Londoniyyah - Part 5 - Social liberalism | Mohammed Hijab (2021-10-24) ​

0:00:12 how are you guys doing this is the next
0:00:14 session on liberalism one of the most
0:00:16 important sessions that we're going to
0:00:17 cover
0:00:18 this is the fifth session i think all
0:00:19 together
0:00:20 and today we're going to be focusing on
0:00:22 social liberalism as many of you will
0:00:24 know liberalism is subdivided into three
0:00:26 different
0:00:27 categories social political economic
0:00:30 today the emphasis will just solely be
0:00:32 on social liberalism and we'll going to
0:00:35 encourage more discussions within the
0:00:37 group that we have here there in
0:00:38 attendance so
0:00:40 without further ado i'm going to ask uh
0:00:42 the car to read uh very brief lines in
0:00:45 the poetry
0:00:46 on social liberalism
0:00:55 foreign
0:01:11 this these particular a beat or these
0:01:13 particular lines of the poetry
0:01:15 were talking about social liberalism and
0:01:17 in fact social liberalism or liberalism
0:01:19 in this way can be defined by the harm
0:01:21 principle
0:01:23 now who knows what the the harm
0:01:24 principle is let's start with a question
0:01:26 just get you guys warmed up
0:01:29 yes
0:01:30 please uh
0:01:32 check it yes
0:01:38 yeah so it's a very good answer it's you
0:01:41 can do what you want so long as you
0:01:42 don't harm anyone else in fact some have
0:01:44 defined uh liberalism thusly you know
0:01:48 using this particular principle so you
0:01:50 can do what you want so long as you
0:01:51 don't harm anyone else this is their
0:01:53 ethic now the question is why is that
0:01:55 their ethic there are many
0:01:57 presuppositions
0:02:00 at play here really
0:02:01 but before we get to that before we get
0:02:04 to the kind of epistemology of it or the
0:02:06 philosophy of it or the metaphysics of
0:02:07 it i think it's important to think a
0:02:09 little bit about the application of it
0:02:11 and this is what the poetry was talking
0:02:14 about um
0:02:16 so what is the application of it we're
0:02:17 talking about
0:02:19 well homosexuality or lgbtq this is if
0:02:22 you ask somebody who's part of that
0:02:24 community how you justify it this is the
0:02:28 staple or stock response that you will
0:02:30 get so long as they're
0:02:32 you know not harming anyone why are you
0:02:33 getting involved in their business
0:02:35 you know there are two people who are in
0:02:36 love with each other man and man woman
0:02:38 and woman
0:02:39 and they love each other so why are you
0:02:41 getting involved in their business if
0:02:42 they want to have intercourse with each
0:02:43 other you know rectally or anally or
0:02:46 orally or otherwise this is none of our
0:02:49 business
0:02:50 this is something that concerns two
0:02:53 consenting adults okay that can do
0:02:55 whatever they like
0:02:57 now in application historically
0:02:59 obviously these kinds of arguments
0:03:00 became more and more powerful
0:03:02 after the civil rights movement in 1960s
0:03:05 um
0:03:06 you know coincidentally
0:03:08 maybe not
0:03:09 the same kind of time when feminism
0:03:10 second wave which we already spoke about
0:03:12 became popular as well
0:03:15 and
0:03:16 it's really astonishing to see in the
0:03:19 last 60 years really how the landscape
0:03:22 has changed
0:03:24 how the dsm register which is the
0:03:26 register that psychologists use to
0:03:28 assess mental health uh illness
0:03:30 has has kind of uh stripped away
0:03:32 anything about homosexuality and now if
0:03:34 anything they probably introduced
0:03:36 homophobia is this you know it's really
0:03:38 amazing how things can take a change
0:03:40 but what i was going to say was this
0:03:42 has there been consistency in the way
0:03:44 that the west in particular for example
0:03:47 let's say the united states canada
0:03:49 america um
0:03:50 england um western europe
0:03:53 and other countries that have been most
0:03:55 vocal about this
0:03:56 and have had the most sudden changes of
0:03:58 law has there been consistency in the
0:04:00 way that they have implemented
0:04:03 that particular
0:04:05 principle as it relates to sexual
0:04:06 relations
0:04:08 now you might have heard me say this
0:04:10 before but the argument i put forward is
0:04:11 not really
0:04:13 it's a historical argument now if you
0:04:14 look in the last 60 years you'll find
0:04:16 that
0:04:17 incest rights for example have not been
0:04:20 given the same
0:04:21 promise
0:04:22 or the same privileged position as
0:04:24 homosexual rights now one may say there
0:04:26 are some major differences between
0:04:28 incest
0:04:29 and homosexuality
0:04:31 and some may even invoke a power
0:04:32 relation between mother and child or
0:04:35 mother and son i should say not child
0:04:36 mother and son
0:04:38 both let's say over the age of 18
0:04:40 father and daughter say this is a power
0:04:42 relationship which is a really pathetic
0:04:44 argument but let's to kind of
0:04:46 bypass this academic discussion talk
0:04:48 about siblings
0:04:50 the two brother and sister
0:04:52 you know and so on if they were to in
0:04:54 indulge or engage in this kind of sexual
0:04:57 activity
0:04:58 and they prevent deformed babies from
0:05:00 happening by using some kind of
0:05:01 contraception indeed
0:05:03 not even engaging in a
0:05:04 in a vaginal way you know there are
0:05:06 other ways you can have intercourse
0:05:08 um then with this
0:05:11 not
0:05:12 surely this should be in line with the
0:05:13 principle the principle that you are
0:05:15 free to do whatever you like so long as
0:05:17 you don't harm anyone else
0:05:19 because if a brother and sister wanted
0:05:20 to have intercourse with each other and
0:05:21 have a relationship with each other and
0:05:23 be in a romantic non-platonic
0:05:25 relationship with each other then surely
0:05:27 they should have been able to do so now
0:05:28 someone will say who's consistent
0:05:31 and this is what you will maybe
0:05:32 sometimes find yeah i agree with you
0:05:34 someone could actually agree with that
0:05:35 say yeah well absolutely it's not about
0:05:37 you agreeing with me now this is a
0:05:39 historical argument
0:05:40 in fact because in the last 60 years
0:05:43 this has simply not been the case you've
0:05:46 had countries that have and you still
0:05:48 have countries that illegalize
0:05:51 sibling relationships
