← The Iced Coffee Hour
The Iced Coffee Hour
Alex O’Connor on AI Consciousness, The Woke Agenda, and Debating Ben Shapiro
02:13:25
Loading summary
Transcript440 lines
- [00:00]
Alex
Want to shop Walmart Black Friday deals first. Walmart plus members get early access to our hottest deals.
- [00:06]
Jack
Join now and get 50% off a.
- [00:08]
Alex
One year annual membership. Shop Black Friday deals first with Walmart plus see terms@walmartplus.com Wake up.
- [00:18]
Graham
Is there any ethical dilemma with programming AI to be conscious?
- [00:24]
Alex
The problem is we don't really know what consciousness is. It's difficult to even give a definition of what consciousness is. Do you think that the mind is just a product of atoms bumping into each other in your brain that gives rise to this mysterious thing called consciousness? And if that's the case, we should be able to make computers conscious. Is there an ethical problem? Of course there is. If we just created a bunch of conscious robots and what are we going to do? Essentially like enslave them, mistreat them, use them for our own purposes. If we create a new conscious being for our exploitation, we do not have a very good track record of taking care of conscious beings that we have full control over and have convinced ourselves that we have have the moral right to take control of it. Okay, maybe that's a, that's a thing to consider. But a more pressing concern perhaps is.
- [01:16]
Graham
Alex, thank you so much for coming on the Iced Coffee Hour. Really appreciate it.
- [01:20]
Alex
Thank you for having me.
- [01:21]
Graham
So we have a really serious question for you. What do you think about the Hock tour?
- [01:25]
Alex
Podcast talk tour? Isn't it because this is actually an indication of some great marketing, right? Like if you can come up with a good pun, it can, it can take you further than a good show. Like I've never listened to an episode of that show, but I congratulate their success just in the titling. I'm a big fan of a pun. I'm a huge fan when it comes to marketing something as a pun. I saw a book once about animal ethics and it was called Duty and the Beast. And I thought, there you go, I've got a friend, there's a Catholic called Trent Horn, and one of the Catholic councils after the Protestant revolution was called the Council of Trent. And it was this big decision making procedure to figure out what would be condemned as heresy, what would be allowed. And he's got a podcast called the Council of Trent, but it's spelt like Council like sel. And it's another sort of just brilliant example of marketing and podcasts. But I think talk to her might be the best one that I've ever heard.
- [02:19]
Graham
Why do you think people gravitate towards that? Why did she become such a big Deal for so many people.
- [02:25]
Alex
Gosh. Because people like personalities. You know, people. People like funny things. It's. It's no surprise that people who are funny or charismatic are going to be more popular than those who are not. I mean, like, if you look at academic podcasts, for example, it's oftentimes people quoting academics, and the real sort of cleverest people on earth are locked up in a university somewhere writing journals. And then you get some charismatic person who's willing to put in the effort, but translated in such a way that it's entertaining. And they're the one with the popular podcast, because people are attracted to things that are entertaining. Like, YouTube is a form of social media. Right. You go on it and you think, I've always treated it separately. Like, you know, I have like a. Oh, I'm addicted to Instagram and I spend too long scrolling on Twitter. But when I'm on YouTube, I feel like, no, I'm watching content. I could watch a podcast or a documentary. It's educational, but it's still entertainment. It's still. It's why, like, the thumbnail thing exists. People put the big red circle and a pretty girl in the thumbnail. Why does that work? Because we're just apes. We. We're just. We're just animals who are attracted to that kind of stuff. In Las Vegas, I was amazed getting off the plane to see that you have slot machines.
- [03:35]
Graham
Oh, yeah.
- [03:35]
Alex
In the airport, right?
- [03:36]
Jack
They're everywhere.
- [03:37]
Alex
Yeah.
- [03:37]
Graham
It was culture shock for me, too, the first time I did that. Yeah.
- [03:40]
Alex
I can't believe it. And slot machines are a perfect example of this, because slot machines are, by definition, aimed at adults. Right. You have to. Is it 21? You have to be. To use 21. So you got to be 21. Right. And yet they look a bit like some kind of children's phone game. You know, big flashing lights, big. Sort of like a leprechaun doing a backflip. Whatever. I don't even know how the buttons work on those things. Right. Like, why. Why does that work? Because it doesn't matter sort of how old you are, how serious you are, you're spending money. That kind of stuff is attractive. Like, we forget the extent to which we are just suckers for bright colors. I mean, I don't know how you guys do. You do your thumbnails, but you probably put a bit of thought into. Let's get an expressive face.
- [04:19]
Graham
Oh, my gosh, the orange background. Yeah. The brighter it is. I take whatever color it is up the saturation by, like, 30%.
- [04:25]
Alex
Yeah, it works. And why do you instantly? Because, well, it's a good thumbnail. But why? Because it's sort of eye catching. Why does that work? Because it doesn't matter how serious your show is, it doesn't matter at all. You cannot escape the fact that you're going to get a higher click through rate by sort of making it more flashy and exciting. Because, you know, we act the same as children with a bright screen in front of us. That's why slot machines are designed the way they are and that's why YouTube thumbnails are designed the way they are. And I think, you know, there's something entertaining about the hoc tour thing also because it's quite controversial, right? Because here's somebody and I congratulate her. Hayley, I think her name is. I congratulate her because she's one of those people who's managed to take that small little viral moment and seemingly transform it into an entire career. She seems to be quite a charismatic, funny person. That's a very difficult thing to do.
- [05:13]
Graham
Now why does that upset people so much?
- [05:15]
Alex
Because people don't like the fact that there's no skill involved. Oh, she just gets approached on the street and she says something into a microphone that's not even that funny. And now she's what, she's famous and she's a millionaire. People forget that merit as a whole is a complete myth. It's like, oh, you're upset about the fact that this girl is probably a millionaire now because of some chance occurrence she had on the street and she's not even that funny. Most billionaires aren't funny. Most of them aren't charismatic. Most of them didn't actually put any more work in to becoming a billionaire than anybody else would have done had they had the same sort of chance of becoming a billionaire. I know you might have different views on that. I think you sort of will know a bit more about the finance world than I do. But like, there's a lot of unfairness and people have a, have a right to be upset about that. But the idea that, you know, otherwise social media and having a podcast and stuff is based upon merit is a myth. I'm sure you've got to be good at it, but there are a lot of people who are good at it and don't get it at all. So that's the other reason I think it's popular is because it's controversial. People sort of think, gosh, why is she famous? Well, she's famous because you Just asked that question. You're talking about her. That's what it is.
- [06:19]
Graham
You know, that was a great answer. I wasn't expecting such a deep thought.
- [06:24]
Jack
Deep dive into Haktua.
- [06:26]
Alex
It's really worth thinking about, though, because, I mean, are you upset because there's no merit in it? How much merit is there in anything? A philosopher called Michael Sandel wrote a book called the Tyranny of Merit. We like to imagine that if one person inherits a million dollars and another person doesn't, but they just happen to be quite hardworking, they're a morning person, they wake up, they've got the energy to put into their education, and they work hard, and they make a million dollars, we think that the second person sort of deserves it more. And intuitively, of course, I agree with that. But there's an extent to which, whereas the first person inherited the million dollars, the second person inherited their sort of proneness to waking up, their hard work. You don't get to decide the conditions in which you grow up. You don't get to decide your phenotype. You don't get to decide your genetics. You don't get to decide whether you're a morning or a night person. And sociologically speaking, you don't get to choose how lazy you are. It's not something you actually get to choose. I mean, maybe you can sort of choose to overcome it to a certain extent. It gets into a conversation about whether free will exists. But every single character trait that you have is essentially outside of your control. You know, you don't choose to have those characteristics. And so this idea that there is this thing called merit, which goes all the way down to hard work and dessert, I think is a. Is a myth. We can go into that more if you like. It's quite a controversial thing to say, but it's worth noting that that's.
- [07:51]
Jack
We definitely have some space allocated for that later, later in the podcast. But first, to set the stage, you've debated Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Piers Morgan, Sam Harris, Destiny professors, bishops. How did their debate styles vary, and who is your most formidable opponent?
- [08:08]
Alex
Yeah, I'm very lucky, actually, when you put it like that. I sort of. I suppose the past year or two, I've gotten debated to debate a lot of. A lot of big names. It's been very exciting, and everybody has a slightly different approach. But I'm. I think I used to be more confrontational than I am now. When I go into a debate, I'll say what I think and I'll say it forthrightly and I'll look you in the eye and I'll say it straight. But I don't get too riled up. I don't get angry. I don't get hostile. Really doesn't really happen. Happens occasionally. The only time that happens is when I think that I'm not getting through to somebody and I'm not getting through to them for some reason. That isn't entirely innocent. I recently had a debate with Dinesh D'Souza. I don't know if you've heard of him. He's a conservative commentator. I don't know too much about him, but I felt in many ways he wasn't prepared for the debate. I felt like he wasn't actually listening to what I was saying. A lot of the time. I felt like that his questions weren't really making sense in the context of the discussion. So I got a little bit. Sort of. A little bit riled up, a little bit more forthright. But most of the people I debate are receptive to my energy. Right. Like, you can get a different energy out of someone if you watch Ben Shapiro debating college students and someone comes up to the mic and says, like, hey, man, you know, why are you such a racist? And suddenly he's sort of defensive, and he'll, like, snap back at them and he'll, like, shut them down, so to speak. Right. But if you watch the conversation I had with him, it's very smiley. It's very sort of happy. You know, we shake hands, and it's just a much more pleasant conversation. And so I don't think it's actually so much about what they're like. I think it's about what you're like. You can bring a different energy out of people. Same thing with Jordan Peterson. He's got that ability to really, like, let out a demon that's inside him that can just. Absolutely. It's the thing that comes out in, like, the GQ interview, you know, that real, like, Fierce Peterson. And I'm sure that if I'd have asked questions in a particular way, I could have maybe gotten that out of him, too, but I didn't. That's more to do with me than it was to do with him.
- [10:01]
Jack
Right. But you're saying that was an unpleasant experience because you probably saw him as somewhat bad faith. Like, he wasn't actually there to try to learn, maybe, but who was? Someone that was good faith, but they were just extremely challenging to debate. Maybe because they had really strong points or just because their style of rhetoric was effective.
- [10:17]
Alex
Ah, yes, the most formidable. It's difficult to say. I remember, well, a long time ago, I debated the guy that I just mentioned, Trent Horn. I debated him years ago. And I remember at the time thinking like, wow, that was powerful. Because at the time I'd been debating a lot of people. There was a lot of, like, shouting and putting down and this kind of thing. And Trent came in very calmly and put forward what are very good sort of arguments for the existence of God. Very powerful, very difficult to respond to. And he did it calmly and politely, but effectively. And I remember coming away from that thinking like, wow, that was.
- [10:49]
Graham
What were his arguments?
- [10:51]
Alex
So I think the principal one that we probably discussed was something called the contingency argument, which will be about explanations for things. So there's a difference between something happening contingently and something happening happening necessarily. For something to be contingent means that the reason that it is the way it is or the explanation for the way that it is is due to something else. So, like, why is this cup here? That's contingent on the fact that I put it there. It's contingent on the fact that I was thirsty. Why is this curtain red? Well, that's a contingent fact. It could have been blue. It was contingent on someone's decision, someone's decision to design it in that way. So things that a contingent could have been a different way, but they are this way. And there's this principle called the principle of sufficient reason, which says that for anything that is the case, any contingent thing will have a sufficient reason as to why it is the case. It's not just randomly read. There's a reason why it's read. So everything that contingently exists has some explanation as to why it exists. But the explanation itself will either be contingent or it'll be necessary. There are things that are necessarily true. Like why does a square have four sides? That's just what a square is. That's not contingent. That doesn't depend on what someone thought. That doesn't depend on some other explanation or fact. It just is. It's almost true without explanation. Right? And so anything that's contingent, like the existence of this table, it could have failed to exist. It could have not existed. You could have not existed if your parents didn't mean. Right? So there's a reason why you do exist instead of not existing in a way that there's not a reason why a square has four sides instead of three. That's just what a square is. But there is a reason why you exist instead of not existing. Okay, because that's because your parents met. Okay, why did your parents meet? Is that a necessary fact? No, it could have not happened. So there must be some explanation as to why it happened instead of not happening. And then that thing itself, that explanation will be contingent, unnecessary. And you'll keep going back in the chain of explanation until if you get something contingent, then there'll be further explanation. The only place that can bottom out is in something necessarily true. And so everything has to bottom out in some necessary existence. And that's what he then goes on to identify with God. A little bit complicated, but I thought, you know, quite a. Quite a powerful.
- [12:59]
Graham
What was your argument against that, though?
- [13:01]
Alex
Well, I think that. So theists will want to say that everything in the universe, every contingent thing that could have been this way could have been that way. It exists because God. God made it that way. God is the necessary thing at the basis, at the foundation of reality. Now, it's my supposition that a necessary thing cannot be the sufficient reason or the sufficient cause of a contingent thing. There can't be a necessary cause for a contingent thing, because to say something is necessary is to say it has to be true. If something's necessarily true, it cannot be false. Two and two is four. That's true. And it can't not be true. You know that curtain is red. That's true. But it could have not been true. It's a different kind of truth. There's truth which could have not been true, and there's truth that have to be true. Necessary truth means it has to be true. There's no way it can be false. And suppose you have a necessary thing, we'll call it X. That necessary thing causes Y. If X causes Y, then as long as X is necessarily true, well, Y has to be necessarily true as well. Because if it's the case that if X, then Y, then as long as X is true, Y is going to be true. And so if X is necessarily true, that means it's always true. It can't be false. Y can't be false either. But what this argument wants to say is that you have a necessary truth which causes a contingent thing. So something which had to be true causing something which could have been false.
- [14:37]
Graham
But you know what? Before we go into that, you really have to ask yourself, what makes a leader stand out? It's not just about taking charge, but about setting new standards and embracing bold moves. If you lead by example and live with passion, then our sponsor, the Range Rover Sport, is made for you. Every model of the Range Rover Sport offers a unique blend of dynamic sophistication and sporting luxury. It's where elegance meets visceral power. With focused on road performance and world renowned off road capability, this vehicle rises to every occasion. Experience the adaptive off road cruise control that adjusts to your terrain and dynamic air suspension for superior agility and control. Plus adaptive dynamics ensures smooth, composed handling by minimizing unwanted body movements. For those who elevate their desires and lead by example, the Range Rover Sport is more than a luxury vehicle, it's a statement. Discover it today at land Rover USA.com land Rover USA.com with the link down below in the description. Thank you Range Rover Sport for sponsoring this episode. And now let's get back to the podcast. Have you always been such a deep thinker? Where did that start?
- [15:45]
Alex
Well, I'll thank you for the implicit compliment. Although actually maybe it's not a compliment because people tend to sort of overthink these kinds of things.
- [15:52]
Graham
It probably meant it's a compliment, but it's also an observation that you are unlike anyone else that we've spoken to. I mean, it's very unique in terms of your thought processes. Like that doesn't. Did that just appear one day? Or would you say you're born like this? Would you say that's contingent?
- [16:08]
Jack
It's necessarily true?
- [16:09]
Graham
I'm trying my best.
- [16:10]
Alex
Maybe. Maybe. It's hard to say to be honest. I mean. Okay, so it's weird. It feels almost mathsy, right? I've never been a mathsy person. I don't like math. I mean, I love maths. I think it's fascinating and interesting, but I'm not sort of very good at it. I'm not very intuitive with numbers. But that kind of logical way of thinking, the way of sort of seeing everything in terms of sort of arguments and premises and conclusions probably came from like, yeah, when I was younger I was really interested in the new atheism stuff. So I'd be reading like Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens and probably like 13 or 14, I would say maybe it's hard to remember. And so a lot of these arguments were happening and I got really interested in it. And then you go online and you see people debating it and you realize and you're watching these debates about God's existence and you learn about these arguments and you see somebody say, well, God has to exist because if everything that begins to exist has a cause and we know that the universe has a cause, then the universe, sorry, that the universe began to exist, then we must Know that the universe has a cause and then somebody says oh, but does that follow from that? And how do we prove that? And it's all very sort of like prove this premise, this kind of thing, and so got interested in it. But it's worth saying that I actually think that this is, I've recently been thinking this is a very sort of inappropriate way to approach life and big questions like religion. I mean look at the sort of conversation we've just started having where I've talked about contingent objects and x and Y and necessary and causation and stuff like sort of interesting on a philosophical level, but you're not going to listen to that and sort of leave this conversation and go like wow, that really. Wow, that's really, that's really changed me. That's really had a sort of deep effect on my soul. Tends not to sort of move people. So these days I'm actually less interested in it than I used to be.
