As technology continues into better innovation more of our private information, and the way we browse the internet will become targets for marketers to sale us products which at the same time can be use against our interest if we're not careful enough. Thus, as Damon Horowitz pointed our here's a moral question that has arise with how data collection agencies should use the information they collect from us. peoplebreeze com
It may sound quaint, and a little simplistic, to some but the so-called "golden rule": "Do to others as you would have them do to you", or the alternative version, "Love your neighbour as yourself" is close enough for me to the perfect moral formula. Its been around for thousands of years already and, when you think about it, most moral failures (if not all) are simply a failure to apply that rule. Anything else to me just seems to be overcomplicating the matter.
@looseSpark The problem is to whom you would apply it. For example, would we apply it to animals? Do you honestly desire to be punished for your crimes?
What about sado-masochists, who are sexually aroused by pain, should they inflict pain because they want others to do the same to them? A person who is suicidal, should he think that others want to die?
The matter is complicated, and your rule works alot, but unfortunately not always, which is why we work for better rules.
@TheAtheologian I think the rule has to be applied with some common sense, as most spiritual/moral rules. You obviously have to consider the other person in the equation & where they stand, for e.g.: if the other person was not a sado-masochist, the sado-masochist should think, "If I was not a sado-masochist, how would I feel if someone did such-and-such to me". Likewise, the suicidal person. It's not really that complicated - it requires only a very little bit of thought before application.
@TheAtheologian For a suicidal person interpreting the "golden rule" I would say it does present a deeper problem: Should they help a suicidal person to commit suicide because they themselves are suicidal? I don't think any suicidal person really wants to die, if they were presented with an alternative life where many of their major problems resolved they would probably opt for it, so the answer for someone trying to apply the rule properly would be to seek to help that person change their life
@TheAtheologian I do think the rule contains the implication that the person applying it is operating with a healthy, logical and lucid mind. If that needs to be expressed more explicitly for some, I am happy with accepting an updated golden rule that states this more explicitly as a pretext. But for the thinking person, the pretext is fairly clear, in my opinion.
@looseSpark I think this represents an even bigger problem. What is a thinking human being?
Do we rely on authority? Do we rely on a vote? Can I honestly say I am certain that I am capable that I can evaluate the complicated mix of emotions and thoughts of another being?
So when you say "what would I want, were I not.." I wonder if I should not think of what I would want as a girl, as a teenager, or any other characteristic. It requires an insight into another human being that I do not have.
@TheAtheologian I think the key is to keep it simple. When we get into making complicated rules for moral behaviour, we start prescribing it rigidly which makes free will / independence impossible. That's my main problem, I guess, with making more complicated rules & frameworks like the video suggests. [contd...]
Ultimately, people should be free to judge what they deem moral, even if they get it wrong; with the golden rule, there is room for thought, correction, doubt, external influence, & changing of mind. That's what I like about it. :-)
@looseSpark Well, simply I agree completely that we should use the Golden Rule as a general rule.
However, I also think that when there is something so complicated as right and wrong looking into it helps us vastly to look into meta-ethics, and I do not think that this limits our freedom, but rather expands upon it through thought and contemplation.
For example, I would thoroughly enjoy thinking about why we should treat others as we would treat ourselves, not simply the that we should.
@TheAtheologian To be fair, "sado-masochists" are not defined by their mental complex. Being one of them, I can perfectly distinguish between the appropriateness of which context in which to use the golden rule (in public) and which context to indulge in sado-masochism (in private).
@StealThisIdentity With this comment and the other one you actually highlighted and suppoted my argument :P
I don't think you think that others enjoy what you enjoy, but using the golden rule you strictly speaking should. And since you understand that others may feel differently to you, you know that other people might feel differently about something else. Similarly so do suicidal people, who should, using the rule, kill other people, but they don't because the rule is faulty.
@TheAtheologian I don't necessarily disagree with your main point :P It's pretty interesting. It's not that I understand how other people may feel differently from me. In fact, I do understand because I feel the same as them. It's just the normal rules don't apply to role playing games. Actors and actresses don't get lost in their roles, and neither do I. The Marquis de Sade, on the other hand... well he may have had some kind of disorder.
@TheAtheologian Which makes me think -- autistic people don't like to be hugged, yet I loved to be hugged. The golden rule doesn't mean "treat people specifically the way you would want to be treated." It means to me, "when you're not playing a game who's rules are otherwise, treat people with respect because you want to be treated with respect, but first learn their definition of respect."
@TheAtheologian Unless they think being respected means you doing something for them that is contradicting to your integrity, I suppose. So yeah, it is complicated...who's sense of respect should get respected?
@TheAtheologian I don't think a person who is suicidal inherently devalues the lives of others simply because he or she devalues their own. An 85 year old with a hundred illnesses who wants to die with dignity likely knows enough about dignity to apply it to others. I think it depends on the situation. You are right in warning against the golden rule having no exceptions-- some people want to take as many others down with them as possible when they kill themselves. While others are samurai...
@TheAtheologian I think the hardest part of figuring out the golden rule is that some people value property more than collective sharing and other people value collective sharing over property. The ethics here may have to do with what we as humans have the "right" to. Are there some situations where it comes down to your rights vs. my rights? "My right to purchase your good/service" vs. "your right to discriminate" or the "right to tax income" is a very intense debate.
@StealThisIdentity Are you by any chance a massive fan of Aristotle and John Stuart Mill? Because you have a stunning similarity of thought with both, though mostly Aristotle.
Mill would say it is your right to do anything that does not directly harm others, and I am leaning on this being the apt response, but I agree, the question is not an easy one. Which was sort of my point those two months ago, in demonstrating that it is not as simple as "one rule to rule them all".
@TheAtheologian I guess a sense of respect based on everyone being social equals should be the standard. For instance, a king who asks me to bow down and kiss his shoe, or a needy person who tells me I would be disrespecting him if I didn’t give him money, both these instances of me showing them respect would be inherently disrespectful to myself.
@TheAtheologian I can’t dehumanize myself or go against my own sense of dignity. However, if the Saudi king’s form of respect is to be kissed on the lips, and that makes me uncomfortable, hell, at least it’s showing that he sees me as an equal.
Interesting video. Interesting (and disturbing) that he didn't mention Religious beliefs as a moral operating system. If you are a Christian, you definitely DO have a "formula" on how to evaluate decisions. Shame he left that out.
@thankqwerty You don't read much do you? That is such an obviously false statement that, you either are incredibly ignorant of the history of philosophy or are just an irrational naturalist looking for excuses.
Philosophy of morality was once intertwined with religions, so what? That doesn't mean that's the way it should be, and certainly doesn't mean that's right.
Socrates asked "something is morally good because it's intrinsically good? Or because it's commended by god (otherwise it would not)?" If it's intrinsically good then why do we need god? If it isn't then why would god's opinion makes a difference?
@thankqwerty And what defines whether something is intrinsically good? YOU? That is what drives all of this Atheist childishness, anger that they are not God. God is the definition of good and the source of all good. You knowing something is good is, despite your desires, your acknowledgement of God. Your rejection of that fact is acknowledgement of your arrogance and pride.
Of course not me. No idea where you get that idea from. Philosophers are trying to deduce morality from logic. Obviously you have not read a single book on morality and is ignorant of the process.
The problem with God being the definition is that god does not exist. I'm rejecting no fact as there had never been any evidence for the existence of god. It's much more arrogant to demand respect for your religion when there's zero objective evidences supporting it.
