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

Summary

El script de video ofrece una visión general del curso de ética, abarcando desde el utilitarismo de Jeremy Bentham hasta la filosofía moral de figuras prominentes como Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, y Aristóteles. Se discuten las teorías de la moralidad basadas en los resultados de nuestras acciones, como el utilitarismo, y contrastan con enfoques como el deontología de Kant, que se centra en las intenciones detrás de las acciones. Además, se exploran conceptos como la eudaimonia de Aristóteles, que relaciona la virtud con la felicidad y el éxito humano. La discusión también abarca la relevancia de la proximidad y la responsabilidad colectiva en la moralidad, como se plantea en el ejemplo de la charca poco profunda de Peter Singer. Finalmente, se cuestiona la existencia de hechos morales objetivos y se sugiere que la respuesta de Nietzsche a la importancia de la moralidad es que no debemos ser moralmente, ya que la moralidad es para los perdedores.

Takeaways

• 📚 El utilitarismo, propuesto por Jeremy Bentham, afirma que las acciones moralmente correctas son aquellas que producen la mayor cantidad de placer menos dolor.
• 🔍 Utilitarismo y su enfoque en los resultados de las acciones contrastan con la teoría moral de Immanuel Kant, que no se centra en las consecuencias.
• 🎲 Bentham argumenta que todos los placeres son igualmente valiosos, sin importar su origen o complejidad.
• 🤔 El pensador del siglo XX, Robert Nozick, cuestiona utilitarismo con su experimento del 'maquinaria de experiencias', sugiriendo que hay aspectos de la vida más importantes que el placer.
• 👥 Utilitarismo podría implicar que sacrificar a un inocente para evitar un alboroto es moralmente correcto, lo que somete a debate la teoría.
• 💰 Peter Singer argumenta que las personas en sociedades ricas tienen una obligación moral de donar a causas humanitarias en lugar de gastar en lujos.
• 👶 El ejemplo de la 'charca poco profunda' de Singer compara la responsabilidad moral de ayudar a alguien en peligro inmediato con la obligación de donar para evitar la hambruna.
• 🚫 La teoría de Kant, la deontología, se centra en las intenciones y los principios morales subyacentes a las acciones, no en sus consecuencias.
• 🤝 Aristóteles sostenía que la virtud y la realización de nuestras funciones humanas (racionalidad) eran la clave para la eudaimonia, un estado de felicidad y logro.
• 🚫 Friedrich Nietzsche cuestionaba la moralidad convencional, sugiriendo que la moralidad es para los débiles y que los individuos deben crear sus propios valores.
• 🧐 La discusión sobre si existen hechos morales objetivos y si las reglas morales son independientes de nuestras opiniones es un tema central en la filosofía moral.

Q & A

¿Qué es el utilitarismo y qué principio moral fundamental propone?

El utilitarismo es una teoría moral y ética introducida por Jeremy Bentham, que sostiene que lo que importa moralmente para la bondad de una acción son sus consecuencias, es decir, la cantidad de placer menos el dolor que produce.

¿Cómo se relaciona el utilitarismo con el concepto de 'hedonismo'?

El utilitarismo se basa en el hedonismo, que es la idea de que el placer y el dolor son los únicos factores que importan moralmente para una persona. Según esto, el valor moral de una acción radica en la cantidad de placer que produce.

¿Qué es la teoría de la consecuencia en la moralidad y cómo se relaciona con el utilitarismo?

La teoría de la consecuencia es una amplia categoría de teorías morales que enfatizan la importancia de las consecuencias de nuestras acciones para determinar su moralidad. El utilitarismo es una versión de la teoría de la consecuencia, ya que evalúa la moralidad de una acción basándose en sus resultados.

¿Cuál es la crítica de Robert Nozick al utilitarismo a través de su experimento de pensamiento de la 'máquina de experiencias'?

