Science and Metaphysics

[@WorldviewDesignChannel]

Nice presentation. Way 1 is especially helpful, in my view -- it's a way I like. I take the problems to point to issues in demarcation, which have no neat solution -- except perhaps to invite those with "metaphysics" and "science" hats to work closer together (and wearing both hats at once is okay...).

[@squatch545]

I've never completely understood what the difference is between metaphysics and ontology. I've always had trouble deciding which to use in a sentence. Have you ever done a video on this?

[@KaneB]

The distinction is not entirely clear to me either, though that's partly because different philosophers will differ on the precise usage of the terms. But I think the general view is that metaphysics is the study of the way the world is, while ontology is a branch of metaphysics that is concerned specifically with what things exist. Ontology simply provides the inventory of what the world contains. For example, when Descartes proposed that there are two fundamental substances, mind and matter, he was giving an ontology. When he explained how it is that mind and matter interact, and when he used the distinction between mind and matter to account for particular features of our experience, he was doing metaphysics. As noted, not all philosophers see the distinction this way. But pretty much everybody treats ontology as a branch of metaphysics. So if you're unsure which terms to use in a sentence, just go with "metaphysics", because metaphysics includes ontology.

[@squatch545]

@@KaneB Thanks!

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@KaneB, a philosopher is a lover of WISDOM and it is unwise to needlessly destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses, Mr. Dog-eating CRIMINAL. :(

[@Liliquan]

@@TheWorldTeacher You sound like Peterson calling something criminal when its not. Philosophy used to be about wisdom, not so much anymore.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

His claim relativistic time dilation proves capacity of physics to answer metaphysical questions is totally incorrect. Relativistic time dilation is blatantly metaphysical, because it implies the unjustifiable assumption that: "the force that makes a clock tick is the same as those which make people age". It is identical with the assumption that: Just because a thermometer indicating high temperature in a patient can be reduced to normal by dipping it in cold water, all you got to do to heal the patient is to dip han (her/him) in cold water. That clocks slow down at speeds closer to that of light doesn't mean the same would happen to aging of people.

[@ZoiusGM]

1:09:58 Is the example of place names having different values a good one? Mathematical values are different than multiple linguistic terms, no? Can a place having different names be considered to have different values? If yes, then still we can say that a place gets a single value; a name, *at a given time* . 1:02:06 If Kant thought about conceptual schemes that made empirical data intelligible: this sounds like phenomenology or similar to it, innit? Of Husserl specifically. I don't know Kant's philosophy but from this this seems the case. If so he was like the precursor of phenomenology..? Anyways, Kane, are you planning to make videos on phenomenology of Husserl or you dislike continental philosophy and don't want to steer towards it? Husserl claims that phenomenology should be the basis of science so it does have heavy relation to it.

[@realemaskye286]

your videos are so interesting and informative! i cant imagine how long it must take to make something like this :0. im surprised youre not much more popular !!

[@KaneB]

Thanks! Great to hear you like the videos!

[@mandobrownie]

This is kind of a stretch, but I think it's something that's been explored outside of analytic (and branch offs of analytic) philosophy of science. One thread that goes through the concerns of each method (maybe minus the complementary method, although I think it applies to that one too) of bringing together metaphysics and science is that metaphysical inquiry about science overinflates the metaphysical commitments of various scientific inquires. What if this turned out to be true? What if, in fact, science is quite non-metaphysical in the sense that it isn't aiming to investigate what fundamentally exists and how such fundamentals can be structured to furnish non-fundamental reality? I think one consequence would be that we'd have to start seeing science as much more pragmatic, and pragmatic in a sort of normatively ideological sense. If the goals of figuring out fundamental and non-fundamental reality are off the table, what goals are left? I think there's a worry that once we take the metaphysical goals off the table, what we're left with are only normative goals, goals about changing the world to be how it ought to be. Why is this worrisome? Besides any concerns about the value-free ideal of science (which I don't think are that big of a deal per se), what's left is that whoever has control of the institutions of scientific inquiry set the goals of scientific inquiry. And as lots of history of science evinces, many goals of institutions in pursuing scientific inquiry have been kind of shit! Goals such as how to predict and control people to maximize profit, how to kill as many people as possible, etc. I do not doubt that the intermediate goals contain genuinely good goals, but it is definitely an open question whether actual scientific inquiry hitherto has done more good or bad on net. If it turns out that the balance goes toward net bad, then maybe that is a relatively weighty reason to re-inflate the metaphysical nature of science: to avoid the purposing of scientific inquiry for worse! Now, obviously it can still be the case that metaphysical science can still do much bad. It's unclear if, for example, the research that went into the atom bomb under the guise of finding out the fundamental aspects of reality has done more good or bad for the world on the whole. But if it turns out that metaphysical science such as particle physics and microchemistry turns out to be, say, less wieldy for power and profit than less metaphysical science, such as technological development sciences and possible much medical and material search, then maybe we **should** think that science is namely aimed at figuring out fundamental and non-fundamental reality. (P.S. I kinda don't really buy this proto argument that science is metaphysically committed through and through, but I think it's an interesting line nonetheless)

