Podcast appearances and mentions of walter sinnott armstrong

This week, Philip Ball assesses the anxiety about AI - and provides some reassurance; and Jane Robinson on Emily Davies, the woman who founded Girton College, Cambridge.'Moral AI: And how we get there', by Jana Schaich Borg, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Vincent Conitzer'The AI Mirror: How to reclaim our humanity in an age of machine thinking', by Shannon Vallor'Robots and the People Who Love Them: Holding on to our humanity in an age of social robots', by Eve Herold'The Atomic Human: Understanding ourselves in the Age of AI', by Neil D. Lawrence'Emily Davies and the Mid-Victorian Women's Movement', by John HendryProduced by Charlotte Pardy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Can AI help us make difficult moral decisions? Walter Sinnott Armstrong explores this idea in conversation with David Edmonds in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. 

It's one thing for you to say 'stealing is bad'. It's yet another thing for you to say that I shouldn't steal. What gives humans and the institutions that we made (police, judiciary, international tribunals etc.) power to mandate moral behaviour over other humans? Where's the overruling authority to base the idea of 'moral duty'? And why can't atheism ever answer this? Tune in to find out!Watch the entire Podcast at: https://youtu.be/Lg8cpCd8k4ILinks and citation:Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, “Why Traditional Theism Cannot Provide an Adequate Foundation for Morality,” in God and Ethics.Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek: The Moral Argument Debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5a3MxIqZOs SAFT Podcast on YT Music: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaYfapFz2p2WQMYBIU3HtirR7RbaBCzBhNatural Theology Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaYfapFz2p2UJKBOrNSfqJbegqZoRGTn-  Check out www.moralapologetics.com for more in-depth materials on the Moral Argument Check out William Lane Craig's book 'Reasonable Faith' for a thorough defense of all the major arguments for God's existence.Equipping the believer defend their faith anytime, anywhere. Our vision is to do so beyond all language barriers in India and beyond!SAFT Apologetics stands for Seeking Answers Finding Truth and was formed off inspiration from the late Nabeel Qureshi's autobiography that captured his life journey where he followed truth where it led him. We too aim to be a beacon emulating his life's commitment towards following truth wherever it leads us.Connect with us:WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va6l4ADEwEk07iZXzV1vWebsite: https://www.saftapologetics.comNewsletter: https://www.sendfox.com/saftapologeticsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/saftapologetics/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/saftapologetics/X: https://www.twitter.com/saftapologetics SAFT Blog: https://blog.saftapologetics.com/YouVersion: https://www.bible.com/organizations/dcfc6f87-6f06-4205-82c1-bdc1d2415398 Is there a question that you would like to share with us?Send us your questions, suggestions and queries at: info@saftapologetics.com

CONSCIOUSNESS - What is free will? Do we have free will? The ‘Big Questions in Free Will' project tackles these issues in a multi-year study. In Part I, scientists and philosophers research, test, and advance thinking on free will. Featuring Alfred Mele, Galen Strawson, John Searle, Peter van Inwagen, Christof Koch, Uri Maoz, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Thalia Wheatley, and Peter Tse.