Robert Nozick argumenta que la 'máquina de experiencias', que proporciona cualquier experiencia deseada, revelaría que hay aspectos de la vida que son importantes para nosotros más allá del placer. La resistencia a conectarse a tal máquina sugiere que hay elementos como el control de nuestras vidas, la amistad y la acción real que son valiosos por sí mismos, no solo por el placer que proporcionan.

¿Qué es la teoría de Kant y cómo difiere de la teoría utilitarista?

La teoría de Kant, conocida como deontología, se centra en las intenciones y el 'máximo' subyacente a una acción, en lugar de en sus consecuencias. Para Kant, una acción es moralmente permisible si su máxima podría ser aceptada por todos los involucrados en la acción, lo cual contrasta con el enfoque utilitarista que se centra en las consecuencias.

¿Por qué podría ser problemático el enfoque utilitarista en situaciones donde se requiere sacrificar a una persona inocente para evitar un alboroto mayor?

Según el utilitarismo, sacrificar a una persona inocente para evitar un alboroto que causaría más daño podría ser moralmente justificado si se produce más placer que dolor en conjunto. Sin embargo, esto puede ser moralmente cuestionable, ya que implica que se puede justificar un acto inmoral (injusticia hacia una persona inocente) en aras de un resultado mayormente positivo.

¿Qué argumenta Peter Singer en su artículo 'Famine, Affluence and Morality' y qué implicaciones tiene esto para nuestra responsabilidad moral?

Peter Singer argumenta que las personas en sociedades ricas tienen una obligación moral de donar dinero que normalmente gastarían en lujos para salvar vidas en situaciones de hambruna. Utiliza el ejemplo de un niño ahogándose en un charco poco profundo para ilustrar que es moralmente obligado ayudar si se encuentra en una posición de poder ayudar.

¿Cómo responde Aristóteles a la pregunta de qué es lo que hace que una vida humana sea exitosa o 'eudaimónica'?

Aristóteles sostiene que la eudaimonia, o la felicidad y el éxito en la vida, radica en la realización de la función o propósito inherente al ser humano, que él identifica como la actividad que involucra la razón, es decir, ejercer las virtudes y actuar en consecuencia.

¿Qué es la filosofía de Friedrich Nietzsche en relación con la moralidad y cómo difiere de las perspectivas de Aristóteles?

Friedrich Nietzsche es conocido por su crítica a la moralidad tradicional y su rechazo de las nociones de bondad y virtud. En contraste con Aristóteles, quien ve la moralidad como un camino hacia la eudaimonia, Nietzsche argumentaría que la moralidad es para 'los perdedores' y que la verdadera libertad y excelencia humanas requieren de superar las convenciones morales establecidas.

¿Qué es el problema de H. J. McCloskey con la teoría utilitarista en relación con el ejemplo del alguacil?

H. J. McCloskey argumenta que el utilitarismo falla al sugerir que el alguacil debería enmarcar a una persona inocente para evitar una riota, pues esto implica un acto inmoral (enmarcar a alguien inocente). McCloskey cree que la moralidad no puede ser reducida a una cuestión de cálculo matemático de placer y dolor, y que ciertas acciones están intrínsecamente malas, independientemente de las consecuencias.

¿Qué es la cuestión de si hay hechos morales objetivos y cómo se relaciona esto con la filosofía de John Locke y David Hume?

La cuestión de si hay hechos morales objetivos se refiere a si existen reglas morales que son verdaderas independientemente de nuestras opiniones o sentimientos. John Locke y David Hume contribuyeron a la discusión sobre la naturaleza de la moralidad y la forma en que entendemos la objetividad. Mientras que Locke podría haber influenciado la idea de que la moralidad está basada en principios racionales, Hume podría haber enfatizado la importancia del sentimiento y la empatía en la formación de nuestras nociones morales.

Outlines

00:00

🎓 Introducción a la Ética y Utilitarismo

El profesor de filosofía condensa su curso de Ética en un video, abarcando desde la introducción a la teoría utilitarista de Jeremy Bentham, que enfatiza en la producción de placer y la reducción de dolor, hasta la crítica de la teoría por parte de Robert Nozick a través de su experimento de pensamiento de la máquina de experiencias. Se destaca la relevancia de las consecuencias en la moralidad y se menciona la teoría moral de Immanuel Kant como alternativa a la utilitarismo.

