Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Trolleys, Torture, and Moral DIlemma’s (Episode 180)
246 Plays5 hours ago
Michael and Caleb dive into classic philosophical thought experiments to uncover Stoic solutions to impossible choices. From the infamous Trolley Problem to the Happiness Machine, they examine how Stoicism's focus on virtue, context, and roles provides a unique framework for moral decision-making.
Unlike utilitarian or rule-based ethics, the Stoic approach emphasizes character over consequences, yet remains practical when facing life's hardest choices. This thought-provoking conversation challenges modern assumptions about ethical reasoning while revealing surprising Stoic positions on torture, self-sacrifice, and artificial pleasure.
(01:57) Trolley Problem
(14:35) Do Stoics Endorse Torture?
(20:31) Happiness Machine
(24:24) Utility Monster
(27:14) Euthyphro Dilemma
(35:53) Sinking Ship
(40:59) Prisoner's Dilemma
(46:11) Omelas Child
(53:59) Takeaways
***
Download the Stoa app (it's a free download): https://stoameditation.com/pod
If 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/
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Stoic Responses to Moral Dilemmas
00:00:00
Speaker
Welcome Stoic Conversations. My name is Caleb Monteveros. And I'm Michael Trombley. And today we're going to be talking about Stoic answers to moral dilemmas and some classic controversial thought experiments.
00:00:18
Speaker
So it should be a fun one. Yeah, this was what I wanted to do. I'm excited for it. So i mean, maybe I'm sure most people listening to this ah podcast have experienced or heard some of these kind of thought experiments or moral dilemmas like the trolley problem.
00:00:36
Speaker
They're really popular in undergrad philosophy courses. There's something that I really enjoyed. And philosophy in general really loves this idea of like playing with intuition, putting really evocative situations in front of you and asking you what your intuition might be or what the right thing to do is.
Stoicism and Ethical Theories
00:00:54
Speaker
And I think those are really good ways of of pulling out the implications of ethical theories or seeing how they would work in practice. I think there are also fun ways to get at what you believe with really concrete examples or your understanding of a current theory and and how would you know how how it would play out in that scenario. So we're going to do that today with stoicism. We're going to put our put our stoic hats on and talk about how – at least how – maybe we'll disagree, Caleb, but how we think stoics would answer these questions.
00:01:23
Speaker
I think it's going to be really fun. um So looking forward to it. Yeah, absolutely. Me too. I think these are ah fun questions, but also get at sort of these important moral issues, questions of moral value.
00:01:36
Speaker
And I think both the questions themselves and how you approach them can be very revealing. So should be fun to go along with these and, you know, think through what your own answers are, whether you think we represent the Stoics accurately or not. And, um you know, email us with any disagreements or questions here. So, but yeah, let's get into it.
00:01:57
Speaker
Yeah, I guess that's the right way to – well, you just hit on something for those you know listening, playing along at home. um I guess there's two separate questions. There's like what the Stoics think. Did we get that right? And then what you think. And maybe there maybe there will be some cases where there's a difference between what you think and what the Stoics think. And that can kind of maybe reveal some interesting contrasts of where where you're fully Stoic or where you're not.
00:02:20
Speaker
Yeah.
The Trolley Problem and Stoic Perspectives
00:02:21
Speaker
Cool. So to kick things off, we'll start with probably the most famous one, the most memed in current the current internet era, at least, which is the trolley problem. um So this is this presents a scenario where a runaway trolley or train is headed down the tracks and there's some number of people tied down to the tracks is how it was first told to me.
00:02:45
Speaker
ah this example, I pulled this five people and you you have the option to pull a lever. Maybe you're watching the train go, maybe you're on the train. And if you pull the lever, you divert the trolley onto another track where there's only one person present.
00:03:00
Speaker
So the the way the the way the thought experiment is set up, at least in, and I guess the important piece there is that you've had no involvement. You've kind of just found yourself in this situation.
00:03:11
Speaker
You who didn't tie anybody down to the track. Nobody deserves to be there. Everybody's kind of like morally equivalent. And when when I learned this in undergrad, it's really used as this way of contrasting utilitarianism versus deontology.
00:03:25
Speaker
And utilitarianism is this this kind of, you you determine the morality through this calculus of, well, five people's lives is better than one person's lives. so So clearly i pull the the lever and I kill the one person.
00:03:39
Speaker
And then the deontologist view ah is more rule-based. So maybe there's these rules, there might be a rule like you you cannot murder. And so if you find yourself in this situation,
00:03:50
Speaker
pulling the le lever is this equivalent of actually murdering this person. You're intervening in a way that causes that person to die. And so um maybe the deontologist might say, well, it's not appropriate to murder one person to save five lives.
00:04:05
Speaker
And then there's these kind of more progressive examples of this thought experiment. So if somebody does the utilitarian answer and says, oh, i would I would pull the lever, I would kill the one person to save five lives, you you might follow up and say, well,
00:04:20
Speaker
If you were this doctor, if you were a doctor, would you kidnap and harvest the organs of one person if it could save five people? And people usually have this like averse reaction to that. And so it's this fun way of of pulling out kind of, you know, I guess it's, it's consequences versus actions, right? And what has more of a role to play.
00:04:41
Speaker
Any other set up in, in, for the trolley problem before we get into the stoic response? Yeah, I think that's a fine setup. maybe Perhaps another way to frame it is you know have consequences versus actions.
00:04:52
Speaker
It's also the question, is there any moral significance to the distinction between killing and letting die is something people also talk about.
00:05:02
Speaker
So if you just let the trolley run its course and hits the five, in a sense, you're not killing anyone, you're just letting five die. Whereas if you hit the lever, then you're making the intentional decision to kill another person.
00:05:20
Speaker
and And, you know, there's that other, that another way to frame it is, you know, is there, is that a significant distinction at all? Is that something that matters?
00:05:29
Speaker
He had a good point. So for me, I think this is a hard one. i was i was, I was trying to think about this a little beforehand, but not too much so that we could, you know, chat through it. I think did this So Stoics, their ethics, I think this is going come time and time again, their ethics is kind of really embedded in the context and the scenario.
00:05:49
Speaker
It's like really hard. There's not going be many situations where the Stoic is able to make a decision without any context and that be really clear. Like a lot of Stoic ethics comes down.
00:06:00
Speaker
I think there's this kind of rule of don't do anything irrational. Don't do anything based on an untrue belief. But then a lot of stoic ethics is going to come down to your roles, your relationships. you know Are you the train driver who's like swore this oath of minimizing harm?
