Podcasts about Utilitarianism

The meat industry and its defenders promise ethical consumption and sustainable farming, but animal agriculture fuels ecological destruction, entrenches human supremacy, and masks cruelty with comforting myths. John Sanbonmatsu, philosopher and author of The Omnivore's Deception, shatters the myths of “humane meat” and the 'naturalness' of eating meat, and explains why abolishing the animal economy is essential to living an ethical human life. Highlights include:  Why growing up as the child of a Jewish mother and Japanese-American father in the U.S. sensitized John to bullying and injustice - against both human and nonhuman animals; Why the origins of human domination over animals are rooted in patriarchy and an ancient human estrangement from animals, and reinforced today by a toxic nexus of masculinity, human supremacy, neoliberal capitalism, and pronatalism; Why focusing only on factory farming misses the fundamental problem of human domination of animals and the planet - and how books like Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma and the new American pastoral ethos perpetuate myths of so-called ethical meat while attacking the animal rights movement; Why justifying meat-eating as “natural” is ethically bankrupt - on par with past appeals to nature to justify slavery or denying women's rights - and how vegans and vegetarians provoke defensive ridicule because they reveal uncomfortable truths; Why the flood of scientific studies on animal cognition and emotion hasn't changed behavior - and how cultural fascination with AI and plant consciousness distracts from our brutal treatment of fully sentient animals; Why bad faith - our self-deception about how we treat animals - is the most destructive force preventing moral progress, and why what we're doing to animals deserves to be called 'evil'; How empathy, an evolved trait we share with animals and desperately need to nurture, is being eroded by increasing social disconnection and anti-empathy tech bro ideologies; Why lab meat, also known as 'clean meat', is not the solution to speciesism and human supremacism and consuming our way to animal liberation is a delusion; Why the animal rights movement is being undermined by the money pouring into utilitarian effective altruism and “realistic” approaches - when true compassion demands not animal welfarism, but the abolition of animal exploitation and a direct challenge to the entrenched power structures that prevent moral progress. See episode website for show notes, links, and transcript:  https://www.populationbalance.org/podcast/john-sanbonmatsu   OVERSHOOT | Shrink Toward Abundance OVERSHOOT tackles today's interlocked social and ecological crises driven by humanity's excessive population and consumption. The podcast explores needed narrative, behavioral, and system shifts for recreating human life in balance with all life on Earth. With expert guests from wide-ranging disciplines, we examine the forces underlying overshoot: from patriarchal pronatalism that is fueling overpopulation, to growth-biased economic systems that lead to consumerism and social injustice, to the dominant worldview of human supremacy that subjugates animals and nature. Our vision of shrinking toward abundance inspires us to seek pathways of transformation that go beyond technological fixes toward a new humanity that honors our interconnectedness with all beings.  Hosted by Nandita Bajaj and Alan Ware. Brought to you by Population Balance. Subscribe to our newsletter here: https://www.populationbalance.org/subscribe Support our work with a one-time or monthly donation: https://www.populationbalance.org/donate Learn more at https://www.populationbalance.org Copyright 2025 Population Balance

This week David clues Jack into where the TORDIS is taking us with two episodes from "Ethics Town". Ethics Town is a cosmic horror podcast about philosophical conundrums in a weird small town! Follow January, a tired and wired Ethics local, and Artemis, a young girl lost in the woods, as they try to unravel what exactly is going on down in the town of Ethics now that the new mayor has taken office. Statistics and probability are exchanged for conspiracy theory logic as the pair try to explain weirder and weirder happenings. With episodes 1 and 2 "Utilitarianism" and "Self Preservation" it's Audio Drama time! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week David clues Jack into where the TORDIS is taking us with two episodes from "Ethics Town". Ethics Town is a cosmic horror podcast about philosophical conundrums in a weird small town! Follow January, a tired and wired Ethics local, and Artemis, a young girl lost in the woods, as they try to unravel what exactly is going on down in the town of Ethics now that the new mayor has taken office. Statistics and probability are exchanged for conspiracy theory logic as the pair try to explain weirder and weirder happenings. With episodes 1 and 2 "Utilitarianism" and "Self Preservation" it's Audio Drama time! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Keywordsethical leadership, personal values, organizational values, moral courage, decision making, transparency, integrity, leadership principles, ethical dilemmas, educational leadershipSummaryIn this episode of Lassoing Leadership, hosts Garth Nichols and Jason Rogers engage with Vanessa Wade, an expert in ethical leadership. They explore the definition of ethical leadership, the importance of aligning personal and organizational values, and the challenges leaders face in making ethical decisions. Vanessa shares practical insights on how to reflect on personal values, navigate ethical dilemmas, and foster a culture of integrity within educational institutions. The conversation emphasizes the need for moral courage and the role of transparency in leadership.TakeawaysEthical leadership is guided by morals and values.Transparency is key to being a trustworthy leader.Reflecting on personal values is essential for leaders.Aligning personal and organizational values enhances leadership effectiveness.Ethical dilemmas often arise when values conflict.Utilitarianism is a common model for ethical decision-making.Intuition plays a significant role in ethical choices.Shared understanding of values is crucial in organizations.Practicing ethical decision-making prepares leaders for real-life scenarios.Resources like books and podcasts can enhance understanding of ethical leadership.Sound Bites"What do I value?""You have to slow it down.""Keep leading the lasso way."Chapters00:00 - Introduction to Ethical Leadership07:35 - Defining Ethical Leadership10:10 - Exploring Personal Values13:23 - Navigating Ethical Dilemmas17:48 - Aligning Personal and Organizational Values21:55 - Real-Life Ethical Leadership Experiences25:11 - Resources for Ethical Leadership

Caleb and Michael take on Book II of Cicero's On Ends. In this books Cicero goes off against the Epicureans. What do you think?On Ends Book IAristippus: The Philosopher Who Mastered Pleasure(02:43) Different Kinds Of Pleasure(16:34) Turning AgainstThe Stoics(18:02) Ranking Pleasures(24:40) Epicurean Rebranding?(30:55) Epicureans Ignore Virtue(34:28) Utilitarianism(38:18) Topsy Turvy Value Systems(46:50) Do Epicureans Lie?(48:17) Is Happiness Up To You(56:08) Michael's Takeaway***Subscribe to The Stoa Letter for weekly meditations, actions, and links to the best Stoic resources: www.stoaletter.com/subscribeDownload the Stoa app (it's a free download): https://stoameditation.com/podIf you try the Stoa app and find it useful, but truly cannot afford it, email us and we'll set you up with a free account.Listen to more episodes and learn more here: https://stoameditation.com/blog/stoa-conversations/Thanks to Michael Levy for graciously letting us use his music in the conversations: https://ancientlyre.com/

Should we sacrifice the present for a better future?Join the team at the IAI for three articles about effective altruism, longtermism, and the complex evolution of moral thought. Written by William MacAskill, James W. Lenman, and Ben Chugg, these three articles pick apart the ethical movement started by Peter Singer, analysing its strengths and weaknesses for both individuals and societies.William MacAskill is a Scottish philosopher and author, best known for writing 2022's "What We Owe the Future." James W. Lenman is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sheffield, as well as the former president of the British Society for Ethical Theory. Ben Chugg is a BPhD student in the machine learning department at Carnegie Mellon University. He also co-hosts the Increments podcast.To witness such debates live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Trump's support of IVF as an effective means to increase fertility belies the complicated nature of this treatment and the ethical, moral, and philosophical implications of it. For instance, one of the pressing issues for children of IVF will be how their manner of conception impacts their psychological state. For another, they might wonder what happened to the other embryos which were discarded and worry about their place in their family or even with their parents.   This conversation explores the psychological and societal implications of IVF and cloning, emphasizing the potential moral catastrophes that may arise from these practices. The discussion highlights the importance of family as a foundational element of society, the consequences of broken families, and the need for healing and love in addressing these issues. The speakers advocate for a return to valuing human life as a gift rather than a product, and they discuss the cultural attitudes towards IVF and the efforts to regulate it.   Dr. Colosi is an associate professor of philosophy at Salve Regina University in Newport, RI. Before that he was assistant/associate professor of moral theology at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood, PA from 2009-2015. He previously taught at Franciscan University of Steubenville. While their campus is in Ohio, he taught at their program in Gaming, Austria from 1999 – 2007. He received his doctorate in philosophy from the International Academy of Philosophy in the Principality of Liechtenstein in 2002, received an MA in Franciscan Studies from St. Bonaventure University in 1995 and received his BS in Mathematics from Franciscan University in 1987.   Peter Colosi's website: https://peterjcolosi.com/   Salve Regina University Bio of Peter Colosi: https://salve.edu/users/dr-peter-colosi   Peter Colosi's articles: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=list_works&hl=en&hl=en&user=VFIAAsEAAAAJ   Alabama Embryo Case Exposes IVF Contradiction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixUhy2nO_BA   Children's Needs Before Adult Desires - Katy Faust on the Dr. J Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6L23IjFrN0   Defending family values in Louisiana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UIsxoPI1Wk   Theology of the Body International Symposium: https://tobinternationalsymposia.com/   Dr. Morse's “Loved Into Existence”: https://legatus.org/news/loved-into-existence   Chapters 00:00 Introduction to the Psychological Impact of IVF 05:00 The Ethical Dilemmas of IVF 07:51 Teaching Moments for the Church 11:06 Contradictions in the IVF Industry 14:09 The Emotional Toll on Donor-Conceived Individuals 16:51 The Future of Reproductive Technology 19:59 The Collaborative Nature of Parenting 23:19 Moral Catastrophe and Societal Implications of IVF 24:02 The Family as the Building Block of Society 25:24 The Consequences of Broken Families 26:42 Healing and the Role of Love 27:57 The Interchangeability of Human Life 29:05 The Need for Healing in Broken Relationships 30:03 The Simple Case of IVF and Its Acceptability 31:13 Legislative Efforts and Public Sentiment on IVF 32:20 Cultural Attitudes Towards IVF 33:40 The Shift from Love to Utilitarianism 34:39 The Importance of Speaking Truthfully 35:30 Who Should Read This Book? 37:04 Peter Colosi's Work and Resources   Have a question or a comment? Leave it in the comments, and we'll get back to you!   Subscribe to our YouTube playlist:  @RuthInstitute  Follow us on Social Media: https://www.instagram.com/theruthinstitute https://twitter.com/RuthInstitute https://www.facebook.com/TheRuthInstitute/ https://theruthinstitute.locals.com/newsfeed   Press: NC Register: https://www.ncregister.com/author/jennifer-roback-morse Catholic Answers: https://www.catholic.com/profile/jennifer-roback-morse The Stream: https://stream.org/author/jennifer-roback-morse/ Crisis Magazine: https://crisismagazine.com/author/jennifer-roeback-morse   Father Sullins' Reports on Clergy Sexual Abuse: https://ruthinstitute.org/resource-centers/father-sullins-research/   Buy Dr. Morse's Books: The Sexual State: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/the-sexual-state-2/ Love and Economics: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/love-and-economics-it-takes-a-family-to-raise-a-village/ Smart Sex: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/smart-sex-finding-life-long-love-in-a-hook-up-world/ 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/101-tips-for-a-happier-marriage/ 101 Tips for Marrying the Right Person: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/101-tips-for-marrying-the-right-person/   Listen to our podcast: Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ruth-institute-podcast/id309797947 Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/1t7mWLRHjrCqNjsbH7zXv1   Subscribe to our newsletter to get this amazing report: Refute the Top 5 Gay Myths https://ruthinstitute.org/refute-the-top-five-myths/   Get the full interview by joining us for exclusive, uncensored content on Locals: https://theruthinstitute.locals.com/support

We explore the complex moral landscape of abortion through the perspectives of two philosophical giants, John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, as simulated by AI. Mill defends abortion from a utilitarian standpoint, emphasizing individual autonomy and the consequences of our actions, while Kant objects to abortion from a deontological approach, focusing on inherent human dignity and universal moral laws. Join us as we delve into intense discussions on autonomy, moral duties, and the ethical implications of difficult choices, including thought experiments involving moral blackmail and the value of life at different stages. [00:00] Introduction and Special Guest Announcement [00:28] John Stuart Mill's Thought Experiment [02:13] Utilitarian Perspective on Sarah's Dilemma [05:57] Infanticide and Utilitarianism [07:21] Harm Principle and Moral Community [12:01] Free Speech and Moral Boundaries [18:35] Immanuel Kant's Perspective [19:36] Kant vs. Mill on Abortion [24:03] Moral Dilemmas and Ethical Principles [35:16] Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics [42:32] Conclusion

In this episode, we explore the transformative idea that happiness is where we start—not just a destination.