05:01

🏳️‍🌈 Utilitarismo y Derechos Sexuales

Se explora cómo Bentham, al aplicar la utilitarismo, llegó a la conclusión de que las relaciones sexuales homosexuales entre adultos son morales, argumentando que, si son consensuales, producen placer y no causan dolor. Además, se discute la objeción de H. J. McCloskey a la utilitarismo a través del ejemplo del alguacil y la multitud, cuestionando si la teoría proporciona la respuesta moral correcta en situaciones extremas.

10:02

💰 Ética Aplazada y la Teoría de Peter Singer

Se aborda el famoso artículo de Peter Singer 'Famine, Affluence and Morality', en el que argumenta que las personas en sociedades ricas tienen la obligación moral de donar a causas humanitarias en lugar de gastar en lujos. Singer compara la donación a la ayuda humanitaria con la moralidad de salvar a un niño que se ahogaba en un charco, argumentando que no hay diferencia moral entre estos dos casos.

15:03

🤔 Deontología de Kant y la Teoría de la Maxima

Se resume la teoría moral de Kant, conocida como deontología, que se centra en las intenciones y las maximas subyacentes a las acciones, en contraste con el utilitarismo. Se destaca la importancia de que las maximas puedan ser universalmente aceptadas por todas las partes involucradas en una acción para ser moralmente permisibles. Se ilustra con el ejemplo del alguacil y cómo la teoría de Kant proporciona una respuesta diferente a la situación planteada.

20:04

🧐 Aristóteles y la Eudaimonia

Se menciona la filosofía de Aristóteles, quien argumenta que la naturaleza o esencia de las cosas, incluidos los humanos, tiene un propósito o una 'función'. Aristóteles busca identificar la función única del ser humano que involucra la racionalidad y concluye que la actividad que involucra la virtud es fundamental para la eudaimonia, o el bienestar y el éxito en la vida. Aunque no se completa la discusión sobre la teoría de Aristóteles, se establece que la posesión de virtudes sin su ejercicio no conduce a una vida plena.

Keywords

💡Utilitarismo

El utilitarismo es una teoría moral que sostiene que las acciones moralmente correctas son aquellas que producen la mayor cantidad de placer menos dolor. En el video, se utiliza como una de las primeras teorías éticas que se discuten, destacando su enfoque en los resultados de las acciones y cómo esto influye en la determinación de la moralidad de una acción.

💡Consecuencialismo

Este es un tipo más amplio de teoría moral que incluye al utilitarismo, y se enfoca en las consecuencias o resultados de las acciones para determinar su valor moral. En el video, se menciona para contrastar con otras teorías como la de Immanuel Kant, que no se considera una forma de consecuencialismo.

💡Pleasure-Pain Principle

El principio del placer-dolor es central en el utilitarismo, y establece que lo que importa para la bondad moral de una acción son sus consecuencias en términos de placer y dolor generados. En el video, se discute cómo este principio lleva a una 'teoría aritmética de la moralidad' en la que todos los placeres y dolores cuentan igual.

💡Hedonismo

El hedonismo es la creencia de que el placer y el dolor son los únicos factores que importan para la moralidad. Se utiliza en el video para señalar una posible falacia subyacente en el utilitarismo, cuestionando si estos son los únicos aspectos que importan para la felicidad humana.

💡Experimento de pensamiento

Un experimento de pensamiento es una herramienta utilizada por los filósofos para explorar hipótesis o teorías. En el video, se menciona el experimento de la máquina de experiencias de Robert Nozick, que cuestiona si el placer es lo único que importa para la moralidad, sugiriendo que hay aspectos más allá del placer que son importantes para la vida buena.

💡Deontología

La deontología es la teoría moral de Immanuel Kant, que se centra en las intenciones y los principios morales en lugar de en las consecuencias de las acciones. En el video, se contrapone al utilitarismo y se discute cómo su enfoque en las 'maximes' o intenciones para determinar la moralidad de una acción.