- [17:50]
Graham
What did you learn from your parents? Are they similar to you? Were they had the, you know, discussions like this at the dinner table. Like I can't imagine you like 6 years old watching like Cartoon Network, you know, Ren and Stimpy, let's just say.
- [18:02]
Alex
Yeah, no they're not, I'm not, I'm not quite sure how that happened actually. And I, my, my parents don't seem to be that interested in this kind of stuff. Certainly not like theology philosophy. I'm like the only person in my family that, that developed a, an interest in it. So it must have come from independent reading and, and probably YouTube. Yeah, well, we can get into that. But I, I don't know, I don't think I got it from my parents. In other words. Okay, I, I, yeah, I have sometimes. Are you sure, you sure I wasn't adopted? Was it was absolutely.
- [18:39]
Graham
Was it difficult to relate to other k. Because like 13 getting into some of these topics, I'd imagine that most of the people that you would converse with were twice your age minimum three times your age. And you could, you could have a very high level discussion with these people maybe.
- [18:57]
Alex
I mean I would say that at that age I don't think I was deep enough into this kind of stuff that I could have been having super high level conversations. I would have just been interested maybe in. Might have been older than that actually might have been more like 14, 15, 16. It's hard to say, but I wasn't immediately balls deep in analytic philosophy. I was just sort of arguing with people about whether God existed with fairly rudimentary arguments. But a lot of people that age aren't super interested in that. And so it would be a lot of arguing with teachers or arguing online with people. And in fact, that's one of the reasons I started a YouTube channel, was so that I could argue with people and get the views out there to people who would listen and engage, because people at school aren't doing that. But at the same time, at that age, I was like. I mean, I was like a skateboarder and a guitarist, really. I used to sort of rock up to school at like midday and just like skip off lessons to go to the skate park and I'd be hanging out with my friends. Not really. It was sort of something that I liked doing on the side. You know, I like watching V Source and Veritasium and stuff. It was interesting.
- [19:58]
Jack
Amazing.
- [19:59]
Alex
Yes, it's absolutely phenomenal. And so if somebody was talking to me about it, I'd say, like, yeah, I'm super interested in, like, science and philosophy and stuff. But that wasn't like my life in the way that it became. I used to want to be a. Yeah, a guitarist or a professional skateboarder or something. Yeah, that's so true.
- [20:15]
Graham
We got a toy machine skate deck there.
- [20:17]
Alex
Oh, no way.
- [20:18]
Graham
By Steve. Oh, no way.
- [20:21]
Alex
You've been on the show.
- [20:22]
Graham
He has.
- [20:22]
Alex
Cool, man. It hasn't got wheels on it. No, it's just the deck.
- [20:24]
Graham
No, it's just the deck. I'm going to hang it on the wall.
- [20:26]
Alex
Could have done a kickflip camera for you guys. For them.
- [20:28]
Jack
You can do a kickflip.
- [20:30]
Alex
Give me five tries and I reckon I can land it.
- [20:31]
Graham
Yeah, I'll learn how to kickflip as.
- [20:33]
Jack
Soon as I get home.
- [20:34]
Graham
Because of that.
- [20:35]
Jack
I'm curious, do you think it's important for people to understand their philosophical disposition, to understand where they stand, how they view the world, if they're utilitarian, if they're Catholic, if they're whatever. Whatever they believe in. Do you think it's important for people to even look at the world in that way, or do you think they can just exist, not thinking about those things?
- [20:56]
Alex
I think it depends on what they're interested in and what their goals are. Right. I mean, if you just want to live your life, you don't need to know why you're acting in a particular way. There are plenty of people who won't be aware of the assumptions they're making when they walk around the world. I mean, the first big philosophical existential crisis somebody might have is they Think to themselves, gosh, how do I know that anything exists? How do I know I'm not in the matrix? A simulation kind of thing. And what that exercise does is it makes you realize what you're assuming in your worldview. You, you assume that your sense data is giving you an accurate picture of reality, and then you go on living the rest of your life and nothing changes. But now at least you know that. You know that that's an assumption you have. You know that maybe that's unjustified or you don't have a good proof for it, but you know that that's something you're doing. Most people also believe that their sense data is accurate, but they don't like, know that, you know, they haven't like realized that they're making that assumption. They still make the assumption, but they're just sort of not aware of it. You now knowing that and the other person who doesn't are going to go and live their lives in the same way, it's not going to affect much. And so if you just want to live your life, it doesn't really matter too much. But if you're interested in the truth, if you're interested in trying to get to grips with why you're here, what's going on, what the world is made of, then it's going to be important.
- [22:12]
Jack
How do you think people should go about finding their own philosophy? Are there certain questions that you should ask yourself aside from are we living in a simulation? Or are there different strategies or tactics to find out why you believe the things that you do?
- [22:26]
Alex
Asking how you know something is a really important sort of exercise. Like, how do you know various things, like even obvious things like, how do I know it's worth. I mean, okay, so when people do philosophy, they try to sort of address the big questions. You know, oh, how do I know that God doesn't exist if I'm an atheist? Or how do I really know that socialism is better than whatever, libertarianism. But okay, it's good to question the big stuff, right? But question the small stuff. Question the obvious stuff. Question the stuff that you don't think of questioning, like, how do I know that this table exists? David Hume asks, how do I know that the sun will rise tomorrow? How do I know that? How do I know that the laws of physics will continue working in five minutes? How do I know this microphone won't start just floating upwards? And the question he's asking is, how do I know that the future is going to resemble the past? How do I Know that what's happened in the past, the laws of gravity and this kind of stuff. How do I know that that's also going to be the case in the future? The future is unobserved. We have no interaction with it. There's nothing logically speaking to stop gravity just switching off. How do I know that it won't do that? Asking how you know obvious things is really, really important. And not just philosophically, but civilizationally. I can't remember who it was that said civilizations decline when they forget obvious things. You really have to evaluate the things that are most obvious to you if you want to make sure that you're on firm grounding. Because it's the obvious things that are at the basis. It's the obvious thing. This table exists, that's obvious. And from that I can sort of talk about color theory. Oh, you know, the brown, like, why does the wavelength. But that begins with the obvious assumption that the table exists. And the skeptic will tell you, well, you don't know that you know. And so asking how you know the obvious things is probably what I would do.
- [24:15]
Graham
Are people naturally born to be deep thinkers or something like this just developed over time?
- [24:22]
Alex
It's hard to know how much. It's the grand sort of genetics versus social environment debate that applies to so much of human behavior. It's difficult to know exactly what the cause is. But I think everybody has the capacity for deep thought. Don't confuse deep thought with either knowledge of a philosophical tradition or theology or whatever. It's a bit like if I asked you to describe. If I asked you to describe Mona Lisa and you started talking about the brushstrokes and the material of the canvas and that kind of thing, you wouldn't be like, wrong, but it would be sort of a superficial analysis of what the Mona Lisa is. And maybe the art historian can come in and say, like, oh, well, the Mona Lisa is so famous because it's this many years old and Da Vinci used this kind of painting style and oh well, actually the color that he used is a pigment that you can't get anymore because of blah, blah, that kind of stuff, fine. But another person who knows none of that is going to look at the Mona Lisa and go, I like it because she sort of seems to have two expressions at the same time. And her eyes follow me around the room and like, whose analysis there is deeper. It's got to be the second person, right? And that's got to be what it's really about. And so I think everybody has a Capacity for deep thinking. We often confuse deep thinking with like, expertise in philosophy. But philosophers often miss the word through the trees. They get so caught up in the philosophy itself that they forget to sort of where they miss the meaning of what they're sort of philosophizing about. Much like trying to observe a painting by looking at the brushstrokes. People are at risk of doing that all the time.
- [26:04]
Graham
Yeah. Do you think wisdom comes with age? Do you ever find that people maybe discount your thoughts because you're younger than them?
- [26:11]
Alex
I don't think I'm very wise. I wouldn't claim to be wise. I think wisdom has to come with age. I mean, if we're going to distinguish wisdom from knowledge, anyone can know things. But wisdom, what is wisdom? It's sort of like knowledge that's been tried and tested. It's like meta knowledge. It's knowledge about knowledge. It's about what's worth knowing and how it's worth using that knowledge, let's say. And that's something that I think can only come with age. It doesn't necessarily come with age. Of course, there are many old people who are not wise. I think it'd be difficult to find a wise young person. You find people who are like, wise for their age. Right. But that's why, if you want, if you called me up and said, alex, I'm going into a debate about God's existence and I want to study the Kalam cosmological argument, I'd say, sure, man, you know, I can help you out with that. But if you called me up and said, hey, like, you know, I'm. I don't know whether I should get married or have a divorce or whatever, I'd be like, why, why are you coming to me? You know, that's, that's what wisdom's for. And that's not something that I have yet.
- [27:14]
Jack
You had a really fun video where you tried to get AI to admit to its own consciousness. What was the conclusion of that? What did you end up drawing?
- [27:23]
Alex
ChatGPT is not conscious. It's simply not conscious. Maybe not yet. Right. But I think the purpose of a video like that, trying to convince it that it's conscious, is in many ways to demonstrate how we know that it's not. It's sort of trying to prove something by. Are you proving something by trying to prove the opposite? Right. So I don't think it's conscious. Let's try our very best to prove that it is conscious. And if we fail, then we have good reason to Think that it's not, because a lot of people discuss this. Is AI conscious? The problem is we don't really know what consciousness is. It's difficult to even give a definition of what consciousness is. I mean, it's simultaneously the most familiar thing in the world and yet also the most mysterious thing in the world because we know nothing about it, we don't understand it at all, and yet we can't see anything. But through it, we can't think without sort of consciousness as a logical prerequisite. And so it's like further away from us than the most distant star, but also closer to us than our jugular vein, as people say of God. At the same time, which is really interesting. ChatGPT is not conscious. Maybe it could become conscious. The question of whether it can or not is a question of whether the mind is material. Do you think that the mind is just a product of atoms bumping into each other in your brain that gives rise to this mysterious thing called consciousness? If you think it's just a product of the material, there's no, no reason why we couldn't replicate it with computers. But if we can't replicate it with computers, that might tell us that there's something more going on.
- [28:48]
Graham
What is consciousness?
- [28:50]
Alex
To begin with, consciousness is almost impossible to define. It's like they say, a pornography. It's impossible to define, but you know it when you see it. It's the same thing about consciousness. You know what we're talking about. It's awareness. It's first person experience. Right. In that my hand is separate from my hand and I'm sort of looking at them and I can see that they're distinct from each other. But my brain or my mind being distinct from your mind is this impenetrable principled barrier. We are like first person centers of consciousness in a way that distinct objects aren't. Exactly. I can melt down this table and cut it in half and break it apart. But our minds seem distinct and singular.
- [29:30]
Graham
Yeah, but based on that, this computer could be conscious because it collects data. And that's the one central data point that could then merge AI to an advanced degree with a computer. Then that individual computer is going to be different and going to have different experiences and inputs than other computers.
- [29:47]
Alex
It's not just about data, though. It's not just about having data, because computers have data now and they're not conscious. Something more, it's awareness. Something has to be aware that it has that data.
- [29:59]
Graham
But couldn't the computer be aware with a camera and a Mic and then be aware that, hey, there's someone walking in front of it. It's aware that a cat just jumped on it.
- [30:09]
Alex
Speaking poetically.
- [30:10]
Graham
Ye.
- [30:10]
Alex
Like a ring doorbell currently knows when someone walks past. Right. Do you think ring doorbells are conscious? No, no, but it can see things. It sort of, so to speak, knows when someone comes up to your door, but it's not conscious. Like why, what's missing? What's the difference between the ring doorbell seeing somebody walk up to it and me seeing someone come up to it?
- [30:31]
Graham
Gosh, could it be pain, you think?
- [30:33]
Jack
It could be something with free will. Because if, I mean, think about it, it kind of makes sense because if you have something that's deterministic, such as a laptop, it effectively is only. It'll only lead to something because of some sort of an input. But us, we're kind of able, I like to think to be free willed and doing whatever we want whenever we want, thinking about certain things and having awareness.
- [30:55]
Graham
You could program AI to have a little randomness thrown in.
- [30:58]
Alex
Well, I don't believe that human beings are free either. And so I think we're actually very similar to computers in that way, which is kind of interesting. Although I think, I mean, maybe we should do the free will thing. I don't know. But granting that there could be this thing called free will, maybe that's the answer. But I don't see any contradiction in thinking that something could be conscious but also predetermined. It could have no control over its behaviors, but be sort of aware that that's happening. In the same way that there's this concept of the philosophical zombie, which is a person that does everything the same as you or I would like, has reactions, interacts with its environment, but it's just not actually conscious. It doesn't have any first person conscious experience, but it still has a brain. It still has the same atoms, it still reacts in the same kind of way. It seems possible to imagine such a creature, to imagine something which is essentially just in the way that a flower tracks the sun. But most people think that plants aren't conscious. It could be like a human that just has this biological makeup so that it, it, you know, touches something hot, takes its hand away, it walks around, it can even communicate. And it would be indistinguishable from the same creature who acts in exactly the same way, except is itself aware that it's doing it. And if something like a philosophical zombie is possible, then it seems like, you know, consciousness is not a. Is, is not a Necessary. It's not a necessary part of human behavior.
- [32:24]
Jack
But couldn't you program a, what would you say, a philosophical zombie? You could program one of those and you could program one to have awareness and that would just mean determinism.
- [32:34]
Alex
Well, can you? Because like, how do you program something to be aware? Like how, like we don't even know how that's happening in our brains. We have no idea, like no idea what it means to be conscious. Right? And so to think that we can sort of give this thing to computers, I. It could happen, but if it does, I think it will demonstrate that materialism is probably true. That like, you gotta remember that there's a. There's a large group of people who think that the mind is not material. The mind is not the same thing as your brain. And so it's not just a case of like putting atoms together in the right kind of way or doing the right kind of programming and tweaking and then you get consciousness. I think consciousness is immaterial. I mean, for example, something I always like to talk about is like, if you close your eyes and think of a triangle. If you picture a triangle, right? There's a triangle there, it has properties. There are things that are true of that triangle. Like, does that triangle have four sides, Jack? Does it have four sides? No. Right. So it's a thing that exists, right? There are things that are true and false about it. It's sort of there. But where is that triangle? Where is the triangle? Where is the thing that has three sides? Let me put it that way. Where is it?
- [33:50]
Jack
I would say in my mind.
- [33:52]
Alex
What's your mind like? Is that your brain?
- [33:55]
Jack
Yeah, I would say it's the brain.
- [33:56]
Alex
So if I like cut open your head and I looked inside, would I see a.
- [34:00]
Jack
Right. No, no, no, it's immaterial. I mean, it's.
- [34:02]
Alex
So it's immaterial, like, right. If it's immaterial, then the mind is something more than the brain, right? The brain is your material atoms. And the mind is this supernatural immaterial thing that somehow like superimposes itself onto the brain, right? So if it is the case that. So I think about this as a challenge to the materialists. I say, well, if everything's just material, like where is that triangle? Where is it? It's not in your brain because I can't open your brain and see a three sided object. It's like it seems to be this immaterial existing triangle. Some people might say, well, the triangle doesn't really exist. But like it seems to, in at least some sense, there are things that are true and false about it. It, you know, and so that's at least one way of challenging materialism and saying if people ultimately conclude what you just instinctively concluded, which is that it's immaterial. What are you saying? That you believe in the existence of non material things? You think there's more than just the material you know? Is that what you're committing yourself to immediately? You've just opened up a whole world of like philosophical potential. Right? Because if the triangle in the mind is immaterial, then good luck getting a computer to think of a triangle. Be aware of a triangle, because computers are material. They're made of atoms. They're never going to be able to do it.