Hate Ads? Join the Patreon's 1st tier or above for commercial-free content and exclusive material.https://patreon.com/DisguisetheLimitsWelcome Back to the Ba'al Busters Community. M-F 8am - 10am Pacific on FTJMedia.com, Rumble and Twitter as @DisguiseLimits) Thanks For Joining Us!Today, 9.25.2024 -It's our friend Duane of https://Bulletproofpub.com with more insights into our stolen history.Become Historical Detectives and help contribute to the rediscovery of Truth, and expose the deadly deceptions. It's a team effort, and we all have a part in it. Are we free range chickens?  Are we living in a Panopticon?GET THE MEMBESHIP From Dr. Glidden!DR PETER GLIDDEN, ND Health Recovery Site:https://leavebigpharmabehind.com/?via=pgndhealthUse Code baalbusters for 50% OFF - LIMITED TIME For the 90 Essential Nutrients, Contact Brenda here: 888 618 1796 ext. 101 Mention the Show!Hey Everyone I'm raising funds to build a video editing and streaming computer.  This one I have is on its last days and I don't want the channel to end when it completely goes out.YOU ARE the CHANGE. You ARE the Sponsors.Computer Fundraiser here: https://GiveSendGo.com/BaalBustersEuropean Viewers You can support here: https://www.tipeeestream.com/baalbusters/GET COMMERCIAL FREE VIDEOS/PODCASTS and Exclusive Content: Become a Patron. https://Patreon.com/DisguisetheLimitsMy Clean Source Creatine-HCL Use Coupon Code FANFAVORITE for 5% Offhttps://www.semperfryllc.com/store/p126/CreatineHCL.htmlGo to https://SemperFryLLC.com to get all the AWESOME stuff I make plus use code Victory for 11% OFF just for BB viewers!Quick Links to Dr Monzo and Dr Glidden are found on my website.Want to send me something?Baal Busters Broadcast#1029101 W 16th Street STE AYuma, AZ 85364BE ADVISED: If you are compelled to mail a check for show support, it must be written out to Semper Fry, LLC.Thanks!Get up to speed on the history you were denied. Get Books and videos here: https://www.moneytreepublishing.com/shop USE code: BAAL for 10% OFF your entire order.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/ba-al-busters-broadcast--5100262/support.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Utilitarianism.net Updates, published by Richard Y Chappell on September 17, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Lots of exciting news from utilitarianism.net: (I) We now offer expert-translated versions of the website in Spanish and German (with Portuguese coming soon). (II) We've just published four new guest essays covering important topics: 1. Moral Psychology and Utilitarianism, by Lucius Caviola & Joshua Greene, explores the psychology behind common anti-utilitarian intuitions, and the normative and practical implications of empirical psychology. As they conclude, "A deeper understanding of moral psychology won't, by itself, prove utilitarianism right or wrong. But it can help us assess utilitarianism in a more informed way." 2. Utilitarianism and Voting, by Zach Barnett, offers a timely examination of the instrumental value of voting well. (Spoiler: it can be very high!) 3. Expected Utility Maximization, by Joe Carlsmith & Vikram Balasubramanian,[1] aims to convey an intuitive sense of why expected utility maximization is rational, even when it recommends options with a low chance of success. (I'll definitely be using this in my teaching.) 4. Welfare Economics and Interpersonal Utility Comparisons, by Yew-Kwang Ng, argues that objections to interpersonal utility comparisons are overblown - luckily for us, as such comparisons are thoroughly indispensable for serious policy analysis. (III) An official print edition of the core textbook is now available for preorder from Hackett Publishing. (All author royalties go to charity.) The folks at Hackett were absolutely wonderful to work with, and I deeply appreciate their willingness to commercially publish this print edition while leaving us with the full rights to the (always free and open access) web edition. The print edition includes a Foreword from Peter Singer and Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, and sports high praise from expert reviewers. Instructors considering the text for their classes can request a free examination copy here (before Nov 1). Here I'll just share the conclusion, to give you a sense of the book's framing and ambitions: Conclusion (of the textbook) In this book, we've (i) laid out the core elements of utilitarian moral theory, (ii) offered arguments in support of the view, (iii) highlighted the key practical implications for how we should live our lives, and (iv) critically explored the most significant objections, and how utilitarians might respond. Utilitarianism is all about beneficence: making the world a better place for sentient beings, without restriction. As a consequentialist view, it endorses rules only when those rules serve to better promote overall well-being. Utilitarianism has no patience for rules that exist only to maintain the privilege of those who are better off under the status quo. If a change in the distribution of well-being really would overall be for the better, those who stand to lose out have no veto right against such moral progress. Many find this feature of the view objectionable. We think the opposite. Still, we recognize the instrumental importance of many moral rules and constraints for promoting overall well-being. The best rules achieve this by encouraging co-operation, maintaining social stability, and preventing atrocities. In principle, it could sometimes be worth breaking even the best rules, on those rare occasions when doing so would truly yield better overall outcomes. But in practice, people are not sufficiently reliable at identifying the exceptions. So for practical purposes, we wholeheartedly endorse following reliable rules (like most commonsense moral norms) - precisely for their good utilitarian effects. As a welfarist view, utilitarianism assesses consequences purely in terms of well-being for sentient beings: positive well-being is the sole int...

In 1968, a book called The Population Bomb written by entomologist Paul Ehrlich helped spark panic in the west that the global population was reaching a breaking point, saying too many human beings would soon cause widespread famine and social chaos. This view that a growing human population is an existential threat to humanity remains widespread to this day. For example, University of Chicago political philosopher Martha Nussbaum recently stated that given the world's current population, “no one should be having any children.” Contemporary empirical evidence, however, points in exactly the opposite direction. Deaths are already outpacing births in many regions of the world, resulting in precipitous declines in national populations. Is this good news for humanity? Are public policies aimed at population control justified? Is there such a thing as an ideal population size? Should anyone care about whether others choose to have children or not? A listener asks whether we should continue going to confession if we keep committing the same sin over and over again. 00:00 | Intro 01:49 | Seminarians kick off school year 03:00 | Assessing population decreases across the globe 05:36 | Increased attitudes against having children 08:24 | Unpacking “culture of death,” ego-drama, and theo-drama 11:33 | Childbearing as a societal good 12:35 | Population capping through public policy 14:07 | Human population and the environment 17:03 | Utilitarianism as a faulty moral theory for addressing population concerns 18:51 | Foregoing childbirth to spare potential children pain 21:20 | Foregoing childbirth to favor economic security 22:33 | Foregoing childbirth for lack of desire 24:55 | Old age without children 28:00 | The centrality of fruitfulness 29:14 | Pope St. Paul VI's prophetic ban on artificial contraception 30:57 | How does the Church look forward? 34:05 | Listener question: Does repeating sins disqualify me from Confession? 36:35 | Join the Word on Fire Institute   Links: Data for “Population Bomb”: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/ Article on Martha Nussbaum: https://www.opindia.com/2024/05/india-has-too-many-people-they-dont-have-enough-to-eat-philosopher-martha-nussbaum-makes-drastic-claims-population-reduction/ Quote citation: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/apr/16/bill-maher-inflames-abortion-debate-by-saying-its-/ Abortion statistic: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwk8e1BhALEiwAc8MHiKjFruJDz0AbdPoR1ttiQT2qJc_uCiFWCE6o9rhvoaxgKyuODBPTlhoC1WAQAvD_BwE Pew Research citation: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-experiences-of-u-s-adults-who-dont-have-children/ Word on Fire Institute: https://institute.wordonfire.org/ NOTE: Do you like this podcast? Become a Word on Fire IGNITE member! Word on Fire is a non-profit ministry that depends on the support of our listeners . . . like you! So become a part of this mission and join IGNITE today to become a Word on Fire insider and receive some special donor gifts for your generosity.  

