Deontology, Consequentialism, and the Origins of Virtue

[ResolutionismTube]

@XOmniverse

Thanks for posting this video. This was put up a few years ago, I'm wondering how you feel about all of this now. Have your own views solidified over the years, or have you begun to see things a different way?

[fede2]

honesty is the best policy because in purposefully hiding the truth, even if it works out in my favor, i am compromising my authenticity and in doing so my self esteem as well.

[De4sher]

@fede2 if your authenticity has anything to do with your self esteem, you must be a person who has no job, no friends and no balls.

[fede2]

@De4sher non-sequitur. care to explain yourself?

[De4sher]

@De4sher no, i actually don't care to explain my self.

you should have been the one that thought things through a little better in the first place.If everyone is honest and thus authentic, how is lying making you inauthentic?

And what does authenticity have to do with self esteem? If it has that much of an impact on your self esteem, it means that one of your biggest concerns is wanting to feel special... which places you in the same basket with all the 14 year olds. way to be authentic.

[ResolutionismTube]

@De4sher

Its funny, because you did explain yourself...sorry, just FYI lol.

[AfricanPrince]

After finishing your video, a minor disagreement is with 1) your use of the term "lower" animal and 2) you claim that the genes that benefit a species survive, true, but the individual gene is the unity of natural selection, not the species as a whole.

[icfnord]

humans are definitely hard wired towards ethical behavior, everyone that it is who does not have an anti-social personality disorder.

It's called empathy, and it's the only reason the human race evolved to their superior position on earth in the first place.

Empathy is what makes mammals (and humans in particular) the most successful form of life on this planet.

[DackBev]

(continued) Of course there's not time for exhaustive calculations but I use the limited time I have to make the best decision while taking into account the negative consequences of taking too long to make a decision.

[DackBev]

I don't know why you go on about this. If something brings good consequences, whether lying or killing or whatever, do it. Why should there be any more to ethics than that? I'm an egoist. For each situation in life I simply what I think the probability of doing X or Y leads the best consequences for myself.

[tyguy44]

very good looking guy

[demonique666]

A blank slate doesn't do anything. Genetics determine much of our behaviour. Anyways, overall a good vid, but I wish you'd talk about virtue ethics more, I don't know much about it and I'm curious now that you say you pick that one over the others.

[ZenAnarchistAmerican]

Steven Pinker provides some interesting and provocative arguments against the ideas of the 'blank slate', the 'ghost in the machine', and the belief that people are born innately 'good'.

[demonique666]

I would go as far to say that he's kicked the shit out of those medieval ideas (blank slate, ghost in the shell, nobel savage)

[8daystillmonday]

I think that xomniverse's idea here is similar to that of Aquinas when he said that human beings are naturally oriented toward the true and the good.

No argument here.

[fungku777]

"I think that xomniverse's idea here is similar to that of Aquinas when he said that human beings are naturally oriented toward the true and the good."

Sounds good in theory. Problem is, unless we can discern what is 'true and good' on a universal level, we are merely pissing into a bottomless pit. What is true is what we can observe as such through study and practice.

Take genetics. There are too few real studies on the nature of violent offenders...(cont.)..

[fungku777]

...to know for sure if these attributes arise more from sociological conditioning or genetics. Suffice it to say, both are contributing factors. Genetically, for example, an individual could be genetically geared towards a dysfunctional frontal lobe, which would cause problems in discerning virtue. What is the true and good of this situation?

[AnarchoSolipsist]

Do you think we can determine objectively somekind of hierarchy of values? Can we logically criticize goals themselves, instead of just pointing out the most efficient way of achieving them?

[XOmniverse]

I think so, yes.

[2bsirius]

By coincidence, I'm reading Andre Comte-Sponville. It is a great exploration of the basic human virtues. He includes a lot of the history of Western ethics and goes into way these philosophies apply and fail to apply to modern life. Personally I think the best way to decide on whether something is ethical is to ask what would happen if everybody did what I'm doing if they were in my situation.

[444DeanMachine]

actually most psychologist and new Philosophical-psychologist, believe that we aren't born with "virtuous" behavior, but that we are born with pretty much a will to survive and... dare I say... a will to power, which usually when looked at through the crazy goggles of virtuousness, leans on the side of "evil" because to truly will to power is evil by most virtuous belief systems.

[XOmniverse]

Human beings have more to gain from peaceful interaction than violent interaction. It follows, then, that a will to survive should naturally lead to peaceful interaction.

