Are You Rational? #2 Are You Moral? | Philosophy Tube

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


Part 2: Continuing our discussion of what rationality is, let’s talk about moral reasons, and what happens if someone just wants to be bad!
Watch the series: Watch the series:






Twitter: @PhilosophyTube



Recommended Reading:
Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion –
Aristotle, Politics –
Baring (AKA Lord Cromer), Modern Egypt –
Carlyle, “Occasional Discourse on the N***** Question” –
Cherney, “The Rhetoric of Ableism” –
Critchley, Infinitely Demanding –
Damore, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” –
De Beauvoir, Le Deuxième Sexe –
Dreyfus, What Computers Still Can’t Do –
Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk –
Faludi, Backlash –
Foucault, Discipline & Punish –
Fricker, Epistemic Injustice –
Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason –
Hume, Treatise of Human Nature –
Hutcheson, On the Nature & Conduct of the Passions –
Jaggar, “Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology” –
Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals –
Kissinger, “Domestic Structure & Foreign Policy” –
Medina, The Epistemology of Resistance –
Plato, Phaedrus & Republic – &
Raz, The Morality of Freedom &“Authority, Law, and Morality” &
Richardson (ed.), Drumbeat –
Said, Orientalism –
Snedegar, Contrastive Reasons –
Ture, Stokely Speaks –
Williams, “Internal and External Reasons”

Music by Epidemic Sound (

If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!

Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.


Abra Cadabra says:

Also, having worked with folks with sociopathy, I definitely say, "If you murder people, you may end up in prison, which you don't want. So, if we weigh out the pros and cons here, what's worse for you?" Legit. So… whether this idea is right or wrong, this is how we are currently operating in the real world. The outcomes of this interaction are hard to measure, because of non-representative samples. Most folks like this have been mandated by the courts to attend therapy due to being caught doing something. So, they're more inclined to be motivated as they know prison sucks and that they're not likely smart enough to avoid it. Whether or not it works, it is what we are doing. I'm interested in whether this philosophical thought process could result in a more effective methodology, though I'm not sure how we get ahold of the smart sociopaths to administer it, but I think it could still be a useful thought process because this thought process has resulted in a lazy society, regularly defaulting to using threat of violence or unpleasant living conditions when someone doesn't behave according to societal values. As a queer person, I'm not entirely invested in perceiving society's values as infallible.

Abra Cadabra says:

What are the "winning reasons not to drink poison" for the person who doesn't hold the reason of not wanting to die? I'm a therapist who specializes in chronic suicidality. So, I've literally asked this question hundreds of times, in a therapeutic way, but I'm really interested to hear what the philosopher's response would be!

Super Have Fun says:

My current moral imperative is to brush that dirt off his shoulder

TheHighNoonSaloon says:


Edward Cardinal says:

The ad YouTube put on this video tried to get me to sign a petition to repeal New York's anti-conversion therapy law. I know the channels don't pick the ads played but I still felt like I should mention that this is happening.

SanRaikou says:

I believe I have watched almost all of your heavily edited videos at this point. You do some excellent work, and I must say, long live the King.
I am known within my friend-, YouTube, and Discord communities as being a sociopath. I'm not saying that a case like mine must be common, or that it's the right way to condone oneself, but I tend to agree with a lot of the motifs of your videos on a logical basis. I'm the type of scientifically-inclined mind to study all kinds of things; from Nietzsche to Kant, Freud to Einstein, with aspects of my condition and a typical manifestation of consciousness's projection of ideals upon history. I'm excited to see where these lines of thinking end up in your narrative, and anxiously await the next topic worthy of shattering the expectations of one of the best-treated audiences on YouTube. And I hope I'm getting the correct positive analogy here: Stay down on Earth, Cosmonaut. <3

Mark K says:

Golden rule?

Charles Okonkwo says:

Moral absolutism sounds kinda like Stephan Molyneux's Universally Preferrable Behaviour. Which is bullshit. Morality is always a result of your goals, your options and the nature of your being. For example:I Some aspects of moral absolutism only apply, if you are a social animal like a human. A machine hivemind or a mega-rich capitalist might be so fundamentally different from the common man, that several rules of our morality don't apply to them.

VJ says:

It seems that existence of genuinely amoral clinical psychopaths challenges everything spoken aboutnin this video. Fascinating. =o)

michaeltheiii says:

Not sure if you still look through these comments, but just wanted to let you know you have a typo in your description where it says "Watch the series" twice. Love the videos btw, thank you for always keeping up the quality 🙂

James Barels says:

"What we think of as self is fundamentally a spook, a spook that is constituted in relation to it's spook."
Otherwise known as the Marklar response to egoism.
But, as Marklar responded in "One Spook Two Spook Red Spook Blue Spook"
"The binary nature of contrastive reasons could be viewed as the opportunity cost of one spook chosen over another within the context of the ideal spook."

