In this episode of the Making Sense podcast, Sam Harris and Paul Bloom talk about Donald Trump, torture, trophy hunting, and other terrors.
SUBSCRIBE to listen to the rest of this episode and gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/subscribe.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
What colors make a test podcast
SAM parents, just a note to say that if your hearing this, you are not currently honour subscriber feed only
during partial episode of the podcast. If you'd like access to full episodes, you'll need to subscribe is samharris dot org. There you'll find our private rss feed to add to your favorite podcast you, along with other subscriber, only content
and, as always, I never wanted money to be. The reason why someone can't listen to the podcast. So if you can't afford a subscription
there's an options, aerostat org to request a free account and we grant a hundred percent was not much to do
Speaking with Paul bloom again, we spoke to podcast back he's a cop
just from Yale and a wonderful thinker, this time round again to some
controversial areas. We go to the dark side a little bit. We talk about torture, despite my better judgment,
We talk about cease of a lion. Talk about politics, you'll find
the end that I perform a kind of intervention on myself and Paul to some degree on the top.
Of eating meat
many of you, visions and vegetarians have been after me for quite some time. For a few remarks, I made about
having been elapsed, vegetarian
Now the m, the chickens as it were, have come home to roost. So you'll hear that I call for the best resources out there.
For our part of the vegetarian or vague in healthily, and that a sincere request of you have good information to send me
Please do so through the email contact form on my website and please put vegetarians.
more of in these subject line- and I will keep you apprised of my progress-
and without further preamble, I give you Paul bloom
Pablo my friend the Yale psychologist, who was on the podcast last time, hey pie. Doing
Grace, and you I'm good, I'm good will. You are back largely because I wanted to talk to you again, but people loved our last podcast so am. I would encourage people if they haven't heard you
the first time around to go back and listen to what we said about empathy. But now I think it would be good for
the two of us to strike out on to some novel terror
or a here, and I had the idea that we could look at some
essentially moral case studies, where we talk about store
is in the news that are particularly salient and in moral terms and just essentially free associate on them as something a lot of fun.
That the issues that we could talk about her interesting another themselves, but across the service or test cases to explore, certainly
is that you- and I have maybe flesh out some agreements- has some differences. Also
You know you- and I are in preparation for this conversation- just spat at a few.
Topics around. I think I d we both still dimly recall
the republican presidential debate, the first one with Donald Trump, which happened. I think about ten days ago and one
thing stood out for me there that I just think it
It's amazing that no one picks up on this. I don't think I saw this talked about in any in any journalist context, but it seemed that at least three of the cap
it's their declared. Their opposition to abortion
not only in general.
and not only in the case of rape and incest, but even to save the life of the mother? I'm not like two.
spell out what that actually means, because it's it's a really a mind, boggling position for anyone to have it, especially someone who would seek to run this country
I would guess that'd be Huckabee and Santorum. Who would be the third, the I think it was. It was worth
car crews and Rubio and
Rubio ate it. You didn't spell it out, but he said that his support for abortion, in the case of
Rape and zest and for the life of the mother had been Miss characterized, it's kind of a hand, waving denial of his of his liberal position. There you have a respected as a morally consistent you if you do believe it's murder, then that follows, and you get here
Are these people that, if anything, further their moral consistency in their willingness to to see the implications of their use
yeah I read it is it's a courage of us?
certain kind, no doubt so. But let us look at the details here, because what this means is in a perfect world by their lights, even if a teenage girl were raped by her father and became pregnant, and there were some
reasonable concern that she would not survive the delivery of this child. They would be against abortion, even if we could intervene
immediately even the moment after conception and just remove
a single celled fertile.
I stole them. They would be against it. That is in fact the moral position that this idea that life starts at the moment of conception.
and is equivalent to the sacred. At that point, that's what they're coming
so an end, presumably any doktor hook.
by magic or otherwise extract.
