0:00

Worried about letting someone else pick out

0:02

the perfect avocado for your perfect impress

0:04

them on the third date guacamole? Well,

0:07

good thing Instacart shoppers are as Instacart

0:09

choose your own adventure and skip the

0:11

shopping side quests. Where available you can

0:13

get ice cream delivered to your hotel,

0:16

sunscreen to the pool, or cold brew

0:18

to your bed. Well, door in as

0:20

fast as 30 minutes. Wherever you find

0:23

yourself this summer, you can get the

0:25

goods. Download Instacart for free delivery on

0:27

your first three orders. Offer

0:29

valid for a limited time. Minimum

0:32

$10 per order. Excludes restaurants. Additional

0:34

terms and fees apply. Welcome

0:37

to IAI's debate on loving

0:39

oneself and loving others. What

0:41

is the trouble with altruism?

0:44

IAI Live is partnering for this event

0:46

with Closer to Truth, which is on

0:49

Cosmos Consciousness Meaning. See closertotruth.com.

0:51

Know the, not the

0:53

truth. closertotruth.com, also Closer to

0:56

Truth YouTube channel. From

0:58

charity givers to those who

1:00

sacrifice themselves in war for

1:02

others, we see altruism and

1:04

selflessness as virtues to be

1:06

applauded. Those who take

1:09

no heed of their own interests

1:11

are hardly praised in Western culture,

1:13

but many point to a danger. Some

1:16

studies show that altruism gone

1:18

awry leads to tolerating abusive

1:20

partners, eating disorders, and depression.

1:24

And critics argue that some

1:26

of history's most horrific episodes

1:28

rose from appeals to altruistic

1:30

tendencies. Forced sterilizations in the

1:32

West were justified as better

1:34

for all the world. Should

1:37

we see unhampered altruism not

1:39

only as futile, but as

1:41

actively dangerous? Are these

1:43

virtues merely a device to

1:46

defend outcomes we think beneficial

1:48

for ourselves and to

1:50

exert power over others? Or

1:52

is selflessness in fact vital,

1:54

and would relegating it to

1:56

secondary status only see more

1:58

corruption and self-obscure? And

14:00

we're not interdependent that our lives are not

14:02

connected. And the gendering is

14:04

the emphasis on altruism and moral theory

14:07

is that egoism is assumed. And

14:10

it's assumed because it's largely been developed

14:12

by men who assume self-interest. And

14:15

so, you know, the kind of

14:17

default place for women is

14:19

that we were supposed to be the

14:21

altruists who took care of others while

14:23

men took care of themselves, basically. Being

14:27

altruist, is altruism ever defined by the consequences

14:29

to the receiver as well as the motivation

14:31

of the giver? Let me give you an

14:33

example. Let's say I give a charity $10,000

14:36

only because I want my name listed

14:39

and to be praised. And the charity

14:41

uses the money wisely to help the

14:43

homeless. Or, the opposite, I

14:45

give the $10,000 anonymously, but

14:47

the charity uses the money

14:49

to buy drugs to keep

14:52

the homeless sedated. So

14:54

do consequences ever determine,

14:59

as well as the motivation of

15:01

the giver, the consequences to the receiver?

15:03

Short answer, Kasia. Well,

15:06

it's very simple for me as I'm a

15:08

consequentialist. Yes. So I would

15:10

take the first option gladly if

15:13

the consequences are fine. The other thing is,

15:16

however, that maybe you would

15:18

not be the most virtuous

15:20

person, right? So

15:23

morality can talk about actions and

15:25

can talk about character. But as

15:27

for actions and for altruism, I

15:30

will go with the first option.

15:32

Okay. Carol. Yes,

15:34

it can have unintended consequences for the

15:36

relationship. Let's take my example.

15:39

I'm a woman who's pregnant and I decide

15:41

to have an abortion because you, the

15:44

father of this child, wants me to have

15:46

an abortion. So I have the abortion for

15:49

you because that's what you want. And

15:51

then I blame you. I

15:55

hold you responsible. So in fact,

15:57

it undermines the very relationship it was

15:59

in. intended to sustain. Richard?

