Episode 209 - Transcript

So the other day I got the chance to interview a couple legends in the world of philosophy: I got to talk to Peter Singer and Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek…which by the way at the beginning of the conversation she said I could call her Kasia instead of Katarzyna, I felt so special in the moment, you guys have no idea how much respect I have for these philosophers. I felt so heard and seen in that moment. 

But anyway…the two of them were pretty open to talk about anything in this conversation, so knowing that neither of them are anticapitalists… I thought it would be a good opportunity to CONTINUE getting philosopher’s opinions on the STATE of the world… and what they THINK might make that world into better place, from WITHIN the current set of tools we have. But I knew in order to DO that…to GET those kind of answers…I HAD to START the interview COMING at these two as though I was ONE of these passionate anticapitalists. 

So I turned my hat around backwards…I threw on my I would prefer not to Zizek T-shirt…and I decided to go in hot. The first question I asked Peter Singer was this:

Peter Singer: you’ve dedicated a career to writing these books that spread awareness about moral issues of our time, animal rights, global poverty…and you’ve done this while ALSO making it EASIER for people to contribute to these issues via charities…should that BE something that they ever want to. 

But a COMMON CRITIQUE you’ve no doubt heard ALL throughout your career…is a sort of anticapitalist attitude and the critique is this: that as WELL intentioned as you may be…what YOU REALLY are good sir…is someone who is just plugging holes on a sinking ship. 

That liberal democratic capitalism… has PROVEN itself to be a FAILED system. That these ISSUES you’re trying to raise awareness of…animal RIGHTS for instance…the exploitation of animals is not a FLAW of the system that needs to be fixed…no, it’s a FEATURE of the capitalist system… that is what ALLOWS for it to function at all. You NEED exploitation, you’re NEVER gonna get rid of it altogether…and still have something we’d recognize as Capitalism. 

And with every MIND that you CHANGE with one of your books Peter Singer…you’re NOT ONLY just alleviating the SYMPTOMS of a BROKEN system, HIDING things and ALLOWING people to keep it at the back of their mind while this all keeps going…not only that, but what you’re ALSO doing is you’re INDOCTRINATING an ENTIRELY NEW generation of young adults that if they WANTED to do some REAL good in the world…they would focus their efforts on revolutionizing the system entirely…but INSTEAD what they do is ETHICALLY APPEASE themselves with these theoretical books you write, and then spend their lives feeling CONTENT like they’re actually a PART of any sort of solution. What would you SAY to that critique of your work…Peter Singer? 

And I promise I framed it in a way that wasn’t as hostile as that sounds…you guys know me…I’m STEELMANNING here, part of what makes this show fun…and what Peter Singer said BACK…was along the lines of look: people have been TALKING about this revolution, this social UTOPIA that’s going to emerge… for over a HUNDRED YEARS now. For the record: he’s been alive for MANY of those years, 78 of them by this point. 

And EVERY time it fails… there’s ALWAYS SOME explanation for why THIS one wasn’t the REAL revolution that was supposed to occur…why capitalism is going to DIE here VERY soon, just you WAIT! They say the Capitalists that BENEFIT from the setup, their numbers are gonna shrink and they’ll exploit people MORE…the working class are going to grow BIGGER, the people IN it MORE poor and desperate. ALL of this, he would say…is certainly ONE way…to view the world we’re living in. 

But to Peter Singer and Kasia de Lazari-Radek for that matter…they’re just a bit more…OPTIMISTIC, THEY might say COMPREHENSIVE about considering the FACTS about all this: from what our history has been, to what the state of the world is and what the possibilities are moving forward. 

Because to VIEW the world as though it’s something that resembles what I just laid out in my question…is to Peter Singer: to obscure the UNDENIABLE progress that has been MADE since Capitalism has been the dominant economic system– and without WORSHIPING at the ALTAR of Capitalism… we can at least ACKNOWLEDGE a full PICTURE of what our present situation is. 