💡Maxime

Una maxima en la teoría kantiana es una intención generalizada detrás de una acción. Se utiliza para evaluar si una acción es moralmente permisible, preguntando si todos los involucrados podrían aceptar esa maxima. En el video, se describe cómo este concepto es fundamental para la deontología de Kant.

💡Eudaimonia

La eudaimonia es un término griego que se traduce como 'felicidad', 'florecimiento' o 'éxito', y que Aristóteles utiliza para describir el bienestar y la realización personal. En el video, se discute cómo, para Aristóteles, la eudaimonia se alcanza a través de la realización de la función o propósito de los seres humanos, que él关联认为是 la virtud y la razón.

💡Objetividad de los hechos morales

La objetividad de los hechos morales se refiere a la existencia de verdades morales universales y no subjetiva. En el video, se plantea como una pregunta fundamental en la filosofía moral, cuestionando si hay reglas morales que existen independientemente de nuestras opiniones o sentimientos.

💡Teoría de la justicia de Peter Singer

La teoría de la justicia de Peter Singer, presentada en su artículo 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality', argumenta que las personas en sociedades ricas tienen una obligación moral de donar a los que están en riesgo de morir de hambre. En el video, se utiliza como un ejemplo de una afirmación moral radical que cuestiona las nociones convencionales de caridad y obligación moral.

💡Ejemplo de la charca

El ejemplo de la charca es una ilustración utilizada por Peter Singer para argumentar que谁有 una obligación moral de ayudar a los demás en situaciones de necesidad, independientemente de la proximidad. En el video, se menciona para comparar la situación de donar a la ayuda de emergencia con la de salvar a un niño que se ahogaba en una charca, sugiriendo que ambas situaciones moralmente son equivalentes.

Highlights

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states we are morally required to do whatever produces the greatest total of pleasure minus pain.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, focusing on the results of actions rather than the intentions behind them.

Utilitarianism holds that all pleasures are equal in moral worth, regardless of their source.

Robert Nozick's experience machine thought experiment challenges the utilitarian assumption that pleasure is all that matters.

The experience machine shows there are other things besides pleasure that are intrinsically valuable to humans, like controlling one's life.

Utilitarianism leads to surprising conclusions like decriminalizing consensual homosexual acts, as argued by Jeremy Bentham.

H.J. McCloskey's sheriff example shows a potential problem with utilitarianism, where it may endorse framing an innocent person to prevent a riot.

Peter Singer argues in his famous paper that affluent people are morally obligated to donate money to famine relief rather than spending it on luxuries.

Singer's shallow pond example illustrates the moral obligation to help those in need, whether they are nearby or far away.

Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics focuses on the intentions behind actions, rather than their consequences.

Kant's theory holds that an action is morally permissible if its underlying maxim could be universally agreed upon by all involved.

Aristotle argues that the good for humans is to achieve eudaimonia, or flourishing, by fulfilling their unique function as rational beings.

Aristotle's ethics holds that exercising virtues and living a virtuous life leads to happiness and fulfillment.

Nietzsche takes the opposing view that morality is for losers and one should not strive to be moral.

The course concludes by questioning whether there are objective moral facts that apply universally, or if morality is subjective.

Transcripts

i'm a professor of philosophy at this

university i'm going to take my entire

introduction to ethics course which

usually takes a whole semester and

condense it down into one video

i'm going to edit this video fast

[Music]

