Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
S4 Episode 7: Morality
48 Plays1 month ago
Today John and Dejan are discussing morality. In particular, they focus on utilitarianism, deontology and historical events.
Please follow and like the podcast wherever you listen, and on social media.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Morality Debate
00:00:00
Speaker
Hello and welcome back to the Debatable Discussions podcast. Today we've got a very exciting episode as me and Diane will be delving into a bit of philosophy again and in particular morality.
00:00:14
Speaker
Today we're going to be talking about utilitarianism and deontology as the sort of two big categories in which morality is split. And we will be having a sort of in-house debate on whether political decisions come from an absolutist or consequentialist view.
00:00:33
Speaker
So make sure to watch to the end. It should be, you sparks should be flying, gesticulation and everything else. So yeah, let's get into it.
Exploring Utilitarianism
00:00:46
Speaker
Yes. So firstly, first first perhaps we'll look at utilitarianism. Now, what utilitarianism is and is it good? So perhaps I'll explain utilitarianism.
00:00:57
Speaker
So for me, I've always found utilitarianism fairly easy to understand because of a short acronym I've learned at school. And that is GG4GN.
00:01:07
Speaker
Greatest good for the greatest number. that is what you utilitarianism is at its core. It what action causes the greatest amount of good or the greatest amount of utility, which is a sort of more formal way of saying good for the greatest number of people.
00:01:25
Speaker
Therefore, it's looking at things such as maximizing happiness or maximizing pleasure. Now, there have been several different takes on utilitarianism, one could say.
00:01:36
Speaker
have Jeremy Bentham, who articulated theory and he came up with act utilitarianism, which is obviously based on working out the amount of pleasure produced by single act and you choose that one act.
00:01:49
Speaker
Then Mill came after Bentham and Mill was very clever. Mill answered the many criticisms of Bentham's act utilitarianism by formulating rule utilitarianism, which differs from Bentham's act in that effectively there's a rule book, there's a system of rules and that's how one can decide what the action is, which promotes the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.
00:02:13
Speaker
Since there, there have been a few philosophers like Karl Popper, Peter Singer, think Henry Sedgwick as well. And they've come up with sort of formulations, developments of utilitarianism.
00:02:24
Speaker
These have things like Singer's interest utilitarianism, so greatest number of interests fulfilled. That's slightly different because Singer believes that animals have interests rather controversially.
00:02:37
Speaker
So one's controversial. But then there have been other ones such as Popper's negative utilitarianism, so causing the least amount of harm. yes, Diane, what do you think about utilitarianism? Are you a foe of it or are you quite
Critique of Utilitarianism
00:02:51
Speaker
frankly? Well, I think a bit sceptic when it comes to utilitarianism for a couple of reasons, but mainly due to the fact that I don't associate happiness with necessarily good.
00:03:05
Speaker
yeah yeah I think some actions produce a lot of happiness for a lot of people, but they're not morally good. For example, I don't know, taking illegal substances would be one that comes to mind. For example, if 10 people would like to do that, that would provide them for happiness. However, don't think from sort of moral standpoint, you can equate that happiness to genuine Yeah.
00:03:31
Speaker
So I think that, you know, this is a fairly harmless example, but there are examples which are a bit more out there when it comes to this. And for this reason, I think utilitarianism is good idea, ah ah good intention behind but so tough, so reinforced.
00:03:48
Speaker
I think negative utilitarianism I can get behind a bit more because it looks at the sort of flip side of the argument. Yeah. And... Causing less suffering, think that's an objectively good thing.
00:04:02
Speaker
Whilst it's causing more happiness, I don't think it is. Yeah, I agree you there. I think even with less suffering, it's also subjective utilitarianism because some may say that action causes less suffering, but others may disagree.
00:04:17
Speaker
But I think it's even more amplified when you look at pleasure. I mean, the famous one is the sadistic guard argument. get pleasure out murdering people, a group could say.
00:04:27
Speaker
Is that justified yet? That's a big issue. No, no. And another idea which i thought which you mentioned, which is, you know, which is very important, and I think people don't really think about it enough when they're considering utilitarianism, is do we want to just live in a world of just pure happiness?
00:04:45
Speaker
in the sense that there was an American philosopher, Robert Nozick, he made the experience machine up and he said, you've almost got to have normal actions that are neither really, really, you know, that aren't the actions that promote happiness the most, but just somewhere on that scale, because you almost need to know what true happiness is like.
