WEBVTT 00:00:04.589 --> 00:00:30.760 Thank you. has moral beliefs. I'm not thinking 00:00:30.760 --> 00:00:33.240 of this in some abstract way. I'm thinking of 00:00:33.240 --> 00:00:36.000 just the everyday judgments that we make about 00:00:36.000 --> 00:00:38.920 what is good or bad or right or wrong, permissible 00:00:38.920 --> 00:00:41.979 or not, and so on. Stealing and murdering is 00:00:41.979 --> 00:00:45.560 wrong. Helping others in general is generally 00:00:45.560 --> 00:00:48.359 good to do. Lying, well, maybe that depends on 00:00:48.359 --> 00:00:50.299 what you're lying about or who you're lying to. 00:00:51.140 --> 00:00:57.189 But everyone has some moral beliefs. Have you 00:00:57.189 --> 00:01:01.409 ever asked why something is right or wrong? Is 00:01:01.409 --> 00:01:04.129 it because of some concern over fairness? Is 00:01:04.129 --> 00:01:06.609 it because of the harm that's done? Is it because 00:01:06.609 --> 00:01:09.849 it's against the law? If you've ever watched 00:01:09.849 --> 00:01:12.450 Animaniacs, I'm dating myself here, but there 00:01:12.450 --> 00:01:15.450 was this character named Mindy, and I think that 00:01:15.450 --> 00:01:17.609 was her name. She would go around and ask all 00:01:17.609 --> 00:01:20.790 these adults, right, the question why to the 00:01:20.790 --> 00:01:23.469 point of absurdity, right? But that's a line 00:01:23.469 --> 00:01:25.390 of question. I'm thinking of here, right? Like 00:01:25.390 --> 00:01:27.670 murder is wrong. Well, why? Because it hurts 00:01:27.670 --> 00:01:29.549 others. Well, why is it wrong to hurt others? 00:01:29.810 --> 00:01:31.890 Because we should care about others' well -being. 00:01:31.930 --> 00:01:33.790 Well, why should I care about others' well -being? 00:01:33.969 --> 00:01:36.969 And so on, right? This is a central question 00:01:36.969 --> 00:01:39.769 that is being addressed in ethical theories, 00:01:39.870 --> 00:01:43.150 right? Or what I want to call, what's often called 00:01:43.150 --> 00:01:45.590 theoretical ethics, right? It's the attempt to 00:01:45.590 --> 00:01:48.489 get at the heart of what makes something right 00:01:48.489 --> 00:01:52.909 or wrong, right? The nature of rightness and 00:01:52.909 --> 00:01:56.689 wrongness, good and bad. Now, you might think 00:01:56.689 --> 00:01:59.510 this line of inquiry is a fascinating abstract 00:01:59.510 --> 00:02:03.329 exercise, but that it has no import for what 00:02:03.329 --> 00:02:06.909 you do on your day -to -day lives. Because let's 00:02:06.909 --> 00:02:10.889 be honest, before you even explore ethical theories, 00:02:11.210 --> 00:02:14.069 you have your own moral beliefs. As I just said, 00:02:14.129 --> 00:02:16.270 you have moral beliefs. You make moral judgments 00:02:16.270 --> 00:02:18.530 for all kinds of reasons in the way that you 00:02:18.530 --> 00:02:21.289 do. I think it would be a mistake to just set 00:02:21.289 --> 00:02:24.629 aside ethical theories wholesale, right? The 00:02:24.629 --> 00:02:28.729 truth is that humans are great at making up justifications 00:02:28.729 --> 00:02:33.090 for what they do, right? We create justifications 00:02:33.090 --> 00:02:37.050 out of thin air, right? And those justifications 00:02:37.050 --> 00:02:42.289 are rarely consistent. They're not. We say whatever 00:02:42.289 --> 00:02:45.370 we need to ourselves in order to justify whatever 00:02:45.370 --> 00:02:47.650 it is that we want to justify in that moment. 00:02:48.650 --> 00:02:50.509 We could care less if we're being hypocritical. 