jeremy bentham looked like this he was

born in london in 1748

and he introduced a moral theory an

ethical theory called

utilitarianism utilitarianism says

roughly we are morally required to do

whatever produces the greatest total of

pleasure minus pain a theory like this

any theory like this is very ambitious

it is purporting to tell you in any

circumstance whatsoever in any situation

what the morally right thing to do is

and the first specific thing to notice

about this theory is that it's a theory

about the results of your actions what

your actions produce because

utilitarianism says that what matters

for the moral value the moral goodness

of an action is its consequences or the

outcomes that result

because of that utilitarianism is a

version of a broader type of moral

theory called consequentialism in a few

minutes and during the normal

semester-long version of this course i

would say in a few weeks we will get to

immanuel kant's moral theory which

competes with utilitarianism kant's

theory as we'll see is not a form of

consequentialism so this whole bit about

focusing on the consequences becomes

very important

very soon but for now the other thing to

notice about utilitarianism is that it

focuses on pleasure and pain those are

the things

that according to this theory matter

ultimately for whether an action is

morally good or morally bad in a work

called the rationale of reward published

in 1825 bentham says prejudice apart the

game of pushpin is of equal value with

the arts and sciences of music and

poetry if the game of pushpin furnish

more pleasure it is more valuable than

either pushpin is a simple child's game

i actually have no idea how it works or

what the game is like but the idea is

it's supposed to be a simple game like

tic-tac-toe or something like that the

point is this bentham thinks that it

doesn't matter how fancy the pleasure is

does it come from a simple game like

pushpin does it come from something

fancy like music or poetry doesn't

matter all pleasure counts the same the

only thing that matters to the moral

worth of an action is the degree or the

amount not the type but the amount of

pleasure that results from it for you

and for everybody else this is the

arithmetic theory of morality on this

theory everyone's pleasure and

everyone's pain counts equally but maybe

there's a problem with this theory the

problem seems to come from the

underlying assumption that pleasure and

pain are the things that matter the 20th

century philosopher robert nozick

attempted to bring out this problem with

what's called a thought experiment

suppose there were an experience machine

that would give you any experience you

desired super duper neuropsychologists

could stimulate your brain so that you

would think and feel you were writing a

great novel or making a friend or

reading an interesting book all the time

you would be floating in a tank with

electrodes attached to your brain should

you plug into this machine for life

pre-programming your life's experiences

what does this example show well nozik

thinks that most people would not agree

to be plugged into a machine like this

for their entire life they wouldn't want

to do it and they would be rational to

not to want to do it there must be

something that matters to us something

that's good for a human being other than

pleasure because of course the

experience machine will give you the

experience indistinguishable from real

life the experience of a very pleasant

life you'll get way more pleasure from

being in the experience machine than you

would from actually living your own life

and if it is rational to not opt to be

plugged into the experience machine then

it must be that there's a whole bunch of

things that are good for people that

matter

other than just pleasure

here are some of those things

controlling your life if you're in the

experience machine you'll get plenty of

pleasure but you won't be in control and

maybe it's important for people maybe

it's good for people to be in control we

want that and maybe we're right to want

that friendship the experience machine

would give you the experience of

friendship but of course there wouldn't

be any actual friends and so maybe

actually being friends with people is

important and that's part of the reason

why they wouldn't opt into the

experience machine doing things you know

actually doing things as opposed to

having the experience as if you were

doing them you know like i don't know

building a house or going skydiving or

whatever there's a difference between

having the experience as if you had done

those things and actually doing them and

maybe we want to do them being a kind

person or being any type of person it

seems like we want to be

a good person we want to be a good

friend we don't just want to think we're

a good person or think we're a good

friend or whatever if nozick is right

then utilitarianism is built on a kind

of mistake the idea that the main things

that matter morally to human beings are

pleasure and pain that underlying

mistake is typically called hedonism

when bentham developed utilitarianism in

the late 1700s it led him to some

surprising conclusions there's an essay

that wasn't published until after he

died called offenses against oneself

as far as we can tell this essay was the

first time anyone ever wrote in the

english language that gay sex should not

be punished by death i have been