@thankqwerty There is LOTS of evidence for the existence of God, evidence abounds all around us. Problem with Fundamentalist Atheists is, they are so wedded to their religion of non-belief that they have to tie themselves into knots to dismiss it. My original point was not that it was impossible to have a moral system without God, but that was disturbing that the speaker seemed to indicate that no formula exists for people to make moral decisions.
Know me if any of them is accepted by logic-based institutions, e.g. courts and scientific bodies.
The issue is that you (theists) can't come up with TESTABLE scientific hypothesis that says : if X is true then god must exist, and if X is false then god does not exist.
You guys aren't moving in this direction neither to establish objective proof that's necessary to convince non-believers.
Is that a definition? or argument? or proof? It can stand as a definition, but not as argument and proof. And I think you know that yourself because you didn't put a 4 for "That Cause is God" as it does not logically follow.
More importantly, your statement does not suggest nor support that God is a conscious intellectual being.
1. Things only move when a force act on them. 2. apple moved. 3. force acted on it. The Flying Spaghetti Monster moved it.
@Gaius8666a 1. All things that exist are subject to the laws in the Universe. 2. God is not subject to the laws of the Universe, in the format of which we know him. 3. God does not exist in the format of being able to effect the Universe (i.e. cannot exist in a Personal format).
1. The Universe "began". 2. Verbs (actions) take a period of time. 3. In the hypothetical scenario, that God created time. 4. Time must exist for verbal action. 5. Time is eternal, outside of God's control
@Gaius8666a Point #2 isn't immediately obvious to me. This entire debate seems hooked on the notion that the universe "began". Why do we feel this is the case? Is it not more plausible that it has always existed?
@TheCaptainSparty The Big Bang appears to be a scientific consensus now and points both to a beginning and a singularity. Another reason that an eternally old universe seems implausible is, how can the universe be expanding but also infinitely old? If it was infinitely old than we would be infinitely seperated from all other stars. Also, the Sun would have burned out and the Universe would be cold if it was infinitely old.
@Gaius8666a Let's clear some things up. 1) When I use the term "universe" I mean "all that exists". 2) The Big Bang (let's assume for the moment that there is sufficient evidence for us to believe this theory is true) in no way signifies a beginning. A significant change, sure, but not a beginning. If there was matter prior to the Big Bang, then that still constitutes a universe based on my first point. 3) You seem to be missing the point of infinity by asserting that it would have an ending.
@TheCaptainSparty Since time began at the Big Bang, the universe is correctly infinite, i.e. having existed for all time(eg. forever). Before the Big Bang makes no sense, as there was no time for something to be before.
Also, stars are not cyclical, they do not reingage in fusion after slowly deteriorating due to entropy and whatnot.
But, one hypothesis is that the universe cyclical expands and collapses upon itself, which correlates better to your understanding of infinity I believe.
@TheAtheologian Are you providing an argument against any of my points here, or just asserting a personal belief? You state that time began at the Big Bang, I disagree, please explain.
New stars are formed all the time, often from the clouds of remaining matter left over from the death of a previous star. If I am incorrect here, please explain.
Yes, this is exactly what I am suggesting. Is this not an example of the existence of time prior to the Big Bang? Please explain.
@TheCaptainSparty Hmm, well, there is the possibility that there was time before the big bang, but it was "reset" at the beginning of the cycle.
Yes, the spacetime proposed by Einstein demonstrates how the singularity at the big bang would mean that time does not exist, similar to how black holes work.
When they collapse into a black hole, they do not reappear. Black holes only degrade to Hawking radiation.
Also, the second law of thermodynamics is a counter-argument...
@Gaius8666a I'm suggesting that the universe is comprised of cycles. Why would our sun necessarily be dead at this exact moment? Stars are born, live out their period, and die, and the cycle repeats. All is in constant change, regeneration and decay go hand in hand. Sure, there is evidence that the universe is expanding, that doesn't mean that it always was.
Love is the tendency to keep on experiencing interactions forever. Freedom is when all non mutual relationships are replaced by mutual relationship. Mutual in terms of love. Consciousness exist due to the ability to resist certain interactions, to choose. And the law within love is to keep on experiencing interactions and to not interact in the way that doesn't lead to interactions after interactions. Ethical is when you make a decision that accomodates love. What do you think?
Universities are cutting funding to curses like ethics and logic provided by philosophy departments due to state funding cuts. More and more there's a pressure in higher ed to relate everything to developing new products or training for careers. Those are good, important things but we should not lose sight of the ideal that a fundamental part of an education is learning to live and think well.
We need this as classes in our education system! Havard business graduates - "I will do almost anything to make money".
Stealing money can make you happy in the short term but if everyone around you stole you would be sad as crap. A lot of people don't understand long term consequences.
Why so many down votes? I guess I can understand having a different perspective from him, but actually being against it? He's advocating thinking about morality. How can you possibly be against that?
This is well and good, because we need to discuss ethiccs for today's technology.. But he didnt really offer anything new on HOW to make our data-driven world more ethical, which was what I was expecting.
He did raise very valid questions, but his discussion of philosophy was so rudimentary and generalized that he must have assumed the audience was a group of soulless hedonists that needed some "enlightenment".
@paoarceo I think the goal of the speech was to encourage people to think about the moral implications of technology, not tell people what they should think. In any given field, there will be different technologies with different potential uses, so generalization is really the only route to follow. To be specific is to ignore possibilities. It's far more important that we discuss and dissect these issues ourselves, rather than depend on an authority.
If you are one of the dumbasses that thumbed down this vid, its best if you just don't bother at all because you're likely too retarded to comment on the advanced topic of a mathematical calculus for ethical decision making .... its a very advanced concept.
I guess I'll have to study philosophy for about ten semesters to find exactly why Plato, Aristotle, Mills and Kant "disagree", right? Because the way he's phrasing it, I don't see the contradictions between their standpoints.
Also, that little part from 7:23 to 7:35 seems pretty contradictory to me. You "look around and see" that which "partakes justice"... and then it "wouldn't be only your opinion or appearance"? Weird.
Anyway, this talk made me think, so I guess it was worth it.
Watch the Harvard Justice lecture series by Michael Sandel if you want to know more about utilitarianism, libertarianism, Kantianism(if that's a word) and the pros and cons of those philosophies.
His style is more suited to talking to just one person who can give him instant feedback. Not on stage. On-stage he seems to default to assuming the whole audience is the lowest common denominator.
Talk to him one-on-one and he would probably be a lot more bearable.
This was an interesting and energetic talk on a complex and important subject with proactive solutions, why all the dislikes? You've got to learn to walk before you can run.
Those people didn't raise their hands because they didn't know the difference between deontological ethics and consequentialism. It's NOT because they have no moral framework.
What a useless talk. He's calling for a moral operating system while admitting that there's no single way to approach any philosophical question. 16 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
@DoberFrann Really? You're going to let the opinions of people who lived over 2000 years ago dictate 10 commandments you should make your decisions from? Would you kill homosexuals, non virgin girls, and worshipers of other religions?
@DamienZshadow Does 'you shall not kill' commandment ring a bell? Do not confuse religion with culture there is also a TEDTalk about this: Mustafa Akyol: Faith versus tradition in Islam.
