1
00:00:01,610 --> 00:00:11,960
So proponents of unanimous objections argue that moral theories, asked too much prominence, was given up for revised.

2
00:00:12,910 --> 00:00:19,060
The recent debate has extended the challenge of dividing this objections in two ways.

3
00:00:19,840 --> 00:00:25,450
First, by discussing all sorts of ethical theories and not only consequentialism.

4
00:00:25,660 --> 00:00:30,160
So then I'll discuss constructivism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

5
00:00:30,670 --> 00:00:37,540
Second, the current debate is not focussed anymore on the demands for beneficence,

6
00:00:37,990 --> 00:00:42,310
but discusses a wide range of moral requirements in different areas.

7
00:00:42,580 --> 00:00:48,670
For example in medical ethics regarding future generations or refugees.

8
00:00:49,920 --> 00:01:00,750
So this recent expansion of the debate made, it makes it even more important to clarify the meaning and potency of the demanding subtractions.

9
00:01:01,170 --> 00:01:07,530
What exactly is the difference that the objection enables us to see or make?

10
00:01:08,670 --> 00:01:19,170
So here is a typical the amount in this case in which an agent has to sacrifice his own well-being in order to comply with a law requirement.

11
00:01:20,010 --> 00:01:21,750
So, uh, here is the case.

12
00:01:22,350 --> 00:01:32,580
I came up that somehow, uh, covers what I have in mind, but that a big opera fan is willing to sacrifice something in order to help the poor.

13
00:01:33,180 --> 00:01:38,460
But he also believes that there is a limit to the sacrifice that he has to make,

14
00:01:39,420 --> 00:01:45,030
despite the clarity and firmness of his belief that this limit exists.

15
00:01:45,630 --> 00:01:54,400
He struggles to pinpoint where it is. Is it already excessive to ask him to sacrifice a single trip to the wrong?

16
00:01:55,500 --> 00:01:59,730
After all, opera is one of his Life and Dancing Ground projects.

17
00:02:00,570 --> 00:02:09,810
Or does he not reach the limit? Even if he completely stopped spending money on opera because he can watch it online for free?

18
00:02:11,180 --> 00:02:18,230
Hoping for some guidance. Burnett turns to the literature that advocates demanding his objections.

19
00:02:18,380 --> 00:02:27,020
He reads that compliance with a moral requirement should not make his well-being drop, quote below a certain measure.

20
00:02:27,620 --> 00:02:36,560
Well, that it should not be, quote to great effect, or that his sacrifice should not be too big a reduction in the agent's good,

21
00:02:37,520 --> 00:02:43,370
or that his sacrifice should not be out of proportion to the benefit.

22
00:02:44,300 --> 00:02:51,380
Burnett is puzzled. How can these definitions help him to find the exact limit for him?

23
00:02:52,430 --> 00:02:57,110
Rumour has that Burnett later tried to be an active pianist.

24
00:02:59,190 --> 00:03:08,730
It seems that theories in favour of abandoning this objections inform us what type of limit matters, but not well, exactly.

25
00:03:08,880 --> 00:03:11,910
The requirement becomes overly demanding.

26
00:03:12,990 --> 00:03:18,360
In consequence, they fail to shape the agency's decisions and actions.

27
00:03:19,170 --> 00:03:27,329
But since Socrates, there is a guidance constraint and norms for evaluating difficult theories according to

28
00:03:27,330 --> 00:03:34,860
which ethical theories are better to the extent that they provide adequate moral guidance.

29
00:03:36,790 --> 00:03:40,900
I have three claims about this. In the first part,

30
00:03:40,910 --> 00:03:47,680
I argue that anything this objections fail to define over demand in the shop because

31
00:03:47,680 --> 00:03:55,450
there are big that is societies susceptible in a slogan over demanding this is a heap.

32
00:03:56,890 --> 00:04:06,160
In the second part, I will discuss two attempts to bypass the problem of vagueness and argue that they are not very successful.

33
00:04:07,720 --> 00:04:18,100
And then the final part, I will conclude that we should embrace the vagueness and acknowledge that the objection cannot provide exact guidance,

34
00:04:18,370 --> 00:04:26,080
but that they nonetheless that these objections nonetheless can be plausible and give some rough guidance.

35
00:04:27,490 --> 00:04:33,780
I will propose that I will presuppose that there are plausible objections actual,

36
00:04:33,790 --> 00:04:44,259
possibly because my aim is to point to problems that we face once we make the decision to endorse the objection,

37
00:04:44,260 --> 00:04:47,680
and then draw some conclusions for various fields.

