Modern WisdomHow Do We Define What Is Good & Bad? | Cosmic Skeptic | Modern Wisdom Podcast 214
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 0:24
Doing vs allowing: the life-support unplugging hook
Alex opens with a classic moral puzzle: is there a real difference between causing harm and merely allowing harm to happen? The life-support example sets the stage for how slippery moral distinctions can be once you press on definitions.
- •Initial distinction between doing harm vs allowing harm
- •Life support thought experiment: unplugging as killing vs letting die
- •Ethics quickly becomes a question of definitions and boundaries
- 0:24 – 2:52
Catch-up banter and why ethics is the real agenda
Chris and Alex reconnect, joking about a yoga weekend and internet embarrassment. The conversation pivots to the day’s goal: ethics beyond the earlier veganism discussion.
- •Friendly catch-up and yoga story callback
- •Transition from previous veganism episode to broader ethics
- •Setting expectations: ethics will be nuanced and tricky
- 2:52 – 5:48
Practical ethics vs metaethics: 'what is good' vs 'what good is'
Alex lays out the foundational split: practical ethics asks which actions are right, while metaethics asks what moral terms even mean. He argues many disagreements persist because people talk past each other at the metaethical level.
- •Practical ethics: abortion, euthanasia, veganism, social justice, etc.
- •Metaethics: meaning of 'good,' 'ought,' and moral language
- •Why ethics doesn’t converge like science; value in reading classics
- •Without shared metaethics, practical debates can stall
- 5:48 – 6:38
Wellbeing as a moral base—and the challenge of the sadist
Chris proposes wellbeing/minimizing suffering as a guide to morality. Alex pushes: why value wellbeing at all, and what do you say to someone who prefers others’ suffering?
- •Wellbeing-based intuition as an initial moral anchor
- •Problem case: the person who prefers others to suffer
- •Question shifts from preferences to justification and authority
- •Early pressure toward objectivity vs mere majority opinion
- 6:38 – 10:42
Objective vs subjective morality—and the religious grounding move
Alex explains what it means for morality to be objective: true regardless of beliefs. He introduces the moral argument for God (objective morality requires God) and notes two main responses: find another grounding or reject objectivity.
- •Definition of objective ethics vs subjective ethics
- •Holocaust-as-counterexample to pure subjectivism/majority rule
- •Moral argument for God: if objective morality exists, God exists
- •Option 1: ground morality elsewhere; option 2: deny objectivity
- 10:42 – 15:08
How philosophers stress-test moral theories: reductio and intuitions
Alex describes how moral philosophy often proceeds by proposing a theory and searching for counterexamples that generate absurd conclusions. This method—reductio ad absurdum—explains why ethical systems frequently splinter into refined variants.
- •Ethics often tested through intuitions and counterexamples
- •Reductio ad absurdum as a common philosophical tool
- •Metaethical disputes can derail practical discussion
- •Agreement on some basics allows progress via consistency arguments
- 15:08 – 17:39
Consequences, virtues, or rules: the three major ethical lenses
Alex maps three broad approaches: consequentialism (outcomes), virtue ethics (character), and deontology (actions as inherently right/wrong). He sets up why each view feels plausible—and why each runs into hard cases.
- •Consequentialism/teleology: judge by outcomes
- •Virtue ethics: judge by what a virtuous person would do
- •Deontology/divine command style: actions can be wrong in themselves
- •Modern culture tends to default toward consequentialist thinking
- 17:39 – 26:41
Utilitarianism under pressure: rash doctor, decision procedures, and horrid edge cases
A string of thought experiments exposes tensions inside utilitarian reasoning. Alex distinguishes the 'criterion of good' from the 'decision procedure' and shows how utilitarianism evolves into probabilistic and rule-based variants to avoid repugnant conclusions.
- •Rash doctor dilemma: risky cure vs safer partial recovery
- •Shift from 'actual' maximization to 'probable' maximization
- •Criterion of good vs decision procedure (Roger Crisp framing)
- •Extreme cases (e.g., aggregation of pleasure vs severe harm) challenge pure utilitarianism
- •Rule utilitarianism introduced as an attempted rescue
- 26:41 – 34:39
A detour that matters: what counts as knowledge (Gettier cases)
Alex uses epistemology to illustrate how one clever counterexample can upend an apparently settled theory. The Gettier problem shows that 'justified true belief' still doesn’t equal knowledge, mirroring the way ethics gets destabilized by edge cases.
- •Why 'true belief' isn’t enough for knowledge
- •Justified true belief as the classic account—and why it fails
- •Gettier’s job/coins example and Alex’s real-life 'horse in field' case
- •Parallel to ethics: theories collapse under coherent counterexamples
- 34:39 – 42:58
Free will, responsibility, and Frankfurt-style counterexamples
Alex explains the difference between lacking belief and believing the opposite, then applies it to his view that free will doesn’t exist. They explore whether moral responsibility requires the ability to do otherwise, using Frankfurt cases and related scenarios.