[@absolutelybuttons7164]

46:01

[@rustyb4nana]

chang is my lecturer at cambridge lol, so funny to hear about him on youtube

[@esbjornakesson3412]

Awesome!

[@casperdermetaphysiker]

good video

[@larianton1008]

This seems like a good thing to watch to have a better underatading of how physicalist think about metaphysics. Thank you for making this.

[@suzettedarrow8739]

May I ask a question about something you say at around 44:00? You say that inferring metaphysics from science is “a very risky inference”. What is the risk? What are we risking by taking that inference? When I skydive, I risk death. When I gamble, I risk money. When I infer metaphysics from science, I risk… what? I risk being wrong? “Being wrong” is the best way I can fill in the content of the risk… but now what’s wrong with being wrong? I avoid risks when losing them would cause too much human suffering. I do t skydive because of the risk it causes my mom to suffer were I to die. There doesn’t seem to be any cash value, so to speak, of being false metaphysics. Does that make sense?

[@IsaacVanos]

Should be a good watch

[@andrebenoit283]

These lectures are fantastic and very refreshing to find on KZbin among the surplus of stuff on continental philosophy.

[@suzettedarrow8739]

If I may ask a question about something you say at around 24:00 while discussing objections to complementary metaphysics. You point to modality as surely substantive. What do you think is the practical value of one metaphysics of modality over the other? There seems to be no practical value of mereological metaphysics over the other. Regardless of whether there is a cat on the mat or cat-wise particles on the mat-wise particles, my practical relation to it doesn’t change. I still have to feed it food (or food-wise particles) and clean its poop (or poop-wise particles). The metaphysics of mereology makes no practical difference in my life. I agree with you that Lewis has a different picture of modality than the ersatz modalists, but that difference doesn’t make a difference to me. Does that make sense? What do you think? Is there anything in complementary metaphysics that makes a practical difference? I think Stamford’s objection to good against all of complementary metaphysics. None of it makes a practical difference.

[@Ansatz66]

Choosing the best explanation is not an inference; it's just an opinion. There's nothing wrong with having a list of explanatory virtues and preferring those explanations which are more virtuous, but such a preference is akin to preferring chocolate over vanilla. Simpler theories are more easily grasped by the human mind and so they are easier to work with and form a better foundation for engineering projects and for making further discoveries, but these are all a matter of what we find appealing. The explanations that we choose can only tell us about ourselves, not about the world. Sorting explanations by their virtues is a very useful tool, but it doesn't justify belief. Being the best explanation doesn't make an explanation true, especially not when best is being judged by virtues that make no reference to truth. 13:40 "Something is real if positing it plays an indispensable role in the explanation of well-founded phenomena." By that definition, nothing is real. There will always be more than one way to explain any phenomena, so how can anything be indispensable?

[@ctoan_]

hey i am an idealist, deist (i think the cause of universe is a will, mind, consciousnses), and i always held that compositional universalism idea. If my mind and your minds are unique concrete minds in an ideal world, does a third unique concrete mind combining our two minds exist? The question here is does the set of all sets contain itself? sorry for my bad english and pseudo philosophy bullshit. My brain is only capable of that level

[@KaneB]

Compositional universalism entails that any two minds compose a further object. It need not entail that any two minds compose a further mind. Similarly, my car is a vehicle and your car is a vehicle. According to compositional universalism, there is an object composed of my car + your car. But my car + your car is not itself a vehicle.

[@Xob_Driesestig]

Neokantian metaphysics seem very epistemological to me. At what point does metaphysics transition into epistemology?

[@KaneB]

Indeed it is! It concerns the way that we must conceive of the world in order to coherently engage in particular epistemic activities. Perhaps this shouldn't really be classed as "metaphysics" at all -- it depends on how broadly you want to use the term, I suppose.

