DJ_Jonezy t1_j982rov wrote on February 19, 2023 at 11:41 PM

Edit: sorry for the lack of paragraphs. Reddit decided to merge them when I copy-pasted this part for some reason

Well here, I think it's important to distinguish between good and bad, and moral and immoral. Maybe your action wasn't ultimately bad (aside from the trauma you might've given to the kids but work with me here), but it was immoral because you did something that had a great risk of death, even if it didn't end up happening. Like if you leave a loaded gun in a room with a toddler and he goes on an killing spree in the local Walmart, you can't really use the excuse 'but I didn't do anything, I didn't actually kill those people'. It's like yeah, but you neglectfully did something that you knew had a great risk attached to it. So let's go back to the 'good/bad', 'moral/immoral' table here. I'd say what makes something ultimately good or bad is based on how much negative or positive emotion it produces, measured in serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin, etc. If it's a net positive, it was good, and if it's a net negative, it's bad. You get it. And whether something is moral or immoral is based on whether a moral agent (that is, a person who has the ability to make decisions) acted in a way that was likely to cause harm. Meaning if two people shoot up in the air but only one of the bullets lands on someone and kill them, while one of the actions was worse they were both morally equal. It also means that, say, hypothetically if the long-term consequences of WW2 are ultimately good, that doesn't make a certain sussy moustache man a moral person. This flies in the face of the philosophy of a dude named Immanuel Kant and his idea of a 'categorical imperative'. He thought that there was this big list of moral codes [list of rules that gets progressively sussier] that are always wrong to break, no matter what. He uses the example of someone with a family opening the door after getting a knock. Standing there is a psycho axe murderer who asks him where his family is. Now the question is, should he lie? Well I think most people would say yes. While lying is usually wrong, doing it to save your family is ultimately good. But Kant would disagree. He says that if you were to lie and say they're not home, the psycho axe murderer would disappointedly turn around and walk away, thinking about how he's an embarrassment to his psycho axe murderer ancestors when all of a sudden, he sees your family climbing out of the window. Turns out they overheard the conversation and decided to escape, but if the guy had just told him the truth that they were in fact home, they would've had a chance to escape. Now, I've been keeping a veneer of objectivity in this video so far, but I've gotta say this is one of the dumbest ideas in philosophy I've ever heard. I mean, leaving aside that he's totally taking for granted that the family would overhear the killer and try to escape through a window that's conveniently in his line of sight, you're tellin' me if a billion people were strapped to a conveyer belt being dragged to the pits of Hell, and you can stop it all by slapping a kitten, he'd be like 'nah bruh it's still fucked up like you can't justify slapping a kitten over anything durrr". Like HUH? Are you ok bro? Side note he was also a weird dude. Apparently in his 79 years of life he never ventured 20 miles away from his home to go to the coast. I mean, I think he'd be right at home with the Discord moderators of today. But anyway, what I'm getting at here is that the ultimate good we can strive for is positive human emotion. Now while this sounds obvious, once you take it into consideration, you'll start to spot people all around you, whether that's a co-worker by the watercooler or the mailman or whatever, who justify their ethical beliefs based on things that have nothing to do with the betterment of human wellbeing. I remember when I was around 15 or 16 I considered myself a 'libertarian'. And not a kinda cool libertarian, like yeah, like that kinda libertarian. I thought of freedom as the highest possible good. 'We should always strive to maximise freedom!'. Now, looking back this lacked any kind of class analysis and only served the interests of the bourgeoise, but I digress. Eventually, I started to think 'hey... maybe businesses shouldn't be allowed to deny services to people based on their race or sexuality'. I mean yeah it might be restricting freedom, but these people are just making the world a worse place for people who are already getting fucked over on a daily basis. What great harm is gonna come about if old Cletus has to bake a cake for a couple of femboys, huh? I then started noticing this way of thinking in just about every debate with a conservative. They'd make points like 'yeah maybe kids should learn about gay people, but that's the place of the parents to teach, not the school!' So we're acknowledging that learning gay people exist normalises them and would lead to less discrimination, and many parents aren't willing to do that, but schools shouldn't because... it's the parents' "place"? It's appealing to this mystical order that things have to be in. 'You have schools that teach a2 + b2 = c2, the parents teach social issues if they want, and there's no mixin''! It's like, did you ever sit down and think 'what policy would ultimately be the best for human wellbeing? 'What I'm referencing here is known as a 'core value' or 'axiom'. Most people have no idea what theirs is, despite having no shortage of opinions on ethics and politics. They generally base their views on their culture around them and what they feel is right. They'll say things like "I think men should pay on the first date because that's just how it's meant to be!" and "I think criminals should face brutal punishment because... they deserve it!" despite these attitudes objectively leading to tangible harm. The truth is, if we want to build the best society we can, we have to first establish wellbeing as our axiom and use science to decide how to best achieve the maximisation of that axiom. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this video. It was my first attempt at an animated video essay thing, so please leave any thoughts, criticism or questions in the comments, smash like and sub to help with the algorithm, click here to watch a video where we build a society from scratch by going through each political and economic system to decide which is best, and I'll catchya later nerds!