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "Humor Me” by Dr. Stacey Hubay, who is a Medical Oncologist at the Grand River Regional Cancer Center. The essay is followed by an interview with Hubay and host Dr. Lidia Schapira. Dr Hubay share how even though cancer isn't funny, a cancer clinic can sometimes be a surprisingly funny place. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Just Humor Me, by Stacey A. Hubay, MD, MHSc   Most of the people who read this journal will know the feeling. You are lurking at the back of a school function or perhaps you are making small talk with your dental hygienist when the dreaded question comes up—“So what kind of work do you do?” I usually give a vague answer along the lines of “I work at the hospital” to avoid the more specific response, which is that I am an oncologist. I have found this information to be a surefire conversational grenade, which typically elicits some sort of variation on “wow, that must be so depressing” although one time I did get the response “Great! I'm a lawyer and a hypochondriac, mind if I ask you some questions?” After I recently dodged the question yet again, I found myself wondering why I am so reticent about telling people what I do. While discussing work with strangers in our hard earned free time is something many people wish to avoid, I think for me a significant motive for this urge to hide is that I do not actually find the cancer clinic to be an overwhelmingly depressing place. Admitting this to others who are not engaged in this work can lead to at the very least bafflement and at worst offense to those who believe that laughing while looking after cancer patients is a sign of callousness. I am an oncologist who laughs in my clinic every day. Of course, the oncology clinic is sometimes a bleak place to work. Cancer has earned its reputation as a fearsome foe, and the patients I see in my clinic are often paying a heavy toll, both physically and emotionally. Many are grappling with their own mortality, and even those with potentially curable cancers face months of challenging treatment and the torture of uncertainty. Yet somehow, perhaps inevitably, the cancer clinic is not just a place of sadness and tears but also a place of hope and laughter. Although most of us recognize humor and use it to varying degrees, few of us consider it as an academic subject. A few lucky souls in academia have taken on the task of developing theories of humor, which attempt to explain what humor is, what purpose it has, and what social function it serves. Although there are almost as many theories of humor as there are aspiring comedians, most explanations fall into one of three categories: relief theory, superiority theory, and incongruous juxtaposition theory.1 Relief theory holds that people laugh to relieve psychological tension caused by fear or nervousness. I suspect this is the most common type of humor seen in a cancer clinic given the weight of fear and nervousness in such a fraught environment. The second category, people being what we are, asserts that sometimes we laugh out of a feeling of superiority to others. It goes without saying that this sort of humor has no place in the clinician patient interaction. Finally, we laugh at absurdity, or as Kant put it, at “the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing.”2 This last category is also surprisingly fruitful in the oncology setting. Laughter in the cancer clinic is still to some extent considered taboo. Near the start of my oncology training, I remember laughing until my stomach hurt with my attending staff in the clinic workspace between seeing patients. What we were laughing about escapes me now, but what I do clearly recall is an administrator in a buttoned-up suit striding over to us in high dudgeon. “Don't you people realize this is a cancer clinic?” she admonished us. “This is not a place for laughter!,” she added before striding off, no doubt to a management meeting or some other place where the policy on laughter is more liberal. At this point, my attending and I looked at each other for a beat and then burst into helpless gales of laughter. We do not tend to think all that much about why we are laughing at something, but looking back now, I think at least part of the reason was the absurdity of a person so unfamiliar with the culture of the cancer clinic presuming that physicians and nurses somehow park their sense of humor when they arrive at work and turn into a herd of gloomy Eeyores.  We oncologists are starting to come clean about the fact that we laugh in the clinic and there is now a modest amount of work in the medical literature addressing the use of humor in oncology. One survey of patients undergoing radiotherapy in Ottawa found that a stunning 86% of patients felt that laughter was somewhat or very important to their care, whereas 79% felt that humor decreased their level of anxiety about their diagnosis.3 If we had a drug that decreased anxiety levels in 79% of patients, had minimal to no side effects when used correctly, and cost the health care system zero dollars, should not we be using it?  Sometimes, it is the patient or their family member who introduces an element of humor into an interaction as on one occasion when my patient was filling out a pain survey which included a diagram of the body on which he was asked to circle any areas where he was having pain. As his wife ran through a detailed list of his bowel habits over the past few days, the patient circled the gluteal area on the diagram he was holding, pointed to his wife and said “I've been suffering from a pain in my ass doctor.” His wife looked at him pointedly for a moment before the two of them started laughing and I joined in.  Sometimes, a patient's use of humor serves to level the playing field. Patients with Cancer are vulnerable, and the physician is an authority figure, meting out judgments from on high. My patient from a few years ago was having none of that. I met him when he was referred to me with widely metastatic lung cancer, a diagnosis typically associated with a dismal prognosis. The patient, however, was not buying into any of the usual gloom and doom that is customary for these interactions. As his daughter translated the information I was providing, he tilted his chin down, fixed his gaze on me, and proceeded to smile at me in a disarmingly friendly way while simultaneously waggling his generous eyebrows up and down throughout the interview. Over the course of 45 min, I became increasingly disconcerted by his behavior until eventually, I was unable to finish a sentence without sputtering with laughter. If you think you would have done better, then you have clearly never been on the losing end of a staring contest. By the end of the interview, all three of us had happily abandoned any hope of behaving with more decorum. Laughter and the use of humor require a certain letting down of one's guard, and the fact that all three of us were able to laugh together in this interview took me down from any pedestal onto which I might have inadvertently clambered. One study from the Netherlands noted that patients used humor to broach difficult topics and downplay challenges they faced and concluded that “Hierarchy as usually experienced between healthcare professionals and patients/relatives seemed to disappear when using laughter.  If applied appropriately, adding shared laughter may help optimize shared decision-making.”4 Although it could be a coincidence, it is worth noting that several years after meeting this patient, I discharged him from my practice because he had somehow been cured of lung cancer. Perhaps laughter really is the best medicine.  On other occasions, it might be the physician who takes the plunge and uses humor during a clinical encounter. The same Dutch study by Buiting et al noted that 97% of all specialists used humor in their interactions and all reported laughing during consultations at least occasionally. One of my colleagues, a generally serious sort whose smiles in clinic are as rare as a total eclipse albeit not as predictable, managed to win over his patient with a rare outburst of humor. During their first meeting, the patient listed off the numerous ailments he had experienced in the past including his fourth bout with cancer which had prompted this appointment. As he finished reciting his epic medical history, my colleague looked at him somberly over the rim of his glasses for a moment and asked “Sir, I must ask—who on earth did you piss off?” The patient was so tickled by this interaction that he recounted it to me when I saw him a few weeks later while filling in for my colleague. Although humor is a powerful tool in the clinic, it is of course not something that comes naturally to all of us. Attempts at humor by a clinician at the wrong time or with the wrong patient do not just fall flat but can even be damaging to the physician-patient relationship. Even if a physician uses humor with the best of intentions, there is always the possibility that they will be perceived by the patient as making light of their situation. As Proyer and Rodden5 point out, tact is essential and humor and laughter are not always enjoyable to all people, or to borrow a phrase frequently used by one of my patients, “about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit.” Socalled gelotophobes have a heightened fear of being laughed at, and with them, humor and especially laughter must be wielded with great care if at all. All I can say in response to the legitimate concern about the use of humor being misconstrued is that as with any other powerful tool physicians learn to use, one improves with time. As far as PubMed knows, there are no courses in medical faculties devoted to the fine art of the pun or the knock-knock joke. But even if we physicians cannot all reliably be funny on command, perhaps there is something to be said for occasionally being a little less self-serious. One must also be mindful of patients with whom one is not directly interacting—to a patient who has just received bad news, overhearing the sound of laughter in the clinic corridor has the potential to come across as insensitive. Moments of levity are therefore best confined to a private space such as the examination room in which physicians and patients can indulge in anything from a giggle to a guffaw without running the risk of distressing others. The final reason I submit in support of laughing in a cancer clinic is admittedly a selfish one. While humor has been shown to have the potential to reduce burnout,6 the real reason I laugh with patients in my clinic is because it brings me joy. The people at parties who think my job must be depressing are not entirely wrong. I have noticed that when I have a positive interaction with a patient based on humor or laugh with a colleague about something during a meeting, I feel better. Surprise! As it turns out, this is not just an anecdotal observation. In 2022, a study was published whose title was “Adaptive and maladaptive humor styles are closely associated with burnout and professional fulfillment in members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.”7 The SGO has not to my knowledge been widely recognized up to this point for their sense of humor, but I have a feeling that might change. Humor is an essential part of the way I approach many situations, and given that I spend the majority of my waking hours at work, it is neither possible nor I would argue desirable for me to leave that part of myself at the entrance to the cancer center. So to the administrator who admonished my mentor and me to cease and desist laughing in the cancer clinic, I respectfully decline. My patients, my colleagues, and I will continue to laugh together at any opportunity we get. Joy in one's work is the ultimate defense against burnout, and I for one intend to take full advantage of it.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the field of oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Lidia Schapira, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. Today we're joined by Dr. Stacey Hubay, Medical Oncologist at the Grand River Regional Cancer Center. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article, “Just Humor Me.”  Our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript.   Stacey, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us. Dr. Stacey Hubay: Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be here.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: It is our pleasure. So let's start by chatting a little bit about what humor means to you and what led you to write this piece and share it with your colleagues.  Dr. Stacey Hubay: I didn't realize how important humor was to me until recently. I just finished a Masters in Bioethics, which was 20 years in the making, and this was the first time I'd been writing anything that wasn't a case report for many, many years. And there was actually specifically a course called “Writing in Bioethics,” and this was the first thing that came to my mind. And I realized sort of how much humor there is in my day to day work life, which, because none of the other people in this bioethics class of 10 or 14 people were working in oncology, they were surprised. So I thought it would be interesting to write about that. And then when I started thinking about it, I realized how integral it is to most of, I guess not just my practice life, but the way I deal with life. And then I could see a thread going back all the way to the beginning of my practice in oncology, and I'm like, “I should write about this.” And I don't think it's unique to me either. I think it's probably many of us in this field. Dr. Lidia Schapira: It is. So let's talk a little bit about humor in the practice of such a serious specialty as we tend to think, or people tend to think of, as in oncology. You talk about humor also connecting you with joy and practice, can you tell us a little bit more about that? Dr. Stacey Hubay: I'm just as surprised, probably as anybody, at least when I first went into this field, which is now more than 20 years ago, how much happiness I found in the field. I meant what I said in the beginning of this essay. When I run into people or strangers, you're getting your hair cut or you're at your kid's volleyball practice, and people always say, “Oh, so what do you do?” And I always say, “I'm in healthcare.” And if they start drilling down, eventually I have to admit what I do. And I say, “I'm an oncologist.” And immediately the long faces and people say, “That must be so terrible.” And I'm like, “Well, it can be, but it's not as bad as you might think.” And they're like, “Oh, it must be very difficult.” And I know that avenue of conversation is closed once or twice. I think I did try saying, “You know what? I have a surprising amount of fun in my clinic with my patients.” And they were aghast, I think is the word I would use. And it made me realize sort of what a taboo it is for many people, including maybe some of us in the field, to admit that we sometimes enjoy ourselves with our patients in our clinics. Dr. Lidia Schapira: So let's talk about that. Let's talk about joy, and then from there to laugh. I think the reason why laughter seems sort of stranger than joy is laughter assumes that we see some levity, humor. And some people would say, there's really nothing funny about having humor. And yet you seem to see it and find it and share it with your patients. So take us into your exam rooms and tell us a little bit more about your process. Dr. Stacey Hubay: It's funny, when I think about the humor in my clinics, I don't see myself as the one who's necessarily sort of starting it, although maybe sometimes I do. I think perhaps it's just that I'm more open to it. And I think it's frequently the patients who bring it in with them. Obviously, we know patients in the oncology clinic, they're often very nervous. It's a very anxious time for them. And we are in a position of power compared to our patients, they're very vulnerable. And so sometimes the patient makes a joke, sometimes I wonder if it's a way of testing if that kind of relationship will work with you. They're kind of testing you to see if you will respond to that. And it's also a way of them relieving their own anxiety, because one of the theories about humor is just a way of alleviating tension. It makes sense that oncology is a place where humor would be welcome, because it's one of the most tense places, I think, in medical practice, although I'm not sure it's present in other places like at the ICU.  So the patient often brings it in, and then you respond to it, and if you're on the same wavelength, it sort of immediately establishes this kind of trust between you and the patient. It's not something you can do with everybody. Sometimes some people will not be open to that at any time. And some patients, you have to get to know them quite a bit before that starts to come into the mix. But I find with most people, if you follow them for long enough and you have a good working, therapeutic relationship with them, just like you would the people you like, your friends, your family, that comes into a relationship almost unavoidably. And I used to think, “Oh, I'm not supposed to do that,” when I first came into practice. I'm a serious oncologist, which I am, and I can be a serious oncologist. And I also just didn't have the bandwidth for it. I think I was so kind of focused on, I have to know what I'm doing. Early in my practice, I didn't have the mental energy to devote to that. And then as that part became easier, I became kind of more open, I think, to that, coming into the interactions with my patients. And over time, I started realizing that was probably what I enjoyed the most about my working day. At the end of the day, I'd come home and tell stories, and my kids would be like, “It sounds like you have fun at work.” And I go, “You know? I really do. Surprisingly I do.” Dr. Lidia Schapira: That's so very cool. I think there's so much wisdom in what you just told us, which is that at the beginning, especially when in the first few years of your practice, you really are so focused on being clinically competent that you may be just very nervous about trying anything. And then as you relax, you actually say in your essay that for some people, this may bring relief and may level the playing field. So if there is an opportunity and you're loose enough to find it, you may be able to keep that conversation going. It made me wonder, I don't know if you've had any experience yourself as a patient or accompanying a family member as a caregiver to a medical visit. Have you used humor when you are the patient or when you're accompanying the patient?  Dr. Stacey Hubay: That's an interesting question. I haven't been a patient apart from my routine family medicine visits for quite a long time. But when I was much younger, I was a teenager, I did have that experience. I was maybe 15 or 16. I had some parathyroid issues. And I remember seeing these specialists in Toronto, and they were very serious people. I remember thinking, if I want to become a physician, because it was at the back of my mind at that time, I'm going to be a lot more fun than these people. I'm going to enjoy myself a lot more. And little did I realize how difficult that actually was at the time. But I found them kind of very serious and a little bit intimidating as a 15-year-old kid. I hadn't reflected on that before. I'm not sure if that's something that I'm deliberately pushing back against. I think now if I see a physician as a patient, I probably am much more willing to bring that in if the physician is open to it. But you can usually tell many physicians, you meet them and you're like, “You're not going to even try that kind of thing.” But if they're open to it, I think it would bring me much more fun as a patient as well.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah. Do you teach your students or trainees or members of your team to use humor? Dr. Stacey Hubay: That's a very interesting question. How do you do that? So I mentioned, I just finished this Masters of Bioethics, and one of the excellent courses in it was how to teach bioethics, which really was a course about how to teach anything. And most of us who are in medicine, we've spent a lot of time teaching without being taught how to teach. In my own practice of teaching, we mostly use one on one with people coming into our clinics and seeing patients with us. And I think mostly some of it's through observation. I will say to people who work with me that we all have to find our own style. It's important, no matter what your style is, to try and connect with patients, because you're trying to create a therapeutic alliance. You're on the same side. The way that works for me is you don't laugh with people you don't trust. When you're trying to make a plan with people in these difficult situations, I think if you've already formed this alliance where they realize you're with them, they're more likely to believe you and trust your recommendations. I tell trainees, I'd say, “This is my way of doing it. And if it works for you, that's wonderful.” But I can see that for some people it's difficult.  Although even the most serious clinicians, one of my very good friends and colleagues who I mentioned in my essay and I talked about, he doesn't make a lot of jokes with his patients, which is perfectly reasonable, but the occasional time he does, the patients were so struck by it because they knew him as such a serious person. They bring it up, “Remember that time my doctor said this,” and they thought it was a wonderful thing. So it's difficult to teach. It's just how would the Marx Brothers teach someone else to be the Marx Brothers? It can't be done. Only the Marx Brothers are the Marx Brothers. Not that I'm comparing myself to the Marx Brothers by any means, but I think you find your own style. Maybe what I'd like to show trainees who come through with me is that it's okay to enjoy the patients, even in a very serious discussion. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Yeah, I would almost say that it speaks to the fact that you're very comfortable with your clinical persona in that you can allow yourself to be totally human with them. And if human means that you can both sort of align around seeing some humor or cracking a joke, that is perfectly fine. I have a question for you, and that is that a lot of my patients in my practice, and maybe some of our other listeners come from completely different cultural backgrounds, and many don't speak the same language as I do. So for me, thinking about humor in those situations is impossible just because I just don't even know what we can both accept as funny. And I don't want to be misunderstood. Tell me a little bit about how to think of humor in those situations. Dr. Stacey Hubay: That's a good point you make. It makes me think about how when I read Shakespeare's plays, we all think his tragedies are fantastic. And when I read his comedies, I'm like, “This isn't very funny.” Or if even when you watch sort of silent movies from the 1920s, I'm like, “Did people really laugh at this?” So you're right. Humor is very much of its time and place and its culture. And even people from the same time and place might not share the same sense of humor. That being said, somehow it still works with the people who are open to it. Somehow it's not necessary, because you've made a very witty joke, or vice versa, that we all understood all its complexities. It's more the sense that we're laughing together.   And I talk about a gentleman that I met in my practice in this essay, and he didn't speak English, so his daughter was translating for us. And nobody was making any kind of verbal jokes or humor. And this was the first time I was meeting him in consultation, and he just kept making funny faces at me the whole time I was talking, and I didn't know what to do. I was completely bamboozled by this interaction. And it actually ended up being sort of one of the funniest visits I'd had with a patient. By the end of it, I could barely get a sentence out. And I thought, this is absurd. This is a very serious situation. This poor gentleman has stage 4 lung cancer, brain metastasis, but he just wouldn't let me be serious. So I think that humor can transcend cultural, linguistic boundaries amazingly enough. Again, if the person was open to it, this person was almost determined that he was going to make me laugh. It was like he'd set out that by the end of his visit, he was going to make sure that we were having a good time. And I was just, “I'm helpless against this. We're going to have a good time.” I remember coming out of the room, the nurses I was working with, they're like, “What was going on in that room? Is he doing well?”I'm like, “Well, in a way, yes, he is doing well.”   At the end of this visit, we were all in a very good mood. But I'll sometimes use sign language, or I'll make some stab at French or whatever it is that the patient speaks, and then they just laugh at me, which is also fine, because they can kind of see that you've made yourself vulnerable by saying, “You know, it's okay if I can't speak your language.” And they just smile and laugh with me. So it's not that it's a joke so much, it's more that they just feel comfortable with you. But you're right, it is more challenging. It's something I wouldn't usually do in such a situation unless I had gotten to know the patient, their family, reasonably well.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Let's talk for a moment about wellness and joy in practice. What gives you the greatest joy in practice?  Dr. Stacey Hubay: Undoubtedly the people that I see and I work with. When you go into medicine and you train, we all train in academic settings. And I had excellent mentors and academic mentors, and the expectation, because you're trained by people who are good at that kind of work and succeeded, is that you might want to pursue that, too. And it took me a while to realize that that's not where I get most of my joy. I like being involved with research and I appreciate that people are doing that work and I love applying that knowledge to my practice. But I get my joy out of actually seeing patients. That wasn't modeled a lot necessarily to us in the academic setting. It's taken me quite a long time to realize that it's okay to lean into that. If that's what I like about my practice and that's what I can bring to the interaction, then that's what I'm going to do. And I started looking back, it would have been nice to realize, it's okay. It's okay to be a clinician who really enjoys seeing patients and wants to do a lot of that. Again, different kinds of people become physicians, but a lot of the people we had as mentors, they had chosen academic careers because, not that they didn't like patients, they often did, but they really wanted to pursue the research aspect of it. And they would try to cut down on their clinical work and say, “It's nice if you don't have two clinics, you can focus on the research.” And I think to myself, but I like doing the clinics and I like seeing the patients, and it would be a shame to me if I didn't have that.  It's not just the patients, but my colleagues as well, who are also great fun to have around, the nurses we work with. Really, it's the interactions with people. Of course, we get joy from all kinds of other things. In oncology, it's good to see patients do well. It's wonderful to apply new knowledge and you have a breakthrough coming from immunotherapy to lung cancer, melanoma. That sort of thing is fantastic, and it gives me joy, too. But I have the feeling that when I retire at the end of my career, I'm going to look back and go, “Remember that interaction with that patient?” Even now, when I think of when I started in clinical settings as a medical student, I remember, I think it was my first or second patient, I was assigned to look after an elderly woman. She had a history of cirrhosis, and she was admitted with hepatic encephalopathy and a fractured humerus after a fall. I didn't know what I was doing at all, but I was rounding every day. And I went to see her on the third day, she was usually confused, and I said, “How are you doing?” She looked at her arm and she said, “Well, they call this bone the humerus, but I don't see anything particularly funny about it.” I thought, “Oh, she's better.” That's actually one of the earliest things I remember about seeing patients.   Or the next year when I didn't realize I was going to pursue oncology. And I was rotating through with an excellent oncologist, Dr. Ellen Warner at Sunnybrook, who does breast cancer. We were debriefing after the clinic, and she said, “Someday, Stacey, I'm going to publish a big book of breast cancer humor.” And I thought, “I wonder what would be in that book.” And that's when I got this inkling that maybe oncology had just as much humor in as every other part of medicine. And that proved to be true.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: What was it, Stacey, that led you to bioethics? Tell us what you learned from your bioethics work. Dr. Stacey Hubay: I think it's because basically I'm a person who leads towards the humanities, and for me, bioethics is the application of philosophy and moral ethics to a clinical situation. And I think medicine, thankfully, has room for all kinds of people. Of course, you have to be good at different things to be a physician. But I always imagined myself, when I went to school, that after a class, you'd sit around a pub drinking beer and discuss the great meaning of life. And I thought, this is my chance to pursue that. And I was hoping to kind of– I didn't think of it as that I was going to this because I was interested in humor and joy in oncology, although I obviously am. I was thinking that I would be able to make a difference in terms of resource allocation and priority setting, and I still want to pursue those things. Things often lead you down a side road. And bioethics, for me, has sort of reminded me of what I like about this work. And because I was surrounded by many people who are not doing that kind of work, who were surprised how much I liked it, it made me think very carefully about what is it that I like about this. So the bioethics degree, it's finally allowed me to be that person who sits around in pubs drinking beer, discussing Immanual Kant and Utilitarianism and whatever moral theory is of flavor that particular day. Dr. Lidia Schapira: What led you to write this particular story and put it in front of your medical oncology colleagues? Is it your wish to sort of let people sort of loosen up and be their authentic selves and find more joy in the clinic? Dr. Stacey Hubay: That's a good question! The most immediate impetus was I had an assignment for my degree, and I thought, I have to write something. But I'd been writing down these sort of snippets of things I found funny. Occasionally, I just write them down because they were interesting to me. And because we often relate stories to people, “What did you do today? What was your day like?” And because you tell these stories over and over, they develop some kind of oral, mythical quality. You're like, “Here's what I remember that was funny that happened, and it might have been many years ago now.” And I think I'd been thinking a long time about writing it down and sort of organizing it that way. And I guess having to produce something as part of this degree program was an impetus for me. But I'd always wanted to do it. And I think the main thing was I wanted to make it clear to myself what it is I like about it. It's actually made it, for me, much more clear. It was sort of a nebulous thing that I like my work and what is it like about it. And this is what I like. I like the joy I get from patient interactions. And then a secondary goal is I hope that other people, if they were to read this, they realize it's okay for us to have joy in our work as oncologists. And there is a lot of doom and gloom in the world and in our practices, but there's always, always a chink that lets the light in, there's always some humor in what we do. And so I hope that if other people can find that, too, that they enjoy their practice and they last a long time and ultimately help patients through this difficult journey. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Are you somebody who likes to read stories? And if so, what stories have you read recently that you want to recommend to our listeners? Dr. Stacey Hubay: Oh, I am reading The Master and Margarita because three different people recommended this novel to me over the last three years. When a third person did, I thought, “That's it. Got to read it.” It's a Russian novel from the 1930s that was banned until, I think, the ‘60s or ‘70s. It's like a satire of Russian society in the ‘30s. And actually, what I like about it, I haven't finished it. I'm a third of the way through, as I think it's one of the so-called classic novels, people tell me, but that's funny. A lot of the classic novels are kind of tragedies or romances, and this one is sort of absurd black humor in the face of a difficult situation, which I guess is related to oncology, again. So this sort of oppressive, difficult society, the 1930s and Soviet Union, how do you deal with that? With humor. So I'm quite enjoying it, actually. So I recommend that one.  Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, you're an amazing storyteller, and I really enjoyed our conversation. Is there any final message that you want to convey to our listeners? Dr. Stacey Hubay: If you have a chance to become an oncologist, you should do it. It's just the best career I can imagine. Dr. Lidia Schapira: Well, with your laughter and with that wonderful wisdom, let me say, until next time, to our listeners, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of the ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.   Guest Bio: Dr. Stacey Hubay is a Medical Oncologist at the Grand River Regional Cancer Center.

