Your podcast is what urged me to pursue BA Philosophy for college. Thank you for changing my life ❤️

This is by far the best explanation on the topic I have found!

This video is REALLY outstanding and insightful. It definitely brings an added value to the viewers. You absolutely do an amazing work and we thank you for that.

This overlaps with thoughts I've been having about language and brains and how they work together. Like it feels like the language part of my brain is more in the foreground and more "visible" to the part of my mind you might call my "conscious" mind. And how that can affect how I tend to think about things. Like if I focus to heavily on just the language processing part, my thinking can look more like rationalization than actual reason, as opposed to when I bring my emotional and intuitive sections into the equation, which give me deeper access to...well I'm not sure what exactly - or rather, it's harder to translate into language, but it's like a deeper part of my brain that holds concepts and senses of things from experience - and is also more imaginative and able to do things like empathize and hypothesize. I was socialized as a male in a moderately conservative community, so I can only guess - but it feels like the female taking the test is doing a better job at actually imagining herself in the situation, while the male is kind of...idealizing the situation. Which could be because she's socially closer to actually being in that position, so it's easier for her to actually put *herself* in the situation? Like I bet if the male were *actually* in that position, the idea of going through the literal process of breaking and entering and stealing the medication would be really scary and uncomfortable, and he'd put a *lot* more effort into finding alternatives before going that route, if he ever mustered the courage to do it at all. I can only guess at the mental process each of them are going through I guess. Whatever the mechanism though, what wonderful insight!! I also love the very practical point of "medicine isn't magic, and if I'm arrested, the wife would lose her caretaker." What a great episode!

The measure of moral reasoning develops differently for individuals who have a dominant role in society, and those who play a submissive role. Studies have shown that people who live with a sense of power, the part of their brain that functions for empathy, the hippocampus, shrinks. Those who live in the bottom part of society who do not live with a sense of power, the part of their brain that functions for empathy increases. In other words the wealthy and the rest of the population have fundamentally different conceptions of ethics. I would say at least 20% of the population's mentality never leaves 8th grade. Studies have shown there's a linear correlation between an individual's reading level, and their empathy. When do most people stop reading for pleasure? 8th grade, high school? Well... that is going to be where their conception of ethics begins, and for a good part of the population, ends. In other words there is a significant portion of the population with the ethical mindset of a 13 year old. Maybe don't conceive of this as a vagina ideology versus the penis ideology, when the deeper correlation is with the education of the individual. Who has access to this idea conception of care? For the vast majority of the population an ethics of care of the ideal simply does not exist. The top 20% of society doesn't care about the ethics of the bottom 80% of the population. The bottom 20% is still mentally limited to an high school age range. Assuming the population distribution is pyramidal, it's not, a 60% swath through that pyramid would give a rough approximation for who can actually have an ethics of care. Factor in age and it shrinks even more. That means anyone who can have this conversation about an ethics of care represents such a small portion of the population that the effective use of this moral reasoning device is limited or nonexistent. As of viewing this video, 2330 views, 150 upvotes helps to underscore the scarcity of effectiveness of these ideas. The only people who perform this function would be health care professionals. Then remove any part of that population that is jaded, cynical, incompetent, covetous, etc. The whittling down of who actually provides the ideal care situation grows very small. If the portion of the population that effectively uses these ideas is so small, I have to wonder why we are wasting so much time thinking about the ideal state of care that individual who has a mind that can actually comprehend and execute those elite moral parameters, rather than the mental short cuts of how the average person, who hasn't taken an ethics course, actually makes moral decisions. The host seems mostly concerned with the views of that elite portion and has effectively dismissed everything else as inconsequential. Have any sociologists studied how people outside the direct influence of ethics and science actually make their moral decisions? One heuristic we interact with on a daily basis is beauty. We treat beautiful people better. Boom, moral short cut, beautiful equals good. These short cuts behave like biases. Another I think is the "can this entity eat me?" bias against that which is physically larger than oneself. You might scoff at that one, but I ask why are giants always the bad guys in fantasy writing? One heuristic that vertebrates respond to is the baring of teeth to signal aggression. Why waste breath with shouting at people in traffic when baring your teeth connects with their Id in a much more effective manner? I think one bias a doctor might have would be the, "Does he have insurance?" litmus test of whether a human being is actually a human being. They all are, but that doesn't stop the doctors from putting bouncers at the door to prevent that conversation from ever happening, and thereby relieving themselves of morally violating "do no harm." I could get lost in anecdotal 'evidence' all day long.Maybe this notion of care exists, but in such a stunted form that it effectively doesn't actually exist. Thank you for reading my blather. (After looking at what I wrote, apparently I have a five paragraph argument bias conditioned by education. This is how I waste my life. /facepalm)

i came here completely biased against subject, but by this here at 28:46 it broke me completely. All i do is care, and that is detriment to the miserable thing i call life. i care for my parents, and yet, i'm so unqualified to care for them. My brother is much more suited for this job, but all i do is worry about them, ask them questions, lecture them on their own safety (health, scams, whatnot). i can do nothing else, i'm not good at anything else. i will leave this podcast with a changed viewpoint and quite interested in Ethics of care. Thank you.

Listening to you on a summer evenig in a garden right outside of Paris. Could I ask for more? 😁

Thank you, this is so appreciated and lovely to hear on a warm summer night on Lake Constance. Perhaps the trolley thought experiment is hard to pin down, because it can be altered in a hundred ways, but it can never be pure. The experiment could never be real, because of the human element. Humans can take in massive amounts of information in a split second, and all of those would have to be included in the question. They say either it's an old man or children, fat man and 3 skinny men, etc. The question has to include many situations, plus the mood we are in, our pain level, if our mother forgot our birthday, if we ate or slept the night before, here there are billions of scenarios that can't be included. There was a movie where Tom Hank's character and his co-pilot were on trial for crash landing. Every expert ran simulations and said all of them could have landed. Other pilots over and over, land the plane. The difference was, all of them knew what was going to happen beforehand to the second and immediately knew the goal. However, in the real situation, they had to first establish what the problem really was, and agree on the best course, talk with ground control...the circumstances would have to be exact, down to your birth sign and relative humidity, to even be able to answer the question. This is why I love philosophy, because it helps us see, the possibilities are truly endless. Good night everyone, I am glad you are all here.

