The infamous JoJo thought experiment - Michael Vazquez and Sarah Stroud
video description
Date: 2026-01-23
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
ted_ed
I don’t really care about morality imma be honest. I think People’s morals are based on their own logical reasoning of what is best in certain scenarios. I think almost everything we do and believe as humans is taught to us. If someone thinks or acts in a way that is detrimental to society (like murder) then I think the most logical thing to do is remove them from society in some way so they cannot hurt anyone and then re-educate them so they can understand why their actions are detrimental and how to change their behavior. It is against my own personal moral compass to commit murder, but that is because I understand the consequences on society and because I understand how society affects me. I think for some people, this understanding can be more subconscious, and so they may not recognize it, which could be the cause for the distinction between logical reasoning and morality. So in the case of this video, I don’t really care whether he is responsible for his actions or not, I only care to change them so that he can stop hurting society, and hopefully benefit it instead though this point may never be reached. We shouldn’t put this king in jail because he is responsible for his crimes, but instead so that we can stop the harm he is causing and hopefully eventually reintegrate him into society.
reply
I don’t really care about morality imma be honest. I think People’s morals are based on their own logical reasoning of what is best in certain scenarios. I think almost everything we do and believe as humans is taught to us. If someone thinks or acts in a way that is detrimental to society (like murder) then I think the most logical thing to do is remove them from society in some way so they cannot hurt anyone and then re-educate them so they can understand why their actions are detrimental and how to change their behavior. It is against my own personal moral compass to commit murder, but that is because I understand the consequences on society and because I understand how society affects me. I think for some people, this understanding can be more subconscious, and so they may not recognize it, which could be the cause for the distinction between logical reasoning and morality. So in the case of this video, I don’t really care whether he is responsible for his actions or not, I only care to change them so that he can stop hurting society, and hopefully benefit it instead though this point may never be reached. We shouldn’t put this king in jail because he is responsible for his crimes, but instead so that we can stop the harm he is causing and hopefully eventually reintegrate him into society.
reply
BirdBrain0815
The key with many of these lines of reasoning is the word inevitable. If this or that is inevitable, then surely you cannot blame XYZ. But that’s a tautology. Its kinda like saying let x be > 0 and then prove x is not negative. That doesn’t prove anything. That’s just the parameter of your thought experiment that you put in place. But unless you want to claim everything is predetermined (and then why even get up in the morning, anyway, let alone ponder morality) inevitability is NOT a given in real life. So, what you get is degrees of responsibility, and having been indoctrinated certainly can be a mitigating circumstance. But the world would still consider JoJo’s responsibility to be very much non-zero. If JoJo really is so far gone that he cannot even understand how his actions were wrong, we might not hold him criminally liable, but would likely still keep him locked up and therapized somewhere.
reply
The key with many of these lines of reasoning is the word inevitable. If this or that is inevitable, then surely you cannot blame XYZ. But that’s a tautology. Its kinda like saying let x be > 0 and then prove x is not negative. That doesn’t prove anything. That’s just the parameter of your thought experiment that you put in place. But unless you want to claim everything is predetermined (and then why even get up in the morning, anyway, let alone ponder morality) inevitability is NOT a given in real life. So, what you get is degrees of responsibility, and having been indoctrinated certainly can be a mitigating circumstance. But the world would still consider JoJo’s responsibility to be very much non-zero. If JoJo really is so far gone that he cannot even understand how his actions were wrong, we might not hold him criminally liable, but would likely still keep him locked up and therapized somewhere.
reply
ram-1919
Jojo’s tyrannical nature was inevitable, since human’s behaviour does not come out of nowhere: it is shaped through his biology and his surrounding, so the fact that he became a tyrant proves itself that it was inevitable. From this perspective, Jo’s father has also inevitably became a dictator. They share the same responsibility for who they became, which is none.
But it doesn’t contradict the fact that our understanding of right and wrong can transcend our upbringing. Even though a person is less likely to change the older he is, his personality is shaped throughout his whole life, and the events of his life can always change who he is.
Instead of concentrating on who how good or bad a person is, people should think about how to change a person for the better, and how to create a system where no bad’ people appear to be.
reply
Jojo’s tyrannical nature was inevitable, since human’s behaviour does not come out of nowhere: it is shaped through his biology and his surrounding, so the fact that he became a tyrant proves itself that it was inevitable. From this perspective, Jo’s father has also inevitably became a dictator. They share the same responsibility for who they became, which is none.