Understanding Deontology
00:05:05
Speaker
And he said, do we really want to live in a world just full of true happiness? Whereas actually, as you mentioned that, I think a world of less suffering is objectively good. Whereas the most happiness, there's a bit of room there left with, yeah, but what does it mean? Yeah.
00:05:23
Speaker
And perhaps, Diane, could you also now explain deontology? Yeah, so deontology is sort of opposite view. Yeah. one can hold when it comes to morality and that that is absolute, it's got some rules that are bent into the very essence of nature.
00:05:43
Speaker
and are a couple of people who subscribe to this, Thomas Aquinas is one, Kant most famously, And Kant comes with the categorical imperative, that is, it's a big thing.
00:05:59
Speaker
And he says that if you cannot do an action in all circumstances, then it's not moral action.
Deontology vs. Utilitarianism
00:06:04
Speaker
So for example, lying, although in some circumstances it may be of... useful. Preferred even. Kant says if you can't do in all circumstances, you can't you apply that. And he uses the example and a lot of are like, okay, but what if, for example, in 1942, in 43, 44 in Europe, you're hiding Jewish people in your house and the Gestapo knocks on your door and says, do you have Jews in this house?
00:06:33
Speaker
And a lot people say would lie. But then the sort of deontological argument here is what if the people in your sort of wherever they are on the other side of the house heard the knocks and jumped out the window?
00:06:45
Speaker
Right. And they've left the house. And instead letting the Gestapo come in and search the house, you're saying, no, no, don't have any people. And they go around the house and they find them. Oh, yeah.
00:06:56
Speaker
So you can never know the outcome. Yeah. And that's why Kant and the more rigid side of the anthology is for the stringent rules because they think you cannot predict the future.
00:07:12
Speaker
And I agree with that, to be honest. Yeah, ah that's a really good point there. And that should be really, and ah ah it must be, but that should be one of the forefront criticisms of utilitarianism.
00:07:25
Speaker
Because obviously, deontology is act-based, it's rule-based, and it's concerned with duty. But utilitarianism is consequentialist. But the issue of any consequentialist ethic, as you just said there, is that we can't predict the future.
00:07:39
Speaker
We aren't, yeah, we aren't sort of Future predictors, how can we know this will cause the most amount of happiness in the case of utilitarianism? If we don't know the future, be actually entirely different.
00:07:51
Speaker
So that is actually very interesting. I also like deontology in the sense that I think people try and act with duty in general in life. it's sort of in primary school, one of those values they try and sort of drill into you.
00:08:05
Speaker
They say, act with kindness. You have a duty to be kind. And I think that reflects it. It doesn't matter if the consequences are unkind. As long as you try and be kind and act with that duty, it's fine.
00:08:18
Speaker
Similarly, I think it's in the legal profession as well. They've got, or judges, they've got a duty to show justice. And it's far easier being able to actively do that duty than to say, well, I think this will cause the most amount of justice, but who am I to say because I can't predict the future.
00:08:36
Speaker
So, yeah, I think that's definite strength of deontology. Why else do you like it, Diane? I think it's again this sort of notion of the categorical imperative. Yeah. That Kant says for an action to be moral, one, you need to be able to apply in all circumstances, and two, you can't sort of have it damage anything else.
00:08:57
Speaker
Yeah. So again, we're back to concept of lying. He says, well, lying is not moral action because one, you can't apply it to all situations. But also, if you apply lying to all situations, trust wouldn't exist anymore. Okay. Okay.
00:09:11
Speaker
it doesn't need to negatively affect anything else. I think that's probably a good way to just set out the moral boundaries. And of course, the ontology does, and especially Kant, does live.
00:09:26
Speaker
Because an example is, again, for example, speeding. Speeding to get to the hospital, right? A lot of people would say, oh, the ontology says that is immoral and you can't do that.
00:09:40
Speaker
Yes, but no. And are two actions happening. The action of speeding and the action of getting to hospital to save your life. Yeah. And the ontologist with Aquinas, it can't, and everyone would say saving one's life is always the the sort of most important thing.
00:09:57
Speaker
can break every other rule as long as the top action is in accordance to the ontology and that top action is saving your life. So... Wood's worth speeding immoral? Yes. However, that gets sort trumped by the fact that you've got this more important action that you need to fulfil.
