The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast · Jack Symes | Andrew Horton, Oliver Marley, Rose de Castellane, Gregory Mill

Episode 145, The Mystery of Morality: Live in London (Part II - Audience Questions)

July 27, 2025·23 min·2 clips
Peter Singer reveals why a person indifferent to pain on future Tuesdays is fundamentally irrational.
The first question lands on moral realism. Asked what convinced him, Peter Singer reaches for Derek Parfit's On What Matters and the strange person who cares about every future day except Tuesday. It is funny because it is so petty, and useful because it puts Hume under pressure. If practical reason starts with desire, what do we do with a desire that arbitrary? The room does not simply nod along. Audience questions move the panel into emotivism, truth value, and whether moral statements act like claims or commands. Sherlock Holmes helps for a minute: fictional claims can be true or false inside their frame, while emotivists say moral utterances do something else. Then pain takes over. Jessica is asked whether calling pain bad just repeats the jump from what is to what ought. She does not dodge it. Agony, on her answer, seems to show up as something that should not be happening, not as a blank sensation waiting for a theory. That is the live wire here. Can experience itself carry moral weight, or does feeling always need another argument behind it? The religious comparison makes the problem sharper. If religious experience can feel self-validating to believers, pain has to explain why its own force is different. Hedonism does not get an easy pass either. The experience machine comes up as a reminder that pleasure and pain do not settle everything. By the end, the panel is nearly metaphysical. One speaker even sketches a view where saying a chair exists expresses emotional discontent with denying the premises that make the claim possible. The audience can hear the machinery creak. The closing joke, that the machinery may need backstage attention, feels earned.
Listen to the show on