Distractible - Wadey’s Wittle Phiwosophy Hour

Episode Date: January 19, 2024

Would Mark, Bob, or Wade eat each other to survive? Find out during this wittle intewectual talk hosted by phiwosopher Wade. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

So let's be clear. When it comes to shipping internationally, can I provide trade documents electronically? Mm-hmm. The answer is FedEx. Okay. But what about estimating duties and taxes on my shipments? How do I find all the... Also FedEx. Impressive. Is there a regulatory specialist I can ask about? FedEx. Oh. But let's say that... FedEx.

What a... FedEx. Thanks. No more questions. Always your answer for international shipping. FedEx. What? FedEx. Thanks. No more questions. Always your answer for international shipping. FedEx, where now meets next. Ooh, French lavender soy blend candle. I told you HomeSense has good gift options. Hmm.

Well, I don't know. Mom's going to love it. She'll take one sniff and be transported to that anniversary trip you took to San Tropez a few years ago. Forget it. She complained about her sunburn the whole trip. It's only $14. $14? Now that's a vacation I can get behind.

Deal so good, everyone approves. Only at HomeSense. Oh, no. I can't be out of ink. Not now. Mega tech. Why do I do this to myself? Ah, what's that printer that comes with 30 times the ink? Oh, no. I can't be out of ink. Not now. Megatank. Why do I do this to myself?

Ah, what's that printer that comes with 30 times the ink? Megatank. Yes, it's a Canon megaphone. Megatank. It's a Canon printer. It comes with like two grand worth of ink. Prints me over 7,700 color pages. Megatank.

Mega what? Listen to the voice in your head and get a Canon Megatank printer so you don't have to think about ink for a long, long time. Visit canon.ca slash megatank for details. Good evening, gentle listener, and welcome to Distractable. This episode, Wizard Wade leads the gents to sup at the Well of Wisdom and confuses all with his cant of cuntian concepts. Minted Mark declares Deus Vult has an epiphany about

divinity and being finger-licking good. And Barbaric Bob reveals he is the personification of sin. From cat piss to cannibalism, yes! It's time for Wade's Widow Philosophy Hour. Now sit back and prepare to

be distracted and enjoy the show. Hey, everyone, and welcome back to another episode of Distractful. This is my first take and not my first time hosting. I am distracted and joined by my co-hosts and friends, Mark and Bob. Hi, guys. Hello. Hello. Look at this doohickey. Whoa. Is that a lens? Well, it has glass in it.

And technically, I think a lens, but it's not a lens. Is all glass lens or all lens glass? Or is it a glass-only? Is it a canal lens? Oh. Points to Bob for oh ho ho-ing. Ah ha! Okay, alright then.

Ah ha! Ah ha! We are another level of ourselves today, everyone. I would explain how this works, but you know by now or you don't, and you'll find out by just watching. So, we're going to move on to small talk. I have a lot to go over today, so we're jumping right into the small talk how you guys doing what's up what's new pens like gel pens are gel pens coming back i don't hand write a lot of stuff in life but i choose to hand write some things and for a long time these zebra medium point uh

z-grip pens were i thought the, the end-all be-all. Pen snobs will laugh at me, but I honestly thought this was a really nice pen. And the main thing for me is I'm left-handed, and these don't smear as bad as other gel pens do. All gel pens smear a little bit if you're left-handed. But this Uniball 1P gel pens, Uniball 1 ink, which is like gel pen ink and has a similar look but it's different and superior in every way and these pens are dope and the pens are really nice they have a nice matte body that there's a grip here that's the same color but it is actually grippy the clip the clip good sturdy clip you found the clipper is you get the two sides pick your favorite anyway pens i found the uniball 1p was very highly reviewed several of the pen creators that i follow on different platforms had this pen

as their number one new pen of 2024 it changed the pen get all right does anyone this has got to be even less interesting than mark's lens stuff i gotta be honest no everyone uses pens i think it's a lot more applicable than mark's lenses i will say i've been using them a little bit so far i got the uh 0.38 ultra fine i love it it does the ink is good no smearing lovely beautiful highly recommend uniball 1p the pen of the future. I love a good pen. There is nothing better than finding that pen, and there's nothing worse than immediately, immediately losing that pen, because my God, does it leave your life quick.

Oh yeah, once you lose the pen, like you have one that's the pen you like once you've lost it there's such a slim chance of ever getting it back it's gone it's definitely like wherever it went gone forever i've experienced that way too many times in my life uh i got a new doohickey for a thingamabob that probably is worth talking about to some people is it is it a new eyepiece for your what's-your-thingy that you're calling it? Yeah, yeah. So this is a small little camera,

and I got an electric viewfinder for it. It's because I had the optical one before. Wait, where's the metal prison bars? What? He's talking about old extendo. Oh, oh, oh. Oh, oh. He's talking about old extendo lens, I think.

Oh, yeah. Well, you know me. As soon as I get a new thing, I throw the other lens, I think. Oh, yeah. Well, you know me. As soon as I get a new thing, I throw the other thing that I just got away. So it's no longer with us. That might be a new record. That was so fast. Mark holding his $100,000 Minolta lenses filled with uranium and cat piss. New package arrives.

Yikes! Explosions. Look, look, look, look, look, look. That hyperbole is appreciated, but at the same time, I do not have the $100,000 Minolta lens. I've got five! I own all of them. Why don't you just buy Minolta? Can you buy the company at this point?

I don't think you're quite aiming the camera right, Mark. It was a little high. What do you mean? I know you're short, so everyone tends to be taller than you, but I think that's a little aggressive. No, he's trying to find the moon, Bob. He wants to get that moon picture. He's got the extendo, now he's got this.

It's all about getting the next best picture of the moon. How many Apple boxes you got to stand on to look through a lens finder on a camera on a tripod at normal human height? Listen, I can count that high, but i won't so shut up sorry sorry i almost did the wrong thing i feel bad i feel bad i feel bad i feel bad it's funny funny jokes well you guys might want to feel bad nice segue because today we're finally doing it

we are doing the morality episode oh you mean oh oh i don't feel the same enthusiasm but you know what points to mark for being more enthused i'm just chuckling that's just how i chuckle i don't know what this episode is going to become i'm going to give a rundown of what i think or from what i know are some of the major moral theories and i'll toss in some little size or some of the lower ones and i think we'll just discuss if we think there's one better than another, if we need multiple, if there's a way to come up with one unified theory, let's just, let's just talk and wherever it goes, it goes. Is this like quantum physics where people are trying to find the unified theory of the universe and you need the unified theory of morality to

ascend? Well, you know how many questions would finally be like not debated anymore if we just knew what was moral and what isn't because let me put it this way mark you might appreciate this there are different lenses you can look through to figure out where morals should be applied there's the individual there's the society there's like the planet as a whole humanity there's humanity and animals plant there's so many different ways to look at things so many lenses to look through to figure out where morality lie interesting okay i'm hooked i'm hooked there are some bigger moral theories that a lot of people know about i'm gonna i'm gonna quickly throw out some less like mainstream theories that are still theories just to let you all know they exist and

there's more to be clear there's more theories out there than what i'm going to be naming i only had so much time to prepare for this and even if i had more time we don't have enough time in one episode to cover everything so this is definitely i bet we can cover it we can speed run this shit you guys came for a buffet and i'm feeding you a lunchable lunchables are good but it's not quite the same as a homemade christmas meal you guys should still do all your own research don't take all of this as being absolute fact because one i'm rusty two i didn't have as much time to prepare as I would have liked. And three, it's just there's too much to talk about to really give any of these theories the time they deserve. That being said, I'm just going to read to you all some of these theories.