[@fanboy8026]

can you do a video on the problem of other minds

[@marcell2334]

Not related to the video but may I ask what Meta-ethical framework u find most appealing currently and why?

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Since the dog-food eater to whom you addressed your question seems to be ignoring you, the following is the definitive article on MORALITY: 🐟 12. LAW, MORALITY, & ETHICS: The three terms - law, morality, and ethics - are fundamentally synonymous, since “breaking the law” implies the execution of an act which is both immoral and unethical. First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between “laws” and “rules”. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL laws, which are based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of murder and adultery). Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons are able to differentiate the inextricable laws of morality, from the mundane rules and regulations imposed on society by self-obsessed legislators. Therefore, this supremely-valuable chapter of “F.I.S.H” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, largely via its historically-established and accepted METAETHICAL definitions, as opposed to the various laws of physics, which are completely superfluous to the import of this treatise. Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, metaethics necessarily remain constant within all human societies throughout time. When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the ENTIRE universe. Therefore, even when a seemingly-innocuous act occurs (such as disposing of plastic products in a rubbish dump, thereby disturbing the natural law), the universe is degraded to a certain degree. When a person is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all people need to be more vigilant. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally degraded, just as a single cancerous cell degrades one's entire body, even if to a minuscule extent. Obviously, it could be argued that the first example is a contravention of moral law, rather than natural law, since a human being is executing a volitional act of environmental degradation, but it does also denigrate the physical world. We have yet to develop technology which can noticeably alter the fundamental laws of physics, such as gravity itself. In any case, the laws of physics are irrelevant to this chapter of “F.I.S.H”. The following paragraph is undoubtedly the most ACCURATE definition of morality/law/ethics ever conceived, and ought to be used by every person when teaching and practicing law (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). Imagine if every person on earth were to memorize and follow its wisdom! MORALITY is concerned with how any particular act conforms to or contradicts the law. Moral acts are beneficial to oneself, to others and/or beneficial to the ecosystem, amoral actions (for the purpose of this teaching) are actions which are neither against the law nor directly benefit society (in other words, neutral acts), whilst immoral deeds are in defiance of the law (that is, premeditated actions which are intended to cause harm to individuals [including oneself], to society as a whole, or to the environment, the latter of which includes other living creatures). “Act” may include “acts” of omission. If one has the ability and the opportunity of assisting a fellow human in dire need, one ought to do so. There is but one problem regarding normative ethics, and that is, discerning which person or persons are competent to judge whether any particular act is beneficial, neutral or harmful, and if it is deemed to be harmful, what should be the penalty for the unethical/immoral act, if any. Objectively speaking, every human deed, without exception, belongs to one of the above three categories, yet who is to judge it so? Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural, and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one may PASS judgement solely on those over whom one has direct or indirect authority. One should avoid passing judgement on those over whom one has no authority, but remain silent, even if that judgment is objectively true, because it is not the place of a subordinate to judge the actions of his or her superiors. So, for example, a businessman should judge the actions of his subordinates, whether they be his wife/wives, his children, employees, and any younger kin (such as nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters, etc.). None of that businessman's subordinates has the right to adjudicate his actions - that is the role of his own masters (that is, his father, grandfather, elder brothers, uncles, priest/guru/imam/rabbi, etc). Judging/misjudging one's superiors is one of the most common sins in this wicked world - just think of the time when you last MISJUDGED one of your superiors! By reading later chapters of “F.I.S.H”, especially Ch. 19, one will gain a greater understanding of this hierarchical structure of human society. The ULTIMATE arbiter of any action is the current World Teacher or a Divine Incarnation (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). At any given time, there is one particular man, belonging to the Holy Priesthood, who has attained the highest-possible level of wisdom and understanding of life, and therefore, has the greatest moral authority on earth. The current World Teacher is the author of this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Obviously, it is not practical for the World Teacher/Avatar to adjudicate each and every criminal case in the world. Fortunately, there is established a natural (albeit, necessarily imperfect) system of justice to perform this function, as explained elsewhere in this chapter. As concisely explained in the previous chapter, humans do not possess individual free-will. However, that does not necessarily imply that there is no optimal way of living. There is, in fact, an ideal way for humans to behave in every situation, even if it was ordained that we each behave according to destiny, and therefore, imperfectly. Morality is indeed OBJECTIVE, that is to say, independent of the subjective opinions or whims of any particular person. In order for even the smallest society to function smoothly, a moral benchmark must be chosen and adhered to. Having understood that the basis of law/morality/ethics is the concept of non-harm (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), it is obvious that there is no need to invoke any religious or supernatural belief system in order to establish law in society. There are examples of secular societies which have survived relatively peacefully over many centuries, without the imposition of a monotheistic system of law/morality/ethics. If an act is harmful to any person, animal or plant (or even inorganic matter, in the case of environmental degradation), then it is immoral, and contravenes the one and only law of the universe. In other words, it is against YOUR law, since you are, fundamentally, All There Is (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). See earlier chapters of “F.I.S.H” to learn the true nature of Ultimate Reality, and how you are that Absolute Reality (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Unless one believes that a God/god bestowed a universal meta-ethical principle upon humanity, with a law book full of definitive normative moral examples (which would be practically impossible, since there are an almost infinite number of possible variables and nuances of each and every suspected moral infraction), it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that an intuitive sense of morality developed within the human psyche over the history of our species. So, as homo sapiens evolved, especially after language had sufficiently developed, we would have used the concept of morality/law/ethics to DESCRIBE situations and circumstances in which we noticed that harm was being done to either individuals or groups of individuals. As time progressed, we would refine our understanding of this concept of harm (“hiṃsā”, in Sanskrit) and ascribe immorality to a greater range of deeds, such as including verbal acts of harm like insults, swearing, blasphemy, slander, and libel. Primatologists have observed simple moral behaviour in great apes, so it is reasonable to assume that all our hominids ancestors did likewise. Cont...

