You're all very welcome today to our talk with Amelia Taroad, our guest Q&A, the series of which we've been doing for a little while now with 42 courses. So first of all, I would like to turn to our guest Amelia. You're very welcome, Amelia, joining us on our 42 courses guest speaker series. And maybe you'd like to tell everybody joining us today just a little bit about yourself. Well, thank you, Louise. Thank you for the two courses. Hello, everybody. It's such a pleasure to do these kinds of things. So thank you very much for inviting me along to do this. My name is Amelia. I am a strategist, a brand strategist. I guess sometimes an innovation consultant. I kind of wear a number of different hats. I've been working in the industry for sadly a very long time. So I started in 1997 working for WPP. I was one of their early WPP fellowships and I have had a career that I'm so I've loved, really genuinely loved it. That's taken me to the US, to the UK around the world, to countries as far as as China and Finland and Serbia and all over the place. And I've worked for big companies like WPP. Oh, sorry, I've got a little bit of feedback from WPP to agencies such as TVWA, Naked Back in the Day, Ogil the Interactive, VCCP. And about six years ago, I left the world of agencies and I set up a brand and innovation consultancy called Break. So I've been running my own business for the last six years. And I think for me, the thing that I love. So I'm absolutely a strategist at heart. I've worked across advertising, PR, CSR, digital. For me, the bit that really gets all my synapses buzzing is about that connecting point between people and brands and thinking about spaces and places where they exist and how you can connect them using creativity. And I am constantly amazed that, well, not amazed, but I'm just I'm delighted that I get paid for doing something that I really love doing. And I count myself very lucky to do it. Well, it's just great. Amelia, that lovely introduction from yourself. Somebody so happy in the role at work.  But, you know, my goodness, if I think about the kinds of client problems that I work on, you know, you and I, Louise were talking about books that we were reading that, you know, things like whether it's, you know, the Elon Musk biography or Shoe Dog.  And of course, many of you joining us today on this talk are in either ad agencies, marketing industry, creativity industries. But just let's go back to scratch, Amelia. And let's talk about what is the role of a strategist? Oh, okay. I mean, I think the role of a strategist is really one about kind of decoding. I think really good strategists have fantastic cultural antennae. I think that, you know, the best strategists I've ever worked with and almost in brackets, actually, some of the best strategists don't necessarily have the word strategy in their title, but really good strategic thinkers have great cultural antennae. They are really kind of eyes up and really interested. They notice things and I think it's about sort of decoding and connecting signals in order to provide advice and counsel, really. So I think it's kind of decoding and helping to navigate is what I always think a great strategist is. And in a smaller agency, why should the CEO, why should the founder decide, yeah, I need a strategist in my team? Because I think without somebody whose clear focus is on the strategy, I think you can get, it's very easy to get drawn off course, whether it's they're kind of administrative or business. I just think having somebody whose absolute centre of gravity is thinking about the strategic direction of client business. Without that, my worry is that you lose a kind of fundamental anchor and that coming out of it, the work suffers.  What was the thing that was going, what was going on at the time that made the difference for you to decide, yes, I want to go in my own direction? So, I mean, I think there were a number of things going on and, you know, some personal and some professional. So, I mean, I had a real moment of kind of personal crisis, actually. So, my lovely mum got a very late stage terminal cancer diagnosis. So, if people know anything about cancer, they stage it. And there are four stages and stage four is when there's nothing you can do about it. And my lovely mum who was a kind of non-smoking, non-drinking, you know, super healthy had lung cancer and it was stage four and there was nothing they could do about it. And I think I had a real moment of thinking about, you do, you have a real moment about what do I want to do? I mean, it's a real kind of esoteric moment. There's an amazing quote, Martin Luther King back in the 1960s was giving a sermon in the Riverside Cathedral in New York and King was talking about the Vietnam War and he uses this wonderful phrase where he talked about the fierce urgency of now. And I think when somebody close to you has such a horrible diagnosis, there's a kind of fierce urgency of now you really think about now. And I guess I'd always been tempted to think about trying to set something up in the way that I wanted with a structure that I wanted. But there was never a right time. And then suddenly when that happened to my mum, it just made me think about there is never a right time. But the fierce urgency of now kind of compels you to do something. And I did. And actually, I mean, again, it's been up and down. There's been COVID in the middle. There's been two young children needing homeschooling when their schools shut down. But it has been such an adventure. And I'm so glad, so glad. Well, obviously not glad, but I'm glad that actually out of a kind of tragedy with my mum, there was something I could take positive out of it. And that was about kind of there is never a perfect time. So, you know, give things a go. I'm sorry to hear that that story, but at the same time, as you say, something good came out of it in that you set up your company and fantastic referencing that Luther King quote, as I think there's a lot of us, regardless of our sort of life stages, certainly through COVID, as you say, a lot of people stepped back and asked that question of themselves. So I think that's very pertinent really to the times we find ourselves in now. I mean, sort of drawing in. We hate to talk about COVID, become the second C word, but drawing that in and drawing that in with strategy. To what degree do you think even just general strategy in business is sort of more important than ever now as people are still now, I think adapting to the fallout of this and the impact it's had on a lot of, certainly on a lot of small businesses.  I mean, I think from a strategy perspective and for strategists, it's a really good time to be doing what we're doing, because I don't, you know, I think it's never been as needed.  But I think without that kind of clear sense of strategy, what you just get is drift.  And you talked about how the strategist is somebody who sort of needs to have their finger on the sort of cultural zeitgeist, as it were. It is something that you think somebody is a certain type of person, sort of naturally curious and interesting, or can you actually train somebody to be a strategist? If you're not inherently sort of curious and wanting to learn about new things, can you sort of engender this in yourself? I mean, so it's the kind of nature, nurture question, isn't it? I mean, all the best strategists I've worked with just have this kind of this, this fizz and this energy and this interest. I think that probably anyone can kind of learn strategy. I mean, there are courses, there are books that, but, but I think, and that, and you can, and I think that's fine. You know, there's kind of basic strategic principles. Actually, anybody can learn, but, but I think those people that really excel and who clients adore and who people love working with just do have that curiosity and, you know, an old mentor of mine, Jeremy Bulmore from WPP always used to say, well, he said a great adman, but he meant, you know, we were talking about sort of planners, but he said that, you know, they're people who find something interesting in every section of the Sunday papers. And, you know, and what he meant by that, you know, was, I don't really have any interesting cars. I'm not a petrolhead, but, but, but actually when somebody with a kind of strategic kind of mindset on, you know, we'll look at that and go, isn't that interesting the design of that? Or, you know, you and I were talking earlier, Louise, about Tesla and electric vehicles. You know, there's always something interesting around if you've got the kind of the mindset, the inquisitive mindset and that attitude of kind of asking why there's always something there. So I guess the short answer is, I think anyone can learn the fundamentals of strategy, but I think really extraordinary strategists have an insatiable appetite for understanding and really look harder than other people and take the time to look and take the time to think. That's a really good explanation. I'm just laughing to myself because my husband's always complaining about the amount of time it takes me to get through the Sunday paper because I've always got my tablet alongside me and I have to keep stopping and starting and looking something up and, as you say, finding interest in things that you wouldn't on the face of it think you would, you would be interested in. Absolutely. Absolutely. And I'm constantly, somebody said, I weaponise my telephone and I guess what they meant by, so I'm constantly taking pictures of things. So it might be a shock front. It might be sometimes I'll just take a picture of a quote that I've read in a newspaper or it might be an ad I see on a bus or but I'm just constantly snapping things because at some point I've kind of got a roller deck, I suppose, on my phone, which is at some point I will use them like at some point there's a quote or there's a great collaboration that I haven't heard of or there's a shock that I haven't seen for at some point I'll use it and it may be in a couple of years time but just having it there is so is so is so useful because there's always we're surrounded by interesting stuff but sometimes you walk past it and sometimes you don't remember it. So you've been giving me some great examples from the areas you've been talking about for anybody who is with us who wasn't quite sort of o-fay with what a strategist does but maybe we can really sort of pin it down how would you mind maybe talking about a recent strategy campaign that you have worked on at Form Break so that people can really put it into sort of concrete context. So one project that we worked on recently so in the centre of London there is an organisation called Somerset House and it's amazing it's a beautiful old building on the banks of the River Thames it used to be a palace it then became I think it was part of the foreign office it's got a huge courtyard in the middle and it's this kind of incredible organisation because it's got the Courtauld Art Gallery they have the largest collection of working artists who are there who kind of pay a peppercorn rent they have small businesses they put on kind of like events they're a kind of dance night they have amazing it's this brilliant thing and the brief that we were given by the director of Somerset House was what can John, the volunteer so John is a real person and he's from Belfast and he's quite dour he's quite he's quite it took a time for me to warm up to John but John needed to have an answer to the question when an American tourist walks in on the strand and says to John, gee what is this place John can't say well it's a cacophony of like John wanted John needs an answer to what exactly this place is and it was a kind of fascinating project because there were so many stakeholders in it from artists to small business owners to art galleries King's College is also connected and we one of the things that the director at Somerset House had said is I want everybody to feel part of this thing but it doesn't it feels like we're very siloed and we're a collection of kind of silos as opposed to one big house together and we want a kind of organizational strategy for this company for Somerset House but also for the brand of it to build people to kind of pull people