A single cell,
from the uterus of a raped daughter who was likely to die if she carried this foetus to term that they would want that doctor prosecuted as a murderer and presumably kill
if, therefore, the death penalty at the very least put in prison for the rest of his life, that is the totality of this moral position. It is just might
bogglingly, unethical and yet
oh journalist, ever presses these people on it. I think it's because a journalist don't take completely seriously and
I don't know whether they should be taken seriously. I think from some cases like Huckabee presence. This made express sincere and considered viewpoint, but
a lot of these politicians from wanting to know that no such law would ever get pass. You're not gonna revamp will be weighed in the sort of dramatic
I think what it is? It is a signal, look how far unwilling to go. Even if you don't think I'm right, you got it admire me
they are saying for my consistency in my moral strength and
I think the psychology what's going on is very interesting, but I dont think that these are meant to be
really evaluated as moral positions but their only appropriate signals which say, effective ones, useful ones from a political point of view, if some significant percentage of the electorate actually holds these
view. So these are there at best there pandering to the convictions of
a mob who actually would want the laws to change in this way, yes, there there, pandering to the most extreme.
members of the Republican Party in a hurry.
That old and on extreme members were at least respect or not be repelled by their extreme views.
But how can they be confident of that, given what this moral position entails? Again we're talking about someone
raped and who will die if she brings this baby to term, and we can prevent this
catastrophe by removing a single cell or a collection of fifty cells right a microscope.
back organism without any nervous,
and without any capacity to suffer, admitted that this is. This is in fact, what is being proposed and they are content
and that this will not alienate better than fifty percent of the electorate. Perhaps
and understand. Their confidence is derived from either sums assumption that just
no one is following the plot here and no one actually understands the position there are tackled in, or they just think that most people, most of the time, are close enough to this position. That is a safe place.
ten to stake out. I think some combination of the two, I think I'm I'm at another issue- would be trumps. Immigration policies,
which, if you spell them out thereafter sort of unimaginably cruel. You know expelling children and their parents
including parents who are may be. Legal immigrants are children who may be legal immigrants in order.
The sort of established some sort of anti immigrant position, and
think like the abortion thing. If you spell it out to them what people, what the implications are, they would find it repellent,
at the same time I don't they
people are responding or men to respond to that.
Moral content of these views as opposed to it,
state as the signals, I mean
the whole thing about Obama's birth certificate ass. You think, they're that most people who claimed Obama was not american citizen
didn't really believe this. They were the same. Boo Obama
They were saying, I don't like Obama, here's a bad thing. We can say about them and
Think that a Pinta lotteries moral statements are not meant to be thought.
As factual moral claims in some way of giving aid is someone you giving a republican candidates too much credit
I think you're, you're sort of envisioning them is making his thoughtful ethical claims, the remit
evaluated as opposed to making dramatic flourishes without it.
he almost doesn't matter which side of that you take, because the dramatic flourish is only effective or at least not ruinous. Dear your candidacy, if no one is objecting to what is suggested there,
what's it like either you either. You have to be confident that that everyone is sick,
again and reasoning in bad faith,
were enough of everyone for your doing so not to matter or you have to think that millions of people actually agree with the letter of the position your staking out.
I haven't study this waiting to poorly, to suggest that it would have to be option one. I don't think that's it
stream. Pro life view is held by our
portion of Americans.
Most Americans fallen sorted uneasily in the middle and obviously there is a political party difference, but I think the view your sketching at what implications, if you put that too
people, Republicans as well as Democrats. They say. No, we don't want that. This would have put this nicely.
Its analogous to a politician who says
and so is our top priority, and not
is more important. Saving american lives. Nothing is more important, is nothing more important than that, which is
taken literally is absurd. Nobody would wish-
soon, that a single policy should override all other policies, but
These statements meant more sort of speech, acts that that you know highlight once commitment in one's loyalty to the party,
and somewhere. He really the only American is taking a figure. Tat was ever more seriously the one person watching this debate, who is actually doing the math here in more or less billions. Think that's that's morally observed.
actually there, something it in trumps, candidacy and and his whole style
self presentation, which I think supports your interpretation here, which is that the fact that he is as popular as he is given that it's it is almost impossible to take what he says seriously. I got in a kind of history
bad faith, to his his style of self presentation, where even he doesn't
If what you say, nor does he believe that you believe it, and yet he is winning
points for saying that ass loudly as he can say it, people are just simply relieved to have some one speak in
a uncensored way, even if it's actually a kind of bad faith performance? Where he's actually not voicing and honest position, I think that's right, I think give up.
get out that many transfused leaned very left his notably symbol
the single Payer healthcare systems, which
If somebody name some Busher Rubio suggested to be laughed at this stage.
