea that they just killed you because they don't understand the pain of getting shot or really grasp the concept of death.
Societies exhibit wrong moral conclusions, not broken intuitions.
@Epydemic2020 And I've disagreed with you in those videos too. If I don't accept your premises there, I'm hardly going to accept them now as a support for your argument here.
You are arguing for moral intuition. you said yourself separate from empathy, separate from consequences, as consequences are frequently cultural. It seems to me that everything still comes down to empathy and culture. Without these things, your intuition becomes a meaningless argument.
"Why have entire societies broken these supposed intuitions and not felt they are doing anything wrong?"
Nazi Germany seems to be the go to example for that type of argument. The nazi's have the same intuitions we do about something like "killing non-consenting people solely for entertainment is wrong". What is different is misinformation about whether or not Jews are subhuman, and they also think they have more noble intentions (eugenics).
Yeah poor Nazis...they were misinformed. All they wanted is making the world a better place. LOL...Come on man you don't actually believe this nonsense do you ? The Germans needed food and Hitler said: Alright: Let's kill the jews and steal their shit. And the Germans were like: Yay...we're all in. That's what actually happened. Now you can't just openly rob and kill people so they came up with the subhuman crap for an excuse but nobody actually believed this shit.
And that is just one out of countless examples for a complete refutation of your moral intuition. Actually you are a pretty good evidence against intuition yourself: You said that we have moral intuition so many times that it must be wrong since if it were true there was no need to say it that many times because we all already knew it.
"So you've never done anything that with hindsight you would consider was the wrong decision?"
Of course. Although the existence of a moral error doesn't mean my moral intuitions are flawed. Besides, our intuitions don't solve moral dilemmas for us, they just inform us that objective values exist. Errors in reasoning/misinformation is the #1 cause of moral error.
"You've never seen something that wasn't there?"
Of course (although I'm not sure how this invalidates moral intuitions.)
@Epydemic2020 get it straight from the source, no confusion about which verse in the Bible to hold to, no conflicting laws, no conflicting moral intuitions, no arguing about "Well it was ok for them at the time but now we're in a different situation."? With him being as all powerful as he is, it would be too easy for him to just come down and set the record straight, but he doesn't.
@Epydemic2020 The Ebionites, from just a survey of their beliefs, were actually more in line with Jesus' teachings. They fell somewhere in between Paulian Christianity and Judaism. And now you get all the baggage of the messed up laws in the Old Testament.
Moreover, since there is such a wide disagreement today on moral topics, even among people who get their moral codes straight from the Bible, wouldn't it be in God's interest to come down and set the record straight so we can (cont)
@Epydemic2020 This video accounts for a good deal of morality that is found in Judaism and Christianity. I wouldn't say that it says how we should act, but that is a different question. /watch?v=i3plwTxdSO4
Besides that, once you let your argument out of the gates and apply it to Christian morality it falls on its face. Paul and Jesus had conflicting notions of what people should do. In Matthew 5 Jesus says to keep all of the laws, Paul says to get rid of a good deal of them.
The OT is composed of what Hebrews call "the Tanakh" its a combo of 3 words "torah (first five books, aka the law), Nevi'im (aka the books written by prophets) and Ketuvim (aka the writings). Taken together it refers to the OT as a whole. So anytime you see "the law prophets and writings" or "the law and prophets" it is talking about the OT, not about specific laws.
In fulfilling the OT, you actually establish a new covenant (jer 31:31-34).
@Epydemic The problem is we need to define terms, but that only begs the question because when you say something is good or wrong what you are referring to is based on your moral theory of ethics. It seems impossible to avoid a vicious circle. Without appealing to intuition or emotions, which isn't reason, you have no grounds to call things moral facts other than inventing definitions of words. Yet people strongly believe their moral ideas are facts, probably due to strong emotion/passion.
@RuinSonic In other words I believe all moral theories are either arbitrary or circular. Either you arbitrary make up some value you hold as important to base your theory on or you assume a moral theory in order to define morality only to try to defend your moral theory. If we could just skip the nonsense and just admit appeal to emotion, desire and intuition we could get over about 90% of religion and political arguments.
You don't use solely reason to arrive at the conclusion "the material world objectively exists". I am only arguing for confidence in objective morality to be on par with our confidence that the material world is real.
2. It isn't clear what material really is and consciousness of objects is not merely an intuition.
3. It is not clear what morality is, which is the point to begin with. If it's like material then why can't we even have the same understanding of it by defining it? All we can mostly agree on is certain actions we don't want or are distasteful or go against our instinct or desire. That proves nothing.
Yea lol, When I use the phrase I am actually thinking about personal entertainment. I don't think it'd be justified for the entertainment of others either, but that only goes to show that my language was still vague enough to include two separate moral questions.
I think the biggest thing to note here is that you always use the terms "right" or "wrong" when discussing morality. What method do you use to determine the rightness or wrongness of that statement other than common emotions? If that's the case, it would still be subjective.
I don't appeal to emotions, I appeal to intuitions. Also, intuitions are not used to "make" something right or wrong, but merely to inform us that right and wrong exist.
For example:
1. Intuition tells us that human life ought to be valued.
2. Reason tells us that shooting people will take away their life.
Therefore (ceteris paribus) it is wrong to shoot people.
@Epydemic2020 Intuitions are no less subjective than emotions. Intuition tells most people that the statement "0.999... = 1" is false, yet it is an objectively true and provable statement. So, you have yet to give an objective method of evaluation that would make a moral statement either "right" or "wrong".
For the same reason I don't argue "senses determine what objectively exists", I don't argue "intuitions determine what is moral".
As I said in my prior comment, intuitions are how we know morality objectively exists, it is not what makes morality objectively exist. Similarly, our senses are how we know objects objectively exist, yet they do not make objects objectively exist.
@Epydemic2020 So, the intuition I have that all food I eat should taste good makes it so that there is one objective set of taste preferences? How is it that a preference for protecting human life demonstrably different than my preference for food tasting good?
I can imagine a person that feels they should only eat food that doesn't taste good to them. Is that person now wrong, or are they only wrong within the domain that people should eat food that tastes good?
" So, the intuition I have that all food I eat should taste good makes it so that there is one objective set of taste preferences?"
You don't have normative intuitions about food. Come on man.
You have a preference that you would like to eat "good tasting food". If I was arguing that "I -merely- have a preference that people not cause each other harm" then your critique would be applicable.. but you and I both know that is not what I have been arguing.
@Epydemic2020 Normative does not make an intuition objective. It is normative that people think chocolate tastes good. That doesn't make it objectively true. It is normative that people intuit that "0.999... =/= 1", that also doesn't make it true.
People have intuitions about the value things like gold and diamonds. Are those things objectively valuable?
