Advancements in neuroscience contribute limited insight to the debate on free will and moral responsibility.
Cultural differences shape varying perspectives on moral responsibility, challenging the Western notion of individual responsibility.
Moral responsibility is subjective and influenced by cultural norms, with no universally correct view or objective criteria.
Deep dives
The Intersection of Philosophy and Psychology
The podcast explores the overlap between philosophy and psychology, highlighting the increasing connection between the two fields and how the hosts' backgrounds in these disciplines led to the creation of the podcast.
The Debate on Free Will and Moral Responsibility
The podcast delves into the topic of free will and moral responsibility, with one host being a former skeptic and the other believing in the existence of moral responsibility. They discuss how advancements in scientific fields such as neuroscience have brought this topic to the forefront, leading to debates on the nature of free will and its implications for moral responsibility.
Different Perspectives on Moral Responsibility
The podcast examines cultural differences in the concept of moral responsibility. It explores the idea that in some cultures, moral responsibility extends beyond individual actions to collective responsibility, where individuals are held accountable for the actions of their group or family members. This challenges the Western notion of individual responsibility and provides insight into the diverse perspectives on moral responsibility across cultures.
Different Perspectives on Moral Responsibility
The podcast episode explores the concept of moral responsibility from different perspectives. It discusses the belief that humans are like machines, with no conscious designer, and therefore there is no one to take moral responsibility for our actions. This view suggests that moral responsibility is a matter of individual intuitions and cultural norms. The episode also highlights the diversity of beliefs about moral responsibility across different cultures, emphasizing that there is no objective, universally correct view on this topic.
The Role of Relativism and Pluralism in Moral Responsibility
The podcast delves into the question of whether there are objective criteria for moral responsibility or if it ultimately depends on subjective perspectives and beliefs. While the podcast host argues against a relativist or pluralist position on moral responsibility, they acknowledge that different cultures may have different norms and intuitions about it. The podcast concludes that there may not be one objectively correct view, but rather a variety of conceptions of moral responsibility that are shaped by ecological conditions and cultural influences.
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.