[444DeanMachine]

all that is situational, sometimes crushing your enemies and not letting them back up is the best way to win an advantage in life... not endorsing that behavior, but it's sometimes the best and only way to be a "winner"

[trumasamune]

lol

[D4Shawn]

Wouldn't whether or not an interpersonal action (such as truthfulness or murder) is beneficial or harmful to the self depend on the nature/character of the other individual (s) involved?

[qtronman]

Why don't you just admit the obvious: you're a social-dependent second hander?

[D4Shawn]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I think you just missed the point.

I'll spell it out for you:

If someone will harm you for being honest to them, then it's in your favor to lie to them. It's just a logical fact.

If somebody wants to kill you, then it's in your favor to kill them first.

There is no general rule that honesty and non-violence are in one's favor.

[D4Shawn]

*inherently within one's favor.

[qtronman]

I don't need you to spell anything out for me, thanks. Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value. Lying to a man trying to kill you is a ~special~ case and is not dishonest, since you're not lying to yourself.

[D4Shawn]

So... if we just define "lying" as "not lying", everything is ok.

And... if we define anything that contradict your argument as a "special case", then once again, everything is ok.

I must say qtardman, I have to admire your tactics. They make no sense, and completely lack intellectual integrity, but heck... at least you're always right!

[lukeev]

Easy now, boys!

[D4Shawn]

He started it.

[lukeev]

Go to your room.

[qtronman]

"He started it."

No, you did, when you answered a question that wasn't even directed at your ~infantile~ mind. Those nootropics ain't working on you, D1-Shawn.

[qtronman]

You're a product of our shitty educational system. Was your mother a hippy?

[brainpolice2]

You're a brainwashed zealot who lacks the ability to be civil with one whom one disagrees with.

[qtronman]

"You're a brainwashed zealot who lacks the ability to be civil with one whom one disagrees with."

Don't you have some state welfare checks to collect?

[brainpolice2]

Nice try, but I've never collected a single welfare check, and neither has anyone in my family.

[qtronman]

Have you seen how D4Shawn has attacked me personally all over YouTube? I guess not. I have a memory like a spunge; I never forget what anyone says about me. He thinks he can say whatever he wants about me, however degraded and disrespectful, and then have me forget it completely (as if I just press a reset button, to wipe his slate clean). Don't tell me I'm personally attacking him; he has attacked me 10 times more.

[qtronman]

Dude, if I saw you, you would probably die within about 10 seconds.

[qtronman]

I would have no problem killing this worthless scum bag, who would have died in a ditch 5 years ago. Now he parades around as if he actually cares about ethics, economics, politics and morality. He's a worthless piece of shit.

[qtronman]

I was talking about the guy who nailed my car, here. I wouldn't actually kill him; I would "have no problem" killing him; there's a difference.

[dakshinamurti]

He may not have the best definition of ethics, it may even be an unproductive and useless concept, but in the shit department you're the monopoly holder in this altercation.

[D4Shawn]

Can't you put on some deodorant or something?

[qtronman]

Yes, I would have no problem killing you with my B.O.

[fakesagansmom]

"But, I swear, if you say anything about my wife again, I will hunt you down. I will find you out. I will dig you up, and I will punish you exactly the amount you need to be punished. I'm actually waiting for you to push me."

Qtronman- I'm still waiting you fat, moronic, liar. And for the hell of it:

Qtronman's wife is an egg foo young eating, chink bitch who feeds him flied lice while he masturbates to The Fountainhead.

[qtronman]

qtardman - how fucking old are you, asshole? Seriously, if I saw you, could I differentiate you from a 12-year-old? My tactics lack integrity? Go fuck a homeless hooker.

[D4Shawn]

Is your wife available, or is she all booked up?

[enterthepigger]

Burn, nice.

[j3rdog]

If Qtronman is an Objectivist then his view on ethics is that in emergency situations the rules change. His reply to you is in fact congruous with what he holds as true according to his philosophy.

[D4Shawn]

No it's not. I was in no way speaking of emergency situations. Qtardman simply characterized them that way in order to weasel out of being wrong. If you go around telling everybody the truth (such as girls you'd like to sleep with, bosses you think are dumb asses, and police officers you think are psychopaths), then you're going to have a lot of problems. This is everyday life; not "special cases". You can't just define away half of reality in order to be right.

[j3rdog]

oh..well yea..but I dunno if you can consider it lying to not tell everyone what you are thinking all the time. Anyways I thought you guys had used the example of someone trying to kill you. I dunno about you but if someone was trying to kill me I'd consider that an emergency situation.

