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

Summary

This video script is a condensed version of an introductory ethics course, covering key philosophical theories and thinkers. It begins with Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism, which advocates maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, and touches on consequentialism. The script contrasts utilitarianism with Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics, which focuses on the intentions behind actions rather than their outcomes. The discussion then delves into the thought experiments of Robert Nozick and H.J. McCloskey, highlighting potential issues with utilitarianism. Peter Singer's radical claim about the moral obligation to address global poverty is also summarized, using his 'shallow pond' analogy to argue for a broader scope of moral responsibility. The script briefly mentions Aristotle's view on eudaimonia (flourishing) and the purpose of human virtues, and it promises to explore Friedrich Nietzsche's critique of morality in a follow-up video. The summary concludes with the intention to examine the existence of objective moral facts and the contributions of various philosophers to this debate.

Takeaways

• 📚 The script is a condensed version of an entire semester's Introduction to Ethics course, aiming to cover a vast subject in a single video.
• 🤔 Utilitarianism, introduced by Jeremy Bentham, is an ethical theory that suggests actions are morally required to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
• 🔍 Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, focusing on the outcomes of actions rather than the intentions behind them.
• 🎭 Bentham argued that all pleasures are equal, regardless of their source, which contrasts with the common belief that some pleasures are superior to others.
• 🤨 Robert Nozick's thought experiment with an 'experience machine' challenges the utilitarian focus on pleasure, suggesting there is more to human well-being than just pleasure.
• 🏛 Immanuel Kant's moral theory, known as deontology, is contrasted with utilitarianism, focusing on the intentions (maxims) behind actions rather than their consequences.
• 👮 H.J. McCloskey's 'sheriff' example illustrates a moral dilemma where utilitarianism might lead to framing an innocent person to prevent a riot, which is ethically debated.
• 💰 Peter Singer's paper 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' argues that individuals in affluent societies have a moral obligation to donate to famine relief rather than spending on luxuries.
• 👶 Singer's 'shallow pond' example is used to argue that failing to help others in dire need is morally equivalent to allowing a child to drown in a nearby pond.
• 🌐 Proximity and the actions of others are considered as potential moral differences in Singer's argument, but he contends that they do not absolve individuals of their moral responsibilities.
• 🧐 The question of objective moral facts and whether moral rules exist independently of human opinion is a central theme of the course.
• 📉 Friedrich Nietzsche's stance on morality is hinted at, suggesting a critique of conventional morality and a different perspective on why one might choose to be moral or not.

Q & A

What is utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory introduced by Jeremy Bentham, which posits that morally right actions are those that produce the greatest total of pleasure minus pain for the most significant number of people.

What is consequentialism?

Consequentialism is a broader type of moral theory that suggests the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its consequences or outcomes, which is a concept central to utilitarianism.

What is the significance of Bentham's essay 'Offenses against oneself'?

Bentham's essay 'Offenses against oneself' is significant because it is one of the first writings in the English language arguing against the death penalty for homosexual acts, applying the principle of utility to argue for the acceptance of consensual adult relationships.

What is Robert Nozick's thought experiment involving an 'experience machine'?

Robert Nozick's thought experiment with an 'experience machine' is designed to challenge the utilitarian focus on pleasure as the sole factor determining the moral value of an action. It suggests that there are other aspects of life, such as control and actual experiences, that are also important to human beings.

What is the main criticism of utilitarianism presented by H.J. McCloskey's sheriff example?

H.J. McCloskey's sheriff example criticizes utilitarianism by suggesting that it would require the sheriff to frame an innocent person to prevent a riot, which McCloskey argues is morally wrong. This highlights a potential conflict between utilitarian outcomes and basic moral intuitions.

What is the central claim of Peter Singer's paper 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality'?

Peter Singer's paper argues that individuals in affluent societies have a moral obligation to donate a significant portion of their wealth to relieve global poverty and famine, as failing to do so is equivalent to allowing a child to drown in a shallow pond.

What is the fundamental principle of Kant's moral theory, often referred to as deontology?

Kant's moral theory, or deontology, is centered around the concept of a maxim, which is a general intention underlying an action. An action is morally permissible if the maxim could be willed by all rational beings as a universal law, and morally impermissible if it could not.

What is the difference between Aristotle's and Nietzsche's views on morality?

Aristotle believed that being moral or virtuous leads to eudaimonia, a state of happiness or flourishing. In contrast, Nietzsche is known for his critique of traditional morality, suggesting that it is for 'losers' and that individuals should instead embrace their own values and will to power.

What is the concept of eudaimonia in Aristotle's philosophy?

