Making Sense with Sam Harris

Episode #446 — How to Do the Most Good

Date: December 1, 2025
Guest: Michael Plant (Philosopher, Global Happiness Researcher)

Episode Overview

In this episode, Sam Harris hosts philosopher and global happiness researcher Michael Plant to discuss utilitarianism, the nature of well-being, how we should conceptualize happiness, and the practical ramifications of moral philosophy when it comes to effective altruism and doing the most good. Their wide-ranging conversation dives deep into the epistemology of happiness, ethical frameworks, the function of comparison in our self-assessment of well-being, and prioritizing suffering.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Introducing Michael Plant and Setting the Stage

• Sam and Michael’s Connection: They were introduced by Peter Singer, who served as Plant’s dissertation advisor.
• Plant’s Background:
  • Became interested in utilitarianism in his teens.
  • Pursued “Should we maximize happiness?” (philosophical question) and “How do we do that?” (empirical question).

“You might say it was a waking up moment. And then over the next 20 years, I've kind of pursued two topics... philosophical question of should we maximize happiness? ...and then this empirical question of, well, how can we apply happiness research to finding out what really we ought to do?”
— Michael Plant (00:52)

2. Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, and Metaethics

• Defining Terms:
  • Utilitarianism: Maximize the sum total of happiness.
  • Consequentialism: Maximize “the good,” which need not be defined by happiness alone.
  • Deontology: Ethics bounded by inviolable rules or constraints, not only outcomes.
• Philosophical Landscape:
  • Most “sane” deontologies may covertly collapse into consequentialism as they value good outcomes implicitly.
  • Many disagreements between utilitarians and deontologists seem to center more on where to draw lines rather than truly foundational differences.

“I do think any sane deontology collapses to some form of consequentialism covertly... They're holding to it because it is, on its face, intuitively a great way to implement something like rule utilitarianism or rule consequentialism.”
— Sam Harris (03:03)

• Trading Off Lives, Trolley Problems, and the “Math” of Morality:
  • Even deontologists weigh trade-offs, which suggests “hidden consequentialism.”
  • Practical dilemmas (“kill one to save five, a million, a billion?”) always seem to return to some calculus of consequences.

“What's going on under the hood of these deontological theories is there's still kind of some implicit maths going on, like trading off bits and pieces.”
— Michael Plant (04:08)

3. Classic Objections to Consequentialism

• Organ Donor Utilitarianism Thought Experiment:
  • The suggestion that consequentialism could demand horrific actions (e.g., killing a healthy person for organ transplants) often ignores the true, sprawling consequences of such acts—societal trust, fear, collapse of institutions, etc.

“The consequences just propagate endlessly from a practice like that. And it's just obviously awful. And no one wants to live in that society for good reason. But again, this is all just a story of consequences; it's not the story of some abstract principle.”
— Sam Harris (05:30)

4. What is Well-Being, and What Should Consequentialists Value?

• Three Theories of Well-Being:

  • Hedonism: What matters is happiness (pleasure, absence of pain).
  • Desire Theories: What matters is desire satisfaction.
  • Objective List: What matters is a set of goods (truth, beauty, love, achievement, etc.).

• Plant’s Position:

  • Finds hedonism, the idea that “what makes your life go well is how you feel overall,” supported by the strongest arguments.
  • Even critics rarely doubt that suffering matters (even if they don’t believe it’s all that matters).

“If you didn't think [happiness] mattered, you would think that people's suffering and misery didn't matter in and of itself. And that's a very peculiar thought. So it's at least got to be one of the things that matter, or it's going to be very important to whatever it is else that matters intrinsically.”
— Michael Plant (11:31)

5. The Nozick Experience Machine and “Reality Bias”

• Sam’s Perspective:
  • We don’t want happiness fully uncoupled from reality; the knowledge that one’s relationships or experiences are illusory is itself harmful to well-being.
  • Reality bias is partly about ensuring that our positive experiences aren’t hollow or fake.

