Semester Ethics Course condensed into 22mins (Part 1 of 2)

Video quality	The size	Download

Information Semester Ethics Course condensed into 22mins (Part 1 of 2)

Title	:	Semester Ethics Course condensed into 22mins (Part 1 of 2)
Lasting	:	22.58
Date of publication	:
Views	:	133 rb

I dont even do the ethics course, I just came here to learn cause its interesting But damn you are so fun to listen to Keep up the good work, you seem like a great teacher
Comment from : Arjundev Singh

Where can I buy an experience machine? 🤔 Sounds morally ideal to me! 🙂
Comment from : RJM

Ammmmount!
Comment from : RJM

Imagine having a course "The Study of Magic" and, only in the last section of the course, discussing whether magic actually exists
Comment from : Nick Hounsome

I would love to ask the spiritual members of the Supreme court if they feel responsible for making the police an immoral body? Since the supreme court ruled that Police in the US are not required to jump into that creek to save the drowning child they have ensured that police behave in an amoral manner
Comment from : Master CC

Boy was I disappointed that comments were disabled on the Peter Singer videobrI'm new to your channel and happy to see you have more videos focusing on ethicsbrbrI just wanted to drop this from the Immanuel Velikovsky archivebrbrfrombrThe Psychoanalytic PapersbrbrCHAPTER XbrThe Criterion for Ethical Values and Its DeterminationbrbrWhat is evil? Evil means assimilation of the superior by the inferiorbrbrEvil means a failure - Beethoven’s nephew, who sponged at the expense of geniusbrbrDiseases are evil, as is the action of bacteria Also death is evilbrbrRelative evil is the assimilation of something that could have been replaced by the inferior - that which has a lesser capability for the production of lasting values [these last being defined as] accumulated powers of assimilationbrbrThus the eating of meat is relatively evil The assimilation drive, in and of itself, is neither good nor evil: it becomes good when sublimation takes place, but when abasement occurs, it becomes evilbrbrMean is the embezzlement of life from something that is meant to serve the assimilation only to a limited extent It is mean, because the greater portion is thus condemned to go the contrary way of useless devaluationbrbrThus the consumption of bird tongues, for which birds are killed, is meant mean, and relatively evil Equally mean is the activity of bacteria who, for want of a small portion of the human substance which they need, destroy a whole organism -that is, diminish its assimilation capacity excessivelybrbrThe usurer who destroys the livelihood of a person for a few pennies, is just as meanbrbrIf it is possible to calculate the energetic values of an introgenic event mathematically, also nothing stands in the way of determining ethical values in mathematical quantitiesbrbrbrbrThe algorithm won't allow me to drop a link in the comments but if you post community I can send my own ethics writing (in comix PDF)
Comment from : 0ned

Professor your are superb Why you not born in India Amit kumar, Advocate, High Court Allahabad
Comment from : Legal Study & Awareness Mentor

All people are evil, we all have evil in us, just as we have pettiness, greed, jealousy and so on, nothing new under the sun Religious are the most evil and mean in our society For your upload "Ordinary people are evil" which could not be commented on, why not by the way?
Comment from : steen iversen

Very productive teaching, thank you
Comment from : Tiaan Janse van Rensburg

As an undergraduate studying Philosophy, I find this particularly interesting Utilitarianism resonates with me as a system of government I am a Marxist and a Democratic Socialist
Comment from : Matthew Pocock

Appreciate this video! Just starting my ethics class and needed the knowledge before my first quiz 🥲 thanks so much!!
Comment from : Jada Francis-Stevens

I should have gone into philosophy 😢 😭😭😭 I love this so much it makes me excited 😮
Comment from : Keerthana

Those are the things that matter for an action to be morally good or bad
Comment from : ZnboOor

Good video Unfortunately ethics sounds way more confused than anyone coming out of theology
Comment from : Jordan S

Imagine this: Should the mayor of a neighboring town, have sent firefighters and paramedics to Sodom and Gomorrah?
Comment from : Kids Teach!

