full

Episode 490 - Exploring Morality

This episode is a repeat of episode 301.

In this episode, Trevor delves into a rich tapestry of moral philosophy and practical ethics. The discussion begins with a panel reflecting on the origins of morals, referencing an earlier episode that featured a conversation with Peter, The 12th Man, and Hugh Harris. The talk revisits various perspectives on morality, including the implications of the Judeo-Christian ethic and its historical development. Franz Mair's views on societal constructs and spirituality, as well as debates on contentious figures like Jordan Peterson, are examined. The second part features an in-depth book review of 'Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?' by Michael J. Sandel. The host explores different moral frameworks, such as utilitarianism, libertarianism, and Aristotle's perspectives on justice. Through various analogies and case studies, including price gouging, military honours, and historical instances of societal dilemmas, the host elucidates the nuanced approaches to justice and moral reasoning advocated by Sandel. The episode concludes with reflections on community responsibility, individual freedom, and the role of moral judgment in creating a just society.

00:00 Introduction to the Book Review

00:47 Recap of Episode 238: Origins of Morals

01:56 Discussion on Judeo-Christian Ethic

04:53 Jordan Peterson's Views on Morality

07:53 The Golden Rule Across Cultures

12:30 Greek Philosophy: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle

25:41 Stoicism and Its Influence on Christianity

28:07 The Ten Commandments and Mosaic Law

30:04 The Story of Muhammad's Negotiation

31:41 The Ark of the Covenant and the Babylonian Exile

32:47 The Return and Rigid Rules of the Jews

34:14 The Evolution of Jewish Law and Morality

35:27 The Bible as a Collection of Historical Stories

39:22 The Concept of Heaven and the Evolution of Jewish Thought

49:03 The Domestication of Humans and Evolution of Morality

01:00:23 The Good Samaritan and Inherent Altruism

01:01:22 Exploring the Trolley Problem

01:02:15 The Organ Donation Dilemma

01:03:02 Nuclear Codes and Moral Reasoning

01:03:47 Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics

01:05:23 Inaction Bias and Moral Dilemmas

01:07:47 Community Standards and Legal Theory

01:09:39 Alpha Males and Wealth Tax

01:11:33 Foundations of Morality

01:12:27 The Ultimatum Game and Fairness

01:14:39 Objective Moral Values and Reasoning

01:25:57 Neanderthals and Social Cooperation

01:29:20 Michael J. Sandel's Justice Course

01:32:12 Free Markets and Human Flourishing

01:33:05 Libertarian and Utilitarian Counterarguments

01:34:41 The Third Way: Aristotle's Perspective

01:36:21 Examples of Moral Dilemmas

01:39:30 CEO Pay and Economic Disparities

01:42:36 The Trolley Problem and Moral Reasoning

01:51:26 Libertarianism and Its Limits

01:56:53 The Role of Meritocracy

02:01:07 Aristotle's View on Justice and Virtue

02:13:42 The Purpose of Politics and Community Responsibility

02:15:49 Moral Education and Practical Wisdom

02:31:40 The Importance of Community in Human Nature

02:36:02 Technological Revolution and Future Societies

To financially support the Podcast you can make:

We Livestream every Monday night at 7:30 pm Brisbane time. Follow us on Facebook or YouTube. Watch us live and join the discussion in the chat room.

We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.au

You can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au



Transcript
Speaker:

Well, dear listener, this is an episode that I've been threatening to do for

Speaker:

a few weeks now, and it's book review.

Speaker:

I'll be going through a book called Justice, what's the Right

Speaker:

Thing to Do by Michael j Sandel?

Speaker:

And, uh, I really like the book.

Speaker:

It's got lots of moral quandaries and it provides a good framework in terms of

Speaker:

analyzing moral quandaries, identifying approaches to solving them, and coming

Speaker:

up with an alternative sort of theory of morality, if you like, at the end,

Speaker:

which is a pretty, uh, uh, vague theory.

Speaker:

I'll give it that.

Speaker:

And it's got a lot of vibe to it.

Speaker:

But in any event, uh, I think it's a worthwhile exercise.

Speaker:

But before I do, uh, and before I get onto the book, this really is a good

Speaker:

follow on to an episode that we did about a year and a half ago, episode 238,

Speaker:

where I sat down with Peter and, uh, the 12th Man and Hugh Harris, and we had a

Speaker:

discussion on the origins of our morals.

Speaker:

And what I'm gonna do, dear listener, is rather than get you to scroll through

Speaker:

the, uh, old episodes and find it, I'm actually gonna, um, insert now.

Speaker:

Uh.

Speaker:

An hour and 27 minutes of episode 238.

Speaker:

Now, if you've heard it recently or you don't wanna hear it again, then

Speaker:

all you need to do is look at your podcast app and look at the time note.

Speaker:

And fast forward now an hour and 27 minutes and 14 seconds, and

Speaker:

you'll end up back to me giving you new commentary on this book.

Speaker:

But I'm gonna insert now that, um, uh, that episode has a good

Speaker:

background to the origin of our morals.

Speaker:

And then we'll continue with, um, this book.

Speaker:

Anyway, dear listener, we're gonna take you through morality and, uh, one of

Speaker:

the reasons why we're doing that is I often hear through podcasts and through

Speaker:

the media where people talk about the Judeo-Christian ethic and how it's lucky

Speaker:

we've got it because it's basically what's created the civilization that

Speaker:

we have and that we'd be essentially, there'd be raping and pillaging going

Speaker:

on and uncontrolled slaughter, um, of the masses if it wasn't there.

Speaker:

So aren't we lucky for the Judeo-Christian ethic?

Speaker:

And so I, um, and this is the idea that when we talk about

Speaker:

Judeo-Christian ethic, what do you understand that to be 12th Man,

Speaker:

I wasn't expecting this.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Uh, the judo, judo Christian ethic.

Speaker:

Oh, what do I understand To be the essence of the Judo Christian ethic.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Um, love thy neighbor.

Speaker:

You know, don't offend God.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Go to church every week

Speaker:

sort of

Speaker:

stuff.

Speaker:

You get from the Bible, really Bible stuff you get from the Bible, the

Speaker:

Old Testament, the New Testament.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

The Old Testament being the Judeo component and the Christian

Speaker:

being the New Testament.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Um, so it's this idea that through the Bible Old and New Testament,

Speaker:

we've picked up moral guidance that's enabled us to have the flourishing

Speaker:

civilization that we have today.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But the actual term Judeo-Christian is really only a recent invention.

Speaker:

It's only something that cropped up in America, sort of post-war,

Speaker:

post-Second World War seriously.

Speaker:

And really only appeared in Australia in sort of late

Speaker:

seventies, something like that.

Speaker:

So it's a term that's post-Second World War.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Interesting.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, um, Brian Morrison in his book, sacred to Secular, found a little bit in there

Speaker:

and basically the parliamentary library, um, had no reference to it until 1974.

Speaker:

So, so here's the theory that basically when they talked in America about

Speaker:

the Judeo-Christian ethic, they're really wanting to say Christian.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Mm. But they added Judeo as a bit of an ant, as a bit of sort of an

Speaker:

antisemitism, um, to avoid as an apology for the antisemitism that

Speaker:

gave rise to post-Second World War.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Sort of.

Speaker:

Inclusive of Jewish people.

Speaker:

Mm. Uh, was the reason for putting the Judeo in.

Speaker:

But in more recent times, Judeo-Christian is perhaps a little

Speaker:

more exclusive because it really means not that Islamic kind of Yeah.

Speaker:

Not all the Abrahamic religion.

Speaker:

That's right.

Speaker:

So, so originally Judeo-Christian, well, let's include the Jews

Speaker:

and now more or less means, but let's not include the Muslims.

Speaker:

I is, you know, one way of looking at it.

Speaker:

Well, I think that's true because the sort of people who are normally raving

Speaker:

about the Judeo-Christian ethic are certainly not, uh, brown people of color.

Speaker:

It's gonna be white Christians who are talking about it.

Speaker:

So, okay.

Speaker:

So, um, oh, and one other reason I wanna talk about it is somebody like,

Speaker:

um, Jordan Peterson talks about it.

Speaker:

So for all the Jordan, do we have any Jordan Peterson fans

Speaker:

in the room at the moment?

Speaker:

Hugh,

Speaker:

I wouldn't say fan, but I think Myra, that he has some

Speaker:

interesting comments on things.

Speaker:

I find his views interesting and challenging, but I don't find.

Speaker:

Uh, uh, probably the more famous views that he has particularly.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Interesting.

Speaker:

Do you find his, the way he explains his views, persuasive?

Speaker:

I, I just find him really hard to listen to.

Speaker:

I have to say, I, I

Speaker:

think he sounds a little bit like he's got a chip on his shoulder with a lot of

Speaker:

the times when he is explaining something.

Speaker:

Um, uh, I've seen some of his YouTube lectures on certain

Speaker:

topics and he's very interesting.

Speaker:

I think he's very interesting about some of his, um, the books that he's

Speaker:

written particularly about the, uh, the hero as a, the archetype of the hero as

Speaker:

such a foundational part of our culture.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Um,

Speaker:

he's big on stories and myths, becoming stories and part of our

Speaker:

culture and driving our ethics.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So he would say to atheists, alright, you may not think you are a Christian,

Speaker:

but actually you are because you've absorbed the myths and stories,

Speaker:

uh, of Christianity and you are leading a lifestyle because of that.

Speaker:

So you're actually, you've absorbed it subconsciously or not.

Speaker:

So that's, that's part of his argument.

Speaker:

A little

Speaker:

bit of truth in that too.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I think there's, I think there is some truth in that, but there's

Speaker:

also the return point, some truth in the fact that most Christians

Speaker:

don't believe in the same thing.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And modern Christians don't believe in the same things that Christians

Speaker:

believed in 2000 years ago.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And for instance, I had a recent debate with a very prominent Christian where we

Speaker:

clarified that their idea of hell is not.

Speaker:

Anywhere near the traditional idea of hell.

Speaker:

In fact, their idea of hell has no visual representation.

Speaker:

They dunno what it is.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

They just know that they don't wanna say it's fire and brimstone and hell fire,

Speaker:

because clearly that's immoral in, um, in the way we understand morality these days.

Speaker:

Mm. So I don't think, I think there's a bit of truth to both ways.

Speaker:

So the Judeo-Christian ethic has in fact changed and adapted

Speaker:

to, you know, modern standards.

Speaker:

I think it has must say, I, I'd always take the turn to be a reference to Western

Speaker:

civilization as opposed to, and, and then I get confused as to where the Orthodox

Speaker:

Christians fit in is that they're sort of, they get a bit ignored there, but,

Speaker:

um, but I, I take Judea Christian to be this reference to Western civilization.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

I agree.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

As opposed to, and yes.

Speaker:

And, but I dunno if it started off in that meaning that,

Speaker:

but that's

Speaker:

how I sort of take it now.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Yeah, of course.

Speaker:

The other thing is if, uh, the Judeo-Christian ethic has plagiarized,

Speaker:

um, ideas from before then.

Speaker:

It's wrong to say that we are really following a Judeo-Christian ethic.

Speaker:

We're really following whatever it is that it's plagiarized from.

Speaker:

So yes, that's such as the golden rule.

Speaker:

Exactly.

Speaker:

For that'd be the classic one, for example.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, um, the, the Golden Rule do unto others as, as you

Speaker:

would have them do unto you.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Did you dig out the origin of the Golden Rule, Trevor?

Speaker:

Um, basically that it's appeared in a number of places independently.

Speaker:

So, because I, confusion,

Speaker:

I didn't notice, uh, that in the, you know, the Greek, um, philosophy

Speaker:

that we were reading in that book,

Speaker:

there is that this idea that, uh, the concept of reciprocity has

Speaker:

appeared in every society, every human society, every society.

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Wow.

Speaker:

Although, maybe not expressed in the same words.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Um, uh, evangelical Christians would argue that Confucius's version of the,

Speaker:

uh, golden Rule is actually called, is the Silver Rule because he, he expressed it

Speaker:

in a slightly different way in, in a kind of negative way instead of a positive way.

Speaker:

Like, don't let people do something that would, that you wouldn't

Speaker:

like them to have done to you.

Speaker:

Oh, that's interesting.

Speaker:

Whereas basically it's just the concept of re reciprocity.

Speaker:

Uh, Ken and Malick in his book said that, so be Quo, a few from a few books.

Speaker:

So, uh, the Quest for a Moral Compass by Ken Malik, and he said in his book

Speaker:

that The Golden Rule has a long history.

Speaker:

An idea hinted at in Babylonian and Egyptian religious codes.

Speaker:

Before fully flowering in Greek and Judaic writing, and independently

Speaker:

in Buddhism and Confucianism too.

Speaker:

So it's an idea that's, um, been around a long time and, and I'm gonna argue a bit

Speaker:

later on that it's part of our evolution, so it goes back to the very beginning.

Speaker:

So we'll get to that.

Speaker:

Oh my goodness.

Speaker:

We might

Speaker:

actually, we might actually agree on something tonight.

Speaker:

Oh, okay.

Speaker:

Good.

Speaker:

So that's change.

Speaker:

Uh, so I guess, uh, did the Jews or the Christians invent a new moral code or

Speaker:

did they plagiarize existing moral codes?

Speaker:

Um, so let's look at what moral codes were around before Christianity

Speaker:

and at the time of Judaism.

Speaker:

So in Ken Malik's book, he starts with Greek mythology and really

Speaker:

in, um, the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Speaker:

We've got Gods, but they're quite, uh, what he calls capricious gods.

Speaker:

And they're very human, these gods, they are jealous and angry and

Speaker:

conniving and very human in their, in their dealings with people.

Speaker:

But, um, people also in that time, there's sort of a combination where

Speaker:

they're fated to their circumstances, which are beyond their control.

Speaker:

Even to some extent, their emotions that they have are fated to them.

Speaker:

That, uh, they were locked into circumstances determined

Speaker:

by their social roles.

Speaker:

Yes, indeed.

Speaker:

A lot of the time, the responses that these characters made

Speaker:

in certain situations were responses that they had to make.

Speaker:

They kind of were locked in through, you're right, this social position meant

Speaker:

well in this position, I must do this.

Speaker:

Or I'm an angry man.

Speaker:

I'm always angry and I'm fated to be angry, and therefore I'm,

Speaker:

or I'm jealous and I will be respond in this sort of manner.

Speaker:

So, um, uh, so personal choice and responsibility is limited.

Speaker:

Um, but, um, that sort of, would

Speaker:

you say the gods were reflections of aspects of human, what would you say?

Speaker:

Existence, human life.

Speaker:

And again, they were just like a group of humans sitting around in the clouds.

Speaker:

So Warrior God would act like a warrior.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And, and a king God would act like a king and et cetera.

Speaker:

And they sit around and quarreled and loved amongst each other as

Speaker:

much as a, a group of humans would.

Speaker:

So that was the sort of, uh, the gods that, uh, Greek mythology

Speaker:

was, was pulling up then.

Speaker:

Uh, so that's around the sort of eighth century b, CE and around

Speaker:

the sixth century, uh, we start to get philosophy emerging and, um.

Speaker:

What constituted a virtuous act or a good life was not, uh, intuitively

Speaker:

grasped through myth, but was explicitly established through rational arguments.

Speaker:

So at about this time, people, people figured out we can work shit out like

Speaker:

Pythagoras with these right angle triangle and hypo news in the square equal.

Speaker:

And people thought, bloody, you know, we can actually start working things out.

Speaker:

Maybe we can work out this virtue and living sort of stuff sort of evolved

Speaker:

at that time with the, with the Greeks.

Speaker:

So, um, Paul, any favorites amongst Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle?

Speaker:

Ooh, that's a, that's a big ask.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

No, I, I don't have any particular favorites, but, uh, I I was

Speaker:

just, can we start with Socrates?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Socrates.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

So Socrates idea was, um, that it was about, you know, it was about

Speaker:

the examined life, wasn't it?

Speaker:

And determining, uh, what made you happy in life, wasn't it?

Speaker:

Y

Speaker:

uh, yes.

Speaker:

He, he said, you should examine life.

Speaker:

Um, uh, isn't that what he said?

Speaker:

When he was, um, convicted, um, to be, um, killed because of his, um, uh,

Speaker:

supposed heresy and, uh, disrupting, um, society, that he said that he won't

Speaker:

recant recant on his beliefs because the un unexamined life is not worth living.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Uh, and.

Speaker:

Uh, he was about how people could, um, care for their souls by acquiring virtues.

Speaker:

But the thing I like about Socrates, and, uh, Peter, I think you'll appreciate this

Speaker:

about Socrates, was the Socratic method.

Speaker:

Yes, yes.

Speaker:

So, which we, we suffered at law school.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

But, you know, excellent training.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So, and it, dear listen, no, if you're a regular on this podcast,

Speaker:

I, I like to think that at different times I've subjected you, Paul, to

Speaker:

the Socratic method because you'll, we'll come out with more than once.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

We'll come out with, um, with, uh, a statement about whether a

Speaker:

shopkeeper should sell cakes to, um, gay couples or something like that.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And, and what I try and do in that case is say, well, let's look at

Speaker:

some similar situations and whether you agree to the same thing.

Speaker:

So in a slightly different circumstance, what do you say?

Speaker:

And if you change your mind, uh, really because the facts change, but

Speaker:

the underlying principles haven't.

Speaker:

And it's about exposing inconsistencies and thinking and trying to get to the

Speaker:

actual general principle that's at play.

Speaker:

So, um, so it's a really useful thing to be able to do, is to sort of, uh, raise up

Speaker:

a whole bunch of alternatives and say, do you still think the same way about this?

Speaker:

Now if we change the facts slightly, do you still think the same way about this?

Speaker:

So, um.

Speaker:

You know, and you can use it in all sorts of things.

Speaker:

Like I'm, as you would know, Hugh forever railing about Americans intervention

Speaker:

in other countries around the world.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And I quite often say, well, how would the Americans feel if some other country

Speaker:

was doing the exact same thing to them?

Speaker:

They wouldn't be happy, would they like, no.

Speaker:

And if your only answer is the reason it's okay because it's us and not

Speaker:

them, then that's not a good reason.

Speaker:

You have to have a general underlying principle that can apply universally.

Speaker:

And when you've got that, you've got something worthwhile.

Speaker:

But if it's, if it's less than that, it's, it's worth nothing.

Speaker:

So that's the sort of, uh, Socratic, um, method.

Speaker:

And uh, so that was one of the great things he did.

Speaker:

Socrates, Socrates and the Youth Thi Row dilemma.