together and actually the strategy that we ended up coming up so we gave them a positioning and the positioning was around being a working art centre because actually there's something very different about Somerset House versus any other kind of art gallery where there's always work in progress so there are people at work there are businesses at work charities at work there are artists, there are soundscapers like there's just a buzz and when you look up at Somerset House and you look at the windows you'll see post-it notes are up and people are like it's alive with people working on ideas and it's very different to an art gallery so we gave them a positioning which was London's working art centre which they loved because it kind of it pulled in everybody but I think the things that I was really proud of was that what we realised was that one of the reasons strategically or I guess emotionally why people within Somerset House didn't feel like they were all part of one experience was to do with lanyards which is really funny so the things that you wear around your neck and what we realised was that artists had a different colour small business owners had a different colour students had a different colour and the colours denoted what discount you got in the canteen and what discount you got in the shop so actually what was happening was that all the people who kind of lived and worked at Somerset House were looking at each other going oh well she gets 10% he gets 20% and actually those coloured lanyards were kind of building in kind of suspicion so that was kind of interesting and then the other thing that we found was that with Somerset House it's quite a confusing space the physical space it's called North Wing and South Wing and unless you have a compass it's quite difficult to know where you are and to navigate and what we realised it sounds really odd but when you were getting in the lifts the lift signage would say ground floor you know minus one minus two but when you got into the lifts it would say lower ground the signage was all wrong so that actually people were coming into Somerset House and the lifts people were getting lost so we gave them a sort of a strategic positioning but then we also gave them a number of really practical solutions to help with their with the challenge they were facing so actually I'm kind of just as proud as the fact that we changed their lanyards and we changed their lift signage because actually those were kind of practical examples of how strategy can translate into real world experience and then coming out of that then we could develop comms around advertising and around content but you had to have that kind of strategic framework and you also for me I'm quite a practical strategist and I like seeing things come to life over and above, here's a six sheet or this is what an Instagram post would look like for me it's really important that strategy plays out in the everyday so it was a really interesting example and not one that translated into a television ad but it was a really interesting strategic challenge that allowed us to really think creatively and at different touch points as well I think that's a super example and a very interesting one as much as when people think generally about advertising agencies your first thought is always the advert the television, the radio out on the street and yet this is a very good example of a company that was struggling with an identity and brought in a strategist and I think there's lots of people who might not even realise that you can hire somebody to think through those issues that you're having within your company so I think that's a really super example one of the messages you sent through to me when we were sort of messing back and forth about the event you called yourself a strategic generalist maybe, is that the term you used and I'd love to know then what does that mean then that if someone calls them a generalist and then can you be a strategic specialist or working in just a particular area so I always feel so I always feel a little bit anxious that I'm too much of a generalist so I think everybody has their kind of imposter anxiety and and maybe it's because I started my career as a marketing generalist so the way that the WPP Fellowship used to work it was a three year long grad program and you did three years three different disciplines and if you wanted to three different countries so it was just amazing so right at the beginning I'd spent a year in advertising then I did a year in media and then I did a year in digital here in the US so right from the beginning I've always thought quite broadly and I've never really thought about myself as an ad person or as a digital person I've always thought about myself as a strategist who really likes brands and who really likes people and loves technology and kind of how do you connect them and you know there is all the thing about kind of T shaped planners and you've got to have a really good overview but you've got to have a center of gravity somewhere and sometimes I worry that my center of gravity isn't deep enough but my center of gravity and actually I think my center of gravity is probably is strategy but there are plenty of people who can write a better social strategy than I can or who can write a better CRM strategy than I can but I think I'm pretty good at putting the pieces together but I think you can have a question of can you have strategic specialists absolutely and my goodness you know when you find them and you really gel with them I mean that's where the kind of magic happens because I think it was funny so I was mentoring and I was having coffee with a young woman who is a strategist in the world of Out of Home and she was just brilliant yes I had a coffee with her yesterday morning and she knew so much about Out of Home that I would ever do but actually she didn't really understand about brands and her her kind of aperture was quite limited so you know what she needed was the ability to kind of partner in with somebody who could help open her aperture but what she loved was Out of Home but I'm constantly anxious that my T-bits isn't deep enough and you mentioned Jeremy Bulmore earlier who you obviously had the privilege to work with who have been your influences I think Jeremy is just extraordinary and I miss him every day he passed away earlier this year he was in his 90s but still working at WPP and you know everybody should read everything that he's ever written because he's just the most extraordinary clear thinker and Jeremy's work is just fantastic I was also very lucky to work with another planner in the US called John Steele who has written a number of books Perfect Pitch Truth Lies and Advertising and John Steele is another person who is just an extraordinary thinker and again is worth reading everything he's written he really helped me think about storytelling in pitches well it's just storytelling generally and how you persuade I mean he's brilliant he could have been a lawyer he would have won every case he ever thought and then a long time ago again another planner Russell Davies who was at Weidman Kennedy for a long time Nike Government Digital Service Russell who's another extraordinary brain was hugely influential on me I said back at the beginning of this century so kind of early noughties when he was very generous with planners actually when there was a kind of wonderful kind of planosphere and he would put together meetups on a Friday I think at the Breakfast Club in Soho and strategists would come together and he was really generous with his time and got people blogging and writing and thinking and sharing and he had this wonderful conference called Interesting where people would come and bring stuff that they found that was interesting and he goes back to what we were talking about which is really great strategists do find interesting things and they find interesting things where other people don't think they're interesting but planners do so all of those have had a real impact but I think the strategy community is a nice community on the whole I mean I've found it to be an intelligent and supportive community that kind of helps bring people up as opposed to knock people down that's lovely we're all very nice aren't we we all need organizers and you mentioned there about reading Jeremy Bulma's work obviously you're a big reader I'm an avid reader myself I often hesitate to actually start these questions because you could go prattling on all day about it but what are you reading at the moment Amelia or are there other books you would recommend to anyone who's joined you I mean I just think we've all you know I mean I say this to my children and they don't never bloody read anything but you know we've got to you know that's how you learn so I've just finished the Walter Isaacson on Elon Musk which I just found absolutely fascinating literally I couldn't put it down and the I mean so that I just think is amazing I've always got kind of multiple books on the go I'm really a really interesting book at the moment called Teenage which is by by an ex-journalist called John Savage and it's about the creation of teenage and adolescence as a point in time and he has a very interesting premise because most of the time people think that sort of teenagers started with the Beatles and actually what John does in his book is he looks much further back into kind of the 1870s sorry yes the 1870s 1890s and looks much earlier at because it used to be you were a child and then you were an adult and the beginnings of adolescence as a kind of as a mindset and as a kind of demographic I've just found absolutely fascinating Sounds really interesting I haven't heard of that I know that Chris our founder will be nodding there when you mention the Walter Isaacson Elon Musk which is he's a man love him or hate him that obviously he's part of all our lives and very much part of current culture What's so astonishing is Musk runs six companies jobs at his peak ran Pixar and Apple Tesla Neurolink it's the boring company it's unbelievable it is unbelievable Twitter whatever whether it's on fire or not but the impact he's what a force of nature and just trying to understand anyway I just I I audibled it actually with a lot of those bigger books I tend to lots of them I have to listen to because it's just easier for me and if I'm travelling around but I couldn't I couldn't stop couldn't stop listening to it that's a marvellous advertisement for it and we chatted earlier that I'd also read the book Power Play which is about the birth of Tesla and again I said to Amelia absolutely fascinating reading would never believe the company could have ever built one car if you understood what was going on in the factory I've got that I'll download that the other one I've just downloaded actually this morning is one called Blood and Oil which is all about the sort of Middle East and Saudi politics and I think for me I don't know enough about that area so I think that was something that I keep meeting people who young people in the industry who are all moving to the Middle East because that's where they say the money is that's where they say the opportunities is and that's where the excitement is and then they all talk about ethics and they're making some ethical decisions and choices but certainly the sense I get from a lot of people that I'm talking to is they're not people aren't rushing to go and work in the States like I did 20 years ago the only place I wanted to work was the States there is an anxiety about Europe but people are really thinking about those Middle Eastern countries and so for me again I need to make sure that I understand more about that context because I don't enough that's very interesting very interesting observations not something I can say I really thought about but I had heard of the book mentioned and there were several others I think recommended this weekend last weekend was the big FT when they have the book yes I love that yeah absolutely and what's great about those books is ones that really from the description you would just think oh I'd never be interested in that but I suppose that's the power of a good writer or a good journalist is that they can make something the face of it sounds