The Ugly Decline Of Morality In The Digital Age - Alex O’Connor (4K) 

Hello you beauties. Access all episodes 10 hours earlier than RU-vid by Subscribing on Spotify - spoti.fi/2LSimPn or Apple Podcasts - apple.co/2MNqIgw. Here’s the timestamps: 00:00 Intro 00:18 The Peter Hitchens Incident 08:11 Alex’s Experience Debating Ben Shapiro 17:00 Has Philosophy Revealed Anything Impactful Recently? 29:40 What Everyone Needs to Know About Ethics 38:07 Making Nihilism Great Again 47:38 Why People Hate Talking About Free Will 54:34 The Sexy Paradox 1:07:49 The Fine-Tuned Universe Argument 1:12:36 Was Jesus’ Resurrection Historically Accurate? 1:20:07 Why Philosophers Go Mad 1:26:50 Is Society Experiencing Mass Cope? 1:38:00 What’s Next for Alex?

Thanks for having me again, Chris!

40:20 Chris’s request for clarification is simply, “Be more accessible”. Brilliant. I’m stealing that one.

I’m 75 years old . My dad died when I was 5.Been the weird kid …and adult ,that wanted to talk about death..but no one else does…. til now in your generation.Finally…my people have showed up!

I'm probably the one-billionth person to say this on the internet, but we need more conversations like this. One fundamental issue, it seems, is that people just don't know what they don't know. This was fantastic, Chris. Alex is an intellectual treasure. Thanks for sharing!

The Freud joke Alex pulled off at 54:29 and the response from Chris was awesome - you can tell these guys are friends.

Big fan of Alex. First saw him in a number of debates with Capturing Christianity. Myself a Christian and him being Atheist/Agnostic, I see him as a great ally for genuine discourse.

1:36:50 "I think we might need to actually start acting in accordance with what's true" said as a warning is such a perfect absurdist quote, I love it

I've been following Alex for a while but hadn't seen Chris before. This was a fun interview; I enjoy the way Chris "humanizes" Alex by way of friendly banter.

Before the interview with Alex, Peter Hitchens had just spent a week in prison as an inmate as part of a documentary. During that stretch he had heated arguments about the drug issue with prisoners. Having spent a bit of time behind bars I can tel that the first few days are a fucking nightmare. He probably didn't know it himself but wasn't in the mental state to be having a debate. Especially on that topic.

"Be more accessible" Thanks for being a great host and helping the guest to flesh out their ideas.

I think it's very poignant how Alex describes "playing" with philosophical ideas in the context of entertaining them without becoming convinced by them. I play a lot of tabletop roleplaying games, and something which I have always done is consider the philosophy of every character I play or depict in the way they would see it, steelmanning it to be an honest version of how that character may see the world, even if it is very different from my worldview. So in my case these sorts of philosophical speculations are often very literally part of playing a game.

God, can you guys do this like, twice a month. I love hearing rational people deliberate and learn from one another. I feel like this is the conversation I’m always craving and never hearing, much less having.

O’connor is also one of my favorite people to watch debate. He has good arguments, he articulates them very well, but he’s also very respectful and actually listens to the other side. When i was younger, i used to enjoy ben’s style of debate. But as i get older, i realized that style doesn’t actually accomplish anything. It’s loud and fast, and that can be really entertaining, but it doesn’t actually help. The more relaxed and engaged debate is the constructive type of debate, where both sides actually think and learn, and don’t just try to be faster and louder than the other one.

The best of the best. Intelligence, generosity, friendship, humor, insight, generosity. It doesn't get better than this.

This was one of my favourite episodes. Hope to see Alex come on again, and eager to see him elsewhere.