0:05:53 uh incest they make it illegal to do to
0:05:56 engage and indulge in that kind of
0:05:58 sexual activity
0:05:59 we have not seen an uproar
0:06:02 within
0:06:03 kind of liberal society about incest
0:06:05 rights nor quite interestingly we
0:06:07 haven't even seen that within lgbtq
0:06:10 communities i don't know why there's not
0:06:12 lgbtqi for incest in there
0:06:15 it would make a lot more sense if there
0:06:16 was in fact they have been
0:06:18 their anti-normative practices to use
0:06:20 their terms the intersectional terms
0:06:22 anti-normative practices of the um
0:06:25 incestuous kind if you want to put them
0:06:27 or those who are orientated in an
0:06:29 incestuous way
0:06:30 have been sidelined and according to
0:06:32 them have been oppressed you know they
0:06:34 have been suppressed we're talking about
0:06:36 coming out of the closet come out the
0:06:37 homosexuality closet why not come out
0:06:38 the incest closet you know why is it now
0:06:41 you've specialized a closet for
0:06:42 homosexual people but you haven't
0:06:43 specialized a closet
0:06:45 for incestuous relationships in fact we
0:06:47 were talking about psychology last time
0:06:49 there is actually more to be said by way
0:06:51 of
0:06:52 you know psycho analysis
0:06:54 in terms of incest than there is to be
0:06:56 said about homosexuality
0:06:58 well i'm referring here to the oedipus
0:06:59 complex but not just that the olympus
0:07:01 complexes sigmund freud had this thought
0:07:04 that in the he calls it the phallic
0:07:06 state or not sorry psychosexual stages
0:07:08 of development when someone was just
0:07:10 growing up
0:07:12 that the child that he says is attracted
0:07:15 to the opposite gender so the daughter
0:07:16 is attracted to the father and the son
0:07:18 is attracted to the mother in a sexual
0:07:20 capacity
0:07:21 so according to this obviously it's a
0:07:23 controversial topic but it has some
0:07:25 level of you know at least with freud
0:07:27 some level of clout if you want to call
0:07:29 it that
0:07:30 you know why not introduce
0:07:32 uh
0:07:33 incest in the discussion of suppression
0:07:35 or lack thereof
0:07:37 so these are just some things that were
0:07:38 in the poem that i thought were
0:07:39 important to put forward because it is a
0:07:42 really important argument well i spoke
0:07:44 to many people you can see this kind of
0:07:45 on youtube i spoke to homosexuals
0:07:47 who justify on sexuality and i put this
0:07:50 to them a lot of them get very very
0:07:51 angry a lot of trying to attack me
0:07:52 actually when one person tried to spit
0:07:54 on me an attack
0:07:55 why because
0:07:56 it somehow strikes a nerve when you make
0:08:00 the comparison between incessant
0:08:01 homosexuality because you're kind of
0:08:03 stuck in between a rock and a hard place
0:08:04 what you're going to say it's unnatural
0:08:06 i mean
0:08:07 if if you know if you say that then
0:08:09 you're really doing it for yourself
0:08:11 isn't it if what if you're gonna say
0:08:13 it's uh
0:08:14 it's not the same it's this analogous
0:08:16 okay well actually it doesn't need to be
0:08:17 exactly analogous all sexual activity by
0:08:19 virtue of the fact that's antinormative
0:08:22 all it needs to be is consenting between
0:08:23 two adults it doesn't have to be
0:08:25 necessarily
0:08:26 like for like analogies
0:08:28 and so
0:08:29 these are the kind of things that
0:08:30 thought-provoking things that i want
0:08:31 people to think about today because
0:08:33 these kinds of arguments go a very very
0:08:35 long way they go a very very long way
0:08:38 by way of this deconstructing really
0:08:42 um
0:08:43 the the way and this i've just mentioned
0:08:45 this the way that the liberal paradigm
0:08:47 has been implemented and we're not yet
0:08:50 even speaking about
0:08:52 what it's about or the discussions about
0:08:55 how you prove
0:08:56 the principle of utility or how you
0:08:58 prove this or that
0:09:00 so
0:09:01 you look at the first slide
0:09:04 we said already that it can be defined
0:09:05 through the harm principle
0:09:07 and you've got to understand that the
0:09:08 hum principle was put in place as you
0:09:10 mentioned by john stuart mill now john
0:09:12 strut mill his father was called james
0:09:14 mill okay
0:09:16 and his father's friend was called
0:09:17 jeremy bentham okay now jeremy bentham
0:09:20 was himself a heavyweight philosopher
0:09:24 of the utilitarian
0:09:26 complexion so he was a utilitarian he
0:09:28 believed that in his words these are his
0:09:30 words he says you have two lords
0:09:34 you have the lord of pain and you have
0:09:35 the lord of pleasure
0:09:37 now what does that remind you of in the
0:09:39 quran for those who
0:09:41 remember or know the area
0:09:46 yes
0:09:48 have you seen the one who has taken
0:09:49 their own desires as their lord
0:09:52 and here you have jeremy bentham
0:09:53 literally formalizing this literally for
0:09:56 because the principle of the hedonistic
0:09:58 principle already was part of the
0:10:00 liberal discourse john locke had put it
0:10:01 in there
0:10:03 hedonism is this idea of
0:10:06 expression in that sense um whether it
0:10:08 be sexual whether it be intellectual
0:10:09 because don't forget it's we don't want
0:10:11 to straw man these people it's not just
0:10:12 sexual or aggressive urges or whatever
0:10:14 maybe it's also intellectual stuff
0:10:16 whatever you really want to do to
0:10:17 express yourself as a human being
0:10:19 so the hedonistic principle is already
0:10:20 in place but here you have jeremy
0:10:21 bentham really formalizing the point
0:10:23 that you have two lords you have the
0:10:25 lord of pain and you have the lord of
0:10:26 pleasure and the point of life according
0:10:28 to bentham which obviously john mill
0:10:31 and james mill both agreed with
0:10:33 is that you minimize pain and you
0:10:35 maximize what pleasure
0:10:37 and john sorry jeremy bentham would
0:10:39 continue on to say
0:10:41 that
0:10:42 now what as an ethic
0:10:45 that what we should have is the greatest
0:10:46 good for the greatest number so as so
0:10:49 basically you know you have as many
0:10:51 people that are happy and have pleasure
0:10:53 as possible and we minimize the amount
0:10:55 of people that have what pain as
0:10:57 possible this is the this is how
0:10:59 morality should be predicate or on which