quite boring absolutely I mean a great documentary maker makes anything interesting I think I remember years ago watching a brilliant documentary and I think it was about something like the plumbing system in ancient Rome but that's what a great they find something fascinating and you go god I'd never thought that would be interesting but you're absolutely right yeah I'm not ashamed to say I watched one last week on pigeon racing pigeon races in America so there we go it was actually really interesting I would like to watch something is it pigeon fanciest or something sorry let's not get diverted by pigeons talking about pigeons so obviously I do want to bring in everybody who's joined us today it's great to see so many people joining us Amelia's been telling us about so interesting and I can see a question from quite towards the start of the chat from Veil are you still with us Veil you had a very interesting question hello Veil I'm going to ask you to unmute yourself if you don't mind and I'd love you to put your question to Amelia you're very welcome Veil thank you so much I'm actually working in a small agency where they don't have real strategy and it kind of feels that they don't value it enough or they don't see the importance of it so much I'm thinking about changing to strategy and like really feeling that void maybe in this agency but if not I'm maybe moving elsewhere but I do want to make change to strategy I've been a creative for the past 20 years like how do I do this ooh or what's a good start well no I mean so listen some of the most strategic people I've ever worked have had that you know I said right at the beginning some most strategic people have never had the word strategy in their title Jeremy Bulmore my mentor was a creative all his life but the most strategic person I've ever had the pleasure of working with so I'm sure that already really good creatives think highly strategically because they think about their audience they think about the strategy I mean you're probably doing it already I mean I'm a big fan of the APG I don't know if you know that organisation the APG I mean originally it stood for the account planning group it's set up in the UK but their courses are often online and are brilliant and that you meet a kind of you create a cohort you meet a kind of gang of people and you're kind of trained together I think the APG are great 42 courses again would have some brilliant resources but the APG do specific courses for people transitioning out of specific disciplines into strategy and that's all they do it's planning strategy so I'd probably be tempted to start with the APG that's definitely a good suggestion I've also already done some of the behavioural science courses 42 courses which I really like but like if someone has suggestions for books or resources I'm really willing to hear I'm also thinking of maybe I don't know like I've already got 20 years of experience as a creative like to go somewhere where I can maybe do like partly strategy and parts creative Well listen, ping me afterwards I'd be very happy to help you in the right direction Thanks very much that's a great question and thank you so much for joining us and so I can see a question from sorry don't just apologise just a messed up feel I think I might have thrown her out of the meeting I can see a message in there from sorry a little chat Well I've just lost my question oh no it was Luke there we go back on board and back on board Luke was actually referring to the example you were giving Amelia of your strategy example in Somerset House and just had a particular question about it would you like to join us Luke and put your question to Amelia or will I just read that out I can see you're still with us no response as the storm replies so what Luke was asking there Amelia as he was very oh hi there Luke do you have any bandwidth to put on your camera Luke I have bandwidth I don't know if I understand how to use not to worry at all we'll leave you there in the dark and put your question to Amelia no I'm involved in changing settings which is beyond me yeah so I thought the Somerset house example was great and I got the brief there from the client which was really nice that they put that into the hands of a specific person I guess and I got the output that you designed and you created I was interested in what went on between the two you know how do you approach that problem what are the processes is if research and then development and then iteration you know I'd love a little bit of detail very practical question that's a super help great question so one of the things that we always do when we are on strategy projects so we go and kind of live with the client so oh hello I can see hello I like your wallpaper as well hello Luke you're very welcome so when I started the company it was back in 2017 and one of the things that we kind of deliberately did was we didn't have a headquarters because what we always said with every client project was we put into the contract that they would give us space for the duration of the project so we would go and live in the organization and work out of it because we always found that that gave you much better insights into the challenge that you were trying to face so we went and lived and worked out of Somerset House I guess it was between for about four or six weeks but we did a number of these things of which we call hax which are kind of strategy hackathons whereby they're kind of sort of building workshops whereby you are creating a strategic prototype together so you're pulling in all the different sort of stakeholders all the different well I guess stakeholders from the sort of different from across Somerset House and what we would do was a series of these strat hacks where we were building a proposition and really trying to get under the skin of what made Somerset House different as a place to visit as a place to work as a place to to eat as a place to socialize in so we went through quite a structured approach which was exactly that loop where we created prototypes we put it back into teams we tweet we iterated but it was totally collaborative with the client so one of the things that I've always hated is the kind of the client gives you the brief and you go away for six weeks and then you kind of you know the velvet curtains opens and they're like well that's what I expected or you know sometimes it works but lots of times it doesn't and then you've just spent weeks and you've all killed yourself and it hasn't worked so I always think that strategy is a kind of team sport and if it's a team sport we've got to become much better at allowing clients into the process with us so it was always a very flat iterative process because then when you have the final presentation there really isn't much surprise because you've kind of built it together great thank you thanks so much it was a great question a very practical question so I think we're time for one more question Sarah you've just put a question in our comment box I'd love it if you would join us to talk to Amelia thank you so much hi Amelia great to meet you and thank you so much for everything that you've shared with us this morning I've just been making notes in the background all loads of really real amazing gems and pearls of wisdom thank you I would love to ask you do you always start with so any strategic project that you're working on do you always start with vision mission values and purpose the reason that I ask that is that I just find it almost impossible to work with a client whatever their challenge might be it might just be some really kind of random non-purpose connected challenge whatever their challenge is I find it really really hard to sort of get started or get any direction and if we don't actually start with establishing those things first also I just I love establishing those things doesn't have knowledge of those things so do I I guess one of the things though that I work like that sometimes those kind of even those words like kind of vision and mission and this and that like I think sometimes as an industry we can trip up over our own feet and sometimes you can have kind of hair splitting semantics of is it a vision or is it a mission and then suddenly you get into these kind of useless conversations of so what I tend to do is I look at three things when I start a project and I think about beliefs, ambition and truths so I I often I often start with kind of beliefs so what are the beliefs of the organization so often I start with kind of I tend to sort of have on a poster somewhere like kind of build from beliefs so I start with kind of what are the beliefs and actually that beliefs are always much easier for clients to articulate rather than a vision or a mission which sometimes can be quite high for Luton and it doesn't really meet where it's actually what do you believe as an organization what do you believe what do you believe about your products what do you believe about your culture so try kind of mapping some beliefs which are a really good way to start I also really like thinking about truths so what are some of the truths about your again about the product about your audience about I don't know your budget you know we don't have any like that would be a truth like you know we've only got you know a hundred thousand but I think I get people talking about beliefs I get people thinking about the truths and then I think I get people to think about ambition so for me and this is entirely personal sometimes vision and mission can feel a bit too out there whereas an ambition a five year ambition and ambition to me feels a bit more practical so so I always talk about really strong strategies kind of sitting at the intersection of beliefs truth and ambition and if you can think about belief truth and ambition into a solution again for me that becomes eminently practical as opposed to here's a vision you know because the vision is always we have a vision of ending like it's often too far away and yeah it's often not not really touchable if it feels you can't get your hands on it whereas belief truth and ambitions to me people I can understand it and if I can understand it then I can help clones understand it love that thank you thank you so much Sarah that was a great question so I think we're coming very much to the end of today's session and it's really been quite a masterclass Amelia and as Sarah was saying I'm sure there's plenty of people here today who've been scribbling away furiously there's been lots of very good suggestions in the chat box and Chris our CEO has shared lots of very practical information in the chat box with links I hope you've all taken notes from that as well it's really been an honour to speak to you Amelia we could go on all day I'm sure but we've come to the end of this session so thank you so much for joining us today really been sharing some super information and you've been very welcome and thank you to everybody who has joined us today taking your time out of your busy day to hear the wealth of wealth of wisdom Amelia you're very kind very kind and I was just going to say in the olden days when I was on Twitter I would have said connect with me on Twitter and I'm sadly not on Twitter anymore because it's kind of burning but connect on LinkedIn I'm always happy to chat always happy to have virtual cup of tea and a conversation so LinkedIn or Instagram as long as you can put up with some pictures of my children playing football generous as ever thank you so much thanks everyone for joining us do join us again just a little insight into next month's event in about three weeks time we will be speaking with Rory Sutherland who I know most people here are a great fan of so I do hope you'll look out for our share of the link to the next event but until that next time thanks everyone for joining us and hope to see you again soon bye


We should be streaming across the nation and this is after an update by the way which supposedly fixed the audio and I'm really my footsteps kind of sound different. I'm hearing a difference in my footsteps but anyway let me get the chat up on the screen so that if anyone joins I can see because Karen is a bit lazy sometimes she will not complete the whole sentence sadly.