00:06:17
Speaker
um Do you have some sort of relationship to the people on the tracks? And this is something that when people will first hear this problem, they always try to throw in those examples and philosophers like, no, no, don't think about those examples. We're just trying to limit it.
00:06:28
Speaker
But I think the Stoics is going to be one of the schools that's going to try to do it. That being said, if we limit just the situation, I think the Stoics are going to probably err on the side of pulling the lever. think they're going to err on the side of killing the one and saving the five because I think that – I mean, many of the ways people ground the the issue with pulling the lever of like, oh, I would feel really bad about killing that one person.
00:06:52
Speaker
Or I would feel like it was my fault or, um you know, some Some, I was told not to kill as ah as a child, and that's some sort of rule that I've just followed without reflection.
00:07:06
Speaker
I think a lot of the justifications for not pulling the lever, the Stoics are not going to agree with. So without other without additional information, saving five lives is more important than saving one.
00:07:17
Speaker
And so they're going to err on the side of pulling the lever if you're just if you know if you have these kind of morally equivalent people on the track. That's my swing at it. What do you think? Yeah, it's a, this one's a hard one. So, and you, as you say, there's always that instinct to sort of fight the hypothetical.
00:07:35
Speaker
And I think that it can be a justified instinct. And you ask these questions about, you know, what's really going on. Is there some other option with who are the people involved, how they end up on the tracks and why are things set up this way and such.
00:07:49
Speaker
But, um, but, uh, ah So if you if you I think that those are important, and I think it's a totally legitimate move for Stoics to attack this form of reasoning, perhaps even, maybe even think that this isn't the right way to do ethics, think through these different thought experiments.
00:08:09
Speaker
But that being said, setting that concern aside and just thinking through, okay, what but a stoic ah know what's the stoic? To the extent that we can hold everything ah constant, what's the actual answer? Do you pull the lever or not?
00:08:25
Speaker
What's the best stab? My sense is, and this is not a very fun answer. I'll have more fun controversial answers later, but is that there's not a strong... stoic prescription either way. I could see stoics erring on the heuristic of in general, it's better to save more people than not.
00:08:41
Speaker
But I could also see them thinking, well, an essential part of justice is not killing people. And it's not it's not just a matter of how you feel, but it's having that strong disposition not to be involved in causing other people's death.
00:08:53
Speaker
And i think I do think that Stoics what ah would sort of hold that there is some distinction between killing people and letting them die. That just says and different facts about you know the people involved, both. it's It's a different thing to be a killer and to let someone die. I think those are ah there are different dispositions involved in those kinds of actions and or omissions.
00:09:18
Speaker
So that's I think that might be a reasonable take And so as you say, as soon as you say you should pull the lever, and then there are these other questions about different scenarios that um might be more troubling, more counterintuitive for people.
00:09:37
Speaker
Yeah, so bit of a – I mean we might be stuck here with that in between. I'm taking the controversial – I'm going to say like lever pulling over here. You're but more in the 50-50 side.
00:09:49
Speaker
I think I do like your point. I mean there's something there. A big part of stoicism is accepting fate. So is this idea of like, you know, they just had a – you know, and they found themselves tied to the tracks. What can you do?
00:10:00
Speaker
And is there some sort of metaphor there about like not accepting – You know, you're not really amorphating very well if you're pulling the lever, but that's the kind of like lazy man argument. Yeah, i think so. That the Stoics object to. So, um okay.
00:10:14
Speaker
We disagree on this one. I'm pulling, I'm going a bit to the lever side. You're 50-50 in the middle. But overall, as you said, not really the way the Stoics do their ethics, really a bit of a difficult one to do without a further context. Yeah.
00:10:29
Speaker
Yeah, perhaps another way to add some more context would be, so if you think about the physician example where the best way to set it up is you've got six people at a hospital, none of them are there by choice. It's not their fault or anything of this sort.
00:10:46
Speaker
And it just so happens that you can harvest the organs of five to save the one, or sorry, all the way around. You can harvest the organs of one to save the ah five.
00:10:59
Speaker
And there, I think Stoics have a ah good response related to people's roles, right? It's not the role of a physician to be making that sort of decision.
00:11:11
Speaker
And it would
Extreme Scenarios: Ticking Time Bomb and Torture
00:11:13
Speaker
harm the institution of a hospital if people arrived at the hospital and thought there is some chance that they might be sacrificed for the collective, essentially.
00:11:23
Speaker
So I wonder if... um the the argument against your view, Michael, as well. The relevant roles here are you're citizen and and maybe the citizens- You're building that into this, right?
00:11:38
Speaker
Yeah, that's true. there' is no I didn't say anything about citizens. you could be in a foreign country. Yeah, yeah well, anyway, yeah, this is sort of interesting. Well, you're in some kind of community. So I guess the question is, does that community have a a norm around this? Yeah.
00:11:54
Speaker
and so Yeah, that's a good way of putting it. in Yeah. So generally, I don't think we expect people to be making these kinds of decisions unless they might be, as you said, the train conductor or an engineer are somehow involved in ah
00:12:12
Speaker
enforcing justice or something like this ah at the broader level. so And then it's sort of a question of you know what's the makeup of the community and do you expect people to... Yeah. a to to pull the lever in these kinds of situations.
00:12:26
Speaker
I mean, we could do a whole trolley problem episode, but I mean, I think, i think the example, i guess the counter argument here, which relates to another thought experiment I had um is, you know, does there kind of hit a point of absurdity though, we're pulling the lever, you know, regardless of community,
00:12:50
Speaker
Like you're trying to break the hypothetical and you're saying, look, we we make appeals to the, you know, what you do is you ask what community you're a part of. You can't make this question. It's 50-50. You can't answer this question Hawaii. have to ask what are the social norms of the people you're around and your community.
00:13:05
Speaker
And I'm not sure if that's the case. I don't know if we need to appeal to that. there you know If there's a thousand people on the track, 10,000 people on the track, a million people on the track, there almost hits a point of absurdity.
00:13:17
Speaker
the the way The same way you can make the the pulling the lever example absurd by by making it seem very cruel as the doctor to pick somebody and harvest their organs.
00:13:27
Speaker
um the You can make the not pulling the lever seem absurd by kind of upping the odds there too. So I do think there is some weight there's just some weight to death outside of, um outside of cultural norms.