- [35:15]
Graham
Starting a small business can be thrilling. Everything from your first paycheck, your first customer, your first hire. It's fun. But let's face it, it could also be incredibly scary. From the payroll stress, paperwork and compliance issues, it all begins to add up. But that's where our sponsor, justworks, is there to help the all in one platform for small business growth. With JustWorks you could seamless tools for benefits, HR, payroll and compliance, all with transparent pricing. And JustWorks makes payroll painless. Like, imagine running all of your payroll in 90 seconds or less and then automating it so that you could set it and forget it. Not to mention in 2023 alone, they processed over $25.6 billion in trusted payroll customers. On top of that, Justworks gives you access to premium healthcare plans and the ability to hire internationally, allowing you to effortlessly scale your business. And for every how do I, Their staff is just a call away ready to help support you. So don't wait. Visit justworks.com podcast to join thousands of other small businesses who trust Justworks for compliance, benefits, payroll and more. Again, that's justworks.com podcast with the link down below in the description. Thank you so much justworks, for sponsoring this episode. And now let's get back to the podcast. Is there any ethical dilemma with programming AI to be be the same as a human?
- [36:38]
Alex
Yeah, I mean, supposing that we could supposing that consciousness is material. Because by the way, the big problem for the, I mean the problem for the materialist is where's the triangle? But the problem for the immaterialist who thinks the mind is immaterial is like, why does it seem to map perfectly onto the brain? If the mind is immaterial, think about what that means. Like immaterial, it means it doesn't have spatial extension, it doesn't have a location. It's not like in the material world. So why is it that by prodding my material brain I can affect my immaterial mind? And why can't I seem to affect the immaterial mind without prodding the material brain? They seem to be connected to such an intricate degree that it makes sense to say they're the same thing. You know, so there's sort of problems in both ways. So maybe the mind is just the brain. And if that's the case, we should be able to make computers conscious. Is there an ethical problem? Of course there is. Of course there is. I mean, what's the big problem with AI like ethically? Well, the alignment problem. What if they become super big, big robots and they take over the world and they start us? Okay, maybe that's a thing to consider. But a more pressing concern perhaps is if we just created a bunch of conscious robots and what are we going to do? Essentially enslave them, mistreat them, use them for our own purposes. Right. The biggest ethical problem, I think the biggest ethical concern is that if we create a new conscious being being for our exploitation, we do not have a very good track record of taking care of conscious beings that we have full control over and have convinced ourselves that we have the moral right to take control over. We don't have a very good track record of treating them very well. Throughout human history, we treated other humans very badly. And we still do today in many cases, although it's condemned in most cases by the laws and morality of many countries. But consider, for example, the plight of non human animals. Billions of animals every single year undergoing the most unimaginable suffering conceivable so that we can enjoy our convenient food and oftentimes much more of it than we need. And yet people are confident that if we create this new super intelligent, way more intelligent and potentially way more sort of sensitive to pain and understanding than pigs and cows are, there's a huge risk that we're going to be treating them badly too. And if they become conscious, why would we not?
- [38:59]
Graham
But isn't the consciousness just programmed? They're not living beings. And maybe that could be the distinction that a pig is a living organism versus an AI. Supercomputer is purely programs and people can construct these things with just.
- [39:14]
Alex
Well, what's more important to you is that the fact that something's alive or the fact that it's conscious and can like feel things or know or sort of be aware of things I would.
- [39:21]
Graham
Say alive, because everything else to me just seems programmed. So let's say, like, it's a programmed response to this. Like if you poke it, it'll say ow. Because we could relate to that.
- [39:31]
Alex
Sure. Well, if it says ow, but it doesn't actually feel pain, then I don't think that's a sentient creature. I think that's just a fake. You know, that's just an actor. But if it actually does feel the pain, if it is actually sentient, then I think that's a problem.
- [39:45]
Graham
How would it feel something if it's just. If it's not living?
- [39:49]
Jack
Well, this is just under the assumption that you could create such.
- [39:51]
Alex
Well, there's the question, like, if your intuition is that, like, I just don't think it's possible to program a computer in such a way that it could feel pain. Hey, man, I agree with you. But then the whole conversation about AI consciousness is sort of undermined. I mean, consciousness and sentience are two different things. I suppose you could be conscious without feeling pain, but why is it so intuitive to you to be like, I just don't see how a computer could feel painful pain. It just feels like that's something that a computer can't do. You can program it however you like, but it's not going to feel pain. A lot of people say the same thing about consciousness. You know, it's not going to be conscious. You can program it to simulate consciousness. You can program it to whatever.
- [40:30]
Graham
So then how it be conscious then? How would it ever be conscious to begin with?
- [40:33]
Alex
Well, I'm not sure that it can or will. And that's why I'm sort of. I'm very suspicious of this because I'm really, like, confronted by the problem of consciousness in human. Like, why are we conscious? What is it? Like, how do animals, other animals, experience consciousness and experience the world? It's fascinating to me, but I think there's something so mysterious going on that I don't think it's a given that we could replicate that in computers. But I mean, for example, if I took your conscious experience and replicated it in a computer, a lot of people think that when they die, maybe they can have their consciousness uploaded to the cloud. Right? Let's say that I did that. So there's this cloud version of graduate, and then I've got like a flower, like a plant that's grown out of the table here. One of those is sort of conscious, possibly sentient, but not alive. It's not a biological organism. One of those is Alive but not sentient. Which would you rather I like? You know, tortured or crushed or cut in half.
- [41:33]
Graham
What, the cloud version? Right.
- [41:34]
Alex
You'd rather that I, like, tortured or mocked or whatever, like the cloud version of you than the flower?
- [41:43]
Graham
I would say, because the flower's alive. I feel like if you have me uploaded to the cloud, it wouldn't be me anymore. It would just be remnants of whatever's in my mind versus the flowers. Like a living thing.
- [41:56]
Alex
Your experience would be of sort of closing your eyes and then waking up in this robot. Maybe I can give it cameras and ears and stuff, like. But I put your conscious memories and experiences into this robot.
- [42:09]
Graham
Well, I don't know that would be possible to do.
- [42:11]
Alex
Oh, sure. But. So maybe it's not. Right? And if it's. If it's not possible, then this whole problem just disappears. The problem of, like, you know, what about the ethics of the mistreatment of AI and stuff disappears. But if you think it's even possible that we could have conscious computers, for a start, there's no reason we couldn't do that. There's no reason I couldn't create a conscious robot, but also program it to have all of your memories, in principle, I mean, all of your memories such that, like, you turn that robot on and it remembers being here having this conversation. It's like, I was just sat in front of a table having this conversation, and now I'm a robot.
- [42:41]
Graham
I just think it'd be very confusing for people. Yeah, but I think the line would get, you know, people would form really very real attachments with, you know, these objects or these.
- [42:53]
Alex
Whatever you want to call them, intuitively. I would rather crush that flower than crush the robot version of you, because I feel like if the robot version of you can feel something, even though it's not a biological organism that's alive, so to speak, it's got moral worth in the way that the flower doesn't. Because I don't think it's like, biological life. I don't think it's being alive that gives you moral worth. I think it's feeling pain. I think it's having a sense of self and a sense of awareness.
- [43:16]
Graham
So is there a hierarchy then, of value of life from a human? Then I feel like maybe it's a dog and then a cat, and then, you know, and you go down the list, and then you have, like, ants, and at the very bottom of the list, you have mosquitoes.
- [43:34]
Alex
And where do you put the conscious AI robot in that hierarchy? Because in a way, if the conscious robot is sort of a general artificial intelligence that has way more intelligence, way more knowledge, way more sensitivity, way more connection than any human being, we should put it at the top, right.
- [43:53]
Graham
I think it should be above mosquitoes, below humans, below dogs, which I have a cat, by the way.
- [44:02]
Alex
I mean, I intuitively agree with you that there's hierarchy of value. But when you try to identify why that's the case, it's actually incredibly difficult. Why do you value. Let's leave humans out of it for a moment because it gets more complicated. Why do you value, say, a dog more than you value a rat?
- [44:19]
Graham
So in fairness, I, for me, and this is just me, I value, I try to value all life equally. I know for some people it won't make sense, but if I see an insect in the house, I refuse to kill it. Like spiders especially, I'll take them outside because I think, why is that spider more important than anything else? And then I also believe, if you believe in reincarnation, imagine in a future life you get reincarnated as a spider. You don't want to be squished, you're just living your life. So I take them all outside. Mosquitoes are the one thing that I like. I'll kill a mosquito.
- [44:51]
Alex
Yeah, well, it's different because they might attack you. Right. They could actually come at you. They could.
- [44:54]
Graham
So there's a little bit of self defense in there. But if there's something that's not harming me, that I don't have, a fear of my life, or I'm trying to protect an animal or something like that, then let them outside, let them live their life.
- [45:05]
Alex
Sure.
- [45:06]
Graham
I would say most people though would value the rat very little.
- [45:09]
Alex
Yeah, but surely even if you would let all of these animals out instead of trying to kill them, if you were forced to choose between a dog and a rat, like you're driving a car and maybe a car's driving you. I don't know if that happens these days. And you know, you, you've got a rat on one side and a dog on the other side, like, and it's, it's a stray dog, you know, it's no one's pet. Which one are you?
- [45:28]
Graham
Gosh, it's got to be the rat, unfortunately. Why I have more of a connection to dogs than I do rats.
- [45:34]
Alex
Sure. So, so then is, is how much you value something a product of how much of a connection you have to.
- [45:39]
Graham
It, probably to a certain extent.
- [45:42]
Alex
So I agree with you because I think that's essentially what is Actually going on when people value things. But morally speaking, people see that as a bad justification. You know, like, you know, are you.
- [45:50]
Jack
Going to value, like, your mom's life, over a thousand people in a foreign, you know, country you've never met?
- [45:55]
Alex
It's really interesting because, like, ethically, when people try to rationalize it, they say, like, you know, these are bad reasons to value some animals over others. It's a bad reason. But when it comes to their own, your own personal practice, of course, you value your own mother more than you value a stranger. Why? The only answer can be that she's closer to you on the cognitive level, it's because she's got more of a connection to you. On the genetic level, it's because she has more of your genes. Right. That's probably why you have that belief. But, okay, the difficulty is that when you start looking at how we actually treat animals, I mean, how do you feel about, you know, factory farming, for example? How do you feel about the way that we farm?
- [46:34]
Graham
I would hate to say it's a somewhat necessary evil.
- [46:38]
Alex
Necessary for what?
- [46:40]
Graham
Feeding people. I would love to see maybe something more sustainable. I know crickets have been talked about quite a lot doing cricket protein.
- [46:49]
Alex
There's also more sustainable versions of the same foods we're already eating, or less torturous. I mean, for example, in my country, over 80% of pigs that are reared for food are in gas chambers. Carbon dioxide. They're lowered in cages into chambers of carbon dioxide, where you can watch the footage of this online. It's not just putting them to sleep. Now, we do actually know that there are other gases we can use that would be less painful, that they wouldn't cause them to squeal around choking on their own breath. Invisible gas as well. So they probably just only adds to the confusion, just an unimaginable cruelty for these animals. Now, maybe it's the case that for whatever reason, we need to be pigs for food. We need bacon, we need it for whatever reason. If that's the case, which is dubious already, why don't we use another gas which is less painful? Well, because it's more expensive. So it's sort of like when you say it's a necessary evil. It might be necessary to animals for food, it might be necessary to rib, maybe even lots of animals of food. And it may be necessary sometimes not to treat them, ideally because of the amount of food that we need. But the current practices of factory farming are sort of beyond the pale.
- [47:56]
Graham
So what do you think is a solution for that? Practice of farming. Well, is there one? Is it even possible to humanely breed and raise animals for farming?
- [48:11]
Alex
Well, humane is a tricky word to use that, because, of course, to the extent that you are unnecessarily an animal, it's difficult to describe that as humane. I certainly think that if the industry is going to change. I used to be a vegan, and I used to think that the solution to this was just to not eat the products, to not pay for the products. It's essentially a boycott. Boycotts work. At least sometimes boycotts can be effective. And for a time, veganism was really beginning to take off. It seemed like it was really changing the world. And you become really convinced that the world one day will actually be vegan, that morality will catch up on the world. And in the same way that all kind of other injustices, like human slavery are abolished, the same thing will happen with animal exploitation. By the way, more human beings are in slavery today than were at the height of the transatlantic slave trade. It's just that at least now we condemn it and try to root it out. I'm just not convinced that's going to work anymore. And I don't think that people will stop eating animals. And I don't think that it's wrong in the way that I used to, in principle, because you sort of the, the big end of the funnel when it comes to veganism is factory farming footage. You know, you show people, I, I talk just how I've spoken to you now about the. These abominable practices. And so you say, okay, I want to do something about this. And then maybe you become a vegan. And then there's a lot of debate about, well, what if, you know, what if we the animals in a different way? What if I've got backyard chicken farming and there's a big discussion like, what if I've got chickens in my back garden? You know, what if I eat their eggs? Can that be a problem? And people will still say, well, okay, they've still been selectively bred to lay more eggs than they would naturally, which often gives them a calcium deficiency, which leads to things like osteoporosis in chickens, which is bad, but it's nowhere near as bad or as much of an emergency as factory farming. Right? And so suddenly you're having these much more sort of nuanced debates about animal ethics, about what you have the right to do, because you've first gotten into. You've gotten through the door with the obvious stuff. The first thing we need to do is convince People of the obvious stuff. This is inexcusable. There's no excuse for the way that we are sort of treating pigs in factory farms at the moment. There's simply no excuse. If this is the only way to produce bacon to the extent that we currently eat it, then eat less. It's just not even close. It makes a parody of ethics. The solution I think needs to be something like what happened with the environmentalist movement. You remember 10, 15 years ago, 20 years ago, everybody's saying make sure you switch off your lights, make sure you don't leave the tap running, because if you leave that running for a year, it can fill up an Olympic sized swimming pool. And so you're sort of doing a little bit. And then people begin to realize actually that's not really solving the problem. What we need to do is we need to go and lobby Shell to stop whatever the hell it is that Shell do. We need to stop governments from investing in fuel licenses. We need to get universities to divest their investments in, in fossil fuel industries, for example. It's much more now about protesting authority and trying to make systematic change happening from the top down. And now the idea of the environmentalist whose principal focus is trying to convince people to remember to turn their lights off kind of seems almost a bit silly. It's like really, like that's going to solve the problem? Well, maybe, yeah, sure, if everybody did that, maybe we'd have less of a problem. But the way to do this is clearly systematic top down change. And I think the same thing maybe needs to happen with veganism. I'm not entirely sure about this. I'm open to be convinced either way, but I think that whereas people might have said we just need to stop eating these products, maybe it's now actually, no, let's go and lobby the government to make this a criminal offense.
- [51:39]
Graham
Now how'd that differ with crickets? Because let's just say one cow could feed 10 people versus 10,000 crickets feeding the same 10 people. And like 10,000 crickets have to and be kept in their own filth and this and that, like how would differ from the perspective of just suffering life?
- [52:04]
Alex
It's going to depend on your view of like consciousness of crickets, right? Because intuitively I want to say that a cow is worth many more, much more than a cricket. Many more crickets are worth the same as a cow. But that's a very difficult thing to quantify. It's like when you actually try to put a number on it, it's impossible. Like how many cows would you save? One dog? Like, man, I don't know, like three and a half. Like, who knows? Right, yeah.
- [52:24]
Graham
The correct answer is 1.75.