We talked about assumptions or the end of the assumptions in the last class and talked about proximity that well how in spatial and relational terms that the event becomes immaterial. The other aspect we need to talk about a little bit which said that well the actions of others assumed or actual similarly placed or not to make a difference to one's actions. So, what it simply saying that well how others react to a situation how others react to a moral requirement will influence or determines how one agents reaction to it. Now, this is crucial or this is the basis of the next or the same claim that he makes that well numbers lessen obligation. So, now for a famine in Bangladesh there are numerous countries that can pitch in to make a difference. So, because the moral responsibility is perhaps divided into the number of agents and countries. So, it lessens the obligations on an individual country or an individual citizen and the question comes forth that well why should I give more than anyone else in my situation. As in the described situation there are large number of agents who could act to make a difference, but this possibility reduces the moral or this possibility reduces the moral on us on each agent. So, numbers lessen obligation now what are we thinking about this that we started talking about it that well of and this example in the article that is given that well drowning child.  Now, Singer's claim is that well first he says that if everyone in my situation makes a contribution of some currency units the crisis is solved. So, I should contribute this much the premises in the form of a hypothesis whereas the conclusion is given as a factual status. So, clearly Singer is not in favor of the theory that numbers lessen obligation, but it is a matter of common practice that well numbers do lessen obligation. Where responsibility is pinned down on an individual or at in a limited agency then the obligation is stronger, but when it is put out for. So, when we have a random call for volunteers all across an organization the the moral obligation for anyone to come up is much lesser. Whereas, if we have a pin pointed call for volunteers from a particular section of the organization perhaps the reaction is much stronger. This is the common. So, Singer is in a way doing what philosophers in the conventional sense are supposed to do revise the current standards. So, the current practices and standards are that well numbers do lessen obligation and Singer is of the opinion that no numbers do not lessen and should not need not lessen obligation. So, if and the fallacy that he points out is that well the premises in the form of a hypothesis whereas the conclusion is gives a factual claim. So, the premises that well if there are 20 people to help out this or there are 100 nations to help out Bangladesh and each one contributes say a fixed amount of resources it should be done. And therefore, as any one of those 100 nations we are obliged to pay only that much, but then well what he points out as that the premise is all in the form of a hypothesis that if everyone contributes. Therefore, I should contribute this much so that is the fallacy he points out. The utilitarian reading is that if everyone does what he ought to do the result will not be as good as it would be if everyone did a little less than we ought to do or if only some do all that they ought to do excess sacrifice would be a waste unnecessary suffering caused including deficiency caused at the donor's end. So, one common claim has been that well if each one of us is such a passionate fanatic contributor or takes this moral responsibility so seriously it would perhaps lead to a generation of excessive resources for the affected. And that would again slow down that would cause in the utilitarian moral calculus it would cause a deficiency in the donor itself. So, if everybody is passionate enough now the way the world works what a single points out is that well there are very few people or few agencies which are so passionate and it is rarely that resources are generated exceeding the requirements. But then we have some of examples even in the world today where we find that well a properly known calamity has many times attracted much more resources than what is required for its resolution. There have been cases like this and then there leads to be an accumulation of excess resources which comes at the cost of excessive sacrifice at the end of the donor's and almost a distribution problem or at the end of the point of the calamity. So, what the critic of Singer addresses his own critic saying that well the claim is that the result of everyone doing what he really ought to do cannot be worse than the result of everyone doing less than what he ought to do. Although the result of everyone doing what he reasonably believes he ought to could be. So, simplistically simply put that well if we all do go by our moral conviction and do much more then it will bring about in the utilitarian calculus a lot of suffering or deficiency at the donor end and that would be unnecessary because you will find the resources required at the end of the catastrophe or calamity far less than what is being generated. So, what do you guys think of this? This is when this critic happens that well if I if everybody starts doing or living up to their moral duty then it turns out that more resources are generated and it is almost like and at the cost of the donor's it is almost like a he is trying to bring about however trivial it sounds almost a logical problem with having or if everybody succumbs to the call for passionate donation that Singer is talking about. He himself provides and he says that it is not that everyone acts simultaneously. Yes. So, different people donate at different point and as time goes on the amount the calculations will show that the amount that is required is changing and so at any point when a person is donating they would they would attend to what is required and respond accordingly. So, in reality it does not work out like that that everyone donates a fixed. Excels yes yes and that if everyone donates very fanatically and to the most of their possibility and the accumulation of excessive resources. So, it is almost like when you call for a group of volunteers or call for a donation you really know that intuitively know that perhaps your collection will not be as much as you expect or the call will not or will rarely materialize into a 100 percent call for volunteers or contribution that it will always be less than what is expected. So, if everyone goes overboard the logical problem is that well we accumulate much more and which is unnecessary required. Yes. Everyone does what they really want to do. Yes yes. But it is a problem that can have practical solutions the receiving agency can stop receiving it has received the amount all the amount is needed. It can say stop donating now. Yes that we have had enough and we require no more. I would also think that it is a kind of a in principle trivial logical objection raise that well we that everybody going or overboard. Now good that you made the correction between overboard and doing one's duty because that brings us to what we are going to talk next. Is this particular difference between yes. Yes. It is like that why I should give more than anyone else in my situation. I think you are talking about the very psychological standpoint. It happens like as a human being they are thinking that why I should give more than others. It is our psychological attitude and if you apply the third point that everyone in my situation makes a contribution of some currency and the crisis is solved. So, I should contribute some currency. So, here he is talking about the majority. He is not saying that everyone that means like partially in the future. He is talking about the majority and if the majority will give something then automatically he is create a balance between the society of poor group as well as the rich group.  Then we can contribute this amount to the like that society which are facing the family problem. So, I think he is trying to collaborate or he is trying to join relationship between the poor as well as rich group. And here he is not indicating that why I should. It is the psychological standpoint and the third one I think he is trying that even if a small amount then you have to care. That does not mean that a small amount it will not create something else. But it can also help to dedicate suffering from our society. Yes, perhaps let me put an analogy for the question that he is putting forth. Suppose we are a class of three and one of us falls six and we are all far away from home and we require medical attendance. Now, there are 24 hours in a day and if one of us falls six there are two people who can render their service and or assistance. And so each one or two or each one does 12 hours. So, singers claim is that well if there are two people who are going to help or assist the patient and there are 24 hours in a day. So, I should do my 12 hours and with that 12 hours I should walk away. So, this question that if everyone in my situation makes a contribution of fixed unit. So, then the crisis is solved. So, in principle if each one of the two people who are well stand assistance for 12 hours each then a day is covered. So, assuming that that is an assumption. So, when he points out in the fourth bullet that well the premise is in the form of a hypothesis. So, what is the premise here that well if two attendants give 12 hours each a day of attendance is done. Therefore, what is the factual conclusion? Therefore, I should give 12 hours of or stand 12 hours of assistance. But would that be the case? Now that assumes that everyone else will donate that much. So, singers call is that well this is not a justifiable claim because it starts as a hypothesis that well surely if the second person does not turn up the first attendant perhaps would not walk away trying to think that well if both do 24 hours both do 12 hours each 24 hours is covered a day is covered. So, let me do my 12 hours and then that is the obligation of the other. But singers claim is that well what if we why should we excel or exceed in what is an average expectation from us. So, the fallacy here is that well we are assuming that everybody will contribute maybe the other person would not turn up. So, would you abandon the patient and go back home. Maybe he is talking about the concept of duty in one sense like as a human being we have some relation to other human being. So, we have to do our duty. So, yes his call is that the duty is should not be measured in terms of the other agents that well I will do as much as I can do. So, he is making a very fundamental claim that he is isolating the individual that there is a crisis and I am an agent. How others react to it should not influence my decision. So, it is almost a very neo western basis of human functioning that well I am an individual and how others react to a situation that does not affect me should not in turn affect me. So, if there is I if I am to do what I need to do or what is the most I can do then let me do that irrespective of what others do or what others are expected to do or what others can do. Then again it will be problematic for him also because he is coming under the utilitarian agent. For utility sometimes we have to sacrifice our own like goodness comfort. That is exactly what he is saying the why not sacrifice as much as possible because when I when the question is that if everyone in my situation makes this much contribution. So, everyone satisfies sacrifices a little bit of happiness to take care of the problem there. So, that is the one way of