If you want to talk about any of them, you can stop me and we can discuss. But I'm just going to basically give you all a rundown that we can talk about what y'all want to talk about. Right here, I have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight moral theories to quickly go over. The first one I have here, divine command theory. God is the arbiter of morality. Without God, we can't know right from wrong. That's the simple breakdown. Is this really a theory? Yes. Or is it just straight up fact? Well, that's debatable, suppose done debate ended all right uh mark believes in divine command theory that's good did you pick it because it was the first one or because it's had the word god in it listen we're trying to speed run do you not see the speed run timer at the top

right number two out of eight so i'm glad you didn't listen anymore before planting your flag is this going to be a battle royale style uh moral theory showdown yes uh each moral theory gets a few minutes to go pick up weaponry and armor, and then they're going to meet on the battlefield. Listen, that's all well and good, but have you heard of the Gary Busey movie Ginger Dead Man? Okay, well, I am immediately moving on before we get into that. If you want to talk about divine moral theory. The next moral theory I'm going to quickly go over is called Relativism.

Very simplistically, no person's morals are better or worse than someone else's. Moral code is shaped by society a person is raised in, and no society is better or worse than another. But different societies can have different moral codes that are neither one right or wrong. They're just right in and of themselves, self-contained. That's relativism. Morality is relative to the society in which it's in. The next one, number three, virtue ethics. Only good people make moral decisions. The best way to be moral is to always seek to improve oneself. And as you improve oneself, you earn more liberty to make moral judgments. When you make money, you make more money. That's what money does. Natural rights theories, number four. Every person's endowed with certain inalienable rights,

such as life, property, et cetera. And those rights would exist even if nobody believed in them. That is because they are essential to human happiness and the foundation of a civil society. Yeah, I mean, whatever, right? Deontology is basically that there are rules you follow and your intent matters. You do something you think is good and a bad outcome happens. Because you intended good, it is still moral, even if it has a bad outcome happens. Because you intended good, it is still moral even if it has a bad outcome. On the other side, there is consequentialism. Morality is contingent on the action's outcome or result. The overall consequence of an action

means everything the action brings about, including the action itself. There's a huge debate about what consequences are good or bad, but ultimately the outcome matters more than the intent. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. An action is right if it's useful or if it's to the benefit of the majority. An action is right insofar as it brings about happiness. And the greatest happiness for the greatest number should be what guides conduct. So differentiating deontology from Kantian ethics is a bit tricky because they are very related. Kantian ethics.

I'm going to try to break this down quickly. It's confusing, but I will. You guys are smart. Everyone else out there, I'm sure you're smart break this down quickly It's confusing But I will You guys are smart Everyone else out there I'm sure you're smart You can figure this out Do research Read the book

Human beings are not objects They are worthy of respect And must be treated as such And action is morally good If it's determined by a principle of pure reason Regardless of consequence So stealing is bad Because we can't universalize a world

In which everyone steals It's a good theory Because it applies to each person individually Rather than just applying to a group like utilitarianism. It's weak because it doesn't account for some complex situations or when two absolutes clash. Kant's foundations rely on something called the categorical imperative. Act only in according to the maxim by which you can also will that would become a universal law. So again, you can't universalize everyone stealing. It would be a universal law. So again, you can't universalize everyone stealing. It would be a chaotic anarchy world where you just can't imagine a world where everyone

is stealing all the time, right? You can universalize a world in which everyone helps an old lady cross the street. That seems like something that everyone could do that seems good. That's what it's basically saying there. Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or the person of another, never simply as a means, but always the same time as an as an end don't use people always treat them as an end in and of themselves so that you're doing right by them while also trying to do good that's the second part third part every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a

legislating member in a universal kingdom of ends what a statement jesus christ fun fact if everyone on earth did a one-on-one battle and they continued on each round the entire fight for the world of everyone would be over in 33 rounds that's not as many as i would have guessed so what are the ethics of that based on which theory if god wills it mark then you know that yeah what if god's divine command is that everyone should fight 1v1 battles then that is a universal law that's what if god's divine command is that everyone should fight 1v1 battles then that is a universal law that's that's that's moral that is morality oh okay all right so it's all cool yeah so confine ethics probably the most complicated to explain here deontology similar but instead of having all of the different requirements it's basically just

use rules to distinguish right from wrong duty and intentions matter even if there are bad outcomes whereas consequentialism is all about the result utilitarianism is about the greatest good for the Choose rules to distinguish right from wrong. Duty and intentions matter, even if there are bad outcomes. Whereas consequentialism is all about the result. Utilitarianism is about the greatest good for the greatest number. So each of these have their own use. Now, after hearing all of them, Bob, do you have a moral theory you ascribe to more than others? Or is this all just a bunch of bullshit to you? Or how do you feel about it?

I appreciate the underpinnings of philosophy and what that represents, because it's easy as a person, for me as a person who lives my day-to-day life out in the world and is generally not aware of this sort of stuff on a regular basis, to just be like, oh, well, I can, if I, I just try and do good, right? I would say my personal approach to things is I try to be a good person. I would say my personal approach to things is I try to be a good person. I acknowledge that there are parts of myself that are not as not good, that I make decisions that are that are ultimately lead to bad consequences or that I wish I didn't make. And I like I do my best to curb those impulses.

And like, sure, like I could say that, right? I could describe. But none of that. It ignores the question of what is good. And for me on a daily basis, know what i think is good and it's generally probably pretty close to what most people around me think is good like i'm in line with society but in as things get more complex and as like in the world and everything that can and has and will happen in the world plays out i appreciate that it is important to have a context in which you can analyze in a meaningful

way what does it mean to try and say if something is good or bad? Why is one action valuable, even though it may objectively seem to be bad because of all of these secondary outcomes, even though the ultimate, you know, the main thing that it accomplishes is good versus like there's it's complicated the thing about life is that shit is complicated and when you get insanely bad things or insanely complicated things happening to large groups of people or across different cultures it's not always easy to just say oh well we all know what's right right we all agree and know what's right yeah Yeah, I can appreciate that. And I can try and delve

into this. And I will try and engage with this today. But like, I guess my where I fall on it is for most people in a day to day life, I think it's more important to try and be in touch with the world that you actually live in to with the people that are around you and make and assess how your personal morals line up with the morals of the group that you live within, your culture or society. Whether or not you can analyze yourself or those around you in a meaningful way doesn't affect your day-to-day life as much as your ability to understand differences you might see, choices you might make versus your people that live around you in your close group.