00:10:16
Speaker
Okay, yeah, I think that's a sort of caveat of deontology, which I don't think I
Absolute vs. Relative Morality
00:10:20
Speaker
understood. sort of of I've understood in the past and that duty, there's many forms to duty, as you said there, sort of higher, there's higher and lower duty, sort of like natural moral law, for example, that's obviously got higher duties like saving life.
00:10:36
Speaker
I think preserving a harmonious society, that's a higher duty almost than... something far less important. Nicely sort of moving on from what you just said there, thought we could discuss absolutist versus relative morality.
00:10:52
Speaker
So maybe Dan, i you explain absolute, then I'll explain relative. For any listeners who don't know, this is the sort of loose framework to which these theories sort of hang. Yeah, so absolute morality is basically the ontology in that, well, the ontology and many other forms, but The ontology definitely is an absolute form of morality in that can only sort of... An action either right or wrong and that doesn't change depending on the circumstance consequences of it.
00:11:21
Speaker
So, killing is wrong, full stop. Killing is always wrong, doesn't matter. You know. It doesn't allow much interpretation over this is particular self-circumstances.
00:11:34
Speaker
But again, as I've covered before, the ontology does sort have some leeway that can be looked at and analysed.
00:11:45
Speaker
Yeah, and then sort of conversely to that, you have relativism. And this is basically the idea that right or wrong changes depending on the situation. It's all relative to a certain it it situation, to certain circumstances. Right.
00:12:00
Speaker
A common one is the argument of murder, and that says you can justify murder if it's in war, but you can't justify murder if it's sort of on the streets type thing in a harmonious place.
00:12:13
Speaker
that's the main difference. It's all about, it's very situational ethics, relativism. You don't have these sorts of rules. So absolutists would obviously have rules that killing is bad.
00:12:25
Speaker
doesn't matter whether there a war, it's a bad thing to do. Whereas relativism is very situational. I think that actually perhaps is a disadvantage of relativism in any sense and in any field, whether that's morality sort of any other thing you encounter, it's harder to follow because you make the judgment.
00:12:44
Speaker
Absolutism is obviously made for you. So like an absolute ethic. Yeah, pretty much. Whereas relativism is a more individualist ethic, which has got its advantages, but also its disadvantages.
00:12:56
Speaker
So Deanne, perhaps you can commence to saying which one do you think is better? Are you more of an absolutist or a relativist? I'm definitely more an absolutist. Because I don't think, again, relativism has got its own problems.
00:13:10
Speaker
don't think it's necessarily sustainable for everyone to decide what's wrong. We get into a state of anarchy, but not sort of the anarchy that I'm thinking of. It's more the anarchy of sort of chaos and unchecked actions.
00:13:26
Speaker
And yeah, I just can't i see sort of be explained in a way that I can't find a loophole with. And then I just can't subscribe to it, yeah.
00:13:38
Speaker
Are John? Yeah, I mean, I think I'm perhaps different from you in this area because I am perhaps a bit bigger of a relativist. And my main thing with relativism is ah ah sort of a geographic perspective, one could say, on the take. And that that there is huge moral diversity.
00:13:57
Speaker
so I think if you look at the world in the sense that... you look at the world, obviously morality is relativist across the world. Sort of like got Shabai law.
00:14:07
Speaker
That's very different to the... one could say like the Christian Jewish law of sort of European world. So yeah, I think I'm more of a relative. I would argue.
00:14:18
Speaker
I agree with there are objective evils, but then I don't, and they're shared across the world, but then I think it's not absolute for the entire world in the sense that if you go to, I'm sure, tribal Papua New Guinea,
00:14:29
Speaker
um there they may not think yeah yeah something that we think is bad is necessarily that bad. I'm the one to say. But I think there's an idea of tolerance across cultures and that moral diversity, which I find quite convincing about relativism.
00:14:44
Speaker
What do you have to say, Darren? I'd ah'll argue to that, though. I do see the world with universal set values and moral ethics.
00:14:55
Speaker
I don't think necessarily the Jewish or the Christian or the whatever values are, let's say the right ones. I think it's a mix and match. But think if you look at some cultures and you can obviously say cannibalism should not happen.
