Share this:
- Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
What I meant by saying that it wasn’t a great argument was simply that it was an argument which had much by way of emotional appeal, but it felt as though the argument could not stand, as such, to scrutiny if it were subjected to it. For instance, suppose a critic were to ask how representative the modest sampling of one subject (this impressive guy) was for the vast majority of people in his situation today. A critic might further protest that there are non-utilitarian concerns which may be morally significant. The list goes on. In the end it was a fascinating video with almost nothing to contribute to the philosophical conversation.
Fascinating. Also not a great argument.
tylerjourneaux,
I am glad that you found the video to be fascinating, but how did you also find it not to be a great argument?
In Reason,
Madison