Episode 53: Solo -- On Morality and Rationality
23Description
What does it mean to be a good person? To act ethically and morally in the world? In the old days we might appeal to the instructions we get from God, but a modern naturalist has to look elsewhere. Today I do a rare solo podcast, where I talk both about my personal views on morality, a variety of "constructivism" according to which human beings construct their ethical stances starting from basic impulses, logical reasoning, and communicating with others.
In light of this view, I consider two real-world examples of contemporary moral controversies:
- Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Or is there an ethical imperative to be a vegetarian?
- Do inequities in society stem from discrimination, or from the natural order of things? As a jumping-off point I take the loose-knit group known as the Intellectual Dark Web, which includes Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and others, and their nemeses the Social Justice Warriors (though the discussion is about broader issues, not just that group of folks).
Probably everyone will agree with my takes on these issues once they listen to my eminently reasonable arguments.
Actually this is a more conversational, exploratory episode, rather than a polished, tightly-argued case from start to finish. I don't claim to have all the final answers. The hope is to get people thinking and conversing, not to settle things once and for all. These issues are, on the one hand, very tricky, and none of us should be too certain that we have everything figured out; on the other hand, they can get very personal, and consequently emotions run high. The issues are important enough that we have to talk about them, and we can at least aspire to do so in the most reasonable way possible.
United States
With regard to IDW It seems Sean is misrepresenting a bit. Read eg. Sam Harris own comment on being associated wtih IDW on https://www.google.no/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/b2ovhq/interesting_sam_harris_comment_on_how_he_feels/
Of the commenters I'm probably the only who listened to all two hours. While knitting a blanket for my vanity chair and doing the dishes bc I'm a WAMAN. Anyhoodle, I definitely think Sean is coming at this from the perspective of a white cishet male and being so he's done the absolute best job he could with understanding his own bias, sexism, and racism. You really can't ask for more than being open to appending your beliefs with the input of new information. The fact that he has a brilliant wife probably doesn't hurt. There's great points of discussion here. I enjoyed the whole podcast. I will say there's one thing I disagree with. I don't think ppl who are not welcomed on campuses (usually conservative speakers) should be allowed to speak. Freedom of speech in the United States means the government can't harm you, jail you or otherwise relatilate against you for criticizing it. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a platform. Allowing speakers to speak is tacit approval by the co
kantian rule issue mentioned: what about lying if you hiding a refugee and a murderer wants to come and murder them -> does not seem like an issue to me since then according to the kantian rule the rule could be: lie for protection if a murderer wants to murder a refugee. of course if you make a general rule "dont lie" this would not work - but why make this general rule in the first place respectively why not "update" it if a case like this is discovered where it does not work without conditions?
Oh a self righteous virtue-signaling scientist? How novel!
he gives a fan made mission statement for the IDW( which wasn't great) that he disagrees with and in the next breath says that he may ruffle some feathers but we need to have these hard conversions which is the most basic version of the real IDW mission statement. Then he goes on to describe a case of sexism in science from someone who is not in the IDW and I've never heard them defend. They have spent time on the he gives a fan made mission statement for the IDW( which wasn't great) that he disagrees with and in the next breath says that he may ruffle some feathers but we need to have these hard conversions which is the most basic version of the real IDW mission statement. Then he goes on to describe a case of sexism in science from someone who is not in the IDW and I've never heard them defend. He also uses Jorden Peterson's views as if they represented the entirety of the group. Overall I think this wasn't a very good critique and will mislead people as to who people like Sam Harris