My counterpoint to Singer's ideas is that the human mind is too fragile to constantly ponder and take personal responsibility for the entirety of human suffering on a daily basis Ordinary people attempting to do so would lead to mental breakdowns, burnout, and eventually hopelessness for the future This will make ordinary contributing members to society stop contributing and potentially even becoming burdens on that society with substance abuse, crime, etc After a few decades a first world society would collapse under such weight leading to more suffering and a less stable global society for humans More over, monetary support is not the only way to contribute to those in need and things like your time, and the output of your lifes work can be just as, if not more powerful, despite enjoying your morning starbucks Just look at Edward Jenner and his work on the smallpox vaccine as an examplebrbrWhile the short term results of Singer's outlook may not break down under scrutiny, the long term results lead to a world more ripe for suffering and immorality That's not to say people shouldn't do more, they should IMO, but denying the basic work/reward system for humans based on the success of the society we live in is just going to turn civilization back in time and make the world a more miserable place Doing what you can, how you can, to help others in need and having that thought present in your mind most of the time is what makes you a moral and good person
Comment from : Michael O

Awesome video tx!
Comment from : Patrick Holtz

You would refuse to be plugged into that pleasure machine because the prospect of such fool's paradise would strike you as unpleasant As for the sheriff objection, we would object to framing innocent people to achieve some local utility maximum because we are aware that sacrificing truthfulness and justice would not maximise utility globally All those deontological values that are supposed to undermine utilitarian moral theory eventually reduce to utility if they are to be values we hold dear at all In other words, Kant would have to either concede that he is utilitarian or that he does not care if his moral theory is applied or not We can ignore him either way
Comment from : Luba Matity

"experience machine giving you pleasure indistinguishable from real life" almost describing the "social media"
Comment from : mz1rek

Intro courses really don’t usually need to last a whole semester
Comment from : Stargrunt

A simple response to the pleasure machine thing is that we don't mindlessly purse pleasure and avoid pain, we are capable of rational analysis and of feeling guilt and anger according to our different personalities, that simply means that there's pleasure and pain in the way that we purse pleasure and avoid pain, certain things can give us pleasure but in a way that brings us pain severe enough to interfere with that pleasure and so we avoid itbrbrMany people might not like giving up the "real world" because that idea brings them pain, pain that is severe enough to interfere with their expectation of pleasure and so they don't do it, because the act in the moment would bring them too much pain for too little expectation of pleasurebrbrPleasure and pain are still the main forces here
Comment from : what I saw was corruption

8:10 no, the other solution would be that the Sheriff convinces the crowd with proof Also the pain an action produces has more weight in a situation like this
Comment from : TJ F

Part 2 link?
Comment from : Haythem Kenway

No one can figure out what the problem is with Singer’s argument? Well, first of all what is a “luxury”? Buying coffee at a coffee shop is a luxury? Ok, so suppose people were to begin acting on Singer’s mortality and so instead of frequenting their favorite coffee shop they start sending it to a charity organization which (supposedly) “efficiently” transfers money towards famine relief What would happen to that coffee shop? It would go bankrupt and close down The employees? Would lose their jobs and their incomes No one is spending money on their goods/services anymore Now what happens to every other “luxury” people spend money on? There would be a chain-reaction within the economy and a self-induced recession would occur Now think about this - where were the coffee shops getting their coffee beans from? Perhaps it was from an area near the famine and it was one of the only sources of income for the locals Now that the shops no longer exist to buy their beans their income dries up and they lose their farm or businessbrbrSo there are several problems with the argument Its not as simple as dragging a drowning child out of water - that is a direct action that you know with a high degree of certainty will save the child which is why the vast majority would do it Conversely it is not obvious that sending money to a charity organization will “efficiently” aid famine relief - just this morning before coming across this video I saw a video about a news story of a non-profit homeless organization and how they got millions of dollars of donations and grants and how they reported their expenses - over the course of several years the salaries they were paying ballooned and the amount spent on services and goods for the homeless became a minor percentage, and if that wasnt bad enough the organization was spending money on absurd things instead of focusing on things that are most essential and helpful for the homelessbrbrSo there is a low degree of certainty that those suffering from famine would even benefit from it brbrAside from that, this is actually a question of economics If people began spending money as Singer proposes they do the economy would dramatically shift in a cascading affect and who knows how that would turn out? It could easily make the entire world’s population much much much worse off and almost definitely would as the single greatest factor for eliminating hunger/ famine/ starvation has been the introduction of market economics to developing areas
Comment from : Ultra MAGA Instant-Erectionist