Not just because of how you explain but also your voice is really suit on teaching and making this video. I really appreciate it!!

Was a blast playing with you, can't wait to listen!

Holy cow ... never heard of this experiment. This topic is worth pondering deeply 🤔

This most definitely is challenging me to think out of the box... Thank you very much. It's highly appreciated!

This is a fantastic episode. Really looking forward to this series. Thank you Stephen

this is one of my favourite podcasts and one of my favourite episodes 🙌

Oh my goodness! This episode was amazing.

Amazing ! Thank you !

Very good Mr West loved it. Duty of care. To listen to other peoples concerns! Imagine a world where this would happen ! 🧐 it’s a lot easier to make them reprehensible and have another donut.

Great show 💗

Great essay!

About the trolley problem... If the people are far enough away from the junction one can set the junction half-way making the trolley de-rail, or if that's not possible pull the lever after the first set of wheels have passed, making the trolley de-rail that way. If there are people on board, and the trolley is moving slowly they would have a decent chance at not being injured badly, if the trolley is going very fast one might not be able to successfully pull the lever at the correct time, but if someone pulls it off the people might still have a shot at living compared to the ones on the track. No need to tell me that the trolley problem isn't meant have this as an option when answering.

This topic is important.

Just Wow!!

Humans have a bias because humans have an ego. Ideally we should be practicing habits that reduce our ego which in return will reduce our need to be right or "on the right side of things" and be more willing to change as we gain more information about a subject.

Heading echoes of Derrick Bell here! This better not turn into CRITICAL RACE THEORY! 😄😉 Loving this!

23:46 that’s why the idea of a “self-made man” is ridiculous. Thanks for that podcast! 🙏

I love you.

10:40 They were socialized that way because that’s what their mothers are biologically built for.

14:08 So far ethics of care sounds like ethics of Convenience If someone gives you a hypothetical and says “ you can’t afford the Medicine” and the response is “make more money”, god that sounds convenient. It comes off as the due diligence to come to peaceful mutually beneficial terms before making concrete decisions where justice comes in. Or not justice.l

Finally getting caught up on your episodes. Thank you for doing episodes about women. It’s so refreshing. But seriously, this is the bridge to a conversation about patriarchy and white supremacy. Woman and people of the global majority have been trying to talk about these connections for years!

Regarding stealing the drugs there are too many "maybe"s. One can construct an argument either way by describing a specific scenario. If Heinz's wife is "really really sick" then 'maybe' he doesn't have time to "borrow the money or find some sort of extra work he can do to make the money".

The next one is about why we exclude the opinions of psychopaths in moral dilemmas.

I’m a big fan of your podcast, so apologies for my critique-hopefully, it’s constructive enough that no one will take offense. First, on a factual note, though I understand why you chose the Trolley Problem as the exemplar of rigid moral reasoning and of the latent contrast between ideal and non-ideal philosophy, the thought-experiment was formulated by Phillipa Foot, not Immanuel Kant, as a means to expose the very thing you exhaustively laid out. Second, many, if not most, ethicists of care do not view themselves as opposed to justice as such-it is opposed only to what Hegel called the ‘immediate, undetermined’ conception of justice; their point is that justice ought to either correspond to or incorporate ethics of care. Held herself, in her work on terrorism, argues as much. Third, continental philosophy, at least since Marx, has long implicitly incorporated ethics of care in its analyses of justice. It differs crucially from Anglo-Analytic circles in that, thanks to the work of feminist Marxists in particular, it dialectically collapses the private-public divide: the forcible jettisoning of ethics of care to the private sphere is precisely that which allows for any contingent conception of justice to be falsely/‘concretely’ universalized. Anyway, I still enjoyed the episode. The above is just my attempt to nudge your podcast and mainstream discourse towards a more nuanced understanding of how even ordinary definitions are subject to the ambiguities of the syntax-semantics divide, i.e. the meta-language of philosophy is rarely-some might even posit, never-Godel-complete.

Great video!!! Thanks

4:13 Any reason for the butthurt around saying they develop slower? How often do you see people complain about boys grow up slower than girls?

PS If you're going to be saying s**t like "almost 50 years ago in the 1970's" you're gonna need to put a trigger warning. Some of us are NOT ready to hear that! 😅

21:31

Freud isn't "widely respected"' at all. Quite the contrary...

9:47 No wonder it feels useless asking woman to problem solve lmao

9:17 prob cuz it was kind of a garbage argument But Girl power Yay

increasingly globalized world? really m8?

15:27 Shame, had a old buddy recommend this podcast, but I just can’t get over it. The social justice disdain in the voice that sounds like low key complaining at the use of a word like “ woman’s ethics” is just hilariously silly! You try to have your cake and eat it too. Make a point to analyze the apparently seperate way of viewing ethics woman have, then giving it its own name (ethics of care), then complaining about it being separate? (Woman’s ethics) 15:27 in and all it seems to be is just trying not to hurt feelings. It makes sense for woman to be built like that, but that’s also unacceptable, so they were CONDITIONED to be like that right? The ethics juxtaposition seems to be the philosophy version of dudes getting in fights and a woman standing between them Screaming to stop. Can’t point that out though. It’s just an OPPRESSIVE MALE oppressing some little girls ethics.