00:13:43
Speaker
um It's at least dis preferred. Yeah. um But cool. Let's, I think we can spend the whole time on this one. and i think Yeah. Before we move on, I think, I think that's the right move, the right move for the stoic, the stoic defense of pooling as it were, is that. yeah team young Yeah. At some point it seems obvious you should pull the lever if there are enough people involved.
00:14:05
Speaker
So then the question is, like why why would a Stoic value killing as such when there are just simply more lives at stake? And but then the Stoic, I suppose the further rejoinder to that might be to take the hard line, which some people do. You just shouldn't be involved in killing at all.
00:14:24
Speaker
Or i think, well, you know these situations with larger numbers are really qualitatively different in some way. So yeah but yeah so that's so that's that's that one.
00:14:35
Speaker
Well, I wanna jump ahead to this related one, which is the ticking time bomb scenario. I remember doing this one in second year ethics. um These are really fun to do in rooms full of people, some that are interested in philosophy and some that aren't and some that are, um you know, have very different feelings about it.
00:14:52
Speaker
But the ticking time bomb scenario, so it's a situation where a terrorist, you know some sort of bad person has planted a bomb that's about to explode. And you have the ability to torture the suspect to get information that could save lives.
00:15:07
Speaker
You can, the question is, should you torture the terrorists to find out where the bomb is? And you can kind of you can, you know, play the lever. Like, are you a hundred percent certain they know where it is? Are you mostly certain they know where it is?
00:15:19
Speaker
can kind of play with some of these scenarios. But I guess my answer to this one is that yes, The Stoic would say, yes, you absolutely, it's absolutely morally permissible to torture, to get information that saves lives. And I think because this scenario builds in the stuff that you were just talking about, it builds in cultural context, right? You've got somebody that is, i think a terrorist is like a politically loaded term, but somebody who's, who's you know,
00:15:48
Speaker
in opposition to your community, you're a member of that community. And I think it's not permissible in all scenarios and there there becomes like a and ah question of scale, right? um But absolutely it's permitted on the in the hiarchs higher extremes, you know, that the the real kind of,
00:16:05
Speaker
no you know, 10,000 people, lives at stake situations, without a doubt. And that's the way that I view the stoic response because it builds in that cultural responsibility and makes clear who that other person somebody, yeah, that's trying to do something unjust or harmful.
00:16:22
Speaker
What do you think? Yeah, absolutely. I think this is somewhere where I i agree i agree with what you just said and somewhere there's perhaps a more controversial ah answer from the Stoics, perhaps.
00:16:34
Speaker
mean, in this Oracle record, I don't see any where are they made a strong objection to torture, which some modern people do. I don't see that the ancient Stoics making that those sorts of arguments, ah saying that torture is never morally permissible.
00:16:48
Speaker
So it doesn't seem like there's this hard line. And then the relevant question is, is this if this person is in fact a terrorist, it's a different setup from the trolley problem. They're not innocent.
00:17:00
Speaker
And the scale is so much larger such that uh, torturing to be permissible. I think of course there, this is, this is another one where people want to challenge the hypothetical. And I think these important questions, which is, you know, is torture actually effective? And ask people and people argue that, uh, and, uh,
00:17:25
Speaker
then you can maybe get into a little bit of a thornier questions where, you know, say this person's a suspect, but how much confidence do you have that they are in fact involved in the plot and that those situations might be sticky. But when you get into cases where you're higher confidence that they're involved in the plot and that torture is going to be effective, which at some level, I think it might must be,
00:17:50
Speaker
It would be so very surprising to me if it was never effective, or you can never expect it to be effective. I think the Stoic would endorse um you know effective effective torture here in order to prevent you know a very tragic event.
00:18:09
Speaker
Yep. So, so far agnostic about trolleys, very pro-torture is where we've landed after the first two. But yeah, no, I think it's just a kind of pragmatic, like a kind of pragmatism when it comes to protecting um your family or your community.
00:18:28
Speaker
And as you said, that can be pragmatically, it can be not pragmatic at a certain scale of just repeating what you said, and a certain scale of not being sure about its effectiveness. you know if if If one in 10,000 people knew where this bomb was and you went and tortured all 10,000 people, right? Like there can become this point of of it not being pragmatic, but there's no hard and fast rule here, which is which the um which the ethical dilemma is trying to set up. It's trying to say, well, it's almost like a counter argument for you who are like, torture is never permitted. Are you willing to bite the bullet?
00:19:01
Speaker
And then the Stoics are like, well, no, I would not bite the bullet on that because I think there are situations where where it's permitted such as this one. It's not a kind of hard and fast rule, as you said. Yeah, absolutely. And i I do think that stepping back from the hypothetical sum, the real question is sort of like, you know, how can you extract, if you ever find yourself in one of these situations, I suppose, how can you extract the relevant information? And perhaps torture isn't the right way to go about it, especially for all people. you know, so people have different tolerances to pain and such.
00:19:30
Speaker
They might have value different. there might be different keys to unlock the the needed information for people. So there's going to be a skill at this kind of information extraction that is important to develop. And there's certainly going to be ah sense in which torture is not ideal. you would I think just as people think about different conditions or principles for a just war, there are going to be ideas about, you know is this really necessary?
00:19:56
Speaker
could you have gotten information in a way that didn't cause as much suffering? And of course, the Stoic is going to say, you yes, you should aim to reduce suffering where you can. And it's not going to be ah the ideal route if there was something much better in the Yeah.
00:20:12
Speaker
Your job is to get the information. Your job isn't to like punish this person or make them hurt or anything like that. And then, so if there's a better way to get the information, not only should you choose that morally, I guess, but also pragmatically you should go about the better way to get the information.
00:20:29
Speaker
Yeah, absolutely. Cool. Um, so on agree in agreement there. Next one is that the happiness machine, um, So this is another one, another famous one.
Artificial Happiness vs. Stoic Virtue
00:20:42
Speaker
This a machine that can provide you with unlimited pleasure and happiness by simulating perfect experiences like fulfilling desires or achieving goals while you're in a deep but blissful state of unconsciousness.
00:20:53
Speaker
The machine would ensure you feel like you're living your best possible life, experiencing everything you want, but all of it would be artificial. So this is like... um this is like the person who wants to get plugged back into the matrix.
00:21:07
Speaker
You know, your body is just sitting somewhere, um but you're experiencing um all of these things and you feel, wow, you feel like everything's great, but in reality, um these are simulations.
00:21:19
Speaker
So the question is, do you plug in? Why or why not? i think this is an unambiguous no for the Stoics. Stoic guiding principle, if anything, is truth and living in accordance with nature.