0:11:02 principle morality should be predicated
0:11:04 this is the idea yeah
0:11:07 so someone can say well on that on that
0:11:09 basis why don't we
0:11:11 why don't we justify gang rape we'll get
0:11:14 10 women well actually we should say 10
0:11:15 men
0:11:17 if it was 10 million women it wouldn't
0:11:18 be i don't think a controversial example
0:11:20 i think if we say 10 men all right and
0:11:22 one woman okay and each man takes his
0:11:25 turn on that woman and she's obviously
0:11:27 really suffering and pain and all this
0:11:28 kind of thing these are the actual
0:11:30 examples you use in the method ethics by
0:11:31 the way i'm not trying to be
0:11:32 inappropriate here um anyway so
0:11:35 in this scenario there's more men having
0:11:37 fun
0:11:38 enjoying themselves getting pleasure
0:11:41 and the woman here
0:11:42 is i mean it's ten to one ratio isn't it
0:11:44 so ten men are having good time
0:11:47 versus one woman is
0:11:49 he's not having a good time so on this
0:11:51 on a strict utilitarian or on strict
0:11:53 utilitarian grounds
0:11:55 why should we ban
0:11:57 ban gang rape we should allow gang rape
0:12:00 we should you know even if we we put
0:12:02 this with other examples we should allow
0:12:04 these examples right
0:12:05 so mill this was his point of
0:12:08 you know contention if you want to put
0:12:10 the bone of contention there yet he said
0:12:11 look actually
0:12:13 we and this is why he put the harm
0:12:14 principles in place so it can facilitate
0:12:17 non-chaotic
0:12:19 non anarcho kind of structures
0:12:22 whereby you can have as much fun as you
0:12:24 want and pleasure and so on it's great
0:12:25 it's good for so long as you don't harm
0:12:27 anyone else
0:12:29 so the gang rape
0:12:30 scenario would be disqualified on a
0:12:32 million understanding but it would be
0:12:35 plausible if you want on the bentham
0:12:37 model okay but remember
0:12:40 i mentioned james mill because he this
0:12:42 is the family that john stuart mill was
0:12:44 from okay john mill was his father sorry
0:12:46 james moore was his father
0:12:48 and
0:12:49 jeremy bentham was his father's friend
0:12:50 so this is he's growing up and he's
0:12:52 being told
0:12:53 these things it's being justified to him
0:12:55 he's been he's learning the arguments
0:12:56 from his father and from his father's
0:12:58 friend
0:13:00 so what kind of uh
0:13:03 evidence so
0:13:04 let's
0:13:06 let's see
0:13:08 we already spoke about the greatest
0:13:09 happiness principle and what that holds
0:13:13 so
0:13:17 this is what the proof is for mill so
0:13:19 what because the question is how do you
0:13:20 prove that this is what you what we
0:13:22 should be doing because when you say the
0:13:23 word should now we're talking about
0:13:24 morality
0:13:25 that we should be predicating morality
0:13:27 on based on how pleasurable we find
0:13:29 things or how desirable things are so
0:13:31 this is what mill says
0:13:33 mill says the only proof
0:13:35 capable of being given that an object is
0:13:37 visible is that people actually see it
0:13:39 the only proof
0:13:41 that a sound a sound is audible is that
0:13:44 people hear it and similarly
0:13:46 with other sources of our experience in
0:13:49 like manner i apprehend the sole
0:13:51 evidence
0:13:52 it is possible to produce that anything
0:13:54 is desirable is that people actually
0:13:56 desire it
0:13:59 if happiness
0:14:00 the end that the utilitarian doctrine
0:14:03 proposes to itself
0:14:05 were not acknowledged in theory and in
0:14:08 practice to be an end nothing could ever
0:14:10 convince any person it was an end
0:14:12 it seems like encrypted language but
0:14:14 we'll come
0:14:15 to this and they've been kind of modern
0:14:17 day formulations of this
0:14:19 james mill is a bit more candid his
0:14:21 father and in his works because he's
0:14:24 written works
0:14:25 he wrote the desire there therefore of
0:14:28 that power which is necessary to render
0:14:30 the persons and properties of human
0:14:31 beings subservient to our pleasures is
0:14:34 the grand governing law of human nature
0:14:36 so what he's saying is why should the
0:14:38 question is why should we predicate
0:14:42 our morality on the idea of we'll do
0:14:46 whatever it is that makes us happy and
0:14:48 feel pleased and feel desirable to us
0:14:51 james miller is saying it's an axiom
0:14:53 it's just because it's self-evident
0:14:55 now what does that mean it means we're
0:14:57 not going to provide any evidence
0:14:58 because an axiom by definition is
0:15:00 something which cannot be proven
0:15:02 or it doesn't have it doesn't have an
0:15:04 evidence to it so he's just saying human
0:15:05 nature you're
0:15:06 you are born actually with this uh this
0:15:09 thing where you just your pleasures and
0:15:12 desires to come naturally to you and so
0:15:13 you just that's the evidence so the
0:15:15 evidence is no evidence let's say you
0:15:16 know
0:15:17 this is the evidence the evidence
0:15:19 there's no evidence
0:15:21 and
0:15:21 the argument is continued
0:15:24 okay so james mill
0:15:26 in his essay on governments he says each
0:15:28 person acts only or predominantly to
0:15:30 promote his own interest now in
0:15:33 meta sorry in ethics
0:15:35 there are two schools of thought which
0:15:36 we will actually cover and do a special
0:15:38 treatment on them one of them is called
0:15:40 egoism okay now ethical egoism is the
0:15:44 idea that we are
0:15:46 you know we
0:15:47 only pursue our own interests
0:15:50 we don't care about anybody else
0:15:52 we just want what's good for us
0:15:54 what is the opposite of egoism
0:15:57 yes that's very good yes very good
0:16:00 the opposite of egoism is altruism
0:16:03 which is that in fact we're living for
0:16:04 other people
0:16:06 we're living for our family i live for
0:16:07 my you've heard this before i live for
0:16:09 my daughter i live for my son i live for
0:16:11 my mom i live for my wife i whatever it
0:16:14 may be for the country for the for
0:16:16 patriotism nationalism all of that
0:16:18 living for someone else okay
0:16:21 and both of those things from our
0:16:22 perspective as muslims are very poor
0:16:25 ways to conduct your morality okay both
0:16:27 egoism and altruism
0:16:29 okay both of those are poor ways but
0:16:30 we'll come to that
0:16:32 separately and in fact we'll have
0:16:33 sessions on those because they're very
