Majesty of Reason Philosophy Podcast

Today I discuss Trent Horn's (@TheCounselofTrent) responses to Alex O'Connor's (@CosmicSkeptic) and Drew McCoy's (@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic) criticisms of the argument from change. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Here I discuss a new companions in guilt argument against causal finitism. What do you make of it? Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

I’m joined by philosophers Josh Rasmussen and Eric Reitan to discuss universalism and eternal hell. Buckle up for one hell of a discussion! Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

I'm joined by Dr. Dustin Crummett and Trent Horn to discuss the ethics of abortion. And... enjoy the bonus soccer while you're here :) Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep... RESOURCES (1) Dustin's PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/dusti... (2) Some of Dustin's papers on abortion: (a) https://philpapers.org/rec/CRUVDA and (b) https://philpapers.org/rec/CRUMDN (3) Dustin's YouTube channel (@Dustin Crummett): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWPF... (4) The physicalist view of personal identity that Dustin defended in the discussion is based on chapter 1 of Jeff McMahan's "The Ethics of Killing". Dustin doesn't actually hold the view because he's a mereological nihilist, which he defends here [ https://capturingchristianity.com/two... ] and which Kane B describes here [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07PZ1... ]. (5) Trent's YouTube channel (@The Counsel of Trent): https://www.youtube.com/c/TheCounselo... (6) Many of Trent's articles on aborti

"Without God, all things are permitted." Wrong. Here's why. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep... ADDITIONS Here are some additions bolstering my points pertaining to the standard, WLC-style moral argument. First, I didn’t get into many specific theories or accounts as to what grounds the rightness or wrongness (or im/permissibility etc.) of certain actions in a way that doesn’t involve God, but there are boatloads of such accounts. This alone shows that God isn’t needed to ground moral properties like rightness and wrongness. A small sampling: (1) Utility: an act’s moral properties could be grounded facts about utility — i.e., facts about what would/wouldn’t maximize well-being [understood perhaps in terms of pain/pleasure, or desire dis/satisfaction, or flourishing/languishing, etc.] (2) Kantian universalizability: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in facts about universalizability [e.g., whether one could, in performing the act, consistently will that everyone does the act] (3) Kantian ends-in-themselves: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act treats someone as a mere means rather than an end in themself (4) Contractualism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether principles allowing the act would be justifiable to others in a fair decision situation. Put differently (and with a Scanlonian vibe): an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the norms or rules underpinning one’s behavior could reasonably be objected to if they were to be agreed upon from an informed and unbiased vantage point. (5) Virtue ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act is one a virtuous person would do (or in whether it expresses a virtuous/vicious disposition) (6) Care ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act is one a caring person would do (7) Ideal observer: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether an ideally situated observer would approve of the act (8) Railton’s naturalism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in objective facts concerning the maximal fulfillment of idealized desires, which are what individuals would want themselves to desire if they had access to all the relevant information (9) Discourse ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in universalizable presuppositions that underpin discourse between persons (see William Rehg’s work) (10) Pluralism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in a plethora of the aforementioned potential grounds for morality OR in particular facts about actions on a case-by-case basis (e.g., gross power imbalances, infliction of pain without consent or benefits accrued to the victim, etc.) (11) Natural law: an act's moral properties could be grounded in whether it contravenes the ends built into one's nature More generally, as Kevin Scharp rightly note

I'm joined by philosophers Michael Huemer and Don Loeb to discuss whether moral realism is true. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep... RESOURCES (1) Huemer's book, "Ethical Intuitionism": https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Intuit... (2) Huemer's papers: http://www.owl232.net/papers.htm (3) Loeb's papers: https://philpeople.org/profiles/don-loeb (4) My PhilPapers Profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep... (5) My website: https://www.josephschmid.com/

What is religion? What is philosophy of religion? Does God exist? What are some different models of ultimate reality? I discuss these questions and more in this philosophy of religion crash course. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep... Original video from @LS Philosophy: https://youtu.be/1Ajm9SFxMzE LINKS My website: https://www.josephschmid.com My PhilPapers Profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...

Dive into the intriguing world of Hilbert's Hotel and discover why it's time to stop using this paradox. Explore the distinctions between actual and potential infinities and their implications in philosophy and mathematics. The discussion tackles the Kalam cosmological argument, questioning our intuition about infinities. With deeper insights into set theory, the validity of mathematical induction, and the philosophical challenges surrounding infinite causal regressions, this episode offers a thought-provoking critique of familiar notions on infinity.

From the complexity of the biological world to the fine-tuning of the universe, design arguments are among the most powerful arguments for God's existence. In this video, I assess 12 such arguments. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep... NOTES (1) There are several responses to fine-tuning arguments (FTAs) that I didn't mention in the video. The reason is because I simply haven't researched them in enough depth to have a strong view on them. For instance: (a) some philosophers mount the multiverse hypothesis in response to FTAs; (b) some philosophers and scientists question whether there even is fine-tuning; (c) some philosophers and scientists argue that FTAs suffer from the problem of non-normalizable probability measures; and (d) some philosophers and scientists argue that FTAs suffer from the the problem of old evidence. I haven't adequately researched these to have views on them. (My research focus lies more in cosmological and ontological arguments -- sorry!) (2) Philip Goff has recently argued (in Scientific American and Capturing Christianity) that the multiverse objection to the FTA commits the inverse gamblers fallacy. I don't think this is correct for several of the reasons spelled out in philosopher Neil Manson's recent Philosophy Compass article on the multiverse, FTA, and the inverse gambler's fallacy [here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KWsP... ]. James Fodor also discusses Goff's criticism in a recent video [here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQxCZ... ]. More generally, I highly recommend Neil Manson's work criticizing the FTA. You can find his papers at https://philpeople.org/profiles/neil-... (3) I don't think the objection to FTAs appealing simply to the observation selection effect works. This is why I didn't discuss this objection in the video. (4) A perceptive viewer of my original video raised an objection (in personal correspondence) to my/Manson's criticism of FTAs concerning the near-infinitude of ways God could actualize the good of conscious, moral beings without a finely

Is anything fundamental? If so, what is fundamental reality like? Is it necessary? Conscious? Perfect? I'm joined by Paul Draper and Josh Rasmussen to discuss these questions and more. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep... LINKS My website: https://josephschmid.com  My PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/josep...