00:21:33
Speaker
And I think this is neither truthful nor in accordance with our nature. um It's not actual excellence or virtue. If you feel it through mental stimulation, you're not actually doing, you're not actually fulfilling your function or your nature.
00:21:50
Speaker
um You are just feeling like you're doing that, which it's ultimately a hedonistic choice. It feels good, but you're not actually achieving kind of your at your ethical ends or potential.
00:22:03
Speaker
Do you agree with that? Yeah, absolutely. This is an easy one. Don't plug in perhaps more challenging for other philosophies, but, um, you know if I suppose if you want to extend extended or some questions for Stoics would be, are there other things like the happiness machine or like the experience machine that we experience consume or plug into throughout our lives that might fulfill almost a similar role, be simulations of, uh,
00:22:35
Speaker
of something instead of the the real thing itself. So I think that's sort of the, the stoic challenge really getting to more of a practical point by moving away from the philosophical one where they think the philosophical one is certainly don't plug in.
00:22:48
Speaker
And then perhaps there's more of a challenge around practical questions like, okay, to what extent is just consuming different forms of media plugging in or having personal narratives about your life that maybe don't map it into reality. That's a, that's sort of the stoic challenge.
00:23:04
Speaker
where it makes me think of the Epicurean idea that mental pleasure is better than physical pleasure. And then you can get a lot of mental pleasure from your memories. Like you can just sit around thinking about times you had fun in the past.
00:23:18
Speaker
And I mean, I think there's that question for the Epicureans about would they plug in, but then there's also this picture, if they say no, that it seems like they're almost like building up this storehouse of good memories and then just kind of sitting around,
00:23:30
Speaker
I guess, you know, the same question you had about media or stories. i also think this idea of like nostalgia or any sort of time where we're tapping back into mental, we're doing things that make us feel mentally comfortable and happy at the expense of truth or the expense of personal excellence is, is, um, yeah, it's, I mean, it's dangerous if not actively harmful.
00:23:56
Speaker
Yeah, that's a great point. And I think for their, you know, this, the Stoics might say such a thing is an indifferent and perhaps with this nostalgia case in particular, I can think of examples of people who recover the past and keep ideas or events alive in a good way. But you can also think of people who are too nostalgic and end up living in the past and missing the present.
00:24:21
Speaker
So that's thing. That's a great example. Cool, okay, so another easy one. This is the utility monster. I think it's kind of a criticism of utilitarianism, but I think it's worth talking about.
00:24:33
Speaker
um So the utility monster is a hypothetical entity that requires an enormous amount of resources to satisfy its desires, even if it means satisfying the well-being of many others. Question is, should you feed the utility monster which feels the most joy at the expense of others? So, you know, some person or group of people that feel incredibly, incredibly happy ah Do you have an ethical obligation basically to maximize their happiness at the expense of others?
00:25:01
Speaker
This is a common objection to utilitarianism, which says the goal of life is the maximization of happiness in other people or like in aggregate yourself being one of many. um For me, the answer is obviously no. You've got no responsibility to feed the utility monster.
00:25:18
Speaker
um You've got no responsibility to make other people feel good for the sake of them feeling good. you've got a responsibility to do the right thing, which can often have the positive side effect of making people feel good.
00:25:33
Speaker
But the stoic is just never really aiming at pleasure. And so it's not stuck in these difficult choices about, oh, if I make fun of this one, you know, if I make fun of this one kid, everybody else in class is going to laugh. And, you know, what's the math on that? Is that everybody's laughing more happiness than the one bullied guy?
00:25:49
Speaker
It's like the these are never problems for the stoics in the way they are for the utilitarian. So it's like, yeah, It seems to me like it seems to me the answer, yeah, is is a no.
00:26:02
Speaker
Yeah, absolutely. This is another easy one for the Stoics. Say no to the utility monster. And you can't really think of the yeah the um the parallel for Stoics or other virtue ethics where it's like, what what would that look like for the virtue ethicist? know, having some being where you're trying to maximize their virtue at the expense of others, that doesn't really work. Yeah.
00:26:26
Speaker
I mean, it would be something like, it would be something but thing like, mean, it would be the inverse. It would be like somebody who's like not willing to lie. It would almost be like the things the Stoics bite, you know, what if, ah what if a emperor asks you to lie? And if not, he's going to cut off your head, right? Like,
00:26:43
Speaker
are you still going to maximize virtue in that situation? And the stoic is just like, yes, yes, I would. Um, it's, it's his job to compel me and it's my job, you know, to not be compelled.
00:26:56
Speaker
I think that's, I think that's almost the reverse is you, you, you put up situation where virtue seems ridiculous compared to all these indifference and the stoics are just going to say like too bad. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. It's, uh, yeah, this is not about the utility monster. What's the right phrase there? I don't know.
00:27:14
Speaker
of virtue monster the stoic right the person the person who values virtue over anything else um cool so i'm going to keep running through these i'm enjoying this maybe go to one that's a little bit harder um and this is the euthyphro dilemma not really a moral dilemma more of kind of like in a maybe maybe it's a piss maybe it's Maybe it's a moral dilemma, maybe like an ah axiology, like where value comes from.
Nature and Goodness in Stoic Philosophy
00:27:44
Speaker
um But this is a famous one from Plato. I think we've talked about this before in the podcast. and The question is basically, um are actions good because God commands them? Or does God command them because they are good?
00:27:58
Speaker
So in other words, does God create value or discover value? And if they create value, could they have chosen something else to be good? If they discover value, is God really that important to morality?
00:28:11
Speaker
um And so the question is, does God create or discover value? um but What do you think about this? How would a Stoic answer this well platonic puzzle question?
00:28:23
Speaker
Yeah. So I think just to frame it perhaps for Stoics, if you want to make it ah more of a live question for Stoics, Stoics think the way to live is according to nature. And then you might ask, well, is something good because it's in accordance with nature or does nature happen to line up with what is good?
00:28:46
Speaker
um And then you have some independent idea of goodness so that perhaps is divorced. Yeah. from nature. I think that's that's one way to make the challenge a little more pointed for for Stoics. What do you think about that? That kind of thing. Well, think good way putting Because the Stoics claim that the universe is providential, right? Which it claims that the universe is unfolding in the best possible way.
00:29:07
Speaker
So the way to question is like, is the universe yeah unfolding the best possible way because it's aiming at some sort of target that is good outside of the universe or that the universe recognizes in some way and aims towards, or is the universe unfolding the best possible way, almost like a descriptive claim, because whatever way the universe unfolds becomes good because it is nature.