@DoberFrann You're mistranslating that commandment. If that were true then God would want us to be vegetarians and wouldn't have condoned the many wars he guided the Israelites through. The actual definition of that verse is to not murder which is the unlawful taking of life. It makes exceptions to and encourages the punishment of certain sinners by death. Faith is a tradition that deludes the human mind into believing something with insufficient reasoning.
@DamienZshadow It may delude you because you don't understand it. And you still dealing with man decisions and not God's one; God haven't condoned any war. People that do things in God name and are not following his rules are NOT doing God's will.
@DoberFrann God commands the Israelites to 1 Samuel 15:3smite the Amalek (man, woman, infants, livestock), Numbers 31:2 revenge on the Midianites, Deuteronomy enslave or completely destroy (Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites (ect...), 1 Samuel 15:18 destroy the Amalekites. Joshua isn't the only person commanded with taking lives. Even Revelation paints a very colorful (albeit ridiculous) scenario in which angels and demons wage war with many humans left to suffer.
This is perhaps one of the best TED talks I have ever had the pleasure of watching. And that isn't just because I'm one of those people studying the Humanities (with a focus on ethics to boot!) ^^
If you are interested in these topics, I suggest watching Harvard's justice series. It is a course by Michael Sandel, and it's freely available in youtube:
I thought what he meant by discussing data security (and then going into morality) was to semi-alarm people that while they're all off delving into digital media with concern for brands, purchase and use; there is an entire realm of issues posed by their digital participation that they should be equally concerned with if not more since it has to do with their freedom.
it's primitive how we still model morality mostly by religion despite all current achievement. not everyone agrees with the same religion, so it seems an unstable, imprudent place to build a morality for all. so why continue to try to build it there? Math is a language we all must agree with, for it is at the core of existence itself, and yet we leave its land vacant. it could ensure morality remains an evolving process; commensurate with diversity.
The Calculation of consequences for a specific decision is the only true form of morality imo, which is exactly what he is suggesting. Morality is always evolving within a culture, always have and always will, but today it is not rooted in a utilitarian point-of-view. The evolution of morality should be based on new information and should continually change with new all the new information we receive..
This one of the best talks on TED imo because he touches on a subject everyone ignores!!
@TheAvianos Calculation of consequences isnt so simple with the evolution of not just morality, but of the individual and collective brains it will remain a big problem that requires constant "thinking." Im glad that he pointed out the fact that there is no formula or path to answers. Calculating consequences means considering so many things in an interdependent society. I think Sam Richards's talk on empathy would go great with this video.
@dudepal187 Oh yeah for sure it is hard..that is why i put in that it is always evolving because new information forces calculation method to always change with time...so you need to reshape your calculations based on current information..if the information change, so does the results...nothing is static, everything is emergent..and i agree with you on the Sam Richards talk..really good complimentary for this idd
@TheAvianos Agreed. Answers are incredibly difficult or maybe impossible to find, but we lose our humility, integrity, and morality when we give up on them.
@dudepal187 There are no final answers..its only the best known answer up until this point...but the problem with the world now is that we base our answers on ancient dogmas that never seem to change, or at least change to slow...neither integrity, morality, empathy or any of those are static, but most people seem to think they are...what we should do to find those difficult answers out is just to always make them better based on what we know at that point.
@TheAvianos Right, adopting a dogma of any sort and defending it is essentially giving up on inquiry. Of course, there is nothing necessarily wrong with being an "ist" or belonging to an "ism," but things like hatred and arrogance are also evolving and changing into subtle and cunning forms. So yes, we must constantly learn and ask ourselves the big questions. I doubt hatred will ever disappear, but as long as we dont give up on understanding it we can continue to create a better place.
@TheAvianos I advocate Bayesian Analyses (hard as it is) as the basis of The Calculation. The problem, in my experience, is defining Good and Evil (especially the edge cases) and getting people to agree on your definition.
That bit with the crowd sourcing hit a button for me. I've been complaining a lot lately that people have strong feelings; and yet, these strong feelings don't compel people to learn more about the issues.
"We have stronger opinion's about our hand-held devices, than we do about which more framework we should use." Take it to heart and think about it.
Justice is based on the prevailing morality. Morality is elastic. So Justice is also elastic. That is why different people have different ideas of how to punish murderers. Or people who leave Islam. Or women who "get" raped.
@Vortex42 Wow Paul, did you come up with that all by yourself? How can we engage more scholars and open minded individuals such as yourself to contribute to these discussions?
@OurTroopsRule Pal - You are the one who openly admitted they weren't interested in a reasoned open-minded discussion. After all, you have your book, and the rules are written down there for you, and that's all there is to it. As such, I don't see any reason to engage you in discussion... Ergo : BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Do these anti-Jew bigots get up in the morning and search youtube for jewish-sounding names so they can spout their nonsense? People should be judged by their actions and their falsifiable statements/propositions.
@FluctuatingFreq You must assign end values for each specific A and each B for this model to work for decision making. You steal a burger: you're full, you saved money and your friends think you're cool for a week but, you go to jail. Three good, one bad, A>B, so, do it?
If you found no significance in what this man is saying, perhaps you underestimate the problems humanity faces in the near future. Also, how mind-blowingly different the world could actually be if we just asked ourselves these questions.
@BEERIOUS We *are* asking these questions. Nothing he said LED anywhere. It was just a man repeating some words he wrote down, in a ridiculous American public-speaking style, which turns pretty much everyone else in the world OFF. We don't LIKE Tony Robbins types. We don't like being spoken to by people who use NLP, MIRRORING and Feigned Body Language tactics on stage... It flags as immediately FAKE to anyone outside the US (and a great many IN the US). Nothing about this talk felt REAL.
instead of requiring or encouraging critical thought during the formative years of learning kids are required and encouraged to be insentient propagators of minutiae that they can reproduce "successfully" when they go into the slaveforce.
while we may not be able to force someone to be able to think critically, we should at the least see to it that they aren't encouraged not to desire to.
instead we drain the creativity from them necessary to foster an open mind.
Morality and ethics are universal, they apply to everyone everywhere equally, or they should. Do not initiate force or aggression on anyone. All interactions should be voluntary.
I'm actually surprised at the amount of hate here. Morals are a very deep, complicated subject, and it's nice to see it approached from various angles every once and a while. I quite enjoyed it :)
@595o Yeah, I'm mad. Fucking jews everywhere spreading their shit. He probably wants an operating system that prevents anything that derails from the jewish agenda. A moral operating system is one that is free and anonymous,because without anonymity there can be no true debate and without debate there can be no moral.
@595o I see I have run into one of the Zionists many lapdogs. What do you get out of spending your own free time defending a country (Israel) and a people that don't care one bit about you?
Your questions is just another pathetic attempt at mockery. Or are you really as stupid as to think that everything needs to be written down in the religious book to be real? I don't see anything about banning condoms in the bible, so how could the pope ban condoms in Africa?
@TimSimmans Stereotype is just a word for behavior patterns you don't want to think about. I also didn't say you were a Zionist, just that you were a lapdog FOR the Zionists, whether it's by design or just plain ignorance on your part.
@595o You're obviously incapable of having a conversation. To attempt to mock ones opponent is a sign of insecurity and something done when your arguments are to weak to stand on their own. Israel is the land of the jew and goy defenders, people who spend their own time defending jews, generally spend a large quantity of their time defending the (stolen) land of the jew. My hate isn't random, it's crystal clear and directed right back at the evil-doers.
@SuperRegisteredUser Nice logic you got there (x makes fun of y ⊃ x defends jews ⊃ x supports Israel) and nice assumption about me supporting something you cant even properly define.