16:03

I think altruism has not only benefiting

16:06

another individual, but also having a cost

16:08

to ego, to the actor.

16:12

And in the cases that you

16:14

said were you give $10,000, but

16:17

you get an immediate benefit, then

16:19

I call that mutualism. OK,

16:23

let's go on to our first theme now. Where

16:25

do moral obligations, altruism being our

16:28

example today, where do they come

16:30

from, are they absolute universals or

16:33

relative? Now, I'm going to begin by forcing

16:35

you to say one word, absolute or relative,

16:37

then we're going to go into some details.

16:40

So everyone, one word, morality, absolute or relative.

16:42

I think I know the answers for each

16:44

one, but let me hear it. Richard? OK,

16:47

yeah, and I don't think it follows the rules of

16:49

physics. It's relative. Carol?

16:55

I was going to say neither. What's

16:58

your alternative? Oh,

17:02

what's my alternative? When I say neither, it

17:04

depends on how you understand morality. I would

17:06

say relative if you mean a set of

17:08

precepts. If you want to talk about

17:10

empathy, then that's part of who we are. Kasia?

17:15

I would say it's absolute. It's

17:17

universal and absolute. OK,

17:20

so let's start. Richard, moral obligations

17:22

like altruism are rooted

17:25

in evolution. What can

17:27

you infer from the behavior

17:29

of non-human primates that enlightens

17:33

this discussion? I

17:36

think we have to think about what morality is. And

17:39

so I'm going to define it as behavior that

17:42

is guided by a sense of right

17:44

and wrong. So

17:49

this is behavior that follows moral

17:51

rules. When

17:53

I then compare that between

17:56

humans and non-human primates I

18:01

think that only humans

18:03

have morality in this

18:05

sense. So you

18:07

can certainly point to humans, to

18:09

animals having empathy. I

18:12

think it's a sort

18:15

of morality out of sympathy, rather than

18:18

a morality out of following rules. So

18:22

for me, you have a very

18:25

different system in humans for

18:27

guiding behavior than

18:30

in other animals. I don't see

18:32

any evidence in other animals that they

18:35

have anything like a conscience. And

18:39

a conscience serves to

18:42

modulate the relationship between

18:44

egoistic tendencies and altruistic

18:47

tendencies. So

18:49

animals, I think, do not have

18:51

these altruistic tendencies that we're interested

18:54

in today. And

18:56

for me... Does

18:58

your execution hypothesis

19:00

have meaning here?

19:03

Absolutely, yes. So I was going to

19:05

say that the

19:08

question of why individuals should

19:10

ever behave altruistically,

19:13

in the sense that we've been talking about, has

19:16

to be answered by a mechanism

19:18

that explains punishment. It's

19:22

only if there is a capacity for

19:24

punishment that one can envisage how

19:27

a non-moral animal evolves to

19:30

become moral. And

19:32

for me, the punishment is best

19:34

explained by something that we see

19:36

even nowadays sometimes operating in society.

19:40

And that is

19:42

a really extreme

19:45

kind of punishment, namely execution

19:48

of individuals who do not

19:50

follow moral rules. And

19:52

humans are the only species that

19:55

we know of that can

19:57

execute other members of the world. their

20:00

own species. Well,

20:02

Akasha, how do you reconcile

20:05

your objectivist ethics with the

20:07

evolutionary critiques that Richard is

20:09

just elucidating?