00:02:51.069 --> 00:02:53.409 Some people care more than others, but in general, 00:02:53.509 --> 00:02:55.990 I mean, again, like a lot of this is, without 00:02:55.990 --> 00:03:00.229 even knowing it, we create these justifications 00:03:00.229 --> 00:03:02.430 to, in some sense, protect ourselves, right? 00:03:02.949 --> 00:03:05.509 We say that lying is wrong when we are negatively 00:03:05.509 --> 00:03:09.069 impacted by it, but justify our own lying if 00:03:09.069 --> 00:03:12.530 it serves our needs, appealing to maybe some 00:03:12.530 --> 00:03:14.189 exception to the rule or something like that. 00:03:14.530 --> 00:03:16.669 We say others should follow all these seemingly 00:03:16.669 --> 00:03:20.280 pointless rules. but are quick to find a way 00:03:20.280 --> 00:03:24.479 to justify our own breaking of the rules by either 00:03:24.479 --> 00:03:27.379 diminishing the impact or the authority that 00:03:27.379 --> 00:03:31.740 the rule has. You know, I do this, honestly, 00:03:31.840 --> 00:03:33.699 I do this every time I'm speeding on the roads, 00:03:33.780 --> 00:03:36.199 right? I justify it to myself. It's like, yeah, 00:03:36.240 --> 00:03:37.659 everyone else is speeding. This is perfectly 00:03:37.659 --> 00:03:41.400 fine. And then when it's like when a cop pulls 00:03:41.400 --> 00:03:45.060 me over for speeding, then I'm abhorred by the 00:03:45.060 --> 00:03:46.960 fact that they like. they would even pull me 00:03:46.960 --> 00:03:49.319 over. I was like, how dare you, like for speeding, 00:03:49.439 --> 00:03:51.280 right? As long as it was safe, right? It doesn't 00:03:51.280 --> 00:03:52.479 matter whether or not I was speeding, right? 00:03:52.639 --> 00:03:56.360 Okay, look, sidetracked. Given that we have this 00:03:56.360 --> 00:03:59.719 bias in our own favor, it is even more important, 00:03:59.759 --> 00:04:02.759 I think, for us to reflect on the ways our biases 00:04:02.759 --> 00:04:07.439 infect our moral judgments. And theories here, 00:04:07.520 --> 00:04:09.979 I think, serve as a wonderful guiding light. 00:04:10.719 --> 00:04:14.039 It's a way of practicing consistency in our beliefs. 00:04:15.100 --> 00:04:18.620 Regardless of which ethical theory you hold to 00:04:18.620 --> 00:04:21.040 be true, whichever one you're drawn to or have 00:04:21.040 --> 00:04:24.480 a leaning towards, it doesn't matter to me. One 00:04:24.480 --> 00:04:26.899 of the things I think is really helpful about 00:04:26.899 --> 00:04:29.879 at least exploring these theories and talking 00:04:29.879 --> 00:04:33.339 about what kind of reasons we have for adopting 00:04:33.339 --> 00:04:36.470 the theory versus not. The reason I think these 00:04:36.470 --> 00:04:38.310 theories are so helpful is that one of the things 00:04:38.310 --> 00:04:41.470 that theories do is it enforces a degree of certainty 00:04:41.470 --> 00:04:44.889 in how you justify your moral beliefs, because 00:04:44.889 --> 00:04:48.230 they need to be justified in the way that the 00:04:48.230 --> 00:04:51.069 theory dictates, right? Should be justified. 