tormenting myself for years to find if

possible a sufficient ground for

treating irregularities of the venereal

appetite with the severity with which

they are treated at this time of day by

all european nations but upon the

principle of utility i can find none

when bentham says principle of utility

he just means utilitarianism the basic

idea that what makes an action good or

bad is how much pleasure it produces and

how little pain it produces but in this

essay bentham is just sort of working

out the results of this theory on a type

of behavior that at his time was

universally condemned it was treated

very severely it just sort of falls out

of this theory that consensual

homosexual sex amongst adults is not bad

because as long as it's consensual it

produces pleasure it's the thing that

people want to do that's why they agree

to do it it just doesn't make sense

bentham seemed to realize in 1785 for us

to hang people that do this thing that

doesn't cause pain that's one specific

application of this general moral theory

but there seems to be a problem that was

pointed out by h.j mccloskey for the

theory in general

this is a famous example involving a

sheriff the story goes like this there's

a mob of people they're angry about some

crime that was committed they think they

know who committed the crime but they're

wrong the sheriff knows who really

committed the crime but the sheriff also

knows if he or she doesn't appease the

mob if he or she doesn't frame an

innocent person that the mob thinks is

guilty then the mob is going to go wild

and hundreds hundreds of innocent people

will die

in a riot according to utilitarianism

what is the sheriff supposed to do it's

pretty simple the sheriff is supposed to

do the math this is the arithmetic

theory of morality you just add up all

the pleasure and pain and it seems

obvious that the right thing for the

sheriff to do according to

utilitarianism is to frame the innocent

person in order to avoid the riot but

mccloskey thinks that this isn't right

like it's just obvious that it's wrong

for the sheriff to frame an innocent

person if that's true then

utilitarianism gets the wrong result

when it comes to this this example and

this case turns out to be a

counter-example

a counter-example is one type of

objection to a philosophical theory and

i have another video where i explain

what counter examples are and how they

work and i'll link to it somewhere or

maybe you've already seen it or i don't

know

okay so this course starts off with some

stuff about utilitarianism then we go on

to kant's theory that's in like 30

seconds then it's aristotle nietzsche

and then we come to the question of like

is there even such a thing as objective

moral facts or objective moral law are

there really moral rules that exist

independent of what we happen to think

about them our moral feelings or our

moral opinions are there real true moral

facts that govern our behavior that's

the third and final unit of this course

which in the semester comes in the you

know last few weeks of the semester but

in this case comes in like four minutes

from now but before that let's talk

about what is almost definitely the most

famous paper in applied ethics that has

ever been written it's by peter singer

and it was published in 1972

peter singer looks like this i once got

to have dinner with him after an

academic talk the paper is called famine

affluence and morality and in this paper

singer makes a very radical claim

everyone that you've ever met is a

morally bad person the circumstance that

we find ourselves in today in our

relatively wealthy societies is such

that

we must we're morally obliged to give

the money that we would otherwise spend

on luxuries like clothes that we don't

really need or food from a restaurant

that we don't really need because we

could cook the food at home we need to

spend that extra luxury money giving it

away to people who need that money in

order to survive he's talking about

giving money to organizations like oxfam

or unicef these are organizations that

very efficiently take your money and

transport it across the world and use it

to literally save people's lives people

who very well might die of famine famine

there's not enough food they would die

of famine within the next few days or

weeks but instead they get to live

singer writes because giving money is

regarded as an act of charity it is not

thought that there is anything wrong

with not giving the charitable man may

be praised but the man who is not

charitable is not condemned people do

not feel in any way ashamed or guilty

about spending money on new clothes or a

new car instead of giving it to famine

relief indeed the alternative does not

occur to them this way of looking at the

matter cannot be justified he thinks

that it's not okay

to buy coffee at a coffee shop because

buying coffee at a coffee shop is a

luxury you could make that coffee at

home he thinks that that extra money

must be given to famine relief because

these famines are going on and if you

don't give to famine relief you're doing

something evil every day okay that's

like a kind of radical moral claim what

is his argument for that part of his

argument comes from a famous shallow

pond example if i am walking past a

shallow pond and see a child drowning in

it i ought to wade in and pull the child

out this will mean getting my clothes