20:13

So it's really very interesting because

20:16

if I believe, as I do, as

20:19

a moral realist, that moral

20:22

obligations are universal

20:25

and they come from reason, yes,

20:27

that's what I would argue, and

20:30

how I put it together

20:32

with all what we

20:34

know about biology and evolution. And

20:38

I try this way. I don't

20:40

deny that certain things come

20:43

or start with our

20:46

biology and evolutionary basis. And

20:48

of course altruism is a

20:50

great example. Altruism

20:54

together with empathy allows

20:58

us to prolong

21:01

our genes and then take

21:03

care of the whole

21:06

species and so on. But

21:09

it doesn't stop here. And

21:11

I think it's this brilliant

21:13

moment in which we realize

21:15

that what is in our

21:18

biology is not everything that

21:20

we believe is good or

21:22

bad. And

21:25

so here, one's called

21:27

The Expanding Circle. That's

21:30

one of his books where

21:32

he says, well, yes, we

21:35

start with our children and those

21:37

in our village, but

21:40

we go on to

21:42

some other people and

21:44

we understand that if I

21:47

care for my children, I should also

21:49

care whether there is enough food for

21:52

children in Africa or somewhere in Asia.

21:55

But what's even more, I understand,

21:57

I begin to understand. of

22:00

other beings who

22:02

suffer and feel pleasure.

22:05

I'm not only a utilitarianist, but I'm

22:07

also a hedonistic utilitarianist, come on, I'm

22:10

a hedonist. So I do believe that

22:12

we have obligations towards those that

22:16

feel pleasure and pain. And

22:19

I think it's hard to

22:22

deny that we have obligations

22:24

towards other animals, so towards

22:26

other species. And

22:28

for me to say that, I

22:31

had for me to say that, I

22:35

have to rely on the reason rather than

22:37

on data about

22:40

evolutionary basis of altruism.

22:45

So Kasia, if reason discerns

22:47

objective moral truths, like

22:52

how we should approach animals, and

22:54

if reason developed through evolution,

22:56

then certainly sounds like

22:58

the moral truth as obtained by

23:00

reason, are

23:02

contingent on evolution, correct? Well,

23:05

they start with, with

23:09

our ability to do maths,

23:11

for example, right? So we

23:14

now can do things

23:16

at maths that do

23:18

not help us in

23:22

evolutionary basis whatsoever,

23:25

but we can because our reason has

23:27

developed so much. And I

23:29

believe it's the same with morality. So

23:32

we are developing our

23:36

thinking about what

23:38

we should do in morality,

23:41

in moral cases, and

23:43

that goes beyond anything that is

23:45

understandable or

23:49

can be explained in terms of

23:51

evolution. Richard, do you agree with that?

23:55

I'm finding it difficult to... to

24:00

engage mentally with Kasia

24:02

because it seems

24:04

to me that you're talking about what we should be doing.

24:07

And I'm thinking about where we

24:09

come from. I'm not making any

24:12

recommendations. No, I mean, I'm

24:14

so aware of the way that moral rules can

24:16

change that I don't think there's any kind of

24:19

moral absolutism. I

24:22

kind of agree with you that I think it's wonderful

24:24

if people are astonishingly

24:26

altruistic. It's just

24:28

a different kind of approach to

24:30

the question from

24:33

understanding why we are

24:35

moral in the first place. So,

24:38

you know, I embrace

24:40

your proposal that

24:44

we should be altruistic in these ways,

24:48

but it still leaves me questioning why

24:50

it is that it

24:52

has happened, that we

24:55

have a tendency to do this. And for me,

24:57

you know, you are virtue signaling in the best

25:00

possible way. You know, you're saying, look

25:02

how wonderful life would be if we're all as

25:04

virtuous as I am. And

25:07

I agree with you. We may be. I'm not saying

25:09

that. Well,

25:12

it's okay. We want to be as virtuous as you are.

25:15

That's part of my goal in life. Carol,

25:17

does a cultural perspective affect

25:20

this debate we're talking about

25:22

over moral origins, principles,

25:26

and what would be some examples? Well,

25:31

I mean, the thing that's so loud to me

25:33

in this whole discussion is the gender aspect

25:36

of it, which is very cultural. But

25:38

I also, I mean, I find myself in

25:40

agreement, I think, I think with Richard in

25:42

the sense that I

25:45

believe that first of all,

25:47

and there has been a huge

25:49

change within the human sciences in

25:51

terms of the understanding of who we are as human beings.