00:15:10
Speaker
I can't find someone who can make a compelling argument as to why you should eat another person. I don't also find anyone who can make a compelling argument as to why you should stone women to death.
00:15:22
Speaker
I can't find anyone who can also make a compelling argument of sort of, you know what's happening now in the USA of stopping yeah yeah federal funding to Harvard because they don't want to allow you to intervene in their mess.
00:15:39
Speaker
I can't find those things. And because of that, I do think that there is only one sort of set of absolute moral law. Would you say that's the moral superiority you think of Western values? No.
00:15:51
Speaker
Because and' don't think the Western code is necessarily the right one. But do you think it's superior then to, let's say, African sets of morals? No.
00:16:00
Speaker
But would you not say, but that argument, you think it's superior to, let's say, African morals, where if you go back to 18th century African society, you know, it's fairly, it's historically understood that just cannibalism occurred.
00:16:15
Speaker
but if you go back to 18th century Western society, people still had slaves. Yeah, they did. But do you think but that still exists in the world today? There is still cannibalism exists in the world today. Human sacrifice exists.
00:16:26
Speaker
I don't think that's the question I've said is... You said you can't find an an argument for that being morally right. So would you thus say that Western morals are superior is what we was trying to say?
00:16:40
Speaker
No, I wouldn't. I think cannabis is an example of ah ah something some people got wrong and that needs to change. But I think if you look at Western society, there's plenty of examples of what people got wrong.
00:16:52
Speaker
And don't know, let me just think of an example. Again, Trump, what's happening the USA, what he's doing there, the the deporting everyone. People with US passports are now going to get deported, apparently.
00:17:03
Speaker
i i I don't any person who can make a compelling argument to that reason. I can't find anyone who can make a compelling argument to sort of... burning witches at the stake, which what what so European societies did and in history, but having slaves, <unk> <unk> etc, etc, etc.
00:17:19
Speaker
Oh, no, no, no, you carry on, you carry on Yeah, and you know, are all these things that people across the world did that I think are horrible. And the question is more about trying to find what every part of the world got right and getting it it into one sort of I think that's very difficult though. And this is why I do agree with the relativist view.
Challenges of Universal Morality
00:17:41
Speaker
is because I think religion is the biggest obstacle to sort of coming up with one global code, because there are places where religion obviously being seen as this beacon of morality, there are places where religions are morally opposed to one another.
00:17:57
Speaker
So I can't come up, you know, I think let's say, for example, many parts of Sharia law, especially, you know, that treatment of the LGBTQ plus community, I think that's absolutely abhorrent, but I'm sure if I asked someone from that part of the world, they could make an argument saying that what happens is acceptable simply because of religious doctrine.
00:18:23
Speaker
But similarly, I think if you went to Africa, you know, tribal African communities in the past, their belief, their religious beliefs, they would have said,
00:18:34
Speaker
it's morally right because my God believes in my deity believes in it. And it similarly should be applied to the West because a lot of Western morality is based off religion. We shouldn't kill. I think you can defend killing from a non-secular perspective as well. mean, from a secular perspective as well.
00:18:50
Speaker
But all our Western morals, I view them as, they're fundamentally rooted in Christianity. I think it's hard to sort of... It's hard to have one absolute set of morals with so much religious diversity across the world.
00:19:04
Speaker
I agree with that. I think it's hard and, you know, for practical reasons, maybe impossible, but sort of theoretically, don't think anyone...
00:19:13
Speaker
can make a convincing argument saying all and with all of them saying is it's right because I read it I read in the Bible it's right because I read in the Quran or it's right because because it's in there because unless you can defend points from both a religious and a secular perspective I find them very weak yeah me too and this is that this is this is as a believer so that you know I don't get attacked for just saying for the saying this I think if you can't defend a point from non-religious perspective it is probably a bit weak because
00:19:44
Speaker
again, I find it incredibly difficult for anyone to make a a moral argument from a non-secular perspective of, I don't know, stoning women in comparison to someone making an argument about not killing, which is applied in all religions, right?
00:19:59
Speaker
So, for example, don't kill is a universal thing and you can defend that from both religious and a secular perspective. You can defend uh you know not assaulting people both you know violently and sexually you can defend that from both perspectives you can defend lying because there are sexual assault i'd imagine there are religions in which things like sexual assault human sacrifice especially non-formalised religions. By that, I mean ones without an official sort of book doctrine, more like tribal religions.