00:04:51.870 --> 00:04:54.790 And so your actions then should be a reflection 00:04:54.790 --> 00:04:58.019 of this sort of consistency, right? For instance, 00:04:58.160 --> 00:05:00.899 it's hard for me to eat meat from a grocery store 00:05:00.899 --> 00:05:04.439 if the moral theory I hold claims that any sort 00:05:04.439 --> 00:05:07.180 of unnecessary harm to any sentient being is 00:05:07.180 --> 00:05:10.459 wrong. Let's say utilitarianism is an example 00:05:10.459 --> 00:05:14.100 of this. Knowing that most, if not all, of the 00:05:14.100 --> 00:05:16.360 meat at the grocery store involves some degree 00:05:16.360 --> 00:05:19.160 of unnecessary harm to animals in the process 00:05:19.160 --> 00:05:22.420 of meat production, I would be a hypocrite. I 00:05:22.420 --> 00:05:26.079 would be violating this theory and, in some sense, 00:05:26.139 --> 00:05:29.379 my own moral judgment then, right? I would have 00:05:29.379 --> 00:05:32.339 some degree of inconsistency here if I were to 00:05:32.339 --> 00:05:41.560 then eat meat from grocery stores, right? And 00:05:41.560 --> 00:05:43.540 so this is just a simple way of kind of saying, 00:05:43.639 --> 00:05:47.600 look. What are these theories kind of trying 00:05:47.600 --> 00:05:49.500 to do? Well, one thing it's trying to do is trying 00:05:49.500 --> 00:05:51.939 to get at the nature of rightness and wrongness, 00:05:51.980 --> 00:05:54.279 but the other thing that it actually ends up 00:05:54.279 --> 00:05:58.379 doing is that it forces us to at least have consistent 00:05:58.379 --> 00:06:00.800 justification for the moral beliefs that we come 00:06:00.800 --> 00:06:05.360 to hold. And then what that at least helps us 00:06:05.360 --> 00:06:09.560 do is to keep ourselves in check, right? It helps 00:06:09.560 --> 00:06:12.319 us keep ourselves in check. It prevents us from 00:06:12.319 --> 00:06:15.040 just making up whatever reason that we want to 00:06:15.040 --> 00:06:17.160 to justify whatever we feel like in the given 00:06:17.160 --> 00:06:20.259 moment. In fact, not only do we have to justify 00:06:20.259 --> 00:06:22.560 it to ourselves and be consistent internally, 00:06:22.939 --> 00:06:25.759 right, but other people can now then point to 00:06:25.759 --> 00:06:29.060 that sort of inconsistency. Other people can 00:06:29.060 --> 00:06:32.399 see, you know, like, hey, you hold these sets 00:06:32.399 --> 00:06:35.439 of, you know, principles based off of this theory. 00:06:36.110 --> 00:06:38.889 and you seem to be violating it, not just in 00:06:38.889 --> 00:06:40.769 terms of beliefs that you hold, but in terms 00:06:40.769 --> 00:06:45.189 of the actual practices that you engage in, you 00:06:45.189 --> 00:06:47.410 seem to be violating it. And that sort of inconsistency 00:06:47.410 --> 00:06:51.189 should keep us in check and prevent us from just 00:06:51.189 --> 00:06:55.250 making up justifications for whatever we feel 00:06:55.250 --> 00:07:02.810 like justifying. There is, however, also... An 00:07:02.810 --> 00:07:04.889 additional reason, I think, for valuing ethical 00:07:04.889 --> 00:07:08.569 theories. Look, many times people come to disagree 00:07:08.569 --> 00:07:12.689 on what is the right thing to do, right? I mean, 00:07:12.730 --> 00:07:15.029 I don't have to tell you. You've probably had 00:07:15.029 --> 00:07:17.589 moral disagreements with other people for all 00:07:17.589 --> 00:07:20.209 kinds of reasons, right? Sometimes disagreement 00:07:20.209 --> 00:07:23.129 is grounded in some difference in belief about 00:07:23.129 --> 00:07:25.649 what is the case, right? Like sometimes we disagree 00:07:25.649 --> 00:07:31.430 on, let's say, whether or not, you know, I don't 00:07:31.430 --> 00:07:35.920 know. animals can feel pain to a certain degree 00:07:35.920 --> 00:07:38.540 based off of the neuroscience. You might hold 00:07:38.540 --> 00:07:40.980 a belief that's true. I might maybe hold a false 00:07:40.980 --> 00:07:43.459 