25:54

And we are fundamentally relational

25:57

responsive creatures. I

25:59

mean, we are both. born with a voice,

26:01

with the capacity to communicate our experience and

26:03

with the desire to live in

26:06

relationship, not alone, but in relationship with

26:08

other people. Now that is

26:11

the foundation then for, you know,

26:13

how do you stay in relationship? How

26:15

do I stay in relationship with myself

26:17

and with other people? And

26:20

moral philosophers Sandra Loget at the

26:22

Sorbonne talks about a paradigm of

26:24

attention, that morality has

26:26

less to do with rules and absolutes

26:28

and so forth, than the need to pay

26:31

attention or as I would say, to

26:33

be careful rather than careless, both

26:36

with myself and with other people and

26:38

the consequences of carelessness in a

26:41

world which is interdependent, where

26:43

it's not me versus you in a zero

26:46

sum game, but a question of being careful

26:48

and paying attention. And

26:50

then if you talk about who in

26:52

fact does the work of caretaking of

26:55

children, because you brought up children, it's

26:57

primarily women and often women of color.

27:00

And you know, so I think this

27:03

whole discussion from my point of view

27:05

is and culturally so deeply

27:07

gendered, where we kind

27:09

of idealize caring and also kind of

27:11

devalue it. I mean, for

27:13

example, the in the United States, the

27:16

build back better build that Biden, you

27:18

know, so forth got passed, only

27:20

passed because they eliminated childcare from

27:23

the bill. So

27:25

there is this, you know, to talk about

27:28

altruism or morality, it's

27:30

been a lot of it has been at the expense

27:33

of those people who do the caretaking work.

27:36

And I mean, I think that's really

27:39

been a problem. And it explains why

27:41

right now in the world we live

27:43

in, the costs of carelessness and indifference

27:46

are just huge. And evolutionary

27:48

anthropologists, I'm thinking specifically of the

27:50

work of Sarah Bloff or herdy,

27:53

who says that evolution selected

27:56

for empathy, mind

27:58

reading, the ability to and intuitive

28:00

what other people are thinking and

28:03

cooperation, were key to our

28:05

survival as a species. So

28:07

it's not altruism versus egoism. It's

28:10

how do we, in a

28:12

sense, value and in a

28:14

sense educate and develop these

28:16

basic human capacities at

28:19

a time when our surgeon general says

28:21

one of the biggest public health problems

28:23

is loneliness and the absence of relationships.

28:25

So to me, the foundation for this

28:27

whole discussion has to do with relationships

28:30

more than with rules. Is

28:32

there a clear cutoff, a step

28:34

function break, between discussion

28:37

of the evolution of

28:40

what we call morality and

28:43

the application of morality under

28:48

current applications, what you're talking about,

28:50

Carol? So is

28:53

there any relevance to evolution?

28:56

You use one example. Is

28:59

that a self-selection of one

29:01

particular example that aligns

29:03

with your own particular

29:06

theory? Carol? I'm

29:09

going to come at what you said, I think from a slight

29:11

angle, but I hope you can see why I'm coming at it

29:13

this way. To me, the focus is

29:16

on altruism is from a group of

29:18

people who take egoism for granted. And

29:21

a big move is to think of someone

29:23

other than themselves. In all of

29:25

my work with women, the big move was

29:27

to include the self. OK,

29:31

but is

29:33

that a cultural activity

29:36

of what humans have occurred? Is there

29:39

any biological basis to

29:41

that? Richard? Well,

29:43

for me, the biology is in the evolution of

29:45

a thing called norm psychology,

29:48

people have called it, which is an innate

29:52

tendency to

29:56

absorb conventions, rules,

29:59

moral precepts in the society

30:03

and follow them and to

30:05

punish those who don't follow

30:08

them. There's obviously a tremendous variation

30:10

in this and the variation is

30:12

doubtless both genetic and environmental. We

30:15

see the variation in psychopaths

30:18

at one end. Psychopaths

30:20

are inert to

30:24

moral precepts to a very large extent and generally

30:27

what you find is that psychopaths

30:29

understand moral rules, they just choose not to

30:31

follow them. On

30:34

the other end, you've got scrupulosity, which

30:38

is the term given

30:40

for people who are

30:43

excessively altruistic. There's a

30:45

biological phenomenon that may

30:47

be partly genetic and

30:50

partly environmental. So

30:52

the range of approaches

30:56

to following

30:58

moral rules is

31:00

enormous, but on the whole, humans

31:03

are very different from every

31:05

other species and our

31:07

biology consists of

31:10

the normal psychology, which is essentially equivalent

31:12

to having a conscience and acting on it.