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Subsequently, when humans began domesticating animals, we would then ascribe possible violations of our moral code to those acts which harmed our domesticated pets and herds of animals. Of course, due mainly to the popularity of the vegan movement, we now know that keeping flocks or herds of animals for the purpose of consuming their bloody carcasses to be objectively immoral (unless, of course, one is LITERALLY dying of starvation). It is truly astounding that the average person is grossly offended by any perceived harm which may be caused to a family pet, yet when confronted with the untold suffering (or to be more accurate, the immense pain) perpetrated upon animals for “food”, they see nothing immoral being done, and turn a blind eye. Therefore, to make it exceedingly clear, morality/ethics/law has always referred to the notion of non-violence to individual humans, groups of persons and in recent times, animal life (as well as the plant kingdom). Thus, it could be asserted that morality is a description of a certain state of affairs, rather than a prescription for normative behaviours. To put it even more tersely, whenever any individual person performs any action whatsoever, it is OBJECTIVELY either beneficial (that is, moral), neutral (amoral), or harmful (immoral). Thus, every single volitional act performed by humans above the age of reason, belongs to one of the three aforementioned categories without ambiguity, from a purely objective, "God's-eye-view" perspective. However, as explained, the adjudication of to which of the three categories any particular deed belongs, is entirely dependent on the system of justice extant in one's nation or country. Hopefully, now that this Holiest of Holy Scriptures has been published, the world will come to understand morality in a far more scientific manner than it has in past millennia, in order to avoid the trajectory of moral decadence plainly visible at the present time. When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is INTRINSICALLY either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law). It can be argued that even miscreants want to live a perfectly blameless life. “No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness.” Immoral/criminal acts are entirely due to a false understanding of oneself and a misunderstanding of what constitutes true peace/happiness. A fully-enlightened saint will never DELIBERATELY cause harm to himself or to others because he knows that his continuing peace of mind depends on him choosing the most beneficial course of action. He will not commit such a detestable action as rape, because he understands that it will disturb his blissful state of existence and hurt another human being, as well as the victim’s loved-ones. It will also harm society, because if he commits sexual assault, every woman in his community will need to take precautions against possible attack. So, THEORETICALLY, homosexuals themselves fully agree that homosexual offenders ought to be put to death for their crime, because, if not, their perverse behaviour will contribute to the destruction of society, which is built on the family unit, which in turn is based on sexual complementarity (i.e. heterosexuality). Like every person who ever lived, homosexuals desire, more than anything, genuine peace and happiness, which can never be achieved by unnatural sexual acts and attachments. Some (if not most) persons would counter thus: “But there will always be heterosexual couples who will reproduce, so why not leave homosexuals be?”