Speaker:

Anyone familiar with the Youth Thi Row dilemma?

Speaker:

So

Speaker:

that is, that, um, is um, what is good because God says it

Speaker:

is good, which is arbitrary.

Speaker:

Um, or is what is good.

Speaker:

Good.

Speaker:

Because it is good.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And so, um, you know, how can you, how can you say what is the good?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So Socrates was being charged with impiety and he was running around

Speaker:

sort of questioning people about, well, what is Godly and what's good?

Speaker:

And uh, youth Iro was this character who was a prosecutor who.

Speaker:

Had prosecuted his own father for killing a slave.

Speaker:

I think he'd beaten the slave, left him in a gutter, and the

Speaker:

slave had died or something.

Speaker:

And this prosecutor was prosecuting his own father for killing the slave.

Speaker:

Anyway, so Socrates thought, well, this youth, youth Dro is a good guy to talk

Speaker:

to and, um, find out about godliness.

Speaker:

And yeah, so he said to him, well, what, what's good?

Speaker:

And he said, well, it's good if God says it's good.

Speaker:

But, uh, Socrates says, well, if he just says it's good, surely he can't

Speaker:

make something good if it's already bad.

Speaker:

Like if it's murder, for example, just by God saying it's good, can't make it good.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

And thi phrase said, well, um, it, it's good.

Speaker:

And, and if God identifies it as good, and then, uh, Socrates

Speaker:

says, so that means that good must exist independently of the gods.

Speaker:

So it must be sitting there as good and the gods then identify it as

Speaker:

being good and it's independent and can exist and crop up.

Speaker:

Uh, separate to the God.

Speaker:

So what's the point of the gods in that case?

Speaker:

So, so do you agree that it's arbitrary that if just because

Speaker:

God says something, it's good?

Speaker:

Mm. That's that it's good.

Speaker:

So if God said, um, you must murder your firstborn son, or you must

Speaker:

torture, uh, civilians, God says that, that that is the good thing

Speaker:

to do that can be good or is good.

Speaker:

Something that has to be measured by more objective manner than that.

Speaker:

Well, Socrates were saying because of that example, it's clearly ridiculous to say

Speaker:

that whatever a God says is good, is good.

Speaker:

You can't rely on that.

Speaker:

And because at those days, gods were known to be crazy, capricious

Speaker:

guys sitting around making all sorts of funny decisions.

Speaker:

So they weren't incredible of it.

Speaker:

They would be arbitrary.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

They were.

Speaker:

So, they weren't regular.

Speaker:

So he, um, so he established that, um, moral morale itself, um, was independent

Speaker:

and perhaps there was an objective way of, of reaching what was good and deciding

Speaker:

what was good.

Speaker:

Um, and that's the main, uh, that's a big objection to

Speaker:

divine d divine command theory.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

That God dictates what is good.

Speaker:

Mm. And God dictates what's subjective, moral values.

Speaker:

I think that's a killer argument against that.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Plato, I find it hard to get a grip on Plato.

Speaker:

He just, he seems to be amongst some people like the king of these.

Speaker:

Mm. Early philosophers, but it's hard to find something

Speaker:

really concrete about Plato.

Speaker:

Well,

Speaker:

I think they often draw a line, you know, there's post platonic and pre platonic

Speaker:

and this sort of, that Plato is this line.

Speaker:

People draw through the history and,

Speaker:

but I dunno why.

Speaker:

Yeah, but don't you think, I think it's interesting that Plato basically wrote

Speaker:

down everything Socrates supposedly said.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And Plato wrote all of his philosophy in plays and in dialogues between people.

Speaker:

So you don't know for a start that, is that what Socrates said?

Speaker:

Or is that what he elaborated on and made a good story out of?

Speaker:

Indeed.

Speaker:

It's a bit like our Bible, um, thing we were talking about how much of this was

Speaker:

actually the word of this person and how much was made up by a subsequent scribe.

Speaker:

So, yeah, that's right.

Speaker:

Probably a lot.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And, and sort of Plato does, um, paint a very attractive picture of Socrates.

Speaker:

So you might guild a lily a little bit.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

So do you see Plato as a direct sort of disciple of Socrates in it?

Speaker:

Because his were a little bit divergent.

Speaker:

He wasn't, he was taught among

Speaker:

by, and a couple of others were taught by Socrates.

Speaker:

So, and then Plato, because Socrates apparently didn't

Speaker:

write anything down, did he?

Speaker:

He didn't write anything and he was more like, uh, uh, he was married, but he

Speaker:

didn't have any particular occupation.

Speaker:

And he used to stand in the, the public square and debate people and

Speaker:

basically be a bit of a nuisance.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

The.

Speaker:

We'll get to it where we get to the Christianity point.

Speaker:

But isn't Plato the point where we get this idea of this spark

Speaker:

of virtue in everybody and

Speaker:

surrounded by the material world?

Speaker:

Certainly there was a character called Thrashy Matches who

Speaker:

advocated naked self-interest.

Speaker:

'cause he said the ruling class are just screwing everybody.

Speaker:

Uh, when they tell you to behave yourself, go out there and do whatever you like.

Speaker:

And Plato said, no, no, no.

Speaker:

Naked self-interest is bad for you and is unhealthy for you, so

Speaker:

you shouldn't conduct yourself with just naked self-interest.

Speaker:

So, um, he didn't really explain why much more beyond then.

Speaker:

It's unhealthy to do that.

Speaker:

He didn't really come up with great moral reasoning for it.

Speaker:

But, uh, that was part of his, he he said

Speaker:

it was a, a form of, um, mental disease in a sense, didn't he?

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And unhealthiness and unhealthy minds.

Speaker:

You won't

Speaker:

be happy if you do that.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It was kind of his reasoning, but at least it was one of these things

Speaker:

of um, don't be so self-interested.

Speaker:

Well,

Speaker:

makes a lot of sense.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And even today he gave as many

Speaker:

reasons as Jesus did.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But even today, I mean, you

Speaker:

could have, um, you know, when matters go to court and things

Speaker:

like that, you can talk about.

Speaker:

Judges will recognize legitimate self-interest, but not just self-interest.

Speaker:

I mean, self-interest might be.

Speaker:

Uh, I get to charge twice for everything I deliver.

Speaker:

And I, I, I'm not gonna pay for anything else I acquire.

Speaker:

That's my self-interest.

Speaker:

But No, no, no, no, no.

Speaker:

Legitimate self-interest is, well, you know, I, I, you,

Speaker:

you've acquired something, you should pay for it and mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And you shouldn't pay anything more than what you bargained

Speaker:

for and things like that.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

So, so you are entitled to pursue your self-interest, but

Speaker:

it's still gotta be legitimate.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Judges, judges would say that today, and I

Speaker:

think that's consistent.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Uh, the other thing he was famous for, just with finishing off with

Speaker:

Plato, was the, uh, hierarchy of preferred governments.

Speaker:

So his idea of the, uh, best form of government was an aristocracy.

Speaker:

Oh, second was a military dictatorship.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Third was an oligarchy.

Speaker:

Oh, great.

Speaker:

And then there was a democracy, which Amy ranked above tyranny.

Speaker:

Oh, is this

Speaker:

in the republic?

Speaker:

Is this in the republic?

Speaker:

I think so.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Wow.

Speaker:

So

Speaker:

that's fantastic because you had this view that, um, common

Speaker:

people are driven by base desires.

Speaker:

Um, soldiers have a yearning for honor, and rulers have, uh, uh,

Speaker:

their purpose is to look for reason.

Speaker:

So he had a very sort of a class segregation about was he

Speaker:

heavily interested?

Speaker:

He was heavily influenced by Sparta.

Speaker:

I think I recall something like that.

Speaker:

The, the Spartan culture or the, the, their success they had had

Speaker:

their, and that was a military style

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Uh, society.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Sparta was, um, what Nazi Germany aspired to be is what

Speaker:

is what some people describe it.

Speaker:

Describe it as, so it was a very author authoritarian, but, uh, okay.

Speaker:

So.

Speaker:

The, the Greek, the Athenians, were into this, were developing this idea

Speaker:

of, look, all of these philosophers, uh, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were

Speaker:

definitely about what you have to do is to be, for the benefit of the Polish,

Speaker:

which is the city state sort of thing.

Speaker:

Your, your actions must be favorable for our city.

Speaker:

Um, but they were certainly freer than the, uh, Spartans because

Speaker:

the Spartans were very rigid in your commitment to Sparta.

Speaker:

And your roles were extremely rigid and they're rich, uh, rigid.

Speaker:

And there wasn't, uh, scope for any personal liberties in the Spartan world.

Speaker:

So in, and that sort of comes to the nub of part of our philosophy

Speaker:

discussion is how much are you committed to the group and the community,

Speaker:

and how much free will to do your own individual libertarian thing?

Speaker:

And does free will actually exist?

Speaker:

Not this

Speaker:

episode here.

Speaker:

No, but it is a relevant question though.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

At the base of it all.

Speaker:

Indeed it is.

Speaker:

That comes a

Speaker:

bit later actually, doesn't it?

Speaker:

In the, um, Judeo Christian tradition is this idea of free will, isn't it?

Speaker:

Um, more

Speaker:

than the Greek one.

Speaker:

I think it's essential to it.

Speaker:

Without it, there is, there's really no punishment or reward

Speaker:

if there's no real free will.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Well, we digress.

Speaker:

I mean, if God knows everything you're gonna do anyway, why

Speaker:

bother running this experiment?

Speaker:

Like, because well it is, yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So you really had no free will 'cause he knew you were gonna do that anyway.

Speaker:

Or maybe he knew you were gonna exercise your free will in such a way,

Speaker:

but, um, why conduct the experiment if he knows the results already?

Speaker:

That's true.

Speaker:

Because he's a sadist.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But we've digressed and we'll just finish off with, uh, Aristotle.

Speaker:

And, um, his, uh, idea was a state of human flourishing,

Speaker:

um, that's worth seeking.

Speaker:

And basically if you have a, if you conduct yourself

Speaker:

virtuously, then happiness will come as a byproduct of that.

Speaker:

And that's something I've read about in recent times when people

Speaker:

talk about how can you be happy?

Speaker:

And the answer is, you shouldn't be pursuing happiness as such.

Speaker:

If you are conducting life in a meaningful way, then happiness is a

Speaker:

byproduct of that and will come about.

Speaker:

So, um, so that was kind of Aristotle's view.

Speaker:

And he also had this sort of acorn theory that, uh, an acorn's purpose

Speaker:

is to grow up and become an oak.

Speaker:

So things have a purpose and they have a meaningful existence if

Speaker:

they achieve their obvious purpose.

Speaker:

So, uh.

Speaker:

That was, uh, Aristotle.

Speaker:

So just briefly, uh, before we get onto the Christians, um, after those three

Speaker:

main Greeks, we had one little period there of stoics, stoicism, stoicism.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Marcus

Speaker:

Aurelius.

Speaker:

Uh, yeah.

Speaker:

And, um, this was the idea of sort of accepting your fate.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And this is important for Christianity.

Speaker:

Yes, exactly.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Uh, so it's an idea that, okay, you've got a, uh, terrible terminal

Speaker:

illness that, um, medicine can't fix.

Speaker:

Well, don't whine about it.

Speaker:

There's no point.

Speaker:

Um, accept that and deal with it as you can, but kind of accepting

Speaker:

whatever, uh, fate throws at you that you can't deal with.

Speaker:

Just accept it and, and move on within that.

Speaker:

Um, I like this line from Ken and Malik's book.

Speaker:

Um, so this guy's, Zeno was a stoic and, uh, he was once flogging a

Speaker:

slave as you do, and, uh, who had stolen some goods and the slave said.

Speaker:

But I was fated to steal and, uh, and Xeno said yes and to be beaten as well.

Speaker:

Very stoic response.

Speaker:

Uh, so fate

Speaker:

can be a bitch.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But that, that sort of stoic acceptance of the situation you are in, uh, was

Speaker:

important for Christianity down the track.

Speaker:

Um, oh, very much so.

Speaker:

Adopted that.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

And also, um, they kind of opened things up to the Christian idea because

Speaker:

they really stopped talking about what's your role in terms of promoting

Speaker:

the community and the pos in more a case of how do you feel about life

Speaker:

and think about yourself inwardly.

Speaker:

And that then opened up Christianity with people having a relationship with

Speaker:

God and forgetting about the community as such, or not having to think

Speaker:

about promoting the, the city state.

Speaker:

So, um, so yeah, so that's the sort of lead up to, uh, to the Bible period.

Speaker:

We get to, and when we get to, uh.

Speaker:

How do you pronounce it?

Speaker:

The AK by the g ak.

Speaker:

Ak.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So what we got Hebrew.

Speaker:

Oh, very weak.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

So, uh, what we've got there is a group of people who've, um, uh,

Speaker:

basically come up with this idea of a God who commands what you, what

Speaker:

is right and what you need to do.

Speaker:

And don't you dare think about it because I've written it down on these

Speaker:

here, 10 tablets, and your job is just to do it and not to think about it.

Speaker:

And, um, that was the sort of movement in Christianity and Judaism, which

Speaker:

strikes me as not as a sort of a backward step from where we were.

Speaker:

It's sort of comical, isn't it?

Speaker:

Mm. And that, that Moses also went up on top of the clouds or the

Speaker:

mountain and, and negotiated this with God for 40 days and 40 nights.

Speaker:

Did he negotiate?

Speaker:

I don't think he negotiated.

Speaker:

Did he?

Speaker:

Well, he was up there.

Speaker:

What was he discussing for 40?

Speaker:

He was like humanity's union rep up there discussing it with God.

Speaker:

And then he came down and smashed all the tablets and um,

Speaker:

and then executed 3000 people.

Speaker:

Was that deliberate or an accident?

Speaker:

Didn't smash the tablet.

Speaker:

What do you mean?

Speaker:

He smashed the tablets?

Speaker:

First time he smashed them.

Speaker:

Oh, did he?

Speaker:

Yeah, he had to go back

Speaker:

up

Speaker:

again.

Speaker:

There's two,

Speaker:

there's two stories, sir. The first one he smashes, he smashed, he got upset because

Speaker:

they were misbehaving when he came back.

Speaker:

He took so long.

Speaker:

Ah, what were they, what were they

Speaker:

worshiping?

Speaker:

What were they worshiping?

Speaker:

The, uh, golden.

Speaker:

Golden.

Speaker:

I'm not sure if

Speaker:

that was the event involved in the golden calf, but yeah, no, he, the

Speaker:

original tablets he had to smash 'cause he got so pissed off with them.

Speaker:

Is that right?

Speaker:

Yeah, he thought he had to go back up

Speaker:

again and do it again.

Speaker:

'cause they were, uh, practicing idolatry by, by worshiping, making idols.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

I

Speaker:

hope he had a good story for God the second time he ran out.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

But I

Speaker:

dunno if he was negotiating, but it certainly took a long time.

Speaker:

It was, but but it's a, it's a covenant again.

Speaker:

The for for the Jews important.

Speaker:

They, they were making, Yahweh was making covenants with his people.

Speaker:

It's a kind of contract.

Speaker:

So it's an agreement, isn't it?

Speaker:

So, so I suppose negotiation.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But, but these are all always covenants between Yahweh

Speaker:

and his people.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

I doubt many religious people would accept my union rep. Uh, example

Speaker:

Hamed

Speaker:

negotiated did, I've told you that story many times.

Speaker:

So he negotiated, yeah.

Speaker:

Five prayers that, that Muslims say every day.

Speaker:

Initially God said it's 50, he got him down to five and, and Mohammed Haggled

Speaker:

50 would be a bit, it's true, wouldn't it?

Speaker:

He came

Speaker:

down from the low, higher level to the lower level.

Speaker:

And I think it was Abraham who said to him.

Speaker:

You know, how many prayers did God tell you to get your people to say?

Speaker:

And he said, 50.

Speaker:

And he said, oh, prayers a weighty matter.

Speaker:

Go back up and get it reduced.

Speaker:

Went back up, had it reduced to 45, came back down.

Speaker:

Same thing.

Speaker:

He said, no, go back up again.

Speaker:

And this repeated itself until it got down to five.

Speaker:

And then, sorry, Abraham told Yeah.

Speaker:

I think it was Abraham.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

One of the, but Abraham was long dead.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But he's in heaven.

Speaker:

I know.

Speaker:

He's stages of heaven.

Speaker:

He's in the stages of heaven.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

The stages of heaven.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So

Speaker:

Muhammad actually went up to heaven to do this.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

On the night journey, when he was on the half Neil, half donkey

Speaker:

on the, and climbed, climbed the golden ladder with Gabrielle and

Speaker:

passed through the levels of heaven.

Speaker:

And when he came back with five, I still, Abraham said, look, that's too many.

Speaker:

And, and Mohammad said, well, I feel too embarrassed to go back again.

Speaker:

So that's, that's why, that's why it's down to five.

Speaker:

So he haggled.

Speaker:

That is a good story.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So that's all there in the, in the life of, imagine how

Speaker:

much praying that, that they would've been doing if it stuck with 50.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It'd be just praying all day.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

You never get anything done.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, uh, apparently they, they seldom get much done anyway, even with the five.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So the tablets then found their way into a chest called the Ark of the Covenant.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

The ark.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Which found its way into the temple.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

That they built.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

And the temple was sacked the

Speaker:

first temple.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Solomon's

Speaker:

temple was

Speaker:

destroyed by the, um, by the, um, Assyrians or by the, uh, Babylonians.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Babylonians.

Speaker:

Babylonians.

Speaker:

Thats Syrian

Speaker:

was the first conquest, wasn't it?

Speaker:

I think the Babylonians was the second con.

Speaker:

Oh, okay.

Speaker:

Uh,

Speaker:

no, no.

Speaker:

The Babylonians was the first time, uh, that solos temple was set.

Speaker:

So Solo's temple was over then 5 87 BCE.

Speaker:

And I guess at that point the tablets were lost?

Speaker:

Yes, I think so.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

But I think they might've been found again,

Speaker:

that's probably religion.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Steven spill.

Speaker:

But they found them.

Speaker:

They might have found them again.

Speaker:

So the

Speaker:

Jews who lived there at that time, then basically a lot of

Speaker:

'em were exiled to Babylonia.

Speaker:

Uh, yeah.

Speaker:

Whether, whether there was all of them, but some, some, some there seems to

Speaker:

be, uh, accepted that there was, uh, Jewish Jews in in Babylon at the time.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

Went from that area.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

And um, and then eventually Babylon, Babylon fell and the Jews the

Speaker:

Per the Persians over

Speaker:

around.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

So the Jews then returned Yes.