You have to live in the real world. that live around you in your close group. Like, you have to live in the real world. And the analysis of philosophy is not always useful as to making daily decisions and coping with living around people who may or may not agree with you on fundamental ideas about what is good and what is bad or what morals should be, you know, upheld. It's valuable, but it's not always useful. There is another moral theory called egoism, where morality is more dictated by pursuing your own self-interest, more of an individualized morality, which seems immoral in some ways, but also there's a whole thing about it. things or issues or the world or certain decisions people make or you make maybe like maybe you feel a certain way about an issue and you don't know why you feel that way and you look at different

moral theories and maybe it's like oh maybe this is why i feel that way because of this maybe it's because uh i can universalize a world in which all of this everyone does this and therefore based on kantian ethics that's where i feel about this but maybe you have a similar thing where it's like okay well we keep helping the individual we keep helping the individual, we keep helping the individual, but if we don't push this button and 10 innocent people die, the whole world ends. We have to kill people to do good. Killing people is not something you can universalize, therefore you can't do that based on Kantian ethics. But under utilitarianism, yeah, of course you sacrifice 10 people to save the world. You look at different issues through different lenses sometimes and try to understand how you feel about things. But there's always a different way to look at something which makes these issues confusing

because people will argue on behalf of issues from different perspectives. Some people look at it from the individual perspective. Some look at it from the cultural. Some, God. Thank you for your segue. I had a vision when I was a boy. I saw a golden light shining above me. And then I saw a glowing light shining below me. And then I saw a glowing light shining below me. And I realized I had a choice to make which patron deity I would pledge my allegiance to for all my life. And then I chose. I flipped a coin. Didn't really know what the difference was.

But then that shining light surged through me with the power of a thousand suns. And my life choices have been dictated for me ever since. Did you go up or down are you a top top son or a bottom son are you a big bottom yeah i flipped a coin it hit tails uh i don't really remember a lot after that i was kind of enveloped in a blinding white light um and then i felt all of my particulates kind of like disperse and then reassess you ever seen uh watchman yeah yeah so remember what happened to dr man i'm like that kind of happened to me is that why you bought the accordion penis lens probably yes uh i think all of my life

decisions have been uh because of the glory that is god surging through me um and as his or hers or whoever's chosen vessel i'm not really uh sure and i don't question it because i don't need to apply any morality well not only do you believe in divine command theory, but you also are the chosen vessel. I mean, I'm a chosen vessel. I don't know if I'm the chosen vessel until until that thought is planted inside my soul. I will question it no further. You know what, Mark? I'm going to give you just some points for sticking by your guns, dedicating yourself

to divine command theory after hearing none of the other ones first and truly just knowing what is right. This episode is brought to you by Secret. Secret deodorant gives you 72 hours of clinically proven odor protection free of aluminum, parabens, dyes, talc, and baking soda. It's made with pH balancing minerals and crafted with skin conditioning

oils so whether you're going for a run or just running late do what life throws your way and smell like you didn't find secret at your nearest walmart or shoppers drug mart today whoa what are you listening to this for wait Wait, who's talking? You know you're driving a 2024 Ford Escape with available Alexa built-in, so you can change the music. Oh yeah. Alexa, change station to 99.2. See? Purchase a 2024 Escape ST-Line all-wheel drive with Tech Pack at 3.49% APR for 72 months with down payment. That's just $267 bi-weekly. Cash value of $40,294. Plus, eligible Ford owners get a $1,000 bonus. For details, visit your local Ford store or Ford.ca.

I have a question, Wade. So this is where I'm not a good philosopher, right? Because I tend to focus on the wrong thing and ask the wrong questions when it comes to what philosophers like to actually talk about. And the thing that always gets me about, we're talking about these different lenses through which to analyze morality and then ethics of different, you know, whatever, whatever might happen or choices. Do you think analyzing a potential choice or a potential thing that is happening or whatever, analyzing something like that is persuasive? Like if the president of the United States has tried to make some insane decision, like

things that, you know, things that happen when countries are at war, like during world wars, there were some crazy things where presidents and leaders, world leaders were deciding if civilians in certain places were going to live or die because of bigger motivations, because the war, the world was at war. Things are at a scale that's hard to comprehend for individual people. Do you think that this sort of analysis is persuasive in terms of if you're talking about a decision like that, people will look to this and be like, oh, what should I do? What should I do? And use this as a thing to make the decision? Or do you think these represent

human rationalizations of the fact that morality is very full of contradiction and that it's very hard to ever say if something is definitively, objectively moral or immoral or good or bad or whatever. And these different systems exist because one of them doesn't satisfy the need to rationalize everything that has happened or that might happen. But all of them in combination can find a way to rationalize human decisions, human behavior. It's tough. I don't think whenever the president's making a decision that important, he's thinking about utilitarianism versus Kantian ethics. I highly doubt that's coming to mind specifically. I think that whenever you're weighing a decision,

like let's say, like you said, he's got to do something to stop a bomb, but it's going to cause civilian casualties if he stops it, but ultimately it'll save more lives. And it's like, like you said, he's got to do something to stop a bomb, but it's going to cause civilian casualties if he stops it. But ultimately, it'll save more lives. It's like, well, innocents will die. That's bad. But if I don't, more innocents will die. It's like the trolley problem, right? Do I pull the lever to save more people knowing I'm going to kill one?

Is there a difference between killing versus letting die? I took a whole thing on killing versus letting die. on killing versus letting die. If you go and you drown somebody in the bathtub versus you have your dying grandfather who's very, very ill, who wants to die, and he puts himself under the water and you step outside and let him die, is that better or worse than killing him yourself?

Is it the same? There's a whole discussion we had about that too. But I do think these moral theories help us figure out why we feel the way we do about certain issues and why we make some of the decisions we do. I don't think it's so much about making them. It's figuring out why we feel the way we do about them. Well, here's a, here's a question I have, which is a lot of this is like,

it reminds me of like fallacies and the different like categories of fallacy. And there's a fallacy called like the fallacy fallacy. Like not everything is a fallacy. And there's, there's an argument for me, argument to be made that like, not everything is a moral quandary but i have a i have a specific question is what do you think what do you guys think about killing that sounds like a joke question no no no it again i took a whole thing it's a long time ago and i'm so rusty i we talked about something in class i feel like where there was the uh terminally ill grandparent dying in the bathtub. You let them die so they can find peace. There's also the I'm walking down the street and I see a small child fall into a pool. The child is clearly going to drown if I don't do anything.