If Mr. O’Connor is interested in understanding why his interview with Mr. Hitchens went wrong, I’d like to share a few of my impressions, both after watching this podcast and the one in question: I have to admit after watching the interview between Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Hitchens, I feel for both sides. Peter Hitchens clearly didn’t come prepared to debate the topics at hand. Being interviewed is not the same thing as being debated, at least traditionally. Certainly, there are scenarios where an interviewer will ask tough questions but a good interviewer guides and directs conversation, they are not there to debate their guests but to lead a discussion. Mr. O’Connor is an incredible debater, a professional, and in many ways, an unparalleled one. But very few interviewees are. It takes time for most people, even those who have been in politics as long as Mr. Hitchens has been, to ponder and formulate their thoughts. Many writers, especially, find it easier to write their thoughts than to speak them. It would have been wise for Mr. Hitchens to research Mr. O’Connor’s podcasting style and professional history prior to accepting the invitation. But, it would have also been courteous of Mr. O’Connor to give Mr. Hitchens a heads up on his interview style. Certainly, Mr. Hitchens did not handle the situation well. But Mr. O’Connor has some things to learn as well. Rebuttals and questions are not the same thing. An interview is not the same thing as a debate. Most interviewees, if they knew they were going to be debating rather than discussing would turn Mr. O’Connor’s invitation down, not because their arguments aren’t valid but because they aren’t skilled in debate. If you’ve ever engaged in a debate, you’ll know what I’m talking about here. It is a very intense and highly practiced skill that most people are not versed in. You can see the point at which Mr. Hitchens’ demeanor turns, it is clearly when Mr. O’Connor’s speed of questioning increases and when his questions changed from more discussional to a simplified barrage of suggestion. Rather than reframing or finding a more patient and conversational approach when Mr. Hitchens starts to repeat himself, Mr. O’Connor turns to his debating background, realizing there is a seemingly weak point in Mr. H’s argument and using that weakness to exploit him. Mr. O values fleshing out weaknesses in arguments. It’s his career. But, again, an interview is not typically thought of as a debate. Mr. H did not go in to the interview expecting this. In between Mr. H’s incoherence, he was making some valid points that Mr. O should have recognized and respected as Mr. H was his guest, not his opponent. Unless a guest is made aware of the fact that they need to come prepared with notes in order to seriously argue certain points, it is, in my mind, bordering on rude to treat a friendly discussion as an argument that needs defending. It would be wise for Mr. O’Connor to give his future guests a heads up in his style before engaging them in this way. I found his point valid, but I also could see validity in Mr. H’s points as well. Walking out and becoming unfriendly was unprofessional of Mr. H, but his being triggered by the approach Mr. O took was not completely unwarranted. Just some thoughts. 🌿

I started following both these guys during the pandemic a few years ago.....to see them come together like this in a crossover is like watching your fave avengers battle thanos.

Delightful, I am so pleased to see Alex getting his flowers and having this conversation with Chris! Hopefully he becomes a regular!

DUDE. Chris just hit the nail on the head when he said this guy is gonna be a superstar. I have never seen him before and I was thinking the same damn thing. This is going to be so much fun to follow.

This was an absolutely brilliant interview! Your chemistry with Mr. O’Conner is outstanding and the conversation was very engaging. Great work both of you! 🎉

Loved that “be more… accessible” question/follow up. 40:28 Alex’s answers the question succinctly. Knowing he will need to explain. And you give him just that opportunity. Haha

I never viewed a podcast fully, but you guys made me sit and watch this fully, You guys are really amazing and best role models for how to have a mature and healthy conversations 🎉❤, kudos to chris and alex ❤😚

Love the work that both of you do. The honest search for interesting ideas is something that enriches everyone. Keep up the good fight. 🙂

Getting my head out of scientific literature to listen to some of these discussions is relaxing for me. I appreciate the intentional discussions and MOST appreciate a channel where the host attempts to clarify Scientific Fact, Social truths, Opinions etc and then buried 20ft below the totem pole of evidence is "bro-science" which is magnitudes better than "Influencer Opinions" / "Celebrity Opinion".

I absolutely adore alex. Thanks for making content with him! Hearing him talk is always insightful

Just started this, and these two sound like me and my friends when we get together. We dig into each other every second. I love seeing the genuine comradery.

O'Connor definitly one of my favorite modern philosophers

Glad Alex is back.

The fine tuning section is interesting because Alex says that the arguments don't move him, and then gives a better summary of the strengths of the fine tuning arguments than most advocates of the idea can offer.

First I stumble across Stephen Woodford making WoW references in his video today, and then I get this wonderful conversation from Alex with someone who has at least a toe dipped into the fitness side of things, which I would have never expected. Today is hitting all of my hobby checkmarks.

This was amazing. Thank you gentlemen. I look forward to the day I sit across the table from you!

First time listening to an interview with Chris, love how he is such a sport about stuff and words he doesn't know.