Speaker:

And met up with the Jews who had stayed there.

Speaker:

Correct.

Speaker:

And the Jews who had been away and came back were far more rigid

Speaker:

and, uh, and tough on religion.

Speaker:

Rule bound.

Speaker:

Rule bound, yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Had their rules.

Speaker:

And the guys who had stayed there, so the guys who had stayed were doing

Speaker:

things like mixed marriages where Jews were marrying non-Jews and things.

Speaker:

And the Jews who had been in Babylonia came back and said,

Speaker:

what the hell are you doing?

Speaker:

You can't do this.

Speaker:

Uh, and know the marriages and.

Speaker:

Um, it's often the case that people who are in a sort of a diaspora

Speaker:

become more, um, conservative than the people actually in the original

Speaker:

communities to preserve their culture.

Speaker:

They, they're stricter with rules.

Speaker:

Puritan.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So they found that with sort of Islamic groups in America and whatever mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Indeed get into a little closed community and can be, uh, a lot more

Speaker:

sort of, uh, rigid in their thinking than the communities back home.

Speaker:

So that appears to be what's happened there.

Speaker:

Sense.

Speaker:

Imagine what we'd like, makes sense.

Speaker:

We'd be like,

Speaker:

if, if we went to live in another country for few, few generations, yes.

Speaker:

We'd be all very strict about wearing songs and studies and

Speaker:

maybe we would be, um, so,

Speaker:

uh, what does Ken and Mallick have to say about all that?

Speaker:

Uh, that's kind of quoting what Ken and Mallick was saying really about,

Speaker:

about that sort of idea that they, when the ones who went away were much more

Speaker:

conservative than the ones who stayed

Speaker:

behind.

Speaker:

Mm. So do you guys think it's a knockdown argument then against this sort of, um,

Speaker:

Judeo-Christian thing that we need to have these, um, prescriptions for our morality,

Speaker:

that what happened to the, the Jews and all the civilizations and cultures before

Speaker:

God delivered those 10 Commandments and all the other commandments, the

Speaker:

350 or so that are in the Bible?

Speaker:

If there was any need for him to do so.

Speaker:

Must We have had no morality prior to that.

Speaker:

Well, that's the point, isn't it?

Speaker:

Like there were some really marvelous civilizations that were occurring.

Speaker:

Mm. People were able to cooperate and build amazing civilizations prior to,

Speaker:

uh, the Bible being started by the Jews.

Speaker:

And we've got, uh, you know, the whole of Asia who never hears of

Speaker:

Yeah, that's right.

Speaker:

The whole Christ story.

Speaker:

That's a fair question.

Speaker:

'cause I, I think I was thinking about asking initially when you started off

Speaker:

on the history, were you suggesting that there's a point where there isn't

Speaker:

a discussion of morality in writings?

Speaker:

Or that it, that it emerges at a particular point in time in

Speaker:

our, in, in Western history?

Speaker:

Is there a point?

Speaker:

What I'm saying is

Speaker:

that, is that, uh, the original, um, writings of the Jews are really an

Speaker:

assembly of the stories that they had gathered from various tribes who coalesced

Speaker:

and became that tribe in that area.

Speaker:

And the, these are just historical stories that are gathered together

Speaker:

in the same way that the Odyssey and the Iliad were historical stories

Speaker:

that were then gathered together.

Speaker:

Um, in that way, when people start to get organized and can write things,

Speaker:

they, they start to bring all those things that, that was something

Speaker:

I took from the book, Trevor, where, um.

Speaker:

Ken and Malik says, the ID and the Odyssey gave ancient Greeks a sense of

Speaker:

their history and a foundation stone of their culture, and it established

Speaker:

a moral framework for their lives.

Speaker:

And the Jews sort of did the same thing with their old myth stories, gave

Speaker:

them a sense of nationhood in a sense.

Speaker:

And one book that I've read, which is called The Bible Unearthed,

Speaker:

do you guys know that one?

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Heard.

Speaker:

I should read it.

Speaker:

Very interesting.

Speaker:

Heard It's a meta-analysis of the archeological work done in the

Speaker:

so-called Holy Lands over, you know, the last couple of hundred years.

Speaker:

And what they decided was that the, you know, the Jewish Bible, I dunno

Speaker:

what you want to call it, but the collection of Jewish Holy Books mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Was actually assembled by one particular king, uh, Josiah, I think his name

Speaker:

was in the seventh century bc. Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And, and they claimed that he actually, you know, assembled all the various

Speaker:

stories and myths and books as a particular political project mm-hmm.

Speaker:

To give the, you know, disparate tribes that he was trying to pull together

Speaker:

as a nation to give them a sense of their own history and their own.

Speaker:

Identity and nationhood.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

A according to Canon Malick, he says, the children of Israel who

Speaker:

first arrived in Canaan were probably marginalized and dispossessed, no nomads

Speaker:

who had roamed the fertile crescent.

Speaker:

Over time, their patchwork of tales became stitched together into a single narrative

Speaker:

of common history and shared gods.

Speaker:

Um, and the original settlers had arrived in Canaan sometime in the first

Speaker:

half of the second millennium, b, CE.

Speaker:

And the various kingdom, or the various tribes were united

Speaker:

into a single kingdom by Saul.

Speaker:

His successes with David and Solomon who extended the borders, um, Solomon built

Speaker:

the temple that was eventually destroyed.

Speaker:

So, yeah.

Speaker:

In the same way that the Odyssey and the Iliad was a collection of

Speaker:

stories around about the same time, the AK was a collection of stories,

Speaker:

like group of tribes melded together.

Speaker:

That's all it is.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Um, and

Speaker:

they were basically, as you say, just a disparate group of tribes.

Speaker:

They weren't a single self-identified, uh, group of Jewish people at that time.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

You know, that was, that was a political creation.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So the other thing about Judaism was that, um, basically other gods, uh, basically

Speaker:

had to be ferociously suppressed.

Speaker:

Like really prior to that there was a lot of polytheism around where.

Speaker:

Live and let live.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

You've got your God, I've got my God who, you know, who really cares.

Speaker:

But it sort of brought about an era where you are dead set wrong if

Speaker:

you've got another God, and I'm not happy that you've got this other God.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

So that was part of the whole monotheism thing that came about

Speaker:

with Judaism, unfortunately.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Was the sort of start of it.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Um, so yeah, rather than thinking about morals and virtues and trying to work it

Speaker:

out, we sort of regressed a step into, well, here are the stories laid down and

Speaker:

you've got to follow what God tells you if you're going to make your way to heaven.

Speaker:

And originally heaven wasn't really a concept for the Jews.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

It was more you were going to get your reward on this earth.

Speaker:

But once they started to get really badly persecuted, uh.

Speaker:

Uh, they started to see that people were suffering and weren't

Speaker:

getting their just rewards.

Speaker:

So they then started developing a concept of heaven as an afterlife

Speaker:

because clearly some really good people were going through a terrible time and

Speaker:

we're not getting the so-called rewards that they were supposed to be getting.

Speaker:

Which kind of undermines the whole

Speaker:

basis of the, um, yes.

Speaker:

I don't think

Speaker:

the Old Testament doesn't mention hell, but the New Testament is, uh,

Speaker:

is the, the kingdom is to be on earth.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It's is that what you, my understanding Peter

Speaker:

Jewish, it, the thought evolved over time definitely evolved over time,

Speaker:

but yes, no, there's no, there's no, uh, hell, uh, there's no, um,

Speaker:

there's no devil in the Old Testament.

Speaker:

There's certainly Satan, Satan's a slightly different character, but,

Speaker:

uh, but it certainly evolved and I think by, by, by the time of Jesus,

Speaker:

then there was this light and dark, good and evil sort of thing evolving.

Speaker:

But, but Jovi, could I just go back to that point about the, the, the Jewish

Speaker:

law, though it comes back to this idea of a covenant though, that, that I, I don't

Speaker:

think it's God imposing your to-do this.

Speaker:

He didn't say, I'm taking control.

Speaker:

This was a, I think it's always understood.

Speaker:

This is a bargain.

Speaker:

These are covenants.

Speaker:

Moses on behalf of his people said, I've agreed with Yahweh, and, and, and

Speaker:

if you, if you abide by these laws.

Speaker:

Then God will protect you and God is on your side.

Speaker:

So it's, it's not so much of imposition as a, as

Speaker:

a covenant or, or in other words, an enterprise bargaining

Speaker:

agreement, if you'd like.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Well, the Jews were the chosen people of God.

Speaker:

It sort of, well,

Speaker:

you certainly chose them, but, but, but there's always covenants being

Speaker:

made and he said, I will be your God.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

You'll have no other God other than me.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

But, but this is the deal.

Speaker:

This is a deal being done here.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

It's not a I've chosen you and you have no say in it.

Speaker:

This is the exchange.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

There's constantly throughout the Old Testament covenants being made.

Speaker:

So, so.

Speaker:

But is it a choice?

Speaker:

If, if you believe, if you believe what God says, then

Speaker:

is there really a choice then?

Speaker:

Oh, oh, thanks God, for the offer.

Speaker:

But yeah, I think I might just reject that and just, uh, hard say,

Speaker:

but I'll suffer the consequences.

Speaker:

I mean, really hard to say, but

Speaker:

you know, the reality is you're brought up in a religion and

Speaker:

that's just your religion.

Speaker:

So if you follow those rules, but, but it, but it's not so much in position.

Speaker:

The theory is that it's a, it's still a covenant made between

Speaker:

Moses on behalf of his people.

Speaker:

With, with Yahweh.

Speaker:

How do you define

Speaker:

covenant isn't a sort of contract agreement.

Speaker:

Yeah, it means agreement.

Speaker:

Yeah, basically.

Speaker:

Um, for example, Jesus is.

Speaker:

His, his, his new covenant was upon his death.

Speaker:

This is my body, this is my blood that the, i i upon my death,

Speaker:

I'll make the new covenant.

Speaker:

And you have a new path to heaven that, that was coming

Speaker:

outta the New Testament then.

Speaker:

So it's all the, it's

Speaker:

all sort of quid pro quo that wasn't, it is all.

Speaker:

Well, very much so, and this is idea of haggling and, and it's, it's, it's

Speaker:

a cultural thing as well, but Yeah.

Speaker:

But, but the point Peter, I'm saying is that it's not about virtue morality.

Speaker:

It's about you will do this.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So that you can achieve Yes.

Speaker:

So and so reward.

Speaker:

That's that's right.

Speaker:

And if you don't do this, uh, hell awais you.

Speaker:

It's about obedience, isn't it?

Speaker:

It's not about examining your life and deciding whether you're a good person.

Speaker:

It's about obedience.

Speaker:

Oh, it's not

Speaker:

about moral reasoning at all.

Speaker:

That's right.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It's not reasoning as to what's, what's true.

Speaker:

It's about obeying what the law is.

Speaker:

No, I agree.

Speaker:

Yes, I agree.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

There's no real sense of genuine altruism in these religions because it's always

Speaker:

a case of if you do these things, you will be rewarded in some sense.

Speaker:

I don't have to try.

Speaker:

Thou shalt not kill, you know, you can't just say, that's just a rule.

Speaker:

Let's not think about, I mean, that's a, do you really need to think

Speaker:

about that as requiring we needed

Speaker:

the, we needed it on the, we needed it on the commandments.

Speaker:

You sort, or else we were Do you really need to think hard about that as being

Speaker:

a moral sort of, can't you just sort of No, but that's not really, I'm

Speaker:

getting at, I'm sort of getting at the point that, um.

Speaker:

That the sort of guidelines or moral virtues of doing these things,

Speaker:

loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, et cetera, are all put

Speaker:

forward in Christianity at least that by doing so, you'll enter heaven.

Speaker:

So it's not really a al true altruism is doing something

Speaker:

where there's an expectation you may not get anything in return.

Speaker:

No, no, I agree.

Speaker:

As, as and all and the whole concept of Christianity is there's a return here.

Speaker:

If you do the right, if you do these things, you'll that's, that's the case.

Speaker:

That's exactly

Speaker:

right.

Speaker:

And that's the irony though, isn't Yes.

Speaker:

What's what is so appealing about Jesus's message is the selflessness of it.

Speaker:

The sacrifice of it.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And the, um, you know, the, um, the charitable act, the charity

Speaker:

and the doing things right.

Speaker:

Turning the other cheek and loving your, loving your enemies, but

Speaker:

you're only doing it just so you can get a reward in the end.

Speaker:

So was Mother Teresa only doing all that work so she could get to heaven?

Speaker:

Don't start, don't start us on Mother Teresa.

Speaker:

You realize how bad Mother Theresa was.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

She, she was a terrible woman.

Speaker:

Oh, okay.

Speaker:

Well, I won't start you on that.

Speaker:

No.

Speaker:

Mother Theresa was into suffering.

Speaker:

She was, she really wanted other people to suffer.

Speaker:

She was a suffering fetish.

Speaker:

She was a terrible, terrible Mother.

Speaker:

Theresa was No Mother Theresa.

Speaker:

Oh, okay.

Speaker:

Let me tell you.

Speaker:

There you go's another story there.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

Her name was Agnes and she got, she got her treatment at, uh, the, one of the

Speaker:

finest medical institutions in America.

Speaker:

That's right.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

While at the same time, instead of buying drugs for the people in her care, she

Speaker:

sent the money to the Vatican Bank.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

As, as part of all this part of my research, I was reading some Bertrand

Speaker:

Russell, and, uh, he was explaining that, um, it was turbulent times, uh, around the

Speaker:

period where, uh, when Jesus died and, um, uh, what was going on at that, that time.

Speaker:

And people were looking for comfort in a religion.

Speaker:

And one of the problems with Judaism was, uh, circumcision.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Ouch.

Speaker:

And, uh, a restricted diet in what you, things you could eat.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And according to Burton Russell, uh, that made it really

Speaker:

difficult to promote Judaism.

Speaker:

But Christianity was this sort of, um, um, sect, if you like, originally

Speaker:

sort of the Jesus sect of, of Judaism.

Speaker:

And guess what?

Speaker:

You didn't need to be circumcised.

Speaker:

Well, there's a bonus and you could eat whatever you like.

Speaker:

Because I originally said, when we were talking, I thought you had to be

Speaker:

circumcised in Christianity.

Speaker:

I know.

Speaker:

I think that came later.

Speaker:

No, there was why are, is what all Protestants were though for centuries.

Speaker:

Is that right?

Speaker:

Or am I it back?

Speaker:

Always assumed

Speaker:

it may have come back into favor.

Speaker:

Yeah, it's come back into favor.

Speaker:

But fashion,

Speaker:

Paul was very strong on that.

Speaker:

That was the distinction, was the circumcised and the uncircumcised.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

See, I said two weeks ago when we were talking what a great salesman Paul was

Speaker:

like, he could sell ice to Eskimos, but I hadn't taken into account he

Speaker:

had the greatest argument in the world, the circumcision argument.

Speaker:

He could say, he can have all of this religion stuff.

Speaker:

And we went have to chop a piece of foreskin off.

Speaker:

Like that's a compelling selling proposition.

Speaker:

That was a unique selling point that he had there.

Speaker:

So he didn't require it.

Speaker:

So No, no, no.

Speaker:

He,

Speaker:

he came back to bite him later because as you know from his

Speaker:

letters, he, he was continuing to having to write to his churches,

Speaker:

reminding them that it wasn't just.

Speaker:

Love God and please yourself.

Speaker:

There were still rules that he thought you should obey.

Speaker:

And he kept writing letters saying, well, you still have to do these things.

Speaker:

But, but, uh, he stripped away a lot of the, um, strict

Speaker:

observance that the Jews required.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

That, that is, you didn't have to become a Jew first to become a Christian.

Speaker:

You could be, uh, Jesus was a path to heaven in, in, in, in

Speaker:

its own way for the gentil.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

So, uh, so 0.1 is that a lot of what was in the Bible was basically a, a rehashing

Speaker:

of stories and myths that had developed by generations of people prior to that.

Speaker:

And a lot of it was ideas that people had been, um, thinking of and using.

Speaker:

And, you know, humans were co cooperating and getting along for

Speaker:

tens of thousands of years, creating all sorts of civilizations, uh, very

Speaker:

happily without Christianity, and continued to do so in areas where the

Speaker:

Bible was completely unknown, so to say.

Speaker:

Uh, the other point in this is that when you're looking at the Bible

Speaker:

is there's so many contradictions in terms of the moral concepts

Speaker:

and what to do and what not to do.

Speaker:

That it's not like you can pick up the Bible and just follow it.

Speaker:

You still have to pick and choose and decide.

Speaker:

I have to.

Speaker:

You know, there'll be, the Bible will be completely contradictory

Speaker:

and you have to say, well, I'm gonna choose one or the other.

Speaker:

So people are still making their own moral choice when they're

Speaker:

following a so-called Bible addict, because there's another alternative

Speaker:

in there somewhere in the Bible.

Speaker:

That's one of the problems of such an inconsistent document.

Speaker:

So, um, so, uh, so yeah, so that's all that part.

Speaker:

Um, and what I wanted to get on to was how are we going for time-wise here?

Speaker:

We're here.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

We're probably about 40 minutes, something like that.

Speaker:

So, uh, lemme grab another book.

Speaker:

The Goodness Paradox, the Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence

Speaker:

and Human Evolution by Richard Rang him.

Speaker:

So this is a good book.

Speaker:

I recommend it to you.

Speaker:

I haven't read that.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, um, what this book says is, uh, he's looked at the evolution of mankind and

Speaker:

basically he said that, uh, human beings, when you compare us to other animals,

Speaker:

our closest neighbors, chimpanzees and things like that we're extremely

Speaker:

low on, on hot reactive aggression.

Speaker:

So if you look at a group of chimpanzees, they'll whack each

Speaker:

other at the slightest provocation or even without it, like they're

Speaker:

continually bickering and fighting.

Speaker:

And niggling each other's.

Speaker:

There's sort of hot aggression happening all the time in those communities

Speaker:

where human beings, you know, you can put 300 of us in a little sardine and

Speaker:

flies across the country and we'll, 99 times out of a hundred behave and just

Speaker:

get on with each other unless we're

Speaker:

a rockstar or a tennis player.

Speaker:

Yeah, indeed.

Speaker:

So this is a sort of a unique capacity of human beings is that when it

Speaker:

comes to that sort of hot aggression reacting, we're extremely low on that.

Speaker:

We have a capacity for planned aggression so we can coldly, calculate to, um,

Speaker:

invade another country and send bombs and do things of that like, of that nature.

