Burning Bridges and Scholarly Critique

David and Tamler talk about the perils of trying to step outside of your own perspective in ethics, science, and politics. What do Rawls' "original position" thought experiment, Pascal's Wager, and Moral Foundations Theory have in common? (Hint: it involves baking.) Plus, what movies (and other things) would serve as a litmus test when deciding on a potential life partner? What might liking or not liking a certain film, book, or TV series tell you about a person, and whether or not the relationship would work? And what sexual position is it rational to choose under the veil of ignorance? (It's a night episode...)

• Part 1: Litmus Tests
  • The Bad News Bears (1976) [imdb.com]
  • A Confederacy of Dunces [wikipedia.org]
  • Drive [imdb.com]
    • Every Frame A Painting--Drive: The Quadrant System [youtube.com]
  • Ferris Bueller's Day Off [imdb.com]
  • The Far Side [wikipedia.org]
  • Frank [imdb.com]
  • Hustle and Flow [imdb.com]
  • Jackie Brown [imdb.com]
  • Key and Peele [imdb.com]
  • Miracle of Morgan's Creek [imdb.com]
  • The Office (UK) [imdb.com]
  • Pulp Fiction [imdb.com]
  • Spaghetti Western [wikipedia.org]
    • ADR (Automated Dialogue Replacement/Dubbing) [wikipedia.org]
  • Sullivan's Travels [imdb.com]
  • Spellbound [imdb.com]
  • Slapshot [imdb.com]
  • What We Do in the Shadows [imdb.com]
• Part 2:
  • Williams, B. (1981). Rawls and Pascal's Wager. Moral Luck, 94-100. [verybadwizards.com]
    • Moral Luck [amazon.com affiliate link]
  • Moral Foundations Questionnaire (30-item) [moralfoundations.org]

Support Very Bad Wizards