{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"80,000 Hours Podcast","title":"#42 - Amanda Askell on moral empathy, the value of information & the ethics of infinity","html":"","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":9989,"description":"Consider two familiar moments at a family reunion.\r\n\r\nOur host, Uncle Bill, takes pride in his barbecuing skills. But his niece Becky says that she now refuses to eat meat. A groan goes round the table; the family mostly think of this as an annoying picky preference. But if seriously considered as a moral position, as they might if instead Becky were avoiding meat on religious grounds, it would usually receive a very different reaction.\r\n\r\nAn hour later Bill expresses a strong objection to abortion. Again, a groan goes round the table; the family mostly think that he has no business in trying to foist his regressive preference on anyone. But if considered not as a matter of personal taste, but rather as a moral position - that Bill genuinely believes he’s opposing mass-murder - his comment might start a serious conversation.\r\n\r\nAmanda Askell, who recently completed a PhD in philosophy at NYU focused on the ethics of infinity, thinks that we often betray a complete lack of moral empathy. All sides of the political spectrum struggle to get inside the mind of people we disagree with and see issues from their point of view.\r\n\r\nLinks to learn more, summary and full transcript.\r\n\r\nThis often happens because of confusion between preferences and moral positions.\r\n\r\nAssuming good faith on the part of the person you disagree with, and actually engaging with the beliefs they claim to hold, is perhaps the best remedy for our inability to make progress on controversial issues. \r\n\r\nOne potential path for progress surrounds contraception; a lot of people who are anti-abortion are also anti-contraception. But they’ll usually think that abortion is much worse than contraception, so why can’t we compromise and agree to have much more contraception available?\r\n\r\nAccording to Amanda, a charitable explanation for this is that people who are anti-abortion and anti-contraception engage in moral reasoning and advocacy based on what, in their minds, is the best of all possible worlds:...","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/VO1STE7hN95RRg9QdLo4soV2VhhbR9PF5ZZlRhDYcwE/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9zaG93/LzQxNDAyLzE2ODM1/NDQ1NDAtYXJ0d29y/ay5qcGc.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}