Do less harm is an ideal standard for modern morality. Individual greed prioritised over the wellbeing and happiness of others is the number one symptom of this sick society.

The conversation around death denialism was fun but it’s deeper than the depths you guys reach. Universally I’d say most of our species has feared death despite our long march of progress. The fear of death still has a reason behind it which is fear of having our life’s work be pointless and beyond that fear of the unknown. The main thing we love about life is our convictions and beliefs which we hold quite dearly even in a era where less people would admit it. We look to be part of something greater through our convictions such as religion, law, etc something that last beyond death that gives us some validation we lived our lives for a reason. Why we fear death is beyond fear of the unknown it’s the fear of the answer of whether we were correct or not and whether we made any impact.

As much as I think that Alex is a great mind and incredibly well educated, he still has to learn to admit when he knows not enough about science and maths to really meaningfully comment on it. There was this one point in the conversation where Chris called him out for "just using space words", and there were other points in the conversation like this. Eg when he talked about the foundations of maths (non-Euclidean geometry) this was barely comprehensible. Of course, in the long term I would love to see Alex read up on this stuff instead of being silent about it. But I also know that there is only so much time in ones life. When I read math/physics, Alex read theology/philosophy, and one cannot read everything. This is why it is so important to know ones own limits for commenting on stuff.

I don’t understand why one would craft their whole identity into one of nihilism. He wants more nihilistic gym instructors. There are many of those, the body positivity movement is literally just that, overweight peoole telling themselves they’re healthy and able to eat what they want. He gave the scenario, “If someone walks into a gym, white bread or wheat, ask them how much value they place on life” That’s stupid because the fact that someone is asking that question means they do place some sort of value on their life, hence it’s no longer philosophy but realism, which means, “I have placed value on my ‘death denying instincts’ and I want to do something practical about it”. People like this are rarely trying to do good in society, they just attempt to find intellectual ways to tell everyone life is meaningless without providing any real solutions to the supposed “Lack of meaning”.

I was living in Denver, in 1991/1992, when hundreds of people claimed to have had a Marian appirition at the Mother Cabrini shrine in the foothills outside of Denver. There were pilgrims from all over the country, some claiming to have seen Mary and other thinking they had seen Mary, while others knew someone who had seen Mary I have witnessed a mass hallucination. I have also witnessed people willing to die for an unfalsifiable concept. So, the argument from the resurrection and the "willing to die for... " argument have always seemed very weak to me.

What a great conversation. Glad to see Alex on the interviewee side instead of being the interviewer or a debater.

Its cute how these 2 geniuses know so little about astronomy. Love you guyz

Absolutely loved this conversation - particularly the discussion of religion towards the end.

Alex O'Conner is one of the only atheist I have followed that is honestly looking for the truth. He never is buried in his beliefs and has the humility to admit when he's wrong. I have huge respect for the guy one of the smartest people I've ever listen to.

We have in fact, two kinds of morality, side by side: one which we preach, but do not practice, and another which we practice, but seldom preach.

Alex is brilliant at steel manning arguments. And that’s what makes conversation interesting.

I love all the little joke jabs at hating Alex and the reverse too, very funny and you can tell you guys both are genuine friends, very great!

This is such a sweet spot of interesting conversation, keep doing this guys!

What a great conversation, lots of respect, lots of chemistry and good topics. Thank you!!

I very much enjoyed listening to this conversation. Thank you both.

A superb discussion with Alex. I wholeheartedly subscribe to his position on almost everything, including free will. I wish more humans were more receptive to these types of discussions in the real world.

37:20 where Alex talks about needing more nihilist health influencers really struck with me. I think a great place for that are the Barbell medicine podcasts where the doctors there really having been trying to put some nail in the coffin for alot of attempts at hyper optmising diet, exercise movements (think injury risk reduction) and so on. The nihistic aspect there is to say that most of the fad stuff is really low return on effort and most of the battle is already won if you are generally exercising regularly (over many years) and are a healthy bodyweight + eat a generally balanced diet.

I love the relationship between you two! Such a fun listen.

Very interesting conversation. It's very enjoyable to watch to friends have a deep discussion but still have some good hearted humor to lighten up the mood.