Again, what is a 'jew'? Someone who follows Judaism, someone with a big nose and a funny name or someone born from the seed of Abraham's female offspring?
@595o You obviously think it's worth your time and effort to defend Jews, so it's safe to assume you're one of the many Zionist trolls who go around lying about how great Israel and Jews are. You don't let people see your channel, so, you have only yourself to blame (since I can only do assumptions based on what you write here). Also, you are not making fun on me, you are making an ass out of yourself, spending your time defending jews who don't give a fuck about you. You are probably American.
@595o If you want to know "who is a Jew?" then go to wikipedia or something. Of course this is not why you ask me this. You only ask me troll, delay and bother me. It's a common tactic among the Zionist trolls and it has lost all it's value.
The sad thing about yourself is that you probably don't even realize yourself that you are a Zionist troll, you just do things you were told was "the right thing" and it just happens to coincide with Jewish interests.
Who is this douche? Why do so many lame Jews get their own TED talk? What did I just listen to? He basically didn't say anything, he was just being a pompous ass for 15 minutes. Trying to tell other people where to get their morality when his all comes from a thousands-of-years old book.
Have a Jewish last name? Apply to do a TED talk! You have about a 1,000,000 times bigger chance than someone of any other background.
I wanna have a supervisor as handsome as he is.
cql8878 2 weeks ago
this guy sucks..
IcaroVolera 3 months ago
What a pointless talk. He outlined the basics of the most famous ethical theories and said "Think about ethics please."
Bangell99 3 months ago
As technology continues into better innovation more of our private information, and the way we browse the internet will become targets for marketers to sale us products which at the same time can be use against our interest if we're not careful enough. Thus, as Damon Horowitz pointed our here's a moral question that has arise with how data collection agencies should use the information they collect from us. peoplebreeze com
PeopleBreeze 3 months ago
He gave consequentialism a bad rep. Deontology has more flaws anyway...
How about consequentialism with specified deontological moral side-constraints?
GoatNoodle 6 months ago
Maybe name the framework easily after what it does and not sounding fancy.
mg03nma 7 months ago
It may sound quaint, and a little simplistic, to some but the so-called "golden rule": "Do to others as you would have them do to you", or the alternative version, "Love your neighbour as yourself" is close enough for me to the perfect moral formula. Its been around for thousands of years already and, when you think about it, most moral failures (if not all) are simply a failure to apply that rule. Anything else to me just seems to be overcomplicating the matter.
looseSpark 7 months ago
@looseSpark The problem is to whom you would apply it. For example, would we apply it to animals? Do you honestly desire to be punished for your crimes?
What about sado-masochists, who are sexually aroused by pain, should they inflict pain because they want others to do the same to them? A person who is suicidal, should he think that others want to die?
The matter is complicated, and your rule works alot, but unfortunately not always, which is why we work for better rules.
TheAtheologian 3 months ago
@TheAtheologian I think the rule has to be applied with some common sense, as most spiritual/moral rules. You obviously have to consider the other person in the equation & where they stand, for e.g.: if the other person was not a sado-masochist, the sado-masochist should think, "If I was not a sado-masochist, how would I feel if someone did such-and-such to me". Likewise, the suicidal person. It's not really that complicated - it requires only a very little bit of thought before application.
looseSpark 3 months ago
@TheAtheologian For a suicidal person interpreting the "golden rule" I would say it does present a deeper problem: Should they help a suicidal person to commit suicide because they themselves are suicidal? I don't think any suicidal person really wants to die, if they were presented with an alternative life where many of their major problems resolved they would probably opt for it, so the answer for someone trying to apply the rule properly would be to seek to help that person change their life
looseSpark 3 months ago
@TheAtheologian I do think the rule contains the implication that the person applying it is operating with a healthy, logical and lucid mind. If that needs to be expressed more explicitly for some, I am happy with accepting an updated golden rule that states this more explicitly as a pretext. But for the thinking person, the pretext is fairly clear, in my opinion.
looseSpark 3 months ago
@looseSpark I think this represents an even bigger problem. What is a thinking human being?
Do we rely on authority? Do we rely on a vote? Can I honestly say I am certain that I am capable that I can evaluate the complicated mix of emotions and thoughts of another being?
So when you say "what would I want, were I not.." I wonder if I should not think of what I would want as a girl, as a teenager, or any other characteristic. It requires an insight into another human being that I do not have.
TheAtheologian 3 months ago
@TheAtheologian I think the key is to keep it simple. When we get into making complicated rules for moral behaviour, we start prescribing it rigidly which makes free will / independence impossible. That's my main problem, I guess, with making more complicated rules & frameworks like the video suggests. [contd...]
looseSpark 3 months ago
@TheAtheologian [...contd]
Ultimately, people should be free to judge what they deem moral, even if they get it wrong; with the golden rule, there is room for thought, correction, doubt, external influence, & changing of mind. That's what I like about it. :-)
looseSpark 3 months ago
@looseSpark Well, simply I agree completely that we should use the Golden Rule as a general rule.
However, I also think that when there is something so complicated as right and wrong looking into it helps us vastly to look into meta-ethics, and I do not think that this limits our freedom, but rather expands upon it through thought and contemplation.
For example, I would thoroughly enjoy thinking about why we should treat others as we would treat ourselves, not simply the that we should.
TheAtheologian 3 months ago
@TheAtheologian BTW, appreciate your thoughtful comment.
looseSpark 3 months ago
@looseSpark And I appreciate the stunningly rapid response and very well worded explanation ;)
TheAtheologian 3 months ago
@TheAtheologian To be fair, "sado-masochists" are not defined by their mental complex. Being one of them, I can perfectly distinguish between the appropriateness of which context in which to use the golden rule (in public) and which context to indulge in sado-masochism (in private).
StealThisIdentity 3 weeks ago
@StealThisIdentity With this comment and the other one you actually highlighted and suppoted my argument :P
I don't think you think that others enjoy what you enjoy, but using the golden rule you strictly speaking should. And since you understand that others may feel differently to you, you know that other people might feel differently about something else. Similarly so do suicidal people, who should, using the rule, kill other people, but they don't because the rule is faulty.
TheAtheologian 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian I don't necessarily disagree with your main point :P It's pretty interesting. It's not that I understand how other people may feel differently from me. In fact, I do understand because I feel the same as them. It's just the normal rules don't apply to role playing games. Actors and actresses don't get lost in their roles, and neither do I. The Marquis de Sade, on the other hand... well he may have had some kind of disorder.
StealThisIdentity 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian Which makes me think -- autistic people don't like to be hugged, yet I loved to be hugged. The golden rule doesn't mean "treat people specifically the way you would want to be treated." It means to me, "when you're not playing a game who's rules are otherwise, treat people with respect because you want to be treated with respect, but first learn their definition of respect."
StealThisIdentity 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian Unless they think being respected means you doing something for them that is contradicting to your integrity, I suppose. So yeah, it is complicated...who's sense of respect should get respected?
StealThisIdentity 3 weeks ago
@StealThisIdentity My thumbs are up.
TheAtheologian 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian I don't think a person who is suicidal inherently devalues the lives of others simply because he or she devalues their own. An 85 year old with a hundred illnesses who wants to die with dignity likely knows enough about dignity to apply it to others. I think it depends on the situation. You are right in warning against the golden rule having no exceptions-- some people want to take as many others down with them as possible when they kill themselves. While others are samurai...
