Utilitarianism

Happiness is a component of life not the purpose.

Up next: The tyranny of the majority.

What moral law do we use to decide which moral law to choose?

I beg to differ!!!! Coffee is a good end in itself!

Of course, Utilitarianism, though it treats everyone's happiness of being of equal value, is also vulnerable to problems such as the slave-owner paradox, whereby the theory would deem Utility as maximized if the happiness gained by the masters of slaves, through slave ownership, more than offsets the happiness deprived from the slaves.
Deriving a morality based on a version of the much older Golden Rule, say along the lines of respecting everyone else’s need for fulfilment as much as your own, provided they return that respect, avoids such a paradox, by side-stepping aggregationism. At the same time, ultimately from enlightened self interest, such a theory also obligates the continual expansion of a “moral community”, where-in the happiness of all moral agents is again treated as being of equal value, just as in Utilitarianism.
Combining the above with considerations arising from the mind-body problem, it then possible to start deducing principles for political organisation, such as the desirability of personal autonomy and consensus-based democracy.
Using this theory it then becomes clear that the rational and moral reaction to Peter Singer's 1972 paper (as explored in another one of your very clear and informative videos) is to organise society in such a way as to match those moral obligations with socially obligatory distribution, thus ensuring that all members of our “moral community” do not want for basic needs, through such mechanisms as progressive taxation and sufficiently equal “pre-distribution” of the mechanisms for creating and gaining resources,

Bentham's head.

I find your teaching very informative, approachable, and enjoyable! If possible, could you please make some intro series on logic or rhetoric? Thanks!

This is wildly off topic but how on earth are you writing in such a way that it's legible to both you and the camera?

Love it

Maybe this is classic utilitarianism, but I thought non-hedonistic forms of utilitarianism existed. Perhaps like act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism.

I love that this video starts with a spelling mistake. The "pricniple" of utility.

I like this word. Pricniple. Sounds naughty.

Hedonism Bot approves of this lecture

This is the "Let's nuke Calcutta" theory of morality.

Coffee is good as an end prof 😂

It’s funny because there are basically no Bentham Utilitarians in the entire academic universe and yet almost every course uses it as a jumping off point. I wonder if freshmen students hear this and immediately start thinking through why consequentialism could be wrong, why aggregation could be wrong, etc.

Short term or long term? I expect we'll get into it.

I have a question about your video on Peter Singer. Would giving those that are enduring famine the food they need make them dependent upon that very act and set them up for future such expectations? Might it not be the most moral thing to allow them to struggle through the issue and even if it caused a lot of pain and death, let them learn how to take care of themselves?
Sort of a tough love example. This is what I think is wrong with Peter Singer's approach. BTW, I like your various video series. Oh, the reason I am asking here instead of in that video is that comments have been disabled for that video.

Thank you for the fantastic video

Opening title slide has misspelt principle

I simultaneously believe that pleasure can be good and bad and that pain can be good and bad. It's completely subjective to every personal experience and situation... 😅 maybe i'm bipolar 😢😂😂

Your teaching methods are excellent sir 👏👏

The problem with utilitarianism is that ít is always in hindsight.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

He could make the process of changing a tyre on a car sound interesting...brilliant

His video on Peter Singer proves that ethics is hard! It's costly. And neither you nor God wants to pay it.

Pleasure is sometimes good for motivation

My philosophy is easy always choose the answers with the most love and if you find a better answer with more love adopt that one

Hedonism falls apart under even just five seconds of rational analysis. It's a stupid justification for selfishness used by immoral people.
Our lives are a single speck of sand on the beach of the universe, not even... Cosmically we're much, much less significant than even that. The known universe is 13.82 billion years old and unquantifiably vast. Your pleasure doesn't matter. Thinking that it does is ignorance in the extreme. What matters is your ability to project positive influence forward in time. Lets say you're an engineer and in your life you help build a bridge. That bridge might assist people in contributing to society for 300 years. The positive impact that they are able to make due to your contribution carries forward further, far outlasting the bridge. Morality cannot be boiled down to a simple equation because what's morally 'good' for society cannot always be materially measured, man is more than just the sum of his material achievements and creature comforts.

Yu ou are new Aristotle

Fix spelling of intro title.

You are a global asset

Wowwww Thank you so much , I'm worried about my ethics as a subject understanding and it's applications on daily life this video gives me a hope to try once more ❤❤

So to summarize, Utilitarianism answers the following questions in the following manner:
1. What should we do - That with the best outcome (Consequentialism).
2. What is the best outcome - That whose aggregate of good - bad for all individuals in a community/society is greatest (Aggregation).
3. What is good or bad for an individual - Good = pleasure as and end and Bad = Pain as an end (Hedonism).

You're one of the greatest teachers I've ever met.

No need for the stupid music

By far this is the best explanation that ties hedonism, aggregation, consequentialism, and utilitarianism. Thanks for posting.

Reducing morality to mere math is a futile exercise. I.e., a fool's errand.

Great video! I love this platform of teaching.

pleasure is just good

Hi I enjoyed your talk on Peter Singer’s 1972 paper. I agree with Singer and your analysis. One criticism. You mentioned this is “radical” and “nobody thinks this way”. I invite you and Mr. Singer to read the gospels of Jesus Christ, especially the epistles of Paul and James. Read the parable of the good Samaritan. In fact read just about any page of the New Testament, or of (most of) the Old. Virtually all members of the Christian faith that read the Bible would say, “well of course!” to Singer’s paper. I will admit however, that a non-trivial fraction of nominal Christians, may initially object, at least until they have had a prayerful encounter with their pastor, their brothers and sisters in Christ, or with the Holy Spirit. Thanks for your video.

It's depressing to hear of illicit drug use spoken about so casually when it destroys the lives of the user and the lives of those in orbit around the user.

Professor Toby Maguire over here

(i love u, no disrespect intended)

You just taught me how to draw a jet ski in the most simplest and easiest way :)

You def have seen Math BFF videos with the hot girl Nancy from MIT math grad. She draws on glass in reverse just like this. But she been doing it for like 8 years ago.

Oh god, this is philosophical map-reduce.

aggregation sounds like the Dutch polder model. Everyone's life sucks equally. I would rather compete for a king to rule and swear allegiances to, than negotiate bureaucracy in eternity

Pleasure is one mean to maintain life, life is a mean to conscience.

Thanks for this I'm just a 16 years old soul, who took keen interest in phil❤️

So is this a mirror reflection of the prof writing on transparent glass ? I think it is
It is so nice :) and I loved the structure of the video about singer's article it was so interesting and really structered in my opinion