But there is a huge tolerance for transfused, because they're not taken seriously
As views I find I find from fascinating, I find a sentence from just
Extraordinarily interesting and
and we won t ask your opinion on this, because I am genuinely dumbfounded is what explains the
variation. How people respond to trap so for me and for most of my friends, which are which tended to leave it
liberal, we find trump repellent. We find his endless, boasting his brow
Nothing about his money is derision towards his enemies as personal itself, just as awful awful person
but so many other people seem to be attracted to. They seem to think that,
terrific. This is great
Hu, we admire, who you know
Who deserves our respect, and we give him help. They said they say about Trump
What do you think underlines that difference? Won't you
it's hard to even locate myself on that continuum too, because I there
yet where do you live in a continuum like? How do you personally respond to transnational? I think I'm in two places on me.
As it was in some ways, a relief to have him on that stage, because he was just so ungovernable
he stabilizes what is otherwise a a machine perfectly designed to produce non information end.
Have you absolutely no insight into how people would actually govern and because he's destabilizing the Republican Party its? I think it's, if nothing else interesting yet- and I think is
sounds like you do that he's probably not committed not truly committed to anything all that scary, so his actually less scary, then some of the other republican candidates in terms of how they would likely govern also another. He said
chance of becoming president. So I'm not rat worried about him in any deep sense, but he is a
genuinely comic figure, and it is hard to imagine people who
truly like him, not seeing that the fact that any ones taking him say a true
successful and brilliant billionaire. Who has gravitas because of how much he's accomplished. That's very hard for me to to believe, but I am sure most of the people who support him do more
take him. In that sense, I mean for the last twenty years, I've been writing on defence of human rationality, arguing contrary to people like
my friend, John Height, that were actually far more rational, reflective than people give us credit for even people. Even in our political domain, we are capable of rational thought. Ration liberation, I have to say you know,
this the republican debate and from general is proving to be an embarrassment for my theory at I'm. It feel like getting refuted more and more each day,
by watching reactions, the drum and and
I feel in this kind of sad it that some level of all. Let me back up Chomsky as
has, as famously argue, that we believe that the rational thing to do is not to care about is debating the political parties.
Intents all intents and purposes there, the with heart parties of big business and imperialism, and so on.
and I dont believe that, but maybe people aren't taking seriously
there enjoying a spectacle of trumpeter rooting alone and maybe
If you, if you added, if you press them on a day, would say we don't really care how much of a difference. The Republicans Democrats, we're just after the show
I have your same angle,
on reason and the same gripe with height
I must say my on
sperience is of late, not just as a spectator on a political process, but just my collisions with my own critics have caused me to worry that
as I recently just said on twitter that I fear that reason
is actually an acquired taste and not that many people seem to acquire than theirs.
style of argumentation that I'm running into it,
again and again and again in its on twitter, but it's at much greater length was. It was with Chomsky when I attempted to have a conversation with him. Where
there is such a an unwillingness to engage with the details of an argument that you don't want to be true. You know your opponents possess
given that you're not even willing to take the time to understand it, the style. Is you just why
Two demonize the person from
merely broaching a certain topic, and yet this strategy
a villa find someone distorting their position yelling louder and louder and louder until you silence them. That is viewed by many people who support your side of the argument as a truly clever thing to do. That is really at its effective
it's a morally appropriate just call the per other person an asshole or a monster lie
Oddly enough until the conversation is over, and then you ve, you ve won and that's
more and more on finding that that that is where people who imagine that they are highly scruple
an honest and an intellectually serious agents of progress. That's how their behaving gets. Its very depressing images now makes me
pick my battles far more conservatively, because just such a waste of time and energy, to even attempt some of these conversations,
I can understand that a kind of watches, a horrified spectator the summer thinks you're talking about in there
you have my sympathy sectors in some way. I won't defend that soil, but I'll make another.
Asian about at which is that, if way, you're going after is trying to find out the truth
then you don't want that style at all. You want to listen to an open mind you want to let those eyes are there, disputes you want to explore, counterfactuals and so on and so forth
on the other hand, it or something, if there's some
policy you want, and you have a goal.
all in mind and you ve already settled issue to your own mind.
in some cases there may be. What did that may be the most rational strategy to demonize your opponent
regardless of a sort of moral qualities, example and thinking about this debate, sober torture and the entire world.
