Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Ethan
I really believe our society is slowly transitioning from a liberal (as in liberty-minded, capitalist culture to a technocratic, utilitarian society, heavy on the -spectator- side. But what separates this kind of utilitarianism from what I believe the classical philosophers had in mind is our technology. Today, technology dictates almost every aspect of our lives, and our technology is both increasingly -spectator--based and centralized. These two things are a match made in hell, in my opinion. One side of the coin separates us further and further from the direct experience of a shared reality and the other side forces us into smaller and smaller ideological niches. We are being programmed for a new kind of technological regime that reduces every aspect of our lives to algorithms making incredibly complex utilitarian decisions without our conscious input or consent. The technocrats argue that it is OUR data, after all, that allows these new cybernetic systems to grow in reach and power, so theoretically, these utilitarian decisions should be super democratic. however, because this data is being filtered through a largely spectator-based technology, it bears little connection to our individual lives--and in fact, by its function, data-mining strips the individual of their true identity and reduces that identity to quantum points in a dragnet.
reply
I really believe our society is slowly transitioning from a liberal (as in liberty-minded, capitalist culture to a technocratic, utilitarian society, heavy on the -spectator- side. But what separates this kind of utilitarianism from what I believe the classical philosophers had in mind is our technology. Today, technology dictates almost every aspect of our lives, and our technology is both increasingly -spectator--based and centralized. These two things are a match made in hell, in my opinion. One side of the coin separates us further and further from the direct experience of a shared reality and the other side forces us into smaller and smaller ideological niches. We are being programmed for a new kind of technological regime that reduces every aspect of our lives to algorithms making incredibly complex utilitarian decisions without our conscious input or consent. The technocrats argue that it is OUR data, after all, that allows these new cybernetic systems to grow in reach and power, so theoretically, these utilitarian decisions should be super democratic. however, because this data is being filtered through a largely spectator-based technology, it bears little connection to our individual lives--and in fact, by its function, data-mining strips the individual of their true identity and reduces that identity to quantum points in a dragnet.
reply
Brianna
Yes, lets kill the saints in the world because they might inspire a radicle group that we despise. But lets also kill the group we hate because genocide will make the world more peaceful. - Problem is. You don't know a damn thing about what it takes to make world peace. You've proven that with the way you've treated me. Peace CANNOT exist with those who act and think and do as you have done. You are a culture of war and blood and death of innocents. Violence and hatred. Persecuting the innocent not for any reason than for imagined ones. Peace CANNOT exist with you. That is what this last year meeting you and your people have taught me.
reply
Yes, lets kill the saints in the world because they might inspire a radicle group that we despise. But lets also kill the group we hate because genocide will make the world more peaceful. - Problem is. You don't know a damn thing about what it takes to make world peace. You've proven that with the way you've treated me. Peace CANNOT exist with those who act and think and do as you have done. You are a culture of war and blood and death of innocents. Violence and hatred. Persecuting the innocent not for any reason than for imagined ones. Peace CANNOT exist with you. That is what this last year meeting you and your people have taught me.
reply
education
The only problem here is that the example(s) are not very revealing of the essence. That the first solution is to build a better system that doesn't let out the Joker every time. And saving people by killing one of them is just as unrealistic. Especially knowing the regime will probably only do it again. So even though it is great to let people know about Utilitarianism, it is better to use competent examples. Because these are ideas that require more thinking than just a heuristic answer. And then we ask if they are letting the Joker out on purpose? For population control. HaHaHaaHHaaaHaa!
reply
The only problem here is that the example(s) are not very revealing of the essence. That the first solution is to build a better system that doesn't let out the Joker every time. And saving people by killing one of them is just as unrealistic. Especially knowing the regime will probably only do it again. So even though it is great to let people know about Utilitarianism, it is better to use competent examples. Because these are ideas that require more thinking than just a heuristic answer. And then we ask if they are letting the Joker out on purpose? For population control. HaHaHaaHHaaaHaa!
reply
Kafuu
Rule utilitarianism sounds a lot like Kant's categorical imperative - taking a moral rule and universalising it. The difference is Kant asks -if we universalised this, would it lead to logical contradictions? - while rule utilitarianism asks -if we universalised it, what would the consequences be for people's lives and happiness? - So I think it'd be possible for Batman to be a rule utilitarian and still not kill the Joker, if he'd deemed that -killing bad people- was an action that, if universalised, would lead to less happiness in the long run.