Ewan Kingston is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at Princeton High Meadows Environmental Institute and the University Center of Human Values. He works at the intersection of political philosophy, business ethics, and environmental ethics. He has focused on climate change and global supply chains, as well as on the interplay of markets and democracy to outline legitimate and effective institutional designs to solve complex collective action problems. The long conversation between Ewan and Tiger touches on topics ranging from the justification of “joyguzzling” to consumers’ obligations to remedy their purchase of tainted goods. Ewan defines joyguzzling as “joyriding in a gas guzzler,” an activity that one emits greenhouse gases (GHGs) solely in order to enjoy oneself. Ewan and his co-author and philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argue that there is no moral requirement to refrain from joyguzzling. They acknowledge that climate change is real and needs to be addressed, but they pose a nuanced philosophical question as to the exact nature of individuals’ responsibility and obligation to contributing to carbon emissions. Some believe that carbon emissions are only harmful in an aggregative and emergent way, and individual emissions do not impose harm on the environment. Therefore, when someone contributes a relatively infinitesimal amount of carbon emission because of a joyride, this person shouldn’t be blamed for the nearly negligible amount of harm they’re causing for the environment. “Just as individual molecules of oil do not cause parts of sensations of sliminess (or yellowish color), so individual molecules of greenhouse gas do not cause parts of dangerous climate impacts.” Ewan argues that the scientific community cannot answer how exactly a singular joyguzzling activity harms the Earth, and the notion of contribution through the emergent property should not be sufficient to constitute moral blame for the individual emission. We dive deep into his path-breaking philosophy journal and all the important implications these environmental ethics debates may have on policy and social norms. In relation to environmental ethics, we also discuss consumer ethics. Ewan writes that most consumers buy some “tainted goods” – those that have upstream practices that are morally bad in a significant sense, like chicken from factory farming or roses picked by children exposed to highly toxic pesticides in underdeveloped countries. Ewan has been developing a moral account that privileges contributing to positive structural changes over shunning bad goods and selecting the “right” goods. He advocates that we should think about channeling the unruly benefits and actively compensate for the harm we’ve already caused, rather than obsessing over eliminating the side-effects altogether, which seems to be a goal too unrealistic to achieve. This interview is part of our ongoing “Aspiring Intellectuals” special coverage, where we interview scholars about more foundational questions in their fields and deal more with the abstract than with concrete questions.

CONSCIOUSNESS - What is free will? Do we have free will? The ‘Big Questions in Free Will' project tackles these issues in a multi-year study. In Part I, scientists and philosophers research, test, and advance thinking on free will. Featuring Bertram Malle, Eddy Nahmias, Roy Baumeister, Patrick Haggard, Adina Roskies, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Alfred Mele.

In this episode of the Three Bros Podcast, we discuss a YouTube video entitled, "Why Abortion Is Immoral, Don Marquis" by Let's Get Logical. We discuss the paper written by Don Marquis in 1989 as well as a rebuttal entitled "You Can't Lose What You Ain't Never Had: A Reply to Marquis on Abortion" written by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. Links to the video and papers below. "Why Abortion Is Immoral, Don Marquis" by Let's Get Logical https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHYWu6UWEe0 "Why Abortion is Immoral" by Don Marquis http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf "You Can't Lose What You Ain't Never Had: A Reply to Marquis on Abortion" by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. https://sites.duke.edu/wsa/papers/files/2011/05/Reply-to-Marquis-on-Abortion.pdf Logo by Randy Dunham @ Randydunham.com

MEANING - You've heard the raucous noise about God; now listen to the cogent arguments, con and pro. Not that determining the existence of God is up for vote; when searching for Truth, majority opinion counts for nothing. Featuring Keith Ward, Owen Gingerich, William Craig, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Alvin Plantinga, and Steven Weinberg.

Today, we speak with an ethicist, a computer scientist, and a neuroscientist who have teamed together at Duke University to research how we might build human morality into an artificially intelligent machine. Drs. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Jana Schaich Borg, and Vincent Conitzer also tell us about a surprising outcome of their research: that imbuing machines with the ability to act in accordance with moral principles can actually help us deepen our understanding of our own moral philosophy and behavior. Discover the video version of this podcast episode at Templeton World Charity Foundation. Learn more about Dr. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Dr. Jana Schaich Borg, and Dr. Vincent Conitzer. Subscribe to Stories of Impact wherever you listen to podcasts Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram Comments, questions and suggestions info@storiesofimpact.org Supported by Templeton World Charity Foundation