38
00:04:51,690 --> 00:04:54,780
Let me start with a couple of proprietorial remarks.

39
00:04:55,230 --> 00:04:58,710
First, I have no special concept of vagueness.

40
00:04:58,980 --> 00:05:02,130
Consider the widely shared view by Grimes.

41
00:05:02,760 --> 00:05:08,280
Quote. To say that an expression is vague is to say that there are cases, actual or possible,

42
00:05:08,670 --> 00:05:14,580
in which one does not know whether to apply the expression or to withhold it.

43
00:05:16,230 --> 00:05:25,770
Vagueness is a challenge to the classical view that all concepts cross sharp lines, so that one can always and exactly classify things.

44
00:05:27,210 --> 00:05:34,620
Radius. Sharpness requirements satisfy. Concepts need to be sharp in order to be meaningful concepts at all.

45
00:05:37,330 --> 00:05:42,070
According to this classical view, over demanding this needs to be sharply defined,

46
00:05:42,310 --> 00:05:51,250
meaning that a compliance with a certain requirement is either over demanding for a certain agency in a given situation or it is not.

47
00:05:52,090 --> 00:05:57,670
At this classical conception, however, does not apply to the objection.

48
00:05:57,880 --> 00:06:04,150
There will be borderline cases in which we cannot say if the requirement is excessive or not.

49
00:06:06,410 --> 00:06:10,220
My aim is to show that unanimous objections are there.

50
00:06:11,090 --> 00:06:17,750
I will not provide a deeper discussion of what explains the vagueness of the expression.

51
00:06:18,170 --> 00:06:25,370
I can set this aside because the major theories of vagueness all agree on a definition of vague.

52
00:06:26,210 --> 00:06:37,460
The three major theories for politic, epistemic, or semantic vagueness differ only when it comes to explain why there is vagueness.

53
00:06:38,090 --> 00:06:42,380
I would say something about epistemic vagueness in part two, though.

54
00:06:44,120 --> 00:06:49,100
Second, I need to say what I take to be vague about the objection.

55
00:06:49,550 --> 00:06:52,910
So what is the vague expression in question?

56
00:06:54,210 --> 00:07:02,640
It's very important to note that the objection does not object to the managing risk in general, or to all that would stop demanding this.

57
00:07:02,790 --> 00:07:10,840
However, no. Most moral theories assume that morality can all something from us demand him.

58
00:07:11,070 --> 00:07:20,090
Objections concern only cases in which the demanding this is above the certain limit according to schedule.

59
00:07:20,130 --> 00:07:32,760
The question is how to react when an otherwise plausible normative theory makes unusually heavy demands on of individual agents for each other,

60
00:07:34,020 --> 00:07:40,530
thus demanding this objections imply a distinction between acceptable or reasonable levels of

61
00:07:40,530 --> 00:07:47,730
demanding this and unacceptable or unreasonable levels which are classified as excessive,

62
00:07:47,760 --> 00:08:01,690
asking too much, overly demanding, and so on. And this concept about the threshold when the over demand in this starts.

63
00:08:01,730 --> 00:08:09,799
This is what I take to be very. So I will follow the classical way to show that an expression is vague.

64
00:08:09,800 --> 00:08:12,920
And that is the hip paradox, which runs as follows.

65
00:08:13,100 --> 00:08:19,280
One grain of sand clearly is not the heap. If we add one grain, this still does not make any.

66
00:08:20,450 --> 00:08:23,240
Repeating this multiple times,

67
00:08:23,510 --> 00:08:33,620
no single addition makes the difference with regard to the number of grains that we classify as a heap and the number that we do not call it.

68
00:08:34,790 --> 00:08:39,140
Hence, we will end up with millions of grains, but not a heap.

69
00:08:41,730 --> 00:08:47,760
So here's a first glance on what the objection would look like if we consider over demanding

70
00:08:47,760 --> 00:08:53,880
this to be a he asking for the smallest possible sacrifice from an affluent agent,

71
00:08:54,030 --> 00:08:57,810
say $0.01 clearly is not overly demanding.

72
00:08:58,590 --> 00:09:04,470
Increasingly demanding this by asking for another cent still does not count as over demanding.

73
00:09:04,830 --> 00:09:15,150
When repeating this step multiple times, it is unclear which step makes the difference between acceptable demanding this and excessive this.

74
00:09:15,900 --> 00:09:20,790
We end up with demanding everything but never will be asking too much.

75
00:09:23,690 --> 00:09:33,860
So final remark is that such an application of the heat paradox requires that two conditions are met.