The gang from Episode 10 is back, with yet another Consistently Candid x Pigeon Hour crossoverAs Sarah from Consistently Candid describes:In this episode, Aaron Bergman and Max Alexander are back to battle it out for the philosophy crown, while I (attempt to) moderate. They discuss the Very Repugnant Conclusion, which, in the words of Claude, "posits that a world with a vast population living lives barely worth living could be considered ethically inferior to a world with an even larger population, where most people have extremely high quality lives, but a significant minority endure extreme suffering." Listen to the end to hear my uninformed opinion on who's right.- Listen to Consistently Candid on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or via RSS- My blog post on suffering-focused utilitarianism- Follow Max on Twitter and check out his blog- Follow Sarah on Twitter Get full access to Aaron's Blog at www.aaronbergman.net/subscribe

John Stuart Mill famously claimed that “is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied…” Do you often find that you're dissatisfied? When you are feeling satisfied, does it last? Why are we so prone to dissatisfaction? What can we do to be satisfied with our lives? In this episode, Danny and Randy discuss how to be satisfied. Subscribe to ESP's YouTube Channel! Thanks for listening!  Do you have a question you want answered in a future episode? If so, send your question to: existentialstoic@protonmail.com  Danny, Randy, and their good friend, Russell, created a new podcast, CodeNoobs, for anyone interested in tech and learning how to code. Listen to CodeNoobs now online, CodeNoobs-podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

In today's podcast we have a lively discussion on the various elements of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is defined as a moral theory that encourages actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the greatest number of people. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/phillipdfletcher/support

