Is There a Moral Relativism in Defining Moral Responsibility?

2min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

I don't think my view depends on the broader truth of moral relativism. There still might be moral truths, objective moral truths out there. And as long as they don't concern moral responsibility, then my view is unaffected. But let's look at this idea that the Greeks had, that are at least I say they had, which is, it doesn't matter if you are designed and or even manipulated by a God, right? You're still responsible. Yeah, actually, where is that? There's no mistake there.

Dave and Tamler start out talking about the new wave of skepticism about free will and moral responsibility in the popular press from people like Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne.

Neuroscience figures heavily in their arguments, but Dave and Tamler agree that neuroscientific data adds little of substance to the case other than telling us what we already know: human beings are natural biological entities. Dave also accuses Tamler of being a hipster philosopher for abandoning a view once it got popular.

Next, we talk about what kind freedom we need to have in order to deserve blame and punishment. Do we need to create ourselves out of the swamps of nothingness? Dave comes out as a Star Trek nerd and asks whether we're all, in the end, like Data the android. They also wonder whether a belief in free will is all that's keeping us from having sex with our dogs.

Finally, Dave grills Tamler about his new book on the differences in attitudes about free will and moral responsibility across cultures. After seeing how long they've been carrying on, they then agree to talk about all the stuff they left out in the next episode.

Links

Coyne, J. “Why You Don’t Really Have Free Will.”

Sam Harris. “Free Will.”

Eddy Nahmias. "Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will?"

Galen Strawson "Luck Swallows Everything."

Support Very Bad Wizards