00:20:32
Speaker
I'd imagine... Yeah, but you can defend that from a secular perspective. You can defend it from a secular perspective, but you can't from a from religious perspective. be But you can defend it from a religious perspective in some cases, right?
00:20:42
Speaker
Yeah, in some cases, yeah. Only in some cases. Yeah. But the most important one is being able to defend it without attaching any sort of bias to it and being able to say, look... this is immoral because of and you have a sort of sound argument that people can actually use and and not just say well it's it's moral because it's my religion but there are other religions that maybe don't agree with you that case and then you need to defend it from a secular perspective so yeah again it's difficult yeah sorry yeah
00:21:17
Speaker
I find it very hard that if people just say, yeah is what my belief is. Well, why is your belief? Because it's my belief. I don't think that makes a lot of sense. I agree with And I mean, I'm not religious, so I've always thought it's know slightly ludicrous when people have said to me,
00:21:35
Speaker
I believe in this because literally read it in the Bible. but I think, you know, obviously religion, you should believe things if they're in the Bible, but you should also be able to have, if you believe something, you should also be able to develop the reasoning, as you were saying, Diane, for believing it, not just basically because you read it, but because you you can understand it in a logical sense.
00:21:54
Speaker
But I think the issue with absolute morality, though, is that in the world we have theocracies. We have Stacey, but also like Saudi Arabia. And I think finding a path through that is very, very difficult.
00:22:09
Speaker
Finding a path through those different morals is difficult. So perhaps to move on to the last question of our discussion today, we could look at political decisions.
Morality in Political Decisions
00:22:21
Speaker
So as a caveat for anyone listening, me and Diane have discussed this earlier in the week. But Diane, do you think political decisions are made solely based on absolute morality or consequentialism or a mixture of both? Well, I think let's, I want to first introduce this sort of caveat of political decisions and moral decisions not being one and the same.
00:22:47
Speaker
Yeah. Because there are some decisions that people have made for purely political reasons, with no care for the moral aspect of them. And, yeah, again, ah very different sets of rules apply when talking about moral decision.
00:23:04
Speaker
But if we're looking at moral decisions, I do think they come from absolute point of view. Because without looking at the moral absolute and looking at whether this is right or wrong, I don't think there's changes that have happened.
00:23:17
Speaker
I think this will be a good debate because last time it got bit heated. So
00:23:24
Speaker
yeah, I differ from you. i I think that always can be a moral aspect in political decisions. even if it's pleasing your own morals or pleasing the morals that you try and promote.
00:23:35
Speaker
But I think it's never obviously clearly moral. It differs. yeah Sometimes political decisions like a budget cut, that's obviously limited morality compared to like giving a new group the right to vote type thing. Even I think, and we talked about slavery and Abraham Lincoln,
00:23:52
Speaker
I think there's a strong argument to be made that that decision was a more political than a moral one. Yeah. With Abraham Lincoln having less of a regard for sort of people's well-being than we think and more regard for can I win this war?
00:24:05
Speaker
Yeah. and I think for him that there's still law law always a moral aspect because for him that shows, I guess, a lack of morals in any sense. Yeah. um Yeah. I think, I mean, the one we said is that I am in fairness a bit of a mixture. I've been thinking about it since. there i i would say there are clear political decisions that have been made of absolutism.
00:24:24
Speaker
But then I think there are also many political decisions, primarily ones involving things such as movements, violent movements, or protest movements, revolutions that are consequentialist.
00:24:39
Speaker
So the sort of more ah relativist side of things. The one that just came up to me literally as we just spoke then, and we've both studied this ah our GCSE history studies, is the civil rights movement.
00:24:51
Speaker
Yeah, I don't think there was any absolutist morals necessarily in US society that African-Americans should have the right to vote, because I think if there were those morals, then that movement would not have needed to have taken place for it.
00:25:08
Speaker
But I think if if you look at the extent of that movement, a major factor of granting African Americans the right to vote was because of the amount of disruption caused by the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. And I think, you know, why did, for example, if you look at Alabama,
00:25:27
Speaker
Why did they give people there the right for transport companies to have ah ah non-segregated buses? I think those people in those bus companies were actually racist, even when they made that decision. They didn't want to do it. they feared the consequences of allowing the protest to moral decision.