But that child is baby Hitler. Gotcha. Or, you know, I just don't want it. Like, what if I go try and I fail and then I'm held responsible? I'm just going to let whatever is going to happen is going to happen. I'm going to keep going. Letting the child die feels pretty wrong right like if you think about it like it's like you shouldn't let the kid drown in the pool uh letting the terminally ill grandparent die in

the in the tub kind of feels like okay killing i mean again is killing is holding the pillow over terminally ill grandpa bad uh you think that you know just stabbing someone out and wherever and killing them would be bad but mercy killing uh you know kevorkian type stuff is that we can gradient it like so you or anybody someone's charging at you with a knife you have a gun that's cool right that's not cool wait no that's the wrong way to contextualize it sick yeah yeah i turned my baseball cap backward i'm like dude come come on and then you mean self-defense yeah exactly self-defense you guys would kill in that aspect it is i think that i would yes it is taking a life but that's okay yeah because the assumption is is this person is the aggressor

and they're going to take a life if they can and you don't want to take a life but you're doing it to protect a life whereas they're not doing anything to protect a life they're initiating it so therefore it's wrong your soldier in a war there's another soldier in the foxhole next to you and you both stand up at the same time it's kill or be killed is a similar situation i would say that's an entirely different situation but also probably i wouldn't blame a soldier for killing an enemy soldier and if i was in that position i think i would probably do whatever i had to do uh i can't imagine because i've never even come close to being in a position like that but i think i think you do what you have to do it i assume i would do whatever i had to do to try and keep myself alive or save my you know people whatever is this a type of moral theory where you gradient it based on like

acceptable parameters of like what moral theory would you attribute to this might be the way to ask it and that's that's difficult because maybe this is relativism right this is a like maybe war is its own society because two different factions of soldiers have kind of agreed to go to war and fight each other to the death. So therefore their moral code is different than people outside of this war society because you and I haven't agreed to go and fight each other to the death. Whereas whenever you are enlisted or drafted or whatever else, whether you want to or not, the new rule is you point guns and shoot at each other and kill each other. that's just how it is so maybe that's where relativism comes into place egoism your own self-interest is surviving i mean you can look at it from again different lenses to figure out what's right or

wrong but ultimately like intrinsically what's your gut tell you if someone's pointing a gun at you and they're initiating a thing that might kill you in self-defense it is okay to defend yourself and kill i think almost everyone would agree to that well i think there are some people who would say i would not kill i would flee you can adjust the situation though to make it where you can't right like let's say it's either you've killed them or they kill you that's your scenario so this is the thing i again i'm a bad philosopher you're you're essentially digging down mark into okay well where do these things break down right you're asking the type of question where it's like it's easy to craft a theoretical situation where there's an absolute down mark into okay well where do these things break down right you're asking the type of question where it's like it's easy to craft a theoretical situation where there's an absolute

thing either you you die or you kill them and they die and you even in a situation like war there may be some absolute situations i'm sure that that happens and that sometimes that's just how it is but even in a situation like, there are probably scenarios that play out where a person may look at it and see it that way, that it's an absolute I kill or I die situation, but it isn't. The specific details of any separate instance of anything that we're talking about always matter when you're trying to analyze something through any lens of moral philosophy, because in a theoretical absolute, you can craft it to explore the boundaries, to try and make things work or not work, to explore where it breaks down. But in the real world, there are any number of factors that we both don't get to know about or can't know about. And also, you will only know once something is actually happening, right?

There are lots of scenarios where you're facing down with another soldier, but you have hard cover and they don't. Is it right for you to kill them even if you could hide and they couldn't kill you? Like, yeah, well, there are details. There are important details. Is it important to explore those just to say like, well, what is this? Well, what is this? Well, what is this? Or is it more important to look at things that have happened or are happening and use

that as a context in which to try and work out morality? Because you could make up anything you want and you can make up any detailed information that you want. But like that ignores the nuance of a real situation and how each, you know, even if you are facing the exact same soldier you faced 10 seconds ago suddenly your cover has gone or whatever like you know the the exact same situation is not the exact same in the real world for whatever reason i i like your question because it's that's the fun part right of just like well how does this fit how

does is that is that progressing anything or is that just us going in circles about like well that's kantian well but that doesn't going in circles about like, well, that's Kantian. Well, but that doesn't work. If you change this information, then that's just utilitarian. But you could do that infinitely if you wanted to. I think that it's more broad than that, too, though, because like self-defense under almost every theory, you can argue self-defense is morally permissible, even though it involves killing.

The act of defending yourself from harm is something you could universalize right so even under kantian ethics you could think about okay is protecting myself from harm something i can universe yes if everyone tried to protect themselves from harm we wouldn't be harmed that seems like a good thing so even if we have to kill to do that it's not killing insofar as it's killing for the act of killing it's defending yourself death comes from it and then it's okay consequentialism is the consequence of me having killed someone bad yes however the opposite is also going to be true if i didn't kill them i would be dead they were the aggressor is stopping an aggressor good so therefore consequentialism you might weigh out and be like yes there's more good consequences of defending

myself than not divine command theory you know if you're supposed to protect yourself god wills you to take care of yourself your neighbor your family okay so egoism protect yourself. God wills you to take care of yourself, your neighbor, your family. Okay. Egoism, protect yourself. That makes sense. Deontology, the act of defending yourself or your country or fighting for what you think is right and stopping something you think is bad. I mean, you can probably say that that moral law would justify doing something like that in that case. You can look at it and like some actions can probably be morally permissible under more moral theories than others. Some get to be more controversial and difficult to analyze, but I think you can find that there are certain things that are like, you know what? I think almost all moral theories would say that that's a good thing. Therefore, that's probably a moral law. There was an intense

debate that just occurred like last week that I think applies to this. Let's say I had to get a finger amputated. I asked the doctor doctor can i keep my finger doctor says yes i bring it home i call up both of you guys and i say to you i have my finger i'm going to cook it you guys want to try my finger pass i mean i'm a little curious see see see that's it that's the thing that was the debate well so is the debate is the argument that that's wrong to want to eat a human finger just objectively is or that's one side of that that's one side of it like it's a debate right it's it's for me i am hard pass because i don't ever ever in my life to the day i die want to try human flesh i just don't want to do it that's just that's a hard stop for me.

I pass, but not for moral reasons. I would just actually throw up. Like, even just imagining that, I'm kind of like, ooh. But just because, like, that's icky to me. If I was like, Pat, if you presented your cooked finger and it was in front of me, I might actually throw up. But I would be like, no, I'm good. And if Wade in front of me, or some other person, if it doesn't want to be Wade, just grabbed it and was like, oh, yeah, I ate it like a chicken wing.

I might throw up, but I would be like, oh, how did it taste? Like, whoa, that's crazy. Like, I don't I don't ascribe morality to that. The moral problem with eating humans is that you theoretically have to kill a human in order to eat them. If there is human flesh that gets to exist and no longer is alive and is otherwise just going to turn into compost and dust, I don't think there's a moral question about whether it's wrong to eat it or not. It's

basically whether it grosses you out or not. I have the moral quandary where even if I was in a situation where I was starving to death, I do not want to eat human flesh. So I would, and it's hard to say because when you're starving, your brain pushes you to the extremes, but also willpower, baby. I want to go even further beyond. I would like to know, and I would be proud of myself if I was in a situation where frozen on a mountaintop and there was someone else there and they died first, I would be proud of myself to die knowing that i never went that far and i never crossed that line so i think where cannibalism comes in is typically whenever you're thinking about cannibalism you're thinking about the other person it's like they don't want to die and be eaten but

in the situation where you're both dying and one of you let's say you both made a pact it's like if i die first you have permission to eat my body well if i die first you have permission to eat my body to survive in that case if there is no moral quandary about the death and the autonomy of your body, you're giving them permission. You're like, no, please, I'd rather you live.

