Episode 53: Solo -- On Morality and Rationality

What does it mean to be a good person? To act ethically and morally in the world? In the old days we might appeal to the instructions we get from God, but a modern naturalist has to look elsewhere. Today I do a rare solo podcast, where I talk both about my personal views on morality, a variety of “constructivism” according to which human beings construct their ethical stances starting from basic impulses, logical reasoning, and communicating with others.

In light of this view, I consider two real-world examples of contemporary moral controversies:

Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Or is there an ethical imperative to be a vegetarian? Do inequities in society stem from discrimination, or from the natural order of things? As a jumping-off point I take the loose-knit group known as the Intellectual Dark Web, which includes Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and others, and their nemeses the Social Justice Warriors (though the discussion is about broader issues, not just that group of folks). Probably everyone will agree with my takes on these issues once they listen to my eminently reasonable arguments.

Actually this is a more conversational, exploratory episode, rather than a polished, tightly-argued case from start to finish. I don’t claim to have all the final answers. The hope is to get people thinking and conversing, not to settle things once and for all. These issues are, on the one hand, very tricky, and none of us should be too certain that we have everything figured out; on the other hand, they can get very personal, and consequently emotions run high. The issues are important enough that we have to talk about them, and we can at least aspire to do so in the most reasonable way possible.

Support Mindscape on Patreon or Paypal.

[ricardoalmeida]

I'd love to listen to you and Eric have a conversation.

[DanielClementYoga]

I don't think there is an "um" or hesitation anywhere here. Incredible.

[pcsecuritychannel]

Great thoughts and discussion on the topic. I myself have learnt a lot from Jordan Peterson and learnt quite a bit from this one too. I applaud your honesty in this talk for acknowledging that you have your own starting points and biases. I think we can all understand how people can have different perspectives and priorities on these issues without necessarily downplaying or misrepresenting the other side of the argument. Would still love to see you have a conversation with Peterson, even though I know it is unlikely to happen. Thanks again, for this great, honest and informative podcast.

[raduantoniu]

This episode was a gem! Sean is one of the clearest thinkers I've ever heard

[plaguedoctr]

"We should pretend things exist before we prove they exist. Therefore society is sexist and racist, and we should take action against it. Also, university quotas for females & minorities in classrooms don't exist even though we can prove they exist."
~Sean Carol, 1/7/2019
From 1:23:00 onward

[Aziraphale]

It's not that the IDW 'want's differences in IQ to be out there being talked about'. That is simply incorrect. I can only speak for Sam here, because he has said this himself; all he wants is a society where the people who are responsible for discovering certain undesirable facts(like differences in IQ across populations), are not publicly shamed and have their lives ruined. It's not that he is dedicated to talking about differences in IQ, it's that he wants it to not be a career-ending move to even remotely touch on the subject.

[ahawkone]

I realize that I'm a few months late, but my take on morality is that, like all abstract concepts, it doesn't exist because it isn't required for existence. Living things make use of it as a decision making tool because we need to make choices. Unlike a star, or a rock floating in space, we make choices based on a variety of variables (no I'm not talking about free will). When faced with a choice, the correct option is not always clear and sometimes both options are equally "correct" or "incorrect". In these situations, having a robust personal moral compass is helpful because, in a moment of indecision, you can check in with the compass to help determine which option to choose.

Said another way, the universe is a complex place and we are often called upon to make singular decisions about how we operate in the universe. These decisions, no matter how benign they seem, will never be made again in the context that we make them in, which is why morality seems to fluctuate across space and time. It is basically a highly specific and unique set of answers to a highly specific and unique decision point in space and time. Since that moment in space and time will never fully repeat, the moral systems that governed that decision will also not repeat.

On a societal level, we can have situations and decisions that are so similar to previous situations that they appear to repeat. Sometimes people drive too fast down a road. Why they drive too fast and when will vary, but we can reliably predict that they will do so. We can also observe that people attempt to cross this road sometimes. It could then be a logical move to either restrict the speed of the vehicles making use of the road, or to restrict pedestrian crossings. We don't know when or how or why, but we know that eventually someone is likely to be hurt, so we can make a rule about the use of the road.