StealThisIdentity 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian I think the hardest part of figuring out the golden rule is that some people value property more than collective sharing and other people value collective sharing over property. The ethics here may have to do with what we as humans have the "right" to. Are there some situations where it comes down to your rights vs. my rights? "My right to purchase your good/service" vs. "your right to discriminate" or the "right to tax income" is a very intense debate.
StealThisIdentity 3 weeks ago
@StealThisIdentity Are you by any chance a massive fan of Aristotle and John Stuart Mill? Because you have a stunning similarity of thought with both, though mostly Aristotle.
Mill would say it is your right to do anything that does not directly harm others, and I am leaning on this being the apt response, but I agree, the question is not an easy one. Which was sort of my point those two months ago, in demonstrating that it is not as simple as "one rule to rule them all".
TheAtheologian 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian I guess a sense of respect based on everyone being social equals should be the standard. For instance, a king who asks me to bow down and kiss his shoe, or a needy person who tells me I would be disrespecting him if I didn’t give him money, both these instances of me showing them respect would be inherently disrespectful to myself.
StealThisIdentity 3 weeks ago
@TheAtheologian I can’t dehumanize myself or go against my own sense of dignity. However, if the Saudi king’s form of respect is to be kissed on the lips, and that makes me uncomfortable, hell, at least it’s showing that he sees me as an equal.
StealThisIdentity 3 weeks ago
Interesting video. Interesting (and disturbing) that he didn't mention Religious beliefs as a moral operating system. If you are a Christian, you definitely DO have a "formula" on how to evaluate decisions. Shame he left that out.
Gaius8666a 8 months ago
@Gaius8666a
Because religious beliefs are not philosophically valid :D
thankqwerty 7 months ago
@thankqwerty You don't read much do you? That is such an obviously false statement that, you either are incredibly ignorant of the history of philosophy or are just an irrational naturalist looking for excuses.
Gaius8666a 7 months ago
@Gaius8666a
Philosophy of morality was once intertwined with religions, so what? That doesn't mean that's the way it should be, and certainly doesn't mean that's right.
Socrates asked "something is morally good because it's intrinsically good? Or because it's commended by god (otherwise it would not)?" If it's intrinsically good then why do we need god? If it isn't then why would god's opinion makes a difference?
Dumb religious people : because god said so!
thankqwerty 7 months ago
@thankqwerty And what defines whether something is intrinsically good? YOU? That is what drives all of this Atheist childishness, anger that they are not God. God is the definition of good and the source of all good. You knowing something is good is, despite your desires, your acknowledgement of God. Your rejection of that fact is acknowledgement of your arrogance and pride.
Gaius8666a 7 months ago
@Gaius8666a
Of course not me. No idea where you get that idea from. Philosophers are trying to deduce morality from logic. Obviously you have not read a single book on morality and is ignorant of the process.
The problem with God being the definition is that god does not exist. I'm rejecting no fact as there had never been any evidence for the existence of god. It's much more arrogant to demand respect for your religion when there's zero objective evidences supporting it.
thankqwerty 7 months ago
@thankqwerty There is LOTS of evidence for the existence of God, evidence abounds all around us. Problem with Fundamentalist Atheists is, they are so wedded to their religion of non-belief that they have to tie themselves into knots to dismiss it. My original point was not that it was impossible to have a moral system without God, but that was disturbing that the speaker seemed to indicate that no formula exists for people to make moral decisions.
Gaius8666a 7 months ago
@Gaius8666a
Know me if any of them is accepted by logic-based institutions, e.g. courts and scientific bodies.
The issue is that you (theists) can't come up with TESTABLE scientific hypothesis that says : if X is true then god must exist, and if X is false then god does not exist.
You guys aren't moving in this direction neither to establish objective proof that's necessary to convince non-believers.
thankqwerty 7 months ago
@thankqwerty 1. All things that begin to exist have a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. The Universe has a cause. That Cause is God.
Gaius8666a 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gaius8666a
Is that a definition? or argument? or proof? It can stand as a definition, but not as argument and proof. And I think you know that yourself because you didn't put a 4 for "That Cause is God" as it does not logically follow.
More importantly, your statement does not suggest nor support that God is a conscious intellectual being.
1. Things only move when a force act on them. 2. apple moved. 3. force acted on it. The Flying Spaghetti Monster moved it.
thankqwerty 7 months ago
@Gaius8666a 1. All things that exist are subject to the laws in the Universe. 2. God is not subject to the laws of the Universe, in the format of which we know him. 3. God does not exist in the format of being able to effect the Universe (i.e. cannot exist in a Personal format).
1. The Universe "began". 2. Verbs (actions) take a period of time. 3. In the hypothetical scenario, that God created time. 4. Time must exist for verbal action. 5. Time is eternal, outside of God's control
devex12345 7 months ago
@Gaius8666a Point #2 isn't immediately obvious to me. This entire debate seems hooked on the notion that the universe "began". Why do we feel this is the case? Is it not more plausible that it has always existed?
TheCaptainSparty 6 months ago
@TheCaptainSparty The Big Bang appears to be a scientific consensus now and points both to a beginning and a singularity. Another reason that an eternally old universe seems implausible is, how can the universe be expanding but also infinitely old? If it was infinitely old than we would be infinitely seperated from all other stars. Also, the Sun would have burned out and the Universe would be cold if it was infinitely old.
Gaius8666a 6 months ago
@Gaius8666a Let's clear some things up. 1) When I use the term "universe" I mean "all that exists". 2) The Big Bang (let's assume for the moment that there is sufficient evidence for us to believe this theory is true) in no way signifies a beginning. A significant change, sure, but not a beginning. If there was matter prior to the Big Bang, then that still constitutes a universe based on my first point. 3) You seem to be missing the point of infinity by asserting that it would have an ending.
TheCaptainSparty 6 months ago
@TheCaptainSparty Since time began at the Big Bang, the universe is correctly infinite, i.e. having existed for all time(eg. forever). Before the Big Bang makes no sense, as there was no time for something to be before.
Also, stars are not cyclical, they do not reingage in fusion after slowly deteriorating due to entropy and whatnot.
But, one hypothesis is that the universe cyclical expands and collapses upon itself, which correlates better to your understanding of infinity I believe.
TheAtheologian 3 months ago
@TheAtheologian Are you providing an argument against any of my points here, or just asserting a personal belief? You state that time began at the Big Bang, I disagree, please explain.
New stars are formed all the time, often from the clouds of remaining matter left over from the death of a previous star. If I am incorrect here, please explain.
Yes, this is exactly what I am suggesting. Is this not an example of the existence of time prior to the Big Bang? Please explain.
TheCaptainSparty 3 months ago
@TheCaptainSparty Hmm, well, there is the possibility that there was time before the big bang, but it was "reset" at the beginning of the cycle.
Yes, the spacetime proposed by Einstein demonstrates how the singularity at the big bang would mean that time does not exist, similar to how black holes work.
When they collapse into a black hole, they do not reappear. Black holes only degrade to Hawking radiation.
Also, the second law of thermodynamics is a counter-argument...
TheAtheologian 3 months ago
@Gaius8666a I'm suggesting that the universe is comprised of cycles. Why would our sun necessarily be dead at this exact moment? Stars are born, live out their period, and die, and the cycle repeats. All is in constant change, regeneration and decay go hand in hand. Sure, there is evidence that the universe is expanding, that doesn't mean that it always was.