If you want to demonstrate the objectivity of morality, you need to have an objective evaluative domain, not just a normative one.
"normative ethics" refers to "statements of fact about what we should or shouldn't do".
We do not have a normative intuition about eating chocolate, we just have a preference. I do not think I have some duty to eat things which taste good, I merely prefer to eat things I find tasty as opposed to things I dislike.
People do not have intuitions about the value of gold or diamonds. People merely have preferences.
You seem to be trying to change the meaning of the terms I use.
@Epydemic2020 Normative used generically means about the same thing as 'generally'. Normative ethics on the other hand is somewhere I am perplexed as to why you would be going there, and why I assumed it to be generic.
You have not gotten to the "ought" of anything yet. The only way you get to an "ought" to begin with would be a subjective position. I'm trying to see how you can say that your "intuition" is somehow objective, and how you can demonstrate that to be so.
" I'm trying to see how you can say that your "intuition" is somehow objective, and how you can demonstrate that to be so."
I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but I am not arguing that my intuition is objective. I am arguing that my intuition informs me of something which is objective.
@Epydemic2020 Okay, I see that now. I addressed this in my most recent post in reply to you on my video, I think.
I see that your moral sense is objective. You either have one or you don't. That makes it objective in that sense, but it doesn't conflate to you being able to tell me that I am mistaken if I don't agree with your moral sense. It is not objective in that sense that I can understand.
", but it doesn't conflate to you being able to tell me that I am mistaken if I don't agree with your moral sense"
I have been arguing for hardwired universal moral intuitions. Your critique is contingent upon our moral senses' conflicting, which I don't argue that they do conflict. That'd be the argument from disagreement (an argument which I think fails because we all have the same moral intuitions and there is no disagreement).
@Epydemic2020 You see, I have demonstrated that intuition, at least in one area, is subjective. It is the same as "common sense", which gives us all sorts of places where our intuitions would be incorrect, yet you seem to think they somehow demonstrate truth in the instant case. How can you evaluate that?
Please give me the method you use to evaluate "Human life has value". Does the universe care if humans exist? What value do we have over the cattle you make your steaks out of?
Nothing about the phrase "0.999 = 1" whether it is true or false has any bearing on whether or not our moral intuitions are true.
I would have (and still would) argue that 0.999 =/= 1. I would argue 0.999 = 0.999 but I don't think that is relevant in any way to the original conversation we were having.
@Epydemic2020 Notice the elipses? 0.999... is an infinitesimal where the 9 repeats infinitely. To demonstrate that fact, 0.999... = 0.333... * 3 = 1/3 * 3 = 1
Intuition would say that the two numbers are different, and because of that, we don't rely on intuition to determine the truth of a statement when it comes to areas where the truth matters.
I don't think I have any intuitions about math. Even if I did have mathematical intuitions, at no point would disproving mathematical intuitions disprove moral intuitions. You'd need an argument against moral intuitions just like you have an argument about mathematical intuitions (but who is arguing we have mathematical intuitions in the first place?).
@Epydemic2020 I must admit that if you subjectively choose a domain from which to evaluate a moral statement, such as "Human life ought to be valued", you can certainly make objective statements about things within that domain. You can't however make the claim that it is true for everyone.
I could probably argue both sides of the coin, but in practice I am not a vegetarian. I have focused my videos on arguing that normative ethics exists (right and wrong answers about what we should/shouldn't do) but not so much on applied ethics (the actual solution to moral dilemmas). Ironically you don't need the know the latter to prove the former.
I'm not sure it makes sense to say Utilitarianism is "true" or "false."
It's really just a methodology. You can argue about the truth of a claim like "pleasure (or preference satisfaction, or whatever) has intrinsic value," but i guess that's just playing word games.
Do you believe that ethical intuitions are a firm basis for morality? Can our moral intuitions can be shaped by our culture, upbringing, even our evolution? I
If they can be, it does seem to make sense to throw them out when they conflict with a theory that has actually been subjected to a reasoned analysis.
I agree, but I don't think that is the case we find ourselves in. Instead I see good reason to think our intuitions are true and absolutely no reason to think utilitarianism is true (although it is pragmatic). The foundations of utilitarianism are not only shaky, but can be shown to be fallacious. If you guys want, I'll make a video responding to Mill and Bentham's justification for accepting utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism claims that happiness is objectively good and makes normative claims (claims about how we ought to behave regardless of what we desire). Those claims must be either true or false.
"Do you believe that ethical intuitions are a firm basis for morality?"
No, Moral intuitions give us epistemology (knowledge of morality) but don't explain the basis for morality at all.
There would be hypothetical cases where we should doubt our intuitions, such as if the "argument from disagreement" was sound. I have at least two short videos on the argument from disagreement if you are interested.
I did a brief critique of utilitarianism in my last response to theoreticalbs (but I didn't attack the foundations of utilitarianism).
You'd prefer a general overview and then critique?
Intuition, conscience, innate knowledge... they are all the same thing with a different lable. It just refers to knowledge we are hardwired to develop.
I think intuitions should be trusted for the same reason my belief "my senses can inform me of reality" is justified. In order to deny what appears to be self-evident, we need a good reason for thinking the self-evident is wrong or that it is merely an illusion.
@Epydemic2020 Ok I'll watch your videos on the disagreement argument, and the ones to TBS.
Yeah, I've heard all the arguments about how Utilitarianism can have unintuitive results ad nauseum. I'm interested in your take on thefoundations.
Right, I think what people like miller are saying is that when a theory they've thought about rationally conflicts with intuition, that IS evidence that perhaps they can't always be trusted. continued
@xanderthegreatt SOmeone like Peter SInger would argue that our ethical intuitions are a product of evolution, and as such are essentially pragmatic, and that they may have been valid in the situations for which they were evolved to handle. But now technology and globalism has changed the world faster than our intuitions can evolve to catch up. SO we have an intuition (based on evolution) that killing someone with our bare hands is wrong (pushing the person in the train dilemma) continued
@xanderthegreatt but we have a much weaker intuitive response to flipping the switch, or just doing nothing. Singer, as a consequentialist, denies that there is any morally relevant difference between pushing the person in front of the train and flipping the switch. Similarly it is relatively recently that our actions can negatively impact the entire planet (global warming, etc),
@xanderthegreatt but we have a much weaker intuitive response to flipping the switch, or just doing nothing. Singer, as a consequentialist, denies that there is any morally relevant difference between pushing the person in front of the train and flipping the switch. Similarly it is relatively recently that our actions can negatively impact the entire planet (global warming, etc),
"Singer, as a consequentialist, denies that there is any morally relevant difference between pushing the person in front of the train and flipping the switch."