Let's say it's someone you love, right? Like it's your kid, your spouse, whatever, and you want them to live and you'd rather them eat your flesh and survive than die. Is the act of eating a human

or being a cannibal or whatever, is that in and of itself bad or is it usually just the killing and or i'm not doing it see this is where i think philosophy is fascinating mark why do you think you could get to why you feel that way and i'm not judging whether it's right or wrong i'm just curious you obviously feel very strongly about exactly yeah and and i couldn't tell you exactly why i feel strongly about it other than the fact that i want to draw a line i want to uphold that standard for myself it's inherent to me that i do not like the concept of cannibalism in any way of like eating another

human and i think that that doesn't mean I'm not holding myself like I'm better than everyone else. You cannibals, you cannibals out there. I'm not even curious about it. I don't want to know what it tastes. I want to go to my grave knowing that I never ate another person. And I know people are always going to bring up like squabbling. What about auto cannibalism, chewing on your lip, biting fingernails or like you know munching on that stuff yes that's that's a whole thing i'm drawing an arbitrary well hardly arbitrary but you know because you can define it with the scenario of like eat my body after i die but even then i'm just like i'm very strongly just like i don't want to do that i don't want to have that on me i don't want to live with that memory is it about you then or is it about the

other person is it us oh it's absolutely about me a sanctity of their body or is it just that you couldn't live with the idea that you had done that or some something like that exactly it's an ego driven thing where it's like i don't want to survive with that being the reason this feels like a relativistic approach because i feel like growing up we knew necrophilia was bad we knew cannibalism was bad we knew murder was bad like those are all things we were raised taught to believe right it's like uh what the donner party was that like the group that like ate each other and stuff like you hear about that's like oh my god that's horrible that belief is more relative to our culture versus a culture where people grew up

fighting and what was the group that actually were cannibalistic it wasn't was the aztecs i have no idea uh i don't actually know that information i believe there was a tribe or a group i can't remember that was cannibalistic but like you were raised in that culture and it's like we killed it we eat it we're not gonna let it go to boar, whatever. We are predisposed to thinking cannibalism is bad. It's one of those things you hear and you have that knee-jerk reaction of like, how can you even debate this? Of course it's bad.

Like, end of discussion. I don't even want to hear any more. It's just, it's bad. Some people don't ever want to discuss. They just, knee-jerk reaction. That's how they feel. Therefore, that's right. But like, when you think about it,

why do we feel that way is like Bob's question. Like, why? Why is eating another person bad? If, let's say they're not religious, so they don't think their body needs to be preserved? Let's say neither one of you are right. Like if you believe that their body might be resurrected during a rapture or something, I'm not going to eat their body. That's a whole nother question. But let's assume that you're both equal ground. You don't believe in that their flesh will rot and be eaten by animals or whatever the ground. If you don't, they gave you permission. Why is it still bad at that point for you you said well it's just for me i draw the line don't want to cross it why is that where your line is it's it's largely a personal thing i think it's like

an honor thing uh for me it's just like i want to be honorable and and yes you could definitely spill it out there like what is the honorable thing? It's for me is like, I have to have certain things that I make the bedrock of who I am and like making decisions and delineations like that are important to me. There is always a thing where I believe firmly that to live, you have to take life. That's an absolute for me. You could probably prove it because you have to eat organic matter that was made by something alive right now. So on your tombstone that is Mark Fischbach took life, wasted meat. I mean, I've wasted a lot of meat.

Let's be fair. We don't let a lot of meat rot in the drawer. A lot of vegetables. The pillars of Mark Fischbach. You could take life. Don't eat people. Those are two of the pillars of Mark. Even if you're a vegan, your body every day, every second of every day is murdering millions of things.

And all those millions of things are trying to murder you at any given second of any given day. That's what's occurring. That's not even an eating thing. That's a to live. We have to kill on a cellular level. Now, the morality of that beyond that, the self and the larger self and whatever. But for me, it's just like, it's super simple to me because there is no moral quandary that I need to debate further than I don't want to. You could attribute it to like upbringing or

something like that is for me, the concept of it, the concept of having to stoop to eating another person is abhorrent to me and therefore I won't do it. I don't want to apply that to anyone else. But for me to respect the person that I am and the integrity that I hold, I want to believe that I would be strong enough in any circumstance to not go there. But I am also wise enough to know that hunger may drive me past that. That was my question, just to explore this, if you were willing to talk about it more. I think it's totally valid for you to feel, to hold that belief in yourself. And I appreciate

that you brought up that you wouldn't want to try and apply that to other people. But do you think if you knew that I lived out some sort of Donner party situation, if I admitted and you knew that I was in a situation where I was going to die unless I ate a fallen comrade, I ate human flesh. Despite how gross it may have been for me, I did that so that I survived and I ultimately survived and came back. Is there any version of that story that colors where your personal belief about that as a as a thing changes how you feel about me do you like you i even you don't have to be concerned about my honor i don't think people generally are but like would it affect how you feel in any way knowing that i ate some other human person i think it would i'm gonna be perfectly honest i think it would it may not affect it like a lot like I believe that we would probably still be friends,

but I'd always think of that because it's not even so much like asking how it, how it would affect. It's like, of course any new knowledge is going to affect. But if I looked at you and I always knew in the back of my mind, you ate a person that would subconsciously or consciously affect how the future of our relationship as friends would go. It just would.

There's no way it wouldn't. I think the reason it does to some extent, one, I would pity you for being in that position. It's like, that is horrible to be put in that position. Two, there's our raised perception that cannibalism is bad. It's like, oh, oh. Three, I would wonder just out of curiosity, like, did you enjoy it?

Was it tasty? Would you do it again? And then like, there's also, I mean, just being honest with my thought process,'s there's a situation where that puts you at like a predator and me at a prey in my mind even if it's just for a brief moment there's a he's either kill he's maybe killed someone even if he didn't kill he's eaten someone would he eat me like like yeah like there is even if it's just like a brief moment of time where that thought passes through my mind it is a thought that passes through my mind, which intrinsically makes me feel like I'm

at a disadvantage near you because I know I don't know if I can go to those depths. I've never been put there, but you've been put there and you did it. What happens if we're in that situation? You've already done it. Would you immediately just kill me and eat me? Or would it wait till I die? Like what would those thoughts do pass through my head? And maybe that's what makes it bad is all of a sudden we're

no longer on equal footing because you've done some horrible thing in my mind whether it's horrible because it is or horrible because we've been raised to feel that way or horrible because i feel like you have killed a human being therefore you could kill me uh i don't know which approach is the bigger part of it but all of those thoughts are things that pass through my head that do change at least in a brief moment how i feel about you yeah and i think that's so that's a big part of it for me too is just like the equal footing thing is like everyone on the same playing field and like having that absolute helps build the bedrock of like who i am and also it's the foundation of relationships between other people i mean it's often an unspoken one usually people will operate under the