76
00:09:34,100 --> 00:09:40,010
We need an ordering of values for one dimension to size it for the practical application,

77
00:09:40,190 --> 00:09:48,040
like the number of grains n, and we also need the tolerance of the allegedly big predators.

78
00:09:49,190 --> 00:09:58,100
So let's have a closer look on these to at least two conditions in order to see why demanding these objections meet the first condition.

79
00:09:58,490 --> 00:10:02,750
Consider the three mainstream accounts of the objection.

80
00:10:03,920 --> 00:10:09,860
These three mainstream accounts say that acceptability boundedness becomes over.

81
00:10:09,860 --> 00:10:15,860
Demanding a state of compliance with a lower requirement reduces the agent's

82
00:10:15,860 --> 00:10:22,490
well-being below an absolute threshold T that sweet pressure will be second.

83
00:10:25,060 --> 00:10:31,470
Compliance reduces the agent's wellbeing by a loss and that is to be taxed.

84
00:10:31,580 --> 00:10:40,690
The loss view. And third, if compliance does not yield a benefit that is all times higher than the cost to the agent.

85
00:10:40,870 --> 00:10:49,150
Let's check this relational view. All theories define open mindedness according to a greater bell aspect.

86
00:10:49,570 --> 00:10:53,980
On one dimension, the level of the agent's well-being after compliance.

87
00:10:54,220 --> 00:10:58,060
The magnitude of the cost or the ratio of costs and benefits.

88
00:10:59,450 --> 00:11:04,910
It's important to note that the variables are part of what we find in the literature,

89
00:11:05,060 --> 00:11:10,580
and not something that I have added in order to give a generalised description.

90
00:11:11,840 --> 00:11:19,310
Scheffler, for instance, argues that the benefit to others should be times as great as the net loss to the agent,

91
00:11:19,970 --> 00:11:26,299
but in most cases the variables are more or less hidden in phrases like below

92
00:11:26,300 --> 00:11:31,850
a certain minimum to bake a reduction in the agent's good or too great about.

93
00:11:33,580 --> 00:11:40,570
The variables explain the lack of guidance because without knowing G and or other,

94
00:11:40,600 --> 00:11:47,620
we cannot decide if the compliance leads to something below or above T and um.

95
00:11:48,570 --> 00:11:54,790
Now, Brad Hooker has claimed that the variables can be easily flushed out.

96
00:11:55,950 --> 00:12:02,250
But this has not been done so far. If demanding is, objections are indeed vague.

97
00:12:02,430 --> 00:12:06,390
We know why it has not been done because it cannot be done.

98
00:12:07,620 --> 00:12:11,070
So he is the more important second publishing.

99
00:12:12,440 --> 00:12:17,600
The heat paradox requires not only a critical value on one dimension.

100
00:12:17,960 --> 00:12:23,750
For example, the number of grades and the second condition is tolerance,

101
00:12:24,170 --> 00:12:33,410
meaning that there is no number n that allows the assertion and does not maybe, but n plus one does.

102
00:12:35,030 --> 00:12:44,780
Right. There's another way to put this. A predicate F is quote tolerant with respect to P if there is also some positive degree of change

103
00:12:44,780 --> 00:12:52,580
in respect of P insufficient ever to affect the justice with which F applies to the case.

104
00:12:54,400 --> 00:13:01,700
Three aspects are important here. There is a value on a fine grained low to an incremental level.

105
00:13:02,390 --> 00:13:05,570
For instance, the number of grains. And second.

106
00:13:05,660 --> 00:13:13,070
There is the predicate, for example p, which needs to be of course predicate of a global or categorical level.

107
00:13:13,400 --> 00:13:20,900
In fact, there are cases in which a marginal difference regarding the fine grained or local value

108
00:13:21,260 --> 00:13:27,330
on a dimension cannot be said to make a difference on the global categorical level.

109
00:13:27,350 --> 00:13:34,440
Calling it the equivalent. Now very important that the smallness here is decisive.

110
00:13:35,940 --> 00:13:43,770
If the difference between two steps is big enough that, say, one grain of sand and five millions, then this.

111
00:13:45,060 --> 00:13:48,420
Step makes the vagueness vanish.

112
00:13:49,470 --> 00:13:53,310
The difference because the first step and the second step.

113
00:13:53,460 --> 00:13:58,110
The 5 million brains. That also is the difference between a motive and the heat.

114
00:14:00,020 --> 00:14:09,260
However, this step would not get us any closer to finding a sharp boundary because it is somewhere between 1 and 5 million,

115
00:14:09,440 --> 00:14:18,210
which is not a very shallow assumption. So the tolerance becomes visible only if we manage the smallness of the steps.