But it doesn’t contradict the fact that our understanding of right and wrong can transcend our upbringing. Even though a person is less likely to change the older he is, his personality is shaped throughout his whole life, and the events of his life can always change who he is.
Instead of concentrating on who how good or bad a person is, people should think about how to change a person for the better, and how to create a system where no bad’ people appear to be.
reply
fajam00m00
Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if someone is responsible. What truly matters is the practical outcome. Jojo is a dangerous person, regardless of whether he doesn’t know any better. To correct this, his bad behaviors need to be paired with a bad stimulus, a punishment, and his good behaviors need to be rewarded. And to protect society, he needs to be kept away from the general population until he can unlearn his harmful patterns. And if he can’t and reoffends, then he should end up imprisoned indefinitely.
If he had taken time to think rationally about his actions, he could have realized that he wouldn’t want to be harmed, and thus he shouldn’t harm others. It’s completely legitimate to punish someone for a dangerous lack of insight, for the benefit of society, regardless of their past or responsibility.
reply
Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if someone is responsible. What truly matters is the practical outcome. Jojo is a dangerous person, regardless of whether he doesn’t know any better. To correct this, his bad behaviors need to be paired with a bad stimulus, a punishment, and his good behaviors need to be rewarded. And to protect society, he needs to be kept away from the general population until he can unlearn his harmful patterns. And if he can’t and reoffends, then he should end up imprisoned indefinitely.
If he had taken time to think rationally about his actions, he could have realized that he wouldn’t want to be harmed, and thus he shouldn’t harm others. It’s completely legitimate to punish someone for a dangerous lack of insight, for the benefit of society, regardless of their past or responsibility.
reply
ted_ed
A key aspect of morality dismissed by incompatibilists is that humans possess innate moral intuitions and learn to apply them through self-reflection by considering how they wish to be treated and extending the same consideration to others, along with lessons learned from social experience. As humans, we know that every individual has the capacity to imagine themselves in the position of the oppressed and recognize the suffering it involves. Because such treatment would be rejected if directed at oneself, harming others is understood as morally wrong. Accordingly, JoJo’s actions remain morally wrong, and he is morally responsible, since the capacity for self-reflective moral recognition is sufficient for responsibility, regardless of influences from upbringing.
reply
A key aspect of morality dismissed by incompatibilists is that humans possess innate moral intuitions and learn to apply them through self-reflection by considering how they wish to be treated and extending the same consideration to others, along with lessons learned from social experience. As humans, we know that every individual has the capacity to imagine themselves in the position of the oppressed and recognize the suffering it involves. Because such treatment would be rejected if directed at oneself, harming others is understood as morally wrong. Accordingly, JoJo’s actions remain morally wrong, and he is morally responsible, since the capacity for self-reflective moral recognition is sufficient for responsibility, regardless of influences from upbringing.
reply
ted_ed
The thing is, JoJo isn't such a pure hypothetical when you consider the forces that shape people. Stroud's argument is very unhelpful IMO because it lends itself to being used by the worst people to excuse any sort of behavior. And that's not just hypothetical either - see the cases of affluenza being called upon as a reason to mitigate the culpability of rich people because they were supposedly raised without a full notion of consequences for their actions. The thing is, when you apply moral philosophy in practical usage, ideas such as incompatibilism (of which this argument is a slightly softer form) lead to completely non-functional societies.
You thought this would be a JoJo reference, but it was me, an actual discussion of the video's themes!
reply
The thing is, JoJo isn't such a pure hypothetical when you consider the forces that shape people. Stroud's argument is very unhelpful IMO because it lends itself to being used by the worst people to excuse any sort of behavior. And that's not just hypothetical either - see the cases of affluenza being called upon as a reason to mitigate the culpability of rich people because they were supposedly raised without a full notion of consequences for their actions. The thing is, when you apply moral philosophy in practical usage, ideas such as incompatibilism (of which this argument is a slightly softer form) lead to completely non-functional societies.