. That is similar to stating “But if only twenty per cent of the population is murdered, there will still be eighty per cent of society remaining”. Crime left unpunished is the beginning of the end of civilization, as can be very clearly seen in the present age, particularly in those nations governed by non-monarchical (so-called) “leaders”. So, in summary, you do not want to transgress your OWN laws, knowing that if you do so, you may become afflicted with guilt, and individuals or society will be harmed. Unfortunately, sociopaths/psychopaths are unconcerned about how their actions affect others, or even themselves. It is not unheard of for a murderer, for instance, to recognize his deed to be unjust, and to concede that he ought to be hanged to death for his crime, or even commit suicide in order to avoid the need for a hangman. Suicide, in this case, would count as a rather moral deed. There are some otherwise highly-enlightened spiritual teachers who erroneously believe that the solution to discerning proper morality and living a completely ethical life, is for each individual person to raise themselves to the teacher's own high-level of consciousness, so that they will AUTOMATICALLY behave in a loving manner in each situation, without the requirement of a moral code. E.g. “Love, and do what you will”. Obviously, no two persons who ever lived could possibly agree on EVERY moral infraction and what should be the exact form of punishment (if any) for each and every moral transgression. Not even the two most holy and righteous persons on earth at any given time would fully agree on what constitutes a criminal/unethical act, and even if they were to agree, they may not agree on what ought to be the penalty for each and every crime. And even if they do agree on all those details, what of the billions of miscreants who are far below their exalted level? Should a government freely allow its citizens to behave according to their whims, in the vain hope that they will one day reach spiritual perfection? That is akin to anarchy. This alone should demonstrate that subjective moral systems are impractical, unfair and unwise, as they are capricious. For most of human history, there were no POLICE to enforce the law, because, until rather recently, most persons resided in rural areas, where crime was relatively scarce, and because ancient societies were self-policing. If a child committed a crime, rather than being carted-off to Children’s Court by a member of the local police department, his or her mother would administer any necessary punishment. If the mother had broken the law, then the master of the house would discipline her. If the husband were to commit an offensive act, his father or employer would take punitive measures, and so on. Just see how much infrastructure modern societies require in order to perform the duties previously performed by all its collective citizenry! A massive police force would be practically superfluous in even a decent monarchy, what to mention under a holy and righteous king. When a nation is established on righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), the requirement of even a small police force would be highly-questionable, because it would be ensured that every single citizen received proper training in dharma/dhamma. Even though law-breakers ought to be judged and punished by their respective superiors, there are instances where a court of law may be necessary to judge COMPLEX cases. For example, a wife may have murdered her master after several decades of regular marital abuse, so it requires an unusually wise man to judge her particular case. The most qualified person to be that judge is a member of the Holy Priesthood (see Chapter 20), especially if the priest is a Prophet or Avatar (a World Teacher or an incarnation of Divinity in human form). Obviously, a large proportion of society would oppose the idea of a holy man judging accused criminals, but as mentioned elsewhere in this Holy Scripture, it is irrelevant what the ignorant masses desire. A holy and righteous ruler will obey the principles of dharma, not the subjective sentiments of his citizenry. Personally, if I were taken to court to be judged by a third-party, I would hope that he was an unusually wise, holy and intelligent person, rather than a corrupt servant of the state. What say ye? Wouldn’t you agree? Or would you prefer to be judged by a full-time sinner? Cont...