00:29:29
Speaker
And it's just your job to kind of ah love your fate as it occurs. That was less clear the way you put it. But yeah, I think it's like, you want to live in accordance with nature. Is nature onto the good? Is nature like intelligent, perceiving the good and pursuing it and and matching it?
00:29:46
Speaker
Or is yeah, is it more of a descriptive claim where like, you know, what is natural is good.
00:29:52
Speaker
You have the sort of the question. So these philosophers will talk about metaethics. So it's sort of a metaethical question about the nature of the good and metaphysics of nature as it were but to get more applied some stoics like musonius rufus in particular as a number of examples will he'll argue something is you know you ought to choose something because it is natural you know it is natural to have a particular kind of diet beard life what have you and of course you can question whether he's properly identified
00:30:29
Speaker
what is natural. But there's also the move many philosophers have made throughout history, which is just if something's natural, if it's in accordance with nature, who cares? You know, I think that's good at all.
00:30:41
Speaker
ah And, you know, why reason that way to begin with? So that's, um,
00:30:47
Speaker
that's Perhaps that's another way to make the the sort of map up the questions about the nature of ethics, goodness, nature, and such to these applied questions about yeah what's good or about what we're not to do.
00:31:04
Speaker
so you're saying but and So which way are you landing on on on the question? Well, i think so I think what the stoic needs to do is sort of go between... So they've got to... This is sort of a dilemma, and they I think they need to say it's a kind of a false dilemma or something of this sort where they identify... It's not exactly identifying the good with...
00:31:28
Speaker
nature, but, um, well, I suppose just to make the dilemma a little clearer, like you don't want to make, I don't think the Stoic wants to say good is sort of independent of nature. I think that's, that's too platonic. The Stoics were not Platonists.
00:31:47
Speaker
Uh, though sometimes some might talk like that. Um,
00:31:53
Speaker
but they also don't want to say nature is arbitrary, you know, in the same sense that, you know, God could say that murder is morally permissible. Therefore it becomes morally permissible. If the if if nature had turned out such that murder was natural, would that make it permissible? I think the Stoics and also theists, people believe in God would need to say, you know that sort of situation doesn't make sense because God is identified with goodness. Nature grounds goodness and has, it's necessarily, it cannot be any other way. you know, that world where nature promotes vice doesn't make any sense.
00:32:37
Speaker
That's not a very clear route perhaps, but I think they, you know, nature, what is God for the Stoics? It's this form of reason provides providence, provides structure to the world. And part of that structure is what we believe is good, beautiful, and true and such. And they can't it can't turn out, it's not independent from the way things are, but it also isn't arbitrary. So that's that's sort of the line I think they need to they need to walk. Yeah.
00:33:05
Speaker
I was trying to, so a couple things i was thinking while you were talking. One is like, this is not a moral dilemma and the other, it's not similar to the other ones because the other ones were, you know, this has happened, do you do A or b this is This is Plato constructing a dichotomy. And so it is a viable play for the Stoics to say that's a false dichotomy.
00:33:25
Speaker
Those don't have to be the only two choices. In the same way, it's it's not a ah fair play to say with the pulling the lever, the trolley problem. It's just like, well, just answer the question, right? So that's that's the that's what you're saying the play is, which I agree with.
00:33:39
Speaker
And then they've got to kind of sketch this middle path between these two. And I was trying to think of an example. And is this fair? Yeah. does fire discover heat or does fire create heat and if fire created heat, couldn't it create water instead? And then you'd have to call water heat.
00:34:02
Speaker
It almost becomes nonsensical. I don't know if that was, that was a first try, but um there's something to be said about, it doesn't have to be creation or discovery, or maybe, it maybe the answer is something like if it is creation,
00:34:15
Speaker
There's like almost an essentialness to the goodness of the creation in a way that it's not as if it would have been impossible for God to create otherwise or to be otherwise. um Yeah, maybe this is pushing my metaphysics a bit far, but I think you almost have to do something like that.
00:34:33
Speaker
maybe you Maybe you pick the God creates value line, but you recontextualize it to say, you know, it creates an almost eminently it doesn't like it doesn't decide from a list of things that it could have decided differently.
00:34:48
Speaker
Yeah. It's not sort of arbitrary creation out of a set of options. It's more God constitutes this thing or grounds this kind of thing. That's what was trying to say. Yeah.
00:34:59
Speaker
The sort of the other philosophical metaphors. Perhaps the Stoics also might point to might point to mathematics in a similar way. you know could Could things have turned out such that 2 plus 2 equals 5?
00:35:12
Speaker
No, necessarily. 2 plus 2 equals 4. four And so that's just part of the structure of things. And and goodness, perhaps, has us as a similar shape. Hey, well, Plato's got those tough ones, but I think that's, I think that's where, so I guess, I guess there's like the truth of the matter and then it's like where the Stoics would land. I think, I think you've described that well. I think that that's how the Stoics would try to respond to this is try to say there's some sort of like logical necessity to this, um that it, that makes it like different from this kind of arbitrary selection from options.
00:35:45
Speaker
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Cool. Yeah, that was a hard one for us. Let's stick another one on.
00:35:54
Speaker
Okay. another one here is the sinking ship. So the dilemma involves a ship that is sinking.
Sacrificial Scenarios and Stoic Decision-Making
00:36:02
Speaker
There's only enough room on a lifeboat for two people, but there are three people on board.
00:36:07
Speaker
How do you choose who to sacrifice? What are the factors that matter most here? So not so much a dilemma maybe as like a creative problem. So, you know, when, when you've got three people and you can only save two, by what criteria do you make that decision?
00:36:24
Speaker
Um, yeah, do you want to take a first step? Yeah. So you, uh, I assume you're one of the people in this situation. yeah You're one of the people.
00:36:37
Speaker
Yeah. So I think a few things that be relevant here for the Stoics would be, of course, we've mentioned this before about roles. You know, you have this idea of a captain, a captain goes down with the ship and such and other ideas like women and children first. That's I think perhaps a more controversial one.
00:36:52
Speaker
Family ties matter a lot. And i think those would be the kind of things that a Stoic would bring, bring to bear to this, this kinds of question, perhaps age, uh,
00:37:08
Speaker
and And then of course, practical ones where if you're, there's no point in someone not going down with the ship, if say they're not going to be able to, sort of and you can't expect them to survive on a lifeboat. So I think those, those would be sort of, the sort of situations at play. what do you think?