0:16:34 important
0:16:37 but
0:16:38 as we'll come to mill especially john
0:16:40 stuart mill has been interpreted as
0:16:42 being an ethical egoist
0:16:44 okay even henry
0:16:46 sidwiq who is himself probably one of
0:16:48 the top three not the top five
0:16:50 utilitarians that ever lived
0:16:52 he interprets him as being an ethical
0:16:55 egoist he says that he's an ethical
0:16:57 egoist
0:16:59 why because he's talking about whatever
0:17:00 serves one's own interest
0:17:03 though i have to also add here that
0:17:04 there is some level of contention on
0:17:06 that point
0:17:07 i've mentioned that actually here's on
0:17:09 the is on the
0:17:11 the next
0:17:16 slide so we spoke about bentham's
0:17:19 greatest good
0:17:21 let's have a pause here
0:17:23 and let's see what some of the issues
0:17:26 that you can think about
0:17:27 uh so let's how many people we've got
0:17:29 here one
0:17:30 okay well you can do i think we can work
0:17:32 in groups of uh on pez let's do a group
0:17:35 in pairs so uh we'll do um
0:17:38 u2 u2 okay inshallah
0:17:41 uh you too and then maybe you can come
0:17:43 with them we'll do we'll do a quick one
0:17:45 10-15 minutes discussion yeah
0:17:48 on what are some of the issues with
0:17:50 these contentions okay what already are
0:17:52 you seeing some of the issues with these
0:17:55 contentions
0:17:56 that we should maximize our own pleasure
0:17:58 why is this problematic in your eyes or
0:18:00 if anything what is appealing about it
0:18:02 as well so what are some of the issues
0:18:04 here
0:18:05 uh i'll give you five minutes and then
0:18:07 we'll come back and we'll we'll record
0:18:09 we'll continue the recording
0:18:12 all right
0:18:13 all right so um
0:18:14 let's uh
0:18:15 let's get some feedback please
0:18:18 on what we've spoken about what are some
0:18:19 of the issues
0:18:20 with
0:18:22 utilitarianism
0:18:23 the way we've described it
0:18:25 what are some of the issues that you've
0:18:27 been able to identify
0:18:32 yes go ahead please but we need someone
0:18:33 else because this is the second time you
0:18:35 make a contribution
0:18:36 okay let's uh
0:18:39 yeah first of all
0:18:41 saying that it's an axiom uh the uh
0:18:43 utilitarian principle being an axiom we
0:18:45 could disagree with it because uh
0:18:47 fundamental characteristic of uh axiom
0:18:50 seem to be that they are universal but
0:18:52 this doesn't seem to be the case
0:18:54 so that's one issue and then um
0:18:57 the easiest way how is that you said
0:19:00 that
0:19:01 the fundamental
0:19:02 characteristics of an axiom is that it's
0:19:04 universal and this doesn't seem to be
0:19:05 good
0:19:06 less can we play around with that what
0:19:08 do you mean what do you mean by that how
0:19:10 is this not the case what is this that
0:19:12 you're talking about in the first place
0:19:13 oh yeah the the uh utilitarian principle
0:19:16 that maximizing pleasure or pleasure and
0:19:18 pain should be the artistic for moral
0:19:20 values before that there's something
0:19:22 right
0:19:25 hedonism desire
0:19:27 yeah so okay
0:19:29 you're saying
0:19:30 we don't know that's universal that
0:19:32 everyone what what could be a competitor
0:19:34 to it or what could it be instead of it
0:19:37 no
0:19:37 okay
0:19:39 i'm not saying that uh pleasure pain is
0:19:41 uh is not the lowest common denominator
0:19:43 that's not the argument here okay the
0:19:45 the argument is that that should be
0:19:46 considered the yardstick for moral value
0:19:48 isn't it no but remember he's not making
0:19:50 at this juncture he will i mean his son
0:19:52 will make this uh point we'll come to it
0:19:55 but at this juncture he's just saying
0:19:56 that this is something we all
0:19:59 we all have
0:20:00 right right intrinsically yeah yeah yeah
0:20:02 if that's the case then then
0:20:05 the quarterly truth that which his son
0:20:07 will make which is therefore that should
0:20:09 be the yardstick uh we could refute by
0:20:11 using the david humes east versus odd
0:20:13 problem which is just because uh
0:20:15 something is a certain way it doesn't
0:20:17 necessarily mean that
0:20:18 it ought to be the way right right yeah
0:20:21 you could refute that if the argument
0:20:22 stopped that where it is but we will
0:20:24 we'll see that the argument doesn't stop
0:20:25 where it is
0:20:27 uh we're going to come to some of the
0:20:29 logical forms of what mill
0:20:31 i mean he tries to at least make the
0:20:33 argument
0:20:35 when i read it i mean i've read it many
0:20:36 many times
0:20:37 i actually came across plato
0:20:39 encyclopedia they tried to put it in
0:20:42 almost like a l1 format or propositional
0:20:45 logic
0:20:46 and we'll come to that in one of the
0:20:47 slides and how they actually try and
0:20:49 make an argument
0:20:50 um
0:20:51 but that's a good contribution you're
0:20:53 definitely on the right tracks it's a
0:20:54 good contribution okay let's see uh
0:20:57 how about yourself uh what did you come
0:20:59 to
0:21:00 you got nothing
0:21:04 you could do i mean there's one of these
0:21:05 we said any of the issues we care for
0:21:07 you so the axiom lies assuming that it's
0:21:09 a almost innate with enough to maximize
0:21:11 pleasure yeah well we get the example of
0:21:13 there's loads of scenarios where humans
0:21:15 don't choose pleasure yes so for example
0:21:17 we get the example if a mother had a
0:21:19 child i was like disabled or severely
0:21:21 disabled she chose to keep it
0:21:24 and then that would essentially decrease
0:21:25 her pleasure in life because she was
0:21:26 just look after the kid go to
0:21:28 appointments takes up her time takes up
0:21:30 a leisure time so she purposely chose
0:21:32 something
0:21:33 that's essentially going to make her
0:21:34 life harder so she's not choosing
0:21:36 pleasure in that scenario i think this
0:21:38 is this is actually one of the things i
0:21:40 mentioned uh altruism and stuff like
0:21:42 that now when we get to egos and versus
0:21:44 altruism we'll get to more of how an
0:21:47 egoist would respond to that someone
0:21:48 like iron rand
0:21:50 who
0:21:51 would say well ultimately why is she
0:21:53 doing that is she doing that to decrease
0:21:55 another kind of pain that she'd be
0:21:56 feeling had she not done whatever she's
0:21:58 doing okay you see the appointment right
0:22:00 it's definitely against sensual pleasure