Except donating to famine relief can worsen the problem because in many cases the people we save have kids who will also be in the same situation, the need for famine relief would just grow exponentiallybrbrDonating to help a temporary situation caused by some disaster is understandable, sustaining a growing population that would otherwise shrink to manageable levels is notbrbr Many of these charities are extremely inefficient sometimes just plain ineffectivebrbrThe point of this being, most issues aren't so black and white, donating money to causes without proper understanding of the issue just shows you do it to feel better rather than to actually help, which wouldn't make you a better personbrbrCharities are a nice way to evade taxes and to take money from ignorant peoplebrI'm not saying all charities do this
Comment from : PVP Tawa

3:48 if someone made a decision that is good initially doesn't mean the outcome will be good over time Yes being strapped into the machine would be good for a time, but pleasure is a multifaceted idea You may have pleasure from having a satisfying relationship with the world around you or a family that cares about you In the vat thought experiment time isn't factored into the equation to the idea of pleasure, which means that the theory still holds up Actually this says a lot about the philosophers understanding of long term outcomes and that he might lack an understanding of delayed pleasure and possibly even concepts of moral pleasure
Comment from : none none

I actually go to school t Elon University about 30 minutes from Greensboro
Comment from : Thegrimmeater

Ahh! Well played Your second statement was that you would summarize your semester into “one” video only to be revealed at the end of the first video that you “couldn’t” do itbrI’m loving the irony of the dilemma this must have caused you…br(i hope you will have your students analyze this contradiction!) and sincerely, great videos, please keep posting
Comment from : MS

9:38 this is without a doubt one of the more important points of the whole semester, I'm glad it wasn't cut in the 22 minute condensed version 😂
Comment from : Josiah1100

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:brbr00:28 📚 Utilitarianism: Morally required to do whatever produces the greatest total of pleasure minus pain, focusing on the consequences of actions and pleasure/pain as the basis for moral valuebr03:16 🧠 Thought Experiment: Robert Nozick's experience machine challenges hedonism and suggests that other factors, such as control, friendship, and actual experiences, matter for human well-being beyond pleasurebr09:23 💔 Critique of Utilitarianism: HJ McCloskey's sheriff example shows a counter-example where utilitarianism yields morally problematic results, questioning its viability as a comprehensive moral theorybr11:25 🤔 Kant's Deontology: Kant's moral theory is based on the maxim or intention of an action, determining its morality by assessing if everyone involved could potentially agree to itbr14:22 😊 Aristotle's Eudaimonia: Aristotle's ethical theory centers on eudaimonia, achieving fulfillment and happiness by fulfilling the unique function or purpose of a human being, which involves rationality and exercising virtuesbr18:47 🕶️ Nietzsche's Challenge: Nietzsche's perspective rejects conventional morality, viewing it as for losers and suggesting a questioning of traditional moral valuesbr21:38 🤔 Ethics Course Continuation: The video will continue with discussions on objective moral facts, including Plato, John Locke, David Hume, and morebrbrMade with HARPA AI
Comment from : Gus Vald

I had to stop this I became overwhelmed So much so that I do not know why, but I want to cry brbrOk now, back to it
Comment from : Luis Cañamar Vega

Does the pleasure minus pain only include the choice maker or everyone affected by the decision? Also, what timeframe is taken into account? If you include everyone and all time, it solves that one guys experience machine gripe
Comment from : Ryan Leadenham

How did you learn to write backwards on the glass in front of you? I am impressed Also great content!!
Comment from : Stephen Stosich

The argument against Singer can be summed up in 1 word: time
Comment from : If:Then

A masterpiece Bravo!
Comment from : Jacqueline Wolf

Incredible video,but also incredible meme material
Comment from : Bastian Ibañez

Yeah but is Singer helping tho ? I bet he goes to Starbucks every morning
Comment from : Stannie

watch on 2x speed
Comment from : PhantomDerp

Condensed into 22 minutes (part 1 of two)brbrApparently straight up lying and contradicting yourself in the same sentence isn’t immoral
Comment from : SAMUEL KING

18:22 cute 😍
Comment from : 5pm_Hazyblue

BRAVO!!! EXCELLENT ACCURATE READER ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Comment from : Helen Velez