As Singer says: fewer people are in poverty today…than EVER BEFORE in the history of the world. In 1820 94% of the world was in extreme poverty, today it’s less than 10%. He says fewer children are dying before their fifth birthday than ever before on planet earth– and more broadly the statistics show: LIFE expectancy has increased from around 30 years old in the year 1870 to over 70 years old today. And the LIST goes ON…from literacy rates, to food availability to access to technology, to social justice improvements…ENTIRE BOOKS have been WRITTEN by people pointing to these statistics that SHOW all the improvements that have gone on in recent history.

And what some people on the anticapitalist side of things will say is that the PROBLEM with these sort of books, that point OUT those kind of statistics…is that in PRACTICE they end up REINFORCING the status quo in a dangerous way. They say it’s right wing revisionist history.

Because if somebody only reads one book a year and the only thing they READ this year is something that tells them all about how things are trending in the right direction…and then says NOTHING about all the horrors and injustices that still EXIST in the world…well then they say it becomes very EASY to IGNORE all the bad effects that capitalism is still HAVING on innocent people. I mean do we just IGNORE the people that fall through the cracks because of the way the current situation is set up? We can’t do that. 

But for someone like Peter Singer, and it should be OBVIOUS by this point…he is FAR from the type of person who thinks we should be IGNORING the less fortunate out there. He’s dedicated his life to them. And I think what Peter Singer would no doubt say is that Capitalism…is not perfect…alright.

But if you THREW out Capitalism today and put some NEW economic system in place…there would STILL BE PROBLEMS to solve tomorrow. There is no static set of rules you can come up with that totally accounts for a dynamic human mind that’s looking to exploit them. And with as many moving PARTS as there are: there’s no way you can SET things up…where there isn’t SOMEONE falling through the cracks, SOMEWHERE. And you can ALWAYS be someone that points to the problems that still exist in the world and say, “Hey look! That’s PROOF right there that the whole SYSTEM’S horrible! We gotta REPLACE it!” 

But this ATTITUDE that you’re not going to do ANYTHING about the problems until the whole thing collapses one day…well at a certain point that’s not helping anyone.

To Peter Singer: whether you like it or not, whether you’d PREFER a glorious REVOLUTION or not…if we’re going to be REAL here: Capitalism IS the system we have to WORK with for the foreseeable future. And the more RELEVANT question for us to be asking for HIM is: CAN we use the productivity and technology of Capitalism and what it does WELL…to better distribute a decent standard of LIVING, to basically everyone? Is progress at that level, something that’s POSSIBLE?

As Kasia de Lazari-Radek followed up to this point in the conversation: progress…CERTAINLY may be UNEVEN in the world we live in. There may be SOME areas that have gotten much better. Others that haven’t really gotten better. Again, because of HOW MANY VARIABLES we are DEALING with in these complex systems…we may FIX something in ONE area and unintentionally create NEW problems in ANOTHER. There’s CERTAINLY much more progress that’s NEEDED…but to DENY progress overall…that’s something that’s entirely different. 

Which, by the way Kasia de Lazari-Radek would REALLY want to clarify what is even MEANT by CAPITALISM there, when people SAY it like that…because as she says: when you talk about CAPITALISM in this OVERLY BROAD WAY, like it’s a SINGLE THING…what are you even talking about at a certain point? Be more specific! For example she says: consider the fact that Sweden and the United States…are BOTH capitalist societies. 

Now the lives of PEOPLE in Sweden and the United States on average…end UP being very different THINGS. From the happiness index to the prevalence of health problems to inequality to social cohesion and the ability for people to even have a conversation with each other…BOTH of these are capitalism…but a lot of people out there struggling might DEFINITELY prefer the way SWEDEN is currently doing capitalism to the United States. And the point here is NOT that every country out there has to guarantee the same social outcomes that Sweden does…the point is it’s almost like there’s something ELSE we could be focusing our attention towards, other than just some BROAD term like Capitalism… that’s MORE responsible for the CONSEQUENCES that we don’t LIKE in the world.

And to the CARTOON of an anticapitalist in the example I gave…the person who USES their disdain towards Capitalism to justify not really DOING much…let this be yet ANOTHER example of how philosophy sometimes can be used for EVIL instead of good. What I mean is never forget how POSSIBLE it is for a smart person these days to FALL into the trap…of doing a DEEP dive on some philosophy.. getting to some level of understanding that almost NO one in the world can call them out on… and then to be living in a type of PESSIMISM… that leaves them completely STUCK in whatever place they’re in.