There is not a difference between the consequences of flipping the switches, but there is a difference between the two scenarios, and I believe it is a morally significant difference.
@xanderthegreatt similarly we now have the ability to save people who are dying halfway across the globe ( eg donating to a charity that feeds starving africans) but we have no intuition that we are morally obligated to do so, though we do have the intuition that we ought to save a drowning child if we see one.
The train dilemma is a bit more complicated than that. It hints at the intuitive principle of unintended harm (also called the principle of double effect). It shows our ability to subconsciously recognize the difference between.
1. Saving people with the foreseen but "unintended" side effect of killing people.
and
2. Saving people by using other humans as a means to that end (intending to kill them to bring about good).
Even if we can't verbally explain how they are different.
I think our intuitions are a product of evolution (just like our senses). I just don't think that's a valid reason to dismiss them as being mistaken.
Intuitions inform us that moral facts exist. That doesn't mean they inform us of every single moral fact which exists. If you come to the conclusion that it is a moral fact that you should help people in africa, my position doesn't entail intuition is your only tool available to reach that conclusion.
"Can our moral intuitions can be shaped by our culture, upbringing, even our evolution?"
No, except perhaps evolution. If culture and upbringing taught us then they would no longer be called "intuitions". However, our moral conclusions are very much shaped by culture and upbringing. Moral intuitions are just one factor that we use to derive moral conclusions. Culture, upbringing, and information are like a lens that either focuses or distorts our moral conclusions.
Utilitarianism cannot really be ruled true or false, because even if you believe exact moral standards exist (which I do not), there is insufficient information present in all situations by which to completely support either with good predictive validity.
What I would instead argue, is that Utilitarianism is a good device for applied ethics. Ex: Is this good? I lack information on a clear action in this case. Therefore: Is the consequence of this action good? If so then "yes" seems reasonable.
"If you think utilitarianism is true or if you think it is false..."
It is not a question of "true" or "false", as it is an ethical system. It is if it is the best starting position to derive an ethic. I would suggest a consequentialist position is the best, and suggest that a deonological or virtue ethic as base not. I'd also suggest, out of the big 3 consequestialist positions (ethical egoism, ethical altruism, ethical utilitarianism), that the latter most aligns with our lack of free will.
I see morality as subjective, and so I don't classify utilitarianism as either 'true' or 'false', but I do find it exceedingly useful and in general a much better ad hoc system of morality than most others.
I don't at all think that the presence of intuitive moral laws should be seen as contradictory specifically to utilitarianism. "Intuitive" is nigh synonymous with "objectively baseless", and thus denies ALL objective moral systems, theistic or otherwise.
"I do find it exceedingly useful and in general a much better ad hoc system of morality than most others."
Agreed.
" "Intuitive" is nigh synonymous with "objectively baseless", and thus denies ALL objective moral systems, theistic or otherwise."
I have no idea where you were going with that one, but the reason it is contradictory is because the intuitions tells us we "ought" to do the opposite of what utilitarianism tells us we "ought" to do in certain situations.
Does ThePuppyTurtle really think intentions don't ethically matter? It's a decent try at getting around the thought experiment, but I'm not sure how that kind of utilitarianism leaves room to assign any moral act to a moral agent.
If intentions are irrelevant, he murderer would be no more morally good than the terrorist for trying and failing to kill civilians. It seems that all actions would be judged abstract from any conscious involvment, making the very concept of morality useless.
I really didn't understand how he argued that it was obviously good what the serial killer did. I think he may have conflated "the consequences were good" with "the serial killer was good".
Also, there seem to be problems with scale in consequentialism (and probably with other ethical theories as well). Many seemingly unethical things can be done in the name of a greater good. Does the (potential) result of a great good outweigh the many small bads done along the way?
I don't personally have a problem with the idea of doing something for "The greater good" (which coincidentally is the same thing as "a necessary evil"). My problem comes into play when the only thinks the only thing which is "good" in order to factor into what makes something "the greater good" is happiness. I think something like human rights should also be a part of the "greater good" calculation.
@Epydemic2020 If all "good" was was happiness, then you could just distract people with funny television while committing atrocities and still be a saint.
Happiness is an emotion nothing else. It can be faked. It can be put in chemical form. It is hardly a synonym for "good".
Well, utilitarianism argues that we should maxmize happiness. So even if you could distract people with TV and commit atrocities, utilitarianism would argue that happiness would be better maximized if you left off the "committing atrocities" part.
"It is hardly a synonym for "good"."
Well, I won't argue with you there. Even if happiness is good, I see absolutely no reason to think it is the only thing worthy of that title.
I have a hard time grasping Utilitarianism or any form of constitutionalism, as I tend to think of intent as being the single most important thing when judging the morality of an action.
Basing morality on consequences would seem to leave too much to chance really. We only have so much control over the consequences of our actions.
John Stuart Mill is a utilitarian and he says "The morality of the action depends entirely upon the intention..."
Utilitarianism focuses on two things, actions and intentions. Mill would likely argue that intentions matter, but that we even good intentions don't prevent us from being immoral if we didn't do our "due diligence" to try and ensure our actions would actually be consistent with our noble intentions.
...the right course of action? In this way the (perhaps genetically founded) basics of moral intuition are in conflict with logic and reason. So I would ask: Which of these is the true moral compass? On the one hand if we ignore our inborn desires and fears what is morality meant to satisfy? On the other hand if we give into them over reason and logic, then are we really the ones in control?
I don't view morality as merely a number of lives calculation. I think there are more relevant factors we need to know about your moral dilemma. For example, is the loss of the adult lives forseen but unintentional, or are their lives a means to the end of saving the baby, etc.
As humans we recognize that human life should be valued, and actions like killing should be avoided. The question becomes, which combo of values should trump the other? We don't intuitively know.
=I think there are more relevant factors we need to know about your moral dilemma.
Well I only have so much space before I start flooding your comments section. In the scenario I had in mind the killing of the other 4 is not direct. And the killing factor is not conscious. Simply put - saving the baby will indirectly cause 4 adults to die.
Anyways just assume a situation based on what I've said that would give you the most pause.
There are limitless moral dilemmas that'd give me pause. I don't think all moral dilemmas can be determined. However, that isn't a problem for my moral philosophy. I only argue that some moral principles are self-evident (and that gives us reason to accept objective morality exists). I don't argue that when multiple moral principles conflict the answers will also be self-evident.
@Epydemic2020 I know you weren't arguing that. I was merely trying to highlight the difference between an inborn sense of morality and a cognitive sense of morality, and the dilemma one faces in favoring one over the other.
@Epydemic2020 It obviously gives you reason to think objective morality exists, but it's become pretty clear that most people here on youtube disagree with you on that point. In every case where you can point to "self-evident" principles, we can also identify logical/evolutionary necessity from stability constraints. And of course, many of us would reject the kind of transcendental objective morality you're proposing as a contradiction in terms, because it ignores the role of value judgments.
Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive. The fact that he wants to base morality on consequence lends us to believe that the fault of immorality should be blamed on existence. If the universe didn't start existing, evil wouldn't have come about. If he wants to be that absurd about it, by all means, he can ensconce himself in that perception of reality.
I must say, you lost me a bit with this comment. I agree that morality is prescriptive, but so do consequentialists. (all of the big normative theories are prescriptive: deontology, virtue ethics, and consequentialism).
The puppyturtles own view seems to be a bit more complicated than any of the basic views I outlined. I am really not sure why he thought the serial killer would be moral, but he does explain his entire philosophy in the vid I was responding to.
As an amoralist this is all academic to me. But over generations common and recurring concerns have instilled in us a predisposition to basic moral acts. For example: Protecting another human from harm and its relationship to maintaining the numbers of a tribe or group. When situations get more complicated intellect can often conflict with instinct. For example if one found themselves in a scenario where saving a single infant would result in the deaths of 4 adults, what would be...
Yea, that's an interesting notion. Does he also say that pleasure (the opposite of suffering) is objectively good? Because that could then possibly give you incentive to not end all life.
I don't think the consequentialists reasoning ever gives us sufficient reason to think that pleasure or pain is objectively good or bad, but it certainly doesn't give us reason to think that pleasure or pain is the ONLY thing which is objectively good or bad.
According to utilitarianism "good" is equivalent to "happiness". However, I don't see any good justification in utilitarianism for thinking happiness is objectively good. If you start by assuming happiness is not only objectively good, but is the only thing which is objectively good, then the theory works out pretty nicely.
@Epydemic2020 yeah i'll stay the moral nihilist till they've got a coherent theory of what a good consequence is then maybe we may have something to speak on.also i never knew hedonists were ethical philosophers then again the only one i know well is epicurus and he was very much so into the ego based acquiring of pleasure till it comes to friend then you should be willing to die for them very weird.
Interesting. I am not a moral nihilist, but I am not a consequentialist either.
I did an incredibly nerdy singing video about the two different types of hedonism (Epicurus vs Aristippus). Epicurus is focused on avoiding pain moreso than he is about gaining pleasure. Anything which promotes a state of being "content"/"serene" is what Epicurus thinks is the best way to simultaneously maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
All I have to say about it is just because we feel something is right or wrong intuitively does not make it right or wrong and that there are certain scenarios where there is no way to make something feel right to other people for one simple reason; Empathy.
This is how social organisms function, and these impulses either evolve with us or are culturally engrained in us because we can understand what it would be like to be the victim, and so we empathise and it becomes socially unacceptable.
kelarael 5 months ago
@kelarael
When I argue for intuition, I am arguing for something distinct from empathy. I you and I already had that conversation tho?
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Intuition is still not a good argument, since intuition is frequently wrong, just when we come to morality or ethics there's not much else to base it on but what you feel about it and how others feel about it (either repercussions or empathy) and what I'm saying is that those intuitions are just learnt or evolved behavioural traits. That doesn't make them "right"
kelarael 5 months ago
@kelarael
You have 0 examples of when our moral intuitions are wrong.
" what I'm saying is that those intuitions are just learnt or evolved behavioural traits."
Similarly our senses evolved. It is wrong to discount the truth value of our what either our senses, intuitions, or anything else for that matters tells us on the mere basis of how they evolved. That'd be a type of genetic fallacy.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 So you've never done anything that with hindsight you would consider was the wrong decision?
You've never seen something that wasn't there? Never heard a sound that wasn't there? Misheard someone? misread something?
I didn't put a truth value on anything. I said that that is the way we have developed. By your argument then a psychopath IS moral if they follow their intuitions that killing someone is the best possible thing they could do.
kelarael 5 months ago
@kelarael and if not, why is it that when YOU have an intuition it is right, and when someone else has a different intuition it is wrong?how can you say from intuition that someone else's intuition is wrong? what are you basing that on?
kelarael 5 months ago
@kelarael
A psychopath only falls into one of two categories (psychologist seem to disagree how to classify them). They either have the same moral intuitions but merely lack empathy, or they lack both. They don't have different intuitions. I laid out this argument in my vid on psychopaths.
"when someone else has a different intuition it is wrong"
I don't think that happens. See my vid "the argument from disagreement" for a more robust explanation.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 special pleading. "They know it's wrong, they just justify it a different way" e.g. "they're not really people" all you're saying is "my moral intuition is right, they're wrong, they just refuse to follow the truth"
It's no different from "atheists just want to sin! They know god exists!" it's just a case of applying something you believe to be true as fact to everyone else.
kelarael 5 months ago
@kelarael Moral intuitions are informed by your upbringing and culture, but there are some common themes found n ALL social animals, because that is how social structures develop. They can't develop in a completely "everyone for themselves" or completely selfish manner, because it would not produce a stable social structure and thus it would not BE a social animal.
Morality is simply rules of interaction with others and their property and possessions.
kelarael 5 months ago
@kelarael
Moral intuitions are not informed by culture nor upbringing (that'd be a contradiction in terms), you apparently mean to say "moral conclusions" are informed by culture and upbringing. If that is what you meant, then I agree, but it wouldn't undermine my position at all.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Then why do children not follow these intuitions, they hit and fight over the smallest things, or just to make themselves feel better. They need to be told that that is not appropriate behaviour.
Why have entire societies broken these supposed intuitions and not felt they are doing anything wrong?
You can say "they knew, they just came up with a justification" but I would disagree.
kelarael 5 months ago
@kelarael
I have addressed all of these in past videos, there may be more than one explanation.
With children in particular, ignorance is a huge factor. Children are quite bad at understanding the ramifications of their actions. A kid might shoot you dead and laugh having no idea that they just killed you because they don't understand the pain of getting shot or really grasp the concept of death.
Societies exhibit wrong moral conclusions, not broken intuitions.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 And I've disagreed with you in those videos too. If I don't accept your premises there, I'm hardly going to accept them now as a support for your argument here.
You are arguing for moral intuition. you said yourself separate from empathy, separate from consequences, as consequences are frequently cultural. It seems to me that everything still comes down to empathy and culture. Without these things, your intuition becomes a meaningless argument.
kelarael 5 months ago
@kelarael
"Why have entire societies broken these supposed intuitions and not felt they are doing anything wrong?"
Nazi Germany seems to be the go to example for that type of argument. The nazi's have the same intuitions we do about something like "killing non-consenting people solely for entertainment is wrong". What is different is misinformation about whether or not Jews are subhuman, and they also think they have more noble intentions (eugenics).