Speaker:

But that sort of hot reactive aggression we're, we're extremely low on.

Speaker:

That's one of our unique features.

Speaker:

And he makes an argument that, um, human beings have become

Speaker:

domesticated somehow, and that if you would compare us with our ancient

Speaker:

ancestors, it would be like comparing, uh, a household dog with a wolf.

Speaker:

And, uh, he explains this domestication process where, uh, there's these

Speaker:

characteristics of domestication that occur and basically, uh, bodies become

Speaker:

smaller, males become less male and more feminized skulls get smaller.

Speaker:

Jaws and teeth get smaller.

Speaker:

Um.

Speaker:

Uh, you'll see on sort of wolves and, and primitive dogs, they've got a long snout.

Speaker:

But in a, in a domesticated species, the snout gets more.

Speaker:

Same with humans.

Speaker:

So there's a lot of the features of the domestication of a wolf into a dog

Speaker:

that have appeared in human beings.

Speaker:

And, um, there's a range of other sort of biological factors you can get into.

Speaker:

Um, one of the things is, um, uh, what are these, uh, these

Speaker:

cells that he talks about?

Speaker:

Um, I might skip over that, but it gives a really good argument as to the fact that

Speaker:

somehow human beings became domesticated.

Speaker:

And, um, uh, he asks, how did that come about?

Speaker:

And his answer is that at some point when humans could communicate, you had

Speaker:

to overcome the, um, the, the idea that an aggressive alpha male gets whatever

Speaker:

he wants is really hard to sort of stop.

Speaker:

Like you see it all the time in the animal kingdom.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

That these bullying alpha males just wreak havoc in a community and keep, um, uh.

Speaker:

Uh, the alpha males subdued and, and there's very little cooperation

Speaker:

because of the alpha male dominating.

Speaker:

And essentially when human beings reach the point that they could communicate,

Speaker:

we had the idea of whispering beta males, so beta males could get together

Speaker:

and say, that guy's a real asshole.

Speaker:

Let's all just jump on him and kill him.

Speaker:

Cooperation.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And so he says that you've got sort of, uh, you're trying to work out two

Speaker:

reasons why people became cooperative.

Speaker:

One is, you know, this idea of a cooperative group in warfare

Speaker:

will beat an uncooperative group.

Speaker:

So a, a group full of altruistic cooperating individuals in a warfare

Speaker:

scenario will out outbeat the sort of squabbling masses of uncooperative ones.

Speaker:

And so then they'll outbreath them because they'll win the battles

Speaker:

and they'll, they'll sort of that in, um, encourages altruism.

Speaker:

The alternative theory is that within groups you have the whispering beta

Speaker:

males or, um, gathering together and knocking off disruptive, um,

Speaker:

super aggressive alpha males.

Speaker:

And he gives compelling reasons as to why.

Speaker:

That second one is probably the most likely scenario,

Speaker:

particularly when you look at, um,

Speaker:

primitive hunter-gatherer situations, uh, when they're going

Speaker:

to sort of war against each other.

Speaker:

Two tribes, there's no incentive for somebody to be particularly altruistic

Speaker:

and, and at the head of the firing line, if you like, like generally the

Speaker:

ex skirmishes where people try not to get hit, and if they do, they run it,

Speaker:

you know, once one person's killed and they sort of, it's all over and

Speaker:

they sort of retreat or whatever.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

There, there isn't actually a reward for being altruistic in that sort of scenario.

Speaker:

There isn't anything compelling, so, um, it gives other reasons as well.

Speaker:

So, but the idea of the whispering beta males, that does

Speaker:

happen in primitive societies.

Speaker:

It can go through Africa and, um, places like that where there are still

Speaker:

hunter gatherer societies, by the way.

Speaker:

He makes the point that, uh, studying them for years as he did it, they're

Speaker:

just like these people back in England as far as he was concerned.

Speaker:

They, they, they had lovers, they had power conflicts, they had fun and games.

Speaker:

They just conducted themselves the way most human beings do.

Speaker:

But they just happened to do it in a dirt hut and in a, in a different environment.

Speaker:

But basically hunter gatherer societies without the benefit of the Judea Christian

Speaker:

ethic basically conducted themselves.

Speaker:

As the way you would expect us to do if we were thrown into the same situation.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

But getting back to this idea of, um, uh, this execution hypothesis that

Speaker:

the groups managed to domesticate by bumping off the super aggressive, um,

Speaker:

or troublesome characters who were causing problems for the community.

Speaker:

Um,

Speaker:

and so that, and that, um, then, um, the evolutionary, uh, selection bias would've

Speaker:

got rid of more of those alpha males.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Triggering us more towards a, uh, they couldn't more domesticated

Speaker:

version of the beta male.

Speaker:

That's, that's right.

Speaker:

The aggressive alpha males weren't breeding them 'cause they were bumped off.

Speaker:

They were dead, pushed off the ice.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

And the more cooperative prosocial beta males were the ones he managed to breed.

Speaker:

And would you believe that Charles Darwin talked about this?

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

Uhhuh.

Speaker:

I didn't know that.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, um, uh, Charles Darwin was anxious to provide an evolutionary

Speaker:

explanation for positive moral behavior.

Speaker:

'cause he recognized that we had it and it didn't really seem to make sense that we,

Speaker:

we did have this positive moral behavior.

Speaker:

People at the time were trying to say it was a blessing from God.

Speaker:

And Darwin was saying, well, I can't rely on that because the whole thesis is,

Speaker:

there's no intervention by God in this whole process that I'm talking about.

Speaker:

So he was looking at what were the reasons, and he said that,

Speaker:

um, uh, let me just find it here.

Speaker:

Um, Spotify

Speaker:

has an added support for that with,

Speaker:

I'll turn that off.

Speaker:

Spotify.

Speaker:

Um, bear with me one second.

Speaker:

Um,

Speaker:

so he had to explain it without the influence of religious beings, and he

Speaker:

observed that in contemporary societies, um, he called them mal factors.

Speaker:

So people who were a pain in the ass who were stealing, killing, raping,

Speaker:

you know, mal factors in our societies, they're either executed or imprisoned.

Speaker:

So he could see that in our modern societies we can deal with those

Speaker:

people and get 'em outta the system.

Speaker:

But he recognized that they didn't have that capacity of

Speaker:

imprisonment in primitive societies.

Speaker:

And, um, so he recognized that prehistoric human societies might

Speaker:

have found some ways to harshly deal with violent and quarrelsome men.

Speaker:

And if exceptionally aggressive men were always routinely punished in ways

Speaker:

that reduce their reproductive success, there would've been eons of prehistory

Speaker:

in which the culling of violent men could lead to evolutionary change.

Speaker:

And Darwin's conclusion was forthright.

Speaker:

The morality problem could be solved by an ancient system of execution

Speaker:

leading to the eradication of selfishly immoral individuals, which would

Speaker:

lead to selection against selfish tendencies in favor of social tolerance.

Speaker:

Uh, through this kind of natural selection, he wrote, quote, the

Speaker:

fundamental social instincts were originally thus gained.

Speaker:

So he actually put this up as a theory.

Speaker:

He also put the other theory about that.

Speaker:

I mentioned this before, and that was the one that sort of got the

Speaker:

attention, but Richard Rman says he really likes the first theory

Speaker:

of this, uh, execution style thing.

Speaker:

So, um, and really that comes down to then not only would, uh, you had to, then there

Speaker:

was the power of the group could control you, uh, if you didn't tow the line.

Speaker:

So as a member of a group, remember, if you were ostracized outta

Speaker:

the group in those days, that was a death sentence and mm-hmm.

Speaker:

So part of our moral, um, system that's hardwired into us is to do

Speaker:

and act in ways that won't see us booted out of the group, or won't

Speaker:

see us executed for being assholes.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Uh, so the, the, would

Speaker:

you, sorry, you, would, you necessarily die if you booted out the group?

Speaker:

I suppose if you're an Eskimo or a. Back in those living in a

Speaker:

at some point, yes.

Speaker:

But

Speaker:

if you were living in a, in a warmer region and you were a

Speaker:

good hunter, you'd still survive.

Speaker:

But you wouldn't reproduce because you wouldn't have a mate.

Speaker:

Perhaps

Speaker:

you'd still need, um, you'd still need, there'd be times where you couldn't Hunt.

Speaker:

You'd need, you know, gatherers, predators, injury.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

You know,

Speaker:

you, you, you break a leg, you'll, you'll die.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Well, you would anyway.

Speaker:

Probably, but, but, you know, you might be cared for, but injuries, you know,

Speaker:

there must be a point where you Yes.

Speaker:

You, your prospects are very low.

Speaker:

They'd be certainly low work.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

So what we get down to is that a lot of our reaction to sort of moral questions

Speaker:

can actually be explained by having been bred into us over our evolution mm-hmm.

Speaker:

As a means of staying in with the group, not being executed.

Speaker:

Makes sense.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

For quarrelsome.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Um, and, um, so, um, looking at things like, uh, good Samaritan, why, why would

Speaker:

we help somebody who's not in need of our help and we could just walk past

Speaker:

them and they're not really our son or daughter or any, or whatever like

Speaker:

that, but when they've done things like they've observed small children,

Speaker:

um, and put them in scenarios of like a good Samaritan type situation, small

Speaker:

children will naturally try to help out even against the instructions of.

Speaker:

Of adults, like it's inbred in us, hardwired to some extent that we behave in

Speaker:

certain ways without any training at all.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Uh, cultural or from our parents.

Speaker:

So, um, and some of this in breeding can help explain our reaction to

Speaker:

some, um, ethical dilemmas, Hugh.

Speaker:

Okay, here we go.

Speaker:

So, the classic trolley problem.

Speaker:

Oh yes.

Speaker:

Is trolley heading down the, the track?

Speaker:

Uh, it's going to crash into five people.

Speaker:

You stand there and there's a lever that you could switch the

Speaker:

trolley onto a different track where it will kill one person.

Speaker:

Do you allow the trolley to continue on its way, or do you, you know,

Speaker:

switch it and only kill one person?

Speaker:

So, uh, according to studies, most people, uh, let me see.

Speaker:

90% pull the lever to save five and kill one.

Speaker:

Anyone disagree with that as being probably likely?

Speaker:

I mean, you may even be in the 10% queue.

Speaker:

No,

Speaker:

no, no, no.

Speaker:

But then, then makes sense.

Speaker:

I think most of us would say, you gotta pull a lever and, and then you, then

Speaker:

you'll go to the bridge and the fat man.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

No, uh, no.

Speaker:

The organ donation.

Speaker:

Have you heard this one?

Speaker:

Oh,

Speaker:

okay.

Speaker:

Go on.

Speaker:

So, uh, you've got somebody, uh, you've got five patients who are all gonna die.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

They need organ transplants and you've got one healthy person

Speaker:

who has all the necessary organs.

Speaker:

Right?

Speaker:

Should you, should you

Speaker:

cut up the healthy person and distribute the organs amongst

Speaker:

the other five to save them?

Speaker:

And the answer is that 95% would not agree to such an operation.

Speaker:

Oh, well

Speaker:

5% would.

Speaker:

Yeah, indeed.

Speaker:

Do, do you indeed, do you know that the, uh, person with the, with the

Speaker:

five organs taken out, were they Yeah.

Speaker:

Were they an alpha male perhaps?

Speaker:

Cam

Speaker:

actually, uh, cam Riley has a theory about, um, the nuclear codes for the,

Speaker:

you know, countries with nuclear weapons.

Speaker:

He said that, that the, um, that the nuclear codes should be, um, inserted

Speaker:

into the chest of the vice president.

Speaker:

And if the president wants to use 'em, he's gotta, he's gotta grab a knife and

Speaker:

cut open, physically cut open the chest of the vice president to get to them.

Speaker:

Because if he's not willing to do that, but he shouldn't be willing to drop a

Speaker:

bomb that's gonna kill millions of people.

Speaker:

Like it was just interesting concept.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So, but um, so the trolley problem on the face of it, on the bare

Speaker:

facts is kind of the same situation.

Speaker:

Kill one to save five.

Speaker:

And on one avenue we take a utilitarian approach.

Speaker:

I think,

Speaker:

yes.

Speaker:

On the pool, maximize the general good.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And on the second one, we take the deontological principle, which is

Speaker:

right and wrong, are absolutes.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And we've really intuitively pick those without a good, clear moral reasoning

Speaker:

as to why, when you say deontological, you mean because the

Speaker:

principle, the killing is wrong.

Speaker:

Correct.

Speaker:

That you must apply that principle.

Speaker:

Correct.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But you ditch it with the trolley 'cause you go switch to the

Speaker:

other one, which seems fairer

Speaker:

because you, with the trolley one, you're not directly killing somebody.

Speaker:

Indeed.

Speaker:

You're just redirecting fate in a sense, whereas mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And with the, it's a different transplant one, it's a different,

Speaker:

different, different ethical dilemma.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Because your action is completely different.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

It's, for instance, it's a different ethical thing.

Speaker:

You're getting your hands dirty.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I'm getting my hands dirty now.

Speaker:

You, you're, you are also, um, it's a similar different thing to administer

Speaker:

euthanasia by a lethal injection by or by the one press person pressing the button

Speaker:

than it is to kill someone with a knife.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

It's a different moral thing because you using a different method.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

One is more horrifying, more painful.

Speaker:

Well, this guy has a theory that a lot of our actions are based on.

Speaker:

What will the group think of us in this situation?

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

We need to be, we need to have some plausible deniability if the

Speaker:

group attacks us for our action.

Speaker:

Yep.

Speaker:

So, um, so we have some inherent biases in us.

Speaker:

He calls an inaction bias, which is to do nothing and incur less blowing

Speaker:

a side effect bias, whereas it's not so bad if the result is something of

Speaker:

a side effect and a non-contact bias, meaning most people prefer an action

Speaker:

which allows 'em to avoid touching someone who is about to be harmed.

Speaker:

Who says that

Speaker:

This guy rang me in this book.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

And so what he's saying is that, um, we hardwired into us, um, if we're gonna

Speaker:

do something borderline, need to have a plausible excuse for our community

Speaker:

that they won't boot us out or kill us.

Speaker:

Does he say that in relation to the trolley problem in its various paradoxes?

Speaker:

Uh, well, he gave the example of the trolley problem, the organ donation and.

Speaker:

On the one hand, if you're standing there covered in blood over the body of a

Speaker:

person who's had their organs ripped out.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

It's harder to explain to your group, I thought I was doing the right thing.

Speaker:

Um, you, you are.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But I don't buy that because I think all of us would have an implicit reaction that

Speaker:

we know, we know that we're comfortable with the lever action, but we know

Speaker:

that we're definitely uncomfortable with ripping someone's organs out.

Speaker:

But he's saying that's, but

Speaker:

it's not just because of And and why do you know pressure?

Speaker:

Why do you know It's a gut instinct.

Speaker:

And he's saying these, these gut instincts come about because

Speaker:

of this, of this evolution.

Speaker:

It's the same way that when you get, when you do or commit a social faux pa and you

Speaker:

feel embarrassed and you just have this terrible feeling in your gut and your face

Speaker:

goes red and it's like, oh, did I, did I really go against the social norm here?

Speaker:

And I feel really bad about it.

Speaker:

Like that's an uncontrollable gut instinct.

Speaker:

That is a preservation sort of, uh, thing that has been hardwired into us.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Through, um, and he's saying the reason why you chose the trolley but didn't

Speaker:

choose the operation is part of that.

Speaker:

Hard wiring that a lot of our moral or some of our moral decision

Speaker:

making that we can't really explain that's really on instinct is

Speaker:

that's the point.

Speaker:

I was, I was gonna make instinctive, there's gotta be reasons.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And it, it's that reasoning that you have to say, why, why is

Speaker:

it, how can I rationalize this?

Speaker:

How do I get from A to B?

Speaker:

Because, um, it comes up in legal theory as well, this idea that, um, like there's

Speaker:

things like, uh, uh, some laws say you are not to drive in excess of the speed limit.

Speaker:

That's just straightforward.

Speaker:

The question is, did you, were you driving the car?

Speaker:

Were you in excess of the speed limit?

Speaker:

But there's other things like don't drive dangerously.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And they're to do with this, well, how ought you drive?

Speaker:

And it's not your personal opinion, it's, it's this idea that there

Speaker:

is a community value there.

Speaker:

There's a kind of, kind of driving that.

Speaker:

But how do you rationalize that?

Speaker:

The police just have to say, that's dangerous driving.

Speaker:

You can't drive like that.

Speaker:

And what they're doing is they're saying, I reckon that if I

Speaker:

arrest you for dangerous driving, other people will agree with me.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

That's dangerous.

Speaker:

The, the judge just doesn't say, well officer, what did you think?

Speaker:

Oh, I thought it was dangerous.

Speaker:

Oh, that's the end of it.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

The judge goes, oh, we, we've gotta judge this.

Speaker:

So what's

Speaker:

the community standard?

Speaker:

It's,

Speaker:

it's, yeah.

Speaker:

There's a community standard there that it's what ought to happen.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And we have that right now today in, in, in courts right now.

Speaker:

This idea that, well, it's gotta be objective and you've

Speaker:

gotta have a reason for it.

Speaker:

And the reason is just that, well, the community would say,

Speaker:

what would most people think?

Speaker:

What would most people reasonable man think?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

What would most people think they'd say, you shouldn't be doing that.

Speaker:

There's a law against that.

Speaker:

And if you don't have a law against that, people get really, really upset.

Speaker:

And

Speaker:

is that

Speaker:

why when the officer stops you and the first thing he says to you

Speaker:

is, do you have a lawful reason for exceeding the speed limit?

Speaker:

Because that's what they say to you?

Speaker:

Well,

Speaker:

because the community would then say, well, if you are racing to get your

Speaker:

pregnant wife to your, that's right.

Speaker:

And

Speaker:

if, if, if you refuse to pay the fine and you take it to court, the

Speaker:

officer has to be able to explain.

Speaker:

That's gave you the opportunity to give.

Speaker:

We've all got choices

Speaker:

to make.

Speaker:

But, but if you have to give reasons, they often based on a community

Speaker:

value, which is, I reckon other people would agree with me, that

Speaker:

that's, you shouldn't be doing that.

Speaker:

So that's, that happens today.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

So there we go.

Speaker:

Um, so just looking at our current society, um, and I've mentioned this

Speaker:

on a previous podcast called Whispering Beta Male something or other, is we've

Speaker:

got some alpha males in the world right now who own half the joint.