116
00:14:19,170 --> 00:14:22,320
So anyways, demanding this, we have all three.

117
00:14:23,680 --> 00:14:25,480
Sex all three aspects.

118
00:14:25,750 --> 00:14:35,559
First, consider the fine grained value, like the number of traits and demanding the speed is not only credible on a single dimension, it is also fine.

119
00:14:35,560 --> 00:14:41,080
Great. As mentioned, we can increase the required sacrifice sent by said.

120
00:14:42,450 --> 00:14:47,820
Second, just like the distinction between geek and models devalues objection.

121
00:14:47,970 --> 00:14:56,550
Use a coarse or categorical distinction between those models of demanding is that are reasonable and those that were taken to be to high,

122
00:14:56,820 --> 00:14:59,370
excessive, and therefore overly demanding.

123
00:15:00,760 --> 00:15:09,729
So the relation between the fine grained steps of demanding this and the coarse distinction between acceptable and excessive demanding.

124
00:15:09,730 --> 00:15:17,230
This is crucial if we cannot say that requiring a certain donation is overly demanding.

125
00:15:17,590 --> 00:15:24,010
How can we say that the minimally increased donation means asking too much?

126
00:15:26,140 --> 00:15:33,670
So without the ability to find the step that makes us change the application of the expression overly demanding,

127
00:15:33,910 --> 00:15:39,130
we cannot provide sharply defined definition of overly managing this.

128
00:15:39,400 --> 00:15:47,950
And it seems that even those who think of a demanding subtraction spot plausible cannot get exact guidance from them.

129
00:15:48,550 --> 00:15:54,160
And so how can we apply the objection in various fields of practical efforts?

130
00:15:55,510 --> 00:16:03,100
So this is why I now turn to two attempts to bypass the vagueness to get.

131
00:16:04,330 --> 00:16:16,340
Guidance statements. The first attempt is based on a specific explanation of this, namely the epistemic becomes.

132
00:16:16,820 --> 00:16:26,630
The hallmark of the epistemic explanation is to argue that some sharp boundaries exist in reality, but that we do not know that.

133
00:16:27,950 --> 00:16:31,670
This is quite attractive. Recall that they.

134
00:16:31,820 --> 00:16:38,960
This threatens our classical views, including white balance, by denying that shop owners exist,

135
00:16:39,620 --> 00:16:45,650
and the epistemic theory of vagueness is more in line with the classical view.

136
00:16:45,890 --> 00:16:56,330
By assuming that vagueness is a purely epistemic moment, it arises only from us not knowing about the existing boundaries.

137
00:16:57,960 --> 00:17:07,440
So tolerance. What I have described, this tolerance is viewed by the epistemic account as a margin of error.

138
00:17:07,920 --> 00:17:18,600
Epistemic vagueness regarding demanding this objection assumes that there really is an exact number of straws that breaks the camel's neck,

139
00:17:19,440 --> 00:17:22,710
only that we do not know about that exact number.

140
00:17:27,770 --> 00:17:33,290
Not. In what way can this theory be used to bypass the problem of vagueness,

141
00:17:33,290 --> 00:17:38,240
so that we can make guiding judgements regarding elections over demanding this.

142
00:17:38,660 --> 00:17:45,380
So I now draw on an argument that I found in one of the five.

143
00:17:46,490 --> 00:17:49,910
There are about five German utilitarians also.

144
00:17:49,910 --> 00:17:58,229
Uh, so one of that is Bad Kazan, who is here also a couple of years ago, uh, he was, uh,

145
00:17:58,230 --> 00:18:05,930
part of the argument that I present now in his one in his book on YouTube, terrorism to make in a most explicit way.

146
00:18:06,320 --> 00:18:10,580
I think it's at work in, in, uh, Anglophone literature as well.

147
00:18:10,580 --> 00:18:14,720
But he is, uh, I draw on the most explicit, uh, account.

148
00:18:15,020 --> 00:18:18,710
So here's the arguments. Um.

149
00:18:25,180 --> 00:18:30,450
So this is D as it rises. And let's assume we have a sharp boundary.

150
00:18:30,460 --> 00:18:35,930
But that sharp boundary is clouded by our margin of error of plus.

151
00:18:35,960 --> 00:18:47,320
See. So. So and then the claim is oh well if it's okay, if it's about the case that lies here, well here then we can make clear cut.

152
00:18:48,700 --> 00:18:59,840
Assumptions. So. I have two comments on this strategy.

153
00:19:00,560 --> 00:19:11,870
The first one is not necessarily a criticism, but I think it's worth pointing out that where theory of epistemic vagueness has serious implications.