0:22:01 isn't it no i'm not saying i'm not
0:22:02 saying that she's right or wrong this is
0:22:03 a very very difficult question to get to
0:22:05 the bottom of in terms of
0:22:07 you know how do we assert this right
0:22:09 but the egoists will say well the
0:22:11 example of the mother you gave yeah she
0:22:13 couldn't live with herself had she not
0:22:15 done what she done okay and that
0:22:17 psychological torment they would argue
0:22:20 is actually um an attempt to minimize
0:22:23 pain a different kind of pain so she's
0:22:26 there's two pains going on here there's
0:22:28 a pain of giving birth
0:22:30 and there's the pain of the
0:22:31 psychological i can't live with myself
0:22:33 and what she's essentially doing is
0:22:34 she's prioritizing one pain over the
0:22:36 other
0:22:37 you see that's how they how would they
0:22:38 know though like what she just feels
0:22:40 indifferent about it and it wouldn't
0:22:41 cause any why she just indifferent like
0:22:43 if i bought this baby it's nothing to me
0:22:45 well these are very fundamental
0:22:47 questions very important ones but i'm
0:22:48 just
0:22:49 i'm giving you something to think about
0:22:50 okay
0:22:51 i'm not saying that you're wrong in your
0:22:52 initial postulation now you could be
0:22:54 absolutely right but these things are
0:22:56 difficult to assert will stop okay
0:22:58 whether we
0:22:59 whether we are trying to or whether such
0:23:02 a thing as altruism even exists
0:23:05 but the it's conceivable that it does
0:23:07 exist it is conceivable that altruism is
0:23:09 it's not an it's not a logical
0:23:10 impossibility
0:23:12 that i would want to live and do
0:23:13 something for something greater than me
0:23:15 whether it's my country or my religion
0:23:17 or my family whatever it may be right
0:23:20 but some would argue you're doing it and
0:23:23 the egoist would say this ultimately for
0:23:25 your own sake
0:23:27 and the ego is for push because there's
0:23:29 psychological egoism by the way
0:23:31 and there is ethical egoism there's two
0:23:33 types of egoism okay and we shouldn't
0:23:34 conflate between the two so the
0:23:36 psychological egoism is how you operate
0:23:38 as a human being and what you
0:23:40 will resort to whereas the ethical
0:23:41 egoism was how you should
0:23:43 operate as a human being
0:23:45 but what we're going to be covering is
0:23:47 more
0:23:48 the ethical side rather than the
0:23:50 psychological side
0:23:51 but this is a good contribution but
0:23:53 think about what we're talking about i'm
0:23:54 going to give you all the answers just
0:23:55 think about it let feminine in your mind
0:23:56 a little bit
0:23:57 any other contribution one more
0:23:58 contribution before we uh
0:24:00 continue
0:24:02 yes uh you you maximize the pleasure
0:24:06 but ultimately you're destroying your
0:24:09 own body
0:24:10 and uh you know you're
0:24:12 ultimately going to end up being
0:24:14 a harm detriment to society because
0:24:17 you're going to have to go to hospitals
0:24:19 and re um
0:24:21 what do they call them the clinical
0:24:22 rehabilitation clinics
0:24:24 and also in terms of um
0:24:27 the homosexual thing
0:24:29 they're you know in a sense they're kind
0:24:32 of destroying their bodies over the long
0:24:34 term spreading
0:24:36 what could be seen as
0:24:37 bad diseases
0:24:39 you know and that's also about a
0:24:41 detriment harmful for society as a whole
0:24:45 these are arguments that actually can be
0:24:46 made so for example for example the
0:24:48 question of
0:24:50 a homosexual person is
0:24:52 10 times more likely according to some
0:24:53 stats
0:24:55 to be a carrier
0:24:56 of aids or a carry of sexually
0:24:58 transmitted diseases right so someone
0:24:59 can make a communitarian um or even a
0:25:02 utilitarian
0:25:03 quite frankly
0:25:04 argument and say well if what we're
0:25:06 looking at is that great is good for the
0:25:08 greatest number and we're also talking
0:25:10 about the the harm principle then isn't
0:25:13 allowing such practice going to cause
0:25:15 more harm in the long term and in
0:25:17 general than
0:25:19 than pleasure for the majority of people
0:25:21 these are very very valid arguments
0:25:23 these on utilitarian grounds but
0:25:26 um
0:25:27 what will usually prevail here is a
0:25:28 sense of individualism okay
0:25:31 and we'll come to this in fact we have
0:25:33 an entire session once again on
0:25:35 individualism because it's that
0:25:37 important but on the individualist level
0:25:40 they think that the best person who
0:25:41 knows what's best for them is that you
0:25:43 are
0:25:44 your own god if you if you like you know
0:25:46 what's best for you
0:25:48 it's what they think you know so in a
0:25:50 sense
0:25:51 usually a liberal response would be well
0:25:53 that should be left to the individual
0:25:55 okay
0:25:56 but yeah that's you can certainly make
0:25:58 an argument now
0:25:59 it's not like you can't make an argument
0:26:01 on those levels now let's come back to
0:26:03 the slides
0:26:04 because there is uh
0:26:06 something which i want to uh
0:26:08 i i came across this um
0:26:10 before i show it to you it's important
0:26:13 for me to kind of a lot of the stuff
0:26:14 we're going to be doing throughout these
0:26:16 sessions
0:26:17 is going to reference l1 logic okay
0:26:22 you know logic has different uh
0:26:26 you know languages
0:26:28 l1 which is propositional logic l2
0:26:30 predicate logic you have motor logic s5
0:26:32 you have
0:26:33 actually there's different kinds of
0:26:35 logic yeah
0:26:36 now l1 is in philosophy it comes up
0:26:39 quite a lot
0:26:41 okay
0:26:42 and it's not that difficult to be honest
0:26:43 with you
0:26:44 to know
0:26:46 um
0:26:47 there's like nine rules that you have to
0:26:49 know okay
0:26:50 now these
0:26:51 particular rules or syllogisms of some
0:26:53 sorts are going to be presented to us
0:26:56 and we need to know how to interpret
0:26:58 them
0:26:59 but what i will say today because there
0:27:01 is a syllogism here of some sort
0:27:03 is there is a difference between
0:27:05 validity validity and soundness
0:27:07 okay
0:27:08 there is a difference between
0:27:10 a difference between validity and
0:27:12 soundness of a valid argument
0:27:14 is an argument which the
0:27:17 the conclusions follow naturally from
0:27:19 the premises
0:27:21 all men are mortal socrates as a man
