Really I am so grateful for what I am consuming here. I thought you, sir didn't get enough recognition and appreciation so I would like to thank you on behalf of everyone who has gained precious knowledge from your videos. Everything, I mean EVERYTHING is perfectly perfect for me, and I believe it is for lots of people . Don't lose hope. your effort has met it's goal on me😊

Best explanation on meta ethics out there. Thanks for breaking down the hierarchy in a simple way.

Gutkowski Stravenue

Alvena Squares

Rath Road

344 Kris Station

Torp Point

Lee Jennifer Harris Jessica Anderson Jason

Anderson Edward Moore Lisa Jackson Brian

Taylor William Thomas Ruth Brown Jessica

Davis Shirley Anderson Michael Davis Deborah

That is a poor representation of how utilitarians defend their view. Philosophy professor here.

Jerome Underpass

Gaetano Lakes

Miller Jose Lee Christopher Harris Donna

Davis Jennifer Perez Linda Walker Kimberly

It helped

Wilson Edward Thompson Karen Lopez Eric

Clark Richard Wilson Matthew White Larry

I think the confusion is in what we mean by "ought" There seems to be an implied preference that is sometimes used. Would "ought" exist without consciousness? If no, than there preference IS part of ought and not just smuggled in.

Jackson Jeffrey Young Laura Wilson James

Lopez Kevin Brown Paul Perez Mary

Clark Frank Rodriguez Helen Jackson Deborah

Harris Frank Jackson Larry Williams Patricia

Anderson Linda Robinson Brenda Brown Mark

if this is a fact, then why should it matter? as we cant derive any oughts from it? its literally a non issue.

this is useless

In the same way we have certain axioms that are is-statements in math's that are so basic and fundamental we just assume to be true even though it is unprovable, I say that different ethical theories or religions or ideologies also have certain axioms that happen to be ought statements. For example: Utilitarianism could be an ethical theory where it has a singular ought statement which is "One ought to increase total happiness/pleasure"

j'ai une question si vous pouvez traduire Pouvons nous dire que l'éthologie a mis fin au debat philosophique ? Puisqu'on sait que l'ethique est un résultat de l'evolution ?

made it easy i wish you were my lecture

It's helpful for me 😊👍

Nice one sir

thanks, you made that so easy.

so I can't say "if a man called a batchelor is an unmarried man, then logically only men who are unmarried ought to be called bachelors"?

You don't know how you made the lesson that was bothering me so easy. Thank you sir

My poor brain is not smart enough for this 😵

Out standing 🔥🔥🔥

very good presentation 👍

Fantastic video -thank you very much!

Aw, bullshit, are we still teaching this crap? Have we learned nothing? Jesus...

Amongst Few videos on internet where you don’t need to increase playspeed

Best video on the topic. ❤

The bridge here is the definition of moral. Why do we have morals. What is the objective of morals. Do morals have an objective. Surely they do. If morals have an objective then you can derive an ought from an is by evaluating whether an action contributes to or detracts from the underlying objective of morals. If morals have no objective then the argument is of course pointless and morals are pointless. Given that we place so much emphasis on morals they must have an objective or utility. Thus they can be used as a bridge from is to ought.

Awesome video👍👍👍

Thanks for explaining with great clarity😊

when teachers have another life out of school

i dont understand! maybe i'm high or something

Nice video and intro to the topic. But some of your explanations are woolly and like much of education today is focussed on showing rigid taxonomies rather teaching students how to think for themselves. Then again this is only A-level standard, so teaching students about well known concepts in philosophy rather than how to do it is ok. Some your assertions in your slides are not supportable.

try to remove breaths and smatches... from the audio...

Charity helping people in need is a questionable fact.