People will do this with hard determinism: well I can’t CHANGE my BEHAVIOR because ULTIMATELY it’s all outside of my CONTROL! Or with the fallibility of knowledge: how can I even know if I really EXIST…or if what I DO know is nothing but a cultural illusion? Or how bout with morality? I don’t know if ANYTHING is OBJECTIVELY good or not… so how can I ever bring myself to do ANYTHING in this world that claims to make it a better place? 

And on that SAME note the LAST episode of this podcast was on Peter Singer’s ENTIRE moral journey throughout his career. And as we moved more towards the END of the episode…MORE towards his CURRENT belief in objective morality…he acknowledges: there is CERTAINLY, PLENTY of disagreements or conversations to have surrounding things like the metaphysics of his view of pleasure, or of the ontological role of suffering in his world picture: these are FASCINATING questions to talk about. He’s ALWAYS down to talk about them. 

But to get CAUGHT UP on them…to have them be the THING that’s PREVENTING you from taking a stance, doing some good in the world and PARTICIPATING in the decision making of the democracy you live in… 

There are moral REALITIES for certain humans and animals on this planet…that don’t take a philosophical seminar to get to the BOTTOM of whether they’re bad or not. They are UNCONTROVERSIAL to Peter Singer. 

When factory farmers will GRIND male chickens alive… because they can’t lay eggs like female chickens. When it comes to poverty: Children dying of starvation in their parents arms or dying of illnesses that have affordable, widely available treatments. For end of life care: someone in excruciating pain, NO hope of long term recovery, slowly losing all their faculties, BEGGING for an end to this suffering, but are unable to get it. 

To Peter Singer: these are consequences that are OCCURRING in our world…where the TOOLS EXIST RIGHT NOW for us to be doing more about them…and these are issues where we KNOW progress is possible…because SOME progress has already been MADE on these fronts WITHOUT some kind of revolution. What if the world is not SO far gone… that it’s just ALL OVER… and all YOU can do now is sit around saying: ay CRAZY TIMES right?

Because to Peter Singer when you have REALITIES like this…what does it matter if we can’t agree on what the METAPHYSICS is of the suffering that’s going on? What does it matter if the solution we come up with is a market based solution or a grassroots effort?

In other words: Even if you’re still working out the finer DETAILS of your own personal philosophical preferences…when it COMES to THESE kinds of issues…the question for Peter Singer and Kasia de Lazari-Radek is: CAN we be doing more? And CAN we be helping OTHERS to understand these issues more, with our knowledge and our ability to explain them? Can we be BETTER participants in this democratic process that is still available to us?

The bottom line is: if you think the world is in need of change…then a DEEPER level of engagement WITH these ethical issues and with our OWN ethical positions is something that has already PROVEN to be effective…it may not be a panacea, because of how complex some of these issues are…it can be SO tempting to think well there’s a LOT of problems in the world, if there is GOING to be a solution to them… it better be something MIND BLOWING like you better be shaking hands with the aliens, bigfoot and god all at once or else I’m not listening, but to Peter Singer…a way forward like this is proven, simple and effective…and he has dedicated a CAREER to these applied ethical positions where he LOOKS at the consequences in the world we don’t like, takes ONE, manageable piece of them, NEATLY explains what the situation is, and then explains how to do some good about it that doesn’t REQUIRE you to transform your entire life.

His books Animal Liberation Now, Ethics in the Real World and The Life you can Save are all EXAMPLES of him trying to ACCOMPLISH this. This is Peter Singer’s applied ETHICS work in a nutshell. 

Now of COURSE when I’M having a conversation with them…I KNOW… this is the thrust of Peter Singer’s work…so of course I’m not gonna be saying HEY, tell me about this ANIMAL book you wrote back in the 70’s! 

What I’M mostly gonna be asking him…are about things we may be able to LEARN from his 50 years of experience as a philosopher trying to DO this. Like if I’m someone who's SOLD on the vision that this is A way forward: how do we take this project of creating a DEEPER level of ENGAGEMENT, TO the next level? 

