Are moral statements objectively true? When we say “stealing for fun is wrong,” are we making a factual claim about the world, or are we just voicing an opinion? Many philosophers, known as moral realists, have attempted to show that “stealing for fun is wrong” is true in exactly the same way that “two plus two equals four” is true. In this episode we examine two different types of moral realism, and take a look at the arguments for and against. Along the way try to figure out why so many philosophers hate their first names and who wins the prize for nicest philosopher ever. We also answer some reader mail about robot torture and give Anne Rice some free ideas for philosopher/vampire plotlines.
No persons identified in this episode.
This episode hasn't been transcribed yet
Help us prioritize this episode for transcription by upvoting it.
Popular episodes get transcribed faster
Other recent transcribed episodes
Transcribed and ready to explore now
SpaceX Said to Pursue 2026 IPO
10 Dec 2025
Bloomberg Tech
Don’t Call It a Comeback
10 Dec 2025
Motley Fool Money
Japan Claims AGI, Pentagon Adopts Gemini, and MIT Designs New Medicines
10 Dec 2025
The Daily AI Show
Eric Larsen on the emergence and potential of AI in healthcare
10 Dec 2025
McKinsey on Healthcare
What it will take for AI to scale (energy, compute, talent)
10 Dec 2025
Azeem Azhar's Exponential View
Reducing Burnout and Boosting Revenue in ASCs
10 Dec 2025
Becker’s Healthcare -- Spine and Orthopedic Podcast