working that well if there is a famine in Bangladesh. So, I should if India has 100 crore citizens. So, each citizen gives 1 rupee and therefore, Bangladesh gets 100 crores which is assumed enough to satisfy the situation in Bangladesh. So, I should contribute 1 rupee. Maybe he is talking about the duty perspective that I have to give only 1 rupee. But when he is talking about donation or the charity I think it is like once private. Well, he does not regard it as a private interest. In fact, if we when we talk about duty and charity he is asking that you must give as much as you can give. But why you do duty fathers if you will apply the deductive method that everyone is doing something that it is like fix for me then I will give. Because both. You see because both claims the premise and the conclusion do not belong to the same category of statements. So, when whereas the premise is in hypothesis and the conclusion is a factual claim. So, when we suffer with if and then. So, when the premises itself is in hypothesis it is not the truth claim of the premise is not there. Because, in hypothesis is neither true nor false. So, basing on that how can one make a conclusion as true or false. So, where the premise. If the premises if it rains the floor will be wet. Now, if the antecedent is not satisfied if it does not rain. But can we say independently of that the floor will be rain the ground will be wet. We cannot say that the ground will be wet only if the antecedent condition is satisfied if it rains. So, only everyone involved in that situation makes that contribution. So, stronger rebuttal is that well the premises does not have a truth value. The premises has to have a truth value to connect to the conclusion. He is bringing about alleviation of suffering. So, the standard utilitarian is to bring about happiness of the majority which is also understood as alleviation suffering for the maximum people. So, utility is what resources. Say he talks about downright money that what happiness money can get you as an extra as a citizen of or as a comparatively prosperous and wealthier citizen why not spare that much of utility and pour it into the alleviation of suffering elsewhere. What kind of utility theories are you talking about? What you would perhaps like to look at it this way that he is expressing his views which can be classified into a theory. It is perhaps not that there is an abstract theory and he is trying to fit in the raw input data or the empirical data that he is receiving and putting it on to the situation and trying to get a solution right. So, it is not that he wants to be a utilitarian philosopher of this particular model and thereof he is finding this kind of solution. It is rather the other way around that he is trying to find the solution. It is the eternal relation between theory and practice. So, when I say that I am a Kantian what do I mean? Therefore, every problem that Kantian rules or is it that the way I think is similar to the way Kant has put forth his theories. Two things are totally different. When you are talking about the first one it is basically depends upon the Kant's exert what he means and when you are saying that I am following that means there is something Kantian principles with your principles. So, there is a difference and I think maybe he is talking about quantitative utilitarianism because he is giving emphasis on quality rather than I think. How is he emphasizing quality? He is also. Quantity. I am talking about quantity. How is he emphasizing quantity? Quantity of the like people, majority of the people. The major like huge amount of money is needed to get the suffering. But again what the problem between quantitative and qualitative utilitarians was faced was perhaps resolved in favor of that human happiness cannot have numbers attached to it. When we are talking about there is difference also. Again he creates a difference between qualitative and quantitative. Both is necessary and qualitative like reading a book is qualitative and like. Elevation of suffering? Oh sorry. He is trying to create that there is a higher hierarchy in the sense that there is a higher happiness and the lower happiness and in higher happiness he is talking about that reading or meditation like that and the lower that watching movie and other things which are basically based on the senses that is our sixth sense of that is the mind. So, I think he is basically emphasizes on the dual category of the. Who? Singers? Yes. Because basically he is not talking about the higher quality of. Right. In fact towards the end of it yes he makes a point that well alleviation of suffering or basic animal existence is definitely a part of the utility. So singer would not be saying that well the pleasure I get say if you want to spare a certain amount of your resources. I would have bought a book and read it and had that higher order pleasure from that instead of that let me put it into famine relief and therefore I derive I deprive myself of that pleasure of higher order pleasure as to say compared to the basal pressure requirements of survival that happen for famine relief. But here I think the distinction made is very clear that when he talks about when we will talk about what he requires calls as marginal utility and he particularly targets the consumeristic environment prevailing in his times and continuing till now in fact spreading quite a bit that well if one is agrees to spend more on say clothes or luxury that are not necessary instead of spending that resources on famine relief then one is doing something which is wrong and that is a very clear calculus that he is mentioning because it is the use of a utilitarian calculus is when it is in the same domain of say comfort of between two individuals say your book versus my book. So why should you spare your resources for me to buy a book or the other way round. But here it is a very clear indication that whereas your the luxury in a consumeristic society of a developed country versus basic survival in an underdeveloped world. So he does not even enter that well is that is there a debate in weighing these two he finds that as clearly resolved yes. Yes there is no requirement for a compare because the division is clear where if it were in the same domain say your comfort versus my luxury or one agents comfort versus another agents comfort is there where we require to perhaps have a quantitative which is quite outmoded except in the market based economic way of understanding the world order where we would try to because it becomes when we associate numbers with satisfaction it becomes very easy to compare the satisfaction index achieved. So but in this case I think we do not even have to enter that venture because they are at two diametrically opposite one is basic survival and the other is an optimal lifestyle or an enhanced lifestyle. But well he has nowhere implied a numerical equivalent of that how much would you rate say suffering as minus seven and consumeristic lifestyle as plus three. Yes but that will bring about the alleviation of suffering. In fact utilitarianism has always been critiqued as ignoring the minority. Well no not as much not not minority it is perhaps more on who is the well resourced from the ill resourced. So the people who are comfortably affluent and people who are at the brink of survival yes you had something alleviation of suffering is the lower order thing. So in the second list where we consider things that have to do with removal of suffering the more primal and fundamental the suffering is the higher up it will be on that list. So corresponding to higher order pleasures in this first list you would have higher order alleviation Well lower and higher order would not that way be as much as an hierarchy as in necessity. So when that we need food shelter and these things as essentials so when they say lower order is basic minimum. It would hold definitely much more value over what he calls higher order because after your lower order requirements are fulfilled then the question of higher order happiness comes around.  He is talking about the net balance between two things. Yes net balance between for him this would not be an issue at all perhaps my understanding of singer is that he makes it very clear that it is only that in fact he stops his argument by saying that anybody who disagrees will not read further that is a very unambiguous claim that if you try to quantify suffering due to famine and death and disease versus lifestyle and enhanced lifestyle then I am not talking to you. So he takes that is almost axiomatic but let us come back here now he talks about this notion of duty and charity this is what one I would see a deeper almost a metaethical claim that singer does that we will talk about he is trying to revise the current moral standards. So what does he do he first questions it what that we have a traditional moral categorization and what is this categorization he targets the distinction between duty and charity we have certain things as understood as duty and certain as charity but he finds this distinction as untenable the charitable person is praised but the one who is not is not condemned conspicuous consumption along alongside penury does not raise eyebrows in fact here I would like you to reflect on the Indian experience with inequality that when we make huge donations or when any person makes a donation he is appreciated or is praised but when somebody does not who is capable of making a donation does not make a donation that does not raise eyebrows. So that is what is perturbing singer that and particularly if you look at it in the Indian experience post liberalization we have had a phenomenal level of affluence coming into the country which exists alongside with perhaps poverty levels of sub Saharan Africa with affluent levels of the Forbes 500 in the world. So this if singer looks at this situation in the Indian milieu today he would be angry at people that something is wrong with your moral standards because in land of poverty you cannot in such a penury alongside with such affluence says that there is something wrong with our moral categorization that well conspicuous consumption alongside with penury does not raise eyebrows so it does not so it is still considered that well if a very wealthy man makes 10% of his assets into charity as a very renowned or a great thing to happen but whereas the what singer would say is that because he does not make 50% or 70% how much he can spare comfortably that should raise eyebrows so it should actually be condemned that is making such a small contribution. Do you think that he is indicating only the Indian experience with the inequality? No that is my reading of it that is nowhere what... Why do you think that? It brings about because what singer at that time now remember this is 1971 and the world is not so well connected as it is today but even then singer has a problem that people in developed countries are spending huge amount of resources for the development of a supersonic jet versus not funding a famine affected country but in the Indian milieu today this contrast is even more clear because right in the same city same town if you would find an affluent colony surrounded by a group of shanties so that is what this is even if singer may although he does not excuse but he may say that well we have distance that proximity is making a psychological influence in the Indian experience that proximity is not excuse at all because right outside plush living colony you will find a bunch of shanties so in fact and physically so for the western world it is still available as through electronic means of communication but in the Indian milieu it is