When people are re, they know I'm sick of Alan Dershowitz, France's Mason, provocative claims about.
The occasional necessity of torture and, under certain circumstances, I follow
him down that rabbit hall, and I get I get it
hate mail still, and I get my own hate mail and its is a totally thankless job. As I said in various places, I actually regret having even talked about the order and written about the topic, because it's just me, I think it's I think it's hugely interesting. Ethically and philosophically it's something you absolutely want to be able to talk about, and it has great consequences and is a matter of public policy, but you are so perfectly.
human eyes even for talking about it, that it's just not worth it and that's it as a feature, not a bug. I mean that's, that's the point that wages that
If you have a certain view that says that torture is repellent, one should never do it.
this monstrous and as an absolute principle, one holes
Then you may choose to demonize people who argue in favour of torture
and at rather than engage with them because you want them, you want to make their views and to make them
those people repellent you wanna what this incentivize fully now view you better put the problem
Is it as a pope to show it
arguments on this topic. At the consequences of that position,
are even more repellent if you actually follow it to the latter days. It is somewhat analogous to this abortion example. Riotous raises yours. If you actually look at the details,
of what it would mean to never under any circumstance have recourse to.
making another person so uncomfortable that they talk to you right wake
the cot torture by another name ran you can easily concoct, not not just thought experiment
but very realistic situations and text equations we know, have occurred where the person before you eat. You absolutely no is guilty, and has
information that would save lives, and yet you just your delivering them com
they in cigarettes and and giving them cable television to watch. If you look at the details, you can easily fall.
The situation where you would be a moral monster to not have recourse to that, and yet you can't even push the conversation far enough as to reveal
no it's true and I've seen I've seen the style of demonization apply to people on the right people on the left
something that that individuals with tremendous,
confidence both in the correctness of their views and in our
The monstrosity of other views will can achieve
be on the angels
if not set an alien feeling weak if some have. If I had, if I bumped into Holocaust denial, I wouldn't given the respect of having a lengthy discourse,
with them. Yet I would reiterate if you, but that's because you know that such a heavy left and others
exactly so much evidence against their view that even there there very interest
in pursuing that line of inquiry, says
they negative about them, intellectually speaking, it is leading leaving. The ethics aside is like belong into the Flattereth society is willing to accept the fact that your your attention is captured by that project says something derogatory about you. I think some people would say the same thing about
People arguing for genetic genetic basis of ethnic differences. Are people arguing
Torture, people arguing about em,
unfettered capitalism and you know an end, so some my claim, I am not defending Spencer to making a descriptive claim
that that those who do the demonization see themselves
in the same position at you, and I will see ourselves when confronted with a Holocaust denial
you can try to have somebody who is motive must be motivated by sheer animals
and sheer irrationality you're not worth the time of day,
Actually, they don't belong in a sort of free market place of ideas, just to show you how brow
beaten I've been by this. I feel the need to insert just a defensive caviar here, because having merely raised this issue in a echoes of my former self on the topic of torture, I'm gonna get slammed. So I just have to point out that my investigation of the ethics of torture drew a
parallel between torture and collateral damage and the core of my point is that call
Moral damage is worse than torture across the board. It is worse to blow people up innocent or guilty. Then it
two waterborne them, certainly worse to blow
the map, along with their children than it is to waterborne them and if we ever found out
In a situation where torturing one person seemed likely to minimize the prospect of collateral damage, torture would have to be preferable. Water boarding would have to be preferable
waterborne, someone who is Osama Bin Laden or merely looks like Osama Bin Laden. It would have to be preferable to drop any fun
hundred pound bomb on him and his family. In moral terms, and yet we accept collateral damage more or less without argument is no one whose reputation has been
destroyed by his willingness or her willingness to accept collateral damage
time of war and yet merely raising the prospect of torturing a certain class of men,
on terrorist. Just would destroy you in and as Dershowitz and I
experience to some degree on the margins. Do I have to point out that I think torture should be illegal, but not everything
should remain illegal is in every instance. Unethical trespassing should be illegal and theft should be illegal, but there are situations where
you would have to be a monster. Not trespass were not to steal if the stakes are high enough and and
Finally, in my defence and others, and is now torture to realise how boring this is,
the position I have on torture, precisely the position you get if you read the Stanford Encyclopedia philosophy in their article on torture.