TheCaptainSparty 6 months ago
Love is the tendency to keep on experiencing interactions forever. Freedom is when all non mutual relationships are replaced by mutual relationship. Mutual in terms of love. Consciousness exist due to the ability to resist certain interactions, to choose. And the law within love is to keep on experiencing interactions and to not interact in the way that doesn't lead to interactions after interactions. Ethical is when you make a decision that accomodates love. What do you think?
Melki 8 months ago
so he basically said what we already knew- morality is never going to be able to be objective- but in a pretentious way. OK, useless
Tolstoievsky 8 months ago
Inspiring one of the best talks definitely
Daudex 8 months ago
Universities are cutting funding to curses like ethics and logic provided by philosophy departments due to state funding cuts. More and more there's a pressure in higher ed to relate everything to developing new products or training for careers. Those are good, important things but we should not lose sight of the ideal that a fundamental part of an education is learning to live and think well.
jrshipley 8 months ago
We need this as classes in our education system! Havard business graduates - "I will do almost anything to make money".
Stealing money can make you happy in the short term but if everyone around you stole you would be sad as crap. A lot of people don't understand long term consequences.
phatening 8 months ago
i have a hard time with Heart of Darkness. maybe i'm just not down with Conrad's moral operating system...
Natattat93 8 months ago
How does this have so many down-votes?
That "you lot have more of an opinion regarding iPhone vs Android than Kant vs Mill, and you should be ashamed of yourselves" was fucking glorious.
YawnGod 8 months ago
Why so many down votes? I guess I can understand having a different perspective from him, but actually being against it? He's advocating thinking about morality. How can you possibly be against that?
LynxChan 8 months ago
This guy sounds like he'd be interested in a Resource Based Economy.
Lightrider4444 8 months ago
@Lightrider4444 He seems to have an idea about philosophy though. So he probably isn't.
Wollff85 8 months ago
This is well and good, because we need to discuss ethiccs for today's technology.. But he didnt really offer anything new on HOW to make our data-driven world more ethical, which was what I was expecting.
He did raise very valid questions, but his discussion of philosophy was so rudimentary and generalized that he must have assumed the audience was a group of soulless hedonists that needed some "enlightenment".
paoarceo 8 months ago
@paoarceo I think the goal of the speech was to encourage people to think about the moral implications of technology, not tell people what they should think. In any given field, there will be different technologies with different potential uses, so generalization is really the only route to follow. To be specific is to ignore possibilities. It's far more important that we discuss and dissect these issues ourselves, rather than depend on an authority.
PuntedKitten 8 months ago
Love this, thank you Damon!
HallounNizar 8 months ago
So many dislikes... Why?
Sickening.
zrhealey 8 months ago
Let's let the guy own his own data.
Then HE can choose what he releases and then collect licensing fees from those who use HIS PROPERTY.
Data revolution.
leeroynaggins 8 months ago
If you are one of the dumbasses that thumbed down this vid, its best if you just don't bother at all because you're likely too retarded to comment on the advanced topic of a mathematical calculus for ethical decision making .... its a very advanced concept.
nightowl8936 8 months ago
I guess I'll have to study philosophy for about ten semesters to find exactly why Plato, Aristotle, Mills and Kant "disagree", right? Because the way he's phrasing it, I don't see the contradictions between their standpoints.
Also, that little part from 7:23 to 7:35 seems pretty contradictory to me. You "look around and see" that which "partakes justice"... and then it "wouldn't be only your opinion or appearance"? Weird.
Anyway, this talk made me think, so I guess it was worth it.
GreyLabyrinthine 8 months ago
Watch the Harvard Justice lecture series by Michael Sandel if you want to know more about utilitarianism, libertarianism, Kantianism(if that's a word) and the pros and cons of those philosophies.
NsaneNtheNbrane 8 months ago
@NsaneNtheNbrane thanks.
ldlemos 8 months ago
Thanks for the PSY101 lesson.
harlowsolid 8 months ago
His style is more suited to talking to just one person who can give him instant feedback. Not on stage. On-stage he seems to default to assuming the whole audience is the lowest common denominator.
Talk to him one-on-one and he would probably be a lot more bearable.
roidroid 8 months ago
While the issue of privacy and morality is important, I disagree with this guy on so many fronts.
(Not to mention that AI is changing him into a robot; just watch the way he moves on the stage.)
SempeVeritas 8 months ago
I take it most of the dislikes are because of the way in which he delivers this talk? A shame, considering how profound the subject matter is.
kzxqrit 8 months ago
1. Geek disillusioned with artificial intelligence.
2. Wishes he had become a philosopher.
3. Finds out there really isn't any agreed upon answer. (11:25).
4. Punts it as an exercise for the students.
By all means, genius, let's put all the programmers into the same infinite loop of philosophical gridlock.
drchaffee 8 months ago
This was an interesting and energetic talk on a complex and important subject with proactive solutions, why all the dislikes? You've got to learn to walk before you can run.
kensei85 8 months ago
Its feels like he is talking to a bunch of loser high schoolers, not a group of collegues. Its kind of annoying
dravarian26 8 months ago
Those people didn't raise their hands because they didn't know the difference between deontological ethics and consequentialism. It's NOT because they have no moral framework.
affablevagrant 8 months ago
He could be a little more natural, but it's a nice talk.
My view on the matter is:
If what you do to others, you want to see done to you = that is Wright.
If what you do to others, you don't want to see done to you = that is Wrong.
I think people just need to put themselves on the "other" position and then take the "self" out of the equation to solve this.
"What's good for you, might not be good for everyone. But if's good for everyone, it will certainly be good for you too".
leonidasx666 8 months ago
@leonidasx666 That is Kant for you! Kant says: Set up maxims using this rule of universalizability, then always act according to those maxims.
surfcello 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
What a useless talk. He's calling for a moral operating system while admitting that there's no single way to approach any philosophical question. 16 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
prksrcrn 8 months ago
Comment removed
prksrcrn 8 months ago
This video is wonderful, except for his pants.
energysage 8 months ago
Concise & thought-provoking talk about something close to the human soul.
For example think about the questionable axiom that 'ends justify means' ..........
Caiuser 8 months ago
let's build a morality supercomputer.
if we outsource morality to technology like we've been doing with our memories, will our souls diminish like our minds?
xjustamem0ryx 8 months ago
how i hate that style of trained speech... unnatural
Freigeist20789 8 months ago
if you take 3 of anything and add 2, you'll get 5. :)
matthewkooshad 8 months ago
The topic is very intresting, too bad that morality is written in our souls and are there to be found in the Bible; however, no one cares.
DoberFrann 8 months ago
@DoberFrann Really? You're going to let the opinions of people who lived over 2000 years ago dictate 10 commandments you should make your decisions from? Would you kill homosexuals, non virgin girls, and worshipers of other religions?
DamienZshadow 8 months ago
@DamienZshadow Does 'you shall not kill' commandment ring a bell? Do not confuse religion with culture there is also a TEDTalk about this: Mustafa Akyol: Faith versus tradition in Islam.
DoberFrann 8 months ago
@DoberFrann You're mistranslating that commandment. If that were true then God would want us to be vegetarians and wouldn't have condoned the many wars he guided the Israelites through. The actual definition of that verse is to not murder which is the unlawful taking of life. It makes exceptions to and encourages the punishment of certain sinners by death. Faith is a tradition that deludes the human mind into believing something with insufficient reasoning.