154
00:19:12,290 --> 00:19:16,700
Epistemic vagueness is often discussed with regard to natural entities.

155
00:19:17,630 --> 00:19:26,120
Uh, I take it that the existence of sharp boundaries regarding the natural world is less controversial, as in ethics.

156
00:19:27,230 --> 00:19:34,340
Tom Daugherty has a very fine paper on balance, and then implausibly argues that in ethics,

157
00:19:34,340 --> 00:19:41,510
epistemic vagueness implies a robust realism according to which the difference between plausible

158
00:19:41,510 --> 00:19:47,780
and demanding is that ultimately modelling this would refer to a sharply defined entity,

159
00:19:47,960 --> 00:19:50,960
in reality independent from us.

160
00:19:51,950 --> 00:20:05,960
So adopting this strategy as adopting the epistemic account might involve some very strong ethical views that, you know, were inclined early on.

161
00:20:06,380 --> 00:20:13,460
So it may be worth noting that you imply the controversial natural ethical claim.

162
00:20:14,360 --> 00:20:17,620
So but that's just a remark, not necessarily a criticism.

163
00:20:17,630 --> 00:20:23,540
Maybe you like probe to story this. Now to the second, more critical remark.

164
00:20:24,260 --> 00:20:32,600
Let us ground the two key assumptions of this strategy, namely, that a sharp boundary exists,

165
00:20:33,020 --> 00:20:37,640
and that we cannot know that because it's clouded by our margin of error.

166
00:20:37,910 --> 00:20:48,010
The first fuzzy. So. Now, if that's correct, we certainly want to know where our ignorance starts and ends.

167
00:20:49,360 --> 00:20:54,500
So what we need to know is. These to.

168
00:20:56,790 --> 00:21:12,100
Boundaries. Only if we know about these two boundaries, the upper and lower limit of the margin of error.

169
00:21:12,220 --> 00:21:16,720
Then we would be sure if we are talking about the place that lies above or below.

170
00:21:21,560 --> 00:21:24,860
So the irony of this strategy is.

171
00:21:25,990 --> 00:21:30,910
That epistemic vagueness is all about explaining vagueness by ignorance,

172
00:21:30,910 --> 00:21:37,960
but the strategy presupposes additional knowledge about the sharp limits of the margin of error.

173
00:21:38,590 --> 00:21:44,200
And I think it's not possible to have that knowledge, because there is the problem of second order,

174
00:21:44,200 --> 00:21:50,470
because there is second order vagueness, because the limits of the margin of error are.

175
00:21:51,920 --> 00:21:56,910
The. Societies susceptible themselves.

176
00:21:59,410 --> 00:22:06,880
If we cannot know and discern where the sharp boundary between acceptable demanding is and over demanding is is,

177
00:22:07,210 --> 00:22:09,910
how can we know where the margin of error stops again?

178
00:22:10,780 --> 00:22:18,280
The problem remains the same if we cannot say that the level of demanding this is the limit of over demanding this,

179
00:22:18,310 --> 00:22:22,420
we cannot say that the certain level of demanding is easy.

180
00:22:23,620 --> 00:22:28,750
Lies outside the margin of error. But deep below, swamp lies within.

181
00:22:29,400 --> 00:22:35,140
But that's what we would need to know in order to know that much lower limit is.

182
00:22:42,550 --> 00:22:51,720
So. The epistemic account does not solve the problem of tolerance by interpreting it as a margin of error.

183
00:22:52,980 --> 00:22:58,710
Because on closer inspection, the problem of tolerance also applies to the boundaries of the margin of error.

184
00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:04,800
Then you have to make the code just checks the problem to the higher order instead of solving it.

185
00:23:05,850 --> 00:23:12,940
In the words of Timothy, when announcing, quote, the difficulty of applying the higher order classifications to.

186
00:23:13,050 --> 00:23:20,220
So writing series is a just the same kind as the difficulty of applying the first order classification,

187
00:23:20,370 --> 00:23:25,470
which was what led us to recognise the problem with vagueness in the first place.

188
00:23:26,430 --> 00:23:33,390
Thus, while all of our vagueness is a problem for all, claim to know the boundaries of the margin of error.

189
00:23:33,810 --> 00:23:43,710
And this leads to an overconfidence when it comes to know whether a certain requirement is clearly above or below the margins.

190
00:23:46,580 --> 00:23:50,660
So much for the first attempt. Now to the second wall.

191
00:23:51,200 --> 00:23:59,380
Can intuition tell us if more requirements for a certain agent in certain situations is overly demanding or not?