muddy but this is insignificant while

the death of the child would presumably

be a very bad thing if someone came to

your house

and said hey on my way here i saw this

little child drowning to death in a

shallow pond i could have stepped into

the pond and saved the child's life but

it would have cost me something i would

have gotten my pants wet and so i just

let the child die if someone said that

to you you would think that they're evil

and you would ask them to leave your

home immediately saving the child in the

shallow pond is not some extra nice

thing no no no no saving the child in

the shallow pond is the bare minimum

morally speaking singer thinks that your

situation in which you can give to

famine relief is morally identical with

the situation in which a person walks

past the shallow pond in which a child

is drowning

well there must be some differences well

singer considers some potential

differences between the circumstance

that you find yourself in and this

circumstance one is proximity the person

who walks past the shallow pond is very

physically close to this child drowning

whereas you are physically distant from

people who are dying of famine on the

other side of the planet but is

proximity morally relevant

well one way that proximity can be

morally relevant is that sometimes

proximity indicates whether you have the

power to help or not if you are mere

feet away from the pond then you can

help because you're close by and

normally you can't save a person on the

other side of the planet because you

can't get there in time but singer

points out that because of the existence

of these relief agencies you can help

them so because of their existence

proximity is not a is not a morally

relevant difference between these two

cases another potential difference is

that there's other people in the case of

famine relief there are other people who

could help and they're not helping does

that make a moral difference singer

thinks that it doesn't you could modify

the shallow pond example by supposing

that there's a whole bunch of other

people who can see this child drowning

suppose that they're not helping the

fact that they don't help doesn't seem

to mean that you don't have to either if

someone showed up at your house and said

i passed by this child i didn't want to

help him but there were all these other

people they didn't help either so i'm

good right no you're not good you're a

monster get out of my house the fact

that there's other people who could help

but who don't just doesn't seem relevant

but the main thing to take away about

this paper is that the conclusion is

radical everyone who reads it thinks

there's got to be something wrong with

this argument but no one can figure out

what the problem is

okay next up is kant aristotle friedrich

nietzsche plato and then the question of

whether there are any objective moral

facts at all here we go

emmanuel kant was a philosopher who

lived his entire life in the town of

konigsberg from 1724 to 1804. his moral

theory is often called deontology you

don't have to know what that word means

you can just think of it as kant's

theory the theory is very complicated so

usually i have my students read a

summary of part of kant's moral theory

or ethical theory by a philosopher a

very well well-known still-living

philosopher named onora o'neil and so

this is my summary of o'neill's summary

of kant

kant's theory is built around the idea

of a maxim a maxim is a kind of

intention when you intend to act except

for with certain specific details

removed so for example if i intend to

promise you that i'm going to go to your

recital or whatever well that's my

intention the maxim that i'm operating

under might be something like promise to

do something in the future promise to do

something in the future is less specific

than promise to go to your recital

kant's theory goes like this when

determining whether an action is right

or wrong you figure out what the maxim

is that that action is based on we

already know that this theory is

dramatically different from

utilitarianism because utilitarianism

was about the results or the

consequences of an action but kant's

theory focuses entirely or almost

entirely on the maxim the intentions

what you have in mind when you act these

are two totally different things the

results of your action and your

intention

or your your thoughts your purposes okay

so for kant it's the intentions or the

maxim that matters you look at the maxim

that the action is based on and you ask

the following question is this maxim

something that everyone involved in the

action could potentially agree to if the

answer is yes then that action is

morally permissible if the answer is no

then that action is morally

impermissible not allowed bad evil no

good o'neill writes for example one

person may make a promise to another

with every intention of breaking it if

the promise is accepted then the person

to whom it was given must be ignorant of

what the promiser's intention or maxim

really is and since the person who is

deceived doesn't know that real maxim he

or she can't in principle consent

to his or her part in the proposed

scheme of action notice that kant's

theory gets a very different result on

that sheriff example than utilitarianism

did think of the maxim that the sheriff

would be acting on were he or she to

frame an innocent person the maxim would

be something like try to avoid some