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Yeah poor Nazis...they were misinformed. All they wanted is making the world a better place. LOL...Come on man you don't actually believe this nonsense do you ? The Germans needed food and Hitler said: Alright: Let's kill the jews and steal their shit. And the Germans were like: Yay...we're all in. That's what actually happened. Now you can't just openly rob and kill people so they came up with the subhuman crap for an excuse but nobody actually believed this shit.
MoralityIsAReligion 4 months ago
And that is just one out of countless examples for a complete refutation of your moral intuition. Actually you are a pretty good evidence against intuition yourself: You said that we have moral intuition so many times that it must be wrong since if it were true there was no need to say it that many times because we all already knew it.
MoralityIsAReligion 4 months ago
@kelarael
"So you've never done anything that with hindsight you would consider was the wrong decision?"
Of course. Although the existence of a moral error doesn't mean my moral intuitions are flawed. Besides, our intuitions don't solve moral dilemmas for us, they just inform us that objective values exist. Errors in reasoning/misinformation is the #1 cause of moral error.
"You've never seen something that wasn't there?"
Of course (although I'm not sure how this invalidates moral intuitions.)
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 The seeing things that weren't there was an example of the fallibility of the senses.
kelarael 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Epydemic2020 get it straight from the source, no confusion about which verse in the Bible to hold to, no conflicting laws, no conflicting moral intuitions, no arguing about "Well it was ok for them at the time but now we're in a different situation."? With him being as all powerful as he is, it would be too easy for him to just come down and set the record straight, but he doesn't.
If God exists, he abandoned us a long time ago.
Agnosgnosia 5 months ago
Comment removed
Agnosgnosia 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 The Ebionites, from just a survey of their beliefs, were actually more in line with Jesus' teachings. They fell somewhere in between Paulian Christianity and Judaism. And now you get all the baggage of the messed up laws in the Old Testament.
Moreover, since there is such a wide disagreement today on moral topics, even among people who get their moral codes straight from the Bible, wouldn't it be in God's interest to come down and set the record straight so we can (cont)
Agnosgnosia 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 This video accounts for a good deal of morality that is found in Judaism and Christianity. I wouldn't say that it says how we should act, but that is a different question. /watch?v=i3plwTxdSO4
Besides that, once you let your argument out of the gates and apply it to Christian morality it falls on its face. Paul and Jesus had conflicting notions of what people should do. In Matthew 5 Jesus says to keep all of the laws, Paul says to get rid of a good deal of them.
Agnosgnosia 5 months ago
@Agnosgnosia
Are you referecing matthew 5:17 in particular? because I think you are drastically misunderstanding that chapter.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
Comment removed
Agnosgnosia 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 I must be misunderstanding it. If you can explain it or know of something that does explain it I'll read it.
Agnosgnosia 5 months ago
@Agnosgnosia
The OT is composed of what Hebrews call "the Tanakh" its a combo of 3 words "torah (first five books, aka the law), Nevi'im (aka the books written by prophets) and Ketuvim (aka the writings). Taken together it refers to the OT as a whole. So anytime you see "the law prophets and writings" or "the law and prophets" it is talking about the OT, not about specific laws.
In fulfilling the OT, you actually establish a new covenant (jer 31:31-34).
I'll do a vid on it.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic The problem is we need to define terms, but that only begs the question because when you say something is good or wrong what you are referring to is based on your moral theory of ethics. It seems impossible to avoid a vicious circle. Without appealing to intuition or emotions, which isn't reason, you have no grounds to call things moral facts other than inventing definitions of words. Yet people strongly believe their moral ideas are facts, probably due to strong emotion/passion.
RuinSonic 5 months ago
@RuinSonic In other words I believe all moral theories are either arbitrary or circular. Either you arbitrary make up some value you hold as important to base your theory on or you assume a moral theory in order to define morality only to try to defend your moral theory. If we could just skip the nonsense and just admit appeal to emotion, desire and intuition we could get over about 90% of religion and political arguments.
RuinSonic 5 months ago
@RuinSonic
You don't use solely reason to arrive at the conclusion "the material world objectively exists". I am only arguing for confidence in objective morality to be on par with our confidence that the material world is real.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020
1. Intuition isn't always reliable.
2. It isn't clear what material really is and consciousness of objects is not merely an intuition.
3. It is not clear what morality is, which is the point to begin with. If it's like material then why can't we even have the same understanding of it by defining it? All we can mostly agree on is certain actions we don't want or are distasteful or go against our instinct or desire. That proves nothing.
RuinSonic 5 months ago
Wow. That's a long way to go to try and show some moral ambiguity.
He might just want to ask of your particular statement... what if it is for the entertainment of others and not oneself?
Such as in the case of a gladiator who grows to love the crowd.
But really, the only thing that may do is give you cause to add another adjective to your statement.
robtbo 5 months ago
@robtbo
Yea lol, When I use the phrase I am actually thinking about personal entertainment. I don't think it'd be justified for the entertainment of others either, but that only goes to show that my language was still vague enough to include two separate moral questions.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
Your friend demonstrated some very fuzzy thinking there. Good response.
ukchristian28 5 months ago
@ukchristian28
Thank you.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
Good video
TheFaithHunter 5 months ago
@TheFaithHunter
Thanks
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
I think the biggest thing to note here is that you always use the terms "right" or "wrong" when discussing morality. What method do you use to determine the rightness or wrongness of that statement other than common emotions? If that's the case, it would still be subjective.
Godlessons 5 months ago
I don't appeal to emotions, I appeal to intuitions. Also, intuitions are not used to "make" something right or wrong, but merely to inform us that right and wrong exist.
For example:
1. Intuition tells us that human life ought to be valued.
2. Reason tells us that shooting people will take away their life.
Therefore (ceteris paribus) it is wrong to shoot people.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Intuitions are no less subjective than emotions. Intuition tells most people that the statement "0.999... = 1" is false, yet it is an objectively true and provable statement. So, you have yet to give an objective method of evaluation that would make a moral statement either "right" or "wrong".
Godlessons 5 months ago
@Godlessons
Intuitions are subjective.
Senses are subjective.
For the same reason I don't argue "senses determine what objectively exists", I don't argue "intuitions determine what is moral".
As I said in my prior comment, intuitions are how we know morality objectively exists, it is not what makes morality objectively exist. Similarly, our senses are how we know objects objectively exist, yet they do not make objects objectively exist.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 So, the intuition I have that all food I eat should taste good makes it so that there is one objective set of taste preferences? How is it that a preference for protecting human life demonstrably different than my preference for food tasting good?
I can imagine a person that feels they should only eat food that doesn't taste good to them. Is that person now wrong, or are they only wrong within the domain that people should eat food that tastes good?