Because there’s SO many angles to attack this idea from…why hasn’t this been a BIGGER movement over the last 50 years…how can we spread this message even MORE effectively than we already HAVE been? Like if I wanted to start small, JUST with me…and develop my OWN moral positions so I could be the MOST HELPFUL to OTHERS IN these conversations: where would I even BEGIN…DOING something like that? To know EXACTLY where I stand morally, so I can bring some CONFIDENCE to all this?

And for that I KNEW I had to turn… to Kasia de Lazari-Radek… living legend for utilitarian philosophers at the highest level…and I came away with some valuable INSIGHTS from her on how she views this whole process that a lot of people embark on of trying to PICK a TEAM when it comes to their ethics. 

You know you hear people ask stuff like, WHAT are YOU? Are you a utilitarian, are you a deontologist, an egoist? But for her: this is the complete wrong way to be THINKING about it. 

The GOAL to her is NOT to get everybody to come on over to team utilitarian and then everything’s gonna be perfect in the world. STOP thinking of these terms like Utilitarian or deontologist… as though they’re TEAMS for people to join–where they’re all trying to COMPETE with each other… and may the BEST way of thinking reign supreme! 

The more ACCURATE way to view them she says is that these are just WORDS we use… that ultimately describe, how different people THINK… about moral decision making. 

Meaning, for SOME people out there… and what goes on in THEIR heads when they decide what the right thing to do is…Utilitarianism might be the word that matches best. For another person, deontology. Egoism for another. In other words: BEFORE these were EVER WORDS, that philosophers threw around to be describing ETHICS…these were ORIGINALLY just ways that people THOUGHT about things. 

So KNOWING that…not ONLY is it kind of WEIRD to be thinking about getting RID of any of these, you’re just not GOING to…but MORE than that…you WOULDN’T even WANT a world without ANY SPECIFIC ONE of these ethical theories…we NEED them ALL…because it turns out DIFFERENT ones are more EFFECTIVE for people, at different scales… and in different CIRCUMSTANCES. 

For example she says: we NEED deontological thinking…when we’re doing things like creating LAWS or RULES in our societies…we need to be able to TRUST that people are going to FOLLOW these BROAD RESTRICTIONS…it's a BIG part of what makes the world able to function at all. 

But on the other hand she says: utilitarian or CONSEQUENTIALIST style thinking, deciding what the best thing to do is based on the CONSEQUENCES it produces…well if you examine it against different ethical situations you might find yourself in….it turns out to be something that’s SUPER effective…more at a personal, INDIVIDUAL level of decision making. 

It’s almost like how you need different types of economic policy… for your HOME finances vs for an entire COUNTRY. LIke how silly would someone BE if they were on some kind of CRUSADE… to make FISCAL policy a SINGLE THING, we all need to follow. NO grandma you’re four million dollars in debt? I don’t care…KEEP SPENDING. Stimulate investment in your COOKIES grandma! No it’s just different ways of thinking…for different situations. 

Now I know what SOME of you out there might be thinking: that this ISN’T actually a CHOICE we have to MAKE between deontology and utilitarianism…because we ALREADY have something within Utilitarianism that ACCOUNTS for this…it’s called RULE utilitarianism. Where people follow RULES…that if they’re FOLLOWED…they will produce the most well being in the world. Rule…utilitarianism.

And I ASKED her about this when I TALKED to her…and she said no. Absolutely not. Even AS a utilitarian she said… I don’t TRUST…rule utilitarianism. She thinks MOST of what rule utilitarianism IS… is people trying to adjust ONE of these ethical theories to things they SHOULDN’T be adjusting it to. Again, maybe CAUGHT UP a bit TOO MUCH in the idea that it’s ONE of these that need to reign supreme. 

But to her the FAR better way of DOING things… is to stop trying to have ONE of these do EVERYTHING…to HER we should have Deontology when we need rule based thinking. Utilitarianism when we want to maximize well being, again: DIFFERENT ways of thinking…are appropriate for different situations. 