“We get an icky feeling from that and it's understandable. And that icky feeling translates into a degradation of the well being we would find in that circumstance. But again, I don't think we can press that too far. I think having a loose reality bias makes sense.”
— Sam Harris (10:58)

• Plant’s Response:
  • Also, being in an “experience machine” limits moral responsibilities since you can’t help others.
  • Modern life is already sliding toward a variant of the experience machine, given online interactions.

6. Defining and Measuring Happiness and Well-Being

• Definitional Challenges and Nuances:
  • Well-being: What makes your life go well for you overall.
  • Happiness: Feeling good overall (pleasantness, positive or negative valence).
• Comparative Nature of Happiness:
  • Much of happiness is relative; people compare themselves mainly to those around them, not globally (or historically).
  • Example: Median income Americans are among the richest humans ever, yet focus on local economic anxieties.

“But that's the kind of curiosity there is that there are certain things we compare our lives to, sort of naturally, intuitively, but we could make different comparisons.”
— Michael Plant (17:57)

• The Role of Adversity:
  • Do we need exposure to bad experiences to appreciate happiness?
    • Plant: Not logically necessary, but comparison is fundamental to how happiness works for most people.
    • Harris: Believes happiness could be infinitely refined, and future “reference points” may still be quite good.

7. Applied Ethics: Whose Suffering Matters Most?

• The Deep Problem of Comparison in Suffering:
  • Judgments of well-being are highly context- and contrast-dependent.
  • Is the suffering of the homeless in San Francisco worse than those in objectively poorer conditions, due to proximity and relative deprivation?
    • Harris: Mental suffering from comparison may make some Western poverty experiences worse, even if absolute deprivation is lower.
    • Plant: Having seen both extremes, finds this very plausible.

“It’s at least conceivable that that suffering, that mental suffering, the experience of being in that bad condition, is worse than much—or maybe everything—that’s going on in objectively poorer parts of the world. How do you think about that?”
— Sam Harris (20:32)

“Yeah, I find that extremely plausible and very probably true, having walked through the streets of San Francisco and also visited some of the poorest bits of the world.”
— Michael Plant (21:06)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On utilitarian awakening:

  “You might say it was a waking up moment... I first came across the idea of utilitarianism, that we should maximize happiness. And I thought, oh, wow, that's... a massive story of ethics.”
  — Michael Plant (00:52)

• On covert consequentialism:

  “Any sane deontology collapses to some form of consequentialism covertly.”
  — Sam Harris (03:03)

• On the experience machine thought experiment:

  “...if we look at how technology is changing, we are increasingly living in something like the experience machine.”
  — Michael Plant (10:58)

• On the relativity of well-being:

  “If you earn the median salary in the US... you're in the top 0.1% of rich people who have ever lived. And yet what are people talking about? ...Cost of living crisis.”
  — Michael Plant (17:57)

• On the subjectivity of suffering:

  “Mental suffering from comparison may make some Western poverty experiences worse, even if absolute deprivation is lower.”
  — Paraphrased from Sam Harris (20:32)

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|------------------------------------------| | 00:41 | Introduction to Michael Plant and his background | | 01:37 | Defining utilitarianism vs. consequentialism and deontology | | 03:03 | Metaethics and “covert” consequentialism | | 05:30 | The “doctor and five organs” thought experiment | | 06:59 | What should consequentialists value? | | 08:28–10:58| The experience machine and “reality bias”| | 11:30 | Why happiness (and suffering) matter | | 14:21 | Defining happiness, adversity, and the role of comparison | | 17:57 | The relativity of well-being and income comparisons | | 19:09 | Implications for effective altruism | | 20:32 | Is urban Western suffering worse than “absolute poverty”? |

Conclusion

This episode delivers a nuanced and deeply philosophical conversation about the ethics of doing the most good, questioning common assumptions about utility, happiness, and suffering. Sam Harris and Michael Plant clarify the debates in contemporary moral philosophy, offer sharp insights into how context shapes human well-being, and set a stage for practical questions about altruism and aid. The episode is equal parts theoretical primer and ethical challenge for anyone interested in improving the world.

This summary is faithful to the conversational tone of Sam Harris’ podcast, capturing both weighty philosophical content and practical implications for listeners interested in ethics, happiness studies, and how to do the most good.