assumption when they need to meet a new person is like, we're not going to eat each other. We don't even need to say that. That's a basis. But Bob, you could eat me. It's like when you watch Survivor and they have two teams and sometimes they'll vote out the strongest member of their own team, even if it puts them at a disadvantage for the overall competition, because they know that that person is the biggest threat to

them winning, even if that person would also be a reason their team could win like sometimes people play like the underdog role where it's like they try to look too good at things so that way people don't see them as a threat even if they're on the same side because there's just that inherent like well in their case it's an actual competition but i feel like in real life that somewhat applies to right where some people want to be seen as bigger than they are and some people want to be more in the shadows and i i feel like we do judge ourselves and our peers as to how we weigh with one each other even one another even if it's like subconscious i think that that's there so wade analyze this for me okay i well it's me analyze me i'm just thinking about this

and i might be totally out my own ass with this because i this is makes me feel very like oh this is like a holier than thou position that i feel like i'm staking right now but if i'm trying to imagine myself in that position and and how i feel about other people in life in general what you guys are saying doesn't resonate with me as much i would not as far as i'm aware of maybe subconsciously i would i would never look at another person and see the circumstances that they have been in and think, ah, well, that behavior in that circumstance makes them a threat to me in this circumstance. And I feel like for the way that I think about

other people when I'm interacting with them and how I, when I try, like how I try to be respectful towards other people, I'm always willing to say, despite whatever you've done. And most people I interact with are not like, you know, murderers or something, but like, no matter what's happened, you did things in your life because you had to react to whatever scenario. Right now we are here right now. We're in a scenario where I'm not a threat to you. Hopefully that, you know, you feel that way. That's how I feel. Things are safe. Things are stable. It's a social setting.

It's work, whatever. Like this is a normal, safe, average scenario. So I would give you the benefit of the doubt as an individual that even if you were cannibalistic, you did that because you were going to die. You're not in a situation here where we're in a life and death situation. It's not working at Jimmy John's. That's not going to come up. But if it did come up, I wouldn't even be offended if you ate me.

I'm pretty unhealthy. I'd probably die fast if I was in like a, you know, caught in a blizzard survival situation. I'm not good at that. And like, I think that the person is not Necessarily reflected upon By what they did because what they Did is almost always a response To a scenario I will judge someone if I think that they did something in a scenario

Where their decision was clearly Immoral where they were in a Position where there was nothing Threatening them but they acted Aggressively you know there's any number of Theoreticals but right if you if you could see what they did, you know, they were abusive. They initiated a fight. They were, you know, a situation where it's like, you didn't need to do that. That does speak about you. But if you did it to survive, that doesn't say anything about the person.

It says that you're a human, right? What does that mean about me? Because that makes me feel different than what you guys were saying. But also, am I just like a holier thanthou douchebag or is that was it analyze me i think we're conflating two different things here because whenever i said that i had those reactions those are my knee-jerk reactions that's not my rationalized thought that's like that happens you tell me those are the thoughts that first pass through my mind those are the intrusive thoughts i would say that that is my knee-jerk reaction to people you wouldn't have a you would not have an intrusive thoughts i would say that that is my knee-jerk reaction to people you wouldn't have you would not have an intrusive thought of like oh my god if someone tells me like oh i had a horrible past or oh i said something happened you know i was in a situation if they're telling me about whatever their story is they told me they ate another human because they were at a party

and this my initial reaction would be like oh my god i can't believe that happened i can't believe that happened to you and you had to make those choices but there's no intrusive thoughts about like the like not even for a moment is there a thought of like oh my god as to like concern for myself in the in our interaction well just like let's say that this person did that and then all of a sudden like hey do you want to go on a hiking trip up mount everest and it's like for a moment are you do you even have a moment's thought of like what if we get into a scenario and it comes down to them eating me unless we are actively like if i was interviewing uh someone who had been in jail for murder and they were like yeah i killed a man with this gun and they pointed the

gun at me in that moment yeah i'm in a scenario where i'm like oh shit like i shouldn't let it get here but unless there's a scenario where the person is actively a threat to me in what we're doing. No, I don't think anything that they've done previously reflects on who they are inherently as a person. And it doesn't make me feel that way. Even as a knee jerk, it doesn't make me feel that way. Usually. So I have the intrusive thought that I then like rationalize out.

So I'll have that thought of like, oh my God, could they do that to to me no we clearly it was a one-time thing they didn't want to do it they had to do it to survive obviously this was traumatic and horrible for them and they probably need more support than anything right now i feel bad for even having that moment of judgment like that's how my brain would process that i would have that thing and then i would internally guilt trip myself for having that knee-jerk reaction and explain it away to myself because like whenever you were talking about it that's how i felt about it right away was oh you did that and it's like oh you had to do that that's like i don't know that's where my brain went in that moment our knee jerk reactions that mark and i had aren't necessarily moral

hey don't lump me in with your weird knee jerk reactions you judgmental freak you said the same no i did not no way this crazy man here is judging you bob hey listen just because i don't you live your life buddy you eat as many people as you want and i bet you do just kidding you know what bob five points for mark thinking you're the host again um anyway i guess i would be more widely curious to with watch listeners listen watch people out there talk about in the subreddit which one are you are you a me or are you with them good or bad moral or immoral stake your claim navigating adulting isn't always easy you're not just working you're working late. And dinner dates are all, what's your five-year plan?

And you're thinking, paying off the bill for this fancy pants meal, probably. So when you need to break free from responsibility and experience something that feels more you, reach for Kraft Dinner. Because when you're starved for moments that bring you back to who you really are and what you really love, that's when it's gotta be KD. When gotta do you it's gotta be kd shop now a fresh voice can speak to you and open your ears and your mind to new views and new perspectives the call of the wild, a crescendo of culture. Listen as a chorus of fresh voices moves you, taking you to greater heights. Add your voice to the mix and let fresh answer back with perfect harmony in pure Michigan.

Keep it fresh at michigan.org. Yeah, so I don't know. Maybe it has to do more with where the mind goes immediately because i it's not to say i never have intrusive thoughts and i've certainly been judgmental of people who were not deserving of it like i've been a dick i'm not saying i've never been a dick to anyone in my life but i just it's it always shocks me more that these things happened and that someone had to make a choice than anything like i agree once i have a moment to actually think then yeah i i'm there but that emotional gut response of like because i'm not a i'm a visual person so whenever someone says something

or describes something to me i picture it so if they tell me they're around a campfire there's snow everywhere there's some shabby tents with holes in them they're freezing there's dead bodies of their friends lying there. Like I picture that. I picture them having to like pick up an arm and put it over the fire and take a bite. I see it. That I think affects things, right? When you visually see things like that happening and you imagine it, I think it adds more depth to it. I get what you're saying. I get what you're saying. Bob is immoral because he can't picture this stuff because he can't picture it, he is sin incarnate.