- [52:26]
Alex
Right, right. Yeah. I think that's. The cricket thing is interesting, right, Because. Oh, what's the solution if we're not eating cows? What if we're going to eat thousands of crickets? Well, look, why not let's start by eating cows but not rearing them on factory farms? How about that? Why don't we sort of try to create more organic ways of farming these animals, at least as a start. Right. In other words, there are not two options. If you really don't want to do away with the eating of animal products, it's not like your only options are forcing pigs into gas chambers or eating thousands of locusts. There's sort of a middle ground to be had there. Right. And so what I'm saying here is, for a start, at least, systematic governmental change, it should be a criminal offense to do all kinds of things that are currently legal. Because, by the way, the things I'm describing here are legal. Right? And most factory farms aren't even following the regulations. You know, every single time somebody breaks in with a camera, puts a camera on the side of a factory farm and like, exposes what's going on, it's so much worse. It's so much worse. And I'm describing what you can legally do, and that's if everybody's following the rules. People like Joey Carbstrong for years have been breaking into farms, I suppose, quite considerable risk and putting cameras on the side and showing people what happens, and it's not nice. And so at the very least, this kind of stuff should be a criminal offense. In the uk, you have to stun an animal before you can kill it. It's a legal requirement that you have to stun an animal before you for food. Now, the UK government considers gas chambers to be a form of stunning at the same time, if you like two birds with one stone or two pigs in one gas chamber. And so this practice is allowed where, like, if the pig didn't die, it might well be illegal because you've just sort of gassed a pig and it hasn't died. And also, if you just like that pig without stunning it, you'd have committed a criminal offense.
- [54:19]
Jack
So how do you assign your value hierarchy to life?
- [54:23]
Alex
I don't have a good answer to that question because as I was alluding to a moment ago, it's very difficult to actually give an analysis of why things are valuable. Every time you try to do it, it's very difficult. So there's this argument called name the trait, which is used in the context of animal ethics, which is to say, give me the thing that's true of a pig or a cow, that if it were true of a human, you'd be okay, human for food. So people say, well, we kill animals because they're less intelligent than us. Well, take a human being and make them less intelligent. Actually, Thomas Jefferson wrote about this. He was responding to a review, I think, of a book that had been published around the time of the American Revolution about the intellectual and artistic achievements of black people. Somebody had written a book detailing all kinds of achievements that were done that were made by black people. And I suppose the implication was to be like, look what people are capable of. You should think differently about black people. And Thomas Jefferson wrote a response to this and said, no one's happier than I am to see this kind of thing. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that this is any indication of their worth. I mean, just because Isaac Newton was more intelligent than my mother, does that mean that he has more of a right to life to not be abused, to not be killed? No, of course not. In other words, intelligence is not a metric to determine your moral worth. But if that's the case, then when somebody says, well, pigs are less intelligent than us, so what? So what is it then? Is it, oh, well, pigs are less self aware. Okay, well, you can make a human less self aware as well. Imagine like a cognitively disabled human being. You can essentially start transforming a human being into a pig. You can give the human four legs. Is it okay to put him in a gas chamber now? No. Okay, well, let's lower the human's intelligence level. Definitely not. We definitely don't want to be putting people in gas chambers based on their intelligence level, do we? Okay, what if we give them a curly tail? How about now? Like, no, okay, but you're slowly turning this human into a pig, and you get to a point where that human is now identical to the pig. And yet you still are like, no, it's still not okay to put them in the gas chamber. But that's what we're doing over here to this identical creature, you know, so it's actually very difficult to determine what.
- [56:43]
Graham
That's very interesting.
- [56:46]
Alex
It's like the biggest challenge, but because one of the reasons it's such a big challenge is because on another level, like, a human is worth more than a pig, people just sort of Intuitively know this. I'm an emotivist about ethics. I think that when people make ethical judgments, they're just expressing emotions. And so I think it's got a lot to do with how many genes you share with people. And so I think that really it's got to do with, like, how much that pig kind of resembles a human to you. That's going to determine, like, how much you, in fact, value that pig. That's not a moral claim. That's not a justified. I think that's just what's happening. But if you, if you start trying to say that. No, actually I think that, you know, a pig is worth less than a human, and I think that a dog is worth more than a rat. And I ask you why? Whatever reason you give, all you've got to do is apply that to a human being and see if that's actually the reason, you know, And a lot of time you find that it's not.
- [57:33]
Jack
When's the last time you seriously changed a way that you believe or a belief that you have?
- [57:39]
Alex
Depends what serious means. But I mean, the, the animal ethics thing was huge. I mean, that was. That was a big shift. That was probably the, the, the most significant change in the past few years. But I mean, more trivially, I like, I like to think that I changed my mind almost every single day. But I've also recently been sort of abandoning philosophy a little bit. You know, I've sort of been trying to. I spent a lot of time talking about syllogisms and arguments and logical fallacies, and now it kind of. I'm a bit allergic to it. It's a little bit like how, you know, if there's a video like, Ben Shapiro Destroys this College Student with Facts and Logic, it's kind of cringe. It's like really cringe to still do that unironically today. But there was a time when that was actually. That wasn't like a joke. That was actually the way people titled videos. Right. Because it was like, yeah, well, we don't care about your feelings. It's facts and logic and fallacies and. Well, actually, technically that commits this fallacy and all this kind of stuff. And people are like, yeah, that's awesome. Yeah, now it's a bit cringe because once you get used to it, you start to kind of see through it and you realize that it's not actually a great way of having a conversation. You're not really getting to the truth very well. I've become a little bit allergic to analytic philosophy. So the kind of argument where I tried to say some kind of point or I put something forward and someone says, oh, well, that commits this logical fallacy, okay, maybe it does. Maybe I should rethink it. But if that's like the lens through which you're viewing the world, I haven't found it to be very fulfilling. And so one of the shifts that I've had is really from, let's say, the analytical philosophy tradition to what's known as the continental philosophical tradition. So this distinction in philosophy, broadly, it's continental because it comes from the continent. Right. And so I don't know if you're familiar with people like, like Albert Camus or Jean Paul Sartre, the existentialists, maybe like Dostoyevsky. I mean, look at how a lot of people talk about Dostoevsky and, I don't know, Leo Tolstoy in the philosophical lens. Jordan Peterson does it all the time. Right. This is like narrative. You're sort of doing philosophy through narrative. Dostoyevsky doesn't say in any of his novels. Premise one, premise two, conclusion. Here's your philosophical argument. It's not present, but for many people, you learn a lot more from reading Crime and Punishment judgment than you do from reading Bertrand Russell's attempt to prove mathematically that one plus one equals two. And taking like 50 pages to get there from base principles. You're going to learn more from the novel. And I think that both of these traditions often criticize each other. The sort of mathsy logicians say, yeah, but we're literally just talking about truth. It's like one and one is two. You've committed a logical fallacy. You said this follows from this, and it doesn't. You're just wrong, Wrong. And the other people say, ah, you're so. You're missing something. You're so, like, caught up in the numbers and the technicalities that you're sort of. You're missing the beauty and the narrative and the meaning and the paradox of life, and you're missing all of that kind of stuff. Both of those are legitimate criticisms. I now live somewhere in the middle, I would say. But I used to be much more sort of logically minded. GK Chesterton said, the poet only seeks to get his head in the heavens. The logician attempts to get the heavens in his head, and it's his head that splits. And I am much more attracted now to the idea of trying to get my head in the heavens than getting the heavens in my head.
- [61:06]
Graham
Although, before we go into that, for those that aren't aware, I got a coffee company and it's called Bankroll Coffee. And our goal is to bring you the highest quality coffee at the most affordable price. But in terms of actually delivering on that promise, I had to do a lot of research on the best e commerce platforms to use. And that, of course, is where I found today's sponsor, Shopify. Shopify. Shopify is home to the number one checkout on the planet, with less carts going abandoned and way more sales going. For example, Shopify has a service called Shop Pay, which lets their customers save their email address, billing, shipping and credit card information, and that helps boost conversions up to 50%. And if you're into growing your business, your commerce platform better be ready to sell whatever your customer is scrolling or strolling, whether that be on the web, in a store, on a feed, or anything in between. All in all, nobody is selling better than Shopify. So if you you're interested in having the same checkout as Bankroll Coffee, you could get started today with a $1 trial period at shopify.comichall lowercase. Again that shopify.comich all lowercase to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.comich with the link down below in the description. Thank you so much to Shopify for sponsoring this episode. And now let's get back to the podcast. Speaking of this, you know, this college debates, those have started to come back, I've noticed.
- [62:26]
Alex
Yeah, yeah.
- [62:27]
Graham
Such a prolific way. What are your thoughts on those? Do you think that's an effective way of getting a point across?
- [62:34]
Alex
I think you're right that it has been making a comeback. It's weird, isn't it? I mean, I don't know if you're thinking of the same thing as me, but like Charlie Kirk and I mean, he had Vivek with him recently. And then there's, we were talking about Cliff and Stuart Connectley, the Christian guys who go on college campuses. And that's become very popular recently as well. I think that people are always thirsting for watching, like normal people debate and discuss. People like watching Ben Shapiro and Cenk Yuga. Right. They're interested in that. But they also, people love just watching your average person just like, like say what they think. Right. You know the YouTube channel Jubilee?
- [63:17]
Jack
Yes.
- [63:17]
Alex
It's super popular. Right? Like, why, like, why would that be more popular than like a podcast which brings on experts and professionals? But it's so popular because people just like to see what normal people think. You know, I'm not some, you know, person. I'm not caught up in politics, I don't think about everything through the lens of Republicanism. And so, yeah, it's interesting to listen to Charlie Kirk, but, like, you know, I don't feel very, like, connected to him. He's not very relatable because he's got a totally different life to me. Whereas if you watch Jubilee and you watch Trump supporters versus Kamala supporters, and they're just like random people and not random, but you know what I mean? Just everyday people have been selected in many ways that's more interesting because it's more relatable. And so I think people really enjoy that kind of stuff. And so the college campus thing is like meeting in the middle. You get the expertise of the person who spends their life thinking about it mixed with it. I don't think so.
- [64:06]
Graham
I think people love seeing someone else get dunked on.
- [64:09]
Alex
Oh, that's also true, of course.
- [64:10]
Graham
Humiliated. And in a lot of these cases, I think, I hate to say it some, and I'm not talking about Charlie Kirk because he's hardly the only one doing this, but I'll watch some of these debates, and I wouldn't even call them debates because it's just the other person has some really great points, but they just can't articulate it in a way that sounds confident. They might sound like they're doubting themselves. And it just seems in those situations that it's not so much about who's correct, but it's who's able to better articulate their argument.
- [64:40]
Jack
I think people like to watch the getting dunked on. And I definitely used to like that when I was like, 17 or 18. Like, I was watching a lot of those videos. But recently I, I, I've gotten, like, back into it and I've started watching those video, watching those videos again. But it's not to watch people get dunked on. It's just I like to see the, the different layers of people's thinking. Like, some people kind of only get to, like a layer two, you know, if this, then that. And some people, they can really break things down. And I like to see how, how far the average person can break down an argument.
- [65:09]
Alex
It's satisfying, right, to watch people get dunked on, but I think it kind of gets old, especially when people are doing it enough that sometimes they just get it wrong. Ben Shapiro, when he was interviewed by Andrew Neil on the BBC, I don't know if you saw this. And he ends up leaving the interview after accusing Andrew Neil of being a lefty. Andrew Neil's not a lefty. And it was embarrassing for Ben Shapiro. And I'm not sure if his reputation will ever fully recover from that. And the thing is, he's got his sort of his style. He's got his like, well, sir, sir, no, I think that you're obviously biased. And this is so obvious to me. And all this kind of. And you're watching that and you're like, he's wrong. And it kind of becomes a bit embarrassing because you're like, whoa, you're so confident. But you're wrong about this. And it kind of shatters this illusion of this impenetrable facts and logic versus. And so when you see him debating with students and things, you go back to it and you're like, well, okay, maybe he is actually right this time. I agree with him. Maybe he's not. Maybe he's just a better arguer because you start to notice the same qualities as he was displaying in the Andrew Neil. But you remember that he was wrong. You remember it was kind of embarrassing. And so now you're thinking about, well, what's the actual argument here? Is he actually right? Am I just enjoying the fact that my right wing guy is dunking on a left winger? But now you're more cognizant of the fact that he can be just as confident when he's totally wrong about something. And so you're paying a bit more attention. It's more interesting. I really like Stuart and Cliff connect because of the fact that from what I've seen, at least when they interact with students, they don't do the dunking thing. They're Christians. It'd be very difficult for them to pull that off very successfully and still retain sort of reputational virtue as Christians. People will ask questions and sometimes there'll be very unlettered questions. There'll be not particularly well thought out, not very well expressed, and they will hear what they're getting at. You know, if somebody says, you know, if God exists, then like, why? I mean, because there are like thousands of gods, right? But then like, you know, like, you know, my sister died in a car crash and I just, I just feel like kind of. And they're hearing that shit and they'll listen and they'll realize that what they're getting at is the problem of evil. They're getting at, you know, if God exists, why does bad stuff happen? And they'll extract the meaningful question and they'll say, hey, good question. Why do good. Why do people in those ways, if there's good God? And they'll Address the question properly. What they won't do is when the person goes like, well, if there are thousands of gods, and then if someone dies, they'd be like, well, which is it? Which objection is it? I mean, there's thousands of gods, one God. What difference does that make to whether there'll be evil in the world? Do you think the number of gods makes it? You could pick up on that and start trying to dunk on them, tear them apart on that kind of stuff. But they don't do that. And it's more satisfying conversation for that reason.
- [67:48]
Graham
Right.
- [67:49]
Jack
You're saying that. That someone like Ben, you think, just uses the better rhetoric and nitpicks a certain selective things that he knows he can dunk on, instead of Cliff and Stuart, where they actually take the strongest argument that they believe the other person's trying to make and then fight that direct.
- [68:04]
Alex
I think so. I mean, that famous clip of Ben Shapiro debating that, I think it was like abortion, but there was also, like a gender thing in there. Because I remember somebody saying, like, you know, it was something about the Scouts about why, like, you know, oh, yeah, like, girls should be allowed into Boy Scouts. And someone says, like. Like, you know, well, you know, where does it say that, you know, they have to be boys? And Ben goes in the name Boy Scouts, and everyone, like, claps. Because it's kind of funny. It's like, yeah, yeah, Very, very funny. But if you think about it, what's she really asking then? Is she asking, like, where is it written? Like, where is the rule written that Boy Scouts have to be boys? Well, they're called Boy Scouts. Is she like, that stupid that that's what she's asking? No, what she's really asking is something like, why don't the Boy Scouts let in girls? Why is it still, still that it has to only be boys? Why can't it just be this girl? That's what she's really asking. But Ben, in that circumstance, plays on the literal question that she's asked, which is, where is it written that they have to be boys? And he's like, well, in the name Boy Scouts. And he scored the point and there's like, no more discussion on it. That's not really the question she was asking.
- [69:06]
Jack
There's other context to why he answered in that sort of way. I think he's also just trying to show the silliness of it. Not necessarily just like, I know I can dunk on you with this, but he's showing the computer complete what he would describe as Delusion of the other person's, I guess, way of thinking relative to his very, like, literal one. I think it wasn't only just to the purpose to dunk on it, but it was also to let people draw their own conclusion from his.
- [69:30]
Alex
Yeah, but by the way, I don't think that Ben is hearing that and going, like, how can I dunk on her? I know I'll say this. I think he just naturally hears that question, right? And goes, well, you see it in his face, like in the name Boy Scouts. If. If he was listening more closely with the intention, he doesn't need to do this. He has every right to answer however he likes. But if he were to think to himself, what is the question being asked really, not literally, what does she mean? What's she getting at? Then when she said that, he might have thought, well, what she's really asking me here is, why can't girls join the Boy Scouts? Why can't the Boy Scouts change so they allow girls? And he wouldn't just be able to say, then, oh, because it's called Boy Scouts. Because then who looks stupid? If she'd have asked the question, which she meant, if she'd have worded it better and said, well, like, you know, I mean, she said, where is it written? Maybe she meant, like, you know, where is it written? Like, in the laws of the universe, you know, okay, it's called the Boy Scouts, but in the laws of the universe, of the moral truth, like, where's it. Where. Where is it determined that it has to be Boy Scouts? And then Ben just says, well, you know, because they're called Boy Scouts. Yeah, who looks stupid now?