terrible thing

by doing some other terrible thing

framing someone who didn't commit a

crime well there's someone involved who

could never would never consent would

never agree

to this way of acting and that's the

person who'd be framed and so unlike

utilitarianism kant's moral theory says

that the sheriff should not frame the

innocent person in order to prevent the

riot so at this point we're like six

weeks into the semester and we've been

talking about the question of which

actions are morally good and which

actions are morally bad but even if we

can answer that question even if we can

agree on which actions are morally good

and which actions are morally bad

there's the question of why do those

actions that is why be moral

here are two very famous philosophers

who have answers to this sort of

question

aristotle's answer as we will see in

about 20 seconds is because it will make

you happy

nietzsche's answer which we will see in

maybe 40 or 50 seconds is don't why be

moral don't morality is for losers

aristotle thought that all things that

exist have a nature or an essence not

just people but rocks and mountains and

animals everyone has a purpose that they

are striving towards and the degree to

which you achieve this purpose or this

goal that is built into you in nature is

the degree to which you are fulfilled

and aristotle's word for this is

eudaimonia

at the beginning of his famous work of

moral philosophy nicomachean ethics

which was named for his son nico

aristotle discusses what eudaimonia what

happiness or flourishing or success for

a creature for a human being what that

is is it pleasure is that the goal of a

human being no he just sort of says that

this is suitable for beasts is it honor

is that the thing that allows a human

being to flourish no aristotle says

because honor depends too much on other

people whatever it is that is the good

for a human being is something that

other people can't just decide to take

away from you whenever they want to take

it away but that's exactly what they can

do with honor is it wealth a lot of

people pursue wealth as if that's the

thing that is fulfillment for a human

being no it's not wealth because wealth

is only something that you want because

it leads to something else the only

purpose of money is to spend that money

either today or tomorrow or years from

now having money isn't good money is

only good for other things and so

whatever the good for a human being is

it's not you know something that's just

wanted for something else so wealth is

out okay final option is it the

possession of virtue

having a good character possessing

virtue is that what it is for a human

being to flourish aristotle says

actually no no it's not because merely

having virtues like being a courageous

person or being a good person or

whatever merely having these virtues is

compatible with being asleep your whole

life you could be asleep your whole life

and have these characteristics but you

never get to act on them that wouldn't

be a good life that wouldn't be

successful that wouldn't be an example

of a human being flourishing

okay aristotle fine then just tell us

what is the good for a human being to

figure out the answer aristotle thinks

he has to figure out what the function

or purpose of a human being is

today we don't think of people as having

a function or a purpose in the same way

that aristotle did but okay he thinks

that if he can figure out what the

function or purpose of a human being is

then that will tell him what will

satisfy a human what will allow them to

succeed in their life

the first option he considers is

nutrition and growth is that the

function or purpose of a human being no

because that's not unique to human

beings that's also something that plants

do

what about perception is the purpose or

function of a human being to know the

world around it to perceive it maybe

even move within it no that's also not

unique to human beings because animals

do that

the purpose or function of a human being

has to be something that involves this

thing that is distinctive of humans

aristotle thinks and that is rationality

okay well what is the activity that

centrally involves rationality aristotle

thinks that it is exercising the virtues

by exercising he means actually doing it

actually living a courageous life

actually doing good things he thinks

that if you do that then you'll be

fulfilled well let's just flip this

around why be moral or why be virtuous

is another way to put it why be virtuous

well because it will make you happy or

as aristotle would put it fulfilled

flourishing successful

you know what this was too hard i don't

think i can do it i don't think i can

summarize my whole ethics course in one

video i haven't even gotten through

nietzsche we're like halfway through the

semester and i'm exhausted so i think

i'm gonna have to make this video two

parts this will be the first part and

the next part we'll start up with

nietzsche we'll get his answer to why be

moral which is don't be moral morality's

for losers we'll start with that and

then we will go on to the question which

will occupy us for several minutes and

during the normal semester several weeks

of whether there are objective moral

facts that apply to everyone everywhere

and to do that we're gonna have to talk

about plato and john locke and david

hume and a whole bunch of other things

you