Join Charlie, a non-binary sci-fi fantasy writer and practicing druid, along with their husband Brian, as they celebrate the third quarter moon and discuss the importance of savoring life's first fruits in this season of Lúnasa. Explore themes of hospitality, humility, and connectedness through meditative exercises and personal anecdotes. Learn how savoring can foster deep, meaningful relationships and bring more joy and mindfulness into your daily life. Don't miss the tips on savoring rituals that can transform your interactions with food, nature, and loved ones.Tips or Donations here: https://ko-fi.com/cedorsett patreon.com/cedorsett Substack: https://www.creationspaths.com/ For Educational Resource: https://wisdomscry.com For all of the things we are doing at The Seraphic Grove go to Creation's Paths https://www.creationspaths.com/ Social Connections: BlueSky https://bsky.app/profile/creationspaths.com Threads https://www.threads.net/@creationspaths Instagram https://www.instagram.com/creationspaths/Transcript:[00:00:00] Charlie- New: Today as we celebrate the third quarter moon and remember the via positiva in this season of Lúnasa. Let us take a look at. Savoring the first fruits of life. On today's. Creations Paths. Intro. Hello everyone. My name is Charlie. I am a non-binary scifi fantasy writer also a practicing druid. I'm joined by my wonderful husband. [00:00:35] Brian - New: Hello. Savoring. Ah, [00:00:39] Charlie- New: his name is Brian and he didn't say it. I thought he might actually say it, but he didn't. [00:00:44] Brian - New: This one has no name . [00:00:45] Charlie- New: So today as we are celebrating the third quarter moon. Which we like to associate each of the quarters of the moon with one of the paths of creation spirituality and the third quarter movie. Is. The via positive, the first path. when I was looking at the themes and everything associated with the four pass. The first path is the season of harvest. You're gathering. sharing. Learning hospitality and. Humility and earthiness and all of those things that to me are more associated with fall. And with the third. Quarter. We've talked a lot about bringing in the first fruits. We've talked about where to find the first fruits. How to go about actually bringing them in. I love that we get to end our lunar cycle on this. Of the series of meditations on savoring, because one of the great themes. Of the via positive it is. Recovering the lost art of saver. To learn to actually just truly savor what we have in front of us, not just eating because we're eating, not just drinking so that we can drink getting past this? Utilitarianism that has infected the world with the advent of capitalism. And industrialism. Learning once again to just have those moments of pure saver. Just to take it in to experience it. I almost feel like people don't understand what it means to savor anymore. [00:02:16] Brian - New: When we first got together. I disturbed you greatly because I didn't exactly know how to savor. I knew how to celebrate in and how to. Recognize the enjoy things. But savoring. No. I grew up in a somewhat military household. At least in the sense that when it came to eating.. you. Put the food in your mouth, you chew it later. That's the old army joke. Chew your food later when you're marching it was very much part of the culture of the household.So when we sat down and ate. We shoveled all the food in our mouth. We chewed as we were leaving the room. There was no savoring. And I remember. That you to help you teach me this. You had me sit down and have me get a pomegranate. And sit down and eat this pomegranate and I remembered it. At first being really, really frustrated because I spent like two hours eating one stupid pomegranate. But the lesson I learned of how to saver. Not only recognize the good qualities in the pomegranate. It was juicy. It was flavorful. I could understand all that, but to actually sit there. In the moment mindfully. Just. Appreciating the awe and wonder. Of this fruit . And it was very profound. It helped me to gain that appreciation. Being in moments of joy, being, celebrating moments, that kind of stuff. It's not quite the same because savoring is. Actually allowing yourself to just exist in that moment of. [00:03:50] Charlie- New: Savoring is relational. See joy is something that you can just find in something. Like I can have joy in a sunset. And the sun doesn't need to know. The sun's only tangentially a part of it naturally. If we want to be technical. The sun's already gone away. It took the light of the sun eight minutes to reach me. So where am I where I'm seeing it? It's actually not where the sun is. The sun's already gone. I'm still having this moment here and I can have that joy and I can, you can save her the sunset. But you have to actually be in relationship . Part of savoring is that understanding of once it's gone, it's gone. It's seeing that via negativa moment. That's coming. Eventually you're going to have to swallow. And the flavor is going to wash away. Eventually the sun's going to go down. And that beautifully painted sky and horizon. It's going to fade to there's this delicate understanding. That this moment is special. For that moment to truly be special, you have to walk. Into relationship with it. And that's something you can't do just by going. Hmm. Tastes good. [00:04:57] Brian - New: Yeah, you have to be present. You can't be thinking about. Laundry and tissues and kids and work and everything else in that same moment, because then you're not there. Your, with the dishes you're with. the , kids, you're not in that moment. Savoring, whatever it is in the moment you're savoring. [00:05:16] Charlie- New: You can appreciate the center. And appreciate the look of the rose. To save for the rose is to sit. With the rose. And you really have to sit with it. For a moment. You can stand too, but you have to be with it. Look at the delicacy of each peddle. The scent, the aroma. The appearance. How it's moving in the breeze. If you're outside. It's taking into effect. All of the little bits and pieces. Take that hon. Has a ritual that he asks people to do. Related to this, that. Either involves a tea ceremony. Or the eating of an orange. It takes you half an hour to an hour to eat an orange. Because you were sitting there mindfully. With each moment. With the smell. Just the sense, the beauty. Of the orange itself. And then as it's breaking open and those oils are being released. And that scent is coming out. And then slowly. Peeling it apart and take separating the segments. One from another. And then one by one slowly, putting them into your mouth and. Squeezing the juice. Into your mouth and just letting it sit there and just experiencing that juiciness. And all of the flavor. And a Roma. And texture. And feel that. Just being there with the full experience of it. And if you've never actually done a ritual like that, I highly highly recommend it. And if oranges, aren't your favorite thing? Pick your favorite fruit. I think you can do this also with candy. But yeah, I think that whatever you pick needs to be a full experience, so it should have a scent. A texture and a flavor. [00:07:04] Brian - New: It helps especially to pick something that. is personal to you. Because then you already have. The start of that relationship. Or if you're extra, extra stubborn, like me a pomegranate and have it be guided. And have somebody sit over there. Early with a stick. I'm just kidding. There was no stick involved. I I, I was extra. Yeah, I needed that level. Um, Yeah. [00:07:26] Charlie- New: I originally learned this with a, with the pomegranate. The teacher who is teaching me. I was only allowed to eat one of those jewels at a time. We are taught to have this utilitarian relationship. With everything, including pleasure, including joy, including happiness, including the relationships that we have in our life. And to sit back and like with a pomegranate or like with tech, not Han and the. And the orange segment by segment and just really, truly experiencing all of that, that segment of the orange has to offer. I like to do this every fall and winter when the tangerines come in, because that's one of my favorite fruits of all time. It can take me. 30 minutes to an hour to eat a team one. The little Tangerine. [00:08:08] Brian - New: Yeah. It's also how, how you appeal it. As you peel it, it's savoring the act pealing it. Recognizing how much pithy that you would like to have in that bite. Because just because appeals in the way appeals, you may want appeal it more. You may wanna peel it less, that savoring just, yeah, it's a relationship. It's a relationship with it. Its relationship with yourself. With that moment. [00:08:34] Charlie- New: This to me is why a lot of. Friendships. Feel hollow to me nowadays. ' I know. Aye. Have a good friendship. When we can sit silently in a room together. And we're both perfectly alright with that. It's not that I don't enjoy the talking or the games or whatever else. You might be dealing with your friends. But there's something special about having a friend that. Just being together. Just sharing space with each other. Is enough and that you can save her that. Just being there. With each other. There's a certain. Closeness that you realize that you have with people. That you don't have to always be talking. You don't always have to be telling a joke or. Doing an activity together, all of our relationships. Benefit. From taking this time. To savour our time together. It's one of the things that when I've talked to younger people that are looking for a relationship and they're not sure what am I doing wrong? Duh. And the question that I almost always ask is, do you hug. Do you cuddle? Yeah, it's possible to have a relationship without hugs and cuddles. But it's difficult to have a close. Relationship. If your time together is just utilitarian. Like I remember the first. Really really close friendship group that I had. We spent most of our time in puppy pilots. We would be reading for example. And we would all get on the floor. And we would each be the back of the other person's chair. And there'd be, you know, five, 10. 15 of us. On the floor. And this one friend's living room. Just clustered up together. Propping up. Using each other's legs as pillows and just reading. Books. That closeness. Having the trust. To allow people to be that close with you. . Knowing that there are no ulterior motives in this closeness. That it's just, we're here. We're together. It really cemented those relationships and that they've lasted so long. And my life that all of that group of people, there's still one person from that group that. All these decades later. I still talk to occasionally. Even though we've moved to different states and had very different lives. And everything. I'm not friends with a lot of people that I knew in high school. But every person that I am still talking to. That I knew in high school. That's the kind of relationship I had with them. That closeness where we just savored being together. We weren't always together just to go out and do things or to. Set up, get together and talk or to share or to, we would just. be together. Just savoring those relationships. And those are the ones that lasted. You know, all of the other ones were. I have many friends from that period of time that I can think of that I had crazy fun with. We ran around, we got into adventures. We did all manner of things, but. If we weren't in the middle of an adventure. I didn't really spend time together. Like as soon as the adventure was over. There was no question that we were going home. Right because we didn't have that kind of relationship. We didn't have that closeness. I think about this a lot, especially in this day and age where we're talking about this. Epidemic of loneliness. And that people have. And I'm one of the worst people to talk to about that because I am. Introverted as they come. I like being alone in my cave. away. The world and, I need that alone time. But I do feel. Lonely. When I don't have any. human interactions. Any reactions with other people. It's about that quality of those relationships though. Yeah, the answer to this is not just be around other people. That helps. That's step one. If we're not being around other people, we're not going to develop deep, meaningful relationships. But you have to find things that you can either save for the relationship between you and the other person. Or that you can get together and relish in the savoring of something else. I'm not one who typically joins groups and. Runs around with other people. And. The way that I had so many friends when I was growing up. Were, these were my star Trek fans. These were my vampire, the masquerade friends. These were my goth friends and those friendship groups. Initially gathered around. Our shared love for an interest in. Uh, thing. My star Trek friends, if you will. So while my mom always called them, my star Trek friends. Because every time we were together, we were talking about star Trek. That was the natural thing for her to group us together as, and it's what we were. But we loved star Trek. We would get together and we would talk about the latest episode and what happened in the series and what we thought was going to happen next. Did. Oh, did you see the comic? Did you read the book? Did. whatever. We spent that time. And I think this is important, especially with the internet and the way the internet works now. Not necessarily theory crafting. But we did. Some of that. Not necessarily digging down and doing deep dives into, did you notice all the little things in the episode? Though we did do some of that. But just celebrating what we loved about it. I had a friend who we were very into the Klingons. And we decided together. To buy Marc Okrand's book and learn to speak cling on. The two of us were studying this book and learning this. I made up language. It was originally out of love for this franchise. These characters that we loved in that show. But I still talk to her today. She's still one of my dearest friends, because we. Savored this thing together. It got to the point where we were writing poetry in, klingon and sharing it with each other because who else could read it? We were. It was that savory. That brought us together that cemented us together. This is what. Our society is missing right now. It's the one thing that's been drowned out. I remember when I was a kid. And we'd go to a 4th of July. Celebration and bacon park and Frederick, Maryland. And everybody was there. I just. In anticipation. Of the fireworks. Often we get a spot down by the band shell. To hear whatever random. Certain meant of. Sure fine. We'll call most of the musicians. That we're performing on the stage. We were all there for not just for a nationalistic reason. We were there. In a community way. We had people that were from our neighborhood that would come out. Eventually we stopped going downtown and went to a friend of ours house who lived up on a mountain. And from that mountain, we could not only see the local fireworks in Frederick, but we could see the fireworks in neighboring towns. From his house. It wasn't just our families that got together. It was this. He has nice large property up on the side of them. Mountain. And every. All these people from our church and community and friends. So we'd all gather up at his house. And yes, we'd have these one, this wonderful food that would be cooked in the. Just innumerable amount of grills. Like every dad that was there had a grill and was grilling something. And sitting there talking and doing their thing and all the kids from all these families. We were together and we were just enjoying the moment because this was a beautiful farm. To be on. It was beautiful hill looking out over the valley. Beautiful place to be. And then the night would come. And then we'd watch the fireworks start here. Cause the fireworks times were always scattered. I don't know if the town's actually worked that out amongst themselves, or it just happened to be that way. But. Somebody would shout off there's one over there and such and such town. And we'd all turn to that part of the yard and look out off the mountain and watch the fireworks over there. And people would be hooting and hollering and clapping their hands and celebrating savoring. He's beautiful. Dancing flames in the sky. And then somebody else would shout. Oh, look, they're starting over there. Everybody turned. And just move our attention one by one, through all the fireworks displays. In that unity. In that savoring together. We all became really close. My parents are still friends with them. All these many, many, many years later. And that's because we had something to savor together. Because you're savoring, Can and should happen alone. Savor your morning coffee or beverage or whatever. Get off work and make that tea that just gives you life. Take that one favorite candy and just hold it in your mouth and just enjoy. This sheer joy. The of it. But when you find people that you can savor things together with. That's how real communities form. That's where real joy. Comes into our lives. And we're like, we've been talking about unity and competition and all of these things throughout this month where we're focused on the gatherings of Lúnasa that's where you really find those deep connections. And build these relationships that will be with you forever. And some people. Do you find that in their religious communities? Yeah. And when I find another person who is a devotee. Of Brigid. It's like being a kid again. Did you like Bridget too? Yes. We're friends now. You know, and it's not that simple, but we have something to talk about. And we're going to talk about. This and that. And, oh, have you read this story? Did you see this poem? Have you ever had this happen to in your prayers and your devotions and your meditation? have you ever felt the call to work on things like this? Those conversations just happen. And. We're savoring our relationship with Bridget together. [00:18:27] Brian - New: That's the thing. Savoring is connectedness. Yes. It's celebrating and connecting. Connecting yourself into that moment in time when time becomes timeless. Because you're just in the moment, there was no past, there is no future. It is just you in that moment, savoring it. It connects you in with whatever you're savoring, like you said, there could be others that could be a shared activity. You could savor. Your creative acts. I often will savor when cooking time falls away. Appreciating. The sacrifice of the plants and animals that went into making the food. And respecting the ingredients I'm appreciating and connecting in with each ingredient. And. Observing. All the senses, smell, taste, sound. Oftentimes, they get teased for listening to and speaking with the food. And I mean, there's moments of savoring, but there is a communication that's going on there. It does talk. It talks to me, at least I listen. It tells me when it's done, when it's ready, how much longer it needs to go. That's how you do your chef. Yeah. Yeah. But it's in everything. That connectedness and connection. That comes back in. [00:19:37] Charlie- New: As somebody who grew up on a farm. I remember we'd go out and it's time to bring the tomatoes because we're going to make tomato sauce. That's that time. For our frost is getting near or the heat. Brain's Rover. Everything's going to start drying out in the heat. As you know, Mid-west and August. September times and half, then it gets very hot and dry. So we'd be pulling in all these tomatoes. I mean, bushels and bushels and bushels of tomatoes. And big ones got cut up to go into the pot. And the little ones just kept disappearing. Who knows where they were going. I kid. Everybody knew where they were going. You'd be going through your pot and, oh, there's just a little one there. Yup. And that pop. That fresh tomato right off the vine, just popping. And your mouth and just the joy of it. And just with everything that we were harvesting, harvesting the green beans. A couple of, for the canning one for me. A couple for the canteen one from. Right. There was a. Savoring that came in when we were bringing that in. It was a celebration because once one we knew we were going to have all this food for the winter. For the fall in the winter. But also just this joy of here, it was. I remember we'd bring in the corn. It was a race to get the first. It depend on how many people were there to help us shuck the corn. So you get the corn process. If there are four of us there, the first four years. We've got to hurry up and get them shucked and cleaned and get all the silk silk out. Cause they needed to go right into the pot. As we were going to, we were going to eat those first four. Write that in there. Has that beautiful golden corn had been out there growing and growing and growing and out with it was ready. It was time. Hurry up and weed. Peel back the outer layers. You get the brushes out and start getting the silk out from between the kernels. You get them into that salted pot water. Just when that smell. That's how you knew they were done. Never set a timer. You're suddenly smell this wonderful corn smell coming out of that water. And then the tongues would go. And out they came and on the butter went. And suddenly they were all gone. Because that was the joy in it. We had worked so hard. Keep the bugs off the plants to keep. Rabbits out of the field. If the animals out to get those plants to grow. And we had the harvest. And my happiest memories as a kid, I actually heard some of those harvest that we had. Sitting in with my great-grandmother and my grandmother and my mom. Sometimes some other folk that would come to join us. It's all the conversations around the tech table. As everything was getting processed so that it could get into the jar. So you get canned. So we'd have it for the rest of the year. Magical times. I wonder if your. Looking for more of that magic in your life. I think you can save her. Either alone or with others. Yeah. Were you able to find them? I hope this episode has helped you out. I hope you found something to savor, remembered something used to love to savor that maybe you. Stop letting yourself have access to. We'll find something. To just bring into your life to just enjoy it. I really love mint and I keep minutes by my desk. And anytime I'm feeling a little low or depressed or sad I'll just pop a mint in. And just close my eyes for a minute and just. Or smell it. Taste it and just bring it in. Maybe a little thing. [00:23:00] Brian - New: Could be meta and savor the episode on savoring. [00:23:03] Charlie- New: Hopefully this has helped you out. If you know, somebody that needs to help rediscover the lost art of savoring. Send this to them. Hopefully it'll help them out. That's what we're here for. Try to bring more light and life into people's lives. And if you haven't already, depending on where you're listening to us. Hit the like button. Subscribe follow. Any of those things that you can do if you're on a place like apple podcasts and you can leave a review. Please leave a review that really helps us out a lot. More than, you know, If you have someone in your life that you know is bad at savoring, it needs to savor share it. Send it to him. And if you haven't already head over to wisdoms cry. Oh, yeah. You can head over to https://wisdomscry.com . That's where I put all of my journaling and thoughts on various. Spiritual matters over there. There's a lot over there. A whole bunch of stuff. Being written up about Bridget right now. That's going to be showing up there soon. You can head over to https://www.creationspaths.com/ . To get our regular newsletter. I have to say we're about to launch another podcast over there. Don't worry, this one's going to be weekly. It's going to be bringing regular meditations every week. Little guided meditations, guided prayers. Okay. Guided rituals, things of that nature into your life. To help you really connect with. All of the things that we've been talking about. We're also going to be doing some classes over there. So if you have a few dollars, you can. Pass our way. It really does help us out pay the bills. Make sure that we have food on our table. Those of you who share with us will be getting those classes before. They go out to everyone else. As a little bit of a thank you. And also make sure that we can give you a little bit special attention. And the comments and stuff for them. Thank you all so much for that. You do. And until next time. Find something to savor and just bask and it's light. Amen. Amen. Get full access to Creation's Paths at www.creationspaths.com/subscribe