About the Anthropic dice killer paradox there is a conversation on reddit risen after the podcast. And basically some people to which I agree says is a misconception of conditional probability not a paradox

I’m a Christian who has struggled with a lot of questions for many years. I even used to consider myself an atheist. Eventually I’ve reached the conclusion that I actually do believe it despite my confusion about certain aspects of it because I am open to the possibility that I will never be able to comprehend the truth about some of my doubts. I am also aware that I could be wrong, but on a personal level that is irrelevant to me.

What is uplifting about this interview is how well Alex sounds and looks. Was worried there for awhile.

Some people can’t bare to think about us not having free will because someone once hurt them very badly and they’re incredibly angry at that person. The thought that that person didn’t have free will isn’t something they want to accept.

One of the best podcasts I've seen in some time. Alex serves as an ambassador of accessible philosophy for the masses (that includes me, a layman) and has refreshingly personalised takes that mean he isn't living in the shadow of new atheism. He's already my favourite person on the podcast and debate circuit, and I can't wait to see how his thinking develops in future. Re free will, for me the proof that you would always have made one specific choice is the fact that you did make that choice. You have to ask the question, "why did you make that choice?" and there is always a reason. Even if you flipped a coin to decide, you still chose to flip the coin and then act according to it rather than ignore it. The argument against no free will is essentially proposing total randomness where no decision is informed by anything. It seems paradoxical but no free will is actually the empowering world view. There are reasons you make the decisions you do, it isn't just random chaos. Re group hallucinations, trips induced by ergot wine seems perfectly legitimate to me, if one person thinks they hallucinate Jesus and then tells others and influences their trip. I think it's a very plausible explanation.

Kids aren't smoking anymore because they're all vaping. My thirteen year old niece says she doesn't know anyone in her school who doesn't vape, and that the girls all carry them into school hidden in their bras.

Love this conversation! Listened twice. Great topics. Great tone. I'm a fan of both you guys!

Great episode. As a math nerd I have to comment on the dice rolling game paradox. It is actually more of a math trick than a paradox. Typically you would need 6 throws to get a 6 (could be more or less, but over an infinite amount of throws you should get 1/6 of sixes). Now, what Alex is not taking into account, is the amount of “players” that didn’t get to play. If the game ends in round 5, you have 15 people that lived, 16 people than died, and 32 people who didn’t get to play and statistically speaking wouldn’t get a six. It’s easier to understand if you think this person kidnapped all the 63 players at once, but takes them to another room in rounds. The people who didn’t get to play are still alive. Play the game and infinite number of times and you will indeed get to 1/6

1:31:30 Alex wonders what can he do if he can't bring himself to have faith; please carry on being a good-faith adversary. That is so valuable to do and you are a master at it.

26:24 When I was a math major 20 years ago, there was a lot of talk of non-Euclidean geometry even back then. I hear “science changes” a lot as an argument to discredit science; the problem is that new models don’t necessarily negate the old ones. Non-Euclidean geometry may be more useful in certain situations, but that doesn’t discredit Euclidean geometry.

You are great together, I’d love to see another episode soon ❤❤

Concerning the point about art and religion that was posed to Alex: I was actually recently reminded of this phenomenon while reading On Fairy Stories (by J.R.R. Tolkien) which was one of his numerous essays, but it’s actually one of his most philosophical ones. In particular, the concluding pages are in essence a grand stance for the link between the act of creation and being, not just religious, but Christian in particular. And that being able to enter into a sub-creation is akin to having the ability to believe in and trust in the existence of God. For me, it was a bit heavy-handed as the, “So, about GOD” kinda just comes out of nowhere and forms the entire epilogue. And no, I don’t agree with the notion that the ability to suspend disbelief is mutually exclusive with being Christian. But religious people do inherently seem to have a greater association with creation as being something divine.

1:32:45 "Would you press a button that gives you $1,000,000 but a random person dies?" I think the idea that over half of people saying yes is a sign of any kind of moral decline assumes that there was ever a point in history when the majority of people *wouldn't* press that button. I think part of the issue with these scenarios is that people see this and think, "That's horrifying, but at least there aren't buttons that you can press to instantly get $1,000,000" and don't extrapolate that out further. People die when buildings get constructed, people die due to semi-truck accidents, people die due to car malfunctions. At some point along the way someone decided, "this much risk is worth this many dollars" and as a direct result people have died People having the power over life and death and using it to make money isn't anything new

Realizing emotion is often being behind ethical conduct has just "something" pulled me. It's layer below the surface but a fire insight

Been watching Alex since he started his You Tube as a teenager. He was clearly showing he was very talented and had a future in speaking and thinking critically back then and has only hyperdrived his skill since Univesity and progressed his value to the 'podcast circuit'. I await his first best seller *which is inevitiable and encourage.