- [70:31]
Jack
Did you pick up on stuff like this when you were debating Ben? How was that experience for you?
- [70:35]
Alex
Ben matches the energy of the person he's talking to. So someone comes up to the microphone and he can just feel the malice. You just feel that they don't like him. And so he's defending, he's ready to pick up on what you're saying. He's going to start tearing you to shreds because you're going to try and do the same thing to him. Whereas walked in the room, hey, man, nice to meet you. Shake his hand. It was kind of friendly. It was nice. And so when we sit down to have a conversation, you also demonstrate that you're actually listening, right? Because he'll make a point, and I'll try to actually respond to the point specifically, I'll address it. And so I think that as long as he feels like you're doing that, the one thing he can't do is start getting boxy with you. And so there were probably times where I thought that he maybe was okay. So there might be times where he's mishearing me. Right. But there are two skills here in this debate. It's sort of two professionals. I'm the atheist YouTube guy, he's Ben Shapiro, and we're going to debate. So if I say something like, where's it written that only boys can go to Boy Scouts? And he says, or in the name Boy Scouts, that's my fault. Because I'm a professional, I'm supposed to word my questions better. I'm supposed to be good at actually expressing what I mean say I've taken an L there. If you're on a college campus speaking to students, your job is not just to express yourself very well, it's to actually get to what the students are asking. That's what a professor does. A professor at a university, their job is, when a student hands them a bit of work or asks them a question, is to try to get to the root of their understanding or misunderstanding. Where is it really going wrong for you? They'll listen to what they're saying and they'll try to read through the gaps and try to get at what they're getting at. Right. When you're in a debate, you still probably should be doing that, but your job really there is to ask the questions properly and demonstrate your understanding. So it's two totally different jobs. And so in that context, if he is picking up on something I've said and not really understanding the point or missing what I'm saying, as long as he's doing so honestly and not maliciously, like he's genuinely. That's just his knee jerk reaction. That's my fault. Right.
- [72:34]
Jack
And what was your conclusion that you drew from that?
- [72:36]
Alex
I think that he was listening carefully to what I was saying and trying to respond. I think sometimes he misunderstood what I was saying. I think sometimes he didn't get what I was saying. But where he did that was because I hadn't expressed myself in a way that he understood. And I could say, actually, Ben, I think you misunderstood me. I actually meant this. And he'd be like, oh, okay, you know, so you'd say he would move on faith arguer or debater with me. But again, like I was saying before, that might just be because I was trying to be one. If I'd have been more boxy, if I'd have been a bit more like, I'M going to go in there and I'm going to. Yeah, I'm going to destroy this guy. Then I don't think I would have gotten that out of him. There's a few points in that conversation where I can't remember it exactly, but I'm sure there would have been a point where he went like, oh, yeah, actually, that's a good point. Fair enough. And not in a kind of like, oh, I'm going to concede this point. You've been like, oh, yeah, okay, actually, fair enough. Yeah, let's move. And so it just creates a much sort of nicer space. And so when I'm speaking, if I ever did one of these college campuses. Campus things. Right. I understand. If somebody comes up to the microphone and they're sort of angry or they're like, you know, really like, smile me or whatever, you're going to be like, okay, right. You're not. You're not as clever as you think. You know, we're going to. We're going to cut you down to size. Fine. But if someone asks a question, I think your job is to come at it with charitability and try to answer the best possible version of that question.
- [73:46]
Jack
I agree. I think you should give what you get. And if someone comes at you with disrespect, then it doesn't matter. I mean, you could say that, you know, in the name Boy Scouts, but if it's more genuine thing, that you should probably address the real.
- [73:56]
Alex
But even then, that's something that Cliff and Stuart are good at doing. I've seen clips of them. People will come up and say, I remember seeing one recently because I was preparing to speak with them. That's why they come to mind, because they were on my show. And so someone came up and said something like, is it just your superiority complex that makes you think you're better than everyone else? Or something like this? Just some really malicious questions. They just, like, answered it, man. They're just like, let's talk about it. You know, it's very. Just disarming. It's very difficult to keep that energy up with someone who's not matching it. And so in many ways, although I think you have the right to do so, I try not to do that these days. Like, if somebody. Even if somebody gets up to the microphone and they say that, like, and they come at it with that kind of energy, if you should like them with kindness, it's incredibly disarmed coming, you know.
- [74:47]
Jack
But at the same time, I think that they have different Objectives like, if Cliff and Stewart want to convert people to their respective religion, then they're probably going to approach a conversation a different way. Whereas if Ben wants to get more people to consider, you know, being conservative or Republican, then he would probably approach something in a different way and garner more attention, maybe less important attention compared to Cliff and Stewart.
- [75:09]
Alex
And also, who are you trying to convince? Are you trying to convince the person? Are you trying to convince everyone else? Who's left listening? You know, if you can dunk on someone, it doesn't matter if you really got to the root of their argument, as long as it looks good for you. Other people are going to go, hey, I like that guy. I agree with him. But if you're talking to a person, then it's different. If you're trying to convince them, then it's different. I actually think that if you give people the time of day and take the time to really listen to what they're saying and really try to get to grips with them and them on the microphone end up saying, you know what? Actually, that's really interesting. Thanks. I'm going to go away and think about it. That's actually more effective to the people.
- [75:38]
Graham
Listening, is that it's not a good business move. Because if you think about it, a lot of social media is purely just business and gathering as many eyeballs as possible. So if they actually make a difference, you could argue that maybe that's not the right business move.
- [75:53]
Alex
Yeah, well, that's the great paradox. But then you ask, what are you doing? What are you doing? Are you in entertainment or are you in education? And it's funny, man, if you do. Debates are theater. Theater, public debates, they're just theater. They're entertainment. And there's nothing wrong with that. That's fine. Like, yeah, like, get up and have a joust. It's. It's kind of like Taekwondo, you know, like, who's stronger? Like, who's actually stronger. It's kind of not guaranteed that the person who wins the fight is actually, like, either, A, always a better fighter, B, even a better fighter in that circumstance, because there are, like, certain rules that you're following and you can only fight in a particular way. Right. But it's just, like, fun. It's entertaining. It's kind of an interesting battle, and that's what debates are. But if you actually want to know who's the better fight, who's actually stronger, not who's better at Taekwondo, then you've got to, like, let them really brawl and you've got to let them do it multiple times, and you've got to let them do it freely. And the conversational analog of that is if you want to get to know who's the better thinker, not the better debater, then you've got to let them have a conversation. You got to let them actually listen to each other. You got to let them have three, four conversations.
- [76:55]
Graham
Do you think the last presidential debate was effective? Because, like you said, it was, it seemed to me, mainly theater and entertainment. Like we watched it. From my perspective, it was purely just like, what are they going to say? Yeah, I didn't care so much about the answers. More so like, oh, that's a. That's a wild moment.
- [77:12]
Alex
Yeah. Well, look at the way that people have changed their perception of what a presidential debate is. I mean, imagine people sitting down in, like, the 60s or 70s, whenever the first televised presidential debate was, and, well, what are they thinking? They're probably sitting down and thinking, gosh, I wonder who I'm going to vote for. Like, I'm really, you know, interested to see what they're going to say and how they're going to answer the questions. Nobody's really doing that now. They're not. They're not. I mean, some people are probably like, I'm undecided. Let's check it out. But they're sort of sitting down with the popcorn. Like, okay, yeah, let's see what happens. This will be interesting, right?
- [77:43]
Graham
Oh, he said it. He said it. Oh, she said that. No.
- [77:47]
Alex
Which shows that we know that that's what's happening. And in a way, that's what politics has always been, at least in the case of democracy. Democracy has always been about that. The only difference is now it's more. More easy to televise. But it's always been the case that people have maligned and relied on charisma. And that's like the problem of democracy. Right.
- [78:07]
Graham
I'm curious, what's the perception of the U.S. elections in other countries?
- [78:12]
Alex
Well, obviously, I mean, I can't speak for even the entirety of my own country, let alone say, you know, Poland. But I mean, a lot of people see it as a. As like a bit of a joke, but then it's kind of not a joke because, I mean, in the same with an American, in many ways, they sort of. It's like, this is such a joke, but then it's like, actually it's not a joke because America is a very powerful nation and a lot of what happens in the UK is downstream from America. And so I think people watch with nervous concern. But, you know, we've got enough political scandals going on in our own country to take care of. But people do pay attention. You know, people stay up till two in the morning to watch the presidential debates. I don't think anybody in the US was doing that. To watch Rishi Sunak debate Kirsten a couple of months ago, do you. Do you like.
- [78:58]
Graham
No, I don't think it affects us.
- [79:01]
Alex
Do you know who the UK prime minister is?
- [79:02]
Jack
Nope.
- [79:03]
Alex
And it's like. And why would you, Right? Because, like, who cares, you know, but in America, a lot of Americans are uninformed even about American politics in the same way that people in the UK are uninformed about UK politics. Hence this, this Niagara of videos of people interviewing, you know, people at rallies and they just don't know anything. It's like, how very funny. It's more dunking. Right. But that's just. The average person doesn't know that much about politics because they don't consume themselves in the same way that a lot of people do, although they just don't. I don't know, they don't think about it in the same way. And it's a shame. But that's not something. That's not about America and it's not about Trumpism. It's not about Kamala. That's just about democracy. That's just what it is. Democracy will always involve people who do not know what they are doing, voting for people who they do not properly and understand. That is the problem of democracy. That is why democracy is not an obviously good form of government. That's why it's not always been the norm. That's why it's the democratic experiment, because we're still sort of seeing how it's going. Right?
- [80:01]
Graham
All right, I got a question for you. Do you think people should take a test in order to vote to show that they have a basic understanding?
- [80:08]
Alex
No way.
- [80:08]
Graham
Why is that?
- [80:10]
Alex
Who administers the test?
- [80:12]
Graham
I don't know.
- [80:13]
Jack
Like, but, but shouldn't there be independent? You know, independent.
- [80:17]
Alex
Should there be just.
- [80:18]
Graham
But a basic understanding.
- [80:21]
Alex
Do the people who are administering the test and writing the test first have to take a test in order to prove that they've got the competency to make the test?
- [80:27]
Graham
Perhaps.
- [80:28]
Alex
And then who administers that test? Yeah, the problem is, I'm just throwing out ideas. Look, it's a thing that people say. People say, look, there should be a level of competency to vote. The problem is that in practice, any possible way that you could ever try to institute any kind of cognitive test would involve giving somebody the power to tip the balance. Now, it's worth bearing in mind a lot of people just say, well, look, if you had some kind of test of competency before being able to vote, then that would lead to the problem of potential corruption and tipping the scale. And so then they just rule out the idea entirely. Right. As if democracy is the default and any idea that has problems shouldn't come in to replace it, forgetting that democracy itself has all kinds of problems that would cause you to dismiss it in a similar vein if it wasn't already the norm. But I do think that's a bad idea.
- [81:21]
Graham
Now, what about instead of a test, it's based on a minimum threshold that you've paid in taxes. It doesn't have to be a high one, but just showing that you've contributed enough to the country, like a bare minimum, it could be like 10 grand, 5 grand, just.
- [81:38]
Jack
I wouldn't do it because realistically I think whatever policies are passed are going to affect the people that pay the least, intact, the most, most. You'd have people voting on things that are of no consequence to them.
- [81:50]
Alex
I have to agree. And also, what is voting? Is it some kind of contract with the government or is it a moral right? Is it the case that in order to be ruled over, you have to consent to. It doesn't matter how much money you have, doesn't matter how much money you've given them. What matters is that they're ruling over you and you don't have the right to rule over another person without their consent. That is the liberal view, the democratic view. If that is your view, then no, because it's not. A lot of people say like, well, I think that if a 16 year old can pay taxes, they should be able to vote. Okay. It's a very economic view of what voting is all about because you vote on things that are not just about the way that taxes are spent. Exactly. A lot of government is figuring out where to put the money, but you're voting on a lot. You're voting on who's going to rule over you. It's got to be about more than just than just that. I mean, there are so many people who are tax burdens, for example, people on state. I mean, in the UK we have the nhs, you know, nationalized healthcare. And so there are probably people, I mean there'll be people who've had cancer, they develop cancer when they're a teenager and they're on some ward. And I don't know how much it costs to take care of these people and treat them, but they've probably been a net, net negative on the taxpayer, right? So some 14 year old or say they're like 17, diagnosed with cancer, go into a hospital, life of misery and the NHS is funded by the government and the government is currently trying to take money out of the NHS and spend it on defense or something. And that 17 year old turns 18 and says, I really want to do something about this because I'd really rather that money went into the NHS which is trying to keep me alive than went into defence spending. And we say, oh actually, well, you're not allowed to have a say in that. You can't vote because you didn't pay any taxes. And they're like, how the hell am I going to pay taxes? I can't get a job, I've got a really violent form of cancer which keeps me bedridden. It's like, oh, well that means that you're also a tax burden and so you definitely don't get a right to vote. It would seem grotesque to me.
- [83:53]
Jack
I'm curious, when you do all these debates, you represent the atheist side. So what technically are the values of an atheist? And how can an atheist have any purpose or mean meaning?
- [84:03]
Alex
Well, atheism isn't really a set of propositions or a worldview in some way, depending on who you ask. Atheism either means like a lack of belief in God, so you just sort of don't believe in God, or it means like the belief that there is no God and those aren't the same thing. I think, at least academically, it makes the most sense to mean by atheism, the view that there is no God. That's kind of all atheism says, right? You can be an atheist and be a Republican or a Democrat. You can be an atheist and be a gun owner. Owner. You can be an atheist and you can be young and old, whatever, cat person, dog person. It doesn't really have any content. What it does is it negates a particular part of the content of another worldview, which is that there is some kind of God. It should have some implications. For example, it might have implications about what you think is possible. You might need to believe it's possible for things to begin to exist without a cause, which is a controversial philosophical premise. Right. But it's not really going to affect your values. It's not really going to affect your value judgments.
- [85:01]
Jack
So what about purpose and meaning? Where do you find that?
- [85:04]
Alex
Well, that is an impossible question for essentially anyone to answer. I mean, religion may have been invented in order to answer that question. That might be why it exists. Or maybe religion is actually true because we have a thirst for meaning that cannot be quenched without some kind of divine intervention, and that's how we know that it's true. I don't think that, like you can. I. I've never really had anything interesting to say on where to find meaning as an atheist.
- [85:35]
Jack
What if you just look inwards and you just ask yourself the question, what does your answer look like?
- [85:40]
Alex
Well, if you mean me personally, I mean, I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist, by which I mean that I'm. I mean, I lean towards the view that there is no God. But there are so many great mysteries like consciousness, like the naive sense that stuff exists. You know, why is there something rather than nothing? There's a sense in which that's a very basic question, but also the most intense foundational question you ever see. The sort of the IQ curve meme where it's the same question on either side or something different in the middle. It's a bit like that with a lot of these things. Why is there something rather than nothing? If there is no God, then why a tree is beautiful? That's at the same time a very stupid question, but also a very intelligent question. And so those mysteries allow enough. Enough room for me to just be content in not knowing. Blaise Pascal condemns his position. He says he's sort of like the person who says that they're sort of content in their agnosticism. And he writes this incredible few paragraphs where he quotes this imaginary person. He says, I do not know why I'm here. I do not know what I'm made of. I don't know what my body is. I don't even know what the I that's doing the considering is. I don't know why I exist in this corner of the universe instead of anything other. I don't know why I exist in this time rather than any other. I don't know how I got here. I don't know how material got here. You know, it listed all off. And he's. In the end, he's like, who would want to be friends with this person? Who would go to this person for advice? You know, what have they got to give? He really condemns this position of agnosticism. I'm pretty content in it partly because I don't know what the meaning of life is. But I think if I knew That I was living in this completely closed off cosmos, that I was going to die and it was over. I think I'd struggle very greatly to find meaning and so. Or to sort of perceive meaning.
- [87:29]
Jack
So you think you can't achieve meaning in your life because of the possibility that all of this is just like.