An example of a car jacking, where a guy stall
woman's car at day gas station and she had her infant babysitting, the back seat and he had been
and in the car and incredibly hot day, I think it was in news.
oh and Australia and the police promptly
the guy and wanted to know where the car was, and he just denied against all evidence that he had stolen the car and they knew that
baby was dying in the back of it somewhere on her on the side of the road and stay.
Smacked em around a little better than he immediately told them where the car was they save the baby in the Nick of time. That's the example of the Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy gives, in support of, at the very least, a nuanced ethical consideration of the validity of torture. For for me, I think I should stop you in your tracks in the idea that cops could
I make this guy at all, uncomfortable physically, when they knew he had taken this car. They knew it
They had video footage of him. He was a difficult three hundred pounds, samoan guy with a blonde afro or something you think, the most recognisable person on earth who they had on video. And yet, if you try
to have a conversation on this topic it's over before it even start yeah, I think.
My intuitions the same as your. Certainly in that case I mean this is consequential- is on one or one. In fact, you know the utilitarians like like them were achieved in our debate
torture is an example, and they said there should be no, that the logic is causing one person suffering to say.
A thousand lives is, is a rational thing to do
in this same moral philosophy that gives you you know game,
age and and and gives you a person,
freedoms of all sorts that that liberals, like me, like also gives you
You know the justification for torture,
I would say, as you are aware, there is a counter argument which I'm sometimes persuaded by witches
that that, in that instance, you're certainly right, a torture is a good thing, but none the less
as a matter of policy, one should block and absolutely without that. Might that is my.
Argument in fact, is the action not original with me. I got it from Mum Mark Boden, the to the Atlantic writer who wrote it along article on torture, which is linked somewhere in my website. He argued basically that he thought it should be illegal across the board, but are interrogators should know that there are certain cases perhaps never actually reached, but certain
says which, if reach will be ethically and psychologically obvious to them, where it would be ethical to make somebody on come
double by whatever means, because you absolutely no that you are in one of these ticking bomb scenarios which are potentially can occur and in that
case you would still be breaking the law. But there's no judge jury. Who would want to prosecute you for what you did so you will be ethically and
fact off the hook. Even though you will have broken the law and that's I think, that's the right policy, I think, should be illegal across the board because of all the other consequences
having some legal mechanism by which to torture people. So I like an
he gave a fourth collateral damage, which makes a nice point. I I'd heard afresh
the seminar couple years ago. Understand
that listens and I started
at one point the same as trolley problem, which I think we spoke about last time we talked you know. Basically, the question is: would you kill one person to save five and one innocent person say five in
and my students by emerged as yet about it. They would and then a bit later. In a conversation I asked, would you torture somebody to say five people
and they said now rightly said- is it and then, and then I said, but which is worse, killing somebody torturing and what's so, that death dazzling? Now it does not say what you which might shock you. I have the same intuition. I actually think that that that, in some way, although up for you know at least four absurd,
tortures I'd rather be tortured and killed. I guess there's some toward her, so horrific I'd rather die, but but
getting ready smacked around then killed
Nonetheless, I think in some way smacking around or certainly that
on awarding the more serious tortures are worse than killing somebody
and- and I need her, I need to sort of nail down the intuition hasn't intuition. Do human dignity and respect
somebody who kills another person.
in some way to act is less degrading. Then torturing. Another person, though,
in another respect, of course, it's far worse to kill than the torture you I think I think it does have certain connections to the trolley problem does invoke that difference between flipping the switch
pushing the fat. Man is right. This address the up, close and personal hands on aspect of it.