0:27:23 therefore socrates is mortal this is a
0:27:26 valid argument
0:27:27 but you can have a valid argument which
0:27:29 is also unsound
0:27:33 you can say oh yeah i don't know
0:27:36 we can say either
0:27:39 god doesn't exist
0:27:41 either two plus two equals five or god
0:27:43 doesn't exist
0:27:45 uh two plus two equals four or god
0:27:46 doesn't exist two plus two equals four
0:27:48 therefore god doesn't exist
0:27:50 if someone presented this to you you say
0:27:52 i mean you would say what would you say
0:27:54 you'd say we don't agree with the
0:27:55 premise
0:27:57 you see
0:27:58 you don't
0:27:59 uh have to agree with the premise you
0:28:01 can have some you can sometimes have
0:28:02 valid
0:28:04 language
0:28:05 logical language
0:28:06 but it's unsound because the premises
0:28:09 don't really care i mean it's a closed
0:28:10 language if you like it doesn't care
0:28:12 about the outside world in a way
0:28:14 it's like computer programming it's just
0:28:16 like you know you you're doing code or
0:28:18 whatever
0:28:19 you're you're just
0:28:20 creating valid algorithm
0:28:22 but those you know those formulations
0:28:24 don't have
0:28:26 any relevance to the truth
0:28:28 if we go back to a correspondence theory
0:28:30 kind of epistemology of the actual world
0:28:32 it can be
0:28:34 fiction it could make a computer game
0:28:36 okay
0:28:37 as we've mentioned
0:28:38 we are creating a new virtual reality
0:28:40 but it's not a reality in the actual
0:28:41 world so it's a closed system so when
0:28:44 we're looking at syllogisms and
0:28:47 arguments remember we don't have to
0:28:49 agree with the um
0:28:52 we don't have to agree with the premises
0:28:54 okay so look at the first this is from
0:28:56 plato encyclopedia by the way they're a
0:28:57 good resource stanford and plato they
0:29:00 they do a good job of breaking down
0:29:02 like
0:29:03 heavy philosophical topics and trying to
0:29:06 think
0:29:07 so
0:29:08 this is a reduction or if you like a
0:29:10 reconstruction of a particular chapter
0:29:13 on
0:29:14 in a book written by jasmil on
0:29:16 utilitarianism where they try and put it
0:29:18 into logistic format
0:29:21 so utilitarianism is true if this is
0:29:24 this is uh mills
0:29:27 argument but redacted here
0:29:29 utilitarianism is true if happiness is
0:29:32 one is the one and only thing desirable
0:29:35 for its own sake and not for the sake of
0:29:37 something else
0:29:38 that's
0:29:39 the first and most important premise
0:29:42 talk to the person next to you okay for
0:29:44 the next
0:29:45 two minutes just
0:29:46 and tell us what you think
0:29:49 could be problematic with this premise
0:29:52 okay
0:29:57 three minutes go ahead
0:30:02 okay
0:30:03 so we saw the uh
0:30:06 we saw the syllogism there can we um
0:30:10 comment on some of the premises
0:30:13 and uh
0:30:15 see some of the contentions there if
0:30:18 they're adding up or not
0:30:26 yeah just um
0:30:28 like i'm not sure if that first premise
0:30:29 is true like that because i don't think
0:30:31 that's all that's required for you can
0:30:33 you can you tell us what the first
0:30:34 promise is that um
0:30:37 that utilitarianism is true and only
0:30:39 true right uh if happiness is the one
0:30:42 and only thing desirable for its own
0:30:43 sake and not for the sake of something
0:30:45 else
0:30:47 and so i will kind of thinking that um
0:30:50 that's not all that's required for
0:30:52 utilitarianism to be true because
0:30:54 okay yeah okay why is it not because
0:30:57 this is sort of just saying that you
0:30:58 only have like an um
0:31:00 basically as long as individuals just
0:31:03 seek happiness for its own sake then
0:31:04 utilitarianism is true but
0:31:06 utilitarianism is a bit more than that
0:31:07 because within utilitarianism you can
0:31:09 have a scenario where
0:31:11 an individual would have to sacrifice
0:31:12 their individual happiness to guarantee
0:31:14 the overall happiness of the society so
0:31:16 you also have to have that extra step
0:31:17 which is that you know that um you you
0:31:20 aggregate out as a community and you
0:31:22 sometimes have to sacrifice and
0:31:23 sometimes have to keep and all of those
0:31:25 oughts kind of have to be true as well
0:31:26 okay okay okay so putting it in a word
0:31:29 the first premise doesn't consider
0:31:33 something
0:31:34 you you're nearly there there's a bit
0:31:37 what you were saying before
0:31:39 what were you saying before
0:31:42 okay yes yes yeah if youtube tells me if
0:31:45 you define it as maximizing pressure and
0:31:46 minimizing gain is good
0:31:48 um
0:31:50 if you agree with a
0:31:51 they think that print that principle is
0:31:53 true uh if happen is the one or anything
0:31:55 desirable uh first mistake but even if
0:31:56 you agree that happens is the one and
0:31:58 only thing desirable for its own sake
0:32:00 that doesn't uh
0:32:02 er that doesn't necessarily mean uh that
0:32:05 therefore we should
0:32:06 maximize project minimization so it's
0:32:08 it's it's moving from a psychological
0:32:10 distinction to an ethical one right yeah
0:32:12 just because in the first premise it's
0:32:14 just telling us the state of nature
0:32:16 right but it's not telling us anything
0:32:17 about ethics
0:32:20 this is extremely important
0:32:22 in fact it's so important that this
0:32:24 has been so heavily refuted in moral
0:32:27 philosophy so heavily
0:32:29 in fact the credentials of mill has been
0:32:32 has been put into question
0:32:34 uh
0:32:35 especially in his use of the word desire
0:32:37 by the way which we'll come to
0:32:39 but anything else on this point because
0:32:41 this is actually the most important
0:32:42 point that the first promise itself is
0:32:45 is unjustifiable actually completely
0:32:47 unjustified why would utilitarianism
0:32:49 which is what utilitarianism is a moral
0:32:52 system
0:32:54 it's a system of what right and wrong
0:32:57 when we say moral system
0:32:59 what differentiates the psychological
0:33:01 state from moral system is what the
0:33:03 words ought
0:33:05 the words orton
0:33:06 the word should the words shouldn't the
0:33:08 words right the words wrong the words
0:33:10 good though it's bad
0:33:12 this is good
0:33:13 this is bad
0:33:15 this is right
0:33:16 this is wrong you should do this you
0:33:18 shouldn't do this
0:33:20 now this is so important because all of