I guess the LARGER POINT here is: if something you like doing is talking about trolley cars, and ax murderers, you know, you like DEFENDING your ethical theory against someone else, for the sake of understanding yourself and the world better…and SAY RECENTLY in one of these conversations you were DEFENDING your position…and then some smart, british chap comes along and starts questioning you and really walks you into a corner and SHOWS you…that there are some BIG HOLES in your moral approach to situations that need to be addressed…if THAT HAPPENS to ya…

Then I THINK what Kasia would say is that when you’re IN this moment…DON’T be embarrassed about it. Don’t TAKE that moment…as though it's some kind of personal DEFEAT. As though YOU’RE an idiot. YOUR team has failed. Look at how my PERFECT moral theory just CRUMBLES the second this nice british fellow gave me one of his hypotheticals.  

No, DON’T DO THAT. Instead: try to understand…that the point is NOT to find…the ULTIMATE, BEST way of ethical reasoning…that is CORRECT in every situation. You’re NEVER gonna find it because… it doesn’t exist. The POINT is that EVERY ONE of these moral theories will have strengths, weaknesses, better and worse applications. We ultimately NEED ALL OF THEM…to understand human moral reasoning fully. 

And that MAYBE the goal should be to ACCEPT that…continue to SHOW UP in these kinds of conversations…and then try to be as self-aware of the limitations of your OWN ethical reasoning as possible.

Yeah, but STILL, someone could say, EVEN if you DID that…you’d STILL only be TALKING about ax murderers and TROLLEY car problems at the end of the day. The POINT should be to have these views make a DIFFERENCE…when we’re FACED with ACTUAL moral dilemmas in the REAL world. 

Cause this PERSON could say: WHAT are these two philosophers even really SAYING here about a possible WAY FORWARD? Are they saying that if we ALL just get more in touch with our ETHICAL side…that this WISDOM is gonna spread like a virus and before we know it we’re all holding hands wondering how ANY of us were ever so unethical? 

No, no. Peter Singer has what could be called… a very HEALTHY dose of optimistic, pessimism when you talk to him. He’s ALL for people having more of these theoretical moral discussions…but the feeling when talking to him is like… come on…talking about trolley cars and ax murderers ISN’T what’s going to LEAD to the kind of mass shift in CONSCIOUSNESS we need to take this stuff to the next level. And he’s been around LONG enough to see a lot of ATTEMPTS at this whole thing succeed and fail over the years.

HE would acknowledge the state of things even with his OWN books that look…it is JUST…the REALITY we live in…that a LOT of people who have HEARD these arguments from him about donating to effective altruist charities or cutting down on their meat consumption…they HEAR the arguments, they’re MOVED in their positions on a THEORETICAL level…but they’re NOT moved enough to change things when it comes to their actual BEHAVIOR. Or they change things for a little bit, try it out, and then eventually fall back into their old ways of DOING things. 

Why IS that, we have to ask?

And again: NONE of this is being said in a way trying to belittle ANY of the progress or effort that’s been made. LOT of good work has been DONE; it’s ultimately the EXTREMELY promising stuff that we’re trying to BUILD on. But nonetheless is it WORTH exploring if we want to do things MORE effectively in the future: what would it TAKE… to get MORE people to CHANGE their behavior on a more permanent basis? 

Because I mean someone could SAY BACK to all this… a SKEPTICAL person… that people are NEVER gonna change. That people will ALWAYS just DO what’s the most CONVENIENT for them and that beyond defending these things in a theoretical setting…NOBODIES gonna ever actually change their behavior. 

But one of the INSPIRING things to consider here…is that people DO change their behavior when the social TEMPERATURE changes on a particular issue. 

There ARE in fact things that USED to be culturally acceptable… where then some EVENT occurred in the world that CHANGES public perception, where after it happens people just don’t DO the THING anymore, and bring a whole lot of JUDGMENT to the people who still CONTINUE to do it. How bout SMOKING in the middle of a restaurant? Or Drunk driving. Or Littering. Or beating your kids. Or Harassment of women at the workplace. 

ALL of these are things that at ONE point were culturally acceptable. THEN there was a period where a lot of people felt it was wrong but STILL engaged in the behavior…and then a moment came where for EACH of these…people just weren’t going to put up with it anymore. There CAME a point where to DO these things…MADE you someone who paid an IMMEDIATE social price for doing it. 