31:15

It's not in the absorption

31:17

of particular rules. There's no

31:19

indication that the biology actually

31:21

has led to the internalization

31:26

of specific moral rules. What

31:29

it's led to is the capacity to

31:31

internalize moral rules that are given to

31:34

them by society. I'd

31:36

like to clarify that what we're

31:39

not talking about is the formal

31:41

reproductive altruism that's used in evolutionary

31:43

theory, which is so-called Hamilton's rule.

31:47

When the benefits, which are

31:49

the number of offspring equivalents,

31:51

gained by the recipient of

31:53

the altruism, weighted by the

31:55

genetic relationship to the donor,

31:57

the donor to the beneficiary

32:00

is greater than the cost, again,

32:02

the number of offspring paid by

32:04

the donor to do the altruistic

32:07

behavior. Now, to make that really

32:09

simple, supposedly the

32:11

biologist JBS Haldane declared,

32:14

I would lay down my

32:16

life for two siblings or

32:18

eight cousins, because siblings share

32:20

50% of our genes and cousin 12.5%

32:24

of our genes. Haldane actually

32:26

said two brothers, but

32:28

I took the liberty to update them.

32:31

Richard, evolutionary altruism, as I just

32:33

defined it, influenced it all the

32:36

way we approach the optimum practical

32:38

altruism? Well, the definition of

32:40

altruism that you just gave is one that I

32:42

think is useful in terms of thinking about evolutionary

32:45

biology, but I chose not

32:47

to use it for today because I

32:49

wanted to get away

32:51

from the investment in kin,

32:54

which we're calling nepotism today,

32:57

and restrict the use

32:59

of altruism to this much more puzzling

33:03

case where individuals are

33:06

benefiting at their own expense by

33:09

those who are not related to them. So

33:13

the Hamiltonian equation need not concern

33:15

us today. Calla, it seemed like

33:17

you would disagree with that, because

33:19

at least a little bit of

33:21

understanding of that Hamilton rule gives

33:24

reason to

33:27

include yourself

33:29

or your kin in a more

33:32

broader definition of

33:35

altruism than just purely

33:37

selflessness. It's a bigger

33:39

inclusion. Is that

33:42

fair? I think my

33:44

whole approach, as I said, I write about a

33:46

different voice. I write about care ethics as a

33:48

different moral voice where the

33:51

starting point and the focus is on

33:53

relationships, not on rules. So

33:55

I'm in a certain sense at odds with this, and what

33:57

I'm thinking about is I listen to this conversation

34:01

is I've been very interested

34:03

in people, individuals who under

34:05

extreme circumstances do what

34:07

we would call extraordinary heroic

34:10

acts. I mean, people who,

34:14

for example, you know, under

34:16

the Holocaust rescued Jews at their

34:18

own expense, the what is it,

34:20

the zookeeper in Warsaw

34:22

who hides. All

34:25

of these people when asked, they said,

34:27

what I did was nothing heroic. What

34:29

I did was simply what any human

34:31

being would have done. And

34:33

the idea here is it's really a reversal,

34:36

which says that as humans, because

34:38

we're born with a capacity, I mean, we

34:40

have mirror neurons, we have

34:42

a capacity for empathy. All

34:44

of the current baby research shows

34:47

that at one year of age, we're

34:49

exquisitely sensitive to who's in connection with

34:51

us and who is not. And

34:54

the breaking connection is it

34:56

is really distressing. And

34:59

so basically the question is not how

35:01

do I gain the capacity to be

35:03

altruistic and overcome self interest. The

35:06

question is how do I lose

35:08

this fundamentally human capacity to live

35:10

in relationship with myself and with

35:12

other people? And that's the foundation

35:14

of what we call morality. So

35:16

the whole egoism altruism debate to

35:19

me is based on a false

35:21

premise, which is, as I said,

35:23

it's based on that either I

35:25

act for myself or for you.