Eudaimonia, in Aristotle's philosophy, refers to a state of fulfillment, success, or well-being that is achieved when a person lives a life in accordance with their nature and achieves their inherent purpose or function.

What is the main question addressed in the final unit of the course?

The final unit of the course addresses the question of whether there are objective moral facts or an objective moral law that exists independently of human opinion and sentiment.

What is the significance of the maxim in Kant's moral theory?

In Kant's moral theory, the maxim is the intention behind an action, stripped of specific details. It is the fundamental principle that determines the moral permissibility of an action, according to whether it could be universally accepted by all rational beings.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Ethics and Utilitarianism

The script introduces the speaker, a philosophy professor, who aims to condense an entire semester's worth of an introduction to ethics course into a single video. The focus is on utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham, which posits that the morally right action is the one that maximizes pleasure while minimizing pain. The theory is ambitious in its scope, attempting to provide moral guidance in any situation based on the consequences of actions. Bentham's view is that all pleasures are equal, regardless of their source, and that everyone's pleasure and pain should be considered equally in moral calculations. However, the script also presents a challenge to utilitarianism through Robert Nozick's thought experiment involving an 'experience machine,' which suggests that there may be more to human well-being than just pleasure.

05:01

🏳️‍🌈 Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Moral Dilemmas

The paragraph delves deeper into utilitarianism's underlying hedonistic assumption that pleasure and pain are the primary factors that matter morally. It discusses the historical significance of Bentham's utilitarianism, which led to progressive conclusions for his time, such as advocating against the death penalty for consensual homosexual acts. The script then presents H. J. McCloskey's ethical dilemma involving a sheriff who must decide whether to frame an innocent person to prevent a riot, questioning the utilitarian approach to moral decision-making. The paragraph ends with an introduction to upcoming topics, including Immanuel Kant's moral theory, Friedrich Nietzsche's critique of morality, and the debate on the existence of objective moral facts.

10:02

💰 Peter Singer's Radical Argument on Famine and Morality

This section of the script discusses Peter Singer's influential 1972 paper 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality,' which challenges the reader's moral intuitions. Singer argues that individuals in affluent societies have a moral obligation to donate to famine relief rather than spending money on luxuries. He uses the analogy of a shallow pond to illustrate the moral imperative to save a child from drowning, equating it with the obligation to aid those suffering from famine. Singer contends that the physical proximity to those in need is not a morally relevant factor, as relief agencies enable people to help from a distance. The paragraph concludes with the assertion that not giving to famine relief when one can afford to do so is morally equivalent to letting a child drown in a nearby pond.

15:03

🤔 Kant's Deontological Ethics and the Role of Intentions

The script outlines Immanuel Kant's deontological ethical theory, contrasting it with utilitarianism's focus on consequences. Kant's theory revolves around the concept of a maxim, which is a generalized intention behind an action. To determine the moral permissibility of an action, one must consider whether the maxim could be universally agreed upon by all parties involved. The theory emphasizes the importance of intentions over outcomes. Using the example of a promise made with the intention of breaking it, the script explains that such an action would be morally impermissible because the deceived party could not give informed consent. The paragraph also touches on the broader question of why one should be moral and hints at the differing answers provided by Aristotle and Nietzsche.

20:04

🌱 Aristotle on Virtue, Function, and Human Fulfillment

The final paragraph presented in the input discusses Aristotle's views on ethics, specifically his concept of eudaimonia, which translates to happiness, flourishing, or success. Aristotle believed that everything has a purpose or nature and that fulfilling this purpose is key to a human's happiness. He considered various aspects such as pleasure, honor, and wealth but ultimately concluded that these were not the ultimate goals for human beings. Instead, Aristotle proposed that the true good for a human lies in the possession and exercise of virtue, which involves actively living a life of virtue rather than merely possessing virtuous traits. The script ends with the professor admitting the difficulty of summarizing an entire ethics course in one video and hints at continuing the discussion in a follow-up video.

Keywords

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory introduced by Jeremy Bentham, which posits that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest total of pleasure minus pain. It is a consequentialist theory, meaning it focuses on the results of actions rather than the nature of the actions themselves. In the video, utilitarianism is discussed as a foundational concept in the study of ethics, with its implications explored through various thought experiments and real-world applications.

💡Consequentialism

Consequentialism is a broader category of ethical theories that, like utilitarianism, judge the morality of an action based on its consequences or outcomes. It contrasts with deontological theories, which focus on the nature of the action itself. The script discusses consequentialism as the backdrop against which utilitarianism is presented, emphasizing the importance of outcomes in determining moral value.