Great conversation Alex is the best 👏🏻

The crucial point on the dice example is that the trials are independent. It' not a multiplicative probability problem, as the speaker seems to believe.

Alex has one of the sharpest minds going around. Love listening to him.

Great conversation. Love to you both.

I disagree with Alex on just about everything but I always appreciate his charitable demeanor. It goes a long way

God I love Alex and the way he articulates his thoughts, amazing guest

Hitchens didn't "throw the pillow at the microphone". He picked it up and set it down. It looked like he may have thought about it, but he didn't throw the pillow at anything or anyone.

Epic....this show rekindles my thirst for intellectual debates I used to watch with C. Hitchens! Thank you

Always an interesting listen. Thanks for the content.

The Problem with Expressivism is that moral statements neatly fit into loads of contexts in which propositions fit. We can think things like "I wonder if murder is wrong?" and it's a question that sounds coherent. We can understand what it means. If moral statements aren't truth apt, then we'd actually be thinking something like "I wonder if boo murder?" which is unintelligible. Another example, we can use moral statements in propositional logic. We can use conditionals like "If murder is wrong, it's wrong to murder Dave", and again, it makes sense. However, conditionals ("if" statements) only make sense when using propositions. "If boo murder, boo murdering Dave" is incoherent. Expressivism just doesn't seem like a correct account of language. It definitely seems more like we're attributing the property of wrongness onto murder rather than expressing an emotional reaction.

The philosophy book "Freedom from reality" argues that the notion of freedom as Alex explains it: "Authorship over your actions" completely independant of any context or relationships, is absolutely absurd. It is as the titles sais: seperate from reality itself. Relationships seem to be very base of reality, context is everything. Just listen to Ian McGilchrist of John Vervaeke to better understand that notion. The better notion of freedom is one where you are free to do what is Good, without being hindered by either the tirany of your own hedonic desires (e.g., addicts are the least free people), or from other people (The state forbidding you with tyranic laws). And of course you cannot decide for yourself what is Good or not, that would make you god. That's why god is seen as the concept or essence of Good itself.

I love the talk about how much harder and more important it is to build than to tear stuff down.

Great conversation! Regarding the anthropic killer paradox, it seems to arise from two reasonable definitions one might adopt for the probability of dying if you are a victim of the killer: 1. Given a game of length N, what is the probability you wake up on the last round? This clearly depends on the exponentially growing population, giving the paradoxical result. 2. Given you wake up on round N, what is the probability that the game ends this round? This, I'm pretty sure does not depend on the population size of round N or other rounds. Instead a fraction P of hypothetical games that reach round N end there, and (1-P) continue, where P is the chance for the killer to kill his victims. I favour the second option for the particular wording of the question: 'you wake up knowing you are a victim on an unspecified round'. Option one favours a different scenario: 'if you are a victim tomorrow, what is the probability you will survive?'

Alex’s points on Christianity strangely strengthens my faith. Bless you sir! “Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again.”

Great podcast. Already have listened to it on spotify. Alex O' Connor brings up a lot of interesting thoughts, which give me a lot to think about during the day.

I do not think ethical statements are emotionally based as much as they are aesthetically based. Murder is wrong is more like saying "murder is ugly to me," than ""I am sad/afraid/angry about murder." It seems to me that aesthetics make a much larger in our beliefs and assumptions than we like to think.

Regarding free will, one reason many people are uninterested in that debate is that regardless of whether or not we have free will, we live, and take comfort in believing, that we do. How does knowledge that we do not have free will improve our lives? Honest question.

I've been subscribed to this man for 3 years now. The first time I bothered checking his sub count this year, I was sent into shock. This man will go far if he continues to find passion in public speaking.

When it comes to death, I have said for years that people have a tough time comprehending what exactly death is. For example, there is the notion of "saying goodbye" to a loved one on their death bed moments before they pass away. There is no time that is more pointless to say goodbye to the person then when that person is moments from death.