reply
Rule utilitarianism sounds a lot like Kant's categorical imperative - taking a moral rule and universalising it. The difference is Kant asks -if we universalised this, would it lead to logical contradictions? - while rule utilitarianism asks -if we universalised it, what would the consequences be for people's lives and happiness? - So I think it'd be possible for Batman to be a rule utilitarian and still not kill the Joker, if he'd deemed that -killing bad people- was an action that, if universalised, would lead to less happiness in the long run.
reply
Kyle
This seems problematic when you think of children or the disabled. They are able to act. They are able to cause happiness or suffering, but some children and some disabled people don't have the intentionality to act morally.
Or suppose you turn on a light switch and due to a freak accident it electrocuted your neighbor, killing them. Did you do wrong? Were you a moral agent? If a child does the same thing, did the child do wrong?
reply
This seems problematic when you think of children or the disabled. They are able to act. They are able to cause happiness or suffering, but some children and some disabled people don't have the intentionality to act morally.
Or suppose you turn on a light switch and due to a freak accident it electrocuted your neighbor, killing them. Did you do wrong? Were you a moral agent? If a child does the same thing, did the child do wrong?
reply
Dave
Under the heading of -Philosophy is fun, but pointless. - About the surgeon and neighbor: was the liver transplantee an alcoholic, the lung guy a smoker, the kidneys obese diabetics, but wonderful, loving grandparents and, say, the heart guy a pedo, but also a fireman? Does that change the decision? Most is a dangerous word. Trump got the most electoral college votes, but not the most citizen's votes. Are most better off?
reply
Under the heading of -Philosophy is fun, but pointless. - About the surgeon and neighbor: was the liver transplantee an alcoholic, the lung guy a smoker, the kidneys obese diabetics, but wonderful, loving grandparents and, say, the heart guy a pedo, but also a fireman? Does that change the decision? Most is a dangerous word. Trump got the most electoral college votes, but not the most citizen's votes. Are most better off?
reply
Ronin
act vs rule has nothing to do w time frame or number of instances-- it is either util or not. Even if the Dr killed only the one man, that would still have a negative ripple throughout society, albeit a smaller one.
Act is simply short sighted and superficial, and Rule is holistic and deeper thinking. That's it. And why would we ever want to choose short sighted superficiality?
reply
act vs rule has nothing to do w time frame or number of instances-- it is either util or not. Even if the Dr killed only the one man, that would still have a negative ripple throughout society, albeit a smaller one.
Act is simply short sighted and superficial, and Rule is holistic and deeper thinking. That's it. And why would we ever want to choose short sighted superficiality?
reply
Cal
Epicuras: Everything I do, I should do to create happiness.
Bryan Adams: Everything I do, I do for you.
Meatloaf: Everything I do, I do for love; -except that-.
Me: Everything I do, I do because it's the easiest and quickest way to get what I have to do done; giving me more time to drink beer and play video games.
reply
Epicuras: Everything I do, I should do to create happiness.
Bryan Adams: Everything I do, I do for you.
Meatloaf: Everything I do, I do for love; -except that-.
Me: Everything I do, I do because it's the easiest and quickest way to get what I have to do done; giving me more time to drink beer and play video games.
reply
tristan
The transplant example is wrong because if one person can be a match for all of them that means they are also matches with each other so you wait for one to die and transplant the rest. That is actually a better outcome than killing the neighbor because now you have one of the five living with no defects.
reply
The transplant example is wrong because if one person can be a match for all of them that means they are also matches with each other so you wait for one to die and transplant the rest. That is actually a better outcome than killing the neighbor because now you have one of the five living with no defects.
reply
Shaun
The problem with killing a killer, is you cannot be sure of what that person will do in future. You would have to assume that someone will kill people and be bad in future (when they might be living out there days in prison in barman-s case) and an assumption isn-t good moral grounds for murder.
reply
The problem with killing a killer, is you cannot be sure of what that person will do in future. You would have to assume that someone will kill people and be bad in future (when they might be living out there days in prison in barman-s case) and an assumption isn-t good moral grounds for murder.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