right out there you have to just step out and see so seeing that is saying that well anybody who is not donating significantly needs to be seen as a immoral person not just as a moral person who does not choose to do charity so that is the kind of so this whole notion of super erogatory acts that well super erogatory acts are the acts that very good if you do it but nothing wrong if you don't do it now what do you think of these kinds of facts that well say if somebody donates significantly then that's a very good thing that person is doing but if somebody does not it's not condemnable a singers claim is to bring back that well somebody who is not is to be seen as doing something wrong so this is what he is doing he's this pardon okay in the current moral scenario so when we say what is the moral categorization what is conventional so what is say I'll give you an example contextual example which will he's context 30 years back in in a classroom students were expected to stand up when the teacher entered you say say in an Indian classroom that was a moral tenet at that time the moral tenet today is that it is not required that when I talked about the Indian classroom right so the every society has its moral dictates which is at a time now think of some moral dictates which were earlier there or here and our prayers also or think of various curtsies and acts so right or even say asking yes asking for a glass of water to a stranger in an unknown household or unknown place so now you would be expected that well you better go to the nearest shop and buy your water so that is in fact if I may just have interrupt small there is yes anecdote a voluntary association in Haridwar once told me about this situation the questioning civilization that whom do you call a civilized person now when you find imagine you as a city dweller who's gone up to the mountains lost in the mountain and then you reach one place in a village and you ask them for little food to eat you have lost your way what will in probability what they would do they would do is not only feed you perhaps provide your bed to sleep and the next day they will try to put you on a bus back home now imagine the same person has come to your city and he's got lost and he's rung your bell if your security guard does not turn him away you would telling that well it is how dare you bother me about this thing so this is questioning the this is this is yes this is questioning that whom would you call a civilized person now the one who was up there in the hills helping you or one who is right here now so coming back that is what in in moral standards change over time and singers powerful claim is that what is being regarded today is as charity is really ought to be duty so if there is somebody who's fallen down on the road and if somebody goes to an onlooker or a passerby goes to help that person then it is seen that the person is benevolent is charitable but singers claim is that well that person is doing just what his duty is in fact the person who is not the passerby who is not assisting the one who's fallen on the road is actually doing something condemnable so is violating a duty so this notion of supererogatory acts that have come up that acts which if you do is good but if you do not do is not is okay let's think of some examples of it now if you we are because we are in a moral climate only the climate keeps on changing so now perceive as something which are regarded as supererogatory apart from of course significant charities or financial donation there you could bring in the question of the reliability of the information I would think of another example say blood donation India has a very high number of young people eligible to donate blood and yet India has a shortage of blood supply so this is a clear-cut case where somebody donates a blood he's made to feel special and he's made to he's given maybe a certificate from Red Cross or whatever whoever has organized the blood donation what singers claim is those person need not be given certificates they have done what their duty is those who are fit enough to donate blood and are not donating blood they should be looked down upon on the moral scale so donating blood is not a charity it is a duty so especially when there is requirement so likewise it's not a supererogatory act to donate blood if you would like to bring up any other example that strikes you as which is being really yes yes if they need help if they choose if they wish to seek assistance for say going past the road or anyway okay well what singer is doing in true philosophy spirit is holding a mirror to the world out there that well look at this these are your current standards and you would like to revise them so like art and literature and philosophy that is a part of humanities they are trying to reflect or hold a mirror to the world to the society out there and show them their own standards and perhaps influence a change what will happen now singer clearly has a direction he wants debunking these notion of supererogatory acts but again he tries to analyze that why did this notion of supererogatory acts come up so when he is claiming that well a call to redraw the distinction between duty and charity the current demarcation is not correct and needs to be revised well he is trying to first understand why this happens which is perhaps in the next slide but now he talks about the implications of redrawing this distinction so yes this is in a way also the justification why this distinction has been made so this distinction keeps the domain of duty limited but rigid expanding it would supposedly make all the tenets weaker the entrance or the entrance in the moral tenets from charity into duty would weaken the existing tenets in the duty domain so what is he saying he is basically saying that well if you increase now we have a certain domain of duty so we have a domain of a duty that when we in the current moral climate when we have disagreement to with someone we do not use physical force we try to go to a third party resolution now if we enhance this domain of duty into getting say donating as much as you can that every person has to donate a bottle of blood every 3 months then this domain of charity becomes so large that people would stop even doing the fundamental duty of confirming to the expectation of the notion of duty that one shall not use physical force when in disagreement with the other so that is one reason that he says that well enhancing the notion of duty will weaken what is already there what is already is there that we suppose we do not want to use physical force what is not there is we should denote it as much as we can so we move this second tenet that we must donate as much as we can into the notion of duty that weakens what is already there in the notion of duty because that duty is almost like a mental binding that this ought to be done so whether or not this moral thinking is a moral binary that it is either or not so it is like that well follow one rule in the book I as well as not follow any rule in the book so the second thing second almost like an extrapolation that singer tries to find out that will moral tonnets are shaped by the local societal needs from the localized context extraneous participation does not enhance localized needs and may instead be a drain on local stability simply put distinction between we are talking about charity and duty why is this distinction there he perhaps thinks of two explanations for it the second one is saying that well all our moral sense of duty has evolved there is a very dominant theory that our moral domain has evolved out of our local societal needs so if in a society for example water is a scarce resource so water is deified so that its wastage is seen almost as not just a wastage of resources but is seen as immoral so using that kind of an analogy singer tries to put in that well moral tenets are built by local societies and local societies do not require you to design these tenets for their own survival they do not expect that it would help the society neighboring yours so therefore it has been acts which render assistance to neighboring societies have been rendered as charity rather than duty whereas act which are essential for the survival of one's own society are in the relegated to the domain of duty so these are basically the implications and the explanations so as he rightly makes this terminological correction that these may be the explanation these may be the mistake there these may be the explanations of the built difference between duty and charity but does this provide a justification right what is the motivation of in fact no singer has nowhere gone into the motivation he has just worked on that this ought to be the motivation or the policy for donation so he is nowhere exploring in this article that what are can there be contributions or donations which are of maybe a more vested interest or maybe maligned intentions or malefied intentions so no he is not saying that he is actually yes he is challenging that that he is saying that well if we all ought to do as much as we can so he is like a good philosopher he is engaging he is inventing his own critique and answering these doubts so when he says that well some people try to make a claim that well why not donate my average of the donation so he is reply to this so he is floating his own critique and then attacking his critique so it is almost follows the platonic dialectic tradition that where it happened in the form of a play here it happens in prose that well what was the opponent say that the opponent would say that well duty and charity are different things but he is saying that well this needs to be revised it is just explanation how this division occurred so but this does not give a justification so he answers this that this duty and charity distinction has to be reconfigured and this reconfiguration is because and you can see perhaps smell out the strong Kantian perspective here when he talks about that the moral point of view requires us to look beyond our society now this is my word I have used for singer is trans-perspective he nowhere uses it but that is the gist of his moral ethos that well you have to transcend your own perspective and that is foundationally shared with Kantian ethics with deontological ethics or any impersonal ethics which regards you just as an individual amongst others in a collective so no it is definitely not metaphysically in any sense used over here it just means not beyond our society into another world but it is an epistemological claim that to look at different societies so not from the outlook that you have been used to so no here here it is just the various societies in this very world so in fact singer here it has very clearly steered away from any esoteric or metaphysical claims especially when he says when I paraphrase him as trans-perspective it is his impersonal claim that we are just a part of one society and there are many societies here so when singer answers this distinction between duty and charity the explanation that is traditionally come up the first point he puts forth is that the moral point of view requires us to look beyond our society trans-perspective so the very what is having one's perspective so having one's perspective is having one's takes a UC as a student or as a person you have a perspective that well say say about any ritual say that one should not eat non-vegetarian food now the another person has a perspective that one should eat non-vegetarian food so there is a difference in opinion why you are trying to understand from the other person's perspective why does the other person think the way one thinks apart from the