35:28

And that the big thing I have found in years

35:30

of listening to particularly to

35:32

women, but not just to women, but

35:35

for women in Western culture

35:37

at least. And I think it's not

35:39

just in patriarchal cultures. The

35:41

question of can I include myself

35:43

in those people who I care

35:45

about and get away

35:48

from this word selfish, which

35:51

makes it so

35:54

that's why I think your examples, Robert,

35:56

at the beginning of anorexia, of depression,

35:58

of domestic abuse. was

36:01

showing the problems with selflessness

36:03

or with altruism for women,

36:05

where the big move is, I

36:11

mean, this is the famous Virginia Woolf

36:14

essay about killing the angel in the

36:16

house, the utterly unselfish woman who

36:18

has no voice, seemingly has no voice,

36:20

because that's actually not true. Everybody

36:23

has a voice. Okay, so we're

36:25

not gonna resolve whether morality and

36:27

altruism is absolute or relative today.

36:30

I'd say absolutists have the heavier

36:32

burden of proof. Let's go on

36:34

to theme two. Let's move to

36:36

doing altruism, the practical side of

36:38

the debate. How

36:40

can we be confident that our efforts

36:42

to enhance altruism really improve the wellbeing

36:45

of others? Could altruism

36:47

ever be futile or even dangerous?

36:51

Kasia, if we grant

36:53

that altruism is an appropriate moral

36:55

goal, how practical is it? How

36:58

can we optimize our altruistic efforts

37:00

and on a large

37:03

scale? So

37:09

of course, as with any human

37:11

action, we cannot be confident that

37:14

what we do is the

37:17

right thing or even good for others.

37:20

But with altruism, there

37:23

is this interesting thing about

37:25

checking how my action influence

37:28

the other. And

37:30

much depends on how

37:32

we define wellbeing, because

37:34

if altruism is

37:36

set towards the wellbeing of others, then

37:39

we need to learn what the wellbeing

37:41

is. And of course,

37:43

it's easier when we think about

37:46

survival or food or basic needs,

37:48

but when we do

37:51

it philosophically, we usually group

37:53

this wellbeing into three main

37:55

categories. We talk

37:58

about fulfillment of desires. feeling

42:00

for other people. I mean, the

42:02

wish that other people, you know,

42:04

would, would, that their lives would

42:07

go well. And I think

42:09

of the simple things, I mean, you

42:11

can think of it as John Dunn,

42:13

no man is an island, you can

42:16

think of Martin Luther King, we are

42:18

born into a network of mutuality tied

42:20

in a single garment of destiny. What

42:22

affects one directly affects all indirectly. We're

42:24

living in a time of climate change

42:27

and global warming, this notion of separateness

42:29

that it's either me versus you. I

42:32

mean, it's really very, very dangerous, I

42:34

think, at this point in history, it's

42:36

just simply not true. And

42:39

the more we understand, and I come, I

42:42

come not from where Richard comes from, but

42:44

also, I come from research

42:46

and evidence about, you

42:49

know, about evolution,

42:52

anthropology, developmental psychology, who we

42:54

are as humans. And the

42:56

question has been reversed, which

42:58

is not how do

43:00

we gain the capacity to overcome self

43:03

interest, but how do we lose the

43:05

capacity to pick up and

43:07

respond to what's going on in the

43:10

environment around us, including other people. And

43:13

there's a huge cost to not

43:15

responding, including to ourselves. I

43:17

think that's naive to think that if

43:20

I just have no feeling for you, I

43:23

mean, you can call me an egoist, but

43:25

it's going to affect me. And that's

43:27

partly what we see from the surgeon

43:29

general. There's a major health crisis of

43:32

locking relationships and loneliness,

43:34

not having relationships, cuts

43:37

off physical it means it's

43:39

as it's worse for you than smoking, you

43:41

know. So I think the

43:43

question is, how do we, how do we

43:45

lose our connections to ourselves and other people.