Now, the INSPIRING thing about this… REMINDS me of something Kasia de Lazari-Radek said in PASSING during the conversation. She said that people generally WANT to be…a moral person. NOBODY goes around in their life wondering: HOW do I be a more horrible person today? Which implies that a CONSIDERABLE amount of the time that people are DOING things that lead to bad outcomes in the world…they are either doing it out of ignorance, they don’t KNOW that it’s going on…or they don’t understand how the way they’re living is contributing to this bad outcome.

And in a democracy…we HAVE this ACTIVITY some people like to ENGAGE in where they try to SPREAD AWARENESS to people about an issue or get them to RETHINK their moral POSITION. It’s called ACTIVISM. 

But unfortunately, over the last few decades…the specific WAYS that SOME activists try to spread awareness and GET people questioning their morals…doesn’t always end up ACCOMPLISHING what their goal is. 

You ask a person on the street about their experience…when you walked past this protest and you heard the people screaming at you, or coming up to you with a clipboard trying to EXPLAIN their position and get your signature…WHY was that not something that made you BELIEVE in the cause JUST as much as THEY do? Why did you not DROP everything you were doing, pick up a sign and start screaming at people yourself?

And the answer you’ll hear from a lot of people is that it’s because this TYPE of ACTIVISM…PRODUCES in me a type of SKEPTICISM. Because I KNOW there is always an agenda…behind the clipboard. 

This person could say when there’s someone with a clipboard, it doesn’t matter if their cause sounds like one of the most NO BRAINER things you could POSSIBLY HAVE on a sheet of paper, it could be about saving kittens and butterflies, and if I’m BEING REAL: I am ALWAYS THINKING…what is it that they’re OBSCURING about the situation here to GET me to come on their side?

This TRANSPARENT, agenda-laden nature of traditional forms of activism…is something that no doubt might MAKE it less effective at communicating with certain people. 

However: there’s a lot of people out there who REALIZE this…they’ll say: if the BOOKS of Peter Singer and traditional activism, have delivered ONE type of message…are there OTHER ways of delivering a message…that could be even MORE effective than we’ve been doing for the last 50 years? How bout we come up with some more CREATIVE forms of activism…that try to ATTACK this problem in a different way?

Meme warfare, for example. Have you ever heard of it before? This is ONE of these creative types of ACTIVISM that in the underground has been going on for years. 

The thinking is this: if part of activism is about spreading awareness and getting people to engage with the issues more deeply…then if you could PACKAGE that into a meme that is funny or memorable or sharable in a way that INSINUATES itself into the mind of a person whose otherwise living on their phone, getting all their information about the world…if you could DO that…then that INSTANTLY becomes a type of activism…with NO barrier to entry, VERY little downside, that ANYONE CLEVER can do REALLY in their spare time, that has the possibility of reaching MILLIONS of people. 

That’s exciting…and that’s just ONE EXAMPLE…of how people are USING their BRAINS to try to come up with creative ways to deliver a message that AREN’T them just doing an imitation of all the PROTESTERS they’ve seen before. But it SHOULD be said…it’s NOT the ONLY strategy. 

And KNOWING that Peter and Kasia have SO much experience, SEEING different ways people have tried to make an impact…I wanted to tell them about another strategy I’ve been thinking about, I PITCHED it to them on the call like it was an episode of Shark Tank just to see what they would say.

I asked ‘em: what if Noam Chomsky was ripped? What if Noam was muscle bound, vascular and spray tanned…and THEN he did his philosophy? 

What I mean is: there’s a lot of INFLUENCERS these days that’ll sell people a certain kind of LIFESTYLE first. Somebody on the male side of this for example might be ripped, spray tanned, driving Bugattis, flashing money all over the place, shooting guns, SURROUNDED by women…and then they’ll POST PICTURES of them LIVING this kind of lifestyle…and tons of young people, young MEN in this case will come along for the ride and try to find out how THEY can ALSO get that kind of lifestyle. How do I do it?

Well what if Noam CHOMSKY did that to get his message out? What if he was absolutely JACKED with ripples…and THEN started talking about the imperialism of the United States? How many more Chomsky fans would we have in the world around us? 