You know the world is messed up when the thought experiment is actually becoming a reality
Comment from : Luke Goatley

bro appreciate your effort
Comment from : Akhil Girijan

I don't really understand the peter singer argument video You never really confronted the fact some people CAN and DO exist where they think donating IS an obligation Also how much do you need to donate? Is it a static amount per person or does it increase with more capital or how does one determine the fairness of declaring one is moral or immoral depending on how much they donate? Does having a savings account mean you have extra money or what even dictates "extra money" if you are allowed to have a savings account within this moral framework?
Comment from : cleave

does he write backwards?
Comment from : profesional queefer

love this channel so much
Comment from : Will Marino

Emanuel Kant is my hero
Comment from : Bea3556

useless
Comment from : Ege Erdem

"A bunch of mostly white dudes have been writing down their speculations and random musings for the past few thousand years, no they are not better or more evidence backed than those of a freshman dorm at 4am, but here the ones that became famous"
Comment from : googleyoutubechannel

I don’t think Singers example of the drowning child is good It isn’t that there is a single child drowning, it more like walking past millions of children drowning? Could the quantity of suffering be a reason not to help? Isn’t it better if you see a million children drowning to run and get more people to help and not immediately jump in and save 1 in a million?
Comment from : patrick rainey

Only 3mins in but how soon can I be put in that nice tank? Matrix me with good feelings pls
Comment from : Ashton

Plug me into the experience machine
Comment from : Kropotkin2000

Singer must have been a skeptic when it comes to capitalism Participating in an economy grows the economy It powers the engine that is producing lifesaving interventions and innovations that increase yields that feed more people It's only 'morally bad' to be a consumer instead of donating everything to the poor if the end result of the consumer-based economy is nothing but frivolity A society that works to solve engineering problems, research medical interventions, and all manner of other ways of improving quality of life can produce a situation where simply buying anything at all helps move the needle forward towards a future where more lives are saved than ever could be by just sharing bread
Comment from : Andrew Cobb

Peter Singer is a chump and a hyper liberal is why he wrote that paper He doesn't consider the morality involved in usurping control of the lives of individuals He believes that even if you fail, you must try Essentially he is saying you MUST jump into a river to save somebody, if you may be able to swim Peter singer is nothing but a self indulgent dick His example of a shallow pond is not equivalent His offense is that he is making fallacious arguments as to the value of moral actions and inactions He is essentially pretending to play a god of moral values He is gross
Comment from : J F

No way ur name is jeff kaplan
Comment from : Oskaius

Part of me wonders if calling an ethics video only 22 mins, when the total of the 2 videos is closer to 41, is part of the final
Comment from : Adrian Guinn

Ammazzziinnngg proffesssor
Comment from : Shivendra Maurya

You are defective as humans if this stuff is not inherent for you
Comment from : Deriz Nobot

isn't unicef one of the biggest planet polluting company?
Comment from : Achie the mediocre poet

14:18 Shallow pond counterexample: there's always another child in the pond, no matter now many times you save a child from the pond brbrSo the question is, how much should you care about other people? How much of your time & quality of life should you give to help others?
Comment from : User

so short and still too slow, lol
Comment from : Zappa

You and these "philosophers" from old are trying to figure out something God already did Jesus is the moral standard You people are trying to take god out of the equation and build a Godless world view that seems acceptable (its not)
Comment from : Charles

😅
Comment from : AlysononOahu

EU DAiMeNIA
Comment from : AlysononOahu

Wow Kants just 1st example I'm thinking that people wouldn't agree to being you know innocent sacrifices I think of the aztecs or the incas where people were complicit in their own murders Because they could see their death Could be for the greater good their sacrifice as for part of the greater good because they saw their death as part of the greater good
Comment from : AlysononOahu

Ah the green mile
Comment from : AlysononOahu

Sir, God bless you! Thank so much for this
Comment from : Victor Calazans

Why can’t pleasure be considered doing those things such as “controlling your life”?
Comment from : Daniel Cantu

Its cute that Aristotle named his philosophy after his son I hope there isnt some unwholesome reason why
Comment from : Cot