fact when there is dissent or disagreement is common to human existence that wherever we are more than one person we disagree especially when we are multi-culturally embedded so why is that difference this trans-perspective or transcending one's perspective so I have my opinion on so many things but when somebody has a different opinion why does that somebody have a different opinion that is when I am trying to transcend my perspective and trying to understand from the other person's perspective that well why does that other person have different views than what I have no in fact I think you can even argue that the philosophers have argued that can we really transcend our perspective we can have a relative idea but I can never know how it feels to be you and you can never know it feels to be me that is one way of arguing that transcending one's perspective is only finite but yes you are going to add something please elaborate why do you think so there is no difference because when I am talking about the perspective definitely a relative is also complex like it follows also because within a society we need some coherence relation something will be like something will be the major constitution for the local society will be for them so we need some coherence relation between individuals and relative is when I am saying that I like not okay let me make this a little clearer that you can be a relativist holding and yet being trans-perspective so it is not necessary that trans-perspective means being an absolutist so no it's not about higher absolute it is just about a common truth let me give you an example say some societies find polyandry as a practice some societies find polygamy as a practice now and some societies have monogamy as a practice let us say there are three societies now to the relativist there is no absolute claim that the relative is cannot claim utter that well polyandry is wrong or polygamy is wrong or monogamy is right the relativist cannot make any absolute claim saying that well your society your when I say trans-perspective well it is not a it's a methodology it is not a classification so trans-perspective well is say I belong to a monogamous society I try to look into the history and the makeup of a polygamous society and try to see why where why did the society approve polygamy was there a shortage of one gender and therefore to continue the species that the race they sorted to polygamy or looking for justification that well why did my society find monogamy right so I am nowhere still making a judgment that well one that polygamy is wrong or monogamy is right so I am can still be relativist that each one has its own tenets but why did the tenets evolve so I have due to my lineage my upbringing my mode of interpretation is one I am trying to under shift into another mode of interpretation of another culture to find out why did they have that practice so it is not perhaps a hierarchical classification that well I can see why that practice in the other society is wrong so it is nowhere that the targeted western audience for which this article is written is anywhere superior to the famine suffering Bangladesh is it is just a claim that one ought to be trans perspective as the targeted audience of this article are affluent western citizens who are living in a society of comfort bordering on luxury so from their perspective it has to be is asking them calling them to transcend their perspective about life into what others perspective on life could be it is a simple thing why do you this urge to help a suffering being because the trans perspective answer is that because you see and perhaps you superimpose that kind of suffering on to yourself it will perhaps become clearer once we run through the details of it so what singers claim is that well what why should we be moral we should be moral because we are individuals as much as anybody else is so there that fundamental basic line or the lowest common factor which is shared with Rawls and Kant and all impersonal ethics that I am contrasted with a very personal ethics that I feel I am special so I should use my resources to make my life more exciting that is contrasted of a very personal ethics that well I am the center of my world impersonal ethics strips you of this specialness of being yourself so and you therefore transcend perspectives and see that not because it could happen to you so he's not appealing to the western audience that tomorrow famine could be struck in this affluent part of the world and therefore the Bangladesh he's would help us he's not even arguing for a quid pro quo measure that way he's just saying that well you have to transcend your perspective and see that well suffering is happening you can alleviate that suffering with a minimal effecting effect on your lifestyle so yes yes in fact the traditional conceptualization of an isolated decision-making individual unaffected by others as happens in the western tradition is clearly evidenced in singers claim because when one is an individual no you are not exceeding you are trying to understand the view of others or the understand the plight of others yes his claim is essentially yes not self-centered it is the individual center it is not because if you contrast oriental ethics or anthropomorphic ethics where human beings are a part of greater cosmic order in fact that is very often critiqued as the classic differentiation between eastern and western ethics that well western ethics is individual centric whereas eastern ethics is you see yourself as a part of the cosmic order is a singular and you are just playing a part in it so that is definitely not what singer is talking about singer is talking about very limited singular individual decision in fact it may help to mention that Rawls make makes two assumptions about his theory the second one being that individuals take decisions independent of others so what others make a choice does not affect what one does now in an ideal isolated individualistic society yeah the others decision-making or condition should not affect one so so the others happiness should not make you either happy or sad and the other sadness should not make you happy or sad so that is what the direction of a classic western society is whereas eastern societies are much more communitarian so they are linked up so when we have milieu of sorrow it is supposed to cause sorrow in us it is all decisions are for the group not for the individual but okay now going ahead he talks about yes that why why this for furthering this debate on duty and charity that a Situic and Ermson have argued that we need a basic moral code which is not too far beyond the capacities of the ordinary man for otherwise there will be a general breakdown of compliance with the moral code so where should we draw the line between conduct that is required and conduct that is good in although not required so as to get the best possible result now this is again I would see a read into this singers philosophical acumen getting into drawing the distinction between the way things are and the way things ought to be the classical distinction that is talked about from Hume's time fact versus values so the factual claim is that well these moral standards have this distinction between duty and charity has evolved from empirical practices but singers claim is that well they ought to be revised and that ought revision or that justification has to come from us it does not come from cannot be understood from the social cultural social cultural background in which these practices have emerged so a drawing a line between conduct that is good and though not required and conduct that is essential so as to get the best possible result in fact on a deeper level he leaves us with that question that if we redraw the lines that we have this conduct which is good or which is essential and that which is super erogatory essentially again going back to that question that super erogatory acts are only should be brought down to the domain of necessary or necessary moral acts so question raise which I see is how do prevalent moral standards affect the decision people take now here again I would see a crucial claim that singer makes is that the locus of change is within or without now here singer very strongly points out that the locus of change is from without also so the moral milieu that we are raised and born and function in effects us so today because the moral milieu around just claims that well blood donation is an super erogatory act it is an act for which you should be praised so we tend to have that same feeling and that is why we do not have people lining up to donate blood so the change from all change is definitely not within so singers claim is to make a revision in the moral climate that will make a call to revise moral standards that well donating blood if anybody does donate blood or if I can think of another example today perhaps if I am my understanding of the Indian scenario is accurate or fairly intuitive say casting once vote now in colleges it is a hip thing today to show off that you have cast your vote you show off your the mark for voting so what is supposedly should be a duty has become almost an achievement so it is taken as default that people do not vote and somebody who takes the pain to go and vote needs to get that recognition for doing something that voting has become a super erogatory act so yes he is singer does bring into light that well how what should be in the domain of duty has become in the domain of charity so at the whole on a large scale singer is making a call to revise moral standards that apart from the fact that making a phenomenal at the empirical level making a phenomenal donation to the famine struck people of Bangladesh is also making a call to revise moral standards so he talks that he counters this argument that could that critics make that well a massive increase in moral expectations unsettles and weakens the exist existent norms so if you are if you enhance the rule book then people who are following that small number of rules in the rule book will stop following all the rules if you enhance the rule book so pragmatism or wisdom has always of the people governing state of affairs has always held that well keep the rules thin and small so that we can expect people to follow them but if you enhance the rule book it raises the expectations to highs and high and whatever little rules that were being followed will also no more be followed so he also talks about this standard critique of utilitarian paradigm that there are too much of expectations but it is only so in the times of need not always because the standard critics criticism of utilitarian utilitarianism says that well you are constantly sacrificing the individual for the collective so for the greatest happiness or the greatest alleviation of suffering you are constantly making your life miserable well making once life miserable is only when there are catastrophes or calamities across the world community or whichever community you hold as the frame of reference so he also talks about a few details that were that are more interesting if you are in I would like to explore the applied ethical part of it well he appeals to religious justification because most of the religion have he gives the example of Christianity but perhaps most of the religions have always held accumulated property as theft and particularly in Semitic religions that all property is theft that it is when there is suffering elsewhere it is immoral to live a life of comfort or luxury so in various forms it has been decodified it has been codified in various religions so singer chooses the most accessible of the Christian