Speaker:

Like in the, you know, in the, in our pre-history, we would've said,

Speaker:

you're getting too big for your boots.

Speaker:

And in primitive societies, uh, particularly our indigenous brothers

Speaker:

and sisters here in Australia, if you killed a large animal or something, it

Speaker:

was not the done thing to boast about it.

Speaker:

Like you had to keep your head down.

Speaker:

You didn't wanna pop your head above the parapet and be seen to be too big

Speaker:

for your boots because the whispering beta Marles would say, hang on mate.

Speaker:

Mm, tone it down a bit.

Speaker:

You want, it's getting a bit above your station, isn't it?

Speaker:

Indeed.

Speaker:

Um, so, um, in our modern world, um, we've lost the ability to chop down the,

Speaker:

the alpha males and, um, we need to start doing it via wealth tax, not a physical,

Speaker:

just actually chopping 'em down, but, you know, that's for another topic anyway.

Speaker:

Um, and so just in sort of in, uh, tying it all up then, is really when we're

Speaker:

looking at the sort of moral code that went into Greek philosophy and into

Speaker:

the Bibles, uh, which really came about largely through myths and legends, sort

Speaker:

of rights and wrongs were being developed in an evolutionary sense by human

Speaker:

history all the way leading up to that.

Speaker:

And these are things that people have, um, intuitively decided

Speaker:

as what's right or wrong?

Speaker:

Well, before it was written in a book and they were told that's the case.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Or, or needed somebody to actually give a rational explanation

Speaker:

because in their gut they knew.

Speaker:

Hardwired.

Speaker:

I shouldn't be cutting up this person for an operation, but I can

Speaker:

flick the, the trolley leave switch.

Speaker:

Exactly.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Mm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Um, so Jonathan Heights, uh, has wrote about that pretty extensively, uh,

Speaker:

book with the righteous mind about the foundations of morality, right.

Speaker:

Suggesting that, uh, our morality is instinctive and, and has,

Speaker:

uh, say five dimensions to it.

Speaker:

Right?

Speaker:

Uh, and I think that's a very, very persuasive argument.

Speaker:

So the psychologists, uh, and his, his viewpoint has been very popular,

Speaker:

very, uh, embraced by a lot of people.

Speaker:

So, um, I've, I've got down the five things here.

Speaker:

So the, the five foundations are say, care and harm, fairness, cheating,

Speaker:

uh, loyalty, betrayal, authority subversion and sanctity degradation.

Speaker:

And then he added a six one, which was liberty versus oppression.

Speaker:

Hmm.

Speaker:

That fairness and cheating one.

Speaker:

Uh, one of the, uh, one of the studies they do is the, um, that ultimatum

Speaker:

game where you've got a person who's got $10 and they can decide how

Speaker:

they're gonna split it with another person, and the other person can

Speaker:

either reject or accept their offer.

Speaker:

If they reject, then nobody gets anything.

Speaker:

If they accept, then the offer's accepted, so the person's got $10

Speaker:

and says, well, I'll split it.

Speaker:

50 50 person A says I've got $10, uh, I agree to split it 50 50.

Speaker:

Person B will invariably say, well that's fair.

Speaker:

I accept the deal and we're done.

Speaker:

And they do these experiments with people where they can't even see each other.

Speaker:

And uh, I think, you know, you can get down to 70 30 or something like

Speaker:

that where person A says, I'm keeping 70, I'm only gonna give you 30.

Speaker:

But below that level, uh, people who are only offered 20% say stuff

Speaker:

it, I'm not even gonna take the 20.

Speaker:

I'm gonna make us both lose, there's a sort of sense of fairness.

Speaker:

And they can do that test with, um, Kalahari Bushman and with Gold Sachs

Speaker:

bankers and everything in between.

Speaker:

And we tend to come up with the same result as a hardwired sense of fairness.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Sounds like a divorce settlement, right?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

You know, where one party says, uh, I'm taking 90%, you can have 10.

Speaker:

You've, you've got your car off your go, you know?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

No, sorry.

Speaker:

We're going to court over this.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Except in the.

Speaker:

In this scenario, when the person B says no, it means neither of 'em gets anything.

Speaker:

Do you bring the whole house?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

And people are prepared to accept I'll get nothing, but

Speaker:

I'm really pissed with that guy.

Speaker:

Oh, that's the,

Speaker:

it all goes on cost.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

That

Speaker:

Well, that's true.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Well, that's true.

Speaker:

I mean, if you had a situation where there was an offer and a family

Speaker:

court settlement of, oh, I'm gonna give you five or 10%, for example.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Somebody would say, well, bugger it.

Speaker:

I'll, I'll piss up with the wall in legal costs.

Speaker:

That's right.

Speaker:

That's right.

Speaker:

And that's sometimes

Speaker:

actually happens, doesn't it?

Speaker:

That's true.

Speaker:

So there is that innate sense of fairness.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So given all that, and it seems like we are all sort of seeming to agree that,

Speaker:

uh, morality might be instinctive and that it, it perhaps derives from our

Speaker:

evolution in living in communities.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And um, there's also the idea, which has been very well established by

Speaker:

studies on children, that children, as you were saying before, tend

Speaker:

to have a sense of fairness.

Speaker:

They'll be the good Samaritan.

Speaker:

They also, they have a sense of what is right or wrong without being told.

Speaker:

And while often argue with an adult correctly as to what the right or

Speaker:

wrong thing is, then how does that then, in your opinion, um, marry with

Speaker:

the idea of moral reasoning then?

Speaker:

And why is all of this philosophy about what's right or wrong and

Speaker:

what objective moral values are?

Speaker:

'cause I know, Trevor, you and I have argued, uh mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Extensively that whether objective moral values actually exist.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Uh, like moral truths.

Speaker:

Do they exist?

Speaker:

Many people say that they do.

Speaker:

So how does that, how does that even marry with, uh, reasoning about morals?

Speaker:

If our morality is basically derived from what's instinctive and then our

Speaker:

societies and our individuals and our cultures just manipulate a few,

Speaker:

say in Jonathan Heights, uh, example five different modes of morality.

Speaker:

Our, our reasoning is based only on extincted things.

Speaker:

How do, how do, I would say

Speaker:

that instinct though, is usually geared towards promoting the community.

Speaker:

Like generally

Speaker:

yes.

Speaker:

But instinct is only based on survival value and, and

Speaker:

what has and selection bias.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But those sorts of things that are hardwired into us are kind of things

Speaker:

that, uh, promote the community at large.

Speaker:

Um, so that one person doesn't get everything or gets, doesn't

Speaker:

get an unfair advantage.

Speaker:

It's, it's a communal type.

Speaker:

Enforcement, it appears to me, and, and humans are unique in that we actually

Speaker:

enforce these things because when they look at, um, chimpanzees and one chimp

Speaker:

might be cheating on another chimp in terms of, um, like, uh, stealing

Speaker:

food or even beating up other chimps.

Speaker:

There's no enforcement by the other chimpanzees of,

Speaker:

of any morals amongst them.

Speaker:

Humans are unique that we are watching and observing, and we are

Speaker:

saying, uh, you are transgressing a, a community, uh, ethos here.

Speaker:

Um, we're pulling you up.

Speaker:

So I think a lot of these inbuilt, instinctive things that we have are

Speaker:

designed to keep community harmony and community flourishing and not

Speaker:

let one person dominate or take.

Speaker:

More than a fair share.

Speaker:

Sure.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

So I accept all that and forgive me for the Socratic questioning.

Speaker:

Yeah, but you started that at the start.

Speaker:

I bring it back.

Speaker:

But if it's just based on our community, how can we have objective moral values?

Speaker:

Because, um, also I'd probably disagree that chimpanzees have their own

Speaker:

moral codes in their own societies.

Speaker:

For instance, they will, they will, uh, punish transgressors and they will

Speaker:

also patrol their territory and other chimpanzees from other rival tribes,

Speaker:

if they're found wandering chimpanzees will Hunt them down and kill 'em.

Speaker:

Yeah, that's a, that's a tribal, um, tribal sort of thing.

Speaker:

Um, protection of area.

Speaker:

But the first part you mentioned about pulling up transgressors within

Speaker:

the community, not really, so that's not correct in my understanding.

Speaker:

But what was the question before that you're saying?

Speaker:

So if, if,

Speaker:

if, if our moral values then are entirely derived from our sense of

Speaker:

community, how can they be objective?

Speaker:

How can they be objective universal moral truths?

Speaker:

So then if they're only subject to our, so they only apply to humans and

Speaker:

they don't, for instance, apply to any other animal forms, even if there

Speaker:

was another group of very human-like beings somewhere in the universe.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Uh, I

Speaker:

think that,

Speaker:

that,

Speaker:

I think that begs the philosophical question about, uh, um, um, are these

Speaker:

things made by humans or are they natural?

Speaker:

I mean, I, that's what objective moral truths are though.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

That, that, that they must be true, but.

Speaker:

I, but doesn't that beg the question is it is got some natural

Speaker:

source, like it's comes from God or, or these other sort of things.

Speaker:

These are made by people.

Speaker:

Uh, people have morals, uh, and animals will have something else.

Speaker:

I think a different species will have something else.

Speaker:

It's, it's, it's created by people.

Speaker:

Uh, it doesn't come from some I thought that was the whole point of the,

Speaker:

that's discussion was that it was, I

Speaker:

would, I would absolutely agree with what you're saying.

Speaker:

It's not

Speaker:

coming from some external natural source.

Speaker:

It, it's made by people make these things.

Speaker:

Yeah, I would agree with that.

Speaker:

But then you get people who are also, um, secularists and atheists such

Speaker:

as Sam Harris, who would say that there are objective moral values and

Speaker:

you can measure them scientifically.

Speaker:

You can say what is the, the best situation for all sentient creatures.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

That's what Sam Harris argues.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

So how does Sam Harris argue the, uh, the organ donation one?

Speaker:

I'm not sure if

Speaker:

he's addressed that specific question Right.

Speaker:

Because I'm sure he flicked the lever.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But I just, well, he's a consequentialist and you know, his moral landscape

Speaker:

argument that, uh, you should be able to measure scientifically the good Yes.

Speaker:

The overall good, and there might be several different

Speaker:

equal parts of what the good is.

Speaker:

So he would probably agree to the operation by the sounds of it.

Speaker:

Because he's got that full on Unitarian sort of thing, isn't it?

Speaker:

Not sure about, I,

Speaker:

I don't, I'm not sure because I, I he would, he would say that the intentions

Speaker:

and the actual act of whatever you do are part of the moral consequences of

Speaker:

his is basically a consequentialist, uh, philosophy, which is part utilitarian.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

The short answer is, I don't know.

Speaker:

But when I've worked out the meaning of life, you'll be the first to know,

Speaker:

well, please

Speaker:

lemme know.

Speaker:

I was kind of hoping we would get to it, uh, in this episode.

Speaker:

The meaning of life and, you know, solve it all.

Speaker:

But, you know, perhaps another time.

Speaker:

So, yeah.

Speaker:

So, so yeah.

Speaker:

So that's my sort of knowledge and theories on evolution.

Speaker:

And, uh, so what you're saying, Trevor, is our, our Western

Speaker:

civilization would've been just as good, maybe a little bit different in some

Speaker:

ways, but would've still existed without the so-called Judeo Christian ethic.

Speaker:

We, we are hardwired pro social creatures.

Speaker:

We would've, we would've produced laws and customs course with some variations.

Speaker:

Of course we would.

Speaker:

But generally pro-social.

Speaker:

There was the Indian civilization, the Chinese civilization.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

They didn't have Judeo Christian.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Traditions.

Speaker:

The interesting thing is

Speaker:

where the world's getting to at the moment is because previously you needed

Speaker:

to be part of the community, otherwise you would die, you know, left out on the

Speaker:

Savannah, on your own, you're a goner.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

These days we've created a world where you could be quite a dysfunctional

Speaker:

human being and you can still, you could become a, become president

Speaker:

of the United States performer.

Speaker:

You indeed you can, or you can, you can conduct a job.

Speaker:

You know, you could be a computer programmer living in your

Speaker:

mum's basement and having no contact with the world at all.

Speaker:

Like, it's possible for people to be quite dysfunctional and the

Speaker:

village doesn't get to, um, regulate people anymore like it used to.

Speaker:

Mm. Uh, the community doesn't, and

Speaker:

is it, isn't it better to be in a more plurals society when there

Speaker:

are many views than the dominant sort of punishing sort of, uh,

Speaker:

norm.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

And, and good point, Malik makes that point is that in certain communities

Speaker:

are too rigid, like the Spartans didn't allow for any variation.

Speaker:

Then other communities are so disparate and unconnected that

Speaker:

they are then overtaken by other countries that are less, um, uh,

Speaker:

civilized, but more cohesive.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

Um, so you need an amount of cohesiveness to hold you together.

Speaker:

Exactly.

Speaker:

Or basically a band of cohesive barbarians take you over sort of

Speaker:

thing, is what happened in history.

Speaker:

To some extent, people were, had no sense of community.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

So that's the Ozzy aie, Aussie, some people would argue

Speaker:

that's currently happening in Europe.

Speaker:

Well, all over the world.

Speaker:

You could argue that.

Speaker:

Um, we've, we've reached an interesting time in our evolution where the village

Speaker:

and the community can't really regulate people anymore like it used to.

Speaker:

No, I think it's a question though, overall of morality though.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

When we, when we say that it is community driven and driven by our civilization

Speaker:

and how it's evolved, that we could probably all accept that our, the way

Speaker:

we've evolved specifically and what we've currently agreed to be, the things that

Speaker:

we consider moral and immoral, they're quite different than what they were 2000

Speaker:

years ago, and they're quite different than what they were 6,000 years ago.

Speaker:

It's quite conceivable that we could have evolved into very, very similar

Speaker:

beings with quite a different moral code.

Speaker:

And so then if you consider that our morality is based on how we've evolved

Speaker:

as a community, I get back to the point that I was saying before then how does

Speaker:

reason play a part in that morality?

Speaker:

And isn't the the part of reason in that morality only really what's

Speaker:

driven by evolution and survival?

Speaker:

And then doesn't that sort of create a bit of a tension in your own

Speaker:

mind about what morality is then?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

I sort of disagreed right at the beginning of your premise where you

Speaker:

sort of said, we are very different to people of 2000 years ago.

Speaker:

And our moral, our moral principles, and I'm not saying we are different, we are

Speaker:

exactly the same as people, but we, our moral principles are totally different.

Speaker:

So like for, well, for example, like, um,

Speaker:

I think read the history, slavery, the history of fire insurance, once I got

Speaker:

into, and the idea is that where it all started from is that, you know, villagers

Speaker:

because it was called fire insurance because today's home and contents.

Speaker:

But then the idea was that you wanted to protect from things burning down because

Speaker:

you had fires and homes were burned down.

Speaker:

So the village would all get together and.

Speaker:

Contribute to a fund because every year somebody's house

Speaker:

would burn down in the village.

Speaker:

Right.

Speaker:

So you'd always have a fund to sort of rebuild the particular

Speaker:

house, et cetera, et cetera.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

But today we don't have that.

Speaker:

We're sort of, it's up to you.

Speaker:

You insure your own home, et cetera, et cetera, and there's, there's not there,

Speaker:

there isn't really that sort of community.

Speaker:

Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

That's a

Speaker:

very specific moral precept that's evolved because of that actual physical situation.

Speaker:

The world could be a different place.

Speaker:

We could have evolved as slightly different beings.

Speaker:

For instance, Neanderthals were very, very similar to, uh, homo sapiens,

Speaker:

in fact considered part of the same human, um, species by some, would their

Speaker:

morality have been different than ours?

Speaker:

And therefore, morality isn't really based on our reasoning.

Speaker:

It's only based on what is, what, what works for us to survive.

Speaker:

Well, according to this book, Neanderthals never went through

Speaker:

a domestication process.

Speaker:

So you can look at the fossil records and that Neanderthal

Speaker:

shaped head is, is the wolf head.

Speaker:

And our head is, is the puppy.

Speaker:

Like they didn't go through a domestication process

Speaker:

that homo sapiens did.

Speaker:

That's the difference.

Speaker:

That's what the arc is.

Speaker:

We learn, yes.

Speaker:

Through that domestication process, we.

Speaker:

We are then able to cooperate.

Speaker:

They didn't have the same levels anywhere near the same levels of cooperation,

Speaker:

not the same level they had done.

Speaker:

They had smaller groups.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

But they were, they were quite in, just as intelligent and so with small groups.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

But

Speaker:

they, they didn't have the, uh, the social cooperation skills that we had.

Speaker:

And that was So they, they

Speaker:

they did, but they may have had them in lesser quantities.

Speaker:

Correct.

Speaker:

And they had smaller, smaller groups of people than what we had.

Speaker:

But that was their downfall, that they didn't have the social cooperation

Speaker:

skills that we ended up having.

Speaker:

Maybe

Speaker:

we, I don't think we really know.

Speaker:

We don't know why they, why they, uh, were wiped out, whatever.

Speaker:

Well, on the point of reasoning though, Hugh,

Speaker:

are you, maybe reasoning is, as Trevor was saying, I think at the outset,

Speaker:

so that you can say, I'm pretty confident choice A is morally right,

Speaker:

you know, like with the, the lever.

Speaker:

Mm-hmm.

Speaker:

I'm, I'm worried about now choice B maybe reason rationality and

Speaker:

reasoning is just that thing you use to say, well, if I've, if I'm over

Speaker:

that view here, what would I think?

Speaker:

Here it's, it's not like the, our morals don't come from the ra.

Speaker:

It's our rationalization is just to enable us to be able to be

Speaker:

consistent and logical and that at some point in our history, we thought.

Speaker:

If we think hard about this, we can work out other problems.

Speaker:

And maybe that's all,

Speaker:

I think

Speaker:

that's rationality is about.

Speaker:

Yeah, I think that's what I, I, I, I think I, I'm tending to come to that

Speaker:

conclusion as to what you said that we kind of, when we hear a moral paradox

Speaker:

or a, we are asked a moral question, we kind of know which way we want to answer.

Speaker:

Can we justify, don't we, and then we justify it by using racism.

Speaker:

And we also sort of, you said we

Speaker:

like to find out what other people would say.

Speaker:

Like we go the Oh, good thing.

Speaker:

I don't want to disagree with him quite so openly.

Speaker:

I agree with that too, but Yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker:

But it's part of justifying So we don't create C Yes.

Speaker:

And maybe enabling us to then solve the next complicated problem

Speaker:

when we're not really too sure.

