Toby Buckle

speaker

272 appearances 1 recordings 1 series first heard Oct 2018 last heard Oct 2018

Toby Buckle’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.

Trend

recordings per month · last 12 months

No recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.

Appearances

newest first · ▶ plays the moment

Elucidations · Episode 109: Bonus Episode with Matt Teichman and Toby Buckle · 13 Oct 2018 podcast

You can say, well, killing the school shooter wouldn't be murder, that's because he's in the commission of a crime and it's a defensive preventative killing.

Or you could say killing the um guilty criminal might not be murder because it would either be retributive or it would be for deterrence.

And in which case you can hang on to the idea.

that murder is universally viewed as bad, but only by by just changing your definition every time a counterexample occurs, in which case it's true enough, but tautological.

Okay, but then I wonder how far that gets off the ground from being tautological, because for one thing, th l let's say the claim is that everyone on Earth holds the view that the default is not killing people, and killing people requires some extra justification or permission.

Well, the idea of extra justification or permissible is so elastic that it could and

Historically has mapped to pretty much anything from like um a justifiable killing of a school shooter to somewhere deep in our ancestry there is someone who thought murdering an infant was a good way to control the weather, right?

Like that that just that feels to me that it maps to anything, as much as to be

I'm not sure what analytic use it would have.

And then the second point is you might say, well, but I'm still retaining the argument that the default is not killing.

I think this is one of these things like the freedom to and freedom from distinction that seems salient, but I'm not sure how action guiding it is, and I'm not sure how operative it is in any individual psychology in any moment.

So if you're

In you know, a culture way, way, way back when, and you're encountering a hostile tribe, the default is to kill them, right?

Now you might say, oh well, no, the default is to not kill unless they're a hostile tribe, but if you ask the person on the ground what's the default here, they would probably say to kill.

Now you could interpret it in that way, but again, then you're left with something so big and so vague, I'm not sure what the analytic use.

uses, which then brings you to the backup question is I don't think either one of us is asserting these things simply just because this is a dispassionate, our dispassionate empirical reading of history.

I think we're asserting them because both of them speak to some need we have about how we view human morality and human community that is important for us to articulate.

So it seems important for me to articulate the idea that human values and our rules by which we live are constructed because that gives me optimism that they can be changed.

If the free market system seems unfair, we can redesign it because we can redesign human nature.

And I'll try to finish so you get time to come back at the end.

Showing 201–220 of 272 · page 11 of 14