Archive this series
Question 2: [55:37] – “I can't seem to wrap my head around the justification of the electoral college. How can one really argue objectively that one citizen deserves a more weighted vote than another, determined by geographic location? I understand the benefits of having it. But how can one really argue against the basic concept of each citizen having exactly equal voting power? It seems to me like the electoral college is an affirmative action program for people living in smaller states.”
Question 3: [1:24:40] – “I want to challenge this quote from your book, Universally Preferable Behaviour: ‘Ethics cannot be objectively defined as ‘that which is good for man’s survival.’ Certain individuals can survive very well by preying on others, so this definition of ethics does not overcome the problem of subjectivism. In biological terms, this would be analogous to describing evolutionary tendencies as ‘that which is good for life’s survival’ – this would make no sense. Human society is an ecosystem of competing interests, just as the rainforest is, and what is ‘good’ for one man so often comes at the expense of another.”
“Objective ethics does not necessarily result from an objective reality, on what basis do you assume reality has the property of ethics? Ethics take the form of ideas within our minds, they are not observable in physical form. We dismiss divine beings and their commands for this same reason, so why not ethics?”
Question 4: [2:04:21] – “Stefan has taken the position that Free Will is necessary for moral responsibility. Considering the lack of evidence for free will, could the non-existence of free will be compatible with an internal locus of control and therefore personal moral responsibility?”
Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
1003 episodes available. A new episode about every 15 hours averaging 42 mins duration .