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Humanity isn't remotely longtermist, so arguments for AGI x-risk should focus on the near term, published by Seth Herd on August 13, 2024 on LessWrong. Toby Ord recently published a nice piece On the Value of Advancing Progress about mathematical projections of far-future outcomes given different rates of progress and risk levels. The problem with that and many arguments for caution is that people usually barely care about possibilities even twenty years out. We could talk about sharp discounting curves in decision-making studies, and how that makes sense given evolutionary pressures in tribal environments. But I think this is pretty obvious from talking to people and watching our political and economic practices. Utilitarianism is a nicely self-consistent value system. Utilitarianism pretty clearly implies longtermism. Most people don't care that much about logical consistency,[1] so they are happily non-utilitarian and non-longtermist in a variety of ways. Many arguments for AGI safety are longtermist, or at least long-term, so they're not going to work well for most of humanity. This is a fairly obvious, but worth-keeping-in-mind point. One non-obvious lemma of this observation is that much skepticism about AGI x-risk is probably based on skepticism about AGI happening soon. This doesn't explain all skepticism, but it's a significant factor worth addressing. When people dig into their logic, that's often a central point. They start out saying "AGI wouldn't kill humans" then over the course of a conversation it turns out that they feel that way primarily because they don't think real AGI will happen in their lifetimes. Any discussion of AGI x-risks isn't productive, because they just don't care about it. The obvious counterpoint is "You're pretty sure it won't happen soon? I didn't know you were an expert in AI or cognition!" Please don't say this - nothing convinces your opponents to cling to their positions beyond all logic like calling them stupid.[2] Something like "well, a lot of people with the most relevant expertise think it will happen pretty soon. A bunch more think it will take longer. So I just assume I don't know which is right, and it might very well happen pretty soon". It looks to me like discussing whether AGI might threaten humans is pretty pointless if the person is still assuming it's not going to happen for a long time. Once you're past that, it might make sense to actually talk about why you think AGI would be risky for humans.[3] 1. ^ This is an aside, but you'll probably find that utilitarianism isn't that much more logical than other value systems anyway. Preferring what your brain wants you to prefer, while avoiding drastic inconsistency, has practical advantages over values that are more consistent but that clash with your felt emotions. So let's not assume humanity isn't utilitarian just because it's stupid. 2. ^ Making sure any discussions you have about x-risk are pleasant for all involved is probably actually the most important strategy. I strongly suspect that personal affinity weighs more heavily than logic on average, even for fairly intellectual people. (Rationalists are a special case; I think we're resistant but not immune to motivated reasoning). So making a few points in a pleasant way, then moving on to other topics they like is probably way better than making the perfect logical argument while even slightly irritating them. 3. ^ From there you might be having the actual discussion on why AGI might threaten humans. Here are some things I've seen be convincing. People seem to often think "okay fine it might happen soon, but surely AI smarter than us still won't have free will and make its own goals". From there you could point out that it needs goals to be useful, and if it misunderstands those goals even slightly, it might be...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Utilitarianism and the replaceability of desires and attachments, published by MichaelStJules on July 28, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary 1. Consider a pill that would cause a happy person with a fulfilling life to abandon their most important desires and cherished attachments, including goals, career and loved ones, but increase their lifetime subjective well-being. If what's best for someone is just higher subjective well-being (including even higher lifetime preference/desire satisfaction), then it would be better for them to take the pill. However, it seems to me that if they prefer not to take such a pill, to honour their current specific desires and attachments, it could be worse for them to take it (more). 2. I anticipate some responses and reply to them: 1. People aren't always right about what's best for themselves. R: That's true, but attitude manipulation is quite different from other cases, where individuals neglect, discount or otherwise misweigh attitudes they do or will have (more). 2. Deontological constraints against involuntary manipulation. R: Deontological constraints could oddly recommend not to do what's better for someone on their behalf (more). 3. Indirect reasons count against involuntary attitude manipulation. R: Probably, but I also think it wouldn't be better for them in many cases where it would increase their well-being (more). 4. We can't compare someone's welfare between such different attitudes. R: We wouldn't then have reason either way about manipulation, or to prevent manipulation (more). 5. The thought experiment is too removed from reality. R: In fact, reprogramming artificial minds seems reasonably likely to be possible in the future, and regardless, if this manipulation would be worse for someone, views consistent with this could have important implications for cause prioritization (more). 3. This kind of attitude manipulation would be worse for someone on preference-affecting views, which are in favor of making preferences (or attitudes) satisfied, but neutral about making satisfied preferences (for their own sake). Such views are also person-affecting, and so neutral about making happy people or ensuring they come to exist (for their own sake). I expect such views to give relatively less priority to extinction risk reduction within the community (more). Acknowledgements Thanks to Lukas Gloor and Chi Nguyen for helpful feedback. Thanks to Teo Ajantaival, Magnus Vinding, Anthony DiGiovanni and Eleos Arete Citrini for helpful feedback on earlier related drafts. All errors are my own. Manipulating desires and abandoning attachments Let's start with a thought experiment. Arneson (2006, pdf) wrote the following, although I substitute my own text in italics and square brackets to modify it slightly: Suppose I am married to Sam, committed to particular family and friends, dedicated to philosophy and mountain biking, and I am then offered a pill that will immediately and costlessly change my tastes, so that my former desires disappear, and I desire only [to know more about the world, so I will obsessively and happily consume scientific material, abandoning my spouse, my friends and family, my career as a philosopher and mountain biking, and instead live modestly off of savings or work that allows me to spend most of me time reading]. I am assured that taking the pill will increase my lifetime level of [subjective well-being]. Assume further that Arneson loves Sam, his family and friends, philosophy and mountain biking, and would have continued to do so without the pill. He would have had a very satisfying, subjectively meaningful, personally fulfilling, pleasurable and happy life, with high levels of overall desire/preference satisfaction, even if he doesn't take the pill. On all of these measures of subjective well-bein...

Show notes will be posted upon receipt.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/truth-wanted--3195473/support.

This week, I had the pleasure of speaking with Peter Singer, one of the world's leading moral philosophers, known for his work in building the philosophical foundations of the modern animal rights movement, which he helped develop with his landmark book “Animal Liberation” published in 1975 which was one of the first to highlight hideous conditions of animal suffering and the vacuity of “speciesism”. He is a prominent advocate of Utilitarianism, and over the years, he's written about euthanasia, infanticide, and global poverty, amongst many other issues, and his scholarship continues to influence public discourse and ethical policy. If you're interested in learning more about his philosophy, Peter Singer has just launched his own podcast called “Lives Well Lived” where he interviews guests who have lived lives with extraordinary contributions. In today's episode, Peter and I discuss, as always, the four books which have most influenced him as a thinker and a person, as well as the modern animal rights movement, veganism, and his introduction to philosophy.

Morality! What is it? Where does it come from? And do we all have the same morals? Find out this week as the boys explore this deeply personal and subjective topic. Mitch defines morality for us and the key aspects that underpin it in the scientific community. Tom then explores four key areas of philosophical thought on morality: Kantian, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and Confucian ethics. The boys then discuss various moral dilemmas and what they would do in that situation.

Patreon: https://bit.ly/3v8OhY7 Peter Singer is Ira W. DeCamp Professor Emeritus of Bioethics in the Department of Philosophy at Princeton University. He is among the most influential living philosophers, and among the most influential moral philosophers of the last century. Peter is best known for his work in applied ethics on animal welfare and global poverty. In this episode, Robinson and Peter discuss these topics after first introducing his more general views on moral philosophy, including those on utilitarianism and meta-ethics. Throughout their conversation they also touch on Peter's new podcast, Lives Well Lived, co-hosted with Kasia de Lazari Radek, the Journal of Controversial Ideas, Peter's Substack, Bold Reasoning with Peter Singer, and his latest and next books, which are respectively The Buddhist and the Ethicist (Shambhala, 2023) and Consider the Turkey (Princeton, 2024). Peter's Website: https://www.petersinger.info Lives Well Lived Podcast: https://shows.acast.com/6628460c6b51e80012b834c2 The Life You Can Save Organization: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org.au The Journal of Controversial Ideas: https://journalofcontroversialideas.org Peter's Substack: https://boldreasoningwithpetersinger.substack.com The Buddhist and the Ethicist: https://a.co/d/38DOmbK Consider the Turkey: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691231686/consider-the-turkey  OUTLINE 00:00 Introduction 04:14 Peter Singer's Entry into Philosophy 08:54 What Is Utilitarianism? 10:58 On Consequentialism vs Deontology 13:12 On Trolley Problems and Moral Facts 16:40 On Moral Realism and Anti-Realism 20:51 On Hedonistic Utilitarianism 26:17 The Lives Well Lived Podcast 33:43 A Puzzle About Trolley Problems 38:48 On the Origin of Peter Singer's Concern for Animals 49:38 Is It Ever Morally Permissible to Eat Meat? 55:32 Consider the Turkey 1:03:07 Famine, Affluence, and Morality 1:09:08 The Life You Can Save 1:10:50 The Buddhist and the Ethicist 1:18:08 The Journal of Controversial Ideas 1:25:50 Peter's Substack Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

News

This episode will be exploring Utilitarianism's Principles, Criticisms, and Contemporary Perspectives.Utilitarianism is a moral theory that suggests the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its consequences, specifically by the amount of happiness or pleasure it produces. This theory traces its origins to the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who developed and popularized utilitarian thought in the 19th century.Jeremy Bentham, in his book "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation," laid out the basic principles of utilitarianism. He argued that the goal of ethics should be to maximize happiness or pleasure and minimize suffering or pain for the greatest number of people. This concept of "the greatest happiness principle" forms the foundation of utilitarianism.

Today on The Literary Life Podcast, Angelina Stanford and Thomas Banks begin a new book discussion series covering Anne Brontë's Victorian novel Agnes Grey. This week they are giving an introduction to the social and literary climate in which Anne was writing, as well as discussing chapters 1-5 of the book. Thomas shares a little information on Utilitarianism, and Angelina talks about how this affected the literature of the Victorian period. She also points out that the Brontës were writing in the medieval literary tradition rather than the didactic or realistic style, and as such we should look for symbols and metaphors in their journey of the soul. Thomas and Angelina explore the background of the Brontë sisters, discuss the position of the governess in this time period, and compare Agnes Grey to other governess novels. Diving into the first five chapters of this book, Angelina and Thomas look at the life of young Agnes Grey and at her family. In treating the characters in the early chapters, they talk about Agnes Grey's first forays into the life of the governess, the horrid children in her care, their irresponsible parents, and more. Check out the schedule for the podcast's summer episodes on our Upcoming Events page. If you haven't heard about Cindy Rollins' upcoming Summer Discipleship series, you can learn more about that over at MorningTimeforMoms.com. In June Mr. Banks will be teaching a 5-day class on St. Augustine, and in July Dr. Jason Baxter will be teaching a class on Dostoevsky. Also, don't miss the launch the HHL publishing wing, Cassiodorus Press! Sign up for the newsletter at HouseofHumaneLetters.com to stay in the know about all the exciting new things we have coming up! Commonplace Quotes: Truth is the trial of itself,/ And needs no other touch. Ben Jonson The previous literary life of this country had left vigorous many old forces in the Victorian time, as in our time. Roman Britain and Mediæval England are still not only alive but lively; for real development is not leaving things behind, as on a road, but drawing life from them, as from a root. Even when we improve we never progress. For progress, the metaphor from the road, implies a man leaving his home behind him: but improvement means a man exalting the towers or extending the gardens of his home. G. K. Chesterton, The Victorian Age in Literature Ganymede By W. H. Auden He looked in all His wisdom from the throneDown on that humble boy who kept the sheep,And sent a dove; the dove returned alone:Youth liked the music, but soon fell asleep. But He had planned such future for the youth:Surely, His duty now was to compel.For later he would come to love the truth,And own his gratitude. His eagle fell. It did not work. His conversation boredThe boy who yawned and whistled and made faces,And wriggled free from fatherly embraces; But with the eagle he was always willingTo go where it suggested, and adoredAnd learnt from it so many ways of killing. Book List: George MacDonald Charles Dickens Lewis Carroll Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë The Mill on the Floss by George Eliot Tom Jones by Henry Fielding Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe Adam Bede by George Eliot Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier My Cousin Rachel by Daphne Du Maurier The Infernal World of Bramwell Brontë by Daphne Du Maurier Thomas Hardy Villette by Charlotte Brontë Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray Mary Poppins by P. L. Travers The Way We Live Now by Anthony Trollope The Turn of the Screw by Henry James Esther Waters by George Moore Support The Literary Life: Become a patron of The Literary Life podcast as part of the “Friends and Fellows Community” on Patreon, and get some amazing bonus content! Thanks for your support! Connect with Us: You can find Angelina and Thomas at HouseofHumaneLetters.com, on Instagram @angelinastanford, and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/ANGStanford/ Follow The Literary Life on Instagram, and jump into our private Facebook group, The Literary Life Discussion Group, and let's get the book talk going! http://bit.ly/literarylifeFB

Watch the episode here. Are you guilty of worldview murder? Is your mindless consumption predetermined? The Pop-Theo-Cogs have seen a different path to take, one that points you to the "Capital P" Precog and film as an opportunity to glorify Him. So strap in and view this Sci-fi classic with new eyes as we cover Minority Report. James' book Cinemagogue has a new edition! Hear more in this episode and read more here. For a sneak peak at the Director's Cut, click here. — We've got new merchandise! Check it out at the merch store. Help us recruit more film lovers and theology nerds by sharing this episode with your friends. Rate and review the podcast wherever you listen to help attract more listeners.  Follow and connect with us on social media. Support us on Patreon. Chapters: Cold Open - 00:00 Intro - 01:50 Philip K. Dick - 03:00 Subscribe, Share, Connect - 06:07 Popcorn Ratings - 08:45 Theology Ratings - 11:26 Ads - 14:12 Popcorn Thoughts - 17:34 Living in a Precrime World? - 28:18 God is the Capital P Precog - 43:45 What is man? - 53:34 Duty, Justice, Utilitarianism - 1:06:47 The Gospel IS THE Minority Report - 1:19:30 Lightning Round - 1:30:52

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Analyzing the moral value of unaligned AIs, published by Matthew Barnett on April 8, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. A crucial consideration in assessing the risks of advanced AI is the moral value we place on "unaligned" AIs - systems that do not share human preferences - which could emerge if we fail to make enough progress on technical alignment. In this post I'll consider three potential moral perspectives, and analyze what each of them has to say about the normative value of the so-called "default" unaligned AIs that humans might eventually create: Standard total utilitarianism combined with longtermism: the view that what matters most is making sure the cosmos is eventually filled with numerous happy beings. Human species preservationism: the view that what matters most is making sure the human species continues to exist into the future, independently from impartial utilitarian imperatives. Near-termism or present-person affecting views: what matters most is improving the lives of those who currently exist, or will exist in the near future. I argue that from the first perspective, unaligned AIs don't seem clearly bad in expectation relative to their alternatives, since total utilitarianism is impartial to whether AIs share human preferences or not. A key consideration here is whether unaligned AIs are less likely to be conscious, or less likely to bring about consciousness, compared to alternative aligned AIs. On this question, I argue that there are considerations both ways, and no clear answers. Therefore, it tentatively appears that the normative value of alignment work is very uncertain, and plausibly neutral, from a total utilitarian perspective. However, technical alignment work is much more clearly beneficial from the second and third perspectives. This is because AIs that share human preferences are likely to both preserve the human species and improve the lives of those who currently exist. However, in the third perspective, pausing or slowing down AI is far less valuable than in the second perspective, since it forces existing humans to forego benefits from advanced AI, which I argue will likely be very large. I personally find moral perspectives (1) and (3) most compelling, and by contrast find view (2) to be uncompelling as a moral view. Yet it is only from perspective (2) that significantly delaying advanced AI for alignment reasons seems clearly beneficial, in my opinion. This is a big reason why I'm not very sympathetic to pausing or slowing down AI as a policy proposal. While these perspectives do not exhaust the scope of potential moral views, I think this analysis can help to sharpen what goals we intend to pursue by promoting particular forms of AI safety work. Unaligned AIs from a total utilitarian point of view Let's first consider the normative value of unaligned AIs from the first perspective. From a standard total utilitarian perspective, entities matter morally if they are conscious (under hedonistic utilitarianism) or if they have preferences (under preference utilitarianism). From this perspective, it doesn't actually matter much intrinsically if AIs don't share human preferences, so long as they are moral patients and have their preferences satisfied. The following is a prima facie argument that utilitarians shouldn't care much about technical AI alignment work. Utilitarianism is typically not seen as partial to human preferences in particular. Therefore, efforts to align AI systems with human preferences - the core aim of technical alignment work - may be considered morally neutral from a utilitarian perspective. The reasoning here is that changing the preferences of AIs to better align them with the preferences of humans doesn't by itself clearly seem to advance the aims of utilitarianism, in the sense of filling the cosmos w...