Now don’t get the wrong idea: I picked Noam Chomsky, MOSTLY because his name sounds funny here and he’s 95 years old…I know he’s not going to do this NOR am I promoting his ideas as the way to solve all the world’s problems. 

My POINT is: the MORAL content of an influencer often is something that gets SMUGGLED in the back door whether it’s well thought out or not…people start WATCHING an influencer for what they’re GOOD at. NOT for their VIEWS on the world. 

And yet SO OFTEN…somebody will have a GIANT online presence, they’ll mention offhandedly some place that they like to go, some way that they FEEL about a particular thing that’s going on…and WITHOUT even INTENDING to…these people will have a MASSIVE INFLUENCE on how MILLIONS of people THINK about something going on in culture. 

Now here’s the point when it comes to ACTIVISM. Almost ALL of these people become an INFLUENCER first…and then have a moral approach as an afterthought. But is there anything TO this idea…of someone who wants to make a difference…FLIPPING that process on its head…to set the goal to BECOME an influencer…because you ultimately want to deliver a well thought out set of moral positions, to impressionable young people SIMPLY through the power of suggestion?

Kasia de Lazari-Radek SEEMED to LIKE the idea, but she wanted to give a couple addendums to it first. She said there’s nothing WRONG with this from a Utilitarian point of view…ultimately you’re trying to produce better CONSEQUENCES in the world. But the THING to REALLY consider here she says…is authenticity. She used Peter Singer as an example.

Singer’s an example of an influencer who has a LOT of SWAY on people’s moral THINKING…and part of the way that he ACCOMPLISHES that is because he’s ACTUALLY the guy he SAYS he is. 

In other words: you can’t just decide you’re gonna do this, go to a spa, get a spray and PRETEND to be a shallow douchebag…you have to ACTUALLY be one for this to work or people are probably gonna see through it. ALSO I think she’s saying that you need to be up FRONT with people if this MORAL message of yours is something that’s truly important to you. So maybe the way AROUND this…would be to BECOME an influencer for something you TRULY are GREAT at and believe in… and then to be UP FRONT about the fact that the MORAL side of this, has ALWAYS been an important reason for why you’ve wanted to speak to a wider audience of people. 

The POINT of all of this you’ll REMEMBER…is to try to find ways to INFLUENCE people’s opinions…without having to SHAME them or YELL at them or be so SALESY in your approach. And with that in mind this SEEMS like another outside the box OPTION… that someone trying to CHANGE things might want to try out.

But there’s OTHER DIRECTIONS we could ATTACK this problem from OTHER than by just using MEDIA. 

Like what if INSTEAD of trying to get people to voluntarily change their minds about these issues…what if the BETTER thing to do… is to try to make this awareness of the issues… a REQUIREMENT at more of a structural level. 

I asked Peter Singer if he was a fan of the idea…of teaching children philosophy and ethical awareness in schools.

To which he replied that yes…he’s ABSOLUTELY a fan of that idea. And that it’s already going ON to SOME extent. 

He said when HE was a kid they didn’t really TEACH philosophy in schools–it was VERY rare. Then over the years schools started to TRY it, but it was MOSTLY something like the HISTORY of philosophy– it wasn’t the kind of practical wisdom that we’d want people to come AWAY with after STUDYING philosophy. 

But he says in RECENT years if you’re looking at the right country…there’s been some BIG leaps forward. Starting to become more common for HIGH schools to be offering it. More common for people to be LOBBYING for it in their city councils. But he talked about how if you wanted an EXAMPLE to look at…in South Korea right now…in the last few years they’ve COMPLETELY reformed parts of their education system to include ethics, critical thinking, development of social responsibility…he gets TONS of emails from STUDENTS that are being inspired by his work…or people asking him to come there and speak on TV. 

I mean for ANYONE out there who might be pessimistic about this…you know, that you put philosophy in schools and kids are just gonna learn to HATE it like they hate HISTORY or Chemistry…South Korea is GREAT example of what can HAPPEN when a country prioritizes philosophy, and young people get exposed to these sorts of ideas early. 