belief because I misunderstood the neurology 00:07:43.459 --> 00:07:45.500 of animals or something like that, right? Okay, 00:07:45.579 --> 00:07:47.360 so sometimes the disagreement is just because 00:07:47.360 --> 00:07:50.180 somebody holds false, maybe both people hold 00:07:50.180 --> 00:07:54.920 false beliefs, right? And so as a result, you 00:07:54.920 --> 00:07:56.800 might disagree about what's the best course of 00:07:56.800 --> 00:07:59.810 action to take. Other times, though, there's 00:07:59.810 --> 00:08:05.089 a much deeper and a moral disagreement in the 00:08:05.089 --> 00:08:06.889 works, right? Something much more fundamental, 00:08:07.029 --> 00:08:09.649 like a difference in principle, right? About 00:08:09.649 --> 00:08:13.170 what we believe is right or wrong, about what 00:08:13.170 --> 00:08:16.569 makes something right or wrong, right? And here's 00:08:16.569 --> 00:08:19.990 the thing. If we don't have explicit discussions 00:08:19.990 --> 00:08:23.709 in identifying not only what we believe to be 00:08:23.709 --> 00:08:25.649 right or wrong and why it is that it's right 00:08:25.649 --> 00:08:28.959 or wrong, And other people share what they believe 00:08:28.959 --> 00:08:30.540 and their justification for believing something 00:08:30.540 --> 00:08:32.620 is right or wrong. If we don't actually have 00:08:32.620 --> 00:08:35.620 that exchange, we might not ever get to realize 00:08:35.620 --> 00:08:39.279 that sometimes there's just a much more fundamental 00:08:39.279 --> 00:08:43.919 disagreement about what we value or what we take 00:08:43.919 --> 00:08:46.220 to be the guiding principle for what makes something 00:08:46.220 --> 00:08:50.059 right or wrong. Some of us value consequences 00:08:50.059 --> 00:08:54.029 over anything else. And so... As a result, it 00:08:54.029 --> 00:08:56.649 makes sense then from that perspective that you'd 00:08:56.649 --> 00:08:58.929 be willing to do certain heinous, sometimes what 00:08:58.929 --> 00:09:03.470 people might call unjust or unfair acts in order 00:09:03.470 --> 00:09:08.490 to create the best possible outcome, right? But 00:09:08.490 --> 00:09:11.330 others don't value consequences in that way. 00:09:11.450 --> 00:09:14.830 In fact, others might value integrity far more, 00:09:14.929 --> 00:09:18.710 even at the cost of horrific consequences, right? 00:09:19.110 --> 00:09:22.210 Some value individual rights even to the cost 00:09:22.210 --> 00:09:28.070 of collective needs. But others might value collective 00:09:28.070 --> 00:09:31.429 needs much more than they do individual rights, 00:09:31.470 --> 00:09:33.250 and so they're willing to violate some individual 00:09:33.250 --> 00:09:36.629 rights in order to protect the collective. These 00:09:36.629 --> 00:09:40.210 types of differences are genuine moral disagreements, 00:09:40.330 --> 00:09:44.009 and rooted in them are disagreements about which 00:09:44.009 --> 00:09:46.870 moral principles should take precedent over others. 00:09:47.250 --> 00:09:50.210 These are theoretical, in many ways, theoretical 00:09:50.210 --> 00:09:53.419 differences. These are differences in beliefs 00:09:53.419 --> 00:09:57.279 about what makes something right or wrong. So 00:09:57.279 --> 00:10:01.000 one of the benefits of actually talking about 00:10:01.000 --> 00:10:03.879 ethical theories is that not only does it give 00:10:03.879 --> 00:10:07.159 you some consistency internally, but it also 00:10:07.159 --> 00:10:11.700 gives us the language and a way of making sense 00:10:11.700 --> 00:10:15.639 of disagreements so that we at least have the 00:10:15.639 --> 00:10:21.220 starting point of a meaningful discussion. where 00:10:21.220 --> 00:10:23.940 we can actually know what it is that we're actually 00:10:23.940 --> 00:10:27.519 disagreeing about. And if we have different core 00:10:27.519 --> 00:10:29.919 values, that's going to say a lot about what 00:10:29.919 --> 00:10:33.980 we can or maybe cannot do to bridge the gap that 00:10:33.980 --> 00:10:37.340 exists between us. Like some of this, unfortunately, 00:10:37.480 --> 00:10:41.340 might just be a non -starter, but at least if 00:10:41.340 --> 00:10:44.399 we acknowledge that there's some core difference 00:10:44.399 --> 00:10:46.980 in value that is leading us in different directions 00:10:46.980 --> 00:10:50.799 in our moral judgments, and that these are not 00:10:50.799 --> 00:10:53.759 differences in values that we can resolve in 00:10:53.759 --> 00:10:57.120 any way, at least not through rational arguments, 00:10:57.379 --> 00:11:00.000 then one of the benefits then would be that you 00:11:00.000 --> 00:11:03.299 would stop trying to do some rational arguing 00:11:03.299 --> 00:11:06.860 for or against certain positions. It would just 00:11:06.860 --> 00:11:09.779 be a waste of time and energy. Now, there are 00:11:09.779 --> 00:11:12.360 other ways of convincing people. These are ways 00:11:12.360 --> 00:11:15.580 that we go about convincing people through relationships, 00:11:16.100 --> 00:11:19.090 through rhetoric, through... I don't know, through 00:11:19.090 --> 00:11:20.389 something else, but it's not going to be through 00:11:20.389 --> 00:11:22.789 rational discourse, right? But at least you know 00:11:22.789 --> 00:11:25.809 that it's not going to be resolved in such a 00:11:25.809 --> 00:11:28.669 simple way that you can't convince the other 00:11:28.669 --> 00:11:30.450 person otherwise if there's a much more fundamental 00:11:30.450 --> 00:11:35.529 disagreement in value. So at the end of the day, 00:11:35.750 --> 00:11:39.350 these theories are going to do a lot to help 00:11:39.350 --> 00:11:42.529 us bring to light some of the differences that 00:11:42.529 --> 00:11:46.360 we have, some of the inconsistencies we... in 00:11:46.360 --> 00:11:49.980 our own beliefs and our own actions. And it's 00:11:49.980 --> 00:11:52.220 going to provide us with helpful language that 00:11:52.220 --> 00:11:55.860 allows us to make better sense of our own moral 00:11:55.860 --> 00:11:59.200 views and the views of others and to be able 00:11:59.200 --> 00:12:04.559 to engage in meaningful discourse between, you 00:12:04.559 --> 00:12:07.899 know, amongst ourselves, right? And hold ourselves 00:12:07.899 --> 00:12:10.259 and other people accountable for violating the 00:12:10.259 --> 00:12:12.970 very principles that we claim to live by. And 00:12:12.970 --> 00:12:14.450 I think all of these things would be a great 00:12:14.450 --> 00:12:18.110 thing for all of us to be able to do. In the 00:12:18.110 --> 00:12:21.950 least, at least, I think we would, you know, 00:12:21.950 --> 00:12:27.149 face less frustration trying to, you know, trying 00:12:27.149 --> 00:12:29.789 to do something that will bear no fruit and instead 00:12:29.789 --> 00:12:32.309 focusing our attention on, you know, the kind 00:12:32.309 --> 00:12:34.629 of discourse that will actually bring about some 00:12:34.629 --> 00:12:38.870 enlightenment, bring about real change, again, 00:12:38.990 --> 00:12:40.470 in ourselves or in others.