192
00:24:00,220 --> 00:24:04,080
But. For example, in my initial case,

193
00:24:04,320 --> 00:24:14,250
we seemed to be justified in saying that we can't require Burnet to sacrifice a single trip to the opera without asking too much.

194
00:24:15,330 --> 00:24:26,430
Likewise, we might say that our intuition tells us that the 1% that Peter Singer discusses in The Life You Can Say is not overly demanding.

195
00:24:28,000 --> 00:24:33,520
This strategy has a big advantage, but it also has two limitations.

196
00:24:33,790 --> 00:24:38,470
Let's start with the advantage intuition.

197
00:24:38,710 --> 00:24:49,300
Unlike deductive forms of reasoning, use straightforward words whether the compliance with the specific more requirement is overly demanding or not.

198
00:24:50,110 --> 00:24:55,930
So there's nothing wrong with deductive arguments, and they are quite helpful in many ways.

199
00:24:56,530 --> 00:25:07,990
For example, one plausible drinking water guideline recommends that the level of copper in drinking water should be less than 2mg/l.

200
00:25:08,290 --> 00:25:18,310
To prevent any health related problems, we test our water that we know if the test water is above or below the limit, and then we can act accordingly.

201
00:25:19,740 --> 00:25:30,210
Now, if my claim about the vagueness for the objection is correct, then this kind of deductive argument is not available to us,

202
00:25:31,380 --> 00:25:37,740
because the vagueness prevents us from having a premise with a specific upper limit of demand to this,

203
00:25:38,130 --> 00:25:42,480
and without that, the deductive argument is not taking off.

204
00:25:47,660 --> 00:25:55,450
Intuitions have the advantage that they do not need such a practice with a specific upper limit feature set up,

205
00:25:55,460 --> 00:26:00,890
for example, argues that the 1% pledge is clearly not over demanding.

206
00:26:01,880 --> 00:26:09,200
He says it would not require wealthy people to come remotely near to impoverishing themselves at work.

207
00:26:10,160 --> 00:26:20,690
I take it that our intuition maxing this claim like the iPad, the claim that one grain of sand clearly is not a heap.

208
00:26:23,760 --> 00:26:33,200
So the advantage is that claims like sales are exact enough and guiding without having to define the threshold.

209
00:26:33,210 --> 00:26:38,850
To overcome this, you kind of ignore if it exists or does not exist.

210
00:26:38,850 --> 00:26:42,390
You just don't have to say where it is, if it exists, and so on.

211
00:26:44,100 --> 00:26:47,460
He does not have to say when impoverishment starts.

212
00:26:49,830 --> 00:26:57,690
Nor does he to. Doesn't you have to define the margin of error, which was the problem with the first strategy.

213
00:26:59,410 --> 00:27:02,920
So far, so good. He. Here's the boss.

214
00:27:04,260 --> 00:27:12,180
My first concern is that the advantage I just described also is a disadvantage.

215
00:27:12,300 --> 00:27:17,100
From the viewpoint of the objection. I'm now shifting to be respected.

216
00:27:17,370 --> 00:27:20,880
So what I've done so far is from the perspective of Peter Singer.

217
00:27:20,940 --> 00:27:27,300
So what I propose everybody, uh, gets 1% not overly demanding five.

218
00:27:28,490 --> 00:27:32,540
Let's try also from the perspective of many of the objection.

219
00:27:32,750 --> 00:27:41,060
But if we now change perspective to proponents of the objection, we would like to know where the limit is if it exists.

220
00:27:46,850 --> 00:27:51,710
Exact. Peter Singer is not defined by any limit, and he doesn't have to be.

221
00:27:52,040 --> 00:28:02,690
So this strategy that he, uh, proposes is no strategy in finding is not a contribution for the task of the objection to find relevant.

222
00:28:04,180 --> 00:28:10,989
Making an individual claim about these alleged over demanding is not one single requirement is something

223
00:28:10,990 --> 00:28:18,040
very different from defining the threshold between acceptable and excessive levels of demanding this.

224
00:28:18,770 --> 00:28:25,150
The intuitions are not able to overcome perhaps my suspicion just to sidestep

225
00:28:25,660 --> 00:28:32,950
or overcome the problem of tolerance because demanding this is so point great.

226
00:28:33,250 --> 00:28:38,680
We would need intuitions for two neighbouring levels of demanding this,

227
00:28:38,860 --> 00:28:47,620
which tell us that the lower level is acceptable and the higher over demanding this, we will need intuition.

228
00:28:47,620 --> 00:28:53,610
Product. I do not know any attempt to try to do this.