In this episode, I'm speaking with Dr. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong about ethics, argumentation, and political polarization. We discuss: •How he became interested in philosophy and why ethics in particular. •How science can't answer important questions on morality, values, etc., but it certainly can be used as an ancillary apparatus to help us navigate these tough questions. •His research on various topics in ethics. •How he became interested in informal logic, argumentation, and why he decided to make his Coursera courses. •How informal logic can help you to think better and help you to identify fake news, conspiracy theories, etc. when you come across it. •That the goal of a discourse is not to win, but to get closer to truth. •How the internet is a tool that can be used for good or bad. •The history of political polarization in the U.S. and how it compares to what we're seeing today. •And other topics. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is Chauncey Stillman Professor of Practical Ethics in the Department of Philosophy and the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University. He is core faculty in the Duke Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and has a secondary appointment in the Duke Law School. He serves as Resource Faculty in the Philosophy Department of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Partner Investigator at the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics, and Research Scientist with The Mind Research Network in New Mexico. He has received fellowships from the Harvard Program in Ethics and the Professions, the Princeton Center for Human Values, the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, the Australian National University, and the Sage Center for the Study of the Mind at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has served as vice-chair of the Board of Officers of the American Philosophical Association and co-director of the MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project. He earned his B.A. from Amherst College and his Ph.D. from Yale University. He has published widely on ethics (theoretical and applied as well as meta-ethics), empirical moral psychology and neuroscience, philosophy of law, epistemology, philosophy of religion, and informal logic. His articles have appeared in a variety of philosophical, scientific, and popular journals and collections. His current work is on political polarization, Scrupulosity, moral psychology and brain science as well as uses of neuroscience in legal systems. You can find his website here: https://www.sinnott-armstrong.com/ You can find his books here: Think Again: How to Reason and Argue: https://amzn.to/3gg5RNK Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic: https://amzn.to/2XgVdyD You can find his courses here: Think Again I-IV: https://www.coursera.org/learn/understanding-arguments How to Argue Better: https://learning.himalaya.com/ This podcast is supported and produced by Grips VisualMarketing. Grips believes in creating something that disrupts attention spans and challenges the marketing status quo. They do this by creating high quality visual content that GRIPS your audience. You can find them on: Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/getagrip.vm/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/getagrip.vm/

Patricia Churchland is the queen of neurophilosophy. She’s on fine form in this interview - charming, funny and occasionally savage as we range over her views on the nature of philosophy, the neuroscience and evolution of morality, and consider what’s wrong with the two major ethical traditions in western thought: utilitarianism and Kantianism.  1.43 - Is philosophy just a kind of science in its infancy - a ‘proto-science’ - or it is a special kind of conceptual analysis? Professor Churchland doesn’t pull her punches as she takes on the ‘language police’ approach to philosophy. 8.03 Why so much philosophy is useless. “They make finer and finer distinctions, which nobody in the sciences gives a tinker’s damn about!” 9.03 How epistemology is just ‘isms up the ying yang’! 10.40 What good work is being done in philosophy, and what makes it good? Walter Sinnott Armstrong, Owen Flanagan and Julian Savulescu get nods of approval. 12.00 We set to work discussing Professor Churchland’s book Conscience. Where does moral motivation come from in humans and other mammals? 16.20 Why was the evolution of warm-bloodedness important in this story? 18:00 The emergence of the cortex in mammals. Why the most sophisticated animals are the most helpless when they are born, and why it enables the most powerful learning.  20:40 Why the mammalian dependence on a caregiver is the origin of moral concern. 23.20 What precursors to moral behaviour do we see in chimpanzees, wolves and rodents? 28.40 What’s the difference between chimps and humans? It’s just more neurons! But, argues Prof Churchland, quantitative changes can beget qualitative differences in cognition and behaviour, as illustrated by advances in AI. 33.00 The Purveyors Of Pure Reason - what’s wrong with utilitarianism - and why is the contemporary Effective Altruist movement ‘a bit of an abomination’? Prof Churchland takes exception to the idea that 10 homeless folk should matter to her more than her own daughter, and defends the importance of community as a valid source of moral motivation. She explains why Russian philosophers called utilitarianism ‘Lenin’s Math.’ 44.00 How can neuroscience and evolution theory tell us anything important about ethics? Prof Churchland tackles the naturalistic fallacy, and argues that the sciences can usefully constrain our theorising. She celebrates the contributions of Hume and Aristotle. 47.32 Why morality is a lot harder than most moral philosophers think: it’s not just about figuring out some simple over-arching principles. Moral issues are really practical problems, not primarily exercises in rational reflection.    54.25 There are no moral authorities - but that shouldn’t cause us existential angst. We should be like the Buddhists and Confucians. TL:DR - Aristotle and Hume had it right: there are no moral authorities and no grand rules to live by. You gotta figure it out as you go along.  Follow NOUS on Twitter @NSthepodcast

Peter explores with philosopher Walter Sinnot-Armstrong. https://www.sinnott-armstrong.com

A group at Duke University thinks they have a potential solution to a problem we face: political polarization and the coarsening of public discourse. On this episode, we talk with Duke ethics and philosophy professor Walter Sinnott-Armstrong about the project.

