Redefining 'Ought'

Steve and Alex engage in a thought-provoking discussion about the nature of desires and the ethical implications of actions. They explore the distinction between what is and what ought to be, debating whether understanding the best way to achieve a desire necessarily leads to a moral obligation to pursue it. The conversation challenges conventional notions of ethics and the interplay between preferences and moral judgments.

In this clip
From this podcast
Within Reason
We Agree Now! | Rationality Rules & Cosmic Skeptic | Is Morality Objective?
Related Questions
- So, did you answer my question about whether it's better to be able to do what you don't want to do, or to always get yourself to want to do whatever you should do? Is there even a difference beyond semantics?
- Is it better to be able to do what you don't want to do, or to be able to always get yourself to want to do whatever you should do? Or is there even a difference beyond semantics?

Redefining 'Ought'

In this clip

From this podcast

Within Reason

We Agree Now! | Rationality Rules & Cosmic Skeptic | Is Morality Objective?

Related Questions

So, did you answer my question about whether it's better to be able to do what you don't want to do, or to always get yourself to want to do whatever you should do? Is there even a difference beyond semantics?

Is it better to be able to do what you don't want to do, or to be able to always get yourself to want to do whatever you should do? Or is there even a difference beyond semantics?