Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36

Abstract

This video discusses the philosophical implications of Batman’s “no killing” rule. The video poses the question: Should Batman kill the Joker if he could, and argues that, under a Kantian framework, Batman would emphatically answer “no.” The video then contrasts the Kantian approach to morality with utilitarianism, arguing that the latter, while seemingly simpler, is a more demanding moral theory. The video argues that utilitarianism demands that individuals consider the consequences of their actions, regardless of their personal feelings or biases, and that they act in a way that maximizes the happiness of the greatest number of people, even if it requires sacrificing their own personal happiness. The video goes on to highlight some of the challenges of applying utilitarianism to real-world situations, using thought experiments such as the “Jim problem” posed by Bernard Williams, in which one person must be killed to save the lives of others. The video concludes by discussing the differences between “act utilitarianism” and “rule utilitarianism” and argues that a utilitarian Batman would be a far less nuanced and complex character than the one presented in most stories. – AI-generated abstract