💡Pleasure and Pain

In the context of utilitarianism, pleasure and pain are the primary factors that determine the moral worth of an action. The theory suggests that all pleasures are equal in value regardless of their source, and the moral calculus involves maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. The script uses this concept to explore the implications of utilitarianism and to critique its potential shortcomings, such as the thought experiment by Robert Nozick involving an 'experience machine.'

💡Deontology

Deontology, often associated with Immanuel Kant, is an ethical theory that focuses on the inherent nature of actions, rather than their consequences. It is contrasted with consequentialism and utilitarianism in the video, highlighting a different approach to morality that emphasizes duties, rules, and the intentions behind actions. Kant's deontological theory is mentioned as a competing perspective to utilitarianism in the ethical debate.

💡Hedonism

Hedonism is the underlying assumption in utilitarianism that pleasure and pain are the primary determinants of what matters morally. It is the belief that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain the only intrinsic bad. The script critiques this assumption through the example of the experience machine, suggesting that there may be more to human well-being than just pleasure and pain.

💡Sheriff's Dilemma

The Sheriff's Dilemma, as presented in the script, is a hypothetical scenario used to illustrate the potential moral conflicts that arise when applying utilitarian principles. It involves a sheriff who must decide whether to frame an innocent person to prevent a mob from causing greater harm. This example is used to challenge the utilitarian approach and to highlight the complexities of moral decision-making.

💡Counter-Example

A counter-example is a specific instance or scenario that contradicts a general rule or theory. In the context of the video, the Sheriff's Dilemma serves as a counter-example to utilitarianism, suggesting that the theory may not always provide the correct moral guidance. The concept is important in philosophy as it challenges the universal applicability of ethical theories.

💡Applied Ethics

Applied Ethics involves the practical application of ethical theories to specific real-world issues or problems. The video references Peter Singer's paper 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' as a seminal work in applied ethics, which makes a radical claim about the moral obligations of wealthy individuals towards global poverty and famine relief.

💡Objectivity of Moral Facts

The objectivity of moral facts is a philosophical question about whether there are moral truths that exist independently of human opinion, feelings, or cultural norms. The video touches on this question as part of the broader exploration of ethics, suggesting that it is a central issue in the study of morality that goes beyond the evaluation of individual actions.

💡Eudaimonia

Eudaimonia, a term derived from the Greek, is often translated as 'happiness' or 'flourishing' and is central to Aristotle's philosophy. In the context of the video, eudaimonia represents the highest form of human fulfillment and is discussed as a potential goal or purpose of human life, which is distinct from mere pleasure or honor.

💡Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics is an ethical framework that emphasizes the development of good character and virtues rather than focusing on specific actions or rules. Aristotle's philosophy, as mentioned in the video, is a foundational example of virtue ethics, where the cultivation of virtues and the exercise of rationality are key to achieving eudaimonia, or human flourishing.

Highlights

Professor aims to condense an entire semester-long Introduction to Ethics course into a single video.

Jeremy Bentham's introduction of Utilitarianism, a moral theory focusing on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.

Utilitarianism as a form of consequentialism, emphasizing the importance of the consequences of actions.

Bentham's view that all pleasures are equal, regardless of their source, in determining the moral worth of an action.

Robert Nozick's thought experiment involving an 'experience machine' to challenge the primacy of pleasure and pain.

The idea that there are aspects of human life beyond pleasure that hold moral significance, such as control, friendship, and authenticity.

Bentham's utilitarianism leading to progressive social views, such as the decriminalization of consensual homosexual acts.

H.J. McCloskey's challenge to utilitarianism through the example of a sheriff faced with framing an innocent person to prevent a riot.

Peter Singer's radical claim in 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' that individuals in affluent societies have a moral obligation to donate to famine relief.

Singer's 'shallow pond' analogy to argue that failing to help others in need is morally equivalent to allowing a child to drown.

Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics, contrasting with utilitarianism by focusing on the moral worth of intentions rather than consequences.

Kant's theory that moral actions are those whose underlying maxims could be universally agreed upon by all parties involved.

Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia, or human flourishing, as the ultimate goal of human life, distinct from mere pleasure, honor, or wealth.

Aristotle's exploration of the function or purpose of a human being, suggesting that rationality and the exercise of virtues are key to human fulfillment.

The question of whether objective moral facts exist, independent of human opinion or sentiment, which will be addressed in the second part of the video.

The plan to discuss Friedrich Nietzsche's rejection of morality, along with the views of Plato, John Locke, and David Hume in the second part of the course summary.

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