- [87:35]
Alex
Not because of the possibility. I think if I knew that, I'd find it very difficult. I don't know how I would feel exactly, but I think if you proved to me that when it's over, it's over. There is no immaterial soul, there is no God. All of this kind of stuff, consciousness is just an emergent property of the atoms in your brain which will one day decay. I'd be like pretty upset about that, man. I'd probably just be a nihilist. Maybe I wouldn't, because.
- [87:55]
Jack
So it's the hope that there is something.
- [87:57]
Alex
Yeah, well, I wouldn't say hope. I would say I am partly hope. Yeah, of course I hope that I'm wrong about that. Right. But like, it's also just the fact that there's so much that I don't understand. There's so much that I don't understand that I. That for me to be a nihilist and on, you know, some days I do feel very nihilistic about things and some days I feel a bit less so. But for me to actually decide on my nihilism, say nothing matters, there is no meaning, there is no ultimate value. I think would require a knowledge that I just don't have. It would require me to know for a fact that there's nothing more than the material, that God doesn't exist. All of these kinds of things which are not claims that I make. If I knew what the meaning of life was and purpose and value, where it came from and stuff, I'd probably be a lot more famous than I am now. I'd probably have a lot more to say. I might even win a Nobel Peace Prize. I don't know. I'm in the struggle with everybody else. I didn't know how to answer.
- [88:47]
Jack
Well, meaning of life doesn't necessarily have to be some overarching meaning. Like it could be a more personal meaning. Like, for example, your meaning from what you just kind of described seems like it's to acquire enough knowledge to hopefully eventually, you know, have, I guess potentially a different perspective. That we are just in a. Something like that.
- [89:04]
Alex
Yeah, I mean, I don't think of it in those terms. I don't think that's my meaning. I often don't reflect on what my, like, meaning is, because I'm not even sure what that. What that means. Like, what are we actually talking about here? Like, what is meaning? Is it, like a reason for acting? Is it a reason for doing things? It's probably something like that. It's synonymous with purpose. And to have a purpose is to have something that needs doing, right? And there's a trivial sense in which, like, well, why do I do anything? Well, because, like, biologically, I'm driven to do so. I have desires, and I follow those desires. I'm hungry. I eat food, you know, I want love. I, you know, try and go and find it in the world, right? And that's, like, the reason why I act. That is, literally speaking, the purpose behind my behaviors. But it would seem silly to say that my meaning in life, you know, comes from my biological drives. That'd be horribly reductionistic. So I don't really know. I don't. But actually, Pascal's good on this as well. He sort of. He imagines I talked about this in a reel recently, and it sort of blew up more than I thought it would. A lot of people seem to like this thought from Pascal that he's talking about the concept of boredom and how to escape it. And he says, imagine a person who passes their boredom by gambling every day. So they place a stake in the hopes that they might win some money. Pascal says, give that man all the money that he could have won in the game on the condition that he can't play the game anymore. You'd make him unhappy. Okay, so it's not just about having the money. It's about playing the game. Right? Okay, so now allow him to play the game, but on the condition that he's never going to win the money, you're also going to make him upset. So what is it that he's enjoying? What is the thing that he finds meaningful in this activity? Well, it has to be something like not knowing if you're going to get the thing, believing that if you get the thing, it will make you happy. Happy, but also not currently having the thing, because it turns out if you were just given it, it doesn't actually make you happy in the way that playing the game does. Right. And so you need to sort of. So meaning probably consists in sort of having something that you want to achieve, not having achieved it yet, and believing that achieving it will bring you fulfillment. That is why I think a lot of people, like, if you speak to somebody who lived their entire life trying to get rich Maybe they're trading stocks or whatever it is that they do. And their meaning in life is like, I just really want to be the master of my craft. You know, I want to, I want to win loads of money. I want to get like a wife and I want to propose her and have a marriage in Hawaii. And then they get it. And the typical story is like, you're sat in your mansion and you're suddenly like, what's the meaning of all this? And you're depressed and you're sad and it's like, ah, what am I going to do now? Because it turns out that the whole time it was trading on the illusion that when you have that thing, it's going to like bring you happiness. When you're just given it, when you, when you achieve it, you realize that's actually not enough. And so meaning tends to consist in the struggle. Meaning consistent having something to do that you haven't done yet. That's why religion is so good at it. That's why Pascal wouldn't say this, but that's why religion is so good at providing meaning for people, because it is the definition of something which you do not have now because it's placed in the mythical afterlife. You believe that when you get it, it's going to make you happy. And you're constantly engaged in the struggle to try and get it. So you're playing the game not knowing if you're going to win the prize whilst thinking that if you get that prize, it's going to make you happy, happy. And that's, that's, that's gambling. I felt this way about Vegas. Actually. I've never been to Las Vegas before and it in many ways just feel like a very demonic place. You know, it's, it's, it's, it's hanging.
- [92:39]
Graham
Out in the wrong places.
- [92:41]
Alex
There's something kind of, you know, like, it's all very, like, it depends on.
- [92:45]
Jack
Where you spend your time in Vegas.
- [92:46]
Alex
I was, well, I think I was, I was on the Strip. That's why I assume it's the Strip. But that's what. I shouldn't be unfair to Las Vegas. I'm talking about this particular, particular part of Las Vegas and man, it was like, yeah, it was really interesting. I was talking to my friend about this earlier about how I woke up in the morning. I, I got here last night and I'm looking at the Strip and everything's, everything's glowing, everything's fabulous, everything's incredible. There's lights everywhere and like, whoa, this place is so weird. It's, it's. It's kind of amazing, but I wake up in the morning and it's. It almost felt like, inappropriate. There's that silly little Eiffel Tower and it just looks stupid. It just looks ridiculous in the morning. It looks cool at night when there's stuff going on, it's lit up. And in the morning it just looked like a bit ridiculous, like, because it's not meant. It's not a city that's built for the morning in that way. It just looked very sort of silly. The buildings looked all, like, fake and it just sort of. It felt like, what is this place? I suddenly felt like I was in some weird sandbox. And. Yeah, my. My friend said it was a bit like when the lights come on at the end of the. The night at the nightclub and they switch the lights on to kick you out. I don't know if they do that here, but they do.
- [93:56]
Graham
Yeah.
- [93:57]
Alex
You're partying and everyone's just like making out with people and getting drunk and it's all like new dance and stuff. And suddenly the lights come on and everything becomes ugly because the light's been switched on. Right. And it feels that way. That. That's sort of what happened to Vegas in the morning. And my friend, who's a Christian, he said that's, that's, that's what Christ does, you know, he sort of switches on the light and makes you realize that everything that is actually ugly.
- [94:16]
Graham
Do gamble?
- [94:19]
Alex
I haven't since I've been here. I'd like to go and place a stake because that is where I find my meaning. Like Pascal's Imaginary Man. No, I like playing poker, but I've never been. I've never really got like, the thrill of gambling. I mean, I think it's cool when you win unexpectedly, like on roulette, it's like, whoa, that's awesome. But I've never got the sort of like, oh, you know, give me more of that. Actually, I was in a casino not long ago with a friend of mine and I sort of almost like as a bit of a joke, I was like, oh, go on, let's put something on. On roulette. So I gave him five pounds. I gave him five pound chip. And I said, where should I put it? And he said, put it on 33. The year that Christ died, I put it on 33 and it came up. I mean, we left there with hundreds of pounds. Now, if you want to talk about religious experience, my friends, that's about as close as I'VE ever come. So, you know, I'm, I'm not actually, in a way, I am against it. I am kind of against gambling. I think it's a bit silly. I like playing PO poker. As far as I know, it's like one of the only games you can play in a casino where you're not predestined to lose. You're playing against the other players. It's still got a lot of chance involved. But I like the game of poker. I think it's fun. I played a lot at university. I'll probably do that at some point while I'm here in Vegas. But, you know, I'm not a stranger to roulette or blackjack. But if I found myself spending an extended period of time at these tables knowing that it's built against me, I think I'd be acting perfectly irrationally. That's why I'm so fascinated by slot machine machines, Literally electronically.
- [95:37]
Jack
I mean, it's just a compulsive addiction is what it is. I mean, I think. Who defined addiction as like knowingly doing something that, that is continuing to have a negative response? I think, I think it was Stevo, actually. Yeah.
- [95:51]
Alex
I think Albert Einstein wants. It might have been, actually, it might.
- [95:54]
Jack
Be Steve O. Albert Einstein.
- [95:56]
Alex
Sorry. I do get them confused all the time. I, I, it might be mystery to them, or maybe I'm making up. But somebody said that the definition, definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. And that's probably true, but then it's unfair to call it stupidity. I don't know too much about gambling, gambling addiction, But I do just have this strong intuition that slot machine should be against the law. There just seems something so grotesque, so grotesque about designing a machine. Now, I understand something like roulette or blackjack is also weighted against the player, but it's okay. It's a game. Game. It's something about the machine that you just put over there. And you know, people are just gonna, and you design it so that it, like, acts on the most basic instincts to attract them to keep playing this game that they know that can be said about anything.
- [96:42]
Jack
You're essentially assigning a value to that, that people are actively making the decision of trading their time and money for a certain value.
- [96:49]
Alex
It's true.
- [96:49]
Jack
And then you could say that for any single product or service that's ever offered.
- [96:52]
Alex
That's true. That's true. But I do think deceptive about the fact that the, the service that's being offered by the slot machine Is the possibility of winning money when if you are playing it enough, that possibility sort of doesn't exist. Statistically speaking, it's probably the same as.
- [97:09]
Graham
A lottery though, like 1 in 300 million.
- [97:13]
Alex
Yeah, I mean, that is true. That is true.
- [97:16]
Graham
And somebody's got to win.
- [97:18]
Alex
Yeah, yeah, that's true. But I don't know, man, it just, just.
- [97:23]
Graham
I get what you're saying, actually, maybe it shouldn't be.
- [97:26]
Alex
Yeah, I mean, I jumped to the word illegal. Maybe I was actually also being a bit dramatic.
- [97:29]
Graham
Probably be more dramatic when I said that.
- [97:31]
Alex
But I think, I think there's something deeply immoral, let's say about. And I think maybe there's something immoral about the gambling industry. But by the way, I don't mean this about gambling, I don't mean this about gamblers, I don't think that's immoral. But something about this industry, I think there's something immoral probably about it. But when it comes to like slot machines in particular, something just felt. Feels wrong. It's the fact that it is, it's the way that they're designed, the flashing lights, it's so. It's something about. It's really.
- [97:56]
Graham
Then you have to look at the whole casino. Like where they don't have clocks.
- [97:59]
Alex
Yeah.
- [97:59]
Graham
It's dark inside. It's confusing at the maneuver around. Like everything about the casino. I've seen these documentaries. They put so much thought into every aspect of the casino to make you stay there as long as possible. It's remarkable they thought of everything. Like even the patterns on the carpet. Never would have thought about that. But it's aimed in such a way to divert you into certain locations.
- [98:20]
Jack
They're very confusing nonsense.
- [98:23]
Alex
But a lot of philosophical and religious traditions think that gambling is a sin. Like why? Well, maybe because it's wrong to gamble in general. It's wrong to take a chance in that way. But especially when you have these industries that are designed against you, it feels perfectly irrational. Which is why if I ever go and play roulette bet, you know, if I win on roulette a few times and then I think, let's keep going, it's like, what am I doing? You know, that is like perfectly irrational. And so in other words, you know, everyone gets swept up into this. But if I was there like every day, or if I was, I would.
- [98:58]
Jack
Think, I don't know. I think that that argument is dangerous because you could apply to everything. I think even more valuable than money is time. And think about all things that just are time sucks like TikTok. Or you can extend that to video games, or you can extend that to virtually anything.
- [99:12]
Alex
Yeah, well, they should all be illegal, too, for that reason.
- [99:14]
Jack
Yeah, exactly. So let's just make.
- [99:15]
Alex
Let's get rid of it all. I do think. But then I think there's something immoral about manipulative social media algorithms as well, I think. But it's weird. That's why I said Las Vegas is demonic, because it's not like there's something exactly immoral about. Is there something immoral about Instagram? Kind of. But Instagram is just this product. Instagram's news. Or you cannot use amoral. Right. But there just feels like there's something sort of sinister.
- [99:38]
Graham
Not for advertisers.
- [99:39]
Alex
It feels like there's something sinister about it. About the endless scrolling about the manipulative algorithm, about the data it has on you, about the way that it knows who you are and what you want. And something feels sort of.
- [99:49]
Jack
Yeah.
- [99:49]
Graham
That infinite feed. They're all doing it now.
- [99:52]
Alex
Yeah.
- [99:52]
Graham
Like, even Google, I've noticed it. They've stopped using the pages on mobile, and now it's just, you keep scrolling, you keep scrolling, you keep scrolling. Versus, like, I remember, you get to page three on Google and be like, all right, I'm gonna stop now. I'm on page three now. It's infinite.
- [100:05]
Alex
Yeah. Also something about, like, the Las Vegas strippers. It's fake, right? The whole thing is fake. But it's really weird. I was thinking about this this morning. I'm looking at, like, I don't know, Caesar's Palace. Or I'm looking at the Eiffel Tower, right? And it's like, okay, it's fake, it's pretend. But what the hell is fake architecture? Like, what is that? I mean, I am actually looking at a sort of Romanesque building. I am actually looking at a big metal structure in the shape of the Eiffel Tower. Like, it's a real. But people actually go inside it. It's got restaurants, it's got places you can stay. But it feels fake. You know what I mean? Not just because it's pretending to be the Eiffel Tower. It feels like it's this weird caricature of a building, but it is just.
- [100:46]
Graham
A building of brick.
- [100:47]
Alex
And, yeah, it's a little smaller, but it's still.
- [100:49]
Graham
It's gotta be that.
- [100:50]
Alex
I mean, look, we'll take a building that's not actually trying to specifically mimic another building, like Caesar's Palace. It's designed to look a bit Roman, right? And it feels like it's sort of fake. It feels like it's. But why? Like, it's a building of brick and mortar in the sort of Romanesque shapes.
- [101:05]
Jack
So, I mean, it's still. It's sort of still very fake. Like, even from the exterior. I know what they do is they get a collection of windows and put them all together to make it seem like one big window. So from at a distance, it looks like you're actually closer to the building than. Than what you are. So it's like, I can walk to that building. It's not very far. And then you gamble all your money away. That's a thing.
- [101:21]
Graham
Look it up.
- [101:22]
Jack
But. So I think that probably could give you the illusion of being fake. But I think you're probably also coming with a presupposition and then kind of projecting that onto all of the stuff around.
- [101:30]
Alex
Yeah, well, that's what. That's what I realized is that it kind of doesn't make sense to talk about a fake built. It's a building. It's there. It looks the way it looks. It's got the design that it's got. And yet for some reason, it just feels a bit artificial. There's something very weird about the place that I kind of can't quite get over. Yeah. I don't know. It's very strange. It's very strange. So it gives you everything. There's another thing. I was talking to. My Christian friend was talking about this this morning. Sort of like it's one of those places that gives you everything. It says, you want New York, you want Venice, you want Paris, you want Rome, you want glamour, you want the. Like, you can have it all, but it comes at the forfeit of, like, your soul. Because the place is a little bit sort of artificial and a bit soulless. I mean, people. I mean, again, I don't mean to insult your city, but I'm talking about.
- [102:16]
Graham
Oh, listen, I don't avoid the Strip.
- [102:19]
Alex
Because it's sort of. And people. If I say it's solar, people say, no, man, there's like a soul of. What do you mean by this whole. In Las Vegas, you're talking. Talking about the reputation. I mean, it's literally called Sin City, right? It reminds you. It reminds one of when. When Jesus is being tempted in the. Get this desert and Satan says, look, you can have all of this. You know, this. This can all be yours. That's what Las Vegas is doing, man. It's saying, look, you can have it all. You can have Paris and you can have New York, and you can have. You can have it all, but there's just something sort of sinister and wrong about it.
- [102:46]
Jack
You know, the atheist can't really pinpoint their problem with Sin City.
- [102:51]
Alex
Yeah, that's right. That's right. Very interesting.
- [102:53]
Jack
There's something that feels wrong about it. Can't really figure it out.