DamienZshadow 8 months ago
@DamienZshadow It may delude you because you don't understand it. And you still dealing with man decisions and not God's one; God haven't condoned any war. People that do things in God name and are not following his rules are NOT doing God's will.
DoberFrann 8 months ago
@DoberFrann Are you serious? God commands certain individuals to wage war in the freakin Bible!
DamienZshadow 8 months ago
@DamienZshadow Sorry, can you tell me what part because I don't remember that.
DoberFrann 8 months ago
@DoberFrann God commands the Israelites to 1 Samuel 15:3smite the Amalek (man, woman, infants, livestock), Numbers 31:2 revenge on the Midianites, Deuteronomy enslave or completely destroy (Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites (ect...), 1 Samuel 15:18 destroy the Amalekites. Joshua isn't the only person commanded with taking lives. Even Revelation paints a very colorful (albeit ridiculous) scenario in which angels and demons wage war with many humans left to suffer.
DamienZshadow 8 months ago
A little off topic.... but is it just me, or does his voice sound a lot like Kevin Spacey?
barrywalsh789 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Makes you think.....
LoveVanillaRose 9 months ago
This is perhaps one of the best TED talks I have ever had the pleasure of watching. And that isn't just because I'm one of those people studying the Humanities (with a focus on ethics to boot!) ^^
dostaglou 9 months ago
If you are interested in these topics, I suggest watching Harvard's justice series. It is a course by Michael Sandel, and it's freely available in youtube:
/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY is the first lecture
ShayanTEC 9 months ago
what does contient (Kantient?) mean?
4:12
probably a reference to Kant. ( he says "a contient, deontological moral framework")
blinginlike3p0 9 months ago
@blinginlike3p0 Kantian?
Kojak7snap 9 months ago
@blinginlike3p0 the word is "Kantian", not contient...
Ramsez 9 months ago
@Ramsez
"Kantian" might as well mean "incontinent" or "constipated" ;P
xjustamem0ryx 8 months ago
@xjustamem0ryx can't argue with that
Ramsez 8 months ago
@Ramsez
crazy german philosophy ;P
xjustamem0ryx 8 months ago
@xjustamem0ryx word!
Ramsez 8 months ago
@DutchTimmie Yea me too, kinda feel bad for the camera guy though. He had to actually follow him
232noname 9 months ago 2
His walking from left to right gets very annoying
DutchTimmie 9 months ago
"like torturing innocent children is wrong"...?
torturing *anyone* is wrong
richnfamous59 9 months ago
i like mills views on liberty but i dislike utilitarianism. but im not necessarily kantian either.
thats a hard question to answer with raising your hand.
Laartu 9 months ago
I wonder how many people loved this talk, but hated Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape".
Prytanus 9 months ago
He started discussing data security. Then he introduced western philosphy, but he never really managed to return to the subject. I am diasspointed.
anotherelvis 9 months ago
Comment removed
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anotherelvis
I thought what he meant by discussing data security (and then going into morality) was to semi-alarm people that while they're all off delving into digital media with concern for brands, purchase and use; there is an entire realm of issues posed by their digital participation that they should be equally concerned with if not more since it has to do with their freedom.
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago
it's primitive how we still model morality mostly by religion despite all current achievement. not everyone agrees with the same religion, so it seems an unstable, imprudent place to build a morality for all. so why continue to try to build it there? Math is a language we all must agree with, for it is at the core of existence itself, and yet we leave its land vacant. it could ensure morality remains an evolving process; commensurate with diversity.
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago
13:33 Hammertime!
AlexAvlonitis 9 months ago
The Calculation of consequences for a specific decision is the only true form of morality imo, which is exactly what he is suggesting. Morality is always evolving within a culture, always have and always will, but today it is not rooted in a utilitarian point-of-view. The evolution of morality should be based on new information and should continually change with new all the new information we receive..
This one of the best talks on TED imo because he touches on a subject everyone ignores!!
TheAvianos 9 months ago 16
@TheAvianos Calculation of consequences isnt so simple with the evolution of not just morality, but of the individual and collective brains it will remain a big problem that requires constant "thinking." Im glad that he pointed out the fact that there is no formula or path to answers. Calculating consequences means considering so many things in an interdependent society. I think Sam Richards's talk on empathy would go great with this video.
dudepal187 9 months ago
@dudepal187 Oh yeah for sure it is hard..that is why i put in that it is always evolving because new information forces calculation method to always change with time...so you need to reshape your calculations based on current information..if the information change, so does the results...nothing is static, everything is emergent..and i agree with you on the Sam Richards talk..really good complimentary for this idd
TheAvianos 9 months ago
@TheAvianos Agreed. Answers are incredibly difficult or maybe impossible to find, but we lose our humility, integrity, and morality when we give up on them.
dudepal187 9 months ago
@dudepal187 There are no final answers..its only the best known answer up until this point...but the problem with the world now is that we base our answers on ancient dogmas that never seem to change, or at least change to slow...neither integrity, morality, empathy or any of those are static, but most people seem to think they are...what we should do to find those difficult answers out is just to always make them better based on what we know at that point.
TheAvianos 9 months ago
@TheAvianos Right, adopting a dogma of any sort and defending it is essentially giving up on inquiry. Of course, there is nothing necessarily wrong with being an "ist" or belonging to an "ism," but things like hatred and arrogance are also evolving and changing into subtle and cunning forms. So yes, we must constantly learn and ask ourselves the big questions. I doubt hatred will ever disappear, but as long as we dont give up on understanding it we can continue to create a better place.
dudepal187 9 months ago
@TheAvianos sounds like sam harris's thoughts
Roenazarrek 8 months ago
@TheAvianos I advocate Bayesian Analyses (hard as it is) as the basis of The Calculation. The problem, in my experience, is defining Good and Evil (especially the edge cases) and getting people to agree on your definition.
watcher314159 8 months ago
That bit with the crowd sourcing hit a button for me. I've been complaining a lot lately that people have strong feelings; and yet, these strong feelings don't compel people to learn more about the issues.
"We have stronger opinion's about our hand-held devices, than we do about which more framework we should use." Take it to heart and think about it.
t3tsuyaguy1 9 months ago
Justice is based on the prevailing morality. Morality is elastic. So Justice is also elastic. That is why different people have different ideas of how to punish murderers. Or people who leave Islam. Or women who "get" raped.
Vortex42 9 months ago
We have a moral framework, and the text which outlines this. Some of you may know what it is, or more importantly, have read it.
OurTroopsRule 9 months ago
@OurTroopsRule BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Vortex42 9 months ago
@Vortex42 Wow Paul, did you come up with that all by yourself? How can we engage more scholars and open minded individuals such as yourself to contribute to these discussions?
OurTroopsRule 9 months ago 2
@OurTroopsRule Pal - You are the one who openly admitted they weren't interested in a reasoned open-minded discussion. After all, you have your book, and the rules are written down there for you, and that's all there is to it. As such, I don't see any reason to engage you in discussion... Ergo : BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Vortex42 6 months ago
boooo
CliveSinclairZX 9 months ago
Do these anti-Jew bigots get up in the morning and search youtube for jewish-sounding names so they can spout their nonsense? People should be judged by their actions and their falsifiable statements/propositions.
Occidentally 9 months ago
Brenden Schurmeier
The "should i do it?" chart: \/
A=Good things that'l happen = IIIII
B=Bad things that'l happen = III
if A>B do it.
