Sam Harris speaks with David Edmonds about moral philosophy and effective altruism. They discuss Edmonds’s book Death in a Shallow Pond, Peter Singer’s famous drowning child thought experiment, arguments for and against thought experiments, “trolleyology,” consequentialism, the origins of the Effective Altruism movement, the controversial strategy of “earning to give,” Derek Parfit’s influence on contemporary ethics, the backlash against effective altruists, Angus Deaton’s critique of the efficacy of foreign aid, and other topics.
David Edmonds is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University and a former BBC radio journalist. He is the author or editor of many philosophy books (and one on chess!) which together have been translated into over two dozen languages. These include (with John Eidinow) the international best seller Wittgenstein’s Poker and, most recently, a biography, Parfit: A Philosopher and his Mission to Save Morality. David also hosts a couple of philosophy podcasts. Philosophy Bites, which he makes with Nigel Warburton has had over 45 million downloads.
Website: http://www.davidedmonds.info/
SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at https://samharris.org/subscribe/ OR become a channel member to access episodes on YouTube. For those who can't afford the full subscription price, we offer partial scholarships https://www.samharris.org/subscribe/scholarship
Stay updated on new episodes, essays, and events — subscribe to Sam Harris’s free newsletter: https://samharris.org/newsletter-signup/
📝 Transcript
Transcribing... This may take a few minutes.
Top Comments
@Skutchiamo
Didn’t even get to the shallow pond!!?
6 likes
@birdmann9197
Depends on the shoes... and the child.
34 likes
@Skiddla
the intro sounded like the onion. dropping a fat man through a trap door then quick cut to sam "not sure i totally buy that"
59 likes
@5milemacc737
the squished frog question
2 likes
@OKULTRA_FILMS
Is that thumbnail from Don't Look Now?
2 likes
@daleneparole1502
JoeI OIsteen didn't want to track dirt in on his carpet....
12 likes
@xxxxx8200
26:37 "I've never called myself..." God, that's good!
4 likes
@briangregor5626
What makes the trolley cases different is the matter of agency. If you believe that people should have personal agency (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) then it is clearly wrong to throw (or use a trap door) to put the person with the backpack in front of the train. You can implore them to jump in front of the train. Then it is their decision to make. Or you can take their pack and jump in front of the train yourself. In the case of operating the switch, the personal agency of the people at risk has already been taken away from them. You have been unwittingly put in the position of having to make the decision. This is like the decisions that generals are forced into during war. The soldiers have already lost their agency. The general has to decide how to minimize losses. The case is similar with the speed example (But the issue is not a matter of fun vs. lives. It's a matter of time vs. lives.). Agency over speed limits resides mostly (in a messy way) in the collective public. We don't prioritize safety over speed because that is not what the public (at least the loudest voices) want.
4 likes
@JasonShermanYouTube
Master Shake answered this question many years ago
3 likes
@chaoticprogress
Finally the podcast on video!
1 likes
@EricsStuds
Gutted have to pay for these in full - understand why of course but really miss these conversations
@StephenLewisful
One of my alltime favorites is Prof Michael Sandel's 'Justice: What's the right thing to do?' at Harvard University. It was really well done.
12 likes
@Malt454
And we never did get to the drowning child... so how important could that have ever been anyway?
8 likes
@northernbear13
My preferred version of the trolley case: You are sitting in your big rig truck at a railway crossing. In front of you is a small car with one, maybe two people in it. In front of that car is a minivan with at least 6 people in it you can see. The minivan has stalled on the tracks and the train is coming. The doors seem to be jammed and the people in the mini van can't get out. In your big rig truck you could drive forward into the small car, pushing it forward, which in turn pushes forward the mini van. You use the small car to push the mini van out of the way, so that the train hits the small car instead of the minivan. Would you do it?
4 likes
@noneofyoubusiness4895
Sam's first clickbait title:
"Would you ruin your shoes to save a child?"
"Answers behind the paywall"