00:25:45
Speaker
Is that a moral decision? I think i i that's an economical decision. Because the bus companies, after the Montgomery bus boycott, they were just having no people on the buses. They were losing money and they said, you know what, we need this to stop or else we're going to go out of business.
00:25:59
Speaker
So we need to implement this new law. I agree with there. It's an economic decision, but morality has a key aspect in that. Do you think so? I don't think they care. Because they're projecting a morality there that if you look at the the morals to which that bus company was previously run, it was based on discrimination.
00:26:18
Speaker
they're now supposedly publicly accepting a moral system which ends things such as as discrimination, such as segregation. I agree with you, it's economic, but I think morality always has a part to play.
00:26:29
Speaker
I think whether it's the primary concern or whether it's what it shows, but that decision, the display of that decision to the public in America at the time, would have been moral. It showed a change in morals based on this movement.
00:26:44
Speaker
Well, don't know. I think what we should do, think what we should do is sort of only look at political decisions where the primary purpose was a moral one.
00:26:55
Speaker
Because... Because I think when you look at sort of what does this show, I think you're going down a sort of very dark alley in which some decisions say, okay, what do we want to project? But other decisions, I don't think people even consider them or ask them just look at the money.
00:27:10
Speaker
They were like, you know, we are losing so much money. I don't care. I want to be able to feed my family. I don't care if this goes against everything I believe in, but I'm going to do it so I can feed my family. But I think it's a fairly bold... I think the civil rights movement is an example. I don't think the civil rights movement was an economic... was a result as as Well, no, but that part the civil rights I think that was a fun... I think most movements, any movement history that I can think of, has had a fundamentally... is is fundamentally based on morality. Whether it's at a local scale of local bus companies.
00:27:42
Speaker
Because you say it's a dark scale of saying, well, what do they show? But... morality is sort of about that. Morality is the sort of values you project to the public. The values, let's say, if the moral is based on the law, the values of political decisions, the morals of political decision projects.
00:27:57
Speaker
I think there's a large case of sort of showcasing linked to morality. agree with you.
00:28:04
Speaker
I agree with you, but I do think when you look at sort of things on a microscopic scale, such as bus companies or, you know, places where people have a genuine economic gain, I don't think to make that point. But i think let's look at sort of, I know, giving their the right to vote, you know?
00:28:19
Speaker
and the Civil Rights Act of 1963. And I think that is definitely from an absolute perspective. I think people got so horrified, the KKK attacks, MLK getting, you know, had bombings at his house, etc, etc, etc.
00:28:35
Speaker
And Lyndon B. Johnson just saw that as an eye thing, as a final moment where you were like, you know, I've had enough with this, we cannot keep going like this. The morals need to change.
00:28:46
Speaker
And I think that in his mind was a decision of, that wasn't a decision of, okay, what outcome am I going to get out of this? It's more a decision of, you know what, this is horrible.
00:28:59
Speaker
We cannot keep endorsing this. We need to change. I'd oppose you there by saying simply that I don't think in 1965, African-Americans would have been given the right to vote if it were not for the civil rights movement.
00:29:13
Speaker
agree with you. Yeah, exactly. And my primary argument for that is because the consequences of the civil rights movement and the consequences of ending that movement are the primary reason. And the consequences of the movement in general highlighting, you know, the movement highlighted the prejudice towards African Americans. But that's not a relative to this point. I know, but let me carry on.
00:29:34
Speaker
That showed to Lyndon B Johnson the need to make this moral change. Lyndon B Johnson, whether he believed it or not, that African Americans should be given the right to vote, I don't think he was concerned about absolute morality. Because if he was, he'd have made that decision himself before or without the movement.
00:29:51
Speaker
Or JFK actually would have made the decision. But no, he made it based off the consequences of what he was seeing of the civil rights movement. What do you have to say, i've I've got two points there. I think, number one, I don't think the sort general consensus on morality matters.
00:30:06
Speaker
One, I don't think that, you know, you need to look at sort of of American society. as a whole, think you need to look at the person making decisions, one. I'll back that up later.
00:30:19
Speaker
And the second thing, I think, yeah, I agree with you. I think the consequence of the civil rights movement, which were highlighting the deep injustice African Americans face, was definitely a part of the decision. But I don't think that's the relativist point at all. I think that's a point of sort of, you have a problem. It's like, i don't know, you have water coming in your house because your roof is bad, right?
