All Podcasts / Making Sense with Sam Harris / #448 — The Philosophy of Good and Evil
Making Sense with Sam Harris
Making Sense with Sam Harris

#448 — The Philosophy of Good and Evil

December 08, 2025

Summary

⏱️ 7 min read

Overview

This philosophical discussion examines moral thought experiments through the lens of consequentialism and effective altruism. David Edmonds discusses his biographical work on Peter Singer and Derek Parfit, exploring how famous thought experiments like the trolley problem reveal deep tensions between our moral intuitions and rational analysis. The conversation probes whether consequentialism can adequately account for our moral reactions when we consider all consequences, including psychological and societal impacts, challenging the listener to question everyday ethical complacency.

Introduction and Background on Philosophical Work

David Edmonds introduces himself as having transitioned from a dual career as BBC journalist and philosopher to focusing entirely on philosophy. He discusses his podcast Philosophy Bites and his connection to Oxford's Uehiro Institute for practical ethics. His latest work builds on his previous biography of Derek Parfit, whom Peter Singer called the only genius he ever met, leading to an exploration of moral philosophy through thought experiments.

  • Edmonds now focuses entirely on philosophy after leaving the BBC, creating Philosophy Bites podcast with Nigel Warburton
  • He's affiliated with the Uehiro Institute at Oxford, dedicated to studying practical and applied ethics
  • Peter Singer described Derek Parfit as the only genius he ever met
  • The book uses Peter Singer's thought experiment, the second most famous in moral philosophy but more influential than the trolley problem

The Nature and Controversy of Thought Experiments

The conversation establishes why thought experiments are used in philosophy and addresses common objections to them. While thought experiments exist across all philosophical domains, those in moral philosophy face particular suspicion because critics argue our moral intuitions evolved for normal life situations, not strange hypothetical scenarios. Defenders argue the artificial nature is precisely the point—to isolate specific factors and eliminate confounding variables that obscure real-world analysis.

  • Thought experiments exist across philosophy but moral thought experiments arouse the most suspicion
  • Main objection: our moral intuitions are built for normal life, not weird artificial scenarios
  • Defense: thought experiments deliberately simplify to focus on one specific factor, separating it from real-world noise and complications
  • They function as conceptual surgery, changing specific variables to examine differences in response
" The whole point about a thought experiment is you're trying to separate all the extraneous circumstances and factors that might be getting in the way of our thinking. And you trying to kind of focus in particular on one area of a problem. "

📚 5 more sections below

Sign up to unlock the complete summary with all insights, key points, and quotes

Listen on Apple Podcasts More Episodes from Making Sense with Sam Harris