In this example, choosing to drive the speed limit or not, or choosing to cross or not, and choosing to have rules about speeding and crossing, are obviously not inherently moral choices. One could provide a number of a-moral reasons why one should or should not do any of these things. That said, they set a precedent on how seriously we might value another human life or our own, which in practice is a moral opinion that is formed by a societal rule.

A society in a different place and time might not make rules at all, and also not feel immoral about it. They would not be any more right or wrong than the society that did, rather they just see the problem of facilitating the use of a road from a different perspective.

TLDR: Morals don't come from existence. They come from the experience of being a living being that exists in a certain state, place, and time.

[MrTwostring]

"Tables and chairs" is an interesting example to choose because while any individual table or chair clearly exists in the real world (as clear as we can be clear that a real world exists at all), the categories "table" and "chair" are indeed a human construct just as much as morality is.

[fashonstar]

I’m no theoretical physicist but it doesn’t take a genius to know why killing animals is wrong. Please do more research on this topic

[mkvanguard]

Hey Sean, I found your podcast through your discussion with Destiny, and its quickly become my favorite. Please never stop. C:

[tomasroque]

Veganism starts at 35:38
Worth of animal life starts at 39:55
Veganism ends at 58:12

[earthian]

I like when you tackle subjects like this. You have a thought process that is rare and uniquely reasonable. Keep up the outstanding work.

[Aziraphale]

Sam doesn't like to call it an axiom, which I sympathize with a bit, but it is axiomatic in function. 'The worst possible misery for everyone is bad' seems like a pretty good place to start from.

[BeyondLucidDreaming]

Morality is something which is based on human minds. Looking for an objective source of it is useless and nonsensical. We can have the same argument we've been having and get nowhere but angry, or we can come to the agreement that well-being is the only thing that could make sense to value for morality, just as health is to medicine. By doing so, we give ourselves a compass and can actually start doing the work of setting up a working moral system. As Sam Harris has said, you're expecting things out of morality that you would never expect from medicine. Can you prove that health objectively exists, or is it a value we attach to the world? You can see whether well-being is improved, just like you can with health. There would be a measurable effect on the system of the body/mind. Body parts working normally and being in good condition is indicative of good health. Having good health and not being in mental/emotional anguish or physical pain is indicative of being well. So, yeah, we can't get morality without agents to feel well or feel pain... I fail to see the problem. Is it that we have to all agree, because we largely do. If you agree that chopping someone's head off is bad for their well-being, and you have the common human trait of not wanting that to happen to others, the. congratulations, we're on the same page. Beyond that point, to bicker about its objectivity, or necessity to be objective to be useable, is the best way to miss the forest for the trees.

[Infinite.pause_abilities]

Can’t say enough thank you’s, and I’m not even sure what gratitude could do to express the value I’ve found in Mr. Carroll’s mind and his ability to use language to share important ideas, especially controversial, difficult ones with elegance and fairness.

[noitsvini]

these solo episodes are great, you should make them more often

[julioc.]

Just listened to it, what a gem. Thank you.

[IyantheGreat]

I followed Sean's logic all the way through this podcast and I think he made more than a couple completely unsubstantiated claims regarding morality and the relevant social science, even a few logical fallacies. I was not satisfied and don't think he did very well with this episode. It is baffling to me how someone could be a Naturalist on one hand but then on the other seem to claim that human-constructed morals wouldn't also ultimately be physical and therefore possibly quantifiable, maybe even by traditional Science. Furthermore, his argument for "why killing is bad" is so extremely awful, I won't even take the time to say why. No moral distinction between killing and murder... Very dumb. I do still look forward to his next episodes on science topics.

[timphanyswimchester]

Vegan gains wants to have a respectful debate with you . I'd love to see it .
Your arguments are very poor atm but don't worry, most peoples are while they're still trying to justify their eating habits . You owe it to yourself to educate yourself on the topic.

[IWillBeTheVeryBest]

Does your life lose all value if you are unable to plan for the future?