You thought this would be a JoJo reference, but it was me, an actual discussion of the video's themes!
reply
voon7820
Good, now you understand what the karma meant in Buddhism. Good job!
This was so natural from the Buddhism teaching, no contradiction.
EVERY SINGLE ACTION has its karmic force. In this case, bunch of yes-sayer ALL contribute to the karma of Jojo's tyranny through their inaction. Jojo's cruel action would be his own karma of course, and he will eventually repay those karma; those who suffered from Jojo's wrath might be receiving their karmic punishment from either this life or earlier.
How remarkable - every actions and consequences, it all makes sense if you really think about it
reply
Good, now you understand what the karma meant in Buddhism. Good job!
This was so natural from the Buddhism teaching, no contradiction.
EVERY SINGLE ACTION has its karmic force. In this case, bunch of yes-sayer ALL contribute to the karma of Jojo's tyranny through their inaction. Jojo's cruel action would be his own karma of course, and he will eventually repay those karma; those who suffered from Jojo's wrath might be receiving their karmic punishment from either this life or earlier.
How remarkable - every actions and consequences, it all makes sense if you really think about it
reply
___i3ambi126
I have to admit. I dont see why it matters.
If theyre morally responcible then punish them for bad actions. If they arent morally responcible then punish them so that future logical actors are less likely to do the same harm.
I wouldnt punish dogs for biting people because its the dogs fault. Id do it because it keeps the dog from biting more people.
What's a case where the distinction between moral actors recieving rightous compensation has a different preferred outcome than logical actors we ensentivize to preferred behavior
reply
I have to admit. I dont see why it matters.
If theyre morally responcible then punish them for bad actions. If they arent morally responcible then punish them so that future logical actors are less likely to do the same harm.
I wouldnt punish dogs for biting people because its the dogs fault. Id do it because it keeps the dog from biting more people.
What's a case where the distinction between moral actors recieving rightous compensation has a different preferred outcome than logical actors we ensentivize to preferred behavior
reply
pedroscoponi4905
I think there's a fundamental difference between _Blame_ and _Responsibility_ that's being missed in the conversation. We are all _constantly_ responsible for what we do, even under duress. If I was forced to kill someone to save myself, the thought that I had to do it! would bring me very little peace or comfort. Even if no one blamed me, I would still have to navigate feelings of guilt, be ashamed to stand before the bereaved, be haunted by the memory of that moment. That's the weight of moral responsibility.
reply
I think there's a fundamental difference between _Blame_ and _Responsibility_ that's being missed in the conversation. We are all _constantly_ responsible for what we do, even under duress. If I was forced to kill someone to save myself, the thought that I had to do it! would bring me very little peace or comfort. Even if no one blamed me, I would still have to navigate feelings of guilt, be ashamed to stand before the bereaved, be haunted by the memory of that moment. That's the weight of moral responsibility.
reply
TheToasterWaffle
I think responsibility and blame are different. Jojo is responsible for his crimes regardless of his upbringing. It's how you punish him that shows how much he is to blame. If the punishment doesn't reasonably fit the crime, then the judge is wrong or Jojo is less to blame than expected. We still however have the obligation to prevent further harm meaning if he isn't appropriately punished despite being responsible, then WE are now the morally corrupt willingly allowing the harm to continue.
reply
I think responsibility and blame are different. Jojo is responsible for his crimes regardless of his upbringing. It's how you punish him that shows how much he is to blame. If the punishment doesn't reasonably fit the crime, then the judge is wrong or Jojo is less to blame than expected. We still however have the obligation to prevent further harm meaning if he isn't appropriately punished despite being responsible, then WE are now the morally corrupt willingly allowing the harm to continue.
reply
andresarancio6696
The main issue with incompatibilism is that it cannot be practically applied to apply law and punishment after-fact. Sure, the core ideal of ensuring all people have the opportunity to reflect and become more morally competent over time IS noble, but by taking away moral responsibility of people with a morally reprehensible upbringing we wouldn't be able to properly make sure the law addresses cases of harm
reply
The main issue with incompatibilism is that it cannot be practically applied to apply law and punishment after-fact. Sure, the core ideal of ensuring all people have the opportunity to reflect and become more morally competent over time IS noble, but by taking away moral responsibility of people with a morally reprehensible upbringing we wouldn't be able to properly make sure the law addresses cases of harm
reply
Kuschel_K
Everything is either predetermined or out of our control.