- •Distinction: not believing X vs believing X is false (coins-in-a-jar analogy)
- •If no free will, what happens to moral responsibility?
- •Principle challenged: responsibility requires ability to do otherwise
- •Examples: phone lines down; neuroscientist manipulation in voting
- •Takeaway: intuitions about blame/intent are more complex than they seem
- 42:58 – 51:14
New problems or new packaging? Simulations, slow progress, and 'discovering' philosophy
Chris asks whether philosophy makes breakthroughs like science; Alex argues progress is slow on fundamentals but active on refinements. They touch on Bostrom’s simulation argument, why Rogan struggled with it, and whether philosophical 'discoveries' resemble mathematics.
- •Ethics can be fast (thought experiments) yet slow (same core questions)
- •Modern tech reframes old puzzles (evil demon → Matrix)
- •Simulation argument and limits of consciousness replication (mentioned)
- •How philosophy 'discovers' truths: analogy to mathematical discovery
- •Discussion of Sam Harris/Jordan Peterson and the objectivity dispute
- 51:14 – 58:48
Unintended consequences in real policy: education & suicide, markets & sex work
Alex shifts into practical dilemmas that expose clashes between values. He raises the education–suicide correlation and then a provocative issue: if sex is a market service, do anti-discrimination norms conflict with the right to refuse sex?
- •Education is assumed good, but correlates with higher suicide rates—does that change the moral calculus?
- •Ethics of markets: what can be bought/sold (organs, prostitution)
- •Cake-baking case as a model: refusing a message vs refusing a person
- •Sex work dilemma: anti-discrimination rules vs absolute sexual consent
- •Legal/moral tension: creating a special category or risking coerced 'service'
- 58:48 – 1:05:53
Personal cost vs moral duty: kill-and-forget, the trolley problem, and brain scans
A pub-born dilemma forces a split between what we would do and what we should do: kill an innocent person and forget, or live forever believing you killed. They then revisit the trolley problem variants and discuss evidence that emotional vs rational processing may drive differing answers.
- •Kill-and-forget vs not-kill-and-believe-you-did: separating would vs should
- •Question of expected self-sacrifice for others
- •Trolley lever vs pushing the 'fat man' and why intuitions diverge
- •Michael Sandel’s refinements (trapdoor/wheel variant)
- •MRI findings: different brain regions light up for different moral choices
- 1:05:53 – 1:14:02
Doing vs allowing returns: ambulance boulder, euthanasia framing, and Singer’s drowning child
Alex deepens the doing/allowing distinction with the ambulance-and-boulder scenario and the life-support unplugging puzzle. He then invokes Peter Singer’s shallow-pond argument to question whether 'allowing' distant deaths (via not donating) is morally different from direct harm.
- •Ambulance case: letting a man die vs pushing harm to save others
- •Why defining doing vs allowing is both descriptive and morally loaded
- •Life support unplugging: killing vs letting die depends on framing
- •Singer’s drowning child: refusing to save over minor cost is monstrous
- •Distance and indirectness challenged: donating may be easier than rescuing in person
- 1:14:02 – 1:23:33
Ethics that changes your life: effective altruism, veganism, and living in alignment
Chris connects the arguments to real-world commitment—effective altruism pledges and Alex’s own veganism. They discuss the discomfort of knowing the right thing while failing to do it, and Alex argues that inconvenience is not a serious moral defense.
- •Effective altruism as applied ethics (Toby Ord and giving pledges)
- •Camus quote: what you believe true must shape how you act
- •Chris admits misalignment: persuaded by vegan arguments but struggles with convenience
- •Alex’s pushback: 'difficulty' is relative to stakes; moral excuses don’t generalize
- •Social dynamics: it feels unfair to pressure friends, but respect can require honesty
- 1:23:33 – 1:28:34
Wrap-up: recommended resources, Alex’s key videos, and the yoga outro
They close with pointers for newcomers to ethics and to Alex’s work, including Sandel and Singer. Alex recommends specific videos, they plug Patreon, and the episode ends with a playful callback—followed by a snippet of yoga audio.
- •Alex’s recommended starting points: Sandel’s 'Justice' and Singer’s 'Practical Ethics'
- •Further reading: Roger Crisp on Mill’s utilitarianism; Singer essay collections
- •Alex’s suggested videos: 'Why It’s Time To Go Vegan' and 'A Meateater’s Case for Veganism'
- •Closing banter and future appearances
- •Yoga/audio tail as an outro tag