ADefiniteDescription t1_j9b9euj wrote on February 20, 2023 at 5:41 PM

Your explanation of Kant is so far off I can't imagine you've ever read him, any Kantians or any reputable introductory ethics text.

DJ_Jonezy t1_j9ba1v9 wrote on February 20, 2023 at 5:45 PM

Can you elaborate on what I got wrong?

ADefiniteDescription t1_j9bbub6 wrote on February 20, 2023 at 5:57 PM

> He thought that there was this big list of moral codes [list of rules that gets progressively sussier]

This isn't true. There's only three or four formulations of the CI depending on your interpretation.

>He uses the example of someone with a family opening the door after getting a knock. Standing there is a psycho axe murderer who asks him where his family is. Now the question is, should he lie? Well I think most people would say yes.

Beside the point for Kant interpretation but why should I think the fact that most people would say you should do something as good evidence for doing it? People get moral judgments wrong all the time, especially when you introduce features that test their rational consistency.

>While lying is usually wrong, doing it to save your family is ultimately good. But Kant would disagree. He says that if you were to lie and say they're not home, the psycho axe murderer would disappointedly turn around and walk away, thinking about how he's an embarrassment to his psycho axe murderer ancestors when all of a sudden, he sees your family climbing out of the window. Turns out they overheard the conversation and decided to escape, but if the guy had just told him the truth that they were in fact home, they would've had a chance to escape. Now, I've been keeping a veneer of objectivity in this video so far, but I've gotta say this is one of the dumbest ideas in philosophy I've ever heard.

Kant definitely doesn't say anything like this, and you haven't even attempted an explanation of why Kant thinks lying is morally wrong. Even if you disagree with Kant's reasons for thinking lying is morally wrong, he never claims that the axe murderer will act in this way.

> I mean, leaving aside that he's totally taking for granted that the family would overhear the killer and try to escape through a window that's conveniently in his line of sight, you're tellin' me if a billion people were strapped to a conveyer belt being dragged to the pits of Hell, and you can stop it all by slapping a kitten, he'd be like 'nah bruh it's still fucked up like you can't justify slapping a kitten over anything durrr"

Kant famously doesn't think animals are owed anything and that the value of people is always superior to the value of things (e.g. cats), and thus he would never say this.

Given the above, I think you could really benefit from sitting down and reading Kant. More generally, if you find yourself saying something like "This extremely influential and well-respected philosopher is obviously wrong", the principle of charity would suggest you probably misunderstood them.

DJ_Jonezy t1_j9be3qf wrote on February 20, 2023 at 6:11 PM

>This isn't true. There's only three or four formulations of the CI depending on your interpretation.

Wdym by "four formulations of the CI"?

>Beside the point for Kant interpretation but why should I think the fact that most people would say you should do something as good evidence for doing it? People get moral judgments wrong all the time, especially when you introduce features that test their rational consistency.

I was just pointing out that most people would say yes. I wasn't using that as evidence

>Kant famously doesn't think animals are owed anything and that the value of people is always superior to the value of things (e.g. cats), and thus he would never say this.

Oh interesting, I didn't know that. I'll clarify that in the video then

>Given the above, I think you could really benefit from sitting down and reading Kant. More generally, if you find yourself saying something like "This extremely influential and well-respected philosopher is obviously wrong", the principle of charity would suggest you probably misunderstood them.

Fair, fair. Thanks for your response

ADefiniteDescription t1_j9bfu25 wrote on February 20, 2023 at 6:22 PM

In Chapter 2 of the Groundwork Kant lays out the various formulations of the Categorical Imperative, explaining how they work and giving examples of their use. If you read one thing of Kant it should be that.

bradyvscoffeeguy t1_j99w46m wrote on February 20, 2023 at 10:46 AM

>Well for many ancient people, the answer was simple: if something upsets the gods, it's bad. If it pleases them, it's good.

Maybe, though non-theological ethical philosophy did start in "ancient" times (e.g. see the Ancient Greeks), not all religions had/have gods (e.g. Animism, Buddhism), plenty of people (maybe the majority?) today claim their morality stems from their religion, and of those who don't only a fraction utilise ethical theories to make judgements, rather relying on their intuitions and what their society expects.

>Stuff about Kant

I couldn't find the relevant passage where he lays out his thought experiments about lying, so I can't confirm what you said. I also can't remember whether he used them as examples of or arguments for his categorical imperative framework. And I can't remember anything to do with kittnes lol. In any case, it's strange of you to bring up Kant but not mention the categorical imperative. I get that it's complicated (rules vs. duties, how to resolve conflicts, etc.), and I'm not entirely convinced Kant had fully thought it all out himself, but the way you treat him still feels unfair.