So no one is responsible for anything.
Someone can make a right or wrong decision simply by not knowing better.
The reason for laws is that someone did something that caused so much damage that we decided to stop that from repeating.
But we can’t think of everything or maybe underestimate the chances or consequences.
reply
Everything is either predetermined or out of our control.
So no one is responsible for anything.
Someone can make a right or wrong decision simply by not knowing better.
The reason for laws is that someone did something that caused so much damage that we decided to stop that from repeating.
But we can’t think of everything or maybe underestimate the chances or consequences.
reply
derkaiser420
People today blame other people for what their ancestors did 200 plus years ago. So, according to modern society, some people (we all know who I am talking about) are not just responsible for their own actions but they are responsible for what their ancestors did even if they were not involved at all. The color of their skin is the only determinate of guilt or innocence.
reply
People today blame other people for what their ancestors did 200 plus years ago. So, according to modern society, some people (we all know who I am talking about) are not just responsible for their own actions but they are responsible for what their ancestors did even if they were not involved at all. The color of their skin is the only determinate of guilt or innocence.
reply
jamesyoung3731
I'm sorry but this hypothetical immediately falls apart when jojo takes power. How are we supposed to believe he is morally neutral when he is confronted with evidence that his subjects obedience requires force to coerce. Unless we're supposing that jojo has no power and is merely a figurehead
reply
I'm sorry but this hypothetical immediately falls apart when jojo takes power. How are we supposed to believe he is morally neutral when he is confronted with evidence that his subjects obedience requires force to coerce. Unless we're supposing that jojo has no power and is merely a figurehead
reply
MarcusWatkiss
If it's before the age of 20 I'd argue you're not to blame for believing in the values you were brought up with, though some teens rebel against their culture all the same.
After 20 you should be able to make your own observations about the world separate from the people who surround you.
reply
If it's before the age of 20 I'd argue you're not to blame for believing in the values you were brought up with, though some teens rebel against their culture all the same.
After 20 you should be able to make your own observations about the world separate from the people who surround you.
reply
deval_abhishek
What if someone does harm to someone else unintentionally Are they not responsible Just because an intent was absent, cause and effect still do their job. So, I ultimately believe people should be held responsible. If not by law or society, even then, by their own conscience.
reply
What if someone does harm to someone else unintentionally Are they not responsible Just because an intent was absent, cause and effect still do their job. So, I ultimately believe people should be held responsible. If not by law or society, even then, by their own conscience.
reply
Agamemnonoverhead
The direct consequence of making a JoJo reference is that nobody is going to actually discuss the subject of the video with any level of sincerity. It caused the Lucky Someday video to disable/delete all its comments because everybody in the comments was a tourist
reply
The direct consequence of making a JoJo reference is that nobody is going to actually discuss the subject of the video with any level of sincerity. It caused the Lucky Someday video to disable/delete all its comments because everybody in the comments was a tourist
reply
ted_ed
IMHO, there's a difference between an excuse and an explanation. Jojo's immorality has an explanation, not an excuse. Clearly he faced a harder route towards moral behavior. And that should be taken into account. But it doesn't excuse his actions.
reply
IMHO, there's a difference between an excuse and an explanation. Jojo's immorality has an explanation, not an excuse. Clearly he faced a harder route towards moral behavior. And that should be taken into account. But it doesn't excuse his actions.
reply
cygnusereve4779
You can still be responsible for your actions regardless of morality (or the lack of morality. To put in morality into responsibility is an unending argument of different situations. However, it does allow precedent for future cases.
reply
You can still be responsible for your actions regardless of morality (or the lack of morality. To put in morality into responsibility is an unending argument of different situations. However, it does allow precedent for future cases.
reply
Lusecose
I don't see why the weight of responsibility matters. If JoJo is a problem, JoJo's gotta go irregardless of how he came to power.
Getting stuck philosophizing is how dipshits like Trump get in office, and worse, stay in office.
reply
I don't see why the weight of responsibility matters. If JoJo is a problem, JoJo's gotta go irregardless of how he came to power.
Getting stuck philosophizing is how dipshits like Trump get in office, and worse, stay in office.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