00:30:38
Speaker
You know? And the sort of builder doesn't want to come in because it's Sunday, you know? But then you send him a picture of your room being halfway into water and sort of baby dying.
00:30:50
Speaker
Then you sort of The shock factor of that is like... It's not a relativist decision oh, I'm going to come in and fix this. It's more an absolutist decision of, hold on, this is a serious issue I did not know about that extent.
00:31:03
Speaker
Based off the consequences, though, of that picture. But that doesn't matter. Now they understand the consequences of what could happen if they don't come in, they're making the decision. Yeah, but that's not a relativist point. No, but that's still... I'm arguing consequentialist, as said at the start.
00:31:18
Speaker
That's still consequentialist, though, because the consequences... I wouldn't view it as that. I would view it as the... But you said they saw the picture. if it's a shock factor of realising.
00:31:29
Speaker
Yeah, that consequence, shock. Because if he was absolutist, he'd have come in straight away to fix that leaking tap. No, but it isn't. It isn't, though, because... And see where you're going, but I think here we have another differing opinion in that.
00:31:43
Speaker
I don't view the decision as consequentialist because of actions that have happened in the past. I think a consequentialist decision for me is I look at the future consequence of what I'm going to do, not at the past, right? Because everything, if you look at the past, a consequentialist decision.
00:32:00
Speaker
And then, you know, you can't... Do you know what I mean? Yeah. Yeah, you know, carry on with your second point. Yeah, and the idea is, I think you look at 1963, 1964 America, and the shock factor from the civil rights movement didn't necessarily, in my opinion, say, well, look, if you don't give us the right vote, it's going to happen.
00:32:22
Speaker
It was more a thing of, you know, I'm the president of the United States, I now know what's happening in the South. I am appalled by what's happening in the South.
00:32:33
Speaker
And I'm going to change that because that, you know, my morality, the laws of morality tell me that's wrong. Yeah, I mean, I still disagree you there. I think on the consensus on morality, I think in a political body, political decision-making, consensus on morality is fairly necessary, primarily because everyone knows one person in a democratic society doesn't make all the decisions.
00:32:59
Speaker
Well, no, but you can't have... you He's got to have moral support, I'm trying to say, from his own party to have made that decision. So I think a consensus on morality is needed. So I'll disagree with your first point. that doesn't need to be 50-plus.
00:33:11
Speaker
50% plus. I mean, in your party it does, yeah. In your party it does, but not but not not in the larger society as a whole. You can have people who we don't have the support of the majority of the people and be in power.
00:33:25
Speaker
But I think, yeah, but I think even then it's very difficult to make a huge moral decision without a consensus majority on it. But I mean, it's been done. Abraham Lincoln with the slaves.
00:33:35
Speaker
Yeah, it's been done. But you could say in the North, though, that was the sort of consensus there. The consensus of the larger... It wasn't in the South. Yeah, it wasn't in the but of the larger body in the North. Obviously, the North was more populated.
00:33:48
Speaker
I think you can look at the civil rights movement and make the same argument, that in the North that was their consensus and you had the Deep South be the main issue. Yeah, but would say there was a moral consensus though, wouldn't there? Well, not necessarily, depends if where you are.
00:34:04
Speaker
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It depends where you are. If you go in the South and you pick out five people around them. Yeah, but the President had a moral consensus. Well, it depends where. You know, but across the country.
00:34:16
Speaker
Across the country, if you randomly pick someone, then yeah, fine. Yeah, yeah. And in his decision making, within his party, there was a moral consensus. So I think moral consensus was a big pitch needed. I still think, I mean, from studying the civil rights movement, I do think the the role of the civil rights movement was instrumental in the right to
Morality vs. Consequences in History
00:34:34
Speaker
vote. And going on these consequences...
00:34:37
Speaker
As I previously said, if he was concerned about these so-called laws of morality, JFK would have made his landmark thing. wasn't JFK anymore. Maybe JFK was a racist. I know, but the Civil Rights Movement obviously happened under JFK. So I think if it was purely concerned with morality, then JFK, who perhaps got the wheels rolling for the Civil Rights Act, if we say that, in 1963, he would have, without the movement,
00:35:03
Speaker
before the movement, let's say in 1960, when he was president, he would have made his landmark decision, his landmark moral decision to change it. would have been pre-civil rights movement, basically.
