Can scientific facts determine our moral values? Are some moral claims just factually wrong?
Michael Shermer is a well-known science writer who is very optimistic about the role that science can play in moral philosophy.
Our conversation around the topic touches upon issues such as:
- Examples of moral claims that are factually wrong
- Utilitarianism vs rights-based morality
- Are there moral questions which are not based on any facts? If yes, what to do about them?
The discussion occurs towards the end of the episode (we begin by discussing Shermer's new book on the psychology of conspiracy theories).
We start approaching the question about the limits of science at 34:00. We tackle the question about morality head-on at onwards 49:00.
LISTEN TO THE EPISODE
You can listen either on the web player or in your favourite podcast app. Some links:
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/5-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories-the-limits/id1646943842?i=1000583823587
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4nhm3fGQIxEk9b8Q5zeI8L
More links below (look for episode 5):
For Shermer's book on the topic, see Moral Arc.