229
00:28:54,450 --> 00:29:03,090
I'm afraid so. That is because the smaller the steps are, the more controversial and unstable our intuition will get.

230
00:29:04,370 --> 00:29:11,030
If that is correct. Intuitions, even if they can inform and digest regarding individual cases,

231
00:29:11,240 --> 00:29:18,710
they cannot help us to establish a theory of the thresholds, but that is the backbone of the objection.

232
00:29:21,990 --> 00:29:25,260
So now to the second limitation.

233
00:29:26,530 --> 00:29:30,930
Intuition seems to work fine in cases of low demand like this.

234
00:29:31,140 --> 00:29:38,970
Like, say, this 1% clutch. It's easy to see why they work well in these cases.

235
00:29:39,660 --> 00:29:47,250
A set of plausible accounts of morality agree that morality can ask us to sacrifice something,

236
00:29:48,210 --> 00:29:56,820
and this matches the intuitions about the low places, namely that they are not places of excessive requirements.

237
00:29:57,120 --> 00:30:01,470
This simply morality is job to tell us to sacrifice this.

238
00:30:04,120 --> 00:30:08,560
But what about all the cases with higher demanding lists?

239
00:30:09,670 --> 00:30:16,450
Take for example the following case. So I'm trapped with white and slowly collapsing brackets.

240
00:30:16,630 --> 00:30:19,750
I could say either white's live or my black.

241
00:30:21,530 --> 00:30:30,330
So let me ask who first. That the person can be required to sacrifice the lack for love.

242
00:30:30,990 --> 00:30:37,360
Who thinks that? No one. Who feels that this is overly demanding.

243
00:30:41,410 --> 00:30:47,670
Couple of people are undecided. So of course some of you might have noticed it's pockets face.

244
00:30:48,390 --> 00:30:54,870
So two interesting things about what Parkridge has to say about the case.

245
00:30:55,530 --> 00:31:00,070
So his position is quote, the cost here would be too great.

246
00:31:00,870 --> 00:31:04,500
And also I would be morally committed to save my life.

247
00:31:05,250 --> 00:31:10,080
So here comes the interesting two aspects of profits discussion.

248
00:31:10,620 --> 00:31:15,570
First, profit acknowledges the possibility of conflicting views.

249
00:31:16,880 --> 00:31:21,680
He writes on some views. I also whites live rather than my mine.

250
00:31:22,140 --> 00:31:25,190
Since whites loss would be much greater than mine.

251
00:31:26,760 --> 00:31:31,740
Now, the other interesting thing is, he says, most of us have a different view.

252
00:31:33,320 --> 00:31:38,510
Hoffman takes it to be the view of the majority without explaining.

253
00:31:39,680 --> 00:31:44,420
What my geology is and how you get stuff. Empirical claim from.

254
00:31:44,930 --> 00:31:54,050
Without explaining this, he claims that the majority states that requiring to say a lot for election is asking too much.

255
00:31:56,280 --> 00:32:02,050
But it's important. That he discusses conflicting views.

256
00:32:04,470 --> 00:32:07,600
Of course, I will not be able to solve the disagreement.

257
00:32:07,620 --> 00:32:10,300
I don't even want to solve that is meant.

258
00:32:10,770 --> 00:32:20,640
I just want to point out that the literature is full of cases with higher demand in this, where lots of people like Shea Carey,

259
00:32:21,090 --> 00:32:28,170
Shelly Kagan and others, and so will say, well, this is how demanding is, but this is not overly demand.

260
00:32:31,970 --> 00:32:38,360
So I would like to point that high demanding this is way more controversial.

261
00:32:40,040 --> 00:32:46,750
So in sum, it seems that intuitions are a solution only with regard to cases of low levels of demand.

262
00:32:46,760 --> 00:32:51,590
In this, they are not much help when it comes to finding the threshold.

263
00:32:51,890 --> 00:32:57,800
And certainly they're much more in conflict when it comes to cases are higher than not this.

264
00:32:58,610 --> 00:33:07,580
So the strategy gives us something. Especially if you are like Peter Singer model, trusting and working out the objection.

265
00:33:07,730 --> 00:33:12,530
You just want to do practical laps. Then the strategy is very good.

266
00:33:12,800 --> 00:33:19,220
If you would like to be interested, if you are interested in other questions, then this strategy does work so well.

267
00:33:20,700 --> 00:33:24,100
So conclusions I have for you.

268
00:33:24,280 --> 00:33:31,649
Well, first, we should be careful about the way we talk about demanding this objections and better not

269
00:33:31,650 --> 00:33:38,250
give the impression that the problem of vagueness is not serious and come can be overcome.