00:35:14
Speaker
But what if JFK didn't care? Exactly. So he didn't have a big moral law, did he then, Dan? He didn't have this absolute moral law. Maybe Lyndon B. Johnson did. If JFK didn't care, he did not have this absolute huge moral law.
00:35:26
Speaker
No, I think Lyndon B. Johnson did. I don't think he did. I think Lyndon B. Johnson, I don't think there's any evidence to show what you're saying, firstly. don't think history shows Lyndon B Johnson was a particularly morally concerned figure sort of casting my mind at the Vietnam War there but I think why do you think he did it then I think he did it of the consequences of the civil rights movement. He saw the economic effects. You mentioned them earlier.
00:35:49
Speaker
He saw the huge amount of societal disruption. He saw the consequences of this movement. And he said, yeah, it should change. But I don't think that's a consequentialist decision, John. It is. a consequentialist.
00:36:00
Speaker
Well, no, consequentialist decision is a decision where you look at the consequences of your actions. It was sort of like, don't look what happened the past. You're like, if I make this decision, what are the consequences? This was happening the past. This happening in the present.
00:36:12
Speaker
In the present, he saw the civil rights movement and he said, okay, which one will cause the better consequences? he made the decision of knowing the consequences of the civil rights movement continuing yeah and he said it would be better to change the law.
00:36:26
Speaker
If it was absolutist, it's very hard to make an absolutist judgment on this because obviously the movement was happening. So it's hard to know, but I don't think there's any evidence to sort of show either side in debate.
00:36:38
Speaker
I don't think you can look at the evidence because you can't ask Lyndon B. Johnson what you thinking. Yeah, exactly. I think clearly the evidence would show that he was concerned with the consequences of the civil rights movement. Let's be honest, Lyndon B. Johnson is man from the deep south of the USA.
00:36:52
Speaker
I'm fairly sure of that he is. I'm fairly even sure that there were caveats in his early career surrounding whether... surrounding the access to the right to vote.
00:37:02
Speaker
Primarily because Dan, you can facture me here, but was he governor of Texas? I'm going check. He was involved in... I do believe... I do think he was, yes. i mean, he's Texan. and Yeah, so, I mean, he grew up in a place where African-Americans did not have the right to vote.
00:37:17
Speaker
So I doubt he would have had a particular moral persuasion on the issue. If he had, he would have introduced legislation at an earlier period. But I think he sort of... He was Texan senator and congressman.
00:37:29
Speaker
Yeah. So I think in reality... He knew and understood the consequences ah ah of the civil rights movement. Knowing these consequences, he decided to make this landmark decision purely based on knowing the economic effects of what would happen, on the global stage, the civil rights movement was extremely embarrassing for the USA.
00:37:51
Speaker
The civil rights movement was in many ways a global movement, whereas other countries' civil rights movements were not nearly as global as the USA's. Yeah, well... Some of the opinion that he saw the consequences of this movement then made the decision.
00:38:05
Speaker
Yeah, like can see that point there. but Again, I do think it's... it's really difficult to either look at either side and say, was this purely a consequentialist decision? Or was there a genuine sort of awakening in realising that, you know, African-Americans not having the right to vote is abhorrent?
00:38:23
Speaker
You know, I don't think you can look at that in any way, either way, you know, and just say, one cannot make the argument that, you know, the civil rights movement did highlight these sort of I don't even know how to call them, but these sort of actions that were happening in the South, these lynchings, everything.
00:38:44
Speaker
And that genuinely sort of caused a change and said, you know what? Well, what on earth? You know, don't think i can look at it. And my big point here is I don't think without a a genuine change in morality, people would have been as bothered to get it passed.
00:39:04
Speaker
um However, I think we'll perhaps leave it to you, the listeners, to decide as we've got
Conclusion and Listener Engagement
00:39:10
Speaker
to go.
00:39:11
Speaker
But I hope you enjoyed listening this episode. Hope you've enjoyed the debate. In the words of one of our sponsors, the Free Speech Union, we encourage debate. We encourage freedom of speech. I think disagreement and debate is what we need more of in the world today. So if you're not sure, then debate it yourselves as well. Or comment us, like the podcast, subscribe, and leave a comment of what you think.
00:39:35
Speaker
Perfect. Thank you. to See you next week. you there.