43:47

And this egoism altruism,

43:50

the egoist has no connection to others

43:52

and the altruist has no connection to

43:55

themselves. It's just, it to

43:57

me is the culture.

44:00

respond to that. Thank

44:02

you. I would say

44:04

a few words about this love and feelings.

44:06

So I think that that what

44:09

you actually say goes very well

44:12

with my

44:16

theory of reasoning because it's

44:18

clear that I cannot feel

44:21

so much or even I don't

44:23

know those in my country to

44:27

people that were that

44:29

suffer in Africa or

44:31

Asia or anywhere else.

44:33

But I know that they do and

44:36

my reason tells me what

44:38

is my obligation or what I should

44:40

do towards them, how to help them

44:43

and I can reason that. I cannot

44:45

feel it. My favorite

44:47

English philosopher, Henry Sedgwick, said

44:49

once that I cannot love

44:51

the whole world. I know

44:54

that it's a lovely Buddhist

44:56

idea but I'm

44:58

incapable of doing that but I

45:00

can reason and I know that

45:02

I should help those

45:04

who suffer although I don't know

45:07

them, I can't see them and

45:09

I don't know anything about them. Okay,

45:13

it seems like there's

45:15

no optimum generalities about

45:17

doing altruism but I

45:20

hear utilitarianism and the personal

45:22

care ethics each

45:24

can provide an enriching, not

45:26

necessarily contradicting perspective and

45:29

we're obviously all aware of the dangers. So

45:32

our theme three, should we

45:34

abandon this ideal of

45:36

altruism and if so,

45:39

what kind of principle should

45:41

guide our ethics going forward?

45:43

So Carol, continuing on what

45:45

you were saying before, how

45:49

can altruism be reframed in

45:52

terms of the care ethics

45:54

that you've developed? It's

45:57

reframed in terms of the importance of

45:59

living. in relationship with oneself and with

46:02

others, and that the problem is what

46:04

stands in the way of

46:06

our living in connection with ourselves and with

46:08

other people, and in response to

46:10

what Kasia was just saying, because I think

46:12

there are a lot of overlaps when I listen

46:14

to you. I mean, I also

46:17

think we have to think, I mean, in the in

46:19

the US in terms of in the

46:21

time of the war in Vietnam,

46:24

one of the most powerful things

46:26

was that photograph of that child

46:28

on fire with napalm. And

46:31

more than reason or any

46:33

philosophy, it was that

46:35

broke through that sense that

46:37

this child in Vietnam, none of

46:39

us knew her name, none of

46:41

us had any personal connection. But

46:43

instantly, there was a sense of

46:45

if I allow that that photograph

46:47

brought her into connection with us,

46:49

and suddenly we had a relationship

46:51

with her. And that changed the

46:53

way we felt and the way we acted about

46:56

napalming the population there. So I

46:59

think the question is, what

47:02

facilitates our ability to recognize our

47:04

interdependence in our connection, and this

47:06

would go with other forms of

47:08

life too. And what

47:10

promotes us in thinking that we

47:13

are apart and can ignore and

47:15

not pay attention. And for

47:18

me, as to ourselves as well

47:20

as to others. And I remember at the

47:22

time I was doing my interviewing right after

47:24

Roe v. Wade, and it's relevant now because

47:26

of the reversal of that by the US

47:28

Supreme Court. And I

47:30

remember asking women, if it's

47:32

good to be responsible to people, and I think Kasia

47:34

would agree with me here. And you

47:37

know, in pathic with their needs and

47:39

concerns, you're a person, why is it

47:41

selfish to respond to yourself and woman

47:43

after woman at that time said to

47:46

me, good attention. So I think,

47:48

to me, the

47:51

urgency now for humans as a

47:53

species and for survival really is

47:55

to ask what

47:57

stands in the way of our living in relationship.