Speaker:

Um, because you've got those reasons.

Speaker:

But, but the reasons, those reasons weren't the reason why

Speaker:

you made the first choice, because you just said, that's wrong.

Speaker:

I'm not doing that.

Speaker:

Yes.

Speaker:

And studies in neuroscience in terms of decision making have been tending

Speaker:

to show that people make the decision before they're even consciously

Speaker:

aware of making the decision.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Certainly that's the case with politics where people Yeah.

Speaker:

Uh, choose a side and then justify it later.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Mm. And I think it's the same thing for the police officer when pulling

Speaker:

somebody out for dangerous driving.

Speaker:

They go, that's dangerous.

Speaker:

Driving.

Speaker:

And then why?

Speaker:

Uh, okay.

Speaker:

And they've gotta go through and list it.

Speaker:

But, you know, it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

Speaker:

You go, yeah, I, I can make a judgment.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Dear listener, well, it's back to the book and I'll be curious to know how

Speaker:

many of you actually listened to the whole of the episode 238 that I repeated,

Speaker:

or whether you just fast forwarded.

Speaker:

But, uh, in any event, let's talk about it now.

Speaker:

Who is Michael J Sandel?

Speaker:

Um, he's actually a, um, uh, he's a professor of government at

Speaker:

Harvard University and he has a legendary justice course, which is

Speaker:

one of the most popular at Harvard.

Speaker:

A thousand students enrolling every year, and Harvard has actually

Speaker:

made it available on their website.

Speaker:

If you go to justice harvard.org, you'll see his lectures and you'll see a lot

Speaker:

of the stuff that he's doing on there.

Speaker:

So check that out.

Speaker:

Um, okay, so in terms of the book Justice, what is the right thing to do?

Speaker:

So faced with moral quandaries, what is the right thing to do?

Speaker:

And he basically gives, uh, or identifies three different approaches

Speaker:

that we can have to moral dilemmas.

Speaker:

And, uh, the first one is the greatest happiness principle.

Speaker:

Um, make the decision, which will, uh, produce the maximum amount of

Speaker:

happiness and human flourishing and the least amount of suffering.

Speaker:

And that, of course is utilitarianism.

Speaker:

Second way of approaching decision making is to, whatever you do,

Speaker:

respect, individual freedom.

Speaker:

So that would be, uh, an extreme and a libertarian type of view.

Speaker:

And the third way that he sort of advocates, and it's an Aristotle

Speaker:

on view, so derived from Aristotle.

Speaker:

And look, it's not a neat concept.

Speaker:

It's, but it's basically what do people morally deserve and why?

Speaker:

Which involves truly identifying the purpose of a practice and

Speaker:

examining what are the good virtues that we would want to promote.

Speaker:

So, um, utilitarianism, libertarianism, and Aristotle

Speaker:

approaches to questions about morals.

Speaker:

So let's kick off with, um, a discussion about, well, his first example is

Speaker:

about price gouging in communities after a disaster, whether it's a

Speaker:

cyclone, hurricane, tornado, whatever.

Speaker:

You'll often find, um,

Speaker:

gas stations, fuel stations, whatever may be charging exorbitant prices for

Speaker:

fuel and for ice, things that were a dollar a liter or 50 cents a bag suddenly

Speaker:

become $5 a liter and, and $3 a bag.

Speaker:

So, um, uh, what he says there is, um, if you take the utilitarian approach to it,

Speaker:

what's the greatest happiness principle?

Speaker:

A utilitarian might argue, well, look, free markets.

Speaker:

Uh, is what's driving our, our, our best performing economies.

Speaker:

The last thing we want is, uh, command economy like the Soviets had.

Speaker:

So in terms of actually maximizing, um, the most benefit and welfare for

Speaker:

our communities, um, free markets, uh, have proven to be the best.

Speaker:

And while there might be some downsides, uh, overall human flourishing demands

Speaker:

that we maintain free markets.

Speaker:

And so that's a utilitarian approach to arguing whether

Speaker:

that's a good practice or not.

Speaker:

So the, um, libertarian approach to that would be, well, sellers

Speaker:

and buyers have a choice.

Speaker:

Nobody's, uh, forcing them to buy stuff.

Speaker:

It's up to a vendor what price they wanna put on it, and it's up to a buyer, um,

Speaker:

whether they wanna buy something or not.

Speaker:

And so, as a matter of a libertarian free choice approach to the practice,

Speaker:

um, you know, that should be allowed.

Speaker:

So the counterarguments to that, um, at the utilitarian level would be well,

Speaker:

is really the overall welfare of the community served by this price gouging.

Speaker:

And if a community can't trust and rely on stable prices following a disaster, um.

Speaker:

Is that a problem for its overall flourishing and welfare?

Speaker:

And if, if a handful of people managed to, um, extract wealth from

Speaker:

a vast majority of the others, surely that's not a utilitarian result.

Speaker:

So that would be the sort of counter argument at a utilitarian level.

Speaker:

And the counter argument to the libertarian argument, still using

Speaker:

libertarian principles would be, well, are the buyers under duress?

Speaker:

Are they truly free when they're making that decision?

Speaker:

If you've got to get your family out of the area and drive to

Speaker:

safety, you don't have a choice.

Speaker:

You need to fill up the car with petrol.

Speaker:

If your food is spoiling in the fridge and you need to feed the

Speaker:

family, you need to buy ice.

Speaker:

So is there really, um, freedom to make a choice in that situation?

Speaker:

So, so still using utilitarian and libertarian arguments, people

Speaker:

might argue that in fact that sort of practice should not be

Speaker:

allowed, that sort of price gouging.

Speaker:

There should be some regulation.

Speaker:

So that's, um, when you're hearing people arguing, just a way of categorizing it.

Speaker:

He says that there's a third way of looking at this, which is that a society

Speaker:

in which people exploit their neighbors in times of crisis is not a good society.

Speaker:

And that unfair exploitation is just.

Speaker:

Um, unjust and it's wrong.

Speaker:

And, um, if you sort of listen to that, the third, this third way of

Speaker:

saying it seems much more judgmental, um, in the initial ways with

Speaker:

libertarianism and utilitarianism.

Speaker:

I mean, everyone wants to promote happiness.

Speaker:

Everyone wants to promote freedom.

Speaker:

And, and the argument is really about how best to do it and the

Speaker:

trade offs that might be required.

Speaker:

But they're also quite sort of em unemotional and quite, they, they're

Speaker:

not judgey, not judgmental at all.

Speaker:

Those, those sort of utilitarian and libertarian approaches, they are an

Speaker:

analytical, cold, rational attempt to discern what's the best thing to do.

Speaker:

Whereas that third option, that Aristotle and approach, which is that's

Speaker:

just a really shitty thing to happen.

Speaker:

And as a society that's just wrong.

Speaker:

We don't want that in a good society, it doesn't make a good policy, as

Speaker:

Aristotle would say, uh, it's unjust.

Speaker:

We should be doing things to make sure that doesn't happen.

Speaker:

So, so that's a sort of a summary of, of how you could look at these issues.

Speaker:

Sometimes it's hard to identify what's really going on and what's

Speaker:

really the thought processes involved.

Speaker:

So gonna give some examples here.

Speaker:

Um, in the case of the Purple Heart.

Speaker:

So, uh, in America with, um, soldiers who are injured in combat,

Speaker:

um, they receive a purple heart.

Speaker:

And, um, it's not a reflection of bravery at all, but it's just whether you are

Speaker:

injured, uh, in the service, in combat.

Speaker:

So, um, what they had was a situation where, um, people who have, um,

Speaker:

post-traumatic, post-traumatic stress disorder were applying for

Speaker:

the Purple Heart, and the military was against awarding Purple Hearts.

Speaker:

And so the people in favor of awarding a Purple Heart for, um, post-traumatic

Speaker:

stress disorder, were saying, well, it's, it's an injury that is incurred

Speaker:

in the course of a soldier acting in battle or the country and, um, the

Speaker:

military, um, the counter argument was that it wasn't an intentional in, uh,

Speaker:

injury that the enemy inflicted on them.

Speaker:

It was sort of a byproduct, and the counterargument to that

Speaker:

was, well, you are rewarding.

Speaker:

Purple hearts to people who have had their eardrums burst through, um, through, uh,

Speaker:

you know, bombs going off and whatnot.

Speaker:

And that, you know, the enemy wasn't planning on bursting the eardrums of

Speaker:

the soldiers, but that was just a, sort of an, a byproduct of what happened.

Speaker:

And the same would apply to post-traumatic, uh, stress disorder.

Speaker:

So it really came down to a thing where, what's really happening there

Speaker:

is the military wants to promote the idea of their soldiers as being

Speaker:

brave and fearless and mentally strong, as well as physically strong.

Speaker:

And awarding a purple heart for what they saw or interpreted as mental

Speaker:

weakness was contrary to what they were tr a virtue that they were to promote

Speaker:

in the service of, of the, the virtue of, of fearless mental toughness and

Speaker:

awarding a purple heart was against that.

Speaker:

So, so that sort of demonstrates that, you know, with these practices and

Speaker:

what's happening, you sometimes really have to look closely at why is, what,

Speaker:

what's the purpose of, um, what's the, what's the, uh, purpose of the practice?

Speaker:

Um.

Speaker:

Why are we awarding purple hearts?

Speaker:

And then what, what virtues are we trying to promote, um, in doing that?

Speaker:

So this will become clearer as we go through some more examples.

Speaker:

Another one, just in identifying what's going on was the post,

Speaker:

the global financial crisis.

Speaker:

And, um, the, there was outrage about the CEOs of various companies that had failed

Speaker:

and were bailed out by the government.

Speaker:

Yet the CEOs and executives were claiming bonuses.

Speaker:

And, um, you know, why were people outraged at these

Speaker:

CEOs getting these bonuses?

Speaker:

And at one level you might think it is greed, but it's not really greed,

Speaker:

because in good times when CEOs are paid extraordinary amounts of money,

Speaker:

it's not because they deserve them as CEOs, that they're actually achieving

Speaker:

anything, uh, that's warranted by those amounts that warrants those amounts.

Speaker:

Um, what's happening is, um, you know, greed is acknowledged

Speaker:

and almost applauded.

Speaker:

Gordon Greco agreed is good from Wall Street.

Speaker:

And so with the CEOs being awarded, uh, bonuses after the financial crisis, that

Speaker:

was really a case of rewarding failure.

Speaker:

People saw it as a rewarding failure, and that's really what caused the outrage.

Speaker:

So just on that point, in terms of CEO pay, and it's not really relevant to

Speaker:

the question of the morality, but it's just fun facts that people should know.

Speaker:

So, um, um, in 1980, CEOs earned, so chief executive officers earned

Speaker:

42 times what their workers earned.

Speaker:

That was in 1980.

Speaker:

By 2007, they were earning 344 times what their workers were earning.

Speaker:

So in the space of 27 years, uh, an enormous increase in the CEO pay

Speaker:

compared to the normal workers pay.

Speaker:

So, um, and really without good reason, if you were to look at, um,

Speaker:

other countries, so for example, the CEOs at this is a, that was a

Speaker:

statistic for US companies, by the way.

Speaker:

So, um, in the 2004, 2006 period, uh, in US companies, the average

Speaker:

CEO was getting 13.3 million.

Speaker:

Yet in Europe, uh, average CEO was 6.6, and in Japan 1.5.

Speaker:

So was it because the American executives were more deserving?

Speaker:

Um, or did the differences reflect factors unrelated to effort and talent?

Speaker:

So, uh, that's just a little side on CEO wages.

Speaker:

So, um, when it comes to, um, um, conflicting moral principles, um, we often

Speaker:

think we have an answer and a reason.

Speaker:

But upon further examination, maybe we don't.

Speaker:

So if you look at the trolley problem, classic trolley problem, um, do you pull

Speaker:

the lever to, um, to save the life of five men, but knowing that you're gonna

Speaker:

be killing a different, a single man.

Speaker:

And, um, most people are willing to switch the lever, but then when you

Speaker:

describe to him a scenario where there's a bridge and do you push the fat man off

Speaker:

the bridge, which will stop the train.

Speaker:

And in these hypothetical circumstances, there's no room for doubting

Speaker:

whether it will stop the trolling.

Speaker:

It, it just will.

Speaker:

And at that point, people say, well, in the first instance with just moving

Speaker:

the lever, people will give the reason.

Speaker:

Well, saving five lives to, it'll cost one life, but in a

Speaker:

utilitarian, uh, way of thinking.

Speaker:

That makes sense.

Speaker:

And yeah, I'd pull the lever.

Speaker:

And yet when people are faced with the option of pushing the fat man

Speaker:

off the bridge to stop the trolley, uh, most people balk at that then.

Speaker:

So the same utilitarian argument would apply, but people don't want to use it.

Speaker:

There's something about it that makes a difference.

Speaker:

So you might think you've got a moral reason behind something, but it

Speaker:

often, with a bit of exploration, you might find in fact that you don't.

Speaker:

Um, I've got an, uh, a bit of a answer to that trolley problem scenario, and it

Speaker:

comes back to, I think what we might have mentioned in that episode 238, where, um,

Speaker:

if you are gonna hurt somebody or cause injury to somebody in the group, you might

Speaker:

want some plausible deniability about it.

Speaker:

And, um, when you've got your hands dirty, having pushed somebody, you've

Speaker:

actually laid your hands on somebody, uh, your plausible deniability is reduced.

Speaker:

So people will look at you and find you more guilty for that.

Speaker:

Um, anyway, I digress.

Speaker:

Um, so, but we, we find ourselves, we feel the pressure to try and reason

Speaker:

our way to a convincing distinction as to why we would, why would we flip

Speaker:

the lever but not push the fat man?

Speaker:

And we, we feel a compulsion to try and find a rational reason why so.

Speaker:

Other examples of utilitarian approaches, and one of them would

Speaker:

be the lifeboat and the cabin boy.

Speaker:

So this involved a case where, uh, shipwreck, um, the, uh,

Speaker:

sailors scramble onto a lifeboat.

Speaker:

Um, the cabin boy is the smallest and he's the weakest.

Speaker:

And they, they're sort of marooned on this lifeboat for a significant amount of time.

Speaker:

They end up killing the boy and eating him.

Speaker:

And, um, people would argue that, uh, from a utilitarian approach,

Speaker:

they all would've died had they not, um, killed the cabin boy.

Speaker:

Um, and, and so this is that, um, maximizing utility,

Speaker:

the utilitarian approach.

Speaker:

Um,

Speaker:

one other, you know, the problem with the utilitarian approach is it sort of

Speaker:

flattens values to make a calculation.

Speaker:

So it's not always about lives and, um, one life versus another life,

Speaker:

it, it, other factors come into play.

Speaker:

It's not always just counting lives on one hand and other lives on the other hand.

Speaker:

So the kind of example he gives in this book is about the Christians

Speaker:

and the lions, where, um.

Speaker:

Where you've got a stadium of 10,000 crazy Romans who are watching one

Speaker:

Christian getting eaten by a lion.

Speaker:

And a utilitarian argument might be that the joy in ecstasy and wonder and

Speaker:

just good times felt by the 10,000, um, spectators could possibly, in a way up

Speaker:

outweigh the suffering of the individual Christian who's just been eaten by line.

Speaker:

So if you're gonna take a utilitarian approach, you are, you are adding up,

Speaker:

um, happiness and enjoyment of people without necessarily, um, judging

Speaker:

the, the value of that happiness or that, um, uh, so-called flourishing.

Speaker:

So the other example would be, um, dog fights and libraries.

Speaker:

So if you had a population where most of the people enjoyed watching dog fights

Speaker:

and really enjoyed it and went to it and, and bet on it and loved the blood

Speaker:

lust of a dog fight, but hardly anybody liked a library and just didn't go.

Speaker:

Then under a utilitarian approach, you would say our society should

Speaker:

be building stadiums for dog fights and not building libraries.

Speaker:

Um, so that utilitarian approach, it rewards happiness

Speaker:

no matter how it's attained.

Speaker:

There's no judgment about what is good.

Speaker:

So, um, other sort of, uh, examples that he gave about that was, um, you

Speaker:

could have a terrorist, you know, the terrorist has planted a bomb, you know,

Speaker:

the bomb is gonna go off in 12 hours.

Speaker:

Is it legitimate to torture the terrorist in order to find out where the bomb is

Speaker:

and save potentially hundreds of lives?

Speaker:

And a utilitarian approach would be, of course, pain and suffering of one

Speaker:

terrorist laid up against the lives of hundreds of people, uh, torture the

Speaker:

guy and, um, and, and save those lives.

Speaker:

But what if you said, well, uh, terrorists won't talk, but you need to torture

Speaker:

his innocent child in front of him, and that's, uh, likely to make him talk.

Speaker:

Is it a legitimate thing to, to torture his innocent child who had

Speaker:

nothing to do with the bombing?

Speaker:

And of course, most of us would say, no, that's not, that's not acceptable.

Speaker:

So that utilitarian.

Speaker:

Argument kind of falls over because we know we should be valuing, um,

Speaker:

uh, uh, making a value judgment call.

Speaker:

It's not just about numbers.

Speaker:

Um, uh, other example he gave was about, uh, Philip Morris, the tobacco

Speaker:

company and the Czech government.

Speaker:

And, um, basically, uh, in order to make a case as to why tobaccos, uh,

Speaker:

shouldn't be outlawed and, and and whatnot, um, they calculated that in

Speaker:

fact, um, smokers because they die early are actually less of a drain

Speaker:

on the public purse than non-smokers.

Speaker:

And, uh, Philip Morris calculated a saving for the Czech government of $147 million

Speaker:

per year, um, through, um, tobacco use in the country because of the early deaths

Speaker:

of people, um, who were the smokers.

Speaker:

And that, uh, as a utilitarian argument makes sense, but people

Speaker:

made a judgment call and it was a pr disaster for Philip Morris.

Speaker:

And another example where a company did something, made a similar, a similar

Speaker:

thought process was, um, in the US the Ford Pinto had an exploding gas tank.

Speaker:

If you were rear ended, then there was a fair chance, um, that the,

Speaker:

uh, the fuel tank would explode.

Speaker:

And the executives became aware of this, but they calculated that the cost

Speaker:

of a recall would be more expensive than the cost of the injury and

Speaker:

death claims that they had to make.

Speaker:

So they made a conscious decision not to recall the Ford Pinto.

Speaker:

So, uh, so there's big problems with a utilitarian approach

Speaker:

to solving moral problems.

Speaker:

So, uh, looking at libertarianism then, and some examples of that.