May 28 at 5:59pm ·
FluctuatingFreq 9 months ago
@FluctuatingFreq You must assign end values for each specific A and each B for this model to work for decision making. You steal a burger: you're full, you saved money and your friends think you're cool for a week but, you go to jail. Three good, one bad, A>B, so, do it?
OurTroopsRule 9 months ago
If you found no significance in what this man is saying, perhaps you underestimate the problems humanity faces in the near future. Also, how mind-blowingly different the world could actually be if we just asked ourselves these questions.
BEERIOUS 9 months ago 16
@BEERIOUS We *are* asking these questions. Nothing he said LED anywhere. It was just a man repeating some words he wrote down, in a ridiculous American public-speaking style, which turns pretty much everyone else in the world OFF. We don't LIKE Tony Robbins types. We don't like being spoken to by people who use NLP, MIRRORING and Feigned Body Language tactics on stage... It flags as immediately FAKE to anyone outside the US (and a great many IN the US). Nothing about this talk felt REAL.
Vortex42 9 months ago 2
@BEERIOUS
exactly.
instead of requiring or encouraging critical thought during the formative years of learning kids are required and encouraged to be insentient propagators of minutiae that they can reproduce "successfully" when they go into the slaveforce.
while we may not be able to force someone to be able to think critically, we should at the least see to it that they aren't encouraged not to desire to.
instead we drain the creativity from them necessary to foster an open mind.
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago 4
@BEERIOUS Agreed this is criminally underliked lol
Roenazarrek 8 months ago
Morality and ethics are universal, they apply to everyone everywhere equally, or they should. Do not initiate force or aggression on anyone. All interactions should be voluntary.
miamizsun 9 months ago
how can you listen to this clown passing the first minute?
kurydebarcelona 9 months ago
*unrelated to this TED-talk
ARE YOU DEAF Mr. sound editor???
TURN THE FREAKING INTRO VOLUME DOWN
or take off your headphones, there is a chance they are not plugged in...
SEThatered 9 months ago
Comment removed
595o 9 months ago
He should definately work on being more likeable
Dgrainboy 9 months ago
I'm actually surprised at the amount of hate here. Morals are a very deep, complicated subject, and it's nice to see it approached from various angles every once and a while. I quite enjoyed it :)
stealth123215 9 months ago 2
How about letting the user decide what to do with his/her data?
nino210 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fucking jew
SuperRegisteredUser 9 months ago
@SuperRegisteredUser LOL U MAD?
595o 9 months ago
@595o Yeah, I'm mad. Fucking jews everywhere spreading their shit. He probably wants an operating system that prevents anything that derails from the jewish agenda. A moral operating system is one that is free and anonymous,because without anonymity there can be no true debate and without debate there can be no moral.
SuperRegisteredUser 9 months ago
@SuperRegisteredUser Beware they might hide under your bed! Also what makes him a jew? He doesn't wear that funny hat.
595o 9 months ago
@595o Ridicule won't work on me. Horowitz is a jewish name and like most jews he wants a more controlled internet.
SuperRegisteredUser 9 months ago
@SuperRegisteredUser Ah, so it's part of Judaism? Does it say so in one of their 65535 books? Thou shalt control the pipes of the internets.
595o 9 months ago
@595o I see I have run into one of the Zionists many lapdogs. What do you get out of spending your own free time defending a country (Israel) and a people that don't care one bit about you?
Your questions is just another pathetic attempt at mockery. Or are you really as stupid as to think that everything needs to be written down in the religious book to be real? I don't see anything about banning condoms in the bible, so how could the pope ban condoms in Africa?
SuperRegisteredUser 9 months ago
@SuperRegisteredUser
Someone challenging the stereotyping of jews is all a sudden a Zionist? Did I miss a massive part of this conversation?
TimSimmans 9 months ago
@TimSimmans Stereotype is just a word for behavior patterns you don't want to think about. I also didn't say you were a Zionist, just that you were a lapdog FOR the Zionists, whether it's by design or just plain ignorance on your part.
SuperRegisteredUser 9 months ago
@SuperRegisteredUser I am sorry sir, who you are talking to? Who is "defending a country (Israel)"?
And I am certainly mocking you, for throwing around random hate. Instead of telling me how you define a 'Jew' you accuse me of supporting Israel.
595o 9 months ago
@595o You're obviously incapable of having a conversation. To attempt to mock ones opponent is a sign of insecurity and something done when your arguments are to weak to stand on their own. Israel is the land of the jew and goy defenders, people who spend their own time defending jews, generally spend a large quantity of their time defending the (stolen) land of the jew. My hate isn't random, it's crystal clear and directed right back at the evil-doers.
SuperRegisteredUser 9 months ago
@SuperRegisteredUser Nice logic you got there (x makes fun of y ⊃ x defends jews ⊃ x supports Israel) and nice assumption about me supporting something you cant even properly define.
Again, what is a 'jew'? Someone who follows Judaism, someone with a big nose and a funny name or someone born from the seed of Abraham's female offspring?
595o 9 months ago
@595o You obviously think it's worth your time and effort to defend Jews, so it's safe to assume you're one of the many Zionist trolls who go around lying about how great Israel and Jews are. You don't let people see your channel, so, you have only yourself to blame (since I can only do assumptions based on what you write here). Also, you are not making fun on me, you are making an ass out of yourself, spending your time defending jews who don't give a fuck about you. You are probably American.
SuperRegisteredUser 9 months ago
@595o If you want to know "who is a Jew?" then go to wikipedia or something. Of course this is not why you ask me this. You only ask me troll, delay and bother me. It's a common tactic among the Zionist trolls and it has lost all it's value.
The sad thing about yourself is that you probably don't even realize yourself that you are a Zionist troll, you just do things you were told was "the right thing" and it just happens to coincide with Jewish interests.
SuperRegisteredUser 9 months ago
@SuperRegisteredUser I was asking for your personal definition not Wikipedia's.
595o 9 months ago
@SuperRegisteredUser And BTW Wikipedia also mentions that the terms "jew"/"jewish"/ etc. are ambiguous.
595o 9 months ago
@SuperRegisteredUser ur so fucking stoopid
Ramsez 9 months ago
Boring high school American "philosophy."
I felt like I was watching another "ambitious" sitcom, albeit not a funny one...
WayAboveYou700 9 months ago
Love Tedtalks.... but have to say that was pretty....meh
TheHugosouthafrica 9 months ago
Interesting, but Damon Horowitz needs go tell it to the guys on wall street, and the worldwide scientists who create weapons of death.
When there's a lot of money & power involved, non of this "moral" crap matters. I'm not making it up. Look around you, or read a history book.
Client404 9 months ago
@Client404 name some history books you've read.
roidroid 8 months ago
meh
Teloculos 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who is this douche? Why do so many lame Jews get their own TED talk? What did I just listen to? He basically didn't say anything, he was just being a pompous ass for 15 minutes. Trying to tell other people where to get their morality when his all comes from a thousands-of-years old book.
Have a Jewish last name? Apply to do a TED talk! You have about a 1,000,000 times bigger chance than someone of any other background.
eatingperson 9 months ago
@eatingperson LOL U MAD for not being a -goldbernspiegelstein?
595o 9 months ago
If he had a "douchebaggery operating system," maybe he'd come across as a little more likeable.
RaffettoSpeaks 9 months ago