Godlessons 5 months ago
@Godlessons
" So, the intuition I have that all food I eat should taste good makes it so that there is one objective set of taste preferences?"
You don't have normative intuitions about food. Come on man.
You have a preference that you would like to eat "good tasting food". If I was arguing that "I -merely- have a preference that people not cause each other harm" then your critique would be applicable.. but you and I both know that is not what I have been arguing.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Normative does not make an intuition objective. It is normative that people think chocolate tastes good. That doesn't make it objectively true. It is normative that people intuit that "0.999... =/= 1", that also doesn't make it true.
People have intuitions about the value things like gold and diamonds. Are those things objectively valuable?
If you want to demonstrate the objectivity of morality, you need to have an objective evaluative domain, not just a normative one.
Godlessons 5 months ago
@Godlessons
"normative ethics" refers to "statements of fact about what we should or shouldn't do".
We do not have a normative intuition about eating chocolate, we just have a preference. I do not think I have some duty to eat things which taste good, I merely prefer to eat things I find tasty as opposed to things I dislike.
People do not have intuitions about the value of gold or diamonds. People merely have preferences.
You seem to be trying to change the meaning of the terms I use.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Normative used generically means about the same thing as 'generally'. Normative ethics on the other hand is somewhere I am perplexed as to why you would be going there, and why I assumed it to be generic.
You have not gotten to the "ought" of anything yet. The only way you get to an "ought" to begin with would be a subjective position. I'm trying to see how you can say that your "intuition" is somehow objective, and how you can demonstrate that to be so.
Godlessons 5 months ago
@Godlessons
" I'm trying to see how you can say that your "intuition" is somehow objective, and how you can demonstrate that to be so."
I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but I am not arguing that my intuition is objective. I am arguing that my intuition informs me of something which is objective.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Okay, I see that now. I addressed this in my most recent post in reply to you on my video, I think.
I see that your moral sense is objective. You either have one or you don't. That makes it objective in that sense, but it doesn't conflate to you being able to tell me that I am mistaken if I don't agree with your moral sense. It is not objective in that sense that I can understand.
Godlessons 5 months ago
@Godlessons
", but it doesn't conflate to you being able to tell me that I am mistaken if I don't agree with your moral sense"
I have been arguing for hardwired universal moral intuitions. Your critique is contingent upon our moral senses' conflicting, which I don't argue that they do conflict. That'd be the argument from disagreement (an argument which I think fails because we all have the same moral intuitions and there is no disagreement).
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 You see, I have demonstrated that intuition, at least in one area, is subjective. It is the same as "common sense", which gives us all sorts of places where our intuitions would be incorrect, yet you seem to think they somehow demonstrate truth in the instant case. How can you evaluate that?
Please give me the method you use to evaluate "Human life has value". Does the universe care if humans exist? What value do we have over the cattle you make your steaks out of?
Godlessons 5 months ago
@Godlessons
" I have demonstrated that intuition, at least in one area, is subjective"
All intuitions are subjective, and nobody is disagreeing with you.
Similarly, all of our senses are subjective.
I am not arguing that our intuitions are objective, I am arguing that our subjective intuitions inform us of objective reality.
Similarly, I don't argue that our senses are objective. I argue that our subjective senses inform us of objective reality.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Godlessons
Nothing about the phrase "0.999 = 1" whether it is true or false has any bearing on whether or not our moral intuitions are true.
I would have (and still would) argue that 0.999 =/= 1. I would argue 0.999 = 0.999 but I don't think that is relevant in any way to the original conversation we were having.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Notice the elipses? 0.999... is an infinitesimal where the 9 repeats infinitely. To demonstrate that fact, 0.999... = 0.333... * 3 = 1/3 * 3 = 1
Intuition would say that the two numbers are different, and because of that, we don't rely on intuition to determine the truth of a statement when it comes to areas where the truth matters.
Godlessons 5 months ago
@Godlessons
I don't think I have any intuitions about math. Even if I did have mathematical intuitions, at no point would disproving mathematical intuitions disprove moral intuitions. You'd need an argument against moral intuitions just like you have an argument about mathematical intuitions (but who is arguing we have mathematical intuitions in the first place?).
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 I must admit that if you subjectively choose a domain from which to evaluate a moral statement, such as "Human life ought to be valued", you can certainly make objective statements about things within that domain. You can't however make the claim that it is true for everyone.
Godlessons 5 months ago
On an unrelated, but interesting note:
What is your opinion on moral vegetarianism?
xanderthegreatt 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt
I could probably argue both sides of the coin, but in practice I am not a vegetarian. I have focused my videos on arguing that normative ethics exists (right and wrong answers about what we should/shouldn't do) but not so much on applied ethics (the actual solution to moral dilemmas). Ironically you don't need the know the latter to prove the former.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
Comment removed
xanderthegreatt 5 months ago
I'm not sure it makes sense to say Utilitarianism is "true" or "false."
It's really just a methodology. You can argue about the truth of a claim like "pleasure (or preference satisfaction, or whatever) has intrinsic value," but i guess that's just playing word games.
Do you believe that ethical intuitions are a firm basis for morality? Can our moral intuitions can be shaped by our culture, upbringing, even our evolution? I
xanderthegreatt 5 months ago
If they can be, it does seem to make sense to throw them out when they conflict with a theory that has actually been subjected to a reasoned analysis.
xanderthegreatt 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt
I agree, but I don't think that is the case we find ourselves in. Instead I see good reason to think our intuitions are true and absolutely no reason to think utilitarianism is true (although it is pragmatic). The foundations of utilitarianism are not only shaky, but can be shown to be fallacious. If you guys want, I'll make a video responding to Mill and Bentham's justification for accepting utilitarianism.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt
Utilitarianism claims that happiness is objectively good and makes normative claims (claims about how we ought to behave regardless of what we desire). Those claims must be either true or false.
"Do you believe that ethical intuitions are a firm basis for morality?"
No, Moral intuitions give us epistemology (knowledge of morality) but don't explain the basis for morality at all.
continued
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020
that was a sloppily worded question on my part. what I MEANT to ask was whether you think
intuitions are a valid source of moral knowledge, a basis for moral action, not a basis of morality itself.
But you answered that anyways :)
Here are a bunch of questions:
What is your definition of an intuition, as opposed to the type of moral knowledge that is culturally-based?
Why do you think our intuitions should be trusted? contiuned
xanderthegreatt 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt
Are there any cases where we should doubt our intuitions? Do you think people can have differing intuitions?
I'd love to see you make a video about utilitarianism in general. I haven't made any "talking" videos, but that might merit a video response from me
xanderthegreatt 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt
There would be hypothetical cases where we should doubt our intuitions, such as if the "argument from disagreement" was sound. I have at least two short videos on the argument from disagreement if you are interested.