0:33:22 what we're talking about today
0:33:24 you should leave them alone to practice
0:33:26 homosexual sex in their homes or
0:33:29 whatever because they're not harming you
0:33:31 shouldn't
0:33:33 intervene you should do this you should
0:33:37 but all of this is predicated on this
0:33:40 first premise
0:33:42 which we have seen
0:33:44 doesn't even involve a moral element
0:33:49 you see the first promise is lacking in
0:33:51 something here
0:33:53 the first premise is lacking in anything
0:33:57 which is moral anyways there's no even
0:34:00 there's no mention of morality
0:34:03 there's no mention of shouldn't
0:34:05 shouldn't do
0:34:06 how do you get from this is the case
0:34:09 to this should be the case
0:34:11 and this is right this is a david hume
0:34:13 at this point now this point that you
0:34:15 made before makes
0:34:17 very good sense
0:34:18 where they where he's trying to prove
0:34:21 utilitarianism he's trying to prove
0:34:24 his prince of utility yeah at this point
0:34:27 he is uh
0:34:30 in trouble okay
0:34:32 but there's even more problems here
0:34:36 okay what are some more problems that
0:34:38 you find
0:34:39 in this
0:34:41 way of reasoning has anyone identified
0:34:43 any other problems
0:34:52 i've given you a hint
0:34:55 in fact i'll give you a minute
0:34:58 look at the next slide because it has
0:34:59 some of the answers okay
0:35:00 look at the next slide i'll give you
0:35:02 exactly one minute 60 seconds in your
0:35:05 own time
0:35:06 look at the next slide
0:35:08 and come and
0:35:09 when you're ready yeah
0:35:11 yeah good you're thinking yeah
0:35:13 this is the first time i see you guys
0:35:14 putting your hands on your forehead and
0:35:15 really scratching your heads and stuff
0:35:16 like that
0:35:17 you know struggling with this with the
0:35:19 subject matter so it should be
0:35:26 don't worry i i had the same experience
0:35:28 i mean when i looked at this the first
0:35:31 time
0:35:38 let's look at the second premise guys
0:35:39 together yeah
0:35:42 just a second premise
0:35:44 the only proof it's almost incriminating
0:35:47 what he says
0:35:48 the only proof of
0:35:50 desirability is desire
0:35:54 it sounds totological actually
0:35:57 the only proof
0:35:59 for your belief in god is your belief in
0:36:00 god
0:36:02 okay you're saying the same thing twice
0:36:05 what do you mean the only proof for
0:36:06 desirability is desire what does that
0:36:07 actually mean that there has to be a
0:36:09 distinction between desiring desire if
0:36:10 the only proof of desirably is desire
0:36:13 and why should it be a proof anyway
0:36:16 these are just assertions at this point
0:36:19 the only proof for desirability is
0:36:20 desire
0:36:22 let me scratch my head let me think
0:36:23 about that this doesn't make sense this
0:36:25 is the problem this is why we're not
0:36:26 getting it because it's nonsensical it's
0:36:28 invalid
0:36:30 why is it invalid because the way this
0:36:31 guy has used the word desire
0:36:34 okay you'll see and then
0:36:36 what does he mean by desire he means
0:36:39 is it something worthy of being done
0:36:42 something that should or shouldn't be
0:36:43 done
0:36:44 or is it something that
0:36:47 one wants to do
0:36:50 these these these terms are being played
0:36:52 around with here
0:36:55 are we saying in the second premise the
0:36:57 only proof
0:36:59 that something is worthy or something
0:37:01 should or shouldn't be done or ought or
0:37:03 wouldn't be done or something is right
0:37:04 or wrong
0:37:06 is that
0:37:07 people do it
0:37:09 is that what we're saying
0:37:11 we say there's no proof at all
0:37:13 simple as that that's no proof at all
0:37:15 that doesn't satisfy my uh
0:37:17 doesn't satiate my hunger my
0:37:18 intellectual hunger it doesn't quench my
0:37:22 academic thirst
0:37:23 it does nothing for me it hasn't
0:37:25 satisfied me
0:37:26 has it satisfied you
0:37:29 don't think it satisfied me
0:37:31 what do you mean the only proof think
0:37:34 let's think about this guys please the
0:37:36 only proof
0:37:37 for desirability which is
0:37:40 that something should or shouldn't be
0:37:41 done or that something
0:37:43 should be thought of in those ways
0:37:45 is that people desire it
0:37:48 people desire everything like different
0:37:50 people desire different things
0:37:51 everything can be desired
0:37:53 so what's he saying no no no no no yeah
0:37:56 yeah yeah
0:37:58 he doesn't care about that
0:38:00 we are jumping again
0:38:02 where are we where we were how are we
0:38:04 jumping
0:38:05 it's possible that people could desire
0:38:07 bad things or immoral things no no no no
0:38:10 this is this don't say this because this
0:38:12 remember he's establishing rally
0:38:14 he's not so bad things then you're
0:38:16 begging the question and you have this
0:38:17 bad thing already and you're no
0:38:20 it's not that people could be he he's
0:38:22 saying what
0:38:23 he's saying what you said before
0:38:25 okay this is how it is
0:38:27 therefore
0:38:28 it's how it should be
0:38:30 or the only proof that things should be
0:38:34 should be
0:38:36 the way they are
0:38:38 is
0:38:39 that they are the way they are
0:38:41 that's it from what
0:38:43 point of view then it's in front of you
0:38:44 like to tell journalism utilitarianism
0:38:48 like in that moral framework no no we're
0:38:49 not even there yet
0:38:50 we're not even there yet
0:38:53 so when he says it should be like that
0:38:55 why is he based on
0:38:57 this is the question
0:38:58 this is the million dollar question what
0:39:00 are you but
0:39:01 in fact
0:39:02 can we see that he's basing it on any is
0:39:04 he has he got something basing on it
0:39:07 i really want you to struggle with this
0:39:08 guys is there any evidence here he's
0:39:09 just saying that the only proof that you
0:39:10 desire is that you desire it like it
0:39:12 doesn't
0:39:13 yeah and this this is called the fallacy
0:39:15 of equivocation
0:39:16 unless you differentiate between the two
0:39:18 terms here
0:39:19 what desire desirability means
0:39:22 something you ought to do and desire is
0:39:25 something you are doing so the only
0:39:27 proof that you ought to do this thing is
0:39:28 that you already are doing it
0:39:34 yes but that's a cyclical argument
0:39:36 that's cyclical argument it is that bad
0:39:39 it is really that bad
0:39:41 now you imagine i just
0:39:43 we've played around with it one more one