Ryden Kaye says:

Hey, really really minor criticism here, but you cannot « change tack slightly » the origin of the term tack comes form sailing, and is a true binary that refers to the side of your boat the sail is on. In other words, you cannot change tack slightly, you can only change tack.

Daniel Fisher says:

I think that as part of being a human, a group creature, you are naturally driven to aid humanity. Your perception of who is human and who is not can be altered, which is how things like genocides can happen, but I think that there is an objective fact of who is human and who is not. I think that morality is not a set of rules but actually a goal, or, really, a pursuit. The moral choice is the choice that benefits humanity the most. So you see, there are no real “rules” to morality, thinking of it that way is a falsehood. The rules are just whatever they need to be to progress humanity the fastest.

Me Myself I says:

The bit about Kant saying that part of having a mind is that moral reasons are intrinsically internal makes really good since considering the existence of sociopaths. I had a friend who as a very intelligent sociopath and we had some very in-depth conversations that were very disturbing but also challenging. Because, essentially, he could not AT ALL internalize morals. Having that sort of conversation turns out to be extremely difficult, because no matter what I tried I could not find any way to rationally explain morals to him. I'll add that he was highly motivated to understand and very much wanted to understand but the ability was simply not present in his mind.

Daniel Martinez says:

My morality is ever shifting and completely dependant on what I need it to be to solve any given problem.

It might be more beneficial to me financially to scam someone out of their money but if I'm well off its not an action I need to do and therefore I will not do so. If I'm dead broke and in desperate need of money for survival then I definitely will. If I'm well fed, and bills are paid but I have no money in my pocket then it may only boil down to how I feel in the moments leading up to and during the "scam."

This mindset may be good, bad, or whatever but either way, I know how dark my shadow is and I have been able to live with it. What Im not sure of is whether I've always thought like this and never noticed or its a by product from my time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Marik Zilberman says:

I think that ethics exist in part to display what we are willing to be done to us. At least, that's how it would be in the original context of humanity as a part of a community.

Nowdays, humans live mostly for themselves, so morality is a lot more muted in certain parts of the world.

IRA Did Nothing Wrong says:

Morality is a social construct or what I would prefer to call a Spook. It doesn't exist in the material world or in nature, but for the purpose of coming together as a society we create morals and rules because society needs them in order to function to some degree. It's like money, 'value' and property. They don't exist in nature or materially. Morals are an idea created for convenience but they don't really actually exist like fire or water or dirt or food etc.

Voltaire says:

Morals are just traditions, and "scientifically speaking, traditions are an idiot thing"

GrahamChapman says:

I had a discussion the other day with some religious person who kept insisting that subjective morality is invalid for one arbitrary reason or the other, most of them boiling down to appeals and/or equations to moral nihilism, and that what he referred to as "objective" morality is the only "real" morality… "Objective" morality here being, of course, the moral teachings of his religion… as subjectively interpreted by him and his specific offshoot of his religion for some reason, which kinda undermined the idea of the moral teachings being "objective"… He kept coming back to demanding of me to define morality to him. And I did so. Meticiously. I talked primarily about empathy-based morality and how morality, being a mortal concept, is defined by the living for the living, hence why I could say that my moral system was superior to the moral system of Nazis, (yes, he did honestly ask me how I could be sure that an empathy-based morality is superior to the morality of the Nazis,) since their morality was fundamentally based upon death, but I also spent quite a bit of time acknowledging the impact environmental factors have on shaping our moral perceptions… It was around the time he asked me "If our morals are truly subjective then why is being good to your fellow man moral?" that I got fed up with him and started to regard our intellectual discussion about "what are morals" as a complete fucking waste of time…

Electro-Cute says:

There are no such things as moral. It is just some philosophical jargon used to justify something as good. Just like how the word freedom is for Liberals.
We have no other values than the those which evaluates things that makes us feel good as good.
Then we always have conflicting values that we hold up against each other. Conflicting by supporting different actions, but which never disappear no matter which action wins.

I think the obsession with concepts like "moral" comes as a way to glorify altruist actions. Altruism is when we make actions that may help one other or more people, but doesn't benefit the self directly. Actions which we lack any logical and social motivation behind. Like why it makes us feel bad to hurt other people even when it can purely benefit us.
The way we talk about morals is a very christian view on altruism.

Write a comment


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.