But all of those are aspects that are separable from the actual ethical case, which is to say that you, you could have modes of torture that didn't entail. Any of that. As an example I gave, which, due to everyone's horror in the end a faith was, you can have a torture pill which delivered the instruments of torture, along with the instruments of their perfect concealment and your experience as a torch.
would be. You gave the terrorist or the evil genius this pill and he laid down for a nap of an hour and got up and then confessed,
breathing because you never want to go through that again. I think that at the end you'd be tempted to call they truth pill you would not. This would all be concealed from you and your experience was just having paid
come to, you say: ok, whatever you do. Don't do that to me again now count
arguing that we should have such a pill. I'm saying that all of these surface details are separable from the the core case, which is which is worse: killing someone killing their children back
couldn't hide, as in the case of collateral, damage may mean children of standing within five hundred yards of the bomb you dropped orphan in them or making
the person you know to be guilty and end in possession of crucial information to save lives, uncomfortable to whatever degree as necessary, to get them to talk, and I agree with what you said before
which is these are deep issues downpour national issues that were confronted with,
I'm kind of annoyed at the sort of prisoners of some philosophers who refuse
these would argue that in our torture
of any sort is actually run collateral. Damage of any sort is actually run. Killings actually wrong and failing to confront the fact that that
in the real world. When we deal with these in times of war, in times of the criminal justice system, people have to be questioned, people have to be detained and
the question of what is torture even if one is categorically against it. You serve to confront the case aware.
ends and where doesn't began you had yet there is no excuse for prevailing, did
old entities, issues and the same of collateral damage. Someone whose use for me hard core past
This isn't merely a source on realistic position is basically a monstrous position here has because it says you should not engage
in war, took to the under them.
even able to stop the most savage brutality, even if, even if a relatively causeless invasion, goods
the Holocaust, you shouldn't, do it and I mean
this is all the more recall, as I did in the end, a faith Gandhi s position on the holocaust. Gandhi thought that the Jews of Europe should have willingly. Why
ACT into the gas chamber so as to arouse the rest of the world to the moral horror of the nazi regime. But then you
ask us of what is the rest of the world supposed to do
there their aroused when they themselves drink the cooler.
of gandhian pacifism. Did they go into the gas chambers? To me, there is absolutely no moral core to pacifism when you actually take it to its extremity. What you're committed to doing as a pacifist is simply bearing witness to
the misery and death of innocence imposed
I, the world sadist, send thugs and you are not going, to
already your hands in the process and if push comes to shove, Yorick and let them kill you and your children to how this is,
ever sold as the not only moral position, but the highest possible morality is a total mister
Maybe I get again. This is one of those positions where, if you dont unpack it, it can pass as,
an incredibly scrupulous ethical view them? As you say, people there there is about.
burden to understand what is entailed on both sides of these arguments in your categorically against torture. If it categorically against abortion or
for it. You know that whatever your position is, you have to be willing to look at what that commits. You, too
I have really in this article by really smart criminologists on violence, and he was likening violence to a cancer and other destiny.
this analysis ever because cancer is something
unnecessary, awful and if you eradicate it at the world, would be a better place,
but violence is inevitable and important and essential for having a good and compassion society. You need the threat of violence in order to make
people honour contracts that they don't rape.
And steel and kill one another that that they don't free ride and accomplishments of other people and by just a bit
the evolutionary count. The reason why we have anger and punitive appetite is to keep people and up and up and to keep them from you know from being predators upon one another. So it you know I'm kind of down and empathy, but I've been persuaded by
People like Jesse, princess anger and punitive desires actually can be a tremendously good thing
If you took away an appetite for violence for people at a desire to inflict suffering on those who do bad, I think the World Fund heart
Ah, Bloom is against empathy, but for violence, that'll, Vega, tweet, and now we have a subset of labour law,
I agree with that. I think it's. It's also a fascinating area to talk about
I still while linger for a moment on this topic of I guess they are taboo on top of commerce
to do topic, something which thinks you for even mentioning it yeah. I think they're hugely
sequential. I wasn't planning to talk about torture and and and every single time the topic comes up and find my self digging the whole a little deeper. I see,
to regret it, but it there are so many topics like this now which her like that just radioactive and many are far more consequential, then torture, because that really is a kind of AL
liar case, but, for instance, in the news now that I'm going to raise this topic, and we are not going to talk about it because I I truly think this is radioactive, but I just want
I'm going raise this job
to show listeners how this comes up. For me, they ve now very current topic of police brutality and racism and the inequality between the way, blacks and whites have to deal with the misuse of police force. All of
as has already been appropriately shocking to people and no news to any one now. This is a hugely talked about
in our society in the last twelve months or so ever since the killing of Michael Brown. Actually, even before that, wasn't it wasn't police related violence, but the tray on Martin case, I think, primed this discussion and then now we ve had maybe a dozen very high profile cases where cops have killed a black man in very different circumstances. Net that there's a range of circumstances here, and this is
it cannot be talked about. Everyone on the side of the outrage insists upon grouping all of these cases together, as
Almost like a single data, em, a single proof that white racist cops are killing black men based on their racism, and this is a a fact that is so obvious as to be
undeniable and to attempt to parse it in any way, is going to stigmatize you for the rest of your life. But one thing should be absolutely obvious is that these cases are very, very different there very different uses of violence on the part of the cops are very different. Victims in
what they were actually doing in the world. Now to my eye, we ve had in twelve months really the full range
yeah of example, where you have a case of a sadistic, stupid, poorly trained cop
essentially committing a murder and he should be improved. The cop should be in prison for the rest of his life.