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Apart from the moral laws, there are also ETHICAL rules which can be modified or broken depending on the circumstances involved. The term “ethics” is normally given to actions or policies which are not overtly harmful to society or the ecosystem, yet pose a certain moral dilemma. For instance, the use of stem cells or of genetic manipulation has the capability to enhance human reproductive outcomes, yet conversely, may cause the human race to gradually evolve into a species which possesses artificial traits, unable to withstand various attacks from nature. It is beyond the purview of this Holy Scripture to list EVERY possible immoral act and its appropriate punishment, but because this treatise was composed during a particularly dark period in human history (“Kali Yuga”, in Vedic terminology), it is pertinent to mention a few, because some of these crimes are considered not to be immoral at all in the estimation of a huge percentage of the population. The term “criminal” is synonymous with “immoral”, “sinful”, and “unlawful”, that is, any act which causes undue harm to oneself, other beings, or the environment. Some crimes which deserve CAPITAL punishment in most (if not all) cases are: adultery, fornication (unless the couple were both virgins beforehand, and decide to marry as soon as practical), persecuting and/or grossly-offending a member of the two higher-classes of society (that is a member of the priesthood or a monarch), premeditated murder (which includes deaths as a result of war waged by illegitimate governments), grievous assault, high treason, homosexual acts (except within polygamous marriage), and rape (including bestiality). Crimes which warrant CORPORAL punishment (which is normally limited to imprisonment, revocation of certain privileges, or an act of penitence such as writing lines or performing prescribed chores, since physical lashing is rarely necessary) include, in no particular order: theft, kidnapping, false imprisonment, deception, blackmail, extortion, bribery, fraud, forgery, false accusation, insubordination (disobeying or insulting a superior), uttering profanities without proper justification, libel, slander, gambling for cash or prizes, assault (including sexual molestation, short of rape), vandalism, neglect of one's duties, entrapment, sabotage, obstruction of human rights, obscenities such as wilful public exposure and pornography, reckless operation of a motorized vehicle, animal cruelty (unless the defendant is literally starving and needs to eat an animal to stay alive) and, of course, killing another human (Euthanasia and suicide can be legitimate in certain cases. Abortion is legitimate in the case of rape, or if the health of the mother would be endangered to a serious degree if the pregnancy was to continue). Of course, when a law-breaker (i.e. criminal/sinner/miscreant) is punished, related persons may also be harmed in some way, hence the use of the term “UNDUE harm”. For example, if a man is put to death for murder or rape, his children may experience a great deal of emotional or financial suffering, or both. That is indeed unfortunate, but the extant authorities ought to make certain that those dependents are suitably cared-for. In the case mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph, the life of a human being is destroyed when a raped woman chooses to abort her child, but the suffering endured by the raped woman may be so great that an abortion is justified. If she is forced to give birth to the baby, she may hold deep-seated resentment towards her offspring and neglect or abuse the child, which would cause serious emotional and/or bodily distress. Therefore, it is imperative that complex cases be adjudicated by an appropriate authority, as previously explained. To provide a far more common example of how unwanted or unintentional harm can be caused to a third-party when an objectively-moral act is executed, let us consider the scenario where vermin, such as mosquitoes, ants, cockroaches and rodents, have invaded one's living places or working spaces. It is perfectly legitimate (and could be argued that it is indeed MANDATORY) for one to eradicate such harmful species from one's dwelling or place of employment, because the harm caused to those innocent creatures is justified, due to the harm they can cause to human living conditions. It is a holy and righteous act to extinguish vermin in order to protect one's health and one's food supply, et cetera. On the other hand, to wantonly destroy the life of the aforementioned creatures whilst walking along a country road is unnecessarily violent. Only persons over the age of REASON (which is usually defined at the age of about seven, depending on the individual in question), and of course, those who are afflicted with severe mental disability, can be morally-culpable. See Chapter 11 regarding the moral culpability of those with psychological disorders. In such cases, the immediate superior of such persons (usually a parent or guardian) ought to be held responsible for the actions of the minor or the mentally-handicapped individual accused of a crime. The age of reason is largely dependent on the specific act. For instance, a young child (let's say a five year-old girl) who repeatedly takes food from her mother's dinner plate without permission can be punished for that act, in an appropriate fashion, since, by that age, she should easily learn that it is wrong, after being repeatedly chastized by her parents. If, however, the same girl were to throw her baby brother down a staircase, thereby resulting in the death of the infant, her moral culpability would be greatly diminished, because a child of her age may not understand the concept of severe injury and death. This chapter of “F.I.S.H” arguably the MOST important of all the thirty chapters, because unless society adheres to the most accurate and authentic understanding of morality presented here, humanity is doomed, which seems to be the case at the time of writing, sad to say. Thus, this chapter is a tour de force of sheer truth and logic, and the truth shall eventually conquer (“satyam-eva jayate”, in Sanskrit)! “Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality.” Michael Ellner, American Author. “Should one find a man who points out faults and who reproves, let him follow such a wise and sagacious person as one would a guide to hidden treasure. It is always better, and never worse, to cultivate such an association.” Siddhārtha Gautama (AKA Lord Śri Buddha), Dhammapada 76. “Ahimsa is the highest duty. Even if we cannot practice it in full, we must try to understand its spirit and refrain as far as is humanly possible from violence. The way to truth lies through ahimsa (nonviolence).” Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Indian Law Practitioner (meaning, he studied and defended the subjective rules and regulations of England, South Africa, and Bhārata [India]).

[@Xob_Driesestig]

Any reason why you made the quality only 360p?

[@KaneB]

Apparently the HD version is still processing. So if you check again in ten minutes, it should be higher quality. I'm pretty sure this happens with all of my videos.

[@KaneB]

Just checked, and the HD version has actually already finished processing. So you should get it in high quality now.

[@Xob_Driesestig]

@@KaneB Indeed it is, thanks!