I did a brief critique of utilitarianism in my last response to theoreticalbs (but I didn't attack the foundations of utilitarianism).
You'd prefer a general overview and then critique?
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt
Intuition, conscience, innate knowledge... they are all the same thing with a different lable. It just refers to knowledge we are hardwired to develop.
I think intuitions should be trusted for the same reason my belief "my senses can inform me of reality" is justified. In order to deny what appears to be self-evident, we need a good reason for thinking the self-evident is wrong or that it is merely an illusion.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Ok I'll watch your videos on the disagreement argument, and the ones to TBS.
Yeah, I've heard all the arguments about how Utilitarianism can have unintuitive results ad nauseum. I'm interested in your take on thefoundations.
Right, I think what people like miller are saying is that when a theory they've thought about rationally conflicts with intuition, that IS evidence that perhaps they can't always be trusted. continued
xanderthegreatt 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt SOmeone like Peter SInger would argue that our ethical intuitions are a product of evolution, and as such are essentially pragmatic, and that they may have been valid in the situations for which they were evolved to handle. But now technology and globalism has changed the world faster than our intuitions can evolve to catch up. SO we have an intuition (based on evolution) that killing someone with our bare hands is wrong (pushing the person in the train dilemma) continued
xanderthegreatt 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt but we have a much weaker intuitive response to flipping the switch, or just doing nothing. Singer, as a consequentialist, denies that there is any morally relevant difference between pushing the person in front of the train and flipping the switch. Similarly it is relatively recently that our actions can negatively impact the entire planet (global warming, etc),
xanderthegreatt 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt but we have a much weaker intuitive response to flipping the switch, or just doing nothing. Singer, as a consequentialist, denies that there is any morally relevant difference between pushing the person in front of the train and flipping the switch. Similarly it is relatively recently that our actions can negatively impact the entire planet (global warming, etc),
xanderthegreatt 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt
"Singer, as a consequentialist, denies that there is any morally relevant difference between pushing the person in front of the train and flipping the switch."
There is not a difference between the consequences of flipping the switches, but there is a difference between the two scenarios, and I believe it is a morally significant difference.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt similarly we now have the ability to save people who are dying halfway across the globe ( eg donating to a charity that feeds starving africans) but we have no intuition that we are morally obligated to do so, though we do have the intuition that we ought to save a drowning child if we see one.
xanderthegreatt 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt
The train dilemma is a bit more complicated than that. It hints at the intuitive principle of unintended harm (also called the principle of double effect). It shows our ability to subconsciously recognize the difference between.
1. Saving people with the foreseen but "unintended" side effect of killing people.
and
2. Saving people by using other humans as a means to that end (intending to kill them to bring about good).
Even if we can't verbally explain how they are different.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt
I think our intuitions are a product of evolution (just like our senses). I just don't think that's a valid reason to dismiss them as being mistaken.
Intuitions inform us that moral facts exist. That doesn't mean they inform us of every single moral fact which exists. If you come to the conclusion that it is a moral fact that you should help people in africa, my position doesn't entail intuition is your only tool available to reach that conclusion.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@xanderthegreatt continued
"Can our moral intuitions can be shaped by our culture, upbringing, even our evolution?"
No, except perhaps evolution. If culture and upbringing taught us then they would no longer be called "intuitions". However, our moral conclusions are very much shaped by culture and upbringing. Moral intuitions are just one factor that we use to derive moral conclusions. Culture, upbringing, and information are like a lens that either focuses or distorts our moral conclusions.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
thats so weird we were just learning about utilitarianism and consequentialism in philosophy class lol. great vid as always.
EmGeeDubz 5 months ago
@EmGeeDubz
Nice timing.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
Utilitarianism cannot really be ruled true or false, because even if you believe exact moral standards exist (which I do not), there is insufficient information present in all situations by which to completely support either with good predictive validity.
What I would instead argue, is that Utilitarianism is a good device for applied ethics. Ex: Is this good? I lack information on a clear action in this case. Therefore: Is the consequence of this action good? If so then "yes" seems reasonable.
squirrelywrath2 5 months ago
@squirrelywrath2
If you do not believe objective morality is true, then you must believe utilitarianism is false (even if you think it is a pragmatic theory).
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
"If you think utilitarianism is true or if you think it is false..."
It is not a question of "true" or "false", as it is an ethical system. It is if it is the best starting position to derive an ethic. I would suggest a consequentialist position is the best, and suggest that a deonological or virtue ethic as base not. I'd also suggest, out of the big 3 consequestialist positions (ethical egoism, ethical altruism, ethical utilitarianism), that the latter most aligns with our lack of free will.
trick0171 5 months ago
Hey there, Epydemic, here's my take:
I see morality as subjective, and so I don't classify utilitarianism as either 'true' or 'false', but I do find it exceedingly useful and in general a much better ad hoc system of morality than most others.
I don't at all think that the presence of intuitive moral laws should be seen as contradictory specifically to utilitarianism. "Intuitive" is nigh synonymous with "objectively baseless", and thus denies ALL objective moral systems, theistic or otherwise.
FiverBeyond 5 months ago
@FiverBeyond
"I do find it exceedingly useful and in general a much better ad hoc system of morality than most others."
Agreed.
" "Intuitive" is nigh synonymous with "objectively baseless", and thus denies ALL objective moral systems, theistic or otherwise."
I have no idea where you were going with that one, but the reason it is contradictory is because the intuitions tells us we "ought" to do the opposite of what utilitarianism tells us we "ought" to do in certain situations.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
Does ThePuppyTurtle really think intentions don't ethically matter? It's a decent try at getting around the thought experiment, but I'm not sure how that kind of utilitarianism leaves room to assign any moral act to a moral agent.
If intentions are irrelevant, he murderer would be no more morally good than the terrorist for trying and failing to kill civilians. It seems that all actions would be judged abstract from any conscious involvment, making the very concept of morality useless.
AnotherMasterMind 5 months ago
@AnotherMasterMind
I really didn't understand how he argued that it was obviously good what the serial killer did. I think he may have conflated "the consequences were good" with "the serial killer was good".
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
Have you read all these books before responding? O_O
Itrytotestify 5 months ago
@Itrytotestify
I didn't read them in order to respond, I just happen to have read quite a bit about moral philosophy and write good notes on my bookmarks.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
Also, there seem to be problems with scale in consequentialism (and probably with other ethical theories as well). Many seemingly unethical things can be done in the name of a greater good. Does the (potential) result of a great good outweigh the many small bads done along the way?