Speaker:

Uh, so with a, a libertarian framework of thinking, you would say that there

Speaker:

should be no, no paternalism, like no sort of a seatbelt legislation,

Speaker:

no mandatory helmets, um, no morals, legislation, you know, if people want

Speaker:

to, um, sell their bodies for sex, fine.

Speaker:

Um, no redistribution of wealth.

Speaker:

Uh, the individual is paramount.

Speaker:

So that's the sort of libertarian, um, approach.

Speaker:

It's freedom of the individual to do whatever the individual wants.

Speaker:

And, um, one example of that, uh, that he gives is.

Speaker:

If somebody has a kidney and they want to give their kidney to a relative

Speaker:

who needs a kidney, we've got two.

Speaker:

Each of us, normally we've got a spare and our bodies can

Speaker:

function fine with just the one.

Speaker:

Of course, it is a risk that if something then happens to our remaining

Speaker:

kidney, we are stuck without one.

Speaker:

But, um, it's quite, you know, it's not uncommon for people to

Speaker:

donate a kidney to a loved one.

Speaker:

And from a libertarian point of view, if you wanted to sell a kidney to,

Speaker:

um, somebody, then why shouldn't you be able to sell your kidney

Speaker:

to somebody who needs a kidney?

Speaker:

And Libertarians would say that's, you know, freedom of choice.

Speaker:

They don't have to sell it if they don't want to.

Speaker:

Um, what, what then though, if you say that, uh, the buyer of the kidney doesn't

Speaker:

need the kidney for their health, but uh, is some sort of crazy art collector

Speaker:

and considers kidneys to be a, a piece of art and, uh, plans to just, um,

Speaker:

plop it in some clear resonant, use it as an ornament on the coffee table.

Speaker:

I mean, should we allow people to sell their kidneys willingly for that purpose?

Speaker:

And many of us will balk at that and say, I don't care whether there's

Speaker:

free choice on both sides here.

Speaker:

That's not something that we would want to happen in our society.

Speaker:

So, um, so that's, uh, you know, an example of how libertarianism still

Speaker:

needs a judgment call at some point.

Speaker:

Otherwise, it's, uh, it doesn't solve all of our problems.

Speaker:

Um, really interesting examples with the US Civil War.

Speaker:

So I found this fascinating.

Speaker:

And, um, did you know, um, that with the Civil War, um, when, um, when people,

Speaker:

when men were, uh, drafted, they, uh, if they were wealthy, they had a choice.

Speaker:

So they could pay a commutation fee of, I think about $300 if they paid

Speaker:

the fee they didn't have to serve.

Speaker:

And the other option they had was they could hire a substitute to fight for them

Speaker:

in the war rather than do it themselves.

Speaker:

So of the roughly 207,000 men who were actually drafted, 87,000, paid the

Speaker:

commutation fee, 74,000 hired substitutes and only 46,000 actually served.

Speaker:

So, um.

Speaker:

Those who hired substitutes to fight in their place included Andrew

Speaker:

Carnegie, JP Morgan, and the fathers of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt.

Speaker:

There you go.

Speaker:

I didn't know that.

Speaker:

That was interesting.

Speaker:

So, um, libertarianism, we would say, well, if people want to, um,

Speaker:

accept money to fight for somebody else, then that should be okay.

Speaker:

And if people are rich enough to pay money to avoid conscription, if you,

Speaker:

uh, that should be fair enough as well.

Speaker:

But others of us would look and say, well, that's just a rule that benefits the rich.

Speaker:

And the rich have got choices, but the poor don't.

Speaker:

Um, so you look at that scenario and um, you would say, well, that's a pretty crazy

Speaker:

situation that they had in the Civil War.

Speaker:

But if you look at the modern US Army, um, what are they doing?

Speaker:

It's full of poor people who are being paid to serve.

Speaker:

Um, the only rich people who are serving there normally are, are.

Speaker:

Well, uh, credentialed officers or whatever, not necessarily gonna be on

Speaker:

the front line, but, or, or have got some sort of crazy military history to them.

Speaker:

But your average rich person doesn't, uh, or even middle class

Speaker:

doesn't serve in the US Army.

Speaker:

It's full of poor people who are, um, it's their only option

Speaker:

to either get an education or in some cases to get citizenship.

Speaker:

So, um, so, uh, it's, it's really just a form of a mercenary army

Speaker:

when you think about it that way.

Speaker:

So, um, uh, now Michael Sandel, he, I didn't mention earlier, but he's the

Speaker:

guy who wrote the book I talked about, uh, a couple of weeks ago about, um,

Speaker:

a meritocracy and how it's basically very difficult to create a meritocracy

Speaker:

and it's probably not something that you would want to do anyway.

Speaker:

And, um, I'll just read a couple of things here, and this is a little bit

Speaker:

of diversion from where we are, but I just found this one interesting as well.

Speaker:

So for those of you who have listened to the previous episode about the,

Speaker:

um, meritocracy argument, he talks about, um, when somebody is accepted

Speaker:

or rejected from a university, and, uh, he, as I mentioned before.

Speaker:

Really argues that your ability to get into, you know, some of the more

Speaker:

exclusive universities is a matter of luck in terms of, uh, intelligence and

Speaker:

DNA and also your family and your, uh, peer group and your a whole host of

Speaker:

other factors that have gone into it.

Speaker:

And even your ability to work hard is, um, to a large extent a result

Speaker:

of things beyond your control.

Speaker:

So I just enjoyed this one where he talked about, um, the rejection letter.

Speaker:

So if he was writing a rejection letter, um, to an applicant for a university

Speaker:

course, it would be as follows.

Speaker:

Dear Ms. Hopwood, we regret to inform you that your application

Speaker:

for admission has been rejected.

Speaker:

Please understand that we intend no offense by our decision.

Speaker:

We do not hold you in contempt.

Speaker:

In fact, we don't even regard you as less deserving than those who were admitted.

Speaker:

It is not your fault that when you came along, society happened not to need the

Speaker:

qualities you had to offer those admitted.

Speaker:

Instead of you are not deserving of a place nor worthy of praise for the

Speaker:

factors that led to their admission.

Speaker:

We are only using them and you as instruments of a wider social purpose.

Speaker:

We realize you'll find this new disappointing, but your disappointment

Speaker:

should not be exaggerated by the thought that this rejection reflects in any

Speaker:

way on your intrinsic moral worth.

Speaker:

You have our sympathy in the sense that it uses too bad.

Speaker:

It did not happen to have the trait society happened to want when you applied.

Speaker:

Better luck next time.

Speaker:

Sincerely yours and then for the successful applicant.

Speaker:

Dear Successful Applicant, we are pleased to inform you that your application

Speaker:

for admission has been accepted.

Speaker:

It turns out you happen to have the traits that society needs at the

Speaker:

moment, so we propose to exploit your assets for society's advantage.

Speaker:

By admitting you to the study of law, you ought to be congratulated,

Speaker:

not in the sense that you deserve credit for having the qualities

Speaker:

that that led to your admission.

Speaker:

You do not, but only in the sense that the winner of a

Speaker:

lottery is to be congratulated.

Speaker:

You are lucky to have come along with the right traits at the right moment.

Speaker:

If you choose to accept our offer, you will ultimately be

Speaker:

entitled to the benefits that attach to being used in this way.

Speaker:

For this, you may properly celebrate you, or more likely your parents may be tempted

Speaker:

to celebrate in the further sense that you take this admission to reflect favorably.

Speaker:

If not on your native endowments, then at least on the conscientious effort you

Speaker:

have made to cultivate your abilities.

Speaker:

But the notion that you deserve even the superior character

Speaker:

necessary to your effort is equally problematic for your character.

Speaker:

Depends on fortunate circumstances of various kinds for which

Speaker:

you can claim no credit.

Speaker:

The notion of dessert does not apply here.

Speaker:

We look forward nonetheless, to seeing you in the fall.

Speaker:

Sincerely yours, uh, um, anyway, I enjoyed that one.

Speaker:

And now, um, okay.

Speaker:

So we've illustrated the problems with, uh, utilitarianism Illustrated.

Speaker:

The problems with libertarianism demonstrated that we're really

Speaker:

wanting to feel a compulsion to try and justify and reason our way

Speaker:

to why we think in a certain way.

Speaker:

And, um, uh, another example, and now we're getting to more of the Aristotle

Speaker:

end view that we need to understand.

Speaker:

So it gives the example of a cheerleader in the United States called Callie Smart.

Speaker:

So she was a freshman cheerleader, but she had cerebral palsy and she was

Speaker:

enormously popular with the crowd as she zoomed up and down the sidelines

Speaker:

cheering on the, the, uh, the crowd.

Speaker:

But the other cheerleaders, um, and their parents were not happy.

Speaker:

Uh, well the parents complained and um, and got her kicked

Speaker:

off the cheerleading squad.

Speaker:

And now this was the parents of the existing cheerleaders.

Speaker:

So it wasn't parents of kids who had missed out on a place.

Speaker:

It was parents of kids who were actually in the team.

Speaker:

So you would think, what's their problem?

Speaker:

Why would they, um, object to a girl in a wheelchair, um, being a cheerleader.

Speaker:

And, um,

Speaker:

what really was happening there is that talking about the father of one of the

Speaker:

cheerleaders, uh, father who objected, um, Sandel says, um, here is my hunch.

Speaker:

His resentment probably reflects a sense that Callie is being accorded

Speaker:

an honor she doesn't deserve in a way that mocks the pride he takes in

Speaker:

his daughter's cheerleading prowess.

Speaker:

If great cheerleading is something that can be done from a wheelchair,

Speaker:

then the honor accorded to those who excel at tumbles and splits

Speaker:

is depreciated to some degree.

Speaker:

So this gets back to this Aristotle and approach that you need to ask.

Speaker:

Um, uh, what's the purpose of the practice and what is the virtue

Speaker:

that we're trying to promote?

Speaker:

So the purpose of the practice of cheerleading is to gee up the crowd and

Speaker:

get everyone excited and making noise.

Speaker:

And she was clearly doing that.

Speaker:

Um.

Speaker:

What's the virtues that we want to promote?

Speaker:

I mean, there's a number of ways of skinning a cat, a number of ways of

Speaker:

doing something, and it's a particular way of achieving a purpose that

Speaker:

can sometimes be important as well.

Speaker:

So this is sort of identifying that it wasn't just about, um, getting the

Speaker:

crowd excited, it was about, uh, a reverence, a promotion of the virtue

Speaker:

of, of what you'd normally associate with athletic cheerleading performance.

Speaker:

So, um, so that's part of this aristot view is what's the purpose

Speaker:

of the practice and what's the way it's supposed to be done?

Speaker:

Um, that's also important.

Speaker:

So, um, so in order to determine a fair way of allocating cheerleading

Speaker:

positions, we need to determine the nature and purpose of cheerleading.

Speaker:

But its purpose is not just instrumental IE to stir up the supporters, but

Speaker:

it has a purpose of celebrating certain excellences and virtues.

Speaker:

So the parents wanted cheerleading to honor the traditional cheerleader

Speaker:

virtues, their daughters possessed.

Speaker:

Um, and that's where they came into conflict with, uh, poor Kelly Smart.

Speaker:

Same with the army, with the Purple Heart.

Speaker:

The Army wanted to honor the traditional notion of a soldier being mentally tough.

Speaker:

So, um, so according to Aristotle, there are two ideas.

Speaker:

Justice is teleological.

Speaker:

So we need to figure out the tellis, the purpose, the essential

Speaker:

nature of the practic in question

Speaker:

and justice is honorific.

Speaker:

We need to figure out what virtues it should honor or reward.

Speaker:

So that first bit justice is teleological.

Speaker:

We need to figure out the, tell us the purpose, the essential

Speaker:

nature of the practicing question.

Speaker:

When I hear that, I immediately think of my arguments with the

Speaker:

12th man about Israel Lau and, um, and his playing a football.

Speaker:

And the 12th Man was all in favor of, uh, why would you, um, stop

Speaker:

lau from, um, practicing football?

Speaker:

And I, in my argument was trying to explain that a modern day

Speaker:

footballer is not just about catching and passing and running.

Speaker:

There are, it's a business of football.

Speaker:

So there are other factors involved besides your pure

Speaker:

ability to play football.

Speaker:

And in terms of, uh, big money football in the NRL, um, conduct.

Speaker:

Comes into play as part of the purpose because you have to

Speaker:

keep sponsors and fans happy.

Speaker:

And that doesn't apply in park football.

Speaker:

So if you want to just go and play amateur football, not a problem

Speaker:

because teleologically, it's just about playing football and those

Speaker:

other factors don't come into play.

Speaker:

So that was sort of part of my reasoning there with the 12th Man and Israel Lau.

Speaker:

So just getting back to, um, uh, the book, he gives the example here, um,

Speaker:

justice is teleological, uh, meaning we need to find out the tellis, the

Speaker:

purpose and justice is honorific.

Speaker:

Um, he says, uh, I think Aristotle's example is if you've got, uh, flutes

Speaker:

and you've got really good flutes and maybe some flutes that aren't so good.

Speaker:

Uh, this is the musical instrument flute as opposed to the champagne flute.

Speaker:

Um, Aristotle says, who should get the best, the best flutes?

Speaker:

Uh, he says The best players of flutes, the best musicians.

Speaker:

Um, it's not because they will produce the best music to maximize

Speaker:

society's enjoyment, that would be utilitarian, but because the purpose

Speaker:

of the best flutes is to be played well, that's the Aristotle in view.

Speaker:

So, um, uh, sometimes the teis or the purpose.

Speaker:

Is not easy to define.

Speaker:

And, uh, page 204, he gives the example of the game of golf.

Speaker:

So there was a guy who, um, was wanting to enter the, um, the pro tour as

Speaker:

a golfer, but due to a disability, he wasn't able to walk the course.

Speaker:

He needed to go round in a buggy.

Speaker:

And so he wanted a special exemption to allow him to, uh, play

Speaker:

professional golf while using a buggy

Speaker:

and under the rules as they were at the time, he wasn't allowed to.

Speaker:

So the question was, um, uh, to resolve the question, the court

Speaker:

had to determine the tellis or the essential nature of the game of golf.

Speaker:

So, um, and the court ruled that, uh, this guy had the right to use a golf cart.

Speaker:

So they took evidence and they looked at whether physical fitness and

Speaker:

stamina in the ability to walk the court was an essential part of golf or

Speaker:

really was an essential part of golf.

Speaker:

The striking of a golf ball with a golf stick.

Speaker:

And they that far outweigh any other notions of.

Speaker:

The athletic requirement of walking the course.

Speaker:

And, um, incidentally, um, in the case, they cited testimony by a

Speaker:

physio physiology professor who calculated that only about 500 calories

Speaker:

were expended in walking 18 holes.

Speaker:

So there you go.

Speaker:

Um, nutritionally less than a Big Mac according to that evidence.

Speaker:

So, um, uh,

Speaker:

so in this case,

Speaker:

why would people argue against it?

Speaker:

Well, um, some golfers are a bit sensitive about the status of their game.

Speaker:

It involves no running or jumping, and the ball stands still.

Speaker:

Um, but they, um, but the honor and recognition accorded great golfers

Speaker:

depends on their sport being seen as a physically demanding athletic competition.

Speaker:

So, um, so people arguing against it felt uncomfortable because of that reason.

Speaker:

So, um, so that was a question about the nature that teis of golf

Speaker:

ultimately decided to be about hitting a ball rather than walking a course.

Speaker:

And why would people object?

Speaker:

Well, because they see golf as.

Speaker:

As the virtue of an, of encompassing the virtue of athleticism, of physicality.

Speaker:

And by allowing this guy, it was, it was describing golf in

Speaker:

a way that they didn't like.

Speaker:

And you can see the comparison with that and the wheelchair cheerleader, um,

Speaker:

uh, they acknowledged in both cases, it's acknowledged that

Speaker:

the person's doing the job.

Speaker:

It's how they're going about it, that they object to, because the way

Speaker:

they're going about it demeans to some extent, a virtue that others

Speaker:

have and that others celebrate.

Speaker:

And allowing this exception, uh, detracts from that virtue.

Speaker:

So this is all part of the Aristotle and sort of approach to things.

Speaker:

So, um, uh, also just in terms of what is the purpose of something, uh,

Speaker:

what is the TELUS of a university?

Speaker:

Um, and this gets down to sort of, um, uh, quotas and things like that.

Speaker:

So if you take the view that a university is just to produce technicians, um,

Speaker:

people who could write computer programs, for example, uh, people who can, uh,

Speaker:

dissect, uh, anatomies and, and, yeah.

Speaker:

Yeah.

Speaker:

Uh, build, calculate, uh, load bearing for bridges.

Speaker:

Um, if it's, if you, if you view a university as purely producing a

Speaker:

technician with a technical skill, then you would re recruit, uh, purely

Speaker:

on academic performance and you would reject any sort of affirmative action.

Speaker:

But if you view a university as producing leaders of our society, our parliaments,

Speaker:

our businesses, our, our community, then you would want a varied cohort

Speaker:

and it would be as important as the reading material and that people mix

Speaker:

with other ethnicities, other genders, uh, other classes, uh, skin colors,

Speaker:

all important for our future leaders.

Speaker:

And on that basis, you might argue affirmative action is

Speaker:

appropriate in our universities.

Speaker:

So, uh, so that's why the Telus, uh, is an important concept when deciding what's an

Speaker:

appropriate moral response to a quandary.

Speaker:

So, um, in terms of politics, uh, Aristotle, um.

Speaker:

Answers the question, what is the purpose of politics?

Speaker:

And for Aristotle, the purpose of politics is not to set up a framework of rights

Speaker:

that is neutral in its objectives.

Speaker:

It's not merely to guarantee men's rights against one another.

Speaker:

Rather, it is to cultivate the virtue of citizens.

Speaker:

Uh, the purpose of politics is nothing less than to enable people to develop

Speaker:

their distinctive human capacities and virtues to deliberate about the common

Speaker:

good, to acquire practical judgment, to share in self-government and to care for

Speaker:

the fate of the community as a whole.

Speaker:

So that's a very different approach to our current system of

Speaker:

government, which is really leave people alone as much as possible.

Speaker:

And okay, there's an injustice when people start off from the wrong starting

Speaker:

point or an uneven starting point.

Speaker:

So we've gotta let people have an opportunity to at least attend

Speaker:

university or get an education.

Speaker:

But after that, uh, they're on their own in terms of where they end up.

Speaker:

Um, and as much as possible, uh, leave people, um, and, you know,

Speaker:

create a framework of legal rights so people can't steal off each other.

