
About this episode
Are moral statements objectively true? When we say “stealing for fun is wrong,” are we making a factual claim about the world, or are we just voicing an opinion? Many philosophers, known as moral realists, have attempted to show that “stealing for fun is wrong” is true in exactly the same way that “two plus two equals four” is true. In this episode we examine two different types of moral realism, and take a look at the arguments for and against. Along the way try to figure out why so many philosophers hate their first names and who wins the prize for nicest philosopher ever. We also answer some reader mail about robot torture and give Anne Rice some free ideas for philosopher/vampire plotlines.
Get every episode summarized
Each time You've Got It All Wrong publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from You've Got It All Wrong

Ep 22: Paradoxes Part II - Buford, Beethoven and Brothers
You've Got It All Wrong

Ep 21: Halloween Spooktacular—From Aardvark to Zombies!
You've Got It All Wrong

Ep 20: Listener Mail - Sam Harris and the Ethics of Jabba's Droid Dungeon
You've Got It All Wrong

Ep 19: Ontological Argument for the Existence of God - The Everything Bagel
You've Got It All Wrong