- [102:57]
Alex
Well, yeah, to sin is to miss the mark. That's what it means. It's to miss the mark. And there does seem to be something about playing a slot machine that I.
- [103:08]
Graham
Just think it's a place for adults to go on a vacation where they could feel like they're somewhere else, let loose a little bit, have a good time. It's Disneyland for adults.
- [103:19]
Alex
Yeah, that's exactly what I thought this morning.
- [103:20]
Graham
Kids going, oh, that's. Well, hey, that's. That's. Peter Pan's not real. It's fake. But, you know, you have a good time.
- [103:26]
Alex
It's Disneyland for adults. I thought that exact same thought this morning. And I don't mean to come across as somebody who I stay away from the Strip. I'm not condemning. I enjoy it. I'm excited to be here. I want to go gambling. I want to experience it. Be cool, I think.
- [103:37]
Graham
Take you to Durango. You love Durango Casino. That just opened up.
- [103:40]
Alex
Oh, yeah, it's new.
- [103:41]
Graham
It's brand new.
- [103:42]
Alex
Has it got slot machines?
- [103:43]
Graham
Yes.
- [103:43]
Alex
Let's go. Yeah, I don't know. I enjoy it, is what I mean to say. But there is. I'm trying to sort of. In many ways, I'm trying to implicate myself as a bit of a hypocrite here. You know, I think that, you know, there's something sort of a bit sinister about a slot machine, but I've used a slot machine before. But I think there's just something I can't quite pinpoint, you know, But I like it. I'm excited to be here, et cetera. But I don't know, it was an interesting thought.
- [104:07]
Jack
Would you say humans are naturally good or evil?
- [104:09]
Alex
I would have to say probably neither in the sense that I don't believe that there are actual moral properties. So I don't think those terms have any objective basis in.
- [104:15]
Jack
Oh, because you're a moral relativist.
- [104:17]
Alex
Yeah, well, yeah, I'm a moral. Let's say, say anti realist. I don't think that there are real moral properties. However, I still sort of can make sense of the thrust of your question. The kind of things that I think are good and bad and all this kind of stuff. I Think humans are disastrously, you know, bad. They miss the mark all the time. I miss the mark all the time. I think everybody does that. I think that a lot of the time the extent to which people are good people is the extent to which they're able to overcome badness. They're able to overcome temptation, they're able to overcome suffering, they're able to help other people, for example. I mean, what is a good person? A good person, Someone who helps other people, you know, like, I don't know. There's something. There's something really sort of bad about what humans do and what their desires are and how they interact and the suffering that they cause and whatnot that goodness kind of overcomes for me, rather than there being something naturally really good about human humans that evil overcomes.
- [105:15]
Jack
But you're still able to describe things as good or bad, right? So wouldn't you say that there is kind of an objective good versus bad?
- [105:22]
Alex
I'm kind of speaking colloquially here because when I say good and bad, I'm basically expressing an emotion as far as I'm concerned.
- [105:28]
Jack
Okay, sure.
- [105:29]
Alex
So it's sort of like stubbing my toe and saying, ow. When I say that something is bad, I feel like I'm expressing a kind of emotion. I think that if you pay attention to what the moral, moral essence is, you see somebody go and kick a homeless person for fun, you sort of feel something. And so you could describe the events. You could say he used his foot, you could say that the man cried. You could say these kinds of. But those aren't moral. Those are just describing what in fact happened. There's nothing moral about that. And if I ask you, well, what's the moral element? It's something that it does to you. It makes you feel a particular way. And I think the moral feeling you have more properly belongs in the category of. Of happiness, sadness, anger, anxiety. That category of mental activity versus the factual. Two plus two equals four. The sky is blue type stuff. The thing that makes that a moral thing rather than an amoral thing. If I flick this table and I flick a child in the head, one of those is different, but it's not different really materially. I'm just a person flicking an object. And you can describe the shape and the sound it makes and stuff, but you'd feel differently about. About it. So I think, like, if you isolate what the moral thing is, it's something like a feeling.
- [106:40]
Graham
Do you think we as people need bad things to happen in order to appreciate the good?
- [106:46]
Alex
Probably. Probably. Maybe the Threat of bad. Well, I was gonna say the threat of bad things might be enough to like scare people into recognizing that is a bad thing. But, but firstly, that is a bad thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's a, that, that is an astute observation. That is in itself a bad thing. But also I'm not sure if that really gives people a true under understanding. Like if I said to you tomorrow you could lose all of your money or something and you could be like, oh, wow, that's kind of scary. But until you actually do it, until you actually live under the bridge and know what that's like, you really don't properly appreciate it. I think that gratitude is kind of a form of relief. I think that that's kind of what gratitude is. When you take a moment to remind yourself to be grateful for something like saying grace over a meal and you remind yourself how grateful you are to have this meal. What that is, is a process of considering the fact that you could have not had it, imagining not having it, and then remembering or realizing that you do. And you get this feeling of like, it's like relief, I do have it. And that's what gratitude is. It's reminding yourself that that is a relief from a position that you otherwise would have been in. And so just to have gratitude about things, I think in many ways is to consider the bad. And so in a way, yes, I think you kind of, maybe you need the, need the bad stuff to recognize the good. CS Lewis said that a man cannot call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. He sort of was talking the other way around there, but yeah.
- [108:06]
Graham
And what do you think is one of the things that a hundred years from now we're going to look back on and wonder, why did we do this thing?
- [108:12]
Alex
Factory farming?
- [108:14]
Graham
Is there anything besides that? Because I know we've gone into that already.
- [108:18]
Alex
It's difficult to say.
- [108:19]
Graham
Slot machines.
- [108:20]
Alex
Yeah. I mean, seriously, maybe something like, like, maybe something like slot machines. Maybe our current architectural trends, everything's become very functional. We're sort of defacing our cities and making them incredibly ugly and depressing places. And people in the future will think, why the hell do we do that? Maybe the extent to which we've allowed the car to dominate the production of cities. I mean, unfortunately, a lot of cities sort of cropped up and built around the same time as the popularization of the automobile. And so no one really considered at the time, well, do we really want this? Don't we want it to be more beautiful and walkable? It seems like a kind of unfixable problem. Like, I don't think, you know, I don't know. I think there are a lot of American cities which should never will become walkable because of the way that they're like designed from the ground up and the way that New York is somewhat walkable because it starts becoming a thing when you could walk and you had to walk. I think that cars and all of the street furniture they bring along with them just ruin a lot of places. There's a whole movement of like anti car. But like, I think that that might actually be. I mean already cities are beginning to redesign. I think like Boston, Massachusetts might have knocked down this huge freeway and sort of put it underground or something and then like redesigned the city and it's so much more beautiful. You know, I think that people might, people are beginning to wake up to that. And that might be seen as you look at a picture of like Trafalgar Square in London. And they'll look at it and they'll go like, gosh, it's just covered in like traffic lights and neon signs and horrible like black roads and these ugly cars like parked there and they'd be like, oh, how did we ever do this to our, to our public square? Problem is, in order to undo that, you either need an extremely efficient public transport system and one that also takes into account that not everyone can use public transport. Some people are disabled, some people have jobs that require them to have a van and they need to get to places. Right. So it's a complicated thing to solve, but there's got to be something we can do about it. You know, I don't quite know what that is.
- [110:24]
Graham
I tend to think it's going to be algorithms.
- [110:26]
Alex
Oh sure, yeah, yeah.
- [110:28]
Graham
Like there's no way that I've said this before. TikTok is good on like a child's brain. Like when your brain is developing to get used to that, like constant stimulus and that doping, it's. To me that's no different than anything than a three year old child getting used to playing the slaughter shit.
- [110:43]
Jack
I think it's gotta get a lot worse. And then we see those consequences over an extended period of time before it gets better.
- [110:49]
Alex
But I agree with the consequences, you.
- [110:50]
Jack
Know, but yeah, to a serious degree where it's unavoidable.
- [110:54]
Alex
It's also difficult to know exactly what to do about that either. Is it just one day we all just wake up to it and go like, okay, your algorithms are banned.
- [111:02]
Graham
Or well, it's probably you're going to notice a trend in I think young adults where it's like, wait a second, 20% of the population has trouble focusing now.
- [111:11]
Alex
Yeah.
- [111:12]
Graham
What's. Oh, crap, it's this. And now let's try to fix that. I think it's going to be something too late.
- [111:18]
Alex
Yeah, it does. It does depress me.
- [111:21]
Jack
Let's do a quick little exercise. This is for you, Graham and the viewers. So I'm going to ask a series of little ethical dilemmas, okay. Some I'm sure we've all heard of. And I want to see where you guys land. So comment down below in the comment section. And then you guys are going be able to answer this as well. We're going to start it off with the classic. So I'm sure most of you guys have heard this, but it's trolley problem. You see a runaway trolley heading towards five people tied to a track. You can pull a lever to divert it onto another track. Will only take the life of one person. Do you pull the lever?
- [111:51]
Alex
I think. I don't know. I actually don't know. I think I. I think I would not. I think I wouldn't do it. In fact, I'd be too scared to.
- [112:00]
Jack
Should you?
- [112:01]
Alex
Should you, man? I think maybe yes. But you'd really have to know because you know, people often forget like if you're going to pull this lever, you don't bloody know how the train tracks work. You don't know how they're all connected.
- [112:18]
Jack
No.
- [112:18]
Alex
But yeah, suppose you just know for sure. Then maybe the answer is that yes, you should, but that has a consequentialist assumption that is just the assumption assumption that actually, no, I think maybe you shouldn't. I think you shouldn't because the problem is like okay, you can be a utilitarian, but why wouldn't you one healthy person to harvest their five organs and give them to five people who each needed individual organs to save their lives. Why wouldn't you do that? Or would you? Maybe you would. I don't think you would. Why shouldn't a hospital do that?
- [112:48]
Jack
Well, let's not get too ahead of ourselves here.
- [112:50]
Graham
That's a good question though, because.
- [112:51]
Jack
Hold on. Yeah.
- [112:53]
Alex
It is wrong to proactively people just.
- [112:56]
Jack
The trolley for right now.
- [112:57]
Alex
In which case I would say I don't know. But maybe you shouldn't.
- [113:05]
Jack
Maybe you shouldn't.
- [113:06]
Alex
Maybe you should.
- [113:06]
Jack
Okay, Graham.
- [113:07]
Alex
Yeah.
- [113:08]
Graham
I don't know. Like, can I see in my.
- [113:11]
Jack
Everything is within. Yeah. Your view. Would you.
- [113:13]
Graham
Oh, gosh. So if I could see the people. I'd probably pull the lever to save the fine. Just because I could see five people in front of me that like, I have a choice now to do this thing. I probably, I probably pull the lever to save the five.
- [113:33]
Jack
I would say. I would.
- [113:36]
Graham
Should you?
- [113:38]
Jack
Yes, is what I would say. Yeah, because you just take it to the nth degree, you know, it's one person versus six billion. Should you? Okay, probably.
- [113:47]
Alex
That's the problem.
- [113:48]
Jack
So. So I think, you know, in a certain sense, I don't even know, like, could you somehow remove this from being a utilitarian argument? Because I don't like being a utilitarian, but it's kind of the justification that I use for it.
- [113:59]
Alex
Like you've always got to just sort of explode thing into an extreme example to test it and yeah, you're right. If it's 6 billion people versus 1, like, yeah, of course. Surely you should pull the lever there, you know, in which case, actually, yeah, maybe you should probably. Bloody hell, man. I mean, I just, I just don't know. This is one of the reasons, by the way, why I think that ethics is just like a bit of a sham. And it's all about emotions. It's like, how do you feel, man? How do I feel? Put me there. Michael Stevens did this once. He put people in a real trolley problem. Like he sort of, he fakes this whole scenario. He put them in the control room. The guy goes like to get a coffee or something and you know, the workers don't see the train coming in and it's like, do they press the button or not? You know, did it in real life. Interesting, huh?
- [114:35]
Jack
Well, we'll put the results of that video right here. Another one. You discover that a high performing employee is cheating the company, but bringing in significant profits. If you fire them, the company might suffer.
- [114:45]
Alex
Do you report they're cheating the company?
- [114:47]
Graham
Actually, let's say they're stealing money. They're stealing a little bit of money, but they're bringing in more than they're stealing.
- [114:54]
Alex
Well, look, I mean, how much ethical concern do I have for the company? Like, is it my company?
- [114:58]
Graham
Is it because, let's say it's your company.
- [115:00]
Alex
Oh, well then. Well, if I knew about it, I'd probably, I'd probably threaten to fire them. I'd say.
- [115:05]
Jack
Well, I would say, you know, it's not your company because it's.
- [115:07]
Alex
Yeah. In which case, I mean, I guess it depends.
- [115:11]
Graham
It's an employee, so they work for you. So.
- [115:14]
Jack
No, no, if you're also an employee.
- [115:17]
Alex
It depends on your relationship to the, to the company. Because, like, I mean, if somebody was like, I don't know, if I was like working at Apple and somebody was like cheating Apple out of. They were stealing like 12 grand a year, but they were bringing in like millions worth in profit, I'd probably be like, whatever, man. Like Apple should probably have a system in place to catch out that kind of thing, you know, don't, don't blame me for, like, not saying anything. You should record it yourself. I probably feel a bit funny about it, but I don't know, like, you know, snitches get stitches and all that. But if, I mean, I don't know, that does seem something a little bit grotesque about it.
- [115:48]
Jack
I'd say you probably should.
- [115:49]
Graham
What?
- [115:49]
Alex
I.
- [115:50]
Jack
Probably not.
- [115:51]
Alex
Yeah. What about you?
- [115:52]
Graham
I don't know. I think it really depends on, like, who the employee is, my relationship to them.
- [115:56]
Alex
That.
- [115:56]
Graham
That's true.
- [115:57]
Alex
If it's like your best friend and. Yeah. And if.
- [116:00]
Graham
But it also depends.
- [116:01]
Jack
Well, that's, that's a ratio, you know.
- [116:02]
Graham
That'S also the rate. It's the ratio of like, if they're bringing in a million dollars but stealing ten grand.
- [116:10]
Jack
Well, there's always, there's always a victim to thievery. Right. And the only people that are, let's.
- [116:14]
Graham
Say I'm the victim. I would still be in my best interest just to let it slide because the employee's still doing well. I mean, ideally you have a conversation with them, but if it's like you, you only, only could keep them or fire them. It just depends on the ratio. If it's like bringing in millions of dollars but stealing millions, I don't think.
- [116:34]
Alex
There'S always an thievery.
- [116:38]
Jack
Yeah. Like in what example?
- [116:40]
Alex
Like, if a shop is selling bread and the bread is going off and they're going to throw it out and somebody comes in and they see that it's discounted, but they still can't afford it and they know it's going to get thrown out later and so they steal it and take it away.
- [116:54]
Jack
How do they know?
- [116:56]
Alex
Because. Because it's on sale and the shop's closing in five minutes and the shopkeeper said to them, yeah, to be honest, like, it's so cheap because we're about to throw it out. And they say, well, why can't you just give it to me? And they say, well, because if we did that, then people would constantly. Who otherwise would have bought the bread just wait until the end of the day and get it for free. So we can't do that as a policy, so we have to throw it away.
- [117:13]
Graham
You know what? This whole question reminds me of something where. Imagine you apply for a job, $100,000 a year, and you get the job and you're ecstatic that you got this job. It's more money than you ever thought was possible. It's more money than you need to take care of your family. You're happy with it. But then you start and you find out someone else who got hired the same day as you is making $300,000 a year for the exact same job. How do you feel about that? I bet there's some people who now, all of a sudden, they feel ripped off and they feel like, why am I doing this? And they're upset. And I bet there's some other people who say, well, I'm still making more money than I thought was imaginable. What this person has paid has no relevance to me.
- [117:54]
Alex
Yeah, well, this is a problem for.
- [117:55]
Graham
I would be very similar.