0:39:44 more promise
0:39:47 each person's desire each person desires
0:39:50 his own happiness for its own sake and
0:39:52 not for the sake of something else
0:39:54 so this is
0:39:57 hence happiness as such is desired for
0:39:59 its own sake
0:40:01 is desired
0:40:02 so this is something that is happening
0:40:04 not something that should be happening
0:40:06 just remember the word should
0:40:07 right now in premise three in premise
0:40:10 three
0:40:11 okay
0:40:12 and four there's no shoulds there's just
0:40:15 this is it's a psychological disposition
0:40:18 hence happiness as such is desired for
0:40:20 its own sake not for something else from
0:40:22 the point of view of humanity
0:40:24 now he's moving on to the aggregate of
0:40:25 persons even if we go with that no
0:40:27 problem it's a psychological disposition
0:40:29 for the sake of argument hence happiness
0:40:31 as such is desirable
0:40:35 you see what he's doing here this guy he
0:40:37 thinks what we're not going to read this
0:40:38 or
0:40:39 we're not going to analyze this or
0:40:40 something
0:40:41 he went from it's being done
0:40:45 to what what's desirable
0:40:50 yeah it is desirable but what do you
0:40:52 mean by desirable my question is it oh
0:40:55 this my question is is it all if it's
0:40:57 desirable now you're moving from is are
0:41:00 you moving to all
0:41:02 are you moving
0:41:03 even if you are
0:41:05 how can you move to all
0:41:07 how is that okay it's happening
0:41:08 therefore it should happen
0:41:10 if it's not it is happening therefore it
0:41:12 should happen there will be torsology
0:41:13 again it's happening therefore it's
0:41:14 happening so you've got two problems
0:41:16 either you're saying it's happening
0:41:17 therefore it's happening it's
0:41:19 psychological therefore cycle which is t
0:41:20 which is those ology all you're saying
0:41:22 is happening there for us should be
0:41:24 happening which is you've the law of
0:41:26 excluded middle you've
0:41:28 missed out something here that we don't
0:41:29 know
0:41:30 you haven't even put something in the
0:41:31 middle
0:41:32 you've missed something out here in the
0:41:33 syllogism
0:41:35 so you it's a damned if you do and
0:41:36 damned if you don't situate
0:41:38 now i want you to remember something and
0:41:40 you can look at the rest of this uh
0:41:42 this syllogism
0:41:43 but this is
0:41:45 this
0:41:46 is the dominant ethic in the west
0:41:51 you'd expect the dominant ethic in the
0:41:53 superpower and its extensions
0:41:56 to have something a little bit more than
0:41:58 that
0:42:01 like honestly
0:42:03 do you know this is an invalid argument
0:42:04 it's not even just unsound we said you
0:42:07 can have a valid argument you can
0:42:09 everything that begins to exist has a
0:42:10 course universe has a it began to exist
0:42:11 therefore the universe
0:42:13 had a course this is a famous
0:42:14 cosmological syllogism yeah
0:42:17 now no one's going to deny its validity
0:42:19 it's a valid argument 100
0:42:22 is it sound that's what the philosophers
0:42:24 deny or reject or accept or whatever
0:42:27 this syllogism is invalid
0:42:29 it's not possible in any possible world
0:42:32 this is impossible you cannot derive the
0:42:34 conclusions from those premises
0:42:36 and you're telling me that this is your
0:42:39 evidence
0:42:40 for
0:42:41 everything you're telling us
0:42:43 to do and not to do
0:42:45 why does your religion allow this
0:42:48 why is your origin another
0:42:52 what's the assumption
0:42:54 why does your
0:42:55 religion allow
0:42:57 this such and such punishment
0:43:00 why does your religion allow such and
0:43:02 such thing
0:43:03 why is your religion doesn't allow
0:43:05 anyone to just have a boyfriend
0:43:06 girlfriend relationship why is it so
0:43:08 conservative they'll say
0:43:10 of ultra conservative and all you know
0:43:13 this kind of language that they have
0:43:15 why why okay so what's the assumption
0:43:18 when you say that
0:43:19 that's anti-normative at least
0:43:20 vibrational strange that's strange
0:43:22 what's the what is the norm then what
0:43:25 should it be
0:43:26 it could be implied that the assumption
0:43:28 is that it should be in the liberal
0:43:29 paradigm
0:43:31 but okay there's no problem this is
0:43:32 illegal
0:43:33 prove us the liberal paradigm please
0:43:34 tell us what you the evidence for the
0:43:36 liberal paradigm is from a social
0:43:37 perspective the evidence of the liberal
0:43:39 paradigm is you desire things therefore
0:43:41 you should desire things put it in one
0:43:43 word
0:43:44 you desire a thing you like things
0:43:46 therefore you should like it so long as
0:43:47 you don't have anyone else
0:43:49 because of the aggregate thing
0:43:51 okay
0:43:52 no how about that how about give me some
0:43:54 proper evidence
0:43:55 how about you don't go into the
0:43:56 countries with swords and you're
0:43:59 spreading liberalism by the sword for
0:44:00 something that has no evidence
0:44:02 it doesn't even have evidence
0:44:05 it's a failure it is and it is a
0:44:07 philosophical failure but it's a popular
0:44:09 failure
0:44:11 just like the flat earth model just like
0:44:13 many things that were popular in the
0:44:14 past
0:44:16 but
0:44:17 so the main thing now going to islamic
0:44:19 if you like polemics whatever it is
0:44:21 is when people ask you a question you
0:44:23 always have to assess what the
0:44:24 assumption
0:44:25 of the question
0:44:27 because especially if it's moral it
0:44:28 usually have social liberal assumptions
0:44:31 or socially liberal feministic
0:44:33 assumptions
0:44:34 once you realize that these are the
0:44:35 assumptions we're dealing with
0:44:37 then you realize what
0:44:39 we're not going to deal with the
0:44:40 question we're going to deal with the
0:44:41 assumptions of the question and if you
0:44:43 deal with the assumptions of the
0:44:44 question you're sweeping
0:44:46 the opponent
0:44:47 or you're sweeping the rug under the
0:44:49 foot of the opponent
0:44:51 okay and we're going to do our
0:44:54 session now
0:44:55 a discussion and with that we conclude
0:44:57 hopefully that was as fruitful for you
0:44:59 as it was for me
0:45:01 and now you can
0:45:03 go back to these
0:45:04 particular slides if you have access if
0:45:06 not we'll try and provide access for
0:45:08 them
0:45:09 which is
0:45:11 allah
0:45:27 you