An incendiary WRESTLING WITH THE DEAD speech on the evils of historical morality...Get access to the full WRESTLING WITH THE DEAD series by subscribing now!You will also get my new series on the Truth About the French Revolution, the Truth About Sadism, access to the audiobook for my new book 'Peaceful Parenting,' StefBOT-AI, private livestreams, premium call in shows, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022

In this episode, I explain John Stuart Mill's approach to "Utilitarianism" If you want to support me, you can do that with these links: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theoryandphilosophy paypal.me/theoryphilosophy  Twitter: @DavidGuignion IG: @theory_and_philosophy TikTok: @theoryphilosophy

This week on Upstream, Erik is joined by David Friedman for a deep dive on anarcho-capitalism, utilitarianism, and more. To get Brave: Head to https://brave.com/brave-ads/ and mention “MoZ” when signing up for a 25% discount on your first campaign. -- RECOMMENDED PODCAST: Autopilot explores the adoption and rollout of AI in the industries that drive the economy and the dynamic founders bringing rapid change to slow-moving industries. From law, to hardware, to aviation, Will Summerlin interviews founders backed by Benchmark, Greylock, and more to learn how they're automating at the frontiers in entrenched industries. Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6YQZkKHN7EP2yWedAvSxBC?si=18377c69a2804333 Listen on Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/autopilot-with-will-summerlin/id1738163836 -- SPONSOR: BRAVE Get first-party targeting with Brave's private ad platform: cookieless and future proof ad formats for all your business needs. Performance meets privacy. Head to https://brave.com/brave-ads/ and mention “MoZ” when signing up for a 25% discount on your first campaign. -- Timestamps: (00:00) Intro (00:46) The Friedman Family's Intellectual Lineage (03:18) Market Failures and Government Intervention (06:11) Privatizating Everything (09:33) The Mechanics of Anarcho-Capitalism (12:47) Why David Isn't a Utilitarianism (16:33) Midroll: Brave | Turpentine (18:19) David's Moral Framework (23:36) Is Global Coordination Possible? (30:46) Privatizing Military and National Defense (32:54) Addressing Poverty in an Anarcho-Capitalist World (35:40) Competitive Dictatorship (40:54) Historical Precedents for Private Law (42:31) The Inefficiency of Governments (44:06) Coordination under Decentralization vs Centralization & Surveillance Capitalism (55:07) Law & Punishment under Anarcho-Capitalism (58:28) The Problems with Restorative Justice (01:07:31) Addressing Common Criticisms of Market Systems (01:14:41) Exploring the Moral Case for Economic Growth (01:16:26) Existential Risks from Global Warming, AI, Nanotech, and Biotech (01:18:49) The Market's Short-Term vs. Long-Term Dilemma (01:20:13) Utilitarian Thought Experiment (01:22:03) Income Sharing Agreements (01:26:20) Equality of Opportunity vs. Outcome (01:30:15) Why Do We Care about Equality? (01:47:40) Anarcho-Capitalism and Crypto (01:51:04) David's Legacy -- LINKS: David's Website: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ -- X / TWITTER: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg (Erik) https://twitter.com/Upstream__Pod (Upstream) https://twitter.com/TurpentineMedia (Turpentine) -- Upstream is a production from Turpentine Producer: Sam Kaufman Editor: Eul Jose Lacierda For guest or sponsorship inquiries please contact Sam@turpentine.co

In this episode, I cover John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism." If you want to support me, you can do so with these links: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theoryandphilosophy paypal.me/theoryphilosophy TikTok: @theoryphilosophy Insta: @theory_and_philosophy    

In this episode with bioethicist and moral philosopher Dr. Travis N. Rieder, we discuss his latest book Catastrophe Ethics, in which he explores how individuals can make morally decent choices in a world of confusing and often terrifying problems. We explore the morally exhausting and puzzling nature of modern life in which individual actions can often seem insignificant in the face of massive and complex systems. Rieder offers suggestions on how to overcome this sense of ‘moral dumbfounding' so that we can better align our actions with our values towards ethical living. Among the small and large individual actions that we discuss, Rieder places a special focus on the ethics of procreation — what he calls monumental ethics — and the degree of moral deliberation that is needed to arrive at the decision to have a biological child. We also discuss the dangers of utilitarian ethics, with a specific focus on Effective Altruism. See episode website for show notes, links, and transcript: https://www.populationbalance.org/podcast/travis-rieder-2   ABOUT US The Overpopulation Podcast features enlightening conversations between Population Balance executive director Nandita Bajaj, researcher Alan Ware, and expert guests. We cover a broad variety of topics that explore the impacts of our expanding human footprint on human rights, animal protection, and environmental restoration, as well as individual and collective solutions. Learn more here: https://www.populationbalance.org/ 

What does a taxidermied man have to do with women getting the vote? Well, as it turns out, quite a lot! The 1800's ushered in a new way of life for everyone and the Industrial Revolution wasn't called that just because of the machines. This new reign of technology heralded in a new era in workers rights or in fact highlighted that...there were none! Pair this with the fact that only 4500 men in England were allowed to vote, this meant working class people had no say in what happened to them and they were angry! However, a new way of thinking was making it's way into parliament and that was because of a now taxidermied man who lived in a case...Today on Macabre London, we uncover the origins of the women's suffrage movement and the path to the universal vote.This is part two in my industrial revolution / Suffragette series - episode one is here: https://youtu.be/X-skf7cLV0E------------------------Podcast: https://podfollow.com/1180202350Macabre London is a fortnightly podcast and YouTube show that delves into London's haunted and gruesome history alongside discovering Macabre mini Mysteries from all over the world!Be sure to check out my other podcast, Killers, Cults & Queens with Cheryl Hole https://podfollow.com/queens---------------------------SUPPORT ME————————ONE OFF DONATIONS: Paypal - paypal.me/macabrelondonKO-FI: ko-fi.com/macabrelondonPATREON: www.patreon.com/macabrelondonAMAZON WISHLIST - http://amzn.eu/dJxEf1V​​​​​​MERCH! - https://macabrelondon-shop.fourthwall.comPATREON - www.patreon.com/macabrelondon——————————-Thank you to our executive producer patrons - Christina, Christophe, Lisa, M, Ravelle, Sally, Sam, Sarah, Terri, Teresa, Vee, VeronicaAnd to all of our wonderful £5 tier patrons...Lindal Victoria ZozoLAMLucy Talli Claire Verena Inge Kim Amy ClaireAndreaKathryn Jo David ShannonCreepy PaperRachelDeniseHelenSabrinaAndrew And thanks to all other patrons too!————————SOCIAL MEDIA---------------------------------------------Insta: @nikkimacabrelondonX: @macabrelondonTikTok: @macabrelondonFacebook: @macabrelondonEmail: macabrelondon@hotmail.comSources-------------https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsehistory/2023/03/28/remembering-the-suffragettes-black-friday/#:~:text=Over%20100%20women%20were%20arrested,modern%20day%20Parliament%20in%20colour.https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/discover/virtual-visit/podcasts/women-and-power-serieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianismhttps://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/james-ramsay-macdonald#:~:text=Born%2012%20October%201866%2C%20James,from%20a%20working%20class%20family.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_general_strike#:~:text=The%201842%20general%20strike%2C%20also,to%20South%20Wales%20and%20Cornwall.https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collections/1866-suffrage-petition/presenting-the-petition/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Duleep_Singhhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832 Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Upstream, Erik is joined by Igor Kurganov, poker player and founder of Raising for Effective Giving. They discuss similarities between poker and Effective Altruism, the successes and failures of EA, and where EA should go next. To get Brave: Head to https://brave.com/brave-ads/ and mention “MoZ” when signing up for a 25% discount on your first campaign. -- RECOMMENDED PODCAST: Investing City The Investing City Podcast helps you improve at investing, business, and life: learn from some of the brightest minds in business such as the CEO of Walmart, Morgan Housel, or billion-dollar fund managers. Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7tV2EIrKXXUPxO0jpUaLlX Listen on Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-investing-city-podcast/id1448079153 -- SPONSOR: BRAVE Get first-party targeting with Brave's private ad platform: cookieless and future proof ad formats for all your business needs. Performance meets privacy. Head to https://brave.com/brave-ads/ and mention “MoZ” when signing up for a 25% discount on your first campaign. -- LINKS Raising for Effective Giving: https://reg-charity.org/ -- X / TWITTER: @IgorKurganov (Igor) @eriktorenberg (Erik) @upstream__pod @turpentinemedia -- TIMESTAMPS: (00:00) Intro (01:01) Math, Poker and Igor's Journey into Effective Altruism (03:40) The Evolution of Effective Altruism (05:15) Critiques and Challenges of Effective Altruism (08:00) Limitations and Misapplications of Effective Altruism (10:42) Effective Altruism's Approach to AI Safety and Pandemic Risks (12:54) Igor on Criticisms and Misunderstandings of EA (17:17) Sponsor - Brave (18:19) The Balance between Centralization and Decentralization in Effective Altruism (24:41) Utilizing Philanthropy to Address Market Failure (26:41) Critique of Utilitarianism (29:29) The Influence of Politics in EA (40:13) Appreciating Effective Altruism (42:31) Will EA be Here to Stay? (47:24) Wrap -- This show is produced by Turpentine: a network of podcasts, newsletters, and more, covering technology, business, and culture — all from the perspective of industry insiders and experts. We're launching new shows every week, and we're looking for industry-leading sponsors — if you think that might be you and your company, email us at erik@turpentine.co. Producer: Sam Kaufman Editor: Eul Jose Lacierda

On this ID the Future from the vault, biophysicist Cornelius Hunter explores Charles Darwin's theological arguments for his theory of evolution. Darwin received what is known as theological utilitarianism from the intellectual culture of his youth, and he built a case against it with his theory of natural selection. Hunter explains the problems with Darwin's tunnel vision and why it matters today. Source

On this ID the Future from the vault, biophysicist Cornelius Hunter explores Charles Darwin's theological arguments for his theory of evolution. Darwin received what is known as theological utilitarianism from the intellectual culture of his youth, and he built a case against it with his theory of natural selection. Hunter explains the problems with Darwin's tunnel vision and why it matters today. Source