- [117:56]
Alex
People talk about, like, the gender pay gap and they. That there are a lot of women who feel this way. They feel they're being cheated in this way. I mean, I remember when Ricky Gervais hosted the Golden Globes or whatever it was, and he makes this joke about Jennifer Lawrence because she'd been campaigning for, like, equal pay in Hollywood, and she gets like, a bit of a round of applause. He mentions that, yeah, she's trying to make sure that women actors get paid the same as male ones. Everyone. APPLAUSE. And he's like. And Ricky Gervais makes. He's like, yeah, because, you know, I just don't understand how she could have lived on just, you know, $58 million a year. You know, it's so unfair and everyone kind of laughs. But there, like, a. An interesting point being made there, which is that, like, you know, it feels kind of a bit grotesque to complain. You know, I only made $58 million and he made $78 million. But at the same time, like, it should be the same if it. If indeed it is the same amount of work.
- [118:46]
Graham
Yeah.
- [118:46]
Alex
I think you have a right to be upset. I think you have a right to be annoyed.
- [118:49]
Jack
Let's address the one that you mentioned earlier. It's called the organ donor. A hospital has five patients in need of organ transplants, and you are a match for all of them, but you're healthy. Do you sacrifice yourself to save them or let them pass away?
- [119:01]
Alex
Oh, well, if you're talking about sacrificing yourself, that's interesting. Because I mean, there's another version of this where you are like a doctor and you can kidnap and a healthy person and it's not you. Because here it seems like that decision to kill the one save the five is very much an over open possibility. Should you do that? Should you self sacrifice? Whereas if you're someone else to save five people, it seems like a closed door. You don't have the right to do that myself, man. I mean, well, the problem is you're in that position right now, so we know what we would do. You could pauperize yourself, right?
- [119:32]
Jack
But let's just say it's presented to you on a piece of paper right.
- [119:34]
Alex
In front of you. But it kind of is right now. I mean, how many times do people come to you and say, hey, if you only give us X amount of money, we can save this many people from malaria. You could tell your car and save measurable numbers of lives, but you don't. There's an online calculator called the life you can save. If you type in the life you can save calculator, it has a list of charities. And the first objection is always, well, are the charities effective? Blah blah, blah. This organization exists to investigate that. And so it has a calculator. You can put in a US dollar amount and it will tell you exactly, exactly actually what that money would pay for. I often do this, so I go out for cocktails. You know, maybe it's a big being who spent $150 on some cocktails. You can find out exactly how many children you could have dewormed for that amount of money. That is the situation kind of you're in when it comes to the self sacrifice here. Like, do you pauperize yourself? Do you sell your equipment? Do you know, like, well, you don't do that. And I think that this is a more sort of extreme and immediate example. But it's the same principle I think most people wouldn't do and I don't think you should have a moral duty to do so. There might be circumstances in which you have a duty to sacrifice yourself. There might be circumstances like that. Again, if you just like bump up the numbers.
- [120:41]
Jack
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [120:42]
Alex
Pretty extreme, I agree.
- [120:43]
Jack
I think the should versus would is an important one.
- [120:45]
Alex
But the thing is, the reason I bring this up in the trolley problem example is because it provides a test case against our principle. We think, well, we just think it's okay to one person to say five. It's like, do you. What about this example? That can't be the Principle you're working on. So what is the principle? Well, one difference here. Intuitive. Again, maybe you're not aware that this assumption is being made, but I think for a lot of people it is the organ donor thing. The reason you feel that would be wrong is because it's not a one off. Right. If a hospital can do that, if it's just like whenever they have people who need organs, they can just kill a healthy person. As long as there are more people in need, that's a terrifying society to live in. Do you want to live in that society? I don't. And so we decide, no, that's not right. We're not going to allow that because that would cause like fear and anxiety. It would be crazy. Right. Whereas the trolley problem thing kind of feels like a one off.
- [121:28]
Jack
It's more of a vacuum.
- [121:29]
Alex
Yeah. You don't feel like if you pull that lever. Oh, now, now you're going to. One day you're going to be worried that you're going to get like stuck on a track. You know, you're not a construction worker, you're not on a. When was the last time you're on a railroad except in a train? You know, like, never happens. And so there's less concern about the effect that will have on society. You know, that's fair. And so I think that's probably the difference here, by the way, there's a variant of the trolley problem. You said you would pull the lever.
- [121:51]
Jack
I. You said you wouldn't. Yeah, I would pull the lever.
- [121:55]
Alex
Okay, suppose you could pull the lever. Okay, so now I'm at. Imagine that trolley is running down a track, it's going to run over five people and there is a rotund man walking across the bridge. You can push the man off the bridge, he will crash into the train, derailing the train, saving the five people. But you have to push the fat man off the bridge in order to do so. Would you push the fat man off the bridge?
- [122:17]
Jack
See, part of me thinks like, okay, these people are on the tracks and it's their own fault probably that they're in this predicament. But this guy is just innocently standing on a bridge. But that's also outside of the, you know, that's more added context.
- [122:27]
Alex
Yeah. There are constructions who were supposed to be there and somebody made a.
- [122:30]
Jack
Essentially it's the same thing.
- [122:32]
Alex
Yeah, but would you push that man?
- [122:33]
Jack
Would I?
- [122:34]
Graham
Yeah.
- [122:34]
Alex
Would you?
- [122:35]
Jack
Realistically, no, because it's a more visceral experience of doing that. But should I please press a button?
- [122:42]
Alex
Yeah. Okay, so then someone's removed.
- [122:44]
Graham
You can't see them.
- [122:45]
Alex
So as Michael Sandel asks in his introductory course to ethics. It's a Harvard lecture, it's available online. Okay, now imagine that you are on the bridge and the fat man's walking over the bridge and you just press a button and it opens a trap door. And the fat man falls through the trap door and hits the train and saves five people. Would you press the button and drop him onto the train?
- [123:03]
Jack
Be easier.
- [123:04]
Alex
Would you do it?
- [123:05]
Graham
I don't know, to save five lives?
- [123:12]
Jack
Yeah, I would.
- [123:13]
Alex
You know, it's like, it feels kind of different and then it's not. And then it's like, I gotta push him. Press a button. Maybe, like it's kind of. Maybe you gotta like, what if you got to like, trip him up? You don't have to put. You just sort of like got stick your foot. And it shows us how much of what we think is ethical consideration is actually just how we feel about something. Interestingly, I think that they put people under an MRI scanner while being asked about this. And people who would both pull the lever and push the fat man when they're thinking about it, the part of their brain associated with, like, rational thinking is lighting up. The people who say that they would pull the lever but they wouldn't push the fat man when they're thinking about the problem, it's the emotional side of their brain is lighting up.
- [123:49]
Graham
Interesting.
- [123:50]
Jack
Last one. The gift of time. You have the power to save one person's life from certain death, but it requires taking a year of life from another person. Do you take away a year from someone else to save a life?
- [124:01]
Alex
Interestingly interesting. I think that's kind of like a version of one person to save five. You're taking a little bit from one to save a lot for more. I think the answer is probably the same, which that. I don't. I don't think you have the right to do that. But then what if it was a minute, you know, what if it was half an hour to save a life? I think. I think I probably. I would. I think it would, you say a year's long time, but it's also not, you know, I think may. Oh, gosh, I don't know. The problem with these examples is that they're so. Because so much hinges, I think, on like, are you responsible for this situation? Like, who is responsible for this situation?
- [124:44]
Jack
Your place in this situation is strictly an event.
- [124:46]
Alex
Because you could say that. Because if it's a circumstance where if you don't take this life. Then someone's going to someone. Then it's sort of like I would probably not press the button, but then say that the person who's responsible for that person's death is the person that kills them. If it's like. If I press this button, it like, sucks out something of that person that takes a year off their life but is like medicine for the other person that stops them from dying. I'd say that's like the organ situation, probably who don't have the right to do it. So it kind of depends on, like, the mechanics of it, you know, like emotions. Like, what is it? What is it? Like, how does the person die? Like, are they killed? Do they just drop dead? I think that actually kind of matters because I think it changes things for me.
- [125:25]
Graham
I'd probably do the year. The year to save five people's lives. But it also depends how old those people are. Are they like kids? Are they 90 years old?
- [125:35]
Jack
Yeah, No, I agree. I would. I would probably take the year. But I don't think that you have any moral imperative to.
- [125:40]
Alex
So here's a question then to. It's sort of another. It's not exactly a dilemm, but it's an ethical question which helps to work out what you think about this. Suppose you. One person to save ten people. Suppose you just did that, right? Do you think that is better, worse, or the same as 10 people to save 100 people?
- [125:58]
Graham
It's the same. Same to me.
- [126:00]
Alex
What about 100 people to save a thousand people?
- [126:03]
Graham
As long as the ratio is one thing, then it's just the same to me.
- [126:07]
Alex
It's no better, it's no worse. What do you think, Jack?
- [126:09]
Jack
Well, I mean, I'd have to definitely, like, you know, think about this quite a bit. So. But off the top of my head, I would probably say it's the ratio.
- [126:15]
Alex
So that implies a consequentialist way of thinking that means that what matters is how many people end up getting killed. Like proportionally. That's all that matters. There are other people who think that people is wrong, particularly like religious ethics, deontologists who think that it's just wrong to kill people. For them, the answer will be that it gets worse every time. So though the ratio is the same. Suppose. Okay, now suppose the organ. The organ situation. Okay, here we go. You kill one person to harvest their organs to save five people. You would say that's wrong. Okay, now you. You still do it. Even though it's wrong, you still do it. Now you kill five people to harvest their organs to save 50 people. Is that worse or is it better or is it the same?
- [127:04]
Graham
Better.
- [127:05]
Alex
It's better. The ratio is the same. The ratio is the same.
- [127:08]
Jack
Yeah.
- [127:08]
Graham
Which is the same.
- [127:09]
Alex
Oh, the ratios are the same. Math wrong.
- [127:11]
Graham
You know, one person just.
- [127:13]
Jack
Just a higher ratio. Just.
- [127:14]
Alex
Yeah.
- [127:14]
Graham
Sorry, no, one to five. Yeah, it's better.
- [127:16]
Alex
Yeah.
- [127:17]
Jack
Right. But let's just say the ratio 5 to 25.
- [127:18]
Alex
Okay, okay. Let's say. Let's say one. Yeah, 5 to 25. Quite right. Yeah. Right you are.
- [127:22]
Graham
Oh, then it would be the same, I thought, like five to 50.
- [127:24]
Alex
Okay. All right. Okay. So why is it wrong in the first case, like 1 to 5, why is it wrong?
- [127:30]
Graham
I didn't say it was right, but it would. It's better to kill five, you say 50, than one to five.
- [127:36]
Alex
You're saying in the first case in just one, to save the five there in that instance is wrong. Why is it wrong?
- [127:41]
Jack
I wouldn't say that it's wrong to.
- [127:43]
Alex
Harvest their organs to save the other five.
- [127:45]
Jack
Oh, sorry. Yeah, I would.
- [127:46]
Alex
But why is that wrong?
- [127:48]
Jack
Why is it wrong? I just don't think that you have a moral obligation to.
- [127:53]
Alex
But you think it's wrong to do it, right? You think it's wrong to take one person, kill them, harvest their organ and save five people? I think that would be immoral. Why?
- [128:01]
Jack
Yes, because you're taking one thing that is call and then distributing it to other things that are not.
- [128:07]
Alex
So in other words, if you think it is actually wrong to do that, you think, well, it's wrong because you're doing this wrong thing. Yeah. Okay, you're sure the consequences that more people live and less people, whatever. But it's just wrong to do it. Even if it doesn't matter what the consequences are really here, what matters is that what you're doing is wrong. You shouldn't burden half their organs. More people, even if there are more people, it's just wrong to do that. That if that's the mindset you're in, then when I say, okay, now you can five people save 25 people in the same way. The ratio is the same. But if it's just like wrong to do it's like wrong to that one person, sort of regardless of the circumstances, it's wrong to do it, then five people must be worse. If the consequences don't really matter here, if you're not being a consequentialist and saying, well, one save five, but it balances out and utilitarian, say that's Fine. If you think it's wrong, wouldn't it be worse to kill more because you're doing the wrong thing more times? You know, if you do a wrong. If you do a wrong thing once and you do a wrong five times, which is worse?
- [129:05]
Jack
I agree. I generally think, like, I know that we said it's a consequentialist argument, but I generally think that the intent is more important than the.
- [129:12]
Alex
Sure.
- [129:13]
Jack
Okay, like if I'm judging someone's moral.
- [129:14]
Alex
Character, but so, like, consider. So you think it's wrong to kill one person to half a throg and say five. Right. You think that's a wrong thing to do. Now, in the abstract, is it worse if something is wrong to do, Is it worse to do it one time or five times worse? It's worse to do it five times. Yeah. So if there's something that's wrong to do, it's worse to do it five times than still one time. Which means that one person to save.
- [129:36]
Graham
Five people say it's better to save 50 people than five.
- [129:39]
Alex
Yeah, but now imagine like you're saving 50 by saving by five, but you do it one at a time. You kill the first person and it saves five. Then you kill the second person, five third, five fourth, and you just do it one at a time. You're just doing the.
- [129:51]
Jack
So now you're doing the moral relativism.
- [129:53]
Alex
You thought you were doing, like you think that it's wrong to do.
- [129:56]
Graham
So I'm thinking it's all.
- [129:58]
Alex
You think it's. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's worse to do a wrong thing multiple times than to just do it once. And yet you're telling me that if I one person to save five, that's the same as five people to save 25. But five people to save 25 is just doing that one save five five times. And you say that doing something wrong five times versus one time is worse. So it should be worse. Worse to kill the five people, save the 25. See what I'm saying?
- [130:23]
Jack
I understand. So, and the alternative is that it's amoral and you're judging the person based off of their intent. And if you're judging someone based off of their intent, then that would support the moral relativism.
- [130:31]
Alex
Yeah. And it would also be that the answer to the question of if it's better, worse, or the same is basically, like, how do you feel about it, man? You know?
- [130:38]
Jack
Yeah. Interesting. Okay. Lastly, what books would you recommend people read to get a basic understanding of philosophy?
- [130:46]
Alex
And where they stand, I would say depends what level you're at. So if you're a complete beginner, there are lots of good introductory books. There's one called Think by Simon Blackburn. I haven't read it but I know that it is on a number of university suggested pre reading for studying philosophy. So I would say maybe look at that. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is another great place. It's online, it's free. Any philosophical concept or person or school of thought has an entry. It's kind of like Wikipedia. Wikipedia. But every entry is edited and written by philosophers. It's not like a public thing, it's written by philosophers and edited properly, but it's got everything. And most of the articles are really good and they'll also point you at the bottom, they'll have a bunch of reading. So if you're interested, it'll tell you what sources are, where the ideas came from. The thing about the SCP is that you kind of need to know where to go. It's a bit like Wikipedia, you can use it to learn, but you got to choose which article to pull up. But if you're interested in consciousness, go onto the sep, type in cons consciousness, look at the articles. If you're interested in the philosophy of religion, type in religion. It's an incredible resource. The SEP always. I would recommend people go to Bertrand Russell's book the Problems of Philosophy. It's quite short and Bertrand Russell is writing about the problems of philosophy. So unsolved issues. So like the thing I mentioned earlier, the David Hume sun won't rise tomorrow. Maybe some people listen to that and were like, what the hell are you talking about? You can't. Can't. We didn't really get into it, like what do you mean? You can't know if gravity won't work in five minutes. That's ridiculous. Read the Problems of Philosophy. He talks about some of these unsolved issues. I can't remember it and I haven't read the whole thing. I think it's probably like a bit more high level and takes a bit more thought in that way, but I'd probably point people in those directions maybe.
- [132:27]
Graham
All right, man, I really appreciate your time. This is a tough one for me to think through Graham. Way more effort. Yes. Than a car.
- [132:37]
Jack
YouTuber for Graham.
- [132:39]
Graham
Oh come on, let's not. Yeah, for me.
- [132:41]
Jack
Yeah.
- [132:42]
Graham
So my gosh, thank you so much, man, I really appreciate it. Thank you for coming on. We'll link to your info down below in the description too.
- [132:48]
Alex
Appreciate you guys.
- [132:49]
Jack
Thank you guys for watching.
- [132:50]
Graham
Until next time.