00:37:25
Speaker
Yeah, those are great. agree with those. I think another thing that I think about is like, you know, this kind of discipline of ascent and ah a lot, a large part of stochism is like understanding how to die, die well.
00:37:38
Speaker
And I don't think you need to – that means being like self-sacrificial unnecessarily. But I think it means you know how would you act if you were not afraid of death would be like one of the governing things. So you have these considerations, but the considerations would almost be the same as if you weren't one of the three.
00:37:54
Speaker
Like the considerations, you would need to treat yourself objectively. That means both – surviving if it's right for you to survive and dying if it's right for you to die.
00:38:07
Speaker
i guess if it becomes more, maybe maybe more controversial if it's like, what if it's you and your child and ah you know another adult you can't trust?
00:38:22
Speaker
like do Do you have some sort of reason to band together against the third person if there's like family involved or something? Um, I'm not sure, but I think that would be the key is like using the considerations you said, and then also applying those considerations objectively to yourself and not letting your fear of death, uh, make everybody just default to, well, I should be one of the the two. Who's the other person to Yeah. The fear, that's a great way to put it. That's ah a good way to put it.
00:38:52
Speaker
And, uh, I think the problem does become harder where it you have, say you you have a family tie or some other reason to survive, but no one wants to and go down with the ship. So then you have, I think, harder questions around, okay, do you he violence to survive?
00:39:15
Speaker
ah And in some cases, I think the stoic answer just must be yes, but and sure there are harder questions where you know it's it's the thing that it's not,
00:39:30
Speaker
you, your child, and someone you can't trust, but it's you, your child, and someone else's child who you've made promises to look after in that case. And maybe you've also made promises to your child to take care of them. So I think that's the sort of case that's really that's going to be challenging, where you you're going to be torn in different different directions.
00:39:51
Speaker
Yeah, so tough one. I mean, there's no right answer to this, I don't think, because there's no – we didn't give like a set of people, but – So it's like, you know, don't don't let false judgments or passions around fear of death distort your thinking.
Cooperation and the Prisoner's Dilemma
00:40:08
Speaker
And then there comes down as you, and then I think the considerations you raise on roles. The Stoics, certainly in their time, I think would have those more traditional norms of women and children or you know prioritizing some groups over others.
00:40:22
Speaker
And then maybe as you said, you know kind of promises or obligations you've made to to some people over others. but Anything else to add on this one?
00:40:33
Speaker
No, that's a hard one. I think those are some of the relevant considerations. Those are definitely some of the relevant considerations. Yeah. I am stuck with that. I think that phrase is a it a useful framing. you know How would you act if you aren't afraid of death is a useful framing. And I think i could check on perhaps rationalizing reasons why why you ought to survive instead of others.
00:40:54
Speaker
It's very tempting. Yeah, that's a good move. Cool. So next one is the prisoner's dilemma. Not really, like again, maybe pushing the definition of moral dilemma here, but I think these are the interesting applied questions.
00:41:09
Speaker
um So many people probably already heard of this. This is the idea that two prisoners are arrested for a crime and held in separate cells, unable to communicate. They're each offered a deal. If one confesses and betrays the other, they go free, while the other receives a long sentence.
00:41:23
Speaker
If both remain silent, they receive shorter sentences. If both confess, they receive a moderate sentence. What should you do? Confess or betray? And there's this almost this this game theory idea and there's this, you're in this position of being, I guess, passive or aggressive.
00:41:44
Speaker
And if you're aggressive, you basically lock yourself in to good or moderate. a good or moderate scenario. If you're passive, you lock it into good for both of you.
00:41:58
Speaker
you don't betray, it's either good for both of you, shorter sentence, or um bad like really bad for you because the other person sold you out.
00:42:09
Speaker
So it's kind of this idea. i think it's this question of like, do you go on the offense or, I know if it's defense, but you or do you not go on the offense? It's kind of the question in this situation. I think the Stoic doesn't betray. I think this is a good example of what Epictetus does with the – talks about the emperor who tries to convince the politician to you know vote his way instead of honesty. It's to say you know it's not your responsibility to try to game theory, play the decisions of other people and do this kind of cost-benefit analysis based on their vice or virtue. It's you know you you pick the right decision in a vacuum and you understand that decision comes with a bad consequence. but
00:42:49
Speaker
Yeah, that could come with a bad consequence, but but you're okay with that. It's part of the, you know sometimes virtue has consequences. That's my swing at it. What do you think? I think I generally agree, but would say that I don't think you make your decision in a vacuum here because the ah to me, it's a question about cooperation.
00:43:09
Speaker
And one way of framing this is if you you both cooperate, if you both confess and then you'll...
00:43:24
Speaker
Well, you're... You're cooperating if you – I mean, there's different ways of doing this. In the way I wrote it, you're cooperating by both remaining silent. Yeah, gotcha. If you both agree not to cooperate, then you get them you get like a medium-term sentence.
00:43:38
Speaker
The worst sentence is when only one person confesses and the other person doesn't, then the then the person who doesn't confess in that situation. Yeah. It's it's really like you cooperate – I use the idea of like aggressive versus passive, but it's, it's really like a cooperate versus try to screw the other person and cooperating makes you vulnerable to them trying to screw you.
00:43:59
Speaker
Is the, yeah, the setup. Yeah, that's right. So I suppose a you cooperate and that involves typically going to involve remaining ah silent here and,
00:44:14
Speaker
being open to the other person perhaps betraying you in this case. So i think I think that's generally gonna be the civic answer. That being said, there might be cases where this is fighting the hypothetical a little bit, of course, but you know if you're involved in breaking an unjust law, perhaps you confess that you in fact did it.
00:44:37
Speaker
and as a matter of protest, right? In many cases of people historically protesting injustice and then sort of going through with a legal process regardless as a symbolic act.
00:44:50
Speaker
um I think that can be politically powerful, but you'd only do that. And this is why I'd say I question thinking of making the decision a vacuum if you knew the other person would also confess because you don't want need person who basically confesses and the other person remains silent and then you hose them.
00:45:08
Speaker
so So another way of putting that is like, the Stoic is not the stoic is not uncontextually a cooperator.
00:45:19
Speaker
They don't default to cooperation ah without additional context. um Or maybe they do default cooperation, but they don't necessarily cooperate if more context comes up.
00:45:32
Speaker
But um they won't they won't betray just for the hope of of decreasing their sentence. Like decreasing their sentence is not a good reason for Stoic to betray.