[D4Shawn]

I did use that example among many others in order to give a wide range. Amongst all the comments that I left (which Qtardman read and responded to) my point was made abundantly clear. He just seized upon the killing example (after I'd used the others) because it was possible for him to obscure the issue due to the nature of that one example.

Not telling people what you really think/feel might not be lying, but it's not honesty either, so we can't say that honesty is inherently a good policy.

[brainpolice2]

Again with the random personal attacks that are not only irrelevant to the point, but completely unsubstantiated.

[D4Shawn]

I would argue that we're not really allowed to be honest in our society, and that honesty actually works against survival and personal gain. I think we are stifled in many, many ways (emotionally and intellectually). At any rate, I don't think it's possible to draw a general principal about honesty. It's a mixed bag. Sometimes honesty is good, but a lot of the time it's not. For example, telling a girl that you want to jump her bones is often a bad idea. It's often better to be indirect.

[qtronman]

"I would argue that we're not really allowed to be honest in our society, and that honesty actually works against survival and personal gain."

Allowed by whom? Maybe if you let others control your mind, you're not "allowed" to be honest.

[D4Shawn]

If you want to make a big deal over the word "allowed", go ahead. My point however, is that honesty clearly isn't innately beneficial. Clearly, that depends on the circumstances. Frankly, that should be fucking obvious. Only people with a dogmatic and inflexible philosophical agenda would overlook that simple fact.

[qtronman]

Yeah, it is a big deal when you say you're not "allowed" to be honest. It implies someone else is controlling you; i.e., you're a social-dependent, which you clearly are. I don't need to debate anything with you, since whenever I point out something that could ~actually help you~, you turn around and insult me and my philosophy. You deserve your own beliefs. It is your own soul that is the victim.

[qtronman]

How anyone with your mentality could be attracted to XOmniVerse or anything remotely to do with Objectivism is a little bizarre.

[brainpolice2]

Thanks for confirming once again that you're a dogmatic prick.

[qtronman]

This entire passage is consistent with someone who seems to have "sold his soul" to other people.

[lukeev]

I go with UPB and that's about it. People often confuse optional with subjective, yet it's a very important distinction. I still think morality/ethics is optional, but objective, NOT subjective. Clearly ethics doesn't exist in physical reality, like 2+2 doesn't, it exists within our minds. For a moral theory to be valid, it must by its very definition apply consistently to all men at all times, be internally consistent etc. Valid moral theories must pass the UPB test, basically. Good video.

[qtronman]

How do you explain total, full-blown criminality, in light of your "tendency towards virtue"?

[D4Shawn]

Biological and psychological individuality/diversity.

[qtronman]

Oh, well I was asking the guy proposing the theory.

[D4Shawn]

It just seemed like a pretty obvious answer, but maybe there's more to it.

[qtronman]

"It just seemed like a pretty obvious answer, but maybe there's more to it."

Yeah, it's called volition. But that's not really my point. I'm not posting on your video; I'm asking XOmniVerse for ~his~ explanation.

[D4Shawn]

What do you feel directs volition if not psychology (psychological diversity)?

[XOmniverse]

Total, full-blown criminality is a small minority of people. So natural variation would seem to explain this.

I should note that I'm not denying volition at all. Arguing that there is a starting point for volitional thought is not the same as denying it completely.

[D4Shawn]

I think it's really hard for us to separate that which is "natural"/innate vs. that which is "cultural"/induced. We just don't have a way to distinguish that yet.

[XOmniverse]

The fact that certain ethical ideas are present in virtually every culture is strong evidence that they have a natural source.

[D4Shawn]

I don't know... I mean, there's always been states, and morality has always been used to control, so it could very well be evidence of a non-natural source. I think the laboratory (the world) is too biased for us to tell.

[D4Shawn]

Honest relationships are only going to be more efficient in relation to specific goals and predilections which are going to be personal. You can't say that honesty is the best approach to achieving any conceivable goal one might have. There's just no basis for such a claim.

[XOmniverse]

It's a good thing I didn't make that claim then.

[D4Shawn]

I'm just commenting as I go along. I still not all the way through.

[D4Shawn]

"Honest relationships are more efficient and in favor of your survival and self interest than dishonest relationships."

That's what I was responding and disagreeing to.

For example, I don't think it's generally possible to be honest with a boss and simultaneously maintain a job. Many jobs involve artificial social parameters which significantly limit self-expression. Clearly, a job is favorable to survival.