50:00

that even with some enormous

50:02

catastrophes, both natural

50:05

and made by humans, it

50:08

is rather possible that our

50:10

species will survive, even

50:14

in small numbers. Anyway, if

50:16

that goes really in

50:19

long time, that means billions,

50:22

trillions, and I don't know how many other

50:25

people living that. I

50:27

have no answer to

50:29

that. If you ask

50:31

me personally, I'm not

50:33

a long-termist. I

50:36

believe that we should take

50:38

care of things that are

50:41

in our closest side, and

50:43

climate change, AI, and wars

50:45

in the world are

50:48

the closest examples. So

50:50

we have a lot to do now

50:53

to ensure that

50:55

our children and grandchildren

50:59

will have good life. And

51:02

what will come in future, no one

51:04

knows. It's not that we shouldn't

51:06

think about it, we should, but

51:08

it's of course the matter of how

51:10

much money and how much energy we

51:13

should put into those things that are really

51:15

far ahead. Richard, does

51:18

this discussion between interpersonal

51:20

relations and utilitarianism in any

51:22

way can be informed by

51:24

our revolutionary foundations? Well,

51:28

I'm sure it can. And it seems to me it's

51:36

very important to have a strong

51:38

theory of altruism. It's

51:41

important because altruism itself is

51:43

important and we want to promote it. It's

51:46

a good thing for everybody. But

51:50

it is vulnerable to the

51:52

people who will

51:54

take advantage of other altruists.

51:56

And we should be aware that

51:58

there are all sorts of their

56:00

situation, it means you have to know their culture and

56:02

so forth, that that is

56:04

a is a basic human capacity that

56:06

has to be fostered and educated and

56:08

developed. It's not myself versus others. It's

56:11

that we're all in this together. Akasha,

56:13

one question is a final one. We're almost

56:15

out of time. But we

56:17

haven't given you a chance to articulate

56:19

the importance of other sentient creatures, you've

56:21

mentioned it, but haven't defended it in

56:24

terms of our global

56:27

utilitarian approach to

56:29

altruism. What do

56:31

you mean by all sentient creatures? And

56:33

doesn't that present a lot of conflict

56:35

of interests? Of

56:38

course it does. And by

56:41

sentient beings, I mean those

56:43

that feel pain and pleasure.

56:45

And we are talking

56:48

about facts here. We still

56:50

learn, we still study, which

56:53

animals do and which don't,

56:55

which creature is don't feel pleasure and

56:57

pain. But surely those

57:00

that do, that

57:02

do, we should take care

57:04

of them. And the interest,

57:07

as you said, and the conflict

57:09

of interest is obvious. And that's

57:12

why discussion of self consciousness and

57:14

consciousness will help as well. Because

57:17

it depends on the answer,

57:19

why alive methods? Yes, what

57:22

is wrong with killing? Why

57:25

would it be wrong to

57:27

kill one creature and not the other?

57:30

And these are all moral questions,

57:33

really important. And again,

57:35

I hope we are, we

57:37

are doing some progress with that. But

57:40

we should be careful. And

57:42

I think that we should be much careful

57:44

than we are, in a way when well,

57:47

we should all live happily

57:49

being vegan, or most of us

57:51

could give up

57:55

on meat and animal products

57:57

and without big

57:59

suckers. to our selves. So

58:02

some ways are easier than they seem,

58:05

I think. So

58:07

the ideal of altruism is certainly

58:09

a worthy goal and there are

58:11

multiple paths to reach it, but

58:13

let not the pursuit of perfection

58:15

inhibit us from the doing of

58:18

good. So thank you everyone. Thank

58:20

you Carol, Kasia, Richard. Thanks everyone

58:22

for watching. Thanks

58:30

for listening to this week's episode of

58:32

Philosophy for Our Times. If

58:34

you enjoyed today's episode, don't forget

58:36

to leave a like on your

58:39

platform of choice and visit iai.tv

58:41

for hundreds more podcasts, videos and

58:43

articles from the world's leading thinkers.

59:00

Don't know that, Boxer.