>Jumping to utilitarianism

You started by asking "what actually makes something 'bad' or 'good'", then jumped pretty much into stating your version of utilitarianism. It's fine to be a utilitarian, but you shouldn't pretend you actually made any arguments for why it is correct.

>Stuff about conservatives

I personally think you're right that conservatives, as with almost everyone in society, don't spend much time thinking carefully about ethical theories when making moral judgements, and instead react with their gut combined with the usual psychological biases (in-group vs. out-group, familiarity, confirmation bias etc.). At least the religious can appeal to their scripture, even if it's only when convenient to what they already think. But I don't know if widespread adoption of utilitarianism would help society or mankind. I don't think anyone has ever adopted a life solely governed by utilitarian ideals, because to do so would be nigh impossible; are you familiar with the common criticisms of utilitarianism? Oh and any conservative watching your video will identify what you say they say as strawmen.

DJ_Jonezy t1_j9b4o1v wrote on February 20, 2023 at 5:11 PM

Thanks for the feedback mate!

Yeah the thing about people viewing morality through the lens of religion is admittedly very oversimplified, so I'll probably add some clarification in a text box.

And yeah I made the thing about the kitten up lol. Although I did mention the categorial imperative, so you might've read over that?

True, I was thinking about making a case for (act) utilitarianism although I wanna keep the video succinct.

You don't think the adoption of utilitarianism would help society? And the only criticisms of it I'm familiar with are that people could use utilitarianism to justify terrible things (like the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and that it's hard to quantify how much utility something has. Feel free to provide more though.

bradyvscoffeeguy t1_j9bkacm wrote on February 20, 2023 at 6:51 PM

Some criticisms of utilitarianism: it implies you shouldn't vote; it deals poorly with unlikely (with hard to quantify probability) but potentially devastating events (e.g. people have used it to argue we should pump loads of money into businesses dubiously working on solutions to the potential AI apocalypse); it implies you should spend all of your time working for as much money as possible and give almost all of it away to charities with the largest marginal impact on reducing human suffering (so probably sorts of foreign aid like the stuff recommended on GiveWell), retaining only enough to scrape by on; it implies enslaving masses and hooking them up to neverending drugs to keep them constantly in a state of ignorant unthinking bliss is good; it implies if the resources to make someone stop suffering are more efficiently spent elsewhere, then that person should be killed. There are defences of course.

DJ_Jonezy t1_j9bnpry wrote on February 20, 2023 at 7:13 PM

a) How does it imply you shouldn't vote?
b) How is that the fault of utilitarianism? That just sounds to me like a consequence of capitalism
c) I think you're referring to effective altruism there, which yes, is founded in utilitarianist principles. The point of effective altruism (and utilitarianism as a whole) is to produce the most good possible (which may involve working a lot to donate to charity, but Peter Singer warns against spreading yourself too thin, as it may actually affect your ability to spread goodness. "Secure your own mask [in the event of an emergency on a plane] first before assisting others" is a good analogy)

bradyvscoffeeguy t1_j9cckkd wrote on February 20, 2023 at 9:55 PM

I should let you know that I am not anti-utilitarian, far from it. I'm just providing some devil's advocate arguments which are important to reckon with.

a) In an election of substantial size, the likelihood your vote will make a difference is beyond miniscule. Therefore your time would be better spent elsewhere.

b) and c) I edited my post to add more critiques and changed the order, so I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about the problem of needing to devote your life to making money and then giving it all to charity, then there are a few counterpoints to your defences. Firstly, it's not great for an ethical theory to say "it's not my fault I don't work, it's the global economy's fault". Alternative approaches like virtue and deontological ethics purport to provide answers as to how to live in this unjust world without being asked to do the impossible. Secondly, a utilitarian will only be able to sit back and enjoy their life once humanity lives in a utopia; until then, they must give up their lives toiling away for the betterment of any who suffer, assuming that the suffer the utilitarian feels from toiling is less than the difference they can make to others' lives, a fact which does not depend on any economic system. Thirdly, Singer's defence of one's own wellbeing as a tool to help spread goodness might be seen more cynically as an excuse for not doing more. Singer is a great philanthropist, but he only gives away around 40% of his wealth, not 90%. He isn't surviving on the bare minimum, which he could achieve by living in the cheapest possible accommodation, eating the cheapest foods, using next to no utilities, moving to a country with the cheapest cost of living while maintaining enough sanity and geographical connection to continue bringing in income. If you pressed him, I expect he would admit that taking care of his family to a decent standard of living comes first.

[deleted] t1_j9bl5iv wrote on February 20, 2023 at 6:56 PM

[deleted]

/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 13, 2023

DJ_Jonezy t1_j982m3p wrote on February 19, 2023 at 11:40 PM