We are fortunate to have philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (Duke University) on the podcast today, talking about arguments — not the kind you have when you’re angry, but the kind you construct in favor of a position or policy. Arguments respect people by treating them as real agents capable of reason; they have myriad other benefits, … Continue reading The Beauty of a Good Argument with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong →

Higher education watchdogs have seen good news in recent years when it comes to free-speech protections on N.C. college campuses. Jenna Robinson, president of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, discusses a new report that grades the campuses based on their policies promoting or limiting speech. It’s no secret that American politics has become increasingly polarized. Duke University ethics professor Walter Sinnott-Armstrong believes more argument could help fight that polarization. Sinnott-Armstrong explained his theory during a recent speech in Raleigh. You’ll hear highlights from his remarks. Before Hurricane Florence stormed through North Carolina, state lawmakers already were talking about ways to improve disaster relief in the wake of the 2016 damage from Hurricane Matthew. Rep. Jimmy Dixon, R-Duplin, explains how government could learn lessons about disaster preparations from the state’s farmers. N.C. voters face six proposed constitutional amendments on the November ballot. John Dinan, professor at Wake Forest University, places North Carolina’s latest proposals in a national context. Dinan is author of the book State Constitutional Politics: Governing by Amendment in the American States. North Carolina’s certificate-of-need law has restricted new medical facilities and major medical equipment for decades. The idea behind the CON law goes back even further. That’s according to Jordan Roberts, John Locke Foundation health care policy analyst. He discusses the history and explains how the CON law hurts those seeking affordable health care options.

In his new book “Think Again-How to Reason and Argue”, Duke University Professor Walter Sinnott-Armstrong says: “The level of discourse and communication in politics and also in personal life has reached new lows.” In this edition of Thinking Clearly, Bob, Julia, and their guest explore the importance of understanding and promoting good arguments and other solutions to raising the present level of discourse.

High school students from around the country converge on the University of North Carolina for a weekend of moral dilemmas. We follow twenty-four of the nation's top ethics teams competing in the 2017 National High School Ethics Bowl, and take a whirlwind tour of moral philosophy in the process. Guest voices include Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Geoff Sayre-McCord, Jeff Sebo, and students from high schools across the country. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

More at www.philosophytalk.org/shows/existence-god The question of whether or not God exists is profoundly fascinating and important. What are the proofs of the existence of God? How can one prove that God does not exist? Join us as John and Ken explore issues such as religious experience, the Bible, evil, eternity, the origin of the universe, design, and the supposed connection between morality and the existence of God with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong from Dartmouth College.

More at www.philosophytalk.org/shows/moral-dilemmas-and-moral-ambiguity It would be nice if we always knew the morally right thing to do, if our choices and commitments were painted in stark black and white. Unfortunately life is full of gray areas, including situations in which all the choices that confront us seem morally problematic, in which all the people who surround us seem composed of equal parts good and evil. John and Ken explore the extent to which reality confronts us with moral dilemmas and moral ambiguity with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong from Dartmouth College.

Special guest Walter Sinnott-Armstrong joins the podcast to explain how his theory which desperately needs a new name ("contrastivism") can dissolve most of the fundamental problems and paradoxes in philosophy.  We also talk about psychopaths--what they are and what we can do about them.  But first we read and respond to an angry piece of fan mail (ok, maybe 'fan' is not the right word) from Sam Harris, trashing us--mostly Tamler--for our comments on VBW 45 about the new atheists. LinksSam Harris debates Andrew Sullivan [samharris.org]Richard Dawkins on the harm of fairy tales (read until the end) [telegraph.co.uk]Walter Sinnott-Armtrong's Home Page [duke.edu]Sinnott‐Armstrong, W. (2008). A contrastivist manifesto. Social Epistemology, 22(3), 257-270. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. (2006) It's not my fault: Global warming and individual moral obligations. Advances in the Economics of Environmental Resources 5, 285-307.The Memory of Jurors: Enhancing Trial Performance by Anders Sandberg, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Julian Savulescu. Special Guest: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues that God isn't necessary for morality in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.

Moral psychology is the empirical study of how people make moral judgements. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Walter Sinnott-Armstrong discusses the relevance of psychological research to moral philosophy.