Two philosophers come together to debate the question of whether objective, mind-independent moral facts exist. Mike says yes, Matt says no. They discuss whether we can ever have reason to go against our desires, whether beliefs about morality make any difference to our behavior, how we know things about the world, and the relevance of intuitions.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:45 Dr. Matt Lutz opening statement

00:11:49 Dr. Michael Huemer opening statement

00:24:43 Do moral obligations involve impossible kinds of reasons?

00:41:40 Can the error theorist make sense of doing something against one’s desires?

00:56:08 If moral facts disappeared, would we live our lives differently?

01:14:34 What’s wrong with intuition as a ground for moral knowledge?

01:29:05 How do we know logical and mathematical truths?

01:35:46 Dr. Matt Lutz closing statement

01:36:54 Dr. Dr. Michael Huemer closing statement

Emerson Green walks through three powerful objections to attempts to reduce consciousness to the brain: phenomenal transparency, philosophical zombies, and vagueness.Check out Emerson's YouTube channel.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:05 What are you a YouTuber?

00:19:08 Objection #1 - Phenomenal transparency

00:29:22 Why physicalism cannot tolerate transparency

00:32:31 What if consciousness is translucent?

00:38:36 Maybe there are no mental states at all

00:49:52 Objection #2 - Philosophical zombies

01:00:57 Different types of conceivability

01:12:29 What about modal skepticism?

01:17:32 Objection #3 - Vagueness

01:24:40 When do we go from non-conscious to conscious?

Dr. Randal Rauser and I explore the arguments of his new book, The Wideness of the Sea: How to be Evangelical and Gay-Affirming, wherein he offers a four-part case for including a gay-affirming perspective within the fold of Christian orthodoxy: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:12 The tale of Eugene Peterson

00:04:45 What is evangelical Christianity?

00:09:10 Affirming vs. non-affirming perspectives

00:14:55 Why do evangelicals care so much about gay relationships?

00:24:19 Argument #1: The Bible

00:40:25 Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man..."

00:45:10 Romans 1:26-27 - "God gave them over..."

00:50:05 Argument #2: Reason

00:51:11 William Lane Craig's case against homosexuality

00:54:22 Against natural law?

00:58:32 Argument #3: Tradition

01:07:28 Argument #4: Experience

Talia Mae Bettcher explains why she has come to a dismal view of the United States as a home for trans people, details the Trump administration's recent policy changes targeting trans individuals, and debates the merits of a biological understanding of sex and gender.

Check out Talia's latest book, Beyond Personhood: An Essay in Trans Philosophy.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:05 Why do you feel unsafe in the U.S.?

00:06:27 How did the U.S. get here?

00:12:01 Has your religious upbringing informed your work today?

00:17:13 Methodology and biological theories of gender

00:24:17 What is trans philosophy?

00:28:37 Can a traditionalist engage in trans philosophy?

00:33:03 Answering Matt Walsh: what is a woman?

00:46:44 Circular definitions of gender

00:49:13 Trans people can be mistaken in their gender identity

00:54:57 Trans woman and prison placement

01:07:47 Is "it's complicated" a cop-out?

Stephen Law, professor of philosophy at Oxford, discusses his "evil god challenge" to theists: prove that God is not perfectly evil. That challenge, we will see, is surprisingly difficult to meet. Check out Stephen's paper outlining the evil-god challenge, as well as Mooney and Hendricks paper critiquing the challenge.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Do please follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:06 The evil-god challenge

00:11:03 The versions of the challenge

00:17:02 Does the moral argument break the parallel?

00:24:28 Skeptical theism will not undercut the challenge

00:34:07 Does skeptical theism lead to skepticism about everything?

00:46:30 The neutral-god challenge

00:53:13 Theodicies won't undercut the challenge, either

00:59:39 Would Jesus' resurrection break the parallel?

01:07:57 Is an evil god logically incoherent?

01:16:47 What are you most uncertain about?

Graham Oppy and Brian Cutter join me to debate philosophy's newest argument for God: the argument from psychophysical harmony. We talk about epistemic probability versus metaphysical possibility, the relevance of thought-experiments to determining possibility, whether mental states are identical to brain states, and what we ought to infer if we found John 3:16 in binary code in the digits of pi.

Check out Cutter and Crummet's paper defending the psycho-physical harmony argument, my previous interviews with Graham and Brian.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:34 Cutter opening statement

00:18:14 Oppy opening statement

00:27:59 Moderated discussion

01:48:33 Cutter closing statement

01:50:07 Oppy closing statement

Mhairi Tait, my friend and fellow DPhil student at Oxford, sits down with me to discuss whether Ted Bundy's mother was right to stand by her son, whether you could ever love the same person forever, whether you should "trade up" if you find someone with better qualities than your current beloved, and whether one still ought to be loved even if one were a worm.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:52 Is the best kind of love unconditional?

00:14:10 Is it okay to not love everyone?

00:20:00 Should we "trade up" if we find a better romantic partner?

00:21:21 Is love ever unjustified?

00:24:07 Is love for an abuser real love?

00:30:14 The possibility of love at first sight

00:40:30 What IS love, exactly?

00:45:04 Do you, Miles, think love has created value in you

00:55:11 Ted Bundy's mother loved him to the very end

00:59:28 Ethical non-monogamy?

01:01:15 Does love require free will?

01:04:20 Is there a single concept the unifies all our uses of the word "love"?

01:06:39 Does analytic philosophy do damage to love?

01:11:50 Realist vs. anti-realist accounts of love

01:14:17 Could you love the same person forever?

Dr. David Enoch, author of "Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism," joins me to discuss moral realism versus anti-realism, objections from the moral error theorist, and my personal sticking points in affirming the existence of irreducible moral facts: moral disagreement across cultures and evolutionary explanations for our moral beliefs.

Buy David's book defending robust moral realism.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:07:23 Naturalism vs. non-naturalism

00:19:23 Why should we reject moral error theory?

00:32:32 The revisionary costs of error theory

00:43:34 Intuition as our only ground for moral realism?

00:47:45 The connection to ethical intuitionism

00:51:19 Objection #1 - Moral disagreement

01:03:18 Moral skepticism

01:06:20 Objection #2 - Evolutionary debunking arguments

01:16:16 Is God required to explain objective morality?

01:20:45 Are most philosophers moral realists?