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Complexity of value but not disvalue implies more focus on s-risk. Moral uncertainty and preference utilitarianism also do., published by Chi on February 13, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. As per title. I often talk to people that have views that I think should straightforwardly imply a larger focus on s-risk than they think. In particular, people often seem to endorse something like a rough symmetry between the goodness of good stuff and the badness of bad stuff, sometimes referring to this short post that offers some arguments in that direction. I'm confused by this and wanted to quickly jot down my thoughts - I won't try to make them rigorous and make various guesses for what additional assumptions people usually make. I might be wrong about those. Views that IMO imply putting more weight on s-risk reduction: Complexity of values: Some people think that the most valuable things possible are probably fairly complex (e.g. a mix of meaning, friendship, happiness, love, child-rearing, beauty etc.) instead of really simple (e.g. rats on heroin, what people usually imagine when hearing hedonic shockwave.) People also often have different views on what's good. I think people who believe in complexity of values often nonetheless think suffering is fairly simple, e.g. extreme pain seems simple and also just extremely bad. (Some people think that the worst suffering is also complex and they are excluded from this argument.) On first pass, it seems very plausible that complex values are much less energy-efficient than suffering. (In fact, people commonly define complexity by computational complexity, which translates directly to energy-efficiency.) To the extent that this is true, this should increase our concern about the worst futures relative to the best futures, because the worst futures could be much worse than the best futures. (The same point is made in more detail here.) Moral uncertainty: I think it's fairly rare for people to think the best happiness is much better than worst suffering is bad. I think people often have a mode at "they are the same in magnitude" and then uncertainty towards "the worst suffering is worse". If that is so, you should be marginally more worried about the worst futures relative to the best futures. The case for this is more robust if you incorporate other people's views into your uncertainty: I think it's extremely rare to have an asymmetric distribution towards thinking the best happiness is better in expectation.[1] (Weakly related point here.) Caring about preference satisfaction: I feel much less strongly about this one because thinking about the preferences of future people is strange and confusing. However, I think if you care strongly about preferences, a reasonable starting point is anti-frustrationism, i.e. caring about unsatisfied preferences but not caring about satisfied preferences of future people. That's because otherwise you might end up thinking, for example, that it's ideal to create lots of people who crave green cubes and give them lots of green cubes. I at least find that outcome a bit bizarre. It also seems asymmetric: Creating people who crave green cubes and not giving them green cubes does seem bad. Again, if this is so, you should marginally weigh futures with lots of dissatisfied people more than futures with lots of satisfied people. To be clear, there are many alternative views, possible ways around this etc. Taking into account preferences of non-existent people is extremely confusing! But I think this might be an underappreciated problem that people who mostly care about preferences need to find some way around if they don't want to weigh futures with dissatisfied people more highly. I think point 1 is the most important because many people have intuitions around complexity of value. None of these po...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Unpacking Martin Sandbu's recent(ish) take on EA, published by JWS on January 20, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. The original article is here: https://www.ft.com/content/128f3a15-b048-4741-b3e0-61c9346c390b Why respond to this article? When browsing EA Twitter earlier this month, someone whose opinions on EA I respect quote-tweeted someone that I don't (at least on the topic of EA[1]). The subject of both tweets was an article published at the end of 2023 by Martin Sandbu of the Financial Times titled "Effective altruism was the favoured creed of Sam Bankman-Fried. Can it survive his fall?" Given that both of these people seem to broadly endorse the views, or at least the balance, found in the article I thought it would be worthwhile reading to see what a relatively mainstream commentator would think about EA. The Financial Times is one of the world's leading newspapers and needs very little introduction, and Sandbu is one of its most well-known commenters. What gets printed in the FT is often repeated across policy circles, not just in Britain but across the world, and especially in wonky/policy-focused circles that have often been quite welcoming of EA either ideologically or demographically. As always, I encourage readers to read and engage with the original article itself to get a sense of whether you think my summarisation and responses are fair. Reviewing Sandbu's Article Having read the article, I think it's mainly covering two separate questions related to EA, so I'll discuss them one-at-a-time. This means I'll be jumping back-and-forth a bit across the article to group similar parts together and respond to the underlying points, though I've tried to edit Sandbu's points down as little as possible. 1) How to account for EA's historical success? The first theme in the article is an attempt to give a historical account of EA's emergence, and also an attempt by Sandbu to account for its unexpected success. Early on in the article, Sandbu clearly states his confusion at how a movement with the background of EA grew so much in such a short space of time: "Even more puzzling is how quickly effective altruism rose to prominence - it is barely a decade since a couple of young philosophers at the University of Oxford invented the term ... nobody I knew would have predicted that any philosophical outlook, let alone this one, would take off in such a spectacular way." He doesn't explicitly say so, but I think a reason behind this is EA's heavy debt to Utilitarian thinkers and philosophy, which Sandbu sees as having been generally discredited or disconfirmed over the 20th century: "In the 20th century, Utilitarianism… progressively lost the favour of philosophers, who considered it too freighted with implausible implications." The history of philosophy and the various 20th century arguments around Utilitarianism are not my area of expertise, but I'm not really sure I buy that argument, or even accept how much it's a useful simplification (a potted history, as Sandbu says) of the actual trends in normative ethics. First, Utilitarianism has had plenty of criticism and counter-development before the 20th century.[2] And even looking at the field of philosophy right now, consequentialism is just as popular as the other two major alternatives in normative ethics.[3] I suspect that Sandbu is hinting at Bernard Williams' famous essay against utilitarianism, but I don't think one should consider that essay the final word on the subject. In any case, Sandbu is telling a story here, trying to set a background against which the key founding moment of EA happens: "Then came Peter Singer. In a famous 1972 article... [Singer] argued that not giving money to save lives in poor countries is morally equivalent to not saving a child drowning in a shallow pond... Any personal luxury...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Being nicer than Clippy, published by Joe Carlsmith on January 17, 2024 on LessWrong. (Cross-posted from my website. Podcast version here, or search "Joe Carlsmith Audio" on your podcast app. This essay is part of a series I'm calling "Otherness and control in the age of AGI." I'm hoping that the individual essays can be read fairly well on their own, but see here for a summary of the essays that have been released thus far.) In my last essay, I discussed a certain kind of momentum, in some of the philosophical vibes underlying the AI risk discourse,[1] towards deeming more and more agents - including: human agents - "misaligned" in the sense of: not-to-be-trusted to optimize the universe hard according to their values-on-reflection. We can debate exactly how much mistrust to have in different cases, here, but I think the sense in which AI risk issues can extend to humans, too, can remind us of the sense in which AI risk is substantially (though, not entirely) a generalization and intensification of the sort of "balance of power between agents with different values" problem we already deal with in the context of the human world. And I think it may point us towards guidance from our existing ethical and political traditions, in navigating this problem, that we might otherwise neglect. In this essay, I try to gesture at a part of these traditions that I see as particularly important: namely, the part that advises us to be "nicer than Clippy" - not just in what we do with spare matter and energy, but in how we relate to agents-with-different-values more generally. Let me say more about what I mean. Utilitarian vices As many have noted, Yudkowsky's paperclip maximizer looks a lot like total utilitarian. In particular, its sole aim is to "tile the universe" with a specific sort of hyper-optimized pattern. Yes, in principle, the alignment worry applies to goals that don't fit this schema (for example: "cure cancer" or "do god-knows-whatever kludge of weird gradient-descent-implanted proxy stuff"). But somehow, especially in Yudkowskian discussions of AI risk, the misaligned AIs often end up looking pretty utilitarian-y, and a universe tiled with something - and in particular, "tiny-molecular-blahs" - often ends seeming like a notably common sort of superintelligent Utopia. What's more, while Yudkowsky doesn't think human values are utilitarian, he thinks of us (or at least, himself) as sufficiently galaxy-eating that it's easy to round off his "battle of the utility functions" narrative into something more like a "battle of the preferred-patterns" - that is, a battle over who gets to turn the galaxies into their favored sort of stuff. ChatGPT imagines "tiny molecular fun." But actually, the problem Yudkowsky talks about most - AIs killing everyone - isn't actually a paperclips vs. Fun problem. It's not a matter of your favorite uses for spare matter and energy. Rather, it's something else. Thus, consider utilitarianism. A version of human values, right? Well, one can debate. But regardless, put utilitarianism side-by-side with paperclipping, and you might notice: utilitarianism is omnicidal, too - at least in theory, and given enough power. Utilitarianism does not love you, nor does it hate you, but you're made of atoms that it can use for something else. In particular: hedonium (that is: optimally-efficient pleasure, often imagined as running on some optimally-efficient computational substrate). But notice: did it matter what sort of onium? Pick your favorite optimal blah-blah. Call it Fun instead if you'd like (though personally, I find the word "Fun" an off-putting and under-selling summary of Utopia). Still, on a generalized utilitarian vibe, that blah-blah is going to be a way more optimal use of atoms, energy, etc than all those squishy inefficient human bodies. The...

RETURNING guest Vlad Chituc joins us for a wide-ranging discussion about donating his kidney to a stranger, the effective altruism movement, and his sexuality. Was EA's turn to ‘long-termist' goals like preventing evil AI inevitable?  Have they strayed too far from their Peter Singer/Jeremy Bentham inspired roots? And why won't David and Tamler donate their kidneys? Plus a new article in Nature Climate Change argues that neuroscience can help the environment – can I interest you in some virtual trees? Doell, K. C., Berman, M. G., Bratman, G. N., Knutson, B., Kühn, S., Lamm, C., ... & Brosch, T. (2023). Leveraging neuroscience for climate change research. Nature Climate Change, 1-10. I spent a weekend at Google talking with nerds about charity. I came away … worried. by Dylan Matthews [vox.com] How effective altruism went from a niche movement to a billion-dollar force by Dylan Matthews [vox.com] Stop the Robot Apocalypse by Amir Srinivasan [lrb.co.uk] Sponsored by: BetterHelp: You deserve to be happy. BetterHelp online counseling is there for you. Connect with your professional counselor in a safe and private online environment. Our listeners get 10% off the first month by visiting BetterHelp.com/vbw. Promo Code: VBW Listening.com: Save time by listening to academic papers on the go. Very Bad Wizards listeners get 3 weeks free when signing up at listening.com/vbw Givewell.org: Make your charitable donations as effective as possible. If you've never donated through GiveWell before, you can have your donation matched up to before the end of the year or as long as matching funds last. Just go to givewell.org, pick PODCAST, and enter VERY BAD WIZARDS at checkout.   

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th Century American philosopher Robert Audi's article, "The Ethical Significance of Cost Benefit Analysis". It focuses specifically on several problems with adopting a utilitarian point of view in ethics, using cost-benefit analysis. Several of these problems, Audi argues, would be an issue for other ethical theories or approaches. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can get a copy of the text here - https://www.jstor.org/tc/accept?origin=%2Fstable%2Fpdf%2F27801385.pdf

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th Century American philosopher Robert Audi's article, "The Ethical Significance of Cost Benefit Analysis". It focuses specifically on his discussion of utilitarianism as a ethical theory, which makes cost-benefit analysis central to moral theory, decision-making, prioritization, and evaluation. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 2000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler You can get a copy of the text here - https://www.jstor.org/tc/accept?origin=%2Fstable%2Fpdf%2F27801385.pdf

On the 25th anniversary of its release, the two guys who brought you phrases like "brain boners," "milady, you've got the chompers of a basset hound," and "Amy want night tickle" are here to talk 1998's critically acclaimed World War II film, Saving Private Ryan.  And who better? Your gnarly boys not only breakdown the technical aspects of Steven Spielberg's direction, but somehow break into a Kantian dialogue pitting Jeremy Benthem's philosophy of Utilitarianism against classical Deontology. I'm serious. Filmshake is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get, and we don't even care if that's the wrong Tom Hanks movie. You also get, very briefly, discussion about our punishment film, 2005's The Great Raid, and of course, as always, an episode-ending trivia battle to the death.Filmshake: We're FUBAR...but in a good way!Music Heard This Episode:"Hymn to the Fallen" -- John Williams"Omaha Beach" -- John Williams"High School Teacher" -- John Williams"Revisiting Normandy" -- John WilliamsSupport the showConnect with us!PatreonTwitterFacebookEmailLinktr.eeLetterboxd - Nic & JordanThe Nicsperiment

Peter Singer is one of the world's most influential living philosophers, whose ideas have motivated millions of people to change how they eat, how they give, and how they interact with each other and the natural world. Peter joined Tyler to discuss whether utilitarianism is only tractable at the margin, how Peter thinks about the meat-eater problem, why he might side with aliens over humans, at what margins he would police nature, the utilitarian approach to secularism and abortion, what he's learned producing the Journal of Controversial Ideas, what he'd change about the current Effective Altruism movement, where Derek Parfit went wrong, to what extent we should respect the wishes of the dead, why professional philosophy is so boring, his advice on how to enjoy our lives, what he'll be doing after retiring from teaching, and more. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video.  Recorded May 25th, 2023 Other ways to connect Follow us on Twitter and Instagram Follow Tyler on Twitter Follow Peter on Twitter Email us: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Learn more about Conversations with Tyler and other Mercatus Center podcasts here. Photo credit: Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek

Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher often credited as the father of the modern animal rights movement. Purchase Animal Liberation Now: https://amzn.to/450BB3e Peter Singer's upcoming speaking tour: New York: https://events.humanitix.com/peter-singer-ny Washington DC: https://events.humanitix.com/peter-singer-washington-dc LA: https://www.ticketmaster.com/event/09005E68DC24308C San Fransisco: https://events.humanitix.com/peter-singer-san-francisco London: https://hackneyempire.co.uk/whats-on/peter-singer-animal-liberation-now/ Virtual Event: https://events.humanitix.com/peter-singer-live-stream

Freedomain Livestream 10 May 2023You remarked recently on stream that c02 makes up a fraction of 1 percent of the atmosphere, and that we are perhaps overly fixated on the tiny portion in regard to climate change.But surely the fact that atmospheric fluctuations in C02 can has such a huge impact of the growth of plants, nullifys your suggestion that it is 'too small a proportion' to be significant.Sorry if I'm butchering your analysis but it seemed somewhat contradictory and I known you love a good critique!Stefan, I'm a bit Spectrum and sometimes the way I articulate is misinterpreted as offensive (accusatory, passive aggressive, critical) when I make an assertive statement or a simple interrogative (albeit, I acknowledge the awkwardness in my language).I often have difficulties getting even family members, who should be used to my style of language, to understand my questions as genuine, non-antagonistic inquiries.How can I get people to just take my words at face value. It seems the more accurate I attempt to form my words, the worse it gets. I've totally given up on communicating with the emotionally dysregulated marxist on the left (their linguistic format is the extreme opposite of mine - seeking to disguise their actual intent in sophistry), but at a minimum I want to find a way to indicate to the people I care about most that my intent is genuine without guile.Stef, your recent dream analysys call in was spot on! I was listening to it thinking "how can he be describing my life som accurately"Hey Stef thanks for everything with your show. Helped me so much in life. Do you have a recommended reading list on things you've read that have helped you come to your philosophical perspective?Listened to several Harvard Lectures on Philosophy today, I wonder if the amount of utilitarians change from before and after to any significant degree. There were very few Libertarians out of hundreds of people, even 13ish years agoWhen I was younger I used to think the wrong politician getting elected would cause the end of the world. It was a nightmare living like that.I hate utilitarianism. It makes no sense to say you can define the greater good, when you can't even define normal good.Took this truth flamethrower with my dad recently and resulted in massive insults. Then he looped my brother into it, where he insulting and name calling me too and it's still difficult to tell myself that it's for the best. Do you have any tips on how to better deal with this?How do you process guilt of potentially giving up too early on a friend? An old friend of mine died this year from alcohol withdrawals. I had not been in contact with him in 4 years. Probably not enough info here...Stef is that why some gravitate to determinism? Some sort of narcissistic grief?

Here's an episode with something for both of us – a healthy serving of Kantian rationalism for David with a dollop of Marxist criminology for Tamler. We discuss and then argue about Jeffrie Murphy's 1971 paper “Marxism and Retribution.” For Murphy, utilitarianism is non-starter as a theory of punishment because it can't justify the right of the state to inflict suffering on criminals. Retributivism respects the autonomy of individuals so it can justify punishment in principle – but not in practice, at least not in a capitalist system. So it ends up offering a transcendental sanction of the status quo. We debate the merits of Murphy's attack on Rawls and social contract theory under capitalism, along with the Marxist analysis of the roots of criminal behavior. Plus – the headline says it all: Blame The Brain, Not Bolsonaro, For Brazil's Riots.

A Christian moral vision does not reduce humanity or humans to a math equation. The effectiveness of our compassion cannot be adequately measured only in totals. 

When the 20-year-old overachiever Johnathan Bi's first startup crashed and burned, he headed to a Zen retreat in the Catskills to "debug himself." He discovered René Girard and his mimetic theory--the idea that imitation is a key and often unconscious driver of human behavior. Listen as entrepreneur and philosopher Bi shares with EconTalk host Russ Roberts what he learned from Girard and Girard's insights into how we meet our primal need for money, fame, and power. The conversation includes the contrasts between economics and Girard's perspective.