Informative and helpful! Thank you for sharing, professor
Comment from : PhilEsq

If I pay tax, the state is suppose to look after the needy brIf nobody goes to coffee shops or restaurants, business bankruptcies and job losses skyrocket -> massive recession, and everybody suffers brSheriff: if truth comes out later, massive pain to the “mob” The appeasing sheriff was an ineffective sheriff Morality dictates he speak the truth The mob may lynch him, yet he stands the ground
Comment from : Gee Chan

6 If it's recognized that a person who could contribute to the group but is not doing so, their quality of life and possibly their procreation opportunities are often reduced If a person undermines the group through bad actions, they're punished or ostracized
Comment from : Bill Brock

5 Survival, procreation opportunities, and quality of life are all enhanced for a person who cooperates with others in a group (if we had not evolved as social animals, and survived, we'd still be throwing rocks at our next meal) A morally good action reinforces the group and, by extension, benefits the person performing that action
Comment from : Bill Brock

7:54brIt’s just the trolley problem To act morally in the sheriff problem is to deescalate in whatever way possible
Comment from : Drew Pocernich

3 Mob rule produces chaos and leads to a breakdown of society -- the group Therefore mob rule is bad
Comment from : Bill Brock

Why does Aristotle reject potential human purposes simply because they aren't unique to humans?
Comment from : Melinda Green

1 Humans live in groups, and like all social animals we've evolved a system of cooperation that makes group living possible We call our system morality Actions that reinforce the group are good, and actions that undermine the group are bad
Comment from : Bill Brock

Okay thats it! I’ll take my philosophy course!
Comment from : Welf Binwag

Here is my answer to Peter singers morality theory Imagine you are in a relationship with someone who has mental health issues You are thus obliged to help them out But what if helping them out brings a fraction of your mental health down Should you still help them or is it their inability to change for maybe reasons they cannot help that can lead to a toxic relationship Should I donate to famished people or am I just perpetuating authoritarian regimes to continue not taking care of their people with charity as a buffer If i donate I may improve a discrete case but I have not even put a dent in the machine that perpetuates it So why not enjoy some luxury as systems of human suffering are always perpetual and insurmountable Sometimes if you prop yourself up, you may not help people in far away systems of suffering but it can arm you to improve your slice of existence and the existence of the immediate people around you What needs to be adjusted in society is the incentive systems we generate to obtain luxuries For example let a construction worker enjoy his pay check for providing a home to a family Capitalism has achieved in some cases this result But obviously we need to continuously retool our economic systems so our incentive systems for luxuries has more positive benefits for the most people
Comment from : Duckmasterflex

Your intro music reminds me of the Talking Heads song, (Nothing But) Flowers
Comment from : Brandon Russell

Thank you for the summary Nice and simple Great! Congrats!
Comment from : Ose Vlogs

02:29 - Utilitarianism: This ethical theory, introduced by Jeremy Bentham, states that actions should be based on producing the greatest overall balance of pleasure minus pain It focuses on the consequences of actions and treats pleasure and pain as the ultimate moral factorsbrbr06:35 - Thought Experiment: Robert Nozick's thought experiment involves an experience machine that can provide any desired experience It challenges the idea that pleasure alone is the sole determinant of moral value, highlighting the importance of other aspects such as control, genuine experiences, and interpersonal relationshipsbrbr10:48 - Criticisms of Utilitarianism: HJ McCloskey presents a counter-example to utilitarianism using a scenario where a sheriff must frame an innocent person to prevent a riot This demonstrates a conflict between utilitarian calculations and commonly held moral intuitions, suggesting limitations to the theorybrbr18:26 - Kant's Moral Theory (Deontology): Immanuel Kant's deontological theory focuses on the intentions (maxims) behind actions rather than their consequences The moral permissibility of an action is determined by whether its maxim can be universally accepted, irrespective of the outcomebrbr29:07 - Aristotle's Moral Theory (Eudaimonia): Aristotle argues that human beings have a unique purpose or function and that achieving eudaimonia (flourishing or fulfillment) is the ultimate goal Eudaimonia is attained through the exercise of virtues and realizing one's potential as a rational beingbrbrYou’re welcome! 😊
Comment from : Prof Lúcio Valente

Does know how he writes on board?
Comment from : Prof Lúcio Valente