270
00:33:39,540 --> 00:33:47,310
We are facing absolute vagueness and not some relative vagueness that is vagueness with regards to contention.

271
00:33:47,550 --> 00:33:50,760
Ignorance may be ignorance in form.

272
00:33:50,880 --> 00:33:57,870
Pending research on demanding these objections or some empirical knowledge regarding the specific test.

273
00:34:00,030 --> 00:34:10,380
Second, I think it would be an overreaction to argue that if the randomness objections are valid, then they should be given up.

274
00:34:11,790 --> 00:34:21,450
This argument has some initial plausibility, as it takes the vagueness serious and then applies a sharpness requirement.

275
00:34:22,410 --> 00:34:26,549
Accordingly, one might argue that if the ramming this objections are vague,

276
00:34:26,550 --> 00:34:31,110
it is unclear what they're all about, and that they should be given enough.

277
00:34:32,600 --> 00:34:42,380
I reject this view, not because I fear that the rigorous application of Vega's sharpness principle would make most of us lose our jobs.

278
00:34:43,840 --> 00:34:54,620
Lack of exact guidance is a problem that, besides guidance, there are other additional criteria that might make the demanding this objection.

279
00:34:54,830 --> 00:35:04,590
Look what? Why? For example, there are some implications for metaphorical debates, like the relation of morality in our personal wealth,

280
00:35:05,360 --> 00:35:13,700
or more specifically, in how we weigh moral reasons against non moral reasons or the problem of super aggregation.

281
00:35:14,330 --> 00:35:25,700
All of these debates can profit from drawing on the demanding is objection, even if the concept of open mindedness remains to be better.

282
00:35:27,640 --> 00:35:36,730
Now to my final conclusion. Maintenance does not allow for exact guidance, but what about lowering our expectations?

283
00:35:37,750 --> 00:35:41,050
The suggestion is to embrace vagueness.

284
00:35:41,860 --> 00:35:50,530
Bernard Williams and Ethics and Political Philosophy famously argued that our conceptual framework should fit our ethical lives.

285
00:35:51,840 --> 00:36:03,840
Which she takes to be very messy. Therefore, he concludes, ethics is likely to be a, quote, untidy business, and that implies using vague concepts.

286
00:36:04,740 --> 00:36:11,459
So some might say that Williams just repeats what Aristotle says in the ethics,

287
00:36:11,460 --> 00:36:17,340
namely that we should not expect more exactness in the discipline than the subject matter.

288
00:36:17,520 --> 00:36:26,790
Alas, for others might interpret Williams to give a special explanation for the word vagueness, namely antiquity.

289
00:36:26,790 --> 00:36:37,350
This ontic vagueness assumes that more moral reality does not have any sharp boundary, and that this should be mirrored by our concepts.

290
00:36:38,950 --> 00:36:48,850
But I'm not going to decide what's the correct interpretation of Will's yet, because I would like to suggest something that was more about guidance.

291
00:36:49,300 --> 00:36:54,010
So I'm going to link Williams, but didn't start with.

292
00:36:54,010 --> 00:37:00,550
Constantine has pointed out that basic concepts concerns quite well in practical effects.

293
00:37:01,210 --> 00:37:11,080
In paragraph 71 of his Philosophical Investigations, he rejects face view that only boundaries make up useful concepts.

294
00:37:12,310 --> 00:37:18,820
Now Corbett can shine. Is it even always an advantage to replace an indistinct picture?

295
00:37:18,970 --> 00:37:25,280
BioShock one. Isn't the indistinct one often exactly what we need.

296
00:37:26,150 --> 00:37:33,380
Ricky compares the concept to an area and says that an area boundaries cannot be called an area at all.

297
00:37:34,830 --> 00:37:38,280
This presumably means that we cannot do anything with it.

298
00:37:39,590 --> 00:37:43,610
But is it senseless to say stand roughly that?

299
00:37:44,750 --> 00:37:52,540
I suppose that I was standing with someone in a city square and said that, as I say it,

300
00:37:52,580 --> 00:38:01,280
I do not draw any kind of boundary that perhaps point with my hand, as it were, indicating a particular spot.

301
00:38:03,090 --> 00:38:09,059
So that was vintage time in this sense that demanding this objection might be useful,

302
00:38:09,060 --> 00:38:13,800
namely by roughly pointing to the bank limits to our moral obligations.

303
00:38:14,220 --> 00:38:22,470
But even giving this draft guidance would require lots of extra work on the this objections that has more than support.

304
00:38:23,130 --> 00:38:24,640
So let's start climbing the.