Speaker:

And basically people can be assured of their property rights

Speaker:

and, and that sort of, um.

Speaker:

Uh, a framework of rights that's neutral in its objectives.

Speaker:

And for Aristotle, um, that wasn't enough.

Speaker:

It was about creating a community that, that was healthy and a good policy, and

Speaker:

where the citizenships citizens, uh, uh, shared in self-government and cared for

Speaker:

the fate of the community as a whole.

Speaker:

So, um, so that was his view to that.

Speaker:

And, um,

Speaker:

also here, let me just see in terms of what is moral, moral education

Speaker:

is about learning to discern,

Speaker:

well, actually, so this is about, uh, Aristotle's view on, on what is Moral.

Speaker:

Moral education is about learning to discern the particular features

Speaker:

of situations that call for this rule rather than that one.

Speaker:

Moral virtual requires judgment or practical wisdom.

Speaker:

Practical wisdom is the ability to identify the highest human good

Speaker:

attainable under the circumstances.

Speaker:

So, um, so he comes down to not providing some magic rule that, um, that.

Speaker:

You can apply to almost any situation universally.

Speaker:

He's saying that depending on the circumstances, you're gonna call on

Speaker:

different rules at different times.

Speaker:

But moral virtue requires judgment or practical wisdom, wisdom, and knowing

Speaker:

when to apply rules and when not to.

Speaker:

And also, um, when to just say something is just, and something is unjust

Speaker:

when it's right and when it's wrong.

Speaker:

And, um, uh, that's the sort of what is moral for Aristotle.

Speaker:

He doesn't give a, a, uh, some fabulous universal rule that you can just

Speaker:

apply the Aristotle and rule to it.

Speaker:

It's about, um, the highest good attainable under the circumstances.

Speaker:

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean pulling the lever and, uh, in a

Speaker:

unit, uh, utilitarian sense, uh, the highest human good would be build

Speaker:

a library, not a dog fight stadium.

Speaker:

Um, it's, it's that sort of notion.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

So, um, uh, Michael Sandel, obviously, he doesn't think that utilitarianism

Speaker:

or libertarianism is the answer.

Speaker:

He likes this aristot sort of approach and, um, uh.

Speaker:

Um, what he says here in his book is, uh, you know, libertarian is, is all a

Speaker:

vogue at the moment, liberal Freedom.

Speaker:

And he said it, it developed as an antidote to political theories that

Speaker:

consign persons to destinies fixed by cast or class station or rank

Speaker:

custom tradition or inherited status.

Speaker:

So, um, so our, our, our preoccupation with, uh, individual freedom is a,

Speaker:

without acknowledgement of community responsibility, is a sort of a, a,

Speaker:

a response to a period of history when we were locked into, um, a

Speaker:

straight jacket of roles, uh, through cast or class or station or rank.

Speaker:

Um, so how can we, um, how's it possible to acknowledge the moral

Speaker:

weight of community while still giving scope to human freedom?

Speaker:

And, um, uh, he quotes Alistair McIntyre and, um, basically

Speaker:

McIntyre says, what am I to do?

Speaker:

Depends on what stories I find myself a part of.

Speaker:

Our personal stories impose obligations and loyalties on us.

Speaker:

Um, so for example, you might think that you are a freely operating

Speaker:

individual with all the choice in the world, but if your, um, uh, wife or

Speaker:

partner is ill and needs care, then you might have to give up a lot of things

Speaker:

that you, um, thought you could do.

Speaker:

Um, your personal story could impose an obligation on you, uh, and a

Speaker:

loyalty might be imposed on you.

Speaker:

So, um, uh, it will depend on your circumstances of life as to what community

Speaker:

responsibilities are imposed on you, uh, that restrict your personal freedom.

Speaker:

Um,

Speaker:

Alistair McIntyre, of course, wrote after virtue and, um, I've mentioned

Speaker:

it before, but in, in after virtue, it's the idea he, he paints this idea

Speaker:

of a, or a, he paints a dystopian world where science, um, became, uh.

Speaker:

Discredited and all the books were burned and scientists were

Speaker:

killed, and, and basically a lot of scientific knowledge was lost.

Speaker:

And then centuries later, there's a revival and people are trying to, to, to

Speaker:

once again pick up the pieces of science and, and make scientific progress.

Speaker:

And people have, um, they've got the vocabulary of science,

Speaker:

but they don't have the actual knowledge of the scientific rules.

Speaker:

They're having to learn them all again.

Speaker:

And they're using the vocabulary incorrectly and, and inappropriately.

Speaker:

And they don't know that yet.

Speaker:

They're fumbling around with the words, but they don't actually

Speaker:

know the scientific theories.

Speaker:

And he says that our present society has reached that statement.

Speaker:

It comes to sort of philosophical and moral thought that people have

Speaker:

lost the ability to think about, uh, think philosophically about

Speaker:

morals and what we should be doing as a community or as individuals.

Speaker:

And I think that's right to a certain extent because people, um, don't

Speaker:

talk about these things very often.

Speaker:

And I think that's one of the reasons why the podcast is popular is because

Speaker:

we do, and people can sit down and listen to a bit of this sort of stuff

Speaker:

that they don't get anywhere else.

Speaker:

And I know myself when I go to.

Speaker:

Dinner parties or things like that.

Speaker:

I will, I'm so used to doing it now, I just do it as a matter of

Speaker:

habit, um, introduce these sorts of topics and, and people love it.

Speaker:

They actually, uh, have the best fun talking about these things.

Speaker:

So, you know that there's a sort of a saying, you know, in, in

Speaker:

company, don't talk about sex or, or politics or religion.

Speaker:

Well, that's exactly the stuff that we should be talking about, but we've

Speaker:

taken the view that we shouldn't and we, um, should steer clear of these

Speaker:

things for fear of offending people.

Speaker:

Well, that's not my view.

Speaker:

So you can have differences of opinion with people and explore ideas, and you

Speaker:

can do that without offending people.

Speaker:

And if they get offended, um, unnecessarily, well, too bad.

Speaker:

Okay.

Speaker:

So, um, so just moving onwards to the end of this, now I getting close to it.

Speaker:

Um, so remember I said in the beginning that the Aristotle

Speaker:

approach is kind of judgy.

Speaker:

It's, it just makes a judgment call and says, you know what, we need libraries

Speaker:

rather than dog fights stadiums.

Speaker:

Um, and it, it sort of feels a bit funny when we're doing a dry,

Speaker:

rational, utilitarian or libertarian argument that we commonly do.

Speaker:

And, um, he makes the point that the religious.

Speaker:

Groups.

Speaker:

Religious arguers in our society are quite willing to make those judgment

Speaker:

calls and they acknowledge a judgments call, and we tend to avoid the judgment

Speaker:

call and revert back to a dry clinical rational libertarian or utilitarian

Speaker:

argument when we should probably adopt a judgment call ourselves.

Speaker:

So if you look at the abortion debate, so pro-lifers would say that life

Speaker:

begins at conception and pro-choice.

Speaker:

They, they really avoid that question and they simply would go to argue

Speaker:

that a woman has freedom and choice.

Speaker:

So, um, so they, they, a lot of that argument is it, is it cross purposes?

Speaker:

Neither side is addressing the argument of the other.

Speaker:

Um, so if, for example, pro-lifers are correct that life begins

Speaker:

at conception, then the choice argument isn't really good enough.

Speaker:

So, I mean, we don't allow parents the choice of killing

Speaker:

their children once they're born.

Speaker:

So if the pro lifers are correct and that.

Speaker:

Life has started at conception.

Speaker:

We shouldn't be allowing parents the choice of killing their penises.

Speaker:

So, um, so, and he's got a point there, um, that it's really, you need to make

Speaker:

the judgment call as well and say, no, actually, it's not just about choice of

Speaker:

the mother or the, it's also about life just begins in my view, well, my argument

Speaker:

for this, he doesn't say this in the book, but, um, I, I, I take a view that, um,

Speaker:

the fetus is relying on the mother's body.

Speaker:

And, and, and while that is the case, then the mother, um, is

Speaker:

in charge of what's happening.

Speaker:

So it's not really about choice so much as the fetus is, is needing the consent

Speaker:

of the mother to carry the fetus through to a point where the fetus is independent.

Speaker:

So I take the view that once a fetus could survive independently of the

Speaker:

mother, then at that point, uh, the mother has, uh, her cons, uh, her at,

Speaker:

at that point, uh, the baby should be born and shouldn't be aborted.

Speaker:

If, if it's, if it's actually a viable baby at, you know, 28

Speaker:

weeks or, or whatever it might be.

Speaker:

So, um, so.

Speaker:

That's my personal way of getting around that.

Speaker:

So, okay.

Speaker:

Um, if you look at, uh, stem cell debate, so people, uh, who

Speaker:

are anti stem cell people would argue that the life has begun.

Speaker:

Um, pro stem cell people avoid that question and they argue the utilitarian

Speaker:

benefits of medical research.

Speaker:

So again, uh, the progressives are talking past the conservatives,

Speaker:

um, same-sex marriage.

Speaker:

Those against it argue it is immoral.

Speaker:

Those in favor of same-sex marriage often dodge the morality question and argue

Speaker:

for equal rights and non-discrimination.

Speaker:

But the state is not totally neutral regarding marriage,

Speaker:

otherwise polygamy would be allowed.

Speaker:

So the same sex marriage proponents should also argue the moral case.

Speaker:

And I'll just go to page 2 56, looks like I've got something highlighted here.

Speaker:

Um, of course, those who reject same-sex marriage on the grounds

Speaker:

that it sanctions sin and dishonors the true meaning of marriage aren't

Speaker:

bashful about the fact that they're making a moral or religious claim.

Speaker:

But those who defend a right to same-sex marriage often try to rest

Speaker:

their claim on neutral grounds.

Speaker:

To avoid passing judgment on the moral meaning of marriage.

Speaker:

And he says, um, uh, lemme just find the right page here.

Speaker:

Um, it 60.

Speaker:

Um, so when we look closely at the case for same sex marriage, we

Speaker:

find it cannot rest on the ideas of non-discrimination and freedom of choice.

Speaker:

In order to decide who should qualify for marriage, we have to think through

Speaker:

the purpose of marriage and the virtues it honors, and this carries

Speaker:

us into contested moral terrain.

Speaker:

So, um, same sex marriages or same sex relationships are as worthy of respect

Speaker:

as heterosexual relationships and not allowing them affirms the stereotype.

Speaker:

That same sex relationships are inherently unstable and

Speaker:

inferior and unworthy of respect.

Speaker:

So, uh, so I think that's an interesting way of looking at these arguments.

Speaker:

And it is true that progressives talk past conservatives because conservatives often

Speaker:

make a judgment call and progressives make a freedom or a utilitarian call,

Speaker:

and, and they talk past each other.

Speaker:

And progressives should think about more carefully making a moral case for, you

Speaker:

know, the decisions that they're arguing.

Speaker:

So.

Speaker:

Um, so, uh, justice and the Good Life in this chapter, he says, the

Speaker:

utilitarian approaches two defects.

Speaker:

It makes justice and rights a matter of calculation, not principle.

Speaker:

And the calculation flattens human goods into a single value and doesn't

Speaker:

account for qualitative differences.

Speaker:

So the libertarian approach overcomes the calculation problem, but not the second.

Speaker:

It accepts people's preferences as they are, and doesn't require us to

Speaker:

question or challenge the preferences or desires we bring to public life.

Speaker:

So, um, so for example, when you look at Lockdowns and the anti lockdown

Speaker:

brigade, you could argue that their approach to lockdowns is a combination

Speaker:

of utilitarianism and libertarianism.

Speaker:

Uh, their utilitarian argument though, I think is a gross mixed calculation of the

Speaker:

actual weighing up of human flourishing.

Speaker:

Um, but those anti lockdowns would, they've not argued the good virtues

Speaker:

that are encouraged by lockdowns and the poor citizenship that

Speaker:

would be acceptable and commonplace if we allow unnecessary deaths.

Speaker:

And, uh, they might say.

Speaker:

Who are you to judge?

Speaker:

And we should respond by saying, well, we are to judge because

Speaker:

we are part of this community.

Speaker:

So, um, judgments are impossible to avoid.

Speaker:

Justice is inescapably judgmental justice is not only about the right

Speaker:

way to distribute things, it is also about the right way to value things.

Speaker:

So thinking back to episode 238, um, uh, I, we argued that

Speaker:

we are pro-social animals.

Speaker:

We are cooperating, interconnected beings.

Speaker:

We are the honeybees, not the fruit flies.

Speaker:

If you remember that argument, if you were describing, um, fruit flies to

Speaker:

somebody, you would talk about the anatomy of the fruit fly and how fast

Speaker:

its wings beat and its life cycle in terms of, uh, its breeding and how long

Speaker:

a larvae takes to mature, et cetera.

Speaker:

What it eats.

Speaker:

Uh, they're solitary creatures.

Speaker:

Flip fries.

Speaker:

If you're talking about honeybees and you are describing honeybees

Speaker:

to people, you wouldn't start at the individual level of a bee.

Speaker:

You would talk about the hive, the queen, the workers, the cooperation,

Speaker:

the roles of people in it.

Speaker:

Um.

Speaker:

You know, when describing human beings, we, we are honeybees, not fruit flies.

Speaker:

So we're hardwired to perform best in a supportive policy.

Speaker:

So a fruit fly doesn't have to care about other fruit flies, but

Speaker:

as honeybee humans, we have to care about the colony, the poly.

Speaker:

Um, Robert Kennedy, um, great speech page 2 62.

Speaker:

Since I'm on a role, how am I going?

Speaker:

It's been about an hour on this one.

Speaker:

I'll keep going.

Speaker:

So, um,

Speaker:

uh, I'll read the speech by Robert Kennedy,

Speaker:

our gross National, I'll start again.

Speaker:

Our gross national product now is over $800 billion a year, but that gross

Speaker:

national product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances

Speaker:

to clear our highways of carnage, it counts special locks for our doors and

Speaker:

the jails for the people who break them.

Speaker:

It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of the natural wonder.

Speaker:

In Chaotics brawl, it counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored

Speaker:

cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities, it counts the television

Speaker:

programs, which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Speaker:

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of

Speaker:

our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play.

Speaker:

It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages,

Speaker:

the intelligence of our public debate, or the integrity of our public officials.

Speaker:

It measures neither our wit nor our courage.

Speaker:

Neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion

Speaker:

nor our devotion to our country.

Speaker:

It measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

Speaker:

And it can tell us everything about America except why we are

Speaker:

proud to be Americans at speech.

Speaker:

So for me, uh, libertarians, ignore the reality of our nature.

Speaker:

The liberal push for individual freedom was a necessary movement

Speaker:

to unshackle us from the chains of aristocracy, cast and class.

Speaker:

But libertarians want to unshackle us from community, which makes us less human.

Speaker:

They don't see the flip side is that the community is then unshackled from

Speaker:

responsibility for the individual, and that is what many selfish power interests

Speaker:

want, so they can exploit the powerless.

Speaker:

So, um, so there we go.

Speaker:

Um, when you're with your friends, uh, talk about news and politics and sex and

Speaker:

religion, uh, I'm telling you it's your duty as a citizen of our fair country.

Speaker:

And, um, when we are discussing.

Speaker:

Moral quandaries in the future on the podcast, and we talk about utilitarian

Speaker:

libertarian or Aristotle, and we talk about honeybees and fruit flies.

Speaker:

Then you'll know what we're talking about after this episode.

Speaker:

So, uh, thank you dear listener.

Speaker:

It's been a long one.

Speaker:

Hope you enjoyed the panel.

Speaker:

We'll be back next week, which I think will probably, uh, no, we'll

Speaker:

be just short of the six year mark.

Speaker:

Anyway, hope you enjoyed this one and talk to you next week.

Speaker:

Bye.

Speaker:

Well, the technological revolution that, uh, is taking place,

Speaker:

uh, is, uh, threatening us with, uh, a unique phenomenon.

Speaker:

So far.

Speaker:

Every time we had technological innovations, uh, they destroyed

Speaker:

many jobs, but they created more jobs than they destroyed.

Speaker:

This is the Arian process, uh, which, uh, overall had net winners, uh,

Speaker:

even though there were many losers.

Speaker:

Now, there is the first, uh, juncture since the 18th century when it is highly

Speaker:

likely that technological innovation is going to destroy a lot more, uh,

Speaker:

positions for wages, labor than it'll create, uh, which, uh, I think puts

Speaker:

us, uh, on a course of a major dilemma.

Speaker:

There will be a juncture and we'll have to choose, and we'll have to

Speaker:

choose politically and democratically.

Speaker:

Uh, between a world in which the concentration of ownership over the

Speaker:

newfangled means of production is going to lead to a stagnating capitalism

Speaker:

with intense way, uh, inequality and huge quantity of income for a

Speaker:

decreasing, shrinking percentage of the population, uh, that leaves

Speaker:

behind, uh, um, barriers fences, electrified fences in, uh, policed,

Speaker:

privately policed communities, and the rest, uh, in cesspool of volatility,

Speaker:

uncertainty, and social misery.

Speaker:

Let me put it in science fiction terms.

Speaker:

Um, this is a parable that I think is quite instruct when I use it often.

Speaker:

Um, it's no doubt who are moving towards a science fiction world

Speaker:

that will become nonfiction.

Speaker:

But remember, science fiction has two possibilities.

Speaker:

One is a Star Trek society where we are all equals and we all

Speaker:

benefit from the technology.

Speaker:

We don't have to work.

Speaker:

There's a hole in the wall.

Speaker:

You go to it, you, you get anything you want from it.

Speaker:

Nobody's has been exploited, nobody has worked for it.

Speaker:

The machines do it for you.

Speaker:

So the machinery, the technology is humanity, servant.

Speaker:

And then we can sit around and explore the universe.

Speaker:

We can have philosophical discussions about the meaning of

Speaker:

life, which is wonderful, right?

Speaker:

The, that is a good scenario.

Speaker:

But then there's the matrix too, where the artifacts that we have

Speaker:

created and slave us, and then we become caught up in an illusion of

Speaker:

freedom rather than the real thing.

Speaker:

Whether we go to a start Star Trek or to a matrix like outcome as a

Speaker:

result of technological innovation is the result of politics.

Speaker:

And if it's not democratic, it'll be a matrix-like world.

All Episodes Previous Episode

About the Podcast

Show artwork for The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove
The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove
News, political events, culture, ethics and the transformations taking place in our society.

Listen for free