all the way to a totally appropriate
understandable and concern
for the use of force which resulted in the death of the criminal suspects and everything in between right and so and yet you cannot talk about this and its
it has to be talked about because anyone who's gonna group- all of these together as a single problem, is just now
even remotely speaking honestly about what's going on in our world and about what it takes for cops to do their jobs or what kind
cops, you want her what what is an appropriate use of force, given the situation, we can talk about any of these things because of how taboo is to differentiate among these instances, where
in a black man died in the presence and and because of the actions of cops black or white, I think that's that's a correct diagnosis, but leaves a bit towards
the pessimistic and mean Obama's Justice Department for parts it pretty nicely? With regard to Ferguson Way,
said. On the one hand, the killing of Michael Brown was legitimate, it was, it was
I support. A justified are shooting by police officers and and there is no reason to add further charges, but at the same
time to Ferguson Police Department did have a history of system.
Racism, you don't you, you can't
can parts of it,
ST as a certain dynamic where, if you were to rush out on Facebook
Bitter and then say well the shooting of an unarmed black. It was justified people a meeting,
They take all sorted implications from it from your statement about that.
Yeah and unreserved dynamic. Similarly, if one wants to go on Facebook Twitter,
that was unjustified was murder. You know a cop committing murder because he could people draw justifications for matters
there is a bizarre polarization that happens of these issues, which is your forced to aunt. Once you take aside you for
Stu categorize. All instances that bear under debate as falling into your your side of the nub of the issue, even even if this is irrational emulated
the shorter version of all this is nuances under appreciated in certain contexts, quite consequentially. So I just think it's it say, I'm sort of arguing
from an end of one year, I'm just a kind of what it's like to be me cuz. I seem to touch all of these controversial topics which I find them that want one interesting but too very consequential. I just think I think the intersection-
in philosophically interesting phenomenon, philosophical and scientifically interesting from
on end huge social context,
That is the most interesting intersection of all, and that's where I want to spend my time. But the consequences. Are you wind up touching topics like violence and racism in war, and these are the big moments in in life, however, statistically rare they they are. These are huge cases where we have to
yet things ethically straight it yet. But the personal, psychological and social cost of dealing with these with with the blow back on these topics, is understandable, is just that is a band with pride
on people. Don't necessarily have the time to fully
understand what you. What she said
what you meant to say or what was actually in the original article they just see the
slimy of you that is
is the loudest thing out there, and so the
style of arguing where you just maliciously misrepresent someone's views or
courage, misunderstanding of them again, I'm just Connemara.
in time, and attention and kind of emotional resources now Andy, obviously doing badly, because in this conversationally raised torture we raise. Do you know all this
topics it. I just uncontrolled racial proclaimed, you're Gallagher Yeats, exactly also, of course, go straight. There is an interesting question. How much of the sliding is
sort of accident, vibrant people's minds, work and home,
Germany's sites. If you'd like to continuous mean to this podcast you'll need to subscribe, SAM Harris DOT, Org you'll get access to all full length. Episodes of
Greece has passed and two other subscriber only content, including bonus episodes, amaze,
conversations. I've been having the waking about app the making sense, podcast ad free and relies entirely unless your support- and you can
I've now sand Paris network
Transcript generated on 2020-10-08.