But even BEFORE high school this is an option as well for Peter singer. He talks about the Philosophy for Children program that’s been rolled out in various ways over the years that brings a philosophy curriculum to kids even in ELEMENTARY school. Point is: Peter Singer is DEFINITELY a supporter of our EDUCATION systems being more of a facilitator for these VALUES that may lead to a possible way forward. 

But okay…ALL that is good for KIDS and for young adults who have no CHOICE but to listen to this stuff…but how do we make DEBATING and DISCOVERING these ideas…more accessible to adults. Adults that already VALUE engaging with these ideas at a deeper level…but HAVE no real place to discuss them. 

I mean, SO many philosophers we’ve been covering lately have said we NEED something more like this…I wanted to know if there was ANYTHING Peter Singer had SEEN INTERNATIONALLY over the course of his career that HE thought seemed promising. 

Well after making it CLEAR…that he was IN agreement: it would be NICE to have PLACES like this setup. He QUICKLY mentions the rise and fall of the Philosophy Cafe movement… that STARTED in Europe back during the 1990’s. People would MEET up…in a bar, community center, some INFORMAL place where they’d have discussions about philosophy. And things seemed to go WELL for quite a while…but for as much GOOD as that did for people at it’s PEAK…as Peter SINGER said: it has lacked a bit of STEAM in recent years, kind of a euphemism…and if he HAD to give an explanation as to WHY the interest has gone down…it’s NOT because people aren’t as interested in philosophy…it’s probably because ONLINE meetup groups have become so much more POPULAR in recent years than physical ones. 

Not the LEAST of which he would want to point out…is the effective altruist community altogether. For anybody whose unaware Peter Singer wrote a book in 2009 called the life you can save…we DID an entire episode on it, it’s in the back catalog. 

The important thing to KNOW though right now…is that the arguments in that book…POPULARIZED by Peter Singer…went on to spark an entire MOVEMENT around charitable giving and online philosophical discussion called the Effective Altruist movement. 

And as of right now…it’s pretty unquestionable…effective altruist charities have done a LOT of good for people in the world. They’ve saved hundreds of thousands of lives through providing bed nets to combat malaria…provided deworming treatments to millions of children in low-income countries, they’ve gotten hundreds of millions of dollars directly to people in extreme poverty–saving lives, they’ve contributed hundreds of millions to critical research, influenced HUNDREDS of major food companies to adopt more humane practices. 

If you believe progress is POSSIBLE in the world we’re living in WITH the set of tools we currently HAVE. Then the effective altruist movement… seems to be doing it. And they CONTINUE to do good and have online discussion groups that allow for people to be informed and debate on any NUMBER of issues, not just ones pertaining to malaria nets. 

Now, here’s what Peter Singer would want to point OUT about all this. Any GOOD that the effective altruist movement has done or will CONTINUE to DO into the future…ONLY has become what it IS…because there were people who originally…decided that they were gonna do something, GOT together, and tried to engage with these ethical positions at a deeper level, while trying to help OTHER people do the same. 

So if you’re SKEPTICAL of their claim that people merely ENGAGING with the issues more will bring about a better world…well let the effective altruist movement stand as a monument for what’s POSSIBLE when people do. 

And who KNOWS where this goes tomorrow? Yes, there’s a LOT more PROGRESS than needs to be done in the world. Lot more people that need to show up and USE their skills to help the effort move forward. But it IS MOVING. And it’s at least ONE way forward… for people who want to DO the most good they can. 

I’d like to thank Peter Singer and Kasia de Lazari-Radek for their help creating this episode. Told them I would let all of you know about their work. Kasia just had a book come out called The Philosophy of Pleasure. It’s got an ice cream on the front of it. Peter singer has a substack called bold reasoning with Peter singer. The two of them have a podcast called Lives well Lived where they talk to people that are not only living an ethical life, but they’re people who are fulfilled and happy in their respective disciplines. T ough act to pull off these days. Finally if you want to learn more about effective altruist charities, how they work and how you can help out with anything that they’re doing…go to: thelifeyoucansave.org and read till your heart’s content. 

Next episode we’re talking about Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. This oughta be a good one. Thank you for listening. Talk to you next time.