Episode 105: Wizards With (Reactive) Attitudes

Episode 105: Wizards With (Reactive) Attitudes

Very Bad Wizards

David and Tamler go back to basics--discussing a paper (Victoria McGeer on responsibilty and Strawson) and arguing about restorative justice. What is the function of attitudes like resentment and anger? Do they presume anything metaphysics of agency? Why is Josh Greene trying to erode the moral scaffolding of society? Plus we talk about the latest Aeon troll piece on why sexual desire is wrong. Support Very Bad Wizards Links: Why sexual desire is objectifying – and hence morally wrong | Aeon Ideas Satoshi Kanazawa - Wikipedia Victoria McGeer Co-reactive attitudes and the making of moral community Final MS, forthcoming in In Emotions, Imagination and Moral Reasoning, eds., C. MacKenzie & R. Langdon. Macquarie monographs in Cognitive Science. Psychology Press, 2010. Roskies, A.
0
(-)
Rate this episode:

Episode mentions

People mentions

Reviews

    No reviews yet, be the first!

Transcript

SpeakerA
0m 0s
-
0m 17s

Very Bad Wizards is a podcast with a philosopher, my dad, and psychologist Dave Pizarro, having an informal discussion about issues in science and ethics. Please note that the discussion contains bad words that I'm not allowed to say and knowing my dad, some very inappropriate jokes.

SpeakerB
0m 17s
-
0m 21s

My name's Pitt, and your ass ain't talking your way out of this shit.

SpeakerA
0m 23s
-
1m 8s

The greatest has spoken. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Who are you? Who are you? A very bad man. I'm a very good man. Good man they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have. Pay no attention to that man. Anybody can have a brain. You're a very bad man. I'm a very good man just a very bad wizard.

SpeakerB
1m 9s
-
1m 19s

Welcome to very bad wizards. I'm Tamela Summers from the University of Houston. Dave. You're a Kantian. Don't you know that it's morally wrong for you to sexually objectify me?

SpeakerC
1m 20s
-
1m 28s

That's wishful thinking on so many grounds. I'm doing bizarre from Cornell University. No, when I make love to you, it's really just to your soul.

SpeakerB
1m 29s
-
1m 31s

Honestly, that's what I thought.

SpeakerC
1m 31s
-
1m 35s

But now pure duty. It's out of pure duty. It's the ultimate Kantian love making.

SpeakerB
1m 36s
-
1m 39s

You're using me as a mere means to your perverted ends.

SpeakerC
1m 40s
-
1m 46s

It's only naughty if you're know yeah. No, it can't be hot if you think it's totally okay.

SpeakerB
1m 46s
-
2m 3s

That's right. No Kant has made finally we have someone that makes sex hot. This is why it's so amazing that you're such a big fan of him is he goes after all your babies. Masturbating, sexual desire.

SpeakerC
2m 5s
-
2m 32s

I'm telling you, it's just hotter that way. All these people raised in these hippie, permissive families where it's okay to have sex with whoever you want as long as you respect them. How do you get pleasure out of that when you don't think it's totally wrong and have shame and guilt afterwards? To me, it's like ramping up the pleasure of the sexual encounter to know that you're going to feel like shit.

SpeakerB
2m 32s
-
2m 39s

Afterwards, to know that you'll have violated the second formulation of the categorical imperative. I may need a few minutes, actually.

SpeakerC
2m 39s
-
2m 51s

Now thinking about go do guilty masturbation and tell me how wonderful it is. All right, now that we're back good at it.

SpeakerB
2m 54s
-
3m 24s

Oh, man, I feel so relaxed right now. That was incredible. So we are referring this thing that both allowed us to individually gratify ourselves is the latest in a series of eon that magazine eon philosophy. Like trolling. Clickbait. It's almost like the fake news of philosophy.

SpeakerC
3m 24s
-
3m 26s

Or it's like a boring buzfeed.

SpeakerB
3m 27s
-
3m 57s

Yeah, right. Buzfeed. I don't even totally believe that they're written by different people because they all have the same structure. You take something natural, you take something totally unobjectionable in every way. One about having children, like having your own children rather than randomly distributing children. And then there is another one about democracy being bad, another one about this right sexual objectification. So this one says that what's the title of it?

SpeakerC
3m 58s
-
4m 11s

Why sexual desire is objectifying. And hence, Morley Rob. And then the COVID art is still of a nude model from the 18 hundreds.

SpeakerB
4m 11s
-
4m 27s

Yeah. In fact, we posted this on Facebook, and yeah, you sometimes think of these models from that period in history, 1839, as maybe, like, not quite meeting our to the standard.