I agree with you, Wade. On this, we're on the same page. I'm saying his flaws make him an immoral monster. By all moral theories, Bob is abhorrent and probably the worst of us. I wonder how much aphantasia does impact your views on morality as a person. It impacts everything. It impacts how you experience the entire world, but morality is heavily

based around empathy and trying to imagine, because most of the stuff you consider hasn't happened to you. It happened to someone else, or it's theoretically happening. It's all about how you're imagining a scenario playing out. I can't envision a human arm and cutting an arm off of a fallen friend to roast it. I can't envision a human arm and cutting an arm off of a fallen

friend to put to roast it. Like, I can't see that. It's purely, you know, my version of how I imagine things. Well, we're also biased, too. Like if you're if what you know of cannibalism is being told it's bad all your life and what you've seen of it are things portrayed in movies and video games like remember Until Dawn, the girl eating her sister or whatever oh spoilers sorry an old game uh or in like the walking dead when you come across cannibals in that show and it's like when you see someone either eating someone alive or cutting parts of them off while they're living and then cooking and eating it in front of them and stuff it skews your initial perception so you have that knee-jerk reaction morality isn't necessarily that knee-jerk

reaction morality is more so especially with Kantian ethics and other things it's when you take time and use reason and you try to get your emotions out of the equation and you come up with these imperatives or you come up with these moral laws or you weigh whether something is overall more beneficial or less beneficial or if you can universalize so on and so forth it's it's more in depth than oh that doesn't seem right like that might, then you have to explain why. Why doesn't that seem right? And then what we came up to, I think what we decided with cannibalism is we think it's wrong in so far as that if you kill a person to eat them, or if you violate a person's

autonomy by destroying their body, when that wouldn't be something they wanted, or you, either one of you think is right, that's immoral. However, if we are viewing humanity as on an equal plane with animals and animals killing each other, we kill and eat animals, we can kill and eat each other, or at least we can eat a dead body if your friend dies and says, please eat me to save yourself. And we can see that that's morally okay in that instance. Don't lump me in the we. I am hardline. Not only do I not want to do it, here's this big kicker. I think I'm better than you because I won't do it. And I don't think like I'm a lot better in this instance.

I think of myself in a superior light. And this isn't like insulting like you're bad people for this. I elevate my opinion of myself because I'm able to take this hard stance. I think it equates to me being able to, in my mind, not saying it's right. I lay this foundation and draw the line so that I can build myself up on it. And so then I can elevate who I am in my mind and I can think of myself better. And I think in moral theory, and this probably is a big part of it, is like the ego part of that you were saying is like, for me to build the confidence of myself, I have to have

a bedrock. I have to have a foundation of beliefs and things about myself and how far I'd be willing to go. And as much as people joke about it, the things that I talk about in terms of being able to endure, being able to endure hardship, pain, things like that, it's not a masochism thing. It's a necessity for me to build up who I am. A lot of it is a theoretical thing. It's all theoretical exercise until I get abducted by aliens and they, you know, they torture me in horrible ways so that I can endure for the good of humanity. Well, let's let's adjust the situation slightly. You have a family and young kids that are depending on you.

If you don't make it back down this mountain, they will die. So you either eat another human, which goes against what you believe in, or you're allowing them to die. See, that's an absolute that you don't know because you wouldn't have the information proper. Because in that moment, my mindset would be like, I got to gun it down this mountain. That's how I would rationalize the choice. Even if you know that in the scenario, it's eat or I don't make it back. For me, in that scenario, with the knowledge that I would have in that theoretical situation,

it's like, I'm not going to eat that hard line. That's not even an option. I got to make it down this mountain. And I would die. In this scenario, I would die, but I would die trying and sticking to my beliefs. Okay, you're a nutritionist, and you know that if you don't eat soon,

you are going to die. And the only source of flesh, like it'll take a day to get down the mountain, you maybe have hours left if you don't eat. For the thing, that's the same thing because it's a hard line and because the foundation is there, I would not because I know that that's that that has to be the foundation. And in this theoretical, it's like all of these theoreticals, I have to give the same answer that I wouldn't no matter what, because that's that's how I'm drawing the line is like it is without. I guess I'm curious. I think it's totally like I believe you because I know you enough to think that I kind of do

believe you would die if that was the situation. You would choose that. What if you didn't? What if you ate a person, made it off the mountain, whatever? Like, I do not. Don't analyze whether you would assume it was a nightmare and you did whatever you had to. You lost all sense of reason. You just did instinctively whatever you did and you survived.

Can you no longer live with yourself? Does it shatter who you think you are? How does that affect you? If I had to do that, and because I i believe so hard in this line that's how people have psychotic breaks is because their entire sense and understanding of themselves fundamentally changes if i face that situation and i fail that test i will come back questioning everything about who i am i had that moment i i've told you guys whenever my brother and i fought and i wanted to throw him down a flight of stairs that was a moment that shook me to my core because it was like it went against everything I thought I was and believed

in who I was because I didn't succeed in trying. But like I knew in my mind, like during that moment, that primal instinct was hell. And like the fact that it got there shook me because, yeah, that was something I didn't think I was capable of. Now, and this is totally opposite because I'm not saying this scenario is totally opposite. I'm saying like me not eating is very different. I will kill someone. I will if I have to. Not saying happily. I'm not saying happily. There are other lines that land in different places. And I think that makes up who a person is. Their lines are all over the place. Is this something you believe because it's a moral thing or is it more of your value or your intrinsic self-worth? Intrinsic self-worth.

Okay. So morally, you could see where it would be okay for someone to eat someone else to survive. But for you as an individual, your values prevent you from doing that, even if you think morally it might be acceptable. I think so. Yeah. Okay. Because I don't want to conflate beliefs, morals, values, like they're similar,

but they are somewhat different. And sometimes we can think something is moral, but still not act on it because it goes against, like you said, who we think we are. And moral theories do clash. The whole thing is like they clash. Killing somebody to save the world is like, it's immoral, kill them. But it's also moral to try to save the world, right?

To save as many lives as possible. The utilitarianism, the greater good. If you're killing everybody, that's not really the greater good, you'd think. Egoism, which is one I don't understand as well. I've not really delved into it all that much. But egoism is the... It's the bro trust me of moral theory.

Which kind of, Mark, is if there was a moral theory attributed to like, well, my values say don't, even if it's going to cause more harm than good, I would rather die sticking to my guns. Well, so this is a line, and I'm curious what you would say, but I think I know what you would say, Mark. You feel this strongly, steadfastly, as it applies to yourself. my guns. Well, so this is a line and I'm curious what you would say, but I think I know what you would say, Mark, you feel this strongly steadfastly as it applies to yourself. And you say it would affect your relationship with,

you know, whoever me or whomever, if this, if this, that was a thing that someone else did and you knew it, would you apply your own bar to other people or would it just color your opinion of them in terms of, you know, that they did that. it changes how you see them okay here's another scenario just to explore is i'm in a camping trip i'm in the donner party right i have this belief but everyone else there is eating

people left and right i'm not saying that's what happens that's that's making too much of a joke that horrible situation no hold on i back up a little bit this is some other party unrelated to a thing that actually happened free bird bird solos playing. They're just grabbing each other and taking a bite. So they're eating. And obviously I, in my hunger, hopefully don't break this line, but I'm abstaining because I know that I'm probably going to keel over because of this choice and that they're going to eat me. That subconscious thought is becoming very conscious very quickly. But I think it's something that I would have to if I stuck to it, except being like, I'm going to die.