Stephen5000 5 months ago
@Stephen5000
I don't personally have a problem with the idea of doing something for "The greater good" (which coincidentally is the same thing as "a necessary evil"). My problem comes into play when the only thinks the only thing which is "good" in order to factor into what makes something "the greater good" is happiness. I think something like human rights should also be a part of the "greater good" calculation.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 If all "good" was was happiness, then you could just distract people with funny television while committing atrocities and still be a saint.
Happiness is an emotion nothing else. It can be faked. It can be put in chemical form. It is hardly a synonym for "good".
Stephen5000 5 months ago
@Stephen5000
Well, utilitarianism argues that we should maxmize happiness. So even if you could distract people with TV and commit atrocities, utilitarianism would argue that happiness would be better maximized if you left off the "committing atrocities" part.
"It is hardly a synonym for "good"."
Well, I won't argue with you there. Even if happiness is good, I see absolutely no reason to think it is the only thing worthy of that title.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
I have a hard time grasping Utilitarianism or any form of constitutionalism, as I tend to think of intent as being the single most important thing when judging the morality of an action.
Basing morality on consequences would seem to leave too much to chance really. We only have so much control over the consequences of our actions.
Stephen5000 5 months ago
@Stephen5000 That should be consequentialism. My spellcheck is stupid.
Stephen5000 5 months ago
@Stephen5000
John Stuart Mill is a utilitarian and he says "The morality of the action depends entirely upon the intention..."
Utilitarianism focuses on two things, actions and intentions. Mill would likely argue that intentions matter, but that we even good intentions don't prevent us from being immoral if we didn't do our "due diligence" to try and ensure our actions would actually be consistent with our noble intentions.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
...the right course of action? In this way the (perhaps genetically founded) basics of moral intuition are in conflict with logic and reason. So I would ask: Which of these is the true moral compass? On the one hand if we ignore our inborn desires and fears what is morality meant to satisfy? On the other hand if we give into them over reason and logic, then are we really the ones in control?
NearVSMello 5 months ago
@NearVSMello
I don't view morality as merely a number of lives calculation. I think there are more relevant factors we need to know about your moral dilemma. For example, is the loss of the adult lives forseen but unintentional, or are their lives a means to the end of saving the baby, etc.
As humans we recognize that human life should be valued, and actions like killing should be avoided. The question becomes, which combo of values should trump the other? We don't intuitively know.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020
=I think there are more relevant factors we need to know about your moral dilemma.
Well I only have so much space before I start flooding your comments section. In the scenario I had in mind the killing of the other 4 is not direct. And the killing factor is not conscious. Simply put - saving the baby will indirectly cause 4 adults to die.
Anyways just assume a situation based on what I've said that would give you the most pause.
NearVSMello 5 months ago
@NearVSMello
There are limitless moral dilemmas that'd give me pause. I don't think all moral dilemmas can be determined. However, that isn't a problem for my moral philosophy. I only argue that some moral principles are self-evident (and that gives us reason to accept objective morality exists). I don't argue that when multiple moral principles conflict the answers will also be self-evident.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 I know you weren't arguing that. I was merely trying to highlight the difference between an inborn sense of morality and a cognitive sense of morality, and the dilemma one faces in favoring one over the other.
NearVSMello 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 It obviously gives you reason to think objective morality exists, but it's become pretty clear that most people here on youtube disagree with you on that point. In every case where you can point to "self-evident" principles, we can also identify logical/evolutionary necessity from stability constraints. And of course, many of us would reject the kind of transcendental objective morality you're proposing as a contradiction in terms, because it ignores the role of value judgments.
Gnomefro 5 months ago
Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive. The fact that he wants to base morality on consequence lends us to believe that the fault of immorality should be blamed on existence. If the universe didn't start existing, evil wouldn't have come about. If he wants to be that absurd about it, by all means, he can ensconce himself in that perception of reality.
seinfan9 5 months ago
@seinfan9
I must say, you lost me a bit with this comment. I agree that morality is prescriptive, but so do consequentialists. (all of the big normative theories are prescriptive: deontology, virtue ethics, and consequentialism).
The puppyturtles own view seems to be a bit more complicated than any of the basic views I outlined. I am really not sure why he thought the serial killer would be moral, but he does explain his entire philosophy in the vid I was responding to.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
As an amoralist this is all academic to me. But over generations common and recurring concerns have instilled in us a predisposition to basic moral acts. For example: Protecting another human from harm and its relationship to maintaining the numbers of a tribe or group. When situations get more complicated intellect can often conflict with instinct. For example if one found themselves in a scenario where saving a single infant would result in the deaths of 4 adults, what would be...
NearVSMello 5 months ago
Inmendham would say that suffering is objectively wrong, therefore we should end all life to end suffering.
CountHektor 5 months ago
@CountHektor
Yea, that's an interesting notion. Does he also say that pleasure (the opposite of suffering) is objectively good? Because that could then possibly give you incentive to not end all life.
I don't think the consequentialists reasoning ever gives us sufficient reason to think that pleasure or pain is objectively good or bad, but it certainly doesn't give us reason to think that pleasure or pain is the ONLY thing which is objectively good or bad.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 No, Gary says that pleasure only distracts us from the suffering.
CountHektor 5 months ago
@CountHektor
So is he admittedly immoral for living? or is he planning on killing us all? lol, that's a concerning moral philosophy.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 If he could he would kill or sterilize us all.
CountHektor 5 months ago
umm what makes a consequence good? this is i always wondered.
SuperSkepticism 5 months ago
@SuperSkepticism
According to utilitarianism "good" is equivalent to "happiness". However, I don't see any good justification in utilitarianism for thinking happiness is objectively good. If you start by assuming happiness is not only objectively good, but is the only thing which is objectively good, then the theory works out pretty nicely.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@SuperSkepticism
Different types of consequentialists would answers that question differently.
Hedonists would say pleasure is the good consequence.
Same Harris would say "wellbeing" is the good consequence.
Mill would say "happiness" is.
Some would say it is "desire fullfillment".
Some would say it is "interest satisfaction".
You have to nail down which consequentialist theory you are gonna roll with before you can say which consequences are "good".
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020 yeah i'll stay the moral nihilist till they've got a coherent theory of what a good consequence is then maybe we may have something to speak on.also i never knew hedonists were ethical philosophers then again the only one i know well is epicurus and he was very much so into the ego based acquiring of pleasure till it comes to friend then you should be willing to die for them very weird.
SuperSkepticism 5 months ago
@SuperSkepticism
Interesting. I am not a moral nihilist, but I am not a consequentialist either.
I did an incredibly nerdy singing video about the two different types of hedonism (Epicurus vs Aristippus). Epicurus is focused on avoiding pain moreso than he is about gaining pleasure. Anything which promotes a state of being "content"/"serene" is what Epicurus thinks is the best way to simultaneously maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
/watch?v=bkdpF0x_gbM
Epydemic2020 5 months ago