I don't believe you can have such conversations of life and death, death denialism, without acknowledging disease. Your points can be valid, of course, but personally I am focused on health and fitness because I don't want the latter decades of my life to be riddled with chronic disease or incapabilities which limit me from being a life maximalist. I reconciled with death years ago, it plays no factor in my sense of purpose or motivations. I don't think it needs to.

Was watching this at half past three when Alex explained the case with the Capitol clock... freaky! Great podcast!

Quite possibly, but in a society that prioritises and requires increasing financial gain and monetisation, it was inevitable. The foundations that once stabilised and regulated people have been replaced with artificial aberrations. The truth is our best bet at an improved and prosperous future for all. Much love, Chris x

Morality and Empathy is something I know for sure is dying out.

Great conversation gents ❤ thank you x

I listened to this podcast yesterday. Today I put on a watch that i wear maybe once/month and was going to set the time because it had stopped(batteryless watch that I need to wind up. I look at the time on my phone, it showed 9:21, then looked at the watch, lo and behold, my watch had stopped at 9:21 after the previous wind-up. My mind was so blown for the following minute I almost entered another dimension. What are the odds?

"Are people becoming less moral?" (Gee...What was your first clue?) When there is no universally accepted moral standard, no immutable truth (i.e. postmodernism), how can one answer that question?

The paradox as described isn't really a paradox at all. A fair die has a 1/6 chance of landing on any one number, including 6. This is independent of the number of people being included in each individual trial and while I will grant that you have an increased probability of belonging to a group in one of the latter trials, any one group would have the exact same chance of living or dying, which is less than 1/2, so if you want to be selfish you should let the die roll. Now, if you want to be utilitarian, then the geometric probability distribution, has an expectation of 1/p. This would tell us the expected number of trials until the first roll of 6 is 6 as 1/(1/6) is 6. If the number of people included in each trial doubles starting with 1 person in trial one, then by trial six we would have 32 people. This means that on average, 32 people would die. It is trivial to assume then, that a button that allows you to increase the probability of any one individual trial (yours) to 1/2, regardless of which trial it is, would reduce the total expectation of any resulting distribution, this means that less than 6 trials would be needed on average to roll a 6 and thus, less than 32 people would die. So a utilitarian should press the button.

40:12 "Be more accessible" I love this, I wish people would ask their guests to do this more often.

I have seen O'Connor arguing that there is no such thing as morality.

16:25 - totally agree. Alex will reach great heights

To Alex’s point about ‘what would it look like to live as if there were no free will’ - this line of reasoning is exactly why I subscribe to Sam Harris’s notion that I genuinely do not feel as if I have free will. When you really pay attention to what underlays your actions, you’ll notice that you are the audience disguised as the symphony.

Knowledge is past experiences that help us guide our future expectations. This distinction is VERY important. Knowledge itself does NOT relate to the future, it relates to our confirmed experiences that then help form our expectations of the future. So when you talk about seeing an event where your mind fills the blanks of the unknown by using your experience that is based on knowledge (of the past), that expectation of the future does not become knowledge until you make a confirming observation. I don't know why Alex went through so many odd hoops to discuss this topic when it's pretty simple. You Chris actually hit the nail right on the head, but then Alex picked it up and just ran with it to some place that turned it into a convoluted mess. Knowledge is not truth, because knowledge is not static. Knowledge can be influenced by new data, new observations. What we know can be right, even if the expectations it helps us base are sometimes wrong. That doesn't make the knowledge wrong, it makes our application of the knowledge wrong. Big difference, yet very simple difference. I think this is where philosophy and debates have some of their pitfalls, where you can easily be lured into overanalyzing and distancing yourself from the original soul of the topic being raised. It ends up being talking for the sake of talking, which dilutes the original discussion.

Thank you for this discussion. I began a rabbit hole perusal on the inconsistencies brought about by a strict reliance on JTB, finally agreeing with the premise that a fourth criterion is necessary for the initial JTB to be unassailable, that being that there does not exist the possibility of a quantity that would falsify the belief, if the person knew about it. Also clunky, but it is why learned people are so reticent to be sure of anything in a setting where it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong and spend enormous amounts of time attempting to be sure when it does matter.