But hey, I guess they're going to live and I'll be dead. So there's nothing I can do about it. But I would be proud to die and have that stick to my guns. And then they eat my body. And honestly, if it was my loved ones in the party i might i might be the person to be like hey i'm not gonna eat but that clearly is gonna knock me out so eat me i'd be fine with people eating me i wouldn't be fine with people eating me eat me mark 2024 this is getting very confused it's confused it's a difficult topic yeah well

i think this is a thing. The thing about men, this might be totally off base, but the thing about egoism as it applies to morals is someone who is more egocentric about what they think morality should be, Mark, would if they held your personal belief as to themselves, they would say, and everyone else also needs to believe this or they are immoral, right? The idea of like, I i this is moral because i firmly believe it and you're totally every individual is welcome to firmly believe whatever they want as it applies to them as long as you're not hurting people blah blah blah you the difference

you're not trying to apply that to other people you're saying it might affect how you think about people and you're and you're like you believe it strongly so it may impact you but you're not you wouldn't go around and like you wouldn't be in that scenario you described and be like immoral immoral dead soon but moral but you would just be you'd be sitting in that scenario watching and you'd be like can't do it i i accept that but these guys are gonna live i hope they eat me and they make it out right like so that i feel like that's a difference between where how you're approaching it and what like someone who's more egocentric about it would say like, well, it's right because

I know it's right. And you have to believe it's right. I think Marx, again, I think he's approaching it from his own personal values more than from a moral perspective. I think he's saying like, I don't think it's necessarily moral or immoral to do this act. It's immoral to do it if you don't have to. But if you had to do it to survive, is it that much different than self-defense?

But I personally wouldn't do it because I value, and of my values, eating another person is not one of them. I would think less of myself for doing it. Therefore, I wouldn't do it. If someone else does it, I might think differently of them a little bit, but if it comes down to my judgment or them being dead, I'd rather them eat me and have a little bit of negative judgment on my behalf it's more of a me thing it's a me problem you

eating someone is a me problem not a you problem it is a it is a me problem and it's a problem i'm making for myself and it's a problem i hope to never face but you never know the future of all the ways i expected this episode to go focusing on cannibalism and egoism was not really the way i thought it would go i didn't know how i thought it would go. There were some things I wish we could have touched on, like are humans the only things that have morals? Do animals have morals? Do only some animals have morals? Can cells have like, how far down the line can we go to figure out morality? We can talk about it. We can do another episode on this sometime. I knew we wouldn't be able to cover too, too much in an hour. I took four years of this and still am not satisfied with how much

knowledge I got. An hour is not really quite enough. But hopefully you too and everyone out there watching got a little bit better understanding of how morals work. Morality is complicated in that there's not just right or wrong. There's different ways to look at right or wrong. There's different moral theories that apply that don't always agree with each other. The trolley problem is interesting because from an individualistic perspective, it seems wrong to kill. Or from a utilitarian perspective, it seems wrong to let more people die if all are equal in the scenario.

One person versus four that are all same age, same health, same goodness, so on and so forth. All different things that people usually end up debating in politics or in morals or in life usually boil down to coming at it from different perspectives. And a lot of times the reason people disagree is because they are attributing different moral theories to a problem. And instead of figuring that out and trying to figure out which moral theory might apply more, they just, again, resort to name calling or just, I don't know, belligerence. And I think that taking time to discuss these things and actually figure out why, like us

delving into why Mark felt the way he did about cannibalism being wrong in all instances, or for him, at least, we learned something, we learned how his brain works a little bit, we learned how our brains work a little bit. And that knowledge and realizing we didn't know, and we still don't know is enlightenment, in my perspective, which is why I think philosophy is so important. Because when you apply that issue to things that are more pertinent to our lives again like abortion or other things that are debated in society we learn a lot more and it makes your foot holding on your position stronger or it might even change your mind moral theory i think is a lot more important than people you hear ethics and theory and it's like oh well like once you actually start asking questions and learning i find it fascinating hopefully you all

did too is what i'm trying to say so thank you all for going on the journey with me. And it's centered us into a picking the winner. It makes you pro cannibalism or against cannibalism. Well, we know what the show stands for. So I guess I do have to pick a winner. Who did I give the most points to while we were going? Was it Bob? I gave the most points to him. How would we know?

How do we know? I remember it was definitely me. I wrote it down and it was me by a wall by a lot yeah i think i wrote it down it's like i have so many numbers in front of me on an individualistic perspective i think bob definitely wins from a value standpoint in a self-determined position mark held his ground despite our questioning and our probing and prodding he stood his ground and he would go down with the ship of his values and therefore on that through that lens mark is definitely the winner however oh god damn it looking at this as a whole i think bob you had some really interesting

questions you delved into it you understood the fact that some questions are different and maybe not i think all questions are valid because any question you have regarding this stuff gets you on a path that leads to answers or another way of approaching or thinking about things. So don't think you have a bad question. But you know, I just can't get past the fact that no matter what we said, Mark, you stood your ground and therefore I got to give you the win

because divine command theory has willed it. I'll take it. That was a really roundabout. However. However, I think the greatest good is giving bob the win mark you win anyway okay thank you because the consequences of you losing just might be too much for me to bear all right fair enough uh i am so much better than everyone here on this podcast uh because of my hard stances and that's what I believe and may the righteousness of the Lord flood me with his or her or they or them's glory it surges

through me from tip to top somehow you have divine egoism you have just the lordly ego. I like the sound of that. I've created a new moral theory. Divine egoism. Mark's moral theory. I am divinely egotistic. God has willed my ego and therefore I am right. God really nailed it with me.

I am a shining example. All moral theory should just be following Mark's guidance. Uh, Bob, do you have... I don't want to call it a loser speech. Do you have an underdog speech? Another winner's speech? No, don't give him... Don't do that. Yeah, winners.

I'll give my winner's speech. Uh, you know what? I think I asked some incisive questions today. I think I demonstrated my moral superiority. No matter what Mark's imaginary brain voice commands of him, I think we can all see that his unbending will is just one more and a long list of flaws that makes him the perennial loser of this show. And it makes it just all the more clear that I should win

and I should always win. And it's me, Wade. I'm the winner. What even is winning? Is winning getting to host the next episode? Is it coming out of this with more knowledge than we came in with? Are you taking the win from me or not? I can't tell anymore. I don't know.

No, you win. Alright, end it! End the episode! Thank you guys so much for watching. End it before Bob pisses his pants! End it quick! I apologize to those of you that are knowledgeable on morals and ethics that I couldn't do any of the theories real justice. It was a very rough attribution of moral theory.

I apologize. I tried with limited time and limited knowledge after 12 years of being away from it. Hopefully you enjoyed it. Let us know your thoughts on the subreddit. If you haven't already, go follow Mark at Markiplier, Bob at MyScare, MindWade, Minion777, or LordMinion777. Again, hope you all enjoyed. Stay tuned for the next one where Mark will host, and who knows what hell will be unleashed.

Until then, podcast out.