philosophers Thomas Aquinas and talks about marginal utility which is a very dominant notion in economic thinking especially market based economic thinking that well how much you can sacrifice to get what to for say charitable causes or what according to singer now is erstwhile known as charitable causes what currently or rightly should be known as your duties that what how much you must sacrifice from your comfort for your duties it is something for us individuals to work out then he talks about preventing catastrophes that how do we that definitely the whole world should go on on just famine relief or from one calamity to another but actively donating or contributing in preventing such calamities happening because if you take a novice view of the world around it will seem strange as a as a new entrant to the world you will find that we have the technology to make medical care accessible but we rather prefer prefer to spend it on military spending we have technology to we have the power to have a very high basic standard of living but we would still rather prefer a booming economy and a dwindling economy so we are not connecting these two in fact he also brings into light because coming from a western philosopher it is not a very usual claim because this is contradicting market based functioning which most of the western societies follow that well we need to create demand to spare supply and that chain brings upon a lot of profit and driving the economy so yes this in at another level I would see that this brings forth the perhaps in principle conflict between market based economics and moral philosophy which still is talked about when we talk about justice and the role of governments that moral philosophy or ethics seems to contradict economic logic that market based economic logic or the market logic that is being presented is very often counter ethics so that there are are there moral limits of the markets as current philosopher Sandal puts it that where are the current limits of moral limits of the market and finally yes that's a clarion call for the role of academic philosophers that not to be contained in classrooms but try to make an effort to reach out and bring down philosophers from the self contained ivory towers into making a difference in the world out there at least attempting so in fact singer has himself lived a life of quite active social and political involvement so this is what basically singers putting out a very very passionate and claim from a philosopher to the world out there so that is it we can stop at that


Bolder than ever. And with all the cover that it needs, the Nitro 17 from Acer is nothing like the Nitro 5s of all. While the new Lada on the back might suggest it's only half a Predator, we are here to say otherwise. I'll tell you why. While still carrying the torch of being made of plastic, the durability would instantly make you think that it was made of metal, as the laptop's base is very tough. The lid on the other hand shows some flex. Predators and Nitro laptops look more and more alike. And the Nitro 17 comes with chamfered edges and a protracted backside, which is better for comfort and cooling. On the base, there's a long air vent for cooling, as well as a button to switch between the power modes of the laptop. The keyboard is full-sized and has large keycaps, including a dedicated Nitro sense button. It gets a four-zone RGB backlight, long key travel, and clicky feedback all the ingredients for a great keyboard. The touchpad has a decent size, however the tracking is a bit off. Nowadays, almost every laptop has ports on the back, and the Nitro 17 is similar. Starting on the left, we have a LAN port, one USB Type-A 3.2 Gen 1 port, micro SD card slot, and an audio jack. On the back, there are two Thunderbolt 4 ports, an HDMI 2.1 port, and a power plug. Lastly, on the right, there are two more USB Type-A ports. The 17.3-inch QHD IPS display has a 165 Hz refresh rate, as well as a peak brightness of 348 nits, so the panel is crispy, smooth, and bright. It also fully covers the sRGB and DCI-P3 gamuts, so colors are rich and vivid. Thanks to our design and gaming profile, they also get very accurate, with a Delta E value of 1.0. Keep in mind that everything below 2 is considered accurate, so if you're a designer or work with colors in another way, the Nitro 17 is ready for it. We'll have our display profiles linked down below, while you can also check them out in the pop-up card right here. The speakers on the Nitro 17 are decent, however, there are deviations across the entire frequency range. Only 2 per 100 people watching this video are subscribers. If you decide to just start following us, we'll be able to reinvest more in our laboratory, thus making even more helpful videos for you. Thank you, you're awesome. The Nitro 17 is one of the better performing laptops that we've seen, offering the Core i5-13 500HX and Core i7-13700HX. We tested the i7, which crushes competitors like the Strix G16 from Asus and Legion Pro 5i. In terms of graphics, you can pick between the RTX 4050 or RTX 4060, both peaking at 140W. The 4060 here does just as well as any other RTX 4060 in benchmarks, so performance is definitely on point. As for games, we can't go without playing some Cyberpunk 2077, which runs at 88 FPS on the Ultra settings. Another RPG, this time in the fantasy genre, Witcher 3 has an aged a day, especially after the next gen update running at 75 FPS on the Ultra Plus preset. Because you can brew potions from their blood? No, because by eating rotting corpses, they prevent epidemics. Did you know they eat the living as well? No, really upsetting too. This theory collapsed. Racing games are classics, and Need for Speed Heat runs at 122 FPS on Ultra settings. Action Adventure awaits in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, delivering a smooth 106 FPS on Ultra settings. Drop into the Apex games with ease as Apex Legends soars at an impressive 207 FPS on max settings. Prepare to face the lands between in Elden Ring, where the frame rate holds steady at 91 FPS on extreme settings. Lastly, embark on a thrilling Tomb Raiding adventure in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, experiencing silky smooth gameplay at 107 FPS on highest settings. For more gameplay videos of the Nitro 17's RTX 4050 and RTX 4060, check out our laptop media benchmarks channel, which covers most of the popular GPUs. The laptop has 5 heat pipes total, with 2 fans and several heat sinks and spreaders. The combo keeps the core i7-13700HX running at 157W for the first 30 seconds, while settling at 100W for longer periods. The RTX 4060 graphics delivers really high clock speeds of 2,610 MHz, while running at 100W in long runs. Comfort-wise, the laptop is really cool, with a base temperature of only 34.5°C. In terms of battery life and efficiency, the Nitro 17's 90.6Wh battery pack lasts for 7 hours and 11 minutes of web browsing, or 6 hours and 18 minutes of video playback, which is certainly good for a gaming machine with this level of power. While we're checking out the battery, let's focus a bit on the upgradeability too. The laptop has two sodium slots stacked over each other, for up to 32GB of DDR5 memory. The storage can be upgraded through 2M.2 slots that support Gen4 SSDs. For the full tear-down video, you can click the card up top, or check the link in the description. The Acer Nitro 17 is ready to take on its bigger predator siblings, however, the two brands have to work in tandem. The Nitro laptops have had one of the biggest glow-ups that we've seen in recent years. It would be a shame if you didn't at least shortlist it when looking for a new gaming laptop. If you want to see more tests and videos about the device, you can check out our in-depth review. The link is in the video description below.


Today we'll show how to use match and index, two of the most powerful lookup functions in Excel 2016. We showed you how to use vlookup in video number four in our Excel series, but as you will see match and index functions are more dynamic and can do things vlookup cannot. Rod here and welcome to Burn to Learn. Let's begin with match. This function searches an array of data and identifies the position of the result you want. Here's a library book control spreadsheet that has three variables names, months, and book names. We want to identify the cell position of Lola Jacobson and here's how you do it. Write an equal sign and the word match with an open parentheses. Select h5 which means Lola Jacobson's name. Now type a comma then select the names in column B. Now anchor the information by pressing F4 on your keyboard. Anchoring makes sure Excel will stay locked in on this information. Now select the zero option which means you want an exact result. Then type a closed parentheses and press enter and you get a number five which is Lola's position in the array of information you selected and anchored. You can follow this same process if you want to know the position of the month February. Write an equal sign, the word match, and an open parentheses followed by a comma. Select i5 plus a comma and select the horizontal area where the months are. Don't forget to press F4 to anchor the information and select option zero for an exact result. Type a closed parentheses, press enter and you get a number two which is the position of February. Now let's look at how to use the index function. The index function looks up an array of data and gives you a value or the description of a value from within a table. Let's see how it works in our table. You want to know which book Lola Jacobson asked for in February. Here's what you do. Type an equal sign and the word index followed by an open parentheses. Now select the data where the book names are. Anchor what you selected by pressing F4 and then type a comma. Now select H6 which is Lola Jacobson's position and then type a comma. Then select i6 which is the position of February in the spreadsheet. Now type a closed parentheses, press enter and you get the answer. 100 years of solitude. Please like this video and leave a comment after watching. Now we'll show the real power of this by combining both index and match to find a specific piece of data. Type an equal sign, the word index and an open parentheses. Now select the whole table but without headings where XL needs to find the information followed by a comma. Now type the word match and an open parentheses. Select g6 which indicates XL needs to find a student name and then type a comma. Now select the area where XL will find the names of the students and anchor with F4. Then type a comma and write a zero for an exact result. Now type a closed parentheses followed by a comma. Now type the word match followed by an open parentheses and then select H6 for the month followed by a comma. Now horizontally select B5 through E5 which tells XL where to look and anchor with F4. Type a comma and then select the zero option to get an exact result. Now type a closed parentheses followed by a comma. Then type the number one which indicates where the name will be found in column one on the table. Now type a closed parentheses and press enter and the answers you get are Melissa Kerr selected the book Life of Pi in March. If you change the formula values new answers appear automatically. Now you know how to use match and index the two most powerful lookup functions in XL 2016. You can practice using these functions by clicking on the exercise button below as the saying goes practice makes perfect. If you liked this video please comment share it and hit the like button and please remember to subscribe to our channel and receive future videos automatically. Thanks so much for watching.