00:45:44
Speaker
um yeah Yeah, perhaps another way to put it is is the Stoic will cooperate, but what that looks like in terms of acting with the other person might be different depending on on the circumstances and the context.
00:45:55
Speaker
And just as you say, they're not going to betray someone for the sake of getting a shorter sentence here. Cool. um Okay, we've got two more.
00:46:07
Speaker
um you want to run through these, Caleb? These are yours. Yeah, so there's another sort of challenge to utilitarianism called The
Ethics of Happiness and Suffering in Stoicism
00:46:16
Speaker
Omelette Child. It's from a short story by Ursula K. Le Guin.
00:46:20
Speaker
Imagine a utopian society where everyone thrives, but their happiness depends on the suffering of a single, permanently tortured child locked away in filth. If the child is freed, the utopia collapses.
00:46:33
Speaker
The question is, as a member of the society, do you accept this bargain or are you going to essentially out of protest, leave Omelas and be one of them, be one of the few who walk away from the utopia that's run on the suffering of this single tortured child.
00:46:53
Speaker
So that's the that's the thought experiment. What are your reactions? Well, my reaction, I mean, are they always a child? Is it the same child or do we rotate?
00:47:04
Speaker
um The child aspects makes it interesting too, because I think Ursula K. Le Guin is trying to maybe make the suffering seem more great. But if it was an adult, maybe we could maybe we could give that person some sort of role, really put them on an altar of appreciation, you know, because this seems to be like a factual relationship between utopia and physical suffering.
00:47:29
Speaker
the My other reaction is, i think it's interesting that the question isn't, should do you torture the child? The question is, do you leave? your it Basically, it seems to me like you're getting external benefit because of somebody's viciousness.
00:47:44
Speaker
And it's like, do you accept that trade-off? And I guess the stoic answer to that needs to be no. like The stoic answer is not... yeah Again, like, I mean, you can think of this in other examples, you know, if somebody had slaves that they treated terribly, if someone if you were friends with someone who was very rich, who made their money through sweatshops, you can you can change these to more practical examples.
00:48:08
Speaker
The Stoic is not going to, yeah, not going to... I guess, associated with that, with that, with those kinds of situations and those kinds of people just for external benefit.
00:48:20
Speaker
And maybe the Epicurean does keep blasting them, but maybe people who are just interested in pleasure do. um But the Stoic, they don't have a benefit, right? that they They're not benefiting from the, this utopia, which is presumably a material utopia, not like an ethical utopia because it requires being bad people to sustain.
00:48:41
Speaker
Um, yeah. So my, my first gut is that they leave. um Yeah, this is kind of the extreme opposite of the utility monster. It's like instead of one person feeding, you you really suffer, you really crush the one person to make the happiness of all.
00:48:59
Speaker
um Yeah, and I guess my my quick answer is that that's going to be no because that's a pleasure happiness or an external good happiness. And the Stoic isn't, there's no, well they're not, it's not a worthwhile choice for them.
00:49:11
Speaker
But that might be a bit too so self-sacrificial. What do you think?
00:49:16
Speaker
Yeah, I think that's probably ah right. But um I wonder if the the case for stain as it were is if if you look at analogous situations, you know you have the sweatshop case you just gave, the kinds of defenses people make of those sorts of things is that, look, that's the best option given the alternatives.
00:49:39
Speaker
you know The alternative to someone working in a sweatshop is them making money by picking up trash in a landfill or something of this sort.
00:49:50
Speaker
And if we don't build a sweatshop here, that's what's going to happen. and So I suppose if you tie that to the Omelas case, that's... you're leaving isn't going to make a difference to the outcome. And if this child wasn't tortured, then there would be no utopia. And that's, I think that's perhaps how some Stoics in the past might have justified other kinds of injustices.
00:50:16
Speaker
But I think that's the kind of move someone would make in for justifying, you know, this kind of thing, causing others to suffer for the sake of some, some, uh,
00:50:28
Speaker
ah so Putting it and saying some greater good isn't the right stoic framing. so um I think it can't just be that utopia is something you passively enjoy. I think it's got to be something that is valuable and you know people who stay there play a good role in creating and sustaining. so In and that sense, it's it's got to be something worth promoting.
00:50:51
Speaker
ah Perhaps like civilization is worth promoting today. And I think that's saying something more than it's just something that makes people feel good. Right. It's now you have these ideas of justice, courage and such. They're involved in promoting civilization. Perhaps that's the same with utopia.
00:51:06
Speaker
Anyway, that's a little bit of a you know let long rant, but, uh, there's one thing, and like if I, if I, I'm kind of portraying the utopia as a bunch of experience, hedonistic experience machines. Right. But maybe it's the situation where it allows people, you know,
00:51:20
Speaker
leisure time, it allows them to study philosophy, it allows people to build these kind of projects for the greater good.
Historical Context and Stoic Ethics
00:51:28
Speaker
um And I guess this is one of those examples that the Stoics lived in, right? And maybe you have on one hand, you're more hardcore Stoics, like an Epictetus, who's like, I'm going to go start a school somewhere else and get out of this Roman Empire.
00:51:40
Speaker
And maybe on the other hand, you have someone like a Seneca, who's like, well, you know, yeah I could walk away from Nero. who's and like, but like what good does that do the current situation better to, you know, immerse myself in this.
00:51:53
Speaker
yeah There doesn't seem to be any chance of change in in Ursula's situation, which is what makes it bit more of a dilemma. But I guess at that point you kind of have to be all in or all out where you either remove yourself or you dedicate yourself to making it the best utopia possible and maximizing the good because of the sacrifice being made.
00:52:10
Speaker
But yeah, like i think you were, you know, it's not like the Roman Empire wasn't built on you know some terrible working conditions, slavery and suffering and all these kinds of things. And Seneca and Marcus Aurelius were you know in different roles, but at the top of that pyramid.
00:52:26
Speaker
um They didn't remove themselves from it.
00:52:30
Speaker
Yeah, absolutely. So I think at the first pass, the stoic answer would be to to walk away. But perhaps when you, especially when you construe the thought experiment as more of a utilitarian one, where you know utopia is just something you passively enjoy, it's very pleasurable or something like that.
00:52:44
Speaker
But if you think about I think that's that some of the challenge making it little more thornier is ah thinking about, as so it's a case of great suffering, but you know what's created is arguably in effect,
00:53:00
Speaker
ah good and the people involved are playing good virtuous roles then perhaps the at least the best the best as they can then the questions become a little bit more thorny and i think that's that's that's related to some of these practical questions involved today you know involving uh sweatshops the way we treat animals and such so and uh i'm not not not saying one way is right the other or making a statement about those kinds of decisions but uh I think that's that's one way to make this thought experiment torn here.
00:53:33
Speaker
Yeah, a lot of the a lot of these have a lot in common, right? Like it brings me back to the raises me back to pulling the lever, right? Like you're you're pulling the lever I don't know if it's the exact metaphor, but you're pulling the lumber straight into this poor kid locked away in filth.
00:53:47
Speaker
And youre you're making a utopia for other people because of that. Interesting one. and me Did you want to hit this last one or did do do we got to call it for time?
00:53:59
Speaker
No, we could call it for time. I think that's... a Any final takeaways? Let's see.
00:54:07
Speaker
Yeah, in terms of general themes, a question is sort of the, and thinking about what's morally relevant for Stoics, some of the easier thought experiments involved, you know, cases that maximize pleasure or something of that sort where the Stoic can say, no, you know, the happiness machine, the experience machine, not that valuable.
00:54:31
Speaker
the utility monster, not a challenge for Stoic ethics. And then I think where you get into some of these trickier situations, you know, the sinking ship, the questions really become, you know who are you?
Summary and Comparison of Ethical Frameworks
00:54:45
Speaker
What are your roles? What does acting virtuous look like here? And those are the kinds of things that Stoic would i take seriously. And perhaps, you know, given the nature of the Asada experiments, there's not going to be an easy answer, easy general answer, even though there might be better answers in specific situations.
00:55:11
Speaker
Yeah, i think that's right. So like theres there's some cases where there's pattern, there's some pattern recognition, black and white, Okay, if the dilemma is around maximization of pleasure, as you said, not that compelling.
00:55:24
Speaker
But everything else, it's going to be, it's not like you can just be like, oh, well, does it involve killing? then it's wrong. Or does it involve torture? Because then it's wrong. Does it involve, it's not even as simple as, it's not even clear that as a Stoic, you should be the one to stay on the boat and sacrifice your life.
00:55:40
Speaker
It's just not these black and white clear cut answers as you called out. i think and I think the flip side of that though is like they're also not hard and fast on these deontology rules. Like there's going to be some situations where it's okay to kill. There's going to some situations where it's okay to torture.
00:55:57
Speaker
There's going to be some situations – um you know you're you're pursuing You're pursuing virtue, but virtue is contextual. It's not a kind of a heuristic or law-following rule-based. you know You're going to tend to cooperate, but there's going to be some situations where cooperating in the prisoner's dilemma doesn't make sense.
00:56:18
Speaker
and i think it can be a bit unsatisfying, um but ultimately you know more robust and nuanced. and Life is nuanced, so um I prefer it that way, but a bit less of a you know not not as like clear-cut as utilitarianism or at least simplistic deontology can be.
00:56:38
Speaker
Yeah. I wonder, though, if a different framing is, and perhaps we've sold the view that you know there are just some things you should actually should not do or some things you actually should do.
00:56:49
Speaker
Perhaps you've sold that view short. I wonder if a different framing is, and when you're thinking about these sorts of thought experiments, then The questions become dependent on context.
00:57:01
Speaker
But once you've defined the context clearly enough, you can ah you yeah you actually can come up with rules or may perhaps even ah absolute prohibitions or specific people.
00:57:13
Speaker
ah you know For most people, you could say you should never torture someone or you should always you you should never be in a situation like the Amlas-type situation or...
00:57:26
Speaker
ah perhaps something like that. um Anyway, I think that's, I wonder if if there's there's just some kind of move move there, they like once you've defined the roles, who you are and such.
00:57:37
Speaker
I just wouldn't want someone some someone to come away from this conversation and think that there's nothing to this this is sort of absolute, maybe more ah black and white views. Because of course, famously throughout history, Stoics have had very hard line moral views, whether of course it's Cato the Younger defending the fall of the Roman Republic or Stoics people influenced by Stoicism who wanted to prohibit slavery, even if it did promote the greater good. And they would listened to people about, oh, it's more of a nuanced type situation and like sorts of justifications people would give for andt treating humans differently. So I wonder if I just, it's a, I wouldn't want to sell the, the sort of hard line moral type of views yeah too short.
00:58:22
Speaker
um mean I mean, think it's a good pushback, right? Like when you read Epictetus, he's pretty prescriptive. He's not like, oh, well, depends. He's very prescriptive about you should do this, you shouldn't do this. Someone threatens you to throw you in jail, let them throw you in jail.
00:58:36
Speaker
um yeah i think I think you hit the nail on the head where it's like, they just don't do this kind of reasoning of like, know you you're this like, generic floating through space person without a past and you find yourself in this situation, what do you what do? you do They just didn't really use these examples. i mean, yeah you said they're prescriptive. It's like, okay, you are a senator and a tyrant threatens you to do something. What do you do?
00:59:06
Speaker
Well, it's very prescriptive then, right? as you As you brought up about um once you have those rules in place, then it can get really, really prescriptive. I agree.
00:59:17
Speaker
And yeah, it's not relativistic. I would hate to say that. It's not relativistic. It's just context specific, but the context doesn't have to be so specific. It's like, well, we can't even mention it. Even just getting some rules on the table, that's your child, that's your brother or sister, that's your parent.
00:59:33
Speaker
Once you get some of that content on the table, you're you know you're you're you're moving. um And a lot of these thought experiments are set up to to remove those, which is not really, guess, how the Stoics did ethics. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely.
00:59:46
Speaker
Yeah, that's well put.
Listener Engagement and Conclusion
00:59:47
Speaker
Cool. Well, let us know if you think there's some other moral dilemma we should take on or if you think we got one of these wrong. Yeah, that'd be great. I would i would enjoy to see other people's opinions.
00:59:56
Speaker
All right, Michael. Thanks, Gil.
01:00:02
Speaker
Thanks for listening to Stoa Conversations. Please give us a rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify and share it with a friend. If you want to dive deeper still, search Stoa in the App Store or Play Store for a complete app with routines, meditations, and lessons designed to help people become more stoic.
01:00:23
Speaker
And I'd also like to thank Michael Levy for graciously letting us use his music. You can find more of his work at ancientliar.com. And finally, please get in touch with us.
01:00:35
Speaker
Send a message to stoa at stoameditation.com if you ever have any feedback, questions, or recommendations. Until next time.