SpeakerC
4m 27s
-
4m 28s

Not to the cosmo standard.

SpeakerB
4m 28s
-
4m 31s

Yeah, but I don't know.

SpeakerC
4m 31s
-
4m 37s

She looks fine. The intent was totally to arouse and then make us feel really crappy for.

SpeakerB
4m 37s
-
4m 53s

Getting I so I felt crappy reading it for not for the reasons right. I posted Facebook, I tweeted it, making fun of it. But it's like, that's what they want. Like, any of these we're playing into their hands.

SpeakerC
4m 53s
-
5m 5s

We're doing exactly what they want. But here's the thing, okay? I don't know if this author knows that he's doing this for eon's trolling purposes.

SpeakerB
5m 5s
-
5m 12s

Are you positive that this is a separate author from the other people that have been writing it? You don't think they just use different names?

SpeakerC
5m 12s
-
5m 54s

I mean, if they did, they went out of their way to actually create a whole web history of did you look guy up? I totally looked him up. And so his name is Raja Hawani, and he actually got his PhD in philosophy from Syracuse University, and he's, like, into the philosophy of sex and love, but in the most unsexy of ways that you can imagine. He's the author of Philosophy of Love, Sex, and Marriage 2010 Can you imagine reading his whole book? But anyway, let's talk about how you played right into their hands and tweeted it and Facebooked it, and now we're talking about it.

SpeakerA
5m 54s
-
5m 54s

Yeah.

SpeakerB
5m 54s
-
6m 3s

And I almost got annoyed. Like, people responded angrily towards it, and I'm like, no, but what did.

SpeakerC
6m 6s
-
6m 6s

I.

SpeakerB
6m 7s
-
6m 10s

If I didn't want that, why would I post links to it?

SpeakerC
6m 11s
-
6m 43s

Exactly. Yeah. So I guess we should just summarize the actual argument. But it's ridiculous because you're the kind yeah. The argument is that it is intrinsically. Like, it is just true of sexual desire that it requires objectification. Like, that's part one of the syllogism. Objectification. Like treating someone as an object is morally wrong, which is therefore sex is morally wrong.

SpeakerB
6m 43s
-
7m 44s

Yeah, because you're violating the second formulation of the categorical imperative, which prohibits using somebody as a mere means. But also, he's saying that sex doesn't just make you objectify your partner, it makes you objectify yourself. Because when I am in the grip of sexual desire so hold that image I also allow another person to reduce me to my body, to use me as a tool. Kant saw this process of self objectification as an equally, if not more serious moral problem than objectification directed outward. I have duties to others to promote their happiness by letting him being used as a sexual tool. But I also have a duty to morally perfect myself, allowing myself to be objectified opposes this precept, according to yeah, according to Khan.

SpeakerC
7m 44s
-
7m 58s

And this gets him out of the potential retort that if somebody is desiring of you to make them into an object, then they wouldn't be like, no, no, because there they are, actually harming.

SpeakerB
7m 58s
-
8m 3s

Themselves and allowing you to harm yourself.

SpeakerC
8m 6s
-
8m 11s

Now that I'm reading this, when I'm in the grip, use me as a tool, it all just sounds like veiled reference.

SpeakerB
8m 11s
-
8m 33s

Yeah. I don't believe this is real. Listen to this. And with no desire, there is no objectification. Not even love can fix it. When the desire is high, when the sexual act is in full swing, my beloved is a piece of flesh. Though love does lead to occasional cuddling, which is nice. I just don't believe that he wrote that.

SpeakerC
8m 35s
-
8m 46s

You wonder about sort of the learning history, like the contingencies in his environment of reward and punishment that led to the writing of that paragraph.

SpeakerB
8m 47s
-
9m 44s

I just think that this is not like an algorithm that writes these, but they all have the same sort of structure, too. It's like you put this ludicrous argument and then you consider an objection, which is the farthest thing from the objection that any sensible person exactly. But really, what's the big deal? That's the objection. Like, you just put forth this completely ludicrous argument and your objection is, okay, you've convinced me that it's wrong, but really, come on, what's the big deal? No, that's not the objection. Worse things have happened and will happen. That's the objection to this ridiculous argument. Every single article has that structure of they consider some objection that concedes the main force of their argument, but pushes back on the magnitude of the conclusion, or something like no, no, you're right.

SpeakerC
9m 44s
-
10m 0s

It follows the structure of argument and imagined audience raising it's. In some sense, good writing should be like it's a